Disproving "intent to avoid payment" with Oyster credit

[CNash]

A hypothetical situation.

You're making a journey within London and for whatever reason, you either don't have a valid travelcard or forgot to touch in on PAYG. At your destination you're stopped by an official, and you can't produce a valid ticket.

My question is: does the presence of Oyster credit (of a sufficient amount to pay for any journey you might have made) on your card mean that you can't be charged with "intent to avoid payment", as you had the means to pay for your journey on your card?

 

[34D]

A hypothetical situation.

You're making a journey within London and for whatever reason, you either don't have a valid travelcard or forgot to touch in on PAYG. At your destination you're stopped by an official, and you can't produce a valid ticket.

My question is: does the presence of Oyster credit (of a sufficient amount to pay for any journey you might have made) on your card mean that you can't be charged with "intent to avoid payment", as you had the means to pay for your journey on your card?

I'd say not, as people may have wallets stuffed with £50 notes and still get convicted of s5.3.

 

[W-on-Sea]

I'm fairly sure not, as the "intent to avoid payment" would refer to you having failed to touch in (for whatever reason). You could equally have some money in your wallet, or have a credit or debit card on you, but you've not used it to buy a ticket when you should have - ie at the start of the journey. Same principle, different medium, really.

 

[yorkie]

You're making a journey within London and for whatever reason...

... they may want to establish the reason before proceeding.

you either don't have a valid travelcard or forgot to touch in on PAYG. At your destination you're stopped by an official, and you can't produce a valid ticket.

Then I'd expect them to ask where your origin was. A penalty fare would usually be issued, but if you joined at a station with a gateline or where an RPI blockade was in place then questions would be asked.

My question is: does the presence of Oyster credit (of a sufficient amount to pay for any journey you might have made) on your card mean that you can't be charged with "intent to avoid payment", as you had the means to pay for your journey on your card?

I am not sure why you'd draw that conclusion. That is no different to asking if someone holding cash couldn't be prosecuted!

As no detail is in the question, the only answer I can give is that they would ask questions about where you got on, and depending on your answer, a decision would be taken on how to proceed.

 

[CNash]

Ok then. However, as I understand it, the Oyster system will charge a "maximum fare" if you touch out without having touched in - does this count as having paid for your journey, or can you still be given a penalty fare if you're inspected before this can occur?

 

[MikeWh]

Ok then. However, as I understand it, the Oyster system will charge a "maximum fare" if you touch out without having touched in - does this count as having paid for your journey, or can you still be given a penalty fare if you're inspected before this can occur?

No it doesn't count and yes you can still be given a penalty fare. The rules with Oyster are clear: you must either hold a travelcard season covering the zones you travel through or have validated the card at the start of your journey if you intend to use PAYG credit. If neither apply then you are travelling without a ticket.

 

[wintonian]

A hypothetical situation.

You're making a journey within London and for whatever reason, you either don't have a valid travelcard or forgot to touch in on PAYG. At your destination you're stopped by an official, and you can't produce a valid ticket.

My question is: does the presence of Oyster credit (of a sufficient amount to pay for any journey you might have made) on your card mean that you can't be charged with "intent to avoid payment", as you had the means to pay for your journey on your card?

I think it would very much depend on the individual circumstances.

As I said in another thread producing a Visa Electrion card on-board for payment could IMO be seen as either:

Intent to avoid payment if the passenger knows full well it won't be accepted

or
​

It could be seen as someone who isn't aware that it can't be authorised on-board, perhaps because they rarely travel buy train or are usually able to obtain a ticket before boarding.​

 

[trc666]

You can still be given a penalty fare or worse be reported for prosecution if there is clear intent to avoid payment. Just because there is credit on an Oyster doesn't mean the person will use it - when we had the bendy buses here in London a lot of people would only touch in if they saw RPIs board the bus to avoid getting penalty fared.

There is a tendency for people to touch in at stations like London Waterloo or Clapham Junction and travel to stations well outside the zones (Ascot, Guildford, Windsor etc), then touch out on return as two maximum fares can be far cheaper than an Anytime or Off Peak Return. Last week someone tried to get out my barrier after her Oyster got rejected due to insufficent funds, and she had come from Guildford (and didn't have a ticket), after referring her to an RPI that was with me it turned out she had done it before and was promptly reported for prosecution rather than penalty fared.

 

[yorkie]

Ok then. However, as I understand it, the Oyster system will charge a "maximum fare" if you touch out without having touched in - does this count as having paid for your journey, or can you still be given a penalty fare if you're inspected before this can occur?

Well, you're going to be inspected at a point before you have opportunity to touch out, and you need to show a valid ticket at that point. So, yes of course you can still be given a PF.

 

[CNash]

Fair enough. Next: is "I thought my card was validated" ever an acceptable reason for the system showing that you haven't touched in? For example, in a busy station with a crush of bodies at the barriers, accidental tailgating can occur - you touch too soon after the person in front, getting a Seek Assistance message, and push (or are pushed) through behind him. So you believe you're ok for your journey, and the resulting max fare at the other end comes as a bit of a surprise!

 

[londonbridge]

Fair enough. Next: is "I thought my card was validated" ever an acceptable reason for the system showing that you haven't touched in? For example, in a busy station with a crush of bodies at the barriers, accidental tailgating can occur - you touch too soon after the person in front, getting a Seek Assistance message, and push (or are pushed) through behind him. So you believe you're ok for your journey, and the resulting max fare at the other end comes as a bit of a surprise!

I had something along these lines happen to me once when coming back from football. We'd been playing an away game at West Ham,back to Upton Park tube,crush of fans swiping and moving through the barriers,went to touch in,heard the beep,got on the tube,got a max fare when I touched out. Rang the helpline who said records showed an unresolved journey with no touch in. Told them the circumstances and that I believed I had touched in correctly,they gave me a refund.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The test is "Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, . . . . " or similar wording in one of the other Regulations.

Your questions about "Oyster credit", "Maximum Fare", "person in front" , "accidental tailgating" simply don't come in to it.

Could it be that your "hypothetical situation" follows from having been detected failing the above test and are now in hindsight trying to think up some loophole of your own, rather than investigate previous ticketing prosecutions which have failed?

 

[MikeWh]

I know you've said this is all hypothetical, but your line of questioning leads me to believe that you are fishing for ways to get round a problem. If you can explain exactly what happened on the day in question then we can advise if you might be able to benefit from any extenuating circumstances. Nothing that we would find would stop a PF being issued, but they might encourage it to be cancelled. I'd rather not chase round in circles on hypothetical sitautions.



Edit: Snap, Dave beat me to it!

 

[CNash]

Amazingly enough, these are actually all hypothetical situations. You're free to disbelieve me, of course, and I won't hold it against you - suspicion must be the natural mode of thinking for folk employed by the railways these days, which is somewhat understandable.

My purpose for asking these questions is simply to enhance my knowledge of how the rules of ticketing are affected by various scenarios involving Oyster PAYG, a couple of which have been nagging at me for some time. To those who have been patient with me and offered good explanations: thank you!

 

[yorkie]

...My purpose for asking these questions is simply to enhance my knowledge of how the rules of ticketing are affected by various scenarios ...

No problem. We don't have any more of our popular Fares Workshops planned at the moment, but you're welcome to join us at one of our London meals if you'd like to discuss it with us in person, the next one I'll be at is in 4 weeks time (Fri 16 Nov), and there's usually about 10 of us (I think we had 12 last week!). It can be easier to discuss this sort of thing in person, especially when it gets very hypothetical.

 

[barrykas]

There's a separate "Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail services" document which is available in PDF form on the Conditions of Carriage page on the National Rail site.

Condition 3.13 is relevant in this scenario:

If you do not touch in at the station where you start your journey and touch out at the station where you end your journey, you may be charged more than the advertised Oyster single fare, and any daily price cap to which you may be entitled will not apply. You may also be liable to a Penalty Fare and/or you may be prosecuted.

As is Condition 7:

Penalty Fares apply on the National Rail network in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

If you are within a Compulsory Ticket Area or travelling on National Rail services within the London National Rail Fare Zones Area without:

• a ticket that is valid available for the journey you are making
• an Oyster card containing a valid Travelcard season ticket
• a validated Oyster card, when you are paying as you go, showing a record of the start of your journey
• a validated Oyster card and sufficient pay as you balance, when using a combination of a Travelcard and pay as you go credit, to make a journey beyond the zonal validity of the Travelcard season ticket held on your Oyster card

you may be issued with a Penalty Fare and/or you may be prosecuted.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[34D]

Amazingly enough, these are actually all hypothetical situations. You're free to disbelieve me, of course, and I won't hold it against you - suspicion must be the natural mode of thinking for folk employed by the railways these days, which is somewhat understandable.

My purpose for asking these questions is simply to enhance my knowledge of how the rules of ticketing are affected by various scenarios involving Oyster PAYG, a couple of which have been nagging at me for some time. To those who have been patient with me and offered good explanations: thank you!

Have a good read of Mike's website http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/

I think the top and bottom of the matter is to always look for the green light and listen for the beep, and don't feel obliged to follow the same pace as other passengers. Or consider a travelcard for peace of mind.

 

[island]

Having insufficient credit on one's Oyster card could be used as evidence that one had intent to avoid payment of the fare due. The converse is not true.

 

[jon0844]

I've never really thought that much about the risk of prosecution, as all of my trips in London were on Oyster with a Travelcard - so if I didn't scan in or out, it wasn't a big deal (hence a shed load of incomplete journeys on my history).

But since going to PAYG, I am certainly now conscious of all those times I had problems getting through - and the person behind effectively let me out (and of course, the many times it happened with me letting the person in front out). At peak times, it happened quite a lot and it's not always easy to stop and go back - and how many people want to go and queue at the ticket window to seek assistance (I doubt staff at the gateline can do much)?

I've never quite understood why sometimes a reader will fail to communicate and give the 'seek assistance' when there's nothing wrong with the Oyster card and any credit/travelcards loadsed on. Clearly it fails to send/receive data without some form of error, but could a flag not be marked on the Oyster to show that an attempt to scan was made? If that was done first, including the time/location, then any subsequent failure to complete the interaction wouldn't be so harmful for someone later caught.

Clearly it will still mess up the billing and possibly mean an incomplete journey/maximum cash fare, but it would help disprove intent as surely everyone knows about the problem with people going through gates in a crowd. I also doubt anyone would be able to trigger such an error on an easily repeatable basis to use this as a way of avoiding prosecution.

 

[island]

If the card can't communicate properly, then by definition it can't set a flag that it was unable to communicate properly.

 

[RJ]

If the card can't communicate properly, then by definition it can't set a flag that it was unable to communicate properly.

Yes they can. Certain types of statement will show failed validations.

 

[jon0844]

If the card can't communicate properly, then by definition it can't set a flag that it was unable to communicate properly.

It all depends how it failed I'd have thought? Clearly if there was absolutely no contact, there could be NO data transfer/flagged but the red/seek assistance must mean there was some communication.

 

[TUC]

I'm fairly sure not, as the "intent to avoid payment" would refer to you having failed to touch in (for whatever reason). You could equally have some money in your wallet, or have a credit or debit card on you, but you've not used it to buy a ticket when you should have - ie at the start of the journey. Same principle, different medium, really.

If deliberately didn't touch in, that would be likely to be 'intent' wouldn't it?

 

[34D]

But since going to PAYG, I am certainly now conscious of all those times I had problems getting through - and the person behind effectively let me out (and of course, the many times it happened with me letting the person in front out). At peak times, it happened quite a lot and it's not always easy to stop and go back - and how many people want to go and queue at the ticket window to seek assistance (I doubt staff at the gateline can do much)?

I have never had a mis-scan. I always wait for the gate to partly close from the person in front, and always ensure that it opens on my touch.

 

[Mojo]

If an Oyster card is scanned on a handheld reader then the reason code for the failed validation will be shown. In over 95% of cases I find that cards giving a 'Comms error' (code 94) are because people attempt to wave their cards over the reader rather than placing it flat on the reader and awaiting the green light. I don't think it helps that the picture seems to infer that you are supposed to 'whoosh' your card over the reader like it's some kind of magic wand.

There is no need to wait for the gate to close in front, just wait for the yellow light on the reader, put your card on, and remove it when the light goes green. Often people will block the sensor by walking into the gate and then they cannot get it to read, because the reader shows a red light.

 

[Nym]

If an Oyster card is scanned on a handheld reader then the reason code for the failed validation will be shown. In over 95% of cases I find that cards giving a 'Comms error' (code 94) are because people attempt to wave their cards over the reader rather than placing it flat on the reader and awaiting the green light.

There is no need to wait for the gate to close in front, just wait for the yellow light on the reader, put your card on, and remove it when the light goes green. Often people will block the sensor by walking into the gate and then they cannot get it to read, because the reader shows a red light.

There are also often error codes 70 and 71 where the card cannot be read due to a read error, due to reading another card in the wallet or a checksum failure due to being read through too thicker wallet, these often come from the same kind of passengers who show 94 errors. Any of these will result in not being logged properly when Oyster customer services are called, they will not know anything will have tapped out or tried to, so there is no error to rectify.