Govia Prosecutions Department penalty.

[MotCO]

If the allegation before the settlement was "intent to avoid a fare", perhaps GTR just acted on suspicion rather than because they could point to any specific breach of conditions.

But GTR can only prove that on the day in question the OP travelled via Clapham Junction since that was where they apprehended the OP. The OP could have travelled via Twickenham and Kingston, so how could GTR prove to the contrary?

 

[some bloke]

But GTR can only prove that on the day in question the OP travelled via Clapham Junction since that was where they apprehended the OP. The OP could have travelled via Twickenham and Kingston, so how could GTR prove to the contrary?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to other days @Koulou's wife travelled? She told GTR she had gone via Clapham before.

 

[Koulou]

OP = Original Poster i.e. you.

That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying it. Unfortunately, I am not a native speaker and although my English is OK, I still struggle with abbreviations like this one.

On this bases, yes, the "OP" (actually the OP's wife ) was. caught in Clapham Junction, but she did have PAYG balance available on her Oyster card, which means that she did have a valid ticket for that trip. Otherwise, everyone who doesn't have a travel card doesn't have a valid ticket.

Yes, maybe the system is designed to work differently for Travelcards, to let holders make journeys without going outside the specified zones. TfL wouldn't want someone with a 3-6 card and no PAYG credit to be penalised for going via Twickenham.

If that's the explanation, then we might reasonably expect no charge for changing outside the Zones.

If the allegation before the settlement was "intent to avoid a fare", perhaps GTR just acted on suspicion rather than even kind-of-reasonable grounds for believing there was a specific breach of conditions.

Unfortunately, all these are just assumptions. I hope the final outcome of this case will be based on actual/reasonable grounds instead of suspicions.

But GTR can only prove that on the day in question the OP travelled via Clapham Junction since that was where they apprehended the OP. The OP could have travelled via Twickenham and Kingston, so how could GTR prove to the contrary?

As mentioned above, the fact that the OP's wife had PAYG balance available on her Oyster card means that she did have a valid ticket for that journey, even though she was in a station outside the zones covered by the travel card.

Again, thank you all for the interest and the valuable help.

At this point, I feel pretty confident that even if the charge for the missing fares remains (although the fact that my wife wasn't being charged is basically a mistake of their system), the penalty for her not having a valid ticket for the journeys should be removed, because the available PAYG balance is definitely a "valid ticket".

I will keep you updated on whatever happens next.

Cheers

 

[MikeWh]

I believe it is possible to go from Feltham to Earlsfield on SWR without going through Clapham Junction (i.e. via Twickenham and Kingston). Is this why Oyster is not charging for a Zone 2 change at Clapham Junction?

Quite possibly.

'Their officers' caught the OP at Clapham Junction.

If we're being specific, officers of another TOC with reciprocal revenue rights stopped the OP's wife at Clapham Junction. They are going way beyond their remit by attempting to adjust valid deductions by the Oyster system because they "think" it is wrong. The correct action would have been to have taken details of the Oyster card number and internally investigate with TfL what is being charged. Given that the journey was wholly with another TOC I believe that that TOC should be the one having the conversation with TfL, especially as they may already be aware that the system is charging correctly.

Yes, maybe the system is designed to work differently for Travelcards, to let holders make journeys without going outside the specified zones. TfL wouldn't want someone with a 3-6 card and no PAYG credit to be penalised for going via Twickenham.

There is definitely a separate charging table where travelcards are held. My understanding is that a lot of the differences have been removed in the last 3-4 years (hence why people with non zone 1 travelcards now have to touch pink readers), but some differences still remain. This particular one may be deliberate.

 

[LA50041]

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses, the interest and the willingness to help.



Here is a copy of the last letter my wife has received regarding this case. This letter was sent only after she asked for a formal form regarding the penalty she is requested to pay.

As you can see, the "formal" copy has an electronic signature, but again, no name. Also, the amount of the penalty is yet not analysed. Neither the emails nor the two letters she has received have the name of the sender.

Checking the address of the Govia Prosecutions Department and the phone numbers provided for the phone payment, the letter seems to be legit, but the lack of names and precise data certifying the amount of the penalty make it look suspicious. Considering also the available methods of payment, this becomes even worse. Last but not least, I would expect the payment of a valid penalty to include a deadline for the payment.



The staff member who interviewed my wife did show an ID that looked plausible. It is correct that they did write some paperwork first when she was initially stopped by the Govia officer for the check and during the interview. My wife sinned both of them, but she wasn't provided with a copy of the paperwork.

Even if the fact that that Govia don't have a safe method for payment is not surprising, the fact that the provided payment methods are completely insecure for the customer/payor is not acceptable. None of these two methods provides proof of the reason for the payment and that is the reason why they are widely used for scams. Nowadays, paying over the phone or with Postal Orders shouldn't be accepted by the payor for security reasons.



Thank you very much for the advice, @some bloke. I am in contact with @MikeWh regarding the next step in this case. Your advice makes total sense, it will be certainly considered and it is highly appreciated.

Again, thank you all for the help, advice and willingness to help.

Cheers

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The grammar isn’t great, and the address is wrong. Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses, the interest and the willingness to help.



Here is a copy of the last letter my wife has received regarding this case. This letter was sent only after she asked for a formal form regarding the penalty she is requested to pay.

As you can see, the "formal" copy has an electronic signature, but again, no name. Also, the amount of the penalty is yet not analysed. Neither the emails nor the two letters she has received have the name of the sender.

Checking the address of the Govia Prosecutions Department and the phone numbers provided for the phone payment, the letter seems to be legit, but the lack of names and precise data certifying the amount of the penalty make it look suspicious. Considering also the available methods of payment, this becomes even worse. Last but not least, I would expect the payment of a valid penalty to include a deadline for the payment.



The staff member who interviewed my wife did show an ID that looked plausible. It is correct that they did write some paperwork first when she was initially stopped by the Govia officer for the check and during the interview. My wife sinned both of them, but she wasn't provided with a copy of the paperwork.

Even if the fact that that Govia don't have a safe method for payment is not surprising, the fact that the provided payment methods are completely insecure for the customer/payor is not acceptable. None of these two methods provides proof of the reason for the payment and that is the reason why they are widely used for scams. Nowadays, paying over the phone or with Postal Orders shouldn't be accepted by the payor for security reasons.



Thank you very much for the advice, @some bloke. I am in contact with @MikeWh regarding the next step in this case. Your advice makes total sense, it will be certainly considered and it is highly appreciated.

Again, thank you all for the help, advice and willingness to help.

Cheers

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The address is wrong. The Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

 

[Llanigraham]

As you can see, the "formal" copy has an electronic signature, but again, no name. Also, the amount of the penalty is yet not analysed. Neither the emails nor the two letters she has received have the name of the sender.

That is perfectly normal in many areas, and is done to stop people tracing those that do work in this sector and harrasing them. There is nothing sinister about it.

 

[hkstudent]

Quite possibly.

If we're being specific, officers of another TOC with reciprocal revenue rights stopped the OP's wife at Clapham Junction. They are going way beyond their remit by attempting to adjust valid deductions by the Oyster system because they "think" it is wrong. The correct action would have been to have taken details of the Oyster card number and internally investigate with TfL what is being charged. Given that the journey was wholly with another TOC I believe that that TOC should be the one having the conversation with TfL, especially as they may already be aware that the system is charging correctly.

There is definitely a separate charging table where travelcards are held. My understanding is that a lot of the differences have been removed in the last 3-4 years (hence why people with non zone 1 travelcards now have to touch pink readers), but some differences still remain. This particular one may be deliberate.

Very likely, given that requiring the passenger to tap pink oyster (a purposely installed one) at New Malden / Kingston would delay the journey of passengers, given that there is a direct journey from Earlsfield to Twickenham via Kingston.
Of course, making Earlsfield - Putney line stations to be via Clapham Junction by default would be another backslash in fare system, just like this case of North Acton - Parsons Green charged via zone 1 for having zone 2-3 travelcard (a post in MoneysavingExpert)

 

[Vespa]

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The grammar isn’t great, and the address is wrong. Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The address is wrong. The Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

Maybe its time to involve the transport police in this, we could be looking at potentially corrupt staff trying to tap ignorant passenger for money ?

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Koulou]

Thank you all again all for your valuable help!

The more I investigate into this case, the more suspicious it looks.

As far as I can see on the Thameslink website (here https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/h...-us/faqs/penalty-fares-and-revenue-protection) they don't have payment over the phone as an option for penalty fare payment. Here are the available options:

You should pay the penalty fare when it's issued. You can pay the inspector or the ticket office at your destination with:

cash
Visa
MasterCard
American Express
Maestro
Delta cards
We don't accept Solo or Electron cards.

If you don't have the full amount, then you will be allowed to make a part payment of at least the single fare for your journey. You then have 21 days to pay the balance by;

Sending a cheque or postal order to the payment address on the notice (with the notice included). Please do not send cash through the post.
Paying online at epfn.penaltyfares.co.uk

Surprisingly, Govia hasn't provided the above options (apart from the postal order), and no Notice Number has ever been provided.

Thanks again!

 

[MikeWh]

This isn't actually a penalty fare, which is a specific tool to correct a one-off irregularity.

 

[Saperstein]

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The grammar isn’t great, and the address is wrong. Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

Something doesn’t look right about that letter. The address is wrong. The Prosecution department haven’t been at East side offices for over 2 years so why would they ask you to send remittance there?

Could they be using old stationary? I remembered a posting from last month about another GTR matter involving a sixteen-year-old at Crawley and went back to look at the letter posted there and it is giving the same Kings x address.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ion-ticket-by-thameslink.200684/#post-4447523

Post #10

 

[Haywain]

Thank you all again all for your valuable help!

The more I investigate into this case, the more suspicious it looks.

As far as I can see on the Thameslink website (here https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/h...-us/faqs/penalty-fares-and-revenue-protection) they don't have payment over the phone as an option for penalty fare payment. Here are the available options:



Surprisingly, Govia hasn't provided the above options (apart from the postal order), and no Notice Number has ever been provided.

Thanks again!

That’s because your wife has not been issued with a Penalty Fare.

 

[MikeWh]

Of course, making Earlsfield - Putney line stations to be via Clapham Junction by default would be another backslash in fare system

It's only Feltham that's a problem. All other stations will be set as zones 2-3/4/5 and if you go the other way you'd pay the same price as zone 6 would take the place of zone 2.

just like this case of North Acton - Parsons Green charged via zone 1 for having zone 2-3 travelcard (a post in MoneysavingExpert)

Have you a link to the post? You don't get charged for zone 1 if you touch the pink reader at West Brompton when changing from Overground to District line.

 

[hkstudent]

It's only Feltham that's a problem. All other stations will be set as zones 2-3/4/5 and if you go the other way you'd pay the same price as zone 6 would take the place of zone 2.

Have you a link to the post? You don't get charged for zone 1 if you touch the pink reader at West Brompton when changing from Overground to District line.

A pretty old post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3500107/zone-1-charged-using-zone-2-and-3

The OP wanted to get to Parsons Green via Ealing Broadway, which is pretty common for many Londoners thinking of Underground is the only feasible way (not even London Overground / TfL Rail)

 

[MotCO]

Could they be using old stationary? I remembered a posting from last month about another GTR matter involving a sixteen-year-old at Crawley and went back to look at the letter posted there and it is giving the same Kings x address.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ion-ticket-by-thameslink.200684/#post-4447523

Post #10

Or could it be a scam by the same person? The signatures look alike. Is it worth contacting GTR at a known official address to confirm that their operatives were at Clapham Junction at the time the OP's wife was caught?

 

[MikeWh]

A pretty old post:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3500107/zone-1-charged-using-zone-2-and-3

The OP wanted to get to Parsons Green via Ealing Broadway, which is pretty common for many Londoners thinking of Underground is the only feasible way (not even London Overground / TfL Rail)

Wow, so much wrong info there. No point correcting it now though. They got the right answer in the end.

 

[packermac]

I am very confused by this case.
The TFL Journey Planner gives via Clapham Junction as the routing to Feltham.
The single fare finder does not as in some cases (say Hayes and Harlington to Sutton) offer a cheaper via an alternative Pink Reader route, in fact in this example it offers two, one of which is via CJ, so how is any passenger supposed to know the route offered for Earlsfield to Feltham by TFL is in fact invalid?, or is it purely a season ticket issue?

 

[Realfish]

I am very confused by this case.
The TFL Journey Planner gives via Clapham Junction as the routing to Feltham.

As does the NRE, which pulls through to the season ticket calculator, at the monthly prices described above. It would seem that the OP's wife owes nothing.

 

[Hadders]

No offence has been committed by the OP’s wife and GTR should drop the case.

As I indicated further upthread GTR were caught out in an almost identical case last summer.

 

[jumble]

I think that some of the advice to the OP may be complicating matters and not be very effective
( eg asking GTR to contact TFL)

I believe the OP might consider adopting the tactics which would be used by a good barrister by requesting a straightforward YES/NO answer to the following question

To TFL customer complaints
I have a 3 to 6 Oyster travelcard with £10.00 PAYG available and I wish to travel from Earlsfield to Feltham and on the way I wish to meet a friend for coffee at one of the Platform cafes at Clapham Junction
Am I doing anything wrong if I only tap in at the start of my journey and out at the end of my journey ?

TO GTR prosecution dept the same question but adding
I have sent the same question to TFL who manage Oyster on your behalf and trust that you will take care to ensure that your answer will be the same as theirs

If GTR either do not answer or disagree with TFL you will be in a much stronger place to take the next step by reporting fraudulent behaviour to BTP

Jumble

 

[Koulou]

Hey folks,

FYI after @MikeWh emailed the Govia prosecutions department they proceeded with wiving the penalty, which was unfair and against the Oyster on National Rail conditions.

I really want to thank each one of you for your help and interest in this case, but most of all I want to thank @MikeWh again. That guy is a treasure!

Take care of yourselves during the COVID madness, guys!

All the very best!
AK

 

[MotCO]

Thanks for letting us know the outcome. I'm glad you got the right result

 

[WesternLancer]

Hey folks,

FYI after @MikeWh emailed the Govia prosecutions department they proceeded with wiving the penalty, which was unfair and against the Oyster on National Rail conditions.

I really want to thank each one of you for your help and interest in this case, but most of all I want to thank @MikeWh again. That guy is a treasure!

Take care of yourselves during the COVID madness, guys!

All the very best!
AK

Good to hear - thanks for update and all the best to you and your family

 

[strawbrick]

A fascinating story with a good outcome!

I would be interested to know why Govia dropped the prosecution. Was it a "without prejudice" withdrawal or did they admit they had got it wrong? If the later, have they said what they are doing to stop it happening again?

A final thought, if they got it wrong will they be refunding all the previous improper charges?

 

[Hadders]

An excellent outcome.

Rather concerning that GTR have failed, once again, to understand how Oyster works and had it not have been for the intervention of forum members an innocent passenger could have ended up being prosecuted.

This isn’t the first time that GTR have been found wanting in this area...

 

[MikeWh]

A fascinating story with a good outcome!

I would be interested to know why Govia dropped the prosecution. Was it a "without prejudice" withdrawal or did they admit they had got it wrong? If the later, have they said what they are doing to stop it happening again?

A final thought, if they got it wrong will they be refunding all the previous improper charges?

They dropped the case because they had a call from TfL telling them that no fares had been dodged. I'm not sure what you mean about previous improper charges.

 

[Vespa]

I would be making an official complaint with the stress they putting you through, I would also be bringing in the Railway Ombundman and demand compensation for the hassle.

 

[WesternLancer]

They dropped the case because they had a call from TfL telling them that no fares had been dodged. I'm not sure what you mean about previous improper charges.

I'm assuming it referred to any other people GTR had 'caught' and imposed a penalty on for similar use of a ticket (correctly used but GTR staff deemed the ticket holder had to pay a penalty/fine/settlement etc and who just paid up - as the OP might have done had they not come to this forum for advice).

Looking back at the OP 1st post it was more about 'is this a scam demand for money from an impersonator?' type question, not 'was this ticket really invalid?' question.

Has GTR provided wider range of payment options it is poss the OP's concerns would not have been arisen and they would have simply paid up.

So I guess that question is how many others have done so and what is GTR doing about tracing them and refunding.

 

[strawbrick]

I'm assuming it referred to any other people GTR had 'caught' and imposed a penalty on for similar use of a ticket (correctly used by GTR staff deemed the ticket holder had to pay a penalty/fine/settlement etc and who juts paid up - as the OP might have done had they not come to this forum for advice).

Looking back at the OP 1st post it was more about 'is this a scam demand for money from an impersonator?' type question, not 'was this ticket really invalid?' question.

Has GTR provided wider range of payment options it is poss the OP's concerns would not have been arisen and they would have simply paid up.

So I guess that question is how many others have done so and what is GTR doing about tracing them and refunding.

Exactly! How many times have GTR done this before and how are they going to refund the money they have fraudulently taken?

 

[Koulou]

Hey team,

Unfortunately, this case isn't over. Actually, the news is bad.

Three months after the last update from the Govia Prosecutions Department mentioning that the case had been marked for no further action, my wife received a letter from the Central London Magistrates' Court notifying her that she has to attend a hearing for this incident. I don't understand why she is requested to attend a hearing at the court for a case which had been marked for no further action. It is at least frustrating! If the case hadn't been closed, according to Govia Procesutions Department, we wouldn't have left it. To make it even weirder, the letter mentions that the case has been adjourned, although it is the first letter my wife ever receives from the Court.

We are currently investigating the best step forward. It is a very sad story. None of us has ever been to the courts, which makes it really stressful, in addition to the time (and probably money) we have to spend on this case.