Standard ticket holder in first class

[sheff1]

The RPI is tasked with catching people breaking the law. It's not really out of order to say "can't you read?".

It is unnecessarily confrontational to say "can't you read?". The exact same message can be conveyed by saying "First Class is clearly marked there".

We are often told that staff are taught to avoid conflict, if possible. A statement of fact - "First Class is marked" - is far less likely to cause conflict than a rather insulting suggestion that someone cannot read. The former is likely to be met by a conciliatory response of along the lines of "oh sorry, I didn't see it" (even if the passenger had actually seen it) the latter is likely to get hackles up. When hackles are up some people (I am not for one minute suggesting the OP) can turn violent.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is unnecessarily confrontational to say "can't you read?". The exact same message can be conveyed by saying "First Class is clearly marked there".

We are often told that staff are taught to avoid conflict, if possible. A statement of fact - "First Class is marked" - is far less likely to cause conflict than a rather insulting suggestion that someone cannot read. The former is likely to be met by a conciliatory response of along the lines of "oh sorry, I didn't see it" (even if the passenger had actually seen it) the latter is likely to get hackles up. When hackles are up some people (I am not for one minute suggesting the OP) can turn violent.

That's all true, but it's also no reason for the OP to complain. The OP isn't the victim.

 

[6Gman]

Hello

Thanks for the question.

The inspector came around and asked for my ticket, she saw the standard ticket and asked me rudely what I was doing there. I said "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I was distracted, I will move." Then she pointed at the signage and said 'can't you read?, I'm going to give you a penalty, what's your name."

I would have paid for an upgrade, I would have even paid the penalty, but I was approached as a criminal first and reacted by refusing to give my details. There are easier ways to get my money and she was being unecesarily rude.

They called the police officers that were waiting at the airport, I gave my details. But by the end of the process, it felt personal and it had just escalated as I was visibly upset. It just felt ugly - we were not being civil to each other.

However, I'm not sure any of this makes a difference. I was sat where I wasn't suppose to be sat and refused to give my details. I regret the incident and need practical advice on best way forward. I called train focus today for some advice and they said in the first instance complain.

Any other advice much appreciated.

The highlighted section suggests "six of one, half a dozen of the other".

 

[jon0844]

It is unnecessarily confrontational to say "can't you read?". The exact same message can be conveyed by saying "First Class is clearly marked there".

The problem is we don't know the actual words used. We do know that in addition to refusing to cooperate, the police ended up being called - a rather rare occurrence.

 

[Nsit]

I have seen RPIs who are perhaps a bit timid and won't get involved with obvious fare evasion, but can't recall any that are rude or aggressive. Some will sigh and get frustrated, but that's a bit different.

If someone is refusing to cooperate or failing the attitude test, then later says they were treated badly, that usually sets alarm bells ringing.

But of course I wasn't there either. Nevertheless, failing to give details is not the best way to keep someone 'on side', especially if it results in the police being called.

I also can't recall a time BTP were called to deal with someone in first class without a first class ticket.



Quite.

Please do not imply that I am lying about the facts. The advice on this forum would not be applicable or helpful if I sat here lying about the situation.

I said that what I did was illegal and I acknowledge it - I asked for advise not judgement.

 

[island]

Hello

Thanks for the question.

The inspector came around and asked for my ticket, she saw the standard ticket and asked me rudely what I was doing there. I said "I'm sorry, I didn't realise, I was distracted, I will move." Then she pointed at the signage and said 'can't you read?, I'm going to give you a penalty, what's your name."

I would have paid for an upgrade, I would have even paid the penalty, but I was approached as a criminal first and reacted by refusing to give my details.

Sorry, but you were a criminal. It's an offence to remain in a part of a train reserved for a certain category of person when not a member of that category.

 

[island]

I would imagine that a healthy proportion of complaints received from people rightfully caught by an RPI include the suggestion that the staff member was rude/obnoxious/did this that and the other, etc. I would be very surprised indeed if such suggestions were routinely acted upon by management, considering hoe potentially time consuming that would be. That's a shame of course if there is an attitude problem at play.

I think most of the time there is no objective issue with rudeness or obnoxiousness, merely a passenger resentful at being correctly told he is in the wrong and other things he may not want to hear.

 

[gray1404]

But there is a way of communicating such difficult information without being rude.

 

[bb21]

Please do not imply that I am lying about the facts. The advice on this forum would not be applicable or helpful if I sat here lying about the situation.

I said that what I did was illegal and I acknowledge it - I asked for advise not judgement.

Quite, although I don't think that was what jonmorris0844 intended. That is the exact reason why in the guidelines for posting in this section, we reiterate that everyone is entitled to help, as after all, if they were lying the advice would not be relevant in any case.

I think it is best to let go of the separate complaint, as some others are suggesting. That is the least of your worries at the moment. The issue we often have, and I have witnessed on several occasions, is that in the heat of the moment things can be misheard, and matters escalated due to misunderstanding. It will ultimately come down to your words against the inspectors, so it is highly unlikely to get anywhere.

Some people say that it may help build a record against the inspector, even if on this one occasion nothing happens. In certain cases it will, although I highly doubt it when a customer is involved in such a dispute and shown to be in the wrong these allegations will be taken seriously, as there are plenty of such accusations flying around revenue inspectors already, many shown to be false.

Right now the most important thing for you to focus on is to resolve this fares irregularity matter. Everything else is a waste of time.

 

[Nsit]

Hello all

Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

I spoke to solicitors Gray Cooper which have a lawyer on the team that specialises in railway convictions. I know I've been advised to wait for a letter, but he pointed out that the revenue inspector will most likely not write the best report on me.

I'm fairly confident I failed the 'attitude test' - I was not abusive or anything like that - but I was argumentative.

I don't think the inspector will indeed construct a favourable report on me - is it not best to preempt by having a solicitor contact greater anglia, rather than to take a passive approach and wait for a letter?

I appreciate there is some money to be made from the solicitors point of view, but I would mind a speedier resolution.

Any additional thoughts?

Many thanks



Many thanks,
Nicki

 

[Nsit]

*wouldn't*

 

[najaB]

Any additional thoughts?

He's a solicitor, he's after your money. There is very little that can be done before AGA say what they intend to do.

 

[Paule23]

No additional thoughts I'd just like to say how refreshing the op's attitude is on this site. They clearly understand why and how things escalated, have admitted that ultimately they were in the wrong place and are willing to accept the consequences of that. Well done.

The advice given so far is correct, you need to wait for a letter from the TOC and they take action accordingly. Depending on the letter, your best action is probably a letter response admitting your error and offering financial recompense. I'm sure the other wise sages on here can give some advice on actual wording once they know exactly what the TOC says.

 

[Llanigraham]

Hello all

Any further thoughts would be appreciated.

I spoke to solicitors Gray Cooper which have a lawyer on the team that specialises in railway convictions. I know I've been advised to wait for a letter, but he pointed out that the revenue inspector will most likely not write the best report on me.

I'm fairly confident I failed the 'attitude test' - I was not abusive or anything like that - but I was argumentative.

I don't think the inspector will indeed construct a favourable report on me - is it not best to preempt by having a solicitor contact greater anglia, rather than to take a passive approach and wait for a letter?

I appreciate there is some money to be made from the solicitors point of view, but I would mind a speedier resolution.

Any additional thoughts?

Many thanks



Many thanks,
Nicki

2 points (highlighted)
1/ Arguing with the Inspector is one of the best ways to fail the "attitude" test; they respond much more favourably to calm and reasoned discussion.

2/ The report the Inspector will write will be factual, and stick to the facts. That is all.

 

[Greenback]

I agree with bb21 that there isn't much to be gained by pursuing a complaint. None of us ehere, nor at the TOC, have any idea what words were used and in what context. Only those who were present will know the truth, and as has already been mentioned, it could well boil down to one person's word against another.

 

[adamello]

Sorry, but you were a criminal. It's an offence to remain in a part of a train reserved for a certain category of person when not a member of that category.

How is this interpreted however?
The OP has advised that once the RPI pointed it out he apologised, said he didn't realise, and offered to move

Therefore, by interpretation it could be suggested that he would not remain in the reserved part of the train when known he was not part of the category.

 

[AlterEgo]

How is this interpreted however?
The OP has advised that once the RPI pointed it out he apologised, said he didn't realise, and offered to move

Therefore, by interpretation it could be suggested that he would not remain in the reserved part of the train when known he was not part of the category.

It means to be in that section for a period of time, to distinguish between people "using" the accommodation and those people simply walking through (which is unavoidable to access toilets or Standard Class on some trains).

 

[island]

The offense is complete when he sat down and stayed in the section. If remaining until you were told to leave were not an offence, the whole law would be otiose.

 

[Nsit]

Hi all

First off, thanks to the people that have responded to my post from back in March. It was very helpful.

Today I received the letter from Greater Anglia (please find attached).

I've drafted a quick letter in response explaining how I experienced the situation. Please can you have a look and give me your thoughts?

I'm slightly embarrassed about how I handled things - and that is really the most vivid thing in my mind - but I've made no mention of how things escalated with the inspector.

So anyhow, not sure about the tone or if I need to add more information.

Many thanks

Dear Prosecutions Unit

Thank-you of the letter.

What happened on March 3 was regrettable and would have otherwise been handled differently at another time.

Sitting in first class with a standard class ticket was not a premeditated occurrence. It was an absent-minded mistake, which I realise is against the law.

On Friday the 3rd of March I travelled form work to the station and once I got through the barrier I went in to the first coach, sat down and started responding to emails on my phone.

I'm not sure how much time had passed when the ticket inspector arrived to check my ticket. I was still working on phone, I looked up and gave her my ticket. On inspection, she told me I sat in first class with the right ticket. Which I responded with, I am sorry, I didn't realise I will move. Her response was ' Can't you read?' as she pointed to the 'First class' lettering. I was then asked for my contact details so she can give me a penalty.

I refused to give my details and I moved to the next carriage. I was greeted at Stansted station by officers and the ticket inspectors where I gave my details before catching my flight.

Under different circumstances, I would have made different decisions. I was tired from working 60 hours a week for 3 consecutive weeks, my judgement was poor and I was irritable.

I also was not aware that sitting in a first class seat with a standard ticket was against the law. After having been in this country for 14 years, I realise ignorance is not an excuse, but unfortunately it is the truth.

I often take the Stansted express and I've never sat in first class and nor do I have any intention of ever taking advantage of a seat that I have not paid the full price for.

I take responsibility for sitting where I was not meant to and I plead with you not to commence legal proceedings.

There has never been a criminal charge against me, I'm a person of good character that went to the wrong place.

A criminal record would potentially ruin my future in the UK, which I have spent the past 14 years working very hard to build.

I made a mistake, I've learned a lesson and I would like to take steps to make things better.

So the only recourse I have is to plead for your compassion and allow me to pay the necessary fine and fees for your time.

 

[najaB]

I've drafted a quick letter in response explaining how I experienced the situation. Please can you have a look and give me your thoughts?

In my opinion it's too long - you can take quite a bit out of it without losing the pertinent facts: you sat in First Class with a standard ticket, you know now that you were in the wrong, you won't do it again and you want to close the matter as soon as possible.

 

[Nsit]

Thanks najab for responding so quickly - I suspected it could also be too much info. I'll wait for some other feedback as well.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Apologies - one final question- why did he read my rights?

If the inspector intended to make a report of a matter that might proceed to prosecution and was satisfied that an offence was evident, it would be right for him / her to caution you in accordance with the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) codes of practice, before questioning. (The 'caution' is what many people erroneously refer to as 'read me my rights', which is American jargon, but probably understandable because it's so often heard & seen on TV and in films)

Sorry if it sounds worse than it is, but I always think it's best to know exactly where you stand. Failing to co-operate by not providing your details when asked will have been the trigger for calling for Police assistance

From your description of the event there are three charges that they may now consider. The first two are strict liability Byelaw offences, the simplistic descriptions are:

1. Breach of National Railway Byelaw 19 (2005) - may be summonsed for remaining in and travelled in First Class when holding a Standard Class ticket only.

2. Failed to give name and address when requested by rail staff in connection with a breach of Byelaw 19. - may be summonsed as an offence contrary National Railway Byelaw 23 (2005)

3. The third possibility is more serious, if the inspector reports that s/he believed your intention was to travel in First class with only a Standard class ticket with the intention of avoiding payment of the correct fare unless challenged, an offence contrary to Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act (1889) might be summonsed.

As others have pointed out, it is best to be brief but factual in your reply now you have received a letter from the TOC.

it may be that recognition of your liability in this and a careful apology and offer to make recompense will achieve a settlement without Court action, but any decision on that lies squarely with the TOC.

 

[Greenback]

I believe that the letter is too long as well, and I also think it isn't apologetic enough. You are putting excuses forward for why you did what you did, but I think you should just admit to making a mistake, apologise, offer to make a contirbution to cover the far eand their costs, and hope that it's accepted.

So stick to the facts at hand. Don't beg, plead, or make any reference to you being of good character. It's not relevant. This is all about the incident in question, when you sat in first class when you were not entitled to be there. Apologies and assurances that you've learnt a lesson here will be more helpful you you than some of the other stuff you've put in.

There's no guarantee that you'll get a favourable response. If there are other circumstances of concern to the TOC in the inspector's report, they might decide to make an example of you as a deterrent to others. Having said that, I do think that the odds are pretty good that they won't.

 

[cholsey-choose]

"What happened on March 3 was regrettable and would have otherwise been handled differently at another time."

This language is very evasive, and sounds a bit like 'mistakes were made, and they are regrettable' corporate nonsense. What about...

"I am very sorry for how I acted on March 3, and I wouldn't have acted that way at another time. But I realise that I was in the wrong."

 

[MichaelWells]

Set LA63 had a first class coach in place of coach B, silent coach, packed train. bliss

 

[PaxmanValenta]

Thanks najab for responding so quickly - I suspected it could also be too much info. I'll wait for some other feedback as well.

Ive just read through your situation. 20-30 years ago if you were in 1st class with only a second class ticket the inspector would simply have told you to leave and go to second class end of.

I did it one myself in the late 1980s running for a train opened the nearest door plonked down on the nearest seat I saw, 10 mins later the inspector saw my 2nd class ticket and politely told me I needed to go to second class as I was in 1st class.

However now we live under a target driven culture. These inspectors have to issue a minimum amount of fines in a given period. 20 years ago fare dodging was rife. Stations had no ticket barriers so inspectors could catch and fine loads of fare evaders. The railway got a good amount of revenue from fines. In the last 10 to 15 years, more and more stations have got barriers, fewer and fewer people fare dodge because they can't even get to the trains without a ticket. Result is far fewer are caught. The cash strapped train companies need to justify having inspectors and these inspectors need to earn and justify their place and that means fining people for the most petty mistake. That gets brownie points. Fine first ask questions later.

Sadly as you are aware the implication of punishment for a small mistake goes well beyond the financial inconvenience of a penalty to the life changing implication of a criminal record! The beaurocracy of the system fails to see the far reaching damage it does, teachers, healthcare staff, people who work with children can all loose their jobs through such a criminal record careers and aspirations ruined, marriages breakdown, they loose their homes, people breakdown their children suffer, and banned travel to the US too! All because of being in the wrong part of a train or using the ticket at the wrong time of the day. Using a sledge hammer to crack a nut comes to mind.

Genuine fare dodgers do deserve to be punished but there are fewer of them. People do make genuine mistakes but is it right to destroy their lives for that?
Yes railway bylaws have been there since the late 1800s but only in recent years has discretion been removed from the situation and the full force of the law used.

All down to the target culture we have it's the same with parking fines, only you don't get a criminal record for delibritely parking in a double yellow line.

 

[najaB]

These inspectors have to issue a minimum amount of fines in a given period.

Interesting. Could you expand on that, please?

 

[PaxmanValenta]

Interesting. Could you expand on that, please?

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/150...t_inspectors_to_issue_revenue_boosting_fines/

 

[BestWestern]

Ive just read through your situation. 20-30 years ago if you were in 1st class with only a second class ticket the inspector would simply have told you to leave and go to second class end of.

I did it one myself in the late 1980s running for a train opened the nearest door plonked down on the nearest seat I saw, 10 mins later the inspector saw my 2nd class ticket and politely told me I needed to go to second class as I was in 1st class.

However now we live under a target driven culture. These inspectors have to issue a minimum amount of fines in a given period. 20 years ago fare dodging was rife. Stations had no ticket barriers so inspectors could catch and fine loads of fare evaders. The railway got a good amount of revenue from fines. In the last 10 to 15 years, more and more stations have got barriers, fewer and fewer people fare dodge because they can't even get to the trains without a ticket. Result is far fewer are caught. The cash strapped train companies need to justify having inspectors and these inspectors need to earn and justify their place and that means fining people for the most petty mistake. That gets brownie points. Fine first ask questions later.

Sadly as you are aware the implication of punishment for a small mistake goes well beyond the financial inconvenience of a penalty to the life changing implication of a criminal record! The beaurocracy of the system fails to see the far reaching damage it does, teachers, healthcare staff, people who work with children can all loose their jobs through such a criminal record careers and aspirations ruined, marriages breakdown, they loose their homes, people breakdown their children suffer, and banned travel to the US too! All because of being in the wrong part of a train or using the ticket at the wrong time of the day. Using a sledge hammer to crack a nut comes to mind.

Genuine fare dodgers do deserve to be punished but there are fewer of them. People do make genuine mistakes but is it right to destroy their lives for that?
Yes railway bylaws have been there since the late 1800s but only in recent years has discretion been removed from the situation and the full force of the law used.

All down to the target culture we have it's the same with parking fines, only you don't get a criminal record for delibritely parking in a double yellow line.

To offer some balance; in the vast majority of trivial, minor mistakes, the outcome is not severe. However, in order to be treated in a fair and reasonable manner, one must behave accordingly. It is widely known as the 'attitude test' and, rightly or wrongly, it is utilised by many undertaking a job where authority and discretion are in play. Refuse to provide your details when advised that you are legally obliged to do so, and you fail that test. The person dealing with you has to make all manner of swift judgement calls and decisions, and a response such as that is a pretty reliable means of contributing a very negative influence over proceedings. If a policeman pulls you over and you offer him nothing but bad attitude, would you expect him to use his discretion to be particularly lenient or goodwilled? It's unlikely, and it's basic common sense. There may be many good reasons for taking issue with various systems in place, in all manner of areas, but rarely does being objectionable and belligerent towards frontline staff on the ground do much to help one's cause.

 

[najaB]

http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/150...t_inspectors_to_issue_revenue_boosting_fines/

AGA did not say that they set targets on the number of fines and/or prosecutions. They said:

"We do set targets for reducing the percentage of fare dodgers and we do manage and monitor the performance of ticket inspectors. However, we aim to strike a sensible balance.”

That is not proof of your claim.