Permission to buy on board train

[bb21]

You know what, when I think the railways need defending from people I will defend them, but in this case I think they...or at least this particular guard.....are wrong...so wrong, and I will say so. And I'm sure all right-minded people will agree with me...or at least those without an agenda.

Are you saying that people who disagree with you are crazy and/or have an agenda?

 

[silencio]

Im not overly happy with a TOC at this point however I dont see anything malicious in this. I think both sides failed to ask sufficient questions. A guard isn't to know that a passenger meant with a rail card and the passenger wasn't to know that a guard is instructed not to sell discounted tickets on board.

May sound harsh not getting the discount ticket but in my eyes it's both/neither of their faults.

 

[Bungle73]

Are you saying that people who disagree with you are crazy and/or have an agenda?

I don't think I said that did I? But in this case certain people are trying to defend the indefensible. What do you think the media, and the public at large, would make of this situation should it have come to anything?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Im not overly happy with a TOC at this point however I dont see anything malicious in this. I think both sides failed to ask sufficient questions. A guard isn't to know that a passenger meant with a rail card and the passenger wasn't to know that a guard is instructed not to sell discounted tickets on board.

May sound harsh not getting the discount ticket but in my eyes it's both/neither of their faults.

Catching a train isn't supposed to be a game of guess the question. Are we now expected to guess the correct questions to ask to make sure we don't fall fowl of something later on....?

 

[silencio]

And vice-versa, is a guard meant to guess that a passenger may happen to have a hidden railcard tucked up their sleeve?

 

[Bungle73]

And vice-versa, is a guard meant to guess that a passenger may happen to have a hidden railcard tucked up their sleeve?

No. The guard is supposed to ask the questions that need asking. Not expect the passenger to guess.

 

[bb21]

I don't think I said that did I?

I quote:

And I'm sure all right-minded people will agree with me...or at least those without an agenda.

But in this case certain people are trying to defend the indefensible.

In your opinion that is. Some people with agree with you and others will not. I didn't realise that to be a guard you need to have psychic powers.

If you want a guard to interrogate a passenger when he is asked a question at the same time as he is trying to do safety critical jobs such as dispatch duties then this will only end in one outcome, and it will not be one more favourable to passengers.

What do you think the media, and the public at large, would make of this situation should it have come to anything?

Oh, yes. That tactic sounds familiar.

 

[ian959]

No. The guard is supposed to ask the questions that need asking. Not expect the passenger to guess.

Absolute rubbish. The guard has many things to do including dispatch the train, making sure everyone is safe before doing so. Their mind is rightly on other things, so when asked a question 'can I buy a ticket on board the train' they gave the most logical answer to the question 'yes you can'. It is not the guard's problem if the OP's wife did not ask the question she really should have asked. The OPs wife asked a generic question and get the correct answer to that question and was duly sold a ticket on board as she asked.

Had she have asked 'can I buy a discounted ticket on board the train' and got the answer 'yes you can' then she would have grounds to complain. I would be reasonably sure from my experience with UK guards that had she asked 'can I guy a discounted ticket on board the train' then the guard would have answered 'no you cannot'.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Exactly. Very, very wrong (if the circumstances are indeed exactly as originally described). The one and only correct answer to the question is "yes, but only full fare/non-discounted....etc".

Or, better still, the sale of the correct* fare onboard.

Anything less was a clear attempt to mislead/entrap the customer. Dismal behaviour if true.


=====
* meaning - with discount/off-peak/whatever applicable

 

[jb]

Anything less was a clear attempt to mislead/entrap the customer.

This is absolute rubbish, both in terms of fact and of reasonable inference.

In my view it would have been reasonable to give the customer the discount, but not unreasonable to deny it either.

 

[Bungle73]

It seems to to me that you all condone this guard LYING! Because that is exactly what happened.

He had "other stuff to do"? So what? He was asked a question by a passenger and gave a misleading answer. FFS. This unbelievable.

And where did I say I expected him to be "psychic"? I expect him to give a straight answer to a straight question.

I can tell you this. If that had been me I would have REFUSED to purchase anything other than the ticket that I originally wanted.

Oh, yes. That tactic sounds familiar.

The "tactic" of exposing the underhanded treatment of a passenger by railway staff?

How anyone can come on here and defend this guy is unbelievable. But then some people will defend anything.

 

[NSEFAN]

It seems to to me that you all condone this guard LYING! Because that is exactly what happened.

He had "other stuff to do"? So what? He was asked a question by a passenger and gave a misleading answer. FFS. This unbelievable.

And where did I say I expected him to be "psychic"? I expect him to give a straight answer to a straight question.

I can tell you this. If that had been me I would have REFUSED to purchase anything other than the ticket that I originally wanted.

Jeez, mountains and molehills. :roll:

"Can I buy on board?" is in its simplest form a Yes/No answer question. It would have been helpful if the guard had said something like, "Yes, but no discounts", but I can't see how he was obliged to do so. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when we fall foul of them. Remember that this entire thread wouldn't exist if the passenger had done the correct thing and bought before they boarded at Longbridge.

Also, what makes you think that the guard was being malicious? Perhaps the guard in question simply forgot to mention "full fare only", etc?

 

[Bungle73]

Jeez, mountains and molehills. :roll:

"Can I buy on board?" is in its simplest form a Yes/No answer question. It would have been helpful if the guard had said something like, "Yes, but no discounts", but I can't see how he was obliged to do so. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse when we fall foul of them.

Um so the guard is not "obliged" to supply accurate information?

Also, what makes you think that the guard was being malicious? Perhaps the guard in question simply forgot to mention "full fare only", etc?

"Ignorance of the rules"? The person asked the guard a direct question and was misled. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, it has to do with being told a half-truth, ie A LIE!

Remember that this entire thread wouldn't exist if the passenger had done the correct thing and bought before they boarded at Longbridge.

Um, they asked permission to purchase on board, which is what this whole argument is about.

Basically what you are saying is that one should not trust any information that railway staff give in answer to a question. Nice.

 

[NSEFAN]

Um so the guard is not "obliged" to supply accurate information?

But the guard answered the question, as I explained. "Can I buy on board?" This is a yes or no question, and it was answered accurately. Additional information is not required to answer it, even though it might have been helpful.

"Ignorance of the rules"? The person asked the guard a direct question and was misled. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, it has to do with being told a half-truth, ie A LIE! ...

... Um, they asked permission to purchase on board, which is what this whole argument is about.

Basically what you are saying is that one should not trust any information that railway staff give in answer to a question. Nice.

It was either malicious, or the guy's a knob.

Even though the guard allowed the passenger to buy on board, that doesn't change the fact that they were required to purchase a ticket beforehand. If the procedure is no discounts on board, the guard should follow said procedures.

The passenger's ignorance about these procedures is not an excuse to be exempt from them just because they didn't ask the "right question". In my eyes it's no different to just boarding the train without permission to buy on board. Rules are rules and we suffer the consequences if we don't follow them.

Like I said, the guard answered the question in the simplest way possible. In my opinion it would have been good customer service to mention the lack of discounts, but I don't see how that equates him being malicious/a knob. I'm not the one assuming the worst of the staff, here.

 

[ian959]

He was asked a question by a passenger and gave a misleading answer. FFS. This unbelievable.

And where did I say I expected him to be "psychic"? I expect him to give a straight answer to a straight question.

He was asked a question by a passenger and gave the RIGHT answer - yes she could buy a ticket on board. So he gave exactly what you want: a straight answer to a straight question. He did not lie nor mislead. Frankly you are the one who is unbelievable: a simple straight question was asked and he gave a simple straight answer.

 

[island]

I agree that the guard should have said something like "yes, but only full fare", but was not absolutely obligated to.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I was driving into my local town centre the other day. On my right is a two-way street, but a right turn into it is prohibited. There are standard ISO road signs indicating the prohibition.

As I approached the junction, I noticed that the road ahead was blocked by a delivery truck parked awkwardly. I guessed that I would be delayed by around 10 minutes.

There was a Police Officer standing nearby. As I was in a hurry, I opened my window and asked him whether I could turn right thus avoiding the congestion and the delay. He said yes.

He then issued me with a fixed penalty notice for turning right where it was prohibited to do so.
=============================
The description of the road layout is accurate but the rest is hypothetical. I wonder, though, how many would feel an injustice had taken place in these circumstances?

 

[WestCoast]

I wouldn't say buying-on-board on the Cross City Line is a particularly common scenario (at least within NWM Zones 1-2), don't often see guards out of their cabs much. I used to assume they didn't even perform revenue duties, leaving that to occasional RPIs.

However, LM's attitude towards ticketing at some stations on that line is somewhat to be desired. University station is particularly bad, there's only two TVMs (and one is sometimes out of order or is card payment only) and usually only one window open during the day (which closes for breaks). I've queued for up to 15 minutes for a ticket! For such a busy station serving a very large educational establishment, residential areas and a major hospital it's not good enough!

 

[NSEFAN]

I was driving into my local town centre the other day. On my right is a two-way street, but a right turn into it is prohibited. There are standard ISO road signs indicating the prohibition.

As I approached the junction, I noticed that the road ahead was blocked by a delivery truck parked awkwardly. I guessed that I would be delayed by around 10 minutes.

There was a Police Officer standing nearby. As I was in a hurry, I opened my window and asked him whether I could turn right thus avoiding the congestion and the delay. He said yes.

He then issued me with a fixed penalty notice for turning right where it was prohibited to do so.
=============================
The description of the road layout is accurate but the rest is hypothetical. I wonder, though, how many would feel an injustice had taken place in these circumstances?

That's not really a fair comparison, as the outcomes of the two situations are not the same. In your situation, the penalty for breaking the rule is a fine. In this ticketing case, the "penalty" is to pay the full fare rather than the railcard discounted one. You're comparing a perfectly avoidable fixed penalty notice with a discounted fare for a ticket that would have been issued anyway.

A better analogy would be between the police officer and an RPI, where both say "Yes you can break the rule / board without a ticket" and then punish you with a hefty fine. That would be injustice, as in both of those cases the person in authority has implied that you are allowed to break the rule. The guard in this case has not done that; he has simply allowed the passengers to board without a ticket but that does not imply that they will also have the full range of discounts once on board.

 

[Crossover]

Um so the guard is not "obliged" to supply accurate information?



"Ignorance of the rules"? The person asked the guard a direct question and was misled. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, it has to do with being told a half-truth, ie A LIE!


Um, they asked permission to purchase on board, which is what this whole argument is about.

Basically what you are saying is that one should not trust any information that railway staff give in answer to a question. Nice.

I've kept out of this discussion until now, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you Bungle (no agendas or such like involved either!)

The answer you get is only as good as the question you give - guards cannot be mind readers to know whether they are going to then produce a railcard and really, a ticket should have been purchased from the station at Longbridge anyway in this case

 

[bb21]

This argument is now going around in circles.

It seems to to me that you all condone this guard LYING! Because that is exactly what happened.

(#) Just because you put it in capital letters doesn't make it true. Doing what he agreed to, ie. sell a ticket onboard, is now lying? :roll:

A tad harsh on the passenger? Possibly. Grounds for complaint? You've got to be joking.

He had "other stuff to do"? So what? He was asked a question by a passenger and gave a misleading answer. FFS. This unbelievable.

And where did I say I expected him to be "psychic"? I expect him to give a straight answer to a straight question.

He gave a straight answer to a simple question.

You expected him to predict that the passenger has a Railcard without even being shown one. I don't know how else you want him to be able to do it without psychic powers.

Before you give me the answer "common sense", rewind to Post 37, in which I gave an example of another possible reason for a passenger to ask the question the OP's wife did in those circumstances. Now tell me how a guard is supposed to know what the passenger's intention really is without further interrogation, apart from psychic powers?

Yes, the guard would have lots of more important things on his mind when stopped at a station.

I can tell you this. If that had been me I would have REFUSED to purchase anything other than the ticket that I originally wanted.

Enjoy your day in court then is all I can say.

The "tactic" of exposing the underhanded treatment of a passenger by railway staff?

You can twist my words all you like. Won't change what I really meant.

How anyone can come on here and defend this guy is unbelievable. But then some people will defend anything.

I wanted to say "pot, kettle, black" but then again I, and the majority of others, are not the ones defending the indefensible. (Perhaps not in your opinion.)

Um so the guard is not "obliged" to supply accurate information?

See (#).

"Ignorance of the rules"? The person asked the guard a direct question and was misled. It has nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance, it has to do with being told a half-truth, ie A LIE!

See (#).

Um, they asked permission to purchase on board, which is what this whole argument is about.

And that is exactly what the guard did. Nowhere do I see the mention of a Railcard.

Basically what you are saying is that one should not trust any information that railway staff give in answer to a question. Nice.

Where? Twisting people's words again.

...

The description of the road layout is accurate but the rest is hypothetical. I wonder, though, how many would feel an injustice had taken place in these circumstances?

You were given permission to do something specifically, the OP's wife was not, despite whatever you might want to infer from the guard's response.

Never assume anything.

 

[Harpers Tate]

There is no disputing that the passenger should have pre-purchased. And there is no disputing that, had she merely boarded the train, she would have been liable under current terms to pay the "full" fare.

I still maintain, though, that any reasonable person would infer from the conversation that "a ticket" meant "the ticket I would ordinarily need" and not something more expensive.

And I'll say this again. The intent of the "full fare" ruling is to discourage people from boarding without paying because (and ONLY because) so doing increases the probability that they may not pay at all - revenue protection in other words.

The huge mitigation here is that the passenger took far greater steps (than merely boarding the train) to ensure that she would pay. She demonstrated, without any doubt, the total lack of any intention to avoid paying the fare. It's that which sets this aside from more typical "no ticket" travel, and any reasonable person would have given her credit for that.

It seems from the details given that this guard was far from reasonable - whether by his unwillingness to be explicit and complete when the question was asked, or his unwillingness (whether it be stubbornness or strict adherence to policy) to allow her to pay the proper fare.

And there is a perception here that all fares that are lower than "full" fares are discounted. It is equally valid to say that "full" fares (where a lesser alternative would otherwise be valid) are a penalty.

 

[Deerfold]

It seems to to me that you all condone this guard LYING! Because that is exactly what happened.

He had "other stuff to do"? So what? He was asked a question by a passenger and gave a misleading answer. FFS. This unbelievable.

Yes, the guard could have given a better answer, but should he answer, "Yes, but I can't sell discounted tickets, or ones only available on-line, or advance tickets as I can't issue the reservations (she asked for permission to buy a ticket on the train, not specifying it was for immediate use)".

I'm sure I've still missed some things that could not be sold on board.

Ideally the original question would have included the fact that a railcard was to be used and I suspect the answer would have been clearer.

I still maintain, though, that any reasonable person would infer from the conversation that "a ticket" meant "the ticket I would ordinarily need" and not something more expensive.

But he supplied the ticket that most people would ordinarily need. If you're buying a ticket that is slightly out of the ordinary, it seems reasonable to mention it as soon as possible.

 

[bb21]

It seems from the details given that this guard was far from reasonable - whether by his unwillingness to be explicit and complete when the question was asked,

I don't think this would be a reasonable expectation, and I have already given reasons why above.

or his unwillingness (whether it be stubbornness or strict adherence to policy) to allow her to pay the proper fare.

I would have preferred it, as you do, if more discretion was exercised by the guard for the reasons you have given, ie. the passenger has taken the initiative to seek permission, although not necessarily the most accurate one.

That said, the guard did do exactly what he agreed to, so harsh as it may have been, he was not acting maliciously or wilfully misleading, as some people argue. I agree with you that stubbornness would be a more accurate descriptor than anything else.

And there is a perception here that all fares that are lower than "full" fares are discounted. It is equally valid to say that "full" fares (where a lesser alternative would otherwise be valid) are a penalty.

And indeed so especially on many longer distance journeys.

 

[jb]

That said, the guard did do exactly what he agreed to, so harsh as it may have been, he was not acting maliciously or wilfully misleading, as some people argue. I agree with you that stubbornness would be a more accurate descriptor than anything else.

Indeed. Given that the actual evidence of the OP has largely been ignored in the latest reignition of the thread, it's worth pointing out that the bone of contention was not so much the discount itself, much less the whys and wherefores of what was said and what wasn't before boarding, as the manner of the guard's interaction with the customer on board.

Furthermore, I'm sure if TOC staff knew that anything they said to customers was likely subject to the forensic deconstruction it sometimes gets on here (and that what's kicked around on here meant anything in the real world) they'd probably never say anything to anyone.

 

[Harpers Tate]

In reality, IF the rules in the National Conditions are to be rigidly enforced without any discretion, then in fact the only proper answer the guard should have given was "You must pay before you board". Any other answer would be misleading unless it were qualified voluntarily by further detail as to his limitations.

 

[transmanche]

He was asked a question by a passenger and gave the RIGHT answer - yes she could buy a ticket on board. So he gave exactly what you want: a straight answer to a straight question. He did not lie nor mislead.

Skimming through this thread, I'm reminded of an old joke:

A man flying in a hot air balloon realises that he is lost. He reduces his altitude and spots a man in a field down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"

The man below says, "Yes, you're in a hot air balloon, about 30 feet above this field."

"You must be an engineer," says the balloonist.

"I am. How did you know?"

"Everything you told me is technically correct, but it's of no use to anyone."

And the guard's response is pretty much the same. Yes, it's technically correct - but not very helpful. It's not a lie, but a 'sin of omission' - or perhaps 'being economical with the truth'.

As others have said, a simple qualification would have made the answer both accurate and useful. "Yes, but full-price fares only".

It's not complicated. It doesn't require the guard to be psychic. And it's good customer service.

 

[bb21]

In reality, IF the rules in the National Conditions are to be rigidly enforced without any discretion, then in fact the only proper answer the guard should have given was "You must pay before you board". Any other answer would be misleading unless it were qualified voluntarily by further detail as to his limitations.

Not quite. Guards have discretion which they can use. Unfortunately if permission is not explicitly granted, you cannot demand discretion.

This whole episode panned out the way it is because of some misunderstanding. The passenger assumed that she heard what she wanted to hear, and it turned out to be a mistake. A bit harsh probably, but she cannot really pin the blame on the guard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And the guard's response is pretty much the same. Yes, it's technically correct - but not very helpful. It's not a lie, but a 'sin of omission' - or perhaps 'being economical with the truth'.

I don't think he was being economical with the truth. Maybe he didn't even think that what she was asking was not really what she meant? As I said before, he probably had lots of other more important things on his mind to be worrying about whether the passenger asked the right question.

As others have said, a simple qualification would have made the answer both accurate and useful. "Yes, but full-price fares only".

It's not complicated. It doesn't require the guard to be psychic. And it's good customer service.

It would have been, however it is certainly not an obligation and if you have other more important things on your mind, you might well not think to ask further questions.

 

[jon0844]

I've kept out of this thread too, but it does seem to me that if you asked before boarding (and were willing to get off if told 'no') then I'd have expected discretion to be shown and a full range of tickets to be sold - along with the customer being told that this was a one off favour and normally only full-price tickets are available.

I once asked if I could get on a Heathrow Connect train as a delayed Circle line train had got me to the platform with just seconds to spare - and getting my ticket extension from the ticket office would have meant a 30 minute wait.

The TM agreed and later sold me my Gold Card discounted ticket extension. Ordinarily it's a PF train, and he could have refused in which case I wouldn't have got on. Only difference I suppose is that I had a Z1-6 TC so actually had a valid ticket at that point, just not the end. I guess I could have alighted at Hayes & Harlington if he'd suddenly decided that he'd have only sold me a full price ticket.

By asking before the train had left, I'd have expected discretion to be shown. I am sure that is possible.

If you want to see people being misled, there was the example where I got on a FCC train at Hatfield to London and someone ran up after me and asked the RPI standing by the door if he could get on as he didn't want to wait for a later train. The RPI told him to jump on. The doors shut and he was given a PF for not having a ticket!

You could argue that the man would have got on the train anyway if there hadn't been an RPI there, but nobody would ever know. I think it was downright rude to allow someone on (even telling them to jump on) and then hitting them with a penalty fare! Now, the person was upset but paid - and you could also say that if he was in a real rush, £20 was a price worth paying to avoid a meeting or whatever (just as paying the full price on the train mentioned by the OP might be favourable to having missed it).. but it was still at best cheeky in my opinion.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I must say, I am utterly alarmed and saddened by the extent to which the Guard's actions here are being condoned.

Based solely on the details reported (for, clearly I have no other basis on which to judge) I honestly can't see how anyone considers it just and reasonable to act as he did. There is no way he should have condoned the passenger boarding the train unless he was prepared to be accomodating to her once onboard, which he clearly wasn't. It's the combination of both of these that makes this wrong and I'm surprised that so many can't see that.

I'm sorry if this offends; his behaviour (as described) was despicable. If he worked for me, and I was satisfied as to the bona fides of the passenger's claim, he'd be disciplined.

There is no "right" aspect of his conduct here. None at all. Even IF he wasn't "psychic"; even IF he hadn't the time nor concentration to explain more fully to her; once her position was made more clear (i.e. when she attempted to actually buy the ticket) then without ANY doubt, he should have offered her her due "discount" purely and simply because of their earlier conversation.

It's not good for business; it's not good for the passenger; it's not good for the reputation of the company; it's not good for the reputation of the industry. There are none but negative factors here.

The slang term for this is "Jobsworth".

 

[bb21]

I must say, I am utterly alarmed and saddened by the extent to which the Guard's actions here are being condoned.

Based solely on the details reported (for, clearly I have no other basis on which to judge) I honestly can't see how anyone considers it just and reasonable to act as he did. There is no way he should have condoned the passenger boarding the train unless he was prepared to be accomodating to her once onboard, which he clearly wasn't. It's the combination of both of these that makes this wrong and I'm surprised that so many can't see that.

I'm sorry if this offends; his behaviour (as described) was despicable. If he worked for me, and I was satisfied as to the bona fides of the passenger's claim, he'd be disciplined.

There is no "right" aspect of his conduct here. None at all. Even IF he wasn't "psychic"; even IF he hadn't the time nor concentration to explain more fully to her; once her position was made more clear (i.e. when she attempted to actually buy the ticket) then without ANY doubt, he should have offered her her due "discount" purely and simply because of their earlier conversation.

It's not good for business; it's not good for the passenger; it's not good for the reputation of the company; it's not good for the reputation of the industry. There are none but negative factors here.

I think you are completely missing the point here.

The majority of people have agreed that the guard probably could have done things in a better way, and he was stubborn to not allow her the discount. No one is really disputing that. The point people are trying to make is that there is however no real ground for complaint, as he did do what he agreed to and as a result, he is in fact in the right. This might not equate to what you believe but the facts are clear. If she had asked for permission to purchase a discounted ticket or shown him the Railcard when she asked him, then she would probably have a much stronger case.

On what grounds do you expect the guard to be disciplined?