Stopped by fraud team

[Haywain]

Reads to me as if the OP has only admitted to the one offence, not repeat occasions - and that's all that he offered to pay for.

What the OP said at the time of being stopped and what GTR already know are not necessarily the same.

And what's the significance of the comment about a QR code in the original post? What is the relevance of that?

I would guess it's that GTR know that the OP buys an eTicket to get through the barriers on a regular basis.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Some posters have recommended consulting solicitors, but I’m not entirely convinced this is a worthwhile expenditure (especially since GTR is expedient to out of court settlements) based on the amount OP might be needing to pay back…..obviously that is a decision for OP to make independently based on their means financially..

Some solicitors have been able to persuade TOCs to charge what the fare evader would have paid if they had purchased their tickets properly, i.e. monthly or annual season tickets rather than anytime day singles.

If a solicitor can do that then it’s probably a worthwhile expenditure.

 

[furlong]

Some solicitors have been able to persuade TOCs to charge what the fare evader would have paid if they had purchased their tickets properly, i.e. monthly or annual season tickets rather than anytime day singles.

In "like for like" cases. Had the OP been using a short-distance season ticket then yes, that may well be feasible even without a solicitor. But it's a much bigger ask if the OP was paying separately each day to argue that if they hadn't been cheating they'd also have spent money (which they didn't have?) up-front.

 

[agk2126]

Some solicitors have been able to persuade TOCs to charge what the fare evader would have paid if they had purchased their tickets properly, i.e. monthly or annual season tickets rather than anytime day singles.

If a solicitor can do that then it’s probably a worthwhile expenditure.

Is there any history of solicitors negotiating this outcome on an intelligence-led stop, where GTR would hold solid and proactively gathered evidence (scans, absence of scans, an CCTV) of OP travel history? Or is this typically only available when there is a single fare evasion incident documented, and past incidents merely suspected?

In "like for like" cases. Had the OP been using a short-distance season ticket then yes, that may well be feasible even without a solicitor. But it's a much bigger ask if the OP was paying separately each day to argue that if they hadn't been cheating they'd also have spent money (which they didn't have?) up-front.

Important distinction. Also might not be relevant given the targeted stop, where GTR staff confronted OP by name.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Is there any history of solicitors negotiating this outcome on an intelligence-led stop

I believe so, but don’t quote me on it. And the OP shouldn’t go into it expecting them to offer it.

The OP can speak with solicitors who will no doubt be able to explain further. Most solicitors will usually have a short initial consultation without charge.

 

[John R]

Reads to me as if the OP has only admitted to the one offence, not repeat occasions - and that's all that he offered to pay for.

The train company has absolute evidence of one offence, and can prosecute on that. (They probably have evidence of many more, given the surveillance, but let's ignore that for now.)

The way it works is that they will say "Either we prosecute you for the one offence, or you accept our settlement offer, which involves paying for all the instances where we are pretty sure that you have evaded the correct fare. If on the day the person was stopped they bought a ticket from (say) Brighton to Preston Park as part of doughnutting, and another from London Bridge to Blackfriars, and the investigators see another 50 instances where those two fares were purchased on the same day than they can be pretty confident that it is reasonable to base their settlement offer on the traveller having evaded the correct fare on those 50 occasions too.

The evader then has the option of going to court for the one offence (which most people want to avoid for obvious reasons), or paying what is asked of them to settle out of court.

As I said, in this instance it's much more likely that GTR could build a case that would hold in court that the evasion was undertaken on more than just the one day they were stopped.

 

[WesternLancer]

The train company has absolute evidence of one offence, and can prosecute on that. (They probably have evidence of many more, given the surveillance, but let's ignore that for now.)

The way it works is that they will say "Either we prosecute you for the one offence, or you accept our settlement offer, which involves paying for all the instances where we are pretty sure that you have evaded the correct fare. If on the day the person was stopped they bought a ticket from (say) Brighton to Preston Park as part of doughnutting, and another from London Bridge to Blackfriars, and the investigators see another 50 instances where those two fares were purchased on the same day than they can be pretty confident that it is reasonable to base their settlement offer on the traveller having evaded the correct fare on those 50 occasions too.

The evader then has the option of going to court for the one offence (which most people want to avoid for obvious reasons), or paying what is asked of them to settle out of court.

As I said, in this instance it's much more likely that GTR could build a case that would hold in court that the evasion was undertaken on more than just the one day they were stopped.

Yes.
and in this sense though, this does not seem much different than any other case we see on here despite seemingly involving a pre planned interception of the evader - the railway basically then choosing between:

A) - prosecuting in court for at least that one offence
or
B) - seeking to obtain all fares evaded at a sum they determine and put to the OP in what is an out of court settlement offer, which if the OP has the funds they may opt to pay.

Is here anything fundamentally different in this case to all the others we see that pretty much boil down to the same options?

Or is there something else that railway could do?

B is the one that I would assume obtains the most money for the railway with the minimum amount of further work and additional costs.

 

[z444z]

Or is there something else that railway could do?

@AlterEgo mentioned police and Fraud Act. Not sure how likely either of those are.

 

[John R]

Is here anything fundamentally different in this case to all the others we see that pretty much boil down to the same options?

Or is there something else that railway could do?

I guess it's whether GTR was confident enough in their evidence to prosecute for multiple offences, rather than just the one. It could, for example, have retained CCTV for several days whilst the OP was under surveillance. What difference would it make? Well if the OP was to have a tricky discussion with an employer/regulatory body etc, then it is much more difficult to say that it was a momentary lapse of judgement if the charge sheet has 75 offences on it.

I don't believe a Fraud Act prosecution is likely. Have we ever seen one?

 

[WesternLancer]

I guess it's whether GTR was confident enough in their evidence to prosecute for multiple offences, rather than just the one. It could, for example, have retained CCTV for several days whilst the OP was under surveillance. What difference would it make? Well if the OP was to have a tricky discussion with an employer/regulatory body etc, then it is much more difficult to say that it was a momentary lapse of judgement if the charge sheet has 75 offences on it.

I don't believe a Fraud Act prosecution is likely. Have we ever seen one?

Thanks for these points

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jan 2026 ==

@AlterEgo mentioned police and Fraud Act. Not sure how likely either of those are.

Yes, thanks also.

 

[z444z]

I don't believe a Fraud Act prosecution is likely. Have we ever seen one?

I don’t think so, no.

 

[Haywain]

This case is very unusual. We see very few, if any, that are targeted stops of a named individual with, apparently, police also present. We should be careful not to write off the fraud option too readily.

 

[z444z]

This case is very unusual. We see very few, if any, that are targeted stops of a named individual with, apparently, police also present. We should be careful not to write off the fraud option too readily.

I believe transport police are routinely called when an individual doesn’t comply with their legal obligation to provide personal details. We don’t have enough information from the OP to advise properly, which the OP shouldn’t provide obviously.

I agree that we can’t write off fraud as an option but based on experience I think we can say that train companies very rarely pursue fraud charges, even when they could, and even when they say they intend to.

I’ll have a dig through the forum later for cases involving targeted stops not involving TfL and see what I can find.

 

[Mattplans]

And what's the significance of the comment about a QR code in the original post? What is the relevance of that?

OP seems to be claiming on *this occasion* they haven't short fared. The RPI is claiming they have however seen a qr code of a ticket on OP's phone however. Usually since a TOC will use this x1 incident (of being caught with a problematic ticket) to leverage an out of court settlement due to the threat of prosecution. If OP truly did not have a ticket, then GTR loses some leverage? (I Presume) Because they cannot prosecute for the tickets where they weren't physically stopped. But I think we can concede that the chances of OP not having a doughnutted ticket on today when they were stopped is very slim.

I think this is probably where we would land on a regular case - but with the amount at stake and the investigation thus far, they have other avenues (as is being debated above..) to pursue OP even if they truly did not present a short fared ticket today.

Perhaps @Bones_4411 could say explicitly whether they were stopped after presenting a qr code ticket or stopped before they went through any barrier?

Also, I believe it hasn't been mentioned yet, do not delete your account with the online retailer where you purchase tickets.

This case is very unusual. We see very few, if any, that are targeted stops of a named individual with, apparently, police also present. We should be careful not to write off the fraud option too readily.

OP is the one who calls for the police, however. Also, I believe in some 'travel irregularity' cases where a TOC has emailed a customer following a data trawl, they've addressed the customer by name in this correspondence before the customer has even engaged? I think it's safe to assume that OP uses an Online Retailer like Trainline/Uber, etc,.... (I don't use these apps so I can't personally speak to the amount of personal information they collect) but I don't think it's far fetched to assume they collect a name.

 

[z444z]

Perhaps @Bones_4411 could say explicitly whether they were stopped after presenting a qr code ticket or stopped before they went through any barrier?

I don’t think the OP should be answering questions like this. What could be helpful is to provide advice either way and that way the OP can benefit without having to answer questions.

OP is the one who calls for the police, however.

Missed this, good spot.

 

[Mattplans]

I don’t think the OP should be answering questions like this. What could be helpful is to provide advice either way and that way the OP can benefit without having to answer questions.

You make a good point, my bad.

Would others agree that GTR's leverage to demand an OOC Settlement is reduced if they OP never presented a ticket to them today? Obviously there are still other avenues available to GTR to recoup the lost fares...

 

[saismee]

This post is purely my opinion and not based on previous cases seen here or anything from the industry.

This case is very unusual. We see very few, if any, that are targeted stops of a named individual with, apparently, police also present. We should be careful not to write off the fraud option too readily.

I suspect that they will go for a prosecution if they have spent this much time and money investigating. They need to set an example occasionally or people won't see it as fraud. AIUI, some of these plain-clothes RPIs follow people to see where they go (work/home) and gather a lot of data on them before approaching. It may be a sting from industry data, but it all depends on the letter OP receives. I personally believe GTR intend to prosecute and that an out of court settlement is unlikely without a solicitor involved, but I believe that decision should be made after seeing the letter.

 

[z444z]

I personally believe GTR intend to prosecute and that an out of court settlement is unlikely without a solicitor involved.

This is a reasonable belief to hold for sure, however I am not convinced that there would be significant benefit in instructing a solicitor now vs once a letter has been received which will hopefully make it clear what kind of game GTR are playing here.

 

[saismee]

This is a reasonable belief to hold for sure, however I am not convinced that there would be significant benefit in instructing a solicitor now vs once a letter has been received which will hopefully make it clear what kind of game GTR are playing here.

I agree, that's why I said

it all depends on the letter OP receives.

though I think I could've made my point clearer. I'll amend my post.

 

[z444z]

I agree, that's why I said

though I think I could've made my point clearer. I'll amend my post.

No that’s okay, I was just adding onto what you said, not disagreeing

 

[agk2126]

Is here anything fundamentally different in this case

Perhaps not fundamentally different, but given the much more involved investigation, is it reasonable to assume GTR would, if they offer to settle out of court, expect a much higher admin fee than the typical £150?

 

[enyoueffsea]

My view would be wait for the letter. If it is their standard letter, with nothing unusual about it, it may be an option to proceed with them directly to secure a settlement.

If not, it’s time to instruct a solicitor.

However, a risk would exist that their standard letter doesn’t mean it will be dealt with as a standard case. This would be for the OP to decide on their own risk tolerance.

It is unusual for such a personalised target and I think it is even more unusual the allegations are from 2024. We see cases on here all the time of serial evaders dating back much longer than this.

The OP has either been extremely unlucky to be picked as a target or there may be more to this which makes it an extremely high value (doughnutting every day without fail probably gets this into the £10k+ region) or serious case.

The OP needs to ensure their purchasing habits are squeaky clean from today.

 

[Bones_4411]

I don’t think the OP should be answering questions like this. What could be helpful is to provide advice either way and that way the OP can benefit without having to answer questions.

Missed this, good spot.

I don’t think the OP should be answering questions like this. What could be helpful is to provide advice either way and that way the OP can benefit without having to answer questions.

Missed this, good spot.

Stopped before I went though the barrier - no QR code or ticket shown.

 

[Mattplans]

I realised later upon reflection, that unless you actually had fully paid for your travel at the time you were stopped, the company can still sanction you for travelling without a ticket (seeing as you would have been unable to present a valid ticket had they asked you), threaten prosection, leverage an out of court settlement ..... etc etc so it's back to square one from that regard. Not sure if they're still entitled to do so as they did not pull you up on it at the time though..... They certainly seem to have jumped the gun a bit. It would have been wiser of them to let you present the short-fared ticket first, if you had one at the time you were caught, then proceed with everything else. We will wait and see if that has any material impact on the case.

Regardless, there's little we can agree upon at this time until you receive the letter. When you receive the letter, please return and post a redacted copy of it to the forum and we will advise further.

You need to consider instructing a solicitor as well, I would recommend seeking quotes from the following (of which have no formal affiliation with the forums, they have just worked well on cases in the past), so when you receive the letter you know where to go from there. And of course think about raising the funds to repay the railway.....

other firms that have been mentioned by forum users over the years, from which quotes could presumably be sought include:

Fare Evasion Solicitors

Skilled legal defence for fare evasion cases. Rely on our experienced team to protect your rights, challenge penalties, and guide you through the process.

manaksolicitors.co.uk

Fare Evasion Solicitors London | High Success Rate | TFL Solicitors

Facing prosecution for fare evasion? Our expert fare evasion solicitors in London fight to protect your record. With deep expertise in TFL solicitors' defence, we help you avoid fines, criminal convictions, and lasting consequences. Act now—secure expert legal representation today!

www.makwanas.co.uk


http://www.grayhooperholt.co.uk/default.asp?id=30


https://penmansedgwick.com/fare-evasion/

@Bones_4411

 

[Haywain]

Stopped before I went though the barrier - no QR code or ticket shown.

For the benefit of all posters here, I would appreciate your confirmation that you were stopped before you went through the barrier after leaving the train and on the way to exit that station. I think some are under the mistaken impression that you hadn't boarded a train at that stage.

 

[Bones_4411]

For the benefit of all posters here, I would appreciate your confirmation that you were stopped before you went through the barrier after leaving the train and on the way to exit that station. I think some are under the mistaken impression that you hadn't boarded a train at that stage.

I boarded the train, made the journey and was stopped before I exited the station.

 

[Acathater]

I boarded the train, made the journey and was stopped before I exited the station.

but before or after passing through the exit barrier?

 

[AlterEgo]

but before or after passing through the exit barrier?

Not relevant. We know the journey was made and the TOC has proof of it (don't forget they know what tickets the OP had for their journey and can evidence the purchase of the same).

 

[Mattplans]

Not relevant. We know the journey was made and the TOC has proof of it (don't forget they know what tickets the OP had for their journey and can evidence the purchase of the same).

Would they not have needed to stop the OP while they were using the ticket?

 

[John R]

Would they not have needed to stop the OP while they were using the ticket?

In the first post the OP says they admitted travelling without a ticket in the presence of the police, which they had called.