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.