RPI refused to issue a PF

[jon0844]

It's not your problem that gates may not exist at a station or be in operation though.

 

[Fare-Cop]

The RPI appears to have made out an MG11 (Section 9 statement in old jargon). Having trained many RPIs, perhaps an explanation of the process from their perspective will help. Please excuse the use of the word 'suspect' throughout this, but that is the term used by the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984).

The inspector will be PACE trained and in terms of making out the report has exactly the same duties, responsibilities and powers as a Police Officer in relation to reporting the alleged offence on a railway. (In fact, in a sense RPIs have more authority in these circumstances because it is they who get the specific training on tickets and when Police are called it is to assist by dealing with any public order issues that may arise, or to help identify travellers where difficulty is encountered.)

An RPI (or authorised person) is never obliged to issue a Penalty Fare Notice (or to accept a fare) if s/he genuinely believes that any fare (or part of it) was in jeopardy.

I think it regrettable that from the account made by the person reported, the RPI in this case appears to have initially been prepared to issue a PFN, but for some reason unknown to us may have changed that view. It may be because he saw something that made him believe there was enough evidence to suggest an attempt to alter the carnet and he would then be right to retain the ticket (which always remains the property of the rail company) and to report the matter.

If the carnet was made out in a way that made it appear to be altered, or if the date was considered illegible, it would not be accepted as valid and the terms & conditions of issue & use confirm that view.

It is most likely that you will receive a verification letter giving you the opportunity to put your version of events in writing and once that is received they will decide whether the evidence is strong enough to dismiss your explanation.

As Dave has said, if it is necessary to undertake a forensic check, they do have the wherewithal to undertake it.

So far as making out the interview notes is concerned I know that it's fashionable to use the U.S terminology 'read me my rights', but in accordance with PACE codes, as soon as the RPI believed that an offence is evident, s/he is obliged to 'caution a suspect' and make a note of the time & location. Once that is done the inspector will make notes of the questions that they ask and a note of the answers given by the person being questioned.

This will be fairly brief, but recording the questions & answers should continue until the RPI is satisfied that s/he has recorded sufficient information to support his/her allegation of an offence.

Once s/he has completed the interview, the inspector should read the notes aloud whilst allowing the 'suspect' to see what has been written. Once that is complete, the inspector will offer the opportunity for the person being reported to sign the notes if they agree the notes are an accurate record of the questions asked & the answers given.

If the suspect does not agree, the specific note should be identified and an amended note must be made showing what the correction is. The original note must remain and there must be no alterations, erasures or words written between lines in the notebook. When both parties are satisfied that the notes are agreed the inspector and the 'suspect' should sign the notes.

If the person being questioned refuses to sign these notes, that does not alter the validity of the report. It just means that the inspector will add the note; 'Opportunity to sign given but was refused' and will add the time & date and sign the page off at that point. If possible another member of staff may be asked to witness that occurence.

The inspector should not allow a traveller to cross out, alter or write further notes in their pocket book. That pocket book is the property of the Rail Company and is a legal document for which the inspector is responsible.

The person reported will be given an opportunity to respond with their explanation once the report is processed.

I would wait until you get a letter from FCC before doing anything and then, put a detailed response in writing and send back promptly.

 

[jon0844]

Thank you for that very detailed explanation. Should possibly be made a sticky elsewhere relating to what an MG11 is and how they 'work' so-to-speak.

I never got to find out what the next stage of an intended prosecution is, as it had been cancelled by the end of the very same day!!

 

[phil8715]

I'm sure that in my younger days I used to buy 3/7 rover tickets. We had to date the ticket ourselves so it was open to fraud where people used write the date in with a pencil, then when they got home rubbed it out again.

I'm sure the boxes you have to fill in were on the back of the ticket.

Why don't they put the date boxes on the rear of the ticket on the none shiny side?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[tannedfrog]

I am aware that the suspect has to give name and address
Now that we know that signing the document is not obligatory, what other information is the suspect obliged to give and which questions is the suspect obliged to answer?

 

[jon0844]

I think name and address is it. Once you've given that, you cannot be detained any longer and can leave to let the RPI do everything else on his/her own.

However, in my case, I wasn't going anywhere until I could see everything in the notebook was accurate. To his credit, the RPI concerned did write everything down correctly - which must have made interesting reading later on when he was called in to explain why someone with two tickets collectively covering zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was deemed to be fraudulent, and not only that day but every single day since I got my season ticket! Hence me being 'held' for the whole morning as he wrote out a week or two of days then weeks and then months (can't remember exactly what the combination was but Fare-Cop might be able to help).

 

[tannedfrog]

I think name and address is it. Once you've given that, you cannot be detained any longer and can leave to let the RPI do everything else on his/her own.

However, in my case, I wasn't going anywhere until I could see everything in the notebook was accurate. To his credit, the RPI concerned did write everything down correctly - which must have made interesting reading later on when he was called in to explain why someone with two tickets collectively covering zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was deemed to be fraudulent, and not only that day but every single day since I got my season ticket! Hence me being 'held' for the whole morning as he wrote out a week or two of days then weeks and then months (can't remember exactly what the combination was but Fare-Cop might be able to help).

If I had been in your shoes or those of the OP I would have been silently fuming at the suggestion that I was trying to evade the correct fare and therefore would be reluctant even to make eye contact with the RPI, and certainly not supply any more information than the absolute minimum required in law.

 

[wijit]

That is very naughty!

In what way can this be naughty? Why on Earth would you sign a document which, in theory, could be produced to prosecute you which you have not read?
Further to this, one member mentioned getting a copy of CCTV. This is a right under the Data Protection Act, a Subject Access Request would be needed which really only consists of a letter stating a date/time (rough is OK) and place of an incident in which you were involved, along with a cheque for £10 (claimable). Should the request be refused for any reason then any attempt at prosecution will effectively be doomed as they would be refusing access to defending evidence.
It would appear the OP has kept his cool throughout and if all is as appears, the staff was acting a bit off.

One thing I would say, is that the wording used is very important. I have witnessed one NR staff and one TPE tell people they can be arrested for fare Evasion, which of course is not an arrestable offence* as it is only a summary offence.
*It is possible to be arrested for Obtaining services by deception but this is very hard to get support for.

 

[andydcm]

Yes, unless it has changed since my revenue days the minimum of a PF that can be paid at the time is the full single price for journey being made, which I am sure you would have paid. All RPIs should have a special authorised PF collector ID and this should be all you need to report problems.

I would write a strongly worded complain letter to FCC, stating your version of events but saying you will co-operate with the investigation, but more focussing on the attitude of the staff member, how you would have paid minimum on PF etc., with a bit of luck they'll realise they aint going to win, send you a voucher and forget the whole thing ever happened!

 

[DavyCrocket]

In what way can this be naughty? Why on Earth would you sign a document which, in theory, could be produced to prosecute you which you have not read?
Further to this, one member mentioned getting a copy of CCTV. This is a right under the Data Protection Act, a Subject Access Request would be needed which really only consists of a letter stating a date/time (rough is OK) and place of an incident in which you were involved, along with a cheque for £10 (claimable). Should the request be refused for any reason then any attempt at prosecution will effectively be doomed as they would be refusing access to defending evidence.
It would appear the OP has kept his cool throughout and if all is as appears, the staff was acting a bit off.

One thing I would say, is that the wording used is very important. I have witnessed one NR staff and one TPE tell people they can be arrested for fare Evasion, which of course is not an arrestable offence* as it is only a summary offence.
*It is possible to be arrested for Obtaining services by deception but this is very hard to get support for.

It would be 'naughty' of the RPI to ask you to sign something that you cannot see is what I meant!

There is now no such thing as arrestable and non arrestable offences. So long as a necessity of arrest is there you can be arrested. This is from SOCAP which has replaced some of PACE. If you refused to give a name and address to a police officer when they arrived then there's one necessity!

 

[Fare-Cop]

I am a bit bemused by the thought that people suggest that making a mark on the blank orange strip of the carnet should be described as 'tampering with the ticket'.

Only making alterations to the material details relevant to the validity can be described as 'tampering with' and the OP has never suggested that's what the RPI did.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

One thing I would say, is that the wording used is very important. I have witnessed one NR staff and one TPE tell people they can be arrested for fare Evasion, which of course is not an arrestable offence* as it is only a summary offence.
*It is possible to be arrested for Obtaining services by deception but this is very hard to get support for.

Incorrect. Firstly, there are no such things as arrestable offences anymore - you can now be arrested for each and every offence. Whether or not it is summary or indictable makes no difference to whether you can be arrested or not, only where the trial will happen. After all, battery is a summary offence and you can certainly be arrested for that!
Secondly it is incorrect to dimiss fare evasion as 'unarrestable'. Depending on the circumstances there are a raft of possible offences that an arrest could be made for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am aware that the suspect has to give name and address
Now that we know that signing the document is not obligatory, what other information is the suspect obliged to give and which questions is the suspect obliged to answer?

It is in your interest to answer as honestly as possible. Remember, adverse inferences can now be drawn from silences and 'no-comments'.

 

[Ferret]

If I had been in your shoes or those of the OP I would have been silently fuming at the suggestion that I was trying to evade the correct fare and therefore would be reluctant even to make eye contact with the RPI, and certainly not supply any more information than the absolute minimum required in law.

Which may ultimately harm your defence. As stated by others, it is far better to answer questions honestly at your first opportunity.

 

[swadbus]

I am a bit bemused by the thought that people suggest that making a mark on the blank orange strip of the carnet should be described as 'tampering with the ticket'.

Only making alterations to the material details relevant to the validity can be described as 'tampering with' and the OP has never suggested that's what the RPI did.

I totally disagree, if this was go go to court, it need only be pointed out by any decent defence that the evidence has been tampered with since it was withdrawn by the inspector. It would throw the whole case into question.

The allegation is one of fraud, and the company are accusing the OP of altering the date. By the company (actually the inspector acting as a reporting agent of the company) further writing on the ticket (which is the primary piece - if not only piece of evidence) it could be suggested by the defence (quite rightly so), that the company (or thir agent) have altered it since withdrawal. Remember that in a court it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The point about requesting CCTV is a good one and brings further doubt if a Subject Access Request was denied. A copy of the refusal letter (if refused - or failed to retrieve in time with compliance of the act) could be construed as withholding evidence if the defence brought this up in court.

I think that the defence could bring a good a mount of reasonable doubt to this case, based on what I've read.

 

[34D]

It is in your interest to answer as honestly as possible. Remember, adverse inferences can now be drawn from silences and 'no-comments'.

Erm no they can't! "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

 

[Ferret]

Erm no they can't! "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

Sorry, Ralph is right. Adverse inferences will be made if you 'no comment' the interview, then attempt to introduce a line of defence in Court.

 

[DavyCrocket]

Erm no they can't! "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

You don't have to ask if they understand.

The caution is more to do with either not saying something now, but then later on in court or changing what you say. The Court could infer that you have since had time to make up a story.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Erm no they can't! "You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"

Yes, they can. Since the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 actually so they've been around for 18 years now.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I totally disagree, if this was go go to court, it need only be pointed out by any decent defence that the evidence has been tampered with since it was withdrawn by the inspector. It would throw the whole case into question.

The allegation is one of fraud, and the company are accusing the OP of altering the date. By the company (actually the inspector acting as a reporting agent of the company) further writing on the ticket (which is the primary piece - if not only piece of evidence) it could be suggested by the defence (quite rightly so), that the company (or thir agent) have altered it since withdrawal. Remember that in a court it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The point about requesting CCTV is a good one and brings further doubt if a Subject Access Request was denied. A copy of the refusal letter (if refused - or failed to retrieve in time with compliance of the act) could be construed as withholding evidence if the defence brought this up in court.

I think that the defence could bring a good a mount of reasonable doubt to this case, based on what I've read.

During the question and answer process undertaken under PACE by any properly trained inspector, that inspector would have included the following question

'Do you agree that when you told me that this card was difficult to write on, I made a mark on the 'top left of the orange strip' (or relevant identified area) with my ordinary ballpoint pen in order to illustrate how easily these cards can be written on to ensure that they are correctly dated?'

S/He would then record the suspects' answer (or lack of comment) in the interview notes thus identifying that action and what the suspect said in reply.

I'm afraid you're jumping the gun a bit too. The OP has not said they have received a Summons, they have said they have been reported.

It is wrong to assume this is to be treated as an allegation of 'fraud'

It may be that the TOC simply decide to go with a breach of Byelaw 18.2. (2005)

It has been ruled (Gillingham 1881) that to be accepted as valid for travel, a ticket must be valid for all of the following; the day, date, time of train, place of journey and class of accomodation occupied. A recent appeal case at Sheffield Crown Court confirmed that in Byelaw 18.2, 'must show a ticket' means a valid ticket. A ticket that is not valid for the intended journey cannot be accepted as complying with the Byelaw.

You are right in that it is likely that if the TOC proceed they will charge with 'intent to avoid a fare', which is contrary to Section 5.3.a of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889).
They would not be pursuing any charge under the Fraud Act (2006).

A request can be made, but from many years experience of dealing with such cases, I can say that applications for on-train CCTV are rarely of any use in these situations.

By the time a report is processed and the traveller receives a letter, responds and asks for the images it is frequently too late for BTP to find any CCTV evidence as these records are not stored indefinitely unless there was a serious incident reported during the same short time period. This is not a case of the Police failing to comply in time and they could not be found culpable if the applicant was already too late when his/her application was made.

If the OP wants to pursue this line it should be done immediately.

 

[RJ]

No sympathy whatsoever for the OP here. A seasoned user of boxed tickets should make sure they have a pen that's suitable to fill it the box neatly.

Bad handwriting is no excuse either - we're talking two digits here, not continuous prose. I'm no expert calligrapher and I have reason to struggle more than the average person with handwriting, but I can fill in boxes neatly.

Neither stupidity nor abject laziness should be encouraged or championed IMO. Grown adults claiming they struggle to write two digits neatly in a box on a ticket is pathetic beyond belief! It's not beyond the wit of man to look for a different pen if a biro is supposedly no good. I'm a frequent user of flexi-rovers and don't have any problems using a bog standard Bic biro. In the ticket office, we had a supply of fine permanent markers.

What is it with a small minority of people and deciding that when they step onto railway property, they're automatically absolved of all common sense and responsibility?!

 

[headshot119]

No sympathy whatsoever for the OP here. A seasoned user of boxed tickets should make sure they have a pen that's suitable to fill it the box neatly.

Bad handwriting is no excuse either - we're talking two digits here, not continuous prose. I'm no expert calligrapher and I have reason to struggle more than the average person with handwriting, but I can fill in boxes neatly.

Neither stupidity nor abject laziness should be encouraged or championed IMO. Grown adults claiming they struggle to write two digits neatly in a box on a ticket is pathetic beyond belief! It's not beyond the wit of man to look for a different pen if a biro is supposedly no good. I'm a frequent user of flexi-rovers and don't have any problems using a bog standard Bic biro. In the ticket office, we had a supply of fine permanent markers.

What is it with a small minority of people and deciding that when they step onto railway property, they're automatically absolved of all common sense and responsibility?!

But how many posts have we seen on here saying the carnet tickets are difficult to write on?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But how many posts have we seen on here saying the carnet tickets are difficult to write on?

That's a fair question.

I would follow that with another 2 questions which arise:

How many posts do we see on here saying that carnet tickets are difficult to write on, from passengers who are trying to fulfill their obligations (but struggling, so looking for help to assist with their future travel or simply wanting to raise their concern or have a moan about rail tickets)?

How many posts do we see on here saying that carnet tickets are difficult to write on, from passengers who have been detected and suspected of unlawful travel (and struggling, so looking for help with their ongoing Ticket Irregularity investigation or to have a moan about rail staff)?

Then thirdly,
Can any conclusions be drawn from the different answers to the above 2 questions?

In my limited experience, I am surprised how few of the everyday moans about rail travel are directed at the specific details which are often complained about AFTER a passenger has been detected without an apparent valid ticket.

 

[Fare-Cop]

It's a worn old saying now Dave, but in revenue management the comment that you hear most is:

'You'll rarely hear a complaint about an RPI from a traveller who held a valid ticket'

I think you'll find that one has correlation here too.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Indeed!

I was merely inviting and encouraging any evidence to the contrary (about which most of us already have some expectations of their likelihood. i.e. nil.).

But it wouldn't be just to make any decisions without having opened all the available doors to contrary evidence, would it?

To be fair to passengers who do take opportunities to avoid payment when they are presented, the industry doesn't help itself at times. There are too many examples to list here and now, but what I have learned from those posting on here and elsewhere is that many who do avoid the full and correct payment are blissfully unaware of the consequencies.
Elsewhere, I have gone as far as to to accuse some operators of deceipt in the disproprtionate variance between their marketing boasts and their prosecution guidance. (They leave such a small sliver of a gap between the two which some legal professionals may struggle to pass a hair between.)

The most acute example is the very widespread promotion of cheap (between £9 and £19) long distance fares displayed in a wide range of advertising outlets, and the actual and penal cost if the passenger was travelling on a similar service (slightly earlier or slightly later - between £120 and £240). I'll repeat, that the average passenger may be in default, but they really wouldn't expect that the fare promoted might become instantly of no value and that their planned journey might become 10 times more expensive in addition to the price already paid.
Yes. You and I know exactly what the T&Cs state.
But can we honestly claim that the marketing and promotion that many long-distance TOCs have promoted really inform their customers in an appropriate manner?
I believe not, and have many individuals who I could call upon to confirm the innappropriateness of some corporate announcements.
What saddens me the most is those cases where the vociferous young professional is excused and the meek adult parent or grandparent utterly bewildered by the outcome of 15 years of privatisation is accused of a techical breach. Low-cost and widely promoted Advances appear to be the most likely products to lead to these unexpected outcomes.

 

[jon0844]

'Do you agree that when you told me that this card was difficult to write on, I made a mark on the 'top left of the orange strip' (or relevant identified area) with my ordinary ballpoint pen in order to illustrate how easily these cards can be written on to ensure that they are correctly dated?'

I would deem that irrelevant, unless the RPI used the same pen I had used (or tried to use).

I've tried many pens on old tickets and found one that seems to work all of the time. I now have this in my jacket pocket. God help me if I lose it, or forget to take it when I don't wear my coat.

No sympathy whatsoever for the OP here. A seasoned user of boxed tickets should make sure they have a pen that's suitable to fill it the box neatly.

Bad handwriting is no excuse either - we're talking two digits here, not continuous prose. I'm no expert calligrapher and I have reason to struggle more than the average person with handwriting, but I can fill in boxes neatly

I write clearly in block capitals, so there's no chance of it looking like I've tampered with anything, but when you start to write on and no ink flows, you quickly dent the card and that's when you're screwed. You can try (the pen) on another bit of paper, get the ink flowing, then it still won't come out on the ticket. The more you try, the more damage done - the orange coating comes off really easily. Basically, you ruin the ticket and that's £5 or whatever it cost down the toilet, unless you can convince them to issue you a replacement. Good luck with that - unless perhaps you always write the date on with a member of staff as a witness?

I haven't had any problems with RPIs because I've got my special pen! When I damaged the one in the photo, I had written it on at the station and got revenue staff by the gate to stamp it with the date. They saw me damage it and helped out - and we all agreed that it wouldn't look good if I was 'caught' later on. They also knew they were hard to write on, so recommended that I perhaps get them date stamped in the future too.

Maybe FCC should issue pens with the carnet packs, or give advice on what to do. I can assure you, they ARE hard to write on and I'm sure that if it's a cold day and the pen is cold, for example, it might even stop a known good pen from working (wow, how complicated can something so seemingly simple be?!).

But how many posts have we seen on here saying the carnet tickets are difficult to write on?

I can honestly say they are, and it's because the tickets seem to be too shiny and the orange comes off too easily (you can scrape it off with a fingernail without too much pressure). Maybe the ticket stock varies, and I'm not sure if these are thermal printed, or use ink? I'm pretty sure the old ones that had a dot matrix printer (where the ink faded) weren't shiny.

 

[RJ]

But how many posts have we seen on here saying the carnet tickets are difficult to write on?

Not if you have a suitable pen. People know exactly what they can do to overcome the problem, but deliberately setting themselves up for a fall then instigating outrage is quite bizarrely the preferable option for some people!


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a worn old saying now Dave, but in revenue management the comment that you hear most is:

'You'll rarely hear a complaint about an RPI from a traveller who held a valid ticket'

I think you'll find that one has correlation here too.

Rarely, but there's probably a dartboard with my face on in various messrooms in the East Midlands

 

[Fare-Cop]

Indeed!
I was merely inviting and encouraging any evidence to the contrary (about which most of us already have some expectations of their likelihood. i.e. nil.).
But it wouldn't be just to make any decisions without having opened all the available doors to contrary evidence, would it?
To be fair to passengers who do take opportunities to avoid payment when they are presented, the industry doesn't help itself at times. There are too many examples to list here and now, but what I have learned from those posting on here and elsewhere is that many who do avoid the full and correct payment are blissfully unaware of the consequencies.
Elsewhere, I have gone as far as to to accuse some operators of deceipt in the disproprtionate variance between their marketing boasts and their prosecution guidance. (They leave such a small sliver of a gap between the two which some legal professionals may struggle to pass a hair between.)
The most acute example is the very widespread promotion of cheap (between £9 and £19) long distance fares displayed in a wide range of advertising outlets, and the actual and penal cost if the passenger was travelling on a similar service (slightly earlier or slightly later - between £120 and £240). I'll repeat, that the average passenger may be in default, but they really wouldn't expect that the fare promoted might become instantly of no value and that their planned journey might become 10 times more expensive in addition to the price already paid.
Yes. You and I know exactly what the T&Cs state.
But can we honestly claim that the marketing and promotion that many long-distance TOCs have promoted really inform their customers in an appropriate manner?
I believe not, and have many individuals who I could call upon to confirm the innappropriateness of some corporate announcements.
What saddens me the most is those cases where the vociferous young professional is excused and the meek adult parent or grandparent utterly bewildered by the outcome of 15 years of privatisation is accused of a techical breach. Low-cost and widely promoted Advances appear to be the most likely products to lead to these unexpected outcomes.

We’re on the same wavelength Dave. I will always point out the rule in these posts, but I'm not a 'rules is rules mate' type.

In my role I am always expected to enforce and get the best result for the company, but common sense must prevail in my opinion.

In some areas the TOCs are easily their own worst enemy, but that should not give a vociferous minority a free rein to cheat at will, which is the reality of our national passenger railways in the 21st century.

I would deem that irrelevant, unless the RPI used the same pen I had used (or tried to use).

You may deem the question irrelevant, but in my experience a prosecutor worth his/her title and Magistrates hearing any such case that might arise are very unlikely to agree with you, especially given the assertion that you believe this would constitute evidence of the RPI 'tampering with the ticket'.

Rarely, but there's probably a dartboard with my face on in various messrooms in the East Midlands

And mine in a great many homes & offices across England & Wales. I think this may be most notable in the residences of a lot of 'vociferous young professionals' where a record of conviction now sits with their other qualifications

 

[34D]

And mine in a great many homes & offices across England & Wales. I think this may be most notable in the residences of a lot of 'vociferous young professionals' where a record of conviction now sits with their other qualifications

That's a point. If they were reported to (for example) the Solicitors Regulation Authority or their Accountancy institute, then they definitely wouldn't do it again!

 

[jon0844]

You may deem the question irrelevant, but in my experience a prosecutor worth his/her title and Magistrates hearing any such case that might arise are very unlikely to agree with you, especially given the assertion that you believe this would constitute evidence of the RPI 'tampering with the ticket'.

I really don't agree that trying a different pen on the ticket, at a different time and in different conditions (he may have wiped it first to clear any grease, for example) help proves anything with regards to an accusation of tampering.

I'd be shocked if a magistrate took a test like that as any sort of 'proof' that any and every pen will work fine. I can run a cheap bic biro over a range of tickets and it will write fine on some and not on others, and if I go over and over the same bits - sometimes the ink will flow, sometimes it won't. Same pen!

I bet if the RPI had tried and it hadn't worked straight away, he would have just muttered 'not to worry, that's not a proper test anyway' and carried on.

As it happens, the wife plays tennis with a magistrate so next time I see her I'll ask what she thinks about this, in theory at least.

Let me finish by saying I am sure there are many people who tamper with their tickets and I saw a lady that was held until BTP arrived at Finsbury Park because she'd been observed over a longer period of time (and her ticket didn't operate the gate as it had clearly been used), but they would need to do far more detailed investigating than simply showing they can get a pen to work on the ticket! To have any faith in our legal system, I have to assume no court would side with the train company on such flimsy evidence.

 

[Stigy]

You don't have to ask if they understand

Yes, you do. It's common sense and part of PACE that you should gain their understanding, and if they don't understand, the RPI or reporting official should explain the caution and make notes to this effect, until understanding has been ascertained.

If you don't think they'll understand because of a language barrier or drunkeness etc, you shouldn't caution them in the first place and should either deal with the matter in another way, or report the facts of the matter (still on an MG11 form, but a statement of what happened, rather than a Q&A interview).