Advice needed please - re Govia Thameslink Intention to Prosecute letter

[Fishmater]

Hello folks, I’d love some advice please. I’m here on behalf of my daughter who received a Govia Thameslink prosecution letter after not having a valid ticket for her journey from Cambridge to Finsbury Park. She tried to buy a ticket once the inspector showed up, but the train had already departed. She has no excuse and got through the barriers by purchasing a cheaper ticket on another train route. I’ve had a look around the forum and drafted a reply based on other recommendations. I’m wondering if they investigate previous travel history when looking at these cases? Does this letter invite suspicion that other fares may have been dodged/short-fared? Is the response ok? Thanks in advance!

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter dated 20thSeptember, reference xxxxxxxxxx.

I would like to sincerely apologise for boarding the train at Cambridge without a valid ticket for my journey and I am ashamed to say that I have no excuse for this.
A Revenue Protection Inspector rightly informed me that the ticket I bought once on board was not valid as the train had already departed.

In hindsight I realise that my decision was short sighted and unethical and that fare evasion is a huge disservice to train companies, rail staff and fellow passengers.

I greatly appreciate travelling on our railway services and see this as a valuable lesson to ensure that I always purchase a ticket prior to departure.

I would like to ask if Govia Thameslink Railways would kindly consider settling this matter without the need for court action? I am willing to pay the valid train fare and any associated admin costs I have created.

I am truly sorry for my actions and would like to assure you that this will not happen again.

 

[minderbinder]

I expect wiser individuals will be along shortly with good advice, but an important question (viz. if Govia Thameslink will investigate previous travel history), would be how your daughter purchased her tickets on 1st August? Paper tickets or via an app such as Trainline? Did the Revenue Protection Inspector ask her about other journeys? Did he ask to see her Trainline (or similar) account?

 

[WesternLancer]

Hello folks, I’d love some advice please. I’m here on behalf of my daughter who received a Govia Thameslink prosecution letter after not having a valid ticket for her journey from Cambridge to Finsbury Park. She tried to buy a ticket once the inspector showed up, but the train had already departed. She has no excuse and got through the barriers by purchasing a cheaper ticket on another train route. I’ve had a look around the forum and drafted a reply based on other recommendations. I’m wondering if they investigate previous travel history when looking at these cases? Does this letter invite suspicion that other fares may have been dodged/short-fared? Is the response ok? Thanks in advance!

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your letter dated 20thSeptember, reference xxxxxxxxxx.

I would like to sincerely apologise for boarding the train at Cambridge without a valid ticket for my journey and I am ashamed to say that I have no excuse for this.
A Revenue Protection Inspector rightly informed me that the ticket I bought once on board was not valid as the train had already departed.

In hindsight I realise that my decision was short sighted and unethical and that fare evasion is a huge disservice to train companies, rail staff and fellow passengers.

I greatly appreciate travelling on our railway services and see this as a valuable lesson to ensure that I always purchase a ticket prior to departure.

I would like to ask if Govia Thameslink Railways would kindly consider settling this matter without the need for court action? I am willing to pay the valid train fare and any associated admin costs I have created.

I am truly sorry for my actions and would like to assure you that this will not happen again.

They will almost certainly investigate other purchases if they can - but if they have not asked about them (yet) it's not necessary to talk about them in your reply - tho your daughter should prepare herself for that possible eventuality

Her ticket buying is classic 'pay when challenged' behaviour - ie only buy a ticket when it looks like an inspector is coming, as I'm sure you realise.

One thing would be if there is something that your daughter is able to do (and which makes financial sense to do) to legitimately reduce rail fares then show could do that and it could be mentioned in the reply if applicable (eg buy a Railcard like a Network Card or a season ticket or flexi season ticket) as it is something that she could say she has done by way of a practical action. Obv check the Railcard T&Cs to check that buying it would actually save money on her travel and that it's conditions of use are 100% complied with.

 

[Fishmater]

They will almost certainly investigate other purchases if they can - but if they have not asked about them (yet) it's not necessary to talk about them in your reply - tho your daughter should prepare herself for that possible eventuality

Her ticket buying is classic 'pay when challenged' behaviour - ie only buy a ticket when it looks like an inspector is coming, as I'm sure you realise.

One thing would be if there is something that your daughter is able to do (and which makes financial sense to do) to legitimately reduce rail fares then show could do that and it could be mentioned in the reply if applicable (eg buy a Railcard like a Network Card or a season ticket or flexi season ticket) as it is something that she could say she has done by way of a practical action. Obv check the Railcard T&Cs to check that buying it would actually save money on her travel and that it's conditions of use are 100% complied with.

Hi, thanks for the quick reply, yes she knew what she was doing! She already has a railcard, which she renewed earlier that day via Trip app. Only thing in her favour is that since the incident she has bought full tickets in advance for her journeys. Is it worth mentioning that in the reply? Or is that adding more doubt about her history?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==

I expect wiser individuals will be along shortly with good advice, but an important question (viz. if Govia Thameslink will investigate previous travel history), would be how your daughter purchased her tickets on 1st August? Paper tickets or via an app such as Trainline? Did the Revenue Protection Inspector ask her about other journeys? Did he ask to see her Trainline (or similar) account?

I expect wiser individuals will be along shortly with good advice, but an important question (viz. if Govia Thameslink will investigate previous travel history), would be how your daughter purchased her tickets on 1st August? Paper tickets or via an app such as Trainline? Did the Revenue Protection Inspector ask her about other journeys? Did he ask to see her Trainline (or similar) account?

Hi, thanks for the quick reply. She bought the short ticket via Trip app as a requirement to renew her railcard there. On the train she used Trainline app for the full fare. As far as I know she wasn’t questioned about previous journeys

 

[Haywain]

Is it worth mentioning that in the reply?

It is always worth mentioning that she has learned from the experience (especially when the incident was clearly premeditated). It doesn't add any information about other occasions.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi, thanks for the quick reply, yes she knew what she was doing! She already has a railcard, which she renewed earlier that day via Trip app. Only thing in her favour is that since the incident she has bought full tickets in advance for her journeys. Is it worth mentioning that in the reply? Or is that adding more doubt about her history?

well obv they are going to want to be sure that from now on 100% correct tickets are indeed bought, and they want to know that she will never evade again - if stopped again the chances of prosecution are far more certain as it shows no lesson has been learned.

So she could mention that she has been 'buying tickets correctly' since the incident

That addresses the buy when challenged issue but does not necessarily imply that she may have engaged in other evasion - tho if they study her purchase history they may work that out anyway but saying this won't have much influence on them checking that - I'd expect them to do that anyway as they will know that people who evade will have thought of other evasion methods - even tho such methods are quite often easy to detect when investigated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==

She bought the short ticket via Trip app as a requirement to renew her railcard there. On the train she used Trainline app for the full fare. As far as I know she wasn’t questioned about previous journeys

worth being aware they can check all on line purchase records from all retailers if they want to do so.

It does not necessarily mean they won't settle out of court, just means the sum they may ask for will be commensurately larger to cover the greater extent of the evasion if they detect it.

 

[Fishmater]

It is always worth mentioning that she has learned from the experience (especially when the incident was clearly premeditated). It doesn't add any information about other occasions.

Thanks, we’ll tweak the response letter

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==

well obv they are going to want to be sure that from now on 100% correct tickets are indeed bought, and they want to know that she will never evade again - if stopped again the chances of prosecution are far more certain as it shows no lesson has been learned.

So she could mention that she has been 'buying tickets correctly' since the incident

That addresses the buy when challenged issue but does not necessarily imply that she may have engaged in other evasion - tho if they study her purchase history they may work that out anyway but saying this won't have much influence on them checking that - I'd expect them to do that anyway as they will know that people who evade will have thought of other evasion methods - even tho such methods are quite often easy to detect when investigated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2024 ==


worth being aware they can check all on line purchase records from all retailers if they want to do so.

It does not necessarily mean they won't settle out of court, just means the sum they may ask for will be commensurately larger to cover the greater extent of the evasion if they detect it.

Thanks again, she’s been so stressed and has definitely learnt a lesson

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

The letter is ok but I would add the suggestion posted by @Haywain Train companies do investigate online ticket purchasing history, and if you've only been asked about a specific incident then you aren't required to incriminate yourself in the reply. Some train companies do make contact about other suspicious ticket purchases at a later date although I'm not aware of this being widespread practice on GTR.

 

[Fishmater]

Welcome to the forum!

The letter is ok but I would add the suggestion posted by @Haywain Train companies do investigate online ticket purchasing history, and if you've only been asked about a specific incident then you aren't required to incriminate yourself in the reply. Some train companies do make contact about other suspicious ticket purchases at a later date although I'm not aware of this being widespread practice on GTR.

Hi, thanks for your feedback, we’ll add that she’s learnt her lesson and has been buying tickets correctly since the incident and fingers crossed that helps the situation. Thanks to everyone here, will let you know the out come

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2024 ==

Thank you all for your responses, it’s reassuring to hear how other people have dealt with similar issues on this forum. A valuable lesson indeed! Fingers crossed she won’t get a conviction. I will update here with the outcome in a few weeks/months. Thanks again

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Sep 2024 ==

Hello again, we have since altered the letter and added a few sentences so would greatly appreciate any feedback! My daughter is very cautious about wording after reading up on previous examples and is concerned some of the phrasing might be off:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond to your letter dated 20th September, reference GTREMGXXXXX.

On the 1st of August, I boarded the train at Cambridge station and when rightly questioned by a Revenue Protection Officer, did not produce a valid ticket.

I would first like to offer my apologies as I am truly regretful to say I have no excuse for this. In hindsight, I realise my decision was foolish and highly unethical.

I accept full responsibility for my actions and am sorry for the damages, inconveniences, and costs this has created. I am now fully aware of how serious the financial burden caused by fare evasion is, and am deeply ashamed to have contributed to this.

I greatly appreciate travelling on our railway services and see this as a valuable lesson. I can ensure that I have since learned from my mistakes, have only bought valid tickets in a timely manner , and shall continue to do so indefinitely.

I do not want to cause any further disrespect or disservice to the railway staff, administrative staff, or anyone who may be impacted by my poor decision, and Instead I wish to make amends for my wrongdoing.

I would be grateful if GTR would consider settling my misconduct outside of court and kindly allow me to pay the cost of the ticket, any associated admin fees I have created, and any charges deemed appropriate.



Yours sincerely

 

[Fishmater]

UPDATE: new letter received - respond via email

This letter was received in the post this morning and my daughter is wondering how best to respond. Has anyone had similar responses? Is this likely an invitation to court? Any advice on how best to respond would be greatly appreciated

 

[Haywain]

At this point she will have to address the other occasions. A letter saying she has done this X number of times may be enough, but it will need to be honest as they will look for an admission that closely matches what they have found.

 

[John R]

So your daughter has clearly been a serial fare dodger, and will have to fess up to all the occasions she has done it and pay GTR back to avoid prosecution. So her first task is to go through her Trainline account and identify all of them.

Fortunately GTR is pretty good at offering settlements, even if cases where arguably they should prosecute, but she will need to be ready to pay any amount they ask for. How much could that be? Usually (but not always - GTR is sometimes less penal) it is based on the cost of an Anytime Single for every journey taken, which currently is £37 between Cambridge and Finsbury Park, so she should estimate £74 for every day she has defrauded the railway, together with around £150 in administration costs. She'll need to pay that within 14 days to avoid prosecution, so either she or Bank of Mum needs to be prepared to have the funds available.

 

[Hadders]

Just to add to what's been said if you co-operate with GTR they are indicating they will offer a settlement.

You'll need to 'fess up' about what you've been doing if you want to keep the matter out of court. Often they want to speak to you to agree the number of journeys avoided but a conversation can often be avoided if you write a short, concise letter that mentions:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Tell them that you've researched your online ticket purchasing account and tell then how many times you've evaded your fare
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and GTR's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

This won't be cheap as they will want reimbursement for all the fares they believe have been evaded in ddition to an admin fee.

If you put your draft reply in this thread forum members will proof read it for you.

 

[Fishmater]

Thank you all for the advice so far! Here is her first draft, please let me know if there is anything that needs changing:


Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the letter dated 13th November, reference xxxx, regarding the incident on the 1st of August.

As stated, I was guilty of boarding the train between Cambridge and Finsbury Park without a valid ticket and am ashamed to say this was not my first time in doing so. I would first like to offer my sincerest apologies for my repeated unethical behaviour, alongside any harm and disservice this has caused.

I have since looked through my previous journeys logged in the Trainline app and will admit that all single journeys from Cambridge to surrounding stations in the Cambridgeshire area, like Whittlesford Parkway and Audley end, were attempts at fare evasion. I am very disappointed to say that this totals 35 single journeys.

Since learning the extent of the financial burden caused by fare evasion, I can understand just how damaging my actions are. My behaviour was completely inappropriate and I would like to make amends in any way possible. I would be extremely grateful if GTR would allow me settle this incident outside of court, as I will gladly pay the outstanding fare for all journeys necessary alongside the administrative costs.

I am truly sorry for my actions and would like to reiterate that I have learned from my mistakes and their consequences. Since the 1st of August, I have only ever bought correct tickets for the full length of my journey in a timely manner. I value the railway systems greatly and will undoubtedly continue to purchase correct tickets for all future journeys.

Sincerely,

 

[Hadders]

I think this generally reads ok.

I'd tidy up the last bit of the 4th paragraph. The first couple of sentences are fine then I'd say something like'I wondered if it would be possible to deal with this incident without going to court? I am willing to pay the outstanding fares in adition to your administrative costs in dealing with this matter'.

 

[Fishmater]

UPDATE: Stelement fee granted!

Today she received an email saying they are happy to offer a settlement fee instead (big relief!). This came to just over £1000, which included a £200 admin charge. They sent a list of dates however some were incorrect and were in fact real journeys. The email states 'Should you see any dates included in the settlement that you do not believe fares were avoided by you, please let me know and any amendments that are required can be made'. My daughter is wondering what kind of evidence is needed to prove these and how likely they are to agree? She has screenshots of conversations planning a trip alongside a bank transaction for two day trips. Two journeys from the airport were wrongly flagged as fraud (these journeys were refunded, but she was travelling from the airport), for which she has screenshots of flight bookings. Are they likely to accept this kind of evidence, or is it best to just pay the whole thing and move on?

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to far, we are both very relieved at this outcome.

 

[WesternLancer]

UPDATE: Stelement fee granted!

Today she received an email saying they are happy to offer a settlement fee instead (big relief!). This came to just over £1000, which included a £200 admin charge. They sent a list of dates however some were incorrect and were in fact real journeys. The email states 'Should you see any dates included in the settlement that you do not believe fares were avoided by you, please let me know and any amendments that are required can be made'. My daughter is wondering what kind of evidence is needed to prove these and how likely they are to agree? She has screenshots of conversations planning a trip alongside a bank transaction for two day trips. Two journeys from the airport were wrongly flagged as fraud (these journeys were refunded, but she was travelling from the airport), for which she has screenshots of flight bookings. Are they likely to accept this kind of evidence, or is it best to just pay the whole thing and move on?

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to far, we are both very relieved at this outcome.

From what we see on here if your daughter has managed to convince them that she's co-operating they are often quite reasonable with reducing settlments when people make a clear case as to why a ticket wasn't wrong / invalid. I would think any kind of supporting evidence would do - and it may even be worth stating that on x occasions you had a valid ticket and did travel between those two stations 'but unfortunately i am unable offer any evidence to support that claim, but would be grateful if you could consider it'

I think the approach would be not to chance you luck, be honest, and you might get the sum reduced. Definitely do not argue against anything you can't be sure of your own grounds for claiming it was not dishonest however - because if that unravels the whole thing could unravel and thus you are back on pathway to court prosecution - which you do not want to happen

See what others think on this point however.

 

[Haywain]

what kind of evidence is needed to prove these and how likely they are to agree?

They haven’t asked for evidence, so don’t overthink this. However, don’t push your luck either by claiming journeys are genuine when they are not.