I question if it is harsh. If the partner gave a spouse pass and it was misused (as in travelling to work, not leisure) then surely it is their responsibility to have ensured it was only used when valid.
The point is, what has happened is specifically outside the rules and punishments which are prescribed for those misdeeds, as has been discussed and evidenced upthread.
The rules posted above also include business travel
The rule is that only the staff member can jeopardise travel for the whole family, dependants only jeopardise their own.
I interpret the sentence as the RPI preemptively informing OP that they can't use their staff facilities, assuming that the card was their old duty travel one before seeing it. We still need clarification from OP.
If warnings are given, does the card/pass holder receive a warning in writing?
If all else fails, on an almost flat-earther technicality, could it be argued that the passenger had not actually reached their place of employment yet, thus at the time of the ticket irregularity was technically still unemployed, and therefore could not have been traveling for business purposes?
I believe in the rules for safeguarded staff if the dependant commits the travel irregularity then the facilities are removed from that dependant .. if however the travel irregularity is commited by the employee or the former employee in the case of retired staff then the facilities are removed from themselves and the dependants.
Travelling to a workplace is still business duty travel. I would argue if this is indeed a fully remote job, contracted at home, OP's company should have been paying for the journey in the first place in order for them to go and collect the laptop.
The rules have already been posted in the thread, properly sourced, and discussed. The staff member does not suffer consequences if a spouse commits the offence the OP did.
If you have been involved in revenue protection operations then it should be no surprise how seriously the train operators take misuse of travel facilities.
You may say that, but this was my first day at work, and I was let through the gates by the Gateline staff. I sincerely forgot that the pass in my pocket wasn't the one I'd had for the last 7 years. It is what it is.
I believe the right conclusion has been reached ... Reduced Price and Free Rail Travel is a great facility and a privilege including the FIP ... But I think there is an interesting and unanswered question here. Facilities lost for life as a dependant ....but what if the OP now rejoined the rail industry as an employee (obviously without safeguarded facilities) could they have the non safeguarded facilities back in their own right ?
You can only have one set of national facilities, so I suspect the OP would only get a pass for their own company (or owning group) if they rejoined the industry. I suspect a request to make the OP the primary cardholder in such circumstances would also be refused.
Whilst I do note what others have said, I just wanted to say I was sorry to read this in terms of how the outcome has been for you personally.
There are three possible sanctions under the RST Travel Irregularities rules:
Obviously in this case the aggravating factor is the presentation of what appears to be a duty pass which should not have been retained after employment first, then after that was refused, the spouse pass which was also not valid. "I used to be a police officer" being used as mitigation is quite instructive about how some police officers view their office, which confers only additional social responsibilities and no additional social privileges.
While I appreciate your sarcastic tone, I did not produce a duty pass, I produced a spouse pass. I did not seek special protections for being a special constable formerly, however I did believe that having led revenue ops that recovered thousands for the company and driven the train for 7 years that a single mistake of me walking through a gate after a gateline staff let me through the gate may have earned me some leeway.
