Guardian article: Passenger failed to show railcard, opinons?

[gray1404]

I do not believe the Train Manager can prevent a customer of alighting at the next station. In the same way, the customer could have insisted on only paying the fare to that station. However, we do not know at what point in the journey the ticket check took place and what the next stopping point on the train was.

I wonder if there is some merit, given the customer did in fact find their railcard, in a refund request on the new ticket they had to buy on the train.

 

[tsr]

You wouldn't complete a TIR in these circumstances. TIRs are generally for suspect tickets (fake, or perhaps a ticket issuing error), suspicions of fraudulent travel, abuse of staff travel facilities, and things like that.

The UFN is quite sufficient for a passenger with no railcard where there is nothing dishonest or warranting investigation.

A TIR is simply a report of something "weird", it isn't anything that in itself conveys any authority or binds the customer to pay a fare.

To be fair, one or two TOCs don't use UFNs/UPFNs at all, and use TIRs for both purposes. Essentially the same office will deal with "can't pay/won't pay", "disputed payment", "invoicing for payment" and any other permutation of a passenger not having bought a ticket when alleged to be required to. I can't comment on Virgin though.

 

[rdwarr]

Let us not forget we have heard only one side of the story and that from someone who is seeking to recover £400.

Having read the thread, the story now has more sides than a heptacontakaidigon.

 

[Phil.]

I do not believe the Train Manager can prevent a customer of alighting at the next station. In the same way, the customer could have insisted on only paying the fare to that station. However, we do not know at what point in the journey the ticket check took place and what the next stopping point on the train was.

I wonder if there is some merit, given the customer did in fact find their railcard, in a refund request on the new ticket they had to buy on the train.

Well that's what I said and any customer focussed company worth their salt should have done it.
They weren't ticketless and they weren't - proven by the discovery of the railcard - fiddling.

The problem with paying the difference is that it is an open invitation to try it on, because the worst that can happen if you are caught is that you pay what you would have paid anyway.

The problem is that it's disproportionate if you charge a new Anytime fare.

That's why my view is that ticketing irregularities should, provided actual fraud is not suspected, be dealt with with a fixed Penalty Fare in all instances plus the appropriate fare or fare difference. Perhaps around £40-£50 per person plus the difference in this case.

So what's the problem? The TOC have got all the money that's due, the passenger hasn't been made to feel that they've been twice punished.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well that's what I said and any customer focussed company worth their salt should have done it.
They weren't ticketless and they weren't - proven by the discovery of the railcard - fiddling.

Presenting a railcard at a later date doesn't prove anything, if you think about it.

I agree the customer should be reimbursed if only in the name of maintaining goodwill.

 

[island]

The guard treated them more leniently than he needed to. Failing to present a Railcard with a discounted ticket normally results in the sale of a new ticket, but the passengers were "only" asked for the excess to an FOS of £237.50, and allowed credit for the amount paid.

 

[fowler9]

I think good customer service and good publicity would have been to charge the difference and give it back when proof of a valid railcard was provided. I get that that might not be the rules but I think it is fair. However rules are rules. Letting everyone off may result in everyone trying it on and would cost a surprisingly large amount in administration), if only everyone was honest.

During my years of working in complaints I have been told how much every letter I produced telling the customer they were in the wrong cost the company and that it was just passed on to the customer in the long run.

 

[richw]

Because the person concerned found their railcard afterwards. That should have triggered a refund from Virgin. This is another example that makes a case for at least charging the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid. The TOC has then received the full fare and lost nothing. Cancelling a ticket and making someone pay the full walk-on is having their cake and eating it.

The person found, or their friend elsewhere on the train gave it back? Something doesn't add up specially when they have a photo to hand of it

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The person found, or their friend elsewhere on the train gave it back? Something doesn't add up specially when they have a photo to hand of it

That's my reading of the story too.

We all mislay things from time to time, including in the restricted environment of travelling in a seat on a train, but it is exceptional to claim to have lost something important and valuable in that limited space, but, simultaneously, to be able to show a 'photo' of what has been lost.

 

[maniacmartin]

Why would the passenger happen to be carrying a photo of the railcard in the first place? Its not something I've ever heard of anyone doing before

 

[fowler9]

When I went off round the world for 7 months I carried loads of photos of various documents. I was advised to do so, I can't remember where. Ha ha.

 

[bb21]

Oh you cynical lot.

While it may be the case that the TM was technically correct, I can't help but feel that these are the kind of cases which on the face of it looks quite unreasonable to any average Joe and do not do anything to help improve the image of the industry - inflexible, greedy, no compassion - especially given the amount involved in this particular case.

There must be a better way to approach matters like this. For example, customer produces ID, details taken, Customer Services then give up to a maximum of two/three such refunds. No ID, no refunds, and almost all genuine punters will produce ID. It may increase admin by a bit but would be money well spent on something which can do much to improve the reputation the industry has. There are of course other ways but above is just an example.

 

[sheff1]

There must be a better way to approach matters like this. For example, customer produces ID, details taken, Customer Services then give up to a maximum of two/three such refunds. No ID, no refunds, and almost all genuine punters will produce ID.

I know you said almost all, but I wonder how true that is.

I suppose it depends what you mean by ID. If I lost/mislaid my railcard when travelling, the only 'ID' I would have would be a bank card. Certainly nothing with my photo or address on ... and I have no intention of carrying my passport around, as loss of that would be far more hassle than loss of the railcard.

 

[bb21]

I know you said almost all, but I wonder how true that is.

I suppose it depends what you mean by ID. If I lost/mislaid my railcard when travelling, the only 'ID' I would have would be a bank card. Certainly nothing with my photo or address on ... and I have no intention of carrying my passport around, as loss of that would be far more hassle than loss of the railcard.

It won't be everyone, and no system will be perfect, but most people will have some sort of photo ID with them if going a fair distance away. There is a whole array of them out there. Even not, there is a whole array of other non-photo IDs, and failing that, many of the remainder will have addresses that check out. You aren't going to be left with many who cannot fulfil any of the above. There will be some, but I doubt many, perhaps a significant minority. As I said, it won't be perfect. It is simply an additional service offered by the TOCs. If people wish to make use of it, they can make small adjustments in order to avail themselves of this offer.

Such a refund scheme is only really intended to be of most use when travelling long distances. Those going on a short trip would be wasting their 2/3 chances if refunding a £5 fare, and would be best advised not to even bother.

Obviously these are just ideas, a long way from implementation, which would require more refinement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While we seem to be moving away from smartcards, to me one solution is that Railcards are issued as ITSO smartcards, and the only way discounted tickets can be issued is electronically on that smartcard. No potential for any misuse of this nature then, and if you haven't got your Railcard you haven't got the ticket either so must clearly be dealt with as holding no ticket.

 

[Richard_B]

While we seem to be moving away from smartcards, to me one solution is that Railcards are issued as ITSO smartcards, and the only way discounted tickets can be issued is electronically on that smartcard. No potential for any misuse of this nature then, and if you haven't got your Railcard you haven't got the ticket either so must clearly be dealt with as holding no ticket.

This is a good idea as tickets move to smart card type.

My take on the initial incident is that the customer is being somewhat cheeky but probably doesn't realise it. They were travelling with a ticket that had a railcard applied. It is very clear in the T&Cs that the ticket is not valid unless railcard is shown. Therefore they didn't produce a valid ticket. Open and shut. So they have to buy a new one. Then after the infraction they ask for their money back as they claim to have just misplaced it. Quite acceptable to ask, and Virgin quite acceptable to decline. It might be considered excellent customer service but given that the guard already gave them a reduced cost on the valid ticket they have already had a refund in effect from the to the letter interpretation. They broke the rules. The rules are easily available. Learn from it.

 

[gray1404]

I do think a similar concession to that given to season ticket holders would be helpful. So if a customer forget their railcard twice within a 12 month period they could have their PF cancelled or additional ticket refunded upon submitting a copy of their railcard. The beauty with only being allowed to do it twice within a 12 month period is that people would not be able to do it often and it would, of course, be best to keep as a back up for if one was making a longer (more expensive) trip in case they lost their railcard.

I do think that the above facility granted to season ticket holders up to twice a year, should also be extend to persons holding concessionary travel passes and PTE issued passes which are valid on trains. It is always a concern of mine that I would get a PF on Merseyrail if I had mislaid my concessionary pass. I am not saying I would by any means take advantage of having two chances a year to have it cancelled, but it would give some peace of mind.

 

[Flying Snail]

While we seem to be moving away from smartcards, to me one solution is that Railcards are issued as ITSO smartcards, and the only way discounted tickets can be issued is electronically on that smartcard. No potential for any misuse of this nature then, and if you haven't got your Railcard you haven't got the ticket either so must clearly be dealt with as holding no ticket.

I agree this would be the ideal resolution for this, not something doable in the short term though unfortunately.

How about a similar system to seasons with the railcard ID number needing to be printed on the ticket? At least then for genuine cases the railcard, original ticket and replacement can be verified as belonging to the same passenger. Allow a single application for refund per mislaid railcard along with a complimentary ticket wallet and a strongly worded letter suggesting they keep railcard and tickets together at all times.

 

[najaB]

I do think that the above facility granted to season ticket holders up to twice a year, should also be extend to persons holding concessionary travel passes and PTE issued passes which are valid on trains.

Bear in mind - there is no automatic right to a refund for season ticket holders.

 

[35B]

While we seem to be moving away from smartcards, to me one solution is that Railcards are issued as ITSO smartcards, and the only way discounted tickets can be issued is electronically on that smartcard. No potential for any misuse of this nature then, and if you haven't got your Railcard you haven't got the ticket either so must clearly be dealt with as holding no ticket.

Be interesting to try to do that with Family Railcard given two holders and one card. It also raises interesting questions for how customers get tickets onto their cards when booking online, let alone the customer friendliness of relying on something stored in a card when things like reservations are considered.

I prefer the idea that there are terms and conditions, with provisions if they are not adhered to - more or less as today.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh you cynical lot.

While it may be the case that the TM was technically correct, I can't help but feel that these are the kind of cases which on the face of it looks quite unreasonable to any average Joe and do not do anything to help improve the image of the industry - inflexible, greedy, no compassion - especially given the amount involved in this particular case.

There must be a better way to approach matters like this. For example, customer produces ID, details taken, Customer Services then give up to a maximum of two/three such refunds. No ID, no refunds, and almost all genuine punters will produce ID. It may increase admin by a bit but would be money well spent on something which can do much to improve the reputation the industry has. There are of course other ways but above is just an example.

CrossCountry operate exactly such a scheme, on one occasion only.

 

[Bletchleyite]

CrossCountry operate exactly such a scheme, on one occasion only.

For Railcards? Most TOCs do it for season tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree this would be the ideal resolution for this, not something doable in the short term though unfortunately.

How about a similar system to seasons with the railcard ID number needing to be printed on the ticket? At least then for genuine cases the railcard, original ticket and replacement can be verified as belonging to the same passenger. Allow a single application for refund per mislaid railcard along with a complimentary ticket wallet and a strongly worded letter suggesting they keep railcard and tickets together at all times.

That might also work, though it would reduce the flexibility a bit as you'd need to have the railcard at the time of purchase, not just the time of use.

 

[rs101]

Why not print the name (or at least surname) of the customer on both the disabled railcard and any tickets purchased using it? That would greatly reduce the possibility of misuse.

I have to agree with most of the other commenters - Virgin appear to have acted within the letter of legislation, but not show good customer service skills.

 

[najaB]

That might also work, though it would reduce the flexibility a bit as you'd need to have the railcard at the time of purchase, not just the time of use.

It would make TVM and online purchases consistent with those at ticket offices.

Perhaps then an 'I do not have my railcard' option during the purchase process which (a) presents a clear and unambiguous warning message saying that the railcard is required in order to travel; and (b) prints a message on the ticket to the effect of 'Customer advised of requirements' in the field that would normally contain the railcard number.

 

[richw]

Why not print the name (or at least surname) of the customer on both the disabled railcard and any tickets purchased using it? That would greatly reduce the possibility of misuse.

Two tickets bought separately for the same railcard would get round that. Companion takes the railcard (DSB have no photo) and one ticket and sits apart. Not challenged as railcard and ticket are together.
Holder has their ticket with their name on but no railcard, so now guard verifies person with ticket matches name on ticket, but missing railcard.
I see that opening up more misuse.

 

[AlterEgo]

For Railcards? Most TOCs do it for season tickets.

Yes, for Railcards. I don't think this scheme is published anywhere, but it does exist, and TMs/SCs proactively mention it when charging someone up.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

It's a shame that the customer wasn't given the benefit of the doubt and told to produce their railcard at their nearest Virgin booking office (i.e. home station) within 5- 7 days so that that the excess paid on the train could be refunded. If course, if the customer could not produce the evidence, then they could not apply for a refund and they would have learnt a valuable lesson.

Is that too easy or just naive thinking?

 

[najaB]

Is that too easy or just naive thinking?

Quite often they will, but there's not guarantee.

 

[rs101]

Two tickets bought separately for the same railcard would get round that. Companion takes the railcard (DSB have no photo) and one ticket and sits apart. Not challenged as railcard and ticket are together.
Holder has their ticket with their name on but no railcard, so now guard verifies person with ticket matches name on ticket, but missing railcard.
I see that opening up more misuse.

? I'm not suggesting they accept the ticket without the railcard. Only that it's a simple way of loosely linking the card to the ticket and reducing the potential fraudulent use somewhat.

 

[MikeWh]

While we seem to be moving away from smartcards, to me one solution is that Railcards are issued as ITSO smartcards, and the only way discounted tickets can be issued is electronically on that smartcard. No potential for any misuse of this nature then, and if you haven't got your Railcard you haven't got the ticket either so must clearly be dealt with as holding no ticket.

This would work for 16-25 railcards, and I think Forces.

Network Railcard, Annual Gold Card both allow tickets for up to 4 adults to be discounted, plus several children. I believe senior railcards can also have accomanying (grand)children. Family and Friends Railcards always discount at least two tickets and can currently be issued to two adults. Disabled railcards allow two tickets to be discounted as well. Then there's the two together railcard ...