Has that not always been the case?It is now possible to change at Farringdon without passing the barriers between National Rail and London Underground, and you used your Oyster correctly.
Has that not always been the case?It is now possible to change at Farringdon without passing the barriers between National Rail and London Underground, and you used your Oyster correctly.
The validators at Kentish Town are continuation exit so just get people to touch out at the gate and it will repeat the exit and let them out.We have those standalone readers at Kentish Town and they are a pain. They have signs on them telling customers to only touch if transferring to or from LU to NR and have a paper ticket up to that point.
The number of people coming to the gate line asking to be let out because they have already touched out on the validators is very high daily. The difference here, is that the readers do act as entry / exit when the Tube station is closed, as they are adjacent to the out of hours entrance.
Yes. As long as you're still within the maximum journey time from the start station. There is always the chance that a revenue block will occur at your destination forcing you to touch out.Even if you travel to another station?
it was rejected, because "the Oyster card had not been validated at Farringdon prior to continuing your journey"
I've re-read the original post, and I now realise they used the words "continuing your journey". So GTR recognise it was a continued journey. Depending on the exact wording of the the appeal decision letter, it seems to me that GTR and/or Penalty Services Ltd may have committed a fraud against the OP, by making a false statement about the Oyster validity, in order to gain a pecunary advantage (I.e. the penalty fare). Would you be willing to post the full wording of what they said in that appeal decision?True, but look at it from their point of view. The PFN documentation states the OP made a journey starting a Farringdon. In any future appeal, it will be important to (re)state "I was making a single journey from Dagenham Dock to Croydon, changing trains at Farringdon but not leaving nor re-entering the station there".
The bar for fraud to be made out is very high - companies often use the excuse that they were simply incompetent and/or labouring under a misapprehension, rather than dishonest. Rather convenient how that rarely seems to work when the boot is on the other foot...I've re-read the original post, and I now realise they used the words "continuing your journey". So GTR recognise it was a continued journey. Depending on the exact wording of the the appeal decision letter, it seems to me that GTR and/or Penalty Services Ltd may have committed a fraud against the OP, by making a false statement about the Oyster validity, in order to gain a pecunary advantage (I.e. the penalty fare). Would you be willing to post the full wording of what they said in that appeal decision?
Before the S stock was introduced there would always be a queue at Chalfont and Latimer to use the reader by people catching the shuttleWe have those standalone readers at Kentish Town and they are a pain. They have signs on them telling customers to only touch if transferring to or from LU to NR and have a paper ticket up to that point.
The number of people coming to the gate line asking to be let out because they have already touched out on the validators is very high daily. The difference here, is that the readers do act as entry / exit when the Tube station is closed, as they are adjacent to the out of hours entrance.
Yes, I think it was the case soon after Oyster started because it was always a busy NR to LU cross platform interchange. I think mikicct might be unaware of the single shared gateline arrangement before Farringdon was rebuilt, back when there was only the original LU street entrance/exit.Has that not always been the case?
Oh really? That is still a "pay-when-challenged" situation as long as you transfer via Farringdon to an ungated station.Yes. As long as you're still within the maximum journey time from the start station. There is always the chance that a revenue block will occur at your destination forcing you to touch out.
Off topic, but is it just paper tickets? If I have a Key Smartcard pay as you go on Thameslink, do I also not have to tap that out at Kentish Town / Farringdon and tap in to the Oystercard system if I change from a train to the tube?We have those standalone readers at Kentish Town and they are a pain. They have signs on them telling customers to only touch if transferring to or from LU to NR and have a paper ticket up to that point.
You might get away with this for a while, but I'd imagine if there's a pattern of journeys, starting at an undated station to your destination one way in the morning and then from your destination to farringdon in the evening, repeating again the next day or vice versa, that sooner or later you'll be met by a plain clothes RPI just after the validators at the ungated station. The oyster system provides a lot of info to TfL and they seem to be quite good at spotting potentially anomalous activity such as thisIf, in fact, touching the reader at Farringdon with a touched in Oyster will remove the maximum fare but keeping it in the touched in state, a dishonest passenger can take advantage of this "loophole" to "pay when challenged" alighting at an ungated station, only to tap out when challenged.
It's fascinating to me that the letter even says that "any money deducted from funds where a card is touched im but not out (or vice versa) is retained by Transport for London" because a) I'm certain that's wrong and, b) it's completely irrelevant!Thanks for all the replies. I will re-appeal. I was fairly sure I was correct but wanted to check before proceeding. In the original appeal I did include the full journey details and a pdf of the Oyster journey history. The RPI said not to touch out but to show the PFN when exiting but I wanted a correct record of the journey made so I did touch out. I've attached the main part of the rejection letter - looks like it is a form letter with the one sentence containing a typo inserted. At the end it mentions making cheques payable to South East Trains!
OP did touch out.You may use the PF letter to get your touch in cancelled, assuming you didn't touch out.
I think that because the Penalty Fare was issued by GTR, LU is probably irrelevant. However, as to the academic question 'is the TfL Penalty Fare scheme authorised by different secondary legislation to the GTR one?' the answer is I don't know. Probably not?OP did touch out.
Can the £2.80 still be refunded if part of the journey was on LU?
A pink reader at Farringdon would serve no purpose, as pink readers indicate that you travelled by changing outside zone 1, not within it. There are no pink readers in zone 1, and there is no obligation to use one where they do existFWIW, the TfL journey finder quotes £2.80 for via Farringdon, using LUL thus far. It doesn't offer that fare for various other routes (eg involving C2C from W Ham) but that isn't relevant.
Assuming there's no pink reader at Farringdon (or, if there is, a specific advicevto use it) you are clearly in the right.
No, the thing that the operators probably haven't been hot enough on is ensuring that a pink reader touch is required somewhere else for every flow that could be possible with a change at Farringdon. Dagenham Dock to West Croydon should really have a Whitechapel / Shadwell / Canada Water pink reader requirement like many other Southern to East London flows.A pink reader at Farringdon would serve no purpose, as pink readers indicate that you travelled by changing outside zone 1, not within it. There are no pink readers in zone 1, and there is no obligation to use one where they do exist
I think you're missing my point. A pink reader touch is never required. They are purely to indicate that someone took a route avoiding zone 1 for a journey between a station pair that has more than one fare set. If a pair only has one fare set, that's of no concern to the passenger, and if there was more than one fare it is perfectly acceptable for the passenger to not use a pink reader, or simply not realise there are multiple fares and be charged the highest. That isn't the case here, anyway.No, the thing that the operators probably haven't been hot enough on is ensuring that a pink reader touch is required somewhere else for every flow that could be possible with a change at Farringdon. Dagenham Dock to West Croydon should really have a Whitechapel / Shadwell / Canada Water pink reader requirement like many other Southern to East London flows.
(I'm not quite sure what that means for the pink reader at Whitechapel though. It does seem that an internal gateline at Farringdon is needed.)
'Needed' in what sense? You would have to effectively knock down large parts of the station and rebuild in order to fit a gateline of the required capacity. No doubt hundreds of millions of pounds in cost and several years worth of work for no discernable gain?It does seem that an internal gateline at Farringdon is needed.)
That horse has long bolted. The only logical way of splitting the station now would probably still leave Crossrail and Thameslink behind one gateline.'Needed' in what sense? You would have to effectively knock down large parts of the station and rebuild in order to fit a gateline of the required capacity. No doubt hundreds of millions of pounds in cost and several years worth of work for no discernable gain?
Possibly for the Jubilee but never for the Central line.But didn’t Stratford originally have an internal gateline for the Jubilee line, which was taken out of use with mainline Oyster introduction, because it caused more problems than it solved?
Yes, that’s why I wrote Jubilee. It was between the end of those 3 platforms and the rest of the station. I was never sure why it was so important to cover the Jubilee given the impossibility of putting gates on the Central and the original DLR platform.Possibly for the Jubilee but never for the Central line.
Agreed. I suggest this thread is left until any further updates come to light.Let's remember that the problem in this case is a GTR inspector who doesn't understand how Oyster works, and an appeals administrator who merely copied and pasted whatever the inspector wrote on the original PFN into a standard letter without bothering to read either.
Feel free to post any such proposals as a new thread.No, the thing that the operators probably haven't been hot enough on is ensuring that a pink reader touch is required somewhere else for every flow that could be possible with a change at Farringdon. Dagenham Dock to West Croydon should really have a Whitechapel / Shadwell / Canada Water pink reader requirement like many other Southern to East London flows.
(I'm not quite sure what that means for the pink reader at Whitechapel though. It does seem that an internal gateline at Farringdon is needed.)
Although the RPI wouldn't have been able to tell what the fare that would actually be charged would be. So that's pretty odd.The issue in this case is essentially a disagreement between between LU and GTR/NR (or their RPI) over whether (3) is acceptable.
... or perhaps he just assumed that a gateline should have been negotiated.Although the RPI wouldn't have been able to tell what the fare that would actually be charged would be. So that's pretty odd.
I suspect that's the most likely explanation. Until Crossrail opens (in full), there aren't that many journeys where an interchange at Farringdon is the quickest route. So it's believable that the RPI simply hadn't come across this scenario recently. Not that it in any way excuses what they did, but it seems the most plausible scenario.... or perhaps he just assumed that a gateline should have been negotiated.
Maybe not the quickest but certainly the most convenient if you have lugguage and are travelling from westbound SSL to southbound TL.I suspect that's the most likely explanation. Until Crossrail opens (in full), there aren't that many journeys where an interchange at Farringdon is the quickest route. So it's believable that the RPI simply hadn't come across this scenario recently. Not that it in any way excuses what they did, but it seems the most plausible scenario.
The route taken does seem a little round-the-houses and could be seen as deliberately trying to avoid being charged for travelling via Zone 1 as other routes would involve going through gates. It also doesn't come across as hugely more convenient than some other routes even if heavy luggage or limited mobility comes into play. Ironically it also looks far slower than a cheaper route avoiding Zone 1 unless there was disruption. That said, what you did is entirely legitimate and it's not your fault the system was unable to charge a fare via Zone 1. I suspect the revenue person just couldn't resist trying to make a point though...I was travelling between Dagenham Dock and West Croydon, changing at Barking to the Hammersmith & City line and then changing to Thameslink at Farringdon, and changing again at Norwood Junction. There was a ticket check between London Bridge and Norwood Junction and I was issued with a Penalty Fare, with the inspector saying I should have touched in and out at Farringdon.
It is my understanding that the lower fare of £2.80 (peak) is valid via Farringdon so I appealed, but it was rejected, because "the Oyster card had not been validated at Farringdon prior to continuing your journey"
I touched out at the end of the journey and was charged the £2.80 fare.
Was I in the wrong? I intend to re-appeal if not.