Confiscation of ticket

[Old-CodJA]

The short answer is 'No', they are certainly not going to just hand any record over to a member of the public.

 

In most cases the Police monitor the CCTV, but your complaint is with FCC. You could write to FCC giving the date, time & location of the incident, the Officer's collar number and the RPI details that you were given and ask for the CCTV to be viewed by Police & FCC in your presence, stating that you have already made a telephone complaint and that you wish to follow this up with a formal written record.

 

They may not agree, but following such a request, they wil certainly view any available record and respond accordingly.

[rebel11]

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv.aspx

 

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/other-types-of-surveillance/cctv-surveillance.html

 

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/termsandconditions/11465.aspx

[Old-CodJA]

I wouldn't get too bogged down with this. You can ask to see the CCTV, but a summary of the main points taken as direct quotes from ICO and other sources is as follows:

 

'Basic CCTV systems, such as those in a shop for security purposes, are now unlikely to be covered under DPA provided that the operator is not using the images for checking on staff. If, however, the CCTV is used remotely to zoom in on people, or for monitoring particular individuals, or the film recorded is used for anything other than for providing to law enforcement bodies, then the CCTV is likely to be covered by the DPA'

 

'Some uses of CCTV are not covered by the Data Protection Act; for example, the use of cameras for limited household purposes (such as to protect a home from burglary) - even if the camera overlooks the street. If you are concerned that CCTV is being used for harassment, anti social behaviour or other matters dealt with under the criminal law, then these are matters for the police. Images taken for recreation, such as on mobile phones, digital cameras and camcorders, are also exempt from the Act. Law enforcement covert surveillance activities are covered by a separate Act - the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act (RIPSA) 2000.'

 

'You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.'

 

I think it is important in this case to note the comments regarding RIPA (2000) for that is considered to be the primary purpose of CCTV at railway stations

 

.

[Passenger]

Thanks for this, but I think the CCTV is a bit of a red herring - I can't imagine that it would be particularly helpful, since although it might show the inspectors crowding around me, I can't see how that it would show that I had a valid ticket, or that I requested a receipt and ID from the inspectors but they refused.

 

Call me a cynic but, on the off-chance that the CCTV showed anything helpful to my complaint, I wouldn't be surprised if got mysteriously erased or the camera happened to have been pointing the wrong way etc, whatever FCC's legal obligations.

[Wriggler7]

You are a cynic! BTP manage London termini CCTV, they would not 'get at' CCTV to 'protect' any railway staff. The integrity of the system is more important than that!

[Wriggler7]

Very often, CCTV is not the 'magic bullet' that the salesmen claim. But there is the chance that it may show something, even if only the 'body langauge' of all of the 'personalities'.

 

That said, from your account, I think the 'noises' would be more important than the 'visuals'. And they will not be recorded.

[Old-CodJA]

Yes, 'body language' was my point.

 

I have been involved in these things for a very long time and knowing the thinking, I'd say that if there is a view of six burly inspectors suddenly rushing to encircle a member of the public who isn't showing any kind of physical reaction, it could be extremely useful and might well back up any written report of what occurred..

 

.

[Old-CodJA]

If there wasn't a threat of either something physical, or a likelihood that someone with a forged or invalid ticket might abscond, the herd reaction is normally quite restrained.

 

One or two others may join the first inspector in questioning, but in my experience it is very rare for a group to crowd closely around someone unless one or more staff feel threatened, or had detected a serious ticketing offence.

 

As this isn't the case from your description of what happened, if I were dealing with the complaint, I would deem it very important to try to get independent eyes on the incident.

 

.

[Passenger]

Just by way of update:

 

I wrote a letter of complaint to FCC about this incident and, thanks to the advice on this forum, was able to cite the relevant parts of the Conditions of Carriage an the Railway Byelaws. Got a response from FCC in which they agreed that their staff should have given me a receipt and identified themselves. FCC have also agreed to refund me the cost of my return ticket.

 

It seems to me that some FCC staff don't know or choose to ignore the applicable rules.

 

Thanks again for the useful responses.

[Wriggler7]

Thank you for updating the thread.

 

Seems like a good result. What also probably happened is that a 'manager' will have 'advised' the staff involved. As such, your action in contacting FCC will have had an effect on the way that those staff will act in future.

[Old-CodJA]

Well done. Satisfactory result and as Wriggler7 says, will help others.

[Taki]

I'm new to this forum and joined because this thread was brought to my attention. So far the posts I've looked at seem well mannered, without the emotional and other baggage that people usually bring, so I hope mine would be keeping in that spirit.

 

I would like to take issue with "Passenger" account of this incident and to say that "the psychology of this incident" (your words), have everything to do with how it was played out.

 

On the morning in question, you handed over your ticket when attempting to exit the station. The inspector told you that the date was incorrect. You insisted that the date on the ticket was correct and it was only after the inspector pointed out, time and time again that it was not, that you deign to check you bag again.

 

You then handed over another ticket which proved to be the correct one. However, before the inspector had time to complete inspecting the ticket, you snatched it away. the inspector then insisted on seeing it again to ascertain that it was correct. Having completed his inspection, as the inspector was about to hand it back to you, you called him a "Piers Morgan" and started being derogatory. It was only after this that the inspector told you that he would not be giving you back your tickets, but would keep them as evidence and make a report about your behavior.

 

As you demanded back your tickets, and your behavior became increasingly aggressive (verbally, not physically), a second inspector intervened - not the 5 or 6 as stated in your initial post - there were only 4 inspectors on that barrier at the time, one of them being female. As the situation escalated - and correct me if I'm wrong - it was the 2nd inspector who called over the police, not yourself.

 

Now to answer about the legality of the inspectors' actions.

 

Yes, you are right in this respect. National Rail Conditions of Carriage (20) does state that a receipt must be given if a ticket is withdrawn for travel irregularities. However this matter was not dealt with as a travel irregularity - after all you had a valid ticket. This incident was dealt with as a breach of the Railway Bye-Laws (6) - Unacceptable Behavior- which a previous poster has already quoted. A withdrawal of ticket under those circumstances does not require that a receipt be given.

 

Finally, to the point that the inspectors refused to gave their details. THEY DID NOT. In fact one of their supervisor who happened on the incident in it latter stages did approach you to try reasoning with you, and did gave a first name & badge #. However you kept insisting that you needed a surname also, no manner how many times you were told that FCC do not require staff to gave their surnames. You had to be finally convinced by the Police to leave the station.

 

The following morning as you exited the barriers you made it a point to approach the staff and elaborate on your resolve to report them. Again the police had to ask you to leave the station.

 

FCC's decision to accept your side of the story does not vindicate your actions. Staff are increasingly having to put up unacceptable behavior because Companies are increasingly unwilling to challenge such just to preserve an image of being "customer friendly" or to bring speedy resolution to complaints. And that, my friend, is what acted in your favor.

[Old-CodJA]

As always, two sides to a story.

[RPI]

Always nice to hear both sides of the story! i've been called in on many occasions to read through complaints about me and it's amazing what things people will make up!

[Passenger]

Sorry Taki, I'm not clear if you were actually one of the inspectors involved or you've been told about this by one of your colleagues, but your account just isn't correct.

[Taki]

Hi "Passenger", suffice to say I have "intimate" knowledge of this incident, so what part of my account is incorrect?

[Passenger]

… so we meet again! Taki – I’m quite happy to discuss this matter with you – these are the points in your post that I think you are wrong about:

 

“The inspector told you that the date was incorrect. You insisted that the date on the ticket was correct and it was only after the inspector pointed out, time and time again that it was not, that you deign to check you bag again.”

 

As posted above, the inspector just said my ticket was not valid – but did not initially say why. I argued with him that it was valid, but only because I genuinely believed it to be. As soon as he actually said that the reason it wasn’t valid was because it had yesterday’s date on it, I realised my mistake and handed over the one from that day.

 

“You then handed over another ticket which proved to be the correct one. However, before the inspector had time to complete inspecting the ticket, you snatched it away.”

 

Not Correct, the inspector was holding both tickets, I certainly didn’t snatch them back.

 

“Having completed his inspection, as the inspector was about to hand it back to you, you called him a "[EDIT - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ABUSE]" and started being derogatory.”

 

Not correct – although I admit I was fairly angry by this point and may have been shouting, I wasn’t swearing or calling anyone names.

 

“As you demanded back your tickets, and your behavior became increasingly aggressive (verbally, not physically), a second inspector intervened - not the 5 or 6 as stated in your initial post - there were only 4 inspectors on that barrier at the time, one of them being female.”

 

I recall there being 5 or 6, but there may have been 4 inspectors. Whatever the exact number (or gender), I found the way in which they all crowded around to be aggressive and threatening.

 

“As the situation escalated - and correct me if I'm wrong - it was the 2nd inspector who called over the police, not yourself.”

 

I never said that I called the police – see my OP.

 

“National Rail Conditions of Carriage (20) does state that a receipt must be given if a ticket is withdrawn for travel irregularities.”

 

Not correct – condition 20 makes no reference to “travel irregularities”, but refers to a material breach the conditions giving rise to the right for a ticket to be withdrawn.

 

“This incident was dealt with as a breach of the Railway Bye-Laws (6) - Unacceptable Behavior ... A withdrawal of ticket under those circumstances does not require that a receipt be given.”

 

What is the legal basis for this? As far as I can see, the Byelaws do not make any reference to inspectors having the power to confiscate tickets.

 

“Finally, to the point that the inspectors refused to gave their details. THEY DID NOT.”

 

The inspector who took my ticket refused to indentify himself - and I think that you admit this implicitly in your post, since you only mention the supervisor giving me his details.

 

“In fact one of their supervisor … did gave a first name & badge”

 

Yes – this is exactly what I said in my OP.

 

"However you kept insisting that you needed a surname also, no manner how many times you were told that FCC do not require staff to gave their surnames. "

 

I asked to see some proof of indentity. The Byelaws provide that inspectors are required to, “produce a form of identification when requested to do so and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain a means of identifying the authorised person”

 

The key word here is “Form”, which must mean some sort of written ID card/badge etc. It is not sufficient to simply give your name (whether first or surname) and ID number verbally. Failure to comply could be a criminal offence. As posted above, my concern is that an inspector could just say that his name was “John Smith, Inspector no. 123”, but without seeing some evidence of this the customer has no way of knowing whether this is true.

 

"You had to be finally convinced by the Police to leave the station. "

 

Not correct – I had a perfectly pleasant discussion with the Police, who then came back with me so that I could take down the Inspectors’ details. They even lent me their pen!

 

"The following morning as you exited the barriers you made it a point to approach the staff and elaborate on your resolve to report them. Again the police had to ask you to leave the station. "

 

Not correct, the next day when I saw the same inspectors, I again asked them to provide me with some ID so that I could make a formal report. The Inspectors again refused and, instead called the police over telling the police that I should be stopped. The Police actually told the inspector to go away whilst I spoke to them. I explained what had happened the day before, and that I felt that the inspectors were being unreasonable. The Police didn’t ask me to leave the station at all. In fact, they had a word with the inspectors on my behalf.

 

 

Taki - I do appreciate you taking the time to post on here and can see that there are two sides to every story. However this whole incident could have been avoided if the inspectors were polite and civil to me. I held a valid ticket. I do see that the inspectors may have thought that I was somehow trying to evade payment – but this wasn’t the case. I did argue initially that the ticket from the day before was valid but only because I genuinely thought that it was. I accept that I’m not totally blameless since I should have kept my cool.

 

Ticket Inspectors demand strict compliance with the rules and regulations by customers, so customers also have a right to expect that Inspectors fully comply with the rules too. I don’t see that the Inspectors had the right to take my ticket. Even if they did, they should have given me a receipt and provided proper identification.

[SRPO]

...Taki - I do appreciate you taking the time to post on here and can see that there are two sides to every story. However this whole incident could have been avoided if the inspectors were polite and civil to me. I held a valid ticket. I do see that the inspectors may have thought that I was somehow trying to evade payment – but this wasn’t the case. I did argue initially that the ticket from the day before was valid but only because I genuinely thought that it was. I accept that I’m not totally blameless since I should have kept my cool. ...

 

So when you got angry & 'lost your cool' because staff said your ticket wasnt valid, what they should have done is wait till you finish shouting then smiled sweetly & politely pointed out the invalidity to you....

 

Alternatively you could have said 'whats wrong with it' he/she would have said its out of date or whatever, you then go 'oh silly me I gave you the wrong one'.....smiles all around & everyone goes about their business.

 

Staff are not paid to be shouted at or abused, whatever the reason. How about you writing an apology to the member of staff concerned?

[Old-CodJA]

I had an example of this kind of behaviour in Court recently. I accept that there was a bit of difference in as much as the traveller concerned in the case I was dealing with did not have a valid ticket, but the point is the Magistrates decided that the actions of the traveller, in shouting in an abusive manner, was a sufficiently aggravating feature to raise the fine to a higher band.

 

The Magistrates had the file marked to note that they had moved the fine into Band C to reflect their considered opinion that rail staff have a right to carry out their duties without any fear of abuse and intimidation.

 

It is an offence that could be charged whether a traveller has a valid ticket or not.

 

Lesson learned I guess.

[Passenger]

How about you writing an apology to the member of staff concerned?

That would be difficult, since he refused to identify himself.

[SRPO]

That would be difficult, since he refused to identify himself.

 

You only need his first name......which I understand was given but you insisted on his surname too.

BTP advice for staff is to give first name & badge number.

btw, only the badge number is required under the byelaws & PF regs,this can be in the form of an ID card or a lapel badge with just the authorised collector number on.

[Passenger]

You only need his first name......which I understand was given but you insisted on his surname too.

I'm afraid that this just is not correct. As mentioned in my OP the Inspector who actually took my ticket refused to identify himself at all and (as I think the chap's post above implicitly confirms) it was only the supervisor who verbally gave me his name and number, but refused to provide a form of ID (whether a badge, card or anything else).

[Passenger]

... the point is the Magistrates decided that the actions of the traveller, in shouting in an abusive manner, was a sufficiently aggravating feature to raise the fine to a higher band.

...

It is an offence that could be charged whether a traveller has a valid ticket or not.

Thanks, I think that this is the key point - as I understand things, breach of the Railway Bye-Laws is a criminal offence and it is therefore only the Court which can impose a fine (after hearing the evidence and reaching a guilty verdict).

 

In my case, even if the Inspectors thought that I had breached the Bye-laws, this would still not give them right to confiscate my ticket. Rather, the correct procedure would surely be to report the matter to the police who would then take it to Court if appropriate. From what was posted above, it seems that Inspectors in confiscating my ticket were in effect imposing a fine on me equal to the cost of my ticket as an arbitary punishment for what they said was a breach of the Bye-laws. I just do not see that, as a matter of law, the Inspectors had any right to do this.

 

From reading other threads, it seems that there is a critical distinction between penalty fares imposed by Inspectors - which are not a criminal matter - and Court actions for breach of the Byelaws - which are criminal. I do not think that Inspectors have the right to impose fines for breaches of the Bye-laws.

 

I also now suspect that the reason the Inspectors refused to give me a receipt or properly identify themselves is that they knew that they hadn't followed the proper procedure and that they did not have the right to confiscate my ticket as they did.

[Wriggler7]

If a passenger breaches a byelaw, there is no requirement for a railway employee to report it to the Police, he may report it to 'the railway' (in practice, whatever prosecution unit that the company uses).

 

The railway are as capable as many other agencies of taking the matter through criminal, that is to say Magistrates, Courts.

 

If the report starts with the showing of a ticket, then it is best practice fot that ticket to be retained by the inspector. If the inspector did not comply with what the conditions of carriage state, by not giving a receipt, that does not negate the evidence of the ticket.

[SRPO]

Tickets remain the property of the railway company & may be withdrawn at any time, there is no law that states a receipt must be given.

There is also the common law power to seize evidence.

 

Anyway, I think you have some front bitching about a situation that was totally of your own making. Hopefully next time you interact with any employee you will treat them as you would wish to be treated yourself.