RPI Power of detention

[Jan Mayen]

Hypothetical question (so maybe the wrong this is in the wrong place?), but what, if any, powers to stop you walking away when they ask for your name & address does anyone RPI have?

 

[styles]

Hypothetical question (so maybe the wrong this is in the wrong place?), but what, if any, powers to stop you walking away when they ask for your name & address does anyone RPI have?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==

Regulation of Railways Act 1889

An Act to amend the Regulation of Railways Acts; and for other purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

(2) If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses or fails on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

[Undiscovered]

Hypothetical question (so maybe the wrong this is in the wrong place?), but what, if any, powers to stop you walking away when they ask for your name & address does anyone RPI have?

Bear in mind that, depending on where you are, there may also be plain clothes Police officers supporting RPIs, for this very reason, especially at planned revenue blocks.

 

[Bigdurian]

Realistically none. One of the benefits of digital tickets though is that there may be consequences later on for the person in question.

And for straightforward cases of no money no ticket, sometimes all you could do is to turf someone off at the next stop and disrupt their day.

If BTP can be got hold of that's a bonus, and I've seen it happen but it's not something that can be counted upon.

 

[Watershed]

There are two foreseeable circumstances where a member of TOC staff/contractors would have a power to detain a passenger.

1) Regulation of Railways Act
The first example would be under section 5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RoRA), as @styles referenced above. This is often referred to as the 'three fails' because it is engaged if a passenger fails or refuses to either:

• show (and hand over) a ticket, or
• pay their fare, or
• give their name and address

It is only if the passenger fails/refuses to do ALL three that they can be detained. The OP in the thread here (which I imagine gave rise to this thread) offered to pay for a new ticket, and gave their name and address. Therefore they met two of the three requirements - so the RPIs did not have any power to detain them under RoRA.

RoRA also doesn't give staff the power to detain merely because they suspect that a passenger has given false details, or because they want to verify the details given. There would need to be a separate power for this to be the case - no such power exists under RoRA. Of course, section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) gives police officers the power to arrest someone they suspect of committing a summary-only offence (such as giving false details under section 5(3)(c) of RoRA) - but that power does not extend to TOC staff.

2) Citizen's arrest
The other situation would be under section 24A of PACE - the so-called "citizen's arrest" that any member of the public has. But this only applies to indictable offences, whereas all of the relevant RoRA offences are summary-only. Therefore it would take a more serious offence, like suspected fraud or assault, for this power of arrest/detention to be engaged.

So in essence, staff such as RPIs only have the power to detain ticketless passengers who refuse to pay AND refuse to give a name and address. Those offering to pay and/or who give a name and address (even if it cannot be verified) cannot be detained. Detaining a passenger under such circumstances could amount to false imprisonment, which is a criminal offence for which quite substantial civil damages are available. That's not to say that staff can't call the police, or request ID or other proof of identity. But they have no right to detain someone in such circumstances whilst waiting for the police, and they have no power to force the passenger to produce proof of identity.

Layered on top of that, many TOCs will have policies which prohibit their staff from detaining passengers at all (even if it would be lawful). But failure to abide by such policies would remain a disciplinary matter between the staff and their employer, rather than something that would give an affected member of the public legal recourse. They could raise a complaint about it of course, but if the detention was lawful, any outcome would be a question of customer service and goodwill rather than legal entitlement.

Where there could be more recourse is a potential breach of the GDPR, if RPIs are inappropriately noting personal data like banking app details or failing to provide the details that the GDPR requires (e.g. the purpose for data processing). I'm sure TOCs' Data Protection Officers would be having kittens if they knew the antics some RPIs get up to!

If the RPI is not satisfied your details are legitimate, they may suspect you of committing the separate offence of failing to provide your details. This is a legal obligation you have, although the fact you aren't on the electoral roll or credit register would not, in my view, be enough to warrant suspicion. However, either way, RPIs, if dissatisfied with your credentials, are entitled to call the police, who have extra powers to ascertain them from you.

It's fairly irrelevant whether or not an RPI has suspicions - at the end of the day they can call the police, but they can't detain you until they arrive.

 

[island]

Posts 2 and 5 above are correct as to the powers; however, it should be noted that most railway staff are instructed by their employers that they are under no circumstances to attempt to exercise any power to detain anyone.

 

[soil]

Probably worth highlighting the case of PC Lathwood, who was initially convicted of assault for detaining a bus passenger in London for apparent fare evasion.

He was convicted of assault, but the conviction was quashed on appeal.

It appears he now faces disciplinary hearings that could lead to dismissal.

Met officer guilty of assault following Croydon fare evasion arrest incident | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

www.policeconduct.gov.uk

Following our review, we notified the Met that our decision remains unchanged and have directed that the officer should face a gross misconduct hearing to face allegations that his actions breached the professional behaviour standards relating to use of force, discreditable conduct, authority, respect and courtesy, and equality and diversity.

These allegations relate to the force used by PC Lathwood, how he dealt with the woman, including the language and tone used, and that he acted in a sexist way towards her. Most of these allegations were not relevant considerations at the criminal trial.

It is our view that the allegations are serious enough to justify dismissal - if found proven by a police disciplinary panel at a hearing. Following our direction, it will now be for the force to arrange the disciplinary hearing.

 

[Haywain]

Probably worth highlighting the case of PC Lathwood, who was initially convicted of assault for detaining a bus passenger in London for apparent fare evasion.

He was convicted of assault, but the conviction was quashed on appeal.

It appears he now faces disciplinary hearings that could lead to dismissal.

Met officer guilty of assault following Croydon fare evasion arrest incident | Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)

www.policeconduct.gov.uk

In what way is the behaviour of a police officer related to the powers of an RPI? It doesn't look at all relevant to me.

 

[styles]

In what way is the behaviour of a police officer related to the powers of an RPI? It doesn't look at all relevant to me.

This.

Also to note that the case related to use of force, which has to be reasonable. It's debatable (as a conviction followed by a successful appeal demonstrates) whether it's reasonable to ask somebody for proof of paying their fare, they ask you follow them to a seat while they get their pass out, and you go straight to restraining them and using handcuffs, is 'reasonable' force.

This will be part of the reason TOCs won't recommend physically restraining people for fare evasion. It's a risky game to play in our legal systems (E&W, Scotland), and the cost of dealing with it will undoubtedly be more than whatever fare is being evaded.

 

[Starmill]

It's worth being aware that the citizens' "arrest" is commonly known by that term, but it's a little misleading. Usually there'd be some penalty for attempting to escape an arrest by an officer, but the provision of an arrest in this way is mainly an attempt to offer some defence to people who stop alleged criminals from getting away until an officer can attend to arrest them.

I'm not saying someone running from a ticket check would never be arrested by an officer, indeed I've seen that happen with GMP officers myself, who were positioned out of sight of a ticket check by Metrolink. But clearly it's not going to be at all likely. That person may have been being arrested on suspicion of something other than breaking the Metrolink Byelaws, such as carrying a weapon, assaulting the staff or officers, or matching a wanted description.

One thing I have heard of the BTP carrying out an arrest for was giving false details. However that requires one of their officers to be present to do the ID check for all practical purposes.

Most railway staff are under strict instructions not to use force, reasonable or otherwise, and to simply call for the emergency services if they are in that situation. A small number are trained in the use of "reasonable force" especially Merseyrail and Southeastern. However even then, they almost always just use it to remove people from the property.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==

In what way is the behaviour of a police officer related to the powers of an RPI? It doesn't look at all relevant to me.

That circumstance also attracted lots of adverse attention because of the alleged unlawful discrimination too... You'd really hope that bad language and sexism wouldn't be showing up in normal ticket checking, and very fortunately I've never heard of that happening.

 

[soil]

In what way is the behaviour of a police officer related to the powers of an RPI? It doesn't look at all relevant to me.

The context is that the Metropolitan police were supporting a ticketing operation, and after the prosecution of the officer they were refusing to do so. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...idence-crisis-ticket-conviction-assault-cuff/

Following the incident, the Metropolitan Police Service announced it was withdrawing support for TfL fare evasion operations and it now no longer provides backup for ticket inspectors.

In addition there was a lot of public disquiet about what was widely regarded as disproportionality of detaining people for alleged ticketing offences.

As such in the context of "what can the RPI do" where the answer is "call the police" it's obviously relevant.

 

[styles]

The context is that the Metropolitan police were supporting a ticketing operation, and after the prosecution of the officer they were refusing to do so. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...idence-crisis-ticket-conviction-assault-cuff/

The powers of a police constable supporting a TfL bus fare operation are not comparable to that of a revenue protection officer on the railways. The legislation is completely different.

In addition there was a lot of public disquiet about what was widely regarded as disproportionality of detaining people for alleged ticketing offences.

There wasn't just public disquiet about that - it was the primary basis of the court case.

As such in the context of "what can the RPI do" where the answer is "call the police" it's obviously relevant.

What? It's obviously relevant. But it misses out the statutory powers revenue protection officers also have. Those powers are greater than the average citizen, but less than that of a police constable.

 

[soil]

The powers of a police constable supporting a TfL bus fare operation are not comparable to that of a revenue protection officer on the railways. The legislation is completely different.

I wasn't suggesting that they were. My point was that there's very clearly a widespread "what you gonna do about it?" response to fare evasion enforcement from certain passengers, where the "power of detention" of RPIs and also any response of the police, all inform the decision not to pay, and then how to respond if challenged.

The thesis is essentially that fare evasion, like, say cannabis smoking, is de facto decriminalised.

 

[Sonic1234]

The thesis is essentially that fare evasion, like, say cannabis smoking, is de facto decriminalised.

The thing that can appear unfair is that it is de facto decriminalised if you are sneaky enough (false details, using a "friends" details or refusing to engage) or thuggish enough (too much hassle/risk).

If you are compliant, then you'll get the book thrown at you. The people you see pushing barriers aren't using digital tickets - they're not using tickets at all so there can be no audit of their purchases. Only thing you can say is they're only dodging a £2 Oyster fare. Generally, they are physically fit so they can push barriers, run away and escape from staff.

Finding a solution to this is a hard problem.

For those who do comply with RPIs, you could say fare evasion is decriminalised because it's almost always possible to buy your way out of trouble, TfL excluded.

 

[soil]

The thing that can appear unfair is that it is de facto decriminalised if you are sneaky enough (false details, using a "friends" details or refusing to engage) or thuggish enough (too much hassle/risk).

If you are compliant, then you'll get the book thrown at you. The people you see pushing barriers aren't using digital tickets - they're not using tickets at all so there can be no audit of their purchases. Only thing you can say is they're only dodging a £2 Oyster fare. Generally, they are physically fit so they can push barriers, run away and escape from staff.

Finding a solution to this is a hard problem.

For those who do comply with RPIs, you could say fare evasion is decriminalised because it's almost always possible to buy your way out of trouble, TfL excluded.

Don't think you need to be particularly fit to get through a barrier.

On your latter point I suppose there are two alternatives:

1) you can be a belligerent fare avoider and just show contempt for the system, with the risk that you get detained/arrested and somehow a proper conviction for a more serious offence, but this seems unlikely.
2) you can be a passive fare avoider, perhaps taking steps to avoid detection of repeated offences (e.g., by buying tickets in person), and if caught then as you say be a bit more middle class about it, negotiate a settlement and no conviction.

it then becomes more like speeding, which is a criminal offence but not taken seriously as one, and less like shoplifting/theft, which many people still feel is a step to far to commit.