I paid for my journey before hand, yet am being prosecuted !!!!

[Doppelganger]

Anyway, back on identifying RPI’s and I remember the old posters on London buses with a picture of an ID badge saying that some of their ticket inspectors would be in plain clothes, and that “they will identify themselves with the badge shown opposite”.

This needs to be a thing across all travel networks. It should not be a hit and miss affair, where it's left as a guessing game for others to work out who's legit and who isn't.

 

[Scott1]

So we've established the RPI was in uniform with a name badge, and the OP didn't ask for any further ID, just refused to provide any evidence of a fare/tap in etc. I'd just pay the settlement. If it goes to court I would be very surprised if it didn't cost you considerably more. Sorry.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has there ever been a case in this country of a correctly uniformed and name-badged individual on board a train, with a contactless card reader, but not actually a member of revenue staff, fraudulently obtain money by deception?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Has there ever been a case in this country of a correctly uniformed and name-badged individual on board a train, with a contactless card reader, but not actually a member of revenue staff, fraudulently obtain money by deception?

And if they did, the bank not refunding it?

 

[Bald Rick]

And if they did, the bank not refunding it?

Or, given most trains have CCTV, catching the individual and prosecuting?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or, given most trains have CCTV, catching the individual and prosecuting?

Or even just losing their merchant account. That's why nobody is doing the alleged "going round tapping a PDQ machine on peoples' pockets" nonsense, the merchant account wouldn't last a day once people started reporting it. There are far easier ways to grab money than that, such as stealing wallets for cash.

 

[Falcon1200]

If the RPI was genuine and wanted to enforce their assertion that I was travelling without a valid ticket, then would the next step be them summoning BTP ?

At which point when BTP arrive I would present said valid ticket and be on my merry way.

That assumes that the BT Police have an Officer nearby able to join the train during the passenger's journey, and that even if they did, they would be prepared to despatch the Officer to deal with such an issue; IMHO both scenarios are extremely unlikely. And as mentioned above, what could a Police Officer actually do in such a situation - They are not trained or qualified to inspect tickets, or validate the security of an RPI's devices. But of course, RPIs should have a means of clearly establishing their credentials to passengers.

 

[jumble]

I'd be interested to hear how you arrive at that assertion. Some superficial research hasn't revealed a legal definition of what constitutes a ticket in a contactless ticketing system and I doubt that it's an issue that has yet been considered by the courts. The Railway Byelaws of 2005 don't assign a meaning to the word; they merely set out a list of things that are included in the expression.

This is not to say that the OP would be ill advised to accept the settlement that has been offered, as defending a Byelaw 18(2) prosecution (which is what this appears to be) seems unlikely to be straightforward. Nevertheless, the nature of the contactless system is such that I am much less certain than you that a traveller using this method of paying his fare is ever in possession of a ticket capable of being produced to meet the Byelaw 18(2) requirement.

Are you suggesting that anyone who uses contactless could possibly be considered to be breaching of Byelaw 17 (1) if they enter a CTO ?


No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you suggesting that anyone who uses contactless might be in breach of Byelaw 17 (1) if they enter a CTO ?

No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket.

While precedent has its issues, this is a clear case where it would sensibly apply, as the meaning of "ticket" has shifted over the years as tech has developed, and it is obvious to "the man on the Clapham omnibus" that his touched in debit card or phone is clearly analogous to a ticket. That precedent may well not have been set yet if it's not been to a high enough Court, but it seems to me very obvious that it at some point will be, and there is only one logical interpretation.

I suppose if the OP wants to spend a lot of money on solicitors in order to be the person to set said precedent that's for them to decide, but in reality just coughing up and not being so stubborn next time is the sensible advice.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

While precedent has its issues, this is a clear case where it would sensibly apply, as the meaning of "ticket" has shifted over the years as tech has developed, and it is obvious to "the man on the Clapham omnibus" that his touched in debit card or phone is clearly analogous to a ticket. That precedent may well not have been set yet if it's not been to a high enough Court, but it seems to me very obvious that it at some point will be, and there is only one logical interpretation.

I suppose if the OP wants to spend a lot of money on solicitors in order to be the person to set said precedent that's for them to decide, but in reality just coughing up and not being so stubborn next time is the sensible advice.

Is Appendix B of the NRCoT of help?

“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which
entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail
Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by
one or more of the Train Companies. An electronic document
or record may consist of (but not be limited to):
a Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
a payment card or identity card;
a mobile telephone or tablet device;
other mobile electronic device; or
a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank
Card bearing the symbol described in the notices and
publications of the Train Company as being valid for travel on
their services.
Electronic documents or records may not display the same
information as printed Tickets but the conditions for use of
these will explain where this information can be found.
Where you have a road-enabled Mobility Scooter, a Ticket is
also evidence that you are permitted to carry your Mobility
Scooter (where that Mobility Scooter is permitted by the Train
Company's Accessible Travel Policy –for further information
see the Train Company’s mobility scooter policy). If you are
making a journey using a combination of Tickets, each Ticket
must be used in accordance with these Conditions;

Obviously, the NRCoT isn't law - but to me it gives an idea of what the railway might argue in court.

 

[Dai Corner]

Is Appendix B of the NRCoT of help?



Obviously, the NRCoT isn't law - but to me it gives an idea of what the railway might argue in court.

That would certainly appear to mean a record in a database that the contactless card offered has been tapped in but not out would constitute a ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

In Kraków there are signs in all public transport vehicles stating clearly what an inspector will be carrying: a hand held device and ID.

Why can't British public transport operators do something similar? That way it will be very ear to the public what they should expect from a legit ticket check.

I cannot recall a similar case in the UK that’s come to the attention of the forum so I doubt it’s a widespread problem. It’s one of those issues people enjoy making forum posts about for the hypotheticals but which rarely presents itself in real life.

The OP didn’t have a good reason to suspect the person confronting him was a fake RPI or a scammer, because he gave his details to him in the hope things could be resolved some other way.

Has there ever been a case in this country of a correctly uniformed and name-badged individual on board a train, with a contactless card reader, but not actually a member of revenue staff, fraudulently obtain money by deception?

No, but people are bored here and like to argue the toss about it.

 

[Western Sunset]

I think this thread is nearing its destination unless the OP has fresh information. Giving one's name and address to someone you thought was a fraud/imposter, was the clincher for me. Yours, hot and sticky...

 

[choochoochoo]

Or even just losing their merchant account. That's why nobody is doing the alleged "going round tapping a PDQ machine on peoples' pockets" nonsense, the merchant account wouldn't last a day once people started reporting it. There are far easier ways to grab money than that, such as stealing wallets for cash.

Maybe it’s uneducated paranoia, but even if they can’t actually have a merchant account for such purposes, is enough data transmitted/read during a touch in transaction that a card could be cloned ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe it’s uneducated paranoia, but even if they can’t actually have a merchant account for such purposes, is enough data transmitted/read during a touch in transaction that a card could be cloned ?

Yes (well, the card number and expiry date)...but...a cloned card is increasingly no use whatsoever, as you also need the PIN (to use in person) or the 3D Secure info and CVV number (to use online). And if one is cloned the bank will refund any spending. So it's not one to unduly worry about.

If an inspector asked for a PIN to be entered then that'd be a red flag.

 

[Haywain]

Maybe it’s uneducated paranoia, but even if they can’t actually have a merchant account for such purposes, is enough data transmitted/read during a touch in transaction that a card could be cloned ?

Could I refer you to this post on another thread which answers your question quite comprehensively:

While many people are concerned about these devices and people both cloning or making unauthorised transactions from contactless cards, the truth is that it's so unlikely to happen, and if it did, the perpetrators are so easily traced, that it makes it completely unviable for them.

From Visa themselves:

Contactless payments are certainly popular but how secure are they

www.visa.co.uk

 

[dciuk]

Is there a possibility that it was a fake RPI and that the "notice of intention to prosecute" is also fake?

 

[zwk500]

Is there a possibility that it was a fake RPI and that the "notice of intention to prosecute" is also fake?

Never say never, but I'd be astonished if so. It's also really, really easy to check because you can ring up GTR and check the case number with them.

 

[skyhigh]

Is there a possibility that it was a fake RPI and that the "notice of intention to prosecute" is also fake?

This is really going down the rabbit hole now.

 

[Urge38]

I have nothing much further that I can add that will make much off a difference, other than thank you to every one for your help and input.

however I do wish to say to the few people suggesting I could not have had a issue with the inspector if i can my personal details ie name and address, but not willing to tap my card

That's just simply YOUR opinion,
I was sat in this situation, my credit card is something I am very carful with

perhaps that was my problem,

others seem more bla zay about it.

This obviously was not simply a ticket or a Oster card, it is my credit card, I am NOT in the habit of simply handing it over or tapping a device because some one wants me to

as said, that was probably my failing

as also said, my name and address wont see my financially worse off

That how I see it, even if others don't agree, but i wont change being carful with my credit card

 

[AlterEgo]

I have nothing much further that I can add that will make much off a difference, other than thank you to every one for your help and input.

however I do wish to say to the few people suggesting I could not have had a issue with the inspector if i can my personal details ie name and address, but not willing to tap my card

That's just simply YOUR opinion,
I was sat in this situation, my credit card is something I am very carful with

perhaps that was my problem,

others seem more bla zay about it.

This obviously was not simply a ticket or a Oster card, it is my credit card, I am NOT in the habit of simply handing it over or tapping a device because some one wants me to

as said, that was probably my failing

as also said, my name and address wont see my financially worse off

There's quite a lot a fraudster can start doing with your name and address, which is why most reasonable people won't give their name and address out to any old random person in the street.

Regardless of how you feel you handled the situation, unfortunately the way the legal system works is based on what reasonable people of reasonable intelligence might be expected to do. Given that:
- you neither had no reasonable suspicion that the uniformed member of staff asking for your ticket was not genuine
- nor did you ask them for ID, by your own admission
- nor undertake any actions whatsoever to verify if they were genuine
- and that you in fact gave them your personal details,
I would expect any magistrate to simply conclude you were being unreasonable and obstinate. In any event, as it turns out, the RPI was genuine, and you have found yourself in genuine trouble because of it.

People are here to help even if they say things which you might not like or agree with. We can help with giving points of view on how your case might look or find ways of negotiating with the train company. But, to do this, we need you to do things like post redacted copies of the correspondence you've received. This helps the forum deal with matters of fact, and sometimes the train company makes mistakes which we can help with.

All of this said, if you are "not in the habit of tapping a device" to check you tapped in, I do not recommend using Contactless, because you have an absolute legal obligation to do that and if you don't you are committing a criminal offence. You might want to look at Oyster or paper tickets going forward.

 

[MikeWh]

but i wont change being carful with my credit card

That's obviously your prerogative, but if that is the case then you must not use contactless PAYG in London and the South East. The rules say that you must be prepared to tap on an inspector's machine during a journey.

 

[6Gman]

But given that the service provider (in this case the railway) needs to be able to check that the appropriate procedures have been followed if you are so cautious about allowing your credit card to be checked wouldn't it be logical to use an alternative method of payment?

This is in reply to Urge38 post 110, but I see others have made a similar point.

 

[pelli]

Although the OP didn't explicitly request identification, I think the two bits I've bolded below ought to count as implicit requests for identification. It's not completely clear whether the first more explicit one was said out loud, but even the second one should, in my opinion, have resulted in the inspector showing their ID and then offering the OP a last chance to present their card for inspection, before going down the route of taking down details for investigation.

I did explain this to the inspector, I told him the touch in, touch out machines are something I recognise, and am happy to present my credit card to, some person who I've never meet before, nor can show my identification, I am not willing to tap my credit card on a reader I do not recognise.

so I explain I have no way of knowing the card reader is genuine, I explain, I trust the ticket machines/ turnstiles , and have tapped in and I will tape out, he askes if I am refusing to tap his reader, I don't remember saying no, I remember saying that I just have no way off knowing if his reader or he is genuine,

I do not believe a specifically asked to see his identification, I am not verse in these matters, I was arguing that I had no way of knowing he was genuine, He on the other hand made NO attempt to convince me, or to reassure me.

That being said, the OP did fail to hand over their ticket for inspection, and now that a relatively cheap settlement has been offered, it's best to pay up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That how I see it, even if others don't agree, but i wont change being carful with my credit card

Then you should switch to paper tickets, e-tickets or Oyster. However you will need to pay this settlement as the price of that lesson, unfortunately, otherwise going to Court will cost you much more as you've clearly committed an offence.

 

[AlterEgo]

Although the OP didn't explicitly request identification, I think the two bits I've bolded below ought to count as implicit requests for identification. It's not completely clear whether the first more explicit one was said out loud, but even the second one should, in my opinion, have resulted in the inspector showing their ID and then offering the OP a last chance to present their card for inspection, before going down the route of taking down details for investigation.

The OP reckons they said "you can't show me any ID" but also says they didn't ask for it, so only the bodycam will tell us what happened and nobody is suggesting it should get that far. He can of course request it as per a Subject Access Request.

 

[Cowley]

Evening everyone.

We feel like this has probably run its course for now. @Urge38 - If you want to add any further information then contact one of us via the report function or pm and we’ll have a chat about what you’d like to do.

Other than that thanks for your input folks.