Fraud Accusation

[Haywain]

Not replying is evidence for the prosecution as far as they are concerned,

Nonsense. The right to silence is enshrined in English law and cannot, in itself, be used as evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why make it more difficult for yourself and everyone else? If you don't reply you'll still be in their fraud process and likely to be investigated, potentially wasting more of both your and their time.

If it was me I'd reply explaining the circumstances so it will go away.

You are naive. If I got a 5 year trawl of anyone's ticket purchases and asked them to justify every single one, I can bet there are a few instances where I'd find something they forgot, couldn't explain, or where they might appear to be discredited.

Replying creates more correspondence. Don't reply, don't get into a conversation.

It's still not going to go away by ignoring it

Wrong. It will, and does, all the time. They send a couple of follow ups, then close the case because they have no evidence.

Not replying is evidence for the prosecution as far as they are concerned,

No it is not for the reasons @Haywain gives. How many of these emails do you reckon just go to junk for a start?

and they are so used to people lying to them.

By not replying and saying anything at all?

 

[KNN]

Sorry I wasn't clear, I was using "evidence for the prosecution" as a phrase, which was clumsy.

What I meant is that if you ignore it it won't go away, if you ignore it they well take that as implicit guilt and keep pursuing you.

If it's flagged up and got to the point where they've contacted you they think you are guilty. Not replying might be legally fine, but as someone who has worked alongside fraud teams at TOCs, practically I don't think it will help it go away and no longer be a stress for the OP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jul 2026 ==

By not replying and saying anything at all?

They've already had a correspondence, which has gone several rounds, not saying anything at all is not an option available without a time machine.

But fine, do what you want, ignore it and it might go away, or they can go through the process and get rid of it.

 

[AlterEgo]

But fine, do what you want, ignore it and it might go away, or they can go through the process and get rid of it.

You're assuming if the OP replies that will get them off the case and not come back with further questions.

 

[saismee]

You're assuming if the OP replies that will get them off the case and not come back with further questions.

Which they would, they would continue to ask until they get the result they want. Either ignore them or tell them to do one and call them out for accusing an innocent person with no evidence.

 

[speedy1]

Why make it more difficult for yourself and everyone else?

I thought Tetchytyke explained why quite well.

What I meant is that if you ignore it it won't go away, if you ignore it they well take that as implicit guilt and keep pursuing you.

And you can continue ignoring them. If they have enough evidence the can proceed with the legal route

If it's flagged up and got to the point where they've contacted you they think you are guilty.

Disagree. Sounds like an opinion not a fact. What's your reason for that assertion ?

Not replying might be legally fine,

It's absolutely legally fine

but as someone who has worked alongside fraud teams at TOCs,

Ah now your posts make sense

 

[Tetchytyke]

If it's flagged up and got to the point where they've contacted you they think you are guilty

They can think what they want. They can’t prove it though, which is the important bit.

as someone who has worked alongside fraud teams at TOCs, practically I don't think it will help it go away and no longer be a stress for the OP.

I sometimes sit on the other side of the table in my day job. I have the same qualification in investigative practice that the TOC senior prosecution bods have. I’m very definitely not a lawyer but I’m also not quite as green as I am cabbage-looking.

Responding to the correspondence doesn’t make it go away. Answers beget more questions. The TOC don’t have proof, they have a hypothesis. If you ignore them they’re effectively shouting into the abyss. They’ll move on to softer targets.

We’ve seen how this works in this case. The emails have gone from fairly generic questions about journeys to the prosecution team now sending the OP a spreadsheet and demanding that they justify line-by-line every ticket that they have ever bought. Every time the OP has answered a question they’ve had a further question back to them. This makes sense from an investigative point of view- they’re trying to catch the OP in a lie.

Look at the first letter. It doesn’t even say what journeys they find suspicious or why, just that they find some suspicious, with a veiled threat about how it might look bad in court later if they don’t reply.

The last bit is actually nonsense: the PACE caution is “it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.” I’ve bolded the important bit. If they don’t ask the specifics then they can’t use a non-response against you later. The training for the qualification I hold makes this very clear, and highlights that best practice to give the interviewee enough information in advance for them to know what they’re being asked about. It is interesting that the TOCs don’t follow this advice with their initial correspondence.

My view has long been that the TOC prosecution/fraud teams should be stating in their initial correspondence what they think the issue is. Very few do. I don’t have much time for investigators ignoring best practice. The fact they ignore best practice so brazenly tells me all I need to know.

I can understand why, though. The use of vague and open questioning makes some sense. It is human nature to attempt to ‘fill in the blanks,’ and the result of that is that people either deliberately or inadvertently admit something, or they tell an untruth which they then can’t walk back from. But it’s simply not fair and that- more than anything- demonstrates that the TOC staff are not impartial investigators and that they are only acting in the best interests of the TOC. And that, in turn, demonstrates that there is rarely, if ever, any advantage in engaging.

 

[WesternLancer]

One thing I note is the op mentions being quite anxious in general (eg desire to travel with a friend)

They may well not be so used to sending a robust response to things as many on here might be very happy to do (‘I’ll let you see you in court if you do not stop accusing me ).
So they might benefit from help in drafting a suitable response that helps terminate the accusations from the train company after which they don’t reply further to the railway without additional specific advice from here if and when needed.

 

[Haywain]

One thing I note is the op mentions being quite anxious in general (eg desire to travel with a friend)

They may well not be so used to sending a robust response to things as many on here might be very happy to do (‘I’ll let you see you in court if you do not stop accusing me ).
So they might benefit from help in drafting a suitable response that helps terminate the accusations from the train company after which they don’t reply further to the railway without additional specific advice from here if and when needed.

The OP should not respond at all, not robustly, not timidly, not in any way. No good can come of doing so.

 

[lloiss0]

It is up to you how you wish to proceed. Having seen an extract from the journey spreadsheet I can sort of see where their suspicions have arisen from, since Mauldeth Road is one of the closest stations to Manchester and is undoubtedly used as an origin from which people buy tickets just to get through the barriers in Manchester. Similarly with Deansgate and Salford Crescent.

That being said, buying tickets for short journeys and making short journeys is obviously not an offence. They would need to prove that you actually travelled without a ticket (or beyond the validity of the ticket you held) for you to have committed an offence.

This does feel rather like a fishing expedition and since you have said they did not obtain your details from being stopped (or at least, not from anything recent) I would suggest you are safe to ignore any further correspondence from them unless and until you receive something like a Letter Before Claim or Court paperwork.

You could, if you are feeling generous, let them know that you're not going to entertain their fishing expedition. We can give you feedback on the wording of such an email if you'd like to put a draft here.

Do you think it is in my best interest to just not give them a response? Like I said I have never short fared my journeys and have explained this to them. I can't even imagine them actually taking me to court if the only evidence they have is that I've travelled one stop on the trains before, but I know I could be wrong as I have never had to deal with anything like this before.

Part of me does want to send a final email back, but I'm just unsure what I would say in it. I really would rather it not go so far as them taking me to court as I don't feel I would deal with it very well!

If they showed me evidence they had that I had committed an offence I would obviously hold my hands up and admit to a mistake, but when I am confident that I have never purposely done anything and they won't show me then I am just at a loss.

I appreciate all the help and advice you have provided so far though !

 

[Watershed]

Do you think it is in my best interest to just not give them a response? Like I said I have never short fared my journeys and have explained this to them. I can't even imagine them actually taking me to court if the only evidence they have is that I've travelled one stop on the trains before, but I know I could be wrong as I have never had to deal with anything like this before.

Part of me does want to send a final email back, but I'm just unsure what I would say in it. I really would rather it not go so far as them taking me to court as I don't feel I would deal with it very well!

If they showed me evidence they had that I had committed an offence I would obviously hold my hands up and admit to a mistake, but when I am confident that I have never purposely done anything and they won't show me then I am just at a loss.

I appreciate all the help and advice you have provided so far though !

I would concur with others who say that responding is not in your interests. It is more likely that they will drop the matter once they see they don't have enough evidence to go further. You will only give them more evidence (or what they perceive as evidence) if you continue to correspond with them.

 

[sigma421]

If this is becoming standard Northern behaviour (I note a few threads on it here) then I’m deeply uncomfortable with it. Convictions on these charges can have huge impacts on people’s life, ability to work etc. and they shouldn’t be writing to people on the off chance that they might have done something wrong unless they have real suspicions. I know I’d be mortified and really worried if I’d got the emails that the OP has

 

[Haywain]

If this is becoming standard Northern behaviour (I note a few threads on it here) then I’m deeply uncomfortable with it. Convictions on these charges can have huge impacts on people’s life, ability to work etc. and they shouldn’t be writing to people on the off chance that they might have done something wrong unless they have real suspicions. I know I’d be mortified and really worried if I’d got the emails that the OP has

I've started a new thread for discussion that isn't of help to the OP:

The 'fraud letters' process

If this is becoming standard Northern behaviour (I note a few threads on it here) then I’m deeply uncomfortable with it. Convictions on these charges can have huge impacts on people’s life, ability to work etc. and they shouldn’t be writing to people on the off chance that they might have done...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[duffield]

If you do feel you must respond I'd suggest something short and robust along the lines of:

All the occasions of travel you have identified are entirely legitimate, I consider this matter closed and will not enter into any further correspondence.

This assumes you are entirely confident that this is a true statement of the facts!

I can't see how responding in this fashion gives them "further evidence" as has been suggested above.

 

[Haywain]

I reiterate my comment above:

The OP should not respond at all, not robustly, not timidly, not in any way. No good can come of doing so.

 

[furlong]

I can't see how responding in this fashion gives them "further evidence" as has been suggested above.

If the OP ever made an error that the train company detects but of which the OP remains unaware, that reply would be taken as evidence proving the OP is dishonest!

 

[Tetchytyke]

This assumes you are entirely confident that this is a true statement of the facts!

I can't see how responding in this fashion gives them "further evidence" as has been suggested above.

Northern have given the OP a spreadsheet of all their travels for the last five years.

If the OP has perhaps inadvertently made a mistake on any of those tickets, then the OP will have made an untrue statement to Northern. You can try and add caveats but meaningful caveats just end up making the statement meaningless.

Entering into correspondence like this just allows them to pick holes. That's the point. They don't actually want the OP to fill in the thousand-line spreadsheet, they want the OP to panic and give them some money.

 

[duffield]

Northern have given the OP a spreadsheet of all their travels for the last five years.

If the OP has perhaps inadvertently made a mistake on any of those tickets, then the OP will have made an untrue statement to Northern. You can try and add caveats but meaningful caveats just end up making the statement meaningless.

Entering into correspondence like this just allows them to pick holes. That's the point. They don't actually want the OP to fill in the thousand-line spreadsheet, they want the OP to panic and give them some money.

How about this then:

Your demands are entirely unreasonable and I will not be engaging in any further correspondence on this matter.

Any objective person would conclude that being asked to justify every journey in the last five years when they have zero evidence of wrong doing is in fact unreasonable, and given this makes no claims whatsoever about the journeys listed, I can see no way such a statement could be used against you.

Why am I pursuing this? Because I think that when you have already engaged to some extent, drawing a firm line like this might stop their harassment sooner.

 

[saismee]

Why am I pursuing this? Because I think that when you have already engaged to some extent, drawing a firm line like this might stop their harassment sooner.

Just ignore the harassment. Doesn't matter if they continue, they have no evidence of wrongdoing and they can feel free to waste man-hours on pursuing nothing.

 

[The exile]

Just ignore the harassment. Doesn't matter if they continue, they have no evidence of wrongdoing and they can feel free to waste man-hours on pursuing nothing.

But make sure that from now on you always have the correct ticket etc for every journey you make - particularly on the routes in question.

 

[saismee]

But make sure that from now on you always have the correct ticket etc for every journey you make - particularly on the routes in question.

And use a different retailer such as TrainSplit or the forum site.

 

[Sherby976]

Any objective person would conclude that being asked to justify every journey in the last five years when they have zero evidence of wrong doing is in fact unreasonable, and given this makes no claims whatsoever about the journeys listed, I can see no way such a statement could be used against you.

Have they asked to justify every single journey or have they just asked the OP to have a review and offer their thoughts?

 

[Haywain]

Why am I pursuing this? Because I think that when you have already engaged to some extent, drawing a firm line like this might stop their harassment sooner.

You are not the person pursuing this, you are just letting your apparent anger give (bad) advice to the OP.

 

[duffield]

You are not the person pursuing this, you are just letting your apparent anger give (bad) advice to the OP.

I'm not angry. I just think it's perfectly reasonable advice in these circumstances, which could bring this to an earlier conclusion. You think it's bad advice. We have different opinions.

I don't know what you thought I mean when you said "you are not the person pursuing this". I simply meant that I was pursuing this particular point.

I restate that I am quite happy that my final suggested wording does not bring any jeopardy and may be beneficial to the OP, whilst still totally agreeing that it is best to never respond to the first contact in such circumstances. And I'll leave it there.

 

[gembercannelle]

Have they asked to justify every single journey or have they just asked the OP to have a review and offer their thoughts?

The OP has already offered their thoughts, which was that they don't see any irregularities. The TOC didn't stop.

 

[Starmill]

I'm rememinded of this:

It is from the United States, so the legal examples don't correspond perfectly to anything in the UK or the OP's situation. However, the general principle does assist with understanding why it's not a good idea to reply (with anything).

If you were a money conscious student, would you pay £5 to take the train one stop or would you pay £2 to take the bus which runs more frequently and only takes 5 min longer…

The tickets priced around £5 are return tickets. So in fact the price increase for using the train over the bus is around £1.

Not sure about 5 min either. More like 35 min.