Bylaw 13 Warning Letter

[TurbostarFan]

I have been given a warning letter from [REDACTED] based at Norwich railway station by BTP officers whilst they were on routine foot patrol at that station.

This is the text of the letter:

5th April 2019

(Full name and address removed)

Dear Mr Potter

I am writing to you in regards to your recent behaviour at Norwich Rail (sic) Station where you have been seen loitering resulting in a large amount of intelligence being gathered.. (sic) This letter is to advise you that it is against the railway byelaws (sic) to loiter or remain at a railway station when asked to leave by an authorised person. This is contrary to byelaw (sic) 13(2) and 24 of the Railway Byelaws (sic) made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Railway Authority and confirmed under schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000, as amended by Section 46 of the Railways Act 2005
The definition of an authorised person includes any constable acting in the execution of their duties upon or in connection with the railway.
This letter is to advise you that the only reason for you to be at a station is to purchase a ticket or to travel on the next available service. If for any reason you are not doing either or you do not board the next available service then you will be liable to prosecution. This letter serves as direction for you to not remain on the railway unless it is for the above reasons.
Furthermore you are aware you are not permitted to film whilst on the railway without written permission. This also includes filming parts of the rail network and people using it as it will constitute further offences under the railway byelaws. (sic)
Should you continue to breach the byelaws (sic) then as well as prosecution we will seek to apply banning conditions against you on the rail network.

Yours Sincerely

[REDACTED]
Norwich BTP

British Transport Police

British Transport Police
Norwich Train Station
Station Approach
Norwich NR1 1EG

(DX details removed)

Tel: 0800 40 50 40

A copy of Railway Bylaw 13 and part of Bylaw 25 (1) which highlights the definition of an "authorised person" is then provided.

This letter now raises the question of validity given that the spirit of Railway Bylaw 13 (2) appears to be to allow an authorised person to remove someone loitering on the railway for a short amount of time (not to exceed 24 hours) by requiring that they leave the premises. Does this warning letter actually have any lawful validity or is it just a load of tripe?

 

[d9009alycidon]

Care to elaborate on what your "behavior" was, obviously they have approached you and taken your details, why?

 

[najaB]

Does this warning letter actually have any lawful validity or is it just a load of tripe?

Yes, it has validity. The Byelaw doesn't say that that authorised person has to give a reason to ask you to leave, nor that the reason has to be valid.

 

[Njal]

If it was for photography as seems to be implied - this says "We welcome rail enthusiasts and passengers who would like to take photos or film at our stations."

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...lway-enthusiasts-and-photography-at-stations/

 

[najaB]

If it was for photography as seems to be implied - this says "We welcome rail enthusiasts and passengers who would like to take photos or film at our stations."

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...lway-enthusiasts-and-photography-at-stations/

It also gives guidance on steps to take so that you aren't mistaken for a 'random' loiterer - e.g. letting the station manager know that you're there and why. Also, that specific guidance seems to primarily be aimed at Network Rail managed stations.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Even ignoring the Byelaws for a moment, whilst the railways may be public places for certain purposes (such as public order offences), they are still private property. As such, if you have no lawful business on the property then you may be trespassing.

If you trespass on private property in general this is not, as such, a crime. However, the landowner or his agent (e.g. the BTP) could apply for an injunction banning you from the land. Breach of such an injunction would then be contempt of Court and would render you liable to committal (to prison) and/or a fine.

And quite apart from all those remedies, a landowner or his agent may use reasonable force to eject a trespasser from their land if they refuse to leave voluntarily. I think the letter makes quite clear that you are not welcome at the station, and accordingly I would strongly suggest you heed it and only use the station for the purposes given in the letter.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Care to elaborate on what your "behavior" was, obviously they have approached you and taken your details, why?

It is alleged that this consisted of me being at Norwich station for the sake of it and following a female Police officer around.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Yes, it has validity. The Byelaw doesn't say that that authorised person has to give a reason to ask you to leave, nor that the reason has to be valid.

This is not the reason that I question the letter's validity. I question the letter's validity because it was served on me by a constable of the British Transport Police acting on his own initiative, not on the request of Greater Anglia (who are the TOC that manage Norwich station). This therefore means that the common law tort of trespass does not apply as the British Transport Police are not (in this instance) acting as a representative of the landowner.

It was issued on the grounds that Bylaw 13 gives an authorised person the power to ask a person (let's say myself) who is "loitering on the railway" to leave the premises. It does not expressly state how long I am obliged to stay away from the premises for. If Bylaw 13 also stated "and not return to the premises if requested by that authorised person for a period specified by them" then this would be a different kettle of fish and the letter would be quite plainly valid as it was served by an authorised person.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don’t recall this subject coming up before during all my years in the forum. Conclusion is surely that you have to do something fairly unusual to get warned off by a formal BTP letter...

 

[The_Train]

I don’t recall this subject coming up before during all my years in the forum. Conclusion is surely that you have to do something fairly unusual to get warned off by a BTP letter...

This is what I've been thinking. Was hoping the OP may enlighten us as to what sort of behaviour resulted in such an occurrence. Surely BTP involvement would be last resort and station staff would have been involved first?

Is Norwich generally a spotter friendly station?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don’t recall this subject coming up before during all my years in the forum. Conclusion is surely that you have to do something fairly unusual to get warned off by a formal BTP letter...

The OP has a very long history of issues with the police, which are a matter of the public record.

 

[najaB]

It does not expressly state how long I am obliged to stay away from the premises for. If Bylaw 13 also stated "and not return to the premises if requested by that authorised person for a period specified by them" then this would be a different kettle of fish and the letter would be quite plainly valid as it was served by an authorised person.

The letter serves as the request to stay away from the station other than to pay for a ticket and/or to travel.

This letter is to advise you that the only reason for you to be at a station is to purchase a ticket or to travel on the next available service. If for any reason you are not doing either or you do not board the next available service then you will be liable to prosecution. This letter serves as direction for you to not remain on the railway unless it is for the above reasons.

So it's an ongoing instruction.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is probably not an occasion to try and stand on your rights.

For a start, so far no-one has been able to say categorically that the BTP constable is in the wrong. So we cannot say that the letter does not have legal power.

But even if it is no more than a letter from a police officer who works at and around Norwich station, it is undoubtedly a clear warning that the officer will not hesitate to use their powers if, in future, you do whatever it is that they don't want you to do. As far as I can tell, the bylaws don't give you a right to be warned, but the police officer has given you a warning, so you shouldn't be surprised if on any repeated behaviour BTP or the railway take immediate action against you

So the practical upshot is that you can only use Norwich station as a passenger: you can't stay around the station for any longer than necessary. Unfortunately 'longer than necessary' is a vague term, and so is 'loitering' which is a term used in the bylaw. Try to think what an ordinary passenger would do: they might arrive 15 minutes before the train they expected was due, but they wouldn't arrive two hours before it was due.

Try and think as well about what you may have done while you were at the station that has upset the police so much. If it's not already clear to you why the police are cross, is there a friend who you can ask for an opinion? It may be that it's not so much what you have been doing as how you have been doing it. If that's the case, then it may be that keeping clear of the station for some time (maybe six months) will be good enough to stop the police worrying, as long as you avoid behaving in the way they find upsetting after that.

Just in case it's not clear, there's no guarantee that following my suggestions, or the timings that I have suggested, will work. As with so many things in life, this is not about black and white rules, but about people making constant calculations in the shades of grey in between what's definitely allowed, and what's definitely banned.

 

[swt_passenger]

The OP has a very long history of issues with the police, which are a matter of the public record.

Ah, thanks for the reminder, I think this has been pointed out in earlier threads? So not much of a surprise then.

 

[Darandio]

If it was for photography as seems to be implied - this says "We welcome rail enthusiasts and passengers who would like to take photos or film at our stations."

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...lway-enthusiasts-and-photography-at-stations/

The OP has a lengthy history as outlined above, you can bet this wasn't just for photography.

 

[Llanigraham]

This is not the reason that I question the letter's validity. I question the letter's validity because it was served on me by a constable of the British Transport Police acting on his own initiative, not on the request of Greater Anglia (who are the TOC that manage Norwich station). This therefore means that the common law tort of trespass does not apply as the British Transport Police are not (in this instance) acting as a representative of the landowner.

I very much doubt that ONE Constable alone will have issued this letter. It will have discussed with his superiors and probably others.
Since, in your own words, the station is only managed by Greater Anglia, and therefore owned by Network Rail for whom BTP legally act I suspect that your thoughts are incorrect.
Plus I'm not sure that Railway Trespass is common law. (Which if you want to be pedantic, doesn't actually exist!)

It was issued on the grounds that Bylaw 13 gives an authorised person the power to ask a person (let's say myself) who is "loitering on the railway" to leave the premises. It does not expressly state how long I am obliged to stay away from the premises for. If Bylaw 13 also stated "and not return to the premises if requested by that authorised person for a period specified by them" then this would be a different kettle of fish and the letter would be quite plainly valid as it was served by an authorised person.

As far as I read it, the Bylaw does not need to state a period. It is permanent until the "controlling body", BTP, NR or GA, decide to rescind it.

 

[LowLevel]

The history of this individual is readily available online in both the local and national press. Hence his postings on this forum should be taken particularly seriously and not encouraged.