Machine failed to print ticket

[najaB]

Depressing that those of us with an understanding of the engineering involved know that SWT's spreadsheet evidence was probably meaningless, since it's unlikely that the TVM has sufficient sensors to prove that a ticket has landed in the the trough and that that ticket is the last one physically printed.

I don't think anyone - including SWT - has denied the possibility that the ticket got lodged in the machine. The evidence presented in court was almost certainly correct, the ticket was printed. If the OP had taken the tack that the ticket got lodged in the machine, rather than trying to say that the ticket wasn't printed, the outcome would likely have been different.

That said, the big mistake was jumping directly to small claims court.

 

[bb21]

No, just experience -20+ years in software development, including interfacing with warehouse printing & scanning equipment. That's taught me that no matter what a machine claims it's done, it doesn't always mean it actually did it..

My point in response to Clip was, if many suddenly start an extra 'lost' ticket, then the machine operator needs to check and change their procedures to clamp down on this, no different to how they'll review any other procedures if they detect abuse.

Ah, so just conjecture then.

 

[Master29]

I think Alter Ego`s superb reply sums what and where the OP went wrong in his objective. He may have had an argument but his application of the whole process was faulty from the start. That he had never heard of Transport Focus is a good indication he never made any attempt to go through the correct channels.

I have known many people who, when they get wronged start bandying about with statements like, court, solicitor or "I threatened `em with legal action" type of thing but really have very little knowledge or understanding of how to deal with this kind of thing. By circumventing the whole process the OP brought this on himself. This is a lesson in itself.

 

[Via Bank]

I think Alter Ego`s superb reply sums what and where the OP went wrong in his objective. He may have had an argument but his application of the whole process was faulty from the start. That he had never heard of Transport Focus is a good indication he never made any attempt to go through the correct channels.

I have known many people who, when they get wronged start bandying about with statements like, court, solicitor or "I threatened `em with legal action" type of thing but really have very little knowledge or understanding of how to deal with this kind of thing. By circumventing the whole process the OP brought this on himself. This is a lesson in itself.

Might I propose that if OP didn't even know Transport Focus existed, the process for resolving these complaints is simply not clear enough?

(I just checked SWT's website. The "complaints" section is listed right at the very end of the menu, under "Contact Us." No proper explanation is made of what Transport Focus and London TravelWatch are, and when you should escalate to then, unless you're willing to scrounge through a 10-page PDF for references.)

 

[Master29]

Might I propose that if OP didn't even know Transport Focus existed, the process for resolving these complaints is simply not clear enough?

(I just checked SWT's website. The "complaints" section is listed right at the very end of the menu, under "Contact Us." No proper explanation is made of what Transport Focus and London TravelWatch are, and when you should escalate to then, unless you're willing to scrounge through a 10-page PDF for references.)

That`s the point. If he had gone straight to SWT first they would have told him what to do, but as I doubt he did this, this is exactly why he ended up losing his case.

It`s irrelevant where the complaints section is listed. Why shouldn`t he want to trawl through the 10 page pdf that might have helped sort this mess out? What is "I can`t being asked to go through this document as it was too long" got to do with it? It was in his interest to do precisely that. I bet he ended up trawling through documents much longer than this going through small claims. Most of the members here would have given him sound advice from the start but sadly for him, he knew better. I also wonder if he was advised to to do this from the start by the courts.

If you read through his posts he did seem oblivious to what people were trying to tell him. He seems to be honest enough but cannot understand why he lost.

 

[davowolf]

As OP here's a quick summary of the story so far to dispel some misunderstanding I'm reading here, followed by an update.
1 Waterloo station ticket machine: on-line prepaid outbound tkt not in tray; only return + receipt + curiously, receipt from previous transaction several minutes earlier.
2 Ticket office refused to issue duplicate, didn't believe me and accused me of trying to get a free ticket. A second official went the machine and claimed it was working perfectly and no ticket present. Gave me CS details for me to write to them.
3 CS maintained the machine was working perfectly at the time and no refund would be given.
4 Small claims issued on-line; no other avenues known about.
5 SWT defence based on transaction spreadsheet on the day purporting to show that there was nothing wrong with the ticket machine. This I now believe is only a record of printing as opposed to ticket in output tray.
6 The judge in court picked through each line and believed the defence case, maintaining that I provided insufficient proof that no ticket was present.
7 I found this site and started this thread and thank you all for your contributions; I've learned a lot and regret not finding you before now.
8 I have also since the hearing written again with further questions to SWT, the judge ('no correspondence can be entered into') and some questions for Scheidt and Bachmann CS.

My conclusions at the moment are;
1 S&B ticket machines whilst printing a ticket do have a tendency to fail to produce the printed ticket subsequently in the output tray.
2 From this thread by all accounts, S&B have given TOCs (including SWT) instructions how to deal with this very problem.
3 SWTs are very well aware of the possibility of this happening.
4 In court, by presenting a transaction record of ticket printing only to defend the case, knowing full-well that an error could still occur in presenting the printed ticket to the output tray, SWT were acting with deception if not fraudulently but got away with it because on the day of the hearing neither the judge nor I understood how these machines work or how they could fail.

I would have appealed but it was going to cost £120 just to submit the papers and with no concrete evidence, such as a S&B Bulletin or verifiable expert witness statement, I decided not to take that gamble. I spoke to a lawyer but she wanted £230 an hour for advice; I'm a pensioner remember.

The media would seem to be the only avenue left to expose this behaviour by a TOC.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it depends on your aims at this point.

If you just want to vent or hang SWT out to dry, you might want to write to the consumer pages in a mainstream paper. However, given that this case has already gone to court, the consumer editor is unlikely to print your letter or take up the story to the TOC, because to be honest your case is closed - it went all the way to court! A consumer journo is only going to be interested in whether they can mount a success story off the back of your case. I think this may be a dead end for you.

The other option, and one which may bear more fruit, is writing to one of the rail industry magazines; they won't pursue the TOC, and they won't get you a resolution, but it may help focus minds within the industry. Modern Railways and RAIL are both widely available at TOC head offices, for example.

 

[Master29]

As OP here's a quick summary of the story so far to dispel some misunderstanding I'm reading here, followed by an update.
1 Waterloo station ticket machine: on-line prepaid outbound tkt not in tray; only return + receipt + curiously, receipt from previous transaction several minutes earlier.
2 Ticket office refused to issue duplicate, didn't believe me and accused me of trying to get a free ticket. A second official went the machine and claimed it was working perfectly and no ticket present. Gave me CS details for me to write to them.
3 CS maintained the machine was working perfectly at the time and no refund would be given.
4 Small claims issued on-line; no other avenues known about.
5 SWT defence based on transaction spreadsheet on the day purporting to show that there was nothing wrong with the ticket machine. This I now believe is only a record of printing as opposed to ticket in output tray.
6 The judge in court picked through each line and believed the defence case, maintaining that I provided insufficient proof that no ticket was present.
7 I found this site and started this thread and thank you all for your contributions; I've learned a lot and regret not finding you before now.
8 I have also since the hearing written again with further questions to SWT, the judge ('no correspondence can be entered into') and some questions for Scheidt and Bachmann CS.

My conclusions at the moment are;
1 S&B ticket machines whilst printing a ticket do have a tendency to fail to produce the printed ticket subsequently in the output tray.
2 From this thread by all accounts, S&B have given TOCs (including SWT) instructions how to deal with this very problem.
3 SWTs are very well aware of the possibility of this happening.
4 In court, by presenting a transaction record of ticket printing only to defend the case, knowing full-well that an error could still occur in presenting the printed ticket to the output tray, SWT were acting with deception if not fraudulently but got away with it because on the day of the hearing neither the judge nor I understood how these machines work or how they could fail.

I would have appealed but it was going to cost £120 just to submit the papers and with no concrete evidence, such as a S&B Bulletin or verifiable expert witness statement, I decided not to take that gamble. I spoke to a lawyer but she wanted £230 an hour for advice; I'm a pensioner remember.

The media would seem to be the only avenue left to expose this behaviour by a TOC.

Yes, I know all this bit but most of us wanted to know why you didn`t go through SWT in the first place. Would have saved yourself all this grief. I understand your frustration with the system but surely it pays to try and resolve things with the people or company concerned first rather than going straight to the courts. Even if you didn`t know about Transport Focus you would surely know this.

 

[Flamingo]

To the OP:

Putting it bluntly, the media won't be interested. If you were "famous", maybe, but otherwise, it's not exactly a miscarriage of justice on a par with The Birmingham Six or The Cardiff Three, is it?

If you were not aware of Transport Focus, you did not do your homework sufficiently before going to court. You managed to find this site, and all the information you needed after going to court - why did you not do so beforehand?

You need to accept, you made a wrong decidion on how to handle it, and lost. There is not a lot more you can do, other than move on. As others have said.

 

[trentside]

I think we've said what needs to be said, there seems little point in continuing the discussion as we'll go round in circles again.

 

[davowolf]

As the OP, just a point of information for Master29, I didn't just go straight to small claims; I did write to SWT CS first but got the same rebuttal as the ticket office on the day i.e. the machine was working perfectly.
Since the hearing I've written briefly to the BBC and Which? consumer organisation; I'll let you know if there's a reply. Its not my intention to hang anyone out to dry (AlterEgo) but I don't want any other honest, unsuspecting fare-paying passengers to fall into this trap. I know there was no ticket dispensed but the SWT defence in court was that it was but based on a record of printing, not ticket delivered, and could be seen therefore as dishonesty in court.
I've seen enough on this thread to know this issue has arisen before and that TOCs know this but don't admit it. Thats just wrong. SWT have, and since the hearing, denied it has ever happened before to other passengers and also deny any information has been received from S&B regarding these machines. I shall be writing again to challenge this and repeating my claim for breach of contract even though the case went against me. Naive ? Yes, but just honest.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I know there was no ticket dispensed but the SWT defence in court was that it was but based on a record of printing, not ticket delivered, and could be seen therefore as dishonesty in court.

You are stratospherically missing the point of how a Court operates.

In civil cases it is on the balance of probabilities, based on evidence.

South West Trains had evidence to show that your ticket was printed correctly. They didn't say it had been delivered properly (e.g. stuck in the chute). But they had evidence to show that all tickets were printed correctly and that it was the first ticket, rather than the last, which went missing. Tickets lost or stuck in the output tray are usually easily recovered, either by sticking your hand into the output chute or getting a station staff member to open the machine.

You had no evidence of anything.

What on earth did you think would happen?

 

[jkdd77]

Last Friday, picking up pre-purchased tickets from a SWT TVM, the machine correctly vended all my tickets, but also vended a previous (and quite expensive) pre-purchased ticket (Super Off Peak single) belonging to someone else (which, naturally, I handed in at the ticket office in the hope that it might be reunited with its correct owner).

I carefully checked the 'hopper' before using it to ascertain that it was empty, so I can only assume that someone else had the same problem faced by the unfortunate OP. Indeed, I suspect that the OP's ticket may later have been vended to another passenger, and that the "proof" of printing provided by SWT was not sufficient proof that the ticket was correctly vended.

As an aside, it's a pity the OP didn't find this forum first; with assistance and advice, he might have had a better chance of:
1) wording his letter(s) so as to maximise of the chance of persuading SWT to agree to a mutually satisfactory outcome; failing that;
2) getting TF to intervene to put pressure on SWT to change their minds; failing that;
3) offering a sober assessment of the risks and probabilities of litigation, and, if necessary;
4) presenting the best possible case, both in his statement of claim, and in court, bearing in mind that the OP's witness statement and testimony are both evidence in their own right.

As it is though, the OP has my sympathy, but I'm not sure what he hopes to gain by re-opening the thread here. I continue to advise against appealing, on the grounds that the risk/ reward ratio is prohibitive, and in any case it sounds like the OP will not in fact appeal.

 

[Master29]

As the OP, just a point of information for Master29, I didn't just go straight to small claims; I did write to SWT CS first but got the same rebuttal as the ticket office on the day i.e. the machine was working perfectly.
Since the hearing I've written briefly to the BBC and Which? consumer organisation; I'll let you know if there's a reply. Its not my intention to hang anyone out to dry (AlterEgo) but I don't want any other honest, unsuspecting fare-paying passengers to fall into this trap. I know there was no ticket dispensed but the SWT defence in court was that it was but based on a record of printing, not ticket delivered, and could be seen therefore as dishonesty in court.
I've seen enough on this thread to know this issue has arisen before and that TOCs know this but don't admit it. Thats just wrong. SWT have, and since the hearing, denied it has ever happened before to other passengers and also deny any information has been received from S&B regarding these machines. I shall be writing again to challenge this and repeating my claim for breach of contract even though the case went against me. Naive ? Yes, but just honest.

As Arctic Troll rightly points out, yet again, you`ve totally missed the point of how the courts operate. Yes, it`s possible you may well have been wronged, but it`s how you dealt with things afterwards that was the problem. You still haven`t mentioned whether or not you were caught by an RPI.
That is why I asked what had happened in the first place.

What is the point of going to the BBC about this. What do you hope to achieve. You`d be better pointing out to people who would fall into "this trap" as you put it, how to avoid this type of thing in the first place. A little consumer law knowledge may have helped serve you better.

 

[gray1404]

I do remember the time though when a TOC (I remember Virgin doing it in the early days of their franchise) would pro-actively advise a customer that if they are unhappy with the reply then can contact the then (in those days) Rail Passengers Council - which is of course Transport Focus now. This meant that the passenger knew they could take their complaint further if they were unhappy.

So much as I know that this information is normally detailed on the TOC websites, within the Passengers Charters of the TOCs and I highly doubt any operator would fail to provide Transport Focus contact detail, I do not feel it is advised enough and thus more customers taking their complaints to the next stage if they remain unhappy.

I wonder if had SWT told the OP about Transport Focus then he would have contacted them and they had some input.

Lets face it though, even when you go to Transport Focus they prefer that you have told the TOC already that you are unhappy and had it reviewed or reconsidered by a Manager. How many TOCs actually are pro-active at telling customers they have both these options (Managerial review and then Transport Focus) in their full reply to a passenger complaint?

 

[crehld]

Lets face it though, even when you go to Transport Focus they prefer that you have told the TOC already that you are unhappy and had it reviewed or reconsidered by a Manager. How many TOCs actually are pro-active at telling customers they have both these options (Managerial review and then Transport Focus) in their full reply to a passenger complaint?

This is because Transport Focus's rules are explicitly clear that you must ask a TOC to review their initial response to a complaint before they are willing to take it up pm your behalf:

Have you received a full response and are unsatisfied?

If you have received a response and remain unhappy, please ask for this to be reviewed again and follow the train company’s internal escalation process.

In this way managerial review is a necessary prerequisite, not an alternative option, before any complaint can be taken on board by Transport Focus.

Anyway, I think everything has been said on this now.

I certainly share some of the OP's frustration that the ticket didn't print. It has happened to me on a couple of occasions before (which was always resolved at the ticket office), and a number of other experiences, including by some rail staff, on here confirm it is not an uncommon problem. However as has been said by many the OP's approach to resolving this wasn't the best way to go. For future reference I would advise the following course of action, before even thinking of involving any court of law:

1. Seek advice from a ticket office or other staff (where available).
2. Complain to customer service department.
3. If not satisfied ask that
4. If still not satisfied complain to Transport Focus.

Alternatively before doing anything come to this forum and we'd be able to advise you in the best course of action to get your complaint resolved.