Who has the final say.... Guard or RPI?

[Antman]

A mate of mine who is a guard on Southeastern said the normal etiquette is for any revenue staff to go and speak to the guard when they board to ask about what tickets have been checked etc.

 

[Fare-Cop]

RPIs have authority to deal with things that Guards don't and vice versa - neither should be perpetuating an argument in public, it's both childish & unprofessional

We don't know the absolute facts, but in examining possibilities further, what about the RPI who 'turns a blind eye' to a friend not paying despite this person being brought to their attention by a Guard, or vice versa, the Guard who always lets a mate travel without paying, but is subsequently reported for fare evasion. There is no 'The Guard authorised it' get-out.

Whatever the dispute between staff, the right place to deal with it is in private.

Simply arguing in front of the public, looking for sides to be taken by observers does no-one any favours and makes each party look just as stupid as the other.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In examining possibilities further, what about the RPI who 'turns a blind eye' to a friend not paying despite this person being brought to their attention by a Guard, or vice versa, the Guard who always lets a mate travel without paying, but is subsequently reported for fare evasion. There is no 'The Guard authorised it' get-out.

There is, so far as the passenger is concerned. If the passenger has received permission from an Authorised Person (a revenue guard is one such Authorised Person by definition) to travel, that is the end of the matter and they can neither be PFed nor prosecuted.

However, what might arise is a disciplinary matter if that Authorised Person should not have given permission (e.g., as you say, it's a guard who always gives his mate permission to travel free, which he clearly should not), and if that is the case that should of course be reported for investigation via the company's official channels for doing so.

Whatever the dispute between staff, the right place to deal with it is in private.

Simply arguing in front of the public, looking for sides to be taken by observers does no-one any favours and makes each party look just as stupid as the other.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[Fare-Cop]

There is, so far as the passenger is concerned. If the passenger has received permission from an Authorised Person (a revenue guard is one such Authorised Person by definition) to travel, that is the end of the matter and they can neither be PFed nor prosecuted.

Agreed, but what I was getting at is that does not create an exemption from liability for the fare and that would be the same if it were the RPI's mate. I should have worded that better.

It certainly would negate any possibility of prosecution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, but what I was getting at is that does not create an exemption from liability for the fare and that would be the same if it were the RPI's mate. I should have worded that better.

It certainly would negate any possibility of prosecution.

That's an interesting question. The liability may technically exist, but if there is no means to enforce it it comes down to:

RPI: That'll be £21.50 please.
Passenger: No.
RPI: Umm...

...which absent the BTP or some security guards being present to use the old-fashioned method of "chuck them off in the middle of nowhere" makes it difficult.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Agreed, but what I was getting at is that does not create an exemption from liability for the fare and that would be the same if it were the RPI's mate. I should have worded that better.

It certainly would negate any possibility of prosecution.

I wouldn't necessarily agree. The contract is created when the services start to be provided - i.e. when the train departs. If the guard states at or before this time that the fare is waived, it is no different to writing off any other debt - and hence a defence of 'promissory estoppel' (not that it should be relied on, where other options exist) would likely succeed.

 

[Antman]

RPIs have authority to deal with things that Guards don't and vice versa - neither should be perpetuating an argument in public, it's both childish & unprofessional

We don't know the absolute facts, but in examining possibilities further, what about the RPI who 'turns a blind eye' to a friend not paying despite this person being brought to their attention by a Guard, or vice versa, the Guard who always lets a mate travel without paying, but is subsequently reported for fare evasion. There is no 'The Guard authorised it' get-out.

Whatever the dispute between staff, the right place to deal with it is in private.

Simply arguing in front of the public, looking for sides to be taken by observers does no-one any favours and makes each party look just as stupid as the other.

I totally agree that whatever the rights and wrongs it looks ridiculously unprofessional for staff to be arguing with each other in public, and somebody will probably have their phone out recording it all to stick on youtube.

 

[najaB]

I'm not convinced this is the same argument you were making earlier.

It sounds like a case of playing an extreme devils advocate position, and changing that position when the argument is lost.

No. The argument that was made is that, once an authorised person gives permission to travel, an RPI has no grounds to question the passenger, request name and address, etc. The point I was making is that an RPI investigating a pattern of behaviour might still have grounds to question that passenger.

Even though, strictly speaking, the passenger has a defense against a Byelaw prosecution for that particular journey, fraud charges could still be pressed.

 

[gray1404]

I would say that the guard is in charge of the train and that is that. As far as the passenger is concerned though, once an authorised member of staff has given permission to travel on an alternative service that that cannot be overturned. In the days of London Midland, I had permission to travel on alternative services from guards, ticket office staff and platform staff (the latter marking the back of my ticket) and not once did anyone question it. I also had a situation where a member of staff told me that I couldn't travel on the next train because my ticket hadn't been endorsed and an RPI got involved and said: "if you train is delayed or canceled, you're allowed on the next one and that's it. Not your fault so don't delay yourself getting your ticket endorsed unless you want to." I make this point to say there are actually quite a few members of staff who can give permission and once given it should not be overturned.

It is for the railway to sort out themselves internally if there are not happy with something and the customer should not be getting involved in that. Quite honestly though, even if one member of staff things permission should not have been given, is it even worth reporting internally. Surely it is better to let it go and they should be glad their colleague was trying to help a passenger in need.

 

[Trackman]

I've seen RPI's have a go at guards and even drivers about 20 years ago on a NW franchise.
One RPI was going to have a guard disciplined for leaving the guard door open and a driver was moaning about gear changes; they went into the cab and told him to get on with it.
I suspect these RPI's were old 'Goldies' or management and ranked higher than the other staff. I guess RPI's are paid less and lower 'ranked' than guards now.
Also I've seen guards and drivers have arguments about who is charge of a train when I was at Wigan NW when the train moved backwards down the slope with the doors open! (no interlocking on the unit then).

Going back to subject in hand, in this situation were I do not have a valid ticket (which I have done by accident and the guard has allowed me to travel without excess) - I ask the guard to endorse the ticket in case of crew changes or I'm stopped at the destination.

 

[8J]

I'm of the opinion that the guard is in charge of the passengers on the train and as the driver, I am in charge of moving the train safely and in timely manner. Whether that defines me as an authorised person in terms of ticket regulations is debatable.

As previously stated, all that I want to do is keep the train moving on time and safely. When you have aggressive revenue staff like the person in question, I see that as a safety risk not only for their safety but inso much as that passengers may pull passcoms and egresses in volatile situations in the saloon.

I have reported said person to the area revenue manager who was not happy to hear about their conduct and assures me that it will be dealt with. He also said that I did the right thing by backing the passenger up and calming the situation down even though it is not part of my normal duties to do so.

 

[Fare-Cop]

No. The argument that was made is that, once an authorised person gives permission to travel, an RPI has no grounds to question the passenger, request name and address, etc. The point I was making is that an RPI investigating a pattern of behaviour might still have grounds to question that passenger.

Even though, strictly speaking, the passenger has a defense against a Byelaw prosecution for that particular journey, fraud charges could still be pressed.

Absolutely correct, the only authority the Guard could give would be that to board and travel on the train.

The Guard has no authority to overrule a PACE trained RPI in respect of investigating a suspected fare evasion matter. if that were evident.

If it were purely an argument as to whether the traveller was allowed to board without a ticket, the Guard has a right to authorise that, but that's as far as the authority goes.

No Byelaw 18 offence could be pursued, although there are over 20 Byelaws in all and half of them involve offences relating to behaviour and / or ticketing, but if evidence of attempted fraud were identified that is an entirely different matter.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I guess RPI's are paid less and lower 'ranked' than guards now..

Generally speaking not true. Two entirely different management reporting lines in many cases. It may be true in respect of earnings only for some part-time RPIs

In some cases TOCs have a need of and have introduced more RPIs simply because conductor guards don't go through and perform their retail duties when they should.

That is a fact reported more often by the public than any other staff and we have heard the 'but there was a good reason' a great many times.

So have the TOCs management and monitor it. Mystery shoppers are pretty common.

 

[Segedunum]

I've had VTEC revenue protection attempt to charge me a full fare when I boarded a service having missed a connection due to, ironically, the failure of a VTEC service south of Durham (next Grand Central was three hours away which was what my ticket was for). I approached the guard for permission to travel and he asked me to hang on until he'd done the doors.

Meanwhile they interrupted and said 'we work for Virgin and we say you shouldn't be on here. That'll be £xxx'.

Guard quickly overruled them and told them to stop talking nonsense and that was that. They weren't too pleased.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[najaB]

I was told at the time that most VTEC "revenue protection" staff were actually agency staff, for all they claimed to be Virgins

Hmm... Is there supposed to be a possessive apostrophe in that statement?

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[NoOnesFool]

Surely

Yes as an ex guard I thought that was the case. I wasn't sure if anything had changed since the NRCOT was introduced.

The guard was more than a bit miffed. He didn't even see them board the train (in fairness the train was rather busy). I just heard an altercation going on behind my cab and found this out. What did make me laugh was after I said my piece and we got going, the passenger informed me that the RPI told the passenger that "I can get the guard and driver into a lot of trouble for this"

Surely, as colleagues, there should be an element of unity?

 

[najaB]

Surely, as colleagues, there should be an element of unity?

If not unity, at least professional courtesy.

 

[Thedispatcher]

In the West Midlands, convention if not rule is that RPIs will always ask the guard if they are happy for them to board, work and PF as required. The guard has the option to decline them, not allow them on the train/not allow them to work it. I would take the view that as the guard, it’s your train, you decide who has authority to travel, EG staff or others with good reasons.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I don't think most Guards will cause a fuss, you always the get the odd staff who seem to hate RPIs for whatever reason even though they are only doing their job and trying to keep ticketless travel down, which strangely on many TOCs the Guards are also trying to do. Some of the stories on here are just petty and childish, Guards and RPIs squabbling, obstructing each others jobs etc etc. Perhaps more than likely is the Guard is annoyed because they will lose comission if the RPIs go through. Otherwise I would imagine they would say they are welcome to do what they like. I have known Guards who see the revenue waiting on platforms, and invite them to board the train so they can get away with not having to check tickets.

 

[NoOnesFool]

I don't think most Guards will cause a fuss, you always the get the odd staff who seem to hate RPIs for whatever reason even though they are only doing their job and trying to keep ticketless travel down, which strangely on many TOCs the Guards are also trying to do. Some of the stories on here are just petty and childish, Guards and RPIs squabbling, obstructing each others jobs etc etc. Perhaps more than likely is the Guard is annoyed because they will lose comission if the RPIs go through. Otherwise I would imagine they would say they are welcome to do what they like. I have known Guards who see the revenue waiting on platforms, and invite them to board the train so they can get away with not having to check tickets.

There is, and has always been a battle of hierarchy on the railway. At the bottom are contracted staff, the cleaners, catering company contracters and to an extent, security contractors. Then there are TOC employed non-critical staff, the First Class Hosts and chefs. Revenue Protection come towards the top of the hierarchy but Guards and Drivers are right at the top, although some Guards hold RPOs with higher regards.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>

 

[tsr]

There is, and has always been a battle of hierarchy on the railway. At the bottom are contracted staff, the cleaners, catering company contracters and to an extent, security contractors. Then there are TOC employed non-critical staff, the First Class Hosts and chefs. Revenue Protection come towards the top of the hierarchy but Guards and Drivers are right at the top, although some Guards hold RPOs with higher regards.

From certain points of view, this is not practical, let alone fair. If someone is belittling the cleaning staff then they won't clean my train as well as they could. And if the train is too dirty it won't be going anywhere (yes, vomit comets, I'm looking at you). Within the hierarchy, at that particular point in time, the very existence of a driver matters not a jot!

 

[jon0844]

I wonder what privileges the cleaners get in comparison to rail staff? Obviously they enjoy free travel for their work, but do they get free travel on the TOC they work for, or PRIV discounts?

When you see what they do, based on what a train looks like that doesn't have cleaners going through, you realise just how valuable their work is. But I rather suspect they're paid a minimum wage and don't get any benefits?

 

[6Gman]

I wonder what privileges the cleaners get in comparison to rail staff? Obviously they enjoy free travel for their work, but do they get free travel on the TOC they work for, or PRIV discounts?

When you see what they do, based on what a train looks like that doesn't have cleaners going through, you realise just how valuable their work is. But I rather suspect they're paid a minimum wage and don't get any benefits?

I fear a lot of such roles are outsourced these days. Minimum wage. Few benefits, and certainly none from the TOC.

 

[atraindriver]

<deleted>