GA fraud email and risk exposure

[thegolfrr]

Hi all, I received the standard Greater Anglia a couple of days ago - see below - with the standard letter as a pdf.

Good Afternoon,
We are emailing from the Greater Anglia fraud department. We have been investigating industry data and have been led to believe you are potentially not paying full fares on Greater Anglia services. There appear to be a number of incorrectly purchased tickets showing on your account that are a breach of our terms and conditions and considered fraudulent activity. Please refer to our Revenue Protection and Prosecutions Policy: Revenue Protection & Prosecutions Policy .
Attached is a letter for you to read.
Please respond within 7 days to potentially settle this case.


Kind regards

Revenue Protection Fraud and Investigations Team

This has prompted some soul searching and deep reflection of the position I have put myself in over the last day or so as I realised the situation I’m in. I’d appreciate a view on the risk I’m exposed to.

The background is that I’ve been short faring for a while - god knows why as I’m sat here now but I have been. On my electronic record there’s about 50 instances of this between station B and A when I’ve been travelling from station C to station A. Amongst over 300 fares overall going back four years.

I’ve been caught for this twice. Once well over a year ago (I can’t remember when) and once in March of this year. Both of these were resolved via penalty fares which I paid immediately - with no further investigation or report. My understanding therefore is that these incidents have effectively been dealt with, with no option for them to trigger prosecution - is that right?

My suspicion though, is that the second and most recent of these may have triggered a review of my record by GA. Which has resulted in the standard fraud email. However, I’ve also been under a lot of pressure, and my purchasing practices and flex season ticket approval have been inexplicably poor recently with some tickets - including a few short fares - being purchased on the platform on arrival at station A (I’m aware how stupid this is now). So it’s possible the issues are unrelated and email is just prompted by irregularities picked up by the algorithm.

In this context, my question is whether I should ignore the email, as per standard advice on this forum, or whether I should engage and seek to agree an out of court settlement to resolve all irregularities?

I won’t be short faring again, I’m thoroughly ashamed of myself, so I’m keen to put this to bed if I can. If that means engaging and paying a substantial cost to GA then I’m willing to do so if that avoids a prosecution risk, which would be a disaster (I’m aware I should have considered this before I started behaving so poorly). But clearly I’d rather avoid handing over a substantial sum if I can avoid it.

 

[MrJeeves]

I’ve been caught for this twice. Once well over a year ago (I can’t remember when) and once in March of this year. Both of these were resolved via penalty fares which I paid immediately - with no further investigation or report. My understanding therefore is that these incidents have effectively been dealt with, with no option for them to trigger prosecution - is that right?

Correct.

In this context, my question is whether I should ignore the email, as per standard advice on this forum, or whether I should engage and seek to agree an out of court settlement to resolve all irregularities?

Don't reply. Ignore the email. Ignore any future emails. If you do receive future emails and feel worried, please post them here (without any personal info) and we can advise you further.

Switch ticketing retailer to something that isn't Greater Anglia, Trainline or Trainline-powered (e.g., not EMR, not Northern, not ScotRail, not West Mids Trains/London NW Railway, etc...) so your track record of purchases doesn't suddenly change.

And, most importantly, buy the right tickets from now on.

 

[Cloud Strife]

You're under no obligation to engage with them in any way. If you notice, they're attempting to get you to incriminate yourself, rather than presenting you with actual evidence.

While you can settle with them, the obligation is on their side to prove the case. In this case, I would simply ignore them unless they get in touch with actual allegations. In this case, you have nothing to gain from engaging with them, and the wording of their email very much suggests that they haven't got any actual evidence of you doing anything wrong.

 

[thegolfrr]

You're under no obligation to engage with them in any way. If you notice, they're attempting to get you to incriminate yourself, rather than presenting you with actual evidence.

While you can settle with them, the obligation is on their side to prove the case. In this case, I would simply ignore them unless they get in touch with actual allegations. In this case, you have nothing to gain from engaging with them, and the wording of their email very much suggests that they haven't got any actual evidence of you doing anything wrong.

Thanks. So I only need to be concerned if they put forward actual allegations - is that right? While they ratchet up the emails only noting generalities I can continue to ignore?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 May 2026 ==

Correct.


Don't reply. Ignore the email. Ignore any future emails. If you do receive future emails and feel worried, please post them here (without any personal info) and we can advise you further.

Switch ticketing retailer to something that isn't Greater Anglia, Trainline or Trainline-powered (e.g., not EMR, not Northern, not ScotRail, not West Mids Trains/London NW Railway, etc...) so your track record of purchases doesn't suddenly change.

And, most importantly, buy the right tickets from now on.

Thank you. Very helpful.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks. So I only need to be concerned if they put forward actual allegations - is that right? While they ratchet up the emails only noting generalities I can continue to ignore?

Even more, you only need to worry if they take things forward, either to demanding money or saying that they will take you to court: further emails saying 'please tell us about your fare dodging' can still be ignored.

As @Cloud Strife has said, to claim money from you, the railway needs evidence that you travelled without a valid ticket - and to convince a civil court, that evidence needs to show that it's more likely than not that it happened.

At the moment, they (probably) know that you bought tickets from B to A, but they don't know if you used them, or if you travelled without a ticket from C to B (or C to A If you didn't go through B). If you tell them that you travelled from C without a ticket then that will prove that you made the journeys and you owe the fare from C. If you don't tell them then the railway will have to work much harder: I think they could bring your penalty fares into it and argue that those prove that you routinely dodge the fare from C - but the judge might not agree that this meets the standard of proof.

So
- don't reply to the railway
- if they escalate matters, please come back to us as we may be able to give further suggestions on what to do
- make sure you buy the right ticket before getting on the train for all future journeys: not only is that the right thing to do, if it turns out that the railway are now watching you for more evidence of what you do, then it stops them seeing you fare dodging.

 

[saismee]

the railway needs evidence that you travelled without a valid ticket

To clarify this, the two paid penalty fares are now done and no longer able to be used as evidence to prosecute you. They would need to catch you another time and issue a witness statement to use that it as evidence.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

To clarify this, the two paid penalty fares are now done and no longer able to be used as evidence to prosecute you. They would need to catch you another time and issue a witness statement to use that it as evidence.

I'm not quite sure on this point. Were the railway to take the OP to court in this case, it would be the civil court to recover money rather than the criminal court to get a conviction (why? Because we seem to be looking at occurrences more than six months ago, which takes them out of the magistrates' court's domain, and realistically it is vanishingly rare to prosecute railway offences under the longer timescale at Crown Court). So not a prosecution (which may just come down to me quibbling about terminology) but also a lower level of proof would be involved. And also, I am not aware of anything that prevents information about a penalty fare being presented as evidence in a civil court - that may well be down to my ignorance. But as the standard of proof in the civil court is the balance of probabilities, I can see why a claimant would want to demonstrate the respondent's typical behaviour, and so try to introduce evidence that they had accepted a non-criminal penalty fare.

 

[saismee]

I'm not quite sure on this point. Were the railway to take the OP to court in this case, it would be the civil court to recover money rather than the criminal court to get a conviction (why? Because we seem to be looking at occurrences more than six months ago, which takes them out of the magistrates' court's domain, and realistically it is vanishingly rare to prosecute railway offences under the longer timescale at Crown Court). So not a prosecution (which may just come down to me quibbling about terminology) but also a lower level of proof would be involved. And also, I am not aware of anything that prevents information about a penalty fare being presented as evidence in a civil court - that may well be down to my ignorance. But as the standard of proof in the civil court is the balance of probabilities, I can see why a claimant would want to demonstrate the respondent's typical behaviour, and so try to introduce evidence that they had accepted a non-criminal penalty fare.

The key here is that it cannot be a criminal prosecution, which is, in effect, getting off scot-free. It might cost a lot, but it wouldn't be any more than OP should've paid in the first place, and wouldn't come with a criminal record.

 

[AlterEgo]

Where are we getting the idea that these are all historic fares when the OP got penalty fared for this in March?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Where are we getting the idea that these are all historic fares when the OP got penalty fared for this in March?

The OP in post #1:

Amongst over 300 fares overall going back four years.

I guess that's not all being 6 months or more old. But the email OP has received is (I think) the civil action one.

 

[AlterEgo]

That just says they've been doing it for four yesrs. The OP clearly has recent offending for which they can in theory be prosecuted and the email does not set out the course of action GA intend to take.

The correspondence links to the prosecutions policy which is quite robust and suggests "Serious fraudulent practice, persisted fare evasion, the use or production of forged or counterfeit tickets or revenue fraud may be prosecuted in accordance with the Fraud Act 2006". (No statute of limitations on fraud regardless of which court it is prosecuted in; note that railway specific offences are summary only but fraud is triable either way and you can bring a proseuction in the Magistrates Court for offences regardless of how old they are)

Regardless, they should ignore it and pay the correct fare going forward.

 

[Swedenorer]

Yes ignore this - it's achieved their objective anyway. But I think you are probably right that the second PF triggered this and the buying pattern matches some flag or other. Don't come to their attention again.

 

[thegolfrr]

Ok. Thank you. I think there are less than 6 instances in the last six months. Two of those (particularly stupidly I know…) were after the last penalty charge. Does that make a difference to the advice to ignore?

 

[saismee]

Yes ignore this - it's achieved their objective anyway. But I think you are probably right that the second PF triggered this and the buying pattern matches some flag or other. Don't come to their attention again.

AIUI PFNs and such don't cause this. It comes from suspicious or asymmetric scan patterns (e.g Chelmsford to Beaulieu Park with only one side being scanned). It also includes on-train scans which I have experienced.

I got a little too curious on two occasions and asked a conductor to scan an old ticket of mine and show me how their device worked. Once with a Zebra (?) and once with the GoldSTAR app. I assume multiple on-train scans of an out of date ticket without any recent purchases appears dodgy to the back end team.

 

[Cantab26]

To clarify this, the two paid penalty fares are now done and no longer able to be used as evidence to prosecute you.

This assertion is wrong in law and should be disregarded by the OP.

They would need to catch you another time

This may be desirable in practice, but the assertion that they “need” to is wrong in law and should be disregarded by the OP.

and issue a witness statement to use that it as evidence.

This assertion is wrong in law and should be disregarded by the OP.

 

[saismee]

This assertion is wrong in law and should be disregarded by the OP.

Care to elaborate at all, or is this all you are going to contribute? AIUI the PFN settles the matter and cannot be factored into a prosecution. It would be like settling out of court and then taking the person to court anyway. This would also go against the DfT's guidelines.

This may be desirable in practice, but the assertion that they “need” to is wrong in law and should be disregarded by the OP.

Okay, fine, they could also use other evidence such as CCTV footage, but GA isn't known to do this, and it likely wouldn't be cost-effective.

 

[iamraymond]

The PFN only settles that instance does it not? OP admits to 50 instances of short faring, so the other 48 are still in play are they not?

 

[saismee]

The PFN only settles that instance does it not? OP admits to 50 instances of short faring, so the other 48 are still in play are they not?

Where?

 

[AlterEgo]

Where?

In the opening post.

 

[saismee]

In the opening post.

Ah, admitted here. I interpreted "admitted" as admitting it to the company.

 

[Haywain]

AIUI the PFN settles the matter and cannot be factored into a prosecution.

The PFN closes that matter so that a prosecution doesn't normally follow if it is paid, but it doesn't stop it being presented as evidence to support a prosecution for a separate offence.

 

[Kilopylae]

Ok. Thank you. I think there are less than 6 instances in the last six months. Two of those (particularly stupidly I know…) were after the last penalty charge. Does that make a difference to the advice to ignore?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Elecman]

Can the last PF be retrospectively be cancelled and the money returned to the OP and then open a prosecution ?

 

[Cantab26]

Care to elaborate at all, or is this all you are going to contribute?

Haywain has already covered this:

The PFN closes that matter so that a prosecution doesn't normally follow if it is paid, but it doesn't stop it being presented as evidence to support a prosecution for a separate offence.

AIUI the PFN settles the matter and cannot be factored into a prosecution.

This is incorrect: even if a penalty fare has been paid, that is not in itself an absolute bar to a subsequent prosecution for an offence arising from the same circumstances.

It would be like settling out of court and then taking the person to court anyway.

This is a rather poor analogy because a typical out of court settlement normally deals only with civil liability, and a penalty fare is not a settlement in any event.

This would also go against the DfT's guidelines.

What guidelines specifically?

Okay, fine, they could also use other evidence such as CCTV footage, but GA isn't known to do this, and it likely wouldn't be cost-effective.

If you say so.

I must have imagined that Greater Anglia CCTV footage I was watching a few months ago…

 

[thegolfrr]

Thanks for your input all - really helpful.

My overall view from it seems to be that the best course of action is to not respond and ignore, ensure I have a perfect record going forward - as any offence could trigger a bad outcome, and switch ticket provider to a non-Trainline option at the right point. Does that seem right?

My only other question to support this is whether there any examples of the standard email and letter I received being followed by a prosecution, without a subsequent offence?

 

[AlterEgo]

My only other question to support this is whether there any examples of the standard email and letter I received being followed by a prosecution, without a subsequent offence?

None we have seen.

 

[gembercannelle]

Switch ticketing retailer to something that isn't Greater Anglia, Trainline or Trainline-powered (e.g., not EMR, not Northern, not ScotRail, not West Mids Trains/London NW Railway, etc...) so your track record of purchases doesn't suddenly change.

How does one find out what engine is running behind a ticketing retailer? For most expensive tickets I have been routinely choosing one based on cashback (Lloyds group for some reason routinely offers cashback on LNER and sometimes elsewhere, too).

 

[MrJeeves]

How does one find out what engine is running behind a ticketing retailer? For most expensive tickets I have been routinely choosing one based on cashback (Lloyds group for some reason routinely offers cashback on LNER and sometimes elsewhere, too).

The easiest way is just to look at how the website or app looks. Those which I listed all look very similar to the Trainline website and app.

I have created a table listing whose system each TOC uses in the past, which I hope is still accurate:

Great British Railways online rail ticket retailing

On the DfT website this morning https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-online-rail-ticket-retailing/great-british-railways-online-rail-ticket-retailing After Great British Railways is established following legislation, it will retail online by bringing together...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[gembercannelle]

The easiest way is just to look at how the website or app looks. Those which I listed all look very similar to the Trainline website and app.

I have created a table listing whose system each TOC uses in the past, which I hope is still accurate:

Great British Railways online rail ticket retailing

On the DfT website this morning https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-online-rail-ticket-retailing/great-british-railways-online-rail-ticket-retailing After Great British Railways is established following legislation, it will retail online by bringing together...

www.railforums.co.uk

Thank you. Could it be that CrossCountry entry is out of date now, as the way their website search engine looks has changed recently and became frankly unusable (in my view at least)? I do my best to avoid apps. If remember correctly, there was some talk here that GWR has recently changed, but I don't use them, so not sure...

I think my best advice to OP would be to use either a TVM or a ticket office from now on for a while...

 

[Cloud Strife]

I think my best advice to OP would be to use either a TVM or a ticket office from now on for a while...

I would keep away from anything other than a ticket machine / ticket office for the next six months. If there's no response and no history of travel, it becomes even harder for them to prove any sort of case.

My only other question to support this is whether there any examples of the standard email and letter I received being followed by a prosecution, without a subsequent offence?

So, you're right in your first paragraph. It's the best option: they have no idea what you look like, and they're not going to stop thousands of commuters and request names/addresses to try and find one person. Obviously it goes without saying that you need to be cleaner than clean now - don't give anyone an excuse to dig more.

The quote above: they almost certainly don't have anything on you, otherwise they would go straight for prosecution or they would ask for an explanation of a specific situation. It's very likely that they've sussed that you've been fare dodging based on the penalty fares and travel history, but they don't have the actual evidence needed to convict.

This is why it's critical not to leave a electronic paper trail for the next few months. It they do detect that you've scanned an electronic ticket, then they could set up a revenue blockade to try and find you, with the hope that you'll confess in the heat of the moment.

Its worth pointing out that many criminal convictions come as a result of people speaking. If you say nothing, the burden of proof is solely with them, and from what we can see, their evidence is likely circumstantial as best.