Govia witness statement - not guilty

[Mattplans]

Image A - the photo of them entering Luton station … (when it has been alleged they started their journey elsewhere) is more than enough.

 

[rmHawk765]

Shame on GTR.

I don't think a single good thing has come out of them post COVID.

You need to be aware that very few people make that journey by train as the bus is much more frequent and more likely to take people to and from the places they are actually going. Therefore, from a staff perspective, most of the tickets they see between those stations are actually used by fare dodgers - we have seen quite a few such cases here. If you are genuinely making that journey, evidence of where you are going at both ends will be useful. If you are doing it regularly you should look at getting a bus season which is likely to be much cheaper.

Understandable, but it is absolutely appalling if they actually try to use this as meaningful evidence.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Before we conclude that GTR actually is the spawn of the devil, it might be worth looking at this case from their point of view.

At the moment (or at least at the point when they sent out the Notice of Intended Prosecution) their specific knowledge consists of what their RPI reported, and general knowledge they might be expected to have. So they know that the OP has travelled on a ticket between two adjacent stations, and that at the point of report the ticket didn't seem to have been scanned in at the origin: their general knowledge will include that there are buses between these points which are cheaper and more frequent than the train (although I would imagine slower), and that fare dodgers are known to buy this ticket. For completeness, although I don't think it impacts one way or the other, they will also know that the ticket was bought some time before departure.

On the basis of what GTR currently know, I think it is reasonable to investigate further - there's a good chance that the explanation is that someone was fare dodging. And part of that investigation is to ask the OP if they have further information.

And the OP does have further information: to my eyes, it seems to demonstrate that they did indeed travel in line with the ticket they held. But GTR don't yet know that. The time to start grumbling about GTR's behaviour will be if without good reason they don't accept the further evidence - once they have received and considered it.

 

[John R]

Before we conclude that GTR actually is the spawn of the devil, it might be worth looking at this case from their point of view.

At the moment (or at least at the point when they sent out the Notice of Intended Prosecution) their specific knowledge consists of what their RPI reported, and general knowledge they might be expected to have. So they know that the OP has travelled on a ticket between two adjacent stations, and that at the point of report the ticket didn't seem to have been scanned in at the origin: their general knowledge will include that there are buses between these points which are cheaper and more frequent than the train (although I would imagine slower), and that fare dodgers are known to buy this ticket. For completeness, although I don't think it impacts one way or the other, they will also know that the ticket was bought some time before departure.

On the basis of what GTR currently know, I think it is reasonable to investigate further - there's a good chance that the explanation is that someone was fare dodging. And part of that investigation is to ask the OP if they have further information.

And the OP does have further information: to my eyes, it seems to demonstrate that they did indeed travel in line with the ticket they held. But GTR don't yet know that. The time to start grumbling about GTR's behaviour will be if without good reason they don't accept the further evidence - once they have received and considered it.

I fully agree with this. Some of these posts are assuming a “what if” scenario has happened, and jumping the gun. Posters here should remember that we are here to give advice on the current situation of the dispute and not get carried away.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that the OP requires advice, not a debate about anything else.

Thanks

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would change the last paragraph.

I trust that this information satisfies GTR that I travelled using a valid ticket and that no offence took place. I look forward to your formal written confirmation by return email that no further action will be taken by GTR. For the avoidance of doubt, should GTR choose to instigate a prosecution any such matter would be robustly defended and I reserve my right to seek costs.

 

[MotCO]

I would change the last paragraph.

I trust that this information satisfies GTR that I travelled using a valid ticket and that no offence took place. I look forward to your formal written confirmation by return email that no further action will be taken by GTR. For the avoidance of doubt, should GTR choose to instigate a prosecution any such matter would be robustly defended and I reserve my right to seek costs.

I think that @Fawkes Cat statement in post #33 is the better approach to take; I would not threaten them per the last sentence above unless GTR persist in challenging the OP's statement.

 

[Tetchytyke]

think that @Fawkes Cat statement in post #33 is the better approach to take; I would not threaten them per the last sentence above unless GTR persist in challenging the OP's statement

My suggested wording isn't a threat, it is simply a statement of fact so that there may be no ambiguity later. One could say the same about GTR's chosen wording; I think it is worth mentioning in these terms precisely because GTR's initial letter specifically states that it is their intention to prosecute.

I do take some umbrage at the wording of the boilerplate letter, it has to be said. Saying that they intend to prosecute is rather stronger than them saying that they are investigating with a view to potentially prosecuting. But I agree with @Fawkes Cat that they are well within their rights to investigate; I acknowledged this much further up the thread.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

My suggested wording isn't a threat, it is simply a statement of fact so that there may be no ambiguity later. One could say the same about GTR's chosen wording; I think it is worth mentioning in these terms precisely because GTR's initial letter specifically states that it is their intention to prosecute.

I do take some umbrage at the wording of the boilerplate letter, it has to be said. Saying that they intend to prosecute is rather stronger than them saying that they are investigating with a view to potentially prosecuting. But I agree with @Fawkes Cat that they are well within their rights to investigate; I acknowledged this much further up the thread.

This may not help anyone, but I'm quite happy with @Tetchytyke 's wording for the last sentence. There's a fine line between being firm (assertive) and stroppy (aggressive) and I think TT's wording falls on the desirable side of that line. I might have suggested something similar if only I'd thought of it.

 

[johnjdc]

Given the phrasing of "inteding to prosecute" not "we require further information"... and recognising that I have too much time on my hands and an attitude problem... I'd be saying "I had a ticket, your staff saw the ticket - take me to court, it'll be fun".

 

[John R]

Given the phrasing of "inteding to prosecute" not "we require further information"... and recognising that I have too much time on my hands and an attitude problem... I'd be saying "I had a ticket, your staff saw the ticket - take me to court, it'll be fun".

If you read the OP’s penultimate paragraph of their opening post then you will see that this advice isn’t consistent with their concern and worry about the situation they are in.

 

[johnjdc]

Which is understandable if they're still in that mood three months later. It's possible that the initial shock has worn off and given way to righteous indignation though, particularly after that letter. Perhaps I'm scarred by my most recent similar engagements with these kinds of bureaucracy, but OP doesn't need my anecdotes!

 

[ChilliSauce]

The Train you caught from Luton was it by any chance from Platform 2 ? As that is the platform generally used for services that start from Luton. If GTR think your with Short Fare then having got off a train at Luton A Parkway that has only started from Luton I would think rather undermines their thinking.

 

[milooo]

The Train you caught from Luton was it by any chance from Platform 2 ? As that is the platform generally used for services that start from Luton. If GTR think your with Short Fare then having got off a train at Luton A Parkway that has only started from Luton I would think rather undermines their thinking.

OP said they boarded 15:43 which was a Bedford - Brighton service

 

[Haywain]

The Train you caught from Luton was it by any chance from Platform 2 ? As that is the platform generally used for services that start from Luton. If GTR think your with Short Fare then having got off a train at Luton A Parkway that has only started from Luton I would think rather undermines their thinking.

Why would it undermine their thinking, do people short faring not change trains?

 

[ChilliSauce]

Why would it undermine their thinking, do people short faring not change trains?

They may very well do .. But given that just about every train from Luton going towards London (including EMR services ) then calls at Luton Airport Parkway ..why would the OP actually change trains ?

I guess it's all about the stand that the OP wishes to take against GTR. Been sent a notice of intended prosecution when they have actually done nothing wrong. Its now agro for the OP to have to deal with, to prove their innocence. ..

Are GTR actually relying on technology that has Bugs, Defects and Errors in it to try and catch fare evasion? If the ticket was scanned at Luton to gain entry why the claim at LAP at GTR representative that it wasn't scanned?

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

While I understand the passion here, if the OP expresses it that's not going to make GTR any more likely to concede, is it? My advice would be to be clear, firm and courteous at this point ( and that does seem to be the line that the OP has chosen). Only if GTR don't concede would it make sense to apply pressure as well as reasoned argument.

Might it be prudent for the response to GTR to request further communication from them to be in the form of a "dead lock letter" then no need to wait anytime .. just go to the ombudsman as the next step

 

[island]

I would be asking for compensation for the inconvenience of dealing with their incompetence and the totally false accusation. You did nothing wrong and are being treated like a criminal, it's disgusting.

There won't be compensation.

I wouldn’t respond in such a polite manner and I’d send them back a letter informing them they’re being countersued for harassment.

That would be hopeless. Harassment requires there to have been a "course of conduct". A single instance cannot constitute "a course of conduct".

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Might it be prudent for the response to GTR to request further communication from them to be in the form of a "dead lock letter" then no need to wait anytime .. just go to the ombudsman as the next step

I don't think so: the ombudsman is there to deal with complaints against the railways. But what we have here is the railway proposing to take the OP to court, which I would expect to be outside the ombudsman's remit.

 

[redreni]

I do feel as if the staff used it as a training moment.

Hell's bells!

If it helps, we have not as far as I know descended quite far enough down the road of authoritarianism whereby you would need to prove that you didn't commit this offence.

GTR simply don't have any evidence that you did commit the offence. Bottom line is you had a valid ticket - it was valid whether scanned or not. If they think you travelled further and thus didn't have a valid ticket for the journey you made, they need evidence that's the case. You don't need any evidence - you can just deny their accusation.

The fact other people are known to buy that ticket when making a longer journey and then present at the exit barrier with a previously unscanned ticket doesn't amount to convincing evidence that that is what you did on this occasion.

The fact you do seem to have evidence to disprove their speculative and unsupported allegation should provide you with further reassurance that they cannot secure a conviction or (which is what I suspect they may be after, in reality) a financial settlement in this case.

I think it's very restrained of you not to tell them to **** off. I really don't think you've anything to worry about, in any case.

 

[WillC]

This is completely dystopian. And the government wonders why people are shunning rail travel.

 

[ChilliSauce]

I don't think so: the ombudsman is there to deal with complaints against the railways. But what we have here is the railway proposing to take the OP to court, which I would expect to be outside the ombudsman's remit.

Well there is perhaps an interesting point as it is "The Railway" in the form of GTR who have sent a letter of intended prosecution & on their headed note paper. So no 3rd Party is involved.

With the OP having evidence of having passing through the gate line at Luton ...evidence obtained from the Station Facility Operator by subject access request ...which just happens to be the same GTR then I am wondering if a complaint to the Ombudsman could be along the lines of the failure of GTR to correctly investigate what they believe to be a travel irregularity before acting with a notice of intended prosecution...

As I see it the OP has no right of appeal, as if it were a Penalty Fare .., because an MG11 was issued .. & If GTR fail to grasp that have mucked up big time this time and try their luck with a settlement which should be rejected .. Then the only option is GTR quietly try and drop the case or go for a Prosecution on the belief they are correct and the OP takes their evidence to the magistrates, and (hopefully) gets the case thrown out ..

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Well there is perhaps an interesting point as it is "The Railway" in the form of GTR who have sent a letter of intended prosecution & on their headed note paper. So no 3rd Party is involved.

With the OP having evidence of having passing through the gate line at Luton ...evidence obtained from the Station Facility Operator by subject access request ...which just happens to be the same GTR then I am wondering if a complaint to the Ombudsman could be along the lines of the failure of GTR to correctly investigate what they believe to be a travel irregularity before acting with a notice of intended prosecution...

As I see it the OP has no right of appeal, as if it were a Penalty Fare .., because an MG11 was issued .. & If GTR fail to grasp that have mucked up big time this time and try their luck with a settlement which should be rejected .. Then the only option is GTR quietly try and drop the case or go for a Prosecution on the belief they are correct and the OP takes their evidence to the magistrates, and (hopefully) gets the case thrown out ..

Let me put this rather more bluntly: the ombudsman is not there to interfere with the court process and will not do so. To suggest to a poster that to try and involve the ombudsman would be helpful is not in the OP's interests and should not appear in this thread.

This is a forum for us to advise posters: the contributors here will not always have a common view of what the best advice is. But it does seem to me that good advice is always founded on the realities of the processes which exist, and not on wishful thinking as to what processes should exist.

 

[Haywain]

And the government wonders why people are shunning rail travel.

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 ==

the failure of GTR to correctly investigate what they believe to be a travel irregularity before acting with a notice of intended prosecution.

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

 

[ChilliSauce]

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

I think it's a matter of opinion if sending out a letter threatening prosecution and asking for in effect comment is properly investigating ... Shouldn't the onus be on GTR to present their claim to the OP backed by evidence rather than leaving it up to the accused to defend themselves ?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think it's a matter of opinion if sending out a letter threatening prosecution and asking for in effect comment is properly investigating ... Shouldn't the onus be on GTR to present their claim to the OP backed by evidence rather than leaving it up to the accused to defend themselves ?

Please have a look at my post #33 above which addresses most of these points. And also post #35 where a moderator tells us to stop being unhelpful to the OP.

 

[John R]

As I see it the OP has no right of appeal, as if it were a Penalty Fare .., because an MG11 was issued .. & If GTR fail to grasp that have mucked up big time this time and try their luck with a settlement which should be rejected ..

Until the OP sees GTR's response to the evidence provided this is all hypothetical, and not at all helpful to them. I notice you are very new here, and given the comment from a moderator that @FawkesCat has already pointed out to you, you might consider it better to refrain from commenting on cases until you have a little bit more knowledge as to how the various processes work in regard to disputes. Remember, this board is not here for individuals to have a debate on whether the process is fair and correct, but to give tailored advice based on the current way in which various rail companies handle these situations (which does vary by company).

 

[redreni]

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

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.

 

[milooo]

Would it be appropriate to contact the rail ombudsman?

 

[John R]

Would it be appropriate to contact the rail ombudsman?

See post 52.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Would it be appropriate to contact the rail ombudsman?

See post 52.

To expand a little, this is covered in the ombudsman's FAQs (https://www.railombudsman.org/en/faq)

Submitting Complaints​

(...)
We are unable to look into complaints about:
(...)
complaints that have already been dealt with or which are being investigated by another organisation such as the courts;