Virgin East Coast Twitter

[yorkie]

I'm not exactly sure why you seem to repetitively insist that the correct source is always going to be the most beneficial one for the customer?

You're not familiar with consumer law, are you?

While anything publicly available should be accepted I see no reason why an internal memo should be ignored in favour of an internal website (that you and a handful of other non rail staff seemingly have access to)

Perhaps you can clarify what exactly you are saying here?

just because the website contains the understanding that you want to exploit.

You clearly misunderstand; there is no exploitation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I see no reason why an internal memo should be ignored in favour of an internal website

I think you misunderstand what iKB is. It's the website that lists all the rules and guidance for all retail staff on the whole network. Why should it be preferred? Because it is what the whole industry agreed are the rules and guidance.

TOCs shouldn't be able to move away from agreed rules and procedures in a way that will prejudice passengers. If they want to be more preferential to passengers then that, of course, is a commercial decision for them to take.

 

[acned]

Virgin EC offer their full First Class service on 2nd January. That’s why they don’t sell the Upgrade. This has been the case at both Virgin TOCs since time immemorial.

The situation is that the Weekend/BH Upgrade is NOT available, that the guard was correct, and simply that VTEC did not clarify the offer on their website. Thus, the customer, when push comes to shove, if given a UFN for the full upgrade, would find it easily challengeable.

A frustrating sideline to the matter is the suggestion by some posters that the onboard staff do not have the right to ask for the customer’s name and address. I’ll remind those posters again that what they essentially suggest is that a person who is in First Class with a Standard Class ticket, and who refuses to pay the Upgrade, on the basis of an uncorroborated story that someone in a booking office said it would be less than what was demanded, is entirely free of any process to resolve the matter. Pointing to websites and so on is neither here nor there. All the guard has to do is have reasonable suspicion, which I have outlined earlier in the thread is a very low threshold. All the guard is doing is asking for the customer’s name and address so it can be resolved later. It’s frustrating to hear of the confusion between the issues. It defies common sense that the guard cannot ask for a name and address, and that the options open to him when dealing with a customer refusing to pay the Upgrade because of an uncorroborated story about someone else saying it’s cheaper, is limited to doing nothing when the customer refuses to pay.

Regulation of Railways Act 1892 allows an authorised person to request a passenger's name and address.
The "three fails" rule means a person can be arrested if they:
1. Fail to show a valid ticket (includes a second class travelling in first class)
2. Fail to pay for a valid ticket
3. Fail to supply his/her name and address to an authorised person when requested.

 

[sefton]

You’ve got a lot of faith in their Twitter team.

So both the website and the Twitter team (and the member of staff at the station) are all wrong?

 

[sefton]

Virgin EC offer their full First Class service on 2nd January. That’s why they don’t sell the Upgrade. This has been the case at both Virgin TOCs since time immemorial.

The situation is that the Weekend/BH Upgrade is NOT available, that the guard was correct, and simply that VTEC did not clarify the offer on their website. Thus, the customer, when push comes to shove, if given a UFN for the full upgrade, would find it easily challengeable.

The BH upgrade is available, the website says so!

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

"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? Our Weekend Upgrades let you recline in our bigger, cosier seats with bags more leg room, and fill your boots with complimentary food and drink service at your seat. And to top it all off? Free WiFi. Now that is class."

Are you suggesting the 2nd of January in Scotland from where the customer caught the train is not a bank holiday? The government think it is - https://beta.gov.scot/publications/bank-holidays/

A frustrating sideline to the matter is the suggestion by some posters that the onboard staff do not have the right to ask for the customer’s name and address. I’ll remind those posters again that what they essentially suggest is that a person who is in First Class with a Standard Class ticket, and who refuses to pay the Upgrade, on the basis of an uncorroborated story that someone in a booking office said it would be less than what was demanded, is entirely free of any process to resolve the matter. Pointing to websites and so on is neither here nor there. All the guard has to do is have reasonable suspicion, which I have outlined earlier in the thread is a very low threshold.

But the guard's view that the customer cannot pay for an upgrade is wrong, so any suspicion they have is based on the wrong premise. Also as identified here by others, it took only a few seconds to obtain the correct position, something that could easily have beendone by the guard.

All the guard is doing is asking for the customer’s name and address so it can be resolved later. It’s frustrating to hear of the confusion between the issues. It defies common sense that the guard cannot ask for a name and address, and that the options open to him when dealing with a customer refusing to pay the Upgrade because of an uncorroborated story about someone else saying it’s cheaper, is limited to doing nothing when the customer refuses to pay.

Those are not the only options, an option which by the way places the hassle for the guard not knowing the correct fare on the customer.

The other options open to the guard would have been to check whether their view that upgrades were not for sale was correct.

Regulation of Railways Act 1892 allows an authorised person to request a passenger's name and address.
The "three fails" rule means a person can be arrested if they:
1. Fail to show a valid ticket (includes a second class travelling in first class)
2. Fail to pay for a valid ticket
3. Fail to supply his/her name and address to an authorised person when requested.

Yes, but it is in that order -
1- Correct, did not have a valid ticket.
2 - Is perfectly happy to pay for a valid ticket, only the guard will not sell them one.
3 - Not applicable as didn't get past 2

 

[AlterEgo]

So both the website and the Twitter team (and the member of staff at the station) are all wrong?

Let me begin this by explaining I used to work for Virgin WC, I know Virgin’s policies and I know that in the past Virgin EC have not sold upgrades on Scotland-only bank holidays.

The website is not *wrong* but is insufficiently clear, in that it fails to take account of the fact Bank Holidays in Scotland are different to those in England. It could mean, from its wording:

“All bank holidays in the UK” which would include the Twelfth, St Patrick’s Day, and others which are not bank holidays in any part of the country VTEC serves.

“Bank holidays in England only”, as VTEC are a company based in England and that’s the interpretation they might naturally, if confusingly, use.

“Bank holidays defined by whether it’s a bank holiday based on where you board/alight the train”, which would be even more confusing as there are some bank holidays in England which aren’t in Scotland and vice versa. Glasgow even has a local public holiday which applies only to Glasgow and not other parts of Scotland!

“Bank holidays which are holidays in both England and Scotland only, on the same day”, which would require clarification on the website for sure.

You have used the most favourable interpretation open to the customer. This seems fair, when handling disputes, but doesn’t actually help us determine from a single unclear source what the policy is.

I agree that the website is unclear and unsatisfactory. It should be changed immediately to reflect both VTWC and VTEC policy, which is not to sell upgrades for days on which a full first class service is in operation - basically, weekends and bank holidays in England. It would be interesting to find out how many forum users - and there are a lot of them on the VTEC route - upgraded to First Class on 2nd January. Was anyone able to do it?

The booking office (if we accept they did advise the customer to travel in First Class) are incorrect, because they have interpreted the instructions regarding “Bank Holidays” from a local perspective. I’m sure this is entirely reasonable for them to do, and it may be the case that VTEC didn’t clarify things internally either. It’s likely that the booking office didn’t have the correct information because booking offices don’t sell that upgrade - they are only sold by the guard.

The Twitter Team have a long history of being entirely incorrect about many fundamental things and I am sure they are wrong about this too. Unless of course VTEC have had a look at this and realised after the fact that their policy is confusing and vowed to amend it so all Bank Holidays in England and Scotland are recognised, but not corrected or clarified the website!

None of this changes the fact that the guard doesn’t have to sell the upgrade! From a legal perspective he doesn’t even have to have a reason. He can just say no. You can go into a shop, look at a Mars Bar, ask how much it is, bloke on the till says 50p, take it to the counter, he then says “oh sorry no it’s £1.50” and refuse to sell it. The rights of both parties are different if the product has already been sold.

The guard remains absolutely entitled to ask for the upgrade due under VTEC policy, and he is entitled to ask for a name and address to resolve the matter later. He is also entitled to tell the customer to move back to Standard.

From a different perspective of resolving issues after the fact, if I was handling the appeal to any UFN, I would cancel it, because I completely agree that the policy is confusing and poorly advertised.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, but it is in that order -
1- Correct, did not have a valid ticket.
2 - Is perfectly happy to pay for a valid ticket, only the guard will not sell them one.
3 - Not applicable as didn't get past 2

No, wrong.

1- No valid ticket.
2- Will pay for a fare which appears to be advertised on the site only if you use the most favourable definition of “bank holiday” available to you (she didn’t mention the site btw) and which a staff member, allegedly, agreed. The fare due is not £25, though. It’s more than that. That is definitely the policy! That’s not good, but the fare remains due. Either pay it or move to standard. Dispute - fill out UFN, civil matter, contest the fare due later
3- Refuses to give details - offence.

Your suggestion is that as long as you can find some sort of loophole or confusing advertising as appears in this case, this insulates you from any liability to provide your name and address on request. I can’t emphasise how wrong and counter to common sense this is.

Even if you’re taking an unusual route on a perfectly valid ticket and the guard suspects it to be invalid and you don’t pay what he (wrongly) asks for, he can still fill out a UFN and ask for your details! This has happened many times to forum members and the guard, while he may be wrong about everything else, remains entitled to ask for your details, and you remain bound to give them over or commit an offence by refusing.

 

[sefton]

The website is not *wrong* but is insufficiently clear, in that it fails to take account of the fact Bank Holidays in Scotland are different to those in England. It could mean, from its wording:

“All bank holidays in the UK” which would include the Twelfth, St Patrick’s Day, and others which are not bank holidays in any part of the country VTEC serves.

“Bank holidays in England only”, as VTEC are a company based in England and that’s the interpretation they might naturally, if confusingly, use.

“Bank holidays defined by whether it’s a bank holiday based on where you board/alight the train”, which would be even more confusing as there are some bank holidays in England which aren’t in Scotland and vice versa. Glasgow even has a local public holiday which applies only to Glasgow and not other parts of Scotland!

“Bank holidays which are holidays in both England and Scotland only, on the same day”, which would require clarification on the website for sure.

I agree that the website is unclear and unsatisfactory. It should be changed immediately to reflect both VTWC and VTEC policy, which is not to sell upgrades for days on which a full first class service is in operation - basically, weekends and bank holidays in England.

The website is not unclear; it is explicitly clear that you can upgrade on a bank holiday.

Virgin East Coast are not a small one man company, but a large organisation where anything appearing on it's website will go through a significant review and authorisation process. If they meant something else they would have said so.

You suggest that VTWC and VTEC policy is not to comply with its published offering. Is this information publicly available, and how do you know it is that which is incorrect not the website.

What I would suggest is that where there is an element of doubt which the guard can see (i.e. the website) it should be for the guard to resolve and not put the customer to the burden of dealing with an UPFN with the risk that customer services may tell the customer they are stuck with a bill of several hundred pounds.

 

[sefton]

No, wrong.

1- No valid ticket.
2- Will pay for a fare which appears to be advertised on the site only if you use the most favourable definition of “bank holiday” available to you (she didn’t mention the site btw) and which a staff member, allegedly, agreed. The fare due is not £25, though. It’s more than that. That is definitely the policy! That’s not good, but the fare remains due. Either pay it or move to standard. Dispute - fill out UFN, civil matter, contest the fare due later
3- Refuses to give details - offence.

There in't a favourable definition of “bank holiday”, it was a bank holiday and I don't see how you can argue it wasn't.

So it is the guard who won't sell the correct fare. On a train where tickets can be bought on board would it be acceptable for the guard to refuse to sell tickets and demand the names and addresses of everyone who didn't have a ticket but wanted to buy one. Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly the situation here.

If the guard was unsure of the rules they should have checked.

 

[AlterEgo]

The website is not unclear; it is explicitly clear that you can upgrade on a bank holiday.

Yes but which ones? It’s a UK company. Can I upgrade on the Twelfth? Can I upgrade on journeys made entirely in England when it is not a bank holiday there? Can I upgrade on journeys made entirely in Scotland when it is not a bank holiday there?

It’s massively unclear!

Virgin East Coast are not a small one man company, but a large organisation where anything appearing on it's website will go through a significant review and authorisation process.

That’s not really correct about the review and authorisation process - Virgin companies are all about avoiding negative language, qualifying language, and about emphasising things they might be better off leaving alone. Have a look at VTWC’s long history of poor advertising and their battles with the ASA.

If they meant something else they would have said so.

You really think? Trust me, there are *loads of things* on TOC websites which are misleading, incorrect, or out of date. This is just one example.

You suggest that VTWC and VTEC policy is not to comply with its published offering. Is this information publicly available, and how do you know it is that which is incorrect not the website.

The policy has never been publicly defined in explicit terms. I agree this is wrong and every year there are issues and complaints about confusion over bank holidays.

Virgin’s policies often remain unpublished. He old Railcard easement was often impossible to find, sometimes it appeared on the site and sometimes not. This happened when I worked at VTWC handling complaints. I have first hand experience of the whole Virgin mantra and I had regular battles with marketing over their unclear offers. The same issues blight VTEC.

What I would suggest is that where there is an element of doubt which the guard can see (i.e. the website) it should be for the guard to resolve and not put the customer to the burden of dealing with an UPFN with the risk that customer services may tell the customer they are stuck with a bill of several hundred pounds.

Perhaps it should! The guard tried to resolve this by asking the customer to move back to standard. I’m all for trying to resolve things without a UFN.

This does not mean he loses his *right* to ask for the customer’s details if she refuses. I am only trying to counter the incorrect assertion that she is bulletproof from giving details in this situation.

 

[AlterEgo]

There in't a favourable definition of “bank holiday”, it was a bank holiday and I don't see how you can argue it wasn't.

So it is the guard who won't sell the correct fare. On a train where tickets can be bought on board would it be acceptable for the guard to refuse to sell tickets and demand the names and addresses of everyone who didn't have a ticket but wanted to buy one. Of course it wouldn't be, and that is exactly the situation here.

If the guard was unsure of the rules they should have checked.

I’m not arguing it wasn’t a Bank Holiday in Scotland. It was! Yes!

My argument is that what Virgin advertise, and this has been the case for years, isn’t actually what the policy is and it’s not what happens in practice.

You have a great deal of faith in Virgin. I do not, and I have seen this dispute manifest itself before.

I used to act as a back channel to VTWC Customer relations for this forum, to resolve complicated and protracted disputes (fairly, and giving the customer the benefit of the doubt at every turn I could justify) and some very senior members can attest to my credentials in this area. They can also relate some truly bizarre tales about the stuff I’ve had to sort out which make this one seem straightforward.

 

[sefton]

Yes but which ones? It’s a UK company. Can I upgrade on the Twelfth? Can I upgrade on journeys made entirely in England when it is not a bank holiday there? Can I upgrade on journeys made entirely in Scotland when it is not a bank holiday there?

It’s massively unclear!

It isn't. If it is a bank holiday you can upgrade. If they meant something else they would say so!

Perhaps it should! The guard tried to resolve this by asking the customer to move back to standard. I’m all for trying to resolve things without a UFN.

Not really a great resolution when the reason why the customer wants to upgrade is because standard is overflowing.

This does not mean he loses his *right* to ask for the customer’s details if she refuses. I am only trying to counter the incorrect assertion that she is bulletproof from giving details in this situation.

I consider the guard should at least make an effort to check they are correct, rather than issue out UPFNs as the default. How hard would it have been to check?

 

[sefton]

I’m not arguing it wasn’t a Bank Holiday in Scotland. It was! Yes!

My argument is that what Virgin advertise, and this has been the case for years, isn’t actually what the policy is and it’s not what happens in practice.

But that isn't (or shouldn't be) the customer's problem.

Is there no escalation process for a guard to tell their manager that they are having issues with customers asking for upgrades which the website says are available, and that being escalated to the web team and policy team for them to sort out between them.

At the end of the day if the customer has been told X by the company, then the internal policy should not take precedence. Fix the problem and don't push it onto the customer.

And given that this has been in the press for days and the website has not changed, I think it safe to assume the website is correct and the internal policy isn't.

 

[AlterEgo]

At the end of the day if the customer has been told X by the company, then the internal policy should not take precedence. Fix the problem and don't push it onto the customer.

And given that this has been in the press for days and the website has not changed, I think it safe to assume the website is correct and the internal policy isn't.

A policy remains a policy regardless of how badly it has been communicated in public literature.

You don’t have a clue at how Virgin work, and you place an undue amount of faith in their processes.

They don’t sell Weekend First on bank holidays which are only holidays in Scotland and that’s been the case since they started selling them. I’ve had this battle before, actually within Virgin.

Similar battles include the non-publication of their Railcard easement policy on WC, the fact that when they started selling e-tickets they refused to make clear they couldn’t be refunded or amended, the fact the website would sell a Day Travelcard as an open return, plus many others.

An internal policy is still the policy. It’s the position taken by the organisation. Virgin West Coast have exactly similar unclear language to East Coast about Bank Holidays. The difference is, they’ll sell you the weekend upgrade in advance, on days they make it applicable. So, despite the advertising saying just “if you’re travelling on a bank holiday”, on West Coast they were selling full fares in First Class and the Weekend Upgrade was *not in force*. That’s because it’s their policy not to sell them non-English bank holidays. I got a first hand account of this in a comment on a recent travel video I published about Virgin Trains.

Your faith that Virgin will correct their website when someone or some even points out that is misleading or incorrect, is unfortunately misplaced.

I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

 

[sefton]

You don’t have a clue at how Virgin work, and you place an undue amount of faith in their processes.

If what you say is true it not really a great state of affairs is it; a major transport provider either lies to its customers or is incompetent, and some of their employees play along with this state of affairs by using their legal powers to threaten customers when the customers have been misled.

Nice.

 

[AlterEgo]

If what you say is true it not really a great state of affairs is it; a major transport provider either lies to its customers or is incompetent, and some of their employees play along with this state of affairs by using their legal powers to threaten customers when the customers have been misled.

Nice.

The situation is simply that Virgin are both apathetic and incompetent when it comes to advertising things accurately, which is a longstanding issue, and a cultural one at that. This is a very bad situation.

It’s not fair or reasonable to accuse employees of “playing along”, as if they’re all a willing part of the charade. It’s not often possible for front line staff to navigate the smoke and mirrors either. I reiterate again that the guard correctly asked for the proper upgrade due - just not the one the customer thought they were entitled to. The guard did not use any “legal powers” (he doesn’t actually have any in this situation, he has to call the police if the customer doesn’t comply, which is the same thing anyone in any retail business would have to do!).

He simply asked the customer to move back to standard class.

It is a bad situation, and Virgin are absolutely the worst TOC for this by a distance.

 

[Darandio]

ooh how very Richard Branson... stamp your feet, throw your toys out the pram and bray a bit more for the perfect impersonation though.

Not at all. I'm neither a fan of Virgin or Branson, but my point still stands, he isn't running it.

 

[backontrack]

Not at all. I'm neither a fan of Virgin or Branson, but my point still stands, he isn't running it.

Though he is keen to make things appear as though he is in charge at certain times - as long as it's when there is good publicity to be had.

Example: the unveiling of the Virgin Azuma and the event's promotional video, where he featured prominently.

 

[Darandio]

Though he is keen to make things appear as though he is in charge at certain times - as long as it's when there is good publicity to be had.

I agree. But it's completely different when responding to someone asking how much he is costing the UK taxpayer by running the show.

 

[backontrack]

I agree. But it's completely different when responding to someone asking how much he is costing the UK taxpayer by running the show.

Very true. People wouldn't blame Branson for Virgin's faults so much if he didn't try to use the line to improve his image at times. He has nothing to do with the day-to-day running of

Having said that, many people, myself included, view Branson very negatively after his treatment of the NHS among other things. The Virgin brand is tied to his public image, so he will take the flak when Virgin fails, even when it's really David Horne who's running the show (or, in the case of West Coast Trains Ltd, an executive).

 

[jon0844]

I do think most people have little to no idea about the involvement of Stagecoach. It's the reason why Virgin and Branson is all over the operation, despite having just a 10% stake. Heck, Virgin could have had no stake at all and just licensed out the name for a fixed fee and most people wouldn't have known.

Even I haven't kept up to date on what Virgin actually owns and doesn't own these days.

 

[Starmill]

Because it is difficult to back up, and in this case, the permission was given by platform staff, who would be hard to track down as the train is speeding away from the station.

It seems to me that the only problem with this is one you are making up yourself.

 

[MG11]

It seems to me that the only problem with this is one you are making up yourself.

The problem is quite apparent, as the individual concerned in this case was unable to prove she had been advised this by the despatch member of staff. If the individual had something printed or a written note confirming that it had been advised, then the Guard may have shown a little mercy. She didn't and there is no way of proving she was advised this, unless the member of staff volunteers their self forward and admits that it was them. How many times a week do you think Guards and Revenue Protection Officers hear excuses beginning with "the man on the platform said I could"....?

 

[MG11]

I do think most people have little to no idea about the involvement of Stagecoach. It's the reason why Virgin and Branson is all over the operation, despite having just a 10% stake. Heck, Virgin could have had no stake at all and just licensed out the name for a fixed fee and most people wouldn't have known.

Even I haven't kept up to date on what Virgin actually owns and doesn't own these days.

The operations definitely feel very Stagecoach.

 

[Starmill]

Virgin EC offer their full First Class service on 2nd January.

I am pretty sure I had sandwiches only on 2nd January 2016? And I remember a stream of complaints on twitter that the full service was not being provided. Perhaps that was a different date though.

Even if you’re taking an unusual route on a perfectly valid ticket and the guard suspects it to be invalid and you don’t pay what he (wrongly) asks for, he can still fill out a UFN and ask for your details! This has happened many times to forum members and the guard, while he may be wrong about everything else, remains entitled to ask for your details, and you remain bound to give them over or commit an offence by refusing.

This is a thorny issue and one that may warrant a new thread. For example, the requirement isn't actually for you to write down your name and address is it?

The problem is quite apparent, as the individual concerned in this case was unable to prove she had been advised this by the despatch member of staff.

How likely is it that this is neccesary? I'm semi-regularly given verbal only permission to join a train or purchase my ticket onboard my train or at my destination by a guard, or ticket office staff, or to use a particular ticket on a particular train. This is commonplace at some stations where queues exceed the stipulated maximum times, often due to things like out of order machines or other equipment failures. Or even just because someone turned up too late for them to be served and the ticket office staff are pro-active at minimising customer delay. There is simply no time for notes to be written in such situations.

How many times a week do you think Guards and Revenue Protection Officers hear excuses beginning with "the man on the platform said I could"....?

I am not a guard or a revenue protection officer (and neither are you), so I wonder how this is relevant?

 

[IanXC]

I’m not arguing it wasn’t a Bank Holiday in Scotland. It was! Yes!

My argument is that what Virgin advertise, and this has been the case for years, isn’t actually what the policy is and it’s not what happens in practice.

Ah so we're moving from talking about compliance with the Consumer Rights Act to compliance with the Trade Descriptions Act eh!

I absolutely agree with the idea that this is a 'Virgin cultural issue', see for instance my post in this thread New Virgin East Coast Website.

Without wishing to go off topic, as it would seem that in this case the Train Manager was enforcing the policy the company wished them to (even if this company policy was riddled with issues), there is a wider issue in that the industry has long had a view that the Guard/Conductor/TM has absolute control over what happens on the train they are working. Such that this absolute control extends to their interpretation of revenue and commercial issues. While there are good reasons for aspects of this, for instance in connection with safety issues, the industry really has to recognise that they cannot allow this situation to continue, as it almost condones direct contravention of the legal framework the industry now exists in, and the customer service standards that are expected and indeed guaranteed by law.

 

[yorkie]

The problem is quite apparent, as the individual concerned in this case was unable to prove she had been advised this by the despatch member of staff. If the individual had something printed or a written note confirming that it had been advised, then the Guard may have shown a little mercy. She didn't and there is no way of proving she was advised this, unless the member of staff volunteers their self forward and admits that it was them.

Are you on a deliberate wind-up or can you not help it?

The ticket office also said she could upgrade and you also asked on Twitter and they said it was available. A quick check of the website combined with a little knowledge of consumer law and common sense enables anyone to ascertain it was valid. (If it is unclear, then the interpretation that is most favourable to the customer is that which should prevail under consumer law)

There is no requirement to obtain a note in writing. It is unclear what message you are trying to get across here. "the Guard may have shown a little mercy" would be better worded as "carried out his job correctly".

How many times a week do you think Guards and Revenue Protection Officers hear excuses beginning with "the man on the platform said I could"....?

I remind you that consumer law does apply to the rail industry. If a ticket office provides advice or information to a customer, it would be unwise for a company to subsequently act in a manner that may be considered a breach of consumer law.

... there is a wider issue in that the industry has long had a view that the Guard/Conductor/TM has absolute control over what happens on the train they are working. Such that this absolute control extends to their interpretation of revenue and commercial issues. While there are good reasons for aspects of this, for instance in connection with safety issues, the industry really has to recognise that they cannot allow this situation to continue, as it almost condones direct contravention of the legal framework the industry now exists in, and the customer service standards that are expected and indeed guaranteed by law.

Yes, very much agreed!

 

[IanXC]

The problem is quite apparent, as the individual concerned in this case was unable to prove she had been advised this by the despatch member of staff. If the individual had something printed or a written note confirming that it had been advised, then the Guard may have shown a little mercy. She didn't and there is no way of proving she was advised this, unless the member of staff volunteers their self forward and admits that it was them. How many times a week do you think Guards and Revenue Protection Officers hear excuses beginning with "the man on the platform said I could"....?

This is the company's problem, not the customer's. The Consumer Rights Act means that verbal statements by the company's representatives are binding. That probably ought to mean that such staff are instructed not to make such verbal offers but as is the case in many industries the implication of this legal change does not seem to have been properly appreciated.

 

[MG11]

Are you on a deliberate wind-up or can you not help it?

The ticket office also said she could upgrade and you also asked on Twitter and they said it was available. A quick check of the website combined with a little knowledge of consumer law and common sense enables anyone to ascertain it was valid. (If it is unclear, then the interpretation that is most favourable to the customer is that which should prevail under consumer law)

There is no requirement to obtain a note in writing. It is unclear what message you are trying to get across here. "the Guard may have shown a little mercy" would be better worded as "carried out his job correctly".

I remind you that consumer law does apply to the rail industry. If a ticket office provides advice or information to a customer, it would be unwise for a company to subsequently act in a manner that may be considered a breach of consumer law.

Yes, very much agreed!

The Twitter confirmation, I agree is a good proof of permission. I'm not doubting that, I am also not doubting that verbally given permission is permission, what I am questioning is how a defendent would prove the verbally given permission. The person involved in this case was unable to prove this, and suffered the inconvenience of being moved to Standard, plus, probable embarrassment.

 

[yorkie]

The Twitter confirmation, I agree is a good proof of permission. I'm not doubting that, I am also not doubting that verbally given permission is permission, what I am questioning is how a defendent would prove the verbally given permission. The person involved in this case was unable to prove this, and suffered the inconvenience of being moved to Standard, plus, probable embarrassment.

If you do not doubt that then why are you arguing with us? Bizarre.