Thameslink Notice of intention to prosecute

[Nettan]

Hi,
I'm in a bit of a state, I've just received a letter from Thameslink informing me that they intend to prosecute. I have drafted a response, and would love some eyeballs on it from someone with some experience. It feels insanely heavy handed to do this, especially as it was all down to my Oystercard inexplicably being cancelled between me tapping in at Finsbury Park, and then try to tap out at King's Cross.

I would be so grateful for some feedback / corrections / suggestions. I'm beyond stressed about this, and also absolutely furious.
The Oyster card in question is cancelled, so I have no access to travl; details, record of balance, top ups etc.

Here goes:

Regarding Notice of intention to prosecute regarding alleged fare evasion on October 13tht 2021.



I am very surprised to receive such a heavy handed letter, but happy to explain what happened to clear this up.



First of all: I never got on public transport with the intention to avoid payment. This whole issue is caused by a failure of technology. As there was no intention to defraud, there is no reason to prosecute.



I also never failed to hand over a ticket for inspection as claimed, on the contrary, I was actively seeking help from station staff when my card failed.



On October 13th 2021 I travelled from my home address in London N8 to London King’s Cross station.

I used my Oystercard noxxxxxxxxx.

I tapped in on the W3 bus from Ferme Park Road, N8 to Finsbury Park. I checked the balance on the card upon doing so, and it showed a balance of around £5, enough to cover the journey.



I then tapped in at Finsbury Park, and got the 9:45 am service to King’s Cross. When I went to tap out at King’s Cross, my card was not working. I approached station staff for help, as there was no reason for this to happen, the money to pay the fare was on the card, I had checked earlier when boarding the W3.

They tried my card several times, and told me my card was cancelled. This must have happened between tapping in at Finsbury Park and arriving at King’s Cross some 10 minutes later (waiting time included). Essentially, the Oystercard tech failed. I did not fail, I had the money in the account, and was willing to pay my fare, and also attempted to do so through my – to my knowledge – VALID ticket.



After speaking to staff, them speaking to the Oystercard helpline on the phone, me speaking to the Oystercard helpline on the phone to try and figure this out, we had to give up, as it was clear the card had, for some inexplicable reason been cancelled.



I was asked if I had the means to pay for the fare, which I confirmed, but no attempts were made from station staff to take payment to cover the fare. Nor did I refuse to pay the fare.

In addition, a penalty fare was never mentioned, nor have I received a letter to that effect.

I was also left with a cancelled Oystercard with a balance on it, more than enough to cover the fare, that I was unable to access.



Staff took my details, which I was happy to provide, as I wanted to find out what had happened and potentially get my outstanding card balance back. As it is, I am out of pocket because I cannot access my Oystercard and outstanding balance.



I did purchase a ticket for the full journey, in compliance with The Regulation of Railway Act 1889. I’m also not in breach of The Fraud Act 2006, as I have never evaded a fare in my life, so cannot be classified as a repeat offender, and I am not guilty of tampering with an Oyster or travel card. In other words, there is no evidence of premeditation, or persistence, or repeat offending on my part, nor is there evidence of a large loss by the transport authority.



A prosecution of this case is unnecessary, as

there has been no risk to public safety; and

the offence resulted from a genuine oversight or misunderstanding; and

no injury or loss has been sustained by either passengers or staff.



I hope this letter clarifies the situation, and I am hoping we can now put this matter to rest without further action. If anything, I should be asking for a refund from Oyster / ThamesLink, but I have decided to let it go, as it’s not a huge amount. I hope you can do the same.



Yours Sincerely,

 

[skyhigh]

Have you asked TfL why your Oyster was cancelled?

 

[dmncf]

Are you able to provide Thameslink with a printout of your Oyster card history, by accessing via the TfL website or speaking to TfL by phone or at a TfL Visitor Centre such as at St Pancras, Piccadilly Circus or Victoria? I think your case would be strengthened by a record showing that you did touch in at Finsbury Park, did touch in on the earlier buses and did pay for earlier rail journeys on previous days.

 

[[.n]]

I would also seek to find out from TfL why the oystercard was cancelled / ask for a print out of transactions as on the surface its a very odd thing to have happened

Is your oystercard unusual in any way? (e.g. Student Oyster / railcard attached / unregistered / registered to someone else / unused for over 12 months)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Would you be able to let us see the letter that you are replying to? If you are happy to share it, then make sure you hide any personal details so that the whole internet doesn't get to see them!

The reason I ask is that quite often, the heading 'Notice of intention to prosecute' suggests that things have gone further than they actually have. So it may well be that the letter is asking for your side of the story before the railway decide whether to actually prosecute or not.

If I am right about what the letter is asking, then that might change how you want to reply; rather than putting your case forcefully because you think the railway are already wrong, you might want to share facts in the hope that you can convince the railway not to make what in your view would be a wrong decision.

You also need to know that the Regulation of Railways Act ('RORA') is not the only legislation that is routinely used to prosecute: there are also the railway byelaws, which require a traveller to have a valid ticket: if you don't, then you are in breach of the byelaw whether or not you intend to pay your fare. (The byelaws are a bit more complicated than this to allow for when there's no way that a traveller could have bought a ticket in advance, but I think that my summary is good enough for the moment.) So unless you have already been told that the railway are going to prosecute under RORA', arguing that you had no intent not to pay is an argument that won't work.

 

[Nettan]

Have you asked TfL why your Oyster was cancelled?

I did when I spoke to them on the day and they could not explain it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’d bin the bit about “no risk to public safety”. I think that’s never going to be relevant to a fares issue…

 

[Nettan]

Would you be able to let us see the letter that you are replying to? If you are happy to share it, then make sure you hide any personal details so that the whole internet doesn't get to see them!

The reason I ask is that quite often, the heading 'Notice of intention to prosecute' suggests that things have gone further than they actually have. So it may well be that the letter is asking for your side of the story before the railway decide whether to actually prosecute or not.

If I am right about what the letter is asking, then that might change how you want to reply; rather than putting your case forcefully because you think the railway are already wrong, you might want to share facts in the hope that you can convince the railway not to make what in your view would be a wrong decision.

You also need to know that the Regulation of Railways Act ('RORA') is not the only legislation that is routinely used to prosecute: there are also the railway byelaws, which require a traveller to have a valid ticket: if you don't, then you are in breach of the byelaw whether or not you intend to pay your fare. (The byelaws are a bit more complicated than this to allow for when there's no way that a traveller could have bought a ticket in advance, but I think that my summary is good enough for the moment.) So unless you have already been told that the railway are going to prosecute under RORA', arguing that you had no intent not to pay is an argument that won't work.

Thank you, here‘s a copy of the letter I received today. I feel like I did share facts in my reply, but if that’s not clear then I’d love to know so I can get it right!
Also interesting re the byelaws. I did actually have a valid ticket until my card was cancelled between stations, so in my opinion I am not at fault, but again interested to hear why I might be after all.

Are you able to provide Thameslink with a printout of your Oyster card history, by accessing via the TfL website or speaking to TfL by phone or at a TfL Visitor Centre such as at St Pancras, Piccadilly Circus or Victoria? I think your case would be strengthened by a record showing that you did touch in at Finsbury Park, did touch in on the earlier buses and did pay for earlier rail journeys on previous days.

Sadly not, as I lost access when the card was cancelled.

I would also seek to find out from TfL why the oystercard was cancelled / ask for a print out of transactions as on the surface its a very odd thing to have happened

Is your oystercard unusual in any way? (e.g. Student Oyster / railcard attached / unregistered / registered to someone else / unused for over 12 months)

I will try to call them again, and figure it out. It was inactive from March 2020 through to around May 2021, and was fine after that. I did have problems seeing it on my account, but put it down to me forgetting my password since the last time I used the Oyster account. I also double checked the balance at a station a few we before, and it was something like £15. I was just running this card balance doe m and was switching to another one that I could actually see in my account so I could top up etc.

I’d bin the bit about “no risk to public safety”. I think that’s never going to be relevant to a fares issue…

Noted, thank you!

 

[Starmill]

Are you in yourself 100% certain that your card was accepted for the touch in that you did before boarding? Is there any evidence beyond your own personal recollection that might support your having touched in?

I think that if your answers to the above questions are yes and no respectively you need to get onto TfL to find out precisely when and why your card was cancelled.

If you're certain that you touched in, and Thameslink don't have any convincing evidence that you didn't then it is likely that it won't be beyond a doubt that you didn't show a valid ticket when asked.

But also be prepared for the argument that if your card was cancelled, you couldn't have touched in with it, and therefore you couldn't possibly have shown a valid ticket when asked.

 

[dmncf]

Oyster card records will exist on TfL's system, so even if the card was destroyed, the records will still exist. You have the card and its number, so I don't see why TfL would not cooperate in giving you the records. Subject Access Request legislation gives you a right to this data.

 

[Starmill]

I feel like I did share facts in my reply, but if that’s not clear then I’d love to know so I can get it right!

I think the point being made might have been that you should try to report facts only in the response.

For example you open by calling the letter you received 'heavy handed' - but the company probably disagrees with you about that, and it's difficult to put a basis for that statement in facts. Therefore, it would be better to simply leave it out completely.

Instead of saying that there's 'no reason to prosecute', which might be up for debate, you could instead say that you "always ensure that the correct fare is paid for every train journey, and always have a valid ticket or validated card before boarding the train". A statement such as this would have a clear basis in fact. Assuming of course that the facts I've implied here are true.

Oyster card records will exist on TfL's system, so even if the card was destroyed, the records will still exist. You have the card and its number, so I don't see why TfL would not cooperate in giving you the records. Subject Access Request legislation gives you a right to this data.

Indeed. The other important thing that Nettan will need to be aware of is that the company may still argue that they're guilty of an offence because their card was cancelled when they were asked to show a valid ticket, and that it's irrelevant to their case when precisely it was cancelled or why, or if it had or hadn't been touched in.

If it's common ground that the card was cancelled when inspected that in itself may be sufficient to convict. A key reason why so many of us describe these laws as unjust.

 

[Nettan]

Are you in yourself 100% certain that your card was accepted for the touch in that you did before boarding? Is there any evidence beyond your own personal recollection that might support your having touched in?

I think that if your answers to the above questions are yes and no respectively you need to get onto TfL to find out precisely when and why your card was cancelled.

If you're certain that you touched in, and Thameslink don't have any convincing evidence that you didn't then it is likely that it won't be beyond a doubt that you didn't show a valid ticket when asked.

But also be prepared for the argument that if your card was cancelled, you couldn't have touched in with it, and therefore you couldn't possibly have shown a valid ticket when asked.

I am 100% certain that I touched in, yes. I was on the bus about 40 minutes before, and that’s when I checked the balance, so I am positive the card was working then. I cannot guarantee the touch in and Finsbury Park was registered, but it did beep. I’m aware of that as I’ve had unregistered touch ins there before.

So my card was absolutely valid on the bus that morning. I am less sure about the touch in at Finsbury Park, but it made all the right noises and lights. No warning signals there. And then a hard stop when I got to Kings Cross less than 10 mins later.
I will give TFL a call and see if they can see the reason. Last time they could not. I will also ask about any journey details on their system Again.

I’m just so worried about this nasty letter - I’ve never actually dodged a fare ever!

I think the point being made might have been that you should try to report facts only in the response.

For example you open by calling the letter you received 'heavy handed' - but the company probably disagrees with you about that, and it's difficult to put a basis for that statement in facts. Therefore, it would be better to simply leave it out completely.

Instead of saying that there's 'no reason to prosecute', which might be up for debate, you could instead say that you "always ensure that the correct fare is paid for every train journey, and always have a valid ticket or validated card before boarding the train". A statement such as this would have a clear basis in fact. Assuming of course that the facts I've implied here are true.


Indeed. The other important thing that Nettan will need to be aware of is that the company may still argue that they're guilty of an offence because their card was cancelled when they were asked to show a valid ticket, and that it's irrelevant to their case when precisely it was cancelled or why, or if it had or hadn't been touched in.

If it's common ground that the card was cancelled when inspected that in itself may be sufficient to convict. A key reason why so many of us describe these laws as unjust.

Understood, thanks for that. And yes, that is a true statement, I’m stupidly honest when it comes to stuff like this. Which is another reason for me being so stressed right now.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks for sharing the letter.

Despite the heading, the letter does not mean that the railway have already decided to take you to court. What it actually is, is a request for your side of the story which will help the railway decide between three ways forward

- to let the matter drop with no further action
- to allow you to pay an ‘out of court settlement’ whereby you give them some money and the matter doesn’t go to court
-to go to court which will determine the facts and (if appropriate) convict you of an offence and punish you

It’s fairly obvious from your draft that you would like the railway to drop the matter, but if you can’t get that, an out of court settlement may be preferable to going to court.

So essentially you’re in a position where the railway have control of a decision that effects you, and you want to persuade them to make the decision in your favour. In my experience the best way of doing this is to dispassionately present the facts, and explain why the facts support the conclusion that you want.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that your current draft comes across as suggesting that the railway are already wrong, when what you want to say is that you want to give them some more facts which demonstrate your innocence.

That being the case, I think you want to

- state the facts of what happened on the day
- state what steps you have taken (on the day and since) to find out why your Oyster card was cancelled
- explain that the facts together demonstrate that you had taken every step you could to travel with a valid ticket.
- ask the railway, in the circumstances, not to pursue the matter further.

As you have said, you are furious about this. But try to put your fury to one side and concentrate on persuading the railway to drop this matter.

Just one last point: this is all based on the assumption that the problem is your Oyster card having failed. If there’s some other problem that could have led to you not having a valid ticket (are there any trains which call at Finsbury Park to set down only before going on to King’s Cross?) then you may find that the railway only bring that up when they let you see the witness statement that they will rely on in court.

 

[Starmill]

I am 100% certain that I touched in, yes. I was on the bus about 40 minutes before, and that’s when I checked the balance, so I am positive the card was working then. I cannot guarantee the touch in and Finsbury Park was registered, but it did beep. I’m aware of that as I’ve had unregistered touch ins there before.

So my card was absolutely valid on the bus that morning. I am less sure about the touch in at Finsbury Park, but it made all the right noises and lights. No warning signals there. And then a hard stop when I got to Kings Cross less than 10 mins later.
I will give TFL a call and see if they can see the reason. Last time they could not. I will also ask about any journey details on their system Again.

I’m just so worried about this nasty letter - I’ve never actually dodged a fare ever!


Understood, thanks for that. And yes, that is a true statement, I’m stupidly honest when it comes to stuff like this. Which is another reason for me being so stressed right now.

If it's definitely true then you can certainly make a statement along those lines. For example

Dear Fare Evasion Manager

I recently received your letter dated 12 January 2022.

When travelling by train I always ensure that I have paid the correct fare for my journey, and I always have a valid ticket (or validated card) before boarding.

I travelled on a Thameslink train from Finsbury Park to London Kings Cross at 0945 on 13th October 2021, and before I boarded the train I touched my Oyster card in at Finsbury Park station, with the touch being acknowledged in the normal way by the card reader.

And so on.

 

[Nettan]

Thank you, I will do. It’s good to get other people to look at something I wrote in a mixture of rage and panic.

Thanks for sharing the letter.

Despite the heading, the letter does not mean that the railway have already decided to take you to court. What it actually is, is a request for your side of the story which will help the railway decide between three ways forward

- to let the matter drop with no further action
- to allow you to pay an ‘out of court settlement’ whereby you give them some money and the matter doesn’t go to court
-to go to court which will determine the facts and (if appropriate) convict you of an offence and punish you

It’s fairly obvious from your draft that you would like the railway to drop the matter, but if you can’t get that, an out of court settlement may be preferable to going to court.

So essentially you’re in a position where the railway have control of a decision that effects you, and you want to persuade them to make the decision in your favour. In my experience the best way of doing this is to dispassionately present the facts, and explain why the facts support the conclusion that you want.

All of which is a rather long-winded way of saying that your current draft comes across as suggesting that the railway are already wrong, when what you want to say is that you want to give them some more facts which demonstrate your innocence.

That being the case, I think you want to

- state the facts of what happened on the day
- state what steps you have taken (on the day and since) to find out why your Oyster card was cancelled
- explain that the facts together demonstrate that you had taken every step you could to travel with a valid ticket.
- ask the railway, in the circumstances, not to pursue the matter further.

As you have said, you are furious about this. But try to put your fury to one side and concentrate on persuading the railway to drop this matter.

Just one last point: this is all based on the assumption that the problem is your Oyster card having failed. If there’s some other problem that could have led to you not having a valid ticket (are there any trains which call at Finsbury Park to set down only before going on to King’s Cross?) then you may find that the railway only bring that up when they let you see the witness statement that they will rely on in court.

Very rational and measured, really appreciate it. I’ll sit down, breathe, call TFL and do a re-write of my letter.
I am not sure about the last point, the train I got is not set down only, and I don’t think any other others are either, they’re all commuter trains. Or they don’t stop at all.

 

[njr001]

Whilst you frustration is understandable as others have stated I suggest you reply just keep to the facts describing you journey etc. and in parallel pursue TFL regarding the status of your Oyster card. You may well have to be very persistent with the helpline if you get nowhere with one person I suggest politely ending the call and ringing again some staff seem more capable of dealing with issues than others.

 

[duncanp]

The alleged offence in the letter is

That you on 13th October 2021 upon inspection at London Kings Cross (KGX) failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised.

From what you have told us, you did not fail to hand over a ticket.

You gave them your Oystercard, which for some reason wasn't working. There are many reasons why an Oystercard can stop working, such as it being damaged, or it could be the case that the barriers at Kings Cross were faulty.

Your Oystercard account should contain a record of all your journeys, most importantly the fact that you touched in at Finsbury Park, and what the balance was after the touch in.

If the balance after you touched in was sufficient to pay the fare from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross, then there is no case to answer. Even if there was insufficient credit on your Oystercard, then all that will happen is that there will be a negative balance after you touch out at Kings Cross, and you will not be able to use the card again until you have topped it up.

Even if your touch in at Finsbury Park was not registered on the system, the worst that should happen is that you are charged a Penalty Fare, which can be disputed. There is no reason why a failure to touch in should, in itself, lead to a prosecution.

If you cannot access your Oystercard records online, phone the helpline and they should be able to provide the information you need.

Then write to Thameslink setting out the facts, along with the evidence to back those facts up.

I have experience of being falsely accused of fare evasion by Thameslink and was threatened with prosecution. Indeed it was the reason I joined these forums nearly 10 years ago.

I wrote them a very robust letter telling them they had no case against me, and funnily I never heard from them again.

If you need help in drafting the letter, please let someone on these forums know.

 

[Nettan]

Thank you!!! I will call TFL tomorrow, I’ve spent the best part of my day today researching this and being freaked out, and I’m not sure how much more I can take today, I’m so stressed. I’ll come back with a new draft.
do you know how long I have to respond? They have not said in the letter. I’m also rally surprised that no penalty notice was sent to me prior to this letter showing up. This to me feels like a final warning, not initial contact. I don’t understand how they’re allowed to send letters like this and cause all this upset. If I was a millionaire I’d get a lawyer on them, but sadly..

 

[Fawkes Cat]

do you know how long I have to respond?

The bit at the bottom of the letter in red allows 14 days from the date of the letter for you to respond.

 

[duncanp]

Thank you!!! I will call TFL tomorrow, I’ve spent the best part of my day today researching this and being freaked out, and I’m not sure how much more I can take today, I’m so stressed. I’ll come back with a new draft.
do you know how long I have to respond? They have not said in the letter. I’m also rally surprised that no penalty notice was sent to me prior to this letter showing up. This to me feels like a final warning, not initial contact. I don’t understand how they’re allowed to send letters like this and cause all this upset. If I was a millionaire I’d get a lawyer on them, but sadly..

I don't know if there is a deadline to respond, but if they don't hear from you they will eventually initiate a prosecution.

You should write the letter as soon as possible, preferably in the coming week.

Even if you can't get hold of a hard copy of your Oystercard journeys, you can write to them saying that you have requested them, and something along the lines of

"...I am quite sure that my Oystercard record will show proof that I touched in at Finsbury Park, and that there was sufficient credit on my account on the day in question to travel to London Kings Cross. Once these facts are established beyond reasonable doubt, I will be able to show that I have discharged my legal responsibilites to pay my fare before travel. The magistrate will then have no option but to dismiss the case against me...."

You can also include the following if you like:-

"...the offence of which I am being accused is that I failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person. This is demonstrably untrue as I did have a ticket, and handed it over for inspection when asked. The ticket is still in my possession, and I will produce it in court as evidence if you proceed with the prosecution...."

Thameslink's prosecution department have been known to tell downright lies on the bullying letter that threatens prosecution.

In my case, I travelled from St Albans to St Pancras using a monthly Travelcard from St Albans to Zone 4 (paper ticket) and an annual travelcard from Zones 1 - 3 held on an oystercard. The Thameslink RPI said that I couldn't use this combination of tickets, because I had nothing to cover the journey between the last station in Zone 4 to the first station in Zone 3. But this is a perfectly legal combination of tickets, which was acknowledged by Thameslink themselves when I first wrote to them. When the prosecution letter came a month later, they accused me of travelling from St Albans to St Pancras with just the Zones 1 - 3 travelcard.

So don't give in to Thameslink. They are just trying to scare people into grovelling for an out of court settlement, which is much more profitable for them, and so much easier than having to prove the facts.

 

[30907]

"...I am quite sure that my Oystercard record will show proof that I touched in at Finsbury Park, and that there was sufficient credit on my account on the day in question to travel to London Kings Cross. Once these facts are established beyond reasonable doubt, I will be able to show that I have discharged my legal responsibilites to pay my fare before travel. The magistrate will then have no option but to dismiss the case against me...."

You can also include the following if you like:-

"...the offence of which I am being accused is that I failed to hand over a ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person. This is demonstrably untrue as I did have a ticket, and handed it over for inspection when asked. The ticket is still in my possession, and I will produce it in court as evidence if you proceed with the prosecution...."

I would be inclined to skip the "see you in court" stuff as it is unnecessary and might get backs up.
I am not sure what counts as a (valid) ticket in the context of Oyster etc - I believe it is defined legally somewhere - but I don't think the piece of plastic on its own will carry much weight
That said, from your account of events you ought to be able to get this dropped - the whole thing seems very odd, which is perhap why the inspectors didn't believe you.
(BTW and not that it makes a material difference - I presume you mean King's Cross not St Pancras Thameslink (the one in a tunnel)?

 

[island]

Even if your touch in at Finsbury Park was not registered on the system, the worst that should happen is that you are charged a Penalty Fare, which can be disputed. There is no reason why a failure to touch in should, in itself, lead to a prosecution.

It is important that we give information that is clear and accurate on this forum as distinct from what our personal feelings on a case might be, and I need to point out that a failure to touch-in absolutely can at law lead to a prosecution rather than a Penalty Fare. A Penalty Fare is a discretionary option available to inspectors who believe a passenger is mistakenly without a valid ticket. A passenger who has not touched-in their card and joins a train commits a strict liability offence under Railway byelaw 18 (this remains true even if the passenger mistakenly thought they had touched-in) and potentially under section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act.

Are you in yourself 100% certain that your card was accepted for the touch in that you did before boarding? Is there any evidence beyond your own personal recollection that might support your having touched in?

I think that if your answers to the above questions are yes and no respectively you need to get onto TfL to find out precisely when and why your card was cancelled.

I agree with this.

If you're certain that you touched in, and Thameslink don't have any convincing evidence that you didn't then it is likely that it won't be beyond a doubt that you didn't show a valid ticket when asked.

But also be prepared for the argument that if your card was cancelled, you couldn't have touched in with it, and therefore you couldn't possibly have shown a valid ticket when asked.

It is worth remembering that a byelaw 18 (2) offence is only committed if the passenger was asked to show/hand over a ticket and also did not show/hand over a ticket. The byelaw paragraph in question does not contain the word "valid". The immediate question, to me, is whether a hotlisted Oyster card is a ticket or not.

It would also be extremely helpful to find out why the Oyster card had become hotlisted in such a short space of time – the only reason that presents itself to me is if the touch-in on the bus (with a £5 balance) had triggered an auto top-up on the card and the transaction was declined by the card issuer. TfL publicity from a few years ago indicates they were considerably accelerating the claiming of top-up payments in this scenario, and it could be that the card was hotlisted in the time between the OP entered at Finsbury Park and attempted to exit Kings Cross.

Two questions then for the OP:

1. Did any member of staff at any point ask you to show them or hand over your ticket for your journey?
2. Do you have, or do you think you may have had, an auto top-up set up on the Oyster card you used? If so, is the credit or debit card linked still valid?

 

[MotCO]

It would also be extremely helpful to find out why the Oyster card had become hotlisted in such a short space of time – the only reason that presents itself to me is if the touch-in on the bus (with a £5 balance) had triggered an auto top-up on the card and the transaction was declined by the card issuer. TfL publicity from a few years ago indicates they were considerably accelerating the claiming of top-up payments in this scenario, and it could be that the card was hotlisted in the time between the OP entered at Finsbury Park and attempted to exit Kings Cross.

Two questions then for the OP:

1. Did any member of staff at any point ask you to show them or hand over your ticket for your journey?
2. Do you have, or do you think you may have had, an auto top-up set up on the Oyster card you used? If so, is the credit or debit card linked still valid?

On the last point, the OP said that they were winding down the card, so the answer may be 'No'.

I also see what you are getting at with regard to the touch-in on the bus. However, a bus fare on Oyster is circa £2, so why would the card be blacklisted since the balance after the bus journey would still be circa £3. And I can't see it being blacklisted on the Tube since the OP got through the barrier ok; if there was a problem such as blacklisting or insufficient funds, would the barriers have worked?

Something seems strange here - a printed download from TfL seems to be the only answer.

 

[island]

On the last point, the OP said that they were winding down the card, so the answer may be 'No'.

I also see what you are getting at with regard to the touch-in on the bus. However, a bus fare on Oyster is circa £2, so why would the card be blacklisted since the balance after the bus journey would still be circa £3. And I can't see it being blacklisted on the Tube since the OP got through the barrier ok; if there was a problem such as blacklisting or insufficient funds, would the barriers have worked?

Something seems strange here - a printed download from TfL seems to be the only answer.

The amount of the bus fare (£1.55) is a red-herring.

If auto top-up was set up on the card, then an auto top-up request will have triggered when the card was touched-in on the bus. The credit of £20 or £40 or whatever will have been added to the card and a request triggered for the funds from the attached debit or credit card. If that bank card declined, then a message is sent out to hotlist the Oyster card. This is not an instant process, so it could have been that the card became hotlisted after touching in at Finsbury Park and touching out at Kings Cross.

If auto top-up was not set up on the card, none of this is relevant and my speculative reason for the card being hotlisted is not right. A card does not become hotlisted just for running out of credit.

 

[MotCO]

The amount of the bus fare (£1.55) is a red-herring.

If auto top-up was set up on the card, then an auto top-up request will have triggered when the card was touched-in on the bus. The credit of £20 or £40 or whatever will have been added to the card and a request triggered for the funds from the attached debit or credit card. If that bank card declined, then a message is sent out to hotlist the Oyster card. This is not an instant process, so it could have been that the card became hotlisted after touching in at Finsbury Park and touching out at Kings Cross.

If auto top-up was not set up on the card, none of this is relevant and my speculative reason for the card being hotlisted is not right. A card does not become hotlisted just for running out of credit.

I was thinking more if autoset up had not be set up, rather than if a payment method had become invalid.

 

[robbeech]

The amount of the bus fare (£1.55) is a red-herring.

If auto top-up was set up on the card, then an auto top-up request will have triggered when the card was touched-in on the bus. The credit of £20 or £40 or whatever will have been added to the card and a request triggered for the funds from the attached debit or credit card. If that bank card declined, then a message is sent out to hotlist the Oyster card. This is not an instant process, so it could have been that the card became hotlisted after touching in at Finsbury Park and touching out at Kings Cross.

If auto top-up was not set up on the card, none of this is relevant and my speculative reason for the card being hotlisted is not right. A card does not become hotlisted just for running out of credit.

Indeed I have had this very issue with an Oyster card when my bank card used for auto top up had expired during a period where I had manage to accrue a higher than normal balance on my card (about £60 for various reasons) so there had been no autotopup for a while.

Luckily mine was rejected shoreside at the start of a trip so I didn’t lose out / have any issues and updating it was simple enough.

It’s an appalling process in my opinion, something they should really look at. I also found the email / letter they sent about it very aggressive.

would the barriers have worked?

Unless I’ve missed where they mention the barriers, it’s entirely possible they were at platform without (closed) barriers at Finsbury Park.

 

[Nettan]

I've now managed to breathe properly, take a step back, stop panicking, spoken to TFL and have re-drafted my reply - I would love more of your super helpful feedback!

Here goes:

Govia Thameslink Railway

Prosecutions Department

Eastside Offices

King’s Cross Railway Station

London N1C 4AX





London, January 17th 2022



REFERENCE xxxxxxx



Att. Fare Evasion Manager:



Regarding Notice of intention to prosecute regarding alleged fare evasion on October 13tht 2021.

I have received your letter dated 12 January 2022.

When travelling by train I always ensure that I have paid the correct fare for my journey, and I always have a valid ticket (or validated card) before boarding.

I travelled on a Thameslink train from Finsbury Park to London Kings Cross at 0945 on 13th October 2021, and before I boarded the train, I touched my Oyster card in at Finsbury Park station, with the touch being acknowledged in the normal way by the card reader.



I used my Oystercard no xxxxxxxxx.



Prior to that I successfully tapped in on the W3 bus from Ferme Park Road, N8 to Finsbury Park.



When I went to tap out at King’s Cross, my card was not working. I approached station staff for help, as there was no reason for the card not to work.

Station staff tried my card several times, and told me the code on the gate showed my card was cancelled.

This must have happened between tapping in at Finsbury Park and arriving at King’s Cross some 10 minutes later (waiting time included). Essentially, the Oystercard tech failed. I did not fail, I had – to the best of my knowledge – a VALID ticket.



After speaking to staff at King’s Cross, them speaking to the Oystercard helpline on the phone, and then subsequently passing the phone to me so I could go through security and check on my account so we could get an explanation, we were both simply told the card was cancelled, and TFL / Oyster had no further explanation.



I was then asked if I had the means to pay for the fare, which I confirmed, but no attempts were made from station staff to take payment to cover the fare. Nor did I refuse to pay the fare.

In addition, a penalty fare was never mentioned, nor have I received a letter to that effect.



Staff took my details, which I was happy to provide, as, to the best of my knowledge, had a valid ticket, and I believed the fare had still been taken from my Oystercard as is standard when tapping in, even though the card was never tapped out.



Your letter states that I failed to hand over a ticket for inspections. Respectfully, I dispute this. I never failed to hand over a ticket for inspection, on the contrary, I was actively seeking help from station staff when, through no fault on my part, my card failed.



I have spoken to TFL / Oyster on January 17th, call reference number xxxxxxx, and obtained the following information:

My Oyster card nr. xxxxxx was marked as “surrendered” on January 28th. This is not something I was aware of, nor did I instigate this action. I was unaware, as due to the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns I had not used the card.

This is also explains how I was able to use it on October 13th, I was unaware of the card status, and it worked just fine touching in.

TFL informed me that when a card is marked as surrendered, it gets hotlisted with Oyster the next time it’s touched on a yellow card reader.

When I used the card on the bus, it would have activated the surrender mechanism on the system. There was clearly a delay, as I touched in at Finsbury Park some 10 mins later with no problems. The signal must then have activated in the time it took me to get to Kings Cross, and the card was showing as cancelled, which is then was.



I have tried getting the journey information from Oyster, but I am told they only store that for 8 weeks.



I hope this clarifies that I never knowingly intended to evade the fare. I was acting in good faith, believing I had a valid ticket, and there was no way for me to check that this was not the case prior to boarding the Thameslink service to King’s Cross on October 13th.



I hope you can now put this matter to rest without further action.









Yours Sincerely,

 

[island]

Did you previously have a season ticket on your Oyster card which you cancelled for a refund?

 

[Nettan]

Did you previously have a season ticket on your Oyster card which you cancelled for a refund?

No, it's an Oyster pay as you go, without an auto top up

Indeed I have had this very issue with an Oyster card when my bank card used for auto top up had expired during a period where I had manage to accrue a higher than normal balance on my card (about £60 for various reasons) so there had been no autotopup for a while.

Luckily mine was rejected shoreside at the start of a trip so I didn’t lose out / have any issues and updating it was simple enough.

It’s an appalling process in my opinion, something they should really look at. I also found the email / letter they sent about it very aggressive.




Unless I’ve missed where they mention the barriers, it’s entirely possible they were at platform without (closed) barriers at Finsbury Park.

Yes, the access to the platforms at Finsbury Park are without barriers, just a touch in yellow pad.

Two questions then for the OP:

1. Did any member of staff at any point ask you to show them or hand over your ticket for your journey?
2. Do you have, or do you think you may have had, an auto top-up set up on the Oyster card you used? If so, is the credit or debit card linked still valid?

1. I asked them to help me when my card did not work. I then handed it over to a member of staff for him to try it and see what the error message was. He then took it with him, we spoke for a bit, then he called Oyster to try and figure it out, I spoke to them too, and we were both told simply "it's cancelled"

2. I did not have an auto top up, I prefer to keep an eye on it, and the app alerts me when it's time to top up.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I've now managed to breathe properly, take a step back, stop panicking, spoken to TFL and have re-drafted my reply - I would love more of your super helpful feedback!

Here goes:

Govia Thameslink Railway

Prosecutions Department

Eastside Offices

King’s Cross Railway Station

London N1C 4AX





London, January 17th 2022



REFERENCE xxxxxxx



Att. Fare Evasion Manager:



Regarding Notice of intention to prosecute regarding alleged fare evasion on October 13tht 2021.

I have received your letter dated 12 January 2022.

When travelling by train I always ensure that I have paid the correct fare for my journey, and I always have a valid ticket (or validated card) before boarding.

I travelled on a Thameslink train from Finsbury Park to London Kings Cross at 0945 on 13th October 2021, and before I boarded the train, I touched my Oyster card in at Finsbury Park station, with the touch being acknowledged in the normal way by the card reader.



I used my Oystercard no xxxxxxxxx.



Prior to that I successfully tapped in on the W3 bus from Ferme Park Road, N8 to Finsbury Park.



When I went to tap out at King’s Cross, my card was not working. I approached station staff for help, as there was no reason for the card not to work.

Station staff tried my card several times, and told me the code on the gate showed my card was cancelled.

This must have happened between tapping in at Finsbury Park and arriving at King’s Cross some 10 minutes later (waiting time included). Essentially, the Oystercard tech failed. I did not fail, I had – to the best of my knowledge – a VALID ticket.



After speaking to staff at King’s Cross, them speaking to the Oystercard helpline on the phone, and then subsequently passing the phone to me so I could go through security and check on my account so we could get an explanation, we were both simply told the card was cancelled, and TFL / Oyster had no further explanation.



I was then asked if I had the means to pay for the fare, which I confirmed, but no attempts were made from station staff to take payment to cover the fare. Nor did I refuse to pay the fare.

In addition, a penalty fare was never mentioned, nor have I received a letter to that effect.



Staff took my details, which I was happy to provide, as, to the best of my knowledge, I had a valid ticket, and I believed the fare had still been taken from my Oystercard as is standard when tapping in, even though the card was never tapped out.



Your letter states that I failed to hand over a ticket for inspections. Respectfully, I dispute this. I never failed to hand over a ticket for inspection, on the contrary, I was actively seeking help from station staff when, through no fault on my part, my card failed.



I have spoken to TFL / Oyster on January 17th, call reference number xxxxxxx, and obtained the following information:

My Oyster card nr. xxxxxx was marked as “surrendered” on January 28th. Presumably that was January 28 2021? It might help to clarify This is not something I was aware of, nor did I instigate this action. I was unaware, as due to the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns I had not used the card.

This is also explains how I was able to use it on October 13th, I was unaware of the card status, and it worked just fine touching in.

TFL informed me that when a card is marked as surrendered, it gets hotlisted with Oyster the next time it’s touched on a yellow card reader. I think you want to swap these sentences around, so that first of all you fully state what TfL told you, and then you explain why this means that your card ended up hotlisted.

When I used the card on the bus, it would have activated the surrender mechanism on the system. There was clearly a delay, as I touched in at Finsbury Park some 10 mins later with no problems. The signal must then have activated in the time it took me to get to Kings Cross, and the card was showing as cancelled, which is it then was.



I have tried getting the journey information from Oyster, but I am told they only store that for 8 weeks.



I hope this clarifies that I never knowingly intended to evade the fare. I was acting in good faith, believing I had a valid ticket, and there was no way for me to check that this was not the case prior to boarding the Thameslink service to King’s Cross on October 13th.



I hope you can now put this matter to rest without further action.









Yours Sincerely,

I've put a few suggestions and corrections of typos in above: I hope it's clear what I'm trying to suggest.

I think before sending your letter, it's important to think why the card was marked as 'surrendered' on 28 January 2021: if GTR come to the conclusion that you should have known that the card was surrendered then they could also come to the conclusion that you should also have known that the Oyster card wasn't valid after that date.