Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Happy Christmas from London Transport?
Happy christmas to us from London buses! My daughter, 15 years old, had been out later than usual in the dark late home, she had jumped on the bus and realised as the bus began its journey that she had dropped her pass whilst changing buses. As our area is not safe there have been a few recent rapes and a man stabbing women with a potentially hiv infected needle she understandably stayed on the bus so she could get home safely. An inspector got on and gave her a fine. Despite me appealing with proof that she had a valid oyster and had reported it lost since this incident and had another issued (cost us 10.00) and considering she had not had a fine before they still refused to waive the fine. It has cost us 25.25p, very painful at this time of year in our limited circumstances, but more painful is the lack of heart and concern for the safety of my daughter that has been shown and clear lack of interest in the humanity of the situation. What a sad sign of our times where the heart beat is slowly grinding to a halt. Wishing myself the strength to find this experience one that infuses my passion to be the change....
Tags for Forum Posts: public transport, tfl
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by David Barry on
-
Which is exactly why you should try with London TravelWatch and see how you get along. It is in my opinion exactly because of "hard cases" like this that an appeals body is needed. Do use it.
-
Permalink Reply by gilly on
-
Thank you so much as well I will do so most definately and will keep you all posted of the results.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
I'm a bit confused now, David. Initially you seemed to say that TravelWatch were unable to help. But now you seem to think they can.
From your reply, I assumed you were linked with TravelWatch. And on their website I see you are a board member. So it's valuable to have your input on HoL. I can appreciate if Travelwatch can't get involved in the thousands (?) of individual cases and possible appeals. But it also seems to me there are far wider policy issues raised. Let me take just the issue of young people.
During the 1980's I visited Sheffield when buses were very heavily subsidised. I think any journey for a teenager was 2p. One aim was to make it possible for young people to travel reliably to a wide range of different facilities across and outside the city.
But there's another aim in having an affordable, reliable, pleasant and safe public transport system. It reduces reliance on cars. For young people especially, public transport extends their freedoms and opportunities to explore and experiment. And, crucially, to gain experience in assessing risk and dealing sensibly and confidently with situations where things go wrong. Which, it seems, is what Gilly's daughter did. Relying on the good sense and fairness of Transport for London — which unfortunately they haven't shown.
So maybe, David, you and TravelWatch can raise these wider issues? Surely Transport for London understands why we don't want more overprotected "cotton wool kids" ferried everywhere by car?
(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)
-
-
I was obviously not as clear as I could have been.
TravelWatch deals with appeals. That means that it does not deal with a case until it has been raised with the relevant body, and the outcome is still regarded by the complainant as unsatisfactory. Anyone in that position which is clearly Gilly's case, is entitled to make an appeal.
However I did not wish to imply that the appeal was bound to succeed. If I was sure that it would not, I would say dont waste your time. I recommend an appeal because success might be possible.
The reason for pessimism is that the rules say you must have a valid ticket to travel, which Gilly's daughter did not. Despite that the reason it is worth appealing is that there are a number of special circumstances in this case, it would seem, worth pursuing at the level at which TravelWatch appeals get handled. Sometimes, even when there are no technical grounds for granting the appeal, the operating company will make an ex gratia payment.
(I should point out that TW does not make the decisions on the appeals - it acts as an advocate for the consumer with the relevant company)
Case work is a core part of what TravelWatch does and feeds into wider issues. TravelWatch has in the past campaigned in support of the introduction of Oyster, for its extension to all modes in London, and in support of using it to deliver concession fares. TravelWatch (before my time) strongly supported the introduction of the Zip card. It is usual practice for appeals which raise important policy issues (including some appeals that fail under the rules ie we accept the rules were correctly applied but we think the rule ought to change) to be reported to the consumer affairs committee and this then feeds through to our policy process. Its an important way for TravelWatch to keep in touch with what is happening.
I did not reveal my "dual identity' as I am on HOL as an individual not as a representative of Travelwatch, and so I am not speaking as an official representative of TravelWatch; but what I have posted here is well informed....
(In fact everything I have written is publicly available information; but TravelWatch's profile is not as high as it could be.)
-
-
Thanks, David, for the helpful clarification.
By the way, I include my ward councillor status when I'm writing about something linked to the Council or political issues. It's a declaration of interest. I'm not an official representative for anything or anyone else. I enjoy thinking for myself - as you obviously do too!
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
