Caught without a day ticket - Chiltern

[gholamkabuj]

Gravity, not graveness, and incident, not incidence. But well done for using utmost, and not the increasingly irritating upmost!


You have used some rather odd words and terms in this section (has ChatGPT played a part?), and it could do with being simplified. I have shown my suggested changes above. I think at this stage it would be best not to mention availability for an interview as the ideal result is t

Thank you very much! Would you suggest being more specific about past instances?

 

[Haywain]

Thank you very much! Would you suggest being more specific about past instances?

I would think that listing them on a separate sheet and enclosing that with the letter would be appropriate - this deals with the reason for them wanting to interview you. In your letter, just make a minor change:

I have looked at my Trainline history to see that I have not paid the correct fare several times (see attached sheet). I fully understand and own up my total lack of judgement.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I'd wholeheartedly agree with everything @Haywain has said.

 

[gholamkabuj]

So, I emailed Chiltern, apologising and taking full responsibility, asking for the possibility of an out of court settlement. They got back to me with a spreadsheet of my purchase history for me to comment on. Their email said:

”If you engage in this process, it may be possible for you to settle this matter via an out of court disposal, without having to attend an interview.

We are authorised to deal with your case by way of an administrative disposal, but a prerequisite of dealing with this matter in this manner is that you take responsibility for all the offences committed, honesty is paramount if we are to offer you this option.”

I filled the spreadsheet truthfully, reiterating that I am sorry and take full responsibility. On the balance of things, given their earlier email, is it likely for them to offer an administrative disposal?

Also, out of curiosity, if a TOC decides to proceed with prosecution, would they be able to do so for offences older than 6 months?

 

[Haywain]

I filled the spreadsheet truthfully, reiterating that I am sorry and take full responsibility. On the balance of things, given their earlier email, is it likely for them to offer an administrative disposal?

Yes, unless they see significant discrepancies between what they think has been happening and your version.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Given what they said, then provided you haven’t said anything untoward in your response then yes, you will be offered an out of court settlement.

 

[gholamkabuj]

Given what they said, then provided you haven’t said anything untoward in your response then yes, you will be offered an out of court settlement.

Yes, unless they see significant discrepancies between what they think has been happening and your version.

Thank you, fingers crossed!
Yes, I have taken full responsibility for most occasions except the ones after I was caught, which were genuine refunds.

 

[gray1404]

Try to avoid refunding tickets now. You are on their radar and will remain on in

 

[gholamkabuj]

So, they got back to me with a settlement offer of 2500£, which is more than double of the outstanding fee (full price). What is the advice here? Shall I reach out to them, or just pay it with no question?

 

[Haywain]

which is more than double of the outstanding fee (full price).

What are your calculations based on? If you are using the Off Peak Day Return fare you may be underestimating what Chiltern are asking for.

 

[gholamkabuj]

What are your calculations based on? If you are using the Off Peak Day Return fare you may be underestimating what Chiltern are asking for.

I see. So let’s say I used my expired railcard for an off peak return ticket between London and Oxford. How much should I calculate now?

 

[JBuchananGB]

Ana anytime day single London to Oxford is £41.10 so for a trip there and back on an invalid ticket you should allow £82.20.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I see. So let’s say I used my expired railcard

I think this is new news to us? It seems to have gone from one instance of being in a rush, to maybe a few, to many using an expired railcard. If we had known this earlier we could have warned you of the likely size of any offer, as it’s very easy for the rail company to look at historic purchases once they know you have been using an expired railcard.

Unless you want a criminal conviction I suspect you have little option but to accept their offer.

 

[gholamkabuj]

I think this is new news to us? It seems to have gone from one instance of being in a rush, to maybe a few, to many using an expired railcard. If we had known this earlier we could have warned you of the likely size of any offer, as it’s very easy for the rail company to look at historic purchases once they know you have been using an expired railcard.

Unless you want a criminal conviction I suspect you have little option but to accept their offer.

Thank you @Brissle Girl.
Yes, I don't mean to challenge them and I am grateful for their offer. I was just looking for the best course of action to see if the calculation adds up.

Does it matter how quickly I pay? Their letter says I can pay by 21st and I think I need a few days to prepare for the payment. So it does not matter if I am not paying right away? Like they wouldn't rescind the offer? I am going to respond by thanking them and saying I will be making the payment shortly.

 

[Haywain]

Their letter says I can pay by 21st and I think I need a few days to prepare for the payment. So it does not matter if I am not paying right away? Like they wouldn't rescind the offer?

If the letter says you can pay by the 21st, there is absolutely no problem in waiting until then to pay. They will be fully aware that not everybody can access the money immediately, and there is no danger of the offer being withdrawn.

 

[Brissle Girl]

If they say you’ve got until the 21st then it will be fine to make it by then. They are not going to withdraw the offer.

I’d probably pay it on the 20th though, just in case you encounter any problems on the day.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Ana anytime day single London to Oxford is £41.10 so for a trip there and back on an invalid ticket you should allow £82.20.

Just to expand on where use of the Anytime (Day) Single comes from, for the benefit of the OP, it's in Condition 9.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

9.2 If you are unable to present a valid Ticket when asked and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one of the following measures:

9.2.1 To charge you the full undiscounted “anytime” single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Condition 9.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel

Condition 9.2 ought to be quoted in full, as it allows the train company to take one of a number of options in such a circumstance.

If the OP is charged the undiscounted anytime single fare..., as prescribed, the company will have exercised one of the available options under that condition and would not be in a position to threaten prosecution.

By doing both, it's seeking to have its cake and eat it.

 

[Hadders]

Condition 9.2 ought to be quoted in full, as it allows the train company to take one of a number of options in such a circumstance.

If the OP is charged the undiscounted anytime single fare..., as prescribed, the company will have exercised one of the available options under that condition and would not be in a position to threaten prosecution.

By doing both, it's seeking to have its cake and eat it.

What do you think Chiltern should be allowed to do if someone gets offered an out of court settlement but doesn’t pay it?

 

[furlong]

Condition 9.2 does NOT provide authority to do anything. It is phrased to provide information, merely summarising what it believes the legal position from elsewhere to be ("we are pemitted in law to"), and it does this in a pretty clumsy and inaccurate manner. For the actual legal authority saying precisely what can happen you must look elsewhere.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you @Brissle Girl.
Yes, I don't mean to challenge them and I am grateful for their offer. I was just looking for the best course of action to see if the calculation adds up.

Does it matter how quickly I pay? Their letter says I can pay by 21st and I think I need a few days to prepare for the payment. So it does not matter if I am not paying right away? Like they wouldn't rescind the offer? I am going to respond by thanking them and saying I will be making the payment shortly.

Others have answered this clearly but I do recall cases when payment systems for these have gone down and payee up against the deadline which then auto closes so won’t allow late payment

So if at all possible I suspect best to pay 24 or 48 hours before deadline so if systems go wrong you have time during working hours to contact them in the event of any such hassle or at least get proof like a timed screenshot of a payment problem being made before deadline so you can show them you were trying to pay ahead of time.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

What do you think Chiltern should be allowed to do if someone gets offered an out of court settlement but doesn’t pay it?

.
I think an out of court settlement has to be based on the loss (including costs) which Chiltern can show it has suffered. I don't think that Chiltern should be allowed to use the threat of prosecution to demand more.

For the actual legal authority saying precisely what can happen you must look elsewhere.

What can happen in a case where, having not presented a valid ticket, a passenger is charged the undiscounted anytime single fare to their destination? In particular, can the passenger be reported for prosecution and subsequently convicted for an offence of travelling without a valid ticket?

Condition 9.2 suggests not. Does that reflect the actual legal authority?

 

[island]

Condition 9.2 ought to be quoted in full, as it allows the train company to take one of a number of options in such a circumstance.

If the OP is charged the undiscounted anytime single fare..., as prescribed, the company will have exercised one of the available options under that condition and would not be in a position to threaten prosecution.

By doing both, it's seeking to have its cake and eat it.

It's not doing both.

It's giving the passenger the choice of which it's going to be: full single fares or prosecution.

There is no world in which both happen.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

It's giving the passenger the choice of which it's going to be: full single fares or prosecution.

Yes, as I understand it, it's either, or.

Charging the undiscounted anytime single fare to a specific station is only mentioned in condition 9.2 as one way of dealing with a passenger, on a train, who cannot produce a valid ticket. Another is reporting them for prosecution. They should not be charged the fare for a new ticket AND reported for prosecution.

Isn't it the train company, rather than the passenger, who gets to choose?

Once a train company has decided not to charge a fare for a new ticket on the train, but to report the matter for prosecution, that fare ceases to have any relevance. The company simply chose not to charge it, so it can't be considered a loss the company has suffered due to the actions of the passenger. Therefore it shouldn't be the basis of a settlement.

 

[skyhigh]

Once a train company has decided not to charge a fare for a new ticket on the train, but to report the matter for prosecution, that fare ceases to have any relevance. The company simply chose not to charge it, so it can't be considered a loss the company has suffered due to the actions of the passenger. Therefore it shouldn't be the basis of a settlement.

So how do you quantify a settlement for fare evasion, without considering the fare?

 

[Brissle Girl]

that fare ceases to have any relevance. The company simply chose not to charge it, so it can't be considered a loss the company has suffered due to the actions of the passenger. Therefore it shouldn't be the basis of a settlement.

That's curious, as whenever I see a batch of prosecutions/convictions reported here in GWR land, one element of the amount payable is the fare avoided. But according to your argument the company hasn't suffered a loss, so why would that be part of the amount payable?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

So how do you quantify a settlement for fare evasion, without considering the fare?

The settlement should be based on the fare(s) avoided plus costs incurred.

That's curious, as whenever I see a batch of prosecutions/convictions reported here in GWR land, one element of the amount payable is the fare avoided

Have you looked closely at how that fare avoided is calculated by the court? Is it the undiscounted anytime single fare mentioned in NRCoT 9.2.1, or is it the difference between the fare which ought to have been paid and the one actually paid.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The settlement should be based on the fare(s) avoided plus costs incurred.



Have you looked closely at how that fare avoided is calculated by the court? Is it the undiscounted anytime single fare mentioned in NRCoT 9.2.1, or is it the difference between the fare which ought to have been paid and the one actually paid.

From my recollection they don't state the journey, just where the person was stopped, but I may be wrong.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

.
I think an out of court settlement has to be based on the loss (including costs) which Chiltern can show it has suffered.

Taking a step back in this argument,
- what do you mean by 'think'? Is this your opinion of what the law is, or your opinion of what the law should be?
- assuming that it's what you think the law is, on what basis do you think this?

My take is that an out of court settlement is a completely unregulated negotiation between two parties - so it doesn't have to be based on anything.

 

[AlterEgo]

The settlement should be based on the fare(s) avoided plus costs incurred.



Have you looked closely at how that fare avoided is calculated by the court? Is it the undiscounted anytime single fare mentioned in NRCoT 9.2.1, or is it the difference between the fare which ought to have been paid and the one actually paid.

The compensation for fare avoided is suggested by the train company. It’s they who are the aggrieved party. The magistrates can of course decide the losses are smaller, and that has happened before, but the court isn’t really responsible for calculating it in the first place.