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

[gray1404]

A friend the other day reminded me of a situation we had at Oxford in which a young, not very smart and I'm sorry to say but cocky RPI at the gateline at Oxford accused us of not having valid tickets and threatened with a PF.

We were travelling on a bank holiday Monday using the return portion of Off Peak Returns issued between Hightown and Wimbledon (for myself) and Formby and Wimbledon for my friend. The Route on both tickets was Any Permitted and the tickets contained a + cross for London Transfer.

Were travling from Paddington to Oxford and wished to break our journey. In essence I believe these tickets follow the same routing as a Liverpool to London fare (correct me if I'm wrong). When we got to the gateline (tickets rejected whn we insterted them so showed them manually) he starting demanding to know where Hightown was and said straight away that my ticket was not valid. I didn't like answering his questions of where Hightown was (not because of that as such but because he had said my ticket wasn't valid - it was that bit that annoyed me). I was hoping that when I told him it was in Merseyside near Liverpool he might make the connection that Liverpool to London tickets are valid via Oxford, but sadly not.

One of the other RPIs started looking it up on a machiene but when I asked to speak to a Supervisor the other 2 RPIs just said "look he has a ticket, just let him though" the RPI with a problem stood his ground but the other one just opened the gates for the 2 of us so we walked throgh and that was the end of it.

I still spoke with the Suprvisor at the station about my concerns. This was because, as I explained to him, I would be catching a train later on that day to Birmingham and didn't want any further problems in terms of not being allowed back onto the platform and missing my train. He assured me there wouldn't be but that he would be on duty until that evening so I could just ask for him again if there was.

I am a believer in giving the customer the benefit of the doubt if you are not sure on something. Was I under any duty to tell the RPI where abouts Hightown was? Or does the fact I'm presenting a totally vaid ticket on a permitted route, and wishing to break my journey in line with the conditions of the ticket mean I don't have to.

Also, on that bank holiday weekend there was a block on the WCML so I reckon a lot of customers would have been taking alternative routes.

 

[455driver]

Also, on that bank holiday weekend there was a block on the WCML so I reckon a lot of customers would have been taking alternative routes.

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

 

[Jonfun]

It's far better to ask the question as to where somewhere is rather than assume if you're in doubt. I had a somewhat extensive debate once with a Northern conductor as to why I was showing him a Loughborough to Hooton ticket. After much explanation and many blank looks, it transpired he'd though Loughborough was somewhere south of Chester, and when we ascertained that it was actually just south of Derby, he realised his mistake.

 

[bb21]

You don't have any duty to answer the question as to where Hightown is, but all that will result in is unnecessary additional hassle and delay as the RPI tries to look it up and ascertain the validity of the ticket.

 

[Minilad]

I have been asked for information on trains to locations I didn't have the foggiest idea about many times. Especially down in the South East. I can't give good info if I don't know where the station is so would always ask for clarification on that before giving any advice. If the person couldn't do that then I would have to tell them I couldn't help them. Surely just answering the question wouldn't be too much of a hardship and would get you on your way much quicker and will less hassle. I doubt there are many people who know the location of every single station in the UK

 

[swt_passenger]

Whether a requirement or not, explaining to staff where some minor station happens to be is a perfectly reasonable way of saving a bit of time, no need to get so precious about it.

Trying the tickets in the barriers is quite pointless, especially if origin and destination are pretty much unrelated to the actual journey being made, because BOJ is only rarely programmed into barriers, and is highly unlikely to ever be done on a basis of full national coverage, which is what you'd need here.

 

[najaB]

Was I under any duty to tell the RPI where abouts Hightown was?

Nope. And he was under no duty to let you through the barrier before determining that the ticket was valid. And he was being paid to stand there.

 

[gray1404]

As I have clearly stated in my first post I told him where it was. He still insisted that my ticket was not valid for travel throuigh Oxford.

 

[najaB]

As I have clearly stated in my first post I told him where it was. He still insisted that my ticket was not valid for travel throuigh Oxford.

You asked a question and I answered it.

 

[Merseysider]

No, you didn't have to tell him where Hightown is, but being awkward wouldn't achieve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[yorkie]

I agree no obligation to answer, but not answering looks suspicious.

For example a Guard once asked a passenger where two stations on their Season ticket were, the passenger said they did not know; they had just been advised to use that ticket as it was good value/cheaper/gave extra validity.

That then meant the Guard made a note of it, and later looked it up and asked some people for their thoughts on it. Turns out it was a huge loophole ticket, valid for a huge deviation via Bristol when both stations were in the (former) Network (SouthEast) area.

So, decline to answer if you want, but it will raise suspicion!

 

[AM9]

No, you didn't have to tell him where Hightown is, but being awkward wouldn't achieve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Surely, as reported in the original post, the RPO made an (incorrect) assertion that the ticket was invalid because he didn't know where Hightown was. Implied in this assertion was that a penalty fare was appropriate, therefore that was tantamount to at least an accusation of travelling without a valid ticket, either inadvertantly, or worse.
A timid person would probably just buckle under such a strident* inference (*my interpretation of 'cocky') at the barrier. An observation by an experienced RPO would be that most normal people who had made such a journey would probably have checked that such a unusual route would was valid and would be taken aback by such an approach.
I would have been tempted to say politely, 'do you know where Hightown is?'
If the answer was 'no' then my next question would be along the lines of: 'how can you be sure of this ticket's validity for this route if you don't know the where its destination, Hightown is?'
If he wasn't to arrogant, he might then think about his approach and continue with the encounter on a less accusative level when the details he wanted would be given, and he wouldn't keep digging himself into a deeper hole. Nevertheless, he seemed to pursue his original line even when a colleague was actually trying to help.
I can understand why employees posting here are trying to defend their colleagues, but based on what was actually posted here by the OP, it seems that a comment qualified as on that basis, could be made; or if that is too uncomfortable, don't post until more details are made. Trying to brush the whole incident off as the problem of the paying passenger without such further evidence is not really helping other employees at all.

 

[bb21]

What are you on about?

The question is about whether there is an obligation on the passenger to provide some additional details. We have established that there is not, but also it is not necessarily the best way forward, for the passenger's sake.

Fair enough the RPI in this case made an incorrect assertion. Had it been someone else it may well have resulted in an "I see, thank you." type of response. Being awkward on the other hand would never lead to a good outcome, only further potential hassle and delay.

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?

No one is brushing this under the carpet. It is not good that a passenger is wrongly accused of having an invalid ticket, but there are ways this can be addressed. It is a completely separate issue to what the OP asked.

Carry on being awkward if you feel you need to in those situations, I doubt many people will support that view. It is not about having a moral crusade against anyone. It is about doing what one can to try and have as smooth a journey as possible.

 

[Merseysider]

Surely, as reported in the original post, the RPO made an (incorrect) assertion that the ticket was invalid...

...wibble...

I would have been tempted to say politely, 'do you know where Hightown is?'
If the answer was 'no' then my next question would be along the lines of: 'how can you be sure of this ticket's validity for this route if you don't know the where its destination, Hightown is?'

Yes, you could take that approach. And that might be interpreted as being cocky yourself. As reported in the original post, the employee's colleague stepped in. Had the OP been less co-operative, it may have taken longer. You might have the time for petty wars of words but most normal people would simply confirm where Hightown is, and politely explain why BoJ at that location is valid and a PF is inappropriate rather than make life difficult.

If he wasn't so arrogant, he might then think about his approach and continue with the encounter on a less accusative level when the details he wanted would be given, and he wouldn't keep digging himself into a deeper hole...

...more wibble...

...don't post until more details are made. Trying to brush the whole incident off as the problem of the paying passenger without such further evidence is not really helping other employees at all.

Who exactly is trying to 'brush the whole incident off as the problem of the paying passenger'?

I'm not quite sure what the purpose of your post is. It just reads as one long rant.

 

[Agent_c]

What are you on about?

The question is about whether there is an obligation on the passenger to provide some additional details. We have established that there is not, but also it is not necessarily the best way forward, for the passenger's sake.

Fair enough the RPI in this case made an incorrect assertion. Had it been someone else it may well have resulted in an "I see, thank you." type of response. Being awkward on the other hand would never lead to a good outcome, only further potential hassle and delay.

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?

No one is brushing this under the carpet. It is not good that a passenger is wrongly accused of having an invalid ticket, but there are ways this can be addressed. It is a completely separate issue to what the OP asked.

Carry on being awkward if you feel you need to in those situations, I doubt many people will support that view. It is not about having a moral crusade against anyone. It is about doing what one can to try and have as smooth a journey as possible.

I would have though the first step in being "Helpful" was not to start with the position that the ticket is invalid, and then ask where the mystery station is... I really do have to wonder how anyone can be sure a ticket isn't valid if they don't know where one of the stations is (unless of course the other station's location would mean the trip would be inappropriate from any origin to get there, say if you were on a branch line travelling to the end of the branch.

 

[bb21]

I would have though the first step in being "Helpful" was not to start with the position that the ticket is invalid, and then ask where the mystery station is... I really do have to wonder how anyone can be sure a ticket isn't valid if they don't know where one of the stations is (unless of course the other station's location would mean the trip would be inappropriate from any origin to get there, say if you were on a branch line travelling to the end of the branch.

Absolutely, and I am certainly not defending the actions of that particular member of staff.

Maybe I should have made this clearer, I was only going from the premise that people will get asked such questions for such a purpose. Stating on the outset that the ticket is invalid is not professional unless one can be sure. What is also possible is that the RPI may get things wrong at the beginning but subsequently realize. Not all staff are nasty pieces of work. I have certainly encountered staff who subsequently apologised for a misunderstanding as to where the place is. The passenger being awkward is hardly going to help in these situations so I don't see what can be achieved taking that approach.

 

[najaB]

I wonder if the situation was caused by the RPI seeing any ticket that doesn't work the barrier as being 'invalid' (i.e. invalid to work the barrier) and in need of manual checking.

 

[talldave]

I wonder if the situation was caused by the RPI seeing any ticket that doesn't work the barrier as being 'invalid' (i.e. invalid to work the barrier) and in need of manual checking.

I think you're right. Perhaps staff see barriers as infallible judges of validity, forgetting the fact that any attempt at a BoJ will most likely result in rejection. This means that the encounter starts with the RPI assuming that the passenger is a fare dodger.

If there had been no barrier and the encounter started with the presentation of a ticket with an unknown (to the RPI) destination, you might hope that a light hearted "I haven't heard of <destination>, can you tell me where it is?" exchange would have kicked the conversation off.

 

[Starmill]

Grand Central guard on a Bradford-bound train:

"Poppleton? Where the 'eck's that then!?"

 

[gray1404]

Yes thats right, the RPI here made "Your ticket is not valid. Where is that station?" the starting point.

The only barriers I have known allow for a BoJ are the Southern ones at Worthing - both in terms of getting of the platform and back on later on in the day using an Off Peak Day Return ticket. In that case I actually asked the gateline member of staff if I could please break my jounrey and he repled "yes, no problem" and inserted my into the barrier, which opened and he passed the ticket back to me.

 

[johnnychips]

The only barriers I have known allow for a BoJ are the Southern ones at Worthing

I had an anytime return from Doncaster to Reading about a year ago and the barrier at Peterborough certainly let me out, and I think the barrier at Cambridge did (if there was one!). A TPE 55 Club return to Carlisle let me out at Lancaster on the way back, and one to Blackpool let me out at Oxford Rd.

 

[AM9]

Absolutely, and I am certainly not defending the actions of that particular member of staff.

Maybe I should have made this clearer, I was only going from the premise that people will get asked such questions for such a purpose. Stating on the outset that the ticket is invalid is not professional unless one can be sure. What is also possible is that the RPI may get things wrong at the beginning but subsequently realize. Not all staff are nasty pieces of work. I have certainly encountered staff who subsequently apologised for a misunderstanding as to where the place is. The passenger being awkward is hardly going to help in these situations so I don't see what can be achieved taking that approach.

My post was framed in the context that, to me, the OP described the encounter as an initial accusation of some sort of unauthorised travel, that would attract a penalty fare. The RPI then justified (or undermined) his statement by saying that he didn't know where the destination was. So I would want to understand, was it a trick question, having already been sentenced, then being asked for some sort of evidence?
Clearly his tone of voice and general approach would be important in deciding on my reply but I can't see anything in the original post that indicates either an honest mistake or a joke in "accused us of not having valid tickets and threatened with a PF", so a polite reply with a question would not seem to me to be out of order.
There is much talk of events here where members agreeing that the passenger is getting a hard time because they had 'failed the attitude test'. In many cases, I agree that a passenger's devious or aggressive approach will frequently raise suspicions with guards, TMs or RPOs and the ensuing conversation may take a more combative route for both parties. Now any reasonable person would agree that this attitude test applies equally to both 'ticket holders' and 'ticket inspectors', whether either of them are smart, scruffy, old, young etc., and from what I read in the original post, the RPO failed with his (or her) first assertion of a penalty fare being in order without any justification. That set the initial tone of the discussion.
I might add that at no time have I ever intentionally avoided a correct fare, nor have I ever been challenged by any employee over the validity of my ticket(s). 'Ticket inspectors' approaches have ranged from a normal request with a pleasant face followed by a thank you, sometimes leading to a short smalltalk, to a rude grunt or even being stood over with no verbal request at all, to which I would just show the ticket as required. Everbody has dull or depressing days, so I just accept the grunts, but an accusation of an invalid ticket can require a different response rather than just a passive acceptance of the vagaries of human nature.

 

[bb21]

so a polite reply with a question would not seem to me to be out of order.

What you suggested was a polite question in your eyes, obviously some of us see it as being awkward, so we will have to agree to disagree on that. Perhaps written words do not convey the tone very well.

I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals, just how to react to it. I personally don't see the point of stooping to the level of rudeness (if I may) of the RPI should that be the case, but then that may just be me.

 

[AM9]

What you suggested was a polite question in your eyes, obviously some of us see it as being awkward, so we will have to agree to disagree on that. Perhaps written words do not convey the tone very well.

I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals, just how to react to it. I personally don't see the point of stooping to the level of rudeness (if I may) of the RPI should that be the case, but then that may just be me.

You are absolutely correct in that the written word doesn't convey enough meaning. At no point did I intend to indicate that 'stooping to the level of rudeness of the RPI' was a reasonable way to respond to the approach described by the original post. Just because a polite question to an inappropriate accusation may make a person realise their mistake (although it didn't seem to help the RPI in this case), it isn't rude, nor aggressive, but it certainly establishes a reasonable way ahead.
We all seem to have differing views on the whole area of staff-customer interaction so I suppose that it is inevitable that there will be disagreement in postings.

 

[paddington]

I had an anytime return from Doncaster to Reading about a year ago and the barrier at Peterborough certainly let me out, and I think the barrier at Cambridge did (if there was one!). A TPE 55 Club return to Carlisle let me out at Lancaster on the way back, and one to Blackpool let me out at Oxford Rd.

Yes the Peterborough barriers have let me out on a BOJ, but didn't let me back in again... nobody was very interested in the actual ticket when they let me back in though

West Hampstead Thameslink let me out, and in again the next day, on a return portion of a Leagrave-London Thameslink off-peak return!

 

[swt_passenger]

West Hampstead Thameslink let me out, and in again the next day, on a return portion of a Leagrave-London Thameslink off-peak return!

There'll probably be additional programming to allow for the dual availability with LU at West Hampstead.

 

[suzanneparis]

Is the passenger obliged to give the RPI his name and address in this situation if asked for it? (may well happen if the RPI thinks the passenger is being unhelpful).

 

[island]

Is the passenger obliged to give the RPI his name and address in this situation if asked for it? (may well happen if the RPI thinks the passenger is being unhelpful).

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

 

[suzanneparis]

But it seems from the description that the RPI was mistaken. In which case would it be ok for the passenger to refuse to give their name and address - and anyway what could the RPI do about such a situation?

 

[island]

But it seems from the description that the RPI was mistaken. In which case would it be ok for the passenger to refuse to give their name and address - and anyway what could the RPI do about such a situation?

A reasonable belief can be wrong.