Left stranded by TPE

[RJ]

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



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.



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.

Is Byelaw 18 actively enforced when people are found on your trains without a valid ticket - or is it only used as an option for when such people have refused to buy a new ticket when required and subsequently been reported?

If it's a case whereby TPE putting up notices at stations stating that people not holding a valid ticket before boarding can buy an undiscounted ticket on board - when in actual fact, passengers can be prosecuted if the on board staff choose not to sell tickets, then l think we have a problem.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I obtained these means of payment for the purposes of discouraging East Midlands Trains RP staff from abusing their authority by compelling me to buy unnecessary tickets costing £75+, which include 20p/50p NTTs, a Postal Order for £2.30, a £50 Traveller's Cheque and a whole heap of Rail Travel Vouchers. The main reason being that I know they will hate the amount of paperwork accepting such combinations of payments will generate. However, it seems that there is a wider issue of retail staff not knowing which methods of payment they are obliged to accept.

In this case, I only held these as methods of payment and used them in an emergency situation because I lost my wallet. However, how many vulnerable passengers holding tokens, or foreign passengers holding Traveller's Cheques, or anyone else holding any of these methods of payment and using them in line with the information provided on National Rail have had similar treatment?

The RPO in question seemed to have it in for me by the end of the exchange as he essentially said he'd be pushing for me to get a criminal record and that I'd never work for the railways again. I'm not in the slightest bit fazed by the threats made by these staff, regardless of whether or not they intend on attempting to follow them through. However, I feel this individual is a wrong'un and needs to be held to account for his actions.

 

[TG]

Is Byelaw 18 actively enforced when people are found on your trains without a valid ticket - or is it only used as an option for when such people have refused to buy a new ticket when required and subsequently been reported?

If it's a case whereby TPE putting up notices at stations stating that people not holding a valid ticket before boarding can buy an undiscounted ticket on board - when in actual fact, passengers can be prosecuted if the on board staff choose not to sell tickets, then l think we have a problem.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I obtained these means of payment for the purposes of discouraging East Midlands Trains RP staff from abusing their authority by compelling me to buy unnecessary tickets costing £75+, which include 20p/50p NTTs, a Postal Order for £2.30, a £50 Traveller's Cheque and a whole heap of Rail Travel Vouchers. The main reason being that I know they will hate the amount of paperwork accepting such combinations of payments will generate. However, it seems that there is a wider issue of retail staff not knowing which methods of payment they are obliged to accept.

In this case, I only held these as methods of payment and used them in an emergency situation because I lost my wallet. However, how many vulnerable passengers holding tokens, or foreign passengers holding Traveller's Cheques, or anyone else holding any of these methods of payment and using them in line with the information provided on National Rail have had similar treatment?

The RPO in question seemed to have it in for me by the end of the exchange as he essentially said he'd be pushing for me to get a criminal record and that I'd never work for the railways again. I'm not in the slightest bit fazed by the threats made by these staff, regardless of whether or not they intend on attempting to follow them through. However, I feel this individual is a wrong'un and needs to be held to account for his actions.

just to inform you that if anybody from a TOC's debt recovery and prosecution team read the above comments, you have basically admitted carrying these methods of payment to attempt to deliberately avoid paying your fare!

i also must ask a question, why would they need to excess you if your ticket is valid? this is a very relevant question as the impression you are giving in this thread to me is you deliberately travel on invalid tickets and enjoy getting cantankerous with railstaff who challenge you!! you are treading on egg shells here and i hope TPE do prosecute you, given the things you have posted in this thread....

also "exploiter of loopholes" says it all about you really.... how about you quit the cantankerous act and just buy a valid ticket in the first place BEFORE you board at a staffed station?!?!?!

 

[tony_mac]

just to inform you that if anybody from a TOC's debt recovery and prosecution team read the above comments, you have basically admitted carrying these methods of payment to attempt to deliberately avoid paying your fare!

i also must ask a question, why would they need to excess you if your ticket is valid? this is a very relevant question as the impression you are giving in this thread to me is you deliberately travel on invalid tickets and enjoy getting cantankerous with railstaff who challenge you!! you are treading on egg shells here and i hope TPE do prosecute you, given the things you have posted in this thread....

also "exploiter of loopholes" says it all about you really.... how about you quit the cantankerous act and just buy a valid ticket in the first place BEFORE you board at a staffed station?!?!?!

If you had read his other threads, you would know that his tickets are always valid - making your reply somewhat pointless, as you are working on the assumption that the tickets aren't valid. I guess this is because...

why would they need to excess you if your ticket is valid?

and the answer to this is because they lack sufficient knowledge and training (and sometimes willingness to listen) to understand why it is valid.

 

[AlterEgo]

just to inform you that if anybody from a TOC's debt recovery and prosecution team read the above comments, you have basically admitted carrying these methods of payment to attempt to deliberately avoid paying your fare!

No, he offered to pay using a valid payment method and it was refused.

 

[TG]

travelling on a ticket purchased with a YP railcard WITHOUT being able to produce said railcard renders the ticket INVALID!!

i was asking why he feels the need to travel about with travellers cheques, travel tokens and postal orders, clearly stating that it is to deter train crew from charging him "unnecessary tickets" the only time i can think of them doing this is a) he has boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and is being charged the FULL FARE single/return or b) the ticket he has boarded with is invalid.... it was a legitimate question!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and the answer to this is because they lack sufficient knowledge and training (and sometimes willingness to listen) to understand why it is valid.

i work as a guard for another TOC and i know that a ticket purchased with a railcard IS NOT valid if you are unable to produce said railcard... it's black and white and plainly obvious then, that the ticket he was travelling on was NOT VALID!!!!

Maybe the train crew would have been more willing to listen, if he had not been cantankerous in his approach to the situation... given his attitude on here, it is not surprising that he got the response that he did... a quite word with the guard would probably have been all was needed to resolve the situation....

 

[tony_mac]

travelling on a ticket purchased with a YP railcard WITHOUT being able to produce said railcard renders the ticket INVALID!!

Yes, on this occasion the ticket was invalid, that isn't in dispute.

i was asking why he feels the need to travel about with travellers cheques, travel tokens and postal orders, clearly stating that it is to deter train crew from charging him "unnecessary tickets" the only time i can think of them doing this is a) he has boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and is being charged the FULL FARE single/return or b) the ticket he has boarded with is invalid.... it was a legitimate question!

And the answer was given; if you read some of his other threads it will be clear.
He frequently travels on tickets that are valid, but staff believe they are not. Every time he has been forced to buy a new ticket, the TOC has refunded him, but it takes a lot of time and effort to deal with that. Which is why he wants to discourage them from charging for a new ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

i was asking why he feels the need to travel about with travellers cheques, travel tokens and postal orders, clearly stating that it is to deter train crew from charging him "unnecessary tickets" the only time i can think of them doing this is a) he has boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and is being charged the FULL FARE single/return or b) the ticket he has boarded with is invalid.... it was a legitimate question!

It is not a legitimate question.

RJ tendered a valid payment method - as valid as offering a £10 note, and it was declined.

Please tell me who's in the wrong on this occasion.

 

[TG]

after speaking to retail control (from another TOC all be it) i was informed that travellers cheques and postal orders are NOT a valid method of payment onboard, if he'd wanted to pay with these then he should have purchased a ticket from the booking office AT THE STAFFED STATION HE BOARDED AT... much the same as visa electron and solo cards!! he chose not to... instead he boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and took the hump with the train crew..... he's breaking the railway bye-laws END OF!

also, there are usually two sides to a story and obviously RJ is not going to want to post anything which might paint him in a different picture, since the other party is not here to comment, i have to take his version of events with a pinch of salt!!

 

[Ferret]

TG - that's a little harsh! RJ as a rule is always valid, and only held an invalid ticket this time because of a bizarre set of circumstances that I can't imagine being repeated. I do feel he maybe could've been a little more streetwise with regard to not showing the invalid ticket in the first place, but to say you hope he is prosecuted is over the top! As Yorkie points out, there are other issues here, not least the handling of the situation by the staff concerned.

 

[transportphoto]

after speaking to retail control (from another TOC all be it) i was informed that travellers cheques and postal orders are NOT a valid method of payment onboard, if he'd wanted to pay with these then he should have purchased a ticket from the booking office AT THE STAFFED STATION HE BOARDED AT... much the same as visa electron and solo cards!! he chose not to... instead he boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and took the hump with the train crew..... he's breaking the railway bye-laws END OF!

also, there are usually two sides to a story and obviously RJ is not going to want to post anything which might paint him in a different picture, since the other party is not here to comment, i have to take his version of events with a pinch of salt!!

Okay, there isn't a need to SHOUT. Why aren't the valid methods of payments not accepted on board? There is no dispute that RJ's ticket in this instance wasn't valid, because he misplaced his railcard in Liverpool, however he wasn't accused of wrong doing until such point he presented a valid (albeit unusual) payment method which the guard refused to accept.

TP

 

[soil]

i was asking why he feels the need to travel about with travellers cheques, travel tokens and postal orders, clearly stating that it is to deter train crew from charging him "unnecessary tickets" the only time i can think of them doing this is a) he has boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and is being charged the FULL FARE single/return or b) the ticket he has boarded with is invalid.... it was a legitimate question!

I think that the point is that he buys tickets that are valid, but many TOC staff incorrectly believe are not, and try to force him to buy a new ticket, despite the fact that his tickets are valid. Therefore the question of avoiding the fare wouldn't come into it, since he already paid it - he is trying to avoid paying his fare twice!

 

[Pumbaa]

after speaking to retail control (from another TOC all be it) i was informed that travellers cheques and postal orders are NOT a valid method of payment onboard, if he'd wanted to pay with these then he should have purchased a ticket from the booking office AT THE STAFFED STATION HE BOARDED AT... much the same as visa electron and solo cards!! he chose not to... instead he boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and took the hump with the train crew..... he's breaking the railway bye-laws END OF!

Unsurprising really, bearing in mind the retail control you would have phoned

Nonetheless he offered a valid method of payment and was declined.

also, there are usually two sides to a story and obviously RJ is not going to want to post anything which might paint him in a different picture, since the other party is not here to comment, i have to take his version of events with a pinch of salt!!

I have every sympathy with staff who are presented with situations that they have not been adequately trained or prepared for, as kwvr45 quite nicely summarises above. However, that sympathy quickly dissipates when the staff members refuse to engage constructively with passengers presenting them information that would help them come to a full decision.

I've had my fair share of similar situations, and on the whole I've been quite lucky. But on the odd occasion that a staff member has refused to accept that anything other than the limited information that they have in their head could possibly be correct, I've taken it up with the relevant TOC and been appropriately compensated. Irritatingly, staff training does not seem to progress...

 

[Solent&Wessex]

after speaking to retail control (from another TOC all be it) i was informed that travellers cheques and postal orders are NOT a valid method of payment onboard, if he'd wanted to pay with these then he should have purchased a ticket from the booking office AT THE STAFFED STATION HE BOARDED AT... much the same as visa electron and solo cards!! he chose not to... instead he boarded a train at a staffed station without a valid ticket and took the hump with the train crew..... he's breaking the railway bye-laws END OF!

also, there are usually two sides to a story and obviously RJ is not going to want to post anything which might paint him in a different picture, since the other party is not here to comment, i have to take his version of events with a pinch of salt!!

From the public website National Rail Enquiries (and before everyone screams about cheques, there is a lengthy list detailing which TOCs do and do not accept cheques. There is no such listing for any other payment method) therefore they are valid:

Payment methods

The following are accepted as methods of payments at National Rail stations and retail outlets. They also apply to paying on-train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed.

Self-service ticket machines at National Rail stations will accept a more limited range of payment.

Information shown might not apply to National Rail products purchased at independent rail licensed travel agents or from other third party retailers.

Cash
Credit/Debit/Charge Cards
Cheques
Travellers Cheques

Rail Travel Accounts (Warrants)
Vouchers
National Transport Tokens
Postal Orders

Now I know that in this case RJ did join at a staffed station, but the blanket "they are not accepted on board" is patently incorrect. NRES (and the staff publication The Manual) both agree on this matter, in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is Byelaw 18 actively enforced when people are found on your trains without a valid ticket - or is it only used as an option for when such people have refused to buy a new ticket when required and subsequently been reported?

I am not privy to all the details, but from my limited knowledge I suspect mainly the latter. And I didn't say they were my trains, just that was privy to some relevant information.

If it's a case whereby TPE putting up notices at stations stating that people not holding a valid ticket before boarding can buy an undiscounted ticket on board - when in actual fact, passengers can be prosecuted if the on board staff choose not to sell tickets, then l think we have a problem.

I do not generally think this is the case, unless there are grounds to suspect an attempt to avoid payment but with insufficient evidence, i.e. no PACE trained RPO to hand, but the Guard, for example, found someone who when asked to show a ticket would say "I have it here somewhere" or "You have seen it before" (when the Guard knew quite well that he had not seen it before) and then subsequently be unable to produce one despite a lengthy ticket dance.

However, how many vulnerable passengers holding tokens, or foreign passengers holding Traveller's Cheques, or anyone else holding any of these methods of payment and using them in line with the information provided on National Rail have had similar treatment?

If my experiences are replicated across the country then very few if not nobody - I have never seen Travellers Cheques or Postal Orders in 10years.

 

[RJ]

That sentence on NRE is slightly ambiguous, in order to prevent people from thinking that it's uniformly ok to pay for a ticket on board trains. It actually means that where tickets are offered for sale on board, all of the listed methods of payments can be used. Even in The Manual, it specifically stated that RTVs can be used to pay Penalty Fares on board and the like.

I accept that my stories can elicit controversy and divided opinion and TG has a right to voice their opinion. I'll explain a little about myself a bit later on when I have time.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As a guard of 10 years I have NEVER seen postal orders OR Travellers cheques being used on board and i would not have a clue how to through Avantix, legal method or not. Until seeing this I would have to say I thought they were not valid on board trains also. To be Fair RJ is probably correct in the validity of the method of payments HOWEVER RJ you have already mentioned in numerous threads how you enjoy being awkward id a member of staff have made a mistake over validity, you seem to thrive on it, hardly the best way to makes friends and influence people lol.

 

[johnb]

If it's a case whereby TPE putting up notices at stations stating that people not holding a valid ticket before boarding can buy an undiscounted ticket on board - when in actual fact, passengers can be prosecuted if the on board staff choose not to sell tickets, then l think we have a problem.

Related question: is the railway exempt from normal consumer protection laws?

In any other industry, the existence of the TPE notices would unequivocally allow all customers to take advantage of the offer made in them (ie "get onboard without a ticket and pay the full fare"), notwithstanding any terms, conditions or policies that the vendor wants to impose, and without any risk of being held responsible for stealing/infringement/etc.

Or do the rail bylaws trump the various consumer protection acts, to the point where TOCs can say what they like on a poster, however misleading, and it doesn't affect how they then have to behave?

 

[IanXC]

Related question: is the railway exempt from normal consumer protection laws?

The generally held view is that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations do not apply to railway contracts as a result of the regulations stating that they do not apply to contracts governed by other legislation. Theres a full explanation in the legal section of our Fares and Ticketing Guide here http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1208487

 

[michael769]

The railway, like other means of transport are indeed exempt from certain parts of consumer protection law, an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs that needs to be remedied especially when several toCs have by their actions provem themselves unfit to enjoy such a priviledged position.

Of the subject of byelaw 18 my take is this:

The law is there to be obeyed and no one can override the law, especially criminal law, via their own opinions customs or contracts, so TPEs policies cannot invalidate Byelaw 18. The byelaw sets put the circumustances in which the requirement to show a valid ticket does not apply. The question in this case is does TPE's statements in posters come under any of these circumstances?

The most relevant circumstance is where a passenger has been authorised to board without a ticket, so a pertinent question is if the posters raised in is thread constitute such an authorisation, and if so does it apply to RJs case? My personal view is that the first paragraph's wording "Before boading any First Trans Pennine Express sevice you must already have a valid ticket for travel." does not sound like an authorisation to board without a ticket to me. I am not entirely convinced that FTPE setting out their internal charges for contravention would somehow set aside the criminal liability for contravening criminal law, you would have to convince a clourt that such a statement was predjudicial to a fair trial - an uphill struggle I fear. Were it the CPS I would expect them to be relucatnt to proceed on public interest grounds, but ToCs prosecutors are not the CPS and the question is how comfortable is RJ relying on their restraint?

 

[455driver]

HOWEVER RJ you have already mentioned in numerous threads how you enjoy being awkward if a member of staff have made a mistake over validity, you seem to thrive on it, hardly the best way to makes friends and influence people lol.

My thoughts exactly, he does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time seeking out all the "angles" just so he can appear superior over us mere railstaff.

Me personally I would rather go down the pub and chat a woman* up but each to their own.

* woman, girl, bloke, gorilla, whatever floats your boat.

edit-
I wonder if any TOC prosecution department is waiting for RJ to make a mistake so they can get their own back on him?
Just a thought!

 

[TG]

i know for a fact that TPE are aware of this thread at least so if i were RJ, i would be chosing my wording VERY carefully...

 

[Fare-Cop]

i know for a fact that TPE are aware of this thread at least so if i were RJ, i would be chosing my wording VERY carefully...

Most TOCs customer relations / revenue / prosecutions management read this and other forums and I wonder why anyone would expect that they didn't, after all, the internet is a free-for-all as we all know.

 

[Ferret]

edit-
I wonder if any TOC prosecution department is waiting for RJ to make a mistake so they can get their own back on him?
Just a thought!

This is the reason that I said I was uneasy earlier in the thread. It's why I feel RJ should, to put it bluntly, be very careful to cover his ass - maybe better than he did in this unfortunate escapade.

 

[SussexMan]

I've followed this thread with interest and I would like to make two comments:

1) In the opening post RJ said:

I then paid with a mix of a Postal Order and National Transport Tokens, but the guard and RPO both refused, saying that the railway does not accept these methods of payment. I begged to differ,

Other people have been very quick to say that these are valid payments methods and indeed the National Rail website does mention payment by these methods. However, if you read the National Rail website on Payment Methods it very clearly says:

The following are accepted as methods of payments at National Rail stations and retail outlets. They also apply to paying on-train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed.

That seems to be an amazing snippet of information for RJ and others to overlook. So the way I see it, the payment offered by RJ on the train was not a payment method which had to be accepted.

2) In the opening post, RJ said:

I offered to pay for a new ticket with a £50 Traveller's Cheque.

Once again, people have been quick to agree with RJ that these are accepted. Again, looking at the same NR webpage it clearly says:

Travellers cheques may be accepted for payment for meals, fares or other customer facilities, provided that they are:...

...Travellers' cheques should be tendered as near as possible to the value of the tickets or services provided.

Compare this to the Postal Order section which says that they "are" accepted. Additionally I think the Travellers Cheque offered was significantly higher than the value of the excess being charged so could have been another reason why the payment method wasn't accepted. Remember, it does say "may", not "are".

Are we still all sure that the payment methods offered by RJ had to be accepted?

 

[EM2]

Are we still all sure that the payment methods offered by RJ had to be accepted?

If we say they didn't, for argument's sake, why then did the RPO simply not issue a UFN for a ticket that he had already said that he was willing to sell, especially as RJ had already explained to him why these were the only payment methods he had with him?

 

[tony_mac]

My thoughts exactly, he does seem to spend an inordinate amount of time seeking out all the "angles" just so he can appear superior over us mere railstaff.

Isn't it far more likely that his motivation is simply to save money?

 

[TG]

If we say they didn't, for argument's sake, why then did the RPO simply not issue a UFN for a ticket that he had already said that he was willing to sell, especially as RJ had already explained to him why these were the only payment methods he had with him?

RJ refused to give the FULL details which would have been required for a UFN, for example, his DOB

 

[EM2]

RJ refused to give the FULL details which would have been required for a UFN, for example, his DOB

Really? In the OP, no mention is made of the RPO offering a UFN. The RPO wanted to enter his DoB in his notebook, and only when BTP were on site.

 

[455driver]

Isn't it far more likely that his motivation is simply to save money?

Of course he wants to save money but paying with travellers cheques etc is just being pedantic*.

Why not just keep a couple of £10 notes in a side pocket?

* polite word.

 

[transportphoto]

quite simply, it has been tweeted to their customer relations team.... check for yourself.... and i am not shouting, i am emphasising a point... two different things!

Can you find this tweet for me please, I've had a look through @TPEAssist tweets from the last few days and can't find a response to this.

TP

 

[TG]

Really? In the OP, no mention is made of the RPO offering a UFN. The RPO wanted to enter his DoB in his notebook, and only when BTP were on site.

i never mentioned that he refused to give his details for a UFN, he refused to give them to the guard/RPA/RPI (whoever they were) from my own experience, i would assume details would have been requested for filling in a TIR (Travel Incident Report) regarding the incident...

In my opinion, from reading this and other threads... RJ seems to get sort of kick from behaving this way, finding all the loopholes he can and rubbing train crew up the wrong way... after speaking to a few TPE colleagues, it has become apparent that he is known amongst them, not just for his obsession with loopholes but his damned right bad attitude towards the staff when he is challenged... this would rub any guards nose up if im honest which is why i say sooner or later, he's not going to be right and he WILL end up being prosecuted...