ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
It looks that way from the uniform they are wearing. But it is true, we cannot be 100% sure of this.
-
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!
Passenger not allowed on station
- Thread starter rdwarr
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Looks to me like the normal attire such staff wear who are employed by GNRailUK who are undertaking this role.
NLC1072
Member
To the people saying he should be personally prosecuted, this can not happen. He is a GNR employee, thus it is GNR who get taken to court over this mess. To be fair I could see GNR trying to settle out of court because the evidence I've seen so far is so damning that they really would have no other option should the lady take it forward. On the other hand, yes he should indeed be sacked, this is total disregard for any customer service procedures they would have in place and causing certain distress for the customer in illegally detaining her.
Really? An employee who refuses to listen to his company, thus de facto ignoring their instructuons, and does his own thing should still have his rear end covered by them. I think not...
If he had physically touched the passenger how would that be the fault of the company? He personally would have committed the assault.
Last edited:
NLC1072
Member
Because he has been vetted and trained by the employer to their standards and passed out to work on the gateline. This then becomes their responsibility. If he had failed their standards, he would of been disciplined or let go in the probationary period. But looking at the current situation, he is an employee who is a work being paid, i.e. a representative of GNR, so in the eyes of the law he IS GNR. So GNR would get taken to court.
That logic worked well for a certain guard on Merseyside...NOT...
NLC1072
Member
With all due respect that was a landmark case and a little bit more serious
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The split is whether you are talking about a civil case (sueing for damages, which will normally be directed as the employer as they have more money to be able to pay out) or a criminal case (an individual commits a crime for which they will be personally prosecuted).
There are things like corporate manslaughter where the company's officers are charged because the whole company is systemically guilty of the offence, but that would not apply in a case like this - if an individual is alleged to have committed a criminal offence, as Martin Zee was, they will be charged as an individual even if the employer (quite rightly in that case, confirmed by him being found not guilty) sides with them and says they've done nothing wrong.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
It was a stupid comparison. He was prosecuted under a completely different set of Legislation, that was nothing remotely like this.
NLC1072
Member
Exactly where I'm getting at, although he has done wrong legally, it would be much easier to meet the burden of proof in a civil court where the claimant is seeking damages/costs etc.
On the face of it there is strong evidence for criminal charges against this individual.
NLC1072
Member
There is no denying that for sure, depends what the claimant wants and whether they are going to involve the police or not to where that would go.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Of course if they were to go for a private prosecution of the company and the individual that would be the most ironic of justice!
Last edited:
You are correct about the different legislation BUT the prosecution was against the individual not the company which was the thrust of the argument. Nice of you to appoint yourself arbiter of appropriate analogies by the way...
Last edited:
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Assault by not letting her leave and false imprisonment by ditto.
Last edited:
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Prosecutions by the HSE, as was the case in the Liverpool case, and others, bears absolutely no comparison with your presumed situation in this case.
That is not the TOC’s problem. Tickets are the property of the railway. A company has no business demanding that its employees produce and hand in the property of a third party in order to obtain reimbursement of expenses.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Well, it is the TOC's problem, because why would you give such poor customer service to your highest-paying customers? If businesses want better evidence of what was purchased, why not make an arrangement to provide that evidence? TfL could have gone "get lost, we aren't giving you an Oyster receipt" - they aren't required to as VAT does not apply, so a VAT receipt cannot be legally demanded - but they didn't, they offer a comprehensive online account for obtaining details of such things.
The most sensible way is to print from, to, single/return, ticket type, from date, to date and price for each ticket on the till receipt.
Of course, many companies are now switching to online systems so can get the evidence that way, but why deny it them if they make a very expensive walk-up purchase at the booking office or TVM just to assert the TOC's rights? That's typical railway poor customer service culture.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Well if the police were called and an up to scratch copper shown up, the GTR employee would have been arrested.
gray1404
Established Member
Sadly the BTP have a habit of siding with the railway members of staff by default and assume that the customer is always in the wrong. There are many staff who know the BTP behave in this way and take full advantage.
A few successful complaints to the IPCC would soon change that...
Not my experience. I've had two occasions when power tripping members of rail staff called BTP after denying me travel or trying to charge me additional fares despite tickets being valid. The threat that somehow I will be cowed by BTP turning up doesn't scare me in the slightest. So, on both, with me remaining calm and non-confrontational, I said I'd welcome explaining myself to BTP.
First occasion, the BTP officer tore into the Train Manager for delaying a train for such a trivial matter, and saying they would insure the delay minutes would not be attributed to them, and that they would consider reporting the TM to their superiors for wasting police time.
The second occasion, my official complaint to the TOC was backed up by a incident report from a BTP officer which clearly stated that I had done nothing wrong and was illegally prevented from boarding the train of my choice.
That's not really fair to BTP - they are police, not ticketing experts. Their role when ticketing disputes arise is basically just to maintain order and ensure that the passenger gives their name and address as required. Anything more than that is, as the saying goes, gravy.
Re ticketing experts, it increasingly seems from posts on here that nor sadly are many (most?) railway staff including those directly employed in roles where such knowledge is important.
Is this down to staff turnover? At the nearest two stations to me I rarely see a staff member I have seen before.
I don't know. Passengers don't care about the cause but certainly do about the consequences.
That is certainly true.
I suppose I'm trying to consider why some staff have too little knowledge of the regulations. 'Experienced' staff are likely to have come across unusual cases before - even if not the actual case, similar ones. Of course the regulations are too complicated, if the staff don't know them, what chance the casual passenger?
Sometimes the 'experienced' staff, who don't acknowledge that things change, are the problem.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,762
The union should and will give legal assistance to members concerning incidents happening at work, what they will not do is call for industrial action in cases where a member is being dealt with fairly by his/her employers.
faltskog36abba
Member
I pushed my mother in her wheelchair into Manchester Victoria -Via the trinity way entrance. Her partner was on the incoming train from Liverpool having visited family, There was a lovely female platform attendant who put down the ramp to help her board, Then off they went to Huddersfield. Meanwhile my brother was waiting on the concourse behind the Gateline, He had travelled in by tram from Shaw. This fella who was operating the ticket gates refused me entry to the concourse-accusing me of fare dodging, I know a lot of ticketless travel happens but why tar everyone with the same brush?. I explained which way I had entered that I dropped my mother off, He then said trinity way is not a through route-which I didn't know, I asked my brother to get me a platform ticket to which -The platform attendant said I couldn't use. I could of easily walked around the station but I wasn't going to be accused of fare dodging. In the end I had to search the platforms looking for the attendant who put my mother on the train, She explained what happened and then he went on a tirade that its not a through station and then opened the gates and said off you pop. I called him a jobsworth as he held me behind that barrier accusing me of ticketless travel. If the trinity way entrance is not a through route-It should be sign posted as saying so.
- Status