Short stop fraud allegation advice

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure I'd rate their chances in court as that low, as the OP would obviously have to tell the truth once things got to that stage.

They wouldn't have to give any evidence in their own defence at all, although I doubt a competent lawyer would advise that in these circumstances.

 

[tomoufc]

They may have all the evidence they need, then. If you just bought it and it was impossible to have been purchased before any train departed Montpelier to arrive into Temple Meads at the time you were stopped then the Bylaw offence is essentially proven.

You need to purchase before getting on the train, or at the earliest opportunity, don't you? And isn't is possible to prove that the OP didn't? If so, they could be proven guilty of fare evasion irrespective of the original short-faring concern?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Dec 2025 ==

They wouldn't have to give any evidence in their own defence at all

Not if they plead guilty, no. But if they're planning to do that, it's much better to try to settle out of court.

 

[tatitiliti]

Not wise, because that would be a lie.


They do. There can be no way the OP has boarded a train at Montpelier if they bought their ticket upon entering Bristol Temple Meads, and regardless, purchasing at such a time constitutes an invalid ticket as of a few weeks ago. There is enough evidence to progress the case.

Correct, I’ve amended my post accordingly - sorry I didn’t read that OP was guilty!

 

[AlterEgo]

You need to purchase before getting on the train, or at the earliest opportunity, don't you? And isn't is possible to prove that the OP didn't? If so, they could be proven guilty of fare evasion irrespective of the original short-faring concern?

There is no such thing as a crime of "fare evasion", what will be at question here is a Bylaw 18 offence:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

(1) In any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel.

(If you purchase a ticket just before alighting, online, it is not valid anyway as per the NRCoT.)

If you have bought the short fare ticket in advance you have the option to be quiet and let the train company prove where you really boarded (very difficult!), but in this case the OP has bought the ticket at a time where it wouldn't be possible to have done so before boarding a train.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Dec 2025 ==


Not if they plead guilty, no. But if they're planning to do that, it's much better to try to settle out of court.

A bit off topic, but: They don't have to give evidence in their defence if pleading not guilty either. One can simply refuse to, and allow the prosecution to run up against a dead end.

 

[Elecman]

You’ll get a letter in due course but I would just flat out deny it all or decline to comment in writing.

Is a very unwise suggested action to the OP. As the OP has admitted only buying the tickets as the train arrives arrived into Temple Meads the train company have everything they need to prosecute

 

[MikeWh]

In this case it's without leaving Montpellier, but the point still stands. I imagine arrival at Temple Meads would have been at a rather different time to trains from Montpellier as well.

In case others haven't spotted it, this is pertinent. Trains from Bath to Temple Meads do not go through Montpellier.

 

[fandroid]

The purchasing of the tickets after leaving Montpelier is the clincher. They've got you there. You won't be able to negotiate the settlement down at all unless you can prove that some of the journeys actually started at Montpelier or anywhere else short of Bath Oldfield Park.

I got this wrong due to a lack of knowledge of station positions around Bristol. However, unless by pure luck the OP could have bought their ticket before an appropriate service departed Montpelier, it would still be reasonably easy for GWR to construct a compelling case for prosecution based the OP's home address and the real train times that would fit with both a service leaving Montpelier and the RPI's time of challenge at Temple Meads.

That's just that instance. Analysis of daily ticket purchase times vs tapout times at Temple Meads are quite likely to throw up some journeys where ticket purchase could only have happened after boarding a train at Montpelier.

 

[z444z]

I got this wrong due to a lack of knowledge of station positions around Bristol. However, unless by pure luck the OP could have bought their ticket before an appropriate service departed Montpelier, it would still be reasonably easy for GWR to construct a compelling case for prosecution based the OP's home address and the real train times that would fit with both a service leaving Montpelier and the RPI's time of challenge at Temple Meads.

That's just that instance. Analysis of daily ticket purchase times vs tapout times at Temple Meads are quite likely to throw up some journeys where ticket purchase could only have happened after boarding a train at Montpelier.

They wouldn’t be able to prove that the OP used those previous tickets though, I’m not sure that would cut it as evidence for this occasion.

To secure a conviction they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the OP boarded a train without a valid ticket. The no-comment interview means this will be far more difficult for them than normal, but as we’ve gained more information about what happened it’s started to look more likely they would be able to secure a conviction and so the advice changes to be more focused on securing a settlement.

 

[Starmill]

The contents of this thread are useless to them evidentially, even if they have read it.

They can see where the OP lives, which is presumably in Bath/Oldfield Park, and they can see the OP had bought a lot of tickets from Montpelier to Bristol Temple Meads. They can also see when the tickets were purchased and when the tickets were scanned to exit the station at Bristol.

The fact they stopped the OP gives them all the evidence they need to prosecute for that specific offence. What someone has said under pseudo-anonymity on an internet forum is not evidence.

I suspect GWR will offer a settlement based on the OP’s actual journeys. If there are some journeys where the OP genuinely did travel from Montpelier then the OP will need to explain these, as GWR’s starting position will be all these tickets were used illegally. They probably can’t prosecute for these but then they don’t have to, as they can just prosecute for the incident where they caught the OP red-handed.

It wouldn't be relevant to evidence no. It was only in the context of leverage that I was thinking of. However as the OP notes it probably doesn't actually make any difference as their strategy doesn't rely on either point.