Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"

[michael769]

In my experience, at least 75% are thinking "I've got away with it before, why is it not working this time...".

I think you are being over generous there..... I'd put it closer to 95%!

 

[BestWestern]

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

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

This is a very valid point, and one which I would totally agree with. As a Guard myself, it makes me weep to hear some of the tales of how a small minority of woefully inept colleagues in the grade behave towards sometimes completely innocent customers. Sadly there remains an attitude among some that they are the boss, and anybody who disagrees with them can go to hell. My personal view is that all TOCs should be aware of who these people are, and should invest whatever is required in additional training to stamp it out.

 

[CNash]

The only point you made I would take issue with is when you say the passenger is thinking "I just made an honest mistake". In my experience, at least 75% are thinking "I've got away with it before, why is it not working this time...".

See, this does rather betray a difference in attitudes between us - I think that people are generally truthful and tend to take what people say at face value. While obviously your experience has taught you that a lot of people will lie or otherwise distort the truth, and so nobody can be trusted... I think this is a recurring theme in the discussions on this board, and very relevant to this topic: while the guards/RPIs (and the TOCs that employ them) acknowledge that good people sometimes make honest mistakes, the sheer potential for abuse means that everyone must be treated as if they were a deliberate fare evader. The fact that travelling without a valid ticket is a strict liability offense and the person handing out penalties doesn't need to prove the offender's intent just contributes to it.

 

[jon0844]

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

A lot of things that we get from the USA isn't good, but one thing we could really do with is the way they do things there when it comes to customer service.

Front line staff will always aim to be friendly, polite and show courtesy to everyone - but there's also a line that cannot be crossed before they'll switch.

We seem to have lost that bit here (or never got it), where you can by all means complain but you must still show respect to the person you're talking to. Staff in the USA won't tolerate abuse, and will clearly stop and refuse to talk to you any further - and call security if necessary (and in the case of an airport, security WILL respond). Simply swearing is often enough, and they would appear to have the backing of their bosses too - so no fear of reprisals later on.

The result is that most members of the public won't do what happens here and start to argue with staff, accuse them of being jobsworths etc. In fact, trying to do so will just single you out as a troublemaker, and nobody around will be on your side.

Posters saying that staff should be able to be treated with respect are a total cop out, and ignored. The only way to get the message home is by enforcement.

I've made complaints but always remained polite. A good trick is to get the person you're complaining to on your side by making them want to help you, as your complaint isn't really with them but other people in the organisation.

When I've messed up, it's better to confess. Like when I've been done for speeding. No point trying to be clever, just take it on the chin and get on with things. It's a shame a lot of people cannot own up to anything and think that the best defence is a good offence.

 

[transmanche]

As a Guard myself, it makes me weep to hear some of the tales of how a small minority of woefully inept colleagues in the grade behave towards sometimes completely innocent customers. Sadly there remains an attitude among some that they are the boss, and anybody who disagrees with them can go to hell. My personal view is that all TOCs should be aware of who these people are, and should invest whatever is required in additional training to stamp it out.

See, this does rather betray a difference in attitudes between us - I think that people are generally truthful and tend to take what people say at face value. While obviously your experience has taught you that a lot of people will lie or otherwise distort the truth, and so nobody can be trusted... I think this is a recurring theme in the discussions on this board, and very relevant to this topic: while the guards/RPIs (and the TOCs that employ them) acknowledge that good people sometimes make honest mistakes, the sheer potential for abuse means that everyone must be treated as if they were a deliberate fare evader.

It does seem to me that there is a fair proportion of staff whose 'default setting' is that the passenger is not telling the truth and must be up to something.

Here's an incident that happened to me about a year ago. I was at Kings Cross and had an Advance to Newcastle. It was a bad day, with many trains running late. Kings Cross was like a scrum. With about 15 mins to go, my train was cancelled. As the ticket office and info points were rammed, I decided to nip across the road to St Pancras to a) use the (free!) loo and b) get something nice to eat from M&S.

20 mins later, I was back and the queues had died down. So I popped into the ticket office - as I didn't know if I could just travel on the next train, or if I needed to get my ticket endorsed/exchanged. (Bear in mind, it's now 5 mins after the train's scheduled departure time.)

When I asked my question, the first thing that the ticket clerk did was to ask me what time I arrived at King's Cross. When I told him, his reply was "How do I know that you weren't late and have just turned up now?"

No apology for the disruption and inconvenience. Just an assumption that I was trying to pull a fast one. To say I was annoyed is an understatement.

And what impression does that leave me with? What's my attitude towards the railway company now? And to be honest I can even empathise with people who subsequently try to 'bend' the rules in order to 'even the score'. (it doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can empathise.)

 

[CNash]

And what impression does that leave me with? What's my attitude towards the railway company now? And to be honest I can even empathise with people who subsequently try to 'bend' the rules in order to 'even the score'. (it doesn't mean I agree with them, but I can empathise.)

Exactly. This was part of the point of my previous couple of posts - by being more flexible and willing to listen to the customer, they go away with a good impression of the railways, rather than feeling like they've been maneuvered into a corner and forced to pay for their honest mistake. However, attempts to convey this point in this thread have so far been met with "It's a losing battle, you'll never win over the press!" - forgetting that the journalists who make up the press are people too, many of whom travel on trains! Improving attitudes and consumer response overall will lead to a gradual change in the public opinion of the TOCs.

It doesn't help that those who have made honest mistakes are more likely to be panicked and flustered when speaking with a guard/RPI (as they're not used to having to defend themselves like this), and may accidentally say something that the guard can interpret as a further breach of the rules, leading to a court summons rather than a penalty fare. In contrast, the deliberate fare evader will know exactly what to say (and what not to say) and consequently will get away "clean" with his £25 penalty. Persistent evaders may find that their total "saving" more than outweighs the cost of the occasional penalty fare...

 

[jon0844]

When I asked my question, the first thing that the ticket clerk did was to ask me what time I arrived at King's Cross. When I told him, his reply was "How do I know that you weren't late and have just turned up now?

You could have just turned up now, but what difference would it have made if the train was cancelled anyway??

Yes, it would have meant you were lucky, but I can't see how they could say 'well, yes, the train was cancelled and you're entitled to travel on a later train - but as you were late, you should have missed it so tough'.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You could have just turned up now, but what difference would it have made if the train was cancelled anyway??

Yes, it would have meant you were lucky, but I can't see how they could say 'well, yes, the train was cancelled and you're entitled to travel on a later train - but as you were late, you should have missed it so tough'.

Strictly speaking it is a condition of the Advance ticket, you must be at the origin station in good time.

 

[transmanche]

When I asked my question, the first thing that the ticket clerk did was to ask me what time I arrived at King's Cross. When I told him, his reply was "How do I know that you weren't late and have just turned up now?"

You could have just turned up now, but what difference would it have made if the train was cancelled anyway??

Yes, it would have meant you were lucky, but I can't see how they could say 'well, yes, the train was cancelled and you're entitled to travel on a later train - but as you were late, you should have missed it so tough'.

Absolutely, I couldn't see what the issue was either. If people turning up late for cancelled trains was such an issue, there were many other (polite) ways that the clerk could have asked me.

TBH, it was way he dealt with me - the automatic presumption that I had 'broken the rules' - which annoyed me far more than the delay to my journey.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Strictly speaking it is a condition of the Advance ticket, you must be at the origin station in good time.

Yes, but without any evidence to the contrary, why did the clerk instantly assume that I wasn't there in good time?

And what next? Passengers not being allowed to board a delayed train on the basis that they weren't on the platform at the scheduled time?!?!

 

[monty9120]

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

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

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

seems like madness to me. luckilly i could have carried on to euston and gone a very long way. but why should i have. just because the ticket wouldnt be sold to me. the procedures definitely needs changing

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....
Yes, but without any evidence to the contrary, why did the clerk instantly assume that I wasn't there in good time?

And what next? Passengers not being allowed to board a delayed train on the basis that they weren't on the platform at the scheduled time?!?!

Did they assume though? Certainly they asked a question I wouldn't have asked, but the question, to me atleast, doesn't seem to assume anything. I think you have read too much into the question.

Obviously I wasn't there, but I imagine most people who want to sort out onward travel would queue up and ask as soon as they found out their train was cancelled, rather than go and find a food outlet and come back.

 

[Oswyntail]

...Obviously I wasn't there, but I imagine most people who want to sort out onward travel would queue up and ask as soon as they found out their train was cancelled, rather than go and find a food outlet and come back.

Unless, of course, they saw there was already a queue and worked out that going to the food outlet would not mean they got seen to any later.
What really does bug me on this board is the all too frequent assumption by railways employees that passengers have pulled, or are intending to pull, a fast one. We get ridiculous percentages of wrong-doers (99% in a recent post) bandied about, and the impression given by many is that their main purpose is to catch criminals. It isn't - if they wanted to do that they should have joined the police. Their function is to provide a service to the travelling public on behalf of their employers and the government. It harms no one to start on the basis of innocence, or to treat the public civilly. Most railway employees I have come across do this, but visitors here might be forgiven for thinking all railway staff are "bulldogs".

 

[sheff1]

Unless, of course, they saw there was already a queue and worked out that going to the food outlet would not mean they got seen to any later.

Exactly. My experience in such situations at airports is that, immediately following a cancellation etc, staff at the information desks etc don't know what is happening either. They find out, by various means, when dealing with the first few people in the queue so, if you wait until the queue has died down, you are dealt with more quickly and the information is accurate.

Of course, on the UK railway, anyone who is not one of the first 5% in the queue is automatically 'trying it on' :roll:

 

[Flamingo]

Their function is to provide a service to the travelling public on behalf of their employers and the government.

We also have a duty to protect our revenue, both on behalf of our employer, and on behalf of all passengers and taxpayers whom are paying to use and support the rail network.

Are you suggesting that this role should be abandoned in the name of "customer service"?

 

[transmanche]

Did they assume though? Certainly they asked a question I wouldn't have asked, but the question, to me atleast, doesn't seem to assume anything. I think you have read too much into the question.

Hmmm, the phrase "How do I know that you weren't late and have just turned up now?" is quite an accusatory statement - how else is one expected to interpret it?

Obviously I wasn't there, but I imagine most people who want to sort out onward travel would queue up and ask as soon as they found out their train was cancelled, rather than go and find a food outlet and come back.

Really? I did say that the place was a scrum. Seemed a reasonable thing for me to do rather than standing in a long queue. YMMV.

I'm quite surprised that you'd try to justify the ticket clerk's position and comments. If it's the kind of treatment that customers receive when trying to do the right thing, then no wonder so many passengers don't bother and just chance it onboard!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you suggesting that this role should be abandoned in the name of "customer service"?

It seems clear to me that you feel customer service isn't something that businesses should aspire to and is merely 'pandering' to the customer.

Yet it is possible to provide good customer service without affecting revenue. Not automatically assuming that every customer is trying it on is a good place to start.

And good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.

 

[island]

And good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.

Source please?

 

[SS4]

Exactly. This was part of the point of my previous couple of posts - by being more flexible and willing to listen to the customer, they go away with a good impression of the railways, rather than feeling like they've been maneuvered into a corner and forced to pay for their honest mistake.

I await your foolproof way of telling an honest mistake from deliberate evasion. If foolproof is too hard then one that works at least 70% of the time. Sure it sucks if it's you that makes that mistake but the issue needs to be looked at objectively.
Much as the railway needs customers it does not need customer

However, attempts to convey this point in this thread have so far been met with "It's a losing battle, you'll never win over the press!" - forgetting that the journalists who make up the press are people too, many of whom travel on trains! Improving attitudes and consumer response overall will lead to a gradual change in the public opinion of the TOCs.

I think not

Journalists don't look for good, they look for bad and the worse the better. Frequently we see that TOCs take the blame for NR faults and acts of nature or suicide so it's obvious they're not interested in fact checking. Would they run a story were Mrs Jones, 96, Cardiff had to pay for not having a SNR railcard? Probably. What if it was Mr Khan, 21 from Coventry in the same situation? Probably not.

It doesn't help that those who have made honest mistakes are more likely to be panicked and flustered when speaking with a guard/RPI (as they're not used to having to defend themselves like this), and may accidentally say something that the guard can interpret as a further breach of the rules, leading to a court summons rather than a penalty fare. In contrast, the deliberate fare evader will know exactly what to say (and what not to say) and consequently will get away "clean" with his £25 penalty. Persistent evaders may find that their total "saving" more than outweighs the cost of the occasional penalty fare...

Fancy getting ones just desserts. C'est incroyable!

And good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.

I don't doubt it but fare evasion and not charging decrease revenue - fact.

Question is do the railways gain more with 'bad' customer service (which all too often means not pandering to their every desire and not just in the railway industry) and collecting full/penalty fares or do they earn more from 'good' (i.e. rolling over) customer service?
You paint the passenger as a paragon of honesty and virtue and many times nothing could be farther from the truth, do you accept the passenger is in the wrong regardless of the staff's further action or lack thereof?

The testimony of staff say a large proportion are chancers and due to their professional experience I'm inclined to believe them. If 90% are chancers that logically implies that 9 out of every 10 people with the wrong ticket are chancers so it's a fair assumption providing the numbers hold. Of course I see the danger that this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This whole debacle reminds me of a line from Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series: How dare you make Joey uphold his end of the bargain!

 

[Flamingo]

It seems clear to me that you feel customer service isn't something that businesses should aspire to and is merely 'pandering' to the customer.

Yet it is possible to provide good customer service without affecting reve evnue. Not automatically assuming that every customer is trying it on is a good place to start.

And good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.

I don't have a problem with good customer service, and I try my hardest to provide it at all times. Examples of poor customer service by the railways are legion, and I spend my work-days spending my time trying to alleviate the effects of no air-con, delays and even overcrowding (or passengers not being able to find a seat, which is not always the same thing).

However, you are confusing good customer service with "the customer is always right" mentality. What is so wrong about people paying the due fare for the journey they are making? As this is basically what the arguement is about, dressing it up as "customer care" is missing the point.

 

[NSEFAN]

This whole debacle reminds me of a line from Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series: How dare you make Joey uphold his end of the bargain!

According to jonmorris0844, customer service is better...

in America.

 

[transmanche]

And good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.

Source please?

Do you really think that bad customer service will help a company to thrive?

If you stay in a hotel and have a poor experience, do you recommend the place to your friends and family, or do you tell them to steer clear? Which do you think increases the hotel's profitability.

Good customer service can often be more about how a business reacts to a problem rather than being able to eliminate problems entirely. Taking again my example from post #275; if the train had run smoothly to time, I probably wouldn't have given it that much thought. But as the train was cancelled, if I had been dealt with in a courteous and professional manner, I would have thought highly of East Coast's customer service and recommended East Coast to friends and family. After that experience, what do you think my opinion of East Coast's customer service is now?

I've mentioned Net Promoter already in this thread. In his book The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth, Fred Reichfeld describes two kinds of profit; bad profit and good profit. "Whenever a customer feels misled, mistreated, ignored or coerced then profits from that customer are bad. When complex pricing schemes dupe customers into paying more than necessary, those pricing schemes are contributing to bad profits" (That last one seems quite appropriate for the UK railway industry. Bad profit might seem good to the bean counters in the short term, but it's bad for the long-term survival. Why? Because bad profits produce detractors who cut back on purchases, switch to the competition and tell everyone else about their bad experience. Why do you think the churn rate is so high for mobile phone companies? Because poor customer service and the fact the best deals are only for new customers means that people look elsewhere for a better deal.

Good profit is achieved by treating people as you would want to be treated.

Examples of companies that have used Net Promotor to increase profits include my previous employer (11% increase in profits in 2011) and numerous examples demonstrated in the book of companies concentrating on increasing their Net Promoter Score and seeing the results in revenue increases:

• Southwest Airlines (score +50) increasing revenue by 5% in 1999-2003 compared to TWA (score -5) went bust.
• ASDA (score +40) increased revenue by over 20% iver the same period, compared with Somerfield (score -35) revenue decreased by 5% and market share from 6% to 4% - had to be rescued by private equity group and eventually taken over by the Co-op.
  
  Like I said, good customer service actually increases revenue - fact.
  
  --- old post above --- --- new post below ---
  

  However, you are confusing good customer service with "the customer is always right" mentality. No I'm not, And I've already given one very personal example of my experience as a bank cashier in post #260.

  
  Good customer service is not about rolling over and taking it. But neither is it about assuming that every customer is trying to pool the wool over your eyes.
  
  Good customer service is about treating people as you would want to be treated. And that goes as much for the body corporate (including those in their ivory towers who set fares and complex rules) as well the person on the front line.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Hmmm, the phrase "How do I know that you weren't late and have just turned up now?" is quite an accusatory statement - how else is one expected to interpret it?....

You posted that they were assuming something, now you say that it is accusatory. It being accusatory and it showing that an assumption has been made are two different things. Please decide which it is.

....I'm quite surprised that you'd try to justify the ticket clerk's position and comments. If it's the kind of treatment that customers receive when trying to do the right thing, then no wonder so many passengers don't bother and just chance it onboard!....

If you read my comments I did say it was a question I wouldn't have asked, so hardly justifying their actions. What you consider the right thing to do is obviously different from what I think it is.

 

[transmanche]

Question is do the railways gain more with 'bad' customer service (which all too often means not pandering to their every desire and not just in the railway industry) and collecting full/penalty fares or do they earn more from 'good' (i.e. rolling over) customer service?

And that's the problem; if you think that 'good' = pandering then you're never going to get it. I urge you to read The Ultimate Question book, it's a fascinating read which surprised me and many of my colleagues. It changed the way we did business - and dramatically increased profits.

You paint the passenger as a paragon of honesty and virtue and many times nothing could be farther from the truth, do you accept the passenger is in the wrong regardless of the staff's further action or lack thereof?

The testimony of staff say a large proportion are chancers and due to their professional experience I'm inclined to believe them. If 90% are chancers that logically implies that 9 out of every 10 people with the wrong ticket are chancers so it's a fair assumption providing the numbers hold. Of course I see the danger that this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well that's the problem. If you treat people badly they will behave badly.

If your mentality is to treat 90% of people as criminals and extract the maximum amount of penalty that you can from them - chances are (if they feel that they have been hard done by) that they might try to 'redress the balance' in the future.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You posted that they were assuming something, now you say that it is accusatory. It being accusatory and it showing that an assumption has been made are two different things. Please decide which it is.

It's quite easy. He obviously assumed that I was a chance and framed his accusatory question on that basis.

Someone else who hadn't made that assumption would have said something a bit more courteous. Had I been the ticket clerk I would have a) apologised for the disruption, b) confirmed the situation, c) asked if the passenger needed to check about any onward connections and d) I probably would have told the customer it was a good plan to avoid the crush by going to get my food first - because they are the normal human and civil things to do. I would not have assumed they were on the fiddle and I would not have been so discourteous. YMMV.

What you consider the right thing to do is obviously different from what I think it is.

So going to the ticket office to check if my Advance ticket needed to be endorsed or exchanged isn't "the right thing to do"? Should I have just boarded the train and chanced it?

 

[Flamingo]

I have already raised the point, which has been ignored, but if anybody could please explain to me, why is it poor customer service to ask someone to pay for their journey, if they are found to have paid the incorrect fare?

And I'm not talking about penalty fares, but just excessing them from what they have paid to what the journey should have cost them at the time, route and manner in which they are making it.

This is all I ever do, and I receive numerous complaints, both verbal abuse on the train, and written complaints about this.

Therefore, I must provide poor customer service.

However, my manager has never been able to tell me off for selling a ticket unnecessarily, therefore all these complaints have been from people who were travelling on an incorrect ticket, and their complaint is basically that they were made to pay the correct amount of money.

So, what am I doing that is providing such poor customer service that complaints are made?

 

[CNash]

However, you are confusing good customer service with "the customer is always right" mentality. What is so wrong about people paying the due fare for the journey they are making? As this is basically what the arguement is about, dressing it up as "customer care" is missing the point.

As I said in my original post, this is not "the customer is always right". Because, as I pointed out in a further point, the strict liability of Byelaw 17 means that whatever story they happen to have, they're not "right" and the penalty fare is due. But all the the same, it's possible to be less authoritarian about it. While you can't do anything about having to issue a penalty fare (or whatever is appropriate), having a more conciliatory and less authoritarian attitude is likely to make the exchange go more smoothly.

However, I do appreciate that you're probably trained in how to handle customers, including the best ways to stop them kicking off, like most customer service professionals (in every customer service job I've ever done, top of the training manual was "don't antagonise the customer"), but the nature of the job you do (handing out monetary penalties) makes this difficult.

 

[SS4]

And that's the problem; if you think that 'good' = pandering then you're never going to get it. I urge you to read The Ultimate Question book, it's a fascinating read which surprised me and many of my colleagues. It changed the way we did business - and dramatically increased profits.

I don't think that good customer service is pandering. I believe that you think it is. If I were being pedantic I'd say that someone without a ticket or travelling at the wrong time is not a customer.

Well that's the problem. If you treat people badly they will behave badly.

If your mentality is to treat 90% of people as criminals and extract the maximum amount of penalty that you can from them - chances are (if they feel that they have been hard done by) that they might try to 'redress the balance' in the future.

The mentality is not to treat 90%* as criminals but rather the chance of someone not in possession of a valid ticket has done so deliberately is 90%.

They may well try to redress the balance and I've no doubt that the current rules are harsh on the 10% genuine mistakes. If a random sample of ten people who don't use the train again after receiving what they perceive to be poor customer service the railway is effectively only losing the revenue of one person. Indeed, giving into the "customer's" demands could have an adverse effect on passengers who've paid the right money. I can only speak for myself but I'd be mightily annoyed if I'd paid £45 for an off-peak ticket but the guy opposite gets away (that's how I'd see it) travelling on a £6 ticket at the wrong time, it would make me think about trying the same trick.

* All numbers are examples based on posts earlier in this thread, substitute as necessary if numbers are different.

 

[transmanche]

I don't think that good customer service is pandering. I believe that you think it is.

Have you actually read any of my posts?

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

Good customer service is not about rolling over and taking it. But neither is it about assuming that every customer is trying to pool the wool over your eyes.

Good customer service is about treating people as you would want to be treated. And that goes as much for the body corporate (including those in their ivory towers who set fares and complex rules) as well the person on the front line.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have already raised the point, which has been ignored, but if anybody could please explain to me, why is it poor customer service to ask someone to pay for their journey, if they are found to have paid the incorrect fare?

No, it's not bad customer service at all, if treat people as you would want to be treated. If you do that, I'd say it's good customer service - as fare-paying passengers generally like knowing that everyone else is paying their fair share too.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....It's quite easy. He obviously assumed that I was a chance and framed his accusatory question on that basis....

Well, I wasn't there however I can't think that such an assumption is "obvious" to see, based on that one question, but I doubt you will ever agree with that so I won't bother dwelling on it.

....Someone else who hadn't made that assumption would have said something a bit more courteous.....

Someone else, who had not made any assumptions, may have treated you the same way. You can only really say what did happen and even then you are making some assumptions (which you condemn staff for, even though you have no proof of it).

....Had I been the ticket clerk I would have a) apologised for the disruption, b) confirmed the situation, c) asked if the passenger needed to check about any onward connections and d) I probably would have told the customer it was a good plan to avoid the crush by going to get my food first - because they are the normal human and civil things to do. I would not have assumed they were on the fiddle and I would not have been so discourteous....

I think I can make a safe assumption you have never been in that situation as the clerk if you think that. You might consider going for food a priority over finding out how you are getting to your destination, but I can't agree with that.

....So going to the ticket office to check if my Advance ticket needed to be endorsed or exchanged isn't "the right thing to do"? Should I have just boarded the train and chanced it?

I didn't say that, that is another assumption you have made (if you had been following my posts throughout this thread you would see I don't think that).

Imo, the right thing to do was wait/queue at the station and find out the information I needed to know from the outset, not go and find a food outlet first. What would you have done if, in the 20 minutes you had been absent, the train had been reinstated and left on time?

 

[jon0844]

According to jonmorris0844, customer service is better...

in America.

I really do believe it is, and I've been there many times - and to many different states.

Sure, some staff are sickeningly polite (and all the 'how are you doing today?' nonsense when they really don't care) but I was always impressed with the fact that they'll say enough is enough if a customer is rude. Here, we seem to be told to just take it.

It's funny how there are actually two stark contrasts here. We have staff on a train who may stand up to someone who is clearly trying it on, and management that bend over backwards to give them whatever they want. The end result; total inconsistency.

I am sure some staff do themselves no favours, and come over as rude and arrogant (and in need for further training) and we've got staff saying as much here. However, the vast majority of staff I've encountered over the years are incredibly polite to passengers, and I've seen more than my fair share of obvious dodgers getting let off with a warning or given the benefit of the doubt.

Unlike the staff that move on, sitting near the passenger concerned usually means you very quickly find out whether they were telling the truth or not based on what they've said before or after, either to a mate with them or on their mobile.

 

[transmanche]

Someone else, who had not made any assumptions, may have treated you the same way.

Only if they are exceptionally rude. Whatever the motive, it was discourteous and very poor customer service.

I think I can make a safe assumption you have never been in that situation as the clerk if you think that.

Well being as I've never been a ticket office clerk, obviously not. But I have been in many similar situations dealing with customer's problems. See my earlier posts.


I said that by going to the ticket office to check if my Advance ticket needed to be endorsed or exchanged (as opposed to just boarding a train) I was "doing the right thing".

What you consider the right thing to do is obviously different from what I think it is.

So going to the ticket office to check if my Advance ticket needed to be endorsed or exchanged isn't "the right thing to do"? Should I have just boarded the train and chanced it?

I didn't say that, that is another assumption you have made (if you had been following my posts throughout this thread you would see I don't think that).

So to avoid any more assumptions; if my idea of "doing the right thing" is different to yours... please tell me what it is!

What would you have done if, in the 20 minutes you had been absent, the train had been reinstated and left on time?

Unlikely as (at that time) there were no East Coast trains in he station. But the answer is simple, I'd have said "you told us the train was cancelled".

You might have chosen to queue up first that situation - and I won't criticise you for it. When the station is a scrum and very overcrowded, I don't think that making arrangements for my own comfort (popping to the loo and buying some food) is unreasonable in the circumstances - and I'm glad to see that other posters in this thread agree with me.

 

[Oswyntail]

We also have a duty to protect our revenue, both on behalf of our employer, and on behalf of all passengers and taxpayers whom are paying to use and support the rail network.

Are you suggesting that this role should be abandoned in the name of "customer service"?

There is a balance to be struck, and, from experience and from what one reads here, there are those in the industry who seem unable to do so. Is the best way of protecting revenue to come in heavily, antagonise the passenger on the assumption that they have knowingly and intentionally done wrong, and risk a court case that brings with it the possibility of loss for the company in terms of revenue loss, costs and potential future loss through bad PR? Or is it to go ahead on the standard business principles of "the customer is right", working with the passenger, and only bringing out the jackboots if it is proven that there has been knowing and intentional wrongdoing. This is not "pandering", it is treating people as real human beings. Funnily enough, people respond to this treatment rather better than they do to waving the regulations at them, and respond, in part, by paying the company more revenue, both at the time, if necessary, and in future usage.