Oyster penalties again
 

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!

She was about to use her card on Monday for the first time since 30th March
last year and found out about the negative balance. Because journey history
shows days of the week it was apparent that it wasn't this year!

Looking at the journey history I can't for the life of me make out how the
negative balance occurred. It shows two entries for 30th March, King's Cross
St Pancras and Westminster, with a charge of £4.40 for the first and £6.50
for the second. Her journeys were KXSP to Westminster and back again.

I can't think how this happened. Both are fully gated stations which would
only have opened the gates if they registered the card in and out. It had
more than enough credit for the two £1.90 fares which should have been
charged. We plan to ring the helpline tomorrow to try and sort it out.

Getting the details isn't helped by the lack of facilities for getting
printed journey history. It's easy to see on a ticket machine but printouts
are only available from ticket offices. On the day we only passed KXSP
(several times). It either had its usual long queues or was closed. Norbiton
isn't an LU station and East Putney's ticket office was closed whenever we
passed it. The card wasn't registered as it's hardly over-used.

Thoughts?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Oyster penalties again
 

In message , at 00:08:38 on
Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Paul Corfield remarked:
Looking at the journey history I can't for the life of me make out how the
negative balance occurred. It shows two entries for 30th March,

Do the ticket machines show journey history from a year ago?

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/termsandconditions/12321.aspx

Says they only hold data for eight weeks, and are "changing the system"
to keep it for two years [classic mission creep, but I'd welcome being
able to see history older than 8wks]. 16th of Feb is the oldest I can
see today, on their online journey history.

Or does the *card* keep details for longer than their database does, in
which case why isn't the record on the card valid for doing refunds
after their 8 week timeout period?

King's Cross St Pancras and Westminster, with a charge of £4.40 for
the first

If £4.40 was the relevant "maximum fare" for a touch in at KXSP tube at
the time, then it indicates the card didn't touch-out at Westminster.

iirc they have some fairly slow gates there, and it's possible to
inadvertently "follow through" the person in front, with one's own touch
not registering.

When I'm travelling Oyster PAYG I always pause and count to three before
passing through a gate after another passenger, to avoid this
possibility. No doubt Paul will cringe at the thought :) but three
seconds on my journey time is nothing compared to how long it would take
to get a refund.

Of course, if using an Oyster season or a paper ticket, a pause isn't
necessary.

and £6.50 for the second. Her journeys were KXSP to Westminster and
back again.

I think Paul has the answer for that one, below.

I can't think how this happened. Both are fully gated stations which would
only have opened the gates if they registered the card in and out. It had
more than enough credit for the two £1.90 fares which should have been
charged. We plan to ring the helpline tomorrow to try and sort it out.

More than 8 weeks ago. Good luck!

Getting the details isn't helped by the lack of facilities for getting
printed journey history. It's easy to see on a ticket machine but printouts
are only available from ticket offices. On the day we only passed KXSP
(several times). It either had its usual long queues or was closed. Norbiton
isn't an LU station and East Putney's ticket office was closed whenever we
passed it. The card wasn't registered as it's hardly over-used.

Thoughts?

Kings Cross is an OSI. Did the other half use the Oyster Card to get
through the FCC gates for the train to Cambridge on the way home?
Therefore the system will have expected a subsequent exit and not
seeing one the max fare will have remained deducted rather than having
value added back on. That's the most plausible explanation I can come
up with.

It wouldn't be an issue the other way as I assume a paper ticket was
used to exit FCC and then the Oyster card used to start at the tube.

--
Roland Perry

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

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!

She was about to use her card on Monday for the first time since 30th
March last year and found out about the negative balance. Because journey
history shows days of the week it was apparent that it wasn't this year!

Looking at the journey history I can't for the life of me make out how
the negative balance occurred. It shows two entries for 30th March,
King's Cross St Pancras and Westminster, with a charge of £4.40 for the
first and £6.50 for the second. Her journeys were KXSP to Westminster and
back again.

I can't think how this happened. Both are fully gated stations which
would only have opened the gates if they registered the card in and out.
It had more than enough credit for the two £1.90 fares which should have
been charged. We plan to ring the helpline tomorrow to try and sort it
out.

Getting the details isn't helped by the lack of facilities for getting
printed journey history. It's easy to see on a ticket machine but
printouts are only available from ticket offices. On the day we only
passed KXSP (several times). It either had its usual long queues or was
closed. Norbiton isn't an LU station and East Putney's ticket office was
closed whenever we passed it. The card wasn't registered as it's hardly
over-used.

Thoughts?

Kings Cross is an OSI. Did the other half use the Oyster Card to get
through the FCC gates for the train to Cambridge on the way home?

I very much doubt that. She would only expect to use Oyster on the
Underground and not all the station was even gated then. I suppose it could
have come too close to the gate when using her paper ticket but she doesn't
keep them in the same wallets so that seems a bit unlikely.

Therefore the system will have expected a subsequent exit and not seeing
one the max fare will have remained deducted rather than having value
added back on. That's the most plausible explanation I can come up with.

Yes, I understand that possibility but there is the other charge.

It wouldn't be an issue the other way as I assume a paper ticket was
used to exit FCC and then the Oyster card used to start at the tube.

That wouldn't explain the £4.40 charge in the other direction where there
can be no question of any OSI confusion.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

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

Oyster penalties again
 

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