Southeastern railcard prosecution

[123r234]

Hi new to this forum, wanted some advice on this situation please:

I was travelling with a 16-25 railcard today to London Victoria from my home station in Kent. The railcard expired in 2022 December and I altered the date to make it 23. I understand this is wrong and accept that, not to excuse but cost of living is tough and as a recent graduate even tougher financially. Unfortunately today a ticket officer scanned the railcard to discover it is expired. I offered to pay the difference for my journey but was issued an MG11 and was told SouthEastern would be in touch in regards to this to potentially prosecute. I was fully cooperative with giving my details and honest with the officer about how frequently I’ve used it. I’ve only used it around 2/3 times maybe 4 maximum this year. And maybe a maximum of 10 last year. Again not to excuse my actions but to give some context, I wasn’t using it every week etc excessively. At times I was using it to travel into university.

How can I resolve this as quickly as possibly without prosecution/ a criminal conviction? How likely are Southeastern to settle it out of court. As its not just general fare evasion, I understand altering the railcard has taken me to the grey area of fraud. I am worried it will result in a criminal conviction and really want to do everything to avoid that. I’m just at the beginning of my postgrad career and do not want a stupid decision based on my current financial hardship to affect my future. What can I do to get them to settle vs prosecute me? I can’t really afford a settlement amount, I’m guessing it will be 1k plus- but I can take out a credit card loan etc and would gladly take that over prosecution.

Please can anyone advise, I would be very grateful.

 

[island]

Southeastern are almost always willing to settle matters like these without the need for court action. Expect to pay £150 plus the full fare for the journeys you made without valid tickets (no credit will be given for the value of the invalid tickets).

 

[Brissle Girl]

To add to @island ‘s comment about expect to pay the full fare, the railway will almost certainly base its fare calculation on the Anytime Single fare for each individual journey. If your journeys included long distance ones this could be very substantially more than, say, an Advance single fare which you might have bought.

So you might find it useful to go through every journey in your online account and work out (brfares.com will help) the likely settlement cost, to which should be added the £150 mentioned for the railway’s admin cost.

It’ll be a lot more than the £30 you tried to save unfortunately, which after all is only around 10 coffees or 5 pints of beer, so do tell anyone else you know that has done the same thing that it isn’t worth the risk.

 

[123r234]

Southeastern are almost always willing to settle matters like these without the need for court action. Expect to pay £150 plus the full fare for the journeys you made without valid tickets (no credit will be given for the value of the invalid tickets).

This is really reassuring that they are mostly willing to settle. And what did you mean no credit for the value of the invalid tickets- as in I expect to pay that cost as apart of the settlement?

 

[island]

This is really reassuring that they are mostly willing to settle. And what did you mean no credit for the value of the invalid tickets- as in I expect to pay that cost as apart of the settlement?

When they ask you to pay, they will ask you for the full price of tickets for the journeys you took. They will not calculate the difference between what you did pay and what you should have paid, they will consider the invalid tickets to be worthless.

 

[123r234]

To add to @island ‘s comment about expect to pay the full fare, the railway will almost certainly base its fare calculation on the Anytime Single fare for each individual journey. If your journeys included long distance ones this could be very substantially more than, say, an Advance single fare which you might have bought.

So you might find it useful to go through every journey in your online account and work out (brfares.com will help) the likely settlement cost, to which should be added the £150 mentioned for the railway’s admin cost.

It’ll be a lot more than the £30 you tried to save unfortunately, which after all is only around 10 coffees or 5 pints of beer, so do tell anyone else you know that has done the same thing that it isn’t worth the risk.

Thank you for the advice, i will have a look at brfares! Most of my journeys were my station in Kent to London victoria, and sometimes to Stratford (so the highspeed price ). They were generally anytime returns, after 10am ish so off peak hopefully idk if you meant they don’t consider that?

And to the last paragraph I agree, unfortunately yes its true- really frustrating I do wish I just renewed it.

 

[Brissle Girl]

You will probably have to budget for an Anytime Single, not an Off-Peak Single unfortunately, given Southeastern’s usual practice.

 

[123r234]

Hi new to this forum, wanted some advice on this situation please:

I was travelling with a 16-25 railcard today to London Victoria from my home station in Kent. The railcard expired in 2022 December and I altered the date to make it 23. I understand this is wrong and accept that, not to excuse but cost of living is tough and as a recent graduate even tougher financially. Unfortunately today a ticket officer scanned the railcard to discover it is expired. I offered to pay the difference for my journey but was issued an MG11 and was told SouthEastern would be in touch in regards to this to potentially prosecute. I was fully cooperative with giving my details and honest with the officer about how frequently I’ve used it. I’ve only used it around 2/3 times maybe 4 maximum this year. And maybe a maximum of 10 last year. Again not to excuse my actions but to give some context, I wasn’t using it every week etc excessively. At times I was using it to travel into university.

How can I resolve this as quickly as possibly without prosecution/ a criminal conviction? How likely are Southeastern to settle it out of court. As its not just general fare evasion, I understand altering the railcard has taken me to the grey area of fraud. I am worried it will result in a criminal conviction and really want to do everything to avoid that. I’m just at the beginning of my postgrad career and do not want a stupid decision based on my current financial hardship to affect my future. What can I do to get them to settle vs prosecute me? I can’t really afford a settlement amount, I’m guessing it will be 1k plus- but I can take out a credit card loan etc and would gladly take that over prosecution.

Please can anyone advise, I would be very grateful.

Hello, also I haven’t used the railcard on many other journeys. Additionally, how would they know if I had as physical tickets are not linked to a passenger by name and neither are the tickets on train line. How would they know if I had made previous journeys with this railcard? In a scenario where someone buys tickets for another passenger (for example a disabled younger sibling) using their own card/trainline account and has added a railcard because the passenger who will be using the ticket actually holds a valid railcard, what would happen? Surely they cannot proved that I was the one travelling solely because my card/ trainline account was used?

 

[Narrowgauge725]

It is now May 2024 so 17 months of travelling with an expired card? You could have lots of journeys that were fraudulent.

 

[Brissle Girl]

It is now May 2024 so 17 months of travelling with an expired card? You could have lots of journeys that were fraudulent.

In the very first post the OP estimates the potential number of journeys involved, so I think is well aware of that aspect of the case.

 

[30907]

Hello, also I haven’t used the railcard on many other journeys. Additionally, how would they know if I had as physical tickets are not linked to a passenger by name and neither are the tickets on train line. How would they know if I had made previous journeys with this railcard? In a scenario where someone buys tickets for another passenger (for example a disabled younger sibling) using their own card/trainline account and has added a railcard because the passenger who will be using the ticket actually holds a valid railcard, what would happen? Surely they cannot proved that I was the one travelling solely because my card/ trainline account was used?

If the person for whom the ticket was purchased had a valid railcard AND you selected the correct railcard when booking, that would be perfectly in order.

Selecting the wrong railcard can lead to problems, as the T&Cs are not identical - and if that railcard is itself invalid, that compounds the potential offence.

That said, train companies may reference the Fraud Act but rarely seem to use it for relatively low-level offences such as altering tickets.

 

[Hadders]

Hello, also I haven’t used the railcard on many other journeys. Additionally, how would they know if I had as physical tickets are not linked to a passenger by name and neither are the tickets on train line. How would they know if I had made previous journeys with this railcard? In a scenario where someone buys tickets for another passenger (for example a disabled younger sibling) using their own card/trainline account and has added a railcard because the passenger who will be using the ticket actually holds a valid railcard, what would happen? Surely they cannot proved that I was the one travelling solely because my card/ trainline account was used?

If you're offered a settlement it's likely they will want to include all the tickets purchased when your railcard was expired. Paying the settlement means they won't prosecute you.

Alternatively, the train company could decide to prosecute you for the single offence where you were caught, which would mean paying a fine based on your income, surcharge, compensation for the fare avoided plus a contribution towards the train compnany's court costs.

 

[123r234]

If you're offered a settlement it's likely they will want to include all the tickets purchased when your railcard was expired. Paying the settlement means they won't prosecute you.

Alternatively, the train company could decide to prosecute you for the single offence where you were caught, which would mean paying a fine based on your income, surcharge, compensation for the fare avoided plus a contribution towards the train compnany's court costs.

I really want to get it settled out of court, I’ve seen on other threads interacting positively and cooperating can help. I was issued the MG11 only on, staff at station said could be up to 3 weeks for Southeastern to get in contact with me via letter. I wanted to write a letter/ email Southeastern explaining im sorry and keen to settle it out of court- did you have any tips on this please?

 

[Haywain]

I really want to get it settled out of court, I’ve seen on other threads interacting positively and cooperating can help. I was issued the MG11 only on, staff at station said could be up to 3 weeks for Southeastern to get in contact with me via letter. I wanted to write a letter/ email Southeastern explaining im sorry and keen to settle it out of court- did you have any tips on this please?

It is best to wait until you receive a letter from Southeastern.

 

[123r234]

It is best to wait until you receive a letter from Southeastern.

Really? I saw someone here in a similar situation who said they wrote to southeastern the same day of the mg11

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Really? I saw someone here in a similar situation who said they wrote to southeastern the same day of the mg11

Our experience is that waiting until the railway are in touch with you does no harm - and those of us who have worked in the sort of offices that get letters from the public* know that an unsolicited letter without a reference number on is a nuisance to get attached to the right file.

Of course, there may be a couple of reasons to try and get things moving faster:
- to minimise the stress of having to wait. But our experience in similar organisations(* again) is that the time you wait to get the papers all together may mean that this won't be very effective in reducing the time
- you have employed a solicitor. We tend to suggest that for most cases a solicitor isn't necessary: most of the time that's about us trying to save you some money but I do worry a little that sometimes we put ourselves about as being as good as solicitors - which is an argument that I'm not sure we would necessarily win. But I suspect that the railway may take a letter from a solicitor 'seriously' in the sense that it may get prioritised for processing. Against this, using a solicitor is expensive (there's been a case in the last couple of days where it cost £750, on top of the amount of the settlement) so for a lot of people it's sensible to let things take a bit longer and not pay out that much money.

*Not necessarily railway offices!

 

[island]

Really? I saw someone here in a similar situation who said they wrote to southeastern the same day of the mg11

That's essentially skipping the queue.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

there's been a case in the last couple of days where it cost £750, on top of the amount of the settlement

But that settlement was considerably smaller than would have been the case had the OP followed the free advice routinely offered by the forum, which is to engage with the train company, then pay whatever over-egged amount is demanded.

There is also another current thread where, because nobody bothered to ask the OP about their travel/purchase history, advice from the forum was given without ascertaining the full facts. In that case the OP has received a demand for a sum well into four figures and even now the advice is to simply pay up, rather than to seek advice from someone qualified to give it.

 

[Haywain]

But that settlement was considerably smaller than would have been the case had the OP followed the free advice routinely offered by the forum

Was it? How can you be sure of that?

 

[Brissle Girl]

There is also another current thread where, because nobody bothered to ask the OP about their travel/purchase history, advice from the forum was given without ascertaining the full facts. In that case the OP has received a demand for a sum well into four figures and even now the advice is to simply pay up, rather than to seek advice from someone qualified to give it.

The OP had every opportunity to volunteer that information and chose not to. It’s a given that, no different to a solicitor, unless we get the whole story our advice will inevitably be compromised.

Had we known earlier the full extent of the evasion and likely cost to settle we may have advised taking legal advice. My judgment in the case in question is that it had gone too far once we found out.

 

[Titfield]

Our experience is that waiting until the railway are in touch with you does no harm - and those of us who have worked in the sort of offices that get letters from the public* know that an unsolicited letter without a reference number on is a nuisance to get attached to the right file.

Of course, there may be a couple of reasons to try and get things moving faster:
- to minimise the stress of having to wait. But our experience in similar organisations(* again) is that the time you wait to get the papers all together may mean that this won't be very effective in reducing the time
- you have employed a solicitor. We tend to suggest that for most cases a solicitor isn't necessary: most of the time that's about us trying to save you some money but I do worry a little that sometimes we put ourselves about as being as good as solicitors - which is an argument that I'm not sure we would necessarily win. But I suspect that the railway may take a letter from a solicitor 'seriously' in the sense that it may get prioritised for processing. Against this, using a solicitor is expensive (there's been a case in the last couple of days where it cost £750, on top of the amount of the settlement) so for a lot of people it's sensible to let things take a bit longer and not pay out that much money.

*Not necessarily railway offices!

I wonder if a TOC's fraud / customer relations departments have been given a blanket instruction to prioritise letters from solicitors because if it gets delayed then there is a risk of an action being lost (by the TOC by default) and that could have significant financial consequences. Obviously some letters from solicitors are more important than others (ie some may not be time critical) but it is probably simpler and less risky for a TOC to have a "all solicitors letters are prioritised" rule than trying to "triage" them.

 

[Haywain]

My judgment in the case in question is that it had gone too far once we found out.

I agree - when I saw the settlement amount I went back through the thread to try an find what I has missed as the figure wasn't explained by what I remembered reading, and remained unexplained after rereading.

I wonder if a TOC's fraud / customer relations departments have been given a blanket instruction to prioritise letters from solicitors because if it gets delayed then there is a risk of an action being lost (by the TOC by default) and that could have significant financial consequences. Obviously some letters from solicitors are more important than others (ie some may not be time critical) but it is probably simpler and less risky for a TOC to have a "all solicitors letters are prioritised" rule than trying to "triage" them.

Or could it be that they see a letter from (insert solicitor's name of choice) and feel confident on proceeding because they know the person they are looking at is willing to pay to get rid of the problem?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Was it?

Yes. As explained in post #1 of that thread a sum of £3000 was the OP's calculation of the difference between the fares paid and the fares due. The settlement quoted, which will have included an amount in consideration of the train company's admin costs, was £3500.

It's difficult to look at those figure and conclude anything other that the train company has agreed to a settlement of costs plus fares avoided as suggested in post #15 of that thread. Forum advice is always to seek and pay a settlement based on costs plus the anytime single fare for each journey made. This is frequently considerably more than a settlement based on fares avoided.

 

[skyhigh]

But that settlement was considerably smaller than would have been the case had the OP followed the free advice routinely offered by the forum, which is to engage with the train company, then pay whatever over-egged amount is demanded.

There is also another current thread where, because nobody bothered to ask the OP about their travel/purchase history, advice from the forum was given without ascertaining the full facts. In that case the OP has received a demand for a sum well into four figures and even now the advice is to simply pay up, rather than to seek advice from someone qualified to give it.

You seem to have some kind of dislike of the forum (as evidenced by your short-lived flounce off the other week) but in 99.9% of cases posters who come for advice get given realistic, free, help and have a satisfactory outcome. If you don't like what you see here, stay away rather than try and demean those who provide help.

Forum advice is always to seek and pay a settlement based on costs plus the anytime single fare for each journey made. This is frequently considerably more than a settlement based on fares avoided.

No, forum advice is to expect a train company to use the Anytime Single costs to calculate a settlement. I have never seen anyone advised to offer a TOC a settlement amount based on their own calculations or even to ask to pay the Anytime Single rate. You make it sound as if the forum is in the business of working for the TOCs by bumping up settlement amounts.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Yes. As explained in post #1 of that thread a sum of £3000 was the OP's calculation of the difference between the fares paid and the fares due. The settlement quoted, which will have included an amount in consideration of the train company's admin costs, was £3500.

It's difficult to look at those figure and conclude anything other that the train company has agreed to a settlement of costs plus fares avoided as suggested in post #15 of that thread. Forum advice is always to seek and pay a settlement based on costs plus the anytime single fare for each journey made. This is frequently considerably more than a settlement based on fares avoided.

Forum advice is to expect, as a worst case scenario, Anytime Singles to be used as a basis, not for the poster to make an offer of that amount. Though we do frequently note where appropriate that GTR, the operator in question for the case cited, appears to have moved recently to a less penal basis.