This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal 
evidence is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets 
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various 
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be 
having some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on 
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being 
a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about 
ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are 
doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.

The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are 
changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak". 
There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't 
valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak" 
one is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have 
been mapped onto the new-fangled-names.

[1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means 
different things on different routes :(
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
> evidence is quite strong.
>
> On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
> are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
> ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
> having some teething problems.
>
> People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
> specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
> a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
time. I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
is either peak or non-peak. Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper
ticket you must be willing to accept the additional restrictions that
make the ticket less desirable hence the lower price?

> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

> There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about
> ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are
> doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.
>
> The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are
> changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak".
> There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't
> valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak"
> one is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have
> been mapped onto the new-fangled-names.
>
> [1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means
> different things on different routes :(
> --
> Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:uq+a$YfEhstIFAkc@perry.co.uk...
> This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal evidence 
> is quite strong.
>
> On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets 
> are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various 
> ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be having 
> some teething problems.
>
> People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on 
> specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being a 
> peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].
>
> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
>
> There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about 
> ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are 
> doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.
>
> The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are 
> changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak". 
> There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't 
> valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak" one 
> is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have been 
> mapped onto the new-fangled-names.
>
> [1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means 
> different things on different routes :(
I should think that the evidence that the passenger had bought the ticket 
from a TOC's site and could even make a reservation or get a print out 
showing the ticket was valid would be a defence to any charges.
I also think that a letter to this effect would get a refund and 
compensation from the TOC.  I certainly got this when I was mis-sold a 
ticket by a 'fasticket' machine operated by FGW*.

*It said a cheap day was valid when it wasn't and there was nothing on the 
machine to say otherwise, even though a list of validities for other tickets 
was displayed.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:05:05 +0100, J B put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
>> evidence is quite strong.
>>
>> On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
>> are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
>> ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
>> having some teething problems.
>>
>> People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
>> specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
>> a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].
>
>I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
>beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
>time. I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
>is either peak or non-peak. Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper
>ticket you must be willing to accept the additional restrictions that
>make the ticket less desirable hence the lower price?

I think Roland's point is that the system is selling tickets for a
specific train at a specific time, but on a specific ticket type that
isn't valid on that specific train. So the customer ends up with an
unusable ticket, because the ticket type isn't valid on the train that
it's allocated to, and it can't be used on a train where it is valid
as it can only be used on the train named on the ticket.

To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
from the vendor.

Mark

In article ,
Mark Goodge   wrote:
>To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
>responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
>should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
>with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
>rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
>from the vendor.

In practice surely what will usually happen is that the mistake won't
be discovered until the passenger is already travelling.

Should the passenger, when challenged, simply give their name and
address and tell the conductor that the train company will have to
sue ?  What if the conductor insists that the passenger must pay right
away and when faced with a refusal insists that the passenger must
leave the train ?

Anyone but the most determined passnger will surely be browbeaten by
the staff into paying a penalty fare, or buying an entirely new
ticket.  Most passengers won't even know their rights and will
probably not manage to reclaim the extra money from anyone.

In these kind of situations, who, if anyone, and under what
circumstances, would be committing an offence under s9 of the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) ?

-- 
Ian Jackson                  personal email: 
These opinions are my own.        http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb,     fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

In message , at 
22:35:04 on Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Mark Goodge 
 remarked:
>I think Roland's point is that the system is selling tickets for a
>specific train at a specific time, but on a specific ticket type that
>isn't valid on that specific train. So the customer ends up with an
>unusable ticket, because the ticket type isn't valid on the train that
>it's allocated to, and it can't be used on a train where it is valid
>as it can only be used on the train named on the ticket.

If it's an off-peak ticket (eg a Saver) then it *can* normally be used 
on a train later in the day. But once you are aboard the first train 
that's too late, and the later train may not allow you to get to work on 
time.

>To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
>responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
>should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
>with the ticket vendor afterwards.

Virgin, one of the train operators in question, has now said they would 
not accept the ticket and that the mis-sale was entirely the customer's 
fault. So much for customer service! Or indeed one train company being 
the agent of another.

>But, if the passenger is forced to rebook or pay a penalty fare, then 
>those costs should be recoverable from the vendor.

That does seem to me to be the next best solution, although I expect 
that all they'd do voluntarily is refund the 'mis-sold' ticket, rather 
than pay for the replacement ticket.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <l3E*3jGls@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:40:10 on Fri, 
29 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson  remarked:
>In article ,
>Mark Goodge   wrote:
>>To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
>>responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
>>should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
>>with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
>>rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
>>from the vendor.
>
>In practice surely what will usually happen is that the mistake won't
>be discovered until the passenger is already travelling.
>
>Should the passenger, when challenged, simply give their name and
>address and tell the conductor that the train company will have to
>sue ?

The problem is that they will probably prosecute (or threaten to), 
rather than sue.

> What if the conductor insists that the passenger must pay right
>away and when faced with a refusal insists that the passenger must
>leave the train ?
>
>Anyone but the most determined passnger will surely be browbeaten by
>the staff into paying a penalty fare, or buying an entirely new
>ticket.

That's the usual scenario.

>Most passengers won't even know their rights and will
>probably not manage to reclaim the extra money from anyone.
>
>In these kind of situations, who, if anyone, and under what
>circumstances, would be committing an offence under s9 of the
>Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) ?

(Assuming it covers railway tickets - I'm not absolutely sure either 
way) We are back to the agency situation. The train company selling the 
ticket (via its website) is relying upon information about the validity 
of tickets, supplied by the train operator (Virgin in one case). If 
Virgin is telling them that the ticket is valid (and so they sell it) 
but then when you get on the train Virgin say it's not valid, which of 
them is being misleading?
-- 
Roland Perry

In message 
, at 
22:05:05 on Thu, 28 Aug 2008, J B  
remarked:

>> This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
>> evidence is quite strong.
>>
>> On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
>> are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
>> ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
>> having some teething problems.
>>
>> People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
>> specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
>> a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].
>
>I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
>beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
>time.

If it's an Advance ticket (formerly an "Advance Purchase [AP]) ticket 
then it is indeed only valid on one train. You can tell that because 
across the top it will say "Valid only with reservation".

However, you can (and  many people do) pre-book tickets such as Savers 
and Day Returns, that are valid on a wide range of trains, albeit some 
will have restrictions on the time of day. When you book online they 
insist on issuing a seat reservation for a train, but you don't have to 
travel on that train.

>I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
>is either peak or non-peak.

Advance fares are not sold as either "peak" or "offpeak", they just 
quote a custom fare for each train.

>Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper ticket you must be willing to 
>accept the additional restrictions that make the ticket less desirable 
>hence the lower price?

Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak ticket 
(and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later turns out 
to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to do that. Whose 
"fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?

>> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
>
>I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
>have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
>demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
>to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
>the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

It depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare 
evasion or not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can 
call in the BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer 
being stupid, then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a 
penalty fare, or sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The 
traveller will *not* be given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' 
ticket.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak ticket 
> (and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later turns out 
> to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to do that. Whose 
> "fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?

The information I have seen - and this may only apply to ScotRail - is 
that although the names of the tickets have changed, the ticket codes 
(eg SOR for Standard Open Return) and the eligible times have not 
generally changed.

Most advance tickets are valid only with reservation, and if there is a 
reservation for the current train then the ticket is valid prima facie.

>>> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
>> I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
>> have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
>> demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
>> to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
>> the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

A person may commit an offence if he (a) travels without a ticket, and 
(b) refuses to buy a ticket, and (c) refuses to give his name and 
address to a railway employee authorised to examine tickets.

Therefore if the person is willing to buy a ticket (including penalty 
fare if in a penalty fare area) then no offence is committed.

> It depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare 
> evasion or not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can 
> call in the BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer 
> being stupid, then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a 
> penalty fare, or sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The 
> traveller will *not* be given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' 
> ticket.

It's fairly standard practice to 'excess' a ticket from eg a Saver 
Return to an Open Return. This assumes the ticket is valid - even if it 
is not valid on that particular train. Only if the ticket is not valid - 
eg it has a YNG discount but the passenger cannot produce a YNG railcard 
- is the passenger treated as travelling without a valid ticket and has 
to pay a full fare. Again this is Scotrail practice and may vary elsewhere.

Owain

In message <Qq6dnYz0GtI5FyXVnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, at 
00:50:06 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Owain  
remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak 
>>ticket  (and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later 
>>turns out  to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to do 
>>that. Whose  "fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?
>
>The information I have seen - and this may only apply to ScotRail - is 
>that although the names of the tickets have changed, the ticket codes 
>(eg SOR for Standard Open Return) and the eligible times have not 
>generally changed.

The ticket names are changing. SOR becomes "Anytime".

Eligible times are changing - for example the fares on the Midland 
Mainline that used to be called "Savers" are to be called "Super 
Off-Peak" and a whole hour has been trimmed off each end of their 
validity during the day (eg last departure from London now 14.55 not 
15.55)

>Most advance tickets are valid only with reservation, and if there is a 
>reservation for the current train then the ticket is valid prima facie.

The problem I'm talking about does NOT involve "Advance" tickets.

>>>> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
>>> I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
>>> have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
>>> demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
>>> to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
>>> the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?
>
>A person may commit an offence if he (a) travels without a ticket, and 
>(b) refuses to buy a ticket, and (c) refuses to give his name and 
>address to a railway employee authorised to examine tickets.
>
>Therefore if the person is willing to buy a ticket (including penalty 
>fare if in a penalty fare area) then no offence is committed.

That's not how it works in an official "Penalty fares" area. But let's 
not get too tied up with that, because once again the fares under 
discussion are not for travel within a penalty fares area.

The offence which someone trying to use the allegedly mis-sold ticket 
would be committing, is refusing to tear up the return half of a £60 
ticket and buy a £115 'open' ticket to replace it.

>> It depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare 
>>evasion or not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe 
>>can  call in the BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a 
>>customer  being stupid, then depending on the local rules he'll either 
>>charge a  penalty fare, or sell a completely new "highest price" 
>>ticket. The  traveller will *not* be given an allowance for trading-in 
>>the 'invalid'  ticket.
>
>It's fairly standard practice to 'excess' a ticket from eg a Saver 
>Return to an Open Return.

Really? Anecdotal evidence from all the major long distance ToCs I'm 
familiar with is that they'll only sell the replacement ticket at face 
value. They also make on-train announcements to this effect on every 
service, just to make sure.

>This assumes the ticket is valid - even if it is not valid on that 
>particular train. Only if the ticket is not valid - eg it has a YNG 
>discount but the passenger cannot produce a YNG railcard - is the 
>passenger treated as travelling without a valid ticket and has to pay a 
>full fare. Again this is Scotrail practice and may vary elsewhere.

Yes, I think practice in England is different.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:YXVHAielJBuIFAoA@perry.co.uk...
> In message 
> , at It 
> depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion or 
> not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in the 
> BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid, 
> then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or 
> sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not* be 
> given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry 
any form of ID.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:uq+a$YfEhstIFAkc@perry.co.uk...
> This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal evidence 
> is quite strong.
>
> On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets 
> are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various 
> ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be having 
> some teething problems.
>
> People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on 
> specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being a 
> peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].
>
> Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
>
> There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about 
> ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are 
> doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.
>
> The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are 
> changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak". 
> There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't 
> valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak" one 
> is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have been 
> mapped onto the new-fangled-names.
>
> [1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means 
> different things on different routes :(

Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the 
train company or a seller in it's own right?

Fred wrote:
> Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the 
> train company or a seller in it's own right?

Possibly both, if the journey involves travel on several different 
operators' trains.

Owain

In message <48bb1fd5$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, at 23:50:07 on 
Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Fred  remarked:
>Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
>train company or a seller in it's own right?

Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a 
ToC, and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought 
the ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like 
a 9% commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement 
of some kind.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message <ur6dnTj9u5ApXybVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@posted.plusnet>, at 
11:25:19 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Owain  
remarked:
>Fred wrote:
>> Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent 
>>of the  train company or a seller in it's own right?
>
>Possibly both, if the journey involves travel on several different 
>operators' trains.

If one ticket allows travel on a number of trains, then only *one* of 
the train operators will have set the fare, so I don't think it can ever 
be a combination like that. The only other possibility is that all 
tickets are sold by vendors "on behalf of ATOC" who is then acting as an 
agent for the people running the trains.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <Qq6dnYz0GtI5FyXVnZ2dnUVZ8jidnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, at 
> 00:50:06 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Owain  
> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak 
>>> ticket  (and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later 
>>> turns out  to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to 
>>> do that. Whose  "fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?
>>
>> The information I have seen - and this may only apply to ScotRail - is 
>> that although the names of the tickets have changed, the ticket codes 
>> (eg SOR for Standard Open Return) and the eligible times have not 
>> generally changed.
> 
> The ticket names are changing. SOR becomes "Anytime".
> 
> Eligible times are changing - for example the fares on the Midland 
> Mainline that used to be called "Savers" are to be called "Super 
> Off-Peak" and a whole hour has been trimmed off each end of their 
> validity during the day (eg last departure from London now 14.55 not 15.55)

It's not that simple (as is usually the case)...The "new" Super Off-Peak 
on EMT has a ticket type code of SSS/SSR (i.e. SuperSaver), whereas the 
Off-Peak takes SVS/SVR (i.e. Saver).

Staff guidelines are as follows:

Where the date of travel is BEFORE the 7th of September, the CURRENT 
terms and conditions apply, regardless of the printed ticket name.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September, the 
CURRENT terms and conditions apply IF the ticket was PURCHASED BEFORE 
10th August.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September, the NEW 
terms and conditions apply IF the ticket was PURCHASED ON OR AFTER 10th 
August.

Where the date of travel is ON OR AFTER the 7th of September AND the 
date of PURCHASE is UNKNOWN or IN DOUBT, staff SHOULD apply the most 
generous interpretation of old and/or new terms and conditions.

Cheers,

Barry

In message <g9f0ov$ko4$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
22:05:07 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>> , at It
>> depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion or
>> not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in the
>> BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid,
>> then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or
>> sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not* be
>> given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
>They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry
>any form of ID.

aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a 
quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers 
that they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy 
to wait as long as that takes.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:GC0QV2hji7uIFArL@perry.co.uk...
> In message <g9f0ov$ko4$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
> 22:05:07 on Sun, 31 Aug 2008, mert1639  
> remarked:
>>> , at 
>>> It
>>> depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion 
>>> or
>>> not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in 
>>> the
>>> BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid,
>>> then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or
>>> sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not* 
>>> be
>>> given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
>>They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry
>>any form of ID.
>
> aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a 
> quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers that 
> they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy to 
> wait as long as that takes.
>
I hope that they get sued in that case.  It's hardly non-cooperation not to 
have something you aren't obliged to have.

"Roland Perry"  wrote in message 
news:4SQfRXiyk7uIFAsL@perry.co.uk...
> In message <48bb1fd5$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>, at 23:50:07 on 
> Sun, 31 Aug 2008, Fred  remarked:
>>Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
>>train company or a seller in it's own right?
>
> Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a ToC, 
> and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought the 
> ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like a 9% 
> commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement of some 
> kind.

If as you say they're an agent then surely the ticket has been effectively 
purchased from the train company.  How can the train company then say it's 
invalid?

In message <g9hmod$lj0$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>, at 
22:30:10 on Mon, 1 Sep 2008, mert1639  
remarked:
>> aiui the procedure would be to haul an non-cooperating person off to a
>> quiet place and ask them sufficient questions to satisfy the officers that
>> they had established the correct identity. I suspect they are happy to
>> wait as long as that takes.
>>
>I hope that they get sued in that case.  It's hardly non-cooperation not to
>have something you aren't obliged to have.

They are obliged to reveal their identity - a "formal ID" is merely a 
quicker way to do it.
-- 
Roland Perry

In message , at 00:50:06 on 
Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Fred  remarked:
>>>Perhaps a pertinent question.  Is the vendor of the ticket an agent of the
>>>train company or a seller in it's own right?
>>
>> Probably more of an agent, because each ticket has a fare "set" by a ToC,
>> and so a direct sale would only be if by co-incidence you bought the
>> ticket from that fare-setting ToC. Meanwhile, there's something like a 9%
>> commission for ticket sellers, which suggests an agency agreement of some
>> kind.
>
>If as you say they're an agent then surely the ticket has been effectively
>purchased from the train company.  How can the train company then say it's
>invalid?

Poor call centre training, perhaps, or maybe they actually believe in 
their own minds that they aren't liable.
-- 
Roland Perry