Victimisation and false accusation by Revenue inspector

[SouthStand]

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

But someone in a ticket queue (reluctantly or otherwise) is not getting a free ride.

 

[Flamingo]

But someone in a ticket queue (reluctantly or otherwise) is not getting a free ride.

Oh, sorry, were you referring to the op? I thought you meant the Revenue Staff performing their job, protecting Revenue that will help reduce the taxpayers subsidy to the railway.

 

[snail]

But someone in a ticket queue (reluctantly or otherwise) is not getting a free ride.

But they have up to the point they get in that queue. What you need to determine from there is whether their reason for not having paid is genuine or not.

 

[Monty]

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.

That doesn't make it right nor is it an excuse. The vast majority of RPI's are not power hungry as you seem to think.

 

[big_dirt]

That doesn't make it right nor is it an excuse. The vast majority of RPI's are not power hungry as you seem to think.

Maybe not but surely there is a difference between a police officer intervening physically and an RPI.

 

[Ferret]

Maybe not but surely there is a difference between a police officer intervening physically and an RPI.

Is there? Both are only able to use reasonable force to stay the right side of the law, as far as I'm aware!

Still, if the OP is correct (and we have no reason/evidence to either believe or disbelieve him!), then a line was crossed. It's up to the OP to deal with that, bearing in mind that CCTV will undoubtedly have covered any incident! Who was it who said 'put up or shut up' again? A famous cricket fan who once tried to run the Country I believe......

 

[big_dirt]

Is there? Both are only able to use reasonable force to stay the right side of the law, as far as I'm aware!

Still, if the OP is correct (and we have no reason/evidence to either believe or disbelieve him!), then a line was crossed. It's up to the OP to deal with that, bearing in mind that CCTV will undoubtedly have covered any incident! Who was it who said 'put up or shut up' again? A famous cricket fan who once tried to run the Country I believe......

Railway staff have the same powers of arrest as a citizen.

The scenario which the OP described is undoubtedly played out repeatedly on a daily basis with this official as it was with her whereas it was an entirely new experience for her so I'd tend to be surprised if he suddenly went wild for one customer and then back to normal immediately afterwards. Still, the seriousness of the allegations mean they need investigation. I believe that if he felt the need to raise his hand to her while behind a gateline and without physical provocation then he is immediately in the wrong.

 

[Flamingo]

And if the allegation proves false, should the Revenue Inspector be entitled to any compensation from the passenger for making a malicious complaint?

 

[RPI]

Reading between the lines it appears that the OP clearly thinks that the rules don't apply to them, there are notices all over the PF stations and on trains, you gave the inspector the run around and you got caught out, simples, as for the assault? well if I were cynical I would say that this was in order to muddy the waters, the classic counter allegation oh I've had that one a few times and hve got the compensation to prove it. If the OP was trying to get past after providing the false details then the RPI may detain the passenger using reasonable force until the police arrive.

 

[Flamingo]

Reading between the lines it appears that the OP clearly thinks that the rules don't apply to them, there are notices all over the PF stations and on trains, you gave the inspector the run around and you got caught out, simples, as for the assault? well if I were cynical I would say that this was in order to muddy the waters, the classic counter allegation oh I've had that one a few times and hve got the compensation to prove it. If the OP was trying to get past after providing the false details then the RPI may detain the passenger using reasonable force until the police arrive.

Sounds like a fair summary to me.

 

[wijit]

Sounds like a fair summary to me.

Are you both ignoring the fact the OP was in a queue to buy a ticket deliberately?
Whatever your opinions are telling you, as it stands there is no reason on a forum to disbelieve the OP, what they put here has no bearing on the actual case.

 

[Clip]

Are you both ignoring the fact the OP was in a queue to buy a ticket deliberately?
Whatever your opinions are telling you, as it stands there is no reason on a forum to disbelieve the OP, what they put here has no bearing on the actual case.

Indeed, BUT we dont know which station they said they got on at - and therein lies the problem if they said they got on one closer to Victoria when they really got on one further down the line and thus were trying to get a cheaper day out with a cheaper ticket.

 

[Jatos]

It seems weird the RPI singled out this one person, unless it was a genuine sexism issue as implied earlier.

Even I am doubt he was the only person there accompanied by a female.

Makes me suspect the RPI had reason for targeting this person in particular.

 

[Monty]

Makes me suspect the RPI had reason for targeting this person in particular.

This is usually the case, if there has been no advance warning of a passenger intending to commit fraud. Body language or their behaviour is not always but quite often a good indicator, it's something I've always looked out for.

The OP may have done something inadvertinely to attract the inspectors attention.

 

[LexyBoy]

An alternative reading of the OP's account is that they had boarded a train in a hurry intending to buy a ticket at their destination, where they were questioned by an RPI who was agressive and intimidating. The RPI's behaviour caused the OP to (naturally) react defensively and to get angry. This led to OP being cautioned rather than accepting a PF (as they may have done if the situation had been explained calmly) and giving false details (which is the main issue here; personally I can't see myself doing it but I can understand why the OP may hve done).

People react differently to being told off, and getting angry can stop one from acting in a sensible way. Having had an unpleasant, albeit very much briefer, encounter with a Southeastern RPI which left me in tears I can understand how something like this could happen to the OP.

What a lot of posters don't seem to realise is that most people don't know: (a) that Railway RPIs have a lot of legal power, (b) what their responsibilities entail beyond buying a ticket for their journey and (c) what Penalty Fares are or when they apply. Whilst it is true that an offence was committed, few outside railway circles would know this and seeing tickets sold on-board only reinforces the idea that it is at worst a matter of being sold a more expensive ticket. The outcome here should have been for the OP to have been politely told that she must buy before boarding when possible, had a PF issued with an explanation that it's a ticket for the journey and that she should buy before boarding to get the full range of tickets, and to leave with a bit of a chip on her shoulder but remembering for next time what her responsibilities are.

 

[jon0844]

I do think a lot of problems arise from the fact that 'offenders' assume that what they've done is not serious - so when caught they try and just pay what they owe and expect to be allowed to go. They're then somewhat shocked to discover that, perhaps, they're in rather a lot more trouble - and some can flip very quickly.

I've seen it many times, on trains and at stations. It's usually accompanied by rants about jobsworths, being totally over the top etc.

Perhaps if people were to actually realise in the first place that they could get a criminal record for not buying a ticket (and in FCC land, there's a much higher chance of a byelaw prosecution than a PF, as more staff get trained to do them) perhaps they wouldn't try in the first place.

I am speaking generally here, not specifically about the OP.. although I do wonder if the OP was picked out based on previous observations?

 

[snail]

Are you both ignoring the fact the OP was in a queue to buy a ticket deliberately?

But that is irrelevant to the admitted fact that they had passed an opportunity to buy before boarding. Taking the OP's account at face value the RPI could have been seen as being agressive in his actions but the fact remains that the OP had, at that point, travelled without a ticket. Having other people in a similar situation standing either side in the queue is of no relevance and does not make the offence go away.

 

[Flamingo]

And as I said much earlier in the thread, we are only getting one side of the story, from somebody who has got a very large interest in painting themselves in as good a light as possible, and making the rail staff sound to be taking an unacceptable approach.

 

[bb21]

I think we are just speculating now and that is not really helpful to the OP.

I agree that the advice to the OP remains to seek legal advice asap, and if not done so, to lodge a complaint with SET and request that CCTV footage be kept if she believes that she was assaulted.

Other than that, I trust that other people have explained the severity of providing false details and until the letter is received there is not much that can be added at this stage.

@OP. Please get in touch with the staff team when you receive the letter from Southeastern should you require further assistance so that the thread can be unlocked for further contribution. Until then, this thread is locked.