Fare evasion?

[MotCO]

(and for cleanliness you could probably get the open journey completed consistent with that, but technically what happens after-the-fact is irrelevant).

Should the open journey be closed at a station further down the line after Ally Pally to show that your new ticket (purchased on line) was to be used from that further station, hence you had boarded a train at Ally Pally with a valid ticket (the contactless one). If you try to close your journey at Ally Pally (as you had originally intended), then you may have no defence of boarding a train without a valid ticket, even though you had bought a ticket before the train left.

 

[furlong]

I couldn’t tap out at AP.

The gateline should have been in operation at that time with active readers to use. (The old ones on the platforms ought to have notices on them.)

Should the open journey be closed at a station further down the line after Ally Pally to show that your new ticket (purchased on line) was to be used from that further station, hence you had boarded a train at Ally Pally with a valid ticket (the contactless one). If you try to close your journey at Ally Pally (as you had originally intended), then you may have no defence of boarding a train without a valid ticket, even though you had bought a ticket before the train left.

The offence either was or was not committed at the time of boarding. You can't change history so strictly it's irrelevant how or whether that jouney gets closed! But in reality, they should go by the time of purchase versus the time of departure, so the contactless technicality is only needed as a response to that other technicality if they raise it. (Use a technicality to fight a technicality.) It might be one fewer point to have to argue though if the journey is closed explicitly overlapping.

 

[kacper]

Someone will probably correct me on this but could you not complete your contactless journey online to Potters Bar, then appeal the penalty saying you only used your ticket to travel from Potters Bar (starting short of your ticket, which i don’t think is prohibited), and your authority at boarding the train was your contactless payment

 

[island]

It does not appear any offence was committed here.

• Byelaw 18 (1) was not breached as a valid ticket was held at the point of boarding, in the form of the validated contactless card which was good authority to travel to Potters Bar
• Byelaw 18 (2) was not breached as a ticket was presented for inspection
• Regulation of Railways Act section 5 (1) was not breached as name/address was given
• RRA section 5 (3) was not breached as there was no attempt to avoid payment of the fare

It is important to not close the contactless journey to Alexandra Palace as that would muddy the waters considerably.