Great Western Coffee Shop

Ok this really annoyed me >:(

I was at Bristol Temple Meads today with my friend, We decided to go through the barriers to get to WH Smiths. Upon returning through the barrier I got through without any form of trouble whatsoever. However the person checking tickets took an unhealthy interest in my friends ticket, which was exactly the same as mine. He asked for the railcard, which he didn't have because it was mine. I showed them my disabled railcard. The sentance that followed suit was IMHO way out of line.

"Have you got any ID Sir??"

It just so happened that I did, but thats beside the point. (I am a reasonably able bodied person) Because to ask someone to prove with photo ID that they own a disabled railcard, is IMO saying, you don't look disabled, why have you got this railcard and where has it come from...??

Worth a moan to FGW perhaps...??

Sorry to rant twice in a week... ::) But I have never had any trouble or questions asked regarding my railcard from any member of rail staff, so why was it necessary on this occasion to prove it was mine...?? Maybe they were having a bad day... ::)

I'm not sure I understood this.

The way you've written it sounds like you showed them your railcard to get your friend through, which I presume isn't what you meant.

Relevant conditions are as follows:-

Your Railcard must be signed on the back as soon as you receive it to show that you agree to these conditions. You can then use your Railcard.
Your Railcard is owned by the Train Companies and, if you are asked, you must hand it to a representative of any Train Company.
The Railcard and tickets bought with it are not transferable and must not be given, loaned, or resold to anyone else. Only the named cardholder can use the Railcard.

Maybe the gateline man thought you were trying to use one railcard for another person?

What would have happened if you didn't have ID? Could FGW have denied you access?

when ordering online the id check isnt that good... it is possible to order a card to which you are not entitled, its possible they just wanted to see physical id to verify you were entitled to have the card

The Disabled Railcard is mine, but myself and another person (which in this case was my friend) can both get the discount, providing we travel together on identical tickets...! We bought the tickets from the ticket office in Taunton and they applied the discount to both mine and my friends ticket. Which is allowed.

The gateline assistant let me through the barriers, they decided to ask my friend for the railcard. But he was travelling with me and being the railcard holder, I showed the gateline assistant the railcard. That was when the ID question came into play.

So to summarise:

Myself and a friend were travelling together,
My friend is valid on my railcard as he was travelling with me for the whole journey
We both went into WH Smiths
The tickets we had were exactly the same, purchased at the same time, from the same person

I shudder to think what would have happened if I didnt have my ID handy...! :-X

Hopefully i've made things a little clearer...! ;)

Edit:


Not at all, Myself and my friend both made the Journey together ;D

May I just say, I support thetrout in this matter entirely: he has followed the rules, terms and conditions of his railcard.

From my experience, over many years of travelling through Bristol Temple Meads, when I have generally found the platform and barrier staff to be friendly and helpful, I can only suppose that thetrout had the misfortune to meet the one member of staff who was indeed 'having a bad day'.

C.  ::)

The trout has my sympathies. Just another case of a "jobsworth, plus" I'm afraid. it would appear the both were traveling fully in accordance with the Ts & Cs of the card.
I don't know your disability, but I would have been tempted to cup my hand behind my ear and keep saying "pardon, speak up, I can't hear you" until he gave up !
There does seem to be a growing number of railway staff who - to be blunt - don't know what they are talking about.

My daughter recently traveled to Kent and back using the SWT service from BTM to Waterloo. On the up journey the ticket inspector came round again after the train left Basingstoke, he saw my daughter and said "didn't you have a ticket to Basingstoke". My daughter then produced a second ticket from Basingstoke to Kent, the inspector then informed her that it would have been cheaper to buy a though ticket - which it wasn't, hence her having two tickets !
Exactly the same thing happened on the return journey, different inspector. Another passenger ("customer" just doesn't sound right !) sitting opposite remarked that he often had the same problem on that service.

in my opinion too many new staff who are jobsworths who do not understand all the conditions of railcards etc.

Sounds like you followed to rules to the letter, so it might be worth a complaint.

Be grateful though that we're not like the US (yet, anyway...) where on Amtrak intercity services you have to show a government-issued photo-ID to be allowed on a train at all.

Thanks for the replies... I am tempted to write a letter because at the end of the day, there is no photocard issued with a Disabled Railcard. So in theory I could have refused to show them my ID. Infact, the only reason I carry my ID with me is to get into places like Wetherspoon Bars so I can get a coffee and use the free WiFi, because some of them ID you just to go through the doors :o

I normally find the barrier and platform staff at Bristol T M helpful, but I guess as Chris says, I was unlucky and caught a member of staff on a bad day! :P

I just felt embarrassed by it. I can only assume they were going with the idea of, "he's not got a walking stick, assistance dog or in a wheelchair, therefore I believe that railcard not to be his" >:(

ok im going to say something that may prove to be unpopular.. and i dont mean offence by it, but lets just think what if a memo went out about copied railcards or railcard theft there are fake or stolen railcards out there... you shouldnt be offended mate there is no such person that 'looks like a criminal' now if you felt they were rude to you then thats another thing and you should complain, if not just think of it as being asked for id for drink they were just doing there job

To my mind, that is a very sharp inspector who is looking to spot people going further than their ticket allows. And nobody should have a complaint in that situation, if they are questioned. It happens to me very ocassionally as I have a split season ticket. So I would give him 10/10 for asking her to show her ticket beyond Basingstoke, though maybe deduct a mark or two if the following advice was dodgy.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that the barrier staff's approach was appropriate at all.  ???

Just because someone can produce some sort of photographic ID (let's just use a Student Card, as an example), doesn't have any relevance when considering whether they are entitled to a disabled railcard (which doesn't have a photograph).

So what actually was the point of that member of FGW staff asking for ID?  What was he going to compare it with, to 'prove' the validity of the disabled railcard??

I'm minded that there have been lots of problems with disabled car badges being 'transferred' to people who have no need for them / right too them, and I'm sure the same issue applies to railcards to a greater or lesser extent.  So I can understand staff being a bit concerned as to whether this or that particular person really has their own card.   Having say that, the powers that be have chosen NOT to add a photocard requirement to this particular railcard, and have written the rules so that they do not state that there's any right to ask for photoid.   So ... the staff member who asked for that ID appears to have been acting beyond the rules, and as such appears to have been in the wrong.  But - I have to be VERY careful here ... if you were asked "would you MIND showing me some ID, sir", then technically you were being given the right to refuse and it was a request, not a demand ...

It's personal choice, of course, but I might be tempted to put this single occasion (it was a single occasion, right?) down to experience - and use that experience to be better prepared as to how you'll handle it if it happens again. I'm also going to ask if any of our FGW customer facing staff here can give any deeper insite?

Chris - for clarity, my comment referred to the anecdote about the Basingstoke incident.

However, any railcard needs to be signed, and I presume that is because at any time a member of railway staff could ask you to sign to prove that you are the registered holder of the railcard.

Trout I do think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. You had photo-ID, (and had you not had photo-ID, I'm sure you had bank cards etc which would have confirmed who you are and which would have been accepted), you showed it. Problem solved. Move on.

It's not the end of the world, bit like not getting a bacon bap between Taunton and Bristol sometimes. Worse things happen in life.   

   

Erm ... sorry, John, but you've rather lost me there: I was replying to thetrout's post, regarding the problem he had with a member of the barrier staff at BTM?  :-\

Neither I nor my daughter had any complaint about the inspector spotting that she was on the train beyond the ticket she had shown him, he was spot on, on the ball, doing exactly what he was paid to do. It was disappointing that the "advice" he offered, was however, incorrect. From my daughter's experience, and the other passenger's this was not a "one off". 

Why don't they just give a photocard with each railcard.

Another problem solved....

If travelling on legitimately split tickets and remaining on the one train, why not just show both together when the gripper comes around?

Paul

Because the second ticket isn't valid during the first part of the journey?  :-X

Thanks again for your comments.

I've decided not to complain unless it becomes a regular event, if it does happen again then I may just get a photocard! ;D

Because it is discriminatory to ask a disabled person to prove they are disabled

<begin personal rant>

Its the reason you can get a chip and signature card (rather than chip and pin) by stating you are disabled and cannot use a pin machine - they cannot ask you to prove it.  Hence all my cars except my ATM card are chip and Sig.  As long as its chip and sig if there is fraud, it is the responsibility of the card company and retailer to prove it was not me - if its chip and pin, then  I have to prove any fraud wasnt me - only way to do it is to be out of the country or have a simultaneous transaction the other end of the country.  That was the motive for bringing chip and pin in, not for consumer protection. 

So I'm dyslexic and will always block my pin cards by hitting the wrong numbers!

Then you get the other consumer argument - the retailers who say they only accept pin - no signature - if you have a chip and sig and they refuse to accept it, I sick Visa/Amex/whoever on them.  Its against the T&C of their agreement not to accept a chip card that requests a signature - they can refuse a card with no chip at all.  Four local retailers have caved and I'm currently siccing Visa on Wing Yip. 

<end personal rant>

I'm not aware of any requirement to show photo id with the Disabled Railcard, the only thing I can think of is if they were doing checks to ensure name on railcard is the actual holder.

From what you wrote thetrout it appears that the member of staff was polite ("do you have any ID sir"), I will look into the T's & C's of the disabled railcard, I know with a family railcard one of the conditions is that you may be asked for ID to confirm you are one of the card holders, I don't think the issue is that your disabilty was doubted but that you were the actual railcard holder as railcards do get stolen, lent to friends etc.. on a positive note if your railcard HAD been stolen and the theif was caught out in this way and you were re-united with your card then you'd be pretty impressed! You don't have to prove to the member of staff that you are disabled just that you are the person named on the card, if the member of staff wasn't rude then I wouldn't take it to personally.

I'm afraid you are getting a bit confused on the chip and PIN thing.
As far as customer liability goes there is no change, the main change was that more liability for fraud ended up with the merchant not the bank. If there was fraud on your card, the bank still has to prove that you were negligent or responsible - mind you that doesn't seem to stop them trying it on anyway !

"Does chip and PIN change my liability for any fraud committed on my card?

There is no change in liability for the cardholder. Consumers remain fully protected from the cost of card fraud, provided they have not been negligent, as they are fully covered by the Banking Code."

Chip & Pin website.

Just get a bit away from the subject of this thread, but may be useful.
ONLY use your debit card where you are completely sure of it's security. ATM's, Supermarkets for cash back, and Govt websites that only accept debit cards. EVERYWHERE else, use a credit card.
Reason: If fraud occurs on your debit card, it is YOUR money that they have used. You should get it back eventually, but in the meantime how do you pay the mortgage, buy food, etc, etc.
If fraud occurs on your credit card, it IS NOT your money;  just tell the card company that you didn't authorise the transaction and don't pay the bill ! Plus, you get full protection of Sect 75 of the Consumer Credit Act - which can be very useful.
End of lecture !  ;D

Sure - but the gripper won't actually mark it, he'll just know your intention already when you don't get off at the changeover station...

I do it fairly regularly Fareham - Basingstoke - Waterloo on SWT.

Paul

My first post this one, don't want to be unpopular but I have to say this member of staff was doing his job properly.  Here we go:

As stated in the Terms & Conditions of the Railcard:

8. The Railcard and all tickets issued at a Railcard discount are issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the Conditions listed in this leaflet. Copies of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage are available from any staffed station ticket office or online at www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/nrcc/.

If you go to the National Rail Condition of Carriage, Section 1 Part D:

22. Inspection of tickets
You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company or its agent, hand over for inspection a valid ticket and any relevant Railcard, photocard or other form of personal identification in accordance with Condition 15. If you do not, you will be treated as having joined a train without a ticket and the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply. If an Electronic Ticket cannot be displayed, you will be treated as if you were unable to hand over for inspection a valid ticket.

And as above, same place, Section 1 Part B:

15. Photocards
Some types of tickets (including many Season Tickets, tickets bought with a Railcard and Electronic Tickets) are only valid with either:
(a) a photocard showing a photograph which is a true likeness of the person for whom the ticket was issued; or
(b) another form of personal identification.

I can't speak for this person (it wasn't me  ;D ) but I guess either he was brief to do that for some reason of he thought something was suspicious (I don't know you, so obviously I can't tell).

Again, I don't want to be unfriendly or anything like that, it's only that is a bit annoying to have to read things like that when somebody is doing the job is suppose to do.  And anyway the whole discussion seems a bit pointless to me...   ;)

Well, thank you very much for such a detailed, informative and indeed authoritative first post, Nibat!  :)

While still smarting slightly, in view of my earlier opinion on this situation being comprehensively demolished, I'd like to offer you a very warm welcome to the Coffee Shop forum!

Chris  ;) :D ;D

A few people might peruse the Ts & Cs of the railcard if they were really keen - but are we really meant to read National Rail Conditions of Carriage ??

I'm going up to Waterloo next week on my "old git's railcard" - better get reading in case I should be carrying a certified copy of my DNA profile or my granny's birth certificate !   ::)

BUT given that it is supposedly almost impossible to skim a pin the way they could the old swipe details, it becomes a lot harder to prove that you did not disclose the pin number to someone.  Effectively, if the PIN is used in fraud you have to prove you have never told anyone your PIN.  Try it............ ok, it might not happen but I want to minmize my risks

You are missing the point - YOU do not have to prove anything - THEY do !

From the BBC website, a pretty good summary.
"The law states that cardholders are not liable for fraudulent transactions as long as the original card is still in their possession.

Any bank or business turning down a refund request is on very shaky legal ground.

The problems arise when a card is stolen or lost and is then used fraudulently.

Under these circumstances according to the terms of the Consumer Credit Act and the Banking Code you are liable for damages up to a maximum of ^50.

However, an Apacs spokesperson said that banks often waive the ^50. "

As I said, the banks are trying it on, they work on the principle that they are the mighty ABCD bank and you are merely insignificant Mr Mookiemoo. The LAW is on your side, if your bank won't play, take them to the Small Claims Court or complain to the Financial Ombudsman.
Card fraud, after falling when chip & pin was introduced is now rising fast - the banks, after saying that chip & pin would just about eliminate card fraud are now trying to say that this increase is due to everyone giving everyone else their PIN.

You mustn't let them "flannel" you - two years ago I paid over ^1000 to an airline which went bust. The credit card company initially told me that they were not responsible for a refund, in fact they actually told me that Mastercard WAS the Law !!!! - I not only got my money back - but I got another ^1000 from them because that is the extra I had to pay BA for a similar quality seat !
I took Alliance & Leicester to Court and recovered over ^2000 for my son - again, they said they owed him nothing - and, they had to pay my Court costs.

Finally, as you rightly say, minimize your risk - be ultra cautious where you use a debit card.

So just claim you are dyslexic, get  a chip and sig - no argument. Why bother fighting the long arm of the law - use it for you.

Chip and sig = situation back on retailer = no problem

Should I have to take them to court?  Old situation - retailer/credit card liable.  Current me unless I jump through hoops.

Chip and pin would not have been introduced if it did not favour the banks/ the government etc

Tell me how as a card holder chip and pin protects me

I don't agree with chip and pin, retailers don't make any effort to check it's actually your card... They know the pin it must be theirs?!

"Should I have to take them to court?  Old situation - retailer/credit card liable.  Current me unless I jump through hoops."

Certainly ! The banks rely on people being "afraid" of the Courts. Taking Alliance and Leicester to Court was as simple as typing this post ! With the internet you have all the Laws, examples, pitfalls at your fingertips.

"Chip and pin would not have been introduced if it did not favour the banks". Totally agree, they offloaded responsibility onto the retailer and claimed that would stop fraud !

"Tell me how as a card holder chip and pin protects me"  It doesn't, your original point that you had lost your legal rights however, was incorrect. Years ago I had a credit card from (I think !) the National and Provincial BS, it had my photo as well as my signature IN the card, just like a driving licence. When they got taken over it reverted to a "normal" card, explain that ?

If you dislike chip & pin ask for a chip & sig card. The banks have to supply you with one, you don't have to give a reason.

"............retailers don't make any effort to check it's actually your card..........."  Again, totally agree - but why should they ? As long as the person presenting the card knows the pin for that card the retailer will get the money. That was the bank's big selling point for this scheme ! Now that pins are becoming available via cameras, Mk 1 eyeball, people writing them down AND corrupt bank staff, the banks are frantically back-pedaling and trying to shift their losses onto someone else. The LAW says they cannot shift it to the card holder unless the card holder is negligent in some way.

There probably is more "improper" use of cards nowadays, caused by the banks and their chip & pin system making it a lot easier ! It must be tempting if you are busy to give your credit card to one of your kids/neighbour/relative tell them the pin and ask them to get something for you. With self-serve machines such as at Argos and railway stations a five year old can now spend huge sums !!

Are there not too issues here that we ought to separate out.

1) The issue of whether or not a railcard is being used by the person to whome it is issued (or a person accompanying the person to whom it is issued)

2) The issue of whether a disabled railcard is being used by someone who does not "look disabled".

Issue 2) is difficult.  Gateline staff have no right to challenge or doubt someone for not "looking disabled".  If the Rail industry wants better checks to make sure that the cards are only given to the deserving then sensitive mechanisms for assessing entitlement (doctors letters that kind of thing) ought to be in place when the card is issued not when it is used.  For all I know such mechanisms are in place.

Issue 1) is nothing to do with the fact that it is a disabled railcard. and is an issue that could be applied to any railcard or ticket which was only valid when held by a particular person.  It does baffle me however that disabled railcards do not carry photos.  That is just rediculous.

Given that many disablilities are not vissible in passing is there does not appear to be anything at all to stop a disabled person from getting a railcard and passing it to a non-disabled friend for use.  So I can understand why staff might take it upon themselves to request photo ID but of course the proper thing for the industry to do whould be to still photos on the railcards or require that they be carried on conjunction with photo ID.