Christmas Ruined by TFL - Fare Evasion Allegation

Livingthedream

hothothot wrote: »

Police officers cannot issue penalty fares, so if I was guilty I would just accept the PF from the Railway Inspector rather than force their hand to use their powers to detain you and contact BTP who just love fare evaders.

Thats why Train Managers have mobile phones to have the BT Police waiting at the station for troublesome passengers

hothothot wrote: »

Revenue Inspectors are PACE trained

Are you sure I thought only a few TOC train their Revenue Inspectors

hothothot wrote: »

If a fare evader attempts to run away without giving details, then a Railway Official has a power of detention under Sec 5(3)© Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
This is known as the 3 fails:
1. Fails to show a valid ticket
2. Fails to give name and address
3. Fails to pay for their journey.

If any of the three conditions is not met then the power of detention is not present but a police officer (BTP or otherwise) has additional powers.
The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is well known to British Transport Police but not to other police forces.

So The Revenue Inspector can't Physically detain you as its assault but the Police if present can nick you

hothothot wrote: »

Sorry for long post

No worries, the reason I ask, was whilst I was at Mancester Pic station I saw a passenger physically thrown to the ground by two Revenue Inspector and pinned there until the BT police arrived, the force used was excessive and wondered if said passenger had a case for assault.

robt_2

Livingthedream wrote: »

No worries, the reason I ask, was whilst I was at Mancester Pic station I saw a passenger physically thrown to the ground by two Revenue Inspector and pinned there until the BT police arrived, the force used was excessive and wondered if said passenger had a case for assault.

Was it by G4S security guards who man the barriers? They are not rail employees. Do you know what led up to it happening?

Livingthedream

robt wrote: »

Was it by G4S security guards who man the barriers? They are not rail employees. Do you know what led up to it happening?

TPE Staff, Was a bit of an argument before hand but couldn't hang around to watch had to catch my connection.

DaveMacD

Depends on the circumstances, but it's not the first time rail staff have been threatened or actually assaulted. If it was the case in this instance, then generally speaking we are allowed to protect ourselves. Have seen it happen in the past whereby barrier staff were physically assaulted, and they knocked the person to the ground and sat on them until the person could be arrested.

heathrow

Ok - I work for tfl but not in revenue and this is not the company's views but...

a) Powers for a bus revenue inspector will probably derived from the PSV regulations. Nothing to do with the railway stuff talked about (irrelevantly) on this thread. And as far as I know bus RPIs have no powers of detention.

b) All London Buses have CCTV. Several cameras will cover the vehicle - including the driver. Ask the revenue people to pull the CCTV images of you boarding the bus - these should indicate whether you were waved on or not. You may also be covered by CCTV when the inspector allegedly damaged your card...

c) You can get a printout of your journeys on Oyster from the Customer Service Centre - check on the tfl website.


Sounds like the RPI was heavy-handed...

hothothot_3

heathrow wrote: »

Ok - I work for tfl but not in revenue and this is not the company's views but...

a) Powers for a bus revenue inspector will probably derived from the PSV regulations. Nothing to do with the railway stuff talked about (irrelevantly) on this thread. And as far as I know bus RPIs have no powers of detention.
.

Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967

even easier for bus inspectors to detain for fare evasion - as oppossed to railway inspectors as fare evasion on buses doesnt require the intent element to be proven.

FARE-COP

hothothot wrote: »

Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967

even easier for bus inspectors to detain for fare evasion - as oppossed to railway inspectors as fare evasion on buses doesnt require the intent element to be proven.

hothothot is spot-on in that it is easier for Bus inspectors to effect an arrest, because the offence is 'strict liability' and the power of arrest without warrant is also available to rail staff under Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 whereby the three failures previously referred to occur

It is of course worth remembering that you do not have to be arrested in order to be prosecuted as there is also a strict liability offence of being on a railway and failing to show a valid ticket on demand. This is contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18, which carries the same potential fine on conviction as the RRA 1889 offence, but without the imprisonable element.

As for the Bus - Oyster issue that was the subject of the original post, I suggest that you copy the print-out of your last 8 weejks Oyster transactions and write a letter of appeal. I would be careful about a couple of comments you made early in your post though

You stated that your Oyster had been 'playing up for a couple of days' and then later say that you 'had never had a problem' with it.

I wouldn't state that it had been playing up when writing to TfL if I were you. If your Oyster fails, it is your responsibility to get it sorted.

If the person reading your letter notes that you knew the Oyster was faulty, but did nothing about it, then he/she might come to the conclusion that you intended to take advantage of that knowledge thereby intending to avoid a fare should the opportunity arise.

paulorr

hothothot wrote: »

Police officers cannot issue penalty fares, so if I was guilty I would just accept the PF from the Railway Inspector rather than force their hand to use their powers to detain you and contact BTP who just love fare evaders.

Intent must be proven so the suspect is cautioned under PACE and questioned although the suspect has the right to refuse to answer questions and to leave once particulars have been given (as in any process case).

You are correct that there is a power to detain, but nothing to suggest a power to use force to detain. Which is where the powers under the CLA 1967 could be used as a last resort, pending police arrival.

Revenue Inspectors are PACE trained and will ask for a person's particulars when they suspect an offence has taken place..
These particulars are verified by any ID the passenger may have on him and internally through a voters check.
They will then caution a suspect under PACE. The caution is exactly the same as for police officers.
The Revenue Inspector has not arrested anybody so caution comes into place where the suspected fare evader is informed that they are not under arrest or obliged to remain. They are asked if they understand the caution.
Everything is recorded in the Revenue Inspectors notebook.
If the passenger chooses to leave at that point, then he / she is free to do so but the majority stay and answer questions which are recorded in the notebook in Q + A format.
At the end of the questioning, the Revenue Inspector sticks rigidly to PACE and reads through the notes with the passenger who is invited to sign them.
The passenger is informed that the facts will be reported and that they may be prosecuted.
They are asked the silly question which is a pet hate of mine "do you understand?" They were asked that after the caution so it seems stupid to ask it again but PACE says you have to.
There is no need to tape record the interview and a suspected fare evader does not need to sign the notebook if he does not want to.
The Revenue Inspector later inputs all the relevant information onto a database which generates a set of case papers. The Revenue Inspector also completes an MG11 witness statement which he signs. Because Revenue Inspectors are not police officers the MG11 must be counter signed but they just sign each other's statements. There is nothing to say that it has to be an actual police officer who countersigns MG11s.
Any tickets or travel documents are retained as evidence.
If it goes to court the suspect may plead guilty by letter or request a trial by magistrates.
Many train companies prefer an out of court settlement to avoid costly trials but they will still prosecute if they feel the need to.
London Underground only have one grade of Inspector who is fully trained in PACE.
The train companies have different grades, some of whom are not PACE trained and are just there to sell tickets or issue Penalty Fares.
If a fare evader attempts to run away without giving details, then a Railway Official has a power of detention under Sec 5(3)© Regulation of Railways Act 1889.
This is known as the 3 fails:
1. Fails to show a valid ticket
2. Fails to give name and address
3. Fails to pay for their journey.

If any of the three conditions is not met then the power of detention is not present but a police officer (BTP or otherwise) has additional powers.
The Regulation of Railways Act 1889 is well known to British Transport Police but not to other police forces.

Intent must be proven on the railway / underground unlike on the buses which is covered by different regulations where intent is not necessary. Bus Inspectors don't need intent.

Sorry for long post

Hi i am going for job interview and you seem to know what you are speaking about do you already work for a train company as i would be really interested in some tips for my interview i have coming up next week, if you can help please get back to me