GTR Meeting

[MichaelJJ]

Hello,

About four months ago I was stopped by the GTR fraud team who had followed me. They held me under caution and said I had been using invalid tickets for several years and asked me to sign some documents. I complied fully and provided my side of the story about the financial pressures that I was under. The fraud team said I would be contacted within a month to ask for my side of the story and GTR are not currently looking at going to court as this would cost them more (of course things can change and this might be general things they're saying).

I have now received a letter which provides the date the fraud team stopped me and says the following:

"An investigation undertaken by GTR’s Fraud Department has established that you avoided a significant sum in rail fares over a prolonged period of time.

Travel Fraud costs the rail industry over £240 million per year and Govia Thameslink Railway has a zero-tolerance approach to fare evasion on our network. We always ask the courts to impose the maximum penalty for offenders, which can include the following:

- A Criminal Record
- Fine of up to £1000
- Prison Sentence
- Suspended Sentence
- Community Service
- Compensation
- Costs

I would like to discuss the matter further with you and would therefore request that you respond to this letter within 7 days using the email address above. Failure to respond to this letter will result in your case being referred to the Prosecutions Department."

No other information is provided in the letter.

I am not sure what GTR now want to discuss? (perhaps there was an issue with the forms or something I said?) Do I need a lawyer now?

I have seen a lot of helpful comments to others and I was hoping more experienced members on this forum could explain my options/how to respond or approach the letter.

Many thanks

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think we have come across a situation where GTR have stopped someone in an intelligence-based sting.

Are you able to elaborate on the type of travel fraud that is in question here?

 

[ohnoes]

How many fares do you think you’ve avoided in total? What were you doing to avoid paying the fare?

 

[ikcdab]

In order to give you meaningful advice then we really need more details.
Without incriminating yourself, are you saying that the accusations GTR have made are true? If so and if it's true that this is a significant amount of fare evasion then legal advice might be best. If you can provide a bit more detail then we can help you better.

 

[Haywain]

I am not sure what GTR now want to discuss? (perhaps there was an issue with the forms or something I said?) Do I need a lawyer now?

I would imagine that want to discuss your case face-to-face to to get clarity more quickly than can be achieved by dealing with this in writing. Without knowing what you have already told GTR under caution it is difficult to know whether you could actually make things worse by attending an interview. On the face of it, if you have already admitted to "using invalid tickets for several years" there is probably little to lose by complying with that request. Normally, we would advise against doing so because you might incriminate yourself further but it seems that would not apply in this case. You will have to weigh up whether it is worth engaging a solicitor to handle the matter on your behalf but it is likely to cost you upwards of £750 on top of any settlement that GTR are looking for.

 

[MichaelJJ]

I would imagine that want to discuss your case face-to-face to to get clarity more quickly than can be achieved by dealing with this in writing. Without knowing what you have already told GTR under caution it is difficult to know whether you could actually make things worse by attending an interview. On the face of it, if you have already admitted to "using invalid tickets for several years" there is probably little to lose by complying with that request. Normally, we would advise against doing so because you might incriminate yourself further but it seems that would not apply in this case. You will have to weigh up whether it is worth engaging a solicitor to handle the matter on your behalf but it is likely to cost you upwards of £750 on top of any settlement that GTR are looking for.

Are you able to suggest any solicitors?

 

[Haywain]

Are you able to suggest any solicitors?

You'll find names of a couple of firms if you do a search on here. Manak come up quite regularly.

 

[MichaelJJ]

I don't think we have come across a situation where GTR have stopped someone in an intelligence-based sting.

Are you able to elaborate on the type of travel fraud that is in question here?

The accusations is using tickets for only part of the journey rather than full journey

I don't think we have come across a situation where GTR have stopped someone in an intelligence-based sting.

Are you able to elaborate on the type of travel fraud that is in question here?

I don't think we have come across a situation where GTR have stopped someone in an intelligence-based sting.

Are you able to elaborate on the type of travel fraud that is in question here?

 

[John R]

You'll find names of a couple of firms if you do a search on here. Manak come up quite regularly.

Indeed, as recently as this morning we read about one happy customer of Manak.

Got caught using wrong Railcard

Got caught recently by Chiltern through using the Trainline app with a valid Network Railcard but tickets bought under “26-30”. This has been ongoing for a few months where I thought that my old railcard was still valid (there was no prompt to say otherwise) and most recent purchases I had it...

www.railforums.co.uk

In that case, Manak's fee was £1,300. Whether or not they achieved a better result than would be obtained by being completely cooperative and honest (as we always recommend being) we will never know.

If GTR has said it isn't looking at prosecution then you may find it better to engage with them directly. It's normal approach is usually fairly reasonable in terms of the amount it asks in relation to unpaid fares, unlike the more penal approach that some other companies take.

 

[WesternLancer]

You'll find names of a couple of firms if you do a search on here. Manak come up quite regularly.

and if the OP wishes to approach others for quotes for such work this was one that has been mentioned in the past on this forum

Fare Evasion - Penman Sedgwick

penmansedgwick.com

There was another one mentioned relatively recently by someone who had used their service but I can't recall the name of the legal firm.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Aug 2024 ==

If GTR has said it isn't looking at prosecution then you may find it better to engage with them directly. It's normal approach is usually fairly reasonable in terms of the amount it asks in relation to unpaid fares, unlike the more penal approach that some other companies take.

Yes, I wonder if appearing to be fully co-operative with them might enable legal help and cost to be avoided.

 

[ikcdab]

The accusations is using tickets for only part of the journey rather than full journey

And are you saying they are correct in their accusations? It makes a difference. It is not unknown for entirely innocent people to be prosecuted and if that was you then a solicitor is entirely justified. If however that isn't the case then a different approach can be better.

 

[guilbert]

They're only asking the OP to get in touch at this stage. My inclination would be to email them and express a desire to settle the matter out of court but without incriminating yourself unnecessarily and see what they say from there, before deciding whether to consult a solicitor.

 

[WesternLancer]

They're only asking the OP to get in touch at this stage. My inclination would be to email them and express a desire to settle the matter out of court but without incriminating yourself unnecessarily and see what they say from there, before deciding whether to consult a solicitor.

yes, and the OP could post a draft of such a reply here for people to check before sending.

It could be a very simple response to the letter received.

 

[MichaelJJ]

yes, and the OP could post a draft of such a reply here for people to check before sending.

It could be a very simple response to the letter received.

Thanks all. I think there is also desire to settle out of court given that they've asked to speak with me rather than go straight to prosecuting?

Just to check, should I ask for an out of court settlement now or just more info on the meeting?

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks all. I think there is also desire to settle out of court given that they've asked to speak with me rather than go straight to prosecuting?

Just to check, should I ask for an out of court settlement now or just more info on the meeting?

well, see what others think over the next 24 hours or so - but I suspect in terms of an initial reply you need to be cautious about speaking to them because I suspect it's more difficult to avoid incriminating yourself in a conversation than it may be in a carefully checked written response, even a written response that indicates you want to be co-operative.

 

[ikcdab]

Thanks all. I think there is also desire to settle out of court given that they've asked to speak with me rather than go straight to prosecuting?

Just to check, should I ask for an out of court settlement now or just more info on the meeting?

I dont think you can make that assumption.
Although you havent said so, I assume from your reply that you have evaded fares on a large scale and that you agree they have a case.
That being the case, the outcome will either be a settlement or a court case and prosecution. If you have evaded fares on such a large scale, then it might be difficult to avoid prosecution but you need to give yourself the best chance of getting a settlement. That being the case, attending the interview shows you are cooperating and gives the bast chance of a settlement. Though as noted in the previous post, you need to be careful what you say to avoid incriminating yourself further.

 

[Hadders]

We have seen examples of this sort of letter from GTR in the past.

We have advised people to reply being honest about what they have done and this has avoided the need to attend an interview. That said this case is on a somewhat larger scale and the sud of money involved significantly higher. You might want to consider using a solicitor if you have been up to this for years as their cost compared to the overall settlement sum will be smaller than in a smaller settlement.

 

[MichaelJJ]

We have seen examples of this sort of letter from GTR in the past.

We have advised people to reply being honest about what they have done and this has avoided the need to attend an interview. That said this case is on a somewhat larger scale and the sud of money involved significantly higher. You might want to consider using a solicitor if you have been up to this for years as their cost compared to the overall settlement sum will be smaller than in a smaller settlement.

Thank you for a helpful response. Can I ask, when you've seen cases like this in the past, what has the purpose of the interview been? And has been a legal proceeding?

 

[Hadders]

The purpose of the interview is to establish the level fare evasion. Generally speaking GTR will offer an out of court settlement to people who co-operate with their investigation and who haven’t come to their attention before.

The issue for you is the fare evasion has been going on for years, my view is that doesn’t mean you won’t get offered a settlement, but clearly the level of evasion is at a level where many people would say it should end up in court.

 

[MichaelJJ]

The purpose of the interview is to establish the level fare evasion. Generally speaking GTR will offer an out of court settlement to people who co-operate with their investigation and who haven’t come to their attention before.

The issue for you is the fare evasion has been going on for years, my view is that doesn’t mean you won’t get offered a settlement, but clearly the level of evasion is at a level where many people would say it should end up in court.

Sorry for another question but when you say 'people who co-operate' does that imply that they do not have a solicitor?

 

[Hadders]

There is no requirement to have a solicitor. The vast majority of people obtain a settlement from GTR without using a solicitor.

The complication in your case is the level of evasion. GTR might fee like making an example of you in court, on the other hand a settlement is likely to yield them many £thousands from you which they probably won’t get if the case goes to court.

 

[John R]

One option is to engage directly with GTR, and only if they decline to offer a settlement and insist on prosecuting then at that point use a solicitor. We've seen at least one case where a late intervention by one of the solicitor firms mentioned here succeeded in getting a settlement offer.

One benefit of using a solicitor for these larger cases can be that the usual settlement terms of a full Anytime Single fare with no offset for the fare actually paid is quite penal, and a solicitor can help negotiate that downwards in a way that you might not be able to. However, as GTR tends to be more reasonable in what it asks for, I'm not sure that would apply here.

 

[MichaelJJ]

One option is to engage directly with GTR, and only if they decline to offer a settlement and insist on prosecuting then at that point use a solicitor. We've seen at least one case where a late intervention by one of the solicitor firms mentioned here succeeded in getting a settlement offer.

One benefit of using a solicitor for these larger cases can be that the usual settlement terms of a full Anytime Single fare with no offset for the fare actually paid is quite penal, and a solicitor can help negotiate that downwards in a way that you might not be able to. However, as GTR tends to be more reasonable in what it asks for, I'm not sure that would apply here.

Thanks. I've seen from some other threads that people in similar positions have been asked to attend an in person interview (their letter uses "interview" and provides a lot more detail). They were advised to seek legal advice at that point and not to attend the interview without such support.

My letter only asks to "discuss further" although my letter is from a different train operator.

Am I effectively in the same position as those being interviewed? Is this an opportunity to provide my side of the story or to collect more information against me?

 

[AlterEgo]

Am I effectively in the same position as those being interviewed?

It's hard to say because I don't think we have seen GTR act in this way before.

Is this an opportunity to provide my side of the story or to collect more information against me?

Those are the same thing.

 

[Hadders]

If GTR want to interview you under PACE procedures then I would not attend without a solicitor.

I suspect that all they want to do is have a chat to agree how many times you have evaded your fare and calculate the value of the settlement to keep the matter out of court.

 

[Camsus]

Whoever at GTR sent you the letter is saying they wish to "discuss the matter further with you." This could mean via email and not in person or phone. I would be tempted to respond and see what the next steps are before committing to the expense of a solicitor

 

[MichaelJJ]

Thank you all for your many helpful comments.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's hard to say because I don't think we have seen GTR act in this way before.

I think there may have been one in recent months IIRC - it was persistent evasion I think, though perhaps for not as long as the OP suggests might have been involved in here - If I remember they engaged by e-mail and it went from there and I don't recall it resulted in a meeting or discussion. Possibly got sent a spreadsheet of suggested evasion for the evader to check.
Unfortunately i don't think I can recall enough to find the thread to link to.

 

[MrJeeves]

Thank you all for your many helpful comments.

If you'd like any help with drafting a reply to GTR, we're more than happy to help.

The main thing is to avoid trying to use any form of AI to write it for you, as this becomes rather obvious, and to be upfront with an apology, acknowledging your decision was a conscious yet incorrect one.

Do let us know how you get on!

 

[MichaelJJ]

Update:

I did respond to the letter I received this morning (based on similar responses I've seen here and highlighting my own apologies).

I have now received the following reply:

"Thank you for your response.

Since you were spoken to by a GTR Fraud Officer, Govia Thameslink Railway's investigation into your ticket purchase history via Trainline has identified numerous short ticket transactions [...]

My role within GTR's Fraud Department is to decide what course of action is most appropriate in a fraud investigation such as this. I have the option of referring your case to our Prosecutions Department, or alternatively, we can attempt to resolve the matter via the payment of a financial settlement, consisting of any rail fares that have been avoided plus GTR's costs.

I am prepared on this occasion to offer you an opportunity to try and reach a settlement agreement with GTR, however for this to happen your full cooperation and honesty are required. Please note, if we are unable to agree on a satisfactory outcome regarding this matter, your case will be referred to GTR's Prosecutions Department, which will result in a court summons being issued or your case being passed over to the British Transport Police for review.

Although you are under no obligation to enter into a settlement with Govia Thameslink Railway, providing the above points are met I would consider providing a settlement proposal based on any rail fares which were avoided, along with GTR’s costs to investigate this case.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above, If I don't hear back from you, it will be assumed you do not wish to proceed with a settlement.

Should you wish to discuss matters in detail, I would be happy to schedule to explain the above and outline GTR's process. A call would last no longer than 15 minutes."

I'm very grateful at the opportunity for a financial settlement and of course will comply fully.

My only concern is that the opening paragraphs mention my Trainline account - I don't have one or use one.

It goes on to say that an investigation was conducted *after* I was stopped by the Fraud team but when I was stopped, they had already conducted an investigation on my Thameslink account which showed some invalid tickets.

Is there any suggestions for how to approach the call?