It might be worth making a quick response pointing out the previous 17 December deadline, and asking if this can be reinstated while you consider your options. As you'll be asking for something from the railway, it is of course worth grovelling a little to get the time limit back, rather than standing on your dignity and grumbling about them having reduced the time limit.
GWR appear to think there were no further 16-17 Saver or Network Railcard tickets purchased after you were caught. We know this because they pulled a spreadsheet of fares they considered suspicious and did not include any after the day you were stopped on the train.
They have, and will. Especially as the account has already had a GDPR request under prevention/detection of crime. There are many cases where the deletion of a Trainline account has resulted only in the customer blinding themselves to the data, but where agencies like the train companies or even the police have been able to freely access it. This notwithstanding, deleting your data immediately upon receipt of notification that you may be investigated for further offences (by having your data re-trawled) is not going to be a good look if this ends up in court, and a court may draw its own inference from that action.
There is, *in practice* almost no risk involved at all. I do not think we have ever seen this happen in hundreds and maybe thousands of similar cases. TOCs do collect settlements on behalf of each other, it is how the industry operates. What is less clear is GWR's authority to *collect these at County Court* rather than settling out of court, which is the normal process.
The "Revenue Inspector" probably doesn't exist, and is just a cover name for a colleague to scare you.
Indeed and if it goes to court the OP may then feel it necessary to obtain legal representation which will cost far more than the "£400" difference.
I think this post does get to a pretty important factor to weigh up for @sabrina.
Do I need to draft anything further or just go on the portal and pay it? I suppose I should tell them I've paid it.
As an aside, I get that deleting Trainline seems dodgy. I've been quite transparent that my purchasing history will be the same (mix of railcard and full-price tickets, of which some I can prove railcards for and some I might not be able to), so yeah, I just wanted to know that my liability would end at a certain point... I feel strongly that, despite individuals not always being squeaky clean, the way the railways conduct themselves is highly exploitative (inventing case law, deliberately intimidating people, inventing astronomical sums based on anytime single tickets, data trawling), and I just wanted this saga to be over.
To be honest, and I appreciate that we might all have different opinions on this. On the occasion I was flagged, it was a genuine mistake (as we have laboured in previous threads), but I had always assumed that, whether a mistake or intentional, a ticket inspector finding that you do not have the appropriate ticket would be settled by paying a reasonable penalty. Since I have now heard from GWR, I have discovered that that isn't the case (based on the reasons above: immediate criminal record or astronomic settlement). On a moral level, I thought fare evasion was a low-level offence and was treated like parking offences: you pay a fine and move on with your life. Short-faring to me was the equivalent of occasionally parking in Tesco for 5 minutes without paying, or coming back to your car 15 minutes late - relatively low risk, and nobody is significantly harmed by it, though obviously not best practice, and you are accepting the risk of a ticket (not that I do this, but just as an equivalent). Obviously, now I know that the ramifications of railway offences are much more severe and the risk-reward is certainly not worth it (especially in regulated professions or where you need a US ESTA or security clearance etc etc)
well I think if it were me I'd sleep on the options before making your final decision.
To be fair, the OP hasn't said it in so many words but I think, reading between the lines, there has been some (in their opinion) minor bending of the fare rules going on in at least some of the cases. I'd just leave well alone after paying it off. Though they may be feeling hard done by, I don't know how much of that feeling is truly justified.
This is a good point. I do have some 'fight' left in me, but I'm just concerned because everyone around me is suggesting that fighting any more is stupid. I am obviously not squeaky clean in this whole mess, but the settlement is rather out of proportion.
To me this depends on one’s ’appetite for risk’ as well as what’s at stake. And what’s at stake for the sum involved.
I don't think this escalation is something to worry about specifically. It is more about what could happen if it goes to Court. Like I've said before, I don't perceive that as a huge risk - the costs that can be awarded at Small Claims Track are quite limited - but it is something you would have to take time and effort on, if you want to defend yourself effectively.
I don't understand. It's a long thread but isn't it out-of-time for prosecution? So whatever internal shenanigans they play regarding who-does-what makes no difference to you. If they bring a civil case that just takes you towards the final step of deciding independently the actual amount of money that is due when negotiations between the two parties involved have failed. As long as you pay the amount decided in a timely manner you won't have a recorded CCJ or be declared bankrupt, so what does it matter?
Yeah, this is just regarding negotiation strategy re civil claim. I just obviously don't want it to go to court due to the costs and time involved, only to save a couple hundred quid at best (as everyone else keeps pointing out as well)
I am obviously this one, and that's why I was heavily leaning towards just paying it, but then a lawyer in my personal life and @Watershed are making me consider another counteroffer/final attempt at negotiation .... I don't know how or what that would look like though (e.g. I could just say: "offer of £400 and I can pay EoD, and see what they say")
"obviously"? This isn't a criminal court where you're in the dock. It's just a civilised negotiation through a process consisting of a sequence of steps which largely consists of paperwork. A formalised version of what you've already been doing, basically. They might even not bother if they think it's more effort than it's worth and you can still throw in the towel later and pay up if you decide it's too much trouble.
Ah crap - I spoke to my lawyer friend on the phone and she convinced me to send the following, minutes before I saw your response.
