I applied for an mbna credit card. They demanded 3 months bank statements I asked why. They said to verify your income. I said the agency I work through will certify my income, they insisted on the bank statements. I said I wasn't prepared to hand over bank statements as I didn't need the credit and it was not worth it just for airmiles. Because mbna upfront the obtaining of security information I was now in a position where they had the same security information as the other credit card I have (same password, mothers maiden name) plus they had all the account details. Yes I said the same password, for me it is the lesser evil than having several passwords that I now have to write down (which to me is a worse security risk). When I called mbna to terminate my application they took me through security in the course of which the operator repeated to me my entire password. Now to my understanding they are not supposed to know this and it is an obvious security risk if they do. I am accustomed to a bank accomplishing security checks by asking for certain characters of my password. I pointed out that as I had terminated the application it was unacceptable for them to retain my security information and they should delete it. That was 6 months ago. Since then I have written and been sent responses where they have asked me to call. When I call I am told that they want me to go through security and I tell them I'm not doing that because they shouldn't have that information. So they have had a formal complaint and a Section 10 notice asking them to delete my information. In the complaint I said I believed their security was lax and not competently administered a nd put me at risk as they were holding the same information as other financial institutions who I do hold accounts with. I wrote this letter at the end of April. In July while I was abroad I was alerted that somebody had obtained my password and attempted to access my credit card account online, consequently my card had been cancelled and I would have to change m my password. I rely totally on credit cards while abroad so was left more or less financially stranded by this. In August mbna produced their letter full of regret and tell the ombudsman if you're not satisfied. I told them that things had moved on - my account had been hacked which was exactly the consequence I had warned them of and they were being held responsible. I also told them they had not responded to the section 10 notice. They replied denying receipt of the section 10 notice and said that in any event they were required by the Consumer Credit Act to retain data about my application for a card. I agreed but said that requirement does not extend to the security information that I told them to delete. They said they would investigate the breach ... we take security very seriously blah blah... 7 weeks on (they said they needed 8 weeks to investigate) mbna have never contacted me to ask what account was hacked or when.. . .so much for a rigorous investigation. We are in a standoff. I've told them they are responsible for the breach of the account (note my bank account which they also have but doesn't share that password was not hacked). To date they have not deleted my security information. I am ready to take them on but am thinking of not basing my case on the Section 10 notice as it probably mean I am not eligible to be heard in the small claims track. I'll mention it but not seek remedy under it and I am hoping the ico will tell them to delete the data. something to be wary of if you ever abandon an application with a financial institution.

you and Bazza are actually quite amusing. Both seem to have an insatiable appetite for Wile E Coyote moments. Look you've already accused me of being a fare dodger and I've let it slide. I'm not the OP. I wasn't the one who forgot their railcard. I don't even own a railcard and probably don't qualify for one. Please make sure you understand that last bit before the inevitable comeback.

Don't you think you and Bazza are getting rather hysterical about this. You both seem to have the same operandi too ... Ok last time today. On the day full fares can be 10-15 times the advance/railcard discounted fare so factor that into your affordability equation and please try not to pose scenarios that have such obvious responses because you'll only get more and more annoyed when they are given. Also stop accusing me of anything. I'm not the OP. I'm done. We are way past the point of diminishing returns.

Tell that to the person who brought magistrates into the conversation.

That was a red herring. I made the mistake of indulging a rather abusive fellow who has trouble understanding the relative seriousness of fare related offences versus driving without a licence.

Wow! You really need it explained to you that there is a very high probability that a person who qualifies for a railcard (senior citizens, young people) can't afford full on the day fares. Basic state pension 113.10 a week. On the day full fare Leeds to London. 124.50

Magistrates court huh! Correct me if I'm wrong but magistrates are volunteers. They don't necessarily have any legal background do they? I went up in front of magistrates once on a speeding matter. On the day the prosecuting lawyer accepted my defence of the charge which was brought against me and promptly substituted it with another one which got heard THE SAME DAY. They substituted a charge of speeding with one of failing to inform who was actually driving. I was not even in the car when the offence was committed. I had no prior notice, no idea what statute I was now being charged under, no opportunity to get legal advice and was not advised of what I should have done (ask for adjournment and to be served proper notice of the amended charge). In all probablilty the limitation period for bringing the fresh charge had already expired. Nobody told me that either and I got done. So please don't tell me that what happens in a magistrates court is necessarily consonant with the law and how it should/can be interpreted. True in all probability absent a fairy godparent on the magistrates panel in a case like this you are probably going to get the short end of the stick unless you have access to good legal advice . The OP's question has been moved to a different thread, this one has been marked for discussion.

It is not a given that the T&C's are lawful. I don't know how many times I have to tell you that.

The point of law is that the where the court is satisfied that there was no deliberate attempt at fare evasion (that would be theft) a purposive interpretation is correct because the literal interpretation allows the TOC to criminalize people for debt (which is what this amounts to) and Parliament cannot have intended that since this country stopped doing that sometime not long after the Victorian era.

You could say exactly the same about a carrying a railcard. Terms and conditions (the lawfulness of which is not guaranteed) do not prohibit anything or require anything. They just prescribe a consequence and one that is disproportionately draconian to the point of ridicule.

My points are that it is open to the magistrate to do that. You may be right that it is not likely I don't know. BUT the higher the matter gets appealed the more likely it becomes and if it gets to the European Courts a purposive approach is guaranteed.

It is not a personal belief that a purposive interpretation (under which the TOC is unlikely to succeed) can be applied to the law in this area. It's a fact.

Actually I'm pretty sure you are required to carry your driver's license. It's just that the prescription for what happens when you don't is a producer.

and neither is there a law requiring you to carry a railcard.

Or as a counterexample. People die, or have their livelihoods ruined as a consequence of the operation of a motor vehicle by an unlicensed person. It almost trivialises the consequences of fare evasion. Yet in this country you are not criminalised/prosecuted for forgetting your drivers license , you are given a chance to produce it.

I don't know how else I can put it. The circumstance you describe with the polo is theft.

No You are equating outright theft with forgetting a railcard.

There is a legal basis for that "sympathy" and that "common sense". It's call a purposive interpretation of the law. What you seem to get in this forum is a literalist interpretation given context free which seems to extend now to terms and conditions which mean jack if they are unlawful (google "office of fair trading unfair terms in consumer contracts"). Under a purposive interpretation of the law (which judges are free to apply) a judge can ask whether the law the TOC is trying to benefit from is being put to it's intended purpose. i.e was this law enacted to enable a TOC prosecute and criminalize a person who forgot their railcard and if he takes that approach and doesn't think it was the TOC are not going to win.

I don't know where your experience of commercial life comes from but companies don't go to court on points of principle which is often the only thing at stake when the amount is (for them) trivial. If it involved something like assault on staff that's an entirely different thing altogether. You seem to be bringing past baggage to this discussion. I'm not going there with you.

What you are quoting is terms and conditions right. Let's be absolutely clear that doesn't mean they are lawful. I bet Wonga had terms and conditions that applied to all those loans they wrote off. Terms and conditions are a nice little earner for the operators of monopolies. It makes no commercial sense for a TOC to rock that boat by having their legality scrutinised in court for the sake of screwing one traveller.

Well I read the article differently and my interpretation is that no court is going to criminalise the OP for forgetting a railcard so where does that leave the TOC. That said it's how the OP reads it and feels about the situation that really counts. I am happy to have put the info out there and leave it at that.

You probably have nothing to worry about. Read this. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/10-ways-to-avoid-penalty-fares-on-trains-6762684.html

If you twist somebody's words so that they say what you want them to say and not what they said and refuse to take on board the clarification you are given then it's dishonest and thats not much different from lying. If you ask somebody to respond truthfully (which is what you did) you are implying that you have been lied to. There's a saiying. If you roll in the mud don't complain when some dirt sticks to you. If you can't take it don't give it. Good night.

Why did you delay the train to throw the passenger off it. Because he refused to give me proof of address when I asked him. Why didn't you just use our system to verify the address he offered to give you..... Oh to be a fly on the wall when she is being interviewed by her management.

If you continue to indulge in context free interpretations of words and sentences you will forever have problems with the English language. There was sufficient context given and repeated for you. What you and your mates choose to believe is completely irrelevant. Couple of things. A police sergeant came up with a phrase that describes the dynamic at play between myself and the ticket inspector. He calls it going into tell mode. It's when a person (often in uniform) vested with some authority makes a demand that exceeds their authority and goes over the top when they are (correctly) met with non-compliance. e.g Give me proof of address - I don't have to give you that - You're right and you don't have to travel either. Then they use their power to punish you for not doing something they had no right to insist on you doing in the first place. Or being asked to show id when you've committed no offence. There are also some very naive notions of how lawyers operate. I'm not a lawyer but I dated one for two years and socialized alot with them. They say don't go to court expecting justice. A skilled judge will decide on the outcome he/she wants and write a judgement that makes it stick. The best recent example is the judge in the John Terry Anton Ferdinand case. The judge could have found him guilty if he had wanted to and written up an unappeallable (as in correct in law) judgement. So all this stuff about what TOC's will or won't prosecute is a bit of a nonsense and very naive because the TOC's themselves are well aware that they weren't given those powers to pursue people for double bubble penalty fares. Some people believe you should take s**t from people who have a little bit of power and some of us know you don't have to.