GWR Pre-settlement offer

[tram21]

Is a screenshot a valid ticket?

Yes

 

[johnny_t]

Can I give GWR other evidence, such as flights taken and photos which prove I was not able to take the disputed fares.

I'll have to start of by saying that your story and subsequent explanations all look fishy to me, and will look fishy to them. But, the very nature of unusual situations is that they are very unusual so, if you are going to keep rowing forward with this, you will have to make the evidence pretty solid. Having said that then yes, if there is evidence that you aren't liable for some or all fares, then by all means submit it. Some ideas are:

Google Maps Timeline data (though they did have a grand delete a while back, so may not all be available)
Strava data
Bank transactions in a foreign place, or at least somewhere far from where the train rides were supposed to be
Work attendance records
You mention flight booking e-mails, but I think it will need to be evidence that you actually took the flights (e.g. boarding passes)


However, it does need to be rock solid and tied to you. Just sending them a screenshot of a bank statement but redacting, say, your name and address isn't going to get you anywhere

 

[MotCO]

If you bought tickets for loads of people (relatives, friends, godchildren or whatever), were you being benevolent, or did they pay you for the tickets? If so, did they pay you in cash, or do you receive a bank transfer which you can provide as evidence?

 

[Twicklatic]

Haha I think the prevailing consensus is that lawyers should stay out of court for personal matters, especially regarding honesty and integrity....

That's partly why I am tempted to just pay it to make it go away. I feel emotionally drained by the whole thing and embarrassed to be in this mess. I so badly wanted to just resolve this issue when it came up, which is why I reached out to them in the first place to explain. I think the level of digging that could happen in court would make me nervous, e.g. CCTV etc. As I said, I had used some of the tickets when I shouldn't have. I'm just so ashamed of the whole thing.

Has anyone missed the last line? See below.

As I said, I had used some of the tickets when I shouldn't have. I'm just so ashamed of the whole thing.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks so much @Watershed.

1. How do I check whether the anytime fares are correct? There are a few which are out of whack.

The best option you have is to use BR Fares to see the full list of fares, and change the fares period to the earliest one it offers (5 Jul-14 Sep 2024). For example these were the fares in operation for Paddington to Newton Abbott then. You can ignore/hide the first class fares and just look at the "Walk-Up Fares - Standard Class" section.

Of course there will have been one or two rounds of fares increases between August 2023 (the earliest journey they're challenging), May 2024 (the latest one) and July 2024. The main fares increase was on 3 March 2024 by 4.9%, so you can multiply the figures from before then by 1.049 to see whether they match the Jul-Sep 2024 fares shown in BR Fares (plus or minus rounding).

There is another method that GWR will have used to find the actual fares going back to 2023, which uses internal rail industry tools. I'm not able to share access with you but if there are any fares that look particularly odd, I can check those manually for you.

GWR's claim will be based on them wanting the Anytime Single for each journey made (2x singles for any return journeys). The ticket type shown on the "Ticket_Type" column in GWR's spreadsheet shows what you originally bought - but in each case their calculation will likely be using the Anytime Single.

One argument against their claim is that a condition of the contract which claims to give them the right to retrospectively bill you for a much higher Anytime Single (especially for the long, expensive journeys like London to York/Newton Abbott) is so unreasonable that it cannot be enforceable under consumer law.

2. There has been conflicting advice on whether the admin fee is applicable on this forum - not sure what to make of this and whether to make this argument to them.

There is clearly no legal basis for it at the moment.

CPR 27.14 sets out the only costs that can be awarded in a Small Claims Track case (this case would almost certainly be allocated to that Track). Initially this would be the £35-£80 claim issue fee charged by the Court, interest at 8% (but not compounded), and a fixed contribution towards legal fees (£50-£80, as shown in Table 2 of Practice Direction 45 here). If the matter were to proceed to a hearing, they could be awarded would be an additional £27-£123 Court fee plus their representative's travel costs.

They can't invent a figure for costs out of thin air and force you to pay it. They can ask you to, of course, and I think others are alluding to the fact you might want to give way on that point if you want to resolve this out of Court. But if they're demanding more than a nominal sum I would be inclined to fight it.

The one point where I will agree with others is that the Court fees above vary depending on how large the claim is at the point it's brought, hence why it's in your interest to try and negotiate down what they are claiming for before that point. Of course, a claimant would typically only get their costs awarded if they win - so the above figures are illustrating the realistic worst case scenario.

3. Ditto regarding GWR recovering fares for other TOCs - some say they are and others say they're not. How do I find this out and whether to make this argument. I noted that we had some success in the post you linked on these 2 points.

I think it is absolutely worth making, given that the GWR travel is only a minority of everything they are claiming for. And as I said in other threads, at the moment you have nothing in writing from those other TOCs that gives you any sort of assurance that they won't be bringing their own claims down the line even if you pay GWR!

They have alluded to an unspecified High Court judgment in their favour on this point - but refused to provide details when pressed, suggesting it may not be as favourable to them as they are making it out to be.

4. Would of course make the points regarding HRCoT as eloquently as you did in your draft email.

Small point of order - it's the NRCoT

 

[anonymousdxb]

The best option you have is to use BR Fares to see the full list of fares, and change the fares period to the earliest one it offers (5 Jul-14 Sep 2024). For example these were the fares in operation for Paddington to Newton Abbott then. You can ignore/hide the first class fares and just look at the "Walk-Up Fares - Standard Class" section.

Of course there will have been one or two rounds of fares increases between August 2023 (the earliest journey they're challenging), May 2024 (the latest one) and July 2024. The main fares increase was on 3 March 2024 by 4.9%, so you can multiply the figures from before then by 1.049 to see whether they match the Jul-Sep 2024 fares shown in BR Fares (plus or minus rounding).

There is another method that GWR will have used to find the actual fares going back to 2023, which uses internal rail industry tools. I'm not able to share access with you but if there are any fares that look particularly odd, I can check those manually for you.

GWR's claim will be based on them wanting the Anytime Single for each journey made (2x singles for any return journeys). The ticket type shown on the "Ticket_Type" column in GWR's spreadsheet shows what you originally bought - but in each case their calculation will likely be using the Anytime Single.

One argument against their claim is that a condition of the contract which claims to give them the right to retrospectively bill you for a much higher Anytime Single (especially for the long, expensive journeys like London to York/Newton Abbott) is so unreasonable that it cannot be enforceable under consumer law.


There is clearly no legal basis for it at the moment.

CPR 27.14 sets out the only costs that can be awarded in a Small Claims Track case (this case would almost certainly be allocated to that Track). Initially this would be the £35-£80 claim issue fee charged by the Court, interest at 8% (but not compounded), and a fixed contribution towards legal fees (£50-£80, as shown in Table 2 of Practice Direction 45 here). If the matter were to proceed to a hearing, they could be awarded would be an additional £27-£123 Court fee plus their representative's travel costs.

They can't invent a figure for costs out of thin air and force you to pay it. They can ask you to, of course, and I think others are alluding to the fact you might want to give way on that point if you want to resolve this out of Court. But if they're demanding more than a nominal sum I would be inclined to fight it.

The one point where I will agree with others is that the Court fees above vary depending on how large the claim is at the point it's brought, hence why it's in your interest to try and negotiate down what they are claiming for before that point. Of course, a claimant would typically only get their costs awarded if they win - so the above figures are illustrating the realistic worst case scenario.


I think it is absolutely worth making, given that the GWR travel is only a minority of everything they are claiming for. And as I said in other threads, at the moment you have nothing in writing from those other TOCs that gives you any sort of assurance that they won't be bringing their own claims down the line even if you pay GWR!

They have alluded to an unspecified High Court judgment in their favour on this point - but refused to provide details when pressed, suggesting it may not be as favourable to them as they are making it out to be.


Small point of order - it's the NRCoT

Hi Watershed and others,

By way of update, they replied very quickly with some other information, but the summary was:
"With regard to the ticket evidence you have provided for Sat 4th May 2024, as a gesture of good faith, as you appear to have purchased a replacement ticket for this journey and the return leg, I have removed this fare from our calculations.
Network Railcards: I have removed the tickets with a Network railcard discount applied on the advice that this was purchased for your mother and evidence of her railcard received.
As the account holder for your Trainline account, it is your responsibility to ensure that correct tickets are purchased for travel and supporting documentation is available to support railcard discount if this has been applied. It is noted in your ticket history that there are group purchases and multiple tickets purchased on some dates. These have been removed from our calculations as we cannot identify which ticket you will have travelled on within the group purchases or if a member of the group held a valid railcard. The tickets listed in our calculations are for single passenger at times when there is no accompanying ticket for a passenger either with no discount or a valid railcard discount. If you have purchased any of these tickets for other persons, please provide evidence of forwarding these tickets on and evidence of applicable railcard for these tickets in order for these to be removed from calculations.
I have attached an updated calculation spreadsheet, the amount outstanding is now £945.85, this consists of £855.85 in outstanding fares plus our standard £90.00 administration charge which is applied to all cases reported to our office.
I appreciate that the amount of £945.85 is a significant sum to find, and I am therefore prepared to accept payment in instalments to clear this debt. I propose that the settlement figure be paid over the next 9 months; with an initial instalment of £145.85 followed by 8 monthly instalments of £100.00".

I have replied with an edited version of your draft on the other thread, a bank transaction I found for the 16-17 railcard back in 2023, and some other full-price tickets. Happy to send it to you privately if you are interested in reading it.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi Watershed and others,

By way of update, they replied very quickly with some other information, but the summary was:
"With regard to the ticket evidence you have provided for Sat 4th May 2024, as a gesture of good faith, as you appear to have purchased a replacement ticket for this journey and the return leg, I have removed this fare from our calculations.
Network Railcards: I have removed the tickets with a Network railcard discount applied on the advice that this was purchased for your mother and evidence of her railcard received.
As the account holder for your Trainline account, it is your responsibility to ensure that correct tickets are purchased for travel and supporting documentation is available to support railcard discount if this has been applied. It is noted in your ticket history that there are group purchases and multiple tickets purchased on some dates. These have been removed from our calculations as we cannot identify which ticket you will have travelled on within the group purchases or if a member of the group held a valid railcard. The tickets listed in our calculations are for single passenger at times when there is no accompanying ticket for a passenger either with no discount or a valid railcard discount. If you have purchased any of these tickets for other persons, please provide evidence of forwarding these tickets on and evidence of applicable railcard for these tickets in order for these to be removed from calculations.
I have attached an updated calculation spreadsheet, the amount outstanding is now £945.85, this consists of £855.85 in outstanding fares plus our standard £90.00 administration charge which is applied to all cases reported to our office.
I appreciate that the amount of £945.85 is a significant sum to find, and I am therefore prepared to accept payment in instalments to clear this debt. I propose that the settlement figure be paid over the next 9 months; with an initial instalment of £145.85 followed by 8 monthly instalments of £100.00".

I have replied with an edited version of your draft on the other thread, a bank transaction I found for the 16-17 railcard back in 2023, and some other full-price tickets. Happy to send it to you privately if you are interested in reading it.

so FWIW from me some general observations on this

a - they are 'negotiating' with you - although by not very much (so they may continue to do so....)
b - installments offer is interesting - not seen that before
c - their admin fee is at the lower end of the spectrum of wat we see
d - they do want to see these railcards (tho maybe other evidence might help at least) - as an aside and generally with these sorts of requests from TOCs I find this a tricky one from a personal point of view - I've had railcards nearly every year for many years, always buying physical railcards at the ticket office as is my habit. I'd throw them away when they expired usually - I did find some old ones in a drawer that I'd not cleared out but I wouldn't have recalled they were there if I'd been asked for them. The railway must know that supplying them from years ago is not going to be easy for many people - even digital ones if you maintained a tidy in box I'd not keep e-mails proving purchase from years back etc.
e - they seem to not believe (if I read it right) that tickets bought with discounts when one ticket alone was bought, was bought for another person (ie not used illegitimately by you).

 

[Dai Corner]

Is a screenshot a valid ticket?

Yes

So the screenshot of the 16-17 Railcard discounted ticket would have been scanned and accepted when presented by the holder on a different train to that the OP travelled on,or by the barriers at one or both ends of the journey. If GWR have a record of this it would be evidence that the ticket was bought by the OP but used by someone else.

Unless I've missed something?

 

[AlterEgo]

So the screenshot of the 16-17 Railcard discounted ticket would have been scanned and accepted when presented by the holder on a different train to that the OP travelled on,or by the barriers at one or both ends of the journey. If GWR have a record of this it would be evidence that the ticket was bought by the OP but used by someone else.

Indeed. One could ask them to check the scan record. But it is worth noting that GWR note the OP purchased a "replacement" ticket, not accepting that she had, in fact, purchased two simultaneous tickets at the same time. Their wording implies they are removing the fare from their calculations because the OP subsequently purchased a *replacement* to correct the wrongly held fare.

 

[anonymousdxb]

so FWIW from me some general observations on this

a - they are 'negotiating' with you - although by not very much (so they may continue to do so....)
b - installments offer is interesting - not seen that before
c - their admin fee is at the lower end of the spectrum of wat we see
d - they do want to see these railcards (tho maybe other evidence might help at least) - as an aside and generally with these sorts of requests from TOCs I find this a tricky one from a personal point of view - I've had railcards nearly every year for many years, always buying physical railcards at the ticket office as is my habit. I'd throw them away when they expired usually - I did find some old ones in a drawer that I'd not cleared out but I wouldn't have recalled they were there if I'd been asked for them. The railway must know that supplying them from years ago is not going to be easy for many people - even digital ones if you maintained a tidy in box I'd not keep e-mails proving purchase from years back etc.
e - they seem to not believe (if I read it right) that tickets bought with discounts when one ticket alone was bought, was bought for another person (ie not used illegitimately by you).

a - yep exactly. I am trying negotiate back with the points you made in the draft on the other thread
b - certainly helpful, though I will probably pay any amount outstanding in full as I don't want to see this issue again!
c - i thought it was a flat £90 fee? i'd be happy to forego it if they dropped the charges from other TOCs
d - exactly my problem. obviously if you have a railcard account it is easy to prove, e.g. for myself and my mothers railcards. but my family obviously preferred doing it on the telephone / in person which means there's virtually no paper trail. If they had used cash, there would literally be NO evidence of it at all.

So the screenshot of the 16-17 Railcard discounted ticket would have been scanned and accepted when presented by the holder on a different train to that the OP travelled on,or by the barriers at one or both ends of the journey. If GWR have a record of this it would be evidence that the ticket was bought by the OP but used by someone else.

Unless I've missed something?

Yes! the two tickets for both legs were scanned and used by 2 different people, I did mention this, but not sure they've clocked. Also, I think it still doesn't prove that that person had a valid railcard I guess ....? I don't know if worth pursuing though since they've written it off as goodwill apparently

 

[Fawkes Cat]

c - i thought it was a flat £90 fee? i'd be happy to forego it if they dropped the charges from other TOCs

As @WesternLancer comments, this is very much at the lower end of what is charged as an 'admin fee'. So practically speaking I would suggest not worrying about it: it's only around 10% of the amount now demanded, and it seems to me that you would do better trying to resolve as many of the disputed fares in your favour.

 

[SuspectUsual]

As @WesternLancer comments, this is very much at the lower end of what is charged as an 'admin fee'. So practically speaking I would suggest not worrying about it: it's only around 10% of the amount now demanded, and it seems to me that you would do better trying to resolve as many of the disputed fares in your favour.

....and pragmatically, each round of this ongoing negotiation process is taking up time and resources, so I'd argue £90 is an excellent result in the circumstances

 

[AdamWW]

By way of update, they replied very quickly with some other information, but the summary was:
"...
As the account holder for your Trainline account, it is your responsibility to ensure that correct tickets are purchased for travel and supporting documentation is available to support railcard discount if this has been applied ...."

I don't use the Trainline and have never read their terms and conditions.

Does it really put this liability on the account holder? It doesn't sound terribly reasonable to me, particularly as their implication is that such "supporting documention" should be retained indefinitely.

 

[Watershed]

I don't use the Trainline and have never read their terms and conditions.

Does it really put this liability on the account holder? It doesn't sound terribly reasonable to me, particularly as their implication is that such "supporting documention" should be retained indefinitely.

It is obvious nonsense (not contained anywhere in Trainline's terms) that GWR are trying to use to try and justify their sweeping claims that any tickets bought through the account must have been used by the OP.

 

[anonymousdxb]

It is obvious nonsense (not contained anywhere in Trainline's terms) that GWR are trying to use to try and justify their sweeping claims that any tickets bought through the account must have been used by the OP.

URGENT ADVICE REQUIRED - I have just had this response:

"I have looked further into the Ticket report we have received and can confirm that an undiscounted ticket was purchased for travel on 28th March 2024 and have therefore removed this ticket from our calculations, I apologise for this ticket inclusion in our original calculations. I have further reviewed the full ticket report to ensure no other instances of tickets discounted with a 16-17 Saver Railcard were purchased for travel alongside an undiscounted or correctly discounted ticket, It is noted that on 5th January 2024 a ticket was purchased alongside an undiscounted ticket, this ticket was already excluded from our calculations.

I appreciate that you have provided evidence of purchase of a 16-17 Saver Railcard. There is no confirmation of who this railcard is assigned to and it is not linked to your Trainline account.

You presented at ticket with a 16-17 Saver Railcard discount applied when approached for ticket inspection at 12:27 on 4th May 2024, the undiscounted ticket you have provided in a previous email as evidence was purchased after travel on 4th May 2024, the ticket purchased at 14:34 was not valid for the journey you had undertaken, I have however, accepted in good faith that you purchased a replacement ticket xkand removed this journey from our calculations. You had applied a railcard discount to this ticket when you did not own any Railcard. Applying a railcard discount to tickets when you do not own a railcard is fare evasion.

Your responsibilities when travelling with a railcard:

While I appreciate that you had purchased tickets for your journey, they weren’t valid for you to travel on without a valid 16-17 Saver Railcard and it is up to you to make sure you carry with you a valid railcard to support the discount you have applied to your tickets. You must also make sure that you have purchased the correct ticket for your journey, if you have applied a railcard discount to your ticket, that you have a valid railcard for that discount and you fully understand any restrictions of that discounted ticket.

You must carry a valid railcard to support the discount you have applied to your ticket, and as per the terms and conditions of use for railcards, section 2.9, if you fail to produce a valid railcard you will be charged the full fare for your journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting your journey.

In order to remove any further tickets with 16-17 Saver Railcard applied I will require evidence that these tickets were not used by yourself.

In answer to your concerns :

1. Lack of legal basis for administration charge
   The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy : https://www.gwr.com/-/media/gwr-sc-...Revenue-Protection-Policy-January-2023-v2.pdf This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme.
2. Lack of legal basis to recover fares for journeys you were not part of

This defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day stated that when purchasing a train ticket, you entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company). Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.

Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.

1. Non-applicability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1 / 4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable

4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable. If you do not agree, and do not wish to repay the outstanding amount (or enter in a repayment plan to do so) we have no option but to commence Civil Recovery proceedings.

As requested, I have extended the period for full settlement by a further 7 days to Wednesday 17th December 2025, alternatively, you can avail of the option for a payment plan as advised in my previous email."

 

[anothertyke]

I don't use the Trainline and have never read their terms and conditions.

Does it really put this liability on the account holder? It doesn't sound terribly reasonable to me, particularly as their implication is that such "supporting documention" should be retained indefinitely.

Is it any different from going down to the station and buying a ticket with a senior railcard? It must be a condition on the cardholder that you warrant that the traveller is entitled to travel with the card. Isn't this just the on line equivalent? If you wanted to tighten that up, you would have to enter the card details when buying the ticket.

 

[MotCO]

Is it any different from going down to the station and buying a ticket with a senior railcard? It must be a condition on the cardholder that you warrant that the traveller is entitled to travel with the card. Isn't this just the on line equivalent? If you wanted to tighten that up, you would have to enter the card details when buying the ticket.

I think the issue is that you are buying tickets for someone else who has a railcard - should the purchaser be liable for ensuring that the ticket bought for someone else has got their railcard with them?

 

[anothertyke]

I think the issue is that you are buying tickets for someone else who has a railcard - should the purchaser be liable for ensuring that the ticket bought for someone else has got their railcard with them?

There is the 'should' question and the 'is' question. So in this case, is @sabrina liable if the person for whom she buys a discounted ticket does not have a valid railcard? Surely there must be caselaw on this?

 

[SuspectUsual]

GWR letter said "Applying a railcard discount to tickets when you do not own a railcard is fare evasion"

GWR talking out of their backsides there. If they'd said "applying a railcard to tickets that you then use yourself when you do not own a railcard is fare evasion" then fair enough

 

[Fawkes Cat]

URGENT ADVICE REQUIRED - I have just had this response:

"I have looked further into the Ticket report we have received and can confirm that an undiscounted ticket was purchased for travel on 28th March 2024 and have therefore removed this ticket from our calculations, I apologise for this ticket inclusion in our original calculations. I have further reviewed the full ticket report to ensure no other instances of tickets discounted with a 16-17 Saver Railcard were purchased for travel alongside an undiscounted or correctly discounted ticket, It is noted that on 5th January 2024 a ticket was purchased alongside an undiscounted ticket, this ticket was already excluded from our calculations.

I appreciate that you have provided evidence of purchase of a 16-17 Saver Railcard. There is no confirmation of who this railcard is assigned to and it is not linked to your Trainline account. Applying a railcard discount to tickets when you do not own a railcard is fare evasion.

Your responsibilities when travelling with a railcard:

While I appreciate that you had purchased tickets for your journey, they weren’t valid for you to travel on without a valid 16-17 Saver Railcard and it is up to you to make sure you carry with you a valid railcard to support the discount you have applied to your tickets. You must also make sure that you have purchased the correct ticket for your journey, if you have applied a railcard discount to your ticket, that you have a valid railcard for that discount and you fully understand any restrictions of that discounted ticket.

You must carry a valid railcard to support the discount you have applied to your ticket, and as per the terms and conditions of use for railcards, section 2.9, if you fail to produce a valid railcard you will be charged the full fare for your journey, as if no ticket had been purchased before starting your journey.

In order to remove any further tickets with 16-17 Saver Railcard applied I will require evidence that these tickets were not used by yourself.

In answer to your concerns :

1. Lack of legal basis for administration charge
   The administration charge is mentioned in GWR’s revenue protection policy : https://www.gwr.com/-/media/gwr-sc-...Revenue-Protection-Policy-January-2023-v2.pdf This charge is levied to help pay towards the costs of administering the scheme.
2. Lack of legal basis to recover fares for journeys you were not part of

This defence was raised during an appeal hearing at the High Court, the Judge on that day stated that when purchasing a train ticket, you entered into a contract with all train companies (otherwise you would have to buy separate tickets from each company). Therefore, recovering outstanding monies from other train companies is allowed.

Also, as all train companies are Government funded any monies recovered are passed to Central Government, so GWR do not profit.

1. Non-applicability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1 / 4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable

4) Non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1

GWR do not believe your interpretation of the NRCot is correct and do not accept that the amount outstanding is unenforceable. If you do not agree, and do not wish to repay the outstanding amount (or enter in a repayment plan to do so) we have no option but to commence Civil Recovery proceedings.

As requested, I have extended the period for full settlement by a further 7 days to Wednesday 17th December 2025, alternatively, you can avail of the option for a payment plan as advised in my previous email."

I'm mainly quoting this to get the thread back on track rather than the interesting but ultimately irrelevant rabbithole that we seem to be going down.

OP - please bear with us. You're right to want to resolve this sooner rather than later, but GWR's deadline is several weeks away. So please give us a little time to think through quite what the best way for you to respond would be.

In the meantime, can you update us on what would be an acceptable outcome to you? Is your priority not to pay anything to the railway, or to keep out if court (whether criminal or civil)? If you would be prepared to pay to bring it to an end, what would you be prepared to pay? Or is sorting things out quickly the main point? These are questions which are less to do with getting absolute justice, but which could help us give you a steer on how to negotiate with GWR.

 

[anonymousdxb]

I'm mainly quoting this to get the thread back on track rather than the interesting but ultimately irrelevant rabbithole that we seem to be going down.

OP - please bear with us. You're right to want to resolve this sooner rather than later, but GWR's deadline is several weeks away. So please give us a little time to think through quite what the best way for you to respond would be.

In the meantime, can you update us on what would be an acceptable outcome to you? Is your priority not to pay anything to the railway, or to keep out if court (whether criminal or civil)? If you would be prepared to pay to bring it to an end, what would you be prepared to pay? Or is sorting things out quickly the main point? These are questions which are less to do with getting absolute justice, but which could help us give you a steer on how to negotiate with GWR.

Hi Fawkes Cat,

Completely agree, I need to manage my anxiety because the deadline is a while away and they have been very prompt with their replies, actually (once a day in fact).

I have actually replied to them with the following: "Whilst I go through these legal points and transactions, could you please advise on what sort of evidence you would find acceptable for "In order to remove any further tickets with 16-17 Saver Railcard applied I will require evidence that these tickets were not used by yourself." Items off the top of my head that I could provide are work records, boarding passes, photos of me in other locations with timestamps, etc.".

The best outcome would obviously be not paying at all, or paying a nominal sum (under £300), though I am finding their methodology of calculating liability rather unfair.

I was thinking of sending @Watershed's draft in another similar thread:

Dear [contact at GWR],

Thank you for allowing me the time to review and respond.

Regarding point 1 about the legal basis for the administration charges, your Revenue Protection policy does not form part of the NRCoT and therefore, stating your intention to charge administration fees in that policy does not provide you with a legal basis for recovering them in Court.

Regarding point 2 about recovering fares on behalf of other operators, you have not substantiated your claim that you are authorised to pursue fares on behalf of other operators. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot accept the potential 'double jeopardy' this would otherwise open me up to, should these other operators later choose to pursue claims against me.

You have not cited the High Court case that you have referred to; in the absence of a citation and transcript I am unable to verify the ruling. I would request that you provide me with these details, if you wish to rely on them.

I would also reiterate that the NRCoT wording is clear as to the only train companies which there is a contract with: "When you buy a Ticket ... you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use." You were not a party to the contract for journeys that took place outside of your network; therefore, you have no standing to pursue any contractual debts allegedly arising from them.

Regarding points 3 and 4 about the applicability and enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1, you have not explained why you disagree with my interpretation. The Civil Procedure Rules and the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct encourage parties to minimise the areas in dispute before any legal action; therefore, by failing to explain your position this may cause more areas to remain disputed than is strictly necessary.

It is unfortunate you have rejected my previous settlement offer of repaying the discounts incorrectly obtained. I believe this to be a reasonable and proportionate outcome for this matter in view of the legal position which I have set out. I have at your request provided previous information and valid Railcards for allegations against invalid travel dating back to 2018 in my previous correspondence, demonstrating my cooperation with you.

However, as you will appreciate, I cannot accept liability for substantial amounts which you have no legal basis to recover. Should you remain unwilling to accept my settlement offer, I will therefore have no choice but to defend the disputed portion of any legal claim - on the grounds I have previously set out.

Yours sincerely,
[name]

 

[SuspectUsual]

The risk if the OP pushes ahead with the "GWR can't get involved with other train companies' business" line is that GWR pass the relevant information to those companies and they then get in touch with the OP, and the whole process then starts again.

Surely the better course of action is to reach a single acceptable settlement and move on?

 

[Stephen42]

Is it any different from going down to the station and buying a ticket with a senior railcard? It must be a condition on the cardholder that you warrant that the traveller is entitled to travel with the card. Isn't this just the on line equivalent? If you wanted to tighten that up, you would have to enter the card details when buying the ticket.

There is no requirement in their terms and conditions that you must check the validity of a railcard when purchasing on behalf of someone else. If someone informs you they do have a railcard and book the ticket on that basis there appears no offence for the ticket buyer. The person travelling isn't doing so on a valid ticket and could be liable but that's on them.

The complication here is that the purchaser has presented a ticket with a railcard at one point (even if done unintentionally). The question for recovery is whether the tickets bought alone with railcards are more likely than not to have been used by the purchaser and not another person. If it is another person then GWR could initiate recovery against them if they believed they did not have that railcard, but that's not relevant to the OPs case.

After double checking the trainline conditions, the latest reply from GWR I think might be missing a sentence/paragraph I recalled on first reading. For the OP, the advice given here may be different if relevant information from GWRs response isn't included. Would be worth double checking every part is still included with any personal information redacted.

 

[anonymousdxb]

The risk if the OP pushes ahead with the "GWR can't get involved with other train companies' business" line is that GWR pass the relevant information to those companies and they then get in touch with the OP, and the whole process then starts again.

Surely the better course of action is to reach a single acceptable settlement and move on?

I think the issue is that, regardless of whether I settle or not, GWR are still able to notify other companies, and those other companies are still entitled to pursue a civil claim as well, in which case I would be liable to pay two parties for the same transaction.

There is no requirement in their terms and conditions that you must check the validity of a railcard when purchasing on behalf of someone else. If someone informs you they do have a railcard and book the ticket on that basis there appears no offence for the ticket buyer. The person travelling isn't doing so on a valid ticket and could be liable but that's on them.

The complication here is that the purchaser has presented a ticket with a railcard at one point (even if done unintentionally). The question for recovery is whether the tickets bought alone with railcards are more likely than not to have been used by the purchaser and not another person. If it is another person then GWR could initiate recovery against them if they believed they did not have that railcard, but that's not relevant to the OPs case.

After double checking the trainline conditions, the latest reply from GWR I think might be missing a sentence/paragraph I recalled on first reading. For the OP, the advice given here may be different if relevant information from GWRs response isn't included. Would be worth double checking every part is still included with any personal information redacted.

I have returned the paragraph.

Basically, I was mistaken in the events of 4 May (GENUINELY MISTAKEN RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED). I removed it because the fares have been written off, and I wanted us to focus on the outstanding issues, not trying to hide anything. Basically, I thought I had two tickets purchased at the same time when I encountered the inspector, but I didn't. I think what happened was that I got on the train with only my friend's ticket purchased, having forgotten to purchase my own non-discounted ticket. Didn't realise and showed the discounted ticket to the inspector, got into trouble obviously and got the 'Intention to Prosecute' where they don't charge you anything on the spot. I then purchased the correct return tickets of my own volition, and all 4 tickets were scanned and used by me and my friend at different times on different trains. Regardless, those fares have been written off, so I'm not tempted to dig too much into them. Though maybe worth just being transparent with them about this since I genuinely misremembered the specific chronology of purchasing the 2 return tickets and encountering the ticket inspector on 4 May. This might sound ridiculous but I was like 25 and completely in charge of organising a full family holiday with 6 people coming from different places; I had booked all the trains, flights, rental cars, the accommodation etc. I think I just lost track of everything at the time, especially with the panic and migraine on the day, and have now even further misremembered the details of what happened after a year and a half.

 

[AlterEgo]

The buried lede is that GWR don't believe a 16-17 Saver holder used those tickets because the OP has not provided even rudimentary evidence of that, but has provided said evidence for their mother's Network Railcard.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2025 ==

Basically, I was mistaken in the events of 4 May (GENUINELY MISTAKEN RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAD HAPPENED). I removed it because the fares have been written off, and I wanted us to focus on the outstanding issues, not trying to hide anything. Basically, I thought I had two tickets purchased at the same time when I encountered the inspector, but I didn't. I think what happened was that I got on the train with only my friend's ticket purchased, having forgotten to purchase my own non-discounted ticket.

This is extremely important and is informing GWR's opinion of the likelihood of you being honest about the other fares.

 

[anonymousdxb]

The buried lede is that GWR don't believe a 16-17 Saver holder used those tickets because the OP has not provided even rudimentary evidence of that, but has provided said evidence for their mother's Network Railcard.

I have sent them a bank transaction from 2023 with the date and everything, which is why she is open to receiving more evidence that proves I wasn't there. I'm waiting to see what evidence she requires.

This is extremely important and is informing GWR's opinion of the likelihood of you being honest about the other fares.

Yes, I thought that maybe it is worth me re-explaining what happened and addressing what she said, though on the other hand I don't want to discuss issues which in theory have been closed. Keen for any guidance really.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have sent them a bank transaction from 2023 with the date and everything, which is why she is open to receiving more evidence that proves I wasn't there. I'm waiting to see what evidence she requires.

Yes, I thought that maybe it is worth me re-explaining what happened and addressing what she said, though on the other hand I don't want to discuss issues which in theory have been closed. Keen for any guidance really.

They have closed this part of the case because you bought a *replacement ticket* so cannot claim the cost of it. But the mechanics of that case are you bought *only a 16-17 Saver ticket* and used it until you were caught. That is the fundamental difference. GWR want to see evidence that it wasn't the case for other occasions too. GWR believe that the transactions where only a 16-17 Saver ticket was purchased was an occasion where you travelled and happened not to be picked up, and are contending that a loss has been suffered by this.

 

[anonymousdxb]

They have closed this part of the case because you bought a *replacement ticket* so cannot claim the cost of it. But the mechanics of that case are you bought *only a 16-17 Saver ticket* and used it until you were caught. That is the fundamental difference. GWR want to see evidence that it wasn't the case for other occasions too. GWR believe that the transactions where only a 16-17 Saver ticket was purchased was an occasion where you travelled and happened not to be picked up, and are contending that a loss has been suffered by this.

Yep this is all correct. Only issue is that all 4 tickets were scanned at different times so they were obviously used by different people. There were several other occasions in which a full-price ticket was purchased (and never refunded) alongside a discounted ticket and all tickets were used and none were ever refunded.

I think that what I maybe could say is

"Thank you for flagging the time stamps of purchase; I noticed something was amiss and I now realise that I had misremembered exactly what happened. I have carefully looked at all the time stamps of purchases of tickets and which trains people actually took by looking back at my messages with my family to work out exactly what happened on 4 May 2024. I previously misremembered the chain of events and therefore inadvertently misrepresented them in my earlier email.

It was always my responsibility to purchase 2 return tickets for 4 May returning 14 May, London to Newton Abbot. One person had a railcard entitlement and the other was me, who did not. Chain of events: I purchased tickets on 4 May morning for myself, accidentally adding the railcard and then unknowingly used them. After being flagged, and knowing that we needed 2 return trains anwyay, I later purchased the second set of full-price tickets that we needed, which I should have done in the first instance. I gave the first leg of the non-railcard ticket to my friend to use on the evening train even though they had a railard, and then on the return, we returned to using the correct tickets that we should have done in the first place (effectively swapped back). If GWR look at when the tickets were scanned, this will be corrobrated by times when the tickets were scanned (4 May: I was on the morning train, and my friend arrived in the evening, 14 May: I was again on the morning train and they left later in the afternoon). At the time, I figured that GWR got the full amount of money they were always entitled to (1 full fare and 1 discounted fare), and that I could clarify the issue, which I attempted to do via email and phone after the event, especially since this was my first time fare evasion offence. I now realise that (regardless of it being an honest mix-up amidst a planning the whole of a 6-person family holiday with people arriving from different places, coupled with panic, a migraine) that this is fare evasion. I am happy for you to reinstate these train tickets and pay the difference for the one-way leg in which I used a ticket I wasn't entitled to and was flagged by the ticket inspector. However, these were not 'replacement tickets', because all 4 legs were still used and at different times on the same days. The reason I wanted to get to the bottom of all of this is because I wanted to clarify that this was a one-off incident of accidental fare evasion, not a pattern of behaviour. As you can see from my other train travel, there are other occasions when I purchased tickets for myself which were undiscounted. For example, in Devon between 30 March - 3 April, I had a rental car in my own name (which I can provide you the details of) so I know for a fact that it wasn't me who took those discounted trains."

 

[AlterEgo]

Yep this is all correct. Only issue is that all 4 tickets were scanned at different times so they were obviously used by different people.

How do you know they were all scanned?

There were several other occasions in which a full-price ticket was purchased (and never refunded) alongside a discounted ticket and all tickets were used and none were ever refunded.

They have discarded those from their investigations haven't they?

 

[fandroid]

Back to the issue of GWR pursuing unpaid fares on behalf of other TOCs. I'm flying a kite here so bear with me. Could the OP make a direct request to GWR to indemnify her against claims from those TOCs for the specific journeys under discussion. This could result in two possible outcomes - either GWR say yes, and provide the indemnity, or they realise that they cannot do that, and then realise the weakness of their demands and drop those journeys from the claim