Worth complaining, or am I overreacting?

[Bodiddly]

A lot of posters commenting on how if the face fits and the TM having a 'nose' for the situation. I recently travelled first class with FGW and two chaps joined me in my coach (travelling seperately). I am a bit of a people watcher and noticed one of the guys when I went to the loo. He was wearing a black and gold tracksuit, white trainers, wooly hat and big headphones. The other guy I noticed when I was coming back from the loo was wearing tight jeans, scruffy shoes and a very distressed, almost panic stricken, leather coat. Not your typical first class passengers. The TM came through, checked tickets and went away happy.
You shouldn't ever assume anything in life and bad customer service will always be remembered more than good customer service. We are all human with different attitudes to life and while it is correct to say we all have off days, customer facing staff get paid quite well to deal with off days. Complaining about this would throw up a couple of scenarios one being that the TM gets a bollocking, resents it and becomes very difficult to work with, the other that he could be removed from his duties and lose pay etc.
By all means complain if you feel it will help what you have been through, but personally, I would chalk it up to experience and realise TM's do have to deal with a lot of nonsense in their role.

 

[O L Leigh]

I would complain, in fairness. He should have apologised, I would have. Staff do make mental assumptions about a passenger from appearance, that will never change, but treat all the same and only ever ask to see a ticket - no comeback then. People could complain, but after all that is one of the main things we are paid for, and a company would look stupid for disciplining someone for actually checking a ticket.

Based on what's been offered, that neatly summarises how I feel too.

Rather stumped at those who seem to think this interaction was perfectly acceptable, and that's speaking as somebody doing the same job. This guy was quite clearly insulting to the OP on a personal level, and then followed that up with a completely bizarre telling off about some made up issue with a perfectly legitimate and valid ticket. A complaint is the correct course of action here.

I don't think that anyone is suggesting that it was "perfectly acceptable". I'm certainly not.

And yes, a complaint is the correct course of action whenever a person feels aggrieved. That is right and proper, not trial by forum.

Blazing torches and pitchforks.............oh come on.

We are reading the same comments, aren't we...?

If there's one thing that I dislike intensely it's trial by forum. Does it need airing online? No it does not.

As I said before, if a person feels aggrieved they should complain and let the company deal with it according to their policies and procedures, taking into account all sides of the story, and take any action deemed appropriate according to that company's disciplinary procedures. End of.

O L Leigh

 

[bb21]

If there's one thing that I dislike intensely it's trial by forum. Does it need airing online? No it does not.

As I said before, if a person feels aggrieved they should complain and let the company deal with it according to their policies and procedures, taking into account all sides of the story, and take any action deemed appropriate according to that company's disciplinary procedures. End of.

The term "trial by forum" is an interesting one. The OP of course has the right to air his side of the story and seek opinion and advice from others anywhere he wishes. That is after all what a forum is about, and unfortunately the nature of a public forum means that usually there is only one side of the story, so members can only ever go on that in the vast majority of cases. This makes it fundamentally different to a company's disciplinary process, which must take into account the version of events supplied by all parties involved.

What I agree to a certain extent is that we can never take just one side of the story as gospel. It does not however mean the OP has no right to air it in public, unless it positively identifies the individuals concerned in public.

People expressing their opinion based on just one side of the story is not necessarily "trial by forum" as you may call it. There is a fundamental difference between the Daily Mail publishing a story without the full facts pointing the finger at someone who is positively identified and a matter being discussed on an internet forum with regard to someone who remains anonymous.

On the subject of the incident, I don't think the TM did himself any favours with his demeanour, and could have possibly very easily resolved the matter at the end of the encounter by way of a simple apology. Most people I would imagine would accept the apology and move on. I was involved in a similar incident in which the East Coast TM offered a very quick apology once she realized that I had a valid ticket. After all everyone makes mistakes and as long as it is acknowledged with good grace I don't see the need to escalate the matter.

I probably wouldn't have challenged the TM at the end if I were in the OP's position, but I see nothing wrong with seeking clarification on something as fundamental as ticket validity as in the OP's case. While we can only go on the OP's version of the events, it is quite possible that the TM decided to try this "catch-all" allegation as I have seen this happen before, after being challenged by a passenger, possibly because the TM realised that he did get it wrong but did not want to lose face in front of the passenger.

So yes, the OP should definitely complain in my opinion, and what happens internally is for the company to decide. While I don't think the TM should be sacked on the basis of a one-off incident, a word from management is the least that should happen, so that this does not happen again.

 

[Greenback]

I don't think this is trial by forum, as almost all of us are in agreement that to judge by appearances is something that shouldn't be done, even though it's human nature to do it, and the OP just wanted opinions on whether it was worth making a complaint

I don't like trial by forum myself, when it does happen.

 

[87019Chris]

I think the OP has a right to complain, even if you go back to the TM his response should have been I'm sorry if I offended you and I hadn't realised I missed the other guy then OP walks away no problem. Also I work in Customer facing role, in a "posh" area and you wouldn't realise just how many people come in in "scruffs" to see how you react to them, mean while they are sitting on a very healthy bank balance and are ready to spend £50,000 on a Kitchen!? Its so they can get a feel for you. If I approached them and said, why are you here? I wouldn't get the business, and would loose a job. Stereotypes on anything should be left at home when going to work.
Also I do understand the TM may have been having a bad day, but as someone who would love to work on the railways preferably in a TM position I think this is unacceptable if it is a reoccurring problem. I would hope its a one off, as I travel FC and I'm often in jeans and have never had a problem with any operator. Also a full ticket check should take place in FC, so the guy behind him should have had it checked too.

 

[fowler9]

I also don't think this was trial by forum. The OP was discussing a situation which happened to them. They have every right to do this and by the looks of it didn't break any forum rules. If they make a complaint it will be dealt with internally and I doubt anything will happen to the TM beyond a brief discussion of the matter unless they have a long and distinguished history of causing complaints due to their attitude. I don't think I have read any comments on here saying the TM should be sacked, nothing of the sort.

I think people being able to air their views on a forum is useful. As I mentioned I am a manager in a complaints department. Less than 2 week ago I closed a complaint and I could tell that the customer wasn't happy with the outcome (We aren't there to just give the customer what they want when it comes to complaints). As such I checked the file the next day and after I had left the customer had gone on our Facebook page to tell the world what they thought and accused me of saying and doing a few things I hadn't. Another manger had listened to the call and phoned the customer to tell them they were sorry they felt that way but that I hadn't done what they said I had. This was also posted on Facebook. Not a word was said to me and I would never have known if I hadn't looked at the file myself.

We deal with lots of complaints which aren't to do with recorded calls and it is one persons word against the others. Unless this TM has really made a name for himself I doubt anyones career will be ended.

 

[rdeez]

As others have said, what happens to the TM after my complaint is entirely up to Crosscountry and I have no opinion on what 'should' happen to him, beyond a reminder that m-tickets are equally valid and that assumptions, however many years experience they may be backed by, can still be very wrong.

I concur that, if this gentleman has a long and distinguished history, a brief word is all he's likely to face and that's fair enough. Has he a more troubled record then maybe this will lead to something more serious. We don't know, and will never know, but what I hope the ultimate outcome will be is that this will not happen again to me or to anyone else, regardless of how that is achieved internally, which is not my concern.

What is fantastic about this forum is that between us all, whether railway staff, passenger or just someone with a passing interest, we have so much knowledge, experience and each a unique perspective to offer, which is why I sought advice here. You all helped me see the wood from the trees, and word my email to XC accordingly.

Thanks again for the insight and I think I'll leave it here, until I get a reply.

 

[1e10]

Where do XC use these m-tickets? I travel between Bristol and Manchester on routes covered entirely by XC and don't see this option whilst purchasing.

 

[bb21]

They are only available from their mobile app I believe.

 

[Kneedown]

Very bizarre.

To be fair, the age of first class travellers probably is a little older. If it was based on race, it would definitely be worth a complaint.

This reads to me like let it drop if it was age based, but complain if it was race based.
Surely it is just as wrong to make assumptions based on age as it is on race, and equally worthy of complaint?

 

[fowler9]

This reads to me like let it drop if it was age based, but complain if it was race based.
Surely it is just as wrong to make assumptions based on age as it is on race, and equally worthy of complaint?

You are spot on, and speaking for myself a complaint will be dealt with no more or less thoroughly if it is based on age, sex, religion or race... or anything else in fact. Everyone has the right to complain, they may not like the outcome but as I say in my case at least it will not be based on any of those factors. It will be based on what has happened. If someone has been discriminated against for whatever reason I will take that in to account, I certainly won't discriminate on my part, not worth loosing my job over.

 

[Bishopstone]

As an aside, it does seem that the world according to a lot of forum members is purely black or white where people are either the purest angels or the darkest sinners.

O L Leigh

I agree with your sentiment, and will recall your words when enthusiast and rail staff members here launch 'Reading commuter' diatribes.

Also, when everyone leaps in after the next level crossing accident, wanting to string-up the motorist or the head of Network Rail (take your pick) before the investigation has reported.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think this is trial by forum, as almost all of us are in agreement that to judge by appearances is something that shouldn't be done, even though it's human nature to do it, and the OP just wanted opinions on whether it was worth making a complaint.

Yes, and I think the OP got that.

For clarity, my concern is not the OP's account of what happened but what came afterwards. Calls for the TM to lose his job, judgements about his suitability to fill the role and comments on what he should or should not have done, such as carrying out a full ticket check in FC (why...?), are, in my opinion, unwarranted.

It's strange how this sort of thing seems more acceptable when it's targeted at certain groups rather than others. We can't criticise or make any generalisation about the young, the elderly or the mentally confused in spite of their actions without facing a storm of criticism, but somehow railstaff seem to be fair game.

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying that railstaff are infallible, above criticism nor that there aren't a few rotten apples in the barrel, but there are at least procedures for dealing with them. It's called the complaints procedure.

O L Leigh

 

[Greenback]

Yes, and I think the OP got that.

So do I.

For clarity, my concern is not the OP's account of what happened but what came afterwards. Calls for the TM to lose his job, judgments about his suitability to fill the role and comments on what he should or should not have done, such as carrying out a full ticket check in FC (why...?), are, in my opinion, unwarranted.

Some comments may be harsh, but people have to right to their opinions and to express them within the rules of the forum. Just as you are entitled to your opinion that some comments are unwarranted, and to express that here.

It's strange how this sort of thing seems more acceptable when it's targeted at certain groups rather than others. We can't criticise or make any generalisation about the young, the elderly or the mentally confused in spite of their actions without facing a storm of criticism, but somehow railstaff seem to be fair game.

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying that railstaff are infallible, above criticism nor that there aren't a few rotten apples in the barrel, but there are at least procedures for dealing with them. It's called the complaints procedure.

The main difference is that rail staff, indeed any paid employee, should act in a professional and non judgmental manner, which, admittedly, is harder than it sounds. I'm pretty sure that an occasional incident of inappropriate wording won't be considered a big deal, but a word in the ear may be appropriate in the right circumstances.

I have noticed plenty of criticism of the young, and the not so young, on this forum by the way, along with criticism of passengers and staff. Some it is justified in my view, some of it isn't.

I agree that the complaints procedure is there to be used, as are the internal processes for dealing with them.

 

[fowler9]

Yes, and I think the OP got that.

For clarity, my concern is not the OP's account of what happened but what came afterwards. Calls for the TM to lose his job, judgements about his suitability to fill the role and comments on what he should or should not have done, such as carrying out a full ticket check in FC (why...?), are, in my opinion, unwarranted.

It's strange how this sort of thing seems more acceptable when it's targeted at certain groups rather than others. We can't criticise or make any generalisation about the young, the elderly or the mentally confused in spite of their actions without facing a storm of criticism, but somehow railstaff seem to be fair game.

Again, for clarity, I'm not saying that railstaff are infallible, above criticism nor that there aren't a few rotten apples in the barrel, but there are at least procedures for dealing with them. It's called the complaints procedure.

O L Leigh

I honestly can't recall anyone calling for the TM to loose his job.

 

[Greenback]

I honestly can't recall anyone calling for the TM to loose his job.

Neither can I, I thought I might have missed something!

 

[Altnabreac]

I think the OP has a right to complain, even if you go back to the TM his response should have been I'm sorry if I offended you and I hadn't realised I missed the other guy then OP walks away no problem. Also I work in Customer facing role, in a "posh" area and you wouldn't realise just how many people come in in "scruffs" to see how you react to them, mean while they are sitting on a very healthy bank balance and are ready to spend £50,000 on a Kitchen!? Its so they can get a feel for you. If I approached them and said, why are you here? I wouldn't get the business, and would loose a job. Stereotypes on anything should be left at home when going to work.
Also I do understand the TM may have been having a bad day, but as someone who would love to work on the railways preferably in a TM position I think this is unacceptable if it is a reoccurring problem. I would hope its a one off, as I travel FC and I'm often in jeans and have never had a problem with any operator. Also a full ticket check should take place in FC, so the guy behind him should have had it checked too.

I agree with this point and having been involved with customer service initiatives in various sectors I have seen mystery shopping where people who don't fit the usual profile of a service user have been deliberately recruited to test reactions of staff.

It sounds like this TM would have failed that particular shopping exercise...

 

[O L Leigh]

Neither can I, I thought I might have missed something!

You might.

The person in question is obviously not doing his job well, so either he needs to change his tune or find another career.

The OP is absolutely right to complain and if I was the conductor's boss I would be terminating his employment straight away (no pun intended).

The XC TM hasn't done himself any favours and really shouldn't be in the job.

O L Leigh

 

[fowler9]

You might.







O L Leigh

Ah fair enough. I stand corrected. Well that seems over the top to me. Everyone is allowed a few off days. If this guy has been doing the job some thirty years he will have had a few. No problem with that.

The OP still has a right to complain and I would consider doing so. Both sides of the argument have been histerical in parts. People saying just suck it up or you might cost someone there job for example.

 

[RJ]

I'm inclined to think that you might be making more out of it than is intended.

While it can be a mistake to categorise people based on their age or appearance, I do have some sympathy with the TM. Generally it's easier to move someone out of 1st class before they've sat down rather than after they've settled into a seat, mostly because some people genuinely don't know that they've taken a wrong turn. He may have felt justified by checking your ticket to verify that you were in the correct part of the train even though he did not intend to carry out a full ticket check.

I don't have any sympathy with the TM. Yes there's a job to be done, but there's a way to do it without causing unnecessary offence. In this case, leave the OP be until the routine ticket check. While previous experience may come in handy for dealing with difficult situations, using it to tactlessly act on formed prejudice is not the way to go about doing things.

I remember when I boarded an East Coast service at King's Cross. I was stopped by the buffet attendant and asked if I was aware if I was going into First Class - twice. Once I passed her test, I was then stopped by a first class host and again, asked twice if I was aware that I was going into First Class. He then asked to see my ticket, which was a First Class All Line Rover. I felt like asking what was the matter with these people, but I said nothing and carried on. If everybody who boarded an East Coast service got the same treatment, I wouldn't have felt so offended - but the reality is, the majority of people are greeted politely and left to take a seat without being subjected to an inquisition.

I've done my time working as on board crew, I used to make announcements prior to and just after departure, which would encourage some people without a valid ticket to excuse themselves without facing the embarrassment of being asked to leave - also, customers are more likely to be sympathetic with the ticket checker if they do end up asking people to leave. Unless it's standard procedure and applied to everyone who enters First Class, I happen to think it's quite rude to demand to see someone's ticket before they've had a chance to sit down.

 

[Muzer]

I'm not saying you did anything wrong, but is it possible that you recalled the wording of something you said slightly wrongly, which in turn was something that the TM took in the wrong way and took offence to? Again, I'm not excusing his behaviour, but it might go some way to explain the somewhat baffling responses.

Still definitely complain (I haven't finished reading the whole thread) if you haven't already.

 

[Busaholic]

If wearing scruffy or ill-fitting clothing was considered a disbarment to travelling 1st Class then half our aristocracy would have to find alternative means of transport. When I worked at 55 Broadway in the 1970s or had meetings in the nearby Home Office in the 1980s I often had lunchtime strolls around Westminster and saw the Lords (this was before most of the hereditaries were got rid of) going off for lunch or to their clubs, and by the state of some of them you'd think they hadn't got two halfpennies to rub together. For some reason, I also kept seeing Roy Jenkins in the same ill-fitting and incredibly rumpled (but not in a stylish way) suit. Now I'm no Beau Brummel but neither was I leader of the SDP!

 

[noddingdonkey]

Devil's advocate: is there a chance that the passenger who boarded alongside the OP but didn't have his ticket checked could simply have been known to the TM as a regular on that service who holds a First Class Season?

I can't imagine there are all that many First Season holders, and if the TM works that particular train often he may well recognise regulars who he needn't bother disturbing.

Not that that excuses the remarks about m-tickets, and I think the OP should feel entitled to a little more than "carry on" by way a response after being challenged for and presenting a valid ticket, "thank you, sir" as a bare minimum.

 

[Antman]

If wearing scruffy or ill-fitting clothing was considered a disbarment to travelling 1st Class then half our aristocracy would have to find alternative means of transport. When I worked at 55 Broadway in the 1970s or had meetings in the nearby Home Office in the 1980s I often had lunchtime strolls around Westminster and saw the Lords (this was before most of the hereditaries were got rid of) going off for lunch or to their clubs, and by the state of some of them you'd think they hadn't got two halfpennies to rub together. For some reason, I also kept seeing Roy Jenkins in the same ill-fitting and incredibly rumpled (but not in a stylish way) suit. Now I'm no Beau Brummel but neither was I leader of the SDP!

On a similar theme I heard a story about a scruffy looking bloke wandering round a Stagecoach garage and somebody thought he was a vagrant, upon making further enquiries they discovered it was in fact chairman Brian Souter

 

[455driver]

On a similar theme I heard a story about a scruffy looking bloke wandering round a Stagecoach garage and somebody thought he was a vagrant, upon making further enquiries they discovered it was in fact chairman Brian Souter

He never changed, he also carried all his paperwork around in a carrier bag rather than a briefcase!

 

[fowler9]

He never changed, he also carried all his paperwork around in a carrier bag rather than a briefcase!

I think you would struggle to find anyone on here that wouldn't call Brian Souter a scruffy get.

 

[Busaholic]

On a similar theme I heard a story about a scruffy looking bloke wandering round a Stagecoach garage and somebody thought he was a vagrant, upon making further enquiries they discovered it was in fact chairman Brian Souter

If he'd taken his mate Richard Branson with him, they'd have thought it was a squat.

 

[Merseysider]

Am with you. Personally speaking I don't think that people are too arrogant to speak to none managers, I think they believe that they are more likely to get things resolved more quickly or have money thrown at them. They are wrong in most cases, especially with large companies.

I did get a free £30 bet during the World Cup by complaining (half seriously) to Paddy Power's CEO about Germany's performance against Ghana (I'd bet £30 on Germany winning) and to quote Mr Kennedy; "a dumb priest never gets a parish".

In the OP's case, an email to the top probably would get handed back down - so if you let customer service deal with this one and if it happens again or you have another negative experience with XC then I would say maybe take it further as you'd have evidence lessons weren't learned.

The TM's approach was unprofessional and I think his refusal to engage with the OP when later approached could be indignation that for the first time in his illustrious career spanning three whole decades he is in the wrong Some people have serious difficulty admitting that, especially when used to getting their own way.

Alternatively, he may have thought it best not to engage the OP again in case it escalated into a confrontation - we only have one side of the story here and will probably never know what the TM was thinking.

 

[Greenback]

You might.

I do apologise. I completely missed the post by Moonshark, which is the only one that is directly stating that the TM should be dismissed. I don't agree with those sentiments at all, and if i had seen it, I would definitely have challenged the comment.

I don't view the other two remarks in quite the same light, though. I hear quite a few similar statements in connection with other occupations. For example, 'the way he drives he shouldn't be a taxi driver' and 'unless she starts smiling a bit miserable she should work in the stock room, not on the tills'.

To me, at least, these are not exactly calling for someone to be sacked, but pointing out their general behaviour isn't suited to the role they are in. Naturally, only the employer will ever really be in a position to know if any inappropriate behaviour is an issue or not, as it may be an isolated incident, or the alleged words/actions that provoked such a comment may not have happened at all.

In this case, I think it's a massive over-reaction for anyone to be dismissed over what is at most a poor choice of words. The underlying reason for that is a little more serious, but as I've said previously it's human nature to make assumptions, and we all do it sometimes, no matter how hard we try not to.

If I was the TM's manager the most I would do would eb to have a quiet word about remembering not to judge any passenger on appearance, whether it be through apparel, age, gender or any other protected characteristic.

 

[richw]

On many occasions previously have posters here suggested addressing a complaint to the CEO or MD of a company. On many occasions have others replied that people who do so are too arrogant to deal with non-managers and that this approach does not actually change anything as complaints are still forwarded to complaint handlers.

I'd link to examples but am posting from a mobile phone

I emailed Mark Hopwood due to the unacceptable outcome of my complaint and the time frame involved.
I received personal contact from Andrew Mellors, so not dealt with by the MD himself, but his assistant. Still someone of importance though. The final response from him effectively agreed the outcome was unacceptable. Two first class anytime tickets being the compensation to me and a cheque for £20.

I honestly can't recall anyone calling for the TM to loose his job.

A TM wont lose his job over any passenger vs TM allegation about rudeness (unless they have voice recorders?) Insufficient evidence to discipline without doubt.
In my former employment every conversation and discussion we have is recorded (to cover us more than anything). Approx. 75% of complaints about employees being rude are found to be invalid. Complaints about rudeness tend to be when customers cant get their own way.