Who is 'An Authorised Person'?

[miami]

Just to muddy the waters even more...even though we can spend days presenting back and forth arguments and rebuttals on a forum, it's just as important to consider what the "typical passenger" would perceive as being an authorised agent. They only get to consider the matter for a few seconds and I'm sure nowhere near the same length.

If a passenger is given authority by somebody who has no right to do so (i.e a clown with a jacket on adorned with TOC branding) is the passenger in the same position legally as if they just jumped over the barriers?

I think the average person will assume that people manning ticket barriers checking tickets would be authorised, as would drivers and guards. Probably not the catering staff, but if they're in a similar uniform like on virgin I'd side with the passenger.

However a random manager of a TOC or net pelt rail, the average person wouldn't necessarily believe they would have the right.

But it seems clear to me if a member of staff gives permission, then that's all that's needed. If such a staff member gives permission when they shouldn't have that's a disciplinary action for the TOC, nothing to do with the passenger.

I would guess from a layman a point of view that the "in the Course of their duty" is to prevent someone from letting his mate travel for free.

Proving that permission is trickier, but a video (with consent) should do the trick.

 

[lejog]

I think the average person will assume that people manning ticket barriers checking tickets would be authorised, as would drivers and guards. Probably not the catering staff, but if they're in a similar uniform like on virgin I'd side with the passenger.

However a random manager of a TOC or net pelt rail, the average person wouldn't necessarily believe they would have the right.

But it seems clear to me if a member of staff gives permission, then that's all that's needed. If such a staff member gives permission when they shouldn't have that's a disciplinary action for the TOC, nothing to do with the passenger.

I would guess from a layman a point of view that the "in the Course of their duty" is to prevent someone from letting his mate travel for free.

Proving that permission is trickier, but a video (with consent) should do the trick.

If a TOC was trying to prosecute a passenger for a bylaw offence, it would be very much up to them to prove that the bylaws had been broken, not up to the passenger to prove his innocence. Innocent until proven guilty.

This is exactly why, when training new inspectors in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) Codes of Practice as relevant to RPIs for when gathering evidence and making out statements, I always insist that the RPI starts their statement by giving a clear, written definition of the writer's job title and summary of their duties.

We frequently see this dispute raised, i.e: Traveller is reported and says - 'I showed the bloke at the barrier, he said it was OK and let me through.' , but when Barrier staff are questioned the response is very frequently along these lines - 'I wasn't sure if the Train Manager would allow him to use it so I let him through and told him to check with the TM. I said he could go and ask, but I am not able to say the ticket was valid.'

That isn't the same as giving someone authority to travel without a valid ticket.

In my experience, all rail staff will have a clear idea of their role and level of authority from their individual job specification. If, on occasion it is necessary for us to get a statement from the barrier staff in such cases, that much always becomes abundantly clear.

The problem is, the question asked by the passenger isn't always the question they want answering. "Yes, this train stops at Macclesfield" isn't the same as "Yes, you can use this ticket on this train to Macclesfield" yet very often you'll get "oh, well I asked him, and he said it was okay". In a number of cases, the passenger will deliberately look for a member of staff they think are unlikely to know about tickets. Of course, the easiest way to solve this would be to insist that staff mark tickets with a suitable endorsement having seen them, but the challenge then is persuading certain staff to actually do it - whether for fear of getting it wrong and dropping themselves in it or other reasons.

In these cases clearly no permission has been granted to travel and it is a clear breach of the byelaws to do so. However I thought we were discussing what constitutes an authorised person not clear cases of permission not being granted.

 

[najaB]

If a TOC was trying to prosecute a passenger for a bylaw offence, it would be very much up to them to prove that the bylaws had been broken, not up to the passenger to prove his innocence. Innocent until proven guilty.

But the issue is that the way the Byelaws are written means that the passenger is in breach of Byelaw 18.1 when they board without a ticket or 18.2 when they cannot produce a valid ticket (or other travel authority) unless they can show that the breach is nullified by the conditions specified in 18.3.

 

[crehld]

This is exactly why, when training new inspectors in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) Codes of Practice as relevant to RPIs for when gathering evidence and making out statements, I always insist that the RPI starts their statement by giving a clear, written definition of the writer's job title and summary of their duties.

We frequently see this dispute raised, i.e: Traveller is reported and says - 'I showed the bloke at the barrier, he said it was OK and let me through.' , but when Barrier staff are questioned the response is very frequently along these lines - 'I wasn't sure if the Train Manager would allow him to use it so I let him through and told him to check with the TM. I said he could go and ask, but I am not able to say the ticket was valid.'

That isn't the same as giving someone authority to travel without a valid ticket.

In my experience, all rail staff will have a clear idea of their role and level of authority from their individual job specification. If, on occasion it is necessary for us to get a statement from the barrier staff in such cases, that much always becomes abundantly clear.

The example you give is not particularly relevant here however: there the traveller claimed to have sought permission, but upon gathering a witness statement from the barrier staff it turns out they were not. No permission was given. Byelaw 18(3)(iii) does not apply.

This still doesn't address the heart of the matter as I see it. Whether or not the barrier staff (or whoever) were authorized to grant permission is not the same as whether or not they had actually given permission. Or to refer this back to your example, what if the barrier staff had said "I'll let you through and you may board the train"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem is, the question asked by the passenger isn't always the question they want answering. "Yes, this train stops at Macclesfield" isn't the same as "Yes, you can use this ticket on this train to Macclesfield" yet very often you'll get "oh, well I asked him, and he said it was okay". In a number of cases, the passenger will deliberately look for a member of staff they think are unlikely to know about tickets. Of course, the easiest way to solve this would be to insist that staff mark tickets with a suitable endorsement having seen them, but the challenge then is persuading certain staff to actually do it - whether for fear of getting it wrong and dropping themselves in it or other reasons.

Again this example falls outside the scope of discussion, as simply saying "Yes, this train stops at Macclesfield" is not, as you say, permission to travel. But what if the barrier staff had said "Yes, you can use this ticket on this train to Macclesfield". In this instance, does the barrier staff constitute an authorised person giving permission to board a train for the purpose of travel as defined in the railway byelaws?

As for passengers who attempt to deliberately deceive perhaps a Regulation of Railways Act prosecution might be more suitable?

 

[najaB]

But what if the barrier staff had said "Yes, you can use this ticket on this train to Macclesfield". In this instance, does the barrier staff constitute an authorised person giving permission to board a train for the purpose of travel as defined in the railway byelaws?

I would say that yes, it would count as being given permission to travel and that the passenger should not be penalised. The question that a court would concern itself with is if the passenger boarded the train because they reasonably believed they had permission to do so.

 

[crehld]

I would say that yes, it would count as being given permission to travel and that the passenger should not be penalised. The question that a court would concern itself with is if the passenger boarded the train because they reasonably believed they had permission to do so.

This is also my position. But the possibility that a gateline assistant (or similar) might be considered an authorised person in these circumstances has sparked much objection and outrage!

 

[najaB]

This is also my position. But the possibility that a gateline assistant (or similar) might be considered an authorised person in these circumstances has sparked much objection and outrage!

They may not be able to provide permission (the strict definition that you outlined earlier), the issue is that the passenger can't be expected to know that.

By way of a (possibly weak) analogy: if you commit an illegal act but believed that you were acting on the lawful instruction of a policeman, could you be found guilty of that act? My understanding is that you could not.

 

[crehld]

They may not be able to provide permission (the strict definition that you outlined earlier), the issue is that the passenger can't be expected to know that.

By way of a (possibly weak) analogy: if you commit an illegal act but believed that you were acting on the lawful instruction of a policeman, could you be found guilty of that act? My understanding is that you could not.

It's an excellent point. Indeed, might this be the rationale behind byelaw 18(3)(iii)?

 

[furlong]

It's an excellent point. Indeed, might this be the rationale behind byelaw 18(3)(iii)?

Well I think something important might have got lost here when the byelaws were replaced after privatisation. As far as I can tell, the sensible general provision of "other authority" was replaced by this inadequate list of specific exceptions and a financial penalty was introduced. (What penalty would in turn fall on an operator that allowed ticket purchase on board but which failed to display a notice at each station it serves "permitting journeys to be started without a valid ticket" thereby placing many of its passengers in technical breach of the new byelaw but not the old one?)

3 (2) No person other than an authorised person shall enter any vehicle for the purpose of travelling unless and until he or she or someone on his or her behalf shall have obtained from [any independent railway operator] or from an authorised person a ticket or other authority entitling him or her to travel therein.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well I think something important might have got lost here when the byelaws were replaced after privatisation. As far as I can tell, the sensible general provision of "other authority" was replaced by this inadequate list of specific exceptions and . . . .

Here's what the Byelaws said half a century ago :

1. Interpretation

. . . .

"authorised person" means any officer, employee or agent of the Board, and any constable, acting in the execution of his or her duty upon or in connection with the railway;

. . . .

3. Ticket Requirements

3. (1) No person other than an authorised person shall enter any lift or pass any ticket barrier unless and until he or she or someone on his or her behalf shall have obtained from the Board or from an authorised person, a ticket or other authority entitling the holder to enter such lift or pass such barrier, and such ticket or other authority shall be produced on demand to any authorised person.

(2) No person other than an authorised person shall enter any vehicle for the purpose of travelling unless and until he or she or someone on his or her behalf shall have obtained from the Board or from an authorised person a ticket or other authority entitling him or her to travel therein.

 

[Clip]

This is also my position. But the possibility that a gateline assistant (or similar) might be considered an authorised person in these circumstances has sparked much objection and outrage!

There I no outrage, you are stating your opinion I am stating fact

Grasp that?

ETA: This thread started as whether a gateline assistant was allowed to grant permission for ticketless travel but in true RailUK Forums fashion everything else gets chucked in to muddy the waters to try and prove someones point.

 

[rs101]

So if a TOC employee says it's okay for me to travel on a particular train with my ticket, am I supposed to ask if he's an 'authorised person' and get his name/id number?

 

[crehld]

There I no outrage, you are stating your opinion I am stating fact

Grasp that?

ETA: This thread started as whether a gateline assistant was allowed to grant permission for ticketless travel but in true RailUK Forums fashion everything else gets chucked in to muddy the waters to try and prove someones point.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the thread. It is not to ascertain whether or not a gateline assistant is authorised by the railway to grant permission to travel. It is to determine whether or not a gateline assistant (or other member of staff) giving permission to travel (regardless of whether they can or not) constitutes an 'authorised person' in accordance with railway byelaw 18(3)(iii).

I have made clear I am merely stating an opinion and that my opinion is open to change upon production of a reasoned and coherent argument founded on a valid interpretation of legislation / case law and other available evidence. Unfortunately, saying something is a fact on the basis that you say it is a fact does not make it a fact, especially when the fact you present does not relate to the question being asked.

 

[John Palmer]

Mod Note: Split from this thread.

Does being waved through the gateline not provide a degree of evidence regarding permission by an authorised person?

To be strictly accurate, this was the issue posed by the OP. It raises a question as to what the extent is of the ostensible authority of gateline staff.

For a quick and dirty overview, this link may be of some help:http://www.inhouselawyer.co.uk/index.php/contract/6416-agents-acting-without-authority-when-is-the-principal-bound

 

[Clip]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the thread. It is not to ascertain whether or not a gateline assistant is authorised by the railway to grant permission to travel. It is to determine whether or not a gateline assistant (or other member of staff) giving permission to travel (regardless of whether they can or not) constitutes an 'authorised person' in accordance with railway byelaw 18(3)(iii).

I have made clear I am merely stating an opinion and that my opinion is open to change upon production of a reasoned and coherent argument founded on a valid interpretation of legislation / case law and other available evidence. Unfortunately, saying something is a fact on the basis that you say it is a fact does not make it a fact, especially when the fact you present does not relate to the question being asked.

I know the purpose of the thread and the one that it was split from and I seem to keep repeating myself.

Your main problem is that you are trying to use the bylaws as some sort of reference whilst forgetting that its actually the job role of a gateline assistant which comes first - which is and was the purpose of this thread.

It seems that's not getting through to you and your opinions wont be changed by someone who directly employs these people and has done over various TOCs and knows their job role and what they are and are nto allowed to do so I'm out.

Enjoy yourself.

 

[Steveoh]

I know the purpose of the thread and the one that it was split from and I seem to keep repeating myself.

Your main problem is that you are trying to use the bylaws as some sort of reference whilst forgetting that its actually the job role of a gateline assistant which comes first - which is and was the purpose of this thread.

It seems that's not getting through to you and your opinions wont be changed by someone who directly employs these people and has done over various TOCs and knows their job role and what they are and are nto allowed to do so I'm out.

Enjoy yourself.

As an observer I've been enjoying the to and fro.

Surely the question needs to be looked at from the passengers point of view. What is the train service for and who is it supposed to be serving? How I am as a punter supposed to know what to do, who to talk to about which issue? In my opinion as a user of the service asking the people who man the gate what to do seems a proportionate and reasonable course of action to take. There is too much ambiguity that needs clearing up. Clear and consistent rules that are enforced by all TOCs can only benefit both passengers and TOCs. These sorts of cases bring the industry into disrepute in my eyes.

 

[CheesyChips]

With this thread in mind and a 20min wait until my train, I actually asked a gateline assistant at Coventry today if they were in fact an 'authorised person' in the context of this byelaw.

He didn't know, nor did the friendly BTP officer he was standing with. :roll: I did explain why I was asking so I wasn't "that guy"

I know the gatelines are brand new at Coventry so I may have asked a newbie. Maybe worth asking somewhere else.

 

[Llanigraham]

Just to muddy the waters even more...even though we can spend days presenting back and forth arguments and rebuttals on a forum, it's just as important to consider what the "typical passenger" would perceive as being an authorised agent. They only get to consider the matter for a few seconds and I'm sure nowhere near the same length.

If a passenger is given authority by somebody who has no right to do so (i.e a clown with a jacket on adorned with TOC branding) is the passenger in the same position legally as if they just jumped over the barriers?

Everyone seems to be missing out or ignoring one important word from what the actual legislation says:

"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if a TOC employee says it's okay for me to travel on a particular train with my ticket, am I supposed to ask if he's an 'authorised person' and get his name/id number?

Yes, and even better get him to put it in writing!

 

[causton]

I have never been told anything official about this but have been told, where appropriate, to use my discretion to help people out on my own TOC's services. If I do this I will always stamp the ticket/a printed itinerary from my ticket machine and endorse as appropriate "Please accept this for travel to xyz because of abc, many thanks", etc. However with other TOCs I work by the principle of the only authorised person for them would be the Train Manager themselves.

 

[455driver]

This is alarmingly incorrect. This seems to have generated a fair amount of discussion of who an authorised person is. Helpfully byelaw 25(1)(i) provides the answer:

"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;

The gate line staff, who was employed by a railway operator and who was exercising their duties therefore falls well within the position of an authorised person.

What has a person employed on the gateline got to do with the operation of the train?
They can only allow access to the platform, nothing more!
They would be operating outside the course of their duties because they are nothing to do with the operational side of the gateline!
Just because they are employed on the railway doesn't mean they can authorise everything, hence my tea lady comment!
as you are in bewilderment maybe you could read (i) above (I have highlighted it for you) and then explain how a Gateline assistant would be acting in the course of their duties to authorise travel?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For example in times of disruption, or when queues are excessive, it would be staff at the ticket gates that often tell passengers to board without a ticket etc. This is quite reasonable, and clearly within their remit.

Only when they have been told to by a Manager or Control, they cannot make that decision themselves.

 

[Oswyntail]

What has a person employed on the gateline got to do with the operation of the train?
They can only allow access to the platform, nothing more!....

If that is the case, then it needs changing. As a passenger, I would have assumed (I know - we are talking about railways here!), that a part of the gateline job description would have been along the lines of "to help and advise members of the public when approached". Otherwise:-
Passenger:- Is this valid?
Gateline:- I am not allowed to advise. Only the train manager can do that.
Passenger:- In that case, may I pass through in order to approach the train manager?
Gateline:- No, because this ticket may not be valid.
[Especially useful if the train has not yet arrived, a few minutes after due time, and it is likely the TM is looking to catch up]

 

[Steveoh]

What has a person employed on the gateline got to do with the operation of the train?
They can only allow access to the platform, nothing more!

What is the point of them being there then? Or are you saying they can only allow access to the platform if you've a valid ticket and they are the judge of whether or not that ticket is valid in their authorised railway role.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What has a person employed on the gateline got to do with the operation of the train?

Nothing, but that isn't what the legislation says.

The byelaw says that an authorised person is a person acting in the course of their duties who is an employee or agent of an Operator orany other person authorised by an Operator or a constable acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway.

Put simply, a TOC employee who is at work on the railway is an authorised person according to the Byelaws.

If a TOC employee who is at work on the railway oversteps the boundaries his employer has given him then that is an issue for his employer and not for the passenger. A passenger can treat any TOC employee who is at work on the railway as an authorised person. A TOC employee can let people travel for free and it is binding on the TOC; the employee will, of course, be having a meeting without biscuits very quickly.

The issue, as others have pointed out, is proving that the man on the platform said they could catch the train.

 

[455driver]

What is the point of them being there then? Or are you saying they can only allow access to the platform if you've a valid ticket and they are the judge of whether or not that ticket is valid in their authorised railway role.

They are there to ensure people have valid tickets and offer assistance!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nothing, but that isn't what the legislation says.

The byelaw says that an authorised person is a person acting in the course of their duties who is an employee or agent of an Operator orany other person authorised by an Operator or a constable acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway.

Put simply, a TOC employee who is at work on the railway is an authorised person according to the Byelaws.

If a TOC employee who is at work on the railway oversteps his authority then that is an issue for his employer and not for the passenger. A passenger can treat any TOC employee who is at work on the railway as an authorised person.

The issue, as others have pointed out, is proving that the man on the platform said they could catch the train.

Read the highlighted bit! :roll:
Or are you saying the station cleaner (employed by the TOC) can authorise travel?

 

[crehld]

I know the purpose of the thread and the one that it was split from and I seem to keep repeating myself.

Your main problem is that you are trying to use the bylaws as some sort of reference whilst forgetting that its actually the job role of a gateline assistant which comes first - which is and was the purpose of this thread.

Now I'm just confused. Are you suggesting the byelaws don't matter at all? Are the byelaws not a point of reference for a court considering the prosecution of a suspect who is alleged to have contravened said byelaws?

It seems that's not getting through to you and your opinions wont be changed by someone who directly employs these people and has done over various TOCs and knows their job role and what they are and are nto allowed to do so I'm out.

Enjoy yourself.

I have made it very clear my opinion is more than open to change, but it will not change on the basis of a vociferous (and somewhat hostile) poster who claims simply that they are right and I am wrong. Rather I will be swayed by evidence and a thorough analysis of relevant case law / legislation. For example, John Palmer has posted something which looks potentially useful to aid an informed debate and I look forward to reading it later.

What has a person employed on the gateline got to do with the operation of the train?

I don't think "operation of the train" is quite what the byelaws mean by "an Operator".

They can only allow access to the platform, nothing more!

Again this question isn't about whether or not the gateline assistant can or cannot grant access. It's about what if they had given permission to travel, regardless of whether or not they were allowed to.

They would be operating outside the course of their duties because they are nothing to do with the operational side of the gateline!

This is where I'm not so sure about the definition of "a person acting in the course of his duties". Does it mean not going beyond the scope of authority explicitly (or perhaps implicitly) granted to him by his employer (the 'narrow' definition) or does it simply mean "acting in the course of his duties" (i.e. was the gateline assistant conducting their duties (irrespective of what those duties are) at the time opposed to off duty and granting permission to his mates while he was down the pub?) (the 'broad' definition)? This point merits debate because it is unclear (and those who claim to have a clear answer have yet to mobilize any sufficient evidence or legal analysis to support such an answer).

Just because they are employed on the railway doesn't mean they can authorise everything, hence my tea lady comment!

Again this isn't about their capacity to authorise things, it's about whether they are defined as authorised persons for the purpose of railway byelaw 18(3)(iii). The two things are not synonymous. Personally the tea lady example raises another question about whether a passenger can reasonably expect someone to be in a position to give permission. Clearly the tea lady is not going to be in a position to grant permission to travel, but it is more than reasonable to expect a gateline assistant to be in such a position (regardless of whether or not they are) given their role in checking tickets' validity and managing access to trains and platforms.

as you are in bewilderment maybe you could read (i) above (I have highlighted it for you) and then explain how a Gateline assistant would be acting in the course of their duties to authorise travel?

Again this comes back to how "a person acting in the course of his duties" is defined. This remains unclear, and regardless, how a railway company (or its employees) or I choose to interpret it is irrelevant; what matters is how a court would interpret this phrase. As I've already mentioned this phrase pops up a lot in legislation so I'm sure there is a wealth of case law and informed analysis to help us with this interpretation. I'm not aware of may which will be directly relevant, but I'm sure someone will be (perhaps there are parallels to be had with the concept of vicarious liability?). Anyway, at the risk of needless repetition I will restate my uncertainty about the phrase which I posted earlier in the hope it might spark some more informed discussion:

It's clear that the phrase "acting in the course of his duties" is the area of contention. This I think comes down to whether we adopt a 'narrow' or 'broad' definition of this phrase. In the 'narrow' conception a person is only permitted to give permission if expressly authorised (and/or not expressly forbidden) to do so by their employing railway company. In the 'broad' conception, the person giving permission simply has to be fulfilling their duties of employment at the time of giving permission (regardless of whether or not they are allowed to give permission).

If we were to take the 'narrow' approach this leads to an additional interesting question around whether or not certain railway employees are expressly forbidden to grant permission to travel. If they are forbidden then, under the 'narrow' interpretation, those employees have acted beyond the course of their duties (which in itself raises questions as to why many seemingly do so when they are not permitted). If they are not expressly forbidden, and in the context of their duties it might be seen as entirely reasonable for those duties to encompass the process of giving permission to travel to passengers (as one might expect ticket office clerks, gateline assistants and guards to be) then we might say they are acting within the course of their duties.

I'm minded to go for the 'broad' definition personally, but on reflection I'm now not too sure. The phrase "acting in the course of his duties" (or similar) appears frequently in legislation, so one would expect a wide range of case law is available to assist our interpretation. Perhaps one of our more learned forum posters is in position to mobilize such case law and inform this interesting debate further.

 

[319321]

In my experience, gateline assistants can stop people from travelling with what they consider 'invalid' tickets, therefore if they have authority to stop people travelling with invalid tickets, they also have authority to grant people access to the platforms.

I think its arguable on whether or not they can give you the authority to travel on a particular train though. I think that you can argue that if you passed through a barrier, and they inspected your ticket, you have authority to be at that station (if you are off route etc).

If they let you through to board a particular train (e.g. East Midland Trains at St Pancras) you can argue that they let you through to board that train with your advance ticket). I have experienced reservation checks at the barriers at Kings Cross before.

However, if they let you through the barriers at a generic station (e.g Clapham Junction) other than giving you authority to be at that particular station or via that particular station, they cannot be seen to be granting you authority to board any particular train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
With regards to whether or not a person 'has particular authority' to grant passengers the right to be somewhere or not be somewhere, I would refer the reader to the case Canadian pacific railway company vs Lockhart:

When considering the imposition of vicarious liability, ‘the first consideration is the ascertainment of what the servant is employed to do.’ (Lord Thankerton) and ‘It is clear that the master is responsible for acts actually authorised by him: for liability would exist in this case, even if the relation between the parties was merely one of agency, and not one of service at all.

But a master, as opposed to the employer of an independent contractor, is liable even for acts which he has not authorized, provided they are so connected with acts which he has authorized that they may rightly be regarded as modes – although improper modes – of doing them. In other words, a master is responsible not merely for what he authorizes his servant to do,but also for the way in which he does it . .

On the other hand, if the unauthorized and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with the authorized act as to be a mode of doing it, but is an independent act, the master is not responsible: for in such a case, the servant is not acting in the course of his employment but has gone outside of it.’ and

‘It is often difficult in the particular case to distinguish between the second and the third of these situations, but the criterion is whether the act which is unauthorised is so connected with acts which have been authorised that it may be regarded as a mode – although an improper mode – of doing the authorised act, as distinct from constituting an independent act for which the master would not be liable.’
Lord Dunedin said: ‘there are prohibitions which limit the sphere of employment, and prohibitions which only deal with conduct within the sphere of employment.’

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1942/1942_24.pdf

I would argue that even if the gateline assistant was not specifically authorised to grant authority to passengers to travel, because this would be closely connected to his duties for the train operating company the train operating company would be liable for what its employee says.

Even if there was an absolute prohibition on him granting authority to passengers to travel on particular trains in his contract, that could still be challenged. His ability to grant authority to be on the platforms without a valid ticket would be unarguable though.

In this case, the train operating company would be liable for accepting the ticket as being valid.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The cleaner isn't (usually) acting as employee or agent of the operator. A gateline assistant is.

"Acting in the course of their duties" means being at work doing the job they're paid to do, I.e. not drunk as a skunk at 11pm on their own leisure time.

And yes, lowly TOC staff are authorised people. That's why catering crews are usually so careful to tell you to ask the guard, even with fairly basic questions.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd also add that operation of the train is irrelevant; there are several situations where a passenger is told by the rules to seek authorisation from the ticket office before travel (e.g. delayed Advance ticket holders). Clearly ticket office staff are therefore authorised people, even though they don't go anywhere near a train.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Just a quick point, most of the travelling public will not see a gateline assistant being less "important" or think they have less authority than the TM / guard of a service. Especially in areas where the guard / TM does a lot of the revenue collection many people see the guard / TM as just that, no real consideration for the safety critical / being in charge of the train aspect.

So from a normal passengers point of view, I really don't see how a gateline assistant / a member of station staff can't give permission. Indeed I would think such a case would be laughed out of court if it got there assuming there was evidence to support the passengers case (indeed that is the situation with a fair number of cases where ToC's try to extort money out of people by threatening prosecution).

Also what about DOO services? If gateline assistants and station staff cannot give a passenger permission, and obviously the driver will be busy dealing with the dispatch of their train, who is a passenger supposed to ask?

 

[6Gman]

Without straying into legalities ...

As a member of the public, regular traveller by train, and former railway employee I would consider the following to be "authorised persons" :-

Booking Office staff on ticket validity - so if the booking clerk says "yes, you're ok to travel" I'd consider myself to have been given permission.

Gateline staff ditto (though this would depend on context)

Train Manager/ Conductor/ Guard/ RPI on ticket validity/ permission on-train.

I cannot see the circumstances under which I would consider a Driver, Catering Staff or Tea Ladies to be authorised persons in this context.

 

[Llanigraham]

Nothing, but that isn't what the legislation says.

The byelaw says that an authorised person is a person acting in the course of their duties who is an employee or agent of an Operator orany other person authorised by an Operator or a constable acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway.

Put simply, a TOC employee who is at work on the railway is an authorised person according to the Byelaws.

If a TOC employee who is at work on the railway oversteps the boundaries his employer has given him then that is an issue for his employer and not for the passenger. A passenger can treat any TOC employee who is at work on the railway as an authorised person. A TOC employee can let people travel for free and it is binding on the TOC; the employee will, of course, be having a meeting without biscuits very quickly.

The issue, as others have pointed out, is proving that the man on the platform said they could catch the train.

Authorised to do what?
An employee of the company is authorised to do their job, and nothing more than that. In the case of gateline employees they are authorised to check tickets are valid and help people get through the gateline. They are not authorised for anything more than that.

Read the paragraoh again:
"authorised person” means:
(i) a person acting in the course of his duties who:
(a) is an employee or agent of an Operator, or
(b) any other person authorised by an Operator, or any constable, acting in the execution of his duties upon or in connection with the railway;
Note the 4 words emboldened!