Penalty Fare

[RJ]

Ah, purchased some credit for the card two days ago which was activated yesterday. Made some journeys but the history isn't working yet, midnight has come and gone.

An update on this situation. TfL have provided me with documents that form cast iron evidence that I had enough credit to cover the journey and that a technical error caused the card to charge incorrectly. This will be enough to prove that the appeal was not properly considered and that the Penalty Fare was incorrectly issued. Three more letters to go in the post in the morning .

Say what you will about TfL but they are very good at dealing with discrepancies with Oyster Cards. I received a cheque to refund the failed season ticket too . What they sent me was a Journey Status Report (not a Usage Statement) which shows full detail of every single validation, successful or not including the validator/TVM/gate number, how much was deducted/refunded, balance and whether or not it caused a cap to be applied.

 

[MikeWh]

It'll be a couple of days before that history shows online. I'm not sure what time of day it appears, but I doubt it's dead on midnight.

 

[b0b]

I've read about other people getting a penalty fare, usually for not carrying a ticket giving some weak excuse and hoping they'll be let off, but not for this sort of situation. I had the credit to complete the journey, touched in and out correctly but got caught by a flaw in the Oyster system.

Too bad. You should have had enough credit for all possible combinations that the Oyster system could have sold you the tickets. Valid PF.

 

[jon0844]

Yes. In fact, you should buy an All Line Rover so that you always have a valid ticket as a backup for when things outside of your control go wrong.

 

[b0b]

Yes. In fact, you should buy an All Line Rover so that you always have a valid ticket as a backup for when things outside of your control go wrong.

He should have checked prior to touching in on the last journey that he had enough credit to complete it. Since he did not check - it is a valid PF.

 

[Mike395]

b0b, are you suggesting that the PF is valid and that any appeal would be declined in your view? Yes fair enough, the RPI at Liverpool Street issuing the PF may not know the route the OP has taken, but surely the fact it is Oyster's error means that it should be thrown in the bin on appeal?

 

[RJ]

He should have checked prior to touching in on the last journey that he had enough credit to complete it. Since he did not check - it is a valid PF.

Had £2.30 when touching in at Forest Gate, got a green light when validating. Forest Gate - Liverpool Street costs £2.00 on Oyster PAYG. Don't know what your addition skills are like but I can tell you that £2.30 is more than sufficient to cover a £2.00 journey.

I hold a letter from TfL who acknowledged that a technical error caused me to be incorrectly charged despite validating correctly, and also an internal usage report from them that backs this up. Show me where in the Penalty Fare Rules or NCoC it states that a techinical error with an Electronic Ticket that occurs mid-journey leaves the customer liable for a Penalty Fare?

You may not like the fact that I approach such matters objectively and tell it like it is but there's no need to be pretentious.

I'm not relying on any element of sympathy in the hope of winning an appeal. I'm more than happy for it to be based upon strict interpretation of the NCoC, Penalty Fare rules and tangible evidence.

Yes. In fact, you should buy an All Line Rover so that you always have a valid ticket as a backup for when things outside of your control go wrong.

See above paragraph .

 

[jon0844]

In view of the fact that TfL admitted the error, I think the PF must be dropped. Even if both TfL and the rail operator could argue about who to blame, the customer should not be further inconvenienced.

If the TOC deems the PF to be totally valid, perhaps it should be someone at TfL that is made to pay the penalty for THEIR mistake?

 

[RJ]

I have been advised by an expert in the field that the TOC should refund me and claim any expenses from TfL.

 

[b0b]

Had £2.30 when touching in at Forest Gate, got a green light when validating. Forest Gate - Liverpool Street costs £2.00 on Oyster PAYG. Don't know what your addition skills are like but I can tell you that £2.30 is more than sufficient to cover a £2.00 journey.

I hold a letter from TfL who acknowledged that a technical error caused me to be incorrectly charged despite validating correctly, and also an internal usage report from them that backs this up. Show me where in the Penalty Fare Rules or NCoC it states that a techinical error with an Electronic Ticket that occurs mid-journey leaves the customer liable for a Penalty Fare?

You may not like the fact that I approach such matters objectively and tell it like it is but there's no need to be pretentious.

I'm not relying on any element of sympathy in the hope of winning an appeal. I'm more than happy for it to be based upon strict interpretation of the NCoC, Penalty Fare rules and tangible evidence.



See above paragraph .

NRCOC:
Some Smartcards may be used to buy stored credit which you can use later to buy Electronic Tickets. In these Conditions, credit stored in this way is termed Electronic Funds. It is your responsibility to make sure that you have enough Electronic Funds on your Smartcard to pay for the Electronic Ticket required for the journey you intend to make.

You didn't have enough funds. PF.

 

[jon0844]

Are you trolling? Have you actually read any of this thread?

There was a mistake which resulted in too much money being taken.

If my bank overcharges me (as it has done before), is it my responsibility to ensure I've taken out a loan or an overdraft to cover the money that is incorrectly taken?

Given the fact that it is possible for TfL to overcharge, I'd even go as far as to say that I'd want to make sure I had the bare minimum on my card to ensure that I never ended up out of pocket, or having to make lengthy claims to get my own money back.

 

[Mojo]

Are you trolling? Have you actually read any of this thread?

I think it was a joke regarding the other penalty fares thread

 

[Greenback]

Are you trolling? Have you actually read any of this thread?

There was a mistake which resulted in too much money being taken.

If my bank overcharges me (as it has done before), is it my responsibility to ensure I've taken out a loan or an overdraft to cover the money that is incorrectly taken?

Given the fact that it is possible for TfL to overcharge, I'd even go as far as to say that I'd want to make sure I had the bare minimum on my card to ensure that I never ended up out of pocket, or having to make lengthy claims to get my own money back.

I think it's all related to the other penalty fare thread where Jenny was PF'd for over travelling, even though she had paid exactly the same fare.

Oh, Mojo beat me to it!

 

[RJ]

NRCOC:
Some Smartcards may be used to buy stored credit which you can use later to buy Electronic Tickets. In these Conditions, credit stored in this way is termed Electronic Funds. It is your responsibility to make sure that you have enough Electronic Funds on your Smartcard to pay for the Electronic Ticket required for the journey you intend to make.

You didn't have enough funds. PF.

So £2.30 isn't enough for a £2.00 journey?

TfL have always been very good with the after service when I've had issues with Oyster Cards in the past. This time is no exception and they have admitted there was an error on their side. They do not have the authority to cancel the PF so they've supplied me with the concrete evidence required to prove that I was not at fault. This also directly cancels out the pathetic reason the IAS gave for rejecting the appeal which is identical to what bob has posted above, almost to the letter.

b0b seems to confuse me approaching matters with an objective viewpoint and considering facts only, with me thinking that it is ok for RPIs to illegitimately issue PFs.

Spiteful troll .

 

[b0b]

So £2.30 isn't enough for a £2.00 journey?

That's not how much the journey you made though, you made this one:

"I was travelling from Forest Hill to Liverpool Street thanks to OSIs threading the journeys together to make one long one."

which you did not have sufficient credit for. It is your responsibility to figure out Oyster journeys.

intriguingly, the "insufficient fare on smartcard" is not one of the reasons that a PF can be issued according to my reading of the NRCOC - though they would probably tru and claim overdistance for the credit you have

 

[Deerfold]

That's not how much the journey you made though, you made this one:

"I was travelling from Forest Hill to Liverpool Street thanks to OSIs threading the journeys together to make one long one."

which you did not have sufficient credit for. It is your responsibility to figure out Oyster journeys.

Is it really? Are we going to be given a proper detailed technical description of how it works so we can expect these little anomolies?

 

[MikeWh]

As someone who made the second reply to this thread and several others within it, I find the recent posts by b0b to be somewhat confusing. At first it did seem like a joke, but by the third and fourth post containing further extracts from official documents it is clear that he's deadly serious.

RJ started his journey with £5.40 credit. It deducted the correct amount all the way to Woodgrange Park leaving him with £2.30. It should have deducted £2 for the journey from Forest Gate to Liverpool Street. Because the OSI between Woodgrange Park and Forest Gate was still active it did not do this because it thought he was continuing his journey. When he got to Liverpool Street it decided that he hadn't completed the journey starting at Forest Hill (because he'd taken too long to get there) so it charged £4.30 for that, then tried to charge another £4.30 for an incomplete journey ending at Liverpool Street.

TfL have reviewed all the information, adjusted his balance to reflect the journeys he actually made, and provided him with enough evidence to get the PF overturned. Given the complexity of the journeys he tried to make that day I don't think that the RPIs should actually have issued the PF in the first place. They should have contacted the Oyster helpline and sought advice from someone who knows the Oyster system inside out.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it really? Are we going to be given a proper detailed technical description of how it works so we can expect these little anomolies?

The anomaly was making an unusual sequence of journeys in East London that could be interpreted as a loop rather than two seperate journeys. My advice in this situation is to either (a) ensure that enough time is taken to break one OSI, preferably at the furthest extent of the loop, or (b) touch out and then in again at the same station to break the journey. I'm sure RJ had his reasons for looping back via Manor Park on the way to Woodgrange Park, but most people would actually have got off at Forest Gate and walked.

 

[b0b]

I thought the original problem was the OSI's had caused a higher fare to be chosen than if the fare had been calculated in the way the OP expected.

I didn't catch that there was a technical issue with the system and that was not the case. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RJ]

I had my reasons for going via Manor Park/Woodgrange Park but the TOCs only need to know that I made a journey I was perfectly entitled to make with the credit I had.

If I had made it to Liverpool Street 3 minutes earlier, I'd have been charged £2.00 (Z3 - Z1 fare) for the entire series of journeys, because of the OSI system. Following this incident, I've come to realise a few things. It categorically states on the TfL site that Oyster will charge a flat fare between points A - B, no matter what route is taken. This appears to include if an OSI is used. Therefore, somebody could travel from Z1 - Z1 via an insane route and be charged the Z1 only fare as if they made a direct journey, so long as they finished within the time limit. Such a journey is in line with the NCoC and RPIs will see the card as valid throughout the journey. Technically valid but morally could be seen as fare avoidance at best, fare evasion at worst. Such a trick with a paper ticket will get you a PF if caught. This might be why the list of OSIs is nowhere to be seen on TfL's site. This was picked up on in Barry Doe's column in Rail which was written to question why TfL don't publish it.

For the record, if journey A - B is not completed within the time limit (maybe the train was delayed en route), the card will register an A - Uncompleted, B - (new journey). The maximum Entry Charge will be deducted at both points. This is what happened to me, except I did not have enough for a second Entry Charge so the barrier rejected it. Yes, it will attempt an entry if touched on an exit barrier. This is a recognised phenomenon and the official instruction to RPIs is to check the journey history to establish whether or not the customer was attempting to fare evade.

 

[MikeWh]

Barry Doe himself actually did something similar as recounted in the last issue of RAIL. He travelled from Dalston Junction to Crystal Palace on Overground and then continued to Clapham Junction on Southern. It should have charged a Z1-3 fare (Shoreditch High Street being Z1) but actually charged a Z2 only fare. The system is set up as if the ELL extension to Highbury is open already and assumed that the journey went via the NLL.

The beauty of the Oyster system is that as long as you have an entry charge showing on your card you cannot be PF'd en route because the calculation of the fare is only made when you exit.

I'm not convinced that Exit gates will try to start a journey if you've taken too long. Validators for entry/exit will do, but exit gates should only record exits. The story about a passenger who took too long to get from Sutton to London Bridge but went on to North Greenwich and the system corrected itself seems to back this up.

 

[RJ]

I also discovered something else. TfL fares apply on all TfL routes. Therefore if I use my 16+ Zip Card on my morning college commute Forest Hill to East Croydon, it charges the adult fare. If I use it from Forest Hill to West Croydon, it will charge the child fare like it does on the Tube/routes where PAYG was accepted before 02/01/10. I wish I had stumbled upon this nugget of info before, as I often used an adult card to complete this journey (because I often travel a lot in the off peak and my 16-25 Oyster will not cap at £5 if used before 10:00).

Therefore, if I commute to work from Forest Hill to Farringdon, will it charge me the adult fare or child fare? TfL Fares Finder says I pay the adult fare of £2.60 with no concession offered, there really should be as there's a pink reader at Whitechapel. However, Forest Hill - Barbican costs £1.35 so there's an anomaly here.

I didn't like using my 16+ for anything other than Season tickets as it caps at the adult rate. I'll be using it more from now, having done my research. Combining this with my 16 - 25 Oyster means I can save quite a bit.

 

[yorkie]

This is a recognised phenomenon and the official instruction to RPIs is to check the journey history to establish whether or not the customer was attempting to fare evade.

Interesting.

What are they meant to do if a customer is attempting to fare evade?
What are they meant to do if a customer is not attempting to fare evade?
Under what circumstances can they issue a PF? (Bearing in mind that PFs are not meant to be issued to fare evaders)

 

[RJ]

Barry Doe himself actually did something similar as recounted in the last issue of RAIL. He travelled from Dalston Junction to Crystal Palace on Overground and then continued to Clapham Junction on Southern. It should have charged a Z1-3 fare (Shoreditch High Street being Z1) but actually charged a Z2 only fare. The system is set up as if the ELL extension to Highbury is open already and assumed that the journey went via the NLL.

The beauty of the Oyster system is that as long as you have an entry charge showing on your card you cannot be PF'd en route because the calculation of the fare is only made when you exit.

I'm not convinced that Exit gates will try to start a journey if you've taken too long. Validators for entry/exit will do, but exit gates should only record exits. The story about a passenger who took too long to get from Sutton to London Bridge but went on to North Greenwich and the system corrected itself seems to back this up.

Ah I haven't read that one, will have a look at it as it sounds interesting. The card may have assumed he travelled via NLL, yes. The principle being that Zone A - Zone B is at a flat fare (and time limit) regardless of route. The surprising fact is that this also includes journeys that use OSIs.

The downside of OSIs is that they do not have any effect on the maximum permitted time. I found this out the hard way when travelling from Pontoon Dock - Clapham Junction via Bank / Euston / Willesden Junction. I was out of the system at Euston for something like 45+ minutes but the card decided it was an OSI. I had hoped it would charge as two seperate journeys as I was only £1 away from the daily cap when I touched in at Pontoon Dock. Alas, rejected exit at Clapham Junction, Entry Charge from Pontoon Dock deducted, daily cap disabled! TfL admitted an error then too and reimbursed me .

 

[yorkie]

I didn't like using my 16+ for anything other than Season tickets as it caps at the adult rate. I'll be using it more from now, having done my research. Combining this with my 16 - 25 Oyster means I can save quite a bit.

So you effectively have 2 Oyster cards? Can't the discounts be combined into 1 card? If not, that seems crazy!

 

[RJ]

I had the 16 - 25 discount applied to my 16+ Zip temporarily. All it did was upset the ticket barriers and show bizarre error messages on bus validators so I had it taken off forthwith. LUL's Ticketing and Revenue newsletter instructs retail staff that the 16 - 25 discount is current not compatible with the 16+/Priv Oyster Cards and that customers are advised to have the 16 - 25 discount applied to a standard Oyster Card for the time being.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting.

What are they meant to do if a customer is attempting to fare evade?
What are they meant to do if a customer is not attempting to fare evade?
Under what circumstances can they issue a PF? (Bearing in mind that PFs are not meant to be issued to fare evaders)

I wish I knew.

 

[MikeWh]

Therefore, if I commute to work from Forest Hill to Farringdon, will it charge me the adult fare or child fare? TfL Fares Finder says I pay the adult fare of £2.60 with no concession offered, there really should be as there's a pink reader at Whitechapel. However, Forest Hill - Barbican costs £1.35 so there's an anomaly here.

I'd say you should try it, using the validator at Whitechapel. I reckon that the fare finder is assuming you'll use Southern to London Bridge then FCC to Farringdon. If you tell it otherwise it might give you the right fare.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not convinced that Exit gates will try to start a journey if you've taken too long. Validators for entry/exit will do, but exit gates should only record exits. The story about a passenger who took too long to get from Sutton to London Bridge but went on to North Greenwich and the system corrected itself seems to back this up.

Back in 2007 or so when I think the 'maximum cash fare' (the entry fee if you like) was normally £4.00 on LU journeys, I was definitely charged £8.00 for a journey that had taken too long.

This was explained by the chap at Hammersmith H&C ticket office, where I got it sorted out#, as a max cash fare for the uncompleted journey, and another max cash fare as I had exited from an 'unstarted journey'. The latter suggests that an exit gate touch out will charge a max cash fare if it can't find a corresponding touch in.

# nowadays they'd probably just say go away and ring the help desk...

 

[RJ]

The IAS have overturned their original decision to reject my appeal. I received a cheque for the full £20 and confirmation that the Penalty Fare Notice had been cancelled today. I wrote them a strongly worded letter following the initial rejection. I won't elucidate on exactly what I said but suffice to say it worked. All without the hassle of getting threatening letters, being taken to court and risking prosecution.

Now that I've got what I wanted, the case is closed as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MikeWh]

The right decision in my view. Well done for persuing it.

 

[RJ]

I've uncovered a serious problem with the passenger/TOC contract in the process. So serious that I wanted to take it up with ATOC.I had drafted a letter to the appropriate managers which I was intending to post on Monday but as the IAS have resolved it I'm going to leave it.

My own Oyster is causing no end of problems and once it expires on the 30th September I'm giving up on it completely. I hold a Zone 1-6 season ticket. Since I bought it, the card has taken £6.80 off me and stopped working. Yesterday I travelled from Forest Hill to Marylebone LU, then Marylebone NR - Feltham. Despite me having a Z1-6 TKT, it was doing some stupidness with OSIs, decided I was travelling from Forest Hill - Feltham and charged me for not completing it within the time limit, sending me into arrears!

I then attempted to travel Twickenham - Waterloo and got Code 35 rejections at both ends (as well as when I touched out at Feltham). Had the bloke at Waterloo scratching his head and he just refunded me eventually.

I'm actually fed up with it now. The system is crippled by its own complexity. If I wasn't trying to learn about every nook and cranny of how it works (and I feel I've barely scratched the surface), my money would be going down the drain and I wouldn't have the first clue why.