Railway staff lying to the BTP

[michael769]

Training can certainly address the issue of how staff react to such situations, however everyone is different and it is fair to say that some take to the physiological and human factors aspects of investigatory training better than others.

 

[Clip]

It seems to be all about the poor training to me....

Indeed but only so much as the OBM did not use the tools given to them to address the situation with the ticket. I knew as soon as I saw the thread the other day he would have problems with it given how cheap it was going to be - I'm afraid you always will with that journey for that price.

Seems like the OBM panicked somewhat when faced with RJ, forgot what he was meant to do and just told him to get off instead. Which really he should've done as Michael alluded to above, and this is what has obviously inflamed the whole situation and leaves rj , the reo's, the obm in this sorrowful situation.

 

[Phirstman]

Unfortunately there are a lot of people who get drunk on what little power they have, and don't like it when that power is challenged.

This. Abuse of authority and unacceptable.

There are a (small, in my experience) minority of authority figures on the lines who have even boasted (verbally and in forum land) on 'getting the kick out of an altercation'. Not right.

 

[ainsworth74]

Not sure, certainly not in terms of knowledge... with a ticketing system this complex I think it unrealistic that any member of staff will be as knowledgeable as a dedicated enthusiast such as RJ.

When it comes to training I think yorkie hit the nail on the head:

Let's face it: these people have not been trained on the Routeing Guide, have not been told it exists (OK, so I don't expect everyone to be an expert, but the existence of it is in the NRCoC!) and the idea that someone can use a ticket between 2 nearby stations via a roundabout route is totally alien to them and they therefore deem the ticket completely invalid. They can get extremely angry at the idea that the passenger deems the ticket valid (a bit like if a passenger tried to argue the world is flat - they do not even consider the possibility the passenger may be correct at all).

There is plenty of, admittedly anecdotal, evidence that many staff don't even know it exists and this is surely unacceptable? I don't expect them to be clued up on it's use but to not even know a part of the binding contract that their company is entering into with the passenger exists? That's just asking for trouble when someone who knows how to use, knows their rights, and will stand their ground on the issue comes along.

 

[156441]

What I love about this whole thread and what I alluded to earlier was that we're only hearing one side of the story again.

Funny how RJ's stories always have the same contents.

•I bought some ambiguous tickets.
•I got into an altercation with the Guard/TM/OBM.
• I did nothing wrong and was completely innocent.
•The said member of staff couldn't deal with me being ultra polite and called BTP.
•I'm hard done by.

Like someone else stated earlier this guy has had BTP out more in a few months than the whole of our depot has since Christmas.
I'm sorry but either he's really unlucky with the staff he's meeting or someone is telling porkies!!

I do agree with TOC's poor training though. Mine was appalling and I will admit that only through this forum and my prior research did I know of 'the manual' .
I've still never seen a copy of it to this day. We are just told to go off the info in Avantix which is very little and won't help in a routing dispute.

 

[telstarbox]

What I love about this whole thread and what I alluded to earlier was that we're only hearing one side of the story again.

That's the nature of forums though isn't it? You can't force the Southeastern OBM to come on here and give his side of the story.

 

[156441]

What I love about this whole thread and what I alluded to earlier was that we're only hearing one side of the story again.

That's the nature of forums though isn't it? You can't force the Southeastern OBM to come on here and give his side of the story.

So we just automatically accept the OP's story? Sorry not likely!

 

[telstarbox]

In the absence of any other information what else can you do?

 

[455driver]

Take a pragmatic view of the available information!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Try and look at the bigger picture maybe and find reasons behind alleged behaviour?

 

[jon0844]

I would say that when you meet some people who believe they have more power than they do, or think they know more than you do, being polite and not rising to their goading can actually make a bad situation worse.

When a police car reversed into a motocyclist to try and skip a traffic jam, I approached the bike owner to offer to act as a witness. The police officer pushed me away and told me to f**k off as it was none of his business and he'd deal with it, and when I tried to give my details I was told I'd be nicked!! Sadly, at the time I did back off - but really wish I hadn't and had made a complaint afterwards (but my thought at the time was one of not wanting to be harassed by a police officer that might do anything to get back at me).

I've watched enough of those UK cop shows on Sky to see some officers deliberately winding people up so they'll lash out or do something to give them the excuse to pin them down and arrest them (and this is with full knowledge that they're being filmed). Of course, they would argue that they were provoked, just as a footballer would always claim to be innocent.

So I fully believe RJ might be getting into some really bad situations by not being intimated or reacting in the way hoped to justify further action.

 

[455driver]

Or as some people may call such behaviour (and not aimed at RJ in any way because I wasnt there etc).

Being smug!

 

[ainsworth74]

If RJ has been kicking off then why hasn't he been arrested or issued with a caution when the BTP have attended? I understand the wish to stand up for your fellow staff (especially when they can't defend themselves). But, with training as bad as it is and having seen for myself the less than positive reaction of some staff when presented with tickets they deem invalid, coupled with a refusal to pay what they believe due, I have no difficulty believing that someone like RJ (who is willing to stand his ground no matter what when holding valid tickets) would have the BTP called on them.

What would the guards on this forum do in this situation? You have a passenger with tickets you deem invalid, they're refusing to buy a new ticket or hand over any more money and they won't leave the train? What do you do then? Let it go or call the BTP?

Or as some people may call such behaviour (and not aimed at RJ in any way because I wasnt there etc).

Being smug!

Not being intimidated and refusing to react as expected is now considered being smug? Surely a refusal to be intimidated is something to be commended? As is, I would have thought, refusing to get aggressive (which is presumably what the staff expect)?

 

[RochdalePioneers]

This is getting silly - both the experiences described by RJ and some of the other posters responses to these.

I don't doubt for a second that he had valid tickets - he always does no matter how outrageous the fare might appear at first glance.

So it comes down to this. Buying a ticket that is valid according to the rules and t&cs of the vendor should not give employees of the vendor carte Blanche to not only ignore the rules validating the ticket but also the rules and proeedures around how to deal with a dispute over validity.

The evidence across a number of RJ posts is of some railway employees making it up as they go along, and by this I mean ticketing rules, terms and conditions, procedures for disputed fares, the whole smash.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[38Cto15E]

RJ offered his name and address, wouldn't it have been better for the rail staff to issue RJ with whatever paperwork was required once he had been checked out as having a bonafide name and address?
The train and all the other passengers would then not have been delayed waiting for BTP etc.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Why bother? They appear to have no interest in the rules and regulations regarding ticket validity so why should what they're supposed to do when those rules and regulations say its invalid have any more interest?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[RJ]

For any parties interested in the HS1 incident, the ticket purchased at the TVM in Canterbury West was to Tilbury Riverside (routed TILBY EXCL FERRY.)

When I was able to leave Ashford International after a 3.5 hour delay, I was armed with an itinerary from the ticket office showing HS1 as a valid route for the ticket I held. This was witnessed by the gateline assistant who was surreptitiously ordered to keep tabs on me and intercept me if I tried to walk towards the platforms. The OBM on the train was actually very pleasant and I reached Stratford International. I was then detained at the station for 100 minutes. Initially by the gateline assistant who refused to open the barriers and refused to let me go until I either gave her some money, or she had satisfactory proof that any name and address provided was correct. Neither she nor any member of staff present was PACE trained, Authorised Collectors or appear to hold any level of training or competency in revenue protection beyond operating the gateline. She obviously didn't feel in the slightest bit intimidated as she was happy to keep me there against my will. So I called the BTP. The staff then also called the BTP. In a few hours, I'd gone from staff trying to force me off trains, to staff forcibly keeping me there against my wishes. Since the previous evening, I'd gone from Southeastern's staff swearing blind that I was obliged to take the shortest route (or direct train) to them swearing blind the shortest route was not a permitted route. Consistent or what?

After almost 60 minutes, an officer arrived and sided with the staff. I was let through the barriers for a PNB and after I asked the BTP officer why he felt it was necessary to follow me into the toilet, asked what would happen if I walked away. He said I'd be arrested for fare evasion, so I was forced to remain at the station.

An RPI was dispatched from St Pancras and I was issued with a £68.40 Penalty Fare for being off route. I tried to help the RPI by advising him not to issue the Penalty Fare due to it being against the Penalty Fare Rules, but he chose not to listen to me so I didn't argue any further. I quite willingly tendered £50 up front and in return, the RPI decided to retain my ticket and felt he was justified in saying it was perfectly fine for me to have to pay even more for a new ticket to Tilbury. I convinced him to change his mind however (he said only because I was polite and cooperative) and so after a delay of over 5 hours, I was finally able to go about my business.

 

[talltim]

What happens if you get arrested for fare evasion and it is later proved that you hadn't evaded the fare?

 

[soil]

So we just automatically accept the OP's story? Sorry not likely!

The OP's story has been extensively scrutinised by a number of forum members, and it checks out. My opinion is that he is being discriminated against, and that other forum members with the same ticket, same attitude, would not face the same degree of ticket. My advice is here http://railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1416230&postcount=2

What we see, time and again, is that TOC staff respond in an inappropriate manner to perceived irregularities.

When they are used to dealing with scrotes with no ticket, that's perhaps understandable, but it isn't the case here.

 

[RJ]

After my experiences with East Midlands Trains, I'm not prepared to take the chance and wouldn't encourage others to either. The widespread problem of lack of understanding of the ticketing regulations by *some* staff from HQ level downwards means that justice is unlikely to be quick or easy.

I spoke to somebody quite senior at Southeastern's retail department and they claimed the shortest route rule didn't apply - which is the same as saying the NRCoC does not apply to ticketing. So I'm not exactly inspired with confidence.

 

[soil]

What happens if you get arrested for fare evasion and it is later proved that you hadn't evaded the fare?

Fare evasion was never an arrestable offence. The concept of arrestable offences no longer exists, but the rules would generally not apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence#Replacement

In order for rj to be arrested, there would have to be grounds for it, such as him being violent or whatever. Obviously if the staff lie about this, then they may get in trouble with the police.

 

[jon0844]

At some stage I think you (RJ) will need to be careful in case the 'next level' involves a police officer or RPI (or anyone) willing to lie or even fit you up to stop you doing what you're doing, even though it's totally legal.

You are now seeing how some people are willing to act in outrageous ways and I think you might soon be at the point where you need to decide if you want to continue to seek out legal but controversial ticket combinations, or take this whole matter higher (your MP, the DfT or the media) to expose the whole situation.

I have no doubt you get some pleasure from the confrontation at times, as well as saving money, but can you really afford the time fighting all of these incidents? I'd back you 100% and most here would, but so many people must be itching to get one over you. Is it worth it?

 

[yorkie]

Regardless of true or not I have never known 1 person to have so much hassle from staff. You seem to have more hassle then most travellers in an area the size manchester lmao. So what's your secret?

Perhaps you missed my earlier post?

Of particular relevance:

...They can get extremely angry at the idea that the passenger deems the ticket valid (a bit like if a passenger tried to argue the world is flat - they do not even consider the possibility the passenger may be correct at all)...

...These stories are NOT being made up. They don't just happen to RJ, but not many people will stand their ground and most people don't want to post their experiences on the forum either.

As it happens I know of people who have had problems with the ticket RJ used. But they were not hassled to the extent that RJ was (and yes, some staff are discriminating I am sure) and they do not necessarily want to post publicly about it. And plenty more tickets that are valid on HS1, but some staff claim are not. I've witnessed some of the altercations personally. One of the people who has been falsely told his ticket is invalid is an RPI himself.

So we just automatically accept the OP's story? Sorry not likely!

What is there that you are not prepared to accept?

Try and look at the bigger picture maybe and find reasons behind alleged behaviour?

I've posted what the bigger picture is. It's that some staff are unaware of the rules and not prepared to even consider the possibility that a route may be a permitted route.

What I love about this whole thread and what I alluded to earlier was that we're only hearing one side of the story again.

Funny how RJ's stories always have the same contents.

•I bought some ambiguous tickets.

What are you trying to say? Are you suggesting that people should not be using tickets that are valid tickets, because of what reason? they are too cheap?

•I got into an altercation with the Guard/TM/OBM

Not his choice though.

• I did nothing wrong and was completely innocent.

His tickets are valid, and have been independently checked by other people knowledgeable on fares. Usually the TOC concerned will check it out with ATOC.

•The said member of staff couldn't deal with me being ultra polite and called BTP.

If someone refuses to pay, and the staff are, incorrectly, adamant that a ticket needs to be bought, is it unsurprising that BTP are called? The problem is that the staff should not be calling the BTP for such matters. The correct action for a ticket routed Tilbury excluding Ferry, if the passenger travels by a route that is a permitted route but not via Tilbury, would be to charge a change of route excess fare. Not eject someone from the train. Not a penalty fare.

•I'm hard done by.

Do you disagree that he is "hard done by"?

Like someone else stated earlier this guy has had BTP out more in a few months than the whole of our depot has since Christmas.
I'm sorry but either he's really unlucky with the staff he's meeting or someone is telling porkies!!

He is not "really unlucky" and is not "telling porkies".

You do realise that some HS1 gateline staff, and some OBMs, are not like your average Northern/TPE guards, don't you?

You may well accept a ticket that is particularly good value, but valid, with a smile. But that does not mean all SET staff will. Have you tried the HS1 experience with a ticket they don't like the look of?

I do agree with TOC's poor training though. Mine was appalling and I will admit that only through this forum and my prior research did I know of 'the manual' .
I've still never seen a copy of it to this day. We are just told to go off the info in Avantix which is very little and won't help in a routing dispute.

You also have to consider that staff in your area are far less likely to be trying to 'catch people out' and are also less likely to have people 'effing it', as occurs down South.

I'm in London right now, and believe me, it's a completely different world down here, to the North!

 

[gnolife]

If someone refuses to pay, and the staff are, incorrectly, adamant that a ticket needs to be bought, is it unsurprising that BTP are called? The problem is that the staff should not be calling the BTP for such matters. The correct action for a ticket routed Tilbury excluding Ferry, if the passenger travels by a route that is a permitted route but not via Tilbury, would be to charge a change of route excess fare. Not eject someone from the train. Not a penalty fare.

In this case though, the only way to get to Tilbury Riverside from London, is via Tilbury Town. Therefore, assuming that St Pancras (Or Stratford, or wherever he bailed from the train) is on a permitted route for the journey, he is, the way that the route field of the ticket is phrased, always on a route permitted by the ticket.

Disclaimer: this is just my interpretation of it. I'm not the most knowlegeable person about ticketing, so I've probably made a balls up somewhere in it

 

[Swirlz]

Fare evasion was never an arrestable offence. The concept of arrestable offences no longer exists, but the rules would generally not apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestable_offence#Replacement

In order for rj to be arrested, there would have to be grounds for it, such as him being violent or whatever. Obviously if the staff lie about this, then they may get in trouble with the police.

Intentional fare evasion is still (and has been since 1889), an "arrestable" offence but only in the following circumstances:

1) Travel, or attempt to travel without a valid ticket and;
2) Fails to provide a valid name and address.

That said, case law does exist where someone who has travelled has failed to show a ticket, (in the case, a season ticket), and was detained by a member of British Rail staff causing the customer (who incidentally did have a ticket, just refused to show it), to suffer injuries. The court ruled that the 1889 Act did give a (forcible) power of arrest to railway staff for people who fail to produce a valid ticket AND fail to provide a name.

I do think Byelaw 24(2)(i) applies, and that "RJ" should have left the railway when requested - and as such, no claim for compensation would be entertained.

If he is using a route that is completely absurd, and illogical to the common man, there is likely to be a "reasonable belief" that the ticket is not valid, and an offence has been committed under Railway Byelaw 18. All you need is the Inspector to hold "reasonable belief", even if that belief is wrong or misguided.

It follows then, that failing to voluntarily leave the railway, leaves "RJ" liable to be forcibly removed from the railway, so long as the force is not excessive, as according to Railway Byelaw 24(2)(ii). "Excessive force" is up for debate, but clearly not enough force was used if they were unable to physically remove him.

Civil action for breach of contract should then be the remedy. Refusing to leave a train, even if holding a valid ticket, is an offence, so long as the Inspector reasonably believes an offence to have been committed - and judging by some of the VERY obscure routes and tickets probably be exploited, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the routes are invalid, and conclude Byelaw 18(1) could apply.

... but is the case about forcible removal or forcible detention?

 

[soil]

There is a general power of arrest if no name can be ascertained for any offence, but that isn't a fare evasion issue really.

 

[barrykas]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I've just checked through the fares database, and Stratford Regional and Stratford International are both explicitly excluded from the route in question, so shouldn't be offered by journey planners or a TIS. Though I must admit that I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't specifically checked for it...

How enforceable that is given it's not printed on the ticket, however, is an exercise for the reader, but I'd guess they're also relying on our old friend "Easement" 600069:

Customers travelling from Stratford Domestic station to London St Pancras may not travel via Stratford International. This easement applies in both directions.

I would assume that the intention is for passengers to travel to Gravesend, and pay for the ferry separately, with the "Excluding Ferry" indicating that it's not included in the fare.

This is reinforced by the same route being available for the c2c route East of Upminster, including the Ockendon branch, and also on the Greater Anglia Southminster and Southend branches East of Wickford.

How you're supposed to get from Tilbury to the GA branches avoiding Stratford remains to be seen, however! Logic suggests utilising Upminster - Romford or walking from Southend Central to Victoria.

 

[soil]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, I've just checked through the fares database, and Stratford Regional and Stratford International are both explicitly excluded from the route in question, so shouldn't be offered by journey planners or a TIS. Though I must admit that I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't specifically checked for it...

I don't see how this is in the slightest bit relevant.

How enforceable that is given it's not printed on the ticket, however, is an exercise for the reader, but I'd guess they're also relying on our old friend "Easement" 600069:

"Customers travelling from Stratford Domestic station to London St Pancras
may not travel via Stratford International. This easement applies in both
directions"

That would apply to a journey from Stratford to London St Pancras, not Canterbury to Tilbury.

I would assume that the intention is for passengers to travel to Gravesend, and pay for the ferry separately, with the "Excluding Ferry" indicating that it's not included in the fare.

NRE states:

"Travel must involve passing through or changing at Tilbury, but does not include use of the Ferry service."

For any plain reading of the English language, that means that you must pass through Tilbury (so you couldn't go via Basildon, say, on a Pitsea-Strood ticket), but you cannot use the Ferry.

There is nothing at all to suggest that you should use the ferry, and tender separate payment for it.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

It doesn't seem illogical to travel via Central London to get from Canterbury to Tilbury. That is the route suggested by the national rail enquiries that you take the HS1 to St Pancras, the Underground to Fenchurch Street and C2C to Tilbury. An explicit route if you leave the HS1 at Stratford is difficult to get, but if you ask the system how to get from Stratford International to Tilbury, it suggests DLR to West Ham to pick up the C2C. Not everyone is a fan of the Circle line so it's a route that might be used in practice by experienced travellers.

What is bizarre is that the fare from Canterbury to Tilbury is less than the fare from Canterbury to London St P despite the extra travel involved.

 

[RJ]

Intentional fare evasion is still (and has been since 1889), an "arrestable" offence but only in the following circumstances:

1) Travel, or attempt to travel without a valid ticket and;
2) Fails to provide a valid name and address.

That said, case law does exist where someone who has travelled has failed to show a ticket, (in the case, a season ticket), and was detained by a member of British Rail staff causing the customer (who incidentally did have a ticket, just refused to show it), to suffer injuries. The court ruled that the 1889 Act did give a (forcible) power of arrest to railway staff for people who fail to produce a valid ticket AND fail to provide a name.

I do think Byelaw 24(2)(i) applies, and that "RJ" should have left the railway when requested - and as such, no claim for compensation would be entertained.

If he is using a route that is completely absurd, and illogical to the common man, there is likely to be a "reasonable belief" that the ticket is not valid, and an offence has been committed under Railway Byelaw 18. All you need is the Inspector to hold "reasonable belief", even if that belief is wrong or misguided.

It follows then, that failing to voluntarily leave the railway, leaves "RJ" liable to be forcibly removed from the railway, so long as the force is not excessive, as according to Railway Byelaw 24(2)(ii).

Civil action for breach of contract should then be the remedy. Refusing to leave a train, even if holding a valid ticket, is an offence, so long as the Inspector reasonably believes an offence to have been committed - and judging by some of the VERY obscure routes and tickets probably be exploited, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume the routes are invalid, and conclude Byelaw 18(1) could apply.

I don't share the opinion that going from Canterbury West to Tilbury Riverside via the shortest rail route is absurd. It's specifically permitted in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. The ticket is restricted to the permitted routes that pass through either of the Tilbury Stations.

Bear in mind I was not asked to leave the railway at any point. They just wanted me off the Class 395 operated service. Southeastern's staff actively advised me to use a more circuitous route, several miles longer into London Bridge then onto Fenchurch Street - but the ticket bears no Maltese Cross and was not valid to cross London. It is not the shortest route or a permitted route by any stretch of the imagination. This was essentially a form of entrapment as nobody who told me to travel by that illegitimate route was prepared to issue a chit indemnifying me from further conflict on the advised route - had I gone by that route, I would have been committing an offence. As I say, it's not unknown for these people to deliberately try and goad me into committing an offence, even under the pretence of sincerity. Quite fortunately for me I'd already checked the permitted routes and so was not susceptible to such a trap.

Please forgive me if I have missed the point, but what has case law relating to a passenger failing to show a valid ticket got to do with this?

It is questionable if those REOs were actually attempting to remove me from the railway. I stated clearly that I was prepared to wait patiently for the BTP to attend and that I would speak to them in the hope of having the dispute resolved. Both of those REOs knew for a fact that it was physically impossible to remove me from that train - my size and weight alone meant that getting me out of an airline seat was not an attainable objective for those two REOs. Even if they did manage to get me into the aisle, room for maneuverability was zero due to various obstructions such as fixed seats, protruding armrests and other passengers. Therefore, the only logical conclusion was that they were not trying to remove me at all - but rather just attempting to get me to assault them. They only stopped when I clearly stated that I was not going to retaliate and that the whole incident was being captured on CCTV.

Chinese burns and applying severe levels of pressure to sensitive wounds is deemed to be reasonable force?

Given I voluntarily left the train, precisely what offence did I commit?

What is bizarre is that the fare from Canterbury to Tilbury is less than the fare from Canterbury to London St P despite the extra travel involved.

It should also be noted that the Canterbury to Tilbury ticket in question is significantly cheaper than a Canterbury to Gravesend ticket.