Notice of Intention to Prosecute Received

[Seek Freedom]

Hi everyone,

I’ve just received a letter of intent to prosecute from Govia Thameslink Railway dated 19th January. This was delivered to my home address which will need to be sent to my uni address in order for me to sign and send off (so I presume). The alleged offence they claim I have committed is travelling without a valid ticket.
I am seeking advice about what the next steps are regarding my circumstances and am happy to pay a fine (or not) if my situation permits.

Background
On Monday 13th October 2025, at around 8:15, my journey started at Gatwick Airport and ended at Brighton station.
I had initially bought a ticket to go from Gatwick Airport to Three Bridges at a cost of £3.20. I then bought the remainder of the journey from Balcombe (the stop right after Three Bridges) to Brighton at a cost of £10.50. These two tickets, albeit bought separately, covered the entire length of my journey and equalled the cost of what a ticket from Gatwick Airport to Brighton Station would be.

Revenue Enforcement Officer
At/near Balcombe, I was approached by a female revenue enforcement officer (Badge number GTR10196). I presented and she scanned both of my tickets to which she said the Balcombe to Brighton single is invalid since it had not been scanned at the barriers. She took photos of the tickets then asked for my details, I gave them, then proceeded to issue me a fine. However, I argued that since both tickets covered the entire length of the journey it would amount to a full ticket in price. She issued me a witness statement receipt instead and said I could appeal the fine. I have receipts of both tickets i purchased on trainline but cannot check whether a saver was used with them.

Since then…
I kept the witness statement receipt and brought it back to uni with me as I was expecting to get a letter. As time went by, no letter had been issued so i thought the situation had blown over until my parents received one today (22nd January 2026). Once i receive that letter, I’ll write up a formal account of the situation similar to what I’ve done here.

Buying the journey in 2 tickets was stupid and only caused more issues. I plan on buying the full length of the journey in 1 ticket to avoid the ball ache.

I plan on drafting an account of the incident and publishing it here so any advice on that would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for reading and any help in advance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jan 2026 ==

Forgot to mention that I bought the Balcombe to Brighton ticket 37 minutes after the Gatwick Aiport to Three Bridges ticket. I did this while on the train hence why it was not scanned.

Apologies this wasn’t mentioned initially

 

[z444z]

Where was the train when the ticket purchased on board was purchased?

 

[Seek Freedom]

it was purchased before the train had reached Balcombe. Inbetween Three Bridges and Balcombe I believe

 

[Kite159]

So you held a ticket from Gatwick Airport to Three Bridges and a ticket from Balcombe to Brighton, but nothing for the gap between Three Bridges & Balcombe?

Besides a ticket from Balcombe wouldn't have had an entry scan as that station hasn't got barriers

 

[Seek Freedom]

So you held a ticket from Gatwick Airport to Three Bridges and a ticket from Balcombe to Brighton, but nothing for the gap between Three Bridges & Balcombe?

Besides a ticket from Balcombe wouldn't have had an entry scan as that station hasn't got barriers

Correct, i bought the Balcombe to Brighton ticket since Balcombe is the station right after Three Bridges

 

[AlterEgo]

I had initially bought a ticket to go from Gatwick Airport to Three Bridges at a cost of £3.20.

Why?

I then bought the remainder of the journey from Balcombe (the stop right after Three Bridges) to Brighton at a cost of £10.50. These two tickets, albeit bought separately, covered the entire length of my journey

They didn't. There is a gap between Three Bridges and Balcombe.

 

[John R]

The fare you paid in total is immaterial. You didn’t have a ticket for the full journey.

 

[Seek Freedom]

Why?


They didn't. There is a gap between Three Bridges and Balcombe.

I thought I could get the fare cheaper if I split the tickets up which is honestly quite stupid in hindsight.


Just checking now on Trainline - Gatwick Airport to Brighton. I found the most expensive ticket was £13.70 being a direct train with Gatwick Express which doesn’t include Balcombe . However there are other tickets for £11.50 with Thameslink which do include Balcombe . I must be looking at this line

 

[John R]

You can write a response on plain paper and return it, so long as you ensure you put the reference on the letter, so it can be matched up to your case. You don’t need to return the actual letter sent.

And you can often save money by splitting your ticket, but really you need to have bought them both in advance, and the train needs to have stopped at the split station.

 

[Seek Freedom]

The fare you paid in total is immaterial. You didn’t have a ticket for the full journey.

Understood. So really at this point I need to write an apology letter? I am sincere in my mistake and will make them sure of it

 

[SuspectUsual]

I thought I could get the fare cheaper if I split the tickets up which is honestly quite stupid in hindsight.

99% of people trying to save money by using split tickets buy the whole journey in a single transaction. But you bought a cheap ticket from Gatwick hoping - but not knowing - it would work out cheaper?

Think how that looks from the train company’s perspective

How long before the second ticket was inspected did you buy it?

 

[Seek Freedom]

99% of people trying to save money by using split tickets buy the whole journey in a single transaction. But you bought a cheap ticket from Gatwick hoping - but not knowing - it would work out cheaper?

Think how that looks from the train company’s perspective

How long before the second ticket was inspected did you buy it?

I believe about 10 minutes. I bought the Balcombe to Brighton ticket while in between three bridges and Balcombe. I didn’t realise that ticket doesn’t cover the gap between Three bridges and Balcombe which I see now makes the journey invalid.

 

[z444z]

[deleted, @AlterEgo is correct as usual]

 

[AlterEgo]

Unsure the OP has actually committed any offence here. Which one do people think they've committed?

 

[Seek Freedom]

Just to clarify next steps, OP you have been caught without a valid ticket and could be criminally prosecuted for it. However, GTR are quite nice and will almost always settle out of court. This will cost you somewhere between £60 and £170, depending on how generous they’re feeling. You need to write to them:

• Providing your reference number and the date of the incident
• Briefly explaining what happened and why, if you wish - however where deliberate, or what may appear to be deliberate, fare evasion has occurred it may be best to skip this and simply own up to it without explaining
• Apologising for travelling without a valid ticket and committing to never doing so again
• Asking if they’d be so kind as to settle the matter out of court

Draft something like this and then send it here for us to provide feedback on. If you need inspiration there are hundreds of similar cases on here.

Thank you and to everyone else who has given their input, I suppose this is the best case scenario for me.
I will be receiving the original letter tomorrow and will hopefully send it as soon as afterwards.

Hopefully they understand my mistake although the timing of the purchase of tickets doesn’t look great. I’ll draft a letter in the replies of this thread

 

[Elecman]

Unsure the OP has actually committed any offence here. Which one do people think they've committed?

no ticket Three Bridges or Balcombe

 

[AlterEgo]

no ticket Three Bridges or Balcombe

What offence would that be?

 

[Darandio]

no ticket Three Bridges or Balcombe

The offence in the letter claims that when they were stopped at Balcombe they didn't produce a valid ticket. At the time of being stopped they did produce a valid ticket from Balcombe to Brighton. Seems clear cut to me.

 

[Seek Freedom]

The offence in the letter is that when they were stopped at Balcombe they didn't produce a valid ticket. At the time of being stopped they did produce a valid ticket from Balcombe to Brighton. Seems clear cut to me.

since I showed the revenue officer the Three Bridges ticket she knows that’s where I started from despite having a valid ticket from where I was stopped.

Slightly confused as to how I can word this letter now because maybe there’s a chance I’m not liable for prosecution?

 

[jamiearmley]

I believe about 10 minutes. I bought the Balcombe to Brighton ticket while in between three bridges and Balcombe. I didn’t realise that ticket doesn’t cover the gap between Three bridges and Balcombe which I see now makes the journey invalid.

It's six minutes from three bridges to balcombe. You state that you bought the second ticket whilst in between these two stations. You also state that you were inspected "at or near" Balcombe.
If you were inspected after Balcombe, an offence is hard to prove, because at the time of the inspection you had a valid ticket for travel.

However, if you only purchased the second ticket because you noted the revenue staff working their way through the carriage, they are potentially alert enough to know that you were already on the train before Balcombe.

It's hard to know what you have been reported for : the letter misleads to an extent, because it only refers to you being stopped "at or near Balcombe". We don't know if you have been reported for doughnutting, or for the non-offence of the second ticket not being scanned at the barriers at Balcombe, or indeed for something else.

Only you know what really happened - if it truly is because the ticket wasn't scanned through the barriers at Balcombe, that is not in itself an offence - it's just a red flag for an inspector to look more closely at your situation.

Good luck!

 

[furlong]

Unsure the OP has actually committed any offence here. Which one do people think they've committed?

Not the hybrid non-offence mentioned in the letter!

RORA

5(3) If any person—
(a) Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or
(b) Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof;

Intent easily proven in both cases by the gap between the tickets. (If the OP was capable of buying ticket from Balcombe, they were equally capable of buying one from Three Bridges. Plus the facilities available before boarding at Gatwick. Plus the strict liability "intent" that it wouldn't have been rectified had it not been detected. )

Plus the rarely used one for failing to alight the carriage when the first ticket expires.

 

[185143]

It's six minutes from three bridges to balcombe. You state that you bought the second ticket whilst in between these two stations. You also state that you were inspected "at or near" Balcombe.
If you were inspected after Balcombe, an offence is hard to prove, because at the time of the inspection you had a valid ticket for travel.

However, if you only purchased the second ticket because you noted the revenue staff working their way through the carriage, they are potentially alert enough to know that you were already on the train before Balcombe.

It's hard to know what you have been reported for : the letter misleads to an extent, because it only refers to you being stopped "at or near Balcombe". We don't know if you have been reported for doughnutting, or for the non-offence of the second ticket not being scanned at the barriers at Balcombe, or indeed for something else.

Only you know what really happened - if it truly is because the ticket wasn't scanned through the barriers at Balcombe, that is not in itself an offence - it's just a red flag for an inspector to look more closely at your situation.

Good luck!

There are no barriers at Balcombe.

It is however not likely to be one of the busier stations on the line. It isn't impossible that the RPI boarded thereafter knew the OP hadn't?

 

[Seek Freedom]

Not the hybrid non-offence mentioned in the letter!

RORA


Intent easily proven in both cases by the gap between the tickets. (If the OP was capable of buying ticket from Balcombe, they were equally capable of buying one from Three Bridges. Plus the facilities available before boarding at Gatwick. Plus the strict liability "intent" that it wouldn't have been rectified had it not been detected. )

Plus the rarely used one for failing to alight the carriage when the first ticket expires.

I think I’ll just have to write to them with my sincerest apologies since they state in the letter that “any ticket or railcard should have been purchased before boarding the train for it to be considered valid”. My Balcombe to Brighton ticket was purchased on the train.

What do we think an estimate for the out of court settlement could be for this? Admin fee of £150 plus the £13.70 ticket, £163.70 as a minimum?

 

[z444z]

I think I’ll just have to write to them with my sincerest apologies since they state in the letter that “any ticket or railcard should have been purchased before boarding the train for it to be considered valid”. My Balcombe to Brighton ticket was purchased on the train.

The fact that they’ve said it in a letter doesn’t make it true. It is possible that you haven’t committed any offence here. If GTR attempted a prosecution under the byelaws they would fail. However as @furlong points out, it’s very possible that a court would determine intent to be proven in a RoRA prosecution.

What do we think an estimate for the out of court settlement could be for this? Admin fee of £150 plus the £13.70 ticket, £163.70 as a minimum?

GTR have been very reasonable recently, we have seen settlements of £50+fare.

Surprisingly nobody has asked the question yet - if they investigate your purchasing history will they find anything suspicious?

 

[Egg Centric]

How old are you (and more importantly how old at the time of the incident)? You mention parents but also uni so I assume you are over 18 but just to make sure...?

 

[SussexMan]

It is possible that you haven’t committed any offence here.

Sorry, but I don't follow. We know the OP travelled from Gatwick to Brighton. We know the OP didn't have a ticket covering the entire journey. What am I missing?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Sorry, but I don't follow. We know the OP travelled from Gatwick to Brighton. We know the OP didn't have a ticket covering the entire journey. What am I missing?

As I understand it, that is the journey the OP made and they didn't have a ticket for Three Bridges to Balcombe.

However (1) their ticket was checked at or after Balcombe (the letter from GTR says "at") so at the point they were checked they had a valid ticket

However (2) when checked the OP for whatever reason presented both their tickets, thus demonstrating to the RPI they were doughnutting (possibly inadvertently)

So yes they have committed an offence, but no probably not the offence mentioned in the letter. Or does this come down to the interpretation of "a ticket entitling travel"? If the OP had produced the Balcombe - Brighton ticket "at Balcombe" surely there is no issue unless the RPI is prepared to testify they saw them on the train prior to Balcombe (unlikely as they would have no particular reason to be looking for them??), but effectively the OP has presented two tickets and said "here you go, I'm going from Gatwick to Brighton and I don't have tickets for the whole journey"??

 

[Seek Freedom]

As I understand it, that is the journey the OP made and they didn't have a ticket for Three Bridges to Balcombe.

However (1) their ticket was checked at or after Balcombe (the letter from GTR says "at") so at the point they were checked they had a valid ticket

However (2) when checked the OP for whatever reason presented both their tickets, thus demonstrating to the RPI they were doughnutting (possibly inadvertently)

So yes they have committed an offence, but no probably not the offence mentioned in the letter. Or does this come down to the interpretation of "a ticket entitling travel"? If the OP had produced the Balcombe - Brighton ticket "at Balcombe" surely there is no issue unless the RPI is prepared to testify they saw them on the train prior to Balcombe (unlikely as they would have no particular reason to be looking for them??), but effectively the OP has presented two tickets and said "here you go, I'm going from Gatwick to Brighton and I don't have tickets for the whole journey"??

The RPI took evidence of both my tickets, so that in itself shows it was donutting I suppose.
Draft letter to the Fare Evasion Manager to follow soon

 

[blimmo]

Sorry, but I don't follow. We know the OP travelled from Gatwick to Brighton. We know the OP didn't have a ticket covering the entire journey. What am I missing?

The strict liability offence in the bylaws is *boarding* a train without a valid ticket. OP definitely did not do that. Over travelling can be prosecuted under RoRA but this offence requires intent which OP claims they did not have.

The point is when people say "oops I forgot to but a ticket" the correct response is "doesn't matter you still commited an offence". But here that's not the case: if OP really didn't do it intentionally and offence hasn't been commited. Of course proving they didn't have intent could possibly be difficult, I suspect a magistrate could be convinced that two tickets with a suspicious gap between them is sufficient to prove intent.

Also I think this journey was before the NRCoT change so their claim that "tickets must be bought before travel commenced to be considered valid" is just incorrect.

 

[z444z]

Also I think this journey was before the NRCoT change so their claim that "tickets must be bought before travel commenced to be considered valid" is just incorrect.

GTR have been saying this for quite some time before the changes. They say plenty of things in their letters that aren’t true.