New FGW Customer Service initiative?

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

Following ongoing correspondence with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Customer Services in relation to a specific complaint raised by me (more of which later - once the issue is resolved) I received a response yesterday which included the following:

From a FGW CS Advisor on 6th May 2011.

You may be reassured to learn that we have been looking at how we can deliver improvements to our service and have announced additional investment to achieve this. We are investing ^4 million in a new training package and this will help us to offer the excellent customer service we are determined to provide.

Now this is quite interesting and raises some, in my opinion, interesting points.

FGW instigated a wide ranging programme to improve Customer Services when they were awarded the Greater Western franchise in 2006. Many important points of the franchise commitment with regard to Customer Service were explicitly proscribed in the Invitation to Tender. This was necessary as they were amalgamating three franchises (FGW, FGW Link and Wessex Trains). One point of contact was initiated and improvements such as the Customer Panel were introduced. A retraining scheme (which was offered by First Group as part of their bid) for all frontline staff was also begun called "Putting Customers First."

Now it would appear, according to the email I received, that the previous initiatives either didn't go far enough, or they have failed in their aims. To be spending ^4 million on a new initiative so late into the franchise appears to me to be an acknowledgement that Customer Services have been falling short of the expectations of both the customer and First Group. Either that or First Group are gearing up for a charm offensive to accompany a franchise extension and possibly a rigorous, strong bid to retain the Greater Western franchise.

Finally, I'll focus on the word 'announced'. I've not found any details of this new Customer Service initiative in the public domain. So I'm wondering just where its been announced. 

[Super Guard]

"Putting Customers First" was ^4m wasn't it ?  The reason that money was spent was part of the remedial action required to keep the franchise.  I personally think that is what the CS Adviser was referring to.  I seriously doubt a further ^4m of investment is going into customer service when there is so much uncertainty over the future of the franchise - just my opinion though.

[JayMac]

I hope that's not the case Donkey Guard.

The Remedial Plan Notice was issued on February 26th 2008 and for a CS Advisor to refer to it in a response to a complaint lodged on April 8th 2011 would be shocking if it were true.

The particular complaint I lodged has taken nearly a month to get a personal response and it has gone to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Towers at Swindon and it is still being investigated.

I was made aware of how the complaint was progressing following three separate follow up telephone calls to CS in Plymouth. Finally, yesterday, the management response was passed back to me via CS as there was substantial information to impart. If the CS Advisor has put in a bit of inaccurate corporate guff along with the pertinent details passed on by management then that would be disappointing.

I hope what you say is indeed 'just my opinion'. And please understand that this response to your post is in no way a personal dig.

[the void]

Of course they are referring to PCF. It's still ongoing, so it is still (kind of) relevant. They've just pulled that paragraph from the ^big file of standard paragraphs designed to answer any given complaint^. You're reading too much into it I'm afraid.

[Super Guard]

I hope what you say is indeed 'just my opinion'. And please understand that this response to your post is in no way a personal dig.

 

Not at all, hence why I said it was only my opinion, as i've not heard anything of a new CS initiative, but I am not necessarily the first to know about such things 

[JayMac]

This topic was started in May 2011.

I've had recent correspondence with First Great Western following a complaint I submitted after being denied travel at London Paddington in the evening peak despite holding a valid ticket.

Guess what's included in the response?

Third paragraph:

You may be reassured to learn that we have been looking at how we can deliver improvements to our service and have announced additional investment to achieve this. We are investing ^4 million in a new training package and this will help us to offer the excellent customer service we are determined to provide.

Exactly the same paragraph as two years ago. 

The prompt response to my complaint and the goodwill gesture are most welcome, but to continue to big up this 'investment' is, frankly, a load of tosh. It was old news in 2011. Why are FGW^▸ (First Great Western) still including it in written responses to complaints? ^4 million spent every year? I think not. Stop bullsh*****g FGW.

Casts a large shadow over an otherwise prompt and satisfactory response to my complaint.

[the void]

This topic was started in May 2011.

I've had recent correspondence with First Great Western following a complaint I submitted after being denied travel at London Paddington in the evening peak despite holding a valid ticket.

Guess what's included in the response?

Third paragraph:

You may be reassured to learn that we have been looking at how we can deliver improvements to our service and have announced additional investment to achieve this. We are investing ^4 million in a new training package and this will help us to offer the excellent customer service we are determined to provide.

Exactly the same paragraph as two years ago. 

The prompt response to my complaint and the goodwill gesture are most welcome, but to continue to big up this 'investment' is, frankly, a load of tosh. It was old news in 2011. Why are FGW^▸ (First Great Western) still including it in written responses to complaints? ^4 million spent every year? I think not. Stop bullsh*****g FGW.

Casts a large shadow over an otherwise prompt and satisfactory response to my complaint.

The short answer is thus - FGW Customer Services is outsourced to Serco with operations in Plymouth and India. As with most 'customer services' operations, rather than giving a proper and thoughtful reply to each piece of correspondence, the majority are just palmed off with a standard reply and a voucher. If the complaint is about a number of different matters you will probably receive a reply cobbled together from a number of different standard letters. What has clearly happened here is that some bright spark has been searching though the standard letters, found an old one, liked the bit about  ^4m investment and thought ^that^ll do^. So in truth FGW aren^t really banging on about this old news, but rather some agent working for Serco has taking it upon themselves to do so on FGW^s behalf.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Nevertheless, it has been sent out on First Great Western headed paper - so they must take responsibility for it.

[the void]

Nevertheless, it has been sent out on First Great Western headed paper - so they must take responsibility for it.

i'm not saying it's right, just telling how it is.

[grahame]

This topic was started in May 2011.

I've had recent correspondence with First Great Western following a complaint I submitted after being denied travel at London Paddington in the evening peak despite holding a valid ticket.

And I'm guessing that the problem related once again to someone thinking that the ticket was not valid, rather than travel being denied because of an unusually large passenger flow, the cancellation of all trains, or you not being fit to travel in someone's view.

[JayMac]

Indeed grahame. Gateline staffer on the overbridge refused to let me through to board the 1800 to Bristol. I actually put the wrong ticket in the gate and got the 'Seek Assistence'. Had I put the correct ticket in the staff member would have been none the wiser.

As it was he told me my ticket was not valid and I should go to the ticket office via platform 1 to get it changed/excessed.

I knew my ticket was valid, but had no proof other than the two letter validity code that was actually printed on it. I asked in the ticket office, after queueing for some 15 minutes, for confirmation of the text that applied to the validity code for my ticket. This request was refused and despite the clerk, a colleague, and a supervisor looking up the validity they were all adamant that I couldn't travel on my ticket until 1930. They had the text there in front of them. The fare was set by another TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) but these FGW^▸ (First Great Western) staff all said that Paddington's evening restrictions overrode the published validity. I couldn't get them to give me permission to travel and I was warned that if I tried boarding the 1830 I may be liable to a penalty fare, excess or prosecution. The supervisor actually walked away from me mid-conversation, but not before ensuring the microphone was on full volume where his berating me could be heard by all those in the queue. After he walked away the clerk just shrugged his shoulders.

As no one in the ticket office would confirm validity, despite them having it there in front of them on both the Journey Planner and from consulting 'The Manual', I left. I went to the information desk and requested the Duty Station Manager. In just under 10 minutes he understood the issue, confirmed my ticket was valid 'At Any Time' on the return journey and provided me with a print out of the text for the relevant validity code. By now though I'd missed the 1830 so I was delayed by an hour by the incompetence of the gateline staffer, two ticket office clerks and a ticket office supervisor. I can somewhat forgive the gateline staffer whose training in ticket validities will be minimal - although the benefit of the doubt should have been given. It's harder to forgive the ticket office staff who had the information there in front of them, but chose to ignore it.

The correspondence received yesterday included compensation for the delay and acknowledgement that my 'Off Peak Day Return' was valid 'At Any Time' on the return journey. There's a promise that my complaint and how I was dealt with at Paddington will be brought to the attention of senior management.

As part of the complaint I also brought up the issue of the screens at Paddington showing the 'Off Peak tickets are not valid on this service' messages. I've said many times that this is misleading as there are a wide variety of journeys for which travel out of Paddington on an Off Peak ticket in the evening peak is allowed. My ticket was just such one of these. This part of my complaint is to be forwarded to Paddington's station manager. I have little hope though that anything will change in this respect though.

The letter finishes by telling me that FGW wish to ensure that their staff are trained to a level where they are fully able to explain restrictions attached to each ticket. I hope that will be the case. Ticket office staff have the tools at their disposal and if the official systems say a ticket is valid that should be accurately communicated. Paddington's evening restrictions are not a blanket rule and staff should not be assuming they are.

I've attached the letter, redacted of personal and journey information.

[Red Squirrel]

If anyone's interested, the restriction codes are published here http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/pdfs/OffPeak.pdf. Perhaps we should all carry a copy around with us! 

[Southern Stag]

I've had a similarly bad experience with gateline/ticket office staff in the past at Paddington. I was using an FGW^▸ (First Great Western) season ticket offer a number of years ago, which the ticket office staff denied all existence of and refused to look up, despite me having print outs from the FGW website. I too received assurances that training would improve etc.

[grahame]

Thank you for sharing that with us, bignosemac.

Sadly, there remains something very wrong indeed with the fares system where a passenger with a valid ticket is put through such an experience.  The rail industry itself sets the fares, regulations, conditions and employs the people who's job it is to ensure that travellers pay an appropriate fare and then adhere to the conditions. So it's a very poor show indeed when someone who is paid by that industry to represent it significantly delays, and / or berates in public a passenger going about his valid travel.

[bobm]

I agree, having "suffered" a similar - although not so protracted incident - a couple of weeks ago, ironically in the company of bignosemac.

We were travelling on a rover with two split tickets.  We had travelled into Paddington from Swindon and were going back via Westbury.  The thrust of the train manager's argument was that you could only travel on a rover and one additional ticket.  According to the conditions that is incorrect.  In front of other diners in the Pullman he challenged this and said he would go to check and come back.  I was made to feel uncomfortable as other diners around us looked over and clearly thought we were "chancing it".

The fact the TM^‡(resolve) said he would go to consult the conditions should be applauded - he is admitting he is not sure and is going to look.  What annoyed me is he never came back.  Later in the journey I walked through coach G where he was sitting with another member of staff and I made eye contact and said hello but he never mentioned the tickets.

He left the train before we did and we didn't see him again.

By all means challenge a ticket but finish the job and come back and say "yes, that's ok" or "no, you need a new ticket".