Suggestion re prosecution cases: No Advice to be given without seeing paperwork/correspondence?

[sheff1]

The big paper clip and the words Attach files is a large giveaway.

I can't see any paper clip or the words "Attach files".

 

[Hadders]

Sometimes the way in which people seeking our helop explain what's happened is confusing and an easy way to understand what has actually happened is to ask them to upload the documentation. This also has the advantage that we can check to make sure the train company have followed the correct procedure.

Occasionally someone posts something straightforward and simple in which case we don't necessarily need to see the documentation.

 

[alistairlees]

I can't see any paper clip or the words "Attach files".

Click "reply". As if by magic...

To answer AlterEgo's original question: I think the Forum should consider implementing a policy that only a small group of "qualified / trusted" members should answer posts in this sub-forum. It is mostly the same people who provide excellent advice; but threads can become derailed when new / less knowledgeable people butt in / start to talk about their pet topics (off-topic).

 

[Ediswan]

To answer AlterEgo's original question: I think the Forum should consider implementing a policy that only a small group of "qualified / trusted" members should answer posts in this sub-forum. It is mostly the same people who provide excellent advice; but threads can become derailed when new / less knowledgeable people butt in / start to talk about their pet topics (off-topic).

Not barmy, but need to consider the longer term. How would somebody new qualify to join that group after the initial selection had been carried out ? How would subject experts in new ticketing systems demonstrate their value ?

 

[sheff1]

Click "reply". As if by magic...

Well what do you know .... I had never noticed that in all the years using this forum - just the icons at the top to add a link or image

To answer AlterEgo's original question: I think the Forum should consider implementing a policy that only a small group of "qualified / trusted" members should answer posts in this sub-forum. It is mostly the same people who provide excellent advice; but threads can become derailed when new / less knowledgeable people butt in / start to talk about their pet topics (off-topic).

How would this small group be selected ?

I generally tend to avoid the 'prosecution' threads from people with no tickets as that is not an area which interests me, but will contribute on threads relating to routeing or ticketing validity matters in which I consider myself to be quite knowledgable, but certainly not infallible. Happy to step away if my input is no longer wanted

 

[alistairlees]

Well what do you know .... I had never noticed that in all the years using this forum - just the icons at the top to add a link or image

No problem!

How would this small group be selected ?

I tend to avoid the 'prosecution' threads from people with no tickets as that is not an area which interests me, but will contribute on threads relating to routeing or ticketing validity matters in which I consider myself to be quite knowledgable, but certainly not infallible. Happy to step away if my input is no longer wanted

I think it's already clear who those best placed to respond are. I was suggesting this only for "prosecution" type threads in this sub-forum; it's fairly obvious what they are.

 

[sheff1]

I think it's already clear who those best placed to respond are. I was suggesting this only for "prosecution" type threads in this sub-forum; it's fairly obvious what they are.

Fair enough

 

[1955LR]

Well what do you know .... I had never noticed that in all the years using this forum - just the icons at the top to add a link or image

Neither had I, again just the icons to add a link etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not barmy, but need to consider the longer term. How would somebody new qualify to join that group after the initial selection had been carried out ? How would subject experts in new ticketing systems demonstrate their value ?

Not necessarily a bad idea but sometimes outside posters do spot things the regulars don’t. And of course some of the disputes in there relate to more trivial low stakes things like delay repay miscalculated. It’s not all about revenue protection.

 

[VauxhallandI]

How about a template that helps set out the facts at the start in a clear manner?

 

[MotCO]

Not necessarily a bad idea but sometimes outside posters do spot things the regulars don’t. And of course some of the disputes in there relate to more trivial low stakes things like delay repay miscalculated. It’s not all about revenue protection.

There are some legal issues which are discussed, and some non-legal issues (such as proof reading a draft response for clarity, questioning inconsistencies in information provided, etc). If legal advice is being given, should forum members declare that they are a solicitor so the OP knows whether the advice given has some legal basis? Or is this asking too much of forum members, or breaking any forum or confidentiality rules?

 

[WesternLancer]

Which does of course raise the question why not pay the correct fare in the first place.

Does indicate the TOC name and shame posters illustrating people who have gone to court have no impact on some people at least (but presumably do have an impact on others).

The endemic nature of fare evasion amongst many people in the UK - of all backgrounds - as we have discussed before on here - is of course a factor. So widespread that many people who have friends or colleagues who do it and seem to get away with it that they presumably feel they 'might as well do so too'.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

So widespread that many people who have friends or colleagues who do it and seem to get away with it that they presumably feel they 'might as well do so too'.

Until, of course, they get caught, and start bemoaning how it will now "ruin their life".

 

[WesternLancer]

Until, of course, they get caught, and start bemoaning how it will now "ruin their life".

Indeed!

 

[Haywain]

Does indicate the TOC name and shame posters illustrating people who have gone to court have no impact on some people at least (but presumably do have an impact on others).

Such posters are not widely used though, so will have little impact where they are not.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not wishing to influence things one way or another but the comments being made are being read and thought about, we're not deliberately ignoring this thread!

 

[Birmingham]

When (as does happen from time to time) a thread comes up where all the information we need to give advice is in the original post even if there are no documents, then that’s when people provide advice without waiting for the papers.

Which I think is actually a problem that the OP’s suggestion tackles, as sometimes it transpires that an OP has misled the forum (either deliberately or accidentally) and caused responders to give the wrong advice.

 

[Ediswan]

Not necessarily a bad idea but sometimes outside posters do spot things the regulars don’t.

Maybe somethig akin to the 'Report' feature could be provided to cover that.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Which I think is actually a problem that the OP’s suggestion tackles, as sometimes it transpires that an OP has misled the forum (either deliberately or accidentally) and caused responders to give the wrong advice.

I'm not convinced that a fixed approach would deal with deliberate misinformation (unless the deliberate misinformation is not self-consistent). And a lot of the time, it's only by engaging the OP in conversation that leads to the original story unravelling. If we're expecting a single (albeit accurate) shot from the OP, how do we start (and sustain) the conversation?

 

[andrew749]

In my non-railway experience of helping people (union rep in the civil service), I'm rarely told the whole story straight away. However, I do wonder what purpose it serves when lots of people jump in with questions for an OP one after another before the OP has had a chance to answer the first one.

 

[Dai Corner]

In my non-railway experience of helping people (union rep in the civil service), I'm rarely told the whole story straight away. However, I do wonder what purpose it serves when lots of people jump in with questions for an OP one after another before the OP has had a chance to answer the first one.

All the more reason to try to get those seeking assistance to supply all the relevant information in their first post by means of a form or otherwise as I and other posters have suggested.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

However, I do wonder what purpose it serves when lots of people jump in with questions for an OP one after another before the OP has had a chance to answer the first one.

Not usually helpful as you suggest, but on more than one occasion, an OP will initially post a contradictory tale of woe, and then disappear off the forum, without replying, for an extended period of time.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

However, I do wonder what purpose it serves when lots of people jump in with questions for an OP one after another before the OP has had a chance to answer the first one.

I am prepared to defend multiple people asking questions before the first one has been answered (downside - it’s potentially intimidating to the OP, upside - if their initial story is unclear it can gather the additional facts needed quite quickly). A related problem which doesn’t necessarily need a change of rules but a change of behaviour on our parts is when multiple people ask the same question / give the same answer. Sometimes it’s unavoidable (poster A and poster B both post at the same time without being able to see each other’s responses) and sometimes it’s necessary (poster A has given good advice but the OP has indicated that they will ignore it: poster B reinforces poster A’s advice, perhaps by saying it in a different way) but in general it would be good if we only posted if we had something both new and helpful to say.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Open question: Are the "Wait for x expert to come along..." posts helpful/necessary?

 

[zwk500]

Open question: Are the "Wait for x expert to come along..." posts helpful/necessary?

Depends on the context. An immediate reply summarising the situation (e.g. Criminal records, settlements) but indicating that further advice will be forthcoming can be very helpful in reassuring the OP.

 

[ainsworth74]

Open question: Are the "Wait for x expert to come along..." posts helpful/necessary?

I can answer that one, we'd prefer it if people didn't do that in future where that's the only contribution they're making to a thread thank you

 

[skyhigh]

Just thinking, would it be possible to allow new members to create threads in this section, but not reply to existing ones until they've made a certain number of posts? This would hopefully stop new members just posting "Any updates on what happened?" on older threads when looking for advice in their own situation.

Alternatively I guess you could reduce the time between no new posts and the thread getting auto locked to stop dead threads being dug up asking for updates.

 

[FenMan]

Just thinking, would it be possible to allow new members to create threads in this section, but not reply to existing ones until they've made a certain number of posts? This would hopefully stop new members just posting "Any updates on what happened?" on older threads when looking for advice in their own situation.

Alternatively I guess you could reduce the time between no new posts and the thread getting auto locked to stop dead threads being dug up asking for updates.

With respect, this and other suggestions are overreach, in my opinion.

This is an internet forum with all that that entails, good and not so good.

I am a firm believer in the "wisdom of crowds" principle, This sub-forum has attracted a critical mass of regular posters willing to share the benefit of their industry, legal and local knowledge to provide sound advice and guidance to those who've ended up on the wrong side of the railway, be it a ticketing irregularity, a disputed delay repay claim, or whatever. On occasion they get it wrong, however they are soon corrected. I hope these contributors would agree that they too have learned from others who also post here.

While it can be irritating when someone who fairly obviously doesn't have much expertise, or worse, has an axe to grind, makes a contribution that is less than helpful, that is what is what the Report button is for.

I'll be open, I've submitted a Report in the past - when a contributor with a legal background posted endlessly about minutiae, to the extent that entire threads were being derailed (sorry). I note that contributor no longer frequents this sub-forum very often.

 

[fandroid]

I believe that @AlterEgo has a point. I suspect the moderators are already on to this, but could some amendments be made to the the pinned Advice at the head of this section? I would suggest adding something along the lines of "if you have received a letter/letters from the train company, please attach images of that/those (all pages) to your post, redacting all personal information that might identify you or anyone else involved."

Then add a bit of advice to potential advice givers about only posting if they have advice to give or are trying to get a confusing thread back onto the facts of the case. Advice to be carefully based on the facts already presented but that shouldn't prevent any requests for further clarification.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I would suggest adding something along the lines of "if you have received a letter/letters from the train company, please attach images of that/those (all pages) to your post, redacting all personal information that might identify you or anyone else involved."

Agreed, and I’d also add something to the effect of “because this will help make sure you get advice that’s relevant to your case - no two cases are identical”