Railcard Expired - £350 Fine! Help :((

[Justice4Elliot]

I know there are loads of these so apologies in advance.

As seen below I booked a trip from London to Lincoln. I did not realise my railcard was expired. When I have seen this happen before, normally you are made to repay the cost of the ticket. I am absolutely floored that there is a £150 admin fee for an automated service, on top of a previous journey I had made.

Is there anything I can do to get out of this? I am recently redundant, so this is a major inconvenience. Can neurodivergence attribute to getting a fine reduction at all?


EDIT:

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

It seems brutal that they have added almost £300!! That seems so unfair.


Kind regards,
Elliott

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Welcome to the forum!

Realistically, there probably isn't a way round this in that it's an offer to settle matters out of court: if you don't want to settle on the terms offered then the alternative is to go to court where - on the basis of what you have told us - you would be convicted and so have to pay a fine and court costs on top of the train fare that you should have paid. So while the court would probably only consider the occasion when you were caught rather than the previous occasion on 31 December, the chances are that you would end up paying more in court than by accepting the offer to settle.

And without many more details (which I would understand that you would be reluctant to share in a public forum) I think it is unlikely that neurodivergence would of itself be sufficient reason to reduce the amount charged - the neurodivergent spectrum does cover a very wide range between people who are able to hold down responsible jobs and interact effectively with other people at one end, to people who are totally disabled by it at the other. Unless you are able to show to the railway that you were not in a position to understand that your railcard was no longer valid, then there will be no particular reason for them to consider reducing the amount they are seeking - and even then I don't see that they would be obliged to make that consideration.

 

[SteveM70]

As seen below I booked a trip from London to Lincoln. I did not realise my railcard was expired. When I have seen this happen before, normally you are made to repay the cost of the ticket. I am absolutely floored that there is a £150 admin fee for an automated service, on top of a previous journey I had made

It isn’t an automated service

Can neurodivergence attribute to getting a fine reduction at

It might seem like a fine, but you haven’t been fined. That would only happen if you were convicted in court. You’ve been asked to pay for the two tickets and their costs in dealing with you

 

[skyhigh]

I think the long and short of it is there isn't a way to get a discount on this settlement offer, assuming that you didn't have a valid railcard for either journey.

So your choice is pay (you could ask if they will accept instalments, though it's unlikely they will), or let them take you to court where you will almost certainly be found guilty and end up with a criminal record and a larger fine than the settlement amount they have offered you here.

 

[Justice4Elliot]

UPDATE:

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

It seems brutal that they have added almost £300!! That seems so unfair.

 

[AlterEgo]

UPDATE:

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

It seems brutal that they have added almost £300!! That seems so unfair.

Unfortunately the railway is entitled to take the view - as per the National Rail Conditions of Travel - that you held no valid ticket, and the appropriate fare is the full fare. Regrettably, I can only advise you to pay the sum owed, as it will not go away and will inevitably result in worse consequences for you down the line.

 

[Pushpit]

UPDATE:

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

It seems brutal that they have added almost £300!! That seems so unfair.

I also think it is punitive and wrong of a customer service company to do this, all punishment should be left to the courts. Arguably all LNER that has lost out on is 4 month's worth of railcard charging (so £15 or so) but this is on the basis that you are an honest person not seeking to steal from the public. The trouble, of course, is how to distinguish between your case and someone who is deliberately trying to steal from the public. I would rather LNER charges the actual processing costs (1 hour of manpower x £25?) on the first occasion, plus that £15 of railcard undercharge, since that would be sufficient for you to be more careful in future, with the book thrown at anyone who tries it a second time.

The difficulty is that LNER are probably willing to see you in court on the issue, and maybe the magistrate has some sympathy for your position, then even if they knock back LNER's claim then it's still going to cost you a lot more than £350 when everything gets totted up. LNER knows this better than you. Is it an abuse of power? Quite possibly, the cards are stacked against you. Is there much you can do about it? Nope, other than to pay off LNER at this point in time. And write to your MP to complain about it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I also think it is punitive and wrong of a customer service company to do this, all punishment should be left to the courts. Arguably all LNER that has lost out on is 4 month's worth of railcard charging (so £15 or so) but this is on the basis that you are an honest person not seeking to steal from the public. The trouble, of course, is how to distinguish between your case and someone who is deliberately trying to steal from the public. I would rather LNER charges the actual processing costs (1 hour of manpower x £25?) on the first occasion, plus that £15 of railcard undercharge, since that would be sufficient for you to be more careful in future, with the book thrown at anyone who tries it a second time.

The difficulty is that LNER are probably willing to see you in court on the issue, and maybe the magistrate has some sympathy for your position, then even if they knock back LNER's claim then it's still going to cost you a lot more than £350 when everything gets totted up. LNER knows this better than you. Is it an abuse of power? Quite possibly, the cards are stacked against you. Is there much you can do about it? Nope, other than to pay off LNER at this point in time. And write to your MP to complain about it.

Not only this but the letter is pretty mean-spirited. They have, at most, evidence on one other return trip where the railcard was expired, but mentioned the f-word to scare the recipient. Hopefully leaner times are coming for the prosecution teams; this is total BS.

 

[Pushpit]

Not only this but the letter is pretty mean-spirited. They have, at most, evidence on one return trip where the railcard was expired, but mentioned the f-word to scare the recipient. Hopefully leaner times are coming for the prosecution teams; this is total BS.

Completely agree, though I suppose we can be grateful that LNER-Megan didn't threaten their customer with being put in prison for 10 years, other TOCs would cheerfully fulfil that ridiculous responsibility. It is, however, an election year, almost certainly, so MPs and future MPs may actually listen to their voters on this one.

 

[island]

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

That’s not how it works. If you don’t have a Railcard to support a discounted ticket, you don’t just “repay the discount”; it’s a full anytime single fare for the journey, which from London to Lincoln is £107.30. For your two journeys – one of which was made at a previous fare – the avoided fares total £211.50. The admin fee of £137.60 is well within the normal range for this kind of situation.

If you do not pay the sum requested, the matter will go to court and you will almost certainly get a criminal conviction and end up with more to pay.

 

[Starmill]

UPDATE:

Sorry I should have mentioned. My ticket on both occasions were £25. Discount the railcard and thats £65 in total.

It seems brutal that they have added almost £300!! That seems so unfair.

It's not a nice thing to do to you, but unfortunately, as you made this mistake, you don't have any leverage. If they attempt a prosecution in respect of the occasion you were stopped and found not to hold a valid ticket, it's highly likely to be successful for an allegation of not showing a valid ticket or trying to avoid paying the correct fare. Fraud is much more difficult to prove, as is the second count they're alleging here. But of course they don't need to prove those to have you convicted. The total fine, costs ordered and so on would be greater than £350 for the one offence so unfortunately you'll just have to go along with it. Your only choices are pay or call their bluff, and I would strongly caution against the latter.

Not only this but the letter is pretty mean-spirited. They have, at most, evidence on one return trip where the railcard was expired, but mentioned the f-word to scare the recipient. Hopefully leaner times are coming for the prosecution teams; this is total BS.

A state corporation threatening a Fraud charge on such thin evidence is contemptible I strongly agree. Greedy hostility for it's own sake. But they're entitled to use the criminal justice system to prop up their business, so they will.

 

[BigCj34]

How do they know about the journey made on December 31 if the letter is regarding a ticket made on April 6? Is that LNER going through the users journey history on their LNER account to look for more past misdemeanors in addition to what was made on the day?

 

[kkong]

How do they know about the journey made on December 31 if the letter is regarding a ticket made on April 6? Is that LNER going through the users journey history on their LNER account to look for more past misdemeanors in addition to what was made on the day?

LNER have literally said that in their letter (3rd paragraph).

 

[Haywain]

How do they know about the journey made on December 31 if the letter is regarding a ticket made on April 6? Is that LNER going through the users journey history on their LNER account to look for more past misdemeanors in addition to what was made on the day?

It's fairly obvious that is what has happened. We see TOCs going to Trainline for booking records very regularly and this is just doing the same thing, but much more easily.

it’s a full anytime single fare for the journey, which from London to Lincoln is £107.30. For your two journeys – one of which was ma

I would hope they haven't used the 'via Retford' fare, but that would push up the admin fee to over £150.

 

[Gloster]

Regarding the reference to the Fraud Act (2006), something that comes up from time to time. Perhaps the mods will move this to a new thread.

It is my understanding that it is a principle of British law that if they are collecting evidence about an offence, they must warn you of the most serious consequences that it could lead to, i.e. the most serious crime you could be convicted of. They can’t get the evidence by telling you that the maximium for the offence is a slap on the wrist and then later charge you on that evidence with a crime which can lead to twenty years in chokey. Therefore the railway warns you of the most serious possible offence, even though they don’t think they will go anyway near it, just in case your incident is the one in ten-thousand that does deserve the more serious offence.

I think it is probably just a standard practice to include the reference to fraud in the letter, rather than inserting or omitting it on a case by case basis, in case they omit it when they really should have included it. It probably has the incidental advantage of making some people take the letter seriously rather than throwing it away as ‘it doesn’t matter’.

I am not a legal expert.

 

[Starmill]

Regarding the reference to the Fraud Act (2006), something that comes up from time to time. Perhaps the mods will move this to a new thread.

It is my understanding that it is a principle of British law that if they are collecting evidence about an offence, they must warn you of the most serious consequences that it could lead to, i.e. the most serious crime you could be convicted of. They can’t get the evidence by telling you that the maximium for the offence is a slap on the wrist and then later charge you on that evidence with a crime which can lead to twenty years in chokey. Therefore the railway warns you of the most serious possible offence, even though they don’t think they will go anyway near it, just in case your incident is the one in ten-thousand that does deserve the more serious offence.

I think it is probably just a standard practice to include the reference to fraud in the letter, rather than inserting or omitting it on a case by case basis, in case they omit it when they really should have included it. It probably has the incidental advantage of making some people take the letter seriously rather than throwing it away as ‘it doesn’t matter’.

I am not a legal expert.

I'm not sure at what stage this could arise, the company isn't for example permitted to interview someone under caution. If they intend to file the charge the person will by definition know what they are being accused of when the papers arrive. If all they're doing is investigating a possible crime they need not inform the person being investigated at all.

 

[island]

I'm not sure at what stage this could arise, the company isn't for example permitted to interview someone under caution.

LNER is certainly permitted to interview someone under caution, as are you and I; this is not something you need "permission" to do. You are correct that it does not have to notify someone of the particular offence(s) they're being investigated for before filing charges.

 

[Starmill]

LNER is certainly permitted to interview someone under caution, as are you and I; this is not something you need "permission" to do. You are correct that it does not have to notify someone of the particular offence(s) they're being investigated for before filing charges.

Permitted to invite them to a conversation, yes, of course. To me the context of an 'interview under caution' would only really apply if compelled to attend, but if you don't think it does, I could on second thoughts understand why, though that's all I was getting at.

 

[island]

Permitted to invite them to a conversation, yes, of course. To me the context of an 'interview under caution' would only really apply if compelled to attend, but if you don't think it does, I could on second thoughts understand why, though that's all I was getting at.

I agree that LNER has no means of compelling attendance at an interview. I believe your understanding of "interview under caution" is not the standard one.

A voluntary interview can be made an interview under caution by giving the familiar caution of "you do not have to stay anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court; anything you do say may be given in evidence against you". This happens day in day out on the railways.

A non-voluntary interview (when someone has been arrested) is of course a separate matter.

 

[Starmill]

I agree that LNER has no means of compelling attendance at an interview. I believe your understanding of "interview under caution" is not the standard one.

A voluntary interview can be made an interview under caution by giving the familiar caution of "you do not have to stay anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court; anything you do say may be given in evidence against you". This happens day in day out on the railways.

A non-voluntary interview (when someone has been arrested) is of course a separate matter.

This seems fair enough to me.