When smartcard tickets go wrong...

[tony_mac]

Surely that's only *strictly* true if I am breaking my journey there, then re-embark and go all the way to London?

No, you are entitled to make whatever intermediate journeys you like, there's nothing sneaky about it.

 

[MikeWh]

Surely that's only *strictly* true if I am breaking my journey there, then re-embark and go all the way to London?

No. A season ticket is valid for unlimited journeys over all or part of any permitted route between the origin and destination stations. You certainly don't need to pay to go to another station on the primrary route. You can also travel via Hove and via Lewes.

 

[feline1]

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas
(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.
....
(3) No person shall be in breach of Byelaw 18(1) or 18(2) if:
(i) there were no facilities in working order for the... validation of any ticket at the time when, and the station where, he began his journey;

Clause (3)(i) would appear to exhonerate me.
Moreover I do not see how one can be "in (physical) possesion of a valid *eTicket*" - it's not a physical object. All that one can do is demonstrate that it has been purchased for your smartcard. Which I was able to do (being in possession both of the smart card and the confirmation email).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No. A season ticket is valid for unlimited journeys over all or part of any permitted route between the origin and destination stations. You certainly don't need to pay to go to another station on the primrary route. You can also travel via Hove and via Lewes.

I often do, and break my journey at Falmer to go to a night class.
I checked with Customer Services twice to make sure that was OK.
The first time they said no.
The second time they said yes.
I didn't hear them the first time
I looked it up on the ATOC site and it looked like it was a permitted route to me.

 

[najaB]

Clause (3)(i) would appear to exhonerate me.

That's debatable. If the ticket office was open or there was a TVM then facilities existed to purchase a ticket.

Moreover I do not see how one can be "in (physical) possesion of a valid *eTicket*" - it's not a physical object.

The ticket 'lives' in the smartcard. A validated smartcard is a ticket for purpose of the Byelaws. If you scroll down the page you'll see:

“ticket” includes
(vii) any type of smart card, pre-pay, or other form of electronic ticket

 

[feline1]

That's debatable. If the ticket office was open or there was a TVM then facilities existed to purchase a ticket.

No, because I would explain to the magistrate that I placed my smartcard on the validator to activate as instructed, and it beeped green and the gates opened! This consitutes an Authorised Rail Robotperson telling me my ticket is fine.

Furthermore Customer Services and "The Key Team" on the telephone had instructed me, during 37 minutes of telephonic bliss, that MY TICKET WAS NOW VALIDATED AND LOADED and everything was fine and I could travel.

How many Southern employees have to tell me I can travel before I can travel?

The ticket 'lives' in the smartcard. A validated smartcard is a ticket for purpose of the Byelaws. If you scroll down the page you'll see:

I *know* it says that! And that the NRCoC say you have to buy a paper replacement. THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE THREAD!

 

[najaB]

No, because I would explain to the magistrate that I placed my smartcard on the validator to activate as instructed, and it beeped green and the gates opened! This consitutes an Authorised Rail Robotperson telling me my ticket is fine.

Again a prosecution would be exceedingly unlikely, but the barrier opening in itself doesn't mean anything as you yourself said that it contains more than one ticket. So it contained a ticket, just not a valid ticket for the journey you actually took.

Furthermore Customer Services and "The Key Team" on the telephone had instructed me, during 37 minutes of telephonic bliss, that MY TICKET WAS NOW VALIDATED AND LOADED and everything was fine and I could travel.

How many Southern employees have to tell me I can travel before I can travel?

That would cover you for a journey in the afternoon, after you had spoken to them, but it wouldn't cover you for the journey taken in the morning.

 

[talldave]

This is the flaw in the whole Key shambles ... a confirmation email is worthless (easy to fake) and you could be waving any old smart card at them.

If customer services tell you your ticket is loaded after a phone call they're talking crap. If it's not on the card it has to be loaded at a barrier/TVM. Since loading a ticket involves identifying your card, looking in a database, writing the ticket to the card, then possibly reading your card again and determining that the barriers need opening, I have a sneaking feeling that if the card doesn't sit on the reader for long enough the transaction fails - and as you said earlier, maybe that leads to a default payg situation? Even worse, perhaps the back office system thinks the ticket has loaded when it hasn't? I suspect customer services are simply setting it back to "not loaded" so that it'll try again next time (but only at your allocated loading station).

So try leaving the card on the reader for an embarrassingly long time. If the software was written by Southern's usual IT idiots, they probably set the barriers to open before the card has been successfully written to.

 

[feline1]

Again a prosecution would be exceedingly unlikely, but the barrier opening in itself doesn't mean anything as you yourself said that it contains more than one ticket. So it contained a ticket, just not a valid ticket for the journey you actually took.

I'd previously queried with Southern Customer Services, both by telephone, email and by Twitter, whether I could safely have both Pay As You Go and a Season Ticket on the same Key smartcard, and had been repeatedly assured YES, it was FINE, it will work. So when it did indeed appear to work, it would have been perverse and unreasonable for me to think it hadn't!

Think seriously about what such a prosecution would be trying to achieve, what material loss the TOC would be able to demonstrate to the magistrate. NONE WHATSOEVER. Indeed, it would be I who had suffered loss, inconvenience and stress, despite paying for my ticket and following exactly all the instructions I'd been given.
Bear in mind that just because something is stated in a Terms & Conditions or a Byelaw, does not mean it is legally enforceable if a court deems it is unfair or incompatable with higher legal principles.

 

[najaB]

Think seriously about what such a prosecution would be trying to achieve, what material loss the TOC would be able to demonstrate to the magistrate. NONE WHATSOEVER.

Byelaw prosecutions are not about loss. There is no need to demonstrate that any actual loss has occurred.

Bear in mind that just because something is stated in a Terms & Conditions or a Byelaw, does not mean it is legally enforceable if a court deems it is unfair or incompatable with higher legal principles.

The Byelaws have been tested many, many times.

 

[feline1]

and you could be waving any old smart card at them.

Well not really - my card number is printed on the card, and on my smart phone I could demonstrate for them logging in to my Key account on their website, and seeing my eTicket registered on my account there.

If customer services tell you your ticket is loaded after a phone call they're talking crap. If it's not on the card it has to be loaded at a barrier/TVM.

Well I know - but if you have any issue with your Key card, any of the platform or train staff you speak to will simply say "You have to phone customer services" - so what else can I do? I stay on hold for over half an hour, they tell me they are "talking to the Key team", etc etc...
I'm skeptical about what they're telling me, but if you've had explicit instructions that you must deal with these people, what else can you do? :cry:

Even worse, perhaps the back office system thinks the ticket has loaded when it hasn't? .

Yeah I wouldn't be at all surprised if their back end systems are out of sync with some other bit of the system


On another occasion, my Key card got stuck in an "you have uncompleted journeys" "you cannot purchase any more tickets until you activate your unused journeys" loop, and it took them NINE WEEKS to sort it out... which they finally only did by disabling my Pay As You Go facility.
I also had a huge wrangle with them to refund my Pay As You Go balance, which I only finally got them to do after I threatened to report them to my bank for violating the terms of the Continuous Payment Authority they'd got on my account.... ahiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Byelaw prosecutions are not about loss. There is no need to demonstrate that any actual loss has occurred.
The Byelaws have been tested many, many times.

Can I ask where you studied law?

I did ask if anyone knew if a prosecution had ever succeeded for a passenger failing to present a valid eTicket in a circumstance where the TOC's IT equipment had failed and the passenger had been able to demonstrate purchase of and exclusive possession of said eTicket/smartcard to the train staff.
You didn't seem to know of such a case...

 

[najaB]

I did ask if anyone knew if a prosecution had ever succeeded for a passenger failing to present a valid eTicket in a circumstance where the TOC's IT equipment had failed and the passenger had been able to demonstrate purchase of and exclusive possession of said eTicket/smartcard to the train staff.

You didn't seem to know of such a case...

As I have said repeatedly, it is highly unlikely that a prosecution would be brought in your specific scenario.

However, that doesn't change the fact that if one was to be brought it would likely be successful.

This can be evidenced by the fact that TfL have successfully brought prosecutions where Oyster cards have not been successfully topped up and it isn't entirely clear that the fault was or was not with the machine.

 

[feline1]

This can be evidenced by the fact that TfL have successfully brought prosecutions where Oyster cards have not been successfully topped up and it isn't entirely clear that the fault was or was not with the machine.

Interesting...
But isn't Oyster usually used in Pay As You Go/ Auto-Top-up mode? So if the auto top-up fails, the passenger indeed hasn't paid.
That would be quite different to my scenario (where I have paid, and can demonstrate proof that I have paid).

Are you saying TfL successfully proscuted passengers who could prove an auto-top-up went through on their bank accounts, and TfL were holding their money? And it was just simply that the card wasn't working in the reader?

I mean, to use one of your restaurant analogies, that would make about as much sense as you died of food poisoning from eating in a restaurant whose hygeine standards had failed, and your friend who paid for your food was prosecuted with assisting a suicide rather than the restaurant being fined. Or something

 

[talldave]

......

On another occasion, my Key card got stuck in an "you have uncompleted journeys" "you cannot purchase any more tickets until you activate your unused journeys" loop, and it took them NINE WEEKS to sort it out... which they finally only did by disabling my Pay As You Go facility.
I also had a huge wrangle with them to refund my Pay As You Go balance, which I only finally got them to do after I threatened to report them to my bank for violating the terms of the Continuous Payment Authority they'd got on my account.... ahiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine

Seriously, nine weeks is quite fast for Southern. When I say they're incompetent I mean it, having experienced it first hand. One small error on their website preventing sales of a Gatwick Express ticket, for which I supplied them a tested fix free of charge, took them 5 months to fix.

You deserve a medal for sticking with the Key, but I'd suggest switching back to paper unless Southern are going to recompense you for your time and inconvenience.

 

[causton]

I have never heard of someone with no money on their Oyster card, and a Travelcard season ticket (the closest analogy we have to the situation) to be loaded onto the Oyster card, touch in, the light goes green, the gate opens, but the Oyster card has not been loaded with the Travelcard. It sounds like something that would never happen but if Southern have implemented the Key so badly...

 

[najaB]

Interesting...
But isn't Oyster usually used in Pay As You Go/ Auto-Top-up mode? So if the auto top-up fails, the passenger indeed hasn't paid.
That would be quite different to my scenario (where I have paid, and can demonstrate proof that I have paid).

Again, a Byelaw prosecution isn't concerned with if you have paid or not, merely with if you have a valid ticket (including validated smartcard) with you when you board the train.

In the TfL cases that I know of the passenger has topped up at a machine but either didn't complete the transaction or the machine failed to actually update the card but said that it had. (Naturally I suspect the former but they claim the latter.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It sounds like something that would never happen but if Southern have implemented the Key so badly...

Indeed it does sound quite farcical.

 

[feline1]

Again, a Byelaw prosecution isn't concerned with if you have paid or not, merely with if you have a valid ticket (including validated smartcard) with you when you board the train.

But the reason I did "not have a valid ticket" (and even that is arguable, since, as we have established above, a ticket is 'proof of my contract with the TOC', and I *do* have proof of my contract with the TOC! - but let's not get sidetracked...) is because SOUTHERN'S BLIMMIN IT SYSTEM DID NOT WORK.
I *correctly* placed my ticket on the validator and the validator went green and bleeped be through and said ENTER and the barrier opened. I did all that I was instructed to do and that was required of me. Furthermore, when I noticed there seemed to be a problem, I took the corrective action I was told to take (phoning Customer Services) and they told me the problem was fixed.

Therefore, if Southern attempted to prosecute ME under byelaw 18, surely you can see that would be perverse: the reason I "did not have a valid ticket" was because of THEM, not because of me.
By analogy, this would be like the guard taking my ticket off me, tearing it up into little pieces and setting fire to it, and saying "oh dear, you don't appear to have a valid ticket" and prosecuting me.

I do not believe there is a court in the land who would convict someone of an offence when the offence only occured because of the prosecution's actions, not the defendant's.
That is the kind of prosecution you would expect to see in some kind of corrupt banana republic police state, not the UK. (Well, not unless it's one of those infamous cases like the Birmingham Six or something, when it turned out the police planted evidence on people...)

 

[najaB]

I do not believe there is a court in the land who would convict someone of an offence when the offence only occured because of the prosecution's actions, not the defendant's.

Where a Byelaw 18 prosecution is concerned the Court has to limit itself to answering two questions: 1) Did the a defendant have a valid ticket for the journey taken. 2) Did they have an opportunity to purchase said ticket.

In your situation the answers are 1. No and 2. Yes. So the magistrate would have to convict.

That said, I would expect any magistrate to question the wisdom of bringing the prosecution in the first place and would expect the fine to be £0 with costs passed back to the TOC.

 

[jon0844]

But they did have a valid ticket, but just not successfully transfered from an online form (which could be verified and the identity of the owner confirmed, although I am not sure if Southern tie seasons to a photocard?) to a smartcard. And the opportunity bit is redundant because they had purchased a valid ticket already.

It is of course still an issue that you can't produce a physical ticket if the smartcard fails, so technically the prosecution could work but I doubt any TOC would risk the negative publicity for prosecuting just because it could, when it could be established a valid ticket had been purchased and the person tapped in successfully (even if an error caused PAYG to be used instead of downloading the right ticket).

Thus it would never happen and get tested in court, so it's not really worth debating further.

What perhaps is worth debating is how the industry deals with such issues. Staff at Victoria, or anywhere, should have a procedure to check an account and if necessary issue a free authority to travel to prevent the need for the 'victim' to need to shell out for a new ticket and go through a potentially lengthy appeals process.

Oh, and someone should be taking action against Southern to make sure all of these issues are fixed. Oyster has the odd glitch every now and then, but the Key seems absolutely broken and how long goes it get allowed to be like some sort of alpha testing inflicted on paying passengers that thought smartcards made things better?

 

[anme]

It would be interesting if someone with legal qualifications could clarify whether a prosecution under the railway bylaws could really succeed in this case. While the OP was not able to present a valid ticket, this was due to the undetectable (up to the point of checking) failure of equipment belonging to the railway company to deliver the ticket to her or him. Could this allow a defence of the passenger not having had the opportunity to buy a ticket? Or is there some other defence that the passenger could use?

Regardless, it is very unlikely a train company would prosecute in these circumstances.

 

[feline1]

Where a Byelaw 18 prosecution is concerned the Court has to limit itself to answering two questions: 1) Did the a defendant have a valid ticket for the journey taken. 2) Did they have an opportunity to purchase said ticket.

In your situation the answers are 1. No and 2. Yes. So the magistrate would have to convict.

That said, I would expect any magistrate to question the wisdom of bringing the prosecution in the first place and would expect the fine to be £0 with costs passed back to the TOC.

This is why I asked you before where you studied law

The defendant not only had the opportunity to purchase said ticket, they DID purchase it, they can PROVE they purchased it, and they PROVED they had purchased it to the TOC at the time!
Did they "have" it at the time of the "offence"? No. Why not? BECAUSE the TOC didn't "give" it to them despite "telling" them twice that it had .

 

[221129]

This is why I asked you before where you studied law

The defendant not only had the opportunity to purchase said ticket, they DID purchase it, they can PROVE they purchased it, and they PROVED they had purchased it to the TOC at the time!
Did they "have" it at the time of the "offence"? No. Why not? BECAUSE the TOC didn't "give" it to them despite "telling" them twice that it had .

Did the defendant hand over a valid ticket on request? No

Did the defendant have an opportunity to buy a ticket? Yes

Open and Shut.

 

[feline1]

Could this allow a defence of the passenger not having had the opportunity to buy a ticket?

No, because they passenger's defence would include the fact that they proved they DID purchase a ticket

The analogy would be if they'd bought a paper ticket and been handed it at a ticket desk by a member of staff, but the ticket machine had been loaded with some kind of invisible ink that was designed to fade to transparency 10 minutes after printing.
And the passenger had phoned up Customer Services to say "my ticket's faded away!" and Customer Services had said "that's OK - just lick it and hold it under your armpit, the moist heat will make the ink show again! honestly! lol!" ...which the passenger duly did, like a mug, but it didn't work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did the defendant hand over a valid ticket on request? No

Did the defendant have an opportunity to buy a ticket? Yes

Open and Shut.

And where did you study law, sir?

 

[221129]

No, because they passenger's defence would include the fact that they proved they DID purchase a ticket

The analogy would be if they'd bought a paper ticket and been handed it at a ticket desk by a member of staff, but the ticket machine had been loaded with some kind of invisible ink that was designed to fade to transparency 10 minutes after printing.
And the passenger had phoned up Customer Services to say "my ticket's faded away!" and Customer Services had said "that's OK - just lick it and hold it under your armpit, the moist heat will make the ink show again! honestly! lol!" ...which the passenger duly did, like a mug, but it didn't work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And where did you study law, sir?

A quick read of the Bylaw is all you need.

 

[najaB]

TThe defendant not only had the opportunity to purchase said ticket, they DID purchase it, they can PROVE they purchased it, and they PROVED they had purchased it to the TOC at the time!

Again, proving that you bought a ticket has zero impact on a Byelaw 18 prosecution. Byelaw 18.1 is only concerned with actually having the ticket in your possession when you enter the train. Byelaw 18.2 is only concerned with your presenting the ticket when requested.

As jonmorris0844 correctly states, no TOC would be likely to proceed with a prosecution in this scenario due to the inevitable bad press. But if they did, the only defence you could mount would be based on the availability of suitable equipment to validate your ticket - but I'm not confident that defence would succeed if other tickets had been validated before and after yours.

 

[feline1]

A quick read of the Bylaw is all you need.

No it is not.

Without wanting to make this thread some kind of treatise on jurisprudence:

Condition X is prohibited by a byelaw
Magistrate: "Do you admit you were in condition X?"
Defendant: "yes"
Magistrate: "What is your defence as to why you were in condition X?"
Defendant: "The complainant PUT me in condition X against my will!"
Magistrate: "Is this true?"
Complainant: "Er, yes"
Magistrate: "Case dismissed. Complainant to pay costs".

 

[Wolfie]

While I agree that it is unlikely in the extreme that a prosecution would be brought in these circumstances, a Byelaw 18 prosecution would be successful.

Technically you may be correct.

However even by the standards of the complete and utter morons who seem to run most TOCs that would be a phyric victory. The corporate damage done by ensuring that every national newpapers is in attendance at the Court to witness the fact that they are prosecuting a pasenger due to their own inability to run a whelk stall would massively outweigh any gain... having a MP present would ensure media attendance!! Oh and a media campaign to change the antiquated anti-consumer laws that the cretins rely on would likely swiftly follow!

Time for the passengers treat the arrogant useless clowns in the only way they get the message - go all out at every possible opportunity to trash their share price!! The world would be a better place if some of these companies ceased to exist or at least were purged of their current management! A corporate enema is required...

 

[najaB]

Defendant: "The complainant PUT me in condition X against my will!"

But did they? As I pointed out above, if the validation machines worked correctly before and after then that line of defence isn't a strong one as the TOC can argue that it was due to user error.

TfL have successfully prosecuted after PAYG Oyster top-ups have failed. The defendants say that they have operated the machine correctly. TfL say that they haven't. The court has sided with TfL.

 

[feline1]

Again, proving that you bought a ticket has zero impact on a Byelaw 18 prosecution. Byelaw 18.1 is only concerned with actually having the ticket in your possession when you enter the train.

But surely you understand why it is written in that way?
It is because, with paper tickets, you could give the paper ticket to someone else to use: being able to prove you purchased it is irrelevant. Two people could easily be travelling but only one ticket purchased. So Byelaw 18.1 is sensible in that scenario.

That is not the case with eTickets: they are tied to a numbered smartcard. So if the passenger can display that numbered smartcard, then nobody else can be using the ticket they purchased.

Surely you grasp that? It's not a tricky concept.

 

[talldave]

I wish this forum had a hypothetical sub-forum..... then this thread could focus on the reality of how pyrococcal overcomes the real-life trauma of being one of Southern's guinea pigs in their apparently broken smartcard beta test.

 

[feline1]

But did they? As I pointed out above, if the validation machines worked correctly before and after then that line of defence isn't a strong one as the TOC can argue that it was due to user error.

The server logs would be produced in court and would prove that the defendant put their ticket on the validator and it went green and told them to enter.

Their phone call with Customer Services (recorded for "training and monitoring purposes" ) would also be played in court, proving the train company instructed the passenger that their season was 'all sorted out now'

TfL have successfully prosecuted after PAYG Oyster top-ups have failed. The defendants say that they have operated the machine correctly. TfL say that they haven't. The court has sided with TfL.

I already explained to you the difference here: the payment DIDN'T fail, the TOC in fact took half a £grand off the defendant. That's not the same as an auto-top-up failing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wish this forum had a hypothetical sub-forum..... then this thread could focus on the reality of how pyrococcal overcomes the real-life trauma of being one of Southern's guinea pigs in their apparently broken smartcard beta test.

That sub-forum already exists, it's called "MY DAILY COMMUTE"