The 'fraud letters' process

[Busman]

This may sound like a stupid question but something I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

 

[AlterEgo]

This may sound like a stupid question but something I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

Retrospectively that would be a laborious task and CCTV is wiped after a number of weeks. They use it on TfL to identify passengers scamming thousands of pounds, proactively, so they can perform a stop.

 

[323235]

This may sound like a stupid question but something I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

For cases that are purely caught in the act or lead to being caught in the act then the answer I would imagine is 100% yes.

If most of the historic data trawl is outside the typically 30? day CCTV window before it’s wiped then they’d have to pull the CCTV for journeys within the 30 day period straight away to get the concrete CCTV evidence.

Then presumably they’ve got to somehow get a picture of the account holder to confirm it’s them.

This is surely more of a dead end if the person stops the offending and doesn’t admit to the offence.

Whereas if they catch them in the act (perhaps after a data trawl) they’re legally required to confirm their identity and then you confirm the details match the identity on the account (or they could then pull a booking account then in non-data trawl) and if there’s cctv that’s extra evidence for an almost certain prosecution.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Presumably there’s also a need to synchronise the cctv to the barriers, especially at busy stations, if they’re wanting to use it as evidence in a court?

 

[Haywain]

Then presumably they’ve got to somehow get a picture of the account holder to confirm it’s them.

That's of no consequence - the offence is using the tickets, not buying them.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

They can trawl through ticket purchase records to find suspect patterns, they can watch cctv footage of people going through barriers. It's hard work to connect them which is probably why the method only seems to be used for targetted stops.

 

[Sonic1234]

This may sound like a stupid question but something I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

A lot of people don't have a particularly unique appearance. Prove that average looking guy in a sea of average looking guys is me.

Mask wearing is still socially acceptable and seems to be favoured among those who push barriers - don't think they do it for hygiene reasons.

 

[gembercannelle]

This may sound like a stupid question but something I've often wondered after watching countless docs about fraudulent travel but can they not use CCTV as evidence/proof said person was travelling without a valid ticket?

This question and variations of it already have a dedicated thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-fraud-letters-process.305220/page-2. Perhaps a few latest posts can be moved there as well, as they don't seem to be useful for the OP.

 

[323235]

That's of no consequence - the offence is using the tickets, not buying them.

That’s what I’m talking about if they had CCTV of someone using the tickets from a data trawl, to prove whether it was the account holder they’d need a picture of them to match it to, which is impossible unless perhaps they could obtain an online season ticket photo or railcard photo.

Even if they did rule out it’s the account holder they wouldn’t ever work out who it is unless the account holder told them in a data trawl email response.

 

[tutacre]

That's of no consequence - the offence is using the tickets, not buying them.

This isn't right.

Possession of invalid tickets alone may constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006, even if they are never used. The caveat is that an operator has to reasonably believe the ticket was obtained as a result of, or otherwise in some connection to, fraud(s). The simple possession is enough.

In addition, the process of obtaining deliberately invalid or ineligible tickets may also be an offence under Section 11, generally in cases where there has been some form of dishonesty to obtain them.

Previously, Fraud Act 2006 prosecutions were relatively rare - and probably still are in comparison to other railway offences, but they're no longer just theoretical. However, in terms of Section 6 and Section 11, there is going to be quite a bit of work in proving the intent or proving the existence of a fraud - and a train operator ultimately may not be able to do so at the end - however they absolutely are entitled to (and as a public body, may even be obliged to) try to investigate that, gather evidence and try to prove the offence(s), even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.

 

[Haywain]

This isn't right.

Possession of invalid tickets alone may constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006, even if they are never used. The caveat is that an operator has to reasonably believe the ticket was obtained as a result of, or otherwise in some connection to, fraud(s). The simple possession is enough.

In addition, the process of obtaining deliberately invalid or ineligible tickets may also be an offence under Section 11, generally in cases where there has been some form of dishonesty to obtain them.

Previously, Fraud Act 2006 prosecutions were relatively rare - and probably still are in comparison to other railway offences, but they're no longer just theoretical. However, in terms of Section 6 and Section 11, there is going to be quite a bit of work in proving the intent or proving the existence of a fraud - and a train operator ultimately may not be able to do so at the end - however they absolutely are entitled to (and as a public body, may even be obliged to) try to investigate that, gather evidence and try to prove the offence(s), even if they are ultimately unsuccessful.

And you think a bit of CCTV footage will suffice as proof for a fraud offence? Seriously, in the context of the discussion, there is nothing wrong with what I said.

 

[tutacre]

And you think a bit of CCTV footage will suffice as proof for a fraud offence? Seriously, in the context of the discussion, there is nothing wrong with what I said.

You misunderstand me - I am absolutely not saying it is sufficient for a fraud offence, I even explicitly said it would be very difficult to prove - what it does do is enable a train operator to investigate and gather evidence, as there are (serious) criminal offences from possession or purchase alone in the circumstances I describe. I'm simply stating that your proposition that no offence(s) are committed is untrue and inaccurate - even if it amounts to the same thing - i.e. no prosecution. The real difference is what it enables a train operator to do before any prosecution is even considered - around the evidence gathering, statements, data requests etc.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

In addition, the process of obtaining deliberately invalid or ineligible tickets may also be an offence under Section 11, generally in cases where there has been some form of dishonesty to obtain them.

It's not an offence to buy tickets for a third party, so how do you prove that a ticket purchased from an accredited retailer is invalid or ineligible?

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not an offence to buy tickets for a third party, so how do you prove that a ticket purchased from an accredited retailer is invalid or ineligible?

By admission. We are talking about the very process here used to get people to admit to it - the fraud letters process.

 

[tutacre]

It's not an offence to buy tickets for a third party, so how do you prove that a ticket purchased from an accredited retailer is invalid or ineligible?

That is only correct in a very narrow view.

It absolutely is an offence if the intent is fraudulent or reasonably associated with or connected to a fraud.

It depends entirely on why and who the tickets are being purchased for, and what the ticket(s) actually are.

As my previous answer elaborated on - I am not claiming that it is easy or simple to prove (or even possible!) - but I am claiming that it gives a train operator reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed, and thus grounds to investigate and to try to prove the offence, especially as a public sector body.

As @AlterEgo says, a letter may be generated, and many people do engage and respond with admissions - which somewhat makes the difficult evidence gathering rather simpler, and a slam dunk prosecution, or more likely, settlement!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Possession of invalid tickets alone may constitute an offence under Section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006, even if they are never used.

It may, but almost certainly wouldn't. They have to be for use in the course of or in connection with fraud. Unless the person is stopped whilst either using or attempting to use the ticket fraudulently, there is little or no chance of securing a conviction. The TOC's "reasonable belief" doesn't come into it.

The fraud isn't in purchasing a ticket with a railcard discount when you do not hold the railcard. Until you use it or attempt to use it, you've not committed an offence. The fraud (by false representation) is in deliberately using the ticket with a railcard discount when you do know you do not hold the railcard.

So this brings us back to the question of CCTV. Unless you can prove that the person in the CCTV was using a fraudulent ticket and that the user of a fraudulent ticket is the person in the CCTV, you're getting nowhere.

 

[AlterEgo]

It may, but almost certainly wouldn't. They have to be for use in the course of or in connection with fraud.

But that is the case with very many people who buy these tickets. They buy them knowing they are not entitled and having misrepresented a lie that they hold X railcard or are a child for example.

Unless the person is stopped whilst either using or attempting to use the ticket fraudulently, there is little or no chance of securing a conviction. The TOC's "reasonable belief" doesn't come into it.

But that doesn't preclude companies from writing to people to ask if they're committing fraud and that the company has seen what they're up to.

The fraud isn't in purchasing a ticket with a railcard discount when you do not hold the railcard

It is, if it is for your use or the use of someone else with dishonest purposes. You commit an offence under section 6 when you do this and your intent is to use the ticket to commit fraud whether you then go on to travel or not.

Let's be very theoretical and say I get stopped by the police and I am found to have a child railway ticket on me while walking to the station. If I admit to having it so I can travel for half price, then I have admitted to an offence. Possessing an article to the use in or connection with fraud. In the same way, having a fake passport on you or a mocked up employee badge for the local bank - if intended to be used in the course of a fraud - are also offences.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

Let's be very theoretical and say I get stopped by the police and I am found to have a child railway ticket on me while walking to the station. If I admit to having it so I can travel for half price, then I have admitted to an offence. Possessing an article to the use in or connection with fraud. In the same way, having a fake passport on you or a mocked up employee badge for the local bank - if intended to be used in the course of a fraud - are also offences.

If they remained silent, would it harm their defence if prosecuted and what could they be prosecuted for?

 

[AlterEgo]

If they remained silent, would it harm their defence if prosecuted and what could they be prosecuted for?

In the case of a person simply being found with an child ticket on their way to a station, where there is no other evidence, it is unlikely that any prosecution could come forth from that if they simply exercised their right to silence. But that's not really the nub of the matter. It is reasonable for a police officer to ask why you have it even if you have the right not to answer the question. In the same way, an adult who has displayed suspicious behaviour around their ticket purchases may well be legitimately asked by a retailer why they are buying those tickets.

It is also the case that sometimes TOCs are not even applying any sort of reasonable suspicion test (see the very first post and the thread this one was cleft from) and that is bad, of course. But the principle remains.

 

[MotCO]

Whilst hopefully not going off-topic, I do sometimes wonder about giving advice to people who have received a trawling letter and who have admitted not paying the correct fares, when we advise not to reply, we are effectively denying the TOCs some income which they should have received. Do the TOCs consider us a nuisance?

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

 

[Egg Centric]

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

Of course they have different views! But if they want us to give advice that suits the TOC best then they need to pay us consultancy fees at a minimum

My suspicion, and it's only that, is that in truth no one genuinely cares due to the size and nature of the TOCs. Everyone is a replaceable cog in a giant bureaucracy, it's not like a startup where there's personal agency and ownership and they'd be more likely to "take it personally". I could be wrong though.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Whilst hopefully not going off-topic, I do sometimes wonder about giving advice to people who have received a trawling letter and who have admitted not paying the correct fares, when we advise not to reply, we are effectively denying the TOCs some income which they should have received. Do the TOCs consider us a nuisance?

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

We're not actually here to do the TOCs' work for them. Although as an argument that might have the same result, I do begin to feel uncomfortable when posters ask us for ways to avoid the consequences of their actions. But if that's what it feels like to me, it's open to me to not comment.

 

[Haywain]

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

If the TOCs had the same view as us there wouldn't be any point in them sending letters out! However, whilst our advice may make it difficult for the TOCs to receive the money they believe they are due, we do always advise those who come to us to ensure they buy the correct tickets and use them correctly if they haven't been doing so before. Simply stopping the short faring, doughnutting or whatever still represents a win for the TOC.

 

[speedy1]

As a lay person, very much agree with the previous opinions that TOCs have plenty of opportunity before resulting to legally-dubious data trawls and sending lazy, unprofessional emails. And while it is legally-dubious, I think it's fair game to help the public with some defence.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is, if it is for your use or the use of someone else with dishonest purposes. You commit an offence under section 6 when you do this and your intent is to use the ticket to commit fraud whether you then go on to travel or not.

Intent is the crux of the matter for Fraud Act prosecutions. Unless you have used or attempted to use a ticket, it would be very difficult to prove that someone intended for a fraud to take place. In addition, it would also be necessary to prove that someone knew (or, more accurately since Ivey v Genting Casinos, that an ordinary person ought to have known) they were not entitled to the discount.

My response was in response to the suggestions that CCTV evidence could be used to support a prosecution for fraud. Obviously, if someone is dumb enough to admit it in writing then the perspective changes.

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

My view is that where people come to us for advice having received one of these letters, the advice should be factual.

When I respond on these sorts of threads I will point out that the recipient is under no obligation to respond to these emails, that the recipient has the right to remain silent, and that it is sometimes better to exercise that right. I point out that, if they do choose to reply, they must not reply with a lie, but that it is reasonable to only answer the direct question asked of them. I advise people to start paying what they ought to pay.

We're not actually here to do the TOCs' work for them. Although as an argument that might have the same result, I do begin to feel uncomfortable when posters ask us for ways to avoid the consequences of their actions. But if that's what it feels like to me, it's open to me to not comment.

It depends what you mean by "posters asking us for ways to avoid the consequences of their actions."

If a TOC has done their job properly and lined up all their ducks in a row then the advice to a poster will be, and can only be, to pay up and pronto.

If a TOC hasn't done their job properly and hasn't lined up all their ducks in a row, then I'm not actually advising on how someone can avoid the consequences of their actions. I'm advising on whether the TOC has done their job properly. If the TOC hasn't done what they should have done- whether that's getting out and stopping people, or issuing Penalty Fares correctly in accordance with the law, or whatever- then it follows that there should be no consequences for the poster.

 

[tutacre]

I think some of this misses the point.

TOCs are generally entitled to send out these letters - and in many cases, they're well founded and almost always correct in their assertion that there is some kind of fraud at play. You can dress that up however you like, and absolutely question whether they can actually prove the offence(s), but the letters are not fishing expeditions which some here unfairly claim.

It is also quite normal in criminal investigations for people to admit to things without much probing - some humans feel an urge or obligation to get it off their chest, draw a line under things or simply panic. An admission is generally evidence, so is the fact of a lack of a response to a letter, or a denial. It is reasonable for a train operator to seek out new evidence, such as a witness statement or comments, and indeed, if they're investigating a criminal matter, they are obliged to exhaust relevant lines of enquiry, in either direction.

Whether that evidence at the end of the process is sufficient for a prosecution is a whole other question - as I and others have said, it may be quite difficult - but not impossible - to reach the criminal standard of guilt, and in any event, that is more a judicial decision rather than a TOC or passenger.

My impression is that some here seem to be saying that because it is difficult to prove - that the letters shouldn't be going out in the first place.

I would also point out that most of these letters are now coming from TOCs 100% in the public sector - you're not diddling a private Dutch or German PLC out of the cash - it's the UK taxpayer. It also fails to recognise that public sector organisations have duties and responsibilities to detect and prevent fraud and ensure taxpayer value.

I also suspect that the email versions of these letters probably have various types of tracking embedded with them - specific pixels, code that identifies what time you received it, IP addresses, clicking links etc, device information - all of which is quite normal in corporate emails these days. That information could also form part of their evidence trail, particularly if they're correlating that with online sales from that same device or account etc.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

but the letters are not fishing expeditions which some here unfairly claim.

There have been examples where people buying tickets for one stop have had accusations made in circumstances where the ticket purchases appear legitimate. We've also seen accusations of misuse of railcards where it was the TOC or retailer that didn't have the necessary data. If the rail industry as a whole cannot be bothered to maintain historic and accessible records of Railcard purchases, why should holders be required to keep an archive for them to fend off accusations of misuse?

 

[gembercannelle]

Whilst hopefully not going off-topic, I do sometimes wonder about giving advice to people who have received a trawling letter and who have admitted not paying the correct fares, when we advise not to reply, we are effectively denying the TOCs some income which they should have received. Do the TOCs consider us a nuisance?

I appreciate that we are responding to posters who come to us for advice, and to be fair, not to reply is the best advice. But the TOCs may have different views.

Firstly, I believe that TOCs which frequent on these pages, that is SWR and GA, could have been checking tickets more frequently. It is not exactly the rocket science to catch people with Vauxhall - Waterloo tickets on trains who don't even call at Vauxhall. I appreciate it is cheaper to send emails.

Secondly, as Tetchytyke has explained earlier, their "investigators" not only cannot be considered independent, but also deliberately avoid the best practice, which involves, in particular, telling the person upfront what activity is being investigated, in a clear and unambiguous manner.

If two people, A and B, regularly travel from, say, Reading to London at peak times, and A is buying tickets Reading - Reading West and Ealing Broadway - London Paddington, while B pays in full, then by the end of the week B has spent over £100 more than A. If the tickets are not checked, then B will eventually learn to behave like A. On the other hand, if the tickets are checked, then A will probably learn to behave like B. In other words, the lack of regular ticket checks is contributing to the number of people donutting and short-faring.

 

[Sonic1234]

I would also point out that most of these letters are now coming from TOCs 100% in the public sector - you're not diddling a private Dutch or German PLC out of the cash - it's the UK taxpayer.

GTR use this argument on their posters about fare evasion. Problem is, some will see the fact that fare income is passed to the Government as a reason to evade fares.

 

[duffield]

...

I also suspect that the email versions of these letters probably have various types of tracking embedded with them - specific pixels, code that identifies what time you received it, IP addresses, clicking links etc, device information - all of which is quite normal in corporate emails these days. That information could also form part of their evidence trail, particularly if they're correlating that with online sales from that same device or account etc.

Just on this point I understand that by default most email providers/clients etc. block or nullify such tracking to some extent these days. Google for example opens the trackers and other images via its proxy server, so the sender can tell that it was opened and when it was opened, but nothing else like your IP address, so they don't get any clues as to who actually opened it or where.