18yo misunderstanding terms of railcard

[CatWithABat]

My 18yo daughter previously had a 16-17 railcard and a 16-25 railcard (the periods overlapped as I got her the 16-25 railcard first then realised the 16-17 railcard gave a greater discount). She turned 18 in Jan and stopped using her 16-17 railcard and has been using the 16-25 railcard since.

She was stopped on GWR last week and was told that her 16-25 railcard was out of date. It turns out that it expired in Dec 24. The expiry date was printed on the card, but she hadn't seen it. She assumed that it was valid until she turned 25, like the 16-17 one was valid until she turned 18. Completely wrong of course, but an honest mistake. I get railcards free with my many Tesco points, so she knows she could have a new railcard for free and for the asking.

GWR seem to have suspected dishonesty and she had a terrible interview with them, with cautions, bodycams etc. She signed the transcript of her interview, but was so stressed and shocked that she doesn't know what she said or what she's signed. She asked to take a photo of the transcript, but they refused, telling her that this would "breach GDPR".

GWR asked her to show her purchases on the Trainline app, which she did. Although this is the first journey with GWR, she's used SouthEastern quite frequently since her railcard expired - maybe around 30 journeys.

She's now terribly worried about a prosecution and a criminal record.

Does anyone know:

1. Are GWR likely to settle or prosecute and will this be influenced by the fact that there has only been one incorrect purchase with GWR?

2. Will they pass information on to SouthEastern and, if so, are they likely to settle or prosecute?

3. Should we be seeing a solicitor now?

4. Should we be writing to GWR/SouthEastern before receiving a letter from them?

Any help gratefully received!

 

[SuspectUsual]

1. Are GWR likely to settle or prosecute and will this be influenced by the fact that there has only been one incorrect purchase with GWR?

If you - or more accurately your daughter as she’s an adult - engage with GWR and are honest with them, they’re almost certain to offer an out of court settlement. If you look on their website their policy says words to the effect of “we prosecute as a last resort”

2. Will they pass information on to SouthEastern and, if so, are they likely to settle or prosecute?

No. Normally the train company that finds the first problem deals with all of them.

3. Should we be seeing a solicitor now?

No. You should be OK without one, and in any event there is zero point until they write to you

4. Should we be writing to GWR/SouthEastern before receiving a letter from them?

No. The chances are that if you do, they’ll not be able to cross reference it on their system. Wait for them to get in touch, then come back here and show us what they have to say and you’ll get good advice on next steps

 

[John R]

Welcome to the forum you never wanted to join!

To answer your questions in order:-

1. So long as your daughter cooperates when written to, it's very unlikely that they will prosecute, but offer an out of court settlement, based on "fares avoided" together with an admin cost. GWR is very reasonable, and prosecutions are very rare if she cooperates, and there are no aggravating circumstances, which from what you've said is unlikely, unless the "terrible interview" included her being abusive.

2. GWR will act on behalf of all the rail companies, so it is a "one-stop shop".

3. No. Wait until they write to her, and then come back here for advice. It's highly unlikely you will need one if you take the advice of regular posters here.

4. No, effectively she will be trying to jump the queue, and will not be helpful to them. And you don't yet know what questions they are going to ask her, and whether they will address prior instances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Aug 2025 ==

In terms of a settlement cost, they are likely to charge the full Anytime Single fare for every individual journey taken, without any discount for the fare paid. Depending on the journeys taken, that could add up. An Anytime Single from Bristol to London is £139 for example, and she would be liable to two of those for a return journey on that route.

 

[CatWithABat]

Thank you both - that is immensely helpful and quite reassuring. We'll wait for the letter and hope it doesn't take too long to arrive!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

She asked to take a photo of the transcript, but they refused, telling her that this would "breach GDPR".

That doesn't sound right! Whose personal data is at risk here?

 

[CatWithABat]

That doesn't sound right! Whose personal data is at risk here?

I quite agree!

 

[Titfield]

Any complaint about the conduct or actions of the guard / revenue protection officer should be made completely separately and after the expired railcard issue has been fully resolved.

 

[CatWithABat]

Any complaint about the conduct or actions of the guard / revenue protection officer should be made completely separately and after the expired railcard issue has been fully resolved.

Thanks for this advice. Our focus is definitely on getting this resolved rather than complaining, and I guess it's just a misunderstanding about how GDPR applies. But I may point it out when everything else is sorted.
I'm very grateful to you all for taking the time to help so quickly and on a Sunday night too!

 

[185143]

That doesn't sound right! Whose personal data is at risk here?

Part of me would be inclined to make a subject access request purely on principle on the back of that comment!

 

[styles]

Part of me would be inclined to make a subject access request purely on principle on the back of that comment!

Likewise, though unless it was necessary to agree a settlement, I would wait until the Railcard ticketing issues have been resolved to avoid poking the bear, so to speak.

 

[CatWithABat]

Part of me would be inclined to make a subject access request purely on principle on the back of that comment!

In fairness to him, he did say that she could write in and apply for a copy of the transcript, so it's not as if they were trying to lock the information away from her permanently. But it would just have been helpful to have the complete picture right now. I'm wary about writing in and - as Styles says - poking the bear. I think we will wait for the letter, see what information they think they have and take it from there.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

My 18yo daughter previously had a 16-17 railcard and a 16-25 railcard (the periods overlapped as I got her the 16-25 railcard first then realised the 16-17 railcard gave a greater discount). She turned 18 in Jan and stopped using her 16-17 railcard and has been using the 16-25 railcard since.

16-17 'Saver' railcards are normally only ever valid for one year, or until the cardholder reaches the age of 18, whichever is the shorter period. Take it that inspection of your daughter's ticket purchasing history won't show any 16-17 'Saver' railcard discounted tickets having been purchased/used when the accompanying railcard wasn't valid/in date. (The discount offered on this particular railcard is greater than that for a 16-25 railcard).

 

[CatWithABat]

16-17 'Saver' railcards are normally only ever valid for one year, or until the cardholder reaches the age of 18, whichever is the shorter period. Take it that inspection of your daughter's ticket purchasing history won't show any 16-17 'Saver' railcard discounted tickets having been purchased/used when the accompanying railcard wasn't valid/in date. (The discount offered on this particular railcard is greater than that for a 16-25 railcard).

Yes, she was careful about that and although the 16-17 railcard would have otherwise been valid for another few months, from the day of her 18th birthday she only used the 16-25 railcard.

 

[John R]

Yes, she was careful about that and although the 16-17 railcard would have otherwise been valid for another few months, from the day of her 18th birthday she only used the 16-25 railcard.

I'm not sure that's correct. The 16-17 railcard is only valid until her 18th birthday, so wouldn't have been valid beyond that.

But I think what you are saying is that between the expiry of her 18-25 railcard and her 18th birthday (around a month?), she used that card to get a one third discount, whereas she was entitled to have applied the 16-17 card and get a 50% discount.

If that is explained clearly, she might be able to get any of those tickets removed from any settlement calculation, as she was entitled to a higher discount than she actually in error (because of the expiry) applied for. It would certainly be worth mentioning if quite a few tickets are involved.

 

[enyoueffsea]

It’ll be worth retaining a copy of both railcards (or at least proof of purchase) as they will want to see them at some point.

It’ll also support your explanation of confusion with the cards and any explanation such as John R points out above.

This should be a really straightforward case and your daughter will be fine assuming you follow the good advice above.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm not sure that's correct. The 16-17 railcard is only valid until her 18th birthday, so wouldn't have been valid beyond that.

Just for the avoidance of any confusion (though not relevant here) a 16-17 saver has some validity beyond the holder's 18th birthday for season tickets (I think only if purchased while the holder is still 17).

 

[AlterEgo]

In fairness to him, he did say that she could write in and apply for a copy of the transcript, so it's not as if they were trying to lock the information away from her permanently. But it would just have been helpful to have the complete picture right now.

An interview pad may contain more information than just the responses given.

I expect they didn’t allow her to take a picture of the contemporaneous notes for the same reason you can’t ask to see a copper’s notebook when they’re searching your house or interviewing you at the scene. She’s a suspect, not a customer, and doubt the RPI has done anything out of order here.

 

[AdamWW]

An interview pad may contain more information than just the responses given.

I expect they didn’t allow her to take a picture of the contemporaneous notes for the same reason you can’t ask to see a copper’s notebook when they’re searching your house or interviewing you at the scene. She’s a suspect, not a customer, and doubt the RPI has done anything out of order here.

So you are shown something, asked to sign that it's correct, but it would violate GDPR for you to retain your own record of what you signed and were allowed to read at the time?

 

[SuspectUsual]

An interview pad may contain more information than just the responses given.

I expect they didn’t allow her to take a picture of the contemporaneous notes for the same reason you can’t ask to see a copper’s notebook when they’re searching your house or interviewing you at the scene. She’s a suspect, not a customer, and doubt the RPI has done anything out of order here.

No. It’s a factual record of what the RPI saw and the conversation with the passenger.

 

[AlterEgo]

No. It’s a factual record of what the RPI saw and the conversation with the passenger.

No, it’s prosecution evidence, not necessarily “factual”, as we have seen many many times on this forum!

Same as the police officer’s contemporaneous notes. Try asking to take a picture of those at the scene when you’re getting questioned for an offence and before you’re booked into custody. You don’t get to keep your own record of your interview under caution (which may contain incriminating information or a concocted story under pressure which you may want to refer to later when being interviewed again or written to), nor do you get to see what the officer has written about your allegedly suspicious actions. You get these before trial if they’re relevant evidence.

 

[CatWithABat]

I'm not sure that's correct. The 16-17 railcard is only valid until her 18th birthday, so wouldn't have been valid beyond that.

But I think what you are saying is that between the expiry of her 18-25 railcard and her 18th birthday (around a month?), she used that card to get a one third discount, whereas she was entitled to have applied the 16-17 card and get a 50% discount.

If that is explained clearly, she might be able to get any of those tickets removed from any settlement calculation, as she was entitled to a higher discount than she actually in error (because of the expiry) applied for. It would certainly be worth mentioning if quite a few tickets are involved.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. She stopped using the 16-17 card on her 18th birthday, correctly realising that it expired on turning 18, although it was less than a year old. She then wrongly started using her 16-25 card, thinking that this was valid until 25 - not realising that the expiry date had already passed. So from the date of her birthday until she was challenged, she's been getting discounted fares without a valid railcard. But I hope that the fact that she was careful about the 16-17 card makes it more believable that this was an honest mistake.

 

[Haywain]

not necessarily “factual”,

Although if the person question has signed them they have effectively agreed that they are factual, haven't they?

 

[AlterEgo]

Although if the person question has signed them they have effectively agreed that they are factual, haven't they?

If they're just signing a notebook, then no, not necessarily. The signature prevents amendments and additions later on and it's primarily in the suspect's interests to sign it, ideally initialling too after every answer, to stop a dishonest officer from adding more details later.

The MG11 is the officer's witness statement, not the interview. This is completed usually after the interaction and will be completed from memory and with reference to their contemporaneous notes (which will include the interview). This is a standard form which comes with a declaration of truth on the part of the officer, unlike the officer's notebook where they jot down details of the conversation. The notebook will also include details like a description, details of suspicious behaviour, etc etc which are all not going to be disclosed to a suspect.

 

[island]

So you are shown something, asked to sign that it's correct, but it would violate GDPR for you to retain your own record of what you signed and were allowed to read at the time?

If you wish to make a data subject access request, that needs to go through the proper channels and a response will be given within the allotted time. People taking photos of notebooks that might well contain data they're not entitled to access is not a proper channel.

 

[AdamWW]

If you wish to make a data subject access request, that needs to go through the proper channels and a response will be given within the allotted time. People taking photos of notebooks that might well contain data they're not entitled to access is not a proper channel.

I was under the impression this was a form that had been filled in and signed.

I'm surprised though at a system that involves showing people information that they aren't supposed to have access to. Some people have good memories.

 

[Nottingham59]

I was under the impression this was a form that had been filled in and signed.

It was.

She signed the transcript of her interview,

If she signed anything, she should have been given a copy

 

[AlterEgo]

If she signed anything, she should have been given a copy

On what grounds?