Provided wrong details to TfL revenue officer

[onceupon231]

Hi all,

I was travelling with a staff Oyster card that I found a few weeks prior, I was stopped at the gate once I tapped out at a station and met by an undercover revenue officer. I instantly panicked and tried to put away the card, and walk away but was approached then decided to hand it in as he mentioned that my tap flashed a different colour and there were numerous BTP officers at the station. As I had a long day, I was flustered and ended up providing a fake name but to a real address - I was wondering if TfL verify this before sending the letter to the house, I went back a while later to explain that I had given the wrong address but the person said that they had sent the report already. The address exists but the name does not match, and I wasn’t pressed to present ID or a Bank Statement even though the person saw my wallet and knew I had a smart phone. Just wondering what to expect, I think in panicking I accidentally gave them my cousins address and the first name matched but my cousin no longer lives there

Before any makes any slack comments about XYZ, I won’t respond to them. I just want to know if TfL double check before issuing letters as I can imagine if they don’t check ID there are strong possibilities of people lying so in those cases they need to cross reference.

 

[AlterEgo]

TfL will not check, but what will happen is they will send the letter which will require your response. If the letter is not responded to, TfL will prosecute the person named, and eventually bailiffs will be the ones to trace you months or years later and demand payment of the fine. You will also receive a criminal record.

It's therefore in your interests to proactively reach out to TfL to correct the information.

They will then (almost certainly) prosecute you now rather than you having to deal with it later.

 

[onceupon231]

So what about the person at X address, their name doesn’t match. Is it a case of them just saying that person doesn’t live at this address?

 

[reb0118]

How well do you like your cousin? You may find he gets prosecuted in your stead but without his knowledge.

For his sake, if not for yours, get this sorted.

Ultimately, this may well catch you up and bite you on the bum.

 

[ChilliSauce]

Hi all,

I was travelling with a staff Oyster card that I found a few weeks prior, I was stopped at the gate once I tapped out at a station and met by an undercover revenue officer. I instantly panicked and tried to put away the card, and walk away but was approached then decided to hand it in as he mentioned that my tap flashed a different colour and there were numerous BTP officers at the station. As I had a long day, I was flustered and ended up providing a fake name but to a real address - I was wondering if TfL verify this before sending the letter to the house, I went back a while later to explain that I had given the wrong address but the person said that they had sent the report already. The address exists but the name does not match, and I wasn’t pressed to present ID or a Bank Statement even though the person saw my wallet and knew I had a smart phone. Just wondering what to expect, I think in panicking I accidentally gave them my cousins address and the first name matched but my cousin no longer lives there

Before any makes any slack comments about XYZ, I won’t respond to them. I just want to know if TfL double check before issuing letters as I can imagine if they don’t check ID there are strong possibilities of people lying so in those cases they need to cross reference.

You were using what is without doubt the "highest value" Oyster card that is issued by TfL .. As in the availability is 24/7 without restriction.

The holder almost certainly reported it's loss and TfL would of looked to see if it was being used.

If you had used that Oyster Card times previously I expect TfL will when your prosecuted ask the courts to take those usages into consideration. Which will almost certainly be supported by Gate Line CCTV ..

Sorry to say this but you have got yourself in a whole lot of trouble .

 

[AlterEgo]

So what about the person at X address, their name doesn’t match. Is it a case of them just saying that person doesn’t live at this address?

The name is fake as you said so nobody is going to be replying to the letter, in all probability.

 

[ChilliSauce]

How well do you like your cousin? You may find he gets prosecuted in your stead but without his knowledge.

For his sake, if not for yours, get this sorted.

Ultimately, this may well catch you up and bite you on the bum.

I suspect they might summons your cousin to court who would then say quite correctly "not me". And that would be proved by CCTV . But that may not be the end of the matter as TfL
could very well show their CCTV images to your cousin and ask if he recognises the person ..you.

Now that rather puts him in a difficult position. if he answers "yes" then TfL know who they are chasing for prosecution. If he answers "no" and later you are apprehended and it comes to light that your cousin did know who it was on the TfL CCTV he could be charged with trying to pevert the course of justice .. And on conviction of that the only sentence is custodial.. So I suggest it's in everyone interest for you to make contact with TfL and get their record put right.

 

[MikeWh]

You were using what is without doubt the "highest value" Oyster card that is issued by TfL .. As in the availability is 24/7 without restriction.

I think that'll be the disabled freedom pass actually, although technically issued by London Councils.

The holder almost certainly reported it's loss and TfL would of looked to see if it was being used.

If the holder had reported it's loss I would expect the card to have been blacklisted immediately.

However, you are correct that it is a serious matter.

 

[FenMan]

I'm struggling with the idea that you "found" an Oyster card, then realised its high value and decided to use it on your travels.

Really?

Whatever, this is a slam dunk conviction. Don't make matters worse for yourself by serving up more of the wibble in your original post.

 

[enyoueffsea]

I think in panicking I accidentally gave them my cousins address and the first name matched but my cousin no longer lives there

You didn’t accidentally give them false details. It’s not really possible to do that.

I just want to know if TfL double check before issuing letters as I can imagine if they don’t check ID there are strong possibilities of people lying so in those cases they need to cross reference.

Your post makes me think you are hoping or expecting this to all blow over and go away. You need to realise that is extremely unlikely.

As others have said, you need to correct this information.

 

[Olivine]

Not entirely sure I’d agree with many of the comments posted.

I couldn’t quite see about giving your cousins details but there’s a certain Swiss cheese model to this - it’s a bit bizzare that the officer who stopped you didn’t get these details verified but I’ll make way to more experienced colleagues on here. If it truly is ‘well first name and address match up’ then that’s on TFL for having such appauling data verification systems to hand. If I get stopped and provide John Smith living at 123 Bond Street, and they accept that, then that’s squarely on TFLs door and makes a mockery of the whole system.

If they do chase up unanswered letters at the address you’ve given, if they prosecute in absentia, if the cousin turns up and denies it is them, if they still have copies of the CCTV, if they can present all of that evidence, if they can prove on the CCTV (beyond reasonable doubt?) that it was you, trawling a magnitude of CCTV that has likely been erased, if they send bailiffs round etc. If you still get stiffed after this, then bad luck.

Replies so far seem a bit whataboutery. It would be good for experienced members to help OP here rather than just chastise their decision making and say ‘ooh he’s in big trouble’ as it’s a little bit past that point.

 

[Haywain]

It would be good for experienced members to help OP

Many of those commenting are experienced members of the forum, and they are helping the OP.

 

[DaveB10780]

If the holder had reported it's loss I would expect the card to have been blacklisted immediately.

You would think so however I lost an Oyster card in November and reported it lost 15 minutes later on the web site. It was still able to be used on the day and even a few days later which caused great confusion getting my balance back. The lost card is still visible on the TFL GO App a month later (not the web site) which I find a little strange. I probably have to remove it manually.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Not entirely sure I’d agree with many of the comments posted.

I couldn’t quite see about giving your cousins details but there’s a certain Swiss cheese model to this - it’s a bit bizzare that the officer who stopped you didn’t get these details verified but I’ll make way to more experienced colleagues on here. If it truly is ‘well first name and address match up’ then that’s on TFL for having such appauling data verification systems to hand. If I get stopped and provide John Smith living at 123 Bond Street, and they accept that, then that’s squarely on TFLs door and makes a mockery of the whole system.

If they do chase up unanswered letters at the address you’ve given, if they prosecute in absentia, if the cousin turns up and denies it is them, if they still have copies of the CCTV, if they can present all of that evidence, if they can prove on the CCTV (beyond reasonable doubt?) that it was you, trawling a magnitude of CCTV that has likely been erased, if they send bailiffs round etc. If you still get stiffed after this, then bad luck.

Replies so far seem a bit whataboutery. It would be good for experienced members to help OP here rather than just chastise their decision making and say ‘ooh he’s in big trouble’ as it’s a little bit past that point.

While I am not sure about the analysis, objectively the conclusion is right if we are not being judgemental.

We know that TfL take abuse of things like staff passes seriously, and take them to court. But a side-effect of this is that there's not much that can be done which will aggravate the offence such as to allow a more serious punishment. Violence against TfL staff might do it, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this case.

So if TfL do catch up with the original poster ('OP') they will face court and a fine, exactly the same as if they had given full and accurate details at the first opportunity. But that's not to say there's nothing to worry about: OP will need to make a judgement on what it will mean if they get their cousin into trouble, and there's also the possibility that TfL may manage to make the connection to OP anyhow.

One last point to add, which may help anyone who stumbles onto this thread when seeking advice (hello Google!): in this case the OP tells us they found the pass. If in fact the pass had belonged to a friend or relation who worked for TfL, then they would also be in a lot of trouble: our understanding is that the railways and TfL do not like people failing to take care of their privilege cards. In that case, the legitimate card holder would be well advised to talk to their union rep urgently, before being called in for a difficult meeting with their manager.

 

[MikeWh]

The lost card is still visible on the TFL GO App a month later (not the web site) which I find a little strange.

There does seem to be a problem here. A visitor to my site is having problems adding a new card so TfL Go can see it. It's fine on the website. Hopefully something can be done after the holiday.

 

[ChilliSauce]

While I am not sure about the analysis, objectively the conclusion is right if we are not being judgemental.

We know that TfL take abuse of things like staff passes seriously, and take them to court. But a side-effect of this is that there's not much that can be done which will aggravate the offence such as to allow a more serious punishment. Violence against TfL staff might do it, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this case.

So if TfL do catch up with the original poster ('OP') they will face court and a fine, exactly the same as if they had given full and accurate details at the first opportunity. But that's not to say there's nothing to worry about: OP will need to make a judgement on what it will mean if they get their cousin into trouble, and there's also the possibility that TfL may manage to make the connection to OP anyhow.

One last point to add, which may help anyone who stumbles onto this thread when seeking advice (hello Google!): in this case the OP tells us they found the pass. If in fact the pass had belonged to a friend or relation who worked for TfL, then they would also be in a lot of trouble: our understanding is that the railways and TfL do not like people failing to take care of their privilege cards. In that case, the legitimate card holder would be well advised to talk to their union rep urgently, before being called in for a difficult meeting with their manager.

Well that is a very valid point .. if the pass was found then the pass holder would (or should of) known they had lost it and reported it as such. Meaning no possibility of having "lent the pass" to a friend / relative. If however the pass had not been reported as lost by the pass holder . Then yes that might raise other questions ...to the legitimate pass holder

 

[greyman42]

I'm struggling with the idea that you "found" an Oyster card, then realised its high value and decided to use it on your travels.

Really?

Whatever, this is a slam dunk conviction. Don't make matters worse for yourself by serving up more of the wibble in your original post.

Would it be obvious that the card was a staff travel card? If not, how would the OP know?

 

[ChilliSauce]

Would it be obvious that the card was a staff travel card? If not, how would the OP know?

O yes ..it's obvious . It's light blue in Colour and says "Staff" on it and mostly likely was with a photo card with an employee reference number on it and the ref number to match the Pass to the photo card

 

[Mattplans]

I'm struggling with the idea that you "found" an Oyster card, then realised its high value and decided to use it on your travels.

What exactly are you struggling with? He found a card, (do people travelling not regularly see lost Oysters etc?), noticed it's benefits, probably because it says 'Staff' on it. And used it. I don't think this is the part that's hard to understand.

I couldn’t quite see about giving your cousins details but there’s a certain Swiss cheese model to this - it’s a bit bizzare that the officer who stopped you didn’t get these details verified but I’ll make way to more experienced colleagues on here. If it truly is ‘well first name and address match up’ then that’s on TFL for having such appauling data verification systems to hand. If I get stopped and provide John Smith living at 123 Bond Street, and they accept that, then that’s squarely on TFLs door and makes a mockery of the whole system.

The issue here is that the details are valid. OP has given someone elses details which are actually valid. There's little the enforcement can do about this. We don't live in a country where you must carry ID. (Even if we did, I think it would be outrageous if revenue protection officers were allowed to compel someone to produce it.)

I'd agree that I'm not sure OP makes the situation worse for himself by not making amends of the situation. It's not like TfL is particularly lenient in these cases, they will always push for the fullest maximums. Some members have also suggested CCTV might be used to identify OP, but realistically how long is this kept for? To make it worse, it's the holiday season, and by the time the issues of false identity are out of the way, I find it hard to believe that the CCTV that could have been used to identify OP has not been wiped. But this also poses the question on how tfl protect against false identity claims on any regular case, so perhaps some cctv is kept. That being said, TfL do not release info on how long they keep CCTV for,

OP mentions that the cousin no longer lives at the address in question. OP also plays with the fact that the name given may match their cousins' first name. So, how likely is it that the cousin may be convicted in absentia? OP really needs to consider if that's something he wants to be responsible for. This can really **** up someone's life in untold ways. TfL could proceed with their letters, prosecution, etc, and by the time it comes to OP's cousin being convicted in absentia it may be too far gone to rewind the clock and establish OP's responsibility for the incident. But can the cousin escape the conviction and the fines and the penalties that would have been accrued for not paying the fines... by the time the cousin finds out about their conviction?

In this scenario, I assume a lot of factors such as the OP's cousin doesn't have mail forwarded to their new address (however, if the first name matches, and surname does not, would the mail be forwarded?) but this looks like one of the cases that OP might assume they've gotten away with, then comes back to bite about 10 months later.

I think OP actually has a fairly good chance of "getting away" with it, but their cousin doesn't.

 

[enyoueffsea]

To add additional context to my earlier post - I agree with post #19 above. The most likely outcome here in opinion is the cousin receives a prosecution, due to failing to respond to the correspondence that arrives.

Whilst the name may only be a partial match, it’s likely with a part correct name and a correct (albeit old) address, this will come back to the cousin. It’s not like these details are entirely fabricated.

I expect the cousin will eventually find out about this prosecution when the bailiffs come knocking.

TfL process thousands of these a year. There isn’t really a process for “oh, nobody has replied, we must have the wrong guy, lets stop”.

Whether the cousin can then work out who has stitched them up is another question.

 

[enyoueffsea]

For those more in the know than I, would the staff member potentially get themselves into bother if they did lose their travel pass but had not reported it as missing?

 

[Fredtheshred]

I am wondering if the staff member is known to the OP...and "borrowed" ?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I am wondering if the staff member is known to the OP...and "borrowed" ?

I rely on what the OP has told us, but I advised on this point in the last paragraph of post #14.

 

[greyman42]

O yes ..it's obvious . It's light blue in Colour and says "Staff" on it and mostly likely was with a photo card with an employee reference number on it and the ref number to match the Pass to the photo card

The reason I asked is because i have an Oyster which gives me staff benefits but it is identical to any other Oyster and i am not required to carry ID.

 

[ChilliSauce]

The reason I asked is because i have an Oyster which gives me staff benefits but it is identical to any other Oyster and i am not required to carry ID.

So under revenue protection check how does the Officer actually know you are the bona fide person to use that card ?

Even the Retired Staff Oyster card (dark pink) is only valid if accompanied by it's number matching photo ID card ?

 

[CyrusWuff]

TfL Staff, Staff Nominee, Retired, Bus Operator and Bus Operator Nominee Oyster cards are explicitly only valid when accompanied by a Photocard or PTAC (Privilege Ticket Authority Card), as per the Conditions of Use for the card. (Google is your friend here, as they've all been subject to FOI requests.)

A standard Retail Oyster with a Priv discount (or any other discount) applied is only valid when presented with the relevant discount card and any Photocard that may be required to prove entitlement to that discount.

 

[ChilliSauce]

A standard Retail Oyster with a Priv discount (or any other discount) applied is only valid when presented with the relevant discount card and any Photocard that may be required to prove entitlement to that discount.

The notable exception is a retired Safeguarded member of Staff with a Staff Travel Card (STC) is not required to carry a photo identify card to support the STC.

Upon STC renewal in 2026 the photo will be included on the STC itself ...however retired will still not be required to have a photo on their STC, it will be by their choice unless RSTL already hold a photo ..i.e. for the issue of a Status Pass etc

That is TfL revenue protection staff when checking a PAYG Oyster that has the Priv Discount Applied when asking to see the STC need to recognise / understand that if the STC states "Retired" they should not ask to see a photo identidy card as the holder is not required to carry.

 

[rebmcr]

bonified

You seem to mean "bona fide".

 

[ChilliSauce]

You seem to mean "bona fide".

Yes !

 

[greyman42]

The notable exception is a retired Safeguarded member of Staff with a Staff Travel Card (STC) is not required to carry a photo identify card to support the STC.

This is what I was referring to.