Using Someone Else’s Contactless Card on TfL? Defence Guide

Using Someone Else’s Contactless Card on TfL? Defence Guide

If you have been stopped using someone else’s contactless card, or you have received a Verification Letter from TfL alleging contactless misuse, your case is materially different from a standard fare evasion matter. Contactless cards are linked to a real bank account, owned by an identifiable person, with a real banking relationship to the payment infrastructure. Using one that does not belong to you — whether borrowed from a partner, found, or taken without permission — exposes you to prosecution under two separate Acts of Parliament. This page explains how that double exposure works, the realistic prospects of avoiding a criminal record, and the practical steps to take today.

The Two Prosecution Routes: Fare Evasion and Fraud Act

Using someone else’s contactless card on TfL is, in technical legal terms, two offences committed by a single tap. The first is the transport offence. The second is the financial offence. Both routes can be pursued by different prosecuting authorities.

Route 1: Section 5(3) RoRA 1889 / Railway Byelaw 18

The traditional fare evasion route. Under Section 5(3) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, a person commits an offence if they travel on a railway with intent to avoid payment of the fare. The prosecution must prove dishonest intent — that you intended to avoid paying. Under Railway Byelaw 18 of the Railway Byelaws 2005, the offence is strict liability — the prosecution only needs to prove you travelled without a valid ticket.

In a contactless case, the argument is that the contactless card is not “your” valid means of payment because the account holder has not authorised the journey. TfL’s Contactless Cards and Devices Conditions of Use are explicit at clause 3.2: “By touching your card on the portable card reader, you are confirming that it is the card you intend to travel with and that you consent to the fare being charged to your card account.” If the card is not yours, that confirmation is false.

Route 2: Fraud Act 2006, Section 2 — Fraud by False Representation

The second route, less commonly understood, sits within general criminal law rather than transport law. Under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, a person commits fraud by false representation if they dishonestly make a false representation intending to make a gain for themselves or cause loss to another.

The maximum sentence under Section 1 of the 2006 Act is ten years’ imprisonment on indictment, or twelve months at the Magistrates’ Court. The dishonesty test follows Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 — a two-stage test: what was the defendant’s actual state of mind, and would the ordinary, decent person regard that conduct as dishonest?

This matters because TfL fare evasion cases under Section 5(3) carry a £1,000 maximum fine. Fraud Act prosecutions carry materially heavier consequences — including, in serious or repeat cases, a custodial sentence. The same conduct can give rise to either charge. Which route TfL or the CPS pursues depends on factors including the value, the number of journeys, and the apparent intent.

The 202-Journey Case

Earlier in 2025, a passenger was identified as having used a defunct contactless card to travel for 202 journeys, evading the correct fare. Following investigation, the individual was ordered to pay £1,472. The case illustrates the scale of repeat-use detection now possible through TfL’s pattern-analysis systems — and the financial recovery exposure beyond the immediate penalty.

The Four Common Scenarios — And What Each One Risks

Scenario	Section 5(3) risk	Fraud Act risk
Used partner’s contactless card — they had given permission	Medium — TfL Conditions breach	Low — consent is a defence to Section 2
Used flatmate’s or friend’s card without asking	High	High
Used a card you found	High	Very high — also theft
Used a deceased relative’s card or a cancelled card	High	Very high — repeated false representation

The crucial point: even in the first scenario — where you had your partner’s express permission to use their card — you are still in technical breach of TfL’s Conditions of Use because the gate confirmation that the card “is yours and you consent to the charge” is, strictly, false. In practice, single-journey first-offence cases of this type are typically resolved with a penalty fare. The position changes materially with repeat use.

How TfL Actually Catches Contactless Misuse

Following the 2024-2025 expansion of TfL’s revenue protection capability — and the 2025 BBC documentary that exposed approximately 26,000 contactless fare evaders a year — TfL’s detection methods have become substantially more sophisticated. The principal techniques are:

Pattern analysis: every contactless card travelling on the TfL network leaves a journey history. TfL’s analytics platform identifies journeys that consistently start at exit barriers (rather than entry barriers), journeys without entry taps, and journeys where the same card travels at the same time daily without matching the bank account holder’s known travel pattern.

CCTV cross-reference: when a card is flagged as suspicious, station CCTV at the routine boarding station is reviewed against the time of recurrent travel. The person physically using the card is identified through repeated journey patterns.

Revenue protection officer encounter: contactless cards flagged as “Not Valid For Travel” trigger a stop when next presented at a barrier. The RPO is briefed on the suspected pattern and conducts a structured interview at the station.

Bank-side cross-reference: TfL’s acquiring banks can cross-reference flagged journey patterns against account holder identity. Where the registered cardholder’s identity does not match the person identified through CCTV, the case is escalated.

Detection is now considerably more thorough than for traditional Oyster card misuse, because the contactless card is linked to a real banking account with a real registered holder. The “anonymity” people once assumed contactless offered does not exist.

The Realistic Defence — And When Settlement Is Achievable

The right defence strategy depends on which prosecution route is being pursued and the underlying facts. Three principal angles exist:

1. The Ivey Subjective Limb

Under Ivey v Genting Casinos, dishonesty is judged by reference to what the defendant believed at the relevant time. For the partner-permission scenario, where the defendant genuinely believed (with the cardholder’s express consent) that they were entitled to use the card, the subjective limb of the dishonesty test is materially weakened. The objective limb still applies — would the ordinary person regard this as dishonest — but the genuine consent context can be developed to support a public interest argument for non-prosecution.

2. Public Interest Representations

The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires that prosecutors consider both whether there is sufficient evidence (the evidential test) and whether prosecution is in the public interest. Where the defendant is otherwise of good character, the use was occasional or in mitigating circumstances (loss of own card, partner consent, single-journey error), and the alternative is a Fraud Act conviction that materially disproportionately affects the defendant’s career, professional registration, or immigration status — a structured public interest representation can produce an out-of-court resolution. For regulated professionals (FCA, GMC, SRA, NMC), this is the principal route to avoiding career-ending consequences.

3. The Penalty Fare Settlement Route

TfL’s own FOI response from April 2024 confirms: “penalty fares are issued in lieu of conducting a criminal investigation into a possible fare evasion offence in circumstances where the offender is considered not to have deliberately set out to avoid the fare and it is their first offence.” For first-offence cases where the conduct was not deliberate fare evasion in the strict sense — including consent-based partner use — engagement at the Verification Letter stage to argue for penalty fare resolution rather than prosecution is the optimal outcome.

The 21-Day Verification Letter Window

The Verification Letter is the critical document. It is sent by TfL’s prosecution team and gives the recipient the opportunity to provide an explanation before charging decisions are made. The window is short — typically 21 days. A properly drafted response, citing the relevant evidential and public interest considerations, is the highest-impact intervention available. Once charge is laid, the procedural options narrow significantly.

What to Do Today

The actions to take depend on where you are in the process.

If you have been stopped by a TfL Revenue Protection Officer: you will have been asked for your name and address. Do not make admissions in the moment. Do not give an extensive explanation of why you were using the card. Provide the requested information and confirm that you will respond in full to any letter that follows. The RPO’s body-worn camera is recording — anything said at the station is in evidence.

If you have received a Verification Letter: the 21-day window is the critical period. The response should be drafted with care because it will be relied upon by the prosecution in any subsequent charging decision. Do not respond with a generic apology or a request to “settle.” A properly structured response addresses the evidential and public interest tests directly.

If you have received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN): the matter has moved beyond the Verification stage and a prosecution is now formally underway. The SJPN has its own 21-day response window. Pleading guilty by post is rarely the right move, particularly for Fraud Act charges where the consequences extend beyond the financial penalty.

If you have been charged with Fraud by False Representation: the matter is materially more serious than a fare evasion charge. Specialist criminal defence representation is essential before any interview or hearing. The 21-day rule does not apply — the next procedural step will be a Magistrates’ Court appearance or pre-charge interview.

Frequently Asked Questions

I had my partner’s permission to use their contactless card. Surely that means it’s not fraud?

Consent is a defence to Fraud Act 2006 Section 2 — fraud by false representation requires a false representation, and where the cardholder has consented, the representation is arguably not false. However, the position is more nuanced: TfL’s Conditions of Use treat the gate-tap as a representation specifically that “this is your card and you authorise the charge to your account.” Even with the cardholder’s consent, the representation that it is your card is technically false. In practice, single-journey first-offence cases of this type are typically resolved with a penalty fare. Repeated use with consent can still ground a Fraud Act prosecution because the cumulative deception is to TfL, not to the cardholder.

What’s the difference between using someone else’s Oyster card and using someone else’s contactless card?

The legal position under Section 5(3) and Byelaw 18 is similar. The Fraud Act exposure is materially greater for contactless because the card is linked to a real bank account belonging to an identifiable person, and the gate-tap implicitly represents that the user is the account holder. Oyster cards do not carry the same banking-relationship element.

I used a contactless card that I found. Is that just fare evasion?

No. Using a found card implicates additional offences: theft by finding under the Theft Act 1968, and potentially fraud by abuse of position. The Fraud Act consequences are materially more serious. Specialist advice is essential before any contact with TfL or the police.

My contactless card was used by someone else without my permission. What should I do?

Report it to your bank immediately and treat the card as lost. Contact TfL to dispute the journeys. Keep records of the report dates. If TfL or the police contact you, you are a victim, not a suspect.

How long does TfL take to issue a Verification Letter after the journey?

Typically 4-8 weeks, though it can be longer. The journey is on TfL’s records permanently — late issuance does not weaken the prosecution case. If you have been stopped at the station, expect a letter within this timeframe.

Will using someone else’s contactless card affect my DBS check?

A Section 5(3) conviction is a recordable offence and will show on an enhanced DBS check for the relevant period. A Fraud Act conviction is more serious and carries longer-term DBS visibility. For regulated professionals, both convictions trigger mandatory regulatory self-reporting.

Further Reading

• Fare Evasion Solicitors — Main Guide
• TfL Fare Evasion Defence — How to Avoid a Criminal Record
• Using Someone Else’s Oyster Card
• Using Someone Else’s Freedom Pass
• Using a Partner’s Oyster Card
• Railway Byelaw 18 vs Section 5(3): Fare Evasion Laws Explained
• Responding to a TfL Verification Letter

External Resources

• Section 5 Regulation of Railways Act 1889
• Section 2 Fraud Act 2006
• TfL Contactless Cards and Devices Conditions of Use
• Code for Crown Prosecutors

---

Written and approved by Shella Makwana, Criminal Defence Solicitor | 25+ years’ experience | SRA Regulated (No: 651072) | Makwana Solicitors Limited, Devonshire House, 582 Honeypot Lane, Stanmore, HA7 1JS | Page last updated June 2026

Notice: Informational Content Disclaimer

The content provided on this website, including articles, blog posts, and other informational materials, is intended for general informational purposes only. It is not intended as, and should not be considered, legal advice.

Visitors to this website should be aware that the information presented here is not a substitute for seeking legal advice from a qualified solicitor or legal professional. Each individual's legal situation is unique, and the information provided may not be applicable to specific circumstances.

If you require legal advice or have specific legal questions, we encourage you to contact us directly. Our experienced team of solicitors is here to assist you with your legal needs and provide tailored advice to address your concerns.

Please be advised that any communication through this website, including the use of contact forms or email, does not create a solicitor-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this website. To establish a solicitor-client relationship and discuss your legal matters in detail, please contact us for a consultation.

We strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, but we make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness, or suitability of the information contained on this website. We shall not be liable for any reliance placed on the information provided herein.

Thank you for visiting our website. We look forward to the opportunity to assist you with your legal needs.