Another Ascot Victim (SWR)

[bananaman99]

Hi all,

Made the trip from London Paddington to Ascot for the races a few weeks ago and managed to pick up a SWR Report for Prosecution. It seems that they recognised the station to be a good earner over the races (see here). After a bit of back and forth with SWR about not receiving post, I received the attached over email (see below).

The facts are that I tapped in at Reading with my debit card in the knowledge that I could go as far away from London as Reading, and I thought (mistakenly it would seem) that because Ascot is nearer to London I would have no problem in tapping out at Ascot. I'd say I do a slightly above average bit of rail travel, and think I recall contactless being fine in places as far away as High Wycombe and Watford, and I certainly don't recall any posters or announcements that paper tickets/QR codes were mandatory at Ascot, nor do I recall seeing the coloured contactless pads used sometimes when alternating between services.

Anyway, while queuing to get off the platform and through the sort-of temporary scanners they had set up at Ascot, I heard people announcing over tannoys that paper tickets/QR codes were mandatory. Thinking that I had in effect already paid for a trip to Ascot, and knowing that I would be charged the TfL maximum contactless fare for not tapping out, I quickly bought a ticket on my phone for a station I heard on the route (Winnersh if my memory serves me correctly) to Ascot, solely for the purpose of having a code to scan. I realise now that the correct course of action would have been to buy a ticket from Reading, and I was duly picked up by one of the numerous high-vis staff there, told them my reasoning, and was issued with the Report for Prosecution.

I've had a bit of a browse on Reddit and on here, and it seems to be the case that I explain my side of the story, SWR then come back to me with an offer to settle out of court, and that's that. My questions for you legendary RailUK users are firstly whether this assumption is correct, and secondly whether what I have written above (worded a bit better) is sufficient for SWR to come forward with an offer. Kind of staggered by the prospect of having a criminal record for my honest if somewhat stupid mistake and obviously very keen to avoid it! As mentioned, plenty of history of faultless rail travel to my name but maybe not very much on SWR routes come to think of it, if that assists me.

Many thanks,

Bananaman

 

[John R]

To answer your last paragraph, yes, you've got it. Apologise for your mistake in thinking Ascot was within the contactless zone, and also for then purchasing a "short ticket" when you realised your mistake. Promise to be more careful in future in buying tickets and not make any assumptions without checking, and ask very nicely if they will consider an out of court settlement.

It wouldn't really matter if you had a perfect history on SWR or wherever, they are only interested in this occasion.

Do post a draft on here first before sending, just so experts here can make sure you are saying the right things.

 

[Egg Centric]

The only other comment I'd make is that while your OP is amusing, we have had occasional examples where the rail companies have applied something of an 'attitude test' to what is sent their way and as much as it may pain you to grovel a bit, keep your eyes on the prize and try not to come off so pugnacious (as irritating as I can imagine this might be). Ultimately you're in the wrong here legally speaking and these are strict liability offences* to which you don't have much of an offence.

*Intriguingly by my reading the one alleged in your letter is not in fact the strict liability offence but instead a more serious one which requires mens rea; if you've a high risk tolerance and don't care about the potential of a potential bylaw conviction being substituted instead then I suspect there are alternative courses of action that could be taken here.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

ntriguingly by my reading the one alleged in your letter is not in fact the strict liability offence but instead a more serious one which requires mens rea; if you've a high risk tolerance and don't care about the potential of a potential bylaw conviction being substituted instead then I suspect there are alternative courses of action that could be taken here.

I can imagine the purchase of a Winnersh to Ascot ticket reiterated as evidence of intent to avoid the full Reading to Ascot fare.

 

[Egg Centric]

I can imagine the purchase of a Winnersh to Ascot ticket reiterated as evidence of intent to avoid the full Reading to Ascot fare.

Well yes, I am taking the "believe OP at his/her word" thing perhaps a little generously in this case

 

[WesternLancer]

Well yes, I am taking the "believe OP at his/her word" thing perhaps a little generously in this case

Well the contactless boundary is fairly confusing these days.

But i suspect it will be the just purchased short ticket that will have been an influencing factor against issuing the more preferable Penalty Fare.

 

[furlong]

I presume you presented the Winnersh to Ascot ticket to the inspector as your ticket BEFORE you started explaining the situation? And then the inspector asked you questions?

The way this works is that they need to be able to prove that there was a moment time at which you intended not to pay for your complete journey. It doesn't matter if there were other moments (such as when tapping in at Reading) when you did intend to pay in full.

Presenting a ticket for inspection that only covered part of your journey and not being able to show one at the same time covering Reading to Winnersh would be sufficient for their purposes.

If you had not been spoken to and your ticket had just been accepted, then you would have been left having only paid part of your fare. Do however go to the TfL website and register your card to see what has been charged. You might at least be able to get that refunded in due course once you have paid the additional fare between Reading and Winnersh that is presumably still due.

 

[bananaman99]

Hi all,

Thank you very much for the informative and helpful responses! I respect the argument and fact that I ought to have bought a ticket from Reading to Ascot to have scanned out at the latter, and also that the penalty fare would have been the better outcome in this scenario. Needless to say I have been kicking myself a bit ever since, but a lesson has indeed been learnt. As for my response, please see the following:

Dear Ms Gray,

In your letter dated 11 July 2025, you write "If you consider that there are any mitigating factors or explanations that may influence any decision that may be made about this matter you are invited to respond, in writing or to prosecutions@swrailway.com, within 21 days of the date of this letter." Please consider the information contained within this response dated [dd] July 2025 to relate to "mitigating factors or explanations".

On [dd] May 2025 I travelled by rail from London Paddington to Ascot to attend the day's races. I knew that this journey would be via Reading. Knowing that oyster/contactless is valid as far out of London as Reading, I tapped in at London Paddington with the belief that by in effect travelling east back on myself (i.e. towards London) to Ascot, I would be able to tap out there and pay the correct fair automatically. It is true that upon arriving at Reading, I was in a hurry and rushed to the train about to depart. I cannot, however, to the best of my knowledge, recall any sort of announcement over the tannoy or seeing any posters which indicated that contactless was not valid at Ascot.

Arriving at a busy Ascot station, unable to speak with a member of staff, it was shouted over loudspeaker that a paper ticket or barcode was necessary to leave the station. Knowing that I had neither of these, but that I would as a result of not tapping out be charged the maximum contactless fare (see evidence attached), I thought that this was merely a technical requirement and that my tapping in at Paddington could if required be revealed through a member of staff's scanner (of the sort used for the express purpose of catching fare evaders). I believed that this maximum fare would match or exceed the cost of a ticket from Paddington to Ascot. Being of this belief, I quickly and without too much thought bought a ticket for one of the stations I recalled travelling through from Reading, was promptly collected by one of your officers/members of staff and issued with a Report for Prosecution.

Please allow me to make clear that I am a big proponent and enjoyer of rail travel, that I have travelled via rail numerous times before and since the events described above without issue, and that I bear absolutely no ill-will towards SWR in any way, shape or form. The members of staff I encountered on the day itself and with whom I have corresponded since have been nothing less than professional and most able, and I am grateful of the transparency and speed with which SWR has conducted itself to-date. It follows that I am deeply frustrated with myself for having made the mistake of buying the incorrect ticket, and that the lessons I have learnt already from this episode mean that it is not a mistake I will be making ever again. I am very embarrassed by this event and I assure you I am remorseful for what has happened--all I wish to do now is to set things right in the correct manner as efficiently as possible.

I am at the time of writing unemployed and have no doubts that a criminal record will do me no favours in my search for a job. For this reason as well as those described above, I would be forever grateful to SWR and to you personally if there is any means of resolving this dispute outside of court, and if any kind of settlement--financial or otherwise--can be reached between us.

Yours sincerely,

Bananaman 99

 

[John R]

It feels overly long to me. The people reading these letters have to get through a lot, and I’m not sure it is all necessary.

And I wouldn’t mention being unemployed. Whilst I would not judge you, an investigator might think “well they were off to Royal Ascot so…”

 

[davews]

I agree that is a bit long. I am also a bit puzzled why you travelled Paddington-Reading-Ascot when it would be slightly quicker and cheaper to have used the direct Waterloo-Ascot service (for which of course you would have needed a paper or electronic ticket). As discussed elsewhere on this forum there are indeed posters at Reading about contactless not being valid to Ascot including at the Waterloo platforms but they are hardly very prominent and easily missed.

 

[bananaman99]

Thanks for the feedback, will cut down and drop the unemployed bit. Went from Paddington because it was a more convenient journey from my front door!

 

[Haywain]

I think you need to simplify and shorten your explanation too. The maximum fare you might have been charged by TfL does nothing to excuse buying a short ticket.

 

[furlong]

What amount was charged to the contactless card?

 

[bananaman99]

Noted all, and thank you again. I think I do have a habit of over-writing, but that's because I'm ever so slightly bricking it at the prospect of a criminal record! I was charged £14 for the incomplete journey.

 

[Haywain]

I'm ever so slightly bricking it at the prospect of a criminal record!

The chance of that happening is vanishingly small.

 

[furlong]

I was charged £14 for the incomplete journey.

Which is the off-peak fare to Reading. Have you looked on the TfL website yet to see if it actually auto-completed that journey for you and is showing it as Paddington (touch in) to Reading (no touch out)? If not, use the website or phone to get the missing touch added.

At this point, SWR should be pursuing you only for the fare between Reading and Winnersh, which you failed to pay and which you should refer to in your letter and apologise for. (Depending whether this was morning or afternoon, the amount should be £3.80 or £4.40.)

 

[fandroid]

We don't normally advise short-farers that they only owe the train company the fare difference. We know that the train companies just about always want the whole fare, and the most expensive version of that. Although Winnersh to Ascot is an unusually long short fare for that journey, railway investigators might think it's simply a deliberate attempt to get a nice little discount on the full fare.

What I'm saying is that we shouldn't raise the OP's hopes that the Reading to Winnersh fare is all that SWR will settle for.

 

[bananaman99]

Very understandable comments as usual; think I'll go with something like the below and provide an update to you all once they get back to me (I did use ChatGPT to save a bit of time...):

Dear Ms Gray,

In your letter dated 11 July 2025, you wrote: "If you consider that there are any mitigating factors or explanations that may influence any decision that may be made about this matter you are invited to respond, in writing or to prosecutions@swrailway.com, within 21 days of the date of this letter."

Please accept this letter as my response.

On [dd] May 2025, I travelled from London Paddington to Ascot via Reading to attend the races. I tapped in at Paddington using contactless, believing—mistakenly—that I would be able to tap out at Ascot or otherwise be charged the correct fare for the full journey.

At Reading, I was in a hurry and boarded the next train to Ascot. On arrival, there were large crowds and a loudspeaker announcement stating that only paper tickets or QR codes could be used to exit. In a moment of confusion and poor judgement, and knowing I could not tap out, I wrongly purchased a short ticket from Winnersh. I now realise this was the wrong course of action and deeply regret it.

I want to emphasise that I had no intention of evading the fare and am mortified to find myself in this position. I have never before had an issue of this kind and have the utmost respect for the rail network, its staff, and the rules in place. I fully accept responsibility for my actions and sincerely apologise for the error and any concern or inconvenience caused.

I am truly remorseful and would be immensely grateful if this matter could be resolved without escalation to the courts. If it is at all possible to settle this by way of an administrative resolution, I would be very willing to cover any reasonable costs or outstanding fare.

Thank you for considering this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Bananaman99

 

[furlong]

I want to emphasise that I had no intention of evading the fare

Seriously? How can your purchase of a ticket from Winnersh instead of from Reading be construed in any way other than as an attempt to evade the fare?

If what you write can't be true, don't write it.

 

[bananaman99]

Fair point... These robots still haven't got it quite worked out have they? Cheers.

 

[DeverseSam]

Seriously? How can your purchase of a ticket from Winnersh instead of from Reading be construed in any way other than as an attempt to evade the fare?

Because they were unsure about the contactless boundary and hoped that the contactless payment card covered them from Reading to Winnersh?

 

[John R]

Because they were unsure about the contactless boundary and hoped that the contactless payment card covered them from Reading to Winnersh?

That’s not what the OP said though.

 

[Haywain]

Fair point... These robots still haven't got it quite worked out have they? Cheers.

Can I suggest you change it to "I did not set out with the intention of avoiding paying the correct fare", or similar.

 

[furlong]

I'd still be clearer in the letter and supply the evidence that the fare was paid from Paddington to Reading and from Winnersh to Ascot so that they shouldn't attempt to charge you twice for those parts of the journey. They have no entitlement in law to be paid any more than they would have received had you stuck to the rules and bought the correct tickets. In a situation like this the normal approach is to charge you for a new ticket that fills the gap and so that is what you should suggest. Any penalty is the sole reserve of the courts, following conviction. The train company has no authority to impose any penalty though it can insist you cover any direct costs it incurred dealing with the matter.

 

[Haywain]

They have no entitlement in law to be paid any more than they would have received had you stuck to the rules and bought the correct tickets.

That might be a good argument in court but the OP wants to avoid court action.

 

[fandroid]

I'd still be clearer in the letter and supply the evidence that the fare was paid from Paddington to Reading and from Winnersh to Ascot so that they shouldn't attempt to charge you twice for those parts of the journey. They have no entitlement in law to be paid any more than they would have received had you stuck to the rules and bought the correct tickets. In a situation like this the normal approach is to charge you for a new ticket that fills the gap and so that is what you should suggest. Any penalty is the sole reserve of the courts, following conviction. The train company has no authority to impose any penalty though it can insist you cover any direct costs it incurred dealing with the matter.

When the OP pitched up at Ascot they didn't have a valid ticket for their journey from Reading, and furthermore they had attempted to short fare. They could be prosecuted for that. The chances are that they'll be offered a settlement to avoid court, and there'd be no surprise if they were asked to pay the full Anytime fare from Reading plus costs. Arguing that they only owe the Reading to Winnersh fare could well persuade SWR to start court proceedings

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When the OP pitched up at Ascot they didn't have a valid ticket for their journey from Reading, and furthermore they had attempted to short fare. They could be prosecuted for that. The chances are that they'll be offered a settlement to avoid court, and there'd be no surprise if they were asked to pay the full Anytime fare from Reading plus costs. Arguing that they only owe the Reading to Winnersh fare could well persuade SWR to start court proceedings

This makes sense. As appealing as it might be to try to settle for a lower amount, the simple fact is that the railway companies don't see it like that, so they will only settle for the higher amount.

And as the railway companies are still able to take matters to court, where the person without a perfectly valid ticket would probably lose, so getting a conviction and facing a fine and costs greater than the amount the railway asked for in the first place, there's little point in trying for less than the railway proposes for an out of court settlement - you just lay yourself open to paying more.

 

[DeverseSam]

The OP paid £14. The fare from Paddington to Ascot via Staines is £12.90 if the OP has a Railcard which is likely as a regular traveller.

Is that an avenue worth exploring ie no loss to the railway?

 

[John R]

The OP paid £14. The fare from Paddington to Ascot via Staines is £12.90 if the OP has a Railcard which is likely as a regular traveller.

Is that an avenue worth exploring ie no loss to the railway?

In a word, no.

 

[bananaman99]

I can see each of your reasoning here but yes, I am very much looking for the out of court settlement and have tried not to be overly defensive in what I eventually sent to SWR. I suppose my line of thinking was that I thought I was going to be charged more than the fare from Paddington to Ascot by having not tapped out, so I really only needed a ticket--any ticket--to scan through what I thought were physical barriers rather than people with scanners (to whom I could've spoken and maybe just left with a penalty fare). This was obviously wrong and in fact in breach of the rules/law and I am in this situation as a result.

Very grateful for everyone's views and glad to have started this discussion! Will keep you all updated...