Caught in Underground

[JBuchananGB]

I would struggle to imagine what possible justification there could be for using someone else's 60+ Oyster card. I do not know the legislation under which TfL are intending to prosecute, or what discretion their prosecution team has to take other factors into account. I would tend towards the approach of "when in a hole, stop digging", and make a small revision to my original draft response, in the fact the the OP was "attempting to make a journey", and therefore not in a position to offer to pay a fare, but to pay the costs for dealing with the matter.

 

[Sultan]

I actually didn’t make the journey I was stopped as I tapped in.

In theory then, you could say you used the wrong card in error. But that would only work if you've never used it before. If you have, you may well have been targeted by a usage algorithm that saw journeys not in keeping with the expected pattern of a 60+ Oyster Card.

Had you used it before?

 

[Mylifeisruined]

I would struggle to imagine what possible justification there could be for using someone else's 60+ Oyster card. I do not know the legislation under which TfL are intending to prosecute, or what discretion their prosecution team has to take other factors into account. I would tend towards the approach of "when in a hole, stop digging", and make a small revision to my original draft response, in the fact the the OP was "attempting to make a journey", and therefore not in a position to offer to pay a fare, but to pay the costs for dealing with the matter.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. I feel like you mocking but it’s impossible to tell over a forum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2023 ==

In theory then, you could say you used the wrong card in error. But that would only work if you've never used it before. If you have, you may well have been targeted by a usage algorithm that saw journeys not in keeping with the expected pattern of a 60+ Oyster Card.

Had you used it before?

No, I haven’t used it before. However it is used very often by the owner so I don’t know if they would be able to see that if they decide to audit it. As soon as I tapped in they knew. I’m going to guess that it was to due to an alert of a ‘high value’ being used. But I couldn’t tell you honestly it all happened so fast and I wasn’t asked many questions.

 

[AlterEgo]

Okay, I will include it in the reply and I hopefully they see it as valid. In this response am I suppose to attached any supporting documents with it as well.

You can, but it depends what they are and how relevant you feel they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2023 ==

Apologies, I’m not quite sure what you mean by this. Does it help that I didn’t actually make the journey that day?

No, you have committed an offence anyway.

No, I haven’t used it before. However it is used very often by the owner so I don’t know if they would be able to see that if they decide to audit it. As soon as I tapped in they knew. I’m going to guess that it was to due to an alert of a ‘high value’ being used.

Freedom Passes and the link have a special light that illuminates on the gate, and the inspectors lie in wait for someone to trip it who doesn't look like they are the holder.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

You can, but it depends what they are and how relevant you feel they are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2023 ==


No, you have committed an offence anyway.

Freedom Passes and the link have a special light that illuminates on the gate, and the inspectors lie in wait for someone to trip it who doesn't look like they are the holder.

I thought as much. Thanks for the response.

 

[Sultan]

No, I haven’t used it before. However it is used very often by the owner so I don’t know if they would be able to see that if they decide to audit it. As soon as I tapped in they knew. I’m going to guess that it was to due to an alert of a ‘high value’ being used. But I couldn’t tell you honestly it all happened so fast and I wasn’t asked many questions.

So if this was the first time you used it (and it hadn't been used, to your knowledge, by anyone other than the owner), then you might be able to argue that you touched in with it in error. But this would require full co-operation from the owner in that they knew you had it, weren't intending to use it, and they can take ownership of all other journeys. Providing recent journeys you've made with your own Oyster / contactless card would add credence to this also.

But whatever you decide to reply with, it has to make reasonable sense with what has happened, and how you reacted when stopped. If it was a mistake, then they would deem it reasonable to assume you would have mentioned it at the time.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

So if this was the first time you used it (and it hadn't been used, to your knowledge, by anyone other than the owner), then you might be able to argue that you touched in with it in error. But this would require full co-operation from the owner in that they knew you had it, weren't intending to use it, and they can take ownership of all other journeys. Providing recent journeys you've made with your own Oyster / contactless card would add credence to this also.

But whatever you decide to reply with, it has to make reasonable sense with what has happened, and how you reacted when stopped. If it was a mistake, then they would deem it reasonable to assume you would have mentioned it at the time.

The owner would take ownership of all the other journeys but they did not know I had it. And not to seem dramatic or anything but it was honestly very traumatic for me so I don’t remember all the specific details. I do remember it being very quick in the sense I was only asked for my personal details, where I intended to go and that a letter would be sent to me.

 

[AlterEgo]

So if this was the first time you used it (and it hadn't been used, to your knowledge, by anyone other than the owner), then you might be able to argue that you touched in with it in error.

Please do not advance defences the OP has made no suggestion of having. The OP has made multiple posts, given their entire story, and at no point do they state they made an error and did really intend to pay the fare.

There is no suggestion the OP had the card with permission, and indeed they say the card holder did not know he was using it. Suggesting the OP tells a lie is not in their interests and lying will make things worse.

But whatever you decide to reply with, it has to make reasonable sense with what has happened, and how you reacted when stopped. If it was a mistake, then they would deem it reasonable to assume you would have mentioned it at the time.

Above all, it has to be truthful. That does not mean to say you have to gushingly admit to absolutely everything, but no lies must be told.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

Please do not advance defences the OP has made no suggestion of having. The OP has made multiple posts, given their entire story, and at no point do they state they made an error and did really intend to pay the fare.

There is no suggestion the OP had the card with permission, and indeed they say the card holder did not know he was using it. Suggesting the OP tells a lie is not in their interests and lying will make things worse.


Above all, it has to be truthful. That does not mean to say you have to gushingly admit to absolutely everything, but no lies must be told.

No I wouldn’t want to lie and I do have the intention of saying I did commit the offence. I just hoping and praying for an out of court settlement. Hopefully my response is adequate enough.

 

[furlong]

For clarity, the usual offence they use would be one of entering a so-called "compulsory ticket area" (which is usually marked with tiny blue notices stuck onto the ticket gates) without having a valid ticket. If you put the card on the reader, the ticket gate opened in response AND you passed through the gate then the basic criteria would be satisfied to consider that offence.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

I'm currently seeking out a solicitor I feel like this could be the best course of action for me.

 

[island]

I do not know the legislation under which TfL are intending to prosecute

TfL almost invariably prosecutes under its byelaw 17 (passenger present in a compulsory ticket area and did not have with them a valid ticket).

A consequence of this is that it is irrelevant whether the passenger travelled or not.

 

[WesternLancer]

I'm currently seeking out a solicitor I feel like this could be the best course of action for me.

You could ring for quotes to get an idea on that - recent thread the person concerned reported that they got help from Manak Solicitors and found it useful. You may be able to search the forum for the case

I know nothing of this firm but assume it is this one:

Fare Evasion Solicitors

Skilled legal defence for fare evasion cases. Rely on our experienced team to protect your rights, challenge penalties, and guide you through the process.

manaksolicitors.co.uk

EDIT - this was the case I was thinking of - Manak mentioned towards the end of the thread in an update, you can read thru to see if you think relevant similarities of course

Tfl Prosecution court date 2023

I was caught using my fathers over 60s Oyster card in January 2023. I admitted that I had used it with my fathers knowledge as I am a university student and I dont have a job. Tfl did their investigation and discovered that I had used it 34 times under a period of 3 months - I only used them for...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Mylifeisruined]

You could ring for quotes to get an idea on that - recent thread the person concerned reported that they got help from Manak Solicitors and found it useful. You may be able to search the forum for the case

I know nothing of this firm but assume it is this one:

Fare Evasion Solicitors

Skilled legal defence for fare evasion cases. Rely on our experienced team to protect your rights, challenge penalties, and guide you through the process.

manaksolicitors.co.uk

EDIT - this was the case I was thinking of - Manak mentioned towards the end of the thread in an update, you can read thru to see if you think relevant similarities of course

Tfl Prosecution court date 2023

I was caught using my fathers over 60s Oyster card in January 2023. I admitted that I had used it with my fathers knowledge as I am a university student and I dont have a job. Tfl did their investigation and discovered that I had used it 34 times under a period of 3 months - I only used them for...

www.railforums.co.uk

Will look into this. Thanks.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

Hey guys, no update as for now. Just wanted to know on average how long it takes to get a response after sending the information that asked in the first letter?

 

[30907]

As long as it takes, I'm afraid.

The "good" news is that a prosecution under their Byelaws has to be started within 6 months of the offence.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

As long as it takes, I'm afraid.

The "good" news is that a prosecution under their Byelaws has to be started within 6 months of the offence.

So after 6 months no actions can be taken against me?

 

[AlterEgo]

So after 6 months no actions can be taken against me?

As a general rule that is correct yes.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

As a general rule that is correct yes.

Okay. I guess I’d have to wait and see. The wait time for their response is killing me.

 

[AlterEgo]

Okay. I guess I’d have to wait and see. The wait time for their response is killing me.

They will inevitably be in touch, but it can take anything from a couple of days to a few months, so best to sit tight.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

Follow up question, my family member was sent a new Oysters a week ago after it was taken during the incident would that indicate anything in this case?

 

[30907]

Follow up question, my family member was sent a new Oysters a week ago after it was taken during the incident would that indicate anything in this case?

It would mean that they are not pursuing said person for assisting you (which they might have in theory have done). They still have a considerable time to respond to your reply to their letter and decide how to proceed.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

It would mean that they are not pursuing said person for assisting you (which they might have in theory have done). They still have a considerable time to respond to your reply to their letter and decide how to proceed.

Well that’s good at least. My family member honestly didn’t know I had it. So I’m glad they won’t be involved or penalised . When I get a response I’ll be sure to update it on here.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

UPDATE!!!

Hello All,

TfL got back to me via letter and decided to not go forward with a criminal prosecution and give me a warning. This is the best possible outcome that could come out for me and I’m so happy for it. Thanks for all your advice on here. I will be sure to never do anything like this again.

 

[MrJeeves]

UPDATE!!!

Hello All,

TfL got back to me via letter and decided to not go forward with a criminal prosecution and give me a warning. This is the best possible outcome that could come out for me and I’m so happy for it. Thanks for all your advice on here. I will be sure to never do anything like this again.

That's an extremely good outcome from this situation. Did you end up pursuing the route of a solicitor in the end, as was mentioned further up in your thread? It would be useful to know this and, if you did use one, how much it cost for other people who have the same situation as you.

 

[Hadders]

Thanks for letting us know, this is a very good outcome for you.
Mad said above it would be good to know if you ended up using a solicitor.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

That's an extremely good outcome from this situation. Did you end up pursuing the route of a solicitor in the end, as was mentioned further up in your thread? It would be useful to know this and, if you did use one, how much it cost for other people who have the same situation as you.

No, I didn’t use one at the end. I just did the response on my own.

 

[MrJeeves]

No, I didn’t use at the end. I just the response on my own.

That makes it even more impressive. Usually we only see TfL shying away from action with the use of a solicitor.

 

[Mylifeisruined]

That makes it even more impressive. Usually we only see TfL shying away from action with the use of a solicitor.

I feel like I was incredibly lucky but I’m just grateful I can finally move on with my life.

 

[jpaleu]

Presumably the 60+ Oyster card has been confiscated. TfL will be checking the journey history for the card, to try to work out whether it has been used habitually for the journey which you were making when challenged. If it seems to them this has been done, then the odds on an out of court settlement (vaguely possible for a one-off instance) are severely reduced. There is also the question about how you obtained the card which you were not entitled to use. Were you given it by the rightful owner with their knowledge and permission, or did you take it without permission. Did you just find it in the street? What did you tell the inspector when you were challenged?

How far back can TfL check tho? How can they point out if the journey was took by whom?