Hi, can someone please help me. I was on my way to work this morning with a peak open return ticket. An inspector came on and said as I had 2 of these tickets (one out of date) these were suspicious, put me under caution and questioned me for about 15 mins. He was quite bullying in his manner , Then concluded by saying his report would be sent off and they would call my work (I had to give my work and HR details) to verify how many days I work (I am part time) and check my bank account to verify I use contact less payment to travel from Liverpool St to west end london. Is this possible? I'm so shook up about this I feel sick. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Under caution with a valid ticket
- Thread starter Millster
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Did you show the out of date before you showed the valid ticket?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
That is a good question. Without it, it's perfectly fine to have out of date tickets in your wallet - I often do, e.g. because I haven't claimed them on expenses yet, or simply because I have forgotten to throw them out.
cornishjohn
Member
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 100
Yes. I frequently hear the instruction to keep my ticket as there are checks at the station exit, so I don't throw my ticket in the bin as I leave the train. I then clear out my wallet about once a fortnight.
On the other hand I am usually also carrying loads of credit card slips for all the tickets bought so I can at least demonstrate consistency in buying tickets.
I don't understand the link between an open return ticket and using contactless however? Which network were you on at the time?
Out of interest, if being questioned "under caution" and we reach the station to get off at, what does the RPI do? Get off with you to complete questioning? Or make you buy a new ticket to continue questioning? I could miss a couple of stops in 15 minutes.
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,437
The perceived problem is that people can use a period return ticket repeatedly during its full validity until it is clipped or marked by staff, and use contactless (or Oyster PAYG - same principle) simply to get through a barrier line, accepting that even if they pay a maximum cash fare for the unresolved journey then they are still saving money.
The above is meant to answer the general point, not to imply this is what has actually happened in this case.
Last edited:
It would be helpful if you could tell us exactly what journey you were making, along with the tickets you were using (and the out of date ones you showed to the RPI).
You are required to give your details to an authorised member of staff when requested to do so but I do not believe this extends to giving details of who you work for or their address.
You are required to give your details to an authorised member of staff when requested to do so but I do not believe this extends to giving details of who you work for or their address.
So for clarity you showed the out of date ticket first and then when challenged showed the correct valid ticket?
Thanks all. I had stansted - Liverpool St tickets but got on at Sawbridgeworth this particular morning - which I believe is allowed). I work part time in london and my route changes depending on childcare issues. Some days I travel from Epping others I get a daily return etc. the first ticket which was still in my card wallet was purchased 27th Sept. The valid ticket was purchased 19 Oct so there was a 2 week overlap period. I simply forgot to take the old ticket out of the wallet and put the new one in. I'm more concerned he threatened to call my work (he said I have to give him phone numbers/manager details etc) and check my bank accounts. Work will not be impressed with this and I'm a little shocked they are allowed to do it.
telstarbox
Established Member
Are RPIs allowed to ask for employment and bank details as in the OP?
I think what this hinges on is did you show the inspector the out of date ticket first?
NSEFAN
Established Member
As long as you had a valid ticket with you and could ultimately produce it, why should showing the inspector the expired tickets first cause such suspicion? As others have just said, it's fairly common to retain older tickets for perfectly innocent reasons, if anything it shows you are a regular traveller and are paying the correct fare if they are all for the same route. The inspectors suspicion is making me errrr suspicious!
As pointed out before, some people will try to use a period return multiple times and then when it's pointed out that it's invalid they 'remember' that they have a valid ticket.
I can see why this looks suspicious to the RPI. There are no period returns from Sawbridgeworth, but there are from Stansted. Additionally Sawbridgeworth is unbarriered. Showing the old ticket first probably doesn't help dispel their suspicion, although generally this isn't a big deal if the valid ticket is then shown.
As far as I can see - not knowing the whole story - what will happen next will depend on whether your story checks out. In particular, if your contactless history shows unresolved entrance/exits at Liverpool St, I would expect AGA to use this as evidence of ticket misuse. If not, then they may still write to you asking for your version of events: if so, I would hope that a statement that you work part time, and a summary of your travel history for the weeks before the encounter (ideally with records showing a record of buying tickets for each trip) would be sufficient.
They can ask what you had for breakfast if they like - you are only obliged to provide your name and address though. Most people will not know this of course and will tend to provide more details if they think it will help prove innocence - often a mistake as the TOC is not interested in proving the passengers innocence, but rather whether they have a potential case.
As far as I can see - not knowing the whole story - what will happen next will depend on whether your story checks out. In particular, if your contactless history shows unresolved entrance/exits at Liverpool St, I would expect AGA to use this as evidence of ticket misuse. If not, then they may still write to you asking for your version of events: if so, I would hope that a statement that you work part time, and a summary of your travel history for the weeks before the encounter (ideally with records showing a record of buying tickets for each trip) would be sufficient.
They can ask what you had for breakfast if they like - you are only obliged to provide your name and address though. Most people will not know this of course and will tend to provide more details if they think it will help prove innocence - often a mistake as the TOC is not interested in proving the passengers innocence, but rather whether they have a potential case.
I'm sure some people do pull strokes like that but you cannot just assume that somebody with another ticket in their possession (which as far as I'm aware isn't an offence) is up to no good
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Presumably you were under no legal obligation to answer any such questions?
The question was why would suspicions be raised, that was the answer. It isn't - in itself - enough reason to take details.
In this case, the invalid ticket was decribed as "out of date". AIUI, the potential to attempt to use an open return mulitple times only exists within the valid dates.
crispy1978
Member
But if your ticket isn't marked by a conductor, or retained upon completion, then passengers are bound to have tickets which could be perceived to being unused.
The vast majority of trains have conductors, but some TOCs don't use their conductors to check tickets (which would solve a lot of these problems) and I'm not sure why to be honest.
The question being answered was why having multiple tickets might raise suspicions. I was answering in the general, rather than in this specific case. I.e. why would a guard/RPI give a second look to someone with a number of different tickets.
They can ask. Equally, I could ask exactly the same. In both cases the OP would have no obligation to provide the information.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
An AGA RPI overstepping the mark?
I've just fallen off my chair in shock.
Of course the OP is under no obligation to provide bank statements, etc, and is probably advised to provide as little information as necessary.
I've just fallen off my chair in shock.
Of course the OP is under no obligation to provide bank statements, etc, and is probably advised to provide as little information as necessary.
Last edited:
gray1404
Established Member
The problem is many passengers think that they have to answer something just because they are being asked. Sounds like OP felt bullied into doing so.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I'm stuggling to understand exactly what help you are looking for, but I'm happy to guess, in case that will help.
It seems clear from your explanation that the Inspector had reasonable evidence to justify further enquiries which might help in determining whether or not you were a regular fare evader. Whether you were evading the fare or not is not the point in understanding this fact. It is whether your explanations and the tickets you presented to them gave them reasonable grounds to suspect that you were evadng the fare. I'm going to guess that you will be able to agree with me this far.
When making these enquiries, their main objective is to provide evidence which either, confirms your fully lawful and paid-for travel, or, which confirms your unlawful and unpaid travel. Again, I hope you can agree with this.
It then seems (though this is very unclear from your posts) that you made a statement about your work pattern which must have appeared to be relevant to you when you were justifying your patterns of behaviour (travel and ticket buying). If you did try to claim that this was relevant, then it seems reasonable to me that any investigating officer would want to be able to corroborate that statement with evidence from that third party. Perhaps you now wish that they didn't - you could have asked them not to, or you could have declined to identify your employer.
Furthermore, it is often helpful when trying to establish the facts of a matter, which will include the identity of the person being questioned who will shortly be leaving perhaps never to be seen again, to ask them for details which will assist in identifying them. Perhaps details of an employer, of a place of education or some other external route to assist in confirming their identity will all help.
Finally, in the unfortunate event that the evidence does point to fare evasion, and that it then proceeds to a prosecution, and then that the prosecution succeeds, and that an "attachment of earnings order" is made, then the employer's details WILL have to be provided. So it makes sense to request those details at the point of the initial interview. [But we should all accept, that with the painfully slow pace of prosecutions through the Courts, then it has to be a realistic consideration that a suspect will have changed jobs before it gets anywhere near a Court. The way thing are right now, there's an equal prospect that the Court will have ben closed down!).
Of course you are under no obligation to provide the name of your employer, but it will often help both parties to do so. On the other hand, if the person being interviewed really is a regular fare evader, then I can see very clearly why they would NOT want to give any information like that to the investigating officer. But, inevitably, their refusal is only going to contribute to the investigator's doubts.
Does this help to answer your question?
Last edited:
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
Even if I had a valid ticket and travelled on a valid service with the ticket, If an RPI asked me who my employer was, I would not tell them, because it has the potential to cause embarassment in front of my employer, Likewise if the RPI wants to see my bank statements, to establish wheather or not I have been fare evading, they can get a warrant for it because what I choose to spend my money on is private.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand whether you are rebutting my attempt to answer Millster's question, or you are confirming my analysis, or you are making a person declaration of your own, or whether you are asking for some advice. If you are offering a rubuttal to my answer, then I've failed to see which point you find fault with - you've quoted my entire post, so I'm sorry that I just can't see which point you are arguing.
If you're wishing to make a comment on your own position - that you would decline to give personal information during an interview, then I don't think I can do much more than refer back to what I've written in response to Millster's question. Though I guess there's always the implicit presumption that a subject is chosing to supress incriminating evidence when they decline to answer a simple question, and that their refusal is likely to lead to further questionning.
If you're wishing to make a comment on your own position - that you would decline to give personal information during an interview, then I don't think I can do much more than refer back to what I've written in response to Millster's question. Though I guess there's always the implicit presumption that a subject is chosing to supress incriminating evidence when they decline to answer a simple question, and that their refusal is likely to lead to further questionning.
Last edited:
gray1404
Established Member
Question: I read that we are required to give your name and address. However if you are asked for this information AFTER you have been cautioned (i.e. told "you do not have to say ANYTHING...") do you still have to provide it?
I would echo the sentiment that the OP will know if they've done something wrong or not, I think, and it's unlikely to come of anything if you were being totally honest about your use of tickets and journeys - which nobody here has any reason to believe might not be the case, and everyone should refrain from implications to the contrary.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the surprising comment was:
I can just about understand that, if the point was truly relevant, one might want to ask one's employer to give evidence at trial.
I cannot see why an innocent passenger would ever want an RPI or prosecution team member calling up his HR department and asking questions saying they're under suspicion!
The OP says he had a valid ticket. I'm not even convinced in this case that there was strictly a right to demand a name and address. In terms of bank statements, employers, etc, why even go there?
I can just about understand that, if the point was truly relevant, one might want to ask one's employer to give evidence at trial.
I cannot see why an innocent passenger would ever want an RPI or prosecution team member calling up his HR department and asking questions saying they're under suspicion!
The OP says he had a valid ticket. I'm not even convinced in this case that there was strictly a right to demand a name and address. In terms of bank statements, employers, etc, why even go there?
Last edited:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I wonder what type of ticket the "out of date" one is and why it was purchased with an origin further out since equivalent fare types are not cheaper.
gray1404
Established Member
If this is true then it could be that the OP was being mistreated in a way that could be described as bullying.
- Status