I agree.
Agreed, they may ask if she can identify the image but pretty sure they wouldn't give any more than that.
Yeah I'd be surprised if they told us.
I think that is highly unlikely.
I disagree. Someone has given false details who has some knowledge either by identify theft or otherwise of the OP’s daughter. If the matter is passed to the Police (giving false details is an offence) then the Police may well ask for assistance in identifying the culprit by reviewing the available photo evidence With the OP’s daughter to try and secure an identification. Should this scenario arise and the OP’s daughter refuse to do-operate by looking at the image then this may well raise questions as to if the fraud was a colluded act.
The police might do, but I was referring to the suggestion that LNER may ask for such help. However, I also think it is highly unlikely that the matter will be passed to the police for investigation.
I agree it is unlikely That LNER will ask for such help. But if the matter is passed to the Police I wouldn’t be surprised if they did ask for the images to be viewed.
). But, a really good ending for us and very pleased with that result. LNER themselves were very understanding and the bodycam footage has played a big part here. 
Irrelevant, as once the person stated it wasn't them then that obviously couldn't be shared with them.
Only after they stated that, and the post suggested had they communicated in a different order with LNER, they might have got the picture.
Also, they might ask for photo ID before releasing the image, so then you wouldn't receive it if they cross reference it. To be honest, I'd hope they would ask for ID, otherwise they'll have released someone else's personal data. I've had companies do that before (not asking for any image of myself, mind, just data that's presumably fairly harmless, though I'll never know as I couldn't be bothered scanning my ID and sending it through).
They might if they thought it would help them to find out who was there, if they'd thought about it beforehand, and realised it was likely to be someone they knew.
I suspect that would be pushing the legality of a subject access request (or whatever such a request is called), and infringing someone’s privacy.
Yes, good points. And on your 2nd observation (who was there) I recall up thread this was precisely what the OP thought. I suspect the OP regarded the impersonator as having made their daughter a victim (which they did, if only of wasting daughter's time extracting themsleves from the situation) and may have wanted to report them - to the police presumably (eg "I know person A, they go round evading fares and then giving false details, this is who they are and how to find them, please take action")
Yes, a picture of somebody is personal information. Even if (especially so) that person has claimed to be you.
They believe, but can't confirm. You wouldn't send a bank account number and sort code to somebody and ask them to confirm that it's theirs. Asking for the OP to provide their own ID and then cross-referencing allows the TOC to verify the data without risking unauthorised distribution, which the Information commissioner takes a very dim view on.
But why would someone who wasn't there be requesting CCTV footage *of themself*, where the request will require them to specifically state where they were and when? If it's not them they are not entitled to it, so they can't have it both ways.
That's a ridiculous statement. Writing to the person whose details have been given cannot be a breach of GDPR and is the only means they have of checking the details.
You actually said it was the problem!
If someone claimed to have CCTV of you doing something naughty, wouldn’t you want to see it?
Not if it wasn’t me. I would simply say that a I wasn’t there it could not have been me. And in the case that started this thread no-one was claiming to have CCTV footage.
LNER said that the real culprit has been captured on bodycam. (see post #27)
Fair enough, but that was revealed after the ‘accused’ had stated they weren’t there and established no right to request the footage. They couldn’t know about it any sooner because, as established, they weren’t there.
