RSTL Irregularity Rules for 2010

[Donga]

Hi all,

Does anyone have a pdf copy of LAST year's RSTL TI rules and penalties?

In dispute with the Nazis at RSTL, who have re-written all the guidelines in Feb of this year and then posted them this March. All traces of previous documents have been expunged from Google caches.

Really a longshot, but union solicitor would like them, but not essential.

Any help greatly received.

 

[island]

Sorry if it's a newbie question (as I shouldn't be asking them), but what's RSTL?

 

[Donga]

No probs feller, it's Rail Staff Travel Limited, the body that is supposed to administer privilege travel for rail staff and their dependants, but now serves ATOC as an outfit that looks for ever more ways of depriving the staff of these said benefits.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

try googling 'RSTL TI rules and penalties'

Yep, tried that and they only have the 2011 rules on and have destroyed all trace of previous rules.

 

[First class]

If you give us an idea of what specifically you refer to, (e.g. what rule you want to check), then we could probably advise.

 

[Donga]

Well, specifically I need LAST year's TI rules (and penalties) as opposed to this year's, 2011 rules that were written in Feb and actually posted in March.

Reason? Legal challenge by RMT solicitor that irregularities committed in 2010 should be judged by 2010 rules, and that RSTL have overstepped their authority by moving away from Bye-Laws standards of proving intent to their own interpretation of what is 'Honest' and 'Disonest' - with OUR terms and benefits, and without any staff representation or consultation.

Watch this space - when I can tell more without breaking the TOC's speaking on public forums sanctions, I will.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I have just checked the Rail Staff Travel website. I have to admit that it is the first time I have seen the document to which you refer as regards travel irregularities with staff travel documentation. I have looked at the site a number of times before and never seen it. It is my feeling that it is a new document, and as such you will not find any historical versions - I have certainly never seen any before today.

As regards the actual "offence" that is alleged to have been committed, firstly I suppose it is a matter of what is being discussed. I note you refer to "our" benefits - well unless you are protected staff (I am not) then the facilities offered to unprotected staff are non contractual and can be withdrawn at any time whenever the TOCs feel like it - so those are by no means "ours".

I was involved in a prosecution at court in 2009 regarding abuse of staff travel facilities. The company was prosecuting under byelaw 20:

20. Altering tickets and use of altered tickets
(1) No person shall alter any ticket in any way with the intent that an Operator shall be defrauded or prejudiced.
(2) No person shall knowingly use any ticket which has been altered in any way in breach of Byelaw 20(1).

And as a result of that also under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways act, i.e. in that by committing 20 above, the person was then guilty of

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

There were no "TI Guidelines" then. It was an altered travel pass, and the defendant's solicitor tried to argue that the staff travel pass was not a ticket, and as such he could not be found guilty.

The company argued otherwise, and that even though it allows free travel, it acts in place of a ticket. By altering the dates they were obtaining more free travel than that to which they were entitled, and thus avoiding paying the fare. The magistrates agreed and the person was found guilty on all counts (there was a 3rd charge, but I can't remember what), and received a fairly hefty fine. I never heard anything about an appeal.

Having looked at the guidelines on the RST website I cannot see anything in them which is desperately unfair to be honest, and they only appear to bring together in one document various bits of information that are either printed in the facility rules or on the cards themselves, or could be implied from Conditions of Carriage, Byelaws and RoRA.

 

[Minilad]

If you ask me, and this is just my personal opinion. Any member of staff that has travel facilities and then commits "irregularities" which are proven deserves everything they get

 

[Donga]

Thanks for that chaps. Obviously I can't discuss the details here, but Driver, before you jump to conclusions this case involves a child who is provably innocent of any intent (which RSTL and the TOC concede).

I too am a safeguarded conductor, but what I see on a daily basis, from retired staff especially, is far, far worse than a child with bad handwriting. But I rather suspect RSTL and the TOC's would very much like us to withdraw as many safeguarded passes as possible.

There are no appeals nor independent bodies to whom you can have recourse, but yes, Driver, in general, I'd agree that if anyone deliberately abused their pass they should get no pity. To categorise children and retired staff who make honest mistakes in the same bracket though is self-serving and a deliberate consequence of the new 'Rules' as RSTL have now framed them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Btw, KW, I DO see your point, accept that RSTL can now permanently withdraw passes and brand a child as 'dishonest' even when they make a provably honest mistake without intent.

They have, as it happens, been challenged to instigate a BTP investigation but will not as they concede there was no intent. As said Drver, the new rules allow any sanction without 'proof' at all.

Now, I really can't discuss the individual case any more, as I know my individual TOC would love to deflect away from this case by changing the issue that I, although anonymous, am discussing this on a public forum. My aim in coming on here was to find a document that RSTL have deliberately expunged when we pointed out the penalties and rules at the time of the alleged irregularity. If anyone can help on that matter I'd much appreciate it.

Under these new rules, however, all safeguarded staff, retired and dependents, WILL be more severely penalised when making an provably innocent mistake without intent. And, although I appreciate to some non-safeguarded staff there is resentment that some staff and dependents still got boxes at all, I hope you can appreciate that many of us will fight this.

Thanks again chaps.