The OP can claim what they like but intent is judged by actions (and words, not applicable to this case), and the buying of two tickets not covering the whole journey is a clear demonstration of intent.
A bit insane they can use lies as scare tactics. I would rather not have my account history investigated as I have used the 16-25 railcard in the past without owning one, just not in this instance.
Bad luck.
Too late for that. You've been reported and it is highly likely that your purchase history will be looked at. And whilst others are saying that you haven't committed the offence mentioned in the letter, I would point out that the letter doesn't constitute a court summons and formal charge. Should it proceed to that if you were to insist you had not committed the offence you are likely to have to do so before the magistrates with the associated stress and time. Alternatively, the charge could be amended to reflect an offence you would not have a defence for. It may be better to apologise for the behaviour and request a settlement which, from GTR, is likely to be a relatively low amount - although that will depend on what else they find in your account and choose to follow up.
I agree and in this case OP should probably assume they will be convicted and aim for an out of court settlement. It is an important legal distinction though and there have been cases on here where it was relevant.
Indeed. However, if Balcombe is a quiet station... And the officer was already working through the carriage... And noted no person entering or leaving that carriage at Balcombe... Then it's an easy statement to make to the court with confidence.
This, I think, is fine. The language doesn't need to be quite as elaborate as you have used (although some people do speak and write like that, so I know that this could be your natural tone) but I don't think that you need to worry about that.
Intent of what, in this case?
To travel from Three Bridges to Balcombe without a ticket for that part of their Gatwick to Brighton journey.
This isn't how I saw your situation when I first read your initial posts. I assumed you had a ticket to Three Bridges, then decided you wanted to travel to Brighton instead. That wouldn't have been a "mistake" or "short-sighted decision". It's something I've done numerous times myself (albeit not with an unticketed gap in the middle), and it's not been an action with any intent to avoid paying the correct fare - rather, just like you, I paid more than a single through ticket would have cost.
He's paid more than the correct fare.
I think you could quite easily, and arguably reasonable, argue that it RoRA doesn't apply here as he has previously paid his fare, hasn't avoided paying it, and has paid for the additional distance. He paid more than he needed to.
I haven't attempted to look for case law, but I strongly suspect that the courts would interpret 'a certain distance' as 'Station A to station B' rather than '5 miles in any direction from station A'. And I suspect that they would go on to interpret 'fare' even when unqualified by 'certain difference' in the same way.
This is a good point. I think the question to ask GTR would be what specific offence, citing legislation, they are alleging.
Thanks for letting us know. That's quite a good settlement. So get it paid and that should be the end of the matter - although it's always a good idea to keep a screenshot of your payment having been accepted just in case something goes wrong in the background and the railway wants you to pay it again.
