Ticket seller doesn't know rules

[Ferret]

The conversation was

Can I have a Reading Taunton ticket please?

FROM Reading? Can I see your ticket to Reading?

Why? I don't need to show it to buy a ticket from Reading.

Yes you do.

I don't, its not required, you are obliged to sell me any ticket I request.

Not without seeing your ticket.

You are wrong, and don't know the rules.

Yes I do

Etc, etc

That just sounds like one ego versus another.

 

[GB]

While it may be the case that some staff are quick on the defensive, judging by the OP some passengers are equally as quick to go on the offensive. Would it have been so difficult to show your ticket when asked? What was the point in getting into a "debate" as you put it?

You were there to buy a ticket, not to give staff lectures on how to do or not do their job. You could have had a smooth transaction if you had just shown your ticket when asked (which Im sure you are required to do if a member of staff asks anyway) even if you didn't fully agree and you still could have had the option to complain (via writting) afterwards. Why get so confrontational about it? What does it achieve?

Any decent employee will do their best to minimise fraud so I can entirely see the point in double checking a passengers has a valid ticket for the first part of the journey. If the passenger doesn't have one then a quick explanation should suffice, but getting argumental while quoting chapter and verse is just goint to raise the pressure and the suspicion.

Surely a certain amount of due diligence falls on the ticket seller here?

 

[embers25]

The problem is staff like this one he encountered think they do know how to do their job and that no one should ever question their ruling and the problem with many ticket office staff (particularly SWT) is that rather than follow the rules or even read rules presented to them they prefer to stick to their incorrect interpretation of them and so buying a ticket becomes an ordeal and takes much longer delaying other passengers. Hardly great customer service.

 

[EltonRoad]

It works both ways though doesn't it. Some passengers think that no-one should ever question them either. A quick production of ticket A - B, or explanation as to how you're getting to B, does no harm whatsoever and is far more likely to achieve your desired outcome than starting an argument.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You must show, when asked by an authorised person, a valid ticket for your journey. An authorised person is a member of TOC staff, or their agents, in the course of their duties.

If the clerk is attempting to find the cheapest fare valid for the Op, they are a member of TOC staff, or their agents, in the course of their duties.

Clerks are not supposed to make assumptions about a customer and they are not mind readers. In order to offer the cheapest fare valid for your journey, they must have all the available facts. Just suppose for a moment the op was joe public and an excess fare was the cheapest option, if the clerk does not look at the ticket (s)he cannot do their job properly.

I like to think that the clerk-passenger relationship is one of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'. Some people here clearly feel the passenger should think 'you scratch my back, I'll stick a knife in yours'.

This is a clear case of damned if you do damned if you don't.

 

[MCR247]

I haven't read the whole thread, but am I the only who isn't wondering why the ticket to Reading wasn't shown? Whether the clerk was wrong or not, why not just show them anyway?

 

[Fred26]

I like to think that the clerk-passenger relationship is one of 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'. Some people here clearly feel the passenger should think 'you scratch my back, I'll stick a knife in yours'.

LOL.

It's a simple two questions. 'How are you getting from A-B?' and 'Can I see that ticket?' If things look dodgy then there's a couple of choices - either sell what is asked and then contact an RPI, or if there isn't an RPI in the vicinity/barriers are open, refuse to sell (at least until the passenger opens up a bit).
I've used both examples before. Most people are honest, some don't realise they're not asking for the right ticket and some are just trying to evade the fare. Ticket clerks have to make a judgement at the time, which may prove later to be wrong. It's similar to RPI's on trains; I'm told they can tell a fare evader as soon as they board and that comes with experience. It's the same in the ticket office.

On the point of RPI's, everyone knows there aren't enough on any one shift (certainly where I travel, anyway) and so the chances of having your ticket checked on the train is slim. If the departing station hasn't got any barriers and the relevant staff, then it's likely the whole journey can be done without any checks. If the clerk knows all of that then they should do what they can to minimise fraud.

 

[embers25]

"You must show, when asked by an authorised person, a valid ticket for your journey" is fine but in this case he was trying to buy a ticket for the journey B to C and at no point did he ask for an A to B ticket or say he was making the journey A to C via B and so A to B should never have entered the equation. The only reason it did was because the clerk insisted it was relevant which in this case it was not in ANY way.

For example if I want to buy a coach ticket from Birmingham to Leeds in London, National Express won't ask me for (and insist I have) proof of how I'm getting to Birmingham. If I buy a plane ticket from Manchester to Edinburgh in Gatwick Airport I don't have to show proof of how I intend to reach Manchester from Gatwick and perhaps most relevant...If I was to have bought that ticket on line from fGW's own website I would not have been asked how I intended to get to Reading if my address was not one in Reading and I could have picked it up from any station in the country too. So if the motive of the question really is "to help get me the cheapest ticket" why not ask that question on line too? Which would probably go something like..."you want a ticket from A to B then are you sure you don't need a ticket to A first"....you can imagine how we'd all laugh at that but thats what these clerks are effectively doing.
Basically if I can pick up an online ticket from a machine in Penzance for a trip from Wick to Thurso then why can't a buy a ticket from the ticket office next to that machine in Penzance from Wick to Thruso without the clerk wanting to question how I'll reach Wick?

That being said I do agree with you that in an ideal world it should be a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' relationship but unfortunately that requires a bit of benefit of the doubt on both sides not just the passengers side.

 

[Fred26]

The airline comparison is a bit daft - you can hardly board the wrong plane/board without a ticket.

As for the coaches, I don't know whether they check tickets before boarding, but questions would surely only be asked if the ticket was for immediate travel. The passenger can be as defensive as they like, but the question 'how are you getting there?', is very harmless. 'None of your business', on the other hand, is very aggressive.

 

[embers25]

So an RPI or ticket clerk can tell an evader straight away...maybe they should all become full time jurors as clearly they could ensure no false convictions!!! I'm sure the many who come to these forums and similar ones who have been treated wrongly by RPI's or clerks would disagree and find that their claim to be able to make such snap judgements about people without the full facts is very offensive. Also if they were all so good at identifying people there wouldn't be so many cases appealed and won by the passenger.

I agree often ticket checks are lax (Southern and FCC) but in this case Paddington (except platform 1) and Reading are barriered and have very strict RPI's. Also fGW have guards that actually check tickets most of the time.
We live in a country where we are supposed to be innocent till proven guilty but TOC's operate the reverse way round in the main and certainly most RPI's do as the many cases highlighted previously have shown.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Buying a ticket for today does not necessarily mean immediate travel unless it is very late at night already. Also he wasn't asked how he was getting there which would have been fine, he was told he had to show evidence of how he was getting there and that without it he would not be sold the ticket. That is NOT fine and not correct.

 

[Fred26]

So an RPI or ticket clerk can tell an evader straight away...maybe they should all become full time jurors as clearly they could ensure no false convictions!!! I'm sure the many who come to these forums and similar ones who have been treated wrongly by RPI's or clerks would disagree and find that their claim to be able to make such snap judgements about people without the full facts is very offensive. Also if they were all so good at identifying people there wouldn't be so many cases appealed and won by the passenger.

There's no need to be flippant. Obviously a ticket check still needs to take place. An RPI can't just walk up to someone and say 'Right, let's have your details, there's a £20 fine for not having a ticket.' I said mistakes happen and penalty fares are incorrectly issued, tickets incorrectly sold, etc etc, but that's not the majority of cases. Certainly, a lot of people will have their penalty fares (etc) overturned, but most don't even bother appealing (whether they would have won or not is unknown and irrelevant).

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....in this case he was trying to buy a ticket for the journey B to C and at no point did he ask for an A to B ticket or say he was making the journey A to C via B and so A to B should never have entered the equation. The only reason it did was because the clerk insisted it was relevant which in this case it was not in ANY way....

If there was no ticket surely the op would say something like 'it's not for now' or 'I'm getting a lift there'. The fact that the op refused to show the ticket will have told the clerk that there was a longer journey being made. As a couple of others have pointed out, just showing the ticket anyway takes ten seconds, arguing takes minutes.

If the clerk didn't ask for the ticket and it ended with the op spending more than he should, would the clerk be wrong for not offering the cheapest fare? Do you think the op would be posting to complain about it after the guard pointed it out?

 

[Flamingo]

If someone walks up to a ticket window in Bristol and asked for a ticket from Bristol to Filton and a ticket from Acton to London Paddington, I would hope that the ticket clerk would be a bit suspicious, and not think "It's none of my business".

 

[yorkie]

If someone walks up to a ticket window in Bristol and asked for a ticket from Bristol to Filton and a ticket from Acton to London Paddington, I would hope that the ticket clerk would be a bit suspicious, and not think "It's none of my business".

Now that combination is something that I agree may be suspicious.

But if someone simply asked for a Travelcard, or similar, then that is perfectly normal and I've done that at York station and been sold it.

I don't mind staff asking, to be helpful, like RJ does, but if you give a reasonable reason then staff must sell the ticket. The problem is that if a customer feels it is none of their business, and refuses saying exactly that, it is going to get the ticket clerk's back up. I'd say that scenario will probably result in the ticket not being sold, a complaint being made, and end in a bad result for BOTH parties. It really is in the interests of staff to try to be helpful, but customers shouldn't be interrogated. A simple "Do you already have a ticket to X, I may be able to find a cheaper option/excess for you?" by the staff, trying to be helpful, and then a simple reason by the customer, who should NOT be made to feel they are being interrogated, is all that is needed.

It works both ways.

If the member of staff was wording it in a way that is trying to be helpful, and the customer was rude back, I'd have sympathy for the staff.

What we don't know is whether the member of staff was trying to be helpful (as RJ does) or if they were accusatory and got the customer's back up. We also don't know how the customer responded.

I think that a good test is the Oyster example quoted by RJ. If a member of staff refuses on that basis, then they really are totally and utterly wrong and have no excuses. It's not always clear-cut, but sometimes it is.

 

[Flamingo]

The reason I quoted that example, is that I have been presented with it!

 

[yorkie]

The reason I quoted that example, is that I have been presented with it!

With nothing in between? If so, I have to ask why the customer bothered to present it!

 

[Flamingo]

With nothing in between? If so, I have to ask why the customer bothered to present it!

Two gentlemen from the sub-continent. I think they realised they were caught, and hoped I wouldn't notice. They paid up without any quibble though, when I said the magic word - Police!

 

[Fred26]

Now that combination is something that I agree may be suspicious.

But if someone simply asked for a Travelcard, or similar, then that is perfectly normal and I've done that at York station and been sold it.

Yeah, I bought a travelcard at Plymouth a few months ago from Stevenage (so Stevenage - R1256). The clerk raised an eyebrow, but didn't ask questions. That's his prerogative, however.

I don't mind staff asking, to be helpful, like RJ does, but if you give a reasonable reason then staff must sell the ticket. The problem is that if a customer feels it is none of their business, and refuses saying exactly that, it is going to get the ticket clerk's back up. I'd say that scenario will probably result in the ticket not being sold, a complaint being made, and end in a bad result for BOTH parties. It really is in the interests of staff to try to be helpful, but customers shouldn't be interrogated. A simple "Do you already have a ticket to X, I may be able to find a cheaper option/excess for you?" by the staff, trying to be helpful, and then a simple reason by the customer, who should NOT be made to feel they are being interrogated, is all that is needed.

It works both ways.

If the member of staff was wording it in a way that is trying to be helpful, and the customer was rude back, I'd have sympathy for the staff.

What we don't know is whether the member of staff was trying to be helpful (as RJ does) or if they were accusatory and got the customer's back up. We also don't know how the customer responded.

I think that a good test is the Oyster example quoted by RJ. If a member of staff refuses on that basis, then they really are totally and utterly wrong and have no excuses. It's not always clear-cut, but sometimes it is.

I really don't like this 'interrogation' word. It's hardly that, is it?

 

[Malderon]

From a personal perspective I think that both parties are at fault.

If you have a ticket from A-B, then you can just show it, if you don't then you can say as people above have mentioned "I'm getting a lift there" or even something vague like "I'll be there later today".

But I think that equally the ticket seller is a retailer, and if a customer asks for a specific product that they are entitled to buy, sure you can warn them about the risks of travelling without a ticket, or advise them they need a ticket or whatever, but I think the ticket should still be sold.

After all although I'm not 100% sure of the circumstances at each station and for the specific journey., I believe you could buy the B-C ticket on your smartphone, pick it up at a quick ticket machine, and not face the inquisition - so why should you get it just because you want a face to face transaction?

My guess is that really it was the tone from both the customer and the member of staff that both set each other off, if the tone of the ticket seller was that he was being helpful (as with the examples of the travelcard discounts above) then the customer is happy to oblige with the request. Likewise if the customer isnt quite so confrontational with the response (ie simply giving a reason) then I think the ticket will be sold even without presenting the A-B ticket.

I wont weigh in on the respective rules, but thats how I see the situation from an outside perspective.

 

[yorkie]

Two gentlemen from the sub-continent. I think they realised they were caught, and hoped I wouldn't notice. They paid up without any quibble though, when I said the magic word - Police!

How odd! I wonder if they were scammed, e.g. someone told them that there were no checks on the trains and that this 'sandwich' method would work. It's too 'clever' for someone from abroad to just think of, and if they were that clever to do research about stations like Acton Main Line, then they'd have discovered that these trains have guards who check tickets. So I reckon something highly dodgy was going on.

This is a good reason why barriers are NOT the solution for 'InterCity' type journeys, and there should not be any withdrawals of guards to be replaced by RPIs who are seen once in a blue moon. Some people think that barriers are the answer to everything, and they're not. And the tickets could easily have been purchased online.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The problem is that if a customer feels it is none of their business, and refuses saying exactly that, it is going to get the ticket clerk's back up.

. . . . .

I think that a good test is the Oyster example quoted by RJ.

I think enough evidence was supplied by the OP in their repetition of the exchange thus:

Why? I don't need to show it to buy a ticket from Reading.

Yes you do.

I don't, its not required, you are obliged to sell me any ticket I request.

Not without seeing your ticket.

You are wrong, and don't know the rules.

The customer "felt it was none of their business" and became more entrenched in the discussion, on here, and perhaps elsewhere too. Why?
I find that approach to be quite rude, confrontational and unnecessary. Its maybe got something to do with the OP's personal history and experience and to them it may not appear to have been rude or confrontational - I know many people's sense of humour is based on challenges, but it was an unnecessary refusal to cooperate.
I struggle to find any sympathy for the OP.

 

[yorkie]

I really don't like this 'interrogation' word. It's hardly that, is it?

What is?

As I said before, it depends on the question.

If they say "Can I see how you are getting to <station>, Sir, as I may be able to find a better option for you?" then that's being helpful.

If they say "I will refuse to sell you that ticket unless you prove you have a valid ticket to <station>. How do I know you're not going to evade the fare?" then that could be interpreted as an 'interrogation' - call it what you like, it's not acceptable.

Equally it depends on what the customer says.

If the customer says "I am using Pay As You Go to <station>" and the clerk refuses to accept that, insisting on seeing a paper ticket, then that is indefensible - do you deny that?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think enough evidence was supplied by the OP in their repetition of the exchange thus:The customer "felt it was none of their business" and became more entrenched in the discussion, on here, and perhaps elsewhere too. Why?
I find that approach to be quite rude, confrontational and unnecessary. Its maybe got something to do with the OP's personal history and experience and to them it may not appear to have been rude or confrontational - I know many people's sense of humour is based on challenges, but it was an unnecessary refusal to cooperate.

But, according to the OP, " The ticket seller asked me to produce my ticket to Reading or he wouldn't sell me the ticket from Reading." now if - and we don't know - but IF - the ticket seller came out with this statement immediately, as is suggested, then that could also be interpreted as confrontational and unnecessary (and potentially rude - depending on tone).

If the ticket seller immediately comes out on the offensive, then they are really not acting in a way that a public-facing member of staff should act.

Some people can't afford to immediately come out on the offensive in their jobs if they wish to remain in that job!

Unless we witnessed it, it is difficult to comment on the 'rights' or 'wrongs' however I believe the clerk is obliged to sell the ticket, which is what really matters.

 

[Fred26]

This is a good reason why barriers are NOT the solution for 'InterCity' type journeys, and there should not be any withdrawals of guards to be replaced by RPIs who are seen once in a blue moon. Some people think that barriers are the answer to everything, and they're not. And the tickets could easily have been purchased online.

Barriers are a massive help, but I agree, guards shouldn't be lost.

 

[yorkie]

This was at the ticket office at Paddington.
I had a "SVR off peak R ticket", travelling on Saturday.
I didn't refuse to show my ticket, in fact I did show it, but had I had the time to continue the dispute I might not have done in order to prove a point.
I got annoyed really because I've had this sort of issue before with clerks refusing to sell me split tickets before, "because its against the rules" etc, and I don't see why I should have to give them any information about my plans when they have no legitimate reason to know them.

It basically sounds like you have experienced problems in the past, and therefore want to 'test' the system. Personally I see nothing wrong with that, providing it's done in a constructive way. In effect this is "mystery shopping". This is already done but not sufficiently, in my opinion.

My suggestion would be to either have a Travelcard or PAYG credit loaded on to Oyster, and ask (at a station where they can't read Oyster) for a ticket from a boundary station to another station. If the ticket office ask to 'see your ticket' you explain it's on your Oyster (show that if they insist). If they still refuse, having seen your Oyster card, on the basis that the onus is on you to prove you are invalid, then ask politely for a complaints form and submit it. At all times be polite and co-operative and not argumentative.

Another example may be, if you are boarding a railtour, to ask for a ticket starting from the destination of the railtour. Any station should sell this ticket (e.g. in 2 weeks' time I could ask at Leeds station at 6am for a ticket from Oxford to London, they are obliged to sell it, and cannot ask to see any ticket as I would simply say "I am getting the Retro Railtour").

The Paddington/Reading/Taunton example for use the same day isn't a journey I'd choose to make an example of.

 

[Fred26]

What is?

As I said before, it depends on the question.

If they say "Can I see how you are getting to <station>, Sir, as I may be able to find a better option for you?" then that's being helpful.

If they say "I will refuse to sell you that ticket unless you prove you have a valid ticket to <station>. How do I know you're not going to evade the fare?" then that could be interpreted as an 'interrogation' - call it what you like, it's not acceptable.

I just meant, not necessarily in this instance, that a couple of questions hardly makes an interrogation.

Equally it depends on what the customer says.

If the customer says "I am using Pay As You Go to <station>" and the clerk refuses to accept that, insisting on seeing a paper ticket, then that is indefensible - do you deny that?

No, I don't deny that. That would be moronic. Unless the clerk has an oyster reader and can check the card himself, he has to take the passenger for his word. I don't see anything wrong with that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another example may be, if you are boarding a railtour, to ask for a ticket starting from the destination of the railtour. Any station should sell this ticket (e.g. in 2 weeks' time I could ask at Leeds station at 6am for a ticket from Oxford to London, they are obliged to sell it, and cannot ask to see any ticket as I would simply say "I am getting the Retro Railtour").

...And that should be sufficient. It's believable, presumably they'd know it was due and would fraudsters say that? Probably not...

 

[sheff1]

It's suspicious behaviour asking for a ticket from B to C without showing a ticket for A to B.

What is suspicious about it ? I often buy tickets from B to C without showing a ticket from A to B.

Equally, I don't recall ever being asked to show an A to B ticket in such cases, so ticket sellers rightly don't seem to see anything wrong with it either.

 

[Fred26]

What is suspicious about it ? I often buy tickets from B to C without showing a ticket from A to B.

Equally, I don't recall ever being asked to show an A to B ticket in such cases, so ticket sellers rightly don't seem to see anything wrong with it either.

I was a bit OTT there. It can be suspicious though.

 

[sheff1]

I was a bit OTT there. It can be suspicious though.

Right, OK. Yes, I can see that it could be suspicious in some circumstances. The trick, then, is to ask 'helpful' questions as others have said.

 

[GB]

The ticket seller could easily of asked if you had a ticket from A to B that is true, but it would of been just as easy for the passenger to show the ticket when asked to do so in the first place.

 

[Flamingo]

How odd! I wonder if they were scammed, e.g. someone told them that there were no checks on the trains and that this 'sandwich' method would work. It's too 'clever' for someone from abroad to just think of, and if they were that clever to do research about stations like Acton Main Line, then they'd have discovered that these trains have guards who check tickets. So I reckon something highly dodgy was going on.

This is a good reason why barriers are NOT the solution for 'InterCity' type journeys, and there should not be any withdrawals of guards to be replaced by RPIs who are seen once in a blue moon. Some people think that barriers are the answer to everything, and they're not. And the tickets could easily have been purchased online.

Someone had told them to do it ok, but they knew that it was not correct, one was very sheepish, and I stopped them outside a toilet, that I suspect they were on their way into when they saw me coming but I was too quick for them.

Funnily enough, I have only ever come across this once, though.