South Eastern - Railway Byelaw 18 with VALID Oyster

[blakey1152]

From my own recent experience I am aware that some of the Southeastern staff and customer service representatives don't recognise that PAYG credit on an Oyster card is valid on Southeastern train services.

So in this case they may be incorrectly going on the fact you have a zones 1-2 Travelcard and therefore no valid ticket to zone 4....

Fight it all the way!

Blakey

 

[Hannes]

Again, fantastic work and much appreciation to you all. I'll have my responses good to go first thing in the morning.

And I'll be sure to keep you all posted on any further developments, whatever they may be...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ooooh! One last question from me, I promise!

In the response to the court, I have to sign if I agree with the statement from the witness (the inspector) OR if I disagree with it then he'll be called as a witness - if this ever goes to trial, of course.

He writes that I had an Oyster "valid to travel to zones 1 and 2" and explicitly states my Oyster card number. By agreeing to this statement, I'm not agreeing that my Oyster was valid for ONLY zones 1 and 2, right?

So I can safely say I agree with his statement, but by showing my Oyster history it becomes clear that my Oyster was valid for zones 1, 2 AND other zones, including zone 4.

 

[najaB]

In the response to the court, I have to sign if I agree with the statement from the witness (the inspector) OR if I disagree with it then he'll be called as a witness - if this ever goes to trial, of course.

He writes that I had an Oyster "valid to travel to zones 1 and 2" and explicitly states my Oyster card number. By agreeing to this statement, I'm not agreeing that my Oyster was valid for ONLY zones 1 and 2, right?

So I can safely say I agree with his statement, but by showing my Oyster history it becomes clear that my Oyster was valid for zones 1, 2 AND other zones, including zone 4.

That's a good question - personally I would not agree with it, so that the ticket inspector would come to court if it does come to trial. DaveNewcastle or another member of the forum with court experience will probably tell us that it's not needed.

 

[PermitToTravel]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice

Logically, if your season is valid for zones 1-4, to say that it is valid for zones 1-2 is not incorrect. To say that it is only valid for zones 1-2 is incorrect.

 

[westcoaster]

Not knowing the journey but with it being on SE, was there no toilet onboard the train, just thinking of a different angle ( counter question they may ask the op). Of course we are human trains are warm, outside is cold we don't always need to go there and then.

 

[najaB]

Not knowing the journey but with it being on SE, was there no toilet onboard the train, just thinking of a different angle ( counter question they may ask the op). Of course we are human trains are warm, outside is cold we don't always need to go there and then.

The OP said that (s)he was going to a pub just outside the train station, so decided to wait rather than use the toilet on the train.

 

[Murph]

In the response to the court, I have to sign if I agree with the statement from the witness (the inspector) OR if I disagree with it then he'll be called as a witness - if this ever goes to trial, of course.

I would say that you have no choice but to clearly say that his statement is both materially inaccurate and wilfully incomplete.

The material inaccuracy is the validity of your Oyster.

Wilfully incomplete, because it is not an accurate reflection of everything you told him at the time, if it doesn't include you stating that you only turned around to use the facilities. It could be seen as splitting hairs, but may give you some cover if they tried to make a big thing about turning around (thinking from the point of view of "you may harm your defence if you do not mention…").

 

[furlong]

Point out that you complied with the relevant sections of the Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services 3.8, 3.19, 3.20?

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.

[N.B. that version of the document is dated after your travel]

I believe those 3 paragraphs would represent a basis upon which you could consider an Oyster card loaded with the amount of credit you described valid for the journey you have described.

 

[MikeWh]

He writes that I had an Oyster "valid to travel to zones 1 and 2" and explicitly states my Oyster card number. By agreeing to this statement, I'm not agreeing that my Oyster was valid for ONLY zones 1 and 2, right?

In my opinion that statement is not correct so you should not agree to it. An Oyster card is valid to use throughout the PAYG area. Credit may be required to travel beyond the validity of a travelcard, but not if you've already capped for instance.

As an aside, forcing the inspector to attend court (should it go that far) might caused the prosecutions department to re-check the evidence again and thus might help them to decide to drop it.

Also, please can we avoid discussion of whether toilets should be used on trains. Many SE suburban units do not have them. Those that do can be either (a) out of order or (b) unhygenically dirty/smelly or (c) have a broken lock, etc etc etc.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . One last question from me, I promise!

In the response to the court, I have to sign if I agree with the statement from the witness (the inspector) OR if I disagree with it then he'll be called as a witness - if this ever goes to trial, of course.

He writes that I had an Oyster "valid to travel to zones 1 and 2" and explicitly states my Oyster card number. By agreeing to this statement, I'm not agreeing that my Oyster was valid for ONLY zones 1 and 2, right?

You can confirm agreement with his written statement in your reply.
It is not relevant to your position that he has written that - the Oyster evidence of validity as far as the credit balance allows doesn't require the Inspector to attend, and that would be the relevant response in your written submission.

That far, the Inspector's report is helpful and a statement of common ground.

The disputed position between the validity in Z1-2 and Z1-4 does not require the attendance of the Inspector, whose understanding of the distinction is already unreliable.

 

[Hannes]

I actually read DaveNewcastle's response after I filled out the forms, but just for the record I've decided to disagree with the inspector's statement. Essentially, this is the only evidence against me and I'd like to err on the side of caution since agreeing with his version of events can only count against me.

Let's just hope Southeastern drop the case anyway!

And I agree with MikeWh - let us never, ever discuss the toilets that are (occasionally) available on SE trains...

Thanks again all, you're doing a great service here. I don't even want to consider how much paying for this advice might have set me back!

 

[Wolfie]

I would say that you have no choice but to clearly say that his statement is both materially inaccurate and wilfully incomplete.

The material inaccuracy is the validity of your Oyster.

Wilfully incomplete, because it is not an accurate reflection of everything you told him at the time, if it doesn't include you stating that you only turned around to use the facilities. It could be seen as splitting hairs, but may give you some cover if they tried to make a big thing about turning around (thinking from the point of view of "you may harm your defence if you do not mention…").

Absolutely correct - include a copy of TfL's guidance leaflets on use and validity of Oyster with the key parts highlighted!

From my own recent experience I am aware that some of the Southeastern staff and customer service representatives don't recognise that PAYG credit on an Oyster card is valid on Southeastern train services.

So in this case they may be incorrectly going on the fact you have a zones 1-2 Travelcard and therefore no valid ticket to zone 4....

Fight it all the way!

Blakey

Then at some point SouthEastern is probably going to be stupid enough to take someone to Court in such a situation. They then will get the legal kicking to end all legal kickings (after of course crucifixicion by the media)!

In such a situation I would have TfL's Head of Ticketing served with a witness order.... I think, after his evidence, one of his SouthEastern counterparts would be getting a P45 not long afterwards....

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I would say that you have no choice but to clearly say that his statement is both materially inaccurate and wilfully incomplete.

The material inaccuracy is the validity of your Oyster.

Wilfully incomplete, because it is not an accurate reflection . . . . . .

Absolutely correct - include a copy of TfL's guidance leaflets on use and validity of Oyster with the key parts highlighted!

This response misunderstands the function and purpose of the form which Hannes is returning / has returned to the Court.

This is not the opportunity to present arguments or reasons. There is no one in the Court office who wishes to read those. Those are matters which can be discussed if, and when, the matter is contested in Court - effective arguments can also be made to the Railway Company before it reaches a Court hearing (and in my opinion, should be made).
This is the opportunity to inform the Court of whether they need to make arrangements for Witnesses to be called to attend, and, if arguments are to be heard in Court, to estimate how much time should be allocated. These are the considerations which the Court office staff need to be aware of in managing the Court's diary.

It is of no concern to the Court office to know the nature of Hannes' defence.

I also repeat my advice that there is no benefit in making arrangements for the Inspector who was present on the day of the incident to be asked to give witness to his/her written statement. It isn't the facts of the apprehension which are of material consideration, but the question of ticket validity, which is for a more generally qualified person to clarify (and whom may be quite independant from the Prosecuting Company). This would be Hannes' witness, not the Railway Company's.

Anyway, I'm sure that all of us on here hope that the Company will recognise the error long before it gets any further through the Court system.

. . . . . at some point SouthEastern is probably going to be stupid enough to take someone to Court in such a situation. They then will get the legal kicking to end all legal kickings (after of course crucifixicion by the media)!

I'm bemused to speculate how you think that might arise from this or a similar incident! The very worst outcome which the Company could experience is a failed claim and some unrecovered costs in investigating the incident.

 

[Wolfie]

Then at some point SouthEastern is probably going to be stupid enough to take someone to Court in such a situation. They then will get the legal kicking to end all legal kickings (after of course crucifixicion by the media)!

In such a situation I would have TfL's Head of Ticketing served with a witness order.... I think, after his evidence, one of his SouthEastern counterparts would be getting a P45 not long afterwards....

I'm bemused to speculate how you think that might arise from this or a similar incident! The very worst outcome which the Company could experience is a failed claim and some unrecovered costs in investigating the incident.

I'm intregued by this response. If a case went to Court someone from the Company would be giving evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, to be incorrect. If it's the former that individual could be charged with perjury. If it's the latter that individual has proved, at best, to be incompetent.

You really think, particularly with a degree of precuing of people such as MPs and/or the media, that an absolute poohstorm would not result? I'm sure, particular if it comes out that the company or it's representative has knowingly lied to a Court, a few letters from MPs to the DPP could have interesting consequences...

 

[Deerfold]

I'm intregued by this response. If a case went to Court someone from the Company would be giving evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, to be incorrect. If it's the former that individual could be charged with perjury. If it's the latter that individual has proved, at best, to be incompetent.

You really think, particularly with a degree of precuing of people such as MPs and/or the media, that an absolute poohstorm would not result? I'm sure, particular if it comes out that the company or it's representative has knowingly lied to a Court, a few letters from MPs to the DPP could have interesting consequences...

Major press coverage? Maybe.

Legal kicking? Nope.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I must be missing something in this question, because it doesn't follow from what we've read about the incident, and I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the choices faced by Hannes:

I'm intregued by this response. If a case went to Court someone from the Company would be giving evidence which they know, or reasonably should know, to be incorrect. If it's the former that individual could be charged with perjury. If it's the latter that individual has proved, at best, to be incompetent.

It's simply a Witness Statement by a Ticket Inspector, which includes: "He writes that I had an Oyster "valid to travel to zones 1 and 2" and explicitly states my Oyster card number."
There's is nothing of interest in that remark.
What Hannes needs to do is provide Evidence that his Oyster card actually included further validity than that, and I'm sure you agree that the best person to do will NOT be the Inspector who questioned him.

There's no perjury, no media scandal, just a poorly informed Ticket Inspector.

If, as you have suggested, Hannes "have TfL's Head of Ticketing served with a witness order" then I'll guess that (s)he would do some homework before appearing, and would confirm that Hannes' travel was lawful, or more likely, would find that the Prosecutor withdraws the Prosecution.

 

[island]

Or, would state that the journey in question did not take place on a TfL service.

There is no need to make hysterical overreactions please.

 

[Hannes]

Good day all,

I intended to keep you updated on this case but I've yet to get a single piece of correspondence back. Four months have past since I submitted my responses to South Eastern and the court, and I haven't got a single letter or phone call giving me any information at all.

My gut is that South Eastern have dropped the case and (for whatever reason) decided not to inform me. I'll be ringing the court during the week to find out what the status is, then likely getting in touch with South Eastern to get some sort of explanation. Unless anyone thinks there's a better course of action?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . I'll be ringing the court during the week to find out what the status is, then likely getting in touch with South Eastern to get some sort of explanation. Unless anyone thinks there's a better course of action?

Yes, that is the most appropriate action to take at this stage.
You will just be asking if the matter is still listed for a Hearing on the date of your Summons and if not, what action have the Prosecution taken to withdraw the matter (e.g. withdrawn the Prosecution, requested an adjournment, etc.)?

 

[Hannes]

Brilliant, thanks Dave - insightful as always.

Just to confirm, the original Summons was for a court date in February so that's been & gone, but it clearly stated that if I were pleading not guilty then this would be postponed until a later date which I would be informed of in due course.

Aside from it's clearly the polite thing to do, are the prosecution not legally required to inform the defence when they're no longer taking them to court?

(Basically I really want to get this sorted because I'm planning a summer trip, and I told the court I'd be able to defend myself at any future date. I'd assumed it would all be wrapped up by now, and now I don't want go abroad only to find I've missed a court date and been found guilty in my absence)

 

[gray1404]

You have done nothing wrong here. You were touched in for the journey and merely got off the train to use to go to the gents (this is not even classed as a break of journey because you did not exit the station), and there is nothing wrong with that. I'm sure you touched out at the end of your journey and thus, the correct fare was paid. When you got off the train at the station you were merely looking around that station and your actual behaviour does not amount to any attempt to avoid paying the fare. Furthermore, when asked for your ticket (which was mid-way though the journey) by the RPI, you were able to produce it in the form of your active Oyster card and it would have showed upon checking that you were touched in for the journey so that is fine. DO NOT pay them anything and fight this one.

The RPI may wish to make his or her own unfounded assumptions, that will not help them as a company in any way. RPIs sometimes do not live in the real world. I've been accused by RPIs of breaking my journey on advance tickets because I've "left the platform area" when in reality I've gone though the ticket barrier to use the gents the ticket office side of the gate line (rather then the platform side as these ones were closed for cleaning). What bothers me is some of them won't even accept the most trust of reasons why you explain to them!

I've also had them try to issue a PF to me at Oxford for "traveling without a valid ticket" using the return portion of a Liverpool to London (Any Permitted) Off Peak Return on a bank holiday Monday. I wished to break my journey there and they would not accept that I was traveling via a permitted route because I was "not using the Euston to Liverpool service with Virgin." Again, once I started to ask difficult questions (such as wishing to see from the Routing Guide how the EUS-LIV route was the ONLY valid permitted route and look a photo of their badges showing they were authorised collectors - given they were demanding to know my name and address - and when they realised my friend was recording the whole entire thing on his iphone) they backed off and let me through without taking my name and address. What I am trying to make a point of here is that RPIs seem imcapabe of thinking outside of the box and anything other then a straight point-to-point journey they think gives them warrant to start legal proceedings against an innocent fare paying passenger.

Fight it all the way and know that we are here to support you and help you get the matter dropped!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A bit OT but the Oxford RPI may be understandable in his view as that route as well as the Chiltern Line were removed from validity on Liverpool to London a while ago (to Wigan as well, but not Preston and points north), but appears to have been reinstated.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . the original Summons was for a court date in February so that's been & gone, but it clearly stated that if I were pleading not guilty then this would be postponed until a later date which I would be informed of in due course.

Yes, when an intention to enter a Not Guilty plea is indicated, then another date will be set to allow time for the Evidence to be presented and giving the Witnesses adequate notice to attend. Sadly, due to pressures on Court time, these adjournements can drag on for months.

. . . . are the prosecution not legally required to inform the defence when they're no longer taking them to court?

It would certainly be good practice to do so. Without consulting part 8 of the Criminal Practice Directions, I cannot confirm whether or not there is any legal obligation. Does this question have any relevance to your alleged offence? (or is it just a sense of indignation that the Prosecution might not have behaved impeccably?).

(Basically I really want to get this sorted because I'm planning a summer trip, and I told the court I'd be able to defend myself at any future date. I'd assumed it would all be wrapped up by now, and now I don't want go abroad only to find I've missed a court date and been found guilty in my absence)

All the more reason to speak to the Court. If you need to reschedule a live Prosecution due to an absence, then you should inform both the Prosecution and the Court as soon as possible. Recent trends in Court procedure have been towards more pro-active 'case management', as opposed to unpredictable passive delays and a slow sequence of responses to each other's representations at the last minute. Parties should be taking steps to negotiate common ground with each other, and to identify the unresolved issues which should be brought to Court. It is accepted that many unrepresented Defendants may not be aware of, or willing or able to negotiate with their Prosecutor; this results in more time being allocated to a full hearing, with a raft of uncontentious evidence being presented by both sides, and all the costs incurred.
Silence by a Defendant until prompted often increases costs.

 

[gray1404]

A bit OT but the Oxford RPI may be understandable in his view as that route as well as the Chiltern Line were removed from validity on Liverpool to London a while ago (to Wigan as well, but not Preston and points north), but appears to have been reinstated.

I confirmed with NRE before traveling that is was a permitted route. It is is so longer though I am more then happy to be corrected - and indeed it would be useful for me to know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is permitted now, but there was a period in the early 2000s when it was not.

 

[matt_world2004]

TfL really need to mystery shop how TOC operators are handling cpc and oyster transactions and have penalty clauses in their respective contracts for serious offences. Including the forfeiture of oyster/cpc and travelcard revenue for serious and repeated offences. Some operators are trying their hardest to make it difficult to use oyster/cpc on their services.

 

[Hannes]

DaveNewcastle>
The question has no direct bearing on the case at all, it was more to help determine how likely it was this case had been dropped without my being made aware of that. Regardless, there is a sense of indignation in that they demand I reply to them within 7 days, yet their response time has been 2 months, and now 16 weeks (and counting!).

I'll be doing my best to get everything resolved tomorrow, or at least find out the state of play. I've got the phone number for the court, the original date my hearing was penciled in for and obviously the case name of South Eastern v Hannes. I assume if I ask to speak to the Justices Clerk, they'll tell me everything I need to know given the above details? (sorry for asking stupid questions, I just want to be super prepared for everything)

gray1404>
Don't worry, I'll fight this all the way! I don't have any intention of paying them a single penny. Thanks for the support

matt_world2004>
I'm pretty sure some* of the ticket sellers go out of their way to be as ignorant as possible of the Oyster system. Last week the chap scanned my Oyster before selling me a boundary ticket, then initially refused to sell me it because I didn't have a season ticket on it. We looked through the little display together and he claimed my season ticket had expired last month. I politely pointed out that it was an annual, and would actually expire in about 11 months. Then he sold me the ticket I had initially requested.
*(not all - some are fantastic and one recently helped me save a few quid, which was awesome)

 

[gray1404]

What are the chances of the OP getting compensated by South Eastern for all the time, expense, effort, advise costs he's had to pay out and distress caused to him. They really do need to compensate him for this, seriously!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What are the chances of the OP getting compensated by South Eastern for all the time, expense, effort, advise costs he's had to pay out and distress caused to him.

Before considering the question "what are the chances"?, lets just examine how this outcome might arise.

How would such a claim be framed, when, how and by whom? On what principles would it be justifiable? How do those principles engage with the facts of the matter?

In your first post you asked "Should I threaten South Eastern with legal action" but we still don't know what that action might be.

 

[Hannes]

So I contacted the court and the lady I got put through gave me a minor heart attack - apparently they hadn't received my plea of not guilty!

But a few seconds later she said the case had been with withdrawn, so it doesn't really matter. Phew! A big thank you once again to everyone's assistance in this matter, it seriously is appreciated.

I haven't spoken with South Eastern about this yet, but I'll do that tomorrow - I'll sleep on it first as I'm a little cheesed off with them at the moment.

gray1404, I think I'll struggle to get any compensation out of them. Given they haven't even sent me an apology or even a notice they're not prosecuting, I think demanding money from them would be like getting blood out of a stone!

A big concern I have at the moment relates to their timings. It took them 4 weeks to send the first contact letter to me asking to explain what happened, then 2 weeks to get everything approved by the court and then 6 weeks to send the paperwork through to me! That totals up to 12 weeks, which is way past the 8 weeks that I can access my Oyster history for.

If I hadn't had the sense to download my Oyster history in advance, thereby proving my innocence, I'd likely have been found guilty from their "evidence" which wrongly claimed I was unable to provide a valid ticket.

Is it worth complaining to someone (South Eastern? TfL?) to ensure steps are put in place to stop that ever happening to someone else?