Rather large out of court settlement

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm not sure what you're saying here?
. . .
If that's not the point you're making, please correct me.

That's not my point. It was not about 'fairness'.
I responded to LexyBoy's thought that "there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services". I agree, that there is a good reason, as there is are corresponding good reasons not to employ certain people in other industries and professions. But the fact is that industries do employ people who are badly suited to the position - perhaps one of responsibility, and sometimes it is the position that attracts the poorly suited person.
I make the point as an observation of the inevitable, and without value judgement.

It does not surprise me at all that a hedge fund manager would be disposed to attempt a financial scam, large or small. I suspect that disposition comes with the territory.

 

[Deerfold]

That's not my point. It was not about 'fairness'.
I responded to LexyBoy's thought that "there might well be a good reason for fraudsters to be barred from working in the financial services". I agree, that there is a good reason, as there is are corresponding good reasons not to employ certain people in other industries and professions. But the fact is that industries do employ people who are badly suited to the position - perhaps one of responsibility, and sometimes it is the position that attracts the poorly suited person.
I make the point as an observation of the inevitable, and without value judgement.

It does not surprise me at all that a hedge fund manager would be disposed to attempt a financial scam, large or small. I suspect that disposition comes with the territory.

Thanks for clarifying.

That I would agree with.

 

[lh938]

It’s no surprise that the TOC decided to take the huge payout rather than seek prosecution.

I’ve wondered though with extreme cases like these and using this case as an example, how did the TOC or the train operating company actually know about his fare dodging for the 5 year period? Would they have interviewed him further after he was caught the first time? As he was only caught the one and only time, how would anyone know that he had been fare dodging for so long? What kind of investigations are done to look into this?

 

[reb0118]

This may be interesting to some.

That didn't work so I copied & pasted it:-

Capital Rail Action Group

Dear All,
given how long it takes me to "read" so-called "smartcards" on the train and how often they come up - probably wrongly - as an "invalid product", the story below doesn't surprise me. Like similar cards in, for instance, Berlin used on the bus (where bus drivers just shrug and let you on), they're just a bit of plastic which hides any validity unless processed through the appropriate equipment. They're in truth not very "smart" at all - the eyes and brain that God gave me can process a printed ticket 20 to 30 times faster and with a friendly "thank you" to boot.
Never forget that Ken Livingstone increased the single Underground fare from, I think, £1.40 to £4.00 (it's now even dearer) to "encourage" folk to use Oyster. And that that has led to tickets offices being closed at mainline stations even at peak periods - there won't be any left soon anyway. Or that Oyster is old hat now - the new generation of cards can record every detail of your travel and other purchases. Such data has its uses in transport planning - but has also stimulated huge interest from many commercial firms who see how they can use this data to sell you things.
It's interesting that Southeastern have struck a deal with this "customer". They haven't taken him to court - yet would probably have done so if he'd avoided his fare on just a few occasions!

Lawrence

* * * * *

 

[MikeWh]

It’s no surprise that the TOC decided to take the huge payout rather than seek prosecution.

I’ve wondered though with extreme cases like these and using this case as an example, how did the TOC or the train operating company actually know about his fare dodging for the 5 year period? Would they have interviewed him further after he was caught the first time? As he was only caught the one and only time, how would anyone know that he had been fare dodging for so long? What kind of investigations are done to look into this?

It was discovered that he had annual seasons up to 2008 which was finally renewed in 2013 after he'd been caught.

 

[Deerfold]

It was discovered that he had annual seasons up to 2008 which was finally renewed in 2013 after he'd been caught.

Do TOCs routinely keep customer details for 5 years after their last purchase?

 

[IanXC]

Do TOCs routinely keep customer details for 5 years after their last purchase?

That's a very good question. Are there reasonable grounds to hold the data for that long (otherwise its in breach of the Data Protection Act)?

Is there perhaps an argument to hold the information for 6 years, as the data may be required for tax purposes, and 6 years is how far back HMRC go?

 

[Merseysider]

That's a very good question. Are there reasonable grounds to hold the data for that long (otherwise its in breach of the Data Protection Act)?

Is there perhaps an argument to hold the information for 6 years, as the data may be required for tax purposes, and 6 years is how far back HMRC go?

Maybe the TOC didn't actually mean to keep hold of the information, as the relevant paperwork for each season ticket was simply filed away somewhere and forgotten about?

I can't be certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if Merseyrail still had my details buried away somewhere for seasons I purchased 5 years ago. If one rings up and asks for one's data to be purged, it'll probably get done. But I wouldn't expect TOCs to periodically look through all their records and actively delete information. This'd take forever and the staff hours required wouldn't be cheap either.

 

[34D]

I used to have a travel card on oyster and 99% of the time I would touch in or out but not both.
My home station has no barriers and touching has no effect on how much I pay so why would I bother?

Because as per the T&C you agreed, you have to touch in and touch out.

Wonder whether they're building a file on you, and you'll get stopped one day like this guy.

 

[Deerfold]

Maybe the TOC didn't actually mean to keep hold of the information, as the relevant paperwork for each season ticket was simply filed away somewhere and forgotten about?

That sounds rather ramshakle and a likely breach of the DPA.

But I wouldn't expect TOCs to periodically look through all their records and actively delete information. This'd take forever and the staff hours required wouldn't be cheap either.

They really should be doing so as not to break the DPA by keeping information for longer than is reasonable.

 

[richw]

That sounds rather ramshakle and a likely breach of the DPA.



They really should be doing so as not to break the DPA by keeping information for longer than is reasonable.

Are records paper or electronic? I am assuming electronic? If so a good computer system should be able to filter and delete info that is x years old.

 

[Clip]

Because as per the T&C you agreed, you have to touch in and touch out.

Wonder whether they're building a file on you, and you'll get stopped one day like this guy.

Probably not.
You only need to touch in and out if you are using PAYG. Holders of a travelcard only need to do so if they are to open barriers or going outside of their zones.

 

[jon0844]

Because as per the T&C you agreed, you have to touch in and touch out.

Wonder whether they're building a file on you, and you'll get stopped one day like this guy.

When I had two tickets (paper for one and Oyster for the other), I never touched in or out ever - as in I got on Hatfield, passed the boundary zone and touched out at King's Cross or Old Street. Likewise, returning, touch in and then get off and use my paper ticket to leave Hatfield.

Now, that would surely make me a justified target for further investigation? Even though, unlikely PAYG, it doesn't result in any incomplete trips.

But as I said before, I bet TfL makes no attempt whatsoever to share any information with a TOC that could have a reason to want to know that someone boards a train with a Z1-n Travelcard and then stays on until Cambridge or Peterborough.

Not that it would have any way of knowing I even got on a FCC train to travel beyond the zones (1-3) on my Oyster, but perhaps the gates at KGX in the main station could lead to a note being made of Oyster entries that aren't tapped out at Finsbury Park or another Oyster enabled station along the way. The remaining cards could be flagged up for further attention, although I expect TfL would just expect the TOC to do its own onboard checks or have gated stations!

Obviously if I was ever stopped on the train, I could produce BOTH tickets and all was fine (well, most of the time!) but it's definitely a problem and the best solution is smartcards that work on the entire route - or the entire country. There would then be readers at EVERY station.

 

[redbutton]

That sounds rather ramshakle and a likely breach of the DPA.



They really should be doing so as not to break the DPA by keeping information for longer than is reasonable.

I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable for SE to retain accounting records (his payments for annual seasons) for a minimum of six years for tax purposes.

Also it's not out of the question that the defendant may have volunteered the information as part of the settlement process.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Because as per the T&C you agreed, you have to touch in and touch out.

Travelcards on Oyster are strange. Technically you are right, you should touch in and out "where readers are available". But the T&Cs provide for situations (usually when you're using Boundary Zone tickets) when you can fail to touch in or touch out. It is possible and likely that significant numbers of people would fail to touch in and out on journeys and not be committing any sort of fare evasion.

Wonder whether they're building a file on you, and you'll get stopped one day like this guy.

I'm not certain that they "build files" on too many people, I don't see that they'd have the time or the inclination to do it.

On the Underground, what I have seen them do is wait beyond the Oyster reader at unbarriered stations to stop anyone who didn't touch out, and discuss why. I don't know what a TOC's RPIs would do, but a sensible one would surely do the same.

Would a TOC even have access to the Oyster system to highlight potential fare evasion? TfL don't usually seem too keen to share their commercial information with other companies.

 

[Deerfold]

I'd say it wouldn't be unreasonable for SE to retain accounting records (his payments for annual seasons) for a minimum of six years for tax purposes.

Also it's not out of the question that the defendant may have volunteered the information as part of the settlement process.

Six years may well be reasonable - I was responding to a suggestion that records may have been forgotten about.

My earlier question about whether TOCs regularly retained information for that long was an honest question, not an indication that they shouldn't.

 

[ValleyLines142]

When reading the first post on this thread, I wondered what was wrong with using an Oyster from Stonegate to Cannon Street, then I realised Stonegate is on the Hastings Line and is well over an hour away from London!

For some reason, I thought Stonegate was near the Lee/Mottingham area, i.e. Zone 3/4! Silly me.

(*please ignore the bit where it says Human Geographer by my avatar!*)

But seriously, what an idiot! £43,000 is one HECK of a fine! Not quite sure how he thought he'd get away it, to be quite honest!

 

[PermitToTravel]

*awaits a pedant coming to remind DanTrainMan185 that fines can only be imposed by courts*

 

[ValleyLines142]

*awaits a pedant coming to remind DanTrainMan185 that fines can only be imposed by courts*

Well whatever that £43,000 was its still a lot! IANAL.

 

[Pumbaa]

Would a TOC even have access to the Oyster system to highlight potential fare evasion? TfL don't usually seem too keen to share their commercial information with other companies.

Admittedly I am unsure if this is common across all TOCs, but my TOC has no access to the system. The TOC has to obtain a card number (and reason) and ask TfL to retrieve the data for us. This data is not fed on a live feed, it is a 'static' export - if an update on what the card user has done that week (for example) is needed for trying to determine the journeys an individual has undertaken, the TOC has to re-request.

This is due to change with Itso on Prestige (IoP) and TOCs should be able to freely search the database.

 

[34D]

Probably not.
You only need to touch in and out if you are using PAYG. Holders of a travelcard only need to do so if they are to open barriers or going outside of their zones.

This is incorrect as the T&C's oblige one to touch in and out, even with a travelcard

 

[Deerfold]

This is incorrect as the T&C's oblige one to touch in and out, even with a travelcard

So how do you use a Travelcard on Oyster with a Boundary Zone ticket?

 

[jon0844]

You don't. I didn't and nothing bad ever happened. Imagine if you had to get off a train to tap in or out at the boundary!

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is incorrect as the T&C's oblige one to touch in and out, even with a travelcard

They actually say this:

When you use a National Rail service, you should touch your Oyster card on the yellow card reader before you start your journey, at the station you are leaving from; and at the end of your journey, when you arrive at your destination station. You can still use your Oyster card at stations where there is no yellow card reader or if it is not working provided that your
Travelcard is valid for the journey you are making. You may be asked instead to show your Oyster card (and photocard where needed).

Providing I have a valid ticket for the journey I am making, I do not have to touch out where there is no yellow card reader. Using Boundary Zone tickets, there is obviously no yellow card reader at the destination, but my Travelcard is still valid.

 

[island]

And it says "should", implying the action is desirable but not mandatory, as distinct from "must".

Back to the original point, noises are now being made that the offender should declare his settlement to his employer and to the Financial Conduct Authority and he may end up getting struck off from working in regulated roles in the industry.

 

[Clip]

This is incorrect as the T&C's oblige one to touch in and out, even with a travelcard

No it isnt.

 

[34D]

No it isnt.

We've had the extract. Ignore this at your unbarriered zone 4 (or whatever) station that just has standalone readers at your peril

 

[Muzer]

Yes, and the extract says "should", not "must".

 

[Clip]

We've had the extract. Ignore this at your unbarriered zone 4 (or whatever) station that just has standalone readers at your peril

I am properly worried now that TfL will be after me - what should I do???? I am going to get soooo told off.

But what I will do is just post this which isnt the full T&Cs as I cant be bothered but you show me where it states you must touch in and out whilst using a TC?

 

[swt_passenger]

That isn't the TfL 'conditions of carriage', that's just a ticketing web page. The CofC do use the word 'must':

6.6 Using a season ticket on your Oyster card
6.6.1 When you use Underground, London Overground and National Rail services, you must touch your Oyster card on the yellow card reader at both the start and the end of your journey. If the ticket gates at stations are open you must still touch your Oyster card on the yellow card reader.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/conditions-of-carriage.pdf

As has been said every time this requirement is discussed, it isn't normally enforced.