Greater Anglia passenger response goes viral

[DarloRich]

@Bungle - have you thought he might not have known he had 28 days to claim? It may come as a shock to know that the majority of people, unlike the members of this august forum, have no real knowledge of anything to do with Railways or how they seek redress.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
god forbid anyone should treat the deadly serious world of railway operations with anything other than the most profound reverence and respect

 

[Bungle73]

@Bungle - have you thought he might not have known he had 28 days to claim? It may come as a shock to know that the majority of people, unlike the members of this august forum, have no real knowledge of anything to do with Railways or how they seek redress.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
god forbid anyone should treat the deadly serious world of railway operations with anything other than the most profound reverence and respect

It says one has 28 days on the form, so why wouldn't he have known?

 

[DarloRich]

do we know he used a form? Perhaps he simply wrote to GA asking for a refund.

 

[Bungle73]

do we know he used a form? Perhaps he simply wrote to GA asking for a refund.

Doesn't one have to use the form? And even if one doesn't it would have stated it where ever he got the details from.

I'm just a passenger, and saying things as I see them. To me this a classic case of someone not following quite simple rules and then throwing a strop when things don't go their way.

 

[DarloRich]

We dont know he used a form. What if he just got the correspondence address for GA off the web and fired off a letter. We also assume he knew, within 28 days, that he was entitled to make a claim for a refund

You need a form to claim but you can only use a form if you know there is one! I would hope in those circumstances GA would have the brain to send the form out rather than the standard brush off letter.

 

[Bungle73]

We dont know he used a form. What if he just got the correspondence address for GA off the web and fired off a letter.

It says on the website, like I said it would

We also assume he knew, within 28 days, that he was entitled to make a claim for a refund

Well then it's tough cheese, he's too late.

You need a form to claim but you can only use a form if you know there is one! I would hope in those circumstances GA would have the brain to send the form out rather than the standard brush off letter.

How would he not know, yet know that compensation was available?

This is all excuses. Bottom line is he didn't get his rear into gear soon enough, and that's all there is to it. No one's fault but his own.

 

[DarloRich]

@ Bungle - i dont understand your first line. I am suggesting that he found out he could claim from somewhere and wrote a letter to GA via an address taken from the web site. What are you saying?

As for the rest it is the standard i know the system, therefore you should know the system response.

Anyway all that is straying away from the OP. We were talking about the letter suggesting GA insert their previous letter into a place where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[Bungle73]

@ Bungle - i dont understand your first line. I am suggesting that he found out he could claim from somewhere and wrote a letter to GA via an address taken from the web site. What are you saying?

I'm saying that it states quite clearly on the relevant section of the GA website that one has only 28 days to claim.

Bascially you're saying that he didn't bother to find out what the correct procedure was. And this is GA's fault?

As for the rest it is the standard i know the system, therefore you should know the system response.

Not really. The information is out there, and easily available, for those that choose to go in search of it.

 

[transmanche]

@Bungle - have you thought he might not have known he had 28 days to claim? It may come as a shock to know that the majority of people, unlike the members of this august forum, have no real knowledge of anything to do with Railways or how they seek redress.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
god forbid anyone should treat the deadly serious world of railway operations with anything other than the most profound reverence and respect

Doesn't one have to use the form? And even if one doesn't it would have stated it where ever he got the details from.

What if he didn't know he was entitled to a refund? TOCs often seem reluctant to mention it and have claim forms handy. I've told lots of friends/acquaintances about DelayRepay if a delayed journey comes up in conversation - and that might be weeks after the event. He might have rung up GA to get the address to send a letter to. There are so many possibilities for missing the arbitrary 28-day deadline.

I'm disappointed that so many people on here are so willing to defend the 'system' and so quick to condemn those who don't have an in-depth knowledge of 'how it all works'.

I can't think of any other situation where a company has failed to provide the service contracted for, yet refuses to refund the money paid because of an arbitrarily set 28-day deadline - and still have have people defending that as acceptable.

 

[Bungle73]

What if he didn't know he was entitled to a refund? TOCs often seem reluctant to mention it and have claim forms handy. I've told lots of friends/acquaintances about DelayRepay if a delayed journey comes up in conversation - and that might be weeks after the event. He might have rung up GA to get the address to send a letter to. There are so many possibilities for missing the arbitrary 28-day deadline.

I'm disappointed that so many people on here are so willing to defend the 'system' and so quick to condemn those who don't have an in-depth knowledge of 'how it all works'.

I can't think of any other situation where a company has failed to provide the service contracted for, yet refuses to refund the money paid because of an arbitrarily set 28-day deadline - and still have have people defending that as acceptable.

It all boils down to the fact that he was too late. I don't see how it is anything else. I'm sure there must be a reason for the 28 day cut off. Why should they make an exception for this one person? If they do they'd have to do it for everyone and then the cut off becomes meaningless.

And they did provide a service. A ticket is a contract to transport you from A to B, nothing else.

 

[transmanche]

And they did provide a service. A ticket is a contract to transport you from A to B, nothing else.

Thank you for proving my point!

 

[Bungle73]

Thank you for proving my point!

Which point was that? Since GA run more multiple trains a day I don't see what you were getting at?

Give one good reason why they should make an exception for this one person. That he "didn't know" isn't good enough.

 

[transmanche]

Which point was that?

I'll give you a hint. You quoted it in your reply.

 

[Bungle73]

I'll give you a hint. You quoted it in your reply.

No, I still don't get it.

Tell me this: why is it when it comes to the railways certain people either expect the rules to be bent for them as a matter of course, or expect the rules not to apply to them at all, and when they choose not to follow them it's the railway company's "fault" when it comes back to bite them on the rear.

 

[transmanche]

No, I still don't get it.

"Well the information is all there for you. It's not my fault if you can't find it."

And I'm sure you must find that response perfectly acceptable - being as you've been defending GA for doing just that...

 

[bb21]

I think we are straying from the central point here. The point I made is that it is an immature and childish response to something that the author did not agree with. Some people clearly find it an acceptable behaviour because he was (possibly) fobbed off. I don't find it acceptable behaviour under any circumstance. There are many other ways to vent one's frustration and there is always a civil way to escalate matters further than front-line staff without resorting to abusive language.

Whether I think the 28-day timeline is reasonable or not is not at all relevant here. If you don't agree with it, deal with it like a civilised person. At least that is what I would do.

We can all agree to disagree. We come from different backgrounds, have different life experience and have different takes on this sort of behaviour. There is no reason why we have to agree with each other, and there isn't really a right or wrong answer.

 

[Bungle73]

"Well the information is all there for you. It's not my fault if you can't find it."

And I'm sure you must find that response perfectly acceptable - being as you've been defending GA for doing just that...

It's written quite clearly on their website, and on the form itself! What more do you expect? Perhaps the MD should have personally phoned him up at a time of his convenience to personally convey the information that he only had 28 days.......

 

[transmanche]

It's written quite clearly on their website, and on the form itself! What more do you expect? Perhaps the MD should have personally phoned him up at a time of his convenience to personally convey the information that he only had 28 days.......

And here comes the straw man...

Which takes us neatly back to post #39. Your defence of the-railway-that-can-seemingly-do-no-wrong and the notion that all-customers-who-get-caught-out-by-the-rules-are-idiots is quite simply bizarre.

 

[DarloRich]

@Bungle - whilst i am sure you are right is it not possible that the author of the immature and childish/funny (delete as you wish) letter simply wrote a letter to GA having found, by some third party non railway route, that he was entitled to a refund and needing an address for said letter took the following simple steps:

1)Fired up google
2)used the phrase Greater Anglia address
3)Having been directed to their web site, via the first return being "contact us"
4)selected the Contract directory
5)Copied down their customer service address at Norwich station
6)sent of his letter.

You will note, i am sure, that at no point have i ever, using this suggestion, interacted with a form! Furthermore, using this route there is no obvious link to a refund procedure! Of course, this couldn't possible occur though could it?

Apologies for straying further off the original topic but I felt the point needed to be made. Bluntly.

 

[455driver]

I wonder if all those that find it funny would think the same if a TOC employee had sent a similarly sarcastic response to a complainant?

I am sure they would be shouting about it being disgusting, they should be sacked etc etc.

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder if all those that find it funny would think the same if a TOC employee had sent a similarly sarcastic response to a complainant?

I am sure they would be shouting about it being disgusting, they should be sacked etc etc.

I would still find it funny. I doubt their employers would..................

 

[Bungle73]

And here comes the straw man...

Which takes us neatly back to post #39. Your defence of the-railway-that-can-seemingly-do-no-wrong and the notion that all-customers-who-get-caught-out-by-the-rules-are-idiots is quite simply bizarre.

I don't believe I said that did I? I did not.

The deadline is 28 days, and he "didn't know" is not a good enough excuse. I'm still waiting for a good reason why an exception should be made for this particular person.

@Bungle - whilst i am sure you are right is it not possible that the author of the immature and childish/funny (delete as you wish) letter simply wrote a letter to GA having found, by some third party non railway route, that he was entitled to a refund and needing an address for said letter took the following simple steps:

1)Fired up google
2)used the phrase Greater Anglia address
3)Having been directed to their web site, via the first return being "contact us"
4)selected the Contract directory
5)Copied down their customer service address at Norwich station
6)sent of his letter.

You will note, i am sure, that at no point have i ever, using this suggestion, interacted with a form! Furthermore, using this route there is no obvious link to a refund procedure! Of course, this couldn't possible occur though could it?

Apologies for straying further off the original topic but I felt the point needed to be made. Bluntly.

Don't you think it would have been prudent to actually find out what the procedure to initiate a claim was first, before wasting everyone's time by firing off a random letter?

 

[transmanche]

I'm still waiting for a good reason why an exception should be made for this particular person.

And I'm still waiting to find out why some people will defend 'the system' come what may. I guess we're both going to have to wait a long time.

Don't you think it would have been prudent to actually find out what the procedure to initiate a claim was, before wasting everyone's time by firing off a random letter?

And whose time has been wasted?

As an aside, I forwarded the link to the Metro story to a few friends who are senior managers in areas such as marketing and customer service. The general consensus was that the letter was 'genius', 'a wake-up call to to companies offering complacent customer service' and 'the MD ought to see this - it's the only way he'll understand how customers feel'.

 

[northwichcat]

Small claims court? You must be joking.....

In some of your posts on this thread you've referred to no reason being given as to why they didn't make the claim within 28 days. However, there also isn't any information as to the value of the ticket or how it was paid for or even whether or not there were multiple people travelling.

If the purchase was covered by a debit/credit card guarantee scheme* and the TOC didn't offer the product advertised and refused a refund then a refund may be available via an alternative method.


* Over £100 on credit card or any value on Visa Debit card.

 

[Bungle73]

In some of your posts on this thread you've referred to no reason being given as to why they didn't make the claim within 28 days. However, there also isn't any information as to the value of the ticket or how it was paid for or even whether or not there were multiple people travelling.

If the purchase was covered by a debit/credit card guarantee scheme* and the TOC didn't offer the product advertised and refused a refund then a refund may be available via an alternative method.


* Over £100 on credit card or any value on Visa Debit card.

Tell me how they "didn't offer the product advertised"? If one train is cancelled one simply gets on the next one.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Purchasing a ticket is part of a contract to get you from one place to another, from what we can gather GA did precisely that although a train was cancelled which delayed passengers. GA have fulfilled their side of the deal so talk of small claims court is over dramatic and irrelevant.

 

[northwichcat]

Tell me how they "didn't offer the product advertised"? If one train is cancelled one simply gets on the next one.

If the train you intend to catch is cancelled and you purchased a ticket before you are informed of the cancellation then they didn't offer the product advertised and you are entitled to a refund if you chose not to travel instead of travelling on the next service. An 11:00 train may get you to your destination 30 minutes before a meeting, a 12:00 train may get you there just as the meeting is drawing to a close. You may not be able to reschedule the meeting to be an hour later but are able to rearrange it for a different day - in which case you need a refund on your existing ticket and the purchase of a new ticket for the alternative date.

As a comparison to the airline industry a couple of months ago I received an email from EasyJet saying due to an alteration in allocated landing slots my flight is now scheduled to land just 5 minutes later. It went on to say if this is no longer convenient then I can request a refund or free transfer to an alternative service.

 

[Bungle73]

If the train you intend to catch is cancelled and you purchased a ticket before you are informed of the cancellation then they didn't offer the product advertised and you are entitled to a refund if you chose not to travel instead of travelling on the next service.

As a comparison to the airline industry a couple of months ago I received an email from EasyJet saying due to an alteration in allocated landing slots my flight is now scheduled to land just 5 minutes later. It went on to say if this is no longer convenient then I can request a refund or free transfer to an alternative service.

I'm not sure if you're on a wind up or what? GA run multiple services a day so cancelling ONE train is not "not providing the service advertised". Your ticket is is a contract to transport you from A to B, and nothing else, just like I said previously, and Matt Taylor just reiterated.

 

[transmanche]

Your ticket is is a contract to transport you from A to B, and nothing else, just like I said previously

It's like you have some sort of mantra: "The railway system is perfect. It cannot possibly be wrong. If you don't know and understand all the myriad hidden and mysterious terms and conditions it's your fault. The system must be protected at all costs."

In any other industry, not giving a refund after failing to deliver the advertised service would be deemed as outrageous. Regardless of the customer's "rights", the decent thing, the moral thing to do is to give the guy his refund. But no, it's the customer's fault for not following "da rulez".

Your continued defence of the system in spite of its obvious deficiencies and inequality between the contracting parties is to say the least, baffling and bordering on the perverse.

 

[Bungle73]

It's like you have some sort of mantra: "The railway system is perfect. It cannot possibly be wrong. If you don't know and understand all the myriad hidden and mysterious terms and conditions it's your fault. The system must be protected at all costs."

In any other industry, not giving a refund after failing to deliver the advertised service would be deemed as outrageous. Regardless of the customer's "rights", the decent thing, the moral thing to do is to give the guy his refund. But no, it's the customer's fault for not following "da rulez".

Your continued defence of the system in spite of its obvious deficiencies and inequality between the contracting parties is to say the least, baffling and bordering on the perverse.

Tell me how the advertised service was not delivered??

It was.

The guy was too late, that is the end of it.

You're the kind of person, I'm sure, that I'm winds up rail staff. The kind that when something goes wrong everyone is to blame but themselves.