Wordy apologies

Fawkes Cat · 8 Feb 2024

On another thread...

BRX said:
Does writing these wordy letters of apology actually make the slightest difference? Does the person at the other end care at all whether there are promises to be a better person in future? I assume their job is simply to process things as efficiently as possible.

What would happen if the reply simply said something like:

"I acknowledge receipt of your letter and am keen to co-operate in reaching an out of court settlement. Please let me know how best to proceed"

And no more?

And someone (@Hadders?) very sensibly suggested taking it away from the original thread. So here goes...

My take is that the railways want to be reassured that the passenger will not fare dodge again. So it's in the passenger's interest to try and offer that reassurance to the railway - hence the rather wordy approach.

This isn't without problems. Those which leap to mind include
- that I'm pretty sure that the biggest factor in getting an out of court settlement is keeping in touch with the railway. A short response would meet this criterion
- a lengthy (but not too lengthy) response suggests that the passenger has contemplated what they did and has seen the error of their ways: but given that a bit of browsing this forum will effectively provide a template, it's possible to write 'I'm most dreadfully sorry and realise all the difficulties this causes for the railway: please consider allowing me to settle this out of court' almost as quickly as writing 'Soz, didn't mean it, won't do it again. Gimme a settlement' - which doesn't really suggest much in the way of remorse.

But biggest of all, we don't know if a short response would work. Given that we know that the wordy version does work, I'm reluctant to suggest to someone that they try something shorter that might not work: that would be illuminating from our point of view, but not necessarily helpful to the specific passenger who came to us for advice.

RailUK Forums

Titfield · 8 Feb 2024

Fawkes Cat said:
On another thread...

And someone (@Hadders?) very sensibly suggested taking it away from the original thread. So here goes...

My take is that the railways want to be reassured that the passenger will not fare dodge again. So it's in the passenger's interest to try and offer that reassurance to the railway - hence the rather wordy approach.

This isn't without problems. Those which leap to mind include
- that I'm pretty sure that the biggest factor in getting an out of court settlement is keeping in touch with the railway. A short response would meet this criterion
- a lengthy (but not too lengthy) response suggests that the passenger has contemplated what they did and has seen the error of their ways: but given that a bit of browsing this forum will effectively provide a template, it's possible to write 'I'm most dreadfully sorry and realise all the difficulties this causes for the railway: please consider allowing me to settle this out of court' almost as quickly as writing 'Soz, didn't mean it, won't do it again. Gimme a settlement' - which doesn't really suggest much in the way of remorse.

But biggest of all, we don't know if a short response would work. Given that we know that the wordy version does work, I'm reluctant to suggest to someone that they try something shorter that might not work: that would be illuminating from our point of view, but not necessarily helpful to the specific passenger who came to us for advice.

An interesting conundrum.

My personal view is that the recipients of the letter (the individual TOC members of staff) will subconsciously categorise the letters in 3 ways.

(1) Too short, hasnt demonstrated enough effort to convince me that they are contrite and wont evade the fare again.
(2) The right length - apologised, contrite and appears to have learned their lesson. Will settle promptly and the jobs a good un.
(3) Too long, flowery repetitive wording, Oh God not this tripe again. I am losing the will to live.

Personally I reckon that a letter which has a separate single reasonably sized sentence for each of the points which @Hadders gives in his advice plus a top and tail is about right and will get the job done.

If it is in a sensible font with the correct size font this all goes to help give the best impression.

Haywain · 8 Feb 2024

Titfield said:
(3) Too long, flowery repetitive wording, Oh God not this tripe again. I am losing the will to live.

See also TL;DR (too long; didn't read). This is fairly standard business practice, for example where job applications will weed out and bin applications that have a CV over more than one page.

Titfield said:
My personal view is that the recipients of the letter (the individual TOC members of staff) will subconsciously categorise the letters in 3 ways.

There is a fourth category - handwritten and difficult to read, in which case the length of the letter doesn't really matter.

fandroid · 8 Feb 2024

Titfield said:
Personally I reckon that a letter which has a separate single reasonably sized sentence for each of the points which Hadders gives in his advice plus a top and tail is about right and will get the job done.

If it is in a sensible font with the correct size font this all goes to help give the best impression.

I instinctively go for this personally, but that's just me. I've always liked letters that just get to the point and state everything clearly and carefully without any extra flourishes and emotion.

These are, after all, business letters, and clarity should the most important feature. Expressing contrition is important, but expressing it repeatedly can be tedious for the reader

Brissle Girl · 8 Feb 2024

Titfield said:
(3) Too long, flowery repetitive wording, Oh God not this tripe again. I am losing the will to live.

Also, "Yet another AI generated letter that is so cringy and insincere."

I wonder whether it is worth having a pinned tweet titled "Advice in Writing a Letter" where it sets out the points that @Hadders usually makes, and with some further comments, including not to use AI? We could then link to it when appropriate in any particular case.

CharlieSpotted · 8 Feb 2024

Brissle Girl said:
I wonder whether it is worth having a pinned tweet titled "Advice in Writing a Letter" where it sets out the points that @Hadders usually makes, and with some further comments, including not to use AI? We could then link to it when appropriate in any particular case.

Given how many threads have a post along the lines of with "Hadders will be along in a bit with advice", this sounds like a good idea.

Sultan · 8 Feb 2024

CharlieSpotted said:
Given how many threads have a post along the lines of with "Hadders will be along in a bit with advice", this sounds like a good idea.

Unless of course, Hadders enjoys copying and pasting! I'm pretty sure he(?) always add a extra nuance too to what looks like a standard response.

Titfield · 8 Feb 2024

CharlieSpotted said:
Given how many threads have a post along the lines of with "Hadders will be along in a bit with advice", this sounds like a good idea.

The only danger then is that staff at the TOCS go "on no, another @Hadders generated letter".

In my dim and distant past I used to work for a fairly well know transport company. Occasionally I had cause to go into the customer relations department which on the wall had a pinboard and wipeboard. Particularly noteworthy complaints were pinned up on the board for all to see. The wipeboard had a list of all the most banal complaints we received,

AnotherOne · 8 Feb 2024

From my reading of these boards over last 24 hours, all those - like myself - in this situation writing here do seem genuinely contrite and very genuine when saying that there's no way after these experiences we would risk a repeat. So the contents of the letter as suggested (contrition, learnt for future, desire to settle) may be similar to each other but are a true reflection of the cases at hand.

Titfield · 8 Feb 2024

AnotherOne said:
From my reading of these boards over last 24 hours, all those - like myself - in this situation writing here do seem genuinely contrite and very genuine when saying that there's no way after these experiences we would risk a repeat. So the contents of the letter as suggested (contrition, learnt for future, desire to settle) may be similar to each other but are a true reflection of the cases at hand.

Thanks. I think it would be fair to say that the vast majority of us "board regulars" just want everyone to pay their fare and if people make a honest mistake that it can be sorted out quickly and efficiently in a fair and appropriate way that doesnt cause stress or sleepless nights or punish them. The problem that we recognise is the challenge the railway has in differentiating the honest mistake from the persistent offender who repeatedly seeks to avoid paying the correct fare.

My personal view is that the railway (and the govt) needs to do a lot more to simplify the fares and ticketing system to reduce the incidence of honest mistakes and also to remove the inconsistencies and anomalies that seem to cause so much aggro for the honest passenger but are exploited by the less than honest.

Bertie the bus · 8 Feb 2024

AnotherOne said:
From my reading of these boards over last 24 hours, all those - like myself - in this situation writing here do seem genuinely contrite and very genuine when saying that there's no way after these experiences we would risk a repeat. So the contents of the letter as suggested (contrition, learnt for future, desire to settle) may be similar to each other but are a true reflection of the cases at hand.

Most don’t come across as contrite to me. They are sorry (for themselves) and on reflection wish they hadn’t done it but that is only because of the potential consequences they face.

I don’t see how anybody can be genuinely contrite in a case of fare evasion. If a normally law abiding person did something wrong and someone got hurt they would feel genuine remorse but it is very difficult to have empathy for a large faceless organisation.

If I was in the job and received a letter that stated they now understand how much the railway loses due to fare evasion and they can’t forgive themselves for the part they have played in that I would just roll my eyes. They will want to know you won’t do it again but that isn’t the same as coming up with some unconvincing tale about how incredibly sorry and remorseful you are.

SteveM70 · 8 Feb 2024

Haywain said:
See also TL;DR (too long; didn't read)

Or as it was known at one of my old jobs, INRATS. (I’m not reading all that sh*te)

Brissle Girl said:
Also, "Yet another AI generated letter that is so cringy and insincere."

What the railway companies need is some AI that weeds out and rejects AI letters. Perhaps in an overly flowery writing style

BRX · 8 Feb 2024

Is it not the reality that the TOCs will simply make a commercial decision about how to deal with a case? When offering a settlement is the more financially attractive option for them, that's what they'll do surely.

They'll be interested in deterrence value too of course, but I don't see that choosing to do a settlement loses them anything on that front.

Also, it's a bit of a pretence really, that they are doing you a favour or being "kind" isn't it? That's not the motivation.

The only time I can see that the contents of the letter would make much difference is if they offer some kind of genuine mitigating reason along with evidence. But even then, they'd be making a decision with likelihood of a court success in mind.

Haywain · 8 Feb 2024

BRX said:
Is it not the reality that the TOCs will simply make a commercial decision about how to deal with a case? When offering a settlement is the more financially attractive option for them, that's what they'll do surely.

Clearly not, otherwise there would never be any prosecutions.

Bertie the bus · 8 Feb 2024

Prosecution can also be a commercial decision as it is far more likely to deter future fare evasion and can also deter others if publicised.

Gloster · 8 Feb 2024

I presume that those employees who have to read the letters (are they para-legal trained?) have a target of the number they have get through each day or are paid by the case. If the letter is brief, clearly set out, contains all the necessary information and references, and doesn’t wander off into platitudes or irrelevancies, they will deal with it a slightly more generous mood than otherwise. If it is long, chaotic, lacking important details and waffles interminably it is going to have the opposite effect.

Haywain · 8 Feb 2024

Bertie the bus said:
Prosecution can also be a commercial decision as it is far more likely to deter future fare evasion and can also deter others if publicised.

But the comment suggested that "the more financially attractive option" would be chosen.

Fawkes Cat · 8 Feb 2024

BRX said:
Is it not the reality that the TOCs will simply make a commercial decision about how to deal with a case? When offering a settlement is the more financially attractive option for them, that's what they'll do surely.

Haywain said:
Clearly not, otherwise there would never be any prosecutions.

The impression I get is that the exercise is 'a commercial decision' - but looking at a fairly long timescale. So the question that the TOCs ask is not 'how can we maximise the amount we recover for this dodged fare?' but 'how can we maximise our net income from this passenger by making sure we receive the right fares for this and future journeys with minimised costs of us making sure that they comply?'

This rather more complex question will sometimes lead to the answer 'out of court settlement' if the TOC thinks that this is enough of a sanction to lead the passenger to comply for the foreseeable future: this line is assisted by all the money from an out of court settlement going to the TOC (compare a court fine, where the TOC will receive the compensation (i.e. fare) and their court costs while the fine element goes to the courts service and so I assume eventually to HM Treasury). But if the TOC thinks that something more severe is needed, this will encourage the TOC to prosecute: from the point of view of the passenger, the sanction is greater (fine on top of compensation and costs) and as we frequently see here many people are concerned about having a criminal record. And of course if someone doesn't engage with the TOC at all, prosecution is liable to follow: in the absence of engagement, the TOC has no idea what level of sanction will work so will go for the most severe approach available, which also has the benefit that fines (etc.) from the court can be pursued more effectively than the sum of a voluntary agreement.

Starmill · 8 Feb 2024

I think in most fields of customer contact, whether you're enquiring, sending praise, giving feedback both positive and negative, or asking for a complaint to be raised, it's usually better to be as succinct as you can, while taking care to include everything that's important. I personally find it takes a good bit more work to write a short email which I'm still confident covers everything, than a long one!

Deepgreen · 8 Feb 2024

Fawkes Cat said:
On another thread...

And someone (@Hadders?) very sensibly suggested taking it away from the original thread. So here goes...

My take is that the railways want to be reassured that the passenger will not fare dodge again. So it's in the passenger's interest to try and offer that reassurance to the railway - hence the rather wordy approach.

This isn't without problems. Those which leap to mind include
- that I'm pretty sure that the biggest factor in getting an out of court settlement is keeping in touch with the railway. A short response would meet this criterion
- a lengthy (but not too lengthy) response suggests that the passenger has contemplated what they did and has seen the error of their ways: but given that a bit of browsing this forum will effectively provide a template, it's possible to write 'I'm most dreadfully sorry and realise all the difficulties this causes for the railway: please consider allowing me to settle this out of court' almost as quickly as writing 'Soz, didn't mean it, won't do it again. Gimme a settlement' - which doesn't really suggest much in the way of remorse.

But biggest of all, we don't know if a short response would work. Given that we know that the wordy version does work, I'm reluctant to suggest to someone that they try something shorter that might not work: that would be illuminating from our point of view, but not necessarily helpful to the specific passenger who came to us for advice.

Why shouldn't passengers be overly wordy - the railway's messages almost always are! A local example for me, on the lamp posts at Betchworth station - "This is a no-smoking station. Thank you for not smoking at this station" (or very similar wording) - instead of 'No Smoking'. The railway used to be a bastion of concise information, but that has given way to the modern trend of wordiness supposedly conveying intelligence (when the opposite is true).

CharlieSpotted · 8 Feb 2024

Deepgreen said:
Why shouldn't passengers be overly wordy - the railway's messages almost always are! A local example for me, on the lamp posts at Betchworth station - "This is a no-smoking station. Thank you for not smoking at this station" (or very similar wording) - instead of 'No Smoking'. The railway used to be a bastion of concise information, but that has given way to the modern trend of wordiness supposedly conveying intelligence (when the opposite is true).

Because this isn't a game of one-upmanship, it's an effort to get the most favourable outcome in a situation where, more often than not, the train operator holds all of the cards.

BRX · 8 Feb 2024

Haywain said:
Clearly not, otherwise there would never be any prosecutions.

Ok, but it'll include what's financially attractive over a longer term strategy.

What is it, that will make them decide in any particular case that they are going to prosecute it rather than offer a settlement? I just find it hard to believe it will have much to do with how profuse the apology is.

Fawkes Cat said:
And of course if someone doesn't engage with the TOC at all, prosecution is liable to follow: in the absence of engagement, the TOC has no idea what level of sanction will work

Isn't it more that if the person doesn't engage, they have no option? Because you can't make an out of court agreement with someone who doesn't reply to your letters.

That's why it seems to me that all the letter really needs to say is, hello, yes I am willing to engage in discussing an out of court settlement. And (if it exists) here is some evidence that proves I haven't done all the stuff you think I have.

Fawkes Cat · 8 Feb 2024

BRX said:
That's why it seems to me that all the letter really needs to say is, hello, yes I am willing to engage in discussing an out of court settlement. And (if it exists) here is some evidence that proves I haven't done all the stuff you think I have.

And you may be right. But can we advise someone to take an unproven approach which may work or may not when we have an approach which we know works?

PeterY · 8 Feb 2024

Gloster said:
I presume that those employees who have to read the letters (are they para-legal trained?) have a target of the number they have get through each day or are paid by the case. If the letter is brief, clearly set out, contains all the necessary information and references, and doesn’t wander off into platitudes or irrelevancies, they will deal with it a slightly more generous mood than otherwise. If it is long, chaotic, lacking important details and waffles interminably it is going to have the opposite effect.

I think its human nature to start skip reading letters that are overly long, especially a letter with long paragraphs. If I'm writing a letter to anyone, I try to keep as short as possible but keep to the relevant points. Probably why most of my posts are short.

Msq71423 · 8 Feb 2024

I'm aware after speaking with a TOC employee recently, who reads and responds to these letters (I won't name the TOC) on a recent 7 hour shift they said they had 116 letters/emails to read and respond to, doing the maths on this it would average around 3.5 minutes per letter - an almost relentless basis. I understand from what they said this was a 'much busier than usual' type of shift, but they said their office occasionally has these days with over 100 per worker to deal with, although a quiet day for them would be 40. I guess this illustrates how little time is allocated for each. They were very aware when the template from this website is used and they are treated no more or less favourably than others, every case is treated on an individual basis. I think it's just a case of 'oh look it's another one from Rail Forums' and is a little more for them to read through than others - the vast majority providing no written explanation or apology (thus dealt with very quickly) - although they do get many handwritten life stories amounting to several pages of A4 sent to them every day also. I also found out there is a hierarchy within the office, with initial letters dealt with by the most junior staff, initial appeals more experienced staff, and second and third appeals by the managers. Unfortunately I didn't get any more information from this employee as they had to continue with their journey.

Fawkes Cat · 8 Feb 2024

Msq71423 said:
I'm aware after speaking with a TOC employee recently, who reads and responds to these letters (I won't name the TOC) on a recent 7 hour shift they said they had 116 letters/emails to read and respond to, doing the maths on this it would average around 3.5 minutes per letter - an almost relentless basis. I understand from what they said this was a 'much busier than usual' type of shift, but they said their office occasionally has these days with over 100 per worker to deal with, although a quiet day for them would be 40. I guess this illustrates how little time is allocated for each. They were very aware when the template from this website is used and they are treated no more or less favourably than others, every case is treated on an individual basis. I think it's just a case of 'oh look it's another one from Rail Forums' and is a little more for them to read through than others - the vast majority providing no written explanation or apology (thus dealt with very quickly) - although they do get many handwritten life stories amounting to several pages of A4 sent to them every day also. I also found out there is a hierarchy within the office, with initial letters dealt with by the most junior staff, initial appeals more experienced staff, and second and third appeals by the managers. Unfortunately I didn't get any more information from this employee as they had to continue with their journey.

Useful input. Thanks.

Brissle Girl · 8 Feb 2024

Very useful - especially the comment that the investigator may only have 3 or 4 mins to deal with a case. Make it short and snappy and to the point would seem to be good advice for a first response.

Haywain · 8 Feb 2024

Brissle Girl said:
Very useful - especially the comment that the investigator may only have 3 or 4 mins to deal with a case. Make it short and snappy and to the point would seem to be good advice for a first response.

That may be just one company, and I'm not convinced that all really have those sort of workloads. I think we should stick to the sort of letter we have always suggested.

Hadders · 8 Feb 2024

My advice is always to write a short, concise reply. The people dealing with letters don't want a sob story or a load of waffle. They want something that's easy to read and straight to the point. I think we do a pretty good job of achieving this when we proof read letters.

A letter doesn't have to be absolutely gramatically correct, but in the same way that a defendant turning up at court who has made an effort with their appearance will make a better impression than someone who hasn't, someone making a bit of an effort when writing a letter is likely to make a better impression.

We have a good track record of getting satisfactory outcomes for people who seek our advice. Don't fix what isn't broken!

Deafdoggie · 9 Feb 2024

Is it the case that (ignoring TIL) people who write back & engage get settlement offers? Do people following the railforums template always (or at least, more often) get settlement offers?

Wordy apologies

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member