Chiltern Rail fare dodging and possible prosecution - can I request cctv

[LokiZozz]

Hi. We received this letter and are really happy that for £115, this is now all sorted. It's written as if my lad is as guilty as sin but now they've checked he has no priors, they will let him off! If it was me, I'd fight this further but he is going to pay and make it go away, which I understand. I want to thank all of you for your help, especially, some bloke as we pretty much used your suggested letter, word for word. We've learnt a lot and he now has an Oyster card. Thank you everyone for your time and knowledge, much appreciated.

 

[island]

Thank you for coming back to us with an update and we are glad to hear you got a resolution that the passenger found acceptable.

 

[Lancs]

Surely, having paid that amount, it is the time to raise a formal complaint over the handling of the matter with a better regulatory authority - with a view to having the unnecessary stress and inconvenience compensated? He had bought two tickets for the journey, and still had to pay a further £115 to protect his career from unjustified prosecution. Unbelievable when you at look at the overall matter from the outside. Sounds like a R4 You & Yours moment!

 

[fandroid]

I'm not sure that I see paying three times for the same journey plus an admin fee is any sort of good news. But it's up to your son. Once he's paid and got a receipt I see no harm in a formal complaint to Chiltern Railways (bypassing TIL). He displayed a lack of knowledge of railway ticketing that was already costing him money and had then already paid twice. He absolutely should have been given discretion.

A complaint will also help to rebuff the inherent accusation in TIL's letter that they're only letting him off because they've no record of previous contact with him.

Chiltern and TIL have profited handsomely from your son's naivety and inexperience. A proper railway ripoff.

 

[mugam4]

The facts of the state of fare enforcement on the railway, from this event:

• An incomprehensible set of rules (Amersham: why aren't you using contactless?! Meanwhile at Stansted Airport..)
• The book thrown at you if you even try in good faith to abide by them (3-digit fine on a 1-digit fare)
• The operators collaborating with a separate, private company and prosecuting you on a worst-possible-scenario reading of a history of lawful travel

 

[fandroid]

There's a big "what if" here. What if the OP's son hadn't bought an online ticket on the train, and had gone to straight to the excess fares office? We know what would have happened at Leeds. Presumably the same would have happened at Marylebone.

It's not worth a great deal vs the horrendous "admin fee" but some recognition of money already handed over should be there to cover the many people who actually believe that that is a legit way to cover a mistake at the starting station.

Also it does suggest that there should be automatic recourse to a Penalty Fare Notice in these circumstances. There must be droves of Penalty Fare authorised people at Marylebone. It definitely seems like it from what we hear.

A PFN would have meant that the OP's son could have settled for £65.15. The whole system stinks of unfairness in the way it tries to recover the losses due to real fraud by hitting the merely careless very hard.

Edit: duplicate para removed

 

[island]

If there is to be any "formal complaint" I would urge the passenger to wait until 6 months have passed after the journey date, so that they don't change their minds and decide to prosecute.

 

[Lancs]

If there is to be any "formal complaint" I would urge the passenger to wait until 6 months have passed after the journey date, so that they don't change their minds and decide to prosecute.

Or, "Sorry Sir, that event is too far in the past"....

 

[Wolfie]

Or, "Sorry Sir, that event is too far in the past"....

The deadline for civil action against the TOC is six years after the event.....

 

[fandroid]

Would they seriously risk prosecuting a member of the military who had actually had a valid ticket in the form of a contactless tap-in at Amersham, and had paid again for the same journey because he didn't understand the complexities of railway ticketing and was honestly trying to put right what he thought was his own mistake?

That'll go down well in the media

 

[island]

Would they seriously risk prosecuting a member of the military who had actually had a valid ticket in the form of a contactless tap-in at Amersham, and had paid again for the same journey because he didn't understand the complexities of railway ticketing and was honestly trying to put right what he thought was his own mistake?

That'll go down well in the media

They seem perfectly happy to if he doesn't pay £115.40.

 

[Sultan]

The first paragraph of the latest letter says exactly what your son had done. He (perhaps just) didn't realise it at the time.

It seems very harsh (to me) that TIL don't appear to accept retrospective proof of a valid ticket as standard, especially when it's a first time occurrence.

But at the end of the day, it's down to him whether he wants to just pay the fee or resist it. I'm sure there would be many media outlets looking for this kind of story in the current economic climate.

 

[fandroid]

They seem perfectly happy to if he doesn't pay £115.40.

It's likely to be just part of the bluffing and bullying, and it would surely be up to Chiltern, not TIL, whether to initiate court proceedings.

Anyway, I suggested that the OP's son pay up if he wanted to but then to launch a complaint. The post I was replying to suggested even that was a risky tactic and that Chiltern would take offence and prosecute, (having accepted the cash!).

Maybe let them have time to bank it before complaining but not be super risk-averse and wait for 6 months, when everyone will have moved on anyway.