Disparity in Oyster vs Contactless inspections

[Cdd89]

The thread on a passenger being incorrectly challenged for a Continuation Exit on Oyster, as well as one on a passenger being issued with a Penalty Fare despite touching in on Contactless, makes me question if TfL's practice of having fundamentally different inspection practices on Oyster vs Contactless - despite Oyster becoming digital and increasingly technically equivalent to Contactless - is good practice.

These otherwise unrelated incidents have in common the fact that they would not have occurred had the passenger used the opposite mode. The disadvantage of the Oyster model is poor training resulting in incorrect PFs being issued based on misreading the touch data. The disadvantage of the Contactless model is RPIs eliciting what they view as confessions (eg "I'm not sure if I tapped in") and issuing PFs without actually seeing the touch data.

I would argue that either it is essential for standard RPIs to have live access to touch and journey data (in which case that should be addressed on Contactless and it should use the Oyster revenue enforcement model of penalty fares), or it is not (in which case there is no need to expose this information to RPIs for Oyster users, and revenue inspection charges can be levied instead for most forms of incorrect tapping, except that which is directly witnessed). Oyster users are demographically different from Contactless users, being primarily a cash-based or railcard product, so there may be equalities implications insofar as any disparity harms these groups. The disadvantages of Oyster, or eliciting "Contactless confessions", arguably harm people with protected characteristics more.

I would suggest TfL should be prioritising a hybrid model that is the same for both modes in terms of data viewability, revenue inspection charges, and potential for PFs.

 

[mickey]

I’m not sure I agree. There are fundamental technical differences between them that make alignment particularly difficult, and trying to squeeze them together would create a lowest-common-denominator model that would likely be worse than they have today.

The reason you can’t give RPIs access to ‘live’ tap data is because it’s not real-time enough to be reliable enough for that purpose. Yes most stations report fairly quickly in normal operations, but it’s not guaranteed and there are (and have always been) outliers for various reasons. It’s common for EL on-train inspections to happen before tap-ins show on accounts, at least on the western branch where I live. Improving uptime enough to make it viable would cost huge sums, probably without commensurate benefits.

A nut doesn’t always need a sledgehammer. There are better ways to avoid situations such as that in the Slough thread.

 

[Cdd89]

The reason you can’t give RPIs access to ‘live’ tap data is because it’s not real-time enough to be reliable enough for that purpose

That is indeed the case. It's barely acceptable in 2026, when other countries using contactless can do this, and I expect most passengers think inspectors can see live touch data, which RPIs use to elicit confessions; but let's accept that this is the state of the London system and an upgrade is not achievable.

In this case, I'd argue the only fair response is to remove live touch data from RPIs inspecting Oyster products. It's fundamentally unfair that a Contactless user who makes a mistake is charged £16, while an Oyster user is charged £100+. This is even more problematic when we consider that Oyster users are more likely to have protected characteristics, a disparity that gets more stark as everyone able to do so moves across to Contactless.

 

[mickey]

Having a season ticket or being a student is not a protected characteristic. I’d suggest we’re a long way from that being a realistic concern here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In this case, I'd argue the only fair response is to remove live touch data from RPIs inspecting Oyster products. It's fundamentally unfair that a Contactless user who makes a mistake is charged £16, while an Oyster user is charged £100+.

Or- and I suspect this is what will happen- make the failed revenue charge significantly higher than it currently is. They're already moving towards this with the maximum fare now being £30 out of certain London terminals.

Having a season ticket or being a student is not a protected characteristic.

Season ticket holders don't need to touch in or out unless they are travelling outside of their zones.

Excepting season tickets/Freedom Pass, Oyster now really tends to only be used by the poorest and most vulnerable people in London. People with good financial standing simply use Contactless. So I'd agree that it is unfair that people who forget to touch in with Oyster get charged £50-£100 and people who forget to touch in with Contactless get charged £16.30.

 

[Adam Williams]

I would argue that either it is essential for standard RPIs to have live access to touch and journey data (in which case that should be addressed on Contactless and it should use the Oyster revenue enforcement model of penalty fares), or it is not (in which case there is no need to expose this information to RPIs for Oyster users, and revenue inspection charges can be levied instead for most forms of incorrect tapping, except that which is directly witnessed).

Agreed.

I’m not sure I agree. There are fundamental technical differences between them that make alignment particularly difficult

No. Incompetence on TfL's part. There is no good technical reason in 2026 RID2 shouldn't be able to query the live status of a contactless/EMV token based on the underlying FPAN.

Having a season ticket or being a student is not a protected characteristic

And being disabled, but ineligible for the Freedom Pass?

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Excepting season tickets/Freedom Pass, Oyster now really tends to only be used by the poorest and most vulnerable people in London. People with good financial standing simply use Contactless.

What about Railcards whose discounts are not available with Contactless but are available with Oyster?

 

[Adam Williams]

What about Railcards whose discounts are not available with Contactless but are available with Oyster?

Which is literally all of them, isn't it?

Despite one of the Oval deliverables being CPAY/railcard support.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or- and I suspect this is what will happen- make the failed revenue charge significantly higher than it currently is. They're already moving towards this with the maximum fare now being £30 out of certain London terminals.

There is a big issue with that, though, in that cleaning someone's account out by whacking a 100 quid penalty onto their card is VERY different from issuing them a Penalty Fare which they have a period of time to pay. One thing potentially prevents someone eating until next payday, the other is going to be very annoying and potentially an issue next month but at least gives some time to get money in place, e.g. working a bit of overtime to pay it, and it means if it's genuinely unfair it can be appealed without being out of pocket.

I don't think whacking automatic PFs of a significant sum onto cards is appropriate. I know TfGM do it on Metrolink (£60), but I don't like it there either. Another method needs to be found.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I don't think whacking automatic PFs of a significant sum onto cards is appropriate. I know TfGM do it on Metrolink (£60), but I don't like it there either. Another method needs to be found.

I completely agree.

Metrolink's policy makes me reluctant to use Contactless- and where I do, I use a credit card and not a debit card.

But if the industry has an easy option (increasing the revenue inspection charge) or a more difficult option (real-time tap data), I think we all know what they will choose.

And I think real-time tap data is a very difficult option. IIRC Oyster records the tap data on the card itself, which is why they can check by simply reading the card.

What about Railcards whose discounts are not available with Contactless but are available with Oyster?

Most railcards are used by more vulnerable people- the young, the old, and the disabled.

 

[saismee]

I use an Oyster card because I don't like the idea of getting my card/phone out all the time, nor do I really trust TfLs systems to reliably charge my card correctly. I wouldn't notice an extra fiver going out on my debit/credit cards, but I would notice on my Oyster as I only keep a small amount on there (usually around 10-15 pounds for the Z2/3 caps). I'm not old or vulnerable and I don't use a railcard.

 

[Swedenorer]

Please do not use the word vulnerable in this context - it is incredibly value loaded. Railcards are used by people who for whatever reason have been given a discount usually in return for an annual subscription. The fact that I cannot add my railcard to my payment card is the primary reason I won't use contactless. It has nothing to do with anything else. If TfL will not not join the modern world I'll jjust have to go using Oyster and CCS tickets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Please do not use the word vulnerable in this context - it is incredibly value loaded.

Yes. It is also meant to be value-loaded to represent the reality of the majority of people who still use Oyster. That doesn't mean everyone still using Oyster is vulnerable and nor does it mean that everyone using Contactless is not vulnerable.

The Railcards you can add to Oyster are indicative of some generalise level of additional vulnerability though: they are for older people, younger people, people who are in or were in the armed forces, and people with disabilities.

You can't add the Network Railcard to Oyster.

If you don't tap in an Oyster you get a Penalty Fare, if you don't tap in a Contactless payment card you don't. The generalised additional vulnerabilities of the Oyster user just exacerbates this unfairness.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2026 ==

I use an Oyster card because I don't like the idea of getting my card/phone out all the time, nor do I really trust TfLs systems to reliably charge my card correctly.

I use a credit card for that reason.

FWIW the only charging issues I've experienced have been when I used to use Oyster. Contactless is all back-office so it helps with that. Helps with getting a refund too.

 

[Cdd89]

I don't think whacking automatic PFs of a significant sum onto cards is appropriate. I know TfGM do it on Metrolink (£60), but I don't like it there either. Another method needs to be found.

Tbh I'm not even sure why there is a failed revenue inspection charge; £16 is hardly the primary deterrent for fare evasion considering that inspections are rare (perhaps there are exceptions). it's also a bit odd that TfL allows completion of incomplete journeys, but still levies this charge if you are "caught".

The real enforcement mechanisms for contactless are where a passenger is seen to walk directly past a validator and cannot show a paper/eticket for their journey, or a long-term pattern develops which looks more like intentional evasion than a series of accidents. TfL obviously think this is good enough.

 

[MikeWh]

Some observations. The TOCs (effectively the DfT) were very unhappy that the original revenue protection fee was only an incomplete journey. I'm not at all surprised that it has gone up. I hope it doesn't go up beyond the level of the zone 1-6 daily cap, because I share the concerns about instantly deducting a penalty from someone's bank account.

Whenever talk of live data is mentioned I will say two words: Kidbrooke and Twyford. Both suffered their station computer being offline for an extended period (more than a week). All the touches were recorded and stored, then uploaded to the central system when the computer was reconnected.

The up-to £30.40 incomplete journey charge is in my opinion excessive. It's justified at Reading where it is the peak single from Paddington. If they genuinely are charging £30.40 at places like London Bridge then it is going to cause problems. If anyone here gets an incomplete charge at any of the London terminals involved then I would be very keen to know what it is, and what happens when you try to resolve it.

 

[saismee]

Whenever talk of live data is mentioned I will say two words: Kidbrooke and Twyford. Both suffered their station computer being offline for an extended period (more than a week). All the touches were recorded and stored, then uploaded to the central system when the computer was reconnected.

I can confirm, Cubic are far from fast when it comes to repairing these things. You also have to consider that parts/electronics can fail and may need a replacement ordered. You can't just start penalising passengers for things out of their control.

I think the only solution would be to link a penalty to a specific card, then automatically clear the penalty if the journey gets reconciled later on. It's still a big inconvenience for the customer as they need their details taken and get treated like a criminal.

 

[Gareth1990]

I don’t know why TfL aren’t stronger in rebuffing the ToC’s and DfT demands, what are they going to go if TfL refuses to charge more than an incomplete fare? Withdraw from the contactless system? I don’t think so…

 

[John R]

Excepting season tickets/Freedom Pass, Oyster now really tends to only be used by the poorest and most vulnerable people in London.

I’m a regular Oyster user, and fwiw pay a considerable amount of higher rate tax on my pension income (which I don’t begrudge). And in good health and below state pension age.

And I doubt I am the only one. So I dispute that only the poorest and most vulnerable use Oyster.

 

[Benjwri]

The up-to £30.40 incomplete journey charge is in my opinion excessive. It's justified at Reading where it is the peak single from Paddington.

Arguably this is a very London centric view. Someone travelling from Ealing to Paddington doesn’t deserve to get a £30 incomplete journey charge, but someone from Twyford to Reading does?

 

[Watershed]

Arguably this is a very London centric view. Someone travelling from Ealing to Paddington doesn’t deserve to get a £30 incomplete journey charge, but someone from Twyford to Reading does?

You would be very unlikely to be using the Paddington National Rail barriers when travelling within London. Almost all services at the 'high level' station are GWR ones which have their first stop at Slough or Reading.

I agree it is somewhat more problematic at the Reading end but London is such a popular destination that I would imagine the majority of all contactless users will indeed be travelling to/from London.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I would imagine the majority of all contactless users will indeed be travelling to/from London.

Oyster is only valid as far as West Drayton, so anyone west of there would be using Contactless if they weren't using traditional tickets or buying on a phone. It's not just the main line, but also the three branches to Windsor, Marlow and Henley.

 

[Benjwri]

You would be very unlikely to be using the Paddington National Rail barriers when travelling within London. Almost all services at the 'high level' station are GWR ones which have their first stop at Slough or Reading.

I agree it is somewhat more problematic at the Reading end but London is such a popular destination that I would imagine the majority of all contactless users will indeed be travelling to/from London.

My understanding was that MikeWh was saying that Paddington shouldn't have the maximum fare, not that it should. I agree with you and that only further the question of why it's justified at Reading if not Paddington

 

[Watershed]

Oyster is only valid as far as West Drayton, so anyone west of there would be using Contactless if they weren't using traditional tickets or buying on a phone. It's not just the main line, but also the three branches to Windsor, Marlow and Henley.

The point I was making is that at Reading, a large proportion of contactless users will be travelling to Paddington, and vice versa (but even more so) at the Paddington NR barriers.

 

[Hadders]

My understanding was that MikeWh was saying that Paddington shouldn't have the maximum fare, not that it should. I agree with you and that only further the question of why it's justified at Reading if not Paddington

What do you think the incomplete journey charge at Reading should be?

It's possible to board a train at Twyford and forget to touch in and travel to Reading where you touch out to leave the station.
On the other hand you could board a train at Baldock and forget to touch in, travel to Reading via Farringdon and touch out when you leave the station.

Both are incomplete journeys. The incomplete journey charge must be the same because, by definition, the system doesn't know where you've come from.

What should the incomplete journey charge be?

 

[Benjwri]

What do you think the incomplete journey charge at Reading should be?

It's possible to board a train at Twyford and forget to touch in and travel to Reading where you touch out to leave the station.
On the other hand you could board a train at Baldock and forget to touch in, travel to Reading via Farringdon and touch out when you leave the station.

Both are incomplete journeys. The incomplete journey charge must be the same because, by definition, the system doesn't know where you've come from.

What should the incomplete journey charge be?

I personally agree that it should be something fairly high to deter fare evasion. However I dont agree with the notion it should be kept lower in London because of short journeys, when people make short journeys at both ends.

 

[Hadders]

I personally agree that it should be something fairly high to deter fare evasion. However I dont agree with the notion it should be kept lower in London because of short journeys, when people make short journeys at both ends.

Set the incomplete journey charge too low and it could encourage fare evasion.
Set it too low and someone who genuinly forgets to touch in for a one-stop journey on the DLR (where it is very easy to forget to touch in) is penalised disproportionately.

Politicians (and people in general) want 'London style contactless travel' extended to 'their' station but this is one of the unintended consequences when contactless PAYG areas get larger (and it's a demonstration of why a national PAYG system would be fraught with difficulties)

 

[Benjwri]

Set the incomplete journey charge too low and it could encourage fare evasion.
Set it too low and someone who genuinly forgets to touch in for a one-stop journey on the DLR (where it is very easy to forget to touch in) is penalised disproportionately.

Politicians (and people in general) want 'London style contactless travel' extended to 'their' station but this is one of the unintended consequences when contactless PAYG areas get larger (and it's a demonstration of why a national PAYG system would be fraught with difficulties)

I agree with all those points. To be honest I'm not sure what the totally correct answer is as contactless expands.

What I don't think the answer is is keeping the minimum fare in London low and making it high out of London, totally ignoring that people make short journeys outside of London like the railways love to do.

 

[Edvid]

I don’t know why TfL aren’t stronger in rebuffing the ToC’s and DfT demands, what are they going to go if TfL refuses to charge more than an incomplete fare? Withdraw from the contactless system? I don’t think so…

Playing hardball with central government can only go so far when you're reliant on it for capital renewals funding. When negotiations for the next settlement take place or you make a separate one-off bid for funds to enable a particular project their perception of your revenue protection efforts will be one factor (of many, but a factor nonetheless).

 

[Benjwri]

I don’t know why TfL aren’t stronger in rebuffing the ToC’s and DfT demands, what are they going to go if TfL refuses to charge more than an incomplete fare? Withdraw from the contactless system? I don’t think so…

TfL are the DfT's contractor for Project Oval. Contractors don't get the leisure of being picky, and the answer of what they will do is stop paying them for the work in the contract, and as mentioned will jeopardise their other money.

 

[jon0844]

Cubic are currently doing work on GN gatelines and apparently the contactless data will now be sent to the DfT rather than TfL for backend processing.

I only spoke briefly to an engineer and don't know the specifics of how the data is handled when it comes to data for things like The Key and other ITSO cards and contactless debit and credit cards once the data is sent to wherever it goes.

This was a station that wasn't part of the recent expansion but outside of London. Not sure if those up to Baldock were already managed differently?