Merseyrail RPI vs guard

[najaB]

as the father of a teenage girl I would also class her to be vulnerable ..especially at night, and if the payment is offered straight away then to me it isnt evasion.

And the TOC wouldn't consider it evasion either - hence a Penalty Fare would be appropriate. If they thought it was a deliberate attempt at evasion then a prosecution would be the correct course of action (bearing in mind that there are limits on prosecutions for minors).

The thing is, again without intending to sound unduly harsh, a teenage girl out late is hardly the same as a disabled person. The girl has ended up in that situation through their actions (e.g. stayed out later than they are supposed to, or chosen to go somewhere they should not have) a disabled person has not. The teenage girl is only vulnerable because it is late at night, the disabled person is disabled 24 hours a day. Once the girl gets home she's no longer at risk, the disabled person will continue to be disabled.

The two aren't really comparable.

 

[gray1404]

Merseyrail do need to be made aware of what happened. No way should disabled passengers be getting PF'd when it is contrary to the TOC policy etc. The moment the lady communicated she was disabled that should have been the end of the matter. The RPI needs to be dealt with accordingly. A disabled passenger was clearly denied their rights and put under a lot of undue stress and presure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd also just like to say how its really helpful if when posting people could please give the full information in their first post - so we can repond to full information

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually googled it after posting, disabled vs non disabled is one of very few things the law allows more favourable treatment for a group against the other.

And the reason for it is that what is required is equality of opportunity.

Disabled people are reserved parking spaces right in front of Tesco, I'm not. That's because if they weren't, they may well not have the opportunity to visit Tesco at all, as they wouldn't be able to walk far enough or a regular space might not be wide enough to get their wheelchair out of the car and transfer to it.

Similarly, if in a PF area a disabled person cannot use a TVM, perhaps because of being blind or nearly so, or because they can't bend over to reach the screen[1], if they are not allowed to pay on board (or allowed to travel for free, if the cost of collecting their fare exceeds the loss from not doing so), they are denied the ability to travel by train. Whereas I can use the TVM. Perhaps worse - I can also cycle and drive instead if I can't be bothered using a TVM, a blind person can do neither of those things.

So just as I don't begrudge the disabled parking space, or the disabled toilet, I don't begrudge that either.

[1] I think, with people getting taller, things put at wheelchair height only are a disability issue storing itself up for the future as my generation of 6-footers become less mobile and able to bend to that height. One advantage of the gimmicky "smart wall" ticket machines is that the large screen could put the regular-sized TVM display at the height of the user's choosing, and thus solve that issue.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing is, again without intending to sound unduly harsh, a teenage girl out late is hardly the same as a disabled person. The girl has ended up in that situation through their actions (e.g. stayed out later than they are supposed to, or chosen to go somewhere they should not have) a disabled person has not. The teenage girl is only vulnerable because it is late at night, the disabled person is disabled 24 hours a day. Once the girl gets home she's no longer at risk, the disabled person will continue to be disabled.

And if she got out of a car she was presumably dropped off at the station by an adult, who has some level of responsibility for her by having done so. If they didn't wait to see that she was able to buy a ticket and board the train, they perhaps weren't discharging that properly.

 

[island]

And the TOC wouldn't consider it evasion either - hence a Penalty Fare would be appropriate. If they thought it was a deliberate attempt at evasion then a prosecution would be the correct course of action (bearing in mind that there are limits on prosecutions for minors).

Miseryrail policy appears to be to PF anyone and everyone with a ticketing problem; anecdotal evidence is that prosecutions are rare on their turf.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Miseryrail policy appears to be to PF anyone and everyone with a ticketing problem; anecdotal evidence is that prosecutions are rare on their turf.

Except for offences for which a PF cannot be applied, like feet on the seats and stuff, where they are *very* prosecution happy.

Though I'm sure I remember reading that they would prefer the PF (or another form of fixed penalty under their control) was an option for these cases. Surprising, in a way, they don't use Northern style Penalty Fakes given that they are from the same stable.

 

[Jonfun]

Not if she was disabled, as per MerseyRail's policy for Making Rail Accessible: Helping Older and Disabled Passengers as quoted above.

But there's nothing to say she was unable to buy a ticket before boarding. She only said she couldn't use the machine. If she couldn't use a ticket counter at the start of her journey then how will she pay at the ticket counter at the other end?

We can go round in circles as much as folk like, but it won't change my opinion that undermining your colleagues is unacceptable.

In addition, being disabled (or elderly, or whatever) isn't a get out clause for not following the rules. Yes, we should take steps to ensure that they aren't disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean they should be given freedom to take the mick.

 

[Clip]

I don't want to sound callous but I deem to this to be extremely unfair especially for other passengers caught up in this whole malarkey. If she boarded the train within Merseyside she would have been issued with a free travel pass surely?? Also, an earlier poster has talked about vulnerability, I have witnessed a car pulling into Moreton station on a Sunday Evening (half hourly service) and a young teenage girl running from the car and jumping on the train. Revenue were unfortunately in action and issued a penalty notice although she had money and stated she would pay at destination. Okay there is no excuse for not purchasing a ticket before travel, but she was dropped off by adults and was travelling one stop to Meols. It is safer for a young girl to jump the train than hang about at a station some 30 minutes. Revenue were totally disinterested. Even on the short journey a couple of male passengers intervened, telling the RPI that she was only a child and let her pay at destination but to no avail. They even offered to pay for her, nothing ... so where is the difference??

I love how you have made out Merseyrail to be at fault here and not the bloody adults who dropped her off without time to purchase a ticket. But hey ho, its the railways fault isn't it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there's nothing to say she was unable to buy a ticket before boarding. She only said she couldn't use the machine. If she couldn't use a ticket counter at the start of her journey then how will she pay at the ticket counter at the other end?

There are 4 Merseyrail stations without ticket offices, and of all the rest most are single manned so if he needs the loo it will be temporarily closed.

 

[najaB]

But there's nothing to say she was unable to buy a ticket before boarding. She only said she couldn't use the machine. If she couldn't use a ticket counter at the start of her journey then how will she pay at the ticket counter at the other end?

It could be as simple as the ticket office was on the opposite platform making it difficult for her to reach it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But there's nothing to say she was unable to buy a ticket before boarding. She only said she couldn't use the machine. If she couldn't use a ticket counter at the start of her journey then how will she pay at the ticket counter at the other end?

I'm not familiar with the station, but it could be any number of reasons: the office could be on the other platform, the office could be inaccessible to people with physical impairments, the office could have been closed for a staff PNB, the hearing loop could have been broken, etc etc.

In addition, being disabled (or elderly, or whatever) isn't a get out clause for not following the rules.

Disabled people who cannot use the ticket office are following the rules by buying on board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Disabled people who cannot use the ticket office are following the rules by buying on board.

It is quite possibly the case that this policy was written effectively writing off fares from disabled people who cannot purchase a ticket, because the vast majority of Merseyrail passengers with a disability will be on Merseytravel free passes.

Sometimes it is not worth collecting certain revenue - you spend more collecting it than it brings in.

 

[222007]

Not sure exactly what TOC's policy on Disabled Railcard Holders is, but most I would presume cut the slack especially when using a TVM. However today a lady was arguing with a GWR guard that they didn't have to pre-buy at ticket at all, even if the ticket office was open, and produced a letter from the Inclusion Manager that stated so.

As an RPI myself my policy is i will sell a ticket when a disabled railcard is shown. Not entirely sure where i would stand with the Equality act if i refused.

 

[LowLevel]

But there's nothing to say she was unable to buy a ticket before boarding. She only said she couldn't use the machine. If she couldn't use a ticket counter at the start of her journey then how will she pay at the ticket counter at the other end?

We can go round in circles as much as folk like, but it won't change my opinion that undermining your colleagues is unacceptable.

In addition, being disabled (or elderly, or whatever) isn't a get out clause for not following the rules. Yes, we should take steps to ensure that they aren't disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean they should be given freedom to take the mick.

The thing is though if she is a disabled railcard holder the rules genuinely don't apply. There's no conditionality to being able to pay on board, it's a simple blanket policy that disabled railcard holders, visually impaired people and wheelchair users are not required to pay at a ticket office or at a TVM before their journey.

Whether that's morally right or not is of course another debate but the fact remains my hands are tied on the matter - I haven't got a choice.

 

[joke2711]

I love how you have made out Merseyrail to be at fault here and not the bloody adults who dropped her off without time to purchase a ticket. But hey ho, its the railways fault isn't it.

I agree with you and I'm not saying Merseyrail are at fault. I was making the point that a vulnerable adult and vulnerable child are being treated differently when in fact they are both vulnerable!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with you and I'm not saying Merseyrail are at fault. I was making the point that a vulnerable adult and vulnerable child are being treated differently when in fact they are both vulnerable!

They are vulnerable in different ways - specifically, the disabled person's vulnerability cannot be avoided, while the child's can by simply being more punctual.

 

[richw]

As an RPI myself my policy is i will sell a ticket when a disabled railcard is shown. Not entirely sure where i would stand with the Equality act if i refused.

Is this something trained to you, or something you just do? If its something trained out then there is no excuse at all

 

[kelv]

They are vulnerable in different ways - specifically, the disabled person's vulnerability cannot be avoided, while the child's can by simply being more punctual.

So children aren't vulnerable then ? only if they aren't punctual

people that work with kids are required to be crb checked which suggests an element of vulnerability straight away. I think most parents would hope that most adults that their children come across would recognise that they are indeed vulnerable people . I know that if there was a young girl travelling on a train alone then if I were the Guard I would view them as that and ensure that they reached their destination safely, Duty of Care probably isn't the correct term but I'd certainly be keeping an eye out for them the same as I would an elderly lady or disabled.
I would also look out for them an offer them assistance if it were required as a passenger as well btw and indeed have done, be it helping with luggage or helping them to their seat etc. I was on a flight that got cancelled from Paris to Manc and they put us all on the train home, they kind of abandoned us and we had to assist a lot of elderly passengers that were returning from NZ with big bags. (Cathay Pacific btw that did the abandoning).

 

[najaB]

So children aren't vulnerable then ? only if they aren't punctual

people that work with kids are required to be crb checked which suggests an element of vulnerability straight away

Sigh. You're talking about something completely different. DBS checks are just simple common sense for people who are going to be left alone with children.

As Neil Williams has explained disabled people are allowed to buy on board or at their destination without penalty because that may be the difference between being able to live a comparatively normal life or being stuck at home unable to contribute to society.

In the scenario that joke2711 described the girl was taken to the station by someone in a car (so presumably they were at least 17 years old). How and why should the railway give special dispensation to her when that person abandoned her at the station?

 

[gray1404]

Miseryrail policy appears to be to PF anyone and everyone with a ticketing problem; anecdotal evidence is that prosecutions are rare on their turf.

Thats because there would not be enough evidence for them to take someone to court - say if it was a disabled person. And yes, totally wrong that they just try, thats the key word try, to PF someone with a ticketing problem. That needs to change and hopefully we can being about that change.

In addition, being disabled (or elderly, or whatever) isn't a get out clause for not following the rules. Yes, we should take steps to ensure that they aren't disadvantaged, but that doesn't mean they should be given freedom to take the mick.

Lets just get this totally clear please, disabled people do not go around taking advantage and taking the mick as you put it. Disabled people face barriers to using the train service and such policies as them being able to buy from an RPI (which is what should have happened here) to enable the to use the train service.

As an RPI myself my policy is i will sell a ticket when a disabled railcard is shown. Not entirely sure where i would stand with the Equality act if i refused.

What would you do if a customer communicated they were disabled but didn't have a disabled persons railcard, but was still disabled according to the Equality Act thus entitled to the protections of such and the provions of the TOC disabled persons protection policy.

You don't need to have a disabled persons railcard to be disabled.

It could be as simple as the ticket office was on the opposite platform making it difficult for her to reach it.

Good point.

The RPI here broke the rules and treated a disabled person unfairly. Simple as that. This needs addressing by Merseyrail as a matter of urgency.

 

[najaB]

TWhat would you do if a customer communicated they were disabled but didn't have a disabled persons railcard, but was still disabled according to the Equality Act thus entitled to the protections of such and the provions of the TOC disabled persons protection policy.

If they don't carry a disabled person's railcard then most TOC's policies only extend protections to people in wheelchairs (if they are unable to leave the chair during their journey) and visually impaired people who are unable to get around without assistance.

 

[jon0844]

I would say that closing ranks and supporting your colleagues even when they make obvious mistakes is even more unprofessional.

And is what happened to me when a RPI wanted to prosecute me for combining two Travelcards. His 'partner' said nothing throughout the three or so hours I was with him, and almost all the other staff I spoke to rounded on me and supported him.

Indeed, one got rather abusive as another member of staff working under her did raise concern about the suggestion the two tickets were valid. All quite laughable after the event but NOT at the time.

After it got sorted (that same afternoon, thankfully), the same staff spoken to over the coming weeks claimed to know I was in the right all along. A fat lot of good that did me at the time.

 

[gray1404]

If they don't carry a disabled person's railcard then most TOC's policies only extend protections to people in wheelchairs (if they are unable to leave the chair during their journey) and visually impaired people who are unable to get around without assistance.

There is nothing the the Equality Act that states a person need carry a disabled persons railcard (I know thats not what your saying in your post) to be covered by the provisions of the act for those providing a service to make reasonable ajustments to services. Remember, someone can have a dignosis of a disability to be covered by the provisions of the act and they may choose not to be on benefits or apply a disabled persons railcard. Indeed it may be an overseas visitor who couldn't but they would still be protected by the provisions of the Act.

I also do not believe a passenger is required to give RPIs details of their disability (i.e. what it is and how that prevented them from buying) other then, that they are disabled and unable to get a ticket? RPIs are not medical doctors after all and most people with a disability actually have a hidden disability.

 

[hantsman1205]

Sigh. You're talking about something completely different. DBS checks are just simple common sense for people who are going to be left alone with children.

As Neil Williams has explained disabled people are allowed to buy on board or at their destination without penalty because that may be the difference between being able to live a comparatively normal life or being stuck at home unable to contribute to society.

In the scenario that joke2711 described the girl was taken to the station by someone in a car (so presumably they were at least 17 years old). How and why should the railway give special dispensation to her when that person abandoned her at the station?

DBS checks are not just for people who are left alone with children, Stagecoach Bus Division require you to have this but they don't pay for this.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As Guards we have a DUTY OF CARE to each and every passenger rightly or wrongly. Vulnerable passengers come in all ages, shapes and sizes and its up to each individual to judge each case by its merits. Whereas one 70 year old could be completely Tech Savvy others can find Ticket Machines extremely confusing. Teenagers can easily get on the wrong train and get worried easily (Bravado soon vanishes) From reading the original post the Guard made the correct decision and the RPI didn't. It is not a case of undermining a colleague more like reminding him/her of the error of their ways. Guards are in charge of the train RPI's are not (Most RPI's I know who work for Northern are excellent people with plenty of common sense)

 

[jonty14]

The RPI doing his job and being told by the Guard (who don't have primary responsibility for revenue on Merseyrail) *in front* of the passenger he's trying to deal with doesn't strike me very much as working as a team, it strikes me as undermining his colleague, which is one of the few things which actually, genuinely annoys me.

If we're talking about a situation whereby the Guard knew the passenger was onboard and aware of the situation with regards to her ticket then made a quick "oh sorry mate, forgot to tell you, she came to see me about the problem and I gave her the okay to buy at the other end" to the RPI then obviously that's a different situation.

A passenger shouldn't be let of a penalty fare just because they're old, whether they're my elderly grandmother or not. Yes, there is scope for discretion in the penalty fare rules but just because someone is old doesn't immediately mean they're vulnerable and need wrapping in cotton wool. Do you turn 65 and immediately become a dribbling vegetable?

I hope when you are old what you say comes back and bites you. How awful some people can be. I am shocked at some of the things said on this forum!!

 

[najaB]

DBS checks are not just for people who are left alone with children, Stagecoach Bus Division require you to have this...

That's because, for example, you might have to do a school run.

 

[kelv]

As Guards we have a DUTY OF CARE to each and every passenger rightly or wrongly. Vulnerable passengers come in all ages, shapes and sizes and its up to each individual to judge each case by its merits. Whereas one 70 year old could be completely Tech Savvy others can find Ticket Machines extremely confusing. Teenagers can easily get on the wrong train and get worried easily (Bravado soon vanishes) From reading the original post the Guard made the correct decision and the RPI didn't. It is not a case of undermining a colleague more like reminding him/her of the error of their ways. Guards are in charge of the train RPI's are not (Most RPI's I know who work for Northern are excellent people with plenty of common sense)

The majority of that is what I was trying to put across, also good to see that the way I would consider things is the way that someone in the job does as well.

The last 2 words being something that seems to be lacking in a lot of cases as well.

 

[najaB]

As Guards we have a DUTY OF CARE to each and every passenger rightly or wrongly. Vulnerable passengers come in all ages, shapes and sizes and its up to each individual to judge each case by its merits.

I agree totally. The TOCs' disabled person policies specifically extend certain rights and protections to holders of disabled railcards and those who are confined to wheelchairs or who are visually impaired and unable to travel without assistance, it's up to the operational staff to identify other people who are in vulnerable situations.

 

[bb21]

As Guards we have a DUTY OF CARE to each and every passenger rightly or wrongly. Vulnerable passengers come in all ages, shapes and sizes and its up to each individual to judge each case by its merits. Whereas one 70 year old could be completely Tech Savvy others can find Ticket Machines extremely confusing. Teenagers can easily get on the wrong train and get worried easily (Bravado soon vanishes) From reading the original post the Guard made the correct decision and the RPI didn't. It is not a case of undermining a colleague more like reminding him/her of the error of their ways. Guards are in charge of the train RPI's are not (Most RPI's I know who work for Northern are excellent people with plenty of common sense)

I think he may have a point about undermining a colleague. There is always a better way to point out a colleague's potential errors than correcting him in front of members of the public. Of course it is difficult to judge without knowing how he did it but dismissing this possibility is way too simplistic in my view.

There is always a middle ground. Very rarely are things simply right or wrong, and if judged to be wrong, there is an art to how it's dealt with, just like when dealing with a passenger.

 

[talldave]

The majority of that is what I was trying to put across, also good to see that the way I would consider things is the way that someone in the job does as well.

The last 2 words being something that seems to be lacking in a lot of cases as well.

You only have to read these forums for a short time to discover that those two words are missing across the industry as a whole.