Expired railcard - letter received

[modernrail]

A friend has received a letter from WMT accusing her of fraud.

The letter is shockingly bad in terms of grammar and details bearing in mind the nature of accusation and so she is going back to them to provide a letter that actually makes sense and is written in English. However, she thinks it might relate to a journey in May 2024 where she hadn’t realised her network railcard had expired. When this was pointed out by the guard she paid a new full price fare. She does not remember being told further action might take place.

The letter is also from the Digital Fraud Department, if that is relevant. It ask her to provide further evidence that ‘none of the relevant legislation has been contravened’. A bit difficult when the letter doesn’t actually make any sense in the first place or actually specify the journey to which they are referring.

She is pretty distressed about the whole thing. A letter out of the blue accusing her of fraud in very serious terms, for an incident she thought was dealt with there and then.

Bearing in mind it is pretty easy to forget a railcard expiry date is the general approach not completely over the top? Why make an accusation of fraud in such vague terms over 6 months after the incident and threatening the ‘full force of the law’ rather than just issuing some sort of fixed penalty notice.

Also, has the guard not open and closed the matter by charging a full fare on the day?

 

[AlterEgo]

A friend has received a letter from WMT accusing her of fraud.

The letter is shockingly bad in terms of grammar and details bearing in mind the nature of accusation and so she is going back to them to provide a letter that actually makes sense and is written in English. However, she thinks it might relate to a journey in May 2024 where she hadn’t realised her network railcard had expired. When this was pointed out by the guard she paid a new full price fare. She does not remember being told further action might take place.

The letter is also from the Digital Fraud Department, if that is relevant. It ask her to provide further evidence that ‘none of the relevant legislation has been contravened’. A bit difficult when the letter doesn’t actually make any sense in the first place or actually specify the journey to which they are referring.

She is pretty distressed about the whole thing. A letter out of the blue accusing her of fraud in very serious terms, for an incident she thought was dealt with there and then.

Bearing in mind it is pretty easy to forget a railcard expiry date is the general approach not completely over the top? Why make an accusation of fraud in such vague terms over 6 months after the incident and threatening the ‘full force of the law’ rather than just issuing some sort of fixed penalty notice.

Also, has the guard not open and closed the matter by charging a full fare on the day?

Please upload the letter with your friend's details removed.

She should not respond at this stage. Do *not* talk to them until you get advice.

 

[modernrail]

Thanks AlterEgo,

Letter referred to attached with personal details redacted.

 

[AlterEgo]

Has she made any journeys with an expired railcard *in the last six months*? Did she renew her railcard when she was caught?

If the answers to that are no, and yes, then the train company effectively has no realistic avenues open to it other than possibly a civil claim, and the letter should be ignored. That is - do not respond to it, say nothing, pretend she never got it. Don’t engage.

 

[modernrail]

Has she made any journeys with an expired railcard *in the last six months*? Did she renew her railcard when she was caught?

If the answers to that are no, and yes, then the train company effectively has no realistic avenues open to it other than possibly a civil claim, and the letter should be ignored. That is - do not respond to it, say nothing, pretend she never got it. Don’t engage.

She renewed the railcard on her next trip which was shortly afterwards and hasn’t made any trips in the last 6 months with an expired railcard.

 

[30907]

First of all, assuming the letter is recent, WMT are out of time for a prosecution (other than under the Fraud Act which is not remotely likely) so I agree that your friend should take no further action. Somebody has slipped up there, and not only by sending a garbled mail!

To respond more broadly:

Bearing in mind it is pretty easy to forget a railcard expiry date is the general approach not completely over the top? Why make an accusation of fraud in such vague terms over 6 months after the incident and threatening the ‘full force of the law’ rather than just issuing some sort of fixed penalty notice.

The delay apart, I am not sure that the general approach is over the top. Alongside the people who carelessly forget that their railcard has expired, the evidence of this forum alone suggests there are many more who intentionally "forget" such things. Hence Penalty Fares are typically no longer issued for these offences, and train operators increasingly investigate digital purchase history with a view to recovering some underpaid or unpaid fares.

 

[modernrail]

First of all, assuming the letter is recent, WMT are out of time for a prosecution (other than under the Fraud Act which is not remotely likely) so I agree that your friend should take no further action. Somebody has slipped up there, and not only by sending a garbled mail!

To respond more broadly:

The delay apart, I am not sure that the general approach is over the top. Alongside the people who carelessly forget that their railcard has expired, the evidence of this forum alone suggests there are many more who intentionally "forget" such things. Hence Penalty Fares are typically no longer issued for these offences, and train operators increasingly investigate digital purchase history with a view to recovering some underpaid or unpaid fares.

Thanks for the insight and advice. My friend is also grateful.

I personally think threatening this sort of action for an expired railcard is over the top in any case. To have an expired railcard, you bought a railcard. That is very different to buying a ticket with a railcard discount having never had a railcard or not had one for a significant period of time.

The former is much more likely to be an honest or at least very forgivable mistake. The latter is much more likely to be deliberate fare evasion.

There does come a point where I think passengers are within their rights to say that rail companies should balance their desire to reduce fare evasion with deployment of resources on some other rather important matters - like maintaining the published timetable or ensuring the WMT/passenger information interface at Euston is fit for purpose.

 

[John R]

Thanks for the insight and advice. My friend is also grateful.

I personally think threatening this sort of action for an expired railcard is over the top in any case. To have an expired railcard, you bought a railcard. That is very different to buying a ticket with a railcard discount having never had a railcard or not had one for a significant period of time.

The former is much more likely to be an honest or at least very forgivable mistake. The latter is much more likely to be deliberate fare evasion.

There does come a point where I think passengers are within their rights to say that rail companies should balance their desire to reduce fare evasion with deployment of resources on some other rather important matters - like maintaining the published timetable or ensuring the WMT/passenger information interface at Euston is fit for purpose.

Unfortunately what you think is irrelevant - the law and railway practice is what it is, and moreover it's not unreasonable that the rail company should seek to recover any other instances where the correct fare has not been paid, which is effectively what will happen here if your friend engages.

As for the last paragraph, it strikes me as similar to someone being stopped for speeding and telling the officer that they should be spending more time catching real criminals. It should be fairly obvious that the people working on fare evasion will not have the relevant skills to address either of the areas you suggest are deficient, so unless you are suggesting that no resource is put into addressing unpaid fares, deliberate or otherwise, I don't see the connection.

Having said all that, I agree with @AlterEgo that they are out of time for a prosecution (even if the fare had not been paid on the day), and your friend should not respond.

 

[Cuthbert]

There does come a point where I think passengers are within their rights to say that rail companies should balance their desire to reduce fare evasion with deployment of resources on some other rather important matters - like maintaining the published timetable or ensuring the WMT/passenger information interface at Euston is fit for purpose.

But unfortunately London Euston is run by Network Rail who deal with all things London Euston and the passenger interface not WMT.

 

[modernrail]

Unfortunately what you think is irrelevant - the law and railway practice is what it is, and moreover it's not unreasonable that the rail company should seek to recover any other instances where the correct fare has not been paid, which is effectively what will happen here if your friend engages.

As for the last paragraph, it strikes me as similar to someone being stopped for speeding and telling the officer that they should be spending more time catching real criminals. It should be fairly obvious that the people working on fare evasion will not have the relevant skills to address either of the areas you suggest are deficient, so unless you are suggesting that no resource is put into addressing unpaid fares, deliberate or otherwise, I don't see the connection.

Having said all that, I agree with @AlterEgo that they are out of time for a prosecution (even if the fare had not been paid on the day), and your friend should not respond.

I don’t mind a message of zero tolerance but in reality there should be sensible discretion sitting behind that. Okay, the resource might need retraining to do other things, but is can also prioritise what is goes after.

I have to say I would also prioritise other railcards. You are entitled to the Network Railcard discount if you are….alive. All the others have eligibility criteria. The maximum the railway is being defrauded of is in reality £30 something pounds, even if the ‘fraud’ continues for a year.

One reason it bothers me is the rate of anti-social behaviour very much seems to be going up. That is likely often from those who have not paid their fare or regularly do not do so. Target the right people, you get not just the fare avoiders but those who are making journeys unpleasant for others.

Then there is the competence point - why is a poorly worded letter being sent out of time. Should the legal dept not be saying that cannot happen as the letter is factually incorrect in terms of the risk of prosecution?

If this is about dates other than the date in question, should the letter not state that and provide the dates in question. You surely cannot accuse somebody of a crime in such vague terms. The letter makes no mention of other journeys. That is like a police officer pulling somebody over and saying, I think you were speeding on some dates in the past I am not going to tell you about - were you? They cannot do that.

So I just find this approach very odd. It doesn’t feel competent or legally correct. It is obviously absolutely fair game to question this, railway practice or not. The railway recently received a well deserved bloody nose for not paying proper attention to correct legal process.

 

[furlong]

However, she thinks it might relate to a journey in May 2024 where she hadn’t realised her network railcard had expired. When this was pointed out by the guard she paid a new full price fare. She does not remember being told further action might take place.

Also, has the guard not open and closed the matter by charging a full fare on the day?

If the correct journey was then paid for and no relevant information was withheld and she understood that to be full settlement of the matter at the time then yes that should have been the end of it. Has she still got some evidence of this? If paid by card, find it on old statements. Get this ready in case it's needed later.

While she could reply to say all that, she'd be best off with the help of a solicitor to make sure she used exactly the right words.

The next best thing is probably to do nothing. If they have sufficient evidence to take action over other occasions, wait for them to produce that evidence. If their records of what happened on the occasion are incomplete and fail to show that the matter was settled on the spot, wait to see if they take it further by sending a letter before action over an unpaid fare (which is when she would want to provide the evidence of payment).

(My guess might be that no record was made of the expired railcard on the day, that they have found records of further tickets purchased with a railcard and therefore assumed no valid railcard was held to support them either. But of course if that was the case, they should stated that - but they didn't because they're worried about giving out any details until they've established they are contacting the right person. The result is the incoherent email we see.)

 

[modernrail]

Thanks furlong. Luckily for her, her friend is a solicitor! That is why, the more I think about it, for many of the reasons you have stated, I really do not think this letter should have been sent.

The approach of WMT, if this is there standard approach, has more holes in it than a sieve.

I am also increasingly at a loss as to why a case like this one is anywhere near the priority pile. I hope the CPS, for all the criticism it receives, never adopts a similar approach. In reality, it can’t, because this approach is procedurally incorrect.

If WMT don’t think they have enough evidence to issue a letter before action, they should not be going on a cack handed evidential fishing expedition. Either do it right or don’t do it.

Anyway, my friend is clear she has a valid railcard for her next journey. It was her first journey for a while and she was trying it out with her 7 month old son, to visit her Mum. Needless to say she thinks WMT are an excellent train company with the right priorities in life.

 

[BazingaTribe]

Thanks furlong. Luckily for her, her friend is a solicitor! That is why, the more I think about it, for many of the reasons you have stated, I really do not think this letter should have been sent.

The approach of WMT, if this is there standard approach, has more holes in it than a sieve.

I am also increasingly at a loss as to why a case like this one is anywhere near the priority pile. I hope the CPS, for all the criticism it receives, never adopts a similar approach. In reality, it can’t, because this approach is procedurally incorrect.

If WMT don’t think they have enough evidence to issue a letter before action, they should not be going on a cack handed evidential fishing expedition. Either do it right or don’t do it.

Anyway, my friend is clear she has a valid railcard for her next journey. It was her first journey for a while and she was trying it out with her 7 month old son, to visit her Mum. Needless to say she thinks WMT are an excellent train company with the right priorities in life.

The only hole I can see here is that they are out of time to prosecute. If she was stopped and the letter had been sent in time, then she would be obliged to engage to stop it going to court. As it is, as others have said, she has the choice not to. (However, I would definitely advise her to keep her nose squeaky clean going forward.)

The letter is not garbled -- I've seen worse from other bodies. Aside from a few comma splices and the officious language, it's clear what it means. If it had been sent in a timely fashion they could well have prosecuted. It does sound overly harsh if it genuinely was a mistake, but they're not mind-readers. Blame the people who 'forget' their rail cards or continue to claim discounts longer than their card allows them for for the mistrustful way people can be treated -- ultimately, the more people who abuse the discounts offered, the more money the TOCs have to recoup and the more both honest people and those caught short end up paying. The ORR is reviewing practices but a condition of public ownership was that the TOCs got tough on revenue, so I'm inclined to think that with the way this new government is pinching the pennies, methods of enforcement might change but not necessarily the strictness with which it is pursued.

The various railway companies can both chase fares and make improvements to infrastructure. In fact, if people want decent infrastructure, then paying what they owe means there's more in the DfT coffers to disburse to contractors. What goes out must come in, and working for a similar government department myself and seeing the figures needed to maintain an aging property portfolio, nothing comes cheap. Unlike with the railways, the public don't pay for my services directly, but nevertheless it costs a lot of money to run. If you want decent service it comes at a large cost and someone has to foot the bill.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I may be wrong, but I cannot see anywhere in this thread how long the OP’s friend’s railcard had been expired when stopped?
If it was a couple of days out of date, that’s one thing. If it was many months, and many other tickets had been purchased prior to the day they were stopped, and a digital record of that exists, I could see why a fishing expedition might arise.

 

[Spaceship323]

If this is about dates other than the date in question, should the letter not state that and provide the dates in question. You surely cannot accuse somebody of a crime in such vague terms. The letter makes no mention of other journeys. They cannot do that.

Yes they can! we see it all the time, The train company believe they have evidence of wrongdoing and are conducting what might be called an "honesty exercise" to see if your friend replies with matching dates of railcard use, if they don't then they fail the "honesty test". To quote from post #5 - "hasn’t made any trips in the last 6 months with an expired railcard" (my bold).

 

[RPI]

For multiple journeys offences, as this appears to be, WMT may well attempt to reclaim any monies owed through the county court, TOC's have been doing this. Obviously the 6 month limit then doesn't apply.

 

[modernrail]

Okay well start with my friend insists she hasn’t made any other trips without a valid railcard. Knowing her, I suspect that is true, so when you say evidence do you mean of trips before that date? Highly unlikely from my recollection because she had a new born and wasn’t travelling by train, partly because Euston is so awful, to link with another popular thread.

The letter is badly written. Very badly. As a young solicitor I would have it thrown back at me by the relevant partner for not clearly setting out the basic accusation in clear terms. I have shown it to another solicitor friend who deals with litigation more than me and he agrees he thinks a judge would take a dim view of it as inappropriate communication by a company with a legal department and a public service mandate/strong links to the public sector that can and should be able to do better.

I don’t understand why you would carry out an ‘honesty exercise’. If you think you have evidence of wrongdoing - what is the disadvantage in just getting on with setting that out? Anybody can send any letter they want, whether it is considered appropriate later down the line is another matter. I would be interested to know how many successful criminal convictions there have been from this form of letter/approach and subsequent passing or failing of this ‘honesty test’.

For multiple journeys offences, as this appears to be, WMT may well attempt to reclaim any monies owed through the county court, TOC's have been doing this. Obviously the 6 month limit then doesn't apply.

I doubt there are multiple instances, for the reasons set out above.

As for the money owed, there can’t be any for the day in question as my friend paid a new fare (not the difference in fare).

Any difference in fare is going to be small in this case. I also think there is a valid argument is the maximum loss is the price of the relevant railcard. If there is evidence of an expired railcard that was replaced fairly soon afterwards the real loss might even be a pro-rata of the annual railcard amount.

So I sort of come back to the original point. How is this case being prioritised over what must be a mountain of more serious situations.

 

[Spaceship323]

So I sort of come back to the original point. How is this case being prioritised over what must be a mountain of more serious situations.

I don't think there is any priority with this case seeing as they've taken over 6 months to write with their allegations

 

[John R]

Any difference in fare is going to be small in this case. I also think there is a valid argument is the maximum loss is the price of the relevant railcard. If there is evidence of an expired railcard that was replaced fairly soon afterwards the real loss might even be a pro-rata of the annual railcard amount.

That's not how the railway calculates it though, when offering out of court settlements.

What they do is:-

1. Ignore any fare paid for the railcard discounted ticket.
2. Look up the Anytime Single fare for any journeys undertaken (and so two of those for a return trip), regardless of what ticket was held.
3. Charge that for each journey, together with an admin fee which is typically around £150.

So to use an example local to me, someone may have bought two Advance singles at £20 each (without railcard £30) for a trip to London from Bristol. So by your calculation the amount due would be 2x£10.

However, the railway would charge the Anytime Single of £132.60 and double it for a return trip. Plus the admin fee.

You might think that excessive, but it's the current practice of the rail companies, and given that the purpose of the forum board is to give advice based on what actually happens, not what you or anyone else would like to happen, then that's what we work on when giving advice. In reality of course, someone faced with a huge bill if (as we sometimes see) they have made numerous trips without a valid railcard does have the option of declining the settlement offer and going to court, where they will inevitably be found guilty for the one offence for which they were caught. However, most people prefer to avoid a criminal conviction so are willing to pay, no matter how unreasonable they think it is.

 

[modernrail]

I don't think there is any priority with this case seeing as they've taken over 6 months to write with their allegations

It is still being prioritised over others, unless they have cleared their backlog of all serious cases, which I find impossible to believe if fare evasion is rife, which I am sure it is.

 

[John R]

It is still being prioritised over others, unless they have cleared their backlog of all serious cases, which I find impossible to believe if fare evasion is rife, which I am sure it is.

It sounds like your idea of not prioritising it is to drop it completely. From what we see of cases brought here, the rail companies do deal with more blatant cases in a reasonable (indeed sometimes very rapid) timescale. And they have the 6 month limitation in terms of prosecution too and we see very few cases where they have gone beyond that.

Which makes me think that the “back office” prioritisation is reasonably well managed once someone is caught. And thus I don’t see how your desire for a re prioritisation to benefit your friend has any justification other than self (or friend) interest.

 

[furlong]

The letter is badly written.

We have seen far, far worse on this forum. Some of us long ago formed the view that much of this work by or on behalf of the railway is neither carried out nor reviewed by legally-qualified professionals to keep costs down.

Any difference in fare is going to be small in this case. I also think there is a valid argument is the maximum loss is the price of the relevant railcard.

That is also my view in cases where people hadn't realised it had expired - even moreso when the railway howsoever failed to point out that expiry - and they qualified to renew it. We seem not to see that argument presented to court because people who engage with the process prefer to settle out-of-court on whatever are the railway's terms rather than seeking to challenge those terms, fearing the alternative would be a conviction and they just write off the difference.

 

[modernrail]

That's not how the railway calculates it though, when offering out of court settlements.

What they do is:-

1. Ignore any fare paid for the railcard discounted ticket.
2. Look up the Anytime Single fare for any journeys undertaken (and so two of those for a return trip), regardless of what ticket was held.
3. Charge that for each journey, together with an admin fee which is typically around £150.

So to use an example local to me, someone may have bought two Advance singles at £20 each (without railcard £30) for a trip to London from Bristol. So by your calculation the amount due would be 2x£10.

However, the railway would charge the Anytime Single of £132.60 and double it for a return trip. Plus the admin fee.

You might think that excessive, but it's the current practice of the rail companies, and given that the purpose of the forum board is to give advice based on what actually happens, not what you or anyone else would like to happen, then that's what we work on when giving advice. In reality of course, someone faced with a huge bill if (as we sometimes see) they have made numerous trips without a valid railcard does have the option of declining the settlement offer and going to court, where they will inevitably be found guilty for the one offence for which they were caught. However, most people prefer to avoid a criminal conviction so are willing to pay, no matter how unreasonable they think it is.

I don’t mind that approach for a serial offender. Highly likely that a persistent offender has fleeced the railway for more than that over time.

I do think it is disproportionate for a first time incident. However, the real question is what the courts think. If a civil court thinks that is the right measure of loss and tends to find for the railway company for a first time offence, it is reasonable for a railway company to seek it. If not, I do think the railway companies, if behaving correctly, should be seeking what they know to be a precedent backed quantum of damages. It is not as if there is not a wealth of court led precedent to work from. I assume therefore that those sorts of figures are also seen in judgment by the courts.

Can railway companies actually prosecute criminal fraud under the legislation quoted in the OP under their powers or does it have to go to through the CPS? Is the Railway Act offence fraud? If not, the letter is badly worded on that point also.

In my world you don’t mix discussion of criminal and civil. The two are always distinct so you would never, for instance, threaten a criminal sanction to request a civil settlement. You would always threaten the two routes separately and be clear they are separate and distinct. We all have the right to understand the process to which we are being subject to. Mixing the two is in mind, bad practice and degrades the special position the railway is afforded in being able to prosecute cases. A body with those powers should take special care to be clear in its communications around them.

It sounds like your idea of not prioritising it is to drop it completely. From what we see of cases brought here, the rail companies do deal with more blatant cases in a reasonable (indeed sometimes very rapid) timescale. And they have the 6 month limitation in terms of prosecution too and we see very few cases where they have gone beyond that.

Which makes me think that the “back office” prioritisation is reasonably well managed once someone is caught. And thus I don’t see how your desire for a re prioritisation to benefit your friend has any justification other than self (or friend) interest.

In all my responses I am assuming that my friend bought a railcard as she has told me she did.

If that is the case, then they have gone beyond the 6 months? So it has been de-prioritised/left to lapse by the train company. Which means they shouldn’t have sent a letter, because it is factually incorrect, because (a) they can’t prosecute her for the incident in May (b) they don’t refer to any potential incident within the limitation period.

Now if she didn’t buy a railcard and carried on buying tickets with a railcard discount then obviously there is potential bother to be had. WMT’s letter does not suggest that though. It only refers to one single incident and does not ask for information relating to any other incident/date.

So I go back to the start. Why are weird vague letters being issued. Why is it not more,

- you paid for a ticket benefiting from a railcard discount, you didn’t have one, you were charged a full fare, we want to ask you to pay more - you need to pay this amount x. We can do this because of x, y and z.

Pay us x or we will use our criminal prosecutorial powers under x legislation and send the case to the magistrates who may issue a fine of up to x and/or custody etc.

And/or
We believe you have travelled on additional dates without a railcard. We cannot find a railcard under your name for he following journeys. If you believe we are in error and you did hold a valid railcard, send us proof.

If you don’t, we believe you may have committed both civil offences and a criminal offences. The civil offences are x. The criminal offences are y. We may take you to civil courts to recover civil damages which may, from previous cases, amount to x. We may also chose to prosecute you in the criminal courts in which case the maximum penalties are. X and Y

Crucially - if you believe you may have committed a criminal offence, you may wish to seek legal advice before responding to this letter.

 

[furlong]

As for the money owed, there can’t be any for the day in question as my friend paid a new fare (not the difference in fare).

We regularly see cases where people who have paid the fare are asked to pay it again and simply do so without challenge.

Inspectors are generally instructed EITHER to report for prosecution and issue a zero-fare ticket OR to take payment and issue a (verbal) warning. As you'll understand, it's not proper to take an action that may be deemed as having resolved the matter on the spot and then also to pursue a prosecution afterwards!

Can railway companies actually prosecute criminal fraud under the legislation quoted in the OP under their powers or does it have to go to through the CPS? Is the

They can do it themselves, but they generally don't because (my opinion) their standards of evidence are too poor so they hand serious cases over to the police who are more accustomed to preparing for the additional scrutiny there may be in serious cases. E.g. physical season ticket fraud? Why did the inspector handle the ticket and then just put it into his pocket instead of handling it only using gloves and immediately sealing it into an evidence bag?

In my world you don’t mix discussion of criminal and civil.

Absolutely! See my comment about how it's convenient that this work isn't done by regulated professionals who might be putting their own careers on the line! Nobody stops them so they get away with it.

You might want to look at https://www.orr.gov.uk/monitoring-r...-revenue-protection-practices/terms-reference and submit this incident using the (dreadfully-designed) form then send a follow-up email saying what you really want to say

 

[modernrail]

Thanks furlong. Glad I am not going mad!

The railway wants to watch itself lest it becomes the equivalent of the private car park industry. With the state of that letter and WMT’s really weird pointless cloak and dagger fishing expedition for data it should already have - it arguably already has.

…. And yes - go after some proper criminals non-officers. Your colleagues in other TOCs have already wasted thousands if not millions of man hours on the Single Justice Procedure screw up. Standards clearly need raising within these organisations that enjoy very serious prosecutorial powers that should be exercised extremely carefully.

It also struck me that this particular mistake is a lot easier to make with online buying platforms. If I recall correctly your railcard option is saved automatically and does not link to the expiry or otherwise of your railcard. I am pretty sure I have made the mistake. It is much easier than the days where you had to remember you had a paper railcard when you bought a paper ticket.

 

[MotCO]

We believe you have travelled on additional dates without a railcard. We cannot find a railcard under your name for he following journeys. If you believe we are in error and you did hold a valid railcard, send

I wonder if this is the issue. The TOC may have found evidence of discounted tickets from on-line purchases, but can't find a Railcard. Maybe the Railcard was bought at a ticket office, maybe in a slightly different name or address etc.

 

[Wolfie]

First of all, assuming the letter is recent, WMT are out of time for a prosecution (other than under the Fraud Act which is not remotely likely) so I agree that your friend should take no further action. Somebody has slipped up there, and not only by sending a garbled mail!

To respond more broadly:

The delay apart, I am not sure that the general approach is over the top. Alongside the people who carelessly forget that their railcard has expired, the evidence of this forum alone suggests there are many more who intentionally "forget" such things. Hence Penalty Fares are typically no longer issued for these offences, and train operators increasingly investigate digital purchase history with a view to recovering some underpaid or unpaid fares.

It's all too easy to do though. I had tickets booked with a Senior Railcard discount for a trip on Monday last but realised on Monday morning that my Railcard had actually expired on Saturday. Cue rapid purchase of a new three year Railcard online. Had l not realised though.....

 

[modernrail]

I wonder if this is the issue. The TOC may have found evidence of discounted tickets from on-line purchases, but can't find a Railcard. Maybe the Railcard was bought at a ticket office, maybe in a slightly different name or address etc.

That is what I am thinking. If that is the case you can’t go around throwing out accusations of criminal fraud with zero evidence. On that basis you could accuse everybody who has bought a ticket with a railcard discount but that you don’t have a record of a railcard for of fraud. It would be ridiculous behaviour.

It is not the passengers fault if the railway has not worked out a full proof way to link railcard data together. Nor should the railway be spending time on fishing expeditions when there must be solid fare evasion cases by the bucketload to prosecute. If there isn’t, then either fare evasion is not as all consuming as it is made out to be or these departments are very, very well staffed.

 

[John R]

That is what I am thinking. If that is the case you can’t go around throwing out accusations of criminal fraud with zero evidence. On that basis you could accuse everybody who has bought a ticket with a railcard discount but that you don’t have a record of a railcard for of fraud. It would be ridiculous behaviour.

But that is not what they are doing. They have the evidence that she was caught once travelling with a railcard discount and no valid railcard. It is likely they have identified prior purchases with the same railcard discount. I notice that post 5 didn’t really address the point as to whether any purchases were made prior to the incident, which is what they will be looking at (albeit somewhat belatedly) I would imagine.

 

[modernrail]

It's all too easy to do though. I had tickets booked with a Senior Railcard discount for a trip on Monday last but realised on Monday morning that my Railcard had actually expired on Saturday. Cue rapid purchase of a new three year Railcard online. Had l not realised though.....

Exactly, which is why the criminal threshold for fraud has clearly not been reached in this sort of case.

I do wonder if there is a legal abuse of process argument in WMT’s approach. I wouldn’t be surprised if a judge told WMT at trial:

- the lack of clarity as to what you are accusing the passenger of in your letter is an abuse of process
- your inability to state the evidence upon which you are making the unclear accusation is an abuse of process
- the wording of your letter and invitation of a response clearly causes prejudice to the passenger in terms of their right to defend themselves

On which basis there is no case to answer, whether or not the case is not time barred.
If subsequent letters also mix civil and criminal matters, that might also be an abuse of process.

There is also a right against Self-Incrimination which feels relevant.

Here is an extract from Practical Law which us lawyers use as an information database: Under common law and section 14(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, a party may claim privilege against self-incrimination if compelled to disclose information that would tend to expose them to criminal proceedings for an offence or the recovery of a penalty.

It is not my area of practice but it feels potentially very relevant to WMT’s approach.

But that is not what they are doing. They have the evidence that she was caught once travelling with a railcard discount and no valid railcard. It is likely they have identified prior purchases with the same railcard discount. I notice that post 5 didn’t really address the point as to whether any purchases were made prior to the incident, which is what they will be looking at (albeit somewhat belatedly) I would imagine.

Are they time barred in terms of anything earlier?