Fare evaders - what happens if they run?

[rdwarr]

It's quite rare to get a ticket inspection on my train (FCC 07:15 Peterborough to King's Cross - I get on at Stevenage) but we had one this morning. It's even more unusual for somebody not to have a valid ticket but there were two of them in my coach today.
The first one was a 17-year old girl who had some sort of ticket but may have been "dumbelling" or similar. The RPI ended up taking details and a statement under caution.
The second lady appeared to be slightly older and had made a beeline for the toilet as soon as the RPI appeared. She came back on finding it occupied but would not present a ticket when requested. Whilst the RPI was dealing with the first girl she headed off to the toilet again where she remained until the train arrived at London.
Obviously the RPI had seen this and had been waiting for her but the woman headed off down the platform with the RPI trying to talk to her (and possibly call BTP - not sure about that though). At no point did the RPI lay a finger on the passenger or attempt to detain her physically.
As the RPI appeared to have no backup the passenger then tailgated through the exit barrier and left the station in the hurry leaving a somewhat frustraded RPI in her wake.
So, in situations like this would the TOC attempt to take further action if they come across the woman again? I have a feeling she's a "regular" on the train. She did seem very distressed so may have learned a lesson anyway but I did feel for the RPI who was polite, courteous and restrained throughout.

 

[Urban Gateline]

It's a huge frustration of the job to be honest, we know that the so-called Hardcore fare evaders like you described above will always get away unless there happens to be BTP around to stop the person, which is very unlikely! Then the easy targets like the first passenger you mentioned get reported for prosecution!

Most TOC's have a no-touch policy that staff must adhere to, which is sometimes silly in these situations when someone has clearly broken numerous byelaw offences and needs to be apprehended using "reasonable force"!

My guess is that the person in question will probably keep getting away with it as there are far too many passengers to remember people like that, although if it was a repeat occurence at my gateline, the same person every day I would log that as intelligence and hopefully an RPI block would be able to stop that person!

 

[455driver]

Most TOC's have a no-touch policy that staff must adhere to, which is sometimes silly in these situations when someone has clearly broken numerous byelaw offences and needs to be apprehended using "reasonable force"!

Ask your manager to show you a copy of this policy?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Ask your manager to show you a copy of this policy?

they probably wouldn't know where to find it lol!

However we had conflict resolution training as part of training for the role and it was emphasized that we must not touch passengers as firstly the company will not back you up for doing so if you then get assaulted and also you can get done for assault yourself even if you are using "reasonable force" for reasonable purposes apparently!!

 

[jon0844]

With a combination of CCTV and the RPI making a good note of her description, it shouldn't be too hard to catch her another day if she looked like a regular. And then I'd hope and expect FCC would go for the fraud prosecution without the option to settle of court.

Maybe we'll know when this happens as we'll get a new thread in a few weeks from someone that has been caught and is now worried about what a criminal record might do to future career/travel prospects.

Who knows. If FCC decides (and it's quite likely as they build their fraud investigation team) to monitor her for a few more offences before striking, she'll wish she'd complied the first time as they will eventually have a watertight case to prove multiple offences and clear intent.

 

[Urban Gateline]

With a combination of CCTV and the RPI making a good note of her description, it shouldn't be too hard to catch her another day if she looked like a regular. And then I'd hope and expect FCC would go for the fraud prosecution without the option to settle of court.

Maybe we'll know when this happens as we'll get a new thread in a few weeks from someone that has been caught and is now worried about what a criminal record might do to future career/travel prospects.

Who knows. If FCC decides (and it's quite likely as they build their fraud investigation team) to monitor her for a few more offences before striking, she'll wish she'd complied the first time as they will eventually have a watertight case to prove multiple offences and clear intent.

All good and well, but they actually need someone to physically stop and detain her to carry out all this. It would have to be a well planned operation with BTP present for it to work.

 

[jon0844]

I've seen RPIs go and 'get' someone at Hatfield that walked out (including one that went out via the fire exit), although I am not sure how much force was used to get them back - but they DID get them back. In this case, it was more down to there being more than one member of staff, so I expect they simply got around the person and managed to be quite persuasive (and some RPIs are quite well built).

I am sure that if FCC wants to get her, they will. They just have a few RPIs nearby in the morning (easy to organise), perhaps including plain clothed inspectors (and RPIs love doing plain clothed checks!) and can have previously agreed what levels of force will be used.

They could also seek to get BTP to help, but it might not be necessary although it shouldn't be too hard to get BTP interested if it's at King's Cross where there's usually a lot of them at all times anyway (often just doing rather boring patrol work), and the BTP officer thinks there's a chance things could kick off and they fancy a bit of 'fun'.

 

[JamesRowden]

All good and well, but they actually need someone to physically stop and detain her to carry out all this. It would have to be a well planned operation with BTP present for it to work.

What about having a CCTV camera outside the toilets which could be monitored by BTP with a remote locking mechanism that keeps the criminal trapped in the toilet untill the next BTP manned station where they can be questioned/restrained.

 

[jon0844]

And puts the cold tap on spray mode so that when the doors are released, they come out looking like a wet dog. RPIs could then take photos and put them on Twitter for our enjoyment.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I've seen RPIs go and 'get' someone at Hatfield that walked out (including one that went out via the fire exit), although I am not sure how much force was used to get them back - but they DID get them back. In this case, it was more down to there being more than one member of staff, so I expect they simply got around the person and managed to be quite persuasive (and some RPIs are quite well built).

I am sure that if FCC wants to get her, they will. They just have a few RPIs nearby in the morning (easy to organise), perhaps including plain clothed inspectors (and RPIs love doing plain clothed checks!) and can have previously agreed what levels of force will be used.

They could also seek to get BTP to help, but it might not be necessary although it shouldn't be too hard to get BTP interested if it's at King's Cross where there's usually a lot of them at all times anyway (often just doing rather boring patrol work), and the BTP officer thinks there's a chance things could kick off and they fancy a bit of 'fun'.

That's very reassuring to hear to be honest, FCC seem very proactive when it comes to Fare evasion normally so hopefully they get this person!

I know for sure that RPA/RPI's at my TOC would not even follow someone past the barrier line if they managed to get through and many would not even block the path of a fare evader, very different to Southern, whose RPI's I've spoken to and they seem happy to chase and stop Fare evaders as you mentioned FCC do above!

 

[455driver]

And puts the cold tap on spray mode so that when the doors are released, they come out looking like a wet dog. RPIs could then take photos and put them on Twitter for our enjoyment.

You are boring, put the toilet on "reverse" flush, that will teach them!

 

[Urban Gateline]

What about having a CCTV camera outside the toilets which could be monitored by BTP with a remote locking mechanism that keeps the criminal trapped in the toilet untill the next BTP manned station where they can be questioned/restrained.

I love that idea! Unfortunately it's probably cost prohibitive not to mention the possibility of trapping an entirely innocent person!

 

[jon0844]

I love that idea! Unfortunately it's probably cost prohibitive not to mention the possibility of trapping an entirely innocent person!

There will always be some collateral damage.

 

[barrykas]

You are boring, put the toilet on "reverse" flush, that will teach them!

Combine that with having a tap you can aim, such that you can make them look like they've wet themselves as well.

 

[Mojo]

A man on the Underground this morning who doubled through behind a customer with a valid ticket found his path blocked by three Inspectors and someone else from the revenue department as he showed little intention of stopping when requested.

In many cases as others have said, there isn't anything that can stop someone running away given the policies and equipment with which Inspectors work with, but with the right numbers and the right attitude, it is much easier.

 

[michael769]

Indeed there are techniques that can effectivly stop all but the most determined persons walking away, without recourse to force. And having backup certainly helps with that!

The folks who do this so of thing very quickly become known to investigatory staff, and if repeated their time will enevitably come, usually accompanied with enou evidence of persistent lawbreaking, to warrant one of the more serious charges avavailable, with a sentence to match!

 

[Chapeltom]

I saw a man being persued by a RPI at London Bridge this morning, he appeared to have run off with her notepad and a couple of minutes later I heard a tannoy announcement for BTP or any PCSO to go to the eastern end of the station!

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I saw a man being persued by a RPI at London Bridge this morning, he appeared to have run off with her notepad and a couple of minutes later I heard a tannoy announcement for BTP or any PCSO to go to the eastern end of the station!

Damn you get around lol

 

[scotsman]

You are boring, put the toilet on "reverse" flush, that will teach them!

Oaft! Seen the results of that when it went wrong. Dry boke extravaganza.

 

[185]

clearly broken numerous byelaw offences and needs to be apprehended using "reasonable force"!

Not often I will go head to head with statements on here but I should emphasise to all staff forum users that all physical intervention should be totally avoided, including where passengers are in danger. Physical intervention, even following multiple breaches of byelaw offence is certainly enough at several TOCs to warrant instant dismissal.

Despite their constant denials, train operating companies pay less insurance if staff have a 'hands off' policy.

While I consider most TOCs to be utterly cowardly and disgusting in their treatment of staff who've had to use physical force to detain/deter/prevent further assaults & crime, I would urge all staff to use zero physical intervention if they have an exit route, including where passengers are in danger. This is a result of three cases at FirstGroup - situations where a passenger was in serious danger from another.

 

[Chapeltom]

Damn you get around lol

How do you know I get around a lot :P ? I was returning home from Millwall v Sheffield Wednesday having stopped the night down there.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've seen a few 'operations' to pick up known ticket offenders, some with plod, some without, but all with at least 3 RPIs or equivalent. One, at MK, would have done itself justice on a TV real cop type show. "At this point BTP have seen enough and move in... GO GO GO"

Having seen in this weeks local rag the fines for those cases that do reach court, I'm surprised that anyone risks it, at least on FCC.

 

[bb21]

Having seen in this weeks local rag the fines for those cases that do reach court, I'm surprised that anyone risks it, at least on FCC.

Stop teasing. How much were quoted?

 

[jon0844]

If the general policy is 'hands off' then people can (and will) realise they can get away with fare evasion simply by walking or running away. Just like school kids that were able to run riot and say 'you can't touch me' to totally undermine the authority (or lack of) from teachers.

It now means you have to really clamp down to send the message home, which I expect FCC and Northern are slowly managing to do - but probably have a long way to go yet. They do need to make sure they do things properly though, especially Northern if the TOC is still giving advice to say you can still buy tickets on trains but then issuing an unofficial £80 penalty.

 

[soil]

Stop teasing. How much were quoted?

£450 generally speaking.


http://www.cambstimes.co.uk/news/se...ital_connect_prosecute_17_offenders_1_2003524
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/f...gers_given_combined_fines_of_11_000_1_2002860

They also make it clear that those who were fined were the ones who didnt bother to settle/answer letters. The £450 fines could all have been settled for less, out of court.

 

[RJ]

At Stratford International, I was being detained by a gateline assistant, despite holding a valid ticket. I called the police, who chose to side with them. The officer said that if I went through the barriers without them being opened on my behalf, I'd be commiting an offence for which I would be arrested. When I was let through after requesting a PNB, I asked what would happen if I just walked away. The BTP officer, who had accompanied me into the toilets (**** knows why) said that I would be arrested for fare evasion.

Between the officer and station staff, justice was waiting for an RPI to be dispatched from another station to issue a Penalty Fare for being "off route." Very professionally handled indeed.

In this case, I took due care in ensuring that I went by the book. When it comes to enforcement against customers, staff should be doing the same.

 

[bb21]

£450 generally speaking.

I am not surprised that they are much more willing to settle out of court if that is all they get.

 

[michael769]

I am not surprised that they are much more willing to settle out of court if that is all they get.

And a significant proportion of that will be the fine and victim surcharge neither of which the ToC get to see a penny of!

 

[soil]

I am not surprised that they are much more willing to settle out of court if that is all they get.

I don't think they get much at all

http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/teenager_fined_for_fare_evasion_1_867025

"On February 14, 18-year-old Miles Watson was asked to produce a rail ticket for his journey from Littleport to Cambridge by a conductor for rail operator First Capital Connect.

Watson, of Millpit Furlong, told the conductor that he had a valid season ticket but had left it at home. He was then given 14 days to produce it to rail staff but failed to do so.

On March 1, little more than two weeks after his first offence, Watson was caught using another train between Littleport and Cambridge without a valid ticket but again told the conductor that he had left his season ticket at home.

When he failed to produce the season ticket he was hit with a court summons and, appearing before magistrates in Cambridge on Thursday, the teenager was hit with a £350 fine and was ordered to pay court costs of £110 and a £15 victim surcharge.

Watson will also have to pay a total of £13 in compensation."

£13 is the price of 2 * SDS LTP - CBG, the £350 fine will go to the courts, the victim surcharge goes to a fund for victims of crime (not FCC), the court costs I guess they might receive some part of but it's not clear whether there is any profit at all here for FCC.

In this context, issuing £80 'penalty fares' makes a lot of sense, and it would seem sensible, when offering to settle out of court, to settle at around this level, maybe £100 to make it a round number, but no more than that.

 

[Tibbs]

I don't think they get much at all

http://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/teenager_fined_for_fare_evasion_1_867025

"On February 14, 18-year-old Miles Watson was asked to produce a rail ticket for his journey from Littleport to Cambridge by a conductor for rail operator First Capital Connect.

Watson, of Millpit Furlong, told the conductor that he had a valid season ticket but had left it at home. He was then given 14 days to produce it to rail staff but failed to do so.

On March 1, little more than two weeks after his first offence, Watson was caught using another train between Littleport and Cambridge without a valid ticket but again told the conductor that he had left his season ticket at home.

When he failed to produce the season ticket he was hit with a court summons and, appearing before magistrates in Cambridge on Thursday, the teenager was hit with a £350 fine and was ordered to pay court costs of £110 and a £15 victim surcharge.

Watson will also have to pay a total of £13 in compensation."

£13 is the price of 2 * SDS LTP - CBG, the £350 fine will go to the courts, the victim surcharge goes to a fund for victims of crime (not FCC), the court costs I guess they might receive some part of but it's not clear whether there is any profit at all here for FCC.

In this context, issuing £80 'penalty fares' makes a lot of sense, and it would seem sensible, when offering to settle out of court, to settle at around this level, maybe £100 to make it a round number, but no more than that.

There should be no profit at all. The 'out of court settlement' should accurately reflect the costs the TOCs have incurred (as it should), but it's patently obvious that Northern's £80 'Penalty Fare' is mostly profit.

I managed to find reference to the law that covers this:

http://www.penaltycharges.co.uk/pages.php?id=4

This part is especially interesting:

Murray Vs Leisureplay (2005) EWCA Civ 963
English contract law recognises that, if the parties agree that a party in breach of contract shall pay an unjustifiable amount in the event of a breach of contract, their agreement is to that extent unenforceable.

An £80 penalty on a fare of less than £5 for example?