Victimisation and false accusation by Revenue inspector

[Itchy]

Yesterday evening I travelled from station A to station B. I was late for my train and with 60 seconds to spare and a queue at the ticket office i got on the train with the intent of buying one on board. There was no conductor on the service so at station b, I queued up with many others at the 'fares to pay' booth.

A revenue inspector pulled me out of the queue and questioned my reason for being in the queue, which I duly explained. The RI then called station A and was ( supposedly) told that it had been "dead all day". I vehemently disputed this and also pointed out that I had no intention of fare evading as was evidenced by by queuing to pay and my co-operation with his questions. He ordered me to pay a penalty which I also disputed (see above). He wrote out a notice for my travelling companion which she also disputed, he also charged her card incorrectly for a greater amount which had to be reversed and would not answer our questions on how the penalty was calculated or who he was calling to check name and address details. He was also insistent upon us giving our date of birth which I said I was not obliged to give him.

The matter became very confrontational and he would not listen to reason, so whilst I was reluctantly holding out cash to pay the penalty, I gave him a false name and address as I was so incensed by his unreasonableness and also his clear inability to deal with the situation appropriately. I know now that this is an offence although I was not aware of this at the time, nor did he advise me on what grounds he was asking for this information. The false name and address passed his check but then he insisted on seeing ID which I did not have and then wanted details of someone he could call to verify. Ultimately I was cautioned and no penalty notice was issued so await southeastern's letter of intent.

Can a RI ask for this confirmation once name and address details have already been verified? I suspect southeastern will want to prosecute me for the false details offence but I would not have been in this position had the inspector not hauled me out of the queue where i was intending to buy my ticket along with many others.

How was it that I was victimised and not allowed to complete my ticket purchase in good faith but others were?

 

[SS4]

Surely it is your responsibility to arrive in enough time to buy a ticket?

edit: no doubt someone with more expertise will reply but FYI using paragraphs makes it easier to read

 

[Itchy]

Yes you are of course correct, about the ticket purchase and the paragraphs.

I am a commuter of 20 years and have countless times seen tickets bought on trains and at station 'fares to pay' booths without this sort of harassment. Surely an RPI cannot treat people in the same queue differently? This must be discrimination at the very least? I pride myself on my honesty but he turned the situation into fare evasion which it was not, there was no intent on my part not to pay. He was also overheard saying that he would have accepted the situation from a man but wasn't going to take it from a woman - surely a case of victimisation!

 

[Ferret]

Surely it is your responsibility to arrive in enough time to buy a ticket?

Yes, and 60 seconds probably isn't enough time, with all due respect.

To the OP - I can't comment on why you were pulled out of the line - for all I know, the RPI had been on board the train seen where you got on, knew it was a staffed station, and was therefore well within his rights to interview you.

The incorrect calculation of a penalty fare puts the RPI in the wrong. I see no reason why he should have to tell you who he's phoning to verify the details you are giving though - I don't really see that as of any consequence. Your only obligation under the law is to provide the correct details when asked. However, as you failed to do this, that then opens up the dreaded Regulation of Railways Act prosecution for intent to avoid your fare, which as you may well know by now, carries a hefty fine and a criminal record to boot.

It's a bit late for this now obviously, but you'd have been better off giving the correct details and appealing the penalty fare if you felt you had such strong grounds to do so. As far as dealing with the actual situation now goes, you'll have to wait for the letter to arrive and see if you can settle the matter with SET.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He was also overheard saying that he would have accepted the situation from a man but wasn't going to take it from a woman - surely a case of victimisation!

That's a little bizarre!

 

[Itchy]

Thanks Ferret. Do you know if he is obliged to explain under what regs or legislation he is requesting your details, and what the consequences of providing false details are? He wasn't filling in a penalty notice, he just ordered me to write my details in his notebook without explaining, including my DoB. Thanks.

 

[Ferret]

Thanks Ferret. Do you know if he is obliged to explain under what regs or legislation he is requesting your details, and what the consequences of providing false details are? He wasn't filling in a penalty notice, he just ordered me to write my details in his notebook without explaining, including my DoB. Thanks.

He doesn't have to explain the consequences of providing false details; why would he? He's asking for your real details, I'd say it's not a basis for negotiation on whether they're correct or not!

As for explaining why he's requesting details, I believe it does actually mention in the byelaws that if he was (for example) investigating a breach of byelaw, covering boarding a train without a valid ticket, then he should state that this is why he is asking. However, in this case, I think he was intending on issuing a penalty fare, so what his obligation is there, I'm not sure.

 

[GadgetMan]

Thanks Ferret. Do you know if he is obliged to explain under what regs or legislation he is requesting your details, and what the consequences of providing false details are? He wasn't filling in a penalty notice, he just ordered me to write my details in his notebook without explaining, including my DoB. Thanks.

As railway staff we are not expected to be able to repeat the laws/bylaws word for word.

However we are expected to be able to explain them in general terms.

Just explaining along the lines of it is an offence to board a train without a Valid ticket at a station with ticket issuing facilities and the law requires you to provide accurate personal details in enough.

 

[island]

Unfortunately you have committed two criminal offences here and if Southeastern catch up with you it could be a large settlement or a trip to court.

If you travel from a station with ticket purchasing facilities you are obligated to purchase a ticket, and with respect, arriving late is no excuse. Nor is your experience of what other people may be doing - they may have a valid reason for buying on board or at the destination. You did not.

The details of a transaction relating to another passenger are, again with respect, none of your business, but staff members are not expected to be perfect and the mistake was corrected when noticed.

You are correct that you are not obliged to provide any ID or a date of birth.

It is hard to say in these circumstances what might happen next, given they do not have valid details for you.

 

[Itchy]

Thx for your reply. They do now have my correct details as I gave these on being cautioned and realised the severity of the situation. I still feel I was victimised and the incident was unnecessarily escalated by the RPI. I'm more ashamed at my own reaction which is out of character for me and I will now have to face the consequences which sound as if I will be prosecuted and not only heavily fined but get a criminal record, which seems very unfair as I believe the RPI provoked me with his unreasonableness and what I see as victimisation.his efforts should have been directed to true fare dodgers.

I would add that I did purchase a return ticket from the fares to pay booth and used it to exit through the barriers after becoming so exasperated with the situation in him not taking my penalty fare. He became physical with me, pushing me and elbowing me which I asked him not to do. The police subsequently advised me to write a letter of complaint about his conduct which I considering.

 

[GadgetMan]

He became physical with me, pushing me and elbowing me which I asked him not to do.

When there was physical contact did the RPI invade your personal space or did you step forward an invade his?

As a passenger you are always entitled to put a complaint in if you feel you were mistreated, but the prosecution side of the incident remains separate and will be dealt with by another department.

 

[Wath Yard]

his efforts should have been directed to true fare dodgers.

How is he to know you are not a true fare dodger? Station B was barriered and you therefore could not exit without a ticket, therefore queueing for a ticket at your destination to enable you to get out does not prove you would have purchased a ticket had the barriers been open, and you did travel without a ticket.

 

[GadgetMan]

true fare dodgers.

As revenue staff, I would include a person in your circumstance under that umbrella. People who will only pay when challenged, whether it be by a conductor on the train or barriers the other end. From experience the majority of people who don't have the time to buy before they board also do not find the time to buy at their destination unless barriers are in operation.

 

[Ferret]

Unfortunately you have committed two criminal offences here and if Southeastern catch up with you it could be a large settlement or a trip to court.

It does sound that way I'm afraid.

You are correct that you are not obliged to provide any ID or a date of birth.

This is correct, BUT, the RPI is entitled to ask if you can prove your address. If said RPI rings to confirm your details, and finds that it doesn't check out, and you have (as is your right) declined to produce ID, the chances are that the RPI will request Police assistance.

 

[maniacmartin]

This quote from the Penalty Fares Policy may be interesting reading

4.12 Where penalty fares apply, passengers must allow enough time to buy a ticket, including time
to queue, if necessary. Under normal circumstances, passengers may still be charged a penalty
fare if they join a train without a ticket, even if there was a queue at the ticket office or ticket
machine. However, we expect operators to provide enough ticket windows, ticket machines
and staff at staffed stations to meet the queuing standards set out in the Ticketing and
Settlement Agreement and their Passenger’s Charter under normal circumstances. This
standard is normally five minutes at peak times and three minutes at other times. If queues at a
particular station regularly fail to meet these standards at certain times or days of the week,
the operator must either take action to sort out the problem before a penalty fares scheme is
introduced or make sure that passengers are not charged penalty fares when these queuing
standards are not met. This might include providing extra staff or ticket machines. A penalty
fares scheme must include arrangements for telling authorised collectors when long queues
build up at ticket offices (see paragraph 4.33).

However, by arriving with only 60 seconds to spare, I don't think you can claim the queues were in excess of those set out in the queueing standards. Even they were and you argued that case, that doesn't defend you from prosecution under the Railway Bye-laws, or (more serious) Regulation of Railways Act.

I'd advise not to go down the route of arguing with the TOC about ticket office queues or victimisation, as this is a rather weak argument in your case, and could make the TOC less likely to be prepared to settle out of court. You really do not want to be prosecuted for fare evasion with intent (arguably provable by the fact you gave false details) under the Regulation of Railways Act, as this carries a criminal record

 

[Itchy]

When there was physical contact did the RPI invade your personal space or did you step forward an invade his?

As a passenger you are always entitled to put a complaint in if you feel you were mistreated, but the prosecution side of the incident remains separate and will be dealt with by another department.

No I did not invade his space, he physically blocked me by moving into my space and pushing me back with his body and elbows. This was witnessed by the guard on the barriers and passengers the other side, two of which were shouting at him to leave me alone and one of them pulled him away.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How is he to know you are not a true fare dodger? Station B was barriered and you therefore could not exit without a ticket, therefore queueing for a ticket at your destination to enable you to get out does not prove you would have purchased a ticket had the barriers been open, and you did travel without a ticket.

I always knew there would be barriers in place at London bridge at this time, hence the reason I went straight to the fares to pay booth. You assume, as did he, that it was always my intention to dodge the fare but my actions at the station did not evidence this at all. And there was no reason why he should have picked on me and my sister in the queue at this point as we had not reached the window to speak to the teller yet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thank you for your time to reply. You are correct that I really do not want a criminal record and hopefully I can settle this out of court. I know my actions were wrong and am at a loss myself almost to understand why I gave false details. In hindsight, yes I should have just paid the penalty fare and appealed afterwards but for some reason, I believe due to this man's attitude and refusal to answer direct questions about the procedure, I saw red. I was so focused on his accusation of my alleged fare evasion and had gone so far down the road of the false details, I was unable to salvage the situation. I just hope southeastern will accept an apology and not ruin my up to now good character over one regrettable misdemeanour.

 

[maniacmartin]

Alas by giving false details, it gives the TOC a case to argue there was intent.

I agree that the RPI shouldn't be pushing you around, but it may be beneficial to wait until after you have settled the fare evasion issue first, before raising this with the TOC, in case it jeopardises your ability to settle out of court

 

[Nick W]

He became physical with me, pushing me and elbowing me which I asked him not to do. The police subsequently advised me to write a letter of complaint about his conduct which I considering.

That would be assault! If I were you I report to it to the police and take action if they don't undergo a full investigation.

I'd imagine you could use the assault to excuse giving false details, after all most people would hesitate to give correct details to a criminal. I suspect you may be looking at best case settle out of court for not having a ticket though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that the RPI shouldn't be pushing you around, but it may be beneficial to wait until after you have settled the fare evasion issue first, before raising this with the TOC, in case it jeopardises your ability to settle out of court.

I'd suspect the opposite - if the necessary witness is suspended, sacked or demonstrated to be unreliable, it'd almost certainly harm the prosecution!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually come to think of it - I can't imagine the RPI, if he had any sense, would report you to the prosecution department. After all, your version of events incriminates him and the "guard on the barriers" is hardly going to risk his/her job to back him up. There may even be CCTV coverage.

 

[W230]

That would be assault! If I were you I report to it to the police and take action if they don't undergo a full investigation.

The police subsequently advised me to write a letter of complaint about his conduct which I considering.

Well, if they did this then the police did not consider it an assault. Whether it was or wasn't. The police are basically saying, "write to his employers to complain about his attitude".

 

[Flamingo]

Don't forget folks, we are only getting one side of the story here...

 

[BrownE]

Don't forget folks, we are only getting one side of the story here...

Indeed we are, I know quite a few of (but not all) SE's RPIs and EOs, none of whom would do this.

My advice to the OP if they so wish to complain; SE will take that accusation extremely seriously and the staff member will be disciplined if the investigation shows they acted in this way.

SE's general policy is absolutely no touching for anyone other than the Enforcement Officers.

 

[34D]

One would expect that barrier lines would be covered by CCTV due to the threats of assault against staff.

 

[Ferret]

Don't forget folks, we are only getting one side of the story here...

Yes. All I can say to the OP is that if that really was the case, the gateline will almost certainly be covered by CCTV. If an assault took place, then consider a complaint to the Transport Police.

 

[big_dirt]

One would expect that barrier lines would be covered by CCTV due to the threats of assault against staff.

Yes, and the OP is entitled to a copy under data protection laws if she provides £10. As mentioned above, if she has been assaulted or physically interfered with by a man then giving incorrect details seems quite reasonable.

You should get on to this request immediately and pursue your other options in tandem.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

No I did not invade his space, he physically blocked me by moving into my space and pushing me back with his body and elbows.....

Maybe I missed something, but when you say he "physically blocked" you, what was he stopping you from doing?

 

[Monty]

An open and shut 5 3c prosecution with with possibility to push for a 5 3a offence too, being irked with the inspector is quite frankly not an excuse for giving false details. You wouldn't do it to a police officer, why is this any different? You will find most inspectors will ask for your details before they decide on a course of action, had the OP gave correct details when asked you may have well found that he would of recieved that penalty fare he was so willing to pay.

Not that I am calling the OP a liar but I find it rather interesting that he has made an allegation of assault after it appears he is not getting the answers he wanted from this forum. I would suggest he reports it to the police at once as it is a very serious charge, SET will not keep the CCTV footage for an indefinante period of time (if it's anything like SWT it's 2 weeks if no incident is reported) so time is of the essence.

 

[Flamingo]

Of course, the OP may be thinking that an assault allegation may muddy the water enough that the attempted fare evasion (etc) will be overlooked.

Reading the thread title and posts, all I can think is that some people know all their rights, and none of their responsibilities.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, if they did this then the police did not consider it an assault. Whether it was or wasn't. The police are basically saying, "Bugger off and annoy somebody who cares".

There you go, fixed that for you

 

[Itchy]

Thanks to everyone for their responses, knowledge and advice. I think my best course of action is to seek legal advice tomorrow on both the "fare evasion" and the assault incident, which I agree are 2 separate issues. Thanks again.

 

[SouthStand]

An open and shut 5 3c prosecution with with possibility to push for a 5 3a offence too, being irked with the inspector is quite frankly not an excuse for giving false details. You wouldn't do it to a police officer, why is this any different?

Because most rational people realise that having a police force prevents society from descending into anarchy. I suspect they aren't quite as bothered about some power-crazy RPI whose only there to provide money for the TOC.

 

[Itchy]

Thank you Southstand

 

[Flamingo]

Because most rational people realise that having a police force prevents society from descending into anarchy. I suspect they aren't quite as bothered about some power-crazy RPI whose only there to provide money for the TOC.

As opposed to some mouthy little scrote after a free ride at everybody elses expense, you mean? :roll: