Stopped today by TFL ticket inspectors totally confused

[John Connor]

So today I was stopped after passing the barriers being accused of using a child ticket, ( I'm not a child ) I wasn't using a child ticket either. I said to him that's weird as it was my contactless I usually use, however I said check my previous oyster student Oyster card I had when I was in college which was in my wallet (possible mistake ) , in the end after scanning my contactless it got approved on the reader, which I also tapped out with the same contactless at my exit station.

Anyway I was kept for an hour as he was adement I had a child oyster, he tried to get British transport police to search me but seemed like there was none about or free. So a off duty female office was asked to search me, so I agreed. She did, checked my wallet, and pockets etc, didn't find anything. She even starting to doubt the inspector after getting into a cheeky conversation with me . During the whole ordeal he took my name, address, date of birth. I wasn't given a ticket as he was writing notes. I was asked if he wanted to read his notes, I said no, he asked me whether I would like to sign I said no. He read out his your not under arrest bla bla..After all he said ok you can go. I wasn't told if any further action would be taken, so I'm a bit confused on where I stand.

Was that the end of it, as my contactless was used, or am I expecting a letter from the court, is so what can I do! As I don't want a criminal record for tapping in and out with my bank card ! Some advice would be really appriacated

 

[broadgage]

What fare did you actually pay, albeit inadvertently ?

If you actually paid a child fare by mistake then IMHO you have a case to answer.

If you in fact paid the adult fare via your contactless card, then I believe that you are in the clear.

If you accidently paid BOTH fares then by common-sense standards you should be in the clear, though " CHILD" appearing on the gate display would naturally be suspicious.

 

[John Connor]

What fare did you actually pay, albeit inadvertently ?

If you actually paid a child fare by mistake then IMHO you have a case to answer.

If you in fact paid the adult fare via your contactless card, then I believe that you are in the clear.

If you accidently paid BOTH fares then by common-sense standards you should be in the clear, though " CHILD" appearing on the gate display would naturally be suspicious.

I stated in his notes my contactless card was used, it was scanned and approved and was tapped out at the end of my journey. The station was crowded and it was a gang of people entering the barriers so it was genuinely his mistake even though he was adement. I'm just lost what was the outcome, as I wasn't told you will get a letter etc or nothing but took notes, name address and DOB he had my old student oyster to verify details. I was compliant In saying search me do what you got to do . And was cautioned right at the end of it.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Best advice at this stage is to make notes of what happened and note the date of your contactless payment - print out or keep your next bank statement when it appears. Particularly if it proves you have used your contactless as an Oyster on previous occasions.

Take your student card out of your wallet if you don't use it.

 

[Be3G]

This business about a student Oyster (I assume an 18+ one?) is a bit of a red herring as far as I can tell. If someone holds a discounted Oyster then that means they're entitled to use it, and would not be committing an offence; certainly in the case of an 18+ Oyster once the discount expires the card can still be used as a simple ‘normal’ Oyster. So I'm struggling to understand what exactly the ticket inspector had a problem with –*it does sound like a case of mistaken identity here.

 

[John Connor]

This business about a student Oyster (I assume an 18+ one?) is a bit of a red herring as far as I can tell. If someone holds a discounted Oyster then that means they're entitled to use it, and would not be committing an offence; certainly in the case of an 18+ Oyster once the discount expires the card can still be used as a simple ‘normal’ Oyster. So I'm struggling to understand what exactly the ticket inspector had a problem with –*it does sound like a case of mistaken identity here.

My old student oyster which was expired was genuinely mine. However it wasn't the one that was used cause I knew it was expired, it was my contactless bank card I used. I'm really stressed out here as the word criminal conviction terrifies me. Does anybody know if TFL was to send a letter, what would it actually say ?

 

[MikeWh]

If you haven't already, register your contactless payment card on the TfL website. You will then be able to see details of your touches today* (yesterday). More importantly, if this ever happens again you will be able to show your contactless touch to the inspector after 10-15 minutes, assuming you have a mobile with internet access.

If the inspector did a proper revenue check you should also see that logged on your travel history as well.

 

[najaB]

Was that the end of it, as my contactless was used, or am I expecting a letter from the court, is so what can I do! As I don't want a criminal record for tapping in and out with my bank card ! Some advice would be really appriacated

I can't see that you are in trouble - as long as the student Oyster was, in fact, an old one and the student discount had expired. Did they take the Oyster from you?

 

[Barn]

Personally I'd be seeking redress for the embarrassment and the disruption to my day...

 

[najaB]

Personally I'd be seeking redress for the embarrassment and the disruption to my day...

The most you'd be likely to get is an apologetic letter. It's not Northern or Virgin so you wouldn't even get a day rover or £20 RTV.

 

[Barn]

Personally I'd be seeking redress for the embarrassment and the disruption to my day...

The most you'd be likely to get is an apologetic letter. It's not Northern or Virgin so you wouldn't even get a day rover or £20 RTV.

An apology is worth something at least. Of course, not really caring about recompensing mistreated customers is, as you imply, a feature of state-run businesses!

 

[Trackman]

If you haven't already, register your contactless payment card on the TfL website. You will then be able to see details of your touches today* (yesterday). More importantly, if this ever happens again you will be able to show your contactless touch to the inspector after 10-15 minutes, assuming you have a mobile with internet access.

If the inspector did a proper revenue check you should also see that logged on your travel history as well.

Just on registering a contactless card, it actually backdates your journey and payment details, not just from when it was first registered

 

[tony6499]

Personally I'd be seeking redress for the embarrassment and the disruption to my day...

Unless you know the full facts that is a pointless thing to say

 

[John Connor]

Does anyone here know why I was being questioned, took my name and address and did he did run some checks, which was Obvi clear and cautioned at the end of it ?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Nobody other than the Inspector is going to be able to answer the first part of that question - we can't see into his or her mind, and can't know what was written in their notebook as their own Witness Statement.

But it should be enough to presume that there was reasonable grounds to suspect an incident of fare evasion, even if in fact it was another person or some other mistake.

What follows from that (from a reasonable but mistaken belief) is that the Inspector would then investigate the facts, and would attempt to do so in accordance with the guidance, which includes taking a written Statement, issuing a Caution, and obtaining personal identifying details. All of that would have been quite correct to have done, and to have done so in the way you describe.

As the facts of the matter do not show that any wrongdoing was done, then that should be the end of the matter. If a further statement is required from you (and we can only speculate why that might be necessary) then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a simple and truthful answer and one which will not demonstrate that any Offence was committed.

Investigations into innocent people happens all the time. They confirm their innocence.

 

[matt_world2004]

I feel a search of ones body by a police officer to be a completely inappropriate response to a case of suspected ticket evasion. IMHO. I am wondering if you walked through a gateline with a faulty child light. It lit child and the inspector saw it.Certainly some gatelines crash on a certain ticket and display that ticket information as you walk through. It is particularly prelevent with the luggage gates.

 

[gray1404]

I do find it worrying that the Inspector tried to get the passenger searched. Are they allowed to do this? It seems a bit over the top to me.

Also, are they allowed to detail a passenger for an hour?

 

[Barn]

Investigations into innocent people happens all the time. They confirm their innocence.

My time is far too valuable to spend an hour proving my innocence and I'm sure that's true of many people. I'd have provided my name and address if requested (only because it's required by law) and then demanded to be let out if within the gates or simply walked out if not. It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

You misunderstand.

 

[455driver]

My time is far too valuable to spend an hour proving my innocence and I'm sure that's true of many people. I'd have provided my name and address if requested (only because it's required by law) and then demanded to be let out if within the gates or simply walked out if not. It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

You do like to talk the talk don't you! :roll:

Nothing you have posted in this thread is of any use to the OP as it is just your (keyboard warrior) opinion and has absolutely no basis in law!

 

[34D]

So you had a contactless and an expired 16-18 photocard in your wallet?

Touched in elsewhere with contactless? When you tried to touch out, it read the 16-18 photocard instead?

 

[najaB]

So you had a contactless and an expired 16-18 photocard in your wallet?

Touched in elsewhere with contactless? When you tried to touch out, it read the 16-18 photocard instead?

That's not the way I read it. The OP tried to tap in with his contactless card, barrier gave an error, then he got accused of using the child/student Oyster he had in his wallet, after discussion and taking of details he was allowed to continue travelling on his CPC.

 

[Barn]

My time is far too valuable to spend an hour proving my innocence and I'm sure that's true of many people. I'd have provided my name and address if requested (only because it's required by law) and then demanded to be let out if within the gates or simply walked out if not. It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

You do like to talk the talk don't you! :roll:

Nothing you have posted in this thread is of any use to the OP as it is just your (keyboard warrior) opinion and has absolutely no basis in law!

If we take the OP at his word, he has been detained (or at least made to feel like he was being detained) for an hour for no reason.

If you think I'm taking nonsense perhaps you could cite the authority requiring a person to submit to an hour's detention after confirming his identity and handing over his tickets for inspection?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

You misunderstand.

I'm not being deliberately facetious Dave and I have a lot of respect for you but I do object to the length of time that some people being questioned feel trapped by revenue protection on-site interviews, which take place in very stressful and unbalanced circumstances for the interviewee, especially when they take place within ticket barriers.

There is a real distinction in police settings between being arrested (where there are certain legal protections in place) and being interviewed but being free to leave, and I get the impression that this isn't always made clear when translated to a railway setting.

 

[John Connor]

That's not the way I read it. The OP tried to tap in with his contactless card, barrier gave an error, then he got accused of using the child/student Oyster he had in his wallet, after discussion and taking of details he was allowed to continue travelling on his CPC.

No I entered on my contactless, then just after entering a inspector came out of no where and asked to see my ticket, showed him my contactless, he then said no you used a child ticket, i was completely baffled, and stated no I didn't. I then I realised I still had my 16-18 oyster from college (expire) in my wallet and thought perhaps he was a card clash and the barriers read my old student oyster instead. That came out negative in the card reader, however my contactless came approved. But he was still adement I had a child oyster, either whether it was a mistaken identity or the barriers decided to show child I don't know.

 

[John Connor]

My time is far too valuable to spend an hour proving my innocence and I'm sure that's true of many people. I'd have provided my name and address if requested (only because it's required by law) and then demanded to be let out if within the gates or simply walked out if not. It's for the officer to prove guilt not to spend as long as he wishes trying to confirm innocence.

Well yeah, I did tell him, I could walk away right now and you can't stop me, he then stated ' no you are obliged to stay here ' but where I'm staying with you shows I'm innocent, I even offered him to bring the police to come search me. Not to mention when I got cautioned it said you don't have to stay here you can leave now, he face when I then said ' I told you so'
The police officer lady, really started getting into a friendly convo with me and even started to doubt him.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Nobody other than the Inspector is going to be able to answer the first part of that question - we can't see into his or her mind, and can't know what was written in their notebook as their own Witness Statement.

But it should be enough to presume that there was reasonable grounds to suspect an incident of fare evasion, even if in fact it was another person or some other mistake.

What follows from that (from a reasonable but mistaken belief) is that the Inspector would then investigate the facts, and would attempt to do so in accordance with the guidance, which includes taking a written Statement, issuing a Caution, and obtaining personal identifying details. All of that would have been quite correct to have done, and to have done so in the way you describe.

As the facts of the matter do not show that any wrongdoing was done, then that should be the end of the matter. If a further statement is required from you (and we can only speculate why that might be necessary) then I'm sure you'll be able to provide a simple and truthful answer and one which will not demonstrate that any Offence was committed.

Investigations into innocent people happens all the time. They confirm their innocence.

I find it odd, that I got cautioned at the end of it, also is it normal for a female police officer to search my wallet. ?

Also may I ask to your knowledge. What could the outcome of this be ? Should I be expected a letter in the post by TFL or will they look at his notes and evidence and not take further action? Still totally confused.

 

[gray1404]

In my view, the moment the Inspector was able to establish that the OP had a valid touch in on their contactless card, that should have been the end of the matter. I find it most concerning that the OP states they were told that they had to stay (i.e. be detained) by the Inspector.

Regarding the comments about passengers being detailed for questioning in railway setting in unbalanced situations compared to what of police situations (where there have to be legal standards in place), could we please just clearify on this. Does a passenger have to stay around and allow themselves to be subjected to such quesitoning? What would be the best thing for a passenger to do in such a siutation?

 

[najaB]

In my view, the moment the Inspector was able to establish that the OP had a valid touch in on their contactless card, that should have been the end of the matter. I find it most concerning that the states they were told that they had to stay (i.e. be detained) by the Inspector.

I can't find anything wrong with your logic.

 

[Barn]

In my view, the moment the Inspector was able to establish that the OP had a valid touch in on their contactless card, that should have been the end of the matter. I find it most concerning that the OP states they were told that they had to stay (i.e. be detained) by the Inspector.

My view exactly, but we are awaiting 455driver's return to explain why we have "no basis in law" for thinking so.

 

[matt_world2004]

Something to check op if you were detained by the RPI for nearly an hour, it is very likely that is going to be reflected by you being charged two maximum fares because of being over the time limit for travelling to the zone, Also it should show touch in and out time, I would claim delay repay for your time.

 

[LAX54]

Cant recall if this was raised earlier, but were both cards in the same wallet ? did he swipe whilst still in wallet, if so, then it could have read the wrong one, or even both ? I know there are warnigns about keeping Oysters and Debit Cards apart when touching in and out.