What am I being Prosecuted for?

[furlong]

Doesn't British consumer law forbid the addition of restrictive clauses after the transaction? So the extra restriction printed on the ticket (requirement for the number to match) is only applicable if the purchaser is advised of it beforehand. It would need to be in the published t&c of the TOC (or NCRoT),

Well there are still neither posters at stations nor (easily-implemented) buttons on touch-screen TVMs for displaying a copy of the NRCoT - and see how much trouble it causes even asking for a copy at a ticket office nowadays! A walk-up purchaser is rarely offered access to the T&Cs of the contract at the time of purchase.

 

[island]

Sprinter153, as I have outlined previously I was civil to him.
I was not rude nor vulgar. I wasn't happy about the situation, but who would be if they were in my shoes?
His lack of explanation or discussion meant it was like interacting with an automaton who did not deviate from his path. Hence I used the term 'jobs worth'. There was zero conversational interaction during the time he spoke to me.

That has nothing to do with anything. The term "jobsworth" is a contraction of the phrase "more than my job's worth to _____", in other words someone who is afraid they will be disciplined or sacked for taking a proposed course of action such as bending a rule.

Either:

• The season ticket database (I'm sure I've heard that some TVMs can link up to the back office season ticket database system used in the booking office)

or

• 
  Weekly seasons aren't on the database.
  

  [*]The number could include check digits like a passport number or IBAN bank account number, giving a high probability that a randomly wrong number would fail the check

Then everyone needs new Photocards issuing.

Doesn't British consumer law forbid the addition of restrictive clauses after the transaction? So the extra restriction printed on the ticket (requirement for the number to match) is only applicable if the purchaser is advised of it beforehand. It would need to be in the published t&c of the TOC (or NCRoT),

The TVM will have notices attached or adjacent stating that tickets are subject to the NRCOT.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Doesn't British consumer law forbid the addition of restrictive clauses after the transaction? So the extra restriction printed on the ticket (requirement for the number to match) is only applicable if the purchaser is advised of it beforehand. It would need to be in the published t&c of the TOC (or NCRoT),

It's on the photocard.

Your Season Ticket or Travelcard is not transferable. It should only be used by the person named on it and whose Photocard serial number is endorsed on it. It must not be used by any other person.

 

[cmovcc]

It should only be used by the person named on it and whose Photocard serial number is endorsed on it.

the key would there is "should", if it said "must" like the rest of it you would be correct.

personally if I was the OP, and my original ticket didn't have "VALID ONLY WITH PHOTOCARD NO XXX" in the top right, I would be demanding a refund from TSGN for the additional ticket they made me incorrectly purchase, plus an "administration charge" for time I'd spent dealing with their technical mistake.

failing that I'd investigate court action.

seems only fair to go after them for their technical mistake here in the same way their revenue protection teams go after people for similar extremely minor mistakes.

 

[Clip]

Well there are still neither posters at stations nor (easily-implemented) buttons on touch-screen TVMs for displaying a copy of the NRCoT - and see how much trouble it causes even asking for a copy at a ticket office nowadays! A walk-up purchaser is rarely offered access to the T&Cs of the contract at the time of purchase.

the key would there is "should", if it said "must" like the rest of it you would be correct.

personally if I was the OP, and my original ticket didn't have "VALID ONLY WITH PHOTOCARD NO XXX" in the top right, I would be demanding a refund from TSGN for the additional ticket they made me incorrectly purchase, plus an "administration charge" for time I'd spent dealing with their technical mistake.

failing that I'd investigate court action.

seems only fair to go after them for their technical mistake here in the same way their revenue protection teams go after people for similar extremely minor mistakes.

Oh the joys of this forum trying to find an out with some spurious reading inot things that are not there.

I would like to point out that to get a photocard with your first season you get one from the booking office which you then agree to the T&Cs of the ticket there and then and the forms you fill out state this.

Im sorry if this isnt what you want to hear but its a silly discussion really.

 

[cjmillsnun]

the key would there is "should", if it said "must" like the rest of it you would be correct.

personally if I was the OP, and my original ticket didn't have "VALID ONLY WITH PHOTOCARD NO XXX" in the top right, I would be demanding a refund from TSGN for the additional ticket they made me incorrectly purchase, plus an "administration charge" for time I'd spent dealing with their technical mistake.

failing that I'd investigate court action.

seems only fair to go after them for their technical mistake here in the same way their revenue protection teams go after people for similar extremely minor mistakes.

You missed the following sentence.

It must not be used by any other person. That covers them

 

[cuccir]

There's an obvious point here that despite all the hand-wringing and discussion, the OP is not yet being prosecuted.

Furthermore, discussions over the fairness of prosecuting under errors of number-inputting ought to distinguish between someone hypothetically making a small error, such as transposing two digits or accidentally inputting a '0' in the number, and the OP who admits to having 'guessed' at their number.

The point that I'm making I think is that discussions of alternative ways of validating season tickets seem to add little here. Whether the need for the ticket to match the photo-card is adequately advertised is something the OP may want to consider if there's a move to prosecution, though at this point I'd expect some skepticism as to whether this is really the case. I think maybe we need to hold off until kaygee276 returns with any updates...

 

[miami]

Only at any point when it's rail related, it seems. Banking, some sort of reward card or anything else, no problem.

Because those numbers have checksums and other bits of information to help ensure the number is correct, because those companies don't have an incentive for people to get the number wrong.

 

[cmovcc]

You missed the following sentence.

It must not be used by any other person. That covers them

if she bought it for herself and used it herself she's not another person, and the TOC would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise, which is a lot harder than saying "photocard number doesn't match", and producing the evidence

 

[najaB]

Because those numbers have checksums and other bits of information to help ensure the number is correct

Neither account numbers nor amounts have checksums.

...because those companies don't have an incentive for people to get the number wrong.

Neither do TOCs, really. It's just as much work for a bank to trace a missing payment as it is for a TOC to investigate potential misuse of a season ticket.

 

[island]

Credit and debit card numbers and bank accounts do have checksums.

 

[najaB]

Credit and debit card numbers and bank accounts do have checksums.

I know that debit/credit card numbers have checksums but are you sure that bank account numbers do as well? Sort codes don't, there's just a big list of valid codes.

 

[miami]

I know that debit/credit card numbers have checksums but are you sure that bank account numbers do as well? Sort codes don't, there's just a big list of valid codes.

Yes, feel free to validate at https://www.sortcodes.co.uk/

 

[najaB]

Yes, feel free to validate at https://www.sortcodes.co.uk/

I'm familiar with that site, however I'm not convinced that it's checksum based as it does the work server side, card number validation can be done client side.

 

[miami]

https://www.sortcodes.co.uk/modulus-checking.html

Modulus Checking is a technique for implementing a mathematical algorithm to a bank account Number (or an account number and Sort Code incorporation) to verify that it is valid for a specific variety of sort codes.

....

In the United Kingdom, there are 66 modulus checking rules posted by APACS/Bacs

....

Fundamental Advantages of Modulus Checking
It Saves money and time by detecting mistakes at the beginning
Boost efficiency and enhance cash flow by minimizing the threat of refunded payments
Perform checks included in your workflow, both manually or with computer program.

The banking industry wants to minimise customers who make mistakes. The railway industry doesn't really care, as they can take anyone who does make a mistake to court.

 

[Darandio]

The banking industry wants to minimise customers who make mistakes. The railway industry doesn't really care, as they can take anyone who does make a mistake to court.

This wasn't a mistake, it was an unneccessary guess. They also aren't going to court (yet). 99% of the wibble in this thread is irrelevant (yet again).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because those numbers have checksums and other bits of information to help ensure the number is correct, because those companies don't have an incentive for people to get the number wrong.

Well done for missing the point. The point being that in the case of those numbers, particularly banking, people wouldn't be making a guess.

 

[najaB]

https://www.sortcodes.co.uk/modulus-checking.html

If you read that page it makes it clear that modulus checking does not provide a foolproof check against invalid input:

If the modulus check collapses, it is not specifically the bank account number which is inaccurate. It could be a valid bank account number, but the sort code has been mis-interpreted or perhaps keyed-in inaccurately. Even more difficult, if the sort code that is inaccurately keyed-in is outside of the validation range, the normal modulus checking laws would pass the information.

 

[DaleCooper]

This wasn't a mistake, it was an unneccessary guess. They also aren't going to court (yet).

This should be added to the thread title as all the posts pointing out these two salient facts seem to be ignored.

 

[talldave]

I bought an annual season ticket today, and the photocard number on the season ticket has two leading digits that are not on my photocard. So it seems to suit the rail industry to provide mis-matching data when it fancies, but to jump on passengers when they get it wrong.

But since I only use the season ticket as a Gold Card, the photocard's rarely checked.

 

[bb21]

This is getting far off topic.

If the OP wishes to continue with this thread when new communication is received, or simply that she has further questions, please get in touch with one of the forum staff and we will be happy to assist. Until then, this is locked.

 

[kaygee276]

Back on January 6th I was cautioned by a Ticket Inspector for having a ticket where I had entered incorrectly the last 4 digits of my Photo Card.

I was told that someone would be in touch with me.

It has been over 3 months and I still haven't heard anything from anyone.

Can anyone on the forum let me know what the expected waiting time is for them to contact me?

Thank you

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I was told that someone would be in touch with me.

They may have decided not to bother, presuming the ticket was valid otherwise and there were no other suspicious circumstances. It wouldn't play well for publicity were they to threaten a prosecution because someone had written ABCD2143 instead of ABCD1234.

 

[cuccir]

Based on messages on this forum, most people are contacted by 3 months. So I agree with the assessment that they may well have dropped this, but we can't know that for sure.

If they were to prosecute you they'd have to raise it at a court within 6 months so at that point you can be pretty sure that you won't hear any more.