EMR Guard Refusing To Accept Post Strike Day Ticket

[Llandudno]

I have just received a text message from my somewhat upset daughter on her way back to Reading University from Matlock…

She was due to travel back to university yesterday (Monday Cross Country Strike Day) and was using the return half of an off peak return Matlock -Birmingham and then advance single Birmingham-Reading. Tickets purchased prior to strikes being announced.

I tweeted both EMR and XC to confirm that as there were no Cross Country trains running on Monday could she use her tickets to travel the following morning (today Tuesday).

Both EMR and XC confirmed that the tickets, off peak or otherwise could be used on any train on Tuesday and even Wednesday.

Lo and behold she boards the 0613 Matlock-Derby train this morning and the EMR guard will not accept her ticket and charges her an extra £10.20, she even showed him the tweets from EMR and XC stating that the tickets would be valid!

She was planning to travel at a civilised time yesterday afternoon, but because no trains were running she had to catch a red eye train this morning instead in order to attend a lecture at 1100.

Unbelievable - no wonder people commute by car and our motorways are rammed!

 

[Brissle Girl]

In the first instance go back to the EMR Twitter account, explain what happened, and ask how she should go about getting a refund.

 

[WesternLancer]

I have just received a text message from my somewhat upset daughter on her way back to Reading University from Matlock…

She was due to travel back to university yesterday (Monday Cross Country Strike Day) and was using the return half of an off peak return Matlock -Birmingham and then advance single Birmingham-Reading. Tickets purchased prior to strikes being announced.

I tweeted both EMR and XC to confirm that as there were no Cross Country trains running on Monday could she use her tickets to travel the following morning (today Tuesday).

Both EMR and XC confirmed that the tickets, off peak or otherwise could be used on any train on Tuesday and even Wednesday.

Lo and behold she boards the 0613 Matlock-Derby train this morning and the EMR guard will not accept her ticket and charges her an extra £10.20, she even showed him the tweets from EMR and XC stating that the tickets would be valid!

She was planning to travel at a civilised time yesterday afternoon, but because no trains were running she had to catch a red eye train this morning instead in order to attend a lecture at 1100.

Unbelievable - no wonder people commute by car and our motorways are rammed!

Frustrating experience.

Further to @Brissle Girl 's good advice on immediate next step, I would then -

Save screen grabs of all this, receipts for extra payment made etc - as I suspect you or she may need to formally engage with EMR customer services in writing to pursue the refund. ie not expect it to all just get sorted out via Twitter

 

[LowLevel]

You'll need to contact EMR customer services directly though it's helpful it would have been an EMR guard as well.

It is worth being aware though that the staff brief this time around is quite wordy and can be interpreted in different ways - I think social media teams might be taking it as travel when you need to due to the inconvenience, but there is also reference within the staff brief to travelling around the planned time.

 

[furlong]

Travelling at 0613 sounds like simply taking the next available train following disruption - no special strike concession required! Don't forget to claim additional compensation for the distress and trouble caused by the blatant breach of contract - don't restrict the claim to the cost of the ticket.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

My understanding of the mutual ticket acceptance in place is that it is only possible if the ticket was purchased prior to the industrial action being announced (ie purchased before 16th Jan)

Was this the case?

EDIT…yes I missed the part where they said it was purchased beforehand, do we need to keep correcting my, already admitted and apologised for, error and skim read?
I’ve got the hint.

 

[northwichcat]

My understanding of the mutual ticket acceptance in place is that it is only possible if the ticket was purchased prior to the industrial action being announced (ie purchased before 16th Jan)

Was this the case?

The original post says "Tickets purchased prior to strikes being announced."

I think social media teams might be taking it as travel when you need to due to the inconvenience, but there is also reference within the staff brief to travelling around the planned time.

I'm sure on public facing websites I've seen references to affected passengers travelling to as close to their booked train as possible on an alternative day. However, I think that related to Advance tickets and even that didn't imply guards would reject tickets unless you were on a train at the exact same time.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

The original post says "Tickets purchased prior to strikes being announced."

Apologies, missed that line somehow

 

[Llandudno]

My understanding of the mutual ticket acceptance in place is that it is only possible if the ticket was purchased prior to the industrial action being announced (ie purchased before 16th Jan)

Was this the case?

Ticket purchased on 14 January, two days before strikes announced.

 

[Sheffcaster202]

Ticket purchased on 14 January, two days before strikes announced.

See post above yours

 

[Class800]

You'll need to contact EMR customer services directly though it's helpful it would have been an EMR guard as well.

It is worth being aware though that the staff brief this time around is quite wordy and can be interpreted in different ways - I think social media teams might be taking it as travel when you need to due to the inconvenience, but there is also reference within the staff brief to travelling around the planned time.

There are 2 issues here:

Customer overcharged --> I would suggest go to customer services asking for refund and compensation - see what they offer

Guard failing to follow instructions from his employer by failing to follow the information from his company's Twitter feed --> potential gross misconduct. Unfortunately, due to the way things are handled in companies, even the victim won't know what if anything happens to the guard.

 

[LowLevel]

There are 2 issues here:

Customer overcharged --> I would suggest go to customer services asking for refund and compensation - see what they offer

Guard failing to follow instructions from his employer by failing to follow the information from his company's Twitter feed --> potential gross misconduct. Unfortunately, due to the way things are handled in companies, even the victim won't know what if anything happens to the guard.

The social media controller is not there to give directions to a train guard so it would never be gross misconduct - that's gross hyperbole if anything - the tweet is also addressed to the customer not the guard.

Don't dilute your valid point about consistent messaging by making up daft nonsense.

 

[father_jack]

My understanding of the mutual ticket acceptance in place is that it is only possible if the ticket was purchased prior to the industrial action being announced (ie purchased before 16th Jan)

Was this the case?

This is the RDG guidance.

 

[Class800]

The social media controller is not there to give directions to a train guard so it would never be gross misconduct - that's gross hyperbole if anything - the tweet is also addressed to the customer not the guard.

Don't dilute your valid point about consistent messaging by making up daft nonsense.

No daft nonsense, an instruction was given from the company and an employee ignored it. It looks really bad, as does not seeing it as misconduct.

 

[northwichcat]

The social media controller is not there to give directions to a train guard so it would never be gross misconduct - that's gross hyperbole if anything - the tweet is also addressed to the customer not the guard.

The person employed by Twitter/X is an employee of the railway company. If an employee of the railway company gives authorisation to travel on a specific service, then who does the guard think he is in trying to revoke that authorisation? If he thought the advice was wrong, he should take it up with his manager, not the passenger.

I would hope that a guard taking revenue from a passenger who has a valid ticket is gross misconduct, especially if he also gets commission from selling the excess fare. If employees working for a private parking enforcement company did that, criminal charges could follow.

 

[Class800]

The person employed by Twitter/X is an employee of the railway company. If an employee of the railway company gives authorisation to travel on a specific service, then who does the guard think he is in trying to revoke that authorisation? If he thought the advice was wrong, he should take it up with his manager, not the passenger.

I would hope that a guard taking revenue from a passenger who has a valid ticket is gross misconduct, especially if he also gets commission from selling the excess fare. If employees working for a private parking enforcement company did that, criminal charges could follow.

I entirely agree, and disagree with the point raised in response to my comment suggesting it is nonsense to require staff of a company to follow orders from their employer. Unfortunately, there seems an issue of closing ranks in the rail sector to try to defend the indefensible. We see it too often. There's nothing more I can valuably say here

 

[LowLevel]

No daft nonsense, an instruction was given from the company and an employee ignored it. It looks really bad, as does not seeing it as misconduct.

We will have to agree to disagree. I can just imagine the disciplinary hearing.

"You are charged with failing to comply with an instruction from a non safety critical controller that was not intended to be worded as an instruction to staff indirectly issued over social media in an unrecognised format to a customer as advice"

Yeah, that'll be 10 years inside after half a day in the stocks.

As I said, inconsistent messaging that has potentially landed a customer out of pocket - bad, needs to be addressed as a learning point for all.

Should the passenger be compensated - sure.

Gross misconduct - absolute nonsense.

I am not saying the end result is correct. I am saying it does not amount to gross misconduct which is an extremely serious charge and should be treated as such.

Can I also politely remind you that what you have is a secondhand account from someone who wasn't there at the time, which is certainly not everyone's side of the story.

 

[RHolmes]

This is the RDG guidance.

As per the guidance “Customer should travel as close as possible to their original itinerary”

It would appear that the passenger in the OP’s comment was travelling on a peak time service with an off peak ticket, contrary to the above.

However, was advised by control (rightly or wrongly) to use any available train that day

The guard seemingly has charged an excess fare to upgrade the ticket to an anytime return in line with the above and the ticketing conditions that would be used on a ‘normal’ day

I’d believe blame here lies both with the customer service team and the guard. The guard had charged an excess despite being shown permission granted, ignoring the post to the passenger and the TOC’s customer service/retail dept is publicly telling passenger information without ensuring it’s passed on to revenue trained colleagues (or that may be misaligned with that of the actual RDG policy).

Regardless I’d ask for a return of the excess via email to the customer relations teams, screenshotting the advice given to the passenger personally

 

[bramling]

There are 2 issues here:

Customer overcharged --> I would suggest go to customer services asking for refund and compensation - see what they offer

Guard failing to follow instructions from his employer by failing to follow the information from his company's Twitter feed --> potential gross misconduct. Unfortunately, due to the way things are handled in companies, even the victim won't know what if anything happens to the guard.

The latter is a massive over-reaction. Whilst there *may* be scope for the guard to be spoken to about this sort of situation, it’s not going to be gross misconduct in a million years. Not unless it’s a repeated pattern of behaviour and where a member of staff has ignored warnings.

 

[ainsworth74]

We will have to agree to disagree. I can just imagine the disciplinary hearing.

"You are charged with failing to comply with an instruction from a non safety critical controller that was not intended to be worded as an instruction to staff indirectly issued over social media in an unrecognised format to a customer as advice"

Yeah, that'll be 10 years inside after half a day in the stocks.

As I said, inconsistent messaging that has potentially landed a customer out of pocket - bad, needs to be addressed as a learning point for all.

Should the passenger be compensated - sure.

Gross misconduct - absolute nonsense.

I am not saying the end result is correct. I am saying it does not amount to gross misconduct which is an extremely serious charge and should be treated as such.

Quite. Gross misconduct is a ridiculous suggestion in this situation.

Personally I would hope that a guard shown a communication from their TOCs Twitter team would take the approach of "Well they're not correct unfortunately, however, because you followed their advice in good faith I won't charge you again but for future reference..." but equally the action they took isn't even vaguely approaching gross misconduct. Less than ideal customer service perhaps warranting a gentle prod from the relevant manager and the customer getting a refund from customer services. But that's about it!

 

[Haywain]

Gross misconduct is a ridiculous suggestion in this situation.

I'm starting to think that people bandy that term about without really understanding what it means.

 

[Brissle Girl]

As per the guidance “Customer should travel as close as possible to their original itinerary”

It would appear that the passenger in the OP’s comment was travelling on a peak time service with an off peak ticket, contrary to the above.

They were travelling early the following morning, which was indeed as close as possible to their original itinerary for two reasons:-

1. In terms of elapsed time from the booked services, the first train of the morning is the closest possible
2. From the passenger's perspective, they had to be in a certain place by a certain time, which necessitated taking the first train, so from her perspective, any later train would not have been possible.

 

[greyman42]

When there is strike action, why don't guards use some common sense and cut the customer some slack? (I am sure some do)

 

[northwichcat]

"Well they're not correct unfortunately, however, because you followed their advice in good faith I won't charge you again but for future reference..."

And that would be unprofessional behaviour. If the guard is proved to be wrong then passengers can end up paying more for future journeys because a guard was too stubborn to admit he was wrong. Saying "I didn't think that was the case" would be an acceptable statement.

 

[nanstallon]

The aggressive attitude of the railways; sometimes management, sometimes on board staff and RPIs, puts me (and I suspect many others) off using trains. But, of course, on the railway the customer is always wrong!

 

[Watershed]

As per the guidance “Customer should travel as close as possible to their original itinerary”

The customer was travelling on the next available itinerary - the 06:18 is the first train of the day from Matlock, on the day after the strike. Therefore the customer was indeed travelling as close as possible to their original itinerary!

Furthermore, even if the customer were travelling at a later time, the 'guidance' to travel as close as possible to the original itinerary is just that - guidance. It is clearly couched in such terms ("should") and therefore it is not obligatory to follow it.

The industry policy makes clear that tickets will be accepted on a range of different dates without needing to be reissued/changed; there is nothing that says that tickets will be invalid if used at a different time to the original itinerary. In any event, any such restriction would be counter to the PRO obligation to re-date the ticket at the customer's convenience and the implied contractual obligation to allow the passenger to mitigate their delay by travelling on the next available train.

It would appear that the passenger in the OP’s comment was travelling on a peak time service with an off peak ticket, contrary to the above.

They were travelling entirely in line with the guidance; even if they were not doing so, the guidance does not state that tickets will be invalid if the guidance is not followed.

Imagine if a passenger held a ticket with an evening restriction, and the last train prior to the evening restriction were cancelled - by this logic, it would be acceptable to excess them for travelling at a 'peak' time (through no fault of their own). Clearly, that would be absurd. The OP's daughter was in exactly the same position, just on the following day.

It's very disappointing if this comment reflects the attitude taken by customer-facing members of staff.

However, was advised by control (rightly or wrongly) to use any available train that day

Correctly, as the industry policy does not state that it is mandatory to travel at a particular time. Indeed it encourages travelling as close as possible to the original itinerary, which in many cases will mean travelling earlier on first trains of the day!

The guard seemingly has charged an excess fare to upgrade the ticket to an anytime return in line with the above and the ticketing conditions that would be used on a ‘normal’ day

It clearly wasn't a 'normal' day though. It was the day after a strike, a strike day on which no XC trains were running. Being a guard based at Derby, they would have been well aware of what went on the previous day.

I’d believe blame here lies both with the customer service team and the guard. The guard had charged an excess despite being shown permission granted, ignoring the post to the passenger and the TOC’s customer service/retail dept is publicly telling passenger information without ensuring it’s passed on to revenue trained colleagues (or that may be misaligned with that of the actual RDG policy).

Regardless I’d ask for a return of the excess via email to the customer relations teams, screenshotting the advice given to the passenger personally

I agree that the company is ultimately at fault, for failing to adequately brief staff and failing to ensure their staff comply with their policies. But the guard does carry some responsibility too, for failing to comply with a brief.

Clearly none of this represents gross misconduct at a train company, since revenue and customer service are quite far down the list of responsibilities as the TOCs are concerned. But in most other industries it might be a rather more serious matter.

 

[Parham Wood]

Not only should there be a full refund but there should also be additional compensation for the time and stress caused by the action of the guard.

 

[bramling]

The aggressive attitude of the railways; sometimes management, sometimes on board staff and RPIs, puts me (and I suspect many others) off using trains. But, of course, on the railway the customer is always wrong!

The railway does have a rather unpleasant tendency to go for soft targets. So someone who has chanced it after finding a long queue finds themselves hit with a RORA prosecution, whilst the “I ain’t paying what you gonna do bruv” brigade seem to be able to carry on with complete impunity.

 

[nanstallon]

The railway does have a rather unpleasant tendency to go for soft targets. So someone who has chanced it after finding a long queue finds themselves hit with a RORA prosecution, whilst the “I ain’t paying what you gonna do bruv” brigade seem to be able to carry on with complete impunity.

Yes, that is something I truly despise. Bullies are never brave.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Personally I would hope that a guard shown a communication from their TOCs Twitter team would take the approach of "Well they're not correct unfortunately, however, because you followed their advice in good faith I won't charge you again but for future reference..."

They are correct, essentially for the same reason that any itinerary generated by nationalrail.co.uk is de facto a valid route no matter what the Routing Guide says.

If the railway is to be a reliable form of transport at all, customers need to be able to rely on authoritative information sources. Whether that source is nationalrail.co.uk or a TOC’s customer service department (in this case responding via Twitter) is immaterial. A railway where you can be forced to buy a new ticket on the basis of “oh, you asked Jim in the ticket office? He’s always wrong” is no railway at all.