Help facing prosecution

[Janeeebrown]

I received a letter from the transport investigation ltd saying I was facing prosecution for not having a valid ticket. I received my ticket through work and when I was on my train to Bicester north I realised my ticket said Bicester town. I looked on my phone to see if my ticket was still valid and it said I could walk from Bicester north to Bicester town. So when home on the return journey in theory I walked to the station to get on at Bicester north and then when I changed at Banbury I got stopped and they rated I had no valid ticket when online it said I could walk to the station for my journey when online it states I do? Do I have a chance of fighting this? I even offered to pay from Bicester north to Banbury but the protection staff stated there was no point. As I'm going on holiday I need to know if I have a chance so I can write a letter to them. All help appreciated thanks!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Also my letter wasn't addressed to my name it was incorrect?

 

[yorkie]

Welcome to the forum.

I am sorry to hear this.

Can you take a screenshot/photo/scan (as applicable) of any itineraries you were provided with and upload them for us to look at please?

If you were provided with an itinerary which you adhered to, then your ticket should have been accepted, and if that was indeed the case then I am more than happy to proof read any letter you wish to send, and put you in contact with people who can help.

 

[bb21]

What is your origin station?

 

[Janeeebrown]

This is what I saw on my phone. Thanks

 

[Janeeebrown]

Salisbury to Bicester town was my ticket

 

[soil]

Unfortunately tickets to Bicester Town are not valid from Bicester North. National Rail will shows itineraries, it doesn't show whether a given ticket is valid.

You are best to write saying explaining you made a mistake (and how), and offering to pay their costs to settle the matter.

 

[Janeeebrown]

Also my letter was not addressed to me legally if they went to court they would be prosecuting someone that didn't exist.

 

[soil]

A minor error in your name wouldn't affect court proceedings.

 

[Janeeebrown]

If I wrote to them explaining why I saw online and I offer to pay the costs I may be ok?

 

[yorkie]

What is stated on the itinerary provided when you (or the person who bought it for you) bought the ticket?

 

[soil]

In general these cases can be settled financially, without going to court - they do have that option, but if you attempt to settle it would be unusual that they would refuse.

 

[bb21]

Unfortunately the app AFAIK doesn't tell you what ticket you need. It only tells you the fastest route. The fastest route is not always a permitted route although many of us would assume that to be the case.

If you enter the journey on National Rail Enquiries, it clearly shows that you need two tickets.

You might have a case if this is the itinerary provided to you with the booking.

 

[soil]

What is stated on the itinerary provided when you (or the person who bought it for you) bought the ticket?

I don't think she had an itinerary, only a ticket, the validity of which she (attempted to) check using NRE.

NRE however does show that 'Multiple Tickets are required'
http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/BIT/SAL/200513/0530/dep?via=Banbury

A booking engine should not show an itinerary to Bicester Town via Banbury from the south, because it doubles back (to Kings Sutton), and because it is much longer than going via Islip.

 

[Janeeebrown]

It's what the ticket office told me to do? I said this what I do and double checked for me.

 

[yorkie]

"I received my ticket through work" - can you ask the person who bought the ticket for a copy of the itinerary that was provided? If this shows the walk, then that is evidence of a contract. If it doesn't, it's less clear-cut.

 

[bb21]

Could you be a bit more specific? Which ticket office? What conversation took place exactly?

 

[maniacmartin]

A booking engine should not show an itinerary to Bicester Town via Banbury from the south, because it doubles back (to Kings Sutton), and because it is much longer than going via Islip.

I think its because its trying to take into account easement 30132:

Journeys to Bicester North may not go via Oxford and Bicester Town. Journeys to Biceser Town
must go via Oxford. These easements apply in both directions.

and easement 700243:

Customers travelling via Oxford to Bicester North in possession of tickets routed "Not Via London"
may travel via Kings Sutton and/or Banbury. This easement applies in both directions.

These easements can be quite confusing when applied together.

Furthermore, Banbury and Kings Sutton are both members of the Banbury Routeing Group, so doubling back is allowed between them for interchange purposes only.

However, I believe that Oxford is the applicable routeing point for Bicester Town for this ticket, so the easements and Banbury routeing group are of no use alas (ie, that you cannot go via Banbury).

The official NRE iPhone and Android apps are problematic as they will quite happily show a route that isn't valid on a through ticket without warning you.