Emt upfn

[GadgetMan]

I think the main problem here is that UPFNs are being issued in the wrong circumstances.

UPFNs are for when both the passenger and revenue staff agree the passenger has not paid the fare due and is not in a financial position to pay there and then and so is given so many days to pay the debt. A UPFN is issued at the staffs discretion and it is therefore in the interest of the passenger to co-operate. In my company's case we require name, address and DOB. A passenger does not have to provide their DOB, but then equally I don't have to offer them the option of a UPFN. If someone refuses to provide their DOB meaning I can't fully complete a UPFN slip then I will move to a TIR instead.

In routing or other validity disputes where the passenger does not believe they owe the TOC any more money a TIR is the ONLY correct way of dealing with it as that gives both the staff/TOC and passenger time to investigate in more depth later on. In this case there is no reason for the passenger to offer more personal info than legally required as they have nothing to lose as long as they can be 100% sure they are on the right side of the rules.

 

[Mojo]

As an asside to this, how does a company confirm your identity for a UPFN or TIR etc. when they call up 'the office', it all seems to be a very underhand way of findining it out that may infer a lot more authority than is actually available. Is it something as simple as using a national register of some kind?

Depending on the company used, information is based upon a mixture of the unedited electoral register, data from credit referencing agencies and data from previous checks carried out by other rail companies using the service of the checking company (such as Ircas).

 

[Nym]

Depending on the company used, information is based upon a mixture of the unedited electoral register, data from credit referencing agencies and data from previous checks carried out by other rail companies using the service of the checking company (such as Ircas).

So if a credit reference check is being used, would this not be recorded as such, and therefore, require the express concent of the party involved?

Or is it some other form of non-recorded credit check?

 

[Mojo]

Now I'm imagining the thought of a customer being told by an Inspector that he cannot be issued with a Penalty Fare because he has a poor credit score

As far as I'm aware the companies, or at least the one I'm familiar with, merely use the data as a way of checking that the person has some connection with the address he lives at, rather than checking his ability to pay anything.

 

[Nym]

Now I'm imagining the thought of a customer being told by an Inspector that he cannot be issued with a Penalty Fare because he has a poor credit score

As far as I'm aware the companies, or at least the one I'm familiar with, merely use the data as a way of checking that the person has some connection with the address he lives at, rather than checking his ability to pay anything.

Would be fun seeing them trying to PF someone who isn't on the electoral roll and who doesn't have a credit history then... hehe

Or meerly someone who isn't on the electoral roll..

 

[soil]

So if a credit reference check is being used, would this not be recorded as such, and therefore, require the express concent of the party involved?

Or is it some other form of non-recorded credit check?

You can do an identity check credit search. It's recorded, so you can find out they did it, but doesn't show up to those actually checking your credit.

 

[Nym]

You can do an identity check credit search. It's recorded, so you can find out they did it, but doesn't show up to those actually checking your credit.

But does that actually affect your credit score?

 

[Mojo]

Would be fun seeing them trying to PF someone who isn't on the electoral roll and who doesn't have a credit history then... hehe

Or meerly someone who isn't on the electoral roll..

Going by what I've been told, only about 60% of calls ''check out'' as most people aren't found on either of the three data sources.

 

[soil]

But does that actually affect your credit score?

No it does not.

 

[Nym]

If you cant work that out just by looking then there is no hope for you!

Ouch, I have no hope then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No it does not.

Joyful. I dowbt I'd ever show up on any of these 'checks' anyway.

 

[island]

It is indeed very unlikely that the use of an NI number for a TIR, UPFN, PF or Prosicution would be usable... (Ex. ONS Staff)

If it was ever found to violate the DPA 1988 would it then be the case that any such evidence wouldn't be admissable in court?

The NI number probably could not be tendered in evidence, but any suggestion that its recording would cause a case to collapse is fanciful.

So if a credit reference check is being used, would this not be recorded as such, and therefore, require the express concent of the party involved?

Or is it some other form of non-recorded credit check?

Credit reference checks for identity verification are recorded but will not be disclosed other than to the person checked, which apparently is DPA-compliant.

Would be fun seeing them trying to PF someone who isn't on the electoral roll and who doesn't have a credit history then... hehe

Or meerly someone who isn't on the electoral roll..

It is an offence not to register on the electoral roll.

 

[soil]

It is an offence not to register on the electoral roll.

It is not.

It is an offence not to fill in the annual electoral roll canvas, or to knowingly fill it in falsely.

There is no requirement to register per se.

 

[pinguini]

You can register anonymously on the electrol roll anyway - so you may search for someone who is on it, but won't appear as a result.

 

[island]

It is not.

It is an offence not to fill in the annual electoral roll canvas, or to knowingly fill it in falsely.

Same difference.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You can register anonymously on the electrol roll anyway - so you may search for someone who is on it, but won't appear as a result.

I don't think that is correct, or if it is, it is an option only available to persons in sensitive jobs.

You may be thinking of the edited register, on which one can elect not to appear, as it is used for direct marketing and other purposes. Credit reference agencies use the full register so will not be affected by any such election.

 

[sheff1]

In routing or other validity disputes where the passenger does not believe they owe the TOC any more money a TIR is the ONLY correct way of dealing with it as that gives both the staff/TOC and passenger time to investigate in more depth later on.

And if this very simple and easy to understand position was explained to every ticket checker on EMT as part of their training, everyone would be a winner (except those who look forward to reading the next thread about incorrectly issued UPFNs on this forum )

And conversely turning round and telling someone that you know your 'legal rights' and asking someone such a thing will get their back up somewhat.

Which was my point.

And my point was that, if someone holding 100% valid tickets is told they are not valid because 'I say so' and 'I have been in the job for 22 years', then that is likely to to get the ticketholder's back up also.

 

[Ferret]

And if this very simple and easy to understand position was explained to every ticket checker on EMT as part of their training, everyone would be a winner (except those who look forward to reading the next thread about incorrectly issued UPFNs on this forum )

It all comes back to what we said some time ago when RJ was having trouble - there is a significant training issue at EMT that needs to be addressed by them.

 

[michael769]

But does that actually affect your credit score?

There is actually no such thing as a credit score. During a credit check the lender is provided with relevant information no more no less. Some lenders do use points based systems to make decisions (and these are sometimes erroneously referred to as a credit score) but the points are based upon more than just the credit check.

While credit checks (made during the application for a load) are revealed to other lenders, identity checks are not and remain confidential. Even the police cannot obtain this information without a court warrant.

 

[12CSVT]

It's probably not against the law to ask a female traveller her bra size, but I doubt you'd do it.

I think it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, which is illegal.

 

[soil]

I think it could be interpreted as sexual harassment, which is illegal.

Sexual harassment of employees is unlawful in the workplace (civil law - monetary damages possible), but it's not illegal in criminal terms.

 

[island]

Unlawful and illegal are synonyms.

 

[34D]

Sexual harassment of employees is unlawful in the workplace (civil law - monetary damages possible), but it's not illegal in criminal terms.

What about all these people who get arrested for sexual assault and things then?

 

[Mark_H]

What about all these people who get arrested for sexual assault and things then?

Assault would involve some sort of physical contact, whereas harassment is a course of conduct (like consisting making unpleasantly misogynistic jokes in front of someone, for example). I imagine harassment taking place in a public place could sometimes fall into a criminal offense, in much the same way as swearing at someone in the street could, but it's generally a civil matter.

Either way, I think it all falls into a broader category of "things you shouldn't do", if that makes it easier for anyone.

 

[michael769]

Sexual harassment of employees is unlawful in the workplace (civil law - monetary damages possible), but it's not illegal in criminal terms.

It could be a public order offence - and the sexual element would be viewed as an aggravating factor. It would all be dependent on the context of the conversation of course.

Unlawful and illegal are synonyms.

Legally speaking they are slightly different. Illegal means something that is an offence for which you could be prosecuted, whereas unlawful means something that is not permitted by law, but which you cannot be prosecuted for.

Illegal things are always unlawful, but not all unlawful things are illegal.

 

[Flamingo]

Legally speaking they are slightly different. Illegal means something that is an offence for which you could be prosecuted, whereas unlawful means something that is not permitted by law, but which you cannot be prosecuted for.

Illegal things are always unlawful, but not all unlawful things are illegal.

Digressing slightly, can you give an example, Michael? I'd never thought about that concept before, and I can't think of any!

 

[michael769]

Digressing slightly, can you give an example, Michael? I'd never thought about that concept before, and I can't think of any!

Well not paying your debts on time is unlawful (as it a breach of civil law), however is is not illegal - as there is no criminal offence.

 

[tony_mac]

Digressing slightly, can you give an example, Michael? I'd never thought about that concept before, and I can't think of any!

There is trespass, copyright infringement, etc. You could be sued because of your actions, but they are not criminal matters.
Although there often is a criminal offence where aggravating conditions apply, such as making a gain from copyright infringement.

 

[Flamingo]

Ok, I get it now, thanks.

 

[Nym]

Assault would involve some sort of physical contact.<snip>

Sexual assault does not require ANY physical contact...

 

[Mark_H]

Sexual assault does not require ANY physical contact...

Well, yes, there's causing to view etc. I was trying for a simple contrast with harassment though, and so simplified the matter.

 

[reb0118]

Sexual assault does not require ANY physical contact...

My favourite was always "clandestine injury" however, I don't think it is on the statute books any more.