Do TOCs read the Forum?

[ChrisT]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #9 originally in this thread.

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country? The reason I ask is that we have the OP stating, in public, that his partner has admitted to blatant ticket evasion and fraudulent travel. In this day and age it would be simple to have AI flag up a given word or phrase.

Or have I watched too many spy and police dramas?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country? The reason I ask is that we have the OP stating, in public, that his partner has admitted to blatant ticket evasion and fraudulent travel. In this day and age it would be simple to have AI flag up a given word or phrase.

Or have I watched too many spy and police dramas?

Chris Turnbull

We do occasionally hear of responses from train companies which appear to be informed by what has been on this list - but almost without exception, the response is positive and disclosing facts here has done no harm, and may have done good.

(Edit - for completeness, in the original thread I went on to suggest that while this was generally the case, the original thread might be an exception.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country? The reason I ask is that we have the OP stating, in public, that his partner has admitted to blatant ticket evasion and fraudulent travel. In this day and age it would be simple to have AI flag up a given word or phrase.

Or have I watched too many spy and police dramas?

The Forum is certainly read by staff in various parts of the railway, which is why we advise redacting any personal details or reference numbers when posting for advice here.

 

[WesternLancer]

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country? The reason I ask is that we have the OP stating, in public, that his partner has admitted to blatant ticket evasion and fraudulent travel. In this day and age it would be simple to have AI flag up a given word or phrase.

Or have I watched too many spy and police dramas?

Chris Turnbull

Many people come to the forum and admit deliberate fare evasion however.

In this case (and many others) I can't see what difference it would make actually - the railway actually caught the person evading in the sense that they were caught without a ticket at their destination station. I suspect they even admitted to the Inspector they had no ticket. The railway has all the information it needs from that incident to prosecute them if they want to. But the railway seems to have opted not to prosecute them but to make a settlement offer (albeit one requesting a large sum relating to other fares presumed evaded)

This thread is basically about how to try to reduce what is essentially this out of court settlement offer - and all the advice here is how to do that legitimately.

 

[Harpo]

The Forum is certainly read by staff in various parts of the railway, which is why we advise redacting any personal details or reference numbers when posting for advice here.

Given the size of the financial claim this will be a very easily identifiable case to match any self-incriminating facts to.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country?

The forum is read by people in the industry, which is why we recommend that personal details are redacted. It is a public forum and anyone posting here should do so on the basis that it is a public forum and anyone can read it.

However, it's important to consider two things.

Firstly, anything said here is unlikely to be admissible as evidence. It is hearsay, nothing more. It is possible for the TOC to get evidence to show that the person posting is the person suspected of fare evasion but it is time-consuming and expensive, so they're not going to. In this case it really is hearsay: we have someone stating they are the partner of the person suspected of fare evasion and repeating what they say their partner said.

Secondly, the TOC already suspect that the person is evading the payment of their fares. That's why the TOC wrote to them in the first place. Little that can be said here is going to make that situation worse, unless someone really is bone-headed enough to post "LOL the TOC only asked me about five cases, never mentioned the other 56,812 times I did it LOL".


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2025 ==

Given the size of the financial claim this will be a very easily identifiable case to match any self-incriminating facts to.

There are no self-incriminating facts. The poster is the partner of the person suspected of fare evasion. Anything they say is merely hearsay.

 

[Harpo]

There are no self-incriminating facts. The poster is the partner of the person suspected of fare evasion. Anything they say is merely hearsay.

Point taken, in which case delete ‘facts’ and insert ‘potential new information’. My caution about a very easily identifiable case remains.

 

[AlterEgo]

All cases here are easily identifiable to revenue staff. The advice to redact names comes from the fact that you don't want to leave artifacts of your personal information on the internet for fraudsters or, worse, potential employers to see. Be assured if I worked at a prosecution team I could identify with certainty about 90% of the cases posted on the forum.

 

[Tetchytyke]

All cases here are easily identifiable to revenue staff. The advice to redact names comes from the fact that you don't want to leave artifacts of your personal information on the internet for fraudsters or, worse, potential employers to see. Be assured if I worked at a prosecution team I could identify with certainty about 90% of the cases posted on the forum.

I would agree that many cases here will be immediately recognisable to the prosecution staff who issued the letters/emails in the first place. Especially when the letter/email is for a notable amount or arises from more unusual circumstances.

However, if the letters/emails are redacted they can recognise the case but they can't prove it is the same case.

Therefore, there's not much that the prosecution staff can do with such knowledge. They already suspect someone is evading the payment of their fares, which is why they sent the letter/email in the first place. Nothing posted here would be admissible as evidence in any court, or at least it wouldn't be without going to a lot of trouble.

But people posting should remember that it is a public forum and treat it accordingly. Nothing is truly confidential on the internet. I bet someone who was sufficiently determined could find out who I am and where I work within a few minutes tbh.

ETA: maybe they're actually playing 4D chess and the illiteracy in many of these letters is deliberate, in the same way Ordinance Survey used to put deliberate mistakes into their maps to deter copyright theft

 

[ainsworth74]

It is possible for the TOC to get evidence to show that the person posting is the person suspected of fare evasion but it is time-consuming and expensive, so they're not going to.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, if a TOC did come asking us we'd tell them take a long walk off a short pier.

 

[swt_passenger]

ETA: maybe they're actually playing 4D chess and the illiteracy in many of these letters is deliberate, in the same way Ordinance Survey used to put deliberate mistakes into their maps to deter copyright theft

I spotted your deliberate mistake soon enough…

 

[Hadders]

I can assure you that revenue protection management do read this forum.

 

[tatitiliti]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #9 originally in this thread.

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country? The reason I ask is that we have the OP stating, in public, that his partner has admitted to blatant ticket evasion and fraudulent travel. In this day and age it would be simple to have AI flag up a given word or phrase.

Or have I watched too many spy and police dramas?

I think the key point for those posting is not to risk incriminating themselves by mentioning historical instances of fare evasion that the TOC isn’t certain about unless very carefully and skilfully anonymised and with just the right amount of information disclosed for us to help.

 

[johnny_t]

I had a query on here the other week, with regards to Contactless fares between Reading and Gatwick. Basically, the National Rail website was giving the wrong information and various forum members were able to identify why it was giving that wrong information.

The 'online help' from various companies involved didn't grasp the issue or what I was talking about at all, but it was corrected within a day or two, so can only assume that someone, somewhere, had read the thread.

 

[Egg Centric]

And, for the avoidance of doubt, if a TOC did come asking us we'd tell them take a long walk off a short pier.

Sure, although presumably it's possible in theory for a court order to be made you'd obey - correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt you're going to prison to protect the IP address of self confessed fare evaders

 

[styles]

Sure, although presumably it's possible in theory for a court order to be made you'd obey - correct me if I'm wrong but I doubt you're going to prison to protect the IP address of self confessed fare evaders

That would be a court order, executed by a relevant authority e.g. the police, not a request from a TOC.

 

[Egg Centric]

That would be a court order, executed by a relevant authority e.g. the police, not a request from a TOC.

There could in principle be a civil one I think, not Norwich Pharmaceutical order as such but something analogous to it. Or something under the OSA or gawd knows what. I agree these are all very fanciful when TOCs can continue picking off low hanging fruit.

(While maybe for another thread I wonder if once nationalisation is complete the "rump" TOCs will become much more aggressive in civil claims - having nothing to lose - or if the debts are transferred to their successors?)

 

[AlterEgo]

(While maybe for another thread I wonder if once nationalisation is complete the "rump" TOCs will become much more aggressive in civil claims - having nothing to lose - or if the debts are transferred to their successors?)

The debts and liabilities will be transferred to their successors, as is the case with previous TOC changes.

 

[Watershed]

There could in principle be a civil one I think, not Norwich Pharmaceutical order as such but something analogous to it. Or something under the OSA or gawd knows what. I agree these are all very fanciful when TOCs can continue picking off low hanging fruit.

(While maybe for another thread I wonder if once nationalisation is complete the "rump" TOCs will become much more aggressive in civil claims - having nothing to lose - or if the debts are transferred to their successors?)

Even an IP address would not get you very far in identifying a poster in most cases. It would lead the TOC to an ISP in most cases, which would only reveal the identity of the bill payer/subscriber, not the person who actually posted.

 

[Titfield]

I had a query on here the other week, with regards to Contactless fares between Reading and Gatwick. Basically, the National Rail website was giving the wrong information and various forum members were able to identify why it was giving that wrong information.

The 'online help' from various companies involved didn't grasp the issue or what I was talking about at all, but it was corrected within a day or two, so can only assume that someone, somewhere, had read the thread.

and that of course has to be to the good for all concerned: passengers not being mislead and thus potentially being subject to enforcement action, the TOC receiving the correct fare.

I do not believe that either party is prejudiced by the existence of this forum and the advice it gives.

If one distills the advice given on this forum time and time again:

1) Buy Before You Board (admittedly this advice is after the event but the wider this message is spread the better for all concerned)
2) Engage with a TOC if you receive correspondence from them. Burying your head in the sand will just make things worse.
3) How to engage in a way that fairly represents the passengers and also makes the task of the TOC in disposing of the case as easy as possible.
4) Helps reduce the anxiety and stress of those who find themselves subject to an investigation by a TOC.
5) Assists passengers with deciding when to obtain legal advice (which I think we agree is a costly business).
6) Highlights to TOCS the views of experienced forum members and passengers about certain aspects of enforcement action (the harsh or unfair elements but given the legislation the railways work within). If our views encourage TOCS to consider changing the basis on which they charge "avoided fares" (for example anytime singles, not taking into account fares paid) and the level of administration fees then this has to be a good thing.

 

[RobertsN]

Even an IP address would not get you very far in identifying a poster in most cases. It would lead the TOC to an ISP in most cases, which would only reveal the identity of the bill payer/subscriber, not the person who actually posted.

Nowadays with the proliferation of CGNAT (Carrier Grade NAT) it is unlikely to even identify a household.

 

[Egg Centric]

Even an IP address would not get you very far in identifying a poster in most cases. It would lead the TOC to an ISP in most cases, which would only reveal the identity of the bill payer/subscriber, not the person who actually posted.

I think if you can get to a household or workplace you're probably golden for civil burden of proof.

Nowadays with the proliferation of CGNAT (Carrier Grade NAT) it is unlikely to even identify a household.

Sure, although maybe forum will move to IP6. I think more relevant is that the global laughing stock OSA is forcing people to use VPNs now that more and more useful sites are becoming inaccessible. Exactly as predicted by anyone with a brain cell before it was implemented but what can you do...

 

[danielnez1]

About a year or so ago, TIL referenced a poster's own thread on here during a dispute (the poster was digging themselves an even deeper hole at the time). IIRC it was settled out of court in the end.

 

[KirkstallOne]

About a year or so ago, TIL referenced a poster's own thread on here during a dispute (the poster was digging themselves an even deeper hole at the time). IIRC it was settled out of court in the end.

Yes if I recall it was one where the poster was claiming to have captured the guard giving authority to travel on a voice note they happened to be recording at the time. I think TIL were having a bit of a laugh as it was all quite fantastical.

 

[Cantab26]

Yes if I recall it was one where the poster was claiming to have captured the guard giving authority to travel on a voice note they happened to be recording at the time. I think TIL were having a bit of a laugh as it was all quite fantastical.

At Wembley Stadium, if I remember rightly.

 

[andy33gmail]

From what I’ve gathered reading dozens of the prosecution threads; many people do a much more thorough job self-incriminating by means of their order history than they could possibly achieve by means of posting here

 

[styles]

About a year or so ago, TIL referenced a poster's own thread on here during a dispute (the poster was digging themselves an even deeper hole at the time). IIRC it was settled out of court in the end.

I've just read all 10 pages of that thread

Absolutely wild, with TIL actually calling OP out on potential perjury if they continue their line of defence and allegations online and in court.

We never actually got an update on their girlfriend's case which they seemed happy to let go to court despite settling with TIL in their own case.

The voice note never materialised despite multiple posters asking for a transcript. Very suspicious!

 

[Egg Centric]

The voice note never materialised despite multiple posters asking for a transcript. Very suspicious!

I think it was posted for a short while, although I never got to hear it. If I'm remembering correctly (this might just have been a beautiful dream), it didn't impress those who did.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I spotted your deliberate mistake soon enough…

To quote Jeremy Clarkson of old: "And on that bombshell..."

 

[yorkie]

Can I ask, please, if anyone knows if this thread (or any other) is monitored by the authorities, say BTP or Cross Country?

Absolutely, the forum has amongst its readers staff at BTP and Cross Country; I would be surprised if anyone doubted that.