Sorry for the obscure heading, but I couldn't help thinking of the
Secret Policeman version of the Parrot Sketch where John Cleese gets
his money back.

I've just received a cheque for £2.40 from London & South Eastern
Railway Limited.

No letter with it, but it must surely be a refund of the £2.40 I paid
towards the penalty fare that was wrongly issued following Oyster
overcharging and non-capping as a result of OSI timeout.

I would have thought it was almost inconceivable that one would get
back any money paid towards a penalty fare, even if the "appeal" got
one off the escalating administration charges.

This has actually required joined-up thinking, whereby IPFAS would
have had to pass details back to SET for the latter to issue the
cheque, since I was only just about to get round to writing to them
direct if I heard nothing, (I did spell out the situation and need
for a refund very clearly in my letter to IPFAS.)

On the other hand, I've had no actual letter or other information from
either IPFAS or SET, so just left to deduce the outcome.

But anyway, what is the world coming to? I think that there must be a
very strong political will for Oyster to succeed on NR for this kind
of thing to work out.

On Nov 25, 12:11*am, MIG wrote:
Sorry for the obscure heading, but I couldn't help thinking of the
Secret Policeman version of the Parrot Sketch where John Cleese gets
his money back.

I've just received a cheque for £2.40 from London & South Eastern
Railway Limited.

No letter with it, but it must surely be a refund of the £2.40 I paid
towards the penalty fare that was wrongly issued following Oyster
overcharging and non-capping as a result of OSI timeout.

I would have thought it was almost inconceivable that one would get
back any money paid towards a penalty fare, even if the "appeal" got
one off the escalating administration charges.

This has actually required joined-up thinking, whereby IPFAS would
have had to pass details back to SET for the latter to issue the
cheque, since I was only just about to get round to writing to them
direct if I heard nothing, *(I did spell out the situation and need
for a refund very clearly in my letter to IPFAS.)

On the other hand, I've had no actual letter or other information from
either IPFAS or SET, so just left to deduce the outcome.

But anyway, what is the world coming to? *I think that there must be a
very strong political will for Oyster to succeed on NR for this kind
of thing to work out.

Do I detect a slight note of disappointment that a fight you may have
been chomping at the bit for is not now going to happen?

I'm not sure I'd agree that the notion of getting a refund was "almost
inconceivable" (though I do note what the other poster said about this
in your first thread on the matter), I don't think the "joined-up
thinking" required to lead to this result was actually that complex,
and I'm really not quite sure where you get your conclusion about "a
very strong political will ... for this kind of thing to work out"
from!

In a sense this story is fairly simple - SE did wrong when they PF'd
you, you followed the procedure and appealed, and they've refunded the
money that was wrongly taken. The lack of explanation or apology isn't
right - though perhaps one should given them the benefit of the doubt
and see if anything arrives shortly (e.g. finance departments
sometimes insist on sending out any cheques themselves).

Whether your original thread on the matter was noticed by anyone in a
position to act on it, well who can say - though I suppose if one
really wanted to test how the system treats people in this position
without introducing the suspicion that one's particular case might
possibly have got some sort of special treatment, then I guess one
should not post anything about it publicly (or at least not initially
- perhaps if one were to reach a brick wall).

What Southeastern should be saying to you, and indeed should be doing,
is training their staff - in particular their RPIs - on matters Oyster
rather better. I think it unlikely that an LU RPI would have been so
eager to issue a PF in such circumstances, as I imagine they'd be both
better informed and acquainted with the Oyster system.

Anyhow, there's the case from Maggie's... I mean the devil's advocate.
(I suspect a certain Mr Tracy might wish for that title... don't think
he'd have lasted five minutes in a Cabinet with her though.)

(p.s. Just watched the sketch in question again - most apposite thread
title ;-)

On Nov 25, 1:10*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Nov 25, 12:11*am, MIG wrote:





Sorry for the obscure heading, but I couldn't help thinking of the
Secret Policeman version of the Parrot Sketch where John Cleese gets
his money back.

I've just received a cheque for £2.40 from London & South Eastern
Railway Limited.

No letter with it, but it must surely be a refund of the £2.40 I paid
towards the penalty fare that was wrongly issued following Oyster
overcharging and non-capping as a result of OSI timeout.

I would have thought it was almost inconceivable that one would get
back any money paid towards a penalty fare, even if the "appeal" got
one off the escalating administration charges.

This has actually required joined-up thinking, whereby IPFAS would
have had to pass details back to SET for the latter to issue the
cheque, since I was only just about to get round to writing to them
direct if I heard nothing, *(I did spell out the situation and need
for a refund very clearly in my letter to IPFAS.)

On the other hand, I've had no actual letter or other information from
either IPFAS or SET, so just left to deduce the outcome.

But anyway, what is the world coming to? *I think that there must be a
very strong political will for Oyster to succeed on NR for this kind
of thing to work out.

Do I detect a slight note of disappointment that a fight you may have
been chomping at the bit for is not now going to happen?

Mebbe, but any such disappointment is trumped by relief at not having
to write another bluddy letter.


I'm not sure I'd agree that the notion of getting a refund was "almost
inconceivable" (though I do note what the other poster said about this
in your first thread on the matter), I don't think the "joined-up
thinking" required to lead to this result was actually that complex,
and I'm really not quite sure where you get your conclusion about "a
very strong political will ... for this kind of thing to work out"
from!

It's not that complex, but it doesn't usually happen. It's generally
not even possible to get a reply from Customer Services that actually
relates to what's been said to them. In the railway world of
automated, standard letters, standard scripts and restrictions on
initiative, it's refreshing to see that someone may actually have read
what I wrote AND understood it AND worked out what messages to send to
whom.


In a sense this story is fairly simple - SE did wrong when they PF'd
you, you followed the procedure and appealed, and they've refunded the
money that was wrongly taken. The lack of explanation or apology isn't
right - though perhaps one should given them the benefit of the doubt
and see if anything arrives shortly (e.g. finance departments
sometimes insist on sending out any cheques themselves).

Whether your original thread on the matter was noticed by anyone in a
position to act on it, well who can say - though I suppose if one
really wanted to test how the system treats people in this position
without introducing the suspicion that one's particular case might
possibly have got some sort of special treatment, then I guess one
should not post anything about it publicly (or at least not initially
- perhaps if one were to reach a brick wall).

Hmm. I think anonymity trumps fame for me. Let's hope they just dun
the right thing.



What Southeastern should be saying to you, and indeed should be doing,
is training their staff - in particular their RPIs - on matters Oyster
rather better. I think it unlikely that an LU RPI would have been so
eager to issue a PF in such circumstances, as I imagine they'd be both
better informed and acquainted with the Oyster system.

Anyhow, there's the case from Maggie's... I mean the devil's advocate.
(I suspect a certain Mr Tracy might wish for that title... don't think
he'd have lasted five minutes in a Cabinet with her though.)

(p.s. Just watched the sketch in question again - most apposite thread
title ;-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -