Claim Against First Capital Connect - Had Valid Ticket

[Old-CodJA]

Indeed it is Old-CodJA....the post was really aimed at the OP.

 

We know that you know the score here....apologies if you felt it was aimed at you

 

Not at all, I was just underlining the fact that so far as I personally am concerned, it is a waste of time asking and that isn't meant to offend either.

 

I just think is just so much more important to always make anything posted or discussed of use to as many people as possible.

[ericsbrother]

I think the OP was complaining he was unlawfully detained as the reason for "forcefully" delaying him was unfounded

[Vordrak]

To be honest, the 'much more to it than that' was a comment in the original post just meant was simply a summary. There is no other allegation.

 

As far as I am concerned I was detained improperly by a rude ticket inspector on the strength of no more than an old, battered photo card. When I complained not only did the inspector make an inappropriate remark his line manager tore it.

 

The manager then made a stupid verbal allegation that I cut the photo-card to use fraudulently with ... my own photo. Perhaps I also cut up a ten pound note and stuck it back together for the purpose of forging ... a ten pound note.

 

The net effect of coming to this forum was to be trolled and accused of lying about my identity. What do you want? My rail photo card? It was a waste of time. I have taken a proper second opinion and intend to proceed. In fairness, looking at the forum you mostly deal with fraudsters like the guy who made his own ticket but really hardly a helpful response to my query.

[Old-CodJA]

I think the OP was complaining he was unlawfully detained as the reason for "forcefully" delaying him was unfounded

 

Unless the OP was arrested, which he wasn't, or at least he has not said he had been told that he was under arrest, and if the inspector simply questioned him about showing a mutilated photo identity card and issued a warning notice to get it replaced promptly, I cannot see any grounds to suggest that he was 'unlawfully detained'. The term is pretty specific in its' meaning.

 

The OP says 'I then hung around to see the manager', making clear that he knew he was free to go, but chose to delay his onward movement in order to complain.

[Old-CodJA]

To be honest, the 'much more to it than that' was a comment in the original post just meant was simply a summary. There is no other allegation.

 

As far as I am concerned I was detained improperly by a rude ticket inspector on the strength of no more than an old, battered photo card. When I complained not only did the inspector make an inappropriate remark his line manager tore it.

 

The manager then made a stupid verbal allegation that I cut the photo-card to use fraudulently with ... my own photo. Perhaps I also cut up a ten pound note and stuck it back together for the purpose of forging ... a ten pound note.

 

The net effect of coming to this forum was to be trolled and accused of lying about my identity. What do you want? My rail photo card? It was a waste of time. I have taken a proper second opinion and intend to proceed. In fairness, looking at the forum you mostly deal with fraudsters like the guy who made his own ticket but really hardly a helpful response to my query.

 

 

You have every right to your own opinion and it would make sense for you to vist a lawyer with current practising certificate to seek advice personally.

 

My unbiased comments are based on more than 30 years experience in the industry, mainly in fares recovery and prosecuting.

 

I am sorry that you think my comments have been unhelpful, however they are based on assessment of the information provided by you.

 

Having re-read the thread I can see no evidence of you being accused of lying about your identity, only your allegation that this is the case and no, we do not deal only with 'fraudsters', we deal with every aspect of ticketless travel and ticket irregularities as well as Byelaw matters.

[Vordrak]

Respectfully CodJA you have not read the OP properly -

 

"He accepted the photo was of me ... then ... detained me whilst he wrote it up"

 

The hanging around happened later as the post says. It just illustrates my point that I came to the wrong place for advice.

[Old-CodJA]

Respectfully CodJA you have not read the OP properly -

 

"He accepted the photo was of me ... then ... detained me whilst he wrote it up"

 

The hanging around happened later as the post says. It just illustrates my point that I came to the wrong place for advice.

 

 

Respectfully, I think you may have missed the point entirely.

 

Your own account states that he issued you a notice requiring you to get a replacement photo identity card within 14 days, rather it seems, than retain the mutilated photo-card and inconvenience you further by reporting the matter.

 

Your assessment, as quoted in your initial post is that this took between 5 and 15 minutes. There is a massive difference in this time assessment. 15 minutes is three times as long as 5 minutes. How long did it actually take?

 

I've lost count of the number of times that I receive letters saying 'I was held for 20, 30, 40 minutes' or more and when we look at the actual timings, ether in notes signed by the traveller, or from CCTV evidence, the whole incident may have lasted no more than a few minutes, quite often 5 minutes and sometimes even less.

 

It is clear that you are set on making some personal issue, which is your right if there is genuine cause, and knowing the FCC people, I will be interested to hear where this goes.

 

I shall leave the matter at that.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[seanamarts]

Respectfully CodJA you have not read the OP properly -

 

"He accepted the photo was of me ... then ... detained me whilst he wrote it up"

 

The hanging around happened later as the post says. It just illustrates my point that I came to the wrong place for advice.

 

Sounds like he was being very jobs worthy to me, he possibly thought that you had defrauded your ID and when you produced proof of who you were with other ID he felt compelled to carry out this procedure. Some people like to take things a little too far.

 

Please do come back and let us know how you get on, it could be very beneficial to others who have been treated the same.

 

Can I just ask that we be a little less judgemental in here please. Op asked for opinions in this matter not critiques.

 

Thank you

[timbo58]

The 'net effect' of you coming here was NOT to be trolled or accused of lying: no ones said that or implied it, you have just inferred it without any real reason.

 

No one here could be 'a troll', you are the only poster on this thread that hasn't been here before, the vast majority here are people who are trained in ticketing and familiar with most situations on the railway: we give people fair answers based on experience, no one gets any pleasure from schadenfreude here.

 

It might not be what they want to hear, but it's based on decades or more of genuine experience and training.

 

There are plenty of well meaning forums where you will gain sympathy and righteous indignation for any issue against a TOC, it might even make you feel better but it isn't going to help you as anyone there with any real knowledge would just get shouted down 'mob stylee'.

 

Put a complaint in by all means about being unlawfully detained: it's a serious offence and I am sure it's all on CCTV so the quicker you do it the more likely you will be to prove it via the CCTV footage, it's all timed after all.

[Stigy]

When a traveller is issued a Penalty Fare Notice, or Unpaid Fare Notice, no caution is given. Likewise, when you pass a safety camera at excess speed, or are issued a fixed penalty notice for other offence, no caution is given.

 

 

Obviously spot on regarding the prosecution process. However, regarding PNDs or FPNs for other offences, the offender will be cautioned (if issued correctly). Admittedly it tends to be at the end of the dealings and the caution used is the 'Now' caution, which I'm sure you are familiar with. This is in place because the reverse of the notice is an MG11 form, and should the offender appeal the notice, said appeal is heard in the Mags court. Same as all none payments. With PFNs and UFNs, as you know, appeals are handled by IRCAS or IPFAS etc, and none payment after 21-days sees the notice cancelled, only then is the MG11 produced.

 

Vordrak, I think you are confusing being unlawfully detained with simply not being invited to leave. I'm sure if you went to walk off the RPI would have simply allowed this. If he had stopped you physically, you may have had cause for complaint, assuming all the i's were dotted and the t's crossed with regard to the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, where you'll find there is a power of arrest for refusal of details after failing to buy a ticket.

[Old-CodJA]

Obviously spot on regarding the prosecution process. However, regarding PNDs or FPNs for other offences, the offender will be cautioned (if issued correctly). Admittedly it tends to be at the end of the dealings and the caution used is the 'Now' caution, which I'm sure you are familiar with. This is in place because the reverse of the notice is an MG11 form, and should the offender appeal the notice, said appeal is heard in the Mags court. Same as all none payments. With PFNs and UFNs, as you know, appeals are handled by IRCAS or IPFAS etc, and none payment after 21-days sees the notice cancelled, only then is the MG11 produced..

 

I wasn't going to comment further, and now only for clarification of my post.

 

Yes Stigy, very familiar with it, I was there at day 1 for NSE PFNs in 1989 (perhaps you were) and of course you're absolutely right re the print on PNDs or FPNs, however there is no caution in respect of the MG11 (formerly S9), which is generated as an evidential link once a PFN or UFN (railways) has been cancelled, which may be quite a bit later than 21 days dependent on correspondence.

 

I simplified explanation of the procedure to save a lengthy post, but thanks for adding value to my comments.

[45002]

Earlier this week I travelled from Welwyn Garden City to Kings Cross by train. I had a valid, paid for, First Class Ticket. The ticket had a photo card number, also valid and I had the photo card with me (You must have them together to make them valid). The photo card is a bit old and faded, the photo has slid and was poking out slightly, but the security seal is unbroken and the photo is recognisable as me.

 

I approached the barrier and Revenue Protection Officer stopped me. He accused me of fraudulent use and demanded to see some ID so I showed my driving license. He accepted the photo was of me ... then ... detained me whilst he wrote it up and gave me a slip threatening criminal prosecution unless I replaced the photocard within 14 days!

 

As far as I can see from my research (I am a law student) and the National Rail Conditions of Carriage as long as it is a genuine photocard and the photo is recognisable as me it is valid even if it is really crappy. Specifially, it must be a 'true likeness'. So, once the Revenue Protection office had established it was me then by definition it was a 'true likeness' and any power to prosecute or detain evaporated. s18 Rail Byelaws is an offence of strict liability ... but only if you did not have, or failed to produce, a valid ticket. I had both the ticket and the photo card.

 

So I emailed them about an hour later, including a contemporary note with a photo of my ticket and the photocard. I served a letter of claim later in the week to the effect that once they had established the photo was me there was literally no reason to accuse me of anything and no legal authority to stop me or threaten me with prosecution.

 

There is a good deal more to it than that, but I have posted the essentials, what do you guys think?

 

Wish I could have afforded to travel 1st Class when I was a Student !

 

Was the OP using a young person railcard,anyone know ?

 

http://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/using-your-card/railcard-terms-conditions/

Edited August 14, 2013 by 45002

[timbo58]

3 issues

 

unlawfully detained: complain to FCC and BT POLice and get the CCTV footage pulled, it's all timed.

intention to prosecute: standard wording, highly unlikely in this case, complain to FCC if you find this offensive or threatening.

photocard valid/invalid: complain to FCC

 

In the meantime replace photo card as you have a 14 day window, after that you run the risk that since you've been warned about the condition of the photo card it'll be seized and the accompanying ticket will become invalid.

 

By all means keep a receipt for any additional expense you go to to replace said photo card and request FCC recompense you, although this is unlikely IME.

 

The photocards validity or not is the main issue here: unfortunately regardless of what the Ncoc, the RoRa or anything else states in Black & white, this is fairly obviously being argued by the Tocs inspector as 'likely to become invalid' due to it's condition and a fair course of action is to require that photocard to be replaced within a reasonable time, the decision was the inspectors, you can challenge this directly with FCC, although arguably it may take far longer than the 14 days given to replace and cost more in terms of faffing about, however if you feel you have a stand to make then sobeit.

 

It being 'valid' at the time of inspection is the reason it was returned to the OP, had it genuinely believed it was either not the OP (and he did checks as has been said to check quite properly) or in an 'invalid' state at that time it would have been withdrawn at that point and the ticket would then also have become invalid.

Edited August 16, 2013 by timbo58

[Vordrak]

Hi,

 

Had a holding letter pending a full response.

 

My photocard has a name of the form 'Joe Bloggs' (not going to give my real name on the forum).

 

My driving license has a name of the form,

 

"1. BLOGGS

2. JOE CHARLIE"

 

Charlie being the middle name. From their letter it appears that the RPI misread the license and thought it said my name was 'Joe Charlie', which they thought did not match the photocard showing 'Joe Bloggs'. Had they asked I would have pointed it out.

 

I sent them a hi-res photo of the driving license by return pointing it out.

[45002]

Sorry,but who deleted my post from hear and why ?

 

If there was no reason or the OP was upset I was posting the truth

 

Just by reading the OP 1st post,they got caught out and bang to rights,lawfully stopped and in the end is just out for some compensation !

 

There that old saying

 

making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

PS

 

I'm not talking about post #37 I made another post after that in this thread that has been deleted ?

Edited August 16, 2013 by 45002

[45002]

For Reference

 

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1537662

[seanamarts]

Sorry,but who deleted my post from hear and why ?

 

If there was no reason or the OP was upset I was posting the truth

 

Just by reading the OP 1st post,they got caught out and bang to rights,lawfully stopped and in the end is just out for some compensation !

 

There that old saying

 

making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

PS

 

I'm not talking about post #37 I made another post after that in this thread that has been deleted ?

 

Your post was deleted because it was totally unnecessary and of no help to anyone. If you have no more advice for the OP then I suggest you no longer post on this thread.

[45002]

Your post was deleted because it was totally unnecessary and of no help to anyone. If you have no more advice for the OP then I suggest you no longer post on this thread.

 

No need to post any more anyway,OP is just digging them self s into a large black hole anyway

 

9 out 10 people who post for advice in Public transport (Trains, tubes and buses)

are guilty and got caught out,this thread is no different !

 

I wont post in this thread again as I don't want to upset the OP with the Truth !