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" '.)

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 2:36*pm, Roy Badami wrote:

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.

Nonetheless I think it's really rather unlikely to happen - and
certainly not at the moment.


* 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.

I disagree, I think if a case was brought to court now it'd fall apart
in a second.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

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:

[...]
The court noted that passengers were not warned to check for a green
light and a beep when touching their cards onto the reader -

Seeing as its either (as I recall) a round green light or a
round red light, is there also a colour-blindness defence?
And do the readers not sometimes beep (but maybe twice?) also
on a failed read? Hmm. Since I don't seem to remember very
clearly, perhaps I better hope there's a "hopelessly confused"
defence as well.

#Paul

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 3:46*pm, wrote:

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:
[...]
The court noted that passengers were not warned to check for a green
light and a beep when touching their cards onto the reader -

Seeing as its either (as I recall) a round green light or a
round red light, is there also a colour-blindness defence?
And do the readers not sometimes beep (but maybe twice?) also
on a failed read? *Hmm. Since I don't seem to remember very
clearly, perhaps I better hope there's a "hopelessly confused"
defence as well.

There's a double beep on an error which is at quite a different pitch
to a single beep on success. The double error beep actually covers a
lot of bases - failed read, not enough credit, passback attempt etc.
There's also a further multi-beep for those using concessionary 'Zip'
Oyster cards for young people.

All validators on buses do the beeping thing, though I recall being on
one bus where the beep element appeared to be broken - caused a lot of
confusion amongst boarding passengers as they weren't sure if they'd
successfully touched in or not.

Standalone Oyster validators at stations and tram stops also do the
beeping thing too.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

MIG wrote:

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.

It's similar on National Express although there are some additional posters
at stations about where the outer boundary is beyond which you can't use
Oyster. Nothing about OEPs at all.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:13:46 +0100, Roy Badami
wrote:

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.

So how would this situation be treated:
I and a colleague travelled from Euston to Richmond. I have PAYG, he
has a Z1-2 season.

Outward journey from Euston on Overground, via Willesden Jn. Touched
in at Euston, £1.30 PAYG for colleage indicated on exiting Richmond
station.

On the return journey, just missed Overground so caught the first
Waterloo train, changing at Vauxhall. Colleague charged £1.50 on
exit. As we didn't decided to use NR until the last minute, should my
colleague have tried to set an OEP for the return? Should the
barriers at Vauxhall NR have alerted someone to the absence of an OEP
and not have allowed him to leave?

Oyster FAQ is of little help...
You only need to set an Oyster Extension Permit when you start a
journey within the zones covered by your Travelcard and want to travel
outside those zones on National Rail

We didn't "want to travel" on NR, it was simply more convenient at the
time...

Oyster Extension Permits
 

Ivor The Engine wrote:

Oyster FAQ is of little help...
You only need to set an Oyster Extension Permit when you start a
journey within the zones covered by your Travelcard and want to travel
outside those zones on National Rail

We didn't "want to travel" on NR, it was simply more convenient at the
time...

Has anyone ever pointed out the inconsistency between NR policy on
permitted routes and the London Zones?

e.g. take the former Manchester to Derby Voyager service. Tickets M-D
were valid on it because it was a through train, even though it went via
Birmingham, and M-D tickets were not valid there. In contrast, the Zonal
validity is applied when trains pass through zones, even if they are
through services.



--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632955.html
(43 082 at Longbridge, 10 Jun 1995)

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 07/09/10 17:32, Ivor The Engine wrote:

So how would this situation be treated:
I and a colleague travelled from Euston to Richmond. I have PAYG, he
has a Z1-2 season.

Outward journey from Euston on Overground, via Willesden Jn. Touched
in at Euston, £1.30 PAYG for colleage indicated on exiting Richmond
station.

On the return journey, just missed Overground so caught the first
Waterloo train, changing at Vauxhall. Colleague charged £1.50 on
exit. As we didn't decided to use NR until the last minute, should my
colleague have tried to set an OEP for the return?

No. When your colleague touched in at Richmond, this would have
initiated a PAYG journey, since Richmond is outside his zones - so no
need for an OEP.

If you'd used NR on the outwards journey he would have needed an OEP,
though. That's because touching in at Euston wouldn't normally start a
PAYG jouney since it's within his zones - the OEP makes sure that it does.

Basically NR are worried about people touching in within their zones and
then leaving the system at an ungated NR station without touching out -
therefore never having touched an Oyster reader outside their zones and
hence not paying for their journey. What the OEP does is force the
system to use the normal PAYG rules even if you start your journey
within the zones; in that case (i.e. with the OEP) the normal PAYG rules
would apply and he'd be charged a maximum fare if he failed to touch out.

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 5:32*pm, Ivor The Engine wrote:

On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:13:46 +0100, Roy Badami
wrote:

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.

So how would this situation be treated:
I and a colleague travelled from Euston to Richmond. * I have PAYG, he
has a Z1-2 season.

Outward journey from Euston on Overground, via Willesden Jn. *Touched
in at Euston, £1.30 PAYG for colleage indicated on exiting Richmond
station.

On the return journey, just missed Overground so caught the first
Waterloo train, changing at Vauxhall. *Colleague charged £1.50 on
exit. *As we didn't decided to use NR until the last minute, should my
colleague have tried to set an OEP for the return? [...]

No - OEPs are *only* for those starting journeys within the zones
covered by their Travelcard and heading out of them to elsewhere in
PAYG-land (which is the London zones plus Watford Jn and four stations
on c2c).

Your colleague was in full compliance with the rules. (The difference
in fares reflect the fact that a z3&4 journey on NR is charged at a
different rate to a z3&4 journey on TfL services, i.e. LU/LO/DLR.)

[...] Should the
barriers at Vauxhall NR have alerted someone to the absence of an OEP
and not have allowed him to leave?

No - see above.

If you'd decided to travel on NR *from* Waterloo to Richmond, then to
ensure they comply with the rules they should set an OEP before
departing from Waterloo (it could be set before starting the Tube
journey at Euston or wherever, or at Waterloo - worth noting that SWT
ticket machines don't provide for Oyster at all so at Waterloo it
could only be done at the Tube station). The logic is that they should
set an OEP before they leave the zones covered by their Travelcard,
i.e. before they leave zones 1&2.

However, even if they hadn't set an OEP then the gates at Richmond
would have deducted the correct extension fare for travel in z3&4 (so
long as they touched-in properly when passing through the NR gates at
Waterloo to access the platforms) - the gates do *not* complain about
the lack of an OEP whatsoever, they don't flag it up in any way to
gate staff, nada - as I said above, OEPs aren't something that anyone
seems to pay much attention to, let alone actually try to enforce.


Oyster FAQ is of little help...
You only need to set an Oyster Extension Permit when you start a
journey within the zones covered by your Travelcard and want to travel
outside those zones on National Rail

We didn't "want to travel" on NR, it was simply more convenient at the
time...

You've missed the crucial wording "start a journey within the zones
covered by your Travelcard and want to travel outside those zones on
National Rail" - at Richmond, your colleague was *not* starting a
journey within the zones covered by his Travelcard, hence there was no
requirement for him to set an OEP.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 6:46*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Sep 7, 5:32*pm, Ivor The Engine wrote:

So how would this situation be treated:
I and a colleague travelled from Euston to Richmond. * I have PAYG, he
has a Z1-2 season.

Outward journey from Euston on Overground, via Willesden Jn. *Touched
in at Euston, £1.30 PAYG for colleage indicated on exiting Richmond
station.

On the return journey, just missed Overground so caught the first
Waterloo train, changing at Vauxhall. *Colleague charged £1.50 on
exit. *As we didn't decided to use NR until the last minute, should my
colleague have tried to set an OEP for the return? [...]

No - OEPs are *only* for those starting journeys within the zones
covered by their Travelcard and heading out of them to elsewhere in
PAYG-land (which is the London zones plus Watford Jn and four stations
on c2c).

Your colleague was in full compliance with the rules. (The difference
in fares reflect the fact that a z3&4 journey on NR is charged at a
different rate to a z3&4 journey on TfL services, i.e. LU/LO/DLR.)

[...] Should the
barriers at Vauxhall NR have alerted someone to the absence of an OEP
and not have allowed him to leave?

No - see above.

If you'd decided to travel on NR *from* Waterloo to Richmond, then to
ensure they comply with the rules they should set an OEP before
departing from Waterloo (it could be set before starting the Tube
journey at Euston or wherever, or at Waterloo - worth noting that SWT
ticket machines don't provide for Oyster at all so at Waterloo it
could only be done at the Tube station). The logic is that they should
set an OEP before they leave the zones covered by their Travelcard,
i.e. before they leave zones 1&2.

However, even if they hadn't set an OEP then the gates at Richmond
would have deducted the correct extension fare for travel in z3&4 (so
long as they touched-in properly when passing through the NR gates at
Waterloo to access the platforms) - the gates do *not* complain about
the lack of an OEP whatsoever, they don't flag it up in any way to
gate staff, nada - as I said *above, OEPs aren't something that anyone
seems to pay much attention to, let alone actually try to enforce.

Argh - substitute Vauxhall for Waterloo and everything I've written
above is still valid.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 7, 6:34*pm, Roy Badami wrote:

On 07/09/10 17:32, Ivor The Engine wrote:

So how would this situation be treated:
I and a colleague travelled from Euston to Richmond. * I have PAYG, he
has a Z1-2 season.

Outward journey from Euston on Overground, via Willesden Jn. *Touched
in at Euston, £1.30 PAYG for colleage indicated on exiting Richmond
station.

On the return journey, just missed Overground so caught the first
Waterloo train, changing at Vauxhall. *Colleague charged £1.50 on
exit. *As we didn't decided to use NR until the last minute, should my
colleague have tried to set an OEP for the return?

No. *When your colleague touched in at Richmond, this would have
initiated a PAYG journey, since Richmond is outside his zones - so no
need for an OEP.

If you'd used NR on the outwards journey he would have needed an OEP,
though. *That's because touching in at Euston wouldn't normally start a
PAYG jouney since it's within his zones - the OEP makes sure that it does..

In that scenario, because Vauxhall Tube and NR stations are actually
separate, then it would have been equally possible to set an OEP at
Vauxhall (though it's only possible to do so at the Tube station,
because there's no facilities to set one at the NR station - SWT
ticket machines cater for their own smartcard system and not Oyster).

Indeed, they could have travelled to Clapham Junction or even Putney
(last station in zone 2 - actually on the z2/3 border), alighted and
touched-out and then gone to find somewhere to load an OEP onto the
card before recommencing the journey - though that place would have to
be an Oyster ticket stop, given that SWT stations have no facilities
to set OEPs (do I sound like a stuck record yet). Of course getting
off at CJ and Putney in order to do this would also be absurd - hence
do it at Euston or Vauxhall (or else don't worry about it).


Basically NR are worried about people touching in within their zones and
then leaving the system at an ungated NR station without touching out -
therefore never having touched an Oyster reader outside their zones and
hence not paying for their journey. *What the OEP does is force the
system to use the normal PAYG rules even if you start your journey
within the zones; in that case (i.e. with the OEP) the normal PAYG rules
would apply and he'd be charged a maximum fare if he failed to touch out.

Yep.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 10:46:53 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

You've missed the crucial wording "start a journey within the zones
covered by your Travelcard and want to travel outside those zones on
National Rail" - at Richmond, your colleague was *not* starting a
journey within the zones covered by his Travelcard, hence there was no
requirement for him to set an OEP.

Thanks (all who responded. I think I understand, though probably will
never need to know as I'm unlikely to ever get a Travelcard!).

I understand the *literal* meaning of the statement, but given the
obfuscation occasionally employed in rail speak wanted to clarify
whether 'start a journey' really meant one from within a zone to
outside or could also cover the return part - i.e. not treat each as a
single journey (though that does go against the principle of Oyster
PAYG not doing return fares and relying instead on the daily cap).

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 08/09/10 00:27, Ivor The Engine wrote:

Thanks (all who responded. I think I understand, though probably will
never need to know as I'm unlikely to ever get a Travelcard!).

If you never load a Travelcard onto your Oyster card you can indeed
ignore the whole issue.

Indeed, I had ignored the whole issue for exactly that reason; but now
that I'm intending to move to London I'm expecting it's highly likely I
*will* be loading a Travelcard onto my Oyster...

-roy

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:46:30PM +0100, wrote:

Seeing as its either (as I recall) a round green light or a
round red light, is there also a colour-blindness defence?
And do the readers not sometimes beep (but maybe twice?) also
on a failed read? Hmm. Since I don't seem to remember very
clearly, perhaps I better hope there's a "hopelessly confused"
defence as well.

Sometimes they bleep once, sometimes twice, and the pitch is different.
I can't remember which way round it is though. And in any case, the
machine is always on my deaf side, so I've got a nice excuse there if I
ever need one :-)

--
David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information

We found no search results for "crotchet". Did you mean "crotch"?

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On Sep 8, 1:22*pm, David Cantrell wrote:

On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 03:46:30PM +0100,
wrote:
Seeing as its either (as I recall) a round green light or a
round red light, is there also a colour-blindness defence?
And do the readers not sometimes beep (but maybe twice?) also
on a failed read? *Hmm. Since I don't seem to remember very
clearly, perhaps I better hope there's a "hopelessly confused"
defence as well.

Sometimes they bleep once, sometimes twice, and the pitch is different.
I can't remember which way round it is though. *And in any case, the
machine is always on my deaf side, so I've got a nice excuse there if I
ever need one :-)

One bleep - success.

Two bleeps - fail.

Multiple rapid bleeps - a 'Zip' Oyster card for young people has been
presented.

Oyster Extension Permits
 

On 7 Sep, 15:46, wrote:

Seeing as its either (as I recall) a round green light or a
round red light, is there also a colour-blindness defence?
And do the readers not sometimes beep (but maybe twice?) also
on a failed read? *Hmm. Since I don't seem to remember very
clearly, perhaps I better hope there's a "hopelessly confused"
defence as well.

Don't know about buses, but at Tube barriers it seems common to get a
successful read followed immediately by a failed "passback" read.
Thus people ignore the second one so long as the barrier doesn't
close.

Neil

Oyster Extension Permits
 

In article , (Roy
Badami) wrote:

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.

18(1) is not consistent with the sale of tickets on train, though!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Oyster Extension Permits
 

In article
,
(Mizter T) wrote:

Your colleague was in full compliance with the rules. (The difference
in fares reflect the fact that a z3&4 journey on NR is charged at a
different rate to a z3&4 journey on TfL services, i.e. LU/LO/DLR.)

If he had a suitable railcard he would, however, have paid less on that
route. That's because a z3&4 journey on NR is eligible for railcard
discounts where travel on LU and LO isn't. I pay half this year for
Vauxhall-Putney singles what I paid last year without PAYG.

--
Colin Rosenstiel