Explaining a ticket to a conductor

[DarloRich]

@ RJ

I appreciate your position entirely, based as it is, (from what I have read on other threads) on exposure to some shockingly poor customer service and human behaviours and i also agree saying as little as possible is the best course of action. I just cant see how the headphones bit will clam a situation down. Surely that will just makes things worse. Wont that just make your day even more tiresome?

EDIT - there is no easy answer as to how to deal with the stubborn person who wont consider your point of view - when i have encountered such guards in the past i have stuck very politely but very firmly to my guns.

 

[RJ]

@ RJ

I appreciate your position entirely, based as it is, (from what I have read on other threads) on exposure to some shockingly poor customer service and human behaviours and i also agree saying as little as possible is the best course of action. I just cant see how the headphones bit will clam a situation down. Surely that will just makes things worse. Wont that just make your day even more tiresome?

EDIT - there is no easy answer as to how to deal with the stubborn person who wont consider your point of view - when i have encountered such guards in the past i have stuck very politely but very firmly to my guns.

You're right, there is no easy answer. Having been on both sides, what I find is that a ticket inspector can control a situation such as the one in the OP if they follow the correct processes. As soon as they depart from those processes, the power they have over the situation can be dissipated quite rapidly.

Headphones symbolise a physical barrier to communication. An aggressive ticket inspector's power is taken away by this action. What can they do? Walk away, physically apprehend the person or get someone else involved. The latter two are acts of desperation and will almost always backfire if the passenger is right, without the passenger needing to do a thing at the time. This quote sums up how I feel much better than any way I've been able to express myself;

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.

 

[Be3G]

Hmm, on the subject of headphones, isn't it handy that many headphones these days contain microphones for use when connected to smartphones, and that those smartphones contain voice memo apps? Modern technology eh.

 

[DarloRich]

Hmm, on the subject of headphones, isn't it handy that many headphones these days contain microphones for use when connected to smartphones, and that those smartphones contain voice memo apps? Modern technology eh.

which should be admissible as evidence in a civil case

 

[34D]

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.

I would be tempted to ask one of the fares advisors on this forum to double-check your working.

The routeing guide changed massively in Oct 2013, with some further changes this month, so it is best to ensure you are correct first of all (or at least, that another person thinks you are probably correct, notwithstanding the various grey areas).

I appreciate why you may not want to reveal it's details on here, of course.

 

[jon0844]

@ RJ

I appreciate your position entirely, based as it is, (from what I have read on other threads) on exposure to some shockingly poor customer service and human behaviours and i also agree saying as little as possible is the best course of action. I just cant see how the headphones bit will clam a situation down. Surely that will just makes things worse. Wont that just make your day even more tiresome?

EDIT - there is no easy answer as to how to deal with the stubborn person who wont consider your point of view - when i have encountered such guards in the past i have stuck very politely but very firmly to my guns.

I suppose one problem is that over time, all of those incidents get compounded and it's hard to resist just thinking 'I'm sick of this' and 'enough is enough', leading to behaviour that can seem rather out of place or over the top when looked upon in its own right.

I'm sure a lot of people might start of being polite and compliant, but would gradually get one step closer to a 'Falling Down' moment.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I would be tempted to ask one of the fares advisors on this forum to double-check your working.

The routeing guide changed massively in Oct 2013, with some further changes this month, so it is best to ensure you are correct first of all (or at least, that another person thinks you are probably correct, notwithstanding the various grey areas).

I appreciate why you may not want to reveal it's details on here, of course.

I tried to find a new copy of the NRCoC and Routing Guide as I carry them with me.

I couldn't find any updated issues.

I have read that many routing guide maps have changed but has Section E changed? 3 mile rule, I doubt it but always could to ask.

 

[bb21]

Section E - Easements has changed a number of times recently. Which version do you have?

The 3-mile rule hasn't changed.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Section E - Easements has changed a number of times recently. Which version do you have?

The 3-mile rule hasn't changed.

I could see a date on the NRCOC but not in the Routing Guide iirc, it is in my bag and I am in bed at the mo

 

[34D]

Section E - Easements has changed a number of times recently. Which version do you have?

The 3-mile rule hasn't changed.

Arguably, doesn't the 3-mile rule need to be validated by the journey planner? Given that 'shortest route' is in NRCOC but the three mile rule is only in the RG?

 

[John @ home]

doesn't the 3-mile rule need to be validated by the journey planner?

No.

Journeys on direct trains or taking the route of shortest distance or a distance longer by no more than 3 miles are always following a permitted route.

http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/RSPDocuments/nrg_detail.pdf

(My emphasis)

 

[VauxhallandI]

No.
(My emphasis)

Agree, it is specifically qualified in the RG

 

[Paule23]

@ RJ, I have a genuine question, are you ever wrong in your ticket loopholes or are there sometimes areas of ambiguity or interpretation? I come from a standpoint of not understanding the routing guide (even after using this forum and various instructions) so this is a question asked with no agenda or knowledge. I ask as you are always 100% convinced of the validity of your tickets, is there ever an instance where you have interpreted a rule one way but that interpretation is open to challenge and question. I accept you are constantly harassed by people who do not seem to know what they are talking about and are affronted by the fact you exploit a loophole that their TOC(s) did not think about and have not closed, but following all the appeals where sometimes they continually find against you, do you ever doubt your position? I come from a world where, although there are hard and fast rules, there are also areas of interpretation and doubt, and whilst I appreciate in these cases you should always be given the benefit of the doubt until such ambiguity is eliminated in routing guides, do you ever have doubts yourself over the validity of certain routes or understand why TOCs and appeals processes find against you?

I hope you do not find the question offensive, I love I hearing your stories and cannot wait for the well trailed blog.

 

[VauxhallandI]

@ RJ, I have a genuine question, are you ever wrong in your ticket loopholes or are there sometimes areas of ambiguity or interpretation? I come from a standpoint of not understanding the routing guide (even after using this forum and various instructions) so this is a question asked with no agenda or knowledge. I ask as you are always 100% convinced of the validity of your tickets, is there ever an instance where you have interpreted a rule one way but that interpretation is open to challenge and question. I accept you are constantly harassed by people who do not seem to know what they are talking about and are affronted by the fact you exploit a loophole that their TOC(s) did not think about and have not closed, but following all the appeals where sometimes they continually find against you, do you ever doubt your position? I come from a world where, although there are hard and fast rules, there are also areas of interpretation and doubt, and whilst I appreciate in these cases you should always be given the benefit of the doubt until such ambiguity is eliminated in routing guides, do you ever have doubts yourself over the validity of certain routes or understand why TOCs and appeals processes find against you?

I hope you do not find the question offensive, I love I hearing your stories and cannot wait for the well trailed blog.

I too struggle with the Routing Guide, after a couple of attempts! I haven't properly sat down with it but I find it surprising/frustrating I don't get it off the cuff.

So what I am saying is, you're not alone!

 

[185143]

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.

I've done that before! If this happens, watch the guard's face, It was priceless!

 

[RJ]

@ RJ, I have a genuine question, are you ever wrong in your ticket loopholes or are there sometimes areas of ambiguity or interpretation? I come from a standpoint of not understanding the routing guide (even after using this forum and various instructions) so this is a question asked with no agenda or knowledge. I ask as you are always 100% convinced of the validity of your tickets, is there ever an instance where you have interpreted a rule one way but that interpretation is open to challenge and question. I accept you are constantly harassed by people who do not seem to know what they are talking about and are affronted by the fact you exploit a loophole that their TOC(s) did not think about and have not closed, but following all the appeals where sometimes they continually find against you, do you ever doubt your position? I come from a world where, although there are hard and fast rules, there are also areas of interpretation and doubt, and whilst I appreciate in these cases you should always be given the benefit of the doubt until such ambiguity is eliminated in routing guides, do you ever have doubts yourself over the validity of certain routes or understand why TOCs and appeals processes find against you?

I hope you do not find the question offensive, I love I hearing your stories and cannot wait for the well trailed blog.

Once in a blue moon I make a mistake. I'd pay up without any fuss if a professional explained why I what I explained to them was wrong, if I genuinely believed I was right. I've yet to have a vaguely reasoned response from an inspector who was adamant that their hunch was correct.

It happened once 2 or 3 years ago. I used a ticket that was valid at my origin and destination. The gateline assistant who wouldn't let me leave the station was wrong for saying the ticket wasn't valid at the station or anywhere for miles. However, I had used a train which ran over a curve which I hadn't realised was not on the NRG maps - a one mile detour was required. So his asserting that the ticket wasn't valid was right, but for completely the wrong reasons.

After assistance from a NRG proficient friend over the phone, I paid the fare at the time. Never happened again.

 

[Muzer]

On that subject, sometimes it's rather difficult to work out where the routes on the routeing guide maps actually take you, due to sometimes lacking intermediate place names and there being more than one possibility...

Do you/did you before the NRE change ever use tickets where the RG is ambiguous (on any matter) so the validity could be interpreted either way? I can see that if it went all the way to court, you could probably argue that because it was ambiguous you should not be prosecuted. But on the other hand, it'd be much safer to always use the "definitely valid" tickets. Then again, I remember TILBURY EXCL FERRY

 

[GodAtum]

Maybe if you go to a fares workshop you should get a certificate you can show the guard to let them know you are qualified in talking about tickets lol.

 

[SETCommuter]

So, one month on - almost to the day, I see the only conductor who so far has been the only one to take offence to my ticket. He looked at it and mumbled something. Once again I politely offered to show him the paperwork and the routeing guide rules but he simply said:

"You're fare evading and committing fraud"

I told him to retract that statement unless he had evidence to prove it and once again I offered to explain how the ticket was valid. His response:

"I don't need to see the paperwork as I know I'm right"

I've had enough of him now. From now on I do not intend to engage in conversation with him or to offer to explain to him why my ticket is valid. If I see him again and he says anything about me fare dodging or committing fraud, I shall simply report him to SouthEastern, request his details and then begin a private lawsuit against him for slander.

To clarify - not one other conductor has queried the ticket and one even complimented me on working it out and saving money so it really is this one employee who decides the ticket is not valid and who won't even engage in conversation with me.

 

[ValleyLines142]

I've had enough of him now. From now on I do not intend to engage in conversation with him or to offer to explain to him why my ticket is valid. If I see him again and he says anything about me fare dodging or committing fraud, I shall simply report him to SouthEastern, request his details and then begin a private lawsuit against him for slander.

Definitely. Sounds like it's getting beyond a joke now.

And what he said about: "I don't need to see the paperwork as I know I'm right" is an absolutely disgusting attitude. What a letdown to Southeastern for having such a rude, arrogant conductor.

It's really not fair on you to have to deal with that. I've had similar conductors with First Great Western and it really upsets me and makes my blood boil.

 

[Haywain]

I've had enough of him now. From now on I do not intend to engage in conversation with him or to offer to explain to him why my ticket is valid. If I see him again and he says anything about me fare dodging or committing fraud, I shall simply report him to SouthEastern, request his details and then begin a private lawsuit against him for slander.

Southeastern are not going to give you personal details of one of their employees. Be sensible and write to them about the incident so that they can deal with it. Unless of course you don't want to tell them what season ticket you are using, in which case you'll have to live with the occasional staff member being ill informed.

 

[SETCommuter]

you'll have to live with the occasional staff member being ill informed.

You forgot rude, obnoxious, slanderous, ignorant as well as ill-informed

 

[Flamingo]

You forgot rude, obnoxious, slanderous, ignorant as well as ill-informed

Of course, they are a given for any complaint.

Anybody got time to think of a suitable acrynom?

 

[ian959]

Of course, they are a given for any complaint.

Anybody got time to think of a suitable acrynom?

ROSIE? Rude Obnoxious Slanderous Ignorant Employee...

 

[Llanigraham]

You forgot rude, obnoxious, slanderous, ignorant as well as ill-informed

I suggest you look up the legal definition of slander!

 

[island]

I suggest you look up the legal definition of slander!

Indeed, especially the requirement for proof of special damage.

 

[Flamingo]

Southeastern are not going to give you personal details of one of their employees. Be sensible and write to them about the incident so that they can deal with it. Unless of course you don't want to tell them what season ticket you are using, in which case you'll have to live with the occasional staff member being ill informed.

If it is a route that is obscure enough that it involves the OP having to scour the routing guides, double-checking on here, and having to carry information to "prove" it is valid, I would hardly call the staff ill-informed if they are not aware of it.

I think the OP will have to either clarify with the TOC that the route IS valid, or put up with being challenged by staff who have not had the time or inclination to learn the entire routing guide by heart.

(Of course, there is the faint possibility the OP is wrong...)

 

[WelshBluebird]

If it is a route that is obscure enough that it involves the OP having to scour the routing guides, double-checking on here, and having to carry information to "prove" it is valid, I would hardly call the staff ill-informed if they are not aware of it.

I would agree with you if there was other members of staff the poster was having issues with. Of course we only have their side of the story, but if all other members of staff are fine with the ticket, then I would say the member of staff is ill-informed. Also, regardless of how obscure a ticket is, a member of staff should not be conducting themselves in such a manner that they accuse someone of fare evasion and fraud like that. Indeed, I find it quite ironic that the posts here are condemning SETCommuter for accusing the member of staff for being ill-informed, yet seem fine with the member of staff making much more serious accusations to a paying passenger.

 

[maniacmartin]

I carry a letter from a TOC which states that they have consulted their fares team and they believe my season ticket, From X to Y is valid via Z with break of journey.
It's a mapped route and is also the shortest and quickest route by rail. NRE validates it as do many TOC journey planners without entering any via points.

Upon showing this to a specific gateline assistant at Z (on the odd ocasion I want to BOJ there), he always states the ticket is not valid at Z and that the TOC's fares team and all of my other documentation are wrong, and that I will be sorry when RPIs catch me. So I can easily believe SETCommuter's story.

 

[SETCommuter]

I expect to be challenged on the ticket & have no problem with that as I am travelling via the shortest route by rail which isn't necessarily the "quickest" route that most people would take - but that's within the rules of course.

My issue is with the staff member being unwilling to engage in a polite conversation with me where I am happy to explain why I believe the ticket is valid but instead he prefers to say loudly within earshot of other passengers that I am committing a crime.
I'm no legal expert and know little about slander - but I believe that a false accusation of committing a crime could be slanderous.