Requesting GDPR Right to be Forgotten from a TOC

[Dai Corner]

The likelihood of mischief is very small but that notwithstanding, there is the right to have the data deleted.

Or even the requirement to delete the data.

 

[gray1404]

It is also questionable if it was reasonable for LNER to ask for the personal data in the first place. Had I have been in that situation I would have felt they were holding a gun to my head, provide a copy of photographic ID or we will take you to court potentially. A statement made by the person concerned it was not them stopped should have been enough.

 

[Wallsendmag]

It is also questionable if it was reasonable for LNER to ask for the personal data in the first place. Has I have been in that situation I would have felt they were holding a gun to my head, provided with a copy of photographic ID or we will take you to court potentially. A statement made by the person concerned but it was not them stopped should have been enough.

You must be joking? It was, here's a quick and eay way to prove we've got the wrong person. How would you have addressed the same situation? LNER takes GDPR very seriously I can assure you.

 

[Haywain]

A statement made by the person concerned it was not them stopped should have been enough.

So anybody stopped simply waits for a letter and replies saying "it wasn't me"? You're just being silly.

 

[Gonzoiku]

It is also questionable if it was reasonable for LNER to ask for the personal data in the first place. Had I have been in that situation I would have felt they were holding a gun to my head, provide a copy of photographic ID or we will take you to court potentially. A statement made by the person concerned it was not them stopped should have been enough.

While i agree that a scan of a passport or driving licence proves little in respect of the holder not having evaded the train fare, don't lose sight of the fact that mere possession of a passport does prove that the identity of the holder has been established when the passport was issued. Unlike the identity of the fare evader. Perhaps that is the only intent of the policy.

GZ

 

[Gloster]

The likelihood of misuse is small, but it can cause enormous problems. A friend’s sister (not the brightest of women) was one of a number of people who suffered when a clerk at a mortgage brokers stole confidential information and tried to obtain loans. The plot fell through before she lost any money and the intended perpetrator did a runner, but she still had a lot of work to sort things out. And for another friend it took more than six years for one of the clearing banks to accept that an error that cost him around £500 was their fault: most people would have given up.

Some people have lost enormous sums, including all their savings, due to such frauds. Most do seem to be extremely gullible or greedy, or maybe the ones who were stupid just once are to embarrassed to go public.

 

[Cloud Strife]

It is also questionable if it was reasonable for LNER to ask for the personal data in the first place. Had I have been in that situation I would have felt they were holding a gun to my head, provide a copy of photographic ID or we will take you to court potentially. A statement made by the person concerned it was not them stopped should have been enough.

In this situation, I would propose that LNER appoint a local representative to examine my ID and declare whether it matches the person of interest to them. Any solicitor would be more than happy to perform such a service for instance, and it doesn't involve LNER receiving or processing my personal data.

People are way, way too quick to hand over their ID in general.

 

[Dai Corner]

In this situation, I would propose that LNER appoint a local representative to examine my ID and declare whether it matches the person of interest to them. Any solicitor would be more than happy to perform such a service for instance, and it doesn't involve LNER receiving or processing my personal data.

People are way, way too quick to hand over their ID in general.

I dare say they'd accept that, but expect you to pay the solicitor's fees. The solicitor would be under the same data protection obligations as LNER.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I dare say they'd accept that, but expect you to pay the solicitor's fees. The solicitor would be under the same data protection obligations as LNER.

In that case, I'd invite them to proceed to court in the absence of any agreement. There is absolutely no obligation to share your personal data with a company, and the courts are unlikely to look favourably at such a demand by companies without presenting an alternative.

Of course, they can also agree to a video call.

 

[35B]

In that case, I'd invite them to proceed to court in the absence of any agreement. There is absolutely no obligation to share your personal data with a company, and the courts are unlikely to look favourably at such a demand by companies without presenting an alternative.

Of course, they can also agree to a video call.

I suggest that they're more likely to look very unfavourably on a defendant's refusal to engage with the operator's reasonable request to provide something that would allow them to be excluded from enquiries. The train company has offered an option to allow a resolution, and one that is entirely compliant with data protection law.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I suggest that they're more likely to look very unfavourably on a defendant's refusal to engage with the operator's reasonable request to provide something that would allow them to be excluded from enquiries. The train company has offered an option to allow a resolution, and one that is entirely compliant with data protection law.

I'd think the opposite about the court. But I really value my time more than going to court, so presenting ID is the most sensible course of action.

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

In this situation, I would propose that LNER appoint a local representative to examine my ID and declare whether it matches the person of interest to them. Any solicitor would be more than happy to perform such a service for instance, and it doesn't involve LNER receiving or processing my personal data.

People are way, way too quick to hand over their ID in general.

You could do that. But you'd have to pay the solicitor. And they then have your ID instead of the TOC. Not sure that's progress.

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

The likelihood of misuse is small, but it can cause enormous problems. A friend’s sister (not the brightest of women) was one of a number of people who suffered when a clerk at a mortgage brokers stole confidential information and tried to obtain loans. The plot fell through before she lost any money and the intended perpetrator did a runner, but she still had a lot of work to sort things out. And for another friend it took more than six years for one of the clearing banks to accept that an error that cost him around £500 was their fault: most people would have given up.

Some people have lost enormous sums, including all their savings, due to such frauds. Most do seem to be extremely gullible or greedy, or maybe the ones who were stupid just once are to embarrassed to go public.

I once had my ID used fraudulently to open a catalogue account. They deleted the details afterwards, but the criminals didn't. So they used them again to open another account! I then had to prove again. They deleted the details. The criminals didn't...round & round we went.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I suggest that they're more likely to look very unfavourably on a defendant's refusal to engage with the operator's reasonable request to provide something that would allow them to be excluded from enquiries. The train company has offered an option to allow a resolution, and one that is entirely compliant with data protection law.

On the contrary. They have no evidence that the person committed the crime in question, and the person says it wasn't them. As long as a defendant offers a reasonable solution, such as a video call where they hold up their ID or getting a trusted third party to verify they are who they are they are, the court isn't going to look favourably on the TOC. There are very, very legitimate reasons not to send a copy of your ID to a private company with which you have no business.

The court would never, ever want to be in a position where a private company can legally demand ID from someone on threat of prosecuting them otherwise. Can you imagine the newspaper headlines?

You could do that. But you'd have to pay the solicitor. And they then have your ID instead of the TOC. Not sure that's progress.

If they want the ID, they can pay.

 

[35B]

On the contrary. They have no evidence that the person committed the crime in question, and the person says it wasn't them. As long as a defendant offers a reasonable solution, such as a video call where they hold up their ID or getting a trusted third party to verify they are who they are they are, the court isn't going to look favourably on the TOC. There are very, very legitimate reasons not to send a copy of your ID to a private company with which you have no business.

The court would never, ever want to be in a position where a private company can legally demand ID from someone on threat of prosecuting them otherwise. Can you imagine the newspaper headlines?

If they want the ID, they can pay.

All of which ignores the minor reality that both parties have an interest in getting this right, and minimising the cost and friction of doing so. The company has evidence (the name and address provided) that it is this person, which is being challenged, and has offered a means by which they can confirm identity which most would consider reasonable. That includes the question of how the ID is paid for - if offered a low cost means such as in this scenario, then I can't see why it's reasonable to impose a significantly higher cost on them - and I'd be surprised if the Mags would.

That is a long way short of the contention that "a private company can legally demand ID from someone on threat of prosecuting them otherwise".

 

[Haywain]

If they want the ID, they can pay.

You want the solicitor, you pay.

 

[skyhigh]

They have no evidence that the person committed the crime in question

Well they have a name and address they've verified as valid. That would be enough to convict...

 

[AlterEgo]

Well they have a name and address they've verified as valid. That would be enough to convict...

Yes, this is the reality of processes like the SJPN, which do not even require either party to attend. It is absolutely imperfect, and not good at all, but it is the reality of where we are.