Overground Fare evasion letter

[Orangejuice1]

Hi there,

Would very much appreciate some advise after receiving a fare evasion letter after using the London Overground.

I was travelling between Stamford Hill and London Liverpool Street where I used my oyster Card to tap in. The machine made the normal noise and I got on the train. Whilst on the train the TfL inspectors came on and started checking everyone’s tickets. I showed the inspector my oyster and suddenly was shocked when he looked at me funny. He said I hadn’t tapped in. Which was untrue as I had tapped in and I could see it on his reader. The issue was that I didn’t have enough money on my oyster so it was a false tap. As there are no gates at Stamford Hill I didn’t notice this as I would normally top up and when I did tap the beeper made a noise as normal so i didn’t think there was any issues. Of course this was a mistake I made as I wasn’t aware of the little light turning red or green.

The inspector took my details rather than issuing a penalty fare and said TFL will decide what’s next. But the letter is a bit confusing. If I plead either not guilty or guilty will I be prosecuted either way. I really don't think I’m guilty of evading the fare as on my card you can see I tapped in.

What is the best course of action? Can I write to them and explain what happened without the need for a solicitor?
If I plead not guilty does it immediately go to court?

 

[30907]

Please could you post a copy of the letter (removing personal details)? This will help us help you.

Unfortunately you didn't have enough money on your card for your journey so unfortunately you are guilty of travelling without a valid ticket.

At this stage you don't need a solicitor. The worst that can happen is being convicted in a Magistrates' Court under the TfL Byelaws, but that is not likely to have a huge impact on your life.

 

[Orangejuice1]

Please could you post a copy of the letter (removing personal details)? This will help us help you.

Unfortunately you didn't have enough money on your card for your journey so unfortunately you are guilty of travelling without a valid ticket.

At this stage you don't need a solicitor. The worst that can happen is being convicted in a Magistrates' Court under the TfL Byelaws, but that is not likely to have a huge impact on your life.

See letter attached. Can I deny committing an offence as I did not intentionally avoid paying and actually did tap my card?

 

[MikeWh]

Some other questions. How much money did you have on your card? Did you touch out at Liverpool Street? Can you copy your journey history for that day to see what's been recorded.

Moving forward you might want to consider setting up auto topup. That means that when you touch in at the start of a journey with less than £20 on the card it will automatically be topped up by £10/£20/£40, whichever you've set.

 

[30907]

See letter attached. Can I deny committing an offence as I did not intentionally avoid paying and actually did tap my card?

Like it or not, the Byelaw offence is one of "strict liability" - that means your intention doesn't come into it.
You could plead not guilty to intending to avoid payment, but as far as we know TfL routinely prosecute for the less serious offence.

If you follow MikeWh's advice you may have evidence that you could provide in mitigation.

 

[Orangejuice1]

Like it or not, the Byelaw offence is one of "strict liability" - that means your intention doesn't come into it.
You could plead not guilty to intending to avoid payment, but asxfarcas we know TfL routinely prosecute for the less serious offence.

If you follow MikeWh's advice you may have evidence that you could provide in mitigation, but TfL

Like it or not, the Byelaw offence is one of "strict liability" - that means your intention doesn't come into it.
You could plead not guilty to intending to avoid payment, but asxfarcas we know TfL routinely prosecute for the less serious offence.

If you follow MikeWh's advice you may have evidence that you could provide in mitigation, but Tfl

I think I might be missing the end of your message, could you clarify what you mean?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==

Also is the likely outcome to be that they will fine me £40/£80 or harsher charges? Fine I’ll happily face don’t want to have to take this any further

 

[AlterEgo]

I think I might be missing the end of your message, could you clarify what you mean?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2023 ==

Also is the likely outcome to be that they will fine me £40/£80 or harsher charges? Fine I’ll happily face don’t want to have to take this any further

The problem is this is like speeding. It’s strict liability. You don’t have to *intend* to commit the offence.

The likely outcome is a prosecution for a Bylaw offence in the magistrates’ court, but given the low level nature of what has happened they may settle out of court. A penalty fare is not an option at this stage.

 

[Orangejuice1]

What would be advisable at this stage then?

 

[furlong]

What would be advisable at this stage then?

You'll need to answer MikeWh. It all depends what the Oyster card history actually shows for that day and what patterns previous days show.

 

[Orangejuice1]

Some other questions. How much money did you have on your card? Did you touch out at Liverpool Street? Can you copy your journey history for that day to see what's been recorded.

Moving forward you might want to consider setting up auto topup. That means that when you touch in at the start of a journey with less than £20 on the card it will automatically be topped up by £10/£20/£40, whichever you've set.

On that day I was in -1.25 when I tappped in and I tried to tap out at Liverpool St and didn’t allow me to go through. The inspector said if it allows me to tap out he would let me go. But checking my online journey history, none of this is showing up. Then when I next used the train I topped up. The next journeys I have been in balance.

 

[island]

On that day I was in -1.25 when I tappped in and I tried to tap out at Liverpool St and didn’t allow me to go through. The inspector said if it allows me to tap out he would let me go. But checking my online journey history, none of this is showing up. Then when I next used the train I topped up. The next journeys I have been in balance.

Please can you post up a screenshot or image of your day's travel, directly from the TfL website, and not just a textual summary.

 

[Orangejuice1]

Please can you post up a screenshot or image of your day's travel, directly from the TfL website, and not just a textual summary.

The incident occurred around 11:30 on the 29th - was the first journey of the day - image attached

 

[swt_passenger]

The incident occurred around 11:30 on the 29th - was the first journey of the day - image attached

I believe the way it works is that as you went into negative balance on the 28th, you cannot then register a successful tap in on the rail or tube network, so nothing is shown because it won’t affect your account, ie it won’t go more negative.

Does Stamford Hill have ticket barriers? I suspect you’ve heard something, but it was a warning.

 

[Orangejuice1]

I believe the way it works is that as you went into negative balance on the 28th, you cannot then register a successful tap in on the rail or tube network, so nothing is shown because it won’t affect your account, ie it won’t go more negative.

Does Stamford Hill have ticket barriers? I suspect you’ve heard something, but it was a warning.

Stamford Hill doesn’t have ticket barriers.

 

[3rd rail land]

I believe the way it works is that as you went into negative balance on the 28th, you cannot then register a successful tap in on the rail or tube network, so nothing is shown because it won’t affect your account, ie it won’t go more negative.

Does Stamford Hill have ticket barriers? I suspect you’ve heard something, but it was a warning.

What I suspect the OP heard was 2 beeps to indicate the tap in failed but they weren't paying attention so didn't realise. If there had been harriers the OP would have realised why because the barriers would not have opened and they would have probably checked their balance at a POM (passenger operated machine). If this is the case ti would explain why they cant find any record of the tap in at Stamford Hill.

As for the penalty fare I would advise the OP to pay it because they have effectively travelled without a valid ticket. They have no grounds for appeal from what I can ascertain.

 

[swt_passenger]

What I suspect the OP heard was 2 beeps to indicate the tap in failed but they weren't paying attention so didn't realise. If there had been harriers the OP would have realised why because the barriers would not have opened and they would have probably checked their balance at a POM (passenger operated machine). If this is the case ti would explain why they cant find any record of the tap in at Stamford Hill.

As for the penalty fare I would advise the OP to pay it because they have effectively travelled without a valid ticket. They have no grounds for appeal from what I can ascertain.

He wasn‘t offered a penalty fare, in post #1 he says his details were taken.

 

[30907]

I think I might be missing the end of your message, could you clarify what you mean

Sorry, poor editing - I was going to say that TfL tend to take a firm line on travel without a valid ticket/Oyster credit (which they do), but I deleted most of it because I didn't think it was directly relevant. Apologies - I'll tidy it now.

 

[3rd rail land]

He wasn‘t offered a penalty fare, in post #1 he says his details were taken.

I misremembered the details of the opening post. Well the OP is guilty so admitting guilt will at least reduce the amount this will cost. Ultimately the OP is responsible for ensuring they successfully touch in/have enough PAYG credit/a valid ticket. I doubt they will keep this matter out of court but they could try asking TFL, nothing to lose in doing so.

 

[island]

The incident occurred around 11:30 on the 29th - was the first journey of the day - image attached

So as you were in negative when you attempted to touch in at Stamford Hill, your touch-in would have been rejected, leading to a red light, 2 beeps, and a "seek assistance" message in the validator. It's unfortunate that you didn't notice any of these but proceeded on your journey. Your touch-out at Liverpool Street would have been rejected for the same reason.

As such I am afraid you have committed a criminal offence of joining a train without a ticket. You will need to see whether TfL might settle out of court.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Surely the ticket inspector could tell that there was a failed tap-in and a negative balance, so at least the OP had a clue what the issue was?
Its a shame the online Oystercard statement doesn't show this information as well, and sends out a warning about a low or negative balance.
But I notice that Oyster online has been playing up for the last few months, as I've not been getting my usual monthly statements

 

[furlong]

The problem is to defend this you really need to demonstrate that the system they put into place is inadequate. It undoubtedly is inadequate, but they certainly aren't going to want to admit that! So you're left having to find a middle route and persuading them to drop it, or going in strongly (e.g. getting them to disclose their own evidence of its shortcomings to try to undermine their position) and hope you can persuade a court the implementation of this part of the system is flawed and insufficient to support prosecutions. The beeps and brief lights mean nothing unless you have prior knowledge of the code that TfL uses and the text displayed is tiny and difficult to read even if you do happen to notice it. They did have a mechanism available that would have made you notice that you needed to top up, but presumably to save money chose not to use it (viz. a barrier that wouldn't have opened). But even a very simple change would have been enough I think - for example, if the card isn't valid for travel, wouldn't it be much more noticeable if the reader had remained silent instead of emitting coded beeps which I'm speculating from your original post might have confused you into thinking it had been read and was therefore valid? Silence might at least have encouraged you to pause and attempt to read the displayed text. The most noticeable part of a touch is the beep, and I'd suggest TfL is wrong to expect every user to have to learn that they don't consider a sequence of two beeps (which I assume is what's likely to have happened here) as representing a touch-in. Ask them to check the reader to prove you did touch the card etc.?

 

[Snow1964]

Unfortunately this is a strict liability offence. At end of Friday Oyster card had negative balance, therefore Oyster card is not valid for further travel until funds added.

Op used the empty Oyster card to try and take a rail journey, didn't spot it wasn't valid on tiny display alongside reader. All you can do now is reply and apologise that you accidentally let card run out of funds previous day, and subsequently topped it up as soon as you realised.

Unless you have any other mitigating factors, (eg registered partly deaf or blind) so couldn't interpret the messages the reader at Stamford Brook gave, just going to have to accept you are accidentally guilty and pay whatever bylaw fine is given.

Personally I have always thought the displays are too tiny, and usually being at waist height are only easy to read by small children and midgets, but taking on TfL to argue that might cost you tens of thousands in legal fees.

 

[furlong]

The counter to that might be (and the OP hasn't mentioned the beep as double so this might be completely wrong) that any alleged crime only happened because TfL's reader beeped when it was touched in a way that was very reasonably interpreted as meaning the card had been read OK and was therefore valid, the subtlety of double beeping unknown or unnoticed - or rather that TfL might bear some share of the culpability putting any potential prosecution into abuse of process territory.

 

[island]

The counter to that might be (and the OP hasn't mentioned the beep as double so this might be completely wrong) that any alleged crime only happened because TfL's reader beeped when it was touched in a way that was very reasonably interpreted as meaning the card had been read OK and was therefore valid, the subtlety of double beeping unknown or unnoticed - or rather that TfL might bear some share of the culpability putting any potential prosecution into abuse of process territory.

I think this line of argument is extremely unlikely to go anywhere unless the OP has conclusive evidence of the erroneous beeps.

 

[AdamWW]

I think this line of argument is extremely unlikely to go anywhere unless the OP has conclusive evidence of the erroneous beeps.

I thought the argument was not that somehow the reader didn't beep correctly, but that the difference between the correct response to a valid touch-in and an invalid one is somewhat subtle and that perhaps prosecuting someone for failing to tell the difference is unreasonable.

One might go on to suggest that when the laws regarding failure to present a valid ticket were written they were based on the presumption that a passenger can readily identify if they have a valid ticket or not.

 

[furlong]

I thought the argument was not that somehow the reader didn't beep correctly, but that the difference between the correct response to a valid touch-in and an invalid one is somewhat subtle and that perhaps prosecuting someone for failing to tell the difference is unreasonable.

One might go on to suggest that when the laws regarding failure to present a valid ticket were written they were based on the presumption that a passenger can readily identify if they have a valid ticket or not.

Exactly - but it's a can of worms that TfL is unlikely to want a court to even begin to examine because a decision against them could lead to big negative implications, financial and maybe political, and I can't be the only person whose gut feeling is that TfL may be in the wrong on this issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

Also do you have a railcard (or something else to support the discount) and were you carrying it and asked to show it?

 

[Orangejuice1]

Exactly - but it's a can of worms that TfL is unlikely to want a court to even begin to examine because a decision against them could lead to big negative implications, financial and maybe political, and I can't be the only person whose gut feeling is that TfL may be in the wrong on this issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 May 2023 ==

Also do you have a railcard (or something else to support the discount) and were you carrying it and asked to show it?

Yes this is exactly the issue that I wish I could express and fight but feels like it would be a very long battle. It is very unfair and does need to change though.

I do have a rail card and it is connected to my oyster but I was not asked to present it.

 

[Hadders]

I think what you reply in mitigation will be important here. TfL don't normally offer out of court settlements but they do sometimes issue a warning instead of taking a case to court. That is what you should be aiming to achieve here.

I would reply to TfL and admit the offence but be very clear about the mitigation. You might want to mention:

- That you are sorry about what has happened
- That you normally make sure you have sufficient credit on your Oyster card (assuming your journey history backs this up)
- On this occasion your account had inadvertently dropped into a negative balance
- There are no ticket gates at Stamford Hill so you touched-in on the validator at the station entrance and assumed your card had been accepted for travel
- You did not hear an adverse beep from the validator (Stamford Hill station is located on a busy road with a high level of background noise [that is my experience of this station])
- If your passing through Stamford Hill station before you reply check the condition of the small LED display on the validator - in my experience the plastic covering the screens has often deteriorated to the point that the display cannot be read. If this is the case at Stanford Hill then mention it

I recommens setting auto top-up on your Oyster card which means you won't have to worry about having insufficient credit on your card in future. If you do this before you respond then mention this in your reply as well.

Feel free to post a copy of your draft reply in this thread and we will be happy to proof read it for you.

I cannot guarantee that this strategy will keep the matter out of court but I think it's worth a go.

 

[Orangejuice1]

I think what you reply in mitigation will be important here. TfL don't normally offer out of court settlements but they do sometimes issue a warning instead of taking a case to court. That is what you should be aiming to achieve here.

I would reply to TfL and admit the offence but be very clear about the mitigation. You might want to mention:

- That you are sorry about what has happened
- That you normally make sure you have sufficient credit on your Oyster card (assuming your journey history backs this up)
- On this occasion your account had inadvertently dropped into a negative balance
- There are no ticket gates at Stamford Hill so you touched-in on the validator at the station entrance and assumed your card had been accepted for travel
- You did not hear an adverse beep from the validator (Stamford Hill station is located on a busy road with a high level of background noise [that is my experience of this station])
- If your passing through Stamford Hill station before you reply check the condition of the small LED display on the validator - in my experience the plastic covering the screens has often deteriorated to the point that the display cannot be read. If this is the case at Stanford Hill then mention it

I recommens setting auto top-up on your Oyster card which means you won't have to worry about having insufficient credit on your card in future. If you do this before you respond then mention this in your reply as well.

Feel free to post a copy of your draft reply in this thread and we will be happy to proof read it for you.

I cannot guarantee that this strategy will keep the matter out of court but I think it's worth a go.

Thanks that’s super helpful! I have drafted the letter attached

 

[furlong]

Just a small suggestion - others might disagree - to admit to the elements that might constitute an offence rather than to an offence itself. In other words does the sentence "I understand I committed an offence" actually add anything useful to the letter? But without it, you're leaving a small gap to expand on the inadequacy of their 'not valid for travel' notifications later if they continue with this and (after taking more advice) you decide to do this.