Fined 1,5K.

[doglover12]

That’s probably a bit conspiracy theorist. Most likely they are understaffed and miles behind where they’d like to be

ok right so shall I just accept my fate.

 

[WesternLancer]

so they purposely left it till before next month meaning I basically have to pay in full, hmmmm what do you think about my asking for the reduced price.

not really - you could see it like they did you a favour by offering you an out of court settlement (which they are under no obligation to do) when they could have just taken it to court and prosecuted you.

 

[doglover12]

not really - you could see it like they did you a favour by offering you an out of court settlement (which they are under no obligation to do) when they could have just taken it to court and prosecuted you.

ohhh , so this isn’t always an option some times they take you to court straight away?

 

[MrJeeves]

ohhh , so this isn’t always an option some times they take you to court straight away?

That's correct. GTR will often offer a settlement when people engage with their process, but no train company is obliged to do so.

For example, Transport for London's policy is always to prosecute, and only in extremely rare cases issue a warning.

 

[doglover12]

That's correct. GTR will often offer a settlement when people engage with their process, but no train company is obliged to do so.

For example, Transport for London's policy is always to prosecute, and only in extremely rare cases issue a warning.

Alright that makes sense , so I did get lucky I don’t know whether to push my luck and ask or leave it.

 

[z444z]

ok right so shall I just accept my fate.

I haven’t seen anyone give feedback on my draft in post #77, so I’m not sure how good an idea sending that would be, especially as you’ve already asked GTR for a payment plan. I wouldn’t have done that, if anything at all I’d have prioritised trying to reduce the amount, but that’s done now.

Opinions from others please on whether sending the draft in #77 would be a bad idea at this point and the OP should just pay up, or if it might still be worth doing?

 

[Royston Vasey]

not really - you could see it like they did you a favour by offering you an out of court settlement (which they are under no obligation to do) when they could have just taken it to court and prosecuted you.

ohhh , so this isn’t always an option some times they take you to court straight away?

They also haven't chosen to challenge the short journeys like Elstree to Radlett and Basildon to Laindon on the same day, two very short journeys very far apart, which they might consider suspicious. Without prejudice, I am in the camp "don't prod the beast" on your case in terms of quibbling exact calculations.

 

[WesternLancer]

I haven’t seen anyone give feedback on my draft in post #77, so I’m not sure how good an idea sending that would be, especially as you’ve already asked GTR for a payment plan. I wouldn’t have done that, if anything at all I’d have prioritised trying to reduce the amount, but that’s done now.

Opinions from others please on whether sending the draft in #77 would be a bad idea at this point and the OP should just pay up, or if it might still be worth doing?

do you mean draft in post #64 ?

I think it's hard to know what is best now - ref that draft I'd probably remove the section about the admin costs in that draft at least (given the OP has added to their admin by asking for something, a payment plan, but is now thinking of asking something else ie about reducing the sum requested...)

OP - the best way to ensure as much as possible (probably as close as you can get to a guarantee) that this does not escalate is to pay the sum they are requesting to settle this out of court. Everything else is a gamble to some extent or another. But I would now wait for 24 or 48 hours or so before communicating with the railway company any further to see how they respond to your e-mail requesting a payment plan.

 

[doglover12]

do you mean draft in post #64 ?

I think it's hard to know what is best now - ref that draft I'd probably remove the section about the admin costs in that draft at least (given the OP has added to their admin by asking for something, a payment plan, but is now thinking of asking something else ie about reducing the sum requested...)

OP - the best way to ensure as much as possible (probably as close as you can get to a guarantee) that this does not escalate is to pay the sum they are requesting to settle this out of court. Everything else is a gamble to some extent or another. But I would now wait for 24 or 48 hours or so before communicating with the railway company any further to see how they respond to your e-mail requesting a payment plan.

alright i’ll do that i’ve got 7 days before they take action so I guess i’ll just have to wait.

 

[WesternLancer]

alright i’ll do that i’ve got 7 days before they take action so I guess i’ll just have to wait.

yes, just give yourself a bit of space to think about your next steps and reflect on the advice you have been given here and the options.

 

[Undiscovered]

I don't wish to muddy the waters here, but, from the information given, there seems to be a lot of journeys made, with the incorrect Railcard selected. OP, are you sure that no Guard, Ticket Examiner or whatever, picked this up, at all, and maybe gave you a friendly warning, to correct your error?

The reason I ask is because that is what I would do/have done in the past- advise you of your error, accept your ticket with a warning, and note that I had spoken to you about adjusting your Railcard accordingly. This info would be recorded, and would be available to GTR via your ticketing account. If such information has been recorded, it would make asking for a reduction in the settlement very risky, as GTR may take the view that you had warnings about the incorrect Railcard, yet you chose not to do anything about it.

 

[MrJeeves]

I don't wish to muddy the waters here, but, from the information given, there seems to be a lot of journeys made, with the incorrect Railcard selected. OP, are you sure that no Guard, Ticket Examiner or whatever, picked this up, at all, and maybe gave you a friendly warning, to correct your error?

The reason I ask is because that is what I would do/have done in the past- advise you of your error, accept your ticket with a warning, and note that I had spoken to you about adjusting your Railcard accordingly. This info would be recorded, and would be available to GWR via your ticketing account. If such information has been recorded, it would make asking for a reduction in the settlement very risky, as GWR may take the view that you had warnings about the incorrect Railcard, yet you chose not to do anything about it.

The letter is from GTR, not GWR.

You could genuinely go with years of travel on GTR services without any kind of manual ticket check, so I wouldn't find this hard to believe OP hadn't had any friendly advice from staff prior to their revenue inspection.

I also highly doubt any kind of warning would be recorded against a customer's "account". It may well be recorded from a revenue perspective against a person, but that person wouldn't be able to see anything like that without a GDPR subject access request to the TOC requesting that information.

 

[Undiscovered]

The letter is from GTR, not GWR.

You could genuinely go with years of travel on GTR services without any kind of manual ticket check, so I wouldn't find this hard to believe OP hadn't had any friendly advice from staff prior to their revenue inspection.

I also highly doubt any kind of warning would be recorded against a customer's "account". It may well be recorded from a revenue perspective against a person, but that person wouldn't be able to see anything like that without a GDPR subject access request to the TOC requesting that information.

GTR, corrected. Thankyou.

The information is recorded on the ticket scan, at point of either accepting or rejecting the ticket, and is then tied to that ticket. Almost like an electronic version of a guard clipping the ticket and then writing on the back of it, if you will.
There is a lot of information readable to Traincrew when you present a digital ticket for scanning, even across TOCs.

 

[doglover12]

I don't wish to muddy the waters here, but, from the information given, there seems to be a lot of journeys made, with the incorrect Railcard selected. OP, are you sure that no Guard, Ticket Examiner or whatever, picked this up, at all, and maybe gave you a friendly warning, to correct your error?

The reason I ask is because that is what I would do/have done in the past- advise you of your error, accept your ticket with a warning, and note that I had spoken to you about adjusting your Railcard accordingly. This info would be recorded, and would be available to GTR via your ticketing account. If such information has been recorded, it would make asking for a reduction in the settlement very risky, as GTR may take the view that you had warnings about the incorrect Railcard, yet you chose not to do anything about it.

I am 100% sure that no one had told me or corrected me about what I had done.

 

[Undiscovered]

I am 100% sure that no one had told me or corrected me about what I had done.

Good. I have no knowledge of ticketing apps, but I assume the 16-17 Saver is next to the 16-25 Railcard, so an easy slip to make. Hence discretion and getting it corrected going forwards.

Anyways, good luck with your endeavours.

 

[MrJeeves]

The information is recorded on the ticket scan, at point of either accepting or rejecting the ticket, and is then tied to that ticket. Almost like an electronic version of a guard clipping the ticket and then writing on the back of it, if you will.
There is a lot of information readable to Traincrew when you present a digital ticket for scanning, even across TOCs.

And that data will only be linked to that one ticket, and not any others, hence not an account as such.

And furthermore, retailers do not get access to any of these text notes, so the ticket retailing part of a company would have absolutely no idea that anything has gone on.

 

[doglover12]

Good. I have no knowledge of ticketing apps, but I assume the 16-17 Saver is next to the 16-25 Railcard, so an easy slip to make. Hence discretion and getting it corrected going forwards.

Anyways, good luck with your endeavours.

Thanks you too

 

[Undiscovered]

And that data will only be linked to that one ticket, and not any others, hence not an account as such.

And furthermore, retailers do not get access to any of these text notes, so the ticket retailing part of a company would have absolutely no idea that anything has gone on.

I don't quite get what you mean.

The data is linked to a ticket, which is linked to an account. Yes, the data on that ticket is individual to the ticket, but it will be visible to anyone who scans that particular ticket, whilst it is in use.

Once the passenger uses a different ticket, the data previously recorded will not be visible, as it's a new ticket. However, if the passenger falls foul of a Revenue Block, or similar, then, when the account purchase history is requested, the previous tickets will be presented, and all the data accompanying them, including any warnings or notes marked on them, as well as the full scan history, or each individual ticket. So, yes, technically an account isn't 'marked' openly, but it is, should the account be interrogated by a TOC.

And the information isn't for the retailer to do anything with, it's to provide information for TOCs, should they detect fare evasion, etc.in the future, so they can look back and say well, you were warned three times about your Railcard, so no dice leniency, sorry.

 

[MrJeeves]

Once the passenger uses a different ticket, the data previously recorded will not be visible, as it's a new ticket. However, if the passenger falls foul of a Revenue Block, or similar, then, when the account purchase history is requested, the previous tickets will be presented, and all the data accompanying them, including any warnings or notes marked on them, as well as the full scan history, or each individual ticket. So, yes, technically an account isn't 'marked' openly, but it is, should the account be interrogated by a TOC.

From past experience, at least some TOCs will request scan data from the retailer as part of their investigation rather than finding it themselves. If they do this, then they do not get this information.

Retailers, in my view, should also not provide information which is not relevant to the crime being investigated. Since they cannot even prosecute for relevant offences after 6 months pass, my view is that they should not be provided with purchase information from longer than 6 months ago.

 

[Olivine]

From past experience, at least some TOCs will request scan data from the retailer as part of their investigation rather than finding it themselves. If they do this, then they do not get this information.

Retailers, in my view, should also not provide information which is not relevant to the crime being investigated. Since they cannot even prosecute for relevant offences after 6 months pass, my view is that they should not be provided with purchase information from longer than 6 months ago.

In complete agreement. It’s a novel (ish) technology with some novel data protection around it and the sooner action is taken against it, the better.

Nobody wants the railways to be defrauded whatsoever but the moment an innocent passenger gets even scared (or pays up) about mistakes they’ve made through what is at best, a complicated ticketing system, then we have lost the line of the law - especially when the burden of proof sits with the prosecutor. (In no particular relevance to OP but the point has been made).

 

[doglover12]

Good morning all,
I have written my apology and request and would like some more input if needed. I’ve tried to sound as apologetic as possible while delivering my proposal with the help of a draft. Thank you.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Good morning, Prosecution team,
I have acknowledged my settlement amount of £1,600, and I want to sincerely thank you again for allowing a settlement rather than me being prosecuted. I am deeply grateful and appreciative.

I understand what I have done in my case, and I take full responsibility for my mistakes and can assure you it won’t happen again. I want to be transparent and make it clear that it isn’t something I am proud of, and I have reflected greatly on my behaviour and have acknowledged the great deal of work it would have taken for you to calculate my fares and retrieve my travel history, and I thank you.
I have reviewed the documents that has been sent to me and i want to as if it’s possible to recalculate these fare as a held a valid 16-25 railway card from the dates specified
I also acknowledge that there will be a lot of work involved in recalculating some of the fares with my 16-25 railway card, and I understand that and would be very appreciative if it could happen in line with the recent addition to NRCoT 9.3: “The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow-up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow-up steps taken.

Please note I do not want this request to be misinterpreted as me refusing the settlement offer. I am simply seeking clarification and further information before making a final decision, and I hope we can work together to resolve this issue swiftly.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I haven’t seen anyone give feedback on my draft in post #77, so I’m not sure how good an idea sending that would be, especially as you’ve already asked GTR for a payment plan. I wouldn’t have done that, if anything at all I’d have prioritised trying to reduce the amount, but that’s done now.

Opinions from others please on whether sending the draft in #77 would be a bad idea at this point and the OP should just pay up, or if it might still be worth doing?

 

[z444z]

Personally I think you’d do better to stick to the wording of my original draft, just changing the parts inside the [] brackets, but it’s up to you.

I also think that, having asked for a payment plan, this may now be asking too much of them. I’d be giving serious consideration to just paying the settlement, but if you want to try to get the amount reduced, I would remove the bit about admin costs entirely.

 

[John R]

I think the inclusion of WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the reference to 9.3 will wind them up somewhat.

I have reviewed the documents that has been sent to me and i want to as if it’s possible to recalculate these fare as a held a valid 16-25 railway card from the dates specified

This sentence has a couple of typos in it, and besides I think you need to be clearer that you are asking them to use the fare as if you held the 16-25 railcard.

 

[doglover12]

I think the inclusion of WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the reference to 9.3 will wind them up somewhat.



This sentence has a couple of typos in it, and besides I think you need to be clearer that you are asking them to use the fare as if you held the 16-25 railcard.

ok can you have a look at his draft please.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2026 ==

Personally I think you’d do better to stick to the wording of my original draft, just changing the parts inside the [] brackets, but it’s up to you.

I also think that, having asked for a payment plan, this may now be asking too much of them. I’d be giving serious consideration to just paying the settlement, but if you want to try to get the amount reduced, I would remove the bit about admin costs entirely.

Alright, thank you. I actually got a reply about the payment plan, and they declined it, saying in my case I need to pay straight away, and they did start off with 'without prejudice'. If your one flows better, I don’t mind using it. I just remember you saying I should be apologetic about my actions and add an extra bit.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I have acknowledged my settlement amount of £1,600, and I want to sincerely thank you again for allowing a settlement rather than me being prosecuted. I am deeply grateful and appreciative.

Is this the exact amount? If not say what it is. The last sentence is repetition

I understand what I have done in my case, and I take full responsibility for my mistakes and can assure you it won’t happen again. I want to be transparent and make it clear that it isn’t something I am proud of, and I have reflected greatly on my behaviour and have acknowledged the great deal of work it would have taken for you to calculate my fares and retrieve my travel history, and I thank you.

Again, its a bit repetitive

I have reviewed the documents that has been sent to me and i want to as if it’s possible to recalculate these fare as a held a valid 16-25 railway card from the dates specified

"as" should be "ask", there's an "I" missing, and I think you need to be clearer in your request.

I also acknowledge that there will be a lot of work involved in recalculating some of the fares with my 16-25 railway card, and I understand that and would be very appreciative if it could happen in line with the recent addition to NRCoT 9.3: “The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow-up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow-up steps taken.

I think this is a bit cheeky to be honest. They've already spent a lot of time and effort on your case and your request in the previous paragraph adds even more.


Also you need to include your case reference details prominently

 

[doglover12]

Is this the exact amount? If not say what it is. The last sentence is repetition



Again, its a bit repetitive




"as" should be "ask", there's an "I" missing, and I think you need to be clearer in your request.




I think this is a bit cheeky to be honest. They've already spent a lot of time and effort on your case and your request in the previous paragraph adds even more.


Also you need to include your case reference details prominently

so his draft is better right and more clear?
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in response to your letter dated [INSERT DATE]. Firstly, I would like to thank you for offering a settlement as an alternative to prosecution, this is greatly appreciated.

[Apologise for what you did as best as you can, and we can suggest some edits to it after, I don’t want to write it all for you as it will be best if the words come from you]

I have reviewed the document you sent, and just wanted to ask if there was any possibility that the calculation of fares due could take into account that I did hold a valid 16-25 railcard (evidence attached) from [RAILCARD START DATE] to [RAILCARD END DATE].

Additionally, while I understand the amount of work likely to be involved in an investigation like this, which again I sincerely apologise for making necessary, I am wondering if a breakdown of your admin costs is available, in line with the recent addition to NRCoT 9.3: “The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken.”

I do not wish for any of this to be construed as a refusal of the settlement offer, I am simply seeking more information before making a final decision. I hope that we can work together to resolve this matter amicably.

 

[z444z]

so his draft is better right and more clear?
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in response to your letter dated [INSERT DATE]. Firstly, I would like to thank you for offering a settlement as an alternative to prosecution, this is greatly appreciated.

[Apologise for what you did as best as you can, and we can suggest some edits to it after, I don’t want to write it all for you as it will be best if the words come from you]

I have reviewed the document you sent, and just wanted to ask if there was any possibility that the calculation of fares due could take into account that I did hold a valid 16-25 railcard (evidence attached) from [RAILCARD START DATE] to [RAILCARD END DATE].

Additionally, while I understand the amount of work likely to be involved in an investigation like this, which again I sincerely apologise for making necessary, I am wondering if a breakdown of your admin costs is available, in line with the recent addition to NRCoT 9.3: “The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken.”

I do not wish for any of this to be construed as a refusal of the settlement offer, I am simply seeking more information before making a final decision. I hope that we can work together to resolve this matter amicably.

At this stage I think the consensus has been that if you want to try to reduce the settlement instead of paying straight away, you shouldn’t be asking about admin costs, so I’d remove the second last paragraph.

 

[doglover12]

At this stage I think the consensus has been that if you want to try to reduce the settlement instead of paying straight away, you shouldn’t be asking about admin costs, so I’d remove the second last paragraph.

Alright thanks , they declined it all in the end so I just paid it but thanks for everyone’s help!!

 

[z444z]

Alright thanks , they declined it all in the end so I just paid it but thanks for everyone’s help!!

Glad to hear it’s sorted at least. For our benefit, I just want to clarify, did you end up asking them for any reduction, or did they say no to a payment plan and then you paid?

 

[doglover12]

Hi, so baiscally they said no to everything the reduction , and payment plan and then I just paid in full let me show you what was said for the payment plan-
Unfortunately, no UK Rail Operator will allow the use of any type of railcard discount for a settlement such as the one GTR have proposed to you. It is stated in the Railcard Terms and Conditions, '2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard within its period of validity when you travel'. 'If you fail to comply with condition 2.8, a Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price for the single fare applicable to your journey.'

Please find your Railcard Terms and Conditions here: https://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/.

The settlement sum of £1,595.95 is final and no discount is considered when generating a settlement. Adding a railcard discount to the fares included in your settlement is simply not possible, and entirely out of my control.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2026 ==

Hi, so baiscally they said no to everything the reduction , and payment plan and then I just paid in full let me show you what was said for the payment plan-
Unfortunately, no UK Rail Operator will allow the use of any type of railcard discount for a settlement such as the one GTR have proposed to you. It is stated in the Railcard Terms and Conditions, '2.8. You must carry your valid Railcard with you on your journey. When asked by rail staff, you must show a valid ticket and valid Railcard within its period of validity when you travel'. 'If you fail to comply with condition 2.8, a Train Company reserves the right to charge you the full price for the single fare applicable to your journey.'

Please find your Railcard Terms and Conditions here: https://www.16-25railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/.

The settlement sum of £1,595.95 is final and no discount is considered when generating a settlement. Adding a railcard discount to the fares included in your settlement is simply not possible, and entirely out of my control.

sorry , no this is for the railway card.