Discussion on Subject Access Requests in Ticketing Disputes

[Somewhere]

Moderator Note - split from:

Misuse of 26-30 railcard

Hi all, I have read a few similar issues on this and was wondering if anyone had their outcome. Back story - I work in cardiff as a store manager and I commute from hengoed station. I work shift patterns and when I have bought a ticket for my late shift using my rail card it states travel any...

www.railforums.co.uk

Hi all,
I have read a few similar issues on this and was wondering if anyone had their outcome. Back story - I work in cardiff as a store manager and I commute from hengoed station. I work shift patterns and when I have bought a ticket for my late shift using my rail card it states travel any time of day. I have went into work earlier and this is a common thing.

They have checked my ticket and rail card and I have never been told otherwise so I didn’t even think it was an issue until I received this email which is the same email I’ve seen around on this forum.

Good afternoon,



This office is the investigating authority for Transport for Wales Rail Limited (TfW). I have submitted a subject access request to Trainline to obtain your contact details.

This email has been generated because your account was flagged by one of our staff for incorrectly using your railcard. The reason for this flag was because a 26-30 discount had been applied to your ticket whilst travelling outside of the restrictions of this railcard ie before 10am on a weekday with no minimum fare of £12 having been paid.

For reference, there is a link below to the full terms and conditions of travel from the National Rail website:



https://www.26-30railcard.co.uk/help/railcard-terms-conditions/



As a result of the flag, your travel history has been scrutinised. I can see that between November 2022 and September 2023 you travelled a total of 55 times whilst claiming the 26-30 discount incorrectly as your tickets were all scanned before 10am.



I have sufficient evidence to progress this case for prosecution, however I am currently considering which is the most appropriate legislation.



It would seem you boarded the train using a ticket with a discount that you were not entitled to in an attempt to avoid paying the full fare of your journey. This matter could be progressed under differing pieces of legislation, namely:



Regulation of Railways Act 1889 Section 5(3)

If any person —

1. Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof.

Or, the legislation which carries the higher penalty:​

​

Fraud Act 2006, section 2 Fraud by false representation​

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.



Before deciding which avenue to pursue I would like to give you this opportunity to present any mitigating circumstances. I recommend that you seek independent legal advice from a solicitor versed in criminal law who is registered with the Law Society. It may also be an advantage if they have experience in rail fare law as this is a specialist area.

Please return any information to the following email address,

If you do not respond to this letter within 14 days, I can pass this information to British Transport Police to progress the matter further.

to say I am beside myself upset is an understatement. I have never been in trouble for anything.

I am more than happy to pay the difference which is £156.

Has anyone had a reply or outcome about this?

Thanks in advance

Only you can submit a Subject Access Request for your personal information. No one else, and no organisation, can submit a Subject Access Request. It sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.
They may obtain your personal data under some other legal basis, but it won't be a Subject Access Request.

 

[Haywain]

Only you can submit a Subject Access Request for your personal information. No one else, and no organisation, can submit a Subject Access Request. It sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.
They may obtain your personal data under some other legal basis, but it won't be a Subject Access Request.

I really don’t think this is going to be of any help to the OP.

 

[skyhigh]

Only you can submit a Subject Access Request for your personal information. No one else, and no organisation, can submit a Subject Access Request. It sounds like they don't know what they're talking about.
They may obtain your personal data under some other legal basis, but it won't be a Subject Access Request.

I don't think that has any practical bearing on the matter though?

 

[Somewhere]

Just a long shot, but the letter states that they have identified 55 cases where a ticket was scanned before 10am.

Is there not some onus on the operator to highlight this in one of the previous 54 scans? Could it be argued that by accepting the ticket on those 54 scans, there was the opportunity to bring the error to the OP's attention which should have been taken?

I'll admit this would probably have to be tested in a court of law, and there may be no appetite to do that, but it does appear completely unreasonable.

I would be inclined to agree. If the ticket has been scanned and accepted, then the system must be at fault for not flagging that the ticket might not be valid. The fact that the ticket has been accepted implies that it is valid for travel.

I don't think that has any practical bearing on the matter though?

I would ask under what legislation they have accessed the OP's personal data. Because obviously they don't know what legislation they have used

 

[John R]

I would be inclined to agree. If the ticket has been scanned and accepted, then the system must be at fault for not flagging that the ticket might not be valid. The fact that the ticket has been accepted implies that it is valid for travel.

This is my point. I can understand that a visual check of a ticket might not pick it up. But if it has been scanned, why on earth does the scanner not warn the operator of the machine that the ticket is not valid? The only situation I can see that might not apply is if travel starts before 1000 and ends after it, and the scan is at the exit barrier.

It almost feels like entrapment in that the opportunity to pick up the offence at the earliest opportunity is not taken.

 

[John R]

I would ask under what legislation they have accessed the OP's personal data. Because obviously they don't know what legislation they have used

I'd ignore this point. It's very well established that train operators have the right to access data from ticketing websites to investigate fraudulent travel where suspected. You wouldn't really expect them not to have that ability, and we often see mention of it on these pages.

 

[spag23]

But their admitting to making a Subject Access Request, when they are not the Subject, is an embarrassing indication that their trainee official doesn't know what he's talking about!
I don't have the expertise to comment on the "anytime" screenshot on post #15. Can an expert advise. Perhaps after the OP has advised of its context.

 

[Somewhere]

I'd ignore this point. It's very well established that train operators have the right to access data from ticketing websites to investigate fraudulent travel where suspected. You wouldn't really expect them not to have that ability, and we often see mention of it on these pages.

Yes, but if they're going to use or quote legislation, they need to know what legislation they are using and quoting.
But then again, if their barcode scanners cannot tell the difference between a valid and invalid ticket, I don't hold up much hope for their humans to know what they're doing either

 

[dakta]

I'd ignore this point. It's very well established that train operators have the right to access data from ticketing websites to investigate fraudulent travel where suspected. You wouldn't really expect them not to have that ability, and we often see mention of it on these pages.

Agree. The terminology is a bit awry in my opinion but ultimately they do have the right to request and access this data, bad phrasing won't negate that.

To me the letter appears a bit of a shot across the bows, it's designed to get your attention as the matter could escalate - they're openly saying there are two routes they can go down in terms of what legislation to apply and are inviting mitigation that might give them an indicator of which is more appropriate. It's as much as an opportunity to aggravate as it is mitigate. I think a negative response here could be damaging.

The point about highlighting during scans is a very valid point, but unless a scanner is deemed the equivalent as a ticket checker and can give authority to travel I think the fact systems could be better, and prevent this sort of thing won't be directly helpful as no doubt it's the travellers ultimate responsibility to know the terms and conditions for use, I don't think an affirmation of contract or similar logic would stand because technology doesn't employ all the features it had the capability for.

I think we need to be wary that advice can be harmful as well as helpful

 

[skyhigh]

But their admitting to making a Subject Access Request, when they are not the Subject, is an embarrassing indication that their trainee official doesn't know what he's talking about!

Or they have simply made a typing error.

It's not worth getting worked up about.

 

[Papyrus]

But their admitting to making a Subject Access Request, when they are not the Subject, is an embarrassing indication that their trainee official doesn't know what he's talking about!
I don't have the expertise to comment on the "anytime" screenshot on post #15. Can an expert advise. Perhaps after the OP has advised of its context.

They have clearly misused the term. They mean what would be better described as a data request.

 

[Vespa]

If you didn't have a Trainline account there would be nothing to make a subject access request to.

By having an account you're leaving a trail of evidence, certainly a case against having an account and instead buy a ticket from a TVM anonymously.

 

[Somewhere]

Or they have simply made a typing error.

It's not worth getting worked up about.

Its not a typing error. A typing error is when you get one letter wrong, not whole terminology

 

[Haywain]

Its not a typing error. A typing error is when you get one letter wrong, not whole terminology

OK, it's a terminological error.

 

[Somewhere]

OK, it's a terminological error.