Thameslink Intention to Prosecute - Deadline 15 Dec

[FTR00]

Hi all,

I have made return journeys on Thameslink from Stevenage to St Pancras several times this year without a valid ticket, instead purchasing return tickets from Farringdon to St Pancras via TrainSplit to exit/enter the gates at St Pancras.

I recognise this is idiotic and irresponsible, but my finances are extremely limited after a long period of unemployment.

I was approached by a ticket inspector whilst returning to Stevenage on 23 July, just after passing through Finsbury Park. I quickly purchased a single ticket from Finsbury Park to Stevenage via TrainSplit, but they flagged the time that it had been purchased (once already aboard the train).

I initially told the ticket inspector that I had boarded at Finsbury Park and purchased a ticket afterwards to avoid missing the train. In a panic, whilst giving my statement, I then admitted that I was travelling from St Pancras, not Finsbury Park, and disclosed how I had passed through the barriers. Therefore, I also hadn't covered the fare from St Pancras to Finsbury Park.

Having just been at an appointment at an eye hospital, I was suffering from severe light sensitivity and wasn't really equipped to navigate a witness statement. The inspector took a picture of my TrainSplit account on my phone.

I have received a Notice of Intention to Prosecute dated 1 December, specifying that I "did enter a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway, and upon inspection at Hatfield (HAT); did not produce a valid ticket entitling travel".

I understand that there are plenty of posts on this forum covering similar situations. However, I am confused by what I should/should not mention in my letter, to avoid incriminating myself and encouraging GTR to investigate my TrainSplit account, which shows 7 occasions where I have purchased return tickets from Farringdon to St Pancras.

I was wondering if I should simply write: "I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team. I produced a ticket and railcard when asked, but the ticket was not valid, as I had purchased it once already aboard the train", then follow this up with an apology and a request to settle out of court.

This doesn't mention that it was a return journey, or that I had been to/from St Pancras (which I specified in my statement). Is this wise, or will it cause further issues?

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi, welcome to the forum.

It will help the pros here to advise you if you could show us the notice that you've received please. Be sure to obscure your personal details and their reference number.

 

[z444z]

I understand that there are plenty of posts on this forum covering similar situations. However, I am confused by what I should/should not mention in my letter, to avoid incriminating myself and encouraging GTR to investigate my TrainSplit account, which shows 7 occasions where I have purchased return tickets from Farringdon to St Pancras.

I was wondering if I should simply write: "I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team. I produced a ticket and railcard when asked, but the ticket was not valid, as I had purchased it once already aboard the train", then follow this up with an apology and a request to settle out of court.

This doesn't mention that it was a return journey, or that I had been to/from St Pancras (which I specified in my statement). Is this wise, or will it cause further issues?

It would be helpful to see the letter you’ve been sent. Generally the advice is only to answer what has been asked about, although don’t imply that this was a mistake or a one off because if they are already aware of or later discover the previous tickets they will know you were lying about it being a mistake and that will dent your credibility and might reduce your chances of getting a settlement.

GTR are very likely to offer you a settlement as an alternative to prosecution if you respond cooperatively. Each return journey will likely be charged as two Anytime singles, which from Stevenage to St Pancras (and the other way round) is £14.40. So if you’ve done this 8 times you can expect the total settlement to be 8x2x14.4=230.4, plus a roughly £150 admin fee for an approximate total of £380.

 

[GadgetMan]

It would be helpful to see the letter you’ve been sent. Generally the advice is only to answer what has been asked about, although don’t imply that this was a mistake or a one off because if they are already aware of or later discover the previous tickets they will know you were lying about it being a mistake and that will dent your credibility and might reduce your chances of getting a settlement.

GTR are very likely to offer you a settlement as an alternative to prosecution if you respond cooperatively. Each return journey will likely be charged as two Anytime singles, which from Stevenage to St Pancras (and the other way round) is £14.40. So if you’ve done this 8 times you can expect the total settlement to be 8x2x14.4=230.4, plus a roughly £150 admin fee for an approximate total of £380.

Except GTR may wonder what the true extent of fare dodging is as it appears they only buy a ticket when they absolutely need to, and even then its a short fare. It seems the OP has admitted to somehow passing through St Pancras without a ticket, therefore are likely to have evaded their fare on more than 8 occasions.

 

[z444z]

Except GTR may wonder what the true extent of fare dodging is as it appears they only buy a ticket when they absolutely need to, and even then it’s a short fare. It seems the OP has admitted to somehow passing through St Pancras without a ticket, therefore are likely to have evaded their fare on more than 8 occasions.

They may wonder, but they can’t exactly charge for 50 journeys they guess might have happened.

We have seen GTR being extremely reasonable recently, and settling even in cases of blatant, high-value fare evasion over long periods of time - I don’t think the OP needs to worry too much at this stage and just needs to send a well-worded cooperative response.

 

[Haywain]

Except GTR may wonder what the true extent of fare dodging is as it appears they only buy a ticket when they absolutely need to, and even then its a short fare. It seems the OP has admitted to somehow passing through St Pancras without a ticket, therefore are likely to have evaded their fare on more than 8 occasions.

Nonetheless, when involved in a legal case the suspect is entitled not to self-incriminate. The train company could try and guess how often the OP has done it but our experience is that they do seem to prefer to have at least a shred of evidence before asking for payment as part of a settlement.

 

[FTR00]

Except GTR may wonder what the true extent of fare dodging is as it appears they only buy a ticket when they absolutely need to, and even then its a short fare. It seems the OP has admitted to somehow passing through St Pancras without a ticket, therefore are likely to have evaded their fare on more than 8 occasions.

I admitted to buying a return ticket from Farringdon to St Pancras to exit/enter the gates at St Pancras, rather than paying the fare between Stevenage and St Pancras. There are 6 other examples of this in my TrainSplit account.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2025 ==

Correspondence attached

To summarise my overly long initial message:
- Noticed a ticket inspector between Finsbury Park and Stevenage
- Purchased a ticket for the journey from Finsbury Park to Stevenage on my phone, before being approached by them
- Ticket was flagged for being purchased after the train had departed, initially explained that I was running late and had boarded at Finsbury Park in a rush
- Admitted during my witness statement that I had travelled from St Pancras and initially used a Farringdon to St Pancras ticket to pass through the barriers at St Pancras
- There are 6 other Farringdon to St Pancras return tickets in my TrainSplit account. Inspector took a picture of my account, although I did not mention that the other tickets had been used for the same purpose

So I am unsure if I should only reference the initial offence (buying a ticket after boarding) or also the second offence (short faring), which I revealed during my witness statement?

 

[AlterEgo]

They know you've been short faring because that is why people buy tickets for less the the full distance after boarding. They see this thousands of times a year.

 

[30907]

There are plenty of examples of generic replies on here.

In your reply you should simply admit that you were travelling without a valid ticket. You don't need to be more specific, and it's unlikely it will make much difference one way or another.

You do not need to admit to previous cheating, but GTR may investigate anyway.

 

[FTR00]

Thanks for your responses

It sounds like I should keep my response brief, such as: "I write in response to this letter and to the incident on 23 July. I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team and failed to produce a valid ticket when asked", followed by an apology.

Will they take issue with me failing to mention further details, e.g. where I boarded the train, why the ticket wasn't valid, why I was travelling without a valid ticket etc...?

 

[AlterEgo]

No. They don't really care that much. This company settles out of court pretty much every time.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks for your responses

It sounds like I should keep my response brief, such as: "I write in response to this letter and to the incident on 23 July. I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team and failed to produce a valid ticket when asked", followed by an apology.

Will they take issue with me failing to mention further details, e.g. where I boarded the train, why the ticket wasn't valid, why I was travelling without a valid ticket etc...?

I think what is more important is convincing them you won't be travelling without the correct ticket in future really - so the apology and a commitment to that / showing you have learned an important lesson is probably the key bit. They presumably know why the tickets wasn't valid etc as the inspector who stopped you detected that already I assume.

 

[FTR00]

Draft response:

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Thank you for your letter dated 1st December, reference number X. I write in response to this letter and to the incident on 23rd July. I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team and failed to produce a valid ticket when asked.

I take full responsibility for my actions and for travelling without a valid ticket.

I have been experiencing a challenging time financially, after a long period of unemployment. I realise, however, that this does not excuse my behaviour. I deeply regret my actions and now understand the impact – to both the rail company and fellow passengers – of not paying the correct fare. I have learned a valuable lesson and can assure you that this will never happen again.

Please consider resolving this matter through an out of court settlement, as a criminal conviction would make my job search even more challenging. I am willing to pay the outstanding fare and all administration fees, and would do so promptly.

Best regards,

 

[Elecman]

Remove the first 2 sentences of the 3rd paragraph they aren’t interested in sob stories

 

[WesternLancer]

Remove the first 2 sentences of the 3rd paragraph they aren’t interested in sob stories

personally I'd leave that in - the response would be very brief without it in my view, - but of course it's what the OP is comfortable with.

to @FTR00 - I would suggest small amends along these lines, if of course you are happy with them (I think the end bit needs a slightly different 'tone' as at the end of the day they don't need to agree to do this so it needs to be more of a request, even if as mentioned GTR have a strong record of settling cases out of court) - hope the amends / insertions are clear

------------------------

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Your Ref: [insert their ref number really clearly by putting it here]

Thank you for your letter dated 1st December, reference number X. I write in response to this letter and to the incident on 23rd July. I was approached on the train between Finsbury Park and Stevenage by a member of the Revenue Protection Team and failed to produce a valid ticket when asked.

I take full responsibility for my actions and for travelling without a valid ticket. I would like to apologise for this error of judgement on my part.

I have been experiencing a challenging time financially, after a long period of unemployment. I realise, however, that this does not excuse my behaviour. I deeply regret my actions and now understand the impact – to both the rail company and fellow passengers – of not paying the correct fare. I have learned a valuable lesson and can assure you that this will never happen again.

I would be grateful if you could Please consider resolving this matter through an out of court settlement, as a criminal conviction would make my job search even more challenging. I am willing to pay the outstanding fare and all administration fees, and would do so promptly.

Best regards,
Yours faithfully,

-----------------------------------------------

As you have to post this to them IIRC you should:

- ensure your ref number is clear on every page you send them
- keep a copy of every page
- send it tracked postage from a post office so that you know it was delivered and keep copies of your post tracking record in case you need it

 

[FTR00]

Fantastic, thank you.

Is the correct process to write 'see response enclosed' in the space provided on the original form, print the above, and then send both in an envelope with tracked delivery?

 

[WesternLancer]

Fantastic, thank you.

Is the correct process to write 'see response enclosed' in the space provided on the original form, print the above, and then send both in an envelope with tracked delivery?

Yes I would say so. Having kept a copy of ever page put in the envelope.