Those Caught With Fraudulent, Altered Railcards

[AlterEgo]

I suppose they have the cheap option of the arbitrary £100 or £150 administrative fee, and there is nothing to say can't choose different amount eg £250 as example as part of optional settlement offer

Well there is, they can't demand any amount at all - it has to be rooted somewhere in the costs they have expended in processing the case.

 

[Krokodil]

What makes you think it is happening then?

It is certainly happening, a few examples of altered digital railcards have been circulated

 

[AlterEgo]

It is certainly happening, a few examples of altered digital railcards have been circulated

And these people aren’t otherwise entitled? We know people are faking railcards but that’s because they “pass” for the age.

 

[Krokodil]

And these people aren’t otherwise entitled? We know people are faking railcards but that’s because they “pass” for the age.

Well in addition to the forged railcards, I mentioned earlier the man who clearly wasn't 17 and had obtained a 16-17 saver. It's pretty likely that some people have decided to combine the two.

 

[Starmill]

Well in addition to the forged railcards, I mentioned earlier the man who clearly wasn't 17 and had obtained a 16-17 saver. It's pretty likely that some people have decided to combine the two.

The difficulty is that someone can only be convicted of travelling without a valid ticket / failing to show a ticket or trying to avoid paying for their journey, if there's some kind of evidence of them actually travelling. Generally this will need to be provided via a witness testimony of a suitably trained person who stopped the traveller on the train or after they'd left a train.

If the person has only been stopped once, it's an enormous amount of work to prove the guilt of the same person in relation to journeys where they weren't stopped, unless they plead guilty obviously. It's not impossible but it's difficult. That's why usually the case will either be settled, or a straightforward and easy conviction under the Byelaw for one journey will be the result.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well in addition to the forged railcards, I mentioned earlier the man who clearly wasn't 17 and had obtained a 16-17 saver.

...but that wasn't fraudulent or altered, it was an original one.

 

[Krokodil]

...but that wasn't fraudulent or altered, it was an original one.

Take a look at the sentence you didn't quote.

 

[AlterEgo]

Take a look at the sentence you didn't quote.

It's still got nothing to do with forged or altered railcards.

You either get someone else's railcard and alter/photoshop it, or you obtain a genuine railcard dishonestly using a known exploit, as happened with the 16-17 saver. Why would you combine both? That's like stealing a real £50 note off someone and then defacing it.

 

[Krokodil]

It's still got nothing to do with forged or altered railcards.

You either get someone else's railcard and alter/photoshop it, or you obtain a genuine railcard dishonestly using a known exploit, as happened with the 16-17 saver. Why would you combine both? That's like stealing a real £50 note off someone and then defacing it.

I'm not sure exactly what you think that you are trying to prove here. Are you saying that no one would ever obtain a screenshot of a railcard that they wouldn't be entitled to and doctor it?

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure exactly what you think that you are trying to prove here. Are you saying that no one would ever obtain a screenshot of a railcard that they wouldn't be entitled to and doctor it?

You’re trying to suggest the man who found the exploit to get himself a “legit” 16-17 Saver then forwards his railcard to other people to photoshop?

There’s a reason someone who is obviously not 17 is using a “legit” railcard they paid £30 for - that when examined, they can demonstrate it’s a “real” railcard.

You say that it is “certainly” happening (that people are using forged railcards they don’t “pass” for), but can’t show any examples where it has, not even a personal anecdote.

 

[Krokodil]

You’re trying to suggest the man who found the exploit to get himself a “legit” 16-17 Saver then forwards his railcard to other people to photoshop?

No, it doesn't have to be the same bloke. Could be someone who legitimately holds a given railcard (without lying about their age).

You say that it is “certainly” happening (that people are using forged railcards they don’t “pass” for), but can’t show any examples where it has, not even a personal anecdote.

I've seen the example forged railcards, but as I didn't meet the individuals who possessed them I can't say how old they really were.

Are you saying that it never happens, anywhere in the country? I know which statement is more likely to be true.

Talking of forgeries though, there was a man using a passport wrapped with a cover designed to imitate the Ukrainian ones in order to get free travel where it's offered.

 

[SWT_USER]

The driving license number trick to get a Railcard you wouldn't be entitled to must be fairly common (as it's well known), and must also be very difficult to detect as the Railcard itself is legitimate.

I've not seen any forum posts from members caught this way - obviously anecdotal but this section of the forum is fairly busy.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The driving license number trick to get a Railcard you wouldn't be entitled to must be fairly common (as it's well known), and must also be very difficult to detect as the Railcard itself is legitimate.

A made-up DVLA licence number which appears to "confirm" the applicant's surname and date of birth?

 

[SWT_USER]

A made-up DVLA licence number which appears to "confirm" the applicant's surname and date of birth?

Yes exactly - so a fraudulently obtained but genuine Railcard.

 

[island]

The "what's your date of birth" test can catch some of those out

 

[SWT_USER]

The "what's your date of birth" test can catch some of those out

Maybe.. but in practice no one is going to look twice at a genuine Railcard (with the possible exception of 16-17 saver).

 

[Egg Centric]

The driving license number trick to get a Railcard you wouldn't be entitled to must be fairly common (as it's well known), and must also be very difficult to detect as the Railcard itself is legitimate.

I've not seen any forum posts from members caught this way - obviously anecdotal but this section of the forum is fairly busy.

If the RDG is being sensible and acting like the power thirstier of their members they'll be waiting for a while for enough fraudulent applications before matching these up with payment records and electoral roll in a massive fishing exercise. Why else would they not have patched this?

Anyone dishonest reading this thread and finding out about the above trick for the first time would be well advised to bear at least the possibility of this in mind before you consider trying it...

 

[SWT_USER]

If the RDG is being sensible and acting like the power thirstier of their members they'll be waiting for a while for enough fraudulent applications before matching these up with payment records and electoral roll in a massive fishing exercise. Why else would they not have patched this?

Anyone dishonest reading this thread and finding out about the above trick for the first time would be well advised to bear at least the possibility of this in mind before you consider trying it...

The method was published in a national newspaper five years ago! They've had quite a while to do something about it.

I guess short of manually verifying the driving license there isn't much you can do.

 

[185]

There's no point needlessly criminalising people with serious convictions such as fraud over a simple offence like changing the expiry date on a Railcard. If it's a much more major offence then it can be referred to the police who can look to investigate for fraud offences.

Surely it's fraud with intent - Anything from £100 to £1000s per year. One recent one showed two years of Job Centre Plus 50% discounts with a lost revenue amount of almost £4,000. Bordering on prison time for amounts like that. I say making press releases at the time of convictions is key to deter others, with station posters also being a useful place to discourage others with case details.

 

[Egg Centric]

I guess short of manually verifying the driving license there isn't much you can do.

There are loads of plug-in identity verification services that basically get the user to take a selfie with the driving licence that would work adequately for this, with manual backup for weird cases.

Anyway for detecting fraud as a fishing exercise a quick match against electoral roll should be lucrative enough to be worth doing if more than a handful have actually done this.

 

[island]

Anyway for detecting fraud as a fishing exercise a quick match against electoral roll should be lucrative enough to be worth doing if more than a handful have actually done this.

How would electoral roll data assist here? It doesn’t have dates of birth on. And despite it being essentially obligatory to register, many people don’t, or don’t keep their registrations up to date.

 

[Egg Centric]

How would electoral roll data assist here? It doesn’t have dates of birth on. And despite it being essentially obligatory to register, many people don’t, or don’t keep their registrations up to date.

Odd, I assumed DOB would be on it since you provide it when applying/renewing registration. Some other source can be used then.

The idea wouldn't be to detect all fraudsters, all you would need is to detect people who are a perfect match except that they have provided an incorrect DOB (and I bet in many cases the DOB will be out just on the year or will have changed every year they applied). It doesn't have to be clever or have a high detection rate if this fraud has been widespread.

 

[SWT_USER]

How would electoral roll data assist here? It doesn’t have dates of birth on. And despite it being essentially obligatory to register, many people don’t, or don’t keep their registrations up to date.

Electoral roll data assumes people would give their real names too - which if you're signing up to something fraudulently you probably wouldn't do.

I would imagine this sits on the too difficult pile for the fraud depts. You can't just run a report like the fraudulent delay repay cases and see who is claiming more than average and go after them

Maybe this particular revenue loss is just not significant enough to go after.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a reminder that this thread is for discussion of the issues surrounding those caught with Fraudulent, Altered Railcards.

thanks

 

[Sonic1234]

Maybe this particular revenue loss is just not significant enough to go after.

Or even potentially increasing revenue - as is the whole point of Railcards in the first place.