MG11 for journey with itinerary

[walkingsophie]

@walkingsophie Have you contacted TrainSplit's customer support team about this case?

You've received some good advice here and the issue wouldn't ordinarily be something to complain to a retailer about, but on this occasion I think I'd like to review the details and then drop SWR's revenue protection team - who I incidentally spoke to on a call only a few weeks ago - an email.

I will do this this evening. What should I write on it other than explaining the situation?

 

[tatitiliti]

I agree there's every possibility of these circumstances meeting that test, I am not saying the bar hasn't been met. I am just advising that someone should only go down that route if they're confident they understand the scale of the challenge, and more importantly that they have some very persuasive evidence. Either way this is not a matter for immediate attention.

True - without turning this into a wider debate, I think this case exemplifies why private prosecutions shouldn’t exist (or should have an extremely high bar like in most other jurisdictions that permit them).

 

[Adam Williams]

What should I write on it other than explaining the situation?

I think I already know which booking it is, but please include the booking reference and unredacted copies of the communications with SWR. Other than that, nothing else is required.

 

[z444z]

Should the Op ask for a deadlock letter also.. Gives the opportunity to go straight to the rail ombudsman

I don’t believe this kind of thing is within the scope of the Ombudsman but happy to be corrected.

 

[Adam Williams]

The Ombudsman is - in general - completely useless, in any case.

 

[z444z]

The Ombudsman is - in general - completely useless, in any case.

This too

 

[yorkie]

@walkingsophie if you are in it for the long game and if you want to maximise the possibility of a payout from SWR, I'm told that the best advice would be to pay up now, and then bring a civil claim seeking a refund and additional damages.

I can put you in touch with a solicitor who has had success with various train companies with this method, gaining thousands of pounds in compensation, and has made this recommendation, if you want to pursue this course of action.

 

[walkingsophie]

@walkingsophie if you are in it for the long game and if you want to maximise the possibility of a payout from SWR, I'm told that the best advice would be to pay up now, and then bring a civil claim seeking a refund and additional damages.

I can put you in touch with a solicitor who has had success with various train companies with this method, gaining thousands of pounds in compensation, and has made this recommendation, if you want to pursue this course of action.

Please do put me in touch with this solicitor, I would like to learn more about this.

 

[ChilliSauce]

@walkingsophie if you are in it for the long game and if you want to maximise the possibility of a payout from SWR, I'm told that the best advice would be to pay up now, and then bring a civil claim seeking a refund and additional damages.

I can put you in touch with a solicitor who has had success with various train companies with this method, gaining thousands of pounds in compensation, and has made this recommendation, if you want to pursue this course of action.

Can I suggest that it needs to be understood if there are any strings attached to going down the "Settlement Route" before proceeding in that direction. i.e. A load of T&C that SWR are not actually freely disclosing That is by paying a settlement are you actually signing away your right to then take action against SWR through a civil claim ...?

It would not suprise me in the least if these "Settlement Agreements" are not full and binding bothways that no further action will be taken by either party against the other.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2026 ==

I don’t believe this kind of thing is within the scope of the Ombudsman but happy to be corrected.

Whilst I agree that the Ombudsman would not get involved in an MG11 or PF where there is a travel Irregularity ...but this case seems very different as it centres around the OP having a valid ticket and a valid itinary to travel and the TOC refusing to recognise that simple fact .. And I would like to think that point would be within scope of the Ombudsman

 

[yorkie]

Can I suggest that it needs to be understood if there are any strings attached to going down the "Settlement Route" before proceeding in that direction. i.e. A load of T&C that SWR are not actually freely disclosing That is by paying a settlement are you actually signing away your right to then take action against SWR through a civil claim ...?

Absolutely not; I don't know where you got that idea from. I refer you to what I've said above.

It would not suprise me in the least if these "Settlement Agreements" are not full and binding bothways that no further action will be taken by either party against the other.

I don't understand what you are saying, but there are plenty of options available to @walkingsophie from people with relevant experience/knowledge in this thread.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Apr 2026 ==

Please do put me in touch with this solicitor, I would like to learn more about this.

I'm doing that now

 

[Kite159]

I presume the OP has prove they changed at Teddington to travel into Waterloo via Twickenham, rather than staying on the train from Shepperton all the way into Waterloo?

 

[tatitiliti]

I presume the OP has prove they changed at Teddington to travel into Waterloo via Twickenham, rather than staying on the train from Shepperton all the way into Waterloo?

No, SWR has to prove that they didn’t change at Teddington to travel into London Waterloo

 

[Cantab26]

I'm not sure either of these points are true:
- is there an automatic right to costs if you win a criminal case?
- and is there a right to compensation if wrongly prosecuted?

I'm not a lawyer but my impression is that the answer to both these questions is 'no'.

The answer is “no” to both.

Yes, ‘reasonable costs’ and you can claim additional costs for wasted time and mental distress.

Although you can’t submit a counter claim at Magistrate’s Court in the way you would a civil case, you can cite abuse of process as using a private prosecution for a case that isn’t even arguable for them would probably fall under this.

The above is wrong in law. There is no legal basis for any of the above and a Magistrates’ Court would be acting ultra vires if it purported to order any of this.

But you could separately look to seek compensation for malicious prosecution. How far you would get on that, I have no idea.

This sort of claim wouldn’t go anywhere.

You could apply for your actual losses, yes. But I would advise against trying to go down the route of a prosecution wholly unreasonable, as the bar for that is deliberately high.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of an acquitted defendant’s actual losses.

Mental distress, wasted time (and possibly damage to reputation) are likely reasonable actual losses for a case like this, in addition to any direct legal costs to defend the case.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of any of these matters in favour of an acquitted defendant.

 

[Starmill]

The answer is “no” to both.

The above is wrong in law. There is no legal basis for any of the above and a Magistrates’ Court would be acting ultra vires if it purported to order any of this.

This sort of claim wouldn’t go anywhere.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of an acquitted defendant’s actual losses.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of any of these matters in favour of an acquitted defendant.

I wasn't assuming that the post I replied to was talking about Mags to be honest. If it was, it doesn't seem to make any sense.

I presume the OP has prove they changed at Teddington to travel into Waterloo via Twickenham, rather than staying on the train from Shepperton all the way into Waterloo?

A 'proof' of innocence is, in general, impossible. So no they won't have this, but then nobody would.

 

[Cantab26]

I wasn't assuming that the post I replied to was talking about Mags to be honest. If it was, it doesn't seem to make any sense.

I understood it to be the latter…

It’s without legal foundation as a matter of civil law anyway so it’s something of a moot point.

 

[Starmill]

Whilst I agree that the Ombudsman would not get involved in an MG11 or PF where there is a travel Irregularity ...but this case seems very different as it centres around the OP having a valid ticket and a valid itinary to travel and the TOC refusing to recognise that simple fact .. And I would like to think that point would be within scope of the Ombudsman

A general complaint about alleged misconduct by the member of revenue protection staff, such as an additional charge or a refusal of travel, is within the scope of the Ombudsman.

However, it has already been noted above that in practice their aptitude for dealing with a complaint of this nature should probably be considered to be zero. Litigation on the other hand is only slightly more time consuming and involves only slight additional risk, but with an excellent chance of success if you are in possession of persuasive evidence that some breach has occurred. Especially in a case where it's agreed that the claimant is a consumer, and the respondent is a commercial enterprise.

 

[tatitiliti]

The answer is “no” to both.

The above is wrong in law. There is no legal basis for any of the above and a Magistrates’ Court would be acting ultra vires if it purported to order any of this.

This sort of claim wouldn’t go anywhere.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of an acquitted defendant’s actual losses.

A Magistrates’ Court has no power to make an order in respect of any of these matters in favour of an acquitted defendant.

A Magistrates’ Court can, and will, award reasonable costs to an acquitted defendant including legal fees, travel and loss of income (though they must be specifically requested by the defendant and is not done automatically).

 

[walkingsophie]

No, SWR has to prove that they didn’t change at Teddington to travel into London Waterloo

Funnily enough the ticket is valid either way due to an error in the national rail website, see my last penalty fare case. However I did in fact change at Teddington in this case.

 

[MotCO]

I would guess so, due to the reasoning being listed as overtravelled from Wimbledon, SWR seems to think I travelled from Wimbledon to Waterloo despite me not having done such a thing.

Having arrived 'late' to this party, I have read the whole thread from start to finish with a clear head. I wonder if you should respond with a simple letter as per @Tetchytyke 's suggestion, but may be worth reiterating the journey stages you actually took. Also, attach any regulations you are referring to in an appendix, and also a copy of your previous letter in case it crossed in the post.

My overall view is that you have done nothing wrong, taking advantage of a loophole in SWR's ticketing regime. I would be reluctant to pay any settlement fee, lest it should be seen as an admission of guilt or weakness of argument. Setting out a clear defence with supporting information to make the reader's job as easy as possible should, I hope, close the case.

 

[simple simon]

Maybe a Subject Access Request should be made to the DPO at SWR to obtain CCTV and body-worn camera footage of the incident.

South Western Railway
0345 6000 650 - Monday to Friday 08:00 - 20:00, Saturday 09:00 -18:00, Sunday 09:00 –16:00

Contact Us | South Western Railway

Your feedback is very important. Find out how to contact us, book tickets, apply for a refund, claim delay repay compensation or find out about lost property.

www.southwesternrailway.com

dpo@swrailway.com

Privacy Notice | South Western Railway

Our Privacy notice sets out how and why we collect personal data from you and how it will be handled. Read our Privacy notice.

www.southwesternrailway.com

A full list of contact details for the DPOs of various bus and train operating companies can be found here:

A directory of Data Protection Officer contact details for TfL-contracted bus companies and National Rail train operating companies in Great Britain

If you need to request personal data, such as CCTV or body-worn camera footage, you must act quickly. Most transport operators in the UK only retain f

clondoner92.blogspot.com

 

[CyrusWuff]

Maybe a Subject Access Request should be made to the DPO at SWR to obtain CCTV and body-worn camera footage of the incident.

As it's been over a month since the OP started the thread, the footage will have almost certainly been overwritten by now.

 

[Cantab26]

A Magistrates’ Court can, and will, award reasonable costs to an acquitted defendant including legal fees, travel and loss of income (though they must be specifically requested by the defendant and is not done automatically).

I’m sorry, but this is just plain wrong. This is not how a defendant’s costs order works.

An acquitted defendant may apply for such an order and, if granted, he may then recover:

1. a contribution to his legal expenses, at whichever is the lower of his actual expenses properly incurred in the proceedings or the applicable legal aid rate;
2. travel costs, but apart from standard class rail and bus fares these are not based on actual losses; and
3. subsistence, but these are capped (and not generously).

There is no power for a Magistrates’ Court to order:

• that an acquitted defendant’s “reasonable” costs be paid; or
• any amount in respect of his putative loss of earnings.

Given that some posters in this thread are urging the OP to allow this matter to go to court it is important that the reality of the situation is fully understood before the OP elects so to do, including what can and cannot be recovered if acquitted.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I’m sorry, but this is just plain wrong. This is not how a defendant’s costs order works.

An acquitted defendant may apply for such an order and, if granted, he may then recover:

1. a contribution to his legal expenses, at whichever is the lower of his actual expenses properly incurred in the proceedings or the applicable legal aid rate;
2. travel costs, but apart from standard class rail and bus fares these are not based on actual losses; and
3. subsistence, but these are capped (and not generously).

There is no power for a Magistrates’ Court to order:

• that an acquitted defendant’s “reasonable” costs be paid; or
• any amount in respect of his putative loss of earnings.

Given that some posters in this thread are urging the OP to allow this matter to go to court it is important that the reality of the situation is fully understood before the OP elects so to do, including what can and cannot be recovered if acquitted.

While this matches my (lay person's, unsourced) understanding, and it was me who started the query about this point, it would probably help if people could now give sources for their positions so we can judge how reliable their view of the rules is.

 

[ChilliSauce]

An acquitted defendant may apply for such an order and, if granted, he may t
Given that some posters in this thread are urging the OP to allow this matter to go to court it is important that the reality of the situation is fully understood before the OP elects so to do, including what can and cannot be recovered if acquitted.

Exactly, thank you. I think I have been trying to question that a move in such a direction should be treated with caution..

 

[Cantab26]

While this matches my (lay person's, unsourced) understanding, and it was me who started the query about this point, it would probably help if people could now give sources for their positions so we can judge how reliable their view of the rules is.

Regulations 7 and 23 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (as amended).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Regulations 7 and 23 of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (as amended).

Thanks!

 

[Bayum]

Can someone explain why this ticket and itinerary is problematic?

 

[AlterEgo]

Can someone explain why this ticket and itinerary is problematic?

It's a loophole ticket which enables the OP to get to London more cheaply then the train company would like.

 

[yorkie]

Can someone explain why this ticket and itinerary is problematic?

Mentioned in post #55:

...It shouldn't be routed "Any Permitted", which is for longer distance journeys. It should be routed "Not via London" like other tickets in this area, e.g.:

Purchase flexible walk-up fares for any British train journey

Purchase flexible single/return tickets & Travelcards – in 3 clicks, at face value with no fees. Every British rail fare shown, railcard discounts included.

www.brfares.com

Generally speaking, between SWR locations beyond Clapham Junction can double back to Waterloo if routed Any Permitted.

This validity is intentional and is often necessary for longer distance journeys (especially at 'peak' times), but short distance tickets should not be routed Any Permitted.

Now that it's been widely publicised, I would expect SWR to review/identify other short distance flows which are incorrectly routed and re-route them accordingly, e.g. 'Not via London'.

However, SWR are legally and contractually obliged to honour tickets that have been, and continue to be, issued with this validity.

Sadly there are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that companies such as SWR and their staff / contractors behave and act appropriately and correctly. There is also no prospect of such safeguards ever being put on place.

There is no effective ombudsman, regulator or passenger watchdog with the power, knowledge, intelligence and desire to do anything about such behaviour, and again no prospect of this position changing in the foreseeable future, if ever.

As this thread is getting quite long and convoluted, I suggest only important updates / developments are posted going forward, to keep it focused.

 

[walkingsophie]

@walkingsophie Have you contacted TrainSplit's customer support team about this case?

You've received some good advice here and the issue wouldn't ordinarily be something to complain to a retailer about, but on this occasion I think I'd like to review the details and then drop SWR's revenue protection team - who I incidentally spoke to on a call only a few weeks ago - an email.

I have now sent an email

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Apr 2026 ==

Please do put me in touch with this solicitor, I would like to learn more about this.

I'm doing that now

I still have not recieved any contact from this solicitor