Great Western Coffee Shop

All across the Great Western territory => Smoke and Mirrors => Topic started by: grahame on August 06, 2017, 19:45:24



Title: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 06, 2017, 19:45:24
Quoting from Paul Davis on Facebook to the ABC (Association of British Commuters) group. Paul - thank you for your permission to quote you here. The group is one that you need to register and be approved to join (very much as we filter here for spam signups!) - if members are interested, I believe that https://www.facebook.com/groups/1208771822490198/ will take you to them.

Paul writes:

The idea of an ombudsman for rail users is sensible - but if it works like the current ombudsman, Dame Julie Mellor, it will be just another fig leaf. I seriously suggest that we should have an election for the role - and all passengers would be eligible to vote and only people with no connection to the Civil Service, the Cabinet Office or to TOCs would be eligible to stand. We won't allow the rail industry to fund it, but we would abolish the DfT poodle, Transport Focus, which is supposed to be independent and isn't, to pay for the secretariat. We should have a manifesto, too - suggestions below for its points that should be discussed and added to. Should the ombudsman be responsible to the Transport Select Committee or to a not-for-profit like ABC?

Anyway - some suggestions or a starter for 10.

Rail Ombudsman Role Manifesto

1. All deliberations will be conducted under strict liability rules, as now with penalty fares, but with the strict liability reversed so the DfT and TOCs will have to prove that they are not at fault, with the passengers’ complaint upheld otherwise

2. All upheld complaints will be compensated with a straight refund of the fare and a penalty of £50 to be paid to the complainant

3. All fares quoted by TOCs must be the lowest fare for that journey under the circumstances specified by the passenger, including any fares which would be lower if bought in separate segments

4. All ticket machines must offer the lowest possible fare too

5. All disabled passengers must have the right to turn up and travel, and be assisted so that they do not suffer discrimination because of their disability

6. All penalty fares appeals rejected by the scam IPFAS to be reviewed by a properly independent body, not one that calls itself independent and is in fact a machine for making money for the execs of Govia

7. All timetables to be re-assessed to ensure that they haven’t been padded to allow the TOC to make up time. And lateness to be determined not only at the final station but at intermediate stations

8. All repayments for lateness and cancellations to be made within 7 days of the request and a penalty of £50 to be levied if not

9. All employees of TOCs, which are corporations operating in the public sector very much like the BBC, and of the DfT, and all their contractors, with salaries or remuneration over £150k pa, to be named and the total remuneration of each declared – and the gender of each specified

10. The maximum number of passengers allowed on a train or in a carriage to be declared and this to be monitored so it is not exceeded, and if anyone has to travel in an over-crowded train where it hasn't been monitored to be compensated as in para 2

11. Once signed all contracts between TOCs and the DfT to be published in full, with the schedules and any extra elements, including the commercial terms which should be in the public arena, and details of the termination penalties

12. All meetings between the TOCs, Rail Delivery Group, Unions and the DfT to be fully minuted and the minutes published within 7 days of the meeting

13. All relevant statistics, about, for example, lateness, penalty fares, penalty fares appeals, compensation to passengers, lateness in paying will be published monthly

14. All complaints about the rail service to be published on the ombudsman’s website and details of the adjudications also published, with statistics in an easily accessible form


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 06, 2017, 19:49:05
There have been interesting follow ups - without asking each person for permission I can't copy them here.  My own comment (I have obtained permission from myself) was:

Quote
Interesting post, Paul Davies - but there are many devils in the detail of how you would implement some of the elements. As a manifesto it works well, but remembering that a manifesto is a set of proposals which morph into something else - hopefully not too different - when the power to implement is awarded.

Passenger Focus can be rather good where a TOC is failing to meet its franchise responsibilities, but rather less good [understatement] where it's something that should be written in somewhere but isn't - they typically won't look at exploited loopholes. Then you've got the ORR, in London you have London TravelWatch which I believe is statutory and there are TravelWatch organisation in the South West and North West too which are not statutory; these developed from the Transport Users Consultative Committees. You have ... I could go on, and pity the poor passenger or campaigner being passed from pillar to post. I run a forum ... about the franchise that runs out of Paddington, and we have a "smoke and mirrors" board especially for these frustrations. May I post your ideas (currently only on this group, which I don't think is public readable) on there - at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php... - to give further inputs and thoughts from other areas?


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: TaplowGreen on August 06, 2017, 20:53:10
He/she would certainly be busy.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: JayMac on August 06, 2017, 22:57:21
And he/she needs the teeth (that Transport Focus don't have) to hold TOCs to account for the contempt they often show to their passengers. GWR being one of the worst culprits.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: pauljdavies on August 07, 2017, 08:26:25
Just a short explanation of one issue - the so-called Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service (IPFAS), which is used by GWR where a passenger has been issued a penalty fare notice. The appeals service was required by Parliament to be independent and seen to be independent. It is, in fact, just a part of Govia's Southeastern. The DfT has admitted that every time a penalty fare appeal is turned down, the executives of Govia personally benefit -
 so much for the Orwellian "independence". (It isn't a problem, Nick Bisson, then Director of rail wrote, because the amounts compared withe their salaries are small - which rather misses the point about independence.) The DfT has variously falsely claimed that it is " . . an arm's length subsidiary . ." and a " . . separate business unit . ." in order to cover it up. Neither statement is true. If you have had an appeal turned down by IPFAS, please ask for it to be independently reviewed, complain to your MP for the DfT flouting Parliament's wishes, and write to GWR asking them to justify their use of IPFAS and asking them to follow Parliament's wishes. (If you are really masochistic you can ask Transport Focus to take up your case and they will give you all help short of actually doing anything. It is also called "independent", but the DfT funds it, appoints its directors and chairman, has the right to sack them, and I have emails from the DfT asking for information by the back door, which TF willingly supplied.) This whole issue is actually a real scandal and a corrupt practice, but in five years campaigning I have been able to make no progress. Be also aware that Govia has introduced a new scam - that GWR might well try. If a passenger can be issued with a Penalty Fare, but can't pay immediately, a Penalty Fare Enforcement Notice (PEN) should be issued - and you can pay the penalty fare of £20 plus the original fare within 14 days. Govia has taken to not issuing the PEN, but taking the name and address and then sending a demand for £250 - " . . to cover our expenses . ." with the threat of a criminal prosecution if not paid within 21 days. The DfT has such a cosy relationship with Govia it has downright refused to do anything about this - and GWR may also benefit from this. If you are threatened with a penalty fare, make sure that you are issued with a PEN and don't accept any bullying.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on August 07, 2017, 08:37:52
I don't think there's yet any evidence to show GWR have started to do this?


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2017, 10:00:50
Welcome to the forum, PaulJDavies

The rights of the railway's customers, and how they should be applied / implemented, seem to me to be very fogged with confusion.  On most journeys, nothing goes wrong.  On most of the minority where something does go wrong, we shrug our shoulders and "show understanding".  On the minority within that minority, we take up the issue with the train operator, and where that in turn doesn't lead to a satisfactory outcome, we end up in a bit of a problem with a number of bodies which are either toothless or are in the pay of one of the cry bodies about which we are raising an objection.   Train operators are aware of this, and the temptation is great to work systems in the operator's interest knowing that there's little comeback.  Some are tempted far,  far more than others, and customers often get the feeling that things are intentionally awkward for them to follow up to discourage them from doing so.

Adding yet another body (an Omburdsman) to the TOC, IPFAS, National Rail, the DfT, ORR, Travel Focus, London TravelWatch, Network Rail, RDG, Transport Select Committee ... would seem an illogical step - BUT if it can bring all the "wrongdoing of last resort" into one, authoritative, visibly independent location, it could well be a good idea.

I've not heard of IPFAS in use in GWR territory, but an Omburdsman would need to be nationwide.

I may take up - as a separate post and a little later - some of Paul's individual proposals.   With some, I suspect the devil's in the detail and implementing them cleanly could lead to a massive expense on the rail network to be born - perhaps - by the fare paying public.  But that comment's intended to say "careful what's put in / suggested - make it practical" and I would hate to throw out this baby with the bathwater.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on August 07, 2017, 10:08:13
There's an easier solution - make Transport Focus / London TravelWatch truly independent so it can have the teeth it needs. It's the easiest/smoothest solution.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2017, 11:49:06
Just a short explanation of one issue -[[ long, long snip ]] -  If you are threatened with a penalty fare, make sure that you are issued with a PEN and don't accept any bullying.

The problem being that it's so fiendishly complicated that the railway's typical innocent customer hasn't a chance against a bullying system.  The railway's career fare dodger will know all the tricks and be aware of how to lessen her or his exposure to the big penalise, and she / he is the very one they should have been designed to penalise rather than protect.

Others on this thread are (and no doubt will continue to be) very critical of GWR.  Whilst I can't deny that there's plenty to criticise, I do look at other train operator reports and they seem to be worse, and I do recall how things have gotten very much better in so many ways with First in our area (now styled GWR) since they took over where I live some 12 years ago.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: JayMac on August 07, 2017, 12:55:12
I don't think there's yet any evidence to show GWR have started to do this?

GWR have been issuing 'settlement' letters, when ticketing irregularities are suspected, for many years. Their Revenue Protection Policy says they may do so. I'd expect that some who is (was?) on the Customer Panel to know this.

Penalty Fares and prosecutions under Byelaws and RoRA are areas that are tightly regulated and governed. 'Settlement' letters are not. A TOC can demand a payment to settle with the threat that, if not paid, they will prosecute. This way of penalising people, often on suspicion only, with the flimsiest of evidence, is totally unregulated.

"Pay us £xxx or we'll take you to court" is nothing short of demanding money with menaces. It is a practice that should be stopped.

And yes, I know GWR issue such demands. I've had one. It took eight weeks for GWR to confirm I had done nothing wrong. Eight weeks of hassle and threats to prosecute unless I paid £80 to make a problem of their making go away.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on August 07, 2017, 13:56:58
If you've mentioned this event previously, I'm sure I offered to take this up with GWR via the Panel in the past. You refused, without specific evidence it is extremely difficult for the Panel that was to hold GWR to account.

There were examples of other customer complaints that were dealt with by the previous Panel, very successfully. I was happy to take examples anonymsed.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2017, 16:28:59
And yes, I know GWR issue such demands. I've had one. It took eight weeks for GWR to confirm I had done nothing wrong. Eight weeks of hassle and threats to prosecute unless I paid £80 to make a problem of their making go away.

If you've mentioned this event previously, I'm sure I offered to take this up with GWR via the Panel in the past. You refused, without specific evidence it is extremely difficult for the Panel that was to hold GWR to account.

The talk of an Ombudsman is beyond taking up matters with GWR, and exchanges like this serve to demonstrate a lack of trust in a system that's not independent of the train operator.   Please let's look at the that final safety net in this thread and take such exchanges as these as pointer to say we need one - even if the independent ombudsman ends up saying "actually the TOC has that right" in some cases.  At least we'll then be able to trust in the knowledge, and because the ombudsman's there, the TOCs will be careful to not transgress.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: Fourbee on August 07, 2017, 17:10:56
In general, a reasonable maximum time to respond to a complaint is 8 weeks IMO. It works for the banking sector and if a customer is unsatisfied after that period of time or the firm fails to respond then the complaint can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The current glacial timescales for responses - which are sometimes inadequate in any case, just adds another slight to the charge sheet.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 07, 2017, 17:34:36
In general, a reasonable maximum time to respond to a complaint is 8 weeks IMO. It works for the banking sector and if a customer is unsatisfied after that period of time or the firm fails to respond then the complaint can be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

The current glacial timescales for responses - which are sometimes inadequate in any case, just adds another slight to the charge sheet.

I noted "7 days" in the original proposal - though on something slightly different - and felt that was a little tight.   

In my opinion, there are elements of the manifesto which are rather more draconian than I would realistically expect in a final system, and I wondered if they've been driven by an anger that's built up within the Southern area, or as negotiating positions where a compromise in the middle is what's really wanted.   Some of the elements may be rather like putting up an electric fence - very effective but scarcely used as common business practice modifies to avoid the problems - almost like engineering the railway system to become more used friendly via the thread of the Ombusman.  I also worry at the expense of some of the items (I'm starting to sound like another member here!) and fear that much of the expense might be met by raising fares and by cancelling services that are no longer profitable.   A final concern that so much extra regulation may discourage too many bidders from going for franchises.   Already there were only two on the South West ...

Anyway ... PaulJDavies started with "some suggestions / your starter", so indicates to me he's welcoming of constructive comments, and probably will be even more welcoming of discussions on individual points.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: JayMac on August 07, 2017, 17:54:50
If you've mentioned this event previously, I'm sure I offered to take this up with GWR via the Panel in the past. You refused, without specific evidence it is extremely difficult for the Panel that was to hold GWR to account.

There were examples of other customer complaints that were dealt with by the previous Panel, very successfully. I was happy to take examples anonymsed.

I neither wanted, nor sought, assistance from the Customer Panel. It's as toothless as Transport Focus.

Had there been an Ombudsman with big enough boots to seriously kick butt I may have considered using them regardless of the outcome of GWR's attempt to prosecute me for trying to buy my ticket at the earliest opportunity.



Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 08, 2017, 06:47:16
I'm not sure I should have started looking at this point by point, but I am interested in practical ideas to improve things for passengers, and at the same time aware of going too far and creating side effects.   As I am not a politician / have no role in setting up and proposing for the future, this will appear somewhat negative - showing concerns but not suggesting too many alternatives.  But, please, others could do that.

Quote
1. All deliberations will be conducted under strict liability rules, as now with penalty fares, but with the strict liability reversed so the DfT and TOCs will have to prove that they are not at fault, with the passengers’ complaint upheld otherwise

So that's "innocent until proven guilty" rather than "guilty until proven innocent"?   That's exactly how it should be, but it potentially sets up a rogues charter.  The current system, though, generates some horrific stories.  Of a friend of ours bring told to leave first class and being threated with the BTP if he didn't ... oh, he had a valid first class ticket - just he's young, very short haired and the train manager assumed he ony had a standard ticket. But then an assumption that the passnger who heads straight for the loo on boarding, only coming out as the destination is reached, may be fair on the balance of probability.  But "innocent until proven guilty" will make it much harder to get such people to pay for their journey - putting the price up for the rest of us.

Quote
2. All upheld complaints will be compensated with a straight refund of the fare and a penalty of £50 to be paid to the complainant

Quote
3. All fares quoted by TOCs must be the lowest fare for that journey under the circumstances specified by the passenger, including any fares which would be lower if bought in separate segments.

Agreed. Yes, I know the system is hard and complex to work out for a ticket clerk - but various fare splitting sites hava managed to do it, so it should be possible to build it into national rail ticketing too.   

Where people don't know exactly when they'll be returning, it should be ensured that they know of their right to buy for the cheaper return time, and to excess their ticket if (in the end) they want to come back on a peak train.

Quote
4. All ticket machines must offer the lowest possible fare too

I'm going to suggest you go further and suggest that the cheapest fare valid on the next train should be offered within the first set of fares for that journey, and not down on "see more fares" pages as often happens at present.

Quote
5. All disabled passengers must have the right to turn up and travel, and be assisted so that they do not suffer discrimination because of their disability

In principle yes ... but I worry about places like Avoncliff, where the practicallity of providing anything except steps is questionable, and I worry about users who need larger mobility vehicles that are difficult or impossible to load at times. The key is in definition, and if "alternative" means road transport called up from a communication device, fair enough.

Quote
6. All penalty fares appeals rejected by the scam IPFAS to be reviewed by a properly independent body, not one that calls itself independent and is in fact a machine for making money for the execs of Govia

Wording shows anger.  Penalty fare appeals may go to the Ombudsman

Quote
7. All timetables to be re-assessed to ensure that they haven’t been padded to allow the TOC to make up time. And lateness to be determined not only at the final station but at intermediate stations

No - sorry.  I would rather have padding time within my journey to allow little catch up opportunities so that my connection doesn't miss along the way.  And biasing those extra minutes towards the latter part of the journey helps to ensure that time can be made up from any delays, rather than having to hang around halfway to await time, just to get delayed later in the journey.

But agreed that lateness shouldn't only be measured at final station

Quote
8. All repayments for lateness and cancellations to be made within 7 days of the request and a penalty of £50 to be levied if not

None-disputed within 10 working days; disputed ones 56 days, with reason for dispute to be given.

Quote
9. All employees of TOCs, which are corporations operating in the public sector very much like the BBC, and of the DfT, and all their contractors, with salaries or remuneration over £150k pa, to be named and the total remuneration of each declared – and the gender of each specified

Quote
10. The maximum number of passengers allowed on a train or in a carriage to be declared and this to be monitored so it is not exceeded, and if anyone has to travel in an over-crowded train where it hasn't been monitored to be compensated as in para 2

So not really a "maximum allowed" then - which would mean turfing the excess off or denying boarding. Get help from United airline to drag people off because staff need to travel to work next service ;-)

Nice idea to discourage TOCs from running two rammed carriages where three should be provided.  BUT concerns are the cost of providing an extra carriage for the one short leg that the train's busy, the ability of the TOC to forecast unusual flows, and that as written it looks like full refund for whole journey plus £50 for a short overcrowd.  If that were impemented, it would put an end to practices such as the London - Bristol express stopping at Oldfield Park if the train from Weymouth was short formed and a big crowd was waiting, because everyone on the train from London would be refunded!

Quote
11. Once signed all contracts between TOCs and the DfT to be published in full, with the schedules and any extra elements, including the commercial terms which should be in the public arena, and details of the termination penalties

Quote
12. All meetings between the TOCs, Rail Delivery Group, Unions and the DfT to be fully minuted and the minutes published within 7 days of the meeting

Please no, if that's saying what I think it is.  So much is learned and good done by chatting across roles, and if every such chat was subject to a formal procedure nothing would get done because everything would be tied up in red tape.

Quote
13. All relevant statistics, about, for example, lateness, penalty fares, penalty fares appeals, compensation to passengers, lateness in paying will be published monthly

Quote
14. All complaints about the rail service to be published on the ombudsman’s website and details of the adjudications also published, with statistics in an easily accessible form

Suitably anonymised?



OK - some of that is Devil's Advocate mode.  ... comments and further thoughts welcome by me ( PaulJDavies may wonder what he has bitten off with us!)


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on August 08, 2017, 08:57:33
Then don't complain about those who were willing to serve on it to try & make (and we did) for a better customer experience. Others were willing & we managed to achieve change


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: Fourbee on August 08, 2017, 09:24:54
In my opinion, there are elements of the manifesto which are rather more draconian than I would realistically expect in a final system, and I wondered if they've been driven by an anger that's built up within the Southern area, or as negotiating positions where a compromise in the middle is what's really wanted.   Some of the elements may be rather like putting up an electric fence - very effective but scarcely used as common business practice modifies to avoid the problems - almost like engineering the railway system to become more used friendly via the thread of the Ombusman.

I have made quite a lot of complaints to the FOS on behalf of others, some successful, some unsuccessful. It is noticiable though over the years how firms subject to FOS complaints have improved by making a real effort to get things right first time and quicker (usually this involves a phone call within a few days of them receiving the initial communication). AIUI there is a fee payable of £500 for every case which reaches the FOS; there is a finanical incentive to avoid this step from happening. There is no deterrent for TOCs as it stands, so inevitably, we have the current unsatisfactory situation.

Ultimately, if I made a complaint to a TOC today, they could put it in the special filing cabinet (the bin) and no tangible sanctions would follow (unless I elected to go to court/did a chargeback).


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on August 09, 2017, 21:34:21
https://conversation.which.co.uk/travel-leisure/orr-complaints-trains-delays-ombudsman/

Quote
Complaints about rail services have risen once again, according to latest data from the rail regulator. Punctuality and reliability of services were the most common complaint made by passengers. So how can we get trains on track?

The Office of Rail and Road has revealed that the number of complaints being made by passengers on our railways rose by 7.5% in the year 2016-17, with over half a million complaints in total.

In truth, this doesn’t come as a surprise to many of us here at Which?, especially after thousands of supporters of our rail campaign shared with us their experiences of using trains in the UK. Their stories highlighted the multiple basic failings that passengers are having to put up with every day…


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: NickB on August 10, 2017, 09:58:31
Power to declare Void Days would be an important step forward for me - stripping this inconsistent decision from the TOCs.
 
Also, I've always felt that neither the season ticket discount process for delays, nor delay repay is a perfect system.  I would like to see the floor (5%/10%) for season ticket compensation removed, and it be directly linked to the performance figures.  If the TOC provides 97% of trains on time then the discount is 3%.  If however it falls to 82% then the discount is 18%.
Currently there is no incentive to improve services once a trigger has been crossed - it wouldn't surprise me if GWR 'planned' for all of their renewals to be discounted by 5% every year!  The compensation should be available as cash rather than a discount on renewal if you have become so sick of train travel that you are switching to driving/staying at home.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: t0m on August 17, 2017, 21:46:37
Power to declare Void Days would be an important step forward for me - stripping this inconsistent decision from the TOCs.
 
Also, I've always felt that neither the season ticket discount process for delays, nor delay repay is a perfect system.  I would like to see the floor (5%/10%) for season ticket compensation removed, and it be directly linked to the performance figures.  If the TOC provides 97% of trains on time then the discount is 3%.  If however it falls to 82% then the discount is 18%.
Currently there is no incentive to improve services once a trigger has been crossed - it wouldn't surprise me if GWR 'planned' for all of their renewals to be discounted by 5% every year!  The compensation should be available as cash rather than a discount on renewal if you have become so sick of train travel that you are switching to driving/staying at home.

Here here on all of these points. I can see no reason why there should be so much national inconsistency with operators free to choose these arrangements by themselves..


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on November 07, 2017, 07:04:13
Better very late than never - closes TODAY ...

http://orr.gov.uk/rail/consultations/open-consultations/changes-to-complaints-handling-guidance

Not sure how we missed that one earlier - or perhaps we were supposed to miss it?

Background / comment

http://www.thecomplainingcow.co.uk/rail-ombudsman-is-finally-coming-down-the-tracks-consultation-closing-soon/


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on February 09, 2018, 17:46:33
from Which? (https://conversation.which.co.uk/travel-leisure/rail-ombudsman-passenger-complaints/)

Quote
WIN! The rail regulator will soon require all train companies to participate in a free-to-use ombudsman scheme to handle passenger complaints. We’ve been calling for this extra level of redress to protect your rights for some time, so will this change help you?

The new rail ombudsman will be responsible for investigating customer complaints when train companies have failed to take action.

If the ombudsman identifies valid complaints and claims that the train company has disregarded, then the ombudsman will be able to overrule the train company’s decision.

[etc]


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: TaplowGreen on February 09, 2018, 18:33:22
Excellent news & long overdue.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: JayMac on February 09, 2018, 22:16:34
Some teeth at last.

Fantastic news for passengers.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on February 10, 2018, 16:00:20
And you can be on the Panel!

The posts are being advertised on the Transport Focus website. Posting from my iphone, so cutting/pasting a link difficult, but the ad ought to be easy to find


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: Western Pathfinder on February 10, 2018, 22:17:18
Might this be of some help I wonder
https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/publications/transport-focus-board-member-application-pack/


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on February 11, 2018, 07:17:37
It's actually this link

https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/publications/penalty-fares-third-stage-independent-appeals-panel-information-applicants/


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on July 18, 2018, 17:32:24
Now from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44870685)

Quote
A new rail ombudsman is to be set up to handle complaints from passengers about train travel.
Complaints about train services are currently running at over half a million a year, following widespread dissatisfaction.
The ombudsman will deal with complaints that have not been resolved by train operators or passenger groups such as Transport Focus.
It is thought around 6,000 complaints a year will be referred to the service.
All the UK's train operators have signed up to the ombudsman, meaning they will be obliged to take action if failings are identified.
"This is an important step by the industry. An independent and effective ombudsman, working closely with consumer groups, will ensure passengers get a fair deal and give them a stronger voice," said rail minister Jo Johnson.
"And it will also help the rail companies to improve their service to passengers."

continues


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: ChrisB on July 19, 2018, 09:49:13
It'll be interesting to see how this is going to work.

I'm guessing that the customer would have to go via Transport Focus (TF) initially, as now, before either self-referral to the ombudsman if TF either cannot resolve to customer's satisfaction, or at all. Or only if TF recommends it....otherwise the number of referrals from customers (especially in this current climate) will make the estimate of 6,000 referrals a year look minuscule!

This is the RDG's press release (https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2018/469774228-2018-07-18.html)

Quote
Rail industry appoints first ombudsman to improve complaints procedure for customers


Rail industry appoints ‘Dispute Resolution Ombudsman’ to rule on complaints as part of the rail industry’s plan to change and improve.

Working on behalf of train operators and Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) has appointed Dispute Resolution Ombudsman to establish the first ombudsman for the rail industry to rule on customer complaints. The independent body, which already provides an ombudsman service for other industries, will have the power to hold train companies to account.

Last October, as part of the industry’s joint plan to change and improve, rail companies committed to creating a rail ombudsman to further build confidence in services. The accessible and free to use rail ombudsman service will launch in November and it will cover rail journeys throughout Britain.

Customers that are unhappy with the outcomes of their complaints to rail companies will be able to refer them to be formally ruled on by experts in consumer rights, giving customers greater confidence that they will get a fair hearing. Decisions by the ombudsman will be binding and rail companies will have to take action if failings are identified.  The appointment follows a competitive procurement process.

Rail Minister, Jo Johnson, said:

“When train companies fall short, it is vital that passengers get the redress they deserve and are treated with respect

“This is an important step by the industry - an independent and effective ombudsman, working closely with consumer groups, will ensure passengers get a fair deal and give them a stronger voice. And it will also help the rail companies to improve their service to passengers.”

Jacqueline Starr, Managing Director of Customer Experience at the Rail Delivery group, said:

“Rail companies have worked together to appoint the first rail ombudsman to help us deliver on the commitment set out in our long-term plan to increase customer satisfaction and remain the highest rated major railway in Europe.”

The new scheme builds on the successful passenger advocacy carried out by Transport Focus and London TravelWatch over many years.  The new ombudsman will have the power to make redress decisions that will be binding on train operating companies.

Train Operating Companies and Network Rail are supporting the ombudsman, reflecting their commitment to improve services for customers.

Kevin Grix, Chief Executive and Chief Ombudsman at the Dispute Resolution Ombudsman, said:

“We are delighted to be appointed the Ombudsman for Rail and are looking forward to launching our service in November 2018. With our legal foundation and decades of experience providing alternative dispute resolution to some of the UK’s most recognised retailers we are well placed to support future improvement in the rail sector.”

The new ombudsman is part of the railway’s plan to change and improve. Working in partnership, the industry’s long-term plan will secure £85 billion of additional economic benefit, increase customer satisfaction, boost local communities and create more and better jobs in rail.



Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: JayMac on July 19, 2018, 12:42:02
I do hope Ombudsman staff that, until now, have largely dealt with disputes between consumers and furniture sellers, DIY and home improvement retailers, will be sufficiently well trained in the complex and often arcane rules, rights and regulations that govern the contract between rail user and TOC.


Title: Re: A rail ombudsman - suggested role manifesto
Post by: grahame on July 19, 2018, 13:24:01
I do hope Ombudsman staff that, until now, have largely dealt with disputes between consumers and furniture sellers, DIY and home improvement retailers, will be sufficiently well trained in the complex and often arcane rules, rights and regulations that govern the contract between rail user and TOC.

The press release seeks to re-assure that they are "well placed to support future improvement in the rail sector"

Under "About us" on their web page, they write (https://www.disputeresolutionombudsman.org)

Quote
Growing out of our established role as The Furniture Ombudsman, we are an independent, not-for-profit, government approved organisation set up to help resolve retail disputes.Our highly-trained staff provide impartial Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services to consumers and retailers, helping both sides reach a fair and reasonable outcome, which is binding on our members. In addition, extensive support and training for retailers helps to raise standards and boost consumer confidence. Dispute Resolution Ombudsman is approved by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, is a member of the Ombudsman Association, and works closely with the following professional bodies.



This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net