Reused Anytime short distance return ticket

[RCP]

Hi ALL

I have recently received an email from the debt recovery team at northern rail regarding reusing tickets.

First things first the trains I use are strictly TPE, does this matter at all?

I travel the same route 2/3 days a week at most, and therefore have numerous tickets in my wallet. In the past if I have had a ticket scanned by the train conductor which has already been used he has let me know the ticket has been used before and I have produced a new ticket. However, now I have had this email saying my account has reused a number of tickets. I'm not sure how this could come about? Not one conductor in the past few months has said anything and the truth is I may have produced a ticket which has been used before out of pure laziness on my part.

I have been invited to pay the settlement fee straight away (cost not given to me but added to the email which I thought was odd, so I have phoned the debt recovery team the case does exist) or I can attend an interview, which over 3 emails now has not been brought back up by the investigator.

It all seems a little weird to me so any advice would be appreciated

 

[realemil]

therefore have numerous tickets in my wallet

Just to confirm, you mean a digital wallet - like Apple Wallet? And not a physical wallet with a paper ticket with the barcode.

I can attend an interview, which over 3 emails now has not been brought back up by the investigator

If you’ve replied to them via email already; can you post all correspondence you’ve had, blurring out any sensitive info, so that we can help by.

However, now I have had this email saying my account has reused a number of tickets. I'm not sure how this could come about? Not one conductor in the past few months has said anything and the truth is I may have produced a ticket which has been used before out of pure laziness on my part.

It’s possible that the tickets you’ve previously attempted to use were flagged, and there’s simply been a delay in the prosecution team contacting you.

 

[RCP]

Just to confirm, you mean a digital wallet - like Apple Wallet? And not a physical wallet with a paper ticket with the barcode.



If you’ve replied to them via email already; can you post all correspondence you’ve had, blurring out any sensitive info, so that we can help by.



It’s possible that the tickets you’ve previously attempted to use were flagged, and there’s simply been a delay in the prosecution team contacting you.

Yes a digital apple wallet.

The Original letter stated the following:

This office acts as the prosecuting authority for Northern Trains Limited.
We have been alerted to activity on your ticket purchasing history which we feel warrants further investigation. We would therefore like to invite you to an interview in relation to this. The interview would be under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and can be arranged at a time and location convenient to yourself.
There is no assumption of guilt at this stage in proceedings as we are simply undertaking an investigation of what has been deemed, possible suspicious activity. Part of the investigation is questioning you about the activity and this interview must be done in a formal setting following legislation which would allow the content to be admissible as evidence at Court if matters progressed to that stage. You are entitled to seek legal advice at your own cost and arrangement in relation to this matter and any Solicitor you instruct can attend the interview with you.

Followed by this statement on email:

Investigation into your Trainline account and ticket purchasing has shown that you have reused a number of Anytime Short Distance Return tickets on a number of occasions. Anytime Short Distance Return tickets are valid for one outbound journey on the date shown, and one return journey within a calendar month on any off-peak train. This suggests that on these occasions where you have reused these tickets, you did not hold a valid ticket to travel.
Due to this information we are inviting you to be interviewed to allow you to provide an explanation, alternatively a settlement figure can be calculated in order to close the matter.

My point is, I do not know why I haven't been told my ticket is invalid there and then by the conductor as normal. They must be scanning peoples tickets and not saying anything in order to catch them like now. As I have said, its my fault out of laziness for not deleting my tickets from my wallet when used...

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

The first thing to say is that in practice it's probably best to see the railway as one: there are constant discussions here about the impact of data protection legislation on data being shared between railway companies (including ticket sellers), particularly for the investigation of crime, but we haven't reached a conclusion that satisfies all of us. So probably the only sensible thing that can be said is that if you were to take your chance in court and rely on data sharing being done wrong, then you would either need to be very confident of your ability to present such an argument or pay for an expensive lawyer to do so. So in practice, assume that any one part of the railway can act on behalf of any other part.

Moving to your specific issue, I note that your tickets have been scanned. As I see @realemil has just asked, it would be useful to know if these were digital or paper tickets, but the relevant point I think is that each ticket will have a unique bar/aztec code. So when the data is drawn together in the back office, it will be possible for the railway to identify whether you have habitually presented already used tickets. And this will be seen as resulting in fare dodging.

Fare dodging is a crime - not just under the railway byelaws and the Regulation of Railways Act ('RoRA'), but also under the Fraud Act (it's my view, although I am not a lawyer, that presenting a ticket for inspection that you knew or could reasonably be expected to know had been used would meet the tests for being fraud). And while there is a six month limit on railway byelaw and RoRA prosecutions, this doesn't apply to fraud prosecutions. So however far back the tickets go, a fraud prosecution would be possible.

So unless you think that the railway have got their facts wrong about what you were doing, your best bet is probably to pay the settlement fee. The alternative could very well end you up in court with everything that means in terms of costs, hassle and fines.

 

[Haywain]

it would be useful to know if these were digital or paper tickets,

The OP said:

Yes a digital apple wallet.

 

[furlong]

What is your pattern of journeys? Do you always travel out and back on the same day? Do you always buy one of these tickets for this same-day return journey?
Or is the situation more complicated? Do you ever buy single tickets? Do you ever buy return tickets in the opposite journey direction? etc.

 

[John R]

If there is a pattern of purchasing single outward tickets, and only the occasional return ticket (which coincidentally might come the day after a return ticket is scanned), or something similar to this, then you can see why there might be a suspicion of fraud.

If however your ticket purchases are always return journeys then there would be a much stronger argument that occasional reuse of a return ticket has been accidental.

Only you will know what the truth is of course.

 

[gray1404]

Notice how Northern describe the tickets as Anytime but then go onto say they are only valid on off peak trains.

The crux of matter here is they are alleging travel without a valid ticket. Ask them for a list of the days. Then respond by producing proof of valid tickets on those days.

If there have been any incorrect initial scans on the wrong tickets then surely when you immediately produced the correct one a scan on that will show too.

 

[Haywain]

If there have been any incorrect initial scans on the wrong tickets then surely when you immediately produced the correct one a scan on that will show too.

I would be concerned that a regular record of scans on tickets that have already been used could be seen as attempting to avoid paying the fare.

 

[Towers]

I would be concerned that a regular record of scans on tickets that have already been used could be seen as attempting to avoid paying the fare.

However no monies would be owed as surely as the OP would on each occasion have either produced the correct ticket or purchased a new one? This slightly whiffs of a computer identifying an issue and then a prosecutions team cherry picking which bits of data they fancy to build a case, doesn’t it? What is the offence if there is data that shows multiple scans of expired tickets but followed immediately on each occasion of a scan of a valid ticket? Does that really constitute attempted fare evasion? Flimsy, surely? As already mentioned above, I would be inclined to ask Northern to detail each occasion on which they believe a journey was made without a valid ticket, from the OP’s post it would appear that the correct answer is zero?

OP, you’ll worked this out for yourself of course, but do be more cautious going forwards! If you’ve used a ticket I’d suggest deleting it immediately, take a screenshot if you need it for expense purposes etc.

 

[Somewhere]

It sounds like they are just fishing for you to incriminate yourself. If you are confident that you had valid tickets, and merely showed the wrong one, what would happen if you just ignored them?
Surely it would be for them to show you didn't have a valid ticket - by the ticket inspector at the time recognising that you showed the wrong one and asking for the correct one?

 

[Sultan]

Is the outward barcode linked to the Return one? If so, then using ticket A outbound, then ticket B outbound (a day or 2 later), ticket C outbound (a day later) and then ticket A return on the same day could be viewed with suspicion. I suppose it does come down to whether the OP purchased 3 return tickets or just 1, and then only singles until ticket A return had been used. The TOC will know when you purchased your tickets as well. This may be what the TOC is interested in, and the multiple attempted scans of used tickets will flag up as a suspicious pattern.

Naturally there may be a perfectly legitimate explanation and this is why you are being invited to discuss it. But to me, it seems unusual to purchase and use tickets in this manner.

Hope you get it sorted.

 

[Haywain]

However no monies would be owed as surely as the OP would on each occasion have either produced the correct ticket or purchased a new one? This slightly whiffs of a computer identifying an issue and then a prosecutions team cherry picking which bits of data they fancy to build a case, doesn’t it?

Regularly producing a used ticket when you are in possession of an unused ticket with a one month validity whiffs quite a lot of attempted fare evasion to me. It would suggest that the intention is end up not having to buy tickets for every time you travel, and that avoids the fare and means money is owed. Only the OP knows what they have been doing and what the real intention might have been, but if the pattern suggests what I have outlined then the rail company are right to be concerned and justified in asking questions.

 

[realemil]

Is it possible that said tickets were scanned, marked as used on the scanners but instead of being made to purchase a new one, it was flagged internally?

At the same time, it does seem like they want OP to incriminate himself, as mentioned below; they want OP to attend an interview or they can offer a settlement to close the matter. If OP chooses to accept a settlement, could they “withdraw” it as this could be a sign of guilt?

It sounds like they are just fishing for you to incriminate yourself.

Whether ignoring the emails is the best option I’m not sure, it could potentially lead to further action being taken.

If you can reasonably explain why this happened and answer the questions above by other posters, this could probably be avoided.

 

[Somewhere]

Maybe you shouldn't attention an interview in person, but offer to answer any questions they have via email. That way you can give considered responses

 

[Class800]

Is their incorrect description of the ticket validity in the cover letter a procedural error sufficient to invalidate the action on a technicality?

 

[pedr]

What should a guard say if they scan the return portion of a ticket which allows break of journey somewhere towards the end of the journey, and it indicates that it has already been scanned? The passenger may have broken their journey on a previous day and be resuming it, perfectly within the validity.

There’s only proof of misuse if the same ticket is scanned twice in the same segment of the journey on different days, surely? So this might explain why a guard didn’t mention this at the time.

 

[fandroid]

It strikes me that if there were never any single tickets bought for the same outward journey then no actual offense has been committed. It's certainly worth the TOC issuing a warning that the OP should be a lot more careful in future about showing the correct ticket.

If there's an innocent explanation then I believe that the OP should give it via email, and leave the TOC to explain further if they feel that there's still something suspicious. Certainly don't go to an interview.

Is their incorrect description of the ticket validity in the cover letter a procedural error sufficient to invalidate the action on a technicality?

No. This isn't a Penalty Fare appeal where technicalities can count. Even if it were then it's doubtful whether this error would count against them anyway. It's just worrying as it indicates sloppy cut and paste email drafting

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It strikes me that if there were never any single tickets bought for the same outward journey then no actual offense has been committed.

Would you like to expand on your logic for this statement?

While it's unlikely, it's entirely possible to imagine someone living in A and working in B who buys an A-B period return, but routinely gets a lift from A to B in the morning, then returns from B to A by train repeatedly using the return portion of the period return. This wouldn't involve buying single tickets for the A to B leg, but would still be misusing the return portion.

 

[fandroid]

Would you like to expand on your logic for this statement?

While it's unlikely, it's entirely possible to imagine someone living in A and working in B who buys an A-B period return, but routinely gets a lift from A to B in the morning, then returns from B to A by train repeatedly using the return portion of the period return. This wouldn't involve buying single tickets for the A to B leg, but would still be misusing the return portion.

I tend to take an OPs' word in these circumstances. No mention whatsoever of lifts or buses in this case. Also the circumstances are entirely plausible. At times I have a goggle wallet full of in-date return portions, but as I don't repeat the journeys much, I can immediately see which ones are relevant. The problem is made worse by the system, as return portions don't get visibly cancelled, even when they've been used to open exit gates at destinations.

Typo corrected.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I tend to take an OPs' word in these circumstances. No mention whatsoever of lifts or buses in this case. Also the circumstances are entirely plausible. At times I have a goggle wallet full of in-date return portions, but as I don't repeat the journeys much, I can immediately see which ones are relevant. The problem is made worse by the system, as return portions don't get visibly cancelled, even when they've been used to open exit gates at destinations.

Typo corrected.

I see where you're coming from now: I'd assumed that you were speaking in general terms rather than specifically to this situation. I'm still not entirely convinced in that presenting an invalid ticket with apparently no concern as to whether it might be valid for the journey does not strike me as particularly obviously legal behaviour, but I don't think it would be helpful to the OP to pursue this point further so I'll belt up.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have to say OP that your "excuse" made me smile. Almost like that time that man had to go to A&E because he accidentally "fell" on the toilet brush handle.

Has something been edited out of this thread? I cannot see anything like an excuse from the OP nor any description of their travel pattern?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Has something been edited out of this thread? I cannot see anything like an excuse from the OP nor any description of their travel pattern?

I think @thelongestroad may have been thinking of this in the original post:

the truth is I may have produced a ticket which has been used before out of pure laziness on my part.

 

[40875704]

I’m puzzled with this thread. I currently have a shed load of Northern and TPE tickets taking advantage of their £1 sales. I would have thought that if I offered up an already scanned ticket the checker would say “sorry mate that ticket has already been scanned!” I would then delay him/her/other whilst I fumbled around for the correct unused ticket. Is that not the case or have I accidentally fallen on my toilet brush?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m puzzled with this thread. I currently have a shed load of Northern and TPE tickets taking advantage of their £1 sales. I would have thought that if I offered up an already scanned ticket the checker would say “sorry mate that ticket has already been scanned!” I would then delay him/her/other whilst I fumbled around for the correct unused ticket. Is that not the case or have I accidentally fallen on my toilet brush?

Why wouldn't you simply throw away/delete the used ones?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I’m puzzled with this thread. I currently have a shed load of Northern and TPE tickets taking advantage of their £1 sales. I would have thought that if I offered up an already scanned ticket the checker would say “sorry mate that ticket has already been scanned!” I would then delay him/her/other whilst I fumbled around for the correct unused ticket. Is that not the case or have I accidentally fallen on my toilet brush?

Aren't these £1 tickets likely to be (booked train only) Advance singles that essentially can't be used again?

 

[Somewhere]

I think, as long as you've definitely got valid tickets for the trains you've travelled on and not done anything silly like refunded tickets that haven't been scanned, just tell them there is no case to answer and you're not prepared to have and interview.
This is a case where the railway needs to catch you in the act - they had the opportunity when tickets which have already been scanned got scanned again. They lost the opportunity when the inspector carried on walking down the train.
If they think there's ongoing fiddling going on, then they can organise a sting to catch you out when you're on a train.
We can all sit at a computer thinking stuff looks suspicious, and they are just hoping you will drop yourself in it to save them the legwork

 

[Bertie the bus]

Why wouldn't you simply throw away/delete the used ones?

Slightly off topic, but I still use paper tickets and can often have 5 or 6 old ones in my wallet. I tend to empty my wallet when it starts bulging. I have, at least once, shown an old ticket when asked for it. I think it was a 3 day old West Midlands Day Ranger when I was on a Northern service in Yorkshire and the guard just said thanks and carried on. I only noticed myself when I was putting it back in my wallet.

The thing about this thread that rings alarm bells is that the OP says such and such normally happens when they show a used ticket. Normally suggests this has happened quite a number of times and if it was just due to laziness or accidental most people would start to be more careful after it being pulled up about it once or twice. It's very much like the threads where people claim ignorance or innocence and then ask why the RPI didn't just issue "the fine", i.e. a Penalty Fare, when they are reported for prosecution.

 

[40875704]

Aren't these £1 tickets likely to be (booked train only) Advance singles that essentially can't be used again?

Yes I see what you are saying. But surely any ticket already scanned would have the same outcome!!?? Which end ot the toilet brush?

Why wouldn't you simply throw away/delete the used ones?

Indeed why wouldn't I? I do, but just concerned that if I took my eye off the ball or made a mistake and offered up a used ticket that the checker wouldn't point it out to me and stop me accidentally falling on the toilet brush, whichever end.

If I was running a Vegetarian Poetry Society ticket only event in my garden shed and was scanning tickets on entry and somebody turned up with an already scanned ticket I wouldn’t let them in. Unless I thought “let them in and screw them later”. Still not sure which end of the toilet brush I might accidentally fall on!

 

[RCP]

Morning Guys, thanks for your comments. I will try to answer all the questions in this post.

I make the same journey 2/3 days a week. Sheffield to Manchester and I do sometimes get off at Stockport and get back on later in the day and carry on to Manchester.

The conductor in the past has told me the tickets are invalid (this has been maybe max 3 times) and I did then delete all used tickets and therefore believed something like this would never happen as due to never being told the tickets were invalid since. I have recently been casting my mind back and a couple of months ago I used the wrong ticket at the staffed gates at Picadilly, i used the inbound ticket for that day when going home but was never stopped questioned. It was only when on the train and i got my wallet up that i had deleted the wrong ticket that morning. I explained this to the conductor and got the expired ticket back up and he said it hadn't been scanned yet so all was fine. So i wonder if it has anything to do with scanning the wrong ticket at the gates and not actually on the train? This has got me thinking also that there is often major delays at Picadilly on the specific route I take. Trains can get cancelled and I often go back out of the gates to get food/water and come back in, so therefore the ticket is scanned again. Could this something to look into?

It is taking an eternity for the debt team to come back to me. Each email takes them a week minimum to come back to me.