TOCs sharing out information on passengers

[PG]

Well, after some time a circular email was sent around instructing East Midlands Trains staff to pass whatever tickets RJ presented and not under any circumstances to charge him up or issue any Penalty Fare or Unpaid Fare Notice, although they were allowed to note and report unusual combinations used in order to get them closed down.

So basically they, in this case EMT, bid for (and won) the franchise but now seek to move the goalposts by getting ATOC to amend the Routeing Guide/ add negative easements/ whatever.

IMO you bid for the franchise and you knew the conditions ie NRCoC+RG so it's not RJs (or any other passengers) problem but the TOCs - Don't bid at such a price if you then subsequently decide you can't adhere to it!
However while there remains no-one to effectively monitor/police the TOCs behaviour then these practices will continue to the passengers detriment so I guess I should shut up and get off my soap box

 

[island]

Well, the EMT response to that would be something to the effect of "We bid for and won the franchise in good faith and feel that passengers using tickets in ways which are permitted but illogical and unintentionally valid are acting contrary to that good faith"...

 

[jon0844]

The On Board Manager (OBM) involved attempted to wind me up in a chance meeting a few weeks ago. Among other things, he claimed that Southeastern were building a case against me.

You could say they're building a case indeed, given the paperwork they've got and you now have.

Problem is the case they've built will be used against them!

 

[Wolfie]

It is being sorted. Until this point, Southeastern did a good job of pretending they didn't know that my ticket was valid for the journey I was making, when they very much did. To the point where I've had no apology for the way I was treated and had to stave off a Penalty Fare and Notice of Intention to Prosecute. They were going to take me to court for something they were fully aware that I was not guilty of.

Southeastern haven't done anything about the staff involved in the incidents at Ashford International or Stratford. The On Board Manager (OBM) involved attempted to wind me up in a chance meeting a few weeks ago. Among other things, he claimed that Southeastern were building a case against me. His big mouth is the sole cause of this matter kicking off again. Other staff involved in the incident have also subsequently gone out of their way to bother me when I've been minding my own business. This time, I won't drop it until Southeastern put it right.

In my view it is time to involve the police. The documenst you have, together with the attitude of these staff, is prima face evidence of harrassment.

See link, use the procedures and make SouthEastern's life hell!

http://report-it.org.uk/report_a_hate_crime
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Rats, wrong link:
http://www.report-it.org.uk/bullying_and_harassment

 

[northwichcat]

Well, the EMT response to that would be something to the effect of "We bid for and won the franchise in good faith and feel that passengers using tickets in ways which are permitted but illogical and unintentionally valid are acting contrary to that good faith"...

Doesn't make sense to me. Stagecoach would have had the ticket sales data prior to submitting a bid for the franchise and are trying to generate additional revenue by closing down certain combinations which give them lower revenue than alternative combinations.

 

[island]

I didn't say it made sense, now, did I.

 

[Bonemaster]

Are these internal emails? If these are there has been no breach of the act. If external I am by no means certain a breach has occurred either, it can be argued the data sharing is relevant to the nature of business, is not related to direct marketing, nothing on the sensitive data list is contained in them.

You may be surprised how much data is legally shared between organisations every day as the data protection act is a very specific piece of legislation.

As for the link to hate crime site, look up what a hate crime is, this certainly is not one, and trivialises victims of genuine hate crimes.

 

[Mojo]

Are these internal emails? If these are there has been no breach of the act. If external I am by no means certain a breach has occurred either, it can be argued the data sharing is relevant to the nature of business, is not related to direct marketing, nothing on the sensitive data list is contained in them.

Not sure what you mean by 'internal emails' but there seems to be discussion of the fact that a Penalty fare or other dispute exists and that this has been circulated to other Tocs.

As for the link to hate crime site, look up what a hate crime is, this certainly is not one, and trivialises victims of genuine hate crimes.

See the full post; he immediately edited the post below to say that that was the link was posted in error, and posted the correct link right below.

 

[richw]

There is no clear DPA breach on the images posted. However depending on the details RJ has blanked they could be a breach.
There is no offence asking other companies for information, however they providing info will be a DPA breach.
We get 3rd parties at work asking for information day in day out, we will only provide the info if the 3rd party provides a signed "authority to disclose form" from the customer. No authority, no info is provided.

 

[Timster83]

One of the other stipulations in the DPA is that data held must be relevant. Is it relevant to store information from what looks like a fishing expedition when the matter at hand is a simple appeal and totally unrelated to delay repay and RTVs?

 

[sheff1]

You may be surprised how much data is legally shared between organisations every day as the data protection act is a very specific piece of legislation.

I would not.

I would also not be surprised how much data is illegally shared every day. You can be certain that the cases which come to light are very much the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Bonemaster]

Not sure what you mean by 'internal emails' but there seems to be discussion of the fact that a Penalty fare or other dispute exists and that this has been circulated to other Tocs.

An internal communication in the nature of business between two employees of the same organisation is very unlikely to be a breach. The external emails are highly likely to be justified by an irregular pattern for an individual, thus making any enquiries to other TOCs justifiable.

By all means try a complaint to the ICO about SET (not the police its not their matter), it wont be upheld.

If someone exploits loopholes, don't be suprised if TOCs start investigating and data sharing just as we all would expect TOCs (and more obviously other industries like insurance) to do with fraudsters, and fare evaders which maybe detected with similar patterns, with one key difference, nothing will be found if all the loopholes are bona fide, then nothing more will come of it. I'm sure nobody here will object to data sharing between TOCs regarding delay repay, or ticket fraud, which result in somebody being brought before the courts.

 

[RJ]

An internal communication in the nature of business between two employees of the same organisation is very unlikely to be a breach. The external emails are highly likely to be justified by an irregular pattern for an individual, thus making any enquiries to other TOCs justifiable.

By all means try a complaint to the ICO about SET (not the police its not their matter), it wont be upheld.

If someone exploits loopholes, don't be suprised if TOCs start investigating and data sharing just as we all would expect TOCs (and more obviously other industries like insurance) to do with fraudsters, and fare evaders which maybe detected with similar patterns, with one key difference, nothing will be found if all the loopholes are bona fide, then nothing more will come of it. I'm sure nobody here will object to data sharing between TOCs regarding delay repay, or ticket fraud, which result in somebody being brought before the courts.

You have made a few fair points. Do the Independent Penalty Fares Appeals Service (IPFAS) also have the right to provide the names and postcodes of appellants to Train Operating Companies (TOCs) not involved with the case? That is precisely what was done here. The member of staff from Southeastern emailed several other TOCs, ATOC and goodness knows who else. Some of those TOCs do not even use Southeastern's revenue protection services.

The Penalty Fare wasn't filled in to a satisfactory standard - but there was nothing on it to suggest that I didn't hold a railcard. They had the option of consulting their accountants to obtain a copy of the voucher that was taken as payment. They also had the option of reading the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which would have told them everything they needed to know to determine the validity of the ticket I was using.

To be fair, the appeal assessor did email a senior member of Southeastern's retail management team for his opinion on the ticket I used. It was cheaper than both a Canterbury to Stratford and a Canterbury to Gravesend ticket - can anyone make sense of their assumptions on its validity? His response suggests that he does not understand Condition 13. He quoted part of it at the bottom of the first page, but did not quote the part of the condition which states that any such restriction will be shown on the ticket (i.e Not Valid on HS1.)

I am unamused that the IPFAS have such an easy going relationship with Southeastern's customer service department. They agreed a non standard method of reimbursement between them and our Customer Services rep also has an opinion on my case's assignment to the appeal assessor. I had a message on Tuesday from a "senior member of Southeastern's communications team" stating that they've handled matters pertaining to me in a "professional and proper manner." I'm yet to be convinced. That said, "Independent" has specific stipulations attached to it as shown in the Penalty Fares Policy. These stipulations do not mention any restrictions on who can be consulted when appeals are being decided.

Asking other Train Operating Companies for information on me was at best, them being nosy. They knew I used a Rail Travel Voucher - but there was no business requirement in assessing the appeal for them to go emailing Merseyrail, Arriva Trains Wales and all other TOCs to find out more about me. Using a Canterbury to Tilbury ticket on the most direct route permitted by what was shown on the ticket when I purchased it is not exploiting a loophole.

 

[bb21]

I am unamused that the IPFAS have such an easy going relationship with Southeastern's customer service department. They agreed a non standard method of reimbursement between them and our Customer Services rep also has an opinion on my case's assignment to the appeal assessor. I had a message on Tuesday from a "senior member of Southeastern's communications team" banging on about how they've handled matters pertaining to me in a "professional and proper manner." I'm yet to be convinced.

Nice to see that different railway organisations can work together - shame that it is not for the benefit of the passengers. :roll:

I was most amused by the final paragraph in the very last email message. Nice to know that IPFAS are happy to ignore legal contracts with the passengers such as the NRCoC, and are not ashamed to admit that. :roll:

If the DafT really are bothered about protecting passengers' rights rather than paying lip service, this final email should be a damning verdict on IPFAS, and they should be rid of in no time. :roll:

Not really sure what else to say apart from rolling my eyes. Disgusting behaviour.

 

[furlong]

The Penalty Fare wasn't filled in to a satisfactory standard

Oh dear! It looks to me as though SouthEastern is putting its Penalty Fares revenue at unnecessary risk if it is routinely issuing forms like that!

 

[talltim]

I've not seen a PF form before. What are the issues with the way it is filled in?

 

[trc666]

This is an example of a Penalty Fare Notice (taken from a Google image search):

This PFN however does not show the Failed to Carry Season Ticket or Oyster Card reason codes.

 

[Wolfie]

An internal communication in the nature of business between two employees of the same organisation is very unlikely to be a breach. The external emails are highly likely to be justified by an irregular pattern for an individual, thus making any enquiries to other TOCs justifiable.

By all means try a complaint to the ICO about SET (not the police its not their matter), it wont be upheld.

If someone exploits loopholes, don't be suprised if TOCs start investigating and data sharing just as we all would expect TOCs (and more obviously other industries like insurance) to do with fraudsters, and fare evaders which maybe detected with similar patterns, with one key difference, nothing will be found if all the loopholes are bona fide, then nothing more will come of it. I'm sure nobody here will object to data sharing between TOCs regarding delay repay, or ticket fraud, which result in somebody being brought before the courts.

my bold

Data protection is not a police matter you are correct. However I find your certainty that any complaint to the ICO would be dismissed fascinating (unless, of course, you are the ICO!) not least because it talks about an internal communication between two employees of the same organisation - so much for the independence of IFPAS - that alone should result in its death as an "impartial" body.

However, harrassment emphatically is a police matter (unless you know better than the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office!) and as someone who has experience in Govt (not in either of those depts) of involvement in three public inquiries, in excess of a hundred judicial reviews, and numerous other legal cases, my own personal view is that there is at least prima face evidence of a course of behaviour which could fall into that category.

I suggest you look at British Gas vs Ferguson, and in particular the views of Lord Justice Jacob:

"[British Gas] sought to downgrade [the behaviour] by saying that Ms Ferguson knew the claims and threats were unjustified," he said in the ruling. "That is absurd: a victim of harassment will almost always know that it is unjustified. The Act is there to protect people against unjustified harassment. Indeed if the impugned conduct is justified it is unlikely to amount to harassment at all."

"As at present it seems to me that all the Act requires of the victim is to identify the course of conduct and what passed between the victim and the alleged harasser. The court is then notionally to put knowledge of that and of any other relevant information into the mind of this reasonable person. The court then decides whether that person would consider that the course of conduct amounts to harassment."

 

[Altnabreac]

my bold

Data protection is not a police matter you are correct. However I find your certainty that any complaint to the ICO would be dismissed fascinating (unless, of course, you are the ICO!) not least because it talks about an internal communication between two employees of the same organisation - so much for the independence of IFPAS - that alone should result in its death as an "impartial" body.

However, harrassment emphatically is a police matter (unless you know better than the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office!) and as someone who has experience in Govt (not in either of those depts) of involvement in three public inquiries, in excess of a hundred judicial reviews, and numerous other legal cases, my own personal view is that there is at least prima face evidence of a course of behaviour which could fall into that category.

I suggest you look at British Gas vs Ferguson, and in particular the views of Lord Justice Jacob:

"[British Gas] sought to downgrade [the behaviour] by saying that Ms Ferguson knew the claims and threats were unjustified," he said in the ruling. "That is absurd: a victim of harassment will almost always know that it is unjustified. The Act is there to protect people against unjustified harassment. Indeed if the impugned conduct is justified it is unlikely to amount to harassment at all."

"As at present it seems to me that all the Act requires of the victim is to identify the course of conduct and what passed between the victim and the alleged harasser. The court is then notionally to put knowledge of that and of any other relevant information into the mind of this reasonable person. The court then decides whether that person would consider that the course of conduct amounts to harassment."

As someone who has some relevant professional experience in this field it seems to me that while there potentially are some issues around the data sharing side of things the more likely issues for South Eastern are around accuracy and relevance.

Worth having a read of the guidance here:
http://www.ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/information_standards/principle_4

Have SE noted that RJ has disputed the accuracy of some of their allegations about him by tagging their records as disputed? Have they corrected any assertions by their staff that he acted illegally? If they received a data request from another TOC would all their statements about RJ's behaviour be accurate?

If no offence was committed by RJ as the tickets were valid all along (as admitted in the final email above) is there even a relevance to keeping the data?

These matters are often difficult to decide as the act is open to interpretation but on the evidence seen above (plus RJ's redactions of additional inaccurate assertions) it would certainly seem likely they hold a variety of inaccurate information about RJ.

It is unlikely a serious breach has occurred yet but if RJ submits a formal request for them to correct the information they hold on him and this is ignored, or not correctly complied with, then they could be looking at a big fine ££££.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The email, referred to by RJ in post 43, states clearly that NRES shows the route via Stratford. I issume this is the roure RJ used.

Given that we are told to use NRES as the definitive means of validating any route, I don't understand why this case even arose.

If NRES is incorrect, not my problem, sort out your hopeless software instead of punishing clever passengers! As is often seen on the news, many companies exploit loopholes in tax legislation / regulations but they are not breaking the law. If the government doesn't like the loopholes it is up to it to act, not blame the companies for having clever accountants. The same applies here.

In several threads it is clear that each variant of the on-line journey planners uses different software, different electronic versions of the NRG map, different itineraries are the outcome.

Isn't it time for someone to sort this mess out. Is there any industry wide body to co-ordinate things?

Oh, and I note the date of travel was 1 April.

 

[RJ]

I've not seen a PF form before. What are the issues with the way it is filled in?

Not verified whether it was issued on board or at a station and a false reason given for its issue. IPFAS logged that it was "inadequate" due to the lack of a signature or provision of my Date of Birth.

The dispute from the 1st April incident goes on. Following on from the Subject Access Request, I decided to confront Southeastern with one or two revelations from it. This is one response I received.

Thank you for your recent email to [name removed]. I’m responding as a senior member of the Southeastern communications team charged with reviewing your case. I have read your lengthy file with care I am genuinely sorry you seem so dissatisfied with Southeastern and that your journeys with us appear to have been less than satisfactory. Accordingly, if you believe that Southeastern has acted unreasonably or unfairly, I have no hesitation in offering an apology on behalf of the company.

[....]

Finally and again with respect, we believe we have dealt with you queries, complaints and requests for information in a professional and proper manner. If you are still dissatisfied, you have recourse to London TravelWatch, the statutory watchdog for public transport users in the London area at www.londontravelwatch.org.uk or alternatively, you may wish to seek independent legal advice.

I replied to this, stating that I did not accept their patronising apology. I also asked them not to contact me again until they were prepared to admit what it was abundantly clear what they already know, that they were categorically wrong in telling me and acting on the pretence that my ticket was not valid. They were told that it was valid, yet they were still going on like they've not done anything remotely wrong.

As a direct result of this message, I then sent another email to Southeastern declaring my intention to go the whole nine yards with getting them to rectify the issues with the information they have on me. I think at this point they realised that letting the dispute run is going to be time and resource consuming for them.

I received another message shortly after, which started as follows;

Thank you for your recent email.

Let me say from the outset that we have no hesitation in offering a full apology for any distress these incidents may have caused you.

With regard to the validity of your ticket, staff acted in good faith on the information available to them at the time and we are genuinely sorry for mistakes or errors made in our dealings with you.

...

I do recognise that this was a genuine attempt at sincerity. Given the way some of the staff involved in the 1st April incident have behaved towards me in subsequent chance encounters, it will take a lot more than this to convince me that Southeastern has done a d*mned thing to actually address the problem. Among other things, I've asked them to make their staff aware that the National Routeing Guide does exist and may contain routing anomalies. Also that there are civilised ways of dealing with validity disputes. Southeastern's staff dragging fare paying passengers around doesn't do anything positive for the image of the industry.

I await their response with anticipation.

 

[Chew Chew]

Nice one for sharing the internal emails with us RJ.

An absolute joke that they are claiming that they dealt with things in a professional manner given the evidence you have shared with us.

I wonder if an internal email has gone round telling staff to be more professional in their emails exchanges both internally and externally incase another passenger like yourself, or perhaps you yourself if you have further issues, ask for a copy of all the information they hold on them in the future?

 

[jon0844]

More likely an email going around telling people to watch what they say! Of course, even those emails could, in theory, one day be used as evidence!

 

[RJ]

So I put in a formal complaint to Southeastern after discovering that the Independent Penalty Fare Appeals Service got my details from a Penalty Fare they were processing and passed on my name and part of my address to various entities. Given some of them appear to have hit the "reply to all" button when responding, it looks like there are more TOCs who decided to forward my personal information on. I didn't want to provide Southeastern with those details - I was required to by law and they took the decision to go and disclose it as they saw fit.

Today, I received an apology from Southeastern for the breach. They said they are looking into taking remedial steps to prevent it from happening again. Still, what's done is done and I wanted to know what was achieved by the appeals assessor's decision to do this.

ATOC confirmed they did not issue the voucher, but suggested contacting Atos/RSP to find out who issued the voucher.

Chiltern - "Nothing from Chiltern"

East Coast - "Nothing from us." I respect them greatly for this, because I have had RTVs from them. They quite rightly appear to take the stance that it's no other TOC's business what complaints/claims their customers have put into them.

First Great Western - "Looks like it might have been us. Two vouchers were sent to [name removed] on 18 February 2012 in response for a claim for compensation following a delayed journey on 7 February 2012. The ticket held was a rail rover & one £50 and one £18 voucher was sent as comp - 10% of the ticket cost, which was £680."

First Scotrail - "We have no record of any correspondence from this customer ‐ but we have been alerted to him by our Auditor."

London Overground - "Nothing on name, postcode or voucher number here."

Merseyrail - "we have no record in that name and don't issue £50.00 TVs. The name of the operator should be on the voucher."

Northern - "Hi yes nothing showing for northern."

Southern - "I have had a look there are a few DR claims but not paid by vouchers, they were claims form 2012 and paid by cheques."

Hi [name removed], [name removed] and [name removed] - interestingly we have also provided Delay Repay compensation to this customer for the following: 9 February 2012 £34.00 - formed of 3 x £10.00, 1 x £4.00 voucher splits 25 July 2012 £ 68.00 - formed of 2 x £25.00, 1x £18.00 voucher splits

without wishing to air my depts dirty laundry we haven't got in our system the record of the tickets for the first one - although we have a response letter, and for the second journey we have received a photocopied ticket as well as a considerably damaged all line rail rover at £680.00 which the customer claimed to have sent to FGW first and that they had returned to him. On both cases which have resulted in delay repay vouchers being issued out [name removed] has failed to initially attach a ticket to the claim, and in both cases there is over a month between our request for a ticket and his response...could this be because he has waited for a ticket to be returned to him!

Whilst not a regular contact in our database I have still flagged this customer with my team.

Wed 22/05/2013 14:16

We do have this passenger on our database, and have issued him two vouchers one for £64.80 on 27 July 2012 and another for £32.40 on 31 July 2012. These were both relating to delay repay claims.

Wed 22/05/2013 14:59

I’m not entirely surprised. He is on everyone’s delay/repay radar – you would not believe the amount of money he’s claimed – it’s a wonder to me he’s got time to work with all the travelling he allegedly does!
Perhaps his name is worth flagging up for the future as it would definitely be worth seeing his tickets before paying out again.

Wed 22/05/2013 15:09

Thanks [name removed]. We’ve put a warning note about him on our database, so agents can be extra careful when handling his cases.

Further commentary from IFPAS that was not included in the original response to my Subject Access Request

Wed 22/05/2013 15:46
He’s certainly been a busy little bee hasn’t he? Puts the other claimants mentioned previously to shame!

Finally, I don't know who this was sent to, though I suspect it was in response to an earlier email their colleague sent to IPFAS questioning whether or not I intended to go to Tilbury.

Tue 11/06/2013 13:13

Hi again [name removed]

[name removed] is back with a copy of his YP Railcard – in fact, he’s got every card known to man (including a staff pass – not for SE though)!

I still haven’t been able to get to the bottom of his case as I can’t establish whether he was “off route” or whether the journey reported would qualify as a “no ticket” or “overdistance” scenario. What I do know is that [name removed] travelled from Canterbury to Ashford, where he broke his journey. He then travelled on HS1 and alighted at Stratford Intl, where he left the station. He says he was travelling to Tilbury but like you, I have my suspicions that he never intended to go to Tilbury. I think he is just using this ticket to travel via the most convenient route to Stratford at the cheapest price possible, by paying an excess fare only if challenged (and he obviously didn’t expect to be challenged late evening on Easter Monday).

Does this ticket allow him to break his journey?

More importantly, is this an off route scenario (I so want it not to be but I’ve a feeling that it is!).

The appeals assessor almost got it right, except for the bit about me paying an excess fare if challenged - not required with a ticket already valid for the journey being undertaken. Given the funereal pace at which Southeastern are moving with resolving the dispute, I think they want me to investigate their actions further.

 

[34D]

My offer to put £50 into a fighting fund still stands. I suspect others will do likewise.

Surely it is only a matter of time before they try to cause trouble for you with your employer?

 

[tractakid]

East Coast - "Nothing from us." I respect them greatly for this, because I have had RTVs from them. They quite rightly appear to take the stance that it's no other TOC's business what complaints/claims their customers have put into them.

Or, they might not know what's going on in their own company. xD

 

[DaveNewcastle]

East Coast - "Nothing from us." I respect them greatly for this, because . . . .
. . .

Or, they might not know what's going on in their own company. xD

Yes, I wanted to agree with RJ on that interpretation, and I even believe that their sense of corporate responsibility would compell them to remain silent, but . . . . . sadly, I suspect that tractakid may be correct. Hopefully, the true explanation is neither of these, and someone just typed RJ's name with a slightly incorrect spelling.


The list of replies from Operators did lead me to want to ask a question - not a question that I want RJ to answer on here, but one that might help keep these reports in context. It is: how much does RJ spend on rail travel each year?

In view of that amount of money spent, is the proportion of amounts claimed back following delays related to the national average of delayed services? Only if that proportion of RJ's claims were significantly in excess of the national average would there be even the slightest grounds for a note to be kept on file against his name suggesting anything irregular.

 

[bb21]

In view of that amount of money spent, is the proportion of amounts claimed back following delays related to the national average of delayed services? Only if that proportion of RJ's claims were significantly in excess of the national average would there be even the slightest grounds for a note to be kept on file against his name suggesting anything irregular.

The problem is that the TOCs don't know how much he spends on rail travel a year. It is a pointless measure from their point of view I suspect.

 

[tractakid]

Only if that proportion of RJ's claims were significantly in excess of the national average would there be even the slightest grounds for a note to be kept on file against his name suggesting anything irregular.

Well, what are the % figures for the amount of unclaimed compensation? It could be that making a single claim puts you above the average. Of course, I have no doubt that RJ will claim every bit of the compensation he is entitled to. Why shouldn't he? Surely only fraudulent people should be tracked.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The list of replies from Operators did lead me to want to ask a question - not a question that I want RJ to answer on here, but one that might help keep these reports in context. It is: how much does RJ spend on rail travel each year?

Not as much as the TOCs involved would like him to have spent for the journeys he's made, I'm sure.

The very nature of the fares system means there will always be "anomalies", regardless of how much some Pricing Managers would like to get shot of them.

One example I've seen recently: High Wycombe - Ewell West (Zone 6) Anytime Day Return is £36.80, as Stoneleigh, Ewell East, Ewell West and Epsom are in the same cluster for pricing on that flow.

A High Wycombe - London Zones 1-6 Anytime Day Travelcard, meanwhile, is £30.40 and equally valid for the journey.