Prosecution for no financial loss

[mdl_uk]

All,

I was wondering if someone could help, I recently purchased a ticket with a railcard discount, but then when I got it up on my phone to show the ticket inspector I realised it had expired a couple of weeks before. I renewed it there and then (quicker than they could even take down my details) but I have still received one of the letters through the post asking for the £5.50 fair difference and a £120 fine. Furthermore, there is the usual option of a court hearing for the case to be heard.

Someone mentioned to me that they didn't believe SWR would be able to take the case to court as there was no financial loss to them - me renewing the railcard on the train means that they hadn't received any lesser amount than they would have if I'd have done it before I bought my ticket, particularly given it was the same day. Does anyone know if this is true?

As someone who pays thousands of pounds a year to them for a terrible service and is now being fined over 20 times the value of the difference in the ticket, for a genuine accident and that cost them no financial loss, I seriously begrudge paying this.

Many thanks

Matt

 

[Cantab26]

I have still received one of the letters through the post asking for the £5.50 fair difference and a £120 fine.

This is not a fine. It is a contribution towards the company’s costs of investigating the matter as part of an out of court settlement.

Someone mentioned to me that they didn't believe SWR would be able to take the case to court as there was no financial loss to them - me renewing the railcard on the train means that they hadn't received any lesser amount than they would have if I'd have done it before I bought my ticket, particularly given it was the same day. Does anyone know if this is true?

This is not true. There is no legal requirement for a financial loss to accrue in order for the company to prosecute you.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2024 ==

I seriously begrudge paying this.

You have two choices:

1. pay it and move on, although you could write to ask for some or all of it to be refunded after the fact - I wouldn’t expect this to be forthcoming;
2. Have your day in court - if you are convicted you will have a criminal record and potentially a fine and other costs to pay which exceed the amount of the settlement offer.

 

[Grvrdvicdr]

The offence is not being able to produce a valid ticket when asked to do so. At the time you were asked for you ticket and don’t hold the correct in date railcard then you are guilty of the offence and would be found guilty in court. Buying the railcard after or even during the interaction does not negate this. As I’m sure some of the experts on here would say, pay up and take it as a lesson learned

 

[Haywain]

Someone mentioned to me that they didn't believe SWR would be able to take the case to court as there was no financial loss to them

Someone was wrong.

As someone who pays thousands of pounds a year to them for a terrible service and is now being fined over 20 times the value of the difference in the ticket, for a genuine accident and that cost them no financial loss, I seriously begrudge paying this.

Your feelings are understandable but you have, almost certainly, committed an offence. However, SWR are not digging further and are giving you an opportunity to close the matter which I would recommend you take.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Try to see it from their point of view. You travelled on an expired railroad. If no ticket inspection had taken place, as ‘someone who pays thousands of pounds a year to them for a terrible service’, when would you have have checked the expiry date of your railcard? And how much would you gain monetarily from your oversight?

 

[Titfield]

Have you in fact made some gain from any tickets purchased with a railcard discount when you did not in fact have a valid railcard?

Whilst I can see why you feel hard done by the size of the administration fee they have wrapped up into the settlement offer, I would pay this without delay to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Whilst a Magistrate may sympathise with what has happened, the reality is that you have broken the law and would be found guilty of the offence with all that entails if taken to court.

 

[mdl_uk]

Thanks all for the responses, I will likely just pay which was my first instinct anyway but I wanted to check first. In some areas of law you have to be able to prove financial loss to take a matter to court - I work for a law firm and asked someone but they did say this may well not apply in this case.

I don't disagree with the principle and I see why they would charge me the extra and a small fine / contribution, but £120 is completely disproportionate. I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay this without too much worry but there are plenty of people who would struggle to find this amount, all for something that was fairly clearly an oversight

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2024 ==

Have you in fact made some gain from any tickets purchased with a railcard discount when you did not in fact have a valid railcard?

Whilst I can see why you feel hard done by the size of the administration fee they have wrapped up into the settlement offer, I would pay this without delay to bring the matter to a conclusion.

Whilst a Magistrate may sympathise with what has happened, the reality is that you have broken the law and would be found guilty of the offence with all that entails if taken to court.

As I say I understand all of that and don't disagree, but that shouldn't give them carte blanche to charge whatever fee they think they can get away with. Ultimately this will cost them money as I never used to bother claiming delay repay for small amounts but will start to now

I think it's especially frustrating given the very high ticket prices for what is generally a poor service through the week, particularly when there's no option not to just pay them

 

[JBuchananGB]

It is quite common for TOCs, having encountered a traveller with an invalid ticket due to expired Railcard, to make enquiries with online ticket sellers to try to find out whether the traveller has been making that mistake for a long period, such as since the Railcard expired. When they do this, they seek to recover the full Anytime Single fare for all journeys made with invalid tickets. In your case they have dealt with just the one instance, which when settled should be the end of the matter.

 

[jfollows]

£120 seems at the low end of the amounts paid for this sort of settlement.

 

[furlong]

Best to pay the amount demanded to bring the matter to a close, though you might want to put on record an objection to the £120 if you suspect this might exceed their actual costs in dealing with this matter - as a matter of public policy, the courts are unlikely to enforce a settlement making profit in return for not prosecuting a crime. You can then ask them for a breakdown of that sum, and if it appears they are asking for more than they can justify under criminal law, perhaps with the help of colleagues consider a challenge, perhaps escalating it to the ombudsman and then even consider a small claim. Wait till 6 months are up though before doing anything drastic so there's no risk of the settlement unravelling and being replaced by an actual prosecution!

The question about whether the late purchase of the railcard on the same day means there's nothing further to pay is a good one to ask at the political level - whether, if you buy one at the first opportunity after discovering the problem, a prosecution might not be in the public interest. The DfT is setting up an inquiry into railway prosecutions so this might be worth a submission if it is within scope for the inquiry and it accepts evidence from the public (which it might not). You might even find some loose wording in the marketing, Ts & Cs etc. in support of this position - that the card is valid for the whole day, so it's no different from paying an excess fare after-the-fact to rectify a problem.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Thanks all for the responses, I will likely just pay which was my first instinct anyway but I wanted to check first. In some areas of law you have to be able to prove financial loss to take a matter to court - I work for a law firm and asked someone but they did say this may well not apply in this case.

I don't disagree with the principle and I see why they would charge me the extra and a small fine / contribution, but £120 is completely disproportionate. I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay this without too much worry but there are plenty of people who would struggle to find this amount, all for something that was fairly clearly an oversight

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2024 ==


As I say I understand all of that and don't disagree, but that shouldn't give them carte blanche to charge whatever fee they think they can get away with. Ultimately this will cost them money as I never used to bother claiming delay repay for small amounts but will start to now

I think it's especially frustrating given the very high ticket prices for what is generally a poor service through the week, particularly when there's no option not to just pay them

In this instance, it may well have been a genuine oversight on your part. The train operator has no way of knowing this.

It's not clear if you have made any other journeys with Railcard discount in the period between your Railcard expiring and the time of this incident.

If there is no penalty, there is no incentive for people to renew (or even purchase) a Railcard until they are challenged. The railway does then encounter a loss, as the passenger has however many days, weeks or months of discounted travel without holding a valid railcard, then - when challenge - renews their Railcard and receives a further 12 months of discount entitlement from that date, it's not like the new Railcard is backdated to when the old one expired.

 

[Elecman]

£120 seems at the low end of the amounts paid for this sort of settlement.

Agreed we se £150 to £200 is more usual. Were you thinking it should have been a £100 Penalty Fare ?

 

[Richardr]

Thanks all for the responses, I will likely just pay which was my first instinct anyway but I wanted to check first. In some areas of law you have to be able to prove financial loss to take a matter to court - I work for a law firm and asked someone but they did say this may well not apply in this case.

I don't disagree with the principle and I see why they would charge me the extra and a small fine / contribution, but £120 is completely disproportionate. I'm fortunate enough to be able to pay this without too much worry but there are plenty of people who would struggle to find this amount, all for something that was fairly clearly an oversight

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Nov 2024 ==


As I say I understand all of that and don't disagree, but that shouldn't give them carte blanche to charge whatever fee they think they can get away with. Ultimately this will cost them money as I never used to bother claiming delay repay for small amounts but will start to now

I think it's especially frustrating given the very high ticket prices for what is generally a poor service through the week, particularly when there's no option not to just pay them

How much does your law firm charge clients per hour?

 

[Ducatist4]

If they were to go back through your ticket purchase history would they find other tickets you’d bought with an expired railcard? They may well do this.

 

[John R]

If they were to go back through your ticket purchase history would they find other tickets you’d bought with an expired railcard? They may well do this.

Given they have offered a settlement, I think it’s unlikely. They have either looked and not found any, or decided just to address the one instance.

Besides, having settled the one incident they have evidence for, they do not have any firm evidence that any of the other tickets were actually used by the OP.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks all for the responses, I will likely just pay which was my first instinct anyway but I wanted to check first. In some areas of law you have to be able to prove financial loss to take a matter to court - I work for a law firm and asked someone but they did say this may well not apply in this case.

This is a criminal matter, not a civil matter, which might explain why whoever you asked didn't know this.

 

[Hadders]

It's frustrating when you get caught out by something like this but I agree with other forum members who suggets paying up to make the matter go away.

Think of it like getting a parking ticket or getting done for speeding. It feels unfair and disproportionate for what is often an oversight or momentary loss of concertration.

 

[WesternLancer]

All,

I was wondering if someone could help, I recently purchased a ticket with a railcard discount, but then when I got it up on my phone to show the ticket inspector I realised it had expired a couple of weeks before. I renewed it there and then (quicker than they could even take down my details) but I have still received one of the letters through the post asking for the £5.50 fair difference and a £120 fine. Furthermore, there is the usual option of a court hearing for the case to be heard.

Someone mentioned to me that they didn't believe SWR would be able to take the case to court as there was no financial loss to them - me renewing the railcard on the train means that they hadn't received any lesser amount than they would have if I'd have done it before I bought my ticket, particularly given it was the same day. Does anyone know if this is true?

As someone who pays thousands of pounds a year to them for a terrible service and is now being fined over 20 times the value of the difference in the ticket, for a genuine accident and that cost them no financial loss, I seriously begrudge paying this.

Many thanks

Matt

If you receive a terrible service make sure you always claim things like Delay Repay every time you are entitled to do so, however small each individual claim may be.

 

[infobleep]

In hindsight, was it worth buying the railcard there and then, given a settlement was still due?

Financially would it have been better to only buy it when it was next required or did you need it later that same day

Or did buying it there and then help your course with the amount of the settlement offered?

 

[soil]

Think of it like getting a parking ticket or getting done for speeding. It feels unfair and disproportionate for what is often an oversight or momentary loss of concertration.

it isn't, unfortunately.

parking tickets are decriminalised. I once got one and it was, say £50 for quick payment, or £100 otherwise. I spotted a flaw in the signage, pointed it out the council, and they never proceeded with it. I had a choice - pay £50, or play double or nothing, I chose the latter, and won.

For speeding tickets it's a bit different, but they are in effect non-criminal, and pose no risk to your good name.

Here on the other hand we face a number of issues:

1. The TOC shows its contempt for Parliament by ignoring the statutory penalty fare scheme with built-in safeguards in favour of its own unregulated 'do as I say or you'll be prosecuted' threats
2. TOCs frequently make up the law as they go along, and the magistrates' court is unlikely to stop this
3. The OP can argue the toss but ultimately runs the risk of a byelaw conviction, or SWR might prosecute him under RORA 5(3)(a) (which he should be able to defend), in which case the ultimate penalty tends to be out of all proportion to the initial mistake.

 

[Hadders]

it isn't, unfortunately.

parking tickets are decriminalised. I once got one and it was, say £50 for quick payment, or £100 otherwise. I spotted a flaw in the signage, pointed it out the council, and they never proceeded with it. I had a choice - pay £50, or play double or nothing, I chose the latter, and won.

For speeding tickets it's a bit different, but they are in effect non-criminal, and pose no risk to your good name.

Here on the other hand we face a number of issues:

1. The TOC shows its contempt for Parliament by ignoring the statutory penalty fare scheme with built-in safeguards in favour of its own unregulated 'do as I say or you'll be prosecuted' threats
2. TOCs frequently make up the law as they go along, and the magistrates' court is unlikely to stop this
3. The OP can argue the toss but ultimately runs the risk of a byelaw conviction, or SWR might prosecute him under RORA 5(3)(a) (which he should be able to defend), in which case the ultimate penalty tends to be out of all proportion to the initial mistake.

It's not my intention to get into a discussion about the minutiae of parking and speeding tickets and their legal status. The point is that often when these tickets are issued the sum of money that has to paid to deal with the issue often feels unfair and disproportionate.

Anyway, we're drifting off-topic.

 

[AdamWW]

it isn't, unfortunately.

parking tickets are decriminalised. I once got one and it was, say £50 for quick payment, or £100 otherwise. I spotted a flaw in the signage, pointed it out the council, and they never proceeded with it. I had a choice - pay £50, or play double or nothing, I chose the latter, and won.

At lesat with Penalty Fares you don't have to play double or nothing. You can appeal and not lose the right to pay £50 if you lose.