Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely railway byelaws do not result in criminal conviction - that would require a RoRA conviction?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Standard ticket holder in first class
- Thread starter Nsit
- Start date
- Status
Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely railway byelaws do not result in criminal conviction - that would require a RoRA conviction?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
A Byelaw conviction wouldn't be recorded, no.
I don't see any harm in going after people who sit in first with a standard ticket, with the exception being if it's not clear and you could make a reasonable defence.
The one about no seats in standard isn't one, but regularly used. Or those who simply don't care.
Society today is very much do what you like and then kick off if caught out, blaming others, so we're not going back to how things were in the old days.
Sent from my VTR-L29 using Tapatalk
The one about no seats in standard isn't one, but regularly used. Or those who simply don't care.
Society today is very much do what you like and then kick off if caught out, blaming others, so we're not going back to how things were in the old days.
Sent from my VTR-L29 using Tapatalk
Richard1960
Member
Seen a few of those on the Line Liverpool ST to Cambridge a few weeks ago inspectors got on the train at Bishops Stortford on a Sunday served them right.
CNash
Member
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 336
I understand that it's unavoidable in many situations, but I do feel that the "attitude test" is open to abuse - it gives the RPI / inspector too much power, as they can easily provoke or mislead railway users who aren't familiar with the railway's system of byelaws and sanctions. Even if they don't intend to, they run into the problem that they appear as employees of the TOC, but act more like police officers in their demeanour, which the average consumer may not be accustomed to - they might believe that the RPI is beholden to notions such as "customer service" and must be civil to them, when this is not the case! So a confrontation can very easily escalate; many people won't back down from an argument and will give as well as they get, because they don't understand or don't respect the RPI and the power they have.
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Bluntly, an RPI only has whatever powers the law permits him to have. If those powers are applicable, then he is entitled to use them. Whether or not a person chooses to take them seriously, through ignorance or any other reason, is completely besides the point. If you choose to travel on a train, a bus, an aircraft or anywhere else, you respect the staff who are charged with operating the system, regardless of their role. If you choose to give somebody a mouthful of gob, decline to cooperate with a reasonable request, or in some other way decide to make a nuisance of yourself, then the relevant consequences are due. If that turns out to be the BTP turning up, followed by a somewhat unsympathetic attitude from the Prosecutions Department, then so be it. It is then too late to ponder whether a refusal to comply, to provide details, to behave like a civilised adult, or whatever, might have contributed to such a regrettable outcome. In many cases of course, it just might have done.
Every action in the legal trail is accountable and can be appealed against, right up to having your say in front of a judge in a court of law. If the TOC is in the wrong, you'll get the chance to make your case. Usually however, they're in the right.
Last edited:
As has been pointed out, a Bylaws conviction does not result in a criminal record.
However, even if it did, it's worth correcting some of the claims you make over a criminal conviction such as, say, the Regulations of the Railway Act, which is the most common crime we see listed here.
First, such a crime would not affect travel to the USA. I don't want to get into an extensive discussion here, but this site lists which convictions would/would not prevent a visa waiver. Even then, someone with these convictions could apply for a visa - it simply makes them unable to get the easier visa waiver.
Second, with regards to employment: you're clearly referring to industries which require DBS clearance to work. While it's true that convictions would appear for life, it is then up to the discretion of the employer as to how to respond to this. Practices will differ - some industries or employers will show no tolerance but many will also take circumstances into account. It's fair to say that many employers in sensitive areas would overlook a single conviction for railway-related issues on an otherwise clean record. The point here is not to deny the possible consequences, but to also make the point that these are not inevitable.
Third, then, the set of spiralling consequences is somewhat significantly extrapolated from the initial conviction, and depends upon a wide range of issues.
I don't want to pull this thread off topic, but it is worth correcting these assertions as many people come to this forum with significant stresses and worries about the impacts of criminal convictions. I don't want to deny that there are potential severe consequences, but drawing from direct experience and stories that I have heard, what I can also say is that such outcomes are far from inevitable and do not happen in every case.
Rarely do I consider a whole lengthy post to be full of complete and utter nonsense, but this by PaxmanValenta seems to be an exception so I have responded point by point
I was first an inspector 35 years ago and abuse of First Class was generally much rarer for a variety of reasons, but was dealt with just as seriously as today.
In fact, in 1985 British Rail changed the job title for those of us working in the newly formed 'business sector' of BR Network SouthEast to become Revenue Protection Inspector or RPI (we were formerly Travelling Ticket Inspector or TTI) and a huge number of new RPI jobs were created in an effort to deal with the growing misuse of Standard Open tickets by repeated fare avoidance and abuse of First Class accommodation throughout that sector, particularly amongst London commuter traffic.
A good inspector will always exercise discretion based on what s/he has seen & heard and if that inspector was satisfied that it was a genuine mistake, then regularising the situation was up to him/her.
This is the absolute drivel that is constantly trotted out by people who simply make assumptions and have no hard evidence to support such a claim. The reason for no evidence is because none exists.
Inspectors do not 'issue fines'. Only Courts can do that.
In some areas a Penalty Fares regime exists and whilst it will be true that some revenue managers will inevitably look at results such as 'When insp. 'A' is on the 08.15 he invariably issues 10 PFNs, but if insp. 'B' is on that train he hardly ever issues any. Why?' That will result in some study of why the situation has arisen and questions as to whether insp. 'A' is being over zealous or insp. 'B' is downright lazy. if so, re-education is usually all that is required in either case. A penalty fare is NOT a remedy for deliberate fare evasion. Prosecution is.
The fact is that we are not talking about penalty fares, the discussion was about prosecution for fare evasion. In the case of a penalty fare notice there is a further two-stage appeal process so inspectors are not 'issuing fines', simply reporting irregularities
Absolute drivel ! The fact is that it wasn't that stations had no barriers 'so inspectors could catch & fine loads of fare evaders', some stations had no barriers, but most had ticket offices and people generally recognised that they had to pay to travel so they bought tickets. There was a much greater understanding of 'trust' and that was not so frequently misplaced as it is today. In recent years, ticket offices have closed to reduce staffing costs and in an effort to meet the challenges of the 21st century, TVMs have become more advanced along with a variety of other opportunities to purchase tickets. Yes, there are drawbacks with machine failures and the risk to remote cash collection by machines is a real issue, look at how often ATMs are targeted with heavy plant and shops wrecked as a result. That trust is misplaced much more often by society at large now than back then.
The majority of stations in my youth and early BR career had staffed ticket barriers (I went from an operations role to become a ticket barrier collector before joining the salaried grades) and your ticket was physically checked by the man or woman at the gate before you got to the platform.
Absolute drivel! Yes, some TOCs have more RPIs than others, but the vast majority of stations across the country still do not have barriers and a greater percentage of travellers now simply jump on a train and will pay 'only if challenged' in many areas. It's all about choosing not to take up an opportunity or failing to make time to do so.
It's nothing new, this was ruled to be an offence by the Appeal Court as far back as 1978 as the brother of the current leader of the Labour Party found out to his cost. (See: Corbyn [1978] 1 WLR 400 ).
As I previously commented, one fairly well used station recently saw a nearly 100% lift in ticket office takings over a week when RPIs were stationed at the station platform entrance in the morning peak and no-one missed trains through being directed to pay before boarding.
As Cuccir and others have made clear, this is only a reality in a small number of cases. It isn't the Train Operating Companies who decided the penalty to be determined by the Courts.
People with a need to maintain a high degree of integrity to carry out their daily work should bear some blame. Amongst other examples I am often asked 'Would you want a crooked Policeman imposing law & order on others in a sort of 'do as I say, not as I do society', or similarly, would you want an untrustworthy teacher responsible for your educating children?
I agree, it's all about scale, but so often the long term effect of a conviction for deliberate avoidance of a rail fare is blown out of all proportion in an apparent effort to justify 'it's OK, it's only fiddling the railways'
No, there are more of them, fact borne out by analysis, BUT this is also proportionate to opportunity and the TOCs do bear a share of responsibility for that situation. Serious overcrowding on some routes and erratic running are contributory factors, but they are not an excuse for not making an effort to pay.
No, a GEUNINE MISTAKE will not get to prosecution of an offence of deliberate avoidance of fare in my experience unless the traveller fails to respond to correspondence. It that happens and a conviction is recorded in absence, it is invariably overturned by appeal, or where the defendant had not received post because of a change of address, by making a Statutory Declaration. These cases really are extremely rare.
Not the case, look again at the matter of Dr Joad as one high profile example from the 1940s and all the way through the many thousands of cases before and since his time. In addition, look at the dates of the important case precedents that lead us to where we are now. The most recent of real importance in determining how the TOCs & Courts proceed being the Corbyn case of 39 years ago
I was first an inspector 35 years ago and abuse of First Class was generally much rarer for a variety of reasons, but was dealt with just as seriously as today.
In fact, in 1985 British Rail changed the job title for those of us working in the newly formed 'business sector' of BR Network SouthEast to become Revenue Protection Inspector or RPI (we were formerly Travelling Ticket Inspector or TTI) and a huge number of new RPI jobs were created in an effort to deal with the growing misuse of Standard Open tickets by repeated fare avoidance and abuse of First Class accommodation throughout that sector, particularly amongst London commuter traffic.
A good inspector will always exercise discretion based on what s/he has seen & heard and if that inspector was satisfied that it was a genuine mistake, then regularising the situation was up to him/her.
This is the absolute drivel that is constantly trotted out by people who simply make assumptions and have no hard evidence to support such a claim. The reason for no evidence is because none exists.
Inspectors do not 'issue fines'. Only Courts can do that.
In some areas a Penalty Fares regime exists and whilst it will be true that some revenue managers will inevitably look at results such as 'When insp. 'A' is on the 08.15 he invariably issues 10 PFNs, but if insp. 'B' is on that train he hardly ever issues any. Why?' That will result in some study of why the situation has arisen and questions as to whether insp. 'A' is being over zealous or insp. 'B' is downright lazy. if so, re-education is usually all that is required in either case. A penalty fare is NOT a remedy for deliberate fare evasion. Prosecution is.
The fact is that we are not talking about penalty fares, the discussion was about prosecution for fare evasion. In the case of a penalty fare notice there is a further two-stage appeal process so inspectors are not 'issuing fines', simply reporting irregularities
Absolute drivel ! The fact is that it wasn't that stations had no barriers 'so inspectors could catch & fine loads of fare evaders', some stations had no barriers, but most had ticket offices and people generally recognised that they had to pay to travel so they bought tickets. There was a much greater understanding of 'trust' and that was not so frequently misplaced as it is today. In recent years, ticket offices have closed to reduce staffing costs and in an effort to meet the challenges of the 21st century, TVMs have become more advanced along with a variety of other opportunities to purchase tickets. Yes, there are drawbacks with machine failures and the risk to remote cash collection by machines is a real issue, look at how often ATMs are targeted with heavy plant and shops wrecked as a result. That trust is misplaced much more often by society at large now than back then.
The majority of stations in my youth and early BR career had staffed ticket barriers (I went from an operations role to become a ticket barrier collector before joining the salaried grades) and your ticket was physically checked by the man or woman at the gate before you got to the platform.
Absolute drivel! Yes, some TOCs have more RPIs than others, but the vast majority of stations across the country still do not have barriers and a greater percentage of travellers now simply jump on a train and will pay 'only if challenged' in many areas. It's all about choosing not to take up an opportunity or failing to make time to do so.
It's nothing new, this was ruled to be an offence by the Appeal Court as far back as 1978 as the brother of the current leader of the Labour Party found out to his cost. (See: Corbyn [1978] 1 WLR 400 ).
As I previously commented, one fairly well used station recently saw a nearly 100% lift in ticket office takings over a week when RPIs were stationed at the station platform entrance in the morning peak and no-one missed trains through being directed to pay before boarding.
As Cuccir and others have made clear, this is only a reality in a small number of cases. It isn't the Train Operating Companies who decided the penalty to be determined by the Courts.
People with a need to maintain a high degree of integrity to carry out their daily work should bear some blame. Amongst other examples I am often asked 'Would you want a crooked Policeman imposing law & order on others in a sort of 'do as I say, not as I do society', or similarly, would you want an untrustworthy teacher responsible for your educating children?
I agree, it's all about scale, but so often the long term effect of a conviction for deliberate avoidance of a rail fare is blown out of all proportion in an apparent effort to justify 'it's OK, it's only fiddling the railways'
No, there are more of them, fact borne out by analysis, BUT this is also proportionate to opportunity and the TOCs do bear a share of responsibility for that situation. Serious overcrowding on some routes and erratic running are contributory factors, but they are not an excuse for not making an effort to pay.
No, a GEUNINE MISTAKE will not get to prosecution of an offence of deliberate avoidance of fare in my experience unless the traveller fails to respond to correspondence. It that happens and a conviction is recorded in absence, it is invariably overturned by appeal, or where the defendant had not received post because of a change of address, by making a Statutory Declaration. These cases really are extremely rare.
Not the case, look again at the matter of Dr Joad as one high profile example from the 1940s and all the way through the many thousands of cases before and since his time. In addition, look at the dates of the important case precedents that lead us to where we are now. The most recent of real importance in determining how the TOCs & Courts proceed being the Corbyn case of 39 years ago
Last edited:
Being polite didn't always work in BR days. I remember one story about a passenger who was asked to move, but said that they would not until they had finished their coffee, which they then proceeded to drag out until they were due to get off anyway.
I don't think it's a big surprise that TOC's decided to approach things in a stricter manner.
I don't think it's a big surprise that TOC's decided to approach things in a stricter manner.
CNash
Member
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 336
Fair enough that if you're deliberately combative or obstructive, then an RPI is less inclined to exercise discretion. This is understandable. But is it fair that an RPI deliberately behave in a combative or provocative manner themselves, knowing full well that their target will need to resist the urge to fight back or else fail the "attitude test"? RPIs have no duty to good customer service - they're an enforcement division, the customer's happiness is not their chief concern - but this shouldn't be an excuse for not treating passengers courteously in the first instance, and certainly not for baiting them into digging themselves a hole.
This is where the "attitude test" falls down. It's far too easy to manipulate the result to whatever the RPI wants it to be.
You do realise that the attitude test isn't an actual thing, right?
And, in this case, the OP was asked to provide his details and refused to do so?
This isn't really a question of attitude but failure to observe a legal obligation.
Some years ago, at the pinnacle of my railway career, I reached the giddy heights of second reserve train planner for royal trains
[not the official title]. Before taking up the role I had to have clearance from - if I recall correctly - Special Branch. The form included a question along the lines of "Have you ever been a member of, or involved in, a terrorist or subversive organisation?" This gave me a problem as, some years earlier, I had donated to an organisation involved in civil disobedience.So I ticked Yes, and explained the issue.
Few weeks later my boss got a letter granting me clearance to access, and indeed write, Royal Train documentation.
It was subsequently made clear that if I'd concealed the matter they might have taken a different view.
Of course it is. A passenger caught in violation of some rule or another is more likely to be dealt with leniently if he is polite and apologetic than if he kicks off and argues.
Yes. I get that. But CNash spoke of RPIs 'manipulating the test' to get the result that they want - which makes it sound like it's an actual thing, rather than just being polite.
Various staff have referred to the "attitude test" as if it were a 'thing'. One, in particular, who no longer posts regularly referred to what action he would take if a person passed or failed the test.
See my post #31 for an example of how different approaches would likely result in different responses, which ties in with the point CNash was making when he said:
Last edited:
CNash
Member
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 336
I know that the "attitude test" is not real policy, nor are its results recorded! But as sheff1 says, many of the TOC staff we've seen in here have commented on its (unofficial) existence and how it influences their interactions with people they're interviewing. I speak of "manipulation", because to me "failed the attitude test" seems like a handy excuse that can mean whatever the RPI wants it to mean.
"Why did you come down harder on this passenger vs. that passenger when they both did the same thing?"
"Oh, the first one failed the attitude test."
"Why did you come down harder on this passenger vs. that passenger when they both did the same thing?"
"Oh, the first one failed the attitude test."
Its not just a railway thing, its a natural human reaction. I work in a call centre for Insurance. Have the right attitude and I'm more willing to use what discretion I have in your favour. Come on and act like a jerk, and you'll get the bare minimum in service and extra scrutiny.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
The "attitude test" applies in this and nearly every situation where Authority is confronted, from the Policeman on traffic patrol, to the Parking Warden, to the Security Man at the football turnstile, and even down to a waitress in a restaurant or a shop assistant. You take a "stroppy" attitude with them and they will treat you much worse than if you are polite and affable.
It is human nature; it cannot be removed and hopefully it never will.
And I expect you are affected it by it every day, without you realising it.
It can not ever be an excuse to mistreat people.
But if someone displays a poor attitude and/or is un-cooperative, then they can expect the full force of the rules to be applied without discretion being shown.
If anyone is asking for people who display a good attitude and who are cooperative to no longer have discretion applied, this can only be a bad thing. I cannot support that.
Couldn't agree more.
This works both ways, if a traveller without a valid ticket reacts badly to being spoken to and becomes uncooperative, evasive, aggressive etc. they should not be surprised when they ultimately find themselves facing serious action and possible prosecution.
Equally, when a guard, train manager or inspector goes into any interaction in a confrontational manner there should be no hiding place and they should be disciplined accordingly.
Behaviour breeds behaviour....If an offence is committed by staff or traveller either should expect to face appropriate action.
.
Last edited:
BestWestern
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,736
Completely agree with that.
- Status