Search results

We're beginning to mix up two different (but related) things. If the railway gets in touch with you during the six months when they can prosecute you for one incident in the criminal court, then there's a good chance that they will ask you for an out of court settlement for that incident...

If I've understood things correctly, you haven't yet had a letter from the railway. So wait until you get a letter, and see what they're asking. If they're only asking about the one occasion when you didn't have a railcard, there's no point in sending details of an expired card. But if they ask...

It's a holding letter. They haven't forgotten about you, but they're not ready to send you a detailed reply yet. So you'll still have to wait a bit longer for a proper answer.

The simple answer to this sort of question is that we don't know. The railway may pursue matters thoroughly, or they may not. More often than not they don't - but there's no guarantee of that happening in any given case. So all we can suggest is that you stop breaking the law, and pay the right...

My IT experience stopped when the mainframes died, but it seems to me that reworking a system which currently has a maximum cap of a week to cope with a cap of a month would be quite challenging.

If you're going to use the Bakerloo out of Marylebone, it seems perverse to go the wrong way. My suggestion would be Burscough Junction to Burscough Bridge - I think most practically via Ormskirk, Sandhills and Southport. So 3 changes for a Google Maps walking distance of 0.6 miles

You're unlikely just to be 'sent a fine'. Essentially the railway has three options - to do nothing - to give you a penalty fare at the time (most people call this 'a fine': someone will be along shortly to explain why I'm wrong to allow the word to be used like that) - to start heading down the...

Welcome to the forum. Practically speaking, you need to wait for six or seven months before you know you're in the clear: that's because the railway have six months to decide whether to take you to court - but once they've decided that they will, it could take the court a few weeks to get in...

In practice, the railway only prosecutes in the magistrate's court, which limits the prosecution window to six months, and the offences to the railway byelaws and Regulation of Railways Act. They could pursue fraud through the crown court - but they don't. The legal power that the railways are...

I believe that some banks have been known to give 3 year railcards to new students as an incentive to bank with them. In which case, might you have something from a bank from about that date saying that they gave you a railcard? But if it turns out that you're unable to prove when you got your...

There's likely to be similarities - if nothing else, from the number we have seen in the last 24 hours it seems that WMR/LNWR sent out a batch of their emails yesterday.

I'm not convinced this will work any more (if it ever did). Have a look at the letter the OP received in post #1 of https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/intention-to-prosecute-letter.294613/, which seems to specifically rule this course of action out.

Not complete hyperbole - it's a punishment allowed by S5(3) Regulation of Railways Act 1889, so all the railway are doing are pointing out what the act allows (imagine the uproar if someone was to be imprisoned when they thought that the worse they faced was a £1000 fine). But my understanding...

Welcome to the forum. What you're planning on sending will probably be good enough, in that GTR (the railway company that you are dealing with) are generally happy to settle out of court. But bear in mind that what they want to get out of the process is a guarantee that you will always pay the...

I think that's fine,

My day job involves reading formal appeal-type letters (although not for the railway). And please let me tell you that long words don't make me take what is being said any more seriously. Write the clearest English you can, and try to use the right word rather than a grand one. So if you think...

Again, I am open to correction, but I think we've only seen this sort of letter where the civil court would be the way for the railway to go. This isn't just about quibbling over terminology: the different level of proof for civil versus criminal courts may be relevant.

This may come under the heading of 'be careful what you wish for' in that another way of resolving the (potential) anomaly would be to only make Delay Repay available for (say) 60+ minute delays.

Because getting someone to say that what you're currently doing is fine is going to be quicker, cheaper and easier than rewriting legislation or changing all the posters.

I suspect that TfW adopted it as they offer some quite cheap long distance fares which undercut shorter journeys priced by other TOCs (n.b. not an original thought - I think someone else suggested it when 8A was first applied by TfW to a number of fares).