Possible £3,000 penalty for using ticket bought at station

[Haywain]

how can he persuade the TOC or Police to accept that plus say an appropriate administration fee as an outcome rather than going to court and having a fine and victim surcharge on top of that.

If it really was the police who stopped him, and who he will be dealing with, I can't see that an out of court settlement will be an option.

I wonder whether the customer would almost be better off volunteering to be interviewed as this may enable him to convince the TOC or Police that it was a genuine misunderstanding.

I think this is a very bad idea. He will have plenty of opportunity to incriminate himself without doing it in a formal setting voluntarily.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In view of what you say, and, in particular, the amount potentially at stake, your brother should perhaps now seek obtaining specialist legal representation.

Is what I recommended upthread, in post #2, now looking like the best course of action for the OP's brother, in view of what has since been advised?

 

[skyhigh]

Is what I recommended upthread, in post #2, now looking like the best course of action for the OP's brother, in view of what has since been advised?

I would probably wait until the letter is received but professional advice may well be wise given the significant sums and time period involved.

 

[Gloster]

A thought from a non-expert. Could the involvement of the police be because the railway realises that the sum they can reasonably demand to be repaid is so large that it may beyond the wherewithal of the brother to pay in one go? By involving the police they have a possibility of a prosecution under the Fraud Act 2006, which has a six-year deadline (I think), and allow a payment plan to be agreed that would extend to beyond the six month limit of most prosecutions. I am another who thinks that professional legal advice may be advisable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A thought from a non-expert. Could the involvement of the police be because the railway realises that the sum they can reasonably demand to be repaid is so large that it may beyond the wherewithal of the brother to pay in one go? By involving the police they have a possibility of a prosecution under the Fraud Act 2006, which has a six-year deadline (I think), and allow a payment plan to be agreed that would extend to beyond the six month limit of most prosecutions. I am another who thinks that professional legal advice may be advisable.

It's possible.

I am inclined to say I would seek proper paid legal representation were I in this position, particularly as I do agree the TVM UI presented above is downright misleading and may at least be able to be used to mitigate the punishment if presented in the right way in Court by a professional.

Generally I wouldn't expect a TVM to be selling anything not valid from the station it's at unless I had specifically changed the origin (which you can't do by accident) or it explicitly said so. Thus it's quite reasonable for a layman to assume that these tickets were outboundary Travelcards to the zones listed.

I also think it's likely any settlement offered, if one is, won't be the difference in fares but rather will be an Anytime Day Return (or pair of Anytime Day Singles) for the full journey for each day travelled, as this is the usual pattern for these, so it could well be a significant five figure sum they are after, not £3K which is hefty enough. In Court, knowledgeable professional representation may also be able to get this reduced to something more reasonable, e.g. an Anytime Day Return to BZ6 for each day.

 

[spag23]

If I were buying a zonal ticket from a machine that didn't involve it offering or displaying a named, different station, I'd naturally expect it to be valid from the station I was at. Or at least see it display/print a warning "Not Valid from Here".
If I were the OP, I'd video the process now, before the misleading interface gets re-written.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Another thought - does Earlswood station even have a ticket machine that would be capable of adding tickets to an Oyster card - it’s way outside the zones.

Given Oyster PAYG is valid there, I'd assume so to enable passengers to top up their credit.

Unfortunately I don't believe it's possible to just offer PAYG credit without the ability to also load a Travelcard Season onto the card.

I would, however, expect the TOC to provide prominent signage to make it clear that a 1-6 Oyster with no PAYG credit isn't valid for travel from the station, precisely to reduce the risk of issues like this occurring.

 

[fandroid]

In para 3 of post #1, the brother says "he thought he had the same deal as me"

I know it sounds odd to us sceptical old railway nerds, but it's well within the range of plausible misinterpretations, and the longer it went unchallenged at inspections the more comfortable the brother felt about its legitimacy.

I agree with others about recommending specialist legal representation.

 

[JonathanH]

I know it sounds odd to us sceptical old railway nerds, but it's well within the range of plausible misinterpretations, and the longer it went unchallenged at inspections the more comfortable the brother felt about its legitimacy.

Yes, but it still comes back to the inference that the person travelling never touched in or out at Earlswood or did so only when needing to do so 'for show'. A user with a Travelcard who believes it is valid 'should' (but not 'must') touch their Oyster card on the yellow reader where one is provided. The 'must' arises when they are travelling outside their Zones.

However, they seemingly created an electronic trace of their activity by purchasing the Oyster product at Earlswood and only touching in at the London end.

We don't know which inspections didn't get challenged. Any north of Coulsdon South wouldn't have been challenged. On a southbound journey beyond Coulsdon South it wouldn't be challenged provided PAYG credit was available, so that leaves northbound journeys. Even when there were blocks at Earlswood which I imagine are relatively infrequent, touching in gets the person travelling past the block.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/oyster-conditions-of-use-on-national-rail-services.pdf

Travelcards on Oyster
3.5 You can use a valid Travelcard season ticket on your Oyster card provided that any pay as you go balance on your Oyster card is not in debit. If the pay as you go balance on your card is in debit, you must clear it before you next use your Travelcard.
3.6 The Travelcard on your Oyster card is only valid for use by the person for whom it was issued. You may not transfer your Oyster card containing this Travelcard to anyone else in order to travel with it.
3.7 When you use a National Rail service, you should touch your Oyster card on the yellow card reader before you start your journey, at the station you are leaving from; and at the end of your journey, when you arrive at your
destination station. You can still use your Oyster card at stations where there is no yellow card reader or if it is not working provided that your Travelcard is valid for the journey you are making. You may be asked instead to show your Oyster card (and photocard where needed).
3.8 If you are using an Oyster card with a Travelcard season ticket (or tickets) loaded on to it and wish to start your journey from, or travel to, a destination outside the availability of your Travelcard season ticket, or on a route where your season ticket is not valid, you must buy a ticket for your journey. However, if your journey begins and ends at a station within the London National Rail Pay As You Go Area, you can follow the instructions set out in 3.19 and 3.20 provided you have sufficient pay as you go credit on your Oyster card to pay for the additional journey(s). Failure to either buy a ticket or follow the instructions laid out in 3.19 and 3.20 may mean you have to pay a penalty fare or you may be liable to prosecution.

Pay as you go on Oyster
3.19 If you have a valid Travelcard on your Oyster card which only covers the start or end of your journey, or only an intermediate section of it, you can use pay as you go to pay for that part (or those parts) of your journey not covered by your Travelcard, provided that your journey starts, finishes and takes place entirely within the London National Rail Pay As You Go Area. To ensure that you are charged the appropriate pay as you go fare and that the daily cap will, if
appropriate, be applied, you must touch in at the start and touch out at the end of your journey when using pay as you go.
3.20 If you are using an Oyster card with a Travelcard season ticket on it and you are travelling on a Train Company service to a station beyond the availability of your Travelcard season ticket, but within the London National Rail Pay As You Go Area, you must touch in before you start your journey and have sufficient pay as you go credit on your card to cover the cost of the additional travel. If you fail to touch in at the start of your journey, or have insufficient pay as
you go credit, you may be issued with a penalty fare or be prosecuted.

 

[AlterEgo]

In para 3 of post #1, the brother says "he thought he had the same deal as me"

I know it sounds odd to us sceptical old railway nerds, but it's well within the range of plausible misinterpretations, and the longer it went unchallenged at inspections the more comfortable the brother felt about its legitimacy.

I agree with others about recommending specialist legal representation.

As has been established, the OP’s ticket is from Stevenage to London zones, not just a regular standalone travelcard, so this doesn’t really make much sense.

 

[fandroid]

It's appropriate that we should point out what the railway staff might be thinking as a warning to the OP and his brother about the seriousness of this case, but that's obvious anyway from the sums that are seemingly involved.

If we take what happened at face value then there is something there that an experienced lawyer might be able to use in arguing mitigation, both to avoid court and in terms of reducing the amount to be paid back in a settlement. That's why I think that seeking specialist advice is the way to go and that we might limit our advice on here, from now on, to providing possible names of specialists.

 

[Titfield]

If it really was the police who stopped him, and who he will be dealing with, I can't see that an out of court settlement will be an option.

I think this is a very bad idea. He will have plenty of opportunity to incriminate himself without doing it in a formal setting voluntarily.

I did say I did wonder but the reason behind my suggestion was that I think the "TOC has him bang to rights". IMHO there is no question that he has not been paying the correct fare and therefore the question of incrimination does not arise.

The issue is whether this was done knowingly or whether it was done due to a genuine misunderstanding. IMHO the only chance of persuading the TOC that it was due to a genuine misunderstanding would be in person because pleas in person sound more genuine than on paper.

 

[Haywain]

If we take what happened at face value then there is something there that an experienced lawyer might be able to use in arguing mitigation, both to avoid court and in terms of reducing the amount to be paid back in a settlement. That's why I think that seeking specialist advice is the way to go and that we might limit our advice on here, from now on, to providing possible names of specialists.

I don't think we need to be naming specialists, as a simple search would allow the names of several to be found on these forums. However, the OP's brother needs to be aware that specialist legal assistance is not going to be cheap - recent cases have been costing in the region of £500 plus.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think it is generally accepted that the OP's brother owes the fares due. The question IMHO is how can he persuade the TOC or Police to accept that plus say an appropriate administration fee as an outcome rather than going to court and having a fine and victim surcharge on top of that.

I think trying to convince either the TOC or the Police that this was a genuine misunderstanding of what the product purchased actually entitled the customer to do (stations to travel between) is a mountain to climb. One could try reproducing the steps on the actual TVM and recording it but even then it would come back to whether or not a reasonable person would have taken the product displayed and purchased to entitle the customer to what the customer says he thought it did.

We talk about the attitude test but in this case I wonder whether the customer would almost be better off volunteering to be interviewed as this may enable him to convince the TOC or Police that it was a genuine misunderstanding. I do not have the benefit of seeing the steps on the TVM so do not know how realistic it is that the customer had a genuine misunderstanding.

AIUI the Ops brother has been buying weekly tickets for about 2 years so this would indicate 100+ purchase misunderstandings. It seems to me odd that having had the ticket checked "before during and at the end of his journey" (The OPs words) that no one picked up on this inconsistency of travelling to / from Earlsfield without covering (paying for) the first / last 2 stops. Could one argue that this reinforces the customers (mis)understanding that the ticket was valid? I think it is a point worth mentioning.

Personally I think the only way to get a satisfactory outcome for the OPs brother would be to be very contrite and apologetic and offer to pay all the fares due and an appropriate admin fee. I think the danger is that if the OPs brother even merely hints that he had doubts as to the ticket validity it would call into question why he did not make diligent enquiries. Perhaps he simply has to state that he fully believed the ticket was valid for the journeys he undertook as the ticket was checked on many occasions without question. The exact wording he uses will be significant.

This is a good point. Surely If the OP has beeen having his incorrect ticket checked for so long and accepted by inspectors, it’s ultimately the rail companies/tfl fault for not enforcing their own rules?

If I’m following correctly, it seems unfair for punishing someone for buying a ticket offered at that station, when it doesn’t cover travel from that station.

 

[AdamWW]

This is a good point. Surely If the OP has beeen having his incorrect ticket checked for so long and accepted by inspectors, it’s ultimately the rail companies/tfl fault for not enforcing their own rules?

I don't think that argument would go very far. On some TOCS guards will regularly sell tickets on trains to all comers without mentioning there's anything wrong about boarding without one, but it won't stop the the TOC (or its agents) from prosecuting someone who meets an RPI first.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely If the OP has beeen having his incorrect ticket checked for so long and accepted by inspectors, it’s ultimately the rail companies/tfl fault for not enforcing their own rules?

It hasn't been made clear by the original poster where these inspections have been happening.

In particular, the concept of the combination of a Travelcard on Oyster, and PAYG means that the inspectors could only treat the person travelling as having an incorrect ticket between Earlswood and Coulsdon South northbound.

Pleading ignorance on the fact that the person travelling hasn't yet been caught out is not a defence. As others have said, the person travelling has a responsibility to buy the correct ticket. The fact that the Oyster product cost around £70 a week and the paper ticket cost over £100 a week might be a giveaway.

If I’m following correctly, it seems unfair for punishing someone for buying a ticket offered at that station, when it doesn’t cover travel from that station.

You could potentially argue that there should be a warning message come up that the ticket being purchased is not valid for travel from that station, but it isn't unfair to punish someone for buying an incorrect ticket.

Besides, the issue here is really that the person travelling chose not to touch in at Earlswood on a systematic and repeated basis. Had they touched in just once they would have realised the Oyster product wasn't valid.

 

[spag23]

When I had a physical Thameslink + Zones 1-6 season ticket, I never touched or inserted it, unless I needed to in order to open a barrier. My thinking was that there was no transaction to be registered against the journey. OK, this distorted their stats, but otherwise there seemed no point. This may have been the OP's brother's thinking.

 

[Kenny G]

By involving the police they have a possibility of a prosecution under the Fraud Act 2006, which has a six-year deadline (I think), and allow a payment plan to be agreed that would extend to beyond the six month limit of most prosecutions.

Fraud Act 2006 offences can be heard in the Crown Court and therefore as no time limit is stated in the legislation there is no time limit for when a prosection may be brought. With summary only offences, ones that can only be heard at magistrates, the default time limit is six months.
The six year time limit applies to civil claims but as with the current Prince Harry case there are plenty of ways to argue the start point for the six years can be after the event itself.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It hasn't been made clear by the original poster where these inspections have been happening.

In particular, the concept of the combination of a Travelcard on Oyster, and PAYG means that the inspectors could only treat the person travelling as having an incorrect ticket between Earlswood and Coulsdon South northbound.

Pleading ignorance on the fact that the person travelling hasn't yet been caught out is not a defence. As others have said, the person travelling has a responsibility to buy the correct ticket. The fact that the Oyster product cost around £70 a week and the paper ticket cost over £100 a week might be a giveaway.


You could potentially argue that there should be a warning message come up that the ticket being purchased is not valid for travel from that station, but it isn't unfair to punish someone for buying an incorrect ticket.

Besides, the issue here is really that the person travelling chose not to touch in at Earlswood on a systematic and repeated basis. Had they touched in just once they would have realised the Oyster product wasn't valid.

One could argue in contract law, what is offered at the time of sale should be the expected product. If the label isn't clear or no warning has been issued to the customer, the onus is on the seller of the product not to infer a service they weren't providing at the time of sale.

 

[simonw]

One could argue in contract law, what is offered at the time of sale should be the expected product. If the label isn't clear or no warning has been issued to the customer, the onus is on the seller of the product not to infer a service they weren't providing at the time of sale.

I'm not sure what point you are arguing here. However, a ticket machine is an invitation to treat and the customer offers to buy a ticket by selecting from a screen or screens. If the customer offers to buy the wrong ticket for the service they require (either in error or in an attempt to save money), it's difficult to see how that is the fault of the TOC, if the correct ticket is available and there is no attempt to mislead. A ticket machine provides a range of options some of which do not fulfil the customers requirements (including tickets not valid from that station) and it is down to the customer to request the right ticket.

 

[MotCO]

In particular, the concept of the combination of a Travelcard on Oyster, and PAYG means that the inspectors could only treat the person travelling as having an incorrect ticket between Earlswood and Coulsdon South northbound.

What checks can a TOC inspector (as oppposed to a TfL inspector) make on an oyster card? Can they read information from the card, or is it a bit like TfL inspecting bank cards where they can only see you have a bank card.

The reason for asking is whether any ticket check can check the validity of the card, if not, that might lead to the false impression that the card was valid because the inspector did not say otherwise because he could not check.

 

[AlterEgo]

One could argue in contract law, what is offered at the time of sale should be the expected product. If the label isn't clear or no warning has been issued to the customer, the onus is on the seller of the product not to infer a service they weren't providing at the time of sale.

This is what you’d like to happen but not what we are dealing with, which is reality.

 

[Haywain]

What checks can a TOC inspector (as oppposed to a TfL inspector) make on an oyster card? Can they read information from the card, or is it a bit like TfL inspecting bank cards where they can only see you have a bank card.

The reason for asking is whether any ticket check can check the validity of the card, if not, that might lead to the false impression that the card was valid because the inspector did not say otherwise because he could not check.

The inspection device should tell them what ticket is held and the last few touches of the card, as well as indicating what PAYG balance is on it.

 

[JonathanH]

One could argue in contract law, what is offered at the time of sale should be the expected product. If the label isn't clear or no warning has been issued to the customer, the onus is on the seller of the product not to infer a service they weren't providing at the time of sale.

There is no Oyster product other than PAYG valid at Earlswood. The interface as shown above is quite clear as to which zones are included for each product, and Earlswood isn't in those zones. I'm not sure how it could be inferred that the Oyster Travelcard Product includes Earlswood.

However, because PAYG is valid, it is perfectly admissible to purchase any Zone 1-x travelcard, then touch in or out at Earlswood for every journey with the relevant charge deducted, or use a paper ticket between Earlswood and the first station inside the relevant zone boundary.

Weekly capping on Contactless is available, although as this costs £126.60 a week and includes Zones 1-9 it isn't a great deal. I don't think it is known whether the extension fare on Oyster PAYG for someone holding a Zone 1-6 Travelcard on Oyster is simply the £5.10 peak single cost each way from Earlswood to Coulsdon South.