Revenue activity at Euston this morning (17/05)

[Bletchleyite]

First of all, mods, feel free to move this if this isn't the right forum for a general discussion rather than a dispute. It hasn't affected me personally as I had a valid ticket as I always do, it's just some observations.

There appeared to be a revenue block going on in various parts of Euston this morning, most notably Platform 17/18 where there were about 20 RPIs meeting trains that always arrive into one of the unbarriered platforms.

(Side note: Also there on platform 17 was a BBC presenter filming for, I think, one of the consumer programmes, will be interested to see if I appear on it in the background! He was waving a coffee cup around, so maybe it's Rip Off Britain about the high cost of railway coffee!)

Anyway, back on topic.

One thing I did notice, however, was a lone RPI on platform 11 who pulled up and apparently PFed a passenger who had gone to the Excess Fares window. Now, technically, this is a perfectly valid PF because at that time of day he will certainly have passed an opportunity to pay before boarding.

However, as is common at that sort of time, platforms 8-11 get dangerously congested (particularly if something is slightly late, as it was, and the LO service and another LM on platform 8 arrive at the same time, as happened today), and the crowds effectively prevent access to the LO departure around then.

As a result of this, as is common, the barriers were released and passengers instructed to pass through as quickly as possible, only using the barrier if using Oyster.

So, this passenger was, one suspects[1], effectively penalised for being honest and going to pay rather than just walking through.

Is that the right approach to take morally? I particularly question this as the excess fares window is just signed as "Excess Fares", with nothing suggesting that paying your fare that way is unacceptable.

Personally, I think if PFing people in the queue is the right thing to do, the signage needs modifying to put a prominent warning underneath the sign reminding passengers that if they had an opportunity to pay they can't just leave it to Euston.

I actually think it would have been morally better if the RPI had gone around the crowd checking tickets while people waited - even with the barriers open the crowd takes some time to clear - to catch those who were just going to walk off without paying.

[1] As I didn't hear the conversation it could be that he'd short fared or similar, but the RPI[2] did issue a "ticket" from his pad which would almost certainly have been a PF. I don't think the conversation went on long enough for it to have been a prosecution report.

[2] Wearing a body camera, interestingly - this is a good idea to avoid "he said, she said" type issues.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Now, technically, this is a perfectly valid PF because at that time of day he will certainly have passed an opportunity to pay before boarding.

I wouldn't like to bet on it, given London Midland staffing. At several stations its pot luck if the office is open, it certainly is at Apsley and Kings Langley.

But yes, if he'd been dishonest he'd have got away with it. It's a shame, as it encourages the wrong sort of behaviour.

I'm impressed they had enough RPIs out. I used to dread a revenue block at Euston, I think my record was 15 minutes to get off the platform because they had three RPIs servicing a 12-car peak arrival.

 

[BestWestern]

Personally, I think if PFing people in the queue is the right thing to do, the signage needs modifying to put a prominent warning underneath the sign reminding passengers that if they had an opportunity to pay they can't just leave it to Euston.

Surely such a sign would serve no useful purpose other than to encourage non-ticket holders to just scarper!

 

[BestWestern]

I'm impressed they had enough RPIs out. I used to dread a revenue block at Euston, I think my record was 15 minutes to get off the platform because they had three RPIs servicing a 12-car peak arrival.

Presumably that is widely accepted as completely unacceptable and would constitude a delay for which the TOC was responsible?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely such a sign would serve no useful purpose other than to encourage non-ticket holders to just scarper!

They couldn't normally scarper as the barrier is normally closed. They would be stopped by an RPI at the barrier with no ticket and be rightly PFed/reported for prosecution.

I just think that on a TOC where PFs are supposed to[1] apply, there should never be anything done, said or signed that even slightly implies it is OK to purchase a ticket after starting the journey except when it actually is (i.e. no facilities at start station). I'd extend that to guards should not be selling tickets on board either, or at the very least any sold (including from that window) should come with a yellow card clearly stating that next time it might be a PF or worse.

[1] This is the first time I have *ever* seen anyone on LM issue a PF. They are not typically a heavy handed TOC.

 

[BestWestern]

They couldn't normally scarper as the barrier is normally closed. They would be stopped by an RPI at the barrier with no ticket and be rightly PFed/reported for prosecution.

I just think that on a TOC where PFs are supposed to[1] apply, there should never be anything done, said or signed that even slightly implies it is OK to purchase a ticket after starting the journey except when it actually is (i.e. no facilities at start station). I'd extend that to guards should not be selling tickets on board either, or at the very least any sold (including from that window) should come with a yellow card clearly stating that next time it might be a PF or worse.

[1] This is the first time I have *ever* seen anyone on LM issue a PF. They are not typically a heavy handed TOC.

Ah I see! Sorry, I misunderstood the barrier situation!

 

[SA_900]

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.

 

[Mag_seven]

Something not right here - what is the point of an open excess fares office if it is judged that the very act of even approaching it is regarded as doing something wrong?

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is the first time I have *ever* seen anyone on LM issue a PF. They are not typically a heavy handed TOC.

Their RPIs are pretty heavy-handed, it's just that they don't have many RPIs on the south WCML. Every experience I've had with them has been thoroughly miserable- and I'm someone with who had an annual travelcard, the simplest ticket to check on the network- and I've seen plenty of PFs handed out. I don't necessarily disagree with them, especially the number of Oyster card holders at Hemel Hempstead trying it on getting confused about Oyster validity, but still.

LM on board tickets do have the Penalty Fare warning on them. I ended up buying on board fairly regularly heading north (normally to the pub in Berkhamsted) because of the ticket office at Apsley never being open when they say it should be.

 

[gray1404]

RPIs should never be heavy handed. Sadly some of them think they are above the law and can behave how they want with no regard for the law for their employers own policies.

 

[lvlarky_130y]

0530hrs service from Tring on Tuesday. Revenue protection were on board and waited until the doors closed at Hemel before beginning their check. One passenger got a PF as he had no ticket. The same passenger regularly gets on without a ticket and generally buys one from the conductor only if challenged. Weighing everything up, I would suggest the passenger is playing the system.

The day after, same train, the conductor came through and sold a ticket to the same guy, no issues at all.

Obviously this guy knows the score, but for Joe Public, you can buy a ticket one day on board, then the following day get a PF from someone who, to all intents and purposes, looks very similar if not the same, uniform wise.

Notwithstanding the signs at stations which say you must buy before you board, this surely sends out confusing messages for passengers?

 

[MikeWh]

The day after, same train, the conductor came through and sold a ticket to the same guy, no issues at all.

That ticket should have had a penalty fare warning on the back.

 

[BestWestern]

0530hrs service from Tring on Tuesday. Revenue protection were on board and waited until the doors closed at Hemel before beginning their check. One passenger got a PF as he had no ticket. The same passenger regularly gets on without a ticket and generally buys one from the conductor only if challenged. Weighing everything up, I would suggest the passenger is playing the system.

The day after, same train, the conductor came through and sold a ticket to the same guy, no issues at all.

Obviously this guy knows the score, but for Joe Public, you can buy a ticket one day on board, then the following day get a PF from someone who, to all intents and purposes, looks very similar if not the same, uniform wise.

Notwithstanding the signs at stations which say you must buy before you board, this surely sends out confusing messages for passengers?

Totally out of order, and I'd suggest would be deemed a highly suspect practice in court if the railway wasn't able to hide behind it's 'special' legal status. Simply not on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Notwithstanding the signs at stations which say you must buy before you board, this surely sends out confusing messages for passengers?

Yes, I agree it does.

I can see why the railway does act as it does - it wouldn't be viable to have lone guards issue PFs, as they would probably get assaulted so often they would give up doing tickets entirely as unsafe, but if you've got the guards there they may as well do tickets because otherwise people get away with paying nothing.

However, I think it would be better overall if proper facilities were provided, with a system like Metrolink whereby you have to phone up and get a reference number before boarding if they are not working (having the added benefit that them not working will always get reported), and any and all passengers caught on board a train or at destination with no ticket would straight away get a PF with no possible questions or excuses unless you have a reference number for a recorded case of giving you authority to do otherwise. It is consistent and you know where you are with it.

LM, of course, are not as bad as Northern in that regard - at least all the south WCML stations have card TVMs which are mostly working. Cash payment is of course a problem, though.

Interesting that the RPIs hit Tring stoppers a lot, I have genuinely never seen them on a train I have used (which tend not to be Tring stoppers[1]). I wonder if this is the case because Berko, Apsley and Kings Langley are unbarriered, but most[2] other stations are barriered (if they bother having them in use)?

[1] The 0713 Bletchley-Euston aside, which is my most likely train *to* London as it starts at Bletchley so a good choice of seating is always available, never seen any RPIs on that though. 319s in both directions today, though, caught the delayed 1834 only because it *was* delayed!

[2] Cheddington's passenger and his dog and bicycle are probably not worth worrying about even if he doesn't pay. Leighton is an odd exception, I don't understand why it is not barriered, is the footbridge a public right of way or something?

 

[island]

They couldn't normally scarper as the barrier is normally closed. They would be stopped by an RPI at the barrier with no ticket and be rightly PFed/reported for prosecution.

I just think that on a TOC where PFs are supposed to[1] apply, there should never be anything done, said or signed that even slightly implies it is OK to purchase a ticket after starting the journey except when it actually is (i.e. no facilities at start station). I'd extend that to guards should not be selling tickets on board either, or at the very least any sold (including from that window) should come with a yellow card clearly stating that next time it might be a PF or worse.

[1] This is the first time I have *ever* seen anyone on LM issue a PF. They are not typically a heavy handed TOC.

All tickets sold on Penalty Fares trains are accompanied by a printed Penalty Fares Warning, usually on the reverse of the ticket.

 

[gray1404]

I bet hardly any people bother to read the back of their tickets so will not see the PF warning. It would be easier for a separate warning to be printed on standard stock marked "not valid for travel" plus the PF warning on the front.

 

[BestWestern]

All tickets sold on Penalty Fares trains are accompanied by a printed Penalty Fares Warning, usually on the reverse of the ticket.

*in theory*

 

[Bletchleyite]

All tickets sold on Penalty Fares trains are accompanied by a printed Penalty Fares Warning, usually on the reverse of the ticket.

I'd go further and issue pads of yellow warning cards, and guards to give a verbal explanation too. Yes, they'd end up on the floor, but at least it wouldn't be possible to say you weren't warned.

I've not heard a LM guard say "you've got away with it this time, if a revenue squad is on the train next time that ticket that I just charged you £20 for would cost you £40, or you may even find yourself in Court receiving a criminal record and a fine well into three figures" each time he sold a ticket.

Yes, I think it should be that blatent.

But once it is, prosecute away, nobody could be misled, they would have deliberately ignored a warning.

 

[gray1404]

There are enough RPIs about behaving in a militant fashion with no authority to do so without them being described as revenue squads on here. Use of language and terminology is very important.

 

[philthetube]

First of all, mods, feel free to move this if this isn't the right forum for a general discussion rather than a dispute. It hasn't affected me personally as I had a valid ticket as I always do, it's just some observations.

There appeared to be a revenue block going on in various parts of Euston this morning, most notably Platform 17/18 where there were about 20 RPIs meeting trains that always arrive into one of the unbarriered platforms.

(Side note: Also there on platform 17 was a BBC presenter filming for, I think, one of the consumer programmes, will be interested to see if I appear on it in the background! He was waving a coffee cup around, so maybe it's Rip Off Britain about the high cost of railway coffee!)

Anyway, back on topic.

One thing I did notice, however, was a lone RPI on platform 11 who pulled up and apparently PFed a passenger who had gone to the Excess Fares window. Now, technically, this is a perfectly valid PF because at that time of day he will certainly have passed an opportunity to pay before boarding.

However, as is common at that sort of time, platforms 8-11 get dangerously congested (particularly if something is slightly late, as it was, and the LO service and another LM on platform 8 arrive at the same time, as happened today), and the crowds effectively prevent access to the LO departure around then.

As a result of this, as is common, the barriers were released and passengers instructed to pass through as quickly as possible, only using the barrier if using Oyster.

So, this passenger was, one suspects[1], effectively penalised for being honest and going to pay rather than just walking through.

Is that the right approach to take morally? I particularly question this as the excess fares window is just signed as "Excess Fares", with nothing suggesting that paying your fare that way is unacceptable.

Personally, I think if PFing people in the queue is the right thing to do, the signage needs modifying to put a prominent warning underneath the sign reminding passengers that if they had an opportunity to pay they can't just leave it to Euston.

I actually think it would have been morally better if the RPI had gone around the crowd checking tickets while people waited - even with the barriers open the crowd takes some time to clear - to catch those who were just going to walk off without paying.

[1] As I didn't hear the conversation it could be that he'd short fared or similar, but the RPI[2] did issue a "ticket" from his pad which would almost certainly have been a PF. I don't think the conversation went on long enough for it to have been a prosecution report.

[2] Wearing a body camera, interestingly - this is a good idea to avoid "he said, she said" type issues.

Quite a strong thread for about someone who was apparently charged a penalty fare.

 

[sk688]

Their RPIs are pretty heavy-handed, it's just that they don't have many RPIs on the south WCML. Every experience I've had with them has been thoroughly miserable- and I'm someone with who had an annual travelcard, the simplest ticket to check on the network- and I've seen plenty of PFs handed out. I don't necessarily disagree with them, especially the number of Oyster card holders at Hemel Hempstead trying it on getting confused about Oyster validity, but still.

LM on board tickets do have the Penalty Fare warning on them. I ended up buying on board fairly regularly heading north (normally to the pub in Berkhamsted) because of the ticket office at Apsley never being open when they say it should be.

I find some of their Euston RPI's pretty heavy handed to be honest . Twice this has happened . Once in the morning on the way to school , when they were checking tickets , the person didnt believe that my Zip Card was valid ( despite a 30 Sep 17 ) expiry , using the fact that I was wearing a suit ( School uniform is a full suit ) , as justification , and not backing off until I showed him my school stuff

Also happened in the evening , RPI didnt believe that the Zip Card was mine , pulled me over ,asked to see school stuff for evidence , for the same reason as above . Ended up missing the train I wanted to catch ( in fairness I was arriving 2min before departure ) , and had a 20min wait .

They do have a pretty tough job , but I wish they would stop being so heavy handed

 

[gray1404]

I think it is important that you email London Midland to make them aware of your experiences. It is not acceptable that young people are being intimidated into justifying why they are wearing certain clothes and being forced to produce school equipment under duress. Include a full description of the RPI you encounter each time.

 

[philthetube]

I think it is important that you email London Midland to make them aware of your experiences. It is not acceptable that young people are being intimidated into justifying why they are wearing certain clothes and being forced to produce school equipment under duress. Include a full description of the RPI you encounter each time.

For all we know the gentleman may look 27, a line has to be drawn and checks made at some point. It would probably solve the issue if the zip card holder got a photocard with him wearing his school uniform.

 

[sk688]

I think it is important that you email London Midland to make them aware of your experiences. It is not acceptable that young people are being intimidated into justifying why they are wearing certain clothes and being forced to produce school equipment under duress. Include a full description of the RPI you encounter each time.

Next time I shall do so and see what the response is

 

[sk688]

For all we know the gentleman may look 27, a line has to be drawn and checks made at some point. It would probably solve the issue if the zip card holder got a photocard with him wearing his school uniform.

The picture on my zip card is the one from this school year, a consequence of a friend and a pair of scissors, having access to the zip card

 

[MichaelAMW]

For all we know the gentleman may look 27, a line has to be drawn and checks made at some point. It would probably solve the issue if the zip card holder got a photocard with him wearing his school uniform.

Checks *were* being made, surely? Deciding someone is a bare-faced liar is unacceptable unless the RPI has evidence to support his claim. If SK688 says s/he is entitled to the ticket then that is that unless there is a requirement to carry some kind of supporting evidence, e.g. of age. Carrying out what amounts to a personal search of someone who has produced a valid ticket is appalling behaviour. If these tickets are problematic in terms of verifying legitimate use then the ticket needs to be changed, not the users hassled.

 

[najaB]

Carrying out what amounts to a personal search of someone who has produced a valid ticket is appalling behaviour.

I missed that - who was it that got searched?

 

[philthetube]

I find some of their Euston RPI's pretty heavy handed to be honest . Twice this has happened . Once in the morning on the way to school , when they were checking tickets , the person didnt believe that my Zip Card was valid ( despite a 30 Sep 17 ) expiry , using the fact that I was wearing a suit ( School uniform is a full suit ) , as justification , and not backing off until I showed him my school stuff

Also happened in the evening , RPI didnt believe that the Zip Card was mine , pulled me over ,asked to see school stuff for evidence , for the same reason as above . Ended up missing the train I wanted to catch ( in fairness I was arriving 2min before departure ) , and had a 20min wait .

They do have a pretty tough job , but I wish they would stop being so heavy handed

You were asked to provide additional evidence that you were entitled to use the Zip card, I have no doubt that many are used fraudulently. Perhaps carrying some suitable piece of evidence of entitlement in your wallet would prevent this being an issue for you in the future.

I feel the RPI probably thought he had reasonable ground to question you.

I do not consider being asked to produce evidence of being at school heavy handed, that would be throwing you to the floor, putting in knee on your back and searching your possessions.

If you decide to complain, and you could, concerning missing your train. don't use words like that because they will be looked at, investigators will feel confident that there would be no heavy handed actions going on in a station full of people and treat the whole complaint as rubbish.

 

[sheff1]

So now it is reasonable for an RPI to claim a ticket is invalid because the holder is wearing the wrong sort of clothes ?

 

[najaB]

So now it is reasonable for an RPI to claim a ticket is invalid because the holder is wearing the wrong sort of clothes ?

No, of course it isn't. But it is reasonable for them to want additional proof of validity when an age-restricted ticket is presented by someone who appears, on first impression, to be too old/young to use that ticket.