Settlement Offer Received

[bluoat]

Hi Everyone, I have received a "settlement offer" from GWR due to not having a ticket.

Desired outcome: reduction or cancellation of "settlement offer"
Less Desired outcome: explanation of the full amount specified by GWR
Journey Start: Parson Street (PSN)
Journey End: Bristol Temple Meads (BTM)
Original ticket price: £3.80
Total amount requested by GWR: £113.80
I did not purchase a ticket

On 1st April, I was late for the train and did not buy a ticket. I was under the impression that it is fine to pay for the ticket on the train or at the destination platform (I have seen this done many times by others). I now know this was not the case and that it is an offence to board the train without a ticket.

I was unable to produce a valid ticket (as I had not bought one) and was interviewed under caution. I have now received this settlement letter, dated 21st May 2026. I am unable to find information about where the £110 has come from. On the GWR website I can see the following:

On Monday 23 January 2023 new penalty fares regulations came into force across our network (excluding South Wales). The penalty fare rose from £20 (or twice the price of the single fare to the next station) to £100 plus the full fare for the journey you take on that train. This will be reduced to £50 plus the full fare for the journey on that train if you pay within 21 days.

Is the settlement offer different to a penalty fare? The amount is greater than £10 and I have not been afforded the luxury of settling for £53.80 as would be expected from the above statement.

Thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

Just a slight correction: The letter is dated 20th May 2026, but I received it today 21st May 2026

 

[pedr]

Only some revenue inspectors can issue Penalty Fares. This is because issuing a Penalty Fare is itself a demand for that payment - the Penalty Fare Regulations say that once a Penalty Fare is issued it is money that is due to the operator (although there are routes to appeal). Only specifically trained inspectors can issue these. You were not issued with a Penalty Fare, and the amount, process, early-payment discounts, etc that apply to Penalty Fares are not applicable.

Instead the guard or inspector has taken your details and written down what happened/what you said happened and referred it to the GWR investigators. This is because, as you now know, boarding a train to travel on it without a valid ticket is a crime (due to the Railway Byelaws) and the investigators get to decide what action to take in response. As is pretty standard, they've written to you effectively saying that they have sufficient evidence to prosecute you for the crime - railway companies can bring criminal prosecutions in their own name, and don't have to involve the police - but that if you pay the fare and their estimate of the costs they've incurred so far, they'll agree not to prosecute. Those costs are where the £110 comes from. Strictly speaking, as a matter of law, you do not have to pay this. But if you don't, they'll initiate criminal court proceedings in a magistrates' court and you'll be sent formal court paperwork. As you admit to the facts which amount to the Byelaw offence, there's no realistic defence (assuming Parson Street does have the ticket machine the National Rail site says it does) and being convicted or pleading guilty will lead to a considerably greater financial penalty - possibly three or four times the amount - and, of course, will mean you'll have been convicted of a crime.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Depends your appetite for risk.

The new NRCoT, which came into force on 1 April 2026, says that:

9.3 If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked or do not pay the whole sum requested by the Train Company when challenged, the Train Company may follow up with you (in writing or otherwise) to seek payment or recovery of unpaid sums and may bring civil proceedings and/or in some cases, a criminal prosecution. The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken.

(My emphasis.)

So you are perfectly within your rights to go back to GWR and ask them to substantiate the administration fee, pointing out that this fee cannot exceed the actual cost of the administration. I am sceptical about administration fees which are a neat round number as expenditure is unlikely to be a neat round number.

But if they don't back down then you have two choices: pay up or let it go to Court.

It isn't a Penalty Fare and it is worth noting that they do not have to issue a Penalty Fare, they can go straight to prosecution should they so wish. In this case they have done the latter and so the Penalty Fare rules are irrelevant.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi Everyone, I have received a "settlement offer" from GWR due to not having a ticket.

Desired outcome: reduction or cancellation of "settlement offer"
Less Desired outcome: explanation of the full amount specified by GWR
Journey Start: Parson Street (PSN)
Journey End: Bristol Temple Meads (BTM)
Original ticket price: £3.80
Total amount requested by GWR: £113.80
I did not purchase a ticket

On 1st April, I was late for the train and did not buy a ticket. I was under the impression that it is fine to pay for the ticket on the train or at the destination platform (I have seen this done many times by others). I now know this was not the case and that it is an offence to board the train without a ticket.

I was unable to produce a valid ticket (as I had not bought one) and was interviewed under caution. I have now received this settlement letter, dated 21st May 2026. I am unable to find information about where the £110 has come from. On the GWR website I can see the following:

On Monday 23 January 2023 new penalty fares regulations came into force across our network (excluding South Wales). The penalty fare rose from £20 (or twice the price of the single fare to the next station) to £100 plus the full fare for the journey you take on that train. This will be reduced to £50 plus the full fare for the journey on that train if you pay within 21 days.

Is the settlement offer different to a penalty fare? The amount is greater than £10 and I have not been afforded the luxury of settling for £53.80 as would be expected from the above statement.

Thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 May 2026 ==

Just a slight correction: The letter is dated 20th May 2026, but I received it today 21st May 2026

You have probably seen this part of their website (things are explained in more detail on the Pdf document that you can download from there there too)

GWR penalties and enforcements | Policies and procedures | Great Western Railway

Understand penalties at GWR and our enforcement policies, including fare evasion and travel regulations.

www.gwr.com

It's the bits I have highlighted in bold below that apply to your situation.

Unfortunately being interviewed under caution and reported is the worst of the 3 options available to them from your point of view, as it's usually likely to be the option that costs the most, and if they opt to do so, they can initiate court proceedings against you if they do so within 6 months of the incident. As explained above, the outcome of that will cost you more, and comes with a criminal record that most people want to avoid due to the other impacts of having such a record against your name.
As you were not issued with a Penalty Fare what it says about Penalty Fares does not apply, and you have no rights to an appeal (apart from the ability to put your case to the Magistrates in court but given what happened I do not think that would result in any benefit to you, because AIUI this is a 'strict liability offence' - ie the fact you did it means you are guilty - it's not a question of the court deciding whether you intended to pay or evade your fare)

You must travel with a valid ticket​

At stations that are staffed or have ticket machines, you must pay for your journey before boarding your train; please make sure you arrive in plenty of time.

Where a station isn’t staffed, or the ticket machines aren’t working, you must pay for your journey at your earliest opportunity; either onboard or at the first available station. Please see our ‘Buy Before You Board’ leaflets which are available at GWR ticket offices for more information.

If you buy a ticket that has restrictions, and/or a Railcard discount, you must ensure you adhere to any restrictions and have your Railcard with you; otherwise you’ll need to pay for your journey again at the full price.

If you don’t have a valid ticket​

If you are travelling without a ticket or one that isn’t valid, you could be issued with an Unpaid Fare Notice, a Penalty Fare Notice or be interviewed under caution. The course of action taken depends on the circumstances.

As part of these processes, our staff will ask for your name and address; it is an offence not to provide this.

What happens next?​

If you have been issued an Unpaid Fare or a Penalty Fare Notice, you must either pay or appeal within 21 days.

If you were interviewed under caution, a report will be sent to our Prosecutions Department; who will review the facts and then contact you in writing. If you do not respond or the matter is not resolved you may receive a summons requiring you to attend court.

 

[ikcdab]

As the keys y have explained above, a penalty fare is a demand for payment issued on the spot. You were not issued with that, but you were reported for prosecution. The railway company have now said that if you pay the sum they ask for, they will consider the matter closed. Otherwise they will prosecute you and you will be found guilty and you will get a criminal record.
Bearing in mind the costs they incur, £100 is not unreasonable and you are highly unlikely to get this reduced.
The very best advice is just to pay up, learn the lesson and move on.

 

[bluoat]

Thank you everyone for your advice. Seems like I just got unlucky with how GWR decided to punish me. I have sent them an email asking them to breakdown the exact admin costs but will just have to pay it.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you everyone for your advice. Seems like I just got unlucky with how GWR decided to punish me. I have sent them an email asking them to breakdown the exact admin costs but will just have to pay it.

Yes. You have been unlucky really, given the size of the fare you didn’t buy ahead of getting on the train was pretty low. That makes the administration fee seem punitive in proportion.

FWIW apart from being given a verbal warning by staff to buy a ticket before travelling in future a Penalty Fare is the least worst option. It can be disposed of for £50 and comes with a full 3 stage appeal process (albeit one which many coming here for advice after having received one find frustrating and time consuming to use).

But if ever offered a penalty fare it’s probably best to grab the offer. At least people can then come to this forum for expert advice on what to do about it later.

But unfortunately not all staff are permitted to issue them.

 

[furlong]

£100 is not unreasonable and you are highly unlikely to get this reduced.

But being "not unreasonable" is only one of the two criteria that apply. (And I'd be one to argue that that sum does appear to be very unreasonable.) The second is whether or not it exceeds their precise actual direct costs, which will vary from case to case, and justification for which they should provide in detail if the figure is disputed. (I have long argued on this forum that this was always the case, and so for me the NRCOT update merely made the traditional approach of the courts to such matters explicit viz. only actual and justifiable losses can be recovered).

 

[Haywain]

And I'd be one to argue that that sum does appear to be very unreasonable.

How much do you think it costs to go through this process? You must have an idea if, unlike most of us, you consider £100 to be unreasonable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

£100 is not unreasonable

£110, actually.

But it also doesn't matter whether £110 is reasonable or unreasonable.

The NRCoT states clearly that they can only reclaim the costs they have actually incurred: "The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken."

How much do you think it costs to go through this process?

Depends how you wish to calculate it. Also depends on which law is being applied.

In the civil law you can't claim the staff costs for people who would have been at work anyway. That is established caselaw after various shop security companies tried to recover the costs of their security guards from shoplifters.

A similar principle applies in the criminal law when seeking costs for attendance at court, but it isn't generally so clearly defined.

I would be very very surprised if GWR's incurred costs total precisely £110.00.

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

You must have an idea if, unlike most of us, you consider £100 to be unreasonable.

I also consider £110 to be unreasonable. There is no way on God's green earth that sending a boilerplate letter or email costs them £110. Divide it by ten and you're probably closer to the actual direct cost.

But, as above, this doesn't really matter. They can only claim back the costs they have actually incurred. In the civil law they wouldn't usually be able to apportion the costs of the case management system, or the ticket examiner, or the other staff to the OP. It is, however, less defined in the criminal law.

 

[Swedenorer]

If you want it out of the way - pay it. If you want to question the admin fee by all means do so bearing in mind they can still prosecute you up to 6 months after April 1st.

 

[WesternLancer]

If you want it out of the way - pay it. If you want to question the admin fee by all means do so bearing in mind they can still prosecute you up to 6 months after April 1st.

I think this is what it boils down to at this point in time.

 

[30907]

How much do you think it costs to go through this process? You must have an idea if, unlike most of us, you consider £100 to be unreasonable.

I can understand £100 as it's the same as an undiscounted PF, but GTR typically charge £60 for a straightforward case like that.

 

[furlong]

How much do you think it costs to go through this process? You must have an idea if, unlike most of us, you consider £100 to be unreasonable.

If the passenger offered to pay the correct fare at the time they were stopped, as their account suggests, then none of the additional process was necessary so there should be no additional charge.

I can understand £100 as it's the same as an undiscounted PF,

I can't. The Penalty Fare is explicitly set at a level that includes an element of profit for the train company issuing it - even when taking the 50% discount. Their normal costs in a simple case must be well below that level (otherwise Penalty Fares would have been higher) and they were avoidable anyway here if they had accepted the fare from the passenger at the time as they should have once they'd decided not to impose a Penalty Fare.

 

[John R]

I can't. The Penalty Fare is explicitly set at a level that includes an element of profit for the train company issuing it - even when taking the 50% discount. Their normal costs in a simple case must be well below that level (otherwise Penalty Fares would have been higher) and they were avoidable anyway here if they had accepted the fare from the passenger at the time as they should have once they'd decided not to impose a Penalty Fare.

But if a PF is paid there is no back office intervention whatsoever, so the admin should be cheaper than a case referred for potential prosecution.

And you could always argue that an offer to pay once someone is caught without a ticket would be the cheapest approach. Which would make a complete mockery of trying to disincentivise fare evasion.

 

[furlong]

Which would make a complete mockery of trying to disincentivise fare evasion.

Not at all! That's why we have Penalty Fares! Whatever happened to implementing recommendations from the ORR's report, which is coming up to its anniversary?

 

[island]

£110, actually.

But it also doesn't matter whether £110 is reasonable or unreasonable.

The NRCoT states clearly that they can only reclaim the costs they have actually incurred: "The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken."

If GWR were making a civil claim, then this would be true.

But they aren't. The OP can choose to pay £113.80 or they can choose to go to magistrates court. Most people choose the former, because the court option if convicted is inevitably more expensive and will leave them with a criminal record.

 

[ikcdab]

£110, actually.

But it also doesn't matter whether £110 is reasonable or unreasonable.

The NRCoT states clearly that they can only reclaim the costs they have actually incurred: "The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken."


Depends how you wish to calculate it. Also depends on which law is being applied.

In the civil law you can't claim the staff costs for people who would have been at work anyway. That is established caselaw after various shop security companies tried to recover the costs of their security guards from shoplifters.

A similar principle applies in the criminal law when seeking costs for attendance at court, but it isn't generally so clearly defined.

I would be very very surprised if GWR's incurred costs total precisely £110.00.

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


I also consider £110 to be unreasonable. There is no way on God's green earth that sending a boilerplate letter or email costs them £110. Divide it by ten and you're probably closer to the actual direct cost.

But, as above, this doesn't really matter. They can only claim back the costs they have actually incurred. In the civil law they wouldn't usually be able to apportion the costs of the case management system, or the ticket examiner, or the other staff to the OP. It is, however, less defined in the criminal law.

My understanding is that the "reasonable costs" thing only applies where the railway company is claiming costs after a court conviction. An out of court settlement is essentially an agreement between two parties, the sums are in that case are not regulated. And in any event and in any business, using full over headed staff costs, it takes very little time at all to rack up £110. I am not aware of the caselaw you cite but it would be perverse not to charge the staff time of those involved directly in the investigation.

 

[furlong]

the sums are in that case are not regulated.

Firstly, these are not civil out-of-court settlements (where the parties involved have a lot of freedom) but out-of-court resolutions of alleged criminal matters, and as such they must not exceed the envelope of resolutions that the court might impose. Courts are unlikely to enforce elements of agreements that involve making any profit by threatening to prosecute someone.

Secondly, the buck stops with the DfT - asking for too much may become a political problem. The train companies are only in this position because of their licence to operate trains and as such the DfT has the ability to regulate this. Asking for too much may become a political problem leading the DfT to act.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If GWR were making a civil claim, then this would be true.

I don’t see how GWR can ignore what the NRCoT says just because they unilaterally decide it is potentially a criminal matter and not a civil matter.

The NRCoT is incredibly clear that the costs they charge cannot exceed the costs they have incurred. The NRCoT also specifically references prosecution as well as civil recovery in the relevant clause.

The OP needs to think carefully about how far they wish to push it as GWR do have them over a barrel. But I think it’s reasonable to raise what the NRCoT says. The NRCoT has that clause for a reason. £110 is taking the piss.

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

it would be perverse not to charge the staff time of those involved directly in the investigation.

If those staff are diverted from other tasks then it can be claimed. If they would have been there anyway, less so, it depends on the circumstances. They can’t charge fixed fees though. That’s civil law, not criminal.

But £110 is a lot of money. How long do you think it took to fill in the TIR and then refer it to the central office and then send out a boilerplate letter? Let’s be charitable and say it’s an hour all in. You seriously think that the total costs of an RPI or a prosecution admin is £55/hour? That would be a salary of a floor of £25/hour, or £48,000 a year, and probably higher.

 

[furlong]

The NRCoT has that clause for a reason.

I presume it was added to assist passengers in asserting their rights outside court against train companies abusing their position.
(We've seen similar changes before, where an existing legal position gets stated explicitly.)

Anyway, at this stage all that's needed is to draw attention to the clause and request the justification by way of a breakdown of the figure.

 

[Harpo]

in any business, using full over headed staff costs, it takes very little time at all to rack up £110.

Exactly that. When you pay for an hours ‘labour’ or service, only a small part of it is the person’s wage or salary.

Repairing or servicing cars would be a damned sight cheaper if we only paid the techs hourly rate plus parts.

 

[Swedenorer]

Forget all this debate on admin fees OP. They have no need to justify anything and will almost certainly refuse. All you can do is make a counter offer, say equivalent to the promptly paid PF. The choice is simple and the fact is that if you don't pay something in settlement you will in all likelihood be prosecuted and you will be found guilty and the minimum sentence will probably be a fine based on 50% of your weekly pay.

 

[ikcdab]

Forget all this debate on admin fees OP. They have no need to justify anything and will almost certainly refuse. All you can do is make a counter offer, say equivalent to the promptly paid PF. The choice is simple and the fact is that if you don't pay something in settlement you will in all likelihood be prosecuted and you will be found guilty and the minimum sentence will probably be a fine based on 50% of your weekly pay.

I agree entirely. £110 is not unreasonable. If you think it is then you are living of some kind of Victorian age. Have you ever tried employing a professional? Have you seen that an average length new railway is costing £100 billion? Do you ever wonder why any job on a car starts at £500 and works up? Staff wages are a fraction of an overheaded cost. And the reason it is exactly £110 is because this is a rounded down figure from the true costs they will incur.

 

[Trainman40083]

I agree entirely. £110 is not unreasonable. If you think it is then you are living of some kind of Victorian age. Have you ever tried employing a professional? Have you seen that an average length new railway is costing £100 billion? Do you ever wonder why any job on a car starts at £500 and works up? Staff wages are a fraction of an overheaded cost. And the reason it is exactly £110 is because this is a rounded down figure from the true costs they will incur.

Ah staff costs and overheads. Where I worked, I asked the question. Take the person's gross salary and double it. All the office costs, rent, heat, light etc. It sure isn't free

 

[island]

Firstly, these are not civil out-of-court settlements (where the parties involved have a lot of freedom) but out-of-court resolutions of alleged criminal matters, and as such they must not exceed the envelope of resolutions that the court might impose.

It is important when you make statements like this to be clear that the statement is your opinion of how things should be, lest anyone reading be misled that it is in any way an expression of fact (which it is not).

 

[ikcdab]

Ah staff costs and overheads. Where I worked, I asked the question. Take the person's gross salary and double it. All the office costs, rent, heat, light etc. It sure isn't free

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2026 ==

Employers pay National Insurance at a rate of 15% on an employee's earnings.

 

[Trainman40083]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2026 ==

Employers pay National Insurance at a rate of 15% on an employee's earnings.

And that is just one of the costs...