Travel Irregularity QS - Fraud Investigations

[jamie2965]

Hi I received an email & corresponding letter which I have attached. The email has come from Fraud Investigations. I have been travelling to stratford but buying a return ticket to a nearer station to home as there are no barriers at stratford. I use trainline to buy the ticket. I have never been caught/stopped but have received this email which I didn’t even know was possible. Often when I get to Stratford I forget to tap in so just end up tapping out either there or another tube station without ever having tapped in. I do this everytime I go into london because the ticket prices are so extortionate otherwise.

The email isn’t really asking for anything so I have no idea what will come of this or if I should reply in a certain way. Could I not just say I was actually going to the location I bought the ticket for? Or do they match up the trainline account with your tfl account?

It also says they have been notified by trainline but how would trainline possibly know where I get on/off the train unless they track your location?

Thanks a lot for any help!

 

[Gloster]

You will need to post the attached letter in order for the experts to provide information. Please obscure your name, address and any other identifying details, such as reference numbers.

Train companies are capable of finding out a great deal of information about your travel patterns. I am sure that the experts will give advice, but do not lie: if the railway thinks that are lying, they are likely to proceed straight to court.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hi I received an email & corresponding letter which I have attached. The email has come from Fraud Investigations. I have been travelling to stratford but buying a return ticket to a nearer station to home as there are no barriers at stratford. I use trainline to buy the ticket. I have never been caught/stopped but have received this email which I didn’t even know was possible. Often when I get to Stratford I forget to tap in so just end up tapping out either there or another tube station without ever having tapped in. I do this everytime I go into london because the ticket prices are so extortionate otherwise.

The email isn’t really asking for anything so I have no idea what will come of this or if I should reply in a certain way. Could I not just say I was actually going to the location I bought the ticket for? Or do they match up the trainline account with your tfl account?

It also says they have been notified by trainline but how would trainline possibly know where I get on/off the train unless they track your location?

Thanks a lot for any help!

We can't possibly advise you to lie - that would be wrong of us, and anyhow, we don't know exactly what information the railway already have about you. As the screenshots you have shown us confirm, the railway gets information from Trainline, and if the railway has its own information then they'd be allowed to use that alongside what they get from Trainline. So if you send them a reply which they know is not true you could be making things worse.

And although I have to say the wording of what you have shown us is a bit strange, the email address ([email protected]) is the same as those that Greater Anglia use (see, for example, https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/news-desk/media-team) so emailing that address will end up with Greater Anglia: to put it another way, I don't think that this is a scam. But as always, check the email address that any reply really goes to in case there's something hidden behind the text.

In general, we find that railway companies are prepared to settle matters out of court. So it may be best to email them on the address given explaining what you have been doing and asking whether it would be possible to settle this matter out of court. But others may be along with different advice so you might want to wait a little to see what they have to say.

But however you respond to this, it's important to now make sure that you pay the right fare. It looks as if you're on their radar, and they'll be keeping an eye out to see if you are doing things right. Don't let the railway to catch you fare dodging now that you've been warned!

(edited last sentence to make some sense)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Railway operators are able to glean a lot of information from your purchasing history and ticket usage history. It is relatively easy to discern if tickets have been used correctly and as expected or not, especially if they are electronic tickets.

As such, if you were to lie and state in reply that you have been using the tickets correctly, it is likely that the TOC will be able to determine that you are lying.

Otherwise, the advice is the same as I always give: take care to answer any specific questions that you are asked, and answer them truthfully, but equally take care to make sure you do not answer any questions which are not asked. Anything you do say may be used in evidence against you should the railways choose to prosecute you but, equally, a quick admission is more likely to result in Greater Anglia offering an out-of-court settlement. It's for you to decide if you want to play dumb and see what happens, or if you want to admit it all and ask how much to settle, but either way you must not lie.

 

[Haywain]

Or do they match up the trainline account with your tfl account?

If you have a lot of incomplete journeys with TfL it's possible that they and Greater Anglia have discussed the matter and put two and two together, and in doing so come to an answer that is astonishingly similar to four. Or it could be that GA can see that you only ever touch in with a ticket to another barriered station and drawn conclusions from that.

 

[jamie2965]

We can't possibly advise you to lie - that would be wrong of us, and anyhow, we don't know exactly what information the railway already have about you. As the screenshots you have shown us confirm, the railway gets information from Trainline, and if the railway has its own information then they'd be allowed to use that alongside what they get from Trainline. So if you send them a reply which they know is not true you could be making things worse.

And although I have to say the wording of what you have shown us is a bit strange, the email address ([email protected]) is the same as those that Greater Anglia use (see, for example, https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/news-desk/media-team) so emailing that address will end up with Greater Anglia: to put it another way, I don't think that this is a scam. But as always, check the email address that any reply really goes to in case there's something hidden behind the text.

In general, we find that railway companies are prepared to settle matters out of court. So it may be best to email them on the address given explaining what you have been doing and asking whether it would be possible to settle this matter out of court. But others may be along with different advice so you might want to wait a little to see what they have to say.

But however you respond to this, it's important to now make sure that you pay the right fare. It looks as if you're on their radar, and they'll be keeping an eye out to see if you are doing things right. Don't let the railway to catch you fare dodging now that you've been warned!

(edited last sentence to make some sense)

Thank you - it is definitely a legit email I checked the address source

 

[MotCO]

I'm struggling to understand how this fraud was picked up if you have not been stopped. The only explanation I can think of is that they have identified you as a 'person of interest' and undertaken surveillance operations. If that is the case, take extra care to ensure that you always buy the correct ticket from now on because they could be watching you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm struggling to understand how this fraud was picked up if you have not been stopped.

Easy enough. Run a report on common short-faring station pairs, write out to anyone who buys a lot of those tickets or anyone whose tickets only ever seemed to get scanned at only one of the stations, see what happens.

If they didn’t stop the OP then they may find it harder to prove that the OP did actually short-fare, although it certainly won’t be impossible. “Tell us more about why you buy a {example} Colchester to Colchester Town day return every day when you work near Holborn”.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

This is quite interesting. It would be good if you could tell us a bit more. From what you've said you buy a short distance ticket from your local station to get through the barriers at the start of your journey. You then travel to Stratford where you change to the Underground. Upon exiting the Underground at your destination you touch out to exit the barriers.

Can you tell us:

- How do you buy your tickets from your local station? I'm assuming Trainline app and this an e-ticket? Do you scan this ticket to get through the barriers at your local station?
- Has this 'short distance' ticket ever been scanned onboard? If so was it accepted or has there ever been a conversation about its validity?
- At Stratford when you change to the Underground do you touch in on the platform validators?
- When you exit at the destination Underground station do you use a contactless bank card? If so is this the same bank card that you use to pay for your short distance ticket?
- Does the same happen on your return journey - touch in at the Underground station? Any touch outs on validators at Stratford?
- If you've not touched in or out at Stratford I assume you've been charged two maximum fares every day by TfL for incomplete Underground journeys. Is this what has happened?

 

[jon0844]

Easy enough. Run a report on common short-faring station pairs, write out to anyone who buys a lot of those tickets or anyone whose tickets only ever seemed to get scanned at only one of the stations, see what happens.

This will be it.

 

[furlong]

This will be it.

That would not provide a valid basis for this sort of letter. There would have to be something in addition.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true - and indeed the OP has indicated here that they are probably correct in this. Note also that they are stating that the fraudulent activity was the PURCHASING rather than any use.

That said, it is unreasonable for the letter not to include a sufficient amount of the evidence in their possession to justify their statements and as such, the letter might be met with a holding response asking for their evidence and specific allegations before contemplating making a substantive response, or just ignored until they reach the point where they are obliged to supply the missing evidence if they wish to take formal action over the matter. The phrase "put up or shut up" springs to mind. This is, in my view, once again, a letter that no train company should have sent. If they have specific allegations for the OP to address, state them. If they have detected suspicious activity for which they are seeking an explanation, provide those details. (We have seen much better letters along those lines from some other train companies.)

 

[jamie2965]

Welcome to the forum!

This is quite interesting. It would be good if you could tell us a bit more. From what you've said you buy a short distance ticket from your local station to get through the barriers at the start of your journey. You then travel to Stratford where you change to the Underground. Upon exiting the Underground at your destination you touch out to exit the barriers.

Can you tell us:

- How do you buy your tickets from your local station? I'm assuming Trainline app and this an e-ticket? Do you scan this ticket to get through the barriers at your local station?
- Has this 'short distance' ticket ever been scanned onboard? If so was it accepted or has there ever been a conversation about its validity?
- At Stratford when you change to the Underground do you touch in on the platform validators?
- When you exit at the destination Underground station do you use a contactless bank card? If so is this the same bank card that you use to pay for your short distance ticket?
- Does the same happen on your return journey - touch in at the Underground station? Any touch outs on validators at Stratford?
- If you've not touched in or out at Stratford I assume you've been charged two maximum fares every day by TfL for incomplete Underground journeys. Is this what has happened?

- trainline & e-ticket, the barriers are always shut at my local station so I scan to enter & exit on return
- never been scanned onboard
- at Stratford I mostly forget to tap in so then end up just tapping out either at stratford or the next tube station I travel to
- it is usually the same card as I buy the ticket
- same happens on return journey
- normally forget to tap out at stratford
- when I forget to tap in/out as I do get charged max journeys often I go on to the tfl app and manually change my tap in station, these adjustments have always been accepted by tfl and charge adjusted. For note: I don’t travel via train often, only once or twice a month but then will miss a few months etc, but when I do it is always stratford. I have been in quite a few times, maybe 5 or 6 times in the past 2 weeks all of which I haven’t yet amended on tfl.

So from this I think it must have flagged from the frequent ticket scans on only one side of the stations. potential communication with tfl is unlikely I think because I have always had amendments accepted with them so its obviously not something that flags, and I haven’t made one recently

Easy enough. Run a report on common short-faring station pairs, write out to anyone who buys a lot of those tickets or anyone whose tickets only ever seemed to get scanned at only one of the stations, see what happens.

If they didn’t stop the OP then they may find it harder to prove that the OP did actually short-fare, although it certainly won’t be impossible. “Tell us more about why you buy a {example} Colchester to Colchester Town day return every day when you work near Holborn”.

I think this is it as I have never been stopped. The station is the next one along only 5/10 mins away so is a much cheaper ticket & can imagine a lot of people would do this
.

That would not provide a valid basis for this sort of letter. There would have to be something in addition.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true - and indeed the OP has indicated here that they are probably correct in this. Note also that they are stating that the fraudulent activity was the PURCHASING rather than any use.

That said, it is unreasonable for the letter not to include a sufficient amount of the evidence in their possession to justify their statements and as such, the letter might be met with a holding response asking for their evidence and specific allegations before contemplating making a substantive response, or just ignored until they reach the point where they are obliged to supply the missing evidence if they wish to take formal action over the matter. The phrase "put up or shut up" springs to mind. This is, in my view, once again, a letter that no train company should have sent. If they have specific allegations for the OP to address, state them. If they have detected suspicious activity for which they are seeking an explanation, provide those details. (We have seen much better letters along those lines from some other train companies.)

That would not provide a valid basis for this sort of letter. There would have to be something in addition.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true - and indeed the OP has indicated here that they are probably correct in this. Note also that they are stating that the fraudulent activity was the PURCHASING rather than any use.

That said, it is unreasonable for the letter not to include a sufficient amount of the evidence in their possession to justify their statements and as such, the letter might be met with a holding response asking for their evidence and specific allegations before contemplating making a substantive response, or just ignored until they reach the point where they are obliged to supply the missing evidence if they wish to take formal action over the matter. The phrase "put up or shut up" springs to mind. This is, in my view, once again, a letter that no train company should have sent. If they have specific allegations for the OP to address, state them. If they have detected suspicious activity for which they are seeking an explanation, provide those details. (We have seen much better letters along those lines from some other train companies.)

- trainline & e-ticket, the barriers are always shut at my local station so I scan to enter & exit on return
- never been scanned onboard
- at Stratford I mostly forget to tap in so then end up just tapping out either at stratford or the next tube station I travel to
- it is usually the same card as I buy the ticket
- same happens on return journey
- normally forget to tap out at stratford
- when I forget to tap in/out as I do get charged max journeys often I go on to the tfl app and manually change my tap in station, these adjustments have always been accepted by tfl and charge adjusted. For note: I don’t travel via train often, only once or twice a month but then will miss a few months etc, but when I do it is always stratford. I have been in quite a few times, maybe 5 or 6 times in the past 2 weeks all of which I haven’t yet amended on tfl.

So from this I think it must have flagged from the frequent ticket scans on only one side of the stations. potential communication with tfl is unlikely I think because I have always had amendments accepted with them so its obviously not something that flags, and I haven’t made one recently

I think this is it as I have never been stopped. The station is the next one along only 5/10 mins away so is a much cheaper ticket & can imagine a lot of people would do this
.

- trainline & e-ticket, the barriers are always shut at my local station so I scan to enter & exit on return
- never been scanned onboard
- at Stratford I mostly forget to tap in so then end up just tapping out either at stratford or the next tube station I travel to
- it is usually the same card as I buy the ticket
- same happens on return journey
- normally forget to tap out at stratford
- when I forget to tap in/out as I do get charged max journeys often I go on to the tfl app and manually change my tap in station, these adjustments have always been accepted by tfl and charge adjusted. For note: I don’t travel via train often, only once or twice a month but then will miss a few months etc, but when I do it is always stratford. I have been in quite a few times, maybe 5 or 6 times in the past 2 weeks all of which I haven’t yet amended on tfl.

So from this I think it must have flagged from the frequent ticket scans on only one side of the stations. potential communication with tfl is unlikely I think because I have always had amendments accepted with them so its obviously not something that flags, and I haven’t made one recently

I think this is it as I have never been stopped. The station is the next one along only 5/10 mins away so is a much cheaper ticket & can imagine a lot of people would do this
.

But on second thought the only way they could prove this without tfl is surely camera footage showing a) me still on train past stop b) camera at station showing I never departed there
Maybe they can get the latter footage & check each time to see I have never departed at my ‘final’ stop

Because otherwise I can just say the barriers have always been open at the departing station, they won’t have proof of that without camera footage.

 

[jamie2965]

That would not provide a valid basis for this sort of letter. There would have to be something in addition.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true - and indeed the OP has indicated here that they are probably correct in this. Note also that they are stating that the fraudulent activity was the PURCHASING rather than any use.

That said, it is unreasonable for the letter not to include a sufficient amount of the evidence in their possession to justify their statements and as such, the letter might be met with a holding response asking for their evidence and specific allegations before contemplating making a substantive response, or just ignored until they reach the point where they are obliged to supply the missing evidence if they wish to take formal action over the matter. The phrase "put up or shut up" springs to mind. This is, in my view, once again, a letter that no train company should have sent. If they have specific allegations for the OP to address, state them. If they have detected suspicious activity for which they are seeking an explanation, provide those details. (We have seen much better letters along those lines from some other train companies.)

So by ‘purchasing’ this makes sense as to where trainline come in but surely they can’t make an allegation purely on a buying pattern?

Maybe they want me to reply so they have the proof necessary, as they have given such little away, but I just can’t see how they would even bother making the claim without sufficient evidence already there.

 

[AlterEgo]

So by ‘purchasing’ this makes sense as to where trainline come in but surely they can’t make an allegation purely on a buying pattern?

Maybe they want me to reply so they have the proof necessary, as they have given such little away, but I just can’t see how they would even bother making the claim without sufficient evidence already there.

If you don’t reply, they will eventually be forced to show their hand with evidence. You are under no obligation to reply to them and do not have to say anything.

 

[jamie2965]

If you don’t reply, they will eventually be forced to show their hand with evidence. You are under no obligation to reply to them and do not have to say anything.

Thank you that’s helpful

 

[Hadders]

I agree that if the station you purchase your short distance ticket to has barriers then frequent lack of entry/exit scans could be a red flag.

There could, of course, be a legitimate reason for missing scans such as using a combination of tickets but ordinarily there would be evidence of these tickets being purchased.

 

[najaB]

Because otherwise I can just say the barriers have always been open at the departing station, they won’t have proof of that without camera footage.

It's better to say nothing than to make a statement that can be proven to be false.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because otherwise I can just say the barriers have always been open at the departing station, they won’t have proof of that without camera footage.

As I said before, don’t answer questions you’re not asked. The letter is short on detail; it would be reasonable for you to write back to ask for more details as you can’t discern from the letter what they are referring to.

Anything you say can be used against you, so it’s best to say very little until you know what the substantive allegation is.

What you shouldn’t do is lie.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true

I think you are probably reading too much into a letter which appears to largely be a standard template. I think it’s fair to say that whoever wrote it is not particularly literate, which is the thing that always surprises me the most with this type of correspondence.

These letters generally seem to be getting increasingly robust in their tone, which is a separate matter entirely.

I imagine this was a fishing trip run off a database report. If the OP was being followed they would have stopped him at some point for incontrovertible proof of the offence.

But I would agree with your underlying point: the OP would be very wise to assume that Greater Anglia know more than they say in their initial letter.

As @najaB said, saying nothing is better than telling a lie which can be proven to be a lie.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I would strongly advise not to reply in specifics to this letter, as it's vague and is quite obviously a fishing expedition in the hope that you'll incriminate yourself. It's highly likely that they suspect something and that they have some evidence of it, but the evidence isn't enough to actually convict you on. You could have held perfectly valid paper tickets at the time of travel, which were paid for in cash and not traceable.

I would simply reply, requesting further information and leave it at that. You don't need to go into detail, it's enough to simply say that you require further information on the situation in order to reply.

Having said that, I question whether you should even reply at all, given that e-mail is not a guaranteed delivery medium with evidence of receipt.

 

[The exile]

That would not provide a valid basis for this sort of letter. There would have to be something in addition.

Note the words "incorrectly purchased tickets" and "that ARE a breach". This is not a fishing expedition based on mere suspicion - their letter as written states that they are CERTAIN that this allegation of engagement in fraudulent activity is true - and indeed the OP has indicated here that they are probably correct in this. Note also that they are stating that the fraudulent activity was the PURCHASING rather than any use.

Maybe I’m being thick, but how can purchasing a ticket (from an authorised vendor) ever in itself be fraudulent, since you can buy the ticket on someone else’s behalf (or indeed, if a traditional ticket, to put in an album)?

 

[najaB]

Having said that, I question whether you should even reply at all, given that e-mail is not a guaranteed delivery medium with evidence of receipt.

Email isn't, true. But that attached letter, depending on how it was attached, very well could contain tracking/identification cookies or beacons.

 

[MikeWh]

when I forget to tap in/out as I do get charged max journeys often I go on to the tfl app and manually change my tap in station, these adjustments have always been accepted by tfl and charge adjusted. For note: I don’t travel via train often, only once or twice a month but then will miss a few months etc, but when I do it is always stratford. I have been in quite a few times, maybe 5 or 6 times in the past 2 weeks all of which I haven’t yet amended on tfl.

You will not be able to amend 5 or 6 missing touches in two weeks. The ability to do this is intended as a way to correct occasional lapses of judgement. You are supposed to learn your lesson. There is a limit of 3 corrections in a month. You may well need to call the helpdesk and ask them to amend some of the ones in the last two weeks.

Now. Stratford is a fully gated station so if people are saying they forgot to touch in/out then it is likely that they will be travelling further using Greater Anglia. If every time you correct the system it is to put Stratford as the missing end then after a while I believe that it is quite likely that TfL may communicate with Greater Anglia. Just because the TfL system has accepted your correction doesn't mean that the fact hasn't been noted.

I think you need to seriously consider what kind of electronic footprints you have left (or haven't left) over the transport system as a whole. All companies involved in revenue (ticket sellers, operators etc) are allowed to share data for the prevention or detection of crime and we have seen many examples over the last few years of companies cooperating with each other.

 

[MotCO]

Now. Stratford is a fully gated station so if people are saying they forgot to touch in/out then it is likely that they will be travelling further using Greater Anglia. If every time you correct the system it is to put Stratford as the missing end then after a while I believe that it is quite likely that TfL may communicate with Greater Anglia. Just because the TfL system has accepted your correction doesn't mean that the fact hasn't been noted.

But that in itself is not 'evidence'. The OP could have had a paper season ticket paid by cash or an employer from home to a station closer to Stratford, but not Stratford itself. The train does not need to even stop at that intermediate station if you have a season ticket. I admit this may be an unlikely scenario, but it is possible, so GA are probably just on a fishing trip so be careful how and if you respond.

 

[Haywain]

But that in itself is not 'evidence'.

It is evidence. Whether it is enough evidence for a prosecution is another matter. And several small bits of evidence may be difficult to refute when they are put together.

 

[furlong]

GA are probably just on a fishing trip so be careful how and if you respond.

If they are on a fishing trip, their letter is required to make that clear if they want the option of using any reply as evidence in a prosecution. If the letter contains falsehoods which trick the recipient into a confession (as apparently happened to some of the Post Office subpostmasters wrongly convicted), then a court might refuse to admit such evidence.

 

[najaB]

And several small bits of evidence may be difficult to refute when they are put together.

Indeed. Unlike TV courtroom dramas, most cases are built by linking several small things together to build a convincing narrative, rather than on a single 'gotcha'.

 

[Hadders]

But that in itself is not 'evidence'. The OP could have had a paper season ticket paid by cash or an employer from home to a station closer to Stratford, but not Stratford itself. The train does not need to even stop at that intermediate station if you have a season ticket. I admit this may be an unlikely scenario, but it is possible, so GA are probably just on a fishing trip so be careful how and if you respond.

If they have a season tiket then I assume the details will be held in the season ticket database.

I can see that there are lots of little bits of information, that on their own are probably not an issue, but when combined start to paint a convincing picture.
I cannot say whether the picture is sufficient to secure a conviction but based on what we've managed to establish I can understand why Greater Anglia are asking questions.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the letter contains falsehoods which trick the recipient into a confession (as apparently happened to some of the Post Office subpostmasters wrongly convicted), then a court might refuse to admit such evidence.

Sadly, as we've seen countless times, the courts don't generally refuse to admit such evidence. Especially not at Magistrates' Court level.

The railways' prosecution teams generally seem to be quite poor and under-trained, many of the letters we see on here are barely literate and it's easy to see why Northern have got themselves into such a mess. I suspect they only get away with it because the cost of proper legal representation to fight it is completely disproportionate to the cost of a settlement.

In my line of work, if I sent a letter out saying "we think you've done something wrong, we're not saying what it is but tell us about it" I'd get my buttocks handed back to me on a plate by an expensive lawyer. The letters in this thread make me shudder, to be quite honest.

I don't think it's deliberate, I just think the staff have obviously been told that they can't show the TOC's cards and so write these sorts of vague letters as a result. I don't think it's a deliberate deceit- unlike with the Post Office- but it has a similar effect.

Anyway, back to the OP.

Same advice as always: answer the question you are asked, don't answer the question you are not asked, don't 'fill in the blanks' from the TOC letter. A simple reply along the lines of "Thank you for your letter. Your letter does not make reference to any specific transactions which you may have reservations about. Without further detail I am unable to discern which, if any, matters you refer to. I will therefore be unable to comment."

 

[30907]

Same advice as always: answer the question you are asked, don't answer the question you are not asked, don't 'fill in the blanks' from the TOC letter. A simple reply along the lines of "Thank you for your letter. Your letter does not make reference to any specific transactions which you may have reservations about. Without further detail I am unable to discern which, if any, matters you refer to. I will therefore be unable to comment."

Normally that might be a risky strategy, but in this case - a rather unusual one - where you have not been caught, I agree. However, a slightly less blunt approach might go down better at GA's end

 

[MotCO]

If they have a season tiket then I assume the details will be held in the season ticket database.

Even if it was an employer - bought season ticket?