Letter from Northern

[P2309]

Good Afternoon

I've received the attached letter from Northern Trains Limited by email today. I think this is to do with short faring on digital tickets, which in all honesty has been prolonged for a while. I did halt this at the start of the year in January and all digital train tickets have been purchased sincerely since January. Each short fare was around £3 in difference and was 2 or 3 journeys a week, so was stupid, which I was why I have sorted this out.

I totally understand this is very serious but I need to try and do everything possible to settle this out of court and understand it could be financially costly.

I have attached the letter I received and I would be so grateful of advice of whether I should be attending the interview and also what I can write in order to own up and also to state I will pay what is necessary to settle this out of court.

Really hope someone can offer advice.

TIA

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you been stopped while travelling on these tickets? Have you had any other correspondence with Northern at all?

 

[P2309]

Have you been stopped while travelling on these tickets? Have you had any other correspondence with Northern at all?

I was stopped by Transpennine Express at the start of January as I asked to buy a ticket on the train as I was late, (Which led me to stop this stupid short faring), but I received a letter from Transpennine a few weeks later stating that no action would be taken and the case was closed. Both Northern and Transpennine have trains running into Manchester from my home stop. So no previous history of being stopped by Northern.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2025 ==

Also my home address isn't mentioned on the letter I received, just the email address linked to Trainline

 

[AlterEgo]

So nobody’s stopped you for short faring.

Ignore the correspondence and all future correspondence. The purpose of the interview is solely to get you to incriminate yourself because they have no evidence to support a prosecution at present. No comment to every and all questions, ignore everything, and start buying the proper fare.

 

[P2309]

So nobody’s stopped you for short faring.

Ignore the correspondence and all future correspondence. The purpose of the interview is solely to get you to incriminate yourself because they have no evidence to support a prosecution at present. No comment to every and all questions, ignore everything, and start buying the proper fare.

Thank you so much and my lesson was learnt back in January. Really appreciate the quick response, thank you.

 

[Hadders]

Just to add to what @AlterEgo has said. Purchasing invalid tickets is not illegal but using them is. The best way for a train company to prove you used the tickets illegally is to catch you red handed via an onboard check which, based on what you've told us, they haven't done.

It is possible, but highly unliklely, that they have other evidence for example CCTV to show it was you who used the tickets but effectively although they can see what you've done from your ticket purchasing history that history on its own is almost certainbly insufficient to convince a court that you are guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Essentially you have two options now:

1. Co-operate with Northern. They will offer you an out of court settlement which will be the cost of the invalid tickets purchased plus an admin fee, typicaly around £175. Pay and that will be the end of the matter.

2. Do nothing. If you take this course of action you will continue to receive threatening letters from Northern threatening escalatrion, police involvement and prosecution for fraud for the forseeable future.

If you decide to go with option 2 then do not engage at all with Northern. Don't even acknowledge the emails from them.

 

[furlong]

The wording of the letter from Transpennine may also be important. These letters are sometimes badly worded so as to limit the ability of the railway to take additional action.

 

[Hadders]

The wording of the letter from Transpennine may also be important. These letters are sometimes badly worded so as to limit the ability of the railway to take additional action.

We could do with seeing a copy of any letters you have received previously. Can you upload redacted copies of them in this thread.

 

[P2309]

We could do with seeing a copy of any letters you have received previously. Can you upload redacted copies of them in this thread.

Thanks. This is the copy of the letter from Transpennine confirming no further action would be taken following the stop and check in January, this letter was sent to my home address.

I've not previously received any correspondence from Northern Trains in the past. The interview letter from Northern just stated my email address with no reference to my home address.

 

[AlterEgo]

I've not previously received any correspondence from Northern Trains in the past. The interview letter from Northern just stated my email address with no reference to my home address.

Because they don’t actually know who you are. They’ve just trawled your transactions and want to scare you.

 

[furlong]

Presumably you did not discuss the previous cheating with the person who stopped you, but you only discussed the one specific journey you were making at the time? Assuming that's the case, then that letter wouldn't prevent the railway from taking separate action over the other journeys. (The underlying principle is whether we have a single investigation, with that letter resolving everything of which the railway was aware at that time, or a separate investigation based on new evidence uncovered later. This very much looks like the second case.)

 

[P2309]

Presumably you did not discuss the previous cheating with the person who stopped you, but you only discussed the one specific journey you were making at the time? Assuming that's the case, then that letter wouldn't prevent the railway from taking separate action over the other journeys. (The underlying principle is whether we have a single investigation, with that letter resolving everything of which the railway was aware at that time, or a separate investigation based on new evidence uncovered later. This very much looks like the second case.)

No I hadn't bought a ticket on this Transpennine Journey, I had rushed to get on the train and they wouldn't allow me to buy a ticket on the train and took me through a fine process but then I received that letter a few weeks later stating no action was being taken.

This is two different train companies from what I can gather.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 May 2025 ==

Because they don’t actually know who you are. They’ve just trawled your transactions and want to scare you.

Thank you again.

 

[jumble]

Presumably you did not discuss the previous cheating with the person who stopped you, but you only discussed the one specific journey you were making at the time? Assuming that's the case, then that letter wouldn't prevent the railway from taking separate action over the other journeys. (The underlying principle is whether we have a single investigation, with that letter resolving everything of which the railway was aware at that time, or a separate investigation based on new evidence uncovered later. This very much looks like the second case.)

So may I ask what action they might take on the other journeys that they suspect are dodgy but have no evidence
I say this having noted that the original incident is closed or do you think they will reopen that if the OP does not fess up to other misdemeanours?

 

[P2309]

Good Afternoon

I've received the attached letter from Northern Trains Limited by email today. I think this is to do with short faring on digital tickets, which in all honesty has been prolonged for a while. I did halt this at the start of the year in January and all digital train tickets have been purchased sincerely since January. Each short fare was around £3 in difference and was 2 or 3 journeys a week, so was stupid, which I was why I have sorted this out.

I totally understand this is very serious but I need to try and do everything possible to settle this out of court and understand it could be financially costly.

I have attached the letter I received and I would be so grateful of advice of whether I should be attending the interview and also what I can write in order to own up and also to state I will pay what is necessary to settle this out of court.

Really hope someone can offer advice.

TIA

So nobody’s stopped you for short faring.

Ignore the correspondence and all future correspondence. The purpose of the interview is solely to get you to incriminate yourself because they have no evidence to support a prosecution at present. No comment to every and all questions, ignore everything, and start buying the proper fare.

Hi. New letter through the post this time requesting an interview again. Guessing this is what you meant by future correspondence coming through and to continue to ignore it?

 

[Haywain]

As you've received this in the post, it's clear that they know who you are and where to find you. I can't recall a previous case where they have looked to conduct an interview, so this might suggest that they have more evidence than might usually be the case. It is still advisable to ignore this, but I think you should be prepared to deal with the matter if it does go further (which could mean either police or Northern's investigators knocking on your door).

 

[AlterEgo]

Obviously don't attend the interview, and don't reply. The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence they don't have.

 

[P2309]

As you've received this in the post, it's clear that they know who you are and where to find you. I can't recall a previous case where they have looked to conduct an interview, so this might suggest that they have more evidence than might usually be the case. It is still advisable to ignore this, but I think you should be prepared to deal with the matter if it does go further (which could mean either police or Northern's investigators knocking on your door).

Do you know of any cases where this has happened before?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jun 2025 ==

Obviously don't attend the interview, and don't reply. The purpose of the interview is to collect evidence they don't have.

Thank you

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you know of any cases where this has happened before?

Northern don't seem to usually offer this, but it is standard at some other train companies. It could be a new tactic from them. The interviews are to get you to confess everything so they have nailed on evidence to prosecute, and then offer you a big settlement figure.

If they really have suspicions of fraud they would just go to the police and have them arrest you for it.

 

[P2309]

Northern don't seem to usually offer this, but it is standard at some other train companies. It could be a new tactic from them. The interviews are to get you to confess everything so they have nailed on evidence to prosecute, and then offer you a big settlement figure.

If they really have suspicions of fraud they would just go to the police and have them arrest you for it.

Thank you

 

[Hadders]

I refer you to what I said in post 6 above.

 

[P2309]

I refer you to what I said in post 6 above.

If there was sufficient evidence, would the communication not be direct with an intention to prosecute?

 

[Hadders]

If there was sufficient evidence, would the communication not be direct with an intention to prosecute?

I think it's highly unlikely that they have any evidence that you used the tickets.

 

[P2309]

I think it's highly unlikely that they have any evidence that you used the tickets.

Thank you

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If there was sufficient evidence, would the communication not be direct with an intention to prosecute?

That's always possible, but in practice it doesn't happen.

The impression we get from posts to this forum is that most train companies normally prefer to settle out of court most of the time. Quite why they do this is open to some debate: it might be because they get to keep more money than if they went to court, or it might be because it's quicker and cheaper for them to settle out of court, or it might be that they only want to take enough action to make sure that the person they're pursuing pays the right fare at the right time in future. My guess is that it's a mix of the three. But what this means in practice is that unless the railway have decided that you're such a hardened offender that there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind, then they will firstly write to you to see if things can be settled out of court.

Of course, even if the railway write to offer an out of court settlement, that doesn't of itself mean that you won't end up in court: if you don't reply to them making contact, then the matter will go to court. And we do occasionally see cases where someone has written back but has been so obviously insincere and unrepentant that the railway have decided that court is the only way to get them to learn their lesson.

 

[BurtonM]

I think I know what OP has done to raise suspicion (the circumstances seem to be specific to about 2/3 journeys within Greater Manchester), and it's made me curious.

I suspect I have the same 'home' station as OP: there are 'AP Northern Only' fares for about £3 less than a single to Manchester. I'll leave the rest to interpretation.

Notably the faresetter for the Any Permitted tickets for these journeys would be set by Transport for Greater Manchester. (potentially OPs case has nothing to do with TPE and that information is a red herring).


In my case, AP Northern Only is only valid on one of the 4tph to Manchester, the other three are run by TPE so I won't always buy the cheaper one if I don't want to wait around.

Would inconsistently buying different priced tickets for the same route be enough to show up on Northern's radar, even if I'd done nothing wrong?

 

[P2309]

That's always possible, but in practice it doesn't happen.

The impression we get from posts to this forum is that most train companies normally prefer to settle out of court most of the time. Quite why they do this is open to some debate: it might be because they get to keep more money than if they went to court, or it might be because it's quicker and cheaper for them to settle out of court, or it might be that they only want to take enough action to make sure that the person they're pursuing pays the right fare at the right time in future. My guess is that it's a mix of the three. But what this means in practice is that unless the railway have decided that you're such a hardened offender that there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind, then they will firstly write to you to see if things can be settled out of court.

Of course, even if the railway write to offer an out of court settlement, that doesn't of itself mean that you won't end up in court: if you don't reply to them making contact, then the matter will go to court. And we do occasionally see cases where someone has written back but has been so obviously insincere and unrepentant that the railway have decided that court is the only way to get them to learn their lesson.

There's a lot to take in here. Are you advising I should go to an interview rather than ignore communication?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

There's a lot to take in here. Are you advising I should go to an interview rather than ignore communication?

No. I'm asking the specific question that you asked in post #21 which I highlighted at the top of post #24 i.e.

If there was sufficient evidence, would the communication not be direct with an intention to prosecute?

 

[P2309]

No. I'm asking the specific question that you asked in post #21 which I highlighted at the top of post #24 i.e.

OK thank you

 

[Trainbike46]

There's a lot to take in here. Are you advising I should go to an interview rather than ignore communication?

In general, Northern would do an interview because they believe having an interview would be in their interest, not yours.

If they had all the evidence they needed to secure a conviction, they wouldn't bother with inviting you to an interview - it'd be a waste of their time. That suggests they don't have enough evidence as things stand, and they hope you would incriminate yourself during such an interview.

 

[P2309]

In general, Northern would do an interview because they believe having an interview would be in their interest, not yours.

If they had all the evidence they needed to secure a conviction, they wouldn't bother with inviting you to an interview - it'd be a waste of their time. That suggests they don't have enough evidence as things stand, and they hope you would incriminate yourself during such an interview.

Thank you