• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Please help! Facing prosecution for an invalid oyster

Status
Not open for further replies.

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I don't think the Stat Dec rules need to prohibit other charges, because their focus is resetting the process for this particular charge.

The rationale for the six-month rule is at least partly to do with problems gathering evidence/memories. It isn't obvious why it should be affected by an SD about a different charge (or why a defendant should be disadvantaged by facing a more serious charge, compared to the situation if they'd known about the case).

Does anyone know for sure if it is standard TFL procedure to issue a penalty fare first before taking it to court? I'm trying to find out but going down a bit of a Google rabbit hole
Because if it is then obviously they've not followed protocol by going straight for prosecution
They can prosecute instead of a penalty fare. But they usually write to ask the passenger's point of view first. It's possible a letter got lost in the post or mislaid.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Aren't they barred from starting a RoRA prosecution, or a different Byelaw prosecution, by the standard six-month cutoff?
I honestly don't know. I'm not sure how much of a 'resetting the clock' a statutory declaration is.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
The main rule is 24.17:
What exactly is meant by "the written charge" in 21.17 - does the written charge lay out the specific offence, or does it state what is alleged and the possible legislation for which a summons may be issued?

In other words, does it say (paraphrasing) "On such and such date, a person giving your name and address [did a thing], which is contrary to Railway Byelaw 17..." or does it say "... [did a thing]. A summons may now be applied for an offence under the Railway Byelaws or the Regulation of Railways Act..." ?

This is a genuine question, by the way.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
It's the first one. I've tried to make a case above why extending the deadline for other alleged offences would be less sensible than for the same alleged offence.
The original charge is this:
You have been charged with the following offence:
That you, on Friday 17th August 2018 at Liverpool Street, did enter a compulsory ticket area
without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17(1) of the Transport for London
Railway Byelaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act
1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.
The rationale for the six-month rule is at least partly to do with problems gathering evidence/memories. It isn't obvious why it should be affected by an SD about a different charge (or why a defendant should be disadvantaged by facing a more serious charge, compared to the situation if they'd known about the case).
 
Last edited:

Jo81

Member
Joined
16 Dec 2019
Messages
38
Location
London
UPDATE:
After many weeks of myself and the Assembly Member for my borough contacting TFL and asking them to withdraw the charges against me, I finally received all of their evidence against me. TFL's decision to prosecute me (rather than issue a penalty fine), was based on their "evidence" that I only had a bus and tram pass on my card, and was thus evading fare by trying to use it on a train. Their records also showed the card was used 4 times later that day, and thus they were "satisfied the card was in good working order", contradicting my statement that I couldn't touch in because the card was broken.

I was very confused as I knew I had a Z1-3 travelcard, and I definitely hadn't used it later that day. The records they had printed out showed a lot of bus journeys I didn't recognise. I soon realised that TFL had looked up the wrong oyster data. The inspector had written down my oyster number correctly, but in the process of investigation a digit had been missed off and so they looked at the journey history of a card with an almost identical number. Their entire case was based on a typo!

I informed my assembly member of this who told TFL what had happened and insisted they drop the charges and apologise to me. At first, they refused to acknowledge that any mistakes or inaccuracies had occurred. A couple of days later, I received a letter from TFL telling me "new evidence had arisen" that the oyster number was incorrect and so they have dropped the charges. The letter contained no apology or acknowledgement of their mistake, let alone the weeks of distress their false investigation has caused me.

I'm very pleased this ridiculous nightmare has come to an end, and I'm very grateful to those who suggested speaking to my assembly member as I don't believe I would have received the evidence in good time or that TFL would have properly reviewed the case without the AM representing me.

I'm very disappointed with how TFL have handled this and made me feel like I was guilty when I wasn't. They have treated me appallingly throughout the process. Hope anyone reading this in a similar situation ensures they check all the evidence against them, as who knows how often these errors are happening.

Thanks!
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Well done.

Does anyone think it would be useful to try for compensation - for inconvenience, distress and time taken to investigate?
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,024
Location
West Wiltshire
Well done.

Does anyone think it would be useful to try for compensation - for inconvenience, distress and time taken to investigate?

Yes

Work out how much time, multiply it by an hourly work rate (at least London living wage rate), add say £20 per letter for admin time. Add any costs you incurred eg certifying documents. Put this list in as the claimed amount. If you had involved lawyer would have been £100+ per hour.

Send it by recorded delivery (keep receipt and staple it to a copy) giving them 21 days to reply, advising otherwise you will file the claim in small claims court (and court fee will be added to claim).

It’s simple process (to do small claim court), hardly unreasonable considering their actions.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,691
Location
Scotland
Does anyone think it would be useful to try for compensation - for inconvenience, distress and time taken to investigate?
It is, but consider that they may claim contributory negligence. They might try to argue that the mistake in the Oyster card number was a 'reasonable' mistake which normally would have been detected by the journey history being completely different - it was only a fluke chance that the incorrect number matched an active card that also had a similar journey pattern. It also would have been detected (and this is the contributory negligence part) had the OP registered their Oyster card.

I'm not personally convinced by this argument, but a court might be and reject the claim or reduce the amount awarded.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
It also would have been detected (and this is the contributory negligence part) had the OP registered their Oyster card.

I'm not personally convinced by this argument
I agree with your view. It might be hard for TfL to argue that not registering the card was in itself negligent, or that a passenger should foresee a problem such as TfL making an error about a number. The card was registered to Jo81's ex-flatmate.

Jo81, it would be understandable if you feel you want to move on. And TfL's writing the number down wrongly would be more to the "normal" end of the scale of mistake rather than gross negligence. However, are TfL correct that the problem was just an error writing down a number? Something else might indicate worse incompetence:

the staff at the underground scanned it with a handheld device and confirmed I had 1 month's travel card on it. but It hadn't been validated for travel, i.e. I hadn't tapped in at Hackney.

A technical breach, but not in itself sensible to prosecute for.

Just to be clear on the facts, are you referring here to top-up rather than the travelcard being loaded?
he didn't check to see if there was money on it

Reporting you might still be justified on the basis that you could have travelled from further away. But if TfL had a record of that scan, or a report of it, and then pursued the case on the wrong basis that it was a standard Oyster, it could be argued that they really should have noticed the discrepancy.

Their "statement of facts" wrongly claimed it was a standard Oyster, when the RPI should perhaps have recorded that from their scan it had a Travelcard. It might be argued that they should have noticed especially given your letter/s telling them, and the bank statement you included.

Also:
Statement from Liverpool Street RPI said:
I came across a female passenger who I now know to be ***, upon request to show a ticket...

Taken together, "came across" and "upon request" do seem to me to misrepresent the fact that you approached staff, though this is a minor point even if worth mentioning.

And:
They haven't recorded ANYTHING I said to them about me having put a monthly travel card on the oyster, or about being let through at Hackney.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
The lack of apology could be linked to a desire to keep this quiet, maybe especially given the involvement of the assembly member. As your story may have the potential to embarrass TfL, you might find you are in quite a strong position for compensation/publicity/further action via your AM, MP, newspaper etc. One thing that may be of wider interest is the amount of trouble you've been put to as a result of TfL's error(s).

I don't want to exaggerate the degree of TfL's culpability. It might be regarded as reasonable for them to assume, at some stages at least, that they had the right number and/or that there was no Travelcard loaded. That may depend on what's in the documents they sent you.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
6,996
UPDATE:
After many weeks of myself and the Assembly Member for my borough contacting TFL and asking them to withdraw the charges against me, I finally received all of their evidence against me. TFL's decision to prosecute me (rather than issue a penalty fine), was based on their "evidence" that I only had a bus and tram pass on my card, and was thus evading fare by trying to use it on a train. Their records also showed the card was used 4 times later that day, and thus they were "satisfied the card was in good working order", contradicting my statement that I couldn't touch in because the card was broken.

I was very confused as I knew I had a Z1-3 travelcard, and I definitely hadn't used it later that day. The records they had printed out showed a lot of bus journeys I didn't recognise. I soon realised that TFL had looked up the wrong oyster data. The inspector had written down my oyster number correctly, but in the process of investigation a digit had been missed off and so they looked at the journey history of a card with an almost identical number. Their entire case was based on a typo!

I informed my assembly member of this who told TFL what had happened and insisted they drop the charges and apologise to me. At first, they refused to acknowledge that any mistakes or inaccuracies had occurred. A couple of days later, I received a letter from TFL telling me "new evidence had arisen" that the oyster number was incorrect and so they have dropped the charges. The letter contained no apology or acknowledgement of their mistake, let alone the weeks of distress their false investigation has caused me.

I'm very pleased this ridiculous nightmare has come to an end, and I'm very grateful to those who suggested speaking to my assembly member as I don't believe I would have received the evidence in good time or that TFL would have properly reviewed the case without the AM representing me.

I'm very disappointed with how TFL have handled this and made me feel like I was guilty when I wasn't. They have treated me appallingly throughout the process. Hope anyone reading this in a similar situation ensures they check all the evidence against them, as who knows how often these errors are happening.

Thanks!

Good news. Pleased to read your AM engaged with this and worked to get TFL to look into this properly - I'd ask for compensation as snow1964 suggests, tho I'd not threaten court action straight away (tho no doubt TfL etc would....), but maybe also ask your helpful AM if they would support your request for reasonable compensation as set out. Or ask your AM (or go direct yourself) to refer it all to London Travelwatch and ask them to make a recommendation to TFL on how they should compensate you.

Always galling when many people would simply want the org to hold up their hands and say 'we got this wrong, very sorry' that they can't even do that. So they should pay up. After all, that's what they expect when their passengers get it wrong (unintentionally or otherwise it would seem) - so perhaps they can do the same.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Taken together, "came across" and "upon request" do seem to me to misrepresent the fact that you approached staff, though this is a minor point even if worth mentioning.

Standard wording for statements, I would not read anything into it.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Standard wording for statements, I would not read anything into it.
Whether it's worth mentioning might depend on the context. For example, if Jo wants or needs to include the TfL statement as part of a complaint, legal case or other communication, she may want to clarify parts of it.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
Well done.

Does anyone think it would be useful to try for compensation - for inconvenience, distress and time taken to investigate?

This is very tricky
The OP has admitted on here that the card they used was registered to their friend so they did not have a valid ticket which means that both parties are at fault.
I just wonder how sensible it would be to "poke the bear"
I personally would be letting this go.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
This is very tricky
The OP has admitted on here that the card they used was registered to their friend so they did not have a valid ticket
She had a valid Travelcard, because the rules allow transfer of a registered card if it is not loaded with a product limited to one person. It makes sense because TfL does not lose any money.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-an-invalid-oyster.196820/page-4#post-4362991


(Edit at 22.28: changed "ticket" to "Travelcard")
 
Last edited:

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,869
She had a valid ticket, because the rules allow transfer of a registered card if it is not loaded with a product limited to one person.
It was loaded with a Travelcard - isn't that a product limited to one person?
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
It was loaded with a Travelcard - isn't that a product limited to one person?

I had understood that transfering oyster cards was limited to PAYG
With a travelcard it is unclear whether the limitation is to the registered owner or the travelcard purchaser. You can't share an Oyster card if it has a travelcard on it, but you can share one if it's using PAYG only, even during the same capping period.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,099
She had a valid ticket, because the rules allow transfer of a registered card if it is not loaded with a product limited to one person. It makes sense because TfL does not lose any money.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-an-invalid-oyster.196820/page-4#post-4362991

I
With a travelcard it is unclear whether the limitation is to the registered owner or the travelcard purchaser. You can't share an Oyster card if it has a travelcard on it, but you can share one if it's using PAYG only, even during the same capping period.

I would not like to be trying to argue this one in court if I were being prosecuted although as there is no photograph then possibly no one cares

Does the "it" in the condition below refer to the Travelcard or the Oyster ?
3.6 The Travelcard on your Oyster card is only valid for use by the person for whom it was issued. You may not transfer your Oyster card containing this Travelcard to anyone else in order to travel with
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I would not like to be trying to argue this one in court if I were being prosecuted ...

Does the "it" in the condition below refer to the Travelcard or the Oyster ?
3.6 The Travelcard on your Oyster card is only valid for use by the person for whom it was issued. You may not transfer your Oyster card containing this Travelcard to anyone else in order to travel with
It means the Travelcard. Shared use of that can cost TfL money; in itself shared use of an Oyster card won't (if it's not loaded with a discount).
 
Last edited:

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
This is very tricky
The OP has admitted on here that the card they used was registered to their friend so they did not have a valid ticket which means that both parties are at fault.
I just wonder how sensible it would be to "poke the bear"
I personally would be letting this go.
Whilst the ticket would (I think) have been valid as long as it was not shared, I agree that it would not be sensible to “poke the bear” and that the OP should move on with lessons learnt.
 
Last edited:

hkstudent

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
1,357
Location
SE London
I

I would not like to be trying to argue this one in court if I were being prosecuted although as there is no photograph then possibly no one cares

Does the "it" in the condition below refer to the Travelcard or the Oyster ?
3.6 The Travelcard on your Oyster card is only valid for use by the person for whom it was issued. You may not transfer your Oyster card containing this Travelcard to anyone else in order to travel with
Actually by reading the post, I feel that the registration of the oyster card happened after the incident and after OP moved away from London, in order to allow OP's housemate to transfer the credit to the new oystercard.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,979
Location
0036
Whilst the ticket would (I think) have been valid as long as it was not shared, I agree that it would not be sensible to “poke the bear” and that the OP should move on with lessons learnt.
It’s been brought to my attention that a prosecution in this case would likely be out of time. If that is the case (I am not sure how it works with SDs) I think I will depart from the above post and suggest instead that pursuing compensation for “distress and inconvenience” will be dependent on how much more effort the OP wishes to dedicate to such pursuit.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,869
Actually by reading the post, I feel that the registration of the oyster card happened after the incident and after OP moved away from London, in order to allow OP's housemate to transfer the credit to the new oystercard.
I was under the impression that a 1-month Travelcard couldn't be added to an unregistered Oyster card. If that's the case it must have been registered prior to the incident.

It’s been brought to my attention that a prosecution in this case would likely be out of time.
How could it be out of time when a Statutory Declaration resets the clock?
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
I was under the impression that a 1-month Travelcard couldn't be added to an unregistered Oyster card. If that's the case it must have been registered prior to the incident.
Not sure when it changed, but 1 month is now the longest duration that can be added to an unregistered Oyster card. Personally I wouldn't even add a weekly to an unregistered card, but I appreciate some people have a different outlook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top