Being prosecuted for using pay as you go oyster card belonging to someone else

[CyrusWuff]

You make a good point, but the rules and regulations were not unavailable to them. ,
Maybe just maybe the RPIs were given a copy of the oystercard guide and made to understand the rules and regulations. After all they are employed to enforce them, not make rules up. If that's too difficult for GA, maybe they should withdraw from operating services where oyster can be used. I'm sure another TOC could be found
This was not an anomaly, the card didn't just spontaneously work as an undiscounted adult oyster after expiry. Tfl allowed this to happen and GA really have no excuse for not knowing.

You're giving TfL far too much credit. As far as I'm aware, the only printed information that TfL have explicitly produced for TOC staff regarding Oyster is a credit card sized leaflet that was issued when Oyster was first introduced, and whilst there is a section dedicated to Oyster on KnowledgeBase, that's only accessible if you're connected to a railway LAN/WAN, thus not a lot of use for an RPI.

 

[Skadoosh]

If you wish to consider making a costs application against the company then please drop me and MikeWh a private message through the Conversation function.

Thanks @tspaul26 I would like to, and whatever I get I will give to charity!

 

[MotCO]

Returning to the topic, what changes might have avoided the problem?

Firstly the RPI could have applied a test "Has the company lost money as a result of what I am seeing?" and once satisfied there was no discount or season, that should have been the end of it.

Part of the problem seems to have been conflicting T&Cs issued over the years. Unless the rules are re-written to remove all ambiguities, and issued to anyone who has ever had an Oyster, this will not be resolved; however, this will also not happen. The rules are rarely tested in Court since TOCs back down, and even if they were, I understand that precedents cannot be set in low level Courts.

Having a simple rule as you propose is clear and unamibiguous, and will remove any unfair prosecutions. Will it happen? No, it is too much like common sense and deprives the TOCs of income.

 

[ashkeba]

Words of advice perhaps, that it might be a good idea to replace the card now (was it first generation if issued 12 years ago? - if so, that should have been mentioned) or use contactless to avoid getting delayed by more checks like this one.

Why should all customers spend money replacing cards because RPIs are not trained fully and prosecution departments are pursuing invalid cases?

How would a normal customer know which "generation" their card is?

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Draw the story to the attention of The Guardian, 'Train Company tried to prosecute me for paying the right fare' could be the headline here!

 

[Skadoosh]

Draw the story to the attention of The Guardian, 'Train Company tried to prosecute me for paying the right fare' could be the headline here!

I do wonder what percentage of people were unlawfully taken to court or fined.

Fare dodgers ordered to pay almost £400,000

Fare dodgers were ordered to pay almost £400,000 after Greater Anglia prosecuted people caught riding trains without tickets over a two-month period. More than 1,300 people were prosecuted between 1 December 2019 and 31 January 2020 after they were caught without tickets on Greater Anglia...

www.greateranglia.co.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

How would a normal customer know which "generation" their card is?

It‘s quite easily done IIRC, there’s an additional D symbol on the back of new generation cards. It was explained in the email they sent out a few years ago, but it’s also explained on their website:

First-generation Oyster cards

Information on how to replace first-generation Oyster cards

tfl.gov.uk

 

[najaB]

Firstly the RPI could have applied a test "Has the company lost money as a result of what I am seeing?" and once satisfied there was no discount or season, that should have been the end of it

I have some sympathy for the RPI since there aren't many products which bear a photo and that can be used by someone else. There's no excuse for matters to have proceeded any further once it reached the back office team though.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@najaB Exactly. It is perhaps not "right" that on-the-ground staff are ill-informed but one can to a degree excuse, say, a rare event catching them out. The material "fault" in this affair lies after that initial encounter was concluded. The escalation route - the processing of the paper/reports made out by the front-liner is where a 100% watertight validity check should be taking place, and any that were detected wrongly (or even, ambiguously) should be ALWAYS summarily rejected.

Sadly it seems that at least too often, and possibly always, the enfocrement process simply assumes the front-liner was right in the first place and performs no validation. I suspect it would take a financial penalty to be applied on the TOC and/or enforcement company, every time, before they will begin to take notice, though. High time it cost them (when they are wrong) at least the same as it costs you (when you are wrong).

 

[miami]

Far better to let 10 guilty fare evaders go free than to prosecute one innocent one. Far better to admit your not sure than to pretend your sure and be wrong.

Even setting aside the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, there are grave personal penalties if the passenger believes they had a valid ticket, but is wrong (not just monetary, but criminal)

There are no personal penalties if the person making the accusation is wrong (maybe some legal costs for the company which are ultimately borne by the passegner)

This is a massive disparity in the playing field, the presumption of guilt at the passenger. I've been accused of fare dodging while holding a valid ticket in the past, the guard was wrong, but wouldn't admit it (despite me pointing to the exact clause in the ticket conditions). He called for supervisor on arrival at euston "who is always right", who was wrong, and the first appeal was rejected immediately. It was only once I raised it on this forum that I had a spontaneous "oh actually you're right, no harm, no foul" email. I've been denied boarding many times at Euston with a valid ticket, again there's no comeback.

This is a niche forum, it's likely 99% of people who have valid tickets but are accused do not visit this forum, so the current calculus is:
* We ask for 100x£150 settlements from people who are not guilty of anything, even technically.
* 99 will pay up, netting £14,850
* The other one will see through it and we won't get that £150, but we might have to pay for a couple of stamps.

The only way for this to change is to make the penality for falsely accusing someone should be far higher than the money made, just like the penalty for having a slightly wrong ticket that was just 10p cheaper can run into the hundreds. 100 times the amount originally requested seems a fair number, that ensures that "mistakes" will be kept below 1%.

If these mistakes are rare (1 in 10,000), there's no harm in it. If the mistakes are frequent (1 in 10) it would be unaffordable.

 

[matt_world2004]

Even setting aside the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, there are grave personal penalties if the passenger believes they had a valid ticket, but is wrong (not just monetary, but criminal)

There are no personal penalties if the person making the accusation is wrong (maybe some legal costs for the company which are ultimately borne by the passegner)

This is a massive disparity in the playing field, the presumption of guilt at the passenger. I've been accused of fare dodging while holding a valid ticket in the past, the guard was wrong, but wouldn't admit it (despite me pointing to the exact clause in the ticket conditions). He called for supervisor on arrival at euston "who is always right", who was wrong, and the first appeal was rejected immediately. It was only once I raised it on this forum that I had a spontaneous "oh actually you're right, no harm, no foul" email. I've been denied boarding many times at Euston with a valid ticket, again there's no comeback.

This is a niche forum, it's likely 99% of people who have valid tickets but are accused do not visit this forum, so the current calculus is:
* We ask for 100x£150 settlements from people who are not guilty of anything, even technically.
* 99 will pay up, netting £14,850
* The other one will see through it and we won't get that £150, but we might have to pay for a couple of stamps.

The only way for this to change is to make the penality for falsely accusing someone should be far higher than the money made, just like the penalty for having a slightly wrong ticket that was just 10p cheaper can run into the hundreds. 100 times the amount originally requested seems a fair number, that ensures that "mistakes" will be kept below 1%.

If these mistakes are rare (1 in 10,000), there's no harm in it. If the mistakes are frequent (1 in 10) it would be unaffordable.

It causes the person on the recieving end a considerable amount of stress and anxiety when they are wrongly accused of fair evasion.if accusing someone of committing a crime. Probably best to make sure a crime has actually taken place.

 

[35B]

What happens if someone is actually defrauding the Post Office now?

If you go after the wrong people, when the right people come along, you may be in a weaker position due to past performance.

The Post Office might have a branch accounting system with integrity that would produce information of evidential value.

 

[yorkie]

Interesting comparison with the Post Office; I can see why the comparison was worth making. But any further post office discussion is best made in a new thread please

Thanks @tspaul26 I would like to, and whatever I get I will give to charity!

I hope you do take up this kind offer by @tspaul26
(I can vouch for @tspaul26's authenticity!)

 

[robbeech]

Had Skadoosh never come to this forum it's likely he'd end up with £150 taken off him, or even a criminal conviction.

Having the case dismissed is surely only the first step in righting the problem. For every Skadoosh, there are 50 more who will just pay the money

Just to bring back this post

Sadly, i have to agree, although i'm not sure whether the figures are accurate (either way) but the concept is certainly accurate. And of course this is what they rely on. As always i'm not suggesting they've deliberately mis-trained people for situations like this in order to increase profits, but the fact that their profits will be higher due to this shortfall in knowledge is convenient to say the very least.

That's because this is intended to be money-making scheme operated by a train company. They apply no public interest test, and aren't obliged to. Extremely disproportionate charges are highly profitable when they scare the life out of people (including people who haven't actually done a thing that was unlawful) and convince them to hand unscrupulous businesses massive settlements. This is all TOCs want.

Again, i'm not wholly convinced it is set up in a way to make money, but they've saved money by providing inadequate training to staff, and the result is higher levels of revenue when staff wrongly accuse innocent people, most of which will just pay up. There is no incentive for the TOC to change this as it means a "double" cost, cost to train staff, followed by reduced revenue from newly trained staff no longer incorrectly extracting additional money from passengers.

There are very few people who fit this description, and the TOCs are not always the best places for them to work.

Alas, it is not in the interest of an operator who is making money from incorrectly charging passengers additional fees to employ anyone with the correct knowledge. This will reduce revenue, and there is a risk that other staff will be told of their wrong doing.

A costs application for £150 sounds eminently reasonable - a kind of poetic justice if ever there was.....

Personally i'd consider making it £151, but that's just the way my mind works.

I do wonder what percentage of people were unlawfully taken to court or fined.

Fare dodgers ordered to pay almost £400,000

Fare dodgers were ordered to pay almost £400,000 after Greater Anglia prosecuted people caught riding trains without tickets over a two-month period. More than 1,300 people were prosecuted between 1 December 2019 and 31 January 2020 after they were caught without tickets on Greater Anglia...

www.greateranglia.co.uk

I would assume it is a tiny fraction of a percent, low in the grand scheme of things, low enough for it not to be on the radar of anyone that can do anything about it (internally or externally), but high enough for it to be worth letting it tickover.


All in all, i'm very happy to see that this was resolved with a certain amount of ease in the end. It's £150 and time in court you don't have to worry about now. Of course, a cynic would liken this a little to the raffle prize scenario* and you're just one of the "refunds", and there will sadly be more. I assume the matter is closed for yourself, and the matter is closed internally for them. No training will be given, the person who issued this will NOT be given training for this, and, unless they've read this thread, they likely won't even know there has been a dispute over it. Why spend time and waste money telling them to make less money for their employer? I must say, i appreciate everyone is very different and some (like me) can find themselves with too much time on their hands (ignoring the obvious situation at the moment). I would fully understand someone not wanting any further hassle, but i'd be using that card again.



*A raffle is set up at £20 per ticket with the prize being a very expensive item (such as a holiday or a new car). People enter, the winner is picked and they write in to claim their prize, the prize doesn't exist, and they blame a clerical error, or some other excuse. They apologies for any inconvenience and give that person their £20 back plus a free entry into the next draw.

 

[SteveM70]

I would assume it is a tiny fraction of a percent, low in the grand scheme of things, low enough for it not to be on the radar of anyone that can do anything about it (internally or externally), but high enough for it to be worth letting it tickover

But that’s all it can ever be - an assumption. These are all individuals unconnected with one another, and the vast majority with no voice because they pay up. As long as that is the case, they can’t appear on anyone’s radar

 

[robbeech]

But that’s all it can ever be - an assumption. These are all individuals unconnected with one another, and the vast majority with no voice because they pay up. As long as that is the case, they can’t appear on anyone’s radar

Which again, works really well in favour of the TOC.

 

[philthetube]

It might help to include a link to this thread, and suggest that being to post a satisfactory resolution would look good for them.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

Clearly GA made a complete mess of this one, but let's add a note of caution: the vast majority of cases that TOCs pursue through out of court settlement/prosecution are much simpler ie. passenger has no ticket and, mostly, has not made a realistic attempt to get one or, more exceptionally, has refused to provide details in order to be PFed. Presumably most forum members think this is what TOCs should be doing whilst they also rigorously check that they had a legal case in the more unusual situations that arise (such as this one)?

 

[robbeech]

Clearly GA made a complete mess of this one, but let's add a note of caution: the vast majority of cases that TOCs pursue through out of court settlement/prosecution are much simpler ie. passenger has no ticket and, mostly, has not made a realistic attempt to get one or, more exceptionally, has refused to provide details in order to be PFed. Presumably most forum members think this is what TOCs should be doing whilst they also rigorously check that they had a legal case in the more unusual situations that arise (such as this one)?

The opinion of most on this forum i would assume is that passengers should have a valid ticket for travel, and that those that do not should be dealt with accordingly. Their opinion on staff is likely to be that they should have the correct knowledge to do their job so situations like this never arise. Of course, in reality we know the complexity of the rules make this impossible but it at least USED to be the case that if you were not sure, you should ask someone who does know, or give the passenger the benefit of the doubt and make a personal note to find out the correct answer for next time that situation presents itself. This isn't as financially rewarding for the operator so this attitude isn't taught in at least 1 operator and possibly others. Infact with another operator, based up north, they are told to charge another ticket if they're not sure and let the passenger deal with it afterwards if they feel they've been unfairly treated/charged. With this attitude there's little wonder that operators are looked at in a bad light.

 

[najaB]

Infact with another operator, based up north, they are told to charge another ticket if they're not sure and let the passenger deal with it afterwards if they feel they've been unfairly treated/charged. With this attitude there's little wonder that operators are looked at in a bad light.

I don't agree with this approach, but it does at least make it difficult to suggest that the passenger has evaded paying their fare.

Where I might agree with it would be if the passenger was reimbursed more than the additional fare they were charged - say 125%. It would certainly provide an incentive to the TOC to make sure that they were doing things correctly.

 

[miami]

If you make a mistake and travel on a £4 fare rather than a £5 fare, Northern charge you £84 for the whole journey - for the first offence

If Northern make a mistake charging a £5 fare rather than a £4 fare you're suggesting they pay you 25p compensation - for the first offense?

 

[robbeech]

I don't agree with this approach, but it does at least make it difficult to suggest that the passenger has evaded paying their fare.

Where I might agree with it would be if the passenger was reimbursed more than the additional fare they were charged - say 125%. It would certainly provide an incentive to the TOC to make sure that they were doing things correctly.

Officially allowing this would spiral out of control quite quickly, as such a small number of people realise they've been overcharged when it happens, and only a small number of them will actually do something about it (either as they haven't the time, it can take weeks to resolve, or because they know they've been overcharged but don't really know how to go about it, or they've been fobbed off initially by the operator, another skill many excel in, almost as if it's been taught). There will always be a range of staff attitudes, but we do seem to hear more and more attitudes biased towards maximum revenue. Have staff turned horrible in the last few years or have they perhaps received "different" training?

If the operator was penalised financially in an almost absurd manner for repeat offences of this type of behaviour then the problem would go away and passengers would be overcharged. If we increased the penalty for DELIBERATE fare evasions too and enforced this more, and increased ticket checks further* then we could potentially see this reduce to see some form of balance.


* I appreciate the situation is very different at the moment but this topic was about a situation in "normal times".

 

[matt_world2004]

I think passengers should recieve £80 + double whatever they are charged for every incorrect penalty fare/ prosecution attempt plus their legal costs if it gets that far

 

[WesternLancer]

A more general problem is a failure to recognize that if you create a complex 'product' - in this case a complex fare structure as per the UK rail network - then you have a cost associated with that in terms of training to issue and police such a system. There seems little recognition of this factor.

I often think of a comparison is with say fast food restaurant versus full menu restaurant. The former is cheap because you do not employ trained chefs and you provide a simple, limited range of items that can be provided by simple on the job brief training. A full menu restaurant needs skilled chefs that cost more to employ.

 

[robbeech]

A more general problem is a failure to recognize that if you create a complex 'product' - in this case a complex fare structure as per the UK rail network - then you have a cost associated with that in terms of training to issue and police such a system. There seems little recognition of this factor.

This is true, but by not having systems in place to deal with it, it's only the passenger that suffers, and here is the problem. The operators don't suffer so why change. If someone said, you can pay £1000 and have £10,000 knocked off your salary, it's unlikely anyone would take up that offer.

 

[WesternLancer]

This is true, but by not having systems in place to deal with it, it's only the passenger that suffers, and here is the problem. The operators don't suffer so why change. If someone said, you can pay £1000 and have £10,000 knocked off your salary, it's unlikely anyone would take up that offer.

Point well made.

 

[najaB]

If you make a mistake and travel on a £4 fare rather than a £5 fare, Northern charge you £84 for the whole journey - for the first offence

If Northern make a mistake charging a £5 fare rather than a £4 fare you're suggesting they pay you 25p compensation - for the first offense?

If you make a mistake and travel on a £4 fare rather than a £5 then you pay the £5 that you should have paid, so £9 in total.
If Northern make a mistake and charge you £5 on top of the £4 that you should have paid, Northern reimburse you £6.25, meaning that you end up paying £3.75

I never mentioned £80 so I'd appreciate you not putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

 

[robbeech]

If you make a mistake and travel on a £4 fare rather than a £5 then you pay the £5 that you should have paid, so £9 in total.
If Northern make a mistake and charge you £5 on top of the £4 that you should have paid, Northern reimburse you £6.25, meaning that you end up paying £3.75

I never mentioned £80 so I'd appreciate you not putting your words in my mouth. Thanks.

I think their point is that if you travel on a £4 ticket instead of a £5 ticket you'll often NOT be allowed to pay the £5 fare (£9 in total), you'll be sent a letter with a settlement of what can often be £80. And THIS, would even be the case where your £4 was valid but the guard didn't believe this to be so, for whatever reason.

 

[miami]

Indeed, the first line is reality - northern's "penalty fakes" have been posted about many times. Your fine is about 80 times the value of the extra savings you make if not caught. You have to be caught about 1% of the time to not make a profit.

My understanding was that najaB was suggesting that northern's "fine" for getting it wrong should be 25p, 1/4 of the extra profit they make. They would have to be caught 80% of the time to not make a profit. I read it a couple of times, and it seems that I've understood correctly.

If all things were equal surely the money that northern have to pay for making their first mistake would be about 80 times the extra profit they make? For second offenses then it should increase exponentially.

Of course things aren't equal, and Northern have far more power (including the inability for any individual to be found guilty of a crime), so a more equitable solution would have Northern with higher penalties from the start

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed, the first line is reality - northern's "penalty fakes" have been posted about many times. Your fine is about 80 times the value of the extra savings you make if not caught. You have to be caught about 1% of the time to not make a profit.

My understanding was that najaB was suggesting that northern's "fine" for getting it wrong should be 25p, 1/4 of the extra profit they make. They would have to be caught 80% of the time to not make a profit. I read it a couple of times, and it seems that I've understood correctly.

If all things were equal surely the money that northern have to pay for making their first mistake would be about 80 times the extra profit they make? For second offenses then it should increase exponentially.

Of course things aren't equal, and Northern have far more power (including the inability for any individual to be found guilty of a crime), so a more equitable solution would have Northern with higher penalties from the start

Any truly equitable system would see penalties being made relative to annual income, just like Court fines. So if Northern make £739m of revenue in a year, and an average passenger earns £25,000, any penalty on Northern would be approximately 30,000× greater on them.

Of course, that's not how the system works.