Stopped today by TFL ticket inspectors totally confused

[Barn]

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'.

s5(2) is indeed the most relevant, which is why I have said at the beginning that I would always provide my ticket and my name and address if stopped. s5(2) does not provide a continuing power of detention beyond this. As I have said, my complaint is not of RPIs doing their job, but rather of keeping people for an hour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I think it is actually, if it's in the context of a uniformed person making a statement that a person must remain in position, on a railway station behind ticket barriers, for an hour. A fare dodger probably wouldn't be intimidated. An honest person may well feel trapped, nervous and (as the thread title says) confused.

Obviously asking a person to assist is different, as is an encounter that takes a minute or two only, as may be an encounter in a much more open area.

 

[John Connor]

During the questioning I was not cautioned.
During the questioning I told them I don't have to stay here with you. However they said no you are obliged to remain here with me. I Obvi knew I didn't have to and could easily walk away, put I didn't take it further.
Toward the end, I was cautioned and at the end of the caution He stated you do not have to stay here you can leave anytime you want ( something along them lines ) and told them to have a nice weekend and I was on my way.

Cautioned AT THE END OF QUESTIONING.

And search.

Should of recorded it on my phone for records

 

[gray1404]

Something doesn't add up about this case. From the last post it sounds like it was all over the place. It sounds to me like the RPI didn't follow the correct precedure and gave incorrect information (e.g you do have to stay, caution at the end then you don't have to stay.) and I've heard heard of anyone being searched before over something like this. I think the RPI was being a bit over the top there and I wonder if this might end up costing them their job now that questions are being asked about what happened. As I have said before, once a valid touch in was established on the contactless card that should have been the end of the matter. By the way, did the police officer give you a record of the search?

 

[najaB]

As I have said before, once a valid touch in was established on the contactless card that should have been the end of the matter.

As MikeWh pointed out above, there was no way to determine at the time that the CPC was used to touch in, only that it could have been used. So even though the CPC passed the RPI had no way to know if the OP was telling the truth. All he knew for certain was that the OP's card was valid.

 

[Haywain]

Something doesn't add up about this case. From the last post it sounds like it was all over the place. It sounds to me like the RPI didn't follow the correct precedure and gave incorrect information (e.g you do have to stay, caution at the end then you don't have to stay.) and I've heard heard of anyone being searched before over something like this. I think the RPI was being a bit over the top there and I wonder if this might end up costing them their job now that questions are being asked about what happened. As I have said before, once a valid touch in was established on the contactless card that should have been the end of the matter. By the way, did the police officer give you a record of the search?

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions considering that you only have the benefit of one side of the story.

 

[gray1404]

You are jumping to a lot of conclusions considering that you only have the benefit of one side of the story.

Correct, but we can only go on the information given. I do admit when reading it I try to put myself in their position and think about how I would like to be treated. (or not i.e. a physical search is not something I'd be expecting) I say all my comments solely on the basis that the OP is of course, being truthful. I trust he/she will be able to secure an outcome they are happy with anyway.

 

[najaB]

I say all my comments solely on the basis that the OP is of course, being truthful.

Which is fair enough, but just remember that people have a natural tendency to remember events in a light that is more favourable to themselves than an impartial third-party might describe them.

 

[Surreytraveller]

So, what's the point of Inspectors now if you have no way of producing a valid ticket? If all you need to do is produce a contactless card, whether it was used to swipe in or not? Even if they stand at barriers to try and catch people, all you have to do is blag it as you no longer have to produce a valid ticket?

 

[najaB]

So, what's the point of Inspectors now if you have no way of producing a valid ticket? If all you need to do is produce a contactless card, whether it was used to swipe in or not? Even if they stand at barriers to try and catch people, all you have to do is blag it as you no longer have to produce a valid ticket?

There is a chance that this will happen - and it may well have happened in this case for all we know - but at least TfL would get a maximum fare out of it as the touch in and touch out won't match.

 

[clagmonster]

Is there a facility to check a list all the contactless cards that have been inspected by an inspector during a shift and issue summons to all those that have failed to touch in? Remember the inspection is recorded on the card, it shouldn't be too hard for LT to generate a list of all those inspected.

 

[najaB]

Is there a facility to check a list all the contactless cards that have been inspected by an inspector during a shift and issue summons to all those that have failed to touch in? Remember the inspection is recorded on the card, it shouldn't be too hard for LT to generate a list of all those inspected.

Yes, it is possible to generate that list, the difficulty comes if the inspector's notes are insufficient to make the match to an individual. Banks are understandably reluctant to provide personally sensitive information to third parties.

 

[matt_world2004]

As MikeWh pointed out above, there was no way to determine at the time that the CPC was used to touch in, only that it could have been used. So even though the CPC passed the RPI had no way to know if the OP was telling the truth. All he knew for certain was that the OP's card was valid.

While at the time it may not have been possible to tell if the CPC had been touched in. If the RPI suspected it hadn't have been would have been to take the details of the customer and the details of the contactless card and then check on the database 24 hours later instead of searching the customer.

 

[ian959]

While at the time it may not have been possible to tell if the CPC had been touched in. If the RPI suspected it hadn't have been would have been to take the details of the customer and the details of the contactless card and then check on the database 24 hours later instead of searching the customer.

Sorry, but could you please explain what your second sentence is trying to say? It does not make any sense to me thanks to your poor grammar and syntax.

 

[najaB]

If the RPI suspected it hadn't been used, the thing to do would have been to take the details of the customer and the details of the contactless card and then check on the database 24 hours later instead of searching the customer.

If my edit matches what you were trying to say - the RPI believed that the OP had used a student/child Oyster card, that is what he was searching for. The database check would only be useful as evidence if the search had been fruitful. Even if the database showed that the CPC hadn't been used, it still wouldn't prove that the child/student Oyster had been used.

 

[matt_world2004]

If my edit matches what you were trying to say - the RPI believed that the OP had used a student/child Oyster card, that is what he was searching for. The database check would only be useful as evidence if the search had been fruitful. Even if the database showed that the CPC hadn't been used, it still wouldn't prove that the child/student Oyster had been used.

However, it would show that a valid ticket had not been presented to the inspector and this would have had the same result on whether intending to prosecute.

 

[najaB]

However, it would show that a valid ticket had not been presented to the inspector and this would have had the same result on whether intending to prosecute.

Without finding the child/student Oyster a conviction would be unlikely - again, it isn't enough for TfL to provide evidence of what the passenger didn't do but rather to provide evidence of what they did. The OP could simply claim that he presented his CPC and the barrier failed to read it.

 

[34D]

So, what's the point of Inspectors now if you have no way of producing a valid ticket? If all you need to do is produce a contactless card, whether it was used to swipe in or not? Even if they stand at barriers to try and catch people, all you have to do is blag it as you no longer have to produce a valid ticket?

Indeed. The 66% of the population entitled to a CPC can indeed have a 'get out of jail free' card but those with poor credit records etc cannot

 

[najaB]

Indeed. The 66% of the population entitled to a CPC can indeed have a 'get out of jail free' card but those with poor credit records etc cannot

Poor credit or not, this only really matters if the passenger doesn't hold a valid ticket or Oyster card.

 

[arabianights]

Indeed. The 66% of the population entitled to a CPC can indeed have a 'get out of jail free' card but those with poor credit records etc cannot

Have you a citation that only 66% of the population are "entitled" to a conactless payment card? I would have expected almost all the adult population to be able to get one.

 

[tsr]

Have you a citation that only 66% of the population are "entitled" to a conactless payment card? I would have expected almost all the adult population to be able to get one.

I bought a contactless card for £5 from Orange Cash (as it was then); AIUI this option is still available from their successors at Optimum Mastercard. The only reason for me was and remains that it's a contactless pre-paid card which is separate from my main bank account, so it is usually only going to be loaded with a couple of days' worth of maximum spend up to the Contactless limit (damage mitigation against theft/loss). However, and this is my point, I believe this is available to any adult in the UK, including those with a poor or non-existent credit rating. Stump up £5 and watch out for the post, really!