Revenue Protection Officers (railway)

storm08

Hi all

I know I know, another thread on Revenue Protection Officers! Had a bit of a run in with one yesterday and just wanted to know if anyone knows what the specific powers of Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) trained ones are?

I cannot seem to find any sort of regulatory framework that they are required to follow, for example, at what point should they issue a police caution? and are they allowed to search personal belongings?

Any help much appreciated... seriously cannot believe the sheer rudeness, unprofessionalism, etc etc etc that the two I was confronted by exhibited!

newfoundglory

Searching belongings? Definitely not, only a police officer would have the powers to do that.

Livingthedream

Lots of questions; what station did this happen at, are you sure he was a RPI/O or was he a G4S goon? ie what ID did he show you?

As to the caution, if the RPI/O thinks you have breached a railway bylaw (minor offences) or breached the Railways Act 1889 (fare evasion) then he must caution you before any questions are asked.

As to searching bags, I can not understand why he would want to to that? whether he's allowed to I don't know.

As to the RPI/O's sheer rudeness and unprofessional behaviour, the only question I ask is how did you talk to them, if you gave them some attitude then the will use the laws and powers that the railways gave them to p1ss you off, however, if you were polite then complain to the relevant train company that employs them.

My last bit of advice is post on this forum, lot of RPI/O post on there to help people who have 'problems;)' with tickets or bylaws, they will tell you exactly what powers under PACE they have.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?161-Public-transport-%28Trains-tubes-and-buses%29

wealdroam

storm08 wrote: »

Hi all

I know I know, another thread on Revenue Protection Officers! Had a bit of a run in with one yesterday and just wanted to know if anyone knows what the specific powers of Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) trained ones are?

I cannot seem to find any sort of regulatory framework that they are required to follow, for example, at what point should they issue a police caution? and are they allowed to search personal belongings?

Any help much appreciated... seriously cannot believe the sheer rudeness, unprofessionalism, etc etc etc that the two I was confronted by exhibited!

Had a run in?
What does that mean?
Did they accuse you of any wrong doing?
Were you able to convince them that you had done nothing wrong?

geordieracer

Livingthedream wrote: »

Lots of questions; what station did this happen at, are you sure he was a RPI/O or was he a G4S goon?

Steady on there - you may not know it but a lot of these G4S goons you speak about are slowly getting the powers to be REOs and such like.

Livingthedream

geordieracer wrote: »

Steady on there - you may not know it but a lot of these G4S goons you speak about are slowly getting the powers to be REOs and such like.

Maybe a little harsh with my description, No

You and I know these staff have very little training and are then throw on the front line and expected to do full revenue duties. They make lots of mistakes and cause lots of discontentment amongst the traveling public. The reason some train companies use them is because their cheap.

If as you stated their getting trained up to REO level the quicker the better, as long as that training includes more time to learn and understand the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and isn't just the Rail Safety Accreditation Scheme training.

One last thing GR, sorry if I upset you with my previous post, but I've had a run in with these people before, usual thing saying my ticket was invalid in a loud vocal manner when it wasn't, I wasn't impressed nor were the BTP who sorted it out.

Stigy

Storm08 wrote:

Hi all

I know I know, another thread on Revenue Protection Officers! Had a bit of a run in with one yesterday and just wanted to know if anyone knows what the specific powers of Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) trained ones are?

*They have the power to request your name and address if they believed an offence might have been committed (all rail staff and certain agents of train companies have this power).

*Although not excersized much (Train Comapnies don't like it), they also have a power of arrest under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (RRA).

*Inaddition to the one above, they can detain under the same act if somebody is refusing to give details, until a Police Officer arrives. Again, Train Companies would probably frown upon this one being used, but it's part of the RRA 1889.

*They can issue Penalty Fares in accordance with the Penalty Fare Rules, and also have the power to request details from you to undertake this task

The ability to caution isn't a power as such, but a right under PACE. They just have to be trained by the comapny to a level whereby they know how to conduct an interview etc.

Storm08 wrote:

I cannot seem to find any sort of regulatory framework that they are required to follow, for example, at what point should they issue a police caution? and are they allowed to search personal belongings?

They can caution as soon as they believe an offence MIGHT have occured (not a Police Caution, as this is something the police do as a means of resolution for a minor offence, although I'm guessing you meant the "reading of somebody's rights" anyway). They do not have the power to search.

Livingthedream wrote: »

As to the caution, if the RPI/O thinks you have breached a railway bylaw (minor offences) or breached the Railways Act 1889 (fare evasion) then he must caution you before any questions are asked.

There's nothing stipulating that you MUST caution somebody when reporting them for an alleged offence. It's good practice to, and would be far easier to get a successful prosecution if you do though, because the Q&As will be admissible as evidents in court, due to the caution having been read.

Livingthedream

Stigy wrote: »

There's nothing stipulating that you MUST caution somebody when reporting them for an alleged offence. It's good practice to, and would be far easier to get a successful prosecution if you do though, because the Q&As will be admissible as evidents in court, due to the caution having been read.

Hi stigy, I see what your getting at, so reporting somebody for an offence doesn't require a caution, however, to prove that offence then questions must be asked and other than name and address any other questions must need a caution, else any answers given won't be admissible in court.

So really its a must rather than good practice.

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

Hi stigy, I see what your getting at, so reporting somebody for an offence doesn't require a caution, however, to prove that offence then questions must be asked and other than name and address any other questions must need a caution, else any answers given won't be admissible in court.

So really its a must rather than good practice.

Hi LTD! :beer:

You only need to have brief facts in order to prove the Strict Liablility offence of a Railway Byelaw (Joe Bloggs stated that he didn't have a ticket, and he travelled from station A to station B - to all intents and purposes).

To satisfy a charge under the RRA 1889, I would agree, that unless blatantly clear (such as tailgating through barriers etc), you'd need to caution and ask some concise questions in order to ascertain their intentions etc. All of which would be admissible, where the wouldn't if no caution was read. You can report the facts of the matter without cautioning if you wish, but RRA offences would more than likely only be charged as Byelaw offences due to the proof required to suceed in court.

I always caution when reporting people, merely because I believe if a job's worth doing, you might as well do it properly! The only reason I don't caution is if the offender is under 18-years old (legally you can caution at 17-yoa without an appropriate adult being present, but my TOC doesn't like this very much as they're not an adult in the eyes of the law), or they're drunk.

storm08

Hello All!

Thanks for all your replies! Well... without this turning into a very long story...

Basically I had a valid ticket, the RPO thought that I had altered the ticket in the past. On the day in question the ticket was filled out correctly. But due to doubt over past use confiscated the pass. This is all assumptions of what she thought as she didn't actually tell me any of this, just took them.

Unfortunately I had all my old tickets also in my tickets wallet so she starts rifling through and took all them as well. My argument being I don't see why she would take them as "evidence" as I didn't ever present those to her as current travel documents?!

Anyway, Im being told that I am under "police caution" and 2 RPO's are interviewing me... Usual intimidation tactics of both standing over me, one actually leaning on the seat. Calling me a liar, fraudster, etc. Basically she was trying to get me to react to her, but I didn't. Just remained calm, tried to get some sort of explanation, which she refused to give. She refused to give me her last name and only allowed me to see her ID with her name covered (flashed so fast I had to request to see it again).

Now, I didnt give her my address. WAIT WAIT! I know this is an offence but she had already told me she would get it when she requested details of the ticket/pass. And she had already announced my name and date of birth 3 times to the entire carriage... Not the best when you are a young girl travelling alone. Also by this point seriously upset, teary, etc at the way I am being spoken to.

ANYWAY I then get compared to a shop lifter by them. Just wanted to go through their regulatory framework to check she had followed all procedures correctly.

Stigy, do you know where their powers are taken from? Do each TO have their own written framework or is it contained within PACE? Hoping for some sort of quotable source you see!

Thanks for any help everyone, feels good to know there are people who know out there.

Stigy

storm08 wrote: »

Hello All!

Thanks for all your replies! Well... without this turning into a very long story...

Basically I had a valid ticket, the RPO thought that I had altered the ticket in the past. On the day in question the ticket was filled out correctly. But due to doubt over past use confiscated the pass. This is all assumptions of what she thought as she didn't actually tell me any of this, just took them.

The ticket remains the property of the Train Operating Company (TOC). Staff can confiscate tickets or passes if they believe they have been used fraudulently.

Storm08 wrote:

Unfortunately I had all my old tickets also in my tickets wallet so she starts rifling through and took all them as well. My argument being I don't see why she would take them as "evidence" as I didn't ever present those to her as current travel documents?!

Although not particularly good practice, riffling through a ticket holder wouldn't really constitute a search, which is what I believe you were initially enquiring about, amongst other things. If the RPI/O thought or had reason to believe the other tickets would help build a case against you (were also altered or similar), she had every right to seize them as evidence (even if she didn't, they do still belong to the railway dont forget). She should really have questioned you about any belief she might have had that the other tickets were also used fraudulently, so as to strengthen the TOC's case should the matter go to court, althoiugh the very fact that you were found to have other tickets that were possibly altered, is evidence in itself.

Storm08 wrote:

Anyway, Im being told that I am under "police caution" and 2 RPO's are interviewing me... Usual intimidation tactics of both standing over me, one actually leaning on the seat. Calling me a liar, fraudster, etc. Basically she was trying to get me to react to her, but I didn't. Just remained calm, tried to get some sort of explanation, which she refused to give. She refused to give me her last name and only allowed me to see her ID with her name covered (flashed so fast I had to request to see it again).

I fail to see how two RPOs can conduct an interview, as only one will be submitting the reporting officer. They should have remained professional and couteous at all times. If you have a grievance about their conduct, you should contact the TOC!

They should give you a relative explaination in layman's terms, but wouldn't typically, or shouldn't typically go in to too much details about court and/or penalties imposed by courts etc. At the very least you should have been made aware of where the questions were leading, as they're self explanitary!

They don't have to give you their names, just their ID number, which will identify them easily enough.

Storm08 wrote:

Now, I didnt give her my address. WAIT WAIT! I know this is an offence but she had already told me she would get it when she requested details of the ticket/pass. And she had already announced my name and date of birth 3 times to the entire carriage... Not the best when you are a young girl travelling alone. Also by this point seriously upset, teary, etc at the way I am being spoken to.

Yes, you should have given your address, as you have committed a further offence by not doing so. However, for you to have refused to give her your address, she would have had to ask for it first. I'm assuming she asked for it, and didn't merely say "Don't worry about the address, I can get that myself".

Storm08 wrote:

Stigy, do you know where their powers are taken from? Do each TO have their own written framework or is it contained within PACE? Hoping for some sort of quotable source you see!

Thanks for any help everyone, feels good to know there are people who know out there.

PACE is where the power to caution comes from, and that is a national legislation. The power to request details comes from the National Railway Byelaws (2005), also a national legislation. How a TOC trains their staff is up to them, as it's mostly internal, although it should be pretty standard to be honest.

Now none of us here were there, so I'm going to assume what you say is accurate about the RPOs' behavioud. Don't forget that the staff only had to believe that you had committed an offence/es to allow them to start questioning you. Even if that belief is later unfounded, it doesn't make it wrong, it just means that they were doing their job. There's no excuse for staff to get on their high horse with customers, and whenever I see it (and I see it a lot!) I'm frankly embarrased by it. We're not all like that, promise! (I'm not actually part of a Revenue Protection team by the way)