GWR Pre-settlement offer

[Watershed]

@Watershed Unfortunately no luck. I guess I should just pay it now before it goes any further.

Well, you are no worse off than before you made the offer.

I remain of the view that it's possible to challenge at Court but it will take time and effort to do so. Only you will know whether that is a worthwhile tradeoff for the £700 they are asking for.

 

[WesternLancer]

@Watershed Unfortunately no luck. I guess I should just pay it now before it goes any further.

Thanks for your update. Its frustrating (I wonder if GWR team dealing with this and other similar such cases are following this thread? I suspect it's possible that they are).

 

[nightall]

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why you'd pay them that sum of money if you haven't done anything wrong. If there's no prospect of a criminal case, just potential for a civil case and they have no evidence that you did use the tickets yourself how can they prove that you have defrauded the railway, especially when you would have the opportunity to provide counter evidence.
Even if you had used the discounted tickets they are only entitled to the difference between the fair paid and the undiscounted same ticket (not two singles) without any administrative charges

 

[WesternLancer]

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why you'd pay them that sum of money if you haven't done anything wrong. If there's no prospect of a criminal case, just potential for a civil case and they have no evidence that you did use the tickets yourself how can they prove that you have defrauded the railway, especially when you would have the opportunity to provide counter evidence.
Even if you had used the discounted tickets they are only entitled to the difference between the fair paid and the undiscounted same ticket (not two singles) without any administrative charges

Because if you are in some professions it’s better not to have any kind of case brought against you if you can reasonably avoid it. And for some things the op does not have robust counter evidence available any more aiui.

 

[fandroid]

The other thing to consider is that a civil court will decide on the basis of the balance of probabilities, so the evidence that is required for the train company to make their case is a lot less than it would be for a criminal prosecution.

 

[nightall]

Because if you are in some professions it’s better not to have any kind of case brought against you if you can reasonably avoid it. And for some things the op does not have robust counter evidence available any more aiui.

But there's no prospect of prosecution and if the OP did loose, as long as the payment is made within the specified timeframe their won't be a CCJ so what's to loose. There's plenty of time to gather evidence. A wrong ticket was shown on 4/5/24 so they are entitled to the difference between the discounted and undiscounted tickets around £60 so you could offer that but since they've already waived that I wouldn't bother. Evidence of buying tickets isn't evidence of OP or indeed anyone using them and they'll know that. I certainly wouldn't freely offer up £700 if I'd done nothing wrong

 

[nanstallon]

If you lose a civil case (which they haven't yet brought), would the court assess the damages due to GWR as the difference between what you paid and what the court decides you should have paid? Rather than ignoring what you have already paid and awarding GWR the whole Anytime fare?

It seems that the only real argument for rolling over is the possibility that losing a civil court case could damage your career. The SRA is very harsh, and i certainly would not advise anyone to risk getting a criminal conviction which would come to the notice of the SRA. But losing a civil case does not involve moral turpitude in the way that a criminal conviction would. I don't know whether the SRA trawl through all the civil court cases to see whether anyone in the legal trade has lost a case. There is a risk that someone at GWR might out of malice tell the SRA.

Not an easy one - it is easy to say you should stand up to bullies, but the price could be high.

 

[anonymousdxb]

It is certainly possible, maybe probable, that GWR are reading this thread.

I think the regulated profession aspect is certainly true.

In court, I think the following is likely:
1) the court would only be willing to award on GWR tickets, rather than all the TOCs
2) they would award the difference in ticket prices, not the anytime single rate
3) cost to bring a claim would only be £70 which I would have to repay GWR
4) each party would pay their own legal costs (and I would probably represent myself)

= £125 + £70 = £195

This means that I could save around £500 BUT this doesn't take into account the emotional toll and time value of preparing for such an ordeal. Plus, it could raise an integrity issue with my regulator, which I would prefer to avoid.

I would really love to take them to court for all of this exploitative behaviour and such a disproportionate sum, but I think it makes more sense for someone who has more to gain from it. E.g., someone who is not in a regulated field, and someone with a £2k+ claim who could save thousands by going to court. I would love to see how that plays out and I do really think the TOCs deserve some serious regulatory action to curtail this behaviour.

Interested to hear what people think.

Making the payment now, but wondering if there is a basis for a counterclaim. Feels slightly like blackmail haha. Also could I complain to an ombudsman?

Theft Act​

​

21Blackmail.​

(1)A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a)that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b)that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

(3)A person guilty of blackmail shall on conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

[AlterEgo]

But there's no prospect of prosecution and if the OP did loose, as long as the payment is made within the specified timeframe their won't be a CCJ so what's to loose. There's plenty of time to gather evidence. A wrong ticket was shown on 4/5/24 so they are entitled to the difference between the discounted and undiscounted tickets around £60 so you could offer that but since they've already waived that I wouldn't bother. Evidence of buying tickets isn't evidence of OP or indeed anyone using them

In a criminal case, no. That is because the jury (or magistrate) has to be *sure* beyond reasonable doubt.

In a civil case where things are decided on the balance of probabilities (that is, is an event 51% likely to be true), the OP is at a disadvantage. They are refusing to name the person or people who used the 16-17 Saver tickets and have been evasive in correspondence, despite freely providing the details of their mother who used the Network Railcard tickets. This, coupled with the OP being caught red handed travelling with a 16-17 Saver ticket (and subsequently paying the right fare - neither fact is in dispute), means a court would probably decide that in fact, there is no other mysterious "young person" involved, and the OP used all the 16-17 Saver tickets.

The court only has to decide *what is more likely to be true*, not to be sure of truth.

 

[WesternLancer]

It is certainly possible, maybe probable, that GWR are reading this thread.

I think the regulated profession aspect is certainly true.

In court, I think the following is likely:
1) the court would only be willing to award on GWR tickets, rather than all the TOCs
2) they would award the difference in ticket prices, not the anytime single rate
3) cost to bring a claim would only be £70 which I would have to repay GWR
4) each party would pay their own legal costs (and I would probably represent myself)

= £125 + £70 = £195

This means that I could save around £500 BUT this doesn't take into account the emotional toll and time value of preparing for such an ordeal. Plus, it could raise an integrity issue with my regulator, which I would prefer to avoid.

I would really love to take them to court for all of this exploitative behaviour and such a disproportionate sum, but I think it makes more sense for someone who has more to gain from it. E.g., someone who is not in a regulated field, and someone with a £2k+ claim who could save thousands by going to court. I would love to see how that plays out and I do really think the TOCs deserve some serious regulatory action to curtail this behaviour.

Interested to hear what people think.

Making the payment now, but wondering if there is a basis for a counterclaim. Feels slightly like blackmail haha. Also could I complain to an ombudsman?

Well, I think your analysis here is sound.

And it would be good if someone would let this go to court, but they need to
- have time on their hands to do the leg work
- have a degree of confidence in knowing what to do
- have nothing wider to lose if they lost to the railway company

 

[anonymousdxb]

@AlterEgo I agree with your analysis of the legal system and evidentiary issues. However, I dispute the facts of my situation (again). I was not evasive in my correspondence. I provided my mum's railcard because I had access to it. I do not have access to the other railcard, as I said. GWR never asked for the person's name, and they said they wouldn't accept any other evidence than a railcard, so a witness statement, affidavit or any other evidence would have been futile. Therefore, there is nothing more I can do on this point. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it was not a replacement ticket. The 2 return tickets were both used by 2 different people. It was never bought as a 'replacement' for the original incorrect ticket; other than that I should have been on the full price ticket and they should have been on the saver ticket (which is what we did on the return journey).

I get that you don't believe me, but I don't see the benefit of rehashing these points over and over again. I'm really not sure what you gain from this thread.

@WesternLancer Thanks. Yeah, it's a shame that that person probably will never materialise. I wish there were a group action or something that people could enter into, especially if it were anonymised in some way.

I plan to send the following, but will wait for people (@Watershed) to respond before sending. I have already paid.

Please find attached my payment receipt. According to the email I received, GWR considers the matter closed.

I have settled due to the lack of progress and cooperation by GWR in resolving this matter. I have found that GWR has hardly engaged at all with my points (despite the Practice Directions), leading to a stalemate. The whole method by which GWR has calculated this settlement and conducted itself has been completely exploitative and disproportionate to the losses it claims to have suffered, considering this is a civil and contractual dispute. As such, I am forced to consider a complaint to the Rail Ombudsman and/or an application the small claims court. I am happy to hear back from GWR if they would like to discuss this. The points I plan to raise are the below:

1) Inventing case law in bad faith to threaten customers. You quoted a High Court hearing which I could never locate, and which you never provided the name of.
2) Lack of legal basis for the administration charge. Administration charges for this type of contractual civil dispute are not included in NRCoT and are therefore not incorporated by simply sticking it into a Revenue Protection Policy on its website.
3) Clipping quotes from the NRCoT in bad faith. Your correspondence quoted "When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network, you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies", deliberately clipping the end of that sentence, which is: "whose trains your Ticket allows you to use."
4) As such, the NRCoT gives GWR no right in a contractual claim to claim for journeys made on other Train Companies since it had no privity in relation to those other contracts. Furthermore, GWR refused to indemnify me in regard to these other contracts.
5) Deliberate misuse of Condition 9.2.1 of the NRCoT. Charging of the anytime single fare was clearly intended as an option open to ticket inspection staff on the day of travel and onboard the train, as it refers to "the train that you are on" in the present tense. It cannot have been intended that this would give operators such as GWR the ability to go back over the years and retrospectively charge purchasers for Anytime fares for hundreds of pounds worth of past journeys, for which they can no longer prove who took them and under what entitlement.
6) Complete disregard for the Consumer Rights Act. Section 62 states, "An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer." This is defined as meaning: "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer." Schedule 2 of the Act lists terms which may be regarded as unfair: Paragraph 6 of Part 1 includes: "A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation." A court is unlikely to find that £350 worth of rail travel (most of which was not even with GWR), with an (allegedly) incorrect 50% discount applied, would entitle GWR to a £706 sum.
7) Damages calculated have been completely punitive rather than compensatory. Insisting on a disproportionate sum is in contradiction of the Practice Directions and with the principle of English civil law, which is compensatory, not punitive.
8) Concerns regarding GDPR issues associated with GWR's data trawling and data retention via Trainline
9) Presupposition that one instance of accidental fare evasion indicates historic fare evasion and bringing such a claim for journeys 1.5-2 years in the past. I tried to resolve this matter at the time via phone and email, when I would have had access to the 16-17 railcard in question, as well as other evidence. However, GWR assumes these data-trawled historic tickets are illegitimate simply because they were purchased on my account, despite no evidence being provided that these tickets were used at all, or used by me. I, understandably, do not have the suite of evidence that I would have had at the time, and GWR has refused to cooperate regarding other types of evidence it would accept.

I hope these points are taken seriously by GWR, as this method of revenue collection is quite clearly punitive and in bad faith. I feel saddened that it has had to resort to these methods against its customers, whether fare evasion has taken place or not.

Kind regards,

 

[furlong]

Don't bother. Just let the matter drop and get on with your life.

You gave up the opportunity to argue those points by settling. GWR won't be interested and any other body will simply ask 'If you truly believe what you are writing, then why did you settle?' which fundamentally undermines your arguments. You're in M.P. territory now.

 

[AlterEgo]

@AlterEgo I agree with your analysis of the legal system and evidentiary issues. However, I dispute the facts of my situation (again). I was not evasive in my correspondence. I provided my mum's railcard because I had access to it. I do not have access to the other railcard, as I said. GWR never asked for the person's name, and they said they wouldn't accept any other evidence than a railcard, so a witness statement, affidavit or any other evidence would have been futile. Therefore, there is nothing more I can do on this point. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it was not a replacement ticket. The 2 return tickets were both used by 2 different people. It was never bought as a 'replacement' for the original incorrect ticket; other than that I should have been on the full price ticket and they should have been on the saver ticket (which is what we did on the return journey).

I get that you don't believe me, but I don't see the benefit of rehashing these points over and over again. I'm really not sure what you gain from this thread.

I don't gain anything. I'm pointing out the weaknesses in your defence to another poster who was raising points which were not relevant and would be misleading. I wasn't talking to you.

I think now you have paid, you should letter the matter lie and move on. In life, sometimes you need to understand when you are beat and when you don't hold all the cards. I think the very last thing you would want is GWR or some other party telling your regulator - and it has happened before. You have chosen the career you have chosen and this requires absolute integrity from you, and it requires you to be absolutely across your personal admin and the facts relating to any legal troubles you have. This puts you in a position of greater weakness, not strength.

On this forum there are lots of us who hover around and offer free and hopefully impartial advice to people who, wittingly or otherwise, find themselves ensnared in the greedy and sharp-toothed world of revenue protection. Many of us have great reservations about the behaviour of the train companies. We don't like them; they're greedy, they prey on people's fears, they often operate (and I use this term diplomatically) at the edge of the law. And they have the power of government on their side now. Lots of us want them taken down a peg or two, and this can lead to a desire for us to really, really hope someone, someday, takes them on. But I also think sometimes advice on this forum has unconscious bias which can veer towards getting posters to undertake actions which have limited chance of success just for the thrill of giving a train company a bloody nose.

What do you hope to gain from complaining? What, you think they'll change how they operate because someone they reckon got caught fare evading *complained about them*? Really?

The Rail Ombudsman does not deal with prosecutions cases, so there is no value in contacting them. Your mention the small claims court, but I wouldn't fancy your chances there - after all, you had the opportunity to go to the small claims court just now to duke it out with them, and didn't. You decided to settle the case.

Move on and just go be a solicitor and live your life. If you really feel strongly about it and want to actually make a difference, contact your MP.

 

[z444z]

I get that you don't believe me, but I don't see the benefit of rehashing these points over and over again. I'm really not sure what you gain from this thread.

@AlterEgo was simply laying out the facts as the court would be likely to see it. I understand you may feel attacked but everything they have done has been to help you.

This one has been an interesting read and I think you’ve reached a sensible and fairly decent outcome, having reduced the amount by 36% from £1100 to £700.

 

[Stephen42]

@AlterEgo I agree with your analysis of the legal system and evidentiary issues. However, I dispute the facts of my situation (again). I was not evasive in my correspondence. I provided my mum's railcard because I had access to it. I do not have access to the other railcard, as I said. GWR never asked for the person's name, and they said they wouldn't accept any other evidence than a railcard, so a witness statement, affidavit or any other evidence would have been futile. Therefore, there is nothing more I can do on this point. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, it was not a replacement ticket. The 2 return tickets were both used by 2 different people. It was never bought as a 'replacement' for the original incorrect ticket; other than that I should have been on the full price ticket and they should have been on the saver ticket (which is what we did on the return journey).

I get that you don't believe me, but I don't see the benefit of rehashing these points over and over again. I'm really not sure what you gain from this thread.

What evidence GWR is prepared to accept and what might sway a court on the balance of probabilities are different. As you've already paid, it's moot what evidence might be needed to win in a court case.

@WesternLancer Thanks. Yeah, it's a shame that that person probably will never materialise. I wish there were a group action or something that people could enter into, especially if it were anonymised in some way.

I plan to send the following, but will wait for people (@Watershed) to respond before sending. I have already paid.

Before sending what do you want to achieve with the course of action? Would suggest thinking about what you'd like from it, if it's worth your effort to pursue and your chance of succeeding in getting your goal.

The Rail Ombudsman does not cover complaints "where you have already accepted a decision or offer made by the Service Provider". Similarly the small claims court is unlikely to accept a claim where you have voluntarily decided to pay to settle a potential case as that is not creating an obligation on the company to pay you.

If you want to get some money back it seems unlikely they'll roll over. Similarly I doubt they will offer an apology for their actions and instead will stand by their processes or decline to answer in detail given your case is settled. There isn't an easy route to escalate and it will take even more of your time for the back & forth to progress to an acceptable outcome if you do manage to get it in the end.

 

[Haywain]

But there's no prospect of prosecution

A civil case may not be a prosecution but is still a case brought against an individual, and in some professions being the subject of civil litigation is not looked at kindly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Dec 2025 ==

I don't know whether the SRA trawl through all the civil court cases to see whether anyone in the legal trade has lost a case.

I suspect that there is an obligation to declare any court proceedings, successsful or not, to the SRA. If that is the case, failure to do so would be even more serious.

 

[Watershed]

@anonymousdxb I would concur with others that there is not much mileage in sending your proposed email.

I appreciate it would feel cathartic to do so, but it is ultimately not going to change anything. There is no angle to pursue this via the Rail Ombudsman and going to County Court is precisely what you settled in order to avoid.

As far as I can tell, your only realistic recourse here is to raise the issue with your MP. But even then, I wouldn't hold out much hope. Most MPs are fairly useless when it comes to detail-oriented matters like this. They (or realistically their entry-level assistant) will skimread your email and probably think you have been caught in some of fare evasion and now want to reduce the consequences.

The real situation is far more nuanced than that but it can be very difficult to get that across to an MP. And even if your MP understands and agrees with your point, they still only have limited powers to actually do something about this.

The point at which you paid was pretty much the end of the story on this one, I'm afraid.

 

[fandroid]

I agree with the advice given. Let's hope that drafting that email has had at least a small cathartic effect for you. Put it in a notional drawer somewhere to read later.

As you've been through this painful experience, I wonder if you'd think of joining the advisors on here? You might want to go under a different username. I'm sure the mods would be happy to oblige in that respect.
If not, best wishes for the future. I'm sure you'll be a passionate advocate for future customers/clients.

 

[saismee]

I wonder if you'd think of joining the advisors on here?

They already attempted to help in other threads and received some rude remarks from other forum members. I think for the time-being it would be better if they read the posts for a while to build up their understanding of fares/fare evasion and how TOC prosecution departments work (OP only has knowledge of GWR's civil settlement and not TfL's prosecutions, for example).

 

[WesternLancer]

As you've been through this painful experience, I wonder if you'd think of joining the advisors on here? You might want to go under a different username. I'm sure the mods would be happy to oblige in that respect.
If not, best wishes for the future. I'm sure you'll be a passionate advocate for future customers/clients.

There are certainly a small stream of cases also involving GWR over matters like this - threats of civil action to obtain money for suspected unpaid fares (a new one last night) where the OP's experience and knowledge gained might well help others.