Chiltern Rail guard/revenue collector query

[bb21]

During which time the train is likely to have reached a calling point prior to the BTP arriving, at which stage the passenger is entirely free to go!

... who would then be stopped at the gateline, assuming that the station is barriered?

Not sure what would happen otherwise.

 

[island]

The theoretical passenger has given his name and address which is all that is required. The law doesn't require a passenger to wait around while the RPI verifies it somehow, and the most the gateline staff could do would be ask for the passenger's name and address again. Detaining the passenger would seem to be heading in the false-imprisonment direction.

 

[bb21]

Depending on how seriously BTP takes it, by the time gateline staff have faffed around with taking the passenger's details and explained everything to him, etc, BTP should hopefully have arrived.

I agree, if, say, after 20 minute the BTP is still nowhere to be seen, I doubt there's much else they can do. Whether staff can verify the details they were given as being true is not of interest to the law.

 

[Flamingo]

Yep, that's right.

This guy was aggressive and adamant that wasn't the case. If he'd said "I'm not sure, I'll just check" then when he read it said "Oh, that's fine, then" there would have been no issue. But he was aggressive throughout, and when he read it, slammed the manual shut, marched to his compartment and slammed the door, not checking any further tickets or saying a word after that.

For the record I did not complain at that, I only complained after the 2nd incident on a later date.

There was at least one child genuinely under 16 then, however the only requirement is to have at least one child who was under 16 when it was bought.

MikeWh beat me to providing a source! But I think there is no doubt as to the meaning. It's not that obscure a rule either, I thought it was universally known!

Yes, the 3-year railcard only allows this up to the 17th birthday of the child otherwise they could be on CHFAM tickets up to the age of 19.

Fair enough! You learn something new every day. I must admit, (except for one blatant case that was missing the FAM card, and they were both 20's), I very rarely challenge the age of the child if accompanied by an adult on the FAM railcard, figuring (probably a bit naively) that a parent won't be prepared to put themselves in a difficult position if travelling with a child. As I said, probably a bit naive of me!

Thanks Mike, BTW.

 

[RPI]

I would like the exact details as surely the RPI/guard cant have been that clueless? the cynic in me feels that there is more to this than has been posted......

 

[airwolf21]

In similar cases where someone has refused to give me their details I always call the plod. You cannot refuse to give your details to a police officer so it saves on arguments.

 

[Tallguy]

Many thanks to everyone for their comments. I saw the person today and got the full score. Apparently they were told by ticket office staff that their London season ticket from a station on the Marylebone to Warwick line was also valid on the Marylebone to Aylesbury line, which it isn't. The person concerned made a complaint about the guard but the guard's decision was upheld as the ticket wasn't valid for that route on that day (a weekday). Had it been a weekend, then the season ticket would have been valid as apparently on Chiltern if you hold a london commuter season ticket you can use the whole Chiltern network at weekends on that ticket.

I'd also like to thank everyone for their comments re having to give your name and address if found with a non-valid or no ticket. Now I know!

 

[Flamingo]

Thanks for getting back to us.

Now that you're here, stick around!

 

[Clip]

Many thanks to everyone for their comments. I saw the person today and got the full score. Apparently they were told by ticket office staff that their London season ticket from a station on the Marylebone to Warwick line was also valid on the Marylebone to Aylesbury line, which it isn't. The person concerned made a complaint about the guard but the guard's decision was upheld as the ticket wasn't valid for that route on that day (a weekday). Had it been a weekend, then the season ticket would have been valid as apparently on Chiltern if you hold a london commuter season ticket you can use the whole Chiltern network at weekends on that ticket.

I'd also like to thank everyone for their comments re having to give your name and address if found with a non-valid or no ticket. Now I know!

Ahh i see though in the first post you mentioned this

The ticket was valid for that route (she travels it every day) and she was undertaking a shorter journey than normal (the train she boarded had stopped at her normal station earlier on the route). .

And unless the train diverted then there is no way it would have stopped at the station she normally gets on.. Which is probably why we were all puzzled.

 

[oversteer]

.. if you hold a london commuter season ticket you can use the whole Chiltern network at weekends on that ticket.

There's not much of a network at weekends!

 

[penaltyfines]

In similar cases where someone has refused to give me their details I always call the plod. You cannot refuse to give your details to a police officer so it saves on arguments.

Common misconception - I was stopped for a stop and search under the Terrorism Act (nothing found) and nearly detained for refusing to give my name and address, until the bumbling copper rang his sergeant and received some education.

You only need to give your name and address if you are under reasonable suspicion of committing an offence, not that different to the byelaws.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the authorised person is not satisfied that the ticket is valid for whatever reason, they are entitled to ask for further details. It would be up to the authorised person to then establish whether an offence has been committed or not before taking further action. This research may involve reference to routing guides and fare manuals not at their disposal when walking through the 19.00 Pad-Bri., or investigating the sales point or ticket issue.

Taking the passengers name and address (and withdrawing the ticket and issuing a "zero fare" to allow for further investigation if need be) may be seen to be reasonable if there is any doubt, and the risk of having to engage in further correspondence regarding a ticket that in the passengers opinion is valid, is not grounds for refusing to furnish those details if asked for them by an authorised person, IMHO.

I'd be interested to know if any other train staff have any experience of the outcomes of passengers refusing to give details in the scenarios where there was a dispute about a ticket validity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The wording on the UPFN pad is that you are agreeing that you made the journey, and are agreeing to pay or furnish a reason why you did not show a valid ticket at the time asked.

Flamingo: Did you read this bit?

"Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person."

Having a valid ticket isn't reasonable suspicion. So if this paragraph doesn't apply, I'm curious what else in the byelaws requires you to give your name and address?

 

[Stigy]

It seems a little harsh that the Guard/Conductor or RPI acted in this way in the first place, although I'm sure he reasonably believed an offence had occured otherwise surely he wouldn't have asked for the details. The best thing to do in these situations would be to give your details, as if you don't, at best you'll be walking home I would have thought!

Always best to give correct details too, as you could find yourself falling foul of S.5.3(c) Regulation of Railways Act if you give false ones. Even if you own up after further questioning, the offence has already been committed and will more than likely be seen as the offender trying to evade further correspondence with the TOC, and thus evade paying their fare.

Always best to cooperate first, and argue later I find.

 

[Flamingo]

Flamingo: Did you read this bit?

"Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person."

Having a valid ticket isn't reasonable suspicion. So if this paragraph doesn't apply, I'm curious what else in the byelaws requires you to give your name and address?

There are numerous reasons why one might be suspicious of a ticket the passenger is claiming is valid. To list a few,
- it could be damaged,
- it could look like it has been printed on a computer printer,
- it could be defaced or altered,
- it could be via a different route but the passenger claiming they were told the route they are on is valid when purchasing the ticket.

Just because a passenger says something, there is always the possibility they are lying. I had a chap a few weeks ago on a child ticket, said he was 15, had no ID. I "should" have taken his word on it (the customer is always right, etc), but BTP met the train, and although he was young looking, he turned out to be 20. £80 fine.

I wasn't sure, and in a dim light he would have passed for 15. However, I was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Most of the time, the hassle involved in sorting a "suspicious" ticket out means that this course of action will only be taken if alarm bells are ringing very loudly!

 

[penaltyfines]

There are numerous reasons why one might be suspicious of a ticket the passenger is claiming is valid. To list a few,
- it could be damaged,
- it could look like it has been printed on a computer printer,
- it could be defaced or altered,
- it could be via a different route but the passenger claiming they were told the route they are on is valid when purchasing the ticket.

Just because a passenger says something, there is always the possibility they are lying. I had a chap a few weeks ago on a child ticket, said he was 15, had no ID. I "should" have taken his word on it (the customer is always right, etc), but BTP met the train, and although he was young looking, he turned out to be 20. £80 fine.

I wasn't sure, and in a dim light he would have passed for 15. However, I was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Most of the time, the hassle involved in sorting a "suspicious" ticket out means that this course of action will only be taken if alarm bells are ringing very loudly!

What I meant was it says 'reasonable' - is it reasonable if the guard's knowledge of valid routes is sub-par and they suspect a valid ticket is invalid due to the route?

 

[barrykas]

What I meant was it says 'reasonable' - is it reasonable if the guard's knowledge of valid routes is sub-par and they suspect a valid ticket is invalid due to the route?

The basic 'problem' is that there has only ever been one official paper copy of the routeing guide, and that's the one that was published when it was first introduced. The reason for this being that all the Ticket Issuing Systems and Journey Planner (the replacement for RJIS) implement routeing guide checks.

The net result of this is that most staff still make judgement calls based on "reasonableness", so if you turn up on a Chiltern service from, say, Beaconsfield to Banbury with a ticket to Basingstoke, you'll get pulled up for being off route, as it's routed via London.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Stigy]

but BTP met the train, and although he was young looking, he turned out to be 20. £80 fine

For what? As far as I'm aware there isn't a PND for Fare Evasion...

 

[MichaelAMW]

What I meant was it says 'reasonable' - is it reasonable if the guard's knowledge of valid routes is sub-par and they suspect a valid ticket is invalid due to the route?

Agree totally. This is the point I made earlier on, i.e. it's not 'reasonable' suspicion if the person in question hasn't the knowledge/training required to actually assess the situation adequately. Yorkie, every now and again, says the equivalent of "Bring it on!" and suggests that he would refuse to pay but happily take an UPFN, which he would challenge through the courts if necessary. I, too, would always stand my ground but in this type of case it's anything for a quiet life: the ticket checker's lack of knowledge is not a good reason why I should have to become involved in protracted correspondance, indeed in any correspondance at all.

I would also add that this isn't about being awkward or self-righteous, simply about being treated fairly. The problem is one between the member of staff on the train and his employer, not between him and me or between me and them.

 

[island]

For what? As far as I'm aware there isn't a PND for Fare Evasion...

Trespass on the railway, S55 British Transport Commission Act 1949, I suppose.

 

[Mojo]

Trespass on the railway, S55 British Transport Commission Act 1949, I suppose.

Surely if it was a fine it would have had to have gone to court? As I believe courts are the only people who can issue fines?

 

[island]

Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, police can issue on-the-spot fines of £80 (called "penalty notices for disorder") where they suspect commission of any one of a wide range of offences. Trespass on the railway is one of them; others include theft and "engaging in behaviour in a public place that is liable to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to an unrelated person". The police love them because they don't need to arrest anyone and there's much less paperwork, but it still counts as an offence brought to justice for their targets.

 

[Mojo]

I knew that, but they're not fines though, they're penalties

 

[island]

Well, a Penalty Notice for Disorder, if unpaid, is lodged at the magistrates' court as an unpaid fine; it doesn't result in a summons to answer for the original offence.

 

[b0b]

the ticket checker's lack of knowledge is not a good reason why I should have to become involved in protracted correspondance, indeed in any correspondance at all.

even that shouldn't be an issue, the TOC should be able to provide a checker with equipment that can read the magnetic strip of a ticket and evaluate it validilty in a few seconds...

 

[Flamingo]

It's not uncommon to have somebody travelling off-route claiming that they were told this route was allowed, sometimes even clutching a timetable print-out. A "via salisbury" ticket being used "via reading" for example.

They will often claim they were told this route was valid, and produce a timed print-out from a ticket office as evidence.

Now I don't know the converstaion at the ticket office, I don't know if the person asked for the quickest route (which they were given) or the route for the ticket they had.

Withdrawing the ticket allows for further investigation.

Believe me, this is more common than the guard making a mistake.

Regards the routeing guide, I had an experience recently when I sold somebody on-board a SSR via "all routes" and they came up to me to show the National Rail website that the ticket was cheaper via the restricted route they were on. To be honest, I did think what I had sold them was the cheapest - but in my defense, they had got on at Paddington, so I should have been selling them an ANYTIME ticket. Although I did refund them I also pointed out to them I should have been charging them over £100 rather than £30, and if they had boarded the train without buying a ticket, sitting there waiting for me to come along did not persuade me they were not trying to fare evade.

Anyway Penaltyfares, you seeem a bit hung up on Rail staff not knowing their job. As the OP came back and explained out, in this case, the guard was CORRECT in that the ticket was not valid for that route.

 

[RPI]

For what? As far as I'm aware there isn't a PND for Fare Evasion...

BTP can issue PND's for byelaw offences I believe?

 

[Stigy]

Trespass on the railway, S55 British Transport Commission Act 1949, I suppose.

Got the act right, but who trespassed? Would have been £50 not £80 and one would have to be lineside for trespass to occur, in this situation I only saw adult on child ticket, thus 5.3(a) RRA 1889.

BTP can issue PND's for byelaw offences I believe?

No they can't, and Adult on child isn't a byelaw anyway. I issue PNDs, the same as the BTP issue and can list all the offences that they can be issued for, all of which hold strong guidelines. The only way the offender in this case would warrant one would be if he kicked off and contravened S.5 public order act, of which is PND'able (£80), unless I haven't read the whole story and he did trespass.

Contrary to popular belief, BTP can't PND for smoking on a platform or fare evasion. £80 PNDs tend to be for otherwise recordable offences, and £50 PNDs for non-recordable offences.

 

[airwolf21]

I meant in this instance where reasonable suspicion has occured whereby i believe theft/fraud has taken place by means of fare evasion.

 

[RPI]

Adult on child could be a byelaw 18(1) offence provided that the customer boarded at a manned/TVM station as byelaw 18(1) requires a valid ticket to be purchased and byelaw 18(2) requires a valid ticket to be shown, if a child ticket was shown by an adult then a valid ticket wasn't shown.

 

[Stigy]

Adult on child could be a byelaw 18(1) offence provided that the customer boarded at a manned/TVM station as byelaw 18(1) requires a valid ticket to be purchased and byelaw 18(2) requires a valid ticket to be shown, if a child ticket was shown by an adult then a valid ticket wasn't shown.

Sorry, I don't understand where you're coming from here

Adult on Child ticket should really always be a 5.3(a), as the intention to defraud the railway was obviously there. I would imagine the only eception would be if the offender bought a ticket from a ticket office or Guard and the Clerk/Guard sold them a child ticket automatically assuming they were a child. Therefore only the 18.1 Byelaw would apply because there was no intent evident. Also, certainly all the TVMs I know of, won't let one mistakingly purchase a child ticket, as the default is adult, and you have to make a could of extra selections in order to find child, therefore blowing any of the old "I accidentally selected child ticket mister" excuse out of the water.

I find most adults buy their child tickets at the TVM because it save any questions being asked. What the little darlings seldom realise though, is that most staff can tell by what issuing facility a ticket was issued (TVM/Avantix or Office). If the little darling could prove that they were automatically sold a child ticket, I'd be reluctant to report them as you're on a sticky wicket should the matter go to court.

 

[RPI]

What I'm saying is that if a PND could be issued for a byelaw but not 5.3(a) then the officer could issue the PND as a byelaw offence in order to issue a PND rather than going to court etc.