Rail Ombudsman launched - 26th November 2018

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

The franchise agreement was superceded by the pandemic’s EMA & ERMA. It no longer exists

..........and the Rail Ombudsman exists to deal with quality of service based on consumer rights, it specifically states that they cannot look into rail industry policies.

Perhaps you should complain to someone about the Ombudsman? Is there an Ombudsman Ombudsman?

[Robin Summerhill]

The franchise agreement was superceded by the pandemic’s EMA & ERMA. It no longer exists

Which type of agreement covers SWT^▸ (South West Trains) operations is largely irrelevant. What is relevant is whether they have broken any agreement or commitment in the agreement that is currently in place.

[grahame]

You like playing devil’s advocate from time to time and so do I! 

I believe the answers to be "no" and "no".  And the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) know it.

If everything had been followed correctly, we wouldn't have had to wait two cycles for the FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information) response. And if the outcome had been fair and reasonable, we would not have such support not only from the public, but from the expert too.

When I was  Formal Complaints Officer for a housing association (internal Ombudsman if you like) who prided himself in solving complaints well before they got anywhere near the Housing Ombudsman, I used to ask two questions:

1.   Were all policies and procedures correctly followed?
2.   Even if they were, was the outcome fair and reasonable under the circumstances?

Having answers "no" and "no", Robin, much of the rest of your case is somewhat built on sand, and is very selective in what and how it is presented.

I think the conclusion we're coming to is that there is no-one charged with holding the decisions of the DfT to task, even where hardly anyone agrees with them or their messages. The Rail Ombudsman and Transport Focus are both charged with taking care of the farthings and mandated to ignore the guineas.

[snip]

So in truth, your complaint boils down to a lack of convenience both in terms of having to change trains and having poor connections (call it poor customer service of you like) but even so the matter leans towards the subjective. If you now have to change trains on what was once a through journey, any connection could be seen by some to be a poor connection.

Could - but isn't.  Take a look at the poll I ran, Robin , to check the validity of the connection offered. Only 1 in 40 felt that over 45 minutes was reasonable.  Whereas almost everyone is happy with up to 15 minutes.  And people make choices on how they feel and what you describe as "subjective" becomes objective.

As regards changing trains and poor customer service, if, as I understand it, SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) want the stock to augment capacity on the Salisbury to Exeter route, they may argue that your resultant reduced service is more than outweighed by an improvement in service for others between Salisbury and Exeter. And an official body might well agree with them.

Might ... but none has they have gone the other way

In addition of course, SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are one class 159 short at the moment as a result of the mishap at Salisbury. Now might not be a very good time to argue for more coaching stock to be in service for that reason alone.

It does indeed give them a soundbite to use against those who haven't checked up on the details, read the FOI, or thought it through.  How useful for the DfT that most passengers all into that uninformed group - remember that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.

[Robin Summerhill]

Having answers "no" and "no", Robin, much of the rest of your case is somewhat built on sand, and is very selective in what and how it is presented.

I think the conclusion we're coming to is that there is no-one charged with holding the decisions of the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to task, even where hardly anyone agrees with them or their messages. The Rail Ombudsman and Transport Focus are both charged with taking care of the farthings and mandated to ignore the guineas.

Your response is not unlike that from people who didn't like the contents and conclusions in my Complaints reports! That said, in the nine years I held that job only two of my complaints went to the Housing Ombudsman. In one case we "won" and in the other it was a draw (the compaimant was awarded £200 compensation rather than the £2500 he claimed)

Take a look at the poll I ran, Robin , to check the validity of the connection offered. Only 1 in 40 felt that over 45 minutes was reasonable.  Whereas almost everyone is happy with up to 15 minutes.  And people make choices on how they feel and what you describe as "subjective" becomes objective.

I agree that the current connections at Salisury are not good, as indeed I agreed with you the last time we met in person. But in terms of policy poll results mean nothing - as somebody said on TV only tonight, if there had been a poll/ referendum on the London congestion charge then there wouldn't be one

In addition of course, SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are one class 159 short at the moment as a result of the mishap at Salisbury. Now might not be a very good time to argue for more coaching stock to be in service for that reason alone.

It does indeed give them a soundbite to use against those who haven't checked up on the details, read the FOI^▸ (Freedom of Information), or thought it through.  How useful for the DfT that most passengers all into that uninformed group - remember that you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.

I was merely making a statement of fact, not drawing any conclusions from it. But, if SWT are using that as an argument/ excuse - well, that's politics...

[grahame]

The Rail Ombudsman has declined to take the case - just passed it on. Transport Focus have restated "we are frustratingly unable to help."    The case has not been looked at; rather we are told "the buck does not stop here".  You draw on similarities to your experience of complaints handling, and I would quite expect my disappointment to mirror the disappointment you would have engendered if people brought you a case and you and other bodies passed over it as being out of scope.

There are indeed multiple cases - the operational case, the passenger case, the legal case, the moral case, the political case, the sustainability case, the dogma case, the environment case, the business case, the financial case and the (wider) economic case. You have the cases short term, next-general-election term, medium term and long term. On some we are on stronger grounds than others.

[TaplowGreen]

The Rail Ombudsman has declined to take the case - just passed it on. Transport Focus have restated "we are frustratingly unable to help."    The case has not been looked at; rather we are told "the buck does not stop here".  You draw on similarities to your experience of complaints handling, and I would quite expect my disappointment to mirror the disappointment you would have engendered if people brought you a case and you and other bodies passed over it as being out of scope.

There are indeed multiple cases - the operational case, the passenger case, the legal case, the moral case, the political case, the sustainability case, the dogma case, the environment case, the business case, the financial case and the (wider) economic case. You have the cases short term, next-general-election term, medium term and long term. On some we are on stronger grounds than others.

You need to temper your disappointment with reality and perspective - the Rail Ombudsman declined to take the case as it is clearly outside their scope and remit - they have no authority to look into the issues you've raised - that is not passing the buck, that is being straightforward and managing your expectations.

They referred you, in good faith, to another body that they thought may be able to help - you yourself praised them for the manner in which they did this.

I suspect your angst would have been greater had they launched an investigation and then come back to you 6 weeks down the road to tell you that it was outside their remit.

The difficulty with getting passionate about a cause is that it's easy to suffer with tunnel vision, albeit well intentioned no doubt.

[Mark A]

Then I would ask what consultation requirements are in the franchise agreement. Have they broken any rules on this? If they have you have “got” them, if they haven’t they haven’t broken a rule there either.

Thanks, Robin, for this post, you make very good points. As ChrisB says elsewhere the franchises might be six feet under. Perhaps the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) might need to be a bit more on their toes about the requirements of the Equality Act(2010) as the decision disadvantages women and also people who are disabled, or perhaps someone ought to pull the cork out of the bottle labelled 'Judicial review' and waft that scent beneath their noses. Works for other issues after all!

One of the difficulties you will encounter is that there are no proposals to lose stations – each and every one remains open – and the journey(s) can still be made in full by rail, albeit with a change of trains at Salisbury.

Yes, and this must resonate with experiences of the rail closures of the 60s, with a swathe of the system being used by few passengers, something which was occasionally followed by the 'Cock up or conspiracy' question - when passengers found that trains that had previously connected no longer did so.

So in truth, your complaint boils down to a lack of convenience both in terms of having to change trains and having poor connections (call it poor customer service of you like) but even so the matter leans towards the subjective.

A gross historical example for this must be when in 1962, passengers arriving at Nottingham Victoria for stations north found the majority of northbound services had ceased to run - and station staff instructed them to make their own way to the (much inferior) connections available at the Midland station, a mile away at the edge of the city centre.

In terms of convenience, some women travellers will look upon a long term 50 minute evening connection between two train companies which have low aspirations for their customers, at a station which is habitually  sparsely populated... this is an experience they'd rather not risk even if the physical risk is low, and they feel this way no matter how many staff or security cameras there are. GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway)/ SWR^» (South Western Railway - about) have a completely different perspective on this to their travelling public.

In addition of course, SWT^▸ (South West Trains) are one class 159 short at the moment as a result of the mishap at Salisbury. Now might not be a very good time to argue for more coaching stock to be in service for that reason alone.

Train operating companies simply lease their rolling stock, yes? No idea how it works when they pick up the phone and say 'Sorry, we've broken one' but is there a way for it not to end up being the customer's problem?

[grahame]

You need to temper your disappointment with reality and perspective - the Rail Ombudsman declined to take the case as it is clearly outside their scope and remit - they have no authority to look into the issues you've raised - that is not passing the buck, that is being straightforward and managing your expectations.

They referred you, in good faith, to another body that they thought may be able to help - you yourself praised them for the manner in which they did this.

I suspect your angst would have been greater had they launched an investigation and then come back to you 6 weeks down the road to tell you that it was outside their remit.

The difficulty with getting passionate about a cause is that it's easy to suffer with tunnel vision, albeit well intentioned no doubt.

Indeed - the negative connotations of "passing the buck" are unfortunate and were not intended to be negative on the people there who responded. It was the correct thing they are mandated to do, which is indeed to pass on such serious systemic issues, and I am relieved they did it quickly.

There is much value to reading carefully everything that's written and indeed see the awkward as well as the supportive elements, and understanding them to be aware of the total picture.   But those elements will typically provide elements to be addressed within proposals and suggestion and rarely headlines.

[grahame]

During checking around and research, I came cross this screen of logos, showing just how complex our system is with so many companies and the need to select the right one to raise issues with.  Even more of a surprise - in amongst that little lot,  could not find Transport for London ... I guess you have to go elsewhere if you have a problem with them - London TravelWatch??

[stuving]

During checking around and research, I came cross this screen of logos, showing just how complex our system is with so many companies and the need to select the right one to raise issues with.  Even more of a surprise - in amongst that little lot,  could not find Transport for London ... I guess you have to go elsewhere if you have a problem with them - London TravelWatch??

Indeed:

If you've made a complaint to us and are not satisfied with the response, there are further steps you can take.

We try to resolve your complaint the first time you contact us. If you are not satisfied with our response, tell us and we will ask a team manager to review it.

Taking your complaint further

If you are still unhappy with the outcome, you can ask London TravelWatch or the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) to consider your complaint.

• London TravelWatch considers public transport complaints
• The LGO considers complaints about streets and traffic

[Trowres]

New consultation from ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) on the Rail Ombudsman (closing date 5th August 2022):-

We are consulting on:

• proposals for an operating model for the future Rail Ombudsman, which specifies the functions it will perform and to what standard, as well as the way it will be constituted, governed and held to account; and
• proposed licence modifications required as part of the ORR sponsorship process.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-consultations/consultation-draft-rail-ombudsman-operating-model

[ChrisB]

It seems as though this consultation has led to the appointment by the ORR^» (Office of Rail and Road formerly Office of Rail Regulation - about) of a new rail ombudsman recently.

The ORR says -

ORR appoints provider and strengthens Rail Ombudsman scheme for passengers

The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has today announced Dispute Resolution Ombudsman (DRO) as the provider of the new ORR-sponsored Rail Ombudsman scheme.

Dispute Resolution Ombudsman, who operate the current Rail Ombudsman scheme under a Rail Delivery Group contract, were appointed following a competitive tender process and their contract will run for five years.

The ORR sponsored scheme will introduce improvements for passengers, including:

- strengthening the accessibility requirements of the scheme, including by building improved representation of disabled passenger interests into the scheme’s governance arrangements
- a requirement to undertake testing around the access and usability of the scheme for passengers with disabilities, as well as testing general passenger awareness of the service
- strengthened relationships with transport user groups

ORR also intends to review options for reducing current case-handling response times down from the current standard of 40 working days.

Stephanie Tobyn, Director for Strategy, Policy and Reform at the ORR said:

“ORR is delighted to be delivering on the Plan for Rail commitment to take on sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman. An Ombudsman is vitally important in providing resolution where passenger complaints cannot be settled directly with the train company.

“ORR sponsorship provides ongoing stability to the Rail Ombudsman scheme, assures its independence, and supports its continued evolution in driving continuous improvement across industry.”

The May 2021 Plan for Rail set out an intent for ORR to take over sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman from the Rail Delivery Group (RDG^‡(resolve)). Since this announcement, ORR has been working with stakeholders in government, industry, transport user groups and the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) sector to put in place the arrangements to take on ORR’s new sponsorship role. This included launching a competitive tender process earlier this year to find a provider for the ORR-sponsored scheme.

Kevin Grix, CEO^▸ (Chief Executive Officer) and chief ombudsman of the Rail Ombudsman, said:

“We are proud that our work to raise standards and resolve disputes over the last five years, as the serving Rail Ombudsman, has been recognised as the best solution by the ORR for the future. This recognition enables us to take forward our work delivering for passengers and the rail industry.  We welcome the ORR’s plans to improve the passenger experience and look forward to playing a central role in helping them.”

ORR will be working closely with Dispute Resolution Ombudsman, Rail Ombudsman scheme members and wider stakeholders to support the transition to the new ORR sponsored scheme, which will come into effect later this year.

Consumers need not take any action and can continue to access the Rail Ombudsman scheme as normal throughout the transition period.

Edit to clarify link back to original article - grahame