Before making any comment people will really need more information as outlined
here. They can then advise on whether the ticket was valid which will help in the response to your queries and assistance with any response to the company in question.
Daughter number 2 and her grandmother were visiting daughter number 1 at her house in sheffield. tickets were purchased on trainline.com. 1 for Senior Citizen using relevant railcard, 1 using 16-25 railcard.
Journey was from Bishop Auckland to Sheffield, tickets open return.
travellers arrived at BA train station,asked at ticket office for tickets, showed ticket office employee booking confirmation, were told that paper tickets not necessary as they had an e-ticket. Boarded train from BA to Darlington, tickets checked by inspector on train, no problems raised. Change at darlington, boarded train to sheffield.
Ticket inspector asked fortickets, showed e-ticket, said daughters ticket wasnt registering as valid, no comment made about her grandmothers. Note both tickets bought and paid for on same booking with same booking ref. Conversation ensued; ticket inspector couldnt understand why tickets were valid for first part of journey, and why the seat reservation still showed as valid. She also checked the return part of the ticket, which she confirmed was valid, but said that her syatem showed that the ricket had been "cancelled 30 minutes after being issued".
Ticket inspector issued a replacement ticket with a zero value showing, to provide a valid paper ticket for remainder of journey, and took my daughters name and address, confirmed with daughters railcard. Daughter thought this was a receipt for the paper tickets issued. At no point did ticket inspector ask for payment for these tickets, or mention prosecution / penalty notice / additional ticket cost. Journey continued without further incident, and return part also used without incident, until on Friday, daughter phoned me in tears as she had received a letter notifying her of the potential prosecution under various parts of thr Railway Byelaws and Regulation of Railways Act 1889. I suspect the letter is a standard one, the details / content of which many of will be all too familiar with......
Note the letter was in the name of Miss R E Watson. This isnt her surname but is close.......
The other person travelling with her did not get asked for her details (presumably because her ticket was deemed valid......).
So i suppose my question is now 3 fold;
1. Is it appropriate for me as her father and responsiblr adult to respod on her bahalf given she is only 16 and not used to this type of thing?
2. Is it important that they have transcribed her name wrongly onto their snotty letter production module?
3. I assume the best way is to send as much evidence as we have to disprove their theory..........