Wrongly accused of overwritten carnet by FCC

[maniacmartin]

FCC now give out FCC Carnet-writing pens at stations when you buy carnets. They are fine permanent markers, not too dissimilar to this, but with the FCC logo on. It's good to see that they've finally seen that the tickets are difficult to write on.

 

[Flamingo]

We get issued with those or Sharpies for writing on tickets.

 

[jon0844]

FCC now give out FCC Carnet-writing pens at stations when you buy carnets. They are fine permanent markers, not too dissimilar to this, but with the FCC logo on. It's good to see that they've finally seen that the tickets are difficult to write on.

Besides that meaning they've now realised the difficulty with writing on a shiny surface, I wouldn't want to risk losing the pen (or simply leaving it in the wrong jacket etc) and being back to square one.

The safest solution is not to buy them at all.

 

[shedguy]

So after mulling it over, we went to a local solicitor who sent off a reasonably brief response denying the accusation. He also offered to 'have a word' with prosecutor on our behalf.

Some time later he responded:

I write just to update you that I have at long last been able to speak with Mr XXX from First Capital Connect, Legal Department, and he is sending me a copy of your train (Carnet) which apparently they have had forensically examined and it is an enlargement which he says clearly shows that it has been altered and First Capital Connect are considering a prosecution.

Please take notice that I was able to delay him sending you a Summons in the post until I/we have had a chance of examining the said ticket and to that end he stated, off the record, that he would be prepared to consider an out of court settlement to reflect their administration costs and any financial penalty that the court would have imposed upon a guilty plea, or a finding of guilt following trial. As soon as I have received the said document from First Capital Connect I will contact you.
​

The scans have now arrived and we have spoken with the solicitor who advised my partner of his options and is now awaiting a response (along the lines of: Fight it unconditionally, fight it, but explore compromises or don't fight it and look for the best possible settlement.) I have attached the scans here. (They came in PDF form in grey-scale, cropped as you see here. I have simply copied and pasted them into PNG format at the supplied resolution.)

As I mentioned before, there are secondary markings on the tickets which follow the path of the heavy numerals, only offset.

To my eyes I don't see a convincing alternative explanation; if this was an overwritten date as they suggest, what kind of pen would have written it in the first place and just what was the date being overwritten?

By the way, now that we know they exist, my partner is now using an 'official' FCC marker for his Carnets, although initially when he asked, the local ticket office had run out of stock.

 

[maniacmartin]

So, your partner was stopped on 16/02/13 and the bottom of the tickets indicated that they were printed on 25/01/13. Thus the only possible dates you could have benefited writing over are in this gap.

There clearly was never a day of the month starting with '2' written under the 16 in either ticket, so I'm presuming that they think another February date was written underneath. Possible numbers under the DD field might be 1, 11, 6 or 16, but I doubt anything else. The lines through the loops of the sixes make it look to me like the number that was overwritten was probably also a 6 though.

I'm not convinced that FCC can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the overwritten date was different, but I am not a lawyer.

 

[185]

As much as I normally utterly despair at the antics of FCC, I think they have quite reasonable grounds here, and would certainly suggest to consider following your solicitor's advice on this one.

 

[tony6499]

So, your partner was stopped on 16/02/13 and the bottom of the tickets indicated that they were printed on 25/01/13. Thus the only possible dates you could have benefited writing over are in this gap.

There clearly was never a day of the month starting with '2' written under the 16 in either ticket, so I'm presuming that they think another February date was written underneath. Possible numbers under the DD field might be 1, 11, 6 or 16, but I doubt anything else. The lines through the loops of the sixes make it look to me like the number that was overwritten was probably also a 6 though.

I'm not convinced that FCC can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the overwritten date was different, but I am not a lawyer.

The first 1 is written with a kink as if it is covering something whilst the second 1 is written straight so looks like it is something in the first box that FCC are looking at

 

[southernmanc]

upon checking those two tickets, there does seem to be an attempt at using the ticket for a second occasion.

eg: first journey made by ticket and marking the date with a biro

later date: same ticket used with marker to signal new date and to cover up old date.

Unfortunately, unless stringent ticket checks are always made on the train by conductors marking each ticket (not possible), then from knowledge it is the open rtn tickets and carnets that continue to come under suspicion.

 

[jon0844]

Does seem to me that there are two sets of numbers there. One in quite a thin biro and the second with a thicker pen.

And given I can't think of a reason to do that, I'd be biting their arm off to settle out of court. I am sure there are more thorough tests that could reveal the original biro writing if it went to court.

 

[richw]

The first 1 is written with a kink as if it is covering something whilst the second 1 is written straight so looks like it is something in the first box that FCC are looking at

Althought looking at the issue date there would be no number possible to be used over the top. the month has not been altered, that is obvious,so therefore the day could be between 1 and 16 so no other number could be possible in the starting date. we'd have _1 _2 ....10 11...16

 

[MikeWh]

Althought looking at the issue date there would be no number possible to be used over the top. the month has not been altered, that is obvious,so therefore the day could be between 1 and 16 so no other number could be possible in the starting date. we'd have _1 _2 ....10 11...16

Unfortunately I have to disagree. The 'second useage' was on 16/02 and that felt-tip 6 could cover pretty much anything else, but particularly a 5. I think I'd bite the offer of an out of court settlement quickly and move on.

 

[richw]

Unfortunately I have to disagree. The 'second useage' was on 16/02 and that felt-tip 6 could cover pretty much anything else, but particularly a 5. I think I'd bite the offer of an out of court settlement quickly and move on.

Apologies my post wasn't completely clear. The only dates could be reused from is 10-16 Feb

 

[Swirlz]

I have examined the ticket(s) attached. My opinion is that it makes absolutely no difference what the dates could have been.

They have definitely been altered - nobody can disagree with that, (except the OP in the first post!)

The underlying date has been written in a different style pen, (i.e. not a sharpie), as was originally suggested in the very first post.

It has been overwritten, regardless of the reason behind that - and the fact this is/was denied by the OP or his friend, adds weight to FCC's suspicions that an element of dishonesty is present.

My opinion is that the ticket was not valid for the journey made as the use of the ticket was in breach of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage - Condition 23.

If a ticket has been damaged or has been tampered with or altered in any way, it is not valid for travel.

Accordingly, Byelaw 18(1) can be enforced for travelling without a valid ticket. As the "NRCoC" states "in any way", it covers both dishonest and genuine intentions.

I am less convinced Byelaw 20 would be successful due to the requirement of "intent" - unless a forensic expert was called as a witness.

Having **some** experience of how Magistrates' react to things like this - I think the odds are certainly against the defendant for this one and would recommend settling out of court - which can probably be done yourself for less than what your solicitor will charge you.

(A solicitor may also have other motives for progressing this to court, even if you could lose, £££).

If you do settle out of court, I may have a novel suggestion how to reclaim your solicitor fees though! (See Dowler v Merseyrail)

 

[transmanche]

.The safest solution is not to buy them at all.

It's about time that FCC introduced an ITSO smart card for Carnets.

 

[Swirlz]

It's about time that FCC introduced an ITSO smart card for Carnets.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of carnet tickets are bought and used without problems.

If it was a massive problem, FCC would have axed the carnet product by now.

I suspect something like 1-2% encounter problems.

 

[455driver]

Maybe this thread needs its title changing so it is more accurate?

 

[bb21]

I guess that I am not the only one who looks at the first ticket and says to myself: that cannot possibly be a fibre from the tip going astray or a piece of fluff as the OP claimed in the first post?

 

[transmanche]

It's about time that FCC introduced an ITSO smart card for Carnets.

I'm sure hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of carnet tickets are bought and used without problems.

If it was a massive problem, FCC would have axed the carnet product by now.

I suspect something like 1-2% encounter problems.

Well, it's not the first time that we'd had such problems reported here - problems that were deemed sufficient for FCC to start issuing free pens along with the carnet.

So why not go down the ITSO smartcard route? It'll be coming anyway in time, so it's a good opportunity for the TOC to test it in operation.

 

[shedguy]

Well, I expected a degree of skepticism, it is the internet after all and why should anyone here take me at my word?

First of all, what the scans can't show is the lack of indentation on the ticket that you would get from any ball-point pen, nor can the greyscale image show that the fine marks are the same colour as the thick lines. Before jumping to conclusions, try writing on an old ticket with the finest pen you have to hand and see if the marks are anywhere near as fine as the marks on these.

I remind you that my partner couldn't see anything wrong on the original tickets at the time (he doesn't normally need reading glasses, but his farsightedness is pretty typical for someone in his 50s)

Our solicitor did not give specific advice - he is perfectly willing to defend us. He did point out that, no matter how galling, settling if available, may be the most pragmatic option, given the sort of costs we might need to lay on the line to fight it.

Anyway, all constructive advice is welcome.

 

[jon0844]

It's about time that FCC introduced an ITSO smart card for Carnets.

I totally agree. It's very easy to make a mess of your ticket as it stands, at best rendering a ticket unusable or at worst, getting you into all sorts of potential trouble if attempting more than once to write on the date makes it look like you've tampered with it.

Ironically, this thread doesn't really count as a way of supporting your/my opinion that the current cards are flawed, as it seems to me that it was tampered with!

But, for any other thread or discussion on here or elsewhere, I'd say that they're more hassle than they're worth and don't actually save you that much money anyway.

Well, I expected a degree of skepticism, it is the internet after all and why should anyone here take me at my word?

It simply doesn't look like what you say to me, and obviously not to FCC either. And I expect it's going to be hard to prove otherwise.

However, if you say the reality is different than the scanned images I can see, it might pan out better in court with a suitable (and likely costly) defence, and the relevant experts can be brought in to properly prove by using whatever techniques available to show what's 'underneath', or not as the case may be.

I am sure that it would be very easy in the first instance to check if the markings that appear to be another set of numbers written underneath are in fact made from the exact same ink, for example.

Such forensic examinations are likely to be costly though - for both sides - which could lead to high costs. Again, it might be easier to take it on the chin and settle out of court if possible.

 

[maniacmartin]

it seems clear to me that it WAS tampered with!

It does not seem at all clear to me. It may have had a different date underneath, but it also may not have. There are a few dates that could have been underneath, such as 1/02/13 or 6/02/13, but unlike MikeWh I don't see any wonky '1's or anywhere where a '5' could be concealed underneath.

Whilst I think over-writing the date like so was somewhat foolish, I can easily see from previous experience how it may have happened on the glossy ticket stock.

Does using a 2nd pen after the first one fails even class as "tampering" at all? If this process was so infalliable, then FCC wouldn't have had to introduce special carnet pens in the first place.

 

[shedguy]

Oh I forgot to add, the solicitor raised the question with the prosecutor of what information was available from the magstripe, given that IIRC the ticket went through the barrier at Letchworth that morning. The response that came back was to the effect that no useful information could be gained from that data.

Note this has gone through the filter of the solicitor who didn't strike me as the most tech-savvy guy - the gist was that the systems retained no useful data for these tickets - this seems to conflict with what I have read elsewhere.

 

[jon0844]

It does not seem at all clear to me. It may have had a different date underneath, but it also may not have. There are a few dates that could have been underneath, such as 1/02/13 or 6/02/13, but unlike MikeWh I don't see any wonky '1's or anywhere where a '5' could be concealed underneath.

Whilst I think over-writing the date like so was somewhat foolish, I can easily see from previous experience how it may have happened on the glossy ticket stock.

Does using a 2nd pen after the first one fails even class as "tampering" at all? If this process was so infalliable, then FCC wouldn't have had to introduce special carnet pens in the first place.

The problem is that if it has had a date put on with one pen, badly, and someone has gone over again with another pen - straight away you've got a ticket that looks like it's tampered with. In theory, you should be able to take it to the counter and get it changed for a new one, but of coursethey could argue that they can't tell you haven't used it, as even the magstrip is no proof when a lot of the time gatelines are open.

Given the problems I've had (including not working gates, which also makes RPI suddenly raise their eyebrows), I'd never EVER dream of going over more than once. If the pen doesn't work properly, I now (or did) write the full date on the back of the ticket as advised by an RPI. Of course, that could still leave you open to problems from another RPI - on the basis that you might later write on another date (and claim the date on the back is just a reminder or something).

Basically, there are too many ways to make something look dodgy, even if your intentions are 100% genuine. And that's why I don't like them and won't buy them anymore. Maybe having a proper, foolproof, pen is an answer - but what if I lose it, or leave it at home?

As it stands, it looks like it's been tampered with to me - and that arouses suspicion. It doesn't necessarily look like it has had another date covered up, but FCC probably still has a pretty good case and I am not sure how far a defence should be taken. For example, we can't see the physical tickets and can't do any clever scans (UV etc).

What about the obvious question FCC might ask in court. If one pen was used and didn't write properly, and a second pen was used on top - why was the same bad pen used on two tickets?

(And looking again close up, I really don't believe that the supposed text underneath is simply a stray fibre from the marker pen).

 

[bb21]

Oh I forgot to add, the solicitor raised the question with the prosecutor of what information was available from the magstripe, given that IIRC the ticket went through the barrier at Letchworth that morning. The response that came back was to the effect that no useful information could be gained from that data.

Note this has gone through the filter of the solicitor who didn't strike me as the most tech-savvy guy - the gist was that the systems retained no useful data for these tickets - this seems to conflict with what I have read elsewhere.

The magstripe is no help for your case. If there is no entry recorded, it simply means that it has not been through a gate, not that it has not been used. There are plenty of ways to use a ticket and not put it through the gate.

If the ticket has been through a gate twice, then iirc only the most recent entry will be recorded, so does not prove whether you have used it before or not.

We can only advise based on what we can see, which for many people do not tally with what you said at the beginning of the thread.

If you know that the ticket itself definitely looks different to the evidence presented here, then you will be the only person who can realistically judge what your odds are at success in court if you decide to fight it. None of us can tell you because we have not seen the evidence that you are relying on.

And yes I have plenty of pens that are capable of marking a ticket finer than the one shown in your example and they won't always leave a deep indentation.

but unlike MikeWh I don't see any wonky '1's or anywhere where a '5' could be concealed underneath.

The 6 in the first picture could easily be concealing a 5, or even a poorly written 3.

 

[maniacmartin]

I should add that whilst I am not convinced the date is necessarily modified, this should in not be taken as advice from me to reject the out of court settlement and proceed to court. Sometimes the best course of action is to pay up, guilty or otherwise, if you believe you will lose in court.

 

[bnm]

I'm frankly amazed that so many here can be so sure the date has been altered just from looking at a not particularly good quality greyscale image.

If you are going to jump to that conclusion then surely you can entertain the alternative scenario that the fibre tipped pen used had one or two fibres sticking out from the tip.

 

[bb21]

I'm frankly amazed that so many here can be so sure the date has been altered just from looking at a not particularly good quality greyscale image.

If you are going to jump to that conclusion then surely you can entertain the alternative scenario that the fibre tipped pen used had one or two fibres sticking out from the tip.

I have no idea whether the OP has altered the ticket, and can only comment on the evidence in front of me, and so do everyone else.

The OP claimed that the date had not been overwritten, but the evidence presented is dodgy to say the least. The mark under the 3, if it were a piece of stray fibre, would almost certainly have left a smudge in my experience, which is not the case here. If it were such a stray fibre, when dragged along as the pen moved, the pattern made would probably have been different, straighter for a start.

No, it is not definitive proof that the OP has altered the date, and it is not something for us to decide, but it does not look good in my eyes.

 

[bnm]

I have no idea whether the OP has altered the ticket, and can only comment on the evidence in front of me, and so do everyone else.

The OP claimed that the date had not been overwritten, but the evidence presented is dodgy to say the least. The mark under the 3, if it were a piece of stray fibre, would almost certainly have left a smudge in my experience, which is not the case here. If it were such a stray fibre, when dragged along as the pen moved, the pattern made would probably have been different, straighter for a start.

No, it is not definitive proof that the OP has altered the date, and it is not something for us to decide, but it does not look good in my eyes.

So, despite it not being for you to decide, you've all but decided. 'Dodgy to say the least' is hardly reserving judgement. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 6 in the first picture could easily be concealing a 5, or even a poorly written 3.

Or could just as easily have been written with a fibre-tipped pen with stray fibres.

 

[bb21]

So, despite it not being for you to decide, you've all but decided. 'Dodgy to say the least' is hardly reserving judgement. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Or could just as easily have been written with a fibre-tipped pen with stray fibres.

You have your opinion, I have mine and so do everyone else.

Saying that I think the evidence presented here is dodgy is hardly passing judgement on the OP on what he is being accused of. If I am not going to pass comments on what I think the quality of his evidence is, and whether I think it will help him with his case, then what is the OP doing here?

If I think his evidence does not exactly back him up, am I expected to tell him that everything will be fine?

 

[cuccir]

I think both explanations look plausible.

I can see how those marks would come from a stray fiber from a felt-tip. I can also see how it would be Biro overwritten with felt-tip. Certainly, the flourish around the bottom of the two, and the wispyness of the marks around the 3 would support the stray fiber claim, but I can understand that it's reasonable for people to see two sets of numbers in that - and from a prosecuter's perspective, this is a more likely explanation as well.

I've no idea how this would pan out in court, and it's certainly not clear cut. The two options are:

• Fight it. High risk but if you win of course nothing is lost, and you'll feel much better. BUT your partner could be hit with a fine and a criminal record: is it really worth risking this?
• Pay the out of court settlement. Expensive, frustrating if you're telling the truth, but makes it go away. Much lower risk