Advice required - forgotten railcard

[LowLevel]

So the effect of OP's case is that the forgotten railcard policy does not actually forgive one forgetting a railcard, because technically he has committed an offence by not travelling with a valid ticket, and it's in the mood of the RPI to issue a full / penalty fare (thus regularise the travel) or report to prosecution, right?

Here, can anyone explain to me, in legal terms, why doesn't the action of the train guard constitute an "authority to travel" under the railway byelaw 18(3)(iii)? What should I do if I find out that I forgot my railcard when I'm checked such that I can get a full fare / penalty fare to avoid prosecution?

I entirely agree with you that it should do, and that it should be an internal matter to resolve between the employer and the guard for failing to conduct themselves correctly, however well intentioned.

Good luck proving the guard's actions though, unfortunately - which is part of the reason why policy requires an endorsement, something hardly anyone bothers to provide - I personally have a little A5 tear out notepad which I can write my particulars on for verification, put in such a way that they can't be misused on future occasions.

The national policy of the Rail Delivery Group representing train operators, following Government direction, is that one off failure to produce a railcard shouldn't cause a penalty to be applied, in that a new ticket should be sold without prejudice and subsequently reclaimed. Reporting the offence, even technically committed, should only be the recourse when the customer does not comply with the requirement to buy a new ticket - unfortunately they won't have helped themselves by walking off.

 

[RY3365]

If the alternative is driving, then before you switch away from the railway you need to consider that you could forget to renew insurance, forget to get an MOT, forget to check your tyres are legal or that your lights are all working. In addition you might not notice the speed limit or what speed you are doing. All can lead to prosecution or a Fixed Penalty and presumably another stressful situation. I think the statistics would suggest (not that I've seen any, just a hunch) that you are much more likely to get prosecuted when driving than when travelling by train.

Of course you may be thinking about using buses and coaches.

Surely the analogies you are making here are actually more analogous to forgetting to renew an expired railcard? Being fined/prosecuted for forgetting a railcard would be like fining/prosecuting someone for not being able fo show their driving licence or that they have an MoT in date when stopped?

But yes I prefer to travel by coach (and generally always have done) as less cancellations, always get a seat, the staff are always far more reasonable plus National Express give 60% discount to armed forces personnel

 

[Bluejays]

Firstly, I'd hope that the company apply the 'once a year policy '.

Bit torn on the role of the guard here. Strange to go to the trouble of asking to see the railcard, but then not follow up non showing. Personally I don't ask to see the railcard on the majority of occasions. If I do ask to see it , then I'd definitely follow procedure after doing so. Seems a bit of a strange half-way house that the guard in question has chosen. Of course, we don't know their reason for doing so and they have no opportunity to explain.

 

[RY3365]

Firstly, I'd hope that the company apply the 'once a year policy '.

Bit torn on the role of the guard here. Strange to go to the trouble of asking to see the railcard, but then not follow up non showing. Personally I don't ask to see the railcard on the majority of occasions. If I do ask to see it , then I'd definitely follow procedure after doing so. Seems a bit of a strange half-way house that the guard in question has chosen. Of course, we don't know their reason for doing so and they have no opportunity to explain.

So the guard did at first seem like he intended to follow procedure as when I was was scrambling in my purse and realised I didn’t have it he said something like hold on and then walked off to do something as the train had stopped. When he returned and continued checking tickets he then came back to me and asked what type of railcard it was. When I said armed forces (and he saw the mountain of kit I had with me) it was then that he seemed to have a change of heart and say “ok don’t worry about it” and then continued on his way. My assumption therefore is that he had perhaps considered it likely I did have a valid railcard and had merely forgotten it and therefore had a degree of sympathy. The situation might have been different if it has been a different type of railcard but I guess we’ll never know!

 

[Bluejays]

So the guard did at first seem like he intended to follow procedure as when I was was scrambling in my purse and realised I didn’t have it he said something like hold on and then walked off to do something as the train had stopped. When he returned and continued checking tickets he then came back to me and asked what type of railcard it was. When I said armed forces (and he saw the mountain of kit I had with me) it was then that he seemed to have a change of heart and say “ok don’t worry about it” and then continued on his way. My assumption therefore is that he had perhaps considered it likely I did have a valid railcard and had merely forgotten it and therefore had a degree of sympathy. The situation might have been different if it has been a different type of railcard but I guess we’ll never know!

Personally I'd suggest asking them to contact the guard. If you can remember what time train you were on, I'd imagine they would remember you (especially due to having loadsa kit and a military card) and would be happy to vouch for you.

 

[Wolfie]

I've just read through the HM Forces Railcard T&C, which are the terms of the contract when a HM Forces Railcard is purchased, and haven't been able to find any reference to the forgotten railcard policy therein. So this isn't correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2022 ==


Indeed. Had the OP co-operated and accepted a Penalty Fare or purchased a new ticket, the matter could have been resolved under the once-per-year forgotten Railcard policy. A new ticket would need to have been purchased for the onwards journey on Southeastern also.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jan 2022 ==


As mentioned above, there is a once-a-year refund available in this scenario but you must co-operate with the process, which you didn't.

As per Part B of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, individual members of staff have no authority to waive conditions of travel. Even if they did, you would have no proof that the member of staff said this.

This is unfortunate, but doesn't act as an excuse sadly.

The settlement amount of £100 plus the fare avoided is around average, and reflects the cost to the rail companies of detecting and dealing with fare evaders.

You haven't paid £9 "of that". You bought a ticket for £9 which was invalid for your journey, because you were unable to present the supporting Railcard. That ticket was void and the full fare is payable.

Without wanting to be unduly harsh, you were a criminal. Failing to pay a train fare is a criminal offence.

This has been the standard method of dealing with fare evaders since pre-COVID.

Making an honest mistake doesn't normally end up in this scenario, but compounding it by trying to escape after being caught does.

My strong advice is to pay the amount requested immediately and chalk it up to experience. As others mention above, you really don't want to end up with a criminal conviction if you want to continue with your career in the forces.

If that attitude is prevalent in the railway industry l sincerely hope that the staff get to experience police action with a similar lack of compassion. The industry stinks from top to bottom!

 

[WesternLancer]

As a train guard, I would never authorise someone to travel without a Railcard on a Railcard discounted ticket. There is a clear policy in place from the train operators on how to deal with this issue - the exception being if we were advised there was a fault with the app or similar.

It is distinct from other issues as there is a policy to allow the problem to be resolved in the customer's favour should the relevant evidence be able to be produced later.

I can authorise travel with the wrong ticket, wrong route, or indeed no ticket at all depending on the circumstances at my discretion - but I'd be expected to issue an appropriate endorsement with my details - a train guard, station supervisor, revenue protection inspector etc are suitably senior persons in the customer facing hierarchy and the endorsement allows the ability for the decision to be followed up internally if it's inappropriate.

As an example of where this can go wrong recently I was working a train and a customer got on my train with an advance purchase ticket from Station A to Station C, via Station B with two different train operators (Northern and Cross Country), neither of which was mine (Call it Toc X). Their first train had been cancelled and a well meaning gateline assistant had issued an endorsement to allow them to travel on my train (I work for the same company as the gateline assistant) and then a further fourth train operator (LNER) to their destination via a totally different route to avoid them waiting an hour.

This was inappropriate as there was another train within a reasonable time period, there was no ticket acceptance in place with LNER and therefore the gateline assistant was acting beyond their authority in telling the passenger to travel that way.

Of course I passed the customer on my train as an employee of my company had lead them to believe they were travelling with authority, which there may well be a legal argument to say they were.

LNER however were now subject to a promise made by someone who was nothing to do with them, at a station they don't serve or have a facilities agreement with, and were unaware of.

I contacted my control and explained the error and they contacted LNER who graciously contacted their traincrews to pass the customer.

I also contacted the supervisor at Station A who rebriefed the gateline assistant on endorsing tickets for alternative routes.

I include the above story to highlight the issues involved with determining authorised persons and what can go wrong if employees fail to follow the correct process.

An excellent example. and as an aside a wider good example of the problems too - since to cost the time of what you had to do (contact various control staff) to help the passenger is all quite costly - cost that time up and compare it with the industry creating a more customer focused regime that needs none of this and you actually deliver financial savings for the industry since you can reduce the time that staff have to take when they want to either do things 'by the book' or go the extra mile for the passenger. Those in authority / control of the industry need to start working on those calculations IMHO.

Drifting off topic of course.

 

[RY3365]

Personally I'd suggest asking them to contact the guard. If you can remember what time train you were on, I'd imagine they would remember you (especially due to having loadsa kit and a military card) and would be happy to vouch for you.

Not a bad idea but seems more trouble than it’s worth especially as they’ll probably still argue that he didn’t have authority (despite the fact that he certainly appeared to me to have such authority). On a separate note I do have contemporaneous WhatsApp messages that were exchanged with my friend whilst I was on the train where I basically describe exactly what happened (ie. the train guard telling me not to worry).

 

[RPI]

Two things, firstly regarding the claim that a new ticket/Penalty Fare/Unpaid Fare notice has to be issued, not correct, the go to for forgotten railcards certainly with GWR is an MG11, we have pro-forma MG11 statements for this and the questions asked involve stating that the customer will be contacted and able to produce their railcard - I appreciate that's not the case here but just to put it out there that an MG11 can be issued and no further action taken subject to the railcard being produced.

Certainly the OP should reply with a copy of their railcard stating the policy of being able to produce the railcard once in a 12 month period, it could be that SWR's contact letter from MG11's is just badly worded.

I think walking off certainly wouldn't have helped matters.

As for the original guard on the train, with it being a suburban service could it be that the guard was a "Non commercial" guard? I seem to remember that in the recent restructuring agreement with SWR guards that Non Commercial guards would now be checking tickets but not issuing them? (Yes its bonkers) Though they clearly haven't helped matters.

 

[Bluejays]

Not a bad idea but seems more trouble than it’s worth especially as they’ll probably still argue that he didn’t have authority (despite the fact that he certainly appeared to me to have such authority). On a separate note I do have contemporaneous WhatsApp messages that were exchanged with my friend whilst I was on the train where I basically describe exactly what happened (ie. the train guard telling me not to worry).

If the guard explicitly said he'd given you authorisation, they would have real trouble arguing against. Not a guarantee they would bother to find out who it was, but I'd certainly give it a go

 

[LowLevel]

Two things, firstly regarding the claim that a new ticket/Penalty Fare/Unpaid Fare notice has to be issued, not correct, the go to for forgotten railcards certainly with GWR is an MG11, we have pro-forma MG11 statements for this and the questions asked involve stating that the customer will be contacted and able to produce their railcard - I appreciate that's not the case here but just to put it out there that an MG11 can be issued and no further action taken subject to the railcard being produced.

Certainly the OP should reply with a copy of their railcard stating the policy of being able to produce the railcard once in a 12 month period, it could be that SWR's contact letter from MG11's is just badly worded.

I think walking off certainly wouldn't have helped matters.

As for the original guard on the train, with it being a suburban service could it be that the guard was a "Non commercial" guard? I seem to remember that in the recent restructuring agreement with SWR guards that Non Commercial guards would now be checking tickets but not issuing them? (Yes its bonkers) Though they clearly haven't helped matters.

Quoted from the Railcards website managed by RDG:

"What happens if I don't have my Railcard with me and I have to buy a new ticket or pay a Penalty Fare?​

If you are travelling by train on a ticket with a Railcard discount, you must travel with your valid Railcard. If you forget your Railcard you will either be required to buy a new ticket or you may on certain services be liable for a Penalty Fare. However, a train company will normally allow you to claim back this extra expense on the first occasion in each year where this happens.

Each train company will have their own process for doing this. You will need to provide proof of your Railcard and either the original and additional tickets that you have purchased, or if you have not yet paid, details of the notice to pay or notice of Penalty Fare. Where you have already paid for additional tickets you should contact the relevant train company’s customer services department; in the case of a notice to pay of notice of Penalty Fare, you should follow the instructions included on how to challenge or appeal the charge."

It would seem counter productive to deviate from that. GWR's own website states an additional fare should be paid to be refunded on production and certainly doesn't imply that the standard operating procedure is straight to MG11:

"If you forgot or mislaid your valid Railcard and were unable to produce it when requested but can produce it at a later date, get in touch with us within 28 days of your journey. We will arrange reimbursement of any additional charge incurred; for one claim in any 12 month period. We will need to see the Railcard, and all relevant journey tickets."

 

[RY3365]

Two things, firstly regarding the claim that a new ticket/Penalty Fare/Unpaid Fare notice has to be issued, not correct, the go to for forgotten railcards certainly with GWR is an MG11, we have pro-forma MG11 statements for this and the questions asked involve stating that the customer will be contacted and able to produce their railcard - I appreciate that's not the case here but just to put it out there that an MG11 can be issued and no further action taken subject to the railcard being produced.

Certainly the OP should reply with a copy of their railcard stating the policy of being able to produce the railcard once in a 12 month period, it could be that SWR's contact letter from MG11's is just badly worded.

I think walking off certainly wouldn't have helped matters.

As for the original guard on the train, with it being a suburban service could it be that the guard was a "Non commercial" guard? I seem to remember that in the recent restructuring agreement with SWR guards that Non Commercial guards would now be checking tickets but not issuing them? (Yes its bonkers) Though they clearly haven't helped matters.

Thank you this is good to know. Yes in hindsight I wouldn’t have walked away but the combination of being told by a train guard it was ok whilst being passed from staff member to staff member and not wanting to miss my connection all at the same time being stood with a heavy kit bag on my back contributed to this error of judgement (not making excuses just putting it into context).

Re the non-commercial guards I think I did see him issuing tickets to other passengers on the train but can’t be certain.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2022 ==

Quoted from the Railcards website managed by RDG:

"What happens if I don't have my Railcard with me and I have to buy a new ticket or pay a Penalty Fare?​

If you are travelling by train on a ticket with a Railcard discount, you must travel with your valid Railcard. If you forget your Railcard you will either be required to buy a new ticket or you may on certain services be liable for a Penalty Fare. However, a train company will normally allow you to claim back this extra expense on the first occasion in each year where this happens.

Each train company will have their own process for doing this. You will need to provide proof of your Railcard and either the original and additional tickets that you have purchased, or if you have not yet paid, details of the notice to pay or notice of Penalty Fare. Where you have already paid for additional tickets you should contact the relevant train company’s customer services department; in the case of a notice to pay of notice of Penalty Fare, you should follow the instructions included on how to challenge or appeal the charge."

It would seem counter productive to deviate from that. GWR's own website states an additional fare should be paid to be refunded on production and certainly doesn't imply that the standard operating procedure is straight to MG11:

"If you forgot or mislaid your valid Railcard and were unable to produce it when requested but can produce it at a later date, get in touch with us within 28 days of your journey. We will arrange reimbursement of any additional charge incurred; for one claim in any 12 month period. We will need to see the Railcard, and all relevant journey tickets."

I think this supports another posters view that there is a lack of consistency as to how a forgotten is dealt with.

 

[LowLevel]

Well my issue is that I remember that policy being introduced and it was clearly stipulated as being a national one to be adhered to so you assume you're dealing with someone in a consistent way and can give advice on that basis.

It is quite wearing to find that once again someone else in an office somewhere has decided to interpret it in a different manner.

(And yes, I do see the benefit of issuing an MG11 as a deterrent to someone chancing their arm and only having to cough up once in a while if caught. My issue is that once again a consistent national policy, is no such thing).

 

[RY3365]

If the guard explicitly said he'd given you authorisation, they would have real trouble arguing against. Not a guarantee they would bother to find out who it was, but I'd certainly give it a go

I totally agree. I think there is a strong argument that it was reasonable for me to rely on the train guard’s assurances and to assume that the guard has apparent authority to act on behalf of south western in this regard.

 

[island]

I totally agree. I think there is a strong argument that it was reasonable for me to rely on the train guard’s assurances and to assume that the guard has apparent authority to act on behalf of south western in this regard.

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, individual employees of a train company do not have a right to waive any of the conditions of travel.

 

[RY3365]

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, individual employees of a train company do not have a right to waive any of the conditions of travel.

Yes I understand that may be the case but I’m trying to explain the general position with regards to principal - agent relationships where a third party has the right to assume that the agent has the right to bind the principal where the agent holds himself out as having that authority and it is reasonable for the third party to rely on this “holding out.”

 

[Bluejays]

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, individual employees of a train company do not have a right to waive any of the conditions of travel.

It's a generally accepted principle amongst all staff, that what the guard says on ticketing matters on a train goes.

If a guard has given permission the revenue people will accept that.

Slight edit: 'authorising ' railcard discounted tickets without a railcard isn't something I'd expect a guard to be doing though. Was certainly a strange decision.

Also think the op does need to realise that it's not entirely the fault of the guard. Ultimately, the carrying of a railcard is down to the passenger

 

[Foxcover]

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, individual employees of a train company do not have a right to waive any of the conditions of travel.

Wouldn’t the employer have vicarious liability legally - ie they would be bound by their employee’s representation to the OP? Not suggesting anything different as a course of action to what’s already been discussed with the OP, but interested in the legal position on the quote, in terms of what the guard represented was fine to the passenger.
*Edit - just noted that this is the same point as post 46 above

 

[AlterEgo]

What should I do if I find out that I forgot my railcard when I'm checked such that I can get a full fare / penalty fare to avoid prosecution?

Wait to be processed and do not leave and do not get caught leaving by walking to another station. It seems very clear the OP was about to get penalty fared and the report for prosecution was made because they simply walked off.

 

[Haywain]

So the guard did at first seem like he intended to follow procedure as when I was was scrambling in my purse and realised I didn’t have it he said something like hold on and then walked off to do something as the train had stopped. When he returned and continued checking tickets he then came back to me and asked what type of railcard it was. When I said armed forces (and he saw the mountain of kit I had with me) it was then that he seemed to have a change of heart and say “ok don’t worry about it” and then continued on his way. My assumption therefore is that he had perhaps considered it likely I did have a valid railcard and had merely forgotten it and therefore had a degree of sympathy. The situation might have been different if it has been a different type of railcard but I guess we’ll never know!

It seems to me that the guard was saying not to worry about digging out your railcard, rather than not to worry about not having it with you. Was it clear to that guard thst you did not actually have the railcard with you?

 

[RY3365]

It seems to me that the guard was saying not to worry about digging out your railcard, rather than not to worry about not having it with you. Was it clear to that guard thst you did not actually have the railcard with you?

Yes completely clear. I specifically said “sorry I’ve forgotten it.” He then said hold on before returning again after he did whatever he went to do.

 

[bramling]

As I explained to you earlier in the thread, individual employees of a train company do not have a right to waive any of the conditions of travel.

To be fair, that isn’t really the OP’s problem. It isn’t unreasonable to take the guard’s word for it.

Having said that, I’d be wary of relying on it as a defence, as it depends on the guard confirming what happened.

I know someone who had something similar happen when attempting to use a PRIV. From what I remember, he boarded at somewhere like Pokesdown, and I think the booking office was closed. He asked for a PRIV single to Waterloo from the guard, who told him not to worry. With my friend being the type who likes to do things correctly, he declined the free ride offer, but the guard again told him not to worry and essentially refused to sell a ticket. There was then a big fuss at Waterloo when he arrived there with no ticket, nothing came of it but from what I gather the encounter was pretty unpleasant.

 

[island]

Wouldn’t the employer have vicarious liability legally - ie they would be bound by their employee’s representation to the OP? Not suggesting anything different as a course of action to what’s already been discussed with the OP, but interested in the legal position on the quote, in terms of what the guard represented was fine to the passenger.
*Edit - just noted that this is the same point as post 46 above

That isn’t what “vicarious liability” means. Vicarious liability applies to torts committed by employees (such as an employer injuring a passenger or damaging their belongings).

There is a requirement that the employee have been acting in the course of his or her duties. In a scenario where the employee is doing something he is explicitly not authorised to do, it is very difficult to argue that he was acting in the course of his duties.

Finally, even if I am wrong in the above two contentions, the passenger would still need to prove that the guard authorised travel and waived the passenger’s breach of the law, which would be non-trivial.

 

[MotCO]

There is a requirement that the employee have been acting in the course of his or her duties. In a scenario where the employee is doing something he is explicitly not authorised to do, it is very difficult to argue that he was acting in the course of his duties.

But how would a member of the public know he/she was acting outside his/her powers? If someone in a uniform told be something (obviously relevant to the uniform they were wearing), I would believe them and take them at face value. Indeed, the member of staff may take offence if I challenged them by asking "are you entitled to make that statement?"

 

[LowLevel]

But how would a member of the public know he/she was acting outside his/her powers? If someone in a uniform told be something (obviously relevant to the uniform they were wearing), I would believe them and take them at face value. Indeed, the member of staff may take offence if I challenged them by asking "are you entitled to make that statement?"

Another reason I wish management would push the importance of endorsements to staff. I always work on the principle that if I'm contradicting something that is in writing, I also need to provide my statement in writing, unless the information I'm supplying is also publicly accessible to the customer - IE ticket acceptance information appearing on line for example.

 

[island]

But how would a member of the public know he/she was acting outside his/her powers? If someone in a uniform told be something (obviously relevant to the uniform they were wearing), I would believe them and take them at face value. Indeed, the member of staff may take offence if I challenged them by asking "are you entitled to make that statement?"

In order to provide best assistance to the OP, I'm outlining the legal position which is what courts are likely to follow. You may wish to argue that this is unfair, unreasonable, etc., but that should be done in another thread to avoid causing confusion to the OP.

What we cannot get away from is that the OP committed a criminal offence by boarding a train without a valid ticket, which cannot be undone by any alleged actions or inactions of on-train staff, and then compounded it by walking away when a member of staff was trying to resolve the matter, which at law will be seen as seeking to intentionally avoid paying the fare then due.

 

[RY3365]

Update: I contacted SWR by email and followed up with a phone call today. The very nice lady I spoke to said my case has been “paused” until they respond to the email and therefore not to worry about the deadline for paying the settlement.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Update: I contacted SWR by email and followed up with a phone call today. The very nice lady I spoke to said my case has been “paused” until they respond to the email and therefore not to worry about the deadline for paying the settlement.

Thanks for keeping us in touch.

 

[gray1404]

Update: I contacted SWR by email and followed up with a phone call today. The very nice lady I spoke to said my case has been “paused” until they respond to the email and therefore not to worry about the deadline for paying the settlement.

I'm assuming that in the email you took the forgotten railcard stance and attached a copy of your Railcard? Hopefully this will bring the matter to a close.

 

[RY3365]

I'm assuming that in the email you took the forgotten railcard stance and attached a copy of your Railcard? Hopefully this will bring the matter to a close.

I did indeed and yes I sincerely hope so.