Faded print on All Line Rover ticket and poor LNER customer service

voyagerdude220 · 31 Aug 2026

badcat said:
On the timing of all of this: my initial query to LNER was sent on 11 July, which would have been day 12 of the rover. It's only stretched out so long because they have taken a full two weeks between each reply, which in itself isn't great. Let's hope they come back rather more quickly this time.

Regards,
Tim

Wooah that really is unforgivably bad Customer Service in my opinion.

Given LNER have taken so long to rectify such a simple to fix (in theory) problem, I feel they should be doing so much more than even a nice goodwill gesture/replace the days you lost.

As I said in my earlier post, LNER MD may potentially be on here. If they are/someone else with the level of authority required to do so, I hope they intervene and come up with a hugely improved offer of compensation, alongside the replacement days they owe you.

RailUK Forums

badcat · 31 Aug 2026

Thanks everyone. I've replied to LNER's email, quoting NRCOT section 4.8 and pointing out that there is some discretion on stock (I think GWR tend to use CCD tickets; all my multi day rover tickets bought at Plymouth to date have been CCD). I've asked for a partial refund. I'll let you know when they come back to me.

CyrusWuff · 31 Aug 2026

badcat said:
Thanks everyone. I've replied to LNER's email, quoting NRCOT section 4.8 and pointing out that there is some discretion on stock (I think GWR tend to use CCD tickets; all my multi day rover tickets bought at Plymouth to date have been CCD). I've asked for a partial refund. I'll let you know when they come back to me.

The Ticket Issuing System that LNER use in their Travel Centres doesn't allow the member of staff to choose between CCST (Credit Card Size Ticket) and PRT (Paper Roll Ticket.)

If it's configured to default to PRT and the ticket you're buying is setup to allow it to be issued on PRT, it will print on PRT.

There is a workaround, but it prevents you from getting a printed receipt.

The TIS in question also won't allow a Rover ticket to be backdated to issue a replacement. (Or any other ticket apart from a Season Ticket.)

Mike395 · 31 Aug 2026

CyrusWuff said:
The TIS in question also won't allow a Rover ticket to be backdated to issue a replacement. (Or any other ticket apart from a Season Ticket.)

That seems like quite the limitation - thermal printing (even on CCST!) degrades over time, so for longer-duration rovers it's an entirely reasonable requirement. I would not be amused if a rover lost its remaining value because the issuing TOC couldn't do a thing to get it reprinted.

crablab · 31 Aug 2026

CyrusWuff said:
If it's configured to default to PRT and the ticket you're buying is setup to allow it to be issued on PRT, it will print on PRT.

There is a workaround, but it prevents you from getting a printed receipt.

The TIS in question also won't allow a Rover ticket to be backdated to issue a replacement. (Or any other ticket apart from a Season Ticket.)

This was discussed in the last thread where this happened. Whether the TIS can offer reprints or not is neither here nor there; the customer was entitled to a reprint under the NRCoT.

As others have said, I do think as there was no clear documented denial of a reprint and/or tickets purchased in lieu of a readable ticket, the refund will be at the discretion of LNER to some degree.

But this is somewhat unclear. Perhaps the OP did go to an LNER ticket office and was explicitly denied a reprint?

Parham Wood · 31 Aug 2026

It would be interesting to know that if a person has an all line rover issued by LNER how they are supposed to get a replacement if it is damaged due to use of sub standard materials and repetitive handling by rail staff if they are say in Penzance. By the nature of the ticket with a short limited validity time (two weeks say) the holder may well wish to use the ticket every day and perhaps more than once. They need to be issued a replacement immediately or an official communication document that authorises travel. In the Op's case I would not settle for less than £275 plus compensation for the enjoyment of the lost days of use or the cost of extra tickets purchased plus a sum for the inconvenience and hassle.

Ben Rhydding · 31 Aug 2026

This a high value ticket issued on material which will not withstand normal everyday use. It is not fit for purpose. It fails consumer rights legislation. No clause in the NRCoT or anywhere else can transfer liability from the Railway to the customer.

Enforcing ones rights against railway staff who don`t know the law is never easy. But taken to a sufficiently high level, this matter would get resolved and the passenger would get the service for which he had paid. Volunteering to surrender several days validity may not have been the best course for the passenger. Nobody is going to be prosecuted for travelling on a ticket which has been rendered illegible by the railway.

Yes, there may be railway staff who would love to try it and it could get very nasty for the passenger. But brought to attention at the right level, the matter would be resolved.

py_megapixel · 31 Aug 2026

CyrusWuff said:
The TIS in question also won't allow a Rover ticket to be backdated to issue a replacement. (Or any other ticket apart from a Season Ticket.)

Of course, configuring their software in a way that prevents them from complying with a contractual obligation cannot absolve them of said obligation!

AlterEgo · 31 Aug 2026

Not to detract from LNER's manifestly unreasonable behaviour, the OP is in a weaker position than they otherwise would be on a few grounds:

- Made a unilateral decision to abandon
- Ticket was never declared invalid and they had no issues with validity
- (and I don't think anyone has mentioned this) the ticket is still actually readable

SuspectUsual · 31 Aug 2026

Given their cost and scarcity ALRs should look like one of Wonka’s golden tickets and come with a secondary smaller ticket with an indelible QR code

saismee · 1 Sep 2026

Haywain said:
Acceptance of rover tickets is problematic because all have the same coding on CCST tickets, and a decision has to be made whether to accept all, regardless of geographical validity, or nothing. Nothing was the easier answer as the number of affected customers is generally very small. I have no idea whether distinct programming would be any easier with barcoded rover tickets.

I don't see why not, there aren't that many ranger/rover zones across the network. One byte of data is 256 different rangers/rovers. Though, then again, we would be dealing with Cubic and they can't do basic things like Super Off-Peak time restrictions. Actually forget it, Cubic would say it's impossible :lol:

crablab · 1 Sep 2026

saismee said:
I don't see why not, there aren't that many ranger/rover zones across the network. One byte of data is 256 different rangers/rovers.

It's to do with the encoding on the magstripe and the lack of distinction between different rovers/rangers Haywain describes. Changing the magstripe layout is a non-starter really.

It's not a Cubic issue; any gateline supplier will have the same problem. It's a BR issue (!) since they wrote the original specification.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

Agree, that is still readable and it's now a month after validity ended. I agree it's a bit rubbish there isn't a process for a reprint, but the original poster could have continued their travel. If they had been refused and had to buy walk up singles for certain parts of their route they may have had a reasonable claim for those, though.

badcat · 1 Sep 2026

AlterEgo said:
Not to detract from LNER's manifestly unreasonable behaviour, the OP is in a weaker position than they otherwise would be on a few grounds:

- Made a unilateral decision to abandon
- Ticket was never declared invalid and they had no issues with validity
- (and I don't think anyone has mentioned this) the ticket is still actually readable

Yes, I agree with you on this, but it put me in quite a dilemma. Clause 4.8 essentially also says the ticket isn't valid if it cannot be scanned or otherwise validated. It no longer would scan at all and the details were fading rapidly so the judgement call would be how long would it last before it could no longer be validated. I didn't know for certain, but I suspected it would be OK not scanning provided the rest of the ticket could be read.

I'm pretty certain it wasn't going to last four more days, especially given that it was hot. I thought it might not last one more day. So that was my judgement call. As far as the original plans I had were concerned, I put them off until this month actually.

Anyway, I didn't want to end up in a situation putting right something like a penalty fare or other sanction, especially given when (strictly speaking) once the ticket cannot be validated, it's no longer valid. We'll see what LNER say; they have the same image as you've seen.

As a guide: although my far-sight is not bad, I need computer use glasses. I can't make out the ticket number or issuing station but I can make out all the details with a magnifying glass. The photo makes it seem much clearer than it is.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

badcat said:
As a guide: although my far-sight is not bad, I need computer use glasses. I can't make out the ticket number or issuing station but I can make out all the details with a magnifying glass. The photo makes it seem much clearer than it is.

I can read the photo fine and bet I would be able to read the ticket fine. It sounds like you perhaps also need reading glasses - the inability to read stuff without them when you need them doesn't render it invalid, any inspector who would require reading glasses will have them. It creeps up on most people - I'm getting close to needing them I think, maybe a year or so left without!

(Non prescription reading glasses are basically just magnifiers, same as a magnifying glass).

The point I'd be getting seriously bothered about this was if a member of staff refused it or instructed me to get it reissued. But if you can read it with a magnifier and can't without then I think you may need to, as the advert goes, go to Specsavers (or purchase a cheap pair from a pharmacy or online). Not a dig, a genuine recommendation.

Starmill · 1 Sep 2026

AlterEgo said:
Not to detract from LNER's manifestly unreasonable behaviour, the OP is in a weaker position than they otherwise would be on a few grounds:

- Made a unilateral decision to abandon
- Ticket was never declared invalid and they had no issues with validity
- (and I don't think anyone has mentioned this) the ticket is still actually readable

I would have just continued using that ticket.

But I'm more than happy to pay £350 for a new single ticket and sue the employer of the person who charged me that if that were what it came down to (obviously I'd expect and hope for it to be resolved by a simple complaint, but we all know what sometimes happens). I'd equally be happy to defend myself against a Byelaw prosecution on the grounds that I had asked the ticket office to replace my ticket and they had refused.

I don't think it discredits the OP that they didn't feel they could do these things. Unfortunately they're still in an incredibly weak position as a result of this.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

Starmill said:
I don't think it discredits the OP that they didn't feel they could do these things. Unfortunately they're still in an incredibly weak position as a result of this.

I would agree if they had actually been refused. But they weren't and the ticket, while faded, is perfectly readable.

I have never been refused access through a gateline simply because a paper ticket didn't scan. That clause is in there to allow them to act on fake e-tickets.

badcat · 1 Sep 2026

Bletchleyite said:
I can read the photo fine and bet I would be able to read the ticket fine. It sounds like you perhaps also need reading glasses - the inability to read stuff without them when you need them doesn't render it invalid, any inspector who would require reading glasses will have them. It creeps up on most people - I'm getting close to needing them I think, maybe a year or so left without!

(Non prescription reading glasses are basically just magnifiers, same as a magnifying glass).

The point I'd be getting seriously bothered about this was if a member of staff refused it or instructed me to get it reissued. But if you can read it with a magnifier and can't without then I think you may need to, as the advert goes, go to Specsavers (or purchase a cheap pair from a pharmacy or online). Not a dig, a genuine recommendation.

The perils of getting old! I have reading glasses as well; still can't make out the ticket number or originating station!

(I should say that's looking at the original ticket, not the photo. Fortunately I'm not that blind!)

Lets' see what LNER say.

Starmill · 1 Sep 2026

Bletchleyite said:
I would agree if they had actually been refused. But they weren't and the ticket, while faded, is perfectly readable.

I have never been refused access through a gateline simply because a paper ticket didn't scan. That clause is in there to allow them to act on fake e-tickets.

They were refused a replacement. To the man on the Clapham Omnibus the risk of prosecution or a £350 bill is too great. A gateline isn't the likely place to find the problem, an on train check by RPIs is.

AlterEgo · 1 Sep 2026

Yes just to clarify, the OP has been refused a replacement multiple times, both by the retailer and by front line staff. This is not in dispute. While in my view the ticket was probably okay, it is also reasonable for the OP to request a replacement given it was pretty faded. The OP seems like a reasonable person who acted on the information given to them in good faith.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

Starmill said:
They were refused a replacement.

But not access to any trains nor were they told it was in any way an issue.

Starmill said:
To the man on the Clapham Omnibus the risk of prosecution or a £350 bill is too great. A gateline isn't the likely place to find the problem, an on train check by RPIs is.

I'd venture that if the original poster's journey involved Euston or Blackpool North they were by far the most likely to flag up an issue with it!

I've had far worse printed tickets than that accepted over the years. Generally if it's paper tickets (CCST or bog roll) nobody is going to reject it as long as it is readable and not obviously fake. I can understand the concerns but I expect in refusing a reprint the staff probably reassured them that it was fine, and on every occasion they used it it indeed was.

As 7 day seasons are issued on bog roll staff will be familiar with the way that ticket technology tends to fade a bit. Bus tickets issued on thermal paper are often barely readable after a week but are still accepted too.

I understand the poster's concern, though, and think the railway should really print these on CCST to avoid the issue, as long as it exists. There should also not be something in the NRCoT entitling passengers to something that is not possible - either it needs to be made possible or that clause removed.

Starmill · 1 Sep 2026

badcat said:
Yes, I agree with you on this, but it put me in quite a dilemma. Clause 4.8 essentially also says the ticket isn't valid if it cannot be scanned or otherwise validated. It no longer would scan at all and the details were fading rapidly so the judgement call would be how long would it last before it could no longer be validated. I didn't know for certain, but I suspected it would be OK not scanning provided the rest of the ticket could be read.

I'm pretty certain it wasn't going to last four more days, especially given that it was hot. I thought it might not last one more day. So that was my judgement call. As far as the original plans I had were concerned, I put them off until this month actually.

Anyway, I didn't want to end up in a situation putting right something like a penalty fare or other sanction, especially given when (strictly speaking) once the ticket cannot be validated, it's no longer valid. We'll see what LNER say; they have the same image as you've seen.

As a guide: although my far-sight is not bad, I need computer use glasses. I can't make out the ticket number or issuing station but I can make out all the details with a magnifying glass. The photo makes it seem much clearer than it is.

What should probably have happened to be honest would have been that the ticket office at Manchester Piccadilly should have advised you to just keep travelling with the ticket regardless.

Sadly neither LNER nor Avanti West Coast are at all interested in fulfilling their side of the bargain in this. Had you created this thread at the time, on day 11 or 12, we'd have advised you to just keep using it, perhaps by asking for a reprint at different ticket offices until one of them will agree to give you a handwritten note explaining what the faded ticket was. The latter isn't something I would bother with, I'd just keep using it, but it could have eased your nerves. Even that might take 20 or 30 ticket office visits to achieve though, as there is such a reluctance to do it instinctively by some staff.

Can you imagine if you gave an LNER train manager the attitude their own rep has given you? "Well, it was your own choice to print the ticket in the way it has been and I don't get any say over that." Essentially they are saying "sounds like a you problem".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2026 ==

Bletchleyite said:
the staff probably reassured them that it was fine,

Big assumption given the Conditions explicitly state it's not permitted to use a ticket that's not legible. At the end of the day it's not your decision as to what's legible that carries any weight either, it's the ticket inspector's. I think if the OP had been reassured as you suggest they'd have been fine continuing travel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2026 ==

Bletchleyite said:
As 7 day seasons are issued on bog roll staff will be familiar with the way that ticket technology tends to fade a bit. Bus tickets issued on thermal paper are often barely readable after a week but are still accepted too.

These tickets can last (just about) for seven days. They really can be illegible by the later days.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

Starmill said:
Big assumption given the Conditions explicitly state it's not permitted to use a ticket that's not legible.

The ticket is legible, though.

Starmill said:
At the end of the day it's not your decision as to what's legible that carries any weight either, it's the ticket inspector's.

And none of them rejected it, nor did any member of staff suggest it wasn't acceptable. My concern would have been the first time it was commented on, given that such fade tends to be progressive.

Starmill said:
I think if the OP had been reassured as you suggest they'd have been fine continuing travel.

I agree. To the OP, did anyone who refused a reprint say it was fine or did they just refuse?

(I'd agree LNER's customer services reply is rubbish, though!)

Starmill said:
These tickets can last (just about) for seven days. They really can be illegible by the later days.

It appears to have lasted about a month, assuming that photo wasn't taken after the first week of validity and it's worse now?

I don't disagree that this is all quite rubbish, but equally I think if the OP had continued to travel there would not have been a problem.

MrJeeves · 1 Sep 2026

Haywain said:
Acceptance of rover tickets is problematic because all have the same coding on CCST tickets, and a decision has to be made whether to accept all, regardless of geographical validity, or nothing.

crablab said:
It's to do with the encoding on the magstripe and the lack of distinction between different rovers/rangers Haywain describes. Changing the magstripe layout is a non-starter really.

It's not a Cubic issue; any gateline supplier will have the same problem. It's a BR issue (!) since they wrote the original specification.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is correct.

The mag stripe encoding for a rover will contain at least one very clear and obvious element from the fares data which can be used to identify the rover at a gateline, and also the first two characters of the rover's capri code like any normal ticket too.

I appreciate that Cubic may not be competent enough to match against this, though, and that might actually be the root of the problem.

If there was a will to accept CCST rovers in gatelines (which admittedly might need some tweaks to the fares data in order to differentiate between variants of the same rover!), it would be entirely possible.

Haywain · 1 Sep 2026

MrJeeves said:
and also the first two characters of the rover's capri code like any normal ticket too.

Those first two letters are the same (or were, when I programmed a couple of gatelines around 15 years ago) for pretty much every rover ticket, and that is the problem.

MrJeeves said:
I appreciate that Cubic may not be competent enough to match against this, though, and that might actually be the root of the problem.

I suspect that is the problem - gateline logic is quite primitive, even with the limitations of the mag stripe on CCST.

MrJeeves said:
If there was a will to accept CCST rovers in gatelines (which admittedly might need some tweaks to the fares data in order to differentiate between variants of the same rover!), it would be entirely possible.

The numbers that are sold dictate how much will there is to make any changes.

Starmill · 1 Sep 2026

Bletchleyite said:
And none of them rejected it, nor did any member of staff suggest it wasn't acceptable. My concern would have been the first time it was commented on, given that such fade tends to be progressive.

As you weren't there it'd probably be better if you let the OP speak for themselves. I've already pointed out to you that you made the mistaken assumption that the Avanti of staff told the customer it was fine to keep travelling with so perhaps refrain from your further assumptions?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2026 ==

Bletchleyite said:
The ticket is legible, though.

Your view of that counts for naught though. As I've already expanded on.

Haywain · 1 Sep 2026

MrJeeves said:
The mag stripe encoding for a rover will contain at least one very clear and obvious element from the fares data which can be used to identify the rover at a gateline,

It's been a while, but I can't recall anything usable of that nature.

Swedenorer · 1 Sep 2026

What price the print remaining clear on a return with a months validity then? This is the railway being both cheap and useless again when it comes to customer service. The OPs ticket is to all intents and purposes the only written proof of a contract providing for 14 days service paid in advance. It should be as legible on the final day as it was on day one for that money. Frankly if the ticket was in this state after 10 days I'd have thought twice about using it.

MrJeeves · 1 Sep 2026

Haywain said:
It's been a while, but I can't recall anything usable of that nature.

You get the rover accounting code (NLC) as the origin and destination encoded on the magstripe. Or, at least you should.

Bletchleyite · 1 Sep 2026

Starmill said:
As you weren't there it'd probably be better if you let the OP speak for themselves. I've already pointed out to you that you made the mistaken assumption that the Avanti of staff told the customer it was fine to keep travelling with so perhaps refrain from your further assumptions?

The OP has not stated that the ticket was rejected or adversely commented on the ticket in the posts above. In any of these threads we can only go on what is stated as, as you say, we were not there.

@badcat can you confirm one way or the other if at any time any member of staff raised any concern with the ticket and/or its continuing validity, or if when you asked for a reprint you received any reassurances that it would be fine? Other than LNER's customer services response which I'd agree is absolutely woeful.

Faded print on All Line Rover ticket and poor LNER customer service

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member