Caught with "sandwich" ticket by GWR

[AnotherOne]

I usually split my Bristol-London tickets at Didcot in proper manner. In last year, rushing to leave house I'd got lazy and only bought first half at home with intention to purchase second half prior to train reaching Didcot. Most of the time I did this. On 3 occasions, however, I've reached London and realised I had totally forgotten the second half (with no on-board check). Partly, yes, in a stupid attempt to save a tenner, and partly as the peak time fares for from Didcot had passed, I quickly on bought just Reading-London tickets for arrival. On the 3rd occasion I was caught red handed and interviewed under caution, admitting to intent not to pay full fare. Reading this forum the seriousness of the situation is pretty clear. Absolutely kicking myself as I could easily afford the fares and genuinely value the service (I guess I just stupidly felt with the thousands I've paid over the years and unclaimed delays it came out in the wash). There are three things I'd very much appreciate guidance:
1) If GWR are inclined to settle out of court will they likely ask for details in first letter or go straight to an offer? The RPI I spoke with just said they'd be in touch to claim the missing fares.
2) My App will clearly show the 3 occasions (1 other was very recent) in among proper split tickets. There are 3 more occasions where I only have the Bristol - Didcot part on the App as second half was bought paper copy from guard early in journey. I could evidence these through card transactions I expect if they look suspicious?
3) I see they are inclined to elevate "persistent" offenders. What kind of numbers are we typically talking for persistent?

Obviously will get organisation completely in order from now on buying both parts prior to travel as I always used to.

Many thanks.

 

[Titfield]

To answer the points you have raised:
(1) There is a high possibility they will check your online booking record(s) and, based on what they see, will ask you to respond. Alternatively, and IMHO, there is a low chance they will pursue the one admitted occasion only. Given the number of occasions I doubt they will go straight to an offer.
(2) Do you have the tickets which were issued onboard? Card transactions only are not necessarily conclusive evidence of the purchase of a ticket for the specific journey.
(3) Very difficult to say. We have seen a single case of fare evasion pursued vigorously and yet we have seen examples of multiple instances of fare evasion resolved relatively quickly by an out of court settlement which seemed more than fair.

Some of your behaviours would be interpreted as not being "innocent mistakes" ie are indicative of trying to avoid paying the fare due and this may mean you have to work that bit harder to achieve an out of court settlement (ie it may take more than one letter and will need to demonstrate with sincerity you have learned your lesson and will be compliant going forward). The work involved in the additional letters would impact adversely any admin fee that GWR may charge.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

GWR will send a letter to you saying that they have received a report, are considering prosecuting you, but asking for your version of events before they decide how to proceed. The letter typically takes a couple of months to arrive, it can be sooner but shouldn't take longer than six months.

GWR are normally one of the more pragmatic companies when it comes to dealing with this sort of thing, as long as you co-operate and haven't come to their attention before. Write a short, conside reply to them and I would expect them to offer you an out of court settlement.

My normal advice is to answer the questions they ask in their letter - so if they only ask about the specific incident where you were caught then confine your answer to this date only - you are not required to incriminate yourself. On the other hand if they mention other occasions then it would be wise to tell them about the other occasions. We have seen a few cases where train companies agree a settlement for the specific incident where someone was caught ad then at a later date, following online ticket account research, get back in touch about other incidents.

If you post a copy of the letter from GWR (but do redact personal detauils) along with your draft reply we will be happy to proof read it for you.

 

[AnotherOne]

Thank you both for taking the time to reply. In response to Titfield on the paper copies: I shall look but I highly doubt it as these were way back last year. I was hoping the fare and date matching would provide adequate evidence. It's fair to say my behaviour was not innocent on the 3 occasions but also not premeditated (however much that helps).

 

[AlterEgo]

GWR settle out of court basically every time, just follow the advice @Hadders gives and they will settle.

 

[fandroid]

The card transaction evidence is not conclusive (but neither are paper tickets - they could be someone else's!) but if it comes to explaining previous ticket issues, then it's worth providing them with the appropriate print outs showing that the sums fit the fares and that the payee was GWR. Train companies normally do appreciate full engagement with the process, and a careful response of that nature will demonstrate cooperation.

But, as already advised, only answer the questions posed initially. When (if) they come to make an offer the sum included for unpaid fares will show how many times they think you've scammed them. That could then be an appropriate time to come clean and provide full details of journeys and payments made, in order to reduce the overall bill

 

[AnotherOne]

Very frustrating not being able to sort immediately but that's the bed I've made myself. Will be paranoid about something going askew in the post now. Anyhow, thanks again, will now just have to wait, save and be diligent.

 

[notmyrealname]

..and make sure you don't come to their attention again.

 

[furlong]

If you bought the other tickets on board from GWR it should be straightforward for them to match up your record of the transactions with their own record of the ticket sale as it's all internal to GWR.

Trust the RPI who said they'd be in touch asking for the missing fares. The letters usually talk about prosecution but that's only a last resort if you ignore them - they basically just want the money that you cheated them out of plus a bit more for their trouble.

 

[MotCO]

If you bought the other tickets on board from GWR it should be straightforward for them to match up your record of the transactions with their own record of the ticket sale as it's all internal to GWR.

Trust the RPI who said they'd be in touch asking for the missing fares. The letters usually talk about prosecution but that's only a last resort if you ignore them - they basically just want the money that you cheated them out of plus a bit more for their trouble.

....and as a deterrent

 

[furlong]

....and as a deterrent

No - they absolutely CANNOT ask for extra money as a deterrent. The railway cannot attempt to run its own extra-judicial system. They can only seek reimbursement of their direct costs that puts them back into the position they would have been in if the alleged crimes had not occurred. Requiring additional payments as a deterrent would only store up problems for the future if they get caught up in some future inquiry into railway prosecutions once the ripples from the Post Office scandal reach the railway industry. As a deterrent there are only two options in law intended to be punitive - a Penalty Fare, or a court's punishment (fine) upon conviction. Any payment to the rail company beyond that would need to be labelled clearly as a voluntary contribution - I think some people would pay it if it was couched in the right language (e.g. wiping the slate clean repaying undetected undetectable evasion).

 

[MotCO]

No - they absolutely CANNOT ask for extra money as a deterrent. The railway cannot attempt to run its own extra-judicial system. They can only seek reimbursement of their direct costs that puts them back into the position they would have been in if the alleged crimes had not occurred. Requiring additional payments as a deterrent would only store up problems for the future if they get caught up in some future inquiry into railway prosecutions once the ripples from the Post Office scandal reach the railway industry. As a deterrent there are only two options in law intended to be punitive - a Penalty Fare, or a court's punishment (fine) upon conviction. Any payment to the rail company beyond that would need to be labelled clearly as a voluntary contribution - I think some people would pay it if it was couched in the right language (e.g. wiping the slate clean repaying undetected undetectable evasion).

Apologies - badly worded. I meant that the cost of the settlement would act as a deterrent, rather than an additional sum being levied by the rail company.

 

[AnotherOne]

The biggest deterrent is ever experiencing this stress again...

 

[AdamWW]

No - they absolutely CANNOT ask for extra money as a deterrent. The railway cannot attempt to run its own extra-judicial system. They can only seek reimbursement of their direct costs that puts them back into the position they would have been in if the alleged crimes had not occurred.

I'm confused by this. We've seen that the railway will seek the costs of anytime tickets even when an off peak ticket would have been sold at the time, and will also ignore any money already paid (e.g. for a railcard discounted ticket with an expired railcard). There may be an argument that this is what they are contractually owed but they are ending up with more money than they would have if the "offence" hadn't been committed.

Likewise, I think it would be very hard to argue when an on the spot offer to settle out of court for £100 + ticket price is issued that the costs of doing so are (exactly!) £100.

 

[island]

I'm confused by this. We've seen that the railway will seek the costs of anytime tickets even when an off peak ticket would have been sold at the time, and will also ignore any money already paid (e.g. for a railcard discounted ticket with an expired railcard). There may be an argument that this is what they are contractually owed but they are ending up with more money than they would have if the "offence" hadn't been committed.

Likewise, I think it would be very hard to argue when an on the spot offer to settle out of court for £100 + ticket price is issued that the costs of doing so are (exactly!) £100.

They're entitled, but not required, to charge an anytime fare in line with the NRCoT.

On the flip-side, if a settlement request is far too high, it risks becoming the criminal offence of blackmail. I do not attempt to put a number on what "far too high" is, but I will say that they're not required to itemize to the penny every cost incurred nor track every minute of staff time spent. Asking for a reasonable round-sum amount amount is not against the law, despite furlong's protestations. The passenger always retains their right to have the matter aired in court.

 

[AdamWW]

They're entitled, but not required, to charge an anytime fare in line with the NRCoT.

I don't argue that.

I do argue with the suggestion that this is putting them back into the position they would have been had the offence not taken place.

And I take your point about round sum amounts, but it seems rather coincidental if they've worked out that the approximate cost of issuing on the spot offers to settle out of court just happens to be the same as the penalty fare.

 

[Haywain]

And I take your point about round sum amounts, but it seems rather coincidental if they've worked out that the approximate cost of issuing on the spot offers to settle out of court just happens to be the same as the penalty fare.

But that is a coincidence that has only occurred since the Penalty Fare levels were increased.

 

[AdamWW]

But that is a coincidence that has only occurred since the Penalty Fare levels were increased.

OK if that's the case than fair point.

And maybe they really have worked out that this really reflects their costs. Which have somehow stayed the same in cash terms despite inflation...

 

[anothertyke]

Presumably if challenged it would not be difficult to produce evidence of the annual costs of the RPS and the back office, the number of offences covered and argue that x/y rounded is reasonable.

 

[spag23]

I'd imagine that the cost of forensically analysing and itemising the nominal £100 cost of the original investigation would be another £100+.