Train managers' powers?

If the ticket isn't valid and the TM sells a ticket that is valid,
then the TM has no right to destroy the original invalid ticket.

In effect it is a form of vandalism. Certainly destroying a saver
ticket that may have validity on another trip at a different time is
shocking behaviour and could be considered theft.

Could a TM potentially end up with a criminal record for destroying an
item of value?

On 31 Aug, 20:53, rhdoxon <rhdo...@m> wrote:
> If the ticket isn't valid and the TM sells a ticket that is valid,
> then the TM has no right to destroy the original invalid ticket.
>
> In effect it is a form of vandalism. Certainly destroying a saver
> ticket that may have validity on another trip at a different time is
> shocking behaviour and could be considered theft.
>
> Could a TM potentially end up with a criminal record for destroying an
> item of value?

No. It would be an internal railway disciplinary matter.

"Mizter T" <mizter.t@> wrote in message
news:f7ce2e2c-708a-4877-914a-ad28e5e9c793@y38g2000hsy..com...
>
> On 31 Aug, 20:53, rhdoxon <rhdo...@m> wrote:
>> If the ticket isn't valid and the TM sells a ticket that is valid,
>> then the TM has no right to destroy the original invalid ticket.
>>
>> In effect it is a form of vandalism. Certainly destroying a saver
>> ticket that may have validity on another trip at a different time is
>> shocking behaviour and could be considered theft.
>>
>> Could a TM potentially end up with a criminal record for destroying an
>> item of value?
>
> No. It would be an internal railway disciplinary matter.

If he throws the torn up ticket on the floor then he should receive a
penalty for litter surely?

MB wrote:

>
> If he throws the torn up ticket on the floor then he should receive a
> penalty for litter surely?
>

If you ask me he's just another one of those 'comedian'
conductors that everyone except me seems to find so
hilarious.

Does anyone really think he was serious?

Charlie

81F wrote:
No-one checked tickets and
> the barriers at Oxford were open. I am sure that the many young people
> in their teens and twenties with cans and bottles in their hands all
> had valid tickets for their journey.

The Turbos in the Thames valley are Driver Only Operation, there is no
Guard on board. Not sure if DOO was introduced by Thames Trains or
BR(NSE) but it certainly predates First

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:24:02 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
<mizter.t@> wrote:

>
>On 31 Aug, 20:53, rhdoxon <rhdo...@m> wrote:
>> If the ticket isn't valid and the TM sells a ticket that is valid,
>> then the TM has no right to destroy the original invalid ticket.
>>
>> In effect it is a form of vandalism. Certainly destroying a saver
>> ticket that may have validity on another trip at a different time is
>> shocking behaviour and could be considered theft.
>>
>> Could a TM potentially end up with a criminal record for destroying an
>> item of value?
>
>No. It would be an internal railway disciplinary matter.
>
The Theft Act could still apply as the person possessing the ticket
need not be the "true owner" (even if something is possessed by a
thief it is still possible to steal it from him) leaving the
possibility (at least in theory) of him being charged with stealing
the ticket from the passenger concerned.

"Charles Ellson" <charles@ellson.> wrote in message
news:6rf3c4p5nd3buvkrh0fniacbateluq4u7o@...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 13:24:02 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
> <mizter.t@> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 31 Aug, 20:53, rhdoxon <rhdo...@m> wrote:
>>> If the ticket isn't valid and the TM sells a ticket that is valid,
>>> then the TM has no right to destroy the original invalid ticket.
>>>
>>> In effect it is a form of vandalism. Certainly destroying a saver
>>> ticket that may have validity on another trip at a different time is
>>> shocking behaviour and could be considered theft.
>>>
>>> Could a TM potentially end up with a criminal record for destroying an
>>> item of value?
>>
>>No. It would be an internal railway disciplinary matter.
>>
> The Theft Act could still apply as the person possessing the ticket
> need not be the "true owner" (even if something is possessed by a
> thief it is still possible to steal it from him) leaving the
> possibility (at least in theory) of him being charged with stealing
> the ticket from the passenger concerned.

As the ticket belongs to the TOC and the TM is an agent of the TOC then the
ticket is returned to it's owner ie the TOC and the TM destroyed it acting
as an agent for the TOC

In message <UeWdnXaXY4N6HF7VnZ2dnUVZ8judnZ2d@bt.com>, at 08:25:23 on
Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Janice Waterfall <Janicewaterfall@>
remarked:
>As the ticket belongs to the TOC and the TM is an agent of the TOC then
>the ticket is returned to it's owner ie the TOC and the TM destroyed it
>acting as an agent for the TOC

But shouldn't the TM give the passenger a receipt? That would be needed
to get a refund on the patently un-used ticket, or for it to be used
legally on a separate occasion (eg the passenger making a return leg on
the same route, at a more appropriate time, later in the month).

In both cases, destroying the original ticket is simply petulance, of
course.
--
Roland Perry