What to expect from prosecutions process with Thameslink

[e17602add0a3]

Hello,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post, from my research before posting here I can see that the members here have helped a lot of people out.

• The stations* where you actually started & finished your journey: St Neots -> Finsbury Park -> Pimlico
• The stations* where you changed trains (if applicable); Finsbury Park (Thameslink Overground -> Victoria Line Tube)
• If you presented a ticket(s), the information "Annual Season Ticket", "St Neots", "London Terminals", "Any (I think?)", and any other relevant details; Season ticket is loaded onto a key smart card.
• Details of any Railcard(s) held; N/A
• When and where ticket(s) were purchased, including whether this was prior to the journey commencing; Tickets purchased online May 2025 well before journey 2026
• What happened in any encounter with railway staff; I recently entered St Neots station without tapping in my key smart card, when challenged by revenue protection staff I fumbled my first response because I misinterpreted the question. My card was scanned and I was told it wasn't checked in, I was asked where I checked in (thinking where did I board the train not where did I tap my card) and said St Neots. The staff member asked her colleague to scan the card again and he asked where did I tap in to which I explained that I didn't because the barriers were open. I was then issued with a witness statement receipt after my details were taken.
• Upload copies of any paperwork (with personal details redacted) with your post.

I have since read pretty much every bit of documentation I can on my situation including key pieces such as: Thameslink The Key Terms and Conditions, National Rail Terms and Conditions and the railway bylaws. I completely accept that I have committed an offence under the railway bylaws and understand that as a strict liability issue there is no defence. What has me majorly concerned about my case is that when they check my record for the smart card all of my journeys (bar the ones I have taken since this incident) will show as incomplete as I have never tapped my smart card in or out at Finsbury Park and have only used my credit card to tap in/out to use the tube. From this perspective I am going to appear as a prolific offender. I am fairly confident that I can prove I wasn't trying to defraud the railway of revenue as I have all of the onward tube journeys logged on my TFL account. I have a couple of questions:

- Is there any chance that GTR will be willing to settle this out of court if as the advice that has been given in other posts I provide a suitably apologetic response to their inevitable NIP with action steps I intend to take to prevent future occurrences?
- I imagine in cases like this the fine will be significant either in court or out?
- I am fairly certain, although am finding it difficult to determine for certain, that my habitual lack of tapping in/out at Finsbury Park is related to my use of paper tickets before I used the key smart card - Do paper season tickets have the same validation (tap in/out) requirements as digital cards? Would it be worth mentioning this in any response, if I can become confident that it's true, by means of explanation if they chose to cite previous offences?
- Ideally I would like to avoid conviction as my employment contract requires no convictions of any kind.

I do feel deeply ashamed that I have ended up in this situation as I was ignorant of the rules, which when understood are simple to see why they exist.

Thanks in advance for any insight that may be provided.

 

[z444z]

What has me majorly concerned about my case is that when they check my record for the smart card all of my journeys (bar the ones I have taken since this incident) will show as incomplete as I have never tapped my smart card in or out at Finsbury Park and have only used my credit card to tap in/out to use the tube. From this perspective I am going to appear as a prolific offender. I am fairly confident that I can prove I wasn't trying to defraud the railway of revenue as I have all of the onward tube journeys logged on my TFL account.

They may make assumptions but if you can show TfL journey history that should satisfy them. Download as much journey history as you can right now, because I believe you can only see the past 8 weeks, and continue to download it each month until you hear from them.

I have a couple of questions:

- Is there any chance that GTR will be willing to settle this out of court if as the advice that has been given in other posts I provide a suitably apologetic response to their inevitable NIP with action steps I intend to take to prevent future occurrences?

Yes, in fact it's almost certain, GTR basically always settle. However you should come back to us when the NIP arrives, as following the standard advice is great and will work but you may as well have us check your draft just to be safe.

I'm going to leave the other questions to those with more knowledge.

 

[furlong]

Had you in fact paid for your complete journey? Is your home address near St Neots so they've no reason to suspect you were travelling further?
Not every offence involving some technicality has to be prosecuted, particularly if there's no public interest in doing so.
If you've always paid the correct fare and the train company has lost no money then you shouldn't need to pay them anything.
Gather whatever evidence you can to try to demonstrate this if they do write to you. They might not. (If they do try to pursue it further you could attempt to argue they should treat it like being caught having forgotten your season ticket - see NRCoT discretionary provision 38.2 - which would normally just be logged for the purpose of 38.4).

 

[bb21]

There is nothing to be ashamed of. It is quite heavy handed for the RPI to issue you a witness statement in these circumstances.

If you can show proof of the following, I would be very surprised if you ended up with more than a warning not to do it again:

1. residential address in St Neots;
2. work address in Pimlico;
3. substantial credit card journey history showing payment for Finsbury Park/King's Cross to Pimlico trips (viewable for up to 12 months for contactless payment);

Like you said, plenty of people fail to touch in/out at their journey ends where a season ticket is held, and it is also widely known on the forum that even though organisations like TfL mandate it for people with season tickets held on Oysters, they do not normally prosecute people for failing to touch/in out when travelling within their validity. Yes I know that isn't GTR but I am also pretty certain my company do not normally prosecute passengers for such minor technicalities, so GTR likely don't either.

If this gets nowhere I would be tempted to involve your MP in this as it would be a perfect case which they can shout about and demonstrate how they help their constituents (but it will of course depend on how your MP treats their constituents). This is exactly the type of case which puts the industry in a bad light if escalated, as someone paying over £6000 a year correctly for a season ticket should not be treated like a typical fare dodger on the street, but rather an actual valued customer.

 

[Haywain]

when challenged by revenue protection staff I fumbled my first response because I misinterpreted the question

Where were you challenged by revenue staff?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

If your smartcard held a valid annual season ticket, I am struggling to understand what the problem is.

 

[e17602add0a3]

Thank you for all of your responses so far it has helped to rationalise my response to a milder end of the spectrum that my mind has been cycling through.

@bb21 yes I should be able to provide all of the information that you suggest. From what I can tell from other posts a response is usually expected in writing (if expected at all) - do you think it would be okay to provide one months worth of payments hardcopy and then offer to send the rest at a later date by email for a time period of their choosing? I'm conscious of printing off reams of paper to send through the post although would be willing to if it's going to help.

@Haywain the witness statement says "on train" at "Brookmans Park" - I was first challenged I think around Stevenage on one of the morning Peterborough to Horsham trains.

@furlong are you suggesting that if they deep the matter not worth pursuing at all I won't receive a letter to close this out?

I also forgot to ask in my previous post but will a more complete journey log from the date of the incident be viewed favourably along with the contactless statements? Do they only look back from the incident date or do they look for behaviour change since being stopped? I haven't missing a tap since and don't intend to in the future.

 

[Haywain]

@Haywain the witness statement says "on train" at "Brookmans Park" - I was first challenged I think around Stevenage on one of the morning Peterborough to Horsham trains

So, when challenged did you present a smartcard holding a valid annual season ticket from St Neots to London Terminals?

 

[e17602add0a3]

@Haywain yes that's correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

@Haywain sorry valid as in date but not validated as in touched in.

 

[Haywain]

@Haywain yes that's correct.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

@Haywain sorry valid as in date but not validated as in touched in.

Thanks. I can't see that you have done anything wrong other than not touching in and I don't see how that can lead to any further action.

 

[e17602add0a3]

I think I have done something wrong because having read the bylaws here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf I think that I have breached "17(1)
No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket." Where a valid ticket is defined in the enforcement and interpretation section as:


“valid ticket” means a ticket (including any associated photo/identity card and/or other

travel document) lawfully obtained by or on behalf of the person using or attempting

to use it and entitling that person to use the particular railway service he is using or

attempting to use. Where the terms attaching to the ticket require validation of the

ticket, such ticket shall not be considered to be a valid ticket for the purposes of

these Byelaws unless and until the ticket has been properly validated.



Further to this the Thameslink Terms and Conditions of using the key smart card, found here: https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/tickets/the-key-smartcard/the-key-smartcard-terms-and-conditions which explicitly state when using the key you need to tap in/out "All tickets held on The Key require validation at the start and end of the journey". I am worried that the second part of the valid ticket definition along with the additional terms and conditions for using the smart card would mean that for the purposes of 17(1) my ticket would not be valid.

I do appreciate that these terms are far more likely to be in place to ensure PAYG and flexi tickets are charged/used correctly but taking the absolute meaning of these passages suggests even though I have a season ticket I may still be in breach. I also appreciate that GTR investigation teams are likely to also understand that whilst I may technically be in breach catching someone with a fully paid season ticket this way is unlikely to be a high priority. The source of my worry is primarily driven by my own internal need to follow rules exactly. If my interpretation of the above information is incorrect then I would love to be corrected.

Thank you again for continuing to provide me with support in this matter.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Mar 2026 ==

I also appreciate all of the people who have posted already to help me refine my understanding of the rules and how they are enforced.

 

[Haywain]

I think I have done something wrong because having read the bylaws here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf I think that I have breached "17(1)
No person shall enter a compulsory ticket area on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket."

I can say, with absolute confidence, that at the time you were 'challenged' you had not entered a compulsory ticket area. Stations such as St Neots are not compulsory tickets areas in the way that the law would require for you to be prosecuted.

Further to this the Thameslink Terms and Conditions of using the key smart card, found here: https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/tickets/the-key-smartcard/the-key-smartcard-terms-and-conditions which explicitly state when using the key you need to tap in/out "All tickets held on The Key require validation at the start and end of the journey".

Whilst you may be in breach of the terms and conditions, I do not believe that would provide any grounds for GTR to bring a prosecution. You had a valid ticket at the time you boarded the train and it seems that you presented that valid ticket when requested.

 

[e17602add0a3]

@Haywain Thank you for the clarification on compulsory ticket areas, this is a huge help for my understanding.

 

[bb21]

Thank you for all of your responses so far it has helped to rationalise my response to a milder end of the spectrum that my mind has been cycling through.

@bb21 yes I should be able to provide all of the information that you suggest. From what I can tell from other posts a response is usually expected in writing (if expected at all) - do you think it would be okay to provide one months worth of payments hardcopy and then offer to send the rest at a later date by email for a time period of their choosing? I'm conscious of printing off reams of paper to send through the post although would be willing to if it's going to help.

A witness statement is not a request for payment for now. It may be their standard procedure to have all such cases investigated by back office but I know it really doesn't help with the stress it causes you.

A month's worth is fine if you travel on most days. I normally say two months in line with what Oyster accounts can hold but I don't see why one month's evidence for regular travel would not be sufficient. You can always have the rest ready and tell them explicitly if they require a longer timescale you can supply those too.

As odd as it may sound, operators aren't out to "get people". They can often get it wrong but in genuine cases of no evidence of any wrongdoing, they won't (normally) take any further action.

Out of interest are you told to respond to the fraud investigation/revenue protection team?

 

[e17602add0a3]

@bb21 I have not been contacted by any of their teams in writing yet - I am just trying to best prepare myself in advance of any correspondence. All of the responses here have helped me to feel more prepared as well as understanding where I stand. I do get the they're not out to get me thing - I think I just saw the text about leading to prosecutions and started to panic. Thankfully I am much calmer now

 

[Haywain]

I have not been contacted by any of their teams in writing yet - I am just trying to best prepare myself in advance of any correspondence.

Until you receive any correspondence, there's nothing you can do. If and when you receive a letter from GTR, post the details here and we will be happy to help you to prepare a response. In the meantime it is my opinion that you have nothing to worry about other than, potentially, a small amount of hassle in dealing with this.

 

[furlong]

@furlong are you suggesting that if they deep the matter not worth pursuing at all I won't receive a letter to close this out?

Indeed. The proper outcome would be a "words of advice" warning letter reminding you always to touch in and touch out to make the task of their inspectors easier and so you can't come under any suspicion of having travelled outside your ticket's validity.