Railcard ticket purchase - must the holder be present ?

[yorkie]

I can't argue against that - it's absurd, and it's too time consuming.

All I will say is that it is disappointing that the Fares & Ticketing section has again got these sort of posts in it. It had been good for a few weeks, I thought we'd seen the end of it.

Those of us who are determined to use rail will continue to get round the draconian rules by booking for other people online, using ticket machines, or finding staff with common sense, however many will not persevere with it and won't take the risk of encountering a jobsworth...

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.

... and people like sheff1 are being literally driven away by the rail industry's absurd, ridiculous and indefensible rules.

Show this topic to the average motorist and they'd just laugh and say they are glad they don't have to worry about complying with these so-called "obligations". It's not a good advert for rail.

 

[Oswyntail]

Our car is owned, insured and taxed in my wife's name. As far as I remember, she has never taken it for its MOT, renewed her insurance, or bough the tax disc - all those things I can do on her behalf on production of the correct documentation. And, I would argue, they are actions somewhat more critical than buying a ticket for someone.
There can be no argument that the vast array of rules governing the interface of railways with customers is over-complex and obscure. The whole shooting match needs to be re-written from scratch, based on the simple premise "What does the customer require". This is what "The customer is always right" means (not, as OT implies, that the customer can always get what they want). It is not unreasonable for customers to buy tickets on behalf of other people; it is not unreasonable for customers to know which route they want to take; it is not unreasonable for customers not to need to know which particular operator is providing any given service. I could go on. Rail provision for passengers is a public service, funded largely from public funds, and should be public-oriented.
When the jobsworths on this board whine that "that's not what the fares guide/routing guide/terms and conditions say" can they not hear themselves? It is that attitude that is keeping rail travel perceived as a minority product, only to be provided grudgingly, and then only after numerous hoops have been navigated. Customer requirements change, and providers have to change to meet them, rapidly. Yes, it is the passenger wanting a ticket who indirectly pays for the track worker. It is also the executive in his Mondeo, whose company finds it cheaper and easier to give him that than negotiate the jungle of ticket purchase ("Sorry, sir, but there isn't a ticket from Ilkley to Telford, out via Shrewsbury, back via Derby" "OK, I'll drive"). I can think of no other consumer of massive public funds that has remained so stubbornly unresponsive to its customers as an industry (And yes, I know that there are thousands of staff out there who know this, and treat their customers well - but they are hide-bound by this archaic mountain of rubbish)
There, that feels better.

 

[First class]

Our car is owned, insured and taxed in my wife's name. As far as I remember, she has never taken it for its MOT, renewed her insurance, or bough the tax disc - all those things I can do on her behalf on production of the correct documentation. And, I would argue, they are actions somewhat more critical than buying a ticket for someone.
There can be no argument that the vast array of rules governing the interface of railways with customers is over-complex and obscure. The whole shooting match needs to be re-written from scratch, based on the simple premise "What does the customer require". This is what "The customer is always right" means (not, as OT implies, that the customer can always get what they want). It is not unreasonable for customers to buy tickets on behalf of other people; it is not unreasonable for customers to know which route they want to take; it is not unreasonable for customers not to need to know which particular operator is providing any given service. I could go on. Rail provision for passengers is a public service, funded largely from public funds, and should be public-oriented.
When the jobsworths on this board whine that "that's not what the fares guide/routing guide/terms and conditions say" can they not hear themselves? It is that attitude that is keeping rail travel perceived as a minority product, only to be provided grudgingly, and then only after numerous hoops have been navigated. Customer requirements change, and providers have to change to meet them, rapidly. Yes, it is the passenger wanting a ticket who indirectly pays for the track worker. It is also the executive in his Mondeo, whose company finds it cheaper and easier to give him that than negotiate the jungle of ticket purchase ("Sorry, sir, but there isn't a ticket from Ilkley to Telford, out via Shrewsbury, back via Derby" "OK, I'll drive"). I can think of no other consumer of massive public funds that has remained so stubbornly unresponsive to its customers as an industry (And yes, I know that there are thousands of staff out there who know this, and treat their customers well - but they are hide-bound by this archaic mountain of rubbish)
There, that feels better.

How can you call the front line staff jobworths? They are doing their job correctly. They don't make the rules, but they are paid to enforce them. I don't like saying this, but at the end of the day, if you don't like the rules you're contractually accepting, go by a different mode of transport and complain. Staff can then concentrate on the passengers with correct tickets, ensuring they're comfortable, rather than having to argue with someone who is adamant they're right, because they think it should be allowed.
There are appropriate tickets for all journeys and routes, although you may need more than one to complete it, and the websites and staff tell you this.

 

[Old Timer]

All I will say is that it is disappointing that the Fares & Ticketing section has again got these sort of posts in it. It had been good for a few weeks, I thought we'd seen the end of it..

Sour grapes ?

Simply because you don't accept the reasoning and logic means that everyone else is wrong then ?

You always approach these issues from the perspective that whatever the Railway does is wrong, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I doubt that I have ever read a post where you start from a position otherwise.

As others have pointed out, old chap, Yorkie always has to be right. Just because others may propound a different view point to your does not make their point of view wrong, neither does it validate yours.

Sarcastic comment for pointing out the reasons and logic behind some of the Terms and Conditions, and the fact that other industries, shops etc apply similar type requirements, does not further your cause either. If you dont want an open debate then why not just simply block people from coming on this area of the Forum

With tickets freely available over the Internet, as well as by phone and through the post, and I assume also possibly through travel agents, there is no need for anyone to resort to using the car, and to say that they will simply because the alternative is a visit to the station is an absurd and illogical position to take.

Has it really gotten to the stage where we as a nation are becoming that lazy ? Surely not ? I suspect the comment was made for effect.

Oswyntail
I do not necessarily disagree with you, however you must understand the reasons why such rules and Ts&Cs were developed. A railway ticket is not like a tin of dog food, and years of Court cases have brought us to where we are. It is a legal thing and if there was an easier alternative I am sure something would have been done before now.

If people try to circumvent simple Ts&Cs then they will be altered and manipulated over time, and this is what has happened.

That said I think you should try taking a look at any of the Ts&Cs for any other type of service you procure, telephone, electricity, gas, etc and you will find far more complexity. Even buying a mobile telephone is not a simple process anymore, requiring bank cards, proofs of address, credit checks, etc and yet people seem to find this acceptable when compared against the Railway situation :roll:

 

[Mojo]

I do not necessarily disagree with you, however you must understand the reasons why such rules and Ts&Cs were developed. A railway ticket is not like a tin of dog food, and years of Court cases have brought us to where we are. It is a legal thing and if there was an easier alternative I am sure something would have been done before now.

I understand what you are saying, and indeed I noted it in my first reply to this thread, but the question is why do some TOCs insist on their staff seeing the Railcard at ticket offices where there is no such requirement to present or verify the existance of a Railcard at a TVM or online.

 

[Oswyntail]

How can you call the front line staff jobworths? ....

I didn't, and, in the majority, I wouldn't. What gets me, though, is the frequent reaction on this board that it is the customers who must change, not that the conditions and rules need revising.

...I do not necessarily disagree with you, however you must understand the reasons why such rules and Ts&Cs were developed....

Thanks, and I think you have highlighted the basic problem. Regulations have probably evolved over time, based on cases and precedents. This is an essential process, but there does come a time when radical re-write is necessary (Similar to software development!), because the original basis has been lost sight of or changed. Unfortunately, this takes resources that few companies have available. In fact, it should not be a company thing at all, to prevent any narrow vested interests affecting outcomes. A truly radical approach would be to a) extend all franchises so that none needs to be re-let within, say, 5 years, then b) use the resources that would have been spent on franchise renewal to make this radical re-write and c) re-let all franchises on the new conditions.

 

[Old Timer]

Oswyntail
For what it is worth, I agree whole-heartedly. I would welcome a root and branch revisit of the whole TOC/Passenger interface with very clear and indisputable obligations on both sides.

I would also welcome a great simplification of fares with a considerable narrowing of the gap between the cheapest and the full fare, as well as a reduction in the complexity of some ticket restrictions. If people seem to be unable to grasp them or unwilling to abide by them then why not just remove them and structure the fare base accordingly.

Too often those who have to apply the rules are criticised and abused by those who operate to various agenda.

In another area I have called for longer Franchises and a change to how the Railways are structured now. I doubt that will ever happen but as we are structured now nothing will change.

 

[John @ home]

if you don't like the rules you're contractually accepting, go by a different mode of transport and complain.

That is just what the OP will now do. Happy?

 

[Greenback]

Several things from the OP seem to have been forgotten or overlooked...

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 ?

The clerk's use of incorrect information is, I would guess, the result of incorrect, poor or non existent training in this area. In my day at the window, there was a sort of institutionalised mindset passed on to new employees by those already doing the job, but in any formal structured way. Rather, this was passed on by stories, gossip and banter that were soon absorbed by the new recruit. I went through the process, and it was severla months before I decided to actually check that some of the procedures we were following were actually correct. I found out that a few were wrong, and I have posted some examples previously in other threads.

I believe that this is what is meant by saying that some staff make up rules. It;s not done deliberatley or 'on the spot', but is rather a symptom of how the industry has always operated. It seems to cobntinue to this day, judging by staff discussions on other forums.

Even if there is something unambiguous in the conditions of the railcard, the NCoC or both, (Concerning the railcard must be present and show their railcard) staff should know what those conditions are and where they can be found. I believe the member of staff concerned would have genuinely believed that such a condition was printed on the card rather than being deliberately obstructive.

Having found out that she was wrong, the clerk then changed her mind and issued the ticket (hooray!). This should not have been done reluctantly 'this time', but with an apology for misinforming the customer. Again, I know from experience that when I was told I was wrong by a customer, I apologised if I checked up and discovered that they were right. This was not an easy thing to do, no one likes to admit they were incorrect, but I did it. Some of my colleagues were not so inclined.

Sheff1, your partner was most certainly correct in standing their ground! It seems to me perfectly reasonable that when two people are travelling with luggage one should stay with the bags while the other goes to buy a ticket, go to a shop or whatever. It also seems perfectly reasonable that someone can buy tickets in advance without a railcard holder being present, whether this be because they are ill, in work, or away on business. The important point is that the railcard holder has a railcard with them when they are actually travelling.

 

[blacknight]

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.

You finally uncovered the devious plot of TOC Managers passenger migration policy to encourage or bribe passengers with 10% off to use internet & fast ticket machine services as opposed to Booking Hall staff-so jobs in Booking Hall can then be cut. Machine dont go sicktake holidays or strike & best of all work for no wage.
Years ago print your tickets at home was called fraud & BTP would pay a visit but internet allows this now
How many people will just buy an Open ticket to save hassle of falling fowl of ticket restrictions when faced with choice offered on line or at Fast ticket machines, whereas go see clerk in Booking Hall & they will get you best deal for time of travel.
While humans have to enforce T&C re railcards & the like the internet will issue what ever the pasenger asks for, no Booking Clerk would allow a double back on journey like advance tickets do when booked online.
Whenever passenger dont get their own way we are all jobs worths & their taxes pay our wages. For the record a receipt is not a valid travel ticket as youth found out last week claim to have lost ticket but had receipt but when asked to buy a new ticket for journey he suddenly found "missing" ticket which was then clipped.
Customer Service versus Revenue Protection that can be a conflict of interest at times but I am proud to be reported for doing My job correctly, Thank You.You may think jobsworth he as a receipt I think will that missing ticket be reused or refund claimed on unclipped ticket.
As tax payers they should be proud how we defend their "investment"
Is it our fault that thanks to the modern education system some struggle with 24Hour clock principle, 1700 is not 7.00pm & yes some one as always booked the ticket for them be it parent or secretary not their fault, but our problem to resolve.