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

[phil-b259]

24 minutes ago, Pete 75C said:

 

With all due respect Phil, NO, it is NOT that simple. Had the conductor explained the reason for the request, and treated my daughter as I'm sure he would like to be treated, things would likely have been completely different.

My entire problem with this incident has nothing to do with legalities, technicalities, TOC T&Cs etc etc, it has EVERYTHING to do with the bad attitude displayed by a railway employee who seemed to have formed an opinion without even saying a word.

 

Pete, please do not interpret my comments  as about you / your daughters specific experience. I have already said that the manor in which the guard / conductor behaved was totally unacceptable - even if the underlying principle (i.e. the ability of a Guard / Conductor to question your daughters age) is a perfectly legitimate one.

 

My comments relate to rail travel in general and obviously come with the obvious (hence I didn't explicitly state it) caveat that the request for information must be done in a professional manor which was sadly lacking in the experience your daughter had.

 

However it remains the case that if persons object to potentially being asked to explain themselves in a polite manor and in full compliance with the regulations to a ticket inspector, or provide details to said inspector then they shouldn't travel by train.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

11 minutes ago, rab said:

There is a big difference between being questioned and being treated the way this young lady was.

Purchasing a ticket does not give a railway employee permission to embarrass you in front of other people 

 

Which I acknowledged on page 3!

 

 

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, Pete 75C said:

 

Edit: From my point of view, I think this thread has now run its course. I do appreciate everyone's participation, but as the complaint has now been submitted, I don't think there's anything to add, at least from me.

 

While it is of course a personal decision for you, it would be appreciated if you would be so kind as to let us know the final outcome from GA as regards your daughters complaint. Doing so not only helps to draw a line under this thread but given what the Stationmaster has said about the competency gulf between GWR management and their complaints department, your case might also be quite revealing about GA

[TheQ]

42 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

She had purchased at ticket and by doing so gave legal consent to be questioned as per railway by-laws.

 

If you don't want to be questioned by a train Guard / Conductor / RPI then don't travel by train

 

Yes it REALLY is that simple!

 

We often hear of people who don't read the small print when buying stuff - then get shocked when something bad happens. Train tickets are no different....

I think you'll find a minor is  not a legal person to enter into a contract. Therefore cannot give consent. 

 

"In the UK, a legal presumption exists that entitles anyone to enter into a contract unless an exception applies. One of those exceptions is in the case of a minor. Since 1969 the age of contractual capacity for individuals has been set at 18 and reaching the age of 18 is known as attaining 'majority'."

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, TheQ said:

I think you'll find a minor is  not a legal person to enter into a contract. Therefore cannot give consent. 

 

"In the UK, a legal presumption exists that entitles anyone to enter into a contract unless an exception applies. One of those exceptions is in the case of a minor. Since 1969 the age of contractual capacity for individuals has been set at 18 and reaching the age of 18 is known as attaining 'majority'."

 

You are indeed correct as regards the law and minors in General - BUT, answer me this...

 

How can the railway sell child tickets given ANY ticket sold* means you are entering into a legal contract with one or more TOCS, which as part of the T&Cs requires you to give your personal details to a suitably authorised person (behaving in a professional manor of course)?

 

The logical extension is that either railway (and by extension bus, tram, etc) operators are not bound by such niceties, or alternatively the railway by-laws are in fact illegal.

 

If they are illegal, then does that mean all child tickets can only be purchased once the appropriate parent / guardian has expressly given their permission (i.e. used a Credit / debit card to pay for them, signed a waver at a manned ticket office?

 

One thing is for sure, plenty of folk use child tickets to fare dodge the national rail system - especially with the increasing number of ticket gates that by their very nature cannot ask questions. As such procedures must be in place for authorised persons to take steps to intervene and challenge child ticket use - which is what the current by-laws do in a manor which should ensure only the minimum of information is obtained and said information is processed securely in complete accordance with GDPR rules.

 

 

* The National Conditions of carriage   https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46427.aspx explicitly states:-

 

When you buy a ticket to travel on the railway network you enter into an agreement with the Train Companies. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey, or journeys, between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought. These National Rail Conditions of Travel are also part of that agreement and they apply to all domestic (non-international) journeys by scheduled passenger train services of the Train Companies on the railway network of Great Britain.

Edited July 16, 2019 by phil-b259

[Colin_McLeod]

I don't think it any if the guard's business why a schoolchild is travelling during school hours.  His only concern should be that she has valid ticket.

[chris p bacon]

9 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

I don't think it any if the guard's business why a schoolchild is travelling during school hours.  His only concern should be that she has valid ticket.

 

The precise purpose may not be required, but from my short time many years ago in a booking office, you were instructed to use trick questions to reveal the true birthdate of someone you suspected of not being a child but requesting a child ticket.  Travelling during school hours was an easy giveaway for most, along with fluffing the year of birth.*

 

* It made me laugh when they gave their true date which revealed they were adult, but when trying to cover that by saying they gave their siblings date they then gave a date which meant they were even older.  

[Dave47549]

.

Edited October 1, 2021 by Dave47549
Removed pointless guff

[Oldddudders]

It is my certain knowledge that Scottish skools have been on their happy hols for some weeks already. I think they resume in mid-August. I dined here in la Sarthe with 6 Scots scholars last night (and their parents). Oh, and none of them has a Scots accent, having moved from SE London in  the last 12 months. Our conductor knows nothing. And works in an area where I suspect jobs are not two a penny. He may yet have cause to find out. 

[rab]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which I acknowledged on page 3!

 

 

Sorry, when you struggle to remember

what you had for lunch, remembering

what was said 3 pages back can be difficult.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

17 hours ago, caradoc said:

So does that mean that a booking clerk, Guard, or indeed bus driver, say, cannot challenge someone, who they consider to be over age, asking for a child fare ?

 

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You are indeed correct as regards the law and minors in General - BUT, answer me this...

 

How can the railway sell child tickets given ANY ticket sold* means you are entering into a legal contract with one or more TOCS, which as part of the T&Cs requires you to give your personal details to a suitably authorised person (behaving in a professional manor of course)?

 

The logical extension is that either railway (and by extension bus, tram, etc) operators are not bound by such niceties, or alternatively the railway by-laws are in fact illegal.

 

If they are illegal, then does that mean all child tickets can only be purchased once the appropriate parent / guardian has expressly given their permission (i.e. used a Credit / debit card to pay for them, signed a waver at a manned ticket office?

 

One thing is for sure, plenty of folk use child tickets to fare dodge the national rail system - especially with the increasing number of ticket gates that by their very nature cannot ask questions. As such procedures must be in place for authorised persons to take steps to intervene and challenge child ticket use - which is what the current by-laws do in a manor which should ensure only the minimum of information is obtained and said information is processed securely in complete accordance with GDPR rules.

 

 

* The National Conditions of carriage   https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46427.aspx explicitly states:-

 

When you buy a ticket to travel on the railway network you enter into an agreement with the Train Companies. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey, or journeys, between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought. These National Rail Conditions of Travel are also part of that agreement and they apply to all domestic (non-international) journeys by scheduled passenger train services of the Train Companies on the railway network of Great Britain.

 

What I was poking at is that current legislation for protection of those considered vulnerable has altered significantly

in the past decade. If the consequences of that have not yet been explored relative to bye-laws applicable to railway operations, then it will need a test case or two to determine what may and may not be done by staff tasked with preventing ticket fraud.

 

Without trying to tell anyone how to do their job, 'walking on eggshells' if attempting to question an unaccompanied minor. Don't be the test case. Take it to your manager if you are concerned. The attitude of 'this organisation has always done this by these rules, and I am the rules' does not fly any longer.

[The Stationmaster]

15 hours ago, chris p bacon said:

 

The precise purpose may not be required, but from my short time many years ago in a booking office, you were instructed to use trick questions to reveal the true birthdate of someone you suspected of not being a child but requesting a child ticket.  Travelling during school hours was an easy giveaway for most, along with fluffing the year of birth.*

 

* It made me laugh when they gave their true date which revealed they were adult, but when trying to cover that by saying they gave their siblings date they then gave a date which meant they were even older.  

We weren't 'instructed' as such but it was one of the things you very quickly picked up.  And yes, the answers to 'when were you born?' often produced considerable amusement.  However at least with Scholar's Season Tickets you knew exactly where you were - because they came down from the Divisional Office already made out and all you had to do was give them to the right person.

 

But things change of course and while I occasionally manned ticket windows or issued tickets while in management jobs the last time I did a full shift in a Booking Office was a long while back.

[Compound2632]

8 hours ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

What I was poking at is that current legislation for protection of those considered vulnerable has altered significantly

in the past decade. If the consequences of that have not yet been explored relative to bye-laws applicable to railway operations, then it will need a test case or two to determine what may and may not be done by staff tasked with preventing ticket fraud.

 

Without trying to tell anyone how to do their job, 'walking on eggshells' if attempting to question an unaccompanied minor. Don't be the test case. Take it to your manager if you are concerned. The attitude of 'this organisation has always done this by these rules, and I am the rules' does not fly any longer.

 

An instance of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

A child fare is a concessionary fare. As far as I'm aware, all other concessionary fares require the passenger to have the appropriate Railcard in addition to the ticket. Would a way forward be to introduce a Child Railcard? - at no charge to the passenger.

[Boris]

My thought is, your daughter is 16, what does she want to do about it?  Be guided by what she wants to do, if she wants to drop it, drop it, if she wants to call them out,  support her and guide her.

 

Simples (although easy for me to say not being her father)

[Welsh Signaller]

Your daughter was 15 at the time, she had the correct ticket, she was doing nothing wrong - fair play to her for refusing to provide her name and address to a male proporting to work for a TOC (it’s been known for people to pretend to be railway officials before).

 

There is no requirement to carry ID in this country, it would be easier to do so if you wish to buy age restricted items of course.

 

Let the official kick up, make a scene or call the police (good luck getting BTP to attend), no guard in their right mind will eject a 15 (suspected 15+) female from the train alone - if they attempt to simply refuse to move, again the majority of other passengers will support the lone female.

 

Bad day or not this is the type of person who really shouldn’t be in the role anymore, they’ll come across someone equally as obnoxious at some point then moan with attached “compo face” when they get a punch in the face.

 

Treat people how you wish to be treated.

 

Signed, a ex guard.

[Catkins]

If I was in the position of the OP here, I would have no worries about reporting the incident.

Yes we ALL have bad days, sometimes there might be an unknown (by all parties) health problem - I speak as someone with depression, and I find I get angry very easily - Is there an issue with the conductor's health?
Has there been another 'incident' earlier in the conductors shift?

Is the conductor really in the right (customer facing) role for their personality? - I know I'm not a "people person" and couldn't do a customer facing job.

I would report the incident - not complain - because the points I've mentioned above might be investigated by the TOC.

[Pandora]

On 15/07/2019 at 16:14, 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).

 

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.

 

It is also we seem to accept that the Police have the right to stop people at random without a rational reason,  surely the Police should only exercise their power if they have reason to suspect you are  commiting (or about to )  commit a crime,  one  of the reasons why Police home in  on  certain individuals,  " his shoes had not seen polish for a long time"

Edited July 29, 2019 by Pandora

[Reorte]

Just now, Pandora said:

 

It is also we seem to accept that the Police have the right to stop people at random without a rational reason,  surely the Police should only exercise their power if they have reason to suspect you are  commiting (or about to )  commit a crime, 

I thought that was the case, didn't think the police did as a rule have the authority to just stop at random (although it's often probably fairly simple to come up with a decent excuse).

[Pandora]

25 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I thought that was the case, didn't think the police did as a rule have the authority to just stop at random (although it's often probably fairly simple to come up with a decent excuse).

There are examples such as 2012 Olympics, a sizeable group of cyclists set off from Waterloo heading north , they were stopped at Waterloo Bridge and ordered not to proceed as the Police believed they "may be"  riding to  venue of  the Olympic opening ceremony in Stratford,  many were arrested , it went to court, the police case was laughed out of court, in the summing up " the police may just as well have gone to  a railway station platform and arrested every commuter intending to travel by train.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Pandora

[John M Upton]

Interestingly a brief appeared a few days ago which indicates a national push to combat the so called County Lines drug dealing networks which stated that basically thorough questioning of any child travelling alone on trains should be carried out.

 

I can see that going horribly wrong...

[62613]

10 hours ago, Pandora said:

There are examples such as 2012 Olympics, a sizeable group of cyclists set off from Waterloo heading north , they were stopped at Waterloo Bridge and ordered not to proceed as the Police believed they "may be"  riding to  venue of  the Olympic opening ceremony in Stratford,  many were arrested , it went to court, the police case was laughed out of court, in the summing up " the police may just as well have gone to  a railway station platform and arrested every commuter intending to travel by train.

 

The worst case of that I've heard is of a coachload of Stoke City supporters who rolled into Manchester for a United match a few tears back. As you, they were having a pre-match pint, when GMP surrounded the pub, bundled them back on the coach and sent them back to Stoke under escort. The Football Supporters' Association lawyer got them £20,000 compensation, awarded against the police. A bit O.T. to illustrate the point.

[TravisM]

There was a case over 10 years ago where a certain individual was injured on the railway.  In the course of the investigations, this individual was travelling on a child’s ticket (he was 22) and therefore his claim for compensation was thrown out because a, he was defrauding the railway of the correct revenue and b, under the railway terms and conditions of 18 blah blah blah, because he was defrauding the railway, the carriage insurance (which is part of the ticket price) became invalid.

 

It did get very convoluted but suffice to say that even the “no win, no fee” ambulance chasers said he’s got no chance lol.

[TangerineWizards]

13 hours ago, Pandora said:

 

It is also we seem to accept that the Police have the right to stop people at random without a rational reason,  surely the Police should only exercise their power if they have reason to suspect you are  commiting (or about to )  commit a crime,  one  of the reasons why Police home in  on  certain individuals,  " his shoes had not seen polish for a long time"

 

Veering briefly off topic but the Police have a number of powers to stop people at random and for no reason. They go from very broad (Road Traffic Act powers to stop any vehicle to examine documents etc) to very niche powers (Crime and Antisocial Behavior Act to stop anybody travelling through a Seaport/Airport). Neither of these need further explanation other than pointing out the existence of the legislation.

 

Back on topic - could the OP possibly provide an update on whether it was resolved satisfactorily by the TOC? When faced with similar situations in the past, I find the experience of dealing with the company regarding a complaint can sometime be worse than the original encounter which caused annoyance. 

[Pete 75C]

On 30/07/2019 at 00:43, TangerineWizards said:

 

Back on topic - could the OP possibly provide an update on whether it was resolved satisfactorily by the TOC?

 

 

Very satisfactorily.

I won't go into detail as the communications I've received from Greater Anglia have a privacy aspect to consider.

Suffice to say, reading between the lines, this was far from the first reported incident involving this particular conductor.