Wrongly accused of overwritten carnet by FCC

[Deerfold]

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.

Back in the early 80s you validated a West Yorkshire Dayrover in a "saverstrip" machine as you got on the bus or at the station - even stations with no other ticket facilities (unless someone had filled it up with concrete...). I think they were the same technology as the non-smartcard machines in Copenhagen, a long thin strip with a magstripe on the back. The machine clips a section off the ticket and writes a date - so on, say, an 8 in 15 ticket it could write 8 dates above one another.

 

[trevwilliams]

How anyone can categorically state, from a monochrome scan, that it is a dodgy felt tip is beyond me

I guess the same way that you've concluded its a biro. Same evidence but a different conclusion.

As a response to your observation. I 've taken one of Bakerbloke's scans and tried a little test. I traced a white line, (as accurately as I could) down the centre of the 'Sharpie' strokes. I then moved, as one, the white trace lines from the centre of the figures to the centre of the Biro/fraidfelt strokes. Well I'll be blowed - They all fit almost perfectly, enough to raise eyebrows.

Any forensic laboratory could do a simialr test but a lot more accurately than me. It shows that that second biro/felt line is the same distance from the centres of the sharpie stroke in every case. The point is that if those strokes were made at different times then the chances of them matching up like they do would be very small.

I rest my case M'lud

 

[Royston Vasey]

I guess the same way that you've concluded its a biro. Same evidence but a different conclusion.

As a response to your observation. I 've taken one of Bakerbloke's scans and tried a little test. I traced a white line, (as accurately as I could) down the centre of the 'Sharpie' strokes. I then moved, as one, the white trace lines from the centre of the figures to the centre of the Biro/fraidfelt strokes. Well I'll be blowed - They all fit almost perfectly, enough to raise eyebrows.

Any forensic laboratory could do a simialr test but a lot more accurately than me. It shows that that second biro/felt line is the same distance from the centres of the sharpie stroke in every case. The point is that if those strokes were made at different times then the chances of them matching up like they do would be very small.

I rest my case M'lud

That proves nothing!

Would this mysterious piece of felt follow an identical course to the original course, of consistent thickness? (which is a subjective conclusion anyway). Wouldn't it just flap around more randomly, depending on the direction of stroke of the pen?

Would it not also be a reasonable hypothesis to state that there is writing underneath which follows roughly similar patterns because, oh I don't know, it is the same person's handwriting? It may be the same date as that in marker pen on top, it may not be. Who knows. It'll have to go to court to find out.

You were the one that claimed "a forensic test could only reach one conclusion"!!

I admire some people's trust in human nature but the ticket appears to have been overwritten to me (with either the same or a different date)

 

[WillPS]

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

Because of the consistency in the distance of the 'stray' thin line from the 'main' thick line. I get this all the time when I use CD pens and the like as my handwriting is poor and I press down too hard (always have - I'd get through several pens a week at school).

I'll see if I have any knackered CD pens about to show you what I mean.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Because of the consistency in the distance of the 'stray' thin line from the 'main' thick line. I get this all the time when I use CD pens and the like as my handwriting is poor and I press down too hard (always have - I'd get through several pens a week at school).

I'll see if I have any knackered CD pens about to show you what I mean.

It's possible, but from the evidence we have, it's impossible to tell. That's all I'm saying. I find it difficult to believe. We dont even know what colours the different lines were from a poor scan.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I note that the OPs solicitor's reply said FCC claim to have had the ticket forensically examined, but at least one poster on here suggests they have not done so.

In my BR days I worked on that route for part of the time and well recall visiting the Met forensic labs at Alexandra Palace, right on the FCC route, where it was quite amazing what could be shown to be an alteration even back then.

Technology has moved on, making such tests far less expensive than most might think, so I wouldn't write off the likelihood of FCC having had the ticket tested and cannot see why they would have told the solicitor that they had if they had not.

 

[benk1342]

If they had truly had it forensically examined surely they would have had to disclose the report to the OP's solicitor under the disclosure rules. Given that they did not do so I suspect they are bluffing. The OP's solicitor should at least ask to see the report and see what the response is.

 

[jon0844]

Would it not also be a reasonable hypothesis to state that there is writing underneath which follows roughly similar patterns because, oh I don't know, it is the same person's handwriting? It may be the same date as that in marker pen on top, it may not be. Who knows. It'll have to go to court to find out.

What I don't get is why someone felt the need to go over the same date with a different pen? If there is a date underneath in biro, it doesn't look that unclear, so would have probably sufficed.

It's not as if you need to write in big bold pen to make it easier to read by an RPI - they will take the ticket and look at it as required, so would have preferred to see a thin bit of biro than what this looks like.

And, as I said before, if someone had written with a biro on one ticket and found it didn't really work properly - then gone for the other pen, why were two tickets done this way?

So, this perhaps supports the theory that it's only one pen with a stray fibre. However, I find this unlikely and can't think how badly damaged a pen would need to be to have stray fibres sticking out (but sufficiently rigid to mark a consistent stroke that can look like it was something written before).

Fortunately, this isn't a court of law and no opinion here counts for anything and we don't know the truth so have to make assumptions just like FCC, but without the physical tickets to examine! FCC can easily check if the ink of the 'biro' is that of another pen or not - but will they?

 

[michael769]

If they had truly had it forensically examined surely they would have had to disclose the report to the OP's solicitor under the disclosure rules. Given that they did not do so I suspect they are bluffing. The OP's solicitor should at least ask to see the report and see what the response is.

Disclosure rules do not kick in until the matter goes to court and the accused pleads not guilty. Until a not guilty plea is recorded there is no requirement for either side to disclose anything (although it can often be in their interests to do so).

 

[WillPS]

So, this perhaps supports the theory that it's only one pen with a stray fibre. However, I find this unlikely and can't think how badly damaged a pen would need to be to have stray fibres sticking out (but sufficiently rigid to mark a consistent stroke that can look like it was something written before).

Then you're probably holding your pens correctly. I've always struggled with it, and I used to end up with this type of effect _EVERY TIME_ I used a fibre-tip pen.

 

[jon0844]

I've never used a fibre pen (bar a water based felt tip as a child) to write on something that has had stray fibres. None of my marker pens do this - or certainly not enough to consistently draw a near perfect line alongside what I'm writing.

But I can't say I've used every type of pen in the world, which is why I am giving an opinion and nothing else. I'd love to see the originals and see if I am right or totally wrong, but that's not going to happen.

Still, the OP knows the absolute truth and whether it was a biro or a stray fibre. And FCC can, if it wants, determine that with forensic tests. I personally think it will come down to FCC being lazy and seeking an out of court settlement (which makes the company more money anyway).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If they had truly had it forensically examined surely they would have had to disclose the report to the OP's solicitor under the disclosure rules. Given that they did not do so I suspect . . . . .

Disclosure rules do not kick in until the matter goes to court and the accused pleads not guilty. Until a not guilty plea is recorded . . . . .

Quite correct.
Disclosure will come if and when the matter is contested in Court.

. . .
Still, the OP knows the absolute truth and whether it was a biro or a stray fibre . . . .

I cannot agree that the OP has, or could have, such certainty in the matter.

.

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.

We already know that if it was to be contested in Court then the Prosecution intend to provide an Expert Witness. It would be for the Defence to advocate their own Expert Witness or other robust evidence to counter the Claim. (A protestation of "look at this pen" by the accused is not going to be productive. Then after hearing from the experts and any other Witnesses, (and the closing theatrics/authorities), the panel will make their decision.
I cannot see where the question of "reasonable doubt" wil be rasied - any decision carries the burden of a hazard of doubt.

 

[jon0844]

I cannot agree that the OP has, or could have, such certainty in the matter.

A fair point. The partner of the OP knows the absolute truth!

 

[CNash]

Well, it looks like this case has had a satisfactory resolution...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23103770

First Capital Connect passenger wins ticket legal battle


A passenger has won a legal battle after train company First Capital Connect took him to court over claims he falsified a ticket and evaded a fare.

The ticket, a carnet-type, is offered by all rail companies and gives a 10% discount to passengers who travel on certain routes regularly. The ticket owner fills in the information on the ticket.

BBC London's Tom Edwards spoke to commuter William Collison, who was taken to court, and Roger Perkins from First Capital Connect.

 

[gingerheid]

Not a satisfactory conclusion unless FCC have coughed up for the wasted costs!

 

[causton]

So that's how you pronounce the word!

Thankfully someone has seen sense in this, even if FCC didn't!

 

[bnm]

Let's re-visit some earlier posts:

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

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?

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

In fairness to jonmorris0844, he did moderate his opinion later in the thread:

Fortunately, this isn't a court of law and no opinion here counts for anything and we don't know the truth so have to make assumptions just like FCC, but without the physical tickets to examine! FCC can easily check if the ink of the 'biro' is that of another pen or not - but will they?

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.

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

I admire some people's trust in human nature but the ticket appears to have been overwritten to me (with either the same or a different date)

"Definitely been altered."

"Cannot possibly be a stray fibre."

"Does not look good in my eyes."

"The ticket appears to have been overwritten to me."

The court of RailUK passed it's judgement. :roll:

FCC realised they were on a hiding to nothing and dropped the case. Well done to the OP for his dogged determination in seeing this through. I salute you sir!

That's me in trouble again with the mods...

 

[gingerheid]

Well the result was clear.

It is obviously the case that FCC would not have lied about holding forensic evidence to try and bully someone to give in. No honest and respectable organisation like FCC would do such a thing. Therefore I think what we can take from this is that FCC genuinely believed they had obtained forensic evidence that supported their claim regarding the tickets, but that they later realised they had in fact made a mistake when they made that claim because they had no such evidence.

There is no question that the relatively low cost of obtaining a forensic comparison of the two inks and any indentations would have greatly exceeded the value of reputational harm they are now suffering (and the OP would have had to pay their costs for obtaining it), and no question that (if held) such evidence would have been overwhelmingly persuasive to a court.

There is no way they would have dropped a case against someone that works for the BBC unless they knew they had to, public embarrassment would be inevitable and has been the predictable result.

Further, they have clearly not even been in a strong enough position to be able to reach any kind of compromise with the OP; any kind of compromise would have included a gag preventing him from giving exactly the sort of interview we've just seen.

 

[jon0844]

I really doubt FCC would have gagged anyone. That would have come out and caused all sorts of problems ('how many more are there?').

I have my own opinion on this and still remain unconvinced of everything that has been said (but I wasn't there and could only comment on a photo put on here, so I never had all the facts), but if FCC didn't have the evidence to back itself up (it had to prove a case, not the other way around) and/or it didn't want the negative publicity once it knew the press was involved, then it still resulted in a great outcome. And that's all that matters.

Whatever the case, it just proves my point that carnet tickets are simply not worth the effort because of the chance of this happening at any time.

 

[Tibbs]

I really doubt FCC would have gagged anyone. That would have come out and caused all sorts of problems ('how many more are there?').

I have my own opinion on this and still remain unconvinced of everything that has been said (but I wasn't there and could only comment on a photo put on here, so I never had all the facts), but if FCC didn't have the evidence to back itself up (it had to prove a case, not the other way around) and/or it didn't want the negative publicity once it knew the press was involved, then it still resulted in a great outcome. And that's all that matters.

Whatever the case, it just proves my point that carnet tickets are simply not worth the effort because of the chance of this happening at any time.

I've taken a few companies to court and gotten out of court settlements, and ALL of them had a gagging clause as standard.

Personally, I scribble it out, initial by it and then sign at the bottom and cash the cheque. Then I post all the details on as many sites I can find, just as an extra '**** you' to them.

I'm still wondering if why FCC has already had the tickets forensically examined (and footed the bill) and showed the guy to be guilty, conviction was a slam dunk, they didn't go ahead?

 

[silencio]

Haha, this is a brilliant result.

As I said earlier in the thread, it did appear that it may have been altered but it would always be up to FCC to prove that which they obviously couldn't (or didn't want to waste their time doing). Shame on some of the people stating that the OP/his partner was clearly guilty though.

 

[revenueadvice]

These carnet tickets are such a pain in the arse. Some times people start trying to write a date on with a biro and it won't work so they go over with another pen, which may look like its been altered. Really they need some kind of franking machine near station entrances/gatelines that stamps the date on. There could then be no argument.

 

[cuccir]

The court of RailUK passed it's judgement. :roll:

FCC realised they were on a hiding to nothing and dropped the case. Well done to the OP for his dogged determination in seeing this through. I salute you sir!

That's me in trouble again with the mods...

There were a variety of opinions given, I think that's a very unfair and selective reading of the thread. Either way, this was unique case. I'm glad the passenger won - it didn't look doctored to me. Ultimately, however, I think this is something that can only be determined with the actual physical tickets - we were always just guessing!

 

[HST Power]

These carnet tickets are such a pain in the arse. Some times people start trying to write a date on with a biro and it won't work so they go over with another pen, which may look like its been altered. Really they need some kind of franking machine near station entrances/gatelines that stamps the date on. There could then be no argument.

Bearing in mind the numerous problems that these carnets seem to be causing, to a point where the hassle just doesn't seem to make it worth buying them, I don't understand why FCC don't do this. How hard can it be? Such a process would have saved all this legal wrangling and a great deal of stress for those effected by carnet trouble. They seemed so intent on trying to prove that the carnet was altered, when a stamp or a machine could've solved the problem in minutes.

 

[island]

FCC gives out official carnet pens now.

 

[bnm]

FCC gives out official carnet pens now.

Are these fibre tipped?

 

[yorkie]

Fantastic news, but we need to get the law changed, and until we do, FCC will continue to persecute people.

Also, I would have preferred it to go to Court and for FCC to have actually lost the case. FCC seem to have a history of caving in at the last minute, as they don't want any judgements against them.

The comments by the FCC spokesman are not acceptable either.

 

[flymo]

FCC gives out official carnet pens now.

Are users of these Carnet tickets obliged to use them or not?

 

[maniacmartin]

Well you won't get given a pen if you use a TVM out of hours. I believe only the booking office give them out.

 

[bnm]

There were a variety of opinions given, I think that's a very unfair and selective reading of the thread. Either way, this was unique case. I'm glad the passenger won - it didn't look doctored to me. Ultimately, however, I think this is something that can only be determined with the actual physical tickets - we were always just guessing!

Some of those guesses were extraordinarily forthright though.

"That cannot possibly be a fibre from the tip going astray."

"The evidence presented is dodgy to say the least."

"Definitely been altered."

"Cannot possibly be a stray fibre."


And I think such forthrightness should be exposed, particularly when it has been proved wrong.