Case Review Area,

20/04/2014
Transport 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 Im 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/Cod
e-of-Conduct-for-Public-Transport-Authorised-officers.pdf), which states:
If asked to supply their own name in writing, or a supervisors 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
1

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:
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 Pridmore
24/1-25 Barkly Street, Carlton
Victoria, 3053
DOB: 06/11/1992
Address at the time of interception:
4 Mona Street, Battery Point
Tasmania, 7004