Incorrect Short Fare Accusation

[Pushpit]

do you recommend i continue doing what im doing (perfectly legal albeit i can see how it looks suspicious) to ensure i have evidence if they come back further down the line or do you think i should change what im doing immediately which may also look suspicious and will have no evidence to prove my innocence

The only test you need to apply here is, when you are about to board a train, do you have a ticket which is 100% correct for this journey. It would not surprise me if when they next do a gate block at Deansgate that your name is circulated to the RPIs there, but if at that gate block you have a correct ticket, then that is all that matters. By all means buy other tickets if cheaper / easier for you, but that's not really the point here. You only have a problem if you have done something wrong. Patterns of behaviour are just that, the AI bot can go and think again, but that's them, not you.

 

[Haywain]

I think the point is that if they do in future identify (ie catch) the OP without a valid ticket, say because they mistakenly buy a ticket after boarding, they will use the opportunity to include all the past transactions where they suspect fraudulent behaviour in any settlement offer.

I agree that past transactions could be taken into account but there won't be any time limit on that (as multiple threads attest).

 

[John R]

I agree that past transactions could be taken into account but there won't be any time limit on that (as multiple threads attest).

Agree!

 

[furlong]

Simple thing is that their letter is incomplete (so it's probably sensible to treat it with the same contempt they demonstrate towards you). They are so doubtful of their allegations that they are not even willing to put them to you in writing!

Perhaps if you ignore the letter they'll send a follow-up that does make a specific allegation that they feel would hold up in court!

Worth noting that if you were to tell them you buy a given set of multiple tickets regularly from a ticket office in cash, they will be able to confirm that by looking at the records of ticket sales - you are probably the only person that does exactly this - and they can ask the staff on duty if they recognise you as a regular customer that they serve and they can also check recent CCTV. (Or in other words, if you were to tell them this as a lie, you would be likely to be caught out. Many cash transactions are traceable these days!)


In another universe, they could have written an alternative letter, setting out something that looked unusual in the data and inviting you to help them to understand their passengers better by telling them in detail how you were actually making use of the railway, perhaps with an incentive of a small voucher for doing so. (If someone wasn't behaving, that could still have been written in a way to deter them from continuing.)

 

[gingerheid]

Just to add to all the "do not reply" people; it is statistically most likely that Nothern trains lied. They dishonestly sent a letter falsely claiming to have evidence of something that they do not (this holds true even in the event that the original poster has been shortfaring). In the alternative they may not be dishonest, but may instead be deluded, spectacularly reckless, or really really stupid.

Whichever option it is; they shouldn't be replied to. Would you give personal information to a stranger in the street in those circumstances?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2025 ==

In another universe, they could have written an alternative letter, setting out something that looked unusual in the data and inviting you to help them to understand their passengers better by telling them in detail how you were actually making use of the railway, perhaps with an incentive of a small voucher for doing so. (If someone wasn't behaving, that could still have been written in a way to deter them from continuing.)

Yup - a letter that was honest (or that didn't recklessly make statements without knowledge of whether they are true; disturbingly close to a definition of fraud).

 

[AlterEgo]

Just to add, the OP does the same journeys all the time. If the company is that bothered, go and actually stop the traveller! They’re very lazy.

 

[Chrius56000]

. . .My only advice to the O.P. is to buy ALL tickets to Deansgate or "Manchester Stations" in paper form if possible – that way Northern's A.I. robot will have nothing it can use against the O.P.!

Chris Williams

 

[Haywain]

. . .My only advice to the O.P. is to buy ALL tickets to Deansgate or "Manchester Stations" in paper form if possible – that way Northern's A.I. robot will have nothing it can use against the O.P.!

Chris Williams

Or just buy tickets that are actually both valid and cheaper than the alleged split.

 

[007Bond16]

Or just buy tickets that are actually both valid and cheaper than the alleged split.

. . .My only advice to the O.P. is to buy ALL tickets to Deansgate or "Manchester Stations" in paper form if possible – that way Northern's A.I. robot will have nothing it can use against the O.P.!

Chris Williams

Hi, tickets have always been valid but yes I completely understand your point - i’ll also be saving myself a bob or 2 by doing so. As there is just suspicion and no evidence to suggest any wrong doing other than a pattern of short journeys on the system - am i right in thinking this may just be a deterrent letter i.e make sure what your doing is legitimate/amend your purchase methods or else.. Has the forum seen instances similar in the past where OP has not actually been caught doing any wrong doing and are simply accused on suspicion?

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi, tickets have always been valid but yes I completely understand your point - i’ll also be saving myself a bob or 2 by doing so. As there is just suspicion and no evidence to suggest any wrong doing other than a pattern of short journeys on the system - am i right in thinking this may just be a deterrent letter i.e make sure what your doing is legitimate/amend your purchase methods or else.. Has the forum seen instances similar in the past where OP has not actually been caught doing any wrong doing and are simply accused on suspicion?

It happens all the time. We get multiple threads a week.

 

[007Bond16]

It happens all the time. We get multiple threads a week.

and what is the usual play out? Assuming a percentage of those are actually guilty, but with no evidence what is the common theme?

 

[saismee]

and what is the usual play out? Assuming a percentage of those are actually guilty, but with no evidence what is the common theme?

The common theme is that those who reply end up having to pay a settlement, and those who don't just receive some spam emails.

 

[AlterEgo]

and what is the usual play out? Assuming a percentage of those are actually guilty, but with no evidence what is the common theme?

Some people get spooked and pay lots of money, but those who ignore the correspondence face no consequences. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything other than these two outcomes.

 

[Haywain]

Assuming a percentage of those are actually guilty, but with no evidence what is the common theme?

The additional outcome that is beneficial to the train company is that recipients of such letters or emails actually understand the gravity of their actions and start buying the correct tickets (or stop claiming false refunds/delay repay).

 

[Hadders]

. . .My only advice to the O.P. is to buy ALL tickets to Deansgate or "Manchester Stations" in paper form if possible – that way Northern's A.I. robot will have nothing it can use against the O.P.!

Chris Williams

Any ticket purchased on line, whether paper or e-ticket can be traced.

 

[KirkstallOne]

Nothing to add in terms of advice (don't reply) but the letter seems incredibly heavy handed, it effectively threatens a 10 year prison sentence which we all know is never going to happen unless they have been selling dodgy tickets to half of the UK. Sending letters like that is highly irresponsible imo, with a high chance of causing serious anxiety for people.

 

[talldave]

Worth noting that if you were to tell them you buy a given set of multiple tickets regularly from a ticket office in cash, they will be able to confirm that by looking at the records of ticket sales - you are probably the only person that does exactly this - and they can ask the staff on duty if they recognise you as a regular customer that they serve and they can also check recent CCTV. (Or in other words, if you were to tell them this as a lie, you would be likely to be caught out. Many cash transactions are traceable these days!)

That would be hilarious, a TOC employee called as a defence witness in their employers baseless case against an innocent customer!

 

[redreni]

do you recommend i continue doing what im doing (perfectly legal albeit i can see how it looks suspicious) to ensure i have evidence if they come back further down the line or do you think i should change what im doing immediately which may also look suspicious and will have no evidence to prove my innocence

I agree with John R that anything you do now doesn't prove what you were doing before. It is Northern who has to prove you didn't have tickets covering your journey from the station where you get on to Salford Crescent.

I wouldn't recommend continuing to do the weird split you've been doing, because it's uneconomical. If you know you're going to Salford Crescent, buy a ticket to there. If you might have to go to Deansgate, buy a ticket to Manchester Stations.

If you ever get told to go to Deansgate unexpectedly, when you only have a ticket to Salford Crescent, explain to the guard what has happened and try to get an overdistance excess from them if possible (as this will be cheaper than buying a separate ticket).

If that's not possible, buy an e-ticket from Salford Crescent to Deansgate (but ideally not from Northern - get it from the guard or from literally anyone else -the forum's site will happily sell this ticket). Make certain you buy the extra ticket before the train leaves Salford Crescent and keep your paper ticket for your records.

 

[bramling]

I totally agree with the do not reply view. If Northern had any actual evidence then they’d be arranging a welcome party at a station the OP passes through.

Where the OP needs to be careful however is not to get caught out for any kind of ticketing irregularity in the short and medium term. As if any actual irregularity flags up then these journeys could well be added to their settlement figure, and it will be virtually impossible to provide any evidence to the contrary - which will mean either a significantly inflated settlement or take your chances in court for the actual offence.

 

[MrToad]

Nothing to add in terms of advice (don't reply) but the letter seems incredibly heavy handed, it effectively threatens a 10 year prison sentence which we all know is never going to happen unless they have been selling dodgy tickets to half of the UK. Sending letters like that is highly irresponsible imo, with a high chance of causing serious anxiety for people.

A colleague at work had similar issues. She would often mix work and personal journeys, so consequently had a mixture of starts and destinations, railcard use and the like, which came to the attention of an "investigator", and she received a series of letters asking her to account for herself. She responded to these, which made matters worse, and the letters got increasing threatening. The stress got to her, and she ended up needing time off work. It ended up with the company secretary drafting an email for her to send telling the train company that unless they were able to present any specific evidence of fare evasion, no more letters/emails were to be sent, any further correspondence would constitute harassment. Apart from an acknowledgment, no further emails or letters were received.

 

[lyndhurst25]

I agree with John R that anything you do now doesn't prove what you were doing before. It is Northern who has to prove you didn't have tickets covering your journey from the station where you get on to Salford Crescent.

I wouldn't recommend continuing to do the weird split you've been doing, because it's uneconomical. If you know you're going to Salford Crescent, buy a ticket to there. If you might have to go to Deansgate, buy a ticket to Manchester Stations.

If you ever get told to go to Deansgate unexpectedly, when you only have a ticket to Salford Crescent, explain to the guard what has happened and try to get an overdistance excess from them if possible (as this will be cheaper than buying a separate ticket).

If that's not possible, buy an e-ticket from Salford Crescent to Deansgate (but ideally not from Northern - get it from the guard or from literally anyone else -the forum's site will happily sell this ticket). Make certain you buy the extra ticket before the train leaves Salford Crescent and keep your paper ticket for your records.

That. But, I’d be inclined to buy the overdistance excess from the ticket office at your origin station, if you know at that point that you will be needing to go to Deansgate. You may not encounter that guard on the train before you get to Salford Crescent, or they may be unable or unwilling to issue the excess fare.

The OP mentions that they sometimes travel from Lostock, and at other times from Westhoughton. Is a ticket from Westhoughton valid to travel back to Lostock? Lostock station is missing platforms on the Westhoughton line. Common sense would say it ought to be, but we are talking about the railway here. I don’t know if it is something that the OP may want to do. I ask as it is important that the OP doesn’t get reported for any fare irregularities in the future.

 

[007Bond16]

That. But, I’d be inclined to buy the overdistance excess from the ticket office at your origin station, if you know at that point that you will be needing to go to Deansgate. You may not encounter that guard on the train before you get to Salford Crescent, or they may be unable or unwilling to issue the excess fare.

The OP mentions that they sometimes travel from Lostock, and at other times from Westhoughton. Is a ticket from Westhoughton valid to travel back to Lostock? Lostock station is missing platforms on the Westhoughton line. Common sense would say it ought to be, but we are talking about the railway here. I don’t know if it is something that the OP may want to do. I ask as it is important that the OP doesn’t get reported for any fare irregularities in the future.

Hi - many thanks for your input much appreciated- for info when i travel from westhoughton ill also travel back to westhoughton- but thankyou

 

[lyndhurst25]

A colleague at work had similar issues. She would often mix work and personal journeys, so consequently had a mixture of starts and destinations, railcard use and the like, which came to the attention of an "investigator", and she received a series of letters asking her to account for herself. She responded to these, which made matters worse, and the letters got increasing threatening. The stress got to her, and she ended up needing time off work. It ended up with the company secretary drafting an email for her to send telling the train company that unless they were able to present any specific evidence of fare evasion, no more letters/emails were to be sent, any further correspondence would constitute harassment. Apart from an acknowledgment, no further emails or letters were received.

Not on at all, rail companies wasting people’s time and causing them untold stress with their unfounded accusations and bully boy tactics.

Without wanting to go too far off topic: If I was in the OP’s situation here, provided I was confident in what I was doing, and if I was feeling mischievous: I’d be buying my tickets and excess fares to Ardwick, rather than Manchester Ctlz. At no extra cost to myself, that would likely have the effect of setting off alarm bells for Northern’s AI bots and leave the investigation team scratching their heads as to what “scam” I was perpetrating. All perfectly legitimate, of course, but with the added bonus of wasting their time and effort.

 

[Cowley]

I think we’re starting to get into the weeds here.

@007Bond16 - I’m going to lock the thread for now, but if you need to ask any follow up questions or you’d like to update us about progress, please use the report function below.

Thanks everyone