On Low Floors & Wheelchairs—Part 4

Post Manchester buses incident over the failure to accommodate a wheelchair passenger, which resulted in a You Tube video and the sacking of the driver concerned, RC169 concludes regarding complaints and the media…

Part 1 ~ Part 2 ~ Part 3

Reporting the Incident

The other aspect of the Manchester story that seems to have generated almost as much reaction as the incident itself, is the manner of its reporting.

Technology has developed to the point that it is probably just as easy for somebody to use their mobile phone to make a short video clip, as it is to write down the details of the bus number, route number, time, date, details of what happened, etc, in a notebook. Several years ago, I noticed that trainspotters had taken to recording the numbers of locos seen using cassette recorders instead of notebooks and pencils, so arguably, this is just an extension of that approach.

Of course, the internet, and sites like You Tube in particular, provide the video maker with an opportunity for self-promotion, but I think the involvement of the local newspaper was crucial in bringing this story to such a wide audience. I doubt that many people scan the thousands of videos uploaded to You Tube regularly to see if there is a newsworthy item of interest to themselves, so I suspect that, without the local media help, on You Tube alone the incident would possibly have remained undetected for some time.

The media have long presented themselves as champions of consumers, and other people who may have grievances of some form. They can sometimes be effective, and sometimes the organisations being complained about are unresponsive to individual complaints.

To be fair, my (unscientific) analysis and experience suggests that this is not generally the case with bus operators in the UK. The only operator I have had reason to complain to in recent years is, in fact, First, from whom I received a prompt and satisfactory reply which indicated that they had taken my complain seriously.

Unfortunately, there have been a few exceptions—going a few years further back, I complained to an independent operator in the Sheffield area about a journey that did not run, and received a reply to the effect that they didn't really know what happened once the bus had left the depot, and couldn't do much about it if the driver didn't operate according to the schedule.

Or, a complaint to the Deutsche Bahn (German Railways) about one of their trains is likely to bring a response explaining that they are one of the biggest transport operators in Europe, and run over 30,000 trains a day, and implying that one should not be too surprised if a few of those don't run punctually. It becomes quite clear that it has no intention of investigating the specific incident that the complainant has referred to.

This sort of attitude frustrates customers, and it is not surprising that they seek other avenues for making their complaints. Disaffected customers may, understandably, not want to miss an opportunity to embarrass the organisations that are the object of their frustration/anger/concern. For the media, there is, of course, a certain risk—in that the organisation being complained about may be a valued advertising customer, whom it may be politic not to upset.

I'm not quite sure what this says about freedom of speech or the independence of the press. However, for a bus operator, it suggests that the best course of action is to cultivate a good relationship with the media, and at least try to ensure that they are made aware of such complaints at the earliest possible moment, so as to be able to give a quick response. To hope that this method of complaint will go away is unrealistic, but a responsive complaint handling process may keep it to a minimum.

And, as Alex Hornby, late of Bluestar and now director of Trent Barton said on this very blog, complaints are valuable method of understanding your customers’ concerns. There is no better feedback.