Caught with expired railcard, being fined for journeys when it WAS valid

[effectiveimme]

Hi all,

I was stopped in June by an inspector and I discovered my railcard had expired. I had taken a total of 5 journeys in the time it was expired..

I finally received an email yesterday from the GWR Revenue Protection team with my Pre Court settlement, however on the calculation sheet they have included an extra 9 journeys before and after this period where I did have a valid railcard, making the total amount they're asking MUCH higher than it should be.

What's my best option here? I will be writing an email back with evidence of my railcard, but as it's taken them almost 9 months to get in touch in the first place I'm anxious my response won't be recieved until after the 21 days they're giving me to pay up.

Any help much appreciated

Thanks

 

[notmyrealname]

Hi, welcome to the forum.

Could you show us the email please? Be sure to cover up your name, address and their reference number.

 

[tonycockram]

It may well be the case that they are out of time to bring a criminal charge against you for this as you say these happened in June, but yes please advise us of the letter you’ve received and what happened in June and we can have a look.

 

[effectiveimme]

Hi, thank you for your quick responses. I've attached a screenshot of the email, the letter PDF + the calculation spreadsheet

(I've highlighted the journeys I took with a valid railcard in yellow).

 

[Gonzoiku]

You have included your name and email address in the document with yellow highlights!

GZ

 

[styles]

You've left your name an email in the calculations screenshot.

 

[father_jack]

When did your railcard actually run out ?

 

[effectiveimme]

When did your railcard actually run out ?

It ran out on April 9th 2024. I was stopped on the 15th of June 2024. I immediately renewed it, but GWR is asking me to pay for journeys BEFORE it ran out + AFTER it expired

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you corresponded with them about this at all? They’re significantly out of time to prosecute you.

 

[effectiveimme]

Have you corresponded with them about this at all? They’re significantly out of time to prosecute you.

I haven’t replied - they sent the email on Friday

 

[Spaceship323]

Do not reply to their email, Do not correspond with GWR

As alterego says they legally have 6 months from the date of the offence to prosecute. They are out of time to do anything

 

[AlterEgo]

Do not reply to their email, Do not correspond with GWR

As alterego says they legally have 6 months from the date of the offence to prosecute. They are out of time to do anything

The most the might do is threaten civil action, for which they can only claim the *difference* in fares plus an admin fee. If they do so, best to pay up then - but ignore their criminal prosecution threat for now.

 

[effectiveimme]

Do not reply to their email, Do not correspond with GWR

As alterego says they legally have 6 months from the date of the offence to prosecute. They are out of time to do anything

I have heard this 6 month time limit before, but they’re citing the fraud act in the letter which I’ve seen can still be used after 6 months (correct me if I’m wrong)

 

[AlterEgo]

I have heard this 6 month time limit before, but they’re citing the fraud act in the letter which I’ve seen can still be used after 6 months (correct me if I’m wrong)

It can be used after 6 months but this is not a fraud, which is very hard to prove and requires intent. Travelling on an expired railcard five times would not be prosecuted as fraud.

They aren't going to try prosecuting you for fraud, they just like using the F-word to scare people.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I have heard this 6 month time limit before, but they’re citing the fraud act in the letter which I’ve seen can still be used after 6 months (correct me if I’m wrong)

The time limit doesn’t apply to the Fraud Act, but fraud requires a dishonest intent. And this has to be dishonest rather than merely negligent. If you’d never had a railcard it may be easier to prove dishonesty but as you had one it would be very difficult to prove.

They love throwing the fraud word around to terrify people though.

Your choices will depend on your risk appetite. One option is to simply ignore them; they’re out of time to prosecute under Regulation of Railways Act or the Byelaws. A second option would be to negotiate by pointing out you had a railcard for some of the journeys and therefore a) you committed no offence in those cases and b) that any settlement should reflect the true position.

Personally I’d just ignore them, but if you think that’s outside your risk appetite then you are well within your rights to request that any settlement offer be based on the facts.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi, thank you for your quick responses. I've attached a screenshot of the email, the letter PDF + the calculation spreadsheet

(I've highlighted the journeys I took with a valid railcard in yellow).

Alternatively you can write back ideally with proof of the railcard, point out the dates when you had valid tickets and polity ask them to recalculate. GWR are known on here for being reasonable in these matters.

 

[Hadders]

It amuses me that GWR cite lack of staff in their letter as the reason for the delay.

I agree with what has been said above. GWR cannot prosecute you under the Railway Byelaws or the Regulation of the Railways Act. An out of date railcard isn't going to be prosecuted as fraud either.

If you don't engage with GWR they will likely send you further threatening letters threatening fraud, police etc but in reality there is little they can do other than claim via the civil courts.

As mentioned above this all comes down to your appetite for risk.

 

[effectiveimme]

Thanks so much for your responses.

My only worry is that they believe I’ve taken 16 journeys across a year period without a railcard (in reality it was only 5).

Would that amount to fraud? And would that be grounds to take me to court?

Thanks

 

[Snow1964]

Thanks so much for your responses.

My only worry is that they believe I’ve taken 16 journeys across a year period without a railcard (in reality it was only 5).

Would that amount to fraud? And would that be grounds to take me to court?

Thanks

If you hadn't owned a railcard and were deliberately selecting the option to get a cheaper ticket, then could be seen as dishonest and fraudulent.

If it expired, then very difficult to prove fraud, it's more a mistake or administrative oversight/carelessness which isn't a deliberate action.

Possibly they don't know about your expired railcard so just assuming the earlier journeys are in same category

 

[AlterEgo]

Thanks so much for your responses.

My only worry is that they believe I’ve taken 16 journeys across a year period without a railcard (in reality it was only 5).

Would that amount to fraud? And would that be grounds to take me to court?

Thanks

No, that is not a fraud nor evidence of fraud. The evidential test for that is quite high - dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Gonzoiku]

No, that is not a fraud nor evidence of fraud. The evidential test for that is quite high - dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt.

Additionally, what *evidence* exists to show that you *travelled* on the tickets in question (as opposed to just buying them)?

GZ

 

[Haywain]

Additionally, what *evidence* exists to show that you *travelled* on the tickets in question (as opposed to just buying them)?

GZ

The question is not going to arise but, if it did, are you suggesting that the OP should lie in response?

 

[robbeech]

Additionally, what *evidence* exists to show that you *travelled* on the tickets in question (as opposed to just buying them)?

GZ

They would have told us that already, it’s clear they travelled on these dates or that would be part of the defence already. If they said “I didn’t travel then” and the railway comes back with evidence to the contrary then the whole situation will change.

I’m surprised that this has arrived by email and they’ve so openly told you this is the first correspondence, and that there has been a delay. They’ve essentially told you that they’re legally unable to prosecute you, and I wonder how many more cases are the same where people will just pay up in fear. An appalling state of affairs.

At best they should write to you to say “sorry we’re out of time so are no longer able to prosecute but please be advised we’ll be watching you” in so many words.

Did you give your name and address when they stopped you in June? I’m assuming you must have rather than just an email address?

If so, that’s RORA 5.3 out. It’s clear this is not Fraud so they’d only ever have had a Byelaw 18.1 to go on.

Of course these ways to prosecute are usually irrelevant anyway as the whole idea is that the railway frightens and bullies passengers into paying them direct out of court where absolutely no evidence is required.

 

[effectiveimme]

Did you give your name and address when they stopped you in June? I’m assuming you must have rather than just an email address?

Yes I gave them my current address, they somehow found my parents address too as I received a letter in at places alongside an email

 

[Haywain]

I wonder how many more cases are the same where people will just pay up in fear. An appalling state of affairs.

I struggle to have much sympathy for those have have been avoiding or evading their fares and choose to react by paying up.

 

[Gonzoiku]

The question is not going to arise but, if it did, are you suggesting that the OP should lie in response?

Absolutely not, I am "surprised" that you raise such a thought. For anyone else to have made that comment might have evinced a more robust response.

For clarity: never lie in your answers, it will come back to bite you in the tender parts. But by all means resist the temptation to give more than the required information. There are no prizes for being helpful.

GZ

 

[robbeech]

I struggle to have much sympathy for those have have been avoiding or evading their fares and choose to react by paying up.

Agreed, when there has been a deliberate attempt to evade the fare. I have some sympathy for what is likely to be a genuine mistake where an operator has then incorrectly tried to charge for many more journeys that do not apply, especially when they try it on well after the 6 months they’re allowed.


Ordinarily I’d be tempted to think that the op has missed some correspondence that arrived without the 6 month timeframe but they’ve made it quite clear (rather absurdly clear to be honest) that the email is the first contact they’ve had.

 

[Haywain]

when they try it on well after the 6 months they’re allowed.

The 6 months is a limit on prosecution only, there's nothing to stop them seeking to get the money through other means (as long as they are legal). In exactly the same way there is nothing to stop recipients of such communication from ignoring them and taking their chances.

 

[Salesy]

I wouldn’t recommend ignoring it, despite what others have said. Yes, fraud is harder to prove than a straightforward breach of the Railway Byelaws, but is that a risk you are willing to take?

I would make a counter-offer to settle excluding the amounts for the journeys for which I had a valid railcard, and explaining the rationale for that offer.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I wouldn’t recommend ignoring it, despite what others have said. Yes, fraud is harder to prove than a straightforward breach of the Railway Byelaws, but is that a risk you are willing to take?

I would make a counter-offer to settle excluding the amounts for the journeys for which I had a valid railcard, and explaining the rationale for that offer.

What's the basis for your recommendation? Are you a solicitor, barrister, para-legal or have substantive other experience in the legal arena?

From my 17 years sitting in court, I understand that fraud requires proof of intent. Looking at the above, I believe that GWR would struggle to prove intent in this case.