MG11 for journey with itinerary

[walkingsophie]

I’m not sure I’d be supplying my personal details either. They don’t need them, they have your name and address and that’s all the law requires you to give to them. I wouldn’t argue this point though, I’d just ignore their request.

The specific personal information they have asked for is just stuff I'm required to give by law + contact information, and I have no problem letting them know about it.

 

[z444z]

The specific personal information they have asked for is just stuff I'm required to give by law + contact information, and I have no problem letting them know about it.

There’s no requirement to give them your personal details now.

 

[furlong]

I got a penalty fare for this exact journey in the past and successfully appealed it.

Personally I'd take a stronger line and ask what steps the company will take to ensure that all its employees and agents are fully aware of this particular contractual provision such that you will not be inconvenienced in this manner should you use the company's rail services in full accordance with the contract again, and request an apology including some token compensation for the inconvenience for the delay incurred and the need to respond to a letter which, on receiving the report, the company should have known did not need to be sent.

 

[walkingsophie]

Personally I'd take a stronger line and ask what steps the company will take to ensure that all its employees and agents are fully aware of this particular contractual provision such that you will not be inconvenienced in this manner should you use the company's rail services in full accordance with the contract again, and request an apology including some token compensation for the inconvenience for the delay incurred and the need to respond to a letter which, on receiving the report, the company should have known did not need to be sent.

I am considering doing this

 

[Haywain]

I am considering doing this

I would hold off on that, so as to keep the current matter clear.

 

[walkingsophie]

I might do it as a response after they tell me that they will not be prosecuting me.

 

[Haywain]

I might do it as a response after they tell me that they will not be prosecuting me.

I think that is the appropriate course of action.

 

[30907]

Couple of thoughts:
1. Would it be worth referencing the parent site Trainsplit rather than our own - just sounds more official?
2. Not sure you need to quote 16.2 in full. How about
"This category of ticket has no condition excluding break of journey so (quoting condition 16.2) "...you may start, or break and resume, a journey...at any intermediate station..." I was therefore entitled to break my journey at Waterloo and resume at at a time the ticket was valid."

Any advance on that?

 

[furlong]

I wouldn't even mention 16.2. The letter's already too long when they are doubling down on a mistake made by an inadequately-trained railway employee. It's clear the back office didn't check this report properly before inserting it into their sausage machine so it just needs the straightforward facts repeating for them.

 

[walkingsophie]

Couple of thoughts:
1. Would it be worth referencing the parent site Trainsplit rather than our own - just sounds more official?

If there's a good way to phrase whilst also not implying I didn't buy from the forum website, I'd be happy to hear it

Re: 16.2
I think I agree it's sensible to not bring 16.2 up unless they complain about the break of journey up

 

[Swedenorer]

Keep the letter short, give no personal details at this stage and simply include the itinerary and the retailer from which it was obtained referring to the conditions. In these cases invariably say as little as possible keep only to the point. You were sold a ticket with an itinerary by x. That's all they need to know. (It might be worth getting multiple copies of your letter as if you continue to use this fare while available it will, I bet, happen every time.) Remember too it is not the fault of the person dealing with the TIR that such an, on the face of it, ludicrous fare is sold by some, and only some, outlets. A simple to the point letter helps them too.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Keep the letter short, give no personal details at this stage and simply include the itinerary and the retailer from which it was obtained referring to the conditions. In these cases invariably say as little as possible keep only to the point. You were sold a ticket with an itinerary by x. That's all they need to know. (It might be worth getting multiple copies of your letter as if you continue to use this fare while available it will, I bet, happen every time.) Remember too it is not the fault of the person dealing with the TIR that such an, on the face of it, ludicrous fare is sold by some, and only some, outlets. A simple to the point letter helps them too.

No one sensible is going to argue against simple, but can I put the case for long (or at least comprehensive). Rather as in the above, it's not the fault of whoever is dealing with the case, but most of the cases they deal with will be clearly in or out of what is allowed. This is an edge case where a detailed knowledge of the rules is needed to see that the OP is within the rules, so it's in the OP's interests to clearly spell out what they're relying on.

You can't assume that whoever at the railway will go away to find the detailed rules that they should be following: neither can you assume that they will be sympathetic. So you need to spell everything out, in detail, and without getting them to do the thinking in your favour.

In short, you need to be comprehensive. Which may very well mean being long.

 

[walkingsophie]

Here's the current draft, I will be emailing it out tomorrow evening if nobody opposed

[Case Reference Number]

Dear SWR Prosecutions Department,

I am writing in response to the letter you have sent, dated 30th March 2026. I am writing to state that the ticket I used to make the journey mentioned in that letter was valid.

I was travelling from Upper Halliford to London Waterloo via Twickenham on the 09/03/2026 with an Upper Halliford to Hinchley Wood Any Permitted Evening Out Return, using the outward ticket.

National Rail Conditions of Travel 13.1.2 states that a ticket "will be valid as shown on the itinerary [...] from a Licensed Retailer in connection with the purchase of a Ticket and/or including the relevant restrictions applying to that Ticket."

I have attached a copy of the itinerary I was following obtained in connection with the purchase of my ticket. As you will note, this itinerary includes travel via London Waterloo. I have used https://tickets.railforums.co.uk/ to purchase the tickets with the itinerary, and they are a Licensed Retailer.

The letter you have sent has also asked for some of my personal details. They are listed below:
[Personal details]

I trust that this resolves your queries and I look forward to receiving your formal confirmation in writing that the matter is now closed.

Yours Faithfully,
[My name]

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I have attached a copy of the itinerary obtained in connection with the purchase of my ticket. As you will note, this itinerary includes travel via London Waterloo. I have used https://tickets.railforums.co.uk/ to purchase the tickets with the itinerary, and they are a Licensed Retailer.

Rather as I said above (and I know that others disagree) I think it is worth spelling out that the NRCoT says that the ticket is valid for break of journey, with the relevant bit of the NRCoT referenced.

 

[sot]

It would be funnier to let them dig themselves a hole saying something about it not being valid despite an itinerary at exactly the correct time being on hand during the journey, with a huge time gap, with a ticket known not to have BoJ restrictions

 

[swt_passenger]

So when will they fix this completely illogical routeing?

 

[sot]

Bigger question when will they change the 13.1.2 itinerary rule. At least it was fully under RDG control in the routeing guide, albeit too much for most consumers.

This solidifying of NRE and itinerary rules then has another layer of abstraction within the implementation of the issuing system.

That being said the old contractual argument was there anyway.

 

[walkingsophie]

I have now sent the email.

 

[Haywain]

At least it was fully under RDG control in the routeing guide, albeit too much for most consumers.

The routes that itineraries can show is still controlled by the routeing guide, which still remains under the control of RDG.

 

[sot]

The routes that itineraries can show is still controlled by the routeing guide, which still remains under the control of RDG.

Indeed but adds an additional abstraction layer for poor implementations.

 

[Cloud Strife]

There’s no requirement to give them your personal details now.

Sorry, do you mean that it's no longer an obligation to provide a name and address?

 

[z444z]

Sorry, do you mean that it's no longer an obligation to provide a name and address?

Not when they write to you later, no, not that I’m aware of.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry, do you mean that it's no longer an obligation to provide a name and address?

Only when stopped. Not later. And they should have taken all the details they need at the time of the stop anyway.

 

[gray1404]

Am I correct that if you have a valid ticket you're not required to give any details?

 

[yorkie]

So when will they fix this completely illogical routeing?

It should be trivial, but they probably don't have anyone who really understands fares in the relevant department of the company, in the way that people on here do.

It shouldn't be routed "Any Permitted", which is for longer distance journeys. It should be routed "Not via London" like other tickets in this area, e.g.:

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks, at face value with no fees. Every British rail fare shown, railcard discounts included.

www.brfares.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Apr 2026 ==

What are the options on this system for reason?

I do think some of these do attempt to get people in more bother by entering more severe sounding reasons than what is actually the case.

For example no ticket when suspected off route.

How on earth, for example, can you be overtravelling if offering the correct half of the ticket on a stated accompanying itinerary?

Is there not a more 'our problem' reason than making the pax have palpitations in anticipation of some further legal issues?

The people who SWR employ or contract to do this work aren't intelligent and/or competent enough to realise how silly they are being.

Bigger question when will they change the 13.1.2 itinerary rule. At least it was fully under RDG control in the routeing guide, albeit too much for most consumers.

This solidifying of NRE and itinerary rules then has another layer of abstraction within the implementation of the issuing system.

That being said the old contractual argument was there anyway.

No; it's always been the case that you are allowed to follow an itinerary. Indeed, before it was officially published on NRE (years ago now), it was simply a matter of applying contract and consumer law. It didn't need to be stated on NRE or the NRCoT, but I absolutely welcome its inclusion.

Removing it would not alter the legal position, that following an itinerary is permitted.

I was able to get this itinerary on ScotRail by just looking for an open return via Twickenham

Yes, that works

Train Tickets | Times & Timetables | Fares in Scotland | ScotRail

Buy cheap train tickets & find the best deals on rail fares to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness & the rest of Scotland. ScotRail is operated by Abellio.

www.buytickets.scotrail.co.uk

Journey details
Wed 1 Jul, 13:15
15:02
South Western Railway
SW833800
13:15
Upper Halliford
15m
13:30
Teddington
5m transfer time
South Western Railway
SW783100
13:35
Teddington
41m
14:16
London Waterloo
17m transfer time
South Western Railway
SW763900
14:33
London Waterloo
29m
15:02
Hinchley Wood

 

[AlterEgo]

Am I correct that if you have a valid ticket you're not required to give any details?

The officer has to have reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed, which is not quite the same thing.

 

[island]

I agree with this analysis.

On the other hand, if an RPI proposes to issue a penalty fare, the obligation to provide name, address, and (in England) date of birth applies under regulation 13 of the Penalty Fares Regulations, and no reasonableness test arises.

 

[walkingsophie]

Wait I'm not fully following this, does this imply that the only way the railways can legally force someone overtravelling to give their info is via a penalty fare?

 

[Starmill]

Wait I'm not fully following this, does this imply that the only way the railways can legally force someone overtravelling to give their info is via a penalty fare?

No. The fare is due for the journey that was actually made regardless. The train operator could still invoice for unpaid fares or sue for damages (i.e their actual losses, though not the charging of any penalties) arising from an unpaid fare. Furthermore a police constable can investigate any offence if evidence of one were reported to them. Technically this can still happen on the spot. If an officer wishes to ID check you, you usually have to do as they say.

In this case the fare clearly was paid correctly.

 

[Dirty_Mac]

Train Tickets | Times & Timetables | Fares in Scotland | ScotRail

Buy cheap train tickets & find the best deals on rail fares to Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness & the rest of Scotland. ScotRail is operated by Abellio.

www.buytickets.scotrail.co.uk

Ah yes operated by Abellio