Hypothetical situation re trainspotters

[bb21]

I agree that there shouldn't be an argument, but I'm imagining the kind of contract staff that Northern (and others) like to employ giving permission, and then later encountering a directly employed RPI. The impression I get from some posts here that there can be 'friction' between the two groups with the RPIs often trying to override anything that the contract staff say.

As I said above, I personally don't see a problem but common sense doesn't necessarily apply.

In the customer-facing world, agency staff or permanent railway staff makes no difference when doing the same job.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sounds like the kind of idiocy inflicted on Londoners - I've never even seen a CTA. Maybe TfL will start to issue penalty fares to people without valid Oyster cards who are standing on the street in the vicinity of a bus stop even if they don't actually board a bus?

Not just in London, all of te Tyne Wear Metro is a CTA, as are othre local networks.

That would be the case were bus stops CTAs but as theyre not then its a silly comparison.

However I do believe that the DLR is a CTA and this starts where the red line is.

Yes, the red line or a barrier line.

BUT, there is an arrangement for people who wish to enter a platform without intending to travel :

7.2.4. Platform tickets. If you intend to go into a DLR station compulsory ticket area, but not onto a train, and do not have a ticket that is valid and available for travel, you must buy a printed platform ticket. To do this on DLR, you must purchase the lowest child rate fare from the ticket machine. It cannot then be used for travel, unless you are entitled to make a journey for which this is the correct fare.

 

[Deerfold]

In the customer-facing world, agency staff or permanent railway staff makes no difference when doing the same job.

In theory.

 

[319321]

I know, this is the argument we had before. It all comes down to the phrase "acting in the course of his duties" - if a gateline agent is supposed to stop people who don't have a ticket, is he acting in or out of the course of his duties when he lets someone past who doesn't have one.

As I said, I think he is but understand and can't find the logical flaw in the argument that he is not.

In the case of Fennelly vs Connex South Eastern (2000), a court found that a ticket inspector that punching a passenger was acting in the course of his duties and his employer was liable for his actions.

I fail to see why a court could ever reach a conclusion that, in respect of a Gateline Assistant giving permission to a passenger to be in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket, the passenger did not have permission to be in the compulsory ticket area as the gateline assistant had exceeded their authority.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

In the case of Fennelly vs Connex South Eastern (2000), a court found that a ticket inspector that punching a passenger was acting in the course of his duties and his employer was liable for his actions.

I fail to see why a court could ever reach a conclusion that, in respect of a Gateline Assistant giving permission to a passenger to be in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket, the passenger did not have permission to be in the compulsory ticket area as the gateline assistant had exceeded their authority.

You really cannot make the logical connection between these two situations that you are attempting to make, because the domain in which the agressive actions of the Ticket Inspector in Fennelly was considered, does not include any of the domain in which another Inspector might authorise a passsenger to enter a platform.

Fennelly was a case of the tort of vicarious liability. A civil matter. A matter of strict liability. It was not a Criminal case, was not concerned with any details specific to the Railways or their tickets, and specifically did not involve any Railway legislation, Byelaws, Conditions or other documents.
Also, I believe that it is quite incorrect to claim that Buxton LJ concluded that "a ticket inspector ... punching a passenger was acting in the course of his duties.". What he did conclude was that the punch following some abuse from Fennelly, while not authorised by the employer, was an act which was not divorced from his employment :

The necklock sprang directly out of the altercation. The altercation was being conducted by Mr Sparrow on behalf of his employer, dealing as he thought appropriate with a passenger who was not reacting as the employer would have wished; it would not have occurred without Mr Sparrow's power to inspect tickets when he was on his employers' premises. It is difficult to say in any realistic terms that this was not all one incident.

The speculative example of an officer granting permission to a passenger could never be considered under the tort of vicarious liability. What basis could there be for applying the strict liability of the tort in Fennely to making an employer liable for a civil remedy following their ticket inspector's actions having granted a permission?

Completely unhelpful to the discussion.

 

[Southwest]

I didn't think platform tickets still existed!

So, my local station is only manned at certain times of the day. Outside of those hours, you need a ticket from the machine at the front entrance of the station to gain platform access. My question is, are these machines equipped to dish out platform tickets? The TOC is Great Northern.

 

[221129]

I didn't think platform tickets still existed!

So, my local station is only manned at certain times of the day. Outside of those hours, you need a ticket from the machine at the front entrance of the station to gain platform access. My question is, are these machines equipped to dish out platform tickets? The TOC is Great Northern.

If there are no staff then the barriers will be open surely?

 

[bb21]

I didn't think platform tickets still existed!

So, my local station is only manned at certain times of the day. Outside of those hours, you need a ticket from the machine at the front entrance of the station to gain platform access. My question is, are these machines equipped to dish out platform tickets? The TOC is Great Northern.

Selling platform tickets at the machines?

The barriers might as well not exist.

 

[Deerfold]

Selling platform tickets at the machines?

The barriers might as well not exist.

It's not long since Leeds had a fairly prominent machine which sold platform tickets. If it's a problem from a machine why is not a problem at a ticket office?

 

[najaB]

If it's a problem from a machine why is not a problem at a ticket office?

People are slightly less likely to chance it when there's another human involved - if only for fear that their face could be remembered.

 

[bb21]

It's not long since Leeds had a fairly prominent machine which sold platform tickets. If it's a problem from a machine why is not a problem at a ticket office?

Quite a few reasons. For a start, it is not really required. For genuine needs to access the station without travelling, one should be able to speak to relevant staff and be let in. Secondly when you buy from a person, it is difficult to claim "mistake". Then you have the issues najaB just mentioned. Machines will not remember you whereas abuse of platform tickets may result in you being recognised by staff. Not making it available from machines removes the opportunist temptation from many fare evaders. There are also others but no point me listing them all.

 

[Deerfold]

Quite a few reasons. For a start, it is not really required. For genuine needs to access the station without travelling, one should be able to speak to relevant staff and be let in.

That's a different argument - I asked what the difference was between a ticket office and a machine, not asking to be let through the gateline.

Secondly when you buy from a person, it is difficult to claim "mistake". Then you have the issues najaB just mentioned. Machines will not remember you whereas abuse of platform tickets may result in you being recognised by staff.

If the machine prompts "Platform ticket only, not valid for travel" and prints that on the ticket too it's hard to claim a "mistake" too.

If you want staff to know you're going through on a platform ticket, make sure the machines reject them so you have to go through the manual check. Otherwise I see little difference in a ticket office the other side of the station selling a ticket and then someone going through the barriers. Or can you tell someone who's going to misuse a platform ticket by looking at them?

Not making it available from machines removes the opportunist temptation from many fare evaders.

So do you think that for all the years Leeds had a platform ticket machine there was widespread misuse?

There are also others but no point me listing them all.

I'm really not seeing any that are convincing me. Do feel free to list some more.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Platform tickets are explicitly clear that they are not valid on trains.

If you do seek authority for anything from an officer of the railway. As you would when dealing with a call centre. Make a note of the name, emoyee number, date and time. Then there can be no arguement. I always give my name, emoyee number and train headcode if applicable if authorising anything for punters. That way if there is any issue then it comes back to me and safeguards the punter acting under my instruction

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platform tickets are explicitly clear that they are not valid on trains.

If you do seek authority for anything from an officer of the railway. As you would when dealing with a call centre. Make a note of the name, emoyee number, date and time. Then there can be no arguement. I always give my name, emoyee number and train headcode if applicable if authorising anything for punters. That way if there is any issue then it comes back to me and safeguards the punter acting under my instruction

Sounds good.

TBH, it's increasingly my view that those railway staff such as yourself who are authorised to make exceptions to rules relating to ticketing should be issued with a special pad and stamp to give that authorisation in writing, and it should be made very clear on signage and in staff training that verbal authorisation is under no circumstances acceptable.

There are too many misunderstandings about this kind of thing.

 

[jon0844]

Running with that, does that mean that you should not only ask permission, but also ask whether the person is authorised to give permission, and maybe also ask for their manager, or a letter in writing, confirming that genuinely authorised permission has been given, just in case a pedantic RPI comes along half an hour later?

Just how stupid does this have to get?

My local shopping centre had a go at me for taking a photo in the car park of the road below. For anti-terror reasons!

I wrote to the owner for clarification and was told I need to seek permission even if I just want to take a photo of my son in their centre (for example, him sitting on a kiddie ride). They said this is to be on the 'safe side', relating to the heightened terror threat and taking photos of children.

That's how silly things CAN get!

(Edit; it got more crazy on the day because the security guard called two PCSOs to stop me - who then asked to see my phone and did a police check. I gave my details but told them they'd need a court order to see my photos. They did back off, but continued the anti-terror line even when I pointed out that the police (as in real police) actively seek ordinary people to take and supply photos/video precisely to HELP combat terrorism).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shopping centres have long been up to that kind of garbage.

 

[island]

Ultimately the owners of private property such as shopping centres and the railway may set such conditions as they wish on the permission given to enter that property.

Calling the plasticops was ridiculous however.

 

[al78]

Sounds like the kind of idiocy inflicted on Londoners - I've never even seen a CTA. Maybe TfL will start to issue penalty fares to people without valid Oyster cards who are standing on the street in the vicinity of a bus stop even if they don't actually board a bus?

Your analogy doesn't work. Pedestrians have an absolute right to use a public road so there would be no legal authorisation to issue a penalty fare for someone standing alongside a road near a bus stop. A railway line and station are not public rights of way.

 

[Deerfold]

A railway line and station are not public rights of way.

Generally that's true, but there are stations with rights of way through them.