Alleged fraud case: is it reasonable for TOCs to accept tickets and later state it's fraud? Could an MP help?

[AdamWW]

Moderator note: split from

Letter from TFW about Misuse of 26-30 railcard

Hi all, I have read a few similar issues on this and was wondering if anyone had their outcome. Back story - I work in cardiff as a store manager and I commute from hengoed station. I work shift patterns and when I have bought a ticket for my late shift using my rail card it states travel any...

www.railforums.co.uk

I note that they are threatening to pass the matter on to the British Transport Police.

Is this normal for a case like this?

If I was being threatened with prosecution for fraud and told to go and pay for advice from a specialist lawyer for historic journeys where my ticket had been not just checked but scanned on the train without question, I think I'd be writing to my MP without waiting to see what happened next.

 

[Haywain]

I note that they are threatening to pass the matter on to the British Transport Police.

Is this normal for a case like this?

If I was being threatened with prosecution for fraud and told to go and pay for advice from a specialist lawyer for historic journeys where my ticket had been not just checked but scanned on the train without question, I think I'd be writing to my MP without waiting to see what happened next.

I doubt your MP would want to get involved in a criminal investigation.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

I was going to use the word 'entrapment', especially after 55 previous occasions. Technology exists these days to flag these things at the point of scanning. There's another thread running about a barcode ticket that wasn't accepted, despite being valid for travel
Just goes to show how useless railway IT is

You will likely find that upon scanning, it will show as orange to the conductor due to having a railcard, this is no different to any other scan with a railcard. Clearly minimum fare isn't programmed into the scanning facility as it would show red automatically if so. It would flag if the ticket was purchased for a specific later train to get around the time issue however.

This is obviously a shortcoming of the technology, and as it doesn't flag up to check, most conductors probably don't even think about minimum fare issues. It will likely depend on the line (when I was on local lines, we always checked as railcards were rarely used before 10am. Now I'm on long distance it's the opposite so it's quite possible I've missed some).

Does that mean the gates don't use any software to check the ticket is actually valid?

It's the minimum fare but that isn't valid, using a valid ticket or a ticket with railcard discount wouldn't flag up necessarily. And min fare seems to not be programmed to flag up

 

[AdamWW]

I doubt your MP would want to get involved in a criminal investigation.

Maybe not but in the face of what I would consider to be unjustifiably heavy handed behaviour I'd give it a go.

(And I realise you won't agree so let's just agree to differ on this)

This is obviously a shortcoming of the technology, and as it doesn't flag up to check, most conductors probably don't even think about minimum fare issues. It will likely depend on the line (when I was on local lines, we always checked as railcards were rarely used before 10am. Now I'm on long distance it's the opposite so it's quite possible I've missed some).

Seems a bit unreasonable that on the one hand it's so subtle that the railway can't (on 55 occasions!) detect the error, but that a passenger unaware of the rule is accused of criminally fraudulent behaviour.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Seems a bit unreasonable that on the one hand it's so subtle that the railway can't (on 55 occasions!) detect the error, but that a passenger unaware of the rule is accused of criminally fraudulent behaviour.

Unfortunately it's a T&Cs issue, the scanners will ask for the guard to check for a valid railcard which could mean the ticket is indeed valid, so it's correct to not reject it out of hand.

If the OP has selected the later train as it shows cheaper due to no min fare then surely that is exactly fraudulent behaviour regardless of whether it's the 1st of 55th time.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Unfortunately it's a T&Cs issue, the scanners will ask for the guard to check for a valid railcard which could mean the ticket is indeed valid, so it's correct to not reject it out of hand.

If the OP has selected the later train as it shows cheaper due to no min fare then surely that is exactly fraudulent behaviour regardless of whether it's the 1st of 55th time.

But if the guard then permits travel how is the passenger to know they've not been permitted to travel?
If they buy an "anytime" ticket, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's valid at...well, any time.

 

[fandroid]

Seems a bit unreasonable that on the one hand it's so subtle that the railway can't (on 55 occasions!) detect the error, but that a passenger unaware of the rule is accused of criminally fraudulent behaviour.

Or the other way around - that's it's a serious enough problem to allow contemplation of a fraud charge, but they don't routinely try to detect and prevent it

If the OP has selected the later train as it shows cheaper due to no min fare then surely that is exactly fraudulent behaviour regardless of whether it's the 1st of 55th time.

It does look as if the OP routinely selected the same ticket for the same point-to-point journey and, for the majority of their journeys, that was perfectly valid

 

[JonathanH]

But if the guard then permits travel how is the passenger to know they've not been permitted to travel?

A guard is only human, and can apply some leniency if they choose to.

A passenger who knowingly uses a ticket incorrectly, which is not necessarily the situation here if the original poster has overlooked the relevant part of the terms and conditions, could get away with doing so for a while if only cursory glances are made at the ticket scan.

If they buy an "anytime" ticket, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's valid at...well, any time.

The anytime ticket is valid at any time. The railcard has terms and conditions that need to be followed.

A response / defence needs to be careful in how it balances the 55 inspection point against the awareness of terns and conditions.

 

[Deafdoggie]

A guard is only human, and can apply some leniency if they choose to.

A passenger who knowingly uses a ticket incorrectly, which is not necessarily the situation here if the original poster has overlooked the relevant part of the terms and conditions, could get away with doing so for a while if only cursory glances are made at the ticket scan.


The anytime ticket is valid at any time. The railcard has terms and conditions that need to be followed.

A response / defence needs to be careful in how it balances the 55 inspection point against the awareness of terns and conditions.

A guard is only human. A passenger is only human. They are both as "guilty" as each other.
Unless a guard actually says "it's not valid, but I'll let you travel this once" then being checked time and again and no questioning of it's validity really can only be interpreted as there's no problem.
A prosecution needs to be careful in how it balances the 55 ticket inspections permitting travel, against later claiming all 55 were incorrect.

 

[RPI]

Ultimately, if someone is selecting a train on a regular basis that is much later than when they're travelling and by doing so avoids a minimum fare, then a certain amount of personal responsibility is needed from whoever is buying the tickets, the train company may suggest that the person doing so is deliberately doing so to avoid the £12.00 minimum fare and thus the correct fare due for the journey being made, a train company may also suggest to a court that in order to obtain a Railcard a holder must agree to the terms and conditions of that Railcard, one of which states the minimum fare requirement.

Certainly a mitigation could be that the tickets were scanned and not challenged at the time, muddying the waters somewhat, but it would take someone either very confident in representing themselves to challenge this in court, or to pay a Solicitor a fair chunk of money to do so, when again, it isn't a clear cut defence.

Ultimately the OP needs to ask themselves the question, did they in fact actually do this knowingly to save some money or have they been a victim of the system, things that would be of interest are the times of the trains booked, were they all booked for the first train after 10:00? Or various other much later trains - yes they're anytime tickets, but having purchased a Railcard and ticked the box agreeing to the terms and conditions certainly doesn't give a get out of jail free card for using the ignorance defence.

The bigger picture is that ticket retailers need to be clearer on things like this, I know from first hand experience that this is an issue, along with Trainline "open returns" which in fact are usually day returns.

 

[fandroid]

Is it possible to flag the minimum fare associated with these railcards when purchasing online. A general warning of the nature of "Warning. This ticket is not valid for travel on trains starting before 10.00 on this date. Minimum £12 fare applies at those times. See xx-yy Railcard Terms and Conditions"

It has to deal with a few variables to make it targeted, but it could be something Trainline included on its own site and on those who use the same software.

 

[RPI]

Is it possible to flag the minimum fare associated with these railcards when purchasing online. A general warning of the nature of "Warning. This ticket is not valid for travel on trains starting before 10.00 on this date. Minimum £12 fare applies at those times. See xx-yy Railcard Terms and Conditions"

It has to deal with a few variables to make it targeted, but it could be something Trainline included on its own site and on those who use the same software.

That would be a sensible move, but ultimately, if you select a train before 10:00 it won't offer the discount, but it could and should be clearer why in my opinion.

 

[rs101]

Just tested using the Greater Anglia app to look up ticket prices from Manningtree to Liverpool Street on Monday, using a Network Railcard.
It lists the 10:02 and offers an 'Anytime Day Single' for £26.45 (reduced from £40.10). There's a link which says "Valid stations and ticket restrictions", which says "Flexible ticket with no time restrictions on when you can travel".
Continuing to the booking page and under Travel conditions it says:-
1. Travel any time of day.
2. Travel is allowed via any permitted route.
At no point does it mention any railcard restriction at all, not even a reminder to check if any apply.

If I select the 09:19, then the price is £40.10, but all the other conditions are identical.

So if someone isn't that familiar with the Network Railcard rules, it's not unreasonable for them to trust the information given during the booking process and think they can travel on an earlier train.

 

[RPI]

Just tested using the Greater Anglia app to look up ticket prices from Manningtree to Liverpool Street on Monday, using a Network Railcard.
It lists the 10:02 and offers an 'Anytime Day Single' for £26.45 (reduced from £40.10). There's a link which says "Valid stations and ticket restrictions", which says "Flexible ticket with no time restrictions on when you can travel".
Continuing to the booking page and under Travel conditions it says:-
1. Travel any time of day.
2. Travel is allowed via any permitted route.
At no point does it mention any railcard restriction at all, not even a reminder to check if any apply.

If I select the 09:19, then the price is £40.10, but all the other conditions are identical.

So if someone isn't that familiar with the Network Railcard rules, it's not unreasonable for them to trust the information given during the booking process and think they can travel on an earlier train.

It certainly should be clearer, and it could be taken the wrong way, but ultimately when buying the Railcard and ticking the box you agree to the Railcard terms and conditions, therefore if applying a Railcard discount you are responsible for knowing the rules relating to that Railcard.

 

[furlong]

You get into a couple of areas:
1) Is it an enforceable term either under basic contractual law or taking into account consumer law?
2) If it is enforceable, is a breach prosecutable? Does NRCoT mean the remedy is to pay the difference in fare? With a prosecution, how likely would an 'abuse of process' challenge be to succeed? 'Abuse of process' can have wide scope but the threshold is high.

 

[JonathanH]

So if someone isn't that familiar with the Network Railcard rules, it's not unreasonable for them to trust the information given during the booking process and think they can travel on an earlier train.

A physical Network Railcard does have the words "To be carried on all rail journeys. Monday to Friday not valid until 10.00hrs" printed on it though so someone really ought to be paying attention to what they have bought.

However, what should be obvious from the booking process that the same ticket costs different amounts before and after the threshold time seems not to enough for people to register that they can't use the cheaper ticket earlier.

 

[AdamWW]

It certainly should be clearer, and it could be taken the wrong way, but ultimately when buying the Railcard and ticking the box you agree to the Railcard terms and conditions, therefore if applying a Railcard discount you are responsible for knowing the rules relating to that Railcard.

The T&C's say:
"4.5. The 16-25 Railcard has a minimum fare that applies from 04.30 and 10.00 Monday to Friday. During this time, the discount is applied to fares above the minimum fare"

Reading that, I would think that it's letting me know that there are times I won't get a discount when I buy my ticket, rather than saying "using a discounted ticket at these times could result in a prosecution for fraud".

I doubt I'd stop to think about the edge cases where I might buy a ticket and travel earlier than planned, and I certainly wouldn't expect that if buying such a ticket I would be told incorrectly that the ticket has no time restrictions.

And if a passenger is aware that using a time restricted ticket at the wrong time is not illegal, I don't know what in the railcard T&Cs or the NRCoT would make them realise that railcard discounted tickets are a special sort of time restricted ticket that can lead to prosecution if misused.

If I do a trial purchase on the TfW App it clearly states that Anytime tickets have no time restrictions, and gives links to the NRCoT and railcard rules for "further information"

Maybe someone with experience in contract law can tell me if it's valid to enforce a contract term where an incorrect description without qualification is clearly presented and is only over-ridden in the "small print" described as "additional information"

I could see myself falling into this trap though not, I'd hope on so many occasions.

A physical Network Railcard does have the words "To be carried on all rail journeys. Monday to Friday not valid until 10.00hrs" printed on it though so someone really ought to be paying attention to what they have bought.

Didn't this start with someone using a 26-30 railcard though?

Which must have been on-line for a start.

 

[JonathanH]

Didn't this start with someone using a 26-30 railcard though?

Which must have been on-line for a start.

Yes, I was responding to someone drawing a parallel to another railcard.

As you say, the 26-30 railcard is only online, but that shouldn't prevent it being made clearer on the face of the digital railcard that the minimum fare applies in the morning peak, as it says on the website "£12 minimum fare applies on morning peak".

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'd say that given:- the anytime conditions say it can be used on any train at anytime. The railcard conditions simply state no discount, not that it's fraud, and it's been permitted for travel on 55 out of 55 occasions with no questions asked or questions on validity raised, that things aren't really cut and dried for the railway at all.

 

[fandroid]

I don't know if there's legal principle of the specific having precedence over the general, but getting a specific ticket that says it's "valid at anytime" is far more in.your face than a T&C clause that you might have seen just once.

I've suggested on another thread that they make the minimum fare apply all day Mon-Fri. Then there's no chance of anyone selecting a wrongly discounted ticket with the applicable Railcard and with the correct date. To even things out, the minimum fare could be reduced to say £10.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

But if the guard then permits travel how is the passenger to know they've not been permitted to travel?
If they buy an "anytime" ticket, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume it's valid at...well, any time.

As I said, the scan will flag up for a railcard check. The guard may well be unaware how much the ticket cost the passenger. As stated on many threads, the ticket is valid but the railcard is not unless minimum fare applied.

Unless a specific later train is linked to the ticket, which flags up as reject, the ticket in itself is not invalid. Yes, a guard should spot the minimum fare is incorrect (I.e. Ticket value less than £12 pre 10am with railcard) but technology doesn't help in this situation currently.

If however, a guard points it out but let's it slip, that's a whole different issue, one where the passenger has had permission to travel on an invalidated ticket

 

[Haywain]

If however, a guard points it out but let's it slip, that's a whole different issue, one where the passenger has had permission to travel on an invalidated ticket

I don't think that being given permission to travel will prevent the purchase of the ticket and subsequent use from being considered fraudulent by the courts.

 

[spag23]

I have never understood why the average passenger is expected to have a superior knowledge of convoluted ticketing arrangements than the TOC's own staff and IT. And when either party gets this wrong, the RPIs are allowed to just shrug their shoulders, but the passenger gets a £200 bill.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I don't think that being given permission to travel will prevent the purchase of the ticket and subsequent use from being considered fraudulent by the courts.

But having travelled 55 times without let or hindrance I can see why people think its allowed.

As I said, the scan will flag up for a railcard check. The guard may well be unaware how much the ticket cost the passenger. As stated on many threads, the ticket is valid but the railcard is not unless minimum fare applied.

Unless a specific later train is linked to the ticket, which flags up as reject, the ticket in itself is not invalid. Yes, a guard should spot the minimum fare is incorrect (I.e. Ticket value less than £12 pre 10am with railcard) but technology doesn't help in this situation currently.

If however, a guard points it out but let's it slip, that's a whole different issue, one where the passenger has had permission to travel on an invalidated ticket

So neither the guard nor the equipment know if the ticket/railcard is valid or not, but the passenger is expected to. I can't see this argument helping the railways case.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

As cited by the TOC in the case referred to, the fraud offence requires the prosecution to prove the accused dishonestly made a false representation.

That would fit a circumstance where someone was using a forged or altered ticket or someone else's railcard, but I don't see the false representation where a ticket or railcard is simply presented at a time when it's not valid. It might reasonably be prosecuted as a Bylaws or RoRA offence, but the TOC should not be threatening prosecution for fraud.

As for ticket checks, the Bylaws require that tickets are handed over "for inspection and verification of validity". I don't see the distinction between a visual inspection of a paper ticket versus scanning an e-ticket. In either case if a ticket is verified as valid at that point and handed back, is a TOC entitled to revisit the verification later on in order to bring a prosecution? I suspect it could be argued that using Bylaw 18 in that way is an abuse of process.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As cited by the TOC in the case referred to, the fraud offence requires the prosecution to prove the accused dishonestly made a false representation.

That would fit a circumstance where someone was using a forged or altered ticket or someone else's railcard, but I don't see the false representation where a ticket or railcard is simply presented at a time when it's not valid. It might reasonably be prosecuted as a Bylaws or RoRA offence, but the TOC should not be threatening prosecution for fraud.

As for ticket checks, the Bylaws require that tickets are handed over "for inspection and verification of validity". I don't see the distinction between a visual inspection of a paper ticket versus scanning an e-ticket. In either case if a ticket is verified as valid at that point and handed back, is a TOC entitled to revisit the verification later on in order to bring a prosecution? I suspect it could be argued that using Bylaw 18 in that way is an abuse of process.

If you knowingly present an invalid ticket with the intention that it be treated as valid , that seems to me that you are representing it to be valid, and since it isn't valid, you are falsely representing it to be valid - which on the basis of what you have told us, is fraud.

 

[etr221]

My question is, when the type of ticket in question ('any time' with 26-30 railcard for less than £12) was bought, what if anything was said/displayed/printed on ticket to indicate that at a certain time (weekday morning peak) it was not valid? If nothing, and such a ticket had repeatedly been presented and accepted as valid (i.e. not rejected), a belief that it is valid is perfectly reasonable.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

since it isn't valid, you are falsely representing it to be valid - which is fraud.

With that kind of construction all kinds of mistakes or misunderstandings could be regarded as dishonest and false representation so that travelling with any invalid ticket or railcard, or presenting a library card or a banana when asked for a ticket, could be prosecuted as fraud.

The difficulty for a prosecutor would be finding evidence to prove that when the invalid ticket (or banana) was presented, it was intended to be accepted as something other than what it clearly was, to somehow appear to be a valid ticket.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The difficulty for a prosecutor would be finding evidence to prove that when the invalid ticket (or banana) was presented, it was intended to be accepted as something other than what it clearly was, to somehow appear to be a valid ticket.

Yup. I understand from previous threads that the approach is to look at what the defendant did, and infer intention from that. And it seems to me that it could be argued that repeated presentation of an invalid ticket could be taken to suggest that the defendant knew exactly what they were doing i.e. they were fraudulently using railway tickets to travel for less than the proper fare.

Of course, the defendant might offer the defence that they didn’t know that the ticket wasn’t valid at that time of day. But as I am not a lawyer, I don’t know if the line of attack or defence would be valid, and as this is hypothetical I don’t know how a magistrate or jury would take to either of them being presented.

 

[Poller2712.]

Hi all,

I have recieved an email from
The same person with an outcome. I will share below to assist anyone who was going through same thing & feeling as anxious as myself. Thank you for everyone’s assistance on this! I have Ofcourse chosen to settle.

Thank you for your reply and the contents thereof. I take on board the points raised regarding the tickets being scanned and issues not being raised at the time by conductors. We will use this for continuous training to frontline staff, to support the message that we are sending.



With regards to the tickets, the issue is not with the type of ticket you bought, it is applying the railcard to that ticket that brings the restrictions in.

The value of fares that we dispute totals £391.42 and we are happy to limit the contribution towards our investigations costs at £100.

If the sum of £491.42 is paid and cleared, this case can be discontinued. This sum acts as a contribution towards the administration and investigations costs incurred to this point plus the payment of fares. 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.

This is not a fine, a fine is something that a court will impose nor is this a demand for payment, it is an offer to allow you to adopt an alternative arrangement in order for you to avoid court proceedings. We are not obliged to make this offer and you are not obliged to make any payment and you may instead choose to have the evidence tested by the court if you prefer.

Should you agree to these terms, please provide an address and date of birth to allow a payment portal to be set up for you. Our payments are processed by Transport Investigations Limited, they will be in touch in due course to process this for you.

Please indicate by return of email how you would like to proceed with this matter.

Many thanks.