Summons received - use of expired railcard

[Elmsey]

Can anyone offer any help on this?

My daughter was stopped at Waterlooin January and produced her ticket and railcard. Unfortunately the rail card was out of date a fact which she had not realised. She had no intent and indeed purchased a new railcard as soon as alerted. The guard took her name and address and told her that she was unlikely to hear anything. She was not asked to pay a penalty fare.

In April she received a letter from South Western asking her to pay £540.60 to avoid being prosecuted. The letter was sent to our old address, not the one she gave to the ticket inspector. The single fare from Southampton Parkway to Waterloo is £52. She wrote to South Western to the email address provided asking for the reasoning behind the required settlement and setting out our new address.

She received no response.

Today she has received a summons to court. This was again sent to the wrong address. The Offence was that she travelled with out paying the £52 fare and with intent to avoid the payment of it.

None of this makes sense. She had a ticket, so how can there be an intent to avoid a fare? This was a genuine mistake. If she had been offered to pay a penalty fare she would have done so. She was not.

Any help would be grateful received.

 

[Gloster]

For a start a ticket with a railcard discount when the traveller does not have a valid railcard (and this includes an expired railcard) is legally no ticket at all, so she was travelling without a ticket. The railway has probably investigated her travel patterns and discovered other occasions when she travelled without a ticket, quite possibly travelling without a valid railcard. They then offered her a chance to settle the matter by paying the cost of the tickets, which they calculate on the basis of the full Anytime Single fare for each and every journey, i.e. for a return journey that is two fares, one out and one back. No allowance is made for what she did pay or any reduction she might be entitled to. They then add their investigation costs, which start at £150.

They then offer you a chance to settle out of court by paying the amount quoted. This seems to be what they did and, as you did not accept (as far as they are concerned) the matter has been escalated to court.

Others, more expert than me, should soon be along to give advice as to what to do now. However, the railway does seem to have followed the standard procedure so far. Only the address problem diverges a bit from that.

 

[Haywain]

She had a ticket, so how can there be an intent to avoid a fare?

Failing to pay the correct fare when there was an opportunity to do so is, in law, intentional. It is likely that the charge is for a strict liability offence, which means that it has been committed and she will be found guilty in court.

This was a genuine mistake.

Unfortunately, that makes no difference.

If she had been offered to pay a penalty fare she would have done so.

That is the railway company's choice, and not something they chose to offer.

She needs to urgently contact SWR and ask if they will allow the matter to be settled without court action (it isn't too late for that). SWR are not noted for prosecuting when people engage with them in the right way.

 

[Elmsey]

For a start a ticket with a railcard discount when the traveller does not have a valid railcard (and this includes an expired railcard) is legally no ticket at all, so she was travelling without a ticket. The railway has probably investigated her travel patterns and discovered other occasions when she travelled without a ticket, quite possibly travelling without a valid railcard. They then offered her a chance to settle the matter by paying the cost of the tickets, which they calculate on the basis of the full Anytime Single fare for each and every journey, i.e. for a return journey that is two fares, one out and one back. No allowance is made for what she did pay or any reduction she might be entitled to. They then add their investigation costs, which start at £150.

They then offer you a chance to settle out of court by paying the amount quoted. This seems to be what they did and, as you did not accept (as far as they are concerned) the matter has been escalated to court.

Others, more expert than me, should soon be along to give advice as to what to do now. However, the railway does seem to have followed the standard procedure so far. Only the address problem diverges a bit from that.

She responded to their offer asking for the reasoning behind the numbers and she has had no response. She made it clear in that letter that she wanted to settle but wanted to understand the numbers

 

[30907]

Others, more expert than me, should soon be along to give advice as to what to do now. However, the railway does seem to have followed the standard procedure so far. Only the address problem diverges a bit from that.

....which suggests that the email was never received by SWR, or overlooked.

Like Haywain, I would suggest urgently contacting SWR in suitably apologetic tones regarding the original offence (posts by our longstanding member @Hadders will give a steer), pointing out that she had not ignored their original letter but that her previous reply had gone astray. She should ask them to consider withdrawing the prosecution and offering an out of court settlement.
I would also confirm the expiry date of the railcard and possibly re-send the original mail (assuming that its tone was appropriate rather than aggressive!).

If there is a serious discrepancy in the amount claimed by SWR compared with what her own records show (recalculating each journey at the full Anytime fare) that might be worth pursuing once the prosecution has been dropped.

 

[Elmsey]

Failing to pay the correct fare when there was an opportunity to do so is, in law, intentional. It is likely that the charge is for a strict liability offence, which means that it has been committed and she will be found guilty in court.

Unfortunately, that makes no difference.

That is the railway company's choice, and not something they chose to offer.

She needs to urgently contact SWR and ask if they will allow the matter to be settled without court action (it isn't too late for that). SWR are not noted for prosecuting when people engage with them in the right way.

She has tried to contact SWR but has had no response, firstly to and email and today she has tried to call and was told they will not speak to her and to email, which she had no response to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==

....which suggests that the email was never received by SWR, or overlooked.

Like Haywain, I would suggest urgently contacting SWR in suitably apologetic tones regarding the original offence (posts by our longstanding member @Hadders will give a steer), pointing out that she had not ignored their original letter but that her previous reply had gone astray. She should ask them to consider withdrawing the prosecution and offering an out of court settlement.
I would also confirm the expiry date of the railcard and possibly re-send the original mail (assuming that its tone was appropriate rather than aggressive!).

If there is a serious discrepancy in the amount claimed by SWR compared with what her own records show (recalculating each journey at the full Anytime fare) that might be worth pursuing once the prosecution has been dropped.

This is what her email sent, on 29th April, said

This incident of travel on an expired railcard was a genuine mistake. You will see that as soon as I was alerted I purchased a new rail card (on 19th January). I had no intention of in anyway defrauding South Western Trains.

Firstly, I would like to point out that, at the time of the incident I was not given the opportunity to pay a penalty fare or to pay the full fare. I understand I should have had this opportunity.

I would like to come to a settlement, but I am not able to accept your assessment of the fare avoided nor the administration fees, given I was not given the opportunity to make a settlement at the time, which would have avoided the administration fees and which I would have gladly done, and as this was a genuine mistake. I only travelled from Southampton to London on an advance ticket with a 30% discount. The full fare would have been around £25. I cannot see how this equates to an avoided fare of £338.60.

I apologise for the oversight on my part, however, before I settle with you, I would like a full breakdown of the numbers you have provided including the operational and administrative costs.

I have also attached this as a letter for recording.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

She responded to their offer asking for the reasoning behind the numbers and she has had no response. She made it clear in that letter that she wanted to settle but wanted to understand the numbers

Depending on what she sent could have affected how swr chose to respond, if her letter was more confrontational rather than apologetic they may have chosen to go down the court route, as posted above its entirely swrs choice how they pursue the matter and their choice whether they even respond to her letter etc

 

[Haywain]

This is what her email sent, on 29th April, said

I can see why SWR might have decided to go to court.

 

[Elmsey]

I can see why SWR might have decided to go to court.

Why?

 

[Haywain]

Why?

The tone of the email/letter. In particular, the second and third paragraphs.

 

[Elmsey]

Depending on what she sent could have affected how swr chose to respond, if her letter was more confrontational rather than apologetic they may have chosen to go down the court route, as posted above its entirely swrs choice how they pursue the matter and their choice whether they even respond to her letter etc

This incident of travel on an expired railcard was a genuine mistake. You will see that as soon as I was alerted I purchased a new rail card (on 19th January). I had no intention of in anyway defrauding South Western Trains.

Firstly, I would like to point out that, at the time of the incident I was not given the opportunity to pay a penalty fare or to pay the full fare. I understand I should have had this opportunity.

I would like to come to a settlement, but I am not able to accept your assessment of the fare avoided nor the administration fees, given I was not given the opportunity to make a settlement at the time, which would have avoided the administration fees and which I would have gladly done, and as this was a genuine mistake. I only travelled from Southampton to London on an advance ticket with a 30% discount. The full fare would have been around £25. I cannot see how this equates to an avoided fare of £338.60.

I apologise for the oversight on my part, however, before I settle with you, I would like a full breakdown of the numbers you have provided including the operational and administrative costs.

I have also attached this as a letter for recording.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why?

Because she is the one who has committed a criminal offence here, and it seems as though they have detected other instances of irregular travel by auditing her ticket purchasing accounts. She isn't in a position to demand a breakdown of the company's operational costs.

Does she dispute that there have been other instances where she has travelled with a discounted ticket, after her railcard expired?

 

[Elmsey]

The tone of the email/letter.

All it did was ask why the avoided fare was so much. It is not an unreasonable thing to do? I don't really understand your comments. I am just asking for some help rather than judgement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==

Because she is the one who has committed a criminal offence here, and it seems as though they have detected other instances of irregular travel by auditing her ticket purchasing accounts. She isn't in a position to demand a breakdown of the company's operational costs.

Does she dispute that there have been other instances where she has travelled with a discounted ticket, after her railcard expired?

She is 22. How would she have the experience to know that?

Why has the court Summons only referenced the one fare? the Summons is for £52.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

She has tried to contact SWR but has had no response, firstly to and email and today she has tried to call and was told they will not speak to her and to email, which she had no response to.

To pick up on this point, it seems to me that it is worth sending another email: it's also worth sending a paper copy by one of Royal Mail's tracked services (see https://www.royalmail.com/sending/uk). This is, of course, an extra expense but given that email doesn't seem to be reliable it's worth moving up to an alternative solution. The advantage of using a tracked service is that you can demonstrate that the letter was recived - which then means that the railway have much less of an excuse for not actioning it.

 

[Haywain]

All it did was ask why the avoided fare was so much. It is not an unreasonable thing to do? I don't really understand your comments. I am just asking for some help rather than judgement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==


She is 22. How would she have the experience to know that?

Why has the court Summons only referenced the one fare? the Summons is for £52.

It starts off by effectively saying that none of this would have happened if a penalty fare had been issued, which is the sort of comment that might well be seen as written by someone taking a calculated risk that nothing worse would happen if they were caught.

 

[AlterEgo]

She is 22. How would she have the experience to know that?

I'm not sure what relevance that has - she did without doubt commit the offence, so she is not in a strong position. The correspondence from SWR would almost certainly have outlined the potential consequences anyway, not that they would have any obligation to let her know.

Why has the court Summons only referenced the one fare? the Summons is for £52.

Because they can only prosecute for the single, specimen offence where she was caught.

Has she made any contact with SWR after receiving this summons?

 

[glasgowniteowl]

It's is when stuff like "but I am not able to accept your assessment of the fare avoided nor the administration fees" is said that is more confrontational than apologetic, there is basically one small apology for an oversight, that's why you are probably having problems, your daughter committed a criminal offence(possibly multiple times) and the letter tries to shift blame onto swr for not offering other resolutions, there basically needed to be a contrite apology and acknowledgement of her actions

 

[WesternLancer]

She has tried to contact SWR but has had no response, firstly to and email and today she has tried to call and was told they will not speak to her and to email, which she had no response to.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==


This is what her email sent, on 29th April, said

It's bad luck your daughter did not get advice form here earlier in the process but that is water under the bridge now - so

If e-mail isn't working as a method and they wont engage on the phone (this is standard for these cases) get a hard copy letter asking sympathetically for a request to settle the matter out of court as a a letter in the post ASAP - send it signed for or tracked or whatever so you know it has got there - and depending on the time between now and the scheduled court date it may be worth doing this next day delivery. Ideally get it to a post office by mid morning Saturday to get it in the post ASAP - or use advice here to re-draft what needs to be said and get that done Monday using the weekend to craft the best request possible.

People here will help get this as good as can be done if they can.

The other thing to do is
- to look up the price of the Anytime Single Fare - Southampton to London (£54.50 I think one way)
- ask your daughter to check her railcard expiry date
- ask your daughter to check her ticket / travel records and calculate how many single trips she made aftee the railcard expiry date and before purchase of the new railcard

see if that figure varies wildly from the sum SWR are asking for (bearing in mind they probably want about a £150 'admin fee' as part of the sum they want to settle out of court)

Things have not been helped by SWR sending correspondence to the wrong address and it might be worth diplomatically pointing this out in any correspondence to be had with them now that will prevent this going to prosecution, because that needs to be your objective as that will cost, I suspect even more than the sum they asked for in April

 

[Elmsey]

To pick up on this point, it seems to me that it is worth sending another email: it's also worth sending a paper copy by one of Royal Mail's tracked services (see https://www.royalmail.com/sending/uk). This is, of course, an extra expense but given that email doesn't seem to be reliable it's worth moving up to an alternative solution. The advantage of using a tracked service is that you can demonstrate that the letter was recived - which then means that the railway have much less of an excuse for not actioning it.

YEs, I think we will resend everything as the letter clearly states that she wants to settle

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==

I'm not sure what relevance that has - she did without doubt commit the offence, so she is not in a strong position. The correspondence from SWR would almost certainly have outlined the potential consequences anyway, not that they would have any obligation to let her know.


Because they can only prosecute for the single, specimen offence where she was caught.

Has she made any contact with SWR after receiving this summons?

She has tried to call and has been told to email, so no really not yet.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

YEs, I think we will resend everything as the letter clearly states that she wants to settle

I would maybe not resend everything best to post what you intend on here and you will receive advice on it, remember she needs to convince swr to accept her apology and stop the court case, just because she is willing to settle doesn't mean that previous letters show she is apologetic for breaking the law and accepting the consequences

 

[Titfield]

YEs, I think we will resend everything as the letter clearly states that she wants to settle

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==


She has tried to call and has been told to email, so no really not yet.

May I suggest you look at some of the posts by @Hadders which outlines the sort of letter which seems to elicit a more favourable response - ie the offer of an out of court settlement.

 

[Haywain]

YEs, I think we will resend everything as the letter clearly states that she wants to settle

Don’t resend that letter. Draw up something with a more apologetic and conciliatory tone.

 

[AlterEgo]

She has tried to call and has been told to email, so no really not yet.

She should rewrite the letter, to be fair. That's not how you respond to someone correctly accusing you of a criminal offence. I know it feels harsh but she did commit the offence of boarding a train without a valid ticket - this is a strict liability matter like speeding and no intent need be proven. So, it is rather like arguing with the police about speeding, a rather futile exercise.

She should rewrite the letter, outline that she has had no response to her letter or email previously sent, and apologise for not having the correct ticket, and offering to pay the settlement fee. Feel free to post a draft here for feedback.

I assume there is no dispute that she did travel with an expired railcard on other occasions?

 

[Elmsey]

May I suggest you look at some of the posts by @Hadders which outlines the sort of letter which seems to elicit a more favourable response - ie the offer of an out of court settlement.

How do I find the letters? I am new to forums and there are a lot of posts when I click on that user name? Thanks

 

[simonw]

How do I find the letters? I am new to forums and there are a lot of posts when I click on that user name? Thanks

He typically advises:

send a short, concise reply mentioning the following:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Tell them how many times you have evaded your fare (give them the date range you used but quite instances rather than values)
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

 

[Wolfie]

How do I find the letters? I am new to forums and there are a lot of posts when I click on that user name? Thanks

You may well find that @Hadders posts on this thread when he can.

 

[Elmsey]

She should rewrite the letter, to be fair. That's not how you respond to someone correctly accusing you of a criminal offence. I know it feels harsh but she did commit the offence of boarding a train without a valid ticket - this is a strict liability matter like speeding and no intent need be proven. So, it is rather like arguing with the police about speeding, a rather futile exercise.

She should rewrite the letter, outline that she has had no response to her letter or email previously sent, and apologise for not having the correct ticket, and offering to pay the settlement fee. Feel free to post a draft here for feedback.

I assume there is no dispute that she did travel with an expired railcard on other occasions?

She did and she is looking at how many, but it was only a small number as she was out of the country for two months between the expiration date and the date of the inspection.

We will post a draft before we send it.

The whole process feels grossly unfair

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==

He typically advises:

send a short, concise reply mentioning the following:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Tell them how many times you have evaded your fare (give them the date range you used but quite instances rather than values)
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

Thank you. That's helpful

 

[WesternLancer]

She did and she is looking at how many, but it was only a small number as she was out of the country for two months between the expiration date and the date of the inspection.

That si good but with fares of £50ish each way it's not going to be many trips before it adds up to several £hundreds sadly, at the full fare which they tend to use in these cases

We will post a draft before we send it.

The whole process feels grossly unfair

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2024 ==

Indeed it does for genuine oversights of this nature - but sadly ticket evasion is widespread on UK railway and government have clearly indicated to railway companies to take a tough line, even if it alienates people against using trains in future. But there are many cases on this forum of people who clan to have railcards to obtain the discounts from them but do not have them. No doubt it is hard for staff to establish the difference.

I do actually agree that if you have never been in this situation before it would be a shock to be asked for c£500 when you had got a wrong ticket in the region of £30-£50, and indeed would seem harsh. It is not unreasonable to ask for some sort of breakdown of how that has been calculated in my view but sadly the railway has no strong reason to do that as they have been granted (since the 19th century) powers of private prosecution that means the law is on their side when it comes to being able to successfully prosecute - this is a subject that gets debated elsewhere on this forum but of course that isn't going to be any help to your daughter in the situation she finds her self in now.

Thank you. That's helpful

She can also say that she immediately renewed her Railcard (assuming I have that correct) as a way of making it clear that she had acted to prevent the problem recurring that had been caused by the oversight in letting it expire. eg "I promptly renewed my Railcard when the situation was pointed out to me as I had no intention of deliberately travelling without a valid Railcard on this or other occasions"

 

[Wolfie]

@Hadders as Elmsey seems quite exercised l have taken the liberty of copying key non-case specific text from one of your previous excellent pieces of advice. If that is an issue please shout!

"I would research your online ticketing account to identify how many times you have evaded your fare and send a short, concise reply mentioning the following:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Tell them how many times you have evaded your fare (give them the date range you used but quite instances rather than values)
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter.

If you are offered an out of court settlement you will typically have to pay an admin fee of around £150 plus compensation for the fares avoided at the fully Anytime rate. You will need to be in a position to pay the settlement in full within a few days of it being offered.

Post up a copy of your draft reply in this thread and forum members will proof read it for you."

@Hadders also said the following (paraphrased):
While telling the TOC how many times you’ve done this could be viewed as incriminating yourself, they can readily find this out (and probably already have). By being upfront with them you might avoid having to attend an interview with them. Most TOCs will offer a settlement to keep the issue out of Court.

Speaking personally now, the issue that your daughter has got is that her initial response to a settlement offer was far from apologetic but actually rather combative in tone. You and she both need to realise that she effectively has to grovel now if she wishes to avoid a criminal record. Such grovelling isn't guaranteed to be successful either.

 

[Elmsey]

Here is the draft

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing regarding the court summons I have received for travelling on the 19th January 2024 with an expired railcard. I previously wrote to you in April, as soon as I received your letter, via email but have not had a response to that.



I am deeply sorry for what has happened. It was a genuine mistake as I did not realise my rail card had expired. I now understand that traveling with an expired railcard is considered the same as travelling without a valid ticket. This experience has taught me to be much more vigilant about checking the validity of my travel documents before each journey. And you will note that I purchased a new railcard on 19th January, as soon as your inspector notified me it had expired.



I am very keen to settle this matter without the need for court action.



Between 22nd October 2023 and the 19th January 2024, I travelled 5 single journeys between Southampton Parkway and Tooting, one single journey between Gatwick Airport and London Bridge and 2 single journeys between Southampton Airport Parkway and Waterloo, using the expired railcard. I offer to pay the outstanding fare difference for these journeys, as well as South Western Railway's administrative costs in dealing with this matter.



My current address is [ ], which differs from the address you may have on file.



I would be grateful if you would consider withdrawing the court proceedings and allow me to settle this directly. Please let me know the total amount due, including administrative fees, and I will arrange payment promptly.



Thank you for your consideration.



Sincerely,