Complex Penalty Fare

[yorkie]

I have to confess, I do think the whole "If one ticket is a season ticket, you are no longer obliged to call at the split point" is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard! Can anyone shed any light on how such a bizarre rule might have emerged? I assume there's some rational explanation as to why this was deemed sensible?

Actually this is a long-standing rule and in the days of British Rail it was more lenient, even allowing you to take a shorter/quicker route.

A member of ex-BR staff who worked in revenue in the 1970s informed us that a Season ticket holder from, say, London to Northampton, would be able to get a Northampton to Birmingham ticket to extend it to Birmingham, and the train could avoid Northampton and it would still be valid.

These days the train would have to go via Northampton (or, if you wanted to take a train that did not go via Northampton, you'd have to get a ticket from MKC or Wolverton instead).

The guard does not seem to have any knowledge of 19c

Do many EMT guards have full knowledge of 19c? It's not in their training as far as I know.

and implies the passenger is at a fault and is only being let off because he has a season ticket.

Indeed, better that than charging incorrectly, but still unacceptable.

If I was that passenger I would (unwisely) have been tempted to defend myself further by demonstrating that the combination was definitely OK - I would not like the suggestion that I was a fare-evader being let off this time.

An alternative would be to write to the Company asking for clarification.

However with EMT it is difficult to identify competent managers who have a good understanding of the rules.

EMT are one of those TOCs (along with SWT) who have a history of attempting to deny that the Routeing Guide exists. This is despite the fact that knowledge of the Routeing Guide is a requirement for authourised collectors in a penalty fares scheme. But since when was adhering to the rules important to EMT? After all there is no-one to enforce the rules are adhered to by the TOCs.

 

[RJ]

The guard does not seem to have any knowledge of 19c and implies the passenger is at a fault and is only being let off because he has a season ticket.

If I was that passenger I would (unwisely) have been tempted to defend myself further by demonstrating that the combination was definitely OK - I would not like the suggestion that I was a fare-evader being let off this time.

Based on the guard's accent I guess this was EMT.

Some people just want an easy life when travelling and know better than to try and teach their grandmother to suck eggs so to speak. Having an interest in tickets doesn't necessarily translate to wanting to enter into discussion with bewildered staff. As such, if the guard passes the ticket then a thank you is all that is necessary for this type of person.

In the dialogue, the guard hasn't been bombarded with any specific references to Condition 13, 16, 19c or other applicable rules. The guard isn't up against any aggressive confrontation either, even when stating that an excess is payable and (incorrectly) asserting that whatever was being done was prohibited.

Regardless of the member of staff lacking knowledge and practical application skills of the finer ticketing elements of the NRCoC, I consider that to be good customer service as he was patient and willing to listen then passed the ticket despite his reservations. Ironically he passed the ticket for the right reason but for the wrong reasons at the same time.

I've very often said that staff should be more proficient in giving the benefit of the doubt if they don't know for certain who is right or wrong. In the situation depicted, I feel the guard felt it was necessary to save face by saying "I'll let you off" and this was facilitated by the resultant "thank you." I don't agree that it's a good idea for a passenger to then start an argument at that point as it ultimately achieves nothing other than shifting a feeling of altruism for the guard to one of self satiety for the passenger, at the expense of the guard's feelings.

Personally I wish I was a fly on the wall with some of the encounters I have had. Especially the ones where staff flap about after unsuccessfully attempting to detrain me. I always sit laid back, shoulders down and speak softly, regardless of how agitated the member of staff gets or how long the encounter drags on for.

 

[bb21]

Do many EMT guards have full knowledge of 19c? It's not in their training as far as I know.

I have seen some very knowledgeable EMT guards (both ex-MML and ex-Central) with respect to a number of ticketing issues, unfortunately there are also many guards whose knowledge is shocking.

I can't speak for their training however I do have in my mind some ideas about staff from certain ex-MML depots being particularly bad in that respect.

 

[tannedfrog]

Do many EMT guards have full knowledge of 19c? It's not in their training as far as I know.

But it's in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which is not an obscure document; tickets say "Issued subject to NRCoC" and NRCoC is also mentioned on posters at stations and on trains.

While their training may be lacking, I can't understand how some guards, despite seeing the words "National Rail Conditions of Carriage" many times during the working day, have not found the curiosity to peruse them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't agree that it's a good idea for a passenger to then start an argument at that point as it ultimately achieves nothing other than shifting a feeling of altruism for the guard to one of self satiety for the passenger, at the expense of the guard's feelings.

It's not a good idea to start an argument at that point, and the passenger in that video behaved in an exemplary manner. However personally I would really have to work hard to stop myself unnecessarily arguing the point.

 

[island]

I think in these situations it's good to get the guard saying "yes".

For example:
Is travel on this train subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?
Are you familiar with these conditions? [If not, whip a copy out or bring it up on a smart-gadget.]
Can you tell me what the conditions say about [the route I may use|using multiple tickets on a journey|excess fares|etc.]

And so on...

 

[RJ]

I've been down that road. The response has been that the guard either expresses they don't care, thinks it's completely irrelevant. I've been accused of attempting to bamboozle and even have one launch into a personal tirade about how sad I was for knowing and referring to the CoC.

It has not once yielded a positive result so I simply don't bother any more.

 

[jon0844]

I was pretty much considered sad for knowing why some trains were declassified, when quite legally sitting in first class. It was the opinion of the RPI that it was just a mistake in the timetable, and would be fixed, when it was quite clear that a service sometimes run with class 313s would NEVER be getting first class accommodation (well, not unless they decide to install FC in them!).

In the end, just stating it was declassified and letting them do their thing was far easier (and quicker in the long run) even if I did have to perhaps help them by telling them what train they were actually on.

 

[RJ]

Isn't it more likely that ATOC will remove the roundabout route validities and generally reduce flexibility so that revenue staff become right without any additional training? That may not bother some but will by very bad for those who are using these tickets as originally intended.

I take advantage of whatever I see fit to, including rules favourable to large numbers of travellers. They're not going to inconvenience thousands of travellers and risk upsetting the dynamics of demand for rail travel just to spite people like me.

However, I am not supportive of the nature of the TOC in question's attempts to stop me doing what I do. Not because of the effect it has on me, but because it perplexes me as to why they don't realise that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. As a genuinely pro-railway individual, I'd discourage this practice.

Consider the Restriction BT situation. I was probably the only person in the country who was using tickets with this restriction (often routed Not Via London) to travel out of St Pancras at hours between 05:45 and 09:00. I say that because if any other people were also doing it on their trains on a regular basis, surely the guards would have flagged it and those in the HQ would have put a stop to it, or at least been aware. Clearly not the case as they tried to say I was still liable for the UFNs/cost of a new SOS for the whole journey. It took intervention from ATOC before they decided to drop/cancel everything and give all my money back.

Shortly afterwards, extra text was added to Restriction BT to stop me doing this, or to protect revenue by the stopping masses from doing it depending on what spin you are privy to. I'm not convinced as to whether they actually consider the bigger picture when attempting to put the kibosh on use of creative ticketing - things such as;

a.) I was the only person in the country using these particular tickets regularly on their trains.

b.) It's not exactly likely that I'm about to start buying through SORs for £140+ or Advance Singles costing £40+

c.) Someone with the mentality to use tickets in that manner is simply going to continue being creative and make use of some other legitimate ticketing arrangement. This effectively equates to the TOC playing a game of cat and mouse which seems a rather expensive and inefficient way of dealing with the matter. Especially given the tacit lack of an identifiable figure culpable for having a specialist knowledge of fares. The TOC where I worked in ticketing, that person was the Pricing Manager. Other TOCs employ people where this sort of thing is specifically within their job remit.

The next best alternative forgone was for them to leave it alone. It was not likely that anyone would imitate me as I kept the details close to my chest. They would have continued to get the revenue from those tickets and they could have saved significant amounts of time and money on deciphering the validity of new tickets I used. They could have put out a more effective brief for staff to pass them and most likely things would have gone quiet. They did close it however. I switched from using tickets priced by EMT, to tickets which they receive less revenue for, but are still valid for the same journey. This arrangement has now been flagged up (hence this thread) and it is evident that they have not learned anything from the last debacle as it has once again proved incredibly difficult and time consuming to get them to understand why those tickets were valid and to counter whatever they tried to throw at me to try and trip me up. I don't quite think it has quite come to dawn yet that I'm not bluffing or going on guesswork. Until something changes, the process will repeat itself ad nauseum.

Somebody clever within the organisation needs to realise that instead of trying to find every excuse under the sun to say that I get it wrong, a better way of dealing with my situation would be to get somebody knowledgeable with fares (NRCoC/NRG) to sit down, listen to my explanations and check it against the relevant documents. Or better still, find somebody who knows about fares to compile some training material, plus somebody who knows about customer service, then hire somebody who knows how to train and appraise people properly to prevent such farcical situations from happening.

They also need to sort out their issues with staff who don't know when it's appropriate to excess, when it's appropriate to charge for a new ticket and when it's inappropriate to say "no, you can't have a railcard discount." This is something which I hadn't picked up on before, but in making it difficult for me to have notices cancelled/refunds as appropriate, they're leaving themselves open to me digging and discovering other malpractice which is considered as correct/routine to them.

Nah, the PR spin would be "Fares Fair: extremely confusing and conflicting historic routings and validities are being streamlined into a simple and straightforward system that everyone can understand eliminating passenger fears of being charged additional fares." The current rules are highly complex and revenue staff probably only rarely encounter obscure routings, possibly only one person exploits them to the maximum, it's not realistic to expect them to be trained to that level. If RJ's exploits got media attention I fear the public would be highly critical, mainly of ATOC for not closing the loopholes.

It depends on which elements of my exploits are exposed. For the element of me being "creative" with selection of tickets, I generally get positive reactions from others as few people are averse to savings on train fares.

For the element of encountering ticket inspectors who don't know what they're doing and try to take money from me without just cause, nobody has yet taken their side. People I talk to elsewhere in the retail and revenue areas of the industry think it's comical that they are so desperate for want of a better word.

For the element of me getting various notices, threatened with prosecution, failed attempts to kick me off the train etc. people do tend to say "be careful." Seeing as the TOC in question has shown willing to press on with punitive measures when they think I have tripped up (and I'm not talking about front line staff now) I have very little sympathy for any excuses they come out with in defence of their front line staff who get it wrong.

 

[snail]

I'm not convinced as to whether they actually consider the bigger picture when attempting to put the kibosh on use of creative ticketing - things such as;

a.) I was the only person in the country using these particular tickets regularly on their trains.

better still, find somebody who knows about fares to compile some training material, plus somebody who knows about customer service, then hire somebody who knows how to train and appraise people properly to prevent such farcical situations from happening.

What a contradictory attitude. On one hand you are saying they should not make sweeping changes just because you use an unusual combination of tickets but then you want them to retrain all their staff to stop them upsetting you. Can you have it both ways? You play your games, you take your chances.

 

[Robsignals]

I take advantage of whatever I see fit to, including rules favourable to large numbers of travellers. They're not going to inconvenience thousands of travellers and risk upsetting the dynamics of demand for rail travel just to spite people like me.

However, I am not supportive of the nature of the TOC in question's attempts to stop me doing what I do. Not because of the effect it has on me, but because it perplexes me as to why they don't realise that they're cutting off their nose to spite their face. As a genuinely pro-railway individual, I'd discourage this practice.

Consider the Restriction BT situation. I was probably the only person in the country who was using tickets with this restriction (often routed Not Via London) to travel out of St Pancras at hours between 05:45 and 09:00. I say that because if any other people were also doing it on their trains on a regular basis, surely the guards would have flagged it and those in the HQ would have put a stop to it, or at least been aware. Clearly not the case as they tried to say I was still liable for the UFNs/cost of a new SOS for the whole journey. It took intervention from ATOC before they decided to drop/cancel everything and give all my money back.

Shortly afterwards, extra text was added to Restriction BT to stop me doing this, or to protect revenue by the stopping masses from doing it depending on what spin you are privy to. I'm not convinced as to whether they actually consider the bigger picture when attempting to put the kibosh on use of creative ticketing - things such as;

a.) I was the only person in the country using these particular tickets regularly on their trains.

b.) It's not exactly likely that I'm about to start buying through SORs for £140+ or Advance Singles costing £40+

c.) Someone with the mentality to use tickets in that manner is simply going to continue being creative and make use of some other legitimate ticketing arrangement. This effectively equates to the TOC playing a game of cat and mouse which seems a rather expensive and inefficient way of dealing with the matter. Especially given the tacit lack of an identifiable figure culpable for having a specialist knowledge of fares. The TOC where I worked in ticketing, that person was the Pricing Manager. Other TOCs employ people where this sort of thing is specifically within their job remit.

I don't want to lose well known and used ticket flexibility, though if restrictions are made to the extreme ones they can all to easily have unwanted side effects. It's not about stopping you but simplifying the rules that revenue staff need to learn so they are more likely to apply them correctly. You agree that few people, perhaps only you, are exploiting the rules to such a degree but you expect all revenue staff to have a full understanding of them - is that honestly realistic? If so few are using them then by definition there's hardly any revenue at risk, possibly less then can be saved in reduced training costs, or the admin and management time spent on you!

Consequently, I switched from using tickets priced by EMT, to tickets which they get almost no revenue for, but are still valid for use on their trains. This arrangement has now been flagged up (hence this thread) and it is evident that they have not learned anything from the last debacle as it has once again proved incredibly difficult and time consuming to get them to understand why those tickets were valid and to counter whatever they tried to throw at me to try and trip me up. I don't quite think it has quite come to dawn yet that I'm not bluffing or going on guesswork.

Somebody clever within the organisation needs to realise that instead of trying to find every excuse under the sun to say that I get it wrong, a better way of dealing with my situation would be to get somebody knowledgeable with fares (NRCoC/NRG) to sit down, listen to my explanations and check it against the relevant documents. Or better still, find somebody who knows about fares to compile some training material, plus somebody who knows about customer service, then hire somebody who knows how to train and appraise people properly to prevent such farcical situations from happening.

Exactly, by simplifying validities there will be less to learn and, hopefully, revenue staff will be more likely to get it right first time. Are you offering your skills to ATOC?

They also need to sort out their issues with staff who don't know when it's appropriate to excess, when it's appropriate to charge for a new ticket and when it's inappropriate to say "no, you can't have a railcard discount." This is something which I hadn't picked up on before, but in making it difficult for me to have notices cancelled/refunds as appropriate, they're leaving themselves open to me digging and discovering other malpractice which is considered as correct/routine to them.

May prove to be a "double edged sword" if they start closing them as soon as you find them, they won't even need to pay you.

It depends on which elements of my exploits are exposed. For the element of me being "creative" with selection of tickets, I generally get positive reactions from others as few people are averse to savings on train fares.

For the element of encountering ticket inspectors who don't know what they're doing and try to take money from me without just cause, nobody has yet taken their side. People I talk to elsewhere in the retail and revenue areas of the industry think it's comical that they are so desperate for want of a better word.

For the element of me getting various notices, threatened with prosecution, failed attempts to kick me off the train etc. people do tend to say "be careful." Seeing as the TOC in question has shown willing to press on with punitive measures when they think I have tripped up (and I'm not talking about front line staff now) I have very little sympathy for any excuses they come out with in defence of their front line staff who get it wrong.

I'm thinking more of 'the tax paying public' who will see themselves as paying for your low cost travel.

 

[RJ]

What a contradictory attitude. On one hand you are saying they should not make sweeping changes just because you use an unusual combination of tickets but then you want them to retrain all their staff to stop them upsetting you. Can you have it both ways? You play your games, you take your chances.

I expect them to take appropriate action on loopholes as and when they find them. That might be to close them, reduce the effectiveness or even to do nothing. The point is, the way they have gone about it in this specific situation has been more to their detriment than anyone else's. What it appears to me was done, was an attempt to amend it so it would only affect me or anyone doing the same thing, without considering that I'd simply make alternative ticketing arrangements.

When I say training staff in customer service, what I mean is training them on when it is appropriate to demand money from people. I don't deem it appropriate if the passenger puts up a compelling argument and the guard knows they are not able to disprove it. At present, the culture is to charge the passenger or issue a notice on the basis that they can appeal and/or claim a refund later.

When I say training on tickets, it does not take a genius to be able to memorise the three parts of Condition 19. In these times where split ticketing has seen some significant promotion by the media, the TOCs should be taking the chance to brief its staff up. I know for a fact that the last TOC I worked for issued such a brief almost immediately after the MSE app was launched.

 

[bb21]

I think in RJ's case, EMT may no longer be solely looking at maximising their revenue, as they must have realised that by now they are not going to get much revenue out of him at all, therefore they probably aren't that bothered with him switching to tickets priced by other TOCs as the loss of revenue is probably minimal anyway.

The game they may be playing is simply getting him to reveal to them more and more loopholes slowly and close them in due course. It is a long game, however as long as he keeps making use of them, the loopholes will slowly be closed. In the grand scheme of things, the costs of dealing with one individual matters very little as it is a company with millions of pounds in turnover each year.

 

[RJ]

I don't want to lose well known and used ticket flexibility, though if restrictions are made to the extreme ones they can all to easily have unwanted side effects. It's not about stopping you but simplifying the rules that revenue staff need to learn so they are more likely to apply them correctly. You agree that few people, perhaps only you, are exploiting the rules to such a degree but you expect all revenue staff to have a full understanding of them - is that honestly realistic? If so few are using them then by definition there's hardly any revenue at risk, possibly less then can be saved in reduced training costs, or the admin and management time spent on you!

It is realistic for some of the encounters I have had. Part of the problem is also that staff are often averse to taking a bit of initiative and working things out for themselves. The dispute described in this thread arose because the guard assumed my Off Peak ticket was not valid at that time. Instead of calling up ticket offices, revenue protection staff and goodness knows who else for a second opinion, all he had to do was look at the time restriction in his Avantix Mobile ticket machine. This would have categorically confirmed I was right, but he didn't want to do this and asked for help elsewhere instead. Why couldn't he do it himself, instead of telling half a story to his colleagues to elicit the response he wanted?

I maintain if staff who know that they don't have a full understanding of the rules applicable to their job and come across a ticketing situation they aren't familiar with, they should not ask the passenger for any money at all. If they don't know all the rules, that's fine, but they shouldn't make the passenger suffer because of that.

If it was about making things simple for staff, why did EMT slap a Super Off Peak restriction code on a restriction that is used for tickets labelled as Off Peak? What will happen is people will buy that Off Peak ticket, travel at Off Peak times then get done because it has Super Off Peak restrictions on it.

Exactly, by simplifying validities there will be less to learn and, hopefully, revenue staff will be more likely to get it right first time. Are you offering your skills to ATOC?

They already have specialists in their midsts. They seem to be quite wise in excising caution with changing things around too much due to the butterfly effect.

I'm thinking more of 'the tax paying public' who will see themselves as paying for your low cost travel.

That line might work with fare evaders but it won't work against a fare paying passenger. I can just as easily say that they make Advance fares available on trains for less than what I pay.

I think in RJ's case, EMT may no longer be solely looking at maximising their revenue, as they must have realised that by now they are not going to get much revenue out of him at all, therefore they probably aren't that bothered with him switching to tickets priced by other TOCs as the loss of revenue is probably minimal anyway.

The game they may be playing is simply getting him to reveal to them more and more loopholes slowly and close them in due course. It is a long game, however as long as he keeps making use of them, the loopholes will slowly be closed. In the grand scheme of things, the costs of dealing with one individual matters very little as it is a company with millions of pounds in turnover each year.

Do those costs take into account the amount of time they spend dealing with me or the reputational damage that some senior staff may suffer when the intermediaries see that I openly challenge what they say and am proven to be right?

They did issue a brief telling their staff not to bother me if found using unusual combinations. I suspect this was done after it was found that making valiant attempts to get me to pay the through fare was a waste of time which invariably led to a dead end. I would have commended it if it hadn't been all forgotten about after a few days!

I'm not convinced that's the case anyway, because as I say they don't take any real notice of the explanations I provide them with and would rather go down the road leading me paying UFNs for new undiscounted SOS', or prosecution, until someone who isn't me steps in and says "he's right."

 

[bb21]

Do those costs take into account the amount of time they spend dealing with me or the reputational damage that some senior staff may suffer when the intermediaries see that I openly challenge what they say and am proven to be right?

Even if they spend ten, twenty or thirty hours dealing with your case, it is still unlikely to be a significant enough cost in the grand scheme of things, especially if you are the only one who they spend an awful lot of time on. You are also assuming that they are bothered about the reputational damage, which from what I can see, is not something EMT or many of its staff are that concerned about.

 

[142094]

Even if they spend ten, twenty or thirty hours dealing with your case, it is still unlikely to be a significant enough cost in the grand scheme of things, especially if you are the only one who they spend an awful lot of time on. You are also assuming that they are bothered about the reputational damage, which from what I can see, is not something EMT or many of its staff are that concerned about.

TBH that's what I was thinking - they will no doubt see it as a drop in the ocean, but would be very worried if 'the masses' were able to use the loopholes and then make a sizeable dent in their revenue.

 

[RJ]

Even if they spend ten, twenty or thirty hours dealing with your case, it is still unlikely to be a significant enough cost in the grand scheme of things, especially if you are the only one who they spend an awful lot of time on. You are also assuming that they are bothered about the reputational damage, which from what I can see, is not something EMT or many of its staff are that concerned about.

I'm not talking about to the public - but internally rather. If you're in a position where you have subordinates and are considered an expert in what you do, you don't want to be undermined in front of your colleagues repeatedly. Especially not by a customer who has no need to be fazed by your seniority. Even if it's the most obnoxious customer in the world, I suspect most individuals would look at a manager differently if their indifference or lack of knowledge allowed a customer to be robbed by the company or put through the stress and hardship of being wrongly put through the prosecution process.

In this case the intermediaries refer to the Customer Relations staff I have to liaise with who then seek specialist advice from colleagues in other departments whose word they feel they can trust before getting back to me.

 

[kieron]

Not sure if anyone cares, but the London-Manchester via Tring and Stone thing wouldn't have been valid on any direct London-Manchester trains, simply because the only Tring-Stone season tickets offered are routed LONDON MIDLAND ONLY, and they don't serve Manchester.

 

[RJ]

Update: Cheque for £74.00 finally arrived in the post. Reimbursement for the new ticket I was sold between Leicester and London. EMT finally conceded that I had a valid combination of tickets that day. No apology or anything though!

So at present, there are two outstanding issues. I still have a UFN for £74.00 after the guard insisted the Condition 19c combination I was using wasn't valid as the train didn't stop at Bedford. At present it's almost 20 working days since I first submitted a written complaint to EMT and heard nothing back from them regarding this.

In the meantime, ITAL have sent a letter rejecting my appeal with 21 days to pay. A couple of days later, I got a letter stating that they note that an appeal I lodged had been rejected and that I had 14 days to pay up, with a £30 admin fee added. A couple of days after this, I received a letter stating that they were reviewing the case and I would be hearing back after an unspecified period of time. The last one might have had something to do with me sending a letter back telling them a home truth or two and explicitly stating that I had no intention of paying that notice.

Talk about being in a flap .

The last time I complained about an appeals assessor at the IAS, I received a reply from one of the directors conceding that they were completely incorrect in their conduct when dealing with me, also stating that the appeal should have been upheld. Having seen the credentials of some of the people working there, I am surprised they are allowing poorly trained assessors to deal with me - once again, people who don't know what they're doing shouldn't be in a position where they can demand money from people. Especially when I have spoonfed them in writing everything they need to know in order to appreciate that I did nothing wrong.

The other outstanding case is this Penalty Fare issue. I did have all telephone correspondence regarding purely the ticket validity element of the incident. It did seem to reach the point there they were about to concede that they couldn't find anything to stick on me. Then they found the damning complaint I wrote to them regarding the incident and conduct of the members of staff involved, with a copy of the PFN which has opened up a big can of worms. They've since gone quiet. However, they still owe me money so the silence needs to be broken at some point, sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, I have started buying Advance tickets if they're at the right price . Going north via the ECML was nice last time, but would rather not have to deal with any more +1s at Peterborough!

 

[Ferret]

What's your plan of action if the money is not refunded RJ? Would you consider lodging a claim in the small claims court?

 

[RJ]

What's your plan of action if the money is not refunded RJ? Would you consider lodging a claim in the small claims court?

No - the power of persuasion is more appropriate considering the circumstances. However, in future, I won't be entertaining the issue of any PFNs or UFNs which I know I am not liable to pay, because ITAL and EMT's way of dealing with appeals is not something I want to go through again or wish on anybody else. I have seen it advised on this forum that people should accept UFNs then appeal them later if it's over a validity dispute. However, I hope the sharing of my experiences will epitomise why this might not always be a good idea.

In future, I will employ different verbal tactics when interacting with the revenue protection staff, which will be more effective in discouraging the practice of attempting to ching me incorrectly!

 

[bb21]

In future, I will employ different verbal tactics when interacting with the revenue protection staff, which will be more effective in discouraging the practice of attempting to ching me incorrectly!

We look forward to your story.

 

[RJ]

Right, had a nice chat with someone who seems to have their head screwed on!

The Penalty Fare Notice has been cancelled. However, this appears to have been done because of the poor standard to which it was filled out, rather than the fact that the ticket I held was wrongly denounced as invalid and there being no legal basis for its issue. So that's the issue of the first ticket sorted out. Now, with the second, it can still go either way. What happens next depends on ATOC's word on whether the Rugby to Peartee SOR was indeed valid between Bedford and Derby. Bizarrely enter Bedford as a via point in NRE and it says you need two tickets. Enter Ridgmont and it then agrees with the NRG that it's a valid route.

They now understand why I used that particular +Any Permitted SVR to Bedford and seem to accept that I was ok to use it at that time in the morning.

The complaint I lodged against the RPO with regards to her conduct is being treated separately and it has been acknowledged that there were multiple valid issues that I raised and will be dealt with.

No idea of timescales as to when it will be confirmed that I was using valid tickets that day as multiple organisations and multiple departments within EMT are now involved in dealing with the case, with a few people on leave etc. From what I can see, it's not so much the 2 minutes it would take to check it in the National Routeing Guide. I didn't bother asking the question as to why they cannot find anyone in their organisation who is confident enough with their NRG understanding to be able to provide a conclusive answer as to the validity of the route. The problem has been said to have sparked confusion among several people.

They are aware that I won't be appealing or paying any more notices where I know I did everything by the book. They say ITAL will be debriefed on how to deal with me if it's deemed that I'm right. However, whilst other departments have a keen interest in shutting loopholes and prompting me to move on to different ones, I forsee that becoming a logistical headache so I'll stick with my original plan.

I may be invited in for a meeting with tea and biscuits at some point in the near future.

 

[island]

I hope they're expensive biscuits. Like Chocolate Kimberley, for example.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

I'm sure theird like to be a fly on the wall or more to see EMT squirm!

 

[RJ]

So I travelled down to London on EMT last night. This time, I travelled late so the ticket office at my origin station was closed. When I arrived, there were queues of at least 6 people at each TVM. I was intending to pay with an RTV so I found the gateline assistant and asked to be let through so I could buy on board. It turned out to be one of the ticket office staff and he was equipped with an Avantix Mobile machine. I told him I needed to buy a ticket with an origin of a different station with the RTV, but he said he would not accept it and they are not accepted on board trains. He said I could only go through the barriers if I bought a ticket. So I stumped up for a ticket to the next stop on the line as the train was pulling in.

I was trying to buy a ticket to North Wembley routed Not Via London. On board the train, I recognised the TM as I've seen her three times since I started my commute in October. She normally looks at my ticket, looks at me, shrugs, clips it and moves on. She checked tickets between Leicester and the next stop which was St Pancras. I handed her the voucher and told her the price of the ticket I wanted to buy. She fetched her machine then came back to say the ticket I wanted was routed Not Via London. I then told her I had a Zone 1-2 Season Travelcard on Oyster. She initially stated that Oyster and Travelcards weren't valid on EMT, but I explained that together, the Travelcard and the ticket I was about to buy would cover the whole journey, making it a valid combination. I used Yorkie's wording of Oyster being a mere medium and made the point that a Travelcard is a Travelcard, however it was presented. This was effective and she gave me the time of day to log into Oyster Online so I could show that I did have a Travelcard loaded. She was pleasant and was listening to me. However, she still had reservations and asked if it was ok if she got an RPI at St Pancras to deal with it as we were almost there and she had things to do. I said that was fine.

As St Pancras, she was waiting for me and we met the RPI. I kicked off the conversation by complimenting her way of handling the situation in comparison to some of her colleagues, particularly a highly incompetent RPO who was likely to get into serious trouble for her actions. Predictably, this caused the RPI to start laughing and he asked me who I really was. He thought I was a reporter because of the way I was dressed and asked if I had a camera hidden in my puffer body warmer.

We all walked to the gateline and the RPI took out his machine. The TM relayed to him what I said about the Travelcard, which turned out not to be an issue at all. The RPI said he would trust me when I said that I had one on Oyster. That knocked me for six. He asked why I knew so much about tickets and I told him I had worked in RP for another TOC. He didn't believe this and seriously thought that I had done special research, was on a job for a media company and was testing him. He asked if I had an agendum and I said yes: to save money on fares.

I explained to him why I had to audacity to stand up at St Pancras and ask for a Not Via London ticket and he listened. He looked at the ticket I had purchased and said he'd sell me an extension to London. I said it didn't work like that and I needed a ticket to North Wembley with the cost of that ticket deducted. He was concerned as to how to account for it and even took notes whilst I explained to him the significance of Condition 3.

Eventually, he was ready to issue the ticket and was trying to sell me a Super Off Peak Return. I told him to try again. In terms of discounted fares, a Not Via London ticket to North Wembley only has a SVR (BT, or CI/CJ if you're me.) A ticket from North Wembley has an SSR (CJ) at the same price and a more expensive SVR with a rubbish restriction on it compared to the reverse direction (9J.) It doesn't matter where my origin station was - take your pick of anywhere between Leicester and Chesterfield, same difference. If I hear anything about Super Off Peak, I know the stations have been put in the wrong way around. I had this problem when I tried to obtain a simple OD excess at the ticket office at St Pancras and the clerk gave up and printed me out a free ticket.

Anyway, the RPI issued the ticket and asked if I was happy. I said yes and he was still asking why I had all that knowledge. He finally accepted that I wasn't a snooper and that I was a railwayman, showing admiration for use of knowledge to save money. He said from my initial statement that it seemed I was having a long term dispute with EMT and I told him he didn't know the half of it. I then proceeded to explain briefly what I had been going through. Both the TM and RPI had a wicked sense of humour and I was cracking jokes with them.

It finally dawned on the RPI who exactly I was and he stated that recalled reading an email about me, stating that I use combinations that appear not to be valid, but always are and should be accepted. He said it was an honour to have met me and that he was impressed with my knowledge of tickets. The TM said that I was amazing and that she had never met anyone like me before. I shook their hands and went about my business.

Having RTVs comes in useful for situations like this, so for normal situations I just pay by cash/card. I was reserving them for situations where TMs are adamant I pay for a new ticket from London to Leicester or wherever. I have been known to hand them a nice wad of RTVs in the past. This is another grey area for their staff though as quite a few don't seem to understand where they can be used or how to process them. One night, I travelled to London, intending to buy two Not Via London SVRs for different dates and paying with RTVs issued by different TOCs. The final straw came for the TM when I presented a CDR that I bought at my origin telling him I wanted the price of that deducted. He gave up completely and authorised me to travel without a valid ticket as he couldn't be asked with it.

 

[34D]

for example if you had a (...I'm reaching here) Willesden Junction - Watford season ticket and wanted to go from Shepherds Bush to Milton Keynes on the Southern Service. I'm sure someone else could come up with a better example - something on the WCML perhaps that you could use as a filling in a 2 single sandwich to get from London to Manchester?

This is a bad example, as the southern services from East Croydon to Watford junction actually bypass Willesden Junction.

If a Willesden-Watford season held, passenger travelling Shepherds Bush to MK, then in my view they would need to purchase Shepherds Bush-Harlesden and Watford-MKC.

There is also an argument (due to the track layout) of the ticket needed being Shepherds Bush-Wembley Central.

A better example I think would be a Huntingdon-Peterborough season, with the passenger wanting to travel Kings Cross-York on the non stop service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes - the best/simplest explanation I've seen is that you must not deviate from the Permitted Routes for each ticket as defined by the Routeing Guide. So for example Reading-Oxford with a 19(c) split at Didcot is OK even on non-stop trains which bypass the station on an avoiding line, as the RG maps show the line going through Didcot, so you're using a Permitted Route from Reading-Didcot and from Didcot-Oxford. OTOH, Tring-Manchester with a split at Stone would be valid only if following permitted routes from Tring to Stone and from Stone to Tring. If there is no Permitted Route between Stone and Manchester via Stafford & Crewe then you must travel via Stoke.

Regarding Didcot, is this the forum consensus that the avoiding lines pass through the station. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with or agree with this, but happy to be corrected as always.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It finally dawned on the RPI who exactly I was and he stated that recalled reading an email about me, stating that I use combinations that appear not to be valid, but always are and should be accepted. He said it was an honour to have met me and that he was impressed with my knowledge of tickets. The TM said that I was amazing and that she had never met anyone like me before. I shook their hands and went about my business.

Wow. Will you be writing a letter of praise about these two staff members?

 

[RJ]

Yes, a letter will going in as I had a hard time getting through the barriers at my origin. The ticket I told the gateline assistant I wanted was not available from a TVM and he rejected my method of payment for no apparent reason. I had to use the cash that I was saving for the on board trolley to get a ticket to get through the barriers which isn't on. I reserve the right to travel at times when the ticket office is shut without facing additional hassle.

I will also be praising the staff at St Pancras. Revenue Protection staff are still front line customer service staff at the end of the day. Too many have lost sight of this fact and become jaded, possibly by the more difficult passengers. However, a ticket inspector doesn't have to be a tight ass just because they're wearing a long coat and St. Trinians hat - they have just as much free will to alter their persona according to the situation as the next guard, ticket office clerk or gateline assistant.

What I liked was that they were prepared to listen to what I was saying, which made the situation flow much easier for all concerned. All staff should be prepared to do this with their customers. I was thus able to put across the logic behind the combination succinctly. I also liked that they were able to laugh about the situation and the way I was using the system to my advantage. Too many of their colleagues look at me with disdain and have been markedly unpleasant when I try to communicate with them, for no apparent reason.

Part of good customer service is being able to adjust your approach to form a rapport with the person in front of you. There are times when you have to be serious and times where you can be friendly and have a laugh. It's not unprofessional to be friendly when appropriate, whilst it can be very unprofesssional to be overly authoritative to the extent that you don't want to listen to the customer.

So I will be sending in a letter to compliment their way of handling the situation. It won't do anything to alter the conduct of any of their colleagues but at least the company can take note that I walked away a happy customer.

 

[barrykas]

Regarding Didcot, is this the forum consensus that the avoiding lines pass through the station. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with or agree with this, but happy to be corrected as always.

On the ground they don't, but the routeing guide doesn't distinguish between the avoiding lines and the platform lines. See, for example, Map CS for Paddington to Oxford.

As such, I wouldn't expect any issues splitting at Didcot on a train routed via the avoiders...unless, of course, it was a 19b split.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Paul Kelly]

The ATOC data feeds (available at http://data.atoc.org/ and also supplied to the booking engines) handle the Didcot issue by specifying that Didcot East Junction and Didcot North Junction are part of Didcot station. Any train that uses the avoiding line will have these two included in its schedule as timing points, so the booking engines are thus fooled into thinking that trains using the avoiding line pass through Didcot Station. Presumably this stops any difficulting questions arising...

 

[kieron]

Regarding Didcot, is this the forum consensus that the avoiding lines pass through the station. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with or agree with this, but happy to be corrected as always.

The avoiding line isn't shown on any of the Routeing Guide maps, so you couldn't use a train which doesn't stop in Didcot on any mapped route if you distinguished the avoiding line from the route through the station itself. I consider this to represent a clear intention not to distinguish between them when choosing a valid route. The lines which avoid Gloucester and Selby are shown separately, so you do have to be more careful when splitting at either.