South West Trains. Liars? Thieves? Generally unhelpful.

kerby_crawler

prowla wrote: »

how things are dealt with is discretionary

if you follow the rules, you will never have to deal with a 'discretionary' situation. It's much easier just to follow the rules...

prowla

kerby_crawler wrote: »

if you follow the rules, you will never have to deal with a 'discretionary' situation. It's much easier just to follow the rules...

Ah - the old "I was only obeying orders" ploy.

It all goes back to how a company chooses to treat its customers.

We've seen a large retailer go bust this week; it's curious that it had a really bad reputation for customer service.

The railways think that they have a monopoly, and so customer care is relatively unimportant to them.

kerby_crawler

prowla wrote: »

The railways think that they have a monopoly, and so customer care is relatively unimportant to them

The railway companies do indeed have a monopoly for as long as their franchise lasts, and I am glad that they don't generally allow fare-dodgers.

prowla

kerby_crawler wrote: »

The railway companies do indeed have a monopoly for as long as their franchise lasts, and I am glad that they don't generally allow fare-dodgers.

The railway companies have a monopoly on the railways, but not on transport.

I too think that fare dodgers should be dealt with, but I also believe that the OP was not a fare dodger.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

prowla wrote: »

The railway companies have a monopoly on the railways, but not on transport.

I too think that fare dodgers should be dealt with, but I also believe that the OP was not a fare dodger.

But you are still missing the point that they did not have a valid ticket for their journey therefore they were correctly issued a penalty fare.

No matter how you try and twist it,those are the facts. There are no half truths nor any other variants of stories or similar issues.

They did not have a valid ticket for their journey.

Full stop.

Stigy

callum9999 wrote: »

So basically, you are saying railway workers should be given powers to arrest people? Because if not I can't see on what basis anyone could possibly be "escorted" back to the original station!

Railway employees do have the power to detain/arrest under section 5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. This basically allows them to detain an offender who refuses to supply their name and/or address after previously not paying their fare, until they can be brought before justice (police in rail staffs case).

The only reason staff tend not to practice this and indeed why employers don't make staff aware usually, is that they don't want numerous lawsuits when the 'customer' gets bruised or worse, plus, once in 'custody' the offender is that staff members responsibility. You're not as we'll covered as a Police Officer who're bread and butter is nicking people to all intents and purposes.

I've been over this several times here so apologies to those who have seen it before.

Stigy

prowla wrote: »

The railway companies have a monopoly on the railways, but not on transport.

I too think that fare dodgers should be dealt with, but I also believe that the OP was not a fare dodger.

True, which is why a Penalty Fare was offered. The correct action would have been to accept the penalty and appeal on the basis that OP thought that the origin/destination were incorrect. By refusing the penalty, the appeal process is basically the Mags court, and I don't fancy the OP's chances.

prowla

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

But you are still missing the point that they did not have a valid ticket for their journey therefore they were correctly issued a penalty fare.

No matter how you try and twist it,those are the facts. There are no half truths nor any other variants of stories or similar issues.

They did not have a valid ticket for their journey.

Full stop.

Yep - rules is rules.

And I think it is a bad way to run a service.

And, as I've pointed out, other stations have measures to allow people to pay the excess.

And, as I've pointed out too, the OP approached the inspector to pay the excess, on the platform, before leaving the station.

Yes, fare dodgers should be caught and dealt with, but I don't think that there should be no way to continue on your journey if you decide to go to a new destination.

The issue is that there aren't means of buying tickets on trains, possibly due to overcrowding and/or cost cutting.

The current system is a poor one and reflects the abilties of the train companies and not the needs of the customer nor their honesty.

Somebody made those rules up and they are bad ones.

They haven't been mandated by god above, just some suits in a room.

Of course, when they put in Oyster cards, the matter will be able to be dealt with automatically.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

The penalty fare rules are not new. They have been in place since the early 80s.

I doubt south west trains nor ATOC will ever allow oyster to be extends to Guildford.
There ISNA way to carry on to another destination on your journey,either find the guard to purchase and extent ion, buy it before you travel or get off at clapham to buy one there. There is a train about every 5 minutes to Waterloo so its no excuse.

All you're doing is just looking for excuses.

prowla

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

The penalty fare rules are not new. They have been in place since the early 80s.

I doubt south west trains nor ATOC will ever allow oyster to be extends to Guildford.
There ISNA way to carry on to another destination on your journey,either find the guard to purchase and extent ion, buy it before you travel or get off at clapham to buy one there. There is a train about every 5 minutes to Waterloo so its no excuse.

All you're doing is just looking for excuses.

Nope - I'm saying that the rules are wrong.