Appealing unpaid fares notice

[OwlMan]

Yes, this situation is really no different to the "I've forgotten my season ticket" scenario when you are allowed a refund on the replacement ticket. It should be a fairly simple exercise:
1. Confirm the railcard is valid and was issued prior to the journey
2. Confirm that the original ticket would have been valid with the railcard.

Of course it would need some kind of central record to be kept of railcard issue to limit the number of claims per year. I think that is the tricky part.

But how do you prove that the person who travelled is the person on the card?

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite easy if a UFN is issued. But yes, you have a great point and it is one of the reasons I don't support such a move given the current infrastructure.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

But how do you prove that the person who travelled is the person on the card?

Exactly. And this is the crux of the problem. Any old Tom Dick and Harry would be able to buy a ticket with a discount, "forget"the railcard when they travel, get a UPFN (giving your mates details) or just buy a new ticket, on the basis that you could then get your mate with a railcard to send off for it to be cancelled / or claim a refund on any extra fare paid.

Season tickets are different in that you have to go to the station / TOC that you got it from, who keep a record. The only way this would work with railcards is if there was a central register, or you had to apply to one certain location. With railcards available from lots of different places - more so than season tickets - this would be extremely expensive to set up and administer, and I cannot see a) why any company would want to do this anyway, and b) why they should.

 

[yorkie]

I think the OP has been given good advice by several people on this thread, however if we're going to get into that old chestnut that crops up time and time again proposing a new system (which I used to get involved in, but I've had enough of it for now!) then, really a separate topic is required. Proposals for a new system isn't of any concern to someone who requires assistance with the existing system.

That said, some TOCs have an (unadvertised) policy that the cheaper, original ticket, will in fact be refunded if the customer pays for the new ticket and writes a letter explaining the situation and enclosing the original tickets. But as I said before, it should not be handled in the way this situation has been handled if someone wants that outcome.

I predict it won't be more than a few weeks until this topic crops up again. When it does, I am going to quote kwvr's post #21 to the next OP!

 

[RJ]

Yes, this situation is really no different to the "I've forgotten my season ticket" scenario when you are allowed a refund on the replacement ticket.

It is different because the T&Cs are different. One has to confirm that they agree to the T&Cs prior to buying the card. If you deem the rules to be too harsh, don't bother buying the railcard!

I have one and I accept those rules.

 

[34D]

But how do you prove that the person who travelled is the person on the card?

Enter the railcard number when the ticket is being purchased - though as Yorkie said best left for a separate thread.

Very harsh on the OP - whilst others have given good advice I do not think it is fair. It seems natural and logical to me that the ADS be rescinded if the railcard is later produced (subtect to name matching). It would also seem fair to me that the railcard discount is reversed - ie £40 railcard ticket goes back to a £60 ticket.

Also - was the OP allowed through the barriers at Edinburgh waverley?

Guess we need to remember that this is a good income stream for some TOCs....

 

[Bedpan]

As I don't want to give the OP false hope, I will begin tby making it clear that I have nothing twhatsoever to do with the railways......BUT...

Something we all do is to forget when we go out is to take things we need to have with us from time to time. I very nearly left my driving licence at home not long ago when I needed it to pick up a hire car at Knock Airport, I had to tell the taxi driver to turn round so I could go and get it.

What the OP seems to have done on this occasion is to have got on a train and when on it, forgotten that he/she has forgotten his/her railcard. It seems to me that faced with that situation, he/she has two choices, either to pay the full fare to his/her destination which could be many times the £40(?) paid for the advance ticket, or to abort the journey and lose the £40 and the cost of the return coach ticket, and instead buy a return to the next stop on the route and go back home. (The latter would have put him/her in the same position as being delayed on the way to the station and missing the train altogether, other than the matter of the fare to the next station).

If I was somebody with no knowledge whatsoever I would, faced with that, go to a train company employee (the ticket inspector) and seek advice, and surely the advice should be expected the advice to be "you can either pay (say) £135 and go to your intended destination or I can sell you a return ticket to the next stop for (say) £10, and you'll have to go home (maybe in each case offering to issue an UPFN if the OP had insufficient money with them).

From what the OP has said, it appears that they would have had to do the latter as he/she couldn't afford the cost of the (say) £135 ticket to the intended destination.

If we take the OP at their word (and I have no reason not to, particularly in view of the comments on this thread about TOCs having to send out reminders to on train staff about not telling passengers that they can get a refund) he/she explained the position), then he/she has explained the position to the ticket inspector who has effectively said, or at least led the OP into interpret what they were saying as something along the lines of "Don't worry, I can issue an UPFN to enable you to travel, and you can get it cancelled/get your money back if you go to a ticket office with the ticket and your railcard" to which the OP must have thought "Phew, how lucky I am, I was worried that I might have been told that I would have to go home and miss my trip away, and lose the money I paid for my advance ticket and my coach fare for the return journey".

Then, when reality strikes home, he/she finds that what the ticket collector said coule not have been further from the truth, and he/she is now being asked to pay money that he/she does not have, such that the £135 escalates to £161 and then £181....they would have abandoned the trip and lost £40 plus which they COULD afford had they been given the correct advise.

So essentially, the problem (if we believe the OP, and as I have said, there is no reason not to, so far) has arisen due to him/her being given wrong/bad advise by a train company employee, which is surely a case of professional negligence.

When I worked for an insurance company, I had to deal with many claims sucvh as this unfder professional indemnity policies, not railway related, but where people had suffered losses from wrong or misleading advice given by accountants, surveyors, estate agents and the like and to indemnify third party claimants for losses they had suffered where their claims were proven. Now than I am an self employed investigator, I have to take out a professional indemmnity policy of my own.

The trouble here is that the railways seem to live in a world of their own where some employers seem to be able to say what they like with impunity, and where the passenger is always the loser.

As I have probably said before, my daughter was PF'd when she was 16 and left her railcard at home, without realising. She had gone to St Albans (fare £3) and had bought a discountted ticket for £2. I was lad to believe that the person who issued the PF told her to send the ticket and the railcard in with an appeal, which we did. Paying £20 PF is bad enopugh but bearable, but incurring extra time and expense by lodging an appeal due to being advised to do so really does add insult to injury, all because the fare was £1 short. I could have driven to Harpenden station with her railcard within 5 minutes if I had had that option. It would be reasonable to assume that there is a database of railcard holders, since otherwise there would be no purpose in stating one's name and address when buying it, so it would be reasonable to assume (wrongly, I know) that a check concerning the validity of a railcard is a reasonably smple process.

Full marks to Cross Country. What other TOCs should realise is that goodwill counts for an awful lot, especially when things go wrong. As a first step, they could discount the fare already paid from the full price ticket/PF issued, at least passengers might then see a modicum of fairness.

 

[WillPS]

I echo the above. I know I've personally been given bad advice by uniformed individuals which could have got me in to trouble - I was told once on a 1st AP Blackpool - Sheffield that I'd have no trouble getting an earlier connection from Preston (there were engineering works to BPN, and I was shepherded on to the wrong replacement bus). I'm pretty certain that if something went wrong I wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.

 

[34D]

As I don't want to give the OP false hope, I will begin tby making it clear that I have nothing twhatsoever to do with the railways......BUT...

Something we all do is to forget when we go out is to take things we need to have with us from time to time. I very nearly left my driving licence at home not long ago when I needed it to pick up a hire car at Knock Airport, I had to tell the taxi driver to turn round so I could go and get it.

What the OP seems to have done on this occasion is to have got on a train and when on it, forgotten that he/she has forgotten his/her railcard. It seems to me that faced with that situation, he/she has two choices, either to pay the full fare to his/her destination which could be many times the £40(?) paid for the advance ticket, or to abort the journey and lose the £40 and the cost of the return coach ticket, and instead buy a return to the next stop on the route and go back home. (The latter would have put him/her in the same position as being delayed on the way to the station and missing the train altogether, other than the matter of the fare to the next station).

If I was somebody with no knowledge whatsoever I would, faced with that, go to a train company employee (the ticket inspector) and seek advice, and surely the advice should be expected the advice to be "you can either pay (say) £135 and go to your intended destination or I can sell you a return ticket to the next stop for (say) £10, and you'll have to go home (maybe in each case offering to issue an UPFN if the OP had insufficient money with them).

From what the OP has said, it appears that they would have had to do the latter as he/she couldn't afford the cost of the (say) £135 ticket to the intended destination.

If we take the OP at their word (and I have no reason not to, particularly in view of the comments on this thread about TOCs having to send out reminders to on train staff about not telling passengers that they can get a refund) he/she explained the position), then he/she has explained the position to the ticket inspector who has effectively said, or at least led the OP into interpret what they were saying as something along the lines of "Don't worry, I can issue an UPFN to enable you to travel, and you can get it cancelled/get your money back if you go to a ticket office with the ticket and your railcard" to which the OP must have thought "Phew, how lucky I am, I was worried that I might have been told that I would have to go home and miss my trip away, and lose the money I paid for my advance ticket and my coach fare for the return journey".

Then, when reality strikes home, he/she finds that what the ticket collector said coule not have been further from the truth, and he/she is now being asked to pay money that he/she does not have, such that the £135 escalates to £161 and then £181....they would have abandoned the trip and lost £40 plus which they COULD afford had they been given the correct advise.

So essentially, the problem (if we believe the OP, and as I have said, there is no reason not to, so far) has arisen due to him/her being given wrong/bad advise by a train company employee, which is surely a case of professional negligence.

When I worked for an insurance company, I had to deal with many claims sucvh as this unfder professional indemnity policies, not railway related, but where people had suffered losses from wrong or misleading advice given by accountants, surveyors, estate agents and the like and to indemnify third party claimants for losses they had suffered where their claims were proven. Now than I am an self employed investigator, I have to take out a professional indemmnity policy of my own.

The trouble here is that the railways seem to live in a world of their own where some employers seem to be able to say what they like with impunity, and where the passenger is always the loser.

As I have probably said before, my daughter was PF'd when she was 16 and left her railcard at home, without realising. She had gone to St Albans (fare £3) and had bought a discountted ticket for £2. I was lad to believe that the person who issued the PF told her to send the ticket and the railcard in with an appeal, which we did. Paying £20 PF is bad enopugh but bearable, but incurring extra time and expense by lodging an appeal due to being advised to do so really does add insult to injury, all because the fare was £1 short. I could have driven to Harpenden station with her railcard within 5 minutes if I had had that option. It would be reasonable to assume that there is a database of railcard holders, since otherwise there would be no purpose in stating one's name and address when buying it, so it would be reasonable to assume (wrongly, I know) that a check concerning the validity of a railcard is a reasonably smple process.

Full marks to Cross Country. What other TOCs should realise is that goodwill counts for an awful lot, especially when things go wrong. As a first step, they could discount the fare already paid from the full price ticket/PF issued, at least passengers might then see a modicum of fairness.

Good post - agree fully

 

[blacknight]

: it was an advanced young persons single ticket from edinburgh to london, with the east coast service. (costing around 40 quid).

First question were you on the correct train for which your AP ticket was valid for?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

my reasoning is: had I known that there was a chance that the fees would not be removed, I would have got off the train - I took my decision to stay on the train and sign the unpaid fees notice (instead of getting off at the next stop) because of (mis) information afforded to me by a uniformed official.

Last info I had was that it was Eact Coast policy to recovery discounted part of ticket if rail card was not presented. On UFN guard should have ticked box incorrect documentatation noted fare paid say £45 33% is £15 plus admin charge so amount outstanding would be in region of £25 to be paid by you.
So UFN as been issued incorrectly IMO

 

[Flamingo]

Just to raise a point, a lot of posters are leaping to the OP's defence that the Guard gave incorrect information, with phrases like "professional negligence" being bandied about.

We are only getting the OP's side of the story, and, I know from personal experience that "selective hearing" does occur in these cases (as Dave said).

Without evidence to the contrary, can we cut out the assumptions, one side or the other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Last info I had was that it was Eact Coast policy to recovery discounted part of ticket if rail card was not presented. On UFN guard should have ticked box incorrect documentatation noted fare paid say £45 33% is £15 plus admin charge so amount outstanding would be in region of £25 to be paid by you.
So UFN as been issued incorrectly IMO

Individual Guards might at their discretion excess a railcard ticket up to a non-discounted ticket, but the liability (as has been said earlier in the thread) is for a full anytime ticket.

Once a UPFN is being issued for any reason, it is issued for the full Anytime fare.

 

[blacknight]

Individual Guards might at their discretion excess a railcard ticket up to a non-discounted ticket, but the liability (as has been said earlier in the thread) is for a full anytime ticket.

Once a UPFN is being issued for any reason, it is issued for the full Anytime fare.

Depends of amount of fare involved for instance you come across family 2 adults & 2 children full anytime ticket to capital is £70 then the "fine" for forgetting family railcard is £210 where as excessing would be £70.
For any punishment it as to be proportional to "crime" committed for it to be just.
Like everything on railway you have to have standardisation cannot have guard A operating to one rule & guard B another rule.
Maybe its the educational system thats to blame new genoration not so good with fractions & percentages go for simple option anytime single please
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once a UPFN is being issued for any reason, it is issued for the full Anytime fare.

Why then is there a tick box for no documentation on UFN ie no railcard & space for amount of fare that as been paid

 

[island]

Not to mention that professional negligence is a concept that applies only to the "professions", such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, and so on.

 

[Deerfold]

Depends of amount of fare involved for instance you come across family 2 adults & 2 children full anytime ticket to capital is £70 then the "fine" for forgetting family railcard is £210 where as excessing would be £70.
For any punishment it as to be proportional to "crime" committed for it to be just.
Like everything on railway you have to have standardisation cannot have guard A operating to one rule & guard B another rule.
Maybe its the educational system thats to blame new genoration not so good with fractions & percentages go for simple option anytime single please

Is the problem that the F&F discount is too good? Without it how does the TOC know the ticket should be valid?

If you say they should just have an upgrade then people can get away with using a railcard discounted ticket to get through gates (and some human barriers) and then paying the correct fare *only* if they're checked as they "forgot their railcard".

Once you start making it much easier to pay afterwards you'll massively increase the costs for TOCs to collect fares.

There's plenty of unfair and complicated ways TOCs push people into buying a more expensive ticket they need but "make sure you have your railcard" (printed on the application forms and on the railcard) is a fairly simple one.

Some things are important - you need to look after them. It's not the TOCs job to mother you.

 

[Flamingo]

Depends of amount of fare involved for instance you come across family 2 adults & 2 children full anytime ticket to capital is £70 then the "fine" for forgetting family railcard is £210 where as excessing would be £70.
For any punishment it as to be proportional to "crime" committed for it to be just.
Like everything on railway you have to have standardisation cannot have guard A operating to one rule & guard B another rule.
Maybe its the educational system thats to blame new genoration not so good with fractions & percentages go for simple option anytime single please
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Why then is there a tick box for no documentation on UFN ie no railcard & space for amount of fare that as been paid

A UFN is not a punishment, fine or anything other than a bill to pay the due fare at a later date, as the passenger was unable to produce a vald ticket or supporting documentation.

The tick-box is for any proportion of the fare that the passenger is able to pay at the time of issuing the ticket, for example, if the passenger says I only have £20, then that £20 will be taken from them, and the balance will have to be paid within 10 days. It is not for the amount (if anything) paid for the invalid ticket.

Your arguement about guards should not use their discretion has been rehashed on here several times over, my arguement is if the majority of posters want me to apply the T&C to the letter of the law on all occasions it's no problem to me, I get 5% - but then I expect a bit more back-up on the forum when posters come on saying the nasty guard on the Pad-Bri train charged them £86 when their railcard was only 2 days out of date.

 

[jon0844]

JIndividual Guards might at their discretion excess a railcard ticket up to a non-discounted ticket, but the liability (as has been said earlier in the thread) is for a full anytime ticket.

What would you do if someone approached you after boarding to inform you that they'd forgotten their railcard and ask for advice? Assuming you didn't recognise them and any checking you did showed no previous.

I have to say that I do think it's a problem if a member of staff HAS given advice or any form of assurance that isn't correct. It would be best to say 'in my opinion' or 'the best I can do is this, and hope that you can appeal later'.. except there was another option; get off and buy a ticket from there that may have been cheaper.

I have never met you, but I get the feeling you would have either shown discretion or given more accurate advice, including ALL the possible options. I am sure you could also tell from body language whether someone was lying or not (or have an educated guess). But as a mere passenger, I have no way of knowing if it's you on the train or that lovely man from FCC that gets off on harassing passengers.

This reminds me of the other thread on here where one person said one thing, and another said another. I really do find this most concerning on behalf of people who could get seriously stitched up. Should passengers (who aren't lying or trying it on) have to ask for details in writing, or a full name or ID number? And do they run the risk of that person still denying having given incorrect advice?

I've heard so many people getting PFs on FCC being told to just pay now and appeal later, to try and get them to accept a PF with minimal fuss, and most people do. I have no idea how many succeed in an appeal, but in many cases there are no grounds to appeal and so I don't know why RPIs say that. They know the PF will stand, so why pretend to someone that there's a chance? I guess it's to reduce conflict, but it does show that staff will sometimes say things to just 'get rid' of a passenger. Even if they are in the minority, they cause problems to all of the others.

 

[Flamingo]

The temptation to de-escalate a situation is high, when as a lone worker one never knows how aggressive a passenger is going to get.

My favourite one was the colleague who was approached in a very aggressive manner by a chav demanding compensation for his Burberry baseball hat which had blown off his head when he had stuck it out the window of a HST on Landore viaduct. My colleague told him that it would be given to him by the booking clerk in Cardiff. His logic was that whoever told this Muppet to go away, it would be best if the they had an inch of perspex between him and them.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That post above by Flamingo should help us all in understanding how 'situations' are dealt with in practice.

Every day, the Railways are conveying a very large number of regular fare-evaders (same local journey, 5 days a week) and are also conveying fully-compliant passengers who exceptionally make some quite atypical error (long-distance passsenger leaving a Railcard at home).
How do we differentiate the two, if anything resembling 'discretion' is to be adopted when applying the universally imposed Conditions to them all?

Well, we could form a strict panel of professional judges to consider each and every incident of ticketless-travel, after the event, couldn't we? That will carry a nice cost.

Or we could leave the officers on-board to make a judgement based on what they percieve there and then, using their accumulated experience, knowledge and qualifications, there and then, couldn't we? That ability comes with the job.

Suerly its not difficult to agree which is preferable for all of us, (passengers and officers)?
As a regular passenger myself, who, one day, is likely to find that I've lost or forgotten part of my documentaion, I think I'd rather be judged by someone on-board there and then, rather than a panel of judges looking at bundles of accumulated evidence and statements.( Only if it becomes a matter of significant and on-going policy would I take it to a legal challenge for myself, though I appreciate that there have been some on here who have hoped for more success in contesting their own ticketing-irregularities).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Also - was the OP allowed through the barriers at Edinburgh waverley?

No barriers cover the through platforms or southbound bays; only the northern bays, so the OP wouldn't have encountered any.

 

[jon0844]

If we simply show no discretion, I am sure that would be easier.

After all, the next time you see a bunch of kids gang up on a single member of staff - such that the staff member says 'I'll let you off this time' because he's fearful of his well being - then bear in mind that discretion can be used on the wrong people! The ones that are compliant end up losing out.

I wouldn't like to be in a position to have to deal with the obvious fare evaders that travel all the time, and then be able to switch to being understanding for someone that sounds genuine - but may turn out not to be so. Taking details and doing checks for previous would help, but would take a lot of time.

I said many times before that a system that takes away the 'risk' for the member of staff on the train is to sell a full price ticket, then say that you can appeal after - and thereafter there's a system in place that allows you to get a refund (subject to a fixed number in any calendar year) and with an admin fee that would cover the cost for the industry AND discourage people from just trying it on.

As Flamingo said about saying something to pass the problem on to someone else, a recognised system (that has limits for habitual offenders) would make things a damn sight easier for rail staff who are no longer going to seem harsh, or let people off who are perhaps trying it on. That's not for them to decide.

The honest ones will pay for the full price / anytime ticket without fuss, the dishonest ones will be p***ed off because they won't be able to make a claim afterwards.

Perhaps there will still be some abuse, but probably less than now.

 

[blacknight]

If you say they should just have an upgrade then people can get away with using a railcard discounted ticket to get through gates (and some human barriers) and then paying the correct fare *only* if they're checked as they "forgot their railcard".

And people dont do that now with oppotunity to buy discounted ticket from TVM & then have ticket inspected by ATG some will always chance it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Once you start making it much easier to pay afterwards you'll massively increase the costs for TOCs to collect fares.

No really more chance that some one will pay 33% discounted part of fare on the spot, which would reduce cost as no need to process UFN.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is the problem that the F&F discount is too good? Without it how does the TOC know the ticket should be valid?

There's plenty of unfair and complicated ways TOCs push people into buying a more expensive ticket they need but "make sure you have your railcard" (printed on the application forms and on the railcard) is a fairly simple one.

Some things are important - you need to look after them. It's not the TOCs job to mother you.

Not so for the elderly try & tell that to granny who as forgot her senior railcard am I now expected to I take her weekly pension off her?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The temptation to de-escalate a situation is high, when as a lone worker one never knows how aggressive a passenger is going to get.

My favourite one was the colleague who was approached in a very aggressive manner by a chav demanding compensation for his Burberry baseball hat which had blown off his head when he had stuck it out the window of a HST on Landore viaduct. My colleague told him that it would be given to him by the booking clerk in Cardiff. His logic was that whoever told this Muppet to go away, it would be best if the they had an inch of perspex between him and them.

Is that not just passing the buck on? That would be like station staff passing passenger without railcard using conflict avoidence & just let guard do UFN & he can earn is 5%
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Individual Guards might at their discretion excess a railcard ticket up to a non-discounted ticket, but the liability (as has been said earlier in the thread) is for a full anytime ticket.

Trouble with Discretion is it leads to inconsistances for instance if I use D word & excess a passenger its going to make it harder for you next time get them to cough for a new anytime ticket, as your "mate" didn't do that last time

 

[londonbridge]

In which case you simply say "Yes,but I am not my "mate".

Some years ago when I worked in a supermarket the new release videos and cds which went on sale on a Monday would be delivered into the store on Friday and Saturday of the preceding week. The guy who checked in the deliveries would pull out copies of anything he wanted and put them straight through the till. The department manager said nothing about it,then he left,as soon as the new manager got wind of what the guy was doing he gave him a warning to stop immediately. "But (old manager) never said anything". "Well I'm not (old manager),am I,so don't do it again".

 

[Flamingo]

When a guard asks a passenger for a ticket, and they are unable to produce a valid ticket for that journey, then several questions have to be asked by the guard in quick succession.

The first one is to ask myself "Is my personal safety or the safety of the train going to be endangered if I pursue this?". This is my priority, and my companies.

The second one is to question the passenger to find out why they have not got a valid ticket. This may be simple (boarded at a station with no facilities to buy one), or more complicated.

The guard then has to try to sell them the most appropriate ticket. If a passenger is expecting to buy a ticket costing (for example) £37, and is sitting there with two £20 notes in their hand, I'm going to advise them that next time go to the booking office, but I am not going to then get into an arguement with them when I ask them for £94.50, when they are willing to buy a ticket that anyone who had walked up to the booking office has paid £37.

My priority is the safe and punctual running of the train. I'm not going to block the platform at Reading on a Friday evening for 15 minutes to wait for BTP to attend and remove someone who is willing to pay an excess or the walk-up fare for that train, and have everyone else miss their last bus home because I insisted on not "using my discretion".

Believe me, for every passenger where I "use my discretion" because I feel it is a genuine misunderstanding (or other mitigating circumstances), I will have one that I walk away from thinking "If I'd charged them a full open, it would have served them right, with that attitude".

Some passengers make mistakes, some passengers are serial fare-evaders. Some guards are totally inflexible, some will do anything to avoid confrontation.

How does one square the circle?

(Edited to add: We don't get commission on UPFN's)

 

[hantsman1205]

When a guard asks a passenger for a ticket, and they are unable to produce a valid ticket for that journey, then several questions have to be asked by the guard in quick succession.

The first one is to ask myself "Is my personal safety or the safety of the train going to be endangered if I pursue this?". This is my priority, and my companies.

The second one is to question the passenger to find out why they have not got a valid ticket. This may be simple (boarded at a station with no facilities to buy one), or more complicated.

The guard then has to try to sell them the most appropriate ticket. If a passenger is expecting to buy a ticket costing (for example) £37, and is sitting there with two £20 notes in their hand, I'm going to advise them that next time go to the booking office, but I am not going to then get into an arguement with them when I ask them for £94.50, when they are willing to buy a ticket that anyone who had walked up to the booking office has paid £37.

My priority is the safe and punctual running of the train. I'm not going to block the platform at Reading on a Friday evening for 15 minutes to wait for BTP to attend and remove someone who is willing to pay an excess or the walk-up fare for that train, and have everyone else miss their last bus home because I insisted on not "using my discretion".

Believe me, for every passenger where I "use my discretion" because I feel it is a genuine misunderstanding (or other mitigating circumstances), I will have one that I walk away from thinking "If I'd charged them a full open, it would have served them right, with that attitude".

Some passengers make mistakes, some passengers are serial fare-evaders. Some guards are totally inflexible, some will do anything to avoid confrontation.

How does one square the circle?

(Edited to add: We don't get commission on UPFN's)

Have to say,

I found this a very real honest account of what can happen on the ground . As a newbie to this site, I have found that what the Rail travel rules say, and what some posters suggest should happen are two very different things.

 

[BestWestern]

Flamingo clearly conducts his on board revenue activities using a good dose of common sense, which is how most reasonable Guards prefer, in my experience, to do things. You will often find that people will be far more willing to pay up if you take a more reasonable approach, rather than going out of your way to charge them as much as possible. Take the old 16-25 Railcard chestnut for example. Passenger has discounted ticket but no card, oh dear. You can give them a jolly good telling off in front of everybody else and get their back up, and then dryly inform them that their ticket is worthless and they must stump up for a new one, at the dearest price you can find, thank you very much. I know Guards who will do that every time. Trouble with that is the passenger probably tell you that they can't afford it, they're very often students and don't have a lot of disposable income. You can't verify their address for a UPFN for the same reason, and it's surprising how many other people will find you totally unreasonable and take their side. On the other hand, you can discreetly tell them what should happen, how much it should cost them, and the come across as a jolly decent chap when you offer to 'help them out' by only charging them an excess. I nearly always find that this works, and walk away with some revenue. Of course, we all do things a bit differently, but that's how I prefer it every time.

 

[blacknight]

Trouble is the T&C on railcard application which states no railcard then treat as no ticket held & charge passenger for a new ticket.
Its a toothless tiger as punishment dont fit the crime, bit like shop putting up a sign saying shop lifters will be prosecuted might state that but it dont always happen

 

[jon0844]

I am not sure the excess IS suitable in these instances though, as it would just encourage people to try it on (having no YPRC) and occasionally pay the extra.

The best option would be to charge for a new ticket, and politely inform the passenger that they can get a refund (less an admin charge, which might make it pointless doing so) later on. The guard can then move on quickly, without a fuss. The passenger can opt to get angry, or save face by being an adult and saying 'fair play - after all it was my fault'. Nobody on the train cares one bit.

A guard can also try to make sure they don't wind the passenger up by making out that it's funny the passenger is going to have to pay more. That sort of thing gets the whole carriage to side with the passenger, even if they're wrong. I am sure there is training on how to be firm but polite, even if you know that the passenger is a scrote that does this every day. Far better to get even with them and make it look all nice and friendly - which also stops the passenger being able to kick off, as they'll suddenly look like the aggressor.

I have a feeling that this is what someone like Flamingo already does, and probably gets a lot less hassle than some guards who are on power trips and seem to seek out situations that do nobody any favours.

Finally, my bit about telling someone to get a refund later would be fine if that was possible - but it isn't. Hence the guard isn't in a position to do something that shouldn't result in any conflict. Excess the ticket and you're encouraging fare evasion (indirectly) and sell the full price ticket with no way to get a refund, you've got one angry passenger - even though they were in the wrong and entitled to be treated like having no ticket at all.

 

[island]

If the passenger holds a walk-up ticket with a railcard discount but does not have the railcard, they could be sold a new ticket (off-peak if the guard's feeling charitable) and get the discounted ticket refunded. They end up paying £10 more than they should have. Can't do that on an advance though.

 

[blacknight]

I am not sure the excess IS suitable in these instances though, as it would just encourage people to try it on (having no YPRC) and occasionally pay the extra.

In that case all TOC are guilty of the offence by allowing TVM to sell railcard discounted tickets with no actual check as to whether railcard is held or not. How many complain on this forum about having to produce railcard when purchasing discounted ticket from ticket office.
By excessing ticket on train you are simple doing same as ticket office would do if passenger found they had forgot their railcard recover discounted part of ticket.
If ticket can be excess far quicker than doing an UFN & confirming ID then more time is left for guard to complete ticket checks of other passengers on train.

 

[jon0844]

While it would be nice to have guards always giving the benefit of the doubt, living in the real world means accepting that people will try it on - and you don't want to do something that encourages it.

If you can simply travel with a discounted ticket and pay the excess by claiming you forgot your railcard, loads of people would try it on. Why not for a third off, and the only 'punishment' being an excess - no chance of being done for fare evasion.

The rules say the ticket isn't valid at all, and I totally agree that a TVM should at the very least give a warning and require the customer to acknowledge that they have their railcard (and if purchased in advance, will accept the conditions there and then - which can be printed on the ticket as 'restrictions advised'). This would possibly stop people trying it on at all, and those who forget would simply accept their error.

Alternatively, you introduce a system where you have a recognised excess for such instances where instead of an all-new ticket, you charge twice the excess. Thus, it becomes less worthwhile chancing it - but some people who rarely get checked could still see that as worthwhile.

There's a fine balance, but a nice simple excess is perhaps the worst option in the long run.