RPI asking for too much information

[RPI]

So to go back a bit, where I work, the inspector has to have and demonstrate reasonable suspicion of previous offences in order to investigate them or recommend them for investigation, if a passenger shows me a Railcard that is three years out of date for example and cannot produce a valid one, then I will ask to see previous bookings, staff absolutely have the right to ask that, the passenger does not have to co-operate with that request though, but because there is grounds for suspicion then a DPA form can then be sent to the retailer in order to gather evidence.

As I've said here before, if someone does then show me the history and there are no other journeys, then a penalty fare will more than likely be the way forward, the passenger is under no obligation to show the bookings, but by doing so has saved unnecessary investigation by the back office investigators. This is common sense, an RPI absolutely can ask to see relevant previous bookings, provided that there is reasonable suspicion to do so. Whether the passenger co-operates is up to the individual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2025 ==

I presume that the situation you speak of is where a passenger shows that they have routinely bought correct tickets in the past and this was a one-off mistake. If they can demonstrate this they might be let off with a warning?

This is another angle, if someone boards without a ticket because they were late etc, if they show me hundreds of previous tickets all bought before boarding then discretion can be applied here too, there is no one size fits all answer, but various mitigating factors can result in discretion being shown

 

[DLRfan1]

I presume that the situation you speak of is where a passenger shows that they have routinely bought correct tickets in the past and this was a one-off mistake. If they can demonstrate this they might be let off with a warning?

If you tell me you always buy tickets with the 16-25 railcard and you genuinely accidentally pressed 16-17 saver, I’m honestly not going to believe you because I hear it so often. If you say that and then show me your journey history and I see months of right railcard usage followed by today’s incorrect ticket, I’d just excess the fare. We’re not all out to get people. Sometimes we are actually trying to help them without them apparently realising.

 

[Krokodil]

If you tell me you always buy tickets with the 16-25 railcard and you genuinely accidentally pressed 16-17 saver, I’m honestly not going to believe you because I hear it so often. If you say that and then show me your journey history and I see months of right railcard usage followed by today’s incorrect ticket, I’d just excess the fare. We’re not all out to get people. Sometimes we are actually trying to help them without them apparently realising.

Yes, I see that. It's definitely very different to the situation that many of the replies are imagining so the clarity may help posters on this thread.

 

[Wolfie]

So to go back a bit, where I work, the inspector has to have and demonstrate reasonable suspicion of previous offences in order to investigate them or recommend them for investigation, if a passenger shows me a Railcard that is three years out of date for example and cannot produce a valid one, then I will ask to see previous bookings, staff absolutely have the right to ask that, the passenger does not have to co-operate with that request though, but because there is grounds for suspicion then a DPA form can then be sent to the retailer in order to gather evidence.

As I've said here before, if someone does then show me the history and there are no other journeys, then a penalty fare will more than likely be the way forward, the passenger is under no obligation to show the bookings, but by doing so has saved unnecessary investigation by the back office investigators. This is common sense, an RPI absolutely can ask to see relevant previous bookings, provided that there is reasonable suspicion to do so. Whether the passenger co-operates is up to the individual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2025 ==


This is another angle, if someone boards without a ticket because they were late etc, if they show me hundreds of previous tickets all bought before boarding then discretion can be applied here too, there is no one size fits all answer, but various mitigating factors can result in discretion being shown

That all sounds reasonable enough.

 

[Western Gaffer]

Id argue that’s a different situation. Again theres no requirement to show m anything (before I get lambasted by another commenter) but refusing to show evidence that could exhonarate you (to an extent) is normally a good indicator someone’s possibly not being honest. Having no evidence to show is entirely different.

Surely "can you [passenger] convince me [RPI] that this is a one-off by showing me your history?" is an entirely different scenario from the more generic "I'd like to view your history" one?

 

[RPI]

Surely "can you [passenger] convince me [RPI] that this is a one-off by showing me your history?" is an entirely different scenario from the more generic "I'd like to view your history" one?

That is often the angle I approach it from, I may ask is this the only time you've travelled under these circumstances, can you show me your old bookings in order to validate that.

 

[KirkstallOne]

It’s also well worth remembering, you only end up in this conversation to begin with if you have committed an offence. RPIs are not ripping mobile phones out of passenger’s hands to check their Instagram followers.

As above - we are talking about a scenario where a passenger is speaking to a RPI as they have been stopped for an offence

Committed an offence, stopped for an offence, let me help you out - grounds to believe they may have committed an offence. I am afraid your words betray an assumption of guilt. We also see countless reports where the process is misrepresented to passengers as anything but a ‘report for prosecution’ (e.g. a training exercise, a formality, I need to complete the report now I have started but you will get a warning, you can appeal and it will be dismissed etc.)

Falsely accused is very different to having nothing to hide. I’m not sure we have ever seen wrongful convictions? If you have nothing to hide you are able to prevent yourself being falsely convicted if you have been falsely accused.

Did you see the news last year? ToCs were responsible for (by numbers) the biggest miscarriage of justice in English legal history. I am absolutely staggered that a revenue protection professional could make this statement. Did you and your colleagues discuss this case at all? I realised you have not said you are in the industry anywhere so this is an unfair statement.

 

[Haywain]

Committed an offence, stopped for an offence, let me help you out - grounds to believe they may have committed an offence.

Stopped for an offence is reasonable wording. In many cases the offence will be blindingly obvious - adult proferring child ticket, ticket purchased after departure, short fares for example. We don't have to tread delicately here when we are talking in general terms.

 

[Wolfie]

Stopped for an offence is reasonable wording. In many cases the offence will be blindingly obvious - adult proferring child ticket, ticket purchased after departure, short fares for example. We don't have to tread delicately here when we are talking in general terms.

Had you said "stopped for a suspected offence" l would have agreed - not all interactions with RPIs involve fault.

 

[Haywain]

Had you said "stopped for a suspected offence" l would have agreed - not all interactions with RPIs involve fault.

This is an internet forum, not a contract, so loose wording that everyone understands is sufficient.