Fined for using expired railcard over a year later

[radiohint]

Over a year ago a GWR inspector found I was travelling with a ticket that required a railcard and upon checking my railcard we discovered that it was out of date. GWR sent me a letter and email this week with a Pre-Court Settlement offer to pay the price of the Anytime Single fare for each journey undertaken (I purchased off-peak and super off-peak singles/returns). There were a total of 5 journeys that I made while my railcard was expired.

From my understanding of what I have seen in a similar thread on here, there is a 6-month limit to making these claims and this has clearly passed, however, upon further contact with GWR they are claiming that:
"Multi journey offences may be taken to Criminal Court (or Civil Court), therefore the 6 months statutory time constraint does not apply. Multi journey offences are investigated in line with the CPIA legislation, similar to any other criminal offences the UK."

Should I pay the full price of the Pre-Court Settlement?
Any advice is greatly appreciated,
Thank you.

 

[AlterEgo]

Essentially they can’t prosecute you in the magistrates’ court for the (criminal) offences. What they have come back with is a non-sequitur. There is a complete statutory limit of 6 months for summary only criminal offences of the nature they are investigating. Too bad for them for being lazy or sloppy.

What they can do is lodge a civil claim for the losses after this 6 months point, which would be limited to the actual loss - and which would need to take into account fares paid, unlike their offer at present.

If it were me I’d ignore the threat of criminal prosecution and cease replying. If they start threatening a civil claim, come back here and we can assist.

 

[furlong]

You could offer the differences in fares (i.e. just the amounts of the railcard discounts to which you were not entitled) in full and final settlement. Should they not accept this and instead pursue you for some higher amount in the civil courts, it might be helpful to be able to show you previously offered to make good their actual loss.

 

[radiohint]

Thank you both so much for your advice, I have chosen to offer the differences in fares in a full and final settlement.
I will update you on how that goes.

 

[island]

The CPIA (Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act) does nothing to extend the six month time limit in section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. So unless they intend to charge an offence such as fraud by false representation, which is all but unknown on the railway, that part of GWR's response is at best ill-informed, and at worst intentionally misleading.

As others mention, GWR are within their rights to take the matter to the County Court instead.

 

[radiohint]

Just to update on this, they have not accepted the counteroffer and instead reiterated points they have previously stated about acting in accordance with National Rail Conditions of Travel to use the Anytime Fare prices as well as the administrative fare to calculate the amount owed. And they maintain that the counteroffer is not reflective of the amount owed.

I will not communicate any further with them and will update on any further developments.

 

[furlong]

Just to update on this, they have not accepted the counteroffer and instead reiterated points they have previously stated about acting in accordance with National Rail Conditions of Travel to use the Anytime Fare prices as well as the administrative fare to calculate the amount owed. And they maintain that the counteroffer is not reflective of the amount owed.

Please would you share with us the precise words they have used? The NRCoT do not seem to provide any authority always to use Anytime fares when seeking payment for multiple journeys retrospectively. At the most, 9.2.1 merely asserts that some other authority exists elsewhere to charge Anytime fares in some very specific circumstances if asked to pay during a particular journey and not reported for prosecution. As they chose 9.2.3 on the occasion you were spoken to, 9.2.1 doesn't apply, nor does it apply on any other journeys as you were not asked to present a valid ticket on those other journeys.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Apr 2025 ==

You've offered to pay the sum you believe is owed. They now have the option of asking a civil court to decide whether your figure or their figure is the correct one or if it's something in between. Should they do this and lose, you could attempt to raise the issue politically and with the regulator, arguing that they should be ordered to repay anyone else in a similar situation to yours who was intimidated into paying them too much.

 

[radiohint]

Sure, in the pre-court settlement offer, they said:

"When calculating our settlement offers, we apply the Anytime Single fare for each journey undertaken; journeys completed with a return ticket are therefore classed as two single journeys. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel, we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as Railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares."

In the most recent email, they have said:

"As previously advised, we act in accordance with National Rail Conditions of Travel, and this has been used to calculate the amount outstanding based on the Anytime Fare for each journey with credit applied for the tickets purchased and the administration charge of £90 added."

I will attach all of their communication with me just for completeness and in case I have missed anything.
Thanks again for your support with this.

 

[Titfield]

You could go back and offer the difference in fares plus the admin fee quoted to date (£90).

If they rejected this and it went to court it would demonstrate your good faith in offering the difference in fares plus their admin costs.

 

[John R]

You could go back and offer the difference in fares plus the admin fee quoted to date (£90).

If they rejected this and it went to court it would demonstrate your good faith in offering the difference in fares plus their admin costs.

I think that would be appropriate, as clearly GWR has incurred some costs that are not unreasonable under the circumstances.

 

[radiohint]

Thanks for your advice! I have made a revised offer to include the admin costs and will update on their response.

 

[furlong]

Have you looked at the NRCoT to which they refer? If so (and noting my earlier comments) can you find any penalty clause that says they're entitled to the Anytime fares and singles in the present circumstances? Or if not, then maybe simply say (without going into any details) that you can't find any such applicable penalty clause in the contract and ask them what you've missed?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2025 ==

(Of course what may really be going on here is that the train company is acting as if the National Rail Conditions of Carriage were still in effect, under which it could more easily be argued that the Anytime fare - single or return as appropriate - would have been due. But those conditions were replaced seven years ago!)

Note also that even the 16-25 railcard terms and conditions (which, notwithstanding the expiry, it might be argued apply, see 1.1, because the ticket had this discount applied) state

2.10. If you fail to comply with condition 2.7, 2.8 and/or 2.9, the Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price for the single fare applicable to your journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting the journey.

Nothing there either about charging a higher fare than the one applicable if you'd bought it before starting the journey!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Apr 2025 ==

Also worth a reminder of this case where a criminal court agreed to use season ticket fares rather than separate Anytime fares:

Daily Telegraph

The City barrister, who was cautioned for fare dodging in 2010, was handed a 16-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months and ordered pay £5,892.70 in compensation to Chiltern Railways at City of London Magistrates.

Judge Omotosho said: "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."

(This was under the old Conditions of Carriage, and reference was made to the fact that a civil court might have made a higher award.)

 

[radiohint]

Yes, I have also had a look at the NRCoT and cannot find anything that would allow them to use Anytime fares besides potentially 9.2.1. And if I understand this correctly, 9.2.1 does not apply because it only gives them the ability to charge you Anytime fares for the journey you are currently on, and not retroactively or for multiple journeys.
And the 6-month limit would also apply to this anyway?

If this is the case, it seems strange that they would not accept the offer of the difference in fares, as this seems like the most money they could get from me and obviously avoids any court hassle.

Or if not, then maybe simply say (without going into any details) that you can't find any such applicable penalty clause in the contract and ask them what you've missed?

Thanks, if they reject the latest offer, I will ask about this!

 

[furlong]

If this is the case, it seems strange that they would not accept the offer of the difference in fares, as this seems like the most money they could get from me and obviously avoids any court hassle.

They are glacial when it comes to incorporating changes they decide are not in their favour. I think they like to pretend the change seven years ago hasn't happened and probably won't update their working practices to take account of it until something forces them to do so. I view it as institutional arrogance, a belief that they are above the law. The risk is that, as we saw with the 74,000 railway criminal convictions that got overturned recently, they could be building up a large liability should matters come to a head in a way that means they have to refund everyone who paid too much.