Penalty fare when using Oyster PAYG via Farringdon

[greyman42]

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?

 

[MikeWh]

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.

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.

Even if you travel to another 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.

 

[Nottingham59]

it was rejected, because "the Oyster card had not been validated at Farringdon prior to continuing your journey"

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".

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?

 

[Watershed]

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?

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...

The full wording of the appeal decision would certainly help, but pursuing claims of fraud is likely to be a fruitless endeavour. Much easier to focus on getting the Penalty Fare successfully appealed (if possible) and then subsequently pursuing its unlawful issuance.

 

[PeterC]

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.

Before the S stock was introduced there would always be a queue at Chalfont and Latimer to use the reader by people catching the shuttle

 

[swt_passenger]

Has that not always been the case?

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.

 

[miklcct]

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.

Oh really? That is still a "pay-when-challenged" situation as long as you transfer via Farringdon to an ungated station.

If, 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.

Also, honest passengers may get caught out if they come using Oyster and continue via paper ticket to another destination (e.g. using National Rail rovers and Oyster for Tube travel), and return from an ungated station using Oyster where a touch in will become touch out if it is still within maximum journey time. In such case, this loophole will get them penalty fared because they will not have a valid Oyster as the result of the Farringdon setup!!!

 

[Richardr]

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.

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?

 

[Dibbo4025]

If, 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.

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 this

 

[Fenchurch SP]

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!

 

[nanstallon]

Does any other country love piffly-whiffling as much as the British? Surely, the key to encouraging use of public transport is to keep it simple. Anyway, thank goodness for this forum, to help people who are liable to be intimidated by petty officialdom, which is not even right about the rules.

 

[miklcct]

I believe you should mention that in your appeal, your Oyster card had been validated at your boarding station, and when the ticket was checked, it was still within the maximum journey time from that station, therefore you had a valid Oyster.

 

[Starmill]

Once the Penalty Fare has been cancelled, and you've received written confirmation of that fact, others have sensibly suggested that you could further challenge the unlawful behaviour of the company. You may wish to do this through your own litigation, but if you don't and you'd still like to challenge them on their behaviour there are several other avenues available to you:

- Complain to the Rail Ombudsman. They may not want to help much once they realise that the Penalty Fare has been cancelled but it is worth a shot. If you can get the ombudsman to accept your case you can say you wish to claim compensation from the company for your lost time in dealing with an unlawful charge. Be reasonable with this and they may just send you say £50.

- Complain to London TravelWatch. Others will be able to guide you through this if it's something you're interested in pursuing but they may be able to take incorrect revenue protection policy up with GTR.

- Write to the Office of Rail and Road. They will almost certainly fob you off because past experience suggests they've little interest in things like passenger rights even where ORR's statutory duties might intersect with them. In principle the unlawful charge means Govia Thameslink Railway have breached their contract with the Department for Transport, which is of course not technically a matter for a consumer because they're not party to that contract, but this is a matter for ORR - even if they don't want to act.

- Write to the office of your MP. This will probably be the most effective suggestion outside of litigation. You can ask your MP's office to write to the person responsible for revenue protection policy at GTR, either you can try to find them on LinkedIn, or your MP's staff will have a look. Alternatively they may write to the customer service director or the chief executive; it is good to have a named person, but it's not vastly important what their job title is. Your MP can express your concerns that the company has attempted to overcharge you, and that their policies might be breaking the law. Your MP can ask the company if they accept liability for the mistake, and request assurances that such errors won't happen again.

Do let us know how you get on, or if we can be of further assistance.

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!

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!

The last point I will add is that as you accepted a Penalty Fare, your journey will now need to be free. The Penalty Fare Rules make this very clear - if a PF is issued incorrectly the company may not make any charge for the travel. Any Penalty Fare paid must be refunded. You may use the PF letter to get your touch in cancelled, assuming you didn't touch out.

 

[Kilopylae]

You may use the PF letter to get your touch in cancelled, assuming you didn't touch out.

OP did touch out.

Can the £2.80 still be refunded if part of the journey was on LU?

 

[Starmill]

OP did touch out.

Can the £2.80 still be refunded if part of the journey was on LU?

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?

 

[mmh]

FWIW, 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.

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

 

[JonathanH]

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

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.)

 

[mmh]

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.)

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.

 

[Starmill]

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?

 

[swt_passenger]

'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?

That horse has long bolted. The only logical way of splitting the station now would probably still leave Crossrail and Thameslink behind one gateline.

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?

 

[Haywain]

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?

Possibly for the Jubilee but never for the Central line.

 

[swt_passenger]

Possibly for the Jubilee but never for the Central line.

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.

But probably drifting away from the real subject though, sorry all.

 

[Nottingham59]

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.

 

[yorkie]

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.

Agreed. I suggest this thread is left until any further updates come to light.

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.)

Feel free to post any such proposals as a new thread.

 

[etr221]

The equivalent to a 'pink reader' to indicate travel (and thus charge fare) via Zone 1, for LU-NR through journeys is the two gatelines (LU & NR).

Which is fine - until you have (as here) journeys via Zone 1 which do not involve negotiating gatelines. When you have three choices:

1. Install a gateline
2. Make the via Zone 1 fare the default
3. Let people making such journeys pay a lower fare than might be expected. (based on 'not via zone1' v 'via Zone 1')

The issue in this case is essentially a disagreement between between LU and GTR/NR (or their RPI) over whether (3) is acceptable.

 

[Starmill]

The issue in this case is essentially a disagreement between between LU and GTR/NR (or their RPI) over whether (3) is acceptable.

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.

 

[etr221]

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.

... or perhaps he just assumed that a gateline should have been negotiated.

 

[Watershed]

... or perhaps he just assumed that a gateline should have been negotiated.

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.

 

[PeterC]

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.

Maybe not the quickest but certainly the most convenient if you have lugguage and are travelling from westbound SSL to southbound TL.

 

[Ralph Ayres]

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.

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...