Guidance needed for response to SWR letter

[Sr2026]

Hello, I’m hoping some of you might be able to give me guidance please if possible? My nephew travelled on SWR from Waterloo recently and was issued with a Report for Prosecution ticket. The reason on it states no money/ticket admitted. He had been out in London and lost the cash he had on him and was trying to get home. Phone battery was down to 1% and never carries a card. He doesn’t remember much of what was said when the officer spoke with him (he’d had no sleep and the fear and panic had also set in by that point) but he did say the officer said to explain what had happened when the letter arrived (A staff member at Waterloo had let him through as a ‘one-off’ when he explained and pleaded to them).

Anyhow, a letter has arrived and seems the same as many posted on here but says in bold‘did travel on railway without having previously paid the fare with intent to avoid payment’.They have given him 21 days to offer mitigating factors etc.

My main question is I have no idea how he can prove who he spoke to at Waterloo (he didn’t think to take a name or any sort of proof). Is there a way SWR Waterloo could check and verify this if he explains this to them or is it impossible for them to do? If they wouldn’t this, is there a way we could get this detail retrospectively to help support? Or is it better to avoid/forget that route altogether (he now understands that no ticket equals no ticket, no matter what) and only focus his response on acknowledging he had no ticket and apologising for that, reassuring them that this will never happen again and asking them to consider allowing him to pay the fare owed and the associated admin costs?


Thank you for taking the time to read.

 

[z444z]

Can you clarify the journey he made and at what point on that journey he was stopped?

 

[Sr2026]

He boarded at Waterloo and was stopped on its approach to Surbiton.

.

 

[z444z]

Okay. Do you know exactly what train was used? Would be helpful to be able to give SWR the platform number to make it easier for them to potentially identify the member of staff.

It may be worth mentioning the circumstances in the response to SWR and acknowledging that it may be difficult or impossible for them to verify the story, and you’d appreciate discretion but understand if not and are willing to engage with the process.

SWR are generally quite reasonable and I do think there’s at least some chance they’d agree to drop the case if you really nicely explain what happened but also make it clear that you’re willing to engage and make amends if they’re unable to let you off.

 

[AlterEgo]

He boarded at Waterloo and was stopped on its approach to Surbiton.

.

Which date and time train was he stopped? If you have a copy of the letter it would help to see it, with his personal details removed of course.

 

[Sr2026]

Thank you for your reply. Much appreciated! I have no idea what train he used. I don’t suspect he’d know either if I ask. Is that important and if so, would you know how we could find this out please?

What I didn’t want to do was help him write a response that they could not verify and that then possibly leaving him worse off as I assumed they’d think the worst of most unless proven otherwise?

And when you say drop the case, do you mean they may not pursue it any further at all, so not even having to pay the fare and admin costs? I’ve advised him best case scenario at the mo is at least £150 for admin + the fare and to start saving.

Sorry for all the questions - just want to make sure we get this right with minimal damage. Thanks again

 

[z444z]

And when you say drop the case, do you mean they may not pursue it any further at all, so not even having to pay the fare and admin costs?

Yes, I think it’s a possible outcome given what you’ve told us. Far from guaranteed, so you do need to be ready to pay up

I’ve advised him best case scenario at the mo is at least £150 for admin + the fare and to start saving.

So this is a good idea regardless

 

[Gloster]

For clarity. Was he travelling from Waterloo to a station further out and was interviewed on the train in the Surbiton area, or was he trying to leave the train or station at Surbiton?

I see he got through the barriers at Waterloo by pleading. What did he give as a reason?

 

[z444z]

How did he get through the barriers at Waterloo?

This is answered in post #1:

(A staff member at Waterloo had let him through as a ‘one-off’ when he explained and pleaded to them).

 

[Gloster]

This is answered in post #1:

I have corrected.

 

[z444z]

Thank you for your reply. Much appreciated! I have no idea what train he used. I don’t suspect he’d know either if I ask. Is that important

Well it might be beneficial to tell SWR “I spoke to staff at the gateline for platform x”. Not crucial, but might help. Was he given a document of any sort following the interaction with the revenue inspector?

 

[AlterEgo]

SWR are not going to go chasing some gateline member of staff to see if they spoke to someone however long it was ago who was dishevelled and ask "did you let a guy travel without a ticket?".

Firstly, gateline staff aren't supposed to do this; passengers need a ticket or other authority to travel, not least because it can cause problems down the line (as we have seen!). So I doubt any staff member will admit to this. Secondly, staff speak to hundreds or thousands of people a week, so the encounter may not be recalled anyway. And finally it isn't for SWR to do this; if it goes to court, the OP's nephew has to show they have this specified defence of "permission to travel" - the onus is on *the nephew* to prove it. For which they have no evidence.

Better to try and settle the matter now.

 

[z444z]

SWR are not going to go chasing some gateline member of staff to see if they spoke to someone however long it was ago who was dishevelled and ask "did you let a guy travel without a ticket?".

Probably not, but I think the risk/reward of mentioning it in the response, while also being apologetic and making clear that you’re willing to settle, is worth it. The risk is so very low with SWR as long as it’s worded well.

 

[Sr2026]

Which date and time train was he stopped? If you have a copy of the letter it would help to see it, with his personal details removed of

Well it might be beneficial to tell SWR “I spoke to staff at the gateline for platform x”. Not crucial, but might help. Was he given a document of any sort following the interaction with the revenue inspector?

Yes, that definitely makes sense! I’ll ask if he remembers more details.

On the day he was stopped he was given a printed out receipt? with ‘SWR report for prosecutions’ at the top. Along with a reference number, it has my nephews particulars on, the inspectors number, the reason for issue (states no money/ticket admitted) and then says SWR will be contacting him in writing regarding the facts reported that day and may pursue a prosecution. He now has the letter that the receipt? was referring to and what the inspector said he’d be receiving in the post.

 

[z444z]

The receipt would have date and time so if you know it was issued approaching Surbiton you might be able to figure out which train was used. It’s up to you whether you want to take the maybe very slightly riskier approach of explaining what happened for the potential benefit of them dropping the case or charging a lower admin fee, or omit it and just settle as normal. I would personally be going with the former but this isn’t my decision to make!

 

[Sr2026]

Which date and time train was he stopped? If you have a copy of the letter it would help to see it, with his personal details removed of course.

Thank you for replying. I’ll ask him for it and I’ll post here. When looking at other posts it seemed standard aside from bit in bold which I made a note of above in my original post (I suspect SWR adapt/edit that part to the reflect the situation in question).

 

[WesternLancer]

Hello, I’m hoping some of you might be able to give me guidance please if possible? My nephew travelled on SWR from Waterloo recently and was issued with a Report for Prosecution ticket. The reason on it states no money/ticket admitted. He had been out in London and lost the cash he had on him and was trying to get home. Phone battery was down to 1% and never carries a card. He doesn’t remember much of what was said when the officer spoke with him (he’d had no sleep and the fear and panic had also set in by that point) but he did say the officer said to explain what had happened when the letter arrived (A staff member at Waterloo had let him through as a ‘one-off’ when he explained and pleaded to them).

Anyhow, a letter has arrived and seems the same as many posted on here but says in bold‘did travel on railway without having previously paid the fare with intent to avoid payment’.They have given him 21 days to offer mitigating factors etc.

My main question is I have no idea how he can prove who he spoke to at Waterloo (he didn’t think to take a name or any sort of proof). Is there a way SWR Waterloo could check and verify this if he explains this to them or is it impossible for them to do? If they wouldn’t this, is there a way we could get this detail retrospectively to help support? Or is it better to avoid/forget that route altogether (he now understands that no ticket equals no ticket, no matter what) and only focus his response on acknowledging he had no ticket and apologising for that, reassuring them that this will never happen again and asking them to consider allowing him to pay the fare owed and the associated admin costs?


Thank you for taking the time to read.

Is he over 18?

I suspect the standard advise given on the forum about how best to reply will work to avoid it escalating to court.

Have you seen that on other threads yet?

 

[Sr2026]

SWR are not going to go chasing some gateline member of staff to see if they spoke to someone however long it was ago who was dishevelled and ask "did you let a guy travel without a ticket?".

Firstly, gateline staff aren't supposed to do this; passengers need a ticket or other authority to travel, not least because it can cause problems down the line (as we have seen!). So I doubt any staff member will admit to this. Secondly, staff speak to hundreds or thousands of people a week, so the encounter may not be recalled anyway. And finally it isn't for SWR to do this; if it goes to court, the OP's nephew has to show they have this specified defence of "permission to travel" - the onus is on *the nephew* to prove it. For which they have no evidence.

Better to try and settle the matter now.

Thank you for responding, much appreciated. This is my worry that he has no proof if escalated. By settling now do you mean proceed by acknowledging wrong doing, apologising, assuring them this will not happen again and asking if they’d consider allowing him to pay the fare and associated admin fees?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

Is he over 18?

I suspect the standards advise given on the forum about how best to reply will work to avoid it escalating to court.

Have you seen that on other threads yet?

Thank you - yes he is (just).

 

[Gloster]

When they have received his response, for which guidance will be available in this thread, SWR are likely, but not bound, to offer an out of court settlement. This is normally the cost of the journey(s) at the full Anytime Single fare plus their investigation costs, usually around £150. If it is genuinely a one-off incident, and SWR will know, they have been known to reduce the costs, but at very least he will have to pay for the ticket. But they are not bound to.

 

[Sr2026]

The receipt would have date and time so if you know it was issued approaching Surbiton you might be able to figure out which train was used. It’s up to you whether you want to take the maybe very slightly riskier approach of explaining what happened for the potential benefit of them dropping the case or charging a lower admin fee, or omit it and just settle as normal. I would personally be going with the former but this isn’t my decision to make!

Thank you again for your guidance. I will speak with him and see what he feels he wants to do. The risk of having to prove, if it came to that (as mentioned by a member above) is the only sticky point for me. Would it be ok to respond to one of your messages with a proposed reply (based on his eventual decision) once we have drafted one, just so I can get feedback on it before he emails them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

When they have received his response, for which guidance will be available in this thread, SWR are likely, but not bound, to offer an out of court settlement. This is normally the cost of the journey(s) at the full Anytime Single fare plus their investigation costs, usually around £150. If it is genuinely a one-off incident, and SWR will know, they have been known to reduce the costs, but at very least he will have to pay for the ticket. But they are not bound to.

Thank you. Yes it is a one off. He has no history at all with SWR or any other train company for that matter.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you for responding, much appreciated. This is my worry that he has no proof if escalated. By settling now do you mean proceed by acknowledging wrong doing, apologising, assuring them this will not happen again and asking if they’d consider allowing him to pay the fare and associated admin fees?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==


Thank you - yes he is (just).

If it’s not a lie he doesn’t need to prove anything he can tell them what happened ie he lost his money, had no phone working and asked staff if he could board the train and was allowed to do so.

He can apologise for not having a backup plan and will learn from that in future (carry emergency cash), request they resolve the matter without court action if they would be kind enough to do so, and offer to pay the fare owed and their costs of investigation.

It’s not a wholly unreasonable story. But he should not lie under any circumstances given that this process ultimately has the potential to end up in court, even if a good chance that can be avoided.

 

[z444z]

Thank you again for your guidance. I will speak with him and see what he feels he wants to do. The risk of having to prove, if it came to that (as mentioned by a member above) is the only sticky point for me.

There would be no risk of having to prove anything imo. As I said earlier:

It may be worth mentioning the circumstances in the response to SWR and acknowledging that it may be difficult or impossible for them to verify the story, and you’d appreciate discretion but understand if not and are willing to engage with the process.

Would it be ok to respond to one of your messages with a proposed reply (based on his eventual decision) once we have drafted one, just so I can get feedback on it before he emails them?

Absolutely, this is what we usually suggest

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

Or go halfway by explaining what happened but not explicitly asking for discretion to be shown or anything like that.

 

[furlong]

If they are making the story up, just stop now, apologise to the company and request a settlement. Just some money to pay and it'll all be over. Straightforward.

Otherwise in a case like this, as they already were told at the time that the individual had been given authority to travel without a ticket. if the company is disputing this as it seems they are and contemplating prosecution, it should already have taken steps to preserve any evidence (such as CCTV) that might assist the defence in proving this happened.

How long was it between going through the ticket gate and the train departing?
Either you can work out the approximate time and ticket gate where this happened, or you can help them work this out (they'll know what platform the train left from and at what time), then help them use the CCTV and/or rosters showing who was on duty to identify the employee and obtain a statement from them.

When allowed through, were any conditions attached, such as agreeing to pay for the journey later? Even if not, the unpaid fare should still be offered now.

 

[z444z]

If they are making the story up, just stop now, apologise to the company and request a settlement. Just some money to pay and it'll all be over. Straightforward.

Agreed. The chance of being caught in a lie and ending up with a criminal record isn’t worth the £50-£150 savings.

 

[bb21]

... it should already have taken steps to preserve any evidence (such as CCTV) that might assist the defence in proving this happened.

There is a less than zero chance of this happening.

 

[furlong]

There is a less than zero chance of this happening.

They are already aware of the main strand of the passenger's potential defence so they should already know that CCTV evidence might have to be disclosed should they prosecute. (In simple terms, if they fail to preserve it when they reasonably could have done, it makes it harder to challenge any presumption by the defence of what the CCTV would have shown i.e. someone being let through after a conversation indicating they were authorised to travel rather than someone pushing through or tail-gating,)

 

[John R]

They are already aware of the main strand of the passenger's potential defence so they should already know that CCTV evidence might have to be disclosed should they prosecute.

Are they? They’ve just sent out the standard letter at this stage.

 

[Sr2026]

Just popping back to send my thanks to each of you for your valued input. Before sending any correspondence, my nephew received another letter from SWR in the post with an offer to settle out of court or the option to request a court hearing; he opted to settle. It also gave him a further 21 days to offer a reply/mitigating circumstance. Needless to say going forward he will make sure he has a ticket no matter what!

 

[WesternLancer]

Just popping back to send my thanks to each of you for your valued input. Before sending any correspondence, my nephew received another letter from SWR in the post with an offer to settle out of court or the option to request a court hearing; he opted to settle. It also gave him a further 21 days to offer a reply/mitigating circumstance. Needless to say going forward he will make sure he has a ticket no matter what!

Thanks for update. That’s probably the best that could have realistically been offered.

When paid, your nephew needs to keep proof of payment and all paperwork related to this and keep it long term. Over a year at least.

 

[Sr2026]

Thanks for update. That’s probably the best that could have realistically been offered.

When paid, your nephew needs to keep proof of payment and all paperwork related to this and keep it long term. Over a year at least.

Thanks WesternLancer, he will do. We were surprised that he got another letter from them giving the 3 options without having yet received a reply but at least it’s now settled.