Pre-court settlement offer for expired railcard

[TheMaracaMan]

Hi people,

I've received a letter from a GWR Prosecutions Administration Officer about 15 journeys I unwittingly took with an expired railcard. I was stopped by one of their officers nearly 2 years ago with an expired railcard and they've only recently reached out to me with a pre-court settlement. The amount they've asked for is £181.35 (£91.35 in outstanding fare and a £90 admin fee). I would love any practical help or advice possible, specifically about what steps I can take next, whether I have a case to try to reduce the amount to pay, whether I can dispute paying SDS amounts, or just any useful tips or experience. I fully expect to have to pay some money, but don't have much and don't want to pay more than I need to. Any and all help would be hugely appreciated!

I've attached below a screenshot of the letter at the bottom of this post and their breakdown of the relevant journeys.

 

[jfollows]

Welcome to the forum!

Your offer is normal and in line with what we usually see.

The train companies take the view that if they give “credit” for discounted fares previously paid, you’re more likely to do it again. So their view is that your ticket was invalid and you have to pay full fare for the journeys.

If it’s any minor consolation, we often see a £150 admin fee or more.

They hold the cards, and if you went to court it’d cost more plus a criminal record. But see what others say also.

 

[AlterEgo]

Welcome to the forum!

Your offer is normal and in line with what we usually see.

The train companies take the view that if they give “credit” for discounted fares previously paid, you’re more likely to do it again. So their view is that your ticket was invalid and you have to pay full fare for the journeys.

If it’s any minor consolation, we often see a £150 admin fee or more.

They hold the cards, and if you went to court it’d cost more plus a criminal record. But see what others say also.

They wouldn't get a criminal record. This is an old civil claim.

 

[methecooldude]

They hold the cards, and if you went to court it’d cost more plus a criminal record. But see what others say also.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its events in 2024, so the only option would be a civil claim

 

[jfollows]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but its events in 2024, so the only option would be a civil claim

Thank you, you’re right.
So no criminal record at least.

I don’t have experience, but I’d guess that a civil claim would be for the same amount, plus court fees, plus additional costs. Requiring proof only on the balance of probabilities.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you, you’re right.
So no criminal record at least.

I don’t have experience, but I’d guess that a civil claim would be for the same amount, plus court fees, plus additional costs. Requiring proof only on the balance of probabilities.

They would only really be able to claim what's there. That's why their costs are now listed as £90, because that's what they can claim in the small claims track.

OP should argue the toss and waste their sweet precious time for as long as possible and then if it goes to court it goes to court. No CCJ if you settle within a month of the case. Let them just take it to court, there is no jeopardy here if they have £181. At court you can make the point again that GWR are taking the piss by charging more than their losses anyway.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi people,

I've received a letter from a GWR Prosecutions Administration Officer about 15 journeys I unwittingly took with an expired railcard. I was stopped by one of their officers nearly 2 years ago with an expired railcard and they've only recently reached out to me with a pre-court settlement. The amount they've asked for is £181.35 (£91.35 in outstanding fare and a £90 admin fee). I would love any practical help or advice possible, specifically about what steps I can take next, whether I have a case to try to reduce the amount to pay, whether I can dispute paying SDS amounts, or just any useful tips or experience. I fully expect to have to pay some money, but don't have much and don't want to pay more than I need to. Any and all help would be hugely appreciated!

I've attached below a screenshot of the letter at the bottom of this post and their breakdown of the relevant journeys.

View attachment 203312
View attachment 203313
View attachment 203315

It's probably worth your carefully reading this recent thread in detail (involving GWR pursuing cases from a while back) and most importantly the case(s) linked off it in the post #3 on that thread to help you see the context and consider your options

threat of prosecution for journeys 2 years ago! pls help

Hi folks, I have just received a letter in the mail from GWR for a pre court settlement offer totalling £622. The letter came with a spreadsheet with a total of 8 journeys I allegedly took, 7 of which in May 2024, and 1 in July 2022 with an expired 16-25 railcard. They have said that failure...

www.railforums.co.uk

This assumes that at no time in the last 6 or 7 months you have been stopped by a railway company and questions about any ticket irregularity whatsoever. Please confirm that

I am also assuming that
a) you agree you took those journeys yourself?
b) you agree that you used a railcard reduction when the railcard had expired and was thus not valid?

Then you can consider if you want to push back on the letter you have received, and then how to go about doing that

You have until 15 May to weigh that up and ask questions and help here. You should not ignore the letter however, IMHO

I suspect that in reality all you need to do before 15 May is to engage with them by sending some sort of reply - that could well be offering to pay them the difference between what you did pay (the railcard discounted sum) and Off Peak Fare (not the Anytime Fare) without the Railcard reduction.
That would substantially reduce the sum they are asking for. They will not like that but it might be a good starting point.

Before you send them anything at all in reply you should get your draft wording checked by people here.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The train companies take the view that if they give “credit” for discounted fares previously paid, you’re more likely to do it again. So their view is that your ticket was invalid and you have to pay full fare for the journeys.

In this case GWR absolutely *are* discounting by the fares already paid.

£164.80 anytime single fares less £73.45 fares already paid = £91.35 outstanding, then the £90 admin fee

 

[jfollows]

In this case GWR absolutely *are* discounting by the fares already paid.

£164.80 anytime single fares less £73.45 fares already paid = £91.35 outstanding, then the £90 admin fee

Well spotted, I read it as they said that they weren’t. So it’s a relative bargain, then! The original poster won’t think so, but little scope for further reduction, then.

 

[furlong]

Despite previous threads, this train company persists with perceived falsehoods that a return or off-peak fare is "discounted" and that it is somehow entitled in law to profit from this situation, demanding a higher sum than it would have ever have received had the passenger purchased valid tickets in the first place. After such a delay, this takes some cheek. They're only a few months away from the 6 year cut-off too!

Firstly check that you did make all the journeys listed, and that you are sure you didn't possess valid railcards at those time - it's quite a broad span of dates.
Then as in the the other threads you should argue that their only loss is the cost of the railcard, but generously, you could offer to repay the discount (i.e. approx. 50% of the total sum you did pay for the tickets) without prejudice. They have no basis to charge any "administration fee" so just ignore that.

If they don't accept your offer and it goes to court, you could argue that you only owe them for the railcard, noting that they rejected your generous offer to pay them more than strictly necessary, and see what the court decides.

You could make these points by pulling from some of the suggested letters in the other threads.

 

[island]

The train companies take the view that if they give “credit” for discounted fares previously paid, you’re more likely to do it again. So their view is that your ticket was invalid and you have to pay full fare for the journeys.

The figures in post 1 suggest GWR is giving credit for the fares previously paid though.

 

[Swedenorer]

Indeed. They are merely asking for what they'd probably get at the CC a win for both sides I'd say. Pay.

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. They are merely asking for what they'd probably get at the CC a win for both sides I'd say. Pay.

No. Don't pay. There is literally no advantage to doing so, as you in fact state.

Let them take it to court. Then, if they find against you and the judge doesn't agree they should have used the Off Peak rather than the Anytime fare, you can pay then, straight after the case, and avoid any negative consequences.

 

[SuspectUsual]

No. Don't pay. There is literally no advantage to doing so, as you in fact state.

Let them take it to court. Then, if they find against you and the judge doesn't agree they should have used the Off Peak rather than the Anytime fare, you can pay then, straight after the case, and avoid any negative consequences.

I think there are advantages:

- certainty
- closure
- avoiding the potential stress of going to court
- avoiding the time taken up with preparing for and attending court

It’s up to the OP as to their appetite for risk and desire to get everything settled.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think there are advantages:

- certainty
- closure
- avoiding the potential stress of going to court
- avoiding the time taken up with preparing for and attending court

It’s up to the OP as to their appetite for risk and desire to get everything settled.

They don't even have to prepare anything, they could just let it happen and get additional time to pay. Let them go to court. You don't even have to attend to defend yourself.

 

[MartinC]

They don't even have to prepare anything, they could just let it happen and get additional time to pay. Let them go to court. You don't even have to attend to defend yourself.

Pre Action Protocol applies to both parties to a debt action and additional costs can be awarded against the party failing to comply ??

 

[AlterEgo]

Pre Action Protocol applies to both parties to a debt action and additional costs can be awarded against the party failing to comply ??

They haven't even received a Letter of Claim yet.

 

[TheMaracaMan]

Thanks all for your help so far! I've drafted a response to them, figured it's worth a go to try to talk them down, even if unlikely.

Before you send them anything at all in reply you should get your draft wording checked by people here.

If anyone is able to glance over this and offer any relevant pointers, I'd be very grateful.

"Good day,

Thank you for your offer regarding pre-court settlement. I apologise for the journeys I accidentally took without a valid railcard. As I’m sure you’re able to see, I purchased a 26-30 railcard as soon as I was made aware by the Revenue Inspection Officer that my previous railcard had expired. Booking this travel without the relevant railcard was unintentional and not an attempt at fare-dodging.

I would like to pay the amount that the fares would’ve come to had I not bought a railcard ticket, as I believe that paying the outstanding fare amount is fair and reasonable. Having looked through the breakdown sent over and having researched what the full price fares would have been, I can see that the difference is £40.75. I am happy to pay this amount to settle any outstanding amount owed.

Best,
X"

 

[Swedenorer]

Only you can decide.

You can try this counter offer, and the letter is as good as any better than most, and you can take note of the points made above about letting it go to court; it's entirely up to you - you have until the 15th to decide. If they don't accept it, and I suspect they've made their best offer then matters will take their leisurely course ending maybe in a trip to Redcllff Street to try your luck there.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks all for your help so far! I've drafted a response to them, figured it's worth a go to try to talk them down, even if unlikely.



If anyone is able to glance over this and offer any relevant pointers, I'd be very grateful.

"Good day,

Thank you for your offer regarding pre-court settlement. I apologise for the journeys I accidentally took without a valid railcard. As I’m sure you’re able to see, I purchased a 26-30 railcard as soon as I was made aware by the Revenue Inspection Officer that my previous railcard had expired. Booking this travel without the relevant railcard was unintentional and not an attempt at fare-dodging.

I would like to pay the amount that the fares would’ve come to had I not bought a railcard ticket, as I believe that paying the outstanding fare amount is fair and reasonable. Having looked through the breakdown sent over and having researched what the full price fares would have been, I can see that the difference is £40.75. I am happy to pay this amount to settle any outstanding amount owed.

Best,
X"

Content is ok I think. But keep it super formal

Dear Sir/ Madam

Quote your ref number at the start

Yours faithfully

Not: good day and best wishes etc.
you’re in a potential legal dispute with them.

 

[talltaf]

Despite previous threads, this train company persists with perceived falsehoods that a return or off-peak fare is "discounted" and that it is somehow entitled in law to profit from this situation, demanding a higher sum than it would have ever have received had the passenger purchased valid tickets in the first place. After such a delay, this takes some cheek.

This is not correct. Condition 9 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel covers this - specifically 9.2 - if a passenger is unable to prevent a valid ticket (and no exemption under Condition 6 applies), the train company may take one of several actions.
One of which is condition 9.2.1 that explicitly states that a TOC may: "charge you the full undiscounted 'anytime' single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on".

Where the Railcard was expired, the off-peak ticket was rendered invalid, so a full anytime single would be due.
The company are not required to 'discount' the amount you underpaid by crediting the amount you originally paid either, but they have graciously done so in this case.

My suggestion would be to continue cooperating with them and ask if there is any way of negotiating removal of the administration fee as this was a genuine mistake, but again, they are not required to do so.

Whilst the amount in question is not particularly significant enough to proceed with court (and certainly not criminal as they cannot fully prove intent), I wouldn't risk it. I would strongly suggest settling with them for as little as they will agree to, otherwise it will end up costing you even more than they are offering to begin with.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is not correct. Condition 9 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel covers this - specifically 9.2 - if a passenger is unable to prevent a valid ticket (and no exemption under Condition 6 applies), the train company may take one of several actions.
One of which is condition 9.2.1 that explicitly states that a TOC may: "charge you the full undiscounted 'anytime' single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on".

That outlines the TOC's right to do this at the time, not subsequently.

After the fact they can only rely on actual losses based on action the customer could have taken if they had purchased the proper ticket.

 

[talltaf]

That outlines the TOC's right to do this at the time, not subsequently. That is, per the Conditions, in lieu of reporting you for prosecution.

Which you will find covered under condition 9.4: Condition 9 links to cases where further action may be taken, including enforcement under relevant legislation where appropriate.
The right is not limited to being exercised at the moment of travel. As a civil matter, the debt arises at the time of travel, but investigation, determination of liability or intent, and issuing of a settlement can happen any time later.

 

[AlterEgo]

Which you will find covered under condition 9.4: Condition 9 links to cases where further action may be taken, including enforcement under relevant legislation where appropriate.
The right is not limited to being exercised at the moment of travel. As a civil matter, the debt arises at the time of travel, but investigation, determination of liability or intent, and issuing of a settlement can happen any time later.

You mean 9.3? No, that's not what 9.3 says. It only references "unpaid sums" - it doesnt say they can charge you whatever they like, or charge the Anytime fare.

 

[talltaf]

You mean 9.3? No, that's not what 9.3 says. It only references "unpaid sums" - it doesnt say they can charge you whatever they like, or charge the Anytime fare.

Apologies for the mistype, yes 9.3.
It does indeed say "unpaid sums", but where the ticket was deemed invalid, the fare was unpaid so a full undiscounted single fare would be due.

And they're not charging "whatever they like" they calculated the full undiscounted single fare minus the lower fare paid for the invalid ticket originally (which they didn't need to do, but if it went to court and it hadn't been deducted, the magistrate would probably rule that way).

Either way, they can request the "unpaid sums" be paid after the fact as they're not time-barred.

 

[AlterEgo]

Apologies for the mistype, yes 9.3.
It does indeed say "unpaid sums", but where the ticket was deemed invalid, the fare was unpaid so a full undiscounted single fare would be due.

And they're not charging "whatever they like" they calculated the full undiscounted single fare minus the lower fare paid for the invalid ticket originally (which they didn't need to do, but if it went to court and it hadn't been deducted, the magistrate would probably rule that way).

Either way, they can request the "unpaid sums" be paid after the fact as they're not time-barred.

They are time barred, the bar is six years from acknowledgement of the debt as it is with any civil debt. You're missing the fact this thread is about a civil matter. The time to bring a prosecution has long been and gone.

 

[blimmo]

Whilst the amount in question is not particularly significant enough to proceed with court (and certainly not criminal as they cannot fully prove intent), I wouldn't risk it. I would strongly suggest settling with them for as little as they will agree to, otherwise it will end up costing you even more than they are offering to begin with.

Also this is incorrect since this is a civil matter. The jeopardy is very low since basically the most that could be awarded by the court is roughly what they are asking for. There is very little reason to pay up now and a strong chance the amount due could be significantly reduced by negotiating and/or letting the case proceed to court.

 

[furlong]

It does indeed say "unpaid sums",

I don't think there's any reference to 'unpaid sums' in any of the relevant contracts as I thought that was only introduced last year, long after the alleged journeys were completed.

9.2 provided no authority for anything here. It merely asserted for information (and incorrectly in part I believe) that the company was separately "permitted in law" to choose precisely one out of three alternative resolutions in specific circumstances that are not applicable to the OP now.

Basically nobody imagined this sort of retrospective data trawling when those contracts were written (there doesn't even seem to be any provision to charge interest!) and so you simply have to fall back on the basic requirement that the service obtained must be paid for at the rate applicable at the time. No penalty whatsoever.

 

[talltaf]

They are time barred, the bar is six years from acknowledgement of the debt as it is with any civil debt. You're missing the fact this thread is about a civil matter. The time to bring a prosecution has long been and gone.

That may stick for the one journey in 2020, but even if time barring was relevant in a civil case, the remaining journeys are all within the 6 years you mention. And acknowledgement of the debt occurred recently when OP was caught.
I haven't even mentioned prosecution, in fact I stated: "the amount in question is not particularly significant enough to proceed with court (and certainly not criminal...)"

Also this is incorrect since this is a civil matter. The jeopardy is very low since basically the most that could be awarded by the court is roughly what they are asking for. There is very little reason to pay up now and a strong chance the amount due could be significantly reduced by negotiating and/or letting the case proceed to court.

Which part do you believe is incorrect? I didn't mention anything about it not being a civil matter, but I did mention: "I would strongly suggest settling with them for as little as they will agree to"

I don't think there's any reference to 'unpaid sums' in any of the relevant contracts as I thought that was only introduced last year, long after the alleged journeys were completed.

9.2 provided no authority for anything here. It merely asserted for information (and incorrectly in part I believe) that the company was separately "permitted in law" to choose precisely one out of three alternative resolutions in specific circumstances that are not applicable to the OP now.

"Unpaid sums" is referenced in NRCoT, though it was most recently updated on April 1st 2026, the previous version applies to OP as the journeys occurred prior to that.
Condition 9.2 is literally laying out the authority of TOCs being permitted "under these Conditions and in accordance with law" to take action whether people think this is incorrect or not makes no difference.

 

[AlterEgo]

But the position is that this is a purely civil matter, and the sums owed will not be full Anytime fares, becuase nowhere in the contract has it ever said that sum may be charged retrospectively. A civil court has to analyse the losses and put the victim into the position it would have been in had the misbehaviour not occurred. That is, if the OP had bought the proper fare, what would they have bought for their journeys? In this case GWR know exactly when the OP travelled and that the loss is simply the discount improperly claimed. They cannot charge a penalty for each time in this regard when bringing a civil claim.