Is high quality English required when responding?

[pdq]

I've noticed a common theme in many of the threads in the Disputes & Prosecutions forum: that our forum experts often suggest tweaks to the English used in responses and requests for information, even down to replacing 'American-izations'. This got me wondering if people with lower levels of literacy are being disadvantaged when it comes to the chances of negotiating out of court settlements, and whether those with a 'way with words' are more likely to achieve this aim.

Short, arrogant, insincere or Chat-GPT generated responses are clearly less likely to illicit a favourable response; but do contributors think that a response that is genuinely remorseful but with less-than-ideal sentence/paragraph structure, grammar and vocabulary may be trumped by one that is potentially less sincere and/or honest, but skilfully crafted?

If so, this worries me, as it could potentially be discriminatory.

 

[alholmes]

Interesting point.

Where English isn’t their first language (e.g. foreign student) then it’s clear that they should try and obtain help from an English-speaker, or even this forum, to assist in the drafting of the response To improve understanding.

But I really struggle with the drafts we sometimes see which contain no punctuation, no paragraph breaks, no capitalisations. Basically just a big block of text. Ultimately, the person at the TOC or at TIL can only judge a case by the evidence and what’s placed in front of them, so these people may be at a disadvantage. However do I think it’s discriminatory? In most cases, no. It’s just a sign that things aren’t, and never will be, equal in the country (and that’s not really a debate I want to get into).

It’s also a sad reflection that parents and schools don’t seem to regard it as a concern that someone is being let into the world at 16 years of age with such poor written communication skills. And I say that as a school governor!

 

[mangyiscute]

I feel like in general the changes that are suggested are more to the tune of changing words/phrases to other words/phrases that have a slightly different meaning - an example would be rather than saying that the person would pay for a settlement, they should ask if the toc would allow them to pay a settlement.
These in my opinion are subtle changes that most people won't know without consulting an expert who knows what they're talking about.
I wouldn't say that most of the corrections made are purely spelling/grammar etc - also, since tools such as grammarly now exist, people who don't have the best SPAG can use something like that to improve it when writing such an important letter.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I won't try to speak for anyone else, but where I suggest wording/punctuation etc changes, it's in the hope of making things clearer and/or more likely to be acceptable to the railway (so I'll suggest grovelling for the railway to offer an out of court settlement, rather than grandly suggesting that the passenger will kindly deign to offer a settlement)

Having said which (and since this is 'us' I'm talking about rather than people who come here looking for help I think I'm entitled to be a bit judgmental) I do think that we do sometimes veer into being overly pedantic. Realistically, I don't think anyone at a TOC or TIL or TfL will care about Americanisms, nor about how the letter is addressed (to whom it may concern/ Dear Sir or Madam / Dear Mr Smith. I have to admit to be overly fussy on this one).

So probably we need to try and think whether what we send will really improve the letter?

 

[superkopite]

Failing to use proper grammar, punctuation, and clear structure in your writing can significantly impact the likelihood of achieving a positive result. It's not a matter of discrimination; rather, if your text is disorganised, verbose, and challenging to understand, you're not presenting your case effectively. This makes it difficult for the reader to grasp the subtleties of your situation, and you can't hold them responsible for that.

Additionally, from my perspective, a reply that appears hastily written, with little attention to detail, could lead me to doubt the sincerity of your remorse.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've noticed a common theme in many of the threads in the Disputes & Prosecutions forum: that our forum experts often suggest tweaks to the English used in responses and requests for information, even down to replacing 'American-izations'. This got me wondering if people with lower levels of literacy are being disadvantaged when it comes to the chances of negotiating out of court settlements, and whether those with a 'way with words' are more likely to achieve this aim.

Short, arrogant, insincere or Chat-GPT generated responses are clearly less likely to illicit a favourable response; but do contributors think that a response that is genuinely remorseful but with less-than-ideal sentence/paragraph structure, grammar and vocabulary may be trumped by one that is potentially less sincere and/or honest, but skilfully crafted?

If so, this worries me, as it could potentially be discriminatory.

People have varying levels of literacy; having a wide vocabulary and being eloquent in spoken or written English is certainly a privilege, but - at least in England - we do live in a country with only one official language. It does seem perfectly natural to me that people who express themselves well will achieve favourable outcomes; that is why literacy is important.

As an aside, and not wishing to sound like a boring old fart...seeing people who are apparently students at university come here, claiming they are unable to write a letter, is a damning indictment of our education system.

 

[Gloster]

As an aside, and not wishing to sound like a boring old fart...seeing people who are apparently students at university come here, claiming they are unable to write a letter, is a damning indictment of our education system.

I entirely agree, especially as a few have said that they were doing a master’s degree.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It’s also a sad reflection that parents and schools don’t seem to regard it as a concern that someone is being let into the world at 16 years of age with such poor written communication skills. And I say that as a school governor!

I get a number of emails each week from people asking if we have any vacancies. They vary from the perfectly presented and well written, to the incoherent, barely in sentences and misspelled.

 

[AndroidBango]

To be fair, in relation to -ize, that usage has been in use in England since the 16th century. I'm pretty sure it's present in Shakespeare. -ize is still the standard in the University of Oxford's style guide. (I speak as some poor individual who has to use their style guide on a routine basis).

(I'm having none of the bastardised (bastardized?) words like 'burglarize' of course).

 

[Ken H]

Reading a long letter with no punctuation or paragraphs is quite difficult; if people cant be persuaded to use paragraphs then use of bullets will make the letter easier to read.

But some grammar mistakes jar, and can make the text ambiguous.

I am sure the correct "their", "there" and "they're" make for easier reading; I was taught that when I was 6.

And "could of" instead of "should of" - shudder.

 

[Thornaby 37]

Would the Disability Discrimination Act apply if a person with dyslexia or learning difficulties was treated more harshly in a ticketing dispute ?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Would the Disability Discrimination Act apply if a person with dyslexia or learning difficulties was treated more harshly in a ticketing dispute ?

Might be difficult to tell, unless two seemingly unconnected persons were stopped at the same time / reported for the same alleged offence but then were treated differently, the one with dyslexia / learning difficulties more harshly.

 

[yorkie]

Would the Disability Discrimination Act apply if a person with dyslexia or learning difficulties was treated more harshly in a ticketing dispute ?

The DDA has not applied since 2010. You need to look at the Equality Act 2010:

Equality Act 2010

An Act to make provision to require Ministers of the Crown and others when making strategic decisions about the exercise of their functions to have regard to the desirability of reducing socio-economic inequalities; to reform and harmonise equality law and restate the greater part of the...

www.legislation.gov.uk

Do you have an example of the sort of scenario you had in mind, and what part of the legislation you think may be pertinent?

 

[scrapy]

Would the Disability Discrimination Act apply if a person with dyslexia or learning difficulties was treated more harshly in a ticketing dispute ?

I don't believe it would because at that stage they are being dealt with for an potential offence rather than trying to obtain goods or services. (I stand to be corrected on this).

Most TOCs own prosecution policies do state that they will deal fairly with anyone who has a disability and /or limited English, however disabilities are not always obvious. I would therefore be advised that anyone in this situation politely makes their position known to the TOC and then they can make reasonable adjustments even if this does just mean spending more time reading the letter.

 

[Llanigraham]

I get a number of emails each week from people asking if we have any vacancies. They vary from the perfectly presented and well written, to the incoherent, barely in sentences and misspelled.

Agreed.
I was helping a friend trawl through applications for employment with his company recently and any that contained glaring spelling and grammatical errors got binned very quickly, even though the job was not clerical. His attitude was that if they cannot write clearly would they also be capable understanding written instructions.

 

[simonw]

Reading a long letter with no punctuation or paragraphs is quite difficult; if people cant be persuaded to use paragraphs then use of bullets will make the letter easier to read.

But some grammar mistakes jar, and can make the text ambiguous.

I am sure the correct "their", "there" and "they're" make for easier reading; I was taught that when I was 6.

And "could of" instead of "should of" - shudder.

Did you mean could have and should have?

 

[Ken H]

Did you mean could have and should have?

yes. or even could've or should've which is where I think the error come from.

 

[185143]

Reading a long letter with no punctuation or paragraphs is quite difficult; if people cant be persuaded to use paragraphs then use of bullets will make the letter easier to read.

But some grammar mistakes jar, and can make the text ambiguous.

I am sure the correct "their", "there" and "they're" make for easier reading; I was taught that when I was 6.

And "could of" instead of "should of" - shudder.

"Should of" instead of "should have" makes my skin crawl.

But back on topic, would RPIs generally make note of someone with a less than fluent grasp on the English Language?

 

[30907]

I entirely agree, especially as a few have said that they were doing a master’s degree.

As an aside, and not wishing to sound like a boring old fart...seeing people who are apparently students at university come here, claiming they are unable to write a letter, is a damning indictment of our education system.

My impression is that a significant number of posters do not have British English as their first language; there are also considerable numbers who are have immigration status issues and/or take extended holidays in other countries.

The standard of "ordinary" English required of overseas students even by major universities doesn't seem that high, judging by those I meet in the course of my duties. And explaining yourself in a foreign language isn't easy (I am fluent in German but might struggle with some specialist areas - which railway ticketing is for many).

Back to the topic: I am with alholmes on this one - basic things like paragraphs, full stops and capitals are elementary parts of written language learning. As one of the regular responders, I hope I am not too picky about other points.

 

[Gloster]

But back on topic, would RPIs generally make note of someone with a less than fluent grasp on the English Language?

Some people can speak with a fair degree of fluency, but cannot write clearly. And this is not necessarily any form of disability, just plain stupidity or laziness (or both).

One relevant error that crops up is the confusion of fare and fair. There is also the misspelling of prosecution as persecution or similar, although this is possibly a Freudian slip.

 

[30907]

Some people can speak with a fair degree of fluency, but cannot write clearly. And this is not necessarily any form of disability, just plain stupidity or laziness (or both).

One relevant error that crops up is the confusion of fare and fair. There is also the misspelling of prosecution as persecution or similar, although this is possibly a Freudian slip.

Autocarrot has a lot to answer for - as has English spelling

 

[Gloster]

The standard of "ordinary" English required of overseas students even by major universities doesn't seem that high, judging by those I meet in the course of my duties.

I think that the standard required is to be able to answer ‘Yes‘ to the question, ‘Have you lots of money?’

 

[30907]

Perhaps we should have something like this in the "please read" -

"Please try to make your post easy to read, with separate sentences, punctuation etc. etc. We appreciate that your first language may not be English and will do our best to help if that's the case."

I'll report myself to the mods.

 

[pedr]

I’d be very surprised if there weren’t disparate outcomes in our justice system (broadly defined, to include the actions of train companies and other similar things like detecting goods not paid for in a trolley of shopping or highway police deciding on enforcement action) based on a person’s ability to communicate in a manner expected by the average British person. This can overlap with/cause racial disparities, but also ones connected with disability, educational level, and so on.

There are some very definite aspects of what is essentially rules of etiquette here, and while we’ll have internalised those rules and consider them self-evident - so the advice given is good in this context - I expect the letters recommended as good practice here would be seen as stuffy, disingenuous or manipulating, or other negative things in some other countries/cultures.

 

[yorkie]

I'll report myself to the mods.

People should not report their own posts, except under highly unusual circumstances, e.g. if you subsequently want us to consider deleting your post.

For general feedback, the 'Contact us' form can be used (which is probably best for something of this nature) while for any issues with any particular post, the post in question is the one that should be reported, with the suggestion placed in the report (instead of being posted on the forum).

 

[Tetchytyke]

This got me wondering if people with lower levels of literacy are being disadvantaged when it comes to the chances of negotiating out of court settlements, and whether those with a 'way with words' are more likely to achieve this aim.

People with lower levels of literacy are less likely to understand the railways’ letters and are less likely to respond. At least that’s my experience of previously working as a debt advice manager at Citizens Advice, with the fabled bin bags full of letters being dumped on my desk.

As for the railways’ acceptance of offers, my strong suspicion is that the likes of TIL don’t even read the reply. They want the £150 admin fee- it’s more than they’ll get from a prosecution. So as long as a correspondent goes through the motions of pretending to be sorry then they’ll get their settlement. It’ll only require more effort if there are significant aggravating factors, or if TfL are involved.

 

[akm]

I do like how the OP has 'illicit' where 'elicit' is meant

 

[Haywain]

My take on this is that it is important to make any communication easy for the recipient to read and understand, and receive the appropriate message. Part of this is not making the letter or email too long, or too short, and to use the right sort of language. A long, badly punctuated and difficult to decipher scrawl will not elicit a sympathetic response and the same is likely to be the case for anything that diverts blame or whines about irrelevant shortcomings of the service provider. I think that on this forum we try to encourage people to write the right sort of letter because we know that the right sort of letter will get the right sort of response.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Part of this is not making the letter or email too long, or too short[...]. I think that on this forum we try to encourage people to write the right sort of letter because we know that the right sort of letter will get the right sort of response.

I've found it interesting that while in general we encourage people to write shorter letters*, recently we've had a few where the draft response is basically 'Yeah, you caught me, soz, won't do it again' and we've needed to encourage the OP to write longer and make it look less like an insincere scribble sent only with the intention of getting out of trouble and not intending to improve behaviour in future.

*Yes, I know. I'll never use one word when a dozen will do, so I'm an offender here myself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've found it interesting that while in general we encourage people to write shorter letters*, recently we've had a few where the draft response is basically 'Yeah, you caught me, soz, won't do it again' and we've needed to encourage the OP to write longer and make it look less like an insincere scribble sent only with the intention of getting out of trouble and not intending to improve behaviour in future.

*Yes, I know. I'll never use one word when a dozen will do, so I'm an offender here myself.

Even more ridiculous is the charade of having to write to TIL twice saying the same insincere drivel to get offered a settlement.