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!
I would like to say I'm sorry for these irregularities on my account, over this process i have realized the wrong in my actions and have learned from them, it wont happen again. I would be very thankful if we could settle this outside of court id be happy to pay the due fares and Anny administration fees
something like this ok ? if there's anyway i can word this better please let me know @WesternLancer@z444z
I think although they have stopped you with an incorrect ticket the e-mail you received are very probably related to their digital trawl of what they think is suspicious.
I there for think the wording of anything you send them needs to be careful not to incriminate yourself.
I’ll suggest some wording a bit later on that you can consider using if you wish.
I suspect the next thing they may ask for is evidence you had a 16-17 railcard. Which presumably you can’t prove?
I think although they have stopped you with an incorrect ticket the e-mail you received are very probably related to their digital trawl of what they think is suspicious.
I there for think the wording of anything you send them needs to be careful not to incriminate yourself.
I’ll suggest some wording a bit later on that you can consider using if you wish.
I suspect the next thing they may ask for is evidence you had a 16-17 railcard. Which presumably you can’t prove?
I would welcome any thoughts (as well as amends) from other forum members as to whether sending a reply worded like this would be the best course of action considering the circumstances of the OPs situation - ie being caught for an actual ticket irregularity but also being asked about irregularities detected via data searches but probably not caught red handed actually doing.
If all they really want from these sorts of exercises to data check travel is to stop people from skipping fares in future, and to pay them money that the railway think they are owed, then perhaps this is all that needs to be said?
I would welcome any thoughts (as well as amends) from other forum members as to whether sending a reply worded like this would be the best course of action considering the circumstances of the OPs situation - ie being caught for an actual ticket irregularity but also being asked about irregularities detected via data searches but probably not caught red handed actually doing.
If all they really want from these sorts of exercises to data check travel is to stop people from skipping fares in future, and to pay them money that the railway think they are owed, then perhaps this is all that needs to be said?
I’d suggest something even shorter. They jump at the chance to make some money from these fishing emails anyway (though I agree it’s the right thing to do in this case).
Dear.....
Thank you for your email.
Please could you advise the amount you believe I owe to settle this case?
I’d suggest something even shorter. They jump at the chance to make some money from these fishing emails anyway (though I agree it’s the right thing to do in this case).
Perhaps separately Any implications from this response for the case where op actually stopped? I’m wondering if that case is still waiting to be processed.
I would welcome any thoughts (as well as amends) from other forum members as to whether sending a reply worded like this would be the best course of action considering the circumstances of the OPs situation - ie being caught for an actual ticket irregularity but also being asked about irregularities detected via data searches but probably not caught red handed actually doing.
If all they really want from these sorts of exercises to data check travel is to stop people from skipping fares in future, and to pay them money that the railway think they are owed, then perhaps this is all that needs to be said?
Either will be fine, though I’d suggest my shorter version to be honest as it gives less away. If they need more from you, they’ll just tell you. Nothing to gain by giving more away imo.
Either will be fine, though I’d suggest my shorter version to be honest as it gives less away. If they need more from you, they’ll just tell you. Nothing to gain by giving more away imo.
Either will be fine, though I’d suggest my shorter version to be honest as it gives less away. If they need more from you, they’ll just tell you. Nothing to gain by giving more away imo.
Thanks for the update. It may be worth asking for a breakdown of the settlement offer, if they haven’t already provided one, so you can check and make sure they aren’t charging you for anything they shouldn’t.
Additionally as there is no threat of prosecution (yet), you could challenge their admin charge if it seems high.
Thanks for the update. It may be worth asking for a breakdown of the settlement offer, if they haven’t already provided one, so you can check and make sure they aren’t charging you for anything they shouldn’t.
Additionally as there is no threat of prosecution (yet), you could challenge their admin charge if it seems high.
I did this a few times but did the other witham to chelmsford one 30+ times and it says 30+ times to stratford, maybe they fine the maximum possible journey idk
I did this a few times but did the other witham to chelmsford one 30+ times and it says 30+ times to stratford, maybe they fine the maximum possible journey idk
Why should they assume that you only made short journeys? As I said, you can query this but they aren't going to accept that they are wrong in every case when that clearly isn't true.
I did this a few times but did the other witham to chelmsford one 30+ times and it says 30+ times to stratford, maybe they fine the maximum possible journey idk
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
