Lumo Revenue Enforcement on Strike Day

[DeverseSam]

@Adam Williams @Watershed
There are 3 sides to every thread here. We have the unusual luxury of reading a quasi TOC response on this particular thread, it would seem unfortunate to discourage such posts just because it might contravene their social media policy. That’s not to say you shouldn’t disagree with the points made

 

[Bluejays]

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

I hadn't realised that myself, think it was my wrong post that led to the confusion. In that case it would be interesting to know what actually happened. Could have been RPI or police support requested at Doncaster that didn't turn up.

Still, I'm firmly of the belief that the train crew appear to have got a bit too tied up in this. If I requested RPI support at a station and they didn't turn up that's just one of those things. The idea of then launching a stakeout operation at the barriers seems a bit much !

As for the op, certainly worth an appeal. Would try and keep communication civil with Lumo, hopefully they take a customer service approach to the matter

 

[Adam Williams]

@Adam Williams @Watershed
There are 3 sides to every thread here. We have the unusual luxury of reading a quasi TOC response on this particular thread, it would seem unfortunate to discourage such posts just because it might contravene their social media policy. That’s not to say you shouldn’t disagree with the points made

There are ways in which an anonymous FirstGroup employee could have responded to this thread that I wouldn't have taken issue with, but it is entirely unprofessional to make comments about a customer's attitude in a public space when they've been issued with a UPFN and are here seeking assistance based entirely on hearsay (even if the post is qualified with a comment about there being other customers with worse attitudes) - particularly when the operator is the entity in a position of authority, and is demanding payment from OP.

I am aware there are 3 sides to every story and I'm not one to assume the train operator is the party automatically at fault, but it does seem to me based on what's been said so far that this entire debacle could have been avoided.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

We don't know the full story, no. This is very often the case with disputes in this area of the forum. The OP can only receive advice as good or relevant as the fullness of the story we have told though and it's not our problem if the advice turns out not to be prescient because of a concealed fact.

 

[DeverseSam]

it is entirely unprofessional to make comments about a customer's attitude in a public space

Possibly true, but by mentioning the social media policy you’ve discouraged them from posting on this thread at all, and it would have been interesting if they had come back and eg. say, upon reflection, the passenger was in the right, or double down on the previous points because xyz

 

[AlterEgo]

Possibly true, but by mentioning the social media policy you’ve discouraged them from posting on this thread at all

That was probably for that poster's benefit. You would be surprised how easy it is to find out who a poster is in real life. People aren't as anonymous on here as they sometimes like to think.

 

[DeverseSam]

That was probably for that poster's benefit. You would be surprised how easy it is to find out who a poster is in real life. People aren't as anonymous on here as they sometimes like to think.

Ah fair enough. It’s not worth them losing their job over especially as they weren’t involved.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I am aware there are 3 sides to every story and I'm not one to assume the train operator is the party automatically at fault, but it does seem to me based on what's been said so far that this entire debacle could have been avoided.

The whole situation could have been avoided but I get the impression that the OP is constantly looking for loopholes and alleged ambiguities to exploit. Take this for example:

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.

You are either issued with an UFN or you aren’t. There are no grey areas so it isn’t a case of considering you have been issued with one or not. It has either been issued or it hasn’t.

I would caution the OP to be careful what advice they heed and about how they choose to proceed because their attempts at exploiting ambiguities and seeking loopholes hasn’t been very successful so far and there is no reason to believe their success rate will improve.

 

[Adam Williams]

The whole situation could have been avoided but I get the impression that the OP is constantly looking for loopholes and alleged ambiguities to exploit. Take this for example:

It's difficult to imagine that the OP set out to do this from the outset. They had booked with a generally more expensive, frankly better quality train operator on a service that was unfortunately cancelled.

What "loophole" is being exploiting by boarding a train during disruption and trying to get to their destination?

They may well be looking for ways to avoid paying the UPFN, but I'd remind you that they already paid for a service that was not provided by the rail industry. I don't blame them for being unimpressed with this and seeking to avoid paying what is sought by Lumo given the procedural irregularities in this case.

 

[Bertie the bus]

They may well be looking for ways to avoid paying the UPFN, but I'd remind you that they already paid for a service that was not provided by the rail industry. I don't blame them for being unimpressed with this and seeking to avoid paying what is sought by Lumo given the procedural irregularities in this case.

The service was provided by the rail industry (not that there actually is such a thing) otherwise they wouldn't have arrived in London shortly after on an LNER service.

 

[AdamWW]

You are either issued with an UFN or you aren’t. There are no grey areas so it isn’t a case of considering you have been issued with one or not. It has either been issued or it hasn’t.

According to something quoted from Lumo above, they don't hand you a piece of paper.

They take your contact details then send you an email or a letter in the post.

Maybe you can't imagine a member of staff "issuing" a UFN in that way without making it clear to the passenger that this is why they were taking contact details, but I can.

So if the description above of how Lumo handle UFNs is correct then yes it either has been issued or it hasn't, but the passenger doesn't necessarily know that.

 

[matt_world2004]

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.


Ah yes, how awfully entitled of them to expect Lumo to do the right thing (both morally and lega87lly). 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.


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


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 tak

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









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.

Being argumentative, and entitled doesn't seem reason to call the btp threatening abusive, violent and aggressive yes

But given the btp didn't speak to the OP on any of these issues , it is unlikely that he was

 

[furlong]

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.

Define "stranded"! 28.2 doesn't use that word.

Perhaps you're thinking of the old NRCOC which said:
"If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you."

The new 28.2 is a lot broader - "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 pieces in bold have gone - Lumo gains an obligation to assist irrespective of whether or not LNER would also be able to do so - the precondition has gone. Was there disruption? Yes - the only train on which the ticket was valid didn't run - so 28.2 kicks in. The fact that LNER is also offering an alternative does not mean Lumo doesn't also have an obligation.

Further, the Advance ticket T&Cs state unambiguously "Tickets are valid ONLY on the date and train service(s) shown on the ticket(s)". No ifs and buts - the ticket is only ever "valid" on ONE service. The provision "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey" is not qualified by operator and doesn't override the definition of "valid".


Or to put it another way, this whole area has turned into an inconsistent mess of overlapping provisions which aren't necessarily aligned with common custom and practice and where each party can find something to support their point of view and it's anyone's guess what conclusion a court would reach in any particular circumstances!

 

[fandroid]

According to something quoted from Lumo above, they don't hand you a piece of paper.

They take your contact details then send you an email or a letter in the post.

Maybe you can't imagine a member of staff "issuing" a UFN in that way without making it clear to the passenger that this is why they were taking contact details, but I can.

So if the description above of how Lumo handle UFNs is correct then yes it either has been issued or it hasn't, but the passenger doesn't necessarily know that.

Lumo's written policy on UFNs describes them as a document that enables the passenger to complete their journey. So, normally, we would expect a paper doc to be handed over at the time. There's a sight ambiguity because the OP had already completed the part of the journey that Lumo were interested in, but as they fully expected to be paid later on, it would have been very appropriate to have handed one over at Kings Cross.

I think we should take the OP's word on what happened, and that no UFN was issued at the time nor confirmed immediately after in accordance with Lumo's stated policy. Whatever other railway staff say about training and processes, it's a very human thing for individual staff to interpret procedures in their own individual ways.

 

[AlterEgo]

Lumo's written policy on UFNs describes them as a document that enables the passenger to complete their journey. So, normally, we would expect a paper doc to be handed over at the time. There's a sight ambiguity because the OP had already completed the part of the journey that Lumo were interested in, but as they fully expected to be paid later on, it would have been very appropriate to have handed one over at Kings Cross.

I think we should take the OP's word on what happened, and that no UFN was issued at the time nor confirmed immediately after in accordance with Lumo's stated policy. Whatever other railway staff say about training and processes, it's a very human thing for individual staff to interpret procedures in their own individual ways.

Lumo themselves say a UFN can be an online matter which is emailed to the customer. From their site:

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. (sic)

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.

I think issuing a paper copy and a receipt is vastly preferable to this, but it's what Lumo do, which is not entirely in line with the rest of the industry (no surprise there!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2023 ==

Or to put it another way, this whole area has turned into an inconsistent mess of overlapping provisions which aren't necessarily aligned with common custom and practice and where each party can find something to support their point of view and it's anyone's guess what conclusion a court would reach in any particular circumstances!

I think we can both agree on this! As usual, a total mess, and as usual, the industry reels from deciding what a "journey" actually means. 'Twas ever thus.

 

[fandroid]

Lumo themselves say a UFN can be an online matter which is emailed to the customer. From their site:



I think issuing a paper copy and a receipt is vastly preferable to this, but it's what Lumo do, which is not entirely in line with the rest of the industry (no surprise there!).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2023 ==


I think we can both agree on this! As usual, a total mess, and as usual, the industry reels from deciding what a "journey" actually means. 'Twas ever thus.

But in many circumstances a passenger who'd been put in that position would have to have something to hand that would get them through ticket gates at the end of their journey! A promise of an email and/or letter would definitely fail to impress some of the RPIs at gatelines that we regularly read of in this forum.

 

[AlterEgo]

But in many circumstances a passenger who'd been put in that position would have to have something to hand that would get them through ticket gates at the end of their journey! A promise of an email and/or letter would definitely fail to impress some of the RPIs at gatelines that we regularly read of in this forum.

Believe me I’m not disagreeing! It’s a very unsatisfactory process and I think definitely worth the OP pressing Lumo on.

 

[fandroid]

Believe me I’m not disagreeing! It’s a very unsatisfactory process and I think definitely worth the OP pressing Lumo on.

The magic words are "enable them to complete their journey" Lumo might mostly live in a world of their own, but we ought to be able to assume that their policy will have been checked by a professional rail person.

 

[AdamWW]

But in many circumstances a passenger who'd been put in that position would have to have something to hand that would get them through ticket gates at the end of their journey! A promise of an email and/or letter would definitely fail to impress some of the RPIs at gatelines that we regularly read of in this forum.

Quite. If this really is their policy it won't be long before we have someone on here complaining that Lumo issued them a UFN then when they got to the end of the journey they were issued with another one or reported for prosecution.

But putting that aside, as in this case there is the ambiguity of whether one was actually issued. How does the passenger know when handing over their contact details that a UFN is being issued if the member of staff chooses not to mention it?

 

[John Palmer]

The wording of Lumo's UFN policy indicates pretty clearly that a UFN is to be issued to the passenger whilst his journey is still in progress, so enabling him to complete it. The policy goes on to state that in addition a copy of the UFN will be sent to the passenger by post or email. I still think it would be helpful for the OP to say whether any such copy was received, and, if it was, to provide an image of it with personal details suitably obscured.

Regardless of some contributors' suspicions that the OP is seeking to exploit loopholes and ambiguities, one need look no further than the posted image of the UFN reminder notice to see that Lumo's prosecuting agent treats it as having been issued at 15:38 on 1st February. That must mean that, if a UFN was ever issued at all, it was issued at a time when the OP had long since alighted at Doncaster from the Lumo train concerned, and as such was not issued in accordance with Lumo's UFN policy.

The very first post in this thread contains a clear statement that “I was told I could pay an additional fare or leave the train at Doncaster, the first opportunity” and makes it clear that the OP took the second option. That is entirely consistent with the non-issue a UFN whilst the journey to Doncaster was still in progress and a belated Lumo decision instead to demand payment of a fare some hours later at Kings Cross, as suggested by the 15:38 timestamp on the reminder notice. If that is a correct summary of the sequence of events then I do not see how Lumo can properly renege upon its offer to let the passenger alight at Doncaster without charge once that offer had been accepted.

 

[Starmill]

The service was provided by the rail industry (not that there actually is such a thing) otherwise they wouldn't have arrived in London shortly after on an LNER service.

They didn't arrive "shortly after" their booked time. So it was "provided", but in very different conditions to those agreed by the company.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Apr 2023 ==

their attempts at exploiting ambiguities and seeking loopholes

This is a very dishonourable thing to accuse someone of. What evidence have you got to support your claims that this is what the OP has done? You don't appear to have explained any in this thread?

 

[185]

I don't doubt for one moment that the passenger probably upset the revenue staff when explaining their reason for boarding but that should never warrant an out of course stop for a revenue issue which did not warrant BTP taking any action.

FirstGroup Lumo's failure to apply basic common sense on a strike day shows they have no place on our railway, and while I welcome genuine open-access operators creating "new market" destinations, scroungers like FirstGroup Lumo abstracting the LNERs rich pickings from a historic, long existing market are not genuine - they just greedy corporate shoplifters.

They can take their luggage restrictions too and [I'll stop now].

My opinion. I'm proudly Lumophobic.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't doubt for one moment that the passenger probably upset the revenue staff when explaining their reason for boarding

Easily enough done.

I was once accused by a guard of not being sufficiently polite when I think my surprised response on being accused at having an invalid ticket was entirely reasonable, given that there should have been absolutely no doubt about its validity.

(Nothing obscure - a ticket between the two stations that the guard worked between, specific to the operator they worked for. But unfortunately they couldn't understand the difference between some local off-peak day returns which weren't valid on one afternoon train and an off-peak return with no peak restrictions).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Easily enough done.

If you're tall, physically imposing or have a deep voice, people often accuse you of being threatening or abusive even if you're simply making a polite but assertive complaint (e.g. using the phrase "that isn't really good enough"). I've had it more than once, and it's ridiculous, it just shows poorly trained staff or staff who can't be bothered or who think you should Respect Their Authoritaaah* rather than daring to disagree with them. In the end, if you're so weak you can't deal with an unhappy customer assertively (but not rudely or abusively) making a justified** complaint then you're not fit for a front-line customer facing job and should instead find one in an internal office or similar (or on the railway a job like driving).

* thanks, South Park/Cartman
** You may not think it's justified but they do and that needs respecting if you want to turn the situation into a good customer service outcome even if they don't get their way

 

[43066]

The new 28.2 is a lot broader - "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 pieces in bold have gone - Lumo gains an obligation to assist irrespective of whether or not LNER would also be able to do so - the precondition has gone. Was there disruption? Yes - the only train on which the ticket was valid didn't run - so 28.2 kicks in. The fact that LNER is also offering an alternative does not mean Lumo doesn't also have an obligation.

It still isn’t an absolute obligation, and operators can and do decline ticket acceptance in various circumstances. That isn’t regarded as acceptable by certain posters on here, but it’s the reality.

It’s hardly unreasonable for Lumo to decline to carry someone in the OP’s situation where they could simply have joined a following LNER service.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Apr 2023 ==

This is a very dishonourable thing to accuse someone of. What evidence have you got to support your claims that this is what the OP has done? You don't appear to have explained any in this thread?

Equally there’s no evidence of wrong doing by Lumo, other than the OP’s assertions, and we know from experience that they can’t always be taken at face value (not this OP in particular, but that applies to this section in general).

I tend agree with the comments above, to the effect that there’s something a little odd about the situation described here, and I suspect more happened than we are being told.

 

[DanNCL]

Lumo need to decide if they want to be part of the national rail network or not and stick to it. They can't pick and choose the bits of NRCOT they want to adhere to and ignore the rest of it, either it all applies to them or if they don't want to adhere to NRCOT they can leave and accordingly lose all revenue from off peak and anytime tickets that aren't TOC specific. This isn't just about ticketing, this is about their luggage policy and other things too.

I can't say I'm surprised that First group staff have been stopping people getting off trains from other TOC's at stations they don't manage - I've encountered this myself twice with TPE RPIs, once getting off an LNER service at York and once getting off a Northern service at Carlisle. What are the rules surrounding RPI's stopping people alighting trains from other TOCs at stations not managed by the RPI's TOC?

Equally there’s no evidence of wrong doing by Lumo, other than the OP’s assertions, and we know from experience that they can’t always be taken at face value (not this OP in particular, but that applies to this section in general).

I tend agree with the comments above, to the effect that there’s something a little odd about the situation described here, and I suspect more happened than we are being told.

I'd suggest that the UPN being issued at a time when the OP was not on a Lumo service and therefore Lumo were inelligible to issue a UPN is evidence of wrongdoing on Lumo's part. However I agree there's probably more to this than we know.

 

[185143]

Lumo need to decide if they want to be part of the national rail network or not and stick to it. They can't pick and choose the bits of NRCOT they want to adhere to and ignore the rest of it, either it all applies to them or if they don't want to adhere to NRCOT they can leave and accordingly lose all revenue from off peak and anytime tickets that aren't TOC specific. This isn't just about ticketing, this is about their luggage policy and other things too.

I can't say I'm surprised that First group staff have been stopping people getting off trains from other TOC's at stations they don't manage - I've encountered this myself twice with TPE RPIs, once getting off an LNER service at York and once getting off a Northern service at Carlisle. What are the rules surrounding RPI's stopping people alighting trains from other TOCs at stations not managed by the RPI's TOC?


I'd suggest that the UPN being issued at a time when the OP was not on a Lumo service and therefore Lumo were inelligible to issue a UPN is evidence of wrongdoing on Lumo's part. However I agree there's probably more to this than we know.

Most TOCs have agreements with each other to check each other's tickets.

See the amount of blocks done by Northern RPIs at the likes of Macclesfield.

 

[Haywain]

I can't say I'm surprised that First group staff have been stopping people getting off trains from other TOC's at stations they don't manage - I've encountered this myself twice with TPE RPIs, once getting off an LNER service at York and once getting off a Northern service at Carlisle. What are the rules surrounding RPI's stopping people alighting trains from other TOCs at stations not managed by the RPI's TOC?

You mean stopping people who have alighted from trains rather than physically preventing people alighting, don't you? If so, ticket checking is very often a shared task and revenue blocks at York are usually a joint operation among the various TOCs who operate there. At other stations the station operator is entitled to check tickets of all passengers regardless of which TOC's train they have arrived on.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Strangely enough my TOC specific travel documents quite cleary say should not be produced to a representative of any other Train Operating Company.

 

[MikeWh]

Strangely enough my TOC specific travel documents quite cleary say should not be produced to a representative of any other Train Operating Company.

Interesting. Are they only valid on your TOCs services? What would you do if a block at a station run by another company asked to see them?