Here we will present you with media information about our company. In many cases, you will also find our commentary on some press articles or reports. We usually place our own comments on the media information that is incomplete, unreliable or in the form of hate. Unfortunately, some media outlets love to hate the profession of a ticket controller. Then no arguments speak to them. Anyway, at this point you will be able to judge it for yourself.
Ladies and gentlemen. In connection with the event that took place on June 5, 2019 and due to the fact that it was presented in an extremely subjective way, presenting the opinion of only one party, I present a full explanation of this case. In addition, I allowed myself to make a personal comment on the case in which, in my opinion, the journalist of Głos Wielkopolski allowed himself to be extremely biased and unreliable when editing the article describing the entire event. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that this seemingly serious newspaper has taken actions that manifest itself in extreme reluctance and subjectivity in the opinions quoted.
Below I am presenting a chronological sequence of events:
Summing up the actions of the editor of Głos Wielkopolski and the reporter of Radio Poznań, I can say that the editor or editors showed great disregard for the press law, disregard for elementary principles of journalism, failing to exercise due diligence and creating a thesis chosen by them in a subjective way. In the initial phase, they accused the minor passenger and threatened them, and at the end they were left to make her cry. In my opinion, instead of withdrawing and apologizing for their own dishonesty, they go to the end in one direction they chose, each time presenting only one version of events to the next interlocutor. This way of creating reportages probably has nothing to do with reliable journalism. Rather, it resembles the form of HEJTU commonly known on the Internet.
Personal data of the complainant reserved. This person allowed only the name and surname to be disclosed in the public space. Data from websites (Facebook) are publicly available and public. People who post their photos, comments and personal data there consent to it (for public disclosure). Personal data of the witness of the incident, i.e. the woman driving the bus on the day of the incident) to the information of the President of ZUK Rokbus and Trans Kontrol The person did not agree to make this data public. Only the publication of the content of the submitted declaration was granted.
Riposte of the Głos WielkopolskiFamiliarize yourself with the response of Głos Wielkopolski. It is noteworthy that our response to the complainant was 15 pages long, while the Głos retort quoted 1 sentence from this. Compare both content below.
The whole of the above matter could be described in a maximum of 3 sentences. However, Głos Wielkopolski, as is his habit, can do BIG THING even with such simple things. I will describe in these 3 sentences what the problem was. During the inspection, the passenger probably had a defective PEKA card, which could not be confirmed in any way by the inspector, and therefore issued an additional fee. The passenger at the nearest ZTM point reported the failure of her card, for which she received the document mentioned in the article by Głos Wielkopolski, and which was not a document issued by our controller. Then, for a period of 3 months from the date of issuing the additional fee, the passenger did not provide our company with any document confirming the inoperability of their card. And that's it. Thus, despite the fact that the passenger has 3 months to lodge an appeal-complaint against the imposed fee, the passenger in this case did not take care of her own matters and did not receive a letter from the ZTM confirming the inoperability of her card at the time of the ticket inspection. The press article, however, lacks even good advice for the passenger and other passengers, so that they take better care of their own affairs and, however, if they have documents confirming the inoperability of e.g. PEKA cards, it is better to attach them to their appeals. There would then be no problem with the cancellation of the additional fee. I will say more, even if the complaining lady provided such a document after the 3-month deadline, but she would show that she asked the ZTM for issuing one within 3 months, we would also take into account such a complaint. But we are not able to do it for passengers. These steps have to be done by those concerned personally.