Hello, what would be the best way to go about dealing with the situation of the train company (Transpennine Express) looking back at the ticket history and trying to recover ticket fares for the past year? This happened to a relative after they didn't have a valid railcard so they paid a penalty for a single journey to which the train company agreed to settle upon instead of court and now they have written back to them asking for proof of having a railcard for the past year...they had the family and friends railcard but ended up using 16-25 option.
-
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!
Ticket purchase history claim
- Thread starter L12345
- 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
bunnahabhain
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Jun 2005
- Messages
- 2,277
Don't do it in the first place is probably the best way. If you choose to use an app then you leave a digital footprint and that footprint can be examined. Big Brother is always watching you.
Do you mean they paid a Penalty Fare (£50 plus the fare) or that they paid an out-of-court settlement offered by the TOC?
Either way, has that been paid?
Do you mean that they claimed the discount when they were not travelling with a child?
It would be a help if you could obtain the letter and upload it (obscuring their details) so we can get a better idea of what the TOC are claiming.
They paid an out-of-court settlement offered by the train company which was the outstanding far owed plus a contribution towards the company's costs.
I believe that they had claimed discounts of 16-25 railcard when they only had the family and friends railcard while not travelling with a child.
BazingaTribe
Member
Yeah, that's fairly clearly not the right thing to have done!
They need to accept they claimed discounts they weren't entitled to and cooperate with the TOC. Big Brother notwithstanding, they are evidently bang to rights and we can't do much to mitigate the situation.
I'm sorry this is happening but they have been making the wrong decision here and being caught out once has led to investigation into the other evidence trail they've left behind. They need to simply stop doing this otherwise it will simply get worse.
True, they are certainly in regret of their actions and have stopped doing it since the first incident and bought the right railcard.
Rail companies usually wrap up a claim for previous unpaid fares as part of the out of court settlement, so this seems a little unusual. The settlement agrees payment for both the trip when your relative was stopped and for previous trips.
If the out of court settlement has been paid already, then it kind of depends on how it was worded, because if it included an agreement to pay other previous unpaid fares then the rail company could still prosecute for the one most recent occasion on the basis that the settlement was not complied with.
However there is no requirement for anyone to have proof of holding a railcard for earlier trips, so another option would be simply to ignore this recent request. I'm not sure what I'd do in the same position, it's not totally clear. However if TPE has agreed not to bring a prosecution for the time your relative was stopped, they can't prosecute for earlier hypothetical cases.
If the out of court settlement has been paid already, then it kind of depends on how it was worded, because if it included an agreement to pay other previous unpaid fares then the rail company could still prosecute for the one most recent occasion on the basis that the settlement was not complied with.
However there is no requirement for anyone to have proof of holding a railcard for earlier trips, so another option would be simply to ignore this recent request. I'm not sure what I'd do in the same position, it's not totally clear. However if TPE has agreed not to bring a prosecution for the time your relative was stopped, they can't prosecute for earlier hypothetical cases.
I wonder if the description the Op has given is somewhat ambiguous. If the relative has paid a penalty fare for a single occurrence but the TOC is now seeking reimbursement plus for all the other occurrences they have uncovered?
If that is the case then the relative will just have to see what is offered (as an out of court settlement) and consider that versus being taken to court?
If that is the case then the relative will just have to see what is offered (as an out of court settlement) and consider that versus being taken to court?
...if TPE has agreed not to bring a prosecution for the time your relative was stopped, they can't prosecute for earlier hypothetical cases.
Just wondering if you could elaborate on this please or if there is proof on it as we were thinking if that is the case, then not replying back might be the option.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They had paid an out-of-court settlement the first time and the case was closed. Now they got a new letter suggesting a further investigation into their ticket purchases from the past.
gray1404
Established Member
So regarding the original incident for which they were stopped they have paid an out of court settlement. If so that is the end of the matter.
So the train company is now asking for proof of having a Railcard for previous journeys. In essence they are seeing if the person concerned with incriminate themselves. Unless the passenger was stopped at the time there is little the train company can do. You're entitled to not engage with them any further on this.
So the train company is now asking for proof of having a Railcard for previous journeys. In essence they are seeing if the person concerned with incriminate themselves. Unless the passenger was stopped at the time there is little the train company can do. You're entitled to not engage with them any further on this.
Yes, having thought about this a bit more, I would also advise simply ignoring this letter. Any response could be self-incriminating or a lie, and your relative doesn't want to do either. There is no need to have or provide the proof they're asking for, and they have no evidence against your relative for earlier journeys.
Their mistake, because they should have made this part of the original settlement, and they’ve now realised this and hope to get your relative to pay them more money.
Their mistake, because they should have made this part of the original settlement, and they’ve now realised this and hope to get your relative to pay them more money.
WesternLancer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 15,298
One thing I would suggest doing is looking back at the ticket purchasing records to see how much money is at stake. Ie how many cars have been evaded and at what price. Having an idea of that might give a sense of both what is needed to pay to close the matter and perhaps how likely the railway company are to pursue it with vigour.
Makes sense. One thing we noted as well was their wording; in the first letter they clearly mentioned the possibility of going to court while in the second letter about the previous occurences, they only stated that they "may take legal action to recover fares" so it seems that they are not in a position where they could escalate things to court unless the individual incriminates themselves.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,804
That's not strictly true. You are correct as far as criminal law is concerned but it would be possible for them to take action through the civil courts, and in doing this the previous case could form part of their evidence even though an out of court settlement was reached. It is also worth bearing in mind that the burden of proof is lower in the civil courts, being judged on the balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
gray1404
Established Member
So in essence, having settled the original issue, they are now "fishing."
They cannot do this; anyone can buy a ticket for anyone. Most of the tickets I buy are for other people. Many of the tickets I use are bought by someone else.
However, they are entitled to ask the question, and any answers must not be dishonest.
True; you could refuse to answer. However the train company may instead choose to prosecute. You would then be able to defend the matter in court.
If guilty, it's generally better to cooperate, admit the guilt and pay a settlement to avoid a costly, time consuming and stressful legal case.
If innocent, it's probably best to answer them accurately and explain who the tickets were for.
Either way, not engaging probably isn't a wise move on my opinion. However it's for each person to make their own mind up, based on their appetite for a legal case, their own circumstances etc.
I am a strong advocate for not responding in cases where the *only* evidence is a trawl of ticket purchases and the passenger has never been stopped.
Here, the passenger was stopped, caught red handed, and settled that individual case. A data trawl has now uncovered other occasions where, although they weren't stopped, they have no plausible deniability that the traveller wasn't them. This is quite clearly wilful fare evasion; they knew they weren't entitled to the discount and took actions to evade the proper fare. On balance, I might decide to engage.
Here, the passenger was stopped, caught red handed, and settled that individual case. A data trawl has now uncovered other occasions where, although they weren't stopped, they have no plausible deniability that the traveller wasn't them. This is quite clearly wilful fare evasion; they knew they weren't entitled to the discount and took actions to evade the proper fare. On balance, I might decide to engage.
BazingaTribe
Member
Thanks for explaining this -- it's a crucial difference. Not only do I think that the moral thing to do is to clear things up, cooperating now stops it getting worse. I have hesitated to comment in the past but this puts things on more certain ground as regards self-incrimination vs answering to past misdeeds and accepting wrongdoing.
There was someone on the forum recently who accidentally incriminated themselves (by leaving their name up where they shouldn't and admitting to short faring even though they were stopped for something that actually they shouldn't have been pursued for) and faced having to explain a raft of questionable journeys. This time, there's no doubt that person got stopped for the offence in question and did it before, and trying to stonewall would be difficult, and, to be frank, not moral or ethical in the slightest.
- Status