100 instances of Fare Evasion

caitlinkatiep said:

Hi everyone! I just received this email! Any advice? I haven’t seen a email like this before on the forum. I won’t be getting legal advice but seems like they are saying I should? Does this imply they want to take me to court. Any help would be really appreciated thank u!

Click to expand...

Ok. I wouldn't panic - but no, I haven't seen a letter like this before! It is apparent that it is an individual directly contacting you, rather than relying on a standard script. This looks like a bit of a holding reply while they continue to investigate.

HOWEVER I can't see from that letter that they are neccecarily more likely to prosecute you than normal. I suspect you should still be able to secure a settlement provided you continue to cooperate.

My view is that (wait for others to confirm or disagree) you should reply by continuing to express a desire to cooperate, chose one of their options, and state again that you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action and are wiling to pay the outstanding fares plus their investigation fees.

If you have not already attempt to look back through your ticket records and identify which journeys you did and did not have a valid ticket for.

It looks like they want to somehow give you a list of journeys (this usually occurs in spreadsheet form - i.e. their option 1) and for you to comment on which ones you have a valid ticket for. Hopefully, but noone can be sure obviously, you will then be charged the anytime single fare plus an admin fee and avoid court.

Post your draft response on here so forum members can review it before you send it. It would also be helpful for us if you could update this thread when you have a resolution so we can advise others in future.

The consensus up thread appears to be to co-operate with the enquiry, and in that spirit I would suggest that you should continue to do so. The most practical way of doing this is in writing (so their first option) as while a phone call or face to face interview might be quicker, you don't know what will be asked and so don't know what you might inadvertently admit to. Doing it in writing means that you can think about your response to every question and seek our (or someone else's) advice before replying.

So I think your next step is to email them to ask what they need from you to verify your identity as the owner of the Trainline account. At this stage, I think that it's whether you own the account that is important rather than whether you are the sole user of it, so be careful what you ask them about.

Personally, I would choose to continue the conversation by email rather than in person. This way, they send you their list of instances, which you can look over in your own time without being hurried. The idea of having to look over this in a formal interview under caution would just cause too much stress (and therefore risk of replying in a way that is not the best for my circumstances).

Definitely continue to co-operate. Confirming your identity and receiving the list of journeys does not involve admitting to anything.

caitlinkatiep said:

I won’t be getting legal advice but seems like they are saying I should?

Click to expand...

It's very good advice if you were to attend an interview under caution, but that is best avoided. We haven't seen one of these for a while but the advice previously was to write and ask them to send a list of the journeys in question so that you can consider it and respond appropriately.

I would also suggest telling them you are happy to continue cooperating and that you wish to do this by email. Not only does it mean you don’t get pressured into giving inadvertently incriminating replies, but it’s also the only option that allows you to continue to get our advice before each and every reply

One thing i noticed is that, as you've already confirmed, you scan your m-ticket to get out of Waterloo...
You have already mentioned you gain access to the network through a barrier-less station so dont have to scan ticket there however you also mentioned that you use the app to purchase Vauxhall to Waterloo tickets. Were you aware there are barriers at Vauxhall? I only ask as if you didnt, then it would have flagged that you've not scanned in to network using the access at Vauxhall barriers.
Once in a while yes, you can get away with it as barriers can be open or issues at gate and visual verification from staff will be sufficient. But if you've got 150+ untapped ins and outs of Vauxhall station then they will, if they have that information, use it against you.

So please, dont try to be clever (this whole thread suggests you haven't so far so no reason to suggest you will be going forward) and try and save a few journeys saying you did acthally travel some times from there.

I used to work revenue protection for SWR, albeit left 15 years ago.
The team back then, some were very savvy and knew what people done.
They even followed potential evaders (when they had sufficient evidence) for a few journeys to see what they done before setting up physical barriers to stop you.

So you never know that they may have received information previously and followed from a distance, got a good back story built before challenging.
If your ticket didnt work the day you got caught, they probably set the settings of the barriers (if they can) to stop trainline purchased tickets based on information received.

Well done for highlighting this to effectively others as some can feel very cocky (trust me, ive seen them).
Even bigger kudos to owning up and being upfront honest from the start. It really will help especially if they want to take it further (they likely wont if you agree to a pre-settlement purely for their time and costs too).

Good luck.

I would not meet with them nor speak to them by phone. Too
Much chance of incriminating yourself.

Draft a simple reply expressing a desire to co operate with their investigation and ask them to send a list of travel where they think incorrect tickets have been used so you can check it. Indicate a desire to pay fares that you owe.

Post your draft here before sending it to them.

thank you everyone I will post the draft here

The other advantage of email of course is that you will have a written record of what they have asked and how you have replied.

draft here!!!!!

Dear Mr xxxx,

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to explain the options available to me.

Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologise for finding myself in this situation. This has been a real wake-up call for me, and I can assure you that I have learned from this experience and it is not something that will happen again.

I would like to continue communicating by email, and I am fully committed to cooperating with your investigation. Please let me know what information or documentation you require to verify my identity as the owner of the Trainline account, and I will provide it promptly.

Once my identity has been confirmed, I would be very grateful if you could send me the purchase history and the list of journeys you have highlighted so that I can review them carefully and respond accurately to your questions.

I wish to cooperate fully with your investigation and, if possible, I would be very grateful if South Western Railway would consider resolving this matter without the need for court proceedings. Should it be established that I owe any outstanding fares, I am willing to pay these in full, together with any reasonable administrative or investigation costs that you consider appropriate.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with your investigation, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Thank you so much everyone for your advice! This forum is so helpful and has stopped my stress over this immensely!! I will NEVER do this again! I would much rather be using this money on savings or holidays instead of giving SWR circa £2k ahahah!!! But it’s all my fault and I did deserve it, and it’s a good lesson learnt! Here is my draft above! Reference number will be in the subject. Let me know what u think please and thank you so much!!! Will keep u updated!

caitlinkatiep said:

draft here!!!!!

Dear Mr xxxx,

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to explain the options available to me.

Firstly, I would like to sincerely apologise for finding myself in this situation. This has been a real wake-up call for me, and I can assure you that I have learned from this experience and it is not something that will happen again.

I would like to continue communicating by email, and I am fully committed to cooperating with your investigation. Please let me know what information or documentation you require to verify my identity as the owner of the Trainline account, and I will provide it promptly.

Once my identity has been confirmed, I would be very grateful if you could send me the purchase history and the list of journeys you have highlighted so that I can review them carefully and respond accurately to your questions.

I wish to cooperate fully with your investigation and, if possible, I would be very grateful if South Western Railway would consider resolving this matter without the need for court proceedings. Should it be established that I owe any outstanding fares, I am willing to pay these in full, together with any reasonable administrative or investigation costs that you consider appropriate.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to cooperate with your investigation, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

Thank you so much everyone for your advice! This forum is so helpful and has stopped my stress over this immensely!! I will NEVER do this again! I would much rather be using this money on savings or holidays instead of giving SWR circa £2k ahahah!!! But it’s all my fault and I did deserve it, and it’s a good lesson learnt! Here is my draft above! Reference number will be in the subject. Let me know what u think please and thank you so much!!! Will keep u updated!

Click to expand...

Looks good to me - I suspect others will have more detailed thoughts to add so wait a little while for any further feedback.

caitlinkatiep said:

I would like to continue communicating by email, and I am fully committed to cooperating with your investigation. Please let me know what information or documentation you require to verify my identity as the owner of the Trainline account, and I will provide it promptly.

Once my identity has been confirmed, I would be very grateful if you could send me the purchase history and the list of journeys you have highlighted so that I can review them carefully and respond accurately to your questions.

I wish to cooperate fully with your investigation and, if possible, I would be very grateful if South Western Railway would consider resolving this matter without the need for court proceedings. Should it be established that I owe any outstanding fares, I am willing to pay these in full, together with any reasonable administrative or investigation costs that you consider appropriate.

Click to expand...

I think you are trying to do to many things with this letter. As I see it, the identity is about making sure that the right person turns up at an interview, and you really want to avoid that interview. Therefore I would not even mention the identification matter. Concentrate your letter on an apology, asking for a list of the journeys in question, and your commitment to cooperate.

Haywain said:

I think you are trying to do to many things with this letter. As I see it, the identity is about making sure that the right person turns up at an interview, and you really want to avoid that interview. Therefore I would not even mention the identification matter. Concentrate your letter on an apology, asking for a list of the journeys in question, and your commitment to cooperate.

Click to expand...

The email option in the SWR email that the OP posted refers to a need for ID, so I think the response from the OP is pretty good

SuspectUsual said:

The email option in the SWR email that the OP posted refers to a need for ID,

Click to expand...

The OP wishes to be co-operative in the interest of avoiding prosecution, but do SWR have the right to demand ID given that they identified the "criminal" when stopped in person?

MarlowDonkey said:

The OP wishes to be co-operative in the interest of avoiding prosecution, but do SWR have the right to demand ID given that they identified the "criminal" when stopped in person?

Click to expand...

Well it’s in everyone s interest to provide ID I would think.

MarlowDonkey said:

but do SWR have the right to demand ID given that they identified the "criminal" when stopped in person?

Click to expand...

Quite, and the OP can confirm that they are the person stopped and who holds and uses tickets bought with the Trainline account without providing ID. If SWR wish to bring a prosecution they don't need the OP's ID to do so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

WesternLancer said:

Well it’s in everyone s interest to provide ID I would think.

Click to expand...

Why is it in the OP's interest? At the very least I would ask why they want it and what they intend to do with it. But at this stage I would just ignore it, as I don't see it as a reasonable request.

Haywain said:

Why is it in the OP's interest? At the very least I would ask why they want it and what they intend to do with it. But at this stage I would just ignore it, as I don't see it as a reasonable request

Click to expand...

My reading of SWR's email is that they won't provide the Trainline ticketing records without confirming that they are communicating with the owner of the Trainline account. So it seems to me that if the OP doesn't get to see the records, then they can't comment, and they can't settle, and SWR will move down the prosecution route.

Assuming that the OP wants to avoid prosecution, it would seem to be in their interest to provide such information as will prevent SWR going there.

Fawkes Cat said:

My reading of SWR's email is that they won't provide the Trainline ticketing records without confirming that they are communicating with the owner of the Trainline account. So it seems to me that if the OP doesn't get to see the records, then they can't comment, and they can't settle, and SWR will move down the prosecution route.

Assuming that the OP wants to avoid prosecution, it would seem to be in their interest to provide such information as will prevent SWR going there.

Click to expand...

That would make sense under data protection legislation.

Fawkes Cat said:

My reading of SWR's email is that they won't provide the Trainline ticketing records without confirming that they are communicating with the owner of the Trainline account.

Click to expand...

Even though they have got the postal address from two separate sources and know the email address is the same? We have seen a good number of previous cases where they have not asked for ID before sharing the ticketing records, so there is no reason to suppose that is the reason on this occasion.

Haywain said:

Even though they have got the postal address from two separate sources and know the email address is the same? We have seen a good number of previous cases where they have not asked for ID before sharing the ticketing records, so there is no reason to suppose that is the reason on this occasion.

Click to expand...

Maybe they've tightened up their procedures.

And whatever SWR's reasons, I stand by my prediction of what they will do next if they don't get to confirm this information i.e. the matter will head towards court.

Although if it did go to court, they would have to provide the journey details anyway! Agreed it is not worth arguing the point though.

Haywain said:

Why is it in the OP's interest? At the very least I would ask why they want it and what they intend to do with it. But at this stage I would just ignore it, as I don't see it as a reasonable request.

Click to expand...

simply because in my view co-operating is key to achieving the settlement - so if they want it, why not provide it? being my thinking.

If the OP wishes to send their draft without offering that I don't think it will be a deal breaker (s it's a good draft response) but why annoy the recipient - eg if they have ben told by their boss to get ID, by not providing ID you are making the member of staff do another task they would probably not want have to do (which would be to go back and ask again for ID) - if I was in the job that would make me less predisposed to be helpful towards the OP than if they did as requested....BUT I don't work there so maybe they won't mind...

But @caitlinkatiep can see both points of view here and decide which one they want to go for

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2026 ==

SECR 65 said:

Ok. I wouldn't panic - but no, I haven't seen a letter like this before! It is apparent that it is an individual directly contacting you, rather than relying on a standard script. This looks like a bit of a holding reply while they continue to investigate.

HOWEVER I can't see from that letter that they are neccecarily more likely to prosecute you than normal. I suspect you should still be able to secure a settlement provided you continue to cooperate.

My view is that (wait for others to confirm or disagree) you should reply by continuing to express a desire to cooperate, chose one of their options, and state again that you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action and are wiling to pay the outstanding fares plus their investigation fees.

If you have not already attempt to look back through your ticket records and identify which journeys you did and did not have a valid ticket for.

It looks like they want to somehow give you a list of journeys (this usually occurs in spreadsheet form - i.e. their option 1) and for you to comment on which ones you have a valid ticket for. Hopefully, but noone can be sure obviously, you will then be charged the anytime single fare plus an admin fee and avoid court.

Post your draft response on here so forum members can review it before you send it. It would also be helpful for us if you could update this thread when you have a resolution so we can advise others in future.

Click to expand...

Just to add to this useful response, we have sort of seen these kinds of responses from SWR in the past IIRC, a fair while ago - 2 or 3 years+ , it seemed to me that SWR often seemed to invite people to interview about multiple instances of suspected evasion. The usual advice on here from longstanding forum members was not to attend such interviews without a solicitor to support you (which of course would not be cheap), but to try to resolve the matter in writing co-operatively (as per the advice given by serval people here and now of course).

I had a recollection of someone reporting back on opting to go to interview - I wasn't sure if this was the case I had in mind but it does involve someone who went to interview and their experience (they found it helpful it seems!)

See this thread and posts from about #37 onwards


However, they didn't answer more detailed queries from forum members about aspects of the interview

Personally I would avoid going to any interview, or having any phone conversations if at all possible to manage to avoid it, as per my previous advice