Great Western Coffee Shop

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/jun/29/passenger-threatened-with-court-for-using-screenshot-of-e-ticket)


snip


Amazing ... unless there's lots of evidence The Guardian has not shared,  Ms Hendricks very clearly HAD paid her fare and had no intent of travelling for free ... and that view appears to be shared by Transport Focus who have looked at this

I'm not sure that any other evidence is needed. Just think of this in another way:

Suppose that you get your e-ticket in a bona fide way having paid the appropriate fare. Taking a screenshot of the bar code is something that could be easily replicated. Leave the "poor 72-year-old woman" angle to one side for a moment  - what is to stop an unscrupulous blighter taking umpteen screen shots of a valid paid-for ticket and then flogging them down the pub?

I think we might need to temper our bile against the RPOs here.

I agree with your logic of selling them down the pub, Robin, but I really doubt that the lady in question intended to avoid paying her fare.   Surely there's a unique something in the code which identifies the particular ticket and would flag up if it had previously been used, and if there isn't then the rail industry should update its security ...


I'll let the article speak for itself.  My own "you cannot be serious" wasn't so much against the RPOs who have a difficult job but rather the follow up prosecution team, and I was informed in the view that this was not an attempt to avoid paying a fare by the comments on the case by Passenger Focus.

I agree that the circumstances in this case suggest (but only suggest and not prove) that the woman in question was not avoiding the fare or trying to avoid it, but to an extent that's not the point. The point is how does it look to an RPO on first impression?

Certainly additional checks could establish, for example, that it was paid for on her debit or credit card, but when the RPO first encounters the situation they aren't going to know that or have any means of checking. They will be aware, however, that this sort of thing could indicate potential fraud and, given the amount of people that do try it on with rail fares, they are not going to treat anybody with a potentially "suspect" ticket of being innocent until proven guilty. The system would never work if they did.

I also wonder why you consider that the railway's systems are at fault or lacking if they could not pick up an already-used ticket. As I understand it, the bar code contains the details of the journey paid for, including any restriction codes. I don't see how it could possibly also include data on whether that ticket had already been used, if for no other reason that a ticket will be checked more than once in a journey (ie. ingress and egress at the gatelines and also the possibility of multiple ticket checks en-route). It's not like a barcode on a tin of peas in Sainsbury's that could be programmed to not set off the shoplifter alarm once it has been scanned.

As an aside I have proved that card tickets are the same. I often travel Chippenham to Yate and break my journey at Temple Meads in both directions (fag breaks, you understand, or an adjournment to the cafe that used to be the taxi driver's rest room when I worked there). There have been occasions when I deliberately put the "wrong" ticket into the gateline eg the outbound portion that has already let me in and out once at TM on the outward journey, and lets me do it again on the return journey.

Personally, I am always concerned when a "sweet little 72-year-old lady" or similar is involved. I can give you many examples of pensioners of both sexes trying it on (like for example some in an old people's home in Corsham that I once discovered that were carrying buckets of hot water back from the communal laundry to their flat to avoid the costs of it going on their electric bill...)

There is often a tendency to equate "sweet little old lady" with innocence. I am casting no aspersions on this case, but always remember that Holloway was full of miscreant females 50 years ago, and some of 'em are now "sweet little 72-year-old ladies" ;)

You edited your post whilst I was typing so now I still can't stop for lunch  ;D

I agree that the prosecution team probably cocked up here because, as I said earlier, there were various factors that could be checked like whose debit or credit card was it charged to. I hope they are not people with the same sort of mindset who administer the "appeals procedures" of parking companies... ;)

But flogging photocopies down the pub is just fine in RPO-land...

This ticket is intended to be able to be printed off at home if you wish. I can't see what is less secure for revenue protection about a screenshot compared with a piece of paper though as both can be copied and distributed as many times as you want. Or indeed a copy of the pdf you are sent.

You are of course absolutely correct, so I and perhaps Graham as well need new lines of thought!

On the face of it, it looks like the new e-ticketing system is a security shambles. No matter how you get your ticket, a barcode can be copied, an pdf can be copied, and an email can be forwarded. Every single ticket issued in this way can be copied umpteen times and in umpteen different ways. Logically this means one of two things:

1. The e-ticket system is indeed a security shambles. Personally I would have thought this unlikely given the amount of people that should have been pouring over the technicalities, the practicalities, the gremlins and the pitfalls  before it was introduced. Of course, the DfT was probably deeply involved, so the chance of an e-ticket security shambles cannot be entirely ruled out...

or

2. There is some sort of security coding built into the barcode that we don't know about, and it wasn't present in the little old dear's screenshot, which is why it was picked up by the RPOs.

There may indeed be more to this story than has yet been revealed

Let's not forget that 'classic' tickets can also be fraudulently produced.

I've been asked at Paddington if I had considered e ticketing as an alternative to paper tickets. Not keen because technology has a habit of letting me down on things like this. I also said I sometimes didn't have that much time between finding out I was needing to travel and getting on the train. Therefore I might miss the train if trying to get the website to work and get a ticket on my phone at the station.

I was spoken to by a TM for having multiple return portions of tickets to MIM in my wallet. He asked why I had a few and didn't seem to have used them. I explained that whilst I was unable to use any other mode of transport to get to Moreton I often got a lift in a car back to London. He asked if I'd ever used any of these tickets twice or maybe bought them from someone and I said "No". If anything I had bought return tickets in 1st class when I would with hindsight have been better off buying singles.  I was able to prove this by producing the receipts and the debit card they were bought with.

Did he also ask if the banknotes you also had in your wallet came from an ATM or some "sweet little 72 year old lady's handbag" ?

No but then I don't think I had any money on me, I often don't when travelling. Interesting that he'd accept my ticket receipts and debit card as proof that I'd bought the ticket. Do you get a receipt with an e-ticket?

Believe me, there is built in security for these 'new' forms of tickets. I'm not going to 'spill the beans' of the security detail as it would be akin to breaching The Official Secrets Act although maybe not with such harsh penalties, FULL STOP.

Ah ... I see Robin Summerhill has challenged me to update my view based on printouts being acceptable.  Sorry Robin, but I was aware of that in my original post - look at the subject line as I started the thread "Mobile ticket. App OK, printout OK, but screenshot could lead to prosecution?".     I was also very careful not to comment on the age of the person involved - not to caricature her as a "little old lady" with any presumptions implied.

I'm sure there are ways and means of detecting the apparent loophole of accepting multiple printouts from the same tickets, and I can guess what they might be (and how they could go wrong on a complex journey, especially one planned on trains that end up failing to run to schedule).  Having seen the Passenger Focus comment and knowing they looked at the case, I have little doubt that the journey had been paid for and the follow up after the day was incorrect and out of order.

I can see security options for tickets on the app, but if there is an open ticket that has been printed the only option I can see is a radio check to a central server when on the train, or a similar check by the gateline.

Similarly I use print at home tickets for London art exhibitions.  These are normally checked visually on arrival.  Sometimes they are scribbled on to stop the same piece of paper being used twice.

Just like a conventional paper ticket, then. The possible security loophole is not the printout itself but the ability to reproduce it.

Other people’s written words can often be taken the wrong way, as I know from bitter experience of posting on internet forums! However, I was not issuing a challenge to Graham or indeed anybody else; I was simply saying that as further information begins to come to light it is always important to look at it to ensure that the position one has previously taken will stand up to the newly-revealed facts. Sometimes it will and sometimes it won’t. The new information we now have has made me rethink my position.

Now we hear from martyjon that there are indeed security features in place. I can fully understand his reasons for not wishing to elaborate because it would be, in a sense, akin to giving a burglar the combination to the safe. I am quite happy to leave that issue there and simply be reassured that security features are in place.

But this then comes back to my second point in my last post on the subject. We can now only presume that the screenshot did not contain the necessary security information, because if it had the matter would never have come up in the first place. Was it the fact that it was a screenshot and simply that as the Guardian implies? I would then wonder why screenshots behave like this whilst printed versions of the ticket don’t, but I do accept I shall have to keep wondering about that. However, if it is a standard issue then it clearly needs to be communicated to the intending passenger not to do it.

Then we come on to the aftermath of the original event that sparked this. We are told that the passenger got a letter from Revenue Protection saying they were considering issuing a summons. OK so far. She then replied to them saying that she had bought the ticket and provided evidence. Still OK so far. Revenue Protection then “turn nasty” and say that they are going ahead with the prosecution unless she pays £161.30. To me this says that the evidence she provided wasn’t good enough for them. It might also of course mean that they didn’t look at the evidence properly but, if they are going to go for court action, that would be a singularly unwise thing to do because their position is going to be scrutinised by the magistrate just as much as “defendant’s” position is going to be. In other words, if the evidence provided would have actually stood up in court they would be pretty stupid in bringing the case at all.

We then read that she paid the £161.30 demand because it would have been less than her legal costs. She is presumably aware that the losing side has costs awarded against them and, if the case was thrown out, the TOC would be picking up her bill. We all differ in this respect of course, but I would rather be sent down before I paid a company £161.30 that I was utterly convinced I didn’t owe them. And just for the record I’m only 5 years behind this woman in the age stakes, but unlikely to be called “sweet” by anyone…

Finally we read that Passenger Focus looked into the matter and basically found in favour of the passenger. So if this is the case, has she been given her £161.30 back? And if not, why not?

There is something fundamentally wrong in this story, and for me the jury is still out over whether 100% of the blame lies with the Revenue Protection team.

There was a case of that recently wasn’t there.

A few years ago there was an attempt to introduce 'm-tickets' for travel using mobile phones, hence the 'm'. As I understand it, in for these tickets the message sent to the phone was the ticket and precautions had to be taken to avoid fraud. Eventually these precautions were found not to be effective and the industry has moved on to 'e-tickets'.

e-tickets are in fact simply an entry in the transport company's database and are essentially identical to the way that airlines now operate. The message sent to the mobile phone (the 'travel token' for want of a better term), or home PC, is in fact only a pointer to the database entry. So it doesn't matter how the travel token is presented, when the token is checked either by a scanner at the gate or by the ticket on the train a flag is set on the database showing that the ticket has been presented. Any use of additional copies of the ticket would throw up a warning and they would be rejected. Even if a screen shot of the e-ticket had been used, as long as sufficient information was read (there being some redundancy in the coding) the database would have recognised the token and, realising that travel had been paid for, set the flag in the database showing the ticket to be in use.

As I read the story, the revenue people did not understand the difference between the two generations of tickets and applied the process designed for potential fraudulent use of m-tickets to an e-ticket.

Such a public relations disaster should never have occurred.

The XC web page on these is confused in itself, initially referring to e-tickets than half way down to m-tickets instead (in an ungrammatical sentence): https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets/e-tickets

This appears to be a cut down version of what used to be there which makes more sense and shows the difference: https://web.archive.org/web/20181027203459/https://www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk/tickets/e-tickets.

It seems quite sensible that the ticket displayed on phone or tablet is a pointer to a database entry, rather than a ticket itself, as Reading Abbey explains. If that's the case, could it be correct, as was reported, that the screenshot didn't display enough data because, apparently, the signal bar on the screen was obscuring some vital info (part of the QR code I think)?

I've just found this on the Faresaver website that might have some pertinence here:

IMPORTANT - When using mobile ticketing the original ticket must be shown when boarding and not a screenshot of the ticket otherwise travel may be refused. The original ticket will have a moving green/blue animation under the photo of the user - if this is static a screenshot has been taken.

http://www.faresaver.co.uk/tickets.php

Photo of the user? There's no sign of that on the pic in the Guardian article linked to in the OP, and it would seem a bit OTT. Presumably that only refers to a season ticket?

I think that this process refers to what I classified as an 'm-ticket'. When I looked at the Faresavers web site just now (http://www.faresaver.co.uk/faq.php then 'Do you offer mobile ticketing?') I found the following text:


An e-ticket is not presented to or checked by a person - it is read by a scanner when entering the station, or checked by a scanner carried by the conductor which will link back to the operator's ticketing database. The gate or the device carried by the conductor will report on the validity, or otherwise, of the ticket.