Case Review Area, 20/04/2014Transport Infringement Administration,GPO Box 2797, Melbourne,Victoria, 3001

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Infringement Notice: 3107366

I wish to make a complaint about the behaviour of Authorised Officers towards me when I was recently travelling in a tram on St. Kilda Road, and seek a review of the infringement notice on grounds that the decision was contrary to law (ai).

The circumstances were as follows:

On the 20th of February, at around 9:20am, I boarded a tram at Flinders Street Station bound for St. Kilda Road.

I was approached by three plain-clothes Authorised Officers, wearing badges, who requested my myki. They disembarked with me. They requested my identification and officer “E. Valentino” wrote a report. I was then told that I would likely receive an infringement notice.

I stated, clearly and loudly, “what I’m going to need from all three of you is your full names, workplace addresses, and supervisors’ names and contact details, all in writing”. I was completely ignored. I repeated my request, clearly and loudly. Two of the officers again ignored me. One of them wrote “E. Valentino” and “East Preston Depot” in my report brochure. I note that this information does not constitute a full name or an address, and excludes supervisor information.

I refer you to page 7 of the current (September 2013) Code of Conduct for Public Transport Authorised Officers (http://www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/33497/Code-of-Conduct-for-Public-Transport-Authorised-officers.pdf), which states:

“If asked to supply their own name in writing, or a supervisor’s name and contact details, the AO should do so. AOs are not obliged to state their residential address but must give their work address, if requested. This information may be given orally or in writing, but should be given in writing if this is specifically requested”.

In addition, at no point during the reporting process was I shown an Authorised Officer identity card by any officer, to validate identity; only badges. I refer you to page 6 of the current Code of Conduct for Public Transport Authorised Officers, which states:

1

“Whenever AOs are performing official duties they are required to: carry their identity card and badge produce the identity card and badge to any person they intend to report for

non-compliance produce their identity card and/or badge to any person who requests to see

the identity card or badge.”

This requirement is confirmed by the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983 – Section 221I, and constitutes a second breach of the Code of Conduct. Consequently, I was unable to adequately identify any of the three people reporting me.

I stress that compliance with the Code of Conduct is mandatory for Authorised Officers. In this instance, two on-duty officers completely failed to provide requested information or validate their identity on two occasions, and the third provided inadequate information. This constitutes breaches of the Code of Conduct, and enforcement procedure.

With the above taken into account, I request that the above infringement notice be withdrawn.

Yours faithfully,

William Pridmore24/1-25 Barkly Street, CarltonVictoria, 3053DOB: 06/11/1992

Address at the time of interception:4 Mona Street, Battery PointTasmania, 7004

2