Expired railcard

[Cantab26]

Bedminster isn't between Manchester and Bristol TM, so a hypothetical "sandwich man" would also tend to buy a ticket from Bristol Parkway to Bristol Temple Meads, not from Bedminster to Bristol Temple Meads.

Bedminster is about £1.20 cheaper than BP to BTM, which would provide some motive to buy the Bedminster ticket, but not a great one given that none of the rest of the travel suggests shortfaring, nor indeed have the TOC suggested that he engaged in this.

A very useful summary from @soil as to the line of attack that any sensible defence agent would do well to consider and elaborate.

I would perhaps take issue with this quoted part in that (in my experience) it is very much the kind of behaviour I would expect a doughnutter (one who is only purchasing a ticket to pass through the ticket gates at his destination station) to engage in, notwithstanding the fact that the station in question is on ‘the wrong side’ as it were.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

Sounds like that is, in fact, as least as many as you have

Off-hand (and it has been a few years since I was particularly active in prosecution work), I believe it would be four or five at my end.

Any advance on zero for you?

 

[soil]

A very useful summary from @soil as to the line of attack that any sensible defence agent would do well to consider and elaborate.

I would perhaps take issue with this quoted part in that (in my experience) it is very much the kind of behaviour I would expect a doughnutter (one who is only purchasing a ticket to pass through the ticket gates at his destination station) to engage in, notwithstanding the fact that the station in question is on ‘the wrong side’ as it were.

A quick Google search suggests that Stapleton Road is the doughnutter's ticket of choice, as it's cheaper and does achieve the job of getting through the barrier.

As noted above, due to covid lockdowns, it becomes somewhat less likely that the OP was sharing cars with randoms, or indeed had any business in Bedminster.

It might well be that the most likely explanation was indeed that this was a one-off incident where he decided to save a few £££ considering it low risk due to lack of checks during covid. (And the suboptimal choice of ticket isn't particularly surprising.)

Off-hand (and it has been a few years since I was particularly active in prosecution work), I believe it would be four or five at my end.

And how many for one-off offences like this?

 

[enyoueffsea]

I’m not sure how helpful most of this second page is going to be for the OP.

A civil case is much more likely to be the line of attack from GTR here, which this forum (and in general) we have limited examples of to potentially predict the outcome.

I agree with others who have suggested a counter offer of the railcard costs is likely to only cause GTR to continue with any planned action. The OP should consider a sensible counter offer of the difference between fares.

The OP has clearly been evading fares via different methods for some time. They should immediately cease this, if they have not already, otherwise they will end up in a worse position than they already are.

 

[WesternLancer]

I’m not sure how helpful most of this second page is going to be for the OP.

A civil case is much more likely to be the line of attack from GTR here, which this forum (and in general) we have limited examples of to potentially predict the outcome.

I agree with others who have suggested a counter offer of the railcard costs is likely to only cause GTR to continue with any planned action. The OP should consider a sensible counter offer of the difference between fares.

The OP has clearly been evading fares via different methods for some time. They should immediately cease this, if they have not already, otherwise they will end up in a worse position than they already are.

I very much agree with this. I think the op needs advice on what they should actually do now.

Obviously it’s important for the op to be able to weigh up what could happen if GWR go down particular paths over this but I think main focus should be on how they respond to GWR at this stage.

 

[soil]

I agree with others who have suggested a counter offer of the railcard costs is likely to only cause GTR to continue with any planned action. The OP should consider a sensible counter offer of the difference between fares.

The OP has clearly been evading fares via different methods for some time. They should immediately cease this, if they have not already, otherwise they will end up in a worse position than they already are.

Not sure that's entirely accurate.

My reading of the thread is that OP was entitled to railcards and indeed purchased them but saved himself perhaps £20 by "forgetting" to renew them on time, specifically between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022, and then again between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024.

There does not appear to have been much travel in the June - October 2022 period - just Manchester - Rochdale on 29 July, then Rochdale - Bristol on 1st August.

We cannot really infer fare evasion from this - it could genuinely be forgetfulness.

The second period went on for longer, but again we cannot really assert "evasion", in that the OP was entitled to a railcard, which is not particularly expensive, so intent vs carelessness is hard to prove.

It appears that GWR have accessed his current railcard account, and have inferred that he had no railcard prior to the purchase of the railcard on 24 June 2021.

The 16-25 vs 26-30 issue which has been mentioned elsewhere appears to be a red herring that GWR are not concerned about.

The OP states that he had a different digital railcard between 2016 and 2020, and there is no reason to disbelieve this. I am not sure how long one retains access to one's university email address, so he might well have renewed it beyond this.

I am not sure exactly on what lawful basis GWR has (it seems) accessed the OP's records, but my view is that the whole case against the OP is weak and nebulous

 

[enyoueffsea]

Not sure that's entirely accurate.

My reading of the thread is that OP was entitled to railcards and indeed purchased them but saved himself perhaps £20 by "forgetting" to renew them on time, specifically between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022, and then again between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024.

There does not appear to have been much travel in the June - October 2022 period - just Manchester - Rochdale on 29 July, then Rochdale - Bristol on 1st August.

We cannot really infer fare evasion from this - it could genuinely be forgetfulness.

The second period went on for longer, but again we cannot really assert "evasion", in that the OP was entitled to a railcard, which is not particularly expensive, so intent vs carelessness is hard to prove.

It appears that GWR have accessed his current railcard account, and have inferred that he had no railcard prior to the purchase of the railcard on 24 June 2021.

The 16-25 vs 26-30 issue which has been mentioned elsewhere appears to be a red herring that GWR are not concerned about.

The OP states that he had a different digital railcard between 2016 and 2020, and there is no reason to disbelieve this. I am not sure how long one retains access to one's university email address, so he might well have renewed it beyond this.

I am not sure exactly on what lawful basis GWR has (it seems) accessed the OP's records, but my view is that the whole case against the OP is weak and nebulous

The OP themselves accept they have purchased and used tickets without holding a railcard, that amounts to fare evasion.

Whether it was an intentional act or not is irrelevant.

That is without picking up the completely unbelievable excuse for the doughnutting on at least 1 occasion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

There does not appear to have been much travel in the June - October 2022 period - just Manchester - Rochdale on 29 July, then Rochdale - Bristol on 1st August.

This makes a large assumption the list is a complete list of all of the OP’s travel. Rather than a select list of those which have a railcard applied, as it appears.

It’s entirely possible there was other travel without a railcard applied which therefore wouldn’t be included in this list.

 

[soil]

The OP themselves accept they have purchased and used tickets without holding a railcard, that amounts to fare evasion.

Whether it was an intentional act or not is irrelevant.

The offence in the Byelaws is "travel without a ticket". You cannot accidentally evade something.

Intent is important because the intentless criminal offence is strictly time barred at this point, whereas if there was intent fraud charges might be possible. Similarly intent is relevant in any civil recovery, because there's a six year time limit on claims, but when this is counted from is related to intent also.

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting thread. Another salutary lesson for all fare evaders or those accused of the same to learn when to keep quiet.

 

[soil]

Interesting thread. Another salutary lesson for all fare evaders or those accused of the same to learn when to keep quiet.

I agree. In the OP's position with the same fact pattern, I'd send a short and sweet "you're out of time" response to GWR and move on with my life

However this is a public forum where people reading are likely to be TOC staff, and the OP's evidence is potentially damaging and things like the doughnutting issue might now be live as a result of discussion here whereas perhaps they weren't previously, and i would say that this is now "a mess".

I know that people in these scenarios are frequently are referred to this fourm as it is "helpful", but it's not intended to help people get off fare evasion - it's a discussion forum with a variety of perspectives shared.

In addition, I think it's interesting from a public policy perspective in that GWR have demanded an absurd £2755, whereas the losses to them are basically zero (IDK if they get a share of railcard sales) - they've asserted, it seems on the basis of incomplete or unreliable evidence, that the OP didn't have a railcard during a period years ago when in fact he did, and while he might have been missing a railcard for some of the period, actual financial losses to the industry from this case are tiny (basically capped at the ~£30 cost of a railcard).

 

[Haywain]

I'd send a short and sweet "you're out of time" response to GWR

That is not what is meant by keeping quiet.

 

[soil]

That is not what is meant by keeping quiet.

What I'm saying is that I would not be posting incriminating information in this forum.

If you have £££ for a lawyer, or the ability to resolve such matters yourself, then one would not do so.

Of course in some cases it turns out following OP's disclosures that it's unambiguously clear that the TOC hasn't got a leg to stand on, but in other cases there is a balancing act between harmful admissions and getting free advice due to lack of other options.

 

[annonymous123]

Hi all,

Please understand that this is a very stressful time for me, not just in this matter but in my personal life also. It is unhelpful and very overwhelming for me to read some of the comments that do not relate directly to a resolution.

Again, I am holding myself accountable and trying to resolve this matter. I know many of you are experienced in matters such as my own and I’m seeking to resolve this outside of court as I cannot risk my NHS job which would take a criminal convictions very seriously.
I need to get a response back ASAP as I have limited time before things escalate.

Further information I have found below which may help my case.

I have managed to find an email from Santander in which the 4 year free Railcard was offered, which there is absolutely no chance I wouldn’t have claimed at the time. That email was sent to me on 28.09.2016.
Santander have agreed to send statements showing that I was eligible for the account which would therefore make me eligible for the Railcard. My first online statement, that I have record of was sent on 21.06.2017, proving eligibility of online banking (one of the requirements needed for the free railcard). With this information, I must have had a valid railcard up until somewhere between 28.09.2020 (earliest possible expiry) - 21.06.2021. I have then totalled what was on the spread sheet from those dates onwards (from earliest date just to be safe).

The next Railcards I have was then have are the 26-30 Railcard (1 Year) 24/06/2021 to 23/06/2022 and 26-30 Railcard (1 Year) 10/10/2022 to 09/10/2023

The first column is the fair paid, the second column is the labelled anytime fair. I have calculated that the full fair paid from 3.10.2020 is £332.15 and the anytime fair is £860.20.

More images available of full spreadsheet available in earlier post if needed.

Based on this information, what do you propose I offer?

Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

I would like to make clear that I have made many railcard purchases backdated to 2015 and anything inbetween where I may not have held one was due to general forgetfulness.

 

[soil]

A few points here:

• it has been noted about the possible doughnutting - but it's not clear if they are considering that
• it does appear very clear that you didn't have a railcard 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022, and then again between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024. Otherwise it would appear you did have a railcard at the material times. It's not reasonable for you to assume you didn't have a railcard between 2020 and 2021 when you don't appear to know - don't assume the worst case.
• the damages are NOT the anytime fare, either criminally or civilly, that's just how GWR try and get as much money out of people as possible to avoid criminal charges. The maximum damages would be the non-railcard fare off-peak or advance type you actually purchased, minus the railcard fare you actually paid.
• the appropriate settlement IMO would be the actual fares you paid in those two windows * 34/66, which is around £120 (I've not calculated it exactly) - note don't include refunded fares, as a refund means you didn't travel and hence no missing railcard.
• this settlement typically wouldn't be accepted when there are live criminal charges and they would also demand a "admin fee". However, they are out of time.

I would just write back saying:

Dear GWR,

On 11 February 2024 I presented a ticket with a railcard to your inspector. At this time, it was pointed out to me that my railcard was expired. I was not aware of this prior to this.

Since your letter I have gone over my past records, and identified that between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022 and between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024 I held expired railcards and purchased tickets during these times.

Some time in the period 2016 - 2017 I obtained a 4-year railcard from Santander. Unfortunately I do not have access to the records from this as the account was registered to my university email. My oldest railcard purchase that I have records for was 1-year purchased on 24 June 2021. Based on these facts, I have no reason to suspect that any of my tickets prior to 24 June 2022 were used without a valid railcard.

I have taken legal advice and have been advised that it is a criminal offence to travel without a valid ticket, which my travel on 11 February 2024 was. However, the time limit for criminal charges is six months, whereas we are now 17 months later.

Although I was entitled to hold railcards during the periods 24 June 2022 to 9 October 2022, and 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024, costing no more £30 each, I recognise that due to my carelessness I did not actually buy one.

Therefore I am willing to pay the difference between the fares that I actually paid, of £xxx, and the same fares without railcard discount, of £xxx, a sum of £1xx.

This offer is made in full and final settlement of any liability in respect of the tickets identified in your spreadsheet.

I apologise for my carelessness in not ensuring that my railcards were always in-date, and now check my railcard each journey, to ensure there is no repetition of this.

 

[annonymous123]

A few points here:

• it has been noted about the possible doughnutting - but it's not clear if they are considering that
• it does appear very clear that you didn't have a railcard 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022, and then again between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024. Otherwise it would appear you did have a railcard at the material times. It's not reasonable for you to assume you didn't have a railcard between 2020 and 2021 when you don't appear to know - don't assume the worst case.
• the damages are NOT the anytime fare, either criminally or civilly, that's just how GWR try and get as much money out of people as possible to avoid criminal charges. The maximum damages would be the non-railcard fare off-peak or advance type you actually purchased, minus the railcard fare you actually paid.
• the appropriate settlement IMO would be the actual fares you paid in those two windows * 34/66, which is around £120 (I've not calculated it exactly)
• this settlement typically wouldn't be accepted when there are live criminal charges and they would also demand a "admin fee". However, they are out of time.

I would just write back saying:

Dear GWR,

On 11 February 2024 I presented a ticket with a railcard to your inspector. At this time, it was pointed out to me that my railcard was expired. I was not aware of this prior to this.

Since your letter I have gone over my past records, and identified that between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022 and between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024 I held expired railcards and purchased tickets during these times.

Some time in the period 2016 - 2017 I obtained a 4-year railcard from Santander. Unfortunately I do not have access to the records from this as the account was registered to my university email. My oldest railcard purchase that I have records for was 1-year purchased on 24 June 2021. Based on these facts, I have no reason to suspect that any of my tickets prior to 24 June 2022 were used without a valid railcard.

I have taken legal advice and have been advised that it is a criminal offence to travel without a valid ticket, which my travel on 11 February 2024 was. However, the time limit for criminal charges is six months, whereas we are now 17 months later.

Although I was entitled to hold railcards during the periods 24 June 2022 to 9 October 2022, and 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024, costing no more £30 each, I recognise that due to my carelessness I did not actually buy one.

Therefore I am willing to pay the difference between the fares that I actually paid, of £xxx, and the same fares without railcard discount, of £xxx, a sum of £1xx.

This offer is made in full and final settlement of any liability in respect of the tickets identified in your spreadsheet.

I apologise for my carelessness in not ensuring that my railcards were always in-date, and now check my railcard each journey, to ensure there is no repetition of this.

Thank you so much, this is what I have needed. From which price do I figure the difference of the railcard with and without payments? Please advise.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi all,

Please understand that this is a very stressful time for me, not just in this matter but in my personal life also. It is unhelpful and very overwhelming for me to read some of the comments that do not relate directly to a resolution.

Again, I am holding myself accountable and trying to resolve this matter. I know many of you are experienced in matters such as my own and I’m seeking to resolve this outside of court as I cannot risk my NHS job which would take a criminal convictions very seriously.
I need to get a response back ASAP as I have limited time before things escalate.

Further information I have found below which may help my case.

I have managed to find an email from Santander in which the 4 year free Railcard was offered, which there is absolutely no chance I wouldn’t have claimed at the time. That email was sent to me on 28.09.2016.
Santander have agreed to send statements showing that I was eligible for the account which would therefore make me eligible for the Railcard. My first online statement, that I have record of was sent on 21.06.2017, proving eligibility of online banking (one of the requirements needed for the free railcard). With this information, I must have had a valid railcard up until somewhere between 28.09.2020 (earliest possible expiry) - 21.06.2021. I have then totalled what was on the spread sheet from those dates onwards (from earliest date just to be safe).

The next Railcards I have was then have are the 26-30 Railcard (1 Year) 24/06/2021 to 23/06/2022 and 26-30 Railcard (1 Year) 10/10/2022 to 09/10/2023

The first column is the fair paid, the second column is the labelled anytime fair. I have calculated that the full fair paid from 3.10.2020 is £332.15 and the anytime fair is £860.20.

More images available of full spreadsheet available in earlier post if needed.

Based on this information, what do you propose I offer?

Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

I would like to make clear that I have made many railcard purchases backdated to 2015 and anything inbetween where I may not have held one was due to general forgetfulness.

You have my sympathy with the stress relating to all this

- a small thing to note - it's 'fare' not 'fair' (I expect auto correct is not your friend here)

- more generally - v good that Santander might be able to help and that you have found at least supporting evidence of being offered the railcard (could be alluded to in your reply as it shows you are taking all this seriously) - see my add in to draft below

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

A few points here:

• it has been noted about the possible doughnutting - but it's not clear if they are considering that
• it does appear very clear that you didn't have a railcard 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022, and then again between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024. Otherwise it would appear you did have a railcard at the material times. It's not reasonable for you to assume you didn't have a railcard between 2020 and 2021 when you don't appear to know - don't assume the worst case.
• the damages are NOT the anytime fare, either criminally or civilly, that's just how GWR try and get as much money out of people as possible to avoid criminal charges. The maximum damages would be the non-railcard fare off-peak or advance type you actually purchased, minus the railcard fare you actually paid.
• the appropriate settlement IMO would be the actual fares you paid in those two windows * 34/66, which is around £120 (I've not calculated it exactly) - note don't include refunded fares, as a refund means you didn't travel and hence no missing railcard.
• this settlement typically wouldn't be accepted when there are live criminal charges and they would also demand a "admin fee". However, they are out of time.

I would just write back saying:

Dear GWR,

On 11 February 2024 I presented a ticket with a railcard to your inspector. At this time, it was pointed out to me that my railcard was expired. I was not aware of this prior to this.

Since your letter I have gone over my past records, and identified that between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022 and between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024 I held expired railcards and purchased tickets during these times.

Some time in the period 2016 - 2017 I obtained a 4-year railcard from Santander. Unfortunately I do not have access to the records from this as the account was registered to my university email. My oldest railcard purchase that I have records for was 1-year purchased on 24 June 2021. Based on these facts, I have no reason to suspect that any of my tickets prior to 24 June 2022 were used without a valid railcard.

I have taken legal advice and have been advised that it is a criminal offence to travel without a valid ticket, which my travel on 11 February 2024 was. However, the time limit for criminal charges is six months, whereas we are now 17 months later.

Although I was entitled to hold railcards during the periods 24 June 2022 to 9 October 2022, and 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024, costing no more £30 each, I recognise that due to my carelessness I did not actually buy one.

Therefore I am willing to pay the difference between the fares that I actually paid, of £xxx, and the same fares without railcard discount, of £xxx, a sum of £1xx.

This offer is made in full and final settlement of any liability in respect of the tickets identified in your spreadsheet.

I apologise for my carelessness in not ensuring that my railcards were always in-date, and now check my railcard each journey, to ensure there is no repetition of this.

Personally I think this is a v helpful draft for @annonymous123 to make use of

Just minor points on it.

- Has the OP technically taken 'legal' advice (to me that implies going to see / speak to / write to a legally qualified person so not really an anonymous person on line here who may well be legally qualified as I'm sure some who have posted in this thread are) - perhaps simply change that to 'I have taken advice'
- Might be worth alluding to the fact that OP is seeking info for the Santander railcard from the bank (because it covers such a long period of tie, well worth IMHO mentioning the bank are engaging with this enquiry

so a edits could look like this - bold just to show add ins for clarity, not needed in version to be sent - obviously happy to have my suggestions ignored or amended / corrected by others not least @soil who has helpfully provided it:

-------------------------------------------

Dear GWR,

Ref: [Insert any ref numbers GWR are using]

On 11 February 2024 I presented a ticket with a railcard to your inspector. At this time, it was pointed out to me that my railcard was expired. I was not aware of this prior to this.

Since your letter I have gone over my past records, and identified that between 24 June 2022 and 9 October 2022 and between 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024 I held expired railcards and purchased tickets during these times.

Some time in the period 2016 - 2017 I obtained a 4-year railcard from Santander. Unfortunately I do not have access to the records from this as the account was registered to my university email which is now deleted. I am in contact with Santander bank to see if they can provide supporting material but do not have that at this point but did not wish to delay my reply to you. My oldest railcard purchase that I have records for was 1-year purchased on 24 June 2021. Based on these facts, I have no reason to suspect that any of my tickets prior to 24 June 2022 were used without a valid railcard.

I have taken legal advice and have been advised that it is a criminal offence to travel without a valid ticket, which my travel on 11 February 2024 was. I do now understand the seriousness of this. However, the time limit for criminal charges is six months, whereas we are now 17 months later.

Although I was entitled to hold railcards during the periods 24 June 2022 to 9 October 2022, and 10 October 2023 and 11 February 2024, costing no more than £30 each, I recognise that due to my carelessness I did not actually buy one.

Therefore I am willing to pay the difference between the fares that I actually paid, of £xxx, and the same fares without railcard discount, of £xxx, a sum of £1xx.

This offer is made in full and final settlement of any liability in respect of the tickets identified in your spreadsheet.

I apologise for my carelessness in not ensuring that my railcards were always in-date, and now check my railcard each journey, to ensure there is no repetition of this.

Please be assured I am keen to resolve this matter with GWR

 

[soil]

Just minor points on it.

- Has the OP technically taken 'legal' advice (to me that implies going to see / speak to / write to a legally qualified person so not really an anonymous person on line here who may well be legally qualified as I'm sure some who have posted in this thread are) - perhaps simply change that to 'I have taken advice'
-

Yes, this forum provides legal advice.
Advice is legal advice if it's about law, even if it's terrible or wrong.
In law, there are reserved legal activities, such as conducting litigation, which can only be provided by authorised legal professionals (such as solicitors).
Providing legal advice is not a reserved matter.
Obviously there might be formal implications of receiving paid for legal advice, such as the right to complain or sue if it has been provided negligently, which are unlikely to arise in respect of free legal advice.
However these aren't concerns for GWR - my point was really to emphasise that the "present a valid ticket" is legally time barred, which is a formal legal matter, whereas things like "I am sorry" are not.

 

[annonymous123]

Thank you all,
Is anyone able to tell me what the difference is of payments and how much I should offer?

 

[WesternLancer]

Yes, this forum provides legal advice.
Advice is legal advice if it's about law, even if it's terrible or wrong.
In law, there are reserved legal activities, such as conducting litigation, which can only be provided by authorised legal professionals (such as solicitors).
Providing legal advice is not a reserved matter.
Obviously there might be formal implications of receiving paid for legal advice, such as the right to complain or sue if it has been provided negligently, which are unlikely to arise in respect of free legal advice.
However these aren't concerns for GWR - my point was really to emphasise that the "present a valid ticket" is legally time barred, which is a formal legal matter, whereas things like "I am sorry" are not.

fair enough - thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

Thank you all,
Is anyone able to tell me what the difference is of payments and how much I should offer?

In broad terms the Railcard discount is I believe 34% off the non railcard price - so you could increase anything you did pay by 50% 34% to get the equivalent fare before the discount is applied as a rule of thumb. I think they round it to the nearest 5 pence (see post #78)

There are also sites like this where you can work through the fares charged at the undiscounted rate for every journey and you can set them to the dates for the fares concerned - but some flows have a heck of a lot of different tickets which might be confusing if you are not used to all the options - it's a database of every ticket on every combination of stations

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks. Full details of all British rail fares shown, with built-in Season Ticket Calculator.

www.brfares.com

You might find the increasing it by 34% simpler approach in the hope they would accept it (so you need a maths formula to reverse calculate it from the discounted fare you paid back up to the original undiscounted fare)

 

[AlterEgo]

In broad terms the Railcard discount is I believe 34% off the non railcard price - so you could increase anything you did pay by 34% to get the equivalent fare before the discount is applied as a rule of thumb.

You increase a railcard-discounted price by 50% to get it back to the undiscounted fare.

 

[WesternLancer]

You increase a railcard-discounted price by 50% to get it back to the undiscounted fare.

Thanks - I just realised how unclear my attempt to explain that was!

 

[John R]

You increase a railcard-discounted price by 50% to get it back to the undiscounted fare.

So to make it even simpler, the offer for those tickets should be 50% of the price paid.

 

[enyoueffsea]

Will be interesting to see GWR’s response.

Eligibility for a railcard and actually holding one are two different things. It’s no different really to saying “I was 19 and therefore eligible for a railcard so it’s highly probable I had one”. Regardless of being free, you still need to apply for it.

I do think the OP’s response and defence is significantly weakened if they purchased any tickets during this period which were not railcard discounted as this would probably be used by GWR to evidence some knowledge of their lack of entitlement. As they haven’t confirmed either way, it’s difficult to consider the impact of this, which would be variable based on the number of those tickets and timeframes of them.

Will continue to follow this one and whilst the OP is not obligated to do so, it’d be great to hear the eventual outcome and this is important as we do not see many civil cases.

 

[annonymous123]

Update -

I responded with a slightly amended email back that was kindly sent in #73 and #75 and have received a response. The offer for payment from 2021 onwards for all tickets without proof of a railcard and the difference in tickets has been declined. After some very deep digging all week, I’ve managed to find a picture of the Santander 16-25 Railcard in an old email! (I have not felt such relief in a long time). There are a few statements in their email response I was wondering if a) someone could clarify and b) may be of interest to those following this case.

- I made a point of the surpassed 6 month period after the incident from February 2024, and I’ve been informed they are working within the Statute of Limitation for a civil claim which is usually 6 years.

- When calculating the settlement offers, they have applied the Anytime Single fare for each journey. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel and that they are unable to offer any discounted fares (Railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares). Which I’m assuming means I’m paying the highest price for the ticket of that day. Is that fair given they could have been discounted for the time of travel regardless of a Railcard? Should I go into this further or question it?

- I would like you to know how they will now be issuing the new penalty and wondering if I can ask for evidence of calculations. Partly for proof if it ever resurfaced.

- Can GWR penalise me for trips that weren’t taken on their trains? I travelled with different companies

- The seriousness of everything is loud and clear, trust me, I have set the date of my current Railcard expiry in my phone calendar. I want to ensure this never happens/this case does not arise again upon penalty payment. Advice on moving forward safely and swiftly onwards with accurate/fair settlement would be appreciated. Thank you

 

[furlong]

- I made a point of the surpassed 6 month period after the incident from February 2024, and I’ve been informed they are working within the Statute of Limitation for a civil claim which is usually 6 years.

You are in a negotiation to try to agree the amount of their loss that they are entitled to claim from you.

If you can't reach agreement out-of-court, then they will ask a court to award then the sum they believe they are owed, and you'll be able to respond to the court to say why you think you only owe a lesser sum and then the court will make its decision based on balance of probabilities ("more likely than not"). As long as you pay promptly the amount the court decides, that is then the end of the matter. No criminal conviction, no CCJ. Not a process to be scared of as it might save you money compared to just paying their initial demand. And indeed, it's possible that the additional costs you have to pay might be lower in court than what they are asking for out-of-court.

- When calculating the settlement offers, they have applied the Anytime Single fare for each journey. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel and that they are unable to offer any discounted fares (Railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares). Which I’m assuming means I’m paying the highest price for the ticket of that day. Is that fair given they could have been discounted for the time of travel regardless of a Railcard? Should I go into this further or question it?

You should push them further on this, as they may be interpreting the contract to say what they would like it to say rather than what it actually says. Note carefully that (a) this is being decided after-the-fact not during the journey (and some of the provisions relate only to what happens during the journey); (b) anything that looks like a penalty clause may be unenforceable (a walk-up fare is a walk-up fare - it doesn't depend on when you pay it); (c) the conditions of Travel may have changed during the period in question and so you might have to reconsider the question against each of the versions. (I think in older versions things looked too much like an unenforceable penalty clause and so they reworded more recent versions to add some deliberate ambiguity in an attempt to cling on to it.)

- Can GWR penalise me for trips that weren’t taken on their trains? I travelled with different companies

You should ask them for proof that they are entitled to do this to cover yourself should one of those other companies decide to make a separate overlapping claim against you. (Essentially a letter of authority or agreement from each of the other train companies involved or a body representing them.) Once again, this is standard information that they should provide as a matter of routine - certainly necessary if they begin court proceedings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2025 ==

The high-level argument is that they seem to be asking you to pay them more money than they would have received had you bought the correct tickets in the first place, and as the focus of English law is on compensating for loss rather than punishing for breaches, you may argue that the onus must lie on the train company to justify in law any demand for a higher sum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2025 ==

Here's an example (well known to forum regulars) of a criminal court deciding against a train company's arguments that compensation should be based on Anytime Singles:

Daily Mail

Dr Peter Barnett, 44, dodged nearly £20,000 in rail fares, prosecutors said
Travelled from Oxfordshire to London but pretended it was from Wembley
Barnett pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud following Oyster card scam
He has been handed a 16-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months
He was also ordered to complete 200 hours unpaid work, pay £85 prosecution costs and an £80 victim surcharge.

Barnett offered to pay back the full amount lost by Chiltern Railways between April 2012 and November 2014 but claimed that was only £5,892.70 based on the price of a weekly ticket.

However, the prosecution maintained the overall figure remained at £19,689, insisting that fare dodgers are normally penalised by having to pay for a full single or return fare.

In the end the judge said she would sentence on the basis that the value of the fraud was £5,892.70 and not the £19,689 put forward by the Crown.

Daily Telegraph

The City barrister, who was cautioned for fare dodging in 2010, was handed a 16-week prison sentence suspended for 12 months and ordered pay £5,892.70 in compensation to Chiltern Railways at City of London Magistrates.

Judge Omotosho said: "Looking at all the evidence in the round I am satisfied that a reasonable attempt has been made by the defendant to calculate loss to the company and in this case the actual loss is £5,892.70 and not the £19,689 as claimed."

 

[soil]

- I made a point of the surpassed 6 month period after the incident from February 2024, and I’ve been informed they are working within the Statute of Limitation for a civil claim which is usually 6 years.

- When calculating the settlement offers, they have applied the Anytime Single fare for each journey. In accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel and that they are unable to offer any discounted fares (Railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares). Which I’m assuming means I’m paying the highest price for the ticket of that day. Is that fair given they could have been discounted for the time of travel regardless of a Railcard? Should I go into this further or question it?

- I would like you to know how they will now be issuing the new penalty and wondering if I can ask for evidence of calculations. Partly for proof if it ever resurfaced.

- Can GWR penalise me for trips that weren’t taken on their trains? I travelled with different companies

That is very good news I think.

As they are saying that this is a civil claim GWR cannot penalise you at all

My view on liability is National Rail Conditions of Travel says:

"
When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you
enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket
allows you to use. "

This means that for example the Crosscountry Advance is a contract only with Crosscountry.
GWR cannot sue under it.
Likewise, a Manchester - Stockport ticket of any kind has no contract with GWR (since you could not possibly take a GWR train for that), so no GWR have no rights against you for that ticket.

Beyond that the contract (NRCoT) doesn't explain clearly the liability. Is it joint, several, or joint and several? My understanding is that liability is only several - if you travel via XC and GWR, and the XC train is delayed, then GWR don't care and you can't sue them

This means that for a ticket like Manchester - Bristol 'Any Permitted', where you technically COULD take GWR, but in practice would travel on XC only (all NRE's routes are exclusively on XC), it's difficult to see how GWR can argue a loss.

Obviously for say Bath - Bristol Temple Meads , the contract is only with GWR and they would be entitled to damages from you.


In terms of the damages, the NRCoT says

"
9.2 If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked..., we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station
directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any
discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served
by the train that you are on;
9.2.2 To charge you a Penalty Fare on certain trains and stations (see Condition 10 below); or
9.2.3 To report you for prosecution.

If you are unable to present a valid Ticket or to pay a fare (including a part payment of a Penalty Fare to the value of the Ticket required) when requested, you will be required to provide your name and address so that the matter can be followed up."

The phrase "permitted in law" implies that they have a statutory or common law basis to take those actions.

So 9.2.2 is The Penalty Fare Regulations, and 9.2.3 relates to RoRA, Railway Byelaws, etc, so both are clear.

9.2.1 appears to assert that a ticket inspector ON BOARD A TRAIN has the right to sell you specifically an undiscounted ticket to a subsequent station on the same train. It's quite possible that this right exists under some precedent, but I can't say for sure. 9.2.1 could be quite expensive - let's say you got on a non-stop train from London to Doncaster, the anytime single fare is £137.80.

However that doesn't apply here because section 9 relates to ticket inspections on the train, whereas this is them saying you paid too little for your fare after the fact -there hasn't be an inspection, so the contractual terms under 9.2 don't appear to be relevant, and in any case as noted the NRCoT seems to suggest that they have a right to charge 'undiscounted anytime single' "in law", so there seems little point in them quoting NRCoT at all if the right is "in law"

As furlong notes, the courts don't appear to take TOCs claims to be entitled to full Anytime fares seriously.

Therefore I would say:

* it is likely that GWR will sue you for the amount they're claiming at present, IF you fail to respond
* this is on the balance of probabilities, i.e. they would need to show it's more likely than not that you didn't have a railcard. The burden of proof is with them, not you, although for example in cases like 'you had a digital railcard from 10 July 2022 to 9 July 2023 and then from 10 September 2023 to 9 September 2023", it's likely to be sufficient evidence that you didn't have a railcard between 10 July 2023 and 9 September.
* For the period where you had a Santander railcard but are genuinely unsure about when you took it out, they would have to again prove it's more likely than not that you didn't have a railcard for the relevant time
* I would inform them as per the NCoT I quote above that your contract is with other TOCs for the Manchester-area-only fares, and that they aren't entitled to anything for those
* WRT to Bristol - Manchester it's slightly less clearcut in that you do have a contract with GWR, but wouldn't in practice take their service. However, I'd argue that they aren't owed anything.
* For routes where you would likely have travelled on multiple operators, then the logical position would be to offer GWR a portion of the fare according to the actual part of the route on their service. You can act pragmatically here - you don't HAVE to adopt this position, and if you want to come to a quicker settlement, by all means offer them 100% of the difference..
* With respect to tickets obviously travelled purely on GWR services like Bath - Bristol, I'd offer to pay the difference between your discounted (railcard) fare and the undiscounted (non-railcard) fare. As I mentioned previously this is 34/66 x what you paid.
* They aren't entitled to any 'admin fee'.
* Ensure you mention that the amount you offer is in full and final settlement

GWR may tell you to stuff yourself and end up suing you, but that's a process of back and forward - they aren't there yet.

If you do get sued, the worst case is you simply pay them what they win in court. It's much better than having a criminal claim, which they've admitted they don't have.

 

[Watershed]

I've only just seen this thread. I would endorse @soil 's advice in most respects. To elaborate on the point about NRCoT 9.2.1, I'm not sure that a defence along the lines of "this only applies if you're charged on the train, not afterwards" would be particularly successful in Court, but I suppose there is no harm in using it as one of several grounds of defence. Similarly, if you have a flexible ticket like Manchester to Bristol that would have allowed you to travel on GWR, that means they were one of the parties to the contract and I think that alone would be a sufficient basis for them to bring a claim for the breach of contract - even if you were unlikely to have actually used them. Of course, as @furlong says, you'd want evidence that they have the authority to pursue cases to the exclusion of other included TOCs like XC - you wouldn't want 'double jeopardy'.

I can see a lot more merit in a defence based on the fact that, if it's argued that 9.2.1 is the basis "in law" for charging Anytime fares, it constitutes a penalty clause. It being a penalty clause would introduce several additional legal requirements, at least some of which are unlikely to be met - for example, the requirement that the clause doesn't impose a penalty that's "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party" (quoting from the Beavis v ParkingEye Supreme Court ruling, which is the most authoritative legal precedent on penalty clauses).

Given the relative difference between the cost of an undiscounted Anytime single vs the Advance or Off-Peak fares that the OP travelled on, I think there is a fair chance this might be met. Moreover, for such a clause to be enforceable, its onerous nature requires that it's specifically and obviously pointed out at the time the contract was entered into - see the 'Red Hand Rule'. It's impossible to see how a clause buried 9 pages into a 34 page set of conditions full of legalese, which you have to click a link to download/view in the first place, is going to be seen as meeting that requirement.

As @soil says, GWR aren't entitled to any sort of admin fee - there is nothing in the NRCoT which would entitle them to such costs/fees, and they won't be able to recover it under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPRs) either. This kind of case would likely be allocated to the Small Claims Track, where costs are limited to only a handful of specific items under CPR 27.14. In practice the ones applicable to this kind of case would be:

(a) fixed costs ranging from £50 to £80 for issuing the claim;​

​

(c) the Court fees - between £35 and £80 for the likely value of claim;​

​

(d) travel expenses to the hearing for witnesses and GWR's representative;​

They might try and include other costs in their claim - for example costs for 'unreasonable' behaviour under subparagraph (g), but CPR 27.14 sets out the only costs a judge is allowed to award in a Small Claims Track case and defending a claim isn't unreasonable just because you lose.

 

[soil]

I've only just seen this thread. I would endorse @soil 's advice in most respects. To elaborate on the point about NRCoT 9.2.1, I'm not sure that a defence along the lines of "this only applies if you're charged on the train, not afterwards" would be particularly successful in Court, but I suppose there is no harm in using it as one of several grounds of defence.

I can see a lot more merit in a defence based on the fact that, if it's argued that 9.2.1 is the basis "in law" for charging Anytime fares, it constitutes a penalty clause. It being a penalty clause would introduce several additional legal requirements, at least some of which are unlikely to be met - for example, the requirement that the clause doesn't impose a penalty that's "out of all proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party" (quoting from the Beavis v ParkingEye Supreme Court ruling, which is the most authoritative legal precedent on penalty clauses).

I don't think either approach is quite right.
This is the 1997 conditions, from British Rail

British Railways - National Conditions of Carriage

British Railways - National Conditions of Carriage

www.crowsnest.co.uk

"If you travel on a train without a valid ticket, you will be liable to pay the full single or return fare for the journey you have made or wish to make (and you will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms which would otherwise apply)."

Now it is:

"If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked..., we are permitted in law to charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on;"

So i think you are correct that 9.2.1 is a contractual term - a possible penalty clause, and not anything they have a legal right to do outside the contract.

I think it might NOT be a penalty on the train, because it's better than a Penalty Fare, which in many cases would be the alternative.

However the change from the 1997 terms (NRCoC), which are clear that you must pay the full fare for the journey, and the NRCoT, which says that it's only applicable for "the train that you are on", does mean it shouldn't be possible for GWR to claim full fare in the present circumstances, for several reasons:

1) because the OP is no longer on a train
2) because some of the tickets may relate to multi-train journeys, so "served by the train you are on" doesn't work because
3) unable to present a ticket when asked relates to the TOC's options when asked to present a ticket.

As 9.2 is not applicable, and the contract doesn't discuss this matter elsewhere, it would simply be the difference between the railcard-discounted and non-railcard discounted fare.

(Technically the OP WAS entitled to buy a railcard, and I don't know how much of the revenue GWR gets from that, so it's arguable that GWR didn't really lose any money at all, or if they did it was only some share of the cost of a railcard, since the breached obligation was to hold a railcard when buying the ticket.)

 

[annonymous123]

Hi,

Thank you for your response. It is admirable how well you guys know the guidelines! Again, I would like best to try and resolve this out of court and have written a response draft email. Feel free to chop, add and change as you please. I have offered to pay the full price of GWR travel as well as any routes that may have been permitted travel on GWR trains. Thank you again for your time, I really appreciate it.

Subject: Supporting Evidence and Settlement Proposal – Railcard Dispute


Further to previous correspondence, and in the interest of resolving this matter efficiently, I have attached a photograph of my Santander 4-year Railcard, issued in 2016.

As previously stated, this Railcard entitled me to a one-third discount on qualifying fares. In light of this, I have reviewed the travel history in question and compiled a spreadsheet identifying the journeys undertaken specifically on GWR services. These were tickets purchased at discounted rates consistent with the Railcard’s terms and conditions.

Based on this analysis, I am offering to settle the matter by paying the full, undiscounted value of the fares purchased for GWR services, totalling £186.30.

I would also appreciate clarification on the inclusion of fares relating to non-GWR services, such as those operated by Northern. Unless GWR is authorised to recover costs for travel not undertaken on its network, I am unclear on the legal basis for including these amounts in the current claim. In the absence of such authority, I respectfully request that these fares be excluded from further consideration.

I trust this offer represents a reasonable and proportionate resolution and look forward to your response.

*I am offering to pay for GWR claims and for those fares that would have permitted travel in their routes. I’ll attach evidence below

 

[soil]

I would revise by:
* providing a list of the station pairs & routes (e.g., Bristol TM - Bath Spa Any Permitted) that you are offering to pay GWR for
* providing a list of the journeys (e.g., Manchester - Stockport any permitted, or Manchester - Bristol XC Advance) you are saying they have no right to
* for the first group, I would offer the difference between the discounted and undiscounted fare. As this a civil matter, you have little reason to be overly generous.

 

[AlterEgo]

It’ll be interesting to see how GWR respond to this. They’re one of the train companies less inclined towards aggressive grifting. They’re entitled to the actual loss to GWR and that’s it. They’re not entitled to losses suffered by other companies.