FCC vs Twitter

[yorkie]

Of course, everyone can avoid being victims of malpractice and "bullying" from RPIs by simply buying a correct ticket at their origin.

Are you serious?!

I can take a joke, but I don't see a winking smiley in your post? It HAS to be a joke though.

MG'11d by my 'favourite' FCC RPI - combined Z123 & Z456 ticket

There are many more examples, but that is the most extreme: being detained for 3 hours when on a totally valid combination of tickets. Very few people would put up with that.

 

[Merseysider]

Of course, everyone can avoid being victims of malpractice and "bullying" from RPIs by simply buying a correct ticket at their origin.

Agreed (to some extent), there's no excuse for not researching the transport system and geography of a country you're visiting. If I tried to travel from Berlin to Hamburg on a smartcard that only covered the Berlin area I'd have no defence in saying "oh, I thought it'd be valid here."

However no-one should be the subject of malpractice whatever the case.

 

[Tibbs]

Agreed (to some extent), there's no excuse for not researching the transport system and geography of a country you're visiting. If I tried to travel from Berlin to Hamburg on a smartcard that only covered the Berlin area I'd have no defence in saying "oh, I thought it'd be valid here."

However no-one should be the subject of malpractice whatever the case.

They weren't travelling intercity, they were travelling from central London to a major London airport. Most sensible places would already have smart cards in place to cover that, but hey... :roll:

 

[Paul Kelly]

Of course, everyone can avoid being victims of malpractice and "bullying" from RPIs by simply buying a correct ticket at their origin.

Don't agree. I've been threatened by an RPI with being thrown off the train and having the police called, when travelling on a valid ticket bought at the origin of my journey.

 

[Merseysider]

They weren't travelling intercity, they were travelling from central London to a major London airport. Most sensible places would already have smart cards in place to cover that, but hey... :roll:

Indeed, it's rather an anomalous situation considering Manchester Airport is within the Day Ranger boundary, and South Parkway (for John Lennon Airport) is within the Saveaway boundary.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They weren't travelling intercity, they were travelling from central London to a major London airport. Most sensible places would already have smart cards in place to cover that, but hey... :roll:

On National Rail, none of the major London airports are within the Oyster boundary.

You say "clueless foreign tourist", but there are plenty of people in London who suddenly forget how to speak English when the ticket man comes down the train.

 

[455driver]

The Oyster area is set up to maximise revenue for TfL (or whoever it is) with some of the outer boundaries stopping just short of the logical stations (Epsom springs to mind in my area) so is it any wonder visitors get confused by it all!

 

[Tibbs]

On National Rail, none of the major London airports are within the Oyster boundary.

You say "clueless foreign tourist", but there are plenty of people in London who suddenly forget how to speak English when the ticket man comes down the train.

Which is even worse.

And I'm not sure I ever mentioned "clueless foreign tourist". Was that aimed at someone else?

 

[Deerfold]

They weren't travelling intercity, they were travelling from central London to a major London airport. Most sensible places would already have smart cards in place to cover that, but hey... :roll:

They have (for Gatwick at least). Unfortunately it's not Oyster but The Key which is the smart card you need to get to Gatwick from London.

 

[Wolfie]

They have (for Gatwick at least). Unfortunately it's not Oyster but The Key which is the smart card you need to get to Gatwick from London.

Really? On ALL trains which run from Gatwick to ALL London stations (National Rail only as I don't even want to go down the TfL rabbit hole)?

Methinks even when GoVis take over from FCC your statement will be out and out wrong!

 

[Deerfold]

Really? On ALL trains which run from Gatwick to ALL London stations (National Rail only as I don't even want to go down the TfL rabbit hole)?

No. Tibbs said:

travelling from central London to a major London airport.

The Key lets you do that.

Don't get me started on what I think of the piecemeal introduction of ITSO to the rail network.

Methinks even when GoVis take over from FCC your statement will be out and out wrong!

The statement you seem to think I said is out and out wrong, yes. Of course you can do anywhere in London to Gatwick by use of a combination of smart cards...

 

[RJ]

Of course, everyone can avoid being victims of malpractice and "bullying" from RPIs by simply buying a correct ticket at their origin.

That isn't true.

 

[Deerfold]

That isn't true.

No, it's a good start (where it's possible to do that at the origin) but sadly no guarantee.

 

[island]

On National Rail, none of the major London airports are within the Oyster boundary.

That is only vacuously true. Heathrow and City are accessible using Underground and DLR respectively, and Gatwick will be soon.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Are you serious?!

I can take a joke, but I don't see a winking smiley in your post? It HAS to be a joke though.

MG'11d by my 'favourite' FCC RPI - combined Z123 & Z456 ticket

There are many more examples, but that is the most extreme: being detained for 3 hours when on a totally valid combination of tickets. Very few people would put up with that.

jonmorris0844 was not detained but chose to stay behind to give an unnecessarily lengthy statement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That is only vacuously true. Heathrow and City are accessible using Underground and DLR respectively, and Gatwick will be soon.

City isn't a major airport and the heavily promoted ways to Heathrow- Heathrow Express or Heathrow Connect- are not part of Oyster. Nor is Stansted or Luton.

 

[jon0844]

jonmorris0844 was not detained but chose to stay behind to give an unnecessarily lengthy statement.

Correct. I didn't want him writing anything without my signature at the end. Each page was numbered, so he couldn't add some made up confession.

I was told I was free to leave, but would you leave in such circumstances? He was going back with a view to a prosecution for every day that I'd had the tickets.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Correct. I didn't want him writing anything without my signature at the end. Each page was numbered, so he couldn't add some made up confession.

I was told I was free to leave, but would you leave in such circumstances? He was going back with a view to a prosecution for every day that I'd had the tickets.

I'd have made no comment and signed to that effect.

 

[jon0844]

I'd have made no comment and signed to that effect.

Well it was my first (and funnily enough, only) time.

 

[Deerfold]

I'd have made no comment and signed to that effect.

I can understand why someone might hang around. It's not clear the RPI would have allowed an interruption to write such a statement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd have made no comment and signed to that effect.

I wouldn't have walked off before that statement was completed.

It's astounding how often extra things sneak their way into "witness statements" after the event, and a person who is too thick to understand zones three and four meet each other isn't really going to understand the intricacies of PACE.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps the bigger problem on the day wasn't his glaring error, but rather how staff rounded on me and took his side.

One person was clearly unsure, who was working with him, but he was quite new and therefore sided with him. At the FPK gateline, they were even more unsure but - again - said nothing. He's even phoned someone to check and was told I was wrong (assuming he didn't pretend to make a call).

Yet after I complained, it's amazing how quick they distanced themselves from the RPI in question and even told me some things 'off the record' about other things he'd done.

And to think he's now driving trains!

 

[PermitToTravel]

I wouldn't have walked off before that statement was completed.

It's astounding how often extra things sneak their way into "witness statements" after the event, and a person who is too thick to understand zones three and four meet each other isn't really going to understand the intricacies of PACE.

That's fair enough, although I can't think what would need to be added to make the matter prosecutable. Even an answer of "Yes" to "Did you not intend to pay?" would not prove an S5 offence as a valid ticket was still held

 

[Class377]

The point I was trying to make, however, was that someone unfamiliar with the system should perhaps simply ask for a ticket from A to B.

Once you're more aware of the system and know of the intricacies, then it's all well and good, but the key point is being certain your ticket is valid. These two people didn't know the situation, and so hopped on the train, and thus were correctly given a PF.

Sorry if my point didn't come across clearly, I can see how it could be read differently.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The point I was trying to make, however, was that someone unfamiliar with the system should perhaps simply ask for a ticket from A to B.

. . . .

Sorry if my point didn't come across clearly, I can see how it could be read differently.

I think that you made your point very clearly - it's just that others have taken off in a different direction by talking about themselves.

The key issues I understood that you were making were:
1. It is reasonable for a non-resident to assume that a London Oyster Card would cover their travel to Gatwick.
2. That reasonableness would be an appropriate and adequate excuse for not having paid the additional fare in advance of travel.
3. That reasonableness would be an appropriate and adequate excuse for not paying an additional fare during travel when the passenger had not the funds available to do so.

I agree with the first of those points.
The other two are not, technically, adequate excuses for travel without a valid ticket, but I will say that I could only consider prosecution in such circumstances with a heavy heart, and I would hope that no Prosecutor would pursue that fare or the consequential Offence.

I must say however I find it quite odd that money offered by another person for a Penalty Fare is not accepted. If true, I do find it unacceptable.

I'm not sure if the subtle distinctions of the incident would have been portrayed clearly here:

- There is no reason why a person's ticket cannot be paid for by another person.
- There is no reason why a person's Penalty Fare cannot be paid for by another person.
- It is not appropriate for an Inspector to accept payment from any person once the Inspector has suspected that an Offence might have been committed and has begun to investigate the circumstances. (To do so could, in extreme circumstances, provide evidence of corruption and/or an attempt to pervert the course of justice - maximum sentence is life imprisonment).
- Having detected that a passenger was travelling without a valid ticket and consequently begining an investigation, that threshold of suspicion will have been passed, and therefore the offer of payment, from any person, must be declined.

Hope this helps.

 

[bb21]

I'm not sure if the subtle distinctions of the incident would have been portrayed clearly here:

- There is no reason why a person's ticket cannot be paid for by another person.
- There is no reason why a person's Penalty Fare cannot be paid for by another person.
- It is not appropriate for an Inspector to accept payment from any person once the Inspector has suspected that an Offence might have been committed and has begun to investigate the circumstances. (To do so could, in extreme circumstances, provide evidence of corruption and/or an attempt to pervert the course of justice - maximum sentence is life imprisonment).
- Having detected that a passenger was travelling without a valid ticket and consequently begining an investigation, that threshold of suspicion will have been passed, and therefore the offer of payment, from any person, must be declined.

Hope this helps.

Whilst I agree that in theory, in the unlikely event that a Section 5 offence was suspected, it would be correct for an RPI to refuse assistance in payment from anyone other than the accused party in order to establish "intent", I find it unusual that given the circumstances described the RPI chose this path. There is no suggestion that the RPI was intending on dealing with the passengers by taking down their details and explaining how the matter would proceed, even after his refusal to accept the £40 offered by a stranger, and there was allegedly no sign of foul-play by the passengers concerned. Would it be in the public interest to prosecute these passengers? Would there be anything to gain for FCC to spend time and effort prosecuting these passengers who may or may well not be seen ever again, possibly in part due to the treatment they received on this occasion?

Of course much of this is speculation since we only have a very limited account of what happened, nevertheless with RPIs instructed to exercise discretion with foreign passengers who may be confused by our bewildering fares system, I find it unacceptable that such a heavy-handed approach would be taken for what is a very common mistake made by many native passengers, let alone the tourists.

 

[Mojo]

Fear not, Oyster Pay As You Go will be available at Gatwick Airport station later in the year, and to intermediate stations between Coulsdon South and Gatwick next year.

 

[Deerfold]

Fear not, Oyster Pay As You Go will be available at Gatwick Airport station later in the year, and to intermediate stations between Coulsdon South and Gatwick next year.

Cue more confusion in the interim...

 

[jon0844]

Between now and then, I'd just do what the FCC RPI I saw did; sell a new ticket. If the gates are nearly always in operation, it should be easy. Give staff Oyster wants and I presume they can see where the passenger tapped in?

It wouldn't be worth someone doing it knowingly as they'll get stung with the maximum cash fare on PAYG plus the ticket. A season ticket holder could be told they should have known they were outside their zones, while someone who hadn't tapped in is reported.

 

[island]

Between now and then, I'd just do what the FCC RPI I saw did; sell a new ticket. If the gates are nearly always in operation, it should be easy. Give staff Oyster wants and I presume they can see where the passenger tapped in?

The new handheld jobbies to check Oyster cards and contactless cards that are currently being phased in will not tell staff where the passenger touched in.