Forced to pay twice due to issues with ticket machine

[Starmill]

If this has come up on here you can guarantee it's happened to lots of others

I think there's little doubt - this is isn't an isolated incident. If banks made this kind of error the regulator would probably insist that firms try to run through records to trace any affected customers, and reverse transactions or write to them asking them to get in touch if they may have been overcharged.

 

[Haywain]

there needs to be an absolute prohibition on issuing permission to travel without evidence.

In this case, the OP had evidence of their booking, and the receipt of the tickets is a known problem. What more evidence is needed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In this case, the OP had evidence of their booking, and the receipt of the tickets is a known problem. What more evidence is needed?

The OP had something that is not normally allowed for travel, and the inspectors had not heard of or had forgotten about the known problem.

This would have resolved by an industry-wide "permission slip" which they could not mistake.

To be honest it'd also have been resolved by these being issued as e-tickets and not ToD - ToD causes loads of issues - but it is a problem in other contexts too.

 

[Starmill]

The OP had something that is not normally allowed for travel, and the inspectors had not heard of or had forgotten about the known problem.

This would have resolved by an industry-wide "permission slip" which they could not mistake.

To be honest it'd also have been resolved by these being issued as e-tickets and not ToD - ToD causes loads of issues - but it is a problem in other contexts too.

To be fair while the principle is sound it should also have been easy to resolve by TPE getting their briefing right. The fact that something as basic as that is going wrong is really worrying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair while the principle is sound it should also have been easy to resolve by TPE getting their briefing right. The fact that something as basic as that is going wrong is really worrying.

Yes, also true - this isn't a guard letting someone travel, it's a TOC-wide problem.

 

[RPI]

Overwhelming evidence was produced that a contract for travel was in place. This wasn't accepted, and as a result that contract was breached. Therefore it was an unlawful action. It wasn't a crime but that doesn't mean it wasn't a breach of the contract.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==


Are you certain? Or could they be doing what their company policy says?

It's not as if allowing travel with only a collection reference never happens.

But ultimately, and apologies for the pedantry, a valid ticket was not produced, so the inspector has not acted unlawfully.

Again, I stand by my view that the two first staff could and should have done more by some form of written endorsement which would have taken a few seconds to do and save all of the hassle for any other staff and most importantly the customer, its basic stuff, nearly 20 years I've worked in Revenue protection and one of the first things I learnt and tell new recruits is that if you allow travel for whatever reason, whether advance on wrong train or whatever, you give a written endorsement either on the back of the ticket, blank ticket or back on track or even an endorsed zero-fare ticket, provided there is evidence of purchase.

I said before that the inspector could have done more and wouldn't have taken much to make a few enquiries and use their professional judgment in the situation, but all three members of staff could and should have done more.

 

[Wolfie]

But ultimately, and apologies for the pedantry, a valid ticket was not produced, so the inspector has not acted unlawfully.

Again, I stand by my view that the two first staff could and should have done more by some form of written endorsement which would have taken a few seconds to do and save all of the hassle for any other staff and most importantly the customer, its basic stuff, nearly 20 years I've worked in Revenue protection and one of the first things I learnt and tell new recruits is that if you allow travel for whatever reason, whether advance on wrong train or whatever, you give a written endorsement either on the back of the ticket, blank ticket or back on track or even an endorsed zero-fare ticket, provided there is evidence of purchase.

I said before that the inspector could have done more and wouldn't have taken much to make a few enquiries and use their professional judgment in the situation, but all three members of staff could and should have done more.

Re your last para, given your proceeding text that is difficult to argue with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But ultimately, and apologies for the pedantry, a valid ticket was not produced, so the inspector has not acted unlawfully.

As an individual no, but there is potentially breach of contract by Northern in this case. (They have a contract with TPE for TPE to inspect their tickets, so TPE are an agent of Northern in this action).

 

[RPI]

As an individual no, but there is potentially breach of contract by Northern in this case. (They have a contract with TPE for TPE to inspect their tickets, so TPE are an agent of Northern in this action).

Agreed, but the post stated that the staff acted unlawfully, the issue is the chain of events that led to the confrontation

 

[yorkie]

.... However, when I got to Carlisle, revenue staff (from Transpennine Express) were at the exit. They were quite confrontational and wanted to know why I hadn't gone to the ticket office. I explained that I had been advised not to but they then accused me of not leaving enough time between arriving at the station and getting on the train (which isn't true - I got there twenty minutes beforehand and spent most of that time trying to collect my tickets from the machines),..

TPE are in the wrong here and need to provide not only a refund but a suitably worded apology as well as compensation for any time spent dealing with the matter as a minimum, and perhaps more for false accusations and any stress caused.

Unfortunately a small but vocal and highly visible minority of railway staff who check tickets do not understand the job they are supposed to do, nor do they understand how to behave. If I behaved that way in my job, I'd expect to be sacked, but it appears to be deemed acceptable in the rail industry so I doubt they will be dealt with appropriately but you should make a complaint anyway.

But ultimately, and apologies for the pedantry, a valid ticket was not produced, so the inspector has not acted unlawfully.

The inspector did act unlawfully.

Clearly training in the rail industry needs to be improved considerably; of course I've been saying that for years and it never is...

 

[Starmill]

As an individual no, but there is potentially breach of contract by Northern in this case. (They have a contract with TPE for TPE to inspect their tickets, so TPE are an agent of Northern in this action).

A breach of contract is, by definition, unlawful. If it is a lawful charge it's not going to breach the contract. On the facts as described it's an unlawful charge. And a breach of contract. That's really all there is to it.

It's not unlawful in some way connected with fare evasion. It is unlawful in exactly the same way that if you buy a ticket for a theatre or commission a building company to fit your new kitchen, they cannot change their quoted price for your work after they've already completed the job, save where this is in accordance with the original contract. In this case the price of the journey was £1, but then, after paying and completing the journey, with no choice in the matter and with no recourse to the original contract, unanimously changed to £19.

It's not going to be Mx T Inspector who is on the hook, it's going to be the company. But that's really neither here nor there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==

I stand by my view that the two first staff could and should have done more

That may be your view and you're 100% entitled to it. But if it's not the view of the line manager of the staff in question, what does it matter?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==

I learnt and tell new recruits is that if you allow travel for whatever reason, whether advance on wrong train or whatever, you give a written endorsement either on the back of the ticket, blank ticket or back on track or even an endorsed zero-fare ticket, provided there is evidence of purchase.

Again, that's your experience. And I would in no way disagree with that. However, that may or may not be Northern's practice. You don't know that it is. And there is evidence that it isn't.

Your practice may even be considered as best practice. Again I wouldn't disagree. But that doesn't mean that it's the current practice universally.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2021 ==

the issue is the chain of events that led to the confrontation

The chain of events was that some companies have a policy of permitting travel on collection references in certain situations. It may not be best practice but it is also not rare.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

As Northern know there is an issue with these tickets and have told staff to allow travel on the reference then is that not authorised permission to travel regardless of any advice from staff on the platform or guard on the train. TPE staff at Carlisle doing the revenue block are in effect acting as agents for Northern so certainly should have known about the issue and therefore have just waved the OP through.

What I can't decide is who I think I would be complaining to if it were me in this position.TPE as it was their staff, or Northern as that is who my contract was with.

 

[Haywain]

What I can't decide is who I think I would be complaining to if it were me in this position.TPE as it was their staff, or Northern as that is who my contract was with.

Both.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Both.

Indeed, both does seem a good idea, my only concern there is who would I expect to give me my money back.
In principle, given that the journey was Northern only I would expect that the money was handed to them by TPE.

 

[Bertie the bus]

No, the issue is definitely with the revenue staff and their attitude.

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. I have had so many issues with TPE gateline staff, I even stopped using Manchester Airport station at one point, that I would say the issue is with TPE the company. Their revenue staff are by far the worst on the network in my experience.