Do train companies have too much power in relation to ticketing disputes?

[Tazi Hupefi]

I don't have a problem with private prosecutions in theory - so the TOCs could still use RORA s5 under my proposals, but they would have to show evidence of dishonesty. Byelaws with strict liability are a harsh way to deal with mistakes when you consider the impact of a criminal prosecution on some people. Given the strict liability nature - it is perfectly possible for there to be a scenario where the passenger acted completely honestly at all times and yet ends up convicted in a criminal court. An example would be travelling on an advanced ticket having missed their booked train after being advised by someone they mistook for staff on the platform that it's OK due to a missed connection, but the missed connection was for a different TOC (so not covered under NRCOC) and revenue staff on the train they take decide to report for prosecution.

As with anything legal - each case would be fact dependent, but travelling with no ticket, no railcard, wrong class, wrong route, wrong train (for advanced tickets) etc. should all be matters for civil enforcement (i.e. penalty fares)

Travelling with fake tickets, doughnutting or similar would be in my eyes at least, the kind of area that criminal prosecutions should be considered. Anything where it's proportionate to investigate a passenger's journey in depth with CCTV, barrier usage etc. would be obvious cases for prosecution.

My key thought is that where the aim of the TOC is to protect revenue - a civil rather than criminal procedure is the right balance. There is a deterrent effect from the penalty fares as they stand, and they should be priced to cover enforcement costs.

Compensation orders can and should be attached to sentencing - there shouldn't need to be an out of court settlement option to recover the fare avoided and reasonable prosecution costs.

They already do have to show evidence of dishonesty for these Regulation of Railways Act 1889 offences, as "intent" e.g. "intent to avoid payment" is required to be proven, or the offence is dishonest simply by its very nature, e.g. providing a fake name or address.

 

[packermac]

To be fair and balanced, a lot of discretion is shown to people in those circumstances which goes unreported.

And there’s a proportion of the population who are of the mentality that if discretion exists, they are automatically entitled to it and can thus travel without a valid ticket with impunity. Dishonesty/cheating/fraud is a part of some people’s way of life and there has to be rules to enforce against this kind of behaviour to prevent loss and expense for others.

Sometimes the railways get it wrong. Some staff don’t/won’t follow the correct procedures for checking the validity of tickets they are unfamiliar with and end up persecuting customers who have presented a valid ticket, or causing disruption to the journey they paid for. Revenue departments and the BTP have seemingly unlimited resources to expend on putting these types of customers in their place.

This is something the railways are unapologetic for - so the onus is on the customer to know how to deal with it.

I do not dispute that discretion is shown, the question is surely if that is with or without company agreement. Likewise if staff are poorly trained and passengers are being wrongly accused then there should be an easy way to appeal the issue without reference to the legal system
I do not know what instructions staff work under from their TOC, but if the instruction is no discretion, then surely staff are exposing themselves to a risk of a disciplinary procedure in not complying.

 

[RJ]

I do not dispute that discretion is shown, the question is surely if that is with or without company agreement. Likewise if staff are poorly trained and passengers are being wrongly accused then there should be an easy way to appeal the issue without reference to the legal system
I do not know what instructions staff work under from their TOC, but if the instruction is no discretion, then surely staff are exposing themselves to a risk of a disciplinary procedure in not complying.

The appeals system doesn’t always work - customer service departments and appeals bodies seem to work on the basis that the customer is always wrong and often can’t identify a technical expert whose word they are prepared to trust.

I’ve had to undermine the whole system to the point where I’ve written directly to prosecutions managers and told them that I no longer waste my time appealing these things and anything that comes before them will be down to their frontline colleagues acting up. As mad as it sounds the ability to determine validity is a scarce technical skill.

When it gets like that it’s very difficult to take the process seriously.

 

[robbeech]

As always, there is a financial incentive to ignore this and allow staff to carry on making mistakes as they’re almost always financially beneficial to the operator.

If you are focussed entirely on profit, which is only natural for a business of this nature, then why would you pay staff to do extra training to eliminate this problem if the results are less profit?

 

[nanstallon]

You need to barrier both ends, or do enough on-board revenue protection and chuck evaders off short of their destination.

I also have no issue with Penalty Fares (which, give or take the specific legislation, are effectively simply a higher ticket price for purchasing after starting travel) and pursuing non-payment of those via the civil Courts.

One important aspect is that if the railway was not abusing the criminal sanctions they have available to them, by RoRAing people who have erroneously travelled on a one-day-out-of-date Railcard, for example, people might not be quite so opposed to them. But they are used as a means of extortion of their arbitrarily desired sum, and I have a problem with that. A big problem.

And I say that having never so much as had a PF, let alone a prosecution. But I have made unwitting mistakes, I have just been fortunate to meet a ticket machine-equipped guard and not an RPI after having done so, so have just been sold a ticket.

That is about the size of it. I've never incurred a penalty fare, and indeed have always taken care not to take any risk of getting into trouble - not because I'm particularly virtuous, but because I'd lose my particular job for any kind of infraction. However, prosecution for not being careful is disproportionate, and extorting money by using the threat of prosecution is contemptible.

And I've always wondered why barriers are needed in Britain, but on the continent platforms only seem to have barriers for suburban traffic. I've always walked straight onto the platform for long distance trains in France, Germany, Poland etc. Are the British particularly dishonest?

 

[RJ]

And I've always wondered why barriers are needed in Britain, but on the continent platforms only seem to have barriers for suburban traffic. I've always walked straight onto the platform for long distance trains in France, Germany, Poland etc. Are the British particularly dishonest?

I don’t think people need to be. Round these parts people who have no intention of paying ask to be let through the barriers and are let through. Staff don’t always have adequate support to deal with confrontation so do what they can to avoid it.

 

[Qwerty133]

You need to barrier both ends, or do enough on-board revenue protection and chuck evaders off short of their destination.

I also have no issue with Penalty Fares (which, give or take the specific legislation, are effectively simply a higher ticket price for purchasing after starting travel) and pursuing non-payment of those via the civil Courts.

One important aspect is that if the railway was not abusing the criminal sanctions they have available to them, by RoRAing people who have erroneously travelled on a one-day-out-of-date Railcard, for example, people might not be quite so opposed to them. But they are used as a means of extortion of their arbitrarily desired sum, and I have a problem with that. A big problem.

And I say that having never so much as had a PF, let alone a prosecution. But I have made unwitting mistakes, I have just been fortunate to meet a ticket machine-equipped guard and not an RPI after having done so, so have just been sold a ticket.

I don't even think TOCs should be allowed to issue penalty fares without much stronger monitoring of the staff authorised to issue them as the current procedures allow for both individual and systematic discrimination to occur without detection. If TOCs want to continue to issue such fares they need to develop a system in which the behaviour of and decisions made by revenue protection staff can be monitored much more closely and through which issues of discrimination (either by individual staff members or by the company as a whole) and other types of unfair treatment can be detected. At the very minimum I would expect this to include an expectation for staff to record details (both personal and as to the type of violation) as to every passenger found without a valid ticket even in cases where no action is being taken for whatever reason or the action taken wouldn't have historically seen the passengers details recorded.

 

[Alex C.]

The main issue for me with the current system is that regardless of the actual practicalities of having a bylaw offence vs a county court judgement, the perception is that a criminal record is much worse. There are a significant number of topics on here from those in professional occupations or young adults training for a job like a doctor or a solicitor who are terrified of this impacting their future careers.

This gives a significant imbalance in power and also affects the risk calculations you take.

I've had companies issue court claims against me before - one I won on defending it, one I lost. With the one I lost, I paid the money within 28 days and no mark showed on my credit report. I gave the defence a shot but there was no long term impact from the event as a result. With a criminal allegation, there is no way to 'pay off' the criminal charge if you don't win the case. This means even if I'm 90% sure that I'd be found not guilty, I'd probably pay to avoid hassle in the future and I know that this is not an uncommon view.

And whilst it may seem that this shouldn't be an issue if you're not guilty, I've personally been issued with a penalty fare after being unable to buy a ticket from a TVM at an unstaffed station due to a problem with the note reader (this was some time ago) - despite me letting the revenue block staff know about this, I was told there was no fault with the TVM and I would have to pay. I did pay, because I felt helpless in that situation - I then returned to the original starting station and took a video of the TVM rejecting a note again. I did manage to get the payment returned eventually, but received no apology or acknowledgement of the inconvenience caused. At least under a civil system I could have taken a chance on the defence and if unsuccessful would have been able to pay off the judgement.

As has already been pointed out, it's also grossly unfair that the penalty for the passenger making a mistake is significantly disproportionate to the penalty when the railway makes a mistake - when in many cases is actually pushed onto the customer. I worked in Customer Relations at a TOC for some time and saw several cases where railway members of staff had made a mistake in issuing a ticket causing a passenger to be reported for prosecution because railway staff often see other railway staff as infallible.

And of course it goes without saying that we are talking about a tiny percentage of passengers and staff but that doesn't mean it's a conversation that shouldn't be had.

 

[robbeech]

I worked in Customer Relations at a TOC for some time and saw several cases where railway members of staff had made a mistake in issuing a ticket causing a passenger to be reported for prosecution because railway staff often see other railway staff as infallible.

Absolutely. This sort of thing is more common than we would like to admit, although usually on a less serious scale.

Permission to board from an authorised member of staff should be just that. Unfortunately it seems some staff members feel it’s acceptable to overrule this, whether it be because of a power trip, whether it be because of a misunderstanding of the rules or whether it be because of a revenue opportunity.

If you tell someone in a ticket office what you want to do, and they sell you a ticket for this then that ticket must be valid. And by law, it IS. Sadly the law doesn’t apply to the railway in real world terms and we do see passengers following the instruction and/or advice of a member of “The Railway Family” being prosecuted for doing so. The necessity to not dob in your colleague is a far greater priority than a passenger keeping their job as a Barrister so “they told me to” is actively ignored.

You use the term infallible and I think there’s a difference between thinking they’re infallible and not accepting they’re fallible. Protecting their own is a completely natural attitude to take and it is only ever the passenger than gets caught up in this.

 

[nanstallon]

Absolutely. This sort of thing is more common than we would like to admit, although usually on a less serious scale.

Permission to board from an authorised member of staff should be just that. Unfortunately it seems some staff members feel it’s acceptable to overrule this, whether it be because of a power trip, whether it be because of a misunderstanding of the rules or whether it be because of a revenue opportunity.

If you tell someone in a ticket office what you want to do, and they sell you a ticket for this then that ticket must be valid. And by law, it IS. Sadly the law doesn’t apply to the railway in real world terms and we do see passengers following the instruction and/or advice of a member of “The Railway Family” being prosecuted for doing so. The necessity to not dob in your colleague is a far greater priority than a passenger keeping their job as a Barrister so “they told me to” is actively ignored.

You use the term infallible and I think there’s a difference between thinking they’re infallible and not accepting they’re fallible. Protecting their own is a completely natural attitude to take and it is only ever the passenger than gets caught up in this.

This is a toxic culture, just like the police, backing each other right or wrong, and stuff the public.

 

[robbeech]

This is a toxic culture, just like the police, backing each other right or wrong, and stuff the public.

I don’t think it’s overwhelming but it does exist, and it’s not necessarily quite as harsh as ‘stuff the public’ more of a case of not really considering the consequences in favour of looking after your colleagues.

I’ve actually been ‘forced’ to make a journey before for which my ticket was not valid and prohibited from making the journey for which my ticket WAS valid.
The guard on the service I was ‘forced’ to take was unhappy with my invalid ticket but was fairly easily persuaded once I had explained. A regular passenger would have likely bought a new ticket at best. A win for the railway.

 

[Sonic1234]

It's a win for the railway until the customer remembers the expensive new ticket they were forced to buy, or even worse paying a large settlement or a trip to court and then decides to drive everywhere in the future. Something that could become more of a problem if there is a move away from commuting to leisure travel, where customers have more choice in what journey to make, how to make it or even if to travel at all.

 

[robbeech]

It's a win for the railway until the customer remembers the expensive new ticket they were forced to buy, or even worse paying a large settlement or a trip to court and then decides to drive everywhere in the future. Something that could become more of a problem if there is a move away from commuting to leisure travel, where customers have more choice in what journey to make, how to make it or even if to travel at all.

It’s negligible though. People either have no choice so can’t make that decision or they do have a choice and take the car most of the time anyway. Sure, the railway will lose a few passengers this way but it’s of no real concern, and it’s less concern still when they don’t have to worry about revenue.

Most people will remember that expensive new ticket and buy that one next time to avoid making the same “mistake” again. Even if they didn’t need to. So it really really is a win for the railway.

I know one guy that used to travel between Worksop and Doncaster but always go via Sheffield (direct train back then). He bought the via Sheffield ticket and got a direct train there in the morning and an XC back to Sheffield in the evening, which gave him just enough time for a pint before getting the Lincoln train back to Worksop. Then one day on a Cross Country train between Doncaster and Sheffield using a via Sheffield ticket he was told by the guard that it was only valid on Northern services and was sold a new ticket and was “lucky he didn’t go to court”. Since then he bought the any permitted ticket.

He’d been doing it every Tuesday and Thursday for over 2 years.
It’s only a couple of quid, but it’s £4 a week for 2 years the railway had out of him because the Crosscountry guard had insufficient knowledge to do that part of their job. The daftest part is, the any permitted allows travel via Retford so VTEC as it was and Hull Trains would have had their share and XC probably made LESS money out of him.

This IS the railway.

 

[LowLevel]

If you tell someone in a ticket office what you want to do, and they sell you a ticket for this then that ticket must be valid. And by law, it IS. Sadly the law doesn’t apply to the railway in real world terms and we do see passengers following the instruction and/or advice of a member of “The Railway Family” being prosecuted for doing so. The necessity to not dob in your colleague is a far greater priority than a passenger keeping their job as a Barrister so “they told me to” is actively ignored.

"The man on the platform said..." is one of the age old problems. Personally I know many railway staff are useless at doing the simple things like making out an endorsement note. I personally carry a little A6 notebook with tear out pages that I use to put the requisite details on for anything I say.

However, it is also a favourite of chancers so I tend to look at the balance of probability of what they've said. TOC only tickets or advances on the wrong TOC - they may have asked someone if this is the train to say York but not shown their tickets. Busy member of staff says "yes", on they get and "the man on the platform said it was my train". They've not asked if it's their train, just where it is heading to. Less sympathetic where it is spelled out in detail on the booking and their ticket with a time and train operator saying "specified train only".

If there is disruption, many station staff or traincrew will assume that ticket inspectors will show their own latitude or common sense approach to restrictions. I've caught staff in the past while hanging around information desks telling people to board trains without formal ticket acceptance and in one instance the station announcer at Man Picc boomed to the whole station that passengers off a cancelled TPE service could use my train - which formally, we hadn't agreed. I of course gave the announcer a call and told them to pack it in ("we thought it would be OK") and passed anyone who did board. Consequently any disruption as a matter of good nature I do pass any form of ticket regardless of whether acceptance is in place or not.

I came across a stunner the other day - two passengers had paid on a TVM for walk up tickets for the thick end of 70 quid. The message "tickets failed to print - contact booking office" had come up but the office was closed due to staff shortages. They said they'd spoken to the station supervisor who had told them to board the train and the booking office at their interchange station (operated by another TOC!) would sort it out for them and print their tickets. No endorsement or anything like that but they were more than happy to show the purchase on their Internet banking screen.

I was quite happy with what they said but annoyed they'd been put in a position where their word would have to be taken over a matter that could go badly for them so I rang the station supervisor to see what was what. They confirmed precisely what I had been been told and that they had been stood next to the customers when they used the TVM and seemed surprised when I said that the other booking office wouldn't be able to sort out their tickets and that they should have given them some sort of endorsement because not all inspectors will take a passenger's word.

I wrote them out a full endorsement with my details on it explaining the issue and requesting that they be treated as holding the tickets they had paid for and sent them on their way with my apologies.

I think a lot of problems, as I said above, come from staff who are willing to use their common sense and discretion not appreciating that that isn't necessarily carried forward by others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If nothing else that shows outrageously poor design on the TVM - a bank ATM would re-credit the account if money failed to dispense, and yet that TVM knew the issue had failed and still debited their account, which is an absolute disgrace and shows the railway's priorities clearly (because "what if it did print part of the ticket" or somesuch).

I know there can be failures to issue that aren't detected such as tickets getting stuck in the chute, but this one was known.

 

[LowLevel]

If nothing else that shows outrageously poor design on the TVM - a bank ATM would re-credit the account if money failed to dispense, and yet that TVM knew the issue had failed and still debited their account, which is an absolute disgrace and shows the railway's priorities clearly (because "what if it did print part of the ticket" or somesuch).

I know there can be failures to issue that aren't detected such as tickets getting stuck in the chute, but this one was known.

I have no idea if the payment would have recredited to their account eventually (I don't work for the station facility owner TOC and had no way of asking someone who would know on a Sunday morning - clearly their person in charge had no idea so I had no chance ) but I know on our mobile machines if we manually non-issue a ticket then the money doesn't credit back immediately - I decided that as the issue was clearly a failing of the railway's on multiple levels I would rather chance them making their journey for free as they'd done everything that could be expected of them than risk them paying out double, with the amount the fares in question cost.

I got caught out by a similar issue the other day - my mobile machine jammed and printed a ticket with a black line down it for a long distance journey rather than anything legible, but the machine didn't detect it as it should (it should automatically cancel and reissue misprints) and since they were heading into RPI territory I non-issued the ticket manually and attempted to sell it again.

Problem - not enough funds remaining to put the transaction through again. Again, the railway's equipment failed and the passenger had done everything right (they boarded at a station without facilities and paid the conductor as required) I issued a Zero Fare excess ticket, attached it to a supporting endorsement and noted my shift sheet and effectively allowed them to make their journey for free.

When good faith is involved on the part of the passenger and our systems fail we should always be dealing with the matter in their favour. Trying to get that into the head of some folks who approach revenue protection as if they're Judge Dredd is trying but to be fair to the company our lot have always pressed us towards doing the right thing in favour of the customer if there are any issues or disputes.

 

[robbeech]

I was quite happy with what they said but annoyed they'd been put in a position where their word would have to be taken over a matter that could go badly for them so I rang the station supervisor to see what was what.

You see this incident as a passenger(s) that have tried their best. Most guards will share a similar view even if they’re not quite as passenger focussed. Sadly it is those few guards that actually see this as an opportunity. An opportunity to sell a new ticket, to issue a penalty fare, to see them prosecuted under RORA or whatever. It’s a fundamental difference in attitude and it at least feels like THIS is the attitude that is encouraged in the railway and the customer focussed one is frowned upon simply due to the difference in revenue.

I know there can be failures to issue that aren't detected such as tickets getting stuck in the chute, but this one was known.

There are lots of failure types that don’t register with the machine, be it print related or otherwise. A completely shattered screen with no display and shards of glass littering the platform doesn’t register as broken at Northern, infact they will issue a penalty fare if you don’t buy a ticket from it. (And have done, with 3 rejected appeals even with photo evidence).

I issued a Zero Fare excess ticket, attached it to a supporting endorsement and noted my shift sheet and effectively allowed them to make their journey for free.

Again, it’s the right thing to do. This could be improved elsewhere with (here it comes) consistency. If everyone did this then less passengers would leave with a bad taste in their mouth. The downside is, less revenue as everyone has paid their fare rather than their fare plus another fare. So this won’t be entertained as a policy it’ll just be left to the good staff to take it upon themselves to help and hope for the best.

 

[island]

If nothing else that shows outrageously poor design on the TVM - a bank ATM would re-credit the account if money failed to dispense, and yet that TVM knew the issue had failed and still debited their account, which is an absolute disgrace and shows the railway's priorities clearly (because "what if it did print part of the ticket" or somesuch).

I know there can be failures to issue that aren't detected such as tickets getting stuck in the chute, but this one was known.

To be fair, ATMs and merchant payments work over different networks and whilst an ATM failed dispense can be credited instantly, a voided transaction at a TVM can take up to five working days to clear off. So it’s possible the customer won’t eventually have been charged.

 

[Vespa]

Re the points made about driving customers away through draconian penalty fare/prosecution system and the miniscule loss of revenue if they choose to drive instead of going by train, the loss may no longer be so miniscule as Work From Home (WFH) becomes popular, this saves money for office rents and reduces commuting travel costs, they have options, the miniscule becomes "masscule".

I've reduced my travel to Blackpool by train and used my car instead parking further out and walking in to get the bus or tram toward the centre, because of the customer "service" at Blackpool North, heaven forbid if your ticket is in the wrong format opening you up to prosecution or penalty fares, until things change the abuse of power will continue, people will tell 20 others about their bad experience who will repeat them especially through social media.

 

[Wolfie]

"The man on the platform said..." is one of the age old problems. Personally I know many railway staff are useless at doing the simple things like making out an endorsement note. I personally carry a little A6 notebook with tear out pages that I use to put the requisite details on for anything I say.

However, it is also a favourite of chancers so I tend to look at the balance of probability of what they've said. TOC only tickets or advances on the wrong TOC - they may have asked someone if this is the train to say York but not shown their tickets. Busy member of staff says "yes", on they get and "the man on the platform said it was my train". They've not asked if it's their train, just where it is heading to. Less sympathetic where it is spelled out in detail on the booking and their ticket with a time and train operator saying "specified train only".

If there is disruption, many station staff or traincrew will assume that ticket inspectors will show their own latitude or common sense approach to restrictions. I've caught staff in the past while hanging around information desks telling people to board trains without formal ticket acceptance and in one instance the station announcer at Man Picc boomed to the whole station that passengers off a cancelled TPE service could use my train - which formally, we hadn't agreed. I of course gave the announcer a call and told them to pack it in ("we thought it would be OK") and passed anyone who did board. Consequently any disruption as a matter of good nature I do pass any form of ticket regardless of whether acceptance is in place or not.

I came across a stunner the other day - two passengers had paid on a TVM for walk up tickets for the thick end of 70 quid. The message "tickets failed to print - contact booking office" had come up but the office was closed due to staff shortages. They said they'd spoken to the station supervisor who had told them to board the train and the booking office at their interchange station (operated by another TOC!) would sort it out for them and print their tickets. No endorsement or anything like that but they were more than happy to show the purchase on their Internet banking screen.

I was quite happy with what they said but annoyed they'd been put in a position where their word would have to be taken over a matter that could go badly for them so I rang the station supervisor to see what was what. They confirmed precisely what I had been been told and that they had been stood next to the customers when they used the TVM and seemed surprised when I said that the other booking office wouldn't be able to sort out their tickets and that they should have given them some sort of endorsement because not all inspectors will take a passenger's word.

I wrote them out a full endorsement with my details on it explaining the issue and requesting that they be treated as holding the tickets they had paid for and sent them on their way with my apologies.

I think a lot of problems, as I said above, come from staff who are willing to use their common sense and discretion not appreciating that that isn't necessarily carried forward by others.

Respect to you sir for considering the passengers and trying to put their interests first. It's just a shame that the system is so poor that you are forced to go the extra mile and then more besides.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Respect to you sir for considering the passengers and trying to put their interests first. It's just a shame that the system is so poor that you are forced to go the extra mile and then more besides.

It very much seems that @LowLevel is an exemplary guard who really cares about their passengers and role. If only they were all that good!

 

[LowLevel]

It very much seems that @LowLevel is an exemplary guard who really cares about their passengers and role. If only they were all that good!

It makes the job fulfilling. I've been doing it for quite a long time now and I find that dealing with people and the problems and pleasures they bring keeps the job interesting, albeit not always enjoyable at the time.

A little extra effort resolves things properly for the customer, for me and my colleagues and for my employer and makes me feel like I'm contributing and doing something worthwhile rather than just opening and closing the doors and grabbing some fares. To be fair to my employer, despite occasional rumours to the contrary I've never had anything but support for taking the customer's side in things.

Ringing up stations is extreme for me but I carry a little A6 notebook for handing out endorsements or explanations (writing on tickets is rubbish) and it's probably the best £1.99 I have spent.

 

[Wolfie]

It very much seems that @LowLevel is an exemplary guard who really cares about their passengers and role. If only they were all that good!

Agreed.

 

[island]

Re the points made about driving customers away through draconian penalty fare/prosecution system and the miniscule loss of revenue if they choose to drive instead of going by train, the loss may no longer be so miniscule as Work From Home (WFH) becomes popular, this saves money for office rents and reduces commuting travel costs, they have options, the miniscule becomes "masscule".

Sorry I know this is trivial, but it’s “minuscule”, not “miniscule”. Pet peeve of mine

 

[Vespa]

Sorry I know this is trivial, but it’s “minuscule”, not “miniscule”. Pet peeve of mine

The point is made.

No need to be pedantic.

 

[plugwash]

And I've always wondered why barriers are needed in Britain, but on the continent platforms only seem to have barriers for suburban traffic.

Most stations in the UK that serve long distance trains also serve local ones and most such stations do not have dedicated platforms for different traffic types.

 

[johncrossley]

Is it possible for losing your ticket to result in you having to declare something on a visa application, or needing a visa when you otherwise wouldn't have done?

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it possible for losing your ticket to result in you having to declare something on a visa application, or needing a visa when you otherwise wouldn't have done?

I think it would depend on the country, but I'd be surprised if anywhere required a bylaw conviction to be disclosed, and even more surprised if those countries had any way of checking if you were telling the truth or not. The USA would not require such a conviction to be disclosed.

 

[175mph]

I think it would depend on the country, but I'd be surprised if anywhere required a bylaw conviction to be disclosed, and even more surprised if those countries had any way of checking if you were telling the truth or not. The USA would not require such a conviction to be disclosed.

Yet, it's a common myth that often does it's rounds on Facebook etc that you cannot get into the US with ANY conviction, no matter how minor and when you tell anyone the actual facts, they either ignore the correction, use a laughing emoji as a reaction or make a further snarky remark insisting that they are absolutely correct with no doubt!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As an experienced Guard I take each situation on its own merits. I always would rather educate and explain what "could" happen then actually take a strict approach, however we do have other tools at our disposal, unpaid fare notices can be used or even a Travel Incident Report. These last few months the amount of out of date railcards and the use of a railcard discounted ticket without actually ever having a railcard has rocketed due to many staff having minimal contact due to Covid. If I believe someone is purposely attempting to travel fraudulently then a Travel Incident Report/ Unpaid Fare Notice will be issued and the camera will be recording (for my own protection as well as the passenger). However if I believe someone has honestly made a mistake OR are confused by the Regulations (which there are many) friendly advice will suffice.