Revenue Protection Inspectors Your Rights?

island said:

Yes, they can. The railway is private property.

Click to expand...

I think the point that other people are getting at is that if someone arrived at a station to catch a train they had bought a ticket for were asked to leave the station, they would need to do as they were told to, including without any justification being provided, but that this would be highly likely to give rise to claims against the property owners or the firms the staff in question represented.

island said:

6 (8) will cover the situation, as will 12 (2) or 13 (2).

Click to expand...

Taking video would be covered by byelaws in some situations. However, I'm not sure how it would be easy to show that videoing an officer during an interaction which the officer wants would constitute an offence.

- Molestation or "wilfully" interfering with someone's comfort or convenience under 6(8): Molestation would seem to need something more. Taking video may plausibly have a legitimate main purpose of keeping a record of the interaction. If so, the idea that interference is "wilful" may seem less plausible.

- Safety concerns would not apply under 12(2) except under particular circumstances.

- Loitering, under 13(2), wouldn't apply unless the person is asked to leave.

Baxenden Bank said:

So why is it acceptable for rail staff to film the public without their consent (with bodycams) but not for passengers to film rail staff in the same manner?

I think you will find that anyone can film anyone else in a public place, within sensible limits. Sticking your camera right in someone's face would not be acceptable from either staff or customer. Filming from a seated position is entirely reasonable. If the staff member does not wish to be filmed they can politely ask (and accept the same refusal that a passenger would get if they had asked the staff member to turn off their bodycam), or they can move along to the next customer.

Click to expand...

It is legal from a privacy perspective - if in public - but anyone being filmed by you has the right to ask you not too. An employee of the railway can rescind your permission to be on railway premises without you having broken any laws and be well within their legal rights to force you to leave.

Do bodycams always have a light on to indicate when they are filming/recording sound?

some bloke said:

Taking video would be covered by byelaws in some situations. However, I'm not sure how it would be easy to show that videoing an officer during an interaction which the officer wants would constitute an offence.

- Molestation or "wilfully" interfering with someone's comfort or convenience under 6(8): Molestation would seem to need something more. Taking video may plausibly have a legitimate main purpose of keeping a record of the interaction. If so, the idea that interference is "wilful" may seem less plausible.

- Safety concerns would not apply under 12(2) except under particular circumstances.

- Loitering, under 13(2), wouldn't apply unless the person is asked to leave.

Click to expand...

Even if I am wrong, which I don’t think I am, once an authorised person reasonably believes you have broken a byelaw, they can require you to leave the railway (byelaw 23 or 24, I forget which). The belief does not need to be true, it just needs to be reasonable, and it’s a further offence not to comply with such a request. You can expect BTP to back the staff member up in such a request if it escalates to them.

As the Americans say, you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.

packermac said:

I must admit have never seen one from a current TOC, I am not here talking about uniform staff, guards etc but plain clothes RPI's.
Back in the days before TFL operated to Clapham Junction I was asked by a London Underground RPI for my ticket to access the platform on the Southern from the bridge. I suggested his LU id in this instance was about the same as my airport one. He said he had been seconded and his supervisor was called who apologised and said he should have been given a letter to show his secondment along with his id.

Click to expand...

Clip said:

Worth noting that Clapham has TfL services so could be from one of them but i get what you are saying

Click to expand...

Why would a London Underground Inspector be working at Clapham Junction? The only Inspectors employed by TfL check tickets on London Buses. London Underground also have Inspectors but these only work on LU trains or at stations served by LU trains.

Overground & TfL Rail have Toc staff employed by the relevant Toc (Overground or TfL Rail), as do DLR and Trams.

AnkleBoots said:

Do bodycams always have a light on to indicate when they are filming/recording sound?

Click to expand...

It depends on the manufacturer of the device. Typically, body worn cameras are always passively recording video but this will not be saved permanently. When the "event" button is pressed they will start recording in video and audio, and will also save a period of time (normally up to 30 seconds) before the button was pressed.

island said:

once an authorised person reasonably believes you have broken a byelaw, they can require you to leave the railway (byelaw 23 or 24

Click to expand...

Yes, it's under 24. But which byelaw would they have reasonable belief you had broken by calmly taking video?

If a person is in a revenue role, they should anticipate being filmed as the person getting questioned has the right to collect evidence in their dedenxe

Mojo said:

Why would a London Underground Inspector be working at Clapham Junction? The only Inspectors employed by TfL check tickets on London Buses. London Underground also have Inspectors but these only work on LU trains or at stations served by LU trains.

Overground & TfL Rail have Toc staff employed by the relevant Toc (Overground or TfL Rail), as do DLR and Trams.

Click to expand...

I didn't say they were - if you read my sentence i explicity stated that TfL ran services from there and that the inspector the person came into contact with could've been from them - I.E London Overground. I apologise profusely for not detailing what i was going on about that it confused you

island said:

You can expect BTP to back the staff member up in such a request if it escalates to them.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

BTP get dragged to a lot of situations where things have clearly been stirred up by an over-excitable member of staff. In such situations they are quite likely to just stand there and roll their eyes, especially if the staff member is someone they know is prone to having issues.

In times past it was much easier for staff to get rid of people, they could always fall back to the line that “he was abusive to me”. With the mass spread of CCTV and the ever-present possibility of anyone whipping out a camera phone, this is now a rather more risky strategy, especially if it’s a member of staff who seems to suffer a disproportionate amount of issues.

Clip said:

I didn't say they were - if you read my sentence i explicity stated that TfL ran services from there and that the inspector the person came into contact with could've been from them - I.E London Overground. I apologise profusely for not detailing what i was going on about that it confused you

Click to expand...

I was replying to the OP, who stated that they worked for Underground. And the OP stated that it was before TfL branded rail services (ie. Overground) ran to Clapham Jct.

So I don’t understand your message at all

Mojo said:

I was replying to the OP, who stated that they worked for Underground. And the OP stated that it was before TfL branded rail services (ie. Overground) ran to Clapham Jct.

So I don’t understand your message at all

Click to expand...

Looking back i didnt realise they said back in the day before they had services there so my bad on that one

some bloke said:

Yes, it's under 24. But which byelaw would they have reasonable belief you had broken by calmly taking video?

Click to expand...

I’ve already answered that further up.

There’s a lot of misconceptions here and fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Recording is not legal where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie in a private home or changing room. The ownership of the land in relation to to the recorder isn’t the defining aspect. Railway stations, trains, shopping centres, fields and meadows are public spaces for the purpose of privacy.

You can be asked to leave a shopping centre for any reason (recording video or otherwise) by the premises owner withdrawing implied right to enter, with very little recourse.

You could also be asked to leave the railway premises theoretically, although the person doing so would need to be duly authorised by the company and be supported in that - which may be the first hurdle if they are acting outside of their remit.

Further, there is nothing in the contract of a ticket purchase (NRCoC) that prohibits filming, much like say the easyJet conditions of carriage (interestingly some carriers like American Airlines do specifically prohibit this).

As a contract has been entered by the passenger for travel, the TOC is then in breach of contract if they ask the passenger to leave - the remedy may be a refund or costs such as a taxi to the final destination.

I don’t see anything in the byelaws that prohibits filming if you are continuing about your railway business (entering, exiting, changing trains etc), so there is no byelaw justification for evicting the passenger not stopping them filming.

On that basis I can only see it as a civil issue of breach of contract or at worst trespass, if indeed the original request to vacate was supported by the reverent ToC.

If you’re confident of a valid ticket it would probably be a profitable exercise testing this in resulting costs and/or compensation.

That said this hypothetical scenario is kind-of irrelevant, on the ground if you have a valid ticket and are polite you are extremely unlikely to encounter any issue in the long run as recording a situation will just show up any miscreant member of staff and embarrass the ToC into submission through the footage of such transgression.

Albeit quite old now a case in point... valid 1st ticket on the HEX boarding at T5, guard believed it was not valid so I started recording him as passively as possible, he got quite irate quite quickly and insisted I leave the train at T123 and when I refused he said BTP would be meeting the train at PAD. They indeed were waiting at PAD, I showed them my ticket and demonstrated why it was valid, offered my name and address but said I would otherwise be on my way - they were completely disinterested and recommended the train manager take it up with his control and let me on my way. Eventually received a free carnet of tickets by way of apology from HEX.

kingston said:

There’s a lot of misconceptions here and fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Recording is not legal where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, ie in a private home or changing room. The ownership of the land in relation to to the recorder isn’t the defining aspect. Railway stations, trains, shopping centres, fields and meadows are public spaces for the purpose of privacy.

You can be asked to leave a shopping centre for any reason (recording video or otherwise) by the premises owner withdrawing implied right to enter, with very little recourse.

You could also be asked to leave the railway premises theoretically, although the person doing so would need to be duly authorised by the company and be supported in that - which may be the first hurdle if they are acting outside of their remit.

Further, there is nothing in the contract of a ticket purchase (NRCoC) that prohibits filming, much like say the easyJet conditions of carriage (interestingly some carriers like American Airlines do specifically prohibit this).

As a contract has been entered by the passenger for travel, the TOC is then in breach of contract if they ask the passenger to leave - the remedy may be a refund or costs such as a taxi to the final destination.

I don’t see anything in the byelaws that prohibits filming if you are continuing about your railway business (entering, exiting, changing trains etc), so there is no byelaw justification for evicting the passenger not stopping them filming.

On that basis I can only see it as a civil issue of breach of contract or at worst trespass, if indeed the original request to vacate was supported by the reverent ToC.

If you’re confident of a valid ticket it would probably be a profitable exercise testing this in resulting costs and/or compensation.

That said this hypothetical scenario is kind-of irrelevant, on the ground if you have a valid ticket and are polite you are extremely unlikely to encounter any issue in the long run as recording a situation will just show up any miscreant member of staff and embarrass the ToC into submission through the footage of such transgression.

Albeit quite old now a case in point... valid 1st ticket on the HEX boarding at T5, guard believed it was not valid so I started recording him as passively as possible, he got quite irate quite quickly and insisted I leave the train at T123 and when I refused he said BTP would be meeting the train at PAD. They indeed were waiting at PAD, I showed them my ticket and demonstrated why it was valid, offered my name and address but said I would otherwise be on my way - they were completely disinterested and recommended the train manager take it up with his control and let me on my way. Eventually received a free carnet of tickets by way of apology from HEX.

Click to expand...

I'm curious what ticket did you have given the hex is quite a self contained service for their to be ambiguity about validity.

matt_world2004 said:

I'm curious what ticket did you have given the hex is quite a self contained service for their to be ambiguity about validity.

Click to expand...

Me too actually and I’m wracking my brains, alas it was quite some time ago but by virtue of how many tickets they threw at me the most vivid part of the recollection is that I was right, as rare as it might be!

With the hex platforms at Heathrow there are signs saying no photography, I believe these are under the Heathrow airport bylaws. And the hex has different conditions of carriage to national rail. However there are always tourists tracking pictures on the platform

Seems like a pretty dick regulation if it is just for selective enforcement.

I've been filmed doing my job a few times..it just best to ignore it. Especially if it is someone wanting to make a complaint about something.

I was also filmed once by an enthusiast. Apart from saying that I couldn't say anything on camera that could get me in trouble I hammed it up.

I also filmed a police officer who stopped me once but that is because he lied about the reason of the stop.

Bertie the bus said:

I can't think of a single scam anybody could pull from simply seeing a ticket. If someone who saw my ticket claimed it wasn't valid and demanded money or personal information then I wouldn't give either without verification but that isn't what the OP asked. He was asking could he demand various things before showing his ticket. I still don't understand why anybody would want or need to do that.

Click to expand...

They could claim they should 'confiscate the ticket as it was not valid' and go off an use it themselves? Pretty obv thing to do if you were a scammer after all.

I assume that's the reason impersonating a police officer is a crime (because people do...)

some bloke said:

I'm not sure how it would be easy to show that videoing an officer during an interaction which the officer wants would constitute an offence.

- Molestation or "wilfully" interfering with someone's comfort or convenience under 6(8): Molestation would seem to need something more. Taking video may plausibly have a legitimate main purpose of keeping a record of the interaction. If so, the idea that interference is "wilful" may seem less plausible.

- Safety concerns would not apply under 12(2) except under particular circumstances.

- Loitering, under 13(2), wouldn't apply unless the person is asked to leave.

Click to expand...

some bloke said:

which byelaw would they have reasonable belief you had broken by calmly taking video?

Click to expand...

island said:

I’ve already answered that further up.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure referring to byelaw numbers would be enough help for someone looking to this thread for advice. The question "which byelaw...?" is in the context of the post saying what is in those byelaws.

If the person is calm and behaving in a safe manner, and hasn't already been asked to leave, two of those three byelaws seem not to apply.

some bloke said:

- Safety concerns would not apply under 12(2) except under particular circumstances.

- Loitering, under 13(2), wouldn't apply unless the person is asked to leave.

Click to expand...

So we're just left with molestation/wilful interference, which was also addressed in the earlier post.