Details taken because I didn't pay the fare

[yorkie]

Well its a full debit card. I guess I wont be using the trains. Ruining someones future over £3.30 when it all can be settled with a simple fine. But yeah when the letter will come thought will see what happens.

It won't ruin your future, and it would indeed be a simple fine of a few hundred pounds. However the court does need to find you guilty (or you can save them the bother by pleading guilty) before the 'simple' fine can be issued.

.... the usual suspects are acting as cheerleaders without giving it a second thought. ....

We have removed some comments by a particular member (whose username I've removed from your post) and we will be contacting that member shortly, as your concerns are indeed shared by me and others.

As always, and as stated in our Forum Rules, " if any content causes you concern, please alert us to it, by reporting (

) it"

We do rely on these reports as otherwise we may never be aware of the concerns (or may become aware of them when it's too late to remove the comments without removing dozens of other posts!) and most of the time a member of the team is able to investigate a report promptly.

 

[dakta]

I think it's still an open and shut case - nothing the inspector did changes the fact that the OP did not have a ticket.

That's how I thought the whole strict liability thing worked when going by the byelaws

Did you have a ticket? No....

Did you have the opportunity to buy a ticket? Yes, bu...

Case closed.

If any member of staff was abusive then as was suggested earlier, file a complaint.

It shouldn't make one iota of difference to the ticket issue though, surely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The type of card doesn't excuse the (alleged) behavior of the RPI, but it may explain his attitude.

Depends what you mean by "attitude". An RPI should not be angry, nor snatch things. He should, as with a police officer, do his job calmly and professionally at all times.

OTOH, his attitude in terms of the action taken (reporting for prosecution) of course will quite rightly be influenced by what the passenger does. Along the lines of the classic "Our prices depend on the attitude of the customer"

Though any alleged wrong by the RPI is quite independent of the wrong of the passenger, of course.

Neil

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Is it right that the card was simply snatched out of a persons hand and held until they completed a form? I wonder if that would seem acceptable to a court.

Only alexkonusa and the Inspectors were there to assess the way the incident unfolded, but I will add one factor which might help in all this interest in the 'snatching' of the payment card:

The card which was allegedly 'snatched' was (I assume) taken from the hand of alexkonusa while he was offering it as a means of retrospectively paying for the journey taken, an offer which he could only reasonably expect to be accepted if it involves transferring it from his hand to an Inspector's hand. To be clear, it must have been alexkonusa's intention that it was transferred from his/her hand to the Inspector's hand.

The language used to describe that transfer of a card that is being offered for transfer may include 'snatched' just as it may include 'accepted', and both would be true. alexkonusa wanted the Inspector to take the card, and that is crucial - it was subsequently dissapointing to him/her that the payment would not be taken after the event and that the apparent crime which had already been committed would be investigated further - the card being potentially of some assistance in that investigation, and in particular, assistance in confirming identity.

This is why I say that not much turns on this question of 'snatching'.

Surely alexkonusa's complaint is not in the manner in which the card offered for payment was accepted from his hand, but that after accepting the offered card, the Inspector didn't use it to deduct a retrospective fare? (Which the Inspector was quite right not to do).

 

[Flamingo]

Depends what you mean by "attitude". An RPI should not be angry, nor snatch things. He should, as with a police officer, do his job calmly and professionally at all times.

OTOH, his attitude in terms of the action taken (reporting for prosecution) of course will quite rightly be influenced by what the passenger does.

Though any wrong by the RPI is quite independent of the wrong of the passenger, of course.

Neil

The only person who is saying the RPI acted unprofessionally is the OP, whose account might be a tad biased.

You need to learn not to take things at face value.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only person who is saying the RPI acted unprofessionally is the OP, whose account might be a tad biased.

Indeed, which is why I am using terms like "alleged" and "if", as it is not clear what events took place, as we are only seeing one side of them - that of someone who appears to have engaged in fare evasion and been caught. The only thing we have to go on is what is posted. If a complaint is made, of course, the TOC has more to go on - both sides of the story as well as possible CCTV evidence.

So I can only suggest that if the OP feels he has a grievance, whether I happen to think he has or not, that he registers a complaint for investigation.

However, it seems clear he has engaged in fare evasion, and it's also clear that the actions of the RPI will not prejudice the outcome of the investigation and possible court case relating to that. (Because of sites like pepipoo relating to parking/speeding offences looking for procedural type get-outs, it's quite reasonable the OP might think such get-outs exist for his offence - however they don't in the same way).

Neil

 

[DarloRich]

Only alexkonusa and the Inspectors were there to assess the way the incident unfolded, but I will add one factor which might help in all this interest in the 'snatching' of te payment card:

The card which was allegedly 'snatched' was (I assume) taken from the hand of alexkonusa while he was offering it as a means of retrospectively paying for the journey taken, an offer which he could only reasonably expect to be accepted if it involves transferring it from his hand to an Inspector's hand. To be clear, it must have been alexkonusa's intention that it was transferred from his/her hand to the Inspector's hand.

The language used to describe that transfer of a card that is being offered for transfer may include 'snatched' just as it may include 'accepted', and both would be true. alexkonusa wanted the Inspector to take the card, and that is crucial - it was subsequently dissapointing to him/her that the payment would h#not be taken after the event and that the apparent crime which had already been committed would be investigated further - the card being potentially of some assistance in that investigation.

This is why I say that not much turns on this question of 'snatching'.

Ah - but he offered the card to officer number 1. Officer number 2 took the card. There was no intent to offer the card to officer number 2 who was unknown to the sweet and innocent OP. Therefore officer number 2 had no grounds to take it nor to detain it

 

[LateThanNever]

Only alexkonusa and the Inspectors were there to assess the way the incident unfolded, but I will add one factor which might help in all this interest in the 'snatching' of the payment card:

The card which was allegedly 'snatched' was (I assume) taken from the hand of alexkonusa while he was offering it as a means of retrospectively paying for the journey taken, an offer which he could only reasonably expect to be accepted if it involves transferring it from his hand to an Inspector's hand. To be clear, it must have been alexkonusa's intention that it was transferred from his/her hand to the Inspector's hand.

The language used to describe that transfer of a card that is being offered for transfer may include 'snatched' just as it may include 'accepted', and both would be true. alexkonusa wanted the Inspector to take the card, and that is crucial - it was subsequently dissapointing to him/her that the payment would h#not be taken after the event and that the apparent crime which had already been committed would be investigated further - the card being potentially of some assistance in that investigation.

This is why I say that not much turns on this question of 'snatching'.

But it seems as tho' the card was taken as 'hostage' for a name and address. That is hardly the system.

 

[DarloRich]

The flip-side is that without getting the OP to give their details, then the open and shut case would not be happening either, as the OP would have walked off the train after their seven-minute journey, metaphorically or physically giving the finger to the train-crew.

And I can't see how this would potentially endanger a prosecution. I can't see the Magistrates being too impressed with "The nasty man held on to my card as I was refusing to give him my details (an offence) so he could report me for not having a ticket (another offence) without which I'd not be here today" as a valid argument.

The doctrine of "Clean Hands" would cover it nicely.

there is enough to argue a case. I have argued less and won in the magistrates before (but I mostly lost!)

 

[Flamingo]

But it seems as tho' the card was taken as 'hostage' for a name and address. That is hardly the system.

If it works, what's the problem

 

[DaveNewcastle]

But it seems as tho' the card was taken as 'hostage' for a name and address. That is hardly the system.

Really? I repeat:
- the payment card was being offered;
- the card was accepted (or snatched);
- a crime was suspected;
- the suspect's identity should be recorded and confirmed by the officers;
- the identity was offered orally;
- a means of confirmation was offered (or snatched) in the card;
- correspondence between the name on the card and the name offered orally was achieved;
- a report was written;
- the card was returned;

Where have we gone wrong?

Let's not be too beguilled by the language which introduces 'rudeness' and 'snatching' into an exchange which may be tense and difficult but is well rehearsed thousands of times a day. And which is 'the system'.

But it seems as tho' the card was taken as 'hostage' for a name and address. That is hardly the system.

If it works, what's the problem

Why can't I say just the same thing in as few words? ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[RPI]

I see some of the judge, jury and executioner brigade have already executed the RPI based on one side of the story.

 

[455driver]

Ah - but he offered the card to officer number 1. Officer number 2 took the card. There was no intent to offer the card to officer number 2 who was unknown to the sweet and innocent OP. Therefore officer number 2 had no grounds to take it nor to detain it

Or Officer number 1didnt know the OP but Officer number 2 has had dealings with the OP before but was given false details at the time and saw an opportunity to get the correct details!

 

[jon0844]

No this is the first time I don't buy a ticket(Although first time getting my details taken in three years of being on that route).

This doesn't make sense to me, unless you meant to say this isn't the first time you didn't buy a ticket?

Clearly if you'd never failed to buy a ticket before, you'd have never been asked to give your details.

Sorry if I misunderstood but I can only see this as you having travelled without a ticket before, but only having been asked for details this single time.

 

[island]

is it acceptable for a member of staff to misappropriate anothers property in this manner?

The holier than thou brigade wont like this but i would have refused to give any details until such time as the card was returned and/or the police were called. I might even have rung them myself!

If the owner of the card, which is the bank that issued it and not the OP, wishes to make a report about the matter, I am sure it will.

 

[TheEdge]

Despite the pages and pages of debate about how awful the RPI was something still doesn't sit right here.

I have more than a sneaking suspicion that the debit card at the centre of this was/is an offline one and that will immediately have got the RPI(s) on alert.

I think the OP needs to be clearly aware despite the postings of some trying to go on the attack on the RPI for whatever perceived rude behaviour (again, going on the fact we only have on biased side to the story) is not going to change the fact that walking past ticking facilities is an open and shut case as far as FGW are concerned.

 

[Greenback]

I also feel that there may have been something omitted form the OP's story, but perhaps the short journey time between Par and St Austell has also contributed tot he situation. I'm not sure if barriers have been installed at St Austell since my last visit there, but fare evasion used to be quote a problem on this particular journey. I imagine this places a bit of pressure on staff, who know they have only a short time to deal with those who have no ticket.

 

[CC 72100]

Consider also the fact that on HSTs, revenue would be impossible during that short journey unless it is carried out by additional staff (RPIs). Therefore I can easily imagine any crackdown being rather strict.

 

[EM2]

What exactly is an 'offline' card, and how would you know if you have one?

 

[TheEdge]

What exactly is an 'offline' card, and how would you know if you have one?

They are cards which require an internet connection to work. The Thryron machines don't have an internet connection. (This is not the time or thread to debate that issue, again...)

Some will say it on them, some don't have embossed numbers and some have nothing on them. As on train staff with revenue duties you learn very quickly which they are. Common ones are Santander (with non embossed numbers), light blue Natwest, cartoon world HSBC and Halifax Cardcash.

I tend to politely inform people that those cards will not work on any train service.

 

[Class377]

What exactly is an 'offline' card, and how would you know if you have one?

An "offline" card, as I understand it, does not constantly connect to the bank to withdraw funds (or even hold funds, as is common in most card transactions nowadays) at the point of sale, but rather creates a credit account with the vendor, who then contacts the bank later on and withdraws the funds. As you can imagine, this may not be ideal for some companies, who may not know whether there actually are funds available until too late in the day (hence why they have to ring for authorisation).

Many offline cards do not have raised numbers, for reasons I am unsure of, but the best way will be to ask your bank.

(The above may all be complete rubbish, but that is what I understand an offline card to be)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit it was really unhelpful of the banks to dump the Solo/Electron branding that made it clear which these cards were, both to rail staff and to the user.

Neil

 

[RPI]

Being familiar with that area I will chuck a few words in.

Ticketless travel between Par and St Austell is rife, particularly on HST'S as it is 5 minutes, there are numerous regular jumpers between the stations and the usual party trick is to waste time when you trying to issue a PF and then do a runner at the next stop.

Par has a TVM that is impossible to miss as it is just a few yards from the only entrance to the station and right next to the ticket office window, alongside a PF warning sign that is so prominent that it seems to follow you no matter where you are on the station
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Another scenario could be that the inspector may have believed the card to be stolen, which obviously made more suspicious by the op not giving his or her details and if the card wasn't signed then the inspector would be well within his rights to ask for ID before the card could be processed.

 

[OuterDistant]

Many offline cards do not have raised numbers, for reasons I am unsure of, but the best way will be to ask your bank.

When I worked in retail, we still retained the old style "carbon copy"-type credit card machines in case the "online" credit card terminals broke down. I always assumed the lack of raised numbers on offline cards was to prevent the card being used at all in this way.

 

[swt_passenger]

An "offline" card, as I understand it, does not constantly connect to the bank to withdraw funds (or even hold funds, as is common in most card transactions nowadays) at the point of sale, but rather creates a credit account with the vendor, who then contacts the bank later on and withdraws the funds. As you can imagine, this may not be ideal for some companies, who may not know whether there actually are funds available until too late in the day (hence why they have to ring for authorisation).

Many offline cards do not have raised numbers, for reasons I am unsure of, but the best way will be to ask your bank.

(The above may all be complete rubbish, but that is what I understand an offline card to be)

I think your explanation is almost correct but basically the wrong way round. A 'full featured' debit card (like wot I have) allows both 'online' (instant) transactions, such as at a ticket office, and also 'offline' (saved) transactions, such as on a train where the guard's machine cannot connect to the bank.

Therefore the cards that cause the problem should be referred to as 'online only', because they do not allow for the offline version of a transaction.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When I worked in retail, we still retained the old style "carbon copy"-type credit card machines in case the "online" credit card terminals broke down. I always assumed the lack of raised numbers on offline cards was to prevent the card being used at all in this way.

I think what you are calling an 'offline card' should actually be an 'online only' card.

 

[FOH]

Unless things have changed in the last few years (I've been out of credit cards for a while) all payments are offline, done using the overnight batch processing. The bit about online with the card is for authorization, when you go online you will get an auth code and when a matching payment request comes in it will be paid. It's the chip on the card that decides whether to go online or not and also gives the final OK and some cards are encoded to always require online authorization.

 

[Agent_c]

Unless things have changed in the last few years (I've been out of credit cards for a while) all payments are offline, done using the overnight batch processing. The bit about online with the card is for authorization, when you go online you will get an auth code and when a matching payment request comes in it will be paid. It's the chip on the card that decides whether to go online or not and also gives the final OK and some cards are encoded to always require online authorization.

Some cards (Solo/electoron/prepaid cards) always require live authorisation. As I understand it, only a sample of the others go for live authorisation.

 

[island]

We have a long thread on this elsewhere so it would be worth not derailing this one.

 

[Greenback]

We have a long thread on this elsewhere so it would be worth not derailing this one.

I agree. It isn't really relevant to this thread.

 

[plastictaffy]

If it works, what's the problem

Quite. That says everything that needs to be said!!