Giving Name / Address when Holding a Valid Ticket

Status
Not open for further replies.

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,381
[Mod Note - Split from this thread.]

Is there a legal requirement to provide your real name/address if you do have a valid ticket?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ferret

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2009
Messages
4,105
Is there a legal requirement to provide your real name/address if you do have a valid ticket?

Well, there are other byelaws covering the railways that don't cover ticketing! You're still required to give details when asked, should an authorised person wish to do something about any other alleged offence.


 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,750
Location
Essex
That is incorrect, I'm afraid, Michael. Byelaw 23(1) is quite clear on this:
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.
 

lyndhurst25

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2010
Messages
1,109
That is incorrect, I'm afraid, Michael. Byelaw 23(1) is quite clear on this:

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.

Out of interest, are ticket inspectors obliged to warn the people of whom they are asking a name and address, that it is a potential criminal offense to provide false details? There seems to be an increasing number of posters on here who have committed a relatively minor ticketing irregularity but have landed themselves in hot water by giving false details.

I know the idea behind Penalty Fares is that they can given out to people who have made genuine errors but the public perception is that they are "fines" and people may well feel that they are being harshly treated in being penalized for their honest mistake. In such circumstances people may, not being aware of the railway's "special" legal status and in the heat of the moment, be tempted give a false name and address.
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,381
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person
So if you are unreasonably suspected you don't have to?
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,750
Location
Essex
No, a court would if it ever got that far. The jury would have to judge whether or not the authorised person genuinely believed that he reasonable suspected the person to have breached a bylaw. If he did genuinely believe it (however ridiculous that belief may seem in the cold light of day) then you could be convicted of failing to provide a name and address if you refused.
 

michael769

Established Member
Joined
9 Oct 2005
Messages
2,006
No, a court would if it ever got that far. The jury would have to judge whether or not the authorised person genuinely believed that he reasonable suspected the person to have breached a bylaw. If he did genuinely believe it (however ridiculous that belief may seem in the cold light of day) then you could be convicted of failing to provide a name and address if you refused.

I think the court would also have to decide if a reasonable person would, given the circumstances, also hold that belief.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
11,814
Location
0036
I agree. There are reams of jurisprudence on the meaning of "reasonable".
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
7,690
Location
Rail replacement bus cab
No, a court would if it ever got that far. The jury would have to judge whether or not the authorised person genuinely believed that he reasonable suspected the person to have breached a bylaw. If he did genuinely believe it (however ridiculous that belief may seem in the cold light of day) then you could be convicted of failing to provide a name and address if you refused.

What jury?

 

JoeH

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2009
Messages
207
A few years ago I reluctantly boarded a FCC train at a station without any functioning way to purchase tickets at the instruction of a RPI waiting by the door who told me to sit down and that he would sell me a ticket after the train had departed. Immediately after departure he attempted to issue me a PF which I refused, then asked me for my name & address which I again refused so I got off at the next station before he could do anything about it.

Despite the fact this RPI clearly lied to me about selling me a ticket to get me on a train just so he could PF me I was afraid of reporting him because I believed I had broken the bylaws by refusing to give him my name and address and could be prosecuted.

From reading some of the above posts though it does seem that it's only illegal to refuse to provide details if the person asking for them reasonably believes the passenger has broken bylaws, and in my specific circumstances nobody could think that the RPI reasonably believed I had.

Is this correct?
 

ralphchadkirk

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
5,750
Location
Essex
They're hardly the same thing! Given that the type of fare irregularity as described in your post and by the OP in tends to be prosecuted in a Magistrate's Court, jurys have no relevance whatsoever as they're not found in Magistrates Courts.

I was talking about who would judge on the legal question of reasonableness. I made no comment on the OP's case.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,686
Location
UK
A few years ago I reluctantly boarded a FCC train at a station without any functioning way to purchase tickets at the instruction of a RPI waiting by the door who told me to sit down and that he would sell me a ticket after the train had departed. Immediately after departure he attempted to issue me a PF which I refused, then asked me for my name & address which I again refused so I got off at the next station before he could do anything about it.

I personally witnessed that very thing too, seeing someone invited to board the train because he was in a rush, and then being stung for (and paying) a PF. I wish I'd stepped in and stopped it, as it was bang out of order.

There's another thread about not getting involved, especially if you might put the member of staff in danger, but that was a situation where I really wish I'd had the guts to stop the RPI.

Clearly if the man asking to board had been told no, he'd have left the train and bought a ticket from a machine (the ticket office was closed; I'd just boarded at the same station) and got the next one, no doubt being frustrated and disappointed, but at least better off.

Yes, it's possible that had the RPI not been standing in the doorway, the victim might have boarded and taken a chance - and then, in my mind, due a penalty fare if caught - but the poor man asked first!
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
11,814
Location
0036
A few years ago I reluctantly boarded a FCC train at a station without any functioning way to purchase tickets at the instruction of a RPI waiting by the door who told me to sit down and that he would sell me a ticket after the train had departed. Immediately after departure he attempted to issue me a PF which I refused, then asked me for my name & address which I again refused so I got off at the next station before he could do anything about it.

Despite the fact this RPI clearly lied to me about selling me a ticket to get me on a train just so he could PF me I was afraid of reporting him because I believed I had broken the bylaws by refusing to give him my name and address and could be prosecuted.

From reading some of the above posts though it does seem that it's only illegal to refuse to provide details if the person asking for them reasonably believes the passenger has broken bylaws, and in my specific circumstances nobody could think that the RPI reasonably believed I had.

Is this correct?

The correct passenger action in that case would be to accept the penalty fare, pay only the cost of the single journey being made, and appeal it afterwards. I would not fancy defending myself against a charge of refusal to give name and address.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top