Virgin East Coast Twitter

[CharlieSpotted]

As others have said, London Midland of 4-5 years ago got the tone right, although they moved towards the sneering smarta*** tone too more recently.

I think the customer service people generally got it right on Twitter, and still do (as WMR), but it was surprising they did so well when you consider the attitudes of senior management at the time:

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/london-midland-boss-branded-critical-379087

I know Ben a little, and I can say he is a scrupulously fair chap.

He spoke to the media about London Midland's performance a few times, but was always fair and measured in his responses.

 

[SaveECRewards]

I've bolded her quote the part that proves that's wrong. It's clear that she's had a problem from the use of the words virgin trains mess up.

I said

Reading it I thought the mess up was simply the use of the term 'honey'

A quick look at the message you think it's just a complaint about the word used, it is, the 'mess up' is not described so it's like that's not important

After all if you have a bigger issue wouldn't you mention it first? Try and find out whether the guard or the ticket office was wrong and then once you have your original issue resolved then indicate how poorly this was all handled.

 

[Marklund]

I said

A quick look at the message you think it's just a complaint about the word used, it is, the 'mess up' is not described so it's like that's not important

After all if you have a bigger issue wouldn't you mention it first? Try and find out whether the guard or the ticket office was wrong and then once you have your original issue resolved then indicate how poorly this was all handled.

Again, you seem to be missing the context.

 

[sefton]

It would be for the appropriate fare, which would be a First Class Anytime. As I’ve said, I think that UFN would be very easily challenged given the public info on Virgin’s own site and NRE.

There is no way for “paying for half a UFN”. You either buy the ticket or you don’t and there’s no mechanism to give the guard £15 or whatever and say “here’s some of what you want”.

On “refusing” a UFN, it depends what you mean by that. If someone refused to cooperate at all, and refused to give an address, they’d be committing an offence and could be met by BTP. If they just refuse to sign it, or take their own copy of the notice, this makes no difference whatsoever to the enforceability or otherwise of said notice.

I can't see BTP being amused being called to an incident to arbitrate between two employees of the same company about the amount a customer should pay, with one employee saying the customer should pay £x (and the customer is willing to pay that) and the other employee refusing to sell that ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't see BTP being amused being called to an incident to arbitrate between two employees of the same company about the amount a customer should pay, with one employee saying the customer should pay £x (and the customer is willing to pay that) and the other employee refusing to sell that ticket.

That wouldn’t be what they were called for. They would be called because the person committed the offence of refusing to give a name and address. Doesn’t matter what else happened, the offence is complete even if the customer has a valid case/ticket.

 

[sefton]

That wouldn’t be what they were called for. They would be called because the person committed the offence of refusing to give a name and address. Doesn’t matter what else happened, the offence is complete even if the customer has a valid case/ticket.

I still can't see BTP being amused at having to attend, when the cause of the dispute is the guard deciding not to sell a ticket which one of their colleagues says should be sold.

 

[221129]

I still can't see BTP being amused at having to attend, when the cause of the dispute is the guard deciding not to sell a ticket which one of their colleagues says should be sold.

You seem to be missing the point. The offence is complete when the passenger refuses to provide a name and address when requested. That is what they would be dealing with. Not the ticketing dispute.

 

[sefton]

You seem to be missing the point. The offence is complete when the passenger refuses to provide a name and address when requested. That is what they would be dealing with. Not the ticketing dispute.

Doesn't the demand require 'reasonable suspicion'?

So BTP turn up and ask what is going on. The customer says the guard won't sell him the ticket the other train company employee told them they could buy, but is demanding their name and address.

BTP ask what the reasonable suspicion grounds are that the guard is using to demand the name and address, given the train company has told the customer they can buy a ticket and the only reason the customer doesn't have a ticket is the guard has chosen not to sell them one.

Still can't see BTP being impressed at a dispute that is effectively between two train company employees.

 

[AlterEgo]

I still can't see BTP being amused at having to attend, when the cause of the dispute is the guard deciding not to sell a ticket which one of their colleagues says should be sold.

Doesn't the demand require 'reasonable suspicion'?

So BTP turn up and ask what is going on. The customer says the guard won't sell him the ticket the other train company employee told them they could buy, but is demanding their name and address.

BTP ask what the reasonable suspicion grounds are that the guard is using to demand the name and address, given the train company has told the customer they can buy a ticket and the only reason the customer doesn't have a ticket is the guard has chosen not to sell them one.

Still can't see BTP being impressed at a dispute that is effectively between two train company employees.

It is reasonable suspicion.

If it wasn’t, then someone in First Class with a standard class ticket being asked to pay the full Upgrade, who presents the reason “man at the station says it should be £15 not £100” and refuses to supply any details, renders themselves outside the enforcement of the railway. That’s surely not correct.

 

[221129]

Doesn't the demand require 'reasonable suspicion'?

So BTP turn up and ask what is going on. The customer says the guard won't sell him the ticket the other train company employee told them they could buy, but is demanding their name and address.

BTP ask what the reasonable suspicion grounds are that the guard is using to demand the name and address, given the train company has told the customer they can buy a ticket and the only reason the customer doesn't have a ticket is the guard has chosen not to sell them one.

Still can't see BTP being impressed at a dispute that is effectively between two train company employees.

Can you point out the need for reasonable suspicion? BTP deal with this sort of thing on a daily basis. They are not interested in the fare dispute, just the refusal to give name and address.

 

[sefton]

Fair enough I may be mistaken. What legislation do you consider gives the power to ask for a customer's name and address.

 

[sefton]

It is reasonable suspicion.

If it wasn’t, then someone in First Class with a standard class ticket being asked to pay the full Upgrade, who presents the reason “man at the station says it should be £15 not £100” and refuses to supply any details, renders themselves outside the enforcement of the railway. That’s surely not correct.

Surely the guard needs to consider what the customer has said and reach a conclusion using that information.

They surely cannot take a blinkered view of no ticket = guilty.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What do you expect from someone who stamps his feet like a spoilt 12 year old when he doesn't get his way.
Why aren't there a few more questions as to how much Branson's disgraceful running of East Coast will cost the UK taxpayer ?

 

[Darandio]

Why aren't there a few more questions as to how much Branson's disgraceful running of East Coast will cost the UK taxpayer ?

Nothing I would imagine as he ain't running it and you know it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Surely the guard needs to consider what the customer has said and reach a conclusion using that information.

They surely cannot take a blinkered view of no ticket = guilty.

The guard must only have reasonable suspicion, he doesn’t need to think they’re actually guilty of the offence. It is not his job to decide guilt. There is a distinct difference.

In any case, if someone has no ticket and is refusing to pay and is refusing to provide details, it is reasonable to suspect that at least one and potentially more byelaws may be being broken.

Seeing something on a website advertising a price and being told it is then a different price is a civil matter.

 

[sefton]

The guard must only have reasonable suspicion, he doesn’t need to think they’re actually guilty of the offence. It is not his job to decide guilt. There is a distinct difference.

However the decision cannot be abritrary and fail to consider relevant matters when reaching a decision they have reasonable suspicion.

A customer traveling on a Bank Holiday asking to buy a ticket available and advertised on the company website as available on Bank Holidays and telling the guard one of their colleagues confirmed it could be bought on board ought to be enough to cause the guard to pause for thought and consider whether they have a reasonable suspicion.

In any case, if someone has no ticket and is refusing to pay and is refusing to provide details, it is reasonable to suspect that at least one and potentially more byelaws may be being broken.

In the situation being considered it isn't the customer who is unwilling to pay, but the guard who is unwilling to sell the ticket their colleague has said can be purchased.

Seeing something on a website advertising a price and being told it is then a different price is a civil matter.

But in this scenario it has potentially creating a criminal situation by the guard refusing to sell the ticket.

 

[Puffing Devil]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

Pretty clear - pay the fare or provide a name and address. In this case, I would hope that the sell/no sell decision could be debated later.

The law provides for a course of action; sometimes people do not think that is "right" and dig their heels in, without a knowledge of the statue and the implications for their behaviour.

 

[AlterEgo]

However the decision cannot be abritrary and fail to consider relevant matters when reaching a decision they have reasonable suspicion.

There’s nothing arbitrary. If you fail to provide a name and address the police get involved.

A customer traveling on a Bank Holiday asking to buy a ticket available and advertised on the company website as available on Bank Holidays and telling the guard one of their colleagues confirmed it could be bought on board ought to be enough to cause the guard to pause for thought and consider whether they have a reasonable suspicion.

I don’t think you understand what’s meant by reasonable suspicion in this context.

The guard doesn’t have to evaluate every single possible defence. There’s a world of difference between reasonably suspecting someone and actually thinking they’re guilty.

With the police, a Constable only has to “reasonably suspect” me to have committed an offence to detain me.

For example, if I had a crazy girlfriend she can go into the police station and say I hit her, show them a bruise, and an officer might reasonably suspect me to have committed that an assault. They then turn up and arrest me, the purpose being to conduct an investigation. There are a myriad of defences available to me against that allegation, and the police do not have to work their way through every possibility before deciding whether to nick me.

Now apply those principles to a guard on a train; the threshold will certainly not be higher than the police.

In the situation the customer had:

The wrong ticket
AND
Unwilling to pay the Upgrade (properly) due
AND
Only has an uncorroborated excuse

...then yes. The guard has reasonable suspicion that the person has committed an offence, and may ask for their details. The purpose of which is to invoice them, which is civil, can be (and in the case in the OP), would be challenged.

We are only talking about taking someone’s details so the matter can be sorted out properly afterwards, not locking them up.

In the situation being considered it isn't the customer who is unwilling to pay, but the guard who is unwilling to sell the ticket their colleague has said can be purchased.

*Allegedly* said can be purchased, with no proof to back that up.

It is also the customer refusing to pay.

But in this scenario it has potentially creating a criminal situation by the guard refusing to sell the ticket.

A guard refusing to sell a ticket doesn’t cause a criminal situation.

Not paying for the upgrade as asked, and not giving your details are what make this a criminal situation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nothing I would imagine as he ain't running it and you know it.

He's got 10% and his name on the gaff.

 

[sefton]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/52-53/57/section/5

Pretty clear - pay the fare or provide a name and address. In this case, I would hope that the sell/no sell decision could be debated later.

The law provides for a course of action; sometimes people do not think that is "right" and dig their heels in, without a knowledge of the statue and the implications for their behaviour.

In that legislation it says "if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address".

They are trying to pay the fare, the fare published by the company on their website and confirmed by the employee at the station, it is the guard who is refusing to take it.

 

[MG11]

Doesn't the demand require 'reasonable suspicion'?

So BTP turn up and ask what is going on. The customer says the guard won't sell him the ticket the other train company employee told them they could buy, but is demanding their name and address.

BTP ask what the reasonable suspicion grounds are that the guard is using to demand the name and address, given the train company has told the customer they can buy a ticket and the only reason the customer doesn't have a ticket is the guard has chosen not to sell them one.

Still can't see BTP being impressed at a dispute that is effectively between two train company employees.

A passenger with a Standard Class ticket in First Class would be reason enough for suspicion.

 

[MG11]

Fair enough I may be mistaken. What legislation do you consider gives the power to ask for a customer's name and address.

Regulation Of Railways Act 1889.

 

[sefton]

A passenger with a Standard Class ticket in First Class would be reason enough for suspicion.

Even when that passenger is asking to buy the upgrade advertised as available on Bank Holidays and it is a Bank Holiday.

 

[MG11]

Even when that passenger is asking to buy the upgrade advertised as available on Bank Holidays and it is a Bank Holiday.

My understanding is that it wasn't advertised in any evidencial documents, such as posters, just word of mouth from a colleague, which, once on board, there was no way of proving. This is the issue with un-written permission.

 

[sefton]

My understanding is that it wasn't advertised in any evidencial documents, such as posters, just word of mouth from a colleague, which, once on board, there was no way of proving. This is the issue with un-written permission.

Perhaps I misread, but I thought it was mentioned earlier in the thread the website says it is available on Bank Holidays. That is easy to check, even on a train.

 

[ainsworth74]

My understanding is that it wasn't advertised in any evidencial documents, such as posters, just word of mouth from a colleague, which, once on board, there was no way of proving. This is the issue with un-written permission.

Really?

If you’re travelling at the weekend or a bank holiday, why not turn your Standard journey into a deluxe First Class one from just £15?

Source

The passenger boarded the train in Scotland where it was a Bank Holiday. VTEC don't say that it's English Bank Holiday's only.

 

[sefton]

Just about to post exactly the same

https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/special-offers/travel-savings/travel-in-style-for-less/

It took five seconds. So much for reasonable suspicion.

 

[MG11]

Really?


Source

The passenger boarded the train in Scotland where it was a Bank Holiday. VTEC don't say that it's English Bank Holiday's only.

The train was headed for England though and run by York-based Virgin. Perhaps Virgin need to clarify this on their website.

 

[ainsworth74]

Perhaps Virgin need to clarify this on their website.

Yes perhaps they should.

In the mean time, however, a passenger boarding a train where it is a Bank Holiday, asking to buy an upgrade which advertised as being available on Bank Holidays and claims that they have been advised by Railway staff that it is available is not someone I would claim as being suspicious.

 

[sefton]

The train was headed for England though and run by York-based Virgin. Perhaps Virgin need to clarify this on their website.

Why? It is abundantly clear. Upgrades are available on Bank Holidays and it was a Bank Holiday in the country where the train was.