Refusing tickets issued by ticket clerk?

[Baxenden Bank]

Last week I bought a '4 days in 8 Freedom of the North West' rover ticket.

The ticket clerk processed my request and the machine printed out the 'rover' ticket but no 'date boxes' ticket.

After going away from his counter into the back room (telephone call for advice?), he returned and issued a second rover ticket from the adjacent ticket counter, this time both the 'rover' and the 'date boxes' ticket appeared.

He gave me the first 'rover' ticket and the 'date boxes' ticket from the second attempt.

The 'date boxes' ticket has printed upon it 'only valid with ticket number xxxxx' - thus it is not valid. He said at the time, if anyone questions, just explain what happened. Having read about the enthusiasm of Northern revenue protection staff, should I have insisted on having a set of tickets which matched up, serial number wise? Part of me says yes, cover myself, part of me says leave it be, why cause a fuss.

If the discrepency had been spotted there would be no way that I could prove what had happened or what I had been told - except by some forensic examination of ticket machine records well after the event.

I spent all week in a certain amount of trepidation at being 'caught'. Fortunately I only used the ticket for simple out and return journeys each day rather than hammering it and passing through several manned barriers per day. No-one spotted the discrepency (or at least choose to raise it as a problem).

 

[gordonthemoron]

I would have insisted on the matching pair. Surely the ticket clerk should have retained the dodgy ticket as evidence his machine wasn't working?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If you paid by card then the clerk may not have wanted to try non-issuing and re-issuing the ticket, so just issued another as cash and gave you the date box (they'd need to retain the rover bit to non-issue), but if you paid cash I honestly don't know why they didn't just give you the second one.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If you paid by card then the clerk may not have wanted to try non-issuing and re-issuing the ticket, so just issued another as cash and gave you the date box (they'd need to retain the rover bit to non-issue), but if you paid cash I honestly don't know why they didn't just give you the second one.

I paid by credit card, with a 'normal' OPR ticket to connect with the rover itself, so things could have got complicated. The clerk at the second desk asked what to do with the unwanted rover and my clerk did say it would have to be cancelled / flagged as non-issued (can't recall the exact phrase) and he would have been £70 short in his own till!

 

[Harpers Tate]

To me, the thing is - the buying customer should NEVER be placed in a situation where they are in some way in the wrong (even if tentatively) through no fault of their own. Sadly, there are certain (fortunately few) revenue staff out there who are very attentive and also very specific about "the rules" and who consequently won't ever give anyone the benefit of the doubt. This should not be the customer's responsibility.

 

[bb21]

Regardless of the payment method, the clerk should never leave the passenger with an invalid ticket, which is what happened here. At least he could have endorsed the ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

In an ideal world that is absolutely the case, but I'm not exactly sure how the banking process works for card payments. I know the bank puts a reserve on the funds until they are collected (or 24 hours passes), but I'm not sure if the bank is told to remove that reserve if the transaction is cancelled (non-issue).

So refunding (non-issue) and re-issue might seem the obvious choice, but it might not work if the reserve is not removed and the passenger doesn't have enough funds for two transactions.

The additional ticket shouldn't really be an issue, but it will depend on how the ticket machine handles it (they might need to non-issue and re-issue that too).

The way these modern machines work, you can't just issue a new cash ticket and non-issue the card one because effectively you'd be giving out a free ticket (the card refund is automatic for a non-issue).

 

[maniacmartin]

I would have insisted that the ticket was stamped on the reae with the station stamp and an endorsement if it was not feasible to do a non-issue
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I know the bank puts a reserve on the funds until they are collected (or 24 hours passes), but I'm not sure if the bank is told to remove that reserve if the transaction is cancelled (non-issue).

My understanding is that a non-issue is issued as a refund back to the card and can take about a week to appear on your card, though sometimes appears sooner. Certainly when TOCs have non-issued for me in the past, I've seen the original and the refund as separate lines on my statement

 

[Haywain]

In an ideal world that is absolutely the case, but I'm not exactly sure how the banking process works for card payments. I know the bank puts a reserve on the funds until they are collected (or 24 hours passes), but I'm not sure if the bank is told to remove that reserve if the transaction is cancelled (non-issue).

The authorisation stays live for 3 or 4 days (I don't know exactly how long), and is unaffected by a non-issue.

So refunding (non-issue) and re-issue might seem the obvious choice, but it might not work if the reserve is not removed and the passenger doesn't have enough funds for two transactions.

I've seen this happen where the passenger is left with neither a means of payment nor a ticket, and yet the railway doesn't have anything either! The key to this, of course, is to do the new ticket before cancelling the 'wrong' one, but for most clerks their heads don't work that way.

The way these modern machines work, you can't just issue a new cash ticket and non-issue the card one because effectively you'd be giving out a free ticket (the card refund is automatic for a non-issue).

Fortunately not all TIS are quite so clever, but it is still preferable for the customer to have a ticket that shows the correct method of payment.

 

[Lee_Again]

I would insist on a new ticket. I'm not sure the workings of the banking system should be any concern of the customer. If the ticket machines can't deal with it then they should be fixed as a matter of urgency.

The industry we all love has one BIG problem when it comes to tickets and that is the presumption that all ticketing errors are the fault of the customer and we should be treated like a common criminals and forced to pay huge fines (in the form of standard singles) to avoid potential litigation.

It's disgusting and time it stops. In the situation the OP describes the ticket should have been replaced without even being asked. And if the payment card is refused because funds now show as not available the ticket should be issued FOC. One day the rail industry will realise it's 2014 and not 1974.

 

[ac6000cw]

I would insist on a new ticket. I'm not sure the workings of the banking system should be any concern of the customer. If the ticket machines can't deal with it then they should be fixed as a matter of urgency.

The industry we all love has one BIG problem when it comes to tickets and that is the presumption that all ticketing errors are the fault of the customer and we should be treated like a common criminals and forced to pay huge fines (in the form of standard singles) to avoid potential litigation.

It's disgusting and time it stops. In the situation the OP describes the ticket should have been replaced without even being asked. And if the payment card is refused because funds now show as not available the ticket should be issued FOC. One day the rail industry will realise it's 2014 and not 1974.

I have to largely agree with you - this is a simple 'seller offers product -> buyer pays (a contract is formed at this point in legal terms, I think) -> seller hands over correct product' situation. As described in the OP, the 'product' is not fit-for-purpose (as it's an invalid ticket) so it's the sellers responsibility to either supply the correct product or refund the money - no if's, but's, 'it's too hard to sort it out so I'm going to encourage you (the customer) to break the law by using an invalid ticket' nonsense.

Tony

 

[bb21]

There is no need to replace the ticket even. As I said, a simple endorsement should more than suffice.

 

[Starmill]

So refunding (non-issue) and re-issue might seem the obvious choice, but it might not work if the reserve is not removed and the passenger doesn't have enough funds for two transactions.

I've had experience of this... it's not good!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The industry we all love has one BIG problem when it comes to tickets and that is the presumption that all ticketing errors are the fault of the customer and we should be treated like a common criminals and forced to pay huge fines (in the form of standard singles) to avoid potential litigation.

Reminds me of recently when I bought a ticket on arriving at Shipley from Burley Park. The clerk did Burley-in-Wharfedale instead by accident and overcharged me to correct it by issuing a 'custom' excess. I didn't know what this was at the time, but I sent the tickets in to Northern and they replied that customers should always check their tickets before leaving the window and to remember to do so next time....

 

[Haywain]

I've had experience of this... it's not good!

This is, at least in part, the fault of the good old British banking system. The one which allows the banks to use our money for their purposes while purporting to be providing a service to us. Even without the authorisation 'hold', the money goes out of your account a lot quicker than it gets back in!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Excellent responses, many thanks.

As I was not 'caught out' the issue is theoretical rather than actual.

The thing is, although I would never do such a thing, my mind does work in devious ways.

For example, if the first attempt had actually printed the 'date boxes' ticket, and I had a 'deal' with the ticket clerk to issue and cancel a second rover ticket then I would end up with eight blank dates to fill in, spread over two 'date boxes' tickets (one with the correct reference and one with a non matching reference), thus gaining eight days travel for the price of four - all within the eight day validity of the 'rover' part of the ticket. Now, if I were an RPI / RPO, that scam would spring straight to mind and I would report the matter as potential fraud - hence my trepidation when using the ticket.

As reported in many threads, guards / revenue protection staff hear tall tales of what a passenger has "been told to do by a member of staff" all the time. Mine, if necessary, although entirely correct and honest, would have appeared to be just such a tale.

PS, if anyone reads this and tries the scam, you deserve to spend the remainder of your life swimming in a toilet retention tank!