Michael Hoffman wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

But that old post of mine that you discovered (full marks for
detective work!) was sent in October 2005, and the bit about the
lack of advice from TfL is no longer true. Since September 2006,
the TfL fares leaflets have included advice to check for the green
light. The January 2007 edition says "Please check for the green
light when you touch in and/or out to ensure that your Oyster card
has been validated. Failure to touch in and/or out may result in
a penalty fare or you being prosecuted."

Is everyone supposed to read the small print in the fares leaflet
every year?

TfL, much to their credit, don't do small print. Their document design
standards forbid text in leaflets smaller than 12-point, with exceptions
only where unavoidable (e.g. the pocket Tube map).

I gave it as an example of the advice they offer, and I assume that it's
also given elsewhere. Another example has already been posted on this
thread.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Richard J. wrote:
Michael Hoffman wrote:
Richard J. wrote:

But that old post of mine that you discovered (full marks for
detective work!) was sent in October 2005, and the bit about the
lack of advice from TfL is no longer true. Since September 2006,
the TfL fares leaflets have included advice to check for the green
light. The January 2007 edition says "Please check for the green
light when you touch in and/or out to ensure that your Oyster card
has been validated. Failure to touch in and/or out may result in
a penalty fare or you being prosecuted."

Is everyone supposed to read the small print in the fares leaflet
every year?

TfL, much to their credit, don't do small print. Their document design
standards forbid text in leaflets smaller than 12-point, with exceptions
only where unavoidable (e.g. the pocket Tube map).

That's still small compared to the massive advertising campaigns when
other bits of advice about Oyster have changed.
--
Michael Hoffman

Here's a question for everyone other than Mr. Self Righteous (i think we can all guess what your response will be, so save yourself the trouble of posting it)

If a passenger says that they didn't hear the card reader emit the 'fail' signal (and the inspector wasn't on the bus to disprove this version of events) how can TFL possibly prosecute them for DELIBERATE fare evasion? Surely it's up to TFL to PROVE that this is NOT the case by taking witness statements from passengers, the driver and examining CCTV evidence. If NONE of this evidence is presented, how can the magistrate possibly return a guilty verdict?!

traveller wrote:
Here's a question for everyone other than Mr. Self Righteous (i think we
can all guess what your response will be, so save yourself the trouble
of posting it)

If a passenger says that they didn't hear the card reader emit the
'fail' signal (and the inspector wasn't on the bus to disprove this
version of events) how can TFL possibly prosecute them for DELIBERATE
fare evasion?

Traveling on a bus without paying is a strict liability offence. So
deliberate fare evasion need not be proven, only that the fare was not paid.
--
Michael Hoffman

On 31 May, 18:08, traveller
wrote:
If a passenger says that they didn't hear the card reader emit the
'fail' signal

I can't answer the legal question, but hearing or not hearing the beep
is irrelevant. If you don't see a green light, you shouldn't get on,
because you haven't paid for the journey. In other words, the onus is
on the passenger to ensure they've paid, not on TfL to inform them
they haven't.

(NB I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just trying to explain
the system)

U

"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
traveller wrote:
Here's a question for everyone other than Mr. Self Righteous (i think we
can all guess what your response will be, so save yourself the trouble
of posting it)

If a passenger says that they didn't hear the card reader emit the
'fail' signal (and the inspector wasn't on the bus to disprove this
version of events) how can TFL possibly prosecute them for DELIBERATE
fare evasion?

Traveling on a bus without paying is a strict liability offence.

Only if a PF is issued. For a criminal conviction 'intent' must
be shown.

tim

tim..... wrote:
"Michael Hoffman" wrote in message
...
traveller wrote:
Here's a question for everyone other than Mr. Self Righteous (i think we
can all guess what your response will be, so save yourself the trouble
of posting it)

If a passenger says that they didn't hear the card reader emit the
'fail' signal (and the inspector wasn't on the bus to disprove this
version of events) how can TFL possibly prosecute them for DELIBERATE
fare evasion?
Traveling on a bus without paying is a strict liability offence.

Only if a PF is issued. For a criminal conviction 'intent' must
be shown.

Not true. See the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 s25(3) and The
Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and
Passengers) Regulations 1990 s7(2)(b)(ii).
--
Michael Hoffman

10. Suspected fare evasion and prosecutions

10.1. If you are travelling on any of our services without either:

• a ticket that is valid and available for the journey you are making
• an Oyster card containing a valid season ticket
• an Oyster card, when you are paying as you go, showing a record of the start of your trip
or
• a valid 14-15 Oyster photocard if you are aged 14 or 15 and are travelling free on a bus
• a valid 16-17 Oyster photocard if you are aged 16 or 17 and are travelling free on a bus

AND we believe that you are trying to avoid paying the correct fare, you may be prosecuted.

So in addition to travelling without the appropriate ticket it seems that it is also neccessary to establish a that the passenger is 'trying to avoid paying the correct fare'. Surely this involves some proof that the passenger hasn't simply made a mistake?

traveller wrote:

If you are travelling on any of our services without either:

• a ticket that is valid and available for the journey you are making
• an Oyster card containing a valid season ticket
• an Oyster card, when you are paying as you go, showing a record of
the start of your trip
[...]
AND we believe that you are trying to avoid paying the correct fare,
you may be prosecuted.

So in addition to travelling without the appropriate ticket it seems
that it is also neccessary to establish a that the passenger is 'trying
to avoid paying the correct fare'. Surely this involves some proof that
the passenger hasn't simply made a mistake?

No. Under the statute TfL uses to prosecute bus fare non-payment, no
such proof is necessary. They only have to prove that you did not pay
the correct fare. What you are quoting is their policy that they will
only prosecute you if they think that you are trying to avoid the
correct fare. But they do not need to prove what they think to make the
prosecution stick.
--
Michael Hoffman

traveller wrote:
Michael Hoffman Wrote:
Traveling on a bus without paying is a strict liability offence. So
deliberate fare evasion need not be proven, only that the fare was
not paid.
--
Michael Hoffman

10. Suspected fare evasion and prosecutions

10.1. If you are travelling on any of our services without either:

• a ticket that is valid and available for the journey you are
making
• an Oyster card containing a valid season ticket
• an Oyster card, when you are paying as you go, showing a record of
the start of your trip
or
• a valid 14-15 Oyster photocard if you are aged 14 or 15 and are
travelling free on a bus
• a valid 16-17 Oyster photocard if you are aged 16 or 17 and are
travelling free on a bus

AND we believe that you are trying to avoid paying the correct fare,
you may be prosecuted.

So in addition to travelling without the appropriate ticket it seems
that it is also neccessary to establish a that the passenger is
'trying to avoid paying the correct fare'. Surely this involves
some proof that the passenger hasn't simply made a mistake?

All that TfL are saying is that they will prosecute if they *believe*
that avoidance was deliberate. But the act under which they take you to
court is, I think (for buses), the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981,
section 25(3). That basically says that travelling without paying the
fare is an offence, without any mention of intent.

HOWEVER, it is subject to section 68(1), which says "It shall be a
defence for a person charged with an offence ... to prove that there was
a reasonable excuse for the act or omission in respect of which he is
charged."

So IF you can persuade the magistrate that you couldn't hear the reject
bleep AND you didn't see or understand the red light AND you didn't read
the text on the screen, even though you've been using Oyster on buses
for the last x years, AND you thought that you had enough credit on your
card, then you might be able to escape conviction.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)