Not necessarily for fare evasion. Byelaw 18 offences are also included.
As you say, the passenger is under no obligation to participate. If they believe there is no case to answer they can call Northern's bluff, so to speak.
Last edited:
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Teenager abused by Northernrail customer service
- Thread starter wingsoveryorks
- Start date
- Status
As you say, the passenger is under no obligation to participate. If they believe there is no case to answer they can call Northern's bluff, so to speak.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
railfan100
On Moderation
Northern need to manage, regulate and ensure appropriate standards are being adhered to by an approved contractor, if they cannot do this they should bring the function inside the organisation. Outsourcing failures still can cause loss of reputation and impact the wider business in a negative way, it is still Northern's problem.
I actually can see this happening one day, just as many people wisely invest in dashcams now.. and staff are often using body cameras for their own protection.
It stands to reason that the public may feel they need to use cameras to prove that what was said in a conversation, which could be on a train, something they were told by customer services in a shop, what they were quoted for work on their car etc.
It's sad to think that this will become a reality, but if you do record then (as the police will no doubt confirm) you probably reduce the likelihood of there being problems in the first place.
As does not taking the ****, being polite, asking rather than assuming and generally being a nice person.
DelayRepay
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,929
The article really doesn't give enough information... was the person receiving the emails actually anything to do with Carillion? Did he send abusive replies because the original messages were abusive?
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
It's unlikely we will ever find it to be honest.
Passengers buying mobile tickets must download and activate the ticket before boarding. Otherwise you get a situation where they only buy them when they see the guard coming round. Or can use an open return multiple times without activating
Once the ticket has been downloaded to the phone, it can be viewed and activated without a mobile signal.
I don't think it is unreasonable for any TOC to require the passenger to have battery life on their mobile if they have chosen to purchase a mobile ticket. Otherwise how would mobile ticketing ever be enforced?
I believe Northern revenue now (rightly or wrongly) treat a passenger who hasn't activated a ticket or is unable to show a mobile ticket the same way they would treat somebody who is unable to produce a paper ticket. (Prosecution or out of court settlement if from staffed station) Unfortunately they have not provided their guards with any training whatsoever on mobile tickets so it is quite likely some guards will accept unactivated tickets and I know some also accept screenshots of tickets.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
True e-ticketing solves that, as the ticket is in the database and the passenger could simply show entitlement to it by another means, e.g. showing ID and having it looked up by name.
Please, let's not have another thread where we start talking about e-ticketing pros and cons.
If there's nothing left to discuss on the original topic, then unless any new information comes to light, I suggest we leave it there.
If there's nothing left to discuss on the original topic, then unless any new information comes to light, I suggest we leave it there.
This is the sort of attitude that makes me count my lucky starts I no longer deal with the general public. I was filmed several times as a conductor, once (no word of a lie) because trains had been cancelled due to a fatality. I got very cautious about doing certain things (especially bending the rules to help people) because I never knew who was filming ready to complain about what I was doing.
People are complaining about the snoopers charter going through Parliament at the moment but at the risk of sounding a bit OTT just because a network of informants was great for the Stasi doesn't mean its something to aspire to. But with the amount of people filming and recording everyone else just in case they do something that can be reported to the authorities it feels like its not that far away.
IF it's been sent from a Carillion account then Carillion have a responsibility. However, I think it's being disingenuous to place much blame on Carillion because one member of staff when sent numerous abusive emails decided to reply in kind. Even a previously exemplary employee might suddenly snap.
It's an even bigger stretch to blame Northern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And this is the biggest stretch of all. If a totally unrelated Northern employee had received numerous abusive emails from this "customer" they might also have responded in kind. It's quite ridiculous to pretend that all rail staff would handle the situation perfectly.
Last edited:
My post was in response to a post saying that if there was on board wi-fi then everyone could purchase a mobile ticket on board (whether they want to buy a mobile ticket or not) and avoid situations like those mentioned in the original point, so the point you've made isn't really applicable.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
As does not taking the ****, being polite, asking rather than assuming and generally being a nice person.
If only.
Some previously posted that all the old staff either transferred or were given new roles with Northern apart from one person who chose to leave.
There will be a communications code of conduct in place which states that all correspondence has to be dealt with in a reasonable and courteous manner. A company the size of Carillion will have this in place for sure.
The reply was sent from an iPhone you can block contacts and incoming emails from certain accounts easily enough - long before losing the plot and putting your job in jeopardy and sending derogatory emails.
The bit that's more baffling is this sequence of messages was fifty messages long and late at night, so there has obviously been two way communication to an extent.
Without seeing the entire audit trail of all fifty emails we won't know for sure what exactly has gone on and who has said what to aggravate the other party.
Northern contract Carillion. The passengers contract is with Northern not Carillion so realistically it is Northerns problem to address.
Of course Northern will have to get involved, just as Carillion. That doesn't mean that you can blame Northern for what happened, or take it as an example that outsourcing is the root of all evil.
Can you make up your mind as so far in this thread you have said it's disingenuous to put much blame on Carillion and that it's an even bigger stretch to blame Northern.
You've also said it's nothing to do with Northern Rail but are now saying Northern will have to get involved.
I've also not said or suggested that outsourcing is the root of all evil.
The fact is it's Northerns passenger dealing with Northerns outsourced customer service department. Northern are responsible for the manner in which it's addressed as they will agree a set of standards with Carillion prior to the contract being signed. It hasn't been addressed properly and its reached the Daily Mail.
The first thing Northern need to ask Carillion is why the passenger was given an individuals email address to start with rather than advising them to go through the standard Northern customer service email accounts which Northern should be able to access and monitor in order to ensure that enquiries/complaints etc are being handled correctly. The minute correspondence starts going to individuals accounts Northern will struggle to patch together the email/communication trail.
Last edited:
Just to be boring for one moment. Unless you inform the person on the other end that you are recording the call and ask their consent to do so you are breaking the law by doing so and your recordings or evidence contained within them won't be admissable in any court.
That's why most companies have the message about recording calls for 'training purposes' on their phone systems, by continuing the call the other person is classed as giving consent.
Not true. Do you have a source for this please?
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,000
I'm aware that's usually more to do with employment law.... something going on right now involving that very subject, was good to hear about the faces on managers at a tribunal when the union's solicitor came out with "but at fourty one minutes and eleven seconds into that hearing you said the opposite..." - such a precise time is a little giveaway that stumped them and revealed, out of the blue, that it had all been recorded on an iPhone. I know that it's ordinarily inadmissible, but there's seemingly now ways of getting around that.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
That is absolutely incorrect. You may record any phone call without the consent of the other party provided that the recording is for your own use, or there is a compelling public interest surrounding the call (think journos catching people out). A call recorded in this manner wouldn't automatically be inadmissible evidence. (re: below, a court wouldn't normally be considered a "third party")
Here is official Ofcom advice:
http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/254545/file-392419419-pdf/OFCOM_Guidance.pdf
Q. Do I have to let people know that I intend to record their telephone conversations
with me?
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
You will find there are a great number of companies who in their preamble statement prior to connecting the call will state ...."This call is being recorded for training purposes (and other such words in addition)".
Looking at the wording of the title of this thread, the word "abused" so often these days is only made in reference to sexual abuse, as the recent matter of those young footballers at club academy level that is currently high on the media level and the sexual abuse perpetrated on vulnerable under-age girls by men in the Rotherham and Rochdale areas, to name but two towns.
Looking at the wording of the title of this thread, the word "abused" so often these days is only made in reference to sexual abuse, as the recent matter of those young footballers at club academy level that is currently high on the media level and the sexual abuse perpetrated on vulnerable under-age girls by men in the Rotherham and Rochdale areas, to name but two towns.
Last edited:
I fail to see your point.
This is not contradictory. It's their passenger, but they can't be held responsible for what happened.
Where did I say you did?
No it isn't. It's Northern's Passenger dealing with an individual who happens to work for the same company that also runs Northern's outsourced CSD. Not the same thing at all.
As for the rest of your diatribe you are making significant assumptions. The full story is not known, and anything appearing in the Daily Mail should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
gimmea50anyday
Established Member
They may be employed by serco or carrilìon etc, but they are still wearing uniforms that identify them as Northern staff. Same as Rail Gourmet catering and ISS station despatch staff all wear TPE uniforms. Therefore any complaint will initially go to the company logo on the uniform
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Sorry, who's "they" in this context?
- Status