To think he didn't need to charge me

[memorial]

Yesterday I travelled from Cardiff to London for a birthday treat to see Hugh Jackman bought for me by my sister.
I bought my train tickets in advance at £50.
We had a wonderful time though the £20 train ticket back to my sister's house was galling. And again this morning back to London.
I left my sister's house in plenty of time (according to TFL planner). But of course the train was stuck at a red light for 10/15 mins and the tubes were awfully slow.
I raced into the station just to see the train doors closing. Never mind I think it's super off peak midweek I'll get the next train in half an hour.
So I do. Scan my ticket at the gates and settle down for the journey. A busy but not full train with no seat reservations.
About 10 mins in a rather brusque ticket collector comes round. I show him my ticket and he gets quite aggressive loudly telling me I need to buy a ticket. I am genuinely gobsmacked and explain what happened.
He points out (rudely and very loudly) that my ticket was an advance single and only valid on the train I missed.
I am very apologetic and say I usually buy a super off peak and didn't even realise this and again explain how I just missed the train.
He again very loudly and rudely says I can buy a ticket or get off with a fine. He really is talking to me like I am a criminal fare dodger.
So I pay another £50 close to tears. What a horrible end to a lovely birthday treat.
So while I accept that my ticket wasn't valid, did he really need to be so rude and aggressive and surely he could have used a bit of discretion. I clearly wasn't trying to take the piss.
Feeling really sad and disappointed. Have spent £140 on train tickets plus tube and feel like a naughty school child.

I assume that you are supportive of the conductor having chucked the disabled lady who posted upthread, and her children, off the train and onto a deserted station late at night because she’d failed to spot an exclusion on her ‘anytime’ ticket (I assume something to do with permitted routes).

That will demonstrate the TOC’s commitment to eliminating unconscious bias, eh? No quarter shown to vulnerable people making an innocent mistake. No, it’s best to assume that everybody is a criminal and punish accordingly.

No, you’ve missed the point. Again. The conductor was aggressive and confrontational with the OP immediately, before she had a chance to speak. Why didn’t she, or anybody else, deserve respect and courtesy before the facts were established? Why did she have to be publicly vilified?

An advance single is often cheaper than a ticket for any of the trains that day (whether peak, off peak, super off peak). The reason they are cheaper is because it is only valid on the train. So you haven't paid the same twice for the same journey, because one of those journeys was for that specific train journey only.

What is frustrating is that clearly OP thinks who she is should offer her a shield of protection. She is visually (in her opinion) non-threatening. However this implies that she thinks people who don't share these characteristics are threatening.
The whole thing just reads like OP would and does judge people by how they look and expects others to do the same. I'd be interested to know what OP would have (genuinely) thought if she had of witnessed this happen to a working class, skinny, young man? Would she have assumed he was a fare dodger by his clothes or that he was a victim of circumstance?

Sigh. The OP didn’t take a later train because she felt like it. Her inbound train was delayed and she thought that her ticket was valid.

The point is whether the conductor’s behaviour was appropriate: the OP didn’t dispute that her ticket wasn’t valid when that was pointed out to her. She objected to the aggressive behaviour of the conductor.

No, she thought that she deserved courtesy and respect, as everyone should, and pointed out that she looked non-threatening. Where did she say that she thought she deserved special treatment because she is middle aged, female, ‘frumpy’, middle class or quietly spoken?

We know that at least some conductors judge passengers on appearance: see the story upthread from the poster who was fined for having the wrong ticket whilst the big, drunk, threatening-looking man in the same carriage, who had committed the same offence, got away with a warning!

starts laying into them publicly, accusing them of theft and deceit

Good thing this didnt happen to the OP. RTFT at no point did the man accuse her of anything

About 10 mins in a rather brusque ticket collector comes round. I show him my ticket and he gets quite aggressive, loudly telling me I need to buy a ticket. I am genuinely gobsmacked and explain what happened.
He points out (rudely and very loudly) that my ticket was an advance single and only valid on the train I missed.

It seems a lot of what the OP is deeming aggressive is just the inspector talking to her loudly. There isn't anything aggressive, discourteous or "publicly vilifying" in having the TOC pointed out. Why should the inspector speak in hushed tones as though the OP had done something unutterably shaming?

She didn't need to speak for him to know her ticket wasn't valid and she would need to purchase another ticket.

And she did expect special treatment - see the thread title "didn't need to charge me"

Complain about his attitude, he may have been right to charge you but it's not ok for him to talk to you like that. You should get an apology at the very least.

He should have let you off. You did have a ticket just the previous train which you had missed due to another train. They do have discretion as today I was on a train and the guard allowed a man opposite me who was on the wrong train to continue with his invalid ticket. They guy had caught a delayed 17.03 instead of the 17.13 and just gave him a little lecture and let him off.

I have read the full thread, thanks. What is loudly and aggressively saying, “you need to buy a ticket” to somebody presenting a ticket if not a public accusation of theft and deceit?

A TOC is a train operating company. How does “...having the TOC pointed out” work? Do you mean the conditions of carriage? In which case, the conductor only needs to say, courteously and pleasantly, that the ticket the passenger is holding is invalid, and explain why. No need for a loud, aggressive approach.

You seem to suggest that the conductor speaking in ‘hushed tones’ is embarrassing for the passenger. If I inadvertently got on a train for which my ticket wasn’t valid, I would much prefer to have my mistake pointed out in ‘hushed tones’than loudly and publicly in an accusatory manner. Wouldn’t everybody?

She objected to the aggressive behaviour of the conductor.

But the title is "AIBU To think he didn't need to charge me?" which is her main issue, as she pointed out she was middle class and is somehow an exception to it, so I imagine his 'aggressive' behaviour has been somewhat embellished, even if he was a bit of a dick.

It's not an accusation of theft, it's an explanation that they need to buy a ticket because the one they have presented isn't valid. You'd have to be bizarrely sensitive to think you were being accused of theft.

TOC = terms of carriage. Terribly sorry if you had difficulty working that out.

But if the OP's complaint about the inspector's conduct boils down to how loud is voice is do you not think that's, well, petty and ridiculous? The people near her would hear whatever volume he spoke at, and anyone who was listening in would hear her explanation that her connecting train was delayed. She's the one who made a public scene by trying to get out of paying.

Well, as others have noted, he didn’t need to charge her because we’ve heard examples on this thread of discretion being used in similar cases.

Yes, the OP might have embellished the description, but (1) I’ve certainly seen similar aggressive behaviour displayed by conductors and (2) if you don’t believe the story, it’s probably better not to post a response since you’ll waste your own time.

Does everyone get that a strict liability offence (travelling on a train without a valid ticket is a strict liability offence) shifts the burden of proof to the offender rather than the accuser? It doesn’t mean that the train company’s staff can behave however they choose and it doesn’t prevent the person accused from (1) appealing, (2) attempting to explain themselves or (3) expecting civil treatment from the outset.

Jesus Christ, no one is entitled to discretion. Staff are allowed to carry out their jobs how they see fit, the guard didn’t do anything wrong by following policy.

What is loudly and aggressively saying, “you need to buy a ticket” to somebody presenting a ticket if not a public accusation of theft and deceit?

What are you on about? she did not have a valid ticket, he told her she needed to buy a valid ticket. In what way does thay equate to him accusing her of theft?

So it was ok to throw the disabled lady and her kids off the train then, even though they had no way of getting home from a deserted station at night, because the conductor was “doing his job as he saw fit”? Don’t be silly. How about throwing fare dodgers out of the window at 180 mph? Would that serve them right and be OK because the conductor is only doing his or her job as he or she sees fit?

It is funny when people losing arguments have to resort to making cheap digs, particularly when they are wrong about the meaning of acronyms. Look at any rail ticket and you will see a reference to the conditions of carriage. I might explain the difference between a term and a condition tomorrow, if I can be bothered. Good night!

It also amazing how when people are losing arguments they are reduced to bizarre apagogical arguments. No one was thrown off a train at 180mph. The OP was required to pay for a valid ticket after being spoken to in a voice that was louder than she would have preferred. Do you see how the two are different?

Conditions are a subclass of terms. I imagine you're thinking of the difference between contractual conditions and warranties.

That would have really annoyed me and I would not have been as polite as you evidently were. Complain and try for a refund at least. Absolutely Infuriating.!!

If it happens again(missing a train because of other trains) go and find a staff member/train crew/ticket office - the best person can vary and explain the situation before you board. I've always been issued a permit to travel when it's the train that has screwed me.

TOC = terms of carriage. Terribly sorry if you had difficulty working that out.
Before using the sarcasm you may wish to actually check the facts. TOC = Train Operating Company. NRCOT = National Rail Conditions Of Travel.

Complain about the manner you were dealt with. Highlight your train was delayed, giving full details of the when and where and say you expect a full refund as you had to buy another ticket due to the rail company's delay.

Happens to all of us and is bloody annoying. I paid for another ticket, last week, as the first one was too late to connect, so their fault not mine. They need to be flexible, it is not an issue when there are seats but they want us to pay double to begin with for flexible tickets.

Curious situation. Since if you missed your train and asked whether they'd allow you to get on the next one, the train manager usually will, so long as there is adequate seating.

Before using the sarcasm you may wish to actually check the facts. TOC = Train Operating Company. NRCOT = National Rail Conditions Of Travel.

Oh I know I was wrong. I was being sarcastic because the poster in question clearly knew exactly what I was talking about so was just pointing it out to be tediously condescending rather than because I had genuinely caused confusion.