Left stranded by TPE

[RJ]

Hmmmmm, a certain long distance operator with 4 and 5 car trains also allows undiscounted tickets to be bought on board. It also still prosecutes under byelaw 18... and one such occasion will be failure to produce a railcard with a ticket! If TPE have issued literature to state that they don't, then by all means I'd like to see it!

It's not that I want to give inappropriate advice or make false accusations - but I also don't want to see you come a cropper! In that situation, I'd have approached the Guard at Oxford Rd and told him I was returning to Liverpool to collect my railcard! I'd wager there's a good chance you may not have even been asked to pay an excess.

I note the failure to issue a receipt etc for the tickets held! An interesting training issue there for sure!

Certainly - here's a recent photograph of one of their posters (copyright table38!) http://www.table38.steamrailways.com/images/IMAG1630.jpg

The language used suggests they will prosecute under the RoR but there is no inference of enforcement of Byelaw 18.

I'm always wary of approaching guards in situations where I'm entitled to board the train. When I had a Priv, I approached guards a few times showing my Priv and asking if I could buy a ticket from them - several times I was bounced away from the train, sometimes being told to go and buy a Priv ticket from a TVM and once being told I'd be detrained at the next stop, despite the ticket office at the station where I boarding and approached the guard being shut (7pm Sunday evening at Southampton.) Seeing as staff treated me like that when I was staff, I have less confidence any discretion will be shown to me as a normal passenger.

I did consider looking for the guard, but the train had pulled in a minute or two late and a crowded Northern service towards Liverpool had just deposited all of its passengers on the island platform, so it was impractical and probably impossible for me to go and find the guard.

My advice to any passenger who does not have a valid ticket before joining a train is to speak to the Guard before getting on the train, or to find the Guard immediately when getting on the train and certainly before sitting down. The vast majority of Guards will usually try and help a passenger if the initial approach is made by the passenger. One further thought - do TPE issue 'unpaid fare notices'? This is another way of allowing a passenger to travel and sort out a dispute later by the passenger then appealing the UFN.

The option wasn't offered - the RPO was taking my details so I could be reported for prosecution. The guard wasn't able to keep up with the pace of the situation and was interjecting here and there with one liners. I didn't mind paying for a ticket - things have quietened down elsewhere so I could do with shedding some of my inventory of railway currency anyway.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is true to say that the TOCs operating the journey that the Ops post refers to do have approved Penalty Fares schemes, but is not true to say that ALL the TOCs do so.

Are you sure? TPE aren't a PF TOC neither are Northern Rail.

 

[185]

It was mentioned before that when questioned, TPE stated they operate penalty fares.

This is news to me.

Do they mean they (1) penalise people for boarding minus a ticket, or do they mean they (2) operate in accordance with the UK Railways Penalty Fare Scheme? I suspect they actually meant the former, which means they do not operate such a scheme.

Saving money by having their telephones answered by a FirstGroup central office (FirstInfo) on the south coast may be their problem.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Getting back to basic facts, there is an appalling case here of rules being made up as they go along.

Did RJ offer to buy a ticket when challenged? Yes. Did he offer to pay using an acceptable payment method? Yes. Did the situation only collapse into farce when the RPO refused to accept said acceptable method of payment? Yes. Did the RPO exacerbate the error by confiscating rather than withdrawing the ticket he wasn't happy with having decided to not accept said method of payment? Yes.

The point about rules is that some are absolute, and some are not. The debates some have sidetracked down like passing a ticket office or speaking to the guard are not absolutes, they are open to (mis)interpretation.

But payment being refused, and tickets being confiscated are rules that are absolute. It is not within the discretion of the RPO to not accept the valid payment method being tendered, nor to not replace the ticket being effectively confiscated.

And as for the BTP officer not being aware of the bylaws (s)he is there to enforce, words fail me. "You're nicked, although I don't know under what law I'm acting under" would not be acceptable for a normal police officer, so quite how we have this BTP officer acting this way is astounding. I was under the impression that ignorance of the law was no excuse.....

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[sheff1]

My advice to any passenger who does not have a valid ticket before joining a train is to speak to the Guard before getting on the train, or to find the Guard immediately when getting on the train and certainly before sitting down.

Oh dear, no matter how many times such advice is debunked it still continues to be put forward as a nationwide panacea. Whilst approaching the guard may help in certain situations and on certain parts of the network, it is strongly discouraged in other situations/locations.

In this case, things may have played out more favourably had RJ been able to approach the guard before boarding, but it is also possible that, as the only payment options he had were unacceptable (incorrectly) to the RPO, he might have been refused (again incorrectly) access to the train.

 

[Dave1987]

Getting back to basic facts, there is an appalling case here of rules being made up as they go along.

Did RJ offer to buy a ticket when challenged? Yes. Did he offer to pay using an acceptable payment method? Yes. Did the situation only collapse into farce when the RPO refused to accept said acceptable method of payment? Yes. Did the RPO exacerbate the error by confiscating rather than withdrawing the ticket he wasn't happy with having decided to not accept said method of payment? Yes.

The point about rules is that some are absolute, and some are not. The debates some have sidetracked down like passing a ticket office or speaking to the guard are not absolutes, they are open to (mis)interpretation.

But payment being refused, and tickets being confiscated are rules that are absolute. It is not within the discretion of the RPO to not accept the valid payment method being tendered, nor to not replace the ticket being effectively confiscated.

And as for the BTP officer not being aware of the bylaws (s)he is there to enforce, words fail me. "You're nicked, although I don't know under what law I'm acting under" would not be acceptable for a normal police officer, so quite how we have this BTP officer acting this way is astounding. I was under the impression that ignorance of the law was no excuse.....

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry but the byelaws state purchase a valid ticket before you travel. Not jump on without a ticket then just offer to buy one if you get caught!

 

[sheff1]

Sorry but the byelaws state purchase a valid ticket before you travel. Not jump on without a ticket then just offer to buy one if you get caught!

I thought it had been established that Byelaw 18(3)(ii) applies in this case.

 

[EM2]

RJ did not 'offer to buy' a ticket. The RPO was already willing to sell him an Excess, but not to accept his (valid) payment.

 

[michael769]

Do they mean they (1) penalise people for boarding minus a ticket, or do they mean they (2) operate in accordance with the UK Railways Penalty Fare Scheme? I suspect they actually meant the former, which means they do not operate such a scheme.

Or (3) The call centre operator had no idea what Yorkie was talking about and made something up on the spot.

 

[Dave1987]

RJ did not 'offer to buy' a ticket. The RPO was already willing to sell him an Excess, but not to accept his (valid) payment.

I think the question here is, was the RPO obliged to accept the forms of payment offered by the OP or not.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think the question here is, was the RPO obliged to accept the forms of payment offered by the OP or not.

I believe the RPO was not obliged to accept the forms of payment offered by RJ for the discretionary excess, but was obliged to accept these forms for sale of an Anytime ticket.

 

[W230]

I'm also unimpressed with the British Transport Police. They responded to a call telling them that I was an aggressive fare evader. When it came to it, they could see I was very softly spoken and watched me offer payment to the RPO time and time again - yet decided to side with the RPO who was continuing to claim I had previously been abusive to him. After a barrage of BS, the officer admitted that he wasn't "up" on railway laws, which I could tell from the outset when he claimed that I was legally obliged to give the inspector my DOB under the ROR 1889. All the officer did was cater to the every demand of the ticket inspector and accept everything he said as gospel - then tried to ditch me on the concourse after the TPE train had gone back out. I don't understand why they insisted on staying when they saw I wasn't being aggressive to the man.

This isn't a surprise. BTP will have most likely been asked to attend by the RPI because he told them you were being abusive. As far as BTP will have been concerned their role there was to make sure there was no breach of the peace and that the RPI got the details he required.

Interestingly the officer didn't know that you were not required to give your date of birth (though i'd expect that there are many police officers who would think it is required when serving summons and the like, when it isn't) but took no further action when he wasn't sure. As far as he will have been concerened, this ticketing matter will have been nothing to do with him and the further he could keep away from it the better! I'm not surprised they're not up on ticketing laws though as their role on the railway is a more "crime based" one (ie criminal damage, public order, theft etc- you get the picture!)

 

[RJ]

Sorry but the byelaws state purchase a valid ticket before you travel. Not jump on without a ticket then just offer to buy one if you get caught!

TPE openly advertise that their policy is to sell an undiscounted ticket on board to anyone who boards without a valid ticket. I have posted a link to a poster which confirms this.

In light of this information, can you confirm why Byelaw 18 has any relevance, when I was travelling in line with their advertised policy? Not all TOCs choose to enforce Byelaw 18.

 

[Ferret]

In light of this information, can you confirm why Byelaw 18 has any relevance, when I was travelling in line with their advertised policy? Not all TOCs choose to enforce Byelaw 18.

I'd argue that it doesn't have any real relevance, unless and until TPE write to you with an NIP! Hopefully they won't - although I suspect your RPI has written a scathing TIR :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This isn't a surprise. BTP will have most likely been asked to attend by the RPI because he told them you were being abusive. As far as BTP will have been concerned their role there was to make sure there was no breach of the peace and that the RPI got the details he required.

Interestingly the officer didn't know that you were not required to give your date of birth (though i'd expect that there are many police officers who would think it is required when serving summons and the like, when it isn't) but took no further action when he wasn't sure. As far as he will have been concerened, this ticketing matter will have been nothing to do with him and the further he could keep away from it the better! I'm not surprised they're not up on ticketing laws though as their role on the railway is a more "crime based" one (ie criminal damage, public order, theft etc- you get the picture!)

Some BTP officers are hopeless with railway law. One of my colleagues encountered an officer who had never heard of the RRA, let alone the part about obstruction of railway employees. Another seemed to think that if a suspect gave any old name and address, then there was nothing they could do, regardless of the fact that the name given was Michael E Mouse.:roll:

Some BTP are very good, a significant minority are woeful.

 

[IanXC]

Yes, this is something that perplexed me a little! I've just looked at Avantix and the options it gives me for payment are 'Cash', 'Cheque', 'Warrant' and 'Card'. There is 'other' too, but it won't let me select that. The cheque option then asks for a sort code - is there one on a traveller's cheque?! Can't claim to have seen one of those for many a year - probably when my Dad used to get them for holidays in Spain about 20 years ago!

As maniacmartin said Postal Orders are now issued in a similar fashion to a bankers draft - with a sort code and account number encoded on the bottom.

Sterling Travellers cheques are also issued in the same format, and as I recall some foreign currency travellers cheques will have the top and bottom of the reverse encoded with other clearing details for other countries, which may include a UK sort code and account number.

 

[Dave1987]

TPE openly advertise that their policy is to sell an undiscounted ticket on board to anyone who boards without a valid ticket. I have posted a link to a poster which confirms this.

In light of this information, can you confirm why Byelaw 18 has any relevance, when I was travelling in line with their advertised policy? Not all TOCs choose to enforce Byelaw 18.

To be honest I think you are right. That poster, if it is there current policy, is very ambiguous. Even though byelaws a state that if there are means to do so you should buy a ticket before boarding that seems to suggest they should have sold you a none discounted ticket..... Hmmm I think there might be some substance with your appeal.

 

[AlterEgo]

In First Class, TPE also actively advertise that they will sell you an upgrade to your Standard Class ticket if you don't already hold a First Class ticket.

"Paytrain" is perhaps an archaic term, but I do agree that a Byelaw 18 prosecution would fail when TPE advertise so thoroughly that you may board a train without the correct ticket as long as you are prepared to pay what is due.

RJ did offer to pay what is due using an approved (if deliberately awkward) payment method. TPE declined to accept the payment and the fault lies completely with them as the facts stand.

 

[ainsworth74]

That poster, if it is there current policy, is very ambiguous.

Seen, today, at Northallerton station (a TPE station):





I believe the third paragraph on the second image would apply to RJ. Also I'm not sure how it's ambiguous? It clearly states that if you board without a valid ticket at a station where there were ticket buying facilities you will be charge the Full Open Single/Return ticket for your journey. Seems pretty unambiguous to me! It doesn't even say 'Buy before you board or face prosecution' it clearly says 'Buy before you board and save money'!

At this point I don't see how anyone can argue that there are any other issues than with TPE's RPO not accepting a valid means of payment and everything that followed from that.

 

[Dave1987]

Seen, today, at Northallerton station (a TPE station):

View attachment 13489

View attachment 13490

I believe the third paragraph on the second image would apply to RJ. At this point I don't see how anyone can argue that the only issue is with TPE's RPO not accepting a valid means of payment and everything that followed from that.

Yes but it doesn't mention that byelaw 18 isn't upheld by TPE. I think it should state that on the poster as there are conflicting rules there. But I agree RJ was perfectly entitled to board the train back and the only issue is whether the RPO should have accepted his method of payment.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Just looked at my TOC's website it says we accept cash, most major debit and credit cards vouchers and rail warrents. It makes no mention of postal orders and in 10 years no one has come up to me and tried so I really do not know TPE,s policy

 

[Solent&Wessex]

If we're talking about this forum, it was highlighted in one thread that there was a conspicuous lack of TPE cases. It is not surprising, given that they will sell tickets on board, unlike TOCs in Penalty Fare areas. I've had a look around and where they do prosecute, it looks like they do so under the RoR 1889, which tallies with what's in their publicity.

Can you personally confirm that TPE enforce Byelaw 18 as a matter of course?

I can personally confirm that TPE prosecute under Byelaw 18 on a regular basis.

TPE openly advertise that their policy is to sell an undiscounted ticket on board to anyone who boards without a valid ticket. I have posted a link to a poster which confirms this.

In light of this information, can you confirm why Byelaw 18 has any relevance, when I was travelling in line with their advertised policy? Not all TOCs choose to enforce Byelaw 18.

The TPE Passenger's Charter says: "First TransPennine Express operates in accordance with the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage, which state that you must have a valid ticket
for your journey prior to boarding where you have had the opportunity
to buy one...If you do board one of our trains without a valid ticket, at a station
where ticket buying facilities are available, then you will be charged the
Anytime (full open single or return) fare for your journey...In the interests of all of our customers we intend to reduce fare
evasion and fraudulent travel. We will seek to prosecute people if they
travel without a ticket or without the correct ticket for their journey."

I would say that that doesn't specifically say that they won't use Byelaw 18, nor does it say you can buy on board - it just tells you what will / may happen should you do so.

In First Class, TPE also actively advertise that they will sell you an upgrade to your Standard Class ticket if you don't already hold a First Class ticket.

"Paytrain" is perhaps an archaic term, but I do agree that a Byelaw 18 prosecution would fail when TPE advertise so thoroughly that you may board a train without the correct ticket as long as you are prepared to pay what is due.

RJ did offer to pay what is due using an approved (if deliberately awkward) payment method. TPE declined to accept the payment and the fault lies completely with them as the facts stand.

Whilst I am now aware of the issue of Postal Orders etc, I must say that in 10 years on the railways in various locations, I have never once received any briefing, mention, training or instruction on Postal Orders of Travellers Cheques. I am aware of National transport tokens, but not seen any for around 5 years. I suspect the on board staff here were similar - whilst I cannot condone their behaviour, all their training and reference material may make no mention of those payment methods and they may well be of the opinion that you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

 

[Ferret]

I can personally confirm that TPE prosecute under Byelaw 18 on a regular basis.

Just like I thought. I'm uneasy here - that poster does not overrule Byelaw 18. The law is the law regardless, a principle I thought we were all aware of! So, if we accept that Byelaw 18 was breached when RJ boarded without a railcard then there is a potential problem here.

I'd still think it unlikely that TPE would prosecute this matter, but I really think they could do just that if they wanted to be bloody-minded about it. Happily there's lots to muddy the waters here, not least the procedural mistakes (surprising for an RPO) and also the offer by RJ to pay for an excess fare with Traveller's Cheques. Hopefully that will be enough!

 

[jb]

I believe the third paragraph on the second image would apply to RJ. Also I'm not sure how it's ambiguous? It clearly states that if you board without a valid ticket at a station where there were ticket buying facilities you will be charge the Full Open Single/Return ticket for your journey. Seems pretty unambiguous to me! It doesn't even say 'Buy before you board or face prosecution' it clearly says 'Buy before you board and save money'!

At this point I don't see how anyone can argue that there are any other issues than with TPE's RPO not accepting a valid means of payment and everything that followed from that.

The conclusion is inarguable, but I doubt the posters offer any support to the case. Given that "Full Open Single" is not a ticket type, one can hardly claim precision or unambiguity. Relying on "advertised policy" in this way would seem shaky.

 

[AlterEgo]

TPE's own advertising actually repeatedly and persistently states they consider it perfectly fine to board without a valid ticket - "it'll just cost you more". Byelaw 18 doesn't cease to exist but I agree that they leave themselves open to the defense of entrapment. (I will leave it to others to apply the proper legal test though!)

The only issue worth considering in this specific case is that TPE refused a perfectly valid payment method.

 

[yorkie]

The conclusion is inarguable, but I doubt the posters offer any support to the case.

They are irrelevant to the case, for the reasons I have outlined previously.

However they are being used, accurately and correctly, to defend against claims made by people who have attempted to go off-topic.

Given that "Full Open Single" is not a ticket type....

It should, of course say, "Anytime" not "Open", since Simplification in 2008. But I don't think that TPE using the old term makes any material difference either way.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What an odd posting!

I'm sure that there are more than one line of investigation which could lead to vital evidence that could be informed by the Company's statements in those posters defining procedure, custom and practice to their customers.
In fact, I'm struggling to imagine any grounds for for considering them to be "irrelevant". Can you enlighten us, please?

Turning to: "I don't think that TPE using the old term makes any material difference either way." could you provide any basis for assuming that the Terms used in a staement intended to be a binding Term of a Contract might not be a binding Term of those Contracts?

I'm very puzzled.

 

[yorkie]

There was apparently never any complaint by the Guard that RJ was doing anything wrong until the moment that RJ produced a payment method that the Guard deemed not a valid payment method.

However, as some people have gone off-topic and attempted to claim that it is not custom practice for TPE to sell Anytime ('full open') tickets on board, then as I said before, the posters are useful to disprove those claims.

But this discussion should never have been about that - it should be about the failings by TPE to accept valid payment methods, and the failure of correct and proper procedures to be followed in the event of the guard apparently not being able to accept a valid payment method.

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie, I'm more concerned about the failure to provide a receipt when withdrawing a ticket! And from an RPO who should deal with that situation more than once a week, one would imagine? That suggests to me that RJ had him rattled!

As for anything else, we'll see how TPE want to play it in due course I suppose.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Yorkie, I'm more concerned about the failure to provide a receipt when withdrawing a ticket! And from an RPO who should deal with that situation more than once a week, one would imagine? That suggests to me that RJ had him rattled!

As for anything else, we'll see how TPE want to play it in due course I suppose.

The failure to provide a receipt puzzles me as from my experience and knowledge there are very few RPOs on TPE anyway, and the chance of finding one out at Liverpool at any time of day is as rare as rocking horse s**t. There are however a few RPAs who I believe work that route quite a bit. Or it could have just been a very keen guard, especially seeing as RJ's return journey was disrupted as he was declined entry.

Either way, the refusal to accept a valid means of payment in this case is not surprising. As can be seen in many threads the quality of retail training across the board is very poor. I have conducted an informal survey of some of my colleagues and contacts from different TOCs and everybody said that postal orders and travellers cheques were not accepted. Even with decent training on board staff have no reference material since the demise of the paper local fares manuals- again whilst it is no defence, is it any wonder that staff get flustered when they are confronted with a passenger with no valid ticket and insists on paying with a method of payment that throughout all their training and experience they have never heard of, seen, or have been told are invalid. As I referred to earlier, in my 10 years I have never received any information, training or briefing from any TOC in relation to any of those methods of payment.

Office based customer relations with access to the reference material should know better though.

 

[W230]

I gave TPE Customer Relations a ring, and the following 'information' was given out by TPE Customer Relations:

• TPE do not accept Postal Orders
• TPE are not a National Rail train Company
• TPE operate a Penalty Fare Scheme (indeed all of the TOCs do)
• Any revenue staff can take all contact details, which includes date of birth

Staff not knowing what seem like the basics are my concerns as usual!