Will after-the-event e-ticket database checking be a risk to passengers?

[yorkie]

Indeed; compostage is for walk-up type fares and decompstage isn't a thing in France.

So what is being proposed (or feared!) here is not at all comparable to anything that happens in France.

Finishing short is not something that can ever be strictly barred; someone could have legitimate reason for it, such as feeling unwell.

The only times I've heard of passengers be penalised for it, the train company concerned eventually apologised and any monies incorrectly charged were returned/cancelled.

 

[AlterEgo]

Has anyone said it is an offence?

In the first post in this thread there was the fear of "prosecution", and repeatedly on this forum in various threads.

It is just a breach of the ticket conditions:

"(nrcot)9.5 Where you:
<snip>
9.5.3 break your journey when you are not permitted to do so;
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and
the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using."

Which in any case only applies to break of journey, not starting long or finishing short.

The three terms are distinct; getting off at Milton Keynes and leaving (or simply using another ticket from there) on a Manchester to London advance ticket is not break of journey. We know the terms are distinct from the Advance Fares TnCs:

6.1 You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

The NRCoT provides only redress where the journey is broken.

We don't really want to start getting invoices in the post because of a "fail to scan" at the destination. Well I don't anyway.

Not going to happen, for so many reasons. The forum has a very fertile collective imagination.

 

[ThisIsSurbiton]

No, decompostage isn't a thing

Not a requirement, no, but more and more stations have barriers where your ticket would be scanned anyway (if they're working!) so for those stations, effectively it is a thing. Before that, as far as I know all tickets had to be validated, even if train-specific, except for incoming international journeys, where of course it wouldn't be possible.

 

[Aljanah]

6.1 You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

I think you missed the section title out: "6. Break of journey".

Rather suggests to me that start long/stop short are subtypes of break of journey; in that it is the ability to break a journey that enables these.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you missed the section title out: "6. Break of journey".

Rather suggests to me that start long/stop short are subtypes of break of journey; in that it is the ability to break a journey that enables these.

The non-contractual information box is quite clear:

INFORMATION: Most Tickets allow you to break your journey. This means that you do not have to make the whole of your journey at the same time or, where allowed, on the same day.

(My bold)

Clear that the NRCoT defines breaking ones journey purely as not making the whole of your journey at the same time, the qualifier here is important. They had ample opportunity to define break of journey as:

This means that you do not have to make the whole of your journey at all, or the whole of your journey at the same time or, where allowed, on the same day.

But they did not, and finishing short is not a break of journey, either by exiting the railway premises or by changing to another ticket type while remaining on the railway, or even on the same train.

"I didn't do all my homework at the same time" implies you did do all the homework, but in separate stages. "I didn't do all my homework" implies the homework is not complete.

Under no circumstances could someone with a Manchester to Berkhamsted advance who changes to a Milton Keynes to London Terminals anytime day single as the train stops at Milton Keynes be construed as breaking their journey.

The railway is quite clear that that is one journey, both by custom and practice and by definition in 14.1): you may use a combination of two or more Tickets to make a journey...

 

[bakerstreet]

Re this thread

SWR MG11

Hi, I received an MG11 notice a While ago now due to having the wrong ticket: - I was travelling from my home station to London Waterloo (WAT), on a train that does not stop at Vauxhall (VXH). - I genuinely mistakenly bought a ticket VXH to WAT. - my ticket let me through the barriers but was...

www.railforums.co.uk

And this post

You can be sure that SWR will be in touch with Trainline to see how many times you've bought tickets from Vauxhall to Waterloo. They may well also query the scanning history on those tickets, if they were e-tickets, to see if they were scanned at the ticket gates at times and in locations corresponding to the arrival of fast trains that didn't call there. If this is a pattern of behaviour, expect they will find out.

It wasn’t the scenario I was considering when I started this thread about e-tickets but it would be interesting to know if the scan history can and will be interrogated by TOCs in this way in such a scenario.

 

[takno]

It wasn’t the scenario I was considering when I started this thread about e-tickets but it would be interesting to know if the scan history can and will be interrogated by TOCs in this way in such a scenario.

This is clearly already happening. Catching people repeatedly and/or deliberately travelling without a valid ticket is a very different situation to automatically trying to police whether people get off a train a stop early occasionally. I think most people are pretty on-board with catching deliberate fraudsters.

 

[Haywain]

Re this thread

SWR MG11

Hi, I received an MG11 notice a While ago now due to having the wrong ticket: - I was travelling from my home station to London Waterloo (WAT), on a train that does not stop at Vauxhall (VXH). - I genuinely mistakenly bought a ticket VXH to WAT. - my ticket let me through the barriers but was...

www.railforums.co.uk

And this post



It wasn’t the scenario I was considering when I started this thread about e-tickets but it would be interesting to know if the scan history can and will be interrogated by TOCs in this way in such a scenario.

My guess is that the scan history for tickets at a station such as Waterloo will reveal very little of use due to the frequency of departures of both fast and slow trains. Similarly, the scan history at Vauxhall will do little to reveal which way the user chose to travel from there. Only combinations of scans at both stations (that is, scans in and then out) would show anything useful, and that would be that the tickets had been used correctly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2022 ==

This is clearly already happening. Catching people repeatedly and/or deliberately travelling without a valid ticket is a very different situation to automatically trying to police whether people get off a train a stop early occasionally. I think most people are pretty on-board with catching deliberate fraudsters.

Buying history is not the same as scan history, and it is the former that is being used in cases we see on this forum.

 

[takno]

My guess is that the scan history for tickets at a station such as Waterloo will reveal very little of use due to the frequency of departures of both fast and slow trains. Similarly, the scan history at Vauxhall will do little to reveal which way the user chose to travel from there. Only combinations of scans at both stations (that is, scans in and then out) would show anything useful, and that would be that the tickets had been used correctly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2022 ==


Buying history is not the same as scan history, and it is the former that is being used in cases we see on this forum.

Fair point. I don't think the scan history is retained for very long anyway, and in most cases, demonstrating that people are buying a ticket every day for a short journey they don't make while not buying a ticket for a long journey they do make should be plenty of evidence.

In principle I'm not tremendously bothered by scan data being used in this way if it was actually useful though. As you observe, what would be useful here would be an unexplained and persistent lack of scans at Vauxhall when the gates were in operation, rather than actual scans at Waterloo.

 

[STINT47]

I cannot see how scan history on it's own would be sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone had commissioned an offence

Of course it can be used to send threatening letters to passengers and get them to agree an out of court settlement to make the issue go away. Some who then pat up will be guilty others will pay to avoid the hassle

 

[Haywain]

I cannot see how scan history on it's own would be sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone had commissioned an offence

I agree.

Of course it can be used to send threatening letters to passengers and get them to agree an out of court settlement to make the issue go away. Some who then pat up will be guilty others will pay to avoid the hassle

Who are these letters going to be sent to? There is no obligation, in most cases, for the buyer of a ticket to be the user. Or do you believe that I should be concerned about how someone I buy a ticket for might use it in case I am threatened with prosecution?

 

[Watershed]

Who are these letters going to be sent to?

The person whose details are on the account.

There is no obligation, in most cases, for the buyer of a ticket to be the user. Or do you believe that I should be concerned about how someone I buy a ticket for might use it in case I am threatened with prosecution?

Of course not. But that doesn't stop TOCs from threatening prosecution, and most recipients of such letters from paying any settlement offered or pleading guilty - because they know that whether they are guilty or not, it's likely to be the least expensive and least risky option.

 

[JonathanH]

Who are these letters going to be sent to? There is no obligation, in most cases, for the buyer of a ticket to be the user. Or do you believe that I should be concerned about how someone I buy a ticket for might use it in case I am threatened with prosecution?

Not much different from driving offences. Someone has the car registered with DVLA. If an offence happens, the letter goes to the registered keeper and they have to notify if they weren't driving.

If the person buying the ticket is different from the person not using the ticket in line with the agreed terms at the time of purchase, they will need to notify the authority as to who was actually travelling. Given one of the terms is not to resell a ticket, you'd imagine that the person using the ticket is almost always known to the purchaser.

 

[bakerstreet]

Given one of the terms is not to resell a ticket, you'd imagine that the person using the ticket is almost always known to the purchaser.

I think this may have changed in a recent update to the conditions and that reselling is now ok unless the original ticket includes the original buyer’s name, or the ticket has been part used, or if you sell it for more than the price you paid.

I’ll try and find the link.

Edit - found it

5. Transfer of Tickets

5.1 A Ticket may be transferred by the person who bought that Ticket to another person, but only if:

5.1.1 the Ticket has not been made out in the passenger's name (which includes where the passenger is identified by a designated Railcard, photocard or other identifying means); and

5.1.2 the journey has not begun (for example, if you intend to transfer a return Ticket you must not have used the outward portion of that return Ticket, or if you intend to transfer a Season Ticket you must not have used it for any journeys already); and

5.1.3 the transfer is not a resale for more than the price paid for the Ticket by the person who first purchased it from a Train Company or a Licensed Retailer.

5.2 A Ticket which is validly transferred remains subject to all the conditions of travel originally

https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/National%20Rail%20Conditions%20of%20Travel.pdf

 

[Watershed]

Not much different from driving offences. Someone has the car registered with DVLA. If an offence happens, the letter goes to the registered keeper and they have to notify if they weren't driving.

Not quite comparable, because there is a specific offence of failing to furnish details of the driver under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act. This offence is usually treated as seriously, if not more so, than any original driving offence.

No such offence exists in relation to holding a train ticket retailer's account and refusing to furnish details of who has used a ticket you bought!

If the person buying the ticket is different from the person not using the ticket in line with the agreed terms at the time of purchase, they will need to notify the authority as to who was actually travelling. Given one of the terms is not to resell a ticket, you'd imagine that the person using the ticket is almost always known to the purchaser.

It is now explicitly permitted to resell or transfer tickets, provided the ticket is not issued to a named party, is completely unused, and no more is paid than the original cost.

Of course, if the account holder were to refuse to state who had been travelling (or claimed it was someone else but could not provide any independent corroboration thereof), it would be down to the TOC whether to prosecute them in the assumption they were travelling. If they were prosecuted, it would fall to the Court to decide whether that defence had sufficient credibility to arouse reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not much different from driving offences. Someone has the car registered with DVLA. If an offence happens, the letter goes to the registered keeper and they have to notify if they weren't driving.

If the person buying the ticket is different from the person not using the ticket in line with the agreed terms at the time of purchase, they will need to notify the authority as to who was actually travelling.

Is there a legal obligation on doing that, the same as there is for driving offences?

 

[bakerstreet]

I think this thread is worth watching in the disputes section.

Surprise Debt Recovery and Prosecution Letter

Hello, About 10 minutes ago I received an email from [email protected] telling me attached is a letter for my attention. The letter is a Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit letter, which I have attached. The letter says that on the 18th March I was “spoken to by an authorised...

www.railforums.co.uk

This could be someone giving someone else’s details to an RPI …. but might it be a case of after-the-event e-ticket database checking, the subject of this thread.

​

 

[AlterEgo]

I think this thread is worth watching in the disputes section.

Surprise Debt Recovery and Prosecution Letter

Hello, About 10 minutes ago I received an email from [email protected] telling me attached is a letter for my attention. The letter is a Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit letter, which I have attached. The letter says that on the 18th March I was “spoken to by an authorised...

www.railforums.co.uk

This could be someone giving someone else’s details to an RPI …. but might it be a case of after-the-event e-ticket database checking, the subject of this thread.

​

This poster received a letter alleging he had been "spoken to by an authorised member of staff". It's not going to be related to some fishing exercise in the database; a clear case of someone else (?) giving false details.

 

[bakerstreet]

This poster received a letter alleging he had been "spoken to by an authorised member of staff". It's not going to be related to some fishing exercise in the database; a clear case of someone else (?) giving false details.

I’m thinking of this possibly

Did you use your railcard on the journey you made? Looking at the fares for Bently to Meadowhall they would all have been subject to the £12 minimum fare for travelling before 10am so if you had applied your railcard discount to them and then travelled before 10am they wouldn't have been valid.

 

[Haywain]

This poster received a letter alleging he had been "spoken to by an authorised member of staff". It's not going to be related to some fishing exercise in the database; a clear case of someone else (?) giving false details.

And if Northern were ‘fishing’ I’m sure there are bigger fish to catch than someone who was, at best, saving under £3 a day. And let’s be very clear, there is absolutely no evidence that the poster in that thread has committed any offence.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 May 2022 ==

I’m thinking of this possibly

The £12 minimum fare is not relevant - the undiscounted fare is only £8.50.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m thinking of this possibly

But they aren't allowed to fish for that sort of data without reasonable cause, and the letter specifically references the addressee having been spoken to by a member of staff at a date and time. The only way the poster could have come to the attention of the TOC is by being spoken to by a member of staff.

.

 

[bakerstreet]

And if Northern were ‘fishing’ I’m sure there are bigger fish to catch than someone who was, at best, saving under £3 a day. And let’s be very clear, there is absolutely no evidence that the poster in that thread has committed any offence.

You are right, there is no evidence, which is my worry about e-tickets. Some TOCs have a history of making such accusations of offence when there is no evidence of any such offence.

 

[Haywain]

You are right, there is no evidence, which is my worry about e-tickets. Some TOCs have a history of making such accusations of offence when there is no evidence of any such offence.

Really, they don’t. And the wonderful irony is that you are making this claim with exactly the same amount of evidence.

 

[bakerstreet]

Really, they don’t. And the wonderful irony is that you are making this claim with exactly the same amount of evidence.

I hope I have not claimed the OP has committed an offence, or that the TOC has for certain made such an accusation, and if it reads that way then I apologise. But this site does have evidence that TOCs do sometimes incorrectly make such accusations.

All I suggested at the outset was

I think this thread is worth watching in the disputes section.

This could be someone giving someone else’s details to an RPI …. but might it be a case of after-the-event e-ticket database checking, the subject of this thread.

And I quoted other parts of an interesting discussion, including the question of if the railcard might have been used in the morning peak which was raised by a global moderator.

 

[AlterEgo]

And I quoted other parts of an interesting discussion, including the question of if the railcard might have been used in the morning park which was raised by a global moderator.

But what evidence is there that this was triggered by some random fishing exercise as purported in this thread?

It's clear that whatever has caused the OP in that thread to receive a letter is linked to a conversation someone had with a member of staff. I don't understand how you believe it's been triggered by a fishing exercise. Not only is there no evidence for that, what evidence we do have actively suggests tat is completely not the case!

 

[bakerstreet]

But what evidence is there that this was triggered by some random fishing exercise as purported in this thread?

It's clear that whatever has caused the OP in that thread to receive a letter is linked to a conversation someone had with a member of staff. I don't understand how you believe it's been triggered by a fishing exercise. Not only is there no evidence for that, what evidence we do have actively suggests tat is completely not the case!

As I say I am merely commenting here about another thread which I found interesting, and I’m thinking about some of the thoughts posed by others within that thread, which I hope is ok to do.

I sincerely hope nothing I’ve written reads anything other than that, and to be clear thoughts posed by others in that thread are being discussed by me but are not being stated by me.

Eg

Which railcard do you use? When you purchase a ticket on Trainline, do you select the train you travel on?

I'm wondering if a report has been made about you using a railcard at an invalid time, they've checked your purchase history and seen it's a frequent thing and used the details they hold on you to contact you here.

… and they’ve then simply issued the wrong type of standard letter. I can see this turning into a bit of a minefield if the OP has a long history of using railcard discounts at the wrong time of day…

Quite a few replies to get through here, thank you all for your contributions.

A lot of you are alluring to the fact I used my 16-25 railcard on a journey that costs less than £12, which I now know is the minimum price of the ticket in order to use my railcard.

I accept this, and I should have been aware of this condition, and I am aware of this now. However as I have mentioned it has never been brought up to me by any conductors who have scanned my ticket and asked to see my railcard before. And as this letter clearly says “you were spoken to”, which I wasn’t, I don’t think it has anything to do with the railcard, and rather that the sentence regarding railcard is just the default template for the letter, as @Haywain said.

Fair question.

If a passenger is issued a Travel Irregularity Report, an address must be given and captured on the reporting system - it won't let you proceed without supplying an address. In this case, contact will always be made via post. However it is possible to submit what is basically a quick report - basically ticket number, train details and brief explanation of events. This can be done after the event - you can save the ticket number of a scanned eticket and use this later in the report - and you don't need to include an address. As this is faster, it can be the case that conductors will (rightly or wrongly) avoid the aggro of bringing issues up with the passenger and taking addresses etc. With an e-ticket, depending on the issue, the company may then request details from the seller. Sometimes these details may only be a name and email address in which case contact will be via email.

The fact that the OP has got an email rather than a letter me believe the report was made via e-ticket details rather than a passenger giving a false name and address. It seems a little too much of a co-incidence that the OP was travelling on a Northern train at the time of report and didn't actually have a valid ticket.


In the same way as the railcard sentence is part of the default template, so is "you were spoken to" - it could just as easily have said "a report has been made regarding" (in fact I believe this was the wording on a previous version of this letter).

 

[miklcct]

I have now thought of a situation which is a concern for me, which is about advance tickets.

One of the situations when I insist on a paper ticket when an e-ticket is available is that, I travel on a multi-leg itinerary which has a "connection" served by both reservable and unreservable trains. The industry position is that I can use any unreservable train for the connection but not any reservable trains, but this is not in any public terms and conditions and this, in my opinion, isn't enforceable because reservability or not isn't shown at the station. Sometimes if I choose my desired itinerary the price will become expensive because the quota on the reservable connecting train has run out, so I choose another unreservable connection but travel on the reservable service instead, based on the fact that no suggested connection is shown in the paper ticket.

My interpretation instead, is that I must travel wholly on all reserved trains shown on the ticket but not any other trains between the points specified, and any reasonable connections, complying with the route shown, if there is no reservation for that particular segment.

For example, I bought a few Woking - Bournemouth Advance tickets last month with the intention to take a train to Exeter and change at Basingstoke, however, by choosing an earlier unreservable suburban train terminating at Basingstoke, the price was much lower. By buying such paper ticket the only train shown was the Basingstoke to Bournemouth leg so, I would interpret it as I could take any reasonable connection from Woking to Basingstoke to catch the reserved train, which a train to Exeter definitely qualified. My ticket, showing only a time from Basingstoke, was checked by a guard on the Exeter train between Woking and Basingstoke and he was good on this, telling me to change at Basingstoke.

If I used an e-ticket instead I'm afraid I might have a problem as I clearly travelled on a different train compared to what's shown on the ticket, and if there's a persistent history of ticket scans on reservable trains holding no reservation on that train on Advance tickets, it would land me on hot water as e-tickets always show the full itinerary in the PDF.

 

[Watershed]

I have now thought of a situation which is a concern for me, which is about advance tickets.

One of the situations when I insist on a paper ticket when an e-ticket is available is that, I travel on a multi-leg itinerary which has a "connection" served by both reservable and unreservable trains. The industry position is that I can use any unreservable train for the connection but not any reservable trains, but this is not in any public terms and conditions and this, in my opinion, isn't enforceable because reservability or not isn't shown at the station. Sometimes if I choose my desired itinerary the price will become expensive because the quota on the reservable connecting train has run out, so I choose another unreservable connection but travel on the reservable service instead, based on the fact that no suggested connection is shown in the paper ticket.

My interpretation instead, is that I must travel wholly on all reserved trains shown on the ticket but not any other trains between the points specified, and any reasonable connections, complying with the route shown, if there is no reservation for that particular segment.

For example, I bought a few Woking - Bournemouth Advance tickets last month with the intention to take a train to Exeter and change at Basingstoke, however, by choosing an earlier unreservable suburban train terminating at Basingstoke, the price was much lower. By buying such paper ticket the only train shown was the Basingstoke to Bournemouth leg so, I would interpret it as I could take any reasonable connection from Woking to Basingstoke to catch the reserved train, which a train to Exeter definitely qualified. My ticket, showing only a time from Basingstoke, was checked by a guard on the Exeter train between Woking and Basingstoke and he was good on this, telling me to change at Basingstoke.

If I used an e-ticket instead I'm afraid I might have a problem as I clearly travelled on a different train compared to what's shown on the ticket, and if there's a persistent history of ticket scans on reservable trains holding no reservation on that train on Advance tickets, it would land me on hot water as e-tickets always show the full itinerary in the PDF.

Yes, this remains one of the advantages of paper tickets. Though some more modern TVMs and TISs even show non-reservable services, so you might have to 'shop around' for a TVM that prints tickets in the way you want.

I remember that VTEC/LNER machines used not to say what the operator restriction was on an Advance. That lead to some 'interesting' outcomes

 

[Haywain]

I remember that VTEC/LNER machines used not to say what the operator restriction was on an Advance.

That was actually the spec for Advance tickets at the time but few Ticket Issuing Systems were sufficiently up to date with the standards to comply. VTEC, however, with a brand new TIS...

 

[bakerstreet]

You may have seen the following update on this thread:

Surprise Debt Recovery and Prosecution Letter

Hello, About 10 minutes ago I received an email from [email protected] telling me attached is a letter for my attention. The letter is a Debt Recovery and Prosecutions Unit letter, which I have attached. The letter says that on the 18th March I was “spoken to by an authorised...

www.railforums.co.uk

and the letter received by the OP and their comments here too.

Thank you for your reply to our correspondence.



We have received an evidential report to advise that your ticket was scanned on the train by one of our conductors on the 18th March 2022 at around 7:30. At this time the conductor advised you that your ticket (ticket number ********) was not valid for travel at that time. This ticket was an Anytime Day Return ticket between Bentley (S. Yorks) and Meadowhall. However, because you have applied your 16-25 Railcard to this ticket it was not valid for travel before 10:00, as per the Railcard terms and conditions. Your details were not taken at the time but I have accessed your account and details through the ticket number. It is also noted that you refused to purchase a replacement ticket from the conductor.



We would like to give you the opportunity to respond with your explanation for this.



Yours Sincerely

————————————

So a lot of you were correct, it was due to me using my 16-25 railcard in the morning before 10am, which I was unaware was not allowed until people on this forum mentioned it. Yes, I realise I should have read the terms and conditions of the railcard before purchasing it - and I will never use it before 10am again.

However, I am still confused as to why they are adamant that the conductor spoke to me, and even said I refused to purchase a replacement ticket.

As I mentioned in the original post, I had received a penalty fare from TPE before for travelling using the wrong ticket, so I would absolutely not have refused to purchase a new ticket had I been given a chance.

This is precisely the type of scenario I am concerned about and why I started this thread.

Assuming that the OPs version of events is sound..

1. They traveled with an e-ticket
2. There was a ticket check on board
3. The e-ticket was scanned and that scan was logged. The ticket was checked by a guard rather than an RPI
4. The passenger ends the journey and goes about their day with no knowledge of any issues
5. After the event, the TOC is busy in the background sourcing the passengers details and ticket history by checking the e-ticket’s data and then reverting to the retailer to find out the passenger’s information
6. All the while, the passenger is in blissful ignorance of the letter they are about to receive which makes worrying accusations that they were spoken to by the guard, that they refused to pay the fare, but none of this happened under caution and no BTP or RPI was called.
7. The evidence the train company offers is the scan data of the e-ticket, putting the passenger in a rather weak position because the scan proves it was used at an incorrect time.
8! The NRCOT suggests that this should not be dealt with by any legal action but by regularising the position by charging the difference.

Is no one else worried about this?

I can’t help thinking that if the pax had been travelling with a paper ticket there would have been a very different outcome. Either

- no action or
- ticket retained and a TIR filled in by the guard but crucially the guard will have had to issue a receipt.

We have all probably had occasions where there is a difference of opinion on the validity of our tickets from time to time. These are best resolved at the time.

I am concerned about this case because, possibly, the ticket was valid (if sold with itinerary for that train) and /or the pax was not spoken to and did not refuse to pay the difference

As the pax was not interviewed under caution and we don’t know if there is a viideo recording of the event, and with all the legal power that the railway has, I think this is a disturbing development.

Hopefully there will be a simple, cheap and fair resolution but I would not want to be dealing with this stress.

We don’t of course know at this stage how the original passenger error was highlighted. Perhaps the guard spotted it at the time and reported it, or can the TOC do an interrogation of the e-ticket data ‘show me all railcard discounted e-ticket scans before 10am’