Would they really claim for weekends? If they did then they surely would have to claim off-peak fares on those days?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Fare evasion
- Thread starter Milly
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,114
well, hard to know, but that may be a very fair point. It's clearly 'bang to rights' for premeditated fare evasion - if I was asking for a sum to settle as the Train Company I'd start with a high number - as it's not like the OP is in a strong position...but off peak for weekend calc is a fair point. I guess you could offer them 5 days worth of fares and see if they were happy to take that in the interests of a quick conclusion.
Weekends? Only if there was a reason to believe that was how the ticket had been used - the "normal" approach we've seen seems to use 10 single journeys as the starting point, but if the person co-operates and offers their own evidence of actual use that might well be accepted (ref. point 1 of my previous post).
Yeah I don’t work weekends so it would have only been fair to pay the off peak fares for the weekend. I’ve done the maths and I think I’m liable to pay around £400 plus all the added costs that they wish to add to the sum.
Thank you for your help, I’ve done the calculations already. Read the post above
I do have evidence to prove of what I did and didn’t pay, fingers crossed
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
Is it clear they have a reasonable claim for the whole journeys, when Milly's tickets for A-B and T-Z were valid? Perhaps unsurprisingly, National Rail Condition of Travel 13.4 means that travelling beyond the printed destination doesn't invalidate the ticket:
"If you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey."
No Trains Available | National Rail
We are unable to find your requested journey at this time. Please try and select an alternative route or operator. Thank you.
Milly, do you mean £400 covers anytime return fares for the whole journey?
They have little reason to think you went to London on your days off, if you tell them your job is Monday to Friday.
Although they may look favourably on your admitting the other weeks, they might still suspect - not entirely unreasonably - that you avoided full fares at times before that, perhaps further back. So the more records of payments you have (and/or evidence supporting the claim that you have only just started to travel regularly by train) the better.
There may be another aspect to your just starting work. If you've been working for three weeks and avoiding fares all of that time, they might reasonably think you could have gone on doing it long into the future, even when any factors you presented as mitigating no longer applied. It might be something to bear in mind when communicating.
Last edited:
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,114
Yes, well done - my point was to help you start to calculate what they will see you as having avoided, ball park, to get an idea of what to expect, which you have done. Other comments below are ones I agree with ref the sort of points you might need to make as evidence that supports the extent of what you avoided paying. I assume they will want to settle for a sum higher than the cost of the fares as otherwise there would never be any purpose in buying a ticket to start with - it has to be a punitive sanction as it were.
Hi, thanks for your response. I have evidence that I had ended my job early May via an email and also did not travel via train for nearly a month through bank statements. I also have statements proving that I did in fact pay weekly tickets Further back when I was working.Is it clear they have a reasonable claim for the whole journeys, when Milly's tickets for A-B and T-Z were valid? Perhaps unsurprisingly, National Rail Condition of Travel 13.4 means that travelling beyond the printed destination doesn't invalidate the ticket:
"If you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey."
No Trains Available | National Rail
We are unable to find your requested journey at this time. Please try and select an alternative route or operator. Thank you.www.nationalrail.co.uk
Milly, do you mean £400 covers anytime return fares for the whole journey?
They have little reason to think you went to London on your days off, if you tell them your job is Monday to Friday.
Although they may look favourably on your admitting the other weeks, they might still suspect - not entirely unreasonably - that you avoided full fares at times before that, perhaps further back. So the more records of payments you have (and/or evidence supporting the claim that you have only just started to travel regularly by train) the better.
There may be another aspect to your just starting work. If you've been working for three weeks and avoiding fares all of that time, they might reasonably think you could have gone on doing it long into the future, even when any factors you presented as mitigating no longer applied. It might be something to bear in mind when communicating.
The £400 covers 3 full weeks excluding off peak returns on the weekends. I don’t work weekends so hopefully they will be lenient on this. I’ve borrowed money from my parents and even willing to pay for a whole years worth of travel card to assure them that I will not do this again.
father_jack
Member
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 1,124
I've only caught up on this thread but "doughnutting"/"leaving a space in the middle" with tickets as you've done is looked at in a very negative light. Your calculations might be correct in theory but when you add that you've showed the intent to pay the wrong fare the TOCs figures may give you a shock. This was debated a while back but there's the old chestnut of having a ticket or tickets to cover your entire journey at the start of it and not after you've been detected.
NSB2017
Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 49
This does show one of the issues with the "out of court offer" system used.
On the one hand, in this case we have someone who can seemingly afford to pay the £1,000-plus settlement they may eventually be offered -in full as a lump sum.
On the other, you may have someone who would be offered a much lower settlement for a much lower offence but has to go to court so they can arrange to pay in installments as they can't access a lump of cash.
Added to the way the system disproportionately affects those with less cash available, if someone has a job they would lose if they received a conviction, I would assume the employer has that clause due to wanting people of a certain character, rather than those who can throw money to make convictions go away?
Not a knock on the OP, but the system is crazy.
On the one hand, in this case we have someone who can seemingly afford to pay the £1,000-plus settlement they may eventually be offered -in full as a lump sum.
On the other, you may have someone who would be offered a much lower settlement for a much lower offence but has to go to court so they can arrange to pay in installments as they can't access a lump of cash.
Added to the way the system disproportionately affects those with less cash available, if someone has a job they would lose if they received a conviction, I would assume the employer has that clause due to wanting people of a certain character, rather than those who can throw money to make convictions go away?
Not a knock on the OP, but the system is crazy.
I do not think the OP is in a position of strength sufficient to start making this level of quibble.
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
I don't think anyone's suggesting she should quibble. People have simply made suggestions about the level of loss that would form one part of a settlement.
As I indicated above, her position is so weak that if her job is under threat she would be wise to think about consulting a solicitor.
Only if the matter proceeds to criminal court and the OP is convicted/pleads guilty.
I agree. It would of course be relevant to a plea in mitigation, but by that time there would already be a conviction so there’s little point raising it now if the objective is to avoid court in the first place.
some bloke
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 1,561
The point @furlong is making is that there may be extra leverage for a settlement if the company realises how much more money they are likely to get that way than through court. A court wouldn't award compensation that included paying for parts of the journey a second time.
As I said, there is little point raising the detailed issue of quantum until the TOC’s position on principle is confirmed.
- Status