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!
The final decision is of course up to the OP, but personally I would stick with offering them the difference between what you paid and the undiscounted (so the undiscounted version of the advances you actually held) amount for the same fare, unless GWR can provide real evidence that more is due (and based on their letters shared here, I haven't seen that at all).
Natually, I was thinking that in the terms of the full and final resolution that they must attest in writing to the fact, that by using this 'power' that they have not proven (acting on behalf of the other TOCs) that the OP will not be liable for any further damages with regards to any of their identified trips.
I went on brfares.com and the earliest fares period you can go back to is the 5th July 2024, which is obviously a couple months later than the incident. But in that period the fare was £77.20. How do you find the fares before this period, is there another website which you can use? Just for future reference.
There are internal industry tools that record fares data going back much further. Unfortunately I'm not able to provide you with links but GWR will have access to those (they've screenshotted them in other similar cases, so it's clearly what they're using).
I'm happy to look the details up for you though, if that helps. I've looked up the applicable Off-Peak/Super Off-Peak fares for your journeys in post #118 for reference.
I would be willing to negotiate this. I can't afford such high fees for all the journeys but I could try and negotiate something. Part of my problem in communicating with them though is that they have offered little to no leeway and not properly responded to my arguments which has made 'negotiating' difficult. Also, brfares.com does not go back far enough, so I am unsure how I should calculate the fares.
That's quite understandable. Hopefully my calculation above gives you a starting point. Personally speaking, I think they are overplaying their hand, but I appreciate that's easy to say when I am not the one potentially staring down the 'barrel' of a Court claim.
This would be amazing. I'm sure you can appreciate I want this to be over so I thought giving them the fare for one journey would be a compromise they might agree to, but if you think it would weaken my position that much then I won't offer that.
Of course. I think the plain reality is that they wouldn't accept a settlement that low willingly, so it's unlikely to resolve the matter. With that being the case, you wouldn't want them to bring up "but @UnhappyCamper said they were willing to pay the Anytime fare" in Court. That would undermine your argument that the Anytime fare is unreasonable.
I know it may not be in the risk profile of the OP, but what on earth would happen in that scenario? GWR end up in quite a lot of hot water surely from fraudulently collecting someone else's damages in a civil claim?
Anyway, I await in anticipation the result of this one.
That might well be so - but I'm not sure it would necessarily be fraudulent. The people working on these sorts of cases clearly don't have a particularly strong understanding of the legal principles in question. They're not qualified solicitors (that opens up a whole other can of worms which I won't get into now...) so they could quite plausibly say they didn't realise that they couldn't act for other train companies in this scenario. It's not obvious that this would necessarily allow the OP to reopen the settlement and try to get back the 'overpaid' fares from GWR.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Natually, I was thinking that in the terms of the full and final resolution that they must attest in writing to the fact, that by using this 'power' that they have not proven (acting on behalf of the other TOCs) that the OP will not be liable for any further damages with regards to any of their identified trips.
That would be a reasonable starting point but I'm not convinced they can bind other TOCs in that way. Perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here - but having something in writing from the other TOCs is not an unreasonable request. If it's as obvious as GWR are making it out to be, it should be trivial for them.
The poor thing about aiming for all travel to be covered by the settlement though is that it admits some form of responsibility for the other journeys. GWR then might wish to aim high again for all the tickets.
Perhaps some form of wording that attempts to absolve this responsibility for the others yet, some assurance of no further actions by other TOCs, for the sake of a prompt and clear cut closure of the problem could avoid this.
Furthermore, I must object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I engaged in fare evasion. Evasion requires deliberate intent, which is entirely absent in this case. I purchased valid tickets in good faith and have never attempted to avoid paying the correct fare.
Sorry, but that is only an assertion, not a fact. As you are accusing GW of making similar unevidenced claims, I would delete this paragraph. You have enough ammunition anyway.
7. Offer to Settle
I remain willing to cooperate and resolve this matter without the need for court proceedings. In the interests of reaching a fair and swift resolution, I am prepared to offer payment of the Anytime fare for the journey undertaken with GWR, amounting to £149.50, minus the fare I have already paid. This results in a balance of £116.85, which I am offering in full and final settlement of the matter.
There's really no need to make further concessions at this early stage of negotiation. The ball is still in their court to provide answers to the legal points that you raised. As others already pointed out, this substantially weakens your case if they take this further. Who knows, perhaps they'll offer you this type of settlement anyway in their next response? This would be similar to what happened in the other thread (and it works better if they make the concession).
And note that, on your own argument, this "full and final settlement" would NOT necessarily stop the other train companies coming back later and still asking to be paid directly by you - money you'd then have to attempt to reclaim yourself from GWR with no guarantees as they'd be able use your own arguments against you.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry, but that is only an assertion, not a fact. As you are accusing GW of making similar unevidenced claims, I would delete this paragraph. You have enough ammunition anyway.
Indeed - it's usually better to resist the temptation to respond to something that would only serve as distraction from the points that really matter to the dispute.
London to Taunton is not a particularly long journey — it’s under two hours by train — and the trips in question are on separate days. So, it’s entirely possible that you could have travelled on both routes as recorded, I'm not suggesting you are lying, I am just saying what the TOC will probably say.
You may also find it quite straightforward to access and print old bank statements through your bank’s online services or by requesting them directly, if that helps you.
London to Taunton is not a particularly long journey — it’s under two hours by train — and the trips in question are on separate days. So, it’s entirely possible that you could have travelled on both routes as recorded, I'm not suggesting you are lying, I am just saying what the TOC will probably say.
You may also find it quite straightforward to access and print old bank statements through your bank’s online services or by requesting them directly, if that helps you.
We've established from the timings that leaving Euston for Liverpool on the 22:00 and making it back to Paddington in time for the 10:34 the next morning would mean having less than 6 hours between arriving and departing Liverpool Lime Street. That would probably mean something in the region of 4-5 hours' sleep at best.
It's possible on paper, but I think everyone would agree it's highly improbable. GWR seem to accept this and therefore are no longer asking the OP to pay for that particular journey up to Liverpool.
Hey, just to give a quick update on how its going. I took everyone's advice regarding the last draft I posted in this thread and made the relevant changes. I did not receive a response and the 28th was the deadline they had given me to settle, else they proceed with court action. I sent an email saying that the lack of promptness between their responses was causing me undue stress as a result of the imminent deadline they had set, as well as them ignoring me repeatedly, and noted that in accordance with the civil court pre-action procedures I was making every effort to settle this matter.
I know there is no 'deadline' per say which has been pointed out to me, however they said I had until the 28th to pay and so I felt it necessary to clarify this with them for my own peace of mind.
They came back with this response which seems a bit ominous. I notice some similarities with the other case which has been used as an example. Let me know what you think their next action will be.
Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the deadline for settlement will be extended, your case has been referred to a senior colleague who will investigate further and contact you in due course. A new deadline for final settlement will be communicated following notification of my colleagues findings.
Hey, just to give a quick update on how its going. I took everyone's advice regarding the last draft I posted in this thread and made the relevant changes. I did not receive a response and the 28th was the deadline they had given me to settle, else they proceed with court action. I sent an email saying that the lack of promptness between their responses was causing me undue stress as a result of the imminent deadline they had set, as well as them ignoring me repeatedly, and noted that in accordance with the civil court pre-action procedures I was making every effort to settle this matter.
I know there is no 'deadline' per say which has been pointed out to me, however they said I had until the 28th to pay and so I felt it necessary to clarify this with them for my own peace of mind.
They came back with this response which seems a bit ominous. I notice some similarities with the other case which has been used as an example. Let me know what you think their next action will be.
I think that you can take this at face value: they're looking at your case, and for the moment there's no payment deadline.
So if anything it's good news in that they're not (yet) taking you to court. It's not such good news that they've already decided not to take you to court - but that's a possible outcome.
Hey, just to give a quick update on how its going. I took everyone's advice regarding the last draft I posted in this thread and made the relevant changes. I did not receive a response and the 28th was the deadline they had given me to settle, else they proceed with court action. I sent an email saying that the lack of promptness between their responses was causing me undue stress as a result of the imminent deadline they had set, as well as them ignoring me repeatedly, and noted that in accordance with the civil court pre-action procedures I was making every effort to settle this matter.
I know there is no 'deadline' per say which has been pointed out to me, however they said I had until the 28th to pay and so I felt it necessary to clarify this with them for my own peace of mind.
They came back with this response which seems a bit ominous. I notice some similarities with the other case which has been used as an example. Let me know what you think their next action will be.
Thanks for the update. As @Fawkes Cat has said, all we can tell from this is that they realise it's above their "paygrade" and so they are escalating it up the chain.
Unfortunately it seems they still aren't getting solicitors or other people with legal qualifications involved, as the responses we saw in the other thread suggest that they don't understand the legal principles at stake.
I guess "senior colleague" might obliquely refer to a legally trained person, without wanting to spell it out to the OP. I'd suggest that, as others have said, it's not bad news, and may even be encouraging that whoever is dealing with this has enough uncertainty as to the next step (legal action) to refer it upwards.
Thanks for the update. As @Fawkes Cat has said, all we can tell from this is that they realise it's above their "paygrade" and so they are escalating it up the chain.
Unfortunately it seems they still aren't getting solicitors or other people with legal qualifications involved, as the responses we saw in the other thread suggest that they don't understand the legal principles at stake.
Wasn’t it at this stage on the previous similar thread that GWR came back with a reduced request? One which the passenger involved deemed acceptable to them.
Wasn’t it at this stage on the previous similar thread that GWR came back with a reduced request? One which the passenger involved deemed acceptable to them.
I may be wrong though! On that thread Post 121 seems equivalent stage and then at post 140 a reduced sum comes into play. So perhaps a little while between those two points that I hadn’t checked.
Several months have passed since I last posted here. I hadn't heard back for months since I was told my case was getting passed on. Admittedly I didn't want to look at it since I felt they might forget about it and that would jinx it.
I received an email today saying my case had been reviewed and I had several options. I could pay in full, set up a payment plan, go to a civil court hearing, or I meet the sender of the email for an interview, 'under caution', which will be recorded as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This sounds quite scary but the email says I will be able to provide any defences I believe I may have.
The email recommends that I attend this interview with legal counsel, which would definitely cost more than the fine itself. The email didn't address any of the previous arguments I had made either so the interview feels somewhat unnecessary.
I'm not sure if anyone will still be active on this thread but since it has been 3 months since the last update I thought I would post here.
First piece of advice: Never attend an interview under caution without a solicitor present, with who you have discussed the matter before the interview. I personally wouldn't attend an interview, but if you do, ensure you have legal counsel. The likely purpose of the interview is to get you to admit something that they can then use against you in court. It will end badly for you if you take part in such a process without professional legal advice.
I think we can pretty safely say that you should not attend any interview unless you have legal representation. And since that costs quite a lot of money, which GWR won't be prepared to pay for, I don't think it's a good idea to go ahead with it.
Since they are too late to bring a criminal prosecution for the usual offences, it makes no sense for them to perform a PACE interview. Unless, of course, they're hoping you will say something that they can construe as an admission that you engaged in fraudulent activity (which is a more serious offence for which there is no 6 month time limit).
You have already told them the defences you're planning to raise by email - that correspondence would equally be admissible in Court if it came to it. They essentially want you to make an admission; if they were confident in the evidence they already have, they would proceed with a Court claim. The fact they haven't so far suggests that they are either totally overwhelmed with cases so they haven't got round to it yet (which is possible) or that they don't think this is a particularly strong one.
Several months have passed since I last posted here. I hadn't heard back for months since I was told my case was getting passed on. Admittedly I didn't want to look at it since I felt they might forget about it and that would jinx it.
I received an email today saying my case had been reviewed and I had several options. I could pay in full, set up a payment plan, go to a civil court hearing, or I meet the sender of the email for an interview, 'under caution', which will be recorded as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This sounds quite scary but the email says I will be able to provide any defences I believe I may have.
The email recommends that I attend this interview with legal counsel, which would definitely cost more than the fine itself. The email didn't address any of the previous arguments I had made either so the interview feels somewhat unnecessary.
I'm not sure if anyone will still be active on this thread but since it has been 3 months since the last update I thought I would post here.
Your post will trigger a flag for anyone that’s posted on your thread so no doubt you will get advice on your next steps and possible consequences for those in next day or two.
Might be helpful if you feel able to post a copy of what they have sent you with details removed that could identify you individually. It’s often helpful for people to read exactly what they have said to you if you feel willing to share that.
I received an email today saying my case had been reviewed and I had several options. I could pay in full, set up a payment plan, go to a civil court hearing, or I meet the sender of the email for an interview, 'under caution', which will be recorded as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This sounds quite scary but the email says I will be able to provide any defences I believe I may have.
I'd probably send a simple response reiterating the previous offer, pointing out that while you are keen to settle you have no deadline and the offer remains on the table.
(In effect you're inviting them to go to a civil court hearing if they still believe they are owed significantly more money than the amount you are offering, but you don't need to say that explicitly. But as they're unlikely to want a court to rule on the points you've raised because of the wider implications of the publicity if they lose even on just one of the points, they'll hopefully make you another offer first which makes it no longer worth your while to hold out.)
As the prospect of a criminal prosecution is off the table, provided you are able to stomach it, my preference would be to have my day in court. The amount at stake is much reduced, they could only claim back their actual losses plus limited expenses. I would strongly advise against attending a hearing, there is only one possible beneficiary from this, which isn't you. Write back to them stating that you have exhausted all other avenues and if they wish to proceed further you will defend yourself in a civil Court
As the prospect of a criminal prosecution is off the table, provided you are able to stomach it, my preference would be to have my day in court. The amount at stake is much reduced, they could only claim back their actual losses plus limited expenses. I would strongly advise against attending a hearing, there is only one possible beneficiary from this, which isn't you. Write back to them stating that you have exhausted all other avenues and if they wish to proceed further you will defend yourself in a civil Court
As the prospect of a criminal prosecution is off the table, provided you are able to stomach it, my preference would be to have my day in court. The amount at stake is much reduced, they could only claim back their actual losses plus limited expenses. I would strongly advise against attending a hearing, there is only one possible beneficiary from this, which isn't you. Write back to them stating that you have exhausted all other avenues and if they wish to proceed further you will defend yourself in a civil Court
Whilst this is certainly an option for the OP I would suggest they think carefully about how confident they would be in defending their position themselves were they to follow this advice to it’s conclusion, and allow it to go to court. Even where this is a civil court claim.
Speaking for myself it’s not something I’d be keen to do (go to court) without an experienced person to help me prepare for such a scenario or to represent me.
It's not clear to me what your last offer was to them. Perhaps you could restate this, so we know what they are currently looking at and finding unacceptable.
Several months have passed since I last posted here. I hadn't heard back for months since I was told my case was getting passed on. Admittedly I didn't want to look at it since I felt they might forget about it and that would jinx it.
I received an email today saying my case had been reviewed and I had several options. I could pay in full, set up a payment plan, go to a civil court hearing, or I meet the sender of the email for an interview, 'under caution', which will be recorded as per the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This sounds quite scary but the email says I will be able to provide any defences I believe I may have.
The email recommends that I attend this interview with legal counsel, which would definitely cost more than the fine itself. The email didn't address any of the previous arguments I had made either so the interview feels somewhat unnecessary.
I'm not sure if anyone will still be active on this thread but since it has been 3 months since the last update I thought I would post here.
I have just glanced through the previous pages of this thread, but it seems to me that what you have been sent may well be a standard response, rather than one based on what you have sent them. So starting from there
- I am fully with the consensus that you certainly should not go alone to a meeting with them, and broadly agree that you shouldn't go at all
- but as you are already in contact, I don't think that it would do any harm to write or email to restate your position and your current offer to settle (apologies, but my scan read hasn't made it clear to me what they are asking for to settle and what (if anything) you are currently offering). If my feeling that they haven't bothered reading what you have sent is correct, then giving them another opportunity might be productive.
- but this is suggestive of what we've recently seen with another train company - namely that there's a lack of willingness to negotiate settlements down, and you take what you're offered, or face the consequences. This could be evidence of a tougher line - or something as simple as the railways not having the resources to negotiate (it's much quicker just to say 'no' rather than to consider whether in all the circumstances 'yes' may be a better answer)
There is basically no jeopardy in letting them take you to court as long as you have the monies to hand to pay within 28 days to avoid a CCJ. They can claim hardly any costs at all and have no basis to claim any fares owed to other train companies.
but this is suggestive of what we've recently seen with another train company - namely that there's a lack of willingness to negotiate settlements down, and you take what you're offered, or face the consequences. This could be evidence of a tougher line - or something as simple as the railways not having the resources to negotiate (it's much quicker just to say 'no' rather than to consider whether in all the circumstances 'yes' may be a better answer)
Your advice is very good but just to add to this part - I think the court will take a dim view of TOCs failing to follow the Civil Procedure rules on pre-action conduct. Sanctions can be imposed for bringing cases to court without making reasonable efforts to avoid doing so, and cases can even be dismissed because of it.
There is basically no jeopardy in letting them take you to court as long as you have the monies to hand to pay within 28 days to avoid a CCJ. They can claim hardly any costs at all and have no basis to claim any fares owed to other train companies.
They aren't able to claim invented costs at all, only costs of about £90 regardless. And yes, you have to go court to dispute the fact they're claiming for losses another company suffered because they seem quite set on recovering money they probably aren't entitled to when it's just private emails.
They aren't able to claim invented costs at all, only costs of about £90 regardless. And yes, you have to go court to dispute the fact they're claiming for losses another company suffered because they seem quite set on recovering money they probably aren't entitled to when it's just private emails.
Just to add to this, even if you go to court and completely mess up your arguments and it ends up going the way the TOC want, it’ll still be less than or the same as the settlement.
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.
