Followed a mile from the station.

[Biginjapan1]

Hi,

I was followed out of a station by a plain clothes ticket inspector for roughly half a mile before he introduced himself from behind. Due to a previous incident of being assaulted I didn’t turn around and continued to walk off. The man continued to follow me for a further half a mile and at this point we were a mile away from the station. As I was on the high street and in a safe place I confronted the guy who asked to see my ticket which I didn’t have. He proceeded to take my details and I have now recieved a fine of £88 pounds. I have spoken to BTP who says he should not have followed me and his jurisdiction is limited to train station. Firstly are the BTP correct and should I refuse to pay the fine on these grounds?

 

[Adsy125]

Hi,

I was followed out of a station by a plain clothes ticket inspector for roughly half a mile before he introduced himself from behind. Due to a previous incident of being assaulted I didn’t turn around and continued to walk off. The man continued to follow me for a further half a mile and at this point we were a mile away from the station. As I was on the high street and in a safe place I confronted the guy who asked to see my ticket which I didn’t have. He proceeded to take my details and I have now recieved a fine of £88 pounds. I have spoken to BTP who says he should not have followed me and his jurisdiction is limited to train station. Firstly are the BTP correct and should I refuse to pay the fine on these grounds?

I don't know about refusing the fine but that would've spooked me, I certainly wouldn't have talked to him. I think the train company should waive the fine anyway as that seems inappropriate.

On the advice side, people here will probably ask the station and TOC to help them help you.

 

[221129]

Hi,

I was followed out of a station by a plain clothes ticket inspector for roughly half a mile before he introduced himself from behind. Due to a previous incident of being assaulted I didn’t turn around and continued to walk off. The man continued to follow me for a further half a mile and at this point we were a mile away from the station. As I was on the high street and in a safe place I confronted the guy who asked to see my ticket which I didn’t have. He proceeded to take my details and I have now recieved a fine of £88 pounds. I have spoken to BTP who says he should not have followed me and his jurisdiction is limited to train station. Firstly are the BTP correct and should I refuse to pay the fine on these grounds?

BTP are incorrect and the fine is valid regardless. By all means don't pay but then it'll go to court and you'll have a bigger fine and a criminal record so I guess it's up to you.

 

[matt_world2004]

Personally it seems a little unreasonable to expect someone to have a ticket a mile away from the station. Imho.

Do you have proof you purchased a ticket?
If you do I would write to the company explaining you had a ticket. And you were apprehended at the location you were apprehended at and between leaving the station and where you were apprehended

 

[Khxds]

Personally it seems a little unreasonable to expect someone to have a ticket a mile away from the station. Imho.

Do you have proof you purchased a ticket?
If you do I would write to the company explaining you had a ticket. And you were apprehended at the location you were apprehended at and between leaving the station and where you were apprehended

Notice the OP is not refusing to pay because they had a ticket, but because they were no longer at the station when the conversation took place.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Why were you followed for 1/2 a mile? Is it because you jumped the gate and legged it? If so that would presumably have some bearing on whether the RPI acted appropriately.

 

[matt_world2004]

Why were you followed for 1/2 a mile? Is it because you jumped the gate and legged it? If so that would presumably have some bearing on whether the RPI acted appropriately.

Even in that circumstance. I do not know a TOC who would sanction their staff following a runner for a mile due to the risk of conflict and lack of secondary staff a mile away

 

[Cowley]

Strange stuff (and I don’t usually get involved with this kind of thing), but what did you do with the ticket?

 

[najaB]

As I was on the high street and in a safe place I confronted the guy who asked to see my ticket which I didn’t have.

Did you ever have a valid ticket for the journey you made?

Firstly are the BTP correct and should I refuse to pay the fine on these grounds?

No, they are not correct.

 

[Fare-Cop]

As naja and 221129 have both made clear, no, BTP are not correct. It is this kind of misinformation that creates much distrust of the force for some within the rail industry. An excuse not to do anything. Sadly, there are very many good officers in the BTP, but a others who will continually peddle this poor advice and let their colleagues down. Having met with very senior officers in BTP on this very subject and having seen those same officers make clear to their rank and file what is expected of them I’ve seen first hand how little some PCs and Sergeants understand about the situation.

Yes, some TOCs will advise their staff not to do such a thing for their own safety, but others do not and that doesn’t mean it isn’t legal to report someone for making off without payment if that were the case. Station CCTV will likely show what happened at the station itself too

The 88 pounds is not a fine, I know some will say it’s a matter of semantics as it can be considered to be a financial penalty, but only Courts have the power to impose fines. It is an opportunity to avoid Court action by voluntary settlement with the rail company.

You may accept and pay and the matter is resolved. You may choose not to accept, you will likely receive a Summons and you can then argue your case in Court, but failing to stop and show a ticket when asked (even worse if you actually hadn’t paid) is likely to be very much more expensive when dealt with by Magistrates.

 

[mallard]

There's no obligation to keep a rail ticket (or any other proof of purchase) once you've left the station premesis.

Unless your entire route over the mile from the station to the point where you were stopped is covered by high-quality CCTV from multiple angles, there's no way to prove that you didn't dispose of your ticket at some point in the intervening time. The inspector may testify that he didn't see you dispose of your ticket, but that's unlikely to be considered enough to prove that you didn't have one at all.

If you didn't have a ticket, you should pay. If you did, simply state that fact in response and give any details you have/remember, it's up to the prosecution to prove otherwise.

Comission for revenue extraction must be pretty high these days if it's worth the inspector's time to go a mile out of their way...

 

[najaB]

There's no obligation to keep a rail ticket (or any other proof of purchase) once you've left the station premesis.

Could you provide a source for that, please?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Could you provide a source for that, please?

I'd ask for proof of the reverse, and I have yet to see any!

Railway laws apply to conduct on or around railway property. 1 mile from railway property is quite clearly neither.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Could you provide a source for that, please?

Errr no, other way around please.
Innocent before guilty, and not having a ticket when you are not on railway property is not evidence of any offence.

 

[sheff1]

Could you provide a source for that, please?

The Railway Byelaws state that they are "Made under Section 219 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Strategic Rail Authority (the “Authority”) and confirmed under Schedule 20 of the Transport Act 2000 by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 June 2005 for regulating the use and working of, and travel on or by means of, railway assets, the maintenance of order on railway assets and the conduct of all persons while on railway assets (the “Byelaws”)."

The key wording is "on railway assets". Railway assets are defined in the Byelaws as " any (a) train; (b) network; (c) station; (d) light maintenance depot; and any associated track, buildings and equipment"

From that it seems clear to me that the requirement under Byelaw 18(2) - "A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person." - only, therefore, applies if the request is made while on railway assests.

If you have evidence to the contrary can you provide it please.

 

[PeterC]

A mile from the station my first assumption would be that it wasn't a genuine RPI and I would react as I would to anybody trying to con me in the street.

 

[furlong]

Two quick points - firstly, you don't know what happened at the station that led to the decision to chase (i.e. what evidence might have already existed) - secondly, consider RORA rather than the byelaws.

 

[mallard]

Could you provide a source for that, please?

A source for there not being a law requiring the retention of rail documents indefinitely? A law that doesn't exist cannot be sourced... I suppose you could make the argument that the ticket is railway property and therefore can be recalled at any time, but it's long established that throwing away a ticket after use is not illegal (if it were, the "ca-ching" sound coming from the various TOC headquarters would be deafening).

The railway byelaws define a valid ticket as "a ticket [...] entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or attempting to use". By that definition, after a ticket has been used (including passing out of any CTA at the destination station) it is no longer valid and there is no reason to keep it. If the byelaw provision allowing staff to inspect tickets extends outside of the railway, it would allow rail staff to simply patrol the streets anywhere in the country and give out "fines" to anybody who doesn't currently have a train ticket on them! (Since not providing a ticket for inspection is an offence in and of itself, according to the letter of the law.)

The Railways Act 2005 only allows the railways to make byelaws for limited purposes (46.1) and the explantory notes state that this is "to enable them and the police to control the conduct and behaviour of people using the railways". Someone who has completed their journey and left the railway premesis is not "using the railways".

 

[sheff1]

consider RORA rather than the byelaws.

Fair enough. Which section(s) of the RORA should we be considering ?

 

[najaB]

The Railways Act 2005 only allows the railways to make byelaws for limited purposes (46.1) and the explantory notes state that this is "to enable them and the police to control the conduct and behaviour of people using the railways". Someone who has completed their journey and left the railway premesis is not "using the railways".

However, they would have been using the railway premises at the time they committed any offence. Hence they are being asked for their ticket even though they are not longer on the railway. It isn't as simple as "you can't touch me I'm out of your jurisdiction".

 

[gingerheid]

Are the circumstances in which this happened such that they may believe they first asked for the ticket on railway property?

 

[AlterEgo]

Errr no, other way around please.
Innocent before guilty, and not having a ticket when you are not on railway property is not evidence of any offence.

It might not be, but if the person so admits it during a conversation then this would be evidence.

The best thing to do if stopped by an RPI in the high street is to walk away.

 

[MichaelAMW]

It might not be, but if the person so admits it during a conversation then this would be evidence.

The best thing to do if stopped by an RPI in the high street is to walk away.

That was kind of my thought - he didn't have to engage at all with this person a mile from the station but now he has chosen to identify himself, and possibly even admit an offence, there doesn't appear to be anything to prevent them pursuing the matter, assuming there is some reasonable suspicion he did something wrong while still on railway property. N.B. This is just my thought, it's not legal advice, when reflecting on the whole of the thread.

 

[sheff1]

However, they would have been using the railway premises at the time they committed any offence. Hence they are being asked for their ticket even though they are not longer on the railway. It isn't as simple as "you can't touch me I'm out of your jurisdiction".

Of course they can be asked but, as I said in post #15, I cannot see any requirement in the Byelaws for them to hand over a ticket if asked for it by an authorised other than when they are on railway assets .... and if there is no such requirement, there can equally be no requirement to retain a railway ticket once a passenger has left railway assets.

 

[Clip]

Of course they can be asked but, as I said in post #15, I cannot see any requirement in the Byelaws for them to hand over a ticket if asked for it by an authorised other than when they are on railway assets .... and if there is no such requirement, there can equally be no requirement to retain a railway ticket once a passenger has left railway assets.

Now I as well as others are firmly aware of your views in how the railway conducts itself over revenue issues, as you only seem to get involved where you have the mainly falsee impression the railway has done wrong, but did it ever occur to you or others that this was probably not the first time they got asked for their ticket?

 

[Fare-Cop]

Of course they can be asked but, as I said in post #15, I cannot see any requirement in the Byelaws for them to hand over a ticket if asked for it by an authorised other than when they are on railway assets .... and if there is no such requirement, there can equally be no requirement to retain a railway ticket once a passenger has left railway assets.

This makes an assumption that only an allegation of a Byelaw offence is, or could be pursued.

There is nothing in the OP's original post below that suggests that is the case.​

Hi,

I was followed out of a station by a plain clothes ticket inspector for roughly half a mile before he introduced himself from behind. Due to a previous incident of being assaulted I didn’t turn around and continued to walk off. The man continued to follow me for a further half a mile and at this point we were a mile away from the station. As I was on the high street and in a safe place I confronted the guy who asked to see my ticket which I didn’t have. He proceeded to take my details and I have now recieved a fine of £88 pounds. I have spoken to BTP who says he should not have followed me and his jurisdiction is limited to train station. Firstly are the BTP correct and should I refuse to pay the fine on these grounds?

From the OPs post we don't know what happened at the station, we don't know what offence the TOC may have considered.

 

[Master29]

However, they would have been using the railway premises at the time they committed any offence. Hence they are being asked for their ticket even though they are not longer on the railway. It isn't as simple as "you can't touch me I'm out of your jurisdiction".

Totally agree. It`s much the same as being arrested miles from the shop someone stole from.

 

[sheff1]

This makes an assumption that only an allegation of a Byelaw offence is, or could be pursued

We were asked for a "source" to back up the statement that there is no obligation to retain a railway ticket once a passenger has left railway premises, so I posted a source which appeared to do that. As I do not profess to have knowledge of all relevant legislation I also asked (twice) for details of a source which states there is a requirement to retain a ticket - so far none has been forthcoming, but I live in hope.

 

[najaB]

We were asked for a "source" to back up the statement that there is no requirement to retain a railway ticket once a passenger has left railway premises...

Indeed there is no requirement to hold on to a ticket even while you're on railway premises. The inference being made was that the absence of a requirement to keep the ticket was, somehow, a defence against being unable to present it when asked later. It is not.

 

[takno]

From the OPs post we don't know what happened at the station, we don't know what offence the TOC may have considered.

I'm not a lawyer, but i would have thought OP had every right to tell the revenue inspector to get lost by the time they were that far off railway premises, and they would have struggled to provide a basis for prosecution unless there was something like CCTV of barriers being jumped. However, since OP clearly did give their address to the inspector, and may well have admitted to an offence, then the fact that they chose to do so a mile away from the station isn't really relevant.