FCC taking me to court for SOMEONE ELSE'S failure to show validated Oyster

[-Innocent-]

Good for you - well done for sticking to what you believed was right and for having the balls to stand up for yourself in court.

Thank you. I felt like the only person who believed in myself. My friends and family advised me "just take it on, they've got you where they want you, it's damage limitation from this point on" etc... even though they believed that I'm innocent. My general advice to anyone in this situation is to stick to the truth. If the truth is inconvenient / complicated, you'll have to work that little bit harder for it. But don't LIE by saying you're guilty if you're not.

 

It does go to show that in some cases the Train co.s are just trying it on by sending out threatening letters etc. without having a good case.

I'll be back to tell what happens next...

[The Urbanite]

Well done for winning, but how much have you lost in time and administrative costs? It's not that hard to ensure you hold a valid ticket, I suggest you communicate this idea to your friend and don't get involved in future!

[DJonny]

That's a bit harsh, the OP did have a ticket and was just helping out a friend who didn't.

 

The train companies seem to rely on the fact that it is often too much hassle to dispute a penalty to bully people into paying up when really they have no prospect of winning the case in court - just like debt collectors and private parking enforcers.

[The Urbanite]

That's a bit harsh, the OP did have a ticket and was just helping out a friend who didn't.

 

Yes, that's why I said that the idea of ensuring that a valid ticket is held needs to be communicated to the friend.

[dan2011]

@Innocent congrats. I maybe looking to do the same, would be interested in further details of how you prepared (PM or whatever). I have TFL printouts and also email from TFL showing my oyster touched in and I paid. But still got thrown off the train because they could not verify address, and they tried to verify because they said I did not touch in. Admittedly I have not received anything through the post, and everyone advises to wait, but I have heard that you have so little time to prepare after the event, that its best to get you 'ducks in order' before.

 

With the help of a few on this list I believe I am correct (even though it is assumed that their machines/readers simply do not lie/fail) TFL have even give me a refund.

 

Danny

[-Innocent-]

Hi Danny

 

With me they took 12 weeks to write to me after the evident. This conveniently makes it too late to gather CCTV and Oyster records from the day as evidence, so I guess it's standard procedure. In my case I had no idea there was any chance of it going to court until I received the letter (hence I didn't bother to hold on to receipts or gather concrete evidence from the day). As for the preparation I did do, it was all common sense stuff. In my case, I needed to prove that my registered oyster card was mine and that my travelling companion's oyster card was hers. So we each had bank statements with oyster card payments on them. Unfortunately the bank statement doesn't indicate the oyster card number, BUT, the oyster statement shows the last 3 travel cards purchased, how much they cost and also the last 8 weeks of journeys (I think). So the bank statements could be correlated to the oyster cards simply because every item on the oyster card statement that was paid for by card also appeared on the true oyster card owner's bank statement on that day for the correct amount. I'd been told time and time again that this wouldn't be considered as evidence in court, but I trusted my instincts and, as I've said, the prosecution effectively dropped their case rather than take their chances against me in court.

 

I also had a letter from FCC regarding the CCTV footage and from a letter from TfL regarding the oyster record from the day of the incident. Both letters acknowledged my request for that data, refused to give it to me, and explained the reasons why I was unable to obtain it. These letters never came into it, but I would have taken them to court to show that I'd made the effort to obtain proof of my innocence. I also asked the prosecution to provide me with those items of evidence and wrote in detail which of their claims it would disprove and which of mine it would support.

 

By the way, I'm not leaving it like this. My name's been cleared but my time's been wasted and so I'm considering what steps to take next...

[honeybee13]

Hello again Innocent, nice to see you again.

 

Danny, advice by PM is against CAG rules unless there is a particular reason for it. If you feel your case is special, then feel free to PM me about it, but very few cases are so sensitive that this is the best route. If you keep everything on the forum, then you have the reassurance that any advice is open to scrutiny by everyone, and that the advice given to you could help someone else in the future, as Innocent's case has helped you.

 

My best, HB

[sailor sam]

Iv'e only just across this and its a tad irrelevant now but I spotted a flaw in the revenue inspector's statement which a good solicitor could of exploited. According to the OP his description of the OP was apparently on the derogatory side and he used the term 'known to me' . This could of been interpreted that the inspector had some kind of personal issue toward the OP. Consiquently this could of prejudiced any prosecution.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.