MG11 for journey with itinerary

[walkingsophie]

I don't think they have reading comprehension, I went to Waterloo via Twickenham not Wimbledon.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd correct them immediately by reply. Don't wait for more bullshido to be generated, it will just make unpicking things more difficult.

"The ticket is valid. I travelled exactly as per the attached itinerary and was stopped at Waterloo. Kindly confirm you will drop the matter".

Don't say please, don't be nice.

 

[walkingsophie]

I'd correct them immediately by reply. Don't wait for more bullshido to be generated, it will just make unpicking things more difficult.

"The ticket is valid. I travelled exactly as per the attached itinerary and was stopped at Waterloo. Kindly confirm you will drop the matter".

Don't say please, don't be nice.

I have sent them this email.

 

[sot]

Perhaps sara is more of a tennis fan than the rugby... Haha

All seriousness, unless you said that station in the prior email accidentally it shows clearly why private prosecutions should be destroyed!

 

[tatitiliti]

I don't think they have reading comprehension, I went to Waterloo via Twickenham not Wimbledon.

The lack of basic training given to SWR Revenue/Customer Relations staff is just unbelievable - or perhaps Sara was sleeping or playing Candy Crush while the training was given?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would at this point consider looking at least towards paid legal advice in preparation for an escalation. They clearly think (wrongly) that the original poster is taking the mick*, and so a prosecution rather than a settlement is in my view likely, and as it is a complex case based on a technicality of a ticket that was valid (by contract) but clearly should not have been**, I think there is a serious risk of a Court not versed in these technicalities convicting even though they clearly should not.

I don't know if any here are aware of solicitors they can recommend for a case like this?

* Well, they sort of are by using a loophole ticket like this, but legally!

** It's rather an echo of Clive Feather's London to Finsbury Park via Cambridge case in uk.railway days, but back then the railway was much less prosecution happy so if I recall his case was around his right to continue using the loophole, rather than a prosecution.

 

[walkingsophie]

I have now received this email and I do not know what the next steps should be. I would definitely like some solicitor recommendations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note I'm not trying to scare you there, purely that it is probably a good idea to start preparing options for if it does go very bad.

There is of course the option to pay the settlement and it will go away. This may be better value than a solicitor, but I am assuming you want to resolve this without paying the railway anything because nothing is in fact due to them, and if you do that may end up necessitating going to Court if they aren't going to listen.

One thing that may make them go away if they won't listen to you is a solicitor's letter to them setting out the legal position, no guarantees though.

 

[Haywain]

I do not know what the next steps should be.

Option 1, "Provide an explanation", is clearly the step to take. It may seem futile to repeat what you have said before but it may be read by a different person, and someone with a clearer ability to understand the situation. That can be done at the same time as taking initial legal advice.

If your explanation remains unaccepted, you will have to weigh up whether paying the settlement amount requested is a better option (in terms of cost and time) than either engaging a solicitor or going to court and attempting to defend the case.

 

[yorkie]

There is of course the option to pay the settlement and it will go away. This may be better value than a solicitor...

No; I would let the matter go to court.

A good solicitor will pursue the train company for compensation.

I know of a solicitor who has received thousands of posts in compensation from various train companies, such as Avanti , WMT etc for their refusal to honour contextual terms.

I have sent them a message, as I am sure they would be very interested in this case.

If anyone from SWR is reading this, they would be very foolish to proceed...

 

[walkingsophie]

I know of a solicitor who has received thousands of posts in compensation from various train companies, such as Avanti , WMT etc for their refusal to honour contextual terms.

I have sent them a message, as I am sure they would be very interested in this case.

If anyone from SWR is reading this, they would be very foolish to proceed...

Thank you for this.

 

[sot]

I cannot believe this at all it is not even as if it is something that is not clear. 13.1.2 explicitly states the route to be valid.

I wonder if the reasoning was listed off route it would have been any easier to 'defend' rather than Overtravel as per this case?

 

[walkingsophie]

I cannot believe this at all it is not even as if it is something that is not clear. 13.1.2 explicitly states the route to be valid.

I wonder if the reasoning was listed off route it would have been any easier to 'defend' rather than Overtravel as per this case?

I would guess so, due to the reasoning being listed as overtravelled from Wimbledon, SWR seems to think I travelled from Wimbledon to Waterloo despite me not having done such a thing.

 

[Swedenorer]

Just reply again attaching the valid itinerary and the contractural terms for the sale of tickets. There is nothing else you can do as far as a response is concerned.

 

[AlterEgo]

Just reply again attaching the valid itinerary and the contractural terms for the sale of tickets. There is nothing else you can do as far as a response is concerned.

Agreed. And be terse and assertive. A few sentences will suffice.

This letter has probably crossed with the OP's other email correspondence. It'll get dropped soon, likely without apology or compensation because train companies treat everyone who gets written up in the same way.

 

[ChilliSauce]

Just reply again attaching the valid itinerary and the contractural terms for the sale of tickets. There is nothing else you can do as far as a response is concerned.

Should the Op ask for a deadlock letter also.. Gives the opportunity to go straight to the rail ombudsman

 

[tatitiliti]

If they don’t respond to another attempt at an explanation, I’d definitely let it go to Court. Do not pay these shysters anything.

They will end up paying your fees anyway in addition to what will probably be a nice payout for you by means of citing abuse of process and claiming additional costs for wasted time and mental distress.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

They will end up paying your fees anyway in addition to what will probably be a nice payout for you.

I'm not sure either of these points are true:
- is there an automatic right to costs if you win a criminal case?
- and is there a right to compensation if wrongly prosecuted?

I'm not a lawyer but my impression is that the answer to both these questions is 'no'.

 

[tatitiliti]

I'm not sure either of these points are true:
- is there an automatic right to costs if you win a criminal case?
- and is there a right to compensation if wrongly prosecuted?

I'm not a lawyer but my impression is that the answer to both these questions is 'no'.

Yes, ‘reasonable costs’ and you can claim additional costs for wasted time and mental distress.

Although you can’t submit a counter claim at Magistrate’s Court in the way you would a civil case, you can cite abuse of process as using a private prosecution for a case that isn’t even arguable for them would probably fall under this.

 

[ChilliSauce]

I would guess so, due to the reasoning being listed as overtravelled from Wimbledon, SWR seems to think I travelled from Wimbledon to Waterloo despite me not having done such a thing.

Do you think that SWR have got themselves in such a mix up and muddle with the case that there are now so confused that they are mixing up Wimbledon and Waterloo? Might it be prudent in communication to refer to Waterloo as London-Waterloo. ?

 

[tatitiliti]

Do you think that SWR have got themselves in such a mix up and muddle with the case that there are now so confused that they are mixing up Wimbledon and Waterloo? Might it be prudent in communication to refer to Waterloo as London-Waterloo. ?

It certainly wouldn’t surprise me

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email dated x and you follow up letter dated y.

As previously stated in my previous correspondence dated z- a copy of which is attached again for your information- I held a valid ticket. My previous correspondence included a copy of the itinerary I used.

I trust you will now confirm that the matter is closed. For the avoidance of doubt, my intention would be to defend any criminal or other proceedings and I would seek reimbursement of all costs as permitted in law.

Kind regards,

 

[tatitiliti]

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your email dated x and you follow up letter dated y.

As previously stated in my previous correspondence dated z- a copy of which is attached again for your information- I held a valid ticket.

I trust you will now confirm that the matter is closed. For the avoidance of doubt, my intention would be to defend any criminal or other proceedings and I would seek reimbursement of all costs as permitted in law.

Kind regards,

Agree - this is good

 

[tatitiliti]

If you want to go down this route, I’d also see if any regional papers would be interested in the case - make it a deserved PR embarrassment for SWR and help extract some compensation. It may also get their attention if you don’t want to go to Court and they insist on it.

‘SWR passenger repeatedly threatened with prosecution for holding a valid ticket’ sounds about right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think there is a serious risk of a Court not versed in these technicalities convicting even though they clearly should not.

I disagree. The new Byelaws and Conditions of Travel are remarkably clear on this issue.

I referred to the exact terms to be quoted in my previous post on the matter. The OP is intelligent enough to have identified this good value ticket, they are (I am sure) intelligent enough to articulate why their journey was within the rules.

I think this is one where it is worth standing your ground rather than paying up.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2026 ==

I'm not sure either of these points are true:
- is there an automatic right to costs if you win a criminal case?
- and is there a right to compensation if wrongly prosecuted?

There is not an automatic right to costs, but on acquittal you or your advocate can apply for a defendant’s costs order (DCO). You have to ask for it though, the court won’t automatically grant it. This is important if you get to court and the prosecuting lawyer pulls it at the last second, you still need to make sure you get into the courtroom to ask for the DCO.

There isn’t a right to compensation, a DCO is purely for reimbursement of costs incurred.

But you could separately look to seek compensation for malicious prosecution. How far you would get on that, I have no idea.

So I suggest you do need to respond to all 3 options as it nothing else it stops the possibility of SWR coming back stating we gave you 3 options and you have remained silent on two off.

No. Keep the correspondence simple. The OP had a valid ticket and has already explained why.

 

[Starmill]

It's rather an echo of Clive Feather's London to Finsbury Park via Cambridge case in uk.railway days, but back then the railway was much less prosecution happy so if I recall his case was around his right to continue using the loophole, rather than a prosecution.

London Terminals - Cambridge Heath wasn't it? And via Cambridge was definitely a permitted route, no matter how one looked at it. Either way this isn't as daft as that.

 

[Adam Williams]

@walkingsophie Have you contacted TrainSplit's customer support team about this case?

You've received some good advice here and the issue wouldn't ordinarily be something to complain to a retailer about, but on this occasion I think I'd like to review the details and then drop SWR's revenue protection team - who I incidentally spoke to on a call only a few weeks ago - an email.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, ‘reasonable costs’ and you can claim additional costs for wasted time and mental distress.

You could apply for your actual losses, yes. But I would advise against trying to go down the route of a prosecution wholly unreasonable, as the bar for that is deliberately high.

 

[tatitiliti]

You could apply for your actual losses, yes. But I would advise against trying to go down the route of a prosecution wholly unreasonable, as the bar for that is deliberately high.

Yes, the bar for malicious prosecution or abuse of process is high - though if this, a private prosecution that is so obviously brought on no factual basis, isn’t then what is?

Mental distress, wasted time (and possibly damage to reputation) are likely reasonable actual losses for a case like this, in addition to any direct legal costs to defend the case.

With something like this, I’d be trying deliberately to extract every penny possible from SWR and hurt their PR by publicising it. This is the only way they’ll learn.

 

[Starmill]

Yes, the bar for malicious prosecution or abuse of process is high - though if this, a private prosecution that is so obviously brought on no factual basis, isn’t then what is?

I agree there's every possibility of these circumstances meeting that test, I am not saying the bar hasn't been met. I am just advising that someone should only go down that route if they're confident they understand the scale of the challenge, and more importantly that they have some very persuasive evidence. Either way this is not a matter for immediate attention.