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!
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.
Not helpful they have not attached the info to allow you to see what has been reduced from the original sum demanded (you could e-mail back and simply ask just for that) - eg 'thanks for your reply - so that I can understand your approach please can you set out how the sum of £502.70 has been arrived at' or some such - don't get into anything else at this stage. Or maybe you can work it out - eg perhaps they have removed that Liverpool journey that you stated clearly you did not make (and / or maybe also the WM Trains fare when they wanted to charge the higher Avanti fare?)
Basically it seems that they are still - seeking the punitive Anytime Fares
- seeking an admin fee
(plus also making excuses about needing 18 months to get basic info on tickets you bought and being short staffed - which is not your problem - but all that is probably best ignored)
Personally I always doubted that they would accept just the sum relating to the 34% discount wrongly applied by you to fairly low priced Advance tickets, but might have been prepared to offer you sums relating to off peak fares (or other relevant walk up fares for the time of train you caught on the occasions concerned) - but clearly they are pushing back
I think this is the same trajectory as the other case - I've not re-checked it buy you will have looked at it or can do again to see what the OP in that case went back with.
EDIT - not re-checked that whole thread but it seems to me that you are at about the point where @Watershed gave detailed advice =n post #138 of that thread (but do check I'm correct about that before going back to GWR) - and some of the posts leading up to post #138 are probably pertinent.
Hopefully experts that gave such good advice in that case will pitch in here too.
This is of note
In these cases we work within the Statute of Limitation for a civil claim which is usually 6 years.
which implies to me that they are accepting they are not going to be prosecuting you but ultimately reserve the right to pursue this as a civil debt (unless I have misunderstood) - the situation with civil debt and what a court would realistically agree they are owed I think has been mentioned up thread and certainly in that other case.
I guess there is an element of brinkmanship here - the extent to which they are going to want to go to the hassle and cost of taking this to court if you defend it (even without legal representation) vs your appetite for avoiding going to argue about it in court.
I'd suggest writing back accepting the points they conceded and reasserting the previous position on the others which they didn't address.
(With the way the fares have developed post-privatisation an off-peak fare has been considered to be a fare in its own right for many years now and not a discounted fare. There are even journeys now where no Anytime fare exists - which used to be impossible when Open fares were the sole basis of the system at the time when what GWR writes was correct. The rewrite of the Penalty Fares regulations made the change clear and it's disappointing that GWR appears to be trying to cling to the past. Even railway staff can now apply their staff discount to Off-Peak fares as this is no longer ruled out as double discounting.)
Regarding the journeys on other train companies, you're asking to see written authority from each train company involved that GWR is authorised to act as its agent in the matter. If they truly are as a matter of a long-standing agreement, the production of such proof ought to be both trivial for them and routine. It does look suspicious that they have again failed to provide any evidence.
I'd suggest writing back accepting the points they conceded and reasserting the previous position on the others which they didn't address.
(With the way the fares have developed post-privatisation an off-peak fare has been considered to be a fare in its own right for many years now and not a discounted fare. There are even journeys now where no Anytime fare exists - which used to be impossible when Open fares were the sole basis of the system at the time when what GWR writes was correct. The rewrite of the Penalty Fares regulations made the change clear and it's disappointing that GWR appears to be trying to cling to the past. Even railway staff can now apply their staff discount to Off-Peak fares as this is no longer ruled out as double discounting.)
Regarding the journeys on other train companies, you're asking to see written authority from each train company involved that GWR is authorised to act as its agent in the matter. If they truly are as a matter of a long-standing agreement, the production of such proof ought to be both trivial for them and routine. It does look suspicious that they have again failed to provide any evidence.
Given that the stakes are relatively low (civil not criminal court) I think if it were me I'd be very tempted to write back thanking them for confirming that all they wish to do is recoup the "taxpayer's" losses, point out that this is just the cost of the railcard*, then as a gesture of goodwill offer the difference between the fare paid and the undiscounted one. (Which is what I think is something they are fairly entitled to on a contractual basis - railcard discounts aren't retrospective).
And since they are keen on waving the NRCoT around I'd also point out that nothing in it gives them a right to impose any admin fee (obviously different in most cases where they are offering a chance to pay them off instead of prosecuting, where they can charge whatever they want).
They say "The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy" but since that it isn't referred to in the NRCoT or mentioned when a ticket is purchased I can't see how it can have any legal relevance.
(With the way the fares have developed post-privatisation an off-peak fare has been considered to be a fare in its own right for many years now and not a discounted fare. There are even journeys now where no Anytime fare exists - which used to be impossible when Open fares were the sole basis of the system at the time when what GWR writes was correct. The rewrite of the Penalty Fares regulations made the change clear and it's disappointing that GWR appears to be trying to cling to the past. Even railway staff can now apply their staff discount to Off-Peak fares as this is no longer ruled out as double discounting.)
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;
Which of course is obviously intended to apply to someone while travelling, not after the event as they want it to say. (And I'm sure they conveniently ignore the fact that it only gives them the right to charge fares to a station directly served, not the passenger's ultimate destination).
* I wouldn't get into whether it should be pro-rata, or indeed nothing.
As this is purely a civil matter I would only be prepared to offer the following, knowing it is realistically all they would be able to recover in the county court.
Only deal with the journeys and tickets that entitled you to travel on the services of the train company you are dealing with
For single journeys, the Anytime single or ideally the Off Peak Single (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. For return journeys, the Anytime Return or ideally the Off Peak Return (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. This would depend of the times of travel. I would also be sure to offer the fares applicable on the dates of travel as they may be higher now.
It is up to you if you wish to take into account the cost of the tickets already purchased. I.e. deduct these from the amount you are offering.
I would not pay an administration fee as I do not see any provision in contract for them to be allowed to levy this.
I personally would not only offer them the cost of the railcard as it is an established contractual position that a Railcard must have been purchased before travel commenced.
I would offer this as a counter offer in full and final settlement and make payments in one lump sum amount.
If they do not like that they can issue civil proceedings but I think it will soon become obvious to them that they will not be able to recover more than what you have offered anyway.
Attached is the calculation of the charge, they sent it this morning. I can’t find the West Midlands fare being what they claim it is, I have only found it to be £77.
I’ll include all the points raised into a second draft. Hopefully I’ll be able to make one quickly although work means I can’t spend as much time researching this as I would like.
I really want to stay firm on the admin charge, £90 on its own is a lot of money. Nothing in the NRCoT gives them a basis to seek the charge and it was their choice to pursue a civil claim over issuing a penalty.
Regarding “minimising loss to the taxpayer” I only saved about £30 over all the trips. I don’t think this is a valid argument to justify charging hundreds of pounds.
I'd suggest writing back accepting the points they conceded and reasserting the previous position on the others which they didn't address.
(With the way the fares have developed post-privatisation an off-peak fare has been considered to be a fare in its own right for many years now and not a discounted fare. There are even journeys now where no Anytime fare exists - which used to be impossible when Open fares were the sole basis of the system at the time when what GWR writes was correct. The rewrite of the Penalty Fares regulations made the change clear and it's disappointing that GWR appears to be trying to cling to the past. Even railway staff can now apply their staff discount to Off-Peak fares as this is no longer ruled out as double discounting.)
Regarding the journeys on other train companies, you're asking to see written authority from each train company involved that GWR is authorised to act as its agent in the matter. If they truly are as a matter of a long-standing agreement, the production of such proof ought to be both trivial for them and routine. It does look suspicious that they have again failed to provide any evidence.
The point about off-peak fares being a fare in its own right is really interesting, do you think it’s worth raising directly to GWR, or are they likely to dismiss this. Railway staff being able to discount off-peak fares seems like a decent basis to consider the fare non-discounted.
For single journeys, the Anytime single or ideally the Off Peak Single (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. For return journeys, the Anytime Return or ideally the Off Peak Return (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. This would depend of the times of travel. I would also be sure to offer the fares applicable on the dates of travel as they may be higher now.
This goes well beyond their actual financial losses.
While presumably they are entitled to go to court for what they are contractually due in addition, have they undermined their ability to do that in this case by stating that they are only attempting to recover their losses?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Regarding “minimising loss to the taxpayer” I only saved about £30 over all the trips. I don’t think this is a valid argument to justify charging hundreds of pounds.
They seem to be trying to justify their attempt to extract large sums on contractual grounds by pretending they are their actual losses.
And as I've said above they are misrepresenting the NRCoT by claiming that their hands are tied and they have no choice but to charge anytime fares, whereas it says no such thing. (As well as the fact that it clearly wasn't intended to be applied retrospectively)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And another thought has come to mind regarding the railway trawling through someone's purchase records for this purpose.
Is it OK under the GDPR to do so not for the detection of crime but to look for evidence for a civil claim?
Given that the stakes are relatively low (civil not criminal court) I think if it were me I'd be very tempted to write back thanking them for confirming that all they wish to do is recoup the "taxpayer's" losses, point out that this is just the cost of the railcard*, then as a gesture of goodwill offer the difference between the fare paid and the undiscounted one. (Which is what I think is something they are fairly entitled to on a contractual basis - railcard discounts aren't retrospective).
I think ref this the OP has already offered the difference between the fare paid and the undiscounted fare (at the Advance Single prices originally paid) but did not previously offer the cost of the Railcard - so for the OP to do this now results in a change of the OP's previous offer to GWR. Just to note this - whether that is good to do now or not is another matter.
And since they are keen on waving the NRCoT around I'd also point out that nothing in it gives them a right to impose any admin fee (obviously different in most cases where they are offering a chance to pay them off instead of prosecuting, where they can charge whatever they want).
This may be a point worth politely making (I think in the other case linked GWR might well have eventually dropped their admin fee request - but that would need checking)
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As this is purely a civil matter I would only be prepared to offer the following, knowing it is realistically all they would be able to recover in the county court.
Only deal with the journeys and tickets that entitled you to travel on the services of the train company you are dealing with
For single journeys, the Anytime single or ideally the Off Peak Single (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. For return journeys, the Anytime Return or ideally the Off Peak Return (or Super Off Peak if available) for the journey concerned. This would depend of the times of travel. I would also be sure to offer the fares applicable on the dates of travel as they may be higher now.
It is up to you if you wish to take into account the cost of the tickets already purchased. I.e. deduct these from the amount you are offering.
I would not pay an administration fee as I do not see any provision in contract for them to be allowed to levy this.
I personally would not only offer them the cost of the railcard as it is an established contractual position that a Railcard must have been purchased before travel commenced.
I would offer this as a counter offer in full and final settlement and make payments in one lump sum amount.
If they do not like that they can issue civil proceedings but I think it will soon become obvious to them that they will not be able to recover more than what you have offered anyway.
This approach would seem to me to move things forward in a way I would tend to hope GWR might accept (but it's a concession by the OP to move from undiscounted versions of the Advance Tickets they originally bought - which were very cheap in most cases) to an equivalent walk up fare for the time of travel (Anytime / Off peak etc) - if the OP needs us to look at what walk up fare would have applied and on the date I'm sure we can do that using BRfares.com. Some of the travel was at peak times by the looks of it so that would mean the expensive Anytime fares being asked for would apply to a 'walk up' ticket (compared to an Advance ticket)
Essentially however, this is the OP departing from their original offer and offering GWR more money now to close the matter
I personally would not only offer them the cost of the railcard as it is an established contractual position that a Railcard must have been purchased before travel commenced.
Obviously this comes down to tactics I guess. In my personal view if you say something is in 'full and final settlement' you have to be prepared to follow that through and that means defending yourself in the civil court if they escalate it - I'm mindful of the OP's post today saying they don't have as much time as they would like - the OP needs to weigh up if they will have enough time to sort things at civil court if it gets to that. I don't have experience of how much time that takes but if you have never done it before I doubt it's a breeze....
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Attached is the calculation of the charge, they sent it this morning. I can’t find the West Midlands fare being what they claim it is, I have only found it to be £77.
Regarding “minimising loss to the taxpayer” I only saved about £30 over all the trips. I don’t think this is a valid argument to justify charging hundreds of pounds.
The point about off-peak fares being a fare in its own right is really interesting, do you think it’s worth raising directly to GWR, or are they likely to dismiss this. Railway staff being able to discount off-peak fares seems like a decent basis to consider the fare non-discounted.
Personally i wouldn't get into that relating to staff discounts - I think it muddies the water as staff get all sorts of discounted travel facilities and I don't think it will aid clarity bringing that in
But if you want to raise a question about that / offer walk up fares that are cheaper 'Off Peak' fares (so long as you travelled at off peak times) then you could offer that by saying eg 'I am prepared to offer the equivalent Off Peak fares for the travel I undertook as I believe this is an appropriate undiscounted walk up fare for the time of my travel' (but I note some of the travel time was not off peak - though I expect you would not have chosen to travel at that time if a cheap Advance ticket had not been available to you - but that's a different point - the fact is you did travel at that time, unwittingly with an invalid ticket).
I'll check which of your 4 journeys were off peak - assuming i have got this right
By my reckoning:
15/12/23 - 06.43 London to Euston (avanti) - that's a peak time (so an off peak fare would not be valid)
8/1/24 - 08.01 Euston to Liverpool (LNW trains) that's a peak time I would think
24/3/24 - 20.43 Liverpool - London (avanti) that's an off peak time
12/4/24 - 10.35 London - Taunton (GWR) - thats a Super Off Peak time (Super Off Peak walk up fare £57.60) - source https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=PAD&dest=TAU&grpo=1072&tkt=SSS&period=20240705
(there is also an Off Peak Single Fare at £77.90)
So - some of those fares won't reduce by this line of argument but others will
Of course that concedes the point they can charge for other operator's travel
which you may not wish to do?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I believe it is GWR that stopped the OP on their journey London to Taunton
My concluding thought
I guess your options are
a) to go back to them and say you can not accept their request and stick to your guns on what you want to offer them
or
b) increase your offer (various things you could or could not include in your increased offer based on these fares / price of Railcard / admin fee etc etc)
and decide whether you call that your 'full and final offer' or not (and if you say that consider what the consequences are if they do not accept it - vs if you don't say those words whether it provides scope for more 'negotiation' if that is the correct word
or
c) something else I've not thought of...
or
d) I suppose paying what they now ask for to close the matter (does not sound like you are keen to do that however)
Again I'd be tempted to be guided by the advice @Watershed gave in the other thread when the passenger concerned got to the same point in their exchange (as per my post #61 above) but of course others have given good advice here too.
Some comments on the recent posts in case this helps the OP
I think ref this the OP has already offered the difference between the fare paid and the undiscounted fare (at the Advance Single prices originally paid) but did not previously offer the cost of the Railcard - so for the OP to do this now results in a change of the OP's previous offer to GWR. Just to note this - whether that is good to do now or not is another matter.
An interesting point. Though it doesn't seem very reasonable to be asking for information if once they've found a crime they can't do anything about it.
But anyway they could have got the information before the time limit, or argued that they needed the information in order to decide whether to go for a fraud prosection.
Whichever it is, having obtained information on the grounds that it's needed for the detection of crime, can they then use it for whatever purpose is convenient?
But investigating a crime and scoping losses for a civil claim are very different reasons. Once they have the data on the basis of investigating a crime are they permitted to use it for another purpose?
Counter argument: you don't know you can't do anything about it until you know what the crime is. My point is that the crime exists regardless of the ability to prosecute; if my house is broken into it doesn't cease to be a crime because the perpetrator gets run over by a bus and killed but there cannot be a prosecution.
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?
It's insane, is it not? This show https://www.channel5.com/show/fare-dodgers-at-war-with-the-law/season-2/episode-6 really exposes a lot of what they do and I personally think a boundary is crossed. One really has to consider whether it's worth their time to purchase all their tickets with cash or through other inconspicious methods that it will be difficult/impossible to be tracked if they care about their personal data. And of course, there are the other implications and risks of date being available to potential bad actors that can access your travel habits. It's the price of convenience, really.
I'm also not convinced that using the same card at a TVM or ticket office is any safer as that can be tracked just as easily.
Counter argument: you don't know you can't do anything about it until you know what the crime is. My point is that the crime exists regardless of the ability to prosecute; if my house is broken into it doesn't cease to be a crime because the perpetrator gets run over by a bus and killed but there cannot be a prosecution.
For your first point yes indeed and as I said they could say they need the information to decide if it's fraud and thus not out of time (though this seems a bit of a stretch).
As for the rest I agree it's still a crime but that's not my point. I'm asking what the justification is in using a GDPR exception available for the detection of crime if you can't then use it for a prosecution.
But investigating a crime and scoping losses for a civil claim are very different reasons. Once they have the data on the basis of investigating a crime are they permitted to use it for another purpose?
(Other threads on here discussed GDPR at length and concluded that the "investigation of crime" exemption isn't applicable to train companies.)
My comments about the off-peak fares were in reference to the sleight-of-hand involved here:
we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares
I work in the public sector (not railway) and I'm not sure I have the same confidence this strategy has had specialist legal advice about reusing the data. Yes we have access to legal advice but it has to be properly justified and people need to appreciate they might need it. That advice is often highly qualified unless there is established precedent. At some point there has been a decision to use the data obtained in this way for another purpose. I wonder whether advice was sought on that specific point (or had been in reference to a similar case), and on what basis any advice to continue was made. As a minimum I would expect there to be a record of this decision when it is applied to an individual, and it might be interesting to see what a Subject Access Request shows.
Acknowledging uncertainty as to whether GWR are considered a law enforcement organisation in terms of GDPR, there is however guidance on reusing data obtained in connection with crime for other purposes. Trainline T&Cs seem to only describe passing personal data to the train operator for the purpose of managing disruption so I'm assuming this is sought by GWR for the purpose of detecting or investigating crime. I am not an expert in this area, but this document refers to reuse being acceptable in cases where this is "authorised by law". Others might have a view if that applies here or not: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisation...g-and-reuse-of-data-by-competent-authorities/
As it's GWR I would simply offer them the cost of a London to Taunton ticket minus the fare already paid.
The other tickets between London and Liverpool, by virtue of all being Advance tickets, with either WMT or AWC had no validity on GWR so they have not suffered any loss on these.
The point about off-peak fares being a fare in its own right is really interesting, do you think it’s worth raising directly to GWR, or are they likely to dismiss this. Railway staff being able to discount off-peak fares seems like a decent basis to consider the fare non-discounted.
You don't need to make this argument yet, as the NRCoT arguments already cover this. However if you did, it is the treatment of the fare due for a journey in the Penalty Fares Regulations that provides the strongest support for your position. A Penalty Fare is intended to penalise and consists of a fixed penalty plus the fare due and that fare is basically specified to be the lowest walk-up fare not the highest Anytime fare. It would be absurd if a Penalty Fare, which is intended to include an extra amount as a punishment on top of the fare due for the journey, cost you less than paying just the fare! Using the figures above, the PF paid promptly would be around £108 whereas they are claiming the fare you must pay is nearer £150 without that involving any penalty!
You don't need to make this argument yet, as the NRCoT arguments already cover this. However if you did, it is the treatment of the fare due for a journey in the Penalty Fares Regulations that provides the strongest support for your position. A Penalty Fare is intended to penalise and consists of a fixed penalty plus the fare due and that fare is basically specified to be the lowest walk-up fare not the highest Anytime fare. It would be absurd if a Penalty Fare, which is intended to include an extra amount as a punishment on top of the fare due for the journey, cost you less than paying just the fare! Using the figures above, the PF paid promptly would be around £108 whereas they are claiming the fare you must pay is nearer £150 without that involving any penalty!
It is also absurd that the penalty for travelling with an expired railcard is more than for outright faredodging, even for a single occasion never mind when trawling through records that's only possible when someone has bought tickets of some kind. But that doesn't seem to stop them.
I work in the public sector (not railway) and I'm not sure I have the same confidence this strategy has had specialist legal advice about reusing the data.
Yes. The restriction in section 127 of the Magistrates Court Act states that a court may not try a case if the information was laid more than 6 months after the alleged offence was committed. The crime still exists. And in any event, they could investigate fraud by false representation which has no time limit.
I agree with this statement on a historic basis, but the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 widens the exemption and it might change things when it is commenced.
Apologies for taking so long to reply, I've been quite busy. I'm taking some time to review all the comments in this thread today, as well as look at the other thread which has been attached early on and write another draft.
In their email they claim that they are passing on all of the revenue to the government, however GWR is not a state-owned Train Company yet and only receives government funding. I'm not sure how to go about pushing back against the other fares which are being claimed on behalf of other Train Companies.
I don't really believe that they have properly addressed any of my points in my original email. It feels like they are just repeating themselves. I made a point of addressing the GWR revenue protection policy and the admin fee, but their response has just been "it is mentioned in the policy".
I think I will offer the anytime fare, minus the amount which I paid, for the GWR journey only. Although I'm not sure if faltering on my position quickly makes it look like I'm not prepared to stick to the arguments which I have already made.
GWR passes all its revenue to the government, and receives a fee for running the network. It’s been like that since COVID with all the train companies that DfT is responsible for, until such a point as they are brought back under complete state control.
Ok, I did not know that was how their contract works. It doesn't make too much difference though, since the loss to the 'taxpayer' is still the difference between the fare I paid and what I would've paid for without the railcard.
I have finished a draft email this morning. Please let me know if you think it is appropriate and any changes you would make.
Start of draft
Thank you for your prompt response and for reviewing the journeys I raised concerns about.
I wish to clarify several points which remain unresolved following your previous correspondence.
Firstly, regarding my reference to the National Rail Conditions of Travel (2024), condition 9.2.1, I note that my interpretation of this provision has not been directly addressed. I continue to maintain that the amount you are seeking represents compensation that is disproportionate to the original fare and not reflective of any actual loss incurred.
With respect to the administration charge, I have yet to see a clear legal basis for its recovery. While I acknowledge that GWR’s revenue protection policy references this charge, that policy does not in itself create a statutory or contractual entitlement. As it does not form part of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (2024), it is my understanding that this fee would not be recoverable through legal proceedings.
Regarding the tickets which did not permit travel on GWR services, no evidence has been provided to confirm that GWR is authorised to pursue fares on behalf of other Train Companies. Without such authority, I am concerned that I could face duplicate claims from other operators. The National Rail Conditions of Travel (2024) clearly state that “When you buy a Ticket ... you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.” Given this, GWR would not appear to be a contractual party in relation to journeys undertaken outside your network.
In addition, you refer to recovering “the sum of the loss to the taxpayer.” I would respectfully point out that such loss is limited to the difference between the fare paid and the fare that would have been payable without a valid Railcard. This corresponds precisely to the settlement amount I originally offered.
While I cannot accept full liability for the sum you have claimed, I remain willing to cooperate and wish to resolve this matter promptly and without the need for court proceedings. I believe a fair and proportionate settlement, which benefits both parties, can be reached.
I think your draft wording is generally good - it outlines the key points which they have not addressed.
I would replace the last paragraph with something like this:
While I therefore cannot accept full liability for the sum you have claimed, I remain willing to cooperate and wish to resolve this matter. I am prepared to pay the discount incorrectly obtained on the GWR journey - £16.35 (50% of the fare paid, which reverses the 1/3 discount). As previously mentioned, I would also be prepared to pay an equivalent amount in relation to the 4 journeys on other operators, if you can provide clear written evidence of the authority you have to pursue these amounts on their behalf (to prevent any potential double liability).
I believe this is a fair and proportionate offer settlement given the circumstances of this matter. Should you be unwilling to accept this amount I will have no choice but to defend the contested portion of any claim which you bring, and to consider a counterclaim for a potential breach of GDPR for your processing of my data.
Obviously your call whether to include the last part of the last sentence but it is something you might want to include to make clear you're not a 'shrinking violet' and that they won't be able to bully you into paying ridiculous sums.
Ok, I did not know that was how their contract works. It doesn't make too much difference though, since the loss to the 'taxpayer' is still the difference between the fare I paid and what I would've paid for without the railcard.
I have finished a draft email this morning. Please let me know if you think it is appropriate and any changes you would make.
Not that you should have to be going to anything like this much trouble and you have my sympathy for whatever it's worth for having been put in this position.
I suspect a large part of the problem is that they are used to being able to charge whatever they like in return for dropping a strict liability prosecution.
They like to justify it based on the NRCoT and their revenue protection policy etc. but it doesn't actually have to be legally correct.
Since in this case they would have to go via the civil courts they aren't in as strong a position.
If they can bring in their revenue protection policy even though it wasn't in the terms of buying a ticket, I wonder if passengers can do the same to their benefit?
I would not get diverted into their arguments about where the money goes really. Even if it’s not a basis on which you should be expected to pay a vastly inflated fare imho.
Tho I see some good advice from others since you posted on that point.
I am going to send an updated draft now before the end of the work day so they have a chance to see it. @Watershed I think you are correct, I will word it slightly differently because I don't want to escalate right now. I still have until the 28th to reach an appropriate settlement.
I was confused by the comments in this thread as to the relevance of GDPR, though so I am not too comfortable arguing this point. They are not pursuing a criminal case, but a 'crime' was still committed regardless, so it is appropriate for them to keep my data. Or, was it that they should not be using my data so long after the initial incidents given there is no criminal case. I was not sure of the conclusion of the discussion.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Not that you should have to be going to anything like this much trouble and you have my sympathy for whatever it's worth for having been put in this position.
I suspect a large part of the problem is that they are used to being able to charge whatever they like in return for dropping a strict liability prosecution.
They like to justify it based on the NRCoT and their revenue protection policy etc. but it doesn't actually have to be legally correct.
Since in this case they would have to go via the civil courts they aren't in as strong a position.
If they can bring in their revenue protection policy even though it wasn't in the terms of buying a ticket, I wonder if passengers can do the same to their benefit?
Thank you, I think we will see what their response will be to more pushing on the fact they are using the NRCoT and tacking on extra fees with their policy, but given the other case which was early on in the thread I believe these points are actually much more flexible than they make out. Realistically, civil court for this claim would be more expensive for them than the full charge they are seeking so hopefully they'll just drop the admin fee.
I am going to send an updated draft now before the end of the work day so they have a chance to see it. @Watershed I think you are correct, I will word it slightly differently because I don't want to escalate right now. I still have until the 28th to reach an appropriate settlement.
I was confused by the comments in this thread as to the relevance of GDPR, though so I am not too comfortable arguing this point. They are not pursuing a criminal case, but a 'crime' was still committed regardless, so it is appropriate for them to keep my data. Or, was it that they should not be using my data so long after the initial incidents given there is no criminal case. I was not sure of the conclusion of the discussion.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thank you, I think we will see what their response will be to more pushing on the fact they are using the NRCoT and tacking on extra fees with their policy, but given the other case which was early on in the thread I believe these points are actually much more flexible than they make out. Realistically, civil court for this claim would be more expensive for them than the full charge they are seeking so hopefully they'll just drop the admin fee.
Given you travelled after 10:10 a.m. from London Paddington to Taunton I would offer them the cost of the super off peak single which I believe was £57.60 on the date you travelled (perhaps minus the amount you already paid). I would not offer them the price of the Anytime Single.
Hey everyone, sorry for the slow updates I’ve only just received a response today after a few emails asking for a quicker response. I asked for an extension on the deadline since they have taken a long time to respond but they did not reference that in the response.
They seem to just be repeating themselves, not providing the evidence I’ve asked for. I’m not really sure how to proceed following this. Their response is very similar to that of the other thread. They’ve referenced a judges decision but not mentioned the specific case. Does anyone know how to advance beyond this?
Regarding the calculation of fares, I would refer you to the section of my initial letter which states:
"When calculating our settlement offer, we are obliged to use the Anytime Single fare for each journey undertaken. Therefore, if a return ticket was purchased, it will be counted as two separate journeys. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel, we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as railcard discounts, advance fares, return fares, 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. As per the National Rail Conditions of Travel, section 8.5, “if you are travelling with a railcard discounted ticket and are unable to present the railcard when asked by the staff or authorised agents of a train company, you will be treated as having joined a train without a valid ticket.”
Accordingly, the fares being requested are accurate and appropriate. One cannot expect to simply pay the difference in fare when found to have engaged in fare evasion. This method of calculating outstanding fares is standard practice across the UK in cases where recovery or court action is pursued. The settlement offer will therefore remain at £592.70
Regarding recovery of fares for tickets purchased for TOCs other than GWR, this defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day stated that when purchasing a train ticket, the passenger entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company). Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.
Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.
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.
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.
