Train Fine IRCAS Chiltern Railways

[AlterEgo]

This could have been sorted for less than a tenth of that. They offered you to dispose of it for £60 and you should have ripped their arm off and settled there and then.

Engaging a solicitor was unnecessary, arguing about it was unnecessary, and ultimately it seems to have led the train company uncovering further offending where your daughter was purchasing the wrong fare. Her lying about her age wouldn't have helped.

 

[itznonbine]

Good grief prosecuted over £3, my daughter also did buy the correct ticket therefore that is why we were shocked to receive the fine. All in all a lesson learnt, crime Of the century has now been closed.

But your daughter, didn't originally buy the correct ticket, and again, it's not just over £3, I imagine this happened more than once that she travelled since she was 18, plus didn't you say earlier she lied about her year of birth?

 

[Ddkki]

Do me a favour, have a look at the Railcard website on 16-17 savers.

Which app did you use for the Railcard?

4. Conditions of use of the 16-17 Saver​

4.1 You must be aged between 16 and 17 years old to purchase the 16-17 Saver.

4.2 The 16-17 Saver will be issued for either:

4.2.1 a maximum of 1 year from the date of purchase; or

4.2.2 the period from the date of purchase until the day before your 18th birthday if your 18th birthday falls before the expiry of one year from the date of purchase.

As per the very clear conditions, that railcard should have "auto-deleted"/ run out when she turned 18, unless there was some foul play at point.
Also the reason for the heightened fine, they will have suspected that she travelled multiple times since being 18 using that ticket, normally will investigate a pattern of tickets etc.
You and your daughter have been caught, her anxiety makes no difference in the matter (and I'm saying this as someone who suffers with anxiety).
I recommend don't buy a ticket unless you know you are fine to have it, in this instance, very clearly she knew she was above 18, and was chancing it with buying a 16-17 saver railcard discount.

I can assure you it was an isolated case, it was the only train journey she had made 2 months after turning 18. You physically have to go into the app and remove the discount card. This particular day she had run for the train and quickly booked it online. I am fully aware of the conditions of the discount card it should not have been used, train companies need to show a bit of empathy is all I am saying for a first offence.

 

[Ddkki]

But your daughter, didn't originally buy the correct ticket, and again, it's not just over £3, I imagine this happened more than once that she travelled since she was 18, plus didn't you say earlier she lied about her year of birth

But your daughter, didn't originally buy the correct ticket, and again, it's not just over £3, I imagine this happened more than once that she travelled since she was 18, plus didn't you say earlier she lied about her year of birth?

Well you can imagine what you want to be honest, she had only been on a train once for your information. I am trying to give information to others of my situation and not be crossed examined by somebody who does not know the full facts.

 

[itznonbine]

Truly if that is the case that this is the "only time" she had been on the train? Why would she have paid for a railcard, for a £3 difference in fare.

 

[Ddkki]

Truly if that is the case that this is the "only time" she had been on the train? Why would she have paid for a railcard, for a £3 difference in fare.

it was under 2 months since she turned 18.

 

[pedr]

In all forms of law enforcement there is a trade-off between efficiency of enforcement and striving for the most appropriate response for every occasion. It’s understandable that the people who are treated in ways which appear harsh consider the overall process unfair but our Parliament gets to set (or allow the setting) of the balance, and that’s set to enable a relatively uniform approach to be taken to reports of ticketing irregularities because there’s no efficient way to differentiate between someone who often travels without a ticket or uses invalid tickets and those who have been detected the first time they’ve made a ticketing mistake.

My view is that train companies shouldn’t have a prosecution power, but a more widespread and automatic use of a fixed penalty would be appropriate, and it’s entirely likely that the staff costs of investigating this and responding to the various correspondence did cost hundreds of pounds, which should probably be paid by the person who caused the investigation and workload, rather than by the taxpayer (who is now, effectively, responsible for the profit and loss of train companies). There are times when we should probably accept that minor mistakes do need to have financial consequences, as an individual deterrent to avoid future irregularities and as a general deterrent to avoid the idea that travelling without a valid ticket (or overstaying paid parking, or failing to secure litter you’re carrying in public, or other things which are minor on an individual basis but a serious problem when normalised) is something that’s ok to do. That’s going to cause some unfairness and arguably disproportionate penalties, but our society is likely to be worse without some kind of enforcement of these norms.

 

[Ddkki]

I am providing you and others the likely reason and standpoint the TOC has taken, and also that is likely, as with many other things recently (including national media), people try and make out it's a small one-time thing when it very clearly isn't!

Well you are wrong, this was a one off the letter received noted there were no previous incidents so I would suggest you stop providing incorrect information. Unless you have been in this position you cannot judge.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well you are wrong, this was a one off the letter received noted there were no previous incidents so I would suggest you stop providing incorrect information. Unless you have been in this position you cannot judge.

Where has £403 come from then? We know what Chiltern usually settle for and it’s the fares avoided plus £100-150 of their costs. So this must take into account other instances.

 

[Titfield]

In all forms of law enforcement there is a trade-off between efficiency of enforcement and striving for the most appropriate response for every occasion. It’s understandable that the people who are treated in ways which appear harsh consider the overall process unfair but our Parliament gets to set (or allow the setting) of the balance, and that’s set to enable a relatively uniform approach to be taken to reports of ticketing irregularities because there’s no efficient way to differentiate between someone who often travels without a ticket or uses invalid tickets and those who have been detected the first time they’ve made a ticketing mistake.

My view is that train companies shouldn’t have a prosecution power, but a more widespread and automatic use of a fixed penalty would be appropriate, and it’s entirely likely that the staff costs of investigating this and responding to the various correspondence did cost hundreds of pounds, which should probably be paid by the person who caused the investigation and workload, rather than by the taxpayer (who is now, effectively, responsible for the profit and loss of train companies). There are times when we should probably accept that minor mistakes do need to have financial consequences, as an individual deterrent to avoid future irregularities and as a general deterrent to avoid the idea that travelling without a valid ticket (or overstaying paid parking, or failing to secure litter you’re carrying in public, or other things which are minor on an individual basis but a serious problem when normalised) is something that’s ok to do. That’s going to cause some unfairness and arguably disproportionate penalties, but our society is likely to be worse without some kind of enforcement of these norms.

I think there has been a change though in the proportion of the resulting outcomes.

The "traditional" outcome has been the passenger having a sanction applied by the Travelling Ticket Inspector or Revenue Protection Inspector of no action (discretion shown), unpaid fares notice, excess fare or penalty fare. Few interactions resulted in further investigation being undertaken.

However now with many more bookings being made online with an account being held The "new outcome" is that far more interactions will result in the matter being referred for further investigation. It seems to me to be inevitable that even if the only "wrong doing" is the extant matter then the sanction applied will include at least being the fare due plus an administration fee and that administration fee is bound to be greater than a penalty fare because more work (investigation) has been undertaken.

Perhaps it would be fairer if when the only "wrong doing" uncovered is that of the extant matter, the admin fee is limited to the equivalent of a penalty fare.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Oct 2024 ==

Where has £403 come from then? We know what Chiltern usually settle for and it’s the fares avoided plus £100-150 of their costs. So this must take into account other instances.

We do not know but in my earlier post I posted the supposition that when a solicitor is involved, it may result in the TOC having to use their own internal legal department and therefore incur additional costs.

 

[Ddkki]

In all forms of law enforcement there is a trade-off between efficiency of enforcement and striving for the most appropriate response for every occasion. It’s understandable that the people who are treated in ways which appear harsh consider the overall process unfair but our Parliament gets to set (or allow the setting) of the balance, and that’s set to enable a relatively uniform approach to be taken to reports of ticketing irregularities because there’s no efficient way to differentiate between someone who often travels without a ticket or uses invalid tickets and those who have been detected the first time they’ve made a ticketing mistake.

My view is that train companies shouldn’t have a prosecution power, but a more widespread and automatic use of a fixed penalty would be appropriate, and it’s entirely likely that the staff costs of investigating this and responding to the various correspondence did cost hundreds of pounds, which should probably be paid by the person who caused the investigation and workload, rather than by the taxpayer (who is now, effectively, responsible for the profit and loss of train companies). There are times when we should probably accept that minor mistakes do need to have financial consequences, as an individual deterrent to avoid future irregularities and as a general deterrent to avoid the idea that travelling without a valid ticket (or overstaying paid parking, or failing to secure litter you’re carrying in public, or other things which are minor on an individual basis but a serious problem when normalised) is something that’s ok to do. That’s going to cause some unfairness and arguably disproportionate penalties, but our society is likely to be worse without some kind of enforcement of these norms.

Where has £403 come from then? We know what Chiltern usually settle for and it’s the fares avoided plus £100-150 of their costs. So this must take into account other instances.

Where has £403 come from then? We know what Chiltern usually settle for and it’s the fares avoided plus £100-150 of their costs. So this must take into account other instances.

£3 underpayment in fare £400 cost, my solicitor also very shocked as was disproportionate. My letter clearly states no previous reported incidents

 

[Fermiboson]

I generally advocate that here on the forum, we focus on informing the people who come to us for help and leave out the moral judgement. However in this case I find it necessary to say in no uncertain terms to the OP: you have cost your daughter 400 quid and a lot of stress. Not the railway, you.

Your daughter travelled on an invalid ticket; she intended to do so. As the document states this is an offence under section 5.3(a) of the Regulations of Railways Act 1889. This is a criminal offence, in the same way that stealing a bar of chocolate from Tesco’s is also a criminal offence. The railway was, and is, fully entitled to charge your daughter in the magistrates and give her a criminal record for a year. Instead, Chiltern, one of the harshest train companies with regards to prosecution, decided to charge a settlement cost of 60 quid, having known of the possibility of further invalid travel. I cannot overemphasise how lenient this offer is. Chiltern usually charge people 150+ quid on administration alone, and you have gotten away with a penalty fare amount on an offence which technically cannot be penalty fared. Given you later found 300+ quid for a lawyer, I cannot imagine that it was immensely difficult to pay said 60 quid on the spot. Instead you choose to ignore the offer, because it was… “just a matter of 3 quid”? That’s not how the law works. Hundreds of other people on this forum in much more difficult economic situations would have given a lot to receive this kind of offer, not to mention people charged by TfL.

Having been placed in this immensely lucky position and having decided to scorn it, Chiltern was apparently in a good enough mood to give you a *second* settlement offer, which is nearly unheard of even from pragmatic companies like GTR (Thameslink). You decided not to act on it until it was too late, then act surprised when the offer further escalated. You then asked to pay the previous offer, as if entitled to it. Your daughter is guilty of a criminal offence. That the actual loss is 3 quid does not legally matter. Chiltern have taken every possible reasonable step to entice you to co-operate, far beyond what most would call reasonable measures, and in a manner which many could call unfair compared to the way they crack down on other fare evaders. You have refused their reasonable and friendly offers. What did you expect to happen? “Oh, this person thinks our offer is too expensive, I suppose we’ll just drop it then”?

I do not make any comment on whether it was an honest mistake. But even if it was, honest mistakes can cost money. If I trip in a supermarket and knock down a vase, I probably will need to pay the cost of the vase plus quite a bit more for the cleanup costs. It would be a very foolhardy person to argue “it was a crack on your floor, not my fault, I shan’t pay it”.

If a significant portion of people responded to settlement offers in the manner you have, I cannot help but understand why railway companies are so strict on their offers for most cases of avoided fares. I only hope that your daughter has learnt some life lessons from this incident that you apparently haven’t.

 

[John R]

The £400 in costs is much more than we usually see, which is typically around £150, (hence comments about £60 being very reasonable). However, those costs are predicated on the offer being accepted and the matter closed with no further work involved. Once you tried, unwisely, to enter a haggling process they will have incurred further costs dealing with the case and responding to you, so it’s not surprising that the admin cost has rapidly escalated.

You wouldn’t (I presume) refuse to pay and argue the amount of a speeding fine on the basis that it was a mistake, and had not deliberately exceeded the limit. Effectively, what you were doing here was very similar, as your daughter did indeed commit a criminal offence, whether unwittingly or not.

 

[Hadders]

Emotions can run high in cases like this so just a gentle reminder to everyone to make sure that posts remain on-topic, relevent and respectful.

However inadvertent it was, your daughter travelled with an invalid ticket which, however harsh it seems, is a criminal offence. The matter was aggravated by your daughter lying about her age. Chiltern were entitled to send the matter to the Magistrates Court and had they done so your daughter would have been found guilty. While I'm sure your daughter did make a genuine mistake the wider issue here is that this type of thing is rige on the railway, you only have to look through sikilar threads in this section of the forum to see that.

Chiltern offered you an out of court settlement of £60 which would've made the matter go away had it been paid. I can understand why someone might feel aggrieved about having to pay £60 over a £3 rail fare but I tend to think of this sort of thing as similar to a parking ticket or speeding ticket, extremely frustraing if you get caught but normally best to chalk it up to experience and get on with life. Chiltern did show discretion in offering to settle for £60, they could've sent the case to the Magistrates Court if they had wanted to.

Matters then seemed to escalate to the point where you've had to engage a solicitor to prevent the matter ending up in court. This has cost considerably more than it would have done had you settled at the first opportunity. It's probably still cheaper than it would have cost had it ended up in court once you factor in the cost of the fine, surcharge, compensation for the fare avoided and contribution to Chiltern's costs.

This forum has a good track record in offering good pragmatic advice to people who ask for our help. Had we seen all the correspondence between you and Chiltern we might have been able to suggest ways in which you could have obtained a more favourable outcome. Unfortunately we did not get to see this so it is difficult for us to offer anything more than general advice based on what you have told us.

 

[VT118]

I feel so sorry for people in cases like this. It's so far out of proportion.

No way is it justifiable to end up forking out almost a grand in fees because of a small oversight.

Customers losing consciousness on overcrowded services is met with a shrug. £3 worth of fare evasion and they are militant about it.

 

[John R]

I feel so sorry for people in cases like this. It's so far out of proportion.

No way is it justifiable to end up forking out almost a grand in fees because of a small oversight.

Customers losing consciousness on overcrowded services is met with a shrug. £3 worth of fare evasion and they are militant about it.

They were offered an out of court settlement of £60, but unwisely refused it. That was their choice, as was the decision to subsequently engage a solicitor, which accounts for nearly half the total cost they incurred.

 

[Haywain]

No way is it justifiable to end up forking out almost a grand in fees because of a small oversight.

Half of which was entirely their own choice through using a solicitor.

 

[AlterEgo]

They were offered an out of court settlement of £60, but unwisely refused it. That was their choice, as was the decision to subsequently engage a solicitor, which accounts for nearly half the total cost they incurred.

It accounts for basically all of the cost they incurred, as Chiltern’s costs rose as a result of this development. Just a really silly way for this to play out when one could have paid £60 to dispose of it there and then. Not to mention that arguing the toss in the first place about it meant someone realised the passenger wasn’t actually a child and had lied about their age. A salutary lesson I’m afraid.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I do wonder (and this is my supposition) that any correspondence to / from a solicitor has to be read / responded to by a legally qualified / trained person in the TOC legal department hence the doubling of the admin charge.

Given that the all correspondence from the TOCs threatens significant criminal proceedings, one would be question the TOC's integrity if all correspondence is not read and responded to by a suitably qualified person*. It doesn't take a solicitor to reply to a solicitor- in my last job I replied to solicitors all the time and I knew more about the specific law than they did- and again I would question the integrity of any TOC which attempted to claim that it did.

(*of course we all know it isn't, which is why Northern got itself into such bother).

The learning point from this is that the TOC holds all the cards when "negotiating" and a TOC can- and clearly will- attempt to use their administration fees in a punitive manner when someone does attempt to negotiate their position. The sooner that the TOCs lose their right to prosecute, the better.

That said, at £60 I'd have just paid up- it's less than a Penalty Fare. I certainly wouldn't have spent £300 on solicitors to challenge a £60 settlement. £60 is an annoying amount of money but no more; life's not worth it sometimes. For others reading this thread, this is perhaps the salutary lesson: sometimes it's just better to internally curse the robbing bar-stewards but just pay up and get on with your day.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I feel so sorry for people in cases like this. It's so far out of proportion.

No way is it justifiable to end up forking out almost a grand in fees because of a small oversight.

Customers losing consciousness on overcrowded services is met with a shrug. £3 worth of fare evasion and they are militant about it.

This whole thing seems to me like a pretty spectacular failure of the attitude test

 

[some bloke]

I'm not clear why you keep mentioning £3 rather than the £60 reduction your daughter gained through the second offence, lying, in the initial settlement offer.

Secondly, how and when did they find out your daughter wasn't a "child"? For you to respond, basically, "the offer is too high, and by the way she lied and isn't a child" would seem unwise, and so would failing to correct them when the basis of the letter, written to you rather than her, was that she was not an adult.

Thirdly,

How can a company send a fine then decide to take an 18 year old to court.

Did they break a specific promise?

 

[chawky]

It sounds like OP has reached the end of the matter anyway, I’m not sure laying into them further is helping anyone

 

[some bloke]

It sounds like OP has reached the end of the matter anyway, I’m not sure laying into them further is helping anyone

It seems they are still frustrated.

Clarifying what happened isn't laying into them, and may help their understanding.