GTR Intention to Prosecute Letter

[Casio_Don]

Hi all,

I hope you are well! I'm a first time poster and looking for some advice on drafting my reply to an intention to prosecute letter I received from Govia.

The situation was as follows, I was travelling from St.Albans to Gatwick Airport via Thameslink, to which I had bought a regular ticket. Thameslink have a slightly confusing system whereby on certain trains both front and rear carriages are declassified, whilst ok other services it's only the rear.

I wrongly presumed that the train I got on that morning was one where both coaches are declassified. I got into a debate with the revenue inspector on the whole premise is confusing from a customers perspective and wound up with an intention to prosecute, to which I wasn't very forthcoming with my ID. He didn't provide me any option to pay a fine but just went straight to prosecution. Anyhoo, long story short, it was early morning and an earlier Thameslink cancellation put me at risk of missing my flight, generally stressed all round.

I've drafted my response below to the letter I received earlier today. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!

"Ref:xxxxxx
Dear GTR Prosecutions Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing in relation to an incident that occurred on the 09/12/24 while traveling on the 6:57 am Thameslink service from St. Albans to Gatwick Airport. I inadvertently sat in a first-class carriage that was not declassified, believing—incorrectly—that it was permissible to do so.

I understand that on Thameslink services, it is common for the rear first-class carriage, or sometimes both, to be declassified depending on the service. However, this morning, I mistakenly assumed that the front carriage of the train I was on was also declassified. I did, however, purchase a standard class ticket for my journey.

When approached by the revenue officer, there was a misunderstanding and a subsequent debate regarding which carriages were declassified. Initially, I was informed that neither carriage was declassified, but this was later corrected to indicate that only the rear coach was. Unfortunately, the situation escalated, and I became agitated. I regret that I was not forthcoming with my identification information at first, as I felt the situation was being handled in an overly aggressive manner. Nevertheless, I eventually provided the requested information.

To provide some context—not as an excuse but to explain my state of mind—an earlier Thameslink train cancellation had caused me significant stress, as I was at risk of missing my flight. This, coupled with the presence of multiple revenue officers and the tension of the discussion, caused me to react poorly. Upon reflection, I fully acknowledge that my behavior was not appropriate, and I sincerely apologize to the revenue officers involved for my conduct.

I accept full responsibility for my mistake in sitting in a first-class carriage without the appropriate ticket. I recognize it is my duty to verify the classification of the carriages I use and not to make assumptions. I deeply regret this oversight and the resulting situation.

I am writing to respectfully request that this matter be resolved without court proceedings. I would be willing to settle the matter by paying any fine deemed appropriate. This experience has been a valuable lesson, and I am now committed to ensuring I fully understand and comply with all travel regulations in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my letter. I sincerely hope we can find an amicable resolution to this matter.

Yours faithfully,"

 

[John R]

It's never a great idea to "become agitated" as you put it, and I suspect the account relayed to the investigation team might put it another way. How this pans out may depend on quite how agitated you became, and in particular whether you used offensive language to those doing their job.

And to be clear, refusing to give your details means you committed a second offence, although it doesn't usually alter the potential outcome of the case from what we see here.

As for the letter, you can skip the first paragraph. They know why you are writing, and hoping they are well is trite - they are not your friends, they are potentially going to prosecute you.

I think the rest of the letter isn't too bad, albeit a little repetitive. I would cut the bit about being stressed about missing your flight (tbh, if only one train was cancelled, you should have left more than enough time to get to the airport), and just apologise very sincerely for whatever happened between you and the inspectors.

 

[Casio_Don]

It's never a great idea to "become agitated" as you put it, and I suspect the account relayed to the investigation team might put it another way. How this pans out may depend on quite how agitated you became, and in particular whether you used offensive language to those doing their job.

And to be clear, refusing to give your details means you committed a second offence, although it doesn't usually alter the potential outcome of the case from what we see here.

As for the letter, you can skip the first paragraph. They know why you are writing, and hoping they are well is trite - they are not your friends, they are potentially going to prosecute you.

I think the rest of the letter isn't too bad, albeit a little repetitive. I would cut the bit about being stressed about missing your flight (tbh, if only one train was cancelled, you should have left more than enough time to get to the airport), and just apologise very sincerely for whatever happened between you and the inspectors.

Good points, and thank you for the feedback. The altercations were not too crazy tbh, I did swear but just generally never at the revenue officer. My swearing was related to Thameslinks confusing declassification system. Though they might not care as I swore regardless.

I kept the intro, and appreciate they already know why I'm writing, but it provides the framing. I've amended below.

Dear GTR Prosecutions Team,

I am writing in relation to an incident that occurred on the 09/12/24 while traveling on the 6:57 am Thameslink service from St. Albans to Gatwick Airport. I inadvertently sat in a first-class carriage that was not declassified, believing—incorrectly—that it was permissible to do so.

I understand that on Thameslink services, it is common for the rear first-class carriage, or sometimes both, to be declassified depending on the service. However, this morning, I mistakenly assumed that the front carriage of the train I was on was also declassified. I did, however, purchase a standard class ticket for my journey.

When approached by the revenue officer, there was a misunderstanding and a subsequent debate regarding which carriages were declassified. Initially, I was informed that neither carriage was declassified, but this was later corrected to indicate that only the rear coach was. I regret that I was not forthcoming with my identification information at first and upon reflection, I fully acknowledge that my behavior was not appropriate, and I sincerely apologize to the revenue officers involved for my conduct. I should have handled the situation calmly and cooperated immediately.

I accept full responsibility for my mistake in sitting in a first-class carriage without the appropriate ticket. I recognize it is my duty to verify the classification of the carriages I use and not to make assumptions. I deeply regret this oversight and the resulting situation.

I am writing to respectfully request that this matter be resolved without court proceedings. I would be willing to settle the matter by paying any fine deemed appropriate. This experience has been a valuable lesson, and I am now committed to ensuring I fully understand and comply with all travel regulations in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my letter. I sincerely hope we can find an amicable resolution to this matter.

 

[Hadders]

Just to point out that on Thameslink trains the rear first class compartment is always declassified. The front first class carriage is sometimes declassified (the Sutton Loop ones mainly, not the services that go to Brighton or Horsham).

In any case the passenger information screens in the first class compartment displays a message as part of it's rotation that says either:

This area may be used by customers holding standard class tickets

or

This area is for the use of customers holding first class tickets

As for your letter, I'd cut the bit out about the misunderstanding and debate about which compartments were declassified and the bit about your conduct - they're not asking you about this in their letter. Just confien your answer to the questions they ask.

Instead of asking to find an amicable solution ask whether it would be possible to settle the matter without sending the case to court. Say you are prepared to pat the outstanding fare plus their administrative costs in dealing with the matter.

 

[Casio_Don]

Just to point out that on Thameslink trains the rear first class compartment is always declassified. The front first class carriage is sometimes declassified (the Sutton Loop ones mainly, not the services that go to Brighton or Horsham).

In any case the passenger information screens in the first class compartment displays a message as part of it's rotation that says either:


or


As for your letter, I'd cut the bit out about the misunderstanding and debate about which compartments were declassified and the bit about your conduct - they're not asking you about this in their letter. Just confien your answer to the questions they ask.

Instead of asking to find an amicable solution ask whether it would be possible to settle the matter without sending the case to court. Say you are prepared to pat the outstanding fare plus their administrative costs in dealing with the matter.

Thank you Hadders for the feedback and information. I won't be making that mistake again regardless of the outcome!

I've amended the draft based on your feedback below, let me know if there is anything further to add:

Dear GTR Prosecutions Team,

I am writing in relation to an incident that occurred on the 09/12/24 while traveling on the 6:57 am Thameslink service from St. Albans to Gatwick Airport. I inadvertently sat in a first-class carriage that was not declassified, believing—incorrectly—that it was permissible to do so.

I understand that on Thameslink services, it is common for the rear first-class carriage, or sometimes both, to be declassified depending on the service. However, on this morning, I mistakenly assumed that the front carriage of the train I was on was also declassified. I did, however, purchase a standard class ticket for my journey.

I accept full responsibility for my mistake in sitting in a first-class carriage without the appropriate ticket. I recognize it is my duty to verify the classification of the carriages I use and not to make assumptions. I deeply regret this oversight and the resulting situation.

I am writing to respectfully request that this matter be resolved without court proceedings. Whereby I can reimburse GTR the outstanding fare and any administrative costs that have occured in dealing with this matter. This experience has been a valuable lesson, and I am now committed to ensuring I fully understand and comply with all travel regulations in the future.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my letter. I sincerely hope we can find an amicable resolution to this matter.