MG11 for journey with itinerary

[sot]

A good outcome for @walkingsophie

But terrible response from them indeed.

I am sure they will hide behind the revenue abstracting "commercially sensitive" if you request a SAR or FOI (they are DfT right?).

Look forward to chatting about it this week.

Sounds like the back down trying to not lose face...

 

[Sonic1234]

But if you make even a small error like forgetting to renew your railcard or overcarry yourself, you need to write an obsequious missive to these people, prostrating yourself and apologising for the error of your ways, asking for mercy and maybe having to pay a large sum of money. It's vile.

These days few TOCs require the missive prostrating yourself, they write to you in the first letter saying pay us £x or court. At least it skips the charade of having to write an apology. I was never convinced the apology mattered, TOCs just see a chance to extract money, probably could have written in with "Lol, did it for the bantz, how much cash do you want?"

 

[yorkie]

... I would be reluctant to pay any settlement fee, lest it should be seen as an admission of guilt or weakness of argument...

Yes it is understandable that you would make this choice; there is no one approach to this, or one 'right' answer to this, as it depends on numerous factors such as the passengers appetite for a prolonged dispute vs an easy life, how much spare time is available to them, any pro bono access to solicitors, and what outcome is considered the most desirable.

The worst things to do are either to pay up and not pursue it, or to pay solicitors to get the matter dropped but not claim compensation.

And naturally the response from the train company *after it has investigated* is insincere and accusatory "yeah we will let you off this time, but be warned". There is not even an acknowledgement that the customer and a forum of internet anons is right, and they, the professionals, have got it wrong (many such cases).

But if you make even a small error like forgetting to renew your railcard or overcarry yourself, you need to write an obsequious missive to these people, prostrating yourself and apologising for the error of your ways, asking for mercy and maybe having to pay a large sum of money. It's vile.

Honestly these people can do one. At the very least they're bad at their jobs, at worst they're arrogant and see all passengers as dishonest or grifting.

Pathetic.

Exactly this.

And this is why a solicitor I know of chooses to pay the sum on demand and persue the TOCs through the courts. SWR are very lucky this time, and haven't ended up having to pay £thousands like Avanti, WMT etc have.

 

[walkingsophie]

And this is why a solicitor I know of chooses to pay the sum on demand and persue the TOCs through the courts. SWR are very lucky this time, and haven't ended up having to pay £thousands like Avanti, WMT etc have.

SWR are indeed very lucky this time, but I do expect there to be a next time, and I don't think SWR has done enough to stay lucky for the next time.

 

[Sonic1234]

And this is why a solicitor I know of chooses to pay the sum on demand and persue the TOCs through the courts. SWR are very lucky this time, and haven't ended up having to pay £thousands like Avanti, WMT etc have.

The number of people that will go down this route is negligible and will be seen by SWR et al. as a cost of doing business. Same as the private parking companies who end up paying out when someone fights them (it's a several hundred pound loss for a defended case when they win in court), but are making a packet from those who pay up for an easy life.

Although anything that curbs the excesses of enforcement is good in my opinion. Good on that firm of solicitors.

 

[yorkie]

The number of people that will go down this route is negligible and will be seen by SWR et al. as a cost of doing business...

Absolutely, yes; it takes someone who really knows what they are doing and there are very few people in the country who could achieve such an outcome. They need to choose their cases selectively, but this was a case they were prepared to take on.

TOCs who have lost such cases, e.g. Avanti, were quite shocked when they were ordered to pay up. They absolutely did not expect it at all. 99.99% of customers aren't going to know what to do, and/or won't have the right contacts to get such an outcome. But when you know the right people...

 

[Harratt4]

And naturally the response from the train company *after it has investigated* is insincere and accusatory "yeah we will let you off this time, but be warned". There is not even an acknowledgement that the customer and a forum of internet anons is right, and they, the professionals, have got it wrong (many such cases).

But if you make even a small error like forgetting to renew your railcard or overcarry yourself, you need to write an obsequious missive to these people, prostrating yourself and apologising for the error of your ways, asking for mercy and maybe having to pay a large sum of money. It's vile.

Honestly these people can do one. At the very least they're bad at their jobs, at worst they're arrogant and see all passengers as dishonest or grifting.

Pathetic.

100% this!

And given these public policy issues I would encourage the OP, if they can be bothered to waste anymore of their time on it, to report it to their MP. As very much non-specialists you may need to hold their hand a little in the drafting of the letter, or you could just focus on SWT frankly insulting reply and as an aside link them to this thread for a lay-person's illustration of why the legal framework around prosecutions such as this (or near prosecution) needs a shake up.

At the very least the email to SWT from your MP's case worker is likely to be read by someone more senior and (not guaranteed) more switched on which is likely to result i you receiving the apology you deserve. However, because of that I suspect it will also guarantee that this "loophole" is closed, possibly sooner than otherwise.

 

[Mainline421]

At the very least the email to SWT from your MP's case worker is likely to be read by someone more senior and (not guaranteed) more switched on which is likely to result i you receiving the apology you deserve. However, because of that I suspect it will also guarantee that this "loophole" is closed, possibly sooner than otherwise.

Which is why that is a really bad idea, the only action I would have taken would be to reply to SWR asking which "guidelines" they think may been broken. There is no point creating unnecessary drama or extra work, especially if the OP plans to continue using the ticket in question

 

[Adam Williams]

I'm sure the loophole was burnt (or at least, its days were immediately numbered) basically as soon this thread was created.

 

[tatitiliti]

Which is why that is a really bad idea, the only action I would have taken would be to reply to SWR asking which "guidelines" they think may been broken. There is no point creating unnecessary drama or extra work, especially if the OP plans to continue using the ticket in question

This - get them to explain directly, in accordance with NRCoT, which rules (or ‘guidelines’ in their words) were broken and why. If they can name one, they’re lying.

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

I'm sure the loophole was burnt (or at least, its days were immediately numbered) basically as soon this thread was created.

You’d be surprised…! Abellio company booking engines and many others still appear to allow this fare/associated routeing.

 

[walkingsophie]

This - get them to explain directly, in accordance with NRCoT, which rules (or ‘guidelines’ in their words) were broken and why. If they can name one, they’re lying.

This seems like a good idea, though they would probably just say I travelled without a valid ticket or something. I don't think there is much to be gained from trying.

 

[Benjwri]

You’d be surprised…! Abellio company booking engines and many others still appear to allow this fare/associated routeing.

They take a while to be closed but it is almost certain the process has started.

 

[tatitiliti]

They take a while to be closed but it is almost certain the process has started.

Possibly - if you’re planning on using them regularly, it may be worth bulk buying masses of them as far ahead as possible haha

 

[gray1404]

I totally get the conflicted options here and the fear that if this is taken higher up in Management the loophole gets closed.

On the other hand Southwestern Railway have basically said if you make a mistake again we're not going to let you off. In other words they have kept your details on file wrongly and given you a warning for breaking the rules.

You have not broken any rules and they should be retracting that warning, issuing you with an apology and deleting any data that they hold about you that is incorrect e.g. that you have already had a warning for breaking rules that you haven't actually broken.

 

[gembercannelle]

You have not broken any rules and they should be retracting that warning and issuing you with an apology and deleting any data that they hold about you that is incorrect e.g. that you have already had a warning for breaking rules that you haven't actually broken.

And this is why sending a Subject Access Request is a very good idea.

 

[walkingsophie]

I have been in contact with RailEasy about this, and they have made SWR send me an apology for it. The apology mentions that they did an investigation into this, and found that back office people haven't been briefed on the NRCoT changes, which should now hopefully be rectified.

 

[Swedenorer]

Good result for you but the explanation does not make sense. You had a valid ticket with an itinerary moreover for a fare Southern will still sell me. All the back office had to do was try to book this. I don't think any changes effect this at all.

 

[walkingsophie]

Good result for you but the explanation does not make sense. You had a valid ticket with an itinerary moreover for fare Southern will still sell me. All the back office had to do was try to book this. I don't think any changes effect this at all.

They also mentioned that the person giving me the MG11 did not mention my itinerary at all in the notes. But in this case it kind of becomes my word of telling them about the itinerary and their word of not mentioning it in the notes, so I'm not sure if anything can be done about that. Next time I get bothered by frontline staff about it I guess I will try even harder to make them write down stuff about me having an itinerary.

 

[Oscar M]

The apology mentions that they did an investigation into this, and found that back office people haven't been briefed on the NRCoT changes, which should now hopefully be rectified.

Ensuring that the prosecutions department of all people are aware of the changes to the NRCoT must surely be basic stuff.

They also mentioned that the person giving me the MG11 did not mention my itinerary at all in the notes.

Christ. But you attached your itinerary during your email correspondence with SWR, no? And they still dismissed that at first. It's not like the back office didn't previously have an opportunity to look at your itinerary, recognise that your ticket was valid and leave you be.

And when they closed your case, they didn't even acknowledge that your ticket was valid and suggested that they were essentially 'letting you off'.

Well done for persevering - SWR's handling of this matter really hasn't been acceptable. Have you received any kind of compensation for the bother?

 

[gray1404]

Even if the person issuing the MG11 didn't note that you were travelling in accordance with an itinerary, when the back office looked into your ticket they would have been able to see the itinerary that was sold against it. All they have to do is input the ticket reference number.

 

[walkingsophie]

Christ. But you attached your itinerary during your email correspondence with SWR, no? And they still dismissed that at first. It's not like the back office didn't previously have an opportunity to look at your itinerary, recognise that your ticket was valid and leave you be.

And when they closed your case, they didn't even acknowledge that your ticket was valid and suggested that they were essentially 'letting you off'.

Yes indeed. Hopefully their briefing of the back office staff ensures this does not happen again.

Have you received any kind of compensation for the bother?

No, I have not

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ensuring that the prosecutions department of all people are aware of the changes to the NRCoT must surely be basic stuff.

So you'd think, but even without that the itinerary is valid by way of contract law.

 

[WesternLancer]

Ensuring that the prosecutions department of all people are aware of the changes to the NRCoT must surely be basic stuff.


Christ. But you attached your itinerary during your email correspondence with SWR, no? And they still dismissed that at first. It's not like the back office didn't previously have an opportunity to look at your itinerary, recognise that your ticket was valid and leave you be.

And when they closed your case, they didn't even acknowledge that your ticket was valid and suggested that they were essentially 'letting you off'.

Well done for persevering - SWR's handling of this matter really hasn't been acceptable. Have you received any kind of compensation for the bother?

I was watching on Channel 5 last night 'Fare Dodgers - at war with he law' which features SWR revenue protection staff on the front line (or that episode did - not seen any others)
It would be a better programme if it featured the occasional case like this one....and followed it through, asking a few questions like these

 

[mike2230]

Is there any way for OP to press further complaint and demand SWR to launch discipline action against those staff involved?

 

[Haywain]

Is there any way for OP to press further complaint and demand SWR to launch discipline action against those staff involved?

The OP could try and complain further, although to what end I don't know. They have no right or power to demand SWR take any sort of action against their employees, that would be purely a matter for SWR.

 

[walkingsophie]

Additionally, in the case of the gateline staff it would be my word against theirs, and with the back office staff given they haven't been briefed it would be difficult to show incompetency. My main goal was to make SWR people more aware of the NRCoT changes, and given I have succeeded in that I am happy.

 

[Deerfold]

Additionally, in the case of the gateline staff it would be my word against theirs, and with the back office staff given they haven't been briefed it would be difficult to show incompetency. My main goal was to make SWR people more aware of the NRCoT changes, and given I have succeeded in that I am happy.

Hasn't it always been sufficient to show you have an itinerary?

Ticket inspectors and backroom staff should have given up on this immediately they knew that (though within their rights to report it as a fare anomaly).

The changes to the NRCoT just make that clearer.

 

[SuspectUsual]

It would be a better programme if it featured the occasional case like this one....and followed it through, asking a few questions like these

Expecting what's essentially a scare the criminals / PR puff piece programme to point out where their own staff get it fundamentally wrong seems a bit unlikely to me!

 

[ChilliSauce]

I think it's a "reasonable" (not particularly good) outcome in that in probability SWR still hold data on the OP.

I personally think SWR need to be persued to the point where they agree / confirm that they have now deleted all reference to this case and the earlier PF from all of their servers / records.

My own opinion is that on the 2nd incident RPI took the OPs details, saw on record a PF had previously been issued and therefore went for the MG11 on the mistaken belief they had a repeat offender.

I am wondering if a subject access request might be in order ...to prove SWR have nothing on file .

 

[tatitiliti]

I was watching on Channel 5 last night 'Fare Dodgers - at war with he law' which features SWR revenue protection staff on the front line (or that episode did - not seen any others)
It would be a better programme if it featured the occasional case like this one....and followed it through, asking a few questions like these

I’ve watched a couple of these and several times they’ve shown themselves up to be poorly trained (you think they’d edit it out of a public broadcast).

My favourite was an RPO claiming ‘you need to scan the e-ticket barcode in order for it to be valid’.