Intelligence-led stop with all your information and CCTV?

[Mgameing123]

Stopped on an intelligence-led stop where they had all your information and CCTV?

Cease posting online immediately and instruct a solicitor. This is vastly more serious than your average case.

What in the dystopian nightmare am I hearing in the UK. This train fine system is really convoluted.

Like I moved to Denmark and here, you just get a penalty fare of 750 DKK at DSB and 1100 DKK at GoCollective and on with your day.

What is going on in the UK?

 

[skyhigh]

The thread from which you have quoted appears to involve someone deliberately defrauding the railway out of a very large sum of money.

I don't see what is dystopian about using their own stupidity to catch them. It's not much different to a supermarket using CCTV to catch a regular shoplifter.

Penalty fares also exist for simple mistakes or small transgressions but the case involved here is much bigger.

 

[Hadders]

Billions of journeys are made on the National Rail network each year. A very small proportion of them are made with incorrect tickets. A tiny number of those are what one would consider to be large scale, industrial level fare evasion.

Penalty Fares exist and are issued in many instances but sometimes these are not appropriate for. In a tiny number of cases, where large scale fare evasion over a sustained period of time is suspected, 'back office' investigation of journey history and ticket purchasing data will take place possibly also involving CCTV before a person is apprehended.

This has a fourm dedicated to Disputes & Prosecutions. If all you do is read that section of the forum you might think that what you read there is the norm for train journeys in the UK. It isn't.

 

[Mattplans]

dystopian nightmare

Right - I agree completely. Especially since all of this "intelligence" is tracking ticket purchases made from online retailers. It's a frequent debate whether these retailers should really be disclosing personal information to the train operators. This case is particularly creepy - the plain clothed investigators walk up to the person in question and are already addressing him by his first name. It's not made completely clear upon registration that the retailers will make no effort whatsoever to protect your personal information if requested by the train operators, I'm sure some might think differently regarding their ticket purchases if they knew this.

'Fare Dodgers: At War with the Law' on Youtube might interest you; you get to see a behind the scenes perspective on how they operate. But unfortunately the individual in question has created a paper trail of their fare evasion, making it incredibly easy for the operator to intercept them. This isn't the standard fare evasion case as mentioned upthread and perhaps the amount the railway has lost warrants this type of response.

 

[Sakuradori]

I'm not sure "hello, we're not going to stop train companies from accessing your information if you use our platform to defraud them" would look great on the website, to be fair. It's probably in Trainline/Uber/whatever's interest to cooperate with the TOCs.

 

[z444z]

The intelligence led stops don’t worry me too much, but the behaviour of the investigators on such stops, as seen on the show mentioned above, is somewhat worrying. For example, after providing person details, a man asked if he was free to go, and was told “no, it’s best for you to stay”…

 

[Horizon22]

Right - I agree completely. Especially since all of this "intelligence" is tracking ticket purchases made from online retailers. It's a frequent debate whether these retailers should really be disclosing personal information to the train operators. This case is particularly creepy - the plain clothed investigators walk up to the person in question and are already addressing him by his first name.

Because they are building a case against someone. One way of doing this is to collect evidence over an extended time period, check any corresponding documentation (paper trail, CCTV etc.) to track that they have been doing it and then catch them in the act doing it. That’s a classic case of investigation and is hardly “creepy dystopian intelligence”.

Whilst the actual personal approach & behaviour with the user may be open to interpretation on whether it was right or not, other companies that have revenue risks (like retail) will do employ similar methods.

With regards to the OP, penalty fares are by far the most common method. But what you’ve quoted from might equate to fraud. I am sure Danish railways would also use an intelligence-led operation if this was suspected which I’m sure is a vanishingly small amount of journeys, just like it is in the UK.

 

[Sakuradori]

Worth noting the following in Trainline's privacy policy:

Payment card details and the address your card is registered to
...
Some of the travel operators we work with may run your data through their own payment and eticket systems, to issue your tickets.

We may collect personal data (including your name, email address, home address, phone number and journey details) to help you travel.
...
The operator needs this info to create your tickets and may need to contact you if there is service disruption.

It's all there, doesn't really seem to be a case of the booking agent choosing to disclose it in the first place. Whether or not you decide to use their service is up to you.

 

[KNN]

What in the dystopian nightmare am I hearing in the UK. This train fine system is really convoluted.

Like I moved to Denmark and here, you just get a penalty fare of 750 DKK at DSB and 1100 DKK at GoCollective and on with your day.

What is going on in the UK?

Would you say the same about a security guard seeing you walk out of a shop without paying, stopping you and then saying they were waiting for you to come in again because they've seen on CCTV you've stolen something a hundred other times?

 

[andy33gmail]

The way it works is that they will say "Either we prosecute you for the one offence, or you accept our settlement offer, which involves paying for all the instances where we are pretty sure that you have evaded the correct fare

Which feels almost like blackmail?

 

[KNN]

Which feels almost like blackmail?

That's not what blackmail is, this is an established part of the legal process. Make it easier for us and you'll have a lesser punishment.

 

[andy33gmail]

That's not what blackmail is, this is an established part of the legal process. Make it easier for us and you'll have a lesser punishment.

I probably should have qualified that better

In cases where the guilty party could have potentially used season tickets & railcards, demanding the cost in non-discounted peak singles is a little disingenuous

It would be a bit like stealing a sofa from DFS and being asked to pay its full price when you got caught

 

[z444z]

It would be a bit like stealing a sofa from DFS and being asked to pay its full price when you got caught

I’d say it’s a lot more like stealing an item from Tesco that was on Clubcard for £5 but being asked to pay its full price of £15 when caught.

 

[andy33gmail]

I’d say it’s a lot more like stealing an item from Tesco that was on Clubcard for £5 but being asked to pay its full price of £15 when caught.

Equally true

I guess my objection if I flesh it out; crimes are perpetrator vs the state, settlements are between the victim & perpetrator

So it feels imbalanced for the defrauded party (ToC) to allow the victim to pay an artificially inflated fee to avoid a criminal reprimand by the state

I guess it’s a bit like if someone punched you in the face, and you offered not to call the police if they dropped you a grand

 

[z444z]

I guess it’s a bit like if someone punched you in the face, and you offered not to call the police if they dropped you a grand

I don’t disagree. We’re going a bit crazy with the analogies here though

 

[SuspectUsual]

I guess my objection if I flesh it out; crimes are perpetrator vs the state, settlements are between the victim & perpetrator

So it feels imbalanced for the defrauded party (ToC) to allow the victim to pay an artificially inflated fee to avoid a criminal reprimand by the state

Apart from when the defrauded part is effectively the state, of course

 

[saismee]

I guess it’s a bit like if someone punched you in the face, and you offered not to call the police if they dropped you a grand

Well you can still settle out of court for assault, so the analogy breaks down quite quickly. It's just a part of the legal process, though I agree it is effectively legal blackmail. The reason it works is because people are very keen to avoid a criminal conviction, and it ends up as a win-win for both parties.

I quite like the intelligence-led stops. A lot of people here are sick of data trawling with empty threats, and seeing them actually stop and catch people in the act is refreshing.

 

[Mgameing123]

Right - I agree completely. Especially since all of this "intelligence" is tracking ticket purchases made from online retailers. It's a frequent debate whether these retailers should really be disclosing personal information to the train operators. This case is particularly creepy - the plain clothed investigators walk up to the person in question and are already addressing him by his first name. It's not made completely clear upon registration that the retailers will make no effort whatsoever to protect your personal information if requested by the train operators, I'm sure some might think differently regarding their ticket purchases if they knew this.

'Fare Dodgers: At War with the Law' on Youtube might interest you; you get to see a behind the scenes perspective on how they operate. But unfortunately the individual in question has created a paper trail of their fare evasion, making it incredibly easy for the operator to intercept them. This isn't the standard fare evasion case as mentioned upthread and perhaps the amount the railway has lost warrants this type of response.

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

 

[Trainman40083]

Soon be facial recognition cameras everywhere.

 

[saismee]

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

We do have that, they're called "revenue protection inspectors". There are also digital fraud teams which look for large-scale fare evasion, such as in the case in the OP.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

You get that in the UK.

You also get specialist teams working to uncover long-term and persistent fraud.

This isn't dystopian, this is good old-fashioned investigation. Boots on the ground, watching people, catching people they suspect of carrying out long-term and persistent fraud.

 

[Skymonster]

It's an odd system in the UK in my opinion. Here you just get some random person in DSB uniform hop on saying "cards and tickets please" and they just catch fare evaders that way.

I suspect it would be naive to assume that there isn’t also a back-office that is seeking out and tracking down serial fare evaders elsewhere [e.g. in Denmark]. What I find rather odious about the UK system is that rail operators can effectively offer perpetrators a bribe to keep offences out of court (some will argue the offer of paying the operator to avoid a criminal record its a win-win approach, but where malfeasance is provable I believe cases should go to court).

 

[Trainman40083]

I suspect it would be naive to assume that there isn’t also a back-office that is seeking out and tracking down serial fare evaders elsewhere [e.g. in Denmark]. What I find rather odious about the UK system is that rail operators can effectively offer perpetrators a bribe to keep offences out of court (some will argue the offer of paying the operator to avoid a criminal record its a win-win approach, but where malfeasance is provable I believe cases should go to court).

I think the Court backlog, currently runs until 2029 at the moment.

 

[LowLevel]

It's not anything new, the tech just makes it easier. Casing out regular fare evaders to build a proper case against them has gone on forever, particularly when it involves fraud. They just used to follow them around instead or use station cameras.

It's just evolved, and good for it. I don't particularly want to share the planet with inherently dishonest people but I will grudingly accept it knowing that sometimes they get an unexpected recalibration of their moral values, preferably with a large bill.

Many years ago I used to do battle with a local drug dealer who thought he was above paying for the train. I just refused to unlock the doors until he paid me in advance on the platform. I believe that is also profiling him and it was very enjoyable training him to be stood there with his bank note in hand ready to pay when the train arrived (it was before bank cards were common for local transactions). Not many people used his stop so it was easy to organise them to use one door to get on and off and just leave him behind if he didn't pay.

 

[ainsworth74]

What I find rather odious about the UK system is that rail operators can effectively offer perpetrators a bribe to keep offences out of court (some will argue the offer of paying the operator to avoid a criminal record its a win-win approach, but where malfeasance is provable I believe cases should go to court).

And particularly because they're often making those demands because they know full well that the evidence they do have wouldn't be sufficient to gain a conviction on all the fares they're now demanding are due. Whilst they can absolute prosecute someone for the offence that they've been caught committing on the ground that day, the back office data trawls are far less likely to yield sufficient evidence to enable a prosecution (absent other corroborating evidence or self-incrimination). That one has always left a bit of a sour taste for me.

There's nothing wrong with using intel to catch fare evaders but it rankles when they come out and demand £x,000s be paid in evaded fares and admin fees or we'll prosecute criminally you when in reality perhaps only one instance of that (the one you were caught doing) is actually prosecutable criminally and the rest would be a civil matter at best.

I think the Court backlog, currently runs until 2029 at the moment.

I think that's the Crown Court backlog, whilst I don't doubt the Magistrates Courts are struggling I don't think their backlog is anything like as severe. By their very nature (being less serious, which isn't to suggest that those crimes aren't also extremely distressing for the victims!) Magistrates cases tended to be disposed of much more rapidly. I doubt that anyone prosecuted for basic fare evasion now will be waiting until 2029 for their case to be heard.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the Court backlog, currently runs until 2029 at the moment.

Not for magistrates' courts.

 

[fandroid]

Worth noting the following in Trainline's privacy policy:


It's all there, doesn't really seem to be a case of the booking agent choosing to disclose it in the first place. Whether or not you decide to use their service is up to you.

The extract you quote from Trainline's Privacy Policy says nothing about handing all your personal information over a train company so that they can investigate actual or possible crimes. It doesn't say they will happily tell the the train companies about what they think are suspicious patterns of ticket purchasing.

We have seen passengers subjected to intense pressure by certain TOCs to prove that their ticket buying is innocent of any fraudulent intent. All from scrutiny of online ticket buying and in spite of GDPR apparently protecting them.

 

[jon81uk]

There's nothing wrong with using intel to catch fare evaders but it rankles when they come out and demand £x,000s be paid in evaded fares and admin fees or we'll prosecute criminally you when in reality perhaps only one instance of that (the one you were caught doing) is actually prosecutable criminally and the rest would be a civil matter at best.

This is usually a different case to the OP quote, where it is just looking at the digital data I think it is more of a threat and they are fishing for you to pay without thinking.
But the situations in the OP where the revenue protection team approach an indiviudal having done the old-fashioned investigation generally has the full investigation with CCTV of multiple cases of fare evasion.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is usually a different case to the OP quote, where it is just looking at the digital data I think it is more of a threat and they are fishing for you to pay without thinking.
But the situations in the OP where the revenue protection team approach an indiviudal having done the old-fashioned investigation generally has the full investigation with CCTV of multiple cases of fare evasion.

Yes to be fair in that sort of case it's a different matter and clearly they're planning on nailing the OP with strong evidence of serial fare evasion rather than just sticking a finger in the wind and hoping for the best.

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP in that case has likely evaded several thousand pounds' worth of fares by doing a sustained fraud. GTR will probably settle in the end but frankly those people should end up doing community service and having a criminal record. Serial and hardened dishonesty.

I don't see any issue at all with using actual intelligence to follow these people and literally catch them. These people are the lowest wattage fare evaders using elementary frauds ("forums give me immunity"), they aren't hard to catch. There should be more of these boots on the ground because at the end of the day it's the taxpayer getting fleeced, and collecting actual evidence of who is travelling isn't problematic.