Commuter Fined £450 Following Railcard Dispute and Address Mix-Up

Molly McGregor expressed disbelief and shock, stating, “I couldn’t believe, just by clicking the wrong button… that it counted as criminal activity. I was really shocked.” Her recent experiences with rail travel have been challenging. In June, the 29-year-old commuter faced a threat of prosecution after choosing a 16-25 discounted train ticket instead of a 26-30 one for her journey from London Bridge to St Albans. Both ticket types offer an identical discount. Ms. McGregor had provided evidence of her railcard when it failed to load on her phone, preventing her from displaying it to staff. This is when the company identified her ticketing error. The June case has since been withdrawn following intervention from her Member of Parliament. However, during her challenge, Molly learned she had also been prosecuted for a distinct incident that occurred in May. She did not appear in court because the relevant documents were dispatched to an incorrect address, leading her to worry about potentially having a criminal record. Ms. McGregor was prosecuted and received a £450 fine in absentia for not presenting a railcard during her May journey from St Albans to Luton Airport Parkway. She asserted that she had not uploaded her railcard to the application but demonstrated proof of purchase by showing her receipt to the ticket inspector. Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR), the operating rail company, had sent the court correspondence to an incorrect address, which Ms. McGregor never received. She stated, “They got the wrong house number. It went to court without me present and I was found guilty.” Ms. McGregor currently faces a £450 debt and remains uncertain about whether she has a criminal record. Her attempt to inquire with the court by phone was met with a refusal, as officials stated this would constitute legal advice, advising her to perform a Disclosure and Barring Service check to ascertain her status. GTR stated that it offers passengers the chance to submit valid railcards to prevent further action, and confirmed it had given Molly information on how to address the court judgment. This is not an isolated incident, as other passengers have previously encountered confusion and threats of prosecution due to incorrect railcard usage. For instance, engineering graduate Sam Williamson was informed by a train company that he might face criminal prosecution for improperly using a ticket that was £1.90 cheaper than its correct price. Transport Focus, a passenger watchdog, has urged train operators to adopt a more equitable approach towards passengers who make errors. Alex Robertson, chief executive of Transport Focus, recently commented, “We know from talking to passengers how confusing the current system is – no one thinks you should have to spend ages checking detailed rules and restrictions before getting on a train.” The Department for Transport has pledged “the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation, including simplifying fares.” Potential options under consideration include pay-as-you-go systems and digital season tickets usable across the entire rail network. Molly characterized the rail companies’ response to genuine errors as “heavy-handed.” She further stated, “It’s alarming that it can lead to this and there’s potentially hundreds or thousands of people now landing criminal records for such a minor offence.” Ms. McGregor has filed an appeal, asserting that she did choose the correct railcard for her May ticket, but must await the court’s decision for six months. She remarked, “Rules and regulations around railcards need to be examined and clearer processes put in place.” A spokesperson for GTR stated that passengers utilizing a railcard for discounted travel must be able to present it to ticket inspectors during their journey. They added, “Ms McGregor was stopped on two occasions and advised both times she should have been travelling with a railcard.” To rectify the situation, GTR has “rescinded any action for the second (June) journey and provided details to Ms McGregor on how to resolve the court judgement for the first.” The spokesperson also expressed, “We are genuinely sorry that her address was recorded incorrectly for the first journey.”