Rail Enforcement Officers = Private Militia?

[Nursey1]

Had a very nasty encounter the other day with a couple of these guys

Travelling from Kings X up north on East coast rail. I got on to a local northern train about 9 0 clock from Leeds. As background I should mention that I have an old knee injury which has flared up the past couple of weeks. After 3 or 4 hours sitting in economy and a sprint across Leeds station it was quite painful and getting swollen.

On the local train I knew I had to elevate it. I rooted about in my bag found a copy of the Evening Standard to put on the seat opposite then rested my foot on it.

About five minutes later a guy in a faded and dirty yellow vest came walking quite fast up the carriage and quite loudly told me to get my feet off the seat as he passed. I did but then thought who the hell is that? He was not looking at tickets just striding through the train. I put my feet back up.
A couple of minutes later he was back with colleague.
"I've already told you, get your feet off that seat!" I replyed
"Excuse me but who are you and where are your manners?"
Not easily intimidated you see and I was really annoyed by the tone of voice and aggression which would have been more suited to a gang of drunk youths lolling around drinking than a woman approaching 60 travelling alone. I was really angry!
Rail Enforcement officers and we have asked you twice now to get your foot off that seat
I did and said "I want your names and I want to see ID"
I copied the name and number from one but the other guy said he didn't have to give his name and wouldn't show me ID. He quoted a number which was totally different from the format of the other. I explained about my knee and pointed out the protection I had put on the seat
They said "right well we want your name too". I gave it then, pencil poised he said Date of birth. I asked "do you have the right to ask me for personal details?"
I have the right to ask you anything I like and if you refuse it's an offense"
Bear in mind at this point there were two big blokes looming over me. I gave my name address. There was various other conversation in the same sort of vein as they scribbled furiously in their notebooks. At no time did they tell me what was going on or why they were doing that. They withdrew to the end of the carriage and one of the other 3 or 4 passengers in the train whispered through the seat back to me to ask if I was okay. They had remained silent throughout and I think it was because they were a bit scared. I asked as I got out why they wore no ID on their vests and one of them turned round and showed me Rail Enforcement Officer on the back (quite faded) so it wasn't obvious
I phoned BTP in the morning as I thought they must be part of them but they didn't recognise the numbers and put me on to Northern Rail. They have told me that I will get a letter where I can put my side of the story.
I am pleased in a way to hear from them that it will be on CCTV, if there is audio it will support my side of the encounter but is there audio?
Your thoughts and advice appreciated

 

[najaB]

...if there is audio it will support my side of the encounter but is there audio?

I would be very surprised if there is audio.

 

[GadgetMan]

Your thoughts and advice appreciated

1)Keep your feet off the seats.
2)Don't run, especially if your legs/joints can't take it.

 

[Nursey1]

1)Keep your feet off the seats.
2)Don't run, especially if your legs/joints can't take it.

Yes I understand (now) that there is a bye law about feet on seats but this wasn't explained. I did ask and one of the guys went Company Policy

It wasn't a run so much as fast hobble. I know I shouldn't have!

I have put in a complaint about these guys and their attitude because I also think that they must have breached some company policy by their behaviour but without audio how can I prove it? Will I be believed.

Will I be prosecuted in these sort of circumstances?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

There is no audio on the installed on-board CCTV.

You should be aware that there is a Railway Byelaw which is used to prevent people putting their feet on seats, though the actual wording is "No person shall soil any part of the railway".

The Inspectors are entirely justified in patrolling trains and stations to maintain order, report offenders and to prevent crime; there is no reason why BTP would be informed of their movements.

There is another Byelaw which states that "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."

 

[Parham Wood]

Technically your feet were not on the seat but on the newspaper.

 

[Nursey1]

I am also in complete disbelief that a railway would employ a couple of bully's like this. When did that happen? It's actually quite dangerous. With the attitude they had would have inflamed rather than calmed any potentially violent situation

 

[EM2]

In an ideal world, they would say 'Can you please take your feet off the seats? It is a byelaw offence.'
And you reply 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise. But my knee is very painful, and it helps if I have it elevated. Is it OK if I keep my feet on the newspaper?'
And everyone is polite, and everyone is happy.

 

[Nursey1]

There is no audio on the installed on-board CCTV.

You should be aware that there is a Railway Byelaw which is used to prevent people putting their feet on seats, though the actual wording is "No person shall soil any part of the railway".

The Inspectors are entirely justified in patrolling trains and stations to maintain order, report offenders and to prevent crime; there is no reason why BTP would be informed of their movements.

There is another Byelaw which states that "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."

I have never been in any kind of trouble with the police apart from a speeding fine and a couple of parking tickets. The train was sparsely populated and quiet.

If they had quietly approached me and explained the problem I would probably have explained the issue with my knee but if they had insisted I would have cooperated. As it was I was both frightened and angry
I gave my name and address (and my date of birth in front of the whole carriage) but I was very uncomfortable and worried about it because I did wonder if the second guy was actually a proper officer. The number he gave me was nothing like the format of the one on the ID the other man showed and he wouldn't show ID


I
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In an ideal world, they would say 'Can you please take your feet off the seats? It is a byelaw offence.'
And you reply 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise. But my knee is very painful, and it helps if I have it elevated. Is it OK if I keep my feet on the newspaper?'
And everyone is polite, and everyone is happy.

Thanks EM2
Exactly what I just said and very true. I didn't get the chance for that type of conversation. It was rude and aggressive from the first word
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
These guys as I understand it are not Inspectors DaveNewcastle. Northern have told me they are private contractors.
Do you know how much training they have for their job

 

[Agent_c]

Technically your feet were not on the seat but on the newspaper.

If the offence is "not to soil" then by using the newspaper, he cannot have "soiled" the seat as he protected the seat from soiling.

 

[table38]

I suspect I have soiled a substantial amount of the railway over the last 54 years by using non-retention toilets

 

[185143]

There is no audio on the installed on-board CCTV.

You should be aware that there is a Railway Byelaw which is used to prevent people putting their feet on seats, though the actual wording is "No person shall soil any part of the railway".

The Inspectors are entirely justified in patrolling trains and stations to maintain order, report offenders and to prevent crime; there is no reason why BTP would be informed of their movements.

There is another Byelaw which states that "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."

I have never been in any kind of trouble with the police apart from a speeding fine and a couple of parking tickets. The train was sparsely populated and quiet.

If they had quietly approached me and explained the problem I would probably have explained the issue with my knee but if they had insisted I would have cooperated. As it was I was both frightened and angry
I gave my name and address (and my date of birth in front of the whole carriage) but I was very uncomfortable and worried about it because I did wonder if the second guy was actually a proper officer. The number he gave me was nothing like the format of the one on the ID the other man showed and he wouldn't show ID


I
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In an ideal world, they would say 'Can you please take your feet off the seats? It is a byelaw offence.'
And you reply 'Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise. But my knee is very painful, and it helps if I have it elevated. Is it OK if I keep my feet on the newspaper?'
And everyone is polite, and everyone is happy.

Thanks EM2
Exactly what I just said and very true. I didn't get the chance for that type of conversation. It was rude and aggressive from the first word
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
These guys as I understand it are not Inspectors DaveNewcastle. Northern have told me they are private contractors.
Do you know how much training they have for their job

I believe you are referring to the STM mafia.

On the whole, they are clueless about tickets, receive little training from Northern over the job, given the least satisfactory working conditions (IME), little protection from Northern (If they get abuse vs Guards when they get abuse) and have a reputation for not being great characters sometimes.

I say on the whole as there are several very good STM members of staff who should be employed by Northern without a doubt.

In my opinion, STM are the problem in the majority of cases, not the individuals.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect I have soiled a substantial amount of the railway over the last 54 years by using non-retention toilets

'Like' button for this please Mods!

 

[MikeWh]

There is another Byelaw which states that "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."

Indeed, but there is no compulsion to give your date of birth.

 

[Nursey1]

I was told it was STM
(I wasn't quite scared enough to soil the seat ?????? but as I said, not easily intimidated)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

These guys as I understand it are not Inspectors DaveNewcastle. Northern have told me they are private contractors.
Do you know how much training they have for their job

Yes, I'm sure they are contracted, but they will still have the authority to patrol trains and stations and to detect circumstances which they may suspect are breaches of the regulations.

I don't know how much training they receive.

Indeed, but there is no compulsion to give your date of birth.

You're quite right.
Though it is a frequently asked question when seeking to determine someone's identity. Failure to provide a DoB would not in itself give rise to an Offence, but it is likely to raise further suspicion and so lead to further questionning or instruction.

 

[sheff1]

Failure to provide a DoB would not in itself give rise to an Offence, but it is likely to raise further suspicion and so lead to further questionning or instruction.

Why would failure to provide a DoB (provision of which is not required under the Byelaws) raise suspicion ? And, for that matter, suspicion of what ?

If the case related to use of an age restricted ticket/pass I can understand the relevance of someone's DoB, but not when the issue is 'soiling the railway'.

 

[Nursey1]

Who actually gives them that authority. I am quite interested in this as these seem to be police like powers. I know that Communiity Support Officers get their limited powers directly from the police but where do contracted private security guards get the power to ask you for personal details

 

[EM2]

Who actually gives them that authority. I am quite interested in this as these seem to be police like powers. I know that Communiity Support Officers get their limited powers directly from the police but where do contracted private security guards get the power to ask you for personal details

From being agents of the railway, and the byelaws that govern the railway.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Why would failure to provide a DoB (provision of which is not required under the Byelaws) raise suspicion ? And, for that matter, suspicion of what ?

I said "likely to raise further suspicion".
I wasn't there, but I'm sure we can speculate - Nursery1 had already been asked or instructed to remove his feet from the seat, but had then replaced them on the seat. If an officer finds that a person has deliberately not complied with an instruction, then they might wonder if the name and address they supplied was correct and would seek some means of confirming identity or further details of identity.

Who actually gives them that authority.

Specifically, they are authorised by the Railway Company, Northern Rail in this instance. In turn, Northern Rail are authorised by their franchise with the government's Department of Transport (and other complex industry relationships) to give enforce several statutes which regulate the Railways (including passengers) and the Railway Byelaws. Byelaws are created under an 'enabling' Act, which in this case is the 2000 Transport Act.

 

[6Gman]

What, exactly, does the bye-law say re feet on seats?

 

[island]

Sections 6 (4) and 11 (2) are relevant.

 

[Llanigraham]

Ignoring some of the usual flim-flam here:

OP put her feet on a paper on the seat opposite.
Told by an Official to remove feet.
Ignores instruction.
Told AGAIN by said Official to remove feet.
Disagrees with said Official
Official completes paperwork as a report of her refusal.

Sorry but Booked to Rights, no matter what else is said.

Answer: DO NOT PUT YOUR FEET ON THE SEATS!!

 

[Agent_c]

Sections 6 (4) and 11 (2) are relevant.

6(4) - No person shall soil any part of the railway.

11(2) - No person shall place, throw, drop or trail anything on the railway which is capable of injuring, damaging or endangering any person or any property.


Obviously I'm operating blind without seeing how case law has interpreted those... but there seems to be an argument that there was no soiling (due to the protection), and I don't see anything that might "Damage or endanger any person or property" either...

Ignoring some of the usual flim-flam here:

OP put her feet on a paper on the seat opposite.
Told by an Official to remove feet.
Ignores instruction.
Told AGAIN by said Official to remove feet.
Disagrees with said Official
Official completes paperwork as a report of her refusal.

Sorry but Booked to Rights, no matter what else is said.

Answer: DO NOT PUT YOUR FEET ON THE SEATS!!

Just because someone is an "official" doesnt automatically mean they have authority to do something. You'd need some rule somewhere that confirms what authority they have in the situation...

 

[185]

Some things which may help.

2010ish - Merseyrail vs Feet up girl, bylaw prosecution - Merseyrail lost.

Bodycams - the current batch we're being train on have audio too.

S.T.M. "REOs" - I suspect they could be the same ones involved in the Sheffield pensioner brawl where the company's hands-off policy was breached (on Northern management orders).

I may be wrong. :P

 

[Nursey1]

Ignoring some of the usual flim-flam here:

OP put her feet on a paper on the seat opposite.
Told by an Official to remove feet.
Ignores instruction.
Told AGAIN by said Official to remove feet.
Disagrees with said Official
Official completes paperwork as a report of her refusal.

Sorry but Booked to Rights, no matter what else is said.

Answer: DO NOT PUT YOUR FEET ON THE SEATS!!

No hang on. I took my feet on the seat, true and I did put them back up because the guy said it in passing, didn't identify themselves or say why I should remove them. I did remove them and I didn't disagree with them. I asked who they were. Up to that point they could have been a couple of road workers on their way home

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sections 6 (4) and 11 (2) are relevant.

Feet on seats is also captured by Byelaw 6 Section 8 and is regularly enforced with great success.

6. Unacceptable behaviour
. . .
(4) No person shall soil any part of the railway.
. . .
(8) No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway.

. . . . they could have been a couple of road workers on their way home

Perhaps they could have been, but the important point for you to focus your attention on is this:-
Your feet were on a seat. That is an Offence.

 

[Nursey1]

Specifically, they are authorised by the Railway Company, Northern Rail in this instance. In turn, Northern Rail are authorised by their franchise with the government's Department of Transport (and other complex industry relationships) to give enforce several statutes which regulate the Railways (including passengers) and the Railway Byelaws. Byelaws are created under an 'enabling' Act, which in this case is the 2000 Transport Act.[/QUOTE]

Ok but the ability to request any information and for it to be an offense for me not to give it has to be a police power. Even there you have the right to remain silent. So somewhere there is an authorisation from the police.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Feet on seats is also captured by Byelaw 6 Section 8 and is regularly enforced with great success.

Perhaps they could have been, but the important point for you to focus your attention on is this:-
Your feet were on a seat. That is an Offence.

But I didn't know it was an offence. (Like most passengers, obscure railway bye laws were not taught at my school)

Who were the guys shouting at me? What were they? I have never seen anything like them before

 

[Llanigraham]

No hang on. I took my feet on the seat, true and I did put them back up because the guy said it in passing, didn't identify themselves or say why I should remove them. I did remove them and I didn't disagree with them. I asked who they were. Up to that point they could have been a couple of road workers on their way home

See the red comments.
You had your feet on the seat even after being told to remove them.
End of story.

DO NOT PUT YOUR FEET ON THE SEATS!

I suggest you take particular attention of what DaveNewcaste says about the powers of Railway Officials.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . Just because someone is an "official" doesnt automatically mean they have authority to do something. You'd need some rule somewhere that confirms what authority they have in the situation...

I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to draw out here, but:-
I can assure you that many before you have tried to drive a wedge between their actions and their prosecution by looking for a defect in continuity. Some have succeeded, and the regulatory framework has been found wanting; but since the current, 2005, drafting of the Railway Byelaws, I'm not aware of any railway prosecutions which have failed due to want of authority.

It might help you to recall that many Byelaw Offences (including the Railway Byelaws) and other Criminal Offences are 'strict liability' Offences. Any person aggrieved by the Offence may prosecute it. Obviously, a Criminal Offence is only rarely prosecuted by an individual, but in theory, a person may do so without any prior authorisation. For example, you could prosecute an absolute offence under environmental Law if you had the evidence, or you could prosecute a common Criminal Offence (from theft to murder) as a Private Prosecution. No prior training or authorisation is neccessary - this is a fundamental principle of allowing all citizens access to the Law which I've commented on previously, here.

Ok but the ability to request any information and for it to be an offense for me not to give it has to be a police power. Even there you have the right to remain silent. So somewhere there is an authorisation from the police.

You are mistaken.

 

[najaB]

Ok but the ability to request any information and for it to be an offense for me not to give it has to be a police power. Even there you have the right to remain silent. So somewhere there is an authorisation from the police.

Nope.

23. Name and address
(1) 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.
(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the
nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of
the request.
24. Enforcement
(1) Offence and level of fines
Any person who breaches any of these Byelaws commits an offence and,
with the exception of Byelaw 17, may be liable for each such offence to a
penalty not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Admittedly it doesn't say that they can ask for your date of birth.