Time for an update on this thread.
I guess one of the main things to learn when giving advice is to understand the whole story. I'll admit that having been bought to the thread by a PM bemoaning another continuation exit issue, I was as guilty as anyone else of jumping to conclusions.
Anyway, I went through every aspect of what happened with Rob and did the maths to be as clear as possible about what funds he did or didn't have on his Oyster. The net result was that his balance was £1.80 short, and the continuation exit probably had no bearing on that fact. It did invalidate one claim which was that the unpaid journey started from Liverpool Street whereas it actually started from Farringdon and was thus a cheaper (National Rail only) fare.
The letter we wrote was quite long in comparison to the usual recommendations, but still squeezed to fit on one side of A4. It started with an apology, along with an explanation as to how the brain condition affected Rob. The latest report from his consultant was attached as proof. Rob really didn't understand what was happening and why he couldn't just touch out, and the lack of explanation contributed to his anxiety at the time. We commented on how the mixed messages confuse the issue - it's fine for an Oyster to go -£1.50 on buses but not fine on trains, but if it does go overdrawn the TOC still gets paid. <there is another issue around this which I will be looking to pursue now this case is over.> We refuted the claim that the journey started at Liverpool Street and confirmed that there were witnesses who would testify to touching in at Liverpool Street and also touching on the validator on the platform at Farringdon. We outlined the lessons learned, including an understanding of the problem that fare evasion causes. We expressed a desire to pay the fare due, plus a contribution to costs. I'm not going to post the whole letter because large chunks were concerned with specifics to this case and would not be relevant to any other dispute.
The letter was sent by signed for and delivered the next day. A week later and with the court deadline for a plea rapidly approaching, Rob phoned Southeastern and was given the fantastic news that the case had been completely dropped. Sadly it's taken another few weeks for Southeastern to actually withdraw the case from the court, but that has now been confirmed by the court.
My gut feeling is that the medical evidence probably played a significant part in the outcome, but nevertheless I'd like to thank DaveNewcastle wholeheartedly for his support and assistance in drafting the letter.
I guess one of the main things to learn when giving advice is to understand the whole story. I'll admit that having been bought to the thread by a PM bemoaning another continuation exit issue, I was as guilty as anyone else of jumping to conclusions.
Anyway, I went through every aspect of what happened with Rob and did the maths to be as clear as possible about what funds he did or didn't have on his Oyster. The net result was that his balance was £1.80 short, and the continuation exit probably had no bearing on that fact. It did invalidate one claim which was that the unpaid journey started from Liverpool Street whereas it actually started from Farringdon and was thus a cheaper (National Rail only) fare.
The letter we wrote was quite long in comparison to the usual recommendations, but still squeezed to fit on one side of A4. It started with an apology, along with an explanation as to how the brain condition affected Rob. The latest report from his consultant was attached as proof. Rob really didn't understand what was happening and why he couldn't just touch out, and the lack of explanation contributed to his anxiety at the time. We commented on how the mixed messages confuse the issue - it's fine for an Oyster to go -£1.50 on buses but not fine on trains, but if it does go overdrawn the TOC still gets paid. <there is another issue around this which I will be looking to pursue now this case is over.> We refuted the claim that the journey started at Liverpool Street and confirmed that there were witnesses who would testify to touching in at Liverpool Street and also touching on the validator on the platform at Farringdon. We outlined the lessons learned, including an understanding of the problem that fare evasion causes. We expressed a desire to pay the fare due, plus a contribution to costs. I'm not going to post the whole letter because large chunks were concerned with specifics to this case and would not be relevant to any other dispute.
The letter was sent by signed for and delivered the next day. A week later and with the court deadline for a plea rapidly approaching, Rob phoned Southeastern and was given the fantastic news that the case had been completely dropped. Sadly it's taken another few weeks for Southeastern to actually withdraw the case from the court, but that has now been confirmed by the court.
My gut feeling is that the medical evidence probably played a significant part in the outcome, but nevertheless I'd like to thank DaveNewcastle wholeheartedly for his support and assistance in drafting the letter.
