Interview under caution

[DaveNewcastle]

Presumably there is no formal obligation to attend one of these 'interviews'?

That's correct.

In which case one is presumably perfectly entitled to advise TfL/LU or whoever to crack on with it and find their own bloody 'evidence'?

It may well be in the passenger's interest to attend - much would depend on the circumstances.

If one factor in deciding not to attend is a general disinclination to cooperate with officers of any organisation, then in the event that the matter was to lead to a Decision of Gulit or Innocence in a Court, then a record of persistent non-cooperation is likely to be part of the evidence, and which is likely to contribute to a negative impression and is also likely to have contributed to higher costs in investigating the matter.

 

[Antman]

Presumably there is no formal obligation to attend one of these 'interviews'? In which case one is presumably perfectly entitled to advise TfL/LU or whoever to crack on with it and find their own bloody 'evidence'? All seems a tad heavyhanded to me, particularly when the Oyster card seems to carry a list of T&Cs harder to comprehend than a double-Dutch bible! Eeek.

Indeed, I am astounded to hear about TfL calling people in for an interview. I certainly wouldn't have bothered and as you say it is up to them to find their own evidence.

 

[SickyNicky]

In the event that you were asked to attend an interview and were subsequenty exonerated, presumably you could claim costs and time? Perhaps you could agree to attend with that condition?

 

[a729]

So if someone has a travelcard and regularly has incomplete journeys due to not touching both in and out , is it likely to be flagged as suspicious usage?

 

[talltim]

Surely the issue is that TfL hasn't provided a touch out point at the end of the OP's journey?

 

[a729]

Surely the issue is that TfL hasn't provided a touch out point at the end of the OP's journey?

The OP could easily have scanned out/in on the validator at the manual gate (without leaving the paid side of the station)

 

[PermitToTravel]

So if someone has a travelcard and regularly has incomplete journeys due to not touching both in and out , is it likely to be flagged as suspicious usage?

No, thousands if not tens of thousands of people are in this situation. There are other things that make Rt's situation look suspicious from TfL's point of view; i.e. that he holds a travelcard not including zone 1, makes a journey every day that is quicker via zone 1, and only touches his card on some days. There may also be evidence from CCTV or from having followed him to work.

 

[DownSouth]

That's correct.It may well be in the passenger's interest to attend - much would depend on the circumstances.

If one factor in deciding not to attend is a general disinclination to cooperate with officers of any organisation, then in the event that the matter was to lead to a Decision of Gulit or Innocence in a Court, then a record of persistent non-cooperation is likely to be part of the evidence, and which is likely to contribute to a negative impression and is also likely to have contributed to higher costs in investigating the matter.

Maybe it would be in the passenger's interest to agree to the 'interview' on the condition that it be conducted by TfL posting them the questions which they would then send back?

This could be good enough to demonstrate voluntary cooperation while also not giving TfL the chance to make a Gotcha! moment out of a poorly worded answer in the heat of a verbal interrogation.

 

[Haywain]

Surely the issue is that TfL hasn't provided a touch out point at the end of the OP's journey?

Or is it that the OP could not be bothered to walk as far as the touch out point / validator that was provided?