Fined with 176 pounds, I didn't know my railcard had expired a month ago. Desperately need advice

[needadvice]

I booked a to and fro journey from Leeds to Manchester in December 2023 Transpennine Express. When the trainline app showed the 16-25 railcard while I was searching the trains led me to believe that I still have the railcard. In reality the railcard expired in November (just a month ago).I know it was my mistake for not checking once but I honestly though that i got the card in Dec 2022. While coming back from Manchester to Leeds, I was asked to show the railcard, I frantically started searching for the railcard app and I realised that the card had expired. I got a letter from the Transpennine on 10 FEB 2024, saying that I have to pay 26.80 pounds which is the fare I avoided PLUS 150 pounds. Total is 176.80 pounds. I am a international student here from India and I honeslty cannot afford so much. I am crying while I am writing this. I don't know what to do. Should I email- [email protected] ? If I explain my situation will they lower the fine ? PLS NEED URGENT ADVICE.

 

[John R]

Realistically, no they won’t reduce the figure quoted, which is an out of court settlement to avoid it going to court.

Unfortunately you didn’t have a valid ticket and Transpennine would be within its rights to prosecute you, which you don’t want, as it will cost more.

It’s a costly mistake, but I’m afraid you will have to find the money somehow, within the time period they have asked for it in, to avoid them prosecuting you.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Not that it necessarily helps the OP, but does £150 in added fees not seem to be OTT for what is likely a straightforward and quite possibly one-off offence?

 

[Haywain]

Not that it necessarily helps the OP, but does £150 in added fees not seem to be OTT for what is likely a straightforward and quite possibly one-off offence?

It's of no help to the OP, and it may be at the higher end of investigation costs but no so much as to be unreasonable.

 

[ikcdab]

To reiterate, there is no chance that they will reduce the penalty. It may seem high, it only partly covers the rail company costs in recovering avoided fares. Considering the cost of everything else, £150 is not actually that much these days. Somehow you do need to find the money, borrow it on a card or whatever to pay. As you are an international student, a criminal conviction if you don't pay will only make matters far worse for the future.

 

[WesternLancer]

I booked a to and fro journey from Leeds to Manchester in December 2023 Transpennine Express. When the trainline app showed the 16-25 railcard while I was searching the trains led me to believe that I still have the railcard. In reality the railcard expired in November (just a month ago).I know it was my mistake for not checking once but I honestly though that i got the card in Dec 2022. While coming back from Manchester to Leeds, I was asked to show the railcard, I frantically started searching for the railcard app and I realised that the card had expired. I got a letter from the Transpennine on 10 FEB 2024, saying that I have to pay 26.80 pounds which is the fare I avoided PLUS 150 pounds. Total is 176.80 pounds. I am a international student here from India and I honeslty cannot afford so much. I am crying while I am writing this. I don't know what to do. Should I email- [email protected] ? If I explain my situation will they lower the fine ? PLS NEED URGENT ADVICE.

Sadly you need to pay this as soon as possible to avoid the matter escalating and things costing you more then the sum being asked for. I think it would be very unlikely they would lower the fine if you asked them to do this. It is very bad luck.

If you are a student, try contacting your university hardship fund for help with some money if paying this fine leaves you in a difficult financial position (do not ask them for money to pay a fine, but explain that you are short of money due to this problem).

 

[furlong]

There's nothing to lose in asking if they would explain where that amount comes from and whether they can reduce it for you - unless something you said caused them to perform extra unnecessary investigations, this amount sounds excessive to me, and if they've any sense they'll agree to a lower amount. Did you offer to pay the correct fare or renew the railcard on the spot when this happened as you should have done?

 

[FenMan]

£150 to cover the TOC's costs doesn't sound excessive to me. There's been a lot of inflation since TOC's first settled on a norm of £100 to cover their costs, and I'd be surprised if they couldn't easily justify the higher figure if required to by a court.

 

[John R]

There's nothing to lose

Other than them withdrawing the offer and proceeding to prosecution

and if they've any sense they'll agree to a lower amount.

The idea that it is in the train company’s interests to lower the amount asked for is a curious one.

 

[spag23]

To stop this happening again, set a reliable renewal alert (electronic or paper) for few weeks before your new Card's expiry. Tell the Company you've done this (though it probably won't reduce the amount they are charging).
Also tell all your friends to do the same, and/or perhaps get this issue promulgated by your university. We see so many cases on this forum where expired Cards result in these penalties.
Incidentally they seem out of proportion to the few pounds Railcard "subscription" inadvertently missed. But that's how it is, and not for debating in this thread.

 

[RHolmes]

Not that it necessarily helps the OP, but does £150 in added fees not seem to be OTT for what is likely a straightforward and quite possibly one-off offence?

It’s the standard fee charged where a TIR is issued to a passenger, and investigations into their purchase history is investigated for all TPE cases.(regardless of how many instances of fare evasion {accidental or otherwise} have actually been committed.)

It’s a consistent and flat £150 charge for all instances.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Feb 2024 ==

To the OP: £176.80 will be the best settlement cost

 

[Puffing Devil]

To the OP: £176.80 will be the best settlement cost

I agree with this. Assuming your income is at the benefit level, it's seen as a minor matter by a court, and you immediately plead guilty, your fine + surcharge + compensation would be £82.80. This is the absolute minimum the court would impose, and the figure goes up if you earn more than £120/week. Add to that the prosecution costs, which would be at least £150 pounds, and you're looking at least £232.80 with a criminal record included for no extra charge.

 

[furlong]

It’s the standard fee charged where a TIR is issued to a passenger, and investigations into their purchase history is investigated for all TPE cases.(regardless of how many instances of fare evasion {accidental or otherwise} have actually been committed.)
It’s a consistent and flat £150 charge for all instances.

So you're suggesting people with simple cases are to a large degree subsidising people with complicated ones that cost far more than that to investigate? That's unlikely to fly and if that's so, then TPE needs to up its game! Even if they don't budge and the OP pays this amount then the OP could take up the level of this charge with his or her MP and the DfT for starters (and potentially the police later if an understanding emerges that it was excessive / punitive), once again referencing the wider understanding of the duties of private investigators and prosecutors gained by the publicity around the Post Office scandal.

 

[John R]

So you're suggesting people with simple cases are to a large degree subsidising people with complicated ones that cost far more than that to investigate? That's unlikely to fly and if that's so, then TPE needs to up its game! Even if they don't budge and the OP pays this amount then the OP could take up the level of this charge with his or her MP and the DfT for starters (and potentially the police later if an understanding emerges that it was excessive / punitive), once again referencing the wider understanding of the duties of private investigators and prosecutors gained by the publicity around the Post Office scandal.

Probably one for a separate thread, as I can imagine people have conflicting views, which won’t be particularly relevant to the OP, who is best advised to accept the offer.

 

[furlong]

Other than them withdrawing the offer and proceeding to prosecution

I don't think we've ever seen a train company on here silly enough to try that. (Think how irregular it would look trying to explain it when the defendant inevitably raises it in court in an attempt to get the case thrown out.)

The idea that it is in the train company’s interests to lower the amount asked for is a curious one.

It would be if the amount in the original demand was a "mistake" or the demand has the potential of being viewed as unlawful.

Dare I say that people get so used to reading about settlements on here that they tend to lose sight of just how unusual it is in this country to be invited to pay money to avoid the possibility of a criminal conviction and the tight conditions under which the courts will accept such agreements?

 

[Krokodil]

So you're suggesting people with simple cases are to a large degree subsidising people with complicated ones that cost far more than that to investigate? That's unlikely to fly and if that's so, then TPE needs to up its game! Even if they don't budge and the OP pays this amount then the OP could take up the level of this charge with his or her MP and the DfT for starters (and potentially the police later if an understanding emerges that it was excessive / punitive), once again referencing the wider understanding of the duties of private investigators and prosecutors gained by the publicity around the Post Office scandal.

The complex cases are more likely to end up in court instead.

 

[John R]

It would be if the amount in the original demand was a "mistake" or the demand has the potential of being viewed as unlawful.

I doubt a standard fee charged many times a day is going to be a mistake, and you can bet that there has been advice given as to whether or not it is likely to be ruled as unlawful. So in the case we are discussing, that’s highly unlikely.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Feb 2024 ==

I don't think we've ever seen a train company on here silly enough to try that. (Think how irregular it would look trying to explain it when the defendant inevitably raises it in court in an attempt to get the case thrown out.)

Probably because we usually advice against arguing with the amount of charge added.

All they would say is, we offered a settlement in a take it or leave it basis, they argued about the amount, which in itself causes more work for us, so we withdrew the offer and moved to prosecution as we are perfectly entitled to do. The magistrate will then look at the facts and convict and move on to the next case. The TOC won’t look silly at all.

 

[Gloster]

The size of the costs has intrigued me for a while. I am sure that the railway has pitched it at level that they think is acceptable to the courts and there must have cases in the past where magistrates have queried it, but been satisfied by the railway’s response. This then moves it into being close to case law and can be quoted if the query is made by another magistrate, so it becomes the standard. If they raise the going rate, which they may have done in recent months, the railway will almost certainly have a reasoned explanation as to why this is necessary due to inflation, rising costs, etc.

Which is just a complicated way of saying that the best option is to accept it.

N.b. I am not legally trained or a legal (or anything else) expert.

 

[Haywain]

The size of the costs has intrigued me for a while. I am sure that the railway has pitched it at level that they think is acceptable to the courts and there must have cases in the past where magistrates have queried it, but been satisfied by the railway’s response. This then moves it into being close to case law and can be quoted if the query is made by another magistrate, so it becomes the standard. If they raise the going rate, which they may have done in recent months, the railway will almost certainly have a reasoned explanation as to why this is necessary due to inflation, rising costs, etc.

Which is just a complicated way of saying that the best option is to accept it.

N.b. I am not legally trained or a legal (or anything else) expert.

Magistrates do not set case law.

 

[Gloster]

Magistrates do not set case law.

I am aware of that, which is why I said ‘close to’. But if a magistrate at Aldbrickham queries the amount, the railway can say, “Well, the magistrates at Buggleskelly, Llareggub and Middlemarch have all accepted that sum as reasonable.” Few magistrates are likely to start a lengthy inquisition in such circumstances.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I am aware of that, which is why I said ‘close to’. But if a magistrate at Aldbrickham queries the amount, the railway can say, “Well, the magistrates at Buggleskelly, Llareggub and Middlemarch have all accepted that sum as reasonable.” Few magistrates are likely to start a lengthy inquisition in such circumstances.

And I would say "We're in Arsend, not Buggleskelly, Llareggub and Middlemarch"

 

[Hadders]

Seeing as @needadvice hasn't returned to this thread, and we're starting to drift off topic I've locked this thread for now.

If @needadvice wishes to provide an update please click the 'Report' button on this post and we will re-open the thread for you.

Thanks everyone.