MG11 for journey with itinerary

[WesternLancer]

I’ve watched a couple of these and several times they’ve shown themselves up to be poorly trained (you think they’d edit it out of a public broadcast).

My favourite was an RPO claiming ‘you need to scan the e-ticket barcode in order for it to be valid’.

hmmm - what a surprise

 

[walkingsophie]

They also mentioned that the person giving me the MG11 did not mention my itinerary at all in the notes. But in this case it kind of becomes my word of telling them about the itinerary and their word of not mentioning it in the notes, so I'm not sure if anything can be done about that.

After doing a GDPR request, I have now seen that the itinerary was mentioned in the court paperwork Inspectors Witness Statement Paragraph, but not in the notes for the MG11. I wonder if I can cause SWR to take some form of disciplinary action against the person who MG11ed me.

 

[AlterEgo]

After doing a GDPR request, I have now seen that the itinerary was mentioned in the court paperwork Inspectors Witness Statement Paragraph, but not in the notes for the MG11. I wonder if I can cause SWR to take some form of disciplinary action against the person who MG11ed me.

You can't cause them to do anything. You can complain but that's about it. You'll never find out the outcome.

 

[walkingsophie]

You can't cause them to do anything. You can complain but that's about it. You'll never find out the outcome.

Of course I can't directly cause them to do things, but I think this is one of the cases where directly complaining would be effective.

 

[Wolfie]

You can't cause them to do anything. You can complain but that's about it. You'll never find out the outcome.

True but methinks a complaint to the Information Commissioner about SWR retaining information relating to erroneous staff action could be interesting....

 

[Tetchytyke]

You can't cause them to do anything. You can complain but that's about it. You'll never find out the outcome.

I’d be requesting from SWR the deletion of all my personal data, now it is clear it was collected erroneously…

 

[Cantab26]

I have now seen that the itinerary was mentioned in the court paperwork Inspectors Witness Statement Paragraph, but not in the notes for the MG11.

What, precisely, is your complaint here?

 

[walkingsophie]

I’d be requesting from SWR the deletion of all my personal data, now it is clear it was collected erroneously…

There is one particularly strange email I have enquired about. After they tell me more about it and maybe talking to the person who apologised to me a bit I will request this

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2026 ==

What, precisely, is your complaint here?

That the gateline person was aware I had an itinerary and yet did not accept my ticket, and thus did not acknowledge the new NRCoT changes despite being briefed on it

 

[Tetchytyke]

That the gateline person was aware I had an itinerary and yet did not accept my ticket

You’re wasting your time complaining about that. All the RPI has to say is that they thought the itinerary you produced didn’t support the ticket being used- which isn’t an unreasonable position for them to take, after all- and everyone is golden.

 

[Cantab26]

That the gateline person was aware I had an itinerary and yet did not accept my ticket, and thus did not acknowledge the new NRCoT changes despite being briefed on it

Let’s try this a different way: what do you understand by the term “MG11” and how is this distinguished from the “Inspectors Witness Statement”?

 

[walkingsophie]

Let’s try this a different way: what do you understand by the term “MG11” and how is this distinguished from the “Inspectors Witness Statement”?

I guess I have been using the words report for prosecution and MG11 interchangeable even though that doesn't fully match their meanings. So, to clarify, specifically the events information (which is what I'm assuming is meant by "notes on the notice issued" in the apology) does not mention the itinerary but the court paperwork does mention it.

You’re wasting your time complaining about that.

I am aware it's unlikely to do much, but there is no harm in at least talking to them about it.

 

[Mainline421]

That the gateline person was aware I had an itinerary and yet did not accept my ticket, and thus did not acknowledge the new NRCoT changes despite being briefed on it

Nothing has changed in this regard. The Routeing Guide has for many years stated that an itinerary validates a route, and your route is permitted under the Guide. No additional rights were awarded to passengers whatsoever

 

[AlterEgo]

Nothing has changed in this regard, the Routing Guide has for many stated that an intirary validates a route, and your route is permitted by the Guide.

Where does it say that?

 

[Mainline421]

Where does it say that?

Any ticket indicated for use in conjunction with a particular journey when using the Journey Planner will automatically be valid for the route and service indicated.

Here https://web.archive.org/web/20241216135613/https://data.atoc.org/routeing-guide

 

[SaltAndVinegar]

NRCoT condition 13.1.2 also covers this;

as shown on an itinerary presented by the journey planner on
www.nationalrail.co.uk or from a Licensed Retailer in connection with the
purchase of a Ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to
that Ticket.

National Rail Conditions of Travel | National Rail

The gateway to Britain's National Rail network. A portal into UK rail travel including train company information and promotions; train times; fares enquiries; ticket purchase and train running information

www.nationalrail.co.uk