Virgin Trains penalty charge

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . One reason for this inconsistency is that a number of staff are not willing to enforce rules as they believe they will be undermined if the customer complains. This in turn makes it harder for the rest of us when we do enforce the rules.

Which is one of the reasons why I know I could never do your job. No clarity, no consistency, and - when you need it the most - no support, potentially an investigation, but not assured support and assistance.

 

[neilmc]

Which is one of the reasons why I know I could never do your job. No clarity, no consistency, and - when you need it the most - no support, potentially an investigation, but not assured support and assistance.

I don't see what the problem is - the customer made a genuine mistake, the train manager acted correctly and Virgin, to their credit, decided to refund travel vouchers in a goodwill gesture. No suggestion of any witch-hunt against any staff.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What a shame Virgin have allegedly done what they always do.

They make a mockery of all the hard work that TOCs do to try and eradicate fare evasion.

Why does it? Customer relations will, if they've got any sense, keep a record of names and the nature of their complaint. So if someone writes in once about this issue then they'll get some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill and a reminder to be more careful next time, but if they do it a second or third time they'll be told to bog off.

That's what I'd call Good Customer Service.

The train guard did his job properly, the "gesture of goodwill" means Virgin agree with that but understand the customer's point of view, and the customer feels more highly about Virgin (also the RTVs will be spent in the industry, probably on a Virgin service). It's probably also cheaper than doing the admin for a Passenger Focus complaint.

Would you rather Virgin told everyone to bog off and it ended up in the Telegraph or Guardian?

 

[island]

It certainly used to be the case that a ticket was also your receipt so you were entitled to retain it. Do I presume that this regulation has altered?

Tickets have been and remained the property of the railway for as long as I can remember. Separate receipts can be requested at the point of sale.

As mentioned above, there has been no shortage of circular threads about whether this should be the case, whether employers or TOCs are being inflexible, etc., etc.

 

[LateThanNever]

Why does it? Customer relations will, if they've got any sense, keep a record of names and the nature of their complaint. So if someone writes in once about this issue then they'll get some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill and a reminder to be more careful next time, but if they do it a second or third time they'll be told to bog off.

That's what I'd call Good Customer Service.

The train guard did his job properly, the "gesture of goodwill" means Virgin agree with that but understand the customer's point of view, and the customer feels more highly about Virgin (also the RTVs will be spent in the industry, probably on a Virgin service). It's probably also cheaper than doing the admin for a Passenger Focus complaint.

Would you rather Virgin told everyone to bog off and it ended up in the Telegraph or Guardian?

I'd call it Good Customer Service too!
(Northern Rail please note)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Tickets have been and remained the property of the railway for as long as I can remember. Separate receipts can be requested at the point of sale.

As mentioned above, there has been no shortage of circular threads about whether this should be the case, whether employers or TOCs are being inflexible, etc., etc.

It is presumably just that in the past the railway did not issue receipts and passed on their 'property'....

 

[Tom C]

Pleased for you but Very disappointed in the company.

This is exactly the situation which leaves staff feeling unsupported in carrying out revenue duties. Staff carry out duties to the book and customer relations undermine them.

Totally agree!

No offence intended to the OP but the guard on the train did his job correctly, the passenger was charged the appropriate fare so why is he entitled to anything?

Penalty Fares are charged for genuine errors and the likelihood of winning an appeal is slim unless it was incorrectly applied so why should this be any different for a ticket issue?

 

[A-driver]

Oh I thought I had posted the result of this incident earlier. So to update everyone: I received a letter back from Virgin explaining that the tickets were not refundable however they did include £62 worth of rail Vouchers for use in the next 12 months which I am very pleased with.

Many thanks to the helpful people who assisted me above and maybe a little message to others that sometimes people make genuine mistakes and not everyone is on the fiddle

You seem to have taken a very poor attitude to the people on here who tried to help. No one here has accused you of being on the fiddle. You asked a question of why anyone would give a ticket away and people answered your question. They didn't accuse you of fare evasion but answered the question which you asked. Then you got all defensive about the answer. I think the last few lines of your post there are unneeded. Perhaps re- read the entire thread and remove the rather bitter remark as it's pretty ungreatful to those who helped you and answered correctly the question which you yourself asked!

 

[Tracky]

On reflection, some days later, I don't feet Virgin CR were entirely wrong in their action as long as they made it crystal clear that the guard carried out his duties correctly and the charge made in the train was not a penalty as the thread title says.

I still think a full refund is over generous though I accept that travel vouchers do restrict the claimant in rail travel and inconvenience by restricting to booking office purchases.

The public do have to realise that even if they make what is to them a genuine and honest mistake, staff can only act on the information they have. If that information is no valid ticket, then they do need to buy another.

 

[Fare-Cop]

On reflection, some days later, I don't feet Virgin CR were entirely wrong in their action as long as they made it crystal clear that the guard carried out his duties correctly and the charge made in the train was not a penalty as the thread title says.

I still think a full refund is over generous though I accept that travel vouchers do restrict the claimant in rail travel and inconvenience by restricting to booking office purchases.

The public do have to realise that even if they make what is to them a genuine and honest mistake, staff can only act on the information they have. If that information is no valid ticket, then they do need to buy another.

I think this is where we tend to get potential conflict over mistakes (or alleged mistakes in some cases) made on a railway (or other public transport) that wouldn't generate the same response in any other sales environment.

I know that many forum users do not like analogies that refer to other retail environments, but if I go to the outfitters and buy a tie and then lose it on my way home, going back to the retailer and saying 'I bought a tie here this morning, I want to wear it tonight and I seem to have lost it" will probably result in them sympathising, though making clear that because it's my fault, they will expect me to buy a replacement.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Poor analogy as replacing the tie would cost the outfitter but allowing travel in the case of a lost ticket would not cost the railway.

Before someone jumps down my throat, I would like to clarify that I do not think the railways should allow travel to people who have lost their tickets, I was just disputing the validity of the analogy.

 

[A-driver]

Poor analogy as replacing the tie would cost the outfitter but allowing travel in the case of a lost ticket would not cost the railway.

Before someone jumps down my throat, I would like to clarify that I do not think the railways should allow travel to people who have lost their tickets, I was just disputing the validity of the analogy.

It will cost the railway if the ticket infact hasn't been lost but has been handed to someone else allowing two people to travel on one ticket effectively, the same as if the tie hadn't been lost but had been given to someone else then it's basically conning the tie shop out of a sale.

Not saying that everyone who looses a ticket is a fare dodger but it is the reason railways take a dim view of replacing tickets. It opens the flood gates.

 

[trimmtrab]

Hi Guys, just returned to see what posts have been made and can I just as that no guard approached me on the train. The additional charge was made at MK station. I was entirely honest with the inspector there and told him my mistake.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Poor analogy as replacing the tie would cost the outfitter but allowing travel in the case of a lost ticket would not cost the railway.

Yes, don't get me wrong I agree with that, but the principle is that it is up to all of us to take more care of that we have purchased, particularly high value purchases, which unfortunately rail tickets often are.

 

[455driver]

Hi Guys, just returned to see what posts have been made and can I just as that no guard approached me on the train. The additional charge was made at MK station. I was entirely honest with the inspector there and told him my mistake.

Did you have a valid ticket yes or no?
If not then it doesnt matter who issued the PF because that was the correct course of action for them to do!

 

[Altnabreac]

Why does it? Customer relations will, if they've got any sense, keep a record of names and the nature of their complaint. So if someone writes in once about this issue then they'll get some RTVs as a gesture of goodwill and a reminder to be more careful next time, but if they do it a second or third time they'll be told to bog off.

I think this is the pertinent point here. Virgin can keep their customer happy here but if a persistent fare evader used this method they would get caught out very quickly.

If staff hadn't forced the customer to buy a new ticket but just waved him through the gate then this customer would have been equally happy but the persistent fare evader would be no closer to being stopped.

So a combination of correct rule enforcement by staff and correct discretion by customer services reduces fare evasion by persistent offenders without punishing those who made a one off mistake. This seems like a win all round to me?

 

[455driver]

You are assuming Customer disservice will keep a record of names and addresses that have been given a refund!

I dont think they would bother, their only remit seems to be to basically pi++ off and undermine the frontline staff who are doing their jobs correctly!

 

[Hadders]

You are assuming Customer disservice will keep a record of names and addresses that have been given a refund!

I don't think they would bother, their only remit seems to be to basically pi++ off and undermine the front line staff who are doing their jobs correctly!

In my experience customer service do keep records of who they make payments to. Where I work I've often had customer services call me for advice on whether a customer should be given a discretionary refund because they've had one before and they think they're trying it on.

No-one is saying that front line staff didn't do their job correctly but there is a bigger picture about brand integrity/reputation to think about as well.

As long as customer services say that asking for a new ticket to be purchased was correct, tell the passenger to take more care in future and enclose some vouchers as a gesture of good will then I don't see a problem.

I'm all for fare evaders being properly dealt with but I don't think the railway should acquire a reputation like Ryanair either (who it is interesting to note seem to be softening their previous hard line stance!).

 

[Flamingo]

The problem with customer services is they are reading a letter that has been composed in hindsight, with plenty of time to polish the excuse, possibly run it through this or similar forums to remove the anomalies and maybe even find a better story, and hrow in a few comments about how rude and unhelpful the front-line staff were it usually reads very well.

The front-line staff, however, have been able to hear the unpolished excuse, see the body language, and ask questions to establish what the real story may be.

I've seen it too often to have any faith in the system - that's why I laugh out loud at threads which accuse TOC's of entrapment or underhand attempts to prosecute passengers - the system is undermined every day by the TOC's own obsession with "Image". They want staff to take money, but never upset anybody in doing so!

 

[Altnabreac]

You are assuming Customer disservice will keep a record of names and addresses that have been given a refund!

I dont think they would bother, their only remit seems to be to basically pi++ off and undermine the frontline staff who are doing their jobs correctly!

Very true, it does require a competent customer service function, who keep good records and engage properly with frontline staff on outcomes.

I'm sure this happens in some TOCs but possibly not all?

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd have thought there would be a record when RTVs are issued, for accounting purposes as nothing else. Who issued it, who to and why, that sort of thing. I've been told that RTVs are accounted for in a similar way to cash, though I don't know how accurate that is.

I would expect that someone "trying it on" could get away with it with Customer Services once, or maybe twice. If the same person is having the same issue every month then it should sound alarm bells. But on a more practical level, I can't imagine the seasoned fraudsters complaining too loudly in case attention is drawn to themselves.

 

[Hadders]

There is also a commercial aspect for customer services to think about. If customer services reject the passengers claim they are likely to write in again, or escalate it elsewhere.

There is a cost associated in dealing with each piece of correspondence so commercially it can often make sense to issue some vouchers as a gesture of goodwill.

In my experience of dealing with front line operations (not in transport to be fair but in a retail environment), most people who know they're trying it on don't bother writing into customer services to complain. Admittedly a few will and it is unfortunate that they sometimes get away with some vouchers or a refund. But the majority of people who take the time and trouble to write in are genuine.

 

[alastair]

You are assuming Customer disservice will keep a record of names and addresses that have been given a refund!

I dont think they would bother, their only remit seems to be to basically pi++ off and undermine the frontline staff who are doing their jobs correctly!

How does giving a customer some refund vouchers amount to telling them to "pi++ off"? And I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that anyone "did not do their job correctly"?

Other posters have suggested why in this case, for good commercial and reputational reasons, the customer should be given the benefit of the doubt. What is your problem with that?

 

[MikeWh]

You are assuming Customer disservice will keep a record of names and addresses that have been given a refund!

I dont think they would bother, their only remit seems to be to basically pi++ off and undermine the frontline staff who are doing their jobs correctly!

How does giving a customer some refund vouchers amount to telling them to "pi++ off"? And I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that anyone "did not do their job correctly"?

Other posters have suggested why in this case, for good commercial and reputational reasons, the customer should be given the benefit of the doubt. What is your problem with that?

I think you're reading more into what 455driver said than was there. He's saying that CS pi++ off frontline staff as well as undermine them.

 

[455driver]

I think you're reading more into what 455driver said than was there. He's saying that CS pi++ off frontline staff as well as undermine them.

yes that is what I meant, CS leave it to the frontline staff to tell the Customers to pi++ off!

For those wsith no sense of humour, the last bit is a joke!

 

[Tracky]

Customer Relations normally do keep records I believe.

I am aware that rare responders get round amounts of vouchers back, regular claimants will just get the value of the ticket.

As I say, I'm more concerned about the language used in the correspondence. It needs to be made clear that this is a definite good will gesture to reimburse a customers own mistake.

I notice 455driver misread earlier posts. The passenger didn't get a penalty fare, but was just charged for the off peak single for the journey made. The passenger was actually treated with great leniency at that point.

 

[455driver]

I notice 455driver misread earlier posts. The passenger didn't get a penalty fare, but was just charged for the off peak single for the journey made. The passenger was actually treated with great leniency at that point.

Oops sorry ,

With all the huffing I thought they had been PFed.
In that case they should just say thanks very much and make sure they have their ticket next time.

 

[BestWestern]

The public do have to realise that even if they make what is to them a genuine and honest mistake, staff can only act on the information they have. If that information is no valid ticket, then they do need to buy another.

Absolutely.

It is really quite amazing the number of passengers who will announce that they 'seem to have lost' their ticket, and are then visibly taken aback by the suggestion that they will therefore need to buy another one. There is the usual suggestion that presenting a receipt (it's incredible how many people put the receipt safely in their pocket but lose the ticket they paid for!) gets around the problem, followed by further displays of disbelief when it is suggested that if a tillroll receipt was valid for travel the industry would not waste money printing superfluous tickets as well.

A train journey is a TOC's 'product', which the consumer is required to pay for. Aside from the rules, terms and conditions, the bottom line is quite simply that a ticket is your permission to use the product, and no ticket means no product.

 

[Flamingo]

Or "I have the e-mail"...

 

[Tracky]

Of course the recent problems with the ToD system have added to that headache.

 

[8J]

I've been watching this thread and in my opinion, it is a problem with privatised railways. Virgin will want customers to want them to win the next franchise award to put pressure on the DaFT. Like the fiasco in 2012, without the e-petition and intense media coverage from beardy, I think the WCML would be under First Group control right now. One way of getting customer support is to be over-lenient in CR.

I reckon that if VT are awarded the next WC franchise, then this will all change and they will be far more dismissive of the "I lost my ticket" claims.