XC Fare Avoidance Charge: Peak vs Off-Peak

[TJD2000]

Hi All,

Looking for advice on how much operators (XC) are legally allowed/supported to charge for fare avoidance.

In summary, I bought an open return from BRS to LDS on XC train, automatically applied my 16-25 Railcard in Trainline App but didn't realise it had expired. I paid ~£100 for the ticket, saving around £50. My mistake, full responsibility taken, the conductor took my details, I'm willing to pay operators costs and full single fare of the BRS to LDS journey. Note: this is my first offence, no prior convictions.

HOWEVER, XC have charged me £430, made of their £100 costs with £330 charge for the "full fare". Turns out this is the price for a PEAK Open Return, whereas I purchased an OFF-PEAK Open return; the full price of which was ~£150. I never would have travelled on a train that cost £330 and I never tried to travel at a time where trains cost that much.

They have offered to settle it out of court with this payment, and whilst very expensive it would be the simpler solution to pay, however it seems wrong to blindly go along with whatever price they want to charge, and charging Peak prices for an honest mistake on an Off-Peak journey is not - in my personal opinion - right. if we all just pay without analysing the cost then they are free to charge whatever they like with no pushback.

They've sent the standard "pay in 14 days of this letter, or we will prosecute and you may get a criminal record and fine up to £1000...". I've looked through the bye-laws and XC prosecution policy, but haven't found much specific detail on this.

Anyone know if I have a legal leg to stand on if I offer to pay their costs (£100) plus the full fare I avoided (£150) instead of the £430 Peak fine?

Thank you

 

[Haywain]

an open return from BRS to LDS

Berrylands to Leeds?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2025 ==

instead of the £430 Peak fine?

You apparently accept the £100 costs, so the fare element is £330. If you are going to choose to argue with them, you will need to get the facts clear and correct.

Anyone know if I have a legal leg to stand on if I offer to pay their costs (£100) plus the full fare I avoided (£150)

You are absol;utley entitled to decline the offer of settlement they have made and make a counter offer but you should not be surprised if it is not accepted and they choose to take the matter to court.

 

[TJD2000]

Berrylands to Leeds?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2025 ==


You apparently accept the £100 costs, so the fare element is £330. If you are going to choose to argue with them, you will need to get the facts clear and correct.

You are absol;utley entitled to decline the offer of settlement they have made and make a counter offer but you should not be surprised if it is not accepted and they choose to take the matter to court.

Sorry Bristol Temple Meads to Leeds, and yes good call out, fare is £330. Whilst I don't want it to go to court, I also don't want to pay £430 where it doesn't seem warranted, so wondering if - in the event it did go to court, who would be in the right? (I understand outcomes might vary by interpretation)

 

[Haywain]

in the event it did go to court, who would be in the right? (I understand outcomes might vary by interpretation)

That would be for the magistrate(s) to decide, and I can't see "I don't want to pay..." being a strong argument in your favour. A solicitor may well succeed in getting the amount reduced, but you would still be found guilty and be paying a fine, victim surcharge and potentially higher costs, so it would be a pyrrhic victory.

 

[blimmo]

who would be in the right?

I think what you're failing to realise is that *you have commited a crime* by failing to buy a valid ticket before boarding (no I don't think this is a very good system either) and XC are offering to let you pay them in return for promising not to prosecute you over this. You have effectively no negotiating power here because if they don't like you they can just withdraw the offer. I don't think they're in the right but that's really irrelevant to your case.

 

[jfollows]

It is completely normal that XC and others charge for full fare single tickets when the ticket used is in some way invalid. There has been previous discussion on the forum about this, but their logic is that if they charge less you’re more likely to repeat the offence. As others have said, they can offer what they like to settle out of court, and you have the choice, but if you choose not to take up their offer you will have a fine, a criminal record plus XC will ask for costs which in total will probably come to more than they’re asking for to settle.
Sorry, that’s not what you want to hear I know.
They won’t accept £250.

 

[MotCO]

If the first ticket is 'invalid' and therefore not useable/ not used, can the OP claim a refund on that first ticket? It would help offset some of the costs of the £330 ticket.

 

[JBuchananGB]

Were you on the outbound leg of the journey or the return leg? If the return leg then I suppose it is reasonable for XC to levy the Anytime Return Fare. If you were on the outbound leg, then on arrival at your destination you could have bought a railcard, and then used your existing ticket for the return. In that case you could argue that the fare avoided was the Anytime Single (Not via London) of £163.90.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Were you on the outbound leg of the journey or the return leg? If the return leg then I suppose it is reasonable for XC to levy the Anytime Return Fare. If you were on the outbound leg, then on arrival at your destination you could have bought a railcard, and then used your existing ticket for the return. In that case you could argue that the fare avoided was the Anytime Single (Not via London) of £163.90.

The problem with out of court settlements (as opposed to Penalty Fares), one reason I dislike them so much, is that they are essentially legal extortion. That is the offer, you either take it or leave it, and attempting to negotiate is simply likely to end you up in Court, which will cost you more and XC know that. It cannot be wrong - unlike a Penalty Fare there is no by the book calculation for one - it is simply an offer to avoid prosecution.

 

[TJD2000]

I think what you're failing to realise is that *you have commited a crime* by failing to buy a valid ticket before boarding (no I don't think this is a very good system either) and XC are offering to let you pay them in return for promising not to prosecute you over this. You have effectively no negotiating power here because if they don't like you they can just withdraw the offer. I don't think they're in the right but that's really irrelevant to your case.

Yeah it's a good point, and I'm aware it's illegal to travel without a fully valid ticket, but the punishment should surely be proportionate to the fare avoided, not to the fare of a different time train that costs more than double the one travelled on? I realise that they would probably reject a £250 offer and take it to court, but is there a reasonable possibility that the court would judge the much larger fare (Peak Return) to be the wrong charge instead of the lesser fare (Off-Peak Return)? In the most recent letter they say "ordinarily, we prosecute all instances of fare evasion, but on this occasion a settlement offer has been granted to you". I could be wrong, but that might suggest I have a point?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2025 ==

Were you on the outbound leg of the journey or the return leg? If the return leg then I suppose it is reasonable for XC to levy the Anytime Return Fare. If you were on the outbound leg, then on arrival at your destination you could have bought a railcard, and then used your existing ticket for the return. In that case you could argue that the fare avoided was the Anytime Single (Not via London) of £163.90.

This was on the outbound leg, I never took the return leg, but I'm not sure if that means I can challenge the return fare charged as I did originally purchase a return ticket

 

[John R]

Yeah it's a good point, and I'm aware it's illegal to travel without a fully valid ticket, but the punishment should surely be proportionate to the fare avoided, not to the fare of a different time train that costs more than double the one travelled on? I realise that they would probably reject a £250 offer and take it to court, but is there a reasonable possibility that the court would judge the much larger fare (Peak Return) to be the wrong charge instead of the lesser fare (Off-Peak Return)? In the most recent letter they say "ordinarily, we prosecute all instances of fare evasion, but on this occasion a settlement offer has been granted to you". I could be wrong, but that might suggest I have a point?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2025 ==


This was on the outbound leg, I never took the return leg, but I'm not sure if that means I can challenge the return fare charged as I did originally purchase a return ticket

You need to be very careful in challenging anything, as they are very likely to withdraw the offer and say “ see you in court”, where the offer they made will not be of any consequence, only whether you were guilty or not (which you were, as you readily admit).

They don’t know you didn’t use the ticket, so would probably see it as a try-on to reduce the amount payable.

 

[JBuchananGB]

You may be able to revert to the retailer from whom you bought the ticket, and obtain some sort of a refund. It was a non-ticket and therefore not used. But as others have said, the out of court settlement is a "take it or leave it" offer, and any attempt to negotiate is likely to be interpreted as "declined", and result in action in the magistrates' court.

 

[Haywain]

but is there a reasonable possibility that the court would judge the much larger fare (Peak Return) to be the wrong charge instead of the lesser fare (Off-Peak Return)?

Of course there is a possibility of this, but it will be looked at after you have been found guilty, and the level of fine and victim surcharge will not be negotiable. You could get to pay the lower fare, but it will have been achieved at considerable additional expense.

 

[blimmo]

the punishment should surely be proportionate to the fare avoided

If this was a civil offence then yes it would be but this is simply a criminal offence where the punishment is a fine not necessarily related to the fare you "avoided". Yes this system is imo very stupid but at least you aren't having to pay anytime fares for a bunch of other journeys where you accidentally used an expired railcard as many people coming here have had to.

 

[JBuchananGB]

blimmo makes a very good point. Most people who come here having been stopped with an expired railcard find that the TOC trawls through all their ticket history to find all the fares bought with a railcard discount since the card expired, and then include them in the out of court settlement offer at the anytime single rate. In this case, painful as it is, paying the settlement is probably the best option, and also exploring any sort of refund on the original non-ticket.

 

[WesternLancer]

Sorry Bristol Temple Meads to Leeds, and yes good call out, fare is £330. Whilst I don't want it to go to court, I also don't want to pay £430 where it doesn't seem warranted, so wondering if - in the event it did go to court, who would be in the right? (I understand outcomes might vary by interpretation)

Unfortunately as others have indicated - they can charge these very expensive Anytime fares in these scenarios. A court would find you guilty of the strict liability office and then court fine etc plus unwanted criminal record would probably wipe out any possible lower fare you might have to pay - if that indeed happened.

is your letter from ITAL / IRCAS on behalf of Cross Country? They are their fares enforcement contractor and from what we see on here are difficult to deal with as they play hard ball as it were - you can see other threads that illustrate this including a recent one over the summer where the passenger bought a new ticket for the return portion because they were worried that their return would not be valid because of an inadvertently expired railcard on the outbound (like yours) - there original return ticket was valid - but despite pressing their case with advice here I don't think IRCAS were prepared to accept that the passenger should only be charged for the Anytime Single fare when they were asking for the Anytime Return fare.

The logic as mentioned is that genuine fare evaders would chance it if all they had to pay was a cheaper fare or pay the difference on occasion when they were caught, so the fare they need to charge as part of an out of court settlement is punitively priced. And some of these Anytime Fares are extremely expensive indeed.

having said all this I suspect you could politely write back to them and ask if they would be prepared to consider charging you for a new ticket at the Off Peak fare (assuming you did travel at an Off peak time) and see what they say about it. I don't think they would rescind their offer and move straight to prosecution from the few other cases on here I recall seeing in the event of you asking - but it can't be 100% ruled out. You could post a draft on here for people to help you with.
Looks like you have an Off Peak Single (not via London) at £155.10
or a Super Off peak (any route so including via London) at £118 ish

and a factor would be if you were on the outward or return leg when this cam to light (ie had you already used the outward portion of a return before this was noticed?)

However, a few things to consider
- are they likely to find other travel undertaken with a railcard discounted ticket after the railcard had expired? They can and do search for those so if they have not done it already I would not be provoking them to look at your travel records closely....because they would then charge you for any other fares at the same Anytime rates

- did they send this offer 'straight off' ie you have not previously replied to them with mitigating circumstances already? If you do write back then you would need to stress that no deliberate evasion was ever intended, this was a genuine mistake, and you may want to point out you are on a low or limited income (eg if you are - eg student etc)

- looking forwards if this is a journey your regularly make you might want to look into split tickets to cut the cost of the fare (make sure you understand the rules on using them however)

- and always make a point if claiming Delay- Repay in the event of delayed trains as a way of recouping money you are owed in those situations (again be sure you understand the rules and only make legitimate claims)

 

[TJD2000]

Unfortunately as others have indicated - they can charge these very expensive Anytime fares in these scenarios. A court would find you guilty of the strict liability office and then court fine etc plus unwanted criminal record would probably wipe out any possible lower fare you might have to pay - if that indeed happened.

is your letter from ITAL / IRCAS on behalf of Cross Country? They are their fares enforcement contractor and from what we see on here are difficult to deal with as they play hard ball as it were - you can see other threads that illustrate this including a recent one over the summer where the passenger bought a new ticket for the return portion because they were worried that their return would not be valid because of an inadvertently expired railcard on the outbound (like yours) - there original return ticket was valid - but despite pressing their case with advice here I don't think IRCAS were prepared to accept that the passenger should only be charged for the Anytime Single fare when they were asking for the Anytime Return fare.

The logic as mentioned is that genuine fare evaders would chance it if all they had to pay was a cheaper fare or pay the difference on occasion when they were caught, so the fare they need to charge as part of an out of court settlement is punitively priced. And some of these Anytime Fares are extremely expensive indeed.

having said all this I suspect you could politely write back to them and ask if they would be prepared to consider charging you for a new ticket at the Off Peak fare (assuming you did travel at an Off peak time) and see what they say about it. I don't think they would rescind their offer and move straight to prosecution from the few other cases on here I recall seeing in the event of you asking - but it can't be 100% ruled out. You could post a draft on here for people to help you with.
Looks like you have an Off Peak Single (not via London) at £155.10
or a Super Off peak (any route so including via London) at £118 ish

and a factor would be if you were on the outward or return leg when this cam to light (ie had you already used the outward portion of a return before this was noticed?)

However, a few things to consider
- are they likely to find other travel undertaken with a railcard discounted ticket after the railcard had expired? They can and do search for those so if they have not done it already I would not be provoking them to look at your travel records closely....because they would then charge you for any other fares at the same Anytime rates

- did they send this offer 'straight off' ie you have not previously replied to them with mitigating circumstances already? If you do write back then you would need to stress that no deliberate evasion was ever intended, this was a genuine mistake, and you may want to point out you are on a low or limited income (eg if you are - eg student etc)

- looking forwards if this is a journey your regularly make you might want to look into split tickets to cut the cost of the fare (make sure you understand the rules on using them however)

- and always make a point if claiming Delay- Repay in the event of delayed trains as a way of recouping money you are owed in those situations (again be sure you understand the rules and only make legitimate claims)

Yes the letters are from ITAL on behalf of XC, and yes they come across fairly heavy handed - they also seem to back-date their letters, as they continually arrive 10+ days later than the date on them, before then insisting you reply within 14 days of the supposed date of sending, though that's beside the point, just interesting to note (in my replies to them I've highlighted this).
Thank you very much for the other advice (same to everyone above).

After their first letter I replied stating I'm happy to pay but the fare seems incorrect. They then replied and asked for evidence of my ticket purchase along with evidence for mitigating factors (medical-related). I supplied both, stating I'm happy to pay, but it should be £250 and not £430 based on their own policy. Their most recent reply did not address the evidence at all (even though they specifically asked for both pieces), instead stating "it is the responsibility of each passenger to ensure their ticket is valid...", and reiterating this out of court settlement of £430.

As such, it seems options are either: A. reiterate my offer and go to court, hoping the magistrate supports the lesser fare avoidance charge, or B. pay the £430.

From the above replies, it sounds like even if the magistrate supports the lesser fare, I will still end up paying more then £430 (a large fine unassociated with the actual fare charge?), as well as potentially gaining a criminal record.
If this is the case, it seems the best option is to pay, though this validates the prosecutor in charging people more than double the ticket they purchased (not to mention the £100 additional costs) for an honest and first mistake of an outdated Railcard. This isn't the best hill to die on as - even though the charges are crazily high - I am in the wrong in terms of not having a valid Railcard, but in general if it costs more to go to court than to just pay the settlement, even if you are proven "right" in court, then the operators may as well charge you as much as possible up to the amount it would cost in court? I guess that's why they get away with such inflated charges. Still it seems wrong to get charged in court despite having a point.

 

[John R]

The magistrate will be forming a view as to, did you or did you not have a valid ticket? That’s it. If you did not, you will be found guilty.

The question of fare avoided is (I presume) secondary to you to the main issue that you want to avoid having a criminal conviction?

 

[Haywain]

If this is the case, it seems the best option is to pay,

You seem to be getting the idea.

then the operators may as well charge you as much as possible up to the amount it would cost in court?

Which they don't actually do, even in this case.

even if you are proven "right" in court, < snip > Still it seems wrong to get charged in court despite having a point.

You committed a criminal offence, one which is a matter of strict liability. That is why you would be charged, and you wouldn't be proven "right", you would be found guilty.

 

[furlong]

I think we worked out from other threads that the amount they ask for is set by XC at the time of the incident and ITAL just copies and repeats it. To change it - even for something trivial like single instead of return - you have to persuade them that they must refer the matter back to XC for a revised instruction. In other words, I think the person reading and replying to your letter does not have the authority to change the sum and you have to persuade them that what they are doing is incorrect and they need to refer back to XC to determine whether or not it needs to be changed. If that fails you need to attempt to contact XC directly to call the case back in.

Ultimately you still have the option of settling out-of-court for the higher sum (paying under protest basically), and then pursing XC to try to get a partial refund - and you can even try to use the civil courts yourself for this for a small outlay (e.g. arguing that the agreement to pay the higher amount was unenforceable, "tantamount to blackmail" as they were apparently seeking more than contractually entitled to and apparently seeking to profit from an alleged criminal offence).

Basically, the view of me and some others is that only the difference in fare that removes the discount is payable (with reference to general principles and the terms and conditions applicable) and only for the single journey. The view of the train companies is normally that the complete new fare is due for the single journey (not evidenced by reference to Ts&Cs). Some will deduct the amount you already paid. The return journey lies outside the scope of the incident if you bought a new valid railcard or new valid ticket before making it or didn't travel at all. There is another current thread where similar matters are in dispute with GWR and we are watching with interest how they respond.

Suggestions of the higher fare being used to act as a "penalty" are unlikely to hold up. If the company wanted to charge you a penalty it could have issued a Penalty Fare. (XC chooses never to do this, but nevertheless that remains the only Penalty directly available to it.) Outside that, only the courts can impose a penalty i.e. a fine following conviction.

 

[WesternLancer]

As such, it seems options are either: A. reiterate my offer and go to court, hoping the magistrate supports the lesser fare avoidance charge, or B. pay the £430.

From the above replies, it sounds like even if the magistrate supports the lesser fare, I will still end up paying more then £430 (a large fine unassociated with the actual fare charge?), as well as potentially gaining a criminal record.
If this is the case, it seems the best option is to pay, though this validates the prosecutor in charging people more than double the ticket they purchased (not to mention the £100 additional costs) for an honest and first mistake of an outdated Railcard. This isn't the best hill to die on as - even though the charges are crazily high - I am in the wrong in terms of not having a valid Railcard, but in general if it costs more to go to court than to just pay the settlement, even if you are proven "right" in court, then the operators may as well charge you as much as possible up to the amount it would cost in court? I guess that's why they get away with such inflated charges. Still it seems wrong to get charged in court despite having a point.

Your analysis is essentially spot on (sadly) - and you have my sympathy.

Unfortunately they have you over a barrel. It looks like you have engaged with them and as is par for the course with ITAL they are not negotiating on this

I would urge you to not let this go to court without fully understanding what that will involve including the time and hassle to you involved in a court appearance - which might not necessarily even be anywhere near where you live.

If it went to court the court fines and other charges (the court punishment for being found guilty of the offence, which I believe you would be found guilty - as per post #18) will eat up the difference in any lower fare anyone might agree is acceptable - plus you have the criminal record to your name thrown in (but a criminal record could possibly impact on you in other ways financially until it is spent eg job applications / insurance quotes ect)

Money wise:
The court fine is related to your income, if found (or plead) guilty. Note that if you plead guilty, you will receive a 33% discount on the fine amount.
There will also be a victim surcharge - 40% of the fine amount.
You will also have to pay a sum for the XC ITAL court costs
and compensation for the fare avoided - which may or may not be lower than the Anytime fare.
+ criminal record

all that likely to add up to more than they are asking for now I fear

 

[father_jack]

You may be able to revert to the retailer from whom you bought the ticket, and obtain some sort of a refund. It was a non-ticket and therefore not used. SNIPPED...........

Just my 2p worth but if the "discounted" ticket is "clipped" by entry at a gate or when scanned onboard before the railcard is found to be out of date the non train operator retailers like the Trainline or Trainpal will consider the ticket "used" and not entertain any refund. The cads even do this when the passenger hasn't actually travelled, say gone in and out of a barrier and decided not to travel because of disruption or cancellation !!!

Also the SVR is probably only 65p less than the SVS so that leaves nothing to refund from the unused return portion.

 

[TJD2000]

All understood, thanks all for the advice, much appreciated.