Tale of two Northern guards dealing with fare evaders.

[northwichcat]

Thursday morning at around 08:30 - a Piccadilly guard was acting as an Assistant Fare Collector. While it was a morning peak train I'm sure the train actually needed the AFC with the train being quieter than usual - perhaps Northern had surplus guards due to engineering works on other routes. A girl (around 16) got on without a ticket and claimed she didn't have means to buy one. The AFC raised his hand as if to say he didn't care and walked off, the girl traveled to her destination for free.

Friday evening at around 17:30 - a guard (not a guard acting as an AFC) is doing a ticket inspection. A boy (around 12) has no ticket and claims he has no means to buy a ticket. The guard gives him a lecture about fare evasion and says he has to get off at the next station. I think he also said something about he would ask the guard on the next service in the opposite direction to let him travel back to where he originally got on.

While I accept guards aren't always going to catch everyone trying to travel for free and have to use discretion when they find a passenger without a ticket, how can their approach be so inconsistent? If I was the girl's parent I'd be annoyed that she was let off without even been given a warning, while if I was the boy's parent and knew an older girl got let off during daylight hours I'd be angry he got thrown off a train at a station without any staff when it was dark.

 

[ComUtoR]

While I accept guards aren't always going to catch everyone trying to travel for free and have to use discretion when they find a passenger without a ticket, how can their approach be so inconsistent?

Because, discretion is used and the situations were not identical, therefore requiring a different approach.

If I was the girl's parent I'd be annoyed that she was let off without even been given a warning, while if I was the boy's parent and knew an older girl got let off during daylight hours I'd be angry he got thrown off a train at a station without any staff when it was dark.

So you would't be consistent either ?

 

[northwichcat]

and the situations were not identical

So are you saying a girl should get preferential treatment over a boy? You surely can't be implying the guard (who also had to do the door duties at the next station) had more time to deal with a fare evader than the AFC who didn't have to worry about that.

So you would't be consistent either ?

Where did I say I wouldn't be? I was saying if I was a parent of either child and knew of both incidents I would be annoyed and gave reasons for why I would be annoyed. I wouldn't want a daughter who thinks she can get away without paying for things anymore than I want a son who gets the book thrown at him, while older children get let off.

 

[LowLevel]

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. The transport police probably won't turn up (though with kids with brass necks that don't befit their age threatening to report them as runaways and detain the train until the police arrive to take custody of them can be remarkably effective in getting some money to appear).

Sometimes empty threats work and sometimes they don't.

Unless I know I can get assistance I usually just walk away unless the matter is aggravated. What's the point? I can detain the train for £1.50 but my employer will be pretty annoyed about the delay costs. The police will say 'we are coming but we will be 45 minutes' unless you happen to be working into one of their locations (I will say Peterborough BTP despite being a small station are absolutely superb at responding without everything seeming like too much trouble).

I don't bother with kids either way. They pay or they don't, if there's a persistent problem with groups or individuals we report it internally and get a police or revenue presence to appear at random and deal with it.

 

[northwichcat]

Unless I know I can get assistance I usually just walk away unless the matter is aggravated. What's the point? I can detain the train for £1.50 but my employer will be pretty annoyed about the delay costs. The police will say 'we are coming but we will be 45 minutes' unless you happen to be working into one of their locations (I will say Peterborough BTP despite being a small station are absolutely superb at responding without everything seeming like too much trouble).

One thing I don't get is why it seems many Northern managed stations are missing their usual RPIs between Christmas and New Year. I get fewer people are working but there's also a smaller proportion of passengers making a journey they have a season ticket for, while those working are unlikely to be working at least 5 out of 7 days so a weekly season won't be appropriate.

In the case of the girl I mentioned in the OP she boarded at a station where there are usually RPIs (but weren't on Thursday) so had they been present it would have been an issue for them and ticket office clerk to deal with. I don't know where the boy mentioned in the OP was intending to alight but he boarded at a station where there wouldn't have normally been RPIs at the time.

I don't bother with kids either way. They pay or they don't, if there's a persistent problem with groups or individuals we report it internally and get a police or revenue presence to appear at random and deal with it.

That reminds me of something a Northern guard said one day. A guard was doing a ticket check on a train with a number of schoolkids on and the dialogue in earshot of the guard was
Kid 1 "What if you don't have a ticket or money"
Kid 2 "They throw you off at the next station"
Kid 1 "What if you're only going to the next station?"

To which the guard responded by saying something like "Everyone on this line buys a ticket and we don't have issues with people boarding without tickets or money to buy one." Probably not true but probably a sensible thing to say as it makes it sound like fare evasion isn't normal.

 

[DarloRich]

It seems gaurds are unable to win!

I do like the idea suggested by @LowLevel - very clever

 

[craigybagel]

Here's a thought jcollins - given how much time you spend bemoaning the actions of the guards in your area, and how wrong it is for them to be going on strike (or in the case of today's thread how wrong it is for them to be doing whatever they're doing even when they are at work) and at the same time you've often mentioned how your own terms and conditions and security in you current employment are so much worse then what guards enjoy - why don't you apply and do the job yourself? You'll get those wonderful conditions you seem to envy, and by the sounds of things you'll be absolutely perfect at the job - so why not give it a shot?

 

[northwichcat]

Here's a thought jcollins - given how much time you spend bemoaning the actions of the guards in your area, and how wrong it is for them to be going on strike (or in the case of today's thread how wrong it is for them to be doing whatever they're doing even when they are at work)

I have not said the approach taken by the guard on Friday evening was wrong if I understood it correctly - from where I was I could hear what the guard said but not what the boy said. I'm saying we have a situation where whether you get away with fare evading doesn't just depend on whether you are caught by who you are caught by or possibly whether you're male or female. How can that be right? I should make clear in the case of the girl I referred to the conversation was along the lines of
Girl "I don't have a ticket"
AFC "How old are you?"
Girl "I don't have any money on me."
It's not as though she even tried to come up with an excuse for being on the train with no ticket or money.

Is this forum is a good place to discuss why inconsistencies arise. Would you have posted a similar response if I had posted an observation about two different Carlisle Security RPIs showing different approaches?

and at the same time you've often mentioned how your own terms and conditions and security in you current employment are so much worse then what guards enjoy - why don't you apply and do the job yourself? You'll get those wonderful conditions you seem to envy, and by the sounds of things you'll be absolutely perfect at the job - so why not give it a shot?

What employment are you referring to? I recently started a new job and I don't recall posting anything about what my terms of employment are on here.

 

[LowLevel]

Children (and even teenagers, at times grudgingly) require handling with care. You don't know what's going off and why they might not have any money.

This is why I don't trouble myself with interrogating individuals unless they're known to cause a problem. They're kids. They act up. I usually give them a bit of a curt tongue lashing and leave them be. I certainly don't put them off the train at any point.

I'll give an example. I work a train which is used by a large number of 9 and 10 year olds to travel home from school. Most have passes, some pay on the day and a few act up. Some of my colleagues report having behavioural issues with them, I've never really found them to be a problem. I go down, have a laugh with them, issue a few half hearted tellings off to those who've had too much sugar or haven't got their fare for the 3rd time that month and move on.

There's a regular one that doesn't fit that pattern, I'll call him Joe. I know his actual name because the other kids have a habit of shouting out 'Joe's not got his pass again!!' when you go down checking tickets. He looks a bit scruffier than the others and seems to be in a world of his own.

I don't know what's going on with him but I've asked the route manager to have a word with the school to make sure everything is OK with him.

That's the way things need to be done with children (and I'm not talking idiots with driving licences and a beard who claim to be children). You don't want them to be scared of you and you don't them to grow up with a dislike of you from the start.

 

[northwichcat]

(and I'm not talking idiots with driving licences and a beard who claim to be children).

To be fair some boys start growing facial hair at 12/13. Although, I also recall the bus driver who is also a PCSO who posted on here that one day two girls got on his bus asking for child tickets and the next day he caught the same girls in the pub drinking alcohol.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

For a moment I thought I was reading the Daily Mail [shudders]

 

[craigybagel]

I have not said the approach taken by the guard on Friday evening was wrong if I understood it correctly - from where I was I could hear what the guard said but not what the boy said. I'm saying we have a situation where whether you get away with fare evading doesn't just depend on whether you are caught by who you are caught by or possibly whether you're male or female. How can that be right? I should make clear in the case of the girl I referred to the conversation was along the lines of
Girl "I don't have a ticket"
AFC "How old are you?"
Girl "I don't have any money on me."
It's not as though she even tried to come up with an excuse for being on the train with no ticket or money.

Is this forum is a good place to discuss why inconsistencies arise. Would you have posted a similar response if I had posted an observation about two different Carlisle Security RPIs showing different approaches?

The problem is, it's almost impossible to have everybody involved in revenue protection following a consistent set of rules 100% of the time. The sheet nature of the job means there has to be a bit of leeway, wiggle room. If 100% of the staff followed 100% if the rules 100% of the time, assaults, cancellations and stories of little old ladies/children being abandoned at dark rural stations would go through the roof. So staff are trained to use their judgement

The downside to this is that you will end up with inconsistencies like what you've seen. Every member of staff is different and so is every shift so you're never likely to get two identical answers. It's really hard to say what is right or wrong in these scenarios and even as an experienced guard myself I'm not going to second guess a colleague for handling things differently to how I would.

 

[Jonfun]

There is an element of staff judging things on their own merit but equally there are staff out there who simply don't do their jobs. Every depot has them, and unfortunately often poor management allows them to get away with it.

 

[ComUtoR]

So are you saying a girl should get preferential treatment over a boy? You surely can't be implying the guard (who also had to do the door duties at the next station) had more time to deal with a fare evader than the AFC who didn't have to worry about that.

What I am implying is the simple fact that situation (A) was not identical to situation (B) You can only really see consistency where the situation is identical or generally the same. They were also two different people. What you are seeing is two different people applying discretion to very different situations. I have no idea what each staff member was going through at the time nor do I know of any extraneous factors that may have influenced each decision.

Where did I say I wouldn't be? I was saying if I was a parent of either child and knew of both incidents I would be annoyed and gave reasons for why I would be annoyed. I wouldn't want a daughter who thinks she can get away without paying for things anymore than I want a son who gets the book thrown at him, while older children get let off.

**As a parent, both children would feel my ire about not paying their fare. Regardless of what happened to a different kid or what the actions of the Guard/AFC were my primary concern is MY child and their actions. If I was more concerned about how my Son was treated when HE failed to pay his fare and was more concerned that someone else got let off then I feel that I would have failed in my duty as a parent. I would also be concerned about where the money for the ticket went

**HUGE caveat here : This is MY view as a parent and other parents my have a differing opinion of how they wish to parent their children and that is perfectly fine with me. There is no right or wrong answer, its hard enough as it is a parent without the sanctimonious judgement from others. We all, just do our best.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair some boys start growing facial hair at 12/13. Although, I also recall the bus driver who is also a PCSO who posted on here that one day two girls got on his bus asking for child tickets and the next day he caught the same girls in the pub drinking alcohol.

I've certainly heard of bus drivers using the line "well, you smell of alcohol, so what will it be? Adult fare, or me reporting you for underage drinking?"

Not a lot he could practically do in terms of reporting them (and the alcohol could technically have been consumed legally at home assuming they were over 5 years old), but it's often enough to get them to cough up.

 

[bobbyrail]

Wasn't there some scheme in Manchester to do with getting under 16's to their destination when they didn't have a fare, it definitely applied to buses but i am pretty certain Metrolink and Trains were involved too. Basically from what i can recall the child had some sort of travel pass and if they couldn't pay then the operator allowed them to travel on this card. It was called something like "get me home" however from googleing it there appears to be nothing that links to anything like this. I swear i am not imagining this, there was a big politicians fanfare about it (ohh look what we've done).

 

[bluenoxid]

There has also been the incident where a woman was raped when she was not let on the last bus because she didn’t have enough money.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

Its a slippery slope on what to do when dealing with minors jcollins, you cannot just throw them off at an unmanned stop down a branch line somewhere. If something happens to them, the guard will be held responsible for putting them in harms way and lynched in the process by the public and the anti-guard mob. Most employers do not want trains being held for revenue protection matters, for the sake of a £2.70 fare. The cost of a one minute delay outweights the fare on an enormous scale. It also can provoke confrontation and assualts by the fare evader and also other passengers who want to get to their destination on time, which once again means the employer is out of pocket, whilst the Guard is off track or off sick recovering. There is always people who do the job differently, whether that be rightly or wrongly, perhaps that is the way it used to be holding trains etc etc. and they have their own reasons perhaps for doing so.

 

[Paceman]

Very little you can do with under 16’s. I usually give them a lecture and warnings about a repeat and let them travel to their destination. What else can you do? If a persistent offender then it would be escalated.

 

[neilmc]

My children are now well grown up but when they were 12/13, if I'd found they'd been turfed off a train in the dark in an unfamiliar place I would consider it a matter for the police to investigate. That guard had wilfully endangered a child.

 

[mmh]

Thursday morning at around 08:30 - a Piccadilly guard was acting as an Assistant Fare Collector. While it was a morning peak train I'm sure the train actually needed the AFC with the train being quieter than usual - perhaps Northern had surplus guards due to engineering works on other routes. A girl (around 16) got on without a ticket and claimed she didn't have means to buy one. The AFC raised his hand as if to say he didn't care and walked off, the girl traveled to her destination for free.

Friday evening at around 17:30 - a guard (not a guard acting as an AFC) is doing a ticket inspection. A boy (around 12) has no ticket and claims he has no means to buy a ticket. The guard gives him a lecture about fare evasion and says he has to get off at the next station. I think he also said something about he would ask the guard on the next service in the opposite direction to let him travel back to where he originally got on.

While I accept guards aren't always going to catch everyone trying to travel for free and have to use discretion when they find a passenger without a ticket, how can their approach be so inconsistent? If I was the girl's parent I'd be annoyed that she was let off without even been given a warning, while if I was the boy's parent and knew an older girl got let off during daylight hours I'd be angry he got thrown off a train at a station without any staff when it was dark.

Some questions:

Why do you care?
How do you know this difference between an "AFC" and someone acting as one?
What would you have done differently?
Why do you care?

 

[craigybagel]

Its a slippery slope on what to do when dealing with minors jcollins, you cannot just throw them off at an unmanned stop down a branch line somewhere. If something happens to them, the guard will be held responsible for putting them in harms way and lynched in the process by the public and the anti-guard mob. Most employers do not want trains being held for revenue protection matters, for the sake of a £2.70 fare. The cost of a one minute delay outweights the fare on an enormous scale. It also can provoke confrontation and assualts by the fare evader and also other passengers who want to get to their destination on time, which once again means the employer is out of pocket, whilst the Guard is off track or off sick recovering. There is always people who do the job differently, whether that be rightly or wrongly, perhaps that is the way it used to be holding trains etc etc. and they have their own reasons perhaps for doing so.

Very little you can do with under 16’s. I usually give them a lecture and warnings about a repeat and let them travel to their destination. What else can you do? If a persistent offender then it would be escalated.

All of this, 100%. It can be annoying, although there are tricks you can perform to get something out of them ("offering" to call social services because you're worried about these poor children out by themselves without any money often makes money magically appear from previously empty pockets) - but if it fails it's just one those things

One bit of advice I always give to new starters - if you're in doubt about the way you're about to handle a situation, imagine the Daily Mail reporting on what you've done......

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Wasn't there some scheme in Manchester to do with getting under 16's to their destination when they didn't have a fare, it definitely applied to buses but i am pretty certain Metrolink and Trains were involved too. Basically from what i can recall the child had some sort of travel pass and if they couldn't pay then the operator allowed them to travel on this card. It was called something like "get me home" however from googleing it there appears to be nothing that links to anything like this. I swear i am not imagining this, there was a big politicians fanfare about it (ohh look what we've done).

The details escape me now but there was such a scheme in place for a short time only. Essentially GMPTE told operators to ensure that anyone who appeared to be over 13 and travelling after 1900 to show a current concessionary pass or pay the adult fare. Needless to say this instruction was issued in advance of a campaign to get all youngsters to get a pass meaning that for a while people were being caught out through ignorance so a temporary measure was necessary.

 

[185]

.... it definitely applied to buses but i am pretty certain Metrolink and Trains were involved too.

Never been any actual scheme on rail services, however briefings reminding staff of duty of care tends to allow staff to consider a reasoned decision.

Well, certainly not Northern. Was a case 18 months ago where an investigation was launched following contractor, barrier and platform staff refusing two 12-year olds travel home at 8pm, and on approaching staff from another operator - those other comp's staff were also told by Northern 'no, why should we' so the other comp's staff paid for the kids' tickets out of their own pocket. Can of worms was opened when parents of said kids wrote to both operators and the politicians.

 

[DaveB10780]

Never been any actual scheme on rail services, however briefings reminding staff of duty of care tends to allow staff to consider a reasoned decision.

Well, certainly not Northern. Was a case 18 months ago where an investigation was launched following contractor, barrier and platform staff refusing two 12-year olds travel home at 8pm, and on approaching staff from another operator - those other comp's staff were also told by Northern 'no, why should we' so the other comp's staff paid for the kids' tickets out of their own pocket. Can of worms was opened when parents of said kids wrote to both operators and the politicians.

And what were their parents doing? Surely the kids should have been allowed to travel and the parents taken to court?

 

[Bungle965]

Never been any actual scheme on rail services, however briefings reminding staff of duty of care tends to allow staff to consider a reasoned decision.

Well, certainly not Northern. Was a case 18 months ago where an investigation was launched following contractor, barrier and platform staff refusing two 12-year olds travel home at 8pm, and on approaching staff from another operator - those other comp's staff were also told by Northern 'no, why should we' so the other comp's staff paid for the kids' tickets out of their own pocket. Can of worms was opened when parents of said kids wrote to both operators and the politicians.

I assume they wrote to the latter company to thank them for paying for their tickets?
Sam

 

[yorkie]

And what were their parents doing? Surely the kids should have been allowed to travel and the parents taken to court?

I don't understand this post. Taken to court for what?

 

[mmh]

Never been any actual scheme on rail services, however briefings reminding staff of duty of care tends to allow staff to consider a reasoned decision.

Well, certainly not Northern. Was a case 18 months ago where an investigation was launched following contractor, barrier and platform staff refusing two 12-year olds travel home at 8pm, and on approaching staff from another operator - those other comp's staff were also told by Northern 'no, why should we' so the other comp's staff paid for the kids' tickets out of their own pocket. Can of worms was opened when parents of said kids wrote to both operators and the politicians.

After reading this very carefully at least twenty times I still can't make head nor tail of what you're saying happened!

 

[muz379]

Dealing with minors or people you assume to be minors is always going to be a dammed if you do damned if you dont situation . But regardless of views of everyone on this forum or even on the train for that matter they are to be considered vulnerable people so this needs to be taken into consideration when discharging any duty of care towards them .

The personal view I take is if I kick a vulnerable person off (not just a minor) and I read in the newspaper the next day that some considerable harm had come to them I would feel bad . But then I have never been the type to let revenue protection issues get to me on a personal level . Some guards/rpis/afc's do much like in other industries people let theft from their employer evoke a personal and emotive response. I deal with instances of fare evasion or suspected fare evasion as professionally as I can , but sometimes you simply cannot win . Holding a train for 45 minutes for the police to come over a small fare on an otherwise busy train full of fare paying passengers is simply not proportionate.

With Minors I will generally give them a verbal warning about travelling without a ticket , pointing out the potential for a criminal record . Then if any patterns are noticed they are reported .

I have not said the approach taken by the guard on Friday evening was wrong if I understood it correctly - from where I was I could hear what the guard said but not what the boy said. I'm saying we have a situation where whether you get away with fare evading doesn't just depend on whether you are caught by who you are caught by or possibly whether you're male or female. How can that be right? I should make clear in the case of the girl I referred to the conversation was along the lines of

I dont think its fair to correlate the different genders in the experiences you have had with different experiences of ticket less travel as any indication of differential treatment . After all the people carrying out revenue inspections in both examples also varied . To me it is more demonstrative of the effect of differing humans carrying out the same task applying different levels of discretion . And we also dont know if the presumed AFC in the first example was showing as much discretion as he did because he knew that the guard who was actually working the service would have no appetite for trouble .

 

[Blinkbonny]

There are some excellent responses from working guards on this thread, and I for one appreciate the insights given.