Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 20,082
The Oyster Card will show the last 10 journeys.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
RPI asking for too much information
- Thread starter Jan Mayen
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
RPI
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 2,983
Whilst I will never handle a passengers phone or other property, I will ask to see previous bookings, it's up to the passenger whether they show me or not, but if they show me and there is nothing previous to investigate then I will more often than not just issue a PF/Sell a ticket/ask them to renew railcard, if they don't want to show me, which is their right, it leaves no option but to report via an MG11 for further investigation.
Not really enough to see if someone 'has history'. Plus, as I said, not everyone outside of London and the Oyster areas may have a RID to check this.
You are not required to give your NI number, occupation, inside leg measurement or anything else to a RPI other than the basic info they can demand. I would never hand over my phone or any other information. I’d simply give my details and nothing more. It’s a data slurping exercise to gather info that can be used against you.
I thought it was eight, but it can be far fewer if interchanges are involved. When you re-commence a journey at the end of an OSI the original leg is closed with zero charge and a new journey is started from your original origin. This happens as many times as you make interchanges, so a simple train-tube-train journey will occupy three slots.
As a revenue officer, if I ask you what your occupation is, you are under no obligation to tell me. However if asked to see your booking/journey history and you refuse, any benefit of doubt is now gone and it’s much more likely to be a report for prosecution as opposed to a penalty fare. The response you give and the attitude you have directly affects the outcome. That’s not to say if you don’t show me I will report for prosecution, but all revenue (I know at least) use the attitude test, and being unhelpful isn’t a great start.
Very unlikely, there needs to be a provable intention to cause harm or fear, or at the very least a substantial amount of recklessness., taking a phone to view a ticket is very unlikely to fall into this category unless grabbed by force. Trespass of a person isn't a specific offence, more a collective term for offences of assault, battery etc.
You have no right whatsoever to ask to see my booking/journey history. You are dealing with the here and now, not something from 3 weeks ago - that would be down to Fraud investigation or whoever to deal with based on information you pass to them. The offence you are dealing with may be a one off, of there may be no online purchase history to check.
I also use the attitude test, ask me for information you have no legal right to and you won’t be getting it. Also expect a formal complaint to be made against you for exceeding your very limited powers. I have made countless complaints about organisations over the years, almost every one has been upheld with many ending with an offer of financial compensation, on one occasion reaching 4 figures.
But all this is academic with me as I have never, do not, nor will I in the future travel without a valid ticket for the journey I am making.
I am a little surprised companies cave in when you complain that someone asked you something you didn't have to answer. Anyone can ask someone a question and it isn't exceeding their 'very limited powers' in my opinion.
You'll likely find all sorts of people ask you questions that you don't have to answer, but I wouldn't go writing official formal complaints and demanding compensation.
The fact you've made countless complaints over the years suggests you're either extremely unlucky or have found a nice little money earner.
You'll likely find all sorts of people ask you questions that you don't have to answer, but I wouldn't go writing official formal complaints and demanding compensation.
The fact you've made countless complaints over the years suggests you're either extremely unlucky or have found a nice little money earner.
bahnause
Member
Of course, anyone can ask anyone almost anything. However, if I do this as an employee with a company ID, possibly even in uniform, then this gives a completely different impression than if I do this as a "stranger" on the street. If it has nothing to do with the case at hand, then a line has been crossed. "Because I'm allowed to" has never been a good argument. This applies to all positions in which a certain power exists or can be assumed.
Last edited:
spyinthesky
Member
I understand how the attitude may affect the outcome, then how can the benefit of doubt be used on someone with a paper ticket and has paid cash with no possible purchase history available to ask for?
We see so many people who have made apparent mistakes on here yet the large proportion are knowingly or unknowingly fare evaders anyway. It just seems to me the enforcement of NRcot’s are a minefield when you come across the little old lady who has lost her purse and the foreign student who has learnt how to fare evade in freshers week.
Trainbike46
Established Member
A question for the RPIs who have replied in this thread; if you're in a situation where you would have asked to see journey history, but the ticket you were presented was a paper ticket (CCT, PRT, or even a printed out eTicket), what would you do there?
m0ffy
Member
You’d treat the subject more harshly if they don’t show you their purchase history?
Is your employer aware that you make reporting decisions based on irrelevant data?
This highlights exactly why the rail industry should be prohibited from bringing prosecutions. RPIs admitting online they apply arbitrary tests, rather than treating people fairly and consistently is just one symptom of the problem.
Last edited:
With respect to your last para there are only very limited circumstances where the police have powers to search a mobile phone without the owner's consent or a warrant.
A railway RPI or even worse some random staff member on a gateline? That's not only a no but a hell no. A world of legal hurt potentially faces not only that person but their employer if they conduct any searches without consent.
The worst case scenario might be a possible allegation of unauthorised communication interception without appropriate approval under The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
Last edited:
m0ffy
Member
I’d add to this that the phone isn’t the ticket - the ticket is a few kilobytes of very specific code within that device, which can be visually presented and scanned by the RPI.
The rest of the device is explicitly off limits, like the wallet of someone using a paper ticket.
The "ticket" is the problem, or rather the archaic legislation that refers to it in an age where large amounts of travel (particularly in London) are completed without one.
Sorry I should expand. I was referring to complaining generally, not specifically about being asked the wrong question. Typically it’s been financial institutions that have felt my wrath, due to doing totally the wrong thing, failing to do what they said they would and plain outright lying To me.
Give someone or an organisation enough rope and they generally hang themselves. I asked for compensation to cover my costs and time dealing with their incompetence. But you have to have grounds for the complaint.
enyoueffsea
Member
The RPI is absolutely correct here. If someone fails to allow them to carry out their role, I can completely understand why they would refer it on as that will almost certainly appear suspicious.
If you have nothing to hide, what personal information or data would you inadvertently be sharing by showing the RPI your trainline purchase history? They already have your personal details from the contact with you.
Your purchase history is absolutely not “irrelevant data” as proven time after time on this forum. If they cannot get this information freely from you, they’ll make a report and the TOC can do the same enquiries at a cost to you for the hassle of having to do so.
The RPI has explained how they treat people fairly and consistently. Obstruct their enquiries and you’ll receive a report for further investigation, as you have not allowed them to conduct it themselves, it’s fairly simple.
It’s also well worth remembering, you only end up in this conversation to begin with if you have committed an offence. RPIs are not ripping mobile phones out of passenger’s hands to check their Instagram followers.
So you would rather receive a report for prosecution, and incur additional costs, simply to take the moral high ground (whilst being caught breaking the law) on what questions you are being asked by a person carrying out their employed role?
If an RPI is asking you what you had for dinner or inappropriate questions, sure. But asking to see how frequently you evade fares is very relevant.
Last edited:
m0ffy
Member
Purchase history isn’t relevant to the supposed offence in the moment, the RPI has no power to demand it and the customer is under no obligation to provide it. History of tickets purchased is not evidence of tickets used.
A customer remaining polite and cooperating as required, but refusing to provide additional information is not “failing the attitude test.” Taking further action because the customer didn’t bend to the whims of the RPI is an abuse of power.
enyoueffsea
Member
We won’t agree on this, clearly. So I won’t carry on this discussion with you.
However, your post alleging the RPI has done something wrong and their employer should be aware of it is completely inaccurate.
Equally, and to evidence your lack of knowledge on the matter, your latest post suggesting this is an inappropriate “demand” as well as claiming a refusal to do so will “fail the attitude test”, is also incorrect as evidenced in their post below.
m0ffy
Member
That’s a very selective quote, as you know:
“However if asked to see your booking/journey history and you refuse, any benefit of doubt is now gone and it’s much more likely to be a report for prosecution as opposed to a penalty fare. The response you give and the attitude you have directly affects the outcome.”
Even assuming they are following the procedures their employer has told them to follow, those procedures might be legally questionable in their own right.
With the SJP scandal we have seen how incompetent, verging on self-serving and malicious, many TOC prosecution departments have proven themselves to be. I would not at all assume that those procedures are watertight.
They aren't 'failing to allow them to carry out their role'. RPIs' role is not to hoover up information en-masse. It is first and foremost to deal with the irregularity they are actually faced with. They should not automatically assume that someone is a habitual fare dodger. If an RPI finds it 'suspcious' that someone is refusing to let them mess about on their phone, that in itself is questionable.
The "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" trope is utterly fallacious. We have seen time after time how this is proven wrong as people are falsely accused of things they haven't done.
Just giving them the personal details doesn't automatically give them access to your purchasing history. Indeed with a mere name and address a TOC may not be able to find any accounts at all. It might be registered with a different spelling, under an old address and so forth. Similarly they are not going to be asking every retailer for information - they will mostly likely just contact the biggest ones, such as Trainline.
Trainline seem happy to hand over purchasing data on a whim (which is highly questionable from a data protection viewpoint) but better retailers would question what evidence there is to justify the kinds of fishing exercises that certain TOCs seem to like going on.
It is only relevant where there are grounds for suspicion of previous offences. Merely having an expired Railcard, for example, is not sufficient for such suspicion in my view. Nor is a single irregularity.
The threads we see on the forum are not representative of the travelling public as a whole; they are very much a self-selecting sample.
You are not obstructing their investigation by refusing to cooperate with a fishing exercise, much in the same way as you aren't doing so if you exercise your right to remain silent in a police interview. It would only be obstruction if you were refusing to comply with your legal obligations (e.g. to provide your name and address).
That is blatantly untrue. We have seen many cases where people are wrongly accused of irregularities. And regardless of how the situation arises, someone accused of an irregularity has exactly the same GDPR rights as everyone else.
Not to check for Instagram followers, but we have heard of some very concerning accounts of RPIs "demanding" access to phones and implying it's a legal requirement to provide information beyond name, address and (for a PF) date of birth.
Knoodlepot
Member
Unfortunate I have seen this happen by Revenue from another ToC we used to work closely with.
They demanded to see the phone when the passenger did not want to show it the revenue person snatched it out of the passengers hands. The Revenue person was in plain clothes too with ID showing but you would not have noticed it was ID. A police officer travelling to work saw it and intervened. I do not know what happened to the Revenue person but it was shocking as we heard rumours but laughed it off till then.
That was the first and last time I saw a phone snatched but I would not be surprised if it still happens in places.
When the incident happened our team stopped straight away. We told the lead of the other ToC what we saw and we did not want to carry on working with them if that is how they treat passengers.
A complaint went to the ToC which we heard nothing in return. We do not work with them but this was a good 8 years ago.
enyoueffsea
Member
This is different to the scenario we were discussing and would be inappropriate. But not particularly relevant to the point the original RPI made as they did not suggest they would do this.
As above - we are talking about a scenario where a passenger is speaking to a RPI as they have been stopped for an offence.
We can agree to disagree on this. If you remain silent in a police interview “it may harm your defence…”, it’s not a good comparison to make.
I don’t see the RPI in the original post suggesting they take this as a blanket approach to every case.
My reply was to state it is not “irrelevant data” which I believe you are agreeing with as you suggest it is relevant in some cases.
Again probably one to agree to disagree.
Falsely accused is very different to having nothing to hide. I’m not sure we have ever seen wrongful convictions? If you have nothing to hide you are able to prevent yourself being falsely convicted if you have been falsely accused.
As previous, I don’t think it’s ever been suggested the RPI said they would hoover up information on masse. I read it as they deal with cases on a case-by-case basis.
Do we have any case examples of an RPI asking to see a purchase history and this not being deemed legal? I’m not sure how it would be deemed illegal as they are asking and not demanding. They’re certainly not suggesting they have the power to see that information.*
*Not disputing there are some rogue RPIs that have done this in the past but nobody is suggesting the TOC’s policy support this rogue operation and the RPI that got the poor response on this thread certainly did not suggest they would do this.
Last edited:
Always give your name and address as legally obliged and answer no further questions.
It’s not relevant to the offence they have detected. RPIs aren’t the police; they aren’t empowered to sniff around your personal data or your booking history. They can deal with whatever offence they suspect you of at the time, but anything else - they can ask! But that is about it.
There were 74,000 people who were wrongly convicted, many of whom were not absolutely not guilty of the offence they were charged with under the RoRA. That is a huge number and gross incompetence by train companies and the justice system.
Indeed they do not have the power, so best not to accede to the request.
Last edited:
Oh joy.... Another person from the "if you are innocent you have nothing to hide" club who has zero knowledge of personal privacy and data protection....
Abso-bloody-lutely. There is a reason that Parliament - full of lawyers - passed legislation in the terms that it did!
Re your last para - and TOCs seeking to exercise more than their legal powers should result in immediate removal of their right to prosecute.
Fine. That's a declaration of war - expect your directors to be inundated with MP, Parliamentary and media response. Without coffee chats to follow...
I worked nearly 40 years in central Government and would love nothing more than show exactly how the system works when an insider exercises it....
Last edited:
duffield
Established Member
Producing a railcard which expired six days ago is not really sufficient for suspicion of previous offences, and probably just merits a penalty fare on the spot - and no further investigation. But producing a railcard which expired six months ago? I'd say it is highly suspicious, and does merit further investigation.
I think there's an argument to be made for having a grace period for railcard renewal, where if you're found with an expired railcard within a short period (say two weeks) after expiry you are allowed to buy a new railcard backdated to the expiry of the old one with no further penalty. Although this could be gamed, the gains to be made would be so pathetically small (1/26 of the cost of an annual railcard each year if not caught) I can't imagine it would be worth the effort.
Also I think the penalty fare rules should be changed so that if you are referred for further investigation for any offence where a penalty fare could be issued but there's a suspicion of further offending, but that suspicion turns out to be unfounded, a retrospective penalty fare could be issued. I really don't see why penalty fares have to be on the spot only.
I believe these changes would make the current system fairer.
I think there's an argument to be made for having a grace period for railcard renewal, where if you're found with an expired railcard within a short period (say two weeks) after expiry you are allowed to buy a new railcard backdated to the expiry of the old one with no further penalty. Although this could be gamed, the gains to be made would be so pathetically small (1/26 of the cost of an annual railcard each year if not caught) I can't imagine it would be worth the effort.
Also I think the penalty fare rules should be changed so that if you are referred for further investigation for any offence where a penalty fare could be issued but there's a suspicion of further offending, but that suspicion turns out to be unfounded, a retrospective penalty fare could be issued. I really don't see why penalty fares have to be on the spot only.
I believe these changes would make the current system fairer.
That all sounds eminently reasonable, sensible and balanced.
To clarify, I don’t normally ask to see booking history, but if I did, as I said you’re under no obligation to give it to me. I don’t know what settlement you’d get from someone asking to see your booking History and you saying no? I would never demand it? Or tell you I’m legally allowed to demand it (because as you say I have no right to it) it’s just likely to make the penalty less severe if I can see it’s a genuine mistake.
Id argue that’s a different situation. Again theres no requirement to show m anything (before I get lambasted by another commenter) but refusing to show evidence that could exhonarate you (to an extent) is normally a good indicator someone’s possibly not being honest. Having no evidence to show is entirely different.
I presume that the situation you speak of is where a passenger shows that they have routinely bought correct tickets in the past and this was a one-off mistake. If they can demonstrate this they might be let off with a warning?