60 plus oyster misuse

[Handyman]

So today at Bethnal Green station as soon as I tapped I was pulled over and I handed my bank card as I keep my mums 60 plus oyster and my bank card together so I handed it to the man. He kept asking me for another oyster or they’d call the police so I handed it over. He then confiscated it and took all of my details. The inspector said I could say I’ve been confusing both the cards but reading threads I have seen fines and ruined records. How much would the fine be and in how many days will they send the letter. Thanks

 

[najaB]

To answer your questions first:

How much would the fine be and in how many days will they send the letter.

Nobody can tell you, and anything up to six months (though three to four weeks is more likely).

Now to ask a couple of questions in return: why did you have your mum's 60+ Oyster, and is it likely that a scan of the journey history will show a usage pattern more consistent with your travel history than hers?

 

[cuccir]

Oddly we've had another thread within the last week of someone using a 60+ Oyster Card at Bethnal Green station.

The inspector said I could say I’ve been confusing both the cards

I wonder if the inspector believed your story, and was trying to do you a favour here. There are two different sets of law you can be prosecuted under: the Railway Bylaws (specifically Bylaw 18) and the Regulation of the Railways Act. The Bylaws make it illegal to travel without a valid ticket, whether deliberately or by accident; the Regulation of the Railways Act makes it illegal to deliberately evade your fare. A Bylaws prosecution has a much lower fine, and should never appear on a DBS check.

So while you would still probably be guilty of a Bylaws offence if you have been using the Oyster card to travel, you wouldn't be guilty of an offence under the Regulation of the Railway if it was genuinely accidental. However, if you try and defend yourself with this claim then NajaB's question - why did you have your mum's 60+ Oyster - is an obvious one that will be put to you, and I'd have thought that the prosecution would look to test your explanation very robuslty in court.

 

[Handyman]

Oddly we've had another thread within the last week of someone using a 60+ Oyster Card at Bethnal Green station.



I wonder if the inspector believed your story, and was trying to do you a favour here. There are two different sets of law you can be prosecuted under: the Railway Bylaws (specifically Bylaw 18) and the Regulation of the Railways Act. The Bylaws make it illegal to travel without a valid ticket, whether deliberately or by accident; the Regulation of the Railways Act makes it illegal to deliberately evade your fare. A Bylaws prosecution has a much lower fine, and should never appear on a DBS check.

So while you would still probably be guilty of a Bylaws offence if you have been using the Oyster card to travel, you wouldn't be guilty of an offence under the Regulation of the Railway if it was genuinely accidental. However, if you try and defend yourself with this claim then NajaB's question - why did you have your mum's 60+ Oyster - is an obvious one that will be put to you, and I'd have thought that the prosecution would look to test your explanation very robuslty in court.

I had my contactless bank card which I use also for travelling

 

[Handyman]

To answer your questions first:
Nobody can tell you, and anything up to six months (though three to four weeks is more likely).

Now to ask a couple of questions in return: why did you have your mum's 60+ Oyster, and is it likely that a scan of the journey history will show a usage pattern more consistent with your travel history than hers?

I explained to the man my mums old and I hold it for her as she doesn’t know how to use the trains and it was rush hour and I was in a rush and wasn’t looking while tapping in. To add to your question I may have made more journeys with her card yes

 

[najaB]

You don't need to answer these questions, but they are likely to be similar to the questions that TfL will ask...

I explained to the man my mums old and I hold it for her as she doesn’t know how to use the trains

Is there any good reason why you didn't keep the two cards separate precisely to avoid this kind of card confusion? I'm not a frequent traveller in London but I do recall that there are prominent posters/signs saying to keep cards separate to avoid card clash.

To add to your question I may have made more journeys with her card yes

In very rough terms, over the last three months is the number of such journeys likely to be in the single digits, the low double-digits or higher?

 

[Spurs]

I explained to the man my mums old and I hold it for her as she doesn’t know how to use the trains and it was rush hour and I was in a rush and wasn’t looking while tapping in. To add to your question I may have made more journeys with her card yes

You do have to consider this from the perspective of whether TFL are actually going to believe it or not. What do you do when your mum's travelling? Presumably she takes the card and touches in herself? If so, why is she incapable of holding it for herself? And is there some circumstance that means she never takes public transport without you?

From there point of view, it sounds exactly the same as somebody who thought they could get away with using it fraudulently and came up with an excuse when caught. I'm not saying this is the case, but you need to be prepared to go over things in as much detail as possible to dissuade them from taking that stance - especially since the most generous interpretation is that you ignored countless warnings about card clash and somehow never considered the possibility it could happen or notice that money wasn't coming out of your account when you travelled.

 

[cuccir]

You do have to consider this from the perspective of whether TFL are actually going to believe it or not. What do you do when your mum's travelling? Presumably she takes the card and touches in herself? If so, why is she incapable of holding it for herself? And is there some circumstance that means she never takes public transport without you?

From there point of view, it sounds exactly the same as somebody who thought they could get away with using it fraudulently and came up with an excuse when caught. I'm not saying this is the case, but you need to be prepared to go over things in as much detail as possible to dissuade them from taking that stance - especially since the most generous interpretation is that you ignored countless warnings about card clash and somehow never considered the possibility it could happen or notice that money wasn't coming out of your account when you travelled.

Equally we should remember that (in the event that this goes to court and TfL attempt a Regulation of the Railways prosecution) it would be up to to TfL to prove intent, not up to Handyman to prove an absence of intent.

We're not lawyers so I wouldn't like to speculate on the outcome of this defence, other than to reiterate that it would be questioned very robustly, and I'd at least want to consult with a lawyer before going to court with this. Spurs has identified a number of questions that may be put to you. Before replying to any likely letter from TfL it would be good to carefully write down a succinct and clear explanation for having both cards in your wallet, with those questions in mind.

 

[jon0844]

Card clash surely means the card the OP intended to use would have to be removed and presented on its own. So I am not that defence would work.

 

[Handyman]

I hold it for my mym because she’s old and she doesn’t know how to take trains on he rown

 

[najaB]

I hold it for my mym because she’s old and she doesn’t know how to take trains on he rown

Okay. That is a fair enough explanation. The next couple of questions that you need to be able to provide a satisfactory answer to goes along the lines of "Why did you not take measures to ensure that there wouldn't be card clash between your bank card and her Oyster?" and "Would a search of both Oyster histories show a series of incomplete journeys - i.e. a tap in with one card and a corresponding tap out against the other?"