Debt Recovery Letter - Wrong Name but correct incident

WesternLancer · Friday at 15:01

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 ==

Thank you.

If you post copies (you should do this as well as e-mail) then if you ask for 'tracked postage' at the post office counter it is not that much more expensive IIRC than normal postage rates - unlike the much more expensive 'guaranteed next day delivery' the staff at my post office always try to sell me....

Good luck in resolving all this - as you can see - people here will be happy to help you

RailUK Forums

Titfield · Friday at 15:22

The Royal Mail options are:

1. Standard post but you can ask for proof of posting ie that you posted a letter. (Standard Postal Rates)
2. Signed For Delivery (the former recorded delivery) where a signature on delivery is obtained. (Additional Fee)
3. Tracked Delivery (where a signature on delivery is obtained and the letters progress can be tracked) (Additional Fee).
4. Special Delivery where the letter is guaranteed to be delivered the next working day by 9am or 1pm (More expensive additional fee).

I tend to use signed for as that provides proof of delivery. Unless a letter is time critical then IMHO the cost of Special Delivery is not justified and the need for tracking doesn't provide a benefit.

https://www.royalmail.com/sending/uk

Badgerwhisper · Friday at 16:14

WesternLancer said:
If you post copies (you should do this as well as e-mail) then if you ask for 'tracked postage' at the post office counter it is not that much more expensive IIRC than normal postage rates - unlike the much more expensive 'guaranteed next day delivery' the staff at my post office always try to sell me....

Good luck in resolving all this - as you can see - people here will be happy to help you

Thanks and yes, this forum has been a life saver from day 1 and it's readily appreciated.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 16:14 ==

Titfield said:
The Royal Mail options are:

1. Standard post but you can ask for proof of posting ie that you posted a letter. (Standard Postal Rates)
2. Signed For Delivery (the former recorded delivery) where a signature on delivery is obtained. (Additional Fee)
3. Tracked Delivery (where a signature on delivery is obtained and the letters progress can be tracked) (Additional Fee).
4. Special Delivery where the letter is guaranteed to be delivered the next working day by 9am or 1pm (More expensive additional fee).

I tend to use signed for as that provides proof of delivery. Unless a letter is time critical then IMHO the cost of Special Delivery is not justified and the need for tracking doesn't provide a benefit.

https://www.royalmail.com/sending/uk

Thanks

Mcr Warrior · Friday at 17:45

Titfield said:
The Royal Mail options are:

1. Standard post but you can ask for proof of posting ie that you posted a letter. (Standard Postal Rates) £1.70 - First class letter up to 100g.
2. Signed For Delivery (the former recorded delivery) where a signature on delivery is obtained. (Additional Fee) Priced at £3.60 for a First class letter up to 100g.

Titfield said:
3. Tracked Delivery (where a signature on delivery is obtained and the letters progress can be tracked) (Additional Fee). £5.60 for 'Tracked 24' service with signature, for a large letter up to 750g.
4. Special Delivery where the letter is guaranteed to be delivered the next working day by 9am or 1pm (More expensive additional fee). £38.95 for 9 a.m. or £8.75 for 1 p.m. guaranteed delivery - Letter up to 100g.

Have appended the prices at the currently applicable Royal Mail rates. There are other more costly variants for heavier/bigger letters, and option 4 is even more expensive for Saturday delivery.

Badgerwhisper · Saturday at 15:55

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

I missed this yesterday and you are absolutley correct. I've sent the original email in to the ether it seems (although received no bounce back). That could expain at lot, and hopefully they will take in to account the original evidence/response. Lesson learnt and will always make sure I also post such correspondence in future. Funnily enough (not that anything is particularly funny about any of this) I received a bounce back from the email I sent yesterday as the letter from Northern Rail contained a typo, they state their address as [email protected]. Looks like we're both at it. Anyway, postal copies have been sent and so I'll see what they come back with. Thanks all.

BingMan · Sunday at 08:57

6Gman said:
Firstly, I don't think the minor error of the name will make any difference.

It is not a minor error. The OP, or his son, committed an offence, under the Postal Services Act 2000, by opening the letter at all. It should have been returned as "not known" at this address.

I had a similar occurrence: a letter addresses to Dereck Bingman and I am David Bingman. Sent it back and heard no more.

Haywain · Sunday at 08:59

BingMan said:
The OP, or his son, committed an offence by opening the letter at all. It should have been returned as "not known" at this address

Nonsense.

Gonzoiku · Sunday at 09:36

Haywain said:
Nonsense.

You forgot the initial "Utter"

GZ

styles · Sunday at 10:01

I can't see how a fraud by false representation charge could be made for this in any case.

Fraud by false representation requires dishonesty:

A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Fraud Act 2006

An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It's quite clear that OP and their son did not know their representation to be false. After all, the railcards are the same price and the son is entitled to both, so they clearly would've just bought the correct one had they known. It's self-evidently a mistake, which hasn't actually been made for any financial benefit to the son, or loss to the railway (except in the time now spent on dealing with this).

Fawkes Cat · Sunday at 10:16

styles said:
I can't see how a fraud by false representation charge could be made for this in any case.

Fraud by false representation requires dishonesty:

Fraud Act 2006

An Act to make provision for, and in connection with, criminal liability for fraud and obtaining services dishonestly.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It's quite clear that OP and their son did not know their representation to be false. After all, the railcards are the same price and the son is entitled to both, so they clearly would've just bought the correct one had they known. It's self-evidently a mistake, which hasn't actually been made for any financial benefit to the son, or loss to the railway (except in the time now spent on dealing with this).

Given that it now looks as if the initial response email didn't reach Northern, I think we can be fairly certain that once the information does get to them, and Northern understand the age of the customer and their learning difficulties, then the matter will be settled for no more than the fare due - and quite possibly either the difference in fares or nothing at all.

I hope the OP will keep us in touch: cases like this give us useful insight into how train companies deal with things and that helps us give good advice to other people.

Badgerwhisper · Sunday at 20:02

Fawkes Cat said:
Given that it now looks as if the initial response email didn't reach Northern, I think we can be fairly certain that once the information does get to them, and Northern understand the age of the customer and their learning difficulties, then the matter will be settled for no more than the fare due - and quite possibly either the difference in fares or nothing at all.

I hope the OP will keep us in touch: cases like this give us useful insight into how train companies deal with things and that helps us give good advice to other people.

For sure, I'll update with the reponses received. It's the least I can do in return for all the invaluable guidance and support I've received on this forum!

Sherby976 · Tuesday at 08:43

Did you manage to get the email sent in the end?

Badgerwhisper · Tuesday at 19:47

So, I've had a bit of an email exchange with one of their Fraud Investigators and we've come to an agreement. Ordinarily at the very least they would have requested the full payment (£450+) and the admin charge of £50. But because of my son's age and the admin errors (they did indeed have the incorrect age recorded as well as the wrong name and were as such writing to him as an adult over 18) they requested the difference in fares which was £150 (over 97 trips). I agreed to pay that to bring the whole affair to a conclusion.

styles · Tuesday at 19:52

Badgerwhisper said:
So, I've had a bit of an email exchange with one of their Fraud Investigators and we've come to an agreement. Ordinarily at the very least they would have requested the full payment (£450+) and the admin charge of £50. But because of my son's age and the admin errors (they did indeed have the incorrect age recorded as well as the wrong name and were as such writing to him as an adult over 18) they requested the difference in fares which was £150 (over 97 trips). I agreed to pay that to bring the whole affair to a conclusion.

Couldn't ask for a better resolution than that really, even if it was basically an admin error caused by a confusing system.

£150 to make this whole thing go away is a 'bargain'.

Good work!

Watershed · Tuesday at 19:59

styles said:
Couldn't ask for a better resolution than that really, even if it was basically an admin error caused by a confusing system.

£150 to make this whole thing go away is a 'bargain'.

Good work!

I'm glad the matter is resolved, but really the OP shouldn't be having to pay anything. Their son was entitled to get a 16-17 Saver and thus the discounts that were applied were only wrong in a 'paperwork' sense as the wrong Railcard was bought.

It is highly unreasonable for the OP to be charged anything to resolve this matter given the context and especially their son's learning difficulties.

The fact that Northern feel it's appropriate to 'profit' (charge 16-25 fares rather than 16-17 ones) in this case speaks volumes as to their approach. There seems to be no indication they have picked anything up from the SJP miscarriage of justice, or the recent ORR review.

Of course none of that changes the strict legal position, which is that the 16-17 Saver discounted tickets were not valid because of the lack of the accompanying Railcard. But equally Northern could not have pursued the OP and I cannot imagine even they would stoop to the level of bringing proceedings against the son.

styles · Tuesday at 20:09

Watershed said:
I'm glad the matter is resolved, but really the OP shouldn't be having to pay anything. Their son was entitled to get a 16-17 Saver and thus the discounts that were applied were only wrong in a 'paperwork' sense as the wrong Railcard was bought.

It is highly unreasonable for the OP to be charged anything to resolve this matter given the context and especially their son's learning difficulties.

The fact that Northern feel it's appropriate to 'profit' (charge 16-25 fares rather than 16-17 ones) in this case speaks volumes as to their approach. There seems to be no indication they have picked anything up from the SJP miscarriage of justice, or the recent ORR review.

Of course none of that changes the strict legal position, which is that the 16-17 Saver discounted tickets were not valid because of the lack of the accompanying Railcard. But equally Northern could not have pursued the OP and I cannot imagine even they would stoop to the level of bringing proceedings against the son.

I agree that in principle they shouldn't have to pay anything.

But as many mods on this forum will remind us, traveling without a valid ticket is a strict liability offence. It ultimately just doesn't matter whether they have learning difficulties, or they were eligible for the railcard they purchased tickets under and the railcard they bought in error was the same price, or whatever.

I don't imagine, like you, that they would bring proceedings, but it is the legal position, like you say.

All this sad story illustrates is the need for reform to this system.

Would I argue my moral position on this matter for the sake of £150 and the risk of a criminal record? Absolutely not. That's basically what it boils down to.

£150 to settle the matter of 97 offences is a 'bargain' frankly.

furlong · Tuesday at 20:54

Once you've settled, if you wish to take this any further, I suggest contacting Transport Focus along the lines of Watershed's comments to see if they're willing to take on this case. The suggestion is that it might be another example of a train company abusing its privileged position in law.

AlterEgo · Tuesday at 20:58

Watershed said:
I'm glad the matter is resolved, but really the OP shouldn't be having to pay anything. Their son was entitled to get a 16-17 Saver and thus the discounts that were applied were only wrong in a 'paperwork' sense as the wrong Railcard was bought.

It is highly unreasonable for the OP to be charged anything to resolve this matter given the context and especially their son's learning difficulties.

The fact that Northern feel it's appropriate to 'profit' (charge 16-25 fares rather than 16-17 ones) in this case speaks volumes as to their approach. There seems to be no indication they have picked anything up from the SJP miscarriage of justice, or the recent ORR review.

Of course none of that changes the strict legal position, which is that the 16-17 Saver discounted tickets were not valid because of the lack of the accompanying Railcard. But equally Northern could not have pursued the OP and I cannot imagine even they would stoop to the level of bringing proceedings against the son.

Entirely agreed. The son cannot have accrued a civil debt and they would not have prosecutes him under their own policy. Peak grifting of a concerned parent by Northern. A pox upon their house.

Debt Recovery Letter - Wrong Name but correct incident

WesternLancer

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Titfield

Established Member

Badgerwhisper

Member

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member

Badgerwhisper

Member

BingMan

Member

Haywain

Veteran Member

Gonzoiku

Member

styles

Member

Fraud Act 2006

Fawkes Cat

Established Member

Fraud Act 2006

Badgerwhisper

Member

Sherby976

New Member

Badgerwhisper

Member

styles

Member

Watershed

Veteran Member

styles

Member

furlong

Established Member

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas