Data about 'fare evaders'

[ForTheLoveOf]

A few questions about 'fare evaders' for those with relevant experience/knowledge: (this is unrelated to any specific post)

1) How do RPIs validate names and addresses provided by 'fare evaders'? I have heard of various 'databases' being referred to - are these things like the electoral register, or credit records, or internal TOC/industry-wide records? What happens if the 'evader' happens to (or at least claims to) live abroad - are such addresses not validated or questioned?

2) Do TOCs share data about 'fare evaders' (be it those who have been PF'd, settled out of court or convicted) between different industry groups? E.g. I would imagine Arriva shares data within itself so a known XC 'evader' would be identified easily by a Northern or ATW database, but would FirstGroup, Stagecoach, Abellio or Govia have access to this?

3) How long do TOCs keep data about known 'evaders'? I have heard rumours of 6 years - no idea if this is an industry standard or just the policy with some TOCs/groups.

4) Do ticket offices record and share data about season ticket holders, within the TOC and/or within the rail industry? AFAIK they only have names (possibly a copy of the photocard image though I don't remember anyone ever making a copy of mine). So, for example, if they were looking for a Joe Bloggs from Sometown (who has/had a season ticket), would they easily be able to find details of any ticket but under his photocard/name?

These questions are purely for information - I always have a valid ticket on my journeys and have so much ID on me (and identifiable clothing!) that I'd have a very hard time indeed escaping an RPI haha...

 

[matt_world2004]

A few questions about 'fare evaders' for those with relevant experience/knowledge: (this is unrelated to any specific post)

1) How do RPIs validate names and addresses provided by 'fare evaders'? I have heard of various 'databases' being referred to - are these things like the electoral register, or credit records, or internal TOC/industry-wide records? What happens if the 'evader' happens to (or at least claims to) live abroad - are such addresses not validated or questioned?

2) Do TOCs share data about 'fare evaders' (be it those who have been PF'd, settled out of court or convicted) between different industry groups? E.g. I would imagine Arriva shares data within itself so a known XC 'evader' would be identified easily by a Northern or ATW database, but would FirstGroup, Stagecoach, Abellio or Govia have access to this?

3) How long do TOCs keep data about known 'evaders'? I have heard rumours of 6 years - no idea if this is an industry standard or just the policy with some TOCs/groups.

4) Do ticket offices record and share data about season ticket holders, within the TOC and/or within the rail industry? AFAIK they only have names (possibly a copy of the photocard image though I don't remember anyone ever making a copy of mine). So, for example, if they were looking for a Joe Bloggs from Sometown (who has/had a season ticket), would they easily be able to find details of any ticket but under his photocard/name?

These questions are purely for information - I always have a valid ticket on my journeys and have so much ID on me (and identifiable clothing!) that I'd have a very hard time indeed escaping an RPI haha...

1.)Electorial register cant answer the other question

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

1.)Electorial register cant answer the other question

What happens when, for whatever reason, someone isn't on the electoral register - if they're too young or just haven't registered themselves? Or alternatively, live abroad?

 

[cuccir]

What happens when, for whatever reason, someone isn't on the electoral register - if they're too young or just haven't registered themselves? Or alternatively, live abroad?

The 'in the moment check' isn't and can't be definitive. It's a quick way of checking a large percentage of people's addresses accurately, but won't capture all, for a wide range of reasons.

If someone's address does not match any records that the TOC can access, the RPI can chose to believe the person's address, or they can chose to pass it on to the prosecution team to investigate. That investigation will sometimes of course find that the person was telling the truth.

 

[trentside]

4) Do ticket offices record and share data about season ticket holders, within the TOC and/or within the rail industry? AFAIK they only have names (possibly a copy of the photocard image though I don't remember anyone ever making a copy of mine). So, for example, if they were looking for a Joe Bloggs from Sometown (who has/had a season ticket), would they easily be able to find details of any ticket but under his photocard/name?

For weekly seasons, only the photocard number and name are entered and I don’t believe these are retained other than in print on the ticket. For monthly or longer seasons these are entered into the season ticket database which does include name and adddress details. As far as I’m aware this data is only used for the purpose of season tickets (e.g. lost, stolen, replacements) and is not shared.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

For weekly seasons, only the photocard number and name are entered and I don’t believe these are retained other than in print on the ticket. For monthly or longer seasons these are entered into the season ticket database which does include name and adddress details. As far as I’m aware this data is only used for the purpose of season tickets (e.g. lost, stolen, replacements) and is not shared.

Thanks. Anyone have any idea about the other 2 questions?

 

[Mojo]

1.)Electorial register cant answer the other question

What happens when, for whatever reason, someone isn't on the electoral register - if they're too young or just haven't registered themselves? Or alternatively, live abroad?

It isn't just the electoral register; I don't know the minutiae of how it works, but it is similar to a credit referencing database in that it has details compiled from the electoral register, credit, etc. In my experience of having done it, the names and addresses only occasionally check out but you just have to take people's words for it. On one exercise I was unable to verify an address but it was supported by the police and a PCSO was able to verify the details via their systems.

2) Do TOCs share data about 'fare evaders' (be it those who have been PF'd, settled out of court or convicted) between different industry groups? E.g. I would imagine Arriva shares data within itself so a known XC 'evader' would be identified easily by a Northern or ATW database, but would FirstGroup, Stagecoach, Abellio or Govia have access to this?

It depends on how they are set up and what company they use. For example at the time I was doing the role we verified and submitted via Ircas and thus any previous "run-ins" with other operators who use Ircas for Penalty fares/Verification/UPFNs would show up.

 

[matt_world2004]

Anyone know what safeguards there are on preventing misuse. For example people checking up on ex partners etc

 

[_toommm_]

Anyone know what safeguards there are on preventing misuse. For example people checking up on ex partners etc

I'm not in the industry, but I can imagine with such sensitive data literally being in people's hands, that the searches are either monitored by an office somewhere (as browsing history is monitored in a company). They're probably also made to sign a waiver to say that they'll only use the data for the purpose of the job, and regardless, it would be gross misconduct to do something like that and it could potentially lead to a prosecution (ironically) for a breack of the Data Protection Act

 

[Clip]

Anyone know what safeguards there are on preventing misuse. For example people checking up on ex partners etc

In what way? Rpis are only looking to confirm the name and address match at that time and that can be done by just about anyone I would've thought

 

[gray1404]

When I have been travelling on Merseyrail and seen people get issued with penalty fares, when the details given cannot be verified they just seem to proceed to issue the penalty fare anyway and it doesn't seem to make any difference.

 

[island]

Anyone know what safeguards there are on preventing misuse. For example people checking up on ex partners etc

I expect it works the same as any other industry where one has access to that type of data, such as law enforcement or banking – checks are logged against the user, and anyone found to make improper use of the databases is liable to disciplinary action.

 

[Haywain]

I expect it works the same as any other industry where one has access to that type of data, such as law enforcement or banking – checks are logged against the user, and anyone found to make improper use of the databases is liable to disciplinary action.

Any such check should directly relate to either the issue of a PFN/UFN or someone being reported for investigation. It would be pretty easy to trace any checks that do not relate to those processes.

 

[mallard]

With the possible exception of some aspects of question 1 (identifying sources of data), I'm fairly sure that the answers to all these questions are required to be public under the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

If it's not covered under the DPA, it's almost certainly covered by the GDPR (coming into force in May).

 

[causton]

When you call the Helpdesk to verify a name and address you tell them what you are issuing - the Penalty Fare number - and are given a reference if the name and address both match - so it would be hard to abuse the system. You also have to give a password to access the system so they can identify who you are so it is all logged.

As Mojo says, it rarely happens that people are actually registered, and then we have three options: to let them off, to give them a PF that no doubt will never be paid as the address is probably incorrect, or to call up the BTP. Last time I did the latter option, they said they can't verify addresses as it is purely revenue based (which I am sure is not true!) but they arrested the person after running their own checks on the person - so I was pleased enough!

No idea what specific databases they use though.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

With the possible exception of some aspects of question 1 (identifying sources of data), I'm fairly sure that the answers to all these questions are required to be public under the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

If it's not covered under the DPA, it's almost certainly covered by the GDPR (coming into force in May).

I find that, unfortunately, TOCs and many other organisations straddling the gap between public and private and with the means to prosecute, typically hide behind the 'administration of justice' or 'permitted by enactment' exemptions. Thereby justifying retaining passenger data until such time as they feel fit (a decade, possibly forever), rather than a fairer time period of perhaps 2 or 3 years.

Also, until such time as they actually obtain someone's personal data, as none of the TOCs are currently FoIA-able, they don't have to supply a statement explaining how they process fare evaders' personal data.

I appreciate that fare evaders are a drain on TOCs and on honest fare-payers like me and, I'm sure, everyone else on this forum, but it's hardly the crime of the century, justifying limitless infringements of personal privacy.

 

[island]

As Mojo says, it rarely happens that people are actually registered, and then we have three options: to let them off, to give them a PF that no doubt will never be paid as the address is probably incorrect, or to call up the BTP. Last time I did the latter option, they said they can't verify addresses as it is purely revenue based (which I am sure is not true!) but they arrested the person after running their own checks on the person - so I was pleased enough!

No idea what specific databases they use though.

I’m surprised you got the BTP to turn up!

 

[najaB]

justifying limitless infringements of personal privacy.

Do you have evidence to back up this statement?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Do you have evidence to back up this statement?

I was perhaps exaggerating somewhat, but, even as a fare-paying passenger, I don't find it right for private TOCs to keep (and possibly misuse) personal data about "fare evaders", especially those who have 'merely' received a Penalty Fare rather than settled out of Court or been convicted, for years on end. Some publications I have read suggested that this information is kept for 6 years, elsewhere I have found only wooly information suggesting that it is held indefinitely. I don't think, for example, that someone leaving university, of perhaps 21, should still be on a record for having a Penalty Fare issued when they were 14 or 15, at a moment of teenage stupidity, and that they should therefore be perhaps prosecuted rather than PF'd when next 'caught' making a potentially easy-to-make mistake.

The lack of oversight and control by the DfT in respect of these matters is worrying IMO, as the Information Commissioner's Office is too underfunded to care about something like this. They are busy enough dealing with major incidents and offenders to investigate the murky waters of TOC data sharing.