Greater Anglia Travel Irregularity

[pleasehelp1234]

Hi there,
I’ve received the initial email from GA, saying there has been travel irregularities on my account. I responded asking for more info, and they responded saying it looked as though I was not paying my full fair from Stratford to Billericay, and that I was only paying from Shenfield to Billericay (true, on a handful of occasions). I don’t understand how they can prove that my travel wasn’t just from Shenfield to Billericay, and that I could have been tapping on the Elizabeth line to get into London. Would they have evidence to dispute this?

Please may you advise on how best to respond? I obviously don’t want this to go to court and am happy to pay, but I want to be careful about the wording I use.

Also, has anyone ever had success with just not responding at all? I’ve read through a lot of these posts and the advice consistently seems to be ‘don’t respond, depending on your appetite for risk’, and ‘the responsibility is on GA to prove the wrongdoing, not on the individual’.

Thank you so much for your advice.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

HI don’t understand how they can prove that my travel wasn’t just from Shenfield to Billericay, and that I could have been tapping on the Elizabeth line to get into London. Would they have evidence to dispute this?

According to the second letter, they claim to have have evidence that tickets were purchased after departure. That might give them enough to threaten prosecution if you decline to settle. Using online ticket purchasing leaves a large digital footprint which is fairly simple to interrogate. They could also potentially investigate usage of the Elizabeth Line by Oyster or Contactless.

 

[methecooldude]

Also the second image there states "These tickets have been scanned on the barriers just after purchase"... and considering Shenfield has a gateline which the tickets wouldnt have been scanned it, probably decent to assume they know what you have been up to

 

[pleasehelp1234]

Does admitting to wrongdoing mean they will prosecute? Or are you still able to settle if you have admitted to wrongdoing?

 

[Titfield]

Does admitting to wrongdoing mean they will prosecute? Or are you still able to settle if you have admitted to wrongdoing?

Admitting to wrong doing is an essential precursor to being offered an out of court settlement.

TOCs will not normally offer an out of court settlement if you refuse to acknowledge your wrong doing because they will believe that if you do not agree you were in the wrong you will do it (fare evade) again.

 

[pleasehelp1234]

Admitting to wrong doing is an essential precursor to being offered an out of court settlement.

TOCs will not normally offer an out of court settlement if you refuse to acknowledge your wrong doing because they will believe that if you do not agree you were in the wrong you will do it (fare evade) again.

So in order to just pay the out of court settlement and for the whole thing to go away, you need to admit to wrongdoing?

What are the chances of admitting to wrongdoing and them refusing to settle out of court?

@Hadders i have seen a lot of your advice and trust you as an advisor!

 

[Hadders]

I don't have as much time these days to get involved in individual cases but Greater Anglia normally will normally settle these matters without having to go to court as long as you co-operate with them.

You'll find plenty of examples in other threads in this section of this forum demonstrating this. Forum members will be happy to assist in proof reading your reply if you post it in this thread.

 

[Titfield]

So in order to just pay the out of court settlement and for the whole thing to go away, you need to admit to wrongdoing?

What are the chances of admitting to wrongdoing and them refusing to settle out of court?

@Hadders i have seen a lot of your advice and trust you as an advisor!

If you refuse to accept an out of court settlement offer (and it is an offer) then there are two possibilities:
1. The TOC will take No Further Action
2. The TOC will take you to court where there are a number of possibilities: plead not guilty and found guilty or found not guilty, plead guilty.

The TOC may decide to take no further action if they are not confident they will succeed at court.

It is for the TOC at court to prove your guilt not for you to prove your innocence but bear in mind what evidence they may have and how this would sound in court if you think it is not definitive proof.

If you do not accept that your actions were wrong then you should put them to proof.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi there,
I’ve received the initial email from GA, saying there has been travel irregularities on my account. I responded asking for more info, and they responded saying it looked as though I was not paying my full fair from Stratford to Billericay, and that I was only paying from Shenfield to Billericay (true, on a handful of occasions). I don’t understand how they can prove that my travel wasn’t just from Shenfield to Billericay, and that I could have been tapping on the Elizabeth line to get into London. Would they have evidence to dispute this?

You have, at the very least, been caught buying a ticket on approach or arrival to Billericay; they know this from the purchase time and the time of scan to exit at Billericay. So there is, at minimum, evidence of a Bylaw offence but only if you admit to being the person who travelled.

Leave these fishing emails well alone and pay your fares properly.

 

[tatitiliti]

Hi there,
I’ve received the initial email from GA, saying there has been travel irregularities on my account. I responded asking for more info, and they responded saying it looked as though I was not paying my full fair from Stratford to Billericay, and that I was only paying from Shenfield to Billericay (true, on a handful of occasions). I don’t understand how they can prove that my travel wasn’t just from Shenfield to Billericay, and that I could have been tapping on the Elizabeth line to get into London. Would they have evidence to dispute this?

Please may you advise on how best to respond? I obviously don’t want this to go to court and am happy to pay, but I want to be careful about the wording I use.

Also, has anyone ever had success with just not responding at all? I’ve read through a lot of these posts and the advice consistently seems to be ‘don’t respond, depending on your appetite for risk’, and ‘the responsibility is on GA to prove the wrongdoing, not on the individual’.

Thank you so much for your help

@AlterEgo is correct - as long as you haven’t admitted to anything, don’t respond any further and ignore all future correspondence. Responding only can benefit Greater Anglia, not you! And you’re on their radar, so buy a valid ticket from now!

To bring a successful criminal prosecution, they realistically have to catch you in the act or you need to incriminate yourself in your response - so leave these fishing trips well alone.

They could try to file a civil claim as the burden of evidence is much lower, but this is very rare for Greater Anglia and there’s no threat of a criminal record or (comparatively) large fine if they do this.

 

[LYradial]

I would ask that as any ticket bought after a journey begins cannot be transferred then does the purchaser remain liable for its use

 

[AlterEgo]

I would ask that as any ticket bought after a journey begins cannot be transferred

Does it not? Where is that written? It makes no sense, because I could buy tickets for my wife and I on the train and the second ticket would still be hers and valid for her use.

 

[LYradial]

Does it not? Where is that written? It makes no sense, because I could buy tickets for my wife and I on the train and the second ticket would still be hers and valid for her use.

National Rail conditions of travel 5. 1. 2

 

[Starmill]

National Rail conditions of travel 5. 1. 2

It doesn't say you can't buy a ticket for someone else. It says (to paraphrase into my own meaning here - others may challenge the interpretation I'm making) you may only buy a ticket for a particular person, and that person can't be changed in certain circumstances, such as once the journey on that ticket has been started.

Put another way, you can't buy a ticket for persons unknown, and you can't have a ticket that's being used by more than one person. There are other rules too, for example tickets named for particular people which can never be transferred.

 

[LYradial]

It doesn't say you can't buy a ticket for someone else. It says (to paraphrase into my own meaning here - others may challenge the interpretation I'm making) you may only buy a ticket for a particular person, and that person can't be changed in certain circumstances, such as once the journey on that ticket has been started.

Put another way, you can't buy a ticket for persons unknown, and you can't have a ticket that's being used by more than one person. There are other rules too, for example tickets named for particular people which can never be transferred.

muy interpretation is. That when a railway company is fishing and a ticket bought by you has been used incorrectly you cannot dismiss your liability by saying it must’ve been someone else as allowing it to be used by someone else is wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

muy interpretation is. That when a railway company is fishing and a ticket bought by you has been used incorrectly you cannot dismiss your liability by saying it must’ve been someone else as allowing it to be used by someone else is wrong.

That isn't what it means at all. If your logic applied then a person could never buy a ticket on behalf of another on the train. Also, your logic makes no sense. How does this:

A Ticket may be transferred by the person who bought that Ticket to another person, but only if:

5.1.1 the Ticket has not been made out in the passenger's name (which includes where the passenger is identified by a designated Railcard, photocard or other identifying means); and

5.1.2 the journey has not begun (for example, if you intend to transfer a return Ticket you must not have used the outward portion of that return Ticket, or if you intend to transfer a Season Ticket you must not have used it for any journeys already); and

5.1.3 the transfer is not a resale for more than the price paid for the Ticket by the person who first purchased it from a Train Company or a Licensed Retailer.

mean you are liable for the use of every single ticket you purchase, regardless of whether or not you were the one who travelled? Note the Condition here is clarified by saying effectively "you can't use part of the ticket and then give it to someone else, this is what we mean here", and "journey" here means "the beginning of validity of the ticket" and is unrelated to stepping on a train or not.

You are posting misinformation; you are simply wrong and this is unhelpful to the OP. A train company has never quoted these Conditions to make someone, in some way, liable for every ticket they purchase because it is literally not what the Conditions say. It also isn't what the Bylaws or Regulation of Railways Act 1889 say either.

 

[Starmill]

muy interpretation is. That when a railway company is fishing and a ticket bought by you has been used incorrectly you cannot dismiss your liability by saying it must’ve been someone else as allowing it to be used by someone else is wrong.

It's not. The ticket may be used by someone else.

 

[LYradial]

It's not. The ticket may be used by someone else.

I have no wish to disrupt the thread but will only say that the ticket may be used by someone else but the contract and its obligations remain with the original purchaser unless you actually transfer it under the concessions granted by the railway.

 

[Cantab26]

This is not necessarily so as a matter of law. This post is accordingly misleading.

 

[Starmill]

I have no wish to disrupt the thread but will only say that the ticket may be used by someone else but the contract and its obligations remain with the original purchaser unless you actually transfer it under the concessions granted by the railway.

The person who undertakes the act of payment is not necessarily the person who has the obligation / entitlement on one side of the contract. They regularly are a third party.

 

[LYradial]

This is not necessarily so as a matter of law. This post is accordingly misleading.

you may wish to report my post to a moderator if this is so