Authorised person attempting to overrule another authorised person

[lejog]

So this:

answers my first question, unless anyone can point to a source in legislation regarding this:

I too would like to know of any legal basis for bb21's assertion that the guard can overrule station staff and that s/he has the ultimate say who is on the train.

The byelaws certainly give authorised people the right to remove passengers IF the authorised person reasonably believes that the byelaws are being broken. Given the clear wording of the byelaws in this case, there is no possibility of the the byelaws being broken. The law has the ultimate say not the guard.

 

[bb21]

I too would like to know of any legal basis for bb21's assertion that the guard can overrule station staff and that s/he has the ultimate say who is on the train.

The byelaws certainly give authorised people the right to remove passengers IF the authorised person reasonably believes that the byelaws are being broken. Given the clear wording of the byelaws in this case, there is no possibility of the the byelaws being broken. The law has the ultimate say not the guard.

Maybe you should give it a try in such circumstances with a ticket the guard reasonably considers invalid and then tell me the outcome when BTP were called?

As I said, all this is in theory. I doubt in real life the guard would attempt to overrule another authorised person once explained what happened, especially when supported by more than just one passenger.

Just because the guard has the ultimate say, it does not mean he can act in unreasonable ways.

But if you don't believe me that the guard has the ultimate say, then feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Bungle965]

What was on northern's journey check on the day in question.
Sam

1C71 08:29 Manchester Airport to Windermere due 10:26 has been cancelled. This is due to train crew having been unavailable earlier.
Additional Information: Northern Ticket holders are permitted to travel on the 09:00 Manchester Airport to Glasgow Central service (Transpennine Express) for Preston, Lancaster and Oxenholme, please change at Oxenholme for a Rail replacement Coach service which will depart Oxenholme at 10:35 calling at Kendal, Burneside, Staveley and Windermere. The rail replacement Coach will be branded Travellers Choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting, if that is what was said perhaps authority was not actually given for VTWC tickets to be accepted but people thought erroneously that it was.

 

[sheff1]

As I said, all this is in theory. I doubt in real life the guard would attempt to overrule another authorised person once explained what happened, especially when supported by more than just one passenger.

The guard attempting to overrule another authorised person was exactly what happened, which is why I gave the thread the title I did.

 

[bb21]

The guard attempting to overrule another authorised person was exactly what happened, which is why I gave the thread the title I did.

How many passengers did he charge then?

If none then perhaps he realised his error later on as I explained?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Ones surmising here but one TOC will only agree to carry other TOC's passengers in extreme circumstances. If TPE Control has not given permission then that explains the Conductors announcements. Perhaps staff at Manchester Piccadily had verbally instructed inviduals to use TPE without it being officially sanctioned?

Hmm well GWR and SWR have very regular extreme circumstances then, because at Waterloo there are always notices saying "Tickets are valid on GWR from Paddington via any reasonable route" because of some issue or another. That's why I like disruption, an HST instead of a Desiro.

 

[sheff1]

So what if someone was travelling from Stockport to Carlisle - would they have arrived over 30 minutes late after not being able to remain on the TPE train?

I have no idea but, as the conductor's announcement made no mention of either Stockport or Carlisle, I still fail to see the relevance.

 

[bb21]

Hmm well GWR and SWR have very regular extreme circumstances then, because at Waterloo there are always notices saying "Tickets are valid on GWR from Paddington via any reasonable route" because of some issue or another. That's why I like disruption, an HST instead of a Desiro.

Because when CSL2 is declared, this arrangement automatically comes into play without any further requirement for explicit permission. It is a pre-agreed arrangement.

Likewise, when Paddington is disrupted, tickets are accepted out of Waterloo upon CSL2 being declared.

 

[sheff1]

How many passengers did he charge then?

As the conductor who made the announcement was relieved by a another conductor at Preston, I don't see how he could have charged anyone. Again, though, I fail to see the relevance to the question of what legal basis there is for a second authorised person overruling permission originally given by another authorised person.

 

[bb21]

I am of the opinion you are overthinking this.

 

[Starmill]

How many people on that train were even going somewhere north of Oxenholme (other than Lakes Line customers, who had a bus provided), with Advance tickets?

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

How many people on that train were even going somewhere north of Oxenholme (other than Lakes Line customers, who had a bus provided), with Advance tickets?

I fail to see how he could know where all of the passengers on the train were travelling, although if I am mistaken I will gladly apologise and stand corrected - and promise to not interfere in something you ask someone else...

 

[sheff1]

I asked two specific questions as a result of the announcement I heard.

lejog has answered the first. It would appear no one knows the answer to the second.

My later replies have been in response to extraneous issues raised by others. If you think that is"overthinking" so be it.

 

[bb21]

Regardless of what you think the answer should or should not be, I gave you the answer to what happens in real life, and that is all that matters.

Pursuing an answer which has no realistic impact is pointless, but if that is what you want...

 

[sheff1]

My question was "Is there anything in the NRCoT or Byelaws which states that a second authorised person can overrule permission originally given by another authorised person ?". The answer given by lejog was "no there isn't".

Can't get any clearer than that.

 

[Starmill]

Personally I think this debate makes no sense. As a passenger I work on the basis that all 'authorised persons' (if you really want to use that term) are in agreement because their information comes from a consistent source. If that is not the case, something has gone seriously wrong somewhere and if I were inconvenienced as a result of that I would expect compensation. However, most people would have been entitled to compensation anyway as a result of this cancellation. Thus this all seems moot.

If there is an alternative question of policy then I would not recognise anyone who claimed that a guard has more 'authorising capability' than platform staff or ticket office staff - there is no source for this claim. However in practice they do often seem willing to allow things which station staff were not. I have never come across the reverse situation before.

 

[pemma]

I have no idea but, as the conductor's announcement made no mention of either Stockport or Carlisle, I still fail to see the relevance.

Well you're failing see the obvious. The TPE service calls at Carlisle, VTWC+Connections tickets are available to Carlisle both from Manchester and stations requiring a change at Manchester, so unless you checked everyone's tickets you can't be sure no-one had such a ticket or even that anyone on the train had a ticket specifically saying Manchester to Glasgow VWC+Connections. However, because the frequency of Virgin service is different for different stations north of Preston it affects Delay Repay.

From what's been posted above it sounds like the official information was Northern only tickets would be accepted as far as Oxenholme so that should be the information Northern use in calculating Delay Repay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it does rather sound like the guard was in fact correct, acceptance had been arranged for Northern portions of route only.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I suspect (and this is just a guess) that TPE said they would carry Northern passengers, but not Virgin passengers. Staff at Man Picc incorrectly advised everyone they could use the TPE service, when guard realised he announced the correct procedure, but avoiding conflict, didn't check any tickets, but relied on everyone to correct themselves. Making the best of a bad job. But staff are only human, and do get things wrong.

I was once on the 09:35 XC ex Penzance for Man Picc, but the following 10:00 GWR to Paddington was cancelled, so XC were taking passengers to Plymouth (as long as they were at the station 25 mins early!) However, the Train Manager came on around Cambourne, saying the GWR service would now start at Par, and all GWR passengers must change there, even if only going to stations before Plymouth (again, not any permitted fares or routes, although he didn't make this totally clear. I guess, as his four coach voyager was heaving, he wanted as many off his train as possible!) He did make very clear anyone on after Par would be required to buy a new full fare ticket if only valid on GWR. And he came down checking. He was also insistent that XC passengers had their seat reservations, and that GWR passengers would have to stand.

It does show though, that advice can change too. What is valid when you board can alter during the journey.

 

[ainsworth74]

However in practice they do often seem willing to allow things which station staff were not. I have never come across the reverse situation before

Agreed. I can think of numerous occasions when station staff have told me that I'll have wait for a train, buy a new ticket, etc and when I then speak to the guard they just go 'Don't worry about it just hop on mate!'

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. I can think of numerous occasions when station staff have told me that I'll have wait for a train, buy a new ticket, etc and when I then speak to the guard they just go 'Don't worry about it just hop on mate!'

There is a long tradition of a small set of TPE guards who are, like the one well-known XC guard, quite officious / do their job exactly correctly to the letter (which of these it is depends on your view). This I've always thought was part of the fairly arrogant "we're dead important and we're InterCity" culture old TPE tended to have.

 

[lejog]

Maybe you should give it a try in such circumstances with a ticket the guard reasonably considers invalid and then tell me the outcome when BTP were called?

It is not reasonable of the guard to consider the ticket invalid if sheff1 is correct in saying that passengers had been told to travel through to Glasgow on the TPE, the ticket is valid. Ignorance of the law is an excuse for no-one, but especially for those enforcing the law. As I have intimated in other posts, I have had a guard call the BTP when a guard unreasonably considered my ticket invalid, the BTP apologised and disappeared as soon as I presented evidence of validity. I sued the TOC concerned and have agreed a satisfactory out of court settlement.

As I said, all this is in theory. I doubt in real life the guard would attempt to overrule another authorised person once explained what happened, especially when supported by more than just one passenger.

Lets stick to the facts of the case as described by sheff1 instead of indulging in pointless hypothetical speculation. The guard announced that passengers for Glasgow should leave a train they had been given permission to travel on.

Just because the guard has the ultimate say, it does not mean he can act in unreasonable ways.

True, but from my own experience and from the experience of other posters, some guards do act in unreasonable ways.

But if you don't believe me that the guard has the ultimate say, then feel free to prove me wrong.

No I don't believe you. The law has the ultimate say. If a guard acts outside the law, then they are subject to the law the same as anyone else.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I have had a guard call the BTP when a guard unreasonably considered my ticket invalid, the BTP apologised and disappeared as soon as I presented evidence of validity. I sued the TOC concerned and have agreed a satisfactory out of court settlement.

This is a particularly interesting comment, can you elaborate further, obviously without specific identifying features, but as BTP don't get ticket training it flags up interesting questions.

 

[lejog]

This is a particularly interesting comment, can you elaborate further, obviously without specific identifying features, but as BTP don't get ticket training it flags up interesting questions.

As I've previously posted, I broke a journey on a ticket on which it was valid to do so and showed the guard and subsequently the BTP the appropriate validity code on my phone. The BTP acted perfectly sensibly and politely and most certainly did not take the guard's word (the guard was being anything but sensible or polite).

I'm surprised to learn that BTP receive no training in ticketing matters if they have to enforce such laws, ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a fundamental legal principal. But in this case, the bylaws clearly state that "No person shall be in breach ........", are you also claiming the BTP would not know the bylaws? That is what I found astonishing about the comment that the BTP would follow the guards instructions.

 

[Fare-Cop]

If BTP were called on you, then you could be arrested.

In theory, the guard has the ultimate say on who should be on his train. If this turned out to be unreasonable or incorrect, then that would be a matter for the customer to take up with the company. BTP would not be an arbitrator in ticket validity, so would simply follow the guard's instructions. Guard can overrule station staff, if needed.

That is, in theory. I strongly urge people not to try this approach in such circumstances.

That is absolutely correct. BTP cannot be the arbitrator in respect of ticket validity, that is the role of revenue protection staff (including conductor guards / train managers) who receive ticket training and in the case of many RPIs / RPOs, they also reveive training in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) codes of practice for reporting offences.

I too would like to know of any legal basis for bb21's assertion that the guard can overrule station staff and that s/he has the ultimate say who is on the train.

The byelaws certainly give authorised people the right to remove passengers IF the authorised person reasonably believes that the byelaws are being broken. Given the clear wording of the byelaws in this case. The law has the ultimate say not the guard.

Not correct, the Guard has responsibility for the safe working and train environment. It is the Guard who makes the decision based on his / her genuinely held belief at the time and as long as that belief can be justified, it is the Guard's decision. If it turns out the Guard was fundamentally wrong, that may well result in disciplinary action and may result in compensation being paid to a traveller. If it is proven that the Guard acted out of malice, it could of course result in the Guard's dismissal and if it is a very serious issue, further legal action.

As I said, all this is in theory. I doubt in real life the guard would attempt to overrule another authorised person once explained what happened, especially when supported by more than just one passenger.

Just because the guard has the ultimate say, it does not mean he can act in unreasonable ways. But if you don't believe me that the guard has the ultimate say, then feel free to prove me wrong.

Again, absolutely correct. It is always sensible to try to minimise delay and so such drastic action as described here is to be avoided at all costs, but sometimes it cannot. No member of staff (and equally no member of the public) should act in an unreasonable manner

If a Guard has an issue with a passenger and cannot resolve it and that traveller becomes abusive or threatening, the Guard may well call BTP to deal with the public order issue. If that Guard says 'This train is going nowhere until you remove this traveller', then that train goes nowhere until the passenger alights. It's the Guard's decision.

Just for fun, let's take this to a hypothetical conclusion. What do you think would happen if a police officer then decided to arrest the Guard in relation to a ticket dispute. Where is that train going then?

Hypothetically of course I can hear the conversation with his Sergeant or Super. now.
'Why did you arrest the Guard?'
'He was being unreasonable'
'About what?'
'The ticket validity'
'Are you trained in ticket validities?'
'No, but the passenger said it was valid and in my opinion he was right, but the Guard said he was wrong'
'The Guard receives ticket training, so what law or byelaw had the Guard broken?'
'Errrr.......'

ignorantia legis neminem excusat..........includes Police officers of course!

I'm surprised to learn that BTP receive no training in ticketing matters if they have to enforce such laws, ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a fundamental legal principal. But in this case, the bylaws clearly state that "No person shall be in breach ........", are you also claiming the BTP would not know the bylaws? That is what I found astonishing about the comment that the BTP would follow the guards instructions.

BTP are called to prevent or deal with public order issues. It is not in their remit to be the arbiter in ticket validity.

A guard who says 'This ticket is not valid because ............' and gives an explanation as to why, is not breaching any Byelaw.
.

 

[lejog]

I'm certainly not getting into lengthy arguments here or discussing silly hypothetical arguments, but I'll repeat the points you haven't answered:

I too would like to know of any legal basis for bb21's assertion that the guard can overrule station staff and that s/he has the ultimate say who is on the train.The byelaws certainly give authorised people the right to remove passengers IF the authorised person reasonably believes that the byelaws are being broken. Given the clear wording of the byelaws in this case, there is no possibility of the the byelaws being broken. The law has the ultimate say not the guard.

Not correct, the Guard has responsibility for the safe working and train environment. It is the Guard who makes the decision based on his / her genuinely held belief at the time and as long as that belief can be justified, it is the Guard's decision. If it turns out the Guard was fundamentally wrong, that may well result in disciplinary action and may result in compensation being paid to a traveller. If it is proven that the Guard acted out of malice, it could of course result in the Guard's dismissal and if it is a very serious issue, further legal action.

Both you and bb21 have ignored sheff1's and my question. What is the legal basis for for stating that the guard can overrule the station staff and s/he has the ultimate say who is on the train? Like so may posters on this forum, you've come out with a lot of internal factors, but how are these of any relevance to passengers if these are not spelt out in the law or the NRCOC? I am unaware of any powers of a guard further to those described in the Enforcement section (23/24) of the bylaws. If there are further powers spelt out elsewhere to passengers please let us know, I am perfectly willing to accept I am wrong if you do. But until then I certainly see no reason why a passenger should suffer any further as a result of the industry's incompetence, if they have received permission to travel there is no breach of bylaws and any attempt by the guard to reverse this is a breach of contract.

I'm surprised to learn that BTP receive no training in ticketing matters if they have to enforce such laws, ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a fundamental legal principal. But in this case, the bylaws clearly state that "No person shall be in breach ........", are you also claiming the BTP would not know the bylaws? That is what I found astonishing about the comment that the BTP would follow the guards instructions.

BTP are called to prevent or deal with public order issues. It is not in their remit to be the arbiter in ticket validity. A guard who says 'This ticket is not valid because ............' and gives an explanation as to why, is not breaching any Byelaw.

It was bb21 who raised the possibility of the BTP being called, I merely answered some of his questions. But yet again you've failed to answer my question. Are BTP untrained in the Byelaws? How can BTP take enforcement action under the byelaws if they are not aware of their provisions? I don't understand your point about the guard, surely the BTP are being called to deal with the passenger, who is also not breaching any bylaw and is seeing the railway break the contract between them?

 

[najaB]

.But yet again you've failed to answer my question. Are BTP untrained in the Byelaws? How can BTP take enforcement action under the byelaws if they are not aware of their provisions?

In the same way that Home Office police don't have to know the detail of every offence they might be called to deal with. Their role in this type of incident is keeping the peace, not investigation or prosecution.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Are BTP untrained in the Byelaws? How can BTP take enforcement action under the byelaws if they are not aware of their provisions? I don't understand your point about the guard, surely the BTP are being called to deal with the passenger, who is also not breaching any bylaw and is seeing the railway break the contract between them?

I now see that you do not understand that more than 95% of all prosecutions relating to ticketing matters on railways, including breach of Byelaw and deliberate avoidance of fares (S.5. RRA [1889]), are private prosecutions taken out by the TOCs in-house prosecutors or their authorised agents.

BTP are called to deal with, or to avoid public order issues arising and do not (except on rare occasions) take on prosecution of a ticketing matter.

Where they do it is usually as a result of a serious fraud that they have been asked to take over by the TOC because it needs to go to CPS as an 'either or matter', or was identified to the Police either by the rail staff who detected it, or by way of an expert witness statement supplied by the TOC revenue dept.

 

[lejog]

I now see that you do not understand that more than 95% of all prosecutions relating to ticketing matters on railways, including breach of Byelaw and deliberate avoidance of fares (S.5. RRA [1889]), are private prosecutions taken out by the TOCs in-house prosecutors or their authorised agents.

BTP are called to deal with, or to avoid public order issues arising and do not (except on rare occasions) take on prosecution of a ticketing matter.

Where they do it is usually as a result of a serious fraud that they have been asked to take over by the TOC because it needs to go to CPS as an 'either or matter', or was identified to the Police either by the rail staff who detected it, or by way of an expert witness statement supplied by the TOC revenue dept.

And I see that you continue to talk in generalities, rather than addressing the specific points raised in this thread, editing out or failing to answer the specific questions asked, especially wrt a guards legal powers over passengers.

Before I upset all TOC employees, I do know 99% are lovely and sensible, but unfortunately as a passenger I have had a few bad experiences this year, the latest with Northern's untrained monkeys which are the subject of many complaints in another thread. Personally I'm fed up with TOCs/TOC employees/agents acting outside the law and/or being in breach of contract and I'm no longer prepared to sit supinely by as suggested in this thread, however unequal legal action may prove. If BTP are stupid enough to aid or abet illegal TOC actions, fine that's just more grist to the mill.