EMT catches old lady

On 1 Oct, 12:31, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> ... soon after the old lady catches an EMT train.
>
> The problem? She bought an Open ticket (well that's what she insists the
> ticket office told her it was) a couple of weeks ago to travel to London
> to see her daughter. But when the day came to travel she wasn't feeling
> well and so the trip was postponed. The gripper refused to accept the
> ticket today and relieved her of an additional forty quid, under
> protest, naturally. The return half is still valid of course.
>
> The lady was *very* impressed that I could produce a copy of EMT's
> "changes to your fares" leaflet, which helped defuse the situation a
> little, but has merely moved the goalposts slightly (why was she told
> the ticket was open, and why isn't the "day of issue only" rule better
> advertised).

Any idea if it actually was an open ticket?

In message
<045f13b2-9c98-446a-bcbd-6cc684c8cf10@x41g2000hsb..com>, at
15:55:26 on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Mizter T <mizter.t@> remarked:
>> The problem? She bought an Open ticket (well that's what she insists the
>> ticket office told her it was) a couple of weeks ago to travel to London
>> to see her daughter. But when the day came to travel she wasn't feeling
>> well and so the trip was postponed. The gripper refused to accept the
>> ticket today and relieved her of an additional forty quid, under
>> protest, naturally. The return half is still valid of course.
>>
>> The lady was *very* impressed that I could produce a copy of EMT's
>> "changes to your fares" leaflet, which helped defuse the situation a
>> little, but has merely moved the goalposts slightly (why was she told
>> the ticket was open, and why isn't the "day of issue only" rule better
>> advertised).
>
>Any idea if it actually was an open ticket?

I think so, because she said the train trip had now "cost her over a
hundred pounds", and the gripper seemed to agree that she'd been caught
by the change in the rules. If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
issue.
--
Roland Perry

On 2 Oct, 07:36, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <045f13b2-9c98-446a-bcbd-6cc684c8c...@x41g2000hsb..com>, at
> 15:55:26 on Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Mizter T <mizte...@> remarked:
>
> >> The problem? She bought an Open ticket (well that's what she insists the
> >> ticket office told her it was) a couple of weeks ago to travel to London
> >> to see her daughter. But when the day came to travel she wasn't feeling
> >> well and so the trip was postponed. The gripper refused to accept the
> >> ticket today and relieved her of an additional forty quid, under
> >> protest, naturally. The return half is still valid of course.
>
> >> The lady was *very* impressed that I could produce a copy of EMT's
> >> "changes to your fares" leaflet, which helped defuse the situation a
> >> little, but has merely moved the goalposts slightly (why was she told
> >> the ticket was open, and why isn't the "day of issue only" rule better
> >> advertised).
>
> >Any idea if it actually was an open ticket?
>
> I think so, because she said the train trip had now "cost her over a
> hundred pounds", and the gripper seemed to agree that she'd been caught
> by the change in the rules. If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
> it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
> portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
> issue.
>

If so then the EMT guard was out of order and should have let it be
rather than making her cough up more money.

Roland Perry wrote:

> If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
> it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
> portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
> issue.

Er-hem. As far as I am aware, outward portions of Savers have /never/
been restricted to "day of issue".

Ian

In message
<bcf99174-1211-4676-82f1-dfd07d23521c@d31g2000hsg..com>, at
01:37:45 on Thu, 2 Oct 2008, The Real Doctor <ian.groups@>
remarked:
>> If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
>> it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
>> portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
>> issue.
>
>Er-hem. As far as I am aware, outward portions of Savers have /never/
>been restricted to "day of issue".

The day they were issued for, obviously. Or are you saying that the
outward portion of a saver is also valid for month?
--
Roland Perry

On 2 Oct, 11:12, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <bcf99174-1211-4676-82f1-dfd07d235...@d31g2000hsg..com>, at
> 01:37:45 on Thu, 2 Oct 2008, The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@>
> remarked:
>
> >> If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
> >> it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
> >> portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
> >> issue.
>
> >Er-hem. As far as I am aware, outward portions of Savers have /never/
> >been restricted to "day of issue".
>
> The day they were issued for, obviously. Or are you saying that the
> outward portion of a saver is also valid for month?
>

I can only presume Ian is engaging in pedantry.

On 2 Oct, 17:59, Mizter T <mizte...@> wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 11:12, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In message
> > <bcf99174-1211-4676-82f1-dfd07d235...@d31g2000hsg..com>, at
> > 01:37:45 on Thu, 2 Oct 2008, The Real Doctor <ian.gro...@>
> > remarked:
>
> > >> If it had been an offpeak (nee Saver) ticket
> > >> it would have been much easier to explain to her that the outward
> > >> portion wasn't, and never had been, valid other than for the day of
> > >> issue.
>
> > >Er-hem. As far as I am aware, outward portions of Savers have /never/
> > >been restricted to "day of issue".
>
> > The day they were issued for, obviously. Or are you saying that the
> > outward portion of a saver is also valid for month?
>
> I can only presume Ian is engaging in pedantry.-

Didn't the outward portion used to be valid for three days, or am I
imagining that? (Thinking back to some time in the 1980s when I
changed my mind about my outward journey.)