Got caught touching in on exit gates for over a year

[Fawkes Cat]

I haven't checked the TfL byelaws, but on National Rail using the barriers other than as designed is an offence and I expect it is on TfL as well.

I now have looked up the TfL Railway Byelaws, and they tell us:

9. Stations and other premises on the railway
(...)
(2) Where the entrance to or exit from any platform or station on the railway is via a
manned or automatic ticket barrier no person shall enter or leave the station,
except with permission from an authorised person, without passing through the
barrier in the correct manner.
(3) No person shall open a barrier or any other gate on the railway except where
there is a notice indicating that it may be used by him or with permission from an
authorised person.
(4) Where there is a notice by an entrance or exit on any part of the railway
indicating that it shall be used for entrance or exit only, no person shall enter by
the exit or leave by the entrance. No person shall enter or leave by an
emergency exit except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an
authorised person.

(Source: https://tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/railway-byelaws.pdf)

So not using a barrier properly is a byelaw offence on TfL.

 

[Adam Williams]

If blocked cards could exit then people would get on at unmanned stations and still be able to tap out. I’ve used many a penalty for blocked cards trying to exit

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this actually worked and struggling; feel like there's some pertinent information missing.

Is it possible there are technical limitations which means the gate hardware itself didn't know the card was blocked at the time of 'entry'? E.g. gates too useless to be able to query it in real-time so they rely on having offline knowledge of a subset of blocked cards which gets updated after a card starts getting used? The sort of janky thing I'd expect from TfL/Cubic.

Or perhaps OP used the card via a digital wallet which they repeatedly re-added to Apple or Google Wallet, so new DPAN each time it got tokenized? TfL I'm sure would be able to tie it back to a single PAN after the fact (in fact we know they can do this because journey history appears in the online account after the fact), but perhaps not at tap-in time.

 

[Mojo]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how this actually worked and struggling; feel like there's some pertinent information missing.

Is it possible there are technical limitations which means the gate hardware itself didn't know the card was blocked at the time of 'entry'? E.g. gates too useless to be able to query it in real-time so they rely on having offline knowledge of a subset of blocked cards which gets updated after a card starts getting used? The sort of janky thing I'd expect from TfL/Cubic.

Or perhaps OP used the card via a digital wallet which they repeatedly re-added to Apple or Google Wallet, so new DPAN each time it got tokenized?

As far as I can see, all relevant information is already prevented upstream in the thread, once people have either gotten it out of the OP, or worked it out themselves. There are no technical limitations, the customer is failing to touch in (as it would be rejected owing to debt owed). They will have accrued a substantial amount of debt on their card, made up by a number of maximum fares from unstarted journeys. At this point, the investigations team will have been trying to work out who the person is, and intercepted them.

 

[Adam Williams]

As far as I can see, all relevant information is already prevented upstream in the thread, once people have either gotten it out of the OP, or worked it out themselves. There are no technical limitations, the customer is failing to touch in (as it would be rejected owing to debt owed). They will have accrued a substantial amount of debt on their card, made up by a number of maximum fares from unstarted journeys. At this point, the investigations team will have been trying to work out who the person is, and intercepted them.

Upthread people are disagreeing on whether a blocked card is actually allowed to exit the network or not. That's what I'm struggling to understand.

I think it's interesting because it feels like the offence could be potentially more serious if they've done something intentional to deliberately evade security measures that are in place.

 

[Kilopylae]

Or perhaps OP used the card via a digital wallet which they repeatedly re-added to Apple or Google Wallet, so new DPAN each time it got tokenized?

From OP's opening post I think she/he/they was using a physical bank card rather than a phone.

 

[AlterEgo]

Upthread people are disagreeing on whether a blocked card is actually allowed to exit the network or not. That's what I'm struggling to understand.

I think it's interesting because it feels like the offence could be potentially more serious if they've done something intentional to deliberately evade security measures that are in place.

I doubt it is much more than that - it's just a very basic scheme to trick the gates into letting you in. It's been seen millions of times on TikTok so the inspectors aren't stupid, and is why they were lying in wait having figured out the OP's travel pattern.

 

[Mojo]

Upthread people are disagreeing on whether a blocked card is actually allowed to exit the network or not. That's what I'm struggling to understand.

Those replies are probably referring to outdated knowledge and / or practices at locations to where it does not apply. If you search through TfL’s FOIs for “contactless denied exit,” you can see that a change was made a little under two years ago in order to recoup lost revenue from blocked cards and reduce gateline conflict. I have pasted relavent links and extracts below.

This upgrade which is referred to as Strategic Release 8 (SR8) is primarily aimed at reducing the volume of contactless payments that are currently rejected at exit gates with reject code 80 (card denied by issuer). These generally occur when a contactless user has travelled on a card on which payment has been declined by the card issuer and where the entry validation was either rejected or the customer has gained access to the system without validating. It is really the contactless equivalent of the Oyster reject code 36.
At present the TfL back office which processes contactless payments ignores any rejections that do not complete a journey and in most cases no charge will be made. <snip>
This upgrade to the RTD and Back Office processing, will result in all these denied exit taps for un-started journeys resulting in a maximum fare being charged. At station level after the upgrade, gates will indicate a new validation code "87", but instead of preventing the customer from exiting, will allow the customer to exit and report this to the back office so that an appropriate charge can be made.

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1765-2021/TRU125_Redacted.pdf

A change to the way that exit gates handle validations of contactless payment cards / devices which would have been rejected on entry to the system, was successfully deployed to most LU stations in February, removing potential confrontations that arose when these cards were previously rejected with reject code '80'.

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-3111-2223/TRU143_Redacted.pdf

 

[Grvrdvicdr]

Those replies are probably referring to outdated knowledge and / or practices at locations to where it does not apply. If you search through TfL’s FOIs for “contactless denied exit,” you can see that a change was made a little under two years ago in order to recoup lost revenue from blocked cards and reduce gateline conflict. I have pasted relavent links and extracts below.

That relates to the card blocked by the issuer, that being in terms of the card needing to be activated, low funds, security check ect and not blocked by TfL. Blocked by TfL relates to travel irregularities. As I stated previous, I believe it seems the op touches in then immediately touches out, in turn not being charged and not blocking the card then potentially doing it the other way around to exit at the end of the journey both would give good evidence of said pictures as there is then a journey start and end

 

[Mojo]

That relates to the card blocked by the issuer, that being in terms of the card needing to be activated, low funds, security check ect and not blocked by TfL. Blocked by TfL relates to travel irregularities. As I stated previous, I believe it seems the op touches in then immediately touches out, in turn not being charged and not blocking the card then potentially doing it the other way around to exit at the end of the journey both would give good evidence of said pictures as there is then a journey start and end

This is not correct. If you touch in and out then you would still accrue some sort of charge, and failure to settle the debt in the instance where the account associated with the cards does not have sufficient funds, after a while will see the card blocked for entry. It is quite clear from the above extracts I have provided that you are still in a position to exit, even with an unsettled debt.

 

[Haywain]

That relates to the card blocked by the issuer, that being in terms of the card needing to be activated, low funds, security check ect and not blocked by TfL. Blocked by TfL relates to travel irregularities. As I stated previous, I believe it seems the op touches in then immediately touches out, in turn not being charged and not blocking the card then potentially doing it the other way around to exit at the end of the journey both would give good evidence of said pictures as there is then a journey start and end

Whatever has actually been happening is of little help to the OP in terms of the advice being sought. They have been apprehended misusing a payment card to get free travel on the underground. The exact mechanics if how it was achieved do not change the facts of the matter.

 

[MikeWh]

Whatever has actually been happening is of little help to the OP in terms of the advice being sought. They have been apprehended misusing a payment card to get free travel on the underground. The exact mechanics if how it was achieved do not change the facts of the matter.

Completely agree.

The way contactless is designed is that after the first touch in of the day an authorisation is attempted. If that fails then the card is blacklisted, but because the user is 'in the system' it has to let them out. This is being abused by people leaning over the gates to open the exit gates and then walking through. As has been mentioned, there are tik-tok videos explaining how to do it. The system cannot differentiate between a recently blacklisted card or one which has been for some time. Obviously this behaviour was not expected when the system was designed. I don't know what the answer is, perhaps larger gates as on the Paris Metro, or some method of only opening the gates after a beam has been broken, but that would probably require more room in the gate channel.

Anyway, the fact that the OP has not been back since admitting what they are doing suggests that they realise they are in a lot more trouble than they first thought.

 

[Adam Williams]

Those replies are probably referring to outdated knowledge and / or practices at locations to where it does not apply. If you search through TfL’s FOIs for “contactless denied exit,” you can see that a change was made a little under two years ago in order to recoup lost revenue from blocked cards and reduce gateline conflict. I have pasted relavent links and extracts below.

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-1765-2021/TRU125_Redacted.pdf

https://foi.tfl.gov.uk/FOI-3111-2223/TRU143_Redacted.pdf

Thanks for the definitive answer

 

[fandroid]

I think we've answered the critical question the OP posed. That is how to get in touch with TfL to advise them of the correct address. After that it's a matter of waiting for the letter from TfL. In the OP's initial communication with TfL they'd need to be fairly specific in order for TfL to connect the incident with the OP. Giving exact date, time and place of the intercept is one thing. Also they'd need to state the incorrect address previously given as well as the correct one.

Hadders gave the email address in post #6, as well as good advice. The address is IAP@tfl.gov.uk

 

[skyhigh]

In the OP's initial communication with TfL they'd need to be fairly specific in order for TfL to connect the incident with the OP.

I can't imagine they've stopped many targeted people under identical circumstances with research such stills taken from CCTV. Name alone should be enough to link it up, unless it's a very common name.

 

[AndroidBango]

I think we are more likely to read about the outcome in the Evening Standard than for the OP to return.

 

[Fayxx]

I believe it seems the op touches in then immediately touches out, in turn not being charged and not blocking the card then potentially doing it the other way around to exit at the end of the journey both would give good evidence of said pictures as there is then a journey start and end

Honestly appreciate all the investigation being made on me. But I wished if I found substantial advice to go with it, and I believe looking for a solicitor now is essential!

 

[AlterEgo]

How clever you are! Have you seen me doing it somewhere!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2023 ==

Honestly appreciate all the investigation being made on me. But I wished if I found substantial advice to go with it, and I believe looking for a solicitor now is essential!

You should look for a solicitor. Manak Solicitors has been name checked numerous times on this part of the forum before.

 

[Hadders]

Now we seem to establish exacty what has happened I don't think there's any realistic prospect of keeping this out of court, especially (as I suspect) you have been doing this for some time. Appreciate this isn't what you want to hear but I think it's best to be honest with you.

A solicitor might be able to assist in making sure TfL has followed the correct processes and presenting mitigation to the court on your behalf but I doubt it will fundamentally alter the outcome.

 

[John R]

Now we seem to establish exacty what has happened I don't think there's any realistic prospect of keeping this out of court, especially (as I suspect) you have been doing this for some time. Appreciate this isn't what you want to hear but I think it's best to be honest with you.

A solicitor might be able to assist in making sure TfL has followed the correct processes and presenting mitigation to the court on your behalf but I doubt it will fundamentally alter the outcome.

And of course engaging a solicitor will add to the expense of your situation, although Manak offer an initial 15 min consultation free, which is probably worth taking up. To make best use of that time you should be completely open with them as to what you have done and how, so that they can give you the best advice on how to proceed.

 

[furlong]

Well I'm still not sure we have the complete picture here, but my sense is this isn't necessarily firmly into criminal territory and I wouldn't rule out a settlement, particularly with the involvement of a solicitor - that would give TfL recompense and certainty, whereas it's likely to be new territory for a court to explore with uncertainty over the best charge(s) and evidential threshold. For example, explicitly documenting that gates were reprogrammed to open with the levy of a charge recoverable through civil means may make prosecution more of a challenge than it ought to be. (The unpaid maximum charges in lieu of the fares have the status of a civil debt - what if the OP always intended to pay, as agreed, but it's just the system failed to pursue it, e.g. giving up after a mere 3 presentation failures?) Mis-applying a byelaw in the 'Equipment and Safety' section for a Fares matter might be thought undesirable (for multiple reasons - not least trivialising the scale of the perceived wrongdoing and not necessarily leading to the desirable compensation).

 

[skyhigh]

especially (as I suspect) you have been doing this for some time.

Over a year, according to the thread title.

 

[Hadders]

Well I'm still not sure we have the complete picture here, but my sense is this isn't necessarily firmly into criminal territory and I wouldn't rule out a settlement, particularly with the involvement of a solicitor - that would give TfL recompense and certainty, whereas it's likely to be new territory for a court to explore with uncertainty over the best charge(s) and evidential threshold. For example, explicitly documenting that gates were reprogrammed to open with the levy of a charge recoverable through civil means may make prosecution more of a challenge than it ought to be. (The unpaid maximum charges in lieu of the fares have the status of a civil debt - what if the OP always intended to pay, as agreed, but it's just the system failed to pursue it, e.g. giving up after a mere 3 presentation failures?) Mis-applying a byelaw in the 'Equipment and Safety' section for a Fares matter might be thought undesirable (for multiple reasons - not least trivialising the scale of the perceived wrongdoing and not necessarily leading to the desirable compensation).

TfL generally don't entertain out of court settlements, especially for issues like this that have been happening for over a year.

 

[Cowley]

It feels like there’s been some good advice given now that things have become clearer. So maybe this is a good time to put a temporary hold on the thread.
@Fayxx - If you wish to update us on your next steps/need further advice etc, please use the report function below to get in contact with us and we’ll look at reopening the thread.

Thanks everyone

 

[Fayxx]

If someone received that letter saying confirm your offences or deny, how must you answer that properly if you want the matter to proceed with out of court settlement? Should you deny it and write sympathetic speech even though you aware you committed fare evasion multiple times, or should you confirm you were guilty and apologise etc.

 

[75A]

Honesty is always the best policy IMO.

 

[AndroidBango]

If someone received that letter saying confirm your offences or deny, how must you answer that properly if you want the matter to proceed with out of court settlement? Should you deny it and write sympathetic speech even though you aware you committed fare evasion multiple times, or should you confirm you were guilty and apologise etc.

How will you deny deliberate fare evasion for over a year? I'm not saying this to antagonise, but you really need to think very carefully about your reply given the potential stakes. A sob story is absolutely not going to cut it here. Earlier advice to consult a solicitor seems worth following.

 

[John R]

Your best bet is to admit, as if you deny it, they will certainly not offer you a settlement, and will say "ok, see you in court then".

Unfortunately, even if you admit it, given the track record of evasion which they clearly know about, and TfL's typical approach of prosecuting even single offences, I think it's extremely unlikely that they will offer you a settlement, and you will end up being prosecuted. From what we know, it sounds as though they will be very confident that you will be found guilty, so from their perspective, why would they not do that.

 

[Hadders]

If someone received that letter saying confirm your offences or deny, how must you answer that properly if you want the matter to proceed with out of court settlement? Should you deny it and write sympathetic speech even though you aware you committed fare evasion multiple times, or should you confirm you were guilty and apologise etc.

My usual advice is to write a short, concide reply mentioning the following points:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Transport for London do not normally offer out of court settlements, and almost certainly never for cases where there is evidence of fare evasion over a long period of time. You need to realise that this is highly likely to end up in court.

It might be worth familiarising yourself with TfL's Revenue Enforcement & Porsecutions Policy:

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf

 

[dosxuk]

If someone received that letter saying confirm your offences or deny, how must you answer that properly if you want the matter to proceed with out of court settlement? Should you deny it and write sympathetic speech even though you aware you committed fare evasion multiple times, or should you confirm you were guilty and apologise etc.

There is one way, and one way only, you'd be able to get an out of court settlement with this type of case - be absolutely 100% brutally honest and co-operate as much as possible. But it may already be too late - by giving an incorrect address and saying you didn't realise your bank card was faulty will all have been entered as evidence against you.

And that's if you weren't dealing with TfL - who for political and practical reasons are extremely happy to prosecute even if that means they don't get as good a financial settlement. They absolutely want you to go back to wherever you learnt "this one weird trick that gets you free tube journeys" and tell everyone about how you got caught and now have a criminal record, because that will prevent others from doing the same (and much more effectively than just giving you a penalty fare or easy settlement).

Get a solicitor and start saving up. It's extremely unlikely that you will avoid a court appearance, but a solicitor may help you negotiate a better result. TfL obviously have a large amount of evidence that you deliberately and repeatedly avoided paying the correct fares - anything you do now to deny that will only damage your case further.

 

[skyhigh]

If someone received that letter saying confirm your offences or deny, how must you answer that properly if you want the matter to proceed with out of court settlement? Should you deny it and write sympathetic speech even though you aware you committed fare evasion multiple times, or should you confirm you were guilty and apologise etc.

We could really do with a photo of the letter you have received to see what's happening (with your personal details covered).