Ah ... I see Robin Summerhill has challenged me to update my view based on printouts being acceptable. Sorry Robin, but I was aware of that in my original post - look at the subject line as I started the thread "Mobile ticket. App OK, printout OK, but screenshot could lead to prosecution?".
Other people’s written words can often be taken the wrong way, as I know from bitter experience of posting on internet forums! However, I was not issuing a challenge to Graham or indeed anybody else; I was simply saying that as further information begins to come to light it is always important to look at it to ensure that the position one has previously taken will stand up to the newly-revealed facts. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won’t. The new information we now have has made me rethink my position.
Now we hear from martyjon that there are indeed security features in place. I can fully understand his reasons for not wishing to elaborate because it would be, in a sense, akin to giving a burglar the combination to the safe. I am quite happy to leave that issue there and simply be reassured that security features are in place.
But this then comes back to my second point in my last post on the subject. We can now only presume that the screenshot did not contain the necessary security information, because if it had the matter would never have come up in the first place. Was it the fact that it was a screenshot and simply that as the Guardian implies? I would then wonder why screenshots behave like this whilst printed versions of the ticket don’t, but I do accept I shall have to keep wondering about that. However, if it is a standard issue then it clearly needs to be communicated to the intending passenger not to do it.
Then we come on to the aftermath of the original event that sparked this. We are told that the passenger got a letter from Revenue Protection saying they were considering issuing a summons. OK so far. She then replied to them saying that she had bought the ticket and provided evidence. Still OK so far. Revenue Protection then “turn nasty” and say that they are going ahead with the prosecution unless she pays £161.30. To me this says that the evidence she provided wasn’t good enough for them. It might also of course mean that they didn’t look at the evidence properly but, if they are going to go for court action, that would be a singularly unwise thing to do because their position is going to be scrutinised by the magistrate just as much as “defendant’s” position is going to be. In other words, if the evidence provided would have actually stood up in court they would be pretty stupid in bringing the case at all.
We then read that she paid the £161.30 demand because it would have been less than her legal costs. She is presumably aware that the losing side has costs awarded against them and, if the case was thrown out, the
TOC▸ would be picking up her bill. We all differ in this respect of course, but I would rather be sent down before I paid a company £161.30 that I was utterly convinced I didn’t owe them. And just for the record I’m only 5 years behind this woman in the age stakes, but unlikely to be called “sweet” by anyone…
Finally we read that Passenger Focus looked into the matter and basically found in favour of the passenger. So if this is the case, has she been given her £161.30 back? And if not, why not?
There is something fundamentally wrong in this story, and for me the jury is still out over whether 100% of the blame lies with the Revenue Protection team.
Click on the map to explore geographics
