• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Expired railcard

Status
Not open for further replies.

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
Update.

I have received a response in which the administration officer has said she will forward my email to her manager for further advise in order to respond to the email fully. The settlement date has now been moved to 1st September.

Thanks all
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,589
Location
UK
Update.

I have received a response in which the administration officer has said she will forward my email to her manager for further advise in order to respond to the email fully. The settlement date has now been moved to 1st September.

Thanks all
Glad to hear that. It sounds like she realises this isn't just a "garden variety" case where the passenger can be brow-beaten into paying.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
Update. I received this response today

Thank you for your email and thank you for your patience while I have sought advise from my manager to address all the points you have raised.

Firstly, I have checked the fares you have queried and have found two to have been incorrectly recorded. These have been amended and an updated calculation spreadsheet is attached along with a copy of screenshots showing the fares due for the dates of travel for the tickets purchased. Our records have been updated to show the correct fare outstanding following these amendments.



For the points raised:

1) Lack of legal basis for administration charge

The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy. This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme.


2) Lack of legal basis to recover fares for journeys you were not part of
As advised in my initial email, our Revenue Protection Inspectors are Officers of the Railway and can report travel irregularities completed on any Train Operating Company in England. We are then authorised to seek the outstanding fares on behalf of these companies.

The defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day stated that when purchasing a train ticket, you entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company). Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.

Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.



3) Non-applicability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable



4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1


GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable. If you do not agree, and do not wish to repay the outstanding amount (or enter in a repayment plan to do so) we have no option but to commence Civil Recovery proceedings.



The fare outstanding is £523.25, this includes our standard administration charge of £90.00 that is applied to all cases to help cover some of our costs to recover fares. If you would like to accept our offer, payment is required by Monday 1st September, there are two ways to pay.

· online with a credit or debit card at www.gwr.com/revenueprotection

· by calling our payment line on 0330 1749 524, our office is open Monday to Friday from 09:00 till 12:30 and 13:30 till 16:30.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

enyoueffsea

On Moderation
Joined
26 Mar 2025
Messages
236
Location
East Midlands
Not surprised.

This forum does have very limited case studies of civil recovery by TOCs and my view is some users incorrectly assume a decision would be favourable to the passenger.

If you choose not to pay or enter into a settlement agreement I would advise you to seek legal advice from a specialist solicitor in railway fare matters before doing so.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
5,303
Location
Reading
On (1) what's noteworthy is that they've been unable to write anything stronger - merely referencing a policy, not a contractual obligation. (i.e. basically it would be one for negotiation on both sides at a later stage)

On (2) it's important to track down (or ask for) the reference to understand the date and the scope as on the face of it it is only:

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.
(NRCoT)

Previous NRCoC versions set out agency in more depth. I.e. Did the relevant proceedings explore agency in depth or was it more of an aside and has anything relevant changed since? (But was the amount in question here relatively small and therefore again, one for later negotiation?)

Items (3) and (4) would need to be explored in depth in their mooted proceedings. If they lost, there could be wide ramifications, so you'd anticipate they ought to take fresh independent advice on these items should they take this further as (unlike 2) they've not been able to respond in detail yet. However, if that advice doesn't tell them what they want to hear, it could leave them in rather a pickle (with another potential major escalation to the DfT merely due to being in possession of such advice).

Civil Recovery proceedings still provide plenty of scope for settlement at later stages. What's crucial is to engage with the stipulated process and to meet its deadlines. (See Soil's recent post.)
 
Last edited:

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,589
Location
UK
Update. I received this response today
It's pretty much the kind of response I was expecting them to send, to be honest. It's clear that the involvement of the manager has not resulted in anyone legally qualified reviewing the case, otherwise they would be making several more concessions.

Thank you for your email and thank you for your patience while I have sought advise from my manager to address all the points you have raised.

Firstly, I have checked the fares you have queried and have found two to have been incorrectly recorded. These have been amended and an updated calculation spreadsheet is attached along with a copy of screenshots showing the fares due for the dates of travel for the tickets purchased. Our records have been updated to show the correct fare outstanding following these amendments.
There were a lot more than two fares which were incorrect. Can you upload a copy of the revised spreadsheet so we can see which ones they have (or have not) addressed/changed?

For the points raised:

1) Lack of legal basis for administration charge

The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy. This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme.
Putting down your intention to charge a particular fee in a policy (which is not part of the contract) doesn't give you a legal basis for recovering it in Court. It's clear they are desperate to find anything which justifies the admin charge, but there simply isn't. They have been asked to set out a legal basis but they have failed to do so.

2) Lack of legal basis to recover fares for journeys you were not part of
As advised in my initial email, our Revenue Protection Inspectors are Officers of the Railway and can report travel irregularities completed on any Train Operating Company in England. We are then authorised to seek the outstanding fares on behalf of these companies.
This does not give any evidence of the authority you asked for. They are simply repeating themselves.

The defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day stated that when purchasing a train ticket, you entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company). Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.
It is not disputed that where they were one of the companies you were entitled to travel on, they have a basis to recover past fares.

But the NRCoT are clear that the contract is only those companies you are entitled to travel on. The fact that they are a part of the wider rail industry doesn't give them the right to enforce terms of contracts they were not involved with.

The fact they have not named or cited the High Court case suggests they are trying to brow-beat and ambush you with it - any precedents relied on in legal arguments always have to be cited so that the context can be understood.

Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.
The suggestion isn't that GWR are profiting (although in my view, they clearly are - even if those profits are passed to the government). The issue is that they need a legal basis for what they are claiming, and for several parts they lack this.

3) Non-applicability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable
They're welcome to disagree but they have not given any explanation why. That suggests they don't have a coherent argument against it.

4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable.
The same goes here.

If you do not agree, and do not wish to repay the outstanding amount (or enter in a repayment plan to do so) we have no option but to commence Civil Recovery proceedings.

The fare outstanding is £523.25, this includes our standard administration charge of £90.00 that is applied to all cases to help cover some of our costs to recover fares. If you would like to accept our offer, payment is required by Monday 1st September, there are two ways to pay.

· online with a credit or debit card at www.gwr.com/revenueprotection

· by calling our payment line on 0330 1749 524, our office is open Monday to Friday from 09:00 till 12:30 and 13:30 till 16:30.
As before, it's up to you how you proceed. But I would reiterate the offer to pay the amount you agree with (e.g. £140.20 as previously calculated), that you will vigorously defend any civil claim and that if one is brought, you will consider bringing a counterclaim under the GDPR as mentioned before.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,268
Location
LBK
For the points raised:

1) Lack of legal basis for administration charge

The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy. This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme.
That is not a legal basis, that is "we have a website which says we will do this." They could have a website which says they will put you in the stocks and throw faeces at you until you say you're very sorry but it wouldn't give them a legal basis to do this!

2) Lack of legal basis to recover fares for journeys you were not part of
As advised in my initial email, our Revenue Protection Inspectors are Officers of the Railway and can report travel irregularities completed on any Train Operating Company in England. We are then authorised to seek the outstanding fares on behalf of these companies.

The defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day
I note they don't cite a case here. Which one are they on about I wonder?

stated that when purchasing a train ticket, you entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company).
okay, sure, but this:
Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.
does not follow. Many tickets do indeed only give revenue to one TOC. Did the judge explicitly say that?


Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.
Are they indeed? A birdie told me that wasn't so in the case of private settlements (which are not revenue). Even if it was so, the *Government* isn't allowed to profit, it can only recover the loss.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
Thank you so much for your responses. I completely agree.

The deadline still stands Monday 1st September. I am in work until 6pm today and then out of the country for 10 days from tomorrow. Would you suggest another email to ask for an extension on the payment deadline, as the penalty has since been corrected, and I will need time to review and respond. I was patient with their response, so I am hopeful they will understand. Please advice. New corrected fares documents attached.

Thank you again
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0618.png
    IMG_0618.png
    258 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_0619.png
    IMG_0619.png
    784.2 KB · Views: 70
  • IMG_0620.png
    IMG_0620.png
    643.1 KB · Views: 58
  • IMG_0621.png
    IMG_0621.png
    666.9 KB · Views: 54
  • IMG_0622.png
    IMG_0622.png
    776.6 KB · Views: 58
  • IMG_0623.png
    IMG_0623.png
    774.2 KB · Views: 72

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
5,303
Location
Reading
I think the basic response would be to acknowledge receipt of their reply, state you are out of the country until <date> and that you will send your response shortly after you return.
 

enyoueffsea

On Moderation
Joined
26 Mar 2025
Messages
236
Location
East Midlands
They're welcome to disagree but they have not given any explanation why. That suggests they don't have a coherent argument against it.

I disagree with this point. Legal advice I often receive at work in my response to claims/appeals is very similar to the response they have provided here. We’re often told to say as little as possible in response to any questions where there is potential for proceedings.

They’re essentially stating they are confident in their position without giving anything additional for the OP to respond to. They do not wish to get into a back and forth correspondence and are inviting the OP to accept their position and pay up or have the matter escalated.

This does not necessarily mean their position is one of weakness, they just simply do not want to litigate by correspondence.

A case I responded to within the last 4 weeks had almost identical wording to those sentences, following our legal advice.

Whether they are correct on those two points though, I do not know.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,589
Location
UK
Thank you so much for your responses. I completely agree.

The deadline still stands Monday 1st September. I am in work until 6pm today and then out of the country for 10 days from tomorrow. Would you suggest another email to ask for an extension on the payment deadline, as the penalty has since been corrected, and I will need time to review and respond. I was patient with their response, so I am hopeful they will understand. Please advice. New corrected fares documents attached.

Thank you again
Thank you for uploading a copy of those documents. It seems like they are taking the term 'Anytime Single' literally and are trying to charge you that for each leg of your return journeys, rather than the cost of an Anytime (Day) Return. That is yet another example - as if more were needed - of the unenforceable, penalty-like nature of NRCoT condition 9.2.1. Charging for two singles (costing nearly twice the return fare) when it is known you made a return journey is a clear case of a penalty that is out of all proportion with any commercial justification.

I disagree with this point. Legal advice I often receive at work in my response to claims/appeals is very similar to the response they have provided here. We’re often told to say as little as possible in response to any questions where there is potential for proceedings.

They’re essentially stating they are confident in their position without giving anything additional for the OP to respond to. They do not wish to get into a back and forth correspondence and are inviting the OP to accept their position and pay up or have the matter escalated.

This does not necessarily mean their position is one of weakness, they just simply do not want to litigate by correspondence.

A case I responded to within the last 4 weeks had almost identical wording to those sentences, following our legal advice.

Whether they are correct on those two points though, I do not know.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims applies to this case, and states that its aim is to "enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start court proceedings" and to "encourage the parties to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner in all dealings with one another".

In civil proceedings, any legal arguments should be laid out at the earliest opportunity so that the other party can consider them and decide whether it means they should concede a particular point. Ambushing the other party by withholding arguments or precedents is not at all in the spirit of the Pre-Action Protocol or the CPR. If this is how GWR are going to litigate, then it may put them at risk of costs orders for unreasonable behaviour.

Again, this is a case of train companies thinking they are above the usual legal processes and that they can dictate how things work. That is not the case. The Courts set out the rules for what costs can be claimed (i.e. not 'admin' charges), and how litigation is to be conducted.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
5,303
Location
Reading
It seems like they are taking the term 'Anytime Single' literally and are trying to charge you that for each leg of your return journeys, rather than the cost of an Anytime (Day) Return. That is yet another example - as if more were needed - of the unenforceable, penalty-like nature of NRCoT condition 9.2.1. Charging for two singles (costing nearly twice the return fare) when it is known you made a return journey is a clear case of a penalty that is out of all proportion with any commercial justification.

Recall that under the previous Conditions of Carriage in a similar during-travel situation (the predecessor of 9.2.1) the passenger was entitled to choose to pay for a return rather than a single:
For the purposes of this Condition, and Conditions 4, 39 and 41, “full single fare or full return fare” means the highest priced single or (if requested by the passenger) return fare appropriate to the class of travel for the journey you are making.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
17,472
Location
Isle of Man
I'm going to share my perspective as a former experienced debt adviser. I dealt with County Court claims a lot. I am not a lawyer.

For the calculation of losses, the TOC will argue the contractual agreement states that if a valid ticket is not held then the person is liable for the full undiscounted fare. Clearly the TOCs interpret this to mean the anytime single fare in both directions. There has been some success in the civil courts in arguing that the actual loss to the TOC is the difference between what the person actually paid and what the person would have paid had they bought the correct ticket at the time. However to my knowledge these cases are not legally binding (County Court judgments do not set a legal precedent) and so it would be for both the claimant and the defendant to set out their position and it would depend on the District Judge.

The Courts historically took a dim view of penalty clauses (or clauses that effectively have a punitive element) in contracts but, in more recent times, the Courts have been much more content to enforce penalty clauses unless they are manifestly unreasonable.

The Courts will generally not permit administration costs outside of the fixed fee for bringing a case. If a TOC has incurred specific losses in investigating a case then this can be added to the claim, but generalised costs (e.g. the pro-rated cost of the RPI) would not usually be allowed. This has been established in the Courts whn they (eventually and belatedly) disallowed shops from recovering the cost of security guards from shoplifters. The revenue protection policy is not part of the contractual agreement.

The Courts do expect both parties to correspond transparently before litigating, and I think it is clear that GWR's staff in this case are acting as though they have the same upper hand that the criminal law confers on them.

If you receive a claim pack you only have 14 days to respond to it. You can respond on paper or, if the claim has been issued electronically, you can also respond electronically.

If you need more than 14 days to decide, you can file form N9 'acknowledgement of service', this gives you an additional 14 days in which to file the defence form N9B.

You can file form N9A, which is admission of the claim, in which you can make an offer to repay in instalments. These instalments can be as little as £1 per month. The claimant will decide if they agree to the proposed payment plan, if not then the Court will decide. This will be based on your income and expenditure, and so it is important to be accurate with your offer; don't take the piss and offer a pound a month if you can afford a lot more, but equally don't overset yourself if you have a low income and/or high priority expenditure.

You can file form N9B, in which you set out your defence. On form N9B you would set out how much of the claim you dispute. If you partially admit the claim you would state on form N9B how much you admit. If you are only partially disputing the claim, you would submit form N9A and N9B. The claimant would then decide if they accept your partial submission and, if so, whether they accept your offer to pay in instalments.

Where you send the form depends on the form you are completing, so read the guidance very carefully and keep evidence of the form being returned, especially if sending by post.

If you defend the case in full or if the claimant rejects your partial admission then the claimant has to pay an additional trial fee. They can also claim up to £95 per person for any witnesses for their loss of earnings or leave, although you could challenge this in Court if they are people who would be at work for the claimant anyway. I suspect the Court would agree with the claimant, though.

These types of claims are typically (but not always) heard "judge in chambers", which means that you are in an office with the judge and the claimant's representatives. Not as intimidating as being in open court. I've done it a few times, both as a claimant and as a Mackenzie Friend for a respondent, and it's not that daunting but you do need to be very well prepared.

Finally, even if you lose entirely, then if you pay the entire amount within 28 days then you can apply to the court on form N443 to have the CCJ registration cancelled. This means that the CCJ won't be registered at the Registry Trust and therefore won't show on credit searches, etc.
 

Egg Centric

Established Member
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
2,837
Location
Land of the Prince Bishops
They can also claim up to £95 per person for any witnesses for their loss of earnings or leave, although you could challenge this in Court if they are people who would be at work for the claimant anyway. I suspect the Court would agree with the claimant, though.

Would this case need witnesses? I would have thought the RPI etc could be dealt with as an agreed statement kind of thing, as it's not relevant to the matter at hand.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
Hello and thank you for your response. I have written draft response and wondering if people would please kindly review and advise on how to move forward. Again, it is my wish to resolve this matter out of court. Looking back at the time, I have also come to realise that not long after this matter took place I went on long term sickness from May-August 2024 and was on antidepressants. I’m not sure this is something that may help people and hopefully GWR to understand me and my situation and what I have been going through.

I am trying my best to write a response to but struggling immensely as there as some issues in my personal life ongoing, which I’m sure you can appreciate I don’t wish to disclose publicly.

This is what I’ve come up with so far -

Thank you for allowing me the time to review and respond.
It is unfortunate my previous settlement had not been accepted, as I have offered the different in losses to GWR and the other train companies, as I believe this to be a reasonable and proportionate manner in resolving the matter. I have at your request provided previous information and valid Railcards for allegations against invalid travel backdated from 2018 onwards in my previous correspondence.

I’d like to make clear it was never my intention to pay incorrectly and that I am again urging for full and final settlement of the difference in ticket prices without a railcard outside of civil court and to resolve the matter immediately.

I know someone of you have very kindly drafted well written and clear responses that I would appreciate some help with. Should I mention anything about their previous correspondence not provided any legal basis for charge of an admin fee and also that they have simply put that they don’t agree with the legislation and no other reason? (last response available in previous posts) I’d like to be firm but polite in my response. Currently restarted counselling and considering going back onto medication to help anxiety/depression. Please advise and feel free to ask me anything. Thank you all
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,088
Firstly, can I suggest a quick recap on where we are? There are over 130 posts in this thread, and I, for one, cannot recall the current status.

For example, have you offered to pay for the difference between the full Anytime fare and the discounted fares you bought and which you have accepted that you were in the wrong? Does the train company agree on the journeys which are in dispute? Have you offered to settle only for the journeys with this train company because you have not received any guarantee that other train companies will come after you for the disputed journeys? Have you offered any admin fee?

It may also be useful to recap this in your letter in response to allow the reader in the train company to assess the position.

(By the way, in your draft letter you wrote 'different', but I think you mean 'difference'.)
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
5,303
Location
Reading
A short version might be something like: "Thank you for your response. I have considered it carefully. I believe the substantive points that I raised all remain unaddressed and so I reiterate them. Also note that the citation was omitted from the response to item 2 - please supply it to enable me to understand your position at the earliest opportunity. As things stand, my position remains unchanged and I reiterate that I am prepared to offer..."

A longer version would repeat them (after the 3rd sentence) with a brief comment indicating how each response doesn't answer each point.
1) A policy document alone is unenforceable so I repeat, what is the legal basis for the claim?
2) I repeat, please provide direct evidence of the relevant authority.
3) and 4) Please provide the legal reasoning for your alternative interpretations.

(Yes, merge that with your "reasonable and proportionate" statement - your words are good.)
 
Last edited:

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,589
Location
UK
Hello and thank you for your response. I have written draft response and wondering if people would please kindly review and advise on how to move forward. Again, it is my wish to resolve this matter out of court. Looking back at the time, I have also come to realise that not long after this matter took place I went on long term sickness from May-August 2024 and was on antidepressants. I’m not sure this is something that may help people and hopefully GWR to understand me and my situation and what I have been going through.
I have great sympathy with you, but unfortunately I don't think that this is likely to be relevant to the civil proceedings that GWR are threatening. It doesn't change your civil liability for the underpaid fares - the only question is how much that liability is.

I am trying my best to write a response to but struggling immensely as there as some issues in my personal life ongoing, which I’m sure you can appreciate I don’t wish to disclose publicly.
No problem - the most important thing is to keep on engaging, even if you don't accept what they say.

This is what I’ve come up with so far -

Thank you for allowing me the time to review and respond.
It is unfortunate my previous settlement had not been accepted, as I have offered the different in losses to GWR and the other train companies, as I believe this to be a reasonable and proportionate manner in resolving the matter. I have at your request provided previous information and valid Railcards for allegations against invalid travel backdated from 2018 onwards in my previous correspondence.
This part reads fine. I'll integrate it into the revised reply I'll draft below.

I’d like to make clear it was never my intention to pay incorrectly and that I am again urging for full and final settlement of the difference in ticket prices without a railcard outside of civil court and to resolve the matter immediately.
I would probably reword this, to make it clear you don't think they have set out any reason why your four defences would not apply. Making the response something like this:
Dear [contact at GWR],

Thank you for allowing me the time to review and respond. I am currently dealing with some medical issues, hence the delay.

Regarding point 1 about the legal basis for the administration charges, your Revenue Protection policy does not form part of the NRCoT and therefore, stating your intention to charge administration fees in that policy does not provide you with a legal basis for recovering them in Court.

Regarding point 2 about recovering fares on behalf of other operators, you have not substantiated your claim that you are authorised to pursue fares on behalf of other operators. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot accept the potential 'double jeopardy' this would otherwise open me up to, should these other operators later choose to pursue claims against me.

You have not cited the High Court case that you have referred to; in the absence of a citation and transcript I am unable to verify the ruling. I would request that you provide me with these details, if you wish to rely on them.

I would also reiterate that the NRCoT wording is clear as to the only train companies which there is a contract with: "When you buy a Ticket ... you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use." You were not a party to the contract for journeys that took place outside of your network; therefore, you have no standing to pursue any contractual debts allegedly arising from them.

Regarding points 3 and 4 about the applicability and enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1, you have not explained why you disagree with my interpretation. The Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct encourage parties to minimise the areas in dispute before any legal action; therefore, by failing to explain your position this may cause more areas to remain disputed than is strictly necessary.

It is unfortunate you have rejected my previous settlement offer of repaying the discounts incorrectly obtained. I believe this to be a reasonable and proportionate outcome for this matter in view of the legal position which I have set out. I have at your request provided previous information and valid Railcards for allegations against invalid travel dating back to 2018 in my previous correspondence, demonstrating my cooperation with you.

However, as you will appreciate, I cannot accept liability for substantial amounts which you have no legal basis to recover. Should you remain unwilling to accept my settlement offer, I will therefore have no choice but to defend the disputed portion of any legal claim - on the grounds I have previously set out.

Yours sincerely,

[name]

I know someone of you have very kindly drafted well written and clear responses that I would appreciate some help with. Should I mention anything about their previous correspondence not provided any legal basis for charge of an admin fee and also that they have simply put that they don’t agree with the legislation and no other reason? (last response available in previous posts) I’d like to be firm but polite in my response. Currently restarted counselling and considering going back onto medication to help anxiety/depression. Please advise and feel free to ask me anything. Thank you all
Taking care of your mental health needs to be your first priority.

@MotCO I think the OP understands the current advice, unless I am mistaken @annonymous123 ?

The OP has offered to repay the discount which they incorrectly obtained - i.e. 50% of the Railcard-discounted fare, which brings it back to the public fare before the 1/3 Railcard discount.

The remaining disputed areas are as set out in posts #111 and #123; GWR disputes all four defences/arguments.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
Thank you so much all, I really appreciate your help in these difficult times. I will send the above email. Yes I have offered in responses to pay the difference in fare without a railcard.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
I’ve received the following response -

I have carefully read your email and have sought authorisation from my manager to work towards a prompt settlement of this case. As previously advised, when travelling without a valid railcard when a railcard discount has been applied, the Anytime Single Fare is applied, not the difference between the amount paid and the fare for the ticket’ purchased, in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Travel, we are unable to offer any discounted fares, such as railcard discounts, advanced fares, return or off-peak fares.

In order to settle this case I have been given authority to remove the historical journeys in 2022, the journeys not travelled on GWR services and the administration charge. Therefore,. We are claiming outstanding fares for journeys travelled on GWR services after the date that your railcard expired on 9th October 2023 until the date of your reported offence on 11th February 2024 that you had applied a railcard discount to.

This results in 13 journeys travelled, the Anytime Fare for these journeys totals £395.10. deducting the amount you have paid for these journeys, £117.10, leaves a balance of £278.00



I have updated our records to show this amount without an administration charge and this is available immediately for settlement. If you would like to accept our offer of £278.00 there are two ways to pay.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1239.png
    IMG_1239.png
    309.8 KB · Views: 25

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
7,605
Location
Merseyside
So given they are now not charging the administration fee, only looking at journeys on GWR, only for a specific time period and deducting the amount you have already paid in fares you're only dispute with them now is they are basing this on 2 x anytime single fares rather then the cost of a return journey.

You could accept their offer and pay £278 or you could work out how much you owe for these journeys based on the return fare (not 2 singles) and respond with a counter offer in settlement.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
5,303
Location
Reading
Therefore, in this occasion I please urge that my offer to pay the difference between the fares that I actually paid for all train tickets purchased outside of holding a valid Railcard, a sum of £119.28. I am happy to pay your admin fee in addition for the inconvenience caused. I offer this in full and final settlement of this case.

Their admin fee was - what? £90 ?

So you previously offered them £209.28 to settle.

They are now offering to settle for £278. So the amount remaining in play is £68.72.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Also, did the latest communication from them include the phrase "without prejudice"?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Also other train companies could still pursue you for the non-GWR travel, as discussed previously, so accepting the settlement isn't necessarily the end of the matter.
 
Last edited:

WesternLancer

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
15,025
So looked back at first post and they wanted 2755 and now that’s got to 278. OP has done well.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,589
Location
UK
They have still not fully addressed your arguments, however the amount they are now accepting as an out of Court settlement is beginning to sound a lot more reasonable.

Personally speaking, as you have mentioned you would prefer not to have to defend the case in Court, I would be minded to accept their offer.

It still leaves you open to potential later claims for the journeys on other TOCs (GWR may even inform those other TOCs' prosecutions teams if they are feeling particularly mean-spirited) but it is nowhere as bad as their earlier positions, in my view.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
6,088
Not charging an admin is almost unheard of.
Plus they seem to have accepted your argument that they cannot claim money for journeys undertaken on other TOCs, unless they believe they would have to pass those sums over to the other TOCs, and can't be bothered with that hassle on order to get resolution with you. But, as others have said, they may pass your details over to those TOCs, so you may not be out if the woods yet.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
It’s thanks to the members who have helped me get through this that I owe gratitude to. Thank you all again. I was offering slightly less, but agree that this is reasonable if it puts end to the matter. The email is as sent (aside from how to make the payment at the end) and doesn’t mention ‘without prejudice’ anywhere as far as I can see. Yes, admin fee was £90. I’d like this over with ASAP and do not have the capacity for further back and forth. I need confirmation that this won’t be brought up in the future. Shall I ask if they’re going to pass my details on? I’m very nervous about this. And also if this is in full and final settlement of the issue? I’m also happy to deactivate my Trainline account altogether and make a new one. Advice on how to proceed please? Many thanks
 

WesternLancer

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
15,025
It’s thanks to the members who have helped me get through this that I owe gratitude to. Thank you all again. I was offering slightly less, but agree that this is reasonable if it puts end to the matter. The email is as sent (aside from how to make the payment at the end) and doesn’t mention ‘without prejudice’ anywhere as far as I can see. Yes, admin fee was £90. I’d like this over with ASAP and do not have the capacity for further back and forth. I need confirmation that this won’t be brought up in the future. Shall I ask if they’re going to pass my details on? I’m very nervous about this. And also if this is in full and final settlement of the issue? I’m also happy to deactivate my Trainline account altogether and make a new one. Advice on how to proceed please? Many thanks
I've learned a lot from this thread and the experts who have helped advice you. I can't answer your questions with expertise - but my instinct is that you should not be asking them if they will pass your details on to other train companies or not - why give them ideas after all.

I also suspect that you can not 100% ever be confident that this will finalise all of this for ever and it will never be brought up in the future - you just have to hope that it probably will finalise it however. The train companies have no shortage of evaders to go after - and more coming on stream every day as is in the nature of things - the majority of them will be within the 6 months prosecution time frame - so they are low hanging fruit compared with you. I'd like to hope this counts in your favour in terms of them closing the case down if you pay this.

Hopefully people can advise on each of your questions.
 

annonymous123

Member
Joined
18 Jul 2025
Messages
29
Location
Bath
I’ve drafted the following..

Thank you for your help in seeking authority from your manager, I appreciate it greatly. I am willing to accept your offer of £278 on the condition that this is in full and final settlement of this matter with no further action or prejudice. I will make this payment immediately after confirmation of the above. Many thanks

Please see free to chop and change. Thank you all
 

John R

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2013
Messages
6,092
I've learned a lot from this thread and the experts who have helped advice you.
Agree, this has been a very interesting thread in terms of what a TOC (at least one of them) will do if challenged about the amount requested where there is no longer a risk of prosecution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top