More Penalty Notice misery. Advice please...

[RobC]

Are you completely sure you were given a PF notice? You wouldn't normally get asked for comments by post later after a PF would you?

It's a machine printed notice, with the words 'Southeastern Bylaw Report; at the top, and an LSERBL0000etc number in bold underneath. It gives the law about breaching Byelaw 18.

Incidentally, there is nothing on there which states I have a right to appeal, or how to appeal.

 

[najaB]

It's a machine printed notice, with the words 'Southeastern Bylaw Report; at the top, and an LSERBL0000etc number in bold underneath. It gives the law about breaching Byelaw 18.

Incidentally, there is nothing on there which states I have a right to appeal, or how to appeal.

That may not be a Penalty Fare notice...

 

[RobC]

That may not be a Penalty Fare notice...

Apologies for being ignorant but what else might it be?

The officer was demanding £29.70 off me, which I didn't have handy.

 

[tsr]

For contactless cards every revenue check MUST take place while the customer should be touched in.

Very much a side note in this case, but that isn't correct. RIDs [Revenue Inspection Devices, used to check Oyster, smartcards and contactless payment cards] have a special mode selection system by which they can be used to check either onboard, before travel but inside a gateline, or outside the gateline. This mode can be set irrespective of card type; indeed, said inspection type is chosen a few steps before the process of scanning cards. Though it is irrelevant for contactless cards, they can also be set to check for validity within either a specific zone, outside the zones (eg. Gatwick Airport) or in any zone.

This mode selection system has to be available because of the risk of people, upon being asked for their ticket or card of whatever type, simply holding out a wallet in which a contactless card can be read but not initially seen by the staff who are checking. In this instance, the device must be capable of acting correctly. Not all inspections will require the customer to remove their card from their wallet; it depends on exactly what is being targeted.

 

[najaB]

Apologies for being ignorant but what else might it be?

The officer was demanding £29.70 off me, which I didn't have handy.

It may well be that initially the RPI was going to issue a PF, but your 'refusal' to pay result in your being reported for prosecution.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

It may well be that initially the RPI was going to issue a PF, but your 'refusal' to pay result in your being reported for prosecution.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Well I only had 60p.


Perhaps because I explained about my brain injury and need to take medication quickly, he saw me as an easy target, unlikely to plead not guilty or attend court.

 

[najaB]

Well I only had 60p.


Perhaps because I explained about my brain injury and need to take medication quickly, he saw me as an easy target, unlikely to plead not guilty or attend court.

Or, alternatively, since you couldn't pay the single fare, he had no choice but to withdraw the offer of the penalty fare.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[RobC]

Or, alternatively, since you couldn't pay the single fare, he had no choice but to withdraw the offer of the penalty fare.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

I had the right amount of money on my oyster card, as discussed before.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Like most people, I don't like paying for things twice.

 

[najaB]

I had the right amount of money on my oyster card, as discussed before.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Like most people, I don't like paying for things twice.

I'm not disputing that, nor saying that you necessarily *should* have paid the single fare. I'm merely pointing out one course of events which matches your description of what happened and that would lead to the situation you are in now.

 

[island]

Apologies for being ignorant but what else might it be?

A notice recording an interaction with an officer which was likely to lead to a prosecution.

The officer was demanding £29.70 off me, which I didn't have handy.

But you had a debit or credit card you could have used, correct?

 

[RobC]

A notice recording an interaction with an officer which was likely to lead to a prosecution.

But you had a debit or credit card you could have used, correct?

Any interraction with an officer didn't require the assistance of his three or four colleagues who appeared to want to be elsewhere. The only thing I recall is one of them coming up and suggesting they move on. There were 2 CPSOs there, and they didn't bat an eyelid. The officer involved recorded my reply as 'NO COMMENT'.

I didn't have a debit card on me. Cash and card at home. 60p on me as stated before.

 

[clagmonster]

It's a machine printed notice, with the words 'Southeastern Bylaw Report; at the top, and an LSERBL0000etc number in bold underneath. It gives the law about breaching Byelaw 18.

Incidentally, there is nothing on there which states I have a right to appeal, or how to appeal.

This sounds to me to be the standard letter sent when a TOC is considering whether to prosecute a case.

Apologies for being ignorant but what else might it be?

The officer was demanding £29.70 off me, which I didn't have handy.

The £29.70 will be a penalty fare, but I don't see how he has calculated it. A single from Zone U1256 Londn (where a through paper ticket from Liverpool St would be issued from) to St. Mary Cray is £9.70, so as double this is less than £20.00 the penalty fare would be £20.00. Similarly, the single from Farringdon to St. Mary Cray is £7.00, which again would leave a penalty fare of £20. In any case, I very much suspect the opportunity to pay just a penalty fare has passed.

 

[najaB]

The £29.70 will be a penalty fare, but I don't see how he has calculated it.

There's one way it could have been mis-calculated: he apparently believed that where the fare is less than £10 the penalty fare is £20 plus the original fare, rather than just £20.

 

[RobC]

I think its time to put this fairly simply.

I topped up with £13 the night before, and used one bus. Making my available balance £11.50.

An each way off peak trip by oyster from St MC to Liverpool St via Faringdon is £5.30.

I completed the outgoing journey, no problem.

On the return journey, I was surprised that the tube just rolls onto the train platform which no tap outs (I had tapped in at Liverpool Street). To make sure I tapped out at a stand alone machine on the platform, which said £2.30 (2.40) and I tapped it again (I believe) to indicate I was getting on a train to St MC. At this point, the remainder of my fare home was £2.90. I had £2.30 left, and an available extra overspill at £1.50, totalling £3.80.

The officer asked me about my journey, where I started from etc. I replied Liverpool Street via Faringdon. He must have not noticed the £2.40 taken off at my tap-in at Faringdon.

He demanded I pay £29.70.. and then £9.70. And wouldn't let me tap out, which would have taken off £2.90, leaving me with 90p available credit. I explained my journey, and my brain injury, and that I really needed to get home to take my seizure preventing medication. And that I only had 60p in cash, no debit card etc. He issued me, it appears now, not with a Penalty Fares Notice, but something else, which I now presume was an intention to prosecute. The notice he issued me with started my alleged illegal journey at Liverpool St and not Faringdon, which is probably where he failed to listen in the first place, or check on his hand held device.

When finally I was allowed to leave, I rushed home, very stressed, to take my tablets. As stated before, I had a seizure just under 48 hours later, my first for 10 months, which involved a night in hospital.

I received a photocopied piece of paper, on the 23rd May, asking me to clarify I was the person involved, with an invitation to comment. I attached the reply which I included in my first post, and heard nothing until a 'Single Justice Procedure Notice' yesterday, i.e. seven weeks later.

 

[MikeWh]

There are a few misconceptions being thrown around on here which I'd like to quash.

1) You are not technically allowed to go into a negative balance on your Oyster. However, as long as your card had enough to be validated at the start of a rail jourey (usually the cheapest available single fare from the station at the time of touch in) the Oyster system will not prevent you from exiting at the end. If your balance is negative then it will have to be topped up before you can use it again, including using any travelcard within its zones.
2) The £1.50 overdrawn applies specifically to buses. If you have between 0p and £1.45 you are allowed to make "one more bus journey". The same requirement to top up later on applies. This is to mitigate against people being stranded without a means to top up (eg after the shops have closed) now that buses don't take cash.
3) A single touch on the validators at Farringdon will result in a single beep along with a balance and fare. A double beep would indicate an error and would display "Seek assistance". The touch will either end an open journey or start a new one and is designed for people arriving/departing on Thameslink trains to/from outside the Oyster area with paper tickets. It facilitates interchange without visiting the gateline.
4) If your touch ends a journey (as in this case) a further touch will simply repeat the same message again (single beep, balance and fare). You won't start a new journey unless you wait 15 minutes between the touches. However, the journey is only partially ended. If you touch out anywhere else on the network within the maximum journey time from your start station (Liv Street in this case) to the end station then the journey will be extended and charged the appropriate fare for the whole journey.

 

[najaB]

I think its time to put this fairly simply.

Equally simply, you have three options: (a) plead not guilty and attempt to defend your case in court; (b) plead guilty and accept the fine imposed by the Court; or (c) attempt to reach a out of court settlement with Southeastern (which may or may not be financial in nature) and have them withdraw the prosecution.

It's up to you to choose which course of action you wish to pursue, but I would strongly advise against (a) since the odds are stacked against you.

Realistically, you've missed your best chance at reaching a settlement - that was when they wrote to you for your side of the story. But that's not to say that you can't still convince them that you weren't attempting to defraud the railway, and that your actions were reasonable.

 

[MikeWh]

Equally simply, you have three options: (a) plead not guilty and attempt to defend your case in court; (b) plead guilty and accept the fine imposed by the Court; or (c) attempt to reach a out of court settlement with Southeastern (which may or may not be financial in nature) and have them withdraw the prosecution.

It's up to you to choose which course of action you wish to pursue, but I would strongly advise against (a) since the odds are stacked against you.

Realistically, you've missed your best chance at reaching a settlement - that was when they wrote to you for your side of the story. But that's not to say that you can't still convince them that you weren't attempting to defraud the railway, and that your actions were reasonable.

With the greatest of respect you have little experience of the intricacies of the Oyster system and as such this is quite poor advice. The odds are far from stacked against him. In fact, having spoken with Rob on the phone I am now quite confident that he has done absolutely nothing wrong and that we can get the case dropped, or at worst thrown out at court.

 

[RobC]

Equally simply, you have three options: (a) plead not guilty and attempt to defend your case in court; (b) plead guilty and accept the fine imposed by the Court; or (c) attempt to reach a out of court settlement with Southeastern (which may or may not be financial in nature) and have them withdraw the prosecution.

It's up to you to choose which course of action you wish to pursue, but I would strongly advise against (a) since the odds are stacked against you.

Realistically, you've missed your best chance at reaching a settlement - that was when they wrote to you for your side of the story. But that's not to say that you can't still convince them that you weren't attempting to defraud the railway, and that your actions were reasonable.

I've just got some very good advice from someone with experience of Oystercards, and it looks like if its not dropped, its a full steam ahead 'NOT GUILTY' plea, as I am not guilty nor deserve a fine, or a criminal record.

But thanks anyway.

 

[najaB]

With the greatest of respect you have little experience of the intricacies of the Oyster system and as such this is quite poor advice. The odds are far from stacked against him. In fact, having spoken with Rob on the phone I am now quite confident that he has done absolutely nothing wrong and that we can get the case dropped, or at worst thrown out at court.

Note, my advice was to try and get Southeastern to drop the case before it gets to Court, I can't see how this is bad advice. Regardless of anything else.

 

[RobC]

Note, my advice was to try and get Southeastern to drop the case before it gets to Court, I can't see how this is bad advice. Regardless of anything else.

You gave three options, a), b) and c) and strongly advised against a) and c). Which leaves b) to plead guilty, and accept the fine. Which is rather limited in terms of options.

 

[najaB]

And, thinking about it some more, I still stand by my assessment that the odds are stacked in favour of the house: it's the inspector's report against a journey history that isn't available any more and legislation that doesn't require proof of intent.

I have no reason to doubt your knowledge of Oyster and how it works but what will your evidence be? (And that's a genuine question: given that the OP didn't present the journey history when given the earlier opportunity, how can you rely on it now in Court given that you don't have it?)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You gave three options, a), b) and c) and strongly advised against a) and c). Which leaves b) to plead guilty, and accept the fine. Which is rather limited in terms of options.

If that is how you read it, then I apologise for my poor writing skills. I was attempting to advise against (a) in favour of (b) or (c) and suggest that your best course of action was to try to get them to drop the case.

 

[MikeWh]

I don't really want to give too much more away at the moment, but the reality is that we will be doing both (a) and (c). The case is currently awaiting single justice sitting so we have to respond to the court. We will also be responding to Southeastern with the hope that they then drop the whole thing completely.

 

[furlong]

it's the inspector's report against a journey history that isn't available any more

The OP has stated the relevant Oyster history. If the company has not retained its own copy then it would hardly be in a position to dispute the OP's account of this. If the byelaw was used then arguments may turn on an intriguing interpretation of "valid" in circumstances where the company has defined a touch as permitting a future "continuation exit" and its use has become common custom and practice. Questions might be asked why "continuation exits" were ever added to the system, how many occur each day, what actions the company has taken to try to eradicate their use, and why, if a ticket in this state is not considered "valid", a maximum fare is not charged instead as a discouragement, as happens in (all?) other situations where a ticket that is known to be invalid is presented.

 

[plymothian]

Continuation exits are in the system to mitigate accidental exits.

By which, if a passenger accidentally touches a standalone reader, which are for ending an Oyster paid journey and continuing on a paper ticket, but does in fact continue using Oyster, then he/she is not penalised. The fare for the journey undertaken so far is deducted, but if he/she reaches their final destination within the given journey time, the fare is adjusted accordingly.

Unfortunately NR RPI staff do not understand the concept of continuation exits, and equally continuation exits are not meant to be used on a regular basis for general journey making (they're more of a back of house tiding up exercise).

 

[robbeech]

The maths still doesn't add up to me.

£13 minus £1.50 for a bus is £11.50
So 2 lots of £5.30 is £10.60 which is less than £11.50
I'm a little puzzled why people (I questioned the starting balance before top up myself) are suggesting there wasn't enough credit.

The only way I can see that happening is if you spent an extended period of time at Farringdon after tapping out thus exceeding the maximum journey time.

 

[broadgage]

To me, this case is a classic example of the apparent enormous complexity of public transport in London.

How on earth is a tourist or visitor meant to understand some of the complicated rules and arguments in this thread.

It was all much simpler when one purchased a ticket with destination printed on it !

 

[najaB]

The OP has stated the relevant Oyster history. If the company has not retained its own copy then it would hardly be in a position to dispute the OP's account of this.

"We checked the Oyster history before starting the prosecution and it backs up the the inspector's report" is pretty much all they need to say. Then it's a corroborated version of what was in the history against an uncorroborated version.

The OP had two months to save a copy of the report, and at least one prior opportunity to present it but did neither. I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I can see this presenting difficulty in court.

 

[RobC]

"We checked the Oyster history before starting the prosecution and it backs up the the inspector's report" is pretty much all they need to say. Then it's a corroborated version of what was in the history against an uncorroborated version.

It's not corroborated unless they produce it, which they haven't managed to do.

I now have two witness statements from charity colleagues I was with confirming that the oyster card let me through the barriers at Liverpool Street. One of them even went as far as Faringdon with me. This effectively nullifies the charge, as if the card lets me through, then it has confirmed I have enough to travel on it. The charge is more or less saying I had jumped the barrier. Because I wasn't allowed to tap out, I wasn't allowed to complete the journey. Oyster cards by their nature allow you to overdraw, regardless of what the balance was. The journey was allowed to start at Liverpool Street, which negates what happens at the end when I would have tapped out at the end, if allowed, with in zones 1-6.

How someone in Scotland has a clue about the intricacies of the London Oyster system is beyond me, and if you cannot be helpful, it would be lovely if you stopped commenting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To me, this case is a classic example of the apparent enormous complexity of public transport in London.

How on earth is a tourist or visitor meant to understand some of the complicated rules and arguments in this thread.

It was all much simpler when one purchased a ticket with destination printed on it !

I absolutely agree on that. back in the good old days you just purchased a travelcard. The Oyster system makes straightforward journeys cheaper than purchasing a travelcard these days. Unfortunately it requires the intelligence of a brain surgeon to understand the rules.

 

[jon0844]

Reading this thread, I have to say it is confusing that you could be hit with any charge or threat of action for having not yet left a station, or boarded a new train where you could still be 'valid' once you touch out at the destination.

It seems you could tap out then travel to an ungated station and effectively get out of paying the last leg, but until that happens you still have a journey that is technically open because it can be continued.

So people are suggesting you could be done in advance of committing an offence? One that may not even happen?

 

[RobC]

Reading this thread, I have to say it is confusing that you could be hit with any charge or threat of action for having not yet left a station, or boarded a new train where you could still be 'valid' once you touch out at the destination.

It seems you could tap out then travel to an ungated station and effectively get out of paying the last leg, but until that happens you still have a journey that is technically open because it can be continued.

So people are suggesting you could be done in advance of committing an offence? One that may not even happen?

That's exactly it. The big problem is that I wasn't allowed to tap out, at my final home destination.

In the past, I've forgotten to tap out before, and suddenly found myself with a -£15 balance on my oyster card, leading to a phone call to the helpline the next day to work out where I missed the tap in/out, and get a refund.