Expired railcard

[AlterEgo]

Re letter
I was trying to be polite.
I meant I don’t have access to my student account and therefore the railcard.

You need to clear that up then - the railcard expired, once you redeemed the code it was nothing to do with your bank account. It’s up to you to renew it regardless of whether your student account closed or not. The issue is, it was about four years expired, which is not really on - you can’t have thought your railcard was valid for *eight years* and several years after you graduated.

 

[annonymous123]

You need to clear that up then - the railcard expired, once you redeemed the code it was nothing to do with your bank account. It’s up to you to renew it regardless of whether your student account closed or not. The issue is, it was about four years expired, which is not really on - you can’t have thought your railcard was valid for *eight years* and several years after you graduated.

I think you may have missed the images in where I have purchased railcards after. Why would I think it was valid for 8 years when I have clearly stated it was a 4 year free railcard as part of opening a current student account with Santander. My student email account has closed and no longer accessible, which I would have used to redeem the railcard. And therefore I have lost proof of that railcard being valid for the periods between 2018 and 2020 that I am wrongly being accused for travelling without a railcard for. Please kindly read all comments before you respond next time. Again, I am here to ask for help and not be judged and penalised so reason for partaking in this conversation if that’s all you have to offer. Thanks

 

[WesternLancer]

I think you may have missed the images in where I have purchased railcards after. Why would I think it was valid for 8 years when I have clearly stated it was a 4 year free railcard as part of opening a current student account with Santander. My student email account has closed and no longer accessible, which I would have used to redeem the railcard. And therefore I have lost proof of that railcard being valid for the periods between 2018 and 2020 that I am wrongly being accused for travelling without a railcard for. Please kindly read all comments before you respond next time. Again, I am here to ask for help and not be judged and penalised so reason for partaking in this conversation if that’s all you have to offer. Thanks

If you can’t offer proof I suggest you just assert it clearly that you had a Santander railcard between x date and y date. They may accept that.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you may have missed the images in where I have purchased railcards after.

I have - they weren’t visible for some reason, apologies if I missed them. It will really help you to mark on their spreadsheet which railcards cover which discounts and then summarise what you believe exactly is owing to them. Because as I pointed out, the issue isn’t “I can’t afford this”, it’s actually “hang on, I don’t owe all this money anyway”.

 

[tatitiliti]

I'm not an expert in this approach but am I right to recall that in similar cases it has been suggested that the person being accused politely writes back to the railway company, reminds them that they are out of time to prosecute, but offers to pay the difference between the sum paid and the sum owed (undiscounted railcard fare) for periods when this applies ( ie not offering to pay a fare for a whole new tickets at the most expensive any time fare) - in the hope that by being seen to be co-operative GWR accept this approach and accept that money to end the matter, rather than pursue things in other ways - eg the debt via civil action.

The OP might want some help checking a draft of a such a response to GWR if they choose to consider such an approach.

Others here might advise if this or is not a good idea....

This is good advice.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

There’s no need for you to be so conciliatory overall though - they’ve screwed up by taking nearly 18 months to issue this and you have the cards to a much greater extent than if they’d laid court papers in under 6 months.

If you don’t feel like leaving it until they send you a letter, you can send a reply emphasising these points (though slightly more formally!):

You are out of time to prosecute under RoRA and, given this was a railcard I am entitled to costing £30-£35 per year not renewed as a clear genuine mistake, your odds of gaining a conviction under the Fraud Act are next to zero.

I’m happy to cover the cost of four years of the railcard (£125) to settle this matter which would represent the actual losses to the industry given I was entitled to the railcard.

[If they come back wanting substantially more than this, I’d try my chances in civil court if they even decide to pursue this route]

 

[John R]

I think the offer of two years worth of railcard fees would, even if put more diplomatically, still come across as an aggressive counter-offer.

Ultimately the OP was in the wrong, and an offer to pay the difference between the railcard fare and the full fare for those tickets where a railcard was not held would be the most likely approach to get an agreed settlement without the hassle and worry that you might be the object of a civil claim.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think the offer of two years worth of railcard fees would, even if put more diplomatically, still come across as an aggressive counter-offer.

Ultimately the OP was in the wrong, and an offer to pay the difference between the railcard fare and the full fare for those tickets where a railcard was not held would be the most likely approach to get an agreed settlement without the hassle and worry that you might be the object of a civil claim.

I agree with this fwiw.

 

[fandroid]

I have - they weren’t visible for some reason, apologies if I missed them. It will really help you to mark on their spreadsheet which railcards cover which discounts and then summarise what you believe exactly is owing to them. Because as I pointed out, the issue isn’t “I can’t afford this”, it’s actually “hang on, I don’t owe all this money anyway”.

If you scrutinise the spreadsheet you will see that GWR are not asking for anything for the periods when the later Railcards (the ones which the OP has uploaded here) were valid. I suggested an approach in post #15 which covers the obvious Railcard-free journeys, but not those for the earlier period when the lost Santander Railcard could well have been valid.

 

[tatitiliti]

I think the offer of two years worth of railcard fees would, even if put more diplomatically, still come across as an aggressive counter-offer.

Ultimately the OP was in the wrong, and an offer to pay the difference between the railcard fare and the full fare for those tickets where a railcard was not held would be the most likely approach to get an agreed settlement without the hassle and worry that you might be the object of a civil claim.

I updated the previous post to reflect four years’ of railcard fees (£125) rather than two years to reflect the period railcard was expired.

I understand your point of view about asking more respectfully but - given they are as good as out of options for a criminal conviction - even if GWR decided to go down the civil route (at high cost and risk to themselves), at most they would realistically get the difference between the railcard-discounted fares and equivalent non-railcard discounted fares. Even then, a judge may consider this excessive when OP was entitled to the discount anyway.

I can’t see the disadvantage to OP in asking for a £125. At this point, it’s more of a negotiation anyway as GWR screwed up by not being able to make an easy prosecution under RoRA.

 

[WesternLancer]

I updated the previous post to reflect four years’ of railcard fees (£125) rather than two years to reflect the period railcard was expired.

I understand your point of view about asking more respectfully but - given they are as good as out of options for a criminal conviction - even if GWR decided to go down the civil route (at high cost and risk to themselves), at most they would realistically get the difference between the railcard-discounted fares and equivalent non-railcard discounted fares. Even then, a judge may consider this excessive when OP was entitled to the discount anyway.

I can’t see the disadvantage to OP in asking for a £125. At this point, it’s more of a negotiation anyway as GWR screwed up by not being able to make an easy prosecution under RoRA.

I think the issue with this approach is that the op has to defend the civil claim, turn up in court and make their case to a judge, deal with the fact the company will have someone with at least some training to advance the railway’s case etc

Most will find that entirely alien territory and outside their experience and probably want to avoid the scenario completely.

Hence trying to offer GWR something that means it never goes in that direction.

So it’s up to the op what they favour risking I guess.

Of course it may still end up being pursued as a debt.

 

[John R]

I think the issue with this approach is that the op has to defend the civil claim, turn up in court and make their case to a judge, deal with the fact the company will have someone with at least some training to advance the railway’s case etc

Most will find that entirely alien territory and outside their experience and probably want to avoid the scenario completely.

Hence trying to offer GWR something that means it never goes in that direction.

So it’s up to the op what they favour risking I guess.

Of course it may still end up being pursued as a debt.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Whilst posters giving advice on here (including myself) are by nature interested in the technical details of these cases, most asking for advice just want to get rid of the problem in the simplest and most cost effective option, which usually is the one that minimises the risk of any sort of court action.

 

[reb0118]

Even then, a judge may consider this excessive when OP was entitled to the discount anyway.

Surely it could be argued that one is only entitled to the railcard discount if one actually purchases the railcard (or receives one in another legitimate way), no?

 

[tatitiliti]

I think the issue with this approach is that the op has to defend the civil claim, turn up in court and make their case to a judge, deal with the fact the company will have someone with at least some training to advance the railway’s case etc

Most will find that entirely alien territory and outside their experience and probably want to avoid the scenario completely.

Hence trying to offer GWR something that means it never goes in that direction.

So it’s up to the op what they favour risking I guess.

Of course it may still end up being pursued as a debt.

That’s a very fair point - viewing it from OP’s perspective, they may be more inclined to guarantee avoidance of a civil claim against them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

Surely it could be argued that one is only entitled to the railcard discount if one actually purchases the railcard (or receives one in another legitimate way), no?

That’s for a judge to decide I suppose - I’m not one so I can’t say. Given OP had previously purchased one and failed to renew it despite continuing to be eligible, it could reasonably be argued that the material losses are £125 (£30+£30+£30+£35). Then again, as you say, it might be the fare difference (still seemingly lower than what GWR is asking for). I doubt there’s precedent from civil cases like this as only fairly recently have TOCs started to use civil claims and they’re few and far between.

In a Fraud Act case, this would never get a conviction as the criminal intent is not only inconclusive but tilted in OP’s favour given the comparatively low cost of the railcard for which he was eligible for and that they previously had one. I really think TOCs ought to stop threatening to prosecute under the Fraud Act for cases like this as it’s totally disingenuous (though I won’t get into this as it’s an entirely separate discussion).

 

[Cantab26]

In a Fraud Act case, this would never get a conviction as the criminal intent is not only inconclusive but tilted in OP’s favour given the comparatively low cost of the railcard for which he was eligible for and that they previously had one. I really think TOCs ought to stop threatening to prosecute under the Fraud Act for cases like this as it’s totally disingenuous (though I won’t get into this as it’s an entirely separate discussion).

There is sufficient information in this thread to pass the Full Code Test for prosecution of one or more suspected fraud offences.

There is also sufficient information disclosed to indicate that damages for civil fraud are in contention.

Whether GWR will actually pursue either of these options is another matter, but the OP should not be given blanket comforting assurances about the underlying legal circumstances.

 

[soil]

There is sufficient information in this thread to pass the Full Code Test for prosecution of one or more suspected fraud offences.

What are you referring to?

 

[furlong]

Look back at the letter from GWR in post #5. All we're saying is that the train company does not seem to have been wrong to mention the feasibility of proceedings under the Fraud Act. (Unlikely to happen in reality for various reasons, but GWR was correct to mention the possibility. But if there were such proceedings, I wouldn't be at all surprised if messages from this forum thread formed part of the evidence.)

 

[tatitiliti]

There is sufficient information in this thread to pass the Full Code Test for prosecution of one or more suspected fraud offences.

There is also sufficient information disclosed to indicate that damages for civil fraud are in contention.

Whether GWR will actually pursue either of these options is another matter, but the OP should not be given blanket comforting assurances about the underlying legal circumstances.

It’s not a blanket assurance - it’s entirely accurate. How would you demonstrate intent to commit criminal fraud on the basis of this case, assuming the OP has been fully truthful with us?

Bringing up the Full Code Test is irrelevant if the CPS can’t demonstrate intent.

As we’ve said, civil proceedings are a different matter and there is a fairly high possibility GWR would bring a civil case against OP.

 

[furlong]

assuming the OP has been fully truthful with us?

Wouldn't an investigator NOT make such an assumption?

 

[Cantab26]

What are you referring to?

It’s not a blanket assurance - it’s entirely accurate. How would you demonstrate intent to commit criminal fraud on the basis of this case, assuming the OP has been fully truthful with us?

Ahem:

What happened on 10/1/21? You bought a ticket from Manchester to Stockport at 14.27 then at 18.13 bought a ticket from Bedminster to Bristol , so how did you get from Stockport to Bedminster in the intermediate 4 hours.

Were you on the cross country train from Manchester to Bristol and just bought a ticket for either end of the journey?

 

[tatitiliti]

Ahem:

That is absolutely NOT beyond reasonable doubt.

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

Wouldn't an investigator NOT make such an assumption?

Well, of course, but I’m only going on what OP has said - if he’s committed obvious and incontrovertible fraud without telling us then all bets are off!

 

[Cantab26]

That is absolutely NOT beyond reasonable doubt.

A very definitive statement, if ever there was one.

As above, there is sufficient evidence in this thread to pass through the Full Code Test for prosecution and, if the case and evidence are presented effectively, to secure a conviction.

 

[tatitiliti]

A very definitive statement, if ever there was one.

As above, there is sufficient evidence in this thread to pass through the Full Code Test for prosecution and, if the case and evidence are presented effectively, to secure a conviction.

It’s very definitive because it’s accurate.

If he wasn’t caught in the act short faring, it’s not realistic to bring criminal charges (separately from the railcard, which on its own wouldn’t suffice for a criminal prosecution). It’s not a fraudulent misuse to purchase a ticket, only to INTENTIONALLY use it incorrectly. Perhaps someone drove him? Perhaps part of the journey was abandoned? Again, you cannot demonstrate otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, can you? This is what would be required to get a fraud conviction.

And it probably wouldn’t pass the Full Code Test, because CPS would see in Stage 1 that there is no realistic prospect of conviction!

 

[Cantab26]

It’s not a fraudulent misuse to purchase a ticket, only to INTENTIONALLY use it incorrectly.

This is incorrect as a matter of law: there is no need for any travel to actually be undertaken.

Perhaps someone drove him?

From Stockport to Bedminster in less than four hours…

Perhaps part of the journey was abandoned?

The part between Manchester and and Stockport, between Bedminster and Bristol or the part in between?

Again, you cannot demonstrate otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, can you? This is what would be required to get a fraud conviction.

It is not necessary to demonstrate that there is no other explanation: JPs, judges and juries aren’t stupid and may infer the requisite intention from the evidence presented.

It is of course open to the accused to adduce evidence in his defence if he so wishes, but if he does not do so and does not run a positive defence then it is not incumbent on the Crown to prove (to any standard) that any possible other explanation did not happen.

 

[tatitiliti]

This is incorrect as a matter of law: there is no need for any travel to actually be undertaken.

From Stockport to Bedminster in less than four hours…

The part between Manchester and and Stockport, between Bedminster and Bristol or the part in between?

It is not necessary to demonstrate that there is no other explanation: JPs, judges and juries aren’t stupid and may infer the requisite intention from the evidence presented.

It is of course open to the accused to adduce evidence in his defence if he so wishes, but if he does not do so and does not run a positive defence then it is not incumbent on the Crown to prove (to any standard) that any possible other explanation did not happen.

There is absolutely the need for travel to be taken otherwise where is the fraud? Now, apparently, purchasing tickets and not using them is criminal fraud.

Google Maps suggests the drive from Stockport to Bedminster is under three hours…

You still haven’t explained to me how he’s committed fraud beyond reasonable doubt just from the activity he’s described.

And it is ENTIRELY necessary to prove there is no other REASONABLE explanation - explanations which I’ve suggested to you that you’ve not been able to prove are not reasonable.

Anyway, it’s up to OP how he proceeds - as long as he hasn’t incriminated himself anywhere and what he’s told us is truthful, I’d only consider this realistically being resolved by a settlement or civil claim.

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

I really don’t think people are grasping how strong your case and evidence need to be to get a criminal fraud conviction… The criminal justice system is clogged up enough at the moment without stupid non-winnable cases like this being brought to them.

 

[Cantab26]

There is absolutely the need for travel to be taken otherwise where is the fraud? Now, apparently, purchasing tickets and not using them is criminal fraud.

There is no need for travel to actually be undertaken in order to commit the criminal offence of fraud. The act of purchasing may indeed be sufficient, even if contravening undertaken.

The fact that you keep on repeating this line does rather suggest that you have an incomplete understanding of what the fraud offences actually criminalise.

Google Maps suggests the drive from Stockport to Bedminster is under three hours…

Now try to make that journey on a Sunday afternoon at those times, and get back to us once you have done so.

You still haven’t explained to me how he’s committed fraud beyond reasonable doubt just from the activity he’s described.

Quite simply: the act of purchasing those tickets at those times between those stations on the same date.

The rest can be deduced from that factual matrix if appropriately presented by the Crown.

And it is ENTIRELY necessary to prove there is no other REASONABLE explanation - explanations which I’ve suggested to you that you’ve not been able to prove are not reasonable.

No, it is for the defence to put such matters in issue. The Crown need not interrogate every alternative explanation and disprove it from the outset.

Anyway, it’s up to OP how he proceeds - as long as he hasn’t incriminated himself anywhere and what he’s told us is truthful, I’d only consider this realistically being resolved by a settlement or civil claim.

I expect a settlement of some description would indeed be the most likely outcome here, as long as the OP doesn’t put his foot in it.

But to argue that a potential prosecution and conviction for a fraud offence is impossible: no, that is not correct at all.

I really don’t think people are grasping how strong your case and evidence need to be to get a criminal fraud conviction…

Out of interest, how many fraud prosecutions have you brought?

 

[soil]

This is incorrect as a matter of law: there is no need for any travel to actually be undertaken.

From Stockport to Bedminster in less than four hours…

?
A ticket was purchased from Manchester to Stockport on Sunday 10 January 2021, at 14:27, and from Bedminster to Bristol at 18:13

The first ticket suggests an arrival in Stockport around 14:39.

Google Maps suggests that Stockport to Bedminster by car takes pretty much exactly 3 hours, so that would be arriving at 17:39, which means that if in fact the Op had some errand in Bedminster, which they might well have done, then there would be time to complete it before taking a train after 18:13, possibly the 18:40 (it's an hourly service at the moment, no idea in 2021).

It also makes plenty of sense that if one were sharing a lift, one would prefer to travel from the outskirts of Greater Manchester, not central Manchester

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.

 

[tatitiliti]

There is no need for travel to actually be undertaken in order to commit the criminal offence of fraud. The act of purchasing may indeed be sufficient, even if contravening undertaken.

The fact that you keep on repeating this line does rather suggest that you have an incomplete understanding of what the fraud offences actually criminalise.

Now try to make that journey on a Sunday afternoon at those times, and get back to us once you have done so.

Quite simply: the act of purchasing those tickets at those times between those stations on the same date.

The rest can be deduced from that factual matrix if appropriately presented by the Crown.

No, it is for the defence to put such matters in issue. The Crown need not interrogate every alternative explanation and disprove it from the outset.

I expect a settlement of some description would indeed be the most likely outcome here, as long as the OP doesn’t put his foot in it.

But to argue that a potential prosecution and conviction for a fraud offence is impossible: no, that is not correct at all.

Out of interest, how many fraud prosecutions have you brought?

Probably at least as many as you have

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

?
A ticket was purchased from Manchester to Stockport on Sunday 10 January 2021, at 14:27, and from Bedminster to Bristol at 18:13

That suggests an arrival in Stockport around 14:39.

Google Maps suggests that Stockport to Bedminster by car takes pretty much exactly 3 hours, so that would be arriving at 17:39, which means that if in fact the Op had some errand in Bedminster, which they might well have done, then there would be time to complete it before taking a train after 18:13, possibly the 18:40 (it's an hourly service at the moment, no idea in 2021).

It also makes plenty of sense that if one were sharing a lift, one would prefer to travel from the outskirts of Greater Manchester, not central Manchester

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.

Thank you

 

[Cantab26]

Probably at least as many as you have

Should we assume that your lack of substantive response means that the number is: zero?

 

[John R]

For those hypothesising about travel from Stockport to Bedminster, please bear in mind that the 10th Jan 2021 was five days into the third national lockdown, which was almost as draconian as the first. So any assumption as to availability of public transport and road traffic conditions would have to take that into consideration.

I believe ticket checking was pretty sparse during that period too, for obvious reasons.

 

[tatitiliti]

Should we assume that your lack of substantive response means that the number is: zero?

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