ralphchadkirk
Established Member
But what is the legal definition of receive? I don't know, but it strikes me as logical that it could be the day someone opens that envelope or email, not the day it dropped through the letterbox.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TOCs sharing out information on passengers
- Thread starter RJ
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I would say that is not a particularly sensible interpretation.
Anyway, I think the Interpretation Act deals with it adequately enough.
Totally agree.
But from what we have read about the ways that different TOC have treated RJ in the past we know that they will attempt to try and bend the rules to suit themselves.
Thankfully he doesn't allow them to.
andyb2706
Member
Ok, I have just been looking at this thread for the first time and have not read all the replies so these observations may already have been made but:
1) Have you RJ really upset someone at South Eastern Trains? (although this does not excuse the way they are treating you) I only ask because I am a railway worker in the North and the way fellow colleagues are treating you is disgusting. Up here in the North although we all work for different companies the staff would not let fellow railway worker to get into this sort of situation as there is still a family type feel among operating staff no matter what part of the railway you work on.
2) Has not the ticket office guy who sold you a ticket, knowing which train you were planning to travel on a ticket he believes not to be valid and then told the on train manager implicated himself in a fare evasion if his assumption was correct? Should he not have refused to sell you that ticket and then if you had refused to buy the ticket he believes to have been valid for that train and then you had got on that train without a valid ticket and the on train manager should have then dealt with it?
1) Have you RJ really upset someone at South Eastern Trains? (although this does not excuse the way they are treating you) I only ask because I am a railway worker in the North and the way fellow colleagues are treating you is disgusting. Up here in the North although we all work for different companies the staff would not let fellow railway worker to get into this sort of situation as there is still a family type feel among operating staff no matter what part of the railway you work on.
2) Has not the ticket office guy who sold you a ticket, knowing which train you were planning to travel on a ticket he believes not to be valid and then told the on train manager implicated himself in a fare evasion if his assumption was correct? Should he not have refused to sell you that ticket and then if you had refused to buy the ticket he believes to have been valid for that train and then you had got on that train without a valid ticket and the on train manager should have then dealt with it?
A TOC may be allowed to pull stunts by ATOC and/or DafT. Unfortunately for ScotRail the Information Commisioner, as I well know having been involved in FOI issues for a number of years, is a whole different kettle of fish. They try playing silly beggars with him and they will really regret it!!
RJ
Established Member
I don't want to create problems with Scotrail, I just want the information I asked for. Their Customer Services department aren't answering their phone, so it is quite difficult to follow up.
Southeastern on the other hand, I have been in touch with the ICO regarding what I mentioned in the original post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I got in touch with Scotrail. They said the email hadn't been assigned for anyone to deal with yet and that this would be done in the near future. They apologised for the delay due to the backlog, but couldn't tell me how much longer I'd have to wait to hear back. I'll give it 7 more days before I chase it up again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hi,
1.) Probably. Definitely at the HQ. I think there is a culture on some parts of the railway where the customer is considered to always be wrong. But when they're right, it's difficult to handle. There are many factors on Southeastern which don't help - it's a commuter TOC with a largely captive market, so customer service is at the bottom of the priority pile. It's a DOO TOC in parts, with a corporate zero tolerance policy towards fare evasion. They don't train their ticket inspectors on how to determine the validity of tickets, so you have these hungry inspectors targeting as many passengers as they can based upon a gut feeling, a wing and a prayer. Personally, I blame the management for not giving their staff the support and knowledge they need. Morale amongst staff appears to be rock bottom in places.
Some of the back of house staff/management are upset because I use the ticketing rules to legimately travel on HS1 for less than they would like me to pay. Until they accept that HS1 is subject to the same ticketing rules as every other line in the UK, I'll be a pain in the ar*e in their eyes. I aim to pay as little as legally permissible to travel - if they want me to pay more, they shouldn't leave the loopholes wide open. I would give them free advice, but it's a bizarre recurring theme in this industry where some TOCs would sooner criminalise people who understand a bit about tickets than use them to their advantage! I will get around to publishing the majority of the contents from the 150+ page file they have on me, once I get my blog going. It's only a pity that they didn't include the bits explaining why they withdrew their Notice of Intention to Prosecute me for fare evasion
.
2.) I just said I was getting on that particular service. The ticket I purchased required travel on that service's route at least as far as Ashford. That clerk reads this forum, knows my face as I'm a semi regular customer during the week and probably knows that I commute between Canterbury and St Pancras. He was right to sell me the ticket, but perhaps not right to "warn" the OBM about me. I work in a ticket office and sell whatever I'm asked for if the customer clearly knows what they're doing.
It is the case that I don't have these problems up north! The tickets are cheap and the staff are friendly. As for why I am treated why I have been, it's not something I like to think about. I think I've narrowed it down to two things - it's either my bespoke glasses or New Era caps they don't like, I'm usually wearing both when I get the most hassle! The glasses especially came with my name imprinted on them, which is like a red rag to a bull in some quarters.
Southeastern on the other hand, I have been in touch with the ICO regarding what I mentioned in the original post.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I got in touch with Scotrail. They said the email hadn't been assigned for anyone to deal with yet and that this would be done in the near future. They apologised for the delay due to the backlog, but couldn't tell me how much longer I'd have to wait to hear back. I'll give it 7 more days before I chase it up again.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hi,
1.) Probably. Definitely at the HQ. I think there is a culture on some parts of the railway where the customer is considered to always be wrong. But when they're right, it's difficult to handle. There are many factors on Southeastern which don't help - it's a commuter TOC with a largely captive market, so customer service is at the bottom of the priority pile. It's a DOO TOC in parts, with a corporate zero tolerance policy towards fare evasion. They don't train their ticket inspectors on how to determine the validity of tickets, so you have these hungry inspectors targeting as many passengers as they can based upon a gut feeling, a wing and a prayer. Personally, I blame the management for not giving their staff the support and knowledge they need. Morale amongst staff appears to be rock bottom in places.
Some of the back of house staff/management are upset because I use the ticketing rules to legimately travel on HS1 for less than they would like me to pay. Until they accept that HS1 is subject to the same ticketing rules as every other line in the UK, I'll be a pain in the ar*e in their eyes. I aim to pay as little as legally permissible to travel - if they want me to pay more, they shouldn't leave the loopholes wide open. I would give them free advice, but it's a bizarre recurring theme in this industry where some TOCs would sooner criminalise people who understand a bit about tickets than use them to their advantage! I will get around to publishing the majority of the contents from the 150+ page file they have on me, once I get my blog going. It's only a pity that they didn't include the bits explaining why they withdrew their Notice of Intention to Prosecute me for fare evasion
.2.) I just said I was getting on that particular service. The ticket I purchased required travel on that service's route at least as far as Ashford. That clerk reads this forum, knows my face as I'm a semi regular customer during the week and probably knows that I commute between Canterbury and St Pancras. He was right to sell me the ticket, but perhaps not right to "warn" the OBM about me. I work in a ticket office and sell whatever I'm asked for if the customer clearly knows what they're doing.
It is the case that I don't have these problems up north! The tickets are cheap and the staff are friendly. As for why I am treated why I have been, it's not something I like to think about. I think I've narrowed it down to two things - it's either my bespoke glasses or New Era caps they don't like, I'm usually wearing both when I get the most hassle! The glasses especially came with my name imprinted on them, which is like a red rag to a bull in some quarters.
Last edited:
RJ
Established Member
They're nothing cool - just like these, but in plain matte black. I have to have mine specially made as standard frames and lenses cause me injury. The engravement of my name was not something I asked for or expected, but it was a nice touch.
In the meantime, I got an email from Scotrail shortly after I rang them last night, the matter is finally being followed up. As Southeastern were so helpful in letting me know which other TOCs had bandied my personal information around, I will be chasing them up individually and seeing what they have to say.
In the meantime, I got an email from Scotrail shortly after I rang them last night, the matter is finally being followed up. As Southeastern were so helpful in letting me know which other TOCs had bandied my personal information around, I will be chasing them up individually and seeing what they have to say.
Just like I said initially Wolfie, they haven't dealt with it due to the massive ongoing backlogs they have.
For some reason I had missed this thread, probably because I was in Thailand in mid November, but I really enjoy following RJs ups and downs.
With Scotrail I had a delay reclaim case when the down Highland Sleeper was around 2 hours late in arriving at Fort William, and just like RJ I had a very busy excuse but once after phoning customer services my RTVs appeared on my doormat within 48 hours.
Keep your chin up RJ and see it through.
With Scotrail I had a delay reclaim case when the down Highland Sleeper was around 2 hours late in arriving at Fort William, and just like RJ I had a very busy excuse but once after phoning customer services my RTVs appeared on my doormat within 48 hours.
Keep your chin up RJ and see it through.
VauxhallandI
Established Member
Where did they engrave the name? One word above each lens like the old car blinds!
RJ
Established Member
For some reason I had missed this thread, probably because I was in Thailand in mid November, but I really enjoy following RJs ups and downs.
With Scotrail I had a delay reclaim case when the down Highland Sleeper was around 2 hours late in arriving at Fort William, and just like RJ I had a very busy excuse but once after phoning customer services my RTVs appeared on my doormat within 48 hours.
Keep your chin up RJ and see it through.
Thanks, they appear to be on top of it now
. They did say they were busy, but I pointed out that there was a statutory time limit that had passed. I'll allow a reasonable period of grace before making any formal complaints, given the TOC involved is Scotrail.On the inside of one of the frame arms. I was very surprised to find that when I unboxed them! I can only assume that those with the powers to know the full (in)validity of every ticket without consulting any documents can also read my name from their position
.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I have been reading this thread for a while and let me say that i think RJ has been subjected to some dreadful service and his experiences here and in other areas should form a training module for many companies in how NOT to deal with issues. I have little doubt he is in the right.
That said the one eyed response of many on this thread is a work of brilliance. Simply because something is highly unsatisfactory does not make it illegal or actionable.
Playing devils advocate for a moment what will a TOC say when challenged? They will simply say they had received an anonymous allegation that the claimant was using dishonestly obtained travel vouchers to mask serial fare evasion.
I am sure they would draw attention to the fact the OP's personal working circumstances, which would allow to sensitive systems and to the information required to make a number of claims that would be required to perpetrate such a fraud.
I am sure they would point out how they operate a zero tolerance regime for fare evasion and fraud and were seeking to gather evidence of wrong doing before altering the authorities. I am then sure they would then apologise and make abundantly clear no offense had been committed. I could write you the letter now!
The data protection issue is the interesting one for me. What data are they keeping on you, how are they gathering that data, for what purpose, how is it being stored, controlled, and managed and how, why and to whom is it being shared?
Finally, if I may offer a personal note of advice learned the hard way. Make sure your conduct in your employment is exemplary and entirely by the book. If "they" are out to get you (and it seems "they" might be!) "they" will use any excuse possible to try and nail you. It doesn't take much.
That said the one eyed response of many on this thread is a work of brilliance. Simply because something is highly unsatisfactory does not make it illegal or actionable.
Playing devils advocate for a moment what will a TOC say when challenged? They will simply say they had received an anonymous allegation that the claimant was using dishonestly obtained travel vouchers to mask serial fare evasion.
I am sure they would draw attention to the fact the OP's personal working circumstances, which would allow to sensitive systems and to the information required to make a number of claims that would be required to perpetrate such a fraud.
I am sure they would point out how they operate a zero tolerance regime for fare evasion and fraud and were seeking to gather evidence of wrong doing before altering the authorities. I am then sure they would then apologise and make abundantly clear no offense had been committed. I could write you the letter now!
The data protection issue is the interesting one for me. What data are they keeping on you, how are they gathering that data, for what purpose, how is it being stored, controlled, and managed and how, why and to whom is it being shared?
Finally, if I may offer a personal note of advice learned the hard way. Make sure your conduct in your employment is exemplary and entirely by the book. If "they" are out to get you (and it seems "they" might be!) "they" will use any excuse possible to try and nail you. It doesn't take much.
RJ
Established Member
I received a letter from Scotrail yesterday. It contained a form for requesting CCTV, which I'm expected to fill out and return to them. Only I didn't want CCTV, I made it clear that it was a request for other data held on me.
It strikes me that the company doesn't quite know how to handle a subject access request. I gave them everything they needed to meet the request two months ago and they're still messing around. There's nothing else I can do on my part, other than get someone else to deal with it.
What would be useful would be if some sort of trade association would issue guidelines to the TOCs for situations like this. It's not really acceptable, but is the reality that some TOC departments are haphazardly staffed with people that don't quite know what they're doing. It's not only a nuisance for customers, but leaves the TOCs vulnerable to legal action and reputational damage. Which is not what anyone wants.
It strikes me that the company doesn't quite know how to handle a subject access request. I gave them everything they needed to meet the request two months ago and they're still messing around. There's nothing else I can do on my part, other than get someone else to deal with it.
What would be useful would be if some sort of trade association would issue guidelines to the TOCs for situations like this. It's not really acceptable, but is the reality that some TOC departments are haphazardly staffed with people that don't quite know what they're doing. It's not only a nuisance for customers, but leaves the TOCs vulnerable to legal action and reputational damage. Which is not what anyone wants.
If it's taken 2 months for them to send you the wrong form when there's a 40 statutory limit on providing the information I think it's time to get the ICO involved.
The ICO make it nice and easy for companies to find out their obligations:
http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/subject_access_requests
Unfortunately lots of companies (not just TOCs) seem to have trouble with this sort of thing - though I do know that when I worked in a bank we were all regularly told the importance of passing any subject access requests to the department who dealt with them immediately - they really didn't want to get on the wrong side of the Information Commissioner - we had regular tests on the legalities of handling data.
RJ
Established Member
I can't do that to Scotrail. I just wish they would do what they were supposed to do properly. I would like to have the problem resolved, but it's difficult when they take several weeks to read written correspondence and seem to struggle with answering the phone.
Where I work now (well, one of the places,) I had to take online modules which covered the auspices of the FOI Act and Subject Access Requests, but then I have to do my bit to meet those requests at times. If all Train Operating Companies aren't doing something to this effect with their Customer Service Departments, something is seriously wrong. Judging by the way Scotrail are going on, I have a suspicion that this may be the case.
As such, I will endeavour to try and get something done about it.
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,744
Perhaps they are aware of these posts, are aware of what their files contain but shouldn't, and are playing daft laddie to delay the inevitable? Having let the cat out of the bag previously, they cannot now deny the existence of the auditor warning.
As part of a multi-national transport company, I am sure they are fully aware of the requirements of FOI legislation. If you had randomly asked for general information, I can understand it not being seen as an FOI request and being subject to normal timescales for responding (but 2 months is enough for that anyway). If it was clearly identifed as a subject request under FOI, it should have been immediately identified and passed to the relevent department / person. If there was a delay gathering all the information, you should have been sent an interim reply or a holding reply. That's basic customer service stuff, never mind FOI Act requirements.
I don't see why enforcing your legal right (to personal information held), by referring the matter to the ICO, should be seen as causing a problem. On that basis, asking for Delay Repay compensation could also be seen as causing a problem.
A (valid) complaint of any kind should be seen (by those on the receiving end) as an opportunity to improve future performance by identifying current weaknesses / failures in your systems / processes / service provided. Unless of course, you are a business that knows it is rubbish, is content with that, and doesn't wish to improve in future. Lots of those about in all sectors of the economy.
When the FOI act was introduced, everyone where I worked at the time (a large council) had to do an on-line course, and keep doing it until they passed! No refreshers since then though.
I am not paranoid, they really are out to get me, all of them!
Zoidberg
Established Member
I'm being pedantic, but for the sake of trying to add clarity.
It's the Data Protection Act which is relevant here - Subject Access Requests are made under the DPA by individuals for them to be provided with the information held about them.
The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act is used to force government and similar bodies to make information public.
Last edited:
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,744
Thanks for that, accuracy is not pedantry. I was just being lazy on-line and not properly remembering the specifics.
The principle still applies though. As a large company they should know how to deal with these things. Particularly so given that they are a company essentially operating in the public sector and being subject to lots of scrutiny / performance regimes.
Not RJ's problem! Time to refer the issue to the Information Commissioner - I am sure that the threat of a nice big fine on Scotrail will encourage the others TOCs (after all they are fast enough to use the hopelessly consumer unfriendly byelaws when it suits them so.....).....
Zoidberg
Established Member
Agreed.
*sigh*
I have never said that it was RJ's problem.
I gave an explanation for the delay in responding to RJ's request which RJ confirmed was correct after speaking to Scotrail. No more, no less.
I agree, you did and I didn't question it.
However, if Scotrail are so dumb that they do not triage all incoming mail and deal with theings which are legal obligations first then I am afraid they should get all they quite rightly have coming to them. TOCs which in general make use of all legal powers at their disposal shouldn't be too surprised to find passengers pushing for them to be punished if they try and ignore their own non-discretionary legal obligations (and yes, I do work closely with lawyers up to and including QCs.......).
Hebden Bridger
Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 163
Why not? The only thing the ICO will do is to write to Scotrail and remind them of their responsibilities and ask them to provide you with the required information.
Its only if that reasonable request is ignored that they get heavy.
Is Scotland covers by the ICO? Is Scottish legislation different?
It is covered by the ICO - there is a local office in Edinburgh (obtained by googling ICO and Scotland...)
http://ico.org.uk/about_us/our_organisation/scotland
But for how much longer
Well if that happens there's going to be a lot of knock on effects for both the rail industry and life in general.
RJ
Established Member
I will ring Scotrail tomorrow and give one last chance for them to respond appropriately. By the looks of things, the industry might well benefit from a common training course/reference point on compliance with the DPA.
- Status