Email from Trainline asking about suspicious activity

[Birkonian]

I think it's very unusual.

I've probably had 10 refunds in the last year, all genuine. In most cases I would have preferred the train to run on time.

 

[PoleJack]

Looking from the language used by the train line, it looks like they’re baiting OP into admitting guilt.

Surely under GDPR trainline isn’t able to report a user to a relevant train operator (without hard evidence which is what an admission of guilt would be)

Or is the data they have more than enough evidence to report

 

[ashkeba]

Surely under GDPR trainline isn’t able to report a user to a relevant train operator (without hard evidence which is what an admission of guilt would be)

Or is the data they have more than enough evidence to report

It sounds like there is more than enough evidence to share details for the purpose of enforcement of the law, which is allowed under GDPR

 

[Hadders]

Looking from the language used by the train line, it looks like they’re baiting OP into admitting guilt.

Surely under GDPR trainline isn’t able to report a user to a relevant train operator (without hard evidence which is what an admission of guilt would be)

Or is the data they have more than enough evidence to report

They can where it's for the prevention and detection of crime.

 

[jon0844]

I agree that you should take legal advice before replying to this. It is has the potential to be a very serious matter if Trainline and the Train Companies were to join the dots.

It would be naive to think that Trainline and the train companies don’t work together on preventing fare evasion and fraud.

I did say this some time ago, even detailing these very scenarios. Trainline earns commission on ticket sales, so for every refund they're having to give back that commission and end up out of pocket as clearly there's some cost of doing business (even if the tickets were issued as e-tickets).

Trainline was apparently recruiting people last year to head up a team of investigators, and it would seem they may well have got their staff set up. They will be working with TOCs and providing intel to them, as well as the TOCs making requests back. I think Trainline is likely very keen for a number of reasons to be cooperative, and I commend them (despite normally warning everyone not to use them!) because these 'tricks' are now so commonplace that everyone must be aware of just how bad fraud is with e-tickets, with short faring bad enough, but coupled with getting those short tickets refunded is a total joke.

More staff seem to be checking tickets with their handheld devices/phones now, and not just waving people through. As long as a ticket is scanned at least once, the refund is no longer possible.

 

[PoleJack]

Surely if they had the ability to then they would have mentioned on the email?

the language ‘TOCs are able to request info’ feels a lot different to ‘it is within our right to report you’

maybe this is just semantics but i would’ve thought they would use harsher and stronger scare tactics

 

[BJames]

I did say this some time ago, even detailing these very scenarios. Trainline earns commission on ticket sales, so for every refund they're having to give back that commission and end up out of pocket as clearly there's some cost of doing business (even if the tickets were issued as e-tickets).

Trainline was apparently recruiting people last year to head up a team of investigators, and it would seem they may well have got their staff set up. They will be working with TOCs and providing intel to them, as well as the TOCs making requests back. I think Trainline is likely very keen for a number of reasons to be cooperative, and I commend them (despite normally warning everyone not to use them!) because these 'tricks' are now so commonplace that everyone must be aware of just how bad fraud is with e-tickets, with short faring bad enough, but coupled with getting those short tickets refunded is a total joke.

More staff seem to be checking tickets with their handheld devices/phones now, and not just waving people through. As long as a ticket is scanned at least once, the refund is no longer possible.

I agree. St Pancras staff at the EMR gateline in my experience are really hot on this. It's been a long time since I've had a ticket check on a (at least EMR/LNER) train not scan the tickets, I remember some staff used to do a check but they'd just give all the tickets a visual inspection.

 

[skyhigh]

I've probably had 10 refunds in the last year, all genuine. In most cases I would have preferred the train to run on time.

Delay Repay is not a refund.

 

[Watershed]

As long as a ticket is scanned at least once, the refund is no longer possible.

That's not strictly correct - you might have passed through ticket barriers before your train is cancelled - although it does generally preclude a ticket being refunded through automated systems, requiring a manual request instead.

 

[JBuchananGB]

I've probably had 10 refunds in the last year, all genuine. In most cases I would have preferred the train to run on time.

If refund has been invoked 10 times with Trainline when trains were delayed, when the correct process would have been to claim Delay Repay with the Train Operating Company, this could give rise to Trainline's curiosity. Refund should only be invoked if cancellation or delay/disruption cause abandonment of journey

 

[Skymonster]

I can buy all the tickets I want from Trainline and immediately request refunds, and yet not commit an offence - its only if I’ve used the tickets that an offence has been committed. Loss of commission is just a cost of doing business for Trainline if the refund is legitimate, no matter how often it happens. Likewise I can buy all the A-to-B and C-to-D tickets I like and no offence is committed unless I also travel ticketless from B-to-C, and that needs proof. So unless there is scan / gate read data or other proof available, its suspicion at this stage and I suspect it would be difficult for Trainline to prove what it asserts. Trainline is within its rights to block an account though. And of course, Trainline could pass the information it holds onto the TOCs concerned. But if there’s no ticket use data, would the TOC be able to make a robust case? The TOCs could of course mount some sort of sting operation to catch potential miscreants, or go down the “we think you’ve done wrong so pay us some money or we’ll take it further” extortion route as has been seen elsewhere.

 

[Clip]

I can buy all the tickets I want from Trainline and immediately request refunds, and yet not commit an offence - its only if I’ve used the tickets that an offence has been committed. Loss of commission is just a cost of doing business for Trainline if the refund is legitimate, no matter how often it happens. Likewise I can buy all the A-to-B and C-to-D tickets I like and no offence is committed unless I also travel ticketless from B-to-C, and that needs proof. So unless there is scan / gate read data or other proof available, its suspicion at this stage and I suspect it would be difficult for Trainline to prove what it asserts.

Forgive me as i only read this forum but never reply , however, it seems from trainline theres at least one instance where they were booking then cancelling for stops along a route on the same train

Also, on **, ticket number *** (from * to *) was made but then immediately cancelled which I would normally believe was a mistake. However all bookings after are made for stops on this particular route. Your booking and refund requests coincide with the departure of each station and all coincide with the same train.

That to me suggests they have all the evidence they need to proceed as that is not normal behaviour i would guess

 

[185]

I believe Trainline have had to clean their act up somewhat, with a high number of inappropriate purchases being made on their app. Part of their accreditation to sell RDG tickets is to have in place safeguards to assist in the prevention of fraud, and to work alongside the operators they sell tickets on behalf of.

GDPR regulations don't necessarily apply if being used for the purpose of investigating fraud...

"We may also share your personal data with travel operators to prevent and detect fraud against either you, Trainline or the travel operator. We only share what is necessary to meet this purpose, and we make it clear to them they must keep your personal data safe"

I have recently noticed a number of email exchanges between traincrew (direct) to trainline where app misuse is being suspected, however Trainline ordinarily don't prosecute, they pass on the report to operators to make the decision. I'd also guess Trainline look at flagged refunds where there is data to show a passenger was in a certain location to suggest an inappropriate refund. I'm guessing this email (to the OP) asking for an explanation is so they can make a decision as to whether or not they should notify the relevant operator.

 

[Cdd89]

Despite their compelling allegations, what Trainline - and likely also the operator - lacks is proof that the OP was physically travelling on these trains without a ticket (though they may collect geolocation data). They could have (hypothetically) been testing out the app, or any number of other behaviours.

I would be surprised if this went anywhere without either an admission, being caught in the act at least once, or a routine that could be exploited by the TOC to build evidence. Only the OP knows if and to what extent they are guilty, therefore silence, squeaky clean behaviour, discontinuing use of Trainline and buying future tickets with cash (to avoid evidence of behavioural change following this warning), and avoiding this TOC for quite a while (due to the risk of collating CCTV evidence and targeted sting operations) might be the best approach.

(IMO it’s odd that Trainline would ‘tip off’ the OP with their evidence, rather than quietly forwarding this to the TOC who sets up a sting while giving the suspect enough rope to hang themselves; which we have seen more of on this forum. Perhaps there is something about the travel patterns, such as a lack of any routine, that made that approach unviable?)

 

[spag23]

buying future tickets with cash

The correct tickets of course. Doughnutting and short faring are still detectable* with cash transactions, especially if someone is already identified on CCTV.
*and wrong!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Despite their compelling allegations, what Trainline - and likely also the operator - lacks is proof that the OP was physically travelling on these trains without a ticket (though they may collect geolocation data). They could have (hypothetically) been testing out the app, or any number of other behaviours.

It's worth remembering that even in the criminal courts, the standard of proof isn't absolute: it's 'beyond reasonable doubt' rather than 'beyond all doubt'. While it's always possible that someone was on each occasion testing out the app, it wouldn't take a particularly talented brief to argue that repetition makes it more likely that what was in fact happening was that someone was fare-dodging. And each repetition makes that more likely still. It seems to me that there comes a point where (in the absence of another explanation being presented and evidenced) the repetition is enough to make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that what was happening was fare-dodging. That would mean that a prosecution would succeed.

Only the OP knows if and to what extent they are guilty, therefore silence, squeaky clean behaviour, discontinuing use of Trainline and buying future tickets with cash (to avoid evidence of behavioural change following this warning), and avoiding this TOC for quite a while (due to the risk of collating CCTV evidence and targeted sting operations) might be the best approach.

While I get there by a rather different route, this I agree with. I think that the OP should consider themselves to have been <edit> given a final warning warned off (which I think is the term in horse-racing)</edit>. They should take the hint and immediately end any use of the Trainline, attempts to claim money back from the Trainline or anything else whatsoever to do with the Trainline. If they can, they should also avoid buying tickets from websites which are powered by the Trainline. And most importantly, they should take extra care to make sure they always now buy the right train ticket: the railway companies (and Trainline) do keep records of what tickets their customers have bought/used/refunded etc., and any further incident might well bring the information that the Trainline already have to light.

(Edited after going away and looking up what 'warned off' really means in racing. I'm not trying to suggest that the OP has had a formal hearing yet: rather that whoever wrote to them from the Trainline has given them a warning that any further repetition will certainly lead to court action)

 

[Kite159]

.

Despite their compelling allegations, what Trainline - and likely also the operator - lacks is proof that the OP was physically travelling on these trains without a ticket

Unless they have proof that the OP purchased an e-ticket from A-B & an e-ticket for F-G with an entry scan at A and an exit scan at G (but no entry scan at station F which has barriers), the scans matching up with a train from A to G.
Which in the eyes of a judge will look like doughing unless the OP can produce a ticket used from B to F.

Ie A - London Kings Cross, B - Finsbury Park, F - Hatfield, G - Welwyn.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Despite their compelling allegations, what Trainline - and likely also the operator - lacks is proof that the OP was physically travelling on these trains without a ticket (though they may collect geolocation data). They could have (hypothetically) been testing out the app, or any number of other behaviours.

I would be surprised if this went anywhere without either an admission, being caught in the act at least once, or a routine that could be exploited by the TOC to build evidence. Only the OP knows if and to what extent they are guilty, therefore silence, squeaky clean behaviour, discontinuing use of Trainline and buying future tickets with cash (to avoid evidence of behavioural change following this warning), and avoiding this TOC for quite a while (due to the risk of collating CCTV evidence and targeted sting operations) might be the best approach.

Re your point about switching to buying tickets with cash in the future - arguably that is itself a sign of behavioural change, but that would only really be evident if investigators got access to a person of interest's bank and card statements. Buying with cash is certainly more anonymous.

Re the CCTV point - can anyone say if any facial recognition technologies are in use for this purpose on the railway?

(IMO it’s odd that Trainline would ‘tip off’ the OP with their evidence, rather than quietly forwarding this to the TOC who sets up a sting while giving the suspect enough rope to hang themselves; which we have seen more of on this forum. Perhaps there is something about the travel patterns, such as a lack of any routine, that made that approach unviable?)

It does seem peculiar. I was wondering if the author of the purported email from the Trainline was perhaps being a bit naive, but then again perhaps Fawkes Cat (post #75) is right and the purpose was for the OP to be 'warned off' from continuing this behaviour.

 

[Skymonster]

Seeing as the OP appears to have removed the first post in its entirety along with the contents of the email from Trainline that was copied into a subsequent response, I doubt much more will be forthcoming in terms of clarification or outcome.

 

[TheOrangeSpeak]

Clarification will come

 

[telstarbox]

Thread of the year this

 

[Olaaalim]

Can I ask if it

Hello all,

After requesting a refund for an accidentally booking, a "Revenue Protection Specialist" from the trainline reached out to me asking for my reason behind this refund request. However, the email then noted that auto checks had raised suspicious activity on my account in the past relating to dough-nutting and short faring.

The email asks for an explanation for these journeys, before stating that train operators can request info from the Trainline on those they think are misusing their services, which can result in a fines or legal action. The email also writes (on a less worrying note) that "also, if we believe you are wrongly claiming for refunds, this could result in a ban of your trainline account."

I am unsure of how to proceed in this matter. I believe I am incriminating myself and causing unnecessary damage if I reply with my excuse or otherwise. It seems a little like a trap and I am thinking I may just wait to see if they follow up as this is not an official letter for an interview, nor a letter from an actual train operator.

I'd like to enquire about getting some advice on this matter, and on the difference in severity when being contacted by a train operator and a 3rd party seller.

I would really appreciate any help.

hi! Have you had any outcome of this case?

 

[skyhigh]

Can I ask if it

hi! Have you had any outcome of this case?

Please start your own thread if you have an issue you'd like advice on as every case is different.