Family and Friends Rail Tickets and Railcard

FARE-COP

getting-sorted-sarah wrote: »

No. you can put 2 adult names on the card - and they don't need to be related - it is an idea if your friend has not already filled that space.
I've never been asked for ID, in 20 years of using a Family Railcard, btw.

It's worth remembering that you CANNOT add another name if your friend did not name the second adult user at the time the Railcard was purchased.

This is Condition 1 of the Freinds & Family Railcard:

1. Both the First named holder and the Second named holder must sign the Railcard before use to show acceptance of all the Conditions listed in this leaflet. The name of the Second holder must be provided at the time of purchase and may not be added during the period of validity of the Railcard.

Other really important and relevent conditions are:

2. 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(s) can use the Railcard.

3. Group size: To enable discounted tickets to be used the minimum group is one child and one named Railcard holder. The maximum group size is up to four adults (aged 16 years and over) including the named cardholder(s), and four children (aged 5-15 years).

4. If the named holders travel separately, only one of the holders may use the Railcard.

Worth remembering this one too:

6. You must carry your Railcard with you on your journey and when asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard. If you fail to do so, you and each member of your group will be required to pay the full price Standard Single fare for your journey as if no tickets were purchased before starting the journey and in some cases a Penalty Fare. This does not apply if there was no ticket office at the station at which you began your journey or if the ticket office was closed and there was no ticket machine from which you could buy discounted tickets.

If you are travelling in a group, never split up while travelling. See below:

7. Additional accompanying passengers for whom discounted tickets are purchased must travel with the Railcard holder throughout the journey.

These are also key points to remember to avoid any difficulty:

11. The Railcard will not be valid if it is damaged. The Train Companies do not undertake to replace damaged, lost or stolen Railcards, to issue refunds on unused/unwanted Railcards, or to extend their validity.

12. The Railcard and all tickets issued at a Railcard discount are issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the Conditions listed here.

13. The Railcard does not become your property and if requested must be handed in to a representative of any Train Company.

No, there is nothing in the Railcard conditions that state you must carry separate evidence of identity, BUT, that does not mean any inspector cannot ask for it.

It is worth remembering that the Railcard always remains the property of the Rail Company and if the inspector is suspicious, he / she has the right to sieze it and report fraudulent misuse.

It really is best to follow the rules on this one. If your friend already has a card you cannot borrow it if you were not named on it at the time of issue, so I again suggest that you buy your own card as soon as possible before you travel.

Enjoy your journeys

omelette451

FARE-COP wrote: »

IThis is Condition 1 of the Freinds & Family Railcard:

1. Both the First named holder and the Second named holder must sign the Railcard before use to show acceptance of all the Conditions listed in this leaflet. The name of the Second holder must be provided at the time of purchase and may not be added during the period of validity of the Railcard.

No, there is nothing in the Railcard conditions that state you must carry separate evidence of identity, BUT, that does not mean any inspector cannot ask for it.

How likely is it, really, that the inspector would check with the original records to see if the second signature was added at the time of purchase?

If it doesn't say in the Ts&Cs or Conditions of Carriage that you have to carry secondary proof of identity an inspector will not be able to demand you present it. Unlike many other countries in the UK there's no law saying we have to carry ID around with us, so unless it's been made clear in advance that it's necessary (as with most airlines, for example) it would be unfair to declare the ticket invalid because no ID was being carried.

I would never advise people to break the rules, but it's important to stay on the side of reason here. Yes the railcard can be confiscated, but it would be unfair and probably unlawful to do so unless there is reasonable evidence that fraud has been committed - e.g. if it were obvious that the railcard had been stolen or tampered with. Contrary to what the press would have us believe, this is not a police state.

FARE-COP

I'm not suggesting that we're in a police state either Omlette451, and I know that you are not advocating breaking the rules, so I don't think we are miles apart on this one.

I've simply pointed out the rules and condition 13 is a rule.

13. The Railcard does not become your property and if requested must be handed in to a representative of any Train Company

Unlikely that it might seem, let's assume that the user of someone else's railcard is asked for ID by an inspector doing nothing more than his job.

What's he going to do?

Option 1, he may immediately own up, say 'It isn't mine, I borrowed it' and get the card confiscated and a report made out. A costly mistake and with more to come.

Option 2, he may refuse to provide ID in which case he gives the inspector just cause to suspect misuse of the card and gets the card confiscated and a report made out anyway.

Option 3, he may say 'Sorry, I haven't got any other ID with me' in which case he may well get away with it most times, but what if he meets that 'jobsworth' that so many who frequently post queries seem to think that all rail inspectors are? The 'jobsworth' will definitely retain the railcard and submit a report citing the belief that a misuse may be evident. Same result as before.

In every case, no matter how unlikely or how much we may not like it, the rail inspector has done nothing wrong. The rules are simply being upheld so any complaint would not result in any reprimand for the rail staff.

My view is that people post genuine enquiries on here with the intention of trying to avoid spending more than they need and I will always try to help if I can. In this case it means play by the rules.

I really do know you were not advocating commiting any offence and no matter how small the risk, and no matter how trivial the offence might seem, I still think the best way to guarantee saving money is to cut out the risk.

All the best

omelette451

FARE-COP wrote: »

Option 3, he may say 'Sorry, I haven't got any other ID with me' in which case he may well get away with it most times, but what if he meets that 'jobsworth' that so many who frequently post queries seem to think that all rail inspectors are? The 'jobsworth' will definitely retain the railcard and submit a report citing the belief that a misuse may be evident. Same result as before.

In every case, no matter how unlikely or how much we may not like it, the rail inspector has done nothing wrong. The rules are simply being upheld so any complaint would not result in any reprimand for the rail staff.

...And this is where we differ in opinion. And thinking about it, it may be because the rules contradict themselves. The inspector is within his rights to confiscate the card, but in this (hypothetical) situation he is doing it as a direct result of the passenger's not being able to present ID. Since neither the rules nor the law originally mentioned any need to carry ID, the passenger has, according to the evidence available, committed no offence (at this stage the offence is still suspected by the inspector). The rules say the inspector still has the right to confiscate the railcard, but I would contend that to do so in this case would be unfair since, according to UK law and custom, people must be assumed to be innocent until proved otherwise. Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise (actual evidence, rather than just a suspicion), I think the passenger has be given the benefit of the doubt. As far as I understand this is what the police would have to do in such a situation, and the railways should not have a law of their own.

Having said all that, I would hope that the likelihood of any inspector being quite that 'jobsworth' is very small. Certainly from my own experience I've always found them to be reasonably human and even, on occasion, nice. And now I've sorted that I probably ought to stop writing.

ticketcollector

Checking additional ID on railcards was done very rarely. Of course if I get a female presenting a Mr X card I will ask for ID to authenticate the surname.

Other times if I have a hunch that there is something wrong with the railcard I will ask for ID.

Failure to give me ID on request, will make you look like you've something to hide and thus grounds for me to confiscate as I have reasonable cause, and of course a TIR is submitted (more paperwork).

omelette451 - when you purchase a ticket you agree to the terms and conditions therein. You agree it is the property of the relevant railway company and you agree it can be retained by an authorised official at any time. If you don't like the rules/T&C don't buy the ticket!

omelette451

ticketcollector wrote: »

Failure to give me ID on request, will make you look like you've something to hide and thus grounds for me to confiscate as I have reasonable cause, and of course a TIR is submitted (more paperwork).

omelette451 - when you purchase a ticket you agree to the terms and conditions therein. You agree it is the property of the relevant railway company and you agree it can be retained by an authorised official at any time. If you don't like the rules/T&C don't buy the ticket!

That's all very well, but the case discussed above relates to instances where the passenger has no other form of ID to present. My argument was that it is unfair to suspect someone of fraud simply for having no ID when neither the railway laws nor UK law says it must be carried. Therefore, your suspicisions would potentially be based on unfair grounds so, unless there is any other evidence of fraud, I think the passenger would have to be given the benefit of the doubt. British law assumes innocence until guilt can be proved, so why should railway staff be given more powers than the police?

cheap_charlie

When I renewed my Family & Friends Railcard last year 2nd named person has their name printed on there, beside my name, also printed on.

And while it is relatively rare for you to be asked for ID when using your card, don't think you won't be.

I have been asked a couple of times and must admit to being somewhat surprised the first time - but the train operator is within their rights to do so.

ETA - you can buy one for £18 until the end of March if you buy online using the code featured here...

http://www.nationalexpresseastanglia.com/train_tickets/railcards/18_family_friends_railcard_25_off