help and opinions on charge RE: privilege card

[DaveNewcastle]

My understanding is that there are 2 quite separate procedures taking place here - we should clarify them:

The alledged criminal offence was potentially a loss of income by EMT arising from improper use of a pass instead of paying a fare. That alledged offence was detected by EMT and has been dealt with by an out-of-court settlement to EMT. That matter is now closed and EMT wil have no more to say. (I hope they have written to say that your payment is in full and final settlement?).

The Priv Card has been awarded by the employing company (which we understand is Network Rail (NR)) and EMT will have had a duty to inform NR of the concerns about potential abuse, and I guess will have asked NR to confirm that the card had indeed been issued in accordance with NR's policy on staff priviliges. They will now be concerned that the card is being used as it should be, and that is wat you are now being asked.

This is one of the unfortunate consequences of privatisation - several different companies are running the railways!

I can only advise you to give a full, honest and helpful reply to NR, just as you did during your interview with EMT. An apology for the inconvenience and for being a little unusual in using pencils would be very appropriate.
They have a range of choices open to them, ranging from accepting your apology and closing the matter, right through to withdrawing all the Privs in the family.
Based on what you have explained on here and in confidence, I would expect thy may wish to let it drop altogether or withdraw that Priv. I find it very unlikely that they would want to impose any more serious penalty than that.

I hope this helps.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

How exactly can EMT insist on what guards of other train companies will do? and even then, guards have discresion, and one guard might leave it, and one might go over in pen (putting a cross could cause confusion in later legs of the journey)

When putting a cross through a date for whatever reason - i.e. filled in in pencil, incorrect date etc, the correct date should then be written in the next available box. In effect the original box becomes void, and the newly dated box becomes the correct one for travel for that and later journeys. The instructions on this are fairly clear.

Surely on closer examination it would be obvious that the two dates in the box (one in pen, one in pencil) where the same? and then I think any cases of altering the box, to falsely obtain discount would be pretty well sunken

Not necessarily.

7. Before commencing a free journey, the day and month of the journey must be entered in ink in the first (or next available) pair of boxes on the card (marked as “DAY” and “MTH”). Use Arabic numerals, with zero in front of single digits ie 07/08 for 7 August.
8. Each dated pair of boxes allows free travel on that day, and up to midnight on the following day, and from 22h00 on the preceding day. In other words a card dated 7 August allows journeys from 22h00 on 6 August up to 24h00 on 8 August, 50 hours in total.
9. During that 50-hour period, travel does not have to be continuous: any number of broken journeys may be undertaken.
10. Alterations to the date entered are not permitted under any circumstances; and dates must also not be overwritten. This is clearly indicated on the Staff Travel Card. If you make a mistake, that allocation of free travel is forfeited, the error must be blocked out, and the correct date entered in the next pair of boxes.
11. If a card is being used without a box being dated, Revenue Protection Staff will cancel the next available pair of boxes and require the holder to date and use the following box.
12. If a card is being used with the wrong date entered, Revenue Protection Staff will cancel the next available pair of boxes and require the holder to date and use the following box.
13. If there are no empty boxes left, any attempt to travel free will be classed as a Travel Irregularity.

 

[networkrail1]

Ok there is 1 thing that is confusing me with this now.

I have read all the posts and seeing as i work for Network Rail aswell i know 100% that we DO NOT get priv cards or free travel or any discount on rail tickets whatsoever.

So i do not understand how you have got a priv card if your husband works for Network rail as it doesnt exist.

All the best.

Simon

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Ok there is 1 thing that is confusing me with this now.

I have read all the posts and seeing as i work for Network Rail aswell i know 100% that we DO NOT get priv cards or free travel or any discount on rail tickets whatsoever.

So i do not understand how you have got a priv card if your husband works for Network rail as it doesnt exist.

All the best.

Simon

There will be some safeguarded senior staff somewhere who do still get them. I see them occasionally and they are shown as the employer being as Network Rail.

 

[tony_mac]

the first post actually said National Rail, not Network Rail

 

[bb21]

the first post actually said National Rail, not Network Rail

The OP did clarify in Post 28 that it was actually supposed to be Network Rail.

I see that it's causing confusion so I have edited Post 1 accordingly.

 

[tony_mac]

sorry, missed that, it's really quite off-topic for this thread anyway.

 

[WillPS]

This whole ordeal really disgusts me.

To me, it seems that an overzealous and quite possibly jealous EMT guard has grassed you up for a very petty irregularity.

EMT have then acted as both prosecution and judge, and forced you in to an out of court agreement.

At the end of the day, your daughter was travelling as she is entitled to do so. She wasn't abusing the pass nor was she profiteering out of it.

That such privileges have not been maintained beyond privatisation is something the unions should have prevented.

What a pitty that a hard-earned perk which must have been awarded at a time when the railways were truly a joined-up network where staff were staff has been the cause of such angst.

 

[Genki]

My understanding is that there are 2 quite separate procedures taking place here - we should clarify them:

The alledged criminal offence was potentially a loss of income by EMT arising from improper use of a pass instead of paying a fare. That alledged offence was detected by EMT and has been dealt with by an out-of-court settlement to EMT. That matter is now closed and EMT wil have no more to say. (I hope they have written to say that your payment is in full and final settlement?).

The Priv Card has been awarded by the employing company (which we understand is Network Rail (NR)) and EMT will have had a duty to inform NR of the concerns about potential abuse, and I guess will have asked NR to confirm that the card had indeed been issued in accordance with NR's policy on staff priviliges. They will now be concerned that the card is being used as it should be, and that is wat you are now being asked.

This is one of the unfortunate consequences of privatisation - several different companies are running the railways!

I can only advise you to give a full, honest and helpful reply to NR, just as you did during your interview with EMT. An apology for the inconvenience and for being a little unusual in using pencils would be very appropriate.
They have a range of choices open to them, ranging from accepting your apology and closing the matter, right through to withdrawing all the Privs in the family.
Based on what you have explained on here and in confidence, I would expect thy may wish to let it drop altogether or withdraw that Priv. I find it very unlikely that they would want to impose any more serious penalty than that.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Dave, you're as helpful as always. we'll be sure to write the letter, I think we're just a bit confused about why they're asking for it as surely they have the report filed by EMT which explains everything, my daughter can't say any more than what was said in the interview. We're prepared for them to take the priv card off her, we just hope they don't intend to try and get more money out of us!

 

[Greenback]

This whole ordeal really disgusts me.

To me, it seems that an overzealous and quite possibly jealous EMT guard has grassed you up for a very petty irregularity.

EMT have then acted as both prosecution and judge, and forced you in to an out of court agreement.

At the end of the day, your daughter was travelling as she is entitled to do so. She wasn't abusing the pass nor was she profiteering out of it.

That such privileges have not been maintained beyond privatisation is something the unions should have prevented.

What a pitty that a hard-earned perk which must have been awarded at a time when the railways were truly a joined-up network where staff were staff has been the cause of such angst.

Nobody is forced into an out of court agreement. It is a decision that is entirely up to the parties involved. Genki has explained why she decided to accept the agreement and avoid the stress and expense of court. I am sure many would feel exactly the same.

 

[WillPS]

I understand and completely sympathise with Genki.

The very notion that court action was threatened is what appals me.

 

[Flamingo]

For potential fraud? What else would you suggest (not saying that this case was fraud - that is up to a court to decide).

 

[WillPS]

I think fraudsters should be treated as fraudsters.

 

[Greenback]

Who should decide if someone is a fraudster or not?

 

[Flamingo]

Me sir, me sir (jumping up and down in seat. holding up hand)

A court?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A court?

Another radical proposal from this forum!

I can barely imagine how that would work. Do you mean that, by some division of responsibilities, the two roles of a) presenting one side of a complaint and, b) the weighing up of evidence, considering the law and passing sentence, could be seperated from each other?

To be fair to the TOCs, they are put in a difficult position - they have a 120 year old law to use, they are obliged to gather evidence from, among others, passengers, and they are faced with 'absolute offence' instances in which passengers don't have to do anything to incriminate themselves.
But I do find it offensive that the one party (the TOC) can both be evidence gatherer, prosecutor and (in the cases of choosing to pursue a strict liability 'absolute offence's), effectively the judge.
There is another case being considered at present (not on this forum) involving pencilled boxes on a Priv and during the Interview with the passenger, who brought a relative to the interview for support, the TOC's Interviewer even refused to allow the passenger's relative to take notes! Just how far can a TOC go to avoid being just?

 

[WillPS]

If you need to assume the worst with customers, fair enough. But when it comes to staff and dependants, I think you should be able to receive the benefit of the doubt.

Once again, we're talking about a young person who's parent has worked on the railways for a considerable amount of time. She was not attempting to sell or otherwise deprive the railway of income, she was travelling as she is entitled to.

Irregularities should be dealt with as irregularities and not criminal behaviour.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Ok there is 1 thing that is confusing me with this now.

I have read all the posts and seeing as i work for Network Rail aswell i know 100% that we DO NOT get priv cards or free travel or any discount on rail tickets whatsoever.

So i do not understand how you have got a priv card if your husband works for Network rail as it doesnt exist.

All the best.

Simon

Staff who work in the rail industry who were employed by British Rail before 1st April 1996 are entitled to Priv Cards. That is how someone and their dependants who works for Network Rail can have Priv Cards. I also believe that Network Rail staff are entitled to a 70% discount on season tickets, so your assertion that Network Rail staff do not get any discount on rail tickets is also incorrect. Are you sure you work for Network Rail?

For the OP, I believe that your willingness to settle out of court could be interpreted by Network Rail as an admission of guilt. Also, unless there was evidence of fraud, should the incident just have been treated as a travel irregularity?

 

[barrykas]

For the OP, I believe that your willingness to settle out of court could be interpreted by Network Rail as an admission of guilt. Also, unless there was evidence of fraud, should the incident just have been treated as a travel irregularity?

RSTL guidelines state that ANY "altering, writing over, erasing or any other tampering with dated boxes on a Staff Travel Card" SHOULD be treated as an irregularity involving dishonesty, and reported to the British Transport Police (for prosecution), Employer and Rail Staff Travel, with the individual involved having their facilities permanently withdrawn (and being dismissed in the case of active staff).

Cheers,

Barry

 

[networkrail1]

I also believe that Network Rail staff are entitled to a 70% discount on season tickets, so your assertion that Network Rail staff do not get any discount on rail tickets is also incorrect. Are you sure you work for Network Rail?

I spoke to my manager again today and even he says that i am not entitled to any travel discounts whatsoever, now i didnt ask him about other staff as thats none of my business and to be honest even if i could get a discount i would still pay the full price to use the railway (thats for another thread).

As for working for network rail unless my sentinal card is a fake, i imagine going to a little hut that says network rail everyday, oh and wearing full orange so i look like a tango man with a white hat with network rail all over it then yes i believe i do work for them

All the best.

Simon

 

[Clip]

I spoke to my manager again today and even he says that i am not entitled to any travel discounts whatsoever, now i didnt ask him about other staff as thats none of my business and to be honest even if i could get a discount i would still pay the full price to use the railway (thats for another thread).

As for working for network rail unless my sentinal card is a fake, i imagine going to a little hut that says network rail everyday, oh and wearing full orange so i look like a tango man with a white hat with network rail all over it then yes i believe i do work for them

All the best.

Simon

I think you just get a season ticket loan with NR nowadays..

BUT - and i say this as a big BUT - there are some TOC staff that will let NR trackworkers/signallers travel for free with them as long as they have NR ID.. Not contractual NR ID and so forth..

I know i let a few pass through us if they come and ask my staff and we get to know them..

 

[Surreytraveller]

I spoke to my manager again today and even he says that i am not entitled to any travel discounts whatsoever, now i didnt ask him about other staff as thats none of my business and to be honest even if i could get a discount i would still pay the full price to use the railway (thats for another thread).

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1078.aspx#gDoIGetTravel

Don't believe what your managers tell you - do your own research.

 

[185]

There are many staff who work on contract to TOCs who get no travel at all because of the pennypinching franchise holders.... anyone who has retained their passes from BR should be very careful about how they and their children use them as they really are a privilege, not a right.

I agree with Wolf on this one.

Over the years I found photocopied boxes, boxes which were altered so much they had holes in them, boxes of 12 used 365 times in a year by someone commuting to work - it takes the mickey.

If someone had the opportunity to pay priv 75% and chose to deface a box instead, more the fool them.

Have to give Northern Rail credit, as they do issue contractors with Leisure Travel passes.

 

[Flamingo]

Another radical proposal from this forum!

I can barely imagine how that would work. Do you mean that, by some division of responsibilities, the two roles of a) presenting one side of a complaint and, b) the weighing up of evidence, considering the law and passing sentence, could be seperated from each other?

To be fair to the TOCs, they are put in a difficult position - they have a 120 year old law to use, they are obliged to gather evidence from, among others, passengers, and they are faced with 'absolute offence' instances in which passengers don't have to do anything to incriminate themselves.
But I do find it offensive that the one party (the TOC) can both be evidence gatherer, prosecutor and (in the cases of choosing to pursue a strict liability 'absolute offence's), effectively the judge.
There is another case being considered at present (not on this forum) involving pencilled boxes on a Priv and during the Interview with the passenger, who brought a relative to the interview for support, the TOC's Interviewer even refused to allow the passenger's relative to take notes! Just how far can a TOC go to avoid being just?

I was more referring to the wider "innocent until proven guilty" concept, that specifically (and being a little tongue in cheek).

I know what you are saying that the TOC is in a situation that can be seen as having conflict of interest, and I can't honestly think of any other situation where a commercial interest can bring crminal prosecutions (as opposed to civil ones).

What would be the solution? A separate revenue company, who's remit is to undertake all revenue duties for all TOC's?

An independent "appeal" body for ticketing disputes, akin to the appeal system for parking tickets?

There are things that could be done. But again, getting off-thread and away from the OP.

 

[Turbocharger]

Sorry to the person involved in this thread. It does all sound a bit harsh.
But then misuse of priv cards is very serious and it is up to the employee to make this known to their partners/family who have the use of them. Mine did and still does.

I am no legal expert, but surely the TOC's or a judge's main concern is whether there was intent to defraud. As that is what the whole legal side of it is about. Not just company rules etc.

If the person has used pencil's before on previous boxes, then a not guilty verdict has to be made.

And any judge worth their salt would throw the case out if it did go to court as there is no rule stating dates must be in ink. Unless there has been a test case before now?

As a side note, I was given a roasting by a gatekeeper for not filling my box in before going on to the platform, let alone a train!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . the TOC is in a situation that can be seen as having conflict of interest, and I can't honestly think of any other situation where a commercial interest can bring crminal prosecutions (as opposed to civil ones).

What would be the solution? A separate revenue company, who's remit is to undertake all revenue duties for all TOC's?

An independent "appeal" body for ticketing disputes, akin to the appeal system for parking tickets?

These are sensible suggestions - I'll admit that I'd been ready to criticise the TOC's triple role as evidence gatherer, prosecutor and 'judge' (which is even worse in those cases where they decide what offence to prosecute after receiving a completed 'witness statement' form from a passenger!). But I hadn't attempted to think of an alternative.
Certainly, independence (genuine independence) between prosecution and decision making is highly desirable. In fact, (perhaps to the annoyance of some on here), I might even be happy with even stricter penalties if the judicial system was more transparent, accountable and independent.

I am no legal expert, but surely the TOC's or a judge's main concern is whether there was intent to defraud. As that is what the whole legal side of it is about. Not just company rules etc.

If the person has used pencil's before on previous boxes, then a not guilty verdict has to be made.

I wonder if you've missed some of the background to these threads concerning passengers threatened with prosecution, Turbocharger?
We are dealing with 120+ year old law which includes several so-called 'absolute offences' in which the person is subject to 'strict liability' merely on evidence of the facts and without any need to prove 'intent', and other offences which do require evidence of 'intent' but where case law makes that rather trivially simple to demonstrate. (to the extent that most passengers find that there is no real point in even attending the Court).

I don't thnk any one is content with the legislative framework, and it can and does cause immense distress to those facing prosecution; prosecutions which appear to be remarkably successful in the very many cases which pass through the Magistrates Court each year.

If the person has used pencil's before on previous boxes, then a not guilty verdict has to be made.

And any judge worth their salt would throw the case out if it did go to court as there is no rule stating dates must be in ink.

I appreciate your sentiments, and I guess most reading this will too, but I regret to inform you that both of these statements are, sadly, false. (I don't point this out to undermine you, Turbocharger, but rather to avoid giving false hope to those who have received correspondence warning of a likely prosecution, or a Summons to appear before the Magistrates.)

It appears that most railway prosecutions do succeed and are not 'thrown out', though unfortunately I have been unable to obtain meaningful statistics on railway prosecutions in recent years. Anyone who is able to assist me in compiling those statistics will be most welcome if they could contact me, please!

 

[Flamingo]

I still stand by my judgement that even if an individual get on a train without a valid ticket from a manned barriered station and gets off at another manned barriered station, the chances of that individual ending up in the dock is about the same as them being hit by lightening whilst holding their winning lottery ticket.

 

[Turbocharger]

(I don't point this out to undermine you, Turbocharger, but rather to avoid giving false hope to those who have received correspondence warning of a likely prosecution, or a Summons to appear before the Magistrates.)

No indeed and good point thank you.

I don't want to give false hopes!

But I would certainly defend any legal consequences that may harm what could be a good and innocent character simply because of a lack of understanding.

Priv cards are so trusted and open to abuse I guess.

 

[Genki]

Lots of discussion going on here!
I've just had a thought that I'm confused about and wondering what your thoughts are RE my case. As I mentioned we got a Second letter, this time from Network Rail (actually I believe it's ATOC sending it via network rail) addressed to my husband, not my daughter, listing the boxes that were mentioned in our interview with EMT, asking for an explanation. My husband rang to clarify and they said they wanted an explanation of the interview with EMT. My husband wrote the letter explaining the interview, along with the recipt we were given for the 'out of court settlement' we paid to EMT, and my daughter also included a separate letter of apology.
This was a couple weeks ago and we're hoping to hear back soon, however I'm wondering what the next step will be... From reading the guidelines on the ATOC website: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/RSTDocuments/NewArticles/Web_TI_Guidelines_040211.pdf
It says that the card will be taken and be recommended for prosecution by the BTP...
The card being taken I can understand, but I am confused about the being recommended for prosecution part... We've had the interview and paid a hefty settlement already, so would there be any need for the BTP to get involved and push for prosecution? This privatisation business is incredibly confusing and we've been through so much stress already, dealing with EMT was hard enough and they assured us that would be the last we heard of the case apart from ATOC notifying us on whether they want to withdraw the card... But now hearing from ATOC/Network Rail has made me wonder what action will come next?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You are so right - just waiting for something like this to be determined can be very stressful in itself. But you know that it will, soon, reach a conclusion, and you will be able to get on with your lives, with all this fading into the past.

Yes, the fragmentation of the Railways (privitisation) is underlying the confusion here. As discussed above, the matter of lost revenue alledged by EMT has been dealt with out-of-court and therefore a prosecution has been averted. I hope that the letter from EMT confirming this actually said 'full and final settlement' or words to that effect.

The Card issuing Company is now considering whether the Card should be withdrawn or not, based on the evidence provided by yourselves and EMT. This is what Network Rail are now doing - but not to re-consider opportunity to prosecute for an Offence (That has been dealt with). The prospects of THEM, NR, also considering a Prosecution seems very odd and unlikely to me. (And if they were to consider Prosecuting for an Offence which has already been settled, they would have a very great burden in justifying that Prosecution!).

I regret that I cannot give you the absolute assurance that I wish I could, but I hope you are a little re-assured that the more serious hazard of Prosecution has passed and you are now facing, only, an assessment of whether the Card(s) should be withdrawn.