Beware of Entrapment

[father_jack]

A guy walked in yesterday and asked about direct trains to Haverfordwest as his car had broken down the 1441 to BHM INTL rolled in 30 seconds later....

I more or less bundled him on it without a ticket and told him to buy off the guard. The next train was not till 1641, he had 3 hours to Cardiff from here and then to get to West Wales.

OK were not in the Valleys but I did the bloke a flavor and used some common sense.

Why didn't you ring the guard then via getting the number from control ?

I had an issue at my location only about 3 weeks ago on a Monday morning where "ingenico" who provide the chip and pin machines in a lot of places had actually technically collapsed on certain cards- I let affected passengers travel but contacted neccesary control rooms to page it out and also the guards/TMs on the immediately affected trains. All at 0530 in the morning.

But letting the passenger "wing it" is definitely not the answer.

Staff on here will all know "the man said I was ok/vaild" or to "have a word".

It ain't an option..............

 

[cjmillsnun]

I had a while as a ticket office clerk and just ask, how long does it now take to pick up a blank receipt, stamp it with a station stamp (if available) and write 'See guard for ticket' - adding your date and your name will confirm authority under National Railways Byelaw 18.3 [2005].

Any RPI will then be in no doubt that the traveller has been given authority to pay on train.

Yes, I agree that with a big event and TVM failure and/or excessive queues it is impracticable, but a quick call by a clerk to Retail or to the Operations Control to advise 'I've had to let XXX number board the XX.XX hours service at XXXXXXXXX without tickets to avoid further delays' will achieve the same effect.

As long as it would've done to sell them a ticket?

In the OP's case there was no mention of anything not working.

 

[Fare-Cop]

To add a little bit of chapter and verse to the good advice that has already been given, the reason why lots of people here think you could argue the point and win is because the National Rail Conditions of Travel say at Condition 6.3 that

The National Conditions of Travel here use much the same words as byelaw 18(3)(iii).

So since your daughter's boyfriend was told that he could travel, everything's fine? Well, no. If the matter ended up in court, the court would have to decide if they believed his story. Strictly, it is up to the prosecution (the railway) to prove their side, but ultimately it would come down to the court having to decide which was the truth - your daughter's boyfriend's story ('the man in the ticket office said it was OK just to get on the train') or the railway clerk's story ('I don't remember ever saying to anyone that they could hop on the train'). Of course, if the railway clerk confirms that he gave permission to travel, at that point you are home and dry.

Exactly right. As Yorkie and others have said, if permission was given to board and pay on train then no offence was committed at that point. The strict liability nature of Byelaw 18.1 has not been compromised because there is an absolute exemption provided by 18.3

If it can be proven that a traveller subsequently actively avoided a further opportunity to pay that would present a different picture, but we're assuming that isn't the case here. For example it is very common for ticketless traveller's on ATW to arrive at say Cardiff Central and offer to pay only from the last stop of the particular train that they travelled on rather than the further distant station where they actually boarded. I'm not suggesting for one moment that this happened in this case, but it does happen on a regular basis, even when they had been given permission to pay on train at that more distant starting station.

The major problem for revenue protection staff and the Company is the level of inconsistency in application of their own rules by other staff

Recent announcements about enforcing their 'Buy Before You Board' policy confirm that is ATW stance where ticket offices and both cash & card payment TVMs are provided. That position is supported by the Byelaw.

Announcements to that effect in the press by Directors and prominent signs at stations warning the policy have been a regular feature of ATW over recent years, but it seems from many complaints that some of their staff regularly ignore their own company rules (occasionally with very good reason) and the general inconsistency creates conflict.

There will always be genuine occasions when it has to be accepted that a traveller can be given permission to board without a ticket and pay at the first available opportunity, but the widespread abuse through 'pay only if challenged' has resulted in where things are now on ATW and unless there is clear evidence that permission has been given, conflict is likely to arise.

If I were the traveller in the incident reported here I'd certainly go to Caerphilly ticket office, speak with the person concerned and seek a note from that clerk confirming that permission was given verbally.

ATW will be able to confirm who was on duty at any given time and check internally although they will not be likely to provide the name & details to a member of the public.

 

[island]

A thought on reading some of the comments here. Given that the conversation in this case happened at the ticket office, would it not be worth requesting the CCTV from the day (which IIRC can be done as a Data Protection Act request if you want, or as part of the case if needs be), which would at least prove that a conversation took place, and with the correct angle and/or audio (do those microphones record?) potentially even record the result of the conversation?

As a judge/jury, definitive evidence that the defendent visited the ticket office and conversed with them instead of just running straight for the train would surely create sufficient doubt in the argument that they had no intention to pay?

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest CCTV, which some members seem to think is the solution to everything. It doesn't record audio, it's probably pointed in the wrong direction, it's probably been deleted already, and it won't be any use.

 

[CentralTrainer]

I would suggest the railway should plan for that contingency, such as equipping you with "authority to begin travel" coupons that could be handed out. They seem to be able to sort that out when they're doing a short-fare sting.

If only there was some type of machine where you could put, say, 10p into it to get a voucher giving authority to travel.

A Permit to Travel if you will...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JacobElis]

Thanks for all the advice. He has decided to pay the £69.50 to avoid the possibility of a criminal record. I will however be complaining to my MP and Assembly Member, as well the Dept of Transport

Thanks again

 

[extendedpaul]

There is (or certainly was a few days ago!) a big sign on the window of Carephilly ticket office stating that staff do not have authority to authorise passengers to board trains without first purchasing tickets.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thanks for all the advice. He has decided to pay the £69.50 to avoid the possibility of a criminal record. I will however be complaining to my MP and Assembly Member, as well the Dept of Transport

Thanks again

Once he has paid, get him to write to customer services with a complaint. He might and I stress the word might get some kind of ex gratia payment in rail travel vouchers.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If only there was some type of machine where you could put, say, 10p into it to get a voucher giving authority to travel.

A Permit to Travel if you will...

Those old PTT machines also had a sign on them reminding the traveller that they could put in coinage up to the single fare for the journey that they intended to make and as they were almost exclusively London short commute routes, that made sense, but it was quite rare to find anyone actually did that.

 

[Deepgreen]

I think the point is, you only "did the bloke a favour" if the guard is definitely going to be OK with selling him a ticket. If he isn't, then you may have made his day even worse...

Especially if he eventually returned to find his car impounded as well!

 

[6Gman]

What if the booking clerk actually said "Get it on the train" rather than "Get on the train"?

Does that imply an obligation to seek out the Conductor?

No DOO on ATW.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest that anything implying it was OK to board the train without a ticket given by a uniformed member of staff is to any useful purpose authority to travel.

 

[andrewkeith5]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest CCTV, which some members seem to think is the solution to everything. It doesn't record audio, it's probably pointed in the wrong direction, it's probably been deleted already, and it won't be any use.

Wow, there's no need for that kind of response. It was a suggestion, and if the case went to court CCTV is generally admissable, strong evidence. I did not say it was the solution to everything, and it's the first time I've ever suggested it.

I appreciate it doesn't record audio - with that comment I was more thinking about those silly intercom things that ticket offices seem to have, but obviously that's not an option.

As to the other excuses, I think any organisation would be insane to not have CCTV pointing at the cash handling areas and the most important areas of customer/employee interaction, and as for deletion - well that's dependent on policy but I doubt they keep it less than a couple of weeks in case the police are interested in something.

If the case went to court, a passenger clearly visiting a ticket window and conversing would create more doubt regarding intent to evade than a passenger who never made any attempt to talk to a member of staff.

 

[DaleCooper]

Wow, there's no need for that kind of response. It was a suggestion, and if the case went to court CCTV is generally admissable, strong evidence. I did not say it was the solution to everything, and it's the first time I've ever suggested it.

I appreciate it doesn't record audio - with that comment I was more thinking about those silly intercom things that ticket offices seem to have, but obviously that's not an option.

As to the other excuses, I think any organisation would be insane to not have CCTV pointing at the cash handling areas and the most important areas of customer/employee interaction, and as for deletion - well that's dependent on policy but I doubt they keep it less than a couple of weeks in case the police are interested in something.

If the case went to court, a passenger clearly visiting a ticket window and conversing would create more doubt regarding intent to evade than a passenger who never made any attempt to talk to a member of staff.

If you saw how often the CCTV straw was clutched at in these threads you would understand island's frustration.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think any organisation would be insane to not have CCTV pointing at the cash handling areas and the most important areas of customer/employee interaction, and as for deletion - well that's dependent on policy but I doubt they keep it less than a couple of weeks in case the police are interested in something.

We only keep our CCTV for a day or two, unless something happened that meant we needed to keep it (e.g. investigating till thefts, a fight in the bar, etc).

CCTV doesn't record sound, and it is useless (even if it's kept) to show what was said in a conversation.

To the OP, the difficulty is proving that "the man in the ticket office" said it. I'm sure he did, but everyone says it, and so there is a certain cynicism about the excuse. If your son in law can describe the person, they may have more joy.

 

[andrewkeith5]

We only keep our CCTV for a day or two, unless something happened that meant we needed to keep it (e.g. investigating till thefts, a fight in the bar, etc).

CCTV doesn't record sound, and it is useless (even if it's kept) to show what was said in a conversation.

To the OP, the difficulty is proving that "the man in the ticket office" said it. I'm sure he did, but everyone says it, and so there is a certain cynicism about the excuse. If your son in law can describe the person, they may have more joy.

I'm surprised you only keep it for such a short time - are you still using VHS tapes or something?

We've established that sound isn't recorded, but my suggestion was that actual evidence of what was said was not the point - the point was to show the intent. It is currently one word against another, with the accusation being that there was no intent to pay the full fare. The onus of proof lies with the accusing party, and a defence which was able to prove a deliberate visit and conversation with a member of staff who would have been empowered to issue a ticket would create doubt over a claim of no intent whatsoever.

Clearly, as so many people have jumped all over my simple suggestion, which was by no means intended as a comprehensive defence for someone accused, this conversation has been tried and tested elsewhere without my knowledge - one person saying that was enough!

 

[Llanigraham]

I would suggest that anything implying it was OK to board the train without a ticket given by a uniformed member of staff is to any useful purpose authority to travel.

Define uniformed? Even the cleaners get to wear a uniforms.
How many members of the public would know what a "proper" TOC uniform is?

 

[MikeWh]

Define uniformed? Even the cleaners get to wear a uniform.
How many members of the public would know what a "proper" TOC uniform is?

How many members of the public know which uniformed members of staff are authorised to give permission? In the absence of a definition, I agree that it is reasonable to accept that a uniformed member of staff is authorised to give permission.

Here in Southeastern land the cleaners are all sub-contracted and thus wear Whetton's uniforms rather than Southeastern.

 

[najaB]

How many members of the public know which uniformed members of staff are authorised to give permission? In the absence of a definition, I agree that it is reasonable to accept that a uniformed member of staff is authorised to give permission.

The more important question is "Why are the cleaners giving people permission to travel in the first place?!"

 

[Tetchytyke]

Define uniformed? Even the cleaners get to wear a uniforms.
How many members of the public would know what a "proper" TOC uniform is?

The cleaner wouldn't be giving permission, would they?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The more important question is "Why are the cleaners giving people permission to travel in the first place?!"

It's vital that all TOC staff know that giving or implying permission to board a train beyond their authority to do so is, or should be, a serious disciplinary matter.

 

[najaB]

It's vital that all TOC staff know that giving or implying permission to board a train beyond their authority to do so is, or should be, a serious disciplinary matter.

To my mind, there are only three members of TOC staff who should normally give permission to travel sans-billet: ticket office clerks, train guards and station/platform supervisors (where there's a safety issue like overcrowding).

 

[185]

It's vital that all TOC staff know that giving or implying permission to board a train beyond their authority to do so is, or should be, a serious disciplinary matter.

It was considered ordinary (good, best) practice at many operators some years ago that if the booking office had a queue, then the booking office staff would (a) tell the guard they had told people to board and (b) call control.

 

[Starmill]

I've seen several Merseyrail ticket office staff usher people onto trains, including people who turned up 1 minute before the train was due, and even when the next train is only 15 minutes behind, and ask them to pay at Liverpool Central. I think they then call this through and they're sold a ticket at the normal fare at the gateline. It seems a very pro-customer attitude and it doesn't seem to diminish Merseyrail's ability to charge penalty fares correctly.

 

[Llanigraham]

To my mind, there are only three members of TOC staff who should normally give permission to travel sans-billet: ticket office clerks, train guards and station/platform supervisors (where there's a safety issue like overcrowding).

Gareth admitted earlier that he isn't entitled to do so, and someone else has posted that there is a notice stating exactly the same. Therefore that cannot apply.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've seen several Merseyrail ticket office staff usher people onto trains, including people who turned up 1 minute before the train was due, and even when the next train is only 15 minutes behind, and ask them to pay at Liverpool Central. I think they then call this through and they're sold a ticket at the normal fare at the gateline. It seems a very pro-customer attitude and it doesn't seem to diminish Merseyrail's ability to charge penalty fares correctly.

That does seem a reasonable way around it if they are consistent in doing so. A bit more formal than the classic (puts accent on) "pay at dee other end then"[1].

[1] Once staff stopped doing manned barrier checks at smaller stations, this rapidly became a euphemism for not paying. And typically said manned barrier checks used to involve cash payment with no tickets issued, I expect a lot of it went into pockets and was never cashed up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is (or certainly was a few days ago!) a big sign on the window of Carephilly ticket office stating that staff do not have authority to authorise passengers to board trains without first purchasing tickets.

If that is policy, that seems to be a good solution in terms of providing the required consistency (if a little passenger unfriendly). Vastly better than nothing. But it would have to come with a policy of staff not complying with it and issuing such permission being disciplined for doing so to ensure they do not ever do so. If they do, they are making that inconsistency worse, however friendly and helpful it may seem.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If the case went to court, a passenger clearly visiting a ticket window and conversing would create more doubt regarding intent to evade than a passenger who never made any attempt to talk to a member of staff.

This has been mentioned previously on here and it does rely on checks actually being made. I know it's just one example, but we had a case some years ago where a chap claimed that CCTV would show him going to the booking office and collecting a ticket.

Subsequent check of CCTV a day later did indeed show the guy at the ticket office counter for a minute or so.

The booking clerk was then asked 'What ticket did he buy?'. The clerk replied 'He didn't buy a ticket, he asked me for one of those little folded pocket timetables". The resulting statement of the clerk was used along with that of the RPI when the matter went to Summons.

 

[najaB]

Gareth admitted earlier that he isn't entitled to do so, and someone else has posted that there is a notice stating exactly the same. Therefore that cannot apply.

So what are ticket office clerks supposed to do when their systems go down?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Gareth admitted earlier that he isn't entitled to do so

Did he?

A ticket office member of staff is an authorised person.

Whether they should exercise their authority in the way they do is a performance issue between them and their employer, nothing else.