Notice of Intention to Prosecute - PLEASE HELP

[Ducky88]

Hi All,

I was caught a few months ago short-faring at St Pancras. I made use of my local station which has no barriers and brought a shorter ticket to get out of the barriers at St Pancras. I was talked into it by my colleagues and friends before doing it, to save money and by the time of getting caught point had probably done it about 10 times. Honestly, I know it was a mistake but the savings on the tickets is what made me carry on. since getting caught however I have never done it again.

I have drafted a letter in response in hopes of a Out of out-of-court settlement but I would appreciate any help that you guys can offer.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter dated [xxx], regarding the fare evasion incident reference [xxx] at City Thameslink on [xxx].

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest apologies for the inconvenience and concern that my actions have caused. I deeply regret my actions and understand what I did was very wrong.

Upon reflection, I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid railcard at the time. Additionally, I admit that there was a discrepancy regarding the embarkation point [xxx] provided for my ticket purchase. I take full responsibility for these discrepancies and understand the gravity of my actions. They are inexcusable and not at all reflective of the person I strive to be.

I am extremely ashamed and embarrassed of my actions, and it has caused me a high level of stress. I have learned that irrespective of any personal circumstances, I should not travel with an incorrect ticket. As a result, I have been sure to buy the correct ticket for my journeys.

In light of the above, I am keen to settle this matter without the need for court action. I am eager to cover any outstanding fares and administrative costs to GTR and believe it is in the best interest of us all to reach a fair and amicable resolution. Given my circumstances, I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered.

Please let me know how you would like to proceed, and any further information or documentation you may require from my end.

Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

You haven't shared the paperwork you received, but unless there's something particularly unusual about what GTR have sent you, that seems to cover the main points. They may well agree to allow you to settle out of court, but as I think you understand, they are not obliged to do so.

If you have time, it would be worth waiting for other comments, but if I were you I would be happy to send that now.

 

[Titfield]

1. A bit repetitive / wordy throughout. The paragraph starting I am extremely ashamed repeats the sentiment of the paragraph above in the main. The sentence Please let me know how you would like to proceed is a bit redundant as they will do this anyway.
2. GTR may not appreciate being told what is in their interests.
3. Do not say I am eager. Say I am willing to pay for any fares I have avoided and the administrative costs incurred by GTR investigating this matter.
4. Dont say first and foremost unless there are second and third issues named as such.
5. Delete the sentence "Given my circumstances" as they are irrelevant.

 

[Sultan]

So as well as short-faring, you applied a railcard discount that you were not entitled to?

Check your history to see that it is only 10 times. Presumably they are aware of the station that you actually began your journey from so it will be relatively easy for them to question any railcard-discounted tickets you have purchased, as well as any full fare tickets from any station further on the same line towards St Pancras. No need to let them know of your history but you'll be better armed with a response if (when) they send you a settlement offer. Expect to have to pay the full undiscounted fare for each journey plus around £100 admin fee.

 

[Ducky88]

So as well as short-faring, you applied a railcard discount that you were not entitled to?

Check your history to see that it is only 10 times. Presumably they are aware of the station that you actually began your journey from so it will be relatively easy for them to question any railcard-discounted tickets you have purchased, as well as any full fare tickets from any station further on the same line towards St Pancras. No need to let them know of your history but you'll be better armed with a response if (when) they send you a settlement offer. Expect to have to pay the full undiscounted fare for each journey plus around £100 admin fee.

Sorry that was a typo - was meant to say ticket but i was looking at my railcard while i was typing the letter

1. A bit repetitive / wordy throughout. The paragraph starting I am extremely ashamed repeats the sentiment of the paragraph above in the main. The sentence Please let me know how you would like to proceed is a bit redundant as they will do this anyway.
2. GTR may not appreciate being told what is in their interests.
3. Do not say I am eager. Say I am willing to pay for any fares I have avoided and the administrative costs incurred by GTR investigating this matter.
4. Dont say first and foremost unless there are second and third issues named as such.
5. Delete the sentence "Given my circumstances" as they are irrelevant.

To whom it may concern,

I am writing in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter dated [xxx], regarding the fare evasion incident reference [xxx] at City Thameslink on [xxx].

I would like to express my sincerest apologies for the inconvenience and concern that my actions have caused. I deeply regret my actions and understand what I did was very wrong.

Upon reflection, I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid ticket at the time. Additionally, I admit that there was a discrepancy regarding the embarkation point [xxx] provided for my ticket purchase. I take full responsibility for these discrepancies and understand the gravity of my actions. They are inexcusable and not at all reflective of the person I strive to be.

I am ashamed of my actions, and it has caused me a high level of stress and anxeity. I have learned that irrespective of any personal circumstances, I should not travel with an incorrect ticket. As a result, I have been sure to buy the correct ticket for my journeys.

In light of the above, I am keen to settle this matter without the need for court action. I am willing to cover any outstanding fares and administrative costs to GTR and I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered.

Please let me of further information or documentation you may require from my end.

Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Does this sound better?

 

[Bungle158]

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but the tone of this doesn't really cut it. IMHO, you need to focus on an attempt to peruade the TOC to forgo criminal proceedings and allow an out of court settlement.

No one is expecting a Pulitzer Prize winning missive, but a structured and careful letter will be appreciated by the team who have sacks of these to process every month.

There are 2 "discrepancies" in the same paragraph (3). They probably won't care about your stress and anxiety. You are obviously willing to make financial amends, but perhaps phrase things less as though you are doing them a favour, or placing conditions. The request for sincerity on their part is inappropriate.

Word appears to be missing towards the end ...Please let me ? of etc.

 

[30907]

2 "discrepancies" in the same paragraph (3).

And do I detect the use of ChatGPT? - it waffles rather.

E.g your actions haven't caused "inconvenience and concern," they have lost the railway money....

 

[alholmes]

Definitely some use of ChatGPT / AI, especially in the first draft, as there are a few phrases that have appeared before in other threads.

The second draft is much better, but I’d urge you to review and think hard about the language you’d normally use. For example, do you ever say ‘embarkation point’? Additionally, did you only acknowledge that you didn’t have a valid ticket “upon reflection”? I don’t think you needed any reflection to realise that.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I accept that I am in a minority here, but are we perhaps allowing the excellent to be the enemy of the good? For sure, the OP's draft can be improved upon - but doesn't it hit the right points in a sensible order without being wildly overlong or wildly overwritten?

It's an apology to the railway, not a contender for the Booker prize. Isn't 'good enough' good enough?

 

[Titfield]

It is a matter of judgement and we all have our own views on these types of letters. To me it is still a bit repetitive and over the top. But it does cover all the points that need to be made and if the OP is happy with it and we can see no "no nos" then as @Fawkes Cat states it is "good enough" to go.

 

[Hadders]

I think the first draft (with a few adjustments) reads netter than the second draft.

I would revise the first draft with the suggestions mentioned by @Titfield

When you ask if you could settle the ,atter out of court I would say 'I wondered if it would be possible to settle this matter without having to go to court. I am prepared to pay the outstanding fare and you administration costs in dealing with this matter'.

 

[randyrippley]

Something I was taught many years ago in business about writing legal letters was
1) Cover your backside
2) Never say more than you need
2) After writing a draft delete at least 50% of the words, remove the verbiage

My interpretation of those rules would render the OP's reply as

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Good morning.

This is in reply to your reference (XYZ) dated (XX.YY.ZZ) relating to a reported incident of fare evasion at (XXXXX) on (XX.YY.ZZ)

I offer my sincerest apologies for this incident, which will not be repeated. I deeply regret what happened and understand that what I did was wrong.
I accept that I did not possess a valid ticket for the journey. I agree that there was a discrepancy regarding the starting point [xxx] provided for my ticket purchase for which I was responsible. I now understand the gravity of my action, which I reiterate will not be repeated.
I am ashamed of this event and now understand that irrespective of any personal circumstances I should not attempt travel with an invalid ticket. Following this I have been scrupulous in purchasing the correct ticket for subsequent journeys.
I am keen to settle this matter without court action. To this end please advise what you consider to be a realistic sum to permanently resolve this issue. I assume you will contact me if you require further information.
Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.
I await your response.

Thank you

(name)

Notes:
"WITHOUT PREJUDICE" - stops them using the letter as evidence in a trial
"Good morning" - sounds less stupid than Dear Sir / To whom it may concern / etc
"Thank you" - "yours sincerely" is incorrect as you don't know the recipient, "yours faithfully" implies a trust that isn't there and sounds trite

It could probably be cleaned up a bit more, but the key thing is - it's short, simple, non-repetitive and gets the point across. And states you're awaiting a response


I'm sure some of you know the companies involved a lot better than I do and are going to object to my brevity, but my experience is that the specific industry is irrelevant: if you want a letter to be read and acted on it has to be short, simple, and easy to read (because the people who read them have short attention spans)

 

[AlbertBeale]

If I received a letter like that first draft I wouldn't think the person had really reformed. "Upon reflection, I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid ticket at the time" - why "upon reflection"? It was known at the outset that an invalid ticket was bought. The only "reflection" is presumably the realisation that they shouldn't have thought they'd get away with it. And it's not a "discrepancy", it's something rather clearer than that. And all the "embarkation point" verbiage sounds weird. I can only assume this is a letter generated by an over-garrulous American computer program?

I'm afraid that to me it doesn't sound sincere at all as drafted. And that's what's needed to persuade the railway to offer an out-of-court settlment rather than prosecuting.

It's not a matter of literary style - it's simply a matter of producing something literate, that looks to be humanly crafted, showing personal sincerity. (In my view.)

 

[pedr]

Also the term is 'without prejudice' and since train companies don't tend to use the civil court system it's of limited use, or perhaps even counter-productive in the context of attempting to convince a company not to exercise its right to bring a criminal prosecution, which is what these kinds of letters are doing.

 

[Alfonso]

"Without prejudice" is one of those phrases that is likely to fail the attitude test and put the reader immediately on the defensive, in this case for little or no gain.

 

[Ducky88]

Something I was taught many years ago in business about writing legal letters was
1) Cover your backside
2) Never say more than you need
2) After writing a draft delete at least 50% of the words, remove the verbiage

My interpretation of those rules would render the OP's reply as



Notes:
"WITHOUT PREDUDICE" - stops them using the letter as evidence in a trial
"Good morning" - sounds less stupid than Dear Sir / To whom it may concern / etc
"Thank you" - "yours sincerely" is incorrect as you don't know the recipient, "yours faithfully" implies a trust that isn't there and sounds trite

It could probably be cleaned up a bit more, but the key thing is - it's short, simple, non-repetitive and gets the point across. And states you're awaiting a response


I'm sure some of you know the companies involved a lot better than I do and are going to object to my brevity, but my experience is that the specific industry is irrelevant: if you want a letter to be read and acted on it has to be short, simple, and easy to read (because the people who read them have short attention spans)

Hi Thank you for your response and amendments!

everyone is right about how flowery the first 2 drafts were and i can understand it can sound over the top and insincere.

I have drafted another letter with your notes and with @Hadders comments.

To whom this may concern,

I am writing in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter dated [xxx], regarding the fare evasion incident reference [xxx] at St Pancras on [xxx].

I offer my sincerest apologies for this incident, which will not be repeated. I deeply regret what happened and understand that what I did was wrong.

I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid ticket at the time. Additionally, I admit that there was a discrepancy regarding the starting point [xxx] provided for my ticket purchase. I take full responsibility for these discrepancies and understand the gravity of my actions.

I am ashamed of this event and now understand that irrespective of any personal circumstances I should not attempt to travel with an invalid ticket. Following this I have been diligent in purchasing the correct ticket for subsequent journeys.

In light of the above, I wondered if it would be possible to settle this matter without having to go to court. I am prepared to pay any outstanding fare and your administration costs in dealing with this matter and I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered.

Please let me of further information or documents you may require from me.

Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully,

I am absolutely terrible at writing and I very much appreciate everyone's input. very humbling and eye-opening, i am glad I consulted you guys first

I accept that I am in a minority here, but are we perhaps allowing the excellent to be the enemy of the good? For sure, the OP's draft can be improved upon - but doesn't it hit the right points in a sensible order without being wildly overlong or wildly overwritten?

It's an apology to the railway, not a contender for the Booker prize. Isn't 'good enough' good enough?

Thank you so much, your first comment gave me so much hope.

I agree it did sound quite chatGPT like, but honest i didnt use any Ai to write it.

I am just scared and wanted to sound as sincere as possible, but it might have had the opposite effect

 

[jumble]

Just to be picky
"I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration" does not make sense as they have not shown either yet
The insertion of the word "would" changes the whole context

 

[Ducky88]

Just to be picky
"I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration" does not make sense as they have not shown either yet
The insertion of the word "would" changes the whole context

Thank you, for spotting that.

 

[Sultan]

I would imagine whoever reads the letter is probably allocated 1-2 minutes in which they have to digest and action it before moving on to the next, similarly worded letter, and so on. They will be blinded by word-similarity. So unless something jumps out as being out of the ordinary, it is likely they will be skim-reading to decide into which box (response) is needed - all very quickly. I doubt if tone comes into it that often.

I can't believe anyone employed to process these letters considers it to be a long-term career, and staff turnover might be quite high (is it a rewarding job?). And it won't be long before AI starts to read these letters, automatically deciding a (high?) percentage of letters, reducing the pile that need human eyes.

So keep it simple. Acknowledge, admit (Apologise, Remedial action) or Reject (Reason, clarification, etc), Question (if necessary), Invite response. No need to repeat anything.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

My tuppence worth...

If you are writing a formal letter and don't know the name of the person you are writing to, never write "to whom it may concern".

"Dear Sir" and then you can end "Yours faithfully"

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I would imagine whoever reads the letter is probably allocated 1-2 minutes in which they have to digest and action it before moving on to the next, similarly worded letter, and so on. They will be blinded by word-similarity. So unless something jumps out as being out of the ordinary, it is likely they will be skim-reading to decide into which box (response) is needed - all very quickly. I doubt if tone comes into it that often.

I can't believe anyone employed to process these letters considers it to be a long-term career, and staff turnover might be quite high (is it a rewarding job?). And it won't be long before AI starts to read these letters, automatically deciding a (high?) percentage of letters, reducing the pile that need human eyes.

So keep it simple. Acknowledge, admit (Apologise, Remedial action) or Reject (Reason, clarification, etc), Question (if necessary), Invite response. No need to repeat anything.

It also follows from this that they won't be reading the letter for literary style, or precisely correct use of how it's addressed/signed off etc.

So it means that we don't need to carry on with the destructive nit-picking. The letter is good enough - let the OP get it sent to the railway and then move on with their life.

 

[Ducky88]

It also follows from this that they won't be reading the letter for literary style, or precisely correct use of how it's addressed/signed off etc.

So it means that we don't need to carry on with the destructive nit-picking. The letter is good enough - let the OP get it sent to the railway and then move on with their life.

The Stress of writing this letter is probably as much as waiting for it,

I just want to make sure it's good as I know it's not 100% that they will settle, it's good and not good to know that people are right that they probably process hundreds of these letters a day.

 

[randyrippley]

Also the term is 'without prejudice' .........

Sorry that was an alcohol confused typo, now corrected

 

[Haywain]

In light of the above, I wondered if it would be possible would appreciate the opportunity to settle this matter without having to go to court. I am prepared to pay any outstanding fare and your administration costs in dealing with this matter and I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered would be able to agree to this.

I think you should change this a little. You are asking a question, so make it look like a question.

I would imagine whoever reads the letter is probably allocated 1-2 minutes in which they have to digest and action it before moving on to the next, similarly worded letter, and so on. They will be blinded by word-similarity. So unless something jumps out as being out of the ordinary, it is likely they will be skim-reading to decide into which box (response) is needed - all very quickly. I doubt if tone comes into it that often.

It will be someone on the revenue protection team, not someone in a call centre. They will be reading properly just in case there is something in there that tells them not to settle.

 

[Ducky88]

I think you should change this a little. You are asking a question, so make it look like a question.

It will be someone on the revenue protection team, not someone in a call centre. They will be reading properly just in case there is something in there that tells them not to settle.

I got the first line from @Hadders and i think it sounds more sincere, but honestly thank you for taking the time to read it over.

I have decided to send what I have now which is:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter dated XXX, regarding the fare evasion incident reference XXX at St Pancras on 23rd February 2024.

I offer my sincerest apologies for this incident, which will not be repeated. I deeply regret what happened and understand that what I did was wrong.

I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid ticket at the time. Additionally, I admit that there was a discrepancy regarding the starting point of Finsbury Park provided for my ticket purchase. I take full responsibility for these discrepancies and understand the gravity of my actions.

I am ashamed of this event and now understand that irrespective of any personal circumstances I should not attempt to travel with an invalid ticket. Following this I have been diligent in purchasing the correct ticket for subsequent journeys.

In light of the above, I wondered if it would be possible to settle this matter without having to go to court. I am prepared to pay any outstanding fare and your administration costs in dealing with this matter and I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered.

Please let me of further information or documents you may require from me.

Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I would greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully,

Hopefully its not too much waffle and is sincere enough for them to offer a out of court settlement.

Once i get a response, good or bad il update everyone. THANK YOU AGAIN for everyones constructive comments.

I feel better and more confident now to send what i have instead of my first draft.

thank you so much everyone. and wish my letter luck!

 

[WesternLancer]

I got the first line from @Hadders and i think it sounds more sincere, but honestly thank you for taking the time to read it over.

I have decided to send what I have now which is:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in response to the Notice of Intention to Prosecute letter dated XXX, regarding the fare evasion incident reference XXX at St Pancras on 23rd February 2024.

I offer my sincerest apologies for this incident, which will not be repeated. I deeply regret what happened and understand that what I did was wrong.

I acknowledge that I did not possess a valid ticket at the time. Additionally, I admit that there was a discrepancy regarding the starting point of Finsbury Park provided for my ticket purchase. I take full responsibility for these discrepancies and understand the gravity of my actions.

I am ashamed of this event and now understand that irrespective of any personal circumstances I should not attempt to travel with an invalid ticket. Following this I have been diligent in purchasing the correct ticket for subsequent journeys.

In light of the above, I wondered if it would be possible to settle this matter without having to go to court. I am prepared to pay any outstanding fare and your administration costs in dealing with this matter and I hope my desire to settle will be sincerely considered.

Please let me of further information or documents you may require from me.

Once again, I apologise for my actions and the inconvenience caused. I would greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Faithfully,

Hopefully its not too much waffle and is sincere enough for them to offer a out of court settlement.

Once i get a response, good or bad il update everyone. THANK YOU AGAIN for everyones constructive comments.

I feel better and more confident now to send what i have instead of my first draft.

thank you so much everyone. and wish my letter luck!

Given all the efforts you have gone to make sure you send this with some sort of tracking / recording so you can be sure it gets there OK. And keep copies of everything.
Good luck indeed.

 

[Hadders]

I think the latest version of the letter is fine.

Do let us know how you get on as it helps us to help others in future.

 

[Ducky88]

I think the latest version of the letter is fine.

Do let us know how you get on as it helps us to help others in future.

Good or bad i will post the results here.. I hope I can give back to this community too.

thanks for your thoughts and inputs.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Notes:
"WITHOUT PREJUDICE" - stops them using the letter as evidence in a trial
"Good morning" - sounds less stupid than Dear Sir / To whom it may concern / etc
"Thank you" - "yours sincerely" is incorrect as you don't know the recipient, "yours faithfully" implies a trust that isn't there and sounds trite

I think all of this is extremely bad advice.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE - first things first - they have enough evidence to convict, and don't need a letter of admission to do so. All it will do is rub the person reading it up the wrong way, and suggest a rather combative approach. The OP needs to be seen to be cooperative - this screams the opposite from the very top of the letter.

As for the others - you might think it old fashioned but Dear Sir/Madam and Yours Faithfully is the correct way to write a formal business letter when you don't know the name of the person you are writing to. You don't go wrong by using formal business language in a letter like this.

 

[Ducky88]

This may be a stupid question but do i sign here regardless or is it signed only if i am disputing if it is me?