Security Guard, Transport Police and Penalty Fair Issue

[BazzaS]

In a roomful of people they can see you.

OK : how about making it asking an online doctor in a forum, where people can see your query, but don't know who you are.

A better analogy?

 

The questions regarding the ticket aren't irrelevant - because:

 

You think your ticket wasn't valid. A BTP officer and an RPI seemed to think otherwise ....

 

The station / route, the railcard AND other ticket details (including its cost) affect if the ticket is valid. This point has been made before but instead you want to focus on not naming the station.

Good luck.

 

Make that:

"

You think your ticket was valid. A BTP officer and an RPI seemed to think otherwise ...."

[lb722]

In a roomful of people they can see you.

OK : how about making it asking an online doctor in a forum, where people can see your query, but don't know who you are.

A better analogy?

Fair enough. I still can't see the doctor making a diagnosis based on how much rent somebody pays a month though.

 

You think your ticket wasn't valid. A BTP officer and an RPI seemed to think otherwise ....

It's the other way round. I know for a fact that the ticket was valid. This isn't a question about the validity of the ticket.

 

If a ticket has a particular route listed on it, then it is valid on that route. I travelled on that route. Check.

 

I used a railcard to acquire a discount. I had the in-date railcard on me, the RPI saw it and at no point did he say that there was an issue with the railcard. Check.

 

I had an off-peak ticket, meaning that I cannot travel on peak trains. I travelled on off-peak trains. There were still trains due which were off-peak. There are no peak trains on that route on a Sunday. Check.

 

At no point have I came in here asking people whether or not I had a valid ticket. I know that I did and I'm fully capable of verifying this myself.

 

My question is about what will happen from this point onwards. I have been told that I will be hearing from them in the post for trespassing on the railway (waiting in the station for a train) and waiting in the station without a ticket permitting me to be there (you don't need an additional platform ticket if you have a ticket for travel).

 

The station / route, the railcard AND other ticket details (including its cost) affect if the ticket is valid. This point has been made before but instead you want to focus on not naming the station.

Good luck.

It's actually you and Old-CodJA wanting to focus on the station. I want to focus on the question at hand instead of drifting off into other areas.

 

The only way the station matters is if there is a particular station in which you aren't allowed to wait for a train.

[BazzaS]

Fair enough. I still can't see the doctor making a diagnosis based on how much rent somebody pays a month though.

 

 

It's the other way round. I know for a fact that the ticket was valid. This isn't a question about the validity of the ticket.

 

I spotted the typo. I spotted it outside of the 10 minutes now allowed for editing. I highlighted the typo (& posted a correction) at 13:22, prior to you posting at 13:26.

 

 

If a ticket has a particular route listed on it, then it is valid on that route. I travelled on that route. Check.

 

I used a railcard to acquire a discount. I had the in-date railcard on me, the RPI saw it and at no point did he say that there was an issue with the railcard. Check.

 

I had an off-peak ticket, meaning that I cannot travel on peak trains. I travelled on off-peak trains. There were still trains due which were off-peak. There are no peak trains on that route on a Sunday. Check.

 

At no point have I came in here asking people whether or not I had a valid ticket. I know that I did and I'm fully capable of verifying this myself.

 

My question is about what will happen from this point onwards. I have been told that I will be hearing from them in the post for trespassing on the railway (waiting in the station for a train) and waiting in the station without a ticket permitting me to be there (you don't need an additional platform ticket if you have a ticket for travel).

 

 

It's actually you and Old-CodJA wanting to focus on the station. I want to focus on the question at hand instead of drifting off into other areas.

 

The only way the station matters is if there is a particular station in which you aren't allowed to wait for a train.

 

OCJ is an industry expert, and feels it is worth checking you are correct that the ticket was valid. A BTP officer and an RPI said your ticket wasn't valid. IF your ticket wasn't valid then "The only way the station matters is if there is a particular station in which you aren't allowed to wait for a train" becomes incorrect.

 

Either you want advice or you don't. Perhaps people are unkeen on expending lots of energy on offering advice that could be irrelevant (such as if it turns out your ticket was invalid).

 

So, (and it'll be my final piece of advice), post all of the relevant info people have suggested would confirm your ticket was valid.

Worst case scenario : you get told why it isn't valid and advice on extracating yourself from a potential prosecution.

 

Hopefully : it'll be confirmed as valid, and you'll get to be able to say "told you so!" (and "get in the last word") - which appears more important to you than listening to what the industry expert is telling you.

[lb722]

I spotted the typo. I spotted it outside of the 10 minutes now allowed for editing. I highlighted the typo (& posted a correction) at 13:22, prior to you posting at 13:26.

Maybe, God forbid, it took me longer than four minutes to write my post. Given that your only purpose in this thread is to try and wind me up, why should I waste time editing my post just to try and please you?

 

OCJ is an industry expert, and feels it is worth checking you are correct that the ticket was valid. A BTP officer and an RPI said your ticket wasn't valid. IF your ticket wasn't valid then "The only way the station matters is if there is a particular station in which you aren't allowed to wait for a train" becomes incorrect.

I'm fully capable of checking whether or not a ticket is valid myself. It really isn't as difficult as you seem to think it is. I can nip down to the station now and ask if 'X to Y via Z' means that I have to change at Z, or head in the opposite direction to A on the more expensive route if you'd like? I think we both know what the answer will be and I would look very silly for asking!

 

Hopefully : it'll be confirmed as valid, and you'll get to be able to say "told you so!" (and "get in the last word") - which appears more important to you than listening to what the industry expert is telling you.

Or, instead of wasting time, we can just assume that my ticket was valid and get on with it.

[Andyorch]

Lets keep this civil gentlemen

 

Andyorch

[king12345]

Going back to the point, btp officers don't have a clue about tickets. Fact!

 

Security guard did not even see the ticket.

 

So it leaves only the rpi who decided that the particular ticket was not valid to wait on the platform, but, as i read it, never said it was not valid for travel.

 

Now, in my experience there's no station in uk where you are not allowed to wait on the station for your train at OFF-PEAK times (Note the off-peak)

 

I will speculate and say what i think happened: Security guard sees op hanging about a desolated station and asks what's up.

Op somehow failed the attitude test and rpi and btp officers get involved.

 

Rpi makes up that ticket is not valid and fills his daily quota by reporting the op, supported by btp who doesn't have a clue about tickets.

 

Now, as the ticket was a discounted ticket, I predict the report will be a bylaw 18 (being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket).

Simply the rpi could claim that the op did not have his railcard with him.

 

All speculation, but seen many, many times.

Edited February 23, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras

[BazzaS]

Going back to the point, btp officers don't have a clue about tickets. Fact!

Security guard did not even see the ticket.

So it leaves only the rpi who decided that the particular ticket was not valid to wait on the platform, but, as i read it, never said it was not valid for travel.

Now, in my experience there's no station in uk where you are not allowed to wait on the station for your train at OFF-PEAK times (Note the off-peak)

I will speculate and say what i think happened: Security guard sees op hanging about a desolated station and asks what's up.

Op somehow failed the attitude test and rpi and btp officers get involved.

Rpi makes up that ticket is not valid and fills his daily quota by reporting the op, supported by btp who doesn't have a clue about tickets.

Now, as the ticket was a discounted ticket, I predict the report will be a bylaw 18 (being in a compulsory ticket area without a valid ticket).

Simply the rpi could claim that the op did not have his railcard with him.

All speculation, but seen many, many times.

 

Foolish of an RPI to risk that.

The RPI knows that the OP would complain: the RPI MIGHT take the chance it could be a case of "he said, she said" EXCEPT for the BTP officer's involvement. The RPI would be unwise to take the chance the BTP officer's notebook recorded that the OP had their railcard, which would shift it from "he said, she said" to "RPI likely fibbing"!

 

This makes the scenario you described unlikely. Have the "many, many times" included BTP involvement?

[Old-CodJA]

.

NATIONAL RAILWAYS BYELAWS (2005) - Control of premises

 

13 (2) No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person.

 

The section on enforcement of Byelaws does make clear that any person attempting to do so should explain the reason to the person concerned.

 

The security guard told him that the station was closing and that I was refusing to leave.

I explained to the BTP that the station was still open for over two hours as I knew the time of my last train home.

 

BTP then asked the security guard if I had been asked to leave the station, to which the reply was 'Yes'.

[BazzaS]

.

NATIONAL RAILWAYS BYELAWS (2005) - Control of premises

 

13 (2) No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person.

 

The section on enforcement of Byelaws does make clear that any person attempting to do so should explain the reason to the person concerned.

 

I can't claim OCJ's expertise, but this was part of the basis on which I already mentioned 13(2)........

 

If / when he hears from the TOC it'll be interesting which Bylaw(s) they raise : 6 [or 13(2)] perhaps, or 17/18.

[king12345]

Foolish of an RPI to risk that.

The RPI knows that the OP would complain: the RPI MIGHT take the chance it could be a case of "he said, she said" EXCEPT for the BTP officer's involvement. The RPI would be unwise to take the chance the BTP officer's notebook recorded that the OP had their railcard, which would shift it from "he said, she said" to "RPI likely fibbing"!

 

This makes the scenario you described unlikely. Have the "many, many times" included BTP involvement?

 

If and only if the btp officer was taking any notes.

Usually they just stand by to prevent any drama and let the rpi report the suspected offender.

[lb722]

Going back to the point, btp officers don't have a clue about tickets. Fact!

Security guard did not even see the ticket.

So it leaves only the rpi who decided that the particular ticket was not valid to wait on the platform, but, as i read it, never said it was not valid for travel.

It was originally the BTP officer who claimed that it was invalid, but that is otherwise correct. There wasn't a dispute about whether or not it was valid for travel, only whether or not I was allowed to wait in the station.

 

I will speculate and say what i think happened: Security guard sees op hanging about a desolated station and asks what's up. Op somehow failed the attitude test and rpi and btp officers get involved.

I couldn't have failed the attitude test with the security guard as when he asked me to leave the retail section I left without saying a word. Perhaps with the btp for saying 'Leave me alone' to the security guard in front of him. Given that this security guard followed me into the toilet, watched me urinate, then proceeded to follow me around without saying anything, I would say that I was quite calm.

 

.

NATIONAL RAILWAYS BYELAWS (2005) - Control of premises

 

13 (2) No person shall loiter on the railway if asked to leave by an authorised person.

 

The section on enforcement of Byelaws does make clear that any person attempting to do so should explain the reason to the person concerned.

The security guard never asked me to leave the station. He asked me to leave the retail section, which I did. It wasn't until the BTP were involved that he lied, claiming that he had told me to leave the station.

[Old-CodJA]

As I said earlier, I can make no further comment on the specific question asked by the OP

 

The authority for dealing with disputed ticket issues lies with the RPI.

 

RPIs are also trained in the requirements of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (PACE 1984) and have updating ticket knowledge as part of their overall training.

 

RPO's are not necessarily PACE trained.

 

BTP will only assist in identifying an individual if asked and as king12345 says, will normally only standby to deal with any public order issues that may arise.

 

Police officers are not automatically Authorised Persons within the meaning of the Penalty Fares Rules.

[MrHat]

Perhaps the ticket was taken as evidence that the op has therefore agreed to the t&cs and they will get him on a byelaw such as the one posted by oldcodja?

[lb722]

What is likely to be in the initial letter?

 

Trespassing on the railway seems to carry a £1000 fine. Will they be demanding that I pay this immediately?

[BazzaS]

What is likely to be in the initial letter?

 

Trespassing on the railway seems to carry a £1000 fine. Will they be demanding that I pay this immediately?

 

To be fined you'd need to be convicted, in magistrates court, unless you decided that you wanted to offer them a sum to avoid prosecution (which then wouldn't be "a fine"!)

 

Aren't you adamant you have a defence? So, how could they demand it immediately and you agree??

 

Something doesn't ring true here.

 

To answer (someone else, asking the same question but in a serious manner) ; fines in Magistrates courts (and arrangements to pay them over time) rely on the Means forms defendants complete.

[BazzaS]

Please leave this thread. Go and annoy somebody else.

 

Selectively quote me all you like, but

a) others can see the rest of what I post, which supports the bit of what I have posted that you quote.

b) it may be "your thread"' in so far as you started it, but it isn't just for your benefit. I've posted an answer to your query to help others who might actually want an answer and who find this thread by searching

c) As long as my reply is on topic & meets site rules : I don't have to leave this thread even if you ask (or "tell") me.

 

You posted publically : expect public replies.

 

BTW ; do you believe my answer about the Means form to be incorrect?

[dx100uk]

irrelevant posts and comments removed

 

 

please refrain from dictating what members may or may not do on CAG

nor include person to person insults.

 

 

keep it happy please