SWT Ticket offices "not allowed" to give passengers copy of NRCoC

[Mark_H]

I've already explained why I disapproved of it, by way of positively explaining what I believed were misconceptions about The Manual entry and where such complaints could be more effectively targeted.

It is the case that many railway staff have no idea what significance, if any, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage bear to railway travel. It is therefore immaterial whether the conditions are presented to staff on A4 paper or a fancy blue booklet. Even in my four week retail training, only fleeting references were made to the NRCoC, the rest was custom made material which was derived from its contents but neglected to reference the NRCoC most of the time.

You said "It does not say that staff are not to print out a copy of the NRCoC on request, if possible". You are entirely correct that The Manual entry doesn't prevent that. The problem is the "if possible". There is no "if possible" about it. What The Manual does say is "the NRCoC no longer has to be published in paper form and so it is now available only as a .pdf document ... enquiring passengers should be referred to the National Rail Enquiries website" which is clearly instructing ticketing staff that they are not required to provide the NRCoC. Unless ticket offices are routinely displaying the full NRCoC for public consumption then this is simply wrong (see my post of yesterday).

Therefore, while you could claim there was a "misconception about The Manual entry" if ticket offices were publicly displaying the NRCoC, I think we can all agree that ticket offices are not doing that. By not making it abundantly clear that there is a positive duty (i.e. a duty without any "if possibles") to provide or give access to the NRCoC, The Manual is simply wrong, and is causing a significant problem. In this particular case it is very clear that the ticket office had positively refused to make the NRCoC available, and I do not think it much of a jump to suggest that The Manual entry is responsible for this; it certainly doesn't help the situation.

This is a serious problem for both passengers and the railways. For passengers, because they potentially cannot access the t&c's they travel under (note that I am as eager to see passengers held to their responsibilities as I am to see them given their rights); for the railways, because there's a risk that any attempted enforcement or prosecution is open to a challenge that they have not met the requirements laid out in Thomson v LMS and elsewhere (IANAL, obviously). More broadly, if as you say staff are more likely to use The Manual and related material than refer to the NRCoC direct, what else are ATOC getting wrong?

Now, was bringing this to the attention of the DfT appropriate, as opposed to a quiet word in ATOC's shell-like? Frankly, I think it was. ATOC are a well-funded organisation, they are capable of reading the NRCoC and providing instructions that allow their members to stick to it, and they have manifestly failed to do so. A complaint to the bottom rung of ATOC is unlikely to give speedy results, not least because as an organisation they work in their members interests, not the passengers. Whereas the DfT are responsible for balancing passengers with TOCs, and have a duty to reply with the relevant information. There are situations where a problem is so egregious that it's legitimate to jump a few rungs to get to a point where it can be fixed, and this is one of them.

 

[paulypaul]

Isn't this a backdoor method of eventually getting rid of the NRCoC, by not making official printed copies available at the station?

When purchasing tickets online, you have to tick a box accepting the providers terms & conditions and the NRCoC. How legal is it to make a booking office purchase, ask for a copy of the NRCoC and be denied that or told to go to a website and download them yourself?

 

[jon0844]

same applies to them too
just because noone's challenged them doesn't mean what they're doing is OK

I'm inclined to agree. Given TVMs are often now the only way to buy a ticket before travel, you're told on the restrictions page about the NRCoC but have no way at an unstaffed station to read them. Does a TVM let you view them on-screen? Perhaps they should, although it would rather annoy those waiting behind you.

I am also slightly concerned that if the guidance includes the words 'may' or 'if possible' then you're likely to encounter problems with individual members of staff who will simply interpret that as they see fit - i.e. refusing.

This might only be a small minority but I expect we've all encountered people who you can't even call jobsworths because they're the opposite! They don't want to do anything they feel they don't have to, and if that's the person in front of you in a station then you're stuffed!

 

[island]

But that's a separate issue - bylaws cover people who don't pay a fare at all. However conditions forming part of a contract clearly are relevant to the normal law of contract as with any transaction. Generally when you enter into a contract you have to tick a box or sign to say you've read the contract. What this thread is about is the vendor refusing to let the buyer read these conditions, which is clearly unacceptable.

I responded to a post about court cases potentially being derailed due to people not getting to read conditions or the conditions being unfair, which they won't. I realise it is a bit of a sidetrack.

 

[thedbdiboy]

To return to the original issue raised in this thread, I've been informed that SWT have undertaken a re-brief of the requirement to provide a copy of the NRCoC on request from stations or via their Customer Services department - they have taken the initial issues raised very seriously and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen in future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isn't this a backdoor method of eventually getting rid of the NRCoC, by not making official printed copies available at the station?

As opposed to being on the internet via a highly publicised link printed on the back of your ticket?

 

[wintonian]

To return to the original issue raised in this thread, I've been informed that SWT have undertaken a re-brief of the requirement to provide a copy of the NRCoC on request from stations or via their Customer Services department - they have taken the initial issues raised very seriously and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen in future.

That sound positive - I hope no-one at ATOC or SWT would mind if that's tested at some point.

 

[paulypaul]

To return to the original issue raised in this thread, I've been informed that SWT have undertaken a re-brief of the requirement to provide a copy of the NRCoC on request from stations or via their Customer Services department - they have taken the initial issues raised very seriously and have taken steps to ensure it doesn't happen in future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


As opposed to being on the internet via a highly publicised link printed on the back of your ticket?

It doesn't say that on the back of my ticket. It says copies are available at the station.

 

[Wolfie]

You appear to be stuck in a Kafka-esque state (or a version of Terry Gilliam's Brazil, if that's more your style). Clearly no level of written proof is going to trump the "knowledge" (or lack thereof) of whoever you are encountering. It's not reasonable to expect all staff to know all the rules all the time, but if some are outright ignoring what is put right in front of them, then I think you would be fully justified in complaining as widely, loudly and high-up as you can manage.

Were I the OP I would write to Steve Murphy, the Managing Director LOROL,
copied to Mike Brown, Managing Director, London Underground and London Rail and the boufant blond buffoon himself, Boris. I would also make it clear that the next stop would be DafT! Given Boris' rail empire building aspirations I suspect something would be done PDQ!!!

 

[wintonian]

Were I the OP I would write to Steve Murphy, the Managing Director LOROL,
copied to Mike Brown, Managing Director, London Underground and London Rail and the boufant blond buffoon himself, Boris. I would also make it clear that the next stop would be DafT! Given Boris' rail empire building aspirations I suspect something would be done PDQ!!!

A bit extreme don't you think?

 

[Wolfie]

A bit extreme don't you think?

Why?

The OP has engaged with staff and LOROL customer services, shown them the error of their ways and been roundly ignored. What do you suggest, that he continues being given the run around by staff whose ignorance is apparently matched only by their arrogance?

I regularly use LOROL and routinely praise them but have also personally had problems with their knowledge deficiencies when it comes to selling tickets which include the use of other TOCs - as I have previously posted on here my other half came periliously close to a Southern PF as a result! Do I see any hint that things are improving - frankly no.

If a kicking from the real seniors to middle management in order to get things changed is necessary then so be it.

 

[maniacmartin]

Actually, I'm still awaiting a reply from LO Customer Services. I think it'd be wise to see what they say before taking any further action.

 

[Wolfie]

Actually, I'm still awaiting a reply from LO Customer Services. I think it'd be wise to see what they say before taking any further action.

Ah, hadn't realised that, thought things were further downstream.....

 

[John @ home]

I'm still awaiting a reply from LO Customer Services. I think it'd be wise to see what they say before taking any further action.

Not if your season ticket New Cross Gate - Kensington Olympia expires before LO bother to reply!

 

[thedbdiboy]

That sound positive - I hope no-one at ATOC or SWT would mind if that's tested at some point.

No problem at all - and if they get it wrong - let us know!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't say that on the back of my ticket. It says copies are available at the station.

Older stock ticket blanks still have that text but newer ones have the direct URLweblink. Either way the statement is (or should be!) true

 

[barrykas]

It doesn't say that on the back of my ticket. It says copies are available at the station.

That would be because your ticket has been issued on old stock. The BBP at the bottom right indicates that it was produced by BemroseBooth Paragon, who lost the contract to supply ticket stock in December 2010! Newer stock has the letters MAG in that position, indicating it's been supplied by a company called Magnadata.

The current wording is as follows:

Issued subject to National Rail Conditions of Carriage - see www.nationalrail.co.uk/nrcoc. '+' denotes ticket is valid for one journey across London by Underground/DLR services if required - for details see www.nationalrail.co.uk/crossinglondon. Information also available from staffed stations.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[maniacmartin]

I have received some correspondence from ATOC

[...] unfortunately the entry in The Manual has been worded in such a way it may be misinterpreted and that paper copies of the latest version of the NRCoC should indeed be still available on request from ticket offices

The intention was to ensure that older out of date versions were not distributed and that these should be withdrawn from public availability. He is making arrangements to ensure that this entry is rewritten.

I am pleasantly surprised that ATOC have replied so promptly and are taking steps to make the guidance clearer.

 

[09065]

Of course if the station just print it out and don't stamp it with a station stamp then I'm no better off, as staff can still claim its a home printed version that I could have cooked up myself anyway.

Surely staff who work trains under the NCoC should actually know the NCoC?
I bet many of them though would turn around and say "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

 

[Mark_H]

I have received some correspondence from ATOC


I am pleasantly surprised that ATOC have replied so promptly and are taking steps to make the guidance clearer.

I'd suggest their claim that it was just that the Manual "may be misinterpreted" is a bit weak though - it was clear that they were trying to avoid giving out paper copies at all, and are now having to backtrack.
Overall though, it's a good response to have got from them, and good work from Martin. I hope this helps you get somewhere with your main problem.

 

[Paul Kelly]

it was clear that they were trying to avoid giving out paper copies at all

I don't agree - as I alluded to earlier in the thread when I mentioned that hard-copy versions of the latest release of the NRCoC are no longer being printed, it was always my interpretation that they were trying to stop out-of-date copies of the NRCoC being given out, these being the only ones that now exist in a professionally printed version.

We have seen countless examples of lack of lateral thinking by ATOC, that when writing about one thing (whether for public or private consumption) it doesn't occur to them what other things the wording might impinge upon. My assumption is that is just another example to add to the list: when trying to make it clear that the old out-of-date, professionally printed copies of the NRCoC should no longer be distributed, it didn't occur to them that, for the sake of clarity, they should make it clear that they weren't discouraging distribution of printed copies of the current version.

 

[Greenback]

I don't agree - as I alluded to earlier in the thread when I mentioned that hard-copy versions of the latest release of the NRCoC are no longer being printed, it was always my interpretation that they were trying to stop out-of-date copies of the NRCoC being given out, these being the only ones that now exist in a professionally printed version.

We have seen countless examples of lack of lateral thinking by ATOC, that when writing about one thing (whether for public or private consumption) it doesn't occur to them what other things the wording might impinge upon. My assumption is that is just another example to add to the list: when trying to make it clear that the old out-of-date, professionally printed copies of the NRCoC should no longer be distributed, it didn't occur to them that, for the sake of clarity, they should make it clear that they weren't discouraging distribution of printed copies of the current version.

I agree. handing out obsolete editions of a publication is probably going to be less helpful to the passenger! It's clear that SWT were in the wrong to print out a current version, though even if they had manicmartin would have been no better off by the look of things.

The important thing is that SWT ensure that front line staff are briefed on the fact that they can, and should, print out copies of the NRCoC on request for people who need them (which must be a very small percentage of travellers).

It may not have been the wording that caused the problem, it may have been a local briefing, or even one fo those fairly common railway myths that gets established amongst groups of staff without anyone ever really knowing how!

 

[wintonian]

I don't agree - as I alluded to earlier in the thread when I mentioned that hard-copy versions of the latest release of the NRCoC are no longer being printed, it was always my interpretation that they were trying to stop out-of-date copies of the NRCoC being given out, these being the only ones that now exist in a professionally printed version.

We have seen countless examples of lack of lateral thinking by ATOC, that when writing about one thing (whether for public or private consumption) it doesn't occur to them what other things the wording might impinge upon. My assumption is that is just another example to add to the list: when trying to make it clear that the old out-of-date, professionally printed copies of the NRCoC should no longer be distributed, it didn't occur to them that, for the sake of clarity, they should make it clear that they weren't discouraging distribution of printed copies of the current version.

This may seem a little rude, but really it doesn't take huge amounts of intellect or effort to specify this is due to them being 'out of date' and to add that current versions may be printed off for passengers on request. I seems more like laziness to me.

Mind you I think it was perhaps this bit that really gave the impression that ticket offices couldn't print off copies and that only CS Dept's could.

They should also have arrangements in place so that if someone without internet access or with other disability/access issues, requests a copy of the conditions, their details may be taken and a copy sent to them from the appropriate customer relations office.

 

[Mark_H]

I don't agree - as I alluded to earlier in the thread when I mentioned that hard-copy versions of the latest release of the NRCoC are no longer being printed, it was always my interpretation that they were trying to stop out-of-date copies of the NRCoC being given out, these being the only ones that now exist in a professionally printed version.

Mind you I think it was perhaps this bit that really gave the impression that ticket offices couldn't print off copies and that only CS Dept's could.

Wintonian beat me to it, but here is a fuller version of the extract to illustrate the point:

"It is very important that stations do not hand out any remaining
paper copies of the NRCoC. Instead, enquiring passengers should be
referred to the National Rail Enquiries website –
www.nationalrail.co.uk/nrcc.

Furthermore, staffed station ticket offices should ensure they have
access to the conditions either online or, if necessary, downloaded
and printed off to be on hand for reference. They should also have
arrangements in place so that if someone without internet access or
with other disability/access issues, requests a copy of the
conditions, their details may be taken and a copy sent to them from
the appropriate customer relations office."

I agree that it is saying that the existing (out of date) paper copies are not to be handed out. However, it then says that passengers are to be told to look on the internet; that ticket offices are to have printouts for their own reference (and even then only if they don't have internet access); and that customers unable to access the internet are to be offered a copy posted to them, not a printed copy.

It's not just a failure to be clear - the full extract is very clear that it's website or copy posted, nothing else. If a ticket office followed all those instructions, a passenger asking for a paper NRCoC would not be given one.

So it's good that ATOC have reversed this, but it's clear that it is a reversal, not just an "oops, didn't mean to write this."

 

[wintonian]

that ticket offices are to have printouts for their own reference

I don't thin it actually says that but it could be interpreted that way and a ticket office clerk won't want to get into trouble by allowing a passenger to to read their own private copy as it might contain information that management don't think passengers ought to know about.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Fair enough I suppose about the second paragraph; I was thinking more about the initial concern early in the thread about the wording of the first paragraph. It does say staff should ensure that the conditions are always on hand for reference though, and seems to assume that if a passenger wanted a copy it would only be for their personal reference, so having access at home on the internet or posted out to them would be sufficient. The situation whereby a passenger might want to obtain a copy at one station to bring to another station where the staff haven't complied with the requirement to have a copy to hand, doesn't seem to have been envisaged!

 

[455driver]

Surely staff who work trains under the NCoC should actually know the NCoC?
I bet many of them though would turn around and say "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

First post and straight into slagging off staff, just what we need another one! :roll:

 

[sheff1]

The situation whereby a passenger might want to obtain a copy at one station to bring to another station where the staff haven't complied with the requirement to have a copy to hand, doesn't seem to have been envisaged!

Well of course not .... ATOC have briefed the TOCs on the NRCoC and can't be held responsible if the TOCs fail to inform the staff

 

[09065]

First post and straight into slagging off staff, just what we need another one! :roll:

Slagging off and impressions based on experience are two completely different things.

 

[bb21]

Slagging off and impressions based on experience are two completely different things.

It would be useful to accompany such statements with examples, which would then add weight to your claims.

 

[RJ]

First post and straight into slagging off staff, just what we need another one! :roll:

To be fair, the guy has a point. I've had a guard say that I'm sad because I know what's in the NRCoC and a ticket office clerk who told me that she doesn't spend her time reading the NRCoC so shouldn't be expected to know what it contains.

Sometimes, the colleagues you defend do nothing to help themselves or the image of the industry.

 

[09065]

I was hoping not to have to write essays on here, so apologies to anyone except 455Driver if I offend anyone:

* I have successfully challenged penalty fares where under NCoC my rights are that where no ticket facilities exist at a station, tickets will be available for sale during (which they weren't) or at the end of your journey (which is where I was penalty fared) - Revenue Protection staff told me that all trains on the route had ticket facilities; ignoring the fact that the conductor had already broken it.

* I have had to remind a conductor that when the company has caused a connection to be missed and stranding a passenger; they are obliged to get you to your destination or accommodate you. Apparently his reason of "I forgot I was working this train" was out of the control of the train company!

* I have had to intervene where a conductor was in the process of telling off a passenger for daring to go further than her ticket. The passenger was in a wheelchair and the station had no wheelchair access; and because the passenger had not booked in advance section 46 apparently did not apply.

Now; at the time of those problems I did not know a huge amount about the Conditions of Carriage, I had a vague idea of what my rights as a passenger were. The fact that so often I listen in to some quite strange conversations about what guards, conductors even TOC managers think is there interpretation of a relatively black and white document; I now carry it as a matter of course when travelling by train.

That is not saying though that if a member of train staff are right I will not back them up, I have also had to [intervene against] a punter who had a lone revenue bloke by the throat on a station.