Pre-Court Settlement Offer - GWR

[Koran Ceylon]

First post, hopefully posted in right forum. Obviously a lot of posters have got great advice so hoping this can be made sense of.

Originally purchased an open return with 16-25 Railcard from Cardiff Central to London Paddington (any route permitted) in late December 2017. I had taken the train uneventfully from Cardiff to London, and had confirmed with a member of railway staff that I could use the open return so as to stop at Bristol Temple Meads for a new year's party, using it the next day to travel back to Cardiff.

At Paddington, I remember presenting my ticket for inspection at ticket gates to a staff member, I think because it just happened to be quicker to get through the gates. He asked me for my railcard which I presented, and he informed me that it was out of date. Definite error on my part, it had just gone out of date as I had turned 27 the month before.

As I was with friends and the train was shortly to leave he let me through the barriers and advised me that he could issue a paper ticket and that I would be contacted at my address to cover the ticket costs. At this stage I made him aware that I would be happy to pay for a single ticket on card and even miss the train if necessary. I also made it clear that I didn't intend to travel without a valid railcard and that it had expired without me realising, and that I was happy for him to confiscate it and the invalid ticket.

He issued a paper ticket, confiscated my ticket and old railcard, and took my details. I got onto the train uneventfully.

I realised the next day when trying to travel home from Bristol that in fact he had issues me with a day single (SDS on the paper ticket - not being familiar with the abbreviation) and that this wasn't valid for Bristol to Cardiff on New Year's day. I did briefly try to explain this to the ticket officer but understood the issue and willingly bought a single back to Cardiff (which the barrier swallowed so I no longer have).

I have now received the letter attached asking for £255. (I understand the penalty fare should be "twice the full single fare from the station where the passenger got on the train to the next station at which the train stops, whichever is the greater. If the passenger wants to travel beyond the next station, they must also pay the relevant fare from that station to their final destination.")

Naive maybe but I genuinely thought I would be sent the cost of the off peak single through the post, had I known this I would have bought the single there and then, and got the next train. I feel as though a fair outcome would be for me to pay the cost of the super off-peak single from Paddington to Cardiff, minus the cost of a standard single from Temple Meads to Cardiff.

What are your thoughts?

 

[acned]

Personally, what I would do - pay up immediately before it goes to court.

If you decide to fight it in court, make sure you get a good brief, and they don't come cheap.

Just bear in mind, the railway has over 100 years of legal precedent on its side and ignorance of the law is no defence.

Sorry to be a doom-monger, good luck whatever you decide.

 

[yorkie]

... I feel as though a fair outcome would be...

Others may be able to spare more time considering this than I am, but in brief: your choice is either to pay the sum requested OR to allow the matter to go to court.

If you do allow the matter to go to court, you will incur significant costs defending your case, and if you lose it, you may end up with a criminal record (depending on what legislation they charge you with; see the Legal section of our Fares Guide for details).

 

[Koran Ceylon]

Personally, what I would do - pay up immediately before it goes to court.

If you decide to fight it in court, make sure you get a good brief, and they don't come cheap.

Just bear in mind, the railway has over 100 years of legal precedent on its side and ignorance of the law is no defence.

Sorry to be a doom-monger, good luck whatever you decide.

Thanks for your advice! Obviously not keen to go to court

Others may be able to spare more time considering this than I am, but in brief: your choice is either to pay the sum requested OR to allow the matter to go to court.

If you do allow the matter to go to court, you will incur significant costs defending your case, and if you lose it, you may end up with a criminal record (depending on what legislation they charge you with; see the Legal section of our Fares Guide for details).

Appreciate that, thanks.

Would it be worth contacting GWR, and do you feel there's any likelihood of them reducing the £255?

Maybe it's a classic case of feeling hard done by but IMO the shady thing was that even though I'd asked to buy a ticket there and then (realising the railcard was out of date) and made it clear I wasn't trying to duck the fare, and I wasn't even through the barrier/on the train, he quickly scanned me through and said the cost of the ticket could be sent to my address (knowing I was going to get the hefty fine).

 

[Llanigraham]

Thanks for your advice! Obviously not keen to go to court

Would it be worth contacting GWR, and do you feel there's any likelihood of them reducing the £255?

Maybe it's a classic case of feeling hard done by but IMO the shady thing was that even though I'd asked to buy a ticket there and then (realising the railcard was out of date) and made it clear I wasn't trying to duck the fare, and I wasn't even through the barrier/on the train, he quickly scanned me through and said the cost of the ticket could be sent to my address (knowing I was going to get the hefty fine).

I would suggest that if you start trying to negotiate with them they will drop the offer and go straight to Court action.
Think about it, you had an out-of-date 16 - 25 Card AND you admt to being 27!!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Just out of Intrest how did you purchase the ticket?

 

[Koran Ceylon]

Just out of Intrest how did you purchase the ticket?

At a ticket machine at Cardiff Central.

 

[30907]

You had, if I read your first post correctly, already travelled from Cardiff to London without a valid ticket (but without being challenged), and were challenged on the return. The letter suggests that they are after the relevant return fare, which is reasonable, though I can't work out how they've arrived at the amount.

BTW the Penalty Fare rule doesnt apply, as Paddington-Cardiff isnt wholly within a PF area.

 

[Gareth Marston]

At a ticket machine at Cardiff Central.

Online sales and TVM's make it a lot easier for someone to claim railcard discount there not entitled to, however the national terms clearly put the onus on the passenger to hold a valid railcard.

I had someone who did the old flash the blue wallet routine at me today and then show a photo card. No railcard at all going to Cardiff as well. I probably saved him money by refusing the discount! Of course a TVM would have issued the discounted ticket.

 

[Koran Ceylon]

I would suggest that if you start trying to negotiate with them they will drop the offer and go straight to Court action.
Think about it, you had an out-of-date 16 - 25 Card AND you admt to being 27!!

I had just turned 27 and simply forgot my card had expired. 16-25 railcards can be purchased and be valid right up until someone has finished being 25, I was 26 when the card was valid.

Thanks for your responses.

 

[farleigh]

It is not nice having to pay this, but the guys above offering advice have a lot of expertise. They would let you know if they felt you had a decent chance of appealing etc.

 

[Koran Ceylon]

Online sales and TVM's make it a lot easier for someone to claim railcard discount there not entitled to, however the national terms clearly put the onus on the passenger to hold a valid railcard.

I had someone who did the old flash the blue wallet routine at me today and then show a photo card. No railcard at all going to Cardiff as well. I probably saved him money by refusing the discount! Of course a TVM would have issued the discounted ticket.

Cheeky and just trying to chance obviously! Is it protocol to have done what this ticket officer did rather than just to charge the single fare or let someone go and buy the single ticket before boarding the train?

 

[Puffing Devil]

As the others have said - pay up and move on.

Personally, what I would do - pay up immediately before it goes to court.

Others may be able to spare more time considering this than I am, but in brief: your choice is either to pay the sum requested OR to allow the matter to go to court.

If you do allow the matter to go to court, you will incur significant costs defending your case, and if you lose it, you may end up with a criminal record (depending on what legislation they charge you with; see the Legal section of our Fares Guide for details).

I would suggest that if you start trying to negotiate with them they will drop the offer and go straight to Court action.
Think about it, you had an out-of-date 16 - 25 Card AND you admt to being 27!!

 

[gray1404]

I cannot workout how they have come to that amount in terms of what fare they have charged. I do believe the Revenue Protection Staff member you spoke to was most unreasonable. You were travelling on a Sunday, a day when all Off Peak tickets are valid and you had not travelled either. Given that no travel had taken place I believe they should either have refused you travel by not allowing you to board the train on the basis that a valid ticket was not held. They should then have either sold you an Off Peak ticket or sent you to the ticket office to buy such. Most unreasonable to take such details in those circumstances.

Also, an Anytime Day Single does NOT exist for travel between Paddington and Cardiff so they have issued a zero excess to a fare which doesn't exist. It should have been issued to an Anytime Single, which would have been valid for 5 days and thus valid to Cardiff the next day from Bristol. I do wonder if some RPIs will say anything "nice and friendly and understanding" to get passengers to give their details. Things like "we will send you a bill afterwards" etc in order to get their numbers up of people they can report. Be nice at the time and write up an unfounded report afterwards. I do think, on this occasion, you have been treated unfairly given that you had not yet travelled out of Paddington on an invalid ticket and even offered to correct it.

I do not take the view that your outward travel has any bearing. GWR has no evidence that you used that ticket for the outward journey as you were not stopped on the day of travel and they cannot be reporting people retrospectively. I wonder if there is any merit in getting a legal advisor to try to negotiate a lower settlement with GWR for you - although I suspect the cost of this (unless you can get someone highly trained in a free legal advise clinic) will amount to over the cost of just paying up.

 

[Clip]

I do not take the view that your outward travel has any bearing. GWR has no evidence that you used that ticket for the outward journey as you were not stopped on the day of travel and they cannot be reporting people retrospectively. I wonder if there is any merit in getting a legal advisor to try to negotiate a lower settlement with GWR for you - although I suspect the cost of this (unless you can get someone highly trained in a free legal advise clinic) will amount to over the cost of just paying up.

And I take the view that it does have a LOT of bearing on the case in hand as it shows that the OP has already travelled with an invalid ticket for travel.

OP - please take heed of the correct advice from numerous posters above - pay up move on and ensure in the future you have the correct documents and in date for when you next travel by rail - if you don then it could be much worse

 

[ffm]

Pay this and straight away without question. You bought a return, perhaps when you were 26 - but you knew when your birthday was and that your discount wasn't valid after that. You say you bought the ticket in 'late December 2017' and that, when challenged about the expiry, you admitted the error as you had turned 27 'the mpnth before'. As it isn't yet late January 2018 it is therefore the case that you became aged 27 in December 2017, either before you purchased the ticket, or very soon thereafter. Accept that you should not have done so and pay up.

 

[Hadders]

I think it's probably best to chalk this up to experience and pay up. Once you start going down the route of legal advice it's likely to end up costing more than they're after to settle.

The only query I have is how they have arrived at the figure for the fare owed. That doesn't seem right to me so it might be worth calling them to get an explanation.

 

[ffm]

in calling maybe also note that it was London to Cardiff....

 

[island]

Unfortunately you didn't have a valid ticket, so you're a bit stuck with either paying what they've asked for (even though they've asked for a rather higher fare than seems applicable) or going to court.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . do you feel there's any likelihood of them reducing the £255?

Negligible.

As the others have said - pay up and move on.

Agree.

I do not take the view that your outward travel has any bearing.

Disagree.

And I take the view that it does have a LOT of bearing on the case in hand as it shows that the OP has already travelled with an invalid ticket for travel.

Exactly right.

Please just accept the offer that is being put to you if you haven't already done so.

As for letting this go to Court, it will be for no better reason that to play litigation roulette, you don't have a robust defence and the Company does have a robust prosecution. It there is some opportunistic defect to be exploited by a quick witted law firm, then you might just escape prosecution and a fine. And if you don't, you'll be far worse off than by accepting the offer that has been made to you. It doesn't stand up to any reasonable risk assessment.

 

[gray1404]

Was it not wrong though for the inspector to give misleading information and also report someone when they have not yet even got on the train. Given they had not yet got on the train they should have had the chance to get an Off Peak Single for travel on a Sunday.

 

[najaB]

Was it not wrong though for the inspector to give misleading information and also report someone when they have not yet even got on the train.

To quote the Regulation of Railways Act:

(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;

So, no.

 

[gray1404]

So in the right legally. But morally wrong. Not what a decent guy would do. I is a shame that the UK has come to this. I stand by my claim that refusing travel and directing them to the ticket office would have been the decent and moral thing to do, if nothing else.

 

[najaB]

I stand by my claim that refusing travel and directing them to the ticket office would have been the decent and moral thing to do, if nothing else.

If they were using the outbound portion of the ticket, maybe so. But it was on the return so the OP demonstrated clear intent to avoid paying the correct fare.

 

[gray1404]

If they were using the outbound portion of the ticket, maybe so. But it was on the return so the OP demonstrated clear intent to avoid paying the correct fare.

But what evidence did the RPI have at the time that the outward portion had been used, certainly should not assume. It is more then possible for a customer to buy a ticket and not use the outward half (there is a certain flow for which I use regularly for which I do this as its actually cheaper.)

What I am saying it that an RPI can really only deal with the situation in front of them and it becomes wrong when people start working on assumptions. For the passenger to be reported avoiding paying the correct fare on the outward journey then they would need to have been stopped and reported during the outward journey.

 

[najaB]

What I am saying it that an RPI can really only deal with the situation in front of them and it becomes wrong when people start working on assumptions. For the passenger to be reported avoiding paying the correct fare on the outward journey then they would need to have been stopped and reported during the outward journey.

They weren't reported for the outward journey, they were reported as a result of being stopped on the return journey, the letter says as much.

 

[gray1404]

They weren't reported for the outward journey, they were reported as a result of being stopped on the return journey, the letter says as much.

So I guess we have come full circle then: they are being reported for their return journey (NOT the outward), of which no travel had occurred on the return journey so the reasonable and moral thing to have done would have been to have either sold the customer an Off Peak ticket or directed them to the ticket office to buy such. I guess there are some unreasonable people on the railway who just want to prove their "performance" by reporting people - even if that means making misleading claims to the customer in order to obtain their details (see OP's first post). HOWEVER I totally ACCEPT your point about how the railway is "entitled" to report in these circumstances for the attempt to travel - I don't dispute that.

 

[Clip]

So in the right legally. But morally wrong. Not what a decent guy would do. I is a shame that the UK has come to this. I stand by my claim that refusing travel and directing them to the ticket office would have been the decent and moral thing to do, if nothing else.

I think you will find that the moral issue you keep pedalling wrongly is for the passenger to ensure they have the correct and in date travel documents before they travel.

The law states differently to what you *think* and your constant pushing of morals or what you *think* should happen have no place in these discussions.

 

[najaB]

I guess there are some unreasonable people on the railway who just want to prove their "performance" by reporting people - even if that means making misleading claims to the customer in order to obtain their details (see OP's first post).

The thing is we only have the OP's word as to the conversation that occurred. While it's entirely possible that the guard was misleading, it's similarly possible that the OP has reported what he understood the guard to have said - it could equally have been "They'll contact you about this ticket." since if it was just about 'the ticket cost' he could have issued a UFN there and then.

 

[Haywain]

the reasonable and moral thing to have done would have been to have either sold the customer an Off Peak ticket or directed them to the ticket office to buy such. I guess there are some unreasonable people on the railway who just want to prove their "performance" by reporting people

It seems to me that the reasonable thing to do in the circumstances was allow the customer to travel as they wished and deal with it later, as the OP indicates happened.

As I was with friends and the train was shortly to leave he let me through the barriers and advised me that he could issue a paper ticket and that I would be contacted at my address to cover the ticket costs.

You may argue that he should have been less reasonable and insisted that the OP buy a new ticket (I would see that as a cop-out) but as ever you see the behaviour of railway staff as wrong no matter what they do. Sometimes you have to take the blinkers off.