Who has the final say.... Guard or RPI?

[8J]

I saw the aftermath of an interesting incident the other day on a train I was driving. It transpired that a passenger onboard my train had no ticket. The reason for the person not possessing a valid ticket I do not know but I do know that my guard had authorised said person travel in the circumstances.

RPIs boarded and an argument ensued. I contacted my guard (we were on non compatible units) and he verified that said person was authorised travel.

The Revenue staff did not have it. I told the revenue staff to wind their necks in as it was disturbing other staff.

Who was in the right? Its a tricky one as the situation was getting quite tense. I just wanted a calm train and to get us moving.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I saw the aftermath of an interesting incident the other day on a train I was driving. It transpired that a passenger onboard my train had no ticket. The reason for the person not possessing a valid ticket I do not know but I do know that my guard had authorised said person travel in the circumstances.

RPIs boarded and an argument ensued. I contacted my guard (we were on non compatible units) and he verified that said person was authorised travel.

The Revenue staff did not have it. I told the revenue staff to wind their necks in as it was disturbing other staff.

Who was in the right? Its a tricky one as the situation was getting quite tense. I just wanted a calm train and to get us moving.

Revenue duties should never lead to delays to trains, but sometimes revenue staff overstep their authority and the rules.

If a guard has given a passenger authority to board without a valid ticket, they are not liable to any kind of penalty, other than perhaps the undiscounted Anytime fare as per the NRCoT.

 

[Hadders]

I'd have thought that the guard is in charge of the train so what s/he says goes.

In fact I'm sure the guard could tell the RPIs to leave the train, if s/he so wished.

 

[gray1404]

The guard. I have seen a guard tell an RPI to stop issuing a PF to a disabled passenger. The RPI refused and the guard stood his ground.

 

[8J]

Yes as an ex guard I thought that was the case. I wasn't sure if anything had changed since the NRCOT was introduced.

The guard was more than a bit miffed. He didn't even see them board the train (in fairness the train was rather busy). I just heard an altercation going on behind my cab and found this out. What did make me laugh was after I said my piece and we got going, the passenger informed me that the RPI told the passenger that "I can get the guard and driver into a lot of trouble for this"

 

[najaB]

I agree that, generally speaking, the guard is the captain of their ship, so to speak.

However, we're often reminded that revenue duties are a secondary role and take a back seat to safety of the train tasks. So there is an augment to be made that, once an RPI joins the service, they take over the revenue role from the guard so that he or she can concentrate on their main job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The guard is in charge of the train, and once they confirm that as an Authorised Person they have allowed the passenger travel the RPI has no business challenging that other than by the internal staff complaints/disciplinary process of the TOC if they feel rules have not been followed.

Furthermore, no staff should be arguing with one another in a public area at all, ever. This is grossly unprofessional and should not be tolerated in any industry; such matters should always be resolved outside of public view.

I have however witnessed quite a number of staff doing this anyway, sadly, including at London Bridge a Thameslink DOO driver and a member of platform staff having a very loud and aggressive stand-up argument (I genuinely thought it was going to go to violence the way the body language was going) over who should be getting a wheelchair passenger off a train rather than one of them just getting on with doing it and then the incident being escalated to management later for the procedural issue to be dealt with, or failing that the train remaining there until a suitable manager could attend to resolve the matter professionally.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes as an ex guard I thought that was the case. I wasn't sure if anything had changed since the NRCOT was introduced.

The guard was more than a bit miffed. He didn't even see them board the train (in fairness the train was rather busy). I just heard an altercation going on behind my cab and found this out. What did make me laugh was after I said my piece and we got going, the passenger informed me that the RPI told the passenger that "I can get the guard and driver into a lot of trouble for this"

If I was his manager and there was evidence of such comments he would be in serious disciplinary bother, and if it was repeated he would get the sack, totally regardless of whether he was procedurally in the right or not. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever make such comments in public regardless of your opinion of other staff's conduct; there are procedures for that kind of thing, and if he felt the driver/guard were in the wrong he should have reported the matter via those channels rather than involving passengers in an internal company dispute.

It is very clearly a case of bringing the company into disrepute, which is a very serious offence in most companies.

 

[yorkie]

I agree that if a member of staff (the Guard in this case) who is authorised to allow travel has done so, it isn't correct for any other member of staff (the RPI in this case) to revoke it.

The RPI can discuss the matter with the Guard.

 

[najaB]

Furthermore, no staff should be arguing with one another in a public area at all, ever. This is grossly unprofessional and should not be tolerated in any industry; such matters should always be resolved outside of public view.

This I agree with, 100% without exception.

The guard is in charge of the train, and once they confirm that as an Authorised Person they have allowed the passenger travel the RPI has no business challenging that other than by the internal staff complaints/disciplinary process of the TOC if they feel rules have not been followed.

This I don't necessarily agree with, without qualification. As a rule, yes, but what if the RPI has knowledge of the situation that the guard does not? E.g. They're following a serial fare evader, and wait to see what the passenger says to the guard before approaching them.

 

[Jonfun]

Ultimately if another member of that TOCs staff has authorised travel then that's that, whether it's the Guard, Booking Office staff or whoever. But if the RPI feels that authority should not have been given then they should report the matter in line with internal processes so that the matter can be formally investigated by management and the person who gave the authority can justify their decision to do so.

 

[8J]

I have no reason to doubt the passenger being genuine to be honest. The guard in question is not the sort of bloke to let someone off lightly and the passenger approached me apologising but said he was more than a bit wound up with how he was spoken to.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This I don't necessarily agree with, without qualification. As a rule, yes, but what if the RPI has knowledge of the situation that the guard does not? E.g. They're following a serial fare evader, and wait to see what the passenger says to the guard before approaching them.

Ultimately, they should still not be arguing with the guard, and certainly not in public. If it is deemed so vital, then perhaps the company should implement a way for RPIs to talk with guards (e.g. via some kind of text or radio communication) to alert them to what they are doing. But revenue matters should never interfere with the operation of the railway.

 

[8J]

My reasoning for intervening is that I did not want anyone arguing or the staff getting assaulted. When things escalate like this often people can pull passcoms and egresses which I do not want.

I reported the incident and will be mindful if I see this person boarding again in similar circumstances.

I will also contact my guard if I see the RPIs in question board the service.

 

[najaB]

Ultimately, they should still not be arguing with the guard, and certainly not in public.

I said as much in my post - this is an inviolate rule.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

Furthermore, no staff should be arguing with one another in a public area at all, ever. This is grossly unprofessional and should not be tolerated in any industry; such matters should always be resolved outside of public view.

Absolutely agree. If there is something the RPI knows that might have affected the decision, they can discuss it like grown humans.

My reasoning for intervening is that I did not want anyone arguing or the staff getting assaulted.

Good for you - I'd also imagine that it doesn't promote safety when staff are getting stressed - in this case by each other - but you'd know more about the risks than I do.

 

[robbeech]

Absolutely agree. If there is something the RPI knows that might have affected the decision, they can discuss it like grown humans

Exactly this. A person who is authorised to give permission to travel has done so. That person is allowed to travel to the point discussed with the authorised person. It may be they haven’t been able to use TOD facilities but can at an interchange station, it may be that they were attacked and had their means of payment and/or tickets stolen, it may be something else but ultimately they have permission to travel.
As you say, if an RPI boards and recognises that this person is a serial fare evader then the correct thing to do is mention it to the guard. They can then professionally come to a decision on whether action is to be taken.
Either way it seems a little bit like an abuse of power where in actual fact I don’t believe they had a right to use it anyway.

I witnessed a situation where a brace of RPI boarded the train at Mansfield heading towards Nottingham. A person who had boarded earlier had tried to collect tickets for their trip to Birmingham. The machine was out of order (no comment) but the guard allowed them to travel as they showed them an email confirmation and had plenty of time in Nottingham to collect them there. RPIs boarded and suggested they should have a ticket but once the circumstances were explained and they said the guard had said ok they accepted this and carried on.

 

[js1000]

It's explicitly written in the Penalty Fare regulations (Clause 6 (2)) that if a passenger has been told to board by a member of staff (i.e. guard or driver) theb no offence has been committed and any PF is exempt.

Likewise, the same logic applies to if a guard has checked someone's ticket and is happy they have a right to be on the train. Any attempt by an RPI to issue fines or collect details is void. Sadly it doesn't stop some third party RPI upstarts testing guard's patience.

 

[island]

If an authorised person has given the passenger authority to travel without a ticket that is the end of the matter as far as the passenger is concerned.

If a later authorised person thinks that authority shouldn’t have been given, he/she should follow up through the relevant company’s internal procedures.

 

[3rd rail land]

My understanding is that if a guard has authorised a person to travel without a ticket then that person can not be subject to a PF. It sounds like the RPI did not know this and perhaps the passenger had no evidence of this if the guard only gave verbal authorisation.

If this was an error on the guard's part then his employer needs to deal with it appropriately. The passenger should still not be subject to a PF.

 

[Starmill]

It should be normal practice for revenue staff to inform the guard,where present, before they begin inspecting tickets. Apart from anything else, it could result in the same passengers having their tickets checked 2 minutes apart if they don't... Concerning if that didn't happen.

It is not the first time I've heard of a guard saying that someone can travel (e.g. somebody with a staff pass that does not actually grant them the right to travel on that particular train) and then an RPI doing the ticket inspection being very unhappy with that.

 

[8J]

I'd expect the guard to inform RPIs if they'd granted staff to travel before they'd allowed someone with a different TOC staff pass but I'd not expect the RPI to overrule the guards authority.

I'm not sure if this was the case on my train but I'd not be happy as a guard if I'd let someone on who'd asked and revenue kick up a fuss.

When I was a guard, it was common practice to let other TOC staff on if they asked first and on the condition they'd be avaliable to help out if required. I'd be hacked off if some revenue inspector tried to make an issue out of that. Rail staff both off duty or travelling to work are invaluable to have on your train when it hits the fan.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This I don't necessarily agree with, without qualification. As a rule, yes, but what if the RPI has knowledge of the situation that the guard does not?

Tough. You can't be committing fare evasion if an authorised person has allowed you to travel. It's a defence to any of the railway ticketing offences.

 

[najaB]

Tough. You can't be committing fare evasion if an authorised person has allowed you to travel. It's a defence to any of the railway ticketing offences.

For that particular journey, yes. But not if they're investigating a pattern of behaviour.

 

[yorkie]

For that particular journey, yes. But not if they're investigating a pattern of behaviour.

I'm not convinced this is the same argument you were making earlier.

It sounds like a case of playing an extreme devils advocate position, and changing that position when the argument is lost.

 

[185143]

I was on a train recently having been given authority to travel by the guard with the ticket I had. An RPI boarded and made his way through the train, I explained this and had no issues at all.

 

[_toommm_]

I was on a train recently having been given authority to travel by the guard with the ticket I had. An RPI boarded and made his way through the train, I explained this and had no issues at all.

Same happened to me. Was due to go Aberdeen to Ashton today via the West Coast with ScotRail and VT, but my train from Aberdeen broke down. I went via the East Coast with permission with LNER and TPE, and surprisingly, the guard was incredibly nice on TPE!

 

[js1000]

It's an interesting question but to me the rules against the legal frameworks are quite clear. A member of railway staff's original decision to permit a passenger onboard or accept the validity of a ticket is final and any subsequent attempt to issue a fine or ask for details is void. If wrongdoing is suspected this can only be done so through internal procedures.

- Clause 6 (2) of Penalty Fares Regulations 2018:
the operator of the train or the station, or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the operator, indicated that the passenger was, or persons generally were, permitted to travel by or be present on the train without having a travel ticket

- Clause 6.1.2 of the National Conditions of Carriage:
Where you are specifically permitted to board a train service by an authorised member of staff or notice of the Train Company whose service you intend to board (by inference, this would also include a member of railway staff who accepts a ticket upon inspection and doesn't question it)

- Contra proferentem principle in law which aims to remove any ambiguity/contradiction from contracts or agreements (i.e. the guard permits you onboard or accepts the validity of your ticket. A verbal contract is therefore entered. Any subsequent decision which is contrary by another member of staff is legally void and has no basis in law)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Clause 6.1.2 of the National Conditions of Carriage:
Where you are specifically permitted to board a train service by an authorised member of staff or notice of the Train Company whose service you intend to board (by inference, this would also include a member of railway staff who accepts a ticket upon inspection and doesn't question it)

In this particular thread, this doesn't matter much since we all agree, whether on legal, procedural or practical grounds, that the RPI was out of order, but I am not convinced that we can draw the inference above. 'Specifically' must qualify something that follows, and in my reading of the sentence I think it is meant to qualify 'board(ing) a train service'. So the clause doesn't apply to on-train ticket checks at all, regardless of whether the member of staff questions the ticket or not.

 

[aye2beeviasea]

I'd assume that if you obtained the authority to travel from the guard through misrepresentation - lying about where you got on for example - that would render the authority invalid.