Dodgy ticket

[table38]

It used to be quite common round these parts to pass on a pay-and-display car parking ticket to another driver on the basis that two cars couldn't occupy the same space, and the original driver had paid for the unused time already.

I suppose that lost the company/council revenue too, so now you have to enter your registration number.

The councils have also "fought back" by not giving change, but not crediting you for unused cash. (For example, say it's 55p for half an hour, and you put a pound coin in, you only get half an hour, not 54½ minutes)

I think it's just a "mindset" thing, not unlike normals who don't understand why you can't get off early on an advance ticket until you explain why.

 

[oversteer]

What exactly does "Network" mean as the ticket type, anyway?

 

[michael769]

but I've never seen this "offense" as anywhere near as serious as deliberately not paying for a ticket.

But is basically is deliberately not paying for a ticket - the only difference is that the person giving the ticket can potentially join the user on a conspiracy charge.

 

[island]

What exactly does "Network" mean as the ticket type, anyway?

I think it's a brand of ticket valid around Brum.

 

[LexyBoy]

There is a huge difference.

You're not likely to give away an Oyster card you paid a deposit for, to a stranger are you?

The implication being that it is OK to give a Day Travelcard to someone you trust, just not a stranger.

Oyster cards with PAYG only are transferrable because the rules say so (I believe to help attract users in the early days, and because of the difficulty of enforcing non-transferrability). In my mind there is no huge moral difference between lending a friend a paper Day Travelcard and lending them my capped PAYG Oyster. Both are depriving the companies concerned of revenue; the difference is that a decision has been made to allow one but not the other.

Obviously in practical terms the deposit makes a huge difference to the likelihood of a ticket being transferred.

 

[sheff1]

Quite - it is stealing in my book pure and simple.

Giving something away is stealing ? Interesting concept.

What about throwing it in a bin when you no longer need it - stealing ?

 

[island]

Giving something away which you don't have the right to give can reasonably be considered stealing.

 

[sheff1]

But throwing it away ?

 

[maniacmartin]

But throwing it away ?

It's not giving away the piece of card that is the the stealing, but giving away the service that it entitles one to use.

 

[island]

But throwing it away ?

You edited your post after I had added mine. What maniacmartin said, basically!

 

[Scotty]

But throwing it away ?

But you are throwing away a ticket that gives 1 user 1 day's travel. In someone else's possession, it has no legal value.

 

[island]

I don't think it's illegal/wrong to throw a used ticket away, as long as you don't intend that it be reused.

 

[sheff1]

But you are throwing away a ticket that gives 1 user 1 day's travel. In someone else's possession, it has no legal value.

I accept that. But if you give it directly to someone else, rather than them taking it out of the bin, it still has no legal value to them. Committing an offence by transferring it directly to them I can understand - but 'stealing' I still can't get.

Never mind, I have no intention of doing either .

 

[wintonian]

If I give it to someone (for them to use) I am transferring it to a person.

If I put it in the bin then I have transferred it to the bin.

Only 1 of those things is against the bylaws.

 

[island]

I once heard of someone being asked for a used Travelcard by a no-gooder at a station and he replied "sure", tore it in half, and handed it over.

 

[wintonian]

I once heard of someone being asked for a used Travelcard by a no-gooder at a station and he replied "sure", tore it in half, and handed it over.

Which is fine as they didn't intend for it to be reused.

 

[12CSVT]

It used to be quite common round these parts to pass on a pay-and-display car parking ticket to another driver on the basis that two cars couldn't occupy the same space, and the original driver had paid for the unused time already.

Even where you don't have to enter your registration number it is quite easy for parking wardens to see which tickets have been passed on - quite simply, no two parking tickets will have the same serial number (unless one or both are forgeries). And people have been caught doing this.

 

[bb21]

I am not going to get into a discussion about morals. Different people have different morals and if some people think that it is ethical to use a service and not pay for it or encourage such behaviour then it is their own prerogative.

As for people arguing that fares go up regardless of fare evasion, then what about government subsidy? The bigger the problem of fare evasion, the bigger a subsidy the industry is likely to require. Where does money come from?

Fare evasion benefits no one, except the selfish thieving scumbags themselves. (By that I do not include people who give their tickets away. They come under a different category.)

 

[jopsuk]

The fact that a lot of people exchanging such tickets seem to do so by walking up to people in Underground ticket halls, covered with staff and CCTV, is normally a good giveaway. You never know who you are offering your ticket to, or who is stood nearby.

Indeed. Undercover ticket inspectors can be very inconspicuous. Not long ago I half walked away from one trying to stop me as I thought he was a vagrant bothering me at first (he wanted to see my railcard; I was on a paper travelcard from outside London bought with NSE discount. I obliged once I worked out what was going on!)

 

[neilmc]

Thinking about this some more is it just a London thing? I've never heard of anywhere in the provinces being concerned about the possibility of someone buying a daily/weekly ticket and allowing someone else to use it when the original purchaser isn't, they're just happy to get the sale. If I use a day ticket to go to work and back and pass it on to my son to go to the cinema in the evening, what's the difference with me riding up and down all day and using twenty, thirty buses and trains for "free"?

And if "fare evasion benefits no one" are the site members who conspire to pay as little as possible for journeys by a bizarre combination of routing points, easements and multiple splits not "selfish thieving scumbags" since they also deprive the TOCs of large sums of money by using tickets for a purpose for which they were plainly never intended? Come on you holy self-righteous lot, if some poor dosser using a second-hand Travelcard can be abused so hotly where's your moral compass when someone goes half way across the country with a ticket labelled Swindon to Didcot or Wigan to Rugeley?

I don't give a sh*t personally because I think TOCs lead the way in moral dubiousness with exploitation, false accusation and entrapment but the site's moral majority should be foaming at the mouth!

 

[bb21]

Tickets that are transferrable and those that are not are costed and priced accordingly. If a ticket that is not transferrable is passed on in the provinces under the same circumstances then the people involved are equally guilty.

Your opinion as to whether the TOCs are morally dubious does not change the fact that something illegal is taking place. Try that line with a magistrate.

As for people paying as little as possible by utilising loopholes, I think you will find that not everyone on this forum agrees with it in principle. It is however legal so there is a fundamental difference.

 

[Clip]

And if "fare evasion benefits no one" are the site members who conspire to pay as little as possible for journeys by a bizarre combination of routing points, easements and multiple splits not "selfish thieving scumbags" since they also deprive the TOCs of large sums of money by using tickets for a purpose for which they were plainly never intended? Come on you holy self-righteous lot, if some poor dosser using a second-hand Travelcard can be abused so hotly where's your moral compass when someone goes half way across the country with a ticket labelled Swindon to Didcot or Wigan to Rugeley?
!

Your point is moot. Split ticketing is something that the TOCs have really brought upon themselves and is perfectly legal. Transferring a non transferrable ticket is not.

Do you see the difference?

 

[crosscity]

I am the OP and I thank you all for an interesting discussion. I'm surprised no-one has asked me what I would have done if the ticket had looked to me like a valid one. Remember the circumstances - a stranger offered me his 1-day network card as an act of <misguided> kindness. Legally if I'd have used it, he and I would have broken the ticket terms.

I would have used a valid-looking ticket, for these reasons:
1) I have been travelling by train for more than 40 years, and have bought many tickets that I have never used (because of illness, or change of plan) amounting to hundreds of pounds. I would not have lost any sleep over the £2.70* I would have denied London Midland;
2) I have lived in Birmingham for more than 30 years, and this is the first time anyone has offered me a ticket ever. This would truly have been a one-off.

So, my own ignorance caused me to do the right thing - i.e. buy a ticket for the journey I wanted to make.

My reason for posting is I thought I may have been handed a dodgy ticket, and if it had turned out it was, then I would have alerted the authorities to a serious fraud, as no-one is going to bother creating one dodgy ticket only.

In finding that the ticket was, in fact, not dodgy, my faith in human nature is restored and I am happy that there are still people, misguided or not, who go about their day with such a generosity of spirit.

Many of you have picked up on the ethics and legality of handing over a used day ticket after having finished using it. I did this a couple of times in London a long time ago, but would not do it now. However I have (perfectly legally) allowed my grandson to use my PAYG Oyster card a couple of times.

* If anyone is wondering how I spent £2.70 when a Kings Norton to New St Off-Peak Day return is only £2.60 - I bought a KNN to Aston Off-Peak Day return which allowed me to travel back from New St in the evening Peak.

 

[bb21]

Many of you have picked up on the ethics and legality of handing over a used day ticket after having finished using it. I did this a couple of times in London a long time ago, but would not do it now. However I have (perfectly legally) allowed my grandson to use my PAYG Oyster card a couple of times.

If it is just a normal PAYG card and has no discount applied then it is perfectly fine to allow someone else to use it.

 

[wintonian]

If it is just a normal PAYG card and has no discount applied then it is perfectly fine to allow someone else to use it.

What if it has a railcard discount applied and the person you have lent it to also has the same type of railcard?

I expect we have been through this one before, but I couldn't begin to think of a search term for this question that would yield much relevance.

 

[Goatboy]

Giving something away which you don't have the right to give can reasonably be considered stealing.

No, it cannot. What can be considered stealing is defined in the Theft Act. It is unlawful I agree but can we stop referring to it as stealing or fraud because it is neither.

 

[wintonian]

No, it cannot. What can be considered stealing is defined in the Theft Act. It is unlawful I agree but can we stop referring to it as stealing or fraud because it is neither.

A 'legal definition' is only 1 type of definition, which tends to be a more precise meaning when compared to what might be a broadly understood in common usage.

 

[jb]

I don't give a sh*t personally because I think TOCs lead the way in moral dubiousness with exploitation, false accusation and entrapment

Nice bit of Christian kindness there.

I suspect this kind of thinking underlies a lot of the sort of piffle we see, on this and other threads, which boils down to "I think that the TOCs are morally corrupt horrible organisations so that means I can do what I like with impunity."

Actually no, many of us care not a jot about your judgment on the TOCs and would just like you to follow the rules like we do. The lunatics should not be allowed to run the asylum.

If I use a day ticket to go to work and back and pass it on to my son to go to the cinema in the evening, what's the difference with me riding up and down all day and using twenty, thirty buses and trains for "free"?

It is not for you to decide there's no difference. Much as you would like it to be different, the lunatics do not run the asylum.

 

[island]

No, it cannot. What can be considered stealing is defined in the Theft Act. It is unlawful I agree but can we stop referring to it as stealing or fraud because it is neither.

Either we are talking in moral terms or legal terms, so please stop switching back and forth to trap people. I endorse what wintonian said also.

 

[neilmc]

IMO and that of, I suspect, the general public the lunatics do indeed run the asylum called the rail industry. I appreciate it's not wise to endorse anything even technically illegal as individual passengers who trangress can be caused a great deal of misery. But morally it's a cesspit.