Southeastern... suspicious letter...

[Szazomy]

I came home after a week away today, carrying out a journey I quite often do, from Colchester to Bromley South (via Liverpool Street and Victoria). I'd received a letter from Southeastern Railway on January 31st (seven days ago, as of the time I read it) which stated...

"On 25th Jan 2013 a person giving the above name and address was questioned by a member of rail staff with regard to an alleged incident on Southeastern Railway. The matter has been provisionally authorized for prosecution.

Before I proceed further, I invite you to respond by completing in full the bottom section of this letter, making any comments about the incident on the reverse, and send it to the above address within seven days.

Failure to respond will lead to the matter being progressed without further notification"

Seven days have passed since the letter was received, which is a potential concern. And as it happens, I did indeed travel home on 25th January using Southeastern from my last trip to Colchester - a regular journey for me taken at least twice a month, if not more. The facts I had to consider...

- I had definitely paid for my travel on 25th January. I still have my Greater Anglia ticket getting me from Colchester to Liverpool Street, and I topped up my oyster card there and then, just as I always do. It did not fail to top up, as I was able to get through all the barriers on the London Underground, at Victoria and at Bromley South.

- I was never questioned by anyone, and was not involved in or witness to any incident on that date. It was an ordinary journey home, as usual.

- How would Southeastern have gained access to my address without me actually giving it to them? I had to give my address when applying for my Railcard last year, but it isn't at all tied to my Oyster card which is the only thing I used to pay for the Southeastern segment of my journey, as per usual.

- My first name is misspelt on the header. The American spelling of 'authorized' in the letter was unusual. The street name of 'Tooley Street' for the prosecution office in the header was split onto two lines despite plenty of room to fit it on one, suggesting another possible typo. The date I was supposedly questioned is written in an abbreviated form, making for quite an unprofessional letter.

- No mention, description or indication of what the incident in question was. It is only ever referred to as 'the matter' or 'the incident'. The time I was supposedly questioned is not identified either.

- The form at the bottom of the page asks for a lot of personal details - my first name and last name, my D.O.B., my N.I. number, my occupation, my phone number, my address and postcode and my signature. Credit card details were not asked for, though above the form it states in bold 'DO NOT SEND ANY PAYMENTS TO THIS OFFICE'.

- The letter isn't properly signed. The signature appears to be scanned or cut/pasted on, whilst it isn't accompanied by the name of the writer beneath it. Instead it merely reads 'On behalf of the Prosecutions Manager'.

- The envelope the letter came in looks to have been potentially bought from a post office, with a prepaid second class stamp on it.


All of this sounds very suspicious. I have filled out the letter in case it is legitimate and needs to be send off immediately, but won't do so as it just doesn't feel right so far. I have emailed Southeastern about the matter, but have no response as of yet. I'm moving out this weekend (ironically, carrying all my things on the train journey to Colchester) and could really do without this problem hanging over me. Thank you to any one who can offer any input.

 

[island]

Do not give your date of birth, NI number or occupation; they have no need for any of these even if it's legal. This is potentially a case of someone fraudulently giving your details in connection with an incident of failing to pay the fare.

 

[broadgage]

I have a suspicion that this is some type of scam or fraud unrelated to the railway. They may have obtained some of your details via the oystercard system or via any card that you used for payment, and now want more of your details such as NI number.
I would be inclined to inform the police, provided you are certain that you did nothing wrong.

It may not be an attempt to extract money from you now, but to aquire as much data as possible for some later fraud such as borrowing money in your name.

 

[transportphoto]

This certainly seem suspicious, I'd be contacting the British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40 if I were you, because if you haven't been stopped and questioned at all by any railway representative at any point you haven't got anything to hide and also due to the various errors within the letter. As others say, they have no legal right to your NI number, DOB etc, you are only required to give your name and address to an authorised person.

TP

 

[DelayRepay]

I would suggest telephoning South Eastern customer services using the number from their website, ask for the Proseutions department and then explain your concerns.

This sounds odd. Is the address to reply to actually South Eastern's address? If so how would the fraudster get hold of your details if you do reply?

I would take a print out of your journey history on your Oyster card before it's deleted, just to cover yourself if you need to prove you held a valid ticket.

Is it possible that it's genuine but someone else e.g. a "friend" gave your details?

 

[IanXC]

This certainly seem suspicious, I'd be contacting the British Transport Police on 0800 40 50 40 if I were you, because if you haven't been stopped and questioned at all by any railway representative at any point you haven't got anything to hide and also due to the various errors within the letter. As others say, they have no legal right to your NI number, DOB etc, you are only required to give your name and address to an authorised person.

TP

I'd agree that contacting BTP and Southeastern, via telephone, using a number taken from their website or a directory would be a good course of action.

If you'd like to PM me, I'd be happy to take a look over the entire letter.

 

[Dave1987]

I agree a phone call to southeastern prosecutions dept is needed to verify the letter is legitimate. Get the number off their website. I would not respond until you are certain it is legitimate, if it was and they took you to court you could explain why you thought the letter was suspicious.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I will also agree that the letter, in the terms that it is presented on here, is unconvincing in its authenticity.
If it is was a legitimate letter of investigation following an incident, then it may have incurred automated errors of formatting, an electronically scanned signature and other errors. It might even be entirely legitimate but wrong.
Even with these allowances, I would still agree that a phone call to the Operating Company's Revenue Investigators to ask for clarification would be appropriate, and that is my advice too.

But my hesitation is prompted by the accuracy in the letter of relatively trivial details. What model of fraud extends to the considerable analytic depth of discovering a rail passenger's identity and journey details and then attempt to extract a statement and personal details by post, but not any money? The suspicion of a scam doesn't look like an efficient way of obtaining personal information to me. But it could be.

 

[IanXC]

But my hesitation is prompted by the accuracy in the letter of relatively trivial details. What model of fraud extends to the considerable analytic depth of discovering a rail passenger's identity and journey details and then attempt to extract a statement and personal details by post, but not any money? The suspicion of a scam doesn't look like an efficient way of obtaining personal information to me. But it could be.

It does seem like the long way around, but given the extent to which fraudsters will go (as seen in a professional capacity) I wouldn't discount it just yet!

 

[neilmc]

On no account sent those details to anyone. These are very likely to be used in a fraud scenario - for example, there is no reason at all why a TOC would require a National Insurance number, but with that multiplicity of personal information accounts could be opened and services obtained in your name.

 

[yorkie]

Unfortunately the TOCs do not help the situation, some TOCs admit that they ask for personal details that you do not have to answer. By asking for such information, they make it harder to determine whether the person asking is a scammer or not.

If the TOCs stuck to only asking for the information you are obliged to give, then the scams would be much easier to detect.

I've found out from multiple sources that both TPE and XC are guilty of attempting to extract information from passengers that passengers do not have to provide, and falsely claiming that passengers are obliged to give that information. And that's just what I've found out this week - must just be the tip of the iceberg.

I would echo what people such as Island, neilmc etc above say. Do not give out details such as occupation, NI number etc to anyone.

 

[Monty]

I would echo what people such as Island, neilmc etc above say. Do not give out details such as occupation, NI number etc to anyone.

While I agree it's out of order for TOCs to be falsely claiming passengers are obliged to give personal details such as NI numbers or a date of birth. I do not believe it's inherently wrong to request them, if a passenger refuses to do so then that is their right. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Realfish]

While I agree it's out of order for TOCs to be falsely claiming passengers are obliged to give personal details such as NI numbers or a date of birth. I do not believe it's inherently wrong to request them, if a passenger refuses to do so then that is their right. Just my humble opinion.

I agree with all that it would be wise for the OP to check this out. There is a huge criminal trade in NI numbers and other personal information for the purposes of identity fraud and also benefit and tax credit fraud. This example could be a way of 'harvesting' the information.

Monty, I do not agree that it's 'not inherently wrong' for a TOC to ask for this information. In my view this is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, in that an NI Number is not needed by the TOC for the purpose that could be inferred.

If though, having gathered the information, there is then the question of what they do with it, and then the information's security. Which brings me back to the harvesting of information. Unfortunately some people within organisations (including the public sector one I worked for) find that they can't resist the temptation of selling to criminals the data that they are intrusted with.

 

[IanXC]

While I agree it's out of order for TOCs to be falsely claiming passengers are obliged to give personal details such as NI numbers or a date of birth. I do not believe it's inherently wrong to request them, if a passenger refuses to do so then that is their right. Just my humble opinion.

Monty, I do not agree that it's 'not inherently wrong' for a TOC to ask for this information. In my view this is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, in that an NI Number is not needed by the TOC for the purpose that could be inferred.

I can't see that a TOC would have any reasonable use for information such as an NI number. The Data Protection Act is quite clear that organisations must not collect excessive information:

Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

 

[SussexMan]

Well if this is the address on the letter and the address to send back the reply, then it's not a scam:

Southeastern Railway Ltd
84 Tooley Street
London
SE1 2TF

The quality of letters from many organisations these days is not good - probably because they are put together by people who have little idea of good layout, can't spell or don't know how to change their spell-checker from English American to English UK.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Monty, I do not agree that it's 'not inherently wrong' for a TOC to ask for this information. In my view this is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act, in that an NI Number is not needed by the TOC for the purpose that could be inferred.

It isn't 'inherently wrong' for the TOC to ask for the NI number, but at the initial stage of an enquiry it is wholly unnecessary.

If, after proper assessment, the matter proceeds to issue of a summons, the form MC100 (declaration of means) will request the NI information for the use of the Court, not the TOC

All that is actually necessary in the response to an initial approach from the TOC is for the traveller to confirm (or deny as truthfully appropriate) their name and address are correctly quoted, the fact that they were the person reported and their version of events in relation to the incident.

You should decline any request for personal information beyond that.

 

[Monty]

I can't see that a TOC would have any reasonable use for information such as an NI number. The Data Protection Act is quite clear that organisations must not collect excessive information:

But what is defined as excessive infomation though? Why is it that on PFNs, UFNs & MG11 forms they have had spaces for NI numbers and dates of birth for years? Why has it not been questioned until now? Now I rarely ever requested a passengers NI number, i'd only ever ask it if they unable to prove the details they had given were genuine. If they say no, well thats my problem and I'll have to live with it.

We give so much more personal infomation to other companies such as BT or Virgin media and nobody ever seems to question that. I shall remember that if I ever re-register for broadband and Virgin want my DoB.

 

[Fare-Cop]

But what is defined as excessive infomation though? Why is it that on PFNs, UFNs & MG11 forms they have had spaces for NI numbers and dates of birth for years? Why has it not been questioned until now? Now I rarely ever requested a passengers NI number, i'd only ever ask it if they unable to prove the details they had given were genuine. If they say no, well thats my problem and I'll have to live with it.

We give so much more personal infomation to other companies such as BT or Virgin media and nobody ever seems to question that. I shall remember that if I ever re-register for broadband and Virgin want my DoB.

I agree that the facility of to record NI numbers might be shown on forms printed years ago and has probably been carried on in successive re-prints and amendments, but it isn't a requirement that the traveller must give it

One reason that a space for recording NI numbers could be used springs to mind immediately. In the past it was often the case that a young person being asked to confirm their age might have nothing with them as identity other than a NI card (issued just before a 16th birthday). Frequently this proved to be their downfall when saying 'I'm only 14 mister' or similar.

Nonetheless, rail staff do not have the right to demand it, but if someone offers it as means of identity that's a different thing.

I often train inspectors to seek confirmation of identity without resorting to the 'inconclusive phone call' to check electoral register. All that ever proves is that someone knows someone's name and address.

Staff can ask for a whole host of things that might confirm a traveller's identity, but demanding that s/he give their NI number isn't necessary and if I were the traveller, I would legally refuse that information.

I certainly wouldn't put it in a reply to a letter to the TOC.

 

[cuccir]

The American spelling of 'authorized' in the letter was unusual

I know it's a small point out of the many you made, but authorized is a perfectly good spelling in British English, and always has been ie, it's not a new introduction. From the Oxford English Dictionary:

authorize, v.
Pronunciation: /ˈɔːθəraɪz/
ME autorize, autoryse, ME autorise, ME–15 auctorize, auctoryse, auctorise, 15 auctorish(e, auctoreise, authoriss, authorish, aucthorishe, 16 aucthorize, aucthorise, 15– authorise, authorize
I. To authorize a thing.
...

-ize, suffix
View as: Outline |Full entryQuotations: Show all |Hide all
Forms: -ise, -ize.
Etymology: Cognate with French -ise-r, Italian -izare, Spanish -izar, < late Latin -izāre, -īzāre, < Greek -ίζειν, formative of vbs.
The Greek verbs were partly intrans., as βαρβαρίζειν to play the barbarian, act or speak as a barbarian, side with the barbarians, τυραννίζειν to side with the tyrants, partly transitive as καθαρίζειν to purify, clean, θήσαυρίζειν to treasure up. Those formed on national, sectarian, or personal names were primarily intransitive, as Ἀττικίζειν to Atticize in manners, to speak Attic, Φιλιππίζειν to act or speak for Philip, to philippize, Ἑλληνίζειν to ‘do’ the Greek, act as a Greek, speak Greek, Hellenize; also, to make Greek. A few words of this form connected with or used in early Christianity, were latinized already in the 3rd or 4th cent. by Christian writers: such were βαπτίζεινbaptizāre, εὐαγγελίζεινeuangelizāre, κατηχίζεινcatechizāre, σκανδαλίζεινscandalizāre, ἀναθηματίζεινanathēmatizāre, χριστιανίζεινchristiānizāre, ἰουδαίζεινiūdaizāre. Others continued to be formed both in ecclesiastical and philosophical use, e.g. canōnizāre, dæmonizāre, syllogizāre (Boethius Aristot. Anal.); and this became established as the normal form for the latinizing of Greek verbs, or the formation of verbs upon Greek analogies. In medieval Latin and the mod. languages these have been formed also on Latin or modern national names, and the use has been extended to the formation of verbs from Latin adjectives or ns. This practice probably began first in French; in modern French the suffix has become -iser, alike in words from Greek, as baptiser, évangéliser, organiser, and those formed after them from Latin, as civiliser, cicatriser, humaniser. Hence, some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those formed < Greek elements. But the suffix itself, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Greek -ιζειν, Latin -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize. (In the Greek -ιζ-, the i was short, so originally in Latin, but the double consonant z (= dz, ts) made the syllable long; when the z became a simple consonant, /-idz/ became īz, whence English /-aɪz/ .)

 

[Monty]

Staff can ask for a whole host of things that might confirm a traveller's identity, but demanding that s/he give their NI number isn't necessary and if I were the traveller, I would legally refuse that information.

Oh I agree with you, I just think don't it's wrong or a breach of the data protection act to ask for said information.

 

[Szazomy]

I've just tried contacting the British Transport Police about the matter, but they told me that Southeastern deal with these situations internally. They forwarded me the Southeastern customer services number, but there is no relevant extension for me to contact.

Can't believe I'm having to deal with this... as if the expensive trains I pay for don't waste enough of my time already with delays, they're now wasting my time and stressing me out when I'm not using them

 

[W230]

This does sound pretty bizarre. Is there any way you could have left/lost anything on the train with your details on and someone could have used them. If you still have your ticket then I guess that they might have?

I cannot imagine why South Eastern would need anything other than your Name and adress. A DoB is not required for issuing a summons. Strange.

 

[Dave1987]

01732 378751

Try that number that is the local number for Southeastern's customer services, I would definately thoroughly check this out before responding.

 

[Szazomy]

This does sound pretty bizarre. Is there any way you could have left/lost anything on the train with your details on and someone could have used them. If you still have your ticket then I guess that they might have?

I cannot imagine why South Eastern would need anything other than your Name and adress. A DoB is not required for issuing a summons. Strange.

It is all very strange... and the only thing I thought was that something with my details could have fallen out of my bag at some point. I don't know what though... I'm only really carrying clothes on this journey I make.

I'm wondering whether a journey down to the train station itself might be worth a shot? I should at least be able to talk to someone there rather than being placed on hold at every useless extension I've tried.

 

[W230]

I'm wondering whether a journey down to the train station itself might be worth a shot? I should at least be able to talk to someone there rather than being placed on hold at every useless extension I've tried.

You could try this, though I fear that platform/ticket office staff wouldn't really be able to help you on the matter.

I defintiely feel your frustration. Do you still have the ticket from that day?

 

[Szazomy]

You could try this, though I fear that platform/ticket office staff wouldn't really be able to help you on the matter.

I defintiely feel your frustration. Do you still have the ticket from that day?

I have my ticket from Colchester to Liverpool Street, as I have kept pretty much all of my train tickets since 2009. But for the past year I complete the journey from Liverpool Street to Bromley South via London Victoria using my Oyster Card - it is significantly cheaper to do so.

 

[BravoGolfMike]

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed a letter purporting to be from your office which was received by myself on (date.) Unfortunatley, judging by the numerous errors and inaccuracies in the letter, which I have kindly highlighted for you, it appears that somebody is using the good name of SouthEastern maliciously in order to obtain money from unsuspecting persons. Might I suggest you conduct a full investigation before you are implicated further.

If, on the other hand the letter did arrive from this office, might I suggest you invest in some basic letter writing training for your staff? For the avoidance of doubt I have also enclosed a photocopy of my tickets and consider the matter closed.

Yours etc,


Just to be clear, probably best not to send the above but it would certainly tempt me if I received something unprofessional about a potentially serious matter.

 

[jon0844]

As mentioned above, with the falling standards of literacy in this country, it's quite possible the letter IS genuine despite multiple mistakes!

However, given the OP hasn't had any dealings with the TOC or revenue staff, it could well be that it's someone else that has given his details - and so it's vital to get things sorted either way.

 

[LexyBoy]

What would be wrong with replying with your name and address (which they already know), and a response to the statement provided, namely that you were not approached nor engaged in any way with any revenue officers on the 25th January. Send the reply to Southeastern's genuine address (which it sounds like is the one provided anyway):

Southeastern Railway Ltd
84 Tooley Street
London
SE1 2TF

Since no mention is made of any ticket irregularities I see no need to provide copies of your tickets / oyster journey history at this stage. If it's real then you will have provided the information required, and if it's fake then you've not given anything away (other than your address and name being genuine which is probably safe to say thay a fraudster would know, since they would know your travel habits).

 

[Fare-Cop]

Oh I agree with you, I just think don't it's wrong or a breach of the data protection act to ask for said information.

You're right, it's how you store & safeguard it and what you do with said information if you hold it that is important in that respect.