Rail staff - having a bad day? Stop and think.

[John M Upton]

As far as I am aware, manual PA announcements are not recorded on any rolling stock currently in UK railway service, only external communications such as driver/signaller etc.

[Reorte]

I find it rather disturbing that you can potentially be detained when just going about your business and not wanting to hand over personal information. That should only happen if there are very good grounds for suspecting you're up to no good (I'm not including the above example of trespassers in that since they're not legally going about their business).

 

There's a fine line to walk here between letting people get away with things they shouldn't and being expected to justify what you're doing on demand - too much of the former results in obvious problems, too much of the latter at the authorities start to get treated with increasing distrust. Refusal to co-operate shouldn't automatically be viewed as suspicious; I'd be inclined not to if not persuaded that the demand was reasonable first.

[PaulRhB]

14 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

As far as I am aware, manual PA announcements are not recorded on any rolling stock currently in UK railway service, only external communications such as driver/signaller etc.

The internal cctv, where fitted, captures announcements but is overwritten after a short period. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by PaulRhB

[Steamport Southport]

I would politely complain.

 

It might be a one off, "bad day" or nothing serious. But sometimes you have people who are constantly doing things like this. I'm pretty sure the TOC would want to know in that case. I've come across loads of Jobsworths in my time. Usually they are far worse when someone gives them a uniform. They don't do it when it's a big bloke or a group of lads though. Then they hide in their cab.

 

 

 

Jason

[PaulRhB]

27 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I find it rather disturbing that you can potentially be detained when just going about your business and not wanting to hand over personal information. That should only happen if there are very good grounds for suspecting you're up to no good 

As you note there’s a fine line but in refusing to give the address, if she was informed correctly that it’s a requirement, was sufficient grounds to suspect she had the wrong ticket. 

It’s all in the terms and conditions you accept on purchase of a ticket but we don’t read them all. If you don’t have these powers then a lot would travel without, then knowing purely by refusing they could get a freebie. We aren’t even talking about the poorer end of society as there have been numerous cases of city workers fiddling the system too!

Without independent witnesses to what was said by each there is no way of proving the full exchange as no ones memory is perfect. The guard may have had a lot of dodgers and was thoroughly fed up with it that day, it could be out of character to deal with it like this, the young lady may have missed the pertinent information he gave because she was in pain and then her honesty questioned. We don’t know and our memories can be selective in hindsight. The guard made what appears to be an unnecessary comment on the tannoy but he didn’t detain her so he decided it wasn’t worth delaying everyone to wait for BTP. 

Like I said a complaint might make them clarify their responses in such cases.

I know some revenue staff and ones an ex copper and he avoids Pubs on Friday nights in town because he can guarantee the regular ticket trouble makers will be out an about and he’s been abused off duty by them. I also heard him explaining exactly why he was questioning a young lad last week and what started out as slightly heated calmed down and was all sorted. The ticket was wrong and he had misunderstood the restrictions but was allowed to travel on because he was obviously embarrassed when it was explained. It’s about judgement at the time and it strikes me both in this case had reason to be wary due to miscommunication. What’s important is that it’s noted and hopefully it can be diffused quickly in future because she knows why they are asking.

Edited July 15, 2019 by PaulRhB

[Hobby]

20 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I find it rather disturbing that you can potentially be detained when just going about your business and not wanting to hand over personal information. That should only happen if there are very good grounds for suspecting you're up to no good (I'm not including the above example of trespassers in that since they're not legally going about their business).

 

If you do not have a valid ticket (i.e. adult on child ticket or no ticket at all), have no means to pay (or refuse to), and refuse to give your details when asked by revenue staff then I'd suggest that you are not going about in a legal manner. If you were going about your legal business you'd either have a valid ticket or the means to pay for one when requested.

[Pete 75C]

In light of this thread receiving many more replies than I expected, I just thought I'd clarify a few things...

 

I just mentioned to my daughter that it would have been handy if she'd had a letter confirming the appointment, as it might have helped if she'd shown that to the conductor. As a relatively late notice emergency appointment, I knew that such a letter wouldn't exist. Imagine my surprise when she told me that she did have an email confirmation on her phone. I suggested that it may have been helpful to have shown that. When explaining to the conductor the reason for her journey in school time, she had indeed offered to show him the email. The response was simply "that means nothing".

 

I also appreciate that the conductor is not able to give his side of the story, but I make NO APOLOGY for posting this thread on RMWeb. My daughter was quite quiet and sullen that evening, and I asked her if her retainer was still giving her problems, assuming that was the cause of her mood. It was only then that she told me what had happened on the train. She wasn't going to tell me at all. For that simple reason, I have no cause to disbelieve anything she told me.

 

A formal complaint will go in to Greater Anglia tomorrow morning and we'll see what happens.

 

Edited for typos.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Pete 75C

[PaulRhB]

Pete, there’s no need for an apology I think your posting and response was genuine and well put. Your daughter was travelling legally for a good reason but something went awry in establishing that so it’s appropriate to get it looked at when she felt humiliated by the announcement. 

[Talltim]

14 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

If you do not have a valid ticket (i.e. adult on child ticket or no ticket at all), have no means to pay (or refuse to), and refuse to give your details when asked by revenue staff then I'd suggest that you are not going about in a legal manner. If you were going about your legal business you'd either have a valid ticket or the means to pay for one when requested.

I think Reorte means that in cases like this, where a valid ticket is held, you can still get asked your details and that he is not very comfortable with the fact that one could get detained for refusing to give them.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Talltim

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

If you do not have a valid ticket (i.e. adult on child ticket or no ticket at all), have no means to pay (or refuse to), and refuse to give your details when asked by revenue staff then I'd suggest that you are not going about in a legal manner. If you were going about your legal business you'd either have a valid ticket or the means to pay for one when requested.

 

In this particular case the ticket was legal. If you're trying it on then that changes it and the demands are reasonable - I'm not considering that because I don't try it on (although I've ended up with an invalid ticket by mistake in the past - being sold a day return when I wasn't returning the same day and the train I was on meant I'd have had about 10 minutes at my destination at most if I was - I had no problems being asked to pay the full whack when that happened).

 

Of course it's impossible in practice to be certain that someone's in the wrong every time before you ask for details so it happening occasionally is the sort of thing that you just have to put up with from time to time, but a great deal of care needs to be taken to make sure that that doesn't become too routine, that having to give details when just going about your business doesn't become a normal part of life.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Reorte

[Hobby]

Its not routine i assure you. Its a last resort when all other avenues have been investigated. If we have reasonable doubt then we can ask for them. I think you are starting to blow it out of all proportion to the number of times it is used.

[Reorte]

We live in a world where people seem to feel that it's normal and useful to carry ID with them all the time. I find that disturbing and unpleasant, which leaves me very suspicious of anything that even hints of it. I'm really talking about life in general rather than the railways in particular and haven't personally had an issue with the railway in this regard (e.g. my example - wrong ticket by mistake, I paid, everyone then just carries on with their business), but I hope you can see why I'm not enthused by the suggestion that you should just give over personal details on demand.

[PaulRhB]

Understandable and you can refuse but then they may choose to involve the Police to confirm the details which will delay your day. As I said before the challenge is to protect revenues and that affects us all as passengers in the fares we pay, not just the TOC profits. 

You would be incensed if you felt someone was getting away with a freebie when you’ve paid a lot for your ticket. These are just the mechanisms that have to be used to keep a minority paying their way. As Blair said it’s usually last resort and hundreds a day sort these things out with common sense. We are basing our responses on limited examples and the aftermath of a fractious encounter. 

The young lady wasn’t detained to miss the appointment and is hopefully pain free and as a result a few more people now know why this can happen to hopefully make it easier next time if the question is asked. 

Pete asked for an opinion and is taking a reasonable course of action, he knows his daughters moods and responses and made his judgement on that plus ascertained some facts quickly from those in the industry. It seems a reasonable response to an emotive encounter. 

[TheQ]

People keep going on about detaining people for the British transport police,  this is the Sheringham Cromer line,  there aren't any.  You would have to close the train doors and take the train to Norwich not stopping at any of the stations . This would be the only way to keep her on board,  Apart from annoying any other passengers,  kidnapping an unaccompanied female  minor, is illegal.

[Compound2632]

She's a teenage girl, not a responsible adult. "Shan't" is a normal response when confronted by an apparently unreasonable or, in this case, poorly explained, demand. Evidently the company needs to provide its customer-facing staff with some training in child psychology. 

[PaulRhB]

2 minutes ago, TheQ said:

People keep going on about detaining people for the British transport police,  this is the Sheringham Cromer line,  there aren't any.  You would have to close the train doors and take the train to Norwich not stopping at any of the stations . This would be the only way to keep her on board,  Apart from annoying any other passengers,  kidnapping an unaccompanied female  minor, is illegal.

Kidnapping is completely over reacting and inaccurate, besides kidnapping anyone is still illegal isn’t it? as they are in a public place and the staff have grounds to suspect an offence under law has taken place. 

 

But that didn’t happen because the guard used common sense and followed the rules. BTP don’t have officers everywhere but they will respond if possible or get the local police to attend and take details. 

 

[Reorte]

15 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Understandable and you can refuse but then they may choose to involve the Police to confirm the details which will delay your day. As I said before the challenge is to protect revenues and that affects us all as passengers in the fares we pay, not just the TOC profits.

 

As long as the railway mostly gets the balance right - so that incidents like this are the exception - I'm fine. That's why I was happy to just pay what I was asked due to the ticket mistake - I'd have not been at all happy if demands for personal details were made (although I'd regard them as not unreasonable if I'd got awkward at that point, not that I would've done). Maybe the guy thought I was trying to deliberately travel on a wrong ticket, maybe not, but the fact is that I was but as long as the payment was made everything still adds up. Annoying for me of course (meant I paid more than I would've) but entirely correct for the guard and no need to take it any further. If the norm is to stop there rather than trying to get me on record as a potential fare dodger I'll remain content, but in this day and age it's too easy to imagine it being pushed further.

[Hobby]

Oh for heavens sake let's stop blowing it out of all proportion. We've explained what the law says we and the btp can do. That's it. This thread is beginning to sound like the letters page of one of the daily newspapers.

 

As Paul has said we've heard one side and the OP will take that forward. Without hearing the other side I don't feel comfortable about some accusations some people are making about the Guard. 

 

I am leaving the thread for that reason.

[TheQ]

3 minutes ago, PaulRhB said:

Kidnapping is completely over reacting and inaccurate, besides kidnapping anyone is still illegal isn’t it? as they are in a public place and the staff have grounds to suspect an offence under law has taken place. 

 

But that didn’t happen because the guard used common sense and followed the rules. BTP don’t have officers everywhere but they will respond if possible or get the local police to attend and take details. 

 

local police,  you'll be lucky, there are just 4 policemen allocated to Cromer and the area for 7 days a week,  out of hours they have to come from the HQ at Wymondham, even further away than Norwich by 10 miles. 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, TheQ said:

People keep going on about detaining people for the British transport police,  this is the Sheringham Cromer line,  there aren't any.  You would have to close the train doors and take the train to Norwich not stopping at any of the stations .

 

Totally unnecessary REGARDLESS of where the nearest BTP officer happens to be.

 

If BTP assistance is requested (an agreed upon) then there are 3 options depending on the severity of the case. Either the BTP drive by road from Norwich to meet the train halfway along the branch (acknowledging the risk that the problem passenger may get off at a preceding station), or the train stays put with the doors closed until the BTP arrive, or the train stays put with the doors open until the problem passenger decides to leave of their on validation.

 

However fare dodging (which assumes nothing more serious like assault or carrying a offensive weapon occurs as a result) in rural Norfolk is unlikely to be a major concern for the BTP and the TOC won't really want to screw up the service if they can help it due to the compensation claims so its more likely that either no action or the first option will be taken.

 

It should also be noted that it is impossible to be 'detained by anyone inside a train - as has been explained it is not legal for any physical restraint to be applied by rail staff (such things must be left for Police officers) AND the insides of trains have things called 'emergency door release panels all nicely labelled up for those really wanting to escape authority (or just fed up of being stranded happened at Lewisham last Winter.).

 

As such you cannot 'kidnap' train passengers regardless of their age....

[phil-b259]

As the saying goes it takes two to Tango....

 

There is nothing remotely wrong about the conductor of any train challenging any teenage passenger travelling on a child ticket to provide prof that they are entitled to do so - and long may it stay that way.

 

HOWEVER

 

That challenging should be done in a professional manor and the need for any forms to be filled out (and the consequences of doing / not doing so) clearly explained.

 

Furthermore what amounts to 'naming and shaming over the Public address system is totally out of order (regardless of how bad day you have been having).

 

Thus its only right that Pete 75C and his daughter file an official complaint about the individuals unprofessional behaviour - while at the same time acknowledging that the act of challenging Pete's daughter to prove her age is  a perfectly acceptable thing to have done (just not in the way said Conductor did it)

[TheQ]

 

I didnt make the suggestion of detaining her,  that was paulrhb back on the second page,  I mearly was pointing out the impossibility, without extreme actions such as locking the train. 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Oh for heavens sake let's stop blowing it out of all proportion. We've explained what the law says we and the btp can do. That's it. This thread is beginning to sound like the letters page of one of the daily newspapers.

 

As Paul has said we've heard one side and the OP will take that forward. Without hearing the other side I don't feel comfortable about some accusations some people are making about the Guard. 

 

I am leaving the thread for that reason.

 

All there is are people expressing their thoughts and feelings on the matter based on what we've heard, nothing at all wrong with that. I'd only start feeling uncomfortable if the person was named, without their side of the picture but without that it remains abstract enough to all other than the OP.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Reorte

[PaulRhB]

I didn’t suggest detaining her either, I said it was an option and it’s fully legal if done correctly, even to holding a train outside. It would be too extreme for most cases due to the impact to other passengers, it was MrQ who hyped it to kidnapping  

 

Like a Phil said they are never stopped physically so can leave but it involves them scrambling over perfectly legal barriers. Shops can close doors to stop shoplifters but they usually run for the emergency fire exits anyway then. Detained is just not making it easy to leave, I could have said people stood in their way, it’s legal to do so if there is sufficient grounds to suspect an offence. 

As we said earlier technically not providing the address is an offence but the guard used discretion on that point. The rest is for the company to investigate and act according to their findings. 

[tomparryharry]

In defence of the guard....

 

I did 3 years daily commuting from Alton to Waterloo. The guards in most cases did a pretty slick job with full trains & grumpy passengers (including me). At Waterloo, a wheelchair-bound passenger would alight, and there was always, always , either a guard or platform staff ready & waiting to collect the passenger. This was done against the backdrop of some 1,200 passengers running, striding, pushing & pulling at 8:30 in the morning. Not for the faint hearted!  The late trains home were good for a laugh. You would always get a drunk or two, or some entitled person to whom the rules didn't apply to them. The guards  run the gauntlet of physical & verbal abuse, and I've had to assist a guard with a truculent passenger off the train on a couple of occasions. 

 

Give the guy a break, I say. He's probably had to deal with a trainload of stuff already. Your daughter just caught up in the flotsam & jetsam of everyday life.

 

I'm not a guard, BTW, just a careful observer of everyday life  when I travel by train. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by tomparryharry