GTR penalty fare and prosecutions

[GTR]

Hi all. I've been advised by a nice man at GTR prosecutions to join this forum.

I was travelling on a Thameslink from Wivelsfield to Heathrow via Farringdon (about two hours) on 28 February with my wife and 4-year-old daughter with three suitcases and hand luggage. I had intended to buy the ticket online on the way to the station or on the platform, but luggage, child and pressure prevented me from doing so.

Also, there were no ticket barriers that would naturally have reminded me – this mistake wouldn't have happened at a different station. I then had to climb 60 steps to reach the platform and when the train arrived, we boarded it, found seats, found storage for our luggage and settled our daughter. We had fully intended to buy the ticket at the earliest opportunity, but this slipped. Obviously, on a two-hour journey through central London and a large airport with luggage and child, we were not intending to slip through the system in any way.

A revenue protection officer boarded the train about 10 minutes into our journey, confronted us and wouldn't accept my request to buy a ticket. While he was talking to me (in a moderately aggressive manner – but that's their job), my wife bought me a ticket and presented this (she already had a season ticket for herself). At this point the RPO said he would have to escalate to prosecution, and before I really understood what was happening, he was reading me my rights.

As we were leaving the country for two weeks, I asked very specifically about how long it would take for a letter to arrive. I think he said within two weeks, and you must respond within three weeks.

More than three months later, as I was listening to details of the Office of Road and Rail report on the radio, a letter arrived. It was not transparent or accountable as it was signed with a squiggle with no name or contact details other than address (email or phone would avoid the unreliability of Royal Mail, which I did use with tracked delivery).

Their reply eventually arrived, and it offered an out-of-court settlement of £81 representing the outstanding fare (there wasn't really any since my wife bought the ticket) and their expenses. This appeared arbitrary, and it wasn't broken down or justified in any way. So it lacked transparency.

I tried phoning customer services and was given a number for penalty fares. After several attempts, they answered and passed me another number for prosecutions. I then tried this number several times a day for at least a week, including leaving voicemails that may or may not have been monitored.

Eventually, I gave them a call and was stunned when someone picked up – didn't know what to say for a second or two. I asked to speak to someone with decision-making powers and after some waiting was put through to a nice gentleman who said he was named Mr "X" (I'm not quoting here out of respect) but couldn't give me his first name because it was their policy for privacy reasons (which seems like the wrong way round – giving surname not first name seems like the wrong way round). Again, this lacked transparency. He said that the letter was signed by Mrs "Y". Having said that, it's not hard to find people online, not least via this site.

Eventually after a very civil and reasonable conversation, he suggested I came here, gave me his email (which ironically gave his name away – that could be a procedural failure in itself, john@gtr etc would be a better format if they want to hide) and suggested getting back to him with the details again, making sure to mention my disabled railcard and the reasons for it.

In short, my case represented:

• "A significant inconsistency of approach leading to very different outcomes" – I see passengers buying tickets from the OBS on GTR (Southern) trains daily, yet on GTR Thameslink there is no OBS and no opportunity to buy a ticket,
• "Disproportionate and unfair" – Travelling with my wife, child and luggage over two hours, I clearly wasn't trying to avoid buying a ticket, I made "an honest mistake" as opposed to "deliberate fare evasion",
• "A procedural error" – waiting three months for any communication. Failure to pick up the phone after multiple daily attempts and voicemails,
• "Lacking transparency", not showing how the figures added up, not letting me know who I was communicating with.

Any thoughts? Further details are available, but you'll probably have lost the will to live by that point.

 

[jfollows]

£81 in full settlement is a relative bargain, if they have evidence of your committing a criminal offence (boarding a train without a valid ticket) they could prosecute you leading to a criminal record, or their more usual out of court settlement adds of the order of £150 to the unpaid fare.

If you can post suitably anonymised copies of what you’ve been given then we can advise further, because you may be able to appeal on a technicality, but it doesn’t seem disproportionate (compared to other cases we see) nor excessively delayed.

But if you can pay £81 and see the issue closed, that’s relatively inexpensive on the scale of things we see for similar offences.

 

[Hadders]

However unintentional it was you committed a criminal offence by boarding the train without a ticket. GTR are entitled to prosecute you in the Magistrates Court if they want to.

I would pay the settlement that has been offered to make the matter go away.

 

[GTR]

The man from prosecutions advised me to email him with details of my disabled railcard. Was he looking for a reason to reduce the fine?

I appreciate how much better than prosecution the £81 charge is and that I boarded a train without a valid ticket, but it's plain wrong that on a green train run by the same operator the result would (almost certainly) have been entirely different. He said that GTR are taking into account the ORR report – if this were applied in my case, it would be cut and dry – buy a ticket, thank you very much.

 

[Haywain]

you’ve been given then we can advise further, because you may be able to appeal on a technicality,

As a Penalty Fare has (correctly) not been issued there is no provision for an 'appeal'.

 

[AlterEgo]

You don't have a leg to stand on here. You admit to committing the offence and the company is entitled under the law to prosecute you. They are not, and instead settling out of court for a low figure in the region of what a penalty fare would have cost.

GTR advised you to join the forum because they probably feel a neutral party telling you that you were in the wrong is softer than them having to do it. I'm afraid you didn't have a ticket and they were within their rights to report you. The company has no idea whether you're trying to travel entirely ticketless or would have bought a ticket only for part of your journey once you'd been confronted by barriers. (This is very common, take a browse of this part of the forum to see)

This isn't defending GTR but you are where you are and the case is fairly open and shut. I'd pay the settlement and take heed of needing a ticket in future.

 

[Watershed]

The company has no idea whether you're trying to travel entirely ticketless or would have bought a ticket only for part of your journey once you'd been confronted by barriers. (This is very common, take a browse of this part of the forum to see)

Indeed; Thameslink trains generally operate with only a driver. In other words, there's no conductor or other member of staff who routinely checks tickets.

A random selection of Thameslink trains do have revenue protection staff like the OP encountered. Therefore, to avoid people from chancing it most of the time, they have to penalise people when they do catch them without a ticket.

It would have been very easy for the OP to only pay for the Farringdon to Heathrow part of their journey by touching in at the readers you pass when changing from Thameslink to the Elizabeth line at Farringdon. So the opportunity to engage in 'short faring' is readily available.

The man from prosecutions advised me to email him with details of my disabled railcard. Was he looking for a reason to reduce the fine?

Perhaps so. But you have not suggested that the disability which entitles you to your Disabled Railcard prevented you from buying a ticket to the station. If that were the case, it would be a different matter entirely - you wouldn't be penalised for buying a ticket at the first available opportunity where the purchasing facilities at your origin station are non-accessible.

I appreciate how much better than prosecution the £81 charge is and that I boarded a train without a valid ticket, but it's plain wrong that on a green train run by the same operator the result would (almost certainly) have been entirely different.

I'm unsure what you're alluding to here. Yes, the vast majority of longer distance Southern services have a second member of onboard staff (the Onboard Manager). However you could just as well have encountered a revenue protection inspector on a Southern train as well, and have had your details taken for prosecution in the same way.

At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, operators have to base their revenue protection policies based on how easy it is for people to get away with chancing it and not buying it a ticket.

He said that GTR are taking into account the ORR report – if this were applied in my case, it would be cut and dry – buy a ticket, thank you very much.

I highly doubt it would be as cut and dry as that.

 

[WesternLancer]

The man from prosecutions advised me to email him with details of my disabled railcard. Was he looking for a reason to reduce the fine?

I appreciate how much better than prosecution the £81 charge is and that I boarded a train without a valid ticket, but it's plain wrong that on a green train run by the same operator the result would (almost certainly) have been entirely different. He said that GTR are taking into account the ORR report – if this were applied in my case, it would be cut and dry – buy a ticket, thank you very much.

Welcome, and you do have my sympathy given what happened on the day.

You original post raises some broader questions that are worth debating, although there ones that crop up on here fairly regularly in general terms, and I note @Watershed has touched on these in their reply above.

Given your wife already had a ticket and you probably didn't fit the profile of a deliberate evader, and you were a disabled railcard holder I'm slightly surprised that you were not given a Penalty Fare - PF- instead (which are sort of designed for the kind of scenarios you describe happened to you - ie not deliberate evasion but a ticketing error that needs to be dealt with in a way that has sufficient incentive for you not to do it again) - I have no great insight into why not given a PF but it's possible that your wife buying you a ticket when the inspector was coming might have been the reason why not - two thoughts on that:

a) it's classic 'buy when challenged behaviour' pattern of the deliberate evader (not saying you are one!) - ie people who don't buy a tickt until they see an inspector coming to check their ticket because they know they can often get away for the whole trip without paying at all
or
b) I think staff ticket scanners are set up to identify tickets bought after the train concerned had departed the origin station in order to alert the inspector of a possible misdemeanour and that if the Inspectors don't act on that as per the policy then they get called to account by their own manager for what they did (staff who are inspectors have IIRC said on here in the past that this can happen - so perhaps easier to report you for investigation / implied evasion than get told off by your manger for being soft on people who don't buy tickets)

However, ref the disabled Railcard I htink it will be this:

The Disabled Person's railcard, IIRC, does have an exemption for the rule on ticket buying before boarding (which is otherwise a strict rule, albeit one that results in confusion when you see other staff selling tickets on board eg on Southern as you mention....), on the basis that some people's disabilities might mean that they can not use ticket machines at stations and are thus able to buy from a ticket office at the earliest opportunity on their route.

Note you are not required to buy a ticket on your phone on line if the railway company does not provide ticket selling facilities at your station of departure (either an open ticket office or a ticket machine)

So in theory you could 'appeal' (note if this is an out of court settlement offer from them there is no formal appeal route, it would just be a request to them to reconsider, but this does come at the risk of them withdrawing the offer and simply prosecuting you instead) to them on this basis, and that might be what the member of staff you spoke to was hinting at (tho I do not want you to feel you need to discuss the nature of your disability here)

However, such an appeal could be undermined by the fact that:
i) your partner did buy you a ticket, albeit on line when you /she suddenly remembered you had forgotten to buy one
ii) perhaps Wivelsfield had an open ticket office you could have used before boarding

So going back on this basis might be tricky given what has happened, and I don't know whether your earlier interactions with them (you could upload anonymised copies if you want) leaves it open for a realistic request back to them on this basis? Note the risk I mention above however.

Others here will have views.

It might be that this applies and you could make use of an argument about holding a disabled railcard, or it might be that this is one to 'chalk up to experience'.

On a separate point you did very well to actually manage to speak to someone in their prosecutions team!

 

[Haywain]

- I have no great insight into why not given a PF

Because the purchase of a ticket after boarding removed that option.

 

[WesternLancer]

Because the purchase of a ticket after boarding removed that option.

Thanks - thought so (albeit the passenger didn't buy it, a fellow traveller - their wife, who already held a ticket - did, probably without them even knowing as they were talking to the Inspector at the time - not that for a moment I am suggesting getting into the semantics of that aspect of things, which in my view would be pointless )

Although on the broader point I suspect sometimes Inspectors do issue PFs to people who have bought after boarding / use their discretion to do so. Or would I be wrong about this?

More broadly it looks to me like the sum they have been asked to pay seems probably quite similar to the sum a Penalty Fare might be (ie £50 + the cost of a ticket) which suggests that Thameslink have tried to treat the report for investigation in similar terms to what might have been the outcome if a PF had in fact been issued. Tho looking at the range of fares from Wivelsfield to Heathrow they may have been charged less than that as the anytime single fare (non railcard discout) might be £57ish if I have understood the fares correctly - I'll happily stand corrected on that sum though.

If so that is quite a strong argument for the OP to pay this sum and 'chalk it up to experience'

 

[AlterEgo]

Although on the broader point I suspect sometimes Inspectors do issue PFs to people who have bought after boarding / use their discretion to do so

Illegally, yes, they sometimes do.

 

[WesternLancer]

Illegally, yes, they sometimes do

Thanks

 

[GTR]

Thanks - thought so (albeit the passenger didn't buy it, a fellow traveller - their wife, who already held a ticket - did, probably without them even knowing as they were talking to the Inspector at the time - not that for a moment I am suggesting getting into the semantics of that aspect of things, which in my view would be pointless )

Although on the broader point I suspect sometimes Inspectors do issue PFs to people who have bought after boarding / use their discretion to do so. Or would I be wrong about this?

More broadly it looks to me like the sum they have been asked to pay seems probably quite similar to the sum a Penalty Fare might be (ie £50 + the cost of a ticket) which suggests that Thameslink have tried to treat the report for investigation in similar terms to what might have been the outcome if a PF had in fact been issued. Tho looking at the range of fares from Wivelsfield to Heathrow they may have been charged less than that as the anytime single fare (non railcard discout) might be £57ish if I have understood the fares correctly - I'll happily stand corrected on that sum though.

If so that is quite a strong argument for the OP to pay this sum and 'chalk it up to experience'

Checking my notes, Mr X said that the figure of £81 represented the outstanding fare plus a £55 admin cost.

The cost of the ticket from Wivelsfield to Farringdon without a railcard would have been £19.30 (£12.25 with the railcard). I then paid £13.30 for the Elizabeth Line. This was the basis for the RPO's actions, what he understood I would do – no dispute over that.

So if we pretend the ticket my wife bought didn't exist, the outstanding fare would be either £19.30 or £12.25, depending on whether he'd been kind enough to let me use my disabled railcard (or my wife's Gold Card). If we accept my wife did buy a ticket for me, but say she shouldn't have used the railcard, the outstanding fare is £7.05 – I think that would be a reasonable calculation. To say there was a full fare outstanding doesn't strike me as reasonable.

Either way, their quoted numbers don't add up. The maximum would be £19.30 plus £55 (74.30), what I think would be reasonable (take off the railcard) would be £62 and the minimum would be £55 (which is probably an arbitrary number anyway). No way of calculating makes £81.

Obviously there's the legal side of this, and then considering what is reasonable or just – which is more a matter of opinion than fact.

As for administration costs – I had to spend out on two tracked delivery letters because they don't pick up the phone, I made many phone calls costing time and money (contract minutes). I'm being facetious, but... And the lack of transparency in making themselves available and accountable through printing their names on the letters they send should be taken seriously – but I'm well aware this is a matter of opinion about what's reasonable and just, not a matter of law.

I think we probably know where this ends.

 

[WesternLancer]

Checking my notes, Mr X said that the figure of £81 represented the outstanding fare plus a £55 admin cost.

The cost of the ticket from Wivelsfield to Farringdon without a railcard would have been £19.30 (£12.25 with the railcard). I then paid £13.30 for the Elizabeth Line. This was the basis for the RPO's actions, what he understood I would do – no dispute over that.

So if we pretend the ticket my wife bought didn't exist, the outstanding fare would be either £19.30 or £12.25, depending on whether he'd been kind enough to let me use my disabled railcard (or my wife's Gold Card). If we accept my wife did buy a ticket for me, but say she shouldn't have used the railcard, the outstanding fare is £7.05 – I think that would be a reasonable calculation. To say there was a full fare outstanding doesn't strike me as reasonable.

Either way, their quoted numbers don't add up. The maximum would be £19.30 plus £55 (74.30), what I think would be reasonable (take off the railcard) would be £62 and the minimum would be £55 (which is probably an arbitrary number anyway). No way of calculating makes £81.

Obviously there's the legal side of this, and then considering what is reasonable or just – which is more a matter of opinion than fact.

As for administration costs – I had to spend out on two tracked delivery letters because they don't pick up the phone, I made many phone calls costing time and money (contract minutes). I'm being facetious, but... And the lack of transparency in making themselves available and accountable through printing their names on the letters they send should be taken seriously – but I'm well aware this is a matter of opinion about what's reasonable and just, not a matter of law.

I think we probably know where this ends.

Thanks - you've done well to try to obtain some sort of breakdown albeit not perhaps that clear !

The problem with all this is that the 'system' the railway operates to has the passenger without a ticket, whether they are deliberate persistent evaders or people who have made an honest mistake like you - over a barrel. The moment you step on a train without a ticket you commit a strict liability offence (just like driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone with a speed camera). The problem is attempts to negotiate over this are always at the risk of the railway saying 'we'll take it to court, you can discuss it with the magistrates...', knowing full well it's a strict liability offence and the magistrates will have little or no option other than to find you guilty of the offence. It's a law that dates back to Victorian times when you couldn't buy a ticket on a phone, you could not get on to a platform without showing a ticket to a chap in a booth etc

Further to this actual fare evasion in the UK seems to me to be fairly problematic on quite a big scale and it's a bit of a cultural thing. I have worked with well paid people who came into the office saying they 'didn't have a ticket check on the train so didn't have to pay today' - I don't think those people would walk out of a shop saying 'no one asked me to pay so I just took my lunch for free' - and this culture ranges through to the obvious deliberate chancers who never seek to pay.

Meanwhile the railway is an industry that takes up vast amounts of government subsidy and the Treasury has placed heavy pressure for this to be reduced - a result is a heavy handed enforcement regime on tickets as that is low hanging fruit.

Thameslink is a big operator that carries many passengers, but although this forum is no robust data source it does not take long to see that cases of ticketing irregularities on Thameslink on the forum might well be equivalent to the ones form most of the other train operators put together - this suggests to me that people use Thameslink and persistently don't pay - the frontline staff have to deal with this, presumably in some sort of vaguely consistent approach.

That brings me on to two of your original questions that are worthy of considering:

• "A procedural error" – waiting three months for any communication. Failure to pick up the phone after multiple daily attempts and voicemails,
• "Lacking transparency", not showing how the figures added up, not letting me know who I was communicating with.

Those, along with your points about the speed of their admin, ability to speak to people on the phone etc, clarity of their replies etc - are valid points - but what would that all cost to improve?

Can you imagine if you could get through on the phone to someone - you'd have all sorts of people trying to verbally press their cases / sob stories / excuses on the phone - how much staff time would that take? How much would it cost? How many fewer cases could each employee handle each day of the hundreds they need to process to get letters out to you in 14 days

There is probably a small team processing hundred of these cases every week. If the admin was more diligent, faster and the breakdowns of each sum demanded more detailed - what would that cost?

And who should pay for that?
- the taxpayer (already subsidising the train service massively)?
- other passengers who do buy the correct ticket, never make a mistake, and pay for this function via increased fares etc?
- or should the cost be spread over the people who are caught without tickets?
I think most people you could ask would opt for that last one - so the settlement offers would clearly then need to be higher to pay for the more thorough approach you suggest - be careful what you wish for ....

Which brings this on to another of your original points

• "A significant inconsistency of approach leading to very different outcomes" – I see passengers buying tickets from the OBS on GTR (Southern) trains daily, yet on GTR Thameslink there is no OBS and no opportunity to buy a ticket,

This inconsistency is an issue. Thameslink has been Driver Only Operation since the 1980s (British Rail era), so that is a system which relies on no on board ticket selling but instead needs a roving inspector that finds people without tickets and reports them for some form of enforcement (Penalty fare or prosecution basically) - Southern had guards on board - the last Government wanted to move to do away with guards on more routes - this was the source of the long running Industrial Action on Southern not so long ago that you probably recall. It does create an inconsistency for the passengers as they move from train to train - but every station on your route will have warning posters saying you are supposed to buy before you board.

My feeling is the government would prefer a 'hostile environment' policy on all these trains - no guards - just spot fines or prosecution for everyone caught without a ticket etc and we have gradually seen this rolled out over other parts of the network (eg Northern)

Thinking about all this from their point of view how do you strike a balance? Both in legislation and in practice on the ground?

In my view it's not an easy one.

 

[AlterEgo]

Checking my notes, Mr X said that the figure of £81 represented the outstanding fare plus a £55 admin cost.

The cost of the ticket from Wivelsfield to Farringdon without a railcard would have been £19.30 (£12.25 with the railcard)

They've probably charged you the £27.20 Anytime Day Single fare to Farringdon which is the fare the customer contract allows them to charge where you board having passed an opportunity to pay. They should have explained this, I agree.

As for administration costs – I had to spend out on two tracked delivery letters because they don't pick up the phone, I made many phone calls costing time and money (contract minutes). I'm being facetious, but... And the lack of transparency in making themselves available and accountable through printing their names on the letters they send should be taken seriously – but I'm well aware this is a matter of opinion about what's reasonable and just, not a matter of law.

You have to understand you're not a customer here. You've committed an offence. They will deal with you as and when is convenient for them.

You really shouldn't call prosecutions teams; they don't want to talk to you over the phone and its rarely in one's interests to do so. All correspondence should be in writing or email to protect yourself, at the very least.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

It's a law that dates back to Victorian times

The bylaws - which are strict liability - do not date to Victorian times; you're confusing this with old laws like the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

[WesternLancer]

The bylaws - which are strict liability - do not date to Victorian times; you're confusing this with old laws like the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Thanks for correcting me

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Aug 2025 ==

The only thing I can think of on this is if there is a clause in the railcards t&cs or the conditions of travel that allows a Disabled Persons railcard holder to buy on board or at the 'first opportunity' on every occasion irrespective of the nature of the disability?

But in any case the ticket office opening hours are below so unless the OP travelled outside of those times (or the ticket office was not open when it should have been and it's a long time ago if that is not known definitively) - the 'first opportunity' would have been the ticket office at the departure station.

Wivelsfield - Opening Hours​

• Opening Hours, Monday to Friday: 06:10 - 19:35
• Opening Hours, Saturday: 06:10 - 19:35
• Opening Hours, Sunday: 09:10 - 16:45

However, the OPs reason for not having a ticket boils down to being distracted by various things when getting to the station. Something that could happen to any of us in the wrong circumstances.

So I'm not sure it would be wise to now start bringing another reason (inability to purchase ticket before departure) into any subsequent discussion with GTR.

 

[GTR]

You really shouldn't call prosecutions teams; they don't want to talk to you over the phone and its rarely in one's interests to do so. All correspondence should be in writing or email to protect yourself, at the very least.

I'm not sure whether you mean shouldn't as in it's not a good idea/it's not in my interest, or shouldn't as in they don't want to talk to me and I'm taking a liberty by wishing to talk to someone – i.e. they're above talking to me.

The reason I called was twofold. Firstly it is usually easier to sort things out/establish the situation by talking to someone rather than sending emails or letters back and forth. Email/post only systems waste a lot of time because you can't clarify details instantly with one word/sentence. Secondly, I'd already sent two tracked letters and the second one was not registering as delivered on the Royal Mail website. I absolutely needed to know whether it was lost or they had received it but the system hadn't registered it. The letter should have been there easily within GTR's deadline, but after giving it a day's leeway I needed to confirm what had happened so I started calling. When I got through to voicemail and was invited to leave a message so they could get back to me, I thought that meant they'd get back to me. I don't think there was an email address to respond to – certainly not one with a named individual. Never trust info@. I really did need to talk to someone.

Incidentally, it may be pedantic but we have been talking about law. I haven't committed an offence until I've been convicted of commiting an offence. That could even be defamation! I haven't even been charged with committing an offence, just accused.

 

[Watershed]

Checking my notes, Mr X said that the figure of £81 represented the outstanding fare plus a £55 admin cost.

The cost of the ticket from Wivelsfield to Farringdon without a railcard would have been £19.30 (£12.25 with the railcard). I then paid £13.30 for the Elizabeth Line. This was the basis for the RPO's actions, what he understood I would do – no dispute over that.

So if we pretend the ticket my wife bought didn't exist, the outstanding fare would be either £19.30 or £12.25, depending on whether he'd been kind enough to let me use my disabled railcard (or my wife's Gold Card). If we accept my wife did buy a ticket for me, but say she shouldn't have used the railcard, the outstanding fare is £7.05 – I think that would be a reasonable calculation. To say there was a full fare outstanding doesn't strike me as reasonable.

The National Rail Conditions of Travel state that they can charge you the undiscounted Anytime single if you board without a valid ticket, unless you were unable to buy a ticket before boarding (e.g. due to lack of working facilities, or them being non-accessible). That would be £27.20 for Wivelsfield to Farringdon, which added to £55 would equal £82.20 - not far off the £81 figure you have.

As you say, it is not reasonable to charge you for a brand new ticket when you have already paid for a ticket. Moreover it is highly questionable how enforceable that part of the NRCoT is. However, it will probably be the basis for how they have calculated the settlement sum they are asking for.

Obviously there's the legal side of this

I appreciate it's not the position you may have hoped for when you created your account and thread - but it's not obvious to me that you accept that the actions you took likely constituted a criminal offence. Particularly when you start saying things like:

I haven't committed an offence until I've been convicted of commiting an offence. That could even be defamation! I haven't even been charged with committing an offence, just accused.

Which demonstrate that you are fundamentally mistaken on how the law works. Someone can commit the offence even if they're never prosecuted or convicted for it; those are entirely separate processes. It is also quite possible to be sued in the County Court for damages caused by an alleged offence, even if there is no conviction. This isn't hypothetical either - we have seen several TOCs threaten to bring civil proceedings where it is too late to bring a prosecution (as there is a 6 month time limit for most railway ticketing related offences), and some actually going ahead with those proceedings.

and then considering what is reasonable or just – which is more a matter of opinion than fact.

With the greatest of respect, in your position it's not really relevant what is reasonable or just. GTR have made you an offer of settlement and it's up to you whether you choose to accept and pay it, or to effectively cut off your nose to spite your face by letting the matter proceed to a prosecution. It will be a 'take it or leave it' offer - there isn't any scope for negotiating, in our experience helping people with these situations.

Now I completely agree that they should act reasonably and comply with the findings of the recent ORR review. But it's not terribly helpful to you and your predicament to observe that they might not be doing so.

As for administration costs – I had to spend out on two tracked delivery letters because they don't pick up the phone, I made many phone calls costing time and money (contract minutes). I'm being facetious, but... And the lack of transparency in making themselves available and accountable through printing their names on the letters they send should be taken seriously – but I'm well aware this is a matter of opinion about what's reasonable and just, not a matter of law.

I'm afraid that since you appear to be in the 'wrong' legally, it is unlikely people are going to have a great deal of sympathy in how much money, time or effort you have spent sorting the situation out.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure whether you mean shouldn't as in it's not a good idea/it's not in my interest, or shouldn't as in they don't want to talk to me and I'm taking a liberty by wishing to talk to someone – i.e. they're above talking to me.

It's not in your interests. It hasn't achieved any result here that wouldn't have anyway been the case, and entering unto unrepresented dialogue with their legal team is fraught with danger. You run the risk of further incriminating yourself (beyond your admission relating to the offence in February), which could lead to difficult questions about your purchase history or an audit of your travels.

I don't think you have quite accepted that what you did - whether you or I agree with the law or not - constitutes a criminal offence. That you committed it is not in question. You admit to doing it and no intent need be proven.

Whether or not the company or the posters here (who all hang out here and do their best to inpartially advise on hundreds if not thousands of cases a year) can convice you of your own naivety isn't my concern, but I hope you will choose to settle the matter instead of being convicted of the offence. This will be vastly more expensive.

 

[jeremyjh]

Ultimately, you've two viable options at this point, given that you admit quite clearly that you committed the offence. There is wise advice from others on what may be considered reasonable, and points of law even. But ultimately, this is the important bit:

... it's not really relevant what is reasonable or just. GTR have made you an offer of settlement and it's up to you whether you choose to accept and pay it, or to effectively cut off your nose to spite your face by letting the matter proceed to a prosecution. It will be a 'take it or leave it' offer - there isn't any scope for negotiating, in our experience helping people with these situations.

Pay the £81 and it will close the matter. It is for less money than we often see here and means you won't be prosecuted. It's not as cheap as not getting caught travelling without a ticket, but it really is the next best thing.

 

[Hadders]

It's not in your interests. It hasn't achieved any result here that wouldn't have anyway been the case, and entering unto unrepresented dialogue with their legal team is fraught with danger. You run the risk of further incriminating yourself (beyond your admission relating to the offence in February), which could lead to difficult questions about your purchase history or an audit of your travels.

I don't think you have quite accepted that what you did - whether you or I agree with the law or not - constitutes a criminal offence. That you committed it is not in question. You admit to doing it and no intent need be proven.

Whether or not the company or the posters here (who all hang out here and do their best to inpartially advise on hundreds if not thousands of cases a year) can convice you of your own naivety isn't my concern, but I hope you will choose to settle the matter instead of being convicted of the offence. This will be vastly more expensive.

I agree with this. It is very unusual for prosecutions departments to discuss things over the phone.

You’re dealing with a criminal investigation, not a ‘cheery chat’ to discuss opinions. These things have to be done formally which is one reason why they won’t normally discuss matters over the phone.

The Disabled Railcard situation is interesting. It doesn’t automatically give you the right to buy on board but if your disability is such that you are cannot to use the ticket machine or ticket office where you start your journey because of your disability then you can board the train and purchase your ticket at the earliest opportunity.

I hesitate to use a non-railway example but it’s a bit like getting caught driving too fast. Most people caught speeding didn’t mean to drive too fast, it was a one-off, got a clean license they feel aggrieved because others speed all the time and don’t get caught etc etc.

The reality is you’re unlikely to get a better offer than the one you’ve got.

 

[GTR]

Many thanks everyone for your help and advice. It has clarified things in my mind.

I want to be clear that I am not in denial about the facts of what happened, the rules and regualtions and the law. If some of what I've said comes across as so, it's probably because I like exploring ideas and can over intellectualise things – which can be infuriating to people, not least those close to me.

I get it about intention or ignorance not being relevant in strict liability offences, such as in the speeding example. I also get it that what is seen as fair or just doesn't come into whether you've broken the law – though judges and magistrates do decide what's just.

I get that the ORR report is a bit of a red herring because it's not mandatory, let alone retrospective. But I think its findings are relevant to discussion because my case ticks a lot of its boxes. I think if it were mandated the outcome of a similar case in future would be different, but that's mere speculation.

What I feel most indignant about is the inconsistency between the two GTR brands I regularly use and the fact that the RPO did have discretion (and he didn't use it with ME ME ME), but I understand that what I consider or feel fair, reasonable or just doesn't come into it.

So thanks, I appreciate that you're probably here to provide practical advice not postulate about rights and wrongs.

 

[Hadders]

Magistrates can be sympathetic but ultimately if the law has been broken then they must find you guilty. What they can do is exercise discretion on what the punishment is. For example they if there were compelling reasons they might give a discharge (effectively no punishment) but that doesn’t remove the conviction).

The other general point is that everyone thinks discretion should be shown in their own case.

 

[cholsey-choose]

There is inconsistency here, others have had to pay far more (such as a bigger admin fee) for the same offence. You broke the law and are getting off easy, and you don’t seem to realise how easy you have it. In this thread you haven’t ever taken any real responsibility for your fare dodging. I mean come on, is luggage really an excuse for not buying a ticket? Many other people also have children.

The rules are clear as day and you broke them.

You should just pay up and call yourself lucky.

 

[WesternLancer]

There is inconsistency here, others have had to pay far more (such as a bigger admin fee) for the same offence. You broke the law and are getting off easy, and you don’t seem to realise how easy you have it. In this thread you haven’t ever taken any real responsibility for your fare dodging. I mean come on, is luggage really an excuse for not buying a ticket? Many other people also have children.

The rules are clear as day and you broke them.

You should just pay up and call yourself lucky.

I think the op regards the sanction as disproportionate to the error as they had no intention to evade the fare so should have been permitted to pay on board because it was a genuine oversight.

 

[cholsey-choose]

Oh sure but on the other hand it *was* an error and others have been treated much more harshly for the same error (higher admin fees etc), and OP has also been lashing out about other things such as the use of first vs last names etc. It all seems like a slightly questionable attempt to get the moral high ground. A bit like complaining that a policeman is badly dressed as he gives you a speeding ticket.

At the end of the day, you don't get on a train without a valid ticket, where there is a chance to buy one. That rule is clear as day. There are plenty of cases where I have some sympathy, mistakes happen, but this isn't one of them. I'm not sure how much I would agree simply not buying a ticket could be "an honest mistake"... maybe buying the wrong ticket or something like that. Or to stick with the speeding analogy, are we going to call being distracted by a child and luggage and doing 50 in a 40 zone an honest mistake too? It's so easy to buy tickets now there are so many ways.

I'm not saying that to have a go at OP, but to say the £80-odd settlement looks like a very good deal!

 

[WesternLancer]

Oh sure but on the other hand it *was* an error and others have been treated much more harshly for the same error (higher admin fees etc),

And of course I can not see how you can have a buy on board policy once you have driver only unstaffed trains. All such trains would need a guard or southern type staff member and the government is not going to agree that

So all on board ticket checking is all about random enforcement checks which is about a penalty driven system not a ‘customer service’ driven approach.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Aug 2025 ==

Oh sure but on the other hand it *was* an error and others have been treated much more harshly for the same error (higher admin fees etc), and OP has also been lashing out about other things such as the use of first vs last names etc. It all seems like a slightly questionable attempt to get the moral high ground. A bit like complaining that a policeman is badly dressed as he gives you a speeding ticket.

At the end of the day, you don't get on a train without a valid ticket, where there is a chance to buy one. That rule is clear as day. There are plenty of cases where I have some sympathy, mistakes happen, but this isn't one of them. I'm not sure how much I would agree simply not buying a ticket could be "an honest mistake"... maybe buying the wrong ticket or something like that. Or to stick with the speeding analogy, are we going to call being distracted by a child and luggage and doing 50 in a 40 zone an honest mistake too? It's so easy to buy tickets now there are so many ways.

I'm not saying that to have a go at OP, but to say the £80-odd settlement looks like a very good deal!

Also the op might perhaps have felt they could have been dealt with more leniently had they been given a penalty fare (as others might have been). The average passenger would have no idea that this was prevented by the action of their wife - no doubt trying to do the right thing - then buying a ticket during the interaction with the inspector. Presumably that was then wasted money.

Having said that the sum demanded is close to the penalty fare plus ticket cost (but that ignores the money spent by the wife on the ticket she bought for the op).

 

[GTR]

In this thread you haven’t ever taken any real responsibility for your fare dodging. I mean come on, is luggage really an excuse for not buying a ticket? Many other people also have children.

The rules are clear as day and you broke them.

You should just pay up and call yourself lucky.

I understand what I did do, what I didn't do, and what the rules are. And I am prepared to take responsibility for that. If it appears that I don't, well I am a little careful about what I write in public online.

But calling it fare dodging suggests you won't believe anything I say, because I maintain merely that there was no intent to dodge a fare. No one at GTR has ever accused me of intending to dodge a fare. It was an accident – buying the ticket was probably the final thing we mentioned as we locked the door to walk to the station. If anything, I hope you'll at least take my word on that.

Without getting too philosophical, there is a difference between an excuse and an explanation of how/why something happened. I'm not trying to avoid responsibility for my actions/inactions, but I do seek to explain them.

I do have queries about some of the procedure, as does the ORR report, but I have no desire to go over that again. And @Hadders is bang on when he says everyone thinks discretion should be shown in their own case.

I don't believe I've been lashing out at anyone, I try to be calm, considered and with good will, and that was certainly the nature of my telephone call with the man at GTR and I hope it comes across here too.

Anyway, I hope to wrap this up in the next couple of days.

 

[012345]

I understand what I did do, what I didn't do, and what the rules are. And I am prepared to take responsibility for that.

I’d recommend brevity. If you’d left this post at what I’ve quoted, I’d believe you were being sincere.