Police Involvement in Ticketing Matters

[najaB]

It's *reasonably* believe, isn't it? In other words, open to reason, i.e. they should be a position to present a reasoned argument, based on the byelaws, RORA, C of T etc., not just state an arbitrary view that they "believe" there to be a problem.

Well yes, one would assume that they would be able to say why they think it is invalid.

 

[yorkie]

I was once given a hard time over the route of my ticket, which I had checked to be valid in the routeing guide, by someone who openly admitted they had never heard of the RG. Thay had no basis at all for even questioning me.

Agreed but in practice some of them just make anything up and act as they please it's very much a minority but they do exist

 

[185]

I look at the predicament in Scotland with BTP and ask, have they (some of them) brought about their own demise?

I do recall one Leeds BTP officer stating to me that a forged £2900 ticket was infact a "civil matter between your company and the passenger". Being one for the dramatic, infront of him, I called 999 and asked for West Yorkshire Police to attend. WY were initially reluctant but after explaining the situation to their puzzled call handler, they were just starting to dispatch someone when BTP must have been notified - all of a sudden two more BTP officers showed, sent the first one away and agreed it was indeed a police matter.

It's hit and miss with BTP. Some work so hard and have a excellent understanding of the bigger picture on the railway, whilst others transferred in from other forces - seeking a cushy number. My colleague quit BTP as he was repeatedly being told not to involve himself with matters which are 'outside' (when they were obviously 'in') BTP's remit.

For the small pool of dedicated cops I currently work with, they rub their hands at ticketing ops we do simply for the amount of i) arrests for wanted on warrant ii) seizures of weapons iii) seizures of sweeties et al iv) breaches of orders, v) stolen property and, vi) immigration matters.

 

[tspaul26]

I know of no legal obligation to remain if asked so to do by an RPI.

 

[Stigy]

infront of him, I called 999 and

Although clearly a criminal matter (no matter how much the cost of the ticket, or severity of the offence), 999 probably wasn't the right number to call...

 

[Stigy]

I know of no legal obligation to remain if asked so to do by an RPI.

s.5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act would stipulate otherwise. It's very specific, and only relates to refusal of name and address after having not bought a ticket, but it's legislation nonetheless.

 

[tspaul26]

s.5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act would stipulate otherwise. It's very specific, and only relates to refusal of name and address after having not bought a ticket, but it's legislation nonetheless.

Section 5(2) creates no obligation to remain even if requested to do so by an RPI: it merely establishes a limited right for officers of the railway to detain in a lawful manner.

If an RPI does not request name and address or if the name and address has been given then there would be no power to detain under section 5(2) and no obligation on the passenger to remain. If an RPI purported to detain in such circumstances then it would almost certainly be unlawful.

To repeat my earlier view in the matter: I know of no legal obligation to remain if asked so to do by an RPI.

 

[Stigy]

Section 5(2) creates no obligation to remain even if requested to do so by an RPI: it merely establishes a limited right for officers of the railway to detain in a lawful manner.

Same as what I said, worded differently, surely?

If an RPI does not request name and address or if the name and address has been given then there would be no power to detain under section 5(2) and no obligation on the passenger to remain. If an RPI purported to detain in such circumstances then it would almost certainly be unlawful.

To repeat my earlier view in the matter: I know of no legal obligation to remain if asked so to do by an RPI.

That's why I said it was specific to refusal of a name and/or address. Obviously to get the point of a refusal of these details, one would have to first request them. If the RPI didn't request them and a person walked off, sobeit.

 

[tspaul26]

Same as what I said, worded differently, surely?

Very different in legal terms: simply asking a person to stay is not an exercise of the power to detain. The key distinction is that section 5(2) imposes no positive obligations on the passenger, whether this be to remain or to answer questions or otherwise.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring back to the original post:

Whether or not you have to stick around if an RPI tells you to I can't comment on.

A passenger is under no obligation to 'stick around' if told to do so by an RPI. Should that RPI purport to detain a passenger attempting to depart then the RPI would be in a most unenviable position. Indeed, if an RPI ever tried this on with me then there would be no need for him to call the police: I'd call them myself!

 

[headshot119]

Very different in legal terms: simply asking a person to stay is not an exercise of the power to detain. The key distinction is that section 5(2) imposes no positive obligations on the passenger, whether this be to remain or to answer questions or otherwise.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was referring back to the original post:



A passenger is under no obligation to 'stick around' if told to do so by an RPI. Should that RPI purport to detain a passenger attempting to depart then the RPI would be in a most unenviable position. Indeed, if an RPI ever tried this on with me then there would be no need for him to call the police: I'd call them myself!

Yes they would be. It's surprising how variable BTP look to be across the country judging by what's been said on this thread.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Yes they would be. It's surprising how variable BTP look to be across the country judging by what's been said on this thread.

I wonder if that variability is in any way related to the "variability" of the TOCs?!

 

[185]

Although clearly a criminal matter (no matter how much the cost of the ticket, or severity of the offence), 999 probably wasn't the right number to call...

Twas before the days of 101, plus didn't quite have WYP's number on my phone. Did have the desired effect though

 

[tsr]

I always used to have great satisfaction in dealing with abusive fare dodgers at a certain major transport interchange where I used to work. More often than not, the only police support available was heavily armed, extremely intimidating to the unruly, and took great pleasure in wandering around the station removing people who were being a nuisance to the railway. They had a habit of being handily on the concourse on Saturday nights. This used to surprise people travelling to the less salubrious suburbs of the south east, who rapidly found that hassle over a £2.50 ticket did generally result in them being pinned to the side of an escalator.

Sometimes the local and transport police do seem to enjoy dealing with people who have simply decided to pick an argument about something like train tickets, in which said culprits happen to be just so very wrong. I was always careful to give people every option to pay or give details, but woe betide them refusing, and the train being at Big Station X on a weekend!

 

[scrapy]

I suppose it depends on the individual officers. I have seen police officers (btp) actually checking tickets of their own accord at the lift exit from Liverpool Lime St low level platforms with no RPIs present. I am not sure if they are legally allowed to do this as it seemed a spur of the moment thing without the knowledge of Merseyrail. They clearly had limited knowledge of valid tickets so we're letting almost anything through but we're taking details of and in some cases searching some of the local chavs who claimed to have lost theirs.

 

[185]

k

I suppose it depends on the individual officers. I have seen police officers (btp) actually checking tickets of their own accord at the lift exit from Liverpool Lime St low level platforms with no RPIs present..

There are a couple of BTP Specials at Liverpool who also work for a TOC. If by day they are RPOs checking tickets, then by night, assuming they are posted to patrol not far from "that lift" they probably cannot resist the temptation to stop people leaving minus ticket.

57 singles from Capenhurst please.

 

[Randomer]

k
There are a couple of BTP Specials at Liverpool who also work for a TOC.

Generally home office police forces won't allow Specials to hold jobs in which there would be a conflict between the office of constable and any other powers granted under a specific act.

I doubt BTP would be any different in this but they do make a distinction between people employed specifically for it (ie RPI) and who happen to have powers due to the definition under the bylaws (railway staff in general).

For example local council environmental health officers (or shoddy private company "enforcement officers") who deal with people under the environmental or local government by-laws aren't allowed be Specials.

 

[Wookiee]

I witnessed an incident at Paddington where the police were requested to assist with a GWR ticketing matter, but as the police were not prepared to get involved in ticketing matters, the revenue staff decided to claim that a passenger - who had gone to the Underground station - had a gun. This resulted in a delay to a Bakerloo line service while the passenger was searched.

Seriously?! There must have been some kind of comeback on that, surely?

 

[tsr]

k

There are a couple of BTP Specials at Liverpool who also work for a TOC. If by day they are RPOs checking tickets, then by night, assuming they are posted to patrol not far from "that lift" they probably cannot resist the temptation to stop people leaving minus ticket.

57 singles from Capenhurst please.

Where I work, revenue staff cannot volunteer as BTP Specials. This is one of the exact reasons...

 

[infobleep]

I often have to decide what to do with regard to 9(2) - loads of times when I have a valid ticket (that does not work the ticket gate - not because I've demagnetized it, but because barrier incorrectly rejecting it) - no staff around so its either force a gate to leave [or enter] or tailgate

The other day, someone who might be meaning the gates, whilst also working the ticket office besise them, was at the back of the ticket office making a hot drink. Barriers were closed untill he returned.

 

[goblinuser]

I witnessed an incident at Paddington where the police were requested to assist with a GWR ticketing matter, but as the police were not prepared to get involved in ticketing matters, the revenue staff decided to claim that a passenger - who had gone to the Underground station - had a gun. This resulted in a delay to a Bakerloo line service while the passenger was searched.

That is nuts, any more detail on what happened?

 

[bb21]

That is nuts, any more detail on what happened?

• Customer had a seemingly very dodgy, but valid ticket according to the Routeing Guide at the time.
• Ticket refused by the gate and told to sort it out at the excess fares window.
• Customer told ticket not valid at the window and needed to buy new ticket.
• Customer forced himself through the gateline.
• BTP called and gateline staff/security gave chase.
• Allegations were made about possession of a gun, presumably BTP were unable to attend for whatever reason. (I didn't witness this bit but no reason to doubt it.)
• Chase carried on into the LUL station, gateline staff/security lost the customer. At one stage, I believe attempts were made to try and halt an LUL service but that was refused (of course).

Truly one of the most bizarre incidents I have seen. To be fair, unless you have closely scrutinised the Routeing Guide, you would not have imagined that ticket being valid that way, with both origin and destination inside the zonal area, and the route going a long way outside it.

Due to the length of time that has elapsed, some of my memory may have been a little hazy, but that's by and large how it escalated.

 

[shredder1]

• Customer had a seemingly very dodgy, but valid ticket according to the Routeing Guide at the time.
• Ticket refused by the gate and told to sort it out at the excess fares window.
• Customer told ticket not valid at the window and needed to buy new ticket.
• Customer forced himself through the gateline.
• BTP called and gateline staff/security gave chase.
• Allegations were made about possession of a gun, presumably BTP were unable to attend for whatever reason. (I didn't witness this bit but no reason to doubt it.)
• Chase carried on into the LUL station, gateline staff/security lost the customer. At one stage, I believe attempts were made to try and halt an LUL service but that was refused (of course).

Truly one of the most bizarre incidents I have seen. To be fair, unless you have closely scrutinised the Routeing Guide, you would not have imagined that ticket being valid that way, with both origin and destination inside the zonal area, and the route going a long way outside it.

Due to the length of time that has elapsed, some of my memory may have been a little hazy, but that's by and large how it escalated.

I dread to think what would have happened had his ticket been invalid :roll:

 

[bb21]

I dread to think what would have happened had his ticket been invalid :roll:

Not much different I would imagine.

 

[gray1404]

I can see this from the customer's perspective here. Their ticket was totally valid. They knew that and if something is valid, its valid. Having paid for their journey they were then being told they had to pay money when they had paid already.

As for them forcing their way out through the barrier. It is wrong that they were in essence being detained until they paid twice. Again, their ticket was valid so they should have been let straight through.