Surprise Debt Recovery and Prosecution Letter

[some bloke]

Simply responding thanking them for their letter and stating that nobody stopped you and that you're sure you didn't commit any offence and did pay the correct fare is sufficient.

Should we add, "if you paid the undiscounted fare of £8.50, or have compelling evidence that the app created a valid contract at a cheaper price"?

 

[Haywain]

Should we add, "if you paid the undiscounted fare of £8.50, or have compelling evidence that the app created a valid contract at a cheaper price"?

No.

 

[some bloke]

No.

@Jammeeget hasn't said they are sure they haven't committed an offence, and sure that they paid the correct fare.

So I'm not clear how we know that putting those in the response is suitable without further information.

 

[Haywain]

@Jammeeget hasn't said they are sure they haven't committed an offence, and sure that they paid the correct fare.

So I'm not clear how we know that putting those in the response is suitable without further information.

The OP is very clear that they were not stopped or spoken to, so there is no need to provide a defence.

 

[Starmill]

This is really very simple, you do not give your potential opponent any information which may lend persuasive power to their arguments or harm your defence. At the moment we do not even know if they will allege an offence, or if they do, what it will be. We do not even know if they have any evidence of the customer being on a train. If it cannot be put beyond a doubt that someone was travelling on a train, they cannot be convicted of an offence related to paying the fare for a train journey.

 

[some bloke]

If it cannot be put beyond a doubt that someone was travelling on a train, they cannot be convicted of an offence related to paying the fare for a train journey.

The question is specifically about the words "you're sure you didn't commit any offence and did pay the correct fare".

The OP is very clear that they were not stopped or spoken to, so there is no need to provide a defence.

I'm not suggesting a defence, but hinting at a risk if the OP says they are sure of something they aren't.

 

[John Palmer]

I'm not suggesting a defence, but hinting at a risk if the OP says they are sure of something they aren't.

I agree with this. Either the OP was spoken to by a member of Northern's staff as the email states or he was not. If the former, the advice given here is worthless since it is based on a false premise. If the latter, the OP cannot be expected to respond other than by saying that he was not spoken to on 18 March about an alleged contravention of of Railway Regulations, and that that, so far as he is concerned, is an end to the matter. In those circumstances any question of whether he made a journey by rail that day and whether he held the correct ticket for such journey is irrelevant. His response need not and should not refer to any journey he made or fare he paid that day.

 

[island]

It's worth keeping this straightforward. It's up to Northern to put it beyond a doubt that you committed an offence, not the other way around. Simply responding thanking them for their letter and stating that nobody stopped you and that you're sure you didn't commit any offence and did pay the correct fare is sufficient.

That would be a lie, though. Lying is rarely advisable.

I would keep it even more straightforward, the OP should state that nobody spoke to them about any alleged contraventions at the above time or any other time, and they are therefore puzzled as to why they received the email in question/assume there has been some sort of error and trust that they will not be hearing further from Northern.

Northern might then respond regarding the allegation of a 16-25 Railcard discount being used below minimum fare when not valid, and if they do, that matter can then be taken forward.

 

[Starmill]

That would be a lie, though. Lying is rarely advisable.

Only in your reading of the situation. Don't present your views of what's happened as facts.

 

[island]

Only in your reading of the situation. Don't present your views of what's happened as facts.

The OP stated, at posts 1, 5, 12, and 20 that they used a 16-25 Railcard discounted ticket at 06:56, on a Friday not in July or August, for a journey costing under £12.

That ticket was not a valid ticket, so the OP did commit an offence, and did not pay the correct fare. Saying otherwise would, categorically, be a lie.

 

[Starmill]

The OP stated, at posts 1, 5, 12, and 20 that they used a 16-25 Railcard discounted ticket at 06:56, on a Friday not in July or August, for a journey costing under £12.

That ticket was not a valid ticket, so the OP did commit an offence, and did not pay the correct fare. Saying otherwise would, categorically, be a lie.

That doesn't appear to be what those posts say to me. But if that's your view then you're entitled to it. Then again perhaps the OP has decided not to answer the question directly deliberately.

 

[Watershed]

The OP stated, at posts 1, 5, 12, and 20 that they used a 16-25 Railcard discounted ticket at 06:56, on a Friday not in July or August, for a journey costing under £12.

That ticket was not a valid ticket, so the OP did commit an offence, and did not pay the correct fare. Saying otherwise would, categorically, be a lie.

If they were sold a discounted ticket for that service, it was valid. It's also possible that they selected a Railcard but it wasn't actually applied due to the minimum fare rule.

Either way, I agree that it's best to keep it simple and simply state that you weren't spoken to by anyone on that date and therefore you have no idea why you are being contacted.

 

[gray1404]

OP - have Northern printed your postal address on the letter too or just your email address?

 

[Jammeeget]

Hello all, I got an email response today, it reads:

——————————

Thank you for your reply to our correspondence.



We have received an evidential report to advise that your ticket was scanned on the train by one of our conductors on the 18th March 2022 at around 7:30. At this time the conductor advised you that your ticket (ticket number ********) was not valid for travel at that time. This ticket was an Anytime Day Return ticket between Bentley (S. Yorks) and Meadowhall. However, because you have applied your 16-25 Railcard to this ticket it was not valid for travel before 10:00, as per the Railcard terms and conditions. Your details were not taken at the time but I have accessed your account and details through the ticket number. It is also noted that you refused to purchase a replacement ticket from the conductor.



We would like to give you the opportunity to respond with your explanation for this.



Yours Sincerely

————————————

So a lot of you were correct, it was due to me using my 16-25 railcard in the morning before 10am, which I was unaware was not allowed until people on this forum mentioned it. Yes, I realise I should have read the terms and conditions of the railcard before purchasing it - and I will never use it before 10am again.

However, I am still confused as to why they are adamant that the conductor spoke to me, and even said I refused to purchase a replacement ticket.

As I mentioned in the original post, I had received a penalty fare from TPE before for travelling using the wrong ticket, so I would absolutely not have refused to purchase a new ticket had I been given a chance.

I have drafted up a reply, if the members here could check it for me that would be great.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. However, I am still confused. I absolutely was not spoken to by a conductor on this day, if I was I would definitely recall it. Secondly if I was told my ticket was invalid, which I did not know up until now, I definitely would not have refused to purchase a replacement one.

Regardless, as you have mentioned my ticket was purchased using a 16-25 railcard, which I am now aware cannot be used before 10am, I would like to apologise for this, and accept it is my responsibility to familiarise myself with the terms and conditions of use of the railcard. This has been a lesson to me and I will ensure this does not happen again.

If given the opportunity, I would like to offer to pay the amount for a replacement ticket, plus any administrative costs incurred from yourselves in order to investigate this matter.

However I do still stand by my original statement that the conductor did not speak to me at all, so I am confused as to why the report states this.

Yours faithfully,

 

[30907]

Could you clarify what the fare paid was? £8.50 or £5.60.
If the second, I am puzzled that Trainline issued it for travel at that time.

 

[Jammeeget]

Could you clarify what the fare paid was? £8.50 or £5.60.
If the second, I am puzzled that Trainline issued it for travel at that time.

£5.60

 

[skyhigh]

If the second, I am puzzled that Trainline issued it for travel at that time.

I would hazard a guess that a later train was selected in the app - but Trainline have been known to get it wrong.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

There are broadly two routes that you can take forward from here:

- argue that you were in the right, and see if you can reach an agreement, or
- accept that you were wrong, and see if it is possible to agree a settlement

Taking these in turn:
Arguing that you were in the right: This covers a couple of points
- that Trainline issued a ticket for you to use on that train but with the Railcard applied. If this is the case, then I think that Trainline will have sent you an itinerary showing which trains you were booked to travel on. Of course, if you bought an anytime ticket, and given your understanding that you could use your Railcard on trains during the morning peak (an understanding that you now know is wrong) then you would feel entitled to use the ticket on any train so you wouldn't have felt obliged to stick by the itinerary that Trainline gave you. So I can well understand if you bought the ticket against a different itinerary to the journey you actually made.

If the itinerary issued for your ticket was the journey that you made (same stations, same trains, same times) then I think you are in a position to argue that you had a valid ticket as it had been sold to you for the journey that you made. But if the itinerary was different (most likely same stations, but later trains, later times) this argument will not work.

- that you did not have a conversation with any rail staff on the train. This one is rather more difficult. You now seem to accept that (unless there was some sort of ticket issuing error by Trainline - see above) your ticket was not valid because it was too early for the railcard discount. And undoubtedly the railway have been in touch with you. So either you had some interaction with rail staff on the train for them to get your ticket number and so your details and email address to contact you, or the railway have been phenomenally lucky to guess that you were on that train that day with an invalid ticket of ticket number xxxxxx.

Realistically, at the very least someone from the railway checked your ticket. We weren't there, so we don't know if you had a conversation with the rail staff or not, but as the railway have put in writing that they had a conversation with you they are not going to back away from that position. On this point, it's your word against theirs.

So if you want to argue that you did not have a conversation, you will probably lose on that point. So on that basis I would suggest that you do not want to mention it when you write to them.

Accepting that you were in the wrong: Although Trainline may have incorrectly issued a ticket, and rail staff may have only checked your ticket rather than discussing the options with you in full detail, I have to say (and I am sorry if this sounds harsh) that it is more likely that the ticket was issued correctly but used incorrectly, and the rail staff had a conversation with you that you do not recall. On the basis of what you have told us (including what you say the railway have told you) it is most likely that you were in the wrong.

So what to do now? Put bluntly, you need to grovel. To put it rather more constructively, I would suggest writing a letter that
- doesn't mention whether anyone talked to you or not: that point won't help you
- accepts that you had an invalid ticket
- explains that you didn't know then that you could not use a railcard during the morning peak, but you do know that now
- apologises for making the mistake: now you know better you will take care not to make the same mistake again
- asks if the railway would be prepared to settle the matter for you paying the fare not paid and the costs of their investigation

Keep it short (someone is going to have to read it and make a decision - they don't want to waste time wading through a long letter) and keep it polite (you want them to do you a favour by not taking you to court). While the railway is entitled to prosecute you, our past experience is that Northern may agree to settle out of court, so it's worth a try.

 

[Jammeeget]

There are broadly two routes that you can take forward from here:

- argue that you were in the right, and see if you can reach an agreement, or
- accept that you were wrong, and see if it is possible to agree a settlement

Taking these in turn:
Arguing that you were in the right: This covers a couple of points
- that Trainline issued a ticket for you to use on that train but with the Railcard applied. If this is the case, then I think that Trainline will have sent you an itinerary showing which trains you were booked to travel on. Of course, if you bought an anytime ticket, and given your understanding that you could use your Railcard on trains during the morning peak (an understanding that you now know is wrong) then you would feel entitled to use the ticket on any train so you wouldn't have felt obliged to stick by the itinerary that Trainline gave you. So I can well understand if you bought the ticket against a different itinerary to the journey you actually made.

If the itinerary issued for your ticket was the journey that you made (same stations, same trains, same times) then I think you are in a position to argue that you had a valid ticket as it had been sold to you for the journey that you made. But if the itinerary was different (most likely same stations, but later trains, later times) this argument will not work.

- that you did not have a conversation with any rail staff on the train. This one is rather more difficult. You now seem to accept that (unless there was some sort of ticket issuing error by Trainline - see above) your ticket was not valid because it was too early for the railcard discount. And undoubtedly the railway have been in touch with you. So either you had some interaction with rail staff on the train for them to get your ticket number and so your details and email address to contact you, or the railway have been phenomenally lucky to guess that you were on that train that day with an invalid ticket of ticket number xxxxxx.

Realistically, at the very least someone from the railway checked your ticket. We weren't there, so we don't know if you had a conversation with the rail staff or not, but as the railway have put in writing that they had a conversation with you they are not going to back away from that position. On this point, it's your word against theirs.

So if you want to argue that you did not have a conversation, you will probably lose on that point. So on that basis I would suggest that you do not want to mention it when you write to them.

Accepting that you were in the wrong: Although Trainline may have incorrectly issued a ticket, and rail staff may have only checked your ticket rather than discussing the options with you in full detail, I have to say (and I am sorry if this sounds harsh) that it is more likely that the ticket was issued correctly but used incorrectly, and the rail staff had a conversation with you that you do not recall. On the basis of what you have told us (including what you say the railway have told you) it is most likely that you were in the wrong.

So what to do now? Put bluntly, you need to grovel. To put it rather more constructively, I would suggest writing a letter that
- doesn't mention whether anyone talked to you or not: that point won't help you
- accepts that you had an invalid ticket
- explains that you didn't know then that you could not use a railcard during the morning peak, but you do know that now
- apologises for making the mistake: now you know better you will take care not to make the same mistake again
- asks if the railway would be prepared to settle the matter for you paying the fare not paid and the costs of their investigation

Keep it short (someone is going to have to read it and make a decision - they don't want to waste time wading through a long letter) and keep it polite (you want them to do you a favour by not taking you to court). While the railway is entitled to prosecute you, our past experience is that Northern may agree to settle out of court, so it's worth a try.

Thank you for your detailed reply. Yes I am 100% in the wrong on this due to my lack of understanding regarding the railcard rules and the times in which you can and cannot use it. I am not going to try and argue, I was under the understanding that because it was an anytime day return ticket that I purchased, I would be able to use it at anytime of the day.

I would 100% be able to recall having been spoken to, and would 100% not have refused to purchase a new ticket, as mentioned I was issued a penalty fare before, and have read the railforums on and off for some time, so know that not accepting this would be absolutely idiotic.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2022 ==

And undoubtedly the railway have been in touch with you.

The first contact I had from them was 04/05/22, when I made this post.

So either you had some interaction with rail staff on the train for them to get your ticket number and so your details and email address to contact you

Yes, I cannot remember exactly what happened but I am guessing the conductor would have scanned my ticket and then proceeded to do what skyhigh had mentioned previously:

However it is possible to submit what is basically a quick report - basically ticket number, train details and brief explanation of events. This can be done after the event - you can save the ticket number of a scanned eticket and use this later in the report - and you don't need to include an address. As this is faster, it can be the case that conductors will (rightly or wrongly) avoid the aggro of bringing issues up with the passenger and taking addresses etc. With an e-ticket, depending on the issue, the company may then request details from the seller. Sometimes these details may only be a name and email address in which case contact will be via email.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

And undoubtedly the railway have been in touch with you.

The first contact I had from them was 04/05/22, when I made this post.

Sorry - a lack of clarity by me. That's the contact that I had in mind: it demonstrates that the railway have obtained your details from somewhere.

 

[John Palmer]

National Rail Conditions of Travel Condition 9.5 appears to be applicable to the OP's case if the only reason for the ticket's invalidity was that it was subject to a time restriction that precluded application of the railcard discount. In that case the appropriate course would seem to have been to charge the excess between the price the OP actually paid and the lowest price of ticket that was valid for the train he was using. I note that the company has not seen fit to say what price the OP should have paid for his ticket and the amount he had actually paid.

According to what the railway company is now saying, he was not asked to pay that excess but instead was asked to buy a replacement ticket. If the correct course was to ask for payment only of the excess then the OP would have been justified in declining to pay the full cost of such ticket.

Furthermore the OP is adamant he was not spoken to about an alleged contravention of regulations. The company alleges that when asked to purchase a replacement ticket he refused to do so, but now admits that 'Your details were not taken at the time.' I find it hard to believe that if he refused to make that purchase his details were not then taken so that such refusal could be followed up. And it would make no sense for him to spin a yarn about not having been spoken to, since any advice given on that basis would be of no value to him. For these reasons, whilst I don't doubt that his ticket was inspected and that led to a report being made to the company, the fact that the company then had to use the ticket number to trace him encourages me to believe the OP's account that no mention of a contravention of regulations was made in the course of the conversation when the ticket was inspected. If that is the case then writing to the OP stating that he was 'spoken to by an authorised member of staff in relation to an alleged contravention of railway regulations' was downright deceitful and warrants a challenge – the more so if the right course of action was to seek payment of the excess rather than purchase of a replacement ticket.

I'm not sure what the appropriate way forward for the OP would be – I think it would be helpful to ascertain whether he may have been misled by the ticket issued to him as to its validity, and to put beyond doubt whether he should simply have been charged an excess – but it does strike me that there may be grounds for a less submissive reply than the OP proposes to make.

 

[Jammeeget]

but it does strike me that there may be grounds for a less submissive reply than the OP proposes to make.

I would like to propose a less submissive reply, however I am afraid this may hinder my chances of obtaining a settlement from them. I am willing to concede that I was wrong and admit that, even though the conductor did not speak to me, that it is irrelevant and doesn’t dismiss the fact that my ticket was invalid. I am trying to stand my ground whilst also admitting I was wrong and asking whether they will accept a settlement.

 

[43096]

Sorry - a lack of clarity by me. That's the contact that I had in mind: it demonstrates that the railway have obtained your details from somewhere.

I would suggest that, as the OP received contact by email and not by letter (and no reference to an address):
- OP had ticket scanned by conductor
- Guard doesn't pick up on the railcard error (assuming the scanner gives a warning) and carries on checking tickets without speaking to the OP
- Northern get the data and someone has done some data analysis/sweep of the scans by the conductor
- Northern trace it back to the source account (as it was an e-ticket)
- Northern use email address attached to the account to contact

Is this a new approach to revenue protection using ticket scans by guards and then back office analysis to then follow up on anomalies?

 

[Snow1964]

OK, to summarise you bought an anytime ticket from train line, and not realising the railcard restriction (not before 10am) used it on an earlier train.

This is where you need to offer to settle, even if the railway stupidly issues tickets called anytime with a 16-25 railcard, which aren‘t valid at anytime, but not until 10am

I am not sure if it worth including a short sentence apologising for misunderstanding the term anytime with a railcard as valid at any time, which you now realise they aren’t.

Others will give their opinion, but you want it to appear an accidental error rather than a deliberate fare evasion. (Regardless of technically ticket wasn’t valid, or more precisely National condition 9.5 time restriction)

 

[Jammeeget]

Others will give their opinion, but you want it to appear an accidental error rather than a deliberate fare evasion. (Regardless of technically ticket wasn’t valid, or more precisely National condition 9.5 time restriction)

Exactly, and I believe that if I fail to argue that I was not spoken to, they will then believe I have deliberately fare evaded since the incident, as I had purchased more tickets using my railcard since then, because I didn’t know I was not supposed to do this, since no conductor had said otherwise.

This is my draft email if this covers all of the points you mentioned:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. However, I am still confused. I absolutely was not spoken to by a conductor on this day, if I was I would definitely recall it. Secondly if I was told my ticket was invalid, which I did not know up until now, I would have had no issues with purchasing a replacement one, so would not have refused. I stand by this but I concede that it is irrelevant whether I was spoken to or not.

The fact of the matter is my ticket was purchased using a 16-25 railcard, which I am now aware cannot be used for the morning peak before 10am, therefore making the ticket invalid. I would like to apologise for this, and accept that it is my responsibility to familiarise myself with the terms and conditions of use of the railcard. This has been a lesson to me and I will ensure this does not happen again.

If given the opportunity, I would like to offer to pay the amount for a replacement ticket/ penalty fare, plus any administrative costs incurred from yourselves in order to investigate this matter.

Yours faithfully,

 

[AlterEgo]

I would suggest that, as the OP received contact by email and not by letter (and no reference to an address):
- OP had ticket scanned by conductor
- Guard doesn't pick up on the railcard error (assuming the scanner gives a warning) and carries on checking tickets without speaking to the OP
- Northern get the data and someone has done some data analysis/sweep of the scans by the conductor
- Northern trace it back to the source account (as it was an e-ticket)
- Northern use email address attached to the account to contact

Is this a new approach to revenue protection using ticket scans by guards and then back office analysis to then follow up on anomalies?

I think the conductor has reported it after the fact, or at least been asked about it. Someone, somewhere has claimed the OP didn't buy a "replacement ticket" and they were spoken to.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. However, I am still confused. I absolutely was not spoken to by a conductor on this day, if I was I would definitely recall it. Secondly if I was told my ticket was invalid, which I did not know up until now, I would have had no issues with purchasing a replacement one, so would not have refused. I stand by this but I concede that it is irrelevant whether I was spoken to or not.

The fact of the matter is my ticket was purchased using a 16-25 railcard, which I am now aware cannot be used for the morning peak before 10am, therefore making the ticket invalid. I would like to apologise for this, and accept that it is my responsibility to familiarise myself with the terms and conditions of use of the railcard. This has been a lesson to me and I will ensure this does not happen again.

If given the opportunity, I would like to offer to pay the amount for a replacement ticket/ penalty fare, plus any administrative costs incurred from yourselves in order to investigate this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Let's rejig this and put the ball in their court.

Dear Sir/Madam (if you know the name, use it)

Thank you for your email of [DATE]. I am surprised to read again, that I was spoken to on the train. I was not. My ticket was checked, but I was not spoken to about it, and I refute the allegation that I refused to purchase a replacement. My ticket was accepted and nothing was said to me by the conductor.

I understand from your correspondence that my ticket was not valid before 10am as it was below the minimum fare for my Railcard. I am sorry that it appears I mistakenly travelled before I was supposed to, and have read the National Rail Conditions of Travel to make myself aware of my responsibilities in the future. You can be sure I will not make this mistake again; I was surprised to see I had contravened the terms and conditions in any way and it was not my intention to do so.

I note from the National Rail Conditions of Travel that the remedy for travelling at the wrong time on a time restricted ticket is contained under Condition 9.5, which says:

you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

I accept that I fell foul of this Condition and hereby enclose a cheque for £[CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OWED] which I trust settles the matter.

Kind regards,

[NAME]

 

[Jammeeget]

I accept that I fell foul of this Condition and hereby enclose a cheque for £[CALCULATE THE AMOUNT OWED] which I trust settles the matter.

The difference is just £2.90, do you think they would accept this low of a fee, given they normally include an admin fee of around £80?

 

[AndrewE]

well, it was their mistake not asking for it on the spot...

 

[furlong]

The difference is just £2.90, do you think they would accept this low of a fee, given they normally include an admin fee of around £80?

Yes because those are the rules! The NRCoT says nothing about any "admin fee".

 

[Snow1964]

Yes because those are the rules! The NRCoT says nothing about any "admin fee".

If the ticket inspector had asked for the difference there and then, and it had been paid, wouldn’t have been any admin.

All the admin has been caused by forgetting the NRCoT rules and wasting time going off at a tangent, there is no provision for admin fee in this situation, it’s not a case of the difference was refused to be paid, (which has to be followed up and justify an admin fee) difference was never asked for.