Claim Against First Capital Connect - Had Valid Ticket

[Vordrak]

Last week I travelled from Welwyn Garden City to Kings Cross by train. I had a valid, paid for, First Class Ticket. The ticket had a photo card number, also valid and I had the photo card with me (You must have them together to make them valid). The photo card is a bit old and faded, the photo has slid and was poking out slightly, but the security seal is unbroken and the photo is recognisable as me.

I approached the barrier and Revenue Protection Officer stopped me. He accused me of fraudulent use and demanded to see some ID so I showed my driving license. He accepted the photo was of me ... then ... detained me whilst he wrote it up and gave me a slip threatening criminal prosecution unless I replaced the photocard within 14 days!

As far as I can see from my research (I am a law student) and the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as long as it is a genuine photocard and the photo is recognisable as me it is valid even if it is really crappy. Specifially, it must be a 'true likeness'. So, once the Revenue Protection office had established it was me then by definition it was a 'true likeness' and any power to prosecute or detain evaporated. s18 Rail Byelaws is an offence of strict liability ... but only if you did not have, or failed to produce, a valid ticket. I had both the ticket and the photo card.

The guy had kept me there until he had filled in the slip. He took his time - about 5-15 minutes. It was pretty straightforward because I was behind the barriers so he just did not let me through.

After that I hung around and demanded to see the manager. Whilst waiting I believe I heard the ticket inspector make an inappropriate comment under his breath.

The manager also asked to look at the ticket and tried to accuse me of cutting the photocard for fraudulent use. WHY??? It was my card - what was I going to do, sinisterly replace a photo of myself with ... myself?

So I emailed them about an hour later, including a contemporary note with a photo of my ticket and the photocard. I served a letter of claim later in the week to the effect that once they had established the photo was me there was literally no reason to accuse me of anything and no legal authority to stop me or threaten me with prosecution.

Have now had a holding letter pending a full response to my letter of claim.

My photocard has a name of the form 'Joe Bloggs' (not going to give my real name on the forum).

My driving license has a name of the form,

"1. BLOGGS
2. JOE CHARLIE"

Charlie being the middle name. From their letter it appears that the RPI misread the license and thought it said my name was 'Joe Charlie', which they thought did not match the photocard showing 'Joe Bloggs'. Had they asked I would have pointed it out.

I sent them a hi-res photo of the driving license by return pointing it out.

What do you guys think?

 

[bb21]

They probably have a point about potential fraudulent use of the Photocard if your photo is sticking out and not completely sealed.

However my understanding is that once you have satisfactorily established that the named person on the Photocard is indeed you then they should really have dropped the matter. There is no breach of the Byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act that I can see.

Have you received any letter from them? If not, they may well quietly drop the case once they realise that there is nothing dodgy going on.

 

[45002]

For Reference

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.u...gainst-First-Capital-Connect-Had-Valid-Ticket

 

[island]

What is it you want from the matter? You do not appear to be in any danger of prosecution, much less conviction.

 

[jon0844]

I expect you'll get an apology and maybe some rail vouchers.

I also expect they'll ask again, perhaps in a nicer way, to get a new photo card. They don't cost anything do they? Even if they don't ask, just get one!

Some staff members can be rude, but most aren't. You might also get some peace of mind that the person will be spoken to, although the outcome will not be revealed to you.

 

[bb21]

Now that I have a more rounded picture, and an understanding of what you really meant by the phrase "served a letter of claim" then my advice is don't hold your breath.

The RPI has the authority to ask you for your details in order to fill in a report for irregular travel, for the purpose of further investigation, as by your own description, your Photocard was in a condition that could arouse suspicion. Perhaps he was being awkward after he has seen your ID, however his power to ask you questions and complete the report does not diminish, maybe for the purpose of having a paper trail if/when you get caught again with the Photocard in that condition.

As for the advice by someone on the other forum to bill FCC for the additional expenses occurred replacing the Photocard, the amount due I can tell you now is zilch. The Photocard is available free from staffed ticket offices and it is your responsibility to keep it in condition.

You might get some RTVs for your complaint however there is very little ground that I can see which would entitle you to compensation.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Without reading the 'letter of claim' and hearing the evidence in support of its claim(s), then I can say nothing to the OP in response to the simple request for our opinions.

I agree with bb21 in so far as the limited facts available allow any estimate of a possible outcome.

But I will say that my reading of the first post is that a member of rail staff performed some routine checks on the validity of travel documents, in a reasonable attempt to detect, prevent, manage and/or contain fare evasion. In the course of this work, the passenger holding a damaged document was questioned further as a reasonable response to the defects found.

The choices which the passenger had were, either, to accept that their documents were defective with good grace and to make good the damage in a timely manner, or, to confront the railway officer and try to find fault with them and to compound the accusation, to seek financial compensation.

It appears, from the limited information available, that they chose the latter. I wouldn't have advised that choice.

 

[bb21]

The OP mentioned about the photo being able to slide.

In which case it is entirely reasonable to expect that the condition of the Photocard would arouse suspicion of foul-play. The RPI is entitled to investigate further (for good reasons too).

You don't have to supply your ID. That is the passenger's choice. However if the RPI cannot be satisfied that the Photocard belonged to the passenger, the only alternative I can see is for the Photocard to be withdrawn for further investigation. I doubt it is in the passenger's best interests to not be cooperative.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Without reading the 'letter of claim' and hearing the evidence in support of its claim(s), then I can say nothing to the OP in response to the simple request for our opinions.

I agree with bb21 in so far as the limited facts available allow any estimate of a possible outcome.

But I will say that my reading of the first post is that a member of rail staff performed some routine checks on the validity of travel documents, in a reasonable attempt to detect, prevent, manage and/or contain fare evasion. In the course of this work, the passenger holding a damaged document was questioned further as a reasonable response to the defects found.

The choices which the passenger had were, either, to accept that their documents were defective with good grace and to make good the damage in a timely manner, or, to confront the railway officer and try to find fault with them and to compound the accusation, to seek financial compensation.

It appears, from the limited information available, that they chose the latter. I wouldn't have advised that choice.

I'd agree 100% with that.

An inspector, who is presented with a damaged photo-card and genuinely has cause to suspect that it might be used not in accordance with the conditions, has every right to question the holder.

I'm not saying this was the case in this incident, but just as one example of how this suspicion could arise, consider this possible scenario.

If the plastic covering of the photo-card was cut, or split along side the photograph, and the security seal had loosened, allowing the photograph to be slid in and out of the opening, an inspector might very well suspect that the card & season ticket might be misused by allowing the interchange of photographs.

The inspector has every right to question that possibility.

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm afraid I disagree with the replies here and on CAG. If the situation was as the OP describes, and the security seal was intact and the photocard numbers matched.

Once they RPI had checked that the ticket photocard number matched that of the photocard, and the name on the photocard matched that of the drivers license, and the photo on the driving license matches the passenger that should the end of it. There is only slim evidence the ticket might have been shared, given no-one else was caught using it.

I can't see why there any need or right to further detain the passenger or fill in any paperwork, as there is nothing to report. I'm not aware of any part of the contract or legislation saying passengers are liable for wear and tear on photocards. Whats to say this wasn't caused by the plastic not being pressed down firmly enough when the photocard was issued anyway. I believe the passenger should have been let out with a gentle reminder to replace the photocard at the earliest opportunity.

Unfortunately the events described in this thread do not surprise me.

 

[jon0844]

I doubt anyone was held. When I stayed with my RPI all morning for his bogus claim of fare evasion, I was always free to leave. I chose to stay to be sure of what he was writing down, and to sign it.

If the pass looked like it had been tampered with, and without seeing it we can't tell, I can see why it was checked out. The photo could have been changed and a (poor) attempt to reseal it made.

If the staff member was rude, by all means complain and see what FCC says, but it does sound like the RPI (no doubt from the fraud team) was just doing his job.

 

[AlterEgo]

At which point were you detained, Vordrak?

A man asking you questions, not under caution or arrest, isn't being detained.

What are you claiming for?

What "inappropriate comment" was made to or about you?

It sounds like you were stopped legitimately after the inspector had reasonable grounds so suspect your ticket or photocard had been tampered with. He asked you some questions, was satisfied that there was no wrongdoing, but instructed you to get the photocard replaced to avoid such difficulties in the future. You were free to go at all times.

Forgive my impertinence, but I'm one of these people that sails through life without conflict or people being rude to me, even if I'm in a situation such as the one you describe. An interaction always involves two people, and your responses on the CAG forum are...interesting. Might I suggest being a little more polite to people who give you advice in future?

 

[maniacmartin]

It was pretty straightforward because I was behind the barriers so he just did not let me through.

The Railway Byelaws state:

(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station is via a manned or
an automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station, except
with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the
barrier in the correct manner.
(3) No person shall open a barrier or any other gate on the railway except where
there is a notice indicating that it may be used by him or with permission from
an authorised person.

So if the RPI did not let the OP through, they can't force the barriers themselves. For all intents, this means the OP was detained

 

[Mojo]

Further to Maniacmartin's post above, I overheard Southeastern Inspectors at St Pancake a few months ago tell a customer that he was not being detained, but was free to leave the station on any train he wanted. He was on the 'paid' side of the barriers trying to exit. Certainly raises some interesting questions...

 

[jon0844]

Every gateline has an emergency 'plunger' and if you were being held for no good reason then I'm sure you could use it and not risk any repercussions from the authorities.

 

[island]

Every gateline has an emergency 'plunger' and if you were being held for no good reason then I'm sure you could use it and not risk any repercussions from the authorities.

It would still be a byelaw offence.

 

[Class377]

It is probably also worth noting that the 16-25 photocard doesn't really have appropriate space for a photo - the application form says that a passport sized photo is required but this is quite a bit too large for the space given. Last time I cut my photo smaller than requested and it was still too large for the space, so I can easily see how a photo can end up going over the limits of the photocard and being seen as suspicious.

 

[island]

I don't think this thread is going anywhere until and unless the OP returns to say what his goal is from this matter.