Sandwich penalty fare

[RPI]

And my answer to that question is... No. The letter from GWR, which the OP has shared, specifically states that no further discounts are applicable. As already pointed out, they've taken the unusual step of taking into account the amount already paid. The admin fee applied is also an unusually low £90. Asking for a further reduction could antagonise GWR and lead to the offer being withdrawn.

GWR always take into account any monies paid, as a court will always do this anyway.

 

[Starmill]

If you can't find enough to cover the bill from anywhere, but you can scrape some together, my suggestion would be to email them saying you've paid, say, half of the bill already, and will arrange to find the second half as soon as possible. Then ask very politely if they can consider extending their offer such that you could have a few weeks to find the money.

If you do this, they might commence the proceedings at court against you anyway, so it's really a last resort. However other TOCs will sometimes give extensions if at least part of the bill is paid. Obviously you'd need to give a written undertaking to pay by the new instalment dates if you agree to them, and if you missed a payment they could use that against you at court. They could also ask you to pay a fee in exchange for the instalments, and if they do you really haven't got any leverage to refuse it.

Do not ask for money from a loan shark (an illegal money lender) or a payday lender. If you need more information please see the links or call the phone numbers here: https://www.gov.uk/debt-advice

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Nov 2024 ==

If the OP has moved back abroad permanently, why are they bothering to solve this? Do they intend to return?

I think if it's the case that they even might want to enter the UK in future they would need to address the proceedings.

 

[furlong]

I can't make sense of how they have done the calculation either. The starting point is what you would have paid had you not cheated. I see a mixture of singles and (mostly) returns, and a mixture of anytimes and off-peak tickets. This suggests that most of the journeys should be calculated on the basis of walk-up return tickets with a mixture perhaps of anytime and off-peak depending what time the journey was. If valid railcards were held throughout the period, the railcard discount (subject to minimum fare) should also be applied. I see no basis for using any season ticket prices in the absence of evidence that you would have used them so I wouldn't bother to raise that point. I see every reason to try to argue that you would have purchased return tickets on most occasions as that's what the extract you have shown us suggests, so I'd suggest that that should be next thing to try to persuade them about. The statement that they can only settle for Anytime Singles looks out-dated and something which a solicitor could try to challenge on your behalf if this proceeded to court. You would be agreeing to settle the matter by paying compensation to put them back into the position they would have been in had you not cheated, which means the difference between what you should have paid if you had been honest in the first place and what you actually did pay, plus a small additional sum to cover the costs of dealing with the matter (correctly, first time - not time dealing with errors in or disputes about their calculations of their own making).

Your situation is different from someone making many journeys with no ticket at all, where it is easier to argue for Singles rather than Returns. Here you can try to argue that there is direct evidence that your normal behaviour was to purchase Returns and so that is the right basis on which the loss to the company should be assessed.

The risk for GWR is, if they stick to the higher amount and you can't pay it and they don't let you pay in installments, so then they prosecute you, the court might only award them a lower amount of compensation (and there's always some small chance you'll find a way out leaving them with nothing at all). In practice there might be a way to settle somewhere in the middle, maybe with the lower figure based on returns, ignoring the point about any journeys at off-peak times, but perhaps giving them some additional admin costs covering the extra to-and-fro negotiating a lower sum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2024 ==

To be clear, the letter is about potential criminal proceedings, and after a conviction such courts decide how much money the company lost due to your crime and award money to put this right. That means the extra cost of the tickets the court is persuaded that you would actually have purchased had you been completely honest. The train company is trying to settle on the basis that you would have purchased Anytime Singles for all of those journeys. If prosecuted and you challenged the figure, a court would get to decide between the two points of view.

(Even on the contractual Conditions of Travel point they state, nothing seems to provide authority to charge only an Anytime Single. 9.2 merely claims to summarise a situation defined elsewhere, not provide any authority, but even if it did, it says it would only apply "when asked" and on that occasion presumably when you were caught 9.2.3 (report for prosecution) was sensibly chosen rather than 9.2.1. The authority they are using to recover all these fares then surely cannot come from 9.2 - but rather it comes from the basic requirement to pay for the service you received and for that Off-Peak Returns if valid at the time you travelled are just as good as Anytime Singles.)

The government has announced a review into the prosecution practices of train companies, and I think the basis on which they calculate initial settlement offers, including these precise points, ought to form part of this.

I think it's worth noting that if we go back to 2006 for example, the Conditions of Carriage stated:

If you travel in a train:
(a) without a ticket;
...
you will be liable to pay the full single fare or full return fare or, if appropriate, a Penalty Fare (see Condition 4) for your journey.
...
For the purposes of this Condition, and Conditions 4, 39 and 41, "full single fare or full return fare" means the highest priced single or (if requested by the passenger) return fare appropriate to the class of travel for the journey you are making.

But those words are all gone now, but you can see that historically
(a) (the predecessors of) Anytime fares were used (no such liability is imposed any more, particularly when 9.2.3 is chosen)
(b) return fares were used if the passenger wanted this (not mentioned any more)

(Is GWR inventing some hybrid of old and new?)

 

[Titfield]

Notwithstanding all the points @furlong has made above - and I agree he has a very valid view about the fare a law abiding passenger would have purchased.

But if you distill this down to what it means in practical terms; is the additional amount the TOC is demanding (by using anytime singles) a greater cost to you than by going to court and probably have the amount to pay for the fares outstanding reduced to the lower return fare level but PLUS a fine PLUS a victim surcharge PLUS a criminal record.

A well worded reply to the TOC may persuade them that a calculation based on return fares may be more appropriate But it has the inherent risk they withdraw the offer and proceed to court. Personally I think a well worded letter from a solicitor would have the desired effect but the cost of employing a solicitor (say £600 - £800) may wipe out any savings on the fares.

Have you worked out what the outstanding fares would be if the return fare was used?

 

[riya]

I can't make sense of how they have done the calculation either. The starting point is what you would have paid had you not cheated. I see a mixture of singles and (mostly) returns, and a mixture of anytimes and off-peak tickets. This suggests that most of the journeys should be calculated on the basis of walk-up return tickets with a mixture perhaps of anytime and off-peak depending what time the journey was. If valid railcards were held throughout the period, the railcard discount (subject to minimum fare) should also be applied. I see no basis for using any season ticket prices in the absence of evidence that you would have used them so I wouldn't bother to raise that point. I see every reason to try to argue that you would have purchased return tickets on most occasions as that's what the extract you have shown us suggests, so I'd suggest that that should be next thing to try to persuade them about. The statement that they can only settle for Anytime Singles looks out-dated and something which a solicitor could try to challenge on your behalf if this proceeded to court. You would be agreeing to settle the matter by paying compensation to put them back into the position they would have been in had you not cheated, which means the difference between what you should have paid if you had been honest in the first place and what you actually did pay, plus a small additional sum to cover the costs of dealing with the matter (correctly, first time - not time dealing with errors in or disputes about their calculations of their own making).

Your situation is different from someone making many journeys with no ticket at all, where it is easier to argue for Singles rather than Returns. Here you can try to argue that there is direct evidence that your normal behaviour was to purchase Returns and so that is the right basis on which the loss to the company should be assessed.

The risk for GWR is, if they stick to the higher amount and you can't pay it and they don't let you pay in installments, so then they prosecute you, the court might only award them a lower amount of compensation (and there's always some small chance you'll find a way out leaving them with nothing at all). In practice there might be a way to settle somewhere in the middle, maybe with the lower figure based on returns, ignoring the point about any journeys at off-peak times, but perhaps giving them some additional admin costs covering the extra to-and-fro negotiating a lower sum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2024 ==

To be clear, the letter is about potential criminal proceedings, and after a conviction such courts decide how much money the company lost due to your crime and award money to put this right. That means the extra cost of the tickets the court is persuaded that you would actually have purchased had you been completely honest. The train company is trying to settle on the basis that you would have purchased Anytime Singles for all of those journeys. If prosecuted and you challenged the figure, a court would get to decide between the two points of view.

(Even on the contractual Conditions of Travel point they state, nothing seems to provide authority to charge only an Anytime Single. 9.2 merely claims to summarise a situation defined elsewhere, not provide any authority, but even if it did, it says it would only apply "when asked" and on that occasion presumably when you were caught 9.2.3 (report for prosecution) was sensibly chosen rather than 9.2.1. The authority they are using to recover all these fares then surely cannot come from 9.2 - but rather it comes from the basic requirement to pay for the service you received and for that Off-Peak Returns if valid at the time you travelled are just as good as Anytime Singles.)

The government has announced a review into the prosecution practices of train companies, and I think the basis on which they calculate initial settlement offers, including these precise points, ought to form part of this.

I think it's worth noting that if we go back to 2006 for example, the Conditions of Carriage stated:


But those words are all gone now, but you can see that historically
(a) (the predecessors of) Anytime fares were used (no such liability is imposed any more, particularly when 9.2.3 is chosen)
(b) return fares were used if the passenger wanted this (not mentioned any more)

(Is GWR inventing some hybrid of old and new?)

Thanks a ton for your reply and suggestion. I did go back to them earlier asking for potential reduction and showing them proofs needed, like my p45 or tenancy ending agreement etc, they have come back to me asking for my p45 and the maximum amount i can afford, i explained my limit and also sent them a copy of my p45, redacting my employer information and payroll number etc.

I am waiting for their reply back. Would really like to hope an agreement can be reached

 

[riya]

I can't make sense of how they have done the calculation either. The starting point is what you would have paid had you not cheated. I see a mixture of singles and (mostly) returns, and a mixture of anytimes and off-peak tickets. This suggests that most of the journeys should be calculated on the basis of walk-up return tickets with a mixture perhaps of anytime and off-peak depending what time the journey was. If valid railcards were held throughout the period, the railcard discount (subject to minimum fare) should also be applied. I see no basis for using any season ticket prices in the absence of evidence that you would have used them so I wouldn't bother to raise that point. I see every reason to try to argue that you would have purchased return tickets on most occasions as that's what the extract you have shown us suggests, so I'd suggest that that should be next thing to try to persuade them about. The statement that they can only settle for Anytime Singles looks out-dated and something which a solicitor could try to challenge on your behalf if this proceeded to court. You would be agreeing to settle the matter by paying compensation to put them back into the position they would have been in had you not cheated, which means the difference between what you should have paid if you had been honest in the first place and what you actually did pay, plus a small additional sum to cover the costs of dealing with the matter (correctly, first time - not time dealing with errors in or disputes about their calculations of their own making).

Your situation is different from someone making many journeys with no ticket at all, where it is easier to argue for Singles rather than Returns. Here you can try to argue that there is direct evidence that your normal behaviour was to purchase Returns and so that is the right basis on which the loss to the company should be assessed.

The risk for GWR is, if they stick to the higher amount and you can't pay it and they don't let you pay in installments, so then they prosecute you, the court might only award them a lower amount of compensation (and there's always some small chance you'll find a way out leaving them with nothing at all). In practice there might be a way to settle somewhere in the middle, maybe with the lower figure based on returns, ignoring the point about any journeys at off-peak times, but perhaps giving them some additional admin costs covering the extra to-and-fro negotiating a lower sum.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2024 ==

To be clear, the letter is about potential criminal proceedings, and after a conviction such courts decide how much money the company lost due to your crime and award money to put this right. That means the extra cost of the tickets the court is persuaded that you would actually have purchased had you been completely honest. The train company is trying to settle on the basis that you would have purchased Anytime Singles for all of those journeys. If prosecuted and you challenged the figure, a court would get to decide between the two points of view.

(Even on the contractual Conditions of Travel point they state, nothing seems to provide authority to charge only an Anytime Single. 9.2 merely claims to summarise a situation defined elsewhere, not provide any authority, but even if it did, it says it would only apply "when asked" and on that occasion presumably when you were caught 9.2.3 (report for prosecution) was sensibly chosen rather than 9.2.1. The authority they are using to recover all these fares then surely cannot come from 9.2 - but rather it comes from the basic requirement to pay for the service you received and for that Off-Peak Returns if valid at the time you travelled are just as good as Anytime Singles.)

The government has announced a review into the prosecution practices of train companies, and I think the basis on which they calculate initial settlement offers, including these precise points, ought to form part of this.

I think it's worth noting that if we go back to 2006 for example, the Conditions of Carriage stated:


But those words are all gone now, but you can see that historically
(a) (the predecessors of) Anytime fares were used (no such liability is imposed any more, particularly when 9.2.3 is chosen)
(b) return fares were used if the passenger wanted this (not mentioned any more)

(Is GWR inventing some hybrid of old and new?)

Hi @furlong , thanks a lot for your detailed suggestions and explanation.
I went back to GWR with a copy of P45 to demonstrate loss of income and mentioned about my tickets to return back. Post which there was a mutual agreement on the max amount that i could afford and we have now settled for that amount with an exception on change in circumstance wherein if i stay back then i would be asked to pay the remaining amount.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi @furlong , thanks a lot for your detailed suggestions and explanation.
I went back to GWR with a copy of P45 to demonstrate loss of income and mentioned about my tickets to return back. Post which there was a mutual agreement on the max amount that i could afford and we have now settled for that amount with an exception on change in circumstance wherein if i stay back then i would be asked to pay the remaining amount.

Thanks for posting - this is useful feedback that I think may help others in tight situations in future. Strikes me you have done well to negotiate that, and that presumably a co-operative approach from you resulted in a more helpful outcome.