Paid a fixed penalty notice to Northern Rail immediately - now they are pursuing me for an interview - could this be a scam?

[Humphrey]

I am absolutely no expert and realise that others on this forum have great experience and knowledge of the system. But it strikes me that if an operator believes there is a case of fare evasion, it has to be proven, and this would almost certainly mean the passenger being apprehended on a station or a train. Interrogating the ticket purchase history may lead to suspicions but unless you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that fare evasion has taken place, then it hasn’t. How can you be certain that the passenger has made more than those journeys for which he/she has bought a ticket?

I have seen from other posts that the magnetic stripe on tickets only records that the ticket has passed through the barrier, and any previous validations in the barrier are erased. Please correct me if I am wrong, but assuming the ticket opens the barrier, it seems to me to be very difficult to prove attempted fare evasion if the passenger is stopped.

I realise however that e-tickets provide operators with a wealth of data on whether or not they have been reused or any other anomalies.

 

[John R]

E-tickets appear to have tempted more people to short fare or doughnut though, in a way that was less easy with paper tickets. So much of the investigative work seems to focus on those purchasing tickets in that way.

 

[skyhigh]

I think, reading between the lines, that paper tickets are a red herring. This is the digital team of the DRPU investigating here, and I notice that the OP hasn't answered if they have any online accounts.

Previous letters from Northern where delay repay is involved have specifically mentioned this is what they're investigating - so I'm suspecting what they're picking up on is either dodgy refunds or something like doughnutting.

 

[RHolmes]

I’m suspecting what they're picking up on is either dodgy refunds or something like doughnutting.

Or the open return trick of buying an open return, using the outbound once and the inbound repeatedly by buying advance singles for the next consecutive outbound trips and repeatedly using the return portion of an open return.

The above would be an obvious one if the OP was caught reusing a previously used ticket (of which they were offered a PfN, and by their own admission purchasing one way tickets because they didn’t travel by train both ways

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

My normal advice when asked to attend an interview that is to be conducted under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is to make sure you have legal reporesentation.

Northern must believe they have discovered suspicious from the OP's online ticket purchasing history, refund history and/or delay repay claim history. I totally understand the OP wanting to co-operate but it is unlikely that Northern would be able to substantiate a case 'beyond all resonable doubt' without the OP disclosing some incriminating information at their interview.

I strongly suspect that Northern are looking to settle without court action but unlike other train companies (like GTR or SWR) who have asked customers to contact them to discuss cases this interview is being conducted under PACE, which is why I recommend legal representation if you do decide to attend. Alternatively you could write to Northern saying that you would like to co-operate but ask that they put the questions they want to ask in writing - this means it is harder to inadvertently incriminate yourself.

 

[spag23]

Without suggesting it's the case here, there's the possibility that, having randomly challenged someone and then noticed an unusual (past or ongoing?) purchasing pattern, the TOC may have set up surveillance of the suspect. If so, they may have evidence beyond circumstantial. Hence an interview request.

 

[Starmill]

May be best to pay for tickets in cash. Not to facilitate cheating, but to maintain some privacy in life. On which, I do have a query - if a TVM won't accept cash, and you don't have a card, you are obviously entitled to buy a ticket from the conductor at normal fare and with railcard discount. So, if someone has an attitude of 'pay when challenged', they could board without a ticket and hope for the best, in the knowledge that by saying they don't have a debit or credit card they will get away with just paying the standard fare for their journey.

Northern ask people to dispense a "promise to pay" from the ticket machine if they are doing this. Obviously that's only possible in cases where there's a Northern machine at the station.

 

[Trackman]

I suspect this isn't just a fishing expedition and Northern have something. The OP needs to consider what Northern may/do have and consider their options carefully.

Following on from this, I'd write back to them asking them what they are investigating, as there is nothing specific in the letter.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Following on from this, I'd write back to them asking them what they are investigating, as there is nothing specific in the letter.

The OP should ask for a copy of the purchasing history they are referring to.

I don't think that is how it works. The OP has been invited for interview and any allegations and potentially some evidence will be presented then. I don't think writing back and saying can you supply me with the evidence beforehand so I can concoct some plausible story is going to be successful.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't think that is how it works. The OP has been invited for interview and any allegations and potentially some evidence will be presented then. I don't think writing back and saying can you supply me with the evidence beforehand so I can concoct some plausible story is going to be successful.

This is correct, but in theory could also attend an interview under PACE and say no comment to every question.

That also wastes everyones time, and will probably raise more suspicion than if you simply wrote back, and said apart from the single fully settled penalty, not aware of any other incorrect tickets.

Remember is is for claims team to find real incorrect travel and/or fraud, and raise charge accordingly, not for someone to go to a discussion with trained researchers, be led by selective questions to incriminate themselves.

 

[randyrippley]

I don't think that is how it works. The OP has been invited for interview and any allegations and potentially some evidence will be presented then. I don't think writing back and saying can you supply me with the evidence beforehand so I can concoct some plausible story is going to be successful.

Giving him no chance to prepare an argument or defence against the claims.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Giving him no chance to prepare an argument or defence against the claims.

It isn't a trial. If Northern go on to pursue a prosecution they will have access to any evidence. The same does not apply to an interview.

 

[AlterEgo]

Giving him no chance to prepare an argument or defence against the claims.

I get that, but there is no right to be informed of the evidence against you before you are questioned.

If I get arrested for fraud, the police only have to tell me I am being arrested on suspicion of fraud. I go to the custody suite, sit in a cell, and the first time I am told what the specific allegations are is in the interview (ie. it is alleged you inflated your income on a mortgage application with X Bank in June 2018). The difference there is I would be entitled to free legal representation during that interview, whereas you are not if you voluntarily attend a PACE interview with a train company.

 

[randyrippley]

It isn't a trial. If Northern go on to pursue a prosecution they will have access to any evidence. The same does not apply to an interview.

But my point is that with no prior knowledge of what they want to question him about he's unable to check the actual history of something possibly going back several years. Without prior notification of the subject matter of the meeting he can't defend himself

 

[jens]

Do not attend. This is a fishing expedition. Let them build their case, if they have one, without your help.

Thank you - this is my feeling also

 

[skyhigh]

Thank you - this is my feeling also

As far as you know - have you done everything correctly? There is nothing to be found in your purchase history/refunds/delay repay which you shouldn't have done?

 

[jens]

Please don't tell us, but think hard about whether you have a record of Delay Repay and/or refund claims that might look dubious to the railway. You might want to check on the difference between Delay Repay and refunds - although both might generate a repayment to you, they are different things.

If all your claims are for the right amount by the right mechanism, you should have nothing to fear, and you can write to the railway telling them that you can see no reason for them to pursue you. Let them try to raise a case that - if you are clean - they will lose. Against this, if you do think that they may have a point (even if they may have misunderstood something) you may need to do some explaining to give your innocent explanation - or accept their settlement offer if actually you have been making dodgy claims.

(Edited to add): from rereading the thread, I realise that the issue may not be refunds/delay repay but the tickets the OP has bought and used. I still stand by my fundamental advice (if you're certain that you have done nothing dodgy then you should have nothing to fear or explain) but obviously the detail of what the OP will look at will need some adjustment.

Thank you for this - and all the other responses. the way I was buying tickets at the time may well have looked a bit random.This all happened in late September- when the rail workers were on strike, trains were being cancelled at short/no notice - and I was in the middle of moving cities -so sometimes I was travelling to work and back in a day , other times I was getting a lift, sometimes I used the tramline app to buy tickets, other times I would get tickets for the week at the station - so it wasn't a consistent pattern. `I am not aware of any of it being not as it should have been - but now I am worrying about everything!

 

[skyhigh]

I am not aware of any of it being not as it should have been - but now I am worrying about everything!

If as far as you're aware nothing is wrong with your actions I'd probably send a simple response along the lines of you are unaware of any irregularities with your purchasing history and therefore decline their offer of an interview as you would have no information to share.

 

[Starmill]

I get that, but there is no right to be informed of the evidence against you before you are questioned.

If I get arrested for fraud, the police only have to tell me I am being arrested on suspicion of fraud. I go to the custody suite, sit in a cell, and the first time I am told what the specific allegations are is in the interview (ie. it is alleged you inflated your income on a mortgage application with X Bank in June 2018). The difference there is I would be entitled to free legal representation during that interview, whereas you are not if you voluntarily attend a PACE interview with a train company.

If someone accused is arrested, they're bound to comply with that temporary custody. An officer investigating or questioning them is bound by their professional standards. If they're charged it will be through the appropriate tests by the Crown. None of this applies in evidence-gathering by Northern, who can comparatively do what they want if the OP goes along with their demands.

 

[Snow1964]

Thank you for this - and all the other responses. the way I was buying tickets at the time may well have looked a bit random.This all happened in late September- when the rail workers were on strike, trains were being cancelled at short/no notice - and I was in the middle of moving cities -so sometimes I was travelling to work and back in a day , other times I was getting a lift, sometimes I used the tramline app to buy tickets, other times I would get tickets for the week at the station - so it wasn't a consistent pattern. `I am not aware of any of it being not as it should have been - but now I am worrying about everything!

I think do not worry, if you have not done anything wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

If someone accused is arrested, they're bound to comply with that temporary custody. An officer investigating or questioning them is bound by their professional standards. If they're charged it will be through the appropriate tests by the Crown. None of this applies in evidence-gathering by Northern, who can comparatively do what they want if the OP goes along with their demands.

I also agree. It is even more reason why the OP should be very careful about attending unrepresented.

 

[Haywain]

Probably worth stating summary of this in return letter, saying moving house, with overlap, and had mix of journeys including some where got lift one direction. Don't need to go into detail.

Do not do this. Any comment made may be taken out of context and seen as providing evidence. Providing answers to questions that you have not been asked is a very poor idea.

 

[Deafdoggie]

My understanding is the retailer only stores the last 4 digits of the payment card & a unique payment number. The OP should ask for a copy of the purchasing history they are referring to.

I run a small business and my card payment provider tells me repeat customers from new customers and will link previous visits by card number-even tough I don't get the card number. Interestingly I get the customer name too if the card is inserted rather than contactless. The card payment provider covers all GDPR issues as part of their services.

 

[fandroid]

If as far as you're aware nothing is wrong with your actions I'd probably send a simple response along the lines of you are unaware of any irregularities with your purchasing history and therefore decline their offer of an interview as you would have no information to share.

This is good advice. Please don't be driven by your own anxiety into desperation to uncover what they think they know about you. Keep it totally cool. They have to have real evidence of you actually travelling while using an invalid (or none) ticket for them to be able to take it to court.

Either very politely decline, or don't respond at all

 

[WesternLancer]

If as far as you're aware nothing is wrong with your actions I'd probably send a simple response along the lines of you are unaware of any irregularities with your purchasing history and therefore decline their offer of an interview as you would have no information to share.

I tend to agree with this approach - we saw on here in a different context how many cases of alleged ticket irregularity are not responded to and get sent automatically to court. My own hunch is that by responding along such lines you are showing that you have not ignored the matter but you see no reason to spend time discussing it with them. If you don't respond at all they might just lump you in with people who are burying their head in the sand and hoping ti will go away - which it may well not do.

 

[ridlerz84]

Hi just touching base. Did this issue get resolved?

 

[Hadders]

Hi just touching base. Did this issue get resolved?

It would be good if @jens could let us know the outcome of their case but in line with our forum rules please start your own thread if you are in need of assistance. This is because we have a policy of only discussing one case in each thread to avoid confusion and experience has taught us that no two cases are ever quite the same, however similar they might seem at first.