Help with editing letter please!

[nottingham3]

Hello,

Thank you for all the help you provide on this forum. I have received an intent to prosecute letter from SWR and I would like to ask for help in editing it.

You can find the letter attached and this is my drafted response:

Dear ..

I would like to apologise for my actions, which I sincerely regret. I now understand the serious consequences and I realise that I contributed to the fare evasion costs unjustly borne by taxpayers every year. I hope that you can see, from my recent ticket history, that I have understood and learnt from this.

I would be most grateful for the opportunity to settle this matter out of court; please allow me to repay for any outstanding fares and your administrative costs incurred in dealing with this matter.

To this effect, please find attached evidence of my railcard held since late September 2021. This is when I first created an account on Trainline as I was living abroad prior to this.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond; I hope that you will consider my sincere wish to settle.

I have a question regarding the letter received: the date of 2nd October 2021 is when I created an account on Trainline and started using trains in the UK as I was living abroad prior to that; however the letter implies that my fare evasion dates back to then (which it doesn't). How should I address this?

Many thanks for all your help!

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you have any proof of the railcards you held in the past?

 

[JBuchananGB]

SWR have looked at your ticket records back to 2 October 2021. If that shows that you have been buying discounted tickets then they are entitled to ask for evidence that you held the relevant railcard. I buy my railcards from railcard.co.uk and I can see the history back to 2015. Presumably Trainline (or whoever you bought yours from) also shows the history. Then they are interested in what tickets you have been buying for your trip to and from Kingston. They will do their best to work out which journeys were made by paying the right fare (discounted with a valid railcard) from end to end, and which weren't. That is why they ask about tickets from Clapham Junction to Vauxhall, because they can see that the tickets were not scanned in at one and out at the other. They might then offer you an out of court settlement calculated at the non-discounted Anytime Single fare for each journey where the ticket was incorrect, plus about £150 for their admin costs.
As they say, without the requested information, they can bring a prosecution for the incident when you were stopped and found to have an incorrect ticket.

 

[30907]

The last paragraph reads to me as if your supplying your railcard details deals with your previous short-faring. It clearly doesn't and you haven't directly addressed this.

Bearing in mind that we are talking about a period of 2 1/2 years, I think a specific acknowledgement of repeated fare evasion is called for.

Then supply your railcard details under a separate heading - if you had one throughout there is no offence involved.

 

[John R]

I think if you replace “To this effect” with”In respect of the query about the use of a railcard”, then it makes clear that the final paragraph is only in respect of the railcard point.

I agree also that a more explicit acknowledgment in the opening para that you have been short faring would be preferable.

 

[nottingham3]

Thanks all for your help. Should I then indicate exactly how long I have been short faring? I wouldn't want them to think I have been doing it for 2.5 years (it was recently, because of money issues as I told the officer) and then prosecute me because of the length. But other posts suggested 'not incriminating yourself'. I have been saving up expecting the letter, I understand an out of court settlement is never guaranteed but I'd like to do my best to pay up and not be prosecuted, as it was such a stupid mistake which did not help my money issues ultimately.

 

[John R]

Since they’ve specifically asked you about previous instances, you need to talk about them in your reply. If they think you have been doing this since 2021, and you don’t, you need to set out very clearly why not, and give them a schedule of which cases were short fares and which weren’t. That may mean some work to go through your account, but the clearer you can be with them, the more they will think you are being cooperative, which is essential to avoid prosecution.

 

[nottingham3]

Since they’ve specifically asked you about previous instances, you need to talk about them in your reply. If they think you have been doing this since 2021, and you don’t, you need to set out very clearly why not, and give them a schedule of which cases were short fares and which weren’t. That may mean some work to go through your account, but the clearer you can be with them, the more they will think you are being cooperative, which is essential to avoid prosecution.

I edited the letter as follows - is this enough to show my willingness to collaborate? I'm sure they can check (as they mention in the email) which tickets were scanned (legit tickets) or not (short fareing) - or should I still provide the extra information?

Dear ..


In regards to the instances mentioned, I had paid a shorter fare than required for my journeys which originated from XXXX.

I would like to sincerely apologise for my actions, which I deeply regret. I now understand the serious consequences and I realise that I contributed to the fare evasion costs unjustly borne by taxpayers every year. I hope that you can see, from my recent ticket history, that I have understood and learnt from this.

I would be most grateful for the opportunity to settle this matter out of court, and pay up fully what is due; please allow me to repay for any outstanding fares and your administrative costs incurred in dealing with this matter.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond, and I wish you a good day.

 

[Hadders]

You've removed the copy of the letter you were sent that you originally put int he first post. It's difficult for me to advise without seeing exactly what SWR asked you.

Generally speaking I agree with what @John R has said. If they've referred to previous incidents then you need to 'fess up' and tell them. You've got no right to an out of court settlement at all, you need to make it easy for SWR and thinking 'I'm sure they can check...' is not the way I would choose to co-operate with their investigation.

 

[nottingham3]

You've removed the copy of the letter you were sent that you originally put int he first post. It's difficult for me to advise without seeing exactly what SWR asked you.

Generally speaking I agree with what @John R has said. If they've referred to previous incidents then you need to 'fess up' and tell them. You've got no right to an out of court settlement at all, you need to make it easy for SWR and thinking 'I'm sure they can check...' is not the way I would choose to co-operate with their investigation.

Hi Hadders, thanks for your advice - please find the letter attached. The previous incidents are found in my ticket history which they checked, not incidents as in being fined or prosecuted before. I have read elsewhere that they don't want a 'sob story' but should I include further explanations?

 

[Haywain]

They are going to want rather more than your draft letter in post #3 contains, in terms of accepting what you have done. So, you work out the number of times you have short-fared and state how many that is.

 

[nottingham3]

Also, I did not mean 'they can check' as in 'I don't want to collaborate', but rather, I'm happy to list the incidents but I guess they won't take my word and will still check. However, if that is helpful in terms of being collaborative then of course I will provide the information - I was afraid it would be seen as trying to cover up rather than being truthful.

 

[Haywain]

I'm happy to list the incidents but I guess they won't take my word and will still check. However, if that is helpful in terms of being collaborative then of course I will provide the information - I was afraid it would be seen as trying to cover up rather than being truthful.

I think you can reasonably assume that they have already checked, and it will probably be a case of wanting to see if you are going to give the same number of occasions as they have. I don't think you need to list them though, just give the number.

 

[Hadders]

I think you can reasonably assume that they have already checked, and it will probably be a case of wanting to see if you are going to give the same number of occasions as they have. I don't think you need to list them though, just give the number.

I agree with this. You need to acknowledge that you have been buying incorrect tickets since Ictober 2021, tell them you have researched your online ticket purchasing history and tell them how many times you’ve done it.