TOCs sharing out information on passengers

[RJ]

I have been looking into Southeastern and how its Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service have been dealing with a dispute I was involved in.

To provide some context, on the 1st April 2013, I travelled from Canterbury West to Stratford International on a Canterbury Stations to Tilbury Stations ticket. I received a Penalty Fare at Stratford International as the staff incorrectly asserted that I had travelled overdistance. I have a personal policy whereby I will never tender a penny of my hard earned money to pay any of these stupid notices wrongly issued by ticket inspection staff who don't know a valid ticket when they see one. In their shoes I'd admit I wasn't sure and give the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the Penalty Fare was for around £68.40, so I lodged a part payment with a £50.00 Rail Travel Voucher. Any member of railway staff requesting payment for a fare is legally obliged to accept RTVs if tendered as payment, although this is something that IPFAS appeared to be unaware of.

The IPFAS decided to play detective to find out why I had a voucher for £50. What intrigues me is their decision to email all TOCs in the UK in another internal message in order to find out more about me.

I have redacted the untrue, utter BS elements of their account of the Transpennine Express incident in the message. I'll forgive their references to the NRCoC as they seem to be unaware of TPE's advertisements for undiscounted fares being available on board. Despite being the firm that handles appeals on their behalf.

Whilst I'm sure these people should have better things to do in their work time than gossip about people like me, is it a standard thing for Customer Relations Departments to look up data stored on their internal systems, some of which should be confidential and share it with external companies? I'm left wondering what the "Independent" in IPFAS' name actually means, as it's clear they conspire with the Train Operating Companies to obtain information and influence their decisions.

 

[sarahj]

What worries me more on a quick look at the letter is the quote, 'why would you need a YP card when you have a priv'. Do the people there not know that priv is only a discount on the anytime fare which is sometimes more expensive than using a YP card on a off peak fare. worrying. And this from people who sort out disputes over tickets.

 

[Paule23]

I see nothing wrong with Them trying to obtain further information from other TOCs during their investigations, however it is clear from the tone of this email that they have an agenda and this is hardly an impartial email to obtain information, more a witch hunt to try dig some dirt.

I am also not sure what the relevance of how you obtained the voucher is to their investigations. It wild appear they are trying to use any previous disputes to influence their thinking for this investigation, I don't think any 'evidence' obtained would not be in permissible in a court of law (where for example in a criminal case details of a defendants prior convictions are not disclosed to the jury), why should it be relevant here?

I would complain to senior people at IRCAS as the email is wholly inappropriate and is forming opinions and conclusions on events the author knows nothing about. I am not even sure of the relevance of the questions to your case.

I am not sure whether they have breached any data protection regulations by sharing information, this would be a question for the data protection registrar (go to www.ico.org.uk for details). You can also request any records held by a company on you (including emails) and then challenge the accuracy of these as companies are not permitted to store inaccurate information. There is sometimes a fee of up to £10 for this request.

 

[RJ]

What worries me more on a quick look at the letter is the quote, 'why would you need a YP card when you have a priv'. Do the people there not know that priv is only a discount on the anytime fare which is sometimes more expensive than using a YP card on a off peak fare. worrying. And this from people who sort out disputes over tickets.

That is true. I frequently used a YP railcard for Advance fares, Oyster PAYG and Plusbus discounts, plus online offers and when I had online voucher discounts, none of which I could get a Priv discount on. I really ought to renew my railcard.

Southeastern of all TOCs should know that not all staff working for the railways have a Priv. All of the TOCs I've worked for took a month or so to issue me with one after I started. Southeastern don't issue Priv to its new starters for six months. In this case, I didn't use a Priv because I hadn't been in service for long enough to have one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I see nothing wrong with Them trying to obtain further information from other TOCs during their investigations, however it is clear from the tone of this email that they have an agenda and this is hardly an impartial email to obtain information, more a witch hunt to try dig some dirt.

I am also not sure what the relevance of how you obtained the voucher is to their investigations. It wild appear they are trying to use any previous disputes to influence their thinking for this investigation, I don't think any 'evidence' obtained would not be in permissible in a court of law (where for example in a criminal case details of a defendants prior convictions are not disclosed to the jury), why should it be relevant here?

I would complain to senior people at IRCAS as the email is wholly inappropriate and is forming opinions and conclusions on events the author knows nothing about. I am not even sure of the relevance of the questions to your case.

I am not sure whether they have breached any data protection regulations by sharing information, this would be a question for the data protection registrar (go to www.ico.org.uk for details). You can also request any records held by a company on you (including emails) and then challenge the accuracy of these as companies are not permitted to store inaccurate information. There is sometimes a fee of up to £10 for this request.

I picked up a package with around 150 pages on information on me from Southeastern at Friars Bridge Court earlier this week. They got back to me at the 11th hour, although to be fair, it does look like there was 40 days worth of work in there. The majority of it related to the 1st April incidents at Ashford International and Stratford International with the Tilbury ticket. It was interesting to read the information stemming from that, including requests to ATOS Origin to put negative easements in their journey planner and correspondence relating to the issue of Gravesend not appearing in the route restriction. There is also some information on an appeal I sent on someone else's behalf with respect to a wrongly issued Virgin Trains UFN. They sent me a response telling me they wouldn't consider it. The data reveals that they did act on what I sent and upheld the appeal because of some crucial information I sent which they could easily have obtained themselves.

Best £10 I've spent in a while, even better than the £10 I paid for the 300+ pages of information that EMT had on me.

 

[CNash]

Loving the irony of their email tagline - "IPFAS - a fair assessment"

 

[ji459]

Why is it necessary to "trace the voucher" you used? I don't see what that has to do with your appeal.

 

[bb21]

I would hazard a guess that they don't have anything on him and are now clutching at straws.

 

[VauxhallandI]

It is very worrying to see the lack of knowledge and the way these people seem to take things at almost a personal level.

Incredibly unprofessional and makes me really appreciate the high standards and calibre of people at my place of work.

 

[PG]

The IPFAS decided to play detective to find out why I had a voucher for £50. What intrigues me is their decision to email all TOCs in the UK in another internal message in order to find out more about me.

I have redacted the untrue, utter BS elements of their account of the Transpennine Express incident in the message. I'll forgive their references to the NRCoC as they seem to be unaware of TPE's advertisements for undiscounted fares being available on board. Despite being the firm that handles appeals on their behalf.

Whilst I'm sure these people should have better things to do in their work time than gossip about people like me, is it a standard thing for Customer Relations Departments to look up data stored on their internal systems, some of which should be confidential and share it with external companies? I'm left wondering what the "Independent" in IPFAS' name actually means, as it's clear they conspire with the Train Operating Companies to obtain information and influence their decisions.

Perhaps they've used this definition of "Independent" : :roll:

not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence
(of income or resources) making it unnecessary to earn one’s living

: may explain how they can devote so much paid time to digging up "dirt" which isn't strictly relevant to their decision making process

 

[mullin]

From a complete outsiders view of someone who knows literally nothing nothing about the railway... could they be trying to see if it was issued correctly? ie proportionate to the delay claim or for the reason for payout.

Should they find you shouldn't have received it, could they then take your £50 rail voucher and argue that you knew it was issed in error/ a mistake / bad faith and say you have therefore paid £0 of the fare due, so we owe you nothing in return. Is that possible?

When I got £100 from Virgin, that came as 4x 25 vouchers...

 

[yorkie]

could they be trying to see if it was issued correctly? ie proportionate to the delay claim or for the reason for payout.

That appears to be what Southeastern and their subsidiary (purporting to be "independent") are doing, but it is wrong of them to do so.

Should they find you shouldn't have received it, could they then take your £50 rail voucher and argue that you knew it was issed in error/ a mistake / bad faith and say you have therefore paid £0 of the fare due, so we owe you nothing in return. Is that possible?

This is not a valid argument. RTVs are a valid payment method, just like cash or any other. It is not a legitimate argument to look into the source of the cash/voucher and then try to determine if the passenger was entitled to that payment from a completely different Company.

I believe that the conversations that have taken place are a blatant disregard of data protection laws.

There is also evidence of what I see as collusion between TOCs, and Southeastern appear to have colluded when it comes to their dislike of certain tickets valid on HS1.

They don't consistently adhere to the NRCoC and they treat passengers disgracefully.

I've caught some of their gateline staff at stations like St Pancras acting in an appalling way towards customers, rejecting valid tickets and refusing to honour the NRCoC.

They're not a Company that can be trusted, and their subsidiary who falsely claim to be independent are even less trustworthy!

 

[northwichcat]

The comment about TOCs which don't have a delay repay scheme having your name on record is a stupid one as all TOCs have a compensation scheme of some description as required under NRCoC.

If you looked up my name across all TOCs:
* Northern, Virgin and TPE would have both customer feedback and compensation claims following delays.
* ATW would have customer feedback.
* Merseyrail would have a complaint about one of their station staff on an occasion when I was using another operator's service.

While other operators I've used like LM, Southern and Southeastern would have no mention of my name as nothing's gone wrong when I've used them.

 

[WillPS]

Just disgusting reading those emails. Bravo RJ for putting this out there.

If I were your I'd be writing to the data commissioner at IPFAS and the relevant TOCs in the very strongest terms. I agree with yorkie; total disregard for the DPA.

 

[34D]

I wonder whether some paid advice from a solicitor specialising in Data Protection issues would be useful here?

Should we start a forum fighting fund? I will offer £50.

 

[jon0844]

Reading this, I am shocked but not ultimately surprised.

At some point this must go to a court, possibly for an harassment charge of some sort, as it's now bloody clear from just two letters (and RJ has rather more than that) that TOCs are now seeking to work together to 'deal' with this troublesome individual.

Their mind is now made up - RJ is a problem, and any methods and tactics that can bring him down a peg or two must be considered fair game. That's not just reading between the lines, as it's almost written to say that literally.

It seems clear that people get upset that RJ finds totally legal and valid ticket combinations, and uses legal payment methods (even if doing so might well annoy some people, and possibly in itself have helped frustrate some people enough to want 'revenge').

Where RJ goes from here, I don't know - but it's clear the problems are only going to get worse.

I doubt any newspaper would be interested, simply because they wouldn't understand it. What's more, most readers would almost certainly think RJ was up to no good and fiddling things somehow.

But there must be publications and sites that will take an interest in the legal issues of this whole thing. The harassment, the sharing of private data, the failure to be impartial on an appeals process, the false statements and physical attacks/abuse by staff..

RJ needs to think about this as well as seeking more legal advice and working out how to end this once and for all.

 

[talltim]

I wonder whether some paid advice from a solicitor specialising in Data Protection issues would be useful here?

Should we start a forum fighting fund? I will offer £50.

In RTVs?

Am I right in thinking that they aren't in the wrong (data protection wise) asking for info on RJ from other TOCs, but the other TOCs might be, depending in what info they gave?

 

[jon0844]

If someone was seeking to build a big case against RJ (let's say, for arguments sake, he was somehow fiddling things, falsely obtaining/printing RTVs etc) then I'd expect people to be talking to each other.

But for an individual appeal, I'm not sure there's much need to speak to anyone else to find out about previous cases, the attitude of the person and so on. It's not, at least to me, relevant. You couldn't stop more informal conversations between staff of course.

The only reason you'd be doing all of this is if finding out more about the person was going to influence your decision, or help spread the word that people need to watch out for this person - as RJ has form, is awkward and possibly up to no good.

If staff begin to believe that in advance, as soon as RJ encounters them he's going to be up against it - the staff member will be of the mindset that RJ is now trying to con them too, and will make things as difficult as possible for him.

This is what already seems to have been happening, and RJ needs to have an end game to sort this - not just carry on fighting individual cases and making life extremely difficult for himself, as someone tries to find a way to really hit him hard.

 

[bicbasher]

Private Eye may be interested in RJ's claims. This would be up their street.

 

[IanD]

You couldn't stop more informal conversations between staff of course.

It seems a lot of peole believe that a quick email is the same as an informal conversation and never going to be seen. They obvioulsy don't read the papers.

 

[sheff1]

Am I right in thinking that they aren't in the wrong (data protection wise) asking for info on RJ from other TOCs, but the other TOCs might be, depending in what info they gave?

I don't see that you can stop anyone asking. In one of my jobs we were sometimes asked for information on specific individuals by external organisations. The default response was to refuse to provide the information. The refusal even went as far as refusing to confirm whether or not we held any information on the individual at all.

Of course, in some areas (insurance claims being an obvious one) cross referencing personal data between different organisations is commonplace, and legal, to counter fraud etc and you sign up to that possibility when accepting the policy T&Cs. The relevant safeguards will be in place in such cases. Whether such arrangements exist between TOCs for the handling of compensation claims / appeals I do not know.

 

[jon0844]

I would accept TOCs sharing data on people that have been successfully prosecuted - in court - for fare evasion.

Yet, while some TOCs might have a rule to refuse issuing a PF if a certain number had already been issued, I'm not sure they could share that information. That's an individual company policy, and many penalty fares are issued without a criminal offence having been committed or implied.

In RJ's case it's even worse. The TOCs know his tickets are valid, but are seriously upset about it and try to close the loopholes. That would make it perfectly clear that they should have no issue with RJ, but rather stop and listen to his explanations or go off and do the checks afterwards, followed by whatever action is justified (and legal in the case of adding or removing easements).

RJ is clearly a lot smarter than someone simply splitting tickets on FGW at Didcot, or someone splitting a ticket with a travelcard with a point-to-point ticket or boundary ticket, or two zonal tickets, but is still not doing anything wrong or illegal.

Of course, the day RJ does make a mistake - they're going to revel in finally getting one over him!

 

[Wolfie]

I have been looking into Southeastern and how its Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service have been dealing with a dispute I was involved in.

To provide some context, on the 1st April 2013, I travelled from Canterbury West to Stratford International on a Canterbury Stations to Tilbury Stations ticket. I received a Penalty Fare at Stratford International as the staff incorrectly asserted that I had travelled overdistance. I have a personal policy whereby I will never tender a penny of my hard earned money to pay any of these stupid notices wrongly issued by ticket inspection staff who don't know a valid ticket when they see one. In their shoes I'd admit I wasn't sure and give the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, the Penalty Fare was for around £68.40, so I lodged a part payment with a £50.00 Rail Travel Voucher. Any member of railway staff requesting payment for a fare is legally obliged to accept RTVs if tendered as payment, although this is something that IPFAS appeared to be unaware of.

The IPFAS decided to play detective to find out why I had a voucher for £50. What intrigues me is their decision to email all TOCs in the UK in another internal message in order to find out more about me.

I have redacted the untrue, utter BS elements of their account of the Transpennine Express incident in the message. I'll forgive their references to the NRCoC as they seem to be unaware of TPE's advertisements for undiscounted fares being available on board. Despite being the firm that handles appeals on their behalf.

Whilst I'm sure these people should have better things to do in their work time than gossip about people like me, is it a standard thing for Customer Relations Departments to look up data stored on their internal systems, some of which should be confidential and share it with external companies? I'm left wondering what the "Independent" in IPFAS' name actually means, as it's clear they conspire with the Train Operating Companies to obtain information and influence their decisions.

Hum, personally I would hit IpFAS with a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act and, if you don't like and/or question the accuracy of the information stored demand they change it or you will go to the Information Commissioner. Believe me they REALLY do not wish to be facing the fines that body can issue, not to mention the media reporting which inevitably follows.....

You might also, when you go to the Information Commissioner raise your questions about the true independence of IPFAS - if he agress they could be stripped of the right to hold data for legal inquiry purposes - game over!!!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Private Eye may be interested in RJ's claims. This would be up their street.

This is exactly what I was thinking. There have been a few articles in the last year about IPFAS, I can well imagine Private Eye wanting another one.

I'd start with a subject access request for all information held by London and South Eastern Railway Limited. It'll be very interesting what gets thrown up.

As an aside, I find it very interesting that IPFAS claim their registered office is Friars Bridge Court, 41-45 Blackfriars Road, London, SE1 8PG, but the registered office for their company at Companies House is Go-Ahead's head office in Newcastle.

 

[Mojo]

Hum, personally I would hit IpFAS with a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act and, if you don't like and/or question the accuracy of the information stored demand they change it or you will go to the Information Commissioner. Believe me they REALLY do not wish to be facing the fines that body can issue, not to mention the media reporting which inevitably follows.....

It looks to me like the emails in question have already been obtained from a subject access request.

The question I have; as Ipfas and Southeastern are the same company, is only one request necessary to get the data from both trading names

 

[Deerfold]

The question I have; as Ipfas and Southeastern are the same company, is only one request necessary to get the data from both trading names

My guess is one or they could be seen as being obstructive.

 

[RJ]

I asked for and received data from Southeastern, RPSS and IPFAS in one fell swoop, totalling around 150 pages. It is all the same company.

They were nice enough to include a table of contents.

 

[jon0844]

I asked for and received data from Southeastern, RPSS and IPFAS in one fell swoop, totalling around 150 pages. It is all the same company.

You now need to sort this out once and for all. Much as I enjoy reading your stories, you simply cannot allow it to continue - and given the content of these letters/memos/emails, it's clear they're scheming against you.

You effectively need to get something done to effectively get them off your back, and only consider doing anything as and when they can establish any wrong doing on your part.

Until then, they should leave you alone and tell staff to give you the benefit of the doubt. It must be quite obvious by now that you do your homework and aren't just out to con people. Time and time again they find you to be correct.

I'm amazed nobody has considered offering you a lot of money (and maybe free travel) to work with them to find all of these clever combinations and (legal) tricks to improve training, or simply iron out any mistakes.

 

[island]

Well, after some time a circular email was sent around instructing East Midlands Trains staff to pass whatever tickets RJ presented and not under any circumstances to charge him up or issue any Penalty Fare or Unpaid Fare Notice, although they were allowed to note and report unusual combinations used in order to get them closed down.

 

[northwichcat]

Where RJ goes from here, I don't know - but it's clear the problems are only going to get worse.

I doubt any newspaper would be interested, simply because they wouldn't understand it. What's more, most readers would almost certainly think RJ was up to no good and fiddling things somehow.

Most articles advising on money saving when it comes to train tickets don't talk about travelling short because on some tickets like advances and some outward parts of Off Peak Returns e.g. Shotton to London, it's not permitted so it's easier to avoid than to list the exceptions in a way which can be understood to everyone.

 

[RJ]

You now need to sort this out once and for all. Much as I enjoy reading your stories, you simply cannot allow it to continue - and given the content of these letters/memos/emails, it's clear they're scheming against you.

You effectively need to get something done to effectively get them off your back, and only consider doing anything as and when they can establish any wrong doing on your part.

Until then, they should leave you alone and tell staff to give you the benefit of the doubt. It must be quite obvious by now that you do your homework and aren't just out to con people. Time and time again they find you to be correct.

I'm amazed nobody has considered offering you a lot of money (and maybe free travel) to work with them to find all of these clever combinations and (legal) tricks to improve training, or simply iron out any mistakes.

It is being sorted. Until this point, Southeastern did a good job of pretending they didn't know that my ticket was valid for the journey I was making, when they very much did. To the point where I've had no apology for the way I was treated and had to stave off a Penalty Fare and Notice of Intention to Prosecute. They were going to take me to court for something they were fully aware that I was not guilty of.

Southeastern haven't done anything about the staff involved in the incidents at Ashford International or Stratford. The On Board Manager (OBM) involved attempted to wind me up in a chance meeting a few weeks ago. Among other things, he claimed that Southeastern were building a case against me. His big mouth is the sole cause of this matter kicking off again. Other staff involved in the incident have also subsequently gone out of their way to bother me when I've been minding my own business. This time, I won't drop it until Southeastern put it right.