Thameslink Prosecution Notice - Solicitor? - *EDIT: Now resolved*

[furlong]

I note again, that neither the T&Cs nor the FAQ gives any advice about how to handle this situation as they clearly should as this must surely be a more 'frequently asked question' than many of the other obscure questions that are answered! As the passenger has overpaid for the travel actually made and there is no conceivable detriment to the train company or the taxpayer or the wider public, this seems to be a straightforward situation where the commercial interest of the train company may be overriding an obvious expectation that the prosecutor would exercise discretion and not prosecute. Further, the analysis of the multi-party contract is itself far from satisfactory and not straightforward. Where precisely does the responsibility for the breach lie and with what consequences? What is the contractual relationship between the two passengers and why is this and any associated liability not provided for by the contract itself?

 

[dayslikethese2]

Thank you very much WesternLancer. Also this might sound silly but if the letter was issued on 31st July do I have until the 13th or 14th August to send a response? I am going to send first class signed for either way, but would be keen to hear others opinions on this. I was under the impression the 14 days is inclusive of the date of issue, therefore Tuesday 13th would be the deadline.

 

[island]

Further, the analysis of the multi-party contract is itself far from satisfactory and not straightforward.

What analysis? What specifically is "far from satisfactory"? And what is "not straightforward" about the requirement that two passengers travel together when using a Two Together Railcard?

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you very much WesternLancer. Also this might sound silly but if the letter was issued on 31st July do I have until the 13th or 14th August to send a response? I am going to send first class signed for either way, but would be keen to hear others opinions on this. I was under the impression the 14 days is inclusive of the date of issue, therefore Tuesday 13th would be the deadline.

I am not sure on if it is inclusive or not - but what I would be doing is getting it to them as well ahead of their deadline as you can - so ideally if no further comments suggesting changes I'd be looking at getting it in the post 1st class signed for friday 9th August (and post often collected from post offices about 12 noon and again about 4.30pm so getting it to a post office and on it's way by 12 noon would be a good idea if at all possible). If you miss fridays' postal collections you probably need to get it to a post office by 11am ish on saturday.

If it's also possible to send a scan of it all by e-mail as well then you could do that in addition I suspect - and include in the e-mail something that says eg 'as sent by post to your office in connection with case ref xxxxx' and include your full name and address so they can match things up. At each stage make it easy for them where you can.

If there isn't an e-mail on the paperwork your received maybe they don't want replies by e-mail but I think an e-mail address for GTR prosecutions has been mentioned on other threads before.

 

[dayslikethese2]

I am not sure on if it is inclusive or not - but what I would be doing is getting it to them as well ahead of their deadline as you can - so ideally if no further comments suggesting changes I'd be looking at getting it in the post 1st class signed for friday 9th August (and post often collected from post offices about 12 noon and again about 4.30pm so getting it to a post office and on it's way by 12 noon would be a good idea if at all possible). If you miss fridays' postal collections you probably need to get it to a post office by 11am ish on saturday.

If it's also possible to send a scan of it all by e-mail as well then you could do that in addition I suspect - and include in the e-mail something that says eg 'as sent by post to your office in connection with case ref xxxxx' and include your full name and address so they can match things up. At each stage make it easy for them where you can.

If there isn't an e-mail on the paperwork your received maybe they don't want replies by e-mail but I think an e-mail address for GTR prosecutions has been mentioned on other threads before.Thn

Great and helpful response, thank you very much. There is an email I believe.

 

[WesternLancer]

Great and helpful response, thank you very much. There is an email I believe.

If so then I tend to think use both e-mail and post to be on the safe side. It's probably OTT but we do see cases on here from time to time when responses don't get through and the action escalates without the person realising - so key to avoid that.

 

[John R]

Further, the analysis of the multi-party contract is itself far from satisfactory and not straightforward. Where precisely does the responsibility for the breach lie and with what consequences? What is the contractual relationship between the two passengers and why is this and any associated liability not provided for by the contract itself?

I think you're making too much of this. It's quite simple - if you travel with a Two Together railcard discounted ticket, without both the railcard and the second person, then you are travelling without a valid ticket. The railway doesn't need to consider why you are not complying with the rules of the railcard, just that you aren't.

 

[furlong]

I think you're making too much of this. It's quite simple - if you travel with a Two Together railcard discounted ticket, without both the railcard and the second person, then you are travelling without a valid ticket. The railway doesn't need to consider why you are not complying with the rules of the railcard, just that you aren't.

Might you be liable to a criminal or civil penalty through the independent unknown actions of another person? Instead of the obligations between those two parties being written down and unambiguous - jointly or severally, civil or criminal - you're left dealing with the complexity of some implied contract.

 

[John R]

Might you be liable to a criminal or civil penalty through the independent unknown actions of another person? Instead of the obligations between those two parties being written down and unambiguous - jointly or severally, civil or criminal - you're left dealing with the complexity of some implied contract.

No, because it is your responsibility not to travel without the other person. If you don't have the other person with you, you can't travel on that ticket and you will know if that's the case before you board the train.

 

[furlong]

No, because it is your responsibility not to travel without the other person. If you don't have the other person with you, you can't travel on that ticket and you will know if that's the case before you board the train.

In that one scenario, but there are other situations where that's not the case, and even in that situation, if your companion doesn't turn up and the train is about to depart and you cannot afford to miss it, what do you do? These situations should all be covered with practical (not theoretical) answers in the T&Cs or FAQ. The bottom line is that it should be stated that the tickets are valid only as a pair, but exceptionally one person may travel alone using that pair. (If they wanted they could define an excess to eliminate corner cases in the pricing.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2024 ==

(If they wanted they could define an excess to eliminate corner cases in the pricing.)

Lightbulb moment. I'd better eat some of my words.

This *is* one of those situations where there was money to be saved.

Is this why you were coy about exactly which station you were travelling to?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2024 ==

In a scenario where 2 tickets bought with a Two Together railcard but one person does not travel, when on the train if you presented both tickets for checking (and then they got scanned or clipped so they could not be used again) how is the railway a loser in this? OK one person has not travelled by their ticket has been 'used' and has no validity

Where one passenger only makes a single journey, the other makes a return, BUT singles are priced close to returns.
Actual fare = 2 x discounted returns.
Correct fare = 2 x discounted singles + 1 x full price single. OR 1 x full price return + 1 x full price single

Look at the numbers for Kings Cross to Welwyn Garden City (Sunday morning).

 

[John R]

The bottom line is that it should be stated that the tickets are valid only as a pair, but exceptionally one person may travel alone using that pair.

That's starting to become your opinion of what should happen, when your complaint was that the terms are not clear. At the moment the terms are very clear:-

In that one scenario, but there are other situations where that's not the case, and even in that situation, if your companion doesn't turn up and the train is about to depart and you cannot afford to miss it, what do you do?

That's no different to turning up late, and not having time to buy a ticket. In that instance the railway (rightly) says that not leaving enough time is not a valid reason for boarding without a valid ticket. It's the same here - if you know in time, you can go and purchase a new ticket. If there are no ticket purchasing facilities you can board and purchase a new one on board without presenting the invalid one.

 

[furlong]

That's no different to turning up late,

It is quite different because the situation I describe is within the control of another party to the contract, and it's not something you can even solve by saying "well take out insurance against your fellow traveller abandoning you" - insurance can't stop you being branded a fare evader.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

But other's views may vary!

Sorry for going back to this, but it now occurs to me that this could have read as if I was doubling down on supporting my position and so criticising @Haywain for taking a different view. If anyone did read it like that, that wasn’t what I meant to say - I was aiming to confirm that while I didn’t agree with Haywain, their post was a reasonable position to offer the OP.

Apologies if I did indeed offend anyone.

 

[island]

Might you be liable to a criminal or civil penalty through the independent unknown actions of another person? Instead of the obligations between those two parties being written down and unambiguous - jointly or severally, civil or criminal - you're left dealing with the complexity of some implied contract.

There are numerous other types of situation in which someone becomes liable to a criminal or civil penalty through the actions of another person. To name but a few:

• My wife forgets to renew the insurance on our car (or lies to me that it has been insured) and I drive it
• The qualified driver supervising a learner driver climbs out of the car, or incorrectly states their pass date
• We book tickets with a Two Together Railcard, we travel together, and my wife leaves the physical Railcard at home

As often happens, you are going down an irrelevant theoretical rabbit-hole which is of no assistance to the OP.

 

[dayslikethese2]

On this my view does vary in that I can see no harm in including them - as it helps demonstrate the OP had spent money on tickets and may just (but but in not way for sure) might influence GTR to offer a lower settlement charge if they are minded to be sympathetic. We know GTR are usually reasonable so the risk of prosecution IMHO is very low, but this may help get the OP a more modest settlement offer financially. There is surely nothing to lose.

It's clear to me that the OP had no intention to evade the fare and simply made a mistake on the day after it became clear that the 2 people could not travel together. So I see no harm in mentioning the original tickets bought and the proof of that.

Also - to @dayslikethese2 if you do mention your ND in your reply as a factor in what happened I would indeed substantiate that with proof of diagnosis since you indicate you have such proof and can thus easily include it.

Also - I think what is missing from your letter is a sentence making it 100% clear 'that the second person's discounted ticket was never used, and there was no attempt to use it as circumstances meant that at the last minute they were unable to travel, and the second traveller never had possession of that ticket and thus would not have been able to use the ticket.' (or some such equivalent wording)

(sorry not sure why but I can't seem to unbold this last para!)

Thank you I have added this in to the paragraph where I reference about wanting to pay for another ticket. This is so very helpful. Thank you

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2024 ==

Hello everyone, thank you for your sound advice. I have posted my letter this morning along with a copy of my railcard, copies of tickets and diagnosis letter. Really hoping to get this sorted and will update in due course. Really appreciate all of your expertise and guidance, it’s been very comforting during a stressful time, and now I must wait patiently. This forum is excellent and you are all very kind to give your time and opinions so generously.

Does anyone know roughly how long I might have to wait for further correspondence, please? Thank you.

 

[dayslikethese2]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I just wanted to express my sincerest thanks to everyone on this forum who contributed so generously to my query.

Just a few working days after posting my letter with the the attached tickets/doc evidence described I have received a notice from GTR and have been offered at OOC settlement. I am so relieved as I was quoted a large sum by a solicitor, and this is a massive weight off my mind.

You all helped during an incredibly stressful time. Massive thanks again! Highly recommend this forum to anyone who finds themselves in a similar circumstance, and needs some solid pragmatic advice during an anxiety-riddled and emotional moment.

 

[WesternLancer]

Good afternoon, everyone.

I just wanted to express my sincerest thanks to everyone on this forum who contributed so generously to my query.

Just a few working days after posting my letter with the the attached tickets/doc evidence described I have received a notice from GTR and have been offered at OOC settlement. I am so relieved as I was quoted a large sum by a solicitor, and this is a massive weight off my mind.

You all helped during an incredibly stressful time. Massive thanks again! Highly recommend this forum to anyone who finds themselves in a similar circumstance, and needs some solid pragmatic advice during an anxiety-riddled and emotional moment.

Good to hear of this outcome! Hope that you have not had to pay too much given you had already no doubt spent a fair bit on train tickets trying to make this journey.

 

[philthetube]

There are numerous other types of situation in which someone becomes liable to a criminal or civil penalty through the actions of another person. To name but a few:

• My wife forgets to renew the insurance on our car (or lies to me that it has been insured) and I drive it
• The qualified driver supervising a learner driver climbs out of the car, or incorrectly states their pass date
• We book tickets with a Two Together Railcard, we travel together, and my wife leaves the physical Railcard at home

As often happens, you are going down an irrelevant theoretical rabbit-hole which is of no assistance to the OP.

It is a possible defence in law, if you have reason to believe that a vehicle is insured then you are not committing an offence, probably designed for business workers but could apply in that case.

I cannot see any down side on one passenger being allowed to travel on two tickets provided both are presented and clipped as they would be paying 150% of the fare, the rules need amending to allow this.

 

[Haywain]

I cannot see any down side on one passenger being allowed to travel on two tickets provided both are presented and clipped as they would be paying 150% of the fare, the rules need amending to allow this.

As pointed out in post #40, this usage provides a means of avoiding paying the correct fare, and that is why rules will not be amended to allow such use.

 

[island]

It is a possible defence in law, if you have reason to believe that a vehicle is insured then you are not committing an offence, probably designed for business workers but could apply in that case.

That defence is only available to an employee driving a company car. In the case of a private car it is not a defence but a special reason, meaning a conviction and licence endorsement are still recorded, but the magistrates might give a lower fine or fewer points.

 

[philthetube]

As pointed out in post #40, this usage provides a means of avoiding paying the correct fare, and that is why rules will not be amended to allow such use.

is there any way that one person could pay less using this railcard by buying two tickets and travelling individually?