Will you be attempting to travel by train this Easter?

Which? seems to just stop at petitions with “something must be done” – but no proposals as to what. That seems like either a lack of knowledge, lack of expertise to pursue a constructive investigation, or just headline-grabbing in a lazy way. We have a “Whirlpool must recall all defective driers” – exactly how and what will be achieved?

Come on Which? People in these Convos try to make positive suggestions as to how we can improve pollution from cars, make energy prices fairer, establish a product recall system that might work, deal with unarranged overdrafts………….. Isn’t it time you took some notice and did more groundwork to formulate realistic and constructive approaches to some of these consumer problems? Or get contributors to work with you and tap into their experience? Something must be done…………………….:-)

I agree with you malcolm but what really is Which ?- a independent pressure group ?- A type of NGO – a front for HMG to “try out ” future policy decisions ?- a “pro business ” group helping them to get public acceptance for their business operations ? The word “charity ” obviously means something different nowadays to when it used to be described to charitable causes like the Salvation Army who help every person , great or small and do a fine job , in my opinion , like the Battersea Dogs+Cats home. Now many “charities ” are hard-nosed businesses with entrepreneurs getting in on the act like – the world likes cats , so cat “charities ” have suddenly hit our screens straight out of the American advertising industry -quote- we never miss a chance –to make money. Like you I have an “executive mind ” I like to get things done .

“Which? Policy

The Which? mission is to make individuals as powerful as the organisations they have to deal with in their daily lives. We identify where consumers are experiencing problems, and through programmes of research, debate and consumer dialogue we develop effective, practical policy solutions.”

http://www.which.co.uk/about-which/which-policy/

Strangely it makes no mention here (that I can see) of testing products – a substantial pert of its work, and appeal to consumers.

Its aims (plus testing) are laudable and what we need, but it needs to do more than complain and identify weaknesses; in my view it need to put constructive, practical and realistic proposals to those who can make changes. Whirlpool was a total failure of action.

However, sorry for going off-topic. Lets hope most of those who travelled by train arrived at their destinations without too much hassle.

I won’t go on about it here but I wish we could have a good discussion on the whole world of charities and how they operate.

Just for information, registered charities in the UK have to have at least one of three broad purposes: propagation of religious knowledge, education, or (loosely) welfare. There are also eleemosynary charities which are based on the giving of alms [the relief of poverty]. Which?’s charitable status derives from its educational purpose.

Which? is independent, and not an arm of government or a front for business [although it might appear like that sometimes]. But it is so big and involved in such a wide range of activities that it does need highly-qualified and competent executive leadership, good management, and talented staff. Those are not available on the economy shelf so members and subscribers need to keep an eye on it and hold it to account. We don’t give donations to Which? as we would to a racing tortoise rescue centre and leave it to the charity to spend it how it likes within its constitution; we have legitimate expectations and entitlements in return for our subscriptions.

I agree with your comments, Patrick but do not think it would be right to pursue this discussion in the middle of this Conversation. I wished to take a more general view, from the overall perspective of consumers’ interests in charities as supporters or beneficiaries, and not focus on Which? or on picking faults with specific organisations.

Hello, thanks for your comment and feedback – it’s useful to have this for future reviews of how we structure the content for campaigns. Of course, we seek to campaign for solutions, rather than against problems, in whatever campaign we’re running. But for rail, we actually chose to launch the campaign to to learn more from rail users about what problems they come up against to shape the development of the campaign – that’s why we’ve been asking supporters for their stories and experiences.

We’ve been analysing these responses to structure the next steps of the campaign. Going forward, the campaign will be shifting into making much more specific calls for reform, based on the feedback we’ve received from supporters.

In our campaign, we’re focusing on three main areas – ticketing, compensation, and regulation. We want to see smart ticketing introduced all across the rail network, with key changes made in how information and prices are presented, in order to make it easier for people to get the cheapest available ticket. We also want to see the introduction of automatic compensation wherever possible, making it easier for customers to get their money back when they experience a delay. Finally, we want to see a proper Ombudsman established for rail, and for the regulator to be give more powers to work in the interests of passengers.

According to reports (PEYE) smart card flexible ticketing is currently dead in the water. DfT have spent £45M developing it for the 11 south east franchises but, because of the relatively short length of franchises, the companies are unwilling to invest in the equipment. However, it is in use – Essex to London Fenchurch St.

Just to add here, Patrick, I think you miss the ‘More’ tag which reveals further content and our campaign asks:

We want:

– Train companies to respect passenger rights and comply with the law;
– The regulator given real teeth to hold the rail industry to account; and
– The government to swiftly bring forward reforms that put passengers first.

https://campaigns.which.co.uk/train-hell-rail-passengers/

Our new campaign website design won’t hide our asks behind a ‘more’ link, so you’ll see more of what we’re asking for.

Here’s more detail from our Consumer Agenda for Government:

Which? wants the next Government to:

• Establish a mandatory, statutory Transport Ombudsman that all train companies and airlines must join; ensure that passenger rights are protected as we leave the EU; and establish a new UK-based compensation scheme covering all airlines that fly to and from the UK.

• Strengthen the powers and duties of the Office of Rail and Road, so that it more clearly puts the rights of passengers first.

Rail

The number of people using the railways has increased to record levels, with more rail passengers in the UK than any other European country. While privatisation has brought improvements and benefits, Which? research shows that over one in five consumers think that their train service has worsened in the last year.

We are concerned that train companies are letting their passengers down. Passengers’ trust in the rail industry has fallen to just 26% in March 2017, a drop in 11% from the same time last year and distrust is up 10% to 33%. Rail companies are now less trusted than energy companies. Latest statistics show that the number of actions taken to deal with passenger capacity levels reached a new high in 2015, with over a third of passengers experiencing a delay of at least 30 minutes in the last six months.

Given the structure and operation of the market, there is weak competitive pressure and little incentive for train companies to up their game. An example of this is the inadequacy of the current complaint handling landscape in the rail sector. As a result, reforms are needed to ensure that the industry really does put passengers first. There are major gaps in the provision of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with no effective route for redress and escalation of complaints if a train company does not resolve a passenger’s complaint. Transport Focus, which currently handles some passenger complaints on an informal basis, has no ability to impose binding decisions and no power to resolve complaint appeals. Which? believes that all political parties should commit to establishing a transport ombudsman that is mandatory for all train operating companies – as well as airlines – to join. It should be established via legislation and should be independent of the rail industry, as well as the aviation industry.

Party manifestos should commit to reforming and empowering the rail regulator (ORR). As it stands ORR’s duties currently do not make clear enough the regulator’s primary role in promoting the interests of passengers. Their duties are long and complex, requiring the ORR to balance the interests of the industry, government and “users”. Which? wants the rail regulator to put the passenger first and protect them rather than prioritising the interests of the rail industry and government above consumers. All political parties should commit to reforming the regulators’ duties to make them more consumer-focused by having a specific consumer duty, rather than just a regard to the “end user”. The party manifestos should ensure that the ORR has clear duties and powers to effectively hold the train companies to account when they breach licence conditions and consumer law.