Letter from Northern

[Hadders]

I think I know what OP has done to raise suspicion (the circumstances seem to be specific to about 2/3 journeys within Greater Manchester), and it's made me curious.

I suspect I have the same 'home' station as OP: there are 'AP Northern Only' fares for about £3 less than a single to Manchester. I'll leave the rest to interpretation.

Notably the faresetter for the Any Permitted tickets for these journeys would be set by Transport for Greater Manchester. (potentially OPs case has nothing to do with TPE and that information is a red herring).


In my case, AP Northern Only is only valid on one of the 4tph to Manchester, the other three are run by TPE so I won't always buy the cheaper one if I don't want to wait around.

Would inconsistently buying different priced tickets for the same route be enough to show up on Northern's radar, even if I'd done nothing wrong?

This might be the case but it really isn’t the issue.

Purchasing tickets is not illegal, using an invalid ticket is illegal. If Northern wish to secure a conviction then they have to prove to the court that the tickets were used illegally by the accused.

 

[jumble]

Northern don't seem to usually offer this, but it is standard at some other train companies. It could be a new tactic from them. The interviews are to get you to confess everything so they have nailed on evidence to prosecute, and then offer you a big settlement figure.

If they really have suspicions of fraud they would just go to the police and have them arrest you for it.

Unless the police have informed them that they are not really interested in dealing accusations of fraud with no evidence

 

[jamiearmley]

There is an alternative viewpoint to all of this however. My own personal thinking would be:

An interview is offered so you have opportunity to provide any explanations or mitigation, it’s a courtesy offered to you and doesn’t mean that they have no evidence.

They’ve already demonstrated that they have more details than you realised they had so perhaps they actually have more evidence than you thought too?

Ignoring all correspondence and not engaging with them will mean the only option they have is to pursue a prosecution which they would handle without any police involvement - I am surprised to see so many people talking about involving the police! This is not some TV drama.

Ultimately here the decision has to be yours. However, the people who are talking about ignoring this as if it will go away, I think - perhaps - may be giving you poor advice.

 

[P2309]

There is an alternative viewpoint to all of this however. My own personal thinking would be:

An interview is offered so you have opportunity to provide any explanations or mitigation, it’s a courtesy offered to you and doesn’t mean that they have no evidence.

They’ve already demonstrated that they have more details than you realised they had so perhaps they actually have more evidence than you thought too?

Ignoring all correspondence and not engaging with them will mean the only option they have is to pursue a prosecution which they would handle without any police involvement - I am surprised to see so many people talking about involving the police! This is not some TV drama.

Ultimately here the decision has to be yours. However, the people who are talking about ignoring this as if it will go away, I think - perhaps - may be giving you poor advice.

Do you have any examples through this forum where this has happened?

 

[Hadders]

There is an alternative viewpoint to all of this however. My own personal thinking would be:

An interview is offered so you have opportunity to provide any explanations or mitigation, it’s a courtesy offered to you and doesn’t mean that they have no evidence.

They’ve already demonstrated that they have more details than you realised they had so perhaps they actually have more evidence than you thought too?

Ignoring all correspondence and not engaging with them will mean the only option they have is to pursue a prosecution which they would handle without any police involvement - I am surprised to see so many people talking about involving the police! This is not some TV drama.

Ultimately here the decision has to be yours. However, the people who are talking about ignoring this as if it will go away, I think - perhaps - may be giving you poor advice.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone fare evasion and I want people who evade their fares dealt with properly and professionally by the train companies and justice system.

Clearly we can only advise given on what we've been told in this thread, but we also know that train companies (and Northern in particular) do not have a good history when it comes to following the correct processes around investigations and prosecutions.

We do know that @P2309 has engaged in short faring based on what is said in the opening post. I understand that Northern want to deal with this. The problem is if Northern want to prosecute @P2309 then they must demonstrate, beyond all reasonable doubt, that @P2309 used the tickets. My personal view is that purchasing tickets does not provide sufficuent evidence, as it is perfectly allowable to transfer tickets to another person. It seems to me that Northern want to meet @P2309 to obtain a confession and if this is forthcoming they will offer an out of court settlement. It is not clear to me that Northern has sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that @P2309 used the tickets.

Northern know, @P2309 and we all know that short faring has occurred. But Northern can only deal with the law as it stands, not the law as they would like it to be.

I hesitate to discuss comparisions to non-railway scenarios but if a car is driven too fast past a speed camera then a Notice of Intended Prosecution is sent to the registered keep of the vehicle. The registered keeper has to disclose who was driving at the time. Perhaps there should be a similar requirement for railway tickets.....

 

[Puffing Devil]

There is an alternative viewpoint to all of this however. My own personal thinking would be:

An interview is offered so you have opportunity to provide any explanations or mitigation, it’s a courtesy offered to you and doesn’t mean that they have no evidence.

They’ve already demonstrated that they have more details than you realised they had so perhaps they actually have more evidence than you thought too?

Ignoring all correspondence and not engaging with them will mean the only option they have is to pursue a prosecution which they would handle without any police involvement - I am surprised to see so many people talking about involving the police! This is not some TV drama.

Ultimately here the decision has to be yours. However, the people who are talking about ignoring this as if it will go away, I think - perhaps - may be giving you poor advice.

Is that a view or experience?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jun 2025 ==

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone fare evasion and I want people who evade their fares delat with properly and professionally by the train companies and justice system.

Clearly we can only advise given on what we've been told in this thread, but we also know that train companies (and Northern in particular) do not have a good history when it comes to following the correct processes around investigations and prosecutions.

We do know that @P2309 has engaged in short faring based on what is said in the opening post. I understand that Northern want to deal with this. The problem is if Northern want to prosecute @P2309 then they must demonstrate, beyone all reasonable doubt, that @P2309 use the tickets. My personal view is that purchasing tickets does not provide sufficuent evidence, as it is perfectly allowable to transfer tickets to another person. It seems to me that Northern want to meet @P2309 to obtain a confession and if this is forthcoming they will offer an out of court settlement. It is not clear to me that Northern has sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that @P2309 used the tickets.

Northern know, @P2309 and we all know that short faring has occurred. But Northern can only deal with the law as it stands, not the law as they would like it to be.

I hesitate to discuss comparisions to non-railway scenarios but if a car is driven too fast past a speed camera then a Notice of Intended Prosecution is sent to the registered keep of the vehicle. The registered keeper has to disclose who was driving at the time. Perhaps there should be a similar requirement for railway tickets.....

Great summary.

 

[P2309]

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not condone fare evasion and I want people who evade their fares delat with properly and professionally by the train companies and justice system.

Clearly we can only advise given on what we've been told in this thread, but we also know that train companies (and Northern in particular) do not have a good history when it comes to following the correct processes around investigations and prosecutions.

We do know that @P2309 has engaged in short faring based on what is said in the opening post. I understand that Northern want to deal with this. The problem is if Northern want to prosecute @P2309 then they must demonstrate, beyone all reasonable doubt, that @P2309 use the tickets. My personal view is that purchasing tickets does not provide sufficuent evidence, as it is perfectly allowable to transfer tickets to another person. It seems to me that Northern want to meet @P2309 to obtain a confession and if this is forthcoming they will offer an out of court settlement. It is not clear to me that Northern has sufficient evidence to satisfy a court that @P2309 used the tickets.

Northern know, @P2309 and we all know that short faring has occurred. But Northern can only deal with the law as it stands, not the law as they would like it to be.

I hesitate to discuss comparisions to non-railway scenarios but if a car is driven too fast past a speed camera then a Notice of Intended Prosecution is sent to the registered keep of the vehicle. The registered keeper has to disclose who was driving at the time. Perhaps there should be a similar requirement for railway tickets.....

Thank you @Hadders

 

[jumble]

That's always possible, but in practice it doesn't happen.

The impression we get from posts to this forum is that most train companies normally prefer to settle out of court most of the time. Quite why they do this is open to some debate: it might be because they get to keep more money than if they went to court, or it might be because it's quicker and cheaper for them to settle out of court, or it might be that they only want to take enough action to make sure that the person they're pursuing pays the right fare at the right time in future. My guess is that it's a mix of the three. But what this means in practice is that unless the railway have decided that you're such a hardened offender that there's no point in trying to get you to change your mind, then they will firstly write to you to see if things can be settled out of court.

Of course, even if the railway write to offer an out of court settlement, that doesn't of itself mean that you won't end up in court: if you don't reply to them making contact, then the matter will go to court. And we do occasionally see cases where someone has written back but has been so obviously insincere and unrepentant that the railway have decided that court is the only way to get them to learn their lesson.

My impression is that the railway have only ever taken such unrepentant people to court where the railway has tangible evidence to present to a court
Ie Our revenue stopped them and caught the defendant short faring
This is a world apart from the OP'S situation and is not in my view really relevant .
I cannot speak for or advise anyone else but what I do know is that twice my much younger self had a similar situation with the Police and on both occasions I refused their kind offer of "just a quick chat to tidy things up".
In both cases I am extremely glad that I took that particular course of action and would 100% follow @AlterEgo's advice my self as I personally simply don't believe attending an interview will lead to a better outcome

 

[P2309]

My impression is that the railway have only ever taken such unrepentant people to court where the railway has tangible evidence to present to a court
Ie Our revenue stopped them and caught the defendant short faring
This is a world apart from the OP'S situation and is not in my view really relevant .
I cannot speak for or advise anyone else but what I do know is that twice my much younger self had a similar situation with the Police and on both occasions I refused their kind offer of "just a quick chat to tidy things up".
In both cases I am extremely glad that I took that particular course of action and would 100% follow @AlterEgo's advice my self as I personally simply don't believe attending an interview will lead to a better outcome

Thank you, much appreciated

 

[AlterEgo]

There is an alternative viewpoint to all of this however. My own personal thinking would be:

An interview is offered so you have opportunity to provide any explanations or mitigation

No! Explanations or mitigation are provided by custom and practice in writing. This is what usually happens when someone is caught, or suspected of something on the railway. Letter comes, asks for your explanation or mitigation. This is all fine and normal.

, it’s a courtesy offered to you and doesn’t mean that they have no evidence.

It isn't a courtesy.

This is an invitation to a PACE-compliant interview which will be under caution and the sole purpose of this is so the OP's confession can be used in court as evidence. The reason they need this confession is because they have no proof of use of any of the tickets in question because the OP was not actually caught; that answer can only be obtained from the OP's own admission. From this, they can either prosecute, or use it as leverage to secure a settlement.

They’ve already demonstrated that they have more details than you realised they had so perhaps they actually have more evidence than you thought too?

Nonsense. If they have evidence for railway specific offences like Bylaw 18, they just crack on, like tens of thousands of other cases every year. They don't get sent interview letters begging for one's attendance at the expense of a member of staff's (or two's) time.

Ignoring all correspondence and not engaging with them will mean the only option they have is to pursue a prosecution which they would handle without any police involvement - I am surprised to see so many people talking about involving the police! This is not some TV drama.

In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

If they wanted to pursue a prosecution of a railway specific offence, they would just be doing that anyway if they had the evidence. Northern do this thousands of times a year like a big sausage factory.

Ultimately here the decision has to be yours. However, the people who are talking about ignoring this as if it will go away, I think - perhaps - may be giving you poor advice.

Absolutely not. No comment, do not engage, use one's right to silence.

 

[jumble]

No! Explanations or mitigation are provided by custom and practice in writing. This is what usually happens when someone is caught, or suspected of something on the railway. Letter comes, asks for your explanation or mitigation. This is all fine and normal.


It isn't a courtesy.

This is an invitation to a PACE-compliant interview which will be under caution and the sole purpose of this is so the OP's confession can be used in court as evidence. The reason they need this confession is because they have no proof of use of any of the tickets in question; that answer can only be obtained from the OP's own admission. From this, they can either prosecute, or use it as leverage to secure a settlement.


Nonsense. If they have evidence for railway specific offences like Bylaw 18, they just crack on, like tens of thousands of other cases every year. They don't get sent interview letters begging for one's attendance at the expense of a member of staff's (or two's) time.


In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

If they wanted to pursue a prosecution of a railway specific offence, they would just be doing that anyway if they had the evidence. Northern do this thousands of times a year like a big sausage factory.


Absolutely not. No comment, do not engage, use one's right to silence.

Could I just add to your excellent advice that a good motto in general is that it is unwise to take legal advice from your opponent.
( for clarity I am not in any way suggesting that the OP may be deliberately being misled but just something to bear in mind )

 

[Puffing Devil]

Could I just add to your excellent advice that a good motto in general is that it is unwise to take legal advice from your opponent.
( for clarity I am not in any way suggesting that the OP may be deliberately being misled but just something to bear in mind )

Reviewing the posting history reveals that one member recently posted to the effect that they were employed by the TOC concerned and may, shall we say, have a different perspective.

 

[jumble]

Reviewing the posting history reveals that one member recently posted to the effect that they were employed by the TOC concerned and may, shall we say, have a different perspective.

Exactly

 

[KirkstallOne]

I feel the fact they only mention the Fraud Act is significant. Are they accepting they are out of time for a railway byelaw prosecution (there being a 6 month time limit on non-indictable offences)?

The OP mentioned January as the last incident so they are rapidly running out of time given they have nothing at this point. A fraud prosecution is vanishingly unlikely so a civil claim would seem to be the worst case scenario.

 

[skyhigh]

For what it's worth, I believe I know @jamiearmley in the real world and if they are who I think they are then I believe they do actually have the OPs interests at heart.

However, what they say is not good advice here. Do not talk to Northern. The interview is simply to gather evidence they don't have.

In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

Even in clear cut cases of fraud, Northern don't pursue a fraud conviction. They don't refer to the police. I remember a case where a passenger was making fraudulent claims on the complementary travel vouchers. Essentially, they looked up a long delay, filled one in and got the maximum compensation of 2 replacement vouchers. Rinse and repeat until they'd got 100+ and then sold them individually on eBay. Passenger confessed to everything and still they only prosecuted under the Byelaws.

If they actually had the evidence they need they wouldn't bother wasting their time with interviews - they would just write a letter, as they do in 99% of cases.

 

[jumble]

For what it's worth, I believe I know @jamiearmley in the real world and if they are who I think they are then I believe they do actually have the OPs interests at heart.

However, what they say is not good advice here. Do not talk to Northern. The interview is simply to gather evidence they don't have.


Even in clear cut cases of fraud, Northern don't pursue a fraud conviction. They don't refer to the police. I remember a case where a passenger was making fraudulent claims on the complementary travel vouchers. Essentially, they looked up a long delay, filled one in and got the maximum compensation of 2 replacement vouchers. Rinse and repeat until they'd got 100+ and then sold them individually on eBay. Passenger confessed to everything and still they only prosecuted under the Byelaws.

If they actually had the evidence they need they wouldn't bother wasting their time with interviews - they would just write a letter, as they do in 99% of cases.

The Police may well have told Northern that in a lot of cases referred to them defendants are likely to be represented by a solicitor whose advise will be essentially also be
"Keep your big mouth shut"

 

[P2309]

I feel the fact they only mention the Fraud Act is significant. Are they accepting they are out of time for a railway byelaw prosecution (there being a 6 month time limit on non-indictable offences)?

The OP mentioned January as the last incident so they are rapidly running out of time given they have nothing at this point. A fraud prosecution is vanishingly unlikely so a civil claim would seem to be the worst case scenario.

Thank you. The incident in January was with Transpennine Express and they wrote to me 4 weeks later saying the case was closed. I've never had any other issues or dealings with Northern.

 

[P2309]

No! Explanations or mitigation are provided by custom and practice in writing. This is what usually happens when someone is caught, or suspected of something on the railway. Letter comes, asks for your explanation or mitigation. This is all fine and normal.


It isn't a courtesy.

This is an invitation to a PACE-compliant interview which will be under caution and the sole purpose of this is so the OP's confession can be used in court as evidence. The reason they need this confession is because they have no proof of use of any of the tickets in question because the OP was not actually caught; that answer can only be obtained from the OP's own admission. From this, they can either prosecute, or use it as leverage to secure a settlement.


Nonsense. If they have evidence for railway specific offences like Bylaw 18, they just crack on, like tens of thousands of other cases every year. They don't get sent interview letters begging for one's attendance at the expense of a member of staff's (or two's) time.


In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

If they wanted to pursue a prosecution of a railway specific offence, they would just be doing that anyway if they had the evidence. Northern do this thousands of times a year like a big sausage factory.


Absolutely not. No comment, do not engage, use one's right to silence.

No! Explanations or mitigation are provided by custom and practice in writing. This is what usually happens when someone is caught, or suspected of something on the railway. Letter comes, asks for your explanation or mitigation. This is all fine and normal.


It isn't a courtesy.

This is an invitation to a PACE-compliant interview which will be under caution and the sole purpose of this is so the OP's confession can be used in court as evidence. The reason they need this confession is because they have no proof of use of any of the tickets in question because the OP was not actually caught; that answer can only be obtained from the OP's own admission. From this, they can either prosecute, or use it as leverage to secure a settlement.


Nonsense. If they have evidence for railway specific offences like Bylaw 18, they just crack on, like tens of thousands of other cases every year. They don't get sent interview letters begging for one's attendance at the expense of a member of staff's (or two's) time.


In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

If they wanted to pursue a prosecution of a railway specific offence, they would just be doing that anyway if they had the evidence. Northern do this thousands of times a year like a big sausage factory.


Absolutely not. No comment, do not engage, use one's right to silence.

Esc

No! Explanations or mitigation are provided by custom and practice in writing. This is what usually happens when someone is caught, or suspected of something on the railway. Letter comes, asks for your explanation or mitigation. This is all fine and normal.


It isn't a courtesy.

This is an invitation to a PACE-compliant interview which will be under caution and the sole purpose of this is so the OP's confession can be used in court as evidence. The reason they need this confession is because they have no proof of use of any of the tickets in question because the OP was not actually caught; that answer can only be obtained from the OP's own admission. From this, they can either prosecute, or use it as leverage to secure a settlement.


Nonsense. If they have evidence for railway specific offences like Bylaw 18, they just crack on, like tens of thousands of other cases every year. They don't get sent interview letters begging for one's attendance at the expense of a member of staff's (or two's) time.


In the real world, for a matter of fraud (that is, the Fraud Act as mentioned in the letter) the police will be involved. The TOCs do not have the resource or capability to prosecute this complex offence which has intent at the centre of it.

If they wanted to pursue a prosecution of a railway specific offence, they would just be doing that anyway if they had the evidence. Northern do this thousands of times a year like a big sausage factory.


Absolutely not. No comment, do not engage, use one's right to silence

@AlterEgo @Hadders do you have any knowledge of this forum content being used as a threat of admission evidence?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

I feel the fact they only mention the Fraud Act is significant. Are they accepting they are out of time for a railway byelaw prosecution (there being a 6 month time limit on non-indictable offences)?

The OP mentioned January as the last incident so they are rapidly running out of time given they have nothing at this point. A fraud prosecution is vanishingly unlikely so a civil claim would seem to be the worst case scenario.

Hi, do you have any knowledge of this forum content being used as a threat of admission evidence?

 

[Hadders]

Train company staff certainly read this forum, in one case that sprigs to mind I have seen a thread referenced in correspondance relating to a dispute but I'm not aware of any case where it has been used in evidence against someone.

I don't think there's anything more I can add to what I said in post #6 and post #35

 

[P2309]

Train company staff certainly read this forum, in one case that sprigs to mind I have seen a thread referenced in correspondance relating to a dispute but I'm not aware of any case where it has been used in evidence against someone.

I don't think there's anything more I can add to what I said in post #6 and post #35

Thanks. New correspondence has been recieved, again in relation to the 2006 fruad act:

"We have previously written to you both by email and letter inviting you for an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a courtesy as we have sufficient evidence that you have been purchasing tickets that do not cover you full journey.

These invites were sent as opposed to requesting for monies to be paid or prosecution without you having the opportunity to provide evidence and your account.

Unfortunately you have not responded to our requests thus I write to advise that Northern Trains are now in the process of reviewing your file to determine if we deem it appropriate to proceed with a potential prosecution.

In making such a decision we will consider evidence held in addition to admissions from yourself we have identified via reliable source."

 

[Hadders]

Thanks. New correspondence has been recieved, again in relation to the 2006 fruad act:

"We have previously written to you both by email and letter inviting you for an interview under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as a courtesy as we have sufficient evidence that you have been purchasing tickets that do not cover you full journey.

These invites were sent as opposed to requesting for monies to be paid or prosecution without you having the opportunity to provide evidence and your account.

Unfortunately you have not responded to our requests thus I write to advise that Northern Trains are now in the process of reviewing your file to determine if we deem it appropriate to proceed with a potential prosecution.

In making such a decision we will consider evidence held in addition to admissions from yourself we have identified via reliable source."

What I said in post #6

They could proceed with a prosecution but it would be up to the court to decide if you are guilty or not. Based on what we know from this thread I cannot see how you could be guilty (see post #35)

One other thing we haven't discussed is the possibility that Northern could take the case to the civil court to recover the fares they believe are owed. Thsi has a lower standard of proof (balance of probability rather than beyone all reasonable doubt) and so there is a much greater chance of success. If they were sucessful in the civil court then you would have to pay the fares they've claimed but there is no criminal record. Train companies historically haven't used this route before although one or two cases have gone this way (GWR if I remember correctly rather than Northern).

 

[Haywain]

we will consider evidence held in addition to admissions from yourself we have identified via reliable source.

They might feel that they have identified your case and gathered additional evidence, but that doesn't mean it is evidence that they can use in a court.

 

[P2309]

What I said in post #6

They could proceed with a prosecution but it would be up to the court to decide if you are guilty or not. Based on what we know from this thread I cannot see how you could be guilty (see post #35)

One other thing we haven't discussed is the possibility that Northern could take the case to the civil court to recover the fares they believe are owed. Thsi has a lower standard of proof (balance of probability rather than beyone all reasonable doubt) and so there is a much greater chance of success. If they were sucessful in the civil court then you would have to pay the fares they've claimed but there is no criminal record. Train companies historically haven't used this route before although one or two cases have gone this way (GWR if I remember correctly rather than Northern).

Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jul 2025 ==

They might feel that they have identified your case and gathered additional evidence, but that doesn't mean it is evidence that they can use in a court.

Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Jul 2025 ==

What I said in post #6

They could proceed with a prosecution but it would be up to the court to decide if you are guilty or not. Based on what we know from this thread I cannot see how you could be guilty (see post #35)

One other thing we haven't discussed is the possibility that Northern could take the case to the civil court to recover the fares they believe are owed. Thsi has a lower standard of proof (balance of probability rather than beyone all reasonable doubt) and so there is a much greater chance of success. If they were sucessful in the civil court then you would have to pay the fares they've claimed but there is no criminal record. Train companies historically haven't used this route before although one or two cases have gone this way (GWR if I remember correctly rather than Northern).

Is there potential that separate train companies can work together on these cases? I'm thinking back to when I was stopped by TPE in early January.