On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:01:17 -0500
wrote:
Believe it or not, with £55 million unclaimed Oyster credit, my wife has
been doing her bit in the other direction by having a negative balance of
£4.50 for over a year!

Presumably as oyster cards get more expensive to buy then the negative
balance allowed gets proportionaly larger? I'm sure the max negative balance
used to be something like 2 quid when oysters cost 3 quid.

B2003

In message , at 08:30:28 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
Believe it or not, with £55 million unclaimed Oyster credit, my wife has
been doing her bit in the other direction by having a negative balance of
£4.50 for over a year!

Presumably as oyster cards get more expensive to buy then the negative
balance allowed gets proportionaly larger? I'm sure the max negative balance
used to be something like 2 quid when oysters cost 3 quid.

Unless it's a "Visitor card" then the £3/£5 is a deposit, with the card
itself remaining the property of TfL.

It seems from Colin's experience that people with historic £3 deposits
(from before Jan 2011) are allowed to go £5 overdrawn though.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:04:51 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:30:28 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
Believe it or not, with £55 million unclaimed Oyster credit, my wife has
been doing her bit in the other direction by having a negative balance of
£4.50 for over a year!

Presumably as oyster cards get more expensive to buy then the negative
balance allowed gets proportionaly larger? I'm sure the max negative balance
used to be something like 2 quid when oysters cost 3 quid.

Unless it's a "Visitor card" then the £3/£5 is a deposit, with the card
itself remaining the property of TfL.

Semantics. The card is de facto the property of the person who paid for it.
The notes in your wallet are legally the property of the government but I
bet you wouldn't give it over to a minister if he asked for it.

B2003

In message , at 10:16:09 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
Believe it or not, with £55 million unclaimed Oyster credit, my wife has
been doing her bit in the other direction by having a negative balance of
£4.50 for over a year!

Presumably as oyster cards get more expensive to buy then the negative
balance allowed gets proportionaly larger? I'm sure the max negative balance
used to be something like 2 quid when oysters cost 3 quid.

Unless it's a "Visitor card" then the £3/£5 is a deposit, with the card
itself remaining the property of TfL.

Semantics. The card is de facto the property of the person who paid for it.
The notes in your wallet are legally the property of the government but I
bet you wouldn't give it over to a minister if he asked for it.

I'm sure an accountant somewhere was expecting to recycle "surrendered"
Oyster cards, all the literature makes it quite clear they don't belong
to the holder, only the money on them does.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:41:59 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
I'm sure an accountant somewhere was expecting to recycle "surrendered"
Oyster cards, all the literature makes it quite clear they don't belong
to the holder, only the money on them does.

No doubt, but if TfL was truly serious about retaining ownership then they'd
require everyone to produce id and a valid address before buying one so they
could be reclaimed at some point (though obviously if someone lives abroad
that might be a teensy problem). Since they don't require I think it can
be infered that they don't actually care.

B2003

In message , at 10:52:45 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
I'm sure an accountant somewhere was expecting to recycle "surrendered"
Oyster cards, all the literature makes it quite clear they don't belong
to the holder, only the money on them does.

No doubt, but if TfL was truly serious about retaining ownership then they'd
require everyone to produce id and a valid address before buying one so they
could be reclaimed at some point (though obviously if someone lives abroad
that might be a teensy problem). Since they don't require I think it can
be infered that they don't actually care.

Whether they care or not (about getting them back), that doesn't change
the legal position wrt ownership.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:05:12 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:45 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
I'm sure an accountant somewhere was expecting to recycle "surrendered"
Oyster cards, all the literature makes it quite clear they don't belong
to the holder, only the money on them does.

No doubt, but if TfL was truly serious about retaining ownership then they'd
require everyone to produce id and a valid address before buying one so they
could be reclaimed at some point (though obviously if someone lives abroad
that might be a teensy problem). Since they don't require I think it can
be infered that they don't actually care.

Whether they care or not (about getting them back), that doesn't change
the legal position wrt ownership.

If a person or an organisation sells something without knowing or caring
where its gone but simply claiming its still theirs then perhaps ownership
could be challenged in court? I would xpost to uk.legal but this bloody
news server won't allowed it.

B2003

On 12/04/2012 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:52:45 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
I'm sure an accountant somewhere was expecting to recycle "surrendered"
Oyster cards, all the literature makes it quite clear they don't belong
to the holder, only the money on them does.

No doubt, but if TfL was truly serious about retaining ownership then
they'd
require everyone to produce id and a valid address before buying one
so they
could be reclaimed at some point (though obviously if someone lives
abroad
that might be a teensy problem). Since they don't require I think it can
be infered that they don't actually care.

Whether they care or not (about getting them back), that doesn't change
the legal position wrt ownership.

Presumably they assert ownership as some way to increase the chance of
prosecution if you decide to hack "your" Oyster card?

Or if they discover dodgy behaviour going on they can invalidate and/or
confiscate cards (whilst paying back any pay as you go balance) without
you being able to accuse them of theft?

In article , d ()
wrote:

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:04:51 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:30:28 on Thu, 12 Apr
2012, d remarked:
Believe it or not, with £55 million unclaimed Oyster credit, my wife
has been doing her bit in the other direction by having a negative
balance of £4.50 for over a year!

Presumably as oyster cards get more expensive to buy then the negative
balance allowed gets proportionaly larger? I'm sure the max negative
balance used to be something like 2 quid when oysters cost 3 quid.

Unless it's a "Visitor card" then the £3/£5 is a deposit, with the card
itself remaining the property of TfL.

Semantics. The card is de facto the property of the person who paid for
it. The notes in your wallet are legally the property of the government
but I bet you wouldn't give it over to a minister if he asked for it.

No matter. There was no question of "allowing" any overdraft. The charge was
applied after the last use in the Oyster system before last weekend.

--
Colin Rosenstiel