• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

I paid for my journey before hand, yet am being prosecuted !!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

londonbridge

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2010
Messages
1,473
Maybe I’m missing something but I’m puzzled as to why the OP was asked to touch their card on the reader, given that every single time I’ve been checked when using contactless, whether on a bus, train or tram, I hold my card out to show them and then the RPI will touch the reader against my card. Point being that it’s always the RPI touching my card with the reader and not the other way around.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,478
How do you people see this!!???

as I did not evade paying my fair, (having tapped in and out correctly)

there was no fair evasion and no loss to the rail compony

I did provide the revenue officer with my name and address, one of my requirements

what have i done wrong that justifies a court hearing

remembering I did provide my name and address in the event of failing to provide a valid ticket


yes he was,

this was mentioned earlier
Well I think you still misunderstand how contactless works. Your original thread title is wrong, you had not “paid for your journey beforehand”. At the time of inspection you are only ‘touched into the system’, and that’s what they are checking for, as per the conditions of use for both Oyster PAYG and contactless bank cards.

Just giving your name and address on inspection instead appears to be something you’ve decided is OK, but that’s not correct, the byelaws require you to present your ticket for inspection. Your “ticket” is the combination of a contactless card and a related entry in their remote database.
 

John Palmer

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
245
If, as the OP claims, he has demonstrated to the railway operator that his fare was paid, it appears that the only ground for criminal proceedings being brought against him is his refusal to present his card to the official's card reader. In the absence of exacerbating factors that appears to be a heavy handed way of dealing with a passenger who, from what he has told us, had doubts about whether he was dealing with a genuine railway official and articulated those doubts to the official concerned. It's for that reason that I would like the OP to give details not only of the offence with which he has been charged but also the statement of facts on which the prosecution relies. It is disappointing that the OP has not responded to requests made by several contributors for this information, and until it becomes available any commentary about his case must be speculative.

Presuming for a moment that the OP has been charged with an offence under Railway Byelaw 18(2) (“A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.”), I am struggling to see what 'ticket' the OP might have handed over for inspection. In this context I find @MikeWh's post #29 highly pertinent, because, as he says, you cannot hand over a ticket when using PAYG because there is no such thing. If that is right then a prosecution under Byelaw 18(2) cannot succeed because the byelaw's premise that passengers are provided with tickets capable of being produced for inspection is undermined by the nature of the contactless payment mechanism for charging for travel.

By failing to touch his card to the official's reader the OP was probably in breach of Thameslink's contractual terms and conditions regulating contactless travel, though it's hard to see any purpose being served by civil action for such breach if Thameslink suffered no financial loss. However, any such civil law breach of the contract for carriage is an entirely distinct matter from the OP's exposure to a criminal law conviction for byelaw breach.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,440
Location
Bristol
And then presumably, once you have touched out (successfully), only then have you paid for your journey (?)
Yes, the transaction can't take place until it knows how much to charge you! I think if it's TfL's system, the payments are only processed at the end of the day to avoid overcharging if people make further journeys and hit the cap, so you may not even pay for the journey until some hours later.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,317
Location
West Wiltshire
Well I think you still misunderstand how contactless works. Your original thread title is wrong, you had not “paid for your journey beforehand”. At the time of inspection you are only ‘touched into the system’, and that’s what they are checking for, as per the conditions of use for both Oyster PAYG and contactless bank cards.

Just giving your name and address on inspection instead appears to be something you’ve decided is OK, but that’s not correct, the byelaws require you to present your ticket for inspection. Your “ticket” is the combination of a contactless card and a related entry in their remote database.

This is correct. Tapping in doesn’t create ‘a ticket’ it is more like a permit to travel. Just something to show your start station, but still got to pay for travel once destination is known and fare can be calculated.

The thread title is wrong, with contactless you don’t pay until after the journey, and actually not until early following day as needs to check if a fare cap for other journeys applies.

By refusing your card (which effectively has the permit to travel from start station) you couldn’t show anything that demonstrated you were in process of travelling to an end station where fare could be calculated, or that you had even touched in.

Retrospectively being able to show a bank transaction, might get Op out of paying a fare again, but there is still the offence of failing to provide a ticket for inspection.
 

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
Hi Again

sorry for being a bit slow to reply especially as people are trying to help me,
I can only apologise,
I simply get get enough hours in the day,

I am at lunch, so here is what people have been asking for

some months after the incident, I received a letter from the prosecutions department at kings cross

it read,

in red " notice of intention to prosecute"

dear mr me
On the so and so date, your details were taken by a revenue protection inspector at so and so station

this letter informs you of our intention to take this case to the magistrates court.

in this letter is did not say the reason as to what or why they were taking this to court other than my details were taken on so and so date.
There as a option to give my account off things, so I wrote a simple reply saying the fair was paid correctly, and gave then the transaction credit card number so they could check.


This morning I receive a letter now saying this,

in short, with out prejudice, they have reviewed the matter and are giving me the chance to settle this out of court at a fee off £57.90 which includes the outstanding fare due !!!!


what outstanding fare ????

I cant see anywhere where that actually spell out the reason for the intention to take this to court
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,002
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It seems they've assumed you hadn't paid the fare. I guess that's a £50 settlement plus a £7.50 Anytime Day Single? £50 is a very low settlement, they're usually £100.

I think you should pay it; to be additionally stubborn is likely to land you in Court where you'd be prosecuted under the Byelaw given above and it'd cost you a lot more than £57.50. You may manage to argue the £7.50 away but they could equally well just rescind the settlement offer.
 

Urge38

Member
Joined
9 Aug 2022
Messages
10
Location
london
opps

sorry,

on the reverse of the first letter it reads,

Details off the offence.
on said day you was spoken to in regard to the following alleged offence,

that you on said day did enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, and upon inspection at said station, did not produce a valid ticket entitaling travel.

sorry people, I really struggle with reading and writting, i am doing my best,

sorry

But as others have said, I am unable to produce a valid ticket as I used my credit card !!!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,002
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The law develops through legal precedent to deal with changes in circumstances. In your case, the "valid ticket" was the tapped-in credit/debit card which you refused to produce and therefore breached a Railway Byelaw by so refusing.

They seem to have got this bit right so I would be pretty confident a prosecution would be successful.

I would personally recommend paying the settlement and taking it as a lesson that being stubborn with figures of authority rarely leads to good outcomes. If you prefer not to hand over your credit/debit card for inspection in this sort of situation, you could use paper tickets or an Oyster card. And even if you were genuinely doubting who they were, you could have, and admitted you didn't, ask[ed] for ID which they would presumably have.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,317
Location
West Wiltshire
Normally settlement is £100 plus full fare.

Looks like you might have a half settlement (£50) possibly because your side of events was a 50/50 case of if Inspector identified themselves properly when you queried who they were. (Unclear on review whose version of events was more accurate).

I would recommend accepting and all over.
You don’t have to accept the settlement, but if you go to court and lose, might end up with higher penalty, and potentially bailiffs and flagged on credit registers, and if you want to go abroad might need to declare conviction. I understand if you don’t declare convictions to your insurers could also have problems with any claims.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,002
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Byelaw prosecutions aren't recordable, so probably not relevant to going abroad or insurance, but it is certain, if you go to Court, to mean a much higher figure if you are convicted, and my view would be it is a slam dunk Byelaw breach.
 

John Palmer

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
245
In your case, the "valid ticket" was the tapped-in credit/debit card
I'd be interested to hear how you arrive at that assertion. Some superficial research hasn't revealed a legal definition of what constitutes a ticket in a contactless ticketing system and I doubt that it's an issue that has yet been considered by the courts. The Railway Byelaws of 2005 don't assign a meaning to the word; they merely set out a list of things that are included in the expression.

This is not to say that the OP would be ill advised to accept the settlement that has been offered, as defending a Byelaw 18(2) prosecution (which is what this appears to be) seems unlikely to be straightforward. Nevertheless, the nature of the contactless system is such that I am much less certain than you that a traveller using this method of paying his fare is ever in possession of a ticket capable of being produced to meet the Byelaw 18(2) requirement.
 

HuggyB87

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2022
Messages
51
Location
Merseysode
Reference the "identification".

Byelaw 24.3

Identification of authorised persons
An authorised person who is exercising any power conferred on him by any of these Byelaws shall produce a form of identification when requested to do so and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain a means of identifying the authorised person.

Had the OP requested the identification, and the Authorised Person refused, they are well within their rights to be suspicious.

PS. I've not read the whole thread, so this may be already covered
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,759
So, had the OP agreed the request and allowed his card to be 'checked' would that have come back on the RPI's machine as recognised / tapped in / journey in progress or similar ?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,002
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
That seems the critical point. If they had, he might've had a defence. Looks like paying up is the best resolution.

Yep.

To be fair I think they should produce such identification without being asked, as it'd just make things easier, but they're presently not required to. TfL inspectors do.

If staff fear people finding out their real name, as I can quite understand they might, they should be issued with one saying "inspector number 12345" or whatever so they can be identified to the TOC. Nothing gained by fare dodgers being able to hunt for them on social media.
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
397
In Kraków there are signs in all public transport vehicles stating clearly what an inspector will be carrying: a hand held device and ID.

Why can't British public transport operators do something similar? That way it will be very ear to the public what they should expect from a legit ticket check.
 

hkstudent

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
1,359
Location
SE London
In Kraków there are signs in all public transport vehicles stating clearly what an inspector will be carrying: a hand held device and ID.

Why can't British public transport operators do something similar? That way it will be very ear to the public what they should expect from a legit ticket check.
TfL Revenue Officers are equipped with a TfL warrant badge similar to a police officer, so that's more official. Of course, they always have the staff ID if required by passengers.
But I agree that TOCs shows have an NR-style badge to go with them.

I reckon that couple of years ago, I was inspected by a plain clothes officer onboard a Lviv tram, and often a police-style badge would be good enough for the locals to recognise her.
 

choochoochoo

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
1,217
Ok. If I had doubts about an RPI, what’s to stop me cooperating and not giving suspect RPI any details at all at that time ?

If the RPI was genuine and wanted to enforce their assertion that I was travelling without a valid ticket, then would the next step be them summoning BTP ?

At which point when BTP arrive I would present said valid ticket and be on my merry way.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,440
Location
Bristol
Ok. If I had doubts about an RPI, what’s to stop me cooperating and not giving suspect RPI any details at all at that time ?
If you have genuine doubts about them you should NOT give them any details until you have been satisfied they are genuine.
If the RPI was genuine and wanted to enforce their assertion that I was travelling without a valid ticket, then would the next step be them summoning BTP ?
I would think there are intermediate steps first, like finding another member of staff and asking them to confirm, or asking the suspect RPI if there is a phone number you call to establish his authenticity (e.g. to a manager). Or even sending a photo via DM on Twitter to the relevant TOC. Should all these fail, then yes summoning the BTP would probably be the next step.
At which point when BTP arrive I would present said valid ticket and be on my merry way.
Yes, although they may want to ask you what your concerns were to check you weren't just wasting everybody's time before moving onto the specific ticketing issue.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,478
At which point when BTP arrive I would present said valid ticket and be on my merry way.
This whole thread is about the fact that there effectively isn’t a “ticket” to present when using a contactless bank card. I suspect all BTP would do is ask you to present the same bank card to the RPI’s gadget that you could have already done. I don’t believe that would help much.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,440
Location
Bristol
This whole thread is about the fact that there effectively isn’t a “ticket” to present when using a contactless bank card. I suspect all BTP would do is ask you to present the same bank card to the RPI’s gadget that you could have already done. I don’t believe that would help much.
To get us back on topic, the OPs problem was he didn't trust the scanner. If a BTP officer had examined the scanner and confirmed to him it didn't store any sensitive data, would he have been willing to scan the card?
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,354
So, had the OP agreed the request and allowed his card to be 'checked' would that have come back on the RPI's machine as recognised / tapped in / journey in progress or similar ?
It simply records a touch which is compared with other touches in and out in the overnight processing to establish whether or not to charge a maximum journey charge. All the RPI knows from the interaction is whether the card works or not.
To get us back on topic, the OPs problem was he didn't trust the scanner. If a BTP officer had examined the scanner and confirmed to him it didn't store any sensitive data, would he have been willing to scan the card?
How would the police officer know what the equipment does? I doubt a police officer could do more than confirm the authenticity of the RPI. And probably tell the OP to stop wasting his time.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,440
Location
Bristol
How would the police officer know what the equipment does? I doubt a police officer could do more than confirm the authenticity of the RPI. And probably tell the OP to stop wasting his time.
I expect he would confirm the authenticity of the RPI and then ask a couple of questions like 'what data does it show you?'
 

Doppelganger

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
397
This is such a strange thread. It surely boils down to this: An RPI is checking tickets and a punter needs reassurance that they are kosher.

As such they need to be very clear that they introduce themselves as to who they are and what they are doing.

Sorry to bring up Poland again, but when a ticket check is going on, all validators are switched off and there is an onboard announcement that a ticket check is occurring, so there can be little doubt as to the authenticity of it.

Quite frankly if Thameslink staff are not introducing themselves properly, they can do one.

What if some bloke appears at your door wanting to read your meter, would you let him in or insist they properly present themselves with appropriate identification that can be independently verified if necessary?
 

choochoochoo

Established Member
Joined
6 Aug 2013
Messages
1,217
It simply records a touch which is compared with other touches in and out in the overnight processing to establish whether or not to charge a maximum journey charge. All the RPI knows from the interaction is whether the card works or not.

How would the police officer know what the equipment does? I doubt a police officer could do more than confirm the authenticity of the RPI. And probably tell the OP to stop wasting his time.
Would a fake RPI would risk involving BTP ? Or even know the correct way to summon one ?

It’s essentially calling a scammer's bluff

Although as previously mentioned I’d try an ascertain a dubious Rpi's authenticity by other means first. Aren’t most scammers are opportunistic so any sniff of doubt and they’d run a mile.
 

londonbridge

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2010
Messages
1,473
What if some bloke appears at your door wanting to read your meter, would you let him in or insist they properly present themselves with appropriate identification that can be independently verified if necessary?
This….a few years back as I arrived home from work and went to unlock my front door a bloke suddenly appeared claiming to be from the water company, saying they were doing some work on the supply and that he needed to check my manhole cover. When I said I didn’t have one he insisted it would be in the back garden and asked to come through the house to the back. I was suspicious of his mannerisms and when I asked him for ID he became evasive, pointing to a van parked a few doors down the road and saying his ID was in the van and that he would finish off talking to my neighbours and then get the ID and show me it. I resorted to telling him to either show me his ID and work order now, or else get the f… off my property. He said alright, alright, no need for that, then went and got in the van and drove off….it was obviously sone sort of distraction scam where his mate would have sneaked into the house whilst I let him through to the back garden. Rang the police but they didn’t seem overly interested.

Anyway, back on identifying RPI’s and I remember the old posters on London buses with a picture of an ID badge saying that some of their ticket inspectors would be in plain clothes, and that “they will identify themselves with the badge shown opposite”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top