Advice on incoming GTR fare evasion investigation

[ahoydecoy]

Ok, here goes...

I have been evading fares on Thameslink for a while and need some advice on what I might expect to happen after being caught.

It started out in desperation, trying to make a job requiring a commute work on a budget after covid and being able to work from home. It was foolish, I am ashamed and I should not have done it at all, let alone let it go on this long. I'm going to be frank in this post for transparency and to get the best advice possible (please someone tell me if this is unwise).

I was recently caught having paid for only half my journey (up to the point my journey is typically divided by split save). I have never seen anyone checking tickets on the second leg (until this occasion).

I saw the inspector coming (just as we left the stop I had a valid ticket to) and panic bought a ticket for leg 2. This was scanned, they asked if it was a split save ticket, I said yes and they asked to see the first, they noticed the time difference and the fact the second ticket was just purchased and queried this. I lied and said I intended to manually buy split save tickets for the best price but was in a rush to get on the train so prioritised ticket 1 and forgot to go back and purchase the second until it was too late. They noted this was suspicious and would have to be reported for investigation, suggesting my prior purchase history will likely be looked at too.

I did think I was getting a print out of the full report, so was surprised when I saw the 'receipt' didn't include this, but from what I saw the report made was that I purchased a ticket in front of the inspector and had failed to purchase one at the appropriate time, and that I claimed this was an error and my intention was to split save.

When asked if I held a valid ticket for my journey (or maybe the phrasing was have I paid the full amount for my journey or similar), I asked their advice, as I had purchased the ticket but would have accepted if I was told this wasn't valid. They told me that I did have a valid ticket and encouraged me to respond affirmatively. The other question was how I avoided the barriers at the start of my journey, for which the answer was I didn't, I scanned ticket 1.

So my understanding is this report might read that I had a full and valid ticket which wasn't purchased at the appropriate time (ticket 2 was purchased within seconds of leaving the station ticket 1 was to). I honestly have no idea what the outcome of this might be if assessed as an isolated incident.

However, if they do look at my Trainline history, it will be clear this isn't an isolated incident.

I have gone through and counted around 94 occasions where I purchased a ticket for half my journey to work in the last 3 years (before this actually leads to 8 or so instances of paying the full fare then refunding it when unscanned, which Trainline stopped letting me do). I could "get away with" only having a ticket for the start of the journey by immediately transferring onto an underground journey (full fare paid) on the other end. The cost of the unpaid part is about £16 per ticket.

It gets more complicated when you factor in my return journeys. I previously realised that I could buy a paper open return ticket valid for a month (this started when I was breaking up my journey by staying nights, which I did pretty regularly at times) and if unchecked I could use the return part for more than one journey. Therefore my Trainline history is mostly half an outgoing journey and far fewer return trips, which will make the extent of my fare evasion difficult to pin down.

To be frank, I'm not sure whether the confusion regarding how many journeys I have or haven't paid for will make things worse for me or better if/when it comes to them estimating a total value.

Obviously, ultimately my hope is to avoid prosecution and agree a settlement, assuming there's 0% chance my history of evasion isn't uncovered by the report made?

Any advice on what is likely, what to expect, and whether a lawyer would be wise would be appreciated. Will they attempt to calculate journeys I may have taken with no ticket evidence behind them at all? Does the extremity of my case (from a quick browse here, it does seem more extreme an offence than others) mean I'm much less likely to be able to come to some sort of settlement agreement/avoid prosecution?

This has been a real wake up call for me and it goes without saying that I won't be attempting to evade fares moving forward.

 

[Egg Centric]

Does the extremity of my case (from a quick browse here, it does seem more extreme an offence than others) mean I'm much less likely to be able to come to some sort of settlement agreement/avoid prosecution?

I'll let others answer the rest but so long as it's as described you're by no means the worst we've seen and GTR are very amenable to settlement. Just be aware that this is from the sounds of it likely going to be a few grand. Have you got that available at short notice? How much is the anytime fare between the ultimate source and ultimate origin? When we have doughnutters GTR tend to ignore the "doughnut sides" in their settlement offers. I'm not sure what they will do on a legit and common split with only half the split bought but you need to be prepared for the worst there.

Forum members will want the specifics to advise you further, as dealt with in the FAQ. Unless you're sure you want to cooperate openly and and frankly (this is the sensible thing to do if you have the money but we have to recognise there are many who don't) you may not wish to go into more details publically in which case there's not much we can do although others think I am too paranoid about that.

 

[ahoydecoy]

I'll let others answer the rest but so long as it's as described you're by no means the worst we've seen and GTR are very amenable to settlement. Just be aware that this is from the sounds of it likely going to be a few grand. Have you got that available at short notice? How much is the anytime fare between the ultimate source and ultimate origin? When we have doughnutters GTR tend to ignore the "doughnut sides" in their settlement offers. I'm not sure what they will do on a legit and common split with only half the split bought but you need to be prepared for the worst there.

Forum members will want the specifics to advise you further, as dealt with in the FAQ. Unless you're sure you want to cooperate openly and and frankly (this is the sensible thing to do if you have the money but we have to recognise there are many who don't) you may not wish to go into more details publically in which case there's not much we can do although others think I am too paranoid about that.

Thanks for your reply.

Any time fare between source and origin is £26.60 including split-save, trainline shows this as a saving of £5.20. I had been paying £11.50.

Any time day return, if I'd bought one when needed, is £55, but as I was staying overnight regularly this wouldn't have been the case for every journey. There are also genuine occassions where I've been going just to the location I've been paying for, which will look like instances of fraud alongside the rest, but I'm working on the basis there's no use splitting hairs if it comes to it. I don't have thousands of pounds spare, but if it comes to it I can likely make a settlement work to avoid a worse case scenario.

I'm very happy to cooporate and be open. However, if an investigation comes back and seems to only be focused on the one incident I was reported for, I'm unsure what the best way to respond will be. That said, I'm assuming it's unlikely my past will be missed.

 

[30907]

You should respond to what the letter asks without saying or implying that this was your first offence or a mistake. GTR are likely to investigate further, and you can prepare by checking your own journey history and making a note of the genuine ones (they presumably will not involve doughnutting?).

 

[WesternLancer]

Ok, here goes...

I have been evading fares on Thameslink for a while and need some advice on what I might expect to happen after being caught.

It started out in desperation, trying to make a job requiring a commute work on a budget after covid and being able to work from home. It was foolish, I am ashamed and I should not have done it at all, let alone let it go on this long. I'm going to be frank in this post for transparency and to get the best advice possible (please someone tell me if this is unwise).

I was recently caught having paid for only half my journey (up to the point my journey is typically divided by split save). I have never seen anyone checking tickets on the second leg (until this occasion).

I saw the inspector coming (just as we left the stop I had a valid ticket to) and panic bought a ticket for leg 2. This was scanned, they asked if it was a split save ticket, I said yes and they asked to see the first, they noticed the time difference and the fact the second ticket was just purchased and queried this. I lied and said I intended to manually buy split save tickets for the best price but was in a rush to get on the train so prioritised ticket 1 and forgot to go back and purchase the second until it was too late. They noted this was suspicious and would have to be reported for investigation, suggesting my prior purchase history will likely be looked at too.

I did think I was getting a print out of the full report, so was surprised when I saw the 'receipt' didn't include this, but from what I saw the report made was that I purchased a ticket in front of the inspector and had failed to purchase one at the appropriate time, and that I claimed this was an error and my intention was to split save.

When asked if I held a valid ticket for my journey (or maybe the phrasing was have I paid the full amount for my journey or similar), I asked their advice, as I had purchased the ticket but would have accepted if I was told this wasn't valid. They told me that I did have a valid ticket and encouraged me to respond affirmatively. The other question was how I avoided the barriers at the start of my journey, for which the answer was I didn't, I scanned ticket 1.

So my understanding is this report might read that I had a full and valid ticket which wasn't purchased at the appropriate time (ticket 2 was purchased within seconds of leaving the station ticket 1 was to). I honestly have no idea what the outcome of this might be if assessed as an isolated incident.

However, if they do look at my Trainline history, it will be clear this isn't an isolated incident.

I have gone through and counted around 94 occasions where I purchased a ticket for half my journey to work in the last 3 years (before this actually leads to 8 or so instances of paying the full fare then refunding it when unscanned, which Trainline stopped letting me do). I could "get away with" only having a ticket for the start of the journey by immediately transferring onto an underground journey (full fare paid) on the other end. The cost of the unpaid part is about £16 per ticket.

It gets more complicated when you factor in my return journeys. I previously realised that I could buy a paper open return ticket valid for a month (this started when I was breaking up my journey by staying nights, which I did pretty regularly at times) and if unchecked I could use the return part for more than one journey. Therefore my Trainline history is mostly half an outgoing journey and far fewer return trips, which will make the extent of my fare evasion difficult to pin down.

To be frank, I'm not sure whether the confusion regarding how many journeys I have or haven't paid for will make things worse for me or better if/when it comes to them estimating a total value.

Obviously, ultimately my hope is to avoid prosecution and agree a settlement, assuming there's 0% chance my history of evasion isn't uncovered by the report made?

Any advice on what is likely, what to expect, and whether a lawyer would be wise would be appreciated. Will they attempt to calculate journeys I may have taken with no ticket evidence behind them at all? Does the extremity of my case (from a quick browse here, it does seem more extreme an offence than others) mean I'm much less likely to be able to come to some sort of settlement agreement/avoid prosecution?

This has been a real wake up call for me and it goes without saying that I won't be attempting to evade fares moving forward.

I see you have a given some useful detail about the background, and subsequently given some idea of the sorts of ticket sums involved. You may not wish to state the stations involved for the tickets here and you perhaps don't need to do so.

If I understand it correctly you have been doing 3 things that the railway will consider as deliberate evasion

A - not paying the full correct fare for the whole journey of your travel (using a split ticket as an 'excuse' to avoid paying for a section of the journey)
B - refunding tickets that you have in fact used but have not been scanned at ticket barriers or by inspectors (these refunds have been detected by Trainline and the ability to make more has been stopped - so they already suspected this)
C - using the return portion of a ticket that has not been scanned on multiple occasions

Clearly many people would think this is the sort of action that deserves to be prosecuted in court.

However, as you can see on here many deliberate evasion cases do get settled out of court. In part this is beasue if the Railway can get all that they owe from you they get to keep 100% of that. Taking you to court takes them more time and the fines etc don't find their way back to the railway company.

So it is quite possible they will agree to settle the matter

When they write to you you should engage with that in order to seek to settle out of court - they will want you to co-operate with their investigations into what you have been doing, pay them what they believe you owe, stop doing this, never do it again - your objective has to be to do those things.

You ask about getting legal help. You could try to resolve this yourself, or you could engage a solicitor. A solicitor can't undo what has happened but may be able to advance your own case more effectively than you can. You could get quotes to get an idea of what engaging one would cost but from what we see here you would be lookign at c£750+ in legal fees - so you have to decide if helping you avoid court is worth it to you to get that professional help at that cost versus trying to do it yourself. They also can't guarantee 100% that they can keep it out of court of course

If you do want to get legal help quotes then you should go to a firm that specialise in rail fare law - A few get mentioned on this forum from time to time and you could search for what people who have used them say. The ones I can recall are:

Manak Solicitors

Fare Evasion Solicitors | Kent & London | Manak Solicitors

Manak Solicitors: Skilled legal defence for fare evasion cases. Rely on our experienced team to protect your rights, challenge penalties, and guide you through the process.
manaksolicitors.co.uk


Makwanas

Fare Evasion Solicitors London | High Success Rate | TFL Solicitors

Facing prosecution for fare evasion? Our expert fare evasion solicitors in London fight to protect your record. With deep expertise in TFL solicitors' defence, we help you avoid fines, criminal convictions, and lasting consequences. Act now—secure expert legal representation today!

www.makwanas.co.uk

and
Gray Hooper Holt Solicitors

 

[trainerlover]

What a solid reply!!! To attempt to add to this, if you chose to go down the legal route, it's typically 1) a consultation (circa £300) 2) Representation (ranges up to £1,200). I hear you, it is expensive. But since this government has made fare evasion criminal and not civil - we have to pay through our nose. I used Makwanas and couldn't rave about Shella (the owner) more. A real pit bull. The other solicitors I contacted (not going to mention them) - you couldn't get the partner on the phone, and they just didn't seem to take it that seriously. For them it was simply another case!

 

[SuspectUsual]

But since this government has made fare evasion criminal and not civil - we have to pay through our nose.

As an aside, it isn't this government, its been like this for years and years

(Whether that's right or wrong is a totally separate debate that's been done to death on various threads over the years)

 

[Hadders]

What a solid reply!!! To attempt to add to this, if you chose to go down the legal route, it's typically 1) a consultation (circa £300) 2) Representation (ranges up to £1,200). I hear you, it is expensive. But since this government has made fare evasion criminal and not civil - we have to pay through our nose. I used Makwanas and couldn't rave about Shella (the owner) more. A real pit bull. The other solicitors I contacted (not going to mention them) - you couldn't get the partner on the phone, and they just didn't seem to take it that seriously. For them it was simply another case!

The Regulation of the Railways Act 1889 is the legislation under which many railway fare evasion cases are prosecuted, so slightly predates the current Government.

 

[ahoydecoy]

I was issued with a witness statement for a fare evasion issue on a Thameslink train and have been anticipating an intention to prosecute letter, but it has now been 4 months. Is there a pattern to how long it usually takes? My understanding is I have to receive a letter within 6 months in order for them to take action - or is that a misunderstanding?

 

[30907]

I was issued with a witness statement for a fare evasion issue on a Thameslink train and have been anticipating an intention to prosecute letter, but it has now been 4 months. Is there a pattern to how long it usually takes? My understanding is I have to receive a letter within 6 months in order for them to take action - or is that a misunderstanding?

Not quite: they have to begin the prosecution process within 6 months. After that, they still have the option of making a civil claim, though I don’t think GTR currently do this - and if this is a one-off I doubt they would think it worth while.
It is quite possible that your case is still in the queue, I'm afraid, so you are not out of the woods yet

 

[Titfield]

Not quite: they have to begin the prosecution process within 6 months. After that, they still have the option of making a civil claim, though I don’t think GTR currently do this - and if this is a one-off I doubt they would think it worth while.
It is quite possible that your case is still in the queue, I'm afraid, so you are not out of the woods yet

and you need to add on a couple of weeks for prosecutions begun inside the 6 month deadline to be processed by the court and sent to you.

 

[ahoydecoy]

In August I was caught having only paid for half my Thameslink journey (the first leg of a typical split save). I had bought the second leg as I saw the inspector approaching and they noted the time difference immediately.

I have just received an intention to prosecute letter, stating I "did enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, and upon inspection at [station] did not produce a valid ticket entitling travel" on said date.

This is not the first time I've done this (it is the last!), and a review of my past purchases will make this quite clear. Is it typical that the letter only mentions the one incident, or do they usually note when they've looked into past history - or is that always done at a later stage?

When taking the witness statement, the inspector advised me to answer that I had paid the full fare (regardless of doing it in an improper manner), so I'm unclear what to say in my response in terms offering to pay any outstanding fees/fines/costs in order to avoid prosecution - which I see is common advice here. Any suggestions on how to phrase this beyond an apology and assuring I won't make this error of judgement again would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[AlterEgo]

In August I was caught having only paid for half my Thameslink journey (the first leg of a typical split save). I had bought the second leg as I saw the inspector approaching and they noted the time difference immediately.

I have just received an intention to prosecute letter, stating I "did enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, and upon inspection at [station] did not produce a valid ticket entitling travel" on said date.

Where were you inspected?

Where were you travelling from and to, and which tickets were involved?

It is possible you did not commit any offence here.

 

[ahoydecoy]

I was travelling Brighton to St Pancras and had a ticket Brighton to Gatwick. Inspector came on at Gatwick and I was one of the first people they spoke to, so I likely purchased the ticket within a minute (or minutes) of departing the station.

 

[furlong]

So their letter covers a mixture of two offences which you might well not have committed:
- boarding while not holding a valid ticket - but you held a valid ticket to board at Brighton
- not presenting your ticket for inspection - but you did present it

There are other offences where they'd have to make technical legal arguments (and not be able to use their preferred simplest prosecution mechanism). One we never see them use (failing to alight at the station where your ticket ends). Travelling without intentionally having paid the right fare (at the point of departure from Gatwick) - but you did pay it moments later. Similarly having paid to travel to Gatwick intentionally travelling beyond there without paying the extra - but you did pay the extra albeit too late.

Yes, they often do look at ticket purchasing history and this might affect their response. So if your history is going to reveal suspicious-looking gaps you might prefer to take it on the chin, apologise and ask to settle out of court and hope they don't look any more deeply.

But if you always paid the right fare you might want to be a bit more robust in your reply, with evidence you'd paid the fare before the inspection, accepting that in future you'll buy the split ticket in good time, but trust that they'll accept that this is the end of the matter as no further money is owed (and reference the recent ORR report's comments on proportionality if you wish). The fundamental point would be that you did pay and they shouldn't be attempting to criminalise people over minor technicalities. But if your purchase history suggests you might have made previous journeys where you didn't buy the second ticket correctly, you'd lose the benefit of any doubt here.

 

[ahoydecoy]

But if your purchase history suggests you might have made previous journeys where you didn't buy the second ticket correctly, you'd lose the benefit of any doubt here.

Yes, I'm afraid that if they do look through my history they will see multiple instances of travel to Gatwick but no further, so while I appreciate you highlighting a potential grey area in the circumstances under which I was caught, I feel it's best to acknowledge I was aiming to avoid a full fare and apologise accordingly? Should I still offer to pay any associated costs?

 

[tram21]

Yes, I'm afraid that if they do look through my history they will see multiple instances of travel to Gatwick but no further, so while I appreciate you highlighting a potential grey area in the circumstances under which I was caught, I feel it's best to acknowledge I was aiming to avoid a full fare and apologise accordingly? Should I still offer to pay any associated costs?

Do you have another ticket that you use to exit at the ticket gates, or just Brighton to Gatwick? Because a ticket from Brighton to Gatwick only isn't really suspicious.

However if you have, for example, another ticket from Farringdon to St Pancras, then it looks far more suspicious!

 

[ahoydecoy]

Do you have another ticket that you use to exit at the ticket gates, or just Brighton to Gatwick? Because a ticket from Brighton to Gatwick only isn't really suspicious.

However if you have, for example, another ticket from Farringdon to St Pancras, then it looks far more suspicious!

I just have a ticket from Brighton to Gatwick. I then use the same card to begin a TFL underground journey on the other end and avoid the rest of the rail fare in between. Not sure if an investigation can flag that?

Even if not, while a ticket from BTN to GTW only isn't suspicious, a) can they tell it wasn't ever scanned at Gatwick gates and b) having been caught on a journey to London without a ticket beyond Gatwick, they will immediately see past instances of travel to Gatwick as suspicious, won't they?

 

[Haywain]

b) having been caught on a journey to London without a ticket beyond Gatwick, they will immediately see past instances of travel to Gatwick as suspicious, won't they?

That is to be expected.

 

[ahoydecoy]

I have made the below start in drafting a response. Any feedback or suggestions on balance and phrasing would be appreciated:

"On [date] I boarded a Thameslink train from Brighton to London using a ticket valid from Brighton to Gatwick (akin to the first leg in a split-save fare). I confess that it was my intention to attempt to continue to London without paying the fare for the remainder of the journey. A saw a ticket inspector board the train at Gatwick and I immediately purchased a ticket for the second leg of this journey and presented it.

The inspector asked to see the valid ticket for the first leg also and noted that the second ticket was purchased at a later time (just moments prior to the interaction).

I regret that, due to embarrassment and panic, I was not honest in the moment and stated that I had forgotten to purchase the second ticket at the same time as the first, but had intended to. The inspector clearly and respectfully noted that this seemed suspicious and required reporting. They did advise that, when answering a question about whether I held a valid ticket for my journey, that I respond affirmatively, even though the timing of my purchase was improper.

I fully accept that my actions were unacceptable. This process has been extremely impactful and informative in regards to the risks and repercussions of such behaviour, which I will never attempt again.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and am willing to pay any costs associated with the fare in question and/or the subsequent investigation."

 

[WesternLancer]

I have made the below start in drafting a response. Any feedback or suggestions on balance and phrasing would be appreciated:

"On [date] I boarded a Thameslink train from Brighton to London using a ticket valid from Brighton to Gatwick (akin to the first leg in a split-save fare). I confess that it was my intention to attempt to continue to London without paying the fare for the remainder of the journey. A saw a ticket inspector board the train at Gatwick and I immediately purchased a ticket for the second leg of this journey and presented it.

The inspector asked to see the valid ticket for the first leg also and noted that the second ticket was purchased at a later time (just moments prior to the interaction).

I regret that, due to embarrassment and panic, I was not honest in the moment and stated that I had forgotten to purchase the second ticket at the same time as the first, but had intended to. The inspector clearly and respectfully noted that this seemed suspicious and required reporting. They did advise that, when answering a question about whether I held a valid ticket for my journey, that I respond affirmatively, even though the timing of my purchase was improper.

I fully accept that my actions were unacceptable. This process has been extremely impactful and informative in regards to the risks and repercussions of such behaviour, which I will never attempt again.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and am willing to pay any costs associated with the fare in question and/or the subsequent investigation."

draft looks ok

you need to include their ref number in it clearly

keep copies of everything

as I think you have to poste these on you should use tracked postage from a post office so you can prove it was delivered if you need to do so.

 

[ahoydecoy]

"On [date] I boarded a Thameslink train from Brighton to London using a ticket valid from Brighton to Gatwick (akin to the first leg in a split-save fare). I confess that it was my intention to attempt to continue to London without paying the fare for the remainder of the journey. A saw a ticket inspector board the train at Gatwick and I immediately purchased a ticket for the second leg of this journey and presented it.

The inspector asked to see the valid ticket for the first leg also and noted that the second ticket was purchased at a later time (just moments prior to the interaction).

I regret that, due to embarrassment and panic, I was not honest in the moment and stated that I had forgotten to purchase the second ticket at the same time as the first, but had intended to. The inspector clearly and respectfully noted that this seemed suspicious and required reporting. They did advise that, when answering a question about whether I held a valid ticket for my journey, that I respond affirmatively, even though the timing of my purchase was improper.

I fully accept that my actions were unacceptable. This process has been extremely impactful and informative in regards to the risks and repercussions of such behaviour, which I will never attempt again.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and am willing to pay any costs associated with the fare in question and/or the subsequent investigation."

Any further advise or comments on my draft would be appreciated. I will include the reference number. Do I add an email address or keep correspondence to post?

 

[z444z]

Any further advise or comments on my draft would be appreciated. I will include the reference number. Do I add an email address or keep correspondence to post?

It looks good. There’s no harm in including an email address in case they wish to use it, but definitely be looking out for a response by post, and watch your inbox and spam folder too.

 

[ahoydecoy]

Elsewhere I've been advised that my draft says too much, and that by outright admitting intent to evade a fare I suggest a pattern and make it more likely they'll look into my history. Does that seem right? If so, how is the below? Remaining honest and factual but with no outright omission of initial intent.

"On [date] I boarded a Thameslink service from Brighton to London using a ticket valid from Brighton to Gatwick.

When a ticket inspector boarded the train at Gatwick, I purchased a ticket for the Gatwick to London portion of the journey and presented it. The inspector also requested to see the Brighton to Gatwick ticket and noted that the second ticket had been purchased at a later time (shortly before the interaction).

I regret that, due to embarrassment and panic, I was not honest in the moment and stated that I had forgotten to purchase the second ticket at the same time as the first. The inspector clearly and respectfully noted that this was suspicious and required reporting. They did advise that, when answering a question about whether I held a valid ticket for my journey, that I respond affirmatively, even though the timing of my purchase was improper.

I fully accept that my handling of this journey was unacceptable. This process has been impactful and informative in regards to the risks and repercussions of such behaviour.

I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and am willing to pay any costs associated with the fare and/or with any reasonable administrative costs."

Is anyone able to comment on the likelihood they look into my history either way?

 

[z444z]

Is anyone able to comment on the likelihood they look into my history either way?

GTR routinely investigate ticketing history regardless of what you say in your response. In fact they probably already have.

EDITED 16/12/2025: Mixed cases up, removed incorrect advice

 

[ahoydecoy]

From the forum’s vast collective experience of these cases, a response like this is far less likely to get you a settlement.

GTR routinely investigate ticketing history regardless of what you say in your response. In fact they probably already have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2025 ==

Does anyone have the link to that thread where someone was advised here on what to say, ignored it all and sent a factual and unapologetic letter on the advice of a lawyer friend, received a response saying the TOC intended to prosecute, and then with further help from here was able to secure a settlement?

Even if nobody can find the thread, OP this isn’t the route you want to go down!

Noted with thanks. You think essentially just removing "I confess that it was my intention to attempt to continue to London without paying the fare for the remainder of the journey." amounts to such a significant change, and should definitely be included? I definitely didn't intend for the second draft to be less apologetic overall. Will take this on board.

 

[Egg Centric]

Does anyone have the link to that thread where someone was advised here on what to say, ignored it all and sent a factual and unapologetic letter on the advice of a lawyer friend, received a response saying the TOC intended to prosecute, and then with further help from here was able to secure a settlement?

Even if nobody can find the thread, OP this isn’t the route you want to go down!

The OP in the thread you're referring to was far more pugnacious - see https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/help-notice-of-intention-to-prosecute-help.283857/

My personal suspicion is that anything which isn't ridiculous like that one would probably be ok and I don't see the issue with the OP's response - it doesn't lie - although he or she should certainly prepare for the history to be looked into.

 

[z444z]

Noted with thanks. You think essentially just removing "I confess that it was my intention to attempt to continue to London without paying the fare for the remainder of the journey." amounts to such a significant change, and should definitely be included? I definitely didn't intend for the second draft to be less apologetic overall. Will take this on board.

Sorry I’m mixing this up with a different case, my bad. On looking closer at your latest draft as well as the original, I think that both are missing a genuine apology and a believable promise never to do it again. These seem to be one of the most effective ways to get a settlement offered. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[furlong]

You're overthinking this. With GTR, just keep it short and sweet. No need to dig holes for yourself by explaining. A simple apology in general terms is sufficient to tick the box that needs ticking. You don't need to mention any details. "I apologise for my behaviour." or "I apologise for not paying what I should have." - something along those lines is all you need.
They're likely to check for other instances, so make sure what you write can be interpreted as including whatever else they might find so that they can reply by making you an offer covering everything without needing another round of letters. Don't limit your apology by adding "on that occasion" but leave it open.

 

[ahoydecoy]

Hi All,

Thought I'd provide an update. I decided to go ahead and send a response based on the draft in post #24 above. I quickly received a letter saying that on review they'll offer an out of court settlement of £70.10.

I'm obviously extremely fortunate in this instance. I was fully preparing to have to seek legal support with potential for a settlement in the thousands.

I will take care not to travel without a valid ticket again.

With thanks for the advice received.