Discussion About Excessively High Admin Fees

[Bletchleyite]

Moderator Note: Split from

Any advice? Sizable fine for an out of date Railcard.

Hi guys, Was just wondering if there's anything I can do here. Usual story, bought a ticket unaware the railcard was out of date, fair enough. But £254 seems like a lot of money for Admin fees. The journey was Christchurch - Waterloo, bought with splitsave, so the first ticket was a...

www.railforums.co.uk

That does seem high for an admin fee (is this perhaps not a first offence? They're usually around £100) but your option is to pay it or go to Court, and the likely outcome of Court is a higher sum needing to be paid.

 

[Tompennock]

Yeah, this first time anything like this has happened to me. Would much prefer to settle this now than pay legal fees!

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Gloster]

Reading these threads, I have got the impression that SWR seems to be habitually pitching their costs higher than most of the other companies. If so, then this is probably in line with their normal costs and the OP would probably be best to grin and bear it (grinning is optional).

Note. My comment on the level of costs is an impression: I haven’t checked in detail.

 

[Titfield]

Not sure how relevant this comment is but the letter states "operational and administrative costs".

Does this suggest that SWR have had the idea of also charging "operational costs" as a means of inflating the total of additional costs to be charged on top of the fare avoided?

Seems to me to be a very quick easy way to demand (and receive) additional monies?

 

[furlong]

Well I'd be reminding them of the legal framework under which they operate and disputing those amounts as excessive at first sight and asking them to check they didn't make a mistake and to provide a breakdown of the work performed in dealing with the case for which payment is requested and also ask why they are asking for a fare component that exceeds the difference between what should have been paid and what was actually paid. (In short at first sight it might appear as if they and potentially any supplier are attempting to profit from a crime and the company needs to provide reassurance that that is not the case.)

 

[Titfield]

Well I'd be reminding them of the legal framework under which they operate and disputing those amounts as excessive at first sight and asking them to check they didn't make a mistake and to provide a breakdown of the work performed in dealing with the case for which payment is requested and also ask why they are asking for a fare component that exceeds the difference between what should have been paid and what was actually paid. (In short at first sight it might appear as if they and potentially any supplier are attempting to profit from a crime and the company needs to provide reassurance that that is not the case.)

As per my simultaneous point posted: excessive administration costs can be challenged which makes me wonder if SWR have come up with this new idea of "operational costs" (incurred) to add to the settlement requested as they would then argue that they have incurred this cost and are not profiting from the settlement.

 

[furlong]

Does this suggest that SWR have had the idea of also charging "operational costs" as a means of inflating the total of additional costs to be charged on top of the fare avoided?

Exactly - I would have thought that goes against legal precedence and it might need reference to the DfT in the first instance (acting outside the bounds of their licence?), and/or a court to determine whether or not this part of such a settlement for a criminal matter would be enforceable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well I'd be reminding them of the legal framework under which they operate and disputing those amounts as excessive at first sight and asking them to check they didn't make a mistake and to provide a breakdown of the work performed in dealing with the case for which payment is requested and also ask why they are asking for a fare component that exceeds the difference between what should have been paid and what was actually paid. (In short at first sight it might appear as if they and potentially any supplier are attempting to profit from a crime and the company needs to provide reassurance that that is not the case.)

Problem is if you do this they may simply withdraw the offer and summons to Court.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2023 ==

Exactly - I would have thought that goes against legal precedence and it might need reference to the DfT in the first instance (acting outside the bounds of their licence?), and/or a court to determine whether or not this part of such a settlement for a criminal matter would be enforceable.

Unfortunately the only way to genuinely challenge it is to go to Court, and they're very likely to win, plus you have court costs etc.

I suspect they would be able to quite validly argue that splitting the full cost of maintaining and staffing gatelines and paying RPIs should be split between those who don't pay their fares, because if everyone did they'd not be needed.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Presumably they have a way of calculating it, as £254 seems an oddly precise amount.

 

[furlong]

I suspect they would be able to quite validly argue that splitting the full cost of maintaining and staffing gatelines and paying RPIs should be split between those who don't pay their fares, because if everyone did they'd not be needed.

You might think that, but I've not been able to find any legal footing for that argument - have you? You can flip that and say if they didn't do any of that, nobody would pay and everyone would offend without consequence so they are needed even in the absence of crime. (Its status would be that of an optional voluntary additional contribution not a condition for the settlement to be agreed.) The principle of no more and no less than what's needed to put the company back into the position it would have been in had that one specific crime or series of crimes not occurred seems to be quite well established. We see this again on the fare element of a settlement with the parallel thread today, which claims that a solicitor negotiated a settlement with GTR on the basis of the difference in fares i.e. the actual loss (though we don't know about the compensation element):

I did contact Samir @ Manak Solicitors regarding the matter too based on looking at some of the posts on here. I can confirm that today Samir was able to secure an out of court settlement with GTR. I had recounted all the journeys I had shorted on and was able to document these, for these I had to pay the difference as well as the compensation on top.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Well I'd be reminding them of the legal framework under which they operate

Could we have chapter and verse on what legal framework that is please?

Yes, I am being chippy - but it's important that our advice is backed up by law (whether statute or common) and/or contractual obligations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might think that, but I've not been able to find any legal footing for that argument - have you? (It's status would be that of an optional voluntary additional contribution not a condition for the settlement to be agreed.) The principle of no more and no less than what's needed to put the company back into the position it would have been in had that one specific crime not occurred seems to be quite well established. We see this again on the fare element of a settlement with the parallel thread today, which claims that a solicitor negotiated a settlement with GTR on the basis of the difference in fares i.e. the actual loss (though we don't know about the compensation element):

Surely an out of court settlement offer can be whatever they like? You can decline it and proceed to Court, where there would presumably be constraints and checks on what they could claim, but then you'd have Court costs on top and potentially (if RoRA was prosecuted) a record?

A solicitor might manage to delve into what they'd get in Court and push them to accept that as a settlement, but doing that alone is a rather high risk strategy, particularly if definitely guilty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for all your feedback guys, it's great to see and I'm very grateful. Just one thought, I wonder if by having my journey ticketed with SplitSave, and that I was fined at Brockenhurst, I can dispute that I only had an invalid ticket for the Christchurch - Basingstoke leg? But suppose they have records of these things.

The problem fundamentally is that an Out of Court Settlement offer isn't regulated - it's offered and they can withdraw it at will and proceed to Court. Thus you could ask them what you liked, but it carries significant risk of them taking that path, and that path is very likely to be disadvantageous to you.

It's not something I support being able to do - I personally think taking a settlement to withdraw or not present a criminal case should come under Contempt of Court legislation and carry a prison sentence, because it's basically a form of legal extortion - but it is what it is, sadly.

 

[Titfield]

Surely an out of court settlement offer can be whatever they like? You can decline it and proceed to Court, where there would presumably be constraints and checks on what they could claim, but then you'd have Court costs on top and potentially (if RoRA was prosecuted) a record?

A solicitor might manage to delve into what they'd get in Court and push them to accept that as a settlement, but doing that alone is a rather high risk strategy, particularly if definitely guilty.

That confirms my understanding.

I think a court would challenge an excessive or inflated "administration element" of costs sought by the TIC but what is excessive? If a solicitor is charging say £400 per hour and the TOC asks for say £200 it only equates to 1/2 hour of a solicitors time.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Surely an out of court settlement offer can be whatever they like?

Not if the company wants to rely on enforcing the payment through the courts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not if the company wants to rely on enforcing the payment through the courts.

Nothing of course says they wouldn't reduce it if it went through the Courts, though. It's just a risky strategy to go that way, particularly if they would get the OP under RoRA which would mean a criminal record. I'd personally pay a very significant sum (potentially four figures, even) not to get a record, though views on that may vary, but would be less bothered about a non-recordable Byelaw conviction.

Plus you've got court costs on top. If we consider that the top end of "admin fees" tends to be about £120, would Court costs exceed £134? I suspect they might. And the Court would impose a fine, too.

Does anyone know if RoRA could be applicable here? I suspect it could?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a hypothetical, doesn't look like the course of action I'll be taking. However I don't know how I can be fined for the Basingstoke - Waterloo leg if it hadn't started yet, as the train hadn't got to Basingstoke!

It's not a fine. It's an out of court settlement. It is totally discretionary, totally unregulated, and they can base it on throwing a dart at a dartboard and adding the numbers up if they want.

 

[furlong]

The problem fundamentally is that an Out of Court Settlement offer isn't regulated

Yes it is - very briefly (a) the only reason the company is in this position to offer a settlement is because of its licence to operate trains - its activities are constrained accordingly and overseen by the DfT; (b) the train companies are quoting criminal law in their letters and both parties have to believe any settlement would be enforceable by the courts. The passenger expects the courts to protect them against the scenario where they paid the settlement then the company changed its mind and attempted to prosecute regardless, and the company expects the courts to protect them against the scenario where the passenger changes their mind and asks a court to nullify the settlement and grant it a refund after the 6 month deadline for prosecution has passed. (If the train companies were only using civil law, which they choose not to, then they'd have much wider scope for requesting more money under (b), though not necessarily under (a).)

 

[Tompennock]

Nothing of course says they wouldn't reduce it if it went through the Courts, though. It's just a risky strategy to go that way, particularly if they would get the OP under RoRA which would mean a criminal record. I'd personally pay a very significant sum (potentially four figures, even) not to get a record, though views on that may vary, but would be less bothered about a non-recordable Byelaw conviction.

Plus you've got court costs on top. If we consider that the top end of "admin fees" tends to be about £120, would Court costs exceed £134? I suspect they might. And the Court would impose a fine, too.

Does anyone know if RoRA could be applicable here? I suspect it could?

I'm happy to pay to avoid a criminal record! Could you expand on RoRA as it sounds slightly worrying. Is it only applicable if I were to take the court method? (I won't)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm happy to pay to avoid a criminal record! Could you expand on RoRA as it sounds slightly worrying. Is it only applicable if I were to take the court method? (I won't)

There are two pieces of law they could get you on, the letter typically doesn't say which they plan to use (so as to have more impact) - the Railway Byelaws where a conviction doesn't create a criminal record as such, just being a mechanism to impose a fine and costs via a Court, or the Regulation of Railways Act which is normal criminal law where it does.

Harsh though it may feel, the easiest way for you to be sure of not ending up in Court is to pay it promptly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Oct 2023 ==

Yes it is - very briefly (a) the only reason the company is in this position to offer a settlement is because of its licence to operate trains - its activities are constrained accordingly and overseen by the DfT; (b) the train companies are quoting criminal law in their letters and both parties have to believe any settlement would be enforceable by the courts. The passenger expects the courts to protect them against the scenario where they paid the settlement then the company changed its mind and attempted to prosecute regardless, and the company expects the courts to protect them against the scenario where the passenger changes their mind and asks a court to nullify the settlement and grant it a refund after the 6 month deadline for prosecution has passed.

None of that prevents them asking for what they like. They would be taking the gamble that it couldn't, as you say, be reversed in some way, but they can ask for ten grand if they want (though would be unlikely to get it).

The protection against paying it then them going to Court anyway would effectively be via fraud law. If you offer a settlement then ignore it, you've obtained pecuniary advantage by deception. Plus the Court would likely see it as contempt or at least throw it out.

 

[Haywain]

it's important that our advice is backed up by law (whether statute or common) and/or contractual obligations.

It's supposed to be useful to the OP as well, but that doesn't stop the same line of argument as that which you are referring to cropping up again and again.

 

[furlong]

None of that prevents them asking for what they like.

Yes it does. (a) means in extremis it could lead to them losing their operating licence, for example.
For (b) it sometime helps to consider if the settlement is within the range of one that the CPS would have offered (probably accompanied by a caution) if they were handling the prosecution.

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably they have a way of calculating it, as £254 seems an oddly precise amount.

The same amount was asked for in the recent thread started by @Verbena here:

Travelled with out-of-date railcard

I would like some advice, please. I've received a letter from South West Railway prosecution department informing me I will be taken to court unless I pay an out of court settlement. This relates to a journey I made in the summer when the guard pointed out to me that my railcard was out of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HurdyGurdy]

they can ask for ten grand

At some level of excess the company would not only run the risk that the settlement itself became unenforceable, but that they would face a criminal prosecution for extortion/blackmail.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yes it does. (a) means in extremis it could lead to them losing their operating licence, for example.

Chapter and verse please. Is this in the statute governing TOCs or in the contract which South Western operate under?

For (b) it sometime helps to consider if the settlement is within the range of one that the CPS would have offered (probably accompanied by a caution) if they were handling the prosecution.

And is this on the basis of law, or because an able negotiator would draw attention to what has happened on other occasions? You don't need to argue that something is a legal obligation to argue that it's fair and that it's nice to be fair.

 

[island]

Yes it does. (a) means in extremis it could lead to them losing their operating licence, for example.
For (b) it sometime helps to consider if the settlement is within the range of one that the CPS would have offered (probably accompanied by a caution) if they were handling the prosecution.

This has no basis in law. It is important that we base our advice in the law, as to do otherwise is to mislead.

At some level of excess the company would not only run the risk that the settlement itself became unenforceable

This is irrelevant. The company never needs to "enforce" a settlement by suing for payment of the settlement. The settlement is either paid, and that is the end of the matter, or it is not paid, and a prosecution occurs.

but that they would face a criminal prosecution for extortion/blackmail.

It is at least theoretically possible that this could occur, but to my knowledge it has never happened in the railway context.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The company never needs to "enforce" a settlement by suing for payment of the settlement. The settlement is either paid, and that is the end of the matter, or it is not paid, and a prosecution occurs.

It should not matter to the company which route is taken. If a settlement isn't made, when the prosecution is successful, they are awarded the fare(s) avoided and their costs incurred in bringing the case. The discussion here is about the situation where the company seeks to gain above and beyond what they could reasonably expect to be awarded if their prosecution was successful.

The suggestion was that paying a share of "operational costs" can be justified up to any amount. I don't think that justification exists and my basis for thinking that is if the company were to sue for payment of an excessive settlement, they would be unsuccessful.

The elephant in the room is the value that an offender puts on avoiding a prosecution. This is entirely unconnected to any loss the company has suffered and their costs incurred in investigating to the point that a prosecution can be brought. But it's a value the company knows the offender would be willing to pay by adding "operational costs". Does the simple fact that the offender is willing to pay make seeking such a settlement legitimate?

It is at least theoretically possible that this could occur, but to my knowledge it has never happened in the railway context.

I'm sure that's because no company has ever ventured to demand settlements of the kind @Bletchleyite has suggested.

 

[island]

It should not matter to the company which route is taken. If a settlement isn't made, when the prosecution is successful, they are awarded the fare(s) avoided and their costs incurred in bringing the case. The discussion here is about the situation where the company seeks to gain above and beyond what they could reasonably expect to be awarded if their prosecution was successful.

But you have moved it into a discussion about whether a “settlement is enforceable”, so I am responding to the point you raised. If you don’t want your points challenged and responded to, I’d suggest posting them on X and disabling replies, like LNER

The suggestion was that paying a share of "operational costs" can be justified up to any amount. I don't think that justification exists and my basis for thinking that is if the company were to sue for payment of an excessive
settlement, they would be unsuccessful.

And for the reasons I gave in post 26, that is never going to happen.

Civil recovery schemes operated by retail outlets dealing with shoplifters make, or at least used to make, similar demands for payment of three-figure sums in miscellaneous “costs” said to have been incurred funding store security and admin time. Perhaps someone knows if any of these claims have been raised or successful, as it appears it could be a close analogue.

The elephant in the room is the value that an offender puts on avoiding a prosecution. This is entirely unconnected to any loss the company has suffered and their costs incurred in investigating to the point that a prosecution can be brought. But it's a value the company knows the offender would be willing to pay by adding "operational costs". Does the simple fact that the offender is willing to pay make seeking such a settlement legitimate?

You use terms such as “justified” and “legitimate” quite loosely. Are you attempting to make a case around the legality of TOC admin fees or their morality? As that will make a difference to how I and others respond.

I'm sure that's because no company has ever ventured to demand settlements of the kind @Bletchleyite has suggested.

Nor will they; but a thread could be opened in the speculative discussions area to discuss what might happen in a fantasy world where that occurred.

 

[ianBR]

It remains unfair that on Thameslink RPI's typically give people a penalty fare for an out of date railcard so your outcome is vastly different depending on which train operator you happen to be using.

Also I would say 90% of those I see that refuse to engage or give any details and who just get off at the next station usually get away scot free as the BTP usually don't attend even when they've been called. Meanwhile those that make innocent mistakes (usually thanks to the rail industries own incompetence in not notifying people of renewal dates) get treated like criminals.

 

[Titfield]

Not sure how relevant this comment is but the letter states "operational and administrative costs".

Does this suggest that SWR have had the idea of also charging "operational costs" as a means of inflating the total of additional costs to be charged on top of the fare avoided?

Seems to me to be a very quick easy way to demand (and receive) additional monies?

I have just noticed in @Verbena post called Travel with an out of date railcard

Thank you so much for all of your replies. I didn't buy multiple tickets and so I referred this back to the prosecutions department, querying the multiple charges. In fact it turned out to be an admin error and they have removed the 'duplicate' journeys, reducing my fine to £524. I'm so glad I queried it and didn't just pay the £726 - I'm a bit shocked they would make such an error. The fares I am paying for come to £270 (as 30907 stated), the admin costs are £104 and the case processing costs are £150. I do begrudge paying admin costs when they messed the admin up and nearly overcharged me by quite a lot - but on the other hand, it was my mistake in the first place to use an out of date railcard!

and the case processing costs are £150.(my bolding)

Is this yet another way of inflating costs to increase the net benefit to the TOC of agreeing an out of court settlement.