Son walked away from ticket inspector- repercussions

[185143]

This has got me thinking. I purchased a 16-18 Saveaway a couple of years ago while I was 17 (I think). Had ID ready as per the requirement by Merseytravel (provisional licence) got asked for £2.70, paid and went on my way.

At some point while travelling I realised they'd actually sold me a child ticket, which is the same fare. I was about to get off at Liverpool Central , so spoke to staff there who told me not to worry about it as it was the same price, I'd paid the correct fare essentially and I could prove I was entitled to the reduced fare. That struck me as being the right way to deal with it and I had no issues. This is essentially the same, surely?

 

[Dai Corner]

Would circulating an image of a known fare-dodger not be a permissible business use?

If it's regarded as for the detection or investigation of crime I'd say it was permissible.

The Police often publish photos of 'people they'd like to speak to'.

 

[MikeWh]

Would circulating an image of a known fare-dodger not be a permissible business use?

Is that a proven fare dodger who has been to court?

If it's regarded as for the detection or investigation of crime I'd say it was permissible.

The Police often publish photos of 'people they'd like to speak to'.

Usually in relation to much more serious crimes.

 

[Hadders]

CCTV footage of individuals is highly sensitive data. Management would need a very good reason for requesting images from the CCTV system.

The problem is what happens to the images once they’ve been released to management. They end up getting circulated, pinned on notice boards, other staff would take photos of the images (potentially on their own mobile phones). You then end up with highly sensitive data circulating freely and as an organisation you’ve lost control of it. That is the problem.

 

[Dai Corner]

Is that a proven fare dodger who has been to court?

Usually in relation to much more serious crimes.

CCTV footage of individuals is highly sensitive data. Management would need a very good reason for requesting images from the CCTV system.

The problem is what happens to the images once they’ve been released to management. They end up getting circulated, pinned on notice boards, other staff would take photos of the images (potentially on their own mobile phones). You then end up with highly sensitive data circulating freely and as an organisation you’ve lost control of it. That is the problem.

I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of suspected shoplifters published. I'd say that was more or less on a par with fare evasion in terms of the sums involved and harm to others and society.

I guess railway staff, even RPIs, are considered less trustworthy than police officers, who surely must have been sent equally sensitive pictures to help them spot suspects?

 

[Haywain]

Management would though, presumably.

Management covers a wide range of roles but I would expect there will be a specific role that deals with the control of and access to CCTV footage. It should be necessary to make a written request for access and that would prevent randomly watching footage.

 

[Hadders]

I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of suspected shoplifters published. I'd say that was more or less on a par with fare evasion in terms of the sums involved and harm to others and society.

I doubt it since the GDPR regs came in during 2018.

Management covers a wide range of roles but I would expect there will be a specific role that deals with the control of and access to CCTV footage. It should be necessary to make a written request for access and that would prevent randomly watching footage.

That’s correct. Any random Tom, Dick or Harry, whatever their position cannot just be given access to CCTV footage on a whim.

 

[Dai Corner]

I doubt it since the GDPR regs came in during 2018.


That’s correct. Any random Tom, Dick or Harry, whatever their position cannot just be given access to CCTV footage on a whim.

It's not 'on a whim' it's for the prevention, detection or investigation of crime.

I take it from the answers given that RPIs aren't supplied with pictures of known or suspected fare evaders. That answers my question. Thanks.

 

[gray1404]

I don't think you will here back any further on this. If possible your son could carry an ID card in future. It's not practical to carry a full passport.

If refused in future pay the adult fare then you as a parent complain. You could make a formal complaint about this as a parent. I suggest you do this by email and don't provide an address. You could however choose to let this one go.

Please don't let this deter your son from rail travel. If an inspector were to recognise him in the coming weeks your son would have no grounds to have to answer their questions about a previous journey.

 

[rg177]

Having previously worked in revenue protection I can reassure the OP that in practice, if your son merely walked off, they're unlikely to be actively looking out for him.

We would only actively share information if someone was extremely abusive and likely to cause harm. That is not to say that there wouldn't be consequences if it happened again, of course.

 

[ThrowawayTL]

I'm not sure that he will want to carry an ID around with him, although I’ll have a look into the digital pass- thanks

 

[gray1404]

What digital pass you talking about?

A proof of age card is different to an official ID? I think this is called making life easier for oneself. Although how long does he have until his 16th birthday.

 

[skyhigh]

I doubt it since the GDPR regs came in during 2018.

Here's an example from August 2022:

https://mobile.twitter.com/WestYorksPolice/status/1557713560771465217

#CaughtOnCamera West Yorkshire Police need your help identifying this person in Leeds in relation to the crime of : Theft From Shop #police

 

[spag23]

I can't see - as some posters have suggested - a problem with a future RPI recognising your son, and asking to see his current ticket. It's not like he's a committed evader, who needs to avoid RPIs! Your son would of course simply present the RPI with a valid ticket for the new journey, be it a Child, or (in a year's time) with a 16-17 Railcard.
In the highly unlikely event of the previous journey being brought up, your son would say he travelled on a £13.55 ticket, instead of £13.55 ticket; and all because the original ticket clerk refused to sell him the correct ticket; a clear TOC maladministration.
If you ever get the same ticket clerk obstruction, your son could still insist on being sold a Child ticket, declaring he was (as a perceived "adult") buying it on behalf of a (unspecified) child. He then travels on it and - if challenged by an RPI - provides his details &/or Proof of Age. Even if the episode is pursued, there'd be no case to answer.
This seems a better policy than reverting to taxis for the next year, as one poster suggested!

 

[greyman42]

Throwaway, I sympathise with the situation and can appreciate your son's frustration at not being offered the child discounted ticket. In this circumstance, with the Officer not having your son's full name or address, there is unlikely to be any further action taken. However, if the Officer encounters your son again, he may recognise him and it is also worth noting that some RPOs wear body worn CCTV, and footage may be shared amongst rail staff in case they recognise your son.

My advice would be for your son to use the bus/taxis for a while, whilst the encounter is still fresh in the Officer's mind. Other than that, I wouldn't worry about it.

Why should the lad use other transport when he has not done anything wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could be for someone else, of course.

Or no intention to use it at all. I bought a cheap e-ticket a few days ago purely to prove a point about how it displays on an iPhone. I didn't but should have bought a child one!

 

[Vespa]

CCTV footage of individuals is highly sensitive data. Management would need a very good reason for requesting images from the CCTV system.

The problem is what happens to the images once they’ve been released to management. They end up getting circulated, pinned on notice boards, other staff would take photos of the images (potentially on their own mobile phones). You then end up with highly sensitive data circulating freely and as an organisation you’ve lost control of it. That is the problem.

Out of interest do TOC staffs have to do a form of "Responsible for Information" course that I have to do annually to maintain access sensitive information.

If TOCs are going to distribute images and personal information without any safeguard, they should a system in place to control personal information.

The consequences of failing to protect information is quite serious.

 

[skyhigh]

If TOCs are going to distribute images and personal information without any safeguard...

They simply don't.

 

[Haywain]

Out of interest do TOC staffs have to do a form of "Responsible for Information" course that I have to do annually to maintain access sensitive information.

The TOC I work for has an information security team who look after matters like this and pretty much everyone is required to complete information security courses. It’s taken very seriously.

 

[Vespa]

That's interesting, I take it that it's universal across all TOCs ?

 

[Haywain]

That's interesting, I take it that it's universal across all TOCs ?

You can take it that way if you like - I expect it is but have no knowledge of other TOCs policies and procedures.

 

[Wallsendmag]

That's interesting, I take it that it's universal across all TOCs ?

I think our Infosec team is particularly zealous, which is a good thing most of the time.