WMT - fishing?

[Fawkes Cat]

Back in October 2023 I [committed a travel irregularity which was detected by WMT].

Today I received an email about it stating

We have recently been handed a file relating to an incident on 24/10/2023 when approached by staff carrying out their revenue duties, you were asked to show your valid ticket you offered a ticket with a railcard attached and were unable to present your railcard, therefore you would not have been eligible for the discounted rate.



Further investigations into this matter have been carried out, including a review of the ticket records. It would appear, at this stage, that this may be a case of fraud. West Midlands Trains take travel fraud extremely seriously and is committed to prosecuting all cases of fare evasion to the full extent of the law. Travelling on the railway with the intent to avoid paying the full fare is an offence under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Such an offence carries a maximum fine of £1,000 and/or three months’ imprisonment and, in either case, a criminal record. It must also be considered whether this matter amounts to a much more serious offence under the Fraud Act 2006.



At this stage we would be grateful if you would provide any evidence to support the claim that none of the above legislation has been contravened to prevent further action being contemplated. We look forward to hearing from you.

I've started a new thread as we've seen two or three of these today.

It seems notable to me that there's no reference to WMT having checked the passenger's past tickets with Trainline etc. And all the original reports are out of time for summary prosecution.

I know I apply a rather different definition of 'fishing' from some other users (to me, it wouldn't be fishing if there was a history of dubious ticket purchases; that's enough to make asking whether those dubious purchases were used for dubious travel a reasonable question). But when the only evidence that WMT have is of one dubious journey, and that turns out to be out of time for prosecution, then to me that makes the questions about other possible occurrences into a fishing expedition.

So to be practical, what advice should we be giving (always accepting that each case may have its own special features)? My feeling is that we should be checking whether there is a history of fare dodging - and if not, advising to either not reply, or giving WMT a polite brush-off.

 

[Haywain]

But when the only evidence that WMT have is of one dubious journey,

Are you sure that is all they have got?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Are you sure that is all they have got?

That’s what I infer from the wording of the email.

Although I will say that I thought WMT had previously said something about ‘we have checked with Trainline’. But a quick search fails to come up with any examples of that, so maybe I am complaining about a quirk of WMT’s wording.

 

[Titfield]

But the email does say:

Further investigations into this matter have been carried out, including a review of the ticket records.

If someone is caught in person with a ticket with a railcard discount applied but unable to produce the required railcard is it unreasonable for a TOC to look at that persons purchases over say a 12 - 18 month period and if they find tickets purchased with a railcard discount applied to ask for evidence of that railcard?

Whilst the TOC may decide that there is insufficient proof to proceed to some form of recovery action, it may at least encourage the passenger / booker to pay the full fare or purchase the appropriate railcard going forward.

As regards advice I am not sure what we should say other than point out the time limitations for action by a TOC (and to consider themselves fortunate if the occasion on which they were stopped was more than 6 months ago thus precluding action) and encourage the passenger to pay the full fare or purchase the appropriate railcard in future as going forward if they travel without a valid ticket they may find themselves in a situation that could cost them a great deal of money certainly many times greater than the cost of a railcard or any savings they may have made they were not entitled to.

 

[Haywain]

As regards advice I am not sure what we should say other than point out the time limitations for action by a TOC (and to consider themselves fortunate if the occasion on which they were stopped was more than 6 months ago thus precluding action)

If doing so, you should emphasise that it is criminal action you are referring to. Civil action would still be possible for recovery of unpaid fares and requires a lower burden of proof.