Virgin Gate Line - Euston - Get it wrong again?

[Bletchleyite]

The suggestion that "in person" interactions ate recorded is somewhat disturbing ad most staff do not have such an option, and the reason that many will, quite reasonably in my view, object is that they don't want to find themselves plastered all over social media. This is similar to reasons that many companies no longer expect staff to have their surname on name badges.

There is a need for staff to be identifiable easily to the company for a complaint, though - why don't they go back to having numbered badges?

 

[mallard]

I hope you tell the business concerned that you are recording them or the court will have a lot of fun at your expense.

Recording conversations for personal use where you do not intend to supply the recordings to a third-party (except for "public interest" reasons, which would likely include gathering evidence of incorrect information given to consumers for use in, for example, civil proceedings) is perfectly legal and does not require consent or notification of the other party.

Even if you do intend to supply recordings to others, the purposes of "establish[ing] the existence of facts" and "ascertain[ing] compliance with regulatory or self-regulatory practices" are explicitly listed as legal justifications for recording conversations under The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000, which also does not require consent or notification. Those regulations are aimed at businesses, but also cover individuals, especially in commercial transactions.

The suggestion that "in person" interactions ate recorded is somewhat disturbing ad most staff do not have such an option, and the reason that many will, quite reasonably in my view, object is that they don't want to find themselves plastered all over social media.

Which is fine, until we come accross things like RPIs wearing bodycams (something that's becoming standard accross the network). If they're recording me, they have no moral justification for preventing me recording them. As I noted before, their recordings will only ever be used to protect them. A customer is entitled to at least the same amount of protection as a business. Also, most railway premsis and trains have CCTV, so even if they're not wearing cameras you are being recorded...

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I noted before, their recordings will only ever be used to protect them.

That's not actually completely true. If they act out of line (e.g. assault a customer) the Company will no doubt use them against the staff too.

 

[mallard]

That's not actually completely true. If they act out of line (e.g. assault a customer) the Company will no doubt use them against the staff too.

Sure, the company may protect itself that way. Of course, if the customer brings a civil action against the company, they may well find that the recordings have been "misplaced" or the recording device mysteriously malfunctioned at that time...

 

[gray1404]

I don't have that many problems at all. Quite the opposite. It is about covering one's self just in case. It is not even about carrying equipment for such a purpose now as most people have mobile phone while can do the job. It is possible to have your phone recording without the other party even knowing so therefore it does not get their back up either. But it means you have proof something was said or not said just in case. A member of the public recording does not need to inform of recording either, in most cases.

I would not normally say go straight to the small claims court, but problems with Virgin are happening so often at the Euston "gateline" that it seems to be letting them get away with it otherwise. Merely refunding a customer without really addressing the issue and making sure it doesn't happen again is not enough.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don't have that many problems at all. Quite the opposite. It is about covering one's self just in case. It is not even about carrying equipment for such a purpose now as most people have mobile phone while can do the job. It is possible to have your phone recording without the other party even knowing so therefore it does not get their back up either. But it means you have proof something was said or not said just in case. A member of the public recording does not need to inform of recording either, in most cases.

I would not normally say go straight to the small claims court, but problems with Virgin are happening so often at the Euston "gateline" that it seems to be letting them get away with it otherwise. Merely refunding a customer without really addressing the issue and making sure it doesn't happen again is not enough.

I would agree with the sentiment from others that going straight to Court without giving them a chance to refund beforehand is likely to lead to problems - specifically, you would likely be at the receiving end of Virgin's costs order.

However, I would treat it as any other contractual debt, and send a Letter Before Action demanding repayment (plus interest) within 14 days. If neither payment nor an adequate response is not received in this time then it would be appropriate to instigate County Court proceedings IMO.

 

[Clip]

I would agree with the sentiment from others that going straight to Court without giving them a chance to refund beforehand is likely to lead to problems - specifically, you would likely be at the receiving end of Virgin's costs order.

However, I would treat it as any other contractual debt, and send a Letter Before Action demanding repayment (plus interest) within 14 days. If neither payment nor an adequate response is not received in this time then it would be appropriate to instigate County Court proceedings IMO.

Id like to politely say that someone is yet again jumping the gun.Aas many of us have already stated a well worded letter to virgin should be all that is required first.

 

[Haywain]

There is a need for staff to be identifiable easily to the company for a complaint, though - why don't they go back to having numbered badges?

It would be extremely rare for first name and time/location not to be sufficient to identify a member of staff.

 

[Haywain]

Which is fine, until we come accross things like RPIs wearing bodycams (something that's becoming standard accross the network).

Specifically not what I referred to. I referred to staff who do not have such an option. And CCTV is nothing like the same as it does not generally involve sound recording.

 

[theageofthetra]

Completely agree. We need to remember that any audio/video recordings made by a business/organisation will be used exclusively for the benefit of that business/organisation. As we've seen in other fields/countries, recording equipment will conviniently malfunction or the recordings will be "accidentally" deleted whenever the staff member is at fault. If staff don't like being recorded by their customers, they shouldn't be allowed to record us either.

Don't forget that you must tell the person on the other end that you are recording the call (that's why they make the standard' we monitor the call etc etc) . I was surprised to learn whilst working on a mystery shopping project that this is classed as phone tapping otherwise . In the case of mystery shopping they get round it by all the staff who work at the call centre having been previously advised that there was a possibility they could be recorded by a third party as part of the mystery shopping programme.

 

[mallard]

Don't forget that you must tell the person on the other end that you are recording the call (that's why they make the standard' we monitor the call etc etc) . I was surprised to learn whilst working on a mystery shopping project that this is classed as phone tapping otherwise .

As I mentioned in my other post, that's not required in most cases, providing you're using the recordings for personal use and/or specific reasons including for evidence of a commercial transaction and ensuring regulatory compliance. See RIPA 2000 and The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.

 

[AlterEgo]

Don't forget that you must tell the person on the other end that you are recording the call (that's why they make the standard' we monitor the call etc etc) . I was surprised to learn whilst working on a mystery shopping project that this is classed as phone tapping otherwise

That’s nonsense and whoever told you that is very mistaken!

 

[A Challenge]

That’s nonsense and whoever told you that is very mistaken!

Presumably what he said applied to other companies not private individuals.

 

[Camden]

Id like to politely say that someone is yet again jumping the gun.Aas many of us have already stated a well worded letter to virgin should be all that is required first.

That's what a letter before action is. It gives them a chance to resolve the matter promptly outside of court, and then initiates proceedings if the company chooses not to do so.

Having had a couple of bad experiences with staff from another company in recent times, both of which suggested a culture problem at a particular company, I'm inclined to agree with those that say enough is enough. Staff fob customers off, cost them money, and dig their heels in leaving the customer with nowhere to go with the issue. Most customers won't have a clue about whether they are right or not or know how to go about taking the matter further.

It's a combination of poor training and bad attitude. Bad attitude, because there is nothing that stops anyone from double-checking and getting categorical information to confirm their knowledge, especially when confronted by someone who is certain that they are right. Railways staff appear to get plenty of training on bluffing their way through conversations and sending people on their way, and don't appear to face disciplinary action for doing so.

In the case of staff who issue tickets, if it is that they also receive commission for doing so then them helping themselves to customers' money when they are wrong to do so should be an especially seriously regarded matter.

Perhaps if the TOCs were regularly on the receiving end of a wedge of "letters before action", it might encourage them to a) issue proper training and b) issue the appropriate levels disciplinary action/personal improvement plans that anywhere else would deliver in such circumstances.

 

[ASharpe]

TVMs can be programmed (although often poorly) to only sell off peak tickets at certain times. Could something similar not be done to warn when an excesses is being issued for travel on a service for which the ticket is valid?

Or if that is too difficult could they not at least trawl their logs of ticket sales every few days to see which ticket sellers might be mis-selling tickets of defrauding people (potentially for commission).

I do similar work in my role in a different industry, although for the most part we don't have a monopoly.

 

[Haywain]

TVMs can be programmed (although often poorly) to only sell off peak tickets at certain times. Could something similar not be done to warn when an excesses is being issued for travel on a service for which the ticket is valid?

Or if that is too difficult could they not at least trawl their logs of ticket sales every few days to see which ticket sellers might be mis-selling tickets of defrauding people (potentially for commission).

I do similar work in my role in a different industry, although for the most part we don't have a monopoly.

Neither of these are possible. Tickets and excesses are sold/issued but the reasons behind sales are not, and cannot be, recorded.

 

[ASharpe]

Neither of these are possible. Tickets and excesses are sold/issued but the reasons behind sales are not, and cannot be, recorded.

That's why I said "warn" and "might". Surely the info printed on a ticket must be recorded. Fare excessed from and to, a timestamp and an identifier to the seller or the machine they sold from which can be traced back.

That and the Avantix Traveller data is all that is needed to spot problems.

 

[Haywain]

That's why I said "warn" and "might". Surely the info printed on a ticket must be recorded. Fare excessed from and to, a timestamp and an identifier to the seller or the machine they sold from which can be traced back.

That and the Avantix Traveller data is all that is needed to spot problems.

No, nowhere near that amount is recorded. Origin, destination and fare charged (for the excess) - not even ticket type from/to. You'd do well to spot any patterns with as little as that. The person selling and date/time are obviously recorded, but won't be any help unless you want to spend all your time questioning members of staff, and if you did the net result would be that they wouldn't want anything to do with issuing excess fares in future.

 

[ASharpe]

No, nowhere near that amount is recorded. Origin, destination and fare charged (for the excess) - not even ticket type from/to. You'd do well to spot any patterns with as little as that. The person selling and date/time are obviously recorded, but won't be any help unless you want to spend all your time questioning members of staff, and if you did the net result would be that they wouldn't want anything to do with issuing excess fares in future.

I work with big data/lots of data and spotting trends in the noise is not that difficult. You make the assumption that they are excessing from off peaks to peaks that are often sold by your website/ticket offices and try and match things up based on the difference in price between fares. Then you check the times and locations do some sense checks and distribute a memo:

We have noticed recently a large number off excesses from Off Peak to Anytime tickets for journeys for Journeys north of Milton Keynes issued after the morning peak.

Given that there are no peak time restrictions for those fares we suspect that the excess coupons are being requested to defraud by ********************.​

Then you watch out for who keeps on issuing them. And you can bet the keen ticket sellers will stop straight away.

I am sure there are some legitimate needs for off-peak to anytime excesses going to the north in the mess of the ticketing system but I doubt many of them would be sold at all.

 

[Haywain]

I have managed a large ticket office and looked at all sorts of internal control issues, of which excess fares are just one. The number of them is tiny and the biggest concern is whether they are issued correctly. Any fraud is likely to be against an employer or HMRC, and it is not the job of the railway to investigate these. And I repeat, the information recorded is next to useless for detecting the trends you seem to think would be seen.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

TVMs can be programmed (although often poorly) to only sell off peak tickets at certain times. Could something similar not be done to warn when an excesses is being issued for travel on a service for which the ticket is valid?

Or if that is too difficult could they not at least trawl their logs of ticket sales every few days to see which ticket sellers might be mis-selling tickets of defrauding people (potentially for commission).

I do similar work in my role in a different industry, although for the most part we don't have a monopoly.

Just to clarify, no excess was is issued in this case. A whole new anytime ticket was demanded to be purchased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to clarify, no excess was is issued in this case. A whole new anytime ticket was demanded to be purchased.

Cheaper than the excess.