Help please! TfL nominee pass confiscated

[Tazi Hupefi]

Which part of the railways are you referring to please?

it’s clear in this case that the ’wallet’ was handed over voluntarily. My comment was a general one about RPI legal powers, or rather the powers that an RPI doesn’t have.

But if you accept that any person can ask any other person to do something voluntarily, then the inspector does have the right to ask. Similarly, the person being asked has the right to decline.

In England and Wales everything is permitted and lawful unless there is legislation to the contrary (with some exceptions not relevant here).

 

[matt_world2004]

I think it was inappropriate for the RPI to look through the wallet. The only circumstances where that happened if the RPI explicitly or implicitly claimed he had powers to look through the wallet.

 

[RJ]

I’m assuming here that someone who makes the choice to travel without a valid ticket is fully aware of the consequences and thus should be well prepared for interactions with RPIs, including knowing what they should and shouldn’t be doing. And challenging appropriately any wrongdoing as it happens.

If they are not aware, but do it anyway then that seems to be some kind of issue with taking blind gambles which is probably something that warrants a conversation. When I’ve given out nominee passes I’ve under no uncertain terms spelled out the consequences of abusing it, pointed out the generous validity and stated that it’s never worth doing anything dodgy to save a few pounds.

Complaining after the event is highly likely to be a complete waste of time. I’d advise against dwelling on this, because nothing will come of it. Focusing entirely on mitigating the consequences of using a nominee pass on a service where it had no validity is probably the way to go.

Which part of the railways are you referring to please?

it’s clear in this case that the ’wallet’ was handed over voluntarily. My comment was a general one about RPI legal powers, or rather the powers that an RPI doesn’t have.

How much detail are you after?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I think it was inappropriate for the RPI to look through the wallet. The only circumstances where that happened if the RPI explicitly or implicitly claimed he had powers to look through the wallet.

Its probably one of those plastic Oyster card wallets, not an actual wallet.

 

[island]

An RPI has no legal powers (and I am talking about legal powers as everything else is hearsay) whatsoever to request/instruct/tell someone to turn out their pockets anymore than I do. The RPI can ask but under no circumstances is the passenger obliged to comply with such a request And in my view any such request should lead to a complaint against the RPI concerned For gross misconduct by my of abuse of power. Any physical attempt to go through someone’s pockets etc would be assault. What next, take off your socks so I can count how many toes you have?

Obviously the passenger does have to supply information such as their true name and address if caught without a valid ticket, but turn out your pockets or hand over your wallet, absolutely not.

I’m glad you agree with what I said.

 

[Aljanah]

RPI may well have no legal power to actually search, but do not tickets at all times remain the property of the TOC/Railway? So is an inspector allowed to demand to see any ticket that is otherwise visible?

 

[nanstallon]

Which part of the railways are you referring to please?

it’s clear in this case that the ’wallet’ was handed over voluntarily. My comment was a general one about RPI legal powers, or rather the powers that an RPI doesn’t have.

You could say that the the RPI was taking advantage of the passenger's limited command of the English language. While not condoning fare evasion, I don't like bullies.

 

[Tallguy]

How much detail are you after?

which lines or parts of lines and examples of what has happened Please.

 

[Ediswan]

RPI may well have no legal power to actually search, but do not tickets at all times remain the property of the TOC/Railway? So is an inspector allowed to demand to see any ticket that is otherwise visible?

That was in the older conditions of carriage, but does not appear in the current conditions of travel.

 

[RJ]

which lines or parts of lines and examples of what has happened Please.

I don’t wish to derail this thread but there are many threads in this section of the forum which cover things that shouldn’t have happened and the railways having to reverse their actions, or being subjected to legal action because of it.

 

[su31]

From the information document supplied with a Nominee Pass...

Any improper use of your staff Oyster card/photocard/PTAC or any misconduct whilst travelling may result in your travel benefits being withdrawn and those involved may be prosecuted. Disciplinary action may be taken which could result in dismissal.

 

[theking]

They didn't make a mistake and accidentally board the GA service.

They made a conscious decision to fare evade.

An interchange from the central line to tfl rail is cross platform.

An interchange from the central line to a GA train involves walking down a set of stairs from the central line/tfl rail platform to the underpass and then up a set of stairs to platform 10 for the GA service.

Taking a GA service over a tfl rail one would save a considerable amount of time.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

They didn't make a mistake and accidentally board the GA service.

They made a conscious decision to fare evade.

An interchange from the central line to tfl rail is cross platform.

An interchange from the central line to a GA train involves walking down a set of stairs from the central line/tfl rail platform to the underpass and then up a set of stairs to platform 10 for the GA service.

Taking a GA service over a tfl rail one would save a considerable amount of time.

One has to be careful here.

If the OP was in a rush to get to work, it is possible he just boarded whatever train was in the platform at the time - and it just happened to be a GA train stopping at Chelmsford. GA trains have been known to use Platform 8 at Stratford.

 

[CentralTrainer]

One has to be careful here.

If the OP was in a rush to get to work, it is possible he just boarded whatever train was in the platform at the time - and it just happened to be a GA train stopping at Chelmsford. GA trains have been known to use Platform 8 at Stratford.

Unfortunately there is no way to check that now via RTT as the data from that date has been removed.

 

[30907]

Unfortunately there is no way to check that now via RTT as the data from that date has been removed.

I made the point upthread nearly a month ago. The OP may have followed it up at the time, but hasn't commented.

 

[Jamran]

Hi all just to give you an update. They’ve only got back to him a couple of days ago. This is what they wrote:


“I apologise the delay in contacting you. I have only just received your report, and I cannot contact the passengers until I have all the information in front of me.

The way the process works is that I first need to establish the full amount of part paid or unpaid journeys that you have made. Once this is established, we can agree a settlement figure - which is the unpaid fares plus administration costs we have incurred to that point. The company will then seek to agree to recover the settlement figure from you. If this is settled, the matter will be closed, and no further action taken. However, all of this is totally dependent on you being open, honest, and transparent with us about your travel.
When you were stopped you had not paid the full fare betweenStratford and Chelmsford stations. Please could you clarify the exact dates that you have been avoiding the correct fare(s) between the above two stations. This information will assist us in resolving this and hopefully bringing it to a swift conclusion.
Kind regards”

We then replied explaining that this was a one time thing and the RPI accused him of doing this over a long period of time. Also explained the TfL pass and P2P ticket etc for full context.

they have replied today asking for “£346.40 which is the outstanding fare (£246.40) plus our administration charge (£100). The outstanding fare has been calculated from our own investigations together with your own admission that when you were stopped you confirmed you did not have a valid ticket at that time.”

To be honest this feels quite excessive considering a one way Stratford to Chelmsford is £15 (not even taking into account that he had a valid ticket shenfield to Chelmsford)

What does everyone else think? Can I ask how they came to that figure? What advice would you give?

Thanks

 

[island]

You can ask anything you like, but the offer is not negotiable – either you pay it or it will be prosecution.

 

[matt_world2004]

Hi all just to give you an update. They’ve only got back to him a couple of days ago. This is what they wrote:


“I apologise the delay in contacting you. I have only just received your report, and I cannot contact the passengers until I have all the information in front of me.

The way the process works is that I first need to establish the full amount of part paid or unpaid journeys that you have made. Once this is established, we can agree a settlement figure - which is the unpaid fares plus administration costs we have incurred to that point. The company will then seek to agree to recover the settlement figure from you. If this is settled, the matter will be closed, and no further action taken. However, all of this is totally dependent on you being open, honest, and transparent with us about your travel.
When you were stopped you had not paid the full fare betweenStratford and Chelmsford stations. Please could you clarify the exact dates that you have been avoiding the correct fare(s) between the above two stations. This information will assist us in resolving this and hopefully bringing it to a swift conclusion.
Kind regards”

We then replied explaining that this was a one time thing and the RPI accused him of doing this over a long period of time. Also explained the TfL pass and P2P ticket etc for full context.

they have replied today asking for “£346.40 which is the outstanding fare (£246.40) plus our administration charge (£100). The outstanding fare has been calculated from our own investigations together with your own admission that when you were stopped you confirmed you did not have a valid ticket at that time.”

To be honest this feels quite excessive considering a one way Stratford to Chelmsford is £15 (not even taking into account that he had a valid ticket shenfield to Chelmsford)

What does everyone else think? Can I ask how they came to that figure? What advice would you give?

Thanks

Figure seems quite low if they suspect it's been happening over a long period of time.

 

[Sebastian O]

Pay it, chalk it down to experience, end of. Not worth a punch up when a wage bill is on question.

 

[Jamran]

Figure seems quite low if they suspect it's been happening over a long period of time.

But it’s not been happening for long period though. This officer found couple of old tickets from 2019 and assumed it’s been happening since then.

Pay it, chalk it down to experience, end of. Not worth a punch up when a wage bill is on question.

Yes that’s what I’ll do

 

[matt_world2004]

But it’s not been happening for long period though. This officer found couple of old tickets from 2019 and assumed it’s been happening since then.

Which would be a logical assumption , really. Of course your friend is free to try and proove that it wasn't a regular thing in court .

But I recommend they just accept it for what it is because £345 is a low amount for suspected regular fare evasion. And they won't get a criminal record or other penalty for this .

Also there is the problematic nature of it being a nominee pass which could result in disciplinary action against the employee.

 

[Hadders]

I would pay the sum they are asking to make the matter go away.

It might seem excessive but the cost of not doing so will be much, much higher - the potential removal of staff travel facilities along with a disciplinary investigation.

I'm not employed by the railway and aren't fully familiar with staff travel benefits but in future make sure you, and anyone else who uses your travel benefits, absolutely understands the rules and the consequences of not following them.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Think of it as a discount compared to what you'd pay at court.

Even pleading guilty, you'd not have change from £500 once the fine, costs, victim surcharge and compensation had been paid, as well as potentially spending half a day at court.

 

[Titfield]

May I just point out that the administration charge is £100. I very much doubt that they would reduce this (part of the offer) under any circumstances.

The level of charge that is being discussed is £246.40

This is 16 (and a bit) times the £15 fare the OP has quoted.

I cant help but feel that whilst this may feel punitive, given the possible consequences of them withdrawing the offer to settle, as others have suggested it is far safer to simply pay the sum requested and chalk it up to experience.

Possibly a harsh lesson but imho it could be very much worse.

 

[Jamran]

Thank you all for your invaluable input. I’ll pay and take the L. Many thanks once again

 

[RJ]

If you feel it is excessive then fight it until you get it down to an amount that you're happy to pay.

 

[WesternLancer]

If you feel it is excessive then fight it until you get it down to an amount that you're happy to pay.

But that would have to be carried out at the risk of further penalties which could include a sanction at work which would thus probably indirectly cost more. Plus the risk of court action against the nominee who did have an un-valid ticket at the point challenged IIRC.

It does seem that the sum requested is unduly large compared tot he fare concerned, but the only way to challenge that would be to in effect let a court decide if the old tickets in the ticket wallet were evidence of persistent fare evasion or not. I suspect the TOC could not prove that they were and would drop that, but then just prosecute for the instance where caught. But going down that route would, IMHO, cost more and open the OP and their partner to a worse potential outcome. It would be a pyrrhic victory IMHO.

Hence I would agree with the decision the OP has reached to pay it to close the matter without further risks.

 

[nanstallon]

The TOC has rather got the OP over a barrel. He is in a weak position, as the prosecution outcome would not be cheaper, and having a criminal record can blight his future as regards employment and getting a visa to visit USA, if he wanted to go there. An unfortunate episode, and best to put it into the past with an expensive lesson learned.

 

[Jamran]

Would me merely asking them how they came to that sum and requesting a lower sum jeopardise the current amount they’ve asked for?

 

[Darandio]

If you feel it is excessive then fight it until you get it down to an amount that you're happy to pay.

Always brave advice when it isn't you dealing with or paying for it.