Virgin rail 'bullies'

[Flamingo]

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall, courts don't usually respond well to the kind of browbeating that seems to be going on in this case by the (soon to be) defendant.

 

[Mr Spock]

Both the 09:31 and 09:51 call at Milton Keynes Central so if I would have thought the conductor could have advised they alight there and do Milton Keynes-London on the booked service and phoned to inform the conductor(s) on that service what had happened.

The 09.31 from Coventry does not stop at Milton Keynes it is first stop Watford.

 

[34D]

That is what I don't get, from what is reports she is in the wrong no if's, no but's. Why would anyone go through this hastle just to potentailly end up looking total a fool!

I got caught out once when I didn't realise that on a break of journey the restriction applies from where your train started from (not where you get on after your break), so my ticket wasn't valid because of the time the train left London. If I had used an XC train instead leaving 10 minutes earlier it would have being OK. I was P*ssed off, but in that case just had to take it on the chin.

I can sort of see why, the crew changed at Newcastle - the stop I joined so they had no way of telling if I had got on at London and just avoided the gaurd until Newcastle.

Assume here that the off-peak restriction from Newcastle to London is 09:00 (I've not got avantix to hand to check this, so just assume for now - the next Newcastle starter after 1A20 09:00 isn't until 11:30 1A26 so we need to assume 09:00 to make my example work).

Are you saying that a passenger from Wick to London with off peak return, who legitimately broke their journey at Newcastle can travel on the 09:00 NCL-KGX 1A20, but not travel on the 09:30 (06:50 GLC-KGX 1E05)?

If so I believe that you are wrong (but I'd like to see what others say).

As to the issue at hand, assuming we know a date, is anyone with trust access able to advise whether the 09:31 was late and/or the 09:51 was cancelled/late? Would at least allow informed comment and discussion.

 

[LexyBoy]

Assume here that the off-peak restriction from Newcastle to London is 09:00 (I've not got avantix to hand to check this, so just assume for now - the next Newcastle starter after 1A20 09:00 isn't until 11:30 1A26 so we need to assume 09:00 to make my example work).

Are you saying that a passenger from Wick to London with off peak return, who legitimately broke their journey at Newcastle can travel on the 09:00 NCL-KGX 1A20, but not travel on the 09:30 (06:50 GLC-KGX 1E05)?

If so I believe that you are wrong (but I'd like to see what others say).

As to the issue at hand, assuming we know a date, is anyone with trust access able to advise whether the 09:31 was late and/or the 09:51 was cancelled/late? Would at least allow informed comment and discussion.

I think that Failed Unit was thinking of a single route - i.e. A-B-C, where after breaking at B and boarding a train going to C, the passenger must hold a ticket valid from A on that service. So a ticket B-C for that train might be Off-Peak, but if on that service a journey A-C is Peak then an Off-Peak is not valid.

The restriction is based on where your ticket starts, not the train you board. With your example, either train is allowed as the restriction is "Any train arriving in London at or after 1005", so either train is allowed.

(As an aside, I note that the SVR doesn't allow BoJ on the outbound, whilst the SSR does )

 

[RJ]

If it is that clear, then a prosecution would be the 'correct' action to take, so I would say you are being lenient if you issue a penalty fare in such a circumstance! (I thought I'd mention that in case anyone thinks I 'side with the customer no matter what' - this just isn't true at all!)

That said, proving it in court can be difficult, so it is understandable that PFs may be instead of an MG11 (out of interest, can you do MG11s?)

I keep an eye out for you when I'm at your station, last time I was there you weren't and we were unable to get the excess we wanted issued correctly.

I don't do MG11s. There's no ulterior motive for choosing whether or not to PF/report as I treat each situation individually. I assess each situation then either use discretion, issue a PF or seek assistance from an RPI and/or the BTP, getting hold of either is never a problem.

I like the people who think I'm thick, like the group of people sent to me with various Rangers only valid 300+ miles away in some cases and tried to tell me that they were all lines type tickets. Unfortunately the flash with confidence/rely on the RPI's ignorance tricks don't work with me!

 

[colpepper]

There seems to be an authoritarian and frighteningly personal approach being taken by ticket inspectors on this thread. Surely fare dodgers are dealt with by transport police and the courts, why personalise the deed with observations about those without tickets? Do inspectors see themselves on a vendetta with the travelling public?

 

[Flamingo]

There seems to be an authoritarian and frighteningly personal approach being taken by ticket inspectors on this thread. Surely fare dodgers are dealt with by transport police and the courts, why personalise the deed with observations about those without tickets? Do inspectors see themselves on a vendetta with the travelling public?

Probably something to do with the amount of bile, threats and outright violence that can be produced by some of the scum that have to be dealt with (whether they be in hoodies, or more likely these days, in a suit.)

The majority of people do buy tickets - whether voluntarily or in fear on the consequences if they don't (I really don't care which). The attitude of a lot of the ones who travel without the correct tickets is that they consider themselves to be above the law.

I am not on a vendetta with the travelling public - I regularly get letters about how I have helped passengers to the extent they were prompted to write in about it.

I don't see why the ordinary decent passenger has to subsidise somebody looking for a free ride. Those that take advantage of the system and expect me to look the other way - yes, those I am prepared to upset. To be honest, they are the sort of passengers the railway can do without. They are using up oxygen that someone else has paid for.

(And there is a feeling of a job well done when one catches out someone who thinks they were being clever!)

 

[colpepper]

(And there is a feeling of a job well done when one catches out someone who thinks they were being clever!)

That I find weird, I mean there are legit travellers and smart asses and if they are caught without a ticket there's a procedure. Unless they're threatening why personalise it?
It sounds like it makes the inspector's day to catch someone, whereas I guess there are a hundred reasons for not having a ticket from abject poverty and a necessity to travel looking for work to feed the kids, to someone who thinks they're smarter than everyone else. The courts decide how to deal with them, why act as a moral arbiter or does the training contain a moral dimension?

 

[Flamingo]

That I find weird, I mean there are legit travellers and smart asses and if they are caught without a ticket there's a procedure. Unless they're threatening why personalise it?
It sounds like it makes the inspector's day to catch someone, whereas I guess there are a hundred reasons for not having a ticket from abject poverty and a necessity to travel looking for work to feed the kids, to someone who thinks they're smarter than everyone else. The courts decide how to deal with them, why act as a moral arbiter or does the training contain a moral dimension?

First off, most (over 99%)of ticket irregularities don't go near a court. So get that idea straight out of your head. It might be best if they did, some of the sentences handed out make a £20 PF look like piddling small change. That would dissuade the chancers that I see day in day out, giving me the same old BS about open barriers at stations where I KNOW that didn't start from.

There might be 100 reasons for not having a ticket. I don't really care what they are. I'm not a social worker, politician, or priest. If somebody needs to get from A to B without paying for it, they can walk, hitch-hike, get the £1 megabus, phone a friend and get them to drive them, the options are endless.

I didn't force them to get on the train, I'm not forcing them to make that journey, that is their individual choice.

However, if they are on a train and I am doing revenue duties, my job is to ensure they are in possession of a valid ticket, and sell them one if not. How easy or difficult it gets from there is up to them.

I much prefer to clip their valid ticket and move on. I'm nearly as happy to sell them a ticket, say "Thank you very much, have a nice journey" and move on. My heart sinks when I find their reservation is wrong, or railcard is missing, as it's never going to end well.

Despite announcements, do you know how many passengers come up to me to say "I am on the wrong train, I need to buy a new ticket?" So few that I usually let them away with it, as it is rare enough to warrant it! (Or give them a free 1st class upgrade - honesty needs to be encouraged!)

I think it was summed up best by me as I was dealing with about the 10th person on a Sunday afternoon train who was on an advanced ticket but had decided to catch an earlier train. He said to me "You appear to be taking great pleasure in charging people money".
My response was "No sir, I am just endeavouring not to show how p1ssed off I am that none of you idiots can read the sodding conditions and all of you seem to think that it's my fault you can't read or understand simple instructions. Dealing with you is preventing me helping some customer that has paid their fare and might actually need assistance with something.".

You seem to think we should approach things differently. How?

p/s/ Every time we are asked to "use our discretion", or someone complains that we didn't they are asking us to be the moral arbiter - it goes with the job. Whenever I have someone whinging "I thought the guard could use his discretion", my stock reply is "I can - you haven't said anything yet that has persuaded me to do so".

 

[colpepper]

You seem to think we should approach things differently. How?

p/s/ Every time we are asked to "use our discretion", or someone complains that we didn't they are asking us to be the moral arbiter - it goes with the job. Whenever I have someone whinging "I thought the guard could use his discretion", my stock reply is "I can - you haven't said anything yet that has persuaded me to do so".

It can sound like guards get off on people sucking up to them and acting as judge and jury if they don't. I actually think TOCs put ticket inspectors in an unenviable if not impossible situation by giving them 'discretion'. IMHO revenue collection should be efficient enough that everyone can be sold a ticket on-board and only those travelling without the means of paying go before the court, or zero tolerance - no ticket = transport police get involved.

The abundance of ticket types, stations with ticket sales and none make it seem like a game of cat and mouse where you could easily take the morality out by the two methods I suggested. When I was young (the dim and distant past) I've had inspectors look at me and think 'gotcha', then endlessly examine my ticket as though looking for loopholes only to give it back with the greatest reluctance when they found it above board. The current system attracts Judge Dredd mentalities (I'm sure you are the exception) and makes rail travel that little bit less pleasant than it might be.

 

[Flamingo]

Some of the attitude might be because after spending day in day out listening to the same tired old excuses about "I left it in my other purse", "I haven't any money on me", or the infamous "The man on the platform said it would be OK", we become a little cynical and jaded.

Such is life.

But if you think that we would be better off playing it by the book, that's fine. I'm happy enough to charge full open tickets to everybody, I am on 5% after all.

How do you expect us to find out if someone has the means to pay or not? I can't search them for cash or credit cards, and it does become a game of bluff.

 

[Jonny]

Any excuse for rail revenue staff to "do their thing" - short man syndrome methinks. Use of motivation by threat is a dead end.

IMHO advance purchase tickets should be scrapped - they mean that the passengers with the cheapest tickets are guaranteed seats (by reservations) whereas those who pay the most are not (necessarily). How perverse is that?

 

[crewmeal]

Absolute garbage - if the person operating the computer is given a name and address how on Earth are they supposed to know that the person is a child? In offices where computer-generated letters are sent out mistakes are bound to happen, it's simply absurd to point the finger at an individual in this way. It's not the fault of the individual but of the system.

If the person had any sense then he would have a file on the particular case. He/she would have some idea of the background before discharging a threatening letter. These letters are not sent out for the sheer hell of it. In my company a thorough investigation is carried out before letters of this type are sent out.

 

[Flamingo]

Any excuse for rail revenue staff to "do their thing" - short man syndrome methinks. Use of motivation by threat is a dead end.

Yea, we are all bullies who can't get a real job. :roll: Come the revolution, etc...

IMHO advance purchase tickets should be scrapped - they mean that the passengers with the cheapest tickets are guaranteed seats (by reservations) whereas those who pay the most are not (necessarily). How perverse is that?

Everybody can reserve a ticket for intercity journeys. Or if they wish the flexibility of travelling on any train, then they have to take the chance that lots of other people want to travel on that train as well. The other alternative is all reservation only trains. Which would you prefer?

By the way, pushing for ADVANCE tickets to be scrapped so that the only options are the more expensive walk-up tickets is not likely to win you any friends around here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the person had any sense then he would have a file on the particular case. He/she would have some idea of the background before discharging a threatening letter. These letters are not sent out for the sheer hell of it. In my company a thorough investigation is carried out before letters of this type are sent out.

At a guess, the letter they were objecting to was a form letter laying out the penalties for fare evasion, which can be avoided if payment is made This is different from a threat. It is providing information to show the possible consequences. The same letters would have been sent to all the people whose names appeared on the UPFN's.

Of course, they can always wait for the case to come to court, and take their chances.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If the person had any sense then he would have a file on the particular case. He/she would have some idea of the background before discharging a threatening letter. These letters are not sent out for the sheer hell of it. In my company a thorough investigation is carried out before letters of this type are sent out.

TOCs don't hold files on everyone you know. All the operator will have is a name and address, and a standard letter will be sent. The operator cannot be blamed, and quite frankly, it would be laughed out of court.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I find that the only way I can now act without being considered as judge and jury is to follow the letter of the rules 100%. Therefore no leniency, no excuses, no bleeding heart sob stories, no discretion. Everyone gets treated the same. That is : No or invalid ticket = full new ticket at the most appropriate fare (or obviously alternative route Excesses etc).

If I let some people travel early and some not then it could be argued that I am acting as judge and jury in these cases - so I don't.

This may sound harsh, but that is just the way it is. If folk want to complain they are more than welcome to - but they will generally get short shrift from my boss as he used to be an RPO.

As Flamingo says above - about 95% of passengers I come across have valid tickets and are pleasant and polite. The other 5% can cause no end of problems - no railcards, wrong trains with advance tickets, no money, etc etc. And they all have a million reasons why I should use my discretion, just let them off this time etc. So to be fair to everyone I don't. I used to, but not any more.

And to be fair, why should we use discretion? Do people go to Tescos fill their trolley and when they find they haven't got enough money just expect the cashier to use their discretion as it was an honest mistake and allow them to walk out with the shopping they can't afford? No. Does Joe Bloggs Bus Company allow you to use your First Bus ticket because you missed the First bus and can't be bothered to wait for the next one? No.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By the way, pushing for ADVANCE tickets to be scrapped so that the only options are the more expensive walk-up tickets is not likely to win you any friends around here.

Not even among us nasty rail staff. I use Advance ticket myself as they are sometimes cheaper than staff tickets, and my friends who have no railcards or passes use them all the time when we travel around the place.

We never have any problem with them, mainly because - unlike most of the people who seem to have problems with nasty rail staff charging them a fortune - we take 2 minutes to read the conditions and plan our routine around ensuring we get on that train.

 

[colpepper]

, I am on 5% after all.

I assume you're joking. In the remote chance you aren't, making commission on ticket evasion is an appalling way to run a railway and will alienate the travelling public and attract Blakey from On the Buses sensibilities to the job.

 

[Flamingo]

No.

We have to some incentive to put up with the **** associated with trying to get money out of the Great British Public who Know Their Rights.

 

[colpepper]

No.

We have to some incentive to put up with the **** associated with trying to get money out of the Great British Public who Know Their Rights.

Even more reason to take revenue collection away from subjectivity and personal opinion. Zero tolerance or sell them a ticket. Your wage should not rely on moral judgements of people you've never met before.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Even more reason to take revenue collection away from subjectivity and personal opinion. Zero tolerance or sell them a ticket. Your wage should not rely on moral judgements of people you've never met before.

So you're suggesting that they should increase their revenue by selling them a ticket?

 

[yorkie]

Any excuse for rail revenue staff to "do their thing" - short man syndrome methinks. Use of motivation by threat is a dead end.

If you read Flamingo's posts in more detail you will realise he is not like that. He does sometimes talk a tough game but when you actually read what actions he takes, he is actually very fair IMO. (I've not met him, by the way, I am only going by posts here).

IMHO advance purchase tickets should be scrapped - they mean that the passengers with the cheapest tickets are guaranteed seats (by reservations) whereas those who pay the most are not (necessarily). How perverse is that?

I don't agree with this at all.
Firstly, you aren't guaranteed a seat, but it is true to say that on reserveable trains you do have an allocated seat and are generally highly likely to be able to use it, but anyone booking in advance (on a walk-on ticket) can get a seat! It's not the ticket type that guarantees a seat, but when you book. That's not only common sense but the only feasible system!

AP tickets should not be scrapped, however AP tickets that are more than 80% of the price of HALF of the ANYTIME RETURN price should be scrapped in my opinion. (These costly AP tickets are not worth the hassle!)

AP exists because the TOCs wish to adopt policies of yield management, and I can't see them going away.

 

[colpepper]

So you're suggesting that they should increase their revenue by selling them a ticket?

Absolutely, unless TOCs introduce 100% ticketed stations. The current system is one of those arcane remnants everyone accepts because it's always been like that. Railways are using Victorian inspection systems in an era of immediate fund transfers.
If ticketing was simpler there'd be no requirement for cat and mouse, the fact discretion is allowed is an admission that ticketing is absurdly complicated and a few front line troops are needed to assess human nature and make instant moral judgements. If you think about it, it's absolutely bonkers in the C21st.

 

[yorkie]

Even more reason to take revenue collection away from subjectivity and personal opinion. Zero tolerance or sell them a ticket. Your wage should not rely on moral judgements of people you've never met before.

I totally disagree with the idea that discretion should never be shown. It may not be a "moral judgement" either.

What about the person who accidentally pays more for an Advance ticket than the cost of a Anytime Single and then gets on the wrong train. Under your proposal they would be charged for the cost of another Anytime Single? While a sensible guard would realise the customer has already paid more than the full Anytime fare and let them off.

 

[Flamingo]

If you read Flamingo's posts in more detail you will realise he is not like that. He does sometimes talk a tough game but when you actually read what actions he takes, he is actually very fair IMO. (I've not met him, by the way, I am only going by posts here).

Thank you. I do play devils advocate at times, I will admit.

I also think nothing is to be gained by saying "That's ok, you'll get away with that", as if it is against the rules, then someone somewhere is going to pull it up.

 

[yorkie]

I assume you're joking. In the remote chance you aren't, making commission on ticket evasion is an appalling way to run a railway and will alienate the travelling public and attract Blakey from On the Buses sensibilities to the job.

Can I just point out that they do not make commission on ticket "evasion"; they get commission on selling tickets, which is only fair. Yes, there is the concern that inspectors may overcharge in order to maximise their commission however that can be dealt with by ensuring complaints are investigating and the odd bit of mystery shopping. Providing appropriate policies and procedures are in place, I have no problem with guards getting commission (indeed if I was to buy an expensive ticket I'd try to buy one from a good guard).

Fare evasion is dealt with by the courts, and guards do not make commission on that!

As Flamingo stated earlier (not sure if it was this thread or another) they don't get commission from UPFNs (unpaid fare notices), either.

 

[colpepper]

I totally disagree with the idea that discretion should never be shown. It may not be a "moral judgement" either.

What about the person who accidentally pays more for an Advance ticket than the cost of a Anytime Single and then gets on the wrong train. Under your proposal they would be charged for the cost of another Anytime Single? While a sensible guard would realise the customer has already paid more than the full Anytime fare and let them off.

The complexity of ticketing (Advance, Anytime, Rovers, etc, etc) shouldn't be born by a guard. There's too much room for subjectivity in interpretation of offence. We've already had an inspector say he uses zero tolerance, others are lenient if travellers treat them the right way (!?) or describe the 'scrotes' they meet, it's all far too emotive and personalised and we learn inspectors are financially rewarded for selling tickets. How about TOCs taking a little responsibility?

I'm not arguing for laxity, everyone should have the correct, easily accessible ticket to travel with barriers and automated dispensers that make it possible. While ever there's a chance people can travel regularly without paying, some will take advantage. I'm arguing for taking that loophole away and removing the bogey man element entirely.

 

[Ticket Man]

Any excuse for rail revenue staff to "do their thing" - short man syndrome methinks. Use of motivation by threat is a dead end.

I'm Revenue Protection, do I look for any excuse to "do my thing"

There seems to be a lot of ticket inspector bashing going on in this thread. Just because you hear about the nightmare stories doesn't mean that every one who checks your ticket "thinks he has got you" or is suffering from "short man syndrome".

You will never hear about the inspector who is doing it right as a) fare dodgers don't write letters of complaint when they've been caught and b) customers with valid tickets don't write letters of praise about how well their ticket was checked.

some opinions on here seem decidedly one sided and almost daily mail like in their content.

 

[Flamingo]

I'm not arguing for laxity, everyone should have the correct, easily accessible ticket to travel with barriers and automated dispensers that make it possible. While ever there's a chance people can travel regularly without paying, some will take advantage. I'm arguing for taking that loophole away and removing the bogey man element entirely.

In an ideal world - however, do you realise how many stations there are in the country, are you seriously proposing that they all become 100% barriered 24/7. Have you any idea how much that would cost, and who would pay for it?

The old 90/10 argument comes into play at some stage. 90% of the cost and effort would go into catching the final 10%, and it might not be worth it. At the moment, I do think that the railway could make a better effort at revenue protection, but there has to be a point where the effort has to be cut off, even I can recognise that. For example, some branch lines have 1 train an hour each way. Can it really be justified to have 2 revenue staff on duty at every station on that line? However, by selling tickets on-train only, there is always going to be a proportion going from one unmanned station to another who refuse to pay, knowing they are getting off in five minutes and there is not a lot the guard can do.

 

[jon0844]

The complexity of ticketing (Advance, Anytime, Rovers, etc, etc) shouldn't be born by a guard..

It isn't that complicated is it? Any more than when I recently booked a flight with BA and had a choice of tickets based on my ability to cancel/change the booking. The cheapest have no option to change, while the more flexible ones do (sound familiar?). Then you have business, first class, premium economy and other special offers.

Factor in checking different airlines (and not airlines are covered by the price comparison tools) and it's probably easier to manage train tickets.

A guard needs to know the peak/off peak tickets first, then advance tickets (which are quite easy; does the ticket match the train and date/time?) and after that rovers (rare) and discounted tickets (jobseeker, YPRC, disabled railcard etc).

I think in this current day and age, you have to assume that any ticket you buy has restrictions. Only if you've paid a small fortune might you expect otherwise, and I've done the maths and figured that it's best to book advance tickets (maybe even two, with the intention to give yourself a choice) than pay the full price. Even if you end up having to buy a full price ticket at short notice once, you're still better off.

Who really thinks that their £10 ticket from London to Edinburgh allows them travel at any time, in any class or on any route?

And, as you might have guessed, I'm quote pro revenue protection - given I pay £3,500 per annum for a season ticket and quite a bit more on top for other travel. And that's despite having had a bad experience with one RPI, whom I do not take to be indicative of the majority in any way whatsoever.

 

[colpepper]

Have any studies been done on how much fare evasion costs the railway company? My impression is on some lines the chances of getting caught make fare dodging a financially viable option for those of a particular mentality, in much the same way that not having road tax makes sense if the fine is less than say, 2x the cost of your disc.

In that situation a ticket inspector will be viewed as a spoil sport and more importantly, random checks are a poor way of collecting revenue owed. On inter city routes the chance of being nabbed are extremely high but on branch lines, especially for individuals with a working knowledge of the railway, they could have a very long run before being nicked which might be financially tempting.

The point I'm making is inspectors shouldn't have to make a call on whether travellers without a ticket are contrite, cocky, desperate or habitual to assess whether they should be summonsed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It isn't that complicated is it?

I think in this current day and age, you have to assume that any ticket you buy has restrictions.

They are mutually exclusive statements.