Merseyrail RPI vs guard

[222007]

Is this something trained to you, or something you just do? If its something trained out then there is no excuse at all

That is just something i do in all honesty.

 

[Haywain]

You only have to read these forums for a short time to discover that those two words are missing across the industry as a whole.

They are words that are not exactly thriving across the general population.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Re: 'common sense'

They are words that are not exactly thriving across the general population.

Indeed, and we could probably say the same about any other sector of industry or government:- retail, utilities, health, education, defence, local authorities, media, etc. etc. There are often logical reasons for this, even if they are counter productive, such as aversions to risk, or a conformity with regulation or policies.

Sadly, these institutionalised failures of 'common sense' only normalise the same attitudes among the population at large.

 

[gray1404]

I think he may have a point about undermining a colleague. There is always a better way to point out a colleague's potential errors than correcting him in front of members of the public. Of course it is difficult to judge without knowing how he did it but dismissing this possibility is way too simplistic in my view.

There is always a middle ground. Very rarely are things simply right or wrong, and if judged to be wrong, there is an art to how it's dealt with, just like when dealing with a passenger.

Is there really always a middle ground. How else was the guard really meant to stop a PF being issued in such wrong circumstances. Remember the RPI had already been shown the disabled railcard but totally ignored it. The guard did nothing wrong. The RPI was totally unprofessional, deprived a disabled person of ther rights and broke company policy.

 

[sheff1]

There is always a better way to point out a colleague's potential errors than correcting him in front of members of the public.

This is just not true. There are, indeed, always other ways of pointing out an error but they are not always better. That, though, is a completely different discussion of no relevance here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is just not true. There are, indeed, always other ways of pointing out an error but they are not always better. That, though, is a completely different discussion of no relevance here.

Indeed, it rather depends on the circumstances. Once the PF was issued, it could not be unissued, just like a parking ticket, AIUI. That being the case, the priority was to ensure it was not issued in order to prevent someone having to go through the whole appeals process and the unnecessary stress that would present.

 

[RPI]

Certainly on GWR a Conductor or TM cannot overrule a ticketing decision made by an RPI.

 

[andywandy]

Certainly on GWR a Conductor or TM cannot overrule a ticketing decision made by an RPI.

The cencencus and my opinion is he can. If the TM gives permission to travel a PF can not be issued. The TM could also presumably ask the RPI to leave the train if he had reasonable grounds to do so. Not to even get started on disability laws.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Certainly on GWR a Conductor or TM cannot overrule a ticketing decision made by an RPI.

The Guard can, however, prevent the issue of a Penalty Fare or allow someone to remain on the train after the issue of a PF by the very fact they are an authorised person giving permission for a person to travel without having paid the correct fare.

That may or may not be something the guard's employer will care about, but that is an entirely separate matter.

As for undermining a colleague, none of us know how the guard behaved so we don't know whether the RPI was "undermined". Striding up to the RPI and having a slanging match would be unprofessional; nudging the RPI and saying "I let her get on, I've given her permission to travel" would obviously not be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Guard can, however, prevent the issue of a Penalty Fare by the very fact they are an authorised person giving permission for a person to travel without having paid the correct fare.

True, though the RPI could presumably (in GW's case) only accept that permission to travel if it was given before the PF was issued.

 

[RPI]

The cencencus and my opinion is he can. If the TM gives permission to travel a PF can not be issued. The TM could also presumably ask the RPI to leave the train if he had reasonable grounds to do so. Not to even get started on disability laws.

I'm not defending the actions of the RPI but he has the final say on a ticket issue for the TOC I work for, a guard cannot remove an RPI from the train either, would breach cash regs for starters. It happened before with a TE who was asked to leave at an unstaffed station and subsequently got assaulted, that guard is no longer a guard.
All this "it's the guards train" is true in respect that they are in charge of the operation of the train but they are not dictators that are in control of the actions of every human on the train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not defending the actions of the RPI but he has the final say on a ticket issue for the TOC I work for

Not if the guard gives permission for a passenger to remain on the train he doesn't.

 

[RPI]

Not if the guard gives permission for a passenger to remain on the train he doesn't.

yes they do if the RPI had started dealing first

 

[jon0844]

yes they do if the RPI had started dealing first

Pretty sure an RPI shouldn't be doing that.

 

[Mark_1987]

Few things I've noticed here

Just because someone is travelling on merseyrail does not mean they are a resident of Merseyside and therefore entitled to a free pass. The next best thing being a railcard of some sort.

This being the case if you board at Ellesmere Port, Overpool, Little Sutton, Capenhurst Bache & Chester. It sounds like its happened at one of those stations and if you discount Chester then this lady with a disabled railcard has only had a TVM on offer. Does anyone know her disability ? Thought not.

If for example its a visual impairment then how is she expected to use the TVM exactly ?

Maybe the guard knows the policy surrounding disabilities better than his colleague , therefore saving embarrassment at a later date when a complaint/appeal arrives for the PF if it was issued.

Some people need a reality check honestly. If I'm right in where I think this took place then its merseyrails problem for not having a ticket office open. But thats what their policies are designed for. The guard did the correct thing, like stated above if anything else its good common sense and customer service if anything else.

 

[8J]

RPI, I guess by your username corresponds with your job title?

The guard can request that the RPI stop what he is doing and can submit a report/ring control as at the end of the day, any bad passenger service onboard will 9 times out of 10 come back on the guard. They are in charge of the train and if they don't want you doing revenue then where I live you don't do revenue.

 

[bb21]

Is there really always a middle ground. How else was the guard really meant to stop a PF being issued in such wrong circumstances. Remember the RPI had already been shown the disabled railcard but totally ignored it. The guard did nothing wrong. The RPI was totally unprofessional, deprived a disabled person of ther rights and broke company policy.

This is just not true. There are, indeed, always other ways of pointing out an error but they are not always better. That, though, is a completely different discussion of no relevance here.

I can only be brief atm so forgive me.

There is always a middle ground where pointing out a colleague's mistake in public is concerned. For example, having a quiet word on the side first which may be all that is required to allow the colleague to see his mistakes. If it is really necessary to intervene, then it should be communicated directly to the passenger concerned, not broadcasted to the whole carriage. Doing so achieves nothing that cannot be achieved via other more discrete means.

Obviously I cannot speak for all scenarios but can only go by what I know. If you can think of a case where one must broadcast a colleague's mistake to the whole audience then I am happy to discuss this in a separate thread.

As for stopping the PF from being issued, a quiet word should normally suffice. If the RPI insists on issuing it even after a private chat with the guard, I doubt he will back off when abruptly interrupted by the guard.

I am not saying the RPI was correct in this case, just that there are better ways to deal with it than "butting in", which could very easily have resulted in a public argument between two representatives of the same company.

 

[andywandy]

Hypothetical if the RPI does issue the PF after the guard says not to. Surely the best option is to refuse it and go to court. A rora prosecution for defrauding to buy a ticket would fail as you intended to buy from the guard. And as you had permission to travel a byelaw would not be successful (assuming the guard 'had your back').

I also can't see a case in which the guard clearly told the RPI not to issue a PF or mg19 end up in court or even write to the passenger asking for their events (bad pr especially if she is disabled)

 

[najaB]

andywandy, as the only person who was there: did the guard 'broadcast to the entire carriage' as bb21 put it, or were you able to hear just because you were close?

 

[RPI]

RPI, I guess by your username corresponds with your job title?

The guard can request that the RPI stop what he is doing and can submit a report/ring control as at the end of the day, any bad passenger service onboard will 9 times out of 10 come back on the guard. They are in charge of the train and if they don't want you doing revenue then where I live you don't do revenue.

Maybe where you live... not where I do

 

[Antman]

No. It is his train. The end.

Surely it's his employers train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

as the father of a teenage girl I would also class her to be vulnerable ..especially at night, and if the payment is offered straight away then to me it isnt evasion.

There was an incident when my daughter was about 12 when a bus driver was insisting on her paying full fare or refusing travel, she was about 20p short and another passenger gave it to her. There is an igo card for proof of age but tbh she hardly even looked 12 let alone 16. Arriva's customer services gave her about 1/2 dozen day passes after complaining, and agreed that in no way should he have refused travel.

I completely agree with you but in fairness to the driver a lot of kids do try it on.

 

[Darandio]

Surely it's his employers train?

Only when you are pedantically trawling through old posts looking for something to say.

 

[najaB]

Surely it's his employers train?

It is, indded. It was an oversimplification to make the point that, within reason of course, the Guard's responsibilities make him the face, voice and arm of the company.

 

[kelv]

Surely it's his employers train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I completely agree with you but in fairness to the driver a lot of kids do try it on.

she didn't look any older though, and it wasnt the case that you had to have the card to travel on a kids ticket either. These things really are designed for those that are 15 (poss 14) that look older, as well as that if you think about it then maybe they should provide them free to those that the drivers are unsure of their age... as opposed to trying to force everyone to purchase them. Certain her mate bought a day ticket once and then the driver on the way home made her pay the extra up to an adult ticket as didn't believe her, there was even something where one of them was accused of using someone elses day ticket as well... cos it was a kids one and they didnt have an igo card so he said it was impossible to buy the ticket they had.

 

[Antman]

It is, indded. It was an oversimplification to make the point that, within reason of course, the Guard's responsibilities make him the face, voice and arm of the company.

I must say that on my train travels I have always found guards to be very reasonable regarding any ticketing issues and declassifying first class when appropriate.

 

[najaB]

I must say that on my train travels I have always found guards to be very reasonable regarding any ticketing issues and declassifying first class when appropriate.

As have I. I don't know where these 'jobsworth' guards hide but I've not met one yet.