Actually I said: "they confirmed that they had taken appropriate action so either they lied or they were incompetent". If they (the twitter operator) confirmed that they had taken appropriate action, i.e.informed the guard and they hadn't or even couldn't be sure if they had then that was deception at best or a blatant lie at worst. If they actually believed that they had done it but had forgotten or had not followed it up, I would put that as a failure through incompetance. Ultimately it is up to the TOC to employ sufficient staf of adequate competance, (which include honesty) to deliver the service, so the buck stops there. If there are systematic flaws in the way that issues like this are dealt with, in the first instance in it incumbent on the relevant staff at the various frontlines to alert their management of them. The TOCs can then ignore them at their peril.Then you should probably not assert that the person manning the Twitter desk had "lied" (implying they deliberately failed to attempt to inform the guard) nor "incompetent" as it was almost certainly not their fault. They would have passed on the message as best as they could.
I agree with a poster here (I think it was OneOffDave but I can't find the post) that there needs to ba a high-profile campaign to take companies who repeatedly refuse to get their house in order to comply with legislation that has been in place since 1995 to court. Just putting good words on their website abouit how they meet all the legal requirements are an insult if they can't actually do it in such a long time. If the penalties and the PR damage is enough to hurt then maybe they will get up off their backs, - and remove staff who don't sign up to the obligation from their roles because they will become liabilities.