Activities

The facts

Mr. N. travels on a bus with a reduced-fare ticket without being able to prove he is entitled to this reduction. He is reported for committing the offence of holding a "reduced-fare ticket without the required proof".

The Mediation officer's response

While the offender emphasises that he is in serious financial difficulties, the Mediation officer says that regardless of passengers' personal situations, it is their responsibility to pay for the right to travel by carrying a valid and duly validated ticket. He adds that help is available for transport costs with the tarification solidarité transport which allows people to travel at half-fare and even free under certain conditions.

Comment

 Customers using a mode of transport with a reduced-fare ticket without the necessary proof are committing an offence that will be reported by ticket inspectors. Certain offenders explain that it is less serious to travel with a half-fare ticket than without any ticket at all. But the role of the ticket inspector is to deal with the facts and only the facts, to discover whether an offence has been committed or not. And while the size of the fine is linked to the nature of the offence, it would be wrong to think that some offences are more acceptable than others. In this respect, the Mediation officer has the duty of explaining and getting offenders to understand that by committing an offence they are creating an additional cost to everyone and can lead to fare and tax increases.

The facts

Mrs. D. and her husband came from the provinces to visit their daughter in Paris. When they arrived at Orly, they took Orlybus and got off at the Montsouris Tombe-Issoire stop to take the T3 connection. To return to Orly, they took the exact opposite route but unfortunately, once they arrived at the Montsouris Tombe-Issoire stop on the Orlybus line, they discovered they could not get on, since this stop is only for people getting off! They therefore had to get back on the T3 to get to the Stade Charléty stop before getting on an Orlybus in "the right direction". They do not understand why the map on board the T3 indicates that there is a connection with a stop where passengers cannot get on the Orlybus. They have asked to be reimbursed for the expenses they incurred because they missed their flight.

The Mediation officer's response

With a dispute like this the Mediation officer needs to verify whether RATP has committed a breach with respect to the information it provides passengers with to tell them how they can use public transport and, if necessary, to assess the consequences.

Now, he notes first of all that the passenger information policy on the maps on board vehicles does not imply that the direction of the connecting lines is indicated, and secondly that the Montsouris Tombe Issoire stop displays a visible sign that reads: "Stop reserved for passengers disembarking only". It cannot therefore really be said that "RATP has committed a breach", and the Mediation officer cannot rule in favour of Mrs. D.'s request.

Comment

The Mediation officer cannot unilaterally change a passenger information policy that does not obviously fall under his remit. This is why he is not in a position to give the customer a more satisfactory response in this instance. However, with the help of examples like this one, he can demonstrate to the company just how necessary it is to change this information. And that is what he did in this case.

The facts

Mr. E. is told he has committed an offence on a line 295 bus for presenting a torn ticket to the ticket inspector. He does not understand why it is an offence because the ticket was torn by the driver on the line 126 bus which he had got on just twenty minutes before. In fact, when trying to validate his ticket, Mr. E. realised he had not been able to do so successfully and explained this to the driver. The driver then validated his ticket by tearing it.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer reminds the customer that a torn ticket is no longer valid and, moreover, cannot be used to make a bus-to-bus connection. He does recognise, however, that since the customer had had trouble trying to validate his ticket he had abided by the rules by informing the driver. He also observes that this particular driver had not understood the consequences of the introduction of the Ticket t+ since July, 2007, when he tore up the customer's ticket as he was used to doing in the past. The driver should have at least written the date and time on which the passenger was travelling along with his reference number, so that the customer could have made his connection with everything in order. The Mediation officer concludes that no action will be taken.

Comment

The introduction of the Ticket t+ was an important innovation at RATP since for the first time, connections became possible between the different lines of the surface network (bus and tramway) provided the connection is made within an hour and a half of the first ticket validation. But of course, in order for this connection to be possible, the Ticket t+ needs to be readable, otherwise how can the inspector check whether it is being used in accordance with the rules? By tearing the ticket as was done in the past, the driver caused the customer to commit an offence when he wanted to use it for a connection. At the very least, before tearing the customer's ticket the driver should have asked him whether he intended to make a connection or not.

The Mediation officer has asked the bus department to remind its drivers what to do with a Ticket t+ in such a situation.

The facts

Mrs. M. is reported on board a bus because she presented the inspector a Navigo pass that did not show her entitlement to a Solidarité Transport fare reduction to justify her use of a reduced-fare ticket. She is challenging the offence because she believes she was not at fault since she had validated her ticket.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer reminds the customer of the rules which state that any person benefiting from the Solidarité Transport fare must, in order for everything to be in order, not only validate their reduced-fare ticket but also be able to present to an inspector their Navigo pass which confirms their entitlement to that reduced fare. In his investigation into the case, the Mediation officer learnt that the customer had made no request to renew this entitlement with the Solidarité Transport agency. Given that the customer had failed to comply with the formalities required to renew her entitlement, the Mediation officer concluded that the customer had indeed committed an offence.

Comment

The tarification Solidarité Transport is a special fare scheme offered by the STIF and the Ile-de-France region to enable people in a difficult financial situation to travel on the region's public transport while benefiting from significant fare reductions and in some cases free of charge. The Solidarité Transport fare scheme uses the Navigo travel pass.

It is currently issued to over 600,000 people.

To benefit from this scheme, passengers must fulfil the relevant conditions and take the necessary steps to obtain it. Despite the information they are given, some of its beneficiaries seem to believe that because they have been entitled to it once, this entitlement is permanent. But this is simply not the case, the entitlement to reduced-fare tickets is awarded for a period of 1 to 12 months depending on the type, and the free pass has to be renewed every 3 months, as long as the beneficiary's social services benefits are renewed.

The Mediation officer considers that if society is good enough to give some people the right to certain entitlements because of their social situation, it is only fair that they be asked to comply with the obligations required to benefit from them.

The facts

Mr. A was reported three times on the metro for having illegally entered the network. Following the complaint he made to customer services, it was agreed that he could pay his fines in staggered instalments. Mr. A. is a foreigner with refugee status, he has difficulty expressing himself in French and has to travel about to complete various administrative procedures and look for work. His complaint to the Mediation officer was presented by the organisation that provides him with accommodation. 

The Mediation officer's response

Because of the specificity of this case, the Mediation officer made direct contact with the manager of the accommodation centre where Mr. A. is currently living, in order to obtain further information. He also wanted to find out if his situation has changed since he was reported for the offences, in terms of the ways in which he can travel on public transport. It turns out that Mr. A has now been issued with a free travel pass (Forfait Gratuité Transport). The Mediation officer took note of this information and decided that no further action would be taken regarding two of the reported offences, leaving Mr. A. to pay the fine from the most recent of the three offences.

Comment

The extremely difficult situation in which certain offenders find themselves leads the Mediation officer to use a special approach when investigating their case. In this case, while the offender's personal situation clearly cannot be used as an excuse for his illegal use of public transport, it at least sheds light on the situation. The Mediation officer notes that in addition to receiving the support of the organisation working to facilitate his integration Mr A. has also been given demonstrable evidence of this support (free travel), which  will allow him to travel legally on the RATP networks, albeit for a limited period only. However, the Mediation officer hopes that the interested party also understands that the rules imposed by society need to be followed by all of its members.

The facts

Mrs. B. does not understand why she is being pursued by the Treasury for non-payment of a fine when she has never received a reminder from RATP following her offence.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer reminds her that the fine is payable from the moment the offence is recorded and that if not paid on the spot, a penalty notice is drawn up which includes administration fees. Once the penalty notice has been issued, the offender has two months to contest the decision via RATP customer services and then if they are not satisfied with their response, they can take the matter to the Mediation officer. During this time, the company is under no obligation to chase up the offender to obtain payment of the fine; this is the sole responsibility of the offender. As such, if the fine is not paid by the required due date, the penalty notice is forwarded to the Procureur de la République (magistrate to the public prosecutor) and the fine will be recovered by the Treasury. The Mediation officer informs any offenders who find themselves in this situation that he can no longer access their case file.

Comment

The Centre de Recouvrement des Infractions de la RATP (RATP Offence Recovery Centre) sends offenders one or sometimes two reminder letters if they do not pay their fines within the first few days of the offence. However, if for some reason the offenders do not receive these reminders, this does not confer them with any rights. After all, it may be that these reminders are being sent to the wrong address. This was the case in this instance, because the person had moved house since the offence, without arranging for her mail to be forwarded. Now, the investigation into her case revealed that a reminder had indeed been sent to her but that the letter had been returned to RATP with a note stating "no longer at this address".

The facts

Mrs. U. was on sick leave for several months, first in hospital and then at home. She had an Intégrale annual ticket and wanted to stop the payments being taken from her bank account. However, the Intégrale agency said that as per the regulations, requests for subscription suspensions can only be made at a sales office. The customer's payments therefore continued even though she was unable to make use of public transport.

Mrs. U. did receive a significant gesture of goodwill from the Intégrale agency, but she asked for all of the payments taken from her account to be refunded and decided to take her case to the Mediation officer.

The Mediation officer's response

 at a sales office. He notes that in this case, the Intégrale agency made a significant gesture to the customer, despite being under no contractual obligation to do so. He therefore decided that the customer's case should stand as it is.

Comment

Subscriptions (Imagine R, Intégrale) are governed by the general terms of sale which contractually set out the reciprocal obligations of the customer and the management agency. When a complaint is made to the Mediation officer about a subscription issue, he attempts to verify that the general terms of sale were complied with. And in this instance they were, since article 6-1 of the abovementioned terms clearly states: "The subscription may be suspended and then resumed at any time. This can only be done at a sales office". This being the case, we can easily see how such a condition could be difficult to comply with if a subscriber is unable to get out and travel, but is nonetheless capable of expressing their wishes in writing for example. In such a situation, it is the Mediation officer's job to contact the relevant department to ask them to consider changing the existing rule.

The facts

Mr. E. protests abouomt the untimely presence of a supermarket's delivery vans in a lane reserved for bus traffic, and more specifically, in front of a bus shelter. He wrote to the line operator's Bus Centre Manager but was not satisfied with their response, which is why he is complaining to the Mediation officer.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer lists the actions taken by the Bus Centre management to clear the bus lane and bus shelter, which include reporting the offending vehicles and organising meetings with the supermarket's manager to try to obtain a long-term solution. He informs the customer that the supermarket manager has agreed to ask his delivery company to park its vehicles somewhere other than in the bus lane. Lastly, he states that the Bus Centre Manager will personally see to it that this arrangement is made.

Comment

The Mediation officer is sometimes contacted about atypical situations. In this case, the request came from someone living next to the supermarket who had been complaining about the problems caused by the presence of home delivery vans for a long time. The Mediation officer endeavoured to verify that steps had indeed been taken by the Bus Centre manager to resolve the situation with the supermarket's management. Considering that the actions taken looked set to result in a long-lasting solution, it wanted to consolidate the situation by taking a copy of the letters sent to the complainant, the Bus Centre manager and the supermarket manager.

The facts

Mrs. H. wrote to the Mediation officer to call his attention to what she believes to be the unsafe nature of the metro and its surrounding area. She specifically mentioned the people who park there for a long time and pointed out that one of the station's two ticket offices is unstaffed even though the automatic ticket machines are out of order.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer endeavours to distinguish between what falls under public safety, because the facts provided relate to incidents occurring on a public road, and what falls under RATP's responsibility, because the incidents described are taking place on its premises. Drawing on information obtained from the line's manager, the Mediation officer can inform the complainant that the problem raised is receiving constant attention from the metro line's management, and gives details of the measures being taken.

However, since it is in everybody's interest that the measures taken to deal with this are pushed forward, the Mediation officer has asked the line's management to keep a check on the speed at which RATP staff teams and the police intervene in such cases. Moreover, aware that it is the organisation that is responsible for whether the ticket office is open or not, the Mediation officer has asked it to be extra vigilant in maintaining the automatic ticket machines so that customers can be provided the level of service they have a right to expect.

Comment

In application of the protocol of 20 February, 2006, the Mediation officer is qualified to deal with complaints relating to quality of service. In this case, the complainant's case raises a particularly sensitive issue – aside from the availability of the ticket machines – one of safety. During his investigation into this case, the Mediation officer attempted to review the measures that had been taken by the line's management to assess how well the problem had been taken into account. Then, seeing that the situation had been sufficiently well looked into, the Mediation officer put forward his own recommendations which were all followed by the line's management.

The facts

Mr. C. wrote a letter to the Mediation officer to inform him about the behaviour of a member of staff who had spoken to him inappropriately.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer did not respond directly to Mr. C. since he had not yet taken his complaint to customer services. He therefore sent the customer's letter to the staff member's manager and asked to receive a copy of any correspondence sent to the complainant.

Comment

Over the course of a year, the Mediation officer receives few complaints relating solely to the behaviour of a staff member. However, disputes about reported offences often contain some comment about a staff member.

When dealing with a case of this nature, the Mediation officer systematically opens an enquiry with the staff member, at their management's request. If the alleged facts are established, the Mediation officer asks what measures will be taken against the employee, but keeps this information to himself and does not pass it on to the complainant. Nonetheless, the complainant will be told whether his or her complaint has been added to the interested party's administrative file.

The facts

Mrs. S. was reported for committing an offence on board the T3 tramway because she presented a ticket to the inspector that she had previously used on line B of the RER. The customer does not understand why she has committed an offence because she prepared for her journey on the ratp.fr website and nothing in the information on there warned her that to get from the Courcelle-sur-Yvette station to Porte de Versailles her ticket could not be used successively on line B and then on T3.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer reminds the customer of the existing rules which allow the same ticket to be used for connections between the RER and the metro, and between the bus and the tramway, but does not permit cross connections, such as metro-bus and RER-tramway, for example. Nevertheless, mindful of the information provided by the complainant, the Mediation officer believes that her good faith should be taken into consideration and decided that no further action would be taken with regard to the offence.

Comment

In his investigation into this case, the Mediation officer notes that the customer who had used the ratp.fr website to find out how to get from her home to Porte de Versailles, had no way of learning that she would be committing an offence by only using this means of information. In fact, whichever option is chosen for this journey, the site advises customers to first take line B of the RER then, at Cité Universitaire, connecting line T3. But it gives no information relating to the fares to call the customer's attention to the fact that this connection cannot be made with the same ticket. It is this situation, where the customer could not see that she was taking any kind of risk, which formed the basis for her presumed innocence.

The facts

Mr. N. is disputing an offence attributed to his daughter on the grounds that she was at school at the time she is supposed to have committed the offence.

The Mediation officer's response

In order to investigate this case, the Mediation officer asked for the original copies of several documents to demonstrate the young girl's innocence. But the documents requested never arrived. In view of the fact that the complainant did not place the Mediation officer in a position to do his job as the rules dictate, he rejected the request for his help in this dispute.

Comment

When the Mediation officer asks to be sent documents or additional information, it is because he considers them to be necessary for resolving the case in question. It is therefore logical that in their absence, he does not consider himself to be in a position to take on the case.

More complainants claimed to be the victims of identity theft in 2009 than in 2008. These cases are often difficult to investigate and two thirds end up being rejected because the complainant fails to provide the additional information requested.

The facts

Mr. D. buys a book of tickets which he uses immediately, the first of which is on board a bus. When this ticket is later inspected, he is reported for not having validated his ticket. He disputes this offence because he had inserted his ticket into the machine and although he admits he had not really listened out for the sound of the ticket validator, he maintains that he had indeed validated his ticket.

The Mediation officer's response

On the Mediation officer's request, the customer sends him the remaining tickets from the book he had bought and the receipt for his purchase showing the transaction date. He also produces tangible proof that he had checked the condition of his ticket at a metro station, which established that the ticket was in fact demagnetised. In view of the customer's innocence, no further action was taken relating to the reported offence.

Comment

Complaints regarding faulty tickets are by far less numerous since the Navigo travel pass has become more widely used, this pass being a much more stable media than tickets with a magnetic strip. In the present case, the customer bought a book of tickets (the receipt proved this) and yet was unable to correctly validate his ticket with the magnetic validator. Such incidents are often deemed to be the ticket holder's responsibility and with good reason, because we know that tickets can become demagnetised when stored too close to a metal object (handbag clasp, keys, mobile phone), not to mention the, sometimes unusual, way in which certain tickets are handled. In this case, though, the customer provided us with tangible proof of his innocence, and when checked it was established that all of the remaining tickets from the book he bought were also demagnetised. This was an exceptional case, however.

The facts

Mr. K. was reported on 22 July, 2009 at the Noisy-le-Grand station on RER line A. He writes to the Mediation officer on 29 July, 2009 to dispute the offence.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer explains that he is not able to act on the complainant's letter immediately because he first needs to complain to RATP customer services as indicated on the reverse of his penalty notice. However, the Mediation officer explains that if he does not receive a satisfactory response from customer services, he can contact him again then. In his response, the Mediation officer reminds him that these steps must be taken within two months of the offence in order to be admissible.

Comment

The rules governing complaints to the Mediation officer are set out in the provisions of the Mediation protocol of 20 February, 2006, signed between RATP management and  consumer groups:

"Cases are first dealt with by the customer services of the departments concerned and the Mediation officer only gets involved as a second resort.

With regard to imposed fines the Mediation officer must be contacted:

"As quickly as possible so that the case can be investigated before the two month deadline following the date of the offence expires".

The facts

Mrs. P. disputes an offence that her son is reported to have committed on 6 March, 2009 on board a bus on the TVM line. The letter sent to the the Mediation officer is dated 30 July, 2009 and arrives on 3 August.

The Mediation officer's response

The Mediation officer reminds her that complaints can only be made to the Mediation officer within the two months that follow the offence and only after a complaint has first been made to customer services. In this case, while he notes that customer services were contacted, this was done on 7 April and a response was sent out on the 16th. By then contacting the Mediation officer more than four months after the offence, the complaint was made much later than the imposed deadline and as such the Mediation officer could not deal with her request.

Comment

Sometimes, as in the present case, customers complain to customer services late, and often after a first, or indeed, second reminder letter from the Centre de Recouvrement des Infractions de la RATP (RATP Offence Recovery Centre). The recent change to the way customer services are organised means they are now able to reply to complaints quicker than in the past. Nevertheless, customers who fail to comply with the formalities associated with making a complaint to the Mediation officer risk having their complaint rejected. These situations where complaints are made outside the required deadline are obviously dealt with on a case by case basis, and the complainant's individual circumstances are taken into account.