Jump to content

Pete 75C

Rail staff - having a bad day? Stop and think.

Recommended Posts

His intentions may have been good,

but the way he went about it was not

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, eastglosmog said:

But isn't the problem that the guard did not believe Pete's daughter was a minor?  Is this then a case of unintended consequences and the guard's way of dealing with it by just handing out the form the only legal way he had of dealing with it?

 

Possibly, but in my mind the problem was his attitude and the way he went about it.

 

Edit: Beaten to it by rab (above).

Edited by Pete 75C
  • Agree 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Stepping out of context and generally speaking..

 

I do think there should more encouragement for people (no win no fee) to follow adequate legal recourse in the UK for situations where by those who abuse authority face consequences.

 

The reason why people in the UK abuse their positions is because they know theirs limited chance of recourse.

 

In this regard I dont refer to the role playing individuals being offered protection by the employer, but by being jointly named alongside their employer in any action, so they personally have something to lose by their actions.

 

indeed in such situations, the employer, if finding the employee abused their position, and facing financial loss may actually side the with those bringing action, against the employee, as it shifts blame and reduces their own financial exposure. (Though if the case is about financial restitution and not moral / ethical restitution those bringing the case may chose to not accept that).

 

This is routine in the US, and a successful case like this might fetch 6 figure compensation easily in the US, 7 figures i suspect if actual authorities had been involved, which is why cases like this are much more limited and more publically reported.

 

it draws parallels to this situation, which will likely see a large settlement..

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/american-airlines-passenger-flight-cover-up-blanket-playsuit-a8996436.html

 

people should face consequences for their actions, in this country its too easy to over play authority and ignore the consequences. The threat of personal litigation focuses mindsets of those with authority to act more appropriately.

 

Lawyers can be useful.

 

 

Edited by adb968008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

You tell that to the person on the end of a telephone telling you it is the data protection act why you cant do it! Plus it was not to change an existing policy but a renewal and would not contemplate a new policy without my mother talking to her!

  

 

And that's right, that's identity theft 101. I realise that doesn't make your problem any easier and it's very frustrating, but surely you can understand why a 3rd party cannot make unilateral changes to an insurance policy...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

Not wrong to make a complaint, just as it was not wrong to check what might have been fare evasion.

 

 

Just as the PA announcement was unnecessary,  so also is posting one side of the story on the internet.  In the absence of a statement from the railway employee we have only his daughter's word for what happened.

God forbid that we become enmeshed in legal action in cases like this; the only people who would benefit would be the lawyers. A lot of firms use 'mystery shoppers' in order to monitor staff behaviour; that would be one option to use in cases like this one.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

Stepping out of context and generally speaking..

 

I do think there should more encouragement for people (no win no fee) to follow adequate legal recourse in the UK for situations where by those who abuse authority face consequences.

 

The reason why people in the UK abuse their positions is because they know theirs limited chance of recourse.

 

I'd worry if that was the case then no-one in authority would dare do anything. even when fully justified for fear of being sued.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, that's a massively slippery slope, and one we really don't want to get into IMO.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

What about this one ?

 

 

I would take issue with the word 'Victim', this word has serious connotations and shouldn't be used lightly.  I've no doubt she was uncomfortable with the situation but would she want to think of herself as a Victim. 

 

Your correct, its “alleged victim”.

 

Anyone who has suffered loss can be considered a victim, be it mental, physical, financial etc.. 

 

Quote

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.

The word physical is not part of the definition of victim., nor is its use exclusively reserved to crime.

 

for instance Ive been the victim of receiving poor quality model railway equipment in the past, and a victim of a dodgy curry... would this apply the same undeclared connotations you imply in your post ?

 

My concern would be the alleged individual concerned is still at large and free to project his will against any one else, or even this alleged girl again...

 

imagine if she, now over 16, faced this alleged guy again and he chose to continue the matter, and maybe even emboldened in his beliefs if seeing she has an over 16 ticket ?

 

Do you know for sure the limit of his intent or that he may not seek to further the matter in any future accidental meeting ?

 

Is there risk here ?

 

if it were me, and the events were provable, as described, I would seek closure, in one form or another. If they cannot be demonstrated, unfortunately options are limited, but a filed report / complaint with a reference could seek to provide credence in event of a future repetition.

 

 

Edited by adb968008

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hobby said:

As a guard and having been in this situation many times when someone "refuses" to give their details I have some sympathy for both sides. We are legally entitled to get the details and they are breaking the law to refuse to give them. I carry a card which gives the relevant details.

 

Also we have only one side here and I know from the experience of several of my colleagues that people can be economical with the facts when it suits.

 

Personally i agree with the earlier poster who advised that she should have just given the details and let it take its course. If someone refuses to give them then I asume the worst.

 

No announcement though that sounds to me she wasn't as perfect as she is saying.

However from what Pete's daughter had said while she was required under the Byelaws to give her name and address the member of staff asking her to do so is equally required under the Byelaws to explain why she had to give her name and address and if requrested (by her) is required to give his name and job title.  We are back to potentially six of one and half a dozen of the other.  And straight back to my earlier post with the numbered points and getting the matter to the attention of the ticket examiner's manager to properly investigate..

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, njee20 said:

And that's right, that's identity theft 101. I realise that doesn't make your problem any easier and it's very frustrating, but surely you can understand why a 3rd party cannot make unilateral changes to an insurance policy...?

 

The aim was a new policy as the existing one was expiring but given such attitudes and policies it is impossible to organise anything for a relative. Even when you have Lasting Power of Attorney you are getting told you must send them the document before they will deal with you!

 

Mark Saunders 

 

 

  • Friendly/supportive 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Again, greatly frustrating, but entirely reasonable IMO.

 

Apoolgies for being OT!

Edited by njee20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, njee20 said:

Again, greatly frustrating, but entirely reasonable IMO.

 

Apoolgies for being OT!

 

I hope you realise that given your opinion that insurance for anyone other than yourself must be arranged personally and you can’t have another person on your car or holiday insurance without them talking personally to the insurance company!

 

Don't  grow old and make sure that when you start to do so have your LPA in order, also do not get any clauses about “ till I lack mental capacity “ in it as it then ties the hands of the holder  till they  then get a Doctors note but also means that , lack of mobility with the Doner means it is an effort to get to a Bank or Solicitors office!

 

The LPA dies with the Doner and you then need to go through the Probate procedure as many Banks have thresholds for parting with the deceased cash, even when it goes to a surviving spouse that does not legally require such!

 

Mark Saunders 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎15‎/‎07‎/‎2019 at 09:05, Pete 75C said:

... Leave it alone or complain just to let Greater Anglia know how upset my daughter was and how bloody annoyed I was when she told me what had happened?

You are her Dad, and if you gauge that it caused her upset, and she is willing for a complaint to be made then do so. (I know I would in the same circumstances.)

 

On a side note, whatever the current applicable law may say relating to ticketed rail travel, I suspect from some of the comments that this has not caught up with the general legislation for protection of those statutorily considered vulnerable. A minor unaccompanied is vulnerable in law. Doesn't matter what you may think or suspect: you are walking on eggshells attempting anything beyond the ticket inspection.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the guard may have concerns about an under-16 travelling in school hours there are a number of reasons why they might do so, especialy at this time of year, in addition to medical appointments.  A young year 11 may having finished GCSEs may not be required to attend (very common) or may be going for a interview at college, a year 10 may be going to/from work experience or travelling in connection with a school project. 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an aside, Your daughter is 15 now 16 and you worked for BR and NSE and Connex, surely she would have used a Priv Box ??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

I hope you realise that given your opinion that insurance for anyone other than yourself must be arranged personally and you can’t have another person on your car or holiday insurance without them talking personally to the insurance company!

 

Once again apologies for continuing this OP, but that's not what you're trying to do, you're trying to change the name of the policy, and are being asked for the evidence that you have the authority to do so. Do you really want an insurance company to say "yeah, course we'll change the name on the account", without asking any sort of proof, thereby potentially insuring a totally random 3rd party. As an aside I would also expect only the policy holder (or someone acting under their legal authority) to be able to add someone to a motor policy, yes. Again, otherwise Jimmy Toerag can phone up, get himself added onto your insurance, go and crash a car and you get hit with it. Isn't that common sense?

 

43 minutes ago, petethemole said:

Although the guard may have concerns about an under-16 travelling in school hours there are a number of reasons why they might do so, especialy at this time of year, in addition to medical appointments.  A young year 11 may having finished GCSEs may not be required to attend (very common) or may be going for a interview at college, a year 10 may be going to/from work experience or travelling in connection with a school project. 

 

They could just be ill and going home, or overslept and going in, or any number of things. It's not their job to ascertain why they're not in school. I do sort of understand why "it's school time" is used as a proxy for "you're over-age", but that's a very shaky rationale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

You are her Dad, and if you gauge that it caused her upset, and she is willing for a complaint to be made then do so. (I know I would in the same circumstances.)

 

On a side note, whatever the current applicable law may say relating to ticketed rail travel, I suspect from some of the comments that this has not caught up with the general legislation for protection of those statutorily considered vulnerable. A minor unaccompanied is vulnerable in law. Doesn't matter what you may think or suspect: you are walking on eggshells attempting anything beyond the ticket inspection.

 

So does that mean that a booking clerk, Guard, or indeed bus driver, say, cannot challenge someone, who they consider to be over age, asking for a child fare ?

 

Back to the OP, I agree that a complaint should be made, on the basis (as has been said) that the Guard might behave as badly towards others, or Pete 75C's daughter if he encounters her again. Hopefully it was just a one-off and being spoken to by a manager will prevent future such behaviour by the Guard.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much and many examples I could give around this issue, but as a serving member of rail staff and a guard to boot I'm limited in what I can place on a public forum.

Suffice to say it's a very difficult area but children with tattoos, carrying and drinking alcohol, carrying cigarettes?

All seen and action attempted, not always successful I'll add, just as likely to get a load of abuse and possibly worse.

I don't doubt Pete's daughter was upset by the alleged actions of the guard in question, which do seem somewhat heavy handed, and possibly, with her permission, a complaint is justified.

It will result in a full investigation if my experience is anything to go by and if as alleged the guard will be spoken to, certainly would be if it was my TOC.

 

  • Friendly/supportive 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, berwicksfinest said:

Just as an aside, Your daughter is 15 now 16 and you worked for BR and NSE and Connex, surely she would have used a Priv Box ??

If you look back you will see that the OP said that he had worked in various parts of the railway industry and said nothing about being a railway pensioner.  I did not read it as saying that he does work in the railway industry - especially as some of those mentioned disappeared quite a long time back - nor as saying that he is a pensioner in receipt of travel facilities.

 

And if his daughter had been using Dependent's travel facilities her age would have been immediately apparent to anybody who asked to see her ID card.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

If you look back you will see that the OP said that he had worked in various parts of the railway industry and said nothing about being a railway pensioner.  I did not read it as saying that he does work in the railway industry - especially as some of those mentioned disappeared quite a long time back - nor as saying that he is a pensioner in receipt of travel facilities.

 

And if his daughter had been using Dependent's travel facilities her age would have been immediately apparent to anybody who asked to see her ID card.  

 

 

Not all former BR staff made redundant left with travel facilities it all depended on you age and length of service, failure to meet any of those left you without!

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

Indeed, one could take the view that there is a safeguarding issue in asking a minor for such information.

 

Not really - the fact that it is a minor makes no difference as to what information can be collected providing said information is being used for a clearly defined purpose. Yes the law generally holds that parental consent is required for most activities involving a minor BUT the last time I look it was not a requirement that a responsible adult be there to give permission for a child to purchase a child railway ticket!

 

In other words if it is legally acceptable for a child to purchase a ticket without parental consent - then challenges by officials can be made without a parent / guardian being present too!

 

People MUST remember that the moment you purchase a ticket , regardless of your age, you are entering into a legal contract that you will abide by the ticketing T&Cs / relevant railway by-laws.

 

It has been explained that one of those railway by-laws includes "Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these By-laws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person"

 

Ergo, if you have a ticket then you are legally obliged to provide the required information however old you are.

 

Now it also has to be remembered that the form (being an official one issued for official purposes) will be covered by GPDR data protection rules as regards what must be done with it. As soon as it is filled in then GA have a legal responsibility to keep the details safe from unauthorised access under said GDPR legislation - so technically if the Guard left it in full view of other passengers for example then GA could end up with a large fine. True if the details of a minor were subject to a GPDR a breach then the fine might well be bigger - but there is no way the principle of asking for the information in the first place could be found to be illegal.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TheQ said:

A minor has to be accompanied by an responsible adult   (parent / social services etc) to be questioned by the police. So a person with even lesser authourity, such as a guard, probably has less rights  to question a minor on anything...

 

She had purchased at ticket and by doing so gave legal consent to be questioned as per railway by-laws.

 

If you don't want to be questioned by a train Guard / Conductor / RPI then don't travel by train

 

Yes it REALLY is that simple!

 

We often hear of people who don't read the small print when buying stuff - then get shocked when something bad happens. Train tickets are no different....

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark Saunders said:

 

Not all former BR staff made redundant left with travel facilities it all depended on you age and length of service, failure to meet any of those left you without!

 

Also, unless you are currently working for a TOC then said travel facilities - are taxable and it is necessary to pay a hefty sum to HM Treasury ever year. ATOC (or whoever call the,selves these days) did offer the opportunity for persons in receipt of 'free travel to give it up in exchange for a small lump sum and a reduced tax bill - however the catch was once sad travel perks were given up you could not ever apply to have them re-instated as you effectively signed away any rights bestowed by the privatisation legislation with respect to ex BR employees / pensioners.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

If you don't want to be questioned by a train Guard / Conductor / RPI then don't travel by train

 

Yes it REALLY is that simple!

 

With all due respect Phil, NO, it is NOT that simple. Had the conductor explained the reason for the request, and treated my daughter as I'm sure he would like to be treated, things would likely have been completely different.

My entire problem with this incident has nothing to do with legalities, technicalities, TOC T&Cs etc etc, it has EVERYTHING to do with the bad attitude displayed by a railway employee who seemed to have formed an opinion without even saying a word.

 

Edit: From my point of view, I think this thread has now run its course. I do appreciate everyone's participation, but as the complaint has now been submitted, I don't think there's anything to add, at least from me.

Edited by Pete 75C
  • Agree 2
  • Friendly/supportive 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

She had purchased at ticket and by doing so gave legal consent to be questioned as per railway by-laws.

 

If you don't want to be questioned by a train Guard / Conductor / RPI then don't travel by train

 

Yes it REALLY is that simple!

 

We often hear of people who don't read the small print when buying stuff - then get shocked when something bad happens. Train tickets are no different....

There is a big difference between being questioned and being treated the way this young lady was.

Purchasing a ticket does not give a railway employee permission to embarrass you in front of other people 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.