Thameslink prosecution

[889]

Hi, I'm writing this in a state of shock so please forgive any details lacking.

I travelled into London from Hertfordshire today. I won't go into the long story but basically only remembered I hadn't bought a ticket about 15 mins in, at which point I bought one on Trainline (ie I bought a ticket that covered the whole length of my journey, but obviously to start at a later time than the train I was actually on). To explain a bit, there's no barrier at my home station which is why I could do this. Literally just after purchasing my ticket the ticket inspector came along, but this didn't look like an ordinary inspector...looked more like some kind of police uniform. I think on the back of the uniform it even said prosecution officer or something. Well, I was just sitting there thinking oh thank god I bought a ticket in time, when the inspector came along, I showed my Trainline ticket, he said you have just bought this haven't you which I agreed with, (I didn't realise it was such a big deal), to which he took my details, proceeded to caution me...at this point I was panicking and feeling like this wasn't real...and asking me questions which he recorded the response to...

From looking through posts on here it looks like there are some real experts so I was hoping someone could help me understand
A) Thameslink's approach to prosecutions generally
B) Should I think about getting a solicitor?
C) any other words of advice?

Having looked through posts on here I now understand what I did wrong, and very much wish I hadn't done it. I naively thought that as I paid the correct fair for my journey the timing wouldn't matter but I do understand now why they have this rule. I guess I just didn't realise it was such a strict rule.

I am obviously panicking and not really able to think of much else at the moment... imagining thousands aof pound fines, prison time, criminal records and losing everything I have ever worked for ....

Thank you for your time.

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi, welcome.

I expect the experts will arrive soon. The first thing is that you won't be going to prison, please stop thinking about that.

You're a way from being convicted anyway and you'll be able to negotiate with Thameslink. The advice on lawyers is to was until Thameslink write and then the forum members will tell you if a lawyer is needed.

Could I ask if this has happened to you before please?

 

[889]

Thanks for replying. No this hasn't happened to me before, I am really not a rebellious person hence the sheer panic I feel now.

 

[RailsNetwork]

First of all, don't stress too much about this - if you haven't done this before, then there's not too much to be concerned about.

In terms of Thameslink's (GTR) approach to this, they'll write to you to inform that they've received a report of a ticketing issue and that they have intention to prosecute. You'll have a chance to reply to this letter, in which case we suggest you mention:

- That you're sorry for what happened
- That you've learned from the incident & how you'll act differently in the future (buying before you board)
- That you are keen to settle outside of court by paying any existing fares & administrative fees

In terms of fees to expect, it'll most likely be the anytime single for the journey you've made, plus GTR Thameslink's administration fees of about £150. Thameslink are one of the more lenient operators so as long as it's not a regular occurrence, an out of court settlement is likely. A solicitor is only really recommended should the case go to court.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

From looking through posts on here it looks like there are some real experts so I was hoping someone could help me understand
A) Thameslink's approach to prosecutions generally
B) Should I think about getting a solicitor?
C) any other words of advice?

A) From what we see here, Thameslink are generally willing to settle matters like this out of court as long as you keep in touch with them. Expect to have to pay the full fare for the journey you made, plus an admin fee which may be around £150. If you look for posts by @Hadders, you will see that they suggest the sort of thing you need to say to Thameslink (also known as GTR).
B) Not at this point. Although the letter from the railway may well be headed something like 'Notice of Intended Prosecution' it's still most likely that you will be able to head off going to court at that stage.
C) Don't panic. This won't be cheap, but even if it goes to court you'll end up with a fine - you won't be going to prison! What the railway mainly wants is to know that you won't get your fare wrong ever again: they will pursue you hard enough for you to learn that lesson, but have no interest in having you punished just for the fun of it.

 

[30907]

Two small points:
the bad news - GTR will check your purchase history for evidence of other irregularities, which will delay their letter, even if they find nothing as you indicate;
the good news - evidence suggests that they charge a considerably lower admin fee than most operators

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

Legally speaking you are required to possess a valid ticket for your journey before you board a train, and boarding the train without a ticket is a criminal offence. There are some exceptions to this but they are unlikely to apply in this case. Buying the ticket as an inspection was taking place looks like you only purchased when challenged, this is a huge problem on the railway and train companies are clamping down on this sort of thing.

The good news is you're dealing with Govia Thameslink Railway who are one of the most pragmatic train companies when it comes to this sort of thing.

What happens next is GTR will write to you saying that they have received a report and are considering prosecuting you. The letter will ask for your version of events before they decide how to proceed. I suggest a short, concise reply mentioning:

- That you are sorry for what has happened
- What you have learned from the incident
- That you are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to pay the outstanding fare and the train company's administrative costs in dealing with the matter

GTR generally offer an out of court settlement to people who co-operate with their investigation, and who haven't come to their attention before. Expect to pay the cost of the fare at the full Anytime rate plus an admin fee, typically £150. Paying an out of court settlement might feel like paying a fine but technically it isn't - only a court can impose a fine as a punishment upon conviction. You won't have a criminal record if you pay a settlement.

My view is there is no need to involve a solicitor at this stage, we see lots of cases invoilving GTR in this section of the forum and they almost always settle, If you're not offered a settlement then that is the point at which I would consider engaginga solicitor.

Feel free to post a copy of the letter from GTR along with your draft reply and forum members will proof read it for you.

 

[889]

Thank you all so much for your helpful advice. I think I am still in shock from the whole thing because I feel devastated. One of my worst fears is being involved in some criminal matter, especially because I would never purposefully try to be deceitful; I view the train as a communal service where those who don't buy tickets push prices up for others so I always buy a ticket for my journey. I had no idea things had become like this on the railway. I couldn't do any work today as I was so worried and still feel very shaken by this. Hopefully it will pass, and thank you all again for your advice.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you all so much for your helpful advice. I think I am still in shock from the whole thing because I feel devastated. One of my worst fears is being involved in some criminal matter, especially because I would never purposefully try to be deceitful; I view the train as a communal service where those who don't buy tickets push prices up for others so I always buy a ticket for my journey. I had no idea things had become like this on the railway. I couldn't do any work today as I was so worried and still feel very shaken by this. Hopefully it will pass, and thank you all again for your advice.

This attitude will be key in how you convey things to them and will help ensure the chances of being prosecuted are slim.

It’s just vital you get their letter or e mail so check that and your spam. Then head back here for help on how to reply before you send them your response.

In the meantime don’t worry, but take it seriously as you are clearly doing.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Thank you all so much for your helpful advice. I think I am still in shock from the whole thing because I feel devastated. One of my worst fears is being involved in some criminal matter, especially because I would never purposefully try to be deceitful; I view the train as a communal service where those who don't buy tickets push prices up for others so I always buy a ticket for my journey. I had no idea things had become like this on the railway. I couldn't do any work today as I was so worried and still feel very shaken by this. Hopefully it will pass, and thank you all again for your advice.

I don't blame you. Making a mistake can be embarrassing in itself and the approach of the railway can be more intimidating than necessary, and the new government is conducting a review of how things should operate. We see far more people caught in the net inadvertently here than we do blatant fare evaders, probably because they know what they're doing and see being caught as an occupational hazard, not something to be absolutely mortified about. Our job is to help resolve the situation legally and financially and to relieve some of the anxiety involved in the process.

Treat it as if it were a speeding fine or something like that. It's a least said, soonest mended thing -- admitting to a mistake, resolving this seriously and politely and accepting a settlement is the best you can do here. It may take a while for them to send through any paperwork, but in the mean time we can reassure you that it might sting now, but will have very few if any lasting consequences.

 

[furlong]

As you say you've already paid the correct fare, you should not be asked to pay it again. Was the ticket an 'Anytime' or 'Off-Peak' one valid on the train you were actually on? If they write to you make clear in your reply that the correct fare was paid prior to inspection and enclose a copy of the ticket.

Was there a ticket machine or open ticket office at the station where you boarded? There should have been clear notices warning you of possible consequences of boarding a train without a ticket. Look for them next time you're at the station.

Normally, primarily they're going to be wanting to check your travel history and inviting you to explain anything usual including supplying copies of any railcards you've used. Assuming the notices are there at the station, you should apologise in your reply for ignoring them and undertake not to do this again.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As you say you've already paid the correct fare, you should not be asked to pay it again. Was the ticket an 'Anytime' or 'Off-Peak' one valid on the train you were actually on? If they write to you make clear in your reply that the correct fare was paid prior to inspection and enclose a copy of the ticket.

I'm not sure how this addresses the OP having failed to have a valid ticket when they boarded the train - which in most circumstances is an offence.

Was there a ticket machine or open ticket office at the station where you boarded? There should have been clear notices warning you of possible consequences of boarding a train without a ticket. Look for them next time you're at the station.

And as there's no suggestion that a penalty fare is in play, I'm not aware of anything in the legislation that requires notices at the boarding station.

Normally, primarily they're going to be wanting to check your travel history and inviting you to explain anything usual including supplying copies of any railcards you've used. Assuming the notices are there at the station, you should apologise in your reply for ignoring them and undertake not to do this again.

This, however, is good advice and in line with advice that has already been given.

 

[furlong]

The points are that GTR does sometimes seem to "forget" that the fare has actually been paid (aided by RPIs that don't bother mentioning to the back office the "invalid" so "irrelevant" ticket that was shown) and asks for it to be paid again; and that any PF and "buy before you board" notices equally serve to make it difficult to argue in mitigation that you weren't aware of the requirement.

 

[889]

I don't blame you. Making a mistake can be embarrassing in itself and the approach of the railway can be more intimidating than necessary, and the new government is conducting a review of how things should operate. We see far more people caught in the net inadvertently here than we do blatant fare evaders, probably because they know what they're doing and see being caught as an occupational hazard, not something to be absolutely mortified about. Our job is to help resolve the situation legally and financially and to relieve some of the anxiety involved in the process.

Treat it as if it were a speeding fine or something like that. It's a least said, soonest mended thing -- admitting to a mistake, resolving this seriously and politely and accepting a settlement is the best you can do here. It may take a while for them to send through any paperwork, but in the mean time we can reassure you that it might sting now, but will have very few if any lasting consequences.

Thanks for your reply, I still feel terrible and I think I will do until this is resolved. Unfortunately I really worry a lot about things so I have been prescribed some anti anxiety medication by the Dr. It's an interesting point you made about people being caught in the net inadvertently and the new government conducting a review. Do you have any more info on that review, I'd be interested to read more.

On that note I found (while googling wildly) the 2012 and 2015 update reports by Transport Focus (I think then called Passenger Focus). I found it very interesting that the strict liability laws came in when railways were privatized and that they seem to take the view that people shouldn't be criminalised for honest mistakes, where they have proof that they were intending pay. I was wondering if anyone knows of any follow up to these reports? I assume nothing came of them...Heres the 2012 report https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8QFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ezYxkpVK1QLWzl7hnX3dh

 

[889]

As you say you've already paid the correct fare, you should not be asked to pay it again. Was the ticket an 'Anytime' or 'Off-Peak' one valid on the train you were actually on? If they write to you make clear in your reply that the correct fare was paid prior to inspection and enclose a copy of the ticket.

Was there a ticket machine or open ticket office at the station where you boarded? There should have been clear notices warning you of possible consequences of boarding a train without a ticket. Look for them next time you're at the station.

Normally, primarily they're going to be wanting to check your travel history and inviting you to explain anything usual including supplying copies of any railcards you've used. Assuming the notices are there at the station, you should apologise in your reply for ignoring them and undertake not to do this again.

Hi, thank you for your advice. The ticket was indeed the correct one for the journey I was taking (anytime return peak ticket with no Railcard or anything applied, and for the full journey, not just the next stop we were arriving to or anything like that). The only thing wrong with my ticket was the time I purchased it. This tallies with the fact I genuinely did not mean to forget to buy it / evade the fare.

There are tickets machines at the station (frequently out of service) though I don't know if they were working on the day I travelled. Equally there's sometimes a ticket office open but they reduced their hours so don't know if it was open as it's not really visible from the entry to the platforms. I normally don't pay them much attention as I generally purchase tickets on my phone.

I will check for the signs at the station, I am curious to know what they say! I had a hunt around a platform I was changing at on my way home and found the poster saying to purchase before travel. It mentioned a penalty but not anything about it being a crime not to do so. I was not aware it was a crime until now. It makes me afraid to take the train again , what if there's something else I don't know? I grew up on the south coast and you could buy a ticket on board from the conductor back then. I spent a long time living in London where I always had an oyster card. Then moved to my current town around 5 years ago...first time encountering an inspector in all those years so I did not realise that things are no longer as they were when I was taking the Southern trains.

 

[furlong]

It mentioned a penalty but not anything about it being a crime not to do so. I was not aware it was a crime until now

Certainly I would argue that prosecution should be mentioned as a possible outcome on any such poster. (I'm sure I've seen some that mention this.) The National Rail Conditions of Travel are reasonably clear on this point too, but it might be an interesting argument whether such a poster is capable of rendering a prosecution open to challenge. ("I was running late, read the poster, and decided I was prepared to pay £100 as a penalty rather than miss my train - and it only said I "may" have to pay that, not "will", so I expected an opportunity to explain myself and hopefully avoid it. I bought the correct ticket but only after departure. But if I'd known this could alternatively lead to prosecution I'd have made a different decision. It seems inexplicable why the poster should mention only a less severe possible consequence while omitting a more serious one!" By misleading the passenger in this way the train company encouraged and was complicit in the commission of the offence, lulling the reader into a breach of the law, and as such would a prosecution be so unfair and wrong that a prosecutor should not be allowed to proceed?)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Certainly I would argue that prosecution should be mentioned as a possible outcome on any such poster. (I'm sure I've seen some that mention this.) The National Rail Conditions of Travel are reasonably clear on this point too, but it might be an interesting argument whether such a poster is capable of rendering a prosecution open to challenge. ("I was running late, read the poster, and decided I was prepared to pay £100 as a penalty rather than miss my train - and it only said I "may" have to pay that, not "will", so I expected an opportunity to explain myself and hopefully avoid it. I bought the correct ticket but only after departure. But if I'd known this could alternatively lead to prosecution I'd have made a different decision. It seems inexplicable why the poster should mention only a less severe possible consequence while omitting a more serious one!" By misleading the passenger in this way the train company encouraged and was complicit in the commission of the offence, lulling the reader into a breach of the law, and as such would a prosecution be so unfair and wrong that a prosecutor should not be allowed to proceed?)

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

While that's not invariably true, it's near enough. People are expected to go in and out of shops and avoid shoplifting without the shop drawing their attention to the Theft Act: similarly the railway is under no obligation to push railway law into passengers' faces.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Thanks for your reply, I still feel terrible and I think I will do until this is resolved. Unfortunately I really worry a lot about things so I have been prescribed some anti anxiety medication by the Dr. It's an interesting point you made about people being caught in the net inadvertently and the new government conducting a review. Do you have any more info on that review, I'd be interested to read more.

On that note I found (while googling wildly) the 2012 and 2015 update reports by Transport Focus (I think then called Passenger Focus). I found it very interesting that the strict liability laws came in when railways were privatized and that they seem to take the view that people shouldn't be criminalised for honest mistakes, where they have proof that they were intending pay. I was wondering if anyone knows of any follow up to these reports? I assume nothing came of them...Heres the 2012 report https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...8QFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ezYxkpVK1QLWzl7hnX3dh

I think it's an interesting situation but it's kind of academic at the moment -- I meant to reassure you that you're not the first, you won't be the last, and the consequences are similar to a speeding fine rather than anything that puts your career or lifestyle at risk. I've read it on these boards and don't know too much about it, but at the speed with which government consultation moves, I wouldn't put much stock in it being resolved in time to get you off the hook!

Strict liability offences exist because some behaviours are damaging to others in and of themselves, even if no intent was there to defraud. So things like speeding incur penalties regardless of why you were going too fast, because the threat of a fine or pointe on your license ultimately deters you from being cavalier about it in the future. Likewise, without the consequences of a ticketing mistake, some people would just get used to paying when challenged and the revenue the DfT (at present -- the government is back in charge and asked operators to step up revenue collection) needs to maintain and run the rail network gets lost. In any event, we encounter situations where our own carelessness causes us to have to pay for the damage -- say you don't use a screen protector and drop a phone and smash it. So effectively you're paying for damage here caused by your own negligence.

I'd totally support more of a speeding ticket approach to railway issues like this one, but alas I'm not someone responsible for considering the perspective of all stakeholders here (which is better done by someone at arm's length so the right decision is made, rather than one taken in the heat of an emotionally biased moment). But the important thing now is to get this resolved for you and to reassure you that as long as you ensure you don't make this mistake again it won't have consequences beyond the proverbial sharp pains in the wallet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2025 ==

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

While that's not invariably true, it's near enough. People are expected to go in and out of shops and avoid shoplifting without the shop drawing their attention to the Theft Act: similarly the railway is under no obligation to push railway law into passengers' faces.

In fact if they did it too much, I think we'd all find it rather oppressive.

 

[889]

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

While that's not invariably true, it's near enough. People are expected to go in and out of shops and avoid shoplifting without the shop drawing their attention to the Theft Act: similarly the railway is under no obligation to push railway law into passengers' faces.

I take your point, but I think I see a lot of signage saying shoplifters will be prosecuted. Also read that shoplifting isn't really prosecuted at the moment. Certainly when I had my bike stolen and despite capturing the thief on camera the police didn't do anything. It seems a bit unjust, but I understand the strict liability nature of what I did means that they will deal with it that way.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2025 ==

I think it's an interesting situation but it's kind of academic at the moment -- I meant to reassure you that you're not the first, you won't be the last, and the consequences are similar to a speeding fine rather than anything that puts your career or lifestyle at risk. I've read it on these boards and don't know too much about it, but at the speed with which government consultation moves, I wouldn't put much stock in it being resolved in time to get you off the hook!

Strict liability offences exist because some behaviours are damaging to others in and of themselves, even if no intent was there to defraud. So things like speeding incur penalties regardless of why you were going too fast, because the threat of a fine or pointe on your license ultimately deters you from being cavalier about it in the future. Likewise, without the consequences of a ticketing mistake, some people would just get used to paying when challenged and the revenue the DfT (at present -- the government is back in charge and asked operators to step up revenue collection) needs to maintain and run the rail network gets lost. In any event, we encounter situations where our own carelessness causes us to have to pay for the damage -- say you don't use a screen protector and drop a phone and smash it. So effectively you're paying for damage here caused by your own negligence.

I'd totally support more of a speeding ticket approach to railway issues like this one, but alas I'm not someone responsible for considering the perspective of all stakeholders here (which is better done by someone at arm's length so the right decision is made, rather than one taken in the heat of an emotionally biased moment). But the important thing now is to get this resolved for you and to reassure you that as long as you ensure you don't make this mistake again it won't have consequences beyond the proverbial sharp pains in the wallet.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2025 ==



In fact if they did it too much, I think we'd all find it rather oppressive.

Thanks very much, thanks for taking the time to outline the issues in more detail. It's a really interesting topic so I'll be interested to see how things develop policy wise in the future especially in the light of recent publicity on private prosecutions.
Thanks again

 

[BazingaTribe]

Thanks very much, thanks for taking the time to outline the issues in more detail. It's a really interesting topic so I'll be interested to see how things develop policy wise in the future especially in the light of recent publicity on private prosecutions.
Thanks again

You're welcome. I know how anxiety works as well and that is something that really bites. Take care of yourself and the rest will fall into place.

 

[tixy]

I take your point, but I think I see a lot of signage saying shoplifters will be prosecuted. Also read that shoplifting isn't really prosecuted at the moment.

This is because a while back the MOJ changed the rules and made shop theft under £200 summary only. This is in review to scrapping and a lot of forces like Northants Op Revive are cracking down on all shop theft.

 

[AlterEgo]

I take your point, but I think I see a lot of signage saying shoplifters will be prosecuted.

Yes it's a really poisonous and depressing reminder of our increasingly low trust society, aimed more at honest customers who like to know the company will press charges and that the honest customer isn't subsidising theft. However it has no bearing on whether you are guilty or not of the offence.

 

[jumble]

'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.'

While that's not invariably true, it's near enough. People are expected to go in and out of shops and avoid shoplifting without the shop drawing their attention to the Theft Act: similarly the railway is under no obligation to push railway law into passengers' face

I am with @furlong on this as I think it is totally unreasonable that you think that someone coming from overseas should read a poster which advise them of the likely consequence of ticketless travel but that said visitor should somehow have checked to see if the poster is talking nonsense and that the truth is that they may be dragged up in front of a beak.

At least TFL with their idiotic posters about RRB tell overseas visitors that they may be prosecuted if you dont go to the Oyster readers at the underground to tap in even though most people know the posters are a fiction.
If said overseas visitor did not tap in would you favour TFL prosecuting them on the basis that ignorance of the law/custom and practice is no excuse ?


( I am assuming that coach PL3 doesnt have a reader )

 

[furlong]

There's no question that the fare must be paid. But it can be viewed as a mere technicality that this byelaw supposedly sometimes requires you to do the impossible - obtain your ticket before entering the carriage even when there is insufficient time to do so and the facility does now exist for you to purchase it after boarding using your own mobile phone! There's a "where do you draw the line?" question here, but I continue to believe that the line needs shifting to allow for the advantages of modern technology.

It's also worth remembering that when Penalty Fares posters first came in, there was no need to warn of strict liability prosecution on them as it wasn't a practical option for the train companies as a breach couldn't lead to a fine. When the byelaws were sneakily updated to introduce the fine, the Penalty Fares posters should have been revised accordingly to mention this - or else the train companies should refrain from prosecuting under the byelaw in areas where Penalty Fares apply as was previously the case.

 

[Haywain]

There's no question that the fare must be paid. But it can be viewed as a mere technicality that this byelaw supposedly sometimes requires you to do the impossible - obtain your ticket before entering the carriage even when there is insufficient time to do so and the facility does now exist for you to purchase it after boarding using your own mobile phone! There's a "where do you draw the line?" question here, but I continue to believe that the line needs shifting to allow for the advantages of modern technology.

It's also worth remembering that when Penalty Fares posters first came in, there was no need to warn of strict liability prosecution on them as it wasn't a practical option for the train companies as a breach couldn't lead to a fine. When the byelaws were sneakily updated to introduce the fine, the Penalty Fares posters should have been revised accordingly to mention this - or else the train companies should refrain from prosecuting under the byelaw in areas where Penalty Fares apply as was previously the case.

Why do you persist with this? The OP has committed a slam dunk offence and advice here should focus on how to avoid prosecution, not how you think things should progress.

 

[Hadders]

Thread unlocked for @889 to provide an update

 

[889]

Thank you for unlocking my post . I received the intention to prosecute letter from Thameslink this morning and have drafted the below response, just looking for feedback, thank you in advance. I have attached the letter I received.

Dear Fare Evasion Manager

I am writing to take accountability and apologize for the incident that occurred on (date) when I was travelling from (departure station) to London Bridge without a valid ticket. I purchased my (departure station) to London Bridge fare after boarding the train at (departure station).

I am extremely sorry and now understand the impact of actions such as mine on Thameslink and the broader rail Industry. After speaking to the Revenue Protection Officer on the date in question I have taken this matter very seriously and since then I have purchased season tickets and activated these before boarding the train to ensure that I can't make this mistake again. I take full responsibility for my own mistake and assure you that I will always purchase my ticket before boarding the train in the future.

I would be extremely grateful if you would consider allowing me to settle this matter out of court. I arm willing to pay the cost of the fare as well as any associated administrative costs that you have been burdened with due to this incident.

Thank you for your time, and the opportunity you have provided to respond.

Yours faithfully

 

[MotCO]

I think the letter strikes the right tone - apologetic, action taken not to repeat the error, not waffly etc. The only thing to suggest is to add your reference or case number at the top of the letter so that they can more easily match your response to your case.

 

[889]

I think the letter strikes the right tone - apologetic, action taken not to repeat the error, not waffly etc. The only thing to suggest is to add your reference or case number at the top of the letter so that they can more easily match your response to your case.

Thank you very much for your feedback. I will do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2025 ==

If anyone has any thoughts on the best royal mail postage option to choose to send the letter id appreciate it! Is signed for preferable, or is tracked better?

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you very much for your feedback. I will do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Mar 2025 ==

If anyone has any thoughts on the best royal mail postage option to choose to send the letter id appreciate it! Is signed for preferable, or is tracked better?

Tracked usually ok and cheaper. If you have time you can do tracked postage second class iirc.

Gauranteed next day delivery tracked gets pricey but you’d have to use it if you are hard up against a deadline from them.

Check the collection deadlines from your local post office.