FCC Notice Of Intention To Prosecute - Advice Required Please

[yorkie]

If you are prepared to let it go to Court, I'd love to see another defeat for FCC. What they did to another member was take it to the wire, and withdraw at the last moment. FCC were ordered to pay all costs for the defendant, a 4-figure sum.

 

[WillPS]

Me too. I honestly can't see how they'd hope to form any sort of defence though, especially given the interactions duncanp has had with Customer Services.

Do let us know how it goes!

 

[Ferret]

Me too. I honestly can't see how they'd hope to form any sort of defence though, especially given the interactions duncanp has had with Customer Services.

Do let us know how it goes!

FCC aren't forming any defence! They are the ones putting a case together. I'd imagine they'll struggle to win it though, if Duncan P produces that letter in Court!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

FCC aren't forming any defence!

Exactly.
I'm not at all clear what WillPS is referring to; it is duncanp who has to defend a Claim.

I, too, would expect some exchange of evidence will result in the Prosecution being abandoned, though whether that is done promptly, slowly or at the very last minute on the day of a Hearing will depend on how it is handled.

 

[WillPS]

rargh! yes sorry, of course I meant FCC have no claim.

 

[duncanp]

Thought I would let everyone know that I have finally received a letter from FCC Prosecutions Department saying that no further action is going to be taken regarding my case.

This only happened after writing a letter to Neal Lawson, the Managing Director.

However they have not apologised or admitted that they were wrong.

However I do have the name, e-mail address and phone number of the Prosecutions Manager for FCC if anyone is interested.

 

[RJ]

Thought I would let everyone know that I have finally received a letter from FCC Prosecutions Department saying that no further action is going to be taken regarding my case.

This only happened after writing a letter to Neal Lawson, the Managing Director.

However they have not apologised or admitted that they were wrong.

However I do have the name, e-mail address and phone number of the Prosecutions Manager for FCC if anyone is interested.

Seems a bit overkill to write to the MD when you know you're in the right! What exactly were you hoping to achieve?

Thanks for letting us know the outcome!

 

[duncanp]

Until I wrote to the MD, they had not formally withdrawn, in writing, the threat of prosecution.

I was also hoping that they would apologise for the inconvenience and upset they have caused me, and perhaps send me a (small) sum of money in compensation. In case people think I am an ambulance chaser, I ask you to consider how you would feel if you were threatened by a train company in this matter.

PS. Thanks to everyone who has offered information and advice regarding this matter.

 

[jon0844]

I got rail vouchers for £50, which considering I had been made to buy a ticket I didn't need that cost £20-25 or so, wasn't exactly a lot for being held for over four hours.

But, as I wasn't docked any pay for the morning I lost of work, I had no actual losses and was compensated for the ticket I'd been incorrectly told I had to have.

I didn't ask for compensation, beyond the cost of the ticket I didn't need. Yes, I think FCC was rather tight but I couldn't go back and say 'I'm insulted' as they didn't have to give me anything. I'm sure if I'd lowered myself to a level to go crying to the press and getting solicitors involved, I could have done very well out of it - but I like to think I'm better than that.

 

[yorkie]

I got rail vouchers for £50, which considering I had been made to buy a ticket I didn't need that cost £20-25 or so, wasn't exactly a lot for being held for over four hours

With proper legal representation, you can get a much better outcome than that. I know, as others have.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

U.... I ask you to consider how you would feel if you were threatened by a train company in this matter....

Absolutely!

Another option was to let them take it to court, get proper legal representation and I would expect a similar outcome to another case I am aware of : FCC to withdraw and be ordered to pay costs (a four figure sum in one case - but no, they'll never learn!)

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Just as a matter of interest, does FCC have it's own prosecutions unit, or is it shared with FGW in Reading?

 

[bb21]

Seems a bit overkill to write to the MD when you know you're in the right! What exactly were you hoping to achieve?

To get the case dealt with promptly and swiftly instead of dragging on forever so that the OP did not have to keep worrying is my guess.

I was also hoping that they would apologise for the inconvenience and upset they have caused me, and perhaps send me a (small) sum of money in compensation.

Absolutely. When passengers make mistakes, there are usually financial consequences. There is nothing wrong to seek redress financially when TOCs make mistakes, especially something as basic as the errors made in this case.

 

[soil]

Seems a bit overkill to write to the MD when you know you're in the right! What exactly were you hoping to achieve?

Thanks for letting us know the outcome!

I don't know who you would write to then.

The time before last (*) when I had to complain to BT, I was spending an hour at a time on the phone to them and I was getting nowhere. Email sent to MD, problem resolved within 48 hours.

No point messing around with these people.

* The last time was when I cancelled my contract with them, refusing to pay the bill (reasons entirely irrelevant to this thread) - £200 - a sum which remains outstanding to this date. :

 

[Flamingo]

Digressing slightly, writing to MD's is a well documented hobby of some people.

For example, there is this chap http://letterstofgw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/big-announcement-from-mr-mark-hopwood.html, who got featured on Radio 4, as some sort of consumer champion for writing to Mark Hopwood (FGW) every day.

He omitted to mention in the Radio 4 slot that he was a freelance journo that did a lot of work for the BBC, so IMHO the whole thing was more of a publicity stunt to drum up work for himself. Cynical, moi?

 

[Tibbs]

Absolutely. When passengers make mistakes, there are usually financial consequences. There is nothing wrong to seek redress financially when TOCs make mistakes, especially something as basic as the errors made in this case.

This is very true, but also remember the company's only reason for existence is to make profit for its shareholders, everything else it does is to achieve that aim.

If something a company does drives profit, it will keep doing it. The only way a company can be stopped from doing something is to make it more expensive to do than the benefit they gain.

The only way they will train all of their staff properly is if the wronged people make it cheaper for them to train everyone effectively than it is to settle all the cases of wrongful ticketing.

 

[jon0844]

FCC, to its credit, DID issue a bulletin to everyone that explained the validity of two travelcards - and explaining the lack of a gap between the two. So a repeat of this issue (and any others we don't know about) should not be happening.

 

[RJ]

I don't know who you would write to then.

The time before last (*) when I had to complain to BT, I was spending an hour at a time on the phone to them and I was getting nowhere. Email sent to MD, problem resolved within 48 hours.

No point messing around with these people.

* The last time was when I cancelled my contract with them, refusing to pay the bill (reasons entirely irrelevant to this thread) - £200 - a sum which remains outstanding to this date. :

I'm of the opinion that anyone who writes to the MD, without exhausting the dedicated departments that can deal with the issue, just wants to see somebody get sacked for making a mistake. All very well having some sort of pathetic moral victory, but at the end of the day whoever made the mistake has a family, bills and responsibilities to cope with, so should be given a proper chance to put it right. I have very little time for people who are so malicious.

I practice what I preach. I was issued several UFNs without just cause by one Train Operating Company. I exhausted the proper channels. I appealed to IRCAS who proved to be useless at what they do. I then complained to the TOC's Customer Relations, who listened to me and sought advice from colleagues who were employed to specialise in ticketing. Those colleagues got it wrong still, inventing some BS rules that didn't exist, so I was told that the UFNs still stood. I was then advised to speak to ATOC, who were supposed to confirm to me that I was wrong. So I did and of course, ATOC confirmed I was right and people at the TOC who should have known better ended up with egg on their face and all sanctions against me were dropped. Furthermore, all on board ticket inspectors were instructed not to bother me in future.

The TOC's inefficient way at dealing with me was costing them money, as the incompetence of their front line staff resulted in me effectively getting numerous free journeys. Plenty of administrative time was wasted at the TOC itself and with IRCAS dealing with the cases those staff created. Some people quite high up suffered embarrassment. All for what? Ultimately, they didn't make a single penny more than what I paid for my tickets and certainly made a loss where their staff made poor decisions. It's good, because in future they will think twice before making a blanket assumption that passengers can't possibly be right if their staff say otherwise.

I'm satisfied as equilibrium was restored. I made a list of the specific costs I incurred owing to that TOC's wrongdoings. It was a genuine and reasonable list and as such, the TOC honoured it and posted me a cheque. I didn't include stupid things such as hurt feelings or stress, the kind of things that many people expect they should be compensated for.

I think a few people in this thread need to realise that the railway is not the retail industry. The customer is not always right and nobody is going to bend over backwards to kiss the ar*e of everyone who complains. When you as the customer are right, the most you should expect is what you're legally entitled to. Expecting overly generous goodwill gestures is unrealistic. I know that some people like to wring as much as they can out of an unfavourable situation, but with the railways they'll be on a hiding to nowhere.

 

[jon0844]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who writes to the MD, without exhausting the dedicated departments that can deal with the issue, just wants to see somebody get sacked for making a mistake. All very well having some sort of pathetic moral victory, but at the end of the day whoever made the mistake has a family, bills and responsibilities to cope with, so should be given a proper chance to put it right. I have very little time for people who are so malicious.

The reality isn't quite like that*. For one, the MD isn't going to read the email or deal with the problem in most cases.

It's merely escalating the problem to a higher team of people to deal with a problem, and shouldn't be the first point of call - but at the same time, it should never be ignored if you can't get a satisfactory result.

I didn't ask for anyone to be sacked in my case, nor would I expect any company to do so (who'd work for one that did?). Retraining or perhaps some other form of less-severe punishment would be fine and expected, with sacking only for extreme/gross misconduct or something where lives were put at risk.

Now if you got the phone number of the MD and called them at 2am (as I could have easily done with Elaine Holt, or indeed gone around to her home as a work colleague was her next door neighbour!) then that's totally different to emails (or letters) that are 'screened'.

Mind you, in days gone by, Richard Branson did (and may still do) give his personal number to employees and was always open to calls. Slightly different to customers I know, but some bosses actually do like to get hands-on. I have no idea if he still does that, mind. This was about 15 years ago!

* I can't speak for every company in the world, but I'd expect the vast majority.

 

[bb21]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who writes to the MD, without exhausting the dedicated departments that can deal with the issue, just wants to see somebody get sacked for making a mistake.

That is your opinion and I think you are making some very unfair judgements on others.

All very well having some sort of pathetic moral victory, but at the end of the day whoever made the mistake has a family, bills and responsibilities to cope with, so should be given a proper chance to put it right. I have very little time for people who are so malicious.

Whatever disciplinary actions are taken against a particular member of staff is for the organisation to decide and this should not be of concern to customers/passengers. If a company dismisses a member of staff for a minor error, I think the Employment Tribunal might want to say something about it.

 

[snail]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who writes to the MD, without exhausting the dedicated departments that can deal with the issue, just wants to see somebody get sacked for making a mistake. All very well having some sort of pathetic moral victory, but at the end of the day whoever made the mistake has a family, bills and responsibilities to cope with, so should be given a proper chance to put it right. I have very little time for people who are so malicious.

Well, my opinion is that you are wrong. Very wrong.

Having worked for a large organisation in a 'VIP' team, I found that the most responsible and knowledgeable people would naturally end up working there. The kind of people that, if they don't know the answer, will try to find someone that does instead of fobbing off the customer with a stock answer.

I have found that certain organisations have very responsive Executive Offices, who are happy to discuss matters reasonably and productively. Nothing to do with getting people sacked or gaining moral victories, just getting the right answer for the customer (even if that is one the customer ultimately doesn't like).

Sometimes just getting someone that understands to listen and show that they understand the issue can be sufficient.

 

[RJ]

That is your opinion and I think you are making some very unfair judgements on others.

Not in the slightest. Other departments exist that are more than capable with dealing with the dispute. Why else would you go straight to the MD without trying the other departments properly beforehand, other than to get somebody in trouble?

Whatever disciplinary actions are taken against a particular member of staff is for the organisation to decide and this should not be of concern to customers/passengers. If a company dismisses a member of staff for a minor error, I think the Employment Tribunal might want to say something about it.

Not if the employee is on probation.

 

[soil]

Not in the slightest. Other departments exist that are more than capable with dealing with the dispute. Why else would you go straight to the MD without trying the other departments properly beforehand, other than to get somebody in trouble?

Define 'trying the other departments properly' please?

 

[RJ]

Well, my opinion is that you are wrong. Very wrong.

Having worked for a large organisation in a 'VIP' team, I found that the most responsible and knowledgeable people would naturally end up working there. The kind of people that, if they don't know the answer, will try to find someone that does instead of fobbing off the customer with a stock answer.

I have found that certain organisations have very responsive Executive Offices, who are happy to discuss matters reasonably and productively. Nothing to do with getting people sacked or gaining moral victories, just getting the right answer for the customer (even if that is one the customer ultimately doesn't like).

Sometimes just getting someone that understands to listen and show that they understand the issue can be sufficient.

I don't buy this. If a company has a Customer Service or Customer Relations department, you go through them to get the problem solved. That's what they're there for, which I should think is rather self explanatory given the name of the department.

I provided an example whereby I consulted a Customer Relations department, who then made the effort to consult department managers elsewhere who should have known better. Unless you try, how do you know they won't be of any use?

The kind of people who go straight to the MD without first exhausting the Customer Services route, simply get a kick out of talking to someone they deem to be "important" so they can wring the most they can out of the situation. I wonder how many people do this to get the problem solved, without the expectation of a goodwill gesture?

 

[Tibbs]

Not in the slightest. Other departments exist that are more than capable with dealing with the dispute. Why else would you go straight to the MD without trying the other departments properly beforehand, other than to get somebody in trouble?



Not if the employee is on probation.

The OP has already stated that he didn't get anywhere until he contacted the MD, only then was the matter resolved to his satisfaction.

 

[bb21]

The kind of people who go straight to the MD without first exhausting the Customer Services route, simply get a kick out of talking to someone they deem to be "important" so they can wring the most they can out of the situation. I wonder how many people do this to get the problem solved, without the expectation of a goodwill gesture?

A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that differs from person to person.

Grand Central refused to reply to any of my letters (about three) for four months. I had to eventually resort to escalating the matter to Passenger Focus, and hey presto, I receive a reply from Grand Central one week after notifying them of my intentions. Do you think this constitutes exhausting the Customer Services route? What if that was two months? One month?

 

[RJ]

Define 'trying the other departments properly' please?

In this context? Writing to the address provided on the letter from the prosecutions department as soon as possible, clearly and concisely explaining why you as the customer believe you're correct and the TOC is wrong.

I'm a firm believer that any correspondence of this nature should be in writing (I always send by Recorded or Special Delivery.) That should be common sense, given that anything involving complicated ticketing arrangements can easily be lost in translation over the phone, plus you have a tangible record of all correspondence. If I did telephone them, it would be to follow up whether or not they received the letter and get an update on the situation. If they had already made a decision and told me this over the phone, I would request a copy in writing.

If you receive a written reply where it's clear that they have understood what you have communicated to them, but they have decided to uphold the sanction without appropriate justification, then by all means take it higher.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that differs from person to person.

Grand Central refused to reply to any of my letters (about three) for four months. I had to eventually resort to escalating the matter to Passenger Focus, and hey presto, I receive a reply from Grand Central one week after notifying them of my intentions. Do you think this constitutes exhausting the Customer Services route? What if that was two months? One month?

I assume you had reasonable proof that they received the letters and were ignoring you? I tend not to let things drag on for too long. I always send by Recorded delivery at least, so if I can see they received the letter. If I haven't heard back within 10 working days, I follow it up with a phone call.

In all honesty, if I was serious about making a complaint, I wouldn't be content with sticking a stamp on a letter and putting it in the postbox. Sometimes things get lost in the post, sometimes the recipient can claim they never received it and you can't prove otherwise.

In recent months when I have written to TOCs and IRCAS, sometimes I've had a letter in the post to acknowledge that they received what I sent them, with an intended timescale for when they will provide a full response.

 

[bb21]

I assume you had reasonable proof that they received the letters and were ignoring you? I tend not to let things drag on for too long. I always send by Recorded delivery at least, so if I can see they received the letter. If I haven't heard back within 10 working days, I follow it up with a phone call.

No, but they later acknowledged the receipt of my previous correspondence and apologised for the delay in responding.

I normally allow the firm the full time-scale specified on their website before chasing it up.

 

[snail]

I provided an example whereby I consulted a Customer Relations department, who then made the effort to consult department managers elsewhere who should have known better. Unless you try, how do you know they won't be of any use?

The kind of people who go straight to the MD without first exhausting the Customer Services route, simply get a kick out of talking to someone they deem to be "important" so they can wring the most they can out of the situation. I wonder how many people do this to get the problem solved, without the expectation of a goodwill gesture?

Well me for one. Yes I will try the normal customer services route first, but I haven't got the time to 'exhaust' that route. If I am told rubbish - very common in certain contact centres - then I have no problem emailing the MD's office to outline the problem in writing to them. My aim is to resolve the problem, not get anything more.

Ultimately it's your attitude I am objecting to here. You are making a sweeping statement about other people's motives.

 

[island]

Well me for one. Yes I will try the normal customer services route first, but I haven't got the time to 'exhaust' that route. If I am told rubbish - very common in certain contact centres - then I have no problem emailing the MD's office to outline the problem in writing to them. My aim is to resolve the problem, not get anything more.

Ultimately it's your attitude I am objecting to here. You are making a sweeping statement about other people's motives.

I partially agree with RJ. Not about the sacked bit, but that writing to the MD is often used by people who think they're too important to go through and exhaust the normal channels.

 

[soil]

I partially agree with RJ. Not about the sacked bit, but that writing to the MD is often used by people who think they're too important to go through and exhaust the normal channels.

Why should they? If you can get a better result by being self-important, well good luck to you.