Angry commuters start fightback against fines

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

The railway could try publicising what to do if you have an AP ticket and miss your train. 

I believe the 'publicising' is already out there in the T&Cs. If you miss your train (and the fault doesn't lie with the railway) then you have to buy a new ticket. That seems very straightforward to me.

Much talk of having some flexibility with Advance Purchase tickets to allow travel on a later service, but that rather negates the whole point of having a 'booked train only' ticket.

Yes, the rail industry could introduce some flexibility, but that would come at some cost. You can't have Joe Bloggs buying a ^10 AP for the 1500 service and hoping it will be valid on the 1530 or 1600 service. The whole point of cheap APs is to use yield management and fill up seats on a particular service.

e.g. (at a particular date when the ticket purchase is made):

1500 ^10 Advance
1530 ^20 Advance
1600 ^30 Advance

Flexible walk-up ticket valid on any of those three trains, for example costs ^50. How should the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) price things so as to allow Advance Purchase valid on all three of those trains? They'd have to introduce a sort of Advance Plus to allow for the spread. Do we really need another tier of tickets that will add further confusion? If such a spread were introduced it would make yield management that more difficult and no doubt push up the price for those who are quite able to understand the T&Cs and arrive in time to catch their one booked train...

No. Keep Advance Purchase as they are. Miss your booked train and it's not the rail industry's fault, buy a new ticket. If you know you can't make your booked train and have time, then trade-up and pay the admin fee. If you don't have time and the fault isn't with the rail industry then hard lines.

[JayMac]

From Passenger Focus:

WATCHDOG REVEALS INNOCENT PASSENGERS CAUGHT IN TICKET CRACKDOWN

22.05.2012

Passengers using Britain^s rail network face very inconsistent treatment when travelling without a ^valid^ ticket a new report from Passenger Focus reveals today. Passengers who make an innocent mistake can find themselves facing a hefty bill, or in some of the worst cases, a criminal prosecution.

Passenger Focus has been contacted by hundreds of passengers who have faced very unfair treatment as a result of an inconsistent application of complex rules. In some cases individual staff deal with situations well, but sometimes the consequences can be severe with payment of large ^fines^ and threats of criminal prosecution.

Anthony Smith, Passenger Focus, chief executive said: ^No one is in favour of fare dodgers. However, passengers deserve a fair hearing. If they have forgotten their railcard, lost one of their tickets but have proof of purchase or have been unable to pick up booked tickets they should be given a second chance. Passengers, when boarding a train, are entering a minefield of rules and regulations, some dating back to Victorian times.^

Mr Smith continued, ^any form of privatised justice like this must be administered according to clear guidelines, be accountable, give passengers a fair hearing and not assume everyone is guilty. Train companies cannot continue to treat some of their customers like this ^one strike and you are out^ is simply not fair.^

Rail Minister Norman Baker, said: ^Passengers have a right for the rules to be consistently applied across all operators.  It is worrying if Passenger Focus has found that this is not case. It is in the interests of Train Operating Companies that passengers are confident in what they are buying.^

Passenger Focus wants to see:

- the introduction of a code of practice for non Penalty Fare areas which sets out clear and consistent guidelines on how passengers who board without a ^valid^ ticket should be dealt with. This should include clear rules on how to deal with passengers with disabilities, cases where a passenger has a ticket but has missed a booked train and a formal right of appeal

- passengers should only face criminal prosecution with proof of intent to defraud

- greater flexibility when a passenger can prove they bought a valid ticket but cannot produce the ticket (or all of them) when asked

- greater transparency on how many penalties are issued, for what and how many appeals are upheld or overturned.

The Association of Train Operating Companies has already undertaken to co-ordinate the drawing up of national guidelines to ensure more consistent treatment of passengers ^ this move is very welcome. In order to make those guidelines as effective as possible Passenger Focus is asking passengers to tell their stories, good and bad, about how they were dealt with when found without a ^valid^ ticket. Passengers can do this on a Facebook page:

Notes to editors

Please see our facebook page http://www.facebook.com/PassengerFocus, launched today where we are asking passengers to tell us their experiences ^ we will use these to build upon the dossier of evidence being created to drive change and stop this happening to any more passengers.

[mjones]

Generally I agree with the "rules are rules" argument.If you don't want to be tied down to a particular train, don't book an advance ticket.

I do think that if someone has an advance ticket and travels on another train, they should only pay the extra (large as it will be) and not have their original ticket disregarded.

The "the man on the platform said it would be Ok" routine dates back to the earliest days of railways (in my case, the early 80s!). 

By the way, I was not impressed with VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) charging £78.50 Std Single Euston -Manchester on every train from 16 00 to 19 40 last Wednesday.  In our supposedly "free market" railway, VT are not allowed to be competed against on the direct route (and have in any case filled up the railway).

I went for a drink with some friends and got the 20 00 - £49 1st, £32.50 Std, Advance, of course.

On Saturday, I got a £47.50 Std advance single back to Plymouth on the 18 04 ex Liverpool - a very good deal.  It's worth sticking to the rules, in my book.

So in fact you actually agree with what a number of us here have been saying, which is that the rules ought to be changed?

As regards the 'man on the platform said', no doubt people do try it on. But if people were never given contradictory advice by railway staff then it would be easier to refute such claims. And if rules were clearer, fairer, and better explained (which is all that Passenger Focus is calling for), then enforcement would be easier, there would be fewer confrontational situations and staff wouldn't be so often having to make difficult judgements with limited time and information.

[mjones]

The railway could try publicising what to do if you have an AP ticket and miss your train. 

I believe the 'publicising' is already out there in the T&Cs. If you miss your train (and the fault doesn't lie with the railway) then you have to buy a new ticket. That seems very straightforward to me.

Much talk of having some flexibility with Advance Purchase tickets to allow travel on a later service, but that rather negates the whole point of having a 'booked train only' ticket.

Yes, the rail industry could introduce some flexibility, but that would come at some cost. You can't have Joe Bloggs buying a ^10 AP for the 1500 service and hoping it will be valid on the 1530 or 1600 service. The whole point of cheap APs is to use yield management and fill up seats on a particular service.

e.g. (at a particular date when the ticket purchase is made):

1500 ^10 Advance
1530 ^20 Advance
1600 ^30 Advance

Flexible walk-up ticket valid on any of those three trains, for example costs ^50. How should the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) price things so as to allow Advance Purchase valid on all three of those trains? They'd have to introduce a sort of Advance Plus to allow for the spread. Do we really need another tier of tickets that will add further confusion? If such a spread were introduced it would make yield management that more difficult and no doubt push up the price for those who are quite able to understand the T&Cs and arrive in time to catch their one booked train...

No. Keep Advance Purchase as they are. Miss your booked train and it's not the rail industry's fault, buy a new ticket. If you know you can't make your booked train and have time, then trade-up and pay the admin fee. If you don't have time and the fault isn't with the rail industry then hard lines.

But why take that inflexible attitude? Why, in principle, shouldn't people be able to change their travel plans at short notice? You can if you drive (and please, let's not have any more false comparisons with air travel).  Apart from unforseen problems that may occur on the way to the station, these days, with mobile communications, people working while on the move, the need to change one's plans could easily arise while you are on the move. And why not, that's the modern world. As has been argued earlier, it should be perfectly acceptable to upgrade your ticket while on the move, and for this to be treated as a legitimate transaction rather than something reprehensible that you should be penalised for.  The paying customer gets the service they need to use, the rail operator gets the additional fare. What's the problem with that?   Is the railway there for the convenience of its staff or for the customer who pays the bills?

[Milky Bar Kid]

Flexible AP tickets will not work. Yes the rules etc could and should be simplified but the system itself works, i wonder what percentage of people do NOT incur problems with AP tickets to those that do??

[Milky Bar Kid]

Plus there are always to sides to a story and the passenger is never always right, discretion is the key to the problem and as has been pointed out is widely used, but passengers travelling on wrong dated AP tickets proclaiming 'thats what i booked online' etc in my opinion should be read the riot act.

[mjones]

Flexible AP tickets will not work. Yes the rules etc could and should be simplified but the system itself works, i wonder what percentage of people do NOT incur problems with AP tickets to those that do??

'Flexible AP tickets' would obviously be self-contradictory, but aren't being advocated. I, and others, are saying (amongst other things) that people should be allowed to upgrade from an AP to a different, more expensive, ticket as a normal transaction rather than being penalised for it.

And in what sense do you think the current system 'works'? It is causing lots of very bad publicity for the rail industry, lots of customers clearly aren't happy with it, it puts off new passengers and  leads to confrontational situations between staff and passengers that could easily be avoided if the rail industry could grasp the concept of customer service. 

The key point is a different mindset: asking the question "What do customers (and potential customers) want, and how can I sell it to them?" As distinct from  "How can I get my passengers to do the things that are most convenient for my staff and systems?".

[Milky Bar Kid]

That is what i am trying to say, you hear all the bad stories etc but very rarely the good. I would like to see how many people actually find the sysyem works as it. I also fail to see how if you started upgrading tickets because of missed trains etc would make things easier? The system would then be flawed and again people would come to expect such actions everytime, the way the system works should be made much clearer at point of purchase that is where i believe the system needs improving but as i have said i personally think it works.

[mjones]

That is what i am trying to say, you hear all the bad stories etc but very rarely the good. I would like to see how many people actually find the sysyem works as it. I also fail to see how if you started upgrading tickets because of missed trains etc would make things easier? The system would then be flawed and again people would come to expect such actions everytime, the way the system works should be made much clearer at point of purchase that is where i believe the system needs improving but as i have said i personally think it works.

It clearly doesn't work, otherwise today's media wouldn't be full of stories about how bad it is. In any other part of the private sector where businesses rely on meeting their customers' needs to stay in business this wouldn't be considered acceptable.

How would it make things easier? Well, pretty obviously, if you make things easier for the customer to buy the service they want you get fewer complaints and less incentive for evasion. It takes away the confrontation and, crucuially,  the language of confrontation. 

Be honest: which situation would you prefer to deal with?

A:
"Excuse me, I have a ticket for a different train, please can I buy an upgrade so I can go on this one instead?"
"Certainly sir, that will ^x, plus an admin fee of ^y" (The rules having been clearly and repeatedly explained beforehand, and ^y being reasonable)

Or B:
"I'm afraid that ticket isn't valid on this train. So I'm going to have to charge you full fare single ...well it did say on the website and on the posters... rules are rules"... National Conditions of Carriage Part 7, paragraph B etc etc"...

[vacman]

The excess idea could work, if you miss your booked train they could allow the excess pluss ^10 admin fee (as is allowed if done BEFORE your booked train i.e. travelling too early) but these excess should only be available if done before boarding the train, if you just get on and hope for the best then you should be charged a whole new ticket as you would now, if this were the case then there would be an incentive for people to actually go and sort their ticket out before boarding rather than just getting on and hoping for the best.
But my point still stands about the UFN^‡(resolve) process not working very well, if someone does get on the train with for example a reference number then they should be issued with a UFN (as now) BUT they should have this quashed when they appeal showing proof of purchase etc and maybe allow everyone 2 chances per year, as is the case with people who leave their season tickets at home now!

[bobm]

if someone does get on the train with for example a reference number then they should be issued with a UFN^‡(resolve) (as now) BUT they should have this quashed when they appeal showing proof of purchase etc and maybe allow everyone 2 chances per year, as is the case with people who leave their season tickets at home now!

Problem with that is what if the tickets have claimed from a machine? Someone else could be travelling on the train using them.  It starts getting complicated....

[mjones]

The excess idea could work, if you miss your booked train they could allow the excess pluss ^10 admin fee (as is allowed if done BEFORE your booked train i.e. travelling too early) but these excess should only be available if done before boarding the train, if you just get on and hope for the best then you should be charged a whole new ticket as you would now, if this were the case then there would be an incentive for people to actually go and sort their ticket out before boarding rather than just getting on and hoping for the best.

But why should you be? Why in principle should people not be able to do it on the train? Yes it is administratively more costly, so the answer to that is you charge more for ticket sales on the train. Make the admin charge higher. Again, this is about changing the mindset, the message should be about charging more for using premium services, not imposing penalties for transgressing arbitrary rules.

But my point still stands about the UFN^‡(resolve) process not working very well, if someone does get on the train with for example a reference number then they should be issued with a UFN (as now) BUT they should have this quashed when they appeal showing proof of purchase etc and maybe allow everyone 2 chances per year, as is the case with people who leave their season tickets at home now!

This would be one practicable approach. The practical problems bobm identifies should be resolvable, it isn't reasonable to transfer all the risk to the passenger. The key point of doing something like this is that it takes away the immediate confrontation. The conductor doesn't have to be in the awkward situation of having to act as judge and juror, he/she can simply collect the necessary information from he passenger and pass the decision back to head office where it can be dealt with through a due process at a later date. It would greatly reduce pointless arguments on the train that just generate ill feeling and leaves the passenger feeling angry and humiliated.

[Southern Stag]

But why should you be? Why in principle should people not be able to do it on the train? Yes it is administratively more costly, so the answer to that is you charge more for ticket sales on the train. Make the admin charge higher. Again, this is about changing the mindset, the message should be about charging more for using premium services, not imposing penalties for transgressing arbitrary rules.

People shouldn't be allowed to buy on trains because in general tickets should be bought before travelling. If you could upgrade on the train there is the chance that you'll be able to get away without paying, there would be no incentive to upgrade before you board the train so everybody would try and upgrade on the train, if for whatever reason tickets aren't checked then no excess is paid. If there is an incentive to upgrade before you board the train, because you won't have to buy a whole new ticket then you would decrease the number of people chancing it and increase the number of people paying the correct price.

[mjones]

People shouldn't be allowed to buy on trains because in general tickets should be bought before travelling. If you could upgrade on the train there is the chance that you'll be able to get away without paying, there would be no incentive to upgrade before you board the train so everybody would try and upgrade on the train, if for whatever reason tickets aren't checked then no excess is paid. If there is an incentive to upgrade before you board the train, because you won't have to buy a whole new ticket then you would decrease the number of people chancing it and increase the number of people paying the correct price.

This is an example of what I was referring to earlier- starting off with what makes things easier for the operator and then working out how to get passengers to comply with it. That isn't customer service, it is the industry making things more difficult for passengers as an alternative to providing sufficient staff to do on-board ticket checks properly. 

As I've already said, the easy way to give people an incentive to upgrade at the station is to make it more expensive to do so on the train, but that's not the same as making it a penalty. If you treat people better, i.e. as customers rather than presumed cheats, the railways would have a  better reputation and that would increase the number of people paying to use it.

[vacman]

Mjones, if you think that everyone should just get on trains and be given a big hug and let off then you really have no idea of how the real world railway works, it would be an invitation to fraud. Whilst we keep going back to the T&C's it is worth pointing out that the T&C's for Advance tickets are actually very simple and take up just one or two paragraphs so it isn't like when you sign a mobile phone contract with pages and pages of drivel, yes there does need to be a little more discretion built into the system and the best way that can be achieved is by having a system where any problems must be sorted out before travelling, the only exception to this would be from unmanned stations (as now) to just allow everyone to get on train and pay what they would at the station just wouldn't work, it takes me from Pad to Westbury to get through a train now, and thats good going, if I had to stop and excess every other ticket then most of the train would go free or on the wrong train, everyone would soon latch on to that idea and do the same, even when you have an assist it is difficult to get the train up tight so it just doesn't work!