Will you let me off a few pence?

[IanXC]

Surplus and loss is usually just that a clerk can't account for the difference between what money they have and what money they should have. There is usually a way to account for pretty much everything else (including 'money left on counter'). The discrepancy could be as simple as not giving out the right change at some point during the day, or might even just be a typo (entering £5.10 on the shift sheet instead of £5.15 for example).

At the value of train tickets I'd completely agree.

The old methods for finding differences are the best - to this day I'm astounded by how many differences turn out to be transpositions!

90p short? Has £4.50 been input as £5.40?

£2.34 over? Has £12.60 been input as £10.26?

(The trick is, if your difference divides by 9 to a whole number (you may want to think in "hundreds of pence") then your difference is likely to be an entry which contains the correct digits, just in the incorrect order.)

 

[revenueadvice]

In terms of letting people off a few pence this is always going to depend on the situation. We have a duty of care. There was an example in Nottingham earlier this year where a woman was raped after being refused entry to the bus because she was a few pence short. Ok it isn't the bus drivers fault she was raped but a bit of discretion and she could of been on a bus home not walking alone.

In general I am of the opinion "if you can't afford to travel then don't" . If I had a child or other "vulnerable" person needing to get home I would find a way of allowing them to travel. On the odd occasion I have put 10p out of my pocket to make up someones ticket. I've sold a "short" ticket with the money the person had and then authorised them to travel the remainder of the journey.

 

[Deerfold]

In terms of letting people off a few pence this is always going to depend on the situation. We have a duty of care. There was an example in Nottingham earlier this year where a woman was raped after being refused entry to the bus because she was a few pence short. Ok it isn't the bus drivers fault she was raped but a bit of discretion and she could of been on a bus home not walking alone.

There are suggestions that she wasn't actually refused entry to the bus:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1112765&postcount=26

 

[Flamingo]

I'll sometimes do it if I think they are genuine (and use the override function to keep the figures square), usually if I say no, then a bit more searching of pockets or handbags comes up with it!

I have sometimes added it in myself, usually because the hassle of trying to balance the sheet at the end is not worth 20p!

 

[wintonian]

Thought I might just throw in this blog post on Phil's Purple Bus Blog , Phil Stockley is the MD of Velvet Travel

You can help some of the people...
While I love all our customers unconditionally, some are easier to help than others. I'm not sure whether the passenger I met on Saturday in Hedge End should be chided for his stupidity or commended for his honesty, or maybe both!

Two teenage boys got on together and one of them asked me how much it would cost for a return to Eastleigh. "Five pounds", I replied. Crestfallen, he turned to his friend and said, "sorry mate I haven't got enough, we can't go."

Not one to lose a sale easily, I asked how old he was. He looked at me as if I was his parents, and asked why I wanted to know. I explained, with heavy emphasis, that child fares apply up to fifteen, so if he told me he were fifteen, the fare would only be three pounds.

The penny dropped with his mate straight away, and we each looked expectantly at our friend while we waited for him to spot his cue. Eventually, after much thought, he got ready to speak... "Aw man, that sucks, I'm sixteen!"

There are a few comments and a follow up from Phill over on the blog.

I thought it might be interesting to look at this from the view point of the person who all the revenue goes to, - not that I'm saying your average board of directors/ shareholders of multinationals would think like this!

 

[34D]

And I must say those were some gross generalisations about teenagers out shopping. I cannot speak for the girls, nor those who have no choice but to bus it, but my parents would NEVER pick me up from ANYWHERE without an excellent reason like... from hospital or something. I guess that's an advantage of using a train/tram - as I have been penniless in the past but for my return ticket, where this option tends to be unavailable for the bus.

I think a lot of younger teenage girls seem to be treated like absolute princesses for some reason. A friends daughter seems to get driven everywhere.

 

[BestWestern]

We have a duty of care. There was an example in Nottingham earlier this year where a woman was raped after being refused entry to the bus because she was a few pence short. Ok it isn't the bus drivers fault she was raped but a bit of discretion and she could of been on a bus home not walking alone.

Obviously the policies quite possibly vary from firm to firm, but most bus drivers are told that people travelling without a ticket equals no job if an inspector gets on. So do you issue a ticket and pay in short, try to remember why when you're asked a week later to make up the difference, and hope the gaffer believes you? Do you issue no ticket, or issue a fare stage short and hope any lurking inspectors share your sympathetic nature? Or, do you simply refuse the passenger travel, who after all is a grown adult and responsible for their own travel arrangements home? Once you start letting people on with no money here there and everywhere you'll soon end up with a fleet full of freeloading p*ssheads every saturday night, and duty of care or not that isn't what a bus firm wants.

Example from my driving days: We were all well aware that 'Not In Service' meant nobody on the bus who wasn't staff, and this included your mates/other half/people wanting a lift as you're going past their house/etc. The reason our mob always gave, truthfully or otherwise, was that if you were not in service the bus was not insured for pax if you had an accident. One evening, one of the guys radios control to advise them he has just dropped off on his last run, at a terminus well out of town, and come across two teenage girls wanting to head back the other way. However, the last bus has gone and he is booked to run back dead, so obviously cannot convey them and has left them in situ but informed the controller in case he wants to send somebody up there. He could have made the radio call prior to leaving the terminus, but he likely wanted to go home at the end of his shift, and he is not employed to safeguard the local community from their inability/unwillingness to read a bus timetable. I can sympathise with his actions for two reasons; one being that I wouldn't particularly like the idea of sharing an out of service bus with two teenage girls I know nothing about, the other being the specific instruction not to carry punters when not in service. The duty controller however thought otherwise, and made much fuss of how the driver concerned was wrong to have left them there, being vulnerable and so on. Had they been attacked or similar, no doubt the operator would have been blamed for not acting as a taxi service for somebody's irresponsible kids etc. But all the driver was doing was following the company's standing instruction, and his additional concern and call to the controller was met only with much tutting and criticism. The moral here is that companies will change their 'policy' on things to suit whatever the local rag happens to have put on the front page.

Bus companies, rail operators and indeed any other provider of public transport, are not there to ferry about idiots who chose not to take responsibility for themselves, and I don't feel that 'Duty of care' should extend to giving freebies to people who should - and indeed do, in most cases - know better.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I also have an issue with the classification of 'vulnerable' people in this sort of situation. Generally, the term is applied to:

elderly people
disabled people
under 18's
lone females.

Now, pardon me if I'm mistaken, but this is basically saying that everybody except males aged 18-60 and groups of females aged 18-60 is vulnerable. What a load of twaddle. What makes a lone male, aged 21 any less vulnerable than the others if, having spent all his money in the pub, he is refused entry to the bus home and whilst working home is set upon by a group of thugs? oh yes, nothing. Some may be more vulnerable than others, but it's all relative and circumstancial. Ultimately, if you want to get on the bus/train it is your responsibility to make sure your correctly read and understand the timetable and have sufficient funds to use the service. There may be exceptional circumstances, but most of the time this sort of incident occurs from people not taking enough 'care' of themselves and expecting others to look after them.

 

[island]

I also have an issue with the classification of 'vulnerable' people in this sort of situation. Generally, the term is applied to:

elderly people
disabled people
under 18's
lone females.

Now, pardon me if I'm mistaken, but this is basically saying that everybody except males aged 18-60 and groups of females aged 18-60 is vulnerable. What a load of twaddle. What makes a lone male, aged 21 any less vulnerable than the others if, having spent all his money in the pub, he is refused entry to the bus home and whilst working home is set upon by a group of thugs? oh yes, nothing. Some may be more vulnerable than others, but it's all relative and circumstancial. Ultimately, if you want to get on the bus/train it is your responsibility to make sure your correctly read and understand the timetable and have sufficient funds to use the service. There may be exceptional circumstances, but most of the time this sort of incident occurs from people not taking enough 'care' of themselves and expecting others to look after them.

Quite.

 

[12CSVT]

I also have an issue with the classification of 'vulnerable' people in this sort of situation. Generally, the term is applied to:

elderly people
disabled people
under 18's
lone females.

This list might have more credibility if 'lone females' was replaced by 'persons who have become unwell / incapacitated through no fault of their own'. ie, persons who, for example have suffered a heart attack / siezure / epileptic fit / seriously injured as a result of a mugging or assault etc.

I object to the notion that persons who have become incapacitated through excessive drinking or consumption of illegal drugs should be classified as 'vulnerable'. Their so-called 'predicament' is usually entirely self-inflicted.