TfW - Travel Investigations Ltd

[Dan8801]

Thanks for the feedback.

Absolutely, on balance I think arguing about semantics will get me nowhere fast and it's better to explain the situation as it was from a factual perspective and not add any woe is me sob stories which won't cut any ice whatsoever and they're more likely to amenable if I keep it polite and succinct.

I'll tweak as suggested as I think it shows that I'm willing to cooperate and not being presumptuous that this will just disappear after one letter

'I am keen to settle this matter without the need for court action.I would like to offer pay any sum owed to resolve this matter amicably'

Happy for any further further guidance or feedback you may have, I'll be sending by email but do you think it's worth sticking it in the post and attaching proof of postage or is that me just wasting my own time.

Thanks again

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks for the feedback.

Absolutely, on balance I think arguing about semantics will get me nowhere fast and it's better to explain the situation as it was from a factual perspective and not add any woe is me sob stories which won't cut any ice whatsoever and they're more likely to amenable if I keep it polite and succinct.

I'll tweak as suggested as I think it shows that I'm willing to cooperate and not being presumptuous that this will just disappear after one letter

'I am keen to settle this matter without the need for court action.I would like to offer pay any sum owed to resolve this matter amicably'

Happy for any further further guidance or feedback you may have, I'll be sending by email but do you think it's worth sticking it in the post and attaching proof of postage or is that me just wasting my own time.

Thanks again

Unless deadline for response is hard upon you you can afford to wait till monday to send it - for further feedback from here (they won't be there over the weekend to deal with it I assume)

If it says you can e-mail them that should be fine, but if you also want to be certain you could print your e-mail and post a copy of it ensuring it has your ref number and address on it and just write on it eg 'as sent by e-mail' - if you do that, best to send it from a post office with a tracked service - not just 'proof of postage' which does not prove they actually received it (not the pricey guaranteed next day delivery they will probably suggest to you but just tracked which is about 30p more than the usual stamp price) - just so you can prove they got it if you ever need to do so.

 

[Dan8801]

Thanks, will take your advice with regards to the post

I've tweaked slightly as below, although from what I've seen on here it appears TIL send a templated response irrespective of the content in the first instance so was wondering whether it was worth asking any direct questions to try and illicit a more tailored response to resolve quicker or am I better off sticking to stating facts, apologising and ultimately complying without upsetting the apple cart.

I am writing in response to your letter dated 24 March 2025 regarding the incident on 15 March 2025.

From the outset, I sincerely apologise for what has happened and regret any inconvenience caused to the railway staff and Transport for Wales.

I would like to provide some additional context for the situation. I was initially denied boarding on my first train from Lydney due to overcrowding. The next available service was then delayed, and at the time, I was uncertain whether it would arrive or whether I would be able to board. Upon arrival at Cardiff Central, the self-service ticket machines were unavailable, and I was unable to purchase a ticket for my journey from Lydney to Cardiff Central.

I want to make it clear that I had no intention of evading payment for my travel. However, I fully accept that I should have taken alternative steps to ensure I had a valid ticket, and I deeply regret the oversight that has led to this situation escalating.

This experience has been a valuable and difficult lesson for me. I now fully understand the importance of ensuring that I have a valid ticket upon arrival at my destination, regardless of circumstances, and the serious consequences of failing to do so.

I have also come to appreciate the impact fare evasion has on the rail industry, not only in terms of lost revenue but also in the administrative and legal costs involved. This has made me much more aware of my responsibility as a passenger, and I will be taking extra care in the future to ensure that I always have the correct and valid ticket at the earliest possible opportunity when I next need to travel by rail.

I am keen to resolve this matter without the need for court action. To that end, I would like to formally offer to pay any outstanding sum to settle this matter amicably.

Once again, I apologise for this incident and appreciate your time in reviewing my response. I have also posted a hard copy of this email to the address detailed in your letter.

 

[John R]

I guess if one was being picky, you should have bought a ticket prior to the first train arriving. It is to some extent proof that you never intended to buy before boarding, and the fact that you couldn’t get on the first service and the second was delayed is irrelevant.

 

[Haywain]

You still seem to be putting the blame for this on the train company and I don't think that they will be impressed.

 

[AlterEgo]

I still wouldn’t be mentioning the deliberate act of not buying a ticket before boarding. As @John R says all this does is make the act entirely intentional in their view.

TfW undertake revenue blocks on event days precisely to catch this sort of behaviour; many people don’t pay at all, and TIL will take the view that you weren’t going to until you were funnelled to an inspector.

 

[Dan8801]

I take your point on board, it is however the only explanation I have and it is factual so is the only rationale I can go back to them with in terms of the sequence of events. If I did just hold my hands up and say I didn't intend to purchase a ticket on the day outright then they'll be less amenable therefore I think the context is important to add as mitigation given they've afforded me the opportunity to explain.

Not that I think they'll go to that level of investigation they would be able to see that the driver denied boarding, and the next train was further delayed and as part of the interview I explained my worries about being financially impacted if I had to buy a ticket, wait for a refund and also seek alternative travel which to be fair to him he didn't indicate this was an unreasonable explanation which would add weight to this not being deliberate and moreso an unfortunate oversight based on how busy a travel day this was with the delays, cancellations and overcrowding thrown in to the mix.

Ultimately they can obviously take whatever action they choose to, however as a one off for an irregular train user who doesn't live in the area, use the service regular and has never come to their attention before it would seem uncharacteristic of them to pursue this all the way to Magistrates when it can be handled through there discretionary administrative disposable methods.

I guess the gallows humour in all this is if I had a ticket for the original train it'd have been refunded in full through delay repay and instead gonna cost 100-200, gotta laugh I suppose

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2025 ==

I still wouldn’t be mentioning the deliberate act of not buying a ticket before boarding. As @John R says all this does is make the act entirely intentional in their view.

TfW undertake revenue blocks on event days precisely to catch this sort of behaviour; many people don’t pay at all, and TIL will take the view that you weren’t going to until you were funnelled to an inspector.

How would you personally word this element then

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Mar 2025 ==

I still wouldn’t be mentioning the deliberate act of not buying a ticket before boarding. As @John R says all this does is make the act entirely intentional in their view.

TfW undertake revenue blocks on event days precisely to catch this sort of behaviour; many people don’t pay at all, and TIL will take the view that you weren’t going to until you were funnelled to an inspector.

How do you suggest I reword my explanation in this instance?

 

[AlterEgo]

I take your point on board, it is however the only explanation I have and it is factual so is the only rationale I can go back to them with in terms of the sequence of events. If I did just hold my hands up and say I didn't intend to purchase a ticket on the day outright then they'll be less amenable therefore I think the context is important to add as mitigation given they've afforded me the opportunity to explain.

They don’t actually care about this.

Not that I think they'll go to that level of investigation they would be able to see that the driver denied boarding

Of course not, it isn’t material to the offence. They just want their money off you, likely after two letters.

Ultimately they can obviously take whatever action they choose to, however as a one off for an irregular train user who doesn't live in the area, use the service regular and has never come to their attention before it would seem uncharacteristic of them to pursue this all the way to Magistrates when it can be handled through there discretionary administrative disposable methods.

Indeed, so it is in your interests to say as little as possible and don’t equivocate about why you felt it was justified to commit the offence.

How do you suggest I reword my explanation in this instance?

Don’t. Just apologise for boarding without a valid ticket. You committed an offence, so all you need to do is take responsibility for it. They honestly don’t really care for the explanation, despite having asked for one. You have an absolute obligation to buy a ticket before boarding regardless of the equivocation you give.

Would you explain to a police officer why you were speeding if you were caught speeding, even if asked? Hopefully not!

“I just caught you doing 40 in a 30 there, it’ll be a fine and 3 points regardless of your intent”
“Yes I was going too fast. I’m sorry”
“Why were you driving so fast?”
“Well you see what it is, right -“ (No! Shut up!)

You should simply follow @Hadders template in post 3 - don’t talk about why you did it.

 

[Dan8801]

They don’t actually care about this.

Of course not, it isn’t material to the offence. They just want their money off you, likely after two letters.


Indeed, so it is in your interests to say as little as possible and don’t equivocate about why you felt it was justified to commit the offence.


Don’t. Just apologise for boarding without a valid ticket. You committed an offence, so all you need to do is take responsibility for it. They honestly don’t really care for the explanation, despite having asked for one. You have an absolute obligation to buy a ticket before boarding regardless of the equivocation you give.

Would you explain to a police officer why you were speeding if you were caught speeding, even if asked? Hopefully not!

“I just caught you doing 40 in a 30 there, it’ll be a fine and 3 points regardless of your intent”
“Yes I was going too fast. I’m sorry”
“Why were you driving so fast?”
“Well you see what it is, right -“ (No! Shut up!)

You should simply follow @Hadders template in post 3 - don’t talk about why you did it.

Thanks I was following Western Lancer advice on the letter and context itself

I'm not looking to justify at all it was an explanation which their letter alluded to they're after, appreciate your advice that this probably carries very little weight however I was off the impression they'd view it as 'well if he says nothing then it's cut and dry lets skip all the bluster and proceed it forward'

Just slightly concerned giving no context whatsoever would be viewed dimly and give more reason to push ahead

 

[John R]

Given the view is that TIL often require two letters, maybe leave the explanation for the second one. It will leave something for the letter to be different and give them justification for offering a settlement at that point.

 

[WesternLancer]

Given the view is that TIL often require two letters, maybe leave the explanation for the second one. It will leave something for the letter to be different and give them justification for offering a settlement at that point.

Having reflected on this and the above few posts I tend to think this is a good approach. My Apols to the op if I have lead them to draft more than is worth saying at this stage.

 

[Dan8801]

Thanks all, tweaked again based on the feedback, all thoughts welcome and I'll keep the detailed draft for letter 2

I am writing in response to your letter dated 24 March 2025 regarding the incident on 15 March 2025.

I sincerely apologise for what has happened and regret any inconvenience caused to the railway staff and Transport for Wales. I fully accept responsibility for the situation and deeply regret the oversight that has led to this situation escalating.

I now fully appreciate the seriousness of this unfortunate incident and understand the impact this has on the rail industry, not only in terms of lost revenue but also in the administrative and legal costs involved.

This has made me much more aware of my responsibility as a passenger, and I will take extra care in the future to ensure I always have the correct and valid ticket at the earliest possible opportunity.

I am keen to resolve this matter without the need for court action and would like to formally offer to pay any outstanding sum to settle this amicably.

Once again, I apologise for this incident and appreciate your time in reviewing my response. I have also posted a hard copy of this email to the address detailed in your letter.

 

[Haywain]

maybe leave the explanation for the second one.

Or, better still, leave it out completely.

 

[Dan8801]

Hi All,

Me again sorry, just looking to send my email out as in my last post.

I just wondered why the consensus was to not explain the reasons/circumstances leading up to the incident when they specifically ask for any mitigation in their letter

I want to show contrition and not blind them with a yarn they don't care about it just feels a bit like not addressing the why behind the what could come over as insincere.

Thanks again in advance

 

[Blinkbonny]

For what it's worth, Dan, I agree with you. I don't say go into a long scree, but I think it's a valid context.

I would think you would want to mark yourself out as not somebody who deliberately set out to fare evade.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi All,

Me again sorry, just looking to send my email out as in my last post.

I just wondered why the consensus was to not explain the reasons/circumstances leading up to the incident when they specifically ask for any mitigation in their letter

But you don't really have any mitigation - only an explanation of why you committed the offence, none of which would amount to mitigation. Your explanation is, in fact, that the way the train company (the victim) provides the service was, in your mind, an excuse to commit the offence in the first place. I wouldn't mention it.

Mitigation means circumstances which should make someone (in this case the victim!) feel more inclined to treat you leniently. That could be anything from "I have no money because I was fleeing an abusive partner" to "I have a learning disability" to "my wife was in the hospital giving birth and I just had to get that train and couldn't wait to purchase a ticket" - it could really be anything.

I want to show contrition and not blind them with a yarn they don't care about

They actually don't really care. They want the fare and the admin fee, likely after a couple of letters. This is a rapacious company which doesn't actually give a toss about you or why you did it, unless you truly are the worst and most villainous fare evader (you are not, of course).

You have committed a strict liability offence, like speeding - one of hundreds probably caught that day in the flypaper - so the best way to deal with it is to admit you did the wrong thing, apologise, say you've learned how and why not to do it in future, and ask to settle out of court.

 

[Haywain]

I just wondered why the consensus was to not explain the reasons/circumstances leading up to the incident when they specifically ask for any mitigation in their letter

Because, further to the comments above, what you have is an explanation and not mitigation. And your explanation seems to put responsibility at the feet of the train operator.

it just feels a bit like not addressing the why behind the what could come over as insincere.

Your explanation will be seen as insincere, much more so than not providing one.

 

[Dan8801]

Because, further to the comments above, what you have is an explanation and not mitigation. And your explanation seems to put responsibility at the feet of the train operator.

Your explanation will be seen as insincere, much more so than not providing one.

Thank you both, having laid it out as you both have makes sense and I guess I was conflating mitigation with explanation

I'll be posting and emailing them the last draft from post #42 and putting this to the back of my mind rather than torturing myself with the endless possible responses I could send when I can't control how they'll react with any degree of certainty

Not that it's relevant to TIL and I certainly won't be letting them know as its irrelevant but I've a history of anxiety and depression particularly when it comes to situations I'm not in control which has caused me to catastrophise this situation, perhaps slightly unnecessarily but the mind does what the mind does, hence a lot of back and forth on this thread for me to try and get myself in a place of clarity that I don't need to live in fear of the worst possible outcome if I'm not 100% perfect in my communications with them.

Good point about the 1000s being caught, hadn't seen it that way and I should have probably looked at it more logically that I am just a reference number to them and so long as I comply in the right way they will generally expedite me through their process as dictated by their procedures rather than what my overactive mind has focused on that I'm one to be singled out and penalised to a more severe degree because it's me.

I genuinely really do appreciate the support and clarity offered by many people here and it's been a great help to a situation that's taken over my normal rationale mind

 

[Tevion539]

To add - Lydney TVM only accepts card, those that were offered a chance to purchase at Cardiff (if they also come from there) could very well have been paying cash.

I agree with the advice already given though. I highly suspect any of the reasons you gave will be taken as a legitimate reason for not purchasing your ticket.

As for the process of TiR and PFNs - allegedly issuing PFNs can be a longer process. PFNs are handwritten, whilst TiRs and FTPNs are digitalised.

 

[RPI]

To add - Lydney TVM only accepts card, those that were offered a chance to purchase at Cardiff (if they also come from there) could very well have been paying cash.

I agree with the advice already given though. I highly suspect any of the reasons you gave will be taken as a legitimate reason for not purchasing your ticket.

As for the process of TiR and PFNs - allegedly issuing PFNs can be a longer process. PFNs are handwritten, whilst TiRs and FTPNs are digitalised.

Are TfW's penalty fares not digital? I seem to recall that their UFN's are digital?

 

[Tevion539]

Are TfW's penalty fares not digital? I seem to recall that their UFN's are digital?

Nope - handwritten forms. Was just shown a booklet that they're issued with. UFN/FTPNs are digital.

 

[Dan8801]

Hi All,

I've now heard back from TIL as below and have also detailed my original letter.

It appears they're alledging that I attempted to shortfare and I failed to pay the fare due, when I wasn't offered the opportunity to pay however after discussion with my wife who went ahead of me she did attempt to do this on my behalf with her receiving identical letters to me despite different responses.

This wasn't made clear to me at the time (by her or the RPI) that said I'm aware of my guilt and the need to resolve therefore I'm not going to argue the semantics of the situation.

Just wondered what the the general rule of thought was in replying to letter 2 with regard to aiming for a settlement that I'm resigned to paying.

On a side note, I've noted they've now seemed to be more relaxed about an email when the first letter they were quite clear on needing a response in letter form.

Thanks in advance

Dan

 

[John R]

And what station did your wife say the two of you boarded at?

 

[Dan8801]

Newport, in terms of the £ value of the ticket that would have been £6.30 whereas Lydney would have been £12

 

[AlterEgo]

Were you asked during the interview where you boarded?

 

[Dan8801]

Yes, I told them it was Lydney and explained I wasn't offered the chance to purchase a ticket by the gate line staff as I personally wasn't asked and made the RPI aware in the interview/statement

 

[John R]

Newport, in terms of the £ value of the ticket that would have been £6.30 whereas Lydney would have been £12

Ok, so clearly in respect of your wife she deliberately tried to short fare. Which puts everything else you have said about not being able to get on the first train etc in a completely different light as far as the railway is concerned.

If she was trying to buy a ticket for the two of you then I’m not surprised that they have accused you of it too, regardless of what you said. To some extent that’s irrelevant though, other than it may make it more difficult for them to offer you a settlement, which is entirely within their gift.

 

[WesternLancer]

Ok, so clearly in respect of your wife she deliberately tried to short fare. Which puts everything else you have said about not being able to get on the first train etc in a completely different light as far as the railway is concerned.

If she was trying to buy a ticket for the two of you then I’m not surprised that they have accused you of it too, regardless of what you said. To some extent that’s irrelevant though, other than it may make it more difficult for them to offer you a settlement, which is entirely within their gift.

I suspect a lot more grovelling is now required if court to be avoided.

TIL are never the easiest to deal with as we see on this forum, even when passengers have made genuine ticketing errors they play hard ball with prosecution threats.

It maybe worth the OP studying TfW's written revenue protection policy to see if states where they might opt not to prosecute to see if any way of persuading TIL not to go down that route (I'm not thinking of finding new 'excuses' but finding something that could be politely drawn to TIL's attention that supports a reason to settle out of court and not escalate to court).

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP can't be held liable for a statement made by their wife. But in any case it may be pointless arguing with TIL about this point.

 

[Dan8801]

My initial thoughts are to continue with the grovelling route as I obviously don't want to completely shaft my wife anymore than the current situation is and would perhaps save that for if the case were to proceed as they have no evidence of any attempt to short fare on my part and it would the travelling without a valid ticket that I'm guilty of (which I agree with, the reasons above detailing this)

Noting that they're difficult to deal with, I'm not minded to find excuses or appear to be uncooperative and want to try and appeal to the discretion they are able to offer