Train/metro penalties

moose1982

pogofish wrote: »

She may have been better-off by refusing to provide any details in the first place.

IIRC, she had no obligation to provide them unless the police were involved and the inspectors have no right to hold/obstruct her either.

There are byelaws which railway ticket inspectors can use if someone does not give their name and/or address to anyone with reasonable cause on the railway.

On the back of a ticket, it says 'Travel is subject to National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC)' which includes abiding by the railway byelaws.

She would've been in a worse position by not giving details.

vax2002

You are not going to go any further because you can not back up your claims.
The home office publish a list of bodies who are authorised to carry "warrant cards" and a list of powers given under those warrant cards, from powers of arrest to powers to request a roadside vehicle test, from customs and excise to inland revenue protection officers to credited community partnership such as dog !!!! wardens and I can not see a single entry for any "ticket inspector" upon it for any train company.
I think you may have confused a Identity card with a warrant card and you may also find that this is why REAL police officers who do have warrant cards accompany "Revenue inspection officers" or whatever fancy title they appoint themselves on occasions as a lot of people have realised that these ticket inspectors have no power over a private citizen and can be ignored.
If you can furnish some evidence to the warrant cards issued to ticket inspectors I will be more than happy to reconsider my position.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

And your confusing a ticket inspector with a revenue protection officer/Inspector and also with Railway enforcement officers. All 3 have different roles and things they can enforce whilst carrying out duties upon the railway.

realaledrinker

VinceNoir wrote: »

Thanks vax, I'll have to have a good look at the paperwork later.

I wonder if it would be grounds for appeal if she felt she was under duress? She said she did feel quite intimidated as there were a couple of imposing fellas with the woman who issued the ticket.

I think a £50 fine is way over the top for a first offence, paying the fare and a warning would be adequate, with a fine the second time round. But extracting more money from us is the first course of action in this country.

Sorry, but a penal rate is the only way to make the teenage scumbags who travel on the Met for free to think twice. Unfortunately passengers who genuinely have a reasonable excuse get swept up with all the others.

Doesn't help here but I have seen a demure flashing of the eyelashes doing the trick on more than one occasion.

Stigy

pogofish wrote: »

She may have been better-off by refusing to provide any details in the first place.

IIRC, she had no obligation to provide them unless the police were involved and the inspectors have no right to hold/obstruct her either.

More misinformation.

I understand that this relates to a Tram or Metro, but if we're using the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (probably not applicable on a tram, but certainly on the tube or railway), you really ought to read section 5.2. The only reason Inspectors don't arrest people is because the company doesn't like it as it's not good for publicity, and once you arrest somebody you have a duty of care over them. Basically the act states that if you refuse your details the staff have the right to detain or arrest you until you can be brought before the relevant justice (the Police in most cases)

This goes hand in hand with RPIs carrying Warrant Cards.

The legislation used for non-payment of a Penalty Fare will be the Byelaw, as the PF would be cancelled. So contract law doesn't come in to it.