• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Thameslink Notice of intention to prosecute

Status
Not open for further replies.

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
I've heard from the OP. He has been let off!

He asked for the thread to be unlocked so he can update properly, but he may not have been around since this was done. In my opinion this is a sensible outcome given the conflicting signals saying that he was good to travel.
Good to hear. It was a complex case and TfL were right to write if off as "one of those things".
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nettan

Member
Joined
15 Jan 2022
Messages
14
Location
London
I've heard from the OP. He has been let off!

He asked for the thread to be unlocked so he can update properly, but he may not have been around since this was done. In my opinion this is a sensible outcome given the conflicting signals saying that he was good to travel.
I have indeed! They said given the information I’d provided they’ll only charge me the fare from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross. £5.50. It’s not £5.50, it’s £2.50 on Oyster, but if the thieving, bullying little jobsworth in charge wants to steal £3 then go on. I’m still really angry about the heavy handed letter and the stress it caused me, so I am considering going after them to get the balance back, but not sure I can be bothered right now. I’ll see. I just want to thank everyone here for all your help and advice, it’s very much appreciated and helped keeping me sane. THANK YOU!!!
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
Good to hear. It was a complex case and TfL were right to write if off as "one of those things".
I'm not sure that TfL have necessarily been involved, although they have probably written off the bus fare.
I have indeed! They said given the information I’d provided they’ll only charge me the fare from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross. £5.50. It’s not £5.50, it’s £2.50 on Oyster, but if the thieving, bullying little jobsworth in charge wants to steal £3 then go on. I’m still really angry about the heavy handed letter and the stress it caused me, so I am considering going after them to get the balance back, but not sure I can be bothered right now. I’ll see. I just want to thank everyone here for all your help and advice, it’s very much appreciated and helped keeping me sane. THANK YOU!!!
Argh! That stinks. It was the Oyster system that let you down so that is the fare you should pay. Anyway, I'm pleased we could help.
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
I've heard from the OP. He has been let off!

He asked for the thread to be unlocked so he can update properly, but he may not have been around since this was done. In my opinion this is a sensible outcome given the conflicting signals saying that he was good to travel.
Yes. This is very much a case that the rules were never designed to cope with: despite the letter of the law, it clearly wasn't just to pursue the OP in the specific circumstances, and the lottery of whether the magistrates would prioritize justice or the letter of the byelaw has been avoided.
I have indeed! They said given the information I’d provided they’ll only charge me the fare from Finsbury Park to Kings Cross. £5.50. It’s not £5.50, it’s £2.50 on Oyster, but if the thieving, bullying little jobsworth in charge wants to steal £3 then go on. I’m still really angry about the heavy handed letter and the stress it caused me, so I am considering going after them to get the balance back, but not sure I can be bothered right now. I’ll see. I just want to thank everyone here for all your help and advice, it’s very much appreciated and helped keeping me sane. THANK YOU!!!
This is disappointing, but it may make sense to walk away: although the railway are charging you more than double what they should, ultimately it's three quid: how much time and effort will it take to pursue this point, and what would doing something more fun with that time be worth to you?
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
Posts 52, 62, 67 and 84 queried the OP travelling on a card for which they had previously applied for a refund of all credit. Did we establish that, before touching the card on a reader at the start of the journey in question, and notwithstanding the lapse in memory, the OP had previously attempted to ascertain that the card still held a balance available for travel and received confirmation it was?

When contactless payments came in I requested the return of credit on my 1st generation oyster card and was told most explicitly it was no longer valid for future travel and should be destroyed
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
Did we establish that, before touching the card on a reader at the start of the journey in question, and notwithstanding the lapse in memory, the OP had previously attempted to ascertain that the card still held a balance available for travel and received confirmation it was?
The screen on the validator at Finsbury Park will have shown the balance prior to the refund being given, less the bus fare. If the card had been touched on a ticket machine it would have shown the same information. It may also have shown the balance on the bus but I've never yet managed to read the display on a bus.
When contactless payments came in I requested the return of credit on my 1st generation oyster card and was told most explicitly it was no longer valid for future travel and should be destroyed
My discussion with a contact at TfL said that that is what should be said. However, he conceeded that it's possible that the words may not have been absolutely clear (perhaps destroy because it will no longer work) and the caller not expecting the card to be cancelled might not get the right message.
 

87 027

Member
Joined
1 Sep 2010
Messages
699
Location
London
The screen on the validator at Finsbury Park will have shown the balance prior to the refund being given, less the bus fare.
Thanks for the clarification. Possibly worrying for the ordinary punter then! (Computer says yes but later decides no) Which is the crux of this issue and seems like the right outcome for the OP
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,865
Location
Crayford
Thanks for the clarification. Possibly worrying for the ordinary punter then! (Computer says yes but later decides no)
Well that is the whole crux of this matter. It shouldn't happen, but I think TfL may have to re-visit their procedures. At the very least I would expect someone inside the system to be allowed out while the card is zapped.
 

Stan_Butler

Member
Joined
11 May 2020
Messages
58
Location
Glasgow
Yes. This is very much a case that the rules were never designed to cope with: despite the letter of the law, it clearly wasn't just to pursue the OP in the specific circumstances, and the lottery of whether the magistrates would prioritize justice or the letter of the byelaw has been avoided.

This is disappointing, but it may make sense to walk away: although the railway are charging you more than double what they should, ultimately it's three quid: how much time and effort will it take to pursue this point, and what would doing something more fun with that time be worth to you?
Indeed, and the OP probably got the bus journey for free, so that’s £1.55 towards the £3.00 he believes is being “stolen”.
 

maniacmartin

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,394
Location
Croydon
I notice that in Ticketting & Revenue Update 138, page 5, (June 2022) that TfL are expanding the size of the hotlist that gates can store, from 100,000 to 1 million cards, meaning that there will no longer need to be a 'reserve list' of very old banned cards. I presume is is in response to the issues raised on this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top