Accused of avoiding 15 fares on trains

[sansyy]

This isn't necessarily true. They are often "fishing expeditions".

If the Railcard was purchased at a station, for example, it's quite likely they *won't* have evidence there was one. it's usual for them to just go looking for purchases that *might* be similar.

If the OP was eligible for the tickets it should be fairly easy for them to prove it, unless they paid for a Railcard at a station with cash and lost the receipt.

This is probably most likely the cause, I find it very unlikely they’d specify 15 tickets that were short fared considering how specific that is. Could also have been mistaken for the change of origin station in September as short faring too but probably unlikely.

 

[Egg Centric]

Why is Chiltern based in Sunderland and prone to exclamation marks?

If this tosh is genuine (first people I've seen outside of this forum to highlight the fascinating definition of a fine) then I agree with @furlong that they are jumping head first into a post office situation, are they stupid?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Why is Chiltern based in Sunderland

Because that’s where Arriva are based: Chiltern belongs to Arriva.

If this tosh is genuine

I think it’s interesting that we have seen two of these today: as both recipients confirm that they were legitimately picked up for one incident each, that says to me that it’s more likely than not that the letters really are from Chiltern.

On the issue of how the OP should respond, I agree that they should first thoroughly check their ticket buying records. If they are certain that apart from the one issue that brought them to the railway’s attention (‘the trigger incident’ is a term I have just made up) there’s nothing out of order, then they can choose a response based on their appetite for a battle and desire to keep out of court. So if not being in court and risking a conviction is critical to their life plans, it may be worth paying up to make the problem go away. But the OP would also be reasonable to respond offering to settle for the trigger incident and taking their chance in court. On that line it would be down to the railway: they might accept that settlement. Or they might prosecute the trigger incident. Or they might pursue all 15 occurrences as fraud.

For completeness, if the OP does realise that the 15 alleged incidents did happen, then accepting and paying the offer made would probably be the best option.

 

[Sultan]

Have you been given a list of the 15 occasions, with dates and amounts paid? I fail to see how anyone could be invited to respond if they haven't been told exactly what they are responding to. How do you know it's a full and complete list they have (and some of your responses refer to journeys they are not aware of)?

Would it be reasonable to request such details (if they haven't provided them already)?

 

[Haywain]

The letter you received stated that a Single Justice Procedure Notice was included in the pack and this should give a date by which you must enter a plea to the charge. What is that date?

 

[GreatRunner]

So again just to clarify I am asking if any of those tickets you bought had any sort of discount on them, you keep saying you paid correct amount and full amount, that's not quite answering what I'm asking, just to absolutely clarify no tickets had any sort of discount on them that you were entitled to at all?

And also you have no refunded tickets at all on trainline?

Nope no discount on any sort of ticket before august 25th ( which is the day after I bought my railcard ) I can show this with the emails, when I had added a railcard they state 'dont forget your railcard' whereas those tickets without railcard made no mention.

& just to clarify any ticket before railcard purchase did NOT have any sort of railcard or any other sort of discount.
Additionally, I had refunded 3 tickets, however I can account for this with evidence I did not make my intended travel, I had attached this evidence in my email to them

Just a point here, you admit that you avoided one fare to save money, and two posts up you say that you are a law student. I’d suggest those two facts don’t sit comfortably, and that you should do everything possible to avoid prosecution if you have any intention of pursuing a career in the legal profession.

Yes I am aware, I am aware I done a very stupid action, however the fact they are charging £1,000 upwards is absurd, this is based on the fact they assume I have avoided 15 other correct fares

If they don’t know you have a railcard could they be looking at 15 journeys made in September and October?

I only made 8 journeys in September - October , all journeys I carried my railcard with me because it was on my phone and I do recall having inspectors on nearly all journeys.

I think you need to check your records very carefully. If they say they have evidence you have fare dodged on 15 occasions, then they will have the evidence. That can only be that they think you were donutting or the tickets your purchased were with a discount and they do not have a record of a valid Railcard. If all the tickets on your account were full fare through journeys (no donutting) then they wouldn't have the evidence to suggest you have 15 violations. So you do need to check very carefully.
Is there any way someone else has bought tickets on your account or you have bought them for others?

Nope, I've only ever bought tickets for my ex-partner, who I had sent the tickets to, but this was on 2 occasions in November, we did have inspectors on our train and everything went fine.

I am 100% positive I've paid the correct adult fare, otherwise I wouldn't even think about taking this so far.

 

[Fermiboson]

I agree, I think this kind of thing is a sort of harassment.

If they can't or won't set out the "evidence" they claim to have, then it's nothing to do with recovering lost revenue or deterring fare evasion, it's just an operation to extract money using the fear of a criminal conviction as a lever. That's intimidation isn't it?

As I’ve said in another thread, there is a common law principle covering this; it’s called lawful act duress, defined as a situation where one party to a contract (which is essentially what an out of court settlement is) uses an advantage in negotiating position (in this case the knowledge of a criminal act, and the ability to prosecute such) to make unconscionable demands (paying for tickets they have legitimately purchased) so that the counterparty has no choice but to accept the contract. This usually arises in commercial cases. Unfortunately for OP, the closest case I’ve been able to find to rail fare irregularities is Al Saif Group [2022], where it is explicitly stated in the judgement that the bar for lawful act duress to invalidate a contract is very very high, even if a credible threat of criminal conviction is used, especially when the counterparty is actually guilty of said criminal offense. OP would be unlikely to get out of it with this argument, and in any case the solicitor fees required would far exceed a thousand pounds.

That said, other threads seem to indicate that the typical fine paid for a single ticketing offence hovers around 600 to 800 pounds. If the OP can handle a conviction which will be spent after a year or so, would it be cheaper for them to just let it go to prosecution, as unpalatable as that sounds?

 

[GreatRunner]

This isn't necessarily true. They are often "fishing expeditions".

If the Railcard was purchased at a station, for example, it's quite likely they *won't* have evidence there was one. it's usual for them to just go looking for purchases that *might* be similar.

If the OP was eligible for the tickets it should be fairly easy for them to prove it, unless they paid for a Railcard at a station with cash and lost the receipt.

Nope I have bought the railcard online whilst in the Rome airport lol, I have my e-mail receipt and bank statement and order confirmation to show for this, they have since asked for this

You'd think they might have learned from the Post Office scandal by now - I think it's becoming more widely understood that this sort of letter appears to be quite improper and so could come back to bite them in future. A mere assertion that you "may" have avoided fares on unspecified other occasions provides little basis for a settlement. What if, like the Post Office, they are wrong (and may even possess evidence proving they are wrong which they just didn't bother looking for as they must) but you pay up anyway just to make the whole thing go away? The letter should have been accompanied by a schedule setting out the basis for the claim breaking down the amount and giving you the option of accepting or rejecting each line item. We have seen some train companies do this sort of thing the right way like that and there's no reason this one should be any different. We've also seen examples of companies mistakenly counting the same journey more than once when generating totals.

Ask for a detailed breakdown of the amount so that you can provide a response.

Yes this is what I was thinking about, we did go through the PO scandal last Friday in Uni, I will be meeting with one of my lecturers later today to discuss my next course of action. Some others did suggest they may be scaring me into paying an absurd amount, by threatening one charge they have me nailed for, which fair enough they do. However, the basis of the sum is largely inflated.

I have asked for a detailed breakdown , though they replied asking me for my railcard...

 

[GreatRunner]

Because that’s where Arriva are based: Chiltern belongs to Arriva.


I think it’s interesting that we have seen two of these today: as both recipients confirm that they were legitimately picked up for one incident each, that says to me that it’s more likely than not that the letters really are from Chiltern.

On the issue of how the OP should respond, I agree that they should first thoroughly check their ticket buying records. If they are certain that apart from the one issue that brought them to the railway’s attention (‘the trigger incident’ is a term I have just made up) there’s nothing out of order, then they can choose a response based on their appetite for a battle and desire to keep out of court. So if not being in court and risking a conviction is critical to their life plans, it may be worth paying up to make the problem go away. But the OP would also be reasonable to respond offering to settle for the trigger incident and taking their chance in court. On that line it would be down to the railway: they might accept that settlement. Or they might prosecute the trigger incident. Or they might pursue all 15 occurrences as fraud.

For completeness, if the OP does realise that the 15 alleged incidents did happen, then accepting and paying the offer made would probably be the best option.

I would not be even thinking about pursuing this if I had any little belief that I may have 'frauded' 15 fares, but I have never been so sure of something in my life, I do want this to go away, but as I stress the total of the sum is based on the fact they have included 'avoided' fares, only of which one I have avoided and am sure of. Any other ticket was purchased correctly. I'll post if any updates, will be in classes and library today so, do excuse my time taken to reply guys.

Also thank you to everyone interacting with the thread, I really appreciate the help and clarity you guys are giving

 

[WesternLancer]

That said, other threads seem to indicate that the typical fine paid for a single ticketing offence hovers around 600 to 800 pounds. If the OP can handle a conviction which will be spent after a year or so, would it be cheaper for them to just let it go to prosecution, as unpalatable as that sounds?

This was indeed my thought earlier on - but the OP has since indicated they are seeking to pursue employment in a legal field so the consequences of this are likely to be more difficult for them, and the incentive not to go to court and lose is much higher given that it may in future have adverse career consequences that could be quite considerable (and can not be entirely predictable since it's a future situation ref employment that the OP needs to be mindful of).

I do hope the OP can get the Train company to properly engage with the info they are seeking to supply to show that their offence is an isolated incident. I wish the OP luck here. The sum being asked for is disproportionate to the error of judgment the OP has made, in my view.

 

[GreatRunner]

Have you been given a list of the 15 occasions, with dates and amounts paid? I fail to see how anyone could be invited to respond if they haven't been told exactly what they are responding to. How do you know it's a full and complete list they have (and some of your responses refer to journeys they are not aware of)?

Would it be reasonable to request such details (if they haven't provided them already)?

Yes they said I could ask for clarification, which I have ( not yet received )
I'd assume the fact they can see my purchase history as mentioned in the letter
"Following you being spoken to; the Economic Crime & Fraud Unit submitted a data access request Under Schedule 2 Part

1 Paragraph 2 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR Article 6 (1) (d), to various rail ticket retailers, which has revealed that you may have avoided your correct rail fare on 15 other occasions, from April 2023 to October 2023 "

The letter states
" This sum includes the unpaid fare(s) and the full costs involved with the administration of this case incurred in its recovery. This amount is non-negotiable as it is entirely in your favour.


The sum quoted is a properly costed assessment of the average amount of time and cost needed to properly process a typical case of this kind and is not intended to represent a punitive sum. "
I cannot begin to think how time + cost would amount to upwards of £1,000...

The letter you received stated that a Single Justice Procedure Notice was included in the pack and this should give a date by which you must enter a plea to the charge. What is that date?

21/02/2024 , I will be hopefully posting the pack back in the mail today.

 

[Fermiboson]

I would not be even thinking about pursuing this if I had any little belief that I may have 'frauded' 15 fares, but I have never been so sure of something in my life, I do want this to go away, but as I stress the total of the sum is based on the fact they have included 'avoided' fares, only of which one I have avoided and am sure of. Any other ticket was purchased correctly. I'll post if any updates, will be in classes and library today so, do excuse my time taken to reply guys.

Also thank you to everyone interacting with the thread, I really appreciate the help and clarity you guys are giving

Have you contacted your student union for help? Most universities should have confidential advisors for this kind of thing. They may be able to help with the monetary side of things.

 

[GreatRunner]

Have you contacted your student union for help? Most universities should have confidential advisors for this kind of thing. They may be able to help with the monetary side of things.

No but I will be going down later to see what I can do, I do have the funds, with the help of a friend, but will be looking at all my options

 

[Sultan]

If you are 100% sure that apart from the 8th August you had a valid ticket for all journeys (not necessarily just the 15 they have mentioned), then I would follow up with an insistence that they provide full details of the evidence they have regarding the 15 journeys. Without that information how can you possibly defend something for which you don't know the offence. It's akin to driving the entire length of the M6, receiving a speeding ticket, and then being asked to say how fast you were going at 15-separate points on the journey, but not where (or saying you exceeded the limit)!!

If it got to court and you haven't been given time to respond in detail, they would find it difficult to charge you on the day, and a magistrate is likely to look very dimly on the entire prosecution.

 

[Fermiboson]

If you are 100% sure that apart from the 8th August you had a valid ticket for all journeys (not necessarily just the 15 they have mentioned), then I would follow up with an insistence that they provide full details of the evidence they have regarding the 15 journeys. Without that information how can you possibly defend something for which you don't know the offence. It's akin to driving the entire length of the M6, receiving a speeding ticket, and then being asked to say how fast you were going at 15-separate points on the journey, but not where (or saying you exceeded the limit)!!

If it got to court and you haven't been given time to respond in detail, they would find it difficult to charge you on the day, and a magistrate is likely to look very dimly on the entire prosecution.

The magistrate is not likely to look dimly on the prosecution, given that a criminal offence was committed, and if the TOC charges OP for just the one instance for which there was actual fare evasion it will stick. What goes on before prosecution is not really the magistrates’ business, and we have precedent of people being offered unfair settlements under threat of criminal prosecution both in the forums and in the wider commercial world, refusing said settlement, and having the court shaft them over anyways.

 

[island]

If it got to court and you haven't been given time to respond in detail, they would find it difficult to charge you on the day,

The OP has already been charged.

and a magistrate is likely to look very dimly on the entire prosecution.

A magistrate will take 45 seconds to read the statements, find the case proven, and issue a fine, surcharge, costs, and compensation totalling around £700. The only thing the magistrate will see is what's in the SJPN, about the case where the OP was stopped. The alleged previous fare evasions will not be before the court.

Comparisons to the post office prosecutions are specious.

 

[Sultan]

Are you sure that a magistrate would take 45 seconds to find the case proven on 15 additional charges, which 'may' have happened (reasonable doubt here?), and where the defendant has not had an opportunity to respond to them individually, all on the basis that the initial case that brought everything to the TOC's attention is proven (by way of admission?).

Surely we are still at the stage where the OP needs to respond to the 15 other 'occasions' and the OP can only do this reliably with full details of them. Only then can the TOC determine whether to pursue this in court? It does feel like they have a gun pointed to someone's head!!

OP only posted yesterday - can't see when the letter was sent and whether it was an initial letter. Aren't TOCs usually much quicker (although they are under no obligation)? This is also the first time I've seen a letter asking about travel irregularities after the initial detected offence. Most people, once caught, tend to not repeat.

 

[skyhigh]

Are you sure that a magistrate would take 45 seconds to find the case proven on 15 additional charges

The TOC would simply prosecute for the one occasion they can provide ample evidence.

This is also the first time I've seen a letter asking about travel irregularities after the initial detected offence.

There are plenty of threads with examples on here.

 

[GreatRunner]

BIG UPDATE : They have replied to my emails and reduced the charge to £429, thank you guys for all your help, I will be paying this immediately and I guess all the evidence worked and so did the advice.

 

[John R]

That’s very good to hear, and thank you for the update.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

BIG UPDATE : They have replied to my emails and reduced the charge to £429, thank you guys for all your help, I will be paying this immediately and I guess all the evidence worked and so did the advice.

Glad to hear this.

 

[WesternLancer]

BIG UPDATE : They have replied to my emails and reduced the charge to £429, thank you guys for all your help, I will be paying this immediately and I guess all the evidence worked and so did the advice.

Good to hear this update - (still seems like a settlement offer at the high end of the range to me, but no doubt you will be pleased to have got to this stage under the circumstances).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

BIG UPDATE : They have replied to my emails and reduced the charge to £429, thank you guys for all your help, I will be paying this immediately and I guess all the evidence worked and so did the advice.

Thanks for letting us know - not just because it tells us the end of your story (they lived happily ever after (except for being £429 down on the deal)) but because it's useful for advising other people in the same position (although the amount asked for is non-negotiable, evidence will make a difference).

Just to add the usual warning at this stage: now you're on Chiltern's radar they my not be so sympathetic next time. So be really careful to make sure that there isn't a next time - make sure that you always pay the right fare!

 

[fandroid]

If there's an SJPN floating around, should the OP take steps to ensure that the case doesn't get heard by accident?

 

[GreatRunner]

Good to hear this update - (still seems like a settlement offer at the high end of the range to me, but no doubt you will be pleased to have got to this stage under the circumstances).

yes much better than paying 1k haha

Thanks for letting us know - not just because it tells us the end of your story (they lived happily ever after (except for being £429 down on the deal)) but because it's useful for advising other people in the same position (although the amount asked for is non-negotiable, evidence will make a difference).

Just to add the usual warning at this stage: now you're on Chiltern's radar they my not be so sympathetic next time. So be really careful to make sure that there isn't a next time - make sure that you always pay the right fare!

will never be a next time again , I will make sure of that !

 

[Sultan]

Let's hope this hasn't created a precedence whereby they send you regular postal requests for proof of a valid ticket weeks after when for most of us they do it on the train / at the barrier.

Might be a good time to change bank accounts / email address / home address / name by deed poll, just to be sure!!

At least it's the end of the matter (although might still be worth requesting details of the 15 journeys, so you are aware of why they were considered in the first place).

 

[richw]

or them proceeding to court for the offence which they can prove?

They’ve got 4 days until the 6 months has passed for the open and shut offence

 

[Haywain]

They’ve got 4 days until the 6 months has passed for the open and shut offence

They don't need the 4 days as the letter the OP receieved was accompanied by a Single Justice Procedure Notice, which means that the papers had already been laid before the court. They were not taking chances about running out of time.

 

[SuspectUsual]

BIG UPDATE : They have replied to my emails and reduced the charge to £429, thank you guys for all your help, I will be paying this immediately and I guess all the evidence worked and so did the advice.

Does the £429 cover just one offence (which you accept) and their costs, or are they saying its more than one but obviously less than 15?

 

[spotify95]

The problem is they don't need to evidence it beyond reasonable doubt; they have no intention of testing the historic allegations in a court.

And if they're only testing a single allegation in court, then based on what I've seen on other threads as to the calculations of fines issued, it may actually be cheaper to plead guilty to the single offence tried for instead of accepting the OOC settlement. The TOC also gets less as well. Though there is the rather large issue of having a criminal record as well.

If the OP can prove that their other train journeys were valid and with correct tickets held, I would be contacting the TOC (Chiltern, since Birmingham - Marylebone was mentioned) and giving them the proof that only one offense was committed on one date (and not 15 dates), then paying whatever reduced settlement was offered.

Edit - I'm glad to hear that this was sorted out. £429 does still seem a bit high for one offense so I'm not sure how they worked that out l. But at least the matter is dealt with.
Though I personally wouldn't be booking online train tickets under that card/email again...