• 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!

Govia Prosecutions Department penalty.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
A couple of months ago my wife was stopped by a Govia officer for a ticket check where he noticed that she was within London Zone 2 (Clapham Junction), but she had a Zone 3 to 6 travelcard. This was correct. She had started a new job recently in Feltham (Zone 6) we live in Earlsfield (Zone 3) and to go to work she has to change trains in Clapham Junction (Zone 2). Being genuinely unaware, we thought that a travel card for zones 3 to 6 is what she needs.

After a brief meeting booked with the officer in an office within the Clapham Junction station, he let her know that she has to pay a penalty of 140 pounds for the time she was unintentionally paying less than she should, together with a daily fare for zone 2 for all the working days in the same period.

There are a few things which make me suspicious in this case:

First of all, she is requested to pay a penalty at the Govia Prosecutions Department, although both of the trains she takes belong to Southwestern Railway which is not under the Govia Thameslink Railway. Why does she have to pay the penalty to Govia?

The two provided payment methods seem suspicious to me: payment with a debit card or credit card over the phone or with Postal Orders. For a legitimate service, I would expect a safer payment method, like a bank transfer or an online payment. As far as I am aware, payments over the phone and with Postal Orders are pretty unsafe, they offer no security to the payor and are widely used in scams.

The fact that the emails and the letters my wife has received look pretty informal. For example, the names of the senders are never written in the emails or letters.

Although it was mentioned in verbal, none of the emails or letters confirm that after paying this penalty she won't have any other obligations to anyone outside Govia.

All the above make the whole case with the Govia Prosecutions Department look suspicious to me. Is there any chance this is a scam or is there anything we should be afraid of?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,181
Welcome to the forum. This could be interesting as an offence may not have been committed. It wouldn’t be the first time a national rail train operating company has issued a penalty incorrectly in these circumstances.

What medium is the Travelcard held on - paper or Oyster? If on Oyster was there a positive PAYG balance on the card?

If it was on Oyster and there was a positive PAYG balance then I don’t think an offence has been committed for travelling outside of Zones 3-6.

If the Travelcard was held on paper then an offence has been committed unless an extension ticket was held.

I’m sure @MikeWh will be able to advise further.
 

30907

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
18,036
Location
Airedale
As for Govia's involvement, I imagine they staff the whole station on behalf of Network Rail who operate it.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,870
Location
Crayford
I’m sure @MikeWh will be able to advise further.
You've just about got it right.
If it was on Oyster and there was a positive PAYG balance then I don’t think an offence has been committed for travelling outside of Zones 3-6.

If the Travelcard was held on paper then an offence has been committed unless an extension ticket was held.
There will be an offence committed if you hadn't touched in at the start of the journey if checked outside the zones.

As to being checked by Govia rather than SWR, both have shared revenue protection rights to act for each other.
 

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
Hi all,

Thanks for your replies.

The travel card was held on an Oyster card.

Do all the above sound normal to you? The fact that all the emails and letters are informal and they don't even include a name? When my wife asked for a normal letter, she received a letter which has an electronic signature, but again, no name. Apart from that the total of the penalty hasn't been analysed. Am I wrong when I think that a payment over the phone or with Postal Orders doesn't sound very safe? If they send another penalty, how would be able to prove that the previous penalty has been paid when you cannot get a receipt for the payment when you use of the available payment methods?

Do you believe that it is safe to proceed with the payment or there is anything we need to ensure first?

Thanks
 

njr001

Member
Joined
8 Feb 2013
Messages
179
Mike's the expert, but can you confirm did she have a PAYG balance on the card in addition to her travelcard? Did she always touch in & out at Earlsfield & Feltham. The weekly contactless rate for travel between zones 3 & 6 is the same as a 7 day Oyster travelcard at £35.90 Could contactless be a way to go in the future?
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,181
If your wife touched in at the start of her journey, touched out at the end, and had a positive PAYG balance on her Oyster card then no offence has been committed.
 

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
Of course she was touching in and and out during her trip both ways and she did have a positive PAYG balance, because otherwise it wouldn't let her in. All of her trips have been recorded in her online account on TFL. However, the Govia Prosecutions Department claim that she has to pay a penalty of about 320 pounds because for 3 months she was doing a trip from Zone 3 to Zone 6 changing trains at Zone 2 with a Zone 3 to 6 travel card. They have calculated the amount of the 320 pounds as 140 pounds as a penalty and 180 pounds for the zone 2 fares she hadn't been paying.

The weekly contactless rate for travel between zones 3 & 6 is the same as a 7 day Oyster travelcard at £35.90 Could contactless be a way to go in the future?

We are aware of that. The reason why she prefers to go with the monthly or weekly travel card is that we often go to Zone 1, which increases the contactless rate.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
All of her trips have been recorded in her online account on TFL.
If the account shows charges for Zone 2, it isn't clear why Govia want money.
If the account doesn't show the charges, it isn't clear that the system worked properly.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,181
If the Oyster card was touched in at the start of the journey and touched out at the end then any additional charges (if any) will get deducted from the PAYG balance. This is the principle of how Oyster operates.

Have a look at the thread from last year that I linked to above. This case is practically identical. I am not convinced you have done anything wrong.
 

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
The account doesn't show charges for zone 2. For every single day, it shows Touch in, Earlsfield - Touch out, Feltham with no charge (£0.00). The last column is the balance at that time.

08:36 - 09:04 Earlsfield [National Rail] to Feltham [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90
09:04 Touch out, Feltham [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90
08:36 Touch in, Earlsfield [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90

So, the question is why Govia want money, although there was a travel card (even though it it was 3 to 6 and my wife was changing platforms in Clapham Junction which is zone 2), but on the same time there was always PAYG balance. Although my wife was unintentionally paying a lower fare for her travel card, she wasn't willing to cheat. If she was charged for changing platforms in Clapham Junction, she would have noticed it and she would have gone for a 2 to 6 travel card instead. In addition to the above, I don't know how Govia can ask money for something they cannot prove, because they cannot prove that my wife was travelling via Clapham Junction instead of Earlsfield to Twickenham and then Twickenham to Feltham. However, to be frank, exactly because she didn't know that she should have a 2 to 6 travel card, when they stopped her in Clapham Junction she said that she does this journey every day.

I hope the above make things clear.

This case from last summer is very similar

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/i-was-detained-and-reported-for-my-travelling-history.185502/

This also involved GTR and it could well be that they haven't learned their lesson.....

Yep, this case is almost identical.

Thank you.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,870
Location
Crayford
Of course she was touching in and and out during her trip both ways and she did have a positive PAYG balance, because otherwise it wouldn't let her in. All of her trips have been recorded in her online account on TFL. However, the Govia Prosecutions Department claim that she has to pay a penalty of about 320 pounds because for 3 months she was doing a trip from Zone 3 to Zone 6 changing trains at Zone 2 with a Zone 3 to 6 travel card. They have calculated the amount of the 320 pounds as 140 pounds as a penalty and 180 pounds for the zone 2 fares she hadn't been paying.
From what you're saying it does appear as though there might be a system problem. Can you post a copy of some journey history showing what touches are made and what charges have been taken?


BTW. I am concerned about the communication you've received as it certainly doesn't seem right. However, it would be best to clarify exactly what has been happening first.
 

MikeWh

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
15 Jun 2010
Messages
7,870
Location
Crayford
The account doesn't show charges for zone 2. For every single day, it shows Touch in, Earlsfield - Touch out, Feltham with no charge (£0.00). The last column is the balance at that time.

08:36 - 09:04 Earlsfield [National Rail] to Feltham [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90
09:04 Touch out, Feltham [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90
08:36 Touch in, Earlsfield [National Rail] £0.00 £2.90
That's perfect, thank you.
Yep, this case is almost identical.

Thank you.
Indeed it is. It's disappointing to see that Govia haven't learned their lesson. Assuming it is Govia we're talking about.

I don't know what to make of that correspondance. Perhaps some other experts could pass judgement on whether it could be genuine or some sort of scam.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
6,595
Location
Merseyside
Would you be able to post some copies of the correspondence received? If you do this please remove any personal information first though. We'll then hopefully be able to establish if the communication is genuine or not. I do stress though, it's important to edit out any personal information relating to your wife first.

Transport for London will be able to tell you if the fare paid is correct or indeed if there has been a fault at their end in the system. London Travelwatch are also very good at assisting customers. I also recall a case where a passenger contacted their London Assembly member for assistance. What I'm saying is there are options open to you if we can establish your wife has done nothing wrong. If this is indeed a fraudulent attempt to extract funds then it needs reporting to the Police.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
7,178
A couple of months ago my wife was stopped by a Govia officer for a ticket check where he noticed that she was within London Zone 2 (Clapham Junction), but she had a Zone 3 to 6 travel card. This was correct. She had started a new job recently in Feltham (Zone 6) we live in Earlsfield (Zone 3) and to go to work she has to change trains in Clapham Junction (Zone 2). Being genuinely unaware, we thought that a travel card for zones 3 to 6 is what she needs.

After a brief meeting booked with the officer in an office within the Clapham Junction station, he let her know that she has to pay a penalty of 140 pounds for the time she was unintentionally paying less than she should, together with a daily fare for zone 2 for all the working days in the same period.

There are a few things which make me suspicious in this case:

First of all, she is requested to pay a penalty at the Govia Prosecutions Department, although both of the trains she takes belong to Southwestern Railway which is not under the Govia Thameslink Railway. Why does she have to pay the penalty to Govia?

The two provided payment methods seem suspicious to me: payment with debit card or credit card over the phone or with Postal Orders. For a legitimate service, I would expect a safer payment method, like a bank transfer or an online payment. As far as I am aware, payments over the phone and with Postal Orders are pretty unsafe, they offer no security to the payer and are widely used in scams.

The fact that the emails and the letters my wife has received look pretty informal. For example, the names of the senders are never written in the emails or letters.

Although it was mentioned in verbal, none of the emails or letters confirm that after paying this penalty she won't have any other obligations to anyone outside Govia.

All the above make the whole case with the Govia Prosecutions Department look suspicious to me. Is there any chance this is a scam or is there anything we should be afraid of?

Thanks.

Sort of seems obvious but did the staff member who interviewed your wife show ID, look 'plausible' etc? I think you said they handed over no receipt or paperwork following the interview. Sadly it does not 100% surprise me that GoVia may not have a full range of payment facilities as you would/should expect.

Obv as others have stated, other aspects of this case are more pertinent in addition.

Do hope you can pursue all aspects of this. No doubt people here will be happy to help / advise.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I suggest your wife writes to TfL, saying:

- that there seems to be a problem in the Pay As You Go computer system operated by TfL. The system failed to charge a PAYG element for many journeys changing trains in Zone 2 when she held a Zone 3-6 Travelcard;

- the basic details of the journeys (not a list of all of them)

- the Single Fare Finder shows Earlsfield to Feltham as more expensive than standard Zone 3-6 journeys;

- she was unaware that changing at Clapham Junction (and the fact that the default is via Zone 2) meant the journeys were not covered by the Travelcard;

- that Govia are asking for both unpaid fares and a penalty;

- that she would be grateful if TfL could liaise with the Govia Prosecutions Department by xx.xx.xx date to confirm whether such a flaw exists (ie in good time before the Govia deadline if possible);

then write to Govia saying:

- she has informed TfL of the apparent flaw in the system,
and suggesting
- that Govia confirm the position with TfL and reply to you by xx.xx.xx date (perhaps a couple of working days).

You could copy the emails to London Travelwatch
https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/contact/contact_us
They might reply that you have to sort out complaints with the operator first, but they might take an interest because of the need for liaison/information between TfL and companies, or because they think it is appropriate for them to write to TfL and/or Govia in this case;

and then if the situation is not resolved quickly, contact your London Assembly member.
 
Last edited:

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
Maybe Govia staff got confused by not only a reluctance to believe the system had a flaw, but also the fact that your wife (we might think reasonably) thought the journey was covered by the Travelcard.
we thought that a travel card for zones 3 to 6 is what she needs.
This element is in common with the other case, where similarly Govia may have been distracted by an irrelevant factor (that the passenger made a mistake about the validity).
Poorguy said:
the man inspector explained me that I was travelling by using the route through Central London (I have to change my train in London Bridge station), but my travel card covered only zones 3-5 and I needed it for zones 1-5. The funny thing is that I did not know this
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/i-was-detained-and-reported-for-my-travelling-history.185502/
Sometimes the human mind may instinctively think there's one thing wrong, rather than considering that there may be more than one.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
You could add a link to the other case (and perhaps to this thread?) when you write to TfL and Govia.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I don't know if they are legally entitled to money that the system didn't charge in the first place, but even if they are, you could add up the time your wife and you have spent dealing with this and suggest they waive all/part of it on grounds of inconvenience/distress/admin time/goodwill.
 

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
Hi all,

Thanks for your responses, the interest and the willingness to help.

Would you be able to post some copies of the correspondence received? If you do this please remove any personal information first though. We'll then hopefully be able to establish if the communication is genuine or not. I do stress though, it's important to edit out any personal information relating to your wife first.

Transport for London will be able to tell you if the fare paid is correct or indeed if there has been a fault at their end in the system. London Travelwatch are also very good at assisting customers. I also recall a case where a passenger contacted their London Assembly member for assistance. What I'm saying is there are options open to you if we can establish your wife has done nothing wrong. If this is indeed a fraudulent attempt to extract funds then it needs reporting to the Police.

Here is a copy of the last letter my wife has received regarding this case. This letter was sent only after she asked for a formal form regarding the penalty she is requested to pay.

p.png


As you can see, the "formal" copy has an electronic signature, but again, no name. Also, the amount of the penalty is yet not analysed. Neither the emails nor the two letters she has received have the name of the sender.

Checking the address of the Govia Prosecutions Department and the phone numbers provided for the phone payment, the letter seems to be legit, but the lack of names and precise data certifying the amount of the penalty make it look suspicious. Considering also the available methods of payment, this becomes even worse. Last but not least, I would expect the payment of a valid penalty to include a deadline for the payment.

Sort of seems obvious but did the staff member who interviewed your wife show ID, look 'plausible' etc? I think you said they handed over no receipt or paperwork following the interview. Sadly it does not 100% surprise me that GoVia may not have a full range of payment facilities as you would/should expect.

Obv as others have stated, other aspects of this case are more pertinent in addition.

Do hope you can pursue all aspects of this. No doubt people here will be happy to help / advise.

The staff member who interviewed my wife did show an ID that looked plausible. It is correct that they did write some paperwork first when she was initially stopped by the Govia officer for the check and during the interview. My wife sinned both of them, but she wasn't provided with a copy of the paperwork.

Even if the fact that that Govia don't have a safe method for payment is not surprising, the fact that the provided payment methods are completely insecure for the customer/payor is not acceptable. None of these two methods provides proof of the reason for the payment and that is the reason why they are widely used for scams. Nowadays, paying over the phone or with Postal Orders shouldn't be accepted by the payor for security reasons.

I suggest your wife writes to TfL, saying:

- that there seems to be a problem in the Pay As You Go computer system operated by TfL. The system failed to charge a PAYG element for many journeys changing trains in Zone 2 when she held a Zone 3-6 Travelcard;

- the basic details of the journeys (not a list of all of them)

- the Single Fare Finder shows Earlsfield to Feltham as more expensive than standard Zone 3-6 journeys;

- she was unaware that changing at Clapham Junction (and the fact that the default is via Zone 2) meant the journeys were not covered by the Travelcard;

- that Govia are asking for both unpaid fares and a penalty;

- that she would be grateful if TfL could liaise with the Govia Prosecutions Department by xx.xx.xx date to confirm whether such a flaw exists (ie in good time before the Govia deadline if possible);

then write to Govia saying:

- she has informed TfL of the apparent flaw in the system,
and suggesting
- that Govia confirm the position with TfL and reply to you by xx.xx.xx date (perhaps a couple of working days).

You could copy the emails to London Travelwatch
https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/contact/contact_us
They might reply that you have to sort out complaints with the operator first, but they might take an interest because of the need for liaison/information between TfL and companies, or because they think it is appropriate for them to write to TfL and/or Govia in this case;

and then if the situation is not resolved quickly, contact your London Assembly member.

Thank you very much for the advice, @some bloke. I am in contact with @MikeWh regarding the next step in this case. Your advice makes total sense, it will be certainly considered and it is highly appreciated.

Again, thank you all for the help, advice and willingness to help.

Cheers
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,127
I believe it is possible to go from Feltham to Earlsfield on SWR without going through Clapham Junction (i.e. via Twickenham and Kingston). Is this why Oyster is not charging for a Zone 2 change at Clapham Junction?
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I believe it is possible to go from Feltham to Earlsfield on SWR without going through Clapham Junction (i.e. via Twickenham and Kingston). Is this why Oyster is not charging for a Zone 2 change at Clapham Junction?
The single fare finder just shows the higher fare, the same as to/from a Zone 2 station.
 

Koulou

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2020
Messages
17
Location
London
I believe that the reason why their system doesn't charge for the Zone 2 station despite the available PAYG balance is that there is no way for them to prove that you have gone to the Zone 2 station without tapping. It seems that they charge based only on the tap in and tap out station (unless there is a tap on a pink "validation" point between the in and out taps), based on the lowest possible fare. In this case, for example, their systems seem to charge Zone 3 to 6, considering the trip via Teddington or Richmond. Their officers don't judge based on the same rules though.
 

some bloke

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2017
Messages
1,561
I believe that the reason why their system doesn't charge for the Zone 2 station despite the available PAYG balance is that there is no way for them to prove that you have gone to the Zone 2 station without tapping. It seems that they charge based only on the tap in and tap out station (unless there is a tap on a pink "validation" point between the in and out taps), based on the lowest possible fare.
Yes, maybe the system is designed to work differently for Travelcards, to let holders make journeys without going outside the specified zones. TfL wouldn't want someone with a 3-6 card and no PAYG credit to be penalised for going via Twickenham.

If that's the explanation, then we might reasonably expect no charge for changing outside the Zones.

If the allegation before the settlement was "intent to avoid a fare", perhaps GTR just acted on suspicion rather than even kind-of-reasonable grounds for believing there was a specific breach of conditions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top