-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Left stranded by TPE
- Thread starter RJ
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TG
Member
it was tweeted to their other account.... @TPExpressTrains this is the other twitter feed from customer services and the media/promotions team
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
i'm getting a pretty good picture from the posts they have made and the information which has been shared in this one... if you read back, i am not the only one to share these thoughts! all i did was mention a guy with the travellers cheques/postal orders to TPE colleagues and they had a pretty good idea of who i meant... this indicates to me that he is a regular and given the information he has shared on this thread alone, i would have to agree with that assumption!!
Ps:- you really don't need to quote my entire post from above.. i know what i said!!!!!!
Last edited:
What do you mean "If they didn't [have to accept those payment methods]...". Where does the "if" come into it? The website clearly states that they will accept postal orders and they may accept Travellers Cheques at rail stations and retail outlets and on trains when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed. An opportunity to purchase beforehand did exist so those methods do not have to be accepted on the train.
EM2
Established Member
So if the RPO had offered a UFN, RJ may have given the details requested. Instead, he withdrew the tickets, did not give a receipt and called BTP.
Are you still saying that the RPO acted exactly in accordance with procedures, seeing as a receipt was not issued for withdrawn tickets (as per NRCoC)?
TG
Member
the RPI/RPA/guard (whoever 'cos we don't really know!) can request information for any reason, which as an authorised person he is within his rights to do so...
firstly, he boarded the train without a valid ticket, strike one.... as already stated above, the method of payment offered by RJ was NOT a valid method for purchase on board as he had boarded at a staffed station with a booking office, he presumably refused to purchase a valid ticket via an acceptable method of payment, strike two.... he then refused to give his full details when requested by an authorised person, strike 3.....
the BTP call this the three failures and are the three things an authorised person must have attempted to obtain before calling for police assistance, the BTP will not attend a fare-evaision call unless all three factors of this equation have been met.... so yes, the member of staff were correct in what they did...
firstly, he boarded the train without a valid ticket, strike one.... as already stated above, the method of payment offered by RJ was NOT a valid method for purchase on board as he had boarded at a staffed station with a booking office, he presumably refused to purchase a valid ticket via an acceptable method of payment, strike two.... he then refused to give his full details when requested by an authorised person, strike 3.....
the BTP call this the three failures and are the three things an authorised person must have attempted to obtain before calling for police assistance, the BTP will not attend a fare-evaision call unless all three factors of this equation have been met.... so yes, the member of staff were correct in what they did...
If I read the details of this thread correctly, this was an entirely different situation to the ones RJ usually finds himself in. He didn't intend to become separated from his wallet, and was very lucky to have alternative methods of payment on him to pay for the ticket that he inadvertantly needed to buy. Had he simply lost his railcard but not his wallet then I think there is quite a chance that he would have paid with a more usual method.
RJ
Established Member
Ok!
Firstly, I'm certain the person TG claims the TPE staff are aware of is not me. This was the first ever extended exchange I've had with a TPE member of staff. On previous occasions, my ticket has been nipped without any further words being exchanged.
Secondly, the member of staff did not request my details on the train. He only did so once the BTP were present. Feel free to read the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and tell me where Date of Birth or the general term "details" is mentioned? I've read it and I can only find references to name and address.
Thirdly, this is an open forum - I'm fully aware that anyone can be reading the thread.
Forthly, whilst I appreciate this comrade mentality being displayed on here, railway staff are human and do not get it correct 100% of the time. It would be naive to believe otherwise.
Firstly, I'm certain the person TG claims the TPE staff are aware of is not me. This was the first ever extended exchange I've had with a TPE member of staff. On previous occasions, my ticket has been nipped without any further words being exchanged.
Secondly, the member of staff did not request my details on the train. He only did so once the BTP were present. Feel free to read the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and tell me where Date of Birth or the general term "details" is mentioned? I've read it and I can only find references to name and address.
Thirdly, this is an open forum - I'm fully aware that anyone can be reading the thread.
Forthly, whilst I appreciate this comrade mentality being displayed on here, railway staff are human and do not get it correct 100% of the time. It would be naive to believe otherwise.
TG
Member
there are ways and means of approaching problems, the best thing for you to do would have been to approach the guard BEFORE boarding the train or gone to the back STRAIGHT AWAY when the train departed if they were busy with train dispatch...
after making further enquiries there are also colleagues at EMT who are aware of the guy who tries to pay on board with travellers cheques and postal orders and who quotes from the NRCOC when challenged.... in almost 10 years on the railway i have NEVER come across ANYONE trying to pay on board via these methods, and neither has anyone else i have spoken to, and other guards on this thread share the same sentiment... so whilst respecting that this may be a coincidence, you have to admit it would be a million to one chance that this is someone else!!
TG
Member
it's one of the things which needs filling in on a UFN and there is also a box for it on a TIR form...
TG
Member
i believe that they are if they are to be issued with a UFN (and before anyone jumps down my throat, i know this is not the case here!)
not too sure regarding a TIR form, i have submitted them with nothing more than a description of the passenger and the debt recovery team at my TOC still managed to trace them and bring a successful prosecution... admittedly, it would be easier the more information you submitted on the form but not mandatory!
name and address however, all guards and RPIs are authorised to ask for this information and failure to comply is breaching railway bye-law 23:
the bye-laws which have been breached have already been discussed previously in this tread so i shall not post them again!
not too sure regarding a TIR form, i have submitted them with nothing more than a description of the passenger and the debt recovery team at my TOC still managed to trace them and bring a successful prosecution... admittedly, it would be easier the more information you submitted on the form but not mandatory!
name and address however, all guards and RPIs are authorised to ask for this information and failure to comply is breaching railway bye-law 23:
the bye-laws which have been breached have already been discussed previously in this tread so i shall not post them again!
Did you get it right RJ when you said that TOCs have to accept your chosen method of payment? I've posted what I've read from the National Rail website which clearly states that the methods you offered are accepted at rail stations and on the train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed.
Are you able to direct me to where it says that TOCs have to accept that method of payment on a train at all times?
Could you show me where this is documented? RoRA states only:
And:
Whilst the Byelaws say:
Forgive me but I don't see anything that gives railway personnel powers to require RJ or anyone else to give their DOB. So RJ's refusal to give his DOB as far as I'm concerned has no bearing on this incident as he wasn't required to do so in the first place!
But yet again I fear we're going far off topic. There is no dispute over the lack of validity with the tickets held by RJ, the issue is with the actions of the RPO . They're withdrawal of the tickets without a receipt, their refusal of a payment method that might have been valid and their involvement of the BTP leading to also the behaviour of the BTP.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I'm concerned by this line of argument on here and have been struggling to determine with what authority these ad hoc analyses of the published regulations are being presented.
I can see you've repeated your analysis 3 times now, but I've been unable to find the relevant authority to these interpretations. I will say that it is my experience when seeking to apply statute, regulations, conditions and other evidence, that guidance which permits a particular procedure in some conditions will fail when applied as if to deny the same procedure in other conditions. There is a raft of judgements consistent with this reluctance to import a permission as a prohibition elsewhere. Even where explicit conditional terms such as "if and only if" are included, I would have to be satisfied that the document concerned was a Conditional term of the Contract to which both parties had agreed (tacitly, expressly, or as otherwise construed).
So rather than troubling you for a reprise of your position, could you please assist us SussexMan by providing its authority?
Thank you.
You claimed there was someone doing this on TPE. That couldn't have been RJ.
In 30 minutes, on a Saturday night, you have suddenly managed to find that apparently there is someone doing this on EMT. Is that instead of, or as well as, on TPE?
I know which I find most believable!
RJ
Established Member
I've only ever mentioned Traveller's Cheques to one member of on board EMT staff, who tried and failed to issue a UFN after rejecting a valid ticket I had shown.
I've only had the Traveller's Cheque for around one month. The powers that be at EMT have put the kibosh on their staff starting disputes. As such, I've only ever needed to mention it on one occasion to a member of staff to whom the instructions have evaded.
How veritable are your sources? Why not get them to post on here?
I may be wrong, but I see it like this. Lots of people have said that the TOC has to accept the payment methods offered. I don't remember seeing anyone providing anything supporting that argument. Can you or anyone else help by providing the "authority" to this position as you have asked of me?
I have provided a link to the National Rail website. I don't know what other "authority" you might want. Are you saying that the National Rail Website is not an authority on the payment methods accepted?
TG
Member
facebook is a wonderful thing... people discuss things on there just as they would on here, i have many facebook friends and have read status's and posts referring to RJ's exploits, i am not however going to force them into posting on this thread (they probably have a life and don't really care too much for arguing that white is white against someone who is adamant that it is black!!) i believe a few of them have already contributed to the thread...
regarding the post made my ainsworth74..... the ticket WAS invalid, he was unable to produce the railcard so was not entitled to the railcard discount thus needed to purchase a new ticket... as mentioned by i believe Anvil1985 (without reading back through countless pages) the correct procedure is to issue a completely NEW ticket from A to B so he's lucky he got an RPI who was willing to excess the original ticket...
regarding the post made my ainsworth74..... the ticket WAS invalid, he was unable to produce the railcard so was not entitled to the railcard discount thus needed to purchase a new ticket... as mentioned by i believe Anvil1985 (without reading back through countless pages) the correct procedure is to issue a completely NEW ticket from A to B so he's lucky he got an RPI who was willing to excess the original ticket...
RJ
Established Member
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.
If you would like to read Secton 7.1 of the TSA, it lists the payment methods that must be accepted by retailers of Rail Products. There is no discernable exemption for on board retailers.
If you would like to read Secton 7.1 of the TSA, it lists the payment methods that must be accepted by retailers of Rail Products. There is no discernable exemption for on board retailers.
I believe you misread my post. I was not disputing that his tickets were invalid (neither is anyone else) simply that the issues are:
As you astutely note the RPO was indeed being generous by offering an excess rather than a new ticket, that is at least until they refused a valid means of payment which is where the dispute lies (and a few other things besides).
The rest of my post was a request for yourself to provide evidence that rail staff can demand information such as DOB when RoRA and the Byelaws only empower them to obtain name and address. I note that you have not yet answered this.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I think that most of us in this discussion have read the same text. It's the analysis and application of it that divides us.
The 'authority' which would help me, and I hope others, will be a judgement which concurred with your suggestion that the 'if' and 'may' you cite can be imported into a prohibition in other circumstances. I am aware of none. I can find no decision which provides us with an interpretation of these two words in this context, which could assist in understanding RJ's position.
In that absence of clarification, I'm compelled to accept that the forms of payment offered are technically acceptable. Indeed, I would assume that most of us would take that as a default position of any public-facing large corporation.
No. It's the application of some of its words to draw ambiguous conclusions which would have to be clarified by the Courts that is attracting my interest.
Having said that, I will not let you assume that my failure to be persuaded by the binding force of its ambiguities either satisfies the conditions of evidence for the investigation of a possible offence, nor absolves any passenger of any further concern over their payment methods when preparing to pay for rail travel.
Last edited:
TG
Member
i never said that they did, i said it was a field on the UFN form which the passenger fills in, it maybe that it is just a verification that they are over the age of 18...
i also said that not all the information is required on a TIR form but it is preferred... failure to give name and address however is against the railway bye-laws of which i quoted above!!
let us also remember that we only have RJ's version of events.... if the RPI or the guard were posting on here (theoretically as i know that is unlikely) i'm pretty sure they would have a slightly differing version of events..... this is why i am trying to see things from both sides but knowing what i know about situations with "difficult" passengers and requesting police assistance!
it's saturday night, its late... apologies for not replying at the speed of light! :roll:
i also now note that this thread is going around in circles and is now bordering on "banging head against brick wall" syndrome!!!! :roll:
i also said that not all the information is required on a TIR form but it is preferred... failure to give name and address however is against the railway bye-laws of which i quoted above!!
let us also remember that we only have RJ's version of events.... if the RPI or the guard were posting on here (theoretically as i know that is unlikely) i'm pretty sure they would have a slightly differing version of events..... this is why i am trying to see things from both sides but knowing what i know about situations with "difficult" passengers and requesting police assistance!
it's saturday night, its late... apologies for not replying at the speed of light! :roll:
i also now note that this thread is going around in circles and is now bordering on "banging head against brick wall" syndrome!!!! :roll:
Forgive me that's not what you said:
(my bold)
Such details my be preferred by TOCs but they are not required. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Though RJ of course gave such details when he was asked to do so. Therefore I'm at a loss as to why any of this is relevant?
As I and others have said previously the dispute is in the RPO's refusal to accept a valid means of payment.
TG
Member
i mentioned that DoB is a field on a UFN.... jeeeez are we really going round in circles here....
we have established that it is stated they are only a valid method of payment if there was no opportunity to purchase a ticket before boarding, RJ boarded at a STAFFED STATION so the argument that it is a valid method of payment has just gone out of the window (bye bye) as i have mentioned SEVERAL times, the BTP would only come out to a fare-evader if the "three failures" have been met, one of which is refusal to give name and address to an authorised person when asked (IE the RPI/guard) regardless of wether RJ mentioned this in his OP, we have to assume, since the BTP attended, that the three failures must have been met...
i'm getting bored of this now so shall let you all squabble amongst yourselves... goodnight!
we have established that it is stated they are only a valid method of payment if there was no opportunity to purchase a ticket before boarding, RJ boarded at a STAFFED STATION so the argument that it is a valid method of payment has just gone out of the window (bye bye) as i have mentioned SEVERAL times, the BTP would only come out to a fare-evader if the "three failures" have been met, one of which is refusal to give name and address to an authorised person when asked (IE the RPI/guard) regardless of wether RJ mentioned this in his OP, we have to assume, since the BTP attended, that the three failures must have been met...
i'm getting bored of this now so shall let you all squabble amongst yourselves... goodnight!
I'd say this is stronger than mentioned:
But as long as you agree that there is no requirement to provide a DOB then I'm happy to move on
The Manual disagrees with this assessment.
I would be interested if any other staff could corroborate this statement? Never come across some sort of 'three failures' system for calling the BTP.
Edit: I have been informed that such a thing does exist. My apologies for doubting. However I do not see how he was in breach of them. Unless you believe him to be lying at some stage in the process?
Well most of us are in agreement so there won't be much squabbling now!
- Status