Can you be banned from Traveling?

[Jan Mayen]

In another post (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/swore-at-a-ticket-conductor-on-the-train-northern-rail.248860/), one of the posters comments about being banned from travelling.

Does this actually happen? I'm aware of Penalty Fares & Prosecutions leading to fines etc, but never heard of a ban.

 

[skyhigh]

In another post (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/swore-at-a-ticket-conductor-on-the-train-northern-rail.248860/), one of the posters comments about being banned from travelling.

Does this actually happen? I'm aware of Penalty Fares & Prosecutions leading to fines etc, but never heard of a ban.

Yes it does, though generally only for prolonged and extreme issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, any business can ban anyone for any reason they like (or none), except a protected characteristic. Very rare, though. If the ban isn't complied with an injunction (or whatever an ASBO is called now, if the reason is antisocial behaviour) can be obtained to enforce it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Virgin Trains banned a few passengers in my time, yes.

 

[rg177]

We used to have a WIP (Withdrawal of Implied Permission) with occasional email circulations amongst staff of who this applied to, and where this applied.

If they were under 16 and needed to get to school, there was usually a specific exclusion that they could use a service for that purpose only.

This was a last resort where the individual has consistently displayed unacceptable behaviour (and probably a nice wedge of MG11s to boot).

The issue was that they were damned difficult to put in place.

 

[6Gman]

Wasn't there an "enthusiast" a few years back who was banned for travelling with fake documents and/or fake uniform or similar?

 

[Krokodil]

Persistent behaviour might result in a Criminal Behaviour Order banning someone from railway property. I've also seen bail conditions imposed following an incident to the same effect.

The linked incident would be considered too trivial to get that sort of outcome.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, any business can ban anyone for any reason they like (or none), except a protected characteristic. Very rare, though. If the ban isn't complied with an injunction (or whatever an ASBO is called now, if the reason is antisocial behaviour) can be obtained to enforce it.

I would hope that a franchised operator would have this ability constrained.

If they are required to run a certain service level, surely this ought to come with an obligation not to deprive anybody from using it without due cause?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If they are required to run a certain service level, surely this ought to come with an obligation not to deprive anybody from using it without due cause?

The issue was that they were damned difficult to put in place.

If it's damned difficult to bar someone from the railway, I can't see a TOC doing it without due cause.

 

[AdamWW]

If it's damned difficult to bar someone from the railway, I can't see a TOC doing it without due cause.

I can't imagine why they'd want to in any case, but out of curiousity it would be interesting to know if the contracts restrain the legal ability they would otherwise have to pick and choose who they carry.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I can't imagine why they'd want to in any case,

Perhaps you need to work on the capacity of your imagination:

This was a last resort where the individual has consistently displayed unacceptable behaviour (and probably a nice wedge of MG11s to boot).

 

[Haywain]

I can't imagine why they'd want to in any case,

I've seen cases where individuals have been temporarily barred from a station and trains due to extreme intoxication.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can't imagine why they'd want to in any case

Repeated targeted harassment of staff
Leaning out and trying to touch passing trains on a daily basis
Racist abuse of an Asian member of staff and doubling down on the P-word in a complaint letter
Criminally convicted of fraud, by stealing a SPORTIS machine and printing off ALRs
Repeatedly defaecating on trains (in the passenger saloon) by way of protest against the company's founder

That's five off the top of my head at Virgin West Coast. Might have been a few others.

 

[bramling]

In another post (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/swore-at-a-ticket-conductor-on-the-train-northern-rail.248860/), one of the posters comments about being banned from travelling.

Does this actually happen? I'm aware of Penalty Fares & Prosecutions leading to fines etc, but never heard of a ban.

Not really, as notwithstanding the legalities, from a practical point of view it’s virtually impossible.

Staff can kick someone out, but there’s little that can be done to stop them returning, especially at larger places where the same staff aren’t constantly or regularly on duty.

 

[AdamWW]

Repeated targeted harassment of staff
Leaning out and trying to touch passing trains on a daily basis
Racist abuse of an Asian member of staff and doubling down on the P-word in a complaint letter
Criminally convicted of fraud, by stealing a SPORTIS machine and printing off ALRs
Repeatedly defaecating on trains (in the passenger saloon) by way of protest against the company's founder

That's five off the top of my head at Virgin West Coast. Might have been a few others.

OK we're really at cross purposes here.

I was replying to "I can't see a TOC doing it without due cause." (my bold) and going back to @Bletchleyite's comment about business being free to pick and choose their customers so long as it doesn't violate discrimination laws.

I would have thought that while your local cafe has the legal right to decide not to serve anyone with red hair etc., a TOC operating a franchised service, where they are either being paid to run it or paying for the privilege to do so, should not have the ability to choose who they carry unless there is a very good reason.

 

[rg177]

The only people I remember who we'd previously had a WIP issued against was one who was frequently extremely drunk on the network. He was a prolific fare evader and unpleasant/threatening when drinking.

The others were a couple who would just constantly bash through the gatelines and threaten staff. They'd usually frequent the same stations where they were known by name, so it was easy to build up a picture of what was happening.

 

[Recessio]

I know of a YouTuber that (claims to be) banned from at least all of the NR-managed stations due to being arrested for "parkour" (including a Criminal Behaviour Order from the Courts, banning them from lord of other places and scenarios too). Not sure if this counts a full travel ban, but it would certainly make life a lot harder if you couldn't use the main termini.

You also see posters for the "withdrawal of implied permission" at a few stations, Brighton has them I think.

 

[gray1404]

The reality is I think if you are banned from the railway then you could still get away with it, travelling, provided you kept a low profile. The point I am making is it would be so difficult to enforce it given the open access nature of the network.

 

[Adam Williams]

by stealing a SPORTIS machine and printing off ALRs

... Did they think nobody would notice?

 

[43066]

I would have thought that while your local cafe has the legal right to decide not to serve anyone with red hair etc., a TOC operating a franchised service, where they are either being paid to run it or paying for the privilege to do so, should not have the ability to choose who they carry unless there is a very good reason.

A TOC is just the same as any other large business in this respect. Why would it not be?!

 

[AdamWW]

A TOC is just the same as any other large business in this respect. Why would it not be?!

A TOC is not just like any business (large or small) because (barring open access) they are operating under a franchise agreement.

They are required to provide a particular service level. In many cases they are paid to do so.

How does it then make sense for them to be able to arbitrarily refuse access to their services?

 

[Krokodil]

No business planning to stay in business "arbitrarily" refuses customers. Why would you? They're your income. Banning someone is a last resort when they've been costing your business money.

 

[pdeaves]

How does it then make sense for them to be able to arbitrarily refuse access to their services?

There is a world of difference between can bar someone and it being worth anyone's effort (or commercially sensible) to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How does it then make sense for them to be able to arbitrarily refuse access to their services?

Because they have to protect their staff?

As @Krokodil says, they don't have any incentive to randomly ban people because they need income.

 

[AdamWW]

Because they have to protect their staff?

That wouldn't be arbitrarily then, surely? It would be for very good reason.

 

[43066]

A TOC is not just like any business (large or small) because (barring open access) they are operating under a franchise agreement.

They are required to provide a particular service level. In many cases they are paid to do so.

How does it then make sense for them to be able to arbitrarily refuse access to their services?

As @Krokodil notes, like all businesses, TOCs are subject to an extensive legal framework prohibiting unlawful discrimination. So long as they are complaint with this, any business can theoretically exclude whomever they want. But why would they!? It doesn’t make sense to prevent them from doing something they would never do in practice.

Why do you imagine that TOCs are more likely to arbitrarily exclude people than other businesses? Have you got any examples of where this has happened!? On the other hand, specifically because they provide a service to the public, there are good reasons for TOCs to be able to exclude individuals who behave in a threatening/dangerous manner.

Again, you seem to have a strange paranoia about the railway being out to get you!

 

[ComUtoR]

Because they have to protect their staff?

And other passengers

 

[AdamWW]

As @Krokodil notes, like all businesses, TOCs are subject to an extensive legal framework prohibiting unlawful discrimination. So long as they are complaint with this, any business can theoretically exclude whomever they want. But why would they!? It doesn’t make sense to prevent them from doing something they would never do in practice.

I don't know what your experience is with commerical contracts but in my experience lawyers don't leave things out just because they think the problem is unlikely to arise. Contracts would be a lot shorter if they did.

Why do you imagine that TOCs are more likely to arbitrarily exclude people than other businesses?

That's not what I said.

On the other hand, specifically because they provide a service to the public, there are good reasons for TOCs to be able to exclude individuals who behave in a threatening/dangerous manner.

Yes absolutely.

Again, you seem to have a strange paranoia about the railway being out to get you!

No, just a tendancy to respond to statements which I do not believe to be true.

 

[43066]

I don't know what your experience is with commerical contracts but in my experience lawyers don't leave things out just because they think the problem is unlikely to arise. Contracts would be a lot shorter if they did.

More than you might realise, and they’re generally agreed to a roughly market standard position. In the context of national rail contracts this can be roughly summarised as reasonable endeavours to deliver the timetable required in accordance with all applicable legislation, financial and legal reporting and compliance obligations etc.

There is generally not a lot of time and money spent drafting clauses prohibiting things which are highly unlikely to happen.

That's not what I said.

So what did you mean when you said:

How does it then make sense for them to be able to arbitrarily refuse access to their services?

.. if you aren’t, in fact, suggesting that TOCs are more likely to do this than other businesses?

 

[AdamWW]

.. if you aren’t, in fact, suggesting that TOCs are more likely to do this than other businesses?

I was saying that while in general businesses have a perfect right to to refuse customers should they wish so long as it's legal, a franchised TOC is in a different position for the reasons I've already given.

Also, a general right to refuse passengers would leave someone with no scope for appeal if they felt they had been unfairly banned from travel.

(And - for the avoidance of doubt - I am not suggesting that this actually has happened or is likely to happen).

There is generally not a lot of time and money spent drafting clauses prohibiting things which are highly unlikely to happen.

Interesting. This has not been my experience of contract writing in a non railway context (and it can be rather frustrating at times when I'd be very happy just to trust the other party).