Carlisle Security and Northern Rail: major concerns

[yorkie]

I understand it is not the case that they detain people until they provide ID, but they do detain people until they have give their details and ask passengers if they have ID.

Yesterday a passenger did show ID (after being requested, though not forced to do so), however they noted the passenger's DOB (from their ID) without their consent. The passenger did state they did not have permission to record this, but they recorded it anyway.

They were unable to answer any data protection questions.

 

[thejuggler]

I've also noticed these goons deliberately hide behind a fence at my local station so when you exit the station the platform you can't see them.

This is a problem as the TOC have placed a convenient waste bin on the same fence, but before the corner for any unused tickets.

As a responsible citizen you throw the ticket in the bin, walk around corner, confronted by a goon.

This is what happens to operational behaviour when targets are set.

 

[Darandio]

The problem here is all the talk of 'goons', these guys are doing what they are told to do. We don't like what they are doing, but there you go.

It's not these guys that need sorting, it needs to come from the top and everything needs to change. The problem is (to use Neil's phrase I believe) the whole company is rotten to the core.

 

[WelshBluebird]

these guys are doing what they are told to do.

Does that make it right?
In my job I am in a position where I have access to and deal with a fair amount of sensitive personal information. If I was being told to deal with that data in a manner that broke data protection laws, the expectation on me from my company would be that I would report the issue and the person asking me to break the law.

 

[Darandio]

Does that make it right?
In my job I am in a position where I have access to and deal with a fair amount of sensitive personal information. If I was being told to deal with that data in a manner that broke data protection laws, the expectation on me from my company would be that I would report the issue and the person asking me to break the law.

Of course it doesn't, I didn't say it did. But you know that the majority will follow their orders, failure to do so could end up with dismissal.

 

[matt_world2004]

Are they issuing unpaid fare notices to those that have not boarded a train and are attempting to buy a ticket?

 

[Hadders]

Does that make it right?
In my job I am in a position where I have access to and deal with a fair amount of sensitive personal information. If I was being told to deal with that data in a manner that broke data protection laws, the expectation on me from my company would be that I would report the issue and the person asking me to break the law.

A security guard earning the minimum wage (or very close to the minimum as is probably the case here) will do as they’re told. They won’t know the minutiae of the DPA.

 

[Wolfie]

A security guard earning the minimum wage (or very close to the minimum as is probably the case here) will do as they’re told. They won’t know the minutiae of the DPA.

True.Of course, after complaints to the Info Commissioner and SIA they may not any longer be licensed security guards either...

 

[Darandio]

True.Of course, after complaints to the Info Commissioner and SIA they may not any longer be licensed security guards either...

They take the rap and it's completely wrong. Complaints and subsequent penalties should go to where the directive is coming from.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not these guys that need sorting, it needs to come from the top and everything needs to change. The problem is (to use Neil's phrase I believe) the whole company is rotten to the core.

Yes, that was me and I stand by it.

It's one of the problems caused by TUPE (against its obvious benefits to front line staff in terms of job security). Ideally a refranchise would mean a clean sweep of management at the levels where policy is decided, but it often doesn't - in this case it didn't even get Hynes removed until he left by himself.

 

[sheff1]

The inspectors do not allow people to leave without leaving their details.

It depends who the "people" are. If they are a couple of chavs who look as though they might turn aggressive then they can leave without being bothered - as I have witnessed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The problem here is all the talk of 'goons', these guys are doing what they are told to do. We don't like what they are doing, but there you go.

It's not these guys that need sorting, it needs to come from the top and everything needs to change. The problem is (to use Neil's phrase I believe) the whole company is rotten to the core.

The problem comes from the top, but let's not let these goons off too lightly. They behave as they do because they are incentivised to do so. In short, they behave badly because they are greedy.

Yes, I do blame them for that.

 

[yorkie]

ITAL say they cannot accept Rail Travel Vouchers (RTVs) as payment.

They also don't accept many types of credit card which are also valid payment methods.

It is therefore unclear how such a situation can be remedied. I guess their options are to cancel the UFN completely, or hand the matter back to Northern for Northern to collect payment?

 

[furlong]

ITAL say they cannot accept Rail Travel Vouchers (RTVs) as payment.

They also don't accept many types of credit card which are also valid payment methods.

It is therefore unclear how such a situation can be remedied. I guess their options are to cancel the UFN completely, or hand the matter back to Northern for Northern to collect payment?

If the passenger accepted the terms of the UFN - then they may validly have given up some of their rights as it was their free choice whether or not to agree to it. But perhaps the situation was misrepresented to them, and then you can also ask the ORR to take action against the company.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If the passenger accepted the terms of the UFN - then they may validly have given up some of their rights as it was their free choice whether or not to agree to it. But perhaps the situation was misrepresented to them, and then you can also ask the ORR to take action against the company.

If the situation is as initially described, then I'd hardly say it is a free choice!

 

[causton]

If the passenger accepted the terms of the UFN - then they may validly have given up some of their rights as it was their free choice whether or not to agree to it. But perhaps the situation was misrepresented to them, and then you can also ask the ORR to take action against the company.

There was no 'choice' - the two options were accept the UPFN and leave, or not to leave! Hardly fair...

 

[Hadders]

I’m an ideal world Transport Focus would put a stop to this sort of nonsense at once but they’re so incompetent themselves I doubt they’d even understand the issue.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

I think some of the issues about this stem from communication. We get a lot of complaints from customers about being issued with UFNs, a lot of which come from misunderstandings on their part - customers think they can just pay on the train, then find the conductor doesn't come around (because they don't have to), so then queue up at Leeds or Victoria or wherever to pay, get approached by a Loss Prevention Officer, and say that they came from Station X. The LPO will have a list of stations with ticket-buying facilities, and if Station X is one of those, they will issue the notice - the problem is, we have ticket offices that close early (particularly on weekends) and TVMs that aren't always working or will have been removed to be upgraded. The LPOs aren't always aware of this, because they aren't necessarily informed

I suppose the point to remember is this - the LPOs have been trained to deal with wilful fare evasion, and no doubt have to deal with a lot of it. That probably informs the way they deal with all cases. They also have to deal with a lot of customers who are totally oblivious to the NRCoT obligation to buy a ticket before boarding at a station with ticket-buying facilities, and then get very defensive when questioned on this. As far as they're concerned, they're doing what they have always done so they don't think they have done anything wrong. We have a lot of complaints in from people who think that we have changed our rules recently, or think that we are "criminialising" them. In their complaints, they tend to describe the LPOs as intimidating and rude, even if most of the time they're actually just telling them politely that they have broken the law (which is true, of course!). Additionally, they also think UFNs are fines, which they aren't. It's understandable that they would feel anxious about this - but we have done a big campaign over the last year to raise awareness that you have to buy before you board. Ignorance isn't an excuse is the eyes of the law

I think the company appreciates it's not ideal - changes are afoot in the coming weeks and months. However, this is something that's going to take a lot of time to adjust to, simply because customers think that they can either get away without paying or that they can buy a ticket on the train. As we move towards having TVMs at virtually every station, more staffed stations and more ticket barriers, I suspect this will continue to be an issue, because more and more customers will be walking past TVMs to get on the train without a ticket, and more of them will then be confronted by LPOs at the other end of the line

 

[Bookd]

I think some of the issues about this stem from communication. We get a lot of complaints from customers about being issued with UFNs, a lot of which come from misunderstandings on their part - customers think they can just pay on the train, then find the conductor doesn't come around (because they don't have to), so then queue up at Leeds or Victoria or wherever to pay, get approached by a Loss Prevention Officer, and say that they came from Station X. The LPO will have a list of stations with ticket-buying facilities, and if Station X is one of those, they will issue the notice - the problem is, we have ticket offices that close early (particularly on weekends) and TVMs that aren't always working or will have been removed to be upgraded. The LPOs aren't always aware of this, because they aren't necessarily informed

I suppose the point to remember is this - the LPOs have been trained to deal with wilful fare evasion, and no doubt have to deal with a lot of it. That probably informs the way they deal with all cases. They also have to deal with a lot of customers who are totally oblivious to the NRCoT obligation to buy a ticket before boarding at a station with ticket-buying facilities, and then get very defensive when questioned on this. As far as they're concerned, they're doing what they have always done so they don't think they have done anything wrong. We have a lot of complaints in from people who think that we have changed our rules recently, or think that we are "criminialising" them. In their complaints, they tend to describe the LPOs as intimidating and rude, even if most of the time they're actually just telling them politely that they have broken the law (which is true, of course!). Additionally, they also think UFNs are fines, which they aren't. It's understandable that they would feel anxious about this - but we have done a big campaign over the last year to raise awareness that you have to buy before you board. Ignorance isn't an excuse is the eyes of the law

I think the company appreciates it's not ideal - changes are afoot in the coming weeks and months. However, this is something that's going to take a lot of time to adjust to, simply because customers think that they can either get away without paying or that they can buy a ticket on the train. As we move towards having TVMs at virtually every station, more staffed stations and more ticket barriers, I suspect this will continue to be an issue, because more and more customers will be walking past TVMs to get on the train without a ticket, and more of them will then be confronted by LPOs at the other end of the line

Would this not be solved by using the TOC's own staff who are properly trained and know the rules?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'll preface this post with a comment just to say I am not trying to have a go at you Bwlch y Groes, or a go at the staff that do have to deal with difficult situations on a daily basis. And I realise that quite often there isn't an ideal solution with things like this, you give genuine cases a bit of leeway and that will often end in people abusing that. However I do have a few issues with what you have said:

I suppose the point to remember is this - the LPOs have been trained to deal with wilful fare evasion, and no doubt have to deal with a lot of it.

But this thread isn't about wilful fare evasion. It is specifically about cases where there isn't a chance to pay before encountering these staff. And if the staff do not know or have the means to look up which stations have an opportunity to pay and which do not, then they should not be in a position where they penalise passengers because of that.

We have a lot of complaints in from people who think that we have changed our rules recently

Whilst maybe technically not the case, surely you can see why people think that? We have the same thing down in South Wales. For decades people have been able to jump on the train and buy on board with no problems at all. And then all of a sudden the ToC starts actually enforcing the proper rules, it isn't surprising the people are at best confused and worst think the ToC is trying to set people up. Yeah the ToC can try to impose fines (sorry, Penalty Fares) and get strict about the issue. But it takes a long time to remove behavior that has been built up over decades.

Additionally, they also think UFNs are fines, which they aren't.

Again, technically correct. But in reality, they are fines. A fine is defined as "a sum imposed as punishment for an offense", isn't that exactly what a penalty fare is? Sure technically it isn't a fine, but you are just playing with words there. People feel it is a fine.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Would this not be solved by using the TOC's own staff who are properly trained and know the rules?

Hard for me to have an opinion on this as I don't know the full story, to be honest. All I will say is that Arriva do seem to like outsourcing, from what I've seen here. I'm not sure if these LPOs were always outsourced under the old franchise - Carlisle recently picked up the contract from another company - but certainly our Customer Experience Centre is now run by Carillion, when it was previously in-house. There are a lot of temporary contracts given out too, including my own. The impression I've got is that the company is under pressure to reduce the staff head count and to get around this has essentially outsourced a lot of work to companies and contractors. I don't know how this compares to other TOCs

Well this thread isn't about wilful fare evasion. It is specifically about cases where there isn't a chance to pay before encountering these staff.

Of course - which is why I mentioned that it's more an issue of communicating to the staff than anything. I'm just trying to provide some context for why they act in the way they do

Whilst maybe technically not the case, surely you can see why people think that? We have the same thing down in South Wales. For decades people have been able to jump on the train and buy on board with no problems at all. And then all of a sudden the ToC starts actually enforcing the proper rules, it isn't surprising the people are at best confused and worst think the ToC is trying to set people up.

Yes, I totally understand, but it's not like we haven't publicised this. There have been posters at the vast majority of our stations explaining this, we've had a roadshow at major stations, it's been all over our social media channels, and we even had an online game set up. At the end of the day, you can only do so much - if people want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore efforts to publicise, there's nothing much we can do. It's the same as engineering work - there will always be some people who don't check for changes to train times and turn up on the day surprised to see a replacement bus. There's a limit to the amount you can do to communicate this sort of thing, especially when it eats into resources. We've tried our very best to raise awareness but you'll always have blinkered people who won't listen to you and carry on regardless until they get pulled to one side in the station and told they're breaking the law

Again, technically correct. But in reality, they are fines. A fine is defined as "a sum imposed as punishment for an offense", isn't that exactly what a penalty fare is? Sure technically it isn't a fine, but you are just playing with words there. People feel it is a fine.

The LPOs are supposed to make it clear that it is not a fine and it is not a criminal proceeding until they don't pay. If the customer has heard all this and still thinks it's a fine, I don't think that's necessarily the problem of the LPO. But that doesn't mean each LPO explains it well

I don't want to blame the customers too much here. Of course it's a hassle and I appreciate that. As someone who has suffered in the past from anxiety issues, I understand how it can be a bit of a fright. And I'm talking in the ideal when I talk about the LPOs - that doesn't necessarily always mean that's the way it has worked out. But that said, my experience of the complaints that I've seen from customers is that not only do they not understand but they refuse to listen to explanations and refuse to accept that they made a mistake, which is both a human reaction and also often totally unfair on the staff involved, especially when you're submitting complaints about it

 

[pemma]

Would this not be solved by using the TOC's own staff who are properly trained and know the rules?

I can give examples where Northern employed ticket office clerks or guards have given incorrect information about tickets - not being able to buy split tickets unless the split is at a station where you are changing trains, saying TfGM Wayfarers being valid for Greenbank-Manchester journeys, giving incorrect information about Duos etc. Ticketing is a complicated issue and if inadequate training is provided then the staff don't do an effective job whoever their employment contract is with.

 

[pemma]

The whole situation stinks.

Maybe we should arrange a forum meet where we know Carlisle will be in attendance. We could even hold an impromptu fares workshop

This must also be a candidate for some undercover investigative journalism. It would be very interesting for someone to get a job on this contract and see what they’re actually instructed to do.

Maybe someone should tip off Channel 4's Dispatches. As most journalists don't use Northern they don't get the same attention which GWR, Southern and Thameslink get.

 

[sheff1]

There was no 'choice' - the two options were accept the UPFN and leave, or not to leave! Hardly fair...

Earlier posts say there is the option of not accepting the UPFN and leaving.

 

[uww11x]

You would need to offer the EXACT fare in legal tender (no Scots notes, no sacks of pennies) to argue that you had satisfied your half of the contract.

There is nothing wrong with Scottish money!!!

 

[kevconnor]

For those who have mentioned about the data protection issue it may be worth noting about legislative changes coming in next year may make it more complicated for organisations such as Carlisle to legitimately request, hold or process peoples personal details in the way described within the thread.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-reform/overview-of-the-gdpr/

 

[robbeech]

Earlier posts say there is the option of not accepting the UPFN and leaving.

It’s very difficult for the average person to understand that this is an option to them though, something that these companies will use to their advantage it seems.

 

[johntea]

What I don't understand is you will find that the experience with these guys will vary across the network, many are perfectly friendly, competent and are trained in the sale of tickets whilst others seem as if they've basically been thrown out with a jacket and told to get on with the job.

It is worrying that this is still happening to people THREE YEARS later, sadly I can't see it changing any time soon as I find Arriva far, far worse than Northern in terms of customer relations! It can be a very intimidating experience too, one passenger against several agency staff.

According to what a guard recently told me, Arriva will soon be enforcing a 'you must buy before you travel or at an interchange even if that means missing a convenient connection, or use the app!'

I appreciate their efforts at upgrading station and ticketing facilities at several stations, but whilst that work is being carried out (and even after) that has caused a loss of quite a few ticket purchasing options at unstaffed stations, even on board guards seem to be hindered by the new Starmobile terminals meaning they're getting to serve less customers on board too.

 

[yorkie]

...According to what a guard recently told me, Arriva will soon be enforcing a 'you must buy before you travel or at an interchange even if that means missing a convenient connection,...

It sounds like we may need to report Northern to the ORR and DfT if this is true. And if it is not true, the company needs to ensure that any staff representing them do not attempt to enforce this.

I would also encourage forum members to sign up for this https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/wearelistening/apply; I don't really believe their claims, but if enough of us provide feedback, it may be difficult for them to ignore us (or, at least they can't claim ignorance of how their customers are being mistreated)

 

[Realfish]

Here is another case:
https://twitter.com/SimonLovesTacos/status/897770977924452353
It should only take a few seconds to buy a train ticket; it should not require emails, postage stamps, premium rate numbers etc.

I understand that ARN's automated UFN number is 0844 544 4974. The number for payment queries is 0870 067 9856. These are premium rate numbers that I understand are no longer acceptable for customer service activities and have been outlawed. The requirement that customers should not have to face excess fees for enquiring or complaining about an 'existing product or service' originated in an EU directive. The specific rules were laid down in the Consumer Contracts Regulations of 2013 and came into force in June 2014 and say that the only acceptable numbers are standard geographic numbers, 01,02,03 or Freephone numbers.

There are exceptions in that organisations are allowed to use them for sales and pre sales activity, which ARN might consider UFN settling to be - but if so they must outline the call charges, which their website doesn't.