Trainline.com assisting TOCs with fraud investigations

[greyman42]

Unless you're planning on travelling to the USA on an ESTA when any conviction (or indeed arrest without charge) excludes you from the scheme...

Unless your famous, then you can get in even if you have a conviction for dealing drugs.

 

[island]

As far as the legal profession is concerned, you are mistaken. If a solicitor ends up with a dishonesty conviction it’s very much a likelihood. As I said afterwards, it’s less clear cut for a bylaw conviction.

Here is an example of someone who wasn’t even convicted of an offence, yet was sacked and struck off:

A question of honesty: solicitor struck off for fare evasion

Paul Bennett considers a real case in which a solicitor appeared at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal for misconduct committed in their private life.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

Yes it’s actually that strict…

I said a single offence. I said nothing about three months of fare evasion. If you want to misquote me and claim I’m mistaken, that isn’t in any way constructive.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==

in the US you can be de-arrested which removes the record entirely, in the UK you can't.

You can indeed be de-arrested in the UK, but it’s not especially common. It can arise, for example, when someone is arrested to de-escalate a public order situation, then drive a mile down the road and de-arrested, or where someone is arrested for a relatively minor matter, and the officer learns there’s no custody space at the local nick and decides to issue a fixed penalty notice or report for summons instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Apr 2023 ==

It says an arrest or charge "for an offence of moral turpitude", though there might be a more modern version of the wording

For the avoidance of doubt, the ESTA question is thus:

Have you ever been arrested or convicted for a crime that resulted in serious damage to property, or serious harm to another person or government authority?

It is, although the underlying law still refers to “crime involving moral turpitude”.

To confuse matters further, the US embassy in the UK states that

If you have ever been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, have a criminal record, have a serious communicable illness, have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed under the terms of the Visa Waiver Program, we do not recommend that you attempt to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program.

 

[43066]

I said a single offence. I said nothing about three months of fare evasion. If you want to misquote me and claim I’m mistaken, that isn’t in any way constructive.

Three months of fare evasion that did not result in a prosecution or a conviction. As I have said, you can be struck off for dishonesty, even if it does not constitute an offence.

You were wrong to suggest:

I don’t agree that it is anywhere near “a likelihood” for either of those roles that one might lose one’s career for a single conviction for a single offence.

If a solicitor is convicted of a a dishonesty offence this is the most likely outcome, barring exceptional circumstances. There any number of sources online which confirm this. It’s important that people are aware of how seriously these things are taken.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Without going into too many details, I am an inspector with a regulator and part of my job is to consider the integrity and competence of people I regulate.

For us, if someone pro-actively disclosed an instance of fare evasion due to an expired railcard or similar it would be unlikely to generate reservations as to their integrity.

If they didn’t tell us and we found out, it might be different, likewise if they ticked “no” asking about convictions or settlements.

If the evasion demonstrated real intent, such as doughnutting, it might also be different.

To confuse matters further, the US embassy in the UK states that

Pragmatic advice, to be honest. If you tick no but Homeland Security think you should have ticked yes then you’re in a whole new world of pain. The advice also happily generates additional fees, but only a cynic would mention that.

 

[Krokodil]

There's no fraud risk in this particular case as this format of ticket would not be valid unless it has been printed/collected.

There is (thought it's unusual). Passenger buys a ticket online from Dublin to Anytown, UK. Stena cannot accept barcoded tickets so this will be fulfilled as a ToD. There is no TVM at Dublin so the passenger will be waved onto the ferry, and told to sort it out at Holyhead. At Holyhead he ignores the TVM and the booking office (if indeed the TVM is working) and boards a train. The conductor's machine cannot fulfil a SailRail ToD because this can only be done onto CCST stock. So he is told to sort it out when he gets the opportunity - perhaps at a connecting station or before he leaves the station at his destination. If his destination is unbarriered then he can walk out without ever having printed off his ToD and could claim a refund. Even if it is barriered he could doughnut.

As well as Dublin, this is also a possibility for other destinations where Aztec codes are not accepted such as Merseyrail (though not consistently, sometimes it is possible to print off a ToD on paper roll but not always) or TfL.

Does anyone know for sure that TL monitor ticket purchases and informs TOC's of any suspicious activity, or is it simply speculation?

Speculation. I'm not aware of them doing anything proactively, just reactively in response to requests from TOCs.

 

[Doubleplus]

Does anyone know for sure that TL monitor ticket purchases and informs TOC's of any suspicious activity, or is it simply speculation?

Trainline have been putting out various press releases touting the power of their database and how it can be used. In July 2021 they said that (in addition to identifying customers "most likely to" claim false refunds): "Trainline’s data capabilities have also been key in identifying customers who have bought tickets with a railcard discount applied, without owning a valid railcard." (See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/trainline-gwr-anti-fraud-partnership.220456/)

It's a shame that their amazing data capabilities don't extend to actually preventing customers from buying the wrong ticket in the first place, given the number of people who have accidentally fallen foul of Trainline automatically remembering and applying a previous (but now outdated) railcard, but it really doesn’t feel like they’re on the customers' side here.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Speculation. I'm not aware of them doing anything proactively, just reactively in response to requests from TOCs.

That's not how it's being reported internally at my TOC.

We have quite open Comms with revenue teams and weekly updates from head of the department giving lots of stats and details (number of PFN/MG11 per depot or per block, number of active prosecutions, results of previous week's court cases etc, weekly working per team and event management).

Whilst not giving exact details regarding individual cass for obvious reasons, we do get given statements such as "£xxx received from refund fraud case, received intel from retailer."

We also had one recently that said "Block at Station X on xx date due to potential fare evader from retailer led intel".

Obviously they will be very careful in what detail they send out internally, and there won't ever be a time they will state that they only went off TL Intel to catch and prosecute, but they do mostly say RPM/Conductor intel for the large/long term evasion cases.

The majority of cases stem from onboard RPM working or station blocks, and are usually quick and easily dealt with and so are just part of the figures. Only those worth shouting about are, well, shouted about.

I would say unequivocally that retailers are giving some information proactively to TOCs for them to investigate further.

 

[Scott1]

Trainline have been putting out various press releases touting the power of their database and how it can be used. In July 2021 they said that (in addition to identifying customers "most likely to" claim false refunds): "Trainline’s data capabilities have also been key in identifying customers who have bought tickets with a railcard discount applied, without owning a valid railcard." (See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/trainline-gwr-anti-fraud-partnership.220456/)

It's a shame that their amazing data capabilities don't extend to actually preventing customers from buying the wrong ticket in the first place, given the number of people who have accidentally fallen foul of Trainline automatically remembering and applying a previous (but now outdated) railcard, but it really doesn’t feel like they’re on the customers' side here.

It does feel rather backwards. If Train line can identify people who have no railcard then why do they not simply block them from buying a rail card discounted ticket unless they upload a photo of a railcard. The technology has existed for years to do this, but they've choose not to impliment it.

 

[yorkie]

It does feel rather backwards. If Train line can identify people who have no railcard...

I doubt they can actually do that; they won't know that I hold a Railcard or which one.

then why do they not simply block them from buying a rail card discounted ticket

Anyone can buy a ticket for anyone else.

unless they upload a photo of a railcard. The technology has existed for years to do this, but they've choose not to impliment it.

That sounds impractical; who would verify the photos? In any case a purchaser could supply a photo of anyone's Railcard, so it wouldn't actually achieve anything

 

[AdamWW]

It does feel rather backwards. If Train line can identify people who have no railcard then why do they not simply block them from buying a rail card discounted ticket unless they upload a photo of a railcard. The technology has existed for years to do this, but they've choose not to impliment it.

That would be a bit awkward but I suppose no different in principle to having to show a railcard when buying a ticket at an office in the conventional manner.

But in any case....we've seen several people on here who seem to have been caught out by the Trainline app applying a railcard discount automatically based on the previous purchase. (Of course maybe not everybody is being honest but I suspect that at least some of these cases are genuine).

So while the app certainly shouldn't prevent railcard tickets from being purchased, it does seem that they could try a bit harder to warn people - particularly when there is an expired railcard held in the app itself or if - as in a recent thread - the last purchase was a year previously.

And if they did offer such warnings it would be harder for someone who was deliberately cheating to claim that it was an accident.

 

[Krokodil]

But in any case....we've seen several people on here who seem to have been caught out by the Trainline app applying a railcard discount automatically based on the previous purchase.

Trainline also autofills the origin and destination boxes with your last search, so if people manage to check if those still apply, why can't they double-check if the railcard box is still ticked?

 

[AdamWW]

Trainline also autofills the origin and destination boxes with your last search, so if people manage to check if those still apply, why can't they double-check if the railcard box is still ticked?

Because you go to buy a ticket with a start and end point in mind. If the wrong things are in those fields it's pretty obvious. The railcard check-box is somewhat different.

Also we live in a world of deliberately distracting information and most of us learn to tune out adverts and up-selling etc. and focus on what we think is important.

Never mind the fact that someone might be in a rush to purchase the ticket before a train leaves and therefore doesn't have the time to carefully scrutinise everything on the screen.

I would like to think that I'd spot if the railcard box was incorrectly ticked. I'm not sure though and I certainly wouldn't criticise others for failing to do so.

And if the app leaves the box checked when an expired railcard is held within the same app or a significant period of time has passed I think that's particularly unreasonable.

Another thought:

It does seem that whether you think people should check the box or not, they don't always. I would argue that it's up to the app designer to make it easy to use, rather than keeping the way it is and insisting that people are just using it wrong, particulaly given how high the stakes are.

 

[fandroid]

And if the app leaves the box checked when an expired railcard is held within the same app or a significant period of time has passed I think that's particularly unreasonable.

Except for some doubtful concept of "customer convenience" I cannot see why the Railcard box should ever be autofill. If a legitimate customer forgets to tick it, then the retailer and the TOC win out. If it goes the other way, then we know the consequences: personal severe pain for some individuals and a lot who gain an advantage without realising it.

Let's straighten things out rather than live with this accident prone system.

 

[AdamWW]

Except for some doubtful concept of "customer convenience" I cannot see why the Railcard box should ever be autofill. If a legitimate customer forgets to tick it, then the retailer and the TOC win out. If it goes the other way, then we know the consequences: personal severe pain for some individuals and a lot who gain an advantage without realising it.

Let's straighten things out rather than live with this accident prone system.

Well indeed.

People might also be more likely to think to go and look at the expiry date on their card if consciously adding the discount, too.

Modern technology can make many things much easier than they were in the past and that's great but sometimes a bit of friction in the process is actually a good thing.

I came across another situation where basing defaults on the last purchase caused problems - someone was using an app where they had purchased child tickets previously (though several months prior) and it had defaulted to that.

As it turned out they'd bought two child tickets by accident instead of one adult ticket, but the guard insisted on selling a new ticket. Technically quite correct of course even though the railway hadn't lost out and it was clearly a genuine error.

 

[matt_world2004]

I wonder how advanced the trainlines ability to detect people without railcards buying railcard discounted tickets. It seems a big assumption to make that someone buying tickets on their site doesn't have a railcard if it has not been purchased from them .

 

[AdamWW]

I wonder how advanced the trainlines ability to detect people without railcards buying railcard discounted tickets. It seems a big assumption to make that someone buying tickets on their site doesn't have a railcard if it has not been purchased from them .

It does, but perhaps they're just looking at cases where a digital railcard was purchased via the Trainline and it hasn't been renewed.

It seems that when purchasing tickets in such cases the app will nevertheless automatically apply the discount unless overridden, in which case subsequently reporting the passenger for possible fare evasion seems a little mean to me.

 

[fandroid]

Trainline strikes again.

Except for some doubtful concept of "customer convenience" I cannot see why the Railcard box should ever be autofill. If a legitimate customer forgets to tick it, then the retailer and the TOC win out. If it goes the other way, then we know the consequences: personal severe pain for some individuals and a lot who gain an advantage without realising it.

Let's straighten things out rather than live with this accident prone system.

I see there's a new thread in Disputes and Prosecutions where Trainline was used by a Railcard holder to buy a ticket on behalf of their partner (perfectly normal behaviour), and that dreaded box was autofilled. Neither person noticed and the partner got caught by an inspector. Trainline should stop this practice immediately!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trainline strikes again.

I see there's a new thread in Disputes and Prosecutions where Trainline was used by a Railcard holder to buy a ticket on behalf of their partner (perfectly normal behaviour), and that dreaded box was autofilled. Neither person noticed and the partner got caught by an inspector. Trainline should stop this practice immediately!

Should it? I find it quite convenient that the Trainline "white label" app I use most, the LNR one, does check the Network Railcard box for me rather than me having to remember to do so.

A red warning, or a "You have a Railcard selected, are you sure?" popup, is the most I'd want.

 

[AdamWW]

Should it? I find it quite convenient that the Trainline "white label" app I use most, the LNR one, does check the Network Railcard box for me rather than me having to remember to do so.

A red warning, or a "You have a Railcard selected, are you sure?" popup, is the most I'd want.

I certainly don't think that it should be auto-applying discounts without the sort of warning you suggest.

How about having to explicitly set a setting to auto-apply discounts?

Then you'd only have to spend a bit of time once to turn it on and wouldn't have to dismiss a pop-up every time.