South Eastern - Railway Byelaw 18 with VALID Oyster

[Hannes]

Good day all, first time poster here looking for some advice.

A few months ago on a Friday evening I went out to the pub with some work colleagues, as many people do. Eventually it was time to head elsewhere to meet some other friends, so I made my way to Moorgate station.

I had an Oyster Card, Zones 1-2, with £8 of credit, which I used to Touch In. I traveled south to London Bridge on the tube and Touched Out there. Then I Touched In for London Bridge to take one train to Zone 4 to complete my journey. (I'd like the station to remain anonymous, but just so you know it has no barriers but is on the Oyster system)

The train was a bit delayed and I needed to use the toilet, but I held it in since the pub I was going to was right next to the train station and I could use the facilities there.

Anyway, I get off the train and begin walking towards the exit, only to be confronted with a large number of people having their tickets checked by inspectors. Realising this might take a while, I decide to pop back to the platform to make use of their toilets when, as I'm sure you can guess, a plain clothes inspector instantly asks for my ticket. I show him my Oyster and explain the situation, but he doesn't believe me and instead think my intent was to avoid paying the significant sum of £2.20. He takes down my details, cautions me and asks me some questions. I make it clear I had a valid Oyster with credit to complete my journey.

He also asks about a prior journey where I had an incomplete journey history on my Oyster card. I explain that for work I regularly travel to different clients and use paper tickets to do so, and that I must have used my Oyster to pass through the barrier instead of the paper ticket, but no fare was evaded. I have a strong financial record of payments with South Eastern and other rail companies to support this claim.

We wrap things up there and I Touch Out, completing my journey. Note that I had passed NO Oyster touch points before the inspector asked to see my ticket. I had ZERO opportunities to Touch Out prior to this.

Some time later I get a generic letter from South Eastern asking to explain my version of events, which I do.

And then a few days ago I get a Summons claiming I was in violation of Byelaw 18 of the Railways Byelaws 2005! They want £5 for the outstanding fare and £125 for prosecution costs.

In the statement provided by the inspector, he quotes my Oyster card number and confirms it was valid for Zones 1 and 2, but makes no reference to the fact an Oyster card is valid to as far as the credit on it will take me! And in the "statement of facts" they claim I "was unable to produce a valid ticket for the journey made".

Should I simply plead not guilty, take this to court, show my Oyster card record for that journey and walk out a free man?

Should I threaten South Eastern with legal action, claiming they've made a false claim to the courts when I clearly was in possession of a valid ticket?

Or would my apparent "attempt to avoid the inspectors" be sufficient for them to claim my Oyster was invalid, and therefore I did travel without a valid ticket?? (this is not implied at any point in their correspondence)

Any and all help greatly appreciated. More than happy to provide additional information if required.

 

[yorkie]

Should I simply plead not guilty, take this to court, show my Oyster card record for that journey and walk out a free man?

Based on what you've said, you should fight it, in my opinion, but obviously you will need proper legal representation by an experienced solicitor. Do not under any circumstances attempt to represent yourself.

 

[najaB]

Good day all, first time poster here looking for some advice.

If what you have posted is the full story with no omissions, then you are not guilty of the charge that has been made against you.

I would start by writing back to South Eastern trains, asking for the matter to be closed, enclosing a copy of your Oyster record showing the touch in and out for the journey.

 

[tony6499]

What station has a toilet on the platform ? The fact that you saw an inspector and did a reverse gave him suspicions that you were avoiding the block, did you tell him you needed the toilet or did he question you first ?

 

[najaB]

What station has a toilet on the platform?

Quite a few stations have toilets on the platform side of the ticket barrier.

 

[tony6499]

Quite a few stations have toilets on the platform side of the ticket barrier.

Be interested which one as it is the crux of what happened really, he couldn't wait to go to loo but no mention of it at all after being stopped. If I was that bursting I would tell the inspector he would have to wait to question me, that would take a lot longer than going through the gate originally.

 

[185143]

I don't understand why SE want £5 for the fare? Presumably this is the equivalent cash fare?

OP, in my opinion you definitely had a valid reason for turning back, but if you didn't mention this to the inspector, you may have a tough time proving it.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm inclined to agree with those who are confident that this claim against you can be challenged successfully; there's just 2 technicalities which I'd want to be quite clear about before giving you my own confident support.

Firstly, I'd like to be assured that the 'incomplete journey' on your Oyster Card was historic and could not in anyway be included in part of the journey which you were taking at the time of the discussion with the Inspector (which in itself would, of course, be 'incomplete' at the time you were apprehended and I assume that this was not the 'incomplete journey' that you were informed of).
Secondly, I'd like to be clear that the toilets you were about to use were unambigously within the Oyster charging zone (as opposed to merely being accessible without passing a validator).

If I was persuaded that these two issues were not relevant to the accusation against you, and that everything else you have reported is true, then I agree that this could be contested successfully. It will not be a difficult or complex matter, and any local Law Firm with someone specialising in routine Criminal Defence work for local people in trouble with the law will be able to deal with this simply.

But, if you can achieve those, and the facts you have presented here are also consistent with any evidence that the Inspector or other Investigating Officer will be able to simply verify, then I really don't see that there is any need to instruct a solicitor and, as najaB suggests, you may be able to conclude the matter yourself by a letter including a factual report of the facts and the supporting Oyster history report.

I'm left with 2 possible lines of progress in mind:-

First - as I've set out for you above, the 'defensive' approach in which you try to resolve it yourself with the evidence available to you, or, you instruct a Criminal Defence solicitor from a local Law Firm.

Second - if there is more to this than is apparent from your report on here, or that the Company has any evidential reason to believe that there is (which would explain why their Prosecutor has taken the action of which you've been notified), then, you may indeed be better advised to admit guilt as you suggest, or consider attempting a non-trivial defence from your solicitor. In this case, my advice should be disregarded entirely. [and we on here would like to know what that other evidece is!]

Should I threaten South Eastern with legal action, claiming they've made a false claim to the courts when I clearly was in possession of a valid ticket?

That is not an option which is available to you *. The accusation of false representation (if it were true) would be something that might arise (but probably would not) during the course of their claim against you. If it wasn't possible for a claim to come to court which was, in some way, incorrect, then there would be very little work left for the courts to do! It is one of their duties to decide what evidence is persuasive and what is not when there are conflicting interpretations of what has happened, and to do so, they must be presented with contrary interpretations or reports to put in the balance.
Anyway, the way that the system is set up, it is for the person making the claim to pay the fees into the Court. So why would you want to pay into Court when the Railway Company already seems to be so willing to do that? ! !

[* Technically, this is an available option, and those with appropriate resources from, say, Russian oil, UK newspapers or global sport enterprises regularly do so. But just look at the cost of Max Mosley's little success on Thursday aganst Google inc.]

Based on what you've said, you should fight it, in my opinion, but obviously you will need proper legal representation by an experienced solicitor. Do not under any circumstances attempt to represent yourself.

As I hope is clear from what I have written, this is ambiguous advice; you would have three options:
A. It may not be necessary to "fight" anything (with representation) if the Company can see your evidence, and the 2 doubts I had are inapplicable.
B. Contesting the claim with the simple procedural help of a Criminal Defence solicitor will be appropriate if the Company has incriminating evidence.
C. Expert Counsel from one of the larger and specialist Law Firms will be required if you wish to "threaten South Eastern with legal action". [If you do wish to pursue this I may be able to make the necessary introductions for you]

OP, in my opinion you definitely had a valid reason for turning back, but if you didn't mention this to the inspector, you may have a tough time proving it.

I can't see any situation in which the OP would be expected to prove that (unless they embarked on the mission of "I threaten South Eastern with legal action" in which case the burden of proof would indeed be on the OP, as would the burden of cost).

They are required to defend themselves against either "18 (1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel." or "18 (2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.". And nothing else.

 

[island]

Whilst I am not qualified to offer legal advice and endorse the above suggestions to instruct a solicitor, I cannot possibly see how an infringement of Railway Byelaw 18 (1) (joining a train without a valid ticket) or Railway Byelaw 18 (2) (failing to hand over a ticket for inspection) can have occurred on this occasion.

 

[bb21]

I am interested to know whether, at the station in question, Oyster readers were available
(1) beyond the manual block?
(2) before the manual block? (I assume that the answer to this is "no" but just wanted to make sure.)
(3) on the platform (possibly by the exit from the platform)?

When you mentioned that you touched out at the end, where was that? Was it on the platform, or somewhere else?

 

[Hannes]

Wow, thanks for all the great replies so quickly everyone, I hope you know how appreciated this all is.

Just to clarify a few points:

On the platforms there are toilets and NO Oyster readers at all.
There's a short walkway from the platform then you turn a corner, with another short walk to the ticket office and exit. The Oyster readers are concentrated around the ticket office/walkway connection. The ticket inspectors were standing infront of the Oyster readers. I turned back towards the toilet as I turned the corner and saw the backlog of people that had built up. After talking to the inspector that checked my ticket, I walked past the other inspectors and touched out at the first available reader.

The journey in question started at Moorgate at 7pm and ended in Zone 4 at 8pm, via London Bridge as I changed from the tube to train. My Oyster history shows the journey I took prior to this was on the tube, which finished at 8:30am. Essentially, I had been on no public transport for at least 8 hours prior to that journey at Moorgate.

 

[bb21]

I do find it strange that they would be doing a revenue block before the Oyster readers, but then again it is SouthEastern so nothing surprises me there.

I just wanted you to be absolutely certain regarding the location of the readers, seeing that we are unable to help you check.

 

[EM2]

I do find it strange that they would be doing a revenue block before the Oyster readers, but then again it is SouthEastern so nothing surprises me there.

I just wanted you to be absolutely certain regarding the location of the readers, seeing that we are unable to help you check.

AGA do it all the time at Forest Gate, staff are immediately ahead of the readers.

 

[bb21]

AGA do it all the time at Forest Gate, staff are immediately ahead of the readers.

One must wonder as to the point of doing so, I must say.

 

[Hannes]

I do find it strange that they would be doing a revenue block before the Oyster readers, but then again it is SouthEastern so nothing surprises me there.

I just wanted you to be absolutely certain regarding the location of the readers, seeing that we are unable to help you check.

Strange as it may seem, they've been doing it that way for a while now. I can't think why they wouldn't position themselves behind the readers with the hopes of catching people skipping them...

 

[Tangent]

AGA do it all the time at Forest Gate, staff are immediately ahead of the readers.

The revenue blocks take place in the same way at my own southeastern station: staff are stationed on the platforms right before the Oyster readers, with a couple of RPIs positioned closer to trains to target people turning back onto the train before departure. I don't know why: the ticket office (and the path beyond the Oyster readers on the down platform exit) are still part of the station.

I can imagine myself getting into the same fix at Lewisham, where the toilets are at the London end of Platforms 2/3.

 

[RJ]

They can still catch people who have travelled without touching in, as well as ticketless travellers.

 

[island]

I do find it strange that they would be doing a revenue block before the Oyster readers, but then again it is SouthEastern so nothing surprises me there.

I just wanted you to be absolutely certain regarding the location of the readers, seeing that we are unable to help you check.

One of the reasons for doing it this way is that after the readers they can't inspect contactless cards.

The OP should note that from the inspectors' point of view, he turned away from an inspection for no obvious reason, and one of the reasons they may infer, incorrectly or otherwise, is that he was not planning on touching out to pay the extension fare for his journey and was going to carry on to the next station instead in order to avoid the fare.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The OP should note that from the inspectors' point of view, he turned away from an inspection for no obvious reason, and one of the reasons they may infer, incorrectly or otherwise, is that he was not planning on touching out to pay the extension fare for his journey and was going to carry on to the next station instead in order to avoid the fare.

Isn't Bye-Law 18 a matter of fact rather than intent?

Doesn't possession of a touched in Oyster card with credit constitute a valid ticket within the whole of the London Zones?

18. Ticketless travel in Non-Compulsory Ticket Areas

(1)In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel
(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

 

[island]

Yes.

The reason for stopping a passenger need not correspond with the offence with which that passenger is ultimately charged. For example, a police officer may pull a car over because it's being driven erratically and he formed the opinion that the driver is driving with excess blood alcohol, then breathalyse the driver. Say the driver passes the breath test but wasn't wearing a seatbelt; the police officer can report the driver for that offence even though that wasn't why he stopped him.

Say in this instance that the OP had proceeded in the normal fashion and presented his Oyster card for inspection at the revenue block. The inspector would probably have said "thank you, make sure to touch out" and the OP would have been on his way.

 

[Hannes]

I can fully appreciate the inspector's suspicion and why he pulled me aside. What I don't get is how the TOC looked at that evidence, and concluded I had violated Byelaw 18.

I should probably point out the inspector's written version of events stated I saw the guards and turned around to avoid them, despite my explaining to him that I wanted to go to the toilet which he made zero reference to. He also claims my ticket was only valid for Zones 1 and 2, which is untrue. From what I can gather, unless I attempted to pass through a reader without Touching Out, my Oyster is valid to anywhere within the Oyster Zone that I have credit to reach.

How best to proceed? Shall I simply tell the court that I intend to plead not guilty, and in my response to South Eastern, provide them with my Oyster history for that journey? Hopefully that would be sufficient for them to drop the charges.

 

[najaB]

How best to proceed? Shall I simply tell the court that I intend to plead not guilty, and in my response to South Eastern, provide them with my Oyster history for that journey? Hopefully that would be sufficient for them to drop the charges.

Yes, that would be a sensible course of action. Keep everything polite and factual and I'd be surprised if they don't drop the case.

 

[Hannes]

Yes, that would be a sensible course of action. Keep everything polite and factual and I'd be surprised if they don't drop the case.

Excellent - thank you very much najaB and everyone else that has given their advice and opinions on the matter!

Since my Oyster history is direct evidence of my innocence, is there any point in my letter to South Eastern clearing up the fact that I needed to use the toilet and was not evading the inspectors? And that for an earlier journey where I had an incomplete Oyster journey history, I had in my possession a valid paper ticket? Or should I not bother because that's all circumstantial, and would be irrelevant given I can prove I had a valid ticket for the journey in question?

 

[najaB]

Or should I not bother because that's all circumstantial, and would be irrelevant given I can prove I had a valid ticket for the journey in question?

I wouldn't bother as the charge that they have made is that you didn't present a valid ticket for the journey you were taking at that time.

Others can probably suggest better wording (and may proof-read for you), but my letter would be something like:

Sirs,

I have received a summons to attend court which alleges that, contrary to Byelaw 18 of the Railways Byelaws 2005, at <Insert location and time> I was unable to produce on request a valid ticket for the railway journey I had just taken.

I believe this to be in error as I had in my possession and showed to the Inspector a valid Oyster card with enough PAYG credit to pay for the journey taken. I attach as proof a copy of my Oyster travel history showing that the journey was, in fact, completed correctly with both a tap in and out.

I hope that this is sufficient evidence to show that I did not contravene the Byelaw referenced above and that this matter can now be closed.

Thanks and regards,

<name>

 

[MikeWh]

Excellent - thank you very much najaB and everyone else that has given their advice and opinions on the matter!

Since my Oyster history is direct evidence of my innocence, is there any point in my letter to South Eastern clearing up the fact that I needed to use the toilet and was not evading the inspectors? And that for an earlier journey where I had an incomplete Oyster journey history, I had in my possession a valid paper ticket? Or should I not bother because that's all circumstantial, and would be irrelevant given I can prove I had a valid ticket for the journey in question?

I wouldn't mention the earlier journey unless they are actually refering to it in the current correspondance. It's a valid question to ask as a way to detecting whether you are a regular evader, but your response as reported above would be enough to close that line of questioning, in my opinion.

I absolutely would continue refering to the reason that you turned back. It is a very reasonable explanation of your actions and is relevant to this case.

I would also be very happy to assist in any way I can. Feel free to PM me further details if you want, although what you've said so far seems quite straightforward.

 

[bb21]

Excellent - thank you very much najaB and everyone else that has given their advice and opinions on the matter!

Since my Oyster history is direct evidence of my innocence, is there any point in my letter to South Eastern clearing up the fact that I needed to use the toilet and was not evading the inspectors? And that for an earlier journey where I had an incomplete Oyster journey history, I had in my possession a valid paper ticket? Or should I not bother because that's all circumstantial, and would be irrelevant given I can prove I had a valid ticket for the journey in question?

I don't think it matters. Past incomplete journeys are of no concern to this particular incident, and it is certainly none of their business why you chose to turn around. It is not a crime to not walk towards RPIs, but you may wish to include a simple explanation as that could make it easier for everyone if it is mentioned in the evidence that you turned around on seeing the RPIs.

 

[tony6499]

When they do a block they have plain clothes BTP and RPI's watching for anyone who does a reverse move when they see them so you made them suspicious straightaway. You'll need an explanation for this as this is what is the main cause of them acting like this.

 

[najaB]

When they do a block they have plain clothes BTP and RPI's watching for anyone who does a reverse move when they see them so you made them suspicious straightaway. You'll need an explanation for this as this is what is the main cause of them acting like this.

With respect, I don't agree that Hannes needs to explain why he turned around. The summons is for a specific offence - that he didn't present, when requested, a valid ticket for the journey taken. It is a sufficient defence against that charge to prove that the ticket he presented was valid.

It won't hurt to include an explanation of why he turned around, but it isn't necessary to his defence.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . . . is there any point in my letter to South Eastern clearing up the fact that I needed to use the toilet and was not evading the inspectors?

I don't think it matters.

It doesn't matter.

But there is one small reason why you should reference the circumstances. Suppose, just suppose, that your letter doesn't have the required effect, and this matter becomes escalated to the challenge of the Byelaw Offence that the Company has referred to. In that eventuality, you don't want to find that further suspicion is directed towards you because you suddenly introduce a 'new excuse' which you had not mentioned previously.

You don't need to argue that you were 'not evading the inspectors' (because you haven't been accused of that) but you should reference the circumstances in whatever words actually apply (such as 'when I was accosted while looking for the station toilets' or 'interviewed after I had turned towards the toilets' or similar).

 

[Bletchleyite]

When they do a block they have plain clothes BTP and RPI's watching for anyone who does a reverse move when they see them so you made them suspicious straightaway. You'll need an explanation for this as this is what is the main cause of them acting like this.

I remember being "caught" by precisely this in Hamburg on the U-Bahn (I almost missed my stop and jumped up and off the train as the door close warning was going). This was straight past some plain-clothes inspectors I hadn't even noticed as being such.

One got off, and demanded my ticket, which I was pleased to produce, and it was indeed valid. So I just wandered off, leaving him there on the platform split from his group. Oops.

FWIW, if an inspector saw something like this, why did they simply not follow the OP until such time as they looked like they were going to leave Railway premises without touching out, and get them then?

Neil