Second digital fraud email - £1,500+ fine?

[Account2255]

Hi All, after submitting my railcard I’ve now heard back regarding this being used before 10am and that they are asking for £1,552. Any advice on my next steps. Presumably wanting to get a solicitor involved?

Out of these 111 incidents, 16 of these were in the last 6 months. I thought I read somewhere that they can only take you to magistrates court if the event took place within 6 months. Therefore would it be unreasonable to try reach a settlement either considering the 15 trips within the last 6 months, or to consider the return journey taken that was within the rules?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

Out of these 111 incidents, 16 of these were in the last 6 months. I thought I read somewhere that they can only take you to magistrates court if the event took place within 6 months. Therefore would it be unreasonable to try reach a settlement either considering the 15 trips within the last 6 months, or to consider the return journey taken that was within the rules?

I’m seeking advice then, on how to reach a fair settlement. They’ve given me a deadline of 1 week but they previously have been very slow to reply. I don’t want to rush and put together a poorly worded email - does anyone have an example template or key points to make?

Do I ask them to provide a breakdown of how they got to the 111 journeys as surely if asking for this sum there should be a breakdown from my Trainline account?

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi All, after submitting my railcard I’ve now heard back regarding this being used before 10am and that they are asking for £1,552. Any advice on my next steps. Presumably wanting to get a solicitor involved?

Well, the issue is do you dispute the number of journeys they claim you used the Railcard for when that was not permitted? If so there may be something a solicitor could argue with them about on your behalf.

If you don't I am not sure what a solicitor could do to negotiate that sum downwards for you (and you would have to pay the solicitors fees for their help which might be in the region of £500 - based on what people on this forum who have used solicitors have told us - on top of what has to be paid to the railway - thought you could ask for a quote estimate form one of the solicitors specialising in rail fare problems thta often get mentioned on this site if you want to get an idea).

Essentially I read this as 'please pay us £1,552 or we will prosecute you in court.

If they win such a prosecution (and presumably they have enough evidence to prosecute you successfully for at least one occasion) then you would be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines AND receive a criminal record which may impact on things like future job applications etc. I am not sure if the total in court fine and costs would be more than £1,500 but there is a formula often quoted on this site. The only (not very beneficial in the great scheme of things) difference in being fined by a court is that you can potentially agree a payment plan with the court and pay the fine in instalments. Usually the railway companies want payment of the sum they are asking for as an out of court settlement in full.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

Out of these 111 incidents, 16 of these were in the last 6 months. I thought I read somewhere that they can only take you to magistrates court if the event took place within 6 months. Therefore would it be unreasonable to try reach a settlement either considering the 15 trips within the last 6 months, or to consider the return journey taken that was within the rules?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

They only need one incident in the last 6 months to prosecute you. If they go to court I don't think they will be seeking to prosecute you for all of the occasions. The usual stance is more the sort of 'pay this money or we can see you in court and let the magistrates decide'

I’m seeking advice then, on how to reach a fair settlement. They’ve given me a deadline of 1 week but they previously have been very slow to reply. I don’t want to rush and put together a poorly worded email - does anyone have an example template or key points to make?

Do I ask them to provide a breakdown of how they got to the 111 journeys as surely if asking for this sum there should be a breakdown from my Trainline account?

Do you dispute the 111 journeys they are asking for are incorrect and you had a valid ticket for them? I assume you can check your own Trainline account to get a breakdown and check for your side.

Apols if I have missed some background up thread.

 

[island]

Edit: please read post 34 and 44 first.

Out of these 111 incidents, 16 of these were in the last 6 months. I thought I read somewhere that they can only take you to magistrates court if the event took place within 6 months. Therefore would it be unreasonable to try reach a settlement either considering the 15 trips within the last 6 months, or to consider the return journey taken that was within the rules?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

That's not quite how it works.

Whilst they can only take you to magistrates court for offenses committed in the past six months, they are entitled to consider older offences as part of a settlement agreement. Entering into a settlement agreement is voluntary on your part and on their part. You're under no obligation to accept it.

I’m seeking advice then, on how to reach a fair settlement.

You've been offered a fair settlement. Your choices are

1. Pay it
2. Come up with proof they have calculated it wrongly
3. Take your chances in court

The train company holds all the cards – you're the one in the wrong and you need to cooperate if you want to get out of this without a criminal record.

They’ve given me a deadline of 1 week but they previously have been very slow to reply. I don’t want to rush and put together a poorly worded email - does anyone have an example template or key points to make?

What exactly is it you're wanting to say? They won't reduce the settlement merely on the grounds that it's "too much". You'd need to demonstrate (with evidence) that they've calculated it wrongly, for example:

• that they are charging you for a journey where you held a valid ticket/Railcard and they say you did not
• that they are charging you for a journey where you did travel at a valid time for your Railcard
• that they are charging you in respect of a ticket you purchased but you did not use

Do I ask them to provide a breakdown of how they got to the 111 journeys as surely if asking for this sum there should be a breakdown from my Trainline account?

You have access to the same information in your Trainline account. They are not required to provide you with a breakdown.

 

[AlterEgo]

Out of these 111 incidents, 16 of these were in the last 6 months. I thought I read somewhere that they can only take you to magistrates court if the event took place within 6 months. Therefore would it be unreasonable to try reach a settlement either considering the 15 trips within the last 6 months, or to consider the return journey taken that was within the rules?

To be abundantly clear lest this become very expensive for you:

What was the date you were stopped? And what is the most recent instance of avoiding the fare? (Did you do it after you were stopped, too?)

You mention December so it is possible they are out of time for all the offences.

 

[WesternLancer]

It may be that @Watershed can offer some advice on what to reply with as upthread post#16 Watershed advances the argument that only the difference between what has been paid and the correct fare that should have been paid is owed (usually called an Excess Fare' in railway language) - which I assume would be a lower sum in total - BUT that needs to be checked.

Have you calculated the difference between what you paid and what you should have paid for the correct ticket and multiplied it by the number of journeys when you had not paid enough?

But I assume there is a risk that if you try to make this argument they may withdraw their offer and go down the 'see you in court' route. You would then need to be very confident you could persuade the magistrates that only an Excess fare was due, or you would need a representative / solicitors who could make the case that the railway company are not applying their fares regulations /rules conditions of travel and ticketing correctly and the case should be rejected by the court. Paying a solicitor who has that expertise / specialist knowledge is probably not going to be cheap.

It will be worth you waiting maybe 24 hours to see what other posters on the forum with expertise suggest are your best options.

 

[Account2255]

To be abundantly clear lest this become very expensive for you:

What was the date you were stopped? And what is the most recent instance of avoiding the fare? (Did you do it after you were stopped, too?)

You mention December so it is possible they are out of time for all the offences.

Stopped 19/12/24, then travelled around 15 times since as each time my ticket was scanned by a ticket inspector and they never flagged any issues so thought I just caught someone on a bad day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

To be abundantly clear lest this become very expensive for you:

What was the date you were stopped? And what is the most recent instance of avoiding the fare? (Did you do it after you were stopped, too?)

You mention December so it is possible they are out of time for all the offences.

Most recent was end of May 2024

 

[John R]

Digressing slightly maybe, there is an interesting paragraph in the latest letter which suggests that purchasing invalid tickets makes the person liable for them in line with Trainline’s T&Cs. This seems to be contrary to the received wisdom on this forum that purchasing a ticket doesn’t prove that the purchaser used it, even if by virtue of being scanned it can be proved that somebody used it.

 

[dosxuk]

They’ve given me a deadline of 1 week but they previously have been very slow to reply. I don’t want to rush and put together a poorly worded email - does anyone have an example template or key points to make?

Do I ask them to provide a breakdown of how they got to the 111 journeys as surely if asking for this sum there should be a breakdown from my Trainline account?

If you're thinking of using asking for a breakdown as a delaying tactic, don't bother. Firstly, they may well co-operate, but increase their admin charges to compensate for the additional time spent on your case; secondly, if they're approaching a court cut-off date, you can fully expect them to lodge the paperwork anyway and withdraw the offer of a settlement - they won't just let you off because you run the clock down.

 

[skyhigh]

Essentially I read this as 'please pay us £1,552 or we will prosecute you in court.

If they win such a prosecution (and presumably they have enough evidence to prosecute you successfully for at least one occasion) then you would be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines AND receive a criminal record which may impact on things like future job applications etc. I am not sure if the total in court fine and costs would be more than £1,500 but there is a formula often quoted on this site. The only (not very beneficial in the great scheme of things) difference in being fined by a court is that you can potentially agree a payment plan with the court and pay the fine in instalments. Usually the railway companies want payment of the sum they are asking for as an out of court settlement in full.

If they prosecute for the one offence, there is nothing stopping them later making a Civil court claim for the remaining incorrect fares - as the statue of limitations there is 6 years.

Potentially this means if you decline to pay the settlement the OP could end up with a criminal conviction and court fine and also have to repay the remainder of the incorrect tickets too.

We have seen one recent example where the TOC has threatened a Civil claim, it remains to be seen if this is a new direction or just a one off - but the risk is there.

 

[Haywain]

Digressing slightly maybe, there is an interesting paragraph in the latest letter which suggests that purchasing invalid tickets makes the person liable for them in line with Trainline’s T&Cs. This seems to be contrary to the received wisdom on this forum that purchasing a ticket doesn’t prove that the purchaser used it, even if by virtue of being scanned it can be proved that somebody used it.

That may be true, but if the OP were asked in court whether they used those tickets what are they going to say?

 

[Towers]

Who on earth wrote that last email, it’s dreadful? It rather clashes that people responsible for issuing demands of four figure settlement fees or threats of commencing legal action otherwise, are held to such a low standard of basic competence so as not be able to use basic language correctly.

How has it been possible for the TOC to establish that the OP has obtained invalid tickets with regard to the Railcard time restriction? No booking engine would allow a selection of an invalid fare & intinerary surely, so how do they know when the tickets were used - are we assuming they’ve obtained extrance/exit scan data?

 

[John R]

That may be true, but if the OP were asked in court whether they used those tickets what are they going to say?

Oh, I absolutely agree. But I often see it written that "they can only get you for the instance when you were stopped".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

are we assuming they’ve obtained extrance/exit scan data?

I would have thought that is very likely.

 

[Account2255]

If you're thinking of using asking for a breakdown as a delaying tactic, don't bother. Firstly, they may well co-operate, but increase their admin charges to compensate for the additional time spent on your case; secondly, if they're approaching a court cut-off date, you can fully expect them to lodge the paperwork anyway and withdraw the offer of a settlement - they won't just let you off because you run the clock down.

Sorry if it was poorly written, but if I’m paying this large sum I want to confirm the amount is accurate as I have no idea how many it has been and how many years this goes back. My concern was I didn’t want to reach the deadline and my only email being a request for a breakdown

 

[island]

To be abundantly clear lest this become very expensive for you:

What was the date you were stopped? And what is the most recent instance of avoiding the fare? (Did you do it after you were stopped, too?)

You mention December so it is possible they are out of time for all the offences.

This is a very important consideration that changes the complexion of things.

The OP hasn't been caught in the last six months so it may well be challenging for them to prosecute.

 

[Account2255]

Who on earth wrote that last email, it’s dreadful? It rather clashes that people responsible for issuing demands of four figure settlement fees or threats of commencing legal action otherwise, are held to such a low standard of basic competence so as not be able to use basic language correctly.

How has it been possible for the TOC to establish that the OP has obtained invalid tickets with regard to the Railcard time restriction? No booking engine would allow a selection of an invalid fare & intinerary surely, so how do they know when the tickets were used - are we assuming they’ve obtained extrance/exit scan data?

It suggests they have, however an earlier email references 159 instances at £1,343.95 and now it’s 111 at £1,332 so not sure if suggests 48 instances were after 10am or they calculated it wrong as I’ve not made any trips for £0.25 each. The new calculation appears to be £12 a ticket which appears accurate before the ticket price increases but no idea if the quantity is correct.

 

[WesternLancer]

Sorry if it was poorly written, but if I’m paying this large sum I want to confirm the amount is accurate as I have no idea how many it has been and how many years this goes back. My concern was I didn’t want to reach the deadline and my only email being a request for a breakdown

So do you know / can you say from looking at a few ticket purchase records how much you were paying for your travel between Penkridge and Birmingham New Street each day (with with single tickets or a day return ticket)? I assume that you can check what you have paid when you bought a ticket before May 2024 when you realised you had been paying the wring fare. Please can you state that sum

It will then be possible for you or us to work out what they are asking for given that are saying to you:

that they want £1332 for 111 journeys (plus £200 admin charge for investigating all this which is fairly standard sum asked for)

£1332 divided by 111 = £12 per journey

With your railcard IIRC the minimum fare you should pay before 10am on weekdays is £12 - so it looks to me they are asking for 111 instances of £12, not the difference between what you did pay and £12

Otherwise I think you need to be able to prove to them that on some of these occasions you did not in fact travel before 10am and thus some of what they are asking for is not owed. Would it be possible for you to prove that to them in a convincing way? (eg if this was a travel to go to work would your employer be able to supply something in writing that shows your weekday hours of work commence at 11.30am for example).

It suggests they have, however an earlier email references 159 instances at £1,343.95 and now it’s 111 at £1,332 so not sure if suggests 48 instances were after 10am or they calculated it wrong as I’ve not made any trips for £0.25 each.

Maybe they did but at lest the sum went down a bit which is in yor favour - thou it is confusing. It maybe that a fares expert here can shed some light

The new calculation appears to be £12 a ticket which appears accurate before the ticket price increases but no idea if the quantity is correct.

If that takes the fare to the Railcard minimum fare of £12 there seems a logic to that to me - this would not relate to any fares increase that happened over the period I assume.

but no idea if the quantity is correct.

Only you will know if you did travel. The railway will know if tickets with barcodes were scanned and at what time they were scanned - either on trains by staff or at ticket barriers. I guess your typical travel patterns / hours of work etc would give you an idea. Does your Trainline account history show ticket purchases going back over the general length of time you may have made 111 journeys.

I guess you may go into Birmingham by train at weekends or on bank hols when they £12 minimum fare in the Railcard does not apply.

I hope these comments are of some help.

 

[AlterEgo]

Stopped 19/12/24, then travelled around 15 times since as each time my ticket was scanned by a ticket inspector and they never flagged any issues so thought I just caught someone on a bad day.

So to be clear, you were stopped on 19 December 2023 (typo?), and were told your ticket was invalid, yet continued to avoid the fare until:

Most recent was end of May 2024

Is that right?

Have they stopped you since 19 December 2023?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

An undiscounted Penkridge -> Birmingham New Street, Anytime Day Return, was priced at exactly £12.00 for the 12 months period prior to the March 2024 fares revision.

 

[Account2255]

So do you know / can you say from looking at a few ticket purchase records how much you were paying for your travel between Penkridge and Birmingham New Street each day (with with single tickets or a day return ticket)? I assume that you can check what you have paid when you bought a ticket before May 2024 when you realised you had been paying the wring fare. Please can you state that sum

It will then be possible for you or us to work out what they are asking for given that are saying to you:

that they want £1332 for 111 journeys (plus £200 admin charge for investigating all this which is fairly standard sum asked for)

£1332 divided by 111 = £12 per journey

With your railcard IIRC the minimum fare you should pay before 10am on weekdays is £12 - so it looks to me they are asking for 111 instances of £12, not the difference between what you did pay and £12

Otherwise I think you need to be able to prove to them that on some of these occasions you did not in fact travel before 10am and thus some of what they are asking for is not owed. Would it be possible for you to prove that to them in a convincing way? (eg if this was a travel to go to work would your employer be able to supply something in writing that shows your weekday hours of work commence at 11.30am for example).


Maybe they did but at lest the sum went down a bit which is in yor favour - thou it is confusing. It maybe that a fares expert here can shed some light


If that takes the fare to the Railcard minimum fare of £12 there seems a logic to that to me - this would not relate to any fares increase that happened over the period I assume.


Only you will know if you did travel. The railway will know if tickets with barcodes were scanned and at what time they were scanned - either on trains by staff or at ticket barriers. I guess your typical travel patterns / hours of work etc would give you an idea. Does your Trainline account history show ticket purchases going back over the general length of time you may have made 111 journeys.

I guess you may go into Birmingham by train at weekends or on bank hols when they £12 minimum fare in the Railcard does not apply.

I hope these comments are of some help.

Thanks for the comment. The train fare I paid was £7.90 then this increased to £8.30 from 4th March. I can’t go back further than 24/11/23 on the Trainline app.

I would have thought mostly all would have been before 10am other than maybe the odd one where I was going to Birmingham in the evening not for work. Assuming they have already moved any weekend trains where this 10am rule doesn’t apply.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jul 2024 ==

So to be clear, you were stopped on 19 December 2023 (typo?), and were told your ticket was invalid, yet continued to avoid the fare until:


Is that right?

Have they stopped you since 19 December 2023?

Sorry yes typo, 19/11/23 and yes. I was incorrectly under the illusion that as I was selecting anytime return instead of off peak that this was ok. No one had stopped me since for the other 15 instances, then I stopped using my railcard when I got these emails.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks for the comment. The train fare I paid was £7.90 then this increased to £8.30 from 4th March. I can’t go back further than 24/11/23 on the Trainline app.

I would have thought mostly all would have been before 10am other than maybe the odd one where I was going to Birmingham in the evening not for work. Assuming they have already moved any weekend trains where this 10am rule doesn’t apply.

Thanks - maybe this (the odd evening trip) accounts for the reduction in the number of journeys from their original estimate of 159 down to 111.

So that seems to me to leave the debate open to whether you should be paying the difference between what you paid and what the correct fare was for the time you travelled, or the sum they are asking for. But I am not sure how easy it is to win that argument. It would, if they agreed it, substantially reduce the sum they want you to pay.

Perhaps other forum experts can advise on how likely they are to accept that argument and / or show you clearly where in the ticketing rules that you should be allowed to only pay that so that you can query this with them in a polite but robust way.

And all of that still risks them taking you to court (unless the 'out of time' aspect prevents that and they also don't try it anyway)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It seems to me that if you accept the 111 occasions is correct (or near enough to correct as to not be worth worrying about) then the railway have made a fairly generous offer to settle. One way or another it is based on them charging you a fare of £12 for each occasion - whether this is the standard return fare from Penkridge before March or the pre-10.00 am maximum discount is immaterial. But bear in mind that a number of railway companies offer settlements on the basis of Anytime single fares - currently £9.40, so that would be £18.80 for a trip to and from Birmingham.

Also, the £200 admin fee is at the high end of the normal spectrum, but to my eyes, not excessively so (we normally see around £150).

Unless a solicitor is able to negotiate a substantial discount in return for their fee of maybe £500 - £800, your best bet may be to accept this settlement offer and pay it.

 

[Gloster]

Not fully up to date with this one, so apologies if I am raising a mare’s nest. Could it be that the railway considers that the evidence from the stop on 19 November last, now out of time, combined with information from Trainline (or whoever) about journeys within the last six months, is sufficient to stand up in court?

 

[MotCO]

Thanks - maybe this (the odd evening trip) accounts for the reduction in the number of journeys from their original estimate of 159 down to 111.

Or was the original claim based on not having a valid railcard, then they accepted that you did have a railcard, then realised that you had not reached the £12 minimum fare requirement. In effect, they may have changed the offence you are charged with; does this make any difference with regard to the 6 month rule for bringing a prosecution?

 

[John R]

Not fully up to date with this one, so apologies if I am raising a mare’s nest. Could it be that the railway considers that the evidence from the stop on 19 November last, now out of time, combined with information from Trainline (or whoever) about journeys within the last six months, is sufficient to stand up in court?

As I noted earlier, that is exactly what they appear to be saying in their most recent letter.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have we ever seen a prosecution here for any instance where *only* an offence or offences *not captured by a stop* has been attempted?

 

[Watershed]

Unfortunately you are ultimately liable to pay WMT a rather substantial amount either way. The question is just how this is calculated:

Option 1 - Difference to undiscounted fare
The most generous calculation would be on the basis that you just have to pay the difference (excess) between the fares you paid, and the correct fares you should have paid based on the time you travelled. The undiscounted fare was £12 until April this year whilst you only paid £7.90, and after that it was £12.60 and £8.30 respectively; thus for 111 instances of between £4.10 and £4.30 each you would be looking at between £455.10 and £477.30, depending on how many instances were before or after April's fare increases.

Option 2 - Anytime Day Single for morning journeys
The next most generous calculation would be if your ticket was deemed completely invalid on the way into Birmingham in the morning, thus rendering you liable to pay for an undiscounted Anytime Day Single. However you met the minimum fare rule for your evening journeys, so you shouldn't be paying anything for these. Thus you should be paying £9.00 for instances before April and £9.40 for instances after then. So a total of between £999.00 and £1043.40, depending on how many instances were before or after April's fare increases.

Option 3 - Anytime Day Return
The least generous calculation appears to be how they have calculated it, at £1332.00, in that you are being charged again for a brand new Anytime Day Return (£12, though they appear to have overlooked the increase to £12.60) for every day you travelled.

Given that there is no question of your ticket being invalid for the return journeys you made in the evening, I don't think WMT can really justify their approach of charging based on Anytime Day Returns. As a minimum they should be giving you credit for having bought tickets that were valid for your evening journeys, which at the moment they're not doing. If they want to charge this way they should be refunding you the fares you have already paid as per the 'excess' option 1 (which of course they wouldn't want to do!).

I think it's also worth reiterating the fact that the Railcard minimum fare rule is a time restriction, and that condition 9.4 of the NRCoT says that you will only be charged the difference (i.e. as per option 1) to the cheapest valid fare if you travel at an invalid time with a time restricted (but otherwise valid) ticket. So if they were to bring a claim against you in the County Court, I am struggling to see how you would be liable for anything more than option 1.

This being said, it comes down to a case of brinksmanship. At the moment they appear to be indirectly threatening you with prosecution, although it's unclear which offence(s) they would be saying you have committed. You will no doubt want to avoid the consequences of a conviction. In my view, based on what you have told us, you have not committed any offences - but the question is whether the Magistrate(s) would agree with that.

The law and the way the system works is very much rigged in WMT's favour here; they can bring a prosecution against you and it is no skin off their nose whether they win or lose, as you will only be one of hundreds of cases they will be hearing in a given month or Court session. Meanwhile you will not have access to any kind of free legal representation and are unlikely to recover your legal costs in full (or possibly at all), even if you win. Is this a risk you want to take? Only you can answer that.

If you want to fight this on a point of principle then I am sure we can provide you with guidance through the process (but not legal advice as we are not your solicitor); however this is an approach that comes with a considerable degree of risk. It may still be worthwhile swallowing the cost of WMT's settlement even though, in my view, they are grossly overcalculating the amount due.

 

[John R]

Have we ever seen a prosecution here for any instance where *only* an offence or offences *not captured by a stop* has been attempted?

I don't believe so. So either WMR is trying to push the boundaries with the statement in the letter, given the fact that they appear to be pushing ahead despite the "stop" offence being out of time, or they haven't even realised that they are out of time.

 

[Account2255]

Unfortunately you are ultimately liable to pay WMT a rather substantial amount either way. The question is just how this is calculated:

Option 1 - Difference to undiscounted fare
The most generous calculation would be on the basis that you just have to pay the difference (excess) between the fares you paid, and the correct fares you should have paid based on the time you travelled. The undiscounted fare was £12 until April this year whilst you only paid £7.90, and after that it was £12.60 and £8.30 respectively; thus for 111 instances of between £4.10 and £4.30 each you would be looking at between £455.10 and £477.30, depending on how many instances were before or after April's fare increases.

Option 2 - Anytime Day Single for morning journeys
The next most generous calculation would be if your ticket was deemed completely invalid on the way into Birmingham in the morning, thus rendering you liable to pay for an undiscounted Anytime Day Single. However you met the minimum fare rule for your evening journeys, so you shouldn't be paying anything for these. Thus you should be paying £9.00 for instances before April and £9.40 for instances after then. So a total of between £999.00 and £1043.40, depending on how many instances were before or after April's fare increases.

Option 3 - Anytime Day Return
The least generous calculation appears to be how they have calculated it, at £1332.00, in that you are being charged again for a brand new Anytime Day Return (£12, though they appear to have overlooked the increase to £12.60) for every day you travelled.

Given that there is no question of your ticket being invalid for the return journeys you made in the evening, I don't think WMT can really justify their approach of charging based on Anytime Day Returns. As a minimum they should be giving you credit for having bought tickets that were valid for your evening journeys, which at the moment they're not doing. If they want to charge this way they should be refunding you the fares you have already paid as per the 'excess' option 1 (which of course they wouldn't want to do!).

I think it's also worth reiterating the fact that the Railcard minimum fare rule is a time restriction, and that condition 9.4 of the NRCoT says that you will only be charged the difference (i.e. as per option 1) to the cheapest valid fare if you travel at an invalid time with a time restricted (but otherwise valid) ticket. So if they were to bring a claim against you in the County Court, I am struggling to see how you would be liable for anything more than option 1.

This being said, it comes down to a case of brinksmanship. At the moment they appear to be indirectly threatening you with prosecution, although it's unclear which offence(s) they would be saying you have committed. You will no doubt want to avoid the consequences of a conviction. In my view, based on what you have told us, you have not committed any offences - but the question is whether the Magistrate(s) would agree with that.

The law and the way the system works is very much rigged in WMT's favour here; they can bring a prosecution against you and it is no skin off their nose whether they win or lose, as you will only be one of hundreds of cases they will be hearing in a given month or Court session. Meanwhile you will not have access to any kind of free legal representation and are unlikely to recover your legal costs in full (or possibly at all), even if you win. Is this a risk you want to take? Only you can answer that.

If you want to fight this on a point of principle then I am sure we can provide you with guidance through the process (but not legal advice as we are not your solicitor); however this is an approach that comes with a considerable degree of risk. It may still be worthwhile swallowing the cost of WMT's settlement even though, in my view, they are grossly overcalculating the amount due.

Thanks for the time to send this. Without giving away my personal details I can’t take the chance of getting a criminal record for my job so would be looking to settle.

I had called a solicitor through a free consultation and they gave a name and suggested contacting a senior manager in the fraud department (where these emails are from) at WMT given the emails I’ve been receiving are all anonymous to query the calculation and whether this could be reduced.

I’m just struggling on guidance on whether I admit fault within this email and hold my hands up and say I’m willing to pay a fair settlement but don’t believe the amount quoted is fair.

 

[bcarmicle]

If you cannot afford a criminal record, then I would suggest you pay the requested amount. WMT are entitled to withdraw their offer of settlement and could do so it you try to argue with them about the amount unless it is clear they have made a clerical error. While it appears that they are out of time to prosecute for the offence for which you were stopped, you don't know for sure if they have evidence for later offences that they could choose to prosecute on instead (for example they might have CCTV evidence) - and I don't believe Watershed's argument that NRCOT 9.4 means that no offence has been committed has been tested in court.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m just struggling on guidance on whether I admit fault within this email and hold my hands up and say I’m willing to pay a fair settlement but don’t believe the amount quoted is fair.

On what grounds would you think the settlement is unfair? It's important you have that clear in your head if you are going to go down the route of disputing the matter.

Personally I would just ignore the email. They are out of time for the offence you were stopped and the nature of these offences makes it difficult to mount a case where travel is not proven but merely implied.

Have you, at any point, admitted to travelling on any of these other tickets before the relevant time restriciton?