Chiltern Rail guard/revenue collector query

Tallguy · 3 Mar 2011

So, if you are stupidly travelling without a valid ticket and get caught by a guard or RPI, under law do you have to give your name and address if asked for it?

I ask this as a friends wife who holds a £4K season ticket on Chiltern Rail between her local station and London Marylebone, dropped their daughter off at an event and then tried to travel to Marylebone from an intermediate station on the same route that her season ticket covers. The ticket was valid for that route (she travels it every day) and she was undertaking a shorter journey than normal (the train she boarded had stopped at her normal station earlier on the route). The guard came along the carriage to inspect her ticket (she was apparently only 1 of 2 passengers who boarded that particular train at this station, and she was told that the ticket wasn't valid for intermediate journeys and had to buy a full price single ticket. The guard also asked her for her name and address which she gave.

So, ignoring the argument about ticket validity etc, the questions is do you under law have to give your name and address if asked by a guard or revenue collector? If you gave a false name and address would their be any penalties??? Would they actually know the name and address was false assuming the details of the season ticket weren't also taken (I seem to remember you had to provide your name and address when buying a season ticket years ago, not sure if that is still the case.)

All comments welcome.

RailUK Forums

Clip · 3 Mar 2011

yes you have to give your proper name and address when being penalty fared - they can check up on it too.. And its an offence not too IIRC

sounds awful from the RPI to be doing this and i know the name of the RPI manager should you so want it to forward your complaint any further.

JKJimar53 · 3 Mar 2011

I'd imagine the season ticket would be valid for the entire route including journeys between intermediate stations.

Flamingo · 3 Mar 2011

It's an offence under railway bylaw not to give name and address.

Failure to do so may be seen as evidence of intent to defraud the railway.

We can check up on addresses, if I find that a false address has been given I then go into "You're taking the wee now, so lets find out if I can f*** you about more than you can f*** me about" mode (I usually can).

However, if she had the season ticket on her:

30. Validity
A Season Ticket gives you the right to travel between particular stations or within particular
zones during the period up to and including the Season Ticket’s expiry date. Except in the
case of a Season Ticket which is an Electronic Ticket, the relevant stations or zones and
expiry date are shown on the ticket. This includes the right to start, break and resume,
or end your journey, as described in Condition 16. If you use the Season Ticket to travel
beyond the station or zones for which it is valid, you will be treated as having joined the
train without a ticket for that additional part of your journey and the relevant parts of
Condition 2 or 4 will apply. The routes you are entitled to take with a Season Ticket are
explained in Condition 13.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

Without knowing the ticket, route and train I can't comment further on that, nut it might be worth her dropping a line to Chiltern.

Tallguy · 3 Mar 2011

Apparently it's not.

Mojo · 3 Mar 2011

Tallguy said:
Apparently it's not.

What was the specific season ticket (stations, route and price) as I can think of very few cases where it would not be allowed?

Tallguy · 3 Mar 2011

Clip said:
sounds awful from the RPI to be doing this and i know the name of the RPI manager should you so want it to forward your complaint any further.

Clip - can you let me have the RPI Managers details please?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mojo said:
What was the specific season ticket (stations, route and price) as I can think of very few cases where it would not be allowed?

I don't have those details Mojo - will ask my colleague swife to make a full complaint to Chiltern and get the low down on this. Wonder if it has anything to do with their fast and slow train services at various stations.

Flamingo · 3 Mar 2011

The obvious one that springs to mind is was it a "split" season ticket? If split at an intermediate station and the train she was on didn't stop there, then the ticket would not be valid between the last and next stopping point.

route:oxford · 3 Mar 2011

Flamingo said:
It's an offence under railway bylaw not to give name and address.

Failure to do so may be seen as evidence of intent to defraud the railway

Don't you also have the right to withold your consent for your data to be processed under the data protection act?

Flamingo · 3 Mar 2011

Better ask one of the legal eagles on here, but I don't think so.

Greenback · 3 Mar 2011

Neither do I, the DPA is intended to safeguard personal information, not act as a way of opting out from ever providing any information to anyone!

djw1981 · 3 Mar 2011

route:oxford said:
Don't you also have the right to withold your consent for your data to be processed under the data protection act?

Not when the issue is a potentially criminal one. I;d imagine that the RPI database of proseciutions is not linked to the marketing database!

Flamingo · 3 Mar 2011

Might be an idea for targeted marketing!
- "Do you want to buy a cheap ticket - or any ticket at all?"

MichaelAMW · 4 Mar 2011

Flamingo said:
It's an offence under railway bylaw not to give name and address.

Failure to do so may be seen as evidence of intent to defraud the railway.

I don't completely agree, as the byelaws say, section 23 (1)

"Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person."

The word 'reasonable' means either fair or acceptable, in the sense that most people would agree with the point being made, or it means open to reason. Neither of these definitions apply, I would say. In the first case, most people would not agree that a season is only valid for throughout journeys. In the second case, you cannot reason that the ticket is not valid as all the information available would lead to a different conclusion. The lack of even basic relevant knowledge of the ticket checker doesn't make it reasonable for you to have to give your details as they are in no position to determine that it is reasonable to make the request. Their suspicion, to pick up the word 'suspected' in the byelaw, would not be reasonable in either sense.

I would therefore refuse to give my details as there would be no reasonable grounds for doing so. I have refused the very same request myself when being accused of having a ticket that was 'off route'. The routeing guide clearly allowed the route and the train guard, by his own admission, said he had no knowledge of the RG and had received no training. I didn't think he was in any position to reason that my ticket was not valid so I similarly didn't believe I had any obligation to give my details. My reason for refusing was not to be awkward but to avoid having to waste my time in correspondance with either the TOC or the UFN people, given that I had a valid ticket.

barrykas · 4 Mar 2011

Mojo said:
What was the specific season ticket (stations, route and price) as I can think of very few cases where it would not be allowed?

The only example that immediately springs to mind is someone trying to use a "Met" season ticket (i.e. Stoke Mandeville and points South thereof, or Aylesbury/Aylesbury Vale Parkway tickets routed via Chalfont and Latimer) to travel from a station on the Western...Or a Great Western ticket on Chiltern.

But without knowing the details of the ticket held and the actual journey being made, I can't comment any further.

Cheers,

Barry

MichaelAMW · 4 Mar 2011

Greenback said:
Neither do I, the DPA is intended to safeguard personal information, not act as a way of opting out from ever providing any information to anyone!

Absolutely right. It's worth pointing out that one major way in which you are not protected by the DPA is the existence of other legislation that requires data to be provided, in which case the DPA is overridden. E.g. you have to give your details to the shop when you buy a telly and they have to tell the TV licensing bods - you cannot refuse as there is legislation to require that data provision and sharing. Similarly, the railway byelaws can override the DPA.

I have wondered whether the DPA could, however, protect you again the UFN people. Let's say I am on a train and the ticket checker thinks I owe a fare. Could I insist that I will only hand over my details for the specific purpose of the TOC contacting me about the fare dispute, but that I do not authorise the TOC to forward my details to the UFN people?

Flamingo · 4 Mar 2011

MichaelAMW said:
I don't completely agree, as the byelaws say, section 23 (1)

"Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person."

If the authorised person is not satisfied that the ticket is valid for whatever reason, they are entitled to ask for further details. It would be up to the authorised person to then establish whether an offence has been committed or not before taking further action. This research may involve reference to routing guides and fare manuals not at their disposal when walking through the 19.00 Pad-Bri., or investigating the sales point or ticket issue.

Taking the passengers name and address (and withdrawing the ticket and issuing a "zero fare" to allow for further investigation if need be) may be seen to be reasonable if there is any doubt, and the risk of having to engage in further correspondence regarding a ticket that in the passengers opinion is valid, is not grounds for refusing to furnish those details if asked for them by an authorised person, IMHO.

I'd be interested to know if any other train staff have any experience of the outcomes of passengers refusing to give details in the scenarios where there was a dispute about a ticket validity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

MichaelAMW said:
I have wondered whether the DPA could, however, protect you again the UFN people. Let's say I am on a train and the ticket checker thinks I owe a fare. Could I insist that I will only hand over my details for the specific purpose of the TOC contacting me about the fare dispute, but that I do not authorise the TOC to forward my details to the UFN people?

The wording on the UPFN pad is that you are agreeing that you made the journey, and are agreeing to pay or furnish a reason why you did not show a valid ticket at the time asked.

yorkie · 4 Mar 2011

I am very concerned to hear this.

Season tickets are valid for intermediate journeys (on routes that are permitted, as defined in the National Routeing Guide), almost without exception (the one exception I am aware of is specially discounted season tickets to Manchester Airport for employees. Other schemes may exist and have similar restrictions).

I urge you to write to Chiltern and ensure the matter is dealt with.

I wrote to Chiltern regarding extremely poor conduct by a guard/RPI who worked on the Chiltern bubble car, and received a satisfactory response. Perhaps it is the same person? He was not knowledgeable and made up several rules*, which he stated in an aggressive manner, and he got angry when proved wrong. The previous incident may be on his record, so if it is him, perhaps further action will be taken.

* False claim #1: Denial that a child aged under 16 when a FAM railcard is purchased is still eligible to CHFAM discounted tickets for the validity of the railcard (Result: he looked it up, realised he was wrong, stormed to the guards van and didn't check any further tickets that journey).

* False claim #2: Denial that a Cheap Day Return (CDR), now known as Off Peak Day Return, allowed break of journey on the outward portion at an intermediate station (for us to buy food from the supermarket at Aylesbury). (Result: his colleague looked it up, realised he was wrong, and covered for him by saying the rules had "changed").

These two incidents were on separate occasions a few months apart. I did not write about the first incident (against my own advice, I know) but after the second I did.

May be the same person, may not be. But definitely needs to be reported. Please let us know how you get on.

Flamingo · 4 Mar 2011

yorkie said:
* False claim #1: Denial that a child aged under 16 when a FAM railcard is purchased is still eligible to CHFAM discounted tickets for the validity of the railcard (Result: he looked it up, realised he was wrong, stormed to the guards van and didn't check any further tickets that journey).

So if the "passenger" is under 16 when the family railcard is bought, they can travel on a child ticket when 16 if accompanying someone else on an adult ticket?

Or have I misunderstood you? I was always under the impression that a FAM railcard user must be accompanied by at least one child under 16 on a child ticket at all times (and charged them accordingly).

And if I haven't, can you quote me the source? Not that I'm doubting you, but that's one I'd rather have chapter and verse before I'd start implementing it.

MikeWh · 4 Mar 2011

From the Family railcard terms and conditions

Special notes regarding children’s tickets

Children aged under 16 at the time that the Railcard is purchased may still travel at the discounted child’s fare throughout the validity period of the one-year Railcard, or, for a three-year Railcard, up to and including the day before their 17th birthday. If the only child in the Family & Friends Railcard group is aged under five years, the Railcard holder must purchase a discounted ticket for that child in order for the Railcard holder(s) to qualify for the discount on their tickets.

All throughout the terms it talks about needing a child under 16, but is the key word child or under 16? If it's child then the only child can be aged 16 in the scenario described. If under 16 is key then the scenario described above doesn't apply when there is only one 'child'.

What is it about confusing/conflicting terms will be ruled in favour of the consumer?

yorkie · 4 Mar 2011

Flamingo said:
So if the "passenger" is under 16 when the family railcard is bought, they can travel on a child ticket when 16 if accompanying someone else on an adult ticket?

Yep, that's right.

This guy was aggressive and adamant that wasn't the case. If he'd said "I'm not sure, I'll just check" then when he read it said "Oh, that's fine, then" there would have been no issue. But he was aggressive throughout, and when he read it, slammed the manual shut, marched to his compartment and slammed the door, not checking any further tickets or saying a word after that.

For the record I did not complain at that, I only complained after the 2nd incident on a later date.

Flamingo said:
Or have I misunderstood you? I was always under the impression that a FAM railcard user must be accompanied by at least one child under 16 on a child ticket at all times (and charged them accordingly)

And if I haven't, can you quote me the source? Not that I'm doubting you, but that's one I'd rather have chapter and verse before I'd start implementing it.

There was at least one child genuinely under 16 then, however the only requirement is to have at least one child who was under 16 when it was bought.

MikeWh beat me to providing a source! But I think there is no doubt as to the meaning. It's not that obscure a rule either, I thought it was universally known!

Yes, the 3-year railcard only allows this up to the 17th birthday of the child otherwise they could be on CHFAM tickets up to the age of 19.

Greenback · 4 Mar 2011

MichaelAMW said:
Absolutely right. It's worth pointing out that one major way in which you are not protected by the DPA is the existence of other legislation that requires data to be provided, in which case the DPA is overridden. E.g. you have to give your details to the shop when you buy a telly and they have to tell the TV licensing bods - you cannot refuse as there is legislation to require that data provision and sharing. Similarly, the railway byelaws can override the DPA.

I have wondered whether the DPA could, however, protect you again the UFN people. Let's say I am on a train and the ticket checker thinks I owe a fare. Could I insist that I will only hand over my details for the specific purpose of the TOC contacting me about the fare dispute, but that I do not authorise the TOC to forward my details to the UFN people?

Not sure about that, but I have my doubts that it would work. Is there anything in the DPA that allows people the right to be selective in providing info? Isn;t it a bit like giving your name and address to a police officer with the proviso they don;t provide tot he CPS?

I don't suppose we'll find out unless it's tested legally!

island · 4 Mar 2011

The suggestion that consent is required for all processing of personal data is a common misconception, and the marketing point is a red herring. There are six possible conditions, only one of which need be satisfied, for processing of personal data, and in this case the processing of people's names/addresses/etc., once the TOC has them, is covered by the sixth condition: "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller..." So you can say you are giving your consent for X but not for Y, but the data controller is not relying on that consent.

The police, in Greenback's example, would rely on exemption 5(a) "for the administration of justice".

For more, see Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act, 1998.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have several years of experience with the Irish Data Protection Act, which is similar, during which time I have won several cases with the Data Protection Commissioner, the Irish equivalent of the ICO (including getting a 150 travel voucher in compensation from Ryanair!)

To the original post: it would be nice to have the specifics of the situation, i.e. the season ticket's from/to/route, the intermediate journey that the lady was making, and which train she made it on. (The latter point is important in case her normal journey is a permitted route only because it is a through train.)

Greenback · 4 Mar 2011

Thanks for clearing that point up, island!

Clip · 4 Mar 2011

yorkie said:
Yep, that's right.

This guy was aggressive and adamant that wasn't the case. If he'd said "I'm not sure, I'll just check" then when he read it said "Oh, that's fine, then" there would have been no issue. But he was aggressive throughout, and when he read it, slammed the manual shut, marched to his compartment and slammed the door, not checking any further tickets or saying a word after that.

For the record I did not complain at that, I only complained after the 2nd incident on a later date.

There was at least one child genuinely under 16 then, however the only requirement is to have at least one child who was under 16 when it was bought.

MikeWh beat me to providing a source! But I think there is no doubt as to the meaning. It's not that obscure a rule either, I thought it was universally known!

Yes, the 3-year railcard only allows this up to the 17th birthday of the child otherwise they could be on CHFAM tickets up to the age of 19.

Wasnt the old fella was it?

LexyBoy · 4 Mar 2011

Flamingo said:
The wording on the UPFN pad is that you are agreeing that you made the journey, and are agreeing to pay or furnish a reason why you did not show a valid ticket at the time asked.

(my bold)

On the UPFN, are you agreeing that you didn't show a valid ticket?

My approach would be to ask for a UPFN, and write explaining in fairly strong terms that my ticket was perfectly valid and that the RPI in question might like some basic training!

(Of course there may be some reason we don't know why it wasn't valid in this instance - if there were any doubt then I'd make sure I was in the right first or else pay up!)

Clip · 4 Mar 2011

Tallguy said:
Clip - can you let me have the RPI Managers details please?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't have those details Mojo - will ask my colleague swife to make a full complaint to Chiltern and get the low down on this. Wonder if it has anything to do with their fast and slow train services at various stations.

In my haste maybe i should not have said I would do this. the best thing to do is write to the Revenue manager himself when you put in the complaint - this will then get scanned and emailed to him no doubt so he can investigate then get back to you.

flymo · 4 Mar 2011

As a slight aside,

Regarding giving a name and address. I've always wondered what would happen if someone who does not live in Britain is caught, for whatever reason, without a ticket or suspected of having an invalid ticket and when asked to do so gives a legitimate name and address but outside of the UK? How would the member of staff check if it was genuine or not? Is there a different procedure for checking or dealing with such a situation?

I only ask as whenever I have been on a train I'm always doubly careful to ensure it is the right one and the ticket is valid etc, but if challenged or if I make a mistake I'd like to know what the options would be. Just curious.

oversteer · 4 Mar 2011

Presumably BTP could be called, who would find some reason to arrest the person and then - in the absence of a UK address for summons - would detain for immediate appearance at court?

island · 4 Mar 2011

During which time the train is likely to have reached a calling point prior to the BTP arriving, at which stage the passenger is entirely free to go!

Chiltern Rail guard/revenue collector query

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Emeritus Moderator

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member