bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,162
The dashed line encloses the Oyster PAYG area and stations covered, so those outside are not included.
Seems pretty definitive to me.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
intention to prosecute
- Thread starter feefee
- Start date
- Status
The dashed line encloses the Oyster PAYG area and stations covered, so those outside are not included.
Seems pretty definitive to me.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
ian959
Member
I live the other side of the world and I know that if I go to London there are maps everywhere on the Underground that tell me where the Oyster is valid. Why is that so hard for someone living there to know and understand?
Please do not interrogate my writing
when i wrote to the rail company, best believe it was done appropriately
however im nt writing a letter to you, im typing on a forum from my phone. so i apologise if you cnt understand.
lastly i travel to hertfordshire by a coach not a train.
anyways this conversation is spinning away from my situation and irrelevant things are being brought up.
so again i will update this thread once i receive a letter.
I was not "interrogating your writing", I was trying to give good advice. I apologise it seems to have come too late as you have already sent your letter.
The forum rules here do ask people to use intelligible, proper sentences on here too - though that's not for me to enforce.
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=27358
Mojo said:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,162
Deerfold is correct. We do require that forum members who wish to take part in discussions in the long run at least make an effort on spelling and grammar to ensure that their posts are legible. We do not allow "text speak".
He was not "interrogating your writing" as it is certainly not a useless piece of advice. Your posts are not the easiest to read, and making an effort to use the correct spelling and grammar in your communication with the train company shows that at least you are taking this matter seriously.
If my memory serves, a few years ago TfL changed the layout of this map (previously called the London Connections map) to include only stations inside the Oyster PAYG area as it was alleged that the old map was causing confusion, since it showed a few stations immediately outside the area on each line too.
And that genuine mistake has a penalty attached to it!
As you travelled without a valid ticket that is exactly what you are, intentional or not!
Perhaps if they didnt have to waste time on people that cant be bothered to check their validity when travelling they could get on with catching 'real' criminals, you know people who travel without valid tickets!
Oh hang on, that would be you!
DelayRepay
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 May 2011
- Messages
- 2,929
Hi feefee
I sympathise with your position and think you did make a genuine error.
However, in your original post you said you did not have means to pay the penalty fare and you did not have time to deal with this as you were in a rush. If the Inspector had told you that you were likely to be prosecuted, what would you have done differently? You couldn't pay the fare because you had no money, you were in a rush, so regardless of what the Inspector had told you, you would still be in the same position.
Did you contact this assistant before you made your journey? If you only asked when you arrived at St Albans, why is this relevant?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't know where all the zones start and end. I know my regular journeys are covered - mostly in central London. I know I can go to Bromley South to visit my friend, and I know I can go to/from Watford Junction which is a journey I sometimes have to make.
If I go out towards Essex, I am not actually sure where Oyster finishes. I know it was extended to cover more stations but I'm not sure how far. Next week I am going to Billaricay. I don't think Oyster is valid this far out but rather than making assumptions, I intend to check before I touch in!
Last edited:
ok...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Thankyou for understanding, i think your probably the only one that does... yes i spoke to the travel advisor at stratford international before travelling, nothing was said. yh ive definately learnt to check before touching in, but we shall see what happens next.
LexyBoy
Established Member
Jesus, people are being a bit harsh aren't they? Whilst there are lots of Oyster zones posters about, it's equally easy to forget to check if you're used to just travelling within London. That's the problem with Oyster being so convenient. I think some posters must find it hard to imagine how it feels to suddenly be faced with criminal proceedings for an honest mistake.
The pertinent point which feefee is trying to make and which seems to be being missed, is that she had no intention of not paying.
I can well believe this to be true. However, it makes no difference to the best course of action at this stage, as the offence which is likely to be brought does not require proof of intent to avoid paying. Not having a valid ticket is all that is required, and this is black and white - you did not. The question is therefore what to do to minimise the fallout.
(It is possible that you could be prosecuted for a Regulation of the Railways Act offense, which does require intent to be shown, but this would be more effort for the company. FCC historically have tended toward Byelaw prosecutions which do not need intent to be shown, and do not carry a criminal record).
Meanwhile if you're a well heeled chap from Kent you can defraud the railway for tens of thousands of pounds over six years, and just pay it back if you get caught. (Yes, recent developments and all, but still).
The pertinent point which feefee is trying to make and which seems to be being missed, is that she had no intention of not paying.
I can well believe this to be true. However, it makes no difference to the best course of action at this stage, as the offence which is likely to be brought does not require proof of intent to avoid paying. Not having a valid ticket is all that is required, and this is black and white - you did not. The question is therefore what to do to minimise the fallout.
(It is possible that you could be prosecuted for a Regulation of the Railways Act offense, which does require intent to be shown, but this would be more effort for the company. FCC historically have tended toward Byelaw prosecutions which do not need intent to be shown, and do not carry a criminal record).
No, fraud requires intent.
Meanwhile if you're a well heeled chap from Kent you can defraud the railway for tens of thousands of pounds over six years, and just pay it back if you get caught. (Yes, recent developments and all, but still).
Indeed BUT isnt the Police still looking into prosecuting him and didnt we all decide that he probably paid well over the odds as his 'punishment' which has also led to him losing his job?
Harsh as I may have sounded we hear it every day and to be honest it wore thin many years ago now. As I said before on this thread ignorance is no defence.
LexyBoy
Established Member
No, it's not - reassuring the OP that it was a genuine mistake, and that she had no intention of avoiding the fare, is not going to help anyone. Nor is slamming her for making a mistake and calling her a fraudster.
I know analogies are pointless on the railway, but just another example to illustrate strict liability.
Let's say there's a major road out of town with a 30mph speed limit on it. There are no signs when you join this road, and some people would think that because it was so major the limit would be higher. On this road, cars travel much higher than that, and being in that traffic you subconsciously travel at the same speed as them.
Now, you haven't intentionally broken the law, but it would still make you guilty of the offence of speeding and you'd still be liable to the penalty. Likewise, you didn't intend to travel without a ticket, but you've still done it and so you're still liable to the penalty.
Let's say there's a major road out of town with a 30mph speed limit on it. There are no signs when you join this road, and some people would think that because it was so major the limit would be higher. On this road, cars travel much higher than that, and being in that traffic you subconsciously travel at the same speed as them.
Now, you haven't intentionally broken the law, but it would still make you guilty of the offence of speeding and you'd still be liable to the penalty. Likewise, you didn't intend to travel without a ticket, but you've still done it and so you're still liable to the penalty.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,671
I understand your position and sympathise. A lot of people on this forum can't seem to grasp that most 'ordinary' people have no expertise or even interest in their rail journey other than as a means of getting from A to B as conveniently and,perhaps to a lesser extent, cheaply as possible. It was unfortunate that you had no means to pay when challenged, but I've been in a situation myself in a strange city and a cash machine eating my card of barely having enough money to get home. Being poor is not yet a crime, but if any country were to introduce such a policy, we'd be up there with Russia. Today's i newspaper has a story headlined 'How Britain became the go-to destination for the world's money launderers' involving just on plot and £12.5 million which because of 'lax U.K. corporate law' the true destination of hasn't been determined, and probably never will be. But, hey, we can pick on you , vilify you and give you a criminal record instead and pat ourselves on the back for a good job done.
I dont remember calling the OP a fraudster.. And whilst we can only believe the OP and their turn of events Ive already witnessed 3 genuine mistakes this morning from people not touching in at the start of their journey. Its amazing just how many people forget to check the simple basic things before travelling.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 20,265
No, he achieved an out of court settlement. This is no different what many other visitors to this forum are advised to try and get. It was just the scale of the settlement that was vastly different.
I think most people on this forum probably sympathise. That might make feefee feel better in the short term but it won't make their problem go away.
Most of the advice was explaining the legal position and feefee's best next step.
But if they're 'genuine mistakes' how can 3 people forget to touch in? Surely there's a contradiction in there, or are we assuming they're seasoned travelers?
i would reslly like to know WHAT advice has been given?
apart from me saying i SHOULD sit back and wait??
Because all i have received is ITS YOUR FAULT, ITS YOR RESPONSIBILITY, BLA BLA BLA... I did not join this forum to be criminalised even more. and YES I WAS CALLED A FRAUDSTER IN BLACK AND WHITE
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You have just spoken on behalf of me. Thankyou
Im starting to regret signing up for this forum... Im not actually getting the help i need.
LexyBoy
Established Member
This is good advice I think:
Of course explain that you were not deliberately avoiding the fare, that it was a genuine error that you didn't realise St Albans is outwith the Oyster area, but keep it brief: the legislation that FCC will likely use doesn't care whether or not it was deliberate, only whether a valid ticket was held.
If FCC later, having reviewed their notes and your response, issue a notice of intention to prosecute, this is the point at which you should consider negotiating an out of court settlement. Difficult to wait it out I realise.
Many posts can be very blunt and come across as just rude. Bear in mind that many posters here are railway staff, including revenue people. Their responses come from a knowledge of these matters and are probably the closest you'll get to knowing what FCC's take on it will be.
I never said you did, 455driver said it.
dakta
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 577
The advice is there 
It is a sad fact of life that sometimes mistakes we make, can't easily be undone, corrected or whatever and to put it right we have to make concessions. It's not always punishment, but rather to limit damage all around (it may cause costs to other parties for instance) I'm not trying to teach a granny to suck eggs here but this is probably one of those times.
If you have been advised to wait and see what comes, this is probably because there are multiple roads this matter may go down and the next contact you have will give an idea of what best to do to limit damage. I'm not a ticket expert, so I won't give my 2 cents but there's no need to feel criminalised because having to deal with errors with ticketing doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Though you sometimes have to pay for the privilege of making an error.
I don't think you had any guilty intent whatsoever, but a mistake has been made, best thing you can do is work with the forum to get this done with as little pain as possible. This forum will help you do that.
It is a sad fact of life that sometimes mistakes we make, can't easily be undone, corrected or whatever and to put it right we have to make concessions. It's not always punishment, but rather to limit damage all around (it may cause costs to other parties for instance) I'm not trying to teach a granny to suck eggs here but this is probably one of those times.
If you have been advised to wait and see what comes, this is probably because there are multiple roads this matter may go down and the next contact you have will give an idea of what best to do to limit damage. I'm not a ticket expert, so I won't give my 2 cents but there's no need to feel criminalised because having to deal with errors with ticketing doesn't automatically make you a criminal. Though you sometimes have to pay for the privilege of making an error.
I don't think you had any guilty intent whatsoever, but a mistake has been made, best thing you can do is work with the forum to get this done with as little pain as possible. This forum will help you do that.
Last edited:
Actually, now that you have written to explain your version of events, until FCC determine what course of action they are going to take there really is little you can do but wait.
And the posters of this forum, while blunt, are correct - knowingly or unknowingly you travelled to a station that was outside the Oyster area and attempted to use your Oyster card. And, in law, it is the passenger's responsibility to ensure that they pay for the journey in the appropriate manner. I know it's hard to be objective because it feels like you're in the middle of a sh*t-storm, but it's no different than if I ate a meal in a restaurant and then tried to pay with cowrie shells - it may be a valid payment method in some circumstances and some places, but isn't in this one.
I don't want to put words into 445Driver's mouth, but I read his comment as a response to the "nor do i go against the law" part of your statement as, knowingly or not, if you travel on a train without a valid ticket/smartcard or appropriate means of payment then you have 'gone against the law'.
Having followed the entire thread without commenting, I would say that you might not be getting what you want but you are getting what you need.
Last edited:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,162
I think that criticism is way OTT and quite unfair, and in any case I don't see what your rant in the second part has anything to do with the matter in hand anyway.
I am sure we all have sympathy for the OP if this were a genuine mistake. The amount of sympathy shown through the replies will, unfortunately, depend on the style of her posts and the tone of her posts. That is only natural. There are plenty of issues involved in a matter like this and there are priorities. The way I read it, the OP's posts contain very little remorse and regret for her mistake, intentional or otherwise, but plenty of finger-pointing and trying to apportion blames to others. (Maybe she didn't mean for it to come across like that, but that is certainly how I read it. I am sure I am alone.) Of course these claims will be countered because it is important that she genuinely understands the gravity of the situation and where relevant legislation stands. This sometimes will involve being told bluntly that she must accept responsibility and, therefore, take a more reconciliatory tone with whoever she is dealing with.
No one is lynching the OP for her mistake. As I can see, people were only trying to counter her invalid excuses and claims. If she takes the same attitude with the train company then I can see this end very badly, and that is what none of us want to see.
The law sucks when you make a mistake on the railways and get caught. There is no denying that, so there is no point agreeing with someone's incorrect claims and offering them comfort because the train company will not.
We all like to be told that what we think is right, and justifications in our own head for our behaviours are reasonable and valid, but that is not always the case. If the OP does not think that our advice (which AFAIK is broadly correct and appropriate so far) is good enough for her then it is her choice as to whether she wants to take it onboard. I cannot force her to accept it, or Clip, or 455driver, or anyone else for that matter.
Helping someone does not always mean telling them exactly what to do next and what will happen, because that may not always be clear because the train company pulls all the strings and the passenger can only wait and respond passively as the best course of action. Helping someone does mean sometimes countering their claims and helping them understand why she ended up in the situation she found herself in and why some of the ideas in her head are plainly wrong and unhelpful. Disagreeing with someone seeking help is not criminalising them nor accusing them of anything. It is helping them understand where they stand in the whole episode thereby allowing them to make a more informed decision on what course of action to take next.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,162
I don't want to come across as sounding patronising and all that, but sometimes we just have to accept that an innocent course of action (assumption of validity in your case) landed ourselves in the proverbial, hard to take as it may feel sometimes.
(I quite agree that it may seem very unfair when compared to other types of "real" crime how severe the penalties may be, but that is for another topic, and in any case, the worst case scenario is not going to happen to those who make a first-time mistake so you don't have to worry about going to jail, etc.)
As I said, I am sure people all have sympathy for your situation, however sympathy alone is not going to help you resolve this matter. The hard truth is that the railway companies are hugely powerful when it comes to ticket irregularities, and we do need to be very careful as passengers. That is not to say there is no way out for you this time, and I think a criminal record is only a very remote tiny possibility if you handle this matter carefully, but make sure you sound genuine in your dealings with them and don't try and introduce the excuses as they have seen it all before and it really will not be helpful.
I wish you luck as it must be immensely stressful a situation you find yourself in, but don't lose sleep over it, wait for their responses to arrive and then you can decide what to do next. There is not much you can do before that so try and get on with your life normally (as hard as it may be). There may be some financial costs to the tone of up to a few hundread pounds, but this will extremely unlikely be the event that ruins the rest of your life.
My question had a point.
I am not a legal expert or even close, but there is a Potential loophole it appears to me, in that I am unable to identify an offence which the OP has committed.
The OP did not join a train without a valid ticket contrary to Railway Byelaw 18 (1) unless her train's first calling point was outside the Oyster PAYG area. All of the trains around the time the OP says she travels call at (among other places) West Hampstead Thameslink. So she had a valid ticket entitling her to travel with her when she joined the train. Byelaw 18 (1) does not require anything more.
The OP did not fail to hand over her ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so contrary to Railway Byelaw 18 (2) as she was not asked to do so. Burns vs FCC establishes that an offence is not committed without the essential ingredient of being asked to hand over the ticket.
That leaves the various offences under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. I think it would be difficult to establish intent to avoid payment of the fare in the circumstances described.
Am I missing something?
Last edited:
While your logic does seem sound, I would suggest that the OP doesn't attempt to test this in a court of law. It seems that any defence that would allow me to travel from London to Edinburgh with only an Oyster card is unlikely to be successful.
You would have necessarily committed the offence of joining a train without a valid ticket entitling you to travel, as no train to Edinburgh calls at more than one station where Oyster is valid.
As I mentioned above, I am not a legal expert and would of course urge the OP to take proper legal advice if intending to rely on the above.
Last edited:
You didn't say it had to call at more than one station - Watford Junction is inside the Oyster area. Though, I suppose, it's only timetabled as a pick-up call.
Regardless, Edinburgh was used as an extreme example. I still hold that the OP would be ill-advised to try this defence.
- Status