• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Carlisle Security and Northern Rail: major concerns

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
Is there an easy way to report all these breaches to the relevant authorities?

I'm getting a bit fed up of how badly they treat their customers and I think it's time we did something. What they say on their website and what they do in reality are so far apart, it's shocking.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
It sounds like we may need to report Northern to the ORR and DfT if this is true. And if it is not true, the company needs to ensure that any staff representing them do not attempt to enforce this.

I would also encourage forum members to sign up for this https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/wearelistening/apply; I don't really believe their claims, but if enough of us provide feedback, it may be difficult for them to ignore us (or, at least they can't claim ignorance of how their customers are being mistreated)

@yorkie an extra semi-colon has crept into your link giving rise to a 404 error.
Corrected link:
https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/wearelistening/apply
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,970
I am aware the person at the head of the business is Dominic Warren-Browne. The same one who ran STM, G4S, and the rest - so regardless of contractor - the stupid, target & incentive driven way they are (badly) run will continue.

In short, the absolute basics of right and wrong are being jeopardised by cash incentives paid from Northern to the contractor.

Come on Jason, put a reply on.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I suppose the point to remember is this - the LPOs have been trained to deal with wilful fare evasion, and no doubt have to deal with a lot of it. That probably informs the way they deal with all cases. They also have to deal with a lot of customers who are totally oblivious to the NRCoT obligation to buy a ticket before boarding at a station with ticket-buying facilities, and then get very defensive when questioned on this. As far as they're concerned, they're doing what they have always done so they don't think they have done anything wrong. We have a lot of complaints in from people who think that we have changed our rules recently, or think that we are "criminialising" them. In their complaints, they tend to describe the LPOs as intimidating and rude, even if most of the time they're actually just telling them politely that they have broken the law (which is true, of course!). Additionally, they also think UFNs are fines, which they aren't. It's understandable that they would feel anxious about this - but we have done a big campaign over the last year to raise awareness that you have to buy before you board. Ignorance isn't an excuse is the eyes of the law

While your broad points are likely to be accurate (this isn't something I know much about, but they seem likely, especially your first three sentences), these only apply to cases where there actually is fare evasion. I understand that a Failure To Pay (FTP) notice is issued under these circumstances, and not an Unpaid Fares Notice (UFN)?

As such this isn't strictly relevant to the subject of this thread, which is cases where there hasn't been a Bylaw offence of joining a train without a valid ticket, because one of the exceptions applies.


I think the company appreciates it's not ideal

I understand that some people wouldn't want to explicitly disclose internal documents or conversations, suppose you mean this from an internal point of view? I don't have any access to any internal points of view, and externally, to the public, it would appear that the current abusive modus operandi is exactly what the company wants to do, and be allowed to do. It even tallies with marketing that states that you're expected to buy tickets before boarding, even where this has been put up at stations without ticket machines and only part-time ticket offices.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,504
Im not an expert at geography but are any of these northern services in a devolved transport area it night be worth contacting that authority to make a complaint usually they have more teeth than ptes
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
Am I the only person despairing of the fact that a very serious thread about bad practise in the rail industry has been hi-jacked by discussions about legal tender and clearimg cheques?
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
Am I the only person despairing of the fact that a very serious thread about bad practise in the rail industry has been hi-jacked by discussions about legal tender and clearimg cheques?

You can pretty much guarantee that any thread talking about paying for train travel at the destination will sooner or later be joined by someone who mentions "legal tender".

Some posters obviously think it is long enough since the last such discussion to warrant going over the ground again. I, though, am with you.
 

PermitToTravel

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2011
Messages
3,044
Location
Groningen
Am I the only person despairing of the fact that a very serious thread about bad practise in the rail industry has been hi-jacked by discussions about legal tender and clearimg cheques?
You're not alone.

The civil liberties issues here - making a train journey, having not been given a chance to pay, but still being arrested by rent-a-thugs upon arrival until you identify yourself to their satisfaction - are absolutely immense. The ICO definitely need to hear about this and will definitely take an interest.

If this happens to somebody who hands them cash and is still physically stopped from leaving, one of the companies involved will be paying some very large sums in compensation...
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The civil liberties issues here - making a train journey, having not been given a chance to pay, but still being arrested by rent-a-thugs upon arrival until you identify yourself to their satisfaction - are absolutely immense. The ICO definitely need to hear about this and will definitely take an interest.

As the ICO are based in Wilmslow and one of the incidents referred to above was on the Manchester-Wilmslow-Crewe line, how long before an ICO employee is asked to give their details after not being given the opportunity to buy a ticket?
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Carlisle security have no legal basis to demand ID/personal details, unless they have a warrant from the courts.
I also think they are in breach of the Data Protection Act.
However I think, they are within their rights to refuse you entry (but not stop you leaving) to the station without a valid ticket.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Just a thought - has anyone who has experienced this got a MP who isn't on the government front benches?
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
..............security have no legal basis to demand ID/personal details, unless they have a warrant from the courts
.

Whilst I'm not taking any issue with the many concerns raised by this thread, I do think it is dangerous to make inaccurate generalisations.

Revenue protection staff engaged by a TOC, whether in-house or trained outsourced staff, do have the right to require a traveller's details if evidence of an offence is detected and National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005) makes this perfectly clear. There is no need of a warrant as suggested above.

That said, it is quite right that if there has genuinely been no previous opportunity to pay a fare before a ticket check takes place, then there is absolutely no reason for any staff to demand a name and address, unless that traveller refuses to pay, or does not have means to pay the fare that is due at the time.
 

cuccir

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
3,659
Revenue protection staff engaged by a TOC, whether in-house or trained outsourced staff, do have the right to require a traveller's details if evidence of an offence is detected

Although they don't have a right to request ID do they?

Is there a way of determining when/where these staff operate? We're not really in a place to complain when hearing second/thrid hand stories on the internet; we'd need forum members in the local area to make suitable journeys at times when they're working....
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,537
Location
Redcar
Am I the only person despairing of the fact that a very serious thread about bad practise in the rail industry has been hi-jacked by discussions about legal tender and clearimg cheques?

I quite agree!

As such I've moved the discussion around legal tender to a new thread which can be found here. I appreciate that threads drift but in this section in particular we do ask that people remain as close as possible to the original topic to enable clear and accessible advice and/or discussion of the issue raised. No one is going to get in trouble for starting a new thread and quoting a post that they want to discuss further but would be off-topic in the original thread!

For the avoidance of doubt the stickied thread at the top of this section clarifies the position:

For the benefit of the OP we will not permit off topic discussion, any such posts are likely to be deleted. For instance a debate about whether current rail industry practice could be improved, or about the complex nature of the railway ticketing system is not helpful to the OP. The Disputes section of the RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide covers current practice; should you wish to discuss such practices or your ideas for changes to them, you must post this in a separate thread in the appropriate forum.

Please keep the above in mind in the future.

Many thanks!
ainsworth74
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,430
Location
Yorkshire
Carlisle Security are refusing to answer any questions relating to this. Are they obliged to? If there is anyone here with legal knowledge of their obligations, please do get in touch.

Also if there is a solicitor on here who can assist a customer who has been mistreated, please do contact me.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Carlisle Security are refusing to answer any questions relating to this. Are they obliged to? If there is anyone here with legal knowledge of their obligations, please do get in touch.

Also if there is a solicitor on here who can assist a customer who has been mistreated, please do contact me.

As passengers are not customers of Carlisle Security I would have thought any complaints about them from passengers have to be dealt with by Northern.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,537
Location
Redcar
As passengers are not customers of Carlisle Security I would have thought any complaints about them from passengers have to be dealt with by Northern.
Hmm yes but if it's a complaint about the way their staff are handling data protection issues I suspect that it would be Carlisle's problem? They are the ones processing your data after all.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Whilst I'm not taking any issue with the many concerns raised by this thread, I do think it is dangerous to make inaccurate generalisations.

Revenue protection staff engaged by a TOC, whether in-house or trained outsourced staff, do have the right to require a traveller's details if evidence of an offence is detected and National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005) makes this perfectly clear. There is no need of a warrant as suggested above.

That said, it is quite right that if there has genuinely been no previous opportunity to pay a fare before a ticket check takes place, then there is absolutely no reason for any staff to demand a name and address, unless that traveller refuses to pay, or does not have means to pay the fare that is due at the time.

I disagree, byelaw 23 only states that only name and address have to be given.
Therefore byelaw 23 gives no legal precedent to demand ID, which contains other information like DOB. Which would be illegal under the DPA, as the passenger has given consent for this information to be used.
An outsourced security guard is not an authorised person IMO.
And if the station is unstaffed then no breach of the Bylaws has been committed, therefore I don't think that the passenger is obligated to give there details.
Byelaw 23.2 states that the "authorised person" must say exactly what byelaw has been breached.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Hmm yes but if it's a complaint about the way their staff are handling data protection issues I suspect that it would be Carlisle's problem? They are the ones processing your data after all.
Yes. I think they need to make clear if they're data controllers. If they are there's likely to be more they should be making clear.
 

kevconnor

Member
Joined
22 Apr 2013
Messages
613
Location
People's Republic of Mancunia
Revenue protection staff engaged by a TOC, whether in-house or trained outsourced staff, do have the right to require a traveller's details if evidence of an offence is detected and National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005) makes this perfectly clear. There is no need of a warrant as suggested above.

Regulation 23(1) does say this but it should be read in conjunction with regulation 23(2)

The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

My interpretation of this is whilst they do not necessarily need to be able to say you have breached clause 18(1) regarding ticketless travel they should none the less be able to say travelling without a ticket without it falling into one of the subset exceptions.

An outsourced security guard is not an authorised person IMO.

I beg to disagree an 'authorised user' can include "an employee or agent of an Operator." They would come under the description of an agent of Northern.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
I disagree, byelaw 23 only states that only name and address have to be given.
Therefore byelaw 23 gives no legal precedent to demand ID, which contains other information like DOB. Which would be illegal under the DPA, as the passenger has given consent for this information to be used.
An outsourced security guard is not an authorised person IMO.
And if the station is unstaffed then no breach of the Bylaws has been committed, therefore I don't think that the passenger is obligated to give there details.
Byelaw 23.2 states that the "authorised person" must say exactly what byelaw has been breached.

If you read my post EXACTLY as written, you will see that I never stated that a passenger is required to show ID.

What I said was the passenger is obliged to 'give their details', i.e; their name and address. It is a strict liability offence contrary to Byelaw 23(1) not to do so in the circumstances I described, which also said, "if evidence of an offence is detected".

If there is GENUINELY no facility to pay before that ticket check is made, then no ticketing offence can have been committed.

It is also worth remembering that if a false name and address are given, then a much more serious offence may be evident


Regulation 23(1) does say this but it should be read in conjunction with regulation 23(2)

My interpretation of this is whilst they do not necessarily need to be able to say you have breached clause 18(1) regarding ticketless travel they should none the less be able to say travelling without a ticket without it falling into one of the subset exceptions.

an 'authorised user' can include "an employee or agent of an Operator." They would come under the description of an agent of Northern.

Yes, I agree entirely with all of this too
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
Do Carlisle staff need to be licenced to do this work, and to display themn?
 

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,486
I'm currently travelling ticketless to Manchester as:

1)The ticket office opened as the train was practically pulling into the platform. It was advertised to be open but the ticket seller had gone off for his breakfast-I saw him walk across the car park with a plastic tray.

2)I need a Northern Family and Friends ticket that the TVM obviously doesn't sell.

3)The TVM doesn't take cash, so I couldn't have bought a ticket from it with a £10 note anyway.

4)Family and Friends tickets can't be issued onboard according to the T&Cs.

Somehow I suspect I'll still be poorly treated at Piccadilly... cynic? Me...?:D
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Hmm yes but if it's a complaint about the way their staff are handling data protection issues I suspect that it would be Carlisle's problem? They are the ones processing your data after all.

But in this case surely Northern are the Data Controllers, AFAIK in general data subject dealings are directly with the controller not the processor. It is up to the controller to manage the processor via a suitable contract.
 

Fare-Cop

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2010
Messages
950
Location
England
I suspect it's SIA licensable and I think they are on display.

No, any agency staff performing revenue protection duties MAY be PACE trained (not in all cases), but they do not need to be SIA Licenced.

Some TOCs do prefer SIA licenced staff and some employed by companies where it is not a requirement may still have personal licences, but it isn't a mandatory requirement

The staff concerned do however have to display identity confirming their authority by the TOC to perform that duty, including their name or a means by which they can be identified. Usually a badge of some sort.
 
Last edited:

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
But in this case surely Northern are the Data Controllers, AFAIK in general data subject dealings are directly with the controller not the processor. It is up to the controller to manage the processor via a suitable contract.
In this situation, i would expect that Northern are the Data Controller and thus have primary accountability for how the data is gathered and processed.

What may be interesting is the effect of the General Data Protection Regulations, which come into force in May next year. These up the ante for Data Controllers and Data Processors. In particular, the victim of a failure to abide by the law will be able to pursue either the Controller or the Processor (nb, this is not tied to who an individual customer has contracted with), while the regulatory fines are changed to have a cap of £20m or 4% of global group turnover, whichever is higher. I have worked recently with a company where this exposure is £400m, I think Arriva’s risk might be nearer £250m. Interestingly, failure to train staff (whether or not that’s because said staff are hired in casual goons dragged off the street) is likely to increase rather than decrease liability to the company.

I’d suggest that this is a rather good incentive to Northern to get their act together and make Carlisle get theirs together.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
In this situation, i would expect that Northern are the Data Controller and thus have primary accountability for how the data is gathered and processed.

What may be interesting is the effect of the General Data Protection Regulations, which come into force in May next year. These up the ante for Data Controllers and Data Processors. In particular, the victim of a failure to abide by the law will be able to pursue either the Controller or the Processor (nb, this is not tied to who an individual customer has contracted with), while the regulatory fines are changed to have a cap of £20m or 4% of global group turnover, whichever is higher. I have worked recently with a company where this exposure is £400m, I think Arriva’s risk might be nearer £250m. Interestingly, failure to train staff (whether or not that’s because said staff are hired in casual goons dragged off the street) is likely to increase rather than decrease liability to the company.

I’d suggest that this is a rather good incentive to Northern to get their act together and make Carlisle get theirs together.

Indeed, I would agree that Northern would be data controllers in this situation, so any DPA complaints would have to go to them. They would then have 40 days to send you any information you ask for or, if they don't, you progress the matter to the ICO.

When the GDPR comes in, though, a whole new class of organisations called "data processors" is created, with much stricter regulation than presently and, as has been said, eye-wateringly large penalties for breaches. Carlisle should, therefore, be caught in the act (sorry!) as well as Northern.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top