Used my husbands gold card

[furlong]

There is no contract with the person found to be using it - the terms and conditions are irrelevant.

If they had taken it (for a valid reason) from the *rightful holder* with whom they have a contract then those things apply e.g. receipt, withdrawal. Just be grateful they didn't handle it with gloves and put it into a sealed evidence bag!

 

[island]

There is no contract with the person found to be using it - the terms and conditions are irrelevant.

If they had taken it (for a valid reason) from the *rightful holder* with whom they have a contract then those things apply e.g. receipt, withdrawal. Just be grateful they didn't handle it with gloves and put it into a sealed evidence bag!

It's arguable that there is a contract with anyone who joins a train, and that that contract is the NRCoT. Though I doubt anything much turns on this.

 

[Haywain]

It's arguable that there is a contract with anyone who joins a train, and that that contract is the NRCoT.

I think that's reasonable where it concerns those who are intending on paying the fare for their journey, but no for those who do not intend to do so.

 

[Watershed]

I think that's reasonable where it concerns those who are intending on paying the fare for their journey, but no for those who do not intend to do so.

As the NRCoT is the basis of the railway claiming full fares on the basis of the Anytime Single from those who have avoided paying the fare, I think it would be a bit rich for the railway to "have its cake and eat it" in this respect.

Of course, I don't think anything particularly turns on this point.

 

[gpus28]

As the NRCoT is the basis of the railway claiming full fares on the basis of the Anytime Single from those who have avoided paying the fare, I think it would be a bit rich for the railway to "have its cake and eat it" in this respect.

Of course, I don't think anything particularly turns on this point.

I’m not familiar with the term “I don’t think anything particularly turns on this point” in this context, what does that mean if you don’t mind explaining?

 

[Titfield]

I’m not familiar with the term “I don’t think anything particularly turns on this point” in this context, what does that mean if you don’t mind explaining?

It is often used in legal discussions and it means "this point ((possibly whilst interesting)) does not have sufficient weight or importance to determine or alter the outcome of the case".

 

[furlong]

I abbreviated that comment too much and should have been clearer. I was trying to say that the passenger is not a party to the season ticket contract so nothing that passenger does can have any direct impact on that contract. (There might be an indirect impact if the passenger's actions trigger an investigation into whether the rightful holder acted in breach of it. The evidence bag comment was alluding to making it easier to prosecute for fraud by applying higher standards of physical evidence collection similar to what the police would have done.)

As others pointed out, the passenger does have their own implied contract with the railway, which is a separate contract.

 

[gpus28]

Side note question but this was a Southestern paper ticket which is valid London Terminals, I had used it on the outbound journey so my questions are 1) how much barrier data to they take as in can you see it was used that morning and 2) do they have access to other lines barrier data I.e can they see it also was swiped at City Thameslink as that’s not a SE barrier? To be clear I won’t be lying about the morning usage, I just wondered how advanced their data is on paper tickets. Thanks

 

[island]

Not advanced at all. It's very unlikely that level of data is known.

 

[Grvrdvicdr]

Not advanced at all. It's very unlikely that level of data is known.

Providing the magnetic strip is okay then data can be read

 

[Haywain]

Providing the magnetic strip is okay then data can be read

The data can be read, subject to the limitations of what is available to be read.

Side note question but this was a Southestern paper ticket which is valid London Terminals, I had used it on the outbound journey so my questions are 1) how much barrier data to they take as in can you see it was used that morning and 2) do they have access to other lines barrier data I.e can they see it also was swiped at City Thameslink as that’s not a SE barrier? To be clear I won’t be lying about the morning usage, I just wondered how advanced their data is on paper tickets. Thanks

This suggests that there is more usage that you are concerned about, and when you were caught it was not just a one-off.

 

[gpus28]

Not at all, I have my history in my SE app account to back up my previous purchases every week, I’m not concerned about that, it was a genuine question out of interest and not something I’d lose sleep over if no one knew.

 

[island]

Providing the magnetic strip is okay then data can be read

It can, but there is not a lot of data on the strip to read and record.

 

[gpus28]

So the update here is that we were advised to complete a duplicate card request in order to try to get my husbands gold card re-issued so that we aren’t paying out twice per journey whilst waiting to hear back regarding my usage of his card. The duplicate card office has asked to provide further details on the “loss” of the ticket. There is no other option except “loss” on the form btw, we are not trying to say it is lost it’s just the only available reason for asking for a dupe. The reason for my post is to see if there is any advice on the way to word the situation best. Language to use etc. you can see the details from this thread and again I’m not after ways around or avoidance of telling the situation, only advice on how to word the response to the duplicates office please. Helpful advice appreciated. I tried to attach a copy of the email but unsure if it’s visible. I’m aware they may chose not to reissue or refund at all.

 

[AlterEgo]

So the update here is that we were advised to complete a duplicate card request in order to try to get my husbands gold card re-issued so that we aren’t paying out twice per journey whilst waiting to hear back regarding my usage of his card. The duplicate card office has asked to provide further details on the “loss” of the ticket. There is no other option except “loss” on the form btw, we are not trying to say it is lost it’s just the only available reason for asking for a dupe. The reason for my post is to see if there is any advice on the way to word the situation best. Language to use etc. you can see the details from this thread and again I’m not after ways around or avoidance of telling the situation, only advice on how to word the response to the duplicates office please. Helpful advice appreciated. I tried to attach a copy of the email but unsure if it’s visible.

The email asks for the last time it was used and where - I would simply state this. It is your husband who needs to write this so it is the last time *he* used it and on what journey.

 

[gpus28]

The email asks for the last time it was used and where - I would simply state this. It is your husband who needs to write this so it is the last time *he* used it and on what journey.

Thanks for your reply, would it not feel odd to not mention the ticket is being retained currently by SE and the circumstances by which it was taken by them or you think not to say any of this detail yet?

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for your reply, would it not feel odd to not mention the ticket is being retained currently by SE and the circumstances by which it was taken by them or you think not to say any of this detail yet?

I don't think it is in your or his interests to go into any detail. They lay out the sorts of things they expect to read (time last used by the owner and when) and I would simply reply with this information.

 

[gpus28]

Email from the Fraud team received today. I’ve assumed it’s a more positive outcome. Anyone seen this before where they meet the cardholder to return the card? Wondering if I will be dealt with separately?

 

[furlong]

That looks like a helpful message and the fastest method of getting back the card safely and securely.

Be grateful but just imagine there's a solicitor there next to him reminding him to say nothing except "thank you for taking the trouble to get this back to me so quickly" and "no comment" to anything else other than agreeing again to the terms and conditions of issue if they are repeated. (There are many different ways to say 'no comment' - it needn't be so brusque.)

A good strategy might be for your husband to have something else on his mind, nothing to do with the railway or any of this, so that if there has to be any small talk or other conversation, he can lead it by talking about that.


All that being said, you could write a signed letter of apology as is often suggested on this forum, requesting an out of court settlement and ask your husband to hand it over, to try to speed things along by cooperating.

 

[simonw]

Email from the Fraud team received today. I’ve assumed it’s a more positive outcome. Anyone seen this before where they meet the cardholder to return the card? Wondering if I will be dealt with separately?

As @furlong says, your other half needs to prepare for the meeting at St Pancras, I don't think anyone travels up from Dover to London just to hand back a card.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I don’t think this sounds genuine. I just wonder if he might hand it back with a couple of BTP officers and take you for a chat

 

[Hadders]

I don’t think this sounds genuine. I just wonder if he might hand it back with a couple of BTP officers and take you for a chat

BTP aren't going to get involved in a ticketing issue like this, unless there's far more to it than what we've been told.

 

[Ducatist4]

I read it that the investigator is in London anyhow and sees it as an opportunity to get the ticket back to the right person.

 

[simonw]

I don’t think this sounds genuine. I just wonder if he might hand it back with a couple of BTP officers and take you for a chat

I read it that the investigator is in London anyhow and sees it as an opportunity to get the ticket back to the right person.

Interesting how two people read an email so differently... Whilst I think BTP officers won't be there, I also don't see the investigator seeing it as an opportunity to hand the ticket back. Recorded delivery would be less hassle than trying to arrange a meeting at a busy station, merely to hand something ovet.

But we shall, hopefully, be told what transpires.

 

[AlterEgo]

I read it that the investigator is in London anyhow and sees it as an opportunity to get the ticket back to the right person.

As did I.

 

[Haywain]

I read it that the investigator is in London anyhow and sees it as an opportunity to get the ticket back to the right person.

Me too, but then I don't go in for conspiracy theories.

 

[gpus28]

I’m trying to stay level headed, on the fors side, it’s a high value ticket and I’ve assumed they want to check the person who owns it is getting it back rather than risk posting it (even if recorded) and I’m assuming he may get questioned in some way or given a stern talking to, but trying to take the comment about the investigation being concluded as a sign he’s not meeting him for further information or anything more heavy handed. I assume if information was needed we would have been contacted for our side of the events and the card wouldn’t be given back. I do however think that sharing your destination station was overly open of the officer…

 

[skyhigh]

Recorded delivery would be less hassle than trying to arrange a meeting at a busy station, merely to hand something ovet.

Maybe I'm wrong, but particularly given that the card was misused by someone at the same address, they may feel that it's 'safer' to hand the pass over in person rather than post it to the address. Maybe with a verbal reminder of the conditions of the pass so the file can be endorsed appropriately in case misuse is found again in the future.

I highly doubt that there is an ulterior motive to the offer.

 

[gpus28]

Case concluded. No further action however my husband has signed an attestation that if the card is found to be used by another person that is not him, he will be prosecuted. Thank you for your responses everyone. You’ve been really helpful throughout and it’s appreciated.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks for the update, it is always useful to know the outcome!