I have gone back and checked the fares already with brfares.com and the West Midlands fare is definitely wrong, 100% it should be £77, so this is not in question. Their citation of the high court case was really weak and not relevant.
Actually, on double checking the historic fares data through some sources, I think GWR might have got this one right. It looks like the WMT only Anytime Single was actually reduced
after you made your journey, leading to it being cheaper now than in January 2024. It was indeed £85.80 until some time around the fares 'increase' of March 2024, when it was cut.
I guess I will have to be ready for a civil case but I have absolutely no idea how long that takes or how much time it takes up.
Yes, unfortunately I think you have to face the reality that you can either pay the ridiculous sum they are demanding (the underlying principles of which they do not seem open to negotiation on), or you risk them bringing a civil claim. There is no guarantee they will actually go through with their threat but equally it is plausible.
Does anyone in the thread have any relevant experience they could impart, it would be very interesting.
I have represented myself in a few legal cases in different Courts and Tribunals over recent years, so I do have some experience although I have no formal legal qualifications.
The first thing to note is that as a litigant in person (i.e. someone without legal representation) you are afforded a certain amount of 'leeway' for not knowing how things work. So a minor procedural error on your part would generally be excused. That being said, it is vital to adhere to Court-imposed deadlines and orders; non-compliance with these is generally more serious.
For example, if GWR do actually go ahead and file a claim, the first thing that happens is that you get 14 days to respond to the initial claim notice you'll get sent by the Courts. You need to nominate whether you are accepting the claim in full (in which case you must pay within 28 days), whether you are accepting it in part and defending the rest, or whether you deny it entirely and are defending it.
You can also say if you want to bring a counter claim, i.e you believe that GWR owes you money. You get an extra 14 days to respond if you acknowledge the claim.
If you decide to defend the claim, you need to set out the basis of your defence in your response - it is important to include all the arguments you are relying on, since amending your Defence at a later stage isn't always allowed. Similarly, if you decide to bring a counterclaim, you need to set out the basis of your counter claim in that initial response.
There are a number of steps which follow after this, such as a questionnaire you and GWR both fill out to establish how big the issues in the case are (i.e. what kind of procedure should be used - such as the Small Claims Track). You will also be asked whether you're prepared to engage in mediation, which is basically where there is an independent person that tries to get the two of you to engage in dialogue.
If the matter proceeds to a trial as you still can't agree an outcome with GWR, you could expect this to take place roughly 6-18 months after the initial claim form is served - depending on any issues with the location of the hearing, your and GWR's availability, and the waiting time for a hearing at the Court in question.
I have a draft ready in response. I have decided to significantly increase my offer. Some have said I should only offer the differences in fares, but I think I need to show myself to make some reasonable offer otherwise they will continue to not cooperate with me.
That is ultimately up to you. I think you risk significantly weakening your argument around the non-applicability and/or non-enforceability of NRCoT condition 9.2.1 under consumer law by offering the Anytime single - even if this is only for the journey on GWR. They might take this as an admission that Anytime fare is owed - so if they can provide the evidence of authority to pursue the other operators' journeys, you would logically also have to pay the Anytime fare for those as well.
GWR are obliged to cooperate with you under the Civil Procedure Rules and to avoid the matter going to trial if it can be helped. So far, they are not doing themselves any favours by failing to engage with your arguments and refusing to provide the evidence you are reasonably asking for.
Please give me any feedback you can think to include in the draft. thanks.
Start of draft
Thank you for your most recent correspondence. I appreciate your time and the information provided. However, several key issues remain unresolved, and I must reiterate my position clearly.
1. Request for Extension and Evidence
I note that my request for an extension to the response deadline has not been acknowledged, despite the significant delays between your own replies. Furthermore, you have yet to provide the evidence I previously requested to support your claims. Under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), a claimant is expected to disclose the basis and supporting evidence for each element of their claim as well as try to settle the issues without proceedings. I have yet to receive the evidence which I have asked for and prolonged time between correspondences leads me to believe that it is a reasonable request for an extension to the deadline you have given me.
This reads fine - although I would note that they can't really 'impose' deadlines
per se, it's really more an indication of when they might decide to take things to the next step (i.e. issuing a Letter Before Claim or ultimately an actual Court claim). That being said, it's useful evidence that shows they might not be behaving reasonably - by trying to put you under time pressure yet not responding in a timely manner themselves.
2. Fare Calculations and Accuracy
I continue to dispute the validity of the fares you have calculated. Your latest figures include discrepancies that cannot be verified. For example, you have quoted a fare of £85.80 for a West Midlands Railway Anytime Single, whereas the published fare for that route is £77.20. This inconsistency raises doubts as to the accuracy and legitimacy of your calculations, especially given that you are seeking to recover fares on behalf of multiple Train Companies without clear authorisation to do so.
Unfortunately, due to the above-mentioned findings, I would leave the bit about the WMT fare out. Nevertheless you could include something disputing their claim that the fares calculated are 'appropriate', reiterating that 9.2.1 is worded as an on-train remedy and that it was clearly never intended to apply years later to multiple journeys. And also that consumer law intervenes here and excludes a 'disproportionate' amount of compensation for your breach of contract.
3. Administration Fee and Legal Basis
You have repeated that the administration charge is set out in GWR’s Revenue Protection Policy. However, I must emphasise once again that an internal policy does not constitute a legal basis for recovery. Unless this fee is expressly provided for under the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT 2024) or another enforceable legal instrument, it cannot form part of a lawful claim. I have specifically asked for the statutory or contractual basis that allows GWR to recover this charge, and this remains unanswered.
I would add on something like "In the absence of a satisfactory explanation of the administration charge's legal basis, you will appreciate I cannot consider paying this element of your claim."
4. Applicability of the NRCoT and Allegations of Evasion
You have not addressed my points concerning the scope and enforceability of the NRCoT.
This goes to the heart of your defence so I would reiterate it by adding something like "The NRCoT must be interpreted through the lens of the Consumer Rights Act, which limits the terms that companies such as GWR can rely on. In view of this, I do not accept that condition 9.2.1 can be held to impose potentially unlimited liability for disproportionate Anytime fares in the way you are claiming."
Furthermore, I must object in the strongest terms to any suggestion that I engaged in fare evasion. Evasion requires deliberate intent, which is entirely absent in this case. I purchased valid tickets in good faith and have never attempted to avoid paying the correct fare.
Except your tickets weren't valid without the Railcard, so I wouldn't try to suggest they were. I would change the second and last sentences to "Evasion requires intent to avoid payment, which you have not provided any evidence of. As you can see from my purchasing records, I do not travel by train very frequently, and therefore I had not realised my Railcard had expired until I was asked to show it on the journey to Taunton. I have never attempted to avoid paying the correct fare.".
5. Legal Citation and Case Reference
You have referred to a High Court appeal but have not provided the citation or any identifying details. Without this, it is impossible to verify your interpretation or assess its relevance. I also contest its applicability to my situation. All of The tickets in question were Advance Singles, restricted to specific Train Companies. As such, GWR is not a contractual party to journeys undertaken on other operators’ services and therefore has no standing to pursue those fares. The NRCoT is clear in its wording regarding this. Since this is not a prosecution and instead is a civil claim, you require a legal basis for seeking revenue on behalf of other Train Companies. My request for written confirmation from the other Train Companies that no further claims will be made is both reasonable and necessary.
This is fine, I would just add the "All of" as above.
6. Reliance on “Standard Practice”
Finally, you have cited “standard practice” as justification for your actions, particularly charging Anytime singles rather than the applicable Off-Peak fares or the difference in fare. However, standard practice does not in itself provide a lawful basis for recovery. Practices that are later found to be unlawful or unjustified are not uncommon. For instance, the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision regarding Employment Tribunal fees demonstrates that administrative convenience cannot override legality or proportionality.
I've probably led you somewhat astray by mentioning that ET decision. Although it illustrates the principle, it would probably be even more powerful and relevant if you referred to the
SJPN scandal since it directly relates to train companies' revenue protection activities. So I would say "For instance, the Chief Magistrate's decision to quash thousands of unlawful Single Justice Procedure prosecutions brought by train companies - including GWR - illustrates that 'common practice' is still open to challenge.".
In summary, your correspondence has not provided adequate legal or evidential support for the claims made.
I would clarify that it doesn't
fully justify their claims. You do admit you owe them something, just not as much as they want.
I remain willing to resolve this matter amicably, but I require a clear, evidenced justification for the amounts sought
I think on this point it would be better to say "a clear, evidenced justification as to why consumer law would allow NRCoT 9.5.1 to be interpreted in the way you are claiming"
along with confirmation that GWR is acting within its authority regarding fares for other operators.
I'd change this to 'written confirmation from the other operators, affirming that GWR has the authority to bring claims on their behalf for journeys that did not involve GWR'.
7. Offer to Settle
I remain willing to cooperate and resolve this matter without the need for court proceedings. In the interests of reaching a fair and swift resolution, I am prepared to offer payment of the Anytime fare for the journey undertaken with GWR, amounting to £149.50, minus the fare I have already paid. This results in a balance of £116.85, which I am offering in full and final settlement of the matter.
I'd refer to my comments at the start - I think you might have a better (or more rational) basis for this offer if it were based on the Off-Peak or Super Off-Peak fares applicable to those journeys. I'm happy to work those out for you if you'd like.
