Appalling Treatment by South Western Railway

[island]

Northern and LNER's ticket machines won't sell the ticket unless they can find the scheduled itinerary, which is even more problematic because you can't customise it. E.g. Northern machines at Manchester Piccadilly will refuse to issue a WMR/LNR/TFW Only ticket to London Euston, no matter what time of day or day of the week it is.

I had a similar problem with c2c yesterday at Tilbury Town, with the machine refusing to sell the ticket I wanted to a station in SE London because it insisted on me using the Tilbury ferry, which was not operating (and which I did not in any event want to use, as I had business in central London to attend to en route).

Luckily, the booking office was open.

These machines that force a journey to be planned are one of the worst and stupidest ideas I have ever come across.

 

[Starmill]

I had a similar problem with c2c yesterday at Tilbury Town, with the machine refusing to sell the ticket I wanted to a station in SE London because it insisted on me using the Tilbury ferry, which was not operating (and which I did not in any event want to use, as I had business in central London to attend to en route).

Luckily, the booking office was open.

These machines that force a journey to be planned are one of the worst and stupidest ideas I have ever come across.

That is particularly poor.

Although, in that specific case, the relevant excess could perhaps be paid onboard or when changing trains feasibly. If the ticket you wanted costs less than the cheapest one available, though, who knows what you're meant to do.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Persevere with SWR “customer services”. I recently took a trip from Syon Lane to Portsmouth with a Network Card discount. Again the machine wouldn’t sell me the ticket before 10:00, but a train at 10:06 meant I didn’t have the short gap to worry about. The machine would, however, only sell me a ticket £5 more expensive than the SWR website showed (IIRC Day Return was available at £24.95 on the website, but only the Cheap Day Return at £29.95 was on the machine) When I queried this via their website and asked for the refund of the additional £5 their initial reply was that the Network Card discount had been applied correctly and no refund was due. Replying to them that they might like to try developing the literacy skills required to read a complaint properly saw the case escalated to a manager who took great pleasure in telling me off for my ‘tone’, but did finally refund the amount due.

 

[Titfield]

Replying to them that they might like to try developing the literacy skills required to read a complaint properly saw the case escalated to a manager who took great pleasure in telling me off for my ‘tone’, but did finally refund the amount due.

The response re "tone" would be in response to what may appear to the recipient of your comment as a sarcastic and thus bullying comment. Bullying is taken very seriously indeed and if brought to the attention of the individuals manager they (the manager) are duty bound to investigate and take appropriate action.

 

[FenMan]

If you're buying a ticket from the ticket machine but find that it's unable to sell the required ticket, speaking to a member of staff is most definitely the correct course of action.

So, when I rock up at my (unstaffed) local GWR station and the ticket machine doesn't, ever, offer any SWR-priced Super Off Peak fares to nearby SWR stations, should I board the train and then embark on a "conversation", bearing in mind the journey on the GWR leg could be as short as 4 minutes?

 

[Taunton]

The response re "tone" would be in response to what may appear to the recipient of your comment as a sarcastic and thus bullying comment. Bullying is taken very seriously indeed and if brought to the attention of the individuals manager they (the manager) are duty bound to investigate and take appropriate action.

That's ridiculous, to conflate an annoyed comment with bullying.

It would appear therefore that rail staff can make whatever impolite cracks they like to passengers (multiple examples above), but passengers must just be obsequious at all times in return.

 

[Wolfie]

The response re "tone" would be in response to what may appear to the recipient of your comment as a sarcastic and thus bullying comment. Bullying is taken very seriously indeed and if brought to the attention of the individuals manager they (the manager) are duty bound to investigate and take appropriate action.

My response to the Chief Executive of SWR, copied to my MP, would have been even more blunt, namely employ competent and literate individuals who deal with issues correctly or expect to face litigation.

Who the hell does that frankly pathetic manager think that he is in presuming to lecture a customer? Jumped up arrogant little self-important pip-squeak. If he wants to know who deserves a reprimand for their tone l suggest that he invest in a mirror.

 

[Starmill]

So, when I rock up at my (unstaffed) local GWR station and the ticket machine doesn't, ever, offer any SWR-priced Super Off Peak fares to nearby SWR stations, should I board the train and then embark on a "conversation", bearing in mind the journey on the GWR leg could be as short as 4 minutes?

Not if there aren't any station staff.

 

[T-Karmel]

I can't be even 100% sure right now though, but I'm pretty sure you can adjust time of departure on ATVMs at SWR and then it'll let you buy required ticket.

Person who sold you a ticket was Revenue Protection officer, not gateline. As small difference it may look like, it unfortunately make a big difference in approach they will present towards your case.

In any way, putting a complaint with all the details you could provide is the best course of action here. Customer relations will enquire person who has let you through for their version of events and (hopefully) that will clear that out.

Sorting out the complaint, most possibly refund you the difference, letter of apology? Sure

Retraining RP staff in Waterloo regarding fair treatment of every and each passenger, giving them chance to explain their circumstances and provide service they need? No. Unless you count an email sent out to all RP employees that no one even reads.

Who the hell does that frankly pathetic manager think that he is in presuming to lecture a customer? Jumped up arrogant little self-important pip-squeak. If he wants to know who deserves a reprimand for their tone l suggest that he invest in a mirror.

Whatever you call him, he's a railway employee and there's a bylaw for that, so yes, he is a specifically correct person to reprimand anyone who is using such language towards railway staff.

6. Unacceptable behaviour
(1) No person shall use any threatening, abusive, obscene or offensive language on the railway

 

[philthetube]

I know barriers are an issue here but, you are required to buy a ticket at the first opportunity, if you have not had that opportunity then you are not in the wrong, in the ops case that option had not been available so the revenue must be in the wrong in what they were saying.

 

[Deafdoggie]

The response re "tone" would be in response to what may appear to the recipient of your comment as a sarcastic and thus bullying comment. Bullying is taken very seriously indeed and if brought to the attention of the individuals manager they (the manager) are duty bound to investigate and take appropriate action.

And that sums up the railways attitude to its customers. And also why I bought a car.

 

[Watershed]

Whatever you call him, he's a railway employee and there's a bylaw for that, so yes, he is a specifically correct person to reprimand anyone who is using such language towards railway staff.

Doesn't sound like language of the aforesaid description was used (though of course we only have the benefit of OP's account). In any case it was sent by email so not said "on the railway".

 

[Titfield]

That's ridiculous, to conflate an annoyed comment with bullying.

It would appear therefore that rail staff can make whatever impolite cracks they like to passengers (multiple examples above), but passengers must just be obsequious at all times in return.

It may be "annoying" but if the recipient considers it to be bullying then he / she has every right to report it to their line manager for investigation.

In my experience rail staff do frequently ask questions which may be direct and to the point but I have not experienced or overheard a member of rail staff being rude, vulgar or making a "crack".

It is precisely because of "annoyed comments" that many organisations across many sectors have put up signs saying that the organisation will not tolerate inappropriate behaviour etc towards staff.

Organisations have a duty of care towards their staff and protecting them from abuse or bullying is a duty of care.

Doesn't sound like language of the aforesaid description was used (though of course we only have the benefit of OP's account). In any case it was sent by email so not said "on the railway".

If anything sending it by email makes it worse because the exact form of words is there for any interested party to see whereas if it is "verbals" there is no proof of the exact words or tone used.

Read by the employee in the course of their employment and thus it is within scope of the appropriate legislation.

As has been said many many times on this forum if there is any issue then raise it with customer services in an appropriate manner.

 

[island]

You will get far more people on side in the long run by being polite, sympathetic, and friendly than by being demeaning, curt, and rude. It costs nothing to be nice.

(At previous employers, it was commonplace for anyone who had been rude to staff to have a special marking on their record such that they would never receive a gesture of goodwill or policy waiver and be treated exactly by the book. Any further customer misconduct would generally result in them being told to take their business elsewhere, though the railway may be less able to do that than a bank.)

 

[AlterEgo]

You will get far more people on side in the long run by being polite, sympathetic, and friendly than by being demeaning, curt, and rude. It costs nothing to be nice.

(At previous employers, it was commonplace for anyone who had been rude to staff to have a special marking on their record such that they would never receive a gesture of goodwill or policy waiver and be treated exactly by the book. Any further customer misconduct would generally result in them being told to take their business elsewhere, though the railway may be less able to do that than a bank.)

This is also the case with at least one TOC I worked for. A note on the CRM for future cases means you get played by the book in future.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Part of the joy in working in customer service is turning an angry customer around. They might come to you shouting they'll never use the company again, that you're useless, that you don't care, that the finish is useless, etc etc. But a good customer service person will turn them so they're thanking you and leave promising to tell their friends how good you are.
Customer service isn't a job for everyone, but if you do it well it's very rewarding. Of course, with the attitude "the customer was shouting at me so I treated them badly" you won't last long in the customer service industry. But you probably won't want to.

 

[robbeech]

As is increasingly the case here on the forum we see the extremes of attitude from staff and customer. The customers are annoyed by the staff who treat the customers like dirt and the staff are annoyed by the customers for being there getting in the way of running a perfect railway.
However, it doesn’t EVER make it acceptable to speak to staff in the way that some people appear to have done and certainly not in the way that some are suggesting should be done here and I feel the staff member involved was right to pass it on to a senior member of staff in this instance. I’d suggest there are both staff members AND customers in this thread that need to alight aforementioned high horse.

All that said, it does flood the room with irony that the only way this person found to get the refund/compensation they were legally entitled to was to take this unacceptable tone and have the case referred to a senior member of staff. It’s unquestionably a failing on the part of the railway here.

This is also the case with at least one TOC I worked for. A note on the CRM for future cases means you get played by the book in future.

This seems perfectly acceptable and encouraged. The difficulty is when the customer complaint is based on the very fact that the railway is not playing by the book in the first place.

 

[AlterEgo]

This seems perfectly acceptable and encouraged. The difficulty is when the customer complaint is based on the very fact that the railway is not playing by the book in the first place.

Very much depends on the context. Not sure I would have placed a note on file for a single sarcastic comment where the company turned out eventually to be in the wrong.

 

[Starmill]

I think in general it's more when you can't communicate because someone is using foul language or giving cutting personal insults. Sarcasm is very much considered to be impolite but most people wouldn't be able to seriously call it abuse, whereas it is easy to do so if someone deploys the f word or makes a critical comment about someone's personal appearance.

 

[Haywain]

I think in general it's more when you can't communicate because someone is using foul language or giving cutting personal insults. Sarcasm is very much considered to be impolite but most people wouldn't be able to seriously call it abuse, whereas it is easy to do so if someone deploys the f word or makes a critical comment about someone's personal appearance.

Well said. If we all treat each other with respect the world will be a better place, and on occasion when it doesn't happen it isn't appropriate to take it out on any number of other people just because they have the same employer.

 

[Wolfie]

Well said. If we all treat each other with respect the world will be a better place, and on occasion when it doesn't happen it isn't appropriate to take it out on any number of other people just because they have the same employer.

Fair comment.

 

[Watershed]

Read by the employee in the course of their employment and thus it is within scope of the appropriate legislation.

By that reasoning, if a someone sends their friend a message with a swear word in it, and the friend happens to be on a train when they receive it, that's an offence.

There might well be offences that nasty messages are captured by - for example the [Malicious] Communications Act - but these invariably set a higher threshold for "nastiness" than Byelaw 6.

 

[Darandio]

Have some posts been deleted or is all the talk about byelaws and abusive and bullying messaging to rail staff related to this post?

Replying to them that they might like to try developing the literacy skills required to read a complaint properly saw the case escalated to a manager who took great pleasure in telling me off for my ‘tone’, but did finally refund the amount due.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Have some posts been deleted or is all the talk about byelaws and abusive and bullying messaging to rail staff related to this post?

All related to that post.

 

[Wolfie]

All related to that post.

So basically the OP is being criticised for telling the truth. The person who originally considered the case didn't have the necessary literacy or cognitive skills to correctly assess the situation and it was only when a manager, got involved that the situation was correctly resolved. A manager supporting their staff is great. A manager doing so when those staff are palpably in the wrong isn't so great. Said manager having the chutzpah, when he has zero right, to tell a customer to watch his tone would, if l was the OP, be the subject of a formal complaint about his own attitude and tone. God forbid that a passenger/customer might want his case dealt with quickly and accurately and be less than ecstatic if that is not done.

I actually agree that people should be treated politely and with respect; that works two ways though. Why do the railways believe that they can treat passengers like utter crap and yet demand that staff are always dealt with politely?

A policy of flagging what are perceived as "problem customers" is perfectly fine - just as long as your company never makes any mistakes (oh, and could be bloody embarrassing if a GPDR SAR ever comes in). If it does then the policy is only likely to lead to more complaints (in the bank example cited to the Ombudsman) and/or litigation against the company. That has serious costs. Customers can make it hurt too.

Trying to argue that a letter to a TOC complaining about how a case was incorrectly handled by railway office staff constitutes bullying or harrassment is covered by railway byelaws is a new low in the demands for the railway to be treated differently as something special. If it was the OP l'd say "take me to Court then' to the TOC and would ensure maximum media coverage and questions from my MP to Grant Shapps. Most people hold the railway with precious little respect as it is and that would only be amplified. Hopefully the outcome would be a major rewrite of the byelaws to remove the current egregious imbalances.

Were l the OP l would be writing to the TOC CE demanding an apology for the attitude and tone of the manager's response letter. As an upper mid level civil servant of over 30 years standing l know that any colleague in a public facing role who presumed, in response to a factually correct complaint, to lecture a member of the public for their tone would rightly be subject to disciplinary action.

 

[Alex C.]

So basically the OP is being criticised for telling the truth. The person who originally considered the case didn't have the necessary literacy or cognitive skills to correctly assess the situation and it was only when a manager, got involved that the situation was correctly resolved. A manager supporting their staff is great. A manager doing so when those staff are palpably in the wrong isn't so great. Said manager having the chutzpah, when he has zero right, to tell a customer to watch his tone would, if l was the OP, be the subject of a formal complaint about his own attitude and tone. God forbid that a passenger/customer might want his case dealt with quickly and accurately and be less than ecstatic if that is not done.

I actually agree that people should be treated politely and with respect; that works two ways though. Why do the railways believe that they can treat passengers like utter crap and yet demand that staff are always dealt with politely?

A policy of flagging what are perceived as "problem customers" is perfectly fine - just as long as your company never makes any mistakes (oh, and could be bloody embarrassing if a GPDR SAR ever comes in). If it does then the policy is only likely to lead to more complaints (in the bank example cited to the Ombudsman) and/or litigation against the company. That has serious costs. Customers can make it hurt too.

Trying to argue that a letter to a TOC complaining about how a case was incorrectly handled by railway office staff constitutes bullying or harrassment is covered by railway byelaws is a new low in the demands for the railway to be treated differently as something special. If it was the OP l'd say "take me to Court then' to the TOC and would ensure maximum media coverage and questions from my MP to Grant Shapps. Most people hold the railway with precious little respect as it is and that would only be amplified. Hopefully the outcome would be a major rewrite of the byelaws to remove the current egregious imbalances.

Were l the OP l would be writing to the TOC CE demanding an apology for the attitude and tone of the manager's response letter. As an upper mid level civil servant of over 30 years standing l know that any colleague in a public facing role who presumed, in response to a factually correct complaint, to lecture a member of the public for their tone would rightly be subject to disciplinary action.

It's pretty difficult to have a discussion on the rights and wrongs of being 'told off about tone' without hearing/seeing the exact content of the discussion. I've worked in customer services for a long time including as a manager - broadly I agree that they should just deal with the issue and move on, but as a manager I've seen members of staff reduced to tears by customers who feel it is appropriate to make particularly personal comments about them.

Sometimes it is appropriate regardless of the rights or wrongs in the situation to ask the customer to be aware of the impact of their behaviour on the people they speak to. It's not different to how you wouldn't expect to get away with shouting and swearing at staff in Tesco's. The key is to make sure you actually deal with the issue and if the employee is in the wrong make sure they are aware for the future.

That said, during my time working for a TOC I had work passed to me occasionally because it might have the odd bit of swearing in (in frustration) and the company policy was that if you felt it was inappropriate you could refuse to deal with it, although it really doesn't bother me. Likewise I've worked in places where if someone swore twice you could terminate the call (after a warning) and some employee's saw this as a great opportunity to avoid helping someone. Companies have a duty of care to the mental health of employees though so they have to have policies in place to cater for abusive customers - it's just that 'abusive' is rarely well defined.

In terms of GDPR, I suspect most organisations use some sort of 'alert' flag which doesn't give much away. I imagine most TOC offices are single site so when you see a flag it's easy enough to speak to the person who put it on and hear "oh Mr xx... he's a nightmare, do not give anything to him" - although perhaps not as practical in large contact centres.

In over 2 years working at a TOC dealing with high level complaints, I only saw small claims litigation by customers twice - it's really not enough of a threat to scare multi-billion pound businesses... the threat of being sued was much more likely to cause an eye roll than anything else.

 

[Parham Wood]

The response re "tone" would be in response to what may appear to the recipient of your comment as a sarcastic and thus bullying comment. Bullying is taken very seriously indeed and if brought to the attention of the individuals manager they (the manager) are duty bound to investigate and take appropriate action.

Sarcasm is not bullying especially when delivered by a customer in a situation where the employee has totally failed in their ability to read and understand the complaint.

 

[Titfield]

Sarcasm is not bullying especially when delivered by a customer in a situation where the employee has totally failed in their ability to read and understand the complaint.

I disagree. Sarcasm is a form of bullying and should be recognised as such. The fact that so many of the posters on this forum seem to believe that abusing rail employees is justified by any failings they or their employer may have is inexcusable.

Think Sarcasm is Funny? Think Again | Psychology Today United Kingdom or Signs You’re Dealing With a Bully (businessinsider.com) gives perspectives on this form of behaviour.

 

[yorkie]

Sarcasm is not bullying especially when delivered by a customer in a situation where the employee has totally failed in their ability to read and understand the complaint.

Agreed

So basically the OP is being criticised for telling the truth. The person who originally considered the case didn't have the necessary literacy or cognitive skills to correctly assess the situation and it was only when a manager, got involved that the situation was correctly resolved....

That does appear to be the case, yes. And this is far from an isolated case, sadly. This problem is endemic in the rail industry.

I'd advise against using sarcasm, but I see no evidence that the case in question involved bullying, at least not based on what has been posted here, which is all most of us have to go on.

I disagree. Sarcasm is a form of bullying and should be recognised as such.

I agree with the posters who disagree with you. Sarcasm isn't necessarily ''bullying'' and it is difficult to see how bullying could have occured in the case in question. Perhaps the letter was rude or a bit off; it may not have been written in a manner I'd recommend, but I can't see any evidence of bullying in this case, unless there is evidence that is not visible to me.

The fact that so many of the posters on this forum seem to believe that abusing rail employees is justified by any failings they or their employer may have is inexcusable.

If you see someone stating that abuse is acceptable please report the post, using the report link under the post in question, and make no reference to it on the forum, as this is a serious allegation which we will need to investigate. Please contact us privately if you wish to discuss any such concerns.

Edit: some posts have been moved to the following thread:

Is sarcasm a form of bullying?

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/appalling-treatment-by-south-western-railway.223041/ I note with some disappointment that the consensus of opinion is that sarcasm is not a form of bullying. To those who believe that sarcasm is acceptable behaviour I ask them to...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Titfield]

It very much depends on the context. Reading sarcastic emails like “could you please acquire the necessary literary skills to read my complaint properly” about a colleague isn’t bullying. It’s eye-rolling, perhaps, but it’s also par for the course if you work in customer service. And yes, I’ve been at the sharpest end of that, managing TOC Twitter accounts. People are sarcastic and mean all the time. You eventually learn to roll with it.

Claiming that something is “sarcastic thus bullying” implying that sarcasm is always bullying, minimises what bullying actually is.

Outright abuse, like calling someone directly a “jumped up arrogant little self important pip squeak” is certainly way beyond the line and a whole different kettle of fish. If someone called me that to my face on a gate line I’d be asking for the BTP, and if it was in a letter or phone call I would be playing them strictly by the book with a note on file about the abuse.

Yes it does rely on context but learning to roll with sarcastic comments and being mean is a sad statement. Who knows what effects absorbing such comments have in peoples physical and mental health,

Unfortunately I am not able to cite them, but in employment tribunals there have been cases where what may have been taken by some to be mild sarcastic remarks have been deemed by the tribunal panel to be a form of bullying.

I don't disagree with your general comment, but there is no way that is sarcasm - it is an insult, pure and simple.

Agreed but one of the issues is the problem of escalation where one remark may be "brushed off" because it is not an insult, but subsequent remarks may be offensive and thus can not be brushed off.