GWR dispute regarding journeys between Totnes and Exmouth

Vespa · 30 Jan 2021

Wallsendmag said:
I believe they can, I've seen it before somewhere.

It's important to find out, the OP would need to go back to his app and read the T&C and journey history.

A lot of people don't really read the T&C when they sign up for anything, on this occasion he will have to go back and read over.

This is what I can find so far, it doesn't seem comprehensive.

https://faq.trainline.eu/category/31-trainline

One of main reasons why I don't have an account with trainline is exactly this, giving away too much information is not always beneficial to you.

RailUK Forums

Western Sunset · 30 Jan 2021

I must congratulate Fawkes Cat on the clarity of their post (#55).

pelli · 30 Jan 2021

Vespa said:
That is an interesting question.
Can TOC have access to your train line app and ordering history, when you sign up, is it in the T&C that TOC can have access to your train line app if not, we have a GDPR issue in addition to the 6 month statute limitations.

Wallsendmag said:
I believe they can, I've seen it before somewhere.

alistairlees said:
Where fare evasion is suspected then it is possible to share relevant information. There is a gdpr compliant process to follow for this. No gdpr breach will have been committed and this is not an avenue to pursue.

There was a thread Using data from apps like Trainline as part of fare evasion prosecutions in July 2020 discussing GDPR implications of Trainline sharing data, split off from the thread Getting Prosecuted over a mistake where someone was asked to pay an out-of-court settlement of £2,500 based on their Trainline account history containing purchases of child and 16-17 railcard tickets.

eoff · 30 Jan 2021

reubenjohnson1 said:
Please help. I have been fined unfairly for travelling . I have been in disagreement with GWR prosecutions . They requested £106 from me which I deemed unfair . They have now decided to add £2000 to that because allegedly I have taken over 20 unpaid journeys in the last 3 years based on where I live. They used the word “allegedly” and “based on” in the emails . How could they prove this. Firstly it’s not true secondly I use really don’t understand

regards Reuben

"emails".

Have they been communicating by email? This makes me think they may not believe the address that was given and have based any assumptions of extra wrongdoing on the home address. If that is the case and the attempts later in the tread by forum members to understand what has happened are correct and in particular this was the only time you did not have a ticket then I would:

a) contact them to say you are sorry for not purchasing the ticket when you should have and offer to pay the original amount
b) Explain that their additional accusations are unfounded, ask them for more information and suggest that they may have made wrong assumptions as you are temporarily staying away from your normal home address.

Tazi Hupefi · 30 Jan 2021

Again, like the Delay Repay "fraud" thread, I appreciate some of you are not legally trained or qualified, however the 6 month time limit to prosecute is a red herring. In reality, it depends on the offence(s). Summary only offences (Regulation of Railways Act and Railway Byelaws) can only be prosecuted at the Magistrates' Court, and you would be correct in that a 6 month time limit applies (to lodge the papers, not have a hearing or convict).

However, the railway often have a wide choice of legislation to select from, and they do not have to use the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 or Railway Byelaws.

In this example, if the TOC can prove fraud occurred - which could be considered in English law to have a very broad and "catch all" definition - Section 2 (or potentially Section(s) 3 or 11) of the Fraud Act 2006 (which I know TOCs are starting to use increasingly regularly) - offer the prosecution the ability to prosecute on indictment. This means the offence can be tried in the Magistrates' Court OR the Crown Court. The latter has almost zero time limit for prosecution. As the 6 month period has passed since the offences alleged, only an indictment can now be laid, and it can only be heard in the Crown Court. So whilst the Magistrates' Court will still hear the initial complaint and set directions for case management, ultimately all they can do is remit the case to the higher court for trial.

That is not always to say that a TOC will do this, or that the punishment on conviction will be any more serious than the Magistrates' Court, (although costs will usually be substantially higher).

I am not saying at all that is what will happen in this case, but if a TOC is looking for a settlement amount of over £2,000 - and given the narrative of the events so far in terms of communications with GWR, clearly something on the more serious end of the scale has appeared, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a prosecution could still successfully commence.

When the CPS prosecute railway offences (which I appreciate is unlikely in this case, they have guidance that even highlights the fact there is a choice of legislation).

Transport Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

There will often be a choice between specific legislation relating to the form of transport, and proceedings under the Theft Act 1978, or Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981. See the Fraud Act 2006 and Forgery and Counterfeiting, elsewhere in the Legal Guidance.

Haywain · 30 Jan 2021

Tazi Hupefi said:
In this example, if the TOC can prove fraud occurred

I think you mean if the TOC suspect or believe that fraud occurred they can prosecute. The proof depends on evidence from both sides.

Tazi Hupefi · 30 Jan 2021

Haywain said:
I think you mean if the TOC suspect or believe that fraud occurred they can prosecute. The proof depends on evidence from both sides.

Slightly pedantic, but technically correct.

However, TOCs are still (albeit voluntarily) committed to following the same Code for Crown Prosecutors, so a TOC should never commence any proceedings where the evidence suggests there is not a realistic prospect of conviction (even in the Magistrates Court) - which generally means making sure the evidence is more than sufficient, especially on indictment where the courts are not as easily "led" and are considerably more formal and procedural. A TOC should not (but legally can) commence a prosecution on the fact they "suspect" fraud occurred, they must have good reason to suspect that, supported with appropriate evidence, and an impartial and pragmatic view as to the likelihood of their success.

reubenjohnson1 · 30 Jan 2021

Tazi Hupefi said:
Again, like the Delay Repay "fraud" thread, I appreciate some of you are not legally trained or qualified, however the 6 month time limit to prosecute is a red herring. In reality, it depends on the offence(s). Summary only offences (Regulation of Railways Act and Railway Byelaws) can only be prosecuted at the Magistrates' Court, and you would be correct in that a 6 month time limit applies (to lodge the papers, not have a hearing or convict).

However, the railway often have a wide choice of legislation to select from, and they do not have to use the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 or Railway Byelaws.

In this example, if the TOC can prove fraud occurred - which could be considered in English law to have a very broad and "catch all" definition - Section 2 (or potentially Section(s) 3 or 11) of the Fraud Act 2006 (which I know TOCs are starting to use increasingly regularly) - offer the prosecution the ability to prosecute on indictment. This means the offence can be tried in the Magistrates' Court OR the Crown Court. The latter has almost zero time limit for prosecution. As the 6 month period has passed since the offences alleged, only an indictment can now be laid, and it can only be heard in the Crown Court. So whilst the Magistrates' Court will still hear the initial complaint and set directions for case management, ultimately all they can do is remit the case to the higher court for trial.

That is not always to say that a TOC will do this, or that the punishment on conviction will be any more serious than the Magistrates' Court, (although costs will usually be substantially higher).

I am not saying at all that is what will happen in this case, but if a TOC is looking for a settlement amount of over £2,000 - and given the narrative of the events so far in terms of communications with GWR, clearly something on the more serious end of the scale has appeared, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a prosecution could still successfully commence.

When the CPS prosecute railway offences (which I appreciate is unlikely in this case, they have guidance that even highlights the fact there is a choice of legislation).

Transport Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

All I know is that I have realised I’m in the wrong and should of bought a ticket initially. I will tell them that on Monday. But what I don’t appreciate is them telling me over the course of 3 years I’ve made 20 trips without paying from a station I’ve rarely ever used in my life. I don’t know how the person who’s dealing with my case is allowed to tell me that. It’s not true

Mak1981 · 30 Jan 2021

But again, you seem to be a bit vague, have you made at least 20 trips in the last 3 years from other stations?

Haywain · 30 Jan 2021

reubenjohnson1 said:
But what I don’t appreciate is them telling me over the course of 3 years I’ve made 20 trips without paying from a station I’ve rarely ever used in my life. I don’t know how the person who’s dealing with my case is allowed to tell me that. It’s not true

Perhaps, then, you need to discuss that with them in a more straightforward manner than you have used on here. As others have said, you have so far been somewhat vague.

6Gman · 30 Jan 2021

Mak1981 said:
But again, you seem to be a bit vague, have you made at least 20 trips in the last 3 years from other stations?

I'm beginning to wonder if this is the crux of the issue, now that we have learnt that the OP lives in the London area and is only resident in Devon currently because of lockdown.

Are they seeing, for example, a record of buying Reading - Paddington tickets and deducing that a resident of Ivybridge (as they see it) is short-fareing?

Any conversation with GWR should, as already suggested, explore this possibility by asking for details of the alleged offences.

reubenjohnson1 said:
All I know is that I have realised I’m in the wrong and should of bought a ticket initially. I will tell them that on Monday. But what I don’t appreciate is them telling me over the course of 3 years I’ve made 20 trips without paying from a station I’ve rarely ever used in my life. I don’t know how the person who’s dealing with my case is allowed to tell me that. It’s not true

I think you need to do a bit of a mental reset on this. You use terms such as "unfair", "immoral", "don't appreciate" - but fairness, morality and what you do or don't appreciate - with all due respect - is irrelevant. This is a legal matter.

You are guilty in respect of the £106.

The £2,000 issue is uncertain. As I've suggested above it may simply be that GWR have put 2 and 2 together, when in fact it should have been 1 and 1! Explain that "if you - i.e. GWR - are concerned that I'm buying tickets from elsewhere when living near Ivybridge, the fact is I normally live in xxxxxx and am only living near Ivybridge currently because of the Covid restrictions". And then explain your normal travel patterns which - hopefully - will tie in with your ticketing history.

NSB2017 · 30 Jan 2021

Totnes to Exmouth is about £10, isn't it? I'm not familiar with Unpaid Fare Notices but how did £10 (approx) become £106? Which is closer to two times a single ticket from Totnes to London, which I assume is a coincidence? I'm probably going down the wrong rabbit hole.

As I see it, there are a limited number of scenarios:

1) You have been the victim of identity theft.

2) The TOC assume you live in Totnes and have only been buying tickets for part regular journeys to and from London.

3) There is more to this than you are letting on.

I'm not making any accusations. But given your inability to answer basic questions on here and give a simple account of what has actually happened, I would suggest you sit down with someone and go through all of this (not necessarily a lawyer). Given the numbers involved, this would appear to be much more than a "simple" fare dodge investigation - and I wouldn't bet against the TOC preparing a case in the crown court for fraud. Unless you put down your version of events, in details, point by point, I fear you will lose badly in court.

Vespa · 30 Jan 2021

RuebenJohnson

The courts and appeals process deals with facts, not emotions, take out any feelings of "unfairness" "one time offence" " why me ?" "Unfair" etc

Follow the evidence, GWR don't care how you feel, they don't know you personally, you're just a name.
Request that GWR present the evidence and how they arrived at that figure, if you have evidence to prove you haven't committed the alleged offence present it to them or write to GWR an apologetic letter and ask to pay £106 +costs to close the matter, GWR may be inclined to accept if it's easier for them to do it this way than go to court.

Either way you want to put an end to this business as they most probably would too.

Follow the evidence not your feelings.

Bungle158 · 30 Jan 2021

Tazi Hupefi said:
In this example, if the TOC can prove fraud occurred - which could be considered in English law to have a very broad and "catch all" definition - Section 2 (or potentially Section(s) 3 or 11) of the Fraud Act 2006 (which I know TOCs are starting to use increasingly regularly) - offer the prosecution the ability to prosecute on indictment. This means the offence can be tried in the Magistrates' Court OR the Crown Court. The latter has almost zero time limit for prosecution. As the 6 month period has passed since the offences alleged, only an indictment can now be laid, and it can only be heard in the Crown Court.

The point ref means of trial and the passing of the 6 month time limit is something l should have mentioned in my previous post #35, on this subject. In seeking clarity, l sacrificed absolute accuracy.

MotCO · 30 Jan 2021

Fawkes Cat said:
I gave what I think was good advice quite some way up this thread. You've now given us a bit more information, so I can refine it a bit.

As I understand it, the position is this:

- you made a train journey from Totnes to Exmouth
- there was a long queue for the ticket machine at Totnes and you would have missed your train by the time you got to the front of the queue, so you didn't get a ticket
- at some point during your journey (or at the end of it) GWR found that you didn't have a ticket, so they took your name and (your mum's) address
- they then wrote to you to ask you to pay £106 to settle the matter
- you didn't agree that this was an appropriate settlement and have written further to them (and I think they have written back to you)
- GWR have now said that they have done some more research and believe that you should actually pay rather more than £2000 to settle this matter.
- you intend to get back in touch with GWR on Monday (for anyone coming late to this thread: it started on a Friday, and I write today on Saturday, so Monday is the next working day).

If I've got this right, then please read on for my thoughts. If I've got it wrong then please say and let's see if there is anything to change in the advice we give.

The place to start is where you are in law with the Totnes to Exmouth journey. The relevant law is railway byelaw 18(1). What the byelaw says is this:

(source - https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/media/1058/railway-byelaws.pdf: but the same byelaws apply to GWR)

It's worth reading this really closely: the byelaw doesn't say anything about not intending to pay the right fare: it just says that the traveller must have a valid ticket with them.

In your case, I think you accept that you didn't have a ticket when you got on the train at Totnes. You could have got a ticket at Totnes but didn't, so you have broken the byelaw. If GWR take you to court, you will be found guilty and will have to pay a fine, plus compensation (the train fare that wasn't paid), plus court costs, plus (possibly) prosecution costs. Realistically, this will come to more than £106.

You'll see that I don't say anything about whether the law is right or whether this is fair. And that's because it doesn't matter: the law is the law, and you are expected to abide by it. If you think that the law is wrong then you probably need to take it up with your MP - but that won't change anything in time for you not to lose this case at court. I know that this sounds harsh, but that's how things are.

So to summarise, if GWR end up taking you to court, you will lose and they will win. That means that you are not in a strong position to negotiate with them. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't negotiate - but that you may not be able to close this matter off for no more than the train fare.

When I last wrote, I suggested that the threat of £2,000 was mainly a tactic from GWR to get you to agree over the £106. I still think that, and (if I read the thread correctly before) one of the pieces that you have deleted said something about the £2,000 offer being open until some time in late February. So you do have a little time to negotiate, and even if I'm wrong about the £2,000 being tactical then if you're in touch with the railway on Monday (at the beginning of February) you will still have time to try another approach.

So this is my suggestion for what you should say to GWR on Monday:

- you should explain that having talked to people who know about these things (i.e. this forum) you now realise that you were wrong to travel from Totnes without buying a ticket
- now that you know that you were wrong, you will never do this again. You are also very sorry for all the inconvenience you have caused GWR
- so in the circumstances you wonder if it would be possible to settle for the £106 previously quoted

When you do this (whether you write, email or phone) you need to be very polite, and very apologetic. As I say, you are not in a strong position because if GWR take you to court they will win, and you need to try and prove to them that you won't make the same mistake again.

With a bit of luck, at this point GWR will agree: you will have to pay them the £106 but that will be the end of the matter. But what if they don't agree? At that point (and not before)
- go on to mention the alleged twenty journeys.
- Make it clear that you disagree with this as you have never made the journeys in question
- ask for details of the journeys that GWR think you made, as you will be producing evidence that you did not make the journeys

Again, you should continue being polite and apologetic. Remember that GWR can still take you to court and will win. But you need to show that if GWR want anything more than the £106 they will have to meet all the requirements of the law - and that includes them proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that you made those journeys without the right tickets.

Again, I would hope that at this point GWR will agree to settle for £106. If they don't, insist on them providing details of the journeys that they allege you haven't paid for. At that point you will need to look at each alleged journey and see what evidence you can find to show that GWR are wrong. We may be able to help with how you should do this, so if necessary ask us again.

In short - I don't see any way that you can resolve this without paying less than £106. But by being polite and apologetic to GWR, and making sure that they know that you won't make the same mistake again, I hope that GWR will agree to that settlement.

I think that Fawkes Cat has set out an excellent exposition of what the OP should do. Reading the OP's posts, some do come across as indignant; if you want the 'right' result, a bit of grovelling may be required - a case of needs must.

Two further issues to consider:
1) Have you used your Trainline account to buy tickets for anyone else (which I don't think is wrong)?
2) Is it possible they have confused you with someone else of the same name, or someone has used your name fraudulently?

island · 31 Jan 2021

NSB2017 said:
Totnes to Exmouth is about £10, isn't it? I'm not familiar with Unpaid Fare Notices but how did £10 (approx) become £106? Which is closer to two times a single ticket from Totnes to London, which I assume is a coincidence? I'm probably going down the wrong rabbit hole.

Unpaid fare notices attract fees when not paid within the period indicated on the notice.

GWR dispute regarding journeys between Totnes and Exmouth

Vespa

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Western Sunset

Established Member

pelli

Member

eoff

Member

Tazi Hupefi

Member

Transport Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

Haywain

Veteran Member

Tazi Hupefi

Member

reubenjohnson1

Member

Transport Offences | The Crown Prosecution Service

Mak1981

Member

Haywain

Veteran Member

6Gman

Established Member

NSB2017

Member

Vespa

Established Member

Bungle158

Member

MotCO

Established Member

island

Veteran Member