Details taken because I didn't pay the fare

[cjmillsnun]

I cannot believe some of the absolute rubbish being posted on this thread. The OP is clearly trying to find out if they can muddy the water enough by making allegations of bullying to get her blatant fare evasion thrown out, and the usual suspects are acting as cheerleaders without giving it a second thought.

I'm posting this at 20.50 and expect it to be deleted before 21.00 as I'm being nasty to the poor op and others with no idea posting on here.

Agreed.

Yes if the RPI did snatch the card, that was wrong and against company procedure, however it does not alter the fact that the OP boarded a train without buying a ticket.

There are two issues here.

1. FGW and the unpaid fare. Open and shut case. Nothing will change that. A simple bylaw offence. It's up to FGW how they decide to pursue it. It could be an out of court settlement or it could be a bylaw prosecution.

2. The behaviour of the RPI. That's a customer service issue, and really should only be dealt with:

a) Once the full facts are known from both sides.

b) independently of the unpaid fare case.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

that's my point - an open and shut case is jepordised by not following the correct procedures. An easy conviction, and one that in my mind the OP should be facing is, potentially, at risk. How can that be a good thing?

No it's not. It's still an open and shut case. The OP did not have a ticket.

 

[Fare-Cop]

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

Many times in the past I've seen similar scenarios worked through and had to read and process the subsequent reports

Perhaps it's worth exploring the most likely outcome if the traveller had insisted, or if the inspector had decided, to call for Police assistance.

IF, a Police officer had arrived I suggest from experience it would probably go along these lines

PC to inspector "This person alleges that you're holding his/her bank card and refusing to return it, is that the case and if so, why?"

Insp. hands card to PC and says "This person has travelled without a ticket and has offered this card for payment to my colleague here, I am making a report as s/he could have bought a ticket before travelling and if this check had not been made, would have left without paying. We're here to report alleged offenders, but s/he refuses to provide any name & address details. We cannot therefore be sure whether this is his/her card and in any case, that refusal constitutes a second offence. I just need him/her to give correct details, will you get them for my report please"

PC will probably say "Just charge the fare" (Happens far too often) but, a good inspector will say, "I'm sorry, the company's policy is to report such cases, if you can confirm the details, I can complete the report and this person can be on their away please"

Revenue inspector makes a note of PC's collar number in case a further statement is required. It is the revenue inspector's decision what action is taken in these circumstances.

Usually the PC then gets travellers details, confirms and passes to inspector for report.

Traveller may complain to PC about the alleged action of the inspector, but unless there is actual evidence of a real assault, PC will have to advise traveller that they may wish to make a separate complaint to TOC about their perception of inspector's behaviour.

Nett result. Traveller reported for prosecutable offence with additional emphasis given to refusal to provide details by need to obtain Police assistance to secure that information.

This is very likely to escalate the matter to an allegation of intent to avoid a fare and most likely to see two summonses issued. One alleging intent to avoid payment contrary to S.5(3)(a) RoRA (1889) and another alleging breach of Byelaw 18.1 (2005).

A real belt & braces prosecutor might also hang an allegation of breach of Byelaw 23.1 summons on the line too.