Help! Prosecution letter's arrived

[hawaii2468]

After 12 days it finally arrived although I thought it would never come. The contents are just shocking, I was asked not only the 5.50 Pounds ticket fare but also a 20.00 pounds Admin charge.

Please find the attached letter and my valid ticket and network railcard. A bigger version is available by request. Could you please help me with this drama?

BTW I was quite angry that it was recorded as from London Euston - St Albans Abbey while my ticket was absolutely valid for London Euston.

 

[Flamingo]

A few more details needed. What train were you on, was this ticket with you, did you have the NSE railcard with you? (My bad, misread the station names).

(BTW, a £20 admin charge seems on the lower end - I'd be inclined to pay it)

 

[Lampshade]

Hmm, are St Albans and St Albans Abbey tickets both interchangeable? I read somewhere that St Albans tickets aren't valid to Abbey.

 

[LexyBoy]

A few more details needed. What train were you on, was this ticket with you, did you have the NSE railcard with you?

(BTW, a £20 admin charge seems on the lower end)

Hmm, are St Albans and St Albans Abbey tickets both interchangeable? I read somewhere that St Albans tickets aren't valid to Abbey.

Here is OP's original thread.

BTW, it's not a prosecution letter, just a demand for payment. There's no legal implication of it (yet).

 

[Flamingo]

Here is OP's original thread.

BTW, it's not a prosecution letter, just a demand for payment. There's no legal implication of it (yet).

OK, from skimming that thread there is an approx £5 difference between the fare paid and the journey travelled, and a £20 admin charge is not too bad, compared with some.

 

[Royston Vasey]

As established in the previous thread, St Albans and St Albans Abbey are not grouped stations and are separate flows with separate operators.

I think you should pay it - the penalty could have been a much larger amount, though I would stop short of saying you have been lucky!

 

[hawaii2468]

Please read my other post "Help, St Albans to London zone 1 - 6 Travel card"

Of course I have everything (ticket and network railcard with me)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's not just the price that I am going to pay but I also want my justice.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Please read my other post "Help, St Albans to London zone 1 - 6 Travel card"

Of course I have everything (ticket and network railcard with me)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It's not just the price that I am going to pay but I also want my justice.

What justice? Your ticket wasn't valid, although it is a very understandable mistake given the similarity of the station names.

 

[LexyBoy]

OK, from skimming that thread there is an approx £5 difference between the fare paid and the journey travelled, and a £20 admin charge is not too bad, compared with some.

OP was charged for a BZ6-SAA single (I think), and held a "St Albans" Day Travelcard.

Two points from that thread:
1) The average punter isn't going to know that a ticket to "St Albans" means "St Albans Thameslink" only;
2) LM's own online Journey Planner offers a £15.00 SAC-Z1256 Day Travelcard as being valid via SAA and WFJ (here).

To OP: It's my understanding that you can appeal/dispute this with the TOC in question without legal proceedings being started, however, I'd wait for someone more knowledgeable than me to post/PM you!

IMO, it's completely nuts for these to be two separate flows. They should be separated by a routeing, with an "Any Permitted" available which means just that.

 

[hawaii2468]

I have never tried to evade a ticket for travelling before, not even tried to take a chance. Paying this penalthy makes me feel that I had committed one and also makes me feel guilty. ... It's a shame to me.

 

[MikeWh]

My opinion has not changed since your earlier thread. Watford Junction is an associated roueting point for St Albans so to make use of it as a routeing point it must be acceptable to walk between the two St Albans stations at the start or end of the journey. The fare from Watford Junction to London zones 1-6 is cheaper than the fare from St Albans to London zones 1-6, therefore the route should be valid. The fact that London Midland's own website will sell you the ticket you held with an itinerary which includes the route you took means that I can see no justification for this demand.

There are other members here who are more adept at assisting with letters than me, but unless they can see a flaw in my thinking I suggest that you wait until they have commented.

 

[Stigy]

From skimming through the other thread, it sounds as though the RPI reported you for consideration of prosecution, hence why there was no paperwork on the day. It seems also, as though LM are prepared to settle the matter in a civil manner, administratively. This seems like the most fair outcome given the situation, and will save a trip to the Magistrates' Court to answer, at best, a charge under Railway Byelaws, and a much more hefty penalty, plus criminal record!

 

[OwlMan]

My opinion has not changed since your earlier thread. Watford Junction is an associated roueting point for St Albans so to make use of it as a routeing point it must be acceptable to walk between the two St Albans stations at the start or end of the journey. The fare from Watford Junction to London zones 1-6 is cheaper than the fare from St Albans to London zones 1-6, therefore the route should be valid. The fact that London Midland's own website will sell you the ticket you held with an itinerary which includes the route you took means that I can see no justification for this demand............

Are you sure that the routeing points come into it?
A travelcard consists of a journey from the origin station to the first station in the travelcard zone plus a travelcard.

It could be argued that as Borehamwood & Elstree (the nearest station in zone 6 to St Albans) has a common routeing point of West Hampstead, and therefore the only permitted route between St Albans & BZ6 is the shortest i.e. direct to Borehamwood & Elstree.

Peter

 

[hawaii2468]

From skimming through the other thread, it sounds as though the RPI reported you for consideration of prosecution, hence why there was no paperwork on the day. It seems also, as though LM are prepared to settle the matter in a civil manner, administratively. This seems like the most fair outcome given the situation, and will save a trip to the Magistrates' Court to answer, at best, a charge under Railway Byelaws, and a much more hefty penalty, plus criminal record!

Don't scare me! It sounds like that people should never try to appeal but just accept what is being charged.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you sure that the routeing points come into it?
A travelcard consists of a journey from the origin station to the first station in the travelcard zone plus a travelcard.

It could be argued that as Borehamwood & Elstree (the nearest station in zone 6 to St Albans) has a common routeing point of West Hampstead, and therefore the only permitted route between St Albans & BZ6 is the shortest i.e. direct to Borehamwood & Elstree.

Peter

SAC - SAA - WJC - London appears in LM website travel planner so it should be permitted route?

 

[LexyBoy]

A travelcard consists of a journey from the origin station to the first station in the travelcard zone plus a travelcard.

Do you have a source for this? National Rail says that for Seasons, a Travelcard covers travel to BZ6 "by the route shown on your ticket" [link], whilst "Day Travelcard prices include the return fare to London plus travel in Zones 1-6" [link].

It could be argued that as Borehamwood & Elstree (the nearest station in zone 6 to St Albans) has a common routeing point of West Hampstead, and therefore the only permitted route between St Albans & BZ6 is the shortest i.e. direct to Borehamwood & Elstree.

The nearest station in zone 6 to Reading is West Drayton (Hayes & Harlington & Slough RPs), but travel is also permitted via Staines, which isn't on a permitted route between Reading and West Drayton.

 

[talltim]

I think you should argue that if your ticket says St Albans, then it should be valid to St Albans. The compexities of routing points and whether equivalent tickets are available is a red herring.
From the last thread I learned that the equivalent ticket from St Albans Abbey says St Albans Abbey on it. If the TOC want the ticket from St Albans City to be only valid from/to St Albans City is should say it on it.

 

[island]

With the exception of GAINSBOROUGH, tickets valid to several stations in a group are clearly marked as such, though. For example, MANCHESTER STNS, PENGE STATIONS, BRADFORD YK STNS, LONDON TERMINALS.

 

[MikeWh]

From skimming through the other thread, it sounds as though the RPI reported you for consideration of prosecution, hence why there was no paperwork on the day. It seems also, as though LM are prepared to settle the matter in a civil manner, administratively. This seems like the most fair outcome given the situation, and will save a trip to the Magistrates' Court to answer, at best, a charge under Railway Byelaws, and a much more hefty penalty, plus criminal record!

This sort of comment really isn't helpful in cases like this. Where action as serious as courts and criminal records are concerned I think that the OP deserves more than skimming through any related evidence.

Going back to this case there are clear mitigating factors, most crucially that the LM website will sell the exact ticket purchased when the journey itinerary requested is St Albans to London via Watford Junction plus a zone 1-6 travelcard. The response to this letter is being discussed off the public forum for now. Someone will update here in due course.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but if the LM website sells that ticket and says it is valid for that journey, then surely that is the end of the matter? Its LM problem the website does / says that, and it has nothing at all to do with the passenger.

 

[Flamingo]

This sort of comment really isn't helpful in cases like this. Where action as serious as courts and criminal records are concerned I think that the OP deserves more than skimming through any related evidence.

Then let him pay a solicitor or barrister to give an opinion, not ask a bunch of anonymous posters on an internet site for their views.

 

[strange6]

Personally speaking, I would just pay them the 25 quid and be done with it. Not worth the trouble and hastle to take it any further (and you'll probably have to shell out more money in doing so)

 

[nedchester]

Personally speaking, I would just pay them the 25 quid and be done with it. Not worth the trouble and hastle to take it any further (and you'll probably have to shell out more money in doing so)

and London Midland will have won and got £25 off the OP wrongly. Good money making scheme that.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

and London Midland will have won and got £25 off the OP wrongly. Good money making scheme that.

I quote the letter:
"After 21 days, legal proceedings will begin automatically".

That sounds to me like they're pretty sure of their case.

 

[Flamingo]

and London Midland will have won and got £25 off the OP wrongly. Good money making scheme that.

OK, let him go to court and let us know what the outcome is when it's judged by an independent magistrate.

 

[MikeWh]

I quote the letter:
"After 21 days, legal proceedings will begin automatically".

That sounds to me like they're pretty sure of their case.

It wouldn't be the first time a TOC had got it wrong. FCC were pretty sure of themselves in a matter over an Oyster anomaly at Finsbury Park before a letter from TfL explained that they were wrong.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

It wouldn't be the first time a TOC had got it wrong. FCC were pretty sure of themselves in a matter over an Oyster anomaly at Finsbury Park before a letter from TfL explained that they were wrong.

As Flamingo said, let him go to court then. I wonder what the result would be...

 

[robertbishop]

I do not want to drop this case on anyone, but I remember in the original thread that the OP was offered help in advance for if he got a letter. I think this is what he is why he is creating this thread, and if anyone who followed the previous thread could help, I'm sure the case can be solved/helped quicker.

As there is a time limit on this (21 days), time is of the essence, and an expert is needed.

 

[nedchester]

I do not want to drop this case on anyone, but I remember in the original thread that the OP was offered help in advance for if he got a letter. I think this is what he is why he is creating this thread, and if anyone who followed the previous thread could help, I'm sure the case can be solved/helped quicker.

As there is a time limit on this (21 days), time is of the essence, and an expert is needed.

Indeed. I would say though, as many have, that because the ticket says St Albans and there isn't a station called St Albans then it is more than reasonable to assume that the ticket is valid from St Albans City and Abbey as they are fairly close to each other.

One solution would be to pay and then compalin to get your money back. Go through LM then Passenger focus.

I suspect that if this went to court then the OP would win but of course this is a lot of hassle.

A third alternative is to pay and then go to the local press and publicise the event. There's nothing like a bit of bad publicity to get the TOCs annoyed and made to look a fool.

 

[Mojo]

I think it's bad advice to take this to court. The best thing to do is write a letter (which is being drafted, but this is for the benefit of everyone else) and request an apology/compensation and for LM to drop the matter.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think it's bad advice to take this to court. The best thing to do is write a letter (which is being drafted, but this is for the benefit of everyone else) and request an apology/compensation and for LM to drop the matter.

Why? Surely the court is the fairest way to decide this. Whoever's in the wrong will get their knuckles rapped, whether LM or the OP. And if the OP is so confident to be requesting LM to drop the matter and to be wanting compensation then he needn't be worried about cost, as if he wins he doesn't pay.