email from Greater Anglia re travel irregularity

[jjones1995]

Hi there,
I have recently received an email from Greater Anglia Fraud team stating "regarding your Trainline account in particular the number of incorrectly purchased tickets showing on your account that are a breach of our terms and conditions and considered fraudulent activity"

I think this may be because I regularly travel from my home station to the next station 5 minutes away where there are no barriers. I do this with a valid ticket but I wonder if Trainline/Greater Anglia believe I am travelling onwards and using my ticket to get past the barriers at my home station. Would this be something that could flag up? Not sure what else it could be.

Thanks.

 

[John R]

If you do indeed always travel only to the next station then you should reply accordingly and ask politely what the problem is.(Or not reply at all.)

If however you do use such tickets to short fare then don’t underestimate their ability to investigate and gain evidence to support their claim.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you have a registered Oyster card you use?

 

[jjones1995]

If you do indeed always travel only to the next station then you should reply accordingly and ask politely what the problem is.(Or not reply at all.)

If however you do use such tickets to short fare then don’t underestimate their ability to investigate and gain evidence to support their claim.

Thanks John.
I genuinely do travel regularly to the next stop so I presume it has flagged up as potentially fraudulent. Will reply to them to ask for more info.

Do you have a registered Oyster card you use?

No, if I travel into London I use a bank card to tap in and out.

 

[The exile]

What is an “incorrectly purchased ticket” when it’s at home? Use of a ticket can be incorrect or fraudulent, but purchase?

 

[AlterEgo]

If you are innocent of wrongdoing, and are confident they can have no evidence of any wrongdoing, you should not respond to them.

What is an “incorrectly purchased ticket” when it’s at home? Use of a ticket can be incorrect or fraudulent, but purchase?

The people who write these emails seem to be essentially illiterate, I'm afraid. No such thing as "number of incorrectly purchased tickets showing on your account that are a breach of our terms and conditions and considered fraudulent activity" - this doesn't make any sense.

 

[island]

If you have indeed only travelled between the stations purchased and paid for, you have no concerns.

If, on the other hand, an examination of your travel history would also reveal (for example) frequent journeys from Stratford on the TfL network commenced using the standalone validator near platform 15…

 

[gray1404]

Have you used any Railcards to purchase these tickets?

 

[jjones1995]

Have you used any Railcards to purchase these tickets?

Yes a 26-30 railcard.

 

[30907]

Yes a 26-30 railcard.

One other possible (and not uncommon) fraudulent use: if you have bought tickets with the 34% discount applied and used them when the minimum fare is in force ie in the morning peak.

 

[MotCO]

One other possible (and not uncommon) fraudulent use: if you have bought tickets with the 34% discount applied and used them when the minimum fare is in force ie in the morning peak.

Indeed -travelling 5 minutes away is likely to cost less than £12.

 

[gray1404]

Have you travelled before 10am Monday to Friday?

Are the tickets, with the discount applied, below £12?

 

[John R]

Indeed -travelling 5 minutes away is likely to cost less than £12.

And GA will have evidence of use through the gateline scans. They may even have checked CCTV to get an image of who is passing through the barrier at that time, having identified the “anomaly”.

 

[JBuchananGB]

As a possible example. The Anytime Single Fare from Harwich International to Wrabness is £4.10. Journey time is 6 minutes. Using a 26-30 Railcard, valid after 10am, the fare is £2.70. If tickets bought with the discount were scanned at Harwich before 10am this might throw up as an anomaly for Greater Anglia to enquire about.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They may even have checked CCTV to get an image of who is passing through the barrier at that time, having identified the “anomaly”.

I highly doubt it. This isn't the first thread about this matter; indeed, the other thread had exactly the same wording. The wording is noticeable because, as @AlterEgo says, it is essentially illiterate.

My suspicion is that GA and/or Trainline have simply downloaded a report of people who buy a lot of short distance tickets and have sent this email to all of them. A targeted fishing trip, but a fishing trip nonetheless.

The advice will depend on what tickets were bought and when they were used. If they were used after 10am Monday-Friday then this may well be a case where it is worthwhile responding to the fishing trip with a detailed response, e.g. I travel from X to Y because I live at X and work 1pm-10pm at Y.

If, in hindsight, it turns out that the OP may have short-fared or may have used the railcard when it was subject to the minimum fare, then it would be much more reasonable to politely respond explaining you can't determine from their email what they are enquiring about and to ask for more information. As always, only answer a question which you are actually asked.

 

[John R]

I highly doubt it. This isn't the first thread about this matter; indeed, the other thread had exactly the same wording. The wording is noticeable because, as @AlterEgo says, it is essentially illiterate.

My suspicion is that GA and/or Trainline have simply downloaded a report of people who buy a lot of short distance tickets and have sent this email to all of them. A targeted fishing trip, but a fishing trip nonetheless.

The advice will depend on what tickets were bought and when they were used. If they were used after 10am Monday-Friday then this may well be a case where it is worthwhile responding to the fishing trip with a detailed response, e.g. I travel from X to Y because I live at X and work 1pm-10pm at Y.

If, in hindsight, it turns out that the OP may have short-fared or may have used the railcard when it was subject to the minimum fare, then it would be much more reasonable to politely respond explaining you can't determine from their email what they are enquiring about and to ask for more information. As always, only answer a question which you are actually asked.

You highly doubt it, but it can’t be ruled out, and the OP needs to be aware of the possibility in determining how or indeed if they respond, if they are indeed guilty of “minimum fare evasion”. (And I note that having viewed the posts that suggested that possibility last night, the OP has not confirmed or denied it.)

I agree a politely worded response asking for more information is probably the best approach - and in that regard your final paragraph is consistent with my first post which suggested such a response.

The problem with assuming that they don't have evidence and not engaging, on the basis that "you can't prove it was me travelling" is that if they can, the lack of engagement is likely to mean they prosecute, and say "see you in court". Engaging now makes an out of court settlement much more likely, which given the low value of the fares avoided is likely to be preferable in every regard.

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem with assuming that they don't have evidence and not engaging, on the basis that "you can't prove it was me travelling" is that if they can, the lack of engagement is likely to mean they prosecute, and say "see you in court".

For what offence? Prosecuting people for bylaw and RoRA offences "after the fact" and without making a stop is almost impossible.

If the OP hasn't done anything wrong they should simply not answer any questions and the matter will go away.

 

[John R]

For what offence? Prosecuting people for bylaw and RoRA offences "after the fact" and without making a stop is almost impossible.

If the OP hasn't done anything wrong they should simply not answer any questions and the matter will go away.

If (and I agree it is a big "if") they have photographic evidence of the person passing through the barrier at the same time as the ticket is scanned, surely it is possible to prove who travelled? If I was in that position, I would not like to gamble on the fact that they won't have evidence. Besides, if they are asked in court, did you use these tickets, and answer "no", they are committing perjury, which if proved carries a much greater penalty - usually imprisonment.

If they haven't done anything wrong then I agree that a lack of response is a reasonable way to approach it. Though the lack of an update from the OP since the suggestion was put to them makes me strongly believe that they may have committed "minimum fare fraud".

 

[AlterEgo]

If (and I agree it is a big "if") they have photographic evidence of the person passing through the barrier at the same time as the ticket is scanned, surely it is possible to prove who travelled?

They don't know what the OP looks like. If they wanted to, they could quite simply stop that person when they enter or exit the barrier, but they have not. The point also is, they don't actually know where the OP is travelling to either if they are indeed committing short faring.

If I was in that position, I would not like to gamble on the fact that they won't have evidence.

I would bet strongly they have absolutely none, because otherwise there is no point them sending such a vague email.

Besides, if they are asked in court, did you use these tickets, and answer "no", they are committing perjury, which if proved carries a much greater penalty - usually imprisonment.

It isn't going to get to court. I'm afraid we are scaremongering here. (In any case the correct response is "no comment" which leaves the prosecution with the burden of actually proving the OP travelled)

It is basically impossible to prosecute RoRA or Bylaw offences after the fact. You need to stop the person, and identify them, at a location. It is a fundamental part of proving the mechanics of the offence.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It always amazes me that if the railway has done something wrong, these forums always say "there will be no CCTV" But if the passenger has done something potentially wrong "they will have CCTV" is stated. It can't be both!

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I think some people on here think TOC's are Mi5 and have all these powers and tools at their disposal, yes they have some good technology for flagging things that look dodgy or to help trace back through peoples actual online accounts once something is brought to their attention but that is about as far as it goes. Which is why they go on the phishing expeditions trying to trip people up who very often havent done a thing wrong and it causes worry and upset which is just wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

 

[John R]

Ok, @AlterEgo, the OP has our two conflicting points of view, so can choose which advice (or neither) they want to take.

They are following this discussion, and have continued to choose not to confirm either way whether they have done anything wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think some people on here think TOC's are Mi5 and have all these powers and tools at their disposal, yes they have some good technology for flagging things that look dodgy or to help trace back through peoples actual online accounts once something is brought to their attention but that is about as far as it goes. Which is why they go on the phishing expeditions trying to trip people up who very often havent done a thing wrong and it causes worry and upset which is just wrong and it shouldn't be allowed.

Quite. We do not live in a panopticon.

It also makes no sense that a TOC would hold completely damning evidence yet tease the accused with a vague and illiterate email which does not make a specific allegation. "he he you did a naughty thing, we aren't telling you what yet"

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Quite. We do not live in a panopticon.

It also makes no sense that a TOC would hold completely damning evidence yet tease the accused with a vague and illiterate email which does not make a specific allegation. "he he you did a naughty thing, we aren't telling you what yet"

Exactly.

 

[pelli]

The "Fare Dodgers: At war with the law" TV series from 2019 showed several instances of the following happening:
1. TfL's systems flag an Oyster card's journey history as being suspect.
2. Investigators travel to a station where the Oyster card was tapped, and cross-reference the tap times with locally stored CCTV footage of the barriers to obtain a picture of the person that used the card.
3. Investigators stake out the barriers at a time the person is expected to pass through, asks them to show their card, and when they present the suspect card they are taken to an office for interview.

Hence, it is not unthinkable that a Train Operating Company would cross-reference E-ticket scan times with station barrier CCTV to obtain a picture of a person with suspect journey history.

However, I don't think we've seen any evidence yet of any other Train Operating Company (apart from TfL) doing such investigations, and of course there's the difference that TfL followed up by actually "catching" the person rather than just emailing the account holder.

Interestingly, TfL's investigators sometimes choose to catch the person when they're not fare dodging. About 32 minutes into Season 1 Episode 3, they track a Z1-2 Travelcard holder regularly travelling home from Southwark (Z1) to Woolwich Arsenal (Z4) without tapping out (which results in dodging the extra fare for Z3+4 not covered by the Travelcard, allegedly tallying up to £3350.90 across 5 years), but instead of catching him not tapping out at Woolwich Arsenal, they go to North Greenwich (Z2) in the morning and catch him tapping in for his outbound journey which (assuming he got there by bus) is completely legitimate, and he confesses after being shown the evidence. The fact that they did not try to catch him in the act suggests that they believe their digital and CCTV evidence alone would be sufficient to prosecute (possibly lacking only the passenger's details and/or hard evidence on who is using the Oyster card in question, or else why go out and find the passenger at all?), or are they betting on always being able to obtain a confession?

 

[AlterEgo]

The "Fare Dodgers: At war with the law" TV series from 2019 showed several instances of the following happening:
1. TfL's systems flag an Oyster card's journey history as being suspect.
2. Investigators travel to a station where the Oyster card was tapped, and cross-reference the tap times with locally stored CCTV footage of the barriers to obtain a picture of the person that used the card.
3. Investigators stake out the barriers at a time the person is expected to pass through, asks them to show their card, and when they present the suspect card they are taken to an office for interview.

Hence, it is not unthinkable that a Train Operating Company would cross-reference E-ticket scan times with station barrier CCTV to obtain a picture of a person with suspect journey history.

They don't know what the OP looks like. That is why they have to do the third step as you outline. And they confront the individual with the specific allegation.

 

[30907]

They don't know what the OP looks like. That is why they have to do the third step as you outline. And they confront the individual with the specific allegation.

Which step GA have not taken.
I don't think we can read across from TfL's dealings with rather more substantial fraud.

 

[Benjwri]

They absolutely do know what they look like. They stalk the barriers to be able to talk to the offender, as TfL don’t always have access to address details. They always have printout of the offender from numerous CCTV angles. This is shown in the documentary ‘The Tube: Keep London Moving!’

 

[wokspotter]

They absolutely do know what they look like. They stalk the barriers to be able to talk to the offender, as TfL don’t always have access to address details. They always have printout of the offender from numerous CCTV angles. This is shown in the documentary ‘The Tube: Keep London Moving!’

 

[AlterEgo]

They absolutely do know what they look like. They stalk the barriers to be able to talk to the offender, as TfL don’t always have access to address details. They always have printout of the offender from numerous CCTV angles. This is shown in the documentary ‘The Tube: Keep London Moving!’

As you’ve mentioned, they need to actually stop the person, and confirm their identity. They haven’t got CCTV here and if they did they would simply tell the OP what they have on them, to force a settlement. “This is you isn’t it?”

The primary goal of these low effort, illiterate fishing emails is to get people to stop their behaviour, and secondly to try and get a settlement.