Although I agree, what would be the repercussion? The TOC accuse me of fraud, I disagree, they pursue prosecution and we go to court.
Who would the onus be on to prove their stance.
Would I need to prove I intended to catch that train.
Or would the TOC need to prove that I did not intend to catch that train?
And how do you prove “intent” in this instance?
Edited to add: if my intended train is at 5:00am, it is cancelled and I get the 6:00am, I am not going to the station for 4:50 to buy a ticket to then return home and then go back for the 6:00am service.
In reality, I think a prosecutor explaining to a magistrate is going to be easily paint a picture of fraud.
You intended to travel on the 11am train?
Yes.
But you were a few miles away, with your feet up in your office with a nice hot coffee at the time of departure?
Yes.
And you only realised there was a potential delay in the first place because you looked at an app.
Yes.
And if that train had suddenly been reinstated/back on time, it would have been almost impossible for you to have made it in time from your office and coffee?
Correct.
And you didn't hold a ticket for that train?
Correct
And the train you did travel on was not delayed?
Correct
And you only purchased a ticket almost an hour after the 11am train had left the station?
Yes.
And you've done this how many times before?
(Answer is more than a handful)
....
You get the general idea.
Can debate the rights or wrongs all day long on this forum - but I'd not feel too comfortable trying to defend that position at court. Perhaps others would. I can understand both perspectives but I very much think this is, being generous, skirting a very fine line of legality whether civil or criminal.