Oyster Extension Permits (was: Integrated ticketing scheme)
 

[Added uk.transport.london]

On 06/09/10 10:27, Mizter T wrote:
(b) No one pays any attention to the OEP system . I haven't come
across any stories of anyone getting in trouble as a result of not
having an OEP when technically speaking they were supposed to have
one.

Are you suggesting that RP staff are currently ignoring the situation of
a travelcard outside of the paid for zones when they encounter it on a
NR train?

Even if so, it only takes one TOC to change its policy to land you in
hot water. It is quite possible, for instance, that there was a
deliberate policy of taking a lenient approach while the system 'beds
in', and that at some point in the near future they will start enforcing
it rather more vigorously.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits (was: Integrated ticketing scheme)
 

On Sep 7, 11:43*am, Roy Badami wrote:

[Added uk.transport.london]

On 06/09/10 10:27, Mizter T wrote:

(b) No one pays any attention to the OEP system . I haven't come
across any stories of anyone getting in trouble as a result of not
having an OEP when technically speaking they were supposed to have
one.

Are you suggesting that RP staff are currently ignoring the situation of
a travelcard outside of the paid for zones when they encounter it on a
NR train?

Yes (so long as the card was touched-in).


Even if so, it only takes one TOC to change its policy to land you in
hot water. *It is quite possible, for instance, that there was a
deliberate policy of taking a lenient approach while the system 'beds
in', and that at some point in the near future they will start enforcing
it rather more vigorously.

That is possible, yes. Though an attempt to enforce it would really
need for there to be a comprehensive information campaign, posters at
stations and the like.

(And quite how it would work in the case of journeys that start at SWT
stations where there aren't any facilities to add OEPs is
questionable.)

I expect the current muddled situation will persist, for the time
being at least.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 13:40, Ganesh Sittampalam wrote:

It seems this case was overturned on appeal, though that's relatively
hard to find - http://home.vicnet.net.au/~safari/newsletters/No58.pdf
(near the bottom of the last column on the last page) says:

Interesting, thanks.

but Kingston Crown Court ruled that he had a
“reasonable excuse” as he was unaware his fare had not been deducted.

Of course, this was a prosecution for bus fare evasion, and section
68(1) of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, the legislation under
which the case would almost certainly have been brought, says:

"68 (1) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under
any of the provisions of this Act mentioned in subsection (2) below to
prove that there was a reasonable excuse for the act or omission in
respect of which he is charged."

The Railway Byelaws are a rather different kettle of fish, and lack a
"reasonable excuse" defence, AFAICS.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 7 Sep, 13:54, Mizter T wrote:
On Sep 7, 1:13*pm, Roy Badami wrote:





On 07/09/10 12:16, Mizter T wrote:

On Sep 7, 11:43 am, Roy *wrote:
Are you suggesting that RP staff are currently ignoring the situation of
a travelcard outside of the paid for zones when they encounter it on a
NR train?

Yes (so long as the card was touched-in).

Interesting, but I'm just not comfortable relying on it. *If it were
just the risk of a PF that might be one thing, but there's always the
risk that they might prosecute. *e.g.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...-court-case-ov...

And just reading the comments to that article, we see a young woman
saying she's being prosecuted for getting off a SWT train early on a
Megatrain ticket, which rather ties in with another thread on uk.r.

Well, I suppose we don't know the particular circumstances of that
event, though I'd guess that she got off at Clapham Junction rather
than Waterloo (and of course it only presents her side of the story).
I wonder if the lack of a physical orange bordered ticket (a Megatrain
'ticket' need be nothing more than a booking reference number) might
have made the RPIs rather more circumspect, perhaps suspecting that
this was just a case of ticketless travel?

However in the case of OEPs I find it really rather hard to imagine a
TOC would actually attempt a prosecution, and if they did I think the
case would fall apart very quickly. IANAL etc.

As I said before, I haven't yet come across any suggestion that PFs
are actually being issued in these scenarios, let alone any talk of
prosecutions. I'll keep my ears and eyes open to it though.

Jeez, that had me going. I thought for a minute there was a whole new
thread on OEPs with 36 posts already.

Anyway, just thougth I'd remind about the posters in SET trains which
don't mention OEPs or travelcards at all when encouraging people to
use Oyster. They talk about "use your Oyster card on our Greater
London Metro trains" or something similar.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 13:54, Mizter T wrote:

However in the case of OEPs I find it really rather hard to imagine a
TOC would actually attempt a prosecution,

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I don't think it's
incredibly likely to happen - but there have been several instances in
recent years where a decision to prosecute has on the face of it been
rather disproportionate, which is why I remain cautious.

and if they did I think the case would fall apart very quickly. IANAL
etc.

My concern is that it wouldn't fall apart. You'd be on a train without
a valid ticket, and you wouldn't really have much of a leg to stand on.
The offence under the byelaws is an absolute offence, so intent
doesn't matter.

IANAL, natch.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

In message
, at
05:54:30 on Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Mizter T remarked:
we see a young woman
saying she's being prosecuted for getting off a SWT train early on a
Megatrain ticket, which rather ties in with another thread on uk.r.

Well, I suppose we don't know the particular circumstances of that
event, though I'd guess that she got off at Clapham Junction rather
than Waterloo

Eastleigh instead of Southampton. They admit they changed plans and got
off early (to see some friends) but claim they can't understand why they
are being penalised for making a shorter journey than they paid for.
--
Roland Perry

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 14:36, Roy Badami wrote:

My concern is that it wouldn't fall apart. You'd be on a train without a
valid ticket, and you wouldn't really have much of a leg to stand on.
The offence under the byelaws is an absolute offence, so intent doesn't
matter.

Actually, I take that back slightly. The two relevent circumstances
that trigger an offence under the Railway Byelaws are

17(1) No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway
unless he has with him a valid ticket.

18(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person
shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway
unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

So it would seem that you wouldn't trigger the above offences if you
were within your zones when you entered a NR compulsory ticket area; nor
if you were within your zones when you boarded a NR train, at least
providing the next stop was also within your zones.

You might need to be careful if you need to change trains, though, since
if you don't remain within a compulsory ticket area then boarding the
second train may trigger an offence under 18(1).

If they can't use the Byelaws then of course we're home and dry, because
to prosecute under the Railways Acts they'd have to prove an intent to
evade the fare.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 14:47, Roland Perry wrote:

Eastleigh instead of Southampton. They admit they changed plans and got
off early (to see some friends) but claim they can't understand why they
are being penalised for making a shorter journey than they paid for.

I think you're confusing this with the different case in a different
thread (although both involve Megatrain and SWT).

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 14:51, I wrote:

So it would seem that you wouldn't trigger the above offences if you
were within your zones when you entered a NR compulsory ticket area; nor
if you were within your zones when you boarded a NR train, at least
providing the next stop was also within your zones.

Damn, that doesn't work at least if your destination station, outside
your zones, has a compulsory ticket area. At the point where you
disembark from the train you'd be entering a compulsory ticket area
without a ticket.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 2:47*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
05:54:30 on Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Mizter T remarked:

we see a young woman
saying she's being prosecuted for getting off a SWT train early on a
Megatrain ticket, which rather ties in with another thread on uk.r.

Well, I suppose we don't know the particular circumstances of that
event, though I'd guess that she got off at Clapham Junction rather
than Waterloo

Eastleigh instead of Southampton. They admit they changed plans and got
off early (to see some friends) but claim they can't understand why they
are being penalised for making a shorter journey than they paid for.

No Roland, please don't confuse matters!

I'm referring to the reader's comment that Roy flagged up from a
'Jenny' that appears underneath the Evening Standard story on their
website wot Roy linked to in a post upthread - it is a completely
different case from the Eastleigh story being discussed in a totally
separate thread (on uk.r)!

For reference, the Standard story with the comment in question is
he
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23492257-.do

(And for the reference of others, the thread about the Eastleigh case
is entitled 'Fined £114 for being caught "short" '.)