Lumo Revenue Enforcement on Strike Day

[Adam Williams]

Furthermore Lumo damage the reputation of the wider rail industry by getting up to these sorts of antics. For better or worse, people see the railway as a collective organisation and so they're hurting their future sales as much as LNER's by refusing to assist here.

They're also even less likely to get ticket acceptance from LNER in future, though they seem to have pretty much given up on even trying to arrange that, instead sending people via a mystery tour of the West Midlands on Avanti when they cancel their services.

Agree entirely with this. Given government has preached continuously about how revenue recovery is paramount right now, you'd think attention to customer service during disruption would feature on the agenda of every train operator.

It has a knock-on effect on retailers too, who end up having to deal with the fallout because the operator's customer service is poor and doesn't prioritise providing timely responses to customers or resolving issues on the ground properly.

 

[centro-323]

Good to see the same old regulars on this forum still delivering their regular barrage of open-access hatred at every opportunity.

Also seems unusual for BTP to attend for a small ticketing offence?

I agree that BTP attendance is surprising, unless there is more to the story than we so far know.

I'm afraid this is a confusing case and it’s hard to believe we have all the relevant information here.

Is it possible that the OP was perhaps, shall we say, less than polite to them?

A failure of the "attitude test" would cause some staff to bring in the big guns.

Let's just say a lot people were on the right lines very early on.

From what I've heard, our OP here certainly wasn't the worst of a bad bunch that day, but they didn't particularly help themselves with their attitude either. BTP were due to meet the LNER service that many of the LNER-ticket-holding customers had been transferred to (many of them being argumentative, entitled, offensive, and generally disruptive) to discuss their refusal to purchase a valid ticket, and then our OP was spotted by one of the Lumo staff who was assisting the BTP, and asked to also account for their incorrect ticket.

I've been on plenty of Lumo services where people have had the wrong ticket, but the decision is only taken to make an unscheduled stop if either a vulnerable person has boarded the wrong train (and will be stranded), OR if the passengers concerned are no longer welcome on the service due to their behaviour.

 

[Adam Williams]

From what I've heard, our OP here certainly wasn't the worst of a bad bunch that day, but they didn't particularly help themselves with their attitude either.

Frankly, it comes across as quite unprofessional for an employee of a train operator to be slinging mud at passengers online - particularly against the backdrop of what would appear to be an active investigation. Is that compliant with FirstGroup's social media policy?

 

[johncrossley]

and then our OP was spotted by one of the Lumo staff who was assisting the BTP, and asked to also account for their incorrect ticket.

That is outrageous!

 

[Watershed]

Let's just say a lot people were on the right lines very early on.

From what I've heard, our OP here certainly wasn't the worst of a bad bunch that day, but they didn't particularly help themselves with their attitude either.

How are you in a position to make that assertion? You have previously said you are a Lumo driver, so you can't have been the member of crew that the OP spoke to. Why, therefore, are you taking someone else's account (e.g. a colleague's) at face value, yet denigrating the passenger's account?

It seems extremely imprudent and unprofessional to be posting in this manner on a public website, and highly unlikely to be in line with FirstGroup's social media policy.

BTP were due to meet the LNER service that many of the LNER-ticket-holding customers had been transferred to (many of them being argumentative, entitled, offensive, and generally disruptive)

Ah yes, how awfully entitled of them to expect Lumo to do the right thing (both morally and legally). Isn't it rather foreseeable that if people are wrongly asked to pony up for a new ticket, they'll be less than pleased? Particularly when they have already been inconvenienced by the rail industry to even end up in that situation.

to discuss their refusal to purchase a valid ticket

You mean Lumo's refusal to honour the Advance ticket terms?

and then our OP was spotted by one of the Lumo staff who was assisting the BTP, and asked to also account for their incorrect ticket.

It's unbelievable how deep into the mindset of "the customer is always wrong" some people are. How can anyone possibly consider this a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances?

 

[centro-323]

Pretty much what I expected here.

"How dare you suggest that our world view of the small open-access operator being akin to a fascist police state is somehow not the full truth, and that they actually wanted the BTP in attendance to deal with some passengers' less-than-stellar behaviour! The outrage of it all!"

Etc.

 

[johncrossley]

Pretty much what I expected here.

"How dare you suggest that our world view of the small open-access operator being akin to a fascist police state is somehow not the full truth, and that they actually wanted the BTP in attendance to deal with some passengers' less-than-stellar behaviour! The outrage of it all!"

Etc.

There was severe disruption to train services that day.

You have made it even clearer to casual observers to this thread that Lumo should be boycotted.

 

[centro-323]

There was severe disruption to train services that day.

I believe that is the intention of industrial action, yes

 

[johncrossley]

I believe that is the intention of industrial action, yes

So the usual rules about operator only tickets ought to be waved, instead of kicking rail passengers when they are down.

 

[Watershed]

Pretty much what I expected here.

"How dare you suggest that our world view of the small open-access operator being akin to a fascist police state is somehow not the full truth, and that they actually wanted the BTP in attendance to deal with some passengers' less-than-stellar behaviour! The outrage of it all!"

Etc.

It speaks volumes that you'd rather engage in exaggerations of what people have said than respond to the questions I posed.

Would it really hurt to take a step back and consider what the average member of the public would make of the police being called after one bit of the railway takes umbrage to a passenger taking the next train following a cancellation?

 

[Adam Williams]

It speaks volumes that you'd rather engage in exaggerations of what people have said than respond to the questions I posed.

The conduct demonstrated here in this thread brings Lumo - and to an extent, the passenger rail industry more widely - into disrepute.

The OP was advised by the retailer to ask here for advice given the substantial expertise on the forum, not to read disparaging comments from Lumo staff who had "heard" that they "hadn't helped themselves with their attitude" on the day and to try to justify the actions of colleagues who had decided to involve BTP in the matter.

You really couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[30907]

The OP was advised by the retailer to ask here for advice given the substantial expertise on the forum,

I have re-read the OP's 4 posts and they do not make that claim - do you have another source?

 

[Adam Williams]

I have re-read the OP's 4 posts and they do not make that claim - do you have another source?

Yes, myself.

 

[yorkie]

I have re-read the OP's 4 posts and they do not make that claim - do you have another source?

The OP specifically states where they purchased the ticket from (i.e. Trainsplit) in the opening post.

@Rugose can you please press the report button on this post and let us know when you have an update? We will then reopen the thread.

Lumo have encouraged you to contact them, so please do so if you haven't already.

https://twitter.com/LumoTravel/status/1621207741745303556

Hi there. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. If your member can please emails us at customerexperience@lumo.co.uk we will look into it as a matter of urgency. ^Marc

Until we have an update, this thread is locked.

 

[Rugose]

To give an update, as requested: yesterday I received a letter from Lumo's agent (First Customer Contact). Headed "Reminder: Unpaid Fare Notice Issued 01 February 2023" it is a demand for £72 ("unpaid fare") + £55 ("administrative costs"), totalling £127. I haven't until now contacted Lumo, as I was hoping they might see sense and drop the matter. I will now of course put my case on the unreasonableness of their actions (I'm hoping TrainSplit will provide the supporting statement they thought was merited).

The letter is headed "Reminder" and claims that an Unpaid Fare Notice was issued to me at 15.38 on the day of travel. This must refer to the exchange at Kings Cross when I was stopped in the presence of BTP. However, at no point then, or during the original exchange on the Lumo train, was the cost of the fare being demanded given. I was simply told I had to pay a fare, to which I had said my ticket shows I've already paid a fare. At Kings Cross the Lumo revenue protection officer did take a photo of the email on my phone which showed the advice I'd been following due to the cancellation of the LNER train. I didn't consider an unpaid fare notice had been issued.

Regarding the amount being sought, the £72 single fare sounds excessive, given that I was only on the Lumo train between Newcastle and Doncaster (and no opportunity to produce my senior railcard!). And how is the £55 "administrative costs" arrived at?

I'm disturbed that a few of the contributions to this thread suggest that Lumo has characterised my behaviour as contributing to the unscheduled stop at Doncaster and the involvement of BTP at Kings Cross. I was polite in all my exchanges with Lumo staff. It did, however, feel to me as though I was having to stand up to bullying behaviour. As one of the BTP officers said to me at Kings Cross, "sometimes revenue protection staff can be a bit overzealous".

I appreciate the experience and wisdom of Forum members. If there is any further advice I could use in framing my representation to Lumo, it would be gratefully received.

 

[furlong]

Perhaps write a brief covering letter setting out your position, and forward the correspondence to Trainsplit, copied to FCCL basically telling the two companies to sort it out between themselves as you believe you followed the instructions you were given by Trainsplit not to buy a new ticket and pointing out that if there was meant to be some implicit so-called "operator restriction" involved, as has been explained to you since, that term was not explained as it should have been and therefore was not binding on you? Suggest anyway that what Lumo did represents a direct breach of its obligation under NRCoT 28.2 which is worded in a way that permits a wide interpretation? "Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you."

(Nothing to lose too in mentioning the Obligation to Carry from the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement at some point "10-2 (1) (b) If any event occurs which is capable of affecting two or more trains of an Operator and is likely to result in passengers who are using or wish to use those trains being delayed by more than an hour, every other Operator must use its reasonable endeavours to enable the passenger to complete his journey on its trains at no extra charge." ?)

 

[WesternLancer]

To give an update, as requested: yesterday I received a letter from Lumo's agent (First Customer Contact). Headed "Reminder: Unpaid Fare Notice Issued 01 February 2023" it is a demand for £72 ("unpaid fare") + £55 ("administrative costs"), totalling £127. I haven't until now contacted Lumo, as I was hoping they might see sense and drop the matter. I will now of course put my case on the unreasonableness of their actions (I'm hoping TrainSplit will provide the supporting statement they thought was merited).

The letter is headed "Reminder" and claims that an Unpaid Fare Notice was issued to me at 15.38 on the day of travel. This must refer to the exchange at Kings Cross when I was stopped in the presence of BTP. However, at no point then, or during the original exchange on the Lumo train, was the cost of the fare being demanded given. I was simply told I had to pay a fare, to which I had said my ticket shows I've already paid a fare. At Kings Cross the Lumo revenue protection officer did take a photo of the email on my phone which showed the advice I'd been following due to the cancellation of the LNER train. I didn't consider an unpaid fare notice had been issued.

Regarding the amount being sought, the £72 single fare sounds excessive, given that I was only on the Lumo train between Newcastle and Doncaster (and no opportunity to produce my senior railcard!). And how is the £55 "administrative costs" arrived at?

I'm disturbed that a few of the contributions to this thread suggest that Lumo has characterised my behaviour as contributing to the unscheduled stop at Doncaster and the involvement of BTP at Kings Cross. I was polite in all my exchanges with Lumo staff. It did, however, feel to me as though I was having to stand up to bullying behaviour. As one of the BTP officers said to me at Kings Cross, "sometimes revenue protection staff can be a bit overzealous".

I appreciate the experience and wisdom of Forum members. If there is any further advice I could use in framing my representation to Lumo, it would be gratefully received.View attachment 132084

For info
the current Std Class Anytime Single fare Newcastle to Doncaster is: £79.70
The current Std Class off peak single fare is : £76.20

The fare cited may have been the one in place before the recent fares rises - ie when the incident happened.

It is usual practice for most operators to charge Anytime fares without Railcard discounts to purchases on board if pre purchase is required. I don't know if this is Lumo policy, but it may be.

Admin of £55 is relatively low. Most threads on here where people get 'out of court settlements' for example cite admin costs of maybe circa £100 to £150. But those cases may take more 'admin'.

Hope this helps for context.

If you were not issued with a bit of paper stating it was an UFN on the day surely you have not yet been requested to pay anything and thus this is not a reminder.

Prob best you compose your draft response and maybe post it up here for comment before sending it in if you think that would help get useful opinions on any amends people might suggest.

 

[ModernRailways]

So you were given the choice, remain on board and buy a ticket or you can leave the train at Doncaster. You chose to leave the train at Doncaster, thus implying that the matter was dealt with and travel was therefore authorised as far as Doncaster whereby you could change onto the correct service. A genuine error occurred and the staff on board allowed you to leave the service at the first available opportunity without additional penalty.
Upon reaching Kings Cross the staff member then spotted you in the crowd and as they had BTP around chose to stop you. The prior implication to you was that the matter was already dealt with by you leaving the train at Doncaster, thus no further payment or further resolution necessary. Had you of remained on board then you would have been happy to pay the new Lumo fare, which would have been £62.

Pre-price hike it was £72 is for an Off-Peak single (£75.30 anytime), any permitted between Newcastle and Doncaster. In this case it should surely seem odd to FCC that you would choose to pay £72 and be issued with a UFN instead of the £62 to just remain on board.

Personally, I would be making immediate contact (they work Mon-Fri, usual office hours) with them via the email address supplied outlining some of the above along with the information you have previously supplied of course gather some extra guidance from the forum experts before sending.

I would also advise making a formal complaint with Lumo with regards to the handling of this, along with the staff member involved.



The following is not advice to yourself, and for someone more experienced to possibly guide you further with:

Are Lumo allowed to issue a UFN on the station at Kings Cross, when a passenger leaves a LNER service, essentially acting as revenue enforcement for LNER?

OP has a ticket to cover the journey between Newcastle and Doncaster already, albeit on an LNER service, but Lumo do not call at Doncaster (under normal operation) so no ticket exists for them, thus correctly issuing a any permitted. Lumo has a buy on board policy for flexible tickets, so as above, it would make no sense to make OP pay an additional £10 to get off the train earlier. Would this be able to form some part of the defence around travel being authorised to Doncaster, hence the ejecting from the service.

A UFN should have been issued on the day by print out, and signed for by the OP. Not doing so, means OP has been left out of the loop and now has 12 days to resolve the matter, along with an admin fee thrown it to make it worse. It also shows OP may not have been advised correctly by the Lumo ambassador at Kings Cross? Can an admin fee be made payable when OP was unaware of the UFN being issued in the first place with no method of paying this prior?

 

[John Palmer]

The revenue protection policy page on Lumo's website (https://www.lumo.co.uk/help/revenue-protection-policy) has this to say about issue of unpaid fare notices:

“Unpaid Fare Notices (UFN)

An Unpaid Fare Notice (UFN) is a recognised travel document that permits the passenger, to whom it has been issued, to complete their journey with Lumo and pay the appropriate fare after the journey has been completed. The notice will show the station you boarded the Lumo service and what station you will depart, as well as the full anytime single fare that is due to be paid for this journey.

To correctly issue your UFN and to allow you to continue your journey without further interruption we would ask you to provide some contact information to us. This will include your name, address, contact number, and email address. We would ask that you provide correct personal contact information when asked by a member of the Lumo team. Intentionally supplying false information or refusing to give this information when asked is a criminal offense.

We instantly issue a copy of the notice by email; so, we advise that the email address you provide is one that you have access to at the time the notice is issued – you may need to show it to exit at a station. Where an email address cannot be provided, we will send out a paper copy by post - this will usually be sent within 5 working days of the notice being issued.”

If Lumo's official formed the view that the OP's case had to be dealt with by issue of an UFN then such UFN should have been issued to the OP in the course of the journey on the Lumo train concerned, not some hours thereafter. The UFN should have informed the OP at the outset of the fare being demanded. According to the OP's account neither of these things were done. In addition, Lumo should have issued a copy of the UFN to the OP by email or post, and such copy should have sent to the OP within five working days of its issue; it would be helpful to know whether any such copy was, in fact, ever issued, whether by email or post.

If the OP chooses to disregard the reminder notice and Lumo's agent makes good its threat of criminal proceedings, then proof that the requisite UFN was issued to the OP would seem to be a prerequisite of a successful prosecution for intentional avoidance of the fare. If no such UFN or the required copy was ever issued then I cannot see how such a prosecution could succeed. Similarly, if Lumo were to seek recovery of an unpaid fare by civil law process, proof would be needed that it had issued the appropriate demand for payment to the passenger concerned.

 

[43066]

That doesn't really change the position in any material way though. What ultimately matters is that they are one of the Train Companies under the NRCoT and thus have a legal obligation to assist stranded passengers if they're able to do so - even if those passengers weren't stranded by Lumo and don't hold a ticket that was valid to travel with them.

Suggest anyway that what Lumo did represents a direct breach of its obligation under NRCoT 28.2 which is worded in a way that permits a wide interpretation? "Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you."

The OP wasn’t stranded, though. They were travelling in the late morning, so could have presumably boarded the next LNER service, which their ticket would have been valid on.

There is also no absolute obligation on train operators to provide assistance, Lumo may quite reasonably take the view they they cannot accommodate potentially huge numbers of LNER passengers on their limited services.

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP wasn’t stranded, though. They were travelling in the late morning, so could have presumably boarded the next LNER service, which their ticket would have been valid on.

There is also no absolute obligation on train operators to provide assistance, Lumo may quite reasonably take the view they they cannot accommodate potentially huge numbers of LNER passengers on their limited services.

Tend to agree that the OP was not stranded. They had an alternative train, which was the next LNER one, and one which was communicated to them. Whether that communication was clear or not is open to debate but it’s not the main issue here.

I think the posts by @ModernRailways and @John Palmer are a more effective way of combating what’s happened. I also think there are significant breaches of the UFN policy and don’t think the OP should pay - they were offered the opportunity to leave at Doncaster and did so, to avoid such a liability.

 

[dosxuk]

they were offered the opportunity to leave at Doncaster

Remember the stop at Doncaster was not scheduled and was just added to offload (at least) three passengers who were unwilling to buy a valid ticket for the service they were on.

 

[AlterEgo]

Remember the stop at Doncaster was not scheduled and was just added to offload (at least) three passengers who were unwilling to buy a valid ticket for the service they were on.

Indeed - they were offered the opportunity to leave the train to correct their mistake to avoid the liability and the fact this was done specially only adds weight.

Lumo would have been entitled to collect the UFN for the whole journey had the stop not been made and this would have been relatively uncontroversial.

 

[ModernRailways]

Remember the stop at Doncaster was not scheduled and was just added to offload (at least) three passengers who were unwilling to buy a valid ticket for the service they were on.

'unwilling' has never appeared for the OP. From OPs initial post, the train crew (ambassadors) had already requested the stop at Doncaster due to the other passengers. When OPs ticket was checked and found to not be valid, they were given the option, remain on board, and buy the LUMO anytime ticket for £62, or they can leave the train at Doncaster as they will now be calling additionally there to eject some other passengers, this implies it will be without penalty and travel was authorised as far as Doncaster should OP prefer not to pay for a new ticket. OP took this implication of travel authorisation, and then boarded a correct LNER service, upon arrival at Kings Cross they were met, off an LNER service for which they held a ticket, by Lumo train crew who had now decided to issue a UFN on the concourse at Kings Cross. It would appear at the time of issuing that no documentation was given to the OP, nor was the UFN explained to them. It would then further appear that nothing had been received further by OP for a number of weeks after the incident, clearly going against Lumo's own policy.

Unless there is a lot more to this story then OP should not pay this, they left the train at Doncaster, if a UFN was going to be issued, OP could have remained on board the train and as previously stated the fare would have been £62. This has zero standing, why would OP choose to receive a UFN for £72 for a shorter distance and require a change of train as well as the additional call at Doncaster thus adding delay to the service, rather than just the £62.

A formal complaint needs raising with regards to this matter and they way it has been handled, and personally, I would also be seeking additional compensation for the stress and time taken to resolve an issue caused by an overzealous Lumo member of staff, along with some of the responses on this thread which have brought the company into disrepute.

 

[spag23]

along with some of the responses on this thread which have brought the company into disrepute.

I'd always been under the impression that advice on this forum was unbiased. So I'd be disappointed if close colleagues of the rail staff involved in an incident like this - or indeed the very staff themselves - are contributing "advice" to the OP without declaring this clear conflict of interest.
Maybe the Guidance Notes need to address this principle?

 

[185143]

I'm inclined to agree that the OP shouldn't pay the UFN being demanded. Surely the opportunity to issue a UFN existed only onboard or at Doncaster Station. At the point the OP arrived at King's Cross, they had a valid ticket for the service they'd alighted. There must be a cutoff point for issuing a UFN, they surely couldn't go to BTP and say "Joe Bloggs was on my train last week and had the wrong ticket, help me issue a UFN", could they? I know online accounts can be audited and dealt with, but that's not an Unpaid Fair Notice.

Had the Ambassador said:

"Your choice is as follows. We're making an additional stop at Doncaster. You need to get off there, but we'll be charging you £72 for the pleasure. Or, feel free to stay onboard with us, purchase a ticket valid to travel onboard this train for £62, and make sure you refund your original LNER tickets as your train was cancelled due to the Industrial Action."

I suspect the OP would have made a different choice. Given the position they are in now, I strongly doubt they'd even consider going near a Lumo train ever again.

 

[Bluejays]

Not sure how you can throw someone off at Doncaster then charge them to London. Seems like the train staff having a double dip in terms of punishments there. Either get revenue to meet at Doncaster or if not just be content they've left. Really poor behaviour from the train crew on what's been said.

I do wonder if we have the entire story though. Something about the liberal use of 'national rail trainsplit ' and references to the rail delivery group make me wonder if the passenger did a little bit more than just 'stand their ground' as suggested. Still doesn't excuse the charge to London when they left at Doncaster though.

 

[185143]

Not sure how you can throw someone off at Doncaster then charge them to London. Seems like the train staff having a double dip in terms of punishments there. Either get revenue to meet at Doncaster or if not just be content they've left. Really poor behaviour from the train crew on what's been said.

I do wonder if we have the entire story though. Something about the liberal use of 'national rail trainsplit ' and references to the rail delivery group make me wonder if the passenger did a little bit more than just 'stand their ground' as suggested. Still doesn't excuse the charge to London when they left at Doncaster though.

There's two sides to every story.

But still, the TOC (OAO I know, but the point wouldn't change if it were the reverse) to kick someone off AND taking the full fare for a journey they haven't made on their train feels like having their cake and eating it.

At the end of the day, if the OP and others have been complete "See you next Tuesdays" to the staff onboard (I am NOT accusing the OP of that, just making the point) surely the appropriate course of action would have been to get BTP to meet the train at Doncaster. Not to all them to continue travel on the LNER service.

If I were a Train Manager, and I found out another train had made an additional call to eject passengers who had been causing trouble beyond just a ticketing issue, provided they had the correct tickets for my train, the last thing I'd be doing is allowing them travel on my service.

The encounter at King's Cross suggests one of two things to me. Either the staff noticed the OP alighting, though they'd have known which train he was on, so may not be coincidental and have decided to chance their arm. Or... we don't have the full story, and maybe BTP were requested at Doncaster, and didn't show up. And the Ambassadors were waiting with BTP deliberately at King's Cross to deal with issues caused onboard the Lumo service.

 

[fandroid]

There's two sides to every story.

But still, the TOC (OAO I know, but the point wouldn't change if it were the reverse) to kick someone off AND taking the full fare for a journey they haven't made on their train feels like having their cake and eating it.

The fare being requested is the Anytime Single from Newcastle to Doncaster. So, no cakeism involved

 

[DJ_K666]

The fare being requested is the Anytime Single from Newcastle to Doncaster. So, no cakeism involved

I think you might have quoted too many posts there...