Keygo interaction with standard ITSO when BoJ

[kijeta]

I made a return journey from Gatwick Airport to Amberley and back, using a Keygo-enabled GTR smartcard (this was a split ticket, alongside a CCST for Gatwick Airport - East Croydon, and London Freedom Pass for East Croydon - Victoria, but those are not relevant to this dispute).

On the return portion of the journey, I made the following taps:

Gatwick airport to Amberley Off-peak day return £0.00
KeyGo Taps
16:45 Amberley Touch Entry
17:31 Horsham Touch Exit
17:32 Horsham Touch Entry
17:48 Crawley Touch Exit


Three bridges to Three bridges Entry and exit at same station £0.00
KeyGo Taps
18:06 Three bridges Touch Entry
18:07 Three bridges Touch Exit



Crawley to Gatwick airport Anytime day single Disabled Persons Railcard £2.85
KeyGo Taps
18:27 Crawley Touch Entry
18:43 Three bridges Touch Exit
18:44 Three bridges Touch Entry
18:57 Gatwick airport Touch Exit

I was charged £2.85 on the linked payment card. I then contacted Thameslink regarding this. There have been a few back-and-forths (the journey was actually made in April, but Thameslink takes approximately 3 weeks on average per reply), I have extracted the important sentences below:

GTR: The tap at Crawley after Three Bridges is going back on the route of your ticket. As you had already gone as far as Three Bridges, the next tap being at Crawley was in the wrong direction of travel which resulted in the remainder of your journey from Crawley to Gatwick being treated as a new journey and requiring a new ticket.
Even though there was no journey made when you tapped in and out at Three Bridges, the next tap being at an earlier station on your route could no longer be treated as the same journey.

Me: I do not believe "the next tap being at Crawley was in the wrong direction of travel" is an appropriate assessment for this situation, as, at that point, I hadn't yet used the Crawley -> Three Bridges section of the ticket.

I should have been more clear here. I meant to say "There's no such thing as a wrong direction of travel at Three Bridges, if, as far as the pre-loaded ticket is concerned, I was still at Crawley."

GTR: From this we can see you got to Crawley at 17:48, after this was the taps in and out of Three Bridges at 18:06-18:07 followed by the rest of your journey to Gatwick starting at 18:27. As the system registered your taps at Three Bridges before your journey from Crawley to Gatwick it registered your return ticket as used as based on the above you then went back to Crawley to start your journey to Gatwick. Once your return ticket was considered used you would've needed to pay for the journey from Crawley to Gatwick using your KeyGo account as there were no other tickets available to use. This means it isn't possible for us to refund this charge. I'm sorry I understand this may be disappointing to hear.

I understand technical limitations marking the return ticket as used, but I'm surprised that the (human) staff would think that's the case too?

Me: I would be grateful if you could please confirm the following:
1) The cost incurred by a Three Bridges to Three Bridges journey on KeyGo (such as the following):
18:06 Three bridges Touch Entry
18:07 Three bridges Touch Exit

GTR: Firstly if you were to tap in and out of the same station you wouldnt normally be charged, however it is entirely dependent on the amount of time between those taps as to if you were charged or not.

They did not provide any information in the emails on how the duration between taps will change the situation.

Me:
2) The cost incurred by a smartcard, loaded with a Gatwick Airport to Amberley off-peak day return, with the following taps, if it were hypothetically a different (e.g., non-GTR) smartcard:
16:45 Amberley Touch Entry
17:31 Horsham Touch Exit
17:32 Horsham Touch Entry
17:48 Crawley Touch Exit
18:27 Crawley Touch Entry
18:43 Three bridges Touch Exit
18:44 Three bridges Touch Entry
18:57 Gatwick airport Touch Exit

GTR: Secondly, if you had a pre-loaded ticket and followed your proposed journeys exactly there would also be no charge as the journey would be covered by the ticket.

The purpose of asking that wasn't to get the figure of what would be charged - of course I knew the answer. It was to put the situation into perspective: I travelled from Amberley to Gatwick Airport, with a few BoJs. What I do when "breaking the journey" shouldn't impede on the validity of the ticket.

Me: 3) The specific guideline/policy stating that scenarios 1 and 2 above cannot be used in conjunction with each other.

GTR: Thirdly, there is no specific guideline or policy that states the above can't be used together, however, the timing of the taps and directionality of the journeys would need to be taken into account.
Based on the journey registered on your account, you travelled back from Amberley, via Crawley at 17:48, to Three Bridges at 18:06. You then managed to get back to Crawley for 18:27 to start your journey to Gatwick Airport.
When using return tickets each portion needs to be used in the correct order and once the return portion is used the whole ticket is considered used. Your journey from Amberley to Three Bridges was counted as using the return portion of your ticket. You then started another journey from Crawley to Gatwick which was no longer covered by your used ticket so needed to be paid for using KeyGo.

They, again, did not specify the effect of the timing/directionality, other than in that sentence.
I actually used buses for Crawley -> Three Bridges (1st time) and back, using ENCTS. Although I do wonder if this will pan out any differently had I used the Keygo for those buses as well, considering Metrobus accepts it.
I disagree on their comment, "you then started another journey from Crawley to Gatwick Airport". I intended to continue the journey from Amberley to Gatwick Airport, picking up from a previous BoJ.

Me: 4) Whether or not you wish for your response to be considered a deadlock letter/final response.

GTR: Lastly, we do not consider this a deadlock letter.

How would I "make" them deadlock, to escalate it to the Ombudsman? Is it possible for them to keep going around in circles, refusing to deadlock, until I inevitably get tired and give up?

I appreciate this is an odd situation to be in, but I'd love to hear any suggestions on what my next steps should be.

Thanks

 

[Haywain]

It’s far from clear what the problem is. You have been charged £2.85 for a journey that should cost £11.95 as far as I can see.

 

[kijeta]

It’s far from clear what the problem is. You have been charged £2.85 for a journey that should cost £11.95 as far as I can see.

Sorry I should have clarified. I paid the £12.15 to a TVM beforehand.

 

[Haywain]

Sorry I should have clarified. I paid the £12.15 to a TVM beforehand.

For what? And if you’d bought a ticket from a TVM why were you touching in and out with a KeyGo card?

 

[kijeta]

For what? And if you’d bought a ticket from a TVM why were you touching in and out with a KeyGo card?

A KeyGo enabled GTR smartcard is still an ITSO smartcard that can hold pre-loaded tickets.

 

[Haywain]

A KeyGo enabled GTR smartcard is still an ITSO smartcard that can hold pre-loaded tickets.

Right, so you had a ticket bought from a TVM loaded on you Key card. It's not abundantly clear from your original posts because of the muddled sequence.

It's difficult to comprehend why you would get a bus from Crawley to Three Bridges and back just to touch in and out at the station, and then get a train there and touch out and back in. It's therefore easy to see why anybody at Thameslink would be somewhere between confused and disbelieving about what you are telling them. Ultimately, it's up to you whether you chase this for the sake of such a small amount but I think you might struggle to convince the ombudsman that you shouldn't have been charged.

 

[kijeta]

Right, so you had a ticket bought from a TVM loaded on you Key card. It's not abundantly clear from your original posts because of the muddled sequence.

It's difficult to comprehend why you would get a bus from Crawley to Three Bridges and back just to touch in and out at the station, and then get a train there and touch out and back in. It's therefore easy to see why anybody at Thameslink would be somewhere between confused and disbelieving about what you are telling them. Ultimately, it's up to you whether you chase this for the sake of such a small amount but I think you might struggle to convince the ombudsman that you shouldn't have been charged.

Sorry about that - hope it's clearer now.

Out of principle, I would like to chase it up.

The reason I did it is, I believe it should be possible and legal, and therefore I was willing to attempt it. This does say a lot about my personality, but I don't think that should be the subject of the discussion.

 

[talldave]

It looks as if you're just trying to test/break the system for the sake of it.

Why would you enter Three Bridges station and immediately exit again whilst on a BOJ at a different station?

And then come back again for a pointless BOJ having gone back to the previous BOJ station to resume your journey?

If I was writing the back end software I'd be triggering a card clone alert!!

 

[kijeta]

It looks as if you're just trying to test/break the system for the sake of it.

Why would you enter Three Bridges station and immediately exit again whilst on a BOJ at a different station?

And then come back again for a pointless BOJ having gone back to the previous BOJ station to resume your journey?

If I was writing the back end software I'd be triggering a card clone alert!!

Regardless of my (legal) intentions (and yes, you are correct in that I am trying to test the system for the sake of it), that ticket shouldn't have been invalidated.

 

[Watershed]

I think the issue here is the difference between barrier touches and actually travelling.

Yes, you touched in and out at Three Bridges at 18:06/07 but by virtue of the timings you evidently did not travel. Therefore, how the system classified these touches or what it did with them is irrelevant legally spekaing. You did not travel and therefore nothing is due under the KeyGo scheme, nor did you use the remainder of your Amberley ticket's validity.

I therefore agree that the system was incorrect to charge you an additional fare, as your Amberley-Gatwick ticket had not been used beyond Crawley. GTR ought to refund you for the additional KeyGo charge.

If it's been 8+ weeks since you submitted your complaint then you can proceed to the Rail Ombudsman now; otherwise, you will need a letter of deadlock to proceed to them. That being said, I am sure you are aware that the Ombudsman is not viewed as particularly competent and so I wouldn't hold out high hopes of them ruling in your favour, particularly in a complex case such as this where it would be easy for GTR to 'bamboozle' them with terminology and claims that the evidently poorly trained/qualified Ombudsman assessors are unlikely to understand.

For reference, the reason why the system marked the Amberley-Gatwick ticket as having been used up to Three Bridges is likely due to the prioritisation rules applied by the ITSO reader. If I'm not mistaken, these require a ticket which is valid for valid for travel (or break/recommencement of journey) to be considered ahead of an authority to travel such as KeyGo. Of course that doesn't consider a scenario such as yours - but I am sure you would recognise that your scenario is a very unlikely one which you admit you purely undertook to test the system.

 

[talldave]

A paper ticket fed through the barriers at Three Bridges would surely have been deemed to have moved the break of journey point on to Three Bridges?

 

[kijeta]

Yes, you touched in and out at Three Bridges at 18:06/07 but by virtue of the timings you evidently did not travel. Therefore, how the system classified these touches or what it did with them is irrelevant legally spekaing. You did not travel and therefore nothing is due under the KeyGo scheme, nor did you use the remainder of your Amberley ticket's validity.

Thanks - that summarised what I've intended to do much better than I ever could!

Ombudsman is not viewed as particularly competent

Would you therefore suggest that I internally escalate this more, before trying my luck with the Ombudsman? They explicitly did not deadlock, so I can still request an internal escalation.

A paper ticket fed through the barriers at Three Bridges would surely have been deemed to have moved the break of journey point on to Three Bridges?

I don't think a day return paper ticket (of any medium) allows a same station exit at Three Bridges (please correct me if I'm wrong). But even then, that wouldn't legally invalidate the ticket, and a passenger holding a paper ticket (I'm assuming a CCST, which doesn't have an Aztec) would still be entitled to pass through all the other gatelines upon visual inspection?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2026 ==

If it's been 8+ weeks since you submitted your complaint

What counts as a complaint? As in, do I need to write the word "complaint", or will my initial enquiry on 27/04 do? If I do need the word "complaint", I better send that through that ASAP...

 

[walkingsophie]

It looks as if you're just trying to test/break the system for the sake of it.

Why would you enter Three Bridges station and immediately exit again whilst on a BOJ at a different station?

And then come back again for a pointless BOJ having gone back to the previous BOJ station to resume your journey?

If I was writing the back end software I'd be triggering a card clone alert!!

I have done similar things before, like when I have used a platform ticket at Guildford when I was in a BoJ at London Road (Guildford) on a Chilworth to Feltham ticket

 

[bb21]

I have done similar things before, like when I have used a platform ticket at Guildford when I was in a BoJ at London Road (Guildford) on a Chilworth to Feltham ticket

That is the correct answer for the OP. It is simply bizarre what he was trying to do which no sane passenger would even contemplate and the system did what was the most sensible thing.

It is a one-off case which is unlikely to ever happen again as far as the operator is concerned, but I think he is due his £2.85 back.

 

[MrJeeves]

It is simply bizarre what he was trying to do which no sane passenger would even contemplate and the system did what was the most sensible thing.

I don't think it's entirely bizarre to use keyGo as effectively a gate pass — I certainly have.

But I do think it's bizarre to preload an ITSO ticket onto a smartcard for a journey wholly within the keyGo area and then proceed to do something like this.

Had the fare not been prepurchased, I am very confident that the correct amount would have been charged instead of OP being overcharged.

 

[bb21]

I don't think it's entirely bizarre to use keyGo as effectively a gate pass — I certainly have.

But I do think it's bizarre to preload an ITSO ticket onto a smartcard for a journey wholly within the keyGo area and then proceed to do something like this.

That's the thing. It isn't the fact OP used it as a gate pass that is strange here, but the fact they skipped a section on his route, used it as a gate pass, then went back on themselves, which I don't think anyone would ever be able to come up with if brainstorming what a passenger might do. That's probably what confused the customer service agent.

Had the fare not been prepurchased, I am very confident that the correct amount would have been charged instead of OP being overcharged.

I am intrigued now. If they did the same itinerary but without a pre-purchased ticket loaded on the card, would the same station entry-exit have broken the continuation at Crawley and resulted in two fares, to and from Crawley? Maybe the OP can test it out if we don't know the answer.

 

[Swedenorer]

Is it possible for them to keep going around in circles, refusing to deadlock, until I inevitably get tired and give up?

That's what I'd do if working in the office remembering I am being paid to waste my time...

 

[MrJeeves]

would the same station entry-exit have broken the continuation at Crawley and resulted in two fares, to and from Crawley?

Not from my experience.

 

[kijeta]

I think he is due his £2.85 back.

Just a quick note - and I appreciate there's no way you would've known beforehand, I'm a woman.

But I do think it's bizarre to preload an ITSO ticket onto a smartcard for a journey wholly within the keyGo area and then proceed to do something like this.

I wouldn't have been able to use KeyGo at that time, as I was using split tickets (with a CCST), and stayed on the same train for the Amberley-bound journey. I only had time to play with unconventional taps on the way back to London.

 

[bb21]

Just a quick note - and I appreciate there's no way you would've known beforehand, I'm a woman.

I knew there was a reason I used gender neutral terms but that one slipped the net.

My apologies.

 

[kijeta]

I have just received the deadlock email from GTR, stating the following:

I appreciate you are unhappy with the response you received from us previously. However, I can only reiterate the information we provided you earlier the journey records show that after arriving at Three Bridges at 18:06, you travelled back to Crawley, arriving at 18:27, before returning to Three Bridges on the 18:43 service. As this involved travelling back over part of the route already completed, this section of travel was not covered by your original ticket.

As a result, the additional fare that should have been charged was for the journey from Crawley to Three Bridges, which is £2.65 with your Disabled Railcard.

That is obviously not true. I have no hope in the ombudsman, but my understanding is that is my only possible way forward now?

 

[Watershed]

I have just received the deadlock email from GTR, stating the following:


That is obviously not true. I have no hope in the ombudsman, but my understanding is that is my only possible way forward now?

One option - assuming you didn't use a MasterCard - would be to try to undertake a chargeback on the basis of services not performed/provided or double charging, since you were charged for a service (travel) which they did not provide since you had already paid for it.

The other option would be to send a Letter Before Claim and ultimately take them to Court. Is that worth it over £2.65? Only you can decide.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

One option - assuming you didn't use a MasterCard - would be to try to undertake a chargeback

Is there a restriction for chargeback on Mastercard? My understanding (and I'll admit I've never attempted it so I have no personal experience to go on) is that it's a condition of using a credit card that chargeback should be available, while there's no such requirement on a debit card, although debit card providers may choose to provide something similar. So whether your card is Mastercard or Visa (or presumably AmEx) should make no difference.

 

[Richardr]

Chargeback for under £100 is voluntary but most card issuers have such a scheme.

 

[cool110]

Is there a restriction for chargeback on Mastercard? My understanding (and I'll admit I've never attempted it so I have no personal experience to go on) is that it's a condition of using a credit card that chargeback should be available, while there's no such requirement on a debit card, although debit card providers may choose to provide something similar. So whether your card is Mastercard or Visa (or presumably AmEx) should make no difference.

Chargeback for under £100 is voluntary but most card issuers have such a scheme.

Chargeback is the same for credit and debit cards, being part of the scheme rules (so Visa, Mastercard and AmEx are slightly different). The protection of Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act on credit card purchases over £100 is like Legal Tender in that it's only actually applicable in court, with most banks choosing to use the chargeback mechanism before it get there.

 

[Watershed]

Is there a restriction for chargeback on Mastercard? My understanding (and I'll admit I've never attempted it so I have no personal experience to go on) is that it's a condition of using a credit card that chargeback should be available, while there's no such requirement on a debit card, although debit card providers may choose to provide something similar. So whether your card is Mastercard or Visa (or presumably AmEx) should make no difference.

MasterCard don't allow charge backs for amounts under £10, and the transaction in question here is £2.65 as I understand it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

MasterCard don't allow charge backs for amounts under £10, and the transaction in question here is £2.65 as I understand it.

Makes sense now - thanks.

 

[kijeta]

The other option would be to send a Letter Before Claim and ultimately take them to Court. Is that worth it over £2.65? Only you can decide.

Thank you very much. I have been considering the Small Claims Court, as I don't mind gambling £35 for a chance to get the £2.85 back.

However, would it be advisable to go via the Rail Ombudsman first? As in, will the court not look favourably on me not following the usual procedure; or will "no ombudsman involvement" be better than a rejected one?

Edit to add, justification for the "gamble": Overpaying for travel physically hurts me (leads to angina etc), but legal fees like the £35 doesn't invoke the same physical symptoms. So even if it's a guaranteed loss, I would still be willing to give it a go. In other words, £35 in court fees is less than £2.85 in overpayments to me.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't mind gambling £35 for a chance to get the £2.85 back

You must be a bookie's dream.

 

[Watershed]

Thank you very much. I have been considering the Small Claims Court, as I don't mind gambling £35 for a chance to get the £2.85 back.

Bear in mind that the costs you can recover are more limited when making a claim of that value. You can't claim fixed costs upon claim commencement under CPR 45.17 unless your claim is for at least £25.

Now that's not saying you can't bring a court claim for less than £25, but it's a fairly clear indication that it is not considered worth everyone's time and so the courts aren't going to reward you with the ability to recover that contribution towards your costs.

If the matter were to proceed to a hearing you could still recover your direct travel expenses and loss of earnings or leave for any absence from work, up to a fairly threshold. However you would have to pay the hearing fee if it gets to that stage, which is more money you're not guaranteed to get back.

However, would it be advisable to go via the Rail Ombudsman first? As in, will the court not look favourably on me not following the usual procedure

The Protocol on Pre-Action Conduct states that litigation should be a 'last resort' and that alternatives such as negotiation or ADR should be considered. That doesn't mean you're forced to use the Ombudsman - negotiation is specifically called out as an option.

But when an ADR scheme exists, it may be argued by GTR that failing to use it amounts to unreasonable conduct, especially in relation to an amount of this value. That might mean you were ordered to pay some or all of their costs, even if you win the case.

or will "no ombudsman involvement" be better than a rejected one?

I think that's a fair point and given the notorious incompetence of the Ombudsman, it's certainly a reason why I have shied away from using the Ombudsman in previous disputes with a TOC. A decision against you by the Ombudsman is in no way binding but there is a good chance it would be cited by the TOC as if it were definitive, if they defend the case.

Edit to add, justification for the "gamble": Overpaying for travel physically hurts me (leads to angina etc), but legal fees like the £35 doesn't invoke the same physical symptoms. So even if it's a guaranteed loss, I would still be willing to give it a go. In other words, £35 in court fees is less than £2.85 in overpayments to me.

Fair enough - everyone has their own reasons for wanting to pursue things.