This is probably the best advice. And do not agree to any interview; it is unlikely to be in your interests at this stage.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Prosecuted with no evidence or details?
- Thread starter familyguy12
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
familyguy12
Member
What do you believe would be the best way to respond to the email?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Given Northern offer complimentary single tickets for Delay Repay, should a high number of singles purchased in one direction automatically ring an alarm bell? I would suggest it'd probably be reasonable to presume some people will buy an Advance single for an outbound journey and to use the complimentary ticket for the return journey, to give time flexibility for returning home. I realise familyguy12 hasn't been issued with complimentary tickets from Delay Repay claims, so that wouldn't apply in this case.
I suppose it's hard to prove you travelled home by car, unlike if you caught the train in one direction and then a bus or coach home.
westcoaster
Established Member
On the last point about traveling by car, If you use Google maps and have the location history turned on. It will show dates and times and mode of transport used. So could hopefully be used to disprove train travel.
If you genuinely are nonplussed about why they have contacted you, and you are confident that have no evidence of wrongdoing, I would recommend ignoring the email.
I would welcome the views of @Hadders @Brissle Girl @AlterEgo and others on this tentative suggestion.
Please do not send until you have seen others views.
Dear xxxxx
Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxxx. (I have said thank you rather than just a bare acknowledgement because if there is an issue it would be better to be seen to be polite rather than perfunctory).
I am most concerned to read that you believe that my ticket purchasing history warrants further investigation.
Please may I request that you provide full details of all the aspects of my ticket purchasing history which has given rise to this investigation?
Upon receipt I will check my ticket purchasing history and respond to the concerns you raise.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
I would have liked to have added a sentence along the lines of "to the best of my belief I have always travelled with a valid ticket and abided by the rules and regulations at all times". Response 8 by the OP rules that out unless it is phrased as:
"to the best of my belief since the penalty fare issued on ((insert date)) I have always travelled with a valid ticket and abided by the rules and regulations at all times".
I don’t think this is a bad email, but I feel that not responding might lead to a dead end in their investigation much sooner - assuming no evidence otherwise of wrongdoing. I think the OP is old enough to know whether they have done anything which is remotely wrong, so assuming they are being truthful, I’d still advise not replying and pretending the email went to junk. (As an aside, how many of these Northern fishing emails do, and are never read, and nothing more happens?)
Frankly that is ridiculous. There are at least two regular journeys l make where l buy returns but sometimes get a lift part (to a point where l have a valid alternative ticket, namely a 60+ Oyster) or all of the way home and the next time l travel buy an outbound single. It is only the currently ridiculous onesided legislation that allows TOCs to make unsubstantiated allegations. Hopefully one positive of the Post Office/Horizon scandal will be that a bunch of frankly incompetent, averious, muppets will be stripped of that option.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Absolutely. Having spent over a decade of my career handling litigation against HMG l can categorically state that if l was to attend any such interview l would insist on disclosure and legal representation.
Last edited:
I dont disagree with the sentiment but just putting myself in the shoes of the TOC Revenue Protection Department for one moment.
If I was trawling through records looking for evidence of fare evasion what behaviours would pique my interest?
People buying singles in both directions but there is a clear significant difference in the number of tickets purchased in one direction may suggest that the person is somehow reusing a ticket or not buying a ticket.
I am not sure they are making unsubstantiated allegations. What they are doing is identifying a pattern of behaviour which may be indicative of fare evasion and are investigating.
The letters are very carefully worded indeed.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yes you can attend with legal representation but it is at the interviewees cost and therein lies one of the problems.
I wonder what a solicitors advice would be? To ask for disclosure etc as in my draft email in advance to try and head this off.
Only the OP really knows if there is something in the history the TOC may have found.
Last edited:
I absolutely agree. If the legislation doesn't change then TOCs should be made liable for all legal costs involved in their unsuccessful fishing trips. A few bills for KC representation....
Elwyn
Member
I think some posters need to take a step back and think about this objectively. All this ranting against rail ticket irregularity investigators is unhelpful. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a private company or the police, someone will investigate fare evasion so long as it is an offence.
If the investigator has enough evidence to bring a case to court, then they can just obtain a summons and the evidence can be put to the court without further ado. (And that does sometimes happen). But the defendant might have a plausible explanation and so the court’s time could be wasted. Plus it’s natural justice to offer folk the opportunity to co-operate first. (Which is what’s been offered here). I wouldn’t rant at the companies for offering the opportunity to discuss their evidence. They will disclose that evidence at the interview, but they are not under any obligation to reveal it in advance.
There’s a suggestion in the thread that this is a fishing expedition. That’s pure speculation because no-one here knows what evidence exists.
Is it not in the public interest to investigate ticketing misuse? If so, the investigators are entitled to make reasonable enquiries and a normal part of their investigation would often be to speak to the person under suspicion to put their evidence to them and ask for comments. The police adopt exactly the same approach, so this company is not employing inappropriate lines of enquiry. Sometimes people co-operate and sometimes they don’t. At which point the investigator then has to decide whether to let the case go or simply issue a summons.
Calling the investigators “frankly incompetent, averious, muppets” shows little understanding of how things work. It also shows little understanding of “averious” which as far as I am aware doesn’t exist. Perhaps avaricious?
If the investigator has enough evidence to bring a case to court, then they can just obtain a summons and the evidence can be put to the court without further ado. (And that does sometimes happen). But the defendant might have a plausible explanation and so the court’s time could be wasted. Plus it’s natural justice to offer folk the opportunity to co-operate first. (Which is what’s been offered here). I wouldn’t rant at the companies for offering the opportunity to discuss their evidence. They will disclose that evidence at the interview, but they are not under any obligation to reveal it in advance.
There’s a suggestion in the thread that this is a fishing expedition. That’s pure speculation because no-one here knows what evidence exists.
Is it not in the public interest to investigate ticketing misuse? If so, the investigators are entitled to make reasonable enquiries and a normal part of their investigation would often be to speak to the person under suspicion to put their evidence to them and ask for comments. The police adopt exactly the same approach, so this company is not employing inappropriate lines of enquiry. Sometimes people co-operate and sometimes they don’t. At which point the investigator then has to decide whether to let the case go or simply issue a summons.
Calling the investigators “frankly incompetent, averious, muppets” shows little understanding of how things work. It also shows little understanding of “averious” which as far as I am aware doesn’t exist. Perhaps avaricious?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
I would say more than that is needed. For example, if someone purchased 20 x Leeds to Manchester singles then what's the problem? However, if during the month they purchased 1 x Leeds to Manchester Open Return and 20 x Leeds to Manchester singles it might be suspicious, even more so if they also purchased singles from Deansgate to Manchester Oxford Road on days when revenue inspectors were present.
I'm related to someone who was reported missing by the police but the police had no leads to follow up on. They asked me some questions about the person. They also asked someone else I was living with the same questions. Then, on a different day, another police officier asked me what were effectively the same questions again. I don't think that was by accident. They wanted to know if any relative was involved with the disappearance but they also didn't start naming acts and saying we want to interview you under them, when they were talking to someone who hadn't done anything wrong.
Why don't Northern say we're looking into journeys made between Huddersfield and Leeds and notice you've made some interesting journeys between these stations and wondered if we could interview you about your train journeys? It doesn't accuse passengers of anything if they don't have concrete evidence, and interviewing an innocent passenger (who thinks it's for passenger satisfaction reasons) might provide them with useful findings that help them investigate fraud. And if the passenger participates and is innocent, they aren't made to feel like a criminal for correctly paying for their train tickets
Yes some excellent points.
I think it is always worth reminding oneself when posting in this sub forum that the OPs are invariably asking the forums advice because they the OPs are engaged in a dispute with or prosecution by a TOC or their agent and may have little or no experience of managing disputes or railway law etc. It is our role to provide the best advice and guidance we can based on our collective knowledge and experience of the law, rules and regulations, terms and conditions of purchasing, using tickets and railcards and travelling on the railway. We also draw upon the reported experiences of posters.
If we can help OPs to get the most favourable outcome, reduce their fears and anxieties then we can consider it to be a job well done.
Matters can become somewhat heated in this forum as we recognise the some what arbitrary nature of railway revenue protection and that it can often appear to be "sledgehammers cracking walnuts". This is the world we live in and we have to remember that as much as we may become frustrated and wish to give vent to our feelings, we owe it to the posters to put providing the best advice etc we can to the forefront.
glasgowniteowl
On Moderation
That's what I suspected you would say, you don't request a refund, a few people have been prosecuted for doing exactly that, what you do is over 15 minutes late is claim for compensation from the rail operator using their delay repay scheme, who initially delays you, you then get a percentage back depending on length of delay which may amount to the same as a refund, but it's not a refund its compensation
Refund fraud is something tocs/trainlime are on the look out for the moment
On what grounds might we suspect this? I don’t think we’ve ever seen someone just randomly get a summons for this sort of thing and it turned out the “fishing” email just went to junk.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yeah they aren’t likely to think that for long, as they should be cautioned at the start of the interview.
It’s just my opinion that they won’t drop it if they don’t get a reply. That’s all.
They’re asking for the interview for a reason, which is that they don’t currently have enough evidence to bring any sort of formal charge.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Emails with images embedded can report back it's been opened.
familyguy12
Member
After reflecting on this thread I can only presume my “suspicious activity” is usually only buying singles… I have old bus tickets dotted around, but I don’t usually keep any. I don’t have any proof of lifts other than the fact my mum works in huddersfield and my partner goes to college in huddersfield. The trains I take home are only at :20 and around :50, whereas buses are every 15 minutes, hence why I’d opt for the bus as opposed to the train. Furthermore, there is a bus stop right outside my house; the train station is a 20 minute walk. The train and buses are relatively equal when it comes to overall convenience, which is why, like I said, I sometimes opt for the bus instead. I don’t have concrete evidence of when I’m at my partners house, or when I get lifts, and I won’t exactly have a surplus of bus tickets lying around… but surely I can’t be prosecuted for a suspicion of “reusing” tickets with no concrete evidence?
So what if it's been opened?
Re your last para you are correct about my typo (a phone on C2C) but if you wish to quote me in order to criticise my posts at least have the courtesy to do so accurately. The phrase was used with respect to TOCs in general and investigators were never mentioned.
I actually agree with you that fare evasion is unacceptable and should be addressed. I have big issues with the way that the TOCs do that. Untrained Carlisle types, penalty fakes, TIL, prosecuting passengers with an actually valid ticket due to their own incompetence....
Anything can really.
I believe if they have reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed then this doesn’t apply. It’s reasonable to suspect this is the case here.
It’s not really for the passenger to prove this but any easy evidence or a statement from the driver would be worth having.
IF they have enough evidence to bring a case to court they could indeed do that. However, if they do not then they can write a letter and hope that the passenger incriminates themselves either providing the evidence required or at the very least come to an agreement that involves a financial penalty. Infact, in many cases I assume they’d prefer a letter (fishing or otherwise) and a out of court settlement as there are no regulations they need to follow to complete this process and the financial reward stands a good chance of being higher, in some cases significantly.
Agreed this would be suspicious, but the trigger is much less ‘obvious’ than this it seems.
I’d be inclined to agree they wouldn’t drop it after 1 letter, though they might choose not to pursue after a couple more.
Overall we must not lose sight of the fact that fare evasion in many forms is rife. I’d suspect (though I have similar amounts of evidence as the railway has for these claims) that the majority of times a letter is sent out the passenger has indeed fallen foul of the rules. This could be continuous deliberate fare evasion using short fares, open returns as seasons, donuts, refunding, railcard fraud or anything else. Of, it could just be a misunderstanding of the rules, incorrectly claiming refunds for a delay repay case for example, or they could have just bought a selection of tickets that is out of the ordinary, doing nothing wrong at all but arousing suspicion.
If you sent 1000 letters out to 1000 passengers entirely at random (no journey triggers, no specific refunds etc) suggesting suspicious activity and offered them a settlement of £500, there would unquestionably be a fair few that would just pay up. You’d assume most of these would be guilty, many of which to the tune of more than £500 but we have seen on this forum on more than one occasion where a passenger has been frightened and bullied into paying up to make a problem go away so it stands to reason that you’d obtain money from completely innocent passengers too. It is THIS that people here have a real problem with, and understandably so.
My advice for this case is fairly simple. If you’ve done something wrong, engage with them and settle. You don’t have to admit it to us here, just take the advice. If as it seems you haven’t done anything wrong but may have some irregular journey history then you need to do 2 things, both have which gave been suggested already.
1. Get your ducks in a row. Triple check your journey history, your tickets and your payments. Check any refunds and delay repay, make sure they’re legitimate. See if you can find some evidence of other transport, bus tickets, taxi receipts, a statement from a friend or family member saying they regularly give you a lift. You shouldn’t need this and you shouldn’t offer this first but if it’s asked for at a later date you’ll have it ready to go. From now on, when you don’t use the train, keep a record of this.
2. Ignore the letter, for now. If they have evidence of wrongdoing they’ll pursue it, if they don’t they’ll either give up or keep trying it on. If they have no evidence they’d be stupid to take it to court and you can continue to ignore anything outside of court.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 3,905
Open up more accounts with other ticket retailers, with different email addresses and use them randomly to buy your tickets in future to reduce the risk of them linking journey history together. And to just confuse them and make it look really suspicious if they do tag onto it, in order to waste their time chasing you.
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,207
No you can not refund in those circs - you have to claim Delay Repay through the authorized Delay - Repay process of the train company that delayed you. This is very important.
Travelling, being delayed, and then submitting a refund request from the ticket retailer would be exactly the sort of thing that could trigger these sorts of e-mails. Tho I relaise you say you have not done this.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Leaving aside whether you need to prove anything, I suggest it would be far more dfficult to provide evidence of having taken a bus where, even if you could pinpoint the exact bus concerned, the driver would not know you from Adam, than a car journey where the driver would, presumably, be someone you knew who could testify that they did indeed give you a lift home.
Unless of course you paid for the bus by card. That would at least prove that a bus fare was paid.
If you go to your partner’s house then either you would still travel back that evening, in which case you would have a “matching” ticket, or you would stay over. If you stay over then you wouldn’t have a single ticket the following morning, so again, in aggregate there would still be the same number, albeit on different days.
So you need to be very clear as to how your travel arrangements result in any mismatch in outward and return journeys.
- Status