Debt Recovery Letter - Wrong Name but correct incident

Badgerwhisper · 7 Feb 2025

Hi and thanks in advance for any help,

My son (16 years old) has received a debt recovery and procecutions letter today from Nothern Rail - failed to produce a valid Railcard, and it's a Request for an Explanation.

This is entirely my fault, my son has learning difficulties and so struggles with purchasing tickets etc. and I sorted out the rail card for him when he started college. In my error I've purchased him a 16-25 rail card in August and not the 16-17 I should have. I've bought him a 16-17 monthly ticket (Sheffield to Wakefield) via trainline for November (as I had done in Sept & Oct), which allowed me to load the 16-25 railcard against it as evidence. He's never had an issue with this until he was challenged on a journey in November hence the letter. He showed his pass and details to the conductor who seems to have recorded his details incorrectly and so we've received a letter for a Henry and not a Harry (his birth certificate is Harry, he's never been known as a Henry). Once he informed me of the issue I purchased a 16-17 rail card that very day in November.

I fully admit this is an error on my behalf but with the name being incorrent where do we stand with this, what's the best way to proceed?

Many thanks.

RailUK Forums

6Gman · 7 Feb 2025

Badgerwhisper said:
Hi and thanks in advance for any help,

My son (16 years old) has received a debt recovery and procecutions letter today from Nothern Rail - failed to produce a valid Railcard, and it's a Request for an Explanation.

This is entirely my fault, my son has learning difficulties and so struggles with purchasing tickets etc. and I sorted out the rail card for him when he started college. In my error I've purchased him a 16-25 rail card in August and not the 16-17 I should have. I've bought him a 16-17 monthly ticket (Sheffield to Wakefield) via trainline for November (as I had done in Sept & Oct), which allowed me to load the 16-25 railcard against it as evidence. He's never had an issue with this until he was challenged on a journey in November hence the letter. He showed his pass and details to the conductor who seems to have recorded his details incorrectly and so we've received a letter for a Henry and not a Harry (his birth certificate is Harry, he's never been known as a Henry). Once he informed me of the issue I purchased a 16-17 rail card that very day in November.

I fully admit this is an error on my behalf but with the name being incorrent where do we stand with this, what's the best way to proceed?

Many thanks.

Firstly, I don't think the minor error of the name will make any difference.

Secondly, I would suggest drafting a letter along the following lines:

1. Explain concisely your son's learning difficulties and your mistake in purchasing the wrong railcard.
2. Apologise for the error, explain that you have corrected the matter (by buying the correct railcard) and that there will therefore be no further errors of this nature.
3. Ask if, under the circumstances, they would be willing to accept a settlement of the sum owing and their costs in investigating the matter.

They will then probably offer a financial settlement - full fare for the journey* + around £150.

* They may check the trainline account to see how many other instances there were and may then include these too in any settlement.

Post your draft reply on here and the experts will be able to give you further advice on tweaking.

30907 · 7 Feb 2025

Welcome to the forum. I see that 6Gman has replied on s8milar lines to this:

As you probably realise, this is a standard letter.

Forum member @Hadders regularly posts an online of a response which you would need to adapt:
1. to explain why you not Harry are replying (and to admit your error).
2. to point out that he is entitled to a 16-17 Saver (and now has one).
3. to explain that the retailer accepted your choice of Railcard.

I would be hopeful that this could be resolved at relatively low cost, though one dannot guarantee that.

Incidentally, does your son's difficulty entitle him to a Disabled Person's Railcard? might be worth investigating.

Badgerwhisper · 8 Feb 2025

Many thanks for very useful replies, very much appreciated. Copy of the draft letter below. H isn't entitled to a Disabled Person's Railcard, he has dyslexia and correspondance and online portals and the such, completely bamboozle him.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Ref:-------------------

I am responding on behalf of my son --------------- who has registered learning difficulties (severe dyslexia) and therefore struggles with correspondence.

We today received a letter from your Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit addressed to a -------------------- at our address, ----------------------------------------------------. We believe this maybe an error and indeed refers to Harry.

Because of his dyslexia Harry also struggles with online transactions so I have undertaken the purchasing of his railcard and I have incorrectly purchased a 16-25 railcard for my son. This is entirely my fault, for which I fully admit and apologise for.

A monthly pass ticket was purchased for Harry by me for November via trainline and the 16-17 railcard option was selected. The retailer (Trainline) allowed Harry's 16-25 railcard to be loaded against this monthly pass. Again, this is my error as I undertook these processes for Harry.

When we were notified of the error with the railcard, we immediately purchased another railcard (the 16-17 pass to which Harry is entitled) and there will be no further errors of this nature. I enclose evidence of both purchases below.

Apologies for this genuine mistake on my behalf. Under these circumstances, would you be willing to accept a settlement of the sum owing and their costs in investigating the matter?

Kind regards,

Mr ----------------------

TheTallOne · 8 Feb 2025

Minor point, but the last paragraph should say your costs not their costs, as you are writing to them. Or the costs would do too.

I’ll leave someone more familiar with these matters to comment on anything else.

Pushpit · 8 Feb 2025

I would add your son's date of birth and his age at the time of the incident. This is because TOCs have different policies based on age. I would also consider sending with it any useful evidence of disability (e.g. EHC Plan).

AlterEgo · 8 Feb 2025

I wouldn’t offer to settle. The son, has, according to the parent, done nothing wrong. I’d ask for the matter to be disposed of with a warning given the compelling circumstances.

Haywain · 8 Feb 2025

AlterEgo said:
The son, has, according to the parent, done nothing wrong.

The son used a ticket with a discount to which they were not entitled, and which was not valid for that reason.

AlterEgo · 8 Feb 2025

Haywain said:
The son used a ticket with a discount to which they were not entitled, and which was not valid for that reason.

But he has learning difficulties and cannot purchase his own ticket. No, the son should not be settling the matter for money. This is as good a case as there could be for asking for the matter to be written off as a gesture of goodwill. The TOC isn’t going to prosecute a minor with a learning difficulty. The parent has no criminal liability for what has happened.

Elecman · 9 Feb 2025

AlterEgo said:
But he has learning difficulties and cannot purchase his own ticket. No, the son should not be settling the matter for money. This is as good a case as there could be for asking for the matter to be written off as a gesture of goodwill. The TOC isn’t going to prosecute a minor with a learning difficulty. The parent has no criminal liability for what has happened.

I’d agree but as this Northern I seriously doubt that will happen ?

AlterEgo · 9 Feb 2025

Elecman said:
I’d agree but as this Northern I seriously doubt that will happen ?

It's in their prosecution policy:

6.1 Where appropriate Northern will seek to divert young people away from the Criminal Justice System. However in applying this policy we will not compromise on the safety of our passengers and our employees. This aspect of a case involving a young person will form part of our consideration when applying the public interest test.

It is entirely appropriate to ask them to rely on this and not prosecute the OP's son for the compelling reasons outlined.

Hadders · 9 Feb 2025

One thing I'm a bit confused about is where you say Trainline allowed the 16-25 Railcard to be loaded against the monthly pass. Season tickets cannot be discounted with a 16-25 railcard but a discount is allowed with a 16-17 railcard

I think what actually happened is the purchased a monthly season ticket with a 16-17 Railcard discount applied, but a 16-25 railcard was held.

Badgerwhisper · 9 Feb 2025

Hadders said:
One thing I'm a bit confused about is where you say Trainline allowed the 16-25 Railcard to be loaded against the monthly pass. Season tickets cannot be discounted with a 16-25 railcard but a discount is allowed with a 16-17 railcard

I think what actually happened is the purchased a monthly season ticket with a 16-17 Railcard discount applied, but a 16-25 railcard was held.

That's correct yes, and the 16-25 railcard was loaded on to Trainline. The railcard/tickets had been checked by conductors numerous times until this particular incident.

Hadders · 9 Feb 2025

Badgerwhisper said:
That's correct yes, and the 16-25 railcard was loaded on to Trainline. The railcard/tickets had been checked by conductors numerous times until this particular incident.

There's no discount on a season ticket with a 16-25 railcard but there is one with a 16-17 railcard. You've applied a 16-17 railcard discount that gives the discount but this railcard wasn't held because you'd inadvertently purchased a 16-15 railcard. (Online ticket sites will allow any railcard discount to be applied because it's perfectly fine to buy tickets for other people. For example, I've purchaeed tickets with Senior, Disabled and F&F discounts applied yet I own none of these railcards. That's fine bacuase the tickets were used by people who do possess the appropriate railcard. The issue is that Trainline will often 'remember' the last railcard used and apply it to future purchases)

I think you need to say something like:

A monthly season ticket was purchased for Harry by me for November via trainline with a 16-17 Railcard discounted selected. Unfortunately when I purchased a railcard for Harry I inadvertently purchased a 16-25 railcard instead of the 16-17 railcard. This was a simple administrative error on my part for which I apologise.

I've used administrative error as big companies often hide behind administrative errors, I'm not saying it will be successful but I do think it helps to explain!

A couple of other things:

As the correct railcard wasn't held arguably the full adult cost if the season ticket is due. The 16-17 railcard gives a 50% discount. You could offer to pay this difference, although I wouldn't offer administrative fees but see what they say.
Minor terminology - it's a monthly season ticket, not a pass.

Good luck with getting this sorted, do let us know how you get on.

Badgerwhisper · 9 Feb 2025

Hadders said:
There's no discount on a season ticket with a 16-25 railcard but there is one with a 16-17 railcard. You've applied a 16-17 railcard discount that gives the discount but this railcard wasn't held because you'd inadvertently purchased a 16-15 railcard. (Online ticket sites will allow any railcard discount to be applied because it's perfectly fine to buy tickets for other people. For example, I've purchaeed tickets with Senior, Disabled and F&F discounts applied yet I own none of these railcards. That's fine bacuase the tickets were used by people who do possess the appropriate railcard. The issue is that Trainline will often 'remember' the last railcard used and apply it to future purchases)

I think you need to say something like:

A monthly season ticket was purchased for Harry by me for November via trainline with a 16-17 Railcard discounted selected. Unfortunately when I purchased a railcard for Harry I inadvertently purchased a 16-25 railcard instead of the 16-17 railcard. This was a simple administrative error on my part for which I apologise.

I've used administrative error as big companies often hide behind administrative errors, I'm not saying it will be successful but I do think it helps to explain!

A couple of other things:

As the correct railcard wasn't held arguably the full adult cost if the season ticket is due. The 16-17 railcard gives a 50% discount. You could offer to pay this difference, although I wouldn't offer administrative fees but see what they say.

Minor terminology - it's a monthly season ticket, not a pass.

Good luck with getting this sorted, do let us know how you get on.

Will do and thanks for all the advice (and from everyone else). Much appreciated.

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 11:27

Hi all,

I originally posted the above thread back in February (sorry I couldn't work out how to repopen that thread to comment). My 16 year old son has now received a letter requesting his attendance at an interview, it has been delivered directly to him with no statement about parents/guardians attending. He's obvioulsy very distraught about it, but is it even legal to send such a letter, would he not have to be 18 to attend by himself?

skyhigh · Friday at 11:30

Badgerwhisper said:
Hi all,

I originally posted the above thread back in February (sorry I couldn't work out how to repopen that thread to comment). My 16 year old son has now received a letter requesting his attendance at an interview, it has been delivered directly to him with no statement about parents/guardians attending. He's obvioulsy very distraught about it, but is it even legal to send such a letter, would he not have to be 18 to attend by himself?

Did they definitely get your reply to their initial letter?

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 11:50

skyhigh said:
Did they definitely get your reply to their initial letter?

I didn't get any acknowledgement of receipt of my email in response to the letter. It seems impossibe to be able to speak to anybody it's all via the [email protected] email account.

Sherby976 · Friday at 12:00

My advice would be to ring them after you have sent the email so they can check their mailbox to see if its been received incase there are any spelling mistakes or issues with their servers. And if they dont have it resend it whilst your on with them until they confirm they have it.

Fawkes Cat · Friday at 12:02

Badgerwhisper said:
I didn't get any acknowledgement of receipt of my email in response to the letter. It seems impossibe to be able to speak to anybody it's all via the [email protected] email account.

In the circumstances, it looks as if email isn't a reliable form of communication. So my suggestion would be to now communicate by both email (for speed) and Royal Mail tracked delivery, which is expensive but means that you can prove that letters have got to their destination. This does mean doing everything twice but you need to get a result so the effort should be worth while.

So within that context, I think you now want to write to Northern, enclosing a copy of your previous email. Enquire politely whether they received it: emphasise that your son is under 18: ask if they still require to interview him: confirm that if they do then you will be attending with him: state that all further correspondence should be sent to you as your son's parent.

My guess is that for some reason Northern have not taken your previous email into account - whether that means that it never got to them, or that they lost it I wouldn't know. An assertive (i.e. firm but polite) letter now may very well see Northern moving away from wanting an interview to being prepared to offer an out of court settlement.

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 12:05

I've now managed to speak to somebody in their court proceedings/prosecutions team as it was the only option that didn't default to an automated message. They couldn't do much other than redirect me to the email address. What they did tell me was that my son's age was recorded at being 28 on their system, could this be the explanation? Such a mess, wrong name and wrong age. Thanks Sherby, I will do that.

John R · Friday at 12:07

It's worth noting that Northern is now out of time to prosecute - although that would be highly unlikely for a 16 year old anyway.

Fawkes Cat · Friday at 12:07

Badgerwhisper said:
What they did tell me was that my son's age was recorded at being 28 on their system, could this be the explanation?

Even if not the explanation, this will be at least part of the problem. So when you write, enclose evidence of your son's age - birth certificates, driving licences and passports are good for this but you may have other documentation to send them copies of instead.

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 12:08

Fawkes Cat said:
In the circumstances, it looks as if email isn't a reliable form of communication. So my suggestion would be to now communicate by both email (for speed) and Royal Mail tracked delivery, which is expensive but means that you can prove that letters have got to their destination. This does mean doing everything twice but you need to get a result so the effort should be worth while.

So within that context, I think you now want to write to Northern, enclosing a copy of your previous email. Enquire politely whether they received it: emphasise that your son is under 18: ask if they still require to interview him: confirm that if they do then you will be attending with him: state that all further correspondence should be sent to you as your son's parent.

My guess is that for some reason Northern have not taken your previous email into account - whether that means that it never got to them, or that they lost it I wouldn't know. An assertive (i.e. firm but polite) letter now may very well see Northern moving away from wanting an interview to being prepared to offer an out of court settlement.

Good suggestion thanks.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 12:09 ==

John R said:
It's worth noting that Northern is now out of time to prosecute - although that would be highly unlikely for a 16 year old anyway.

Really, where do I find details on this please John?

jfollows · Friday at 12:16

Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions of justices’ clerks, and to matters connected therewith, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.

www.legislation.gov.uk

127Limitation of time.
(1)Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose.

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 12:23

jfollows said:
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980

An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to the jurisdiction of, and the practice and procedure before, magistrates’ courts and the functions of justices’ clerks, and to matters connected therewith, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Thank you.

Watershed · Friday at 12:33

It's worth noting that this 6 month limitation only applies to less serious offences which are known as 'summary only' (i.e. they can only be heard in the Magistrates' Court). This includes things like a breach of the Railway Byelaws (e.g. Byelaw 18 - entering a train without a valid ticket) or the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (e.g. section 5(3)(a) - travelling without having paid the fare, with intent to avoid payment).

There is no time limit for bringing a prosecution of a more serious offence categorised as 'indictable' or 'triable either way' - these must/can (respectively) be heard in the Crown Court, usually with a jury. The only kind of indictable offence in this situation which would fall into that category would be an allegation of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act.

The bar for proving fraud by false representation is very high and I would doubt that it is met in this case. Moreover, train companies generally don't bring fraud prosecutions because it falls outside the scope of the 'sausage factory' of summary only prosecutions they bring in the Magistrates' Court. It would typically require them to involve a solicitor and/or barrister and would necessitate evidence of intent which they often lack.

For those reasons, and others, I would not be overly worried about the prospects of a fraud prosecution. Nevertheless, I think it's important you are aware of the position in case they should refer to the Fraud Act.

pelli · Friday at 12:55

Badgerwhisper said:
I didn't get any acknowledgement of receipt of my email in response to the letter. It seems impossibe to be able to speak to anybody it's all via the [email protected] email account.

I note that you have typed "DPRU" here when the correct order of letters is "DRPU" (Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit) - please check you're using the correct one when sending your emails.

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 13:59

pelli said:
I note that you have typed "DPRU" here when the correct order of letters is "DRPU" (Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit) - please check you're using the correct one when sending your emails.

Thanks! Seems dyslexia runs in the family. I've double checked and the original email went to [email protected] so that should have gone to the correct email address. I will post copies as well however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 14:01 ==

Watershed said:
It's worth noting that this 6 month limitation only applies to less serious offences which are known as 'summary only' (i.e. they can only be heard in the Magistrates' Court). This includes things like a breach of the Railway Byelaws (e.g. Byelaw 18 - entering a train without a valid ticket) or the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 (e.g. section 5(3)(a) - travelling without having paid the fare, with intent to avoid payment).

There is no time limit for bringing a prosecution of a more serious offence categorised as 'indictable' or 'triable either way' - these must/can (respectively) be heard in the Crown Court, usually with a jury. The only kind of indictable offence in this situation which would fall into that category would be an allegation of fraud by false representation under the Fraud Act.

The bar for proving fraud by false representation is very high and I would doubt that it is met in this case. Moreover, train companies generally don't bring fraud prosecutions because it falls outside the scope of the 'sausage factory' of summary only prosecutions they bring in the Magistrates' Court. It would typically require them to involve a solicitor and/or barrister and would necessitate evidence of intent which they often lack.

For those reasons, and others, I would not be overly worried about the prospects of a fraud prosecution. Nevertheless, I think it's important you are aware of the position in case they should refer to the Fraud Act.

Thank you.

Haywain · Friday at 14:24

Badgerwhisper said:
Thanks! Seems dyslexia runs in the family. I've double checked and the original email went to [email protected] so that should have gone to the correct email address. I will post copies as well however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 14:01 ==

That email address, as typed, is wrong - it should be northernrailway, not northen without the ‘r’.

Debt Recovery Letter - Wrong Name but correct incident

Member

Attachments

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Veteran Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Established Member

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

New Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

127Limitation of time.​

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

127Limitation of time.