Wrongly accused of overwritten carnet by FCC

[jon0844]

I'd hope that in court, you'd be able to do tests to easily tell if the other 'writing' is from the same pen (and ink) or not.

It's certainly possible to write on a ticket with a 'harder' pen and not indent it. The problem is usually that the ink won't always flow, causing you to try again and again (which then breaks the orange covering and damages it). If the ink DOES flow, you don't have a problem.

For example, you could write on a date quite thin first time around. Then avoid the gates and later on use a thicker pen to write on a new date and go again. I am sure this is a relatively easy and common fraud (let me stress I am not saying that's the case here) because the thicker pen covers the previous information.

Because of this, it's no wonder that any RPI would be suspicious - hence the situation as it is today. However, I'm convinced that if you knew you were telling the truth and had a totally honest explanation, there would be some forensic experts able to prove your case (but goodness knows how expensive they'd be).

 

[Bakerbloke]

I have a few questions and comments. Forgive me if these have been addressed already.

Do you still have the other used and unused carnet tickets?
Was the same pen used for each?

So it looks to me like a crappy felt tip pin was used which takes a while to dry and so some of the ink will travel. This is obvious in the case at the bottom of each 3 where the excess ink runs along the fibres of the ticket in both cases.

How are they tickets presented? Are they loose or attached to each other?
Would the previous tickets have been written on whilst the unused tickets were underneath. On one or more of these occasions was a biro type narrow point pressed hard on one or more of these tickets which may have left an imprint on tickets underneath?
If tickets are sold loose then this would be unlikely.

I've measured where the run marks are on your ticket scans using imageJ - see attached. All white lines are the same length and same angle (I used the restore selection tool). There are common run lines on 6 (there are 2 run lines on ticket 2) and 0 in both tickets which may be from an imprint from filling in a previous ticket(s) or I guess the common run marks could be from the printing machine itself?

I'm no expert so interpretations and input from others on the forum would be welcome.

 

[Bakerbloke]

What do people think of the number 3 on ticket 1? That thin line beginning with the blob curves down into the bottom of the number 3 where it looks like it continues running to the left, then down, then to the left again where it ends beyond the 3.

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm slightly confused as to what you're trying to say here. If I summarise what I think your post is conveying and then you could confirm I haven't got the wrong end of the stick?

"The markings that look like a Biro could have been caused by liquid ink from the felt tip running down indentations in the ticket? These indentations could have been made by a Biro writing firmly on a different ticket, when all three tickets were stacked on top of each other like a deck of cards.

Analysing these run marks shows that relative to each other they're in the exact same place on both tickets, which would support the idea that the tickets were stacked and all they have indentations in the same place."

It's not something I would have ever thought of, but it could make sense given that felt tips (unlike "proper" permanent markers) do produce ink that can run and smear on glossy surfaces. It's still somewhat hard to believe that this could have caused the '3' to have been written like that though.

 

[jon0844]

You'd surely have to write quite slow to have so much ink running?

Perhaps the pen used should be taken to court (if taken that far) so this can be demonstrated on another ticket?

I've personally never used a permanent marker that has such ink flow, and the only pens I could think of would not have dried on such a surface - meaning all of the ink would have smudged all over the place.

 

[oddiesjack]

Flipping Heck!! Its like the RailUK Forums Detective Agency in here at the moment.

 

[flymo]

Or even CSI - Carnet Scan Investigation.

 

[NSEFAN]

Or even CSI - Carnet Scan Investigation.

Surely that's "scam?"

 

[jon0844]

Flipping Heck!! Its like the RailUK Forums Detective Agency in here at the moment.

Did you not see the other thread with the colour scanned/printed season ticket stuck on another ticket for sentimental reasons thread?!

 

[s3an]

Try to find a local University who could analyze overwritten objects using uv and other light, possibly using various filters. You would normally need the original tickets but if you have some old/unused ones you could use the same pens and get them to look at those. if they can extract the underlying numbers ask the TOC to get the University to analyze the original tickets.

With the greyscale images again someone at your local University might be able to use a tool like matlab to do frequency analysis on the images to extract information.

 

[Tibbs]

Did you not see the other thread with the colour scanned/printed season ticket stuck on another ticket for sentimental reasons thread?!

As ever, it was another poster who described it as 'sentimental reasons', not the OP.

 

[W230]

I'm still confused with all this, so i'll just say what I see.

It looks to me as if the same date has been overwritten. Originally written in biro possibly and then over the top in permanent marker or similar. I know different people see things in different ways but I can't see it any other than how I have described!

Obviously I don't know if this actually is the case but if it is then it suggests that there has been no intent involved to evade the fare.

However, the NRCoC say:

23. If a ticket is damaged or altered
If a ticket has been damaged or has been tampered with or altered in any way, it is not
valid for travel. However, if you return it to the Train Company or travel agent which sold
it to you, they will arrange for a replacement ticket to be issued unless it has reason to
suspect that the ticket has, or will be, used for fraudulent or improper purposes. You may
have to pay a reasonable administrative charge (not exceeding £10) for the replacement.

So in my opinion the ticket became tampered with as soon it was overwritten meaning that it should no longer have been used. While it doesn't look to me that there is any intent at defrauding FCC, because of what the NRCoC state above, I would suggest still using the ticket is an offence.

I know we don't all see the same/agree and can defintely sympathise as writing over to be clearer is probably what I would have done if I used a pen that didn't show it very well. But having read the NRCoC I think I'd be grudginly accepting out of court...

 

[silencio]

To me it also looks like the ticket has been overwritten however this is only my perception from a greyscale scan. Hardly definitive.

If this went to court would the TOC not have to prove that this has in fact been overwritten rather than the OP defending the notion?

 

[jon0844]

I'd hope so. But if there is another pen used underneath, it won't be hard to prove this.

My guess, however, is that FCC won't want to spend that amount of money and stands to make more with a hefty out of court settlement instead.

 

[silencio]

Agreed. So if the OP is certain that it wasn't tampered with/written over surely it'd be worth considering proceeding?

Obviously that's their call though.

 

[Bakerbloke]

Some posts above give some reasonable suggestions. I would start by writing the same numbers on used rail tickets to see if the ink does indeed always run and take scans of these tests.

 

[trevwilliams]

After looking at those tickets I can only reach the conclusion thet the OP is telling the truth. If one looks at the greyscale scans you can see how a stray fibre has mirrored the directions of the strokes.

I think Bakerbloke has almost clinched it though I cant agree that the ink has run. The surface of these tickets is glossy and not absorbent. The strokes of the pen are brisk and do not look like they were carefully 'painted' with any deliberate intent. What we see is consistent with a felt pen tip becoming everso slightly fraid, with the fraid 'whisp' becoming detached from the bottom left and acting as a second pen.

I think FCC HAVE NOT had these tested and are bluffing when they say they have. Those fine lines have not been created with a biro or similar type pen. Anyone who has worked in a graphics or art based industry would recognise this - a forensic test could only reach one conclusion. FCC will lose this IF forensic test are carried out.

 

[185]

If one looks at the greyscale scans you can see how a stray fibre has mirrored the directions of the strokes.

I considered that as a possible answer, but the angle of the two strokes does not match & mirror on two of the numerals, indeed suggesting two separate pens, hence my earlier comment about following solicitor's advice.

 

[jb]

I considered that as a possible answer, but the angle of the two strokes does not match & mirror on two of the numerals, indeed suggesting two separate pens, hence my earlier comment about following solicitor's advice.

One might be able to make the argument fly for the "3" but without some serious expert input I think one would struggle with it for the "0" or the "2".

 

[jon0844]

At the end of the day, the OP knows the truth. If the story is genuine, by all means take it to court and pay whatever it takes to prove it forensically.
If the story has been slightly tweaked to try and avoid prosecution, settle out of court or take the risk of calling their bluff on the basis that they might not have done any real testing and don't intend to.

We can only give opinions here and my opinion differs from some others, as you might expect. This isn't ever going to be as open and shut as some of the threads on here - especially with nobody being able to see the original tickets.

 

[WillPS]

I personally think it's pretty obvious from the '0' that the fibre tip of the pen had split, hence causing the outer lines.

Is it not the case that FCC would have to "prove beyond reasonable doubt"?

 

[soil]

I personally think it's pretty obvious from the '0' that the fibre tip of the pen had split, hence causing the outer lines.

Is it not the case that FCC would have to "prove beyond reasonable doubt"?

With a jury trial that would be the case, but this is a summary only offence, and I'm not sure that magistrates work like that, even though obviously they should.

 

[nedchester]

After looking at those tickets I can only reach the conclusion thet the OP is telling the truth. If one looks at the greyscale scans you can see how a stray fibre has mirrored the directions of the strokes.

I think Bakerbloke has almost clinched it though I cant agree that the ink has run. The surface of these tickets is glossy and not absorbent. The strokes of the pen are brisk and do not look like they were carefully 'painted' with any deliberate intent. What we see is consistent with a felt pen tip becoming everso slightly fraid, with the fraid 'whisp' becoming detached from the bottom left and acting as a second pen.

I think FCC HAVE NOT had these tested and are bluffing when they say they have. Those fine lines have not been created with a biro or similar type pen. Anyone who has worked in a graphics or art based industry would recognise this - a forensic test could only reach one conclusion. FCC will lose this IF forensic test are carried out.

I'd like to hope this does go to court and is thrown out because it has wide implications for people who use rovers and suchlike. If you write the date on the ticket there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why it can look a dodgy.

The example of the split felt tip is highlighted in this case but what about someone who has less than perfect handwriting. Is someone going to be taken to court because their writing is a little messy and the RPI thinks they've altered a ticket?

I agree that the evidence that FCC are using is to say the least a little dodgy but maybe it's something we've come to express from the bounty hunters that work for that company.

 

[ModernRailways]

I'd like to hope this does go to court and is thrown out because it has wide implications for people who use rovers and suchlike. If you write the date on the ticket there are all sorts of legitimate reasons why it can look a dodgy.

I've actually had the same kind of thing happen to me as OP has. I bought a rover for the North East, it was 4 in 8 days so had to write down the dates, on the second day of the rover (day 5 of it's validity) when I put the date it my pen didn't work but left a very slight indentation where I had to tried to put it, I then tried another pen which decided to stop working half way through writing the date so I had to then use a marker pen I had on me to write the date, which smudged in my ticket wallet. When the Guard came along he quizzed me over it, but since I had used it the same dates as my friend, he decided to let me off.

I then got to the ticket office at York and asked if they could replace it, they told me they couldn't and that it would be fine to continue using. I didn't want any hassle so finished off Day 2 then decided to just leave it instead of risking getting caught. I wrote a letter to East Coast (they sold me the ticket) telling them what happened and attached the tickets. I received 50% of my money back in Rail Travel Vouchers.

We need a better way to mark down validity though and I think smartcards will help with this hugely! Or Train Guards/stations should stamp them with the expiry date/dates being used and then make sure they are dry so they can go into a ticket wallet. I can't help but wonder how many other people are doing this legitimately (possibly like OP) and getting stopped, not everyone visits these forums!

From looking at the tickets OP has provided it looks to me like it's just a felt tip with a stray fibre, if OP can try and find the felt-tip used though that would really help their chances, if they can't I'd recommend settling out of court and putting it down to a bad experience, and lesson learnt. Even better if they are lying to us! Saying that, I would see how much FCC will want from you, and if it's over a certain amount (not too sure what would be unreasonable, so hopefully someone else will help you out with that) then say 'No', especially if you're telling us the truth. If you aren't telling the truth and lying then I'd settle out of court. It will most definitely be the best outcome!

 

[185]

SNCF France has the best answer.... a composter (validator) box at every stop. You are required to date stamp every ticket prior to use, including a stamp onto each portion of a multi-leg ticket.

Newer composters are thermal to match the ticket stock. I have also seen this thermal stamper technology on hand stampers (rare, unreliable) and on station ticket gates (fast & excellent).

 

[W-on-Sea]

Yes,my thoughts entirely: something like the "composter" machines used in France or Italy is a much better way of doing this than relying on writing the dates on - which is prone to human error. The only place that I know of where such devices have been used in the UK was on the Docklands Light Railway when it first opened, but they didn't last for long. That said - I've used those machines in France, and inadvertently smudged the printed information on the ticket too: the type of paper used for the ticket is a factor there, as here.

 

[jon0844]

What about the carnet tickets on the Underground, which had the platform validators?

Now replaced with Oyster readers/validators.

 

[barrykas]

What about the carnet tickets on the Underground, which had the platform validators?

Now replaced with Oyster readers/validators.

Weren't the carnet validators essentially the same as Oyster readers, only reading and encoding the magstripe without printing anything?

 

[jon0844]

I presume you HAD to encode the magstrip to make a tube carnet valid. Either at a gate or the validators on platforms with access from, say, National Rail (e.g. Highbury & Islington).

 

[Royston Vasey]

Not at all convinced by this "split felt tip" or fibre theory. Looks like a biro to me, no variation in the thickness of the lines, perfectly consistent. How anyone can categorically state, from a monochrome scan, that it is a dodgy felt tip is beyond me