Does a customer have to provide additional information when using a valid ticket?

[Busaholic]

Not knowing where stations are, or never having heard of them, is not peculiar to ticket inspectors. The last time I went to Penzance station booking off ice to get a ticket for my wife's CrossCountry journey to Alnmouth the clerk, a man of mature years, had never heard of it, despite it being on a direct train from PZ twice a day: in fact, I had to spell it twice for him, and he wasn't being obtuse.

 

[gray1404]

Yes, if the RPI has a reasonable belief that the passenger has committed a ticketing infringement.

But what is it latr emerges that that customers ticket was totally valid. Does that mean then that the belief held by the RPI at the time was in fact unreasonable.

There is such a thing as an reasonable belief.

 

[island]

We're going down rabbit holes here. The question of what is reasonable or not given a certain set of circumstances is a matter of fact. If you then change the circumstances, then of course what is reasonable will differ.

 

[najaB]

But what is it latr emerges that that customers ticket was totally valid. Does that mean then that the belief held by the RPI at the time was in fact unreasonable.

There is such a thing as an reasonable belief.

What matters is what they believed at the time they asked.

 

[Dent]

The question of what is reasonable or not given a certain set of circumstances is a matter of fact.

Can you produce the definitive, robust and objective definition of "reasonable"?

I think you will find that the complete opposite is true, what is "reasonable" is entirely a matter of opinion, rendering the use of such a term in a contract wide open to interpretation and ultimately meaningless.

 

[cookie365]

What matters is what they believed at the time they asked.

Surely what matters is what they reasonably believed at the time they asked.

Is it reasonable to believe that a route is invalid if you don't know where the starting station is?

 

[najaB]

Is it reasonable to believe that a route is invalid if you don't know where the starting station is?

I agree with island, it's all getting a little silly now. We have no way of knowing what the RPI was thinking, nor what he believed at the time. Under current legislation he was within his rights to ask name and address as part of his investigation and gray1404 was obliged to provide them. He was under no obligation to provide any more information than that but failing to do so would only prolong the investigation.

As I pointed out above, the RPI was getting paid to have the conversation but I can't see any benefit to the the passenger in not answering questions that would shorten the time taken to determine the validity of the ticket.

 

[island]

Can you produce the definitive, robust and objective definition of "reasonable"?

I think you will find that the complete opposite is true, what is "reasonable" is entirely a matter of opinion, rendering the use of such a term in a contract wide open to interpretation and ultimately meaningless.

There is ample case law about the definition of reasonable and unreasonable. An example is Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

 

[Dent]

There is ample case law about the definition of reasonable and unreasonable. An example is Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223.

None of which, as far as I can find, give a robust and objective definition of "reasonable". All the definitions I can find are entirely in terms of other ill-defined or subjective terms.

What is "reasonable" is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion.

 

[island]

None of which, as far as I can find, give a robust and objective definition of "reasonable". All the definitions I can find are entirely in terms of other ill-defined or subjective terms.

What is "reasonable" is not a matter of fact, it is a matter of opinion.

...until a court decides it, at which stage it is a matter of fact. And since we're discussing a theory of someone refusing to provide his name and address when requested and potentially committing an offence which will be tried in court, it is very much a matter of fact whether the request is reasonable or not.

Now, I really should like to get back on topic if you don't mind.

 

[Dent]

...until a court decides it, at which stage it is a matter of fact. And since we're discussing a theory of someone refusing to provide his name and address when requested and potentially committing an offence which will be tried in court, it is very much a matter of fact whether the request is reasonable or not.

It is never a matter of fact whether something is "reasonable", for the simple reason that the word "reasonable" is not objectively defined. A court may make a judgement of whether something can be considered "reasonable" in a particular instance, but that is still not a fact. No court has been near reviewing whether this particular request on this particular date anyway.

Now, I really should like to get back on topic if you don't mind.

If your false statement was "on topic", then so it pointing out that is false.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Can you produce the definitive, robust and objective definition of "reasonable"?

Look at it another way, can you provide definitive, robust and objective evidence confirming the OP's original post is absolutely accurate in all details?

Before everyone jumps in with the 'kicking boots', I am not suggesting for one moment that I do not believe the OP's account, simply because I believe it is reasonable to accept it.

I also happen to believe that it is reasonable to accept that the RPI may genuinely have believed that there was something wrong with the ticket.

i) attention was drawn to the ticket because it was rejected by the barrier
ii) the RPI may have been mistaken about where he thought Hightown was located
iii) the RPI could have phrased his question much better
iv) the ticket holder's response could have been phrased better
v) it seems likely that the ticket holder's response simply strengthened the RPI's (ultimately mistaken), but reasonably held belief that there was something wrong with the ticket

Had iii), iv) and v) not occurred it is likely that it could have been settled very simply as talldave suggested. That certainly doesn't detract from the fact that a bit more professionalism from the RPI was desirable and as someone else remarked, being deliberately obtuse isn't awfully helpful either.

 

[Dent]

Look at it another way, can you provide definitive, robust and objective evidence confirming the OP's original post is absolutely accurate in all details?

No, and I never professed that I could. The only evidence available is what the OP posted.

This is not "another way of looking at" a request for someone to justify a claim they made that something entirely subjective is a "fact".

 

[sheff1]

What is important is what would work best for the passenger. It is hardly a stressful question to answer whereabouts the place you are going to is. The RPI may have simply been trying to be helpful and ensure that you are going the right way. Why be so cynical and make it more difficult for yourself?

There used to be a famous loophole ticket where Hightown was one of the destinations. I was asked once where it was and replied vaguely "beyond Manchester" which satisfied the checker. Of course, if the route was a more sensible one (as with the OP here) the best option for the passenger, as you say, would be to mention Liverpool.

 

[cjmillsnun]

How many of them would be breaking their journey on the diversionary route?

Who cares? If the ticket allows BOJ then the ticket is valid

 

[bb21]

Who cares? If the ticket allows BOJ then the ticket is valid

On the diversionary route? Debatable.

 

[gray1404]

Yes I explained its near Liverpool.

Also boj is allowed. Via Oxford is a permitted route, not just a diversion route.

 

[yorkie]

Yes I explained its near Liverpool.

Also boj is allowed. Via Oxford is a permitted route, not just a diversion route.

Absolutely permitted, without question.

It's very easy to check where a place is (OK not quite as quick as the customer telling the RPI , but still easy nonetheless), and in this case it's a very obvious route, so no reasonable grounds for anything other than letting the passenger through once that has been checked.

 

[Ianigsy]

Reminds me of a Menston-Birkenhead North journey I made about ten years ago where the booking clerk at Menston had never heard of Birkenhead North and the Nottingham based guard on the Central Trains 170 I used between Manchester and Liverpool had never heard of Menston...

As I recall, the guard's question wasn't particularly well-phrased (it was definitely a case of pointing at "Menston" on the ticket and saying "Where's that?" rather than "I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with Menston, could you just confirm what line it's on please?". It's not an ideal situation and it does leave you wondering why it should be up to you as a passenger to deal with a blind spot in a member of railway staff's knowledge. But (even assuming that everybody is honest when asked), there are a lot of generically named stations around and I wonder how many people would know the difference between, say, Green Lane and Green Road, or that the National Rail version of Penrhyn is in Cornwall not Wales.

 

[najaB]

It's not an ideal situation and it does leave you wondering why it should be up to you as a passenger to deal with a blind spot in a member of railway staff's knowledge.

It may not be how you meant it to sound, but that comes across as you having a dig at the guard for not knowing every railway station on the network.

 

[talltim]

I'd have been so tempted to make up a new location for Hightown, somewhere near Oxford maybe...