Roland Perry wrote

Part of the problem is the impression which is given that the Oyster
capping system means you'll never pay more than the total of all the
individual elements bought separately as efficiently as possible.

However, that isn't the case (see the Z5 example I quoted yesterday).


That's an assertion of what is charged, not an example. Evidence would
be a Oyster Journey history showing the amount charged and/ or repeated
refunds and/or a ruling by the ASA that the "never pay more" is
misleading advertising or a FoI disclosure agreeing that.

--
Mike D

In message 01cdc428$e4df7c80$LocalHost@default, at 21:18:10 on Fri, 16
Nov 2012, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
Part of the problem is the impression which is given that the Oyster
capping system means you'll never pay more than the total of all the
individual elements bought separately as efficiently as possible.

However, that isn't the case (see the Z5 example I quoted yesterday).

That's an assertion of what is charged, not an example.

There is no reason to believe it's other than what would be charged.

Tell you what, I'll go and try it out (and gather the evidence), and if
I'm right you agree to pay my travel expenses, OK?
--
Roland Perry