Ejecting Passenger from Station

[navdra]

Can anyone give me the correct legal position regarding ejecting passengers from a station.

For example a passenger has a valid ticket for travel, but whilst waiting for a train causes problems and rail staff want him ejected.

The passenger has a valid ticket, so is it a legal case of the right to travel by the ticket has been withdrawn?

Is the passenger entitled to a refund?

What about if he's ejected half way through his journey at a station he has to change at, can he still get a refund for the entire journey?

Thanks.

 

[Southwest]

I suppose it would help if you told us what you, oops sorry, what the alledged crime was in the first place.

 

[navdra]

No it really is a hypothetical question.

I want to understand the situation regarding the valid ticket a passenger has purchased and what his OR HER rights are when they have been asked to leave. Whether they are ejected by force or leave of their own free will is irrelevant. Of course this assumes that the reason for removal is not due to a ticket irregularity.

My guess on it is that the TOC and passenger have entered into a contract for carriage and I assume in the contract it probably states

1) The contract, or right to carriage can be removed at any time (or words to that effect)

That gives the legal justification to refuse carriage when they have a contract.

Just want clarification that I am correct and if so what if the position regarding refunds to the passenger.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
From National Rail Conditions of Carriage


20. Withdrawal of tickets
If you do not comply in a material way with any Condition that applies to the use of a ticket, staff or agents of any Train Company may withdraw the ticket and you will be given a receipt. In the case of an Electronic Ticket, this may require you to either allow the staff or agent of the Train Company to delete the stored data, or demonstrate to them that you have done so in accordance with the conditions of use of that ticket.

Couldn't see anything about refund in this situation from the document.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The vast majority of stations and trains are private property, and access and use of that property is subject to Byelaws, other laws of the land and, as you've noted, where a person holds a ticket, there will also be conditions attached to the ticket and the journey or journies they refer to. The Contract for travel to which the ticket gives some evidence entitles the passenger to use railway assets subject to the Byelaws.

Byelaws 3 to 12 define behaviours which are not permitted on Railway property; Byelaw 24 includes the following:

(2) Removal of persons
(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
(iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.

Holding a valid ticket does not permit someone to travel in breach of the Byelaws.

 

[swj99]

In the event of a dispute regarding an incident such as this, I'd say that it would ultimately be a matter for a court to decide based on the actual situation, whether the belief held by the authorised person was reasonable or not.
Only if the belief of the authorised person was reasonabe in the circumstances, would the request for that person to leave, or their forcible removal if they refused, be lawful.

 

[fowler9]

I would have thought that legally it would be very easy for someone who is causing a danger to themselves or others to be refused access or thrown out of a station. I have a friend (Honestly it is a friend, not "a friend" meaning me) who manages to get chucked out of Liverpool Central every payday Friday. Since the Transport Police were involved on at least one occasion (He was apparently about to fall on the track) I would hope there is nothing legally preventing staff ejecting people from stations. I'm glad every time he gets kicked out, probably stops him from killing himself and traumatising staff members.

 

[34D]

If the ticket is unused, then surely a refund application can be made?

 

[Greenback]

I'm sure that any refund application received would be deducted the usual admin fee, which would mean that for many offenders, there would be no money to pay back, as the vast majority of trouble makers seem to be making short journeys in my experience.

The one major exception to this was two lads removed form a train and escorted out of New Street in 1994. They were told by BTP officers that their journey was over, and to get to wherever they were going they would have to make alternative arrangements. IIRC their journey was Aberystwyth to Newcastle, or something like that.

If they had asked for a refund then no doubt the explanation of how they did not finish their joureny would have been interesting, and if successful they would have been charged the admin fee payable at the time, plus the fare from Aberystwyth to New Street, which may have made a refund worthless.

Legally, I suspect that if a passenger is required to leave a train or station without having begun or completed their journey, then any contract will be voided by virtue of their actions.

 

[Flamingo]

If their behaviour is such that they have been thrown off a train and/or station, once they sober up and think about their actions they will realise they are lucky not to have ended up in a cell.

Any complaints to the TOC will be putting the TOC in a position of now having the passengers name, address, and potentially an account of the incident that can be used in court (along with the supporting CCTV), and in cases like this BTP have got involved.

If the OP or their friend has got away with it, I'd cut their losses.

 

[fowler9]

If their behaviour is such that they have been thrown off a train and/or station, once they sober up and think about their actions they will realise they are lucky not to have ended up in a cell.

Any complaints to the TOC will be putting the TOC in a position of now having the passengers name, address, and potentially an account of the incident that can be used in court (along with the supporting CCTV), and in cases like this BTP have got involved.

If the OP or their friend has got away with it, I'd cut their losses.

I'd say deffo cut their losses. I've always found the staff more than helpful when I've done something stupid. I wouldn't push my luck.

 

[tony_mac]

Legally, I suspect that if a passenger is required to leave a train or station without having begun or completed their journey, then any contract will be voided by virtue of their actions.

The byelaws only require a 'reasonable belief' to remove someone - you could legitimately be removed even if that belief is entirely wrong (as we have seen.....)
So if a person was, in fact, not in breach of the byelaws (or it can't be shown that they actually were), then I can't see anything in the NRCOC that would allow refusal of travel without any refund (and I think that would be pretty unreasonable).

(Surely, if a contract is 'voided' - then that must involve a full refund? You can't 'void' just one side of a contract, can you?).

 

[michael769]

(Surely, if a contract is 'voided' - then that must involve a full refund? You can't 'void' just one side of a contract, can you?).

Yes you can, but in doing so you become liable for any costs or losses the other party incurs.

If someone was denied travel without good cause, even though they would have to comply with a request to leave the ToC would be liable not only to refund the fare but also possibly other consequential losses incurred. (I say possibly as attempts will be made in NCoC to limit such liability, and it would be for a court to decide if such limitations were lawful).

If it was for good cause then they would likely be deemed to have materially breached the contract and thus voluntarily given up their rights under it.

If someone was ejected based on a mistaken but reasonable belief, then if it got to court the court would determine on the balance of probabilities if the reasons for ejection were valid or not. The reasonable belief is a criminal matter not a civil one, and thus the fact that the ejection was authorised by the criminal bylaws would not prevent a civil court from holding that by exercising its powers to eject the ToC had breached the contract, if it found that the passenger had not committed any actual breach.

 

[talltim]

Does it get complicated by the fact that the ejecting TOC (or BTP or Network Rail) may not be the one the contract is with or is that a red herring?

 

[hassaanhc]

Saw this notice up at London Waterloo the other day, unfortunately the photo turned out crap

 

[Greenback]

My previous reply assumed that there was good cause for someone to be ejected from the railway and denied travel.

It would be for a court to decide whether this was reasonable in the circumstances or not.

 

[michael769]

Does it get complicated by the fact that the ejecting TOC (or BTP or Network Rail) may not be the one the contract is with or is that a red herring?

No. They authorized person is acting as an agent of the ToC. The ToC is responsible for the conduct of its authorized agents.

 

[talltim]

So someone were ejected falsely, and it was proved (in whatever way) then the TOC they had the contract with would be responsible for disciplining the ejector as an authorised agent?

 

[EM2]

So someone were ejected falsely, and it was proved (in whatever way) then the TOC they had the contract with would be responsible for disciplining the ejector as an authorised agent?

Nope.
Byelaw 24 (2) and 24 (6):

24. Enforcement
(2) Removal of persons
(i) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws shall leave the railway immediately if asked to do so by an authorised person.
(ii) Any person who is reasonably believed by an authorised person to be in breach of any of these Byelaws and who fails to desist or leave when asked to do so by an authorised person may be removed from the railway by an authorised person using reasonable force. This right of removal is in addition to the imposition of any penalty for the breach of these Byelaws.
(iii) No person shall fail to carry out the instructions of an authorised person acting in accordance with powers given by these Byelaws or any other enactment.
(iv) In exercising powers conferred by Byelaws 24(2)(i) and 24(2)(ii) the authorised person shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms prior to exercising the power conferred upon him.
...
(6) Breaches by authorised persons
An authorised person acting in the course of his duties shall not be liable for breach of any of the Byelaws numbered 2, 4(2), 6(3) and 6(5), 7, 9, 10, 11(1), 13, 14, 15, 16(6), 17, 18, 19 and 20(1).

 

[island]

Well, if an authorised person ejects someone from the station when he should not have done, he certainly leaves himself potentially open to disciplinary action from his employer.

Whether or not a case (in tort or otherwise) lies against the TOC or the authorised person is another matter.

 

[Clip]

Well, if an authorised person ejects someone from the station when he should not have done, he certainly leaves himself potentially open to disciplinary action from his employer.

Whether or not a case (in tort or otherwise) lies against the TOC or the authorised person is another matter.

Not really, as the bylwat states, as long as they have reasonable belief that a bylaw has been broken then they are allowed to. If it turns out that they acted wrongly then nothing would happen to them as long as their statement after said they had reasonable belief that what they were doing was right.

 

[island]

Not really, as the bylwat states, as long as they have reasonable belief that a bylaw has been broken then they are allowed to. If it turns out that they acted wrongly then nothing would happen to them as long as their statement after said they had reasonable belief that what they were doing was right.

Laws define what is legal and illegal. There exist things which are legal but which will leave one open to disciplinary action. For example I could spend my entire work day watching YouTube videos.

 

[Deerfold]

Saw this notice up at London Waterloo the other day, unfortunately the photo turned out crap

There's similar up at Leeds too.

 

[Clip]

Laws define what is legal and illegal. There exist things which are legal but which will leave one open to disciplinary action. For example I could spend my entire work day watching YouTube videos.

You could do, BUT is watching youtube videos allowed at work? Not at mine as its blocked. If you were not doing your job by doing something else then that is what would bring disciplinary action.


And as yet, after many years of assisting in the removal of persons from the railway, including times when I or others have got it wrong not one of us has been disciplined or arrested or had a civil case brought upon us.

And I havent disciplined any of my staff for doing the same either and would only do so if they had demonstrated overly aggressive behaviour in doing.

 

[34D]

You could do, BUT is watching youtube videos allowed at work? Not at mine as its blocked. If you were not doing your job by doing something else then that is what would bring disciplinary action.


And as yet, after many years of assisting in the removal of persons from the railway, including times when I or others have got it wrong not one of us has been disciplined or arrested or had a civil case brought upon us.

And I havent disciplined any of my staff for doing the same either and would only do so if they had demonstrated overly aggressive behaviour in doing.

Would you discipline your staff if they were involved in the forcible removal of RJ from his train, as per his post from a few months back?

 

[afyutr]

If it were a reasonable belief that led to an individual being ejected, later proved to be wrong, I don't think it's fair to take disciplinary action unless the 'ejector' is showing some sort of form or recurring mistaken application of their duties. People make mistakes.

What would stop the individual claiming against the TOC though for, say the cost of a hotel stop or alternative travel (and possibly compensation)? Cost of taking it to court I suspect?

 

[Stigy]

Saw this notice up at London Waterloo the other day, unfortunately the photo turned out crap

That's a trial taking place in London at the moment (possibly further afield too?) and is basically an order not to return for a given amount of time or be arrested if they do. It is only enforceable at NWR managed stations though as it requires the landlord/owners permission and I believe they have to be permanently on site (doesn't have to be their management, their security or similar will do). Only Police can enforce this order at the moment too. As yet TOC staff can't act as an agent of NWR for this purpose though.

 

[Clip]

Would you discipline your staff if they were involved in the forcible removal of RJ from his train, as per his post from a few months back?

I only have RJs version of events here and what he has said he done and said to the OBM. I can not base a decision on that I am afraid. As much as I dont doubt RJ was ejected wrongly, I cannot take for gospel that what he said did not inflame the situation as I,nor you were party to the discussion at that time.


I know very much from experience, no matter how calm people claim they are in a situation, most people make a slip up in either raising their voice without knowing it or saying the wrong thing which leads to situations getting out of hand. Seen it happen many many times from both staff and passengers who you would never think of getting themselves in such a way.

ETA: Actually, I have just remembered that at first he refused to leave the train at the OBM's request and then through that action the OBM got the security company involved who then forcibly removed him from the train?Is that right?

If so, that proves my point above.