It was a penalty fare, not a fine.
No, with respect, you have not. If you had looked at the display you would have known that your touch in had not registered.
Lesson that should be learned: Pay attention to what is happening.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Unfair Penalty Fare Notice.
- Thread starter pippington
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
http://www.oyster-rail.org.uk/contactless-vs-oyster/
I haven't touched on the revenue protection implications in that piece, but basically whenever a card is checked the RPI is simply told whether the card could have been used to touch in, i.e. is it a working card which is not blacklisted. The RPIs reader transmits the check details to the central system where it is compared against other touches that day. If it fails because you weren't touched in then you get a maximum/incomplete journey charge. Do it three times with the same card and that card is blacklisted. It is possible to challenge a failed revenue protection charge, but the explanation needs to be significantly more proveable than a usual incomplete journey (e.g. reader known not to be working).
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,465
Can we please stay on topic?
There is no suggestion that the OP is partially-sighted, so this is irrelevant.
You are all welcome to discuss side issues, but please do so in a separate thread. Please ensure that posts in the Disputes area are directly relevant to the OP's case in order to avoid clogging threads up given their potential importance to those seeking help.
There is no suggestion that the OP is partially-sighted, so this is irrelevant.
You are all welcome to discuss side issues, but please do so in a separate thread. Please ensure that posts in the Disputes area are directly relevant to the OP's case in order to avoid clogging threads up given their potential importance to those seeking help.
gray1404
Established Member
Given your experience and you feel that you did touch in, how about you write to Customer Services?
Yes, the advice earlier was to pay - and THEN write in to explain the situation and to ask if there has been any other faults logged with that reader. And if you ask how it could happen, you may then find they refund you as a goodwill gesture, without prejudice etc.
You have nothing to lose but the cost of a stamp, or your time writing an email, giving as much detail as you can so they can investigate. They may or may not do that, but I can't believe you're the only one to have ever had a problem (you clearly aren't, as I had something similar happen) so just give it a shot.
If they can't help, you'll just have to chalk it up to experience and to make sure you always look at the display. It's then you sometimes notice junk on the display, like text stuck from previous touches, and can be on your guard.
I don't think Oyster is broken, but there are clearly some errors. Just as ATMs occasionally go wrong, even if banks don't like to admit it.
gray1404
Established Member
The only other thing I would add here to the OP is this: I know it is very annoying having to pay out money you feel you should not have to pay (and yes it certainly feels like a fine - even though strictly speaking it isn't), but you really have saved yourself a lot of time, effort, distress and MONEY by getting rid of the matter this way. So, in short, I would say it was the sensible thing to do, even though I agree it is not fair.
No tap in was recorded and the OP didn't look to verify that one was. I can't see how it is unfair.
It may *feel* unfair, but that's a different thing.
They listened for, and heard, the normal confirmation beep (not the error tone) .
Technology isn't infallible - it's quite possible the reader read the card but failed to record the transaction properly.
Highly likely I would say and I've seen the same thing happen on numerous occasions, passengers insisting that they did touch in correctly but for whatever reason their oyster hasn't been validated.
I agree that technology isn't infallible, but - and this is no slight at the OP - they didn't look to see what the reader said and belief perseverance and confirmation bias are real and very powerful effects.
That said, they should chase it up with Customer Services if there's evidence to support the contention that there was a fault with the equipment.
No - they relied on the beeps, which I've used readers where the display wasn't legible (either from dead display segments or even vandalism). Are you suggesting the beeps should be ignored and I should have used a different reader?
Out of interest, is this a National Rail service? If so, then the Oyster conditions of use ( http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/static/documents/content/Oystercou.pdf ) section 3.4 says a green light and a single beep confirms the oyster card is accepted for travel.
The OP clearly states they heard it 'beep in the usual manner' . Your belief perseverance/ confirmation bias links are irrelevant and just attempt to cast doubt on the OP's clear statement.
Note the conjunction. The OP hasn't mentioned anything about seeing a green light.
Did you read the articles and/or have an understanding of the two phenomena? Without any secondary source of evidence they are most definitely not irrelevant.
There are many, many examples of people having clear recollections of things that were impossible for them to have seen. A very well known example is the number of people who remember seeing live footage of the first plane hitting the World Trade Centre on September 11, 2001 despite live coverage not starting until well after the first plane impacted.
This is indeed why it was a good idea to pay the penalty fare: effectively, the OP would have been risking the potential for a prosecution on the quality of his memory, which can easily be flawed. I wouldn't trust my own memory that much!
All that said, yes there's a good chance that the technology did break, and it's worth the OP writing to customer services, adding his friend's testimony. The worse that can happen is that the letter is ignored.
I agree - pay it, then contact customer services about it.
It would appear NajaB disagrees. I've seen nothing in their posts to suggest that there could have been any form of technical failure . They're rather keener on suggesting that the OP's recollection of what actually happened is incorrect.
I've first hand experience of a reader giving a good tone and no error message on screen yet still being charged a fee for an incomplete journey. In my case, the gate was locked open as TFL were expecting huge numbers of users as it was at the O2 after a gig
It would appear NajaB disagrees. I've seen nothing in their posts to suggest that there could have been any form of technical failure . They're rather keener on suggesting that the OP's recollection of what actually happened is incorrect.
I've first hand experience of a reader giving a good tone and no error message on screen yet still being charged a fee for an incomplete journey. In my case, the gate was locked open as TFL were expecting huge numbers of users as it was at the O2 after a gig
The OP has already paid the Penalty Fare.
Might I suggest you read my posts again.
I have not once stated an opinion on the veracity of their recollection. I have merely pointed out that, absent any non-subjective evidence, we would be best served to give equal weight to the chance that that the machine record or the OP's recollection is wrong.
I have never denied that a technical glitch is a possibility and have said repeatedly that if there is any evidence to support that contention that they should take it up with customer services.
Edit: Just wanted to add that it's my opinion that in the Disputes and Prosecutions section we would be doing posters a disservice by acting as an echo chamber and simply reinforcing their view of events. In order to provide useful advice we need to look at the situation presented from all angles so that we can provide advice that achieves the best possible outcome - which isn't always the one which the poster initially desired.
Last edited:
Off topic, but in this instance you should have had an automatic refund a few days later. If you didn't and it's still within 8 weeks then call customer services and get them to look at it.
- Status