Govia witness statement - not guilty

[enyoueffsea]

Not if you're asking a passenger who (I assume - perhaps the OP could confirm) already told the RPI that they had joined the train at Luton, whether they joined the train at Luton.

Looking at the letter, however, it looks like they're not even doing that.

They're just asserting the ticket wasn't valid when it was, based on non-existent rules they've concocted about tapping in/out requirements (a failing for which they have form, as I can personally attest) and asking for comment. That's not a legitimate line of investigation. It's completely misconceived. The ticket isn't rendered invalid just because the RPI couldn't see evidence of a scan at the origin. It's only invalid if the passenger was short-faring, but they haven't even put that specific possibility to the OP and asked for comment.

How many times do you think RPIs hear “I did scan my ticket, honest, it must not have recorded”? The RPI will have no way of checking or verifying that on the spot and therefore they were right to follow their process to submit for investigation.

The TOC has not at any stage set any rules on tickets being scanned. The TOC have sent out their standard letter asking for the OP’s version of events. Subject to the OP providing the information and evidence they have suggested they hold here, that is likely to be the end of the matter.

It’s an unfortunate series of events with the OP holding a well known short ticket which did not register a scan on the day the TOC held an operation of checking all tickets.

 

[redreni]

How many times do you think RPIs hear “I did scan my ticket, honest, it must not have recorded”?

I neither know nor care.

The RPI will have no way of checking or verifying that on the spot

Then they cannot tell the difference between a fare dodger and a legitimate passenger. This is GTR's problem and nobody else's.

and therefore they were right to follow their process to submit for investigation.

I disagree. If the investigation process involves nothing more than crude threats and a vague "tell us your version of events", then it is hard to see what this adds to the conversation between the RPI and the passenger at the station? If there's no contrary evidence to the passenger's account and the investigation doesn't involve trying to obtain any, but only involves a threatening letter, then it is not appropriate to conduct an investigation imho.

The TOC has not at any stage set any rules on tickets being scanned. The TOC have sent out their standard letter asking for the OP’s version of events. Subject to the OP providing the information and evidence they have suggested they hold here, that is likely to be the end of the matter.

Yes, I agree. It should also be the end of the matter if the OP just said "I got on at Luton" and provided no supporting evidence, unless GTR has evidence to the contrary.

It’s an unfortunate series of events with the OP holding a well known short ticket which did not register a scan on the day the TOC held an operation of checking all tickets.

That is indeed what happened, but there is no point writing it up for investigation unless it is actually going to be investigated (e.g. looking at the CCTV to identify the person and see if they were on the train before Luton). Asking somebody who has already confirmed what happened to confirm it again, whilst at the same time issuing crude threats of prosecution despite having not a shred of evidence capable of sustaining a credible prosecution, is not a reasonable course of action.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I disagree. If the investigation process involves nothing more than crude threats and a vague "tell us your version of events", then it is hard to see what this adds to the conversation between the RPI and the passenger at the station? If there's no contrary evidence to the passenger's account and the investigation doesn't involve trying to obtain any, but only involves a threatening letter, then it is not appropriate to conduct an investigation imho.

I think this is where the railway on the one hand and you (and a number of others) on the other part company - and I am not sure that you and the railway will ever agree so we're beginning to flog a dead horse. But I will add that in my opinion (and, it would seem, the railway's) an investigation doesn't have to start from the assumption that everyone is innocent and truthful: it's reasonable to start from what experience has shown to be the case, that some tickets are unlikely to have been bought for honest purposes and so a passenger with such a ticket asserting their honesty may well be lying.

That's not to say that the passenger may not be honest and truthful, and the investigation needs to be able to go down that road: that's where we are right now with this case where the OP did something which at first glance looks dodgy, but where they tell us that they can demonstrate that they have acted within the rules. So now we can only wait and see if GTR now accept that - given that they now have evidence to disprove the allegation - this is one to walk away from.

That just leaves the question of how the 'Notice of intended prosecution ' is worded. I think that the railway would argue publicly that the Idea of heading it like that is so that a recipient knows the worst that can happen, and won't end up in court saying 'I didn't co-operate because I thought I would only have to pay the outstanding fare - I didn't know that it could end here'. But I think there can be very little doubt that the wording is intended to grab the recipient's attention by alarming them. So there's a question whether that is a legitimate tactic. I can live with it, but then I have never received one of these notices, instead only seeing plenty of them through this forum. So I can see that others may have a different view.

 

[WillC]

Do you have any evidence that people are shunning rail travel because of the threat of prosecution?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Dec 2025 ==


Isn't asking the suspect a part of correctly investigating?

I think there is ample anecdotal evidence that people find rail ticketing unbearably complex, and endless enforcement threats intimidating. This specific example is just ridiculou and counter-intuitive. The system should be designed *for* users, not to trip them up.
I also understood that passenger numbers were struggling to rebound to pre-Covid levels. It might do you good to step out of the rail expert bubble and consider normal rail users - the system seems currently at a nadir.

 

[appletree]

Hi everyone, I have an update!

They received my letter on the 30th December, but I received no letter response, so I emailed them on the 17th and they replied today saying they closed the case!

Thank you all for your help and advice. Although I did not do anything wrong in this case, the threat of prosecution was definitely stressful.

And for anyone wondering, the reason I took such a short journey was as it was quicker and cheaper (with my railcard) than walking, the bus, or a taxi. But I definitely won't take that train journey again...

Once again, thank you all!

 

[AlterEgo]

Good news. Thanks for updating us.