Transport for Wales Rail - Fraud Enquiry - 'Misusing Multiflex Tickets'

[Tevion539]

Be careful here. Especially if the passenger is using tickets stored on a personal mobile device. Often, passengers can be reported, or flagged, by conductors for flexipass (or equivalent) irregularities, without any apparent interaction. Basically, a generic warning is given such as all mobile/electronic tickets must be downloaded and activated prior to travel. Then any irregularities, such as non activation, or attempted reuse of a used flexi are dealt with by flagging the ticket and attaching a basic note. These then become a "back office" issue with the conductor moving through the train without being bogged down in counter productive cyclical arguments. The more flags a passenger gets the further up the pile they climb for notification/action purposes.

That said, an argument could be made that one had merely loaned one's mobile device to another person, whose details one has no knowledge of - a plausible defence?....Probably not.

That said, why the system allows a used flexi to pass through a barrier hours after activation is beyond me. If my hand held device can identify the previous scans/taps why not the barrier?

This is basically it, there is zero expectation to confront people and instead just flagging tickets is sufficient. This is mainly to make the process of reporting tickets easier and to avoid confrontation/conflict.

 

[AdamWW]

(10 tickets for the price of 12 doesn't seem like a very good deal!)

Er...would you believe me if I said I was just doing that to see if anyone would notice?

 

[Wolfie]

Er...would you believe me if I said I was just doing that to see if anyone would notice?

Nice try, lol.... That is the sort of deal HMT would love lol....

 

[harmonica]

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. This is the repsonse I have prepared. Please give me any feedback you think will help resolve the situation and avoid it being pursued any further. I have too many stresses in my life to take on another challenge.

Dear Retail Fraud Team,

I am writing in response to the email received XX October 2025 (Reference: XXXXX).

I am very sorry for the confusion I have caused. I was advised by a colleague to use the multiflex tickets as it was meant to be a more cost effective way for me to commute to work. I briefly looked into the tickets online and they were marketed to people like myself who work hybrid both at home and at the office.

Because I was used to buying return tickets before I tried using the multiflex tickets, I assumed they worked in a similar way. I must admit, I was confused by the wording of the ticket as it said it was ‘bidirectional tickets’ which I understood to be similar to the day return tickets I had previously purchased. My ignorance of the term, as well as the ability to use the same ticket on my return journey without any issue at the gates or being challenged by anyone, didn’t cause me to question whether I was using the ticket correctly.

I of course am happy to pay any outstanding ticket costs related to the confusion. Could I please pay for the ticket costs due and avoid having this past on to the Transport Police?

Again, I sincerely apologise for my failure to properly check and ensure the proper use of the Multiflex tickets. For future journeys, I will be using the Tap On/Off functionality with my debit card for each journey.

I am very sorry for this incident and will take care to ensure this will not happen again.

I am keen to settle this matter amicably and without the need for prosecution. I am happy to pay the outstanding fare and cover any administrative costs incurred in handling this.

My sincerest apologies again.

Yours Sincerely,

 

[John R]

In your final paragraph I would ask very nicely, as opposed to being keen.

And it should be passed on, not past on.

But other than that, I think it reads fine, without getting too hung up on wordsmithing the letter to death.

 

[Belperpete]

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. This is the repsonse I have prepared. Please give me any feedback you think will help resolve the situation and avoid it being pursued any further. I have too many stresses in my life to take on another challenge.

Dear Retail Fraud Team,

I am writing in response to the email received XX October 2025 (Reference: XXXXX).

I am very sorry for the confusion I have caused. I was advised by a colleague to use the multiflex tickets as it was meant to be a more cost effective way for me to commute to work. I briefly looked into the tickets online and they were marketed to people like myself who work hybrid both at home and at the office.

Because I was used to buying return tickets before I tried using the multiflex tickets, I assumed they worked in a similar way. I must admit, I was confused by the wording of the ticket as it said it was ‘bidirectional tickets’ which I understood to be similar to the day return tickets I had previously purchased. My ignorance of the term, as well as the ability to use the same ticket on my return journey without any issue at the gates or being challenged by anyone, didn’t cause me to question whether I was using the ticket correctly.

I of course am happy to pay any outstanding ticket costs related to the confusion. Could I please pay for the ticket costs due and avoid having this past on to the Transport Police?

Again, I sincerely apologise for my failure to properly check and ensure the proper use of the Multiflex tickets. For future journeys, I will be using the Tap On/Off functionality with my debit card for each journey.

I am very sorry for this incident and will take care to ensure this will not happen again.

I am keen to settle this matter amicably and without the need for prosecution. I am happy to pay the outstanding fare and cover any administrative costs incurred in handling this.

My sincerest apologies again.

Yours Sincerely,

Far too long in my opinion. The second paragraph explaining why you used Multiflex tickets is totally irrelevant, the fraud team are unlikely to be interested in this.

The following para explaining why you thought they were returns is the critical para, and reads ok to me. Personally, I would also be suggesting that TfW should amend their app to make it clear to anyone buying them that the Multiflex tickets are not returns.

I would delete the sentence about it being passed to the BTP, as it won't be BTP who would prosecute. And I would delete the sentence where you say it was your fault, as admitting fault in writing may not be a good idea should they decide to prosecute. And you are not consistent in whether you are talking about one incident/fare, or multiple instances.

Personally, I would be a bit concerned about effectively writing them a blank cheque, saying that you will pay whatever they demand, but if you are happy to do so that is up to you. However, I think that you should at least be asking them how much you need to pay to settle the matter.

My suggested changes to the following paras.

I of course am happy to pay any outstanding ticket costs related to the confusion. Could I please pay for the ticket costs due and avoid having this past on to the Transport Police?

Again, I sincerely apologise for my failure to properly check and ensure the proper use of the Multiflex tickets.

I am very sorry for this incident and will take care to ensure this will not happen again. For future journeys, I will be using the Tap On/Off functionality with my debit card for each journey.

I am keen to settle this matter amicably and without the need for prosecution. I am happy to pay the outstanding fares and cover any administrative costs incurred in handling this. Can you please advise of the costs I would need to pay to settle this matter.

 

[styles]

Just one thing to note - to make the Fraud Act or RORA prosecution they would need to demonstrate the intent to defraud, which you didn't have, and even if you did, would be very hard to prove given the discussion we've had here over the meaning of 'bidirectional tickets'.

 

[Trainbike46]

Just one thing to note - to make the Fraud Act or RORA prosecution they would need to demonstrate the intent to defraud, which you didn't have, and even if you did, would be very hard to prove given the discussion we've had here over the meaning of 'bidirectional tickets'.

Related to this, but is there any reason why TfW isn't referring to a possible railway bye-law prosecution? That seems to be the most common option for railway prosecutions otherwise

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Personally, I would also be suggesting that TfW should amend their app to make it clear to anyone buying them that the Multiflex tickets are not returns.

My view is not to do this:
1) OP wants something (a settlement) from TfW: so it doesn't seem like a good idea to be trying to demand something else as well
2) As the OP points out in post #7

as of the 30th of September, the Multiflex ticket is no longer available for the journey I would normally take as they have now implemented a tap on tap off system with debit cards for the South Wales metro area.

so sorting out the app won't benefit the OP (although it would presumably benefit users elsewhere in Wales)

 

[AdamWW]

I would delete the sentence about it being passed to the BTP, as it won't be BTP who would prosecute.

Indeed. Yet it appears that TfW are suggesting that any action will be taken by the BTP, not them (see the first post).

 

[Belperpete]

My view is not to do this:
1) OP wants something (a settlement) from TfW: so it doesn't seem like a good idea to be trying to demand something else as well

Agreed that it should definitely not be worded as a demand, but as a suggestion from someone trying to engage and be helpful.

Rereading the original letter from TfW, to allay the claims of fraud and deliberately not paying the fare, I suggest that the OP should explicitly say at the beginning of his response that he had no intention of defrauding TfW, and was under the impression that he had paid the correct fare.

 

[John R]

Personally, I would also be suggesting that TfW should amend their app to make it clear to anyone buying them that the Multiflex tickets are not returns.

I would delete the sentence about it being passed to the BTP, as it won't be BTP who would prosecute.

Im not sure I would be telling TfW what to do - feels a bit cheeky when you are trying to avoid prosecution.

And to be fair to the OP, the letter from TfW explicitly mentioned referral to the BTP, so it’s not at all unreasonable to assume that will be the next stage in the process and refer to it in their response.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Thanks everyone for the lively discussion. This is the repsonse I have prepared. Please give me any feedback you think will help resolve the situation and avoid it being pursued any further. I have too many stresses in my life to take on another challenge.

Dear Retail Fraud Team,

I am writing in response to the email received XX October 2025 (Reference: XXXXX).

I am very sorry for the confusion I have caused. I was advised by a colleague to use the multiflex tickets as it was meant to be a more cost effective way for me to commute to work. I briefly looked into the tickets online and they were marketed to people like myself who work hybrid both at home and at the office.

Because I was used to buying return tickets before I tried using the multiflex tickets, I assumed they worked in a similar way. I must admit, I was confused by the wording of the ticket as it said it was ‘bidirectional tickets’ which I understood to be similar to the day return tickets I had previously purchased. My ignorance of the term, as well as the ability to use the same ticket on my return journey without any issue at the gates or being challenged by anyone, didn’t cause me to question whether I was using the ticket correctly.

I of course am happy to pay any outstanding ticket costs related to the confusion. Could I please pay for the ticket costs due and avoid having this past on to the Transport Police?

Again, I sincerely apologise for my failure to properly check and ensure the proper use of the Multiflex tickets. For future journeys, I will be using the Tap On/Off functionality with my debit card for each journey.

I am very sorry for this incident and will take care to ensure this will not happen again.

I am keen to settle this matter amicably and without the need for prosecution. I am happy to pay the outstanding fare and cover any administrative costs incurred in handling this.

My sincerest apologies again.

Yours Sincerely,

Dear Retail Fraud Team,

Thank you for your email of xxx reference xxx.

My understanding when using the Multiflex tickets was that each ticket was valid for "one bidirectional journey", which I took to mean would be one return journey as I was already familiar with day return tickets. As you will note from your records, the gatelines at stations permitted me to use each ticket as a return ticket. In the absence of any warning that my ticket was not valid, e.g. from a gateline flagging the ticket as already having been used, I therefore continued in my mistaken understanding that I was using the tickets correctly.

It appears from your email that my understanding was mistaken, and if this is the case I can only apologise. I am of course keen to repay any fares which I have inadvertently failed to pay for correctly. Had I realised that the Multiflex ticket was not valid for a return, I would have used two Multiflex tickets each day. Therefore, according to my records, I have underpaid by [however many Multiflex tickets you should have bought] and I would hope that my payment of this amount will prevent any further action.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind regards,
xxxx

ETA: this would be my proposed wording, the focus on an inadvertent mistake is so that they don't have the mens rea for a Fraud Act prosecution. Others may take a different view. In this case, it may be more difficult to simply ignore the correspondence as they can see the tickets were used.

 

[Belperpete]

Dear Retail Fraud Team,

Thank you for your email of xxx reference xxx.

My understanding when using the Multiflex tickets was that each ticket was valid for "one bidirectional journey", which I took to mean would be one return journey as I was already familiar with day return tickets. As you will note from your records, the gatelines at stations permitted me to use each ticket as a return ticket. In the absence of any warning that my ticket was not valid, e.g. from a gateline flagging the ticket as already having been used, I therefore continued in my mistaken understanding that I was using the tickets correctly.

It appears from your email that my understanding was mistaken, and if this is the case I can only apologise. I am of course keen to repay any fares which I have inadvertently failed to pay for correctly. Had I realised that the Multiflex ticket was not valid for a return, I would have used two Multiflex tickets each day. Therefore, according to my records, I have underpaid by [however many Multiflex tickets you should have bought] and I would hope that my payment of this amount will prevent any further action.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind regards,
xxxx

ETA: this would be my proposed wording, the focus on an inadvertent mistake is so that they don't have the mens rea for a Fraud Act prosecution. Others may take a different view. In this case, it may be more difficult to simply ignore the correspondence as they can see the tickets were used.

This wording is more succinct, and also makes it clear that the OP thought he was using the tickets correctly (so wasn't deliberately trying to underpay). The only slight change I would suggest is to make it clear where the OP got that understanding from:

My understanding when purchasing the Multiflex tickets on the TfW app was that .....

 

[cholsey-choose]

The whole 'multiflex' thing really is absurd isn't it. Even the word 'multi' in the name suggests each can be used for multiple journeys.

 

[harmonica]

I've sent off the response to them, so just waiting to see what they come back with. Thanks for all your help everyone!

 

[island]

Some rather overly brief wording on my part. At greater elaboration:

When presented with evidence including the wording of the advertising of the ticket, and having had their attention drawn to the implications of the wording by a competent counsel

they're expensive

I would expect a judge in a civil court to conclude that the contract fell in favour of the passenger,

On the civil standard I would not be so sure.

and the magistrate(s)

or district judge

or jury in a criminal court

this offence would not go before a jury as it is summary only

to decide either that the contract as advertised meant that the defendant had done nothing wrong,

Criminal courts do not adjudicate on contracts, they decide whether a criminal offence has been committed. The prosecution must make the court sure that the defendant committed the offence charged. In this case, that is likely to be the offence of entering into a train without holding a valid ticket. The prosecution must make the court sure that the defendant entered into the train, and that they did not have a valid ticket. If the court is not sure that the ticket was invalid, it will dismiss the charge. I have no idea what the evidence would look like so I cannot predict.

or that the mitigating factor was so great as to make a conviction unconscionable.

This is a phrase alien to UK law. There is no such thing as an "unconscionable conviction". If the court is sure that the defendant committed the offence charged, it must convict them. It might (or might not) then go on to decide that it is inexpedient to punish the defendant at this time and give a discharge rather than fining them.

 

[Watershed]

Criminal courts do not adjudicate on contracts, they decide whether a criminal offence has been committed

In practice, determining the validity of the ticket would probably go to the heart of any legal case and so a degree of interpretation of the wording - and its contractual implications - would be required.

 

[Haywain]

Even the word 'multi' in the name suggests each can be used for multiple journeys.

In the same way that a multi pack of a soft drink suggests you can consume each bottle/can more than once?

 

[Wolfie]

they're expensive

On the civil standard I would not be so sure.

or district judge

this offence would not go before a jury as it is summary only

Criminal courts do not adjudicate on contracts, they decide whether a criminal offence has been committed. The prosecution must make the court sure that the defendant committed the offence charged. In this case, that is likely to be the offence of entering into a train without holding a valid ticket. The prosecution must make the court sure that the defendant entered into the train, and that they did not have a valid ticket. If the court is not sure that the ticket was invalid, it will dismiss the charge. I have no idea what the evidence would look like so I cannot predict.

This is a phrase alien to UK law. There is no such thing as an "unconscionable conviction". If the court is sure that the defendant committed the offence charged, it must convict them. It might (or might not) then go on to decide that it is inexpedient to punish the defendant at this time and give a discharge rather than fining them.

There is no such thing as "UK law". As l understand it you are correct in your comment about "unconsciable" in the law of England and Wales. However the concept is very definitely a feature of Scottish contract law. Frankly l don't have a Scoobie about Northern Ireland.

 

[Haywain]

There is no such thing as "UK law". As l understand it you are correct in your comment about "unconsciable" in the law of England and Wales. However the concept is very definitely a feature of Scottish contract law. Frankly l don't have a Scoobie about Northern Ireland.

So, taking note of the specific term that @island referred to, you would agree that there is no such thing as an "unconscionable conviction", even in Scottish contract law as there will be no form of conviction in contract law?

 

[harmonica]

Just as an update.

TfW identified 38 journeys where I used the multiflex ticket incorrectly. And they have agreed an out of court settlement of £259. I think they have been fair and am happy to get the issue resolved. This forum saved me £750+ in solicitor fees and I am very grateful for everyone's feedback.

 

[island]

There is no such thing as "UK law". As l understand it you are correct in your comment about "unconsciable" in the law of England and Wales. However the concept is very definitely a feature of Scottish contract law. Frankly l don't have a Scoobie about Northern Ireland.

I am quite happy that what I said:

There is no such thing as an "unconscionable conviction".

was correct as to all three jurisdictions of the UK.

I am aware of unconscionable contracts. A contract is not a conviction, and we are not discussing Scotland, so I am at a complete loss as why you have chosen to bring up this irrelevant point.

 

[Wolfie]

I am quite happy that what I said:

was correct as to all three jurisdictions of the UK.

I am aware of unconscionable contracts. A contract is not a conviction, and we are not discussing Scotland, so I am at a complete loss as why you have chosen to bring up this irrelevant point.

Truthfully, because l misread your original post, my apologies.

 

[John R]

Just as an update.

TfW identified 38 journeys where I used the multiflex ticket incorrectly. And they have agreed an out of court settlement of £259. I think they have been fair and am happy to get the issue resolved. This forum saved me £750+ in solicitor fees and I am very grateful for everyone's feedback.

Thanks very much for the update, and I’m glad that the situation has been resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[Tetchytyke]

TfW identified 38 journeys where I used the multiflex ticket incorrectly. And they have agreed an out of court settlement of £259. I think they have been fair and am happy to get the issue resolved.

That sounds fair to me, glad it’s been resolved.

 

[cholsey-choose]

In the same way that a multi pack of a soft drink suggests you can consume each bottle/can more than once?

Hah, nice one! No, in the same ways as multi-trip travel insurance suggests (correctly) that it covers you for more than one trip.

 

[Wolfie]

Just as an update.

TfW identified 38 journeys where I used the multiflex ticket incorrectly. And they have agreed an out of court settlement of £259. I think they have been fair and am happy to get the issue resolved. This forum saved me £750+ in solicitor fees and I am very grateful for everyone's feedback.

Sounds like a decent result. Out of curiosity, how does that compare with the fares "saved"?

 

[harmonica]

Not sure really as the app doesn't show all my past journeys, but I am assuming I am slightly worse off, but not by much.