Potential TFL bus fare evasion prosecution proceedings

On the 25th of July 2019 at approximately 8.45am I set off to work boarding the 207 bus at Acton High Street to get to Shepherds Bush Station where I would then change for the Central Line. Upon boarding the 207 I reach out to tap my oyster card on the card reader when I was then gestured to by the driver motioning with his hands to what I assumed to mean ‘not working’. I proceeded to take a seat on the upper deck of the bus unchallenged & uncontested. The bus set off then several stops later I was asked to produce a ticket by ticket inspectors where I informed them of the machine not working which is why I did not tap in. They ordered me off the bus to speak to the driver who eventually was able to explain that those gestures and hand movements was in relation to a conflict he was having with the previous customer about entering through the front set of doors with her buggy as opposed to the back entrance.

Unfortunately through this confusion I misconstrued those hand movements and unintelligible yells the driver was making and mistakenly assumed the oyster card machine was not working. The inspector then took my details and informed me that I will be receiving a letter through the post shortly where I would need to explain the above. I was directed to board the next bus causing me to run late into the office.

Having taken the rest of the afternoon off under the pretence of going to enjoy the hottest day of the year with friends and family in Hyde Park I instead went home to research the gravity of my morning ordeal. My usual £1.50 daily morning bus fare could turn into a hefty fine and even more critically a criminal conviction under the Regulation railways act 1889. This could potentially ruin my career and future prospects so I will be consulting a solicitor first thing tomorrow morning but was hoping to speak to you good people first for any advice, direction or insight you could offer.

My first thought was to obtain and view CCTV footage to show the confusing exchange between myself, the driver and the passenger with a buggy and so with a little digging I identified the bus operating company and currently in the process of drafting a subject access request for this CCTV footage. I am hoping some sane individual working for TFL views the footage back and comes to the clear conclusion that it was a freakish misunderstanding that could lead unfairly to dire consequences for my future.

I am trying to get in front of this so any advice you can offer will be greatly appreciated.



Thank you so very much.

You probably don't need to worry: the bus driver has explained what they were trying to do, and it seems to me that it's more likely than not that TfL won't take any further action.

But in case I am wrong:
- don't panic: you don't need to talk to a solicitor yet.
- make a note of what happened while it's still fresh in your memory. You have already done that by sending us this post. But write down anything else you need - the exact time, which bus, any ways to identify the driver and inspector and so on.
- keep an eye on your post. If TfL do want to take you to court, they have six months to do it. Don't miss a letter by mistake: if you move house, make sure you get your post redirected.
- if TfL do get in touch, write explaining how you got confused. Be courteous and clear, and explain why you made the mistake.
- if TfL do take you to court, you will be sent a summons, telling you what you are charged with and when you need to go to court. That's the point when you might need a solicitor.

I think it's quite likely you won't hear anything more about this. But you will have to wait six or seven months before you can be sure of that.

As a matter of interest, was your Oyster a season ticket or pay as you go? I'm just wondering whether since you also had a tube journey, whether the daily cap may kick in effectively meaning that your bus journey was free, or if you have a season ticket, then you have already paid for all your journeys. Therefore there may be no loss to TfL through your inactions.

Given that the driver explained the situation and it was established at the time while the inspector was still there, surely the inspector should have just not taken details so no follow up action and allowed the passenger to continue their journey. To, having established the details from the driver, order the customer off the bus, take details and delay their journey is unreasonable.

If you were on a bus the Regulation of the Railways Act you mentioned will not apply to your case.

If (big if in this case) you were to be prosecuted it would be under the TFL bylaws which are a lower level of offence that in many cases do not have to be declared to employers.

MotCO said:

As a matter of interest, was your Oyster a season ticket or pay as you go? I'm just wondering whether since you also had a tube journey, whether the daily cap may kick in effectively meaning that your bus journey was free, or if you have a season ticket, then you have already paid for all your journeys. Therefore there may be no loss to TfL through your inactions.

Click to expand...

I very much doubt the daily cap would be made by 08.45 in the morning giving the OP was making there way to work.

londonboi198o5 said:

I very much doubt the daily cap would be made by 08.45 in the morning giving the OP was making there way to work.

Click to expand...

Quite but i think what @MotCO was getting at was that any further trips that day wouldve reached the cap - however the offence was committed in not being able to produce a valid ticket for their journey so the cap point isnt valid

Also even if a daily cap has kicked in I believe you're still required to tap in to validate your card for authority to travel. Sometimes when a bus Oyster reader has broken down, the driver may tape a piece of paper saying 'not working' over it. But even without that, given that the usual line is 'without having previously paid his fare and with intent to avoid payment thereof', I fail to see how a simple misunderstanding/miscommunication with the driver could be taken as demonstrating intent to avoid paying the fare. As an earlier poster said, I'd be surprised if TFL took it any further.

MotCO said:

As a matter of interest, was your Oyster a season ticket or pay as you go? I'm just wondering whether since you also had a tube journey, whether the daily cap may kick in effectively meaning that your bus journey was free, or if you have a season ticket, then you have already paid for all your journeys. Therefore there may be no loss to TfL through your inactions.

Click to expand...

londonboi198o5 said:

I very much doubt the daily cap would be made by 08.45 in the morning giving the OP was making there way to work.

Click to expand...

Clip said:

Quite but i think what @MotCO was getting at was that any further trips that day wouldve reached the cap - however the offence was committed in not being able to produce a valid ticket for their journey so the cap point isnt valid

Click to expand...

All correct, however, there is another consideration. By making the passenger get off the bus and get on another the inspector actually recovered the fare due. If both touches had registered it would have been a hopper fare, so there was no loss of revenue. Add this in with the driver explaining what happened and I hope the matter will be dropped.

Randomer said:

If you were on a bus the Regulation of the Railways Act you mentioned will not apply to your case.

If (big if in this case) you were to be prosecuted it would be under the TFL bylaws which are a lower level of offence that in many cases do not have to be declared to employers.

Click to expand...

I could be entirely wrong here, but isn't the law that someone would be prosecuted under here Section 25 of The Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981? This isn't a bylaw, so I'm not sure if any conviction is spent immediately?

What would have happened if you presented a contactless card?

Surely you'd just get a small maximum fare (£5ish?) applied to it, which you could get refunded by phoning up tfl and saying the card did

mrmartin said:

What would have happened if you presented a contactless card?

Surely you'd just get a small maximum fare (£5ish?) applied to it, which you could get refunded by phoning up tfl and saying the card did

Click to expand...

Not on a bus, no. The inspector downloads the list of contactless cards that have been touched in on that journey. If yours doesn't appear then it's a penalty fare.

You sure? It definitely doesn't work like that on the DLR when the validators were out of service. He couldn't check but I got a £5ish maximum fare which tfl refunded in a few mins. Surprised there is such a difference especially with it being a lot easier to avoid a fare at most DLR stations compared to (at least) front enterance buses.

mrmartin said:

You sure?

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

mrmartin said:

It definitely doesn't work like that on the DLR when the validators were out of service. He couldn't check but I got a £5ish maximum fare which tfl refunded in a few mins. Surprised there is such a difference especially with it being a lot easier to avoid a fare at most DLR stations compared to (at least) front enterance buses.

Click to expand...

The TfL system isn't allowed to write anything to a contactless card so there is no way on a train of knowing whether the card has been touched in unless there is a fault with the card meaning that it couldn't have touched in.

On a bus you are captive so-to-speak. The inspector can read the list of cards from the bus computer and check each card on board against that list.

MikeWh said:

Yes, absolutely.

The TfL system isn't allowed to write anything to a contactless card so there is no way on a train of knowing whether the card has been touched in unless there is a fault with the card meaning that it couldn't have touched in.

On a bus you are captive so-to-speak. The inspector can read the list of cards from the bus computer and check each card on board against that list.

Click to expand...

To be pedantic a fault with the card does not necessarily confirm 100% that no touch in was made.
I can easily see that someone could touch in and then sit on their card breaking it in the process
I do accept that if an inspector cannot read it it probably was not touched in.

jumble said:

To be pedantic a fault with the card does not necessarily confirm 100% that no touch in was made.
I can easily see that someone could touch in and then sit on their card breaking it in the process
I do accept that if an inspector cannot read it it probably was not touched in.

Click to expand...

The inspector would be able to tell a card was not communicating with their reader as distinct from identifying a card which had not been touched in.

MikeWh said:

The TfL system isn't allowed to write anything to a contactless card so there is no way on a train of knowing whether the card has been touched in unless there is a fault with the card meaning that it couldn't have touched in.

Click to expand...

I really do find this decision surprising. There are plenty of barrier-free journeys in and around London, so a hardened fare evader would simply need to keep a supply of eligible contactless payment cards (easily acquired these days!), possibly not in their own name, on the rare offchance that an inspector will pass by. I am sure plenty of people do exactly this and I don’t see how it is detectable.

I think accepting contactless payment was a bad idea, given that TfL couldn’t do it properly (fare evasion opportunities, no railcards, ability to tap in with cards that do not have funds, ...). Investing in improving Oyster would have been time better spent in my opinion.

My understanding of the readers held by inspectors was that they recorded the card number and, when the reconciliation is done at the end of the day, only then can it be seen if the passenger had actually touched in (given the huge number of possible locations to do so etc). If they hadn't, their card is charged a Maximum Fare. Is that incorrect?

Tom B said:

My understanding of the readers held by inspectors was that they recorded the card number and, when the reconciliation is done at the end of the day, only then can it be seen if the passenger had actually touched in (given the huge number of possible locations to do so etc). If they hadn't, their card is charged a Maximum Fare. Is that incorrect?

Click to expand...

That is correct. Furthermore if you fail 3 such revenue inspections your card is permanently blacklisted.

MikeWh said:

if you fail 3 such revenue inspections your card is permanently blacklisted

Click to expand...

And again, I fail to see where the teeth to this threat are. There are myriad online services these days only too happy to sell prepaid cards (contactless enabled) and replace them for free.

It is only effective against the most casual of fare evaders, when the cases that do come about show it is the hardened ones who present the biggest problem.

Cdd89 said:

And again, I fail to see where the teeth to this threat are. There are myriad online services these days only too happy to sell prepaid cards (contactless enabled) and replace them for free.

It is only effective against the most casual of fare evaders, when the cases that do come about show it is the hardened ones who present the biggest problem.

Click to expand...

And you don't think that they are subject to financial services industry "know your customer" rules, and may have checks in the background for who they are providing cards to? Or that the likes of TfL wouldn't share information about significant fraudulent use with the issuers?

35B said:

And you don't think that they are subject to financial services industry "know your customer" rules, and may have checks in the background for who they are providing cards to? Or that the likes of TfL wouldn't share information about significant fraudulent use with the issuers?

Click to expand...

I take your point when it comes to UK financial institutions, but foreign-issued cards work just as well on TfL services, and it is trivial to obtain those in any name you want. Additionally, many internationally-issued virtual cards that can be loaded into wallets like Apple Pay. Fundamentally, no, I don’t believe TfL are engaged in active dialogue with issuers about fare evasion (but I’d be very happy to be proven wrong!).

It used to be possible to buy one over the counter, The Range used to do one for about a tenner (don’t know if it was contactless though) and you had to register but could use it up-to a certain limit before having to provide your ID ect.

There are plenty of others according to Google.

Nothing to stop hardened fare dodgers giving false details on registration.

Only solution I can see is charge say a fiver at the start of the day instead of 10p and there would be fewer unpaid fares.

As long as genuine passengers aren’t too unduly penalised I cant see the problem.

Saperstein.

Saperstein said:

It used to be possible to buy one over the counter, The Range used to do one for about a tenner (don’t know if it was contactless though) and you had to register but could use it up-to a certain limit before having to provide your ID ect.

There are plenty of others according to Google.

Nothing to stop hardened fare dodgers giving false details on registration.

Only solution I can see is charge say a fiver at the start of the day instead of 10p and there would be fewer unpaid fares.

As long as genuine passengers aren’t too unduly penalised I cant see the problem.

Saperstein.

Click to expand...

That 10p is an authorisation which will not get collected.

If failure to claim on these cards becomes a problem then I can see TfL blacklisting the number ranges.

I wonder if TfL even have the facility to do that. They've previously said (in FoI requests) that they are unable to distinguish between cards operated physically, and the same card (with the same number) being operated via Apple Pay. (It is the cause of a significant, but unknown, number of people being charged two maximum fares, as common sense would lead many people to think that TfL uses the number!).

I would be surprised if all these pre-pay cards did not have a common first 6 digits. As an example, all Visa Barclaycards start 4929 with the next two digits indicating internal stuff for Barclays. Firms issuing pre-pay cards will also have their own prefixes.

My understanding of copies of cards stored on fobs or phones is that while they have the same 16-digit number there is a further identification that allows them to be separated. This also works where authorised user cards have the same number on them.

MikeWh said:

I would be surprised if all these pre-pay cards did not have a common first 6 digits. As an example, all Visa Barclaycards start 4929 with the next two digits indicating internal stuff for Barclays. Firms issuing pre-pay cards will also have their own prefixes.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is called the BIN number. (Bank identification number.)

MikeWh said:

My understanding of copies of cards stored on fobs or phones is that while they have the same 16-digit number there is a further identification that allows them to be separated. This also works where authorised user cards have the same number on them.

Click to expand...

Not sure about fobs but certainly on Apple Pay, when someone adds their bank card to apple wallet, the card issuer allocates a separate card number which only they and the payment system knows and this is used for Apple Pay purchases.

I’ve used it and the last four digits shown on the receipt are definitely different from the normal card number.

Saperstein.

Saperstein said:

Not sure about fobs but certainly on Apple Pay, when someone adds their bank card to apple wallet, the card issuer allocates a separate card number which only they and the payment system knows and this is used for Apple Pay purchases.

I’ve used it and the last four digits shown on the receipt are definitely different from the normal card number.

Saperstein.

Click to expand...

It's probably akin to joint account holders; my wife and I have a joint credit card, but the numbers on the card are different.

MotCO said:

It's probably akin to joint account holders; my wife and I have a joint credit card, but the numbers on the card are different.

Click to expand...

I have two sets of joint cards. One has different numbers (Barclays), the other has the same (Tesco).