Help me

[AlterEgo]

The only appropriate response to the OP is that they tell the absolute truth and own up to their mistake.

It is, in light of the revelation that the OP has made the cardinal error of also impersonating her sister on the phone and incriminated her in the process. It is only because TfL now have cause to believe the sister knew the pass was confiscated that the course of action should change.

But the advice by people in light of the information previously, that her *sister* had been written to, and that they’d no idea who the OP even is, nor even accused them of an offence, was certainly not sensible at all!

You do not need to do the investigators’ work for them, especially with them having written to someone they know for a fact wasn’t the person stopped. This forum is for advice, not a moral posturing ground for people to suggest always cooperating fully - to the point of wilfully incriminating themselves - even when it might not be in their best interests.

For the record, nobody has advised anyone to “circumvent” any legal process, not that any such thing would be possible anyway.

 

[Wolfie]

I agree. TfL have extensive insights into individual travel habits and will already have interrogated the card history and probably downloaded some corroborating CCTV evidence. The excuse of picking up an oyster card by mistake can only be a one-off, but if that same card has been used for the same journey for x amount of weeks or months... then that casts doubt into the whole story.

It's slightly disturbing that forum members are offering advice on how to circumvent the legal process in order to avoid any potential prosecution.

The only appropriate response to the OP is that they tell the absolute truth and own up to their mistake.

Methinks that you haven't read @Mojo's sticky at the start of the thread. Your last two paras are directly contrary. If you find the reason for this thread distasteful you probably would be best placed staying off it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

It is, in light of the revelation that the OP has made the cardinal error of also impersonating her sister on the phone and incriminated her in the process. It is only because TfL now have cause to believe the sister knew the pass was confiscated that the course of action should change.

But the advice by people in light of the information previously, that her *sister* had been written to, and that they’d no idea who the OP even is, nor even accused them of an offence, was certainly not sensible at all!

You do not need to do the investigators’ work for them, especially with them having written to someone they know for a fact wasn’t the person stopped. This forum is for advice, not a moral posturing ground for people to suggest always cooperating fully - to the point of wilfully incriminating themselves - even when it might not be in their best interests.

For the record, nobody has advised anyone to “circumvent” any legal process, not that any such thing would be possible anyway.

Agreed. Way better expressed than my effort.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Dec 2021 ==

Having worked in fraud detection in another sector, I'm sorry to say I find it difficult to believe that the misuse of the card was accidental or that it was the first time the card was misused. I think the OP needs to assemble evidence of her paid-for journey history up to and since this incident.

That seems pretty sensible and logical.

 

[dakta]

I agree. TfL have extensive insights into individual travel habits and will already have interrogated the card history and probably downloaded some corroborating CCTV evidence. The excuse of picking up an oyster card by mistake can only be a one-off, but if that same card has been used for the same journey for x amount of weeks or months... then that casts doubt into the whole story.

It's slightly disturbing that forum members are offering advice on how to circumvent the legal process in order to avoid any potential prosecution.

The only appropriate response to the OP is that they tell the absolute truth and own up to their mistake.

In principle I actually agreed with most of what you say, I've been lurking and whilst I didn't have any specific advice to offer let's just say 'one was not surprised' at the revelations that changed the nature of things, I had an inkling - but you don't have to hand stuff to investigators on a plate either.

Best you can do is take peoples posts at face value and if there turns out to be more to it what can you do.

 

[Mawkie]

This forum is for advice, not a moral posturing ground for people to suggest always cooperating fully - to the point of wilfully incriminating themselves - even when it might not be in their best interests.

I didn't intend to sound moralistic - sorry if I came across like that. I don't believe anyone should incriminate themselves, but given the concerns the OP has around the immigration prospects of a loved one, I think in this case it's better to come clean rather than compound the deceit further.

Methinks that you haven't read @Mojo's sticky at the start of the thread. Your last two paras are directly contrary.

I'm sure one of the Mods will be along to edit or delete as they see fit.

 

[AlterEgo]

I didn't intend to sound moralistic - sorry if I came across like that. I don't believe anyone should incriminate themselves, but given the concerns the OP has around the immigration prospects of a loved one, I think in this case it's better to come clean rather than compound the deceit further.

I'm sure one of the Mods will be along to edit or delete as they see fit.

That is quite alright and while I appreciate it, there was no need for an apology, as I did not mean the accusation directly at you but at a general trend towards policing what happens in this area. No harm done.

 

[gray1404]

This also means that the original poster here has opened mail addressed to their sister without their knowledge either.

I suppose the sister could write back stating the truth that it was not her who was stopped and this is her first knowledge of any such incident. Although if they have a new Oyster card that they have been using I suppose this to show that they've got some knowledge of something not being right.

As far as the sister is concerned their Oyster card was stolen and used by somebody else so they are now using a new one. But then this argument falls through on the basis it was the perpetrator of the original offence who called up to request a new one.

My advice on this occasion would therefore be to not incriminate yourself. I know this is country to some advice here to actually write back to Transport for London to admit to some degree what happened. Rather I would suggest that you got professional legal advice before doing anything else.

I think the sister though would be entitled to reply to the letter herself stating that she was not the person stopped and questioned on the day of the offence.

 

[Wolfie]

I didn't intend to sound moralistic - sorry if I came across like that. I don't believe anyone should incriminate themselves, but given the concerns the OP has around the immigration prospects of a loved one, I think in this case it's better to come clean rather than compound the deceit further.

I'm sure one of the Mods will be along to edit or delete as they see fit.

I am inclined to agree the thrust of your first para. Dropping a relative in it is far from clever.

 

[jumble]

No, I d

No I did not give me name or relationship, called as if I was her

I am not at all convinced we are hearing what really happened
My understanding is that TFL would require a person requesting a lost card to log into their account and pay £10.00 and would not deal with this over the phone
So
Who paid the £10.00?
Why did TFL not realise that the card had been withdrawn due to suspected fraud?

 

[Spaceflower]

I agree. TfL have extensive insights into individual travel habits and will already have interrogated the card history and probably downloaded some corroborating CCTV evidence. The excuse of picking up an oyster card by mistake can only be a one-off, but if that same card has been used for the same journey for x amount of weeks or months... then that casts doubt into the whole story.

It's slightly disturbing that forum members are offering advice on how to circumvent the legal process in order to avoid any potential prosecution.

The only appropriate response to the OP is that they tell the absolute truth and own up to their mistake.

If this is true and you're a serial offender or if your conscience will result in you sleeping less soundly from now on, own up, admit your mistake.

You could ask your sister to provide them with her details....at the risk of digging your hole deeper, ofcourse.

We are not your moral guardians. We are a rag tag bunch of interested parties that range from indoctrinated employees of TfL who would consider your actions a cardinal sin to pragmatists who think you should take more care in future.

 

[andrew749]

I am not at all convinced we are hearing what really happened
My understanding TFL would require a person requesting a lost card to log into their account and pay £10.00 and would not deal with this over the phone
So
Who paid the £10.00?
Why did TFL not realise that the card had been withdrawn due to suspected fraud?

In order to get a replacement 16+ card online, you need to know the 12 digit number of the card that was lost. It's possible the OP phoned the call centre for help with this, but I agree there's still the issue of who paid the £10 replacement fee and how they paid it. Still too many unanswered questions.

 

[weepingwillowb]

Has the OP said that she has her own Oystercard? Because if she hasn't, how was it possible for her to say "I was caught using my sisters 16+ Student Oystercard, i had accidentally picked it up in the morning and didn’t think much of it when I used it on the bus."

 

[AlterEgo]

Has the OP said that she has her own Oystercard? Because if she hasn't, how was it possible for her to say "I was caught using my sisters 16+ Student Oystercard, i had accidentally picked it up in the morning and didn’t think much of it when I used it on the bus.”

Given that Oyster cards can be unregistered, this line of enquiry is a dead end anyway.

 

[weepingwillowb]

Given that Oyster cards can be unregistered, this line of enquiry is a dead end anyway.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that.