Her iPhone died. It led to her being charged as a criminal

[steven36]

There's an assumption that digitizing everything is a good thing. Are we sure about that?

 

 

In my world, the virtual hasn't quite taken over the physical.

 

Tossing everything into a cloud doesn't necessarily engender quite the same sense of security and well-being as seeing, holding, and believing.

 

Today's witness is Jemima Kelly.

 

She's a writer for The Financial Times. Please don't let any personal thoughts about that get in the way of her story.

 

You see, she just experienced a little technological nightmare.

 

A cheery digital convert, she admits she often leaves the house without her wallet. But surely not without her iPhone.

 

Apple Pay is, after all, a contemporary joy. It's right up there with Tinder in its ability to make your life easier.

 

 

Kelly, indeed, hops on London buses and uses Apple Pay to tap her payment instead of buying a ticket the old-fashioned way.

 

Which, as she cheerily described, is easy unless a ticket inspector wanders by. Just after your iPhone's battery has died. 

 

She couldn't prove that she'd paid, but gave her personal details and assumed there'd be a record of her probity on the transportation company's computers.

 

But then she was charged with, well, not providing proof of payment. Charged as in would be forced to go to court and to plead guilty or not guilty within 21 days.

 

A little draconian, you might think. Yes, the Brits look and act like nice people, but it's wise to remember that London seems to have more surveillance cameras than Amazon's Ring.

 

Here's where things got (more) awkward. Kelly produced a bank statement that proved she'd paid. The transportation company -- Transport For London -- insisted this wasn't enough.

 

It seems she'd failed another digital task -- registering her Apple Pay with Transport For London. She was edging ever closer to criminal status. But did her Apple Pay details need to be registered?

 

Kelly revealed: "They told me, 'there is no requirement for cards to be registered, the same as paying for any goods and services in a shop'. But it's not the same, actually; in a shop, you are given a breakdown in the form of a receipt."

 

So, here she was, contactless and receiptless. Next, she heard that her court case had happened and she'd been found guilty.

 

Oh, and she also owed a fine of £476.50 -- around $592.

 

Despite, she says, attempting to contact Transport For London several times, the money was removed from her paycheck. (Not a friendly court, see.)

Oh, and being found guilty meant she was turned down for a US visa. We don't need more criminals here.

 

There was, however, an uplifting ending. She managed to get back to court and persuade the magistrate to quash her conviction. It all took months.

 

Her story, however, aptly describes how the digital world demands our complete and unyielding participation.

 

Digital systems are designed by those who strive for complete perfection and consistency. Which doesn't describe the human condition at all.

 

You have to follow all the rules of the system. This, sadly, requires you to do the work of discovering what they are. And, as anyone who's mindlessly clicked their agreement knows, these rules can be painfully long and twisted.

 

Personally, I'm often vexed when someone in front of me at Starbucks tries to use Apple Pay or some other digital means.

 

Somehow, the machine doesn't always recognize the phone. Or worse, the person is actually talking on the phone while trying to pay at the same time. And they don't even bother opening the phone until it's time to pay.

 

The mere idea that you have to keep your phone charged at all times -- just in case -- puts the onus again on you.

 

Kelly admits she's now invested in a portable charger.

 

In what way is that making your life easier? It's one more thing to remember, one more thing to carry, and one more reason why I'm perfectly happy to slip my credit card into Starbucks' machine and have a 20-second chat with the barista.

 

Phones are overburdened as it is. They're our cameras, our entertainment systems, our productivity devices and, on rare occasions, our phones.

 

Do they really have to be our wallets too?

 

I'm not allowed to say no, am I? Siri might overhear and take me to court.

 

Source

[Karlston]

What a waste of time for many. You'd think the bank transaction details would be proof enough, and it would be up to the idiot transport company to disprove it before it went to court.

[cosy]

4 minutes ago, Karlston said:

You'd think the bank transaction details would be proof enough,

 

You are indeed right, normally in GB you can use the bank to lay proof for you for this transaction, that is why I don't believe this story.

We have had many such a cases and it has always worked out with most of them to the best.

[zanderthunder]

She can sue the transport company for falsely accusing her of not paying the tickets, since the transportation company fails to liaise with the bank to proof that she paid for a ticket.

 

Furthermore, because this case also causing her to lose opportunity to obtain US visa, the court should makeup to her by telling the US Embassy the truth so that she can obtain US visa back.

 

And yeah, it's weird when the transportation company and even the UK court itself doesn't even cross-check with bank's payment system and Apple Pay. Cross-checking isn't that hard.

[mp68terr]

Why putting the blame solely on the transport company? It's all her fault. She relied on a dying iphone and had no proof that she bought the ticket, the inspector did his job.

What if she had to pay some penalty fee on the spot (it is the case in some places, not mentioned in the article )? No mean to pay and likely no official document to prove her identity.

[zanderthunder]

36 minutes ago, mp68terr said:

Why putting the blame solely on the transport company? It's all her fault. She relied on a dying iphone and had no proof that she bought the ticket, the inspector did his job.

What if she had to pay some penalty fee on the spot (it is the case in some places, not mentioned in the article )? No mean to pay and likely no official document to prove her identity.

If an airlines company can cross check with bank payment system to verify that the customer indeed purchasing the ticket, then why the train company doesn't do the same? Don't tell me the train company is incapable to cross check with the payment system if they in the first place implemented online payment system.

 

I agreed that the inspector did his job, but for me prosecuting the person without cross-checking with customer's details on the ticketing and banking system is absurd. If the train company can be lenient on her then this issue shouldn't be brought to court at the first place.

 

Now with the woman released from the charges, I bet she would be traumatized taking the train again due to the issue.

 

I don't have any issues so far when I purchased my train tickets via online app and payment by online banking system for train transportation back in Malaysia. If there's any problem, I can cross-check my identity with the train's ticketing system (where customer details is required on purchasing a ticket). Not that hard.

[mp68terr]

2 hours ago, Edward Raja said:

If an airlines company...

Again, it's not about what the transport company did, should have done, should not have done, etc. (clearly the company did not help, got your and others' point). It's about the behavior of this woman going out relying solely on her iphone. When the battery dies it's simply of no use, it cannot replace means of payment/official papers/etc.

[zanderthunder]

9 hours ago, mp68terr said:

Again, it's not about what the transport company did, should have done, should not have done, etc. (clearly the company did not help, got your and others' point). It's about the behavior of this woman going out relying solely on her iphone. When the battery dies it's simply of no use, it cannot replace means of payment/official papers/etc.

you don't seem to understand clearly my point, don't you?

 

while you kept on blaming the woman for such a petty reason, both parties need to do something to prevent the same scenario from happening again.

[Arachnoid]

The facts of the story 

 

She paid via tap and pay

She was unable to prove at the time that payment had been taken so standard procedure is to offer a fine

She later provided proof that payment had been taken via a document much used in legal circles in much more serious cases and proceedings should have ended there.

The refusal of the Bus company to accept the proof is in this case unacceptable and could lead them open to a small claims court prosecution for her expenses and emotional distress.

 

The only problem with using such systems is that the service user can due to many freeloaders, at any time be asked to prove they have paid for the service. Not providing proof at the time leads to the fine procedure which usually incorporates an appeal system.

 

 

[zanderthunder]

5 hours ago, Arachnoid said:

The facts of the story 

 

She paid via tap and pay

She was unable to prove at the time that payment had been taken so standard procedure is to offer a fine

She later provided proof that payment had been taken via a document much used in legal circles in much more serious cases and proceedings should have ended there.

The refusal of the Bus company to accept the proof is in this case unacceptable and could lead them open to a small claims court prosecution for her expenses and emotional distress.

 

The only problem with using such systems is that the service user can due to many freeloaders, at any time be asked to prove they have paid for the service. Not providing proof at the time leads to the fine procedure which usually incorporates an appeal system.

 

 

exactly my thoughts. unlike @mp68terr who insists on blaming the woman instead for such an absurd reason. thanks for pointing this out.

 

bottomline is, the train company should be able to pinpoint and verify the customer's ticket and payment details even though the ticket is unaccessible on passenger's side.