Given how unlikely it is that someone is caught on the very first time they use a high value pass, does your partner have an idea of the number of journeys they have actually undertaken? After all, I assume he took the pass without your consent, and used it - so how can you be in a position to say how many times that has happened? It is unlikely to be just once, and I would urge caution if you think pushing back and saying "I only did it once" will cut the mustard.
-
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!
171 offences - what to do - Help please.
- Thread starter dantheman3547
- 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
Not on its own, but if the OP's partner has done their own journeys at the same time as the journeys they are alleged to have made these journeys, then that could prove them to be not guilty, no?
…that is exactly what the rest of the post, which you snipped out, says!
Not necessarily the *same* journey, but a journey at the same time. Not exactly the same, but on the same track (excuse the pun).
Please can you point to the evidence which suggests otherwise?
Snow1964
Established Member
The Op said the Inspector was given the accused own Oyster card number so he/she could check history, but appears to have still still assumed using partners card, even when partner was using it elsewhere at same time.
Thank you - are those times and dates actually known and thus proof can be provided or is it a mere assertion that the partners own card was being used elsewhere at the same time as the OPs card was being used?
Apologies if this sounds like I am being somewhat inquisitorial about this point.
I wouldn't expect an RPI to have the time or resources to carry out a full correlation of the journeys on two different Oysters. Hence their escalating the exercise to the back office.
Is it possible to request oyster history that has been archived (ie not visible on the web) by the owner of said card? If such data is available to TFL then surely it should be available to your partner also? It seems very ‘Fujitsu’ if it can only be used for one purpose - to demonstrate criminality. Assuming it isn’t possible for it to be remotely altered, it should only be used to demonstrate the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
If, however, your partner uses a bank card, rather than top-up Oyster, it might be possible to match debits on his bank statement to your oyster history, if only to account for as many of the 170 journeys as possible that he did make but using his own card, and highlight any that might be your partner.
Being prepared with (up to) 170 defences might be time worth investing in should TFL feel confident to take him to court for all of them (and you feel he’s confident of a successful defence).
But, as @AlterEgo has already said, it is extremely unlucky to have been caught 1st time.
If, however, your partner uses a bank card, rather than top-up Oyster, it might be possible to match debits on his bank statement to your oyster history, if only to account for as many of the 170 journeys as possible that he did make but using his own card, and highlight any that might be your partner.
Being prepared with (up to) 170 defences might be time worth investing in should TFL feel confident to take him to court for all of them (and you feel he’s confident of a successful defence).
But, as @AlterEgo has already said, it is extremely unlucky to have been caught 1st time.
Last edited:
KirkstallOne
Member
I agree with Pedr, it doesn’t look like your boyfriend has to do anything in relation to the ‘additional offences for consideration’ if he is adamant he did not make them. It is not pleading Not Guilty, it is just declining to say he did make them.
If Tfl believe they have evidence that he did make them they can charge them separately.
Seems a bit of an unusual case though, have we seen this before?
If Tfl believe they have evidence that he did make them they can charge them separately.
Seems a bit of an unusual case though, have we seen this before?
dantheman3547
Member
Hello all - thank you for your repeated advice and questions, this is all a great help.
A few things:
I acknowledge that my partner has not been charged with the 171 journeys. He’s okay with that now - it was not super clear to us when the requisition arrived. The TfL IAP team that he has been liaising with never mentioned these to him ever before the requisition arrived. He felt a bit betrayed as the email chain shows a TfL staff member assuring him he "will not have to go to court" and that a "fine" is what he is to expect. No mention of any other journeys at all.
I understand that the fact that someone sometimes pays for their journeys isn’t a defence - but my partner and I frequently travelled together and I can 100% confirm that we did on many of the journeys of the 171 quoted by TfL.
My boyfriend has nothing to do with all of the 171 journeys - they are mine and I can place myself at them. I believe you are all correct in that they will be charged separately if TfL wish to do so.
As I said, my partner gave his personal Oyster number to TfL at the time of the incident and they have never checked his personal usage. He asked for his own journey information on his Oyster via TfL data team and was told that he could not have it as it only saves 9 weeks’ worth. We can categorically confirm that this data will show him travelling at the same time as my journey history and even on the same journeys sometimes (we don’t work together but travelled with each other on weekends a lot for example). If we could get this data, it would help us massively.
On the note about being caught the first time, I will say this.
This was the first time I had not had the Oyster on my person as I was out of the UK for the first time since purchasing my photocard. I kept it in my phone wallet for quick use and only took it out as I was leaving the country and wanted another travel card in there instead. Our home station was rife with crime and was frequented by police and TfL. I had never given him permission to use my photocard but this was the first time this could have happened (in my mind). Anyway, that’s not productive for me right now. All I’m saying is that it is very much possible for him to have been caught first time, if not probable.
I couldn't find any other similar cases, so here I am.
My partner has sent TfL a letter on advice, seeking to settle this out of court, amongst many other representations. I doubt they will go for this, and if it comes to court, he is happy to plead guilty to the one Byelaw 17(1) contravention, as he did not have intent, but he ended up in a strict liability situation.
If this is to happen, what sort of fine can he expect, considering they're asking for £375 in costs and the one journey is approximately £2.20?
Thanks.
A few things:
I acknowledge that my partner has not been charged with the 171 journeys. He’s okay with that now - it was not super clear to us when the requisition arrived. The TfL IAP team that he has been liaising with never mentioned these to him ever before the requisition arrived. He felt a bit betrayed as the email chain shows a TfL staff member assuring him he "will not have to go to court" and that a "fine" is what he is to expect. No mention of any other journeys at all.
I understand that the fact that someone sometimes pays for their journeys isn’t a defence - but my partner and I frequently travelled together and I can 100% confirm that we did on many of the journeys of the 171 quoted by TfL.
My boyfriend has nothing to do with all of the 171 journeys - they are mine and I can place myself at them. I believe you are all correct in that they will be charged separately if TfL wish to do so.
As I said, my partner gave his personal Oyster number to TfL at the time of the incident and they have never checked his personal usage. He asked for his own journey information on his Oyster via TfL data team and was told that he could not have it as it only saves 9 weeks’ worth. We can categorically confirm that this data will show him travelling at the same time as my journey history and even on the same journeys sometimes (we don’t work together but travelled with each other on weekends a lot for example). If we could get this data, it would help us massively.
On the note about being caught the first time, I will say this.
This was the first time I had not had the Oyster on my person as I was out of the UK for the first time since purchasing my photocard. I kept it in my phone wallet for quick use and only took it out as I was leaving the country and wanted another travel card in there instead. Our home station was rife with crime and was frequented by police and TfL. I had never given him permission to use my photocard but this was the first time this could have happened (in my mind). Anyway, that’s not productive for me right now. All I’m saying is that it is very much possible for him to have been caught first time, if not probable.
I couldn't find any other similar cases, so here I am.
My partner has sent TfL a letter on advice, seeking to settle this out of court, amongst many other representations. I doubt they will go for this, and if it comes to court, he is happy to plead guilty to the one Byelaw 17(1) contravention, as he did not have intent, but he ended up in a strict liability situation.
If this is to happen, what sort of fine can he expect, considering they're asking for £375 in costs and the one journey is approximately £2.20?
Thanks.
This is most unusual but the only explanation I can think of is that TfL have been very disingenuous with the phrase "will not have to go to court". It seems to me that you have interpreted this as meaning "will not be prosecuted". An alternative meaning is that he will not have to physically appear in court because he can plead guilty by post. This interpretation would certainly square with "a fine is what he is to expect".
If he is not being charged with the 171 journeys then it should form no part of what happens in court and the outcome.
On the basis that he is pleading guilty to one byelaw offence then the costs seem to be very high indeed.
I think you need to get clarity from TfL as to precisely what he is being charged with - how many offences - in a way that the meaning is crystal clear and what they state their costs will be on the basis of one offence.
As @Hadders has stated up thread:
Feuillesmortes
Member
How does your location prove his non-use of the card? Does he also have location records on his phone?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why is this a "thus"? People would usually use their Oyster to get to the Eurostar terminal / airport.
So your partner is content to plead guilty to the 1 offence, but not sign the document admitting to the 170 alleged offences? Yes the costs seem a little high (£375?) and you could request a breakdown of them to ascertain whether it includes the cost of investigating past history - arguably if he hasn't been charged then they shouldn't be requesting recovery.
We don't know what evidence TFL has in addition to the journey history for the 170 journeys but attempting to gather any defense information that shows he didn't make them is likely to be a good idea. Requesting / demanding similar journey history for his card is clearly an important part of his defense as it can demonstrate times when he travelled with you and also times when he may have travelled elsewhere at the same time. I can't see how TFL can refuse to provide such information when they clearly have access to your card. If they do refuse and say it's not available, then should they decide to prosecute it could be seen as 'unsafe' and that won't look good in court for them - without CCTV then I don't see how they can make them stick. In the current climate, they ought to give you access to the same information as they have.
You may find that TFL will just accept the guilty plea to the 1 offence and it'll be over once the requested £375 has been paid. They would be very brave to pursue any further without further evidence and admission of guilt.
Good luck
We don't know what evidence TFL has in addition to the journey history for the 170 journeys but attempting to gather any defense information that shows he didn't make them is likely to be a good idea. Requesting / demanding similar journey history for his card is clearly an important part of his defense as it can demonstrate times when he travelled with you and also times when he may have travelled elsewhere at the same time. I can't see how TFL can refuse to provide such information when they clearly have access to your card. If they do refuse and say it's not available, then should they decide to prosecute it could be seen as 'unsafe' and that won't look good in court for them - without CCTV then I don't see how they can make them stick. In the current climate, they ought to give you access to the same information as they have.
You may find that TFL will just accept the guilty plea to the 1 offence and it'll be over once the requested £375 has been paid. They would be very brave to pursue any further without further evidence and admission of guilt.
Good luck
dantheman3547
Member
I think this must be the case, as I have seen the emails with the prosecutor and they are very clear. I don't think this reflects well on TfL regardless.
Without a doubt - £375 for one offence is a lot and I believe these costs are probably associated with the 171 others they've researched (clearly). My partner has sent TfL a letter of representations and we will see what they reply.
I don't think it's been made clear at all, and as in the statement of 'facts' TfL states the fares of the 171 other journeys are 'unpaid', which implies they will be dealt with in this case. My partner intends to seek a cost breakdown.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As it stands, this has been refused as they say 9 weeks' history is all that is stored on his Oyster.
He has sent another email to the data team requesting his history once more - we await a reply.
These have been my thoughts, and I can categorically confirm that CCTV does not exist. It would be me on screen.
I wouldn't put it past them (personally) after talking to a few friends of mine that work at the bar.
I'm just concerned about the seemingly hazy approach TfL are taking here to telling the truth and playing fair. Any 'evidence' they have for the 171 others would have to be served on my partner at some point and the fact they hadn't even mentioned any of these until the requisition arrived (although they'd been emailing him throughout).
The costs aren't right, they're refusing to give him his own Oyster history, and whether they're charging him with the others or not is not clear. Hmm.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thank you so much for hastily replying to the first post in the thread. Please read on.
My location doesn't prove his non-use, it proves my use.
It's a 'thus' for me, we aren't talking about other people. That was my reasoning.
Last edited:
Just one observation. The way the inspector’s account of the conversation is written up, your boyfriend comes across as remarkably unsurprised at being caught with your card and very matter of fact about it. In a way that most people who have a made a genuine mistake wouldn’t be.
If this is a correct account then I can fully see why they may consider previous transactions to also be fraudulent. If it wasn’t a correct account then has it been challenged as not reflecting the conversation that was had.
If this is a correct account then I can fully see why they may consider previous transactions to also be fraudulent. If it wasn’t a correct account then has it been challenged as not reflecting the conversation that was had.
Snow1964
Established Member
I smell a rat, if TfL are basing their 171 previous journeys on the normal 8-9 weeks online history, then there is about 3 journeys a day everyday.
If their research to find these journeys includes looking at a longer period then they have gone to archived history (unless you make 3 journeys a day).
To then say can't do it for Ops partners card sounds like a mis-truth. It implies either archiving history is selective (some cards are, some aren't which sounds unlikely), or they have been prepared to look at it if it helps their false accusation, but are saying not possible if it is rebuffing their view.
Without seeing exact wording on emails from TfL, feels like not being 100% truthful about access to history information. In much same way as apparently said won't have to go to court in an email.
If their research to find these journeys includes looking at a longer period then they have gone to archived history (unless you make 3 journeys a day).
To then say can't do it for Ops partners card sounds like a mis-truth. It implies either archiving history is selective (some cards are, some aren't which sounds unlikely), or they have been prepared to look at it if it helps their false accusation, but are saying not possible if it is rebuffing their view.
Without seeing exact wording on emails from TfL, feels like not being 100% truthful about access to history information. In much same way as apparently said won't have to go to court in an email.
On contactless.
Oyster history is limited to 8 weeks. They do have the ability to archive data for cards which are being investigated, but it is not done across the board.
- Status