South Wester Railway Fare Evasion - Requesting help and advice!

[cheesits]

Hello,

I was recently caught short-faring at London Waterloo by South Western Railways and have received an email with a pre-court partial disclosure to fill out my suspicious journeys.

There are lots of journeys that have been highlighted in this spreadsheet, and som journeys that date back to 2020, and some of the more recent journeys I bought a return ticket from Feltham to Clapham Junction in the mornings when I was traveling from Sunbury to Clapham Junction, as I would go to Feltham on the way home and it was easier for me to buy a return than two tickets. I understand that this shouldn’t matter and I understand the severity of my actions and have learnt a great lesson.

I was wondering how likely it is for me to be offered an out of court settlement if I fill out the spreadsheet correctly and accurately?

I would really appreciate any advice on this and am sincerely reflecting upon my actions.

Thank you.

 

[30907]

As the paper-ticket fare from Feltham is considerably less than the one from Sunbury, you were in the wrong there, but I'm not sure how SW can determine that (do Feltham/Sunbury have barriers?)

AIUI if you cooperate with SW they are quite likely to settle.

 

[LocalInspector]

Please post any paperwork you were given by the revenue team or any emails you have received with personal details redacted so we can provide the best form of help

 

[Hadders]

Hello,

I was recently caught short-faring at London Waterloo by South Western Railways and have received an email with a pre-court partial disclosure to fill out my suspicious journeys.

There are lots of journeys that have been highlighted in this spreadsheet, and som journeys that date back to 2020, and some of the more recent journeys I bought a return ticket from Feltham to Clapham Junction in the mornings when I was traveling from Sunbury to Clapham Junction, as I would go to Feltham on the way home and it was easier for me to buy a return than two tickets. I understand that this shouldn’t matter and I understand the severity of my actions and have learnt a great lesson.

I was wondering how likely it is for me to be offered an out of court settlement if I fill out the spreadsheet correctly and accurately?

I would really appreciate any advice on this and am sincerely reflecting upon my actions.

Thank you.

Welcome to the forum!

I expect SWR to offer you an out of court settlement if you co-operate with them. Expect to have to pay the cost of the fares avoided at the full Anytime rate with no credit given for the invalid tickets you did ourchase in addition to an admin fee, typically £150.

 

[cheesits]

Hi everyone,

Thank you for taking the time to reply, I really appreciate it. I am genuinely utterly ashamed at myself, and am grateful that I have been caught now rather than later as I genuinely did not understand the magnitude of this issue (as foolish as it sounds), and really appreciate any advice on this.

As suggested, the email that I received from SWR as below:

'I am currently investigating your case concerning your travel from Sunbury to London Waterloo Railway Stations on the XXX During this journey, you were approached by a SWR Revenue member at London Waterloo station. Where you presented a short ticket from Vauxhall to London Waterloo.

As part of this investigation, I have the authority under the Railway Byelaws and National Conditions of Travel 2022 to examine all tickets purchased and used on the South Western Railway network if an offense has occurred. Through a Data Sharing agreement, I have obtained access to all your Trainline Purchase History. Upon reviewing your purchase history, it has come to my attention that there are other journeys on the South Western Railway Network where evidence suggests that there are multiple tickets that are also not valid for the entirety of your journey. These journeys occurred between the dates of XXX 2020 to the XXX 2024.

I have attached pre-court partial disclosure document Exhibit AM-1, which includes your online Trainline ticket purchase history. This provides an opportunity for you to provide an accurate account of each journey, could you please specify in column Q and R where you started and finished your rail journeys, and column S if you held a railcard for this journey, and column T if you made a return journey on that day. If you respond with a truthful account, there’s an opportunity for an out-of-court settlement.

It is essential to emphasize that we possess supplementary evidence, including ticket tap data (which shows where the ticket was scanned and used), refund data, and we may access CCTV footage, which could be presented if your case was to proceed to court.

I kindly request your immediate attention to this matter and ask that you respond by XXX. Failure to provide the requested information within the specified timeframe will compel me to refer this case to our prosecutor, triggering further legal action, including court proceedings.

I strongly advise seeking independent legal advice specialised in dealing with fare evasion. Assistance and guidance can be obtained from the Citizens Advice Service, and I have attached a link for your reference: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or require further clarification.

Thank you for your cooperation, and I look forward to your prompt response.'

I have drafted a response below - if anyone could take a look and provide feedback, I would really appreciate it.

'Hello,

Thank you for your email, and the opportunity to cooperate with you on this matter.

I have attached the completed Excel spreadsheet with the correct details of my journeys, and have also provided my Railcard details.

I would like to express my sincerest apologies for my multiple short-faring offences, and would like to take full responsibility for my actions. I understand how foolish my actions were and upon reflection, I truly understand the severity of my offences. I have learned from this incident, and can assure you that I have purchased the correct ticket at the correct price for my tickets since then, and will continue to do so in the future.

I am ashamed, and am truly regretful of my actions. I understand that there are no justifications for my actions, but I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter out of court. I am more than willing to cover the cost of the evaded fares, as well as any administrative costs incurred in dealing with this investigation.

Please let me know if you have any questions, or require any more information.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely'

I also have another question:

There were also a few journeys on the spreadsheet that I did short-fare, but SWR have not highlighted as they were on GWR journeys - would GWR be dealing with those? I would be more than happy to cover those costs as well, but not sure if it is wise for me to disclose that myself or if I should be expecting another email from GWR, as it was SWR who stopped me at the barriers on the day of the incident.

Once again, thank you everyone.

 

[30907]

There were also a few journeys on the spreadsheet that I did short-fare, but SWR have not highlighted as they were on GWR journeys - would GWR be dealing with those? I would be more than happy to cover those costs as well, but not sure if it is wise for me to disclose that myself or if I should be expecting another email from GWR, as it was SWR who stopped me at the barriers on the day of the incident.

Normally, SWR would act on behalf of all TOCs, so it is very unlikely that GW will be contacting you.
If SWR haven't asked you about these, I would keep schtumm: they are not concerned about every last penny, only that they will recover some of the debt and that you will stop cheating the railway.

 

[SWT_USER]

If you were genuinely going back to Feltham there would presumably be an exit scan for each of the tickets - so OP should only be on the hook for the £8.40 anytime day single from Sunbury to Clapham Junction rather than the £16.80 day return, given they would have had a valid ticket for the Clapham Junction to Feltham journey?

 

[cheesits]

If you were genuinely going back to Feltham there would presumably be an exit scan for each of the tickets - so OP should only be on the hook for the £8.40 anytime day single from Sunbury to Clapham Junction rather than the £16.80 day return, given they would have had a valid ticket for the Clapham Junction to Feltham journey?

Yes, this is correct, I was genuinely going back to Feltham every day on the way back (which I tapped in and out), but I still should have bought the correct ticket in the morning

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2024 ==

Normally, SWR would act on behalf of all TOCs, so it is very unlikely that GW will be contacting you.
If SWR haven't asked you about these, I would keep schtumm: they are not concerned about every last penny, only that they will recover some of the debt and that you will stop cheating the railway.

Ah I see, this is reassuring, thank you for your reply.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

Welcome to the forum!

I expect SWR to offer you an out of court settlement if you co-operate with them. Expect to have to pay the cost of the fares avoided at the full Anytime rate with no credit given for the invalid tickets you did ourchase in addition to an admin fee, typically £150.

Hi, thank you for your reply.

Would you be able to have a look at my draft email?

I also have another question - when I was filling out the spreadsheet, there were some days where I couldn’t remember if where I travelled back to, as sometimes I would get a lift from a different station along the journey. Or sometimes I would have bought the return ticket and I would take an uber home that day instead. Should I add this in the email?

Thank you.

 

[furlong]

If you took an uber, won't the app have records of those occasions which you can show them as proof?

Also normally the train company should not ask to be paid twice for any journeys - the courts would not normally support them in using an alleged crime as an opportunity to make any profit beyond what they would have made had the alleged crime not been commited! They should only charge for portions of journeys that were not paid for (based on the stations at which the trains you caught actually stopped) and that is what we usually see happens in cases like this. (There are two approaches: Either "given that you bought the tickets you did, what additional tickets did you need to purchase to regularise your actual journeys?" or alternatively and probably more correctly "Had you never intended to cheat, what tickets would a normal person in your position actually have bought, and we'll need to be paid the difference between the cost of them and what you actually did pay", In a case involving Chiltern some years ago now, a court took that alternative view and calculated compensation on the basis that season tickets would have been purchased not daily tickets.)

 

[Haywain]

They should only charge for portions of journeys that were not paid for (based on the stations at which the trains you caught actually stopped) and that is what we usually see happens in cases like this.

The majority of trains from Sunbury to Clapham Junction do not intersect with the route from Feltham, so the OP is on the hook for the full single fare.

 

[furlong]

The majority of trains from Sunbury to Clapham Junction do not intersect with the route from Feltham, so the OP is on the hook for the full single fare.

Which is why I separated the two approaches. WIth the second (which I think is more correct), the amount paid for the wrong ticket would still get deducted. It is a large difference in this case for the reason you point out. At current prices, arguably just 70p per day is owed.

 

[Haywain]

At current prices, arguably just 70p per day is owed.

A single from Sunbury to Clapham Junction is £8.40, and none of the journey is covered by a ticket from Feltham, so that is what is owed.

 

[furlong]

A single from Sunbury to Clapham Junction is £8.40, and none of the journey is covered by a ticket from Feltham, so that is what is owed.

Under the first approach, yes. And if the railway didn't allege any criminal behaviour and instead pursued it as a purely civil matter, it would have a stronger case for taking this approach. ("Under the contract, based on what actually happened, the fare between Sunbury and Clapham Junction remains payable. Here's the invoice. We have no contractual basis for adding on any admin charge but if you wish to make a voluntary contribution towards the cost of dealing with this and invoicing you, we'd appreciate that. We suggest an amount of £X would be appropriate.")

Under the second approach, a normal passenger in the position of the OP with no intention of committing a crime would have purchased two anytime day singles at £9.70 and £9, a total of £18.70. We assume the OP actually paid 17.70 for a return, so the recoverable loss to the railway due to the alleged criminal activity is the difference - £1 (not 70p which I based on two singles). On top of this, the actual additional costs of dealing with the matter can also be claimed for.

 

[MotCO]

The letter from SWR said that the OP was approached by a SWR Revenue member at London Waterloo station, where the OP presented a short ticket from Vauxhall to London Waterloo. Presumably this means that some for some journeys, most of it was not covered by a ticket, let alone the bit from Feltham or Sunbury.

 

[island]

Under the second approach, a normal passenger in the position of the OP with no intention of committing a crime would have purchased two anytime day singles at £9.70 and £9, a total of £18.70. We assume the OP actually paid 17.70 for a return, so the recoverable loss to the railway due to the alleged criminal activity is the difference - £1 (not 70p which I based on two singles). On top of this, the actual additional costs of dealing with the matter can also be claimed for.

That’s not how it works. You don’t get to apply the price of a ticket for some other arbitrary unrelated journey to the amount owed.

 

[30907]

A single from Sunbury to Clapham Junction is £8.40, and none of the journey is covered by a ticket from Feltham, so that is what is owed.

A single from Sunbury would be valid via Twickenham even when no through service was operating.

 

[Haywain]

A single from Sunbury would be valid via Twickenham even when no through service was operating.

But the OP didn't have a ticket from Sunbury and it's highly unlikely that they travelled via Twickenham.

 

[furlong]

That’s not how it works. You don’t get to apply the price of a ticket for some other arbitrary unrelated journey to the amount owed.

It is not unrelated - it forms an essential part of the alleged crime, deliberately buying a cheaper ticket. The OP paid for and used the wrong ticket on their journey. In a world in which the OP didn't commit the alleged crime, the money they paid would have gone towards a different ticket, the correct one. The loss to the railway company attributable to the alleged crime is the difference between what they actually paid for their travel and what they should have paid. It's no different from other situations where the ticket used is not valid eg if buying a ticket with a railcard discount but not holding the railcard, the ticket is similarly completely invalid, but the loss to the railway in terms of the criminal law is only the amount of the discount. (As I indicated, if the company treated this purely as a civil matter and didn't mention prosecution, the arguments are different as then it could disregard this ticket for the outward journey and consider the pure contractual position.) A criminal court is concerned merely with providing compensation to put the company back into the situation it would have been in had the crime not been committed. That does not include enriching it beyond what would have occurred had the law been followed. Any additional sums that might be due contractually lie outside its scope.

 

[island]

It is not unrelated - it forms an essential part of the alleged crime, deliberately buying a cheaper ticket. The OP paid for and used the wrong ticket on their journey. In a world in which the OP didn't commit the alleged crime, the money they paid would have gone towards a different ticket, the correct one. The loss to the railway company attributable to the alleged crime is the difference between what they actually paid for their travel and what they should have paid. It's no different from other situations where the ticket used is not valid eg if buying a ticket with a railcard discount but not holding the railcard, the ticket is similarly completely invalid, but the loss to the railway in terms of the criminal law is only the amount of the discount. (As I indicated, if the company treated this purely as a civil matter and didn't mention prosecution, the arguments are different as then it could disregard this ticket for the outward journey and consider the pure contractual position.) A criminal court is concerned merely with providing compensation to put the company back into the situation it would have been in had the crime not been committed. That does not include enriching it beyond what would have occurred had the law been followed. Any additional sums that might be due contractually lie outside its scope.

As I have said to you before, you need to make clear when posting things like this that they are your opinion of what should be done, and not grounded in any law or legal principles, to avoid confusing readers.

In actual courts, the amount awarded will be the full fare.

 

[furlong]

In actual courts, the amount awarded will be the full fare.

Not necessarily if such an application is opposed. (Often the amount is so small compared to other sums that will need to be paid that it's not worth the effort of making the argument.)

May I again remind you how the criminal court approached this matter in the case of Peter Barnett? Based solely on rectifying the actual effect of the crime on the company, not on any additional potential contractual entitlement triggered by the circumstances.

"Looking at all the evidence in the round I am satisfied that a reasonable attempt has been made by the defendant to calculate loss to the company and in this case the actual loss is £5,892.70 and not the £19,689 as claimed."

Not based on full single fares as the company was asking for, but based on what the defendant would have actually paid if he'd behaved honestly. It's entirely open to train companies to argue that higher amounts are due contractually in the civil courts, but it's well established that that lies outside the proper role of the criminal courts.

 

[island]

May I again remind you how the criminal court approached this matter in the case of Peter Barnett? Based solely on rectifying the actual effect of the crime on the company, not on any additional potential contractual entitlement triggered by the circumstances.


Not based on full single fares as the company was asking for, but based on what the defendant would have actually paid if he'd behaved honestly.

That was a case where season tickets were used to calculate the loss rather than single fares. It bears no relevance to the claims you are making about applying a theoretical amount spent on tickets that had no validity to the loss. Even if it did, it is not precedent-setting.

I have limited time and I will not be spending more of it continuing to tell you why your posts are wrong and of no assistance to the OP. You would do well to focus on matters that can be of such assistance.

 

[furlong]

That was a case where season tickets were used to calculate the loss rather than single fares. It bears no relevance to the claims you are making about applying a theoretical amount spent on tickets that had no validity to the loss. Even if it did, it is not precedent-setting.

The relevance is that it is just one more example of a criminal court awarding compensation for the ACTUAL loss due to the crime, which is the approach that criminal courts take. Any debate in any particular case is over the specifics of the right way to calculate the actual loss that needs to be rectified. You would not include an amount paid for a wrong ticket whereas I would.

 

[sageypoos]

DO NOT FILL OUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO! Byelaws and rail offences are subject to a 6 month time limit and cannot be claimed for in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==

DO NOT FILL OUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO! Byelaws and rail offences are subject to a 6 month time limit and cannot be claimed for in court.

I meant if they are trying to take you to magistrates court they are time barred by six months therefore any offences that you have dating back longer than six months unlucky them, they should’ve caught you sooner. They tried to do the same thing with me but they offered me an initial out of court settlement straight away with charges dating back to 2021 because half of the charges that they were trying to recover would have been time barred in court and they’d get less. Do not accept or pay a court settlement if it includes journeys they wouldn’t be able to recover in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==

DO NOT FILL OUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO! Byelaws and rail offences are subject to a 6 month time limit and cannot be claimed for in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==


I meant if they are trying to take you to magistrates court they are time barred by six months therefore any offences that you have dating back longer than six months unlucky them, they should’ve caught you sooner. They tried to do the same thing with me but they offered me an initial out of court settlement straight away with charges dating back to 2021 because half of the charges that they were trying to recover would have been time barred in court and they’d get less. Do not accept or pay a court settlement if it includes journeys they wouldn’t be able to recover in court.

*out of court settlement

 

[Haywain]

Do not accept or pay a court settlement if it includes journeys they wouldn’t be able to recover in court.

Excellent advice if the OP has a particular yearning for an appearance in front of the magistrates. Otherwise, very poor advice.

 

[Kite159]

DO NOT FILL OUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO! Byelaws and rail offences are subject to a 6 month time limit and cannot be claimed for in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==


I meant if they are trying to take you to magistrates court they are time barred by six months therefore any offences that you have dating back longer than six months unlucky them, they should’ve caught you sooner. They tried to do the same thing with me but they offered me an initial out of court settlement straight away with charges dating back to 2021 because half of the charges that they were trying to recover would have been time barred in court and they’d get less. Do not accept or pay a court settlement if it includes journeys they wouldn’t be able to recover in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==


*out of court settlement

Unless they decide to go down the fraud route if the pattern is strong enough to make a case "this customer lives at location X, location X has no barriers, their online account has multiple e-tickets for Vauxhall to Waterloo which lack entry & exit scans at Vauxhall"

 

[Hadders]

DO NOT FILL OUT ANYTHING LONGER THAN 6 MONTHS AGO! Byelaws and rail offences are subject to a 6 month time limit and cannot be claimed for in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==


I meant if they are trying to take you to magistrates court they are time barred by six months therefore any offences that you have dating back longer than six months unlucky them, they should’ve caught you sooner. They tried to do the same thing with me but they offered me an initial out of court settlement straight away with charges dating back to 2021 because half of the charges that they were trying to recover would have been time barred in court and they’d get less. Do not accept or pay a court settlement if it includes journeys they wouldn’t be able to recover in court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2024 ==


*out of court settlement

This is very poor advice.

You are correct in that SWR cannot prosecute any offence from longer than six months ago but there are two possibke outcomes here:

1. @cheesits engages with SWR and negotiates an out of court settlement. SWR will want to factor in to the settlement cost all instances where they believe the correct fare has been avoided.

2. SWR procesute you in the Magistrates Court for the single offence on the day you were caught. Conviction by the court would result ina criminal record.

Many people seeking our advice wish to avoid a criminal record and so choose to engage.

 

[Elecman]

This is very poor advice.

You are correct in that SWR cannot prosecute any offence from longer than six months ago but there are two possibke outcomes here:

1. @cheesits engages with SWR and negotiates an out of court settlement. SWR will want to factor in to the settlement cost all instances where they believe the correct fare has been avoided.

2. SWR procesute you in the Magistrates Court for the single offence on the day you were caught. Conviction by the court would result ina criminal record.

Many people seeking our advice wish to avoid a criminal record and so choose to engage.

And with 2 may ask the Court to take the other occasions into account in regard to compensation

 

[furlong]

And with 2 may ask the Court to take the other occasions into account in regard to compensation

Not unless the OP agrees: The court can't just "add on" extra bits of unrelated compensation at the whim of the prosecutor.

You're perhaps thinking of a situation where the train company believes it has sufficient evidence to prosecute additional offences but instead of actually doing so, invites the offender to admit them and to allow the court to take them into account when sentencing. We only see TfL do this routinely.