Outdated 16-25 railcard

[obetts]

Hi all,

I’m seeking some advice regarding an email I received from HM Courts and Tribunals Service Civil Claims.

I was informed last December by the ticket officer on the train that my 16-25 railcard was outdated for 6 months. I bought a new railcard there and then and explained I was not aware that it had expired. The ticket officer mentioned at the time nothing about prosecution or claims.

I recently received an email saying the first greater western ltd had made a money claim against me for all the trips where my railcard was out of date which totals up to £974.70. I’m 25 years old and this is a lot of money which I don’t have and wanted your advice of how I can challenge this as I was not made aware by any ticket officers that this had previously expired and I bought a new one as soon as I was made aware.

Looking forward to hearing your advice and guidance on what I should do. For reference I have attached the explanation of their claim against me.

Thank you

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you received any correspondence at all from GWR prior to this? We do know that GWR is looking at civil claims for the outstanding fares when passengers have come to their attention.

Do you know which journeys are in question, and the fares you paid? Is there any breakdown given?

 

[obetts]

Hi - I have not received any correspondence prior to receiving this email. No breakdown of the fares has been provided, instead just the total they are charging me for. Is it worth asking for this breakdown? Do you have any advice on how I can respond to this please?

Thanks in advance

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@obetts. Welcome to the forum. The attachment in post #1 refers to some 35 journeys having been made (using inappropriately discounted tickets?) since the old railcard expired in April 2024. Presume you can't see any further detail when clicking through on the "view amount breakdown" link, or maybe you can? Either way, guess you've likely been booking rail tickets using some online retailer, such as Trainline. So, do you have access to your journey history information, maybe from your various e-mail notifications?

Likely GWR will be asking for payment of fares calculated at the full, undiscounted, Anytime Day Single rate, which will be expensive.

 

[AlterEgo]

In a civil court, can GWR claim losses for itself where the tickets, or revenue allocation for those tickets, was for other train companies? A general question.

 

[Titfield]

To assist the Op in what appears to have happened:

1. GWR will have investigated your online booking account and discovered the 35 journeys you didnt have a valid railcard for.
2. They will have written to you asking for an explanation.
3. Either you didnt receive the letter or you have ignored it.
4. GWR have initiated a small claims court (money order) against you.
5. The amount is for the full fare for all the journeys made ie the most expensive standard class tickets with no allowance for the fares paid already.
6. Can you get all the details (the breakdown) of how the sum is calculated so it can be scrutinised?

This may then provide a view as to what the next steps could be.

Unfortunately it appears they have you "bang to rights" by not possessing a railcard at the time of travel.

 

[furlong]

Yes, you need to obtain the full details of the claim. They should really only be asking for the difference between what you actually paid and what you would have paid if you hadn't used the railcard. If they are asking for peak fares at off-peak times you could challenge them to justify this in law (as there may no longer be any basis for this in current contracts) and you could also make a counter claim to offset what you already paid against what they are claiming. You could also try to persuade the court that their true loss was limited to the cost of the railcard that you presumably simply forgot to renew.

5. The amount is for the full fare for all the journeys made ie the most expensive standard class tickets with no allowance for the fares paid already.

That is not yet known and I wouldn't know how to justify it in law. Even Penalty Fares don't work out the fare on this basis, which I'd suggest is a pretty good guide that it's wrong.

 

[ikcdab]

Do you dispute that you made 35 journeys with an expired Railcard? It should be pretty easy for you to check if this is correct or not.
If it's incorrect and you haven't made these journeys then you should dispute it. But if you know it's true, or somewhere near true, then you no option but to pay up. If you don't, then it will end up in court and you will get a criminal conviction.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you dispute that you made 35 journeys with an expired Railcard? It should be pretty easy for you to check if this is correct or not.
If it's incorrect and you haven't made these journeys then you should dispute it. But if you know it's true, or somewhere near true, then you no option but to pay up.

They have plenty of options.

1) Explore whether GWR are claiming losses not incurred by them, for example tickets used on other train companies. In a civil claim GWR can surely only claim losses which have impacted them.

2) Ask for a breakdown of the fares to see if they are being asked for the full Anytimes or if any previous fares have been taken into account, bearing in mind the above.

3) Offer the railway’s only true loss. £30 off quid for the railcard renewal.

If you don't, then it will end up in court and you will get a criminal conviction.

This is a civil claim.

 

[minderbinder]

3) Offer the railway’s only true loss. £30 off quid for the railcard renewal.

Fifteen quid, even. OP only failed to renew for six months.

 

[Pushpit]

I recently received an email saying the first greater western ltd had made a money claim against me for all the trips where my railcard was out of date which totals up to £974.70. I’m 25 years old and this is a lot of money which I don’t have and wanted your advice of how I can challenge this as I was not made aware by any ticket officers that this had previously expired and I bought a new one as soon as I was made aware.

So this is something generally known as MCOL. Before MCOL can be launched, there are pre-action protocols that must be completed before the MCOL process starts, which as a minimum involves writing / emailing you to explain the debt, and you need to have had a chance to engage with that process, and before GWR start MCOL. Clearly if you say nothing or ignore the letter then GWR has little choice but to start MCOL. If you did not receive prior correspondence then you better liaise with GWR immediately, and establish more accurately the debt. If they have started MCOL in breach of the protocols (which I suspect is highly unlikely) then you can put that in your defence and/or request the application is withdrawn due to breach of the Practice Directions.

This speaks to your question of a breakdown - since GWR will need to show they gave you a formal demand for payment, and responded to any queries you had about that demand. Again this has to be done before starting MCOL. If you click "View Amount Breakdown" you may see more information but I suspect it will one line for the fares, and one line for the administration charges.

Having said that, you should consider accurately ascertaining GWR's losses, and on the basis of the delta between what you paid and the non railcard amount. This is because civil claims can recover direct losses and legitimate administration costs, but they can't seek punitive damages, and anything that looks close to that. GWR can potentially claim interest from the date of their demand for payment.

I suspect the £15/£30 for not renewing the railcard may be a useful negotiating stage but I wouldn't want to argue that via the district judge / sheriff.

So as ever, a lot depends on details, but the start point is to find out how it was that GWR could send you the MCOL material, without sending you the pre-action protocols.

Note that with MCOL, if you dispute the amount, can/should go to a mediation stage, where you, GWR and a mediator attempt to find a solution. I bet organisations like GWR will struggle with that, a lot of MCOL cases seem to operate on the basis that the defendant will ignore the case until the bailiffs are at the door.

 

[tspaul26]

I’m 25 years old and this is a lot of money which I don’t have and wanted your advice of how I can challenge this as I was not made aware by any ticket officers that this had previously expired and I bought a new one as soon as I was made aware.

If you wish to deny liability or the amount claimed then you must lodge a defence to the claim in court.

No breakdown of the fares has been provided, instead just the total they are charging me for. Is it worth asking for this breakdown?

You can ask for it from GWR directly, but you are not strictly entitled to it as part of the court proceedings at this stage.

However, GWR should then provide that information to you and - if you defend this claim and you put them to proof on quantum (i.e. the amount) then they will need to evidence how it has been calculated and what it covers.

In a civil court, can GWR claim losses for itself where the tickets, or revenue allocation for those tickets, was for other train companies? A general question.

Yes.

you could also make a counter claim to offset what you already paid against what they are claiming.

A counter claim would be completely inappropriate in the circumstances as currently presented.

Do you dispute that you made 35 journeys with an expired Railcard? It should be pretty easy for you to check if this is correct or not.

This is the key question: if you did actually make these journeys then you must not deny doing so in any defence you lodge as that would be perjury.

2) Ask for a breakdown of the fares to see if they are being asked for the full Anytimes or if any previous fares have been taken into account, bearing in mind the above.

As above, the OP can ask for this and GWR should (unless they are being foolish) then provide it.

3) Offer the railway’s only true loss. £30 off quid for the railcard renewal.

If the OP wishes to do this then it needs to be done by way of a settlement offer to GWR, but the OP must also lodge a defence to the claim or default judgment may be entered.

If they have started MCOL in breach of the protocols (which I suspect is highly unlikely) then you can put that in your defence and/or request the application is withdrawn due to breach of the Practice Directions.

Breach of a pre-action protocol is not a basis for withdrawing or dismissing a money claim. It is not a ground of defence to the substantive claim.

However, it may be relevant to the question of costs if the failure to adhere to a protocol caused unnecessary or wasted expense.

I suspect the £15/£30 for not renewing the railcard may be a useful negotiating stage but I wouldn't want to argue that via the district judge / sheriff.

There will be no sheriff. This will proceed in the County Court.

So as ever, a lot depends on details, but the start point is to find out how it was that GWR could send you the MCOL material, without sending you the pre-action protocols.

There is nothing which prevents a money claim being issued if the ore-action protocol has not been complied with.

All that is needed is a letter from the OP to GWR to request copies of any pre-action correspondence. There is no need to investigate that any much further once GWR replies though.

Note that with MCOL, if you dispute the amount, can/should go to a mediation stage, where you, GWR and a mediator attempt to find a solution. I bet organisations like GWR will struggle with that

I see no reason why GWR should struggle with small claims mediation.

The OP would need to lodge a defence to the claim first though.

The OP (if writing to GWR directly) should however suggest that alternative dispute resolution be used.

 

[Pushpit]

Breach of a pre-action protocol is not a basis for withdrawing or dismissing a money claim. It is not a ground of defence to the substantive claim.

However, it may be relevant to the question of costs if the failure to adhere to a protocol caused unnecessary or wasted expense.

My reading (and personal experience) of Practice Direction 15 and 16 is that if this invoked then the courts can either stay proceedings, order the claimant to perform the relevant protocols first, invite the claimant to withdraw the case or even sanction the claimant. Hence my comment that I very much doubt that GWR has ignored all of this, it's more likely they have actually contacted the OP - and that was the point I was trying to make. The MCOL guidance for claimants indicates the risk to a case if the protocol is not followed. See "failure to do so" below:

Money Claim Online (MCOL) user guide

www.gov.uk

For Mediation, I'm not sure if you have been through such a stage, but my experience is that the larger the organisation, the harder it gets. There is a give and take aspect and that tends to tie someone with the authority to concede and the knowledge to participate. Once an organisation gets beyond 10 employees then one tends to get one or the other but not both.

And whilst this case is apparently in England, sheriffs definitely, totally and absolutely handle small claims, including from rail companies.

 

[tspaul26]

My reading (and personal experience) of Practice Direction 15 and 16 is that if this invoked then the courts can either stay proceedings, order the claimant to perform the relevant protocols first, invite the claimant to withdraw the case or even sanction the claimant.

I’m afraid I’m not sure what you’re referring to: Practice Direction 15 is now omitted and Practice Direction 16 doesn’t really touch on this subject matter.

The court can of course do all of the things you list under its general case management powers, of course, but if GWR has not complied with a pre-action protocol then I would expect a stay for that to be completed, following which liberty to apply (unless the parties settle of course).

For Mediation, I'm not sure if you have been through such a stage, but my experience is that the larger the organisation, the harder it gets. There is a give and take aspect and that tends to tie someone with the authority to concede and the knowledge to participate. Once an organisation gets beyond 10 employees then one tends to get one or the other but not both.

Yes, I have, and in my experience it tends to be both larger organisations and individuals who are least inclined to make concessions.

As far as GWR is concerned, I have generally found them to be fairly pragmatic and would expect them to agree to payment of the improperly claimed railcard discounts if the OP approaches it in the right manner and explains the underlying point to any mediator who may become involved.

And whilst this case is apparently in England, sheriffs definitely, totally and absolutely handle small claims, including from rail companies.

Sheriffs may handle the enforcement side, but that comes later. As far as the current stage is concerned (determination of the substantive claim) they have no particular role in that process.

 

[Pushpit]

Sheriffs may handle the enforcement side, but that comes later. As far as the current stage is concerned (determination of the substantive claim) they have no particular role in that process.

That sounds like you are referring to High Court Enforcement Officers, aka Sheriff Officers. I'm referring to Scotland.

 

[tspaul26]

That sounds like you are referring to High Court Enforcement Officers, aka Sheriff Officers. I'm referring to Scotland.

As was I, but the rest of your post was about Money Claim Online so quite why you mentioned the sheriff at all in that context is unclear since it is not relevant, to this case or to MCOL generally.

 

[John Palmer]

I am puzzled by what has taken place in the OP's case. The uploaded email extract headed 'Claim details' does not appear to be a claim form within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Rules.

I may have fallen out of touch regarding commencement of civil proceedings, but, so far as I can see from para. 5.5 in CPR Practice Direction 7C, when a claimant requests issue of a claim form to start proceedings via Money Claim Online the court will issue the claim form and serve it upon the defendant. It's my further understanding that valid electronic service of documents for the purpose of civil proceedings requires the defendant to have first agreed to accept such service in electronic form, and that otherwise service must be effected in accordance with CPR 6.3, which, in the case of a claim form served by the court, is likely to take the form of postal service. So an initial question for the OP to answer is whether the court has served a written/printed claim form, as this is likely to determine what the appropriate next step will be.

I anticipate that this is likely to be the filing of a document (either by post or online) known as an Acknowledgment of Service, by means of which the OP will provide the court (and GWR) with a preliminary indication of the response being made to the claim. The OP may well be obliged to file a formal Defence to GWR's claim, and the filing of the AoS should have the effect of gaining an additional period of 14 days within which to file such defence before becoming exposed to the risk of an adverse judgment by default.

It is entirely conventional for a Claim Form to include details of the claim being made, in a form known as 'Particulars of Claim'. If the claim is to be defended, such defence must be filed within 14 days of service of the Particulars of Claim, or within 28 days if an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed in good time. But at this stage it is not possible to tell from the limited information provided whether: (a) a Claim Form has been validly served, or (b) whether Particulars of Claim have also been served, so fixing the latest date by which a defence needs to be filed.

In the longer term, I agree that the OP ought to be able to persuade GWR to accept a resolution of these proceedings involving payment of wrongly claimed railcard discounts rather than full fares, as this would reflect the true nature of GWR's loss. As yet the route to such an outcome is unclear.

 

[womble10]

I am puzzled by what has taken place in the OP's case. The uploaded email extract headed 'Claim details' does not appear to be a claim form within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Rules.

I may have fallen out of touch regarding commencement of civil proceedings, but, so far as I can see from para. 5.5 in CPR Practice Direction 7C, when a claimant requests issue of a claim form to start proceedings via Money Claim Online the court will issue the claim form and serve it upon the defendant. It's my further understanding that valid electronic service of documents for the purpose of civil proceedings requires the defendant to have first agreed to accept such service in electronic form, and that otherwise service must be effected in accordance with CPR 6.3, which, in the case of a claim form served by the court, is likely to take the form of postal service. So an initial question for the OP to answer is whether the court has served a written/printed claim form, as this is likely to determine what the appropriate next step will be.

I anticipate that this is likely to be the filing of a document (either by post or online) known as an Acknowledgment of Service, by means of which the OP will provide the court (and GWR) with a preliminary indication of the response being made to the claim. The OP may well be obliged to file a formal Defence to GWR's claim, and the filing of the AoS should have the effect of gaining an additional period of 14 days within which to file such defence before becoming exposed to the risk of an adverse judgment by default.

It is entirely conventional for a Claim Form to include details of the claim being made, in a form known as 'Particulars of Claim'. If the claim is to be defended, such defence must be filed within 14 days of service of the Particulars of Claim, or within 28 days if an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed in good time. But at this stage it is not possible to tell from the limited information provided whether: (a) a Claim Form has been validly served, or (b) whether Particulars of Claim have also been served, so fixing the latest date by which a defence needs to be filed.

In the longer term, I agree that the OP ought to be able to persuade GWR to accept a resolution of these proceedings involving payment of wrongly claimed railcard discounts rather than full fares, as this would reflect the true nature of GWR's loss. As yet the route to such an outcome is unclear.

I find it odd (though I am unfamiliar with the MCO system) that OP has not received any correspondence before receiving the above email. I am concerned that GWR may not have accurate contact details for OP.

It is my opinion that OP should make contact with GWR as soon as possible to confirm his present address, and whether GWR has sent any prior correspondence to him in this and in any associated matter which may have been missed. OP should then, if he is willing to do so, provide a copy of the GWR response on this forum.

This will allow for advice to be given on any procedural issues in his case. It will also establish direct contact with GWR which will be necessary to settle the matter outside of court.

Further, and noting that this issue has not been raised above, it will confirm whether GWR are pursuing a concurrent criminal prosecution for his travel on 21 December 2024 and/or any dates prior.

 

[tspaul26]

I may have fallen out of touch regarding commencement of civil proceedings, but, so far as I can see from para. 5.5 in CPR Practice Direction 7C, when a claimant requests issue of a claim form to start proceedings via Money Claim Online the court will issue the claim form and serve it upon the defendant. It's my further understanding that valid electronic service of documents for the purpose of civil proceedings requires the defendant to have first agreed to accept such service in electronic form, and that otherwise service must be effected in accordance with CPR 6.3, which, in the case of a claim form served by the court, is likely to take the form of postal service. So an initial question for the OP to answer is whether the court has served a written/printed claim form, as this is likely to determine what the appropriate next step will be.

Claims forms issued via MCOL will now (when served by the court by post) include a code which can be used to look up the case online.

I expect this is how the OP has managed to provide the screenshot posted above, which implies that something has been received by post at least (otherwise the OP would not have been able to access the system).

There is also currently a separate trial online process for money claims valued below £25,000, although I have not had cause to use it myself. I believe that will automatically email the defendant if an email address is provided to confirm the date of issue and provide a link to access the online portal. The email would then normally arrive before any documents served by post.