Wrong operator after cancelled train - penalty fare rights

[rhizomergence]

Travelled up the WCML towards Carlisle recently and someone with an Avanti (presumably advance) ticket for a cancelled train boarded my TPE train at Oxenholme.

They told the TPE onboard ticket inspector that the station staff told them that they can just use the next available train (including the TPE one). However the ticket inspector wasn’t having it and charged them a full price for a single to the next stop, Penrith.

What exactly are passenger rights in the situation? I know that the inspector was technically in the right (that cancelled train tickets are only valid on the next same-operator service), but it does not provide a very good passenger experience of station staff tell the passenger to board the train, resulting in a penalty.

Also, technically, what penalty fare would the passenger be liable to pay? Was the guard correct in charging them a full price single to the next stop? Could the guard have charged an even steeper penalty fare? Or would it have been correct for an excess to be issued to an off-peak single for any operator, for instance?

To be honest I was surprised the guard charged for an extra ticket - I feel like many would’ve let it slide (and I have observed much more leniency in similar situations on TPE trains.)

Anecdotally, I have also witnessed a passenger in TPE 1st class with an Avanti only 1st ticket due to a cancelled train, who was told they could remain on the TPE train without paying extra but only in standard class.

 

[yorkie]

If passengers are authorised by station staff to travel, the Guard was not "right".

Unfortunately some staff act inappropriately and there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that staff who are recruited are fit and proper for customer facing roles, and that they behave in an appropriate manner.

There is no effective regulator, ombudsman or passenger watchdog in place to do anything to ensure that passengers are not maltreated.

I can't see the rail industry ever changing in this respect.

My advice is to try to get something in writing from station staff, or get an endorsement via Twitter.

Anecdotally, I have also witnessed a passenger in TPE 1st class with an Avanti only 1st ticket due to a cancelled train, who was told they could remain on the TPE train without paying extra but only in standard class.

Covered in another thread:

If first class is full, then that's that.

But if a customer was able to sit in first and was excessed, a refund would apply; if the company refuses to issue a refund, the course of action would be a letter before claim, followed by court action is necessary.

As it happens I am aware of at least two people who have had success with a letter before claim from Avanti, under slightly different circumstances during disruptive incidents. In one of these cases, it cost Avanti a four figure sum.

However, I suspect Avanti work on the basis that most passengers won't know their rights, or won't be prepared to fight for them.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the passenger was sold another ticket they haven’t been penalty fared. Guards generally can’t issue penalty fares.

 

[Benjwri]

If passengers are authorised by station staff to travel, the Guard was not "right".

Unfortunately some staff act inappropriately and there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that staff who are recruited are fit and proper for customer facing roles, and that they behave in an appropriate manner.

There is no effective regulator, ombudsman or passenger watchdog in place to do anything to ensure that passengers are not maltreated.

I can't see the rail industry ever changing in this respect.

My advice is to try to get something in writing from station staff, or get an endorsement via Twitter.
Covered in another thread:

I would counter your view that the guard was in the wrong. In every job u have ever had if someone is doing something wrong, their excuse is often that a faceless, nameless member of staff said they could. I’m sure the guard has heard it a million times before.

In my option it’s on the industry to come up with an actual way for all staff to record such an authorisation, with a procedure if they don’t.

 

[enginedin]

I have also experienced TPE guards acting like this: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/overzealous-transpennine-express-train-manager.269609/

 

[Vespa]

Would filming the station staff confirming this be sufficient evidence if the staff is wiling to agree to being filmed for this purpose ?

 

[AlterEgo]

Would filming the station staff confirming this be sufficient evidence if the staff is wiling to agree to being filmed for this purpose ?

Why not just issue a chit authorising travel?

 

[yorkie]

I would counter your view that the guard was in the wrong. In every job u have ever had if someone is doing something wrong, their excuse is often that a faceless, nameless member of staff said they could. I’m sure the guard has heard it a million times before.

In my option it’s on the industry to come up with an actual way for all staff to record such an authorisation, with a procedure if they don’t.

That's the rail industry's problem; not the customers. If the Guard doubts it, then they can contact the station. Also the Guard would be able to establish that the train has been cancelled.

If the Guard didn't have access to any of that information, then they simply shouldn't be charging anyone.

The guard was wrong. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

[Vespa]

Why not just issue a chit authorising travel?

Can they produce one ? I must admit I've never seen one produced or what it looked like.

The nearest equivilant I could find is a promise to pay from a vending machine.

 

[SuspectUsual]

That's the rail industry's problem; not the customers. If the Guard doubts it, then they can contact the station. Also the Guard would be able to establish that the train has been cancelled.

If the Guard didn't have access to any of that information, then they simply shouldn't be charging anyone.

The guard was wrong. That's a fact, not an opinion.

But what are guards trained to do in situations like this?

 

[randyrippley]

If passengers are authorised by station staff to travel, the Guard was not "right".

In this case the station staff were Avanti while the train was TPE - do the station staff actually have the legal ability to grant travel on a TPE train?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Why not just issue a chit authorising travel?

As a general rule of thumb, TOCs only allow those to be issued for their own services.

Someone with access to a TIS could theoretically issue a zero fare Excess as an alternative though, subject to their TOC's policies.

 

[LowLevel]

That's the rail industry's problem; not the customers. If the Guard doubts it, then they can contact the station. Also the Guard would be able to establish that the train has been cancelled.

If the Guard didn't have access to any of that information, then they simply shouldn't be charging anyone.

The guard was wrong. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Actually the station staff were wrong. The guard could have, I suppose, used the evidence available to them to come to a balanced judgement - but if the station staff have declared it to be fine without providing an endorsement to the ticket then they are the start of the problem.

It is an opinion, not a fact, that the guard was actually wrong. Unfortunate, sure - over the top, probably, but a decision not to accept "the man on the platform/the chap driving my taxi/the cleaner/someone who doesn't actually exist and you're just chancing said it was OK but gave me nothing to prove it" is open to the guard. The guard is entitled to assume that everyone is following the rules - personally I don't because I've seen enough of it, but TPE have always seemed to err on the desperate side with a lot of their guards, much like Avanti/Virgin, ironically, so I imagine the West Coast is a nightmare when stuff like this happens.

If the station staff did give permission, then they are the problem because no one on board will simply always let through the "someone said it was OK" excuse and they should know the rules - though with service cancellations and the current set up within the industry I'd agree that actually a very pro passenger stance would be to enhance the recent "two trains either side" update to relax operator restrictions too.

Personally I think also making it clearly in the Conditions of Travel that verbal permission to alter the terms of the contact is not acceptable and a written endorsement should always be made would help clear it up and you'd know if the staff refuse to provide it that their "help" isn't worth the time spent asking them.

From personal experience I always insist on (when travelling as a passenger), and always give (when working as a guard) written endorsements, except where general ticket acceptance confirmation is available to the customer, such as if they have a smart phone and can screenshot a website. In most jurisdictions they're available without question, I think BR's Open Stations has a lot to answer for in terms of sloppy working.

And yes, I know you'll say there's nothing to say that verbal alterations to contracts isn't allowed - so good luck chasing down the platform bod, getting them to prove they said yes, and then taking the company to court - it doesn't really happen (perhaps more is the pity).

 

[Haywain]

Lots of staff blaming here, but it's far from unknown for passengers to misunderstand (wilfully or otherwise) what they are told and proceed differently.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a general rule of thumb, TOCs only allow those to be issued for their own services.

Why? Endorsing a ticket is perfectly fine and any staff can do that.

 

[LowLevel]

Why? Endorsing a ticket is perfectly fine and any staff can do that.

Endorsing a platform full of people to travel on a different operator without them having agreed ticket acceptance would go down very badly with the management at some TOCs. We receive periodical emails saying that ticket acceptance is not permitted to be agreed locally and must be done through control and I would imagine my TOC is one of the loosest out there for it.

 

[Western Sunset]

From the first post, I just wondered about the concept of "customer service"?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Why? Endorsing a ticket is perfectly fine and any staff can do that.

Internal politics mostly, despite the relevant provisions in the NRCoT and PRO.

Anything involving another TOC has to either be done through Control or backed up by some sort of new ticket.

 

[trainophile]

I've just c&p'd this from post 26 in the thread linked to in post 5 above - it kind of sums it up for me, and probably for most of us on here, let alone the vast majority of rail users throughout the UK.

I think the current mess is totally unfair and leaves the passenger to sort out failings that are down to the ToCs.

(My bold)

Also see post 33 on the same thread:

Surely advance fares would manage this situation, with cheaper advance tickets on the stopping service. The current mess of ToCs, fares, the need for split tickets to get the best value journey is all offputting to passengers, they dont care who runs the train they travel on, they want to buy a ticket, and if there is disruption they want to complete their journey with as little delay as possible, and without running into the risk of penalty fares. The current arrangements are not delivering this.

Won't someone think of the passengers.

 

[Randomer]

Internal politics mostly, despite the relevant provisions in the NRCoT and PRO.

Anything involving another TOC has to either be done through Control or backed up by some sort of new ticket.

Although my reading of it is that although the two TOC concerned might start a higher level argument with potential for it to roll down to the staff it wouldn't change the validity of the endorsed ticket.

If the member of staff has endorsed the ticket, with acceptance in place or not, then at that point its a commercial matter between the two companies and not the passengers problem. I can't see a change to the NRCOT to be anything more than "written permission" instead of "permission" with the move to GBR coming.

If the person checking the ticket believes the endorsement to be fake then TIR and leave it for investigation but it still shouldn't be the passengers problem above that.

 

[yorkie]

Although my reading of it is that although the two TOC concerned might start a higher level argument with potential for it to roll down to the staff it wouldn't change the validity of the endorsed ticket.

If the member of staff has endorsed the ticket, with acceptance in place or not, then at that point its a commercial matter between the two companies and not the passengers problem. I can't see a change to the NRCOT to be anything more than "written permission" instead of "permission" with the move to GBR coming.

If the person checking the ticket believes the endorsement to be fake then TIR and leave it for investigation but it still shouldn't be the passengers problem above that.

Exactly this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==

I've just c&p'd this from post 26 in the thread linked to in post 5 above - it kind of sums it up for me, and probably for most of us on here, let alone the vast majority of rail users throughout the UK.


(My bold)

Also see post 33 on the same thread:



Won't someone think of the passengers.

Unfortunately passengers are considered by some to be an inconvenience to the running of the railway, and there is no effective regulator, ombudsman or passenger watchdog with the willpower to do anything about it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==

Actually the station staff were wrong. The guard could have, I suppose, used the evidence available to them to come to a balanced judgement - but if the station staff have declared it to be fine without providing an endorsement to the ticket then they are the start of the problem.

It is an opinion, not a fact, that the guard was actually wrong. Unfortunate, sure - over the top, probably, but a decision not to accept "the man on the platform/the chap driving my taxi/the cleaner/someone who doesn't actually exist and you're just chancing said it was OK but gave me nothing to prove it" is open to the guard. The guard is entitled to assume that everyone is following the rules - personally I don't because I've seen enough of it, but TPE have always seemed to err on the desperate side with a lot of their guards, much like Avanti/Virgin, ironically, so I imagine the West Coast is a nightmare when stuff like this happens.

If the station staff did give permission, then they are the problem because no one on board will simply always let through the "someone said it was OK" excuse and they should know the rules - though with service cancellations and the current set up within the industry I'd agree that actually a very pro passenger stance would be to enhance the recent "two trains either side" update to relax operator restrictions too.

Personally I think also making it clearly in the Conditions of Travel that verbal permission to alter the terms of the contact is not acceptable and a written endorsement should always be made would help clear it up and you'd know if the staff refuse to provide it that their "help" isn't worth the time spent asking them.

From personal experience I always insist on (when travelling as a passenger), and always give (when working as a guard) written endorsements, except where general ticket acceptance confirmation is available to the customer, such as if they have a smart phone and can screenshot a website. In most jurisdictions they're available without question, I think BR's Open Stations has a lot to answer for in terms of sloppy working.

And yes, I know you'll say there's nothing to say that verbal alterations to contracts isn't allowed - so good luck chasing down the platform bod, getting them to prove they said yes, and then taking the company to court - it doesn't really happen (perhaps more is the pity).

I was talking about a legal/contractual point of view; what I said was entirely correct once the endorsement has been given. Absolutely it's a fact that member of staff can't legally renege on the contract by charging a passenger who is following staff instructions.

It's an internal rail industry matter if staff think other staff acted incorrectly.

And as for taking the company to court, I agree it doesn't happen, because Avanti settle just before it gets to that stage. They had to pay out thousands.in one case alone which I am aware of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==

From the first post, I just wondered about the concept of "customer service"?

This is the rail industry we are talking about, sadly it can be very lacking in this area.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Not clear to where the passenger intended to travel, but there are two Avanti trains an hour Northbound from Oxenholme on weekdays. Might have been better advice to wait for the next and claim delay-repay.

 

[LowLevel]

Exactly this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==


Unfortunately passengers are considered by some to be an inconvenience to the running of the railway, and there is no effective regulator, ombudsman or passenger watchdog with the willpower to do anything about it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==


I was talking about a legal/contractual point of view; what I said was entirely correct once the endorsement has been given. Absolutely it's a fact that member of staff can't legally renege on the contract by charging a passenger who is following staff instructions.

It's an internal rail industry matter if staff think other staff acted incorrectly.

And as for taking the company to court, I agree it doesn't happen, because Avanti settle just before it gets to that stage. They had to pay out thousands.in one case alone which I am aware of.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==


This is the rail industry we are talking about, sadly it can be very lacking in this area.

For what it's worth as you are well aware I agree with you, at least in general terms - however to pose the usual question:

"I am a lying chancer. I have boarded a train at Manchester Piccadilly 15 minutes before my scheduled time with a different operator. I have asked nobody if I can board, but when the ticket inspector comes around I tell him I asked the person on the platform and he said it was OK. Must the ticket inspector allow me to travel, given it will be nigh on impossible at a large station like Manchester Piccadilly to identify exactly which of a myriad bunch of staff it is likely to be?"

The usual response on this forum is that the customer should just be given the benefit of the doubt, or that the guard should be able to rely on colleagues following the rules and charge them.

The reality is that on some TOCs the passenger in that case will nearly always be charged regardless of if their story is true or not, and on others they probably won't be regardless.

The problem of course is that the guard isn't a mind reader and not all railway passengers are honest (though most in my experience are, which drives my choice to use my discretion far more often than not, though I work a TOC that favours a fairly softly softly approach on revenue rules) so it comes down to a mix of experience and luck.

Failing that - change the rules as I've mentioned so that it's always OK, or never OK, rather than the current muddy middle ground.

 

[Essan]

The simple answer is surely to change the rules so that, if you have an advance or TOC specific ticket for a train which is cancelled you may then travel on any other service to the same destination?

 

[Howardh]

The simple answer is surely to change the rules so that, if you have an advance or TOC specific ticket for a train which is cancelled you may then travel on any other service to the same destination?

I suggested exactly that not long ago. The pax is being put out by a cancelled train, not their fault, they should - by law - be allowed to catch anything that comes after which gets them to their destination. If that means by another TOC then that TOC should claim the money (in the above case) off the original TOC, not off the passenger.

If and when the railways are renationalised, and basically all under one company (???) will that clarify the situation, as the following service will be under the same banner?

 

[Essan]

I suggested exactly that not long ago. The pax is being put out by a cancelled train, not their fault, they should - by law - be allowed to catch anything that comes after which gets them to their destination. If that means by another TOC then that TOC should claim the money (in the above case) off the original TOC, not off the passenger.

If and when the railways are renationalised, and basically all under one company (???) will that clarify the situation, as the following service will be under the same banner?

I hope so!
And also, I suspect that, even despite many years of privatisation and seperate TOCs, many passengers - especially those who only occasionally use them for long distance travel - see the railway as being all one and dont even appreciate that there are seperate TOCs. They are simply "getting the train".

 

[Skiddaw]

Not clear to where the passenger intended to travel, but there are two Avanti trains an hour Northbound from Oxenholme on weekdays. Might have been better advice to wait for the next and claim delay-repay.

I presumed passenger was travelling to Penrith being as they were charged for the fare to Penrith from Oxenholme.

In which case, there would have potentially been a long wait at Oxenholme for the next Avanti train that stopped at Penrith. Usually, as I'm sure you know, they alternate between stopping at Oxenholme and stopping at Penrith (there aren't many that stop at both stations).

 

[pedr]

One question related to this: while being able to prove that an 'authorised person' gave permission to a passenger to travel on a train without a valid ticket is a defence against the criminal offences and against the imposition of a penalty fare, what (if anything) prevents a TOC from requiring such a passenger to pay the price for a ticket for the train they actually used?

On the one hand where ticket acceptance is agreed, this is clearly the relevant train companies agreeing not to charge extra for using their service; on the other an authorised person at a station with a very long queue saying 'pay when you arrive' doesn't entitle the passenger to travel for free, only to be immune from prosecution and penalty if they do, in fact, pay when they arrive. In the middle situation, where a passenger has a ticket which isn't valid on a particular train but is given permission to travel, does that permission mean 'without paying anything extra'? As LowLevel points out, sometimes on-board staff won't try to ascertain the truth of an assertion that a passenger was given permission to travel, and some will tell them to buy a new ticket. I'm not sure there's anything legally wrong with that, is there?

 

[Merle Haggard]

I presumed passenger was travelling to Penrith being as they were charged for the fare to Penrith from Oxenholme.

In which case, there would have potentially been a long wait at Oxenholme for the next Avanti train that stopped at Penrith. Usually, as I'm sure you know, they alternate between stopping at Oxenholme and stopping at Penrith (there aren't many that stop at both stations).

I accept that; but possibly being faced with paying a lot of money for a ticket through to their destination they decided, possibly in conversation with the conductor, to pay the least - to the next stop. Of course, if that was the case they might have later regretted that at Penrith when the next Avanti went past without stopping.

I have certainly overheard passengers just paying to, or being offered, a ticket to the next stop, when caught in similar circumstances. Conversely, I've seen passengers evicted at the next stop - 2 passengers with Avanti-only tickets were evicted by the guard from a down L.M. train at Hampton-in Arden.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==

I had discounted - for the reasons I wrote above - that the passenger was travelling beyond Penrith
If they weren't, the Avanti service is rather sparse; if it had been the 07.14 departure which was cancelled, the next Avanti from Oxenholme calling at Penrith is at 1623, though that's the extreme. Perhaps the O.P. can see the approximate time of the T.P.E. service to clarify.

 

[rhizomergence]

"I am a lying chancer. I have boarded a train at Manchester Piccadilly 15 minutes before my scheduled time with a different operator. I have asked nobody if I can board, but when the ticket inspector comes around I tell him I asked the person on the platform and he said it was OK. Must the ticket inspector allow me to travel, given it will be nigh on impossible at a large station like Manchester Piccadilly to identify exactly which of a myriad bunch of staff it is likely to be?"

But of course, this is a bit different than someone who has a ticket for a cancelled train (which is easily verifiable). Even if someone wished to take advantage of the system this way, they would only be able to do so citing a genuinely cancelled train a few percent of the time.

The simple answer is surely to change the rules so that, if you have an advance or TOC specific ticket for a train which is cancelled you may then travel on any other service to the same destination?

I do agree with this. The passenger is already being delayed by the cancellation - it would be the right thing to do if the train operators came to such an agreement to collectively help disrupted passengers as best as they can! Imagine being an occasional traveller on the railway, facing a cancelled train, and then additionally being fined/charged for an additional ticket after following a station worker’s wrong/unclear advice.

I presumed passenger was travelling to Penrith being as they were charged for the fare to Penrith from Oxenholme.

Was unclear to me whether they were charged to Penrith as their final destination, or told to get off at Penrith and continue to wait for the next Avanti service from there (it sounded like the latter? in which case, hopefully they didn’t run into trouble from the following Avanti guard as well for boarding at a station not specified on their Advance )

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Aug 2024 ==

I have also experienced TPE guards acting like this: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/overzealous-transpennine-express-train-manager.269609/

Again anecdotally, this particular TPE guard was pretty “strict” with the ticket check process. During this same ticket check, I was woken up with a tap on my shoulder so I could show my railcard (my paper ticket was left clearly visible on the tray table in front of me). And this was the second time tickets were checked (first was leaving Manchester, albeit possibly a different guard).