Railcard ticket purchase - must the holder be present ?

[sheff1]

Last Saturday, my partner and son travelled from Sheffield. They arrived at the station via Supertram and, rather than carry the luggage all the way across to the ticket office and then back again to Platform 8, my son stayed with it whilst my partner went to buy the tickets. When she produced the boy's 16-25 railcard the ticket clerk asked where he was and, when the situation was explained, insisted that he needed to be physically present at the ticket office otherwise she would not issue a discounted ticket.

My partner asked why, pointing out that you can buy tickets online without any such 'identity check'. The clerk said that it said on the railcard that the person must be present. A swift check showed that it said no such thing and the clerk then reluctantly agreed to issue a ticket "this time".

So for future reference - was my partner correct in standing her ground or was, in fact, the clerk correct ?

 

[Mojo]

We've had this one before and I think the conclusion was that staff are told training that the railcard must be presented (and the 1625 Railcard T&Cs state "when buying tickets you must show the Railcard.")

However also agreed that it's stupid as you can use selfservice ticket machines and the internet to buy the tickets without showing your Railcard, and that on board staff check for Railcards.

 

[yorkie]

The solution is to use ticket machines. If the clerks do not want your business, don't give them it. If they want people to use the machines so they're out of a job, then so be it, they can have their way

I think it's a terrible shame, and this wouldn't happen in any other industry, but if they want a machine to do their job, then they can have it their way if they want.

 

[sheff1]

Apologies if I'm being thick here, but as my partner did show the railcard (and was paying for the ticket) are you saying the clerk was wrong ?

Also have you got a link for the previous thread ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The solution is to use ticket machines. If the clerks do not want your business, don't give them it. If they want people to use the machines so they're out of a job, then so be it, they can have their way

I think it's a terrible shame, and this wouldn't happen in any other industry, but if they want a machine to do their job, then they can have it their way if they want.

She is nervous about using the machines in case she selects the wrong ticket. Normally I would book online but it was a last minute decision (due to the weather) to go by train rather than drive.

 

[yorkie]

I think that technically, by the railways ridiculous rules, the clerk was right because the Railcard holder wasn't present at the counter.

If someone gave us access to really good lawyers and a load of cash I reckon we could have a really good go at getting a lot of draconian rules overturned. But, until that time, we just have to put up with utterly ridiculous rules. The railways assume that customers will never ever consider any alternative mode of transport, so they'll continue to treat us like crap. There are, however, many good staff out there that apply common sense and would issue the ticket in your case. Many of them would be happy to do so, while others do so grudgingly as if you, the customer, are a massive inconvenience to them, and some will simply be jobsworths and refuse to co-operate, in which case just use the machines instead if that's what they want.

 

[LondonLarry]

I don't think there is anything in the Railcard T&Cs or the NRCC which explicitly state that the Railcard holder is the only person that can buy discounted tickets at a ticket office.

In my opinion, your partner was right to stand her ground.

 

[142094]

NXEC started doing this a few months after they took over the ECML from GNER. I went to purchase a ticket at Newcastle, but did not have my railcard (which I had never needed previously). The person explained it was "new orders" to tighten up on people abusing the use of a railcard, but I then asked that I would of course have my railcard on the journey, so there shouldn't be a problem. Still had to drive back home and get my railcard, and go back again.

Not particularly good if you get to the station and don't have your railcard, then the ticket you are trying to buy is sold out later on (in the case of advance tickets).

 

[gordonthemoron]

do the ticket machines allow you to buy tickets for a later date?

 

[LondonLarry]

Most S&B TVMs will allow you to buy an Anytime ticket with tomorrow's date from 1500 today.

Alternatively, just buy the tickets online and arrange to collect them from a TVM.

 

[Old Timer]

I think that technically, by the railways ridiculous rules, the clerk was right because the Railcard holder wasn't present at the counter.

If someone gave us access to really good lawyers and a load of cash I reckon we could have a really good go at getting a lot of draconian rules overturned. But, until that time, we just have to put up with utterly ridiculous rules. The railways assume that customers will never ever consider any alternative mode of transport, so they'll continue to treat us like crap. There are, however, many good staff out there that apply common sense and would issue the ticket in your case. Many of them would be happy to do so, while others do so grudgingly as if you, the customer, are a massive inconvenience to them, and some will simply be jobsworths and refuse to co-operate, in which case just use the machines instead if that's what they want.

Yorkie, you have many positive points I am sure but your constant and sometime ill-informed sniping at the Railways does you nor your "cause" any justice at all. As you seem to dislike the Railways so much why sell railway tickets ? Why not work for an airline or National Express buses, or a travel agents ?

I am sure we are going obver old ground again, however here goes.

Firstly railway tickets are NOT transferrable, so there should be a little light appearing in the sky at this point.

As has been said many times before by me, a railway ticket constitutes a Contract for Service between the passenger and the Railway Company/ies. It is NOT a contract for the supply of goods and that is why it is not transferrable. It clearly states this is the NCOC.

A Contract has to be personally accepted by both parties. It cannot be unilaterally accepted therefore if a ticket is bought by someone else and transferred, there is no legal binding Contract. In recent years the terms have been eased slightly to allow another person to buy a ticket on behalf of another person, and in doing so they accept the terms and conditions on behalf of the passenger. This is not transfer which is a different situation. That is the strict legal position, and it is against the legal Conditions of Carriage and relevant Railway Byelaws and Acts that the conditions of use of any discount railcard have to be issued.

When buying face to face it is regarded (legally) as accepting the terms and conditions.

When buying over the internet, there is a requirement to both confirm the Railcard number as well as accept the terms and conditions. That then becomes the point at which the Contract becomes legally binding.

It is not unreasonable to require the person to whom the ticket is to be used, to be present with the relevant identity and railcards, after all it reasonable to assume that anyone could buy a reduced rate ticket and travel with it when they were not allowed to....and when challenged, we would here the old "no one told me, they sold the ticket, etc" story.

The NCOC I am told have been accepted by the Office of Fair Trading (for what little that matters as the OFT seems to be quite a useless organisation from what I can see of their recent activities) so they cannot be argued to be unfair now can they ?. Obviously the OFT did not consider it onerous or an abuse of power to require the passenger to comply with the various conditions, so why do you ?

What is unreasonable in your view about requiring the person to present themselves in person at a booking office ? It is not the fault of the Railway that a person may feel inconvenienced or may have lots of luggage or arrive without sufficient time. Where does the hand-holding of passengers end ? At what point does the Industry just say lets have a free for all, lets not bother enforcing conditions, lets not bother checking tickets, lets not bother making sure that the person has a railcard. At what point Yorkie ? Because you always seem to have a problem with the passenger upholding THEIR side of the bargain. With you it is ALWAYS the passenger who has to be in the ascendency. The Railway has to give all and get nothing back in return.

Why not try trying to buy a reduced rate ticket at Digbeth Coach Station on behalf of someopne else using a reduced rate card and see what they say ? I doubt you will be there long.

Why not take my frequent flyer card and use it to buy an airline ticket ? You may be upset when they want to see me there instead of you ?

Similar arrangements apply on the Continent with regards to having to personally present yourself at the ticket office window when using a discount card. What is so onerous about that applying here ?

 

[wintonian]

Although you can buy tickets online or from the machine without you railcard (have you ever tied scanning it in to the pc and emailing it?) I agree that the railcard should be shown at ticket offices to assist in reducing abuse. This however has been the case on a good part of the SWML for as long as I can remember (mid - late 90's) with notices about showing railcards at larger stations.

 

[tony_mac]

When buying face to face it is regarded (legally) as accepting the terms and conditions.

not exactly; it depends on how reasonable the terms and conditions are.

When buying over the internet, there is a requirement to both confirm the Railcard number ...

No, there isn't, there is no check at all on the internet or by machine.

The NCOC I am told have been accepted by the Office of Fair Trading .... so they cannot be argued to be unfair now can they ?

I don't think that's exactly right. Some time ago they reviewed them and a number of changes were made so that the OFT decided not to take it any further. The OFT definitely still had some reservations about them, so they are neither definitively fair or unfair. The current opinion may also be different.

The railcard conditions are not 100% clear that a passenger must be present when buying a discounted ticket, although that is probably what it means.

'when buying tickets you must show the Railcard.'

When buying student tickets for other events it is fairly common to only supply the discount card for the person, rather than have everyone causing congestion at the box-office.

 

[Max]

It is not unreasonable to require the person to whom the ticket is to be used, to be present with the relevant identity and railcards...

I can think of many situations where it would be perfectly reasonable for the railcard holder not to be present! Frankly, if the industry wants to maximise revenues and customer satisfaction, it would be much better off reducing its obstructiveness towards passengers.

...after all it reasonable to assume that anyone could buy a reduced rate ticket and travel with it when they were not allowed to....and when challenged, we would here the old "no one told me, they sold the ticket, etc" story...

So what if you heard that? It was you who just said that the passenger "accept the terms and conditions" upon purchase of the ticket, therefore if they are then in violation of the conditions by not carrying their railcard or travelling on somebody else's railcard then they should be penalty fared or charged for a new ticket. What's difficult about that? Isn't that what on-train revenue protection is for? Frankly, if the passenger was a determined fare evader then they would just buy their ticket from the machine or online, so if the industry thinks these petty rules will have any impact other than inconveniencing passengers then they should think again.

...What is unreasonable in your view about requiring the person to present themselves in person at a booking office? It is not the fault of the Railway that a person may feel inconvenienced or may have lots of luggage or arrive without sufficient time. Where does the hand-holding of passengers end? At what point does the Industry just say lets have a free for all, lets not bother enforcing conditions, lets not bother checking tickets, lets not bother making sure that the person has a railcard. At what point Yorkie ? Because you always seem to have a problem with the passenger upholding THEIR side of the bargain. With you it is ALWAYS the passenger who has to be in the ascendency. The Railway has to give all and get nothing back in return.

Ever heard of the phrase "the customer is always right"? If lots of people are making the same complaint (evidenced on this very forum) then it is clear that there is a body of people who share the same problem. Frankly, with a good legal case I believe you could easily prove this policy to be highly discriminative. What about people without the internet for example?

I actually had this problem last week at Sheffield station myself, and it was highly inconvenient. You seem to suggest in your message, Old Timer, that the railways should be purposefully inconveniencing people. A bit short sighted, surely?

 

[Helvellyn]

The clerk could have explained the conditions and sold the ticket, writing "conditions advised" on the ticket. If someone were to then buy a discounted ticket from a Ticket Office and use it on a train, and not actually hold the Railcard, then on board staff could know and deal with them appropriately.

Likewise, I personally think that on TVMs there should be a pop-up screen when a railcard discount is selected, bullet pointing key conditions. I.e. person travelling must have valid railcard, will be carrying it on the journey, accepts T&Cs of issue. If that was not agreed to then the discounted ticket would not be sold. Thsi again would help on board staff because you'd know that someone without a railcard could not calim "they didn't know" or that "I was sold it and nobody said anything."

Standardise, to an extent, the procedures of issue and put the emphasis back on the railcard holder to know and abide by the conditions of the railcard.

 

[Max]

The clerk could have explained the conditions and sold the ticket, writing "conditions advised" on the ticket. If someone were to then buy a discounted ticket from a Ticket Office and use it on a train, and not actually hold the Railcard, then on board staff could know and deal with them appropriately.

Likewise, I personally think that on TVMs there should be a pop-up screen when a railcard discount is selected, bullet pointing key conditions. I.e. person travelling must have valid railcard, will be carrying it on the journey, accepts T&Cs of issue. If that was not agreed to then the discounted ticket would not be sold. Thsi again would help on board staff because you'd know that someone without a railcard could not calim "they didn't know" or that "I was sold it and nobody said anything."

Standardise, to an extent, the procedures of issue and put the emphasis back on the railcard holder to know and abide by the conditions of the railcard.

I absolutely agree with this. As long as the conditions are made clear, then the TOCs have the upper-hand and the offender won't have a leg to stand on legally!

 

[142094]

As has been mentioned, you do not need to show proof of having a railcard when buying online - perhaps this should be changed? It is the TOC's problem if they do not have enough staff to check tickets properly on a train, and to check to see if a person has a railcard when their ticket requires it. All this does is add to the notion that the railways are there to make money and not serve the general public. Perhaps instead of causing inconvenience such as this, they should put more time and effort into catching people without tickets and and bring them to book first.

 

[mumrar]

this is definately a case of dragging back over hot coals. In yorkies world the member if staff is doing it just to be ****ty, because we all like to do that. In the member of staffs world, they have managers constantly checking up on them and don't want a ticket irregularity report to come back to their booking office because they issued a ticket without a railcard. If I had vouchers for 30% off a Dominos Pizza they wouldn't give me the discount until they saw it, and this would be the same with other kinds of retail world discounts, such as Student Union cards etc. Why is it so hard for railway customers to see they are annoyed at themselves for forgetting the railcard, but want to deflect their anger at someone else instead?

 

[Mojo]

this is definately a case of dragging back over hot coals. In yorkies world the member if staff is doing it just to be ****ty, because we all like to do that. In the member of staffs world, they have managers constantly checking up on them and don't want a ticket irregularity report to come back to their booking office because they issued a ticket without a railcard. If I had vouchers for 30% off a Dominos Pizza they wouldn't give me the discount until they saw it, and this would be the same with other kinds of retail world discounts, such as Student Union cards etc. Why is it so hard for railway customers to see they are annoyed at themselves for forgetting the railcard, but want to deflect their anger at someone else instead?

I don't think this is anything to do with forgetting the Railcard; merely the fact that why does the railway industry (ie. not the member of staff concerned) insist on the Railcard being presented at the ticket office when you can use a selfservice machine or the internet with no such checks? As a result, most onboard staff will check the Railcard and its validity.

 

[Max]

Why is it so hard for railway customers to see they are annoyed at themselves for forgetting the railcard, but want to deflect their anger at someone else instead?

But that isn't the point. The original post was with regards to the railcard being present, but the railcard holder not being there. Completely different situation.

 

[mumrar]

It's not different, everyone is looking at it asuming that the person does have a railcard. But if they don't, the booking office staff could get in trouble for selling it. My bank let me transfer money from my account online without me being there, that doesn't mean they'll permit a bank transfer in a branch without me there does it?

 

[Mojo]

It's not different, everyone is looking at it asuming that the person does have a railcard. But if they don't, the booking office staff could get in trouble for selling it.

Hence my statement that it is the fault of the industry for requiring staff in booking offices to ask to see a Railcard. I don't see why the booking office requires it when TVMs and websites don't.

 

[A60K]

But mumrar, in this case under discussion the valid railcard was presented to the ticket seller, but they refused to sell on the grounds that the purchaser wasn't the holder of the railcard. Is that not a similar situation to refusing to sell a child ticket to an adult because the child isn't present?

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie, you have many positive points I am sure but your constant and sometime ill-informed sniping at the Railways does you nor your "cause" any justice at all. As you seem to dislike the Railways so much why sell railway tickets ? Why not work for an airline or National Express buses, or a travel agents ?

I don't sell tickets

I believe that people who are obstructive toward passengers (or prospective passengers) are not doing the railways any favours. People who support rail travel should do their best to ensure that customers have a good experience, are given a good service and are given help on how to buy the best ticket, within their ability of course (e.g. I would not criticise someone for selling a through ticket where a combination is much cheaper - because I understand they are not officially allowed to do so). The railways have some customer un-friendly rules, this does the industry no favours.

Firstly railway tickets are NOT transferrable, so there should be a little light appearing in the sky at this point.

As has been said many times before by me, a railway ticket constitutes a Contract for Service between the passenger and the Railway Company/ies. It is NOT a contract for the supply of goods and that is why it is not transferrable. It clearly states this is the NCOC..

Agreed, but no-one has suggested 'transferring' any ticket!

A Contract has to be personally accepted by both parties. It cannot be unilaterally accepted therefore if a ticket is bought by someone else and transferred, there is no legal binding Contract. In recent years the terms have been eased slightly to allow another person to buy a ticket on behalf of another person, and in doing so they accept the terms and conditions on behalf of the passenger. This is not transfer which is a different situation. That is the strict legal position, and it is against the legal Conditions of Carriage and relevant Railway Byelaws and Acts that the conditions of use of any discount railcard have to be issued.

When buying face to face it is regarded (legally) as accepting the terms and conditions.

I don't think there is anything to suggest that I can't buy a ticket for another person from a ticket office. Unfortunately if I want to buy a ticket for another person who is disabled, elderly, or young, then I may have difficulty due to draconian rules. However I will have no problems online or by 'phone. Hence the decline of the importance of ticket offices as people choose to avoid obstructive staff or long queues. (I have to say that this is not my experience at my local station but I recognise it is a problem for others)

When buying over the internet, there is a requirement to both confirm the Railcard number as well as accept the terms and conditions. That then becomes the point at which the Contract becomes legally binding.

I suspect you've not bought a Railcard discounted ticket over the internet?

It is not unreasonable to require the person to whom the ticket is to be used, to be present with the relevant identity and railcards, after all it reasonable to assume that anyone could buy a reduced rate ticket and travel with it when they were not allowed to....and when challenged, we would here the old "no one told me, they sold the ticket, etc" story.

Is it reasonable for me to buy medicine for someone who is too ill to go to the shop?

Is it reasonable to expect the elderly and disabled to make difficult journeys to stations because their carers/friends cannot buy for them according to these draconian rules?

The NCOC I am told have been accepted by the Office of Fair Trading (for what little that matters as the OFT seems to be quite a useless organisation from what I can see of their recent activities) so they cannot be argued to be unfair now can they ?. Obviously the OFT did not consider it onerous or an abuse of power to require the passenger to comply with the various conditions, so why do you ?

OFT did find some rules to be unfair, and they were changed. Sadly the OFT did not have the guts to go further.

What is unreasonable in your view about requiring the person to present themselves in person at a booking office ? It is not the fault of the Railway that a person may feel inconvenienced or may have lots of luggage or arrive without sufficient time. Where does the hand-holding of passengers end ? At what point does the Industry just say lets have a free for all, lets not bother enforcing conditions, lets not bother checking tickets, lets not bother making sure that the person has a railcard. At what point Yorkie ? Because you always seem to have a problem with the passenger upholding THEIR side of the bargain. With you it is ALWAYS the passenger who has to be in the ascendency. The Railway has to give all and get nothing back in return.

Erm, at what point? The guard/barrier staff. Not at the ticket office.

It's not the railways fault the elderly are elderly or the disabled are disabled or the young are not yet confident. No, so they should sod off and drive? Or they should use the internet and if they can't tough? Or maybe the railways should provide a service and treat the customer as a customer...

Why not try trying to buy a reduced rate ticket at Digbeth Coach Station on behalf of someopne else using a reduced rate card and see what they say ? I doubt you will be there long.

Well if a coach company refused to issue a ticket on belalf of an elderly person e.g. my grandmother then I'd hardly expect her to go there. I'd find an alternative mode of transport for her. Same applies to disabled, etc.

Why not take my frequent flyer card and use it to buy an airline ticket ? You may be upset when they want to see me there instead of you ?

Similar arrangements apply on the Continent with regards to having to personally present yourself at the ticket office window when using a discount card. What is so onerous about that applying here ?

I don't know much about foreign railways, so I can't comment. But if they treat the elderly, disabled, and young, and families how some people here do, then that's no excuse for us to lower ourselves to that level.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

this is definately a case of dragging back over hot coals. In yorkies world the member if staff is doing it just to be ****ty, because we all like to do that. ...

Nope.

There are, however, many good staff out there that apply common sense and would issue the ticket in your case. Many of them would be happy to do so, while others do so grudgingly as if you, the customer, are a massive inconvenience to them, and some will simply be jobsworths and refuse to co-operate, in which case just use the machines instead if that's what they want.

Happy now?

 

[sheff1]

It's not different, everyone is looking at it asuming that the person does have a railcard. But if they don't, the booking office staff could get in trouble for selling it.

I thought I had made it clear that the railcard was shown. Also that the tickets being requested were one full fare and one discounted railcard fare - surely no one would request a ticket for themselves plus an additional ticket for someone who didn't exist.

Anyway, thanks for all the replies. As the definitive answer is not clear I expect that should a similar situation arise again my partner will drive rather than go by train.

 

[yorkie]

I thought I had made it clear that the railcard was shown. Also that the tickets being requested were one full fare and one discounted railcard fare - surely no one would request a ticket for themselves plus an additional ticket for someone who didn't exist.

Since when have the railways used logic? Actually, it's not funny really, it just drives people away (literally)

Anyway, thanks for all the replies. As the definitive answer is not clear I expect that should a similar situation arise again my partner will drive rather than go by train.

That's a shame, but I can't blame you. Personally I'd always find ways to beat the jobsworths, but then I don't have a car and go everywhere by train. I would, however, encourage you to write to the TOC telling them this. Maybe, just maybe, they'll listen and be more customer friendly in future.

 

[Old Timer]

I can think of many situations where it would be perfectly reasonable for the railcard holder not to be present! Frankly, if the industry wants to maximise revenues and customer satisfaction, it would be much better off reducing its obstructiveness towards passengers.

At what point does one cease to be obstructive then, go to the person's home ? maybe actually travel for them ?

There are many scenarios whenone has to present a card of soem description to gain a discount or obtain loyalty awards. many Companies clearly state that you cannot claim at a later point. It seems to me that the Railway Industry on here at least can never win. Lets talk about THOSE issues if you want to talk about customer service,and by the way its BIG names not little retailers.

So what if you heard that? It was you who just said that the passenger "accept the terms and conditions" upon purchase of the ticket, therefore if they are then in violation of the conditions by not carrying their railcard or travelling on somebody else's railcard then they should be penalty fared or charged for a new ticket. What's difficult about that? Isn't that what on-train revenue protection is for? Frankly, if the passenger was a determined fare evader then they would just buy their ticket from the machine or online, so if the industry thinks these petty rules will have any impact other than inconveniencing passengers then they should think again.

And eactly hgow many topics are there on here from peopl,e bewailing he fact that they did something they should not have done and looking for ways out ? or did not comply with the issue conditions of the ticket ?

Or indeed looking for way to circumvent the system by posting on here in search of any potential loophole, legal or otherwise ?

Ever heard of the phrase "the customer is always right"? If lots of people are making the same complaint (evidenced on this very forum) then it is clear that there is a body of people who share the same problem. Frankly, with a good legal case I believe you could easily prove this policy to be highly discriminative. What about people without the internet for example?

The "Customer is always right" argument is a ridiculous one, as anyone who is involved with customer service will tell you This is a phrase normally used by those who want to obtain some benefit to which they may not be entitled.

People will try anything on as even a cursory few minutes spent watching airline, or the various Police fly on the wall series will testify.

Terms and conditions are applied for a reason, and to suggest that the Railways NCOCs are somehow anti-passenger is not a defensible position.

Every contract requires two people to agree. The screaming on here would be deafening if TOCs unilaterally tried to change the conditions under which a ticket had been issued, yet every day lmost, people comehere seeking to cange the terms an conditions which they agreed to when they bought thet ticket.

Ever tried buying a car and then asking for your full money back because you changed your mind ? or coming back week later and changing it foir another model and expecting a full refund ?

There seems to be this vey prevalent atttude here that the Railways are not "customer friendly" if they do not agree to whatever punter wants, and that conditions of ticket issue are non-binding as and when they do not suit, yet the very same conditions are very rapidly referred to when it does suit. You do not see the irony in that position ?

I actually had this problem last week at Sheffield station myself, and it was highly inconvenient. You seem to suggest in your message, Old Timer, that the railways should be purposefully inconveniencing people. A bit short sighted, surely?

It is not the job of the railway to make allowances for your failure to either arrive at the correct time or to be responsible for solving your problems. Would you not be one of the first to moan if the Railway unilaterally said "sorry but due to staff shortage you have to buy your tickets 30 minutes in advance of travelling ? I rather think you would not find that acceptable, yet you (presumably - I don't know the details obviously) expect the Railway to go beyond their obligations to you when it suits you ?

Tell me would you act in this manner in the case of an airline ? or National Express coaches ? or in Sainsburys ?

 

[Max]

It is not the job of the railway to make allowances for your failure to either arrive at the correct time or to be responsible for solving your problems. Would you not be one of the first to moan if the Railway unilaterally said "sorry but due to staff shortage you have to buy your tickets 30 minutes in advance of travelling ? I rather think you would not find that acceptable, yet you (presumably - I don't know the details obviously) expect the Railway to go beyond their obligations to you when it suits you ?

Deary deary me, any business should try to go out of it's way for their customers. I hardly see how the customer is in any way at fault in this case, yet you seem to see it that way :roll:. And frankly, your example is actually often the case, particularly at Sheffield (ironically). Ticket office queues can often be staggering, and the recent introduction of penalty fares means that in some cases you would probably have to start queueing for a ticket at least 30 minutes before to get a ticket in time for your train.

 

[Old Timer]

I believe that people who are obstructive toward passengers (or prospective passengers) are not doing the railways any favours. People who support rail travel should do their best to ensure that customers have a good experience, are given a good service and are given help on how to buy the best ticket, within their ability of course (e.g. I would not criticise someone for selling a through ticket where a combination is much cheaper - because I understand they are not officially allowed to do so). The railways have some customer un-friendly rules, this does the industry no favours.

Agreed.

I don't think there is anything to suggest that I can't buy a ticket for another person from a ticket office. Unfortunately if I want to buy a ticket for another person who is disabled, elderly, or young, then I may have difficulty due to draconian rules. However I will have no problems online or by 'phone. Hence the decline of the importance of ticket offices as people choose to avoid obstructive staff or long queues. (I have to say that this is not my experience at my local station but I recognise it is a problem for others)

So being disabled, or elderly confers the right to a different set of rules ? Useful that, I shall have to try that one.

I would suggest that Data Protection "rules" are a far greater problem to someone helping the disabled or elderly than the dd ocasion that someone may want to buy a ticket in person.

I suspect you've not bought a Railcard discounted ticket over the internet?

True but what I have bought has clearly required me to acknowledge the terms and conditions BEFORE proceding, so one cannot argue that they did not know, although I am sure many do :roll:

Is it reasonable for me to buy medicine for someone who is too ill to go to the shop?

Irrelevant

Is it reasonable to expect the elderly and disabled to make difficult journeys to stations because their carers/friends cannot buy for them according to these draconian rules?

Internet access was vailable to 61% of he population in 2007. That figure is now substantally higher I believe. I doubt anyone dealing with the disabled/elderly does not have some access to the internet in some form or another.

OFT did find some rules to be unfair, and they were changed. Sadly the OFT did not have the guts to go further.

Probably because they have no grounds ? It certainly did not stop them going after the Banks, and getting nowhere when that clearly WAS to most people's views a case of grossly unfair trading. The Judges did not think so, and on that basis I doubt they would consider the NCOCs to be unreasonable. You could however launch your own case as I mentioned earlier. There are enough people on here who feel that way to be able to put their money where their mouths are ?

Erm, at what point? The guard/barrier staff. Not at the ticket office.

That response does not address any of the points I made and is irrelevant. I never suggestd people sod off. I suggested it was not unreasonable to expect passengers to do something other than sit there . Nothing too strenuous mind.

Well if a coach company refused to issue a ticket on behalf of an elderly person e.g. my grandmother then I'd hardly expect her to go there. I'd find an alternative mode of transport for her. Same applies to disabled, etc.

Ah, yes, this is where the Railways have to bend over backwards for everyone ?

I don't know much about foreign railways, so I can't comment. But if they treat the elderly, disabled, and young, and families how some people here do, then that's no excuse for us to lower ourselves to that level.

People on the Continent have much higher standards and levels of service in many cases to the UK and would be greatly offended by that little quip.

They also do not need to be wrapped in cotton wool and cossetted unlike any of the current UK population, and to be frank with you the more I keep coming here, the more I see just how absolutely awful and self-centred and selfish the UK has become in recent years. Its all self, self, self, and always somebody else's fault. We now have the ascendency of the "I want" generation who have little if any regard for anyone else beyond the satisfaction of their own sefish needs and desires.

It is not pleasant

Deary deary me, any business should try to go out of it's way for their customers. I hardly see how the customer is in any way at fault in this case, yet you seem to see it that way :roll:. And frankly, your example is actually often the case, particularly at Sheffield (ironically). Ticket office queues can often be staggering, and the recent introduction of penalty fares means that in some cases you would probably have to start queueing for a ticket at least 30 minutes before to get a ticket in time for your train.

In which case under the Passenger Charter (?) or at least under the some other Legislation you have cause to raise a complaint.

I do not seek to defend what is indefensible, but merely to point out that it is a two-way street. The passenger has rights but these rights also confer obligations. It is surely not unreasonable in my opinion to point out that passengers have a duty to meet those obligations ?

Rights always bring responsibilities, despite what the modern generations seem to think.


Anyway whilst it is always intellectually stimulating and educational to "do battle" with Yorkie, and now yourself, I really must go to bed. Thank you for a good debate, I wish you both well.

 

[yorkie]

I do not seek to defend what is indefensible, but merely to point out that it is a two-way street. The passenger has rights but these rights also confer obligations. It is surely not unreasonable in my opinion to point out that passengers have a duty to meet those obligations ?

Well it seems the obligations (for a railcard holder to be present) are waived when booking online. So that's what people will do. Ticket office staff will lose jobs as a result. I think that's a shame but it's their actions (in some cases by their choice, in some by their managers' choice) that will determine that, and ultimately lose them their jobs.

 

[Old Timer]

Well it seems the obligations (for a railcard holder to be present) are waived when booking online. So that's what people will do. Ticket office staff will lose jobs as a result. I think that's a shame but it's their actions (in some cases by their choice, in some by their managers' choice) that will determine that, and ultimately lose them their jobs.

THe obligations are NOT waived when booking online !

How can you possibly say that which a straight face ????

Legally it is accepted that you agree the terms and conditions without this being brought to your direct ettention when buying in person at a booking office, even the NCOCs tell you that !

When you buy online you can ONLY proceeed if you positively ACCEPT that your ticket is issued to the terms and conditions.

The nuance is a legal one simply to meet the "requirements" of people such as you, who would otherwise argue that the passenger had not been informed in advance.

You know this to be the case as well as I do. You try to find any and every means of excusing a person from complying with their obligations, even when this is morally wrong, and if you cannot, then the whole issue becomes one of unfairness to the punter and the use of unfair terms and conditions, etc.