Help and questions on potential prosecution

[bubbles2]

Hi All

Will promise to try and get as much information out here as I can:

So last week I stopped by a prosecutor and caught out for not having the correct train ticket. In summary what I did was 'donoughting', in that I purchased a return ticket from Brighton
to Gatwick, and then a return from london bridge to st pancras (i.e. not paying for the gatwick to london bridge part of the journey).

When I was stopped I originally lied, but then realising that would get me nowhere when being officially interviewed I confessed to what I had done. When asked if I had done this previously
I said their maybe a few.

I am yet to receive any correspondence, and have read all the other forum posts about what to and what not to do, so will follow these exactly, but I am looking for some advice / expected outcome
as what I have done previously is different to the day I was found out.

Over the last few months, (I travel in to london twice a week), I had bought the first part of the journey (brighton to gatwick), as a paper ticket, and only purchased the london part on trainline.
Hence if they were to look back, they would see just the london part of the journey, so no real evidence of the donughting as there was no other tickets bought. Now of course I understand they could still
review the scan dates, and also make assumption that based on where I live, and the fact this journey is similar, that this has happened before. So I am looking for advice to see if this is likely.

Of course when the letter is received I will know more, and I have read previous posts about not incriminating myself, but at the same time I will be willing to do anything to avoid this going to court.

Any advice / likely responses people could provide would be great. @Hadders adding you in as I have seen a lot of helpful advice previously.

Also wanted to add I wish I had seen these sort of posts before hand, as if I knew earlier I would never have done this. Feel completely stupid and it isnt worth the risk and I am really remorseful.

Since this happened I have obviously bought the correct ticket, and on the day it actually happened also bought the missing part of the journey home.

Thanks

 

[Brissle Girl]

Welcome to the forum.

If they investigate your past ticket purchases, then they are highly likely to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that you were doughnutting each time you bought a return from London Bridge to St Pancras. Nobody travelling legitimately would purchase those tickets online, when Oyster or contactless is much cheaper. (Waits for someone to disagree, but you get the point.)

So they are fairly likely to want you to admit to all the instances, and by doing so they will then offer you a settlement covering all those unpaid fares. If you don't admit, they will probably prosecute you for the one offence, where they have you slam dunk. You'd then be convicted, and have the costs and reputational impact of the conviction to deal with, especially if you work in an industry where integrity is paramount (think law, financial services, and healthcare).

The "damage", (the amount they will want from you) could be as high as an Anytime Single from Brighton to St Pancras for each single journey (so two each day), will no offset for the fares paid. There would also be an administrative cost added, which could be between £100 and £200. You'd be expected to find this amount with 14 days, so you might want to work out how much that could be by looking at your Trainline account, and make sure you have it to hand.

The good news is that we see GTR to be very amenable to offering settlements if you play ball with them and are honest, apologetic, and willing to cooperate. But until you get the initial letter, you won't know whether they have researched deeper than the one instance - my guess would be that they will though.

 

[bubbles2]

Thanks Brissie for the quick response, will wait till I receive the letter and see what it says.

One quick follow up question, if in the letter they do want information on the previous trips, will they make it clear?

Regarding the previous trips, as mentioned before I bought paper tickets for part of the journey, so if they did mention the previous trips do you think going back with bank statements for example showing I had bought the ticket price to Gatwick each day, then offering to pay the difference of an anytime single would work?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The "damage", (the amount they will want from you) could be as high as an Anytime Single from Brighton to St Pancras for each single journey (so two each day), will no offset for the fares paid. There would also be an administrative cost added, which could be between £100 and £200.

That's potentially £35.10 per single journey at current fare rates, and so, could very quickly mount up, with you quite possibly being asked to stump up a four figure plus sum.

In such circumstances, you may wish to consider seeking out specialist legal representation, but, obviously, that will also cost you.

You will, presumably, know just how many times you've not been paying the correct through fare. Are we possibly talking of hundreds of such previous instances?

 

[Starmill]

Over the last few months, (I travel in to london twice a week), I had bought the first part of the journey (brighton to gatwick), as a paper ticket, and only purchased the london part on trainline.
Hence if they were to look back, they would see just the london part of the journey, so no real evidence of the donughting as there was no other tickets bought. Now of course I understand they could still
review the scan dates, and also make assumption that based on where I live, and the fact this journey is similar, that this has happened before. So I am looking for advice to see if this is likely.

I don't think there's actually a distinction I'm afraid. What they're looking for is evidence of you taking something without paying for it, and, unfortunately for you, as you have been doing just that, they're highly likely to find it. I would strongly advise you to make sure you always have the correct ticket for the journey you're making before boarding the train from this point onwards, and be prepared to pay up regarding past cases.

 

[bubbles2]

Not 100s no, twice a week for the last 24 weeks (so up to 96 if we include there and back)

Would the purchase of the paper ticket help reduce that?

That's potentially £35.10 per single journey at current fare rates, and so, could very quickly mount up, with you quite possibly being asked to stump up a four figure plus sum.

In such circumstances, you may wish to consider seeking out specialist legal representation, but, obviously, that will also cost you.

You will, presumably, know just how many times you've not been paying the correct through fare. Are we possibly talking of hundreds of such previous instances

 

[Brissle Girl]

Not 100s no, twice a week for the last 24 weeks (so up to 96 if we include there and back)

Would the purchase of the paper ticket help reduce that?

The policy tends to be to ignore any fare you paid, in which case you'd end up paying twice for that part of the journey.

One quick follow up question, if in the letter they do want information on the previous trips, will they make it clear?

It varies, but as you don't need to do anything until the letter arrives, you can wait and see what they say, and we can help you respond accordingly. Sometimes they ask you to attend an interview under caution if they suspect you have been doing it multiple times, in which case it's probably best to respond owning up to all of them (which seems to suffice as far as the investigators are concerned).

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In the meantime, for future journeys between Brighton and St. Pancras, are you eligible for a railcard which would enable you to make the journey and legitimately save some money?

An anytime day return with railcard discount could be had for £34.70 per day (route 'Not Underground').

Alternatively, a flexi season (8 days travel in 28 days) is currently £368.20 (albeit with no railcard discount).

 

[bubbles2]

In the meantime, for future journeys between Brighton and St. Pancras, are you eligible for a railcard which would enable you to make the journey and legitimately save some money?

An anytime day return with railcard discount could be had for £34.70 per day (route 'Not Underground').

Alternatively, a flexi season (8 days travel in 28 days) is currently £368.20 (albeit with no railcard discount).

Haven’t actually been in since it happened but am next week and am buying a flexi ticket

The policy tends to be to ignore any fare you paid, in which case you'd end up paying twice for that part of the journey.


It varies, but as you don't need to do anything until the letter arrives, you can wait and see what they say, and we can help you respond accordingly. Sometimes they ask you to attend an interview under caution if they suspect you have been doing it multiple times, in which case it's probably best to respond owning up to all of them (which seems to suffice as far as the investigators are concerned).

Thanks very much, as soon as letter arrives will be sure to come back to here to confirm what it says. Already pre empting to get legal advice to avoid court

 

[Brissle Girl]

Thanks very much, as soon as letter arrives will be sure to come back to here to confirm what it says. Already pre empting to get legal advice to avoid court

Our experience is that GTR is very amenable to settling out of court, even for the larger cases, which yours would probably count as. So you might want to consider whether or not to take legal advice at this stage, or wait and see what the letter says.

 

[bubbles2]

Our experience is that GTR is very amenable to settling out of court, even for the larger cases, which yours would probably count as. So you might want to consider whether or not to take legal advice at this stage, or wait and see what the letter says.

Oh yes I haven’t reached out for legal advice yet, won’t until the letter arrives and obtained feedback from here but just bearing it in mind

 

[Haywain]

If they investigate your past ticket purchases, then they are highly likely to put 2 and 2 together and conclude that you were doughnutting each time you bought a return from London Bridge to St Pancras. Nobody travelling legitimately would purchase those tickets online, when Oyster or contactless is much cheaper. (Waits for someone to disagree, but you get the point.)

It will be easy to establish that those tickets were not used to get through the barriers at London Bridge, presumably in either direction. That will be enough of a red flag.

 

[MotCO]

Not 100s no, twice a week for the last 24 weeks (so up to 96 if we include there and back)

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if they charge you for 96 trips at £35 each way that adds up to £3,360. Plus admin fee. I suggest you start saving ☹️

 

[Greyman1]

Where were you stopped? On a train or at a station? If so which one?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Where were you stopped? On a train or at a station? If so which one?

@bubbles2. Are you able to advise/clarify?

 

[bubbles2]

@bubbles2. Are you able to advise/clarify?

at a station at London St Pancras

Maybe I'm stating the obvious, but if they charge you for 96 trips at £35 each way that adds up to £3,360. Plus admin fee. I suggest you start saving ☹️

Yep figured that out when I started reading other posts

 

[fandroid]

You did have valid tickets from Brighton to Gatwick. I imagine all London trains stop there. If you provide proof of that I don't see the harm in asking for that to be taken into consideration as overall it amounts to a substantial sum. That is, of course, if your previous journeys enter into the discussion with GTR.

 

[bubbles2]

You did have valid tickets from Brighton to Gatwick. I imagine all London trains stop there. If you provide proof of that I don't see the harm in asking for that to be taken into consideration as overall it amounts to a substantial sum. That is, of course, if your previous journeys enter into the discussion with GTR.

Thanks have seen a recent case on here where someone did similar and was asked to provide a spreadsheet of the missing journey part, that was via a solicitor though.

I suppose my question to anyone is, if the first letter just refers to the incident in question, does it increase my chances of a settlement if I tell them of the other cases straight away? Or does it do any harm in just responding at the initial case and then seeing what they come back with? Have seen a lot of previous posts about saying ‘don’t incriminate yourself’ but at the same time don’t want to lower chances of a settlement

 

[Hadders]

Thanks have seen a recent case on here where someone did similar and was asked to provide a spreadsheet of the missing journey part, that was via a solicitor though.

I suppose my question to anyone is, if the first letter just refers to the incident in question, does it increase my chances of a settlement if I tell them of the other cases straight away? Or does it do any harm in just responding at the initial case and then seeing what they come back with? Have seen a lot of previous posts about saying ‘don’t incriminate yourself’ but at the same time don’t want to lower chances of a settlement

The wording on the letter they send is critical. My normal advice is to answer the question(s) they ask you, nothing more nothing less. You are not required to incriminate yourself.

So if the letter refers to a specific incident only then confine your reply to that incident. On the other hand, if the letter mentions the possibility of there being other cases then it would be best to mention these in your reply.

 

[furlong]

If the ticketless journey was always Gatwick to London Bridge and you are able to demonstrate that convincingly (e.g. from the tickets or bank or credit card statements) then that is what they should charge you for - and this train company doesn't usually need much prompting to do the right thing like that. (If you paid by card in Brighton, they could obtain records of the tickets sold for your first part of your journey anyway to show there was a gap for you to explain.)