SWR Guard and a customer with Aspergers

[4-SUB 4732]

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne..._guard__39_s_conduct_with_Bournemouth_family/

RAIL chiefs are investigating "serious allegations" into the conduct of a train guard, made by a Bournemouth family with a disabled daughter.

Dad Alex Gibbs says the guard refused to accept they'd been given permission to travel on an earlier service than their tickets stipulated.

Later that day the guard allegedly took to social media, on a Facebook group called 'Railway Staff Moan Group', and commented about the encounter.

"They didn't want to pay because they spoke to the guy on the gateline and he said it would be fine," he reportedly wrote. "How many times have we all heard that?"

The family was returning home from Lauren's 15th birthday day trip when the incident unfolded on Monday (Jan 22) afternoon.....

Interesting to see the outcome of that one.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the ticketing issue, I hope they nail the guard for their social media use. If my staff talked about clients on Facebook I'd be firing them for gross misconduct.

 

[yorkie]

It is unwise to talk about a customer on social media in a less than positive way.

As for the ticketing dispute, if the gateline staff grant authorisation for travel then the Guard cannot over-rule that. That's the law.

 

[Adlington]

It is unwise to talk about a customer on social media in a less than positive way.

Of course you can say anything you like about the staff....

 

[yorkie]

Of course you can say anything you like about the staff....

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting?

If you work for a company, you need to adhere to their policies, including the policies regarding social media use.

 

[nanstallon]

Of course you can say anything you like about the staff....

Yes - the customer is always right. Let's not go back to the 'good old days' when railway staff were so rude and treated the paying public as a bloody nuisance.

 

[221129]

Yes - the customer is always right. Let's not go back to the 'good old days' when railway staff were so rude and treated the paying public as a bloody nuisance.

The customer is most certainly not always right.

 

[Adlington]

I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting?

That as a guard you cannot say that a (anonymous) passenger behaved like an idiot on the xx:xx train from A to B. But the said passenger is free to post any derogatory remarks about the said guard.

 

[yorkie]

Yes - the customer is always right.

In this case, is there any evidence to deny the customer was right?

Let's not go back to the 'good old days' when railway staff were so rude and treated the paying public as a bloody nuisance.

This is very much the exception rather than the norm. I do witness such attitudes occasionally. It is important they are dealt with. I do not agree with a suggestion that most railway staff were like this in the 'old days' but I would agree with a suggestion that such attitudes are less often seen these days in public-facing roles, including in the rail industry.

The vast majority of people who choose to perform a public-facing role are well suited to that role and do it well.

 

[Darandio]

Yes - the customer is always right.

Biggest fallacy ever.

 

[PeterC]

It is unwise to talk about a customer on social media in a less than positive way.

As for the ticketing dispute, if the gateline staff grant authorisation for travel then the Guard cannot over-rule that. That's the law.

So a ticket can be upgraded by a ticket checker on the gateline without any form of endorsement or other documentation? That is a blaggers' charter!

 

[greatkingrat]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the ticketing issue, I hope they nail the guard for their social media use. If my staff talked about clients on Facebook I'd be firing them for gross misconduct.

Depends what he actually posted. It sounds like it was a just a general moan about passengers trying it on rather than specifically discussing details of this individual case.

 

[IainG81]

Yes i would never use social media to talk negatively about passengers specific case. However we do need information if someone bends the rules for a passenger it's not always the fault of the guards don't know, they get people blagging all the time, everyone trying to blag has a reason not to pay. It's annoying because they should pay for the service like everyone else.

 

[Parallel]

It is unwise to talk about a customer on social media in a less than positive way.

As for the ticketing dispute, if the gateline staff grant authorisation for travel then the Guard cannot over-rule that. That's the law.

Indeed - In hindsight it would have also been beneficial for the gateline staff to endorse the back of their tickets. I don't blame the guard for challenging them as there must be a lot of people who try it on (though that's probably not the case here) but posting about it on social media is completely unprofessional.

 

[LowLevel]

It is unwise to talk about a customer on social media in a less than positive way.

As for the ticketing dispute, if the gateline staff grant authorisation for travel then the Guard cannot over-rule that. That's the law.

Quite true - if the lazy so and sos bother to endorse the ticket. If not it's your word against theirs and it's up to a court to sort out I guess.

 

[221129]

What's the betting that the Gateline actually said go through and ASK the guard.... but the passengers just jumped on...

 

[yorkie]

That as a guard you cannot say that a (anonymous) passenger behaved like an idiot on the xx:xx train from A to B.

Indeed, that can lead to disciplinary action and potentially being sacked.

But the said passenger is free to post any derogatory remarks about the said guard.

But realistically, what can the company do? The customer is not an employee.

I am aware of some companies stating a policy that if derogatory remarks are made about staff (which is beyond the scope of this thread) then they will not assist the customer further.

If derogatory remarks were persistent, the train company could seek to ban the customer from their trains, but achieving and enforcing this may be difficult.

But there is no getting away from the fact that an unprofessional comment from an employee can be acted upon by an employer.

 

[matt_world2004]

I have ranted on social media before after recieving verbal abuse and assault.I see it as a preferable option to arguing back. It would be stuff like

"today an idiot kicked me in the back" or "Today. in <Insert town name> some **** spat at me.

 

[yorkie]

I have ranted on social media before after recieving verbal abuse and assault.I see it as a preferable option to arguing back. It would be stuff like

"today an idiot kicked me in the back" or "Today. in <Insert town name> some **** spat at me.

Was this in any way attributed to your identity? If so, I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[al78]

This makes me wonder what to do if a member of staff gives me permission to travel, say, on a different train to the one I'm booked on, but I don't have any written endorsement for if I get my ticket checked further along the journey. Without proof of the exchange what is to stop a train guard saying my ticket is invalid and insisting I purchase another?

I remember this could theoretically have happened in December 2013 when Virgin were permitting early travel to advance ticket holders because of predicted severe weather. The man at the barrier at Horsham let me through after I explained the situation, but I didn't get a written endorsement or the ticket checked on the train (although I must have got through the barrier at Victoria without incident).

 

[Lrd]

I have ranted on social media before after recieving verbal abuse and assault.I see it as a preferable option to arguing back. It would be stuff like

"today an idiot kicked me in the back" or "Today. in <Insert town name> some **** spat at me.

I really recommend that you don't do that! No matter how much you lock down your profiles, it doesn't stop someone you know forwarding it on to someone else. Nothing you put on the internet is private.

 

[matt_world2004]

This makes me wonder what to do if a member of staff gives me permission to travel, say, on a different train to the one I'm booked on, but I don't have any written endorsement for if I get my ticket checked further along the journey. Without proof of the exchange what is to stop a train guard saying my ticket is invalid and insisting I purchase another?

I remember this could theoretically have happened in December 2013 when Virgin were permitting early travel to advance ticket holders because of predicted severe weather. The man at the barrier at Horsham let me through after I explained the situation, but I didn't get a written endorsement or the ticket checked on the train (although I must have got through the barrier at Victoria without incident).

When there is something like disruption a briefing goes out to staff advising them of that fact so you wouldnt get in trouble.

I would hope that when there has been permission given locally like barrier staff allowing someone through and they have not endorsed the ticket. That, as part of the investigation into the ticket irregularity that the RPIs would contact the relevent barrier staff to ascertain the facts. It would still cause stress to the customer though while waiting to find out if they are being prosecuted

 

[pompeyfan]

What's the betting that the Gateline actually said go through and ASK the guard.... but the passengers just jumped on...

That thought had crossed my mind too.

 

[lejog]

This makes me wonder what to do if a member of staff gives me permission to travel, say, on a different train to the one I'm booked on, but I don't have any written endorsement for if I get my ticket checked further along the journey. Without proof of the exchange what is to stop a train guard saying my ticket is invalid and insisting I purchase another?

I remember this could theoretically have happened in December 2013 when Virgin were permitting early travel to advance ticket holders because of predicted severe weather. The man at the barrier at Horsham let me through after I explained the situation, but I didn't get a written endorsement or the ticket checked on the train (although I must have got through the barrier at Victoria without incident).

The law is quite clear on this "anything that is said or written to the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader, about the trader or the service" becomes part of the contract if acted upon (although this only dates from 2015). Verbal contracts have been part of English law for centuries now. A guard is unable to change back the contract without your permission.

What to do about the situation is less clear, especially since little seems to have done little to train staff in the consequences of the rail industry having to comply with consumer law. Unless the guard contacts the gateline, they have no proof that you don't have a contract.

 

[Harbouring]

In my experience in these situations is the gate line staff just generally wave people through no matter what you explain on the gate. Implication is that permission has been given.

 

[LowLevel]

The law is quite clear on this "anything that is said or written to the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader, about the trader or the service" becomes part of the contract if acted upon (although this only dates from 2015). Verbal contracts have been part of English law for centuries now. A guard is unable to change back the contract without your permission.

What to do about the situation is less clear, especially since little seems to have done little to train staff in the consequences of the rail industry having to comply with consumer law. Unless the guard contacts the gateline, they have no proof that you don't have a contract.

The railway byelaws only require the guard to have reasonable belief that you're in breach to act as the person in charge. Any development beyond that would be for the courts to determine.

Hence as I always tell my passengers - if someone tells you you're OK to do something unusual - particularly if it contradicts something that you already have in writing like an advance ticket - get it in writing.

TPE issue their staff little cards to hand out. Our lot say to use the endorsement box.

Nothing gets on my nerves more than staff telling people things (and I quite believe that they do on occasion) without fulfilling their responsibility to make the appropriate endorsement to their travel documents to validate them.

I once had an employee of another TOC working on an info desk endorse 15-20 cheap advances to travel on my already full train just because they'd enquired. I passed the tickets then rang the supervisor to get them to pass on a round of the proverbial and was assured that it wouldn't happen again and they'd be rebriefed.

 

[matt_world2004]

What's the betting that the Gateline actually said go through and ASK the guard.... but the passengers just jumped on...

one effect is that someone with aspergers will take an instruction literally so they wouldn't nessescary see ambiguity in the request to "ask the guard before boarding".

Providing they get the correct support they can learn things like sarcasm or implied instruction but like any learned behaviour there will be gaps in that knowlege

For example if you said to someone with severe aspergers "Cross over to platform 3 " There would be a risk that they would literally walk over the tracks to platform 3 because understanding the implied instruction of use the footbridge to cross over to platform 3 doesnt come naturally to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Of course you can say anything you like about the staff....

Yes you can.

The staff should shut up and not slag specific customers off on social media. If you get found out then you get your butt kicked.

Fair.

 

[221129]

one effect is that someone with aspergers will take an instruction literally so they wouldn't nessescary see ambiguity in the request to "ask the guard before boarding".

Providing they get the correct support they can learn things like sarcasm or implied instruction but like any learned behaviour there will be gaps in that knowlege

For example if you said to someone with severe aspergers "Cross over to platform 3 " There would be a risk that they would literally walk over the tracks to platform 3 because understanding the implied instruction of use the footbridge to cross over to platform 3 doesnt come naturally to them.

Yes. I am well aware of how aspergers works thank you. But the person with aspergers was the child was it not? So the parents are quite likely to have heard one thing and done another.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Biggest fallacy ever.

In many industries. In mine I prefer the idea that the customer's interests are always paramount than that they are right. Indeed, they pay me to tell them what to do. Often that involves me convincing them that something other than what they want is in fact in their best interests.

In a railway context that is often a collective thing - one passenger wants a connection holding, 200 people don't, for example.