Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

[causton]

I got on a bus a couple of years ago and a 20-something man tried to get away with using his elderly relative's bus pass because he was "delivering it to her".... unsurprisingly he got kicked off, probably to try and catch the next bus!

 

[EM2]

A lot of people have an attitude that they don't have any personal responsibility, and the world owes them a living.

Unfortunately, Customer Service departments pander to them, increasing their feelings of self-importance and entitlement.

We had a customer ranting at the Duty Station Manager during a major disruption, foul and abusive language, the lot, at which point BTP were called and he was removed.
He then put a complaint in writing, the Station Manager and the TOC Station Manager decided to give hom the benefit of the doubt, invited him in for a meeting, where he then proceeded to do exactly the same. This time, he got arrested.

 

[Ferret]

We had a customer ranting at the Duty Station Manager during a major disruption, foul and abusive language, the lot, at which point BTP were called and he was removed.
He then put a complaint in writing, the Station Manager and the TOC Station Manager decided to give hom the benefit of the doubt, invited him in for a meeting, where he then proceeded to do exactly the same. This time, he got arrested.

Why did they feel the need to invite him in for a meeting in the first place?!:roll:

 

[Flamingo]

I can't help but agree with this, and if it isn't a death then it's almost always someone dying in hospital with just hours to live.

I've asked what hospital to ring them before now, funnily enough they couldn't remember...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why did they feel the need to invite him in for a meeting in the first place?!:roll:

Because the customer is always right. I know of a case where drunk abusive (1st class, it's not always STD class) passengers were removed from the train. When the complaint came in three staff, including an off-duty manager, and a passenger (who happened to be a solicitor) backed the guard up about these passengers threats and abuse of the guard and customer host.

A manager met the passengers (now sober), refunded their taxi fare home, apologised to them and told them the guard had been "dealt with appropriately".

The guard had an "interview without coffee" and one hell of a grilling about antagonising two drunks looking for a fight.

The customer is always right.

 

[exile]

Typical "discussion" on here - people arguing past each other. Staff members unable to appreciate that people make mistakes and it's not reasonable to penalise people hundreds of pounds for doing so, and passengers failing to appreciate the number of fare dodgers staff have to deal with every day. What makes it all worse is that it's been admitted that the fare dodger, if aggressive enough, is likely to get away with it, whilst the dozy passenger who's lost one of their 14 coupons or got on the wrong train has the book thrown at them.

 

[Flamingo]

Staff do appreciate that people make mistakes, and a lot of staff go out of their way to accommodate those who have.

However, a "mistake" is not wilfully ignoring conditions that have resulted in a discount because they are a pain.

 

[Ferret]

Because the customer is always right. I know of a case where drunk abusive (1st class, it's not always STD class) passengers were removed from the train. When the complaint came in three staff, including an off-duty manager, and a passenger (who happened to be a solicitor) backed the guard up about these passengers threats and abuse of the guard and customer host.

A manager met the passengers (now sober), refunded their taxi fare home, apologised to them and told them the guard had been "dealt with appropriately".

The guard had an "interview without coffee" and one hell of a grilling about antagonising two drunks looking for a fight.

The customer is always right.

Even when being in breach of the byelaw regarding being fit to be on the railway. Words fail me.

 

[monty9120]

i tried to book a ticket to watford about a month ago. i couldnt even though i checked the timetable and there were trains running that day.

i booked a ticket to euston (i could do this). i informed the twitter team (lm) in this case, and asked what the situation would be.

They just told me to get off and explain. i spoke to the ticket office at birmingham new street and they said the same thing.

i was using an advanced ticket and caught the correct train that stopped at watford.

From what i have heard on here about penalty fares i was really scared

my question. if i did get stopped and fined. where would i stand. the online system wouldnt allow me to book the correct ticket, i got on the correct train but just stopped short (obviousely i would have booked to watford if i could obviousely)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Typical "discussion" on here - people arguing past each other. Staff members unable to appreciate that people make mistakes....

Staff do appreciate genuine mistakes happen, but they can't assume one story is true and another story is not, that is why one policy should be enforced for all cases.

....and it's not reasonable to penalise people hundreds of pounds for doing so....

A genuine mistake that happens before boarding the train can be corrected before boarding the train. People in that situation who don't attempt to sort it out before boarding, when they knew the problem will arise, are simply asking for trouble.

.... and passengers failing to appreciate the number of fare dodgers staff have to deal with every day....

That shouldn't even enter the equation, you agree to a condition, you don't follow it, you suffer the consequences. Nothing to do with anyone else.

 

[SS4]

Strange how nobody has managed to come up with a foolproof method of differentiating between an honest person and a chancer :roll:

TOCs are too kind on customer service, they largely have a captive market and will never, ever be fairly represented in mass media so it's fighting a losing battle. I for one would like to see staff given proper support by their employers instead of undermining them in the name of useless customer service.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

i tried to book a ticket to watford about a month ago. i couldnt even though i checked the timetable and there were trains running that day.

i booked a ticket to euston (i could do this). i informed the twitter team (lm) in this case, and asked what the situation would be.

They just told me to get off and explain. i spoke to the ticket office at birmingham new street and they said the same thing.

i was using an advanced ticket and caught the correct train that stopped at watford.

From what i have heard on here about penalty fares i was really scared

my question. if i did get stopped and fined. where would i stand. the online system wouldnt allow me to book the correct ticket, i got on the correct train but just stopped short (obviousely i would have booked to watford if i could obviousely)

I read that as "for some unknown reason no tickets (of any kind) where not available from your chosen web retailer", please correct me if I am wrong. If you couldn't buy a ticket of any type online for whatever reason, there are other options for buying a ticket.

The staff at Watford should excess the Advance ticket to the cheapest available ticket that allows a break of journey (probably including a £10 admin fee for change of journey plans). At worst it would be a penalty fare that you could appeal against. They cannot issue fines.

If you could prove a 'paper trail' for the tweets to and from LM, then maybe customer services *might* refund that excess as 'a gesture of goodwill', but I have to say that the ticket conditions are quite specific and if you bought it online I would find it hard to believe that you didn't click on a tickbox to say you had read the terms and conditions at the time of sale. If the tweets to LM preceded the purchase (this is not the impression I get from your post) then that may make a difference.

 

[Flamingo]

Strange how nobody has managed to come up with a foolproof method of differentiating between an honest person and a chancer :roll:

TOCs are too kind on customer service, they largely have a captive market and will never, ever be fairly represented in mass media so it's fighting a losing battle. I for one would like to see staff given proper support by their employers instead of undermining them in the name of useless customer service.

Thank you

 

[AndyLandy]

If you could prove a 'paper trail' for the tweets to and from LM, then maybe customer services *might* refund that excess as 'a gesture of goodwill', but I have to say that the ticket conditions are quite specific and if you bought it online I would find it hard to believe that you didn't click on a tickbox to say you had read the terms and conditions at the time of sale. If the tweets to LM preceded the purchase (this is not the impression I get from your post) then that may make a difference.

I guess that comes down to "Does the LM twitter feed count as an 'authorised person' as per the conditions of Byelaw 18(3)(iii) 'an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.' "?

 

[IanXC]

A lot of people have an attitude that they don't have any personal responsibility, and the world owes them a living.

Unfortunately, Customer Service departments pander to them, increasing their feelings of self-importance and entitlement.

You'd be surprised how well speaking to a complainant and telling them, well you're telling me this, and the staff member is telling me that, so I'm going to offer you half the amount you're looking for works. Unless theres evidence, or the staff member admits their error I will never give more than 50%.

Why did they feel the need to invite him in for a meeting in the first place?!:roll:

Probably because seeing the whites of someones eyes usually prevents them from lying. I suspect the complainant was after a significant amount of recompense, so this way probably a good use of time.

 

[Flamingo]

You'd be surprised how well speaking to a complainant and telling them, well you're telling me this, and the staff member is telling me that, so I'm going to offer you half the amount you're looking for works. Unless theres evidence, or the staff member admits their error I will never give more than 50%.



Probably because seeing the whites of someones eyes usually prevents them from lying. I suspect the complainant was after a significant amount of recompense, so this way probably a good use of time.

I know what you are saying Ian, but outside of Ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "You were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

 

[AndyLandy]

I know what you are saying Ian, but outside of Ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "You were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

This seems to be a general problem in many (all) walks of life. "Just because someone complains, it doesn't mean they're right" -- I've seen it in my job and both of my brothers have encountered it in their work too.

 

[IanXC]

I know what you are saying Ian, but outside of Ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "You were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

Not in those words, but yes I do! Which isn't something you do lightly when the complainant going to the Ombudsman costs £500 whether we're right or wrong, but sometimes you have to stand by your principles!

I get the impression I'm not cut out for Customer Relations with a TOC?

 

[Flamingo]

I have friends who work for the NHS and they are terrified of complaints, as no matter how unreasonable ("It wasn't as nice as Holby City" was one example), the assumption is that the complainant is correct and the staff must have been in the wrong.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not in those words, but yes I do! Which isn't something you do lightly when the complainant going to the Ombudsman costs £500 whether we're right or wrong, but sometimes you have to stand by your principles!

I get the impression I'm not cut out for Customer Relations with a TOC?

That is the problem, the system is geared up to pandering to these people. The easy option is for the company to apologise regardless, therefore re-enforcing the perception that all it takes is a complaint to make everybody jump to attention.

It is so obvious, the number of people who's first response on being told "I'm sorry, this ticket is not valid for this service" is to say "I want your name, I'm making a complaint", as they KNOW this will work.

 

[IanXC]

That is the problem, the system is geared up to pandering to these people. The easy option is for the company to apologise regardless, therefore re-enforcing the perception that all it takes is a complaint to make everybody jump to attention.

It is so obvious, the number of people who's first response on being told "I'm sorry, this ticket is not valid for this service" is to say "I want your name, I'm making a complaint", as they KNOW this will work.

Yep, I have wondered in the past whether Passenger Focus would be more effective if it operated on this basis (maybe complaints are not generally complicated enough to cost £500) but I think that really you're right. There are some people who will complain at any chance.

I really feel for you guys working in a situation where Customer Relations will just give in cases like that. Yes there are times where it is clear after the event that the customer is right, but surely having the wrong ticket on the wrong train, with no other mitigating factors, the company should have no case to answer there at all.

 

[transmanche]

You'd be surprised how well speaking to a complainant and telling them, well you're telling me this, and the staff member is telling me that

Indeed. Speaking directly to a complainant (especially a serial complainer)can resolve the issue and be advantageous to the company. Again it comes down to Net Promoter theory... it's far easier to turn a 'detractor' into a 'promoter', then it is to turn a 'neutral' into a 'promoter'.

Sometimes all people want is for their complaint to brought to the attention of someone 'senior enough'

Some may call this 'pandering', others call it good business sense.

but outside of Ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "You were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

And yes it does happen. Many years ago I worked as a bank cashier, and the day after an armed raid a customer made a comment to me saying that we ought to be 'raided more often" because the queue was too long - along with some other unpleasant comments. (As it was the day after the raid, there were a couple of people on sick leave, so yes the queue was long.) I told him to f***k off. He complained; was invited in to speak to the area manager, who listened to his complaint and then presented him with a cheque for the balance of his account - telling him the bank didn't want to do business with him anymore.

Similarly in other jobs, I have made it plain when meeting customers that we weren't going to meet their request and whilst "we'd be sorry to lose them as a customer we understood if they felt they needed to take their business elsewhere"(!).

 

[IanXC]

Indeed. Speaking directly to a complainant (especially a serial complainer)can resolve the issue and be advantageous to the company. Again it comes down to Net Promoter theory... it's far easier to turn a 'detractor' into a 'promoter', then it is to turn a 'neutral' into a 'promoter'.

Sometimes all people want is for their complaint to brought to the attention of someone 'senior enough'

Some may call this 'pandering', others call it good business sense.

Indeed, pretty much all my customer contact is complaints, and yet I receive more letters of praise than almost anyone else.

And yes it does happen. Many years ago I worked as a bank cashier, and the day after an armed raid a customer made a comment to me saying that we ought to be 'raided more often" because the queue was too long - along with some other unpleasant comments. (As it was the day after the raid, there were a couple of people on sick leave, so yes the queue was long.) I told him to f***k off. He complained; was invited in to speak to the area manager, who listened to his complaint and then presented him with a cheque for the balance of his account - telling him the bank didn't want to do business with him anymore.

Similarly in other jobs, I have made it plain when meeting customers that we weren't going to meet their request and whilst "we'd be sorry to lose them as a customer we understood if they felt they needed to take their business elsewhere"(!).

I was reading that thinking this customer would have to go...

 

[AlterEgo]

I guess that comes down to "Does the LM twitter feed count as an 'authorised person' as per the conditions of Byelaw 18(3)(iii) 'an authorised person gave him permission to travel without a valid ticket.' "?

Yes, they do count IMO.

Essentially, there is no hard and fast definition of an "authorised person". What needs to be considered is:

A) Whether the person authorising travel has the means to do so, and

B) Whether the person being authorised to travel can reasonably believe that the authority is genuine and valid.

TOC customer services/relations staff most certainly are "authorised persons" as per the NRCoC.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

i know what you are saying ian, but outside of ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "you were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

 

[sheff1]

Sometimes all people want is for their complaint to brought to the attention of someone 'senior enough'

Some may call this 'pandering', others call it good business sense.

I agree with this.

If I make a complaint with due cause, nothing is then more irritating than to receive a standard computer produced 'apology' generated by someone pushing a few buttons, who has either not read or not understood my letter. Far better to receive a response from someone who has both read and understood and has the intellectual ability to draft a reply which addresses the points made.

This is why, if anyone asks, I say that South West Trains (who adopted the first approach) are a company I would not recommend, whereas I would praise both Hull Trains and London Midland (who used the second approach) ... even though, at the time of the incidents, I was inconvenienced more by HT & LM than I was by SWT.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not in those words, but yes I do! Which isn't something you do lightly when the complainant going to the Ombudsman costs £500 whether we're right or wrong, but sometimes you have to stand by your principles!

I get the impression I'm not cut out for Customer Relations with a TOC?

Erm... TOCs pay £500 for every referral to Passenger Focus?

 

[IanXC]

Erm... TOCs pay £500 for every referral to Passenger Focus?

Nope, I work in a different industry. It does focus the mind on getting complaints resolved to the customers satisfaction! However that doesn't mean we just cave in!

 

[AlterEgo]

Nope, I work in a different industry. It does focus the mind on getting complaints resolved to the customers satisfaction! However that doesn't mean we just cave in!

Right, I get you! I assume you work in financial services? Thought you worked for a TOC there!

Having a cost involved to defend a case against a regulator is ridiculous in my view.

 

[CNash]

I thought I'd be going off at a tangent here but the conversation seems to have drifted towards customer service anyway. I hope you won't mind my observations on why people on the wrong end of a penalty fare think that the guard is "rude"; I'm sure this is mostly well known and common sense, though.

People in this country (and, I suspect, many other Western countries) are conditioned to expect a very conciliatory attitude from front-line customer service professionals. It's not the oft-quoted "the customer is always right" - as a lot of the time they're not! - but in most cases, the person serving you is expected to be friendly and helpful, and when they have to give you bad news they're always apologetic and eager to try and mitigate any loss or damage caused to you.

Consequently, the uncompromising attitude (friendly or not) of RPIs and train guards throws these people for a loop. The guards and RPIs among you know this kind of response very well:

How dare they treat me like a criminal! Who do they think they are, the police? They're just some jobsworth, probably on commission - I just made an honest mistake, why are they being so rude?

And in a split-second, the customer's image of the staff member changes from an ordinary front-line customer service professional just doing their job, to a hard-nosed authoritarian figure there to deliver stiff punishments with no remorse. It's a (perceived) attitude that people only expect from high authority figures, like the police or court judges, and it rankles them when someone who's "just doing a job" has the audacity to treat them like that. It doesn't matter whether or not you think you've been rude - to them, the fact that you've deviated from the normal customer service "pattern" means that you are rude, and they'll match your rudeness with their anger.

 

[island]

I know what you are saying Ian, but outside of Ryanair does anybody ever say to these people - "You were in the wrong, so sod off and annoy somebody else"?

Ryanair has a policy that no publicity is bad publicity.

 

[Flamingo]

Good reply CNash. I've had a letter of complaint about my "rudeness" when charging somebody up, and two letters of commendation from other passengers about how professionally I handled a difficult customer. The only point you made I would take issue with is when you say the passenger is thinking "I just made an honest mistake". In my experience, at least 75% are thinking "I've got away with it before, why is it not working this time...".

 

[stut]

Good reply CNash. I've had a letter of complaint about my "rudeness" when charging somebody up, and two letters of commendation from other passengers about how professionally I handled a difficult customer. The only point you made I would take issue with is when you say the passenger is thinking "I just made an honest mistake". In my experience, at least 75% are thinking "I've got away with it before, why is it not working this time...".

Do bear in mind, though, that not all of your colleagues are as knowledgeable or as professional as you. I've seen numerous occasions where a guard/RPI has waded in guns blazing, unprovoked, despite the customer having a valid ticket (or indeed when the fabled "man in the platform" has been real - yes, FCC staff at STP/KGX who don't know how to excess an off-peak ticket, I'm looking at you...)

In those situations, the behaviour of the RPI in question can make it very difficult to continue to stand your ground politely, particularly when, for example, they are shouting at your wife. And again, as much as you try to keep yourself free of prejudice, it does rather taint your dealings with other RPIs.