Fraudulent Trainline Refunds

[Energy]

Yes, of course, no worries at all! Just didn't want any confusion for anyone reading later who may not have come across the terms in this context.

No problem, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

"Phishing" is usually when scammers attempt to trick or manipulate (online) users into doing 'the wrong thing', such as clicking a bad link that will download malware, or direct them to a dodgy website, particularly in order to obtain confidential information.

"Fishing trip" or "Fishing expedition" is usually a search or investigation undertaken by an investigator with the hope of discovering or gathering information, including that which could be used for a later prosecution, but with no real evidence, beforehand, of any actual wrongdoing, just a vague suspicion.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

It’s not like I buy open return tickets everyday then refund them. 12 refunds in a year is what I made, and there were used tickets in between them so it’s not really habitual, is it? I only refunded the tickets I didn’t use one leg of.

And that is the reason why it is being flagged. Whilst it's wrong to presume, TL are actively looking for this sort of activity to send out to TOCs for further investigation.

They are presuming that you are using all the return tickets, and refunding them as they haven't been scanned. This kind of activity is widespread at the moment and WMT now have a specific team to combat it.

Now there is nothing wrong in what you are doing, and you should inform WMT of what you do and why, just don't be surprised if RPIs start boarding your trains or doing ticket blocks at your stations.

 

[robbeech]

this response from them seems very threatening and full of scare tactics, surely shouldn't an initial e mail be more , calm and mentioning a concern has been flagged and asking for a response rather than mentioning offering bank details to pay and mentioning police ?

Fully agreed. Treating their passengers guilty until proven innocent.

This IS the railway. This is absolutely standard behaviour. Guilty until proven innocent, and then if they can still get away with it, guilty anyway.


One of the key issues here is people fraudulently refunding tickets after they’ve used them is rife. It’s something operators and retailers are cracking down on and MUST continue to crack down on. It’s costing the industry (in most cases the tax payer) millions a of pounds per year. Unfortunately there will be cases where no wrongdoing has occurred but the circumstances contain an abundance of red flags so innocent passengers get caught up in it all.

Yes, it’s frankly appalling to default to treating passengers like absolute dirt when you’ve no evidence they’ve done anything wrong but this is the railway, it’s how the railway treats its passengers.

My advice is similar to many others on here. It comes in 2 parts.

Firstly. Do some calculations. Make sure that you have absolutely never used a ticket or part of ticket that you have refunded, even once. Maybe add up the refunds you’ve got and see if that equals the difference between the appropriate single and return fare (less admin fee). If there’s a discrepancy here then be prepared for more trouble, if not there should be no further issues.

Secondly, don’t respond, for now at least. They’ve given you two options, guilty or guilty, neither of these apply so there’s nothing to respond to.

 

[Starmill]

you should inform WMT of what you do and why

Why? Doing so comes with a number of downsides, and no upsides!

Should a defence at Court be necessary in the future, the prosecution can't deploy the argument that the defence has only been mentioned at Court if they can't point to a previous communication about what later becomes an alleged offence. There is also a risk of revealing a piece of unrelated information which is later fallaciously used as part of the prosecution's argument.

If WMT believe the customer is guilty, they should file for the charge. If they don't, they have no right to receive any reply.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Why? Doing so comes with a number of downsides, and no upsides!

Should a defence at Court be necessary in the future, the prosecution can't deploy the argument that the defence has only been mentioned at Court if they can't point to a previous communication about what later becomes an alleged offence. There is also a risk of revealing a piece of unrelated information which is later fallaciously used as part of the prosecution's argument.

If WMT believe the customer is guilty, they should file for the charge. If they don't, they have no right to receive any reply.

I know the general consensus on here is to never respond to these emails, but if the OP has never refunded a used return portion then they have nothing to fear. Stating that they purchase return tickets and only occasionally use the return portion isn't that unheard of and the case will likely be dropped. The only intel has come from Trainline, not internally. There's no chance of incriminating themselves as they haven't don't anything wrong.

By not responding, the Digital Fraud team will likely escalate the case, that is what they are there to do (alongside prosecutions), the OP will become someone of interest and their accounts will continue to be scrutinised in future, which shouldn't and doesn't need to happen.

We've seen many on here who have committed such acts who are rightly told to not respond as they will unfortunately give themselves in, likely by oversharing, but this isn't one of those cases.

My personal opinion would be to inform and end it now.

 

[AlterEgo]

I know the general consensus on here is to never respond to these emails, but if the OP has never refunded a used return portion then they have nothing to fear.

Yes, that’s because there is no evidence of reuse, so:

Stating that they purchase return tickets and only occasionally use the return portion isn't that unheard of and the case will likely be dropped. The only intel has come from Trainline, not internally. There's no chance of incriminating themselves as they haven't don't anything wrong.

…no! Hopelessly naive. don’t respond to a fishing allegation where no evidence is put to you. No comment. The believability of the OP’s explanation hinges on factors unknown to us. Do not respond to allegations where there is no evidence put to you.

By not responding, the Digital Fraud team will likely escalate the case, that is what they are there to do (alongside prosecutions), the OP will become someone of interest and their accounts will continue to be scrutinised in future, which shouldn't and doesn't need to happen.

Not at all - the OP simply ceases doing business with that account and make their purchases elsewhere, and the allegations fizzle out, because as you’ve worked out, they have no evidence and have no prospect of collecting any.

 

[Starmill]

There's no chance of incriminating themselves as they haven't don't anything wrong.

Unhappily, there's every possibility of unwittingly giving the prosecution something to work with, guilty or no.

 

[setdown]

As a thought exercise, to protect yourself from this, can't you just:

1) sign up to Trainline with a made-up email. I just tried it and there wasn't any verification required, no phone or address required either.
2) buy a prepaid Mastercard with cash (such as Vanilla), and use this for payments. This one specifically has a limit of £40 for online payments, but I'm sure there'll be other providers/methods to use.

How would Trainline contact you then?

 

[Haywain]

As a thought exercise, to protect yourself from this, can't you just:

1) sign up to Trainline with a made-up email. I just tried it and there wasn't any verification required, no phone or address required either.
2) buy a prepaid Mastercard with cash (such as Vanilla), and use this for payments. This one specifically has a limit of £40 for online payments, but I'm sure there'll be other providers/methods to use.

How would Trainline contact you then?

I think the best approach would be to stop buying train tickets on the off chance you might need them.

 

[Starmill]

My personal opinion would be to inform and end it now.

You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but it seems to me you've no evidence to suggest that replying as would end the matter now. OP could reply now and then hear nothing back while the company banks the letter and introduces it as evidence months down the line.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jul 2023 ==

I think the best approach would be to stop buying train tickets on the off chance you might need them.

Sure, although we didn't actually establish if money were saved by the OP's method. If it were then over a year of travel it could be significant. I agree though that the OP should either share the ticket details with us or check very carefully that any savings are worthwhile for them. In addition I often buy return tickets on the off chance I might need the return, but then crucially I don't apply for any refunds in the event the ticket is unused.

 

[skyhigh]

Looking at the Trainline FAQs*, they say that partial refunds for unused portions of return tickets cannot be done online and to contact their support team instead.

If the OP has mistakenly been refunding the full ticket (which potentially minus admin fees may give around a 50% rebate of the total value), that may be an issue. Particularly if the TOC have scan records on outward portions and this has happened multiple times over a long period.

It would be useful to know what tickets were involved, how much was actually refunded and how a refund was requested for the unused legs.

*Source - https://support.thetrainline.com/en... is refundable,the return part is refundable*

 

[Starmill]

It would be useful to know what tickets were involved, how much was actually refunded and how a refund was requested for the unused legs.

I couldn't agree more. It's a little disappointing that better advice can't be given as a result of the lack of information.

 

[superkopite]

As a thought exercise, to protect yourself from this, can't you just:

1) sign up to Trainline with a made-up email. I just tried it and there wasn't any verification required, no phone or address required either.
2) buy a prepaid Mastercard with cash (such as Vanilla), and use this for payments. This one specifically has a limit of £40 for online payments, but I'm sure there'll be other providers/methods to use.

How would Trainline contact you then?

If Trainline use totally GDPR-compliant digital fingerprint tracking, they will be able to link the new account back to the OPs old account that contains his personal information

 

[island]

If Trainline use totally GDPR-compliant digital fingerprint tracking, they will be able to link the new account back to the OPs old account that contains his personal information

All the more reason not to use Trainline!

 

[WelshBluebird]

All the more reason not to use Trainline!

You think TOC's and other ticket retailers wouldn't do the same kind of thing if they felt they had evidence of fraud (or at least suspected it and wanted to try to get some evidence)?

 

[ComUtoR]

All the more reason not to use Trainline!

Are there any other websites where I can buy an e-ticket without giving any personal details and I can still obtain a refund ?

Are there any websites who will not hand over any of my details regardless of my purchasing and refund history ?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I asked a similar question here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/mobile-ticket-retailer-without-purchase-history.239317/

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Are there any other websites where I can buy an e-ticket without giving any personal details and I can still obtain a refund ?

Unless you're prepared to buy prepay debit cards for cash, you will be providing at least some personal details in the form of your credit/debit card number (because without having details of a card, I don't see any website letting you have a ticket). Your request may be impossible to fulfil.

Are there any websites who will not hand over any of my details regardless of my purchasing and refund history ?

It would seem to me unlikely. We know from what people who work for them have posted here that third party retailers (TPRs) have to be authorised: I do not know, but would not be surprised to find out that 'being prepared to release data for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime' would be a contractual condition for becoming an authorised retailer. And even if there isn't such a contractual requirement, I can imagine TPRs being willing to go down that road (a) for good relations with the railways whose tickets they sell and (b) to avoid losing out themselves to people looking to travel without paying.

 

[ComUtoR]

Would it be safe to assume that the more we.move to digital; the less anonymous we are ?

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would it be safe to assume that the more we.move to digital; the less anonymous we are ?

Thanks for the comprehensive reply.

Correct. You’re not even really anonymous on here.

 

[Starmill]

You can get an Avanti West Coast eTicket from a ticket office with cash, if you really want to. That's 100% anonymous. But I guess that doesn't actually mean anything because you can get a traditional ticket from a machine which is also anonymous.