Explaining a ticket to a conductor

[SETCommuter]

Evening all,

Due to the season ticket I have bought, I sometimes get challenged by conductors who insist that it isn't valid and that I must travel via a different route (which involves walking between ungrouped stations).
I've spent a long time studying the routeing guide as well as this forum and am 100% certain that the ticket is valid.

My question really is what is the best way to explain why the ticket is valid to staff members who don't know the routeing guide and insist they are correct. I offer to explain the validity but they don't seem interested in listening to me and insist I must travel via a different route. Should I contact the TOC and askf for clarification or are they likely to be just as clueless ?

Cheers in advance.

 

[bb21]

What happens normally at the end? Are you normally let off or have you ever had to cough up?

 

[SETCommuter]

I've not been issued with any tickets or anything but have had my photocard number taken. To be fair it's early days - only had the ticket since the beginning of the year but I would like to avoid any confrontations or issues before they arise.

 

[bb21]

I think it depends on what type of tickets you have.

If it is a loophole which gives you great financial advantage over the train company then I would say carry the relevant documents with you, and try and avoid getting into a situation where you have to write to customer service in great details as to why your ticket is valid, because there is always the danger that they will shut it down. (For example, you may need to appeal a UPFN.)

Of course it cannot always be avoided, and if it is very obviously an anomaly, expect to enjoy it while it lasts.

If it is a somewhat reasonable route, I would say asking for official clarification would be a good idea, if you can get it out of them. Still make sure that you carry documentation with you showing why it is valid, considering how much hassle you have already had.

There is unfortunately no foolproof way of ensuring that your journey will be hassle-free. Being confident and articulate is another thing which I find helps.

 

[SETCommuter]

I think it depends on what type of tickets you have.

If it is a loophole which gives you great financial advantage over the train company then I would say carry the relevant documents with you, and try and avoid getting into a situation where you have to write to customer service in great details as to why your ticket is valid, because there is always the danger that they will shut it down. (For example, you may need to appeal a UPFN.)

Of course it cannot always be avoided, and if it is very obviously an anomaly, expect to enjoy it while it lasts.

If it is a somewhat reasonable route, I would say asking for official clarification would be a good idea, if you can get it out of them. Still make sure that you carry documentation with you showing why it is valid, considering how much hassle you have already had.

There is unfortunately no foolproof way of ensuring that your journey will be hassle-free. Being confident and articulate is another thing which I find helps.

Thanks, that's kind of what I was thinking. I politely offered to explain how the route was valid to the conductor today but he just kept repeating you must travel to x and then walk to y. It is a considerable saving (£1300ish a year on a £2000ish ticket) and it is a somewhat circular route so I do understand why a conductor would question it.

In terms of documentation, what would be best ? The relevant pieces of the routeing guide ? Pages from this forum? lol ?

I suppose the other question is: should I have to explain why my ticket is valid ?

 

[maniacmartin]

Also an itinerary from NRE or the TOCs website if you can get it (and under the latest Routeing Guide it could be argued you must be able to do so if not using the shortest route or direct trains).

When I was having trouble with a season ticket when taking the shortest route, I wrote to Customer Services who eventually produced a letter stating my ticket was valid for the route I take, which made life easier as I could just present it to staff.

 

[SETCommuter]

The Gold Card states "Any Permitted".

The NRE Journey Planner gives the route as walking between two stations (presumably as this is the quickest route). However, if I add via points in on the NRE Journey Planner then it does give me the 2 routes I take - would this be a reasonable item to print off to show the validity ?

 

[maniacmartin]

Yes. Click on the routes to display their itinerary. Make sure the top of the page does not say that more than one ticket is required for the journey and print those off. With the latest Routeing Guide text, I don't see how anyone could dispute your route then.

 

[SETCommuter]

Yes. Click on the routes to display their itinerary. Make sure the top of the page does not say that more than one ticket is required for the journey and print those off. With the latest Routeing Guide text, I don't see how anyone could dispute your route then.

Many thanks - Does it matter if the train I get is at a different time to the one on the planner ? Presumably if the route is valid, the route is valid ?

 

[bb21]

It might, but if NRE gives you a valid itinerary then it is a good place to start. I would expect it to be reasonable for someone to assume that if NRE gives an itinerary then it is a permitted route.

 

[David Goddard]

There are a number of "unusual" itineraries that I use from time to time, and to avoid any issues I always take a screen shot from the journey planner of the TOC's own website, so if challenged I can present that to them. I run it through the website each time I travel, so the dates etc are always up to date.

Time wise it should not make a difference as a route is a route, unless of course you come across routes which are valid on certain trains only by virtue of a handful of through trains (ie there used to be one through train per day from Waterloo to Brighton via Eastleigh, on which "London Terminals" to Brighton was valid, but not on combinations via the same route)

 

[SETCommuter]

Thanks everyone, you've confirmed what I thought and I've just spent my lunch hour printing off the relevant parts of the routeing guide and the journey planner from the NR site.

I was just wondering if there is written anywhere, that although there is a recognised walking interchange between 2 stations, I am under no obligation to take that route as the stations are not grouped in any way ? I can't seem to find anything regarding recognised walking interchanges in the Routeing Guide.

Essentially, I would like to be able to say "no I don't" and show a piece of paper when told I must walk between stations.

 

[furlong]

I was just wondering if there is written anywhere, that although there is a recognised walking interchange between 2 stations, I am under no obligation to take that route as the stations are not grouped in any way ? I can't seem to find anything regarding recognised walking interchanges in the Routeing Guide.

As far as I am aware, this is just one of the many grey areas that is still awaiting a satisfactory resolution from either the Department for Transport or the courts.

Insofar as these useful transfers are included in the National Rail Timetable, and its wording acknowledges that your journey may require a transfer between such stations, and not accepting this may lead to some circuitous routes that are unlikely to have been accepted under the ANY REASONABLE ROUTE regime that was being converted into the (then) new permitted routes regime, I take the view that they may form part of the shortest route stipulated by both the Routeing Guide and the Conditions of Carriage:

13(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services;
...
(k) “National Rail Timetable” means the rail timetable for passenger train services in Great Britain as provided at www.nationalrail.co.uk

This line of argument is not watertight, but I think it would have a fair chance of holding up against some otherwise circuitous unmapped shortest routes.

 

[RJ]

These days, I aim to do as follows and would advise others to practise the same;

If ticket is challenged, politely explain why the ticket is valid once. Show paperwork if necessary.

If challenge persists, suggest the details of the ticket are noted down for investigation and provide details only if requested. I wouldn't entertain any demand for money and any season ticket would remain within my wallet, fully viewable by the inspector.

If challenge continues, I'd state "If you aren't prepared to listen to me, this is not a two way conversation. As such you don't require me to be a part of this conversation." This would be followed by me donning my headphones and going about my business. As they say, not much point in arguing with a brick wall. I'd continue listening to music until said individual either goes away or indicates that they are prepared to handle the situation in a civilised and professional manner.

Key is to remain polite and calm at all times. You've explained yourself once. If ticket inspectors need to do extra work to understand a particular ticket, they should do it entirely on their time and at no inconvenience to the customer. You've facilitated this by showing them the valid ticket and allowing them to note your details.

Customers should not have to second guess whether or not a ticket inspector will take exception to a ticket that is unequivocally valid. They shouldn't have to train ticket inspectors either. As someone who has inspected tickets, I think the best method to proceed is a discreet noting down of the ticket for investigation out of public view, followed by a cross check of validity with National Rail Enquires and the National Routeing Guide. Any ticket inspectors who feel they are knowledgeable enough to challenge an unfamiliar ticket should at the very least know how to check the validity themselves, giving the customer the benefit of the doubt until they do. I have no sympathy for feral ticket inspectors who choose to penalise paying customers on their gut feeling alone. If the ticket is unfamiliar and the customer is adamant it is valid, they should let it go if they can't prove otherwise.

If your username is indicative of the TOC you commute with, I wouldn't bother going any further than what I have advised to try and explain ticket validity to them. From experience, an attempt at an educated verbal exchange plus refusal to hand over any money will result in the police being called out and sometimes guards/On Board Managers demanding that you're forcibly removed from the train. Best to keep dialogue to the barest minimum necessary. Since I've done this, I haven't had any further issues.

 

[Flamingo]

I do not want to get into an argument, but it is a requirement to hand over a ticket for inspection if requested. Keeping it in your wallet if requested to show it for a closer look is not to be recommended.

 

[Llanigraham]

If challenge continues, I'd state "If you aren't prepared to listen to me, this is not a two way conversation. As such you don't require me to be a part of this conversation." This would be followed by me donning my headphones and going about my business. As they say, not much point in arguing with a brick wall. I'd continue listening to music until said individual either goes away or indicates that they are prepared to handle the situation in a civilised and professional manner.

Key is to remain polite and calm at all times.

The highlighted 4 words are completely the opposite of what you are implying in the paragraph above. Therefore it is you who is being the impolite one.

And as has been said, if a member of the Railway Staff asks for your ticket then you are legally obliged to give it to them.
As you well know!!

 

[Chapeltom]

The highlighted 4 words are completely the opposite of what you are implying in the paragraph above. Therefore it is you who is being the impolite one.

And as has been said, if a member of the Railway Staff asks for your ticket then you are legally obliged to give it to them.
As you well know!!

Given RJs bad experiences with the TOC in question and indeed a couple of others, I do think his response is understandable.

 

[RJ]

I do not want to get into an argument, but it is a requirement to hand over a ticket for inspection if requested. Keeping it in your wallet if requested to show it for a closer look is not to be recommended.

The highlighted 4 words are completely the opposite of what you are implying in the paragraph above. Therefore it is you who is being the impolite one.

And as has been said, if a member of the Railway Staff asks for your ticket then you are legally obliged to give it to them.
As you well know!!

You are absolutely correct. I'd never advocate refusal to hand over a ticket for inspection.

In the context of this thread, if a season ticket had been inspected already and I was asked to hand it over, I would. After establishing if the intention is to withdraw it and ensuring the correct protocol was to be followed.

From experience as a passenger, there are ticket inspectors who will do things like withdraw a ticket and actively refuse to issue any paperwork. Or withdraw a ticket then fill out a PFN/UFN, giving the reason as "No ticket." Or issue an excess which requires the ticket that they have withdrawn to validate it. The vast majority will do the correct thing, but I happen to experience a few that don't. Semper paratus and all that.

For those who inspectors who refuse to issue any paperwork, they are then creating a situation where the passenger is travelling without any valid authority to do so. It's illegal for the passenger to do this, but not something the ticket inspector has to care less about. That when issues with barrier staff and inspectors further down the line happen and the passenger doesn't have a leg to stand on. Given the passenger is responsible for everything ticketwise nowadays, it is important to establish that you are not being made to break the law when handing over a ticket for withdrawal.

I don't think any TOC would prosecute a passenger who refused to hand over a ticket for withdrawal because their colleague refused to do the necessary paperwork. The TOCs all agreed to Condition 20 of the NRCoC - it's part of their franchise agreement.

As for politeness, I should have qualified that with the manner in which one speaks. No raised voices, sarcastic intonation etc. I don't think there are any moral vices with discontinuing a conversation of this nature - some people dislike arguing with someone who is wrong and demonstrates a refusal to budge from that. At best, it is a pointless excercise which is unlikely to end well.

 

[TheEdge]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)

Tickets remain the property of the relevant Train Company.

What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

 

[Tibbs]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)



What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

We need some consistency here - at the start you've said that if you came across someone like RJ who had a ticket that your gut told you wasn't valid you would throw them off the train, and later on you say you'd give them the benefit of the doubt. Which is it?

 

[WelshBluebird]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)

The way I have read RJ's posts, it reads to me like he is willing to hand over the ticket for it to be checked. But if the member of staff after checking and handing it back, then wants to confiscate it without following the correct procedure, then RJ will refuse to hand it back over.

Also if something "screams invalid" to you, that does not mean it is invalid, and to throw someone off the train for just that reason is simply wrong. Part of your job is to deal with ticketing issues. Sorry if you do not like it.

What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

The thing is, there are procedures in place to deal with routing issues when you are not sure of them. And if you do not follow them, then you are not doing your job correctly. Confiscating a ticket from a passenger because you do not think it is valid and then not giving any paperwork etc to the passenger for them to finish their journey is not following procedure.

No one is expected staff to memorise loopholes etc. But what we do expect is that the correct procedures are followed, and the ToC's and staff stick to the NRCoC (as us passengers also have to).

 

[island]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)



What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

He has said that he is perfectly willing to allow the withdrawal of his ticket as long as the correct procedure is followed, which incorporates giving him a zero fare excess to allow him continue his journey.

 

[RJ]

What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I'm railway staff too, have been on and off since 2010! You make a fair point and I explained how I would deal with it in an earlier post "As someone who has inspected tickets, I think the best method to proceed is a discreet noting down of the ticket for investigation out of public view, followed by a cross check of validity with National Rail Enquires and the National Routeing Guide. Any ticket inspectors who feel they are knowledgeable enough to challenge an unfamiliar ticket should at the very least know how to check the validity themselves, giving the customer the benefit of the doubt until they do."

So I completely agree with and respect what you say here. Being able to give the BOTD in these circumstances is a virtuous quality and I only wish this extended to all ticket inspectors.

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)

I wouldn't ever refuse to hand over a ticket for inspection. If it's just for inspection, no problem. If it's for withdrawal, I will hand it over after establishing that I will be given the receipt I'm entitled to.

From experience, I've had valid tickets withdrawn by guards and RPOs. I have then been completely refused any sort of paperwork and been forced to continue with no valid ticket. I've then had issues at gatelines and with guards on trains later on in the journey. It's not a nice experience and one which I won't allow to be repeated!

As for killing the conversation, I stand by this advice. The passenger has done their bit by presenting a valid ticket and explaining it/showing relevant paperwork once. I've done this, even when the inspector rolls up their eyes or sticks their fingers in their ears for the duration of my explanation.

Ultimately, arguing against a ticket inspector who has made their mind up is being difficult. Making your point once then not arguing is also being difficult. Might as well save your breath!

 

[jon0844]

I'd never hand over a ticket without being given something as a receipt.

Why would anyone? At least if they knew about the possible consequences of doing so, such as Byelaw 18 prosecution and a hefty three-figure sum to settle out of court.

It's madness that any member of staff would EVER think it okay to confiscate a ticket without giving a receipt. It might not technically be theft, but I'd still think of it as theft, as would most people.

 

[soil]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

What, like holding the whole train up while you find someone to kick him off? :roll:

 

[jon0844]

Best call for an armed response unit, as I've heard RJ is often carrying weapons.

 

[LowLevel]

If I came across RJ on my train and did that sort of thing to me I would very politely have him removed from the train. It would scream invalid ticket to me and as a conductor I have more important things to be doing than arguing the validity of a ticket.

As said if an inspector requests to see a ticket we can remove it from wallets and do want we want to it (within reason)



What some people on this forum need to remember is we as railstaff do not memorise the routeing guide. The vast vast majority of passengers travel their journey in the simplest A-B route on a single ticket. The minority that do split/use loopholes/alternate routes use ones that are well known to staff in that area. That means when people do turn up with the exceedingly obscure loopholes we don't know them.

Some will give the benefit of doubt, personally I will give benefit of the doubt the first time I come across one but will go and find out for the future the facts. But some do try to come down on them like a ton of bricks.

Regrettably, the TOCs as a whole choose to use this ridiculous system. As an employee you are caught in the crossfire. Therefore unfortunately you have to live with it no matter how difficult it makes things for you. Either sort it out properly, intricacies or otherwise or don't take it personally, walk away and leave it.

 

[DarloRich]

If challenge continues, I'd state "If you aren't prepared to listen to me, this is not a two way conversation. As such you don't require me to be a part of this conversation." This would be followed by me donning my headphones and going about my business. As they say, not much point in arguing with a brick wall. I'd continue listening to music until said individual either goes away or indicates that they are prepared to handle the situation in a civilised and professional manner.

With the greatest of respect is it any wonder you encounter difficulties? Were you to do that to me in any walk of life I would consider you, at best, to be an ill mannered and immature individual.

Such behavior will do nothing to diffuse a situation, rather in many cases it will simply exacerbate it! Perhaps that is your goal? Your politeness or otherwise is immaterial. Such actions are by their very nature not polite! Your very actions suggest arrogance, childishness and an unwillingness to behave "correctly" and interact with others who may lack your detailed knowledge.

I would never encourage such behavior - my suggestion based on the conflict resolution training and influencing other people training ( yes it really is called that! :roll would be to engage with the conductor throughout, explaining politely why the routing is valid and pointing out that if they have an issue with the ticket the correct procedure should be followed in deal with the "issue"

I will now stand by to receive abuse

 

[RJ]

With the greatest of respect is it any wonder you encounter difficulties? Were you to do that to me in any walk of life I would consider you, at best, to be an ill mannered and immature individual.

Such behavior will do nothing to diffuse a situation, rather in many cases it will simply exacerbate it! Perhaps that is your goal? Your politeness or otherwise is immaterial. Such actions are by their very nature not polite! Your very actions suggest arrogance, childishness and an unwillingness to behave "correctly" and interact with others who may lack your detailed knowledge.

I would never encourage such behavior - my suggestion based on the conflict resolution training and influencing other people training ( yes it really is called that! :roll would be to engage with the conductor throughout, explaining politely why the routing is valid and pointing out that if they have an issue with the ticket the correct procedure should be followed in deal with the "issue"

I will now stand by to receive abuse

You make a fair point and I shouldn't think that you will get any abusive responses. In the past, I have tried conversing with inspectors until I'm blue in the face. Those who have made their mind up and decided I have nothing to say worth listening to get frustrated with me. Anything can happen after that point.

I've been asked why I don't accept what I've been told by a professional with xx years experience. I've been accused of attempting to bamboozle them. One asked if I was autistic when I showed them the National Routeing Guide. I've been told that I'm arrogant for not conceding that I'm wrong. One guard who actually got £74 out of me (in RTVs + £1 cash, I just wanted her to go away) called me sad for reading the NRCoC and researching tickets. She also said she wasn't in the slightest bit interested in hearing about tickets and that the police would be waiting if I didn't buy a new ticket.

This is all usually after I've been told to put away my copy of the NRCoC, Routeing Guide, printouts from their website and everything else I've tried to support my explanations. Supposedly, none of them have any relevance to the validity of tickets. Some do phone a friend to check - usually someone else who is guessing. If they also disagree with me, I have next to no chance of being given a break.

Being persistent sometimes culminates in the BTP being called, announcements being made over the tannoy drawing attention to me and flustered attempts to get other staff at principal stations to intervene.

In many cases, one explanation has been enough for the ticket inspector. I do exactly the same thing every time, but not all ticket inspectors deal with it the same way. Some are very professional and intrigued, whilst others give the benefit of the doubt. I have enough experience to recognise when the situation has the potential to turn into a farce, so I would encourage people to take action to prevent that.

Even as someone who hates arguing with people, it's not like I haven't tried everything possible to convince them in the past. Many times, it has gotten me nowhere. For this reason, I now go with saying as little as necessary. It works too. I stand by this advice, although I understand why people will object to the idea.

 

[VauxhallandI]

If it is a validity of a ticket that is being questioned why would the inspector feel the need to hold it if they were not intending of confiscating it?