• 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!

Intent to prosecute from Thameslink Railway on short fare

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rumi

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2023
Messages
12
Location
London
How exactly were you going to pay for the Ladywell - London Bridge (or vice-versa) part of the journey? You can’t tap out / tap in at London Bridge. There are no Oyster readers on the LBG platforms and you - by your own admission - did not have a valid ticket to pass through the barriers
Ladywell doesnt have barriers. At London bridge I didnt need to leave the station and only change the platform to goto Luton same on my way back. I realise that it wasnt the wisest decision and I made multiple wrong decisions that day by not paying the correct fare from the beginning.

How exactly were you going to pay for the Ladywell - London Bridge (or vice-versa) part of the journey? You can’t tap out / tap in at London Bridge. There are no Oyster readers on the LBG platforms and you - by your own admission - did not have a valid ticket to pass through the barriers
Would you say my response is good to post? I work in finance and as per information shared by everyone here getting a criminal record will get on the DBS and have further implications.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
12,374
Ladywell doesnt have barriers. At London bridge I didnt need to leave the station and only change the platform to goto Luton same on my way back.
So, are you essentially confirming that you didn't have any tickets between Luton Airport Parkway and Ladywell? Just how many times have you made the trip without having valid tickets for the entirety of your journey?

I work in finance and as per information shared by everyone here getting a criminal record will get on the DBS and have further implications.
Indeed. You really don't want a court conviction. If the answer to the previous question (above) is quite a few, you may well now wish to seek out specialist legal representation. One way or the other, this could prove quite expensive for you.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,636
If a perusal of your Trainline account reveals several tickets from Luton to Luton Airport Parkway, and vice-versa, with no (inappropriate) tickets to pass through barriers at the other end of your journey(s), Thameslink could take the view that you were - as you have admitted - travelling to/from an unbarriered station.
Something just occurred to me, however.
Thameslink operate trains over a wide geographic area. There could be stations on their network that are a long way from Central London. How do you prove that you didn’t travel to one of THOSE stations, and that a much larger fare was evaded?
 

spag23

On Moderation
Joined
4 Nov 2012
Messages
793
How do you prove that you didn’t travel to one of THOSE stations, and that a much larger fare was evaded?
The onus would surely be on Thameslink to prove that these distant stations were involved in doughnutting. Difficult, unless they were to find short journey tickets to/from these places, that align with the Luton<>Luton Airport trips.
 

Kenny G

Member
Joined
20 Mar 2014
Messages
58
Would you say my response is good to post? I work in finance and as per information shared by everyone here getting a criminal record will get on the DBS and have further implications.
In this case full honesty is going to be the best policy. That means you doing a full audit of evasion and arriving at a figure. You definitely do not want a fraud conviction.
 

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,906
In this case full honesty is going to be the best policy. That means you doing a full audit of evasion and arriving at a figure. You definitely do not want a fraud conviction.
I disagree. The OP has been asked about the one occasion, and that is all they need to discuss in their response. They should not incriminate themselves by mentioning any other instance, as they have not been asked for it. However, they should not make statements to the effect that it was their first time evading the correct fare, as that would not be true.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,636
The onus would surely be on Thameslink to prove that these distant stations were involved in doughnutting. Difficult, unless they were to find short journey tickets to/from these places, that align with the Luton<>Luton Airport trips.
I see this as akin to the ‘I’ve tapped in but not tapped-out’ scenario on TfL. (They don’t need to know which station you actually travelled to; the maximum fare that’s charged is in itself the deterrent).
I think the OP would actually be in slightly less of a predicament if he had short tickets for the other end of his journeys. It would give GTR a ballpark figure for a settlement offer (assuming they want to make one).
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,481
In this case full honesty is going to be the best policy. That means you doing a full audit of evasion and arriving at a figure. You definitely do not want a fraud conviction.
I disagree. The letter from GTR refers to the specific incident on 15th October. It makes no mention of any other incidents nor does it ask @Rumi whether they have made other journeys with incorrect tickets. @Rumi must tell the truth in replying to the letter but they are not required to incriminate themselves either.

Clearly should GTR contact @Rumi again saying that they have found further evidence of ticket irregularities then they would need to be truthful when they rely to that letter.
 

torontoaddick

Member
Joined
6 Oct 2021
Messages
9
Location
London
A bit late to this, but all of the Oyster readers at Ladywell were faulty for about a week or so waiting for a main comms connection to be fixed. This was publicised locally so I guess southeastern could confirm if needed.
 

Skimpot flyer

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2012
Messages
1,636
A bit late to this, but all of the Oyster readers at Ladywell were faulty for about a week or so waiting for a main comms connection to be fixed. This was publicised locally so I guess southeastern could confirm if needed.
He said upthread that he changes trains at London Bridge, inside the gateline (that is, without passing through a barrier).
I doubt he would have tapped-out at Ladywell, anyway, as that would incur a maximum fare, no tap-in having taken place.
 

Help please121

On Moderation
Joined
16 Aug 2023
Messages
26
Location
Essex
I understand, I didn't realise the gravity of the situation until I found this forum. Thank you so much for guiding me through this.
I can say that was me, seeing your thread you are in a very similar position but if you follow everyone’s advice here, no guarantee But they may offer OOC settlement like they did for me. Like me I never realised the gravity of situation also until it I got caught. They searched through all purchase history and as said by Brissle Girl charged me the full ticket from St Albans all the way to Norfolk even though I “short fared” to get into London and had a full valid ticket from London to Norfolk. Be truthful as people have mentioned and comply. I understand your situation but don’t worry it will eventually get sorted. Bear in mind I have done this on numerous occasions (more than 15-20 for sure) and so GTR searched and made me pay back everything even if I had full fare as mentioned by already. But I got an OOC and didn’t have to go court and didn’t get a criminal record. However I did have tk pay a hefty Out of Court Settlement with £250 administrative fees on top of that.
 

Rumi

Member
Joined
25 Dec 2023
Messages
12
Location
London
Hello everyone,

Thank you all for your sharing your expertise and guidance on the matter.

Frankly speaking, this was really intimidating, but all the suggestions from the members really helped me.

Today I received an out-of-court settlement of £62.10. Which I paid instantly.

I am attaching my response and the settlement letter for members.

Thank you all for your help again, I greatly appreciate it.
 

Attachments

  • 578810B3-9671-4A23-98D2-851FCFE19CA7.jpeg
    578810B3-9671-4A23-98D2-851FCFE19CA7.jpeg
    248.2 KB · Views: 67
  • 3A807081-5ACC-4E6C-BAB2-11262F0561D1.jpeg
    3A807081-5ACC-4E6C-BAB2-11262F0561D1.jpeg
    756.1 KB · Views: 68

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,895
Wow! I have to say that I find this astonishingly cheap. You are very lucky to get away with paying such a small amount.
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,706
Location
Reading
Wow! I have to say that I find this astonishingly cheap. You are very lucky to get away with paying such a small amount.

Perhaps the amount of coverage given to the Post Office scandal at the moment has focussed their minds on making sure they do everything by the book as they aren't going to want to get caught up in some future rail prosecutions scandal. To me, that amount sounds about right.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,244
Hello everyone,

Thank you all for your sharing your expertise and guidance on the matter.

Frankly speaking, this was really intimidating, but all the suggestions from the members really helped me.

Today I received an out-of-court settlement of £62.10. Which I paid instantly.

I am attaching my response and the settlement letter for members.

Thank you all for your help again, I greatly appreciate it.
A strong word of advice. Make sure that you buy the correct tickets in future. You've had a warning. You likely won't get another but will be prosecuted.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
15,895
Perhaps the amount of coverage given to the Post Office scandal at the moment has focussed their minds on making sure they do everything by the book as they aren't going to want to get caught up in some future rail prosecutions scandal. To me, that amount sounds about right.
They are not likely to be caught up in a prosecution scandal for not prosecuting someone.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,244
Perhaps the amount of coverage given to the Post Office scandal at the moment has focussed their minds on making sure they do everything by the book as they aren't going to want to get caught up in some future rail prosecutions scandal. To me, that amount sounds about right.
The whole concept of private prosecutions is up in the air at the moment. The rail industry will undoubtedly wish to retain the right if possible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top