On 12 July, 11:26, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 11, 8:39*pm, MIG wrote:





On 11 July, 17:40, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 11 July, 17:28, Roy Badami wrote:

Is there any statutory basis for this penalty? *The recent furore about
penalties for unauthorised overdrafts has brought up an important point
which is that consumer contracts essentially aren't allowed to contain
provisions that permit the service provider to 'fine' the consumer -
they can only charge the consumer the actual reasonable administrative
costs incurred as a result of the consumer's breach of contract.

TfL call it the "maximum cash fare", and the principle is that there's
a discount from this for using the system correctly (touching in and
out in the specified time, etc). Since the price of a single ticket is
indeed £4, I can't imagine a challenge would be too successful.

But the cash fare only went up to £4 to coerce people to use Oyster.
It was not the existing cash fare, so they can't really argue that
one. *Or is that the real reason why they didn't charge the maximum
for unresolved journeys straight away, ie to be able to argue that
that the maximum cash fare existed first?

Legally speaking, what matters is not what *was*, it's what *is*.

I'm pretty sure they didn't charge the 'max cash fare' at the
beginning because they wanted to try and educate people about how to
make use of the system properly.-

It's just that if they'd done both at the same time, the £4 would only
ever have applied to Oyster users who didn't use Oyster correctly, and
would be very difficult to distinguish from a fine. I still don't
know how they got away with such a wildly above-inflation fare rise,
unless there was some doublethink whereby the Oyster fare was the
standard fare for that purpose, but simultaneously £4 was the standard
fare and not a fine.

I'm still waiting for Sainsburys to start charging £4 as the
"standard" price for a tin of baked beans with a "reduction" if you
use the self-service checkout.

On 12 July, 11:27, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 11, 5:40*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 11 July, 17:28, Roy Badami wrote:

Is there any statutory basis for this penalty? *The recent furore about
penalties for unauthorised overdrafts has brought up an important point
which is that consumer contracts essentially aren't allowed to contain
provisions that permit the service provider to 'fine' the consumer -
they can only charge the consumer the actual reasonable administrative
costs incurred as a result of the consumer's breach of contract.

TfL call it the "maximum cash fare", and the principle is that there's
a discount from this for using the system correctly (touching in and
out in the specified time, etc). Since the price of a single ticket is
indeed £4, I can't imagine a challenge would be too successful.

I agree - whilst we have variously referred to it on here as a
"charge", or a "fee" or even a "penalty", TfL always refer to it
without fail as the "maximum cash fare" in their documentation.

I haven't gone through the Oyster T&Cs and Conditions of Carriage with
a fine-tooth comb but I'd think the way the system operates is legally
watertight.

How are LU fare rises regulated?

On 11 July, 22:23, wrote:
In article
,

() wrote:
But why, when using Oyster P.A.Y.G., should I be deprived of the
benefit of the 50 pence (or whatever) differential between that and
buying a paper Travelcard? *It's only a small amount of money, but
it's the principle that concerns me.

You don't have to be deprived. You just have to pass through places where
you can touch out and in often enough to get the cap.

If you are bashing the network that must be possible at almost any station
at the end of a line (while the train turns round), surely? Or am I
missing something?

I don't think the cap is relevant. If you had an unresolved journey,
even after reaching the cap, you'd still be charged the "maximum" as I
understand it, on top of the cap.

On Jul 12, 2:42*pm, MIG wrote:

On 11 July, 22:23, wrote:

In article
,
() wrote:
But why, when using Oyster P.A.Y.G., should I be deprived of the
benefit of the 50 pence (or whatever) differential between that and
buying a paper Travelcard? *It's only a small amount of money, but
it's the principle that concerns me.

You don't have to be deprived. You just have to pass through places where
you can touch out and in often enough to get the cap.

If you are bashing the network that must be possible at almost any station
at the end of a line (while the train turns round), surely? Or am I
missing something?

I don't think the cap is relevant. *If you had an unresolved journey,
even after reaching the cap, you'd still be charged the "maximum" as I
understand it, on top of the cap.

That's correct - £4 unresolved journeys don't contribute towards the
cap. (But getting an unresolved journey doesn't mean capping is
entirely off the agenda for the day in question - merely that the
unresolved journey is not part of the capping calculation.)

However I think all Colin was simply that one could exit and then re-
enter stations on the end of the line if one was 'bashing' the network
and using Oyster PAYG, which is much the same as I said in my rather
more longwinded reply to Marc/Mait001.

(What an odd phrase 'bashing' is!)

On Jul 12, 11:55*am, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 11, 9:37*pm, Andy wrote:





On Jul 11, 5:40*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 11 July, 17:28, Roy Badami wrote:

Is there any statutory basis for this penalty? *The recent furore about
penalties for unauthorised overdrafts has brought up an important point
which is that consumer contracts essentially aren't allowed to contain
provisions that permit the service provider to 'fine' the consumer -
they can only charge the consumer the actual reasonable administrative
costs incurred as a result of the consumer's breach of contract.

TfL call it the "maximum cash fare", and the principle is that there's
a discount from this for using the system correctly (touching in and
out in the specified time, etc). Since the price of a single ticket is
indeed £4, I can't imagine a challenge would be too successful.

Just to point out that the "maximum cash fare" is different when using
National Rail and here £6.50 is charged upon entry to the system, with
correction to the 'real' Oyster fare upon exit. This is less than the
maximum cash fare for Watford Junction - Euston.

"Here" being Watford Junction, right? And you're absolutely sure of
that?


Actually, the TfL site says any National Rail location on the list
given he

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/oysteronline/5823.aspx

If it is indeed so, then that's an interesting development. The 'entry
charge' at NR termini stations where Oyster PAYG was accepted set at
£5 (as opposed to £4) some while back - this is justified as follows:
"The £5 represents the average National Rail cash single fare paid for
a journey in Greater London from these stations."
Source:https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...ion.do?entityN...

I can't find anything specific to Watford Jn in the 'Oyster Common
Questions' database. However, it would make *sense in that otherwise
one could get a cheaper journey by simply not touching out at Euston
(as some trains arrive at ungated platforms) and therefore only being
charged £4 (the peak PAYG fare being £6, off-peak it's £3.50).

The fact it's £6.50 as opposed to the current NR single fare of £7.80
doesn't invalidate the principle - it's less rather than more, after
all. I dare say it might be set at 50p more (rather than £1.80 more)
than the peak PAYG fare to alleviate aggro, whilst providing enough of
an incentive to touch-out properly.

(I'm wondering if the 'entry charge' at Watford Jn might drop from
£6.50 to a lower amount - say the normal £4 - after 0930, when off-
peak PAYG fares come into effect?)

I'm always a bit suspicious of using old FAQ links on the TfL website,
as they can be out of date. The link I've given clearly says that the
£6.50 will be deducted upon entry to any of the NR PAYG routes and
adjusted when touching out. Watford Junction will always be a bit of a
special case, being the only location outside the zones at the moment.

On Jul 12, 2:37*pm, MIG wrote:

On 12 July, 11:26, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:39*pm, MIG wrote:

[snip]

But the cash fare only went up to £4 to coerce people to use Oyster..
It was not the existing cash fare, so they can't really argue that
one. *Or is that the real reason why they didn't charge the maximum
for unresolved journeys straight away, ie to be able to argue that
that the maximum cash fare existed first?

Legally speaking, what matters is not what *was*, it's what *is*.

I'm pretty sure they didn't charge the 'max cash fare' at the
beginning because they wanted to try and educate people about how to
make use of the system properly.-

It's just that if they'd done both at the same time, the £4 would only
ever have applied to Oyster users who didn't use Oyster correctly, and
would be very difficult to distinguish from a fine. *I still don't
know how they got away with such a wildly above-inflation fare rise,
unless there was some doublethink whereby the Oyster fare was the
standard fare for that purpose, but simultaneously £4 was the standard
fare and not a fine.

I don't think the


I'm still waiting for Sainsburys to start charging £4 as the
"standard" price for a tin of baked beans with a "reduction" if you
use the self-service checkout.

Please, no! (Having been in a branch of said supermarket yesterday,
wanting to quickly purchase three items, willing to use the self-
service machines as there were queues everywhere else, found most of
said machines were out-of-order and one woman was literally trying to
process a whole trolley load of stuff through one at an agonisingly
slow pace! FWIW, I'll always use a cashier if there's one free - just
as I'll always try and use a ticket office as opposed to a self-
service ticket machine.)

On Jul 12, 3:10*pm, Andy wrote:

On Jul 12, 11:55*am, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 11, 9:37*pm, Andy wrote:

[snip]

Just to point out that the "maximum cash fare" is different when using
National Rail and here £6.50 is charged upon entry to the system, with
correction to the 'real' Oyster fare upon exit. This is less than the
maximum cash fare for Watford Junction - Euston.

"Here" being Watford Junction, right? And you're absolutely sure of
that?

Actually, the TfL site says any National Rail location on the list
given he

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/oysteronline/5823.aspx

Thanks for the heads up on that Andy - I hadn't seen the changed
wording on that page. For the record, the relevant bit now says:
---quote---
If you use pay as you go on the above National Rail services, an entry
charge of up to £6.50 will be deducted from your Oyster card when you
touch in at the start of your journey. When you touch out, the charge
will be adjusted so that you only pay the advertised Oyster single
fare for the journey you have just made.
---/quote---

Compare and contrast it to what it said back in February '08 via the
Internet Archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/200802121...line/5823.aspx
or via http://tinyurl.com/q95jk2


If it is indeed so, then that's an interesting development. The 'entry
charge' at NR termini stations where Oyster PAYG was accepted set at
£5 (as opposed to £4) some while back - this is justified as follows:
"The £5 represents the average National Rail cash single fare paid for
a journey in Greater London from these stations."
Source:
https://custserv.tfl.gov.uk/icss_csi...entityNum=3315

I can't find anything specific to Watford Jn in the 'Oyster Common
Questions' database. However, it would make *sense in that otherwise
one could get a cheaper journey by simply not touching out at Euston
(as some trains arrive at ungated platforms) and therefore only being
charged £4 (the peak PAYG fare being £6, off-peak it's £3.50).

The fact it's £6.50 as opposed to the current NR single fare of £7.80
doesn't invalidate the principle - it's less rather than more, after
all. I dare say it might be set at 50p more (rather than £1.80 more)
than the peak PAYG fare to alleviate aggro, whilst providing enough of
an incentive to touch-out properly.

(I'm wondering if the 'entry charge' at Watford Jn might drop from
£6.50 to a lower amount - say the normal £4 - after 0930, when off-
peak PAYG fares come into effect?)

I'm always a bit suspicious of using old FAQ links on the TfL website,
as they can be out of date. The link I've given clearly says that the
£6.50 will be deducted upon entry to any of the NR PAYG routes and
adjusted when touching out. Watford Junction will always be a bit of a
special case, being the only location outside the zones at the moment.

The FAQ on the TfL site was one that I'd looked up especially when
composing the above post, so it wasn't an old saved URL as such -
though the information in the answer is clearly out-of-date now. (The
reason why the URL didn't work by the way is that the new FAQ system
is now browser session based.)

I do nonetheless wonder if the 'entry charge' at Watford Jn doesn't
change between peak and off-peak periods. A bit of a waste of money
experimenting to find out (that I'm wrong) of course!

As you say, Watford Jn will always be a special case... at least,
until the possible future inclusion of any other stations just beyond
the zones! However, that's unlikely - the Watford Jn situation only
happened because LO reaches out there, and TfL effectively forced LM's
hand into accepting Oyster PAYG (LM didn't have an awful lot of choice
in the matter really!).

I assume the entry charge went up to £6.50 at the behest of LM, so as
to put a stop to what was likely going on last year, where some pax
had surely realised last year that the £5 charge for an unresolved
peak journey was less than the peak fare for the journey (which was
£5.50 IIRC).

I'd guess that LM would also have been quite happy that the PAYG peak
time was shifted back half-an-hour from 0700 to 0630 (meaning only the
05:50 and 05:59 WFJ to EUS get in under the wire).

On Jul 12, 3:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 12, 2:37*pm, MIG wrote:

On 12 July, 11:26, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 11, 8:39*pm, MIG wrote:

[snip]

But the cash fare only went up to £4 to coerce people to use Oyster.
It was not the existing cash fare, so they can't really argue that
one. *Or is that the real reason why they didn't charge the maximum
for unresolved journeys straight away, ie to be able to argue that
that the maximum cash fare existed first?

Legally speaking, what matters is not what *was*, it's what *is*.

I'm pretty sure they didn't charge the 'max cash fare' at the
beginning because they wanted to try and educate people about how to
make use of the system properly.-

It's just that if they'd done both at the same time, the £4 would only
ever have applied to Oyster users who didn't use Oyster correctly, and
would be very difficult to distinguish from a fine. *I still don't
know how they got away with such a wildly above-inflation fare rise,
unless there was some doublethink whereby the Oyster fare was the
standard fare for that purpose, but simultaneously £4 was the standard
fare and not a fine.

I don't think the

[A fine example of an unfinished thought! But let me add some
completion to the world...]

I don't think there is any regulation as such that concerns LU (or
indeed London bus) fares, unlike fares regulation that exists for
TOCs. The rationale for this would surely be that whilst the TOCs are
potentially dangerous gung-ho wide-boys, TfL is still a publicly
controlled entity.

It's therefore up to the Mayor these days to decide on these things
(and before the Mayor came into being, and LRT answered to central
government, it would have ultimately been up to ministerial oversight
to ensure the fares were reasonable - before that, LT answered to the
GLC, hence "Fares Fair" - which got overturned in what I think was
potentially a bit of a dodgy judicial overreach into political matters
- but that's drifting well off-topic!).

Travelcard fares are however subject to regulation. If I've got this
right, the base position is that they're linked to inflation, and
should either the TOCs collectively or TfL want to either raise or
lower the prices then the other party must agree. The TOCs will always
want to raise the prices, whilst TfL under Ken vetoed any price rises
(and in fact he said he wanted to lower them, or at least not apply
the inflation increase - I forget which - though one could argue this
was just a useful stick for him to hit the TOCs over the head with).

Mayor Boris meanwhile agreed to the TOCs request to raise Travelcard
prices - in a sense I suppose one could say he had to, as he wanted to
raise LU/bus fares too, and it would have been inconsistant to do this
and yet hold down the price of Travelcards.

The price of Day Travelcards is of course important elsewhere, as PAYG
capping levels are pegged to the quasi-equivalent Travelcard price
less 50p. There's nothing I can see that requires this to be the case,
but it's the convention that's applied since the second year of PAYG
being in place (initially the cap was the same price as the quasi-
equivalent Day Travelcard).

(I reserve the right to have got the stuff about Travelcard prices all
wrong!)

On Jul 12, 2:40*pm, MIG wrote:

On 12 July, 11:27, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 11, 5:40*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 11 July, 17:28, Roy Badami wrote:

Is there any statutory basis for this penalty? *The recent furore about
penalties for unauthorised overdrafts has brought up an important point
which is that consumer contracts essentially aren't allowed to contain
provisions that permit the service provider to 'fine' the consumer -
they can only charge the consumer the actual reasonable administrative
costs incurred as a result of the consumer's breach of contract.

TfL call it the "maximum cash fare", and the principle is that there's
a discount from this for using the system correctly (touching in and
out in the specified time, etc). Since the price of a single ticket is
indeed £4, I can't imagine a challenge would be too successful.

I agree - whilst we have variously referred to it on here as a
"charge", or a "fee" or even a "penalty", TfL always refer to it
without fail as the "maximum cash fare" in their documentation.

I haven't gone through the Oyster T&Cs and Conditions of Carriage with
a fine-tooth comb but I'd think the way the system operates is legally
watertight.

How are LU fare rises regulated?

I don't think they are subject to regulation as such - see my reply
to, er, well, myself, but ultimately it was a reply to you, upthread -
it's the one that was posted at 4:03pm.

On 12 July, 16:06, Mizter T wrote:
On Jul 12, 2:40*pm, MIG wrote:





On 12 July, 11:27, Mizter T wrote:

On Jul 11, 5:40*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:

On 11 July, 17:28, Roy Badami wrote:

Is there any statutory basis for this penalty? *The recent furore about
penalties for unauthorised overdrafts has brought up an important point
which is that consumer contracts essentially aren't allowed to contain
provisions that permit the service provider to 'fine' the consumer -
they can only charge the consumer the actual reasonable administrative
costs incurred as a result of the consumer's breach of contract.

TfL call it the "maximum cash fare", and the principle is that there's
a discount from this for using the system correctly (touching in and
out in the specified time, etc). Since the price of a single ticket is
indeed £4, I can't imagine a challenge would be too successful.

I agree - whilst we have variously referred to it on here as a
"charge", or a "fee" or even a "penalty", TfL always refer to it
without fail as the "maximum cash fare" in their documentation.

I haven't gone through the Oyster T&Cs and Conditions of Carriage with
a fine-tooth comb but I'd think the way the system operates is legally
watertight.

How are LU fare rises regulated?

I don't think they are subject to regulation as such - see my reply
to, er, well, myself, but ultimately it was a reply to you, upthread -
it's the one that was posted at 4:03pm.-

Yes, thanks. I guess I was being a bit wishful, although maybe trial
by Evening Standard is tougher than regulation.