Do TOCs read the Forum?

[ChrisT]

Absolutely, the forum has amongst its readers staff at BTP and Cross Country; I would be surprised if anyone doubted that.

Thank you. I didn't doubt it, I just wanted confirmation.

 

[agk2126]

2) Engage with a TOC if you receive correspondence from them. Burying your head in the sand will just make things worse.

Mostly true and important advice when both the recepient of correspondence (and probably the TOC) more or less know and agree on what happened.

However, we've seen a large increase in fishing expeditions from TOCs, sending out vaguely threatening emails that hint at suspected fraud or violations without ever making specific claims. How would we advise dealing with a TOC if the correspondence in question doesn't make a direct accusation or refer to a particular incident? There is a risk of innocent people incriminating themselves, even with a seemingly innocuous reply or acknowledgement.

For example, if a TOC simply writes someone saying "oh, you have made a lot of Delay Repay claims in the past few months" or "well, you have applied for too many refunds" or "say, our system flagged you for some reason," and a passenger is confident they have not broken any rules, is it wiser not to respond at all?

 

[island]

For example, if a TOC simply writes someone saying "oh, you have made a lot of Delay Repay claims in the past few months" or "well, you have applied for too many refunds" or "say, our system flagged you for some reason," and a passenger is confident they have not broken any rules, is it wiser not to respond at all?

Yes.

 

[Titfield]

Mostly true and important advice when both the recepient of correspondence (and probably the TOC) more or less know and agree on what happened.

However, we've seen a large increase in fishing expeditions from TOCs, sending out vaguely threatening emails that hint at suspected fraud or violations without ever making specific claims. How would we advise dealing with a TOC if the correspondence in question doesn't make a direct accusation or refer to a particular incident? There is a risk of innocent people incriminating themselves, even with a seemingly innocuous reply or acknowledgement.

For example, if a TOC simply writes someone saying "oh, you have made a lot of Delay Repay claims in the past few months" or "well, you have applied for too many refunds" or "say, our system flagged you for some reason," and a passenger is confident they have not broken any rules, is it wiser not to respond at all?

Yes thank you. I should have pointed that out.

 

[sheff1]

However, we've seen a large increase in fishing expeditions from TOCs, sending out vaguely threatening emails that hint at suspected fraud or violations without ever making specific claims. How would we advise dealing with a TOC if the correspondence in question doesn't make a direct accusation or refer to a particular incident? There is a risk of innocent people incriminating themselves, even with a seemingly innocuous reply or acknowledgement.

For example, if a TOC simply writes someone saying "oh, you have made a lot of Delay Repay claims in the past few months" or "well, you have applied for too many refunds" or "say, our system flagged you for some reason," and a passenger is confident they have not broken any rules, is it wiser not to respond at all?

As all my Delay Repay claims are genuine, if I ever received such a letter I would reply along the lines "well that is because a lot of your trains were late".

If someone's DR claims are suspect, and with the other examples you gave, the best thing is to ignore the letter/email. If the TOC can't be bothered to clearly state what specifc offence(s) they are accusing someone of why bother to reply and potentially incriminate oneself with a poorly worded response.

 

[AlterEgo]

For example, if a TOC simply writes someone saying "oh, you have made a lot of Delay Repay claims in the past few months" or "well, you have applied for too many refunds" or "say, our system flagged you for some reason," and a passenger is confident they have not broken any rules, is it wiser not to respond at all?

It usually would be wiser to remain silent, yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2025 ==

If someone's DR claims are suspect, and with the other examples you gave, the best thing is to ignore the letter/email. If the TOC can't be bothered to clearly state what specifc offence(s) they are accusing someone of why bother to reply and potentially incriminate oneself with a poorly worded response.

Indeed.

 

[ChrisT]

It usually would be wiser to remain silent, yes.

I disagree. My sister-in-law, someone with legal training, has always recommended me to never ignore such letters but to politely reply saying that you are not aware of any infringement and denying any culpability.

 

[AlterEgo]

I disagree. My sister-in-law, someone with legal training, has always recommended me to never ignore such letters but to politely reply saying that you are not aware of any infringement and denying any culpability.

Not wise if it later turns out you did in fact unwittingly make an infringement, because your denial can be used against you and undermine your credibility as a witness, whereas ignorance or silence cannot.

Is she a duty solicitor at a police station, for example? First rule of any criminal allegation against you is shut up unless and until you receive legal advice.

This is a tried and tested approach on here with dozens and possibly hundreds of these fishing letters/emails. Ignoring them is the best policy, as is borne out by the results of practicing that policy.

 

[m0ffy]

Not wise if it later turns out you did in fact unwittingly make an infringement, because your denial can be used against you and undermine your credibility as a witness, whereas ignorance or silence cannot.

Is she a duty solicitor at a police station, for example? First rule of any criminal allegation against you is shut up unless and until you receive legal advice.

This is a tried and tested approach on here with dozens and possibly hundreds of these fishing letters/emails. Ignoring them is the best policy, as is borne out by the results of practicing that policy.

“Don’t talk to cops” is often written off as overly simplistic, but it's a good shorthand for don’t answer a question you don’t have to/don’t volunteer information. Whether you’re dealing with police, border guards, or RPIs, nothing good will come of being too helpful.

 

[ChrisT]

“Don’t talk to cops” is often written off as overly simplistic, but it's a good shorthand for don’t answer a question you don’t have to/don’t volunteer information. Whether you’re dealing with police, border guards, or RPIs, nothing good will come of being too helpful.

Agreed. Leaving a long silence which makes you feel obliged to say something is a well-known interviewing technique.

 

[John R]

I disagree. My sister-in-law, someone with legal training, has always recommended me to never ignore such letters but to politely reply saying that you are not aware of any infringement and denying any culpability.

Others will correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe we have seen a case taken to criminal prosecution where the poster has taken our advice not to respond. A few not so gentle reminders, yes. Prosecution paperwork, no.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Others will correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe we have seen a case taken to criminal prosecution where the poster has taken our advice not to respond. A few not so gentle reminders, yes. Prosecution paperwork, no.

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.

 

[AlterEgo]

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.

The jeopardy with civil courts is very low - the sums which can be legitimately claimed are almost always low - because of the limit in costs, as well as the fact they can only claim legitimate losses (and only their own losses); they are not usually allowed to apply penalties which they get rather priapic about in correspondence but which have little weight when the cold bromide of the county court is poured upon the case.

If you settle within 28 days of the case anyway there's no CCJ.

 

[Starmill]

“Don’t talk to cops” is often written off as overly simplistic, but it's a good shorthand for don’t answer a question you don’t have to/don’t volunteer information. Whether you’re dealing with police, border guards, or RPIs, nothing good will come of being too helpful.

Indeed. There are lots of reasons, from the obvious point of getting you to volunteer information which sounds bad even if it's not actually incriminating, to the one mentioned above where they document your denial of something which they can evidence, undermining your credibility, or the even trickier situation of something being relevant to your defence which you don't know about yet, which leaves you open to the accusation that "you're only mentioning this at court". There are numerous other things honest people could do which deft prosecutors would be able to use against them.

 

[OscarH]

Sure, although maybe forum will move to IP6

I'm personally disgusted that the forum doesn't already use IPv6, and insists on forcing us to use such legacy tech stacks

(I will not be answering questions about how broken IPv6 may or may not be in my house )