SWR Guard and a customer with Aspergers

[Bletchleyite]

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 agree, and it's really good to hear that at least some TOCs are ensuring it is done in writing to avoid confusion.

 

[Timrud]

So this has nothing to do with Aspergers?

 

[Qwerty133]

A very quick search of Facebook would suggest that the group mentioned in the article has either been closed or is a secret group which leaves the question of how the passenger found it in the first place as these do not appear in search listings (let alone why they were looking for it). The only reference to such a group clearly states that it was a closed group (which many people get confused with secret groups) meaning that the posts were never publicly viewable. As a passenger I have more of a problem with the fact that their is either someone leaking supposedly private facebook posts in the industry or that some members of the public would go as far as pretending to be staff to get access to such groups than I do that some staff get frustrated by common excuses and post about in supposedly private social media (especially considering many guards will spend their whole shift on a train without other staff to talk to making in person moaning impossible). (yes I realise that it is stupid to write anything on any medium unless you are happy with it being made public.

 

[lejog]

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.

And what constitutes a "reasonable belief" that someone is lying? If someone falsely accused me of lying, I can assure you that I'd be persuing them. Your advice may be to get things in writing, but it is not necessary in law.

 

[reb0118]

I do not wish to comment about the actual incident but it my belief that the posts were "leaked" from a closed/private group by a, now former, member who had been purporting to be rail staff.

A general point this all comes down to communication, or a lack of it, between on train & barrier staff. Not to forget the view that a certain number of passengers are chancers (or to be more generous they simply can't comprehend when someone tells them no) sadly borne out in my 20 years experience.

The "man on the platform" has a lot to answer for - as do his managers. A verbal instruction is always open for discussion whenever a dispute occurs. It is about time that written permissions were compulsory - for the protection of all. (Exceptions as always for major delays/diversions or if the passenger is personally presented to the guard).

 

[lejog]

I do not wish to comment about the actual incident but it my belief that the posts were "leaked" from a closed/private group by a, now former, member who had been purporting to be rail staff.

A general point this all comes down to communication, or a lack of it, between on train & barrier staff. Not to forget the view that a certain number of passengers are chancers (or to be more generous they simply can't comprehend when someone tells them no) sadly borne out in my 20 years experience.

The "man on the platform" has a lot to answer for - as do his managers. A verbal instruction is always open for discussion whenever a dispute occurs. It is about time that written permissions were compulsory - for the protection of all. (Exceptions as always for major delays/diversions or if the passenger is personally presented to the guard).

You seriously want to overturn centuries old fundamental principles of English law for the operational convenience of the railways? Not a chance. It is up to the railways to improve their communications, as you say.

 

[RJ]

Anything that's said in the public domain can be read by anyone - that's always worth bearing in mind. Closed groups are very difficult to police as people who are against the interests of the group can remain present, so best to assume that anyone can be reading and post accordingly.

Pure speculation here, but it's entirely possible that those passengers were told to approach the guard for permission and simply decided to board without asking first. That said, wrong information and instructions that can lead the passenger into trouble are sometimes given out by station staff, so those with any enforcement responsibilities should bear that in mind and be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt. Better to let a tiny number of people slip through the net than attract this kind of negative publicity to the company.

As it happens, I favour a pro-customer approach. I've been working on the railways since 2010, starting in a job where I had revenue protection duties and have never once been in trouble for being too fair to passengers. Sometimes you give the benefit of the doubt, rather than treating everybody as a chancer who should be chinged up or reprimanded to the max. I issued Penalty Fares rather than UFNs but the matter remained between the TOC and passenger, not to be posted about online from the perspective of a member of staff.

 

[reb0118]

....You seriously want to overturn centuries old fundamental principles of English law.....

"That keeps our country bound in chains and under English laws" as the old song states. Ironically the country concerned retained its own law at the Union of the Parliaments.

Regardless of the legal jurisdiction I am not suggesting that the railway disregards any laws but that it ceases to give verbal permissions to travel - I'm sure that there is no law against that.

 

[RJ]

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

Yes, that's pretty much how it works so long as you aren't making stuff up. It's an occupational hazard of working with the public.

 

[bb21]

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.

I would go so far as to say that, in fact, customers are more often wrong than right going by the cases I have handled.

However that simply does not matter in most cases. In a customer-facing industry, what you want is repeat custom because no customers means no jobs. The railway is no exception. It does not mean bending over backwards to satisfy every demand made, but in many cases one simply has to keep them happy, even if it means small monetary losses if that has the potential for future gains because they had a positive experience/suitable redress. Upholding what is officially "correct" is not always the right outcome for either the business or the customer. I can recount several times where I had to literally grit my teeth and authorise goodwill compensation even though my heart says "never in a million years". The bigger picture is far more important.

Slagging off one's customers on social media is incredibly stupid behaviour, which I am sure the guard in question now deeply regrets. Even in supposed closed industry-insider groups, there is no guarantee everyone will always get along and no one will turn nasty somewhere down the line.

 

[bb21]

I do not wish to comment about the actual incident but it my belief that the posts were "leaked" from a closed/private group by a, now former, member who had been purporting to be rail staff.

A general point this all comes down to communication, or a lack of it, between on train & barrier staff. Not to forget the view that a certain number of passengers are chancers (or to be more generous they simply can't comprehend when someone tells them no) sadly borne out in my 20 years experience.

The "man on the platform" has a lot to answer for - as do his managers. A verbal instruction is always open for discussion whenever a dispute occurs. It is about time that written permissions were compulsory - for the protection of all. (Exceptions as always for major delays/diversions or if the passenger is personally presented to the guard).

It will take collective effort from within the industry to resolve this issue, however I simply don't see this happening, partly due to what I suspect is a lack of appreciation of the importance of this subject on authorising travel on otherwise invalid services (a very lax approach in many quarters or even total unawareness if I may say so), and partly due to the calibre of people employed in various relevant roles.

Until then, where confusion may arise, the customer should be given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if all revenue staff took that approach, it may get the TOCs to really work on resolving this issue once and for all.

In this case, given that the episode unfolded at Waterloo, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the agency staff who really should not have the authority to do so gave them such "permission".

 

[Bromley boy]

And what constitutes a "reasonable belief" that someone is lying? If someone falsely accused me of lying, I can assure you that I'd be persuing them. Your advice may be to get things in writing, but it is not necessary in law.

If someone believes you have lied to them they have every right to accuse you of lying. What could you possibly “pursue” them for?

Presumably the reasonable belief comes from the fact the person (or group in this case) are on board a train without a valid ticket. It’s very easy to say “the man at the gateline let me through”. But where is the evidence of this?

As a general point it’s my understanding that, if you’re on a train without a valid ticket where you are required to be in possession of one in advance of boarding, an offence has prima facie been committed. If challenged by an RPI the onus would be on you to establish you’d been given permission.

They would investigate and if they couldn’t corroborate your story you may well yourself being prosecuted, which would also be an accusation of lying!

 

[muz379]

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 law does not place the onus on the guard is to prove that there is no contract . Or more accurately a variance from the terms of the original contract . How could the guard possibly be expected to prove a negative .

If anything I think its common sense to suggest that the person that is doing something that is different to what is agreed in the contract by travelling early on a ticket with a clear restriction should be the ones with the requirement to demonstrate their entitlement to do so . After all in the situation we are talking about you are travelling on a train you do not have a valid ticket for , without any other documentary evidence it is going to be difficult to demonstrate that you have another contract to rely on .

My view is that station staff should not be telling people they can travel unless they endorse the ticket because customers relying on being told is clearly not working when other staff correctly challenge them for holding an invalid ticket .

Many a times I have had people claim the station staff told them they could travel , many a time I have charged them for a new ticket , many a time they have insisted that they would complain . But never have I heard anything about any of those complaints .

I have also on many occasions been shown a ticket that has been correctly endorsed and so not charged the passenger for a new one , or have had passengers come and ask me if they can travel earlier on an advance and assuming the train is not overcrowded already I let them

 

[RJ]

Many a times I have had people claim the station staff told them they could travel , many a time I have charged them for a new ticket , many a time they have insisted that they would complain . But never have I heard anything about any of those complaints .

Just wait until you upset someone who knows how to complain properly. If they complain in such a way that costs the company money and causes a drain on resources that really ought to be used on other things then you will hear about it!

 

[xc170]

Taking the article at face value and assuming it's an accurate representation of what happened then I'd suggest the guard be relieved of his duties and pointed in the direction of the nearest Job Centre.

 

[Jonfun]

Things like this aren't worth getting in a tizzy over. If the passenger thinks they have a valid case then get their details and complete a TIR - the company can investigate and take it up directly with the passenger. If they have a valid case the gateline staff will then hopefully have a "development meeting" with their manager, if they've been telling porkies then the company can take steps to recover the unpaid fare

 

[whhistle]

I wonder if this is just a case of the marketing department having a panic attack because it's bad press that involves someone with a disability.
I get tired of newspapers using a persons disability as the leading identifier of the person in the story. Why didn't they say "... lady with a big hat" or "... man with a bald head"? Because it's not as juicy. Shame on the media for constantly jumping on someones disability as a point of reference.

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.

With all due respect, and while I appreciate relationships can change, my Facebook profile is private in that everything is locked down. I only accept friend requests from people I know. Nobody is going to make anything I write public.

But in essence, I agree that anything you put on the internet is public - and stays public for a long time.

I have spent years trying to erase things I wrote or did years ago. Not easy but I've done it for the most part. Google only finds my Facebook profile now. Bing and Yahoo are the same.

 

[PeterC]

If someone believes you have lied to them they have every right to accuse you of lying. What could you possibly “pursue” them for?

Presumably the reasonable belief comes from the fact the person (or group in this case) are on board a train without a valid ticket. It’s very easy to say “the man at the gateline let me through”. But where is the evidence of this?

As a general point it’s my understanding that, if you’re on a train without a valid ticket where you are required to be in possession of one in advance of boarding, an offence has prima facie been committed. If challenged by an RPI the onus would be on you to establish you’d been given permission.

They would investigate and if they couldn’t corroborate your story you may well yourself being prosecuted, which would also be an accusation of lying!

Certainly when I was a young man the laws and bylaws covering rail travel overrode the more general rules on contract law. Has this explicitly been changed?

 

[Darandio]

So this has nothing to do with Aspergers?

Well, the thread title doesn't reflect the whole situation, it's very Daily Mail-esque.

 

[IanXC]

Certainly when I was a young man the laws and bylaws covering rail travel overrode the more general rules on contract law. Has this explicitly been changed?

It has indeed.

And, for those who've posted otherwise, The Consumer Rights Act 2005 explicitly states that a verbal amendment to a contract is binding on the business. It is for businesses to work out how to do that, but I would have thought a good starting point would be a 100% no verbal authorties policy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has indeed.

And, for those who've posted otherwise, The Consumer Rights Act 2005 explicitly states that a verbal amendment to a contract is binding on the business. It is for businesses to work out how to do that, but I would have thought a good starting point would be a 100% no verbal authorties policy.

I'm with you there. The old "ask the guard" policy worked in the days of open stations where revenue protection occurred only on board. Now it occurs in multiple places and with a much heavier approach than before, that requires a much more robust process of providing and proving authority.

To avoid this causing queues at busy times how to do this in cases of major disruption would require some thought.

 

[al78]

I get tired of newspapers using a persons disability as the leading identifier of the person in the story. Why didn't they say "... lady with a big hat" or "... man with a bald head"? Because it's not as juicy. Shame on the media for constantly jumping on someones disability as a point of reference.

Unfortunately we have to just deal with that. Freedom of speech apparently includes heavily influencing how people think by appealing to emotion, regardless if doing so is highly misleading and/or could get someone into trouble.

 

[IanXC]

To avoid this causing queues at busy times how to do this in cases of major disruption would require some thought.

I was thinking more about the general sense of all industries. In the situation you describe it would be mad not to accept written details in disruption messages.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I work in a call centre, and we have customers ringing all the time saying "staff told me I could (insert anything here that costs more than they have paid for) and then someone else told me I couldn't" There is little that can be done. CCTV can be viewed, but the chances are it shows them talking to said first member of staff, there's no way to know what was actually said. The member of staff may, or may not, remember the conversation (how many people do staff talk to everyday?) so it can never be proved one way or the other. The law may say verbal contracts are fine, but the issue is proving it. How can the company say it is not true, but how can the customer say it is? Customer Service then says give the customer the benefit of the doubt. We have a whole list of these customers! They only get the benefit once, as it is made, politely but firmly, clear to them that we can not do this again, and they must get written instructions in the future.

We then do what all good customer service staff do, and moan and laugh about them in the break-room! Social Media is a total no! If customers are insistent in taking to social media, they are sent a PM and it is dealt with off-public, if they try a public post, they are simply responded to asking them to reply to the message.

 

[pompeyfan]

Reading the comments on the daily echo story are very disturbing to the grade in general. It’s disappointing that they view guards in that manner. The fact of the matter is that the guard was doing his job and had no way to verify what he’d been told. He shouldn’t have taken to social media but was correct in challenging the customer. From experience, Bournemouth are a more revenue sensitive depot for some reason.

I do question how this person managed to find the guards post and identify it though. Something doesn’t add up.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Customer Service then says give the customer the benefit of the doubt. We have a whole list of these customers! They only get the benefit once, as it is made, politely but firmly, clear to them that we can not do this again, and they must get written instructions in the future.

And that's exactly how it should be. Your company don't get dragged through the press by the family who have done something like this innocently (whether they were given permission or misinterpreted an instruction after being let through the gateline), but your company have the details of the chancers for next time.

As for social media, yes, customers do get a wider scope to bitch and moan. Not fair, but the joys of being a professional in a public-facing role.

 

[DarloRich]

The law may say verbal contracts are fine, but the issue is proving it. How can the company say it is not true, but how can the customer say it is? .

That lack of proof either way is the crux of the matter.

 

[mpthomson]

A very quick search of Facebook would suggest that the group mentioned in the article has either been closed or is a secret group which leaves the question of how the passenger found it in the first place as these do not appear in search listings (let alone why they were looking for it). The only reference to such a group clearly states that it was a closed group (which many people get confused with secret groups) meaning that the posts were never publicly viewable. As a passenger I have more of a problem with the fact that their is either someone leaking supposedly private facebook posts in the industry or that some members of the public would go as far as pretending to be staff to get access to such groups than I do that some staff get frustrated by common excuses and post about in supposedly private social media (especially considering many guards will spend their whole shift on a train without other staff to talk to making in person moaning impossible). (yes I realise that it is stupid to write anything on any medium unless you are happy with it being made public.

There's no such thing as a private Facebook post, whatever some people would like to think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That lack of proof either way is the crux of the matter.

Hence why the policy should be "only in writing", and authorised staff should be issued with pads for providing such authority, and this policy and the form it will take should be publicised on clear posters on every platform and at every barrier line.

And if permission is given incorrectly, that is an internal disciplinary matter of which the written permission is evidence; the passenger should not be charged any money nor any prosecution attempted.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

I don't think it does depend all that much, there was clearly enough identifiable information for this family to know it was them the guard was talking about.

It sucks when your work is misrepresented and ends up in the papers- I've had my work misrepresented by a disgrunted customer in The Guardian- but you moan down the pub not on Facebook.