I am slightly surprised to be posting in this section...
My boyfriend recently received a letter via email from Greater Anglia alleging that he appears to have used a ticket (the number is quoted) multiple times, which it says would be a breach of their terms and conditions. He is sure that he hasn't, but there is a potential explanation for why they might think this.
Given the passage of time since the ticket in question was used, we cannot be sure that this is the cause, but he and I remember an occasion where he had two open returns on his phone and mistakenly presented the wrong one to an inspector. When he was told it had already been used, he realised he'd opened the wrong one and presented the correct ticket. No further comment was made at the time. This seems to be the most likely prompt for the GA email - I assume the multiple scans have come up in a trawl of scan data, but without the context of another valid ticket bought by the same account being immediately scanned afterwards.
The wording of the letter strikes me (as someone who has to think very carefully about drafting professionally, though I am not in any way a legal professional) as being phrased in such a way as to sound threatening, while shying away from making any direct allegation or containing any actual threat of action.
It invites (but notably does not demand) a response within seven days. I assume the standard advice on this forum of not responding remains valid in this case.
My boyfriend recently received a letter via email from Greater Anglia alleging that he appears to have used a ticket (the number is quoted) multiple times, which it says would be a breach of their terms and conditions. He is sure that he hasn't, but there is a potential explanation for why they might think this.
Given the passage of time since the ticket in question was used, we cannot be sure that this is the cause, but he and I remember an occasion where he had two open returns on his phone and mistakenly presented the wrong one to an inspector. When he was told it had already been used, he realised he'd opened the wrong one and presented the correct ticket. No further comment was made at the time. This seems to be the most likely prompt for the GA email - I assume the multiple scans have come up in a trawl of scan data, but without the context of another valid ticket bought by the same account being immediately scanned afterwards.
The wording of the letter strikes me (as someone who has to think very carefully about drafting professionally, though I am not in any way a legal professional) as being phrased in such a way as to sound threatening, while shying away from making any direct allegation or containing any actual threat of action.
It invites (but notably does not demand) a response within seven days. I assume the standard advice on this forum of not responding remains valid in this case.
