GWR threatening legal action

[mark pryor]

I have never used a forum like this before, and trust that I present the facts in the way that you would expect. GWR have given me until 17th May to respond.
On 17th March I travelled with a friend from Manningtree to Cardiff with a ticket bought from trainline app.
A GWR inspector (not the first person to look at the tickets) asked if I had a 15-25 railcard, which I don't, and I realised my mistake. My 4 children use trainline app on my phone and buy tickets. I didn't notice, but when it was pointed out I checked my ticket against my friend's and I had paid £73.25 return and my friend had paid £90 return. At once I admitted my mistake and offered to pay the difference of £16.75.
The ticket inspector did not offer me the option of paying the difference of £16.75, only to pay the full single fare from Paddington to Cardiff of £137.30, or a special discounted fare of £89. I declined to pay extra and so was given an Unpaid Fare Notice. After discussing the options with the inspector we agreed that I would take the UFN and dispute it, which I did on 21st March.
Since then in several emails with GWR Prosecutions I have been told to pay £137.30, then £187.30, then £137.30, then £103. The last amount being the difference between £137.30 (full fare) and the amount that I had paid for that part of the journey (Paddington to Cardiff) being £34.30.
From the moment my mistake was pointed out I have admitted my mistake and offered to pay the difference of £16.75 both in person to the inspector and by email. In a disingenuous way GWR have taken my offer to pay the difference as being my offer to pay £103.
Also it seems to me that GWR may not both threaten court action for my travelling on an invalid ticket and then use an amount from that invlaid ticket to calculate what I owe them.
Surely GWR Prosecutions should be pursuing non-payers of tickets, not a twerp like myself who's made a genuine mistake?
Being threatened with unreasonable legal action is intimidating, being offered a reasonable solution is good customer service. I can't be the only person to have made this mistake?
Mark Pryor

 

[Darandio]

Surely GWR Prosecutions should be pursuing non-payers of tickets, not a twerp like myself who's made a genuine mistake?
Being threatened with unreasonable legal action is intimidating, being offered a reasonable solution is good customer service. I can't be the only person to have made this mistake?

Before more knowledgable members return with sound advice, it's worth pointing out this part I have quoted.

You offered to pay the difference and seem irate that this wasn't accepted. Think about it for a moment, if everyone was allowed to just pay the difference then nobody would buy a full price ticket in the first place because the worst case option would be for them to only have to pay the proper fare anyway. Best case scenario there is no ticket check and they get away with it.

 

[mark pryor]

Before more knowledgable members return with sound advice, it's worth pointing out this part I have quoted.

You offered to pay the difference and seem irate that this wasn't accepted. Think about it for a moment, if everyone was allowed to just pay the difference then nobody would buy a full price ticket in the first place because the worst case option would be for them to only have to pay the proper fare anyway. Best case scenario there is no ticket check and they get away with it.

Thank you Darandio, I take your point but I thought I had paid full price. I had no intention of avoiding paying.

 

[Warwick]

It's also worth pointing out, "A GWR inspector (not the first person to look at the ticket)....".
It's also worth pointing out that the the bloke immediately offered to pay the difference in fare thereby ensuring GWR had not lost any revenue. Prosecuting the bloke smacks of vindictiveness. Had he been hiding in the toilet or generally avoiding showing the ticket I could understand.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Not intending to avoid the fare (and displaying behaviour that makes this evident) means that, in theory, you should not be prosecuted for the more serious offence of 'travelling without previously having paid the correct fare and intending to avoid payment thereof', under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Nevertheless, having started your journey at a station which, at the time of boarding, presumably had the requisite facilities to buy a ticket at the time, you committed the lesser offence of 'boarding a train without a valid ticket', and/or 'failing to present a valid ticket upon demand'. These offences arise under Byelaws 18(1) and 18(2), respectively, of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

The fine upon conviction for both offences is the same - at typically 1-2× your weekly income - however a Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) conviction attracts a criminal record which is 'spent' after one year, whereas a Byelaw 18 conviction attracts no criminal record (though it may still bar you from high-level security vetting, and/or appear on certain more in-depth DBS disclosure certificates, and/or bar you from visa-free entry to countries like the US).

Having said the above, whilst I am sure that you did not intend to pay less than the fare due, you did indeed end up doing so - through no fault of the train companies. Though it is a draconian step, there are some thousands of railway prosecutions each year, and the vast majority end in conviction. So it is in your interests to settle this matter before they withdraw their current offers of settlement, and, as is entirely their right, simply issue a summons.

It is not fair - but sadly the railway companies have a lot of established legal rights and powers, and it is best not to mess with them, as the results may be unpleasant. I would suggest accepting whatever offer of settlement they are currently making, and then to put the matter behind you.

You may wish to wait for others - such as our resident railway prosecution expert DaveNewcastle - to chime in, but I don't think you have as strong a position as we have seen in some other cases here on the forum.

 

[BestWestern]

You had wrongly claimed a Railcard discount to which you weren't entitled, the correct procedure is to purchase a new ticket and this is backed up by law. Whilst it might not be agreeable, it is what it is. The amount is owed, and refusal to pay will result in a successful prosecution. My advice would be not to fall into the trap of thinking that you can stand in front of a court and give them a speech on being fair and just, and walk away without a bollocking. These cases are 'open and shut', usually banged through the courts in batches on a certain day, and you will be found bang to rights I'm afraid. They really don't mess about with rail stuff, it's very routine. You aren't going to get some Hollywood movie-esque dramatic trial. It's very similar to a parking ticket, or a speeding fine, or whatever. You owe the amount, you haven't paid it, you get stung in court.

Pay it asap and put down to experience, it will only get a lot more painful and expensive if you prolong matters.

 

[mark pryor]

Not intending to avoid the fare (and displaying behaviour that makes this evident) means that, in theory, you should not be prosecuted for the more serious offence of 'travelling without previously having paid the correct fare and intending to avoid payment thereof', under Section 5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

Nevertheless, having started your journey at a station which, at the time of boarding, presumably had the requisite facilities to buy a ticket at the time, you committed the lesser offence of 'boarding a train without a valid ticket', and/or 'failing to present a valid ticket upon demand'. These offences arise under Byelaws 18(1) and 18(2), respectively, of the Railway Byelaws 2005.

The fine upon conviction for both offences is the same - at typically 1-2× your weekly income - however a Regulation of Railways Act (RoRA) conviction attracts a criminal record which is 'spent' after one year, whereas a Byelaw 18 conviction attracts no criminal record (though it may still bar you from high-level security vetting, and/or appear on certain more in-depth DBS disclosure certificates, and/or bar you from visa-free entry to countries like the US).

Having said the above, whilst I am sure that you did not intend to pay less than the fare due, you did indeed end up doing so - through no fault of the train companies. Though it is a draconian step, there are some thousands of railway prosecutions each year, and the vast majority end in conviction. So it is in your interests to settle this matter before they withdraw their current offers of settlement, and, as is entirely their right, simply issue a summons.

It is not fair - but sadly the railway companies have a lot of established legal rights and powers, and it is best not to mess with them, as the results may be unpleasant. I would suggest accepting whatever offer of settlement they are currently making, and then to put the matter behind you.

You may wish to wait for others - such as our resident railway prosecution expert DaveNewcastle - to chime in, but I don't think you have as strong a position as we have seen in some other cases here on the forum.

Thank you for your considered response. It reflects GWR's confident replies.

 

[mark pryor]

You had wrongly claimed a Railcard discount to which you weren't entitled, the correct procedure is to purchase a new ticket and this is backed up by law. Whilst it might not be agreeable, it is what it is. The amount is owed, and refusal to pay will result in a successful prosecution. My advice would be not to fall into the trap of thinking that you can stand in front of a court and give them a speech on being fair and just, and walk away without a bollocking. These cases are 'open and shut', usually banged through the courts in batches on a certain day, and you will be found bang to rights I'm afraid. They really don't mess about with rail stuff, it's very routine. You aren't going to get some Hollywood movie-esque dramatic trial. It's very similar to a parking ticket, or a speeding fine, or whatever. You owe the amount, you haven't paid it, you get stung in court.

Pay it asap and put down to experience, it will only get a lot more painful and expensive if you prolong matters.

You had wrongly claimed a Railcard discount to which you weren't entitled, the correct procedure is to purchase a new ticket and this is backed up by law. Whilst it might not be agreeable, it is what it is. The amount is owed, and refusal to pay will result in a successful prosecution. My advice would be not to fall into the trap of thinking that you can stand in front of a court and give them a speech on being fair and just, and walk away without a bollocking. These cases are 'open and shut', usually banged through the courts in batches on a certain day, and you will be found bang to rights I'm afraid. They really don't mess about with rail stuff, it's very routine. You aren't going to get some Hollywood movie-esque dramatic trial. It's very similar to a parking ticket, or a speeding fine, or whatever. You owe the amount, you haven't paid it, you get stung in court.

Pay it asap and put down to experience, it will only get a lot more painful and expensive if you prolong matters.

Thank you for your thoughts.

 

[skyhigh]

Thank you Darandio, I take your point but I thought I had paid full price. I had no intention of avoiding paying.

You know you didn't intend to avoid paying the correct fare, but think about what the inspector would frequently hear when they stop someone deliberately travelling on a discounted ticket without entitlement - "Oh, I didn't realise". If you could just pay the difference when caught people would always buy the discounted tickets.

My advice would also be to pay up. Ultimately it's your responsibility to check you've bought the correct ticket. Not easy, and probably not what you wanted to hear, but it's the way things are.

It's also worth pointing out, "A GWR inspector (not the first person to look at the ticket)....".
It's also worth pointing out that the the bloke immediately offered to pay the difference in fare thereby ensuring GWR had not lost any revenue. Prosecuting the bloke smacks of vindictiveness. Had he been hiding in the toilet or generally avoiding showing the ticket I could understand.

They are offering to settle, and have negotiated the cost down. The inspector offered a lower cost option for a new ticket. That's hardly vindictive.

 

[BestWestern]

Thank you for your thoughts.

I hope that didn't come across as harsh! Some tend, quite understandably, to assume that train tickets is akin to private parking fines etc, and that there will likely be an easy way out of it, a robust appeals process, and so on. They often only realise the severity of things when it's too late and has become needlessly damaging or expensive.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Thank you Darandio, I take your point but I thought I had paid full price. I had no intention of avoiding paying.

From your point of view its a one off mistake to you but from the TOC's perspective the volume of people who try something on is the issue (admittedly you don't see it). I work at a rural station- the amount of people that ask for "senior returns" who don't have senior railcards, present bus passes, try and use their NUS card, say they have a X railcard and then cant produce it, ask for child returns for 17 year olds etc needs to be seen to be believed. On top of this the wonderful world of technology lets people purchase rail products there not entitled to who tick and click to say they are.....we had a women in her 30's collect an internet bought child return to Sheffield and then try and travel on it.........

 

[mark pryor]

I hope that didn't come across as harsh! Some tend, quite understandably, to assume that train tickets is akin to private parking fines etc, and that there will likely be an easy way out of it, a robust appeals process, and so on. They often only realise the severity of things when it's too late and has become needlessly damaging or expensive.

Not at all. Thanks again. Seems like payment is the best option.

 

[swt_passenger]

...It's also worth pointing out that the the bloke immediately offered to pay the difference in fare thereby ensuring GWR had not lost any revenue. Prosecuting the bloke smacks of vindictiveness. Had he been hiding in the toilet or generally avoiding showing the ticket I could understand.

Unfortunately, if you allow “payment of the difference whenever discovered” many people would just stop buying the right tickets.

 

[mark pryor]

It's also worth pointing out, "A GWR inspector (not the first person to look at the ticket)....".
It's also worth pointing out that the the bloke immediately offered to pay the difference in fare thereby ensuring GWR had not lost any revenue. Prosecuting the bloke smacks of vindictiveness. Had he been hiding in the toilet or generally avoiding showing the ticket I could understand.

Thank you, though it seems I must pay.

 

[Darandio]

It's also worth pointing out that the the bloke immediately offered to pay the difference in fare thereby ensuring GWR had not lost any revenue. Prosecuting the bloke smacks of vindictiveness. Had he been hiding in the toilet or generally avoiding showing the ticket I could understand.

Ahh, the good old nasty railway and their staff line.

Did you need see my post before yours? And then the many since? Surely you can see the problem if the worst case scenario was just to pay the difference?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Sadly, the advice you have been given is right: GWR have made an offer, and if you do not accept it you can be taken to court. So your best option is to take the offer.

But I'm posting to try and give a little bit of perspective: I realise this won't be of very much comfort to you, but it might help you understand why the railway companies' approach seems so very harsh.

The simple fact is that fare dodging (wilful fare dodging, not accidental fare dodging which is what you seem to have done) is very easy to do. To avoid it happening, not only do the railways have to make sure that no one gets on their trains without a small piece of cardboard, they also have to make sure that passengers only get on board with the right small piece of cardboard.

As the railways have been in the business of passenger transport for very nearly two centuries, they have (corporately) had quite some time to seek legal protection from this easy to commit crime. And the solution that has evolved is that in general terms there are two offences that they can charge people with:

- travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare: this is quite a fierce piece of law, with punishments that (in theory although virtually never in practice) include imprisonment as well as heavy fines: to get a conviction under this the railway has to prove that a passenger did not intend to pay their fare. This offence is laid down in the Regulation of Railways Act 1889;

- travelling without a valid ticket: this is a much simpler matter for the railway to prove in that all they have to show is that the passenger did not have the right ticket (although as in your case, you may have had a ticket) - but the quid pro quo is that the punishment for committing this offence is limited to a fine, and as the law that allows this charge is a bylaw, a conviction does not lead to a criminal record.​

Essentially the idea is that people who maliciously avoid paying their fare can go to prison. Anyone else who hasn't paid the amount that the railways demand for their service get a sharp financial reminder that it's up to the passenger to make sure they have the right ticket before getting on the train.

Because the railways have a strong interest in making sure that everyone knows that they should pay the right fare, they tend to go for heavy handed reminders by using bylaw prosecutions. While you may feel that the railways are being harsh, from their point of view they are, by offering you a chance to make a payment, being quite generous. As you have been advised, your best option is to accept what the railways see as being generous (and what you understandably see as being grasping), and make the payment.

 

[mark pryor]

Sadly, the advice you have been given is right: GWR have made an offer, and if you do not accept it you can be taken to court. So your best option is to take the offer.

But I'm posting to try and give a little bit of perspective: I realise this won't be of very much comfort to you, but it might help you understand why the railway companies' approach seems so very harsh.

The simple fact is that fare dodging (wilful fare dodging, not accidental fare dodging which is what you seem to have done) is very easy to do. To avoid it happening, not only do the railways have to make sure that no one gets on their trains without a small piece of cardboard, they also have to make sure that passengers only get on board with the right small piece of cardboard.

As the railways have been in the business of passenger transport for very nearly two centuries, they have (corporately) had quite some time to seek legal protection from this easy to commit crime. And the solution that has evolved is that in general terms there are two offences that they can charge people with:

- travelling with intent to avoid paying a fare: this is quite a fierce piece of law, with punishments that (in theory although virtually never in practice) include imprisonment as well as heavy fines: to get a conviction under this the railway has to prove that a passenger did not intend to pay their fare. This offence is laid down in the Regulation of Railways Act 1889;

- travelling without a valid ticket: this is a much simpler matter for the railway to prove in that all they have to show is that the passenger did not have the right ticket (although as in your case, you may have had a ticket) - but the quid pro quo is that the punishment for committing this offence is limited to a fine, and as the law that allows this charge is a bylaw, a conviction does not lead to a criminal record.​

Essentially the idea is that people who maliciously avoid paying their fare can go to prison. Anyone else who hasn't paid the amount that the railways demand for their service get a sharp financial reminder that it's up to the passenger to make sure they have the right ticket before getting on the train.

Because the railways have a strong interest in making sure that everyone knows that they should pay the right fare, they tend to go for heavy handed reminders by using bylaw prosecutions. While you may feel that the railways are being harsh, from their point of view they are, by offering you a chance to make a payment, being quite generous. As you have been advised, your best option is to accept what the railways see as being generous (and what you understandably see as being grasping), and make the payment.

Thank you. I appreciate your response. Seems to be the consensus.

 

[_toommm_]

As what has already been said, you were quite lucky in the first place to have been offered the chance to pay the discounted fare, but by refusing to pay it shows a certain air about you, and one that unfortunately for you a RPI would take offence to. Many train operating comapnies (TOCs) would take a heavy approach like Arriva TW do. Whether you purposefully travelled with a railcard discount or not, only you will know, but it can be incredibly hard to distinguish between the two hence the err-ing on the side of the heavy handed approach.

In short, I would pay the amount being asked of, before it gets taken to court.

 

[mark pryor]

As what has already been said, you were quite lucky in the first place to have been offered the chance to pay the discounted fare, but by refusing to pay it shows a certain air about you, and one that unfortunately for you a RPI would take offence to. Many train operating comapnies (TOCs) would take a heavy approach like Arriva TW do. Whether you purposefully travelled with a railcard discount or not, only you will know, but it can be incredibly hard to distinguish between the two hence the err-ing on the side of the heavy handed approach.

In short, I would pay the amount being asked of, before it gets taken to court.

Thanks for your thoughts. Seems unreasonable but probably the right thing.

 

[Warwick]

Ahh, the good old nasty railway and their staff line.

Did you need see my post before yours? And then the many since? Surely you can see the problem if the worst case scenario was just to pay the difference?

Yes I can see the "problem". The problem is people travelling on trains with no intent to pay the fare due. Spend more time chasing them and less time treating people who make a genuine mistake as criminals. I realise that I'm in the vast minority of a forum full of people who like exercising power but that's me.

 

[robbeech]

The absolutely correct thing to do would have been to buy the new ticket at the time, apologise to the guard for your mistake and then get your unused discounted ticket refunded from the point of purchase where you’d have been charged a £10 admin fee. Essentially you’d have paid the difference in fare plus £10.

 

[bb21]

I realise that I'm in the vast minority of a forum full of people who like exercising power but that's me.

That is very much incorrect.

There is a very big difference between analysing the options open to the OP and a discussion on what people think should happen instead, the latter most suited to a different area of the forum away from threads seeking advice to avoid cluttering them up.

 

[6Gman]

Yes I can see the "problem". The problem is people travelling on trains with no intent to pay the fare due. Spend more time chasing them and less time treating people who make a genuine mistake as criminals. I realise that I'm in the vast minority of a forum full of people who like exercising power but that's me.

Do you have any practical suggestions of how a Train Manager or RPI checking - perhaps - the tickets of 400 passengers in among other duties is supposed to distinguish those travelling with "no intent to pay the fare due" from those "who make a genuine mistake"?

 

[Hadders]

A most unfortunate incident for the OP but I agree with those who say pay and chalk it up to experience.

The last thing you want is for it to end up in court where you would undoubtedly be found guilty. The cost of this financially would be far more than what you're being asked to pay to keep it out of court. That's before you look at the consequences of potential criminal record.

 

[185143]

Do you have any practical suggestions of how a Train Manager or RPI checking - perhaps - the tickets of 400 passengers in among other duties is supposed to distinguish those travelling with "no intent to pay the fare due" from those "who make a genuine mistake"?

Precisely.

Though if you had a passenger approach you looking to resolve a ticket issue and you have another passenger hiding in the bog, who are you more likely to take as the passenger who's made the genuine mistake? Granted-it's rarely as obvious as that!

 

[mark pryor]

The absolutely correct thing to do would have been to buy the new ticket at the time, apologise to the guard for your mistake and then get your unused discounted ticket refunded from the point of purchase where you’d have been charged a £10 admin fee. Essentially you’d have paid the difference in fare plus £10.

Thank you.

 

[mark pryor]

A most unfortunate incident for the OP but I agree with those who say pay and chalk it up to experience.

The last thing you want is for it to end up in court where you would undoubtedly be found guilty. The cost of this financially would be far more than what you're being asked to pay to keep it out of court. That's before you look at the consequences of potential criminal record.

"Life's rich tapestry unfolding in front of one"

 

[Tetchytyke]

A most unfortunate incident for the OP but I agree with those who say pay and chalk it up to experience.

Indeed.

The guard on GWR did the OP a favour by offering to sell the super off-peak single- the rules are that only the full-price Anytime single can be sold on the train- and it is regrettable that the OP did not accept this.

Chalk it up to experience now and the additional cost is an extra £20. It would be significantly more in court.

 

[mark pryor]

Thanks all. This is now resolved. I appreciate your help. Signing off.