Stopped today by TFL ticket inspectors totally confused

[34D]

I can't find anything wrong with your logic.

I agree also.

In any other industry I would advocate a complaint, though of course the 'stick' of prosecution looms so he may not wish to do so.

 

[matt_world2004]

The way this should have been handled IMO. Is that if the person in question was suspected of using a child oyster card to touch in and out of the system. With the customer claiming to have used a contactless card. Would have been to have taken the customers details. Including CPC card details. Placing an inspection token on the card. The RPI should have then waited 24 hours and have checked the card on the contactless database for a touch in token and exit token corresponding to the inspection time. It should have been made clear to the customer that if records show that they the customer has touched in no further action would be taken. That the only reason the inspector is obliged to check this information out because the barrier showed a child flag on the screen and that it is the inspectors responcibility to investigate it. No attribution of blame or guilt until it could have been ascertained that the customer did use a child oyster card.

The inspector should then have apologised for the use of the customers time and sent them on their way. TfL is huge about apologising on behalf of the company at no point should the RpI have accused the customer directly of fare evasion until certain that was the fact. or have detained the customer longer than nessescary as it encourages conflict and places the inspectors personal safety in danger. Any inspector who has worked for any period of time on the London Underground would understand that frequently barriers get locked or crash on a previous ticket, error code particularly the luggage gatelines.

 

[gray1404]

I do think a complaint needs to be put in about this Inspector and how he handled the sitiation and treated the passenger. This could have happened to anyone of us and this sort of behaviour needs to be challenged and dealt with.

 

[najaB]

I do think a complaint needs to be put in about this Inspector and how he handled the sitiation and treated the passenger

There's no harm in so doing, once the OP has assurance that TfL have no intention of taking further action. While it is very unlikely that they will, fanning the flames of a 'live' case with a complaint may have negative consequences.

 

[gray1404]

There's no harm in so doing, once the OP has assurance that TfL have no intention of taking further action. While it is very unlikely that they will, fanning the flames of a 'live' case with a complaint may have negative consequences.

I am not doubting what you are saying at all, and I am assuming you say this based on experience. However, could we have a little more discusson this point... I would like to think that the decision to take further action against a passenger and the investigation of a passenger's formal complaint should be treated as separate and it would actaully be very unprofessional and morally wrong for a customer to suffer negative consenquences as a result of them making a complaint. It sounds like though this is sadly what is occuring in the industry; which if so is totally wrong!

 

[najaB]

I would like to think that the decision to take further action against a passenger and the investigation of a passenger's formal complaint should be treated as separate and it would actaully be very unprofessional and morally wrong for a customer to suffer negative consenquences as a result of them making a complaint.

I agree that is how it should be, and in 99.9% of cases that is how it is. However, it just makes sense to wait until the TOC (or TfL in this case) has decided what they plan to do, if for no other reason than it is then possible to include it in your complaint!

There's the 0.1% of cases where the TOC may be minded to let things lie, but can't because they have to respond to the complaint. For example, an inspector stops someone who is guilty of a Byelaw 18 offence who then makes a complaint about the behaviour of the ticket inspector - in their letter of complaint they provide sufficient evidence to establish their guilt.

 

[John Connor]

Does anybody here know where and how I can check up with TFL on the status of the outcome and a possible complaint. I mean I have no details of the inspector at all?

 

[tony6499]

Before you hang the inspector and go to the ECHR I'd wait and see if there was something that we haven't been told about or that the Inspector had reasonable suspicion about for the reason the OP was stopped

 

[John Connor]

Also what I'm reading here by some posters, mistake me if I'm wrong, I could be taken to court ?

 

[najaB]

Also what I'm reading here by some posters, mistake me if I'm wrong, I could be taken to court ?

It's possible but I would say very, very unlikely.

 

[bb21]

It's possible but I would say very, very unlikely.

On what grounds? (Prosecution I mean.)

 

[najaB]

On what grounds? (Prosecution I mean.)

If the inspector's report doesn't match the OP's description of events. As I said, very, very unlikely.

 

[bb21]

If the inspector's report doesn't match the OP's description of events. As I said, very, very unlikely.

Hmm, yes, but we can only take the OP's words for it.

It is not in anyone's interests to provide incorrect information, as they will get incorrect advice back and ultimately they will be the ones paying the price.

But what you say is always a possibility and not one any of us can do anything about.

 

[John Connor]

So what I'm understanding is I either get a letter asking me to provide details of the events/court or don't receive a letter at all knowing that was the end of the matter?

wasnt the inspector suppose to give me some information rather then say bye your free to go??

Does anybody know who I can call contact TFL regarding the event.

 

[najaB]

Does anybody know who I can call contact TFL regarding the event.

Considering that you don't have a reference number of any description it will be difficult to get anything out of TfL. As I said above it is very, very unlikely that any further action will be taken if events occurred as you have described, so - and I know it's not easy - you really shouldn't worry about it.

 

[gray1404]

Have you checked your journey history online now? Did you receive the correct charge for the journey made?

 

[Antman]

Personally I'd be seeking redress for the embarrassment and the disruption to my day...

So would I, this whole thing sounds very concerning quite honestly!

 

[matt_world2004]

I would think location within station and time should be sufficent. You should have got a record of your search from the police officer too.

 

[Wolfie]

In my view, the moment the Inspector was able to establish that the OP had a valid touch in on their contactless card, that should have been the end of the matter. I find it most concerning that the OP states they were told that they had to stay (i.e. be detained) by the Inspector.

Indeed my understanding is that detention is only lawful if the individual doing the detaining has a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. I fail to see how this can be the case after the valid touch-in came to light and would be seriously tempted to at least threaten litigation for unlawful detention over this.

The most you'd be likely to get is an apologetic letter. It's not Northern or Virgin so you wouldn't even get a day rover or £20 RTV.

So someone can detail you wrongly for an houur and you have no comeback? Hum.. personally given the above (and obviously if I was utterly confident that I hadn't done anything wrong) at the very least I would head for the small claims procedure and sue TfL at my normal hourly pay rate...

 

[jon0844]

When I was stuck for 3 or 4 hours with an RPI it was so as to make sure I could read and sign the notes. I could have walked off and I was told I could leave, but opted not to for my own benefit.

 

[najaB]

So someone can detail you wrongly for an houur and you have no comeback?

You'll get an apology. That's all they are really due you if they had reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had occurred. It's exactly what you would get if detained by the police on suspicion of having committed an offence.

 

[Barn]

Indeed my understanding is that detention is only lawful if the individual doing the detaining has a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed.

I'm glad that others are concerned about this. A person has a right not to be unlawfully detained and, although in practice bringing an actual lawsuit is extremely unlikely, a person who forbids a passenger from leaving an interview held behind ticket barriers is prima facie liable for false imprisonment.

There is no general right (for a person other than a constable) to detain somebody even with a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed. The "citizens' arrest" under s24A PACE 1984 only applies to indictable offences, so a railway offence would not be sufficient (although theft or fraud could be in principle). Furthermore, a citizens' arrest can only be a reserve power, so the presence of the constable in this case would have raised real legal questions.

In any event, the RPI in this case eventually made clear that an arrest had not taken place, but apparently only after initially saying that the OP could not leave.

Absent a lawful arrest, there are a few specific rights of detention in a number of nineteenth century railway statutes but most are effectively obsolete. In any event, they leave the detainer on very thin ice as (a) they tend to require an actual (and very specific) offence to have been committed rather than a mere suspicion, (b) they are (I understand) unsupported by employer policies, (c) they are not necessarily compatible with the ECHR and HRA1998 due to lack of safeguards (and TfL is a public body), and (d) they tend to require the detained person to be detained for the purpose of bringing them before a constable or magistrate rather than simply held for the purposes of questioning and 'released' once this is done.

 

[najaB]

...they tend to require the detained person to be detained for the purpose of bringing them before a constable or magistrate...

That was exactly what the RPI did in this case. Detained the OP until a BTP officer was available to conduct a search.

Edit: We do not know what would have happened if the OP had attempted to leave.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm glad that others are concerned about this. A person has a right not to be unlawfully detained and, . . . . .

John Connor, in your opening post, you tell us that the officer "read out his your not under arrest . . . " which I take to mean that the you were not 'detained', and therefore could not have been 'unlawfully detained'.

Perhaps John Connor you can elaborate on this, but if my understanding of that phrase is right, then I would presume that you were voluntarily assisting the officer, despite the fact that BTP were called and another officer began a search.

Notwithstanding our complete ignorace of what it was that the officer suspected or thought that he had observed, it is entirely plausible that the officer did have reasonable grounds to suspect that there was evidence of a violation of one regulation or another, and that the enquiries were proportionate. We simply don't have enough information to know whether it was or not. But tere is one thing that we can be confident in presuming, and that is that the officer was persuaded that the enquiries were reasonable and proportionate in the light of what was suspected.

 

[Barn]

Dave, the OP has stated that he was first told that he couldn't leave (see post #25) and that the formal caution (and presumably his arrest status, although the OP could make this clear) was not until the very end of the encounter.

I obviously have no quarrel with RPIs asking people to assist them voluntarily and indeed I have no quarrel with RPIs exercising their rights to detain in strict accordance with the law. But a statement that a person cannot leave creates a state of detention (particularly when behind ticket barriers on railway property) and, if it is not given correctly, makes any argument that the assistance was truly voluntary very difficult.

I'm curious if you think that "reasonable grounds to suspect that there was evidence of a violation of one regulation or another" creates a power of detention and wonder if you could state your source for this?

 

[MikeWh]

in the end after scanning my contactless it got approved on the reader, which I also tapped out with the same contactless at my exit station.

Just to clarify in case there is any misunderstanding. If a contactless card is scanned using a portable RID reader then it confirms only one thing - whether the card is valid to be used for travel or not. If it is valid for travel then it says absolutely nothing about whether it has been touched in or not. It will send a record to the central system saying that a revenue check was made at the location and time reported. These revenue checks appear on your online journey history from the next day. If they show that you weren't touched in at the time of the check once all the other touches have been accumulated for that day then you are charged a maximum fare. After three such instances your card will be blacklisted and will not work gates or validators again. If the RID reader says it is not valid for travel then it means that it has been blacklisted. A card can be blacklisted for several reasons, including you reporting it lost/stolen.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

We're straying off topic now . . . .

Dave, . . . I'm curious if you think that "reasonable grounds to suspect that there was evidence of a violation of one regulation or another" creates a power of detention and wonder if you could state your source for this?

That conclusion is not what I wrote (despite a couple of typos) in respect of John Connor's incident, and is not what I considered to apply to that incident.

However you asked for the authorities for that position. While I must make the caveat that this is not an area in which I work, and there are bound to be minds more finely attuned to the question of detention and of 'reasonable grounds to suspect evidence' with different answers, but I believe these would be:

2005 SOCPA S.24(A).4, S.111 & Schedule 7;
PACE S.24 (as amended by SOCPA);
Austin v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] (contrasting deprivation of liberty with the tort of false imprisonment and with ECHR Art 5);
Moulton v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [2010] (tort of malicious prosecution in wrongful arrest and ECHR Art 5)
the first ground in Taylor v. Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2004],
Siddiqui v. Swain [1979] (to suspect);
Chapman v DPP [1988] ("it is possible to construe the words “reasonable grounds for suspecting” to mean only that reasonable grounds must exist even if the officer did not in fact entertain a suspicion. However, this would be to overlook the fact that a reasonable suspicion “is the source from which all a police constable’s powers of arrest flow...”);
Albert v. Lavin [1982] (re: detention is short of arrest);
Fox, Campbell and Hartley [1990] (reasonable suspicion).

I see from the above that PACE S.24(5) (a), (e) and (f) are capable of justifying arrest in a very broad range of circumstances, and that detention is not neccesarily arrest.

 

[Barn]

You never disappoint Dave! All I'll say is that constable arrest (to which most of those cases and s24 PACE exclusively relate) is a very different beast to citizen arrest. In fact the purpose of the SOCAPA amendments to PACE was to drive that point home and further separate them. On that theme, SOCAPA also deleted the detention provision in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act (s104 I believe).

I agree that detention isn't always arrest, but in some ways that's the point here! If it's not a valid citizen's arrest then the detention is probably unlawful, unless very specifically authorised by another statutory provision.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . , SOCAPA also deleted the detention provision in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act (s104 I believe).

You are quite correct, it was S.104. And that would have referred us back to the offences created by S.103 and S.16. By contrast, the RoRA still provides that power in S.5.2 (as do other enactments relevant to travel on the Railways such as Fraud and MOWP [Theft Act] and some of the more arcane legislation from the 19th c.) and that detention or an arrest under this enactment is not a 'citizens arreast'.

. . . constable arrest . . . is a very different beast to citizen arrest. In fact the purpose of the SOCAPA amendments to PACE was to drive that point home and further separate them.

Overlooking the narrow concept of 'citizen arrest' I'd taken some effort to choose authorities which clarify some of the terms used as they would also be applied on the Railways, and hope you'll find them helpful.

For reference:-

24A :
(1) A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
. (a) anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
. (b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.

(2) Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant -
. (a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
. (b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.

(3) But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only if -
. (a) the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
. (b) it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.

(4) The reasons are to prevent the person in question -
. (a) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
. (b) suffering physical injury;
. (c) causing loss of or damage to property; or
. (d) making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.]

 

[najaB]

I agree that detention isn't always arrest, but in some ways that's the point here! If it's not a valid citizen's arrest then the detention is probably unlawful, unless very specifically authorised by another statutory provision.

You are arguing that an illegal (or unlawful) detention occurred, but nothing the OP has posted indicates that he was being held against his will.

Telling someone to remain present while investigating a suspected offence isn't the same thing as depriving them of their freedom of movement. Please don't conflate this into something it isn't.