Using anti-harassment legislation and consent orders to get TOCs to back down?

[gingerheid]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #3 originally in this thread.

So I always take things like this in the attack, not necessarily with the intention of following through, but with the intention of giving them something to distract themselves with.

The train company concerned is clearly harassing you. This is illegal.

You might consider asking them to provide an undertaking not to do so, adding that if they will not you will seek an injunction to prevent it?

It could be in fairly basic terms you could ask them to agree to a consent order undertaking :

- not to withdraw valid tickets because other more expensive tickets that are also valid are available
- not to delay you at barriers when you present a valid ticket
- not to threaten you with prosecution in respect of using valid tickets

Etc.

Refusal would look bad.

I would also seek a token sum for costs and damages; say £100.

You absolutely could, if you were so minded, make such an application to court. They'd have absolutely no way of knowing of you were going to or not.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So I always take things like this in the attack, not necessarily with the intention of following through, but with the intention of giving them something to distract themselves with.

The train company concerned is clearly harassing you. This is illegal.

You might consider asking them to provide an undertaking not to do so, adding that if they will not you will seek an injunction to prevent it?

It could be in fairly basic terms you could ask them to agree to a consent order undertaking :

- not to withdraw valid tickets because other more expensive tickets that are also valid are available
- not to delay you at barriers when you present a valid ticket
- not to threaten you with prosecution in respect of using valid tickets

Etc.

Refusal would look bad.

I would also seek a token sum for costs and damages; say £100.

You absolutely could, if you were so minded, make such an application to court. They'd have absolutely no way of knowing of you were going to or not.

Whilst no-one can prevent you from doing this (short of a Court order banning you from applying for further orders!), I'm not sure it's an appropriate, or indeed the most appropriate, course of action.

Remember that, for "harassment" to be proven, the following three (bolded) elements must be proven, as per Section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:

A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that a Court would agree that being prevented access or egress from the station is harassment in the first place (as the railway has certain rights to do so, thank to RoRA and the Byelaws).

Even if it were accepted as constituting potential harassment, there would still be the difficulty of proving that it is a course of conduct (i.e. at least two incidents), as well as that the company (through its physical manifestation, i.e. its employees), knows or ought to know that they are harassing the OP.

The latter is usually most easily proven by writing an official letter to the person/organisation in question, making clear that you consider further such action as harassment. They can't then claim they didn't realise it amounted to harassment.

In general, I'm not sure this would be a productive means of solving this issue. I would have thought it would be easier for all involved if the OP simply bought a cheap ticket that gets them through the barrier at their destination, assuming of course that it's not one of the few stations that have platform-segregated barriers (in which case this might not be so cheap at all).

Of course it's ludicrous that you have to do this just to make un-hassled use of a valid ticket, but unfortunately many "loopholes" (of which this could be argued to be one) have that problem.

 

[gingerheid]

It's not as clear as that, a course of conduct doesn't need to be repeatedly doing the same thing. Here I would say it is the letter that is the clincher. RoRA does give the TOC rights, but not rights to be abused.

The TOC would be left with a series of bad tactical options; the best of which would be to say that such an application was inappropriate because they made an honest one off terrible mistake that they had put steps in place to ensure wouldn't be repeated. This would be something of a victory!

 

[js1000]

I don't think it's appropriate that suspected fare evaders are contained against their will by (usually) third party RPIs whose understanding of the law is extremely limited. If it was the BTP then fair enough but my strong personal belief is that RPIs should be directly employed by the TOC and third party agents banned given they are being judged to deal with the law on a daily basis, write MG11 statements etc. This really isn't a job for someone on a zero hour contract, most of whom probably have <6 months experience unfortunately.

 

[najaB]

I don't think it's appropriate that suspected fare evaders are contained against their will by (usually) third party RPIs whose understanding of the law is extremely limited.

It's rare (though not unknown) for RPIs to detain passengers - most TOCs instruct and expect staff to request passengers to wait and answer any questions, but not to physically obstruct them if they refuse to stop. In the event that detention is appropriate, they summon BTP.

 

[gray1404]

It's rare (though not unknown) for RPIs to detain passengers - most TOCs instruct and expect staff to request passengers to wait and answer any questions, but not to physically obstruct them if they refuse to stop. In the event that detention is appropriate, they summon BTP.

I quite agree. There was a case recently on Merseyrail that has been reported in the media in which an RPI was assaulted when try were trying to deal with a customer who didn't want to stay and give details. The reality is the RPI DID detain the passenger by standing in their way (I with other RPIs. I know someone who witnessed what happened) to try and prevent them from leaving. The result was they were pushed out of the way. The most sensible thing to do in that situation is to not put yourself in harms way, follow conflict avoidance and keep yourself safe and not prevent them leaving. Stand aside and let police deal with it and write a report.

 

[js1000]

I know the RoRA 1889 has a provision for a member of railway staff to "detain [a passenger] until they can be conveniently brought before some justice" under Section 5. But it's an anachronism. The only reason it still exists is Parliament doesn't have time to repeal and modernise the law. I'm sure all RPI's are probably instructed never to prevent an irrate passenger from leaving or following a course of action that could put them in a dangerous situation and makes their employer liable for anything that occurs.

 

[gray1404]

Surely they are instructed not to prevent any passenger from leaving, irate or not?

 

[najaB]

The only reason it still exists is Parliament doesn't have time to repeal and modernise the law.

Or, because they don't feel the need exists.

 

[Hadders]

Surely they are instructed not to prevent any passenger from leaving, irate or not?

Generally that would be unwise given the potential safety issues involved.

For example has the station got an appropriate holding area, are the staff properly trained in restraint etc.

 

[najaB]

Generally that would be unwise given the potential safety issues involved.

For example has the station got an appropriate holding area, are the staff properly trained in restraint etc.

Hence why they're instructed not to prevent passengers from leaving.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Or, because they don't feel the need exists.

I suspect, if anything, it is far more down to the fact that, on the scale of injustices in our laws, it unfortunately ranks quite far down the list, and it doesn't have much publicity.