Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
After reviewing the spreadsheet I can already identify a glaring error. On the 11/04/2024 I was allegedly travelling from London to Liverpool, however on the 12/04/2024, one day later, I was stopped travelling from London to Taunton. Therefore, I think I have reasonable grounds to claim that I wasn't on that train, especially since tickets are non-refundable.
They could argue that you could have taken the train back with a ticket booked separately (e.g. at a ticket office or ticket machine, or bought by a friend/family member).
That said, I agree that it is fairly unlikely you would take a 22:00 train from London, arriving into Liverpool at nearly 1am, and then get back to London in time for the 10:35 from Paddington. That would probably require you to leave Liverpool on the 06:43, leaving you just 6 hours to get to/from home and sleep. An unlikely prospect, even if not totally impossible.
The fact that the tickets are non-refundable doesn't necessarily prove whether they were or weren't used. If the tickets were scanned at a check before boarding in Euston or onboard, then that would provdie strong evidence they were used. A lack of scans wouldn't prove they weren't used though - sometimes there are just no checks, or they are only visual.
Also, I am not trying to claim I maybe got a lift. I frequently would buy tickets in advance and then get lifts if they were available closer to the date. I fully intend to back up my claim with photos and bank statements from the time period. Its just a struggle to find bank statements from so long ago.
It doesn't sound particularly plausible to have a cheap (£11-16), non-refundable tickets for fast or relatively quick trains taking 2-3 hours and then choose to take a lift taking 4+ hours instead. I think you need to consider how that story would look to an impartial outsider (i.e. a judge if it went to Court).
Perhaps you have TfL bank records from using contactless or Oyster in London around those dates? Again, that wouldn't 100% prove anything this far back (unless you happened to have the emailed travel statements turned on), but it would perhaps suggest that you were in the London area around those dates.
After reviewing the spreadsheet I can already identify a glaring error. On the 11/04/2024 I was allegedly travelling from London to Liverpool, however on the 12/04/2024, one day later, I was stopped travelling from London to Taunton. Therefore, I think I have reasonable grounds to claim that I wasn't on that train, especially since tickets are non-refundable.
Yes that one jumped out to me as being odd. I would be tempted to push back on GWR on that one politely but firmly, particularly if you've got something to help demonstrate that you were in London and didn't travel to Liverpool and then magically back to London.
Also, I am not trying to claim I maybe got a lift. I frequently would buy tickets in advance and then get lifts if they were available closer to the date. I fully intend to back up my claim with photos and bank statements from the time period. Its just a struggle to find bank statements from so long ago.
That's fine but you can of course appreciate that GWR (and potentially a court) would look somewhat sceptically on that claim that just so happens to absolve you of liability! That's all we're trying to make you aware of
So your first response can be that you didn't make journey #4, and ask them to delete that. Experience says that most train operators will agree.
A second stage reply might be to offer to pay the appropriate walk-up fares rather than the Anytime for #2,#3,#5 - £77.20, £79.80, £60.20 at current prices (#1 was Anytime if it was a weekday).
This is arguably more than the court should award, so might be acceptable.
So your first response can be that you didn't make journey #4, and ask them to delete that. Experience says that most train operators will agree.
A second stage reply might be to offer to pay the appropriate walk-up fares rather than the Anytime for #2,#3,#5 - £77.20, £79.80, £60.20 at current prices (#1 was Anytime if it was a weekday).
This is arguably more than the court should award, so might be acceptable.
Personally, I would suggest offering to pay the difference between the fares you actually bought, and the undiscounted costs for those same fares*. Then again, I personally wouldn't agree to pay more than I would reasonably expect the court to award, in part because I am probably less scared of legal action than most people.
*As the railcard gives 1/3 off, that is simply half of the fare OP actually paid. I would calculate that amount for the journeys you made, and offer to pay them that.
I appreciate being made aware of how GWR and the court would see it. I was a student at the time so would make the journey fairly frequently. I would plan to back up my point with a testimony from my dad as well as receipts from the M6 Toll etc. to back it up, but I will focus on the journeys that I know for sure about.
I am definitely going to claim that I was not on the train on the 11/04/2024, as I can prove that I was in London and not Liverpool, through bank statements. The West Midlands anytime fare being less is a good spot, I will bring this up in my first email.
I will write up a first draft to send to the Prosecutions Administration Officer. @Watershed I have read portions of your letter in the thread you sent. I agree that the administration costs are not explicitly mentioned in the costs that they are able to charge me and will be disputing those. I will also question decision to charge me fares which are up to fifteen times the fare that I originally paid.
I am not sure whether to make a counter-offer for a settlement at this point. I don't want to take the Michael and lowball them. To be honest, if I can get a settlement as low as £450, I would see that as a major win.
I appreciate being made aware of how GWR and the court would see it. I was a student at the time so would make the journey fairly frequently. I would plan to back up my point with a testimony from my dad as well as receipts from the M6 Toll etc. to back it up, but I will focus on the journeys that I know for sure about.
M6 Toll receipts plus your father's testimony may count for something, but the train company may suggest that it only shows your father's car made that journey - it doesn't necessarily prove who was in it.
That being said, any evidence you can use to disprove their allegations is worthwhile. It will increase the probability that they accept a lower settlement if they're less confident of their case (or see that you are prepared to defend it).
I am definitely going to claim that I was not on the train on the 11/04/2024, as I can prove that I was in London and not Liverpool, through bank statements. The West Midlands anytime fare being less is a good spot, I will bring this up in my first email.
I will write up a first draft to send to the Prosecutions Administration Officer. @Watershed I have read portions of your letter in the thread you sent. I agree that the administration costs are not explicitly mentioned in the costs that they are able to charge me and will be disputing those. I will also question decision to charge me fares which are up to fifteen times the fare that I originally paid.
I am not sure whether to make a counter-offer for a settlement at this point. I don't want to take the Michael and lowball them. To be honest, if I can get a settlement as low as £450, I would see that as a major win.
No problem. Let us know if you'd like us to proof-read the reply you want to send.
I think it makes sense to send a counter-offer - if the matter should ultimately proceed to Court, it is important to be seen as acting reasonably. A starting point would be either the foregone Railcard revenue if you want to be cheeky, or if you want to put forth a realistic offer then I would say the discount wrongly obtained (i.e. 50% of the fares paid).
I think it is feasible, even if not guaranteed, that you can bring the cost down to £450 or less.
I appreciate being made aware of how GWR and the court would see it. I was a student at the time so would make the journey fairly frequently. I would plan to back up my point with a testimony from my dad as well as receipts from the M6 Toll etc. to back it up, but I will focus on the journeys that I know for sure about.
I am definitely going to claim that I was not on the train on the 11/04/2024, as I can prove that I was in London and not Liverpool, through bank statements. The West Midlands anytime fare being less is a good spot, I will bring this up in my first email.
I will write up a first draft to send to the Prosecutions Administration Officer. @Watershed I have read portions of your letter in the thread you sent. I agree that the administration costs are not explicitly mentioned in the costs that they are able to charge me and will be disputing those. I will also question decision to charge me fares which are up to fifteen times the fare that I originally paid.
I am not sure whether to make a counter-offer for a settlement at this point. I don't want to take the Michael and lowball them. To be honest, if I can get a settlement as low as £450, I would see that as a major win.
Ref this approach I would strongly urge you to share a draft of what you intend to send them in writing when you have prepared it - before you send them anything.
You've had some excellent advice here from people who helped someone bring a demand from GWR for serval £ks to several hundred in circumstances very similar to your own. You've been on a pretty steep learning curve from your first post last night I suspect - so it's vital that the wording you use is as good as it can be - and that means using the sort of language the railway will understand as well as putting forward an argument that they will hopefully, if ultimately, regard as 'reasonable' - and indeed a court would consider reasonable if it ever got to that (hopefully it won't). My view is if you press for a really low offer (like an undiscounted version of a ticket that cost you £15 with a discount applied that you were not entitled to) they will think you are taking the mick and harden their stance.
Taking people to court and securing money from them is the raison d'etre of a revenue protection team like this - it's bread and butter work. Meanwhile I suspect it's not a line of activity (defending yourself in court) that you probably have much experience of. So tread carefully.
A starting point might be to think 'what would have happened if the first ticket inspector who checked your ticket on the first train travelled on noticed your Railcard had expired?' - if they had done you a favour and not reported you for this style of enforcement. The answer to that is (as you hear on on train announcements sometimes) is that they would have made you buy a new ticket - either at the full Anytime rate or if you were lucky at an off peak rate 'walk up fare' rate if you were on an off peak train eg along the lines of as per post #33
It sounds form your post that you may be thinking along those lines as you post in #35
Obviously just my view
But people here will help you get your reply to the railway as good as it can be. In general terms, make the tone business like but not conflictual.
Doesn't a saga like this suggest that the disadvantage of being traceable via an account with a seller of rail tickets can well outweigh the inconvenience of using ticket offices/TVMs for all rail journeys?
@WesternLancer I am very aware that I have been given excellent advice from members of the forum and the experience I have found here has been invaluable.
@Watershed I know that the evidence is pretty flimsy, I'm just spit balling all the information I have which may be relevant.
Here is a very basic first draft of my first appeal email. Please don't be too hard, I've just typed it out quickly. I have another draft including the consumer rights act, analysis of the NRCoT, among other things. I want to see how far I could get with initial questioning as to why I never received a penalty fare notice on the spot, as is set out in The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations. I am still unsure as to why I didn't just get a penalty fare in the first place since I would've paid it.
I would like to acknowledge the fact that on 12/04/2024 I was travelling with a ticket discounted by a railcard which was invalid. I admit that this was a mistake on my part, and I would like it to be known that I was unaware that my railcard was expired and the offence was in good faith.
Under the Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations, my ticket was rendered invalid by the fact that I had unknowingly used an expired railcard. Therefore, under section 5(1) “a collector may charge that person a penalty fare”.
Section 5(2) states that the collector must provide me with certain information regarding the penalty fare, some of which I never received.
Under section 9(1A,b) the amount of the penalty fare would have amounted to £93.52. Instead of the procedure set out under the regulations, I did not receive this initial fare and have instead received a pre-court settlement offer.
I am unsure why the penalty fare has been skipped, and I have been given a settlement offer instead, a year and a half after the offences took place. Since I was never provided with a penalty fare, or the relevant information, I was unable to appeal according to the process outlined in section 16 of the regulations.
Obviously, the language will be changed and the email structured properly, but this is the argument I was going to begin with and see where that got me. As to the relevance of my argument, I would love for people to weigh in as to whether or not I'm on the right track or not.
Evidence from this forum suggests a reluctance to issue a penalty fare for an expired railcard. The logic behind this being that they can investigate digital ticket buying histories and try to hit the passenger with a much higher demand as an out of court settlement to stop them prosecuting. They do sometimes pick up monstrous amounts of unentitled discounted travel.
In this case, it seems they've left it too late for a straightforward prosecution and are putting their faith in threats of civil action.
Doesn't a saga like this suggest that the disadvantage of being traceable via an account with a seller of rail tickets can well outweigh the inconvenience of using ticket offices/TVMs for all rail journeys?
Here is a very basic first draft of my first appeal email. Please don't be too hard, I've just typed it out quickly. I have another draft including the consumer rights act, analysis of the NRCoT, among other things. I want to see how far I could get with initial questioning as to why I never received a penalty fare notice on the spot, as is set out in The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations. I am still unsure as to why I didn't just get a penalty fare in the first place since I would've paid it.
Obviously, the language will be changed and the email structured properly, but this is the argument I was going to begin with and see where that got me. As to the relevance of my argument, I would love for people to weigh in as to whether or not I'm on the right track or not.
It is ultimately always down to the discretion of an individual member of staff how they choose to deal with an irregularity. They will no doubt have some sort of guidelines for when to proceed down each path, but the decision remains theirs.
It's unfortunate that the RPI you encountered decided to report you for prosecution rather than issuing a Penalty Fare, but you also shouldn't be under any illusions that a PF would necessarily mean the end of the story. We have seen cases of some TOCs bringing action against people for previous journeys when being issued with a PF too, so this kind of process can start in multiple ways.
Without wanting to be rude, I don't think there is any point in sending the kind of email you have drafted there. It doesn't change your legal liability towards GWR (or other TOCs) for the irregularities that happened; it's not any kind of defence. The morals of the situation don't help you and they'll probably just say they're entitled to deal with it in whichever way they choose (selling a new ticket, issuing a PF or reporting for prosecution), under NRCoT condition 9.2.
I think you will have more success in challenging:
a) which journeys you actually made,
b) which journeys they are entitled to claim for (i.e. whether this includes ones on Avanti/WMT), and
c) what the amount should be for each journey (i.e. can they claim for an Anytime single or should be based on the fare you paid, or something in between).
@WesternLancer I am very aware that I have been given excellent advice from members of the forum and the experience I have found here has been invaluable.
@Watershed I know that the evidence is pretty flimsy, I'm just spit balling all the information I have which may be relevant.
Here is a very basic first draft of my first appeal email. Please don't be too hard, I've just typed it out quickly. I have another draft including the consumer rights act, analysis of the NRCoT, among other things. I want to see how far I could get with initial questioning as to why I never received a penalty fare notice on the spot, as is set out in The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations. I am still unsure as to why I didn't just get a penalty fare in the first place since I would've paid it.
Obviously, the language will be changed and the email structured properly, but this is the argument I was going to begin with and see where that got me. As to the relevance of my argument, I would love for people to weigh in as to whether or not I'm on the right track or not.
But 'may' does not mean 'must'. So as the railway officer chose not to charge a penalty fare, at that point the Penalty Fare Regs become irrelevant.
You might want to still ask why you weren't issued a penalty fare - but an answer we have seen before on this list is that experience has shown the railways that someone who hasn't got a valid railcard may very well have made other journeys without a valid railcard: if you're given a penalty fare, in practice that closes you off for investigation for the other occurrences as well. And your case is quite a good example of this in that the railway have uncovered other occasions when you had a ticket requiring a railcard, but no railcard. It's not a perfect example in that the railway have then taken an excessive length of time to contact you, and you dispute that you used all of the tickets that you bought - but the point's still there.
Added to the above comments, the letter currently feels a bit too aggressive, in the sense that it comes across as "you didn't do things correctly". I would try and keep it as non-confrontational as possible, in terms of offering a reasonable amount to cover the railway's losses.
Ok, this is useful information. When I was reading the regulations I couldn’t tell whether or not the penalty fare was a first step as a pre-court settlement seemed to me like an escalation. The fact that the inspector let me know I’d be getting fined but didn’t seem to follow any of the relevant steps regarding fares confused me a bit.
@John R I appreciate the comment, my final draft will be phrased properly but this was just a quick outline of some points I thought might be relevant to get checked by the forum.
@WesternLancer I am very aware that I have been given excellent advice from members of the forum and the experience I have found here has been invaluable.
@Watershed I know that the evidence is pretty flimsy, I'm just spit balling all the information I have which may be relevant.
Here is a very basic first draft of my first appeal email. Please don't be too hard, I've just typed it out quickly. I have another draft including the consumer rights act, analysis of the NRCoT, among other things. I want to see how far I could get with initial questioning as to why I never received a penalty fare notice on the spot, as is set out in The Railways (Penalty Fares) Regulations. I am still unsure as to why I didn't just get a penalty fare in the first place since I would've paid it.
Obviously, the language will be changed and the email structured properly, but this is the argument I was going to begin with and see where that got me. As to the relevance of my argument, I would love for people to weigh in as to whether or not I'm on the right track or not.
- don’t use forms of words that infer or could be interpreted as admitting any sort of ‘offence’ on your part.
- rather turn it round. You can accept your railcard had expired but eg say ‘this was a genuine mistake on my part but please be assured I never had any intention to evade paying my correct fare’
- don’t talk about Penalty Fares in my view. It’s all irrelevant to the outcome you are seeking. Nothing related to what happened has anything to do with penalty fares in my view.
- at the start thank them for their letter and list of travel in question. Express some (mild) surprise - but better words required - at the period of time that has elapsed since you were advised on the train your railcard had expired (ie hint you know they can’t prosecute you in their usual approach).
- maybe at this stage you don’t even need to tell them that they can’t bring a prosecution. You just make a reasonable counter offer based on the correct fares for the journeys you took at the relevant times of day eg off peak / peak and see what they say. When they reject that offer you maybe firm up on things. But the approaching the other thread is a useful guide on this aspect.
I am back with a new draft. A few things to consider. This is a very basic draft so don't be too harsh, however criticism is welcome. I am not used to this kind of correspondence so I know that some things may not be worded right etc. I do have until the 28th October so I have plenty of time to sort it out.
I have plagiarised quite heavily from @Watershed on a previous thread, since I found the letter to describe exactly the situation I am in.
I have not included a conclusion as of yet as I'm not sure what I should offer instead. When I calculated what I actually saved on these journeys, my savings only amounted to £29.87. Although it would be completely reasonable to offer this, I worry that GWR would not appreciate my assessment and I would be better off in the long-run offering something more substantial.
Also, when it comes to phrasing, the section arguing that I am not liable to pay GWR for journeys taken with different TOCs conflicts with the offer of £29.87. Would I be better off just offering to pay for the GWR journey?
Obviously the email will be formatted properly as its a bit of an eyesore at the moment. Again, this was just a quick draft.
Any input is appreciated...
Hello ...
Thank you for your first letter. It was somewhat surprising at first to receive it, given the time since I was informed that I was travelling with an invalid ticket. I would like you to be aware that it was not my intention at all to pay an incorrect fare and I was unaware that my railcards expiry date elapsed.
After taking some time to fully review your letter and the timeline of travel, I have found some discrepancies and issues which mean I am cannot accept liability for the full amount of unpaid fares you have listed.
For the journey on the 08/01/2024, you have charged me the same charge as an Avanti West Coast train, yet the recorded fare setting TOC is West Midlands. West Midlands trains have a cheaper Anytime Single costing £77.20. Therefore, under the NRCoT(2024), which you are applying to my case, this is the maximum fare I could be charged for the journey.
Also, I contest that I was travelling without a valid railcard on all the journeys. As can be seen within the timeline of travel, I had tickets on both 11/04/2024 and 12/04/2024. On the 11th, the ticket was for 22:00 from London Euston to Liverpool, while on the 12th I had a much earlier train due for 10:35, heading from London Terminals to Taunton. The train to Taunton was the train on which I was told I was travelling without a valid ticket. It would’ve been impossible for me to travel to Liverpool the evening prior, as I would not have had time to make it back to London in time to make the London-Taunton train. This was due to a last-minute change in plans where I had to help a friend move. I did not cancel my previous ticket since it was a non-refundable advance single. Therefore, I can prove that on the 11/04/2024 I was not travelling without a valid ticket.
There are also some issues with the methodology of calculating my fee which prevent me from accepting full liability. Section 9.2 of the NRCoT(2024) does not include any mention of charging administrative fees, although you are using this section to justify charging anytime fares. I hope you understand that I cannot accept the additional administrative fees given that there is no legal basis for me to pay them.
Secondly, when purchasing a ticket and travelling with GWR, I entered a contract with the Train Company. As page 4 of the NRCoT(2024) states,
When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.
GWR was a train company unrelated to four out of the five tickets I am being charged for. GWR was not party to the contracts I entered with the other Train Companies in question. Therefore, there is no contractual basis for you to seek payment from in relation to those tickets.
While you may be authorised to seek outstanding fares on behalf of other companies, I would not want to be in a situation where other Train Companies were to seek outstanding fares at a later date, which would make me liable to paying the fares twice.
Lastly, I find some issues with the enforcement and application of section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT(2024). Under the Consumer Rights Act (2015), section 62, “an unfair term of a consumer contract is not legally binding”. Under schedule 2 of the act, paragraph 6 includes “a term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”.
In one instance I allegedly saved £3.85 by using a 16-25 railcard and in response, section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT(2024) is being used to charge me fares up to fifteen times what I originally paid. I argue that this constitutes as a term which is being used to charge me a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
The basis of the claim relies on section 9.2.1, however its application appears to be incorrect in this instance.
If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on
The section clearly refers to the “train that you are on” in the present tense. This leads me to believe that this is intended as an option for the ticket inspecting staff on board the train. Using this clause retrospectively, almost two years after the original incident, appears to misrepresent how it is phrased and how it was intended to be used.
For the reasons listed above, I cannot accept full liability for the claims made against me. I do, however, wish to resolve this matter quickly, without further action.
It's helpful to number the points/paragraphs. This clearly separates different arguments you're putting forward and makes them easy to reference.
Where accepting a particular argument A makes another argument B irrelevant, put that argument A before the other B.
For example, if you accept that GWR isn't authorised to act on behalf of the other train companies. the fact they got one of those other fares wrong doesn't matter, so mention the point about the different train companies before the point about the wrong fare (and mention the connection).
It's helpful to number the points/paragraphs. This clearly separates different arguments you're putting forward and makes them easy to reference.
Where accepting a particular argument A makes another argument B irrelevant, put that argument A before the other B.
For example, if you accept that GWR isn't authorised to act on behalf of the other train companies. the fact they got one of those other fares wrong doesn't matter, so mention the point about the different train companies before the point about the wrong fare.
As to how much to offer, you start with the amount based on all your arguments being accepted. Optionally you could add on something appropriate towards their costs (at a level no higher than they'd receive in court). It's a negotiation so you can anticipate that you might later agree to pay them a bit more than your initial offer. You should show some goodwill but not initially offer the highest amount you're prepared to pay,. The guiding principle is what you think it would cost you if it went to court.
They're asking a flat rate of £90 for their costs which seems excessive to me. I have no idea what they might receive in court so I'm not going to offer them anything. After reading other threads and the GWR revenue protection policy, I think I have pre-empted what they might say. I have a final draft ready, I will email them tomorrow morning and I will update this thread once I get a response.
I did question one thing. In most cases appeals need to be handled at some stage by an independent third-party, but I am just communicating directly with the Revenue Protection officer. Is this normal and will any stage be reviewed by an independent party? Or is the assumption that because they have expressed an intention to take me to court, a judge will end up being the one to review my appeal?
I did question one thing. In most cases appeals need to be handled at some stage by an independent third-party, but I am just communicating directly with the Revenue Protection officer. Is this normal and will any stage be reviewed by an independent party? Or is the assumption that because they have expressed an intention to take me to court, a judge will end up being the one to review my appeal?
There is no appeal stage and you are not appealing. This is the same as in basically any civil litigation. The parties are expected to attempt to come to a resolution themselves and if they cannot and one sues the other then the court will rule on any remaining matters between the parties.
Penalty fare concepts are not relevant to your situation.
To be blunt and repeat myself: you are not appealing.
You have no right to appeal.
You have not been penalty fared; you were reported for prosecution and now this has lapsed the company's realistic avenue is a civil claim against you for the breach/es of contract. No appeals body will be involved. The company says you owe them a sum of money, which you dispute, and something for the civil courts to sort out. No different to being accused of underpaying a bill, forgetting to pay your window cleaner, etc etc.
Not your "appeal", but your defence. You will be the defendant in court if you are sued by GWR, and the court will - if it gets that far - adjudge your liability. Defences based on material facts ("I wasn't there" etc) will be considered on the balance of probabilities only, and not "sure" or "beyond reasonable doubt".
They're asking a flat rate of £90 for their costs which seems excessive to me. I have no idea what they might receive in court so I'm not going to offer them anything. After reading other threads and the GWR revenue protection policy, I think I have pre-empted what they might say. I have a final draft ready, I will email them tomorrow morning and I will update this thread once I get a response.
I did question one thing. In most cases appeals need to be handled at some stage by an independent third-party, but I am just communicating directly with the Revenue Protection officer. Is this normal and will any stage be reviewed by an independent party? Or is the assumption that because they have expressed an intention to take me to court, a judge will end up being the one to review my appeal?
Would you like to share your final draft before sending? Might be worth a last look. As you said plenty of time to get this right.
As others have said there is no appeal process. Only penalty fares have a right of appeal. Your situation has nothing to do with a penalty fare. No connection whatsoever.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The going rate for admin charges is about £150 but that is when the railway company can make payment of that a condition of them granting an out of court settlement in respect of criminal prosecution. But they have lost that ability in your case because of their delay. So probably don’t offer anything for admin and don’t even mention it in what is essentially your first response to them offering them a sum.
Apologies for the confusion with the appeal. The revenue protections officer instructed me to send my 'appeal' to her, using that exact phrasing. I do not have any misconception that my case is related to a penalty fare. I just thought her phrasing suggested they had some kind of set process as they are state owned, I don't know. Anyway, here is my final draft. After reading the response that this similar letter received #111 I am fairly confident. I have tried to pre-empt what they will say regarding their revenue protection policy.
Thank you for your first letter. It was somewhat surprising at first to receive it, given the time since I was informed that I was travelling with an invalid ticket. I would like you to be aware that it was not my intention at all to pay an incorrect fare and I was unaware that my railcards expiry date elapsed.
After taking some time to fully review your letter and the timeline of travel, I have found some discrepancies and issues which mean I am cannot accept liability for the full amount of unpaid fares you have listed.
Journeys you were not party to
The list of journeys taken which I am being charged for includes journeys which do not include those operated by GWR. As the NRCoT (2024) lays out clearly within its fourth page,
When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.
Four out of the five journeys listed include tickets which did not permit me to travel on GWR trains. This means that for four out of the five journeys, you were not party to the binding contract between me and the Train Companies involved.
While Officers of the Railway may be authorised to seek outstanding fares on the behalf of other companies, there is no contractual basis for a claim against me regarding these tickets. Unless you have been specifically requested to do so, accepting these claims could place me in a position where I am liable to pay the charges twice, if the other train companies later decided to bring separate claims against me.
I hope you understand that for this reason I cannot accept liability for the journeys you have listed, other than the one made on 12/04/2024.
To illustrate my point, there are multiple discrepancies found within the claims that do not include GWR. These also prevent me from accepting full liability for the claims made against me.
For the journey on the 08/01/2024, you have charged me the same charge as an Avanti West Coast train, yet the recorded fare setting TOC is West Midlands. West Midlands trains have a cheaper Anytime Single costing £77.20. Therefore, under the NRCoT (2024), which you are applying to my case, this is the maximum fare I could be charged for the journey.
Also, I contest that I was travelling without a valid railcard on all the journeys. As can be seen within the timeline of travel, I had tickets on both 11/04/2024 and 12/04/2024. On the 11th, the ticket was for 22:00 from London Euston to Liverpool, while on the 12th I had a much earlier train due for 10:35, heading from London Terminals to Taunton. The train to Taunton was the train on which I was told I was travelling without a valid ticket. It would’ve been impossible for me to travel to Liverpool the evening prior, as I would not have had time to make it back to London in time to make the London-Taunton train. This was due to a last-minute change in plans where I had to help a friend move. I did not cancel my previous ticket since it was a non-refundable advance single. Therefore, I can prove that on the 11/04/2024 I was not travelling without a valid ticket.
Lack of legal basis for charging administrative fees
Section 9.2 of the NRCoT (2024) does not include any mention of charging administrative fees, although you are using this section to justify charging me Anytime Fares. This section makes no reference to any administration fees within my contractual obligation to the Train Company.
Additionally, on page 11 of the GWR Revenue Protection policy (2023) it is stated: “We’ll probably send you an offer to settle out of court – usually asking you to pay an amount to cover your fare and our costs”. This policy indicates that you may ask me to cover my fare and your costs, however this does not constitute as a legal basis for me to cover your costs since this is not included in the contract which I entered into by travelling on the train.
Section 9.2.1 is not applicable and not enforceable
To calculate the outstanding fare, you have used section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT (2024). However, under the Consumer Rights Act (2015), section 62, “an unfair term of a consumer contract is not legally binding”. Under schedule 2 of the act, paragraph 6 includes “a term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”.
In one instance I allegedly saved £3.85 by using a 16-25 railcard and in response, section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT (2024) has been applied to charge me fares up to fifteen times what I originally paid. I argue that this constitutes as a term which is being used to charge me a disproportionately high sum in compensation. Since my supposed financial gain from the discounted ticket was so minimal compared to the proposed compensation, I see no legal basis for section 9.2.1 to be used in this way.
Furthermore, the application of section 9.2.1 seems to be misconstrued.
If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on
The section clearly refers to the “train that you are on” in the present tense. This leads me to believe that this is intended as an option for the ticket inspecting staff on board the train. Using this clause retrospectively, almost two years after the original incident, appears to misrepresent how it is phrased and how it was intended to be used.
Conclusion
I hope you understand that for the reasons stated, I cannot accept full liability for your claim.
It is my intention, however, to resolve this matter promptly. The discount which I incorrectly received on my journey, departing on 12/04/2024 is £16.35. I would be willing to pay this immediately to settle the dispute. The discount I received on the other journeys, not including the ticket for the train departing 11/04/2024 for reasons I have already stated, amounts to £21.30. I would be willing to pay this as well if I was to receive evidence of authority to recover fares on behalf of other train companies.
I would like to reiterate that I have never intentionally travelled without a valid railcard. I hope that you can inform me whether my proposal is reasonable or not.
RailUK forum has given amazing advice and I have immense gratitude for everyone whose contributed so far. I wouldn't have known where to start otherwise.
Apologies for the confusion with the appeal. The revenue protections officer instructed me to send my 'appeal' to her, using that exact phrasing. I do not have any misconception that my case is related to a penalty fare. I just thought her phrasing suggested they had some kind of set process as they are state owned, I don't know. Anyway, here is my final draft. After reading the response that this similar letter received #111 I am fairly confident. I have tried to pre-empt what they will say regarding their revenue protection policy.
RailUK forum has given amazing advice and I have immense gratitude for everyone whose contributed so far. I wouldn't have known where to start otherwise.
Unfortunately some staff say those sorts of things to de escalate situations with people who might find being told they are under threat of criminal prosecution likely to result in an aggressive reaction at the time, or just remonstrations when the staff need to move on as quickly as possible to check other tickets in their efforts to get the job done that they are required to do.
I’ll have a look at your new draft tomorrow. I think some of it could be simplified to aid clarity for the recipient.
The discounts you've calculated aren't right (fares are multiples of 5 pence and the discount should be roughly 50% of the amounts you paid for the Advances - see brfares.com for exact numbers).
Also at least the last sentence needs adjusting - you want them to accept not offer their opinion.
Apologies for the confusion with the appeal. The revenue protections officer instructed me to send my 'appeal' to her, using that exact phrasing. I do not have any misconception that my case is related to a penalty fare. I just thought her phrasing suggested they had some kind of set process as they are state owned, I don't know. Anyway, here is my final draft. After reading the response that this similar letter received #111 I am fairly confident. I have tried to pre-empt what they will say regarding their revenue protection policy.
RailUK forum has given amazing advice and I have immense gratitude for everyone whose contributed so far. I wouldn't have known where to start otherwise.
I'll suggest some edits to your draft in post #55 for you to consider if that would be of help - if you can bear with me until a bit later I'll post them up.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The discounts you've calculated aren't right (fares are multiples of 5 pence and the discount should be roughly 50% of the amounts you paid for the Advances - see brfares.com for exact numbers).
Also at least the last sentence needs adjusting - you want them to accept not offer their opinion.
are you able to easily calculate the correct discounts by any chance?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Below posted later to the above but auto merged
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Hi @UnhappyCamper - I hope you think the below is of help - you must of course be happy with it and it must all be true. I hope I have captured all your points and ideally made some a little clearer to the reader
I few notes to help explain what I've done as it was too tricky to do an edit version that would show changes on here - sorry
a) I tried to change the tone a bit - make it less conflictual but still firm on the points and the outcome desired
b) ref point 3 - if you can prove you were not in Liverpool on that date you could offer to send evidence eg bank statement showing purchases (probably no need to do that now but up to you) - but realistically given the time that train would have arrived in Liverpool you'd need to be showing evidence from about 00.45 to 10.00 on the day of travel to Taunton - and you might not have bought things during the night!
c) topics 4 and 5 are not things I have great knowledge of - others here in particular may be able to suggest any improvements esp @Watershed given their work on the draft in the other thread linked (post #111) which you have made good use of here I can see
d) Obviously suggested amends from others here on any of the content would be most welcome!
e) I'm assuming the outcome requested is what you want to offer? - ie the same Advance fare sums albeit without a railcard discount applied. The sums need inserting bearing in mind @furlong 's point that they were incorrect sums in your draft (I've not checked them)
also I note in post #16 it looks like the upload has the ref number at the top which might identify you - you may want to obscure that / replace it with an obscured version
Dear (if the letter you received was from a named person insert the name here otherwise ‘Dear Sir / Madam’….)
Ref: [Insert their ref number for your case]
Thank you for your letter of xx date and details of ticket purchases made with a Railcard discount after I overlooked the expiry of my Railcard and this was drawn to my attention by a ticket inspector in Aril 2024. I was surprised to receive it after such a long period as I had been expecting an earlier opportunity to explain things from my perspective.
Suffice to say I would like you to be aware that it was not my intention to pay an incorrect fare and I was unaware that my Railcard had elapsed.
In what follows I would like to address the matter of the sum you have requested that I now pay.
I would be grateful if you could take the following matters into consideration because I believe I cannot accept liability for the full amount of fares you have listed.
1) Journeys not undertaken with GWR
The list of journeys taken which I am being charged for includes journeys which do not include those operated by GWR. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) state on page 4:
“When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.”
Four out of the five journeys listed include tickets which did not permit me to travel on GWR trains. This means that for four out of the five journeys, GWR were not party to the binding contract between me and the Train Companies involved.
While Officers of the Railway may be authorised to seek outstanding fares on the behalf of other companies, there is no contractual basis for a claim against me regarding these tickets. Unless you have been specifically requested to do so, accepting these claims could place me in a position where I am liable to pay the charges twice, if the other train companies later decided to bring separate claims against me.
I hope you understand that for this reason I cannot accept liability for the journeys you have listed, other than the one made on 12/04/2024.
2) Incorrect sum requested
Further to (1) above I believe there is a discrepancy in the ticket cost related to a ticket for travel on another operator service. This also prevents me from accepting full liability for the claim made against me.
For the journey on the 08/01/2024, you have charged me the Anytime fare for travel using an Avanti West Coast train, yet my ticket was for a journey using London North Western / West Midlands trains (fare set by West Midlands Traisn as per your table). West Midlands trains have a cheaper Anytime Single costing £77.20. Therefore, under the NRCoT (2024), I believe this fare of £77.20 would be the maximum fare I should be charged for the journey, not £171.30.
3) Occasion when no travel undertaken
The table shows I purchased tickets for travel on both 11/04/2024 (22.00 departure from Euston to Liverpool) and 12/04/2024 (10.35 departure from London to Taunton). In the event due to a change of plan the ticket for travel on 11/04/2024 was not used.
As you can appreciate it would have been impossible for me to travel to Liverpool the late evening of 11 April 2024 and then also be in London in order to catch a train at 10.34 from London on 12 April 2024, as I would not have had time to make it back to London in time to make the London-Taunton train.
This was due to a change in plans where I had to help a friend move. I did not cancel my ticket for 11/04/2024 since it was a non-refundable Advance Single. It remained unused.
I would be grateful if this fare can be removed from your list.
4) Your administrative fee
I do not believe there is a valid basis for charging me an Administrative Fee as detailed.
Section 9.2 of the NRCoT (2024) does not include any mention of charging administrative fees, although you are using this section to justify charging me Anytime Fares. This section makes no reference to any administration fees within my contractual obligation to the Train Company.
Additionally, on page 11 of the GWR Revenue Protection policy (2023) it is stated: “We’ll probably send you an offer to settle out of court – usually asking you to pay an amount to cover your fare and our costs”. This policy indicates that you may ask me to cover my fare and your costs, however I believe this does not constitute a legal basis for me to cover your costs since this is not included in the contract which I entered into by travelling on the train.
5) NRCoT Section 9.2.1 is not applicable and not enforceable
To calculate the outstanding fare, you have used section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT (2024). However, under the Consumer Rights Act (2015), section 62, “an unfair term of a consumer contract is not legally binding”. Under schedule 2 of the act, paragraph 6 includes “a term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation”.
In one instance I allegedly saved £3.85 by using a 16-25 railcard and in response, section 9.2.1 of the NRCoT (2024) has been applied to charge me fares up to fifteen times what I originally paid. I argue that this constitutes as a term which is being used to charge me a “disproportionately high sum in compensation”. Since my supposed financial gain from the discounted ticket was so minimal compared to the proposed compensation, I see no legal basis for section 9.2.1 to be used in this way.
Furthermore, the application of section 9.2.1 seems to be misconstrued.
If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “Anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on
The section clearly refers to the “train that you are on” in the present tense. This leads me to believe that this is intended as an option for the ticket inspecting staff on board the train. Using this clause retrospectively, eighteen months after the original incident, appears to misrepresent how it is phrased and how it was intended to be used.
Conclusion
I hope you understand that for the reasons stated, I cannot accept full liability for your claim.
In summary:
I do not believe you should be requesting sums for new tickets in relation to travel on train services operated by others than GWR
I do not believe I should be paying for a new ticket for travel I did not undertake
I believe the sum being requested is disproportionate to the sum lost to the railway by virtue of my Railcard having been expired, with particular reference to the equivalent fare I would have paid without a Railcard discount.
However, I would like to resolve this matter promptly and without the need for court action.
The discount which I incorrectly received on my journey, departing on 12/04/2024 is £XX.XX. I would be willing to pay this immediately to settle the matter.
The discount I received on the other journeys (not including the ticket for the train departing 11/04/2024 for reasons I have already stated) amounts to £XX.XX. I would be willing to pay this as well if I was to receive evidence of authority to recover fares on behalf of the other train companies.
I would like to reiterate that I have never intentionally travelled without a valid railcard.
I would be grateful if you could consider accepting this offer in the hope that the matter can be resolved after such a prolonged period.
I got a reply to the first email. They said they’d attach a revised table with how they’ve calculated the fare but there is nothing attached so probably won’t get that till tomorrow.
My new charge is £592. This is still a very significant amount of money to me and if anyone thinks I’ll be able to get the amount down anymore given their email I would appreciate suggestions.
My initial thought was they didn’t really directly address my claim regarding the enforceability and application of 9.2.1 as I thought they would. Also again they haven’t given a proper legal basis for recovering fees for other train companies, only said they are protecting the tax payer.
Start of response
Thank you for your email. Firstly, with regard to your comments about the length of time it has taken to process this case and contact you about it, if you had been reported for a single journey only, you will have received an email about it within a few months. As you were reported to our office for multiple journeys, the process takes a considerably longer amount of time to process. As advised in my initial email, we are working on a backlog of cases due to staff shortages. In these cases we work within the Statute of Limitation for a civil claim which is usually 6 years.
When calculating our settlement offers, we apply the Anytime Single fare for each journey undertaken. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel, we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares. When applying a railcard discount to a ticket purchase, it is the responsibility of the passenger to ensure they have a railcard available from the point of commencement of rail travel to be presented for their journey if requested to do so: https://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions.. An offence is committed once a passenger has commenced/completed a rail journey without a valid ticket, and at this stage, the non-discounted Anytime Single fare becomes the only applicable fare.
As advised in my initial email, our Revenue Protection Inspectors are Officers of the Railway and can report travel irregularities completed on any Train Operating Company in England. We are then authorised to seek the outstanding fares on behalf of these companies. Rail operators are paid a fee by the government to run the trains. We only collect the revenue and pass it on to the government. As part of our contract we are contractually obliged with reducing the financial risk to the taxpayer from both dishonest and accidental ticketless travel. The loss in revenue that we seek to recover is the sum of the loss to the taxpayer due to your failure to have a valid Railcard for these journeys but still purchasing tickets with that discount applied. It is your responsibility to ensure that you had the valid railcard at the point of travel. The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy . This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme: www.gwr.com/revenueprotection.
With the information you have provided, I have reviewed the reported journeys and have amended my calculations accordingly. An updated calculation spreadsheet is attached for your information. The amount now outstanding is £592.70, this comprises of £502.70 outstanding fares and our standard £90.00 administration charge.
I appreciate that the amount of £592.70 is a significant sum to find, and I am therefore prepared to accept payment in instalments to clear this debt, please advise if you wish to use this option to settle this case. Alternatively, there are two ways to pay.
[Quoting TOC response]
When calculating our settlement offers, we apply the Anytime Single fare for each journey undertaken. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel, we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares. .
...
An offence is committed once a passenger has commenced/completed a rail journey without a valid ticket, and at this stage, the non-discounted Anytime Single fare becomes the only applicable fare.
OK so their argument appears to be that by travelling you agreed to a contract which says they can charge you an extortionate amount for any journey with an expired railcard.
The loss in revenue that we seek to recover is the sum of the loss to the taxpayer due to your failure to have a valid Railcard for these journeys but still purchasing tickets with that discount applied.
In what scenario would they have ever seen that much money?
Also, the NRCoT says "we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:" if "you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked"
It seems a bit of a stretch to apply it to "if we find restrospectively that you purchased a railcard discounted ticket without a valid railcard".
I'd argue that:
If you are unable to present a valid Ticket or to pay a fare ... when requested, you will be required to provide your name and address so that the matter can be followed up.
makes it pretty clear this was only ever intended to apply to someone while actually travelling.
And how do you get from from "we are permitted to...charge the full undiscounted "anytime" single fare" to "we are unable to offer any discounted fares"?
And was the intention of the NRCoT really that if I board a train with no ticket I have to pay the full fare, but if I do so with an expired railcard I have to pay the full fare on top of what I already paid? How do you possibly justify that?
Now I'm sure that attempting any of these arguments would get you nowhere with a TOC and probably not in court either, but if this happened to me I would going straight to my MP. (Almost certainly achieving nothing, but at least I would have tried)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
