Complaints about Revenue Protection behaviour

[ChewChewTrain]

I am well aware that those requesting our help here may feel they have every incentive to exaggerate, if not entirely invent, the RPI rudeness or worse that we often see reported. They may feel that gaining our sympathy will elicit better advice from us, or that their case will somehow be “cancelled out” and dropped if they complain to the railway about the RPI (something that they sometimes explicitly ask us about).

However, some types of behaviour seem to be reported often enough that I believe there may be a problem. For example, snatching a passenger’s phone, whatever the reason, is well beyond the pale, is it not? I can’t imagine that a passenger doing the same thing to a RPI would get off scot free for that, yet they are just as entitled (or rather non-entitled) to do that as the RPI is.

Is there a wave of power-tripping that needs to be reined in, and is there any practical way of doing that?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

However, some types of behaviour seem to be reported often enough that I believe there may be a problem. For example, snatching a passenger’s phone, whatever the reason, is well beyond the pale, is it not?

Absolutely. You wouldn't accept an RPI snatching your bag and rifling through it. A phone is no different.

 

[Bungle158]

Counter those reasonable concerns with the entitled attitude of some fare evaders. For many, it's the first time in years anyone has challenged their behaviour.

 

[John R]

Absolutely. You wouldn't accept an RPI snatching your bag and rifling through it. A phone is no different.

Under the NCoT a phone or tablet is defined as a Ticket where used as such, and there is also a requirement to hand a Ticket over if asked. So setting aside the "snatching" point, there is an obligation to hand over your device if asked to.

18.1 You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company, hand over for inspection your Ticket and any Railcard, photocard or other form of personal identification which your Ticket requires.

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to): a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card); a payment card or identity card; a mobile telephone or tablet device; other mobile electronic device; or

 

[CharlieSpotted]

It seems as though the requirement to "hand over" a mobile phone because a ticket is stored on it might be accidental - surely it can't be intentional? "Show" your ticket on your mobile phone, yes. "Hand over" your phone, surely not?

 

[The_Van]

Do they all have body cameras with audio?

That presumably would prove or disprove 99% of allegations

 

[The exile]

It seems as though the requirement to "hand over" a mobile phone because a ticket is stored on it might be accidental - surely it can't be intentional? "Show" your ticket on your mobile phone, yes. "Hand over" your phone, surely not?

If the requirement exists to hand over your ticket and that ticket is on your phone then yes. You chose a ticket on your phone - you take the consequences. If you don’t like that, buy a paper ticket.

 

[Wolfie]

Under the NCoT a phone or tablet is defined as a Ticket where used as such, and there is also a requirement to hand a Ticket over if asked. So setting aside the "snatching" point, there is an obligation to hand over your device if asked to.

18.1 You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company, hand over for inspection your Ticket and any Railcard, photocard or other form of personal identification which your Ticket requires.

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to): a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card); a payment card or identity card; a mobile telephone or tablet device; other mobile electronic device; or

That does not constitute permission for any rail staff member to do more than check a ticket on a phone. It certainly doesn't give staff carte blanche to freely access anything else on the phone on a fishing trip.

The College of Policing recently published new guidelines for police officers after concerns from the Information Commissioner. This is based on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act which introduced a clear legal basis for authorised persons to obtain and extract information from electronic devices with the agreement of the device's owner. NOTE those last seven words!

Indeed systematic attempts at exploiting mobile phones, particularly without owner approval, might even engage the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act - a world of hurt complete with it's very own regulator that the railway should wish to go nowhere near.

 

[John R]

There is no evidence that they would do anything other than examine the ticket and/or railcard in close detail. It’s clearly much easier to do that if you are holding said device, rather than having it waved at you by a passenger who may or may not be cooperative for obvious reasons by that point. The fact remains, there is an obligation for a passenger to hand it over if asked to.

It seems as though the requirement to "hand over" a mobile phone because a ticket is stored on it might be accidental - surely it can't be intentional? "Show" your ticket on your mobile phone, yes. "Hand over" your phone, surely not?

I would suggest it is most definitely an intentional requirement. There is a specific point mentioned that whilst you can withdraw a paper ticket, you can’t do it for an electronic ticket, so they have obviously considered the wording carefully.

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem is too many people aren't forceful enough. Yes, they can look at your ticket, no, they can't make you log in to your bank and "prove your address" or anything else. It'd be a big Bugger Off from me if anyone asked me that or implied that I was bound to do it to satisfy them.

 

[Wolfie]

The problem is too many people aren't forceful enough. Yes, they can look at your ticket, no, they can't make you log in to your bank and "prove your address" or anything else. It'd be a big Bugger Off from me if anyone asked me that or implied that I was bound to do it to satisfy them.

As someone who has worked in national security roles for over 30 years l would personally take great delight in bringing a massive world of hurt into the life of any RPI who tried that with me. That individual and their employer would be up to their necks in regulators.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would suggest it is most definitely an intentional requirement. There is a specific point mentioned that whilst you can withdraw a paper ticket, you can’t do it for an electronic ticket, so they have obviously considered the wording carefully.

They absolutely cannot confiscate your phone. That would be theft.

The mechanism to withdraw an e-ticket is to scan it and select the option to do so.

 

[superkopite]

There is no evidence that they would do anything other than examine the ticket and/or railcard in close detail.

There are several reports on these forums of RPIs taking phones and then flicking through Trainline (or other app's) purchase history and taking photos/notes. I am not sure that the wording of the NCoT allows for this.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Under the NCoT a phone or tablet is defined as a Ticket where used as such, and there is also a requirement to hand a Ticket over if asked. So setting aside the "snatching" point, there is an obligation to hand over your device if asked to.

18.1 You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company, hand over for inspection your Ticket and any Railcard, photocard or other form of personal identification which your Ticket requires.

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to): a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card); a payment card or identity card; a mobile telephone or tablet device; other mobile electronic device; or

That's contradictory. A phone is not an "electronic document or record". A phone is an electronic device that contains the electronic document or record. The phone itself is no more a "ticket" than a wallet or bag is.

I would be very interested to hear how that held up in court.

 

[kacper]

Do they all have body cameras with audio?

That presumably would prove or disprove 99% of allegations

From what I've seen, SWRs don't when at stations

There are several reports on these forums of RPIs taking phones and then flicking through Trainline (or other app's) purchase history and taking photos/notes. I am not sure that the wording of the NCoT allows for this.

Isn't the proper mechanism for that to ask the retailer for a purchase history?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

There are several reports on these forums of RPIs taking phones and then flicking through Trainline (or other app's) purchase history and taking photos/notes. I am not sure that the wording of the NCoT allows for this.

The wording of the NCoT doesn't allow for it, the College of Policing warn against it, I'd be surprised if their Employer wanted them to do it, and it would very probably constitute a breach of the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act. It would be interesting to see it tested in court.

 

[John R]

There are several reports on these forums of RPIs taking phones and then flicking through Trainline (or other app's) purchase history and taking photos/notes. I am not sure that the wording of the NCoT allows for this.

I would agree with that view.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but...

They [the railway] absolutely cannot confiscate your phone. That would be theft.

The Theft Act 1968 starts

Definition of “theft”​

1Basic definition of theft.​

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(source https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft)

So unless the railway are planning to hang on to the phone and never give it back, they're not stealing it.

A phone is not an "electronic document or record". A phone is an electronic device that contains the electronic document or record. The phone itself is no more a "ticket" than a wallet or bag is.

You may not have read right through the quote. I'll restate part of it with what may be relevant underscored:

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to): a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card); a payment card or identity card; a mobile telephone or tablet device; other mobile electronic device; or

The thing is, this is likely to be a fairly emotive thread, generating heat rather than light. If we're to get anything constructive out of it, it's important to root it in reality rather than outrage encouraged by inaccuracies.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but...

The Theft Act 1968 starts

(source https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft)

So unless the railway are planning to hang on to the phone and never give it back, they're not stealing it.


You may not have read right through the quote. I'll restate part of it with what may be relevant underscored:


The thing is, this is likely to be a fairly emotive thread, generating heat rather than light. If we're to get anything constructive out of it, it's important to root it in reality rather than outrage encouraged by inaccuracies.

I don't disagree with your post. However obtaining the phone in that manner does not give the railway and permission to access data on it. I suggest that you read the Information Commissioner's Office Investigation Report "Mobile phone data extraction by police forces in England and Wales" dated June 2020. If the police were on dodgy ground you better believe that the position for railway investigators would be much much worse.

 

[rs101]

I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but...

The Theft Act 1968 starts

(source https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft)

So unless the railway are planning to hang on to the phone and never give it back, they're not stealing it.


You may not have read right through the quote. I'll restate part of it with what may be relevant underscored:


The thing is, this is likely to be a fairly emotive thread, generating heat rather than light. If we're to get anything constructive out of it, it's important to root it in reality rather than outrage encouraged by inaccuracies.

I'll happily show them my electronic ticket and electronic railcard, then hand over my phone, but will lock it first. Nothing in the NCoT requires the phone to be accessible by them.

 

[RPI]

I personally will never touch a passengers device, other than when I'm helping them do things such as obtaining a new Railcard code or helping people install various apps for their own advantage, and then only with their express permission.

We've had body cameras since 2015 and these have helped to counter several elaborate complaints in the past.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

You may not have read right through the quote. I'll restate part of it with what may be relevant underscored:

I did indeed read right through the quote, which is why I went on to say "I would be very interested to hear how that held up in court".

You can put anything you like in contract terms like the NRCoT, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily enforceable. Arguing that a need to access "an electronic document or record" requires unfettered physical access to the phone is a big stretch, even if the NRCoT tries to claim it.

You may be interested to read R vs Carl Bater-James and Sultan Mohammed (https://www.parksquarebarristers.co...resh-guidance-court-appeal-criminal-division/):

The Court started by recognising that discharge of an obligation identified under the First Principle need not always involve the surrender of an electronic device. It recognised that such a loss could in itself amount to an intrusion into the private life of the witness, regardless of the separate considerations of privacy as to the actual content.

 

[furlong]

I think the word "may" does all the heavy lifting in "An electronic document or record may consist of ...a mobile phone"! Sounds like deliberate misdirection to me - of course something physical can't be made from something virtual or vice versa!

 

[John R]

I think the word "may" does all the heavy lifting in "An electronic document or record may consist of ...a mobile phone"! Sounds like deliberate misdirection to me - of course something physical can't be made from something virtual or vice versa!

"May" is to cover that there are various possibilities (as listed in a not exhaustive list). I don't think you can read anything more than that - it will be one of those.

 

[furlong]

"May" is to cover that there are various possibilities (as listed in a not exhaustive list). I don't think you can read anything more than that - it will be one of those.

Nope. People are using this to say the mobile phone must be handed over, but missing the sleight of hand that is claiming something abstract created from binary bits is made up of something physical, a phone. It's like saying: "Hand over your name, please" - meaning to tell or show, not physically hand it over. I don't read any requirement to physically hand over a phone there, rather a requirement to hand over (provide a copy of/show) the data, not the device that contains it but is not it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Notably even if we do consider that the NRCoT requires handing over a phone, the remedy for not so doing isn't for an RPI to take it. Instead a prosecution for failure to produce a ticket on request would be the remedy.

 

[Starmill]

The conductors I know would simply never try to take someone's phone from them, no matter what circumstances. The strongest appropriate action that would happen is either recording details for an unpaid fares notice or a Penalty Fare where the conditions for that are met, or being invited to leave the train. The worst behaviours would additionally be reported to the police. You don't try to take a customer's phone, even temporarily.

 

[northwichcat]

There are several reports on these forums of RPIs taking phones and then flicking through Trainline (or other app's) purchase history and taking photos/notes. I am not sure that the wording of the NCoT allows for this.

I don't see what that would achieve. My recent journeys have been made using a combination of tickets purchased on the LNER app, tickets purchased from the ticket office, tickets purchased from a TVM and complimentary Northern tickets (from Delay Repay claims). Looking at my ticket purchasing history in the LNER app would only give part of the picture of my journey history.

I did indeed read right through the quote, which is why I went on to say "I would be very interested to hear how that held up in court".

You can put anything you like in contract terms like the NRCoT, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily enforceable. Arguing that a need to access "an electronic document or record" requires unfettered physical access to the phone is a big stretch, even if the NRCoT tries to claim it.

You may be interested to read R vs Carl Bater-James and Sultan Mohammed (https://www.parksquarebarristers.co...resh-guidance-court-appeal-criminal-division/):

Was there not a train operator who prosecuted a passenger for stealing electricity by plugging something into a plug socket marked as "Not for public use"?

On the same basis could a passenger not prosecute a train operator for stealing their mobile data to access ticket buying history? It might only be 1p worth of mobile data but by the time a good solicitor would reclaim their costs from the other side, maybe it could end up with the train operator being forced to pay £300.01?

 

[John R]

It's like saying: "Hand over your name, please" - meaning to tell or show, not physically hand it over.

"Hand over for inspection" seems pretty clear to me, but obviously you feel different.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

If we take the reports here at face value and RPIs are doing this, I humbly suggest that as ever, they are the few bad apples where the authority has gone to their heads. We know this happens in this role, as it does in pretty much every role where you give someone any degree of authority over the "public". I suggest that they haven't been asked to do this, and if their superiors knew they were doing it, they would take a dim view.