Please help — Stopped at Farringdon w/ valid ticket

[talldave]

Just a small point which may explain - but certainly does not excuse - the suspicion of the RPIs: the Anytime DAY Return from Crawley to London TL is twice the price of that from Gatwick!
Presume something to do with Oyster?

Surely irrelevant? It's often cheaper to buy a ticket to/from somewhere you're not going.

 

[BSmart1991]

Just a small point which may explain - but certainly does not excuse - the suspicion of the RPIs: the Anytime DAY Return from Crawley to London TL is twice the price of that from Gatwick!
Presume something to do with Oyster?

Just looked at this myself. That's crazy. I think it might be to do with that and also that there are no fast trains - i.e they all stop at stations between Three Bridges and East Croydon.

Whereas there are fast trains from Gatwick to East Croydon with no stations in between (hope that makes sense)

So if the inspection officer's knowledge is good...he's prob thinking I'm trying to evade paying the difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==

Issued at 08:14 it says.
The train's arrival is recorded as 08:13 but the departure as 08:17. The train didn't stop at Crawley. So is the allegation that you began on the 08:02 Victoria train and changed at Gatwick rather than East Croydon? Meaning you must have left the house at what time to do that compared to the time you left the house to catch the Gatwick service? Why would someone choose to set off earlier to make a longer journey that would also a lot cost more (if the correct price was paid) rather than taking the shorter, cheaper, more convenient direct train option?



Did the inspector scan any of them to check whether or not they showed touch-ins at Gatwick?



What was that journey? Also from Gatwick not Crawley?

I wish I'd asked him to scan all previous tickets...even yesterday...which would have shown I'd started my journey at Gatwick. Hindsight and all.

The previous incident journey was also from a legit journey from Gatwick to Thameslink.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 May 2024 ==

I split ticket at gatwick airport so my gatwick to london ticket would never be validated at the start only at the end ?

Swear they just make it up as they go along.

 

[island]

Given that I genuinely hold a valid ticket for my entire journey, my understanding is that they cannot prosecute me or charge me for the cost of the ticket.

If everything you have said is accurate, and you held a ticket before getting on the train, you can't be prosecuted for that.

I was intiailly extremely frustrated and refued to give my details immediately

However, it's an offence to fail to give your details. Depending on the specific interaction and how long it took before you complied with the request for your details, it might be possible that you are charged with this offence. But it is very situational.

 

[furlong]

But it is very situational.

And the suspicion of a byelaw breach has to be reasonable which leaves plenty of scope for debate.

 

[Camsus]

The ticket barriers at the rear entrance to Gatwick station have been open since Weds/Thurs last week. I overheard a staff member telling someone they're broken

 

[DeverseSam]

I split ticket at gatwick airport so my gatwick to london ticket would never be validated at the start only at the end ?

Good idea, the forum booking site recommends splitting at Gatwick if travelling from Crawley

 

[furlong]

If those two things are true, then you should consider making a formal complaint against the employee concerned with the expectation that the company will pay you compensation for what you've been put through and institute disciplinary action for acting to the detriment of a passenger on the basis of an invented falsehood.

 

[island]

I wouldn't bother.

If those two things are true, then you should consider making a formal complaint against the employee concerned with the expectation that the company will pay you compensation for what you've been put through

There is little chance of this happening

and institute disciplinary action for acting to the detriment of a passenger on the basis of an invented falsehood.

even less chance of this happening, and zero chance that if it does happen you will be told about it.

We need to focus back on the matter at hand, which is making sure the OP doesn't get prosecuted.

 

[BSmart1991]

Hi All,

I am still yet to hear from Thameslink, so I am intending on sending the attached letter.

It may come across a bit frosty — I guess that's the frustration still lurking. Feedback/Advice welcome.

Thanks!

 

[AlbertBeale]

Hi All,

I am still yet to hear from Thameslink, so I am intending on sending the attached letter.

It may come across a bit frosty — I guess that's the frustration still lurking. Feedback/Advice welcome.

Thanks!

I suspect that at the top of the second page you mean "defuse the situation", not "diffuse the situation" ... which can sometimes have just the opposite meaning!

 

[Hadders]

I do not recommend contacting GTR about this. It is up to them to contact you.

 

[tskir]

However, it's an offence to fail to give your details.

Isn't it the case that you have to *either* present a valid ticket *or* give details?

To me it looks like OP, at the point of inspection, presented an unambiguously valid ticket, so was not obligated to give their details.

(Provided that the ticket could feasibly had been bought before a recently arriving train departed, so was not purchased e.g. 5 minutes before presenting to the inspector.)

 

[Haywain]

Feedback/Advice welcome.

Do not send this. It is for GTR to contact you, if they see fit to do so. It is better not to stir the hornets nest, even if you are in the right.

 

[island]

Isn't it the case that you have to *either* present a valid ticket *or* give details?

To me it looks like OP, at the point of inspection, presented an unambiguously valid ticket, so was not obligated to give their details.

(Provided that the ticket could feasibly had been bought before a recently arriving train departed, so was not purchased e.g. 5 minutes before presenting to the inspector.)

Railway byelaw 23 requires you to give your name and address to an authorised person if they reasonably suspect you of having breached a byelaw.

The threshold is not that their belief is correct, but that it is reasonable. Reasonable is a low bar and it is possible for someone to be reasonable and also wrong. You will no doubt reply that the inspector was being unreasonable which I don't think it's possible to conclude on the facts given and with the limited knowledge the inspector had at the point in time.

 

[MrJeeves]

Sold by FTPL INTERNET BOOKING ENGINE (3043)

Is that the forum booking site?

Any site powered by Raileasy, including the forum's or TrainSplit.

I'm also in agreement with many of the other posters in that there is no reason to contact GTR yet.

They may well have chosen not to contact you as they have realised you have not done anything wrong!

 

[tskir]

Railway byelaw 23 requires you to give your name and address to an authorised person if they reasonably suspect you of having breached a byelaw.

Thank you! I didn't know that, much appreciated