Rail Travel Vouchers to be replaced by cash refunds/compensation. - BBC News

[whole diary]

[ChrisB]

Coz I can't see one that works for the same cost as that contracted currently.

[JayMac]

It can - likely it was uncrossed....

There is nothing stopping a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) doing the same, ChrisB.

You said Brucey was wrong on that point though. You also said it's not possible for a cheque to be uncrossed any more and then, a few posts later, say my cheque was likely uncrossed. Make up your mind.  

Along with my British Gas cheque, I've seen other cheques issued by HMRC that are cashable at banks or post offices.

[ChrisB]

I will research further when I have time, looks as though the banks have developed something reasonably recently.

I know I'm right around Postal Orders though - crossing them makes them uncashable & A/C Payee means being paid into an account in the payee's name - so it's only cheques that appear to have changed.

Maybe they have reintroduced uncrossed cheques.

I can't see them issuing cashable vouchers though. too much chance of fraud. I hope they retain the vouchers too, although that would bump up the cost of having both schemes - I suspect an easing of the 'cheque available over ^30' that they have now.

[JayMac]

Coz I can't see one that works for the same cost as that contracted currently.

I can't see them issuing cashable vouchers though. too much chance of fraud. I hope they retain the vouchers too, although that would bump up the cost of having both schemes - I suspect an easing of the 'cheque available over ^30' that they have now.

So, it's vastly more expensive for Southern Railway to allow their RTVs to be cashed at their stations? And they have continued to offer this facility despite your assertion that there is too much chance of fraud.

Cashable vouchers is a solution that many other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) could implement. Not a total solution mind you - other options will be needed for the likes of CrossCountry and Serco Caledonian Sleeper who do not operate stations. Uncrossed cheques perhaps?  

Direct payments to a bank account (you provide the details when claiming delay compensation) would be the best and least administratively complex solution in my opinion. I can't see that being more costly to administer than raising and issuing RTVs. Foreign tourists may need another solution, but then the current offer of RTVs is hardly suited to them any way.

As for the current option of a cheque 'if over ^30'. Not all operators currently explicitly offer this.

[ChrisB]

So, it's vastly more expensive for Southern Railway to allow their RTVs to be cashed at their stations? And they have continued to offer this facility despite your assertion that there is too much chance of fraud.

Cashable vouchers is a solution that many other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) could implement. Not a total solution mind you - other options will be needed for the likes of CrossCountry and Serco Caledonian Sleeper who do not operate stations.

I wasn't aware that Southern allowed their vouchers to be cashed - presumably only at the stations they operate?

They will need a complete 'one size fits all' solution. As we all agree, customers see the railway as a single operator generally & won't understand any differences in obtaining 'cash' compensation. It'll be cheques, whether they will be cashable, and where, will be the sticking point. If it's coming in this year, I suspect it'll simply be the 'ordinary' cheque. In which case, they need to keep the vouchers for those of us that buy tickets more often than they go to their bank....

[Brucey]

Cashable vouchers is a solution that many other TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) could implement. Not a total solution mind you - other options will be needed for the likes of CrossCountry and Serco Caledonian Sleeper who do not operate stations. Uncrossed cheques perhaps?  

Cashable vouchers would also prove a problem for those claiming from TOCs which are not local to them.  I'm not going to make a trip to Scotland just to cash a voucher from ScotRail, for example.  Uncrossed cheques clearly a good solution for non-bank account holders :p

Foreign tourists may need another solution, but then the current offer of RTVs is hardly suited to them any way.

I claimed a refund for a delay from a Swedish bus (yes, bus) operator due to a road traffic incident.  They refunded my fare, paid up to 300SEK (about ^23) for taxi/petrol and offered to transfer the money to any bank account in a SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) country.  Although the form was in Swedish, the helpdesk at the bus station were incredibly helpful in filling out this form, even providing service with a smile.  I can just imagine the service one would receive in this country if you were to ask for help filling in a delay repay form in English at a station, let alone in a foreign language.

On the subject of British Gas cheques, I think the attached letter answers the A/C payee only scenario...

[ChrisB]

But what's the point of 'A/C Payee' then? Crazy & odd

[Brucey]

But what's the point of 'A/C Payee' then? Crazy & odd

It stops the cheque being transferable.  British Gas require ID to be shown at HSBC to cash the cheque, alternatively it can be paid into an account in that name.

[ChrisB]

Yeah, sorry, I meant being crossed....which absolutely definitely prevented encashment back a decade ago for sure.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Ah, you cannot live in the past, ChrisB ... 

[ChrisB]

But that doesn't explain why postsl orders still operste that way

[JayMac]

The what do what? 

I'm at a loss as to whether you are agreeing that some cheques can be cashed at the issuing bank. At a loss as to what Postal Orders have to do with the price of fish. At a loss that you think British Gas (and HMRC for that matter - no doubt others) are crazy and odd for issuing such cashable cheques.

[LiskeardRich]

I had a cheque from ecotricity that could either be paid into my bank the traditional way, or taken to a post office with proof of ID and proof of address to swap for cash not too long ago so certainly seems a popular choice still.

With the growing cost of postage, I imagine BACS transfer to be the cheapest option.
Have an electronic claim form online, which the majority of customers in this day and age would use. Scan, or add a photo of your tickets to the site (I'm assuming their is a unique way of verifying a ticket from what is visible?) An admin team approve, and issue a BACS run. An electronic notification is then issued to the customer.
Will save the cost of running a cheque facility, as well as 2 x lots of postage (once for the customer, once for the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)) and will likely reduce admin time, as cheques often have to be signed by certain named employees, where as any member of staff could in theory be given a mandate for BACS refunds.
From a business point of view cheques are extremely expensive to issue compared to other methods. Bruceys scanned letter would of cost them more to issue than the cheque is worth.

Edit- just checked a HSBC banking business fees tariff I have lying around. With HSBC for those with electronic business banking there is an 80p per cheque paid fee chargeable, whereas a BACS payment is free. For non electronic business banking 68p charge per cheque paid, and 23p per BACS payment.
Take the electronic account option and time we print a cover letter or compliment slip to go with the cheque probably easily looking at ^1.50 cost per refund, yet free to issue the BACS refund, a cover letter would be polite but not necessary.

[stuving]

For my "Huzar v Jet2.com" payment of ^250, BA^» (British Airways - about) said this:

The fastest and most secure way to settle your claim is by bank transfer to a UK^▸ (United Kingdom) account.  I will be happy to arrange this for you.  Please provide the following information so I can set up your bank transfer:

    Bank name
    Branch name
    Sort code (6 digits)
    Account number (8 digits)

If you would like to fax us your details our fax number is ... or you can send your details by email.  Please feel free to send more than one email or fax if you are concerned about providing all your information at once, and include your case reference number on all correspondence.

I'm not sure what they would offer instead if you declined BACS. It does lack any error-checking, for which reason BIC/IBAN is better (but much longer). I imagine that the reason for asking for the bank's name and branch (not needed for BACS) is to let them check that at least.

In principle there should be no risk in making account numbers public, but only if banks will promise never to use them as ID. I did send part of the data by fax, but BA lost it.

[thetrout]

Postal Orders can still be purchased uncrossed