Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[WesternLancer]

Re your first two paras, do l accept that some may do that? Yes, it's very possible. Do l think that clicking "accept" in those circumstances, when in my experience there is always either an explicit statement and/or a tickbox that says that in doing so you accept the T&C's and are making an honest claim, is dangerous? Hell yes. Frankly if anyone is dumb enough to do that they deserve everything that they get.

well, not really - what you deserve is your claim to get rejected - not for the actual submission of said erroneous claim to trigger an algorithm that results in a heavy duty letter implying you have committed fraud.....

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless you're delayed over 30 minutes plus the connection time.

The £1100+ claimant was pictured by the newspaper at Ipswich. The East Suffolk and Felixstowe branches are both hourly. Services towards Bury St Edmunds are hourly with extras. London services are roughly four an hour, I think, with different stopping patterns.

So I think a branch line user changing at Ipswich for London could easily have been delayed both ways by more than 15 minutes most days on a commute for some of the fleet changeover, plus possibly more journeys each day if they use their season ticket to travel short distances on the edge of London, or into Ipswich for an evening out (because they have a season ticket, so why not use it as much as possible?). A few stations like Elmswell lost services while problems with doors were fixed and I don't know if the delays caused by that mean Delay Repay claims.

While 118 claims in 6 months sounds a lot, that only averages about 9 every two weeks so definitely above average but far from impossible for a branch line user during disturbed service. I wonder if GA compared her to the average for all customers or to the average for her branch line.

9 every two weeks is essentially being delayed for 30 mins to an hour just about every day you travel. Season tickets are used about 464 days of the year, so about 9 times in an average week (averaged out are the days spent not at work, like weekends and annual leave, or days you work from home etc). We’ve already established from some rough maths using the value of the claims that almost none of the claims can be for the 15-29 band, and that almost all claims must be for 30 minutes or higher.

It’s an almost impossibly high hit rate - there’s no way every connection every evening fouls the DR mechanism. I’d guess maybe, even during the worst disruption, two or three a day might fail, but how “unlucky” do you have to be to be “on” those trains all of the time? It’s also worth bearing in mind this customer is stated as travelling between Ipswich and London, we don’t have any evidence she’s connecting to or from a branch.

We don’t have the historic train running info easily to hand (I could use OnTimeTrains but it’s a faff and long winded), but do you honestly think someone was delayed for up to an hour over 80% of the days they travelled? For six months?

 

[43096]

Season tickets are used about 464 days of the year

If you’re using a ticket 464 days of the year, there’s something going on...

 

[AlterEgo]

If you’re using a ticket 464 days of the year, there’s something going on...

464 individual times - the single journey component! Oops.

 

[Wolfie]

If you’re using a ticket 464 days of the year, there’s something going on...

Yup, that would definitely be fraudulent lol

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, you’ll be delayed by 30 minutes each time if you miss a connection on a branch with a 30 minute frequency.

I had LNR claim that it was a 29 minute delay once a while back because the train after the cancelled one happened to arrive one minute early. However, this was recovery time and if you looked at RTT every train that day (except the one that was cancelled) had arrived one minute early.

I appealed, basically saying, paraphrased, "don't take the mick, I'm clearly 30 minutes later than if the train had operated", and to my great surprise they coughed up.

 

[robbeech]

Unless you're delayed over 30 minutes plus the connection time.

The £1100+ claimant was pictured by the newspaper at Ipswich. The East Suffolk and Felixstowe branches are both hourly. Services towards Bury St Edmunds are hourly with extras. London services are roughly four an hour, I think, with different stopping patterns.

So I think a branch line user changing at Ipswich for London could easily have been delayed both ways by more than 15 minutes most days on a commute for some of the fleet changeover, plus possibly more journeys each day if they use their season ticket to travel short distances on the edge of London, or into Ipswich for an evening out (because they have a season ticket, so why not use it as much as possible?). A few stations like Elmswell lost services while problems with doors were fixed and I don't know if the delays caused by that mean Delay Repay claims.

While 118 claims in 6 months sounds a lot, that only averages about 9 every two weeks so definitely above average but far from impossible for a branch line user during disturbed service. I wonder if GA compared her to the average for all customers or to the average for her branch line.

A delay in one direction or the other each day, some of which need only be 15 minutes is still a lot, but i don't think its as impossible as some people are claiming.

If you live on a branch with a 1tph service and a 5 minute (valid) connection onto the mainline service that is 4tph then a delay of a couple of minutes or more and a busy station can see you miss a service and end up 15 minutes late, if this happens 2 or 3 times per week it would not be unheard of.
Of course, if the next train after the missed connection is a stopper, it might get you there 25 minutes late, and with a short delay itself you may breach that 30 minute threshold, maybe once a fortnight.

On the return journey, your 4tph service might have a similarly short but valid connection onto your 1tph branch line, a delay of a few minutes here will see you miss your connection and have to wait 1 hour for the next one, if this happens once per week it would again, not be particularly surprising, twice would not be unheard of for particularly unreliable services. We regularly see specific services with arrival within 5 minute records of less than 20%

So, 2 or 3 short delays on your morning connection per week.
1 delay on your way home per week,
1 delay per fortnight of your train in the morning
It's quickly working its way to 4.5 claims per week without trying too hard.

If they use their season ticket to go to London every other Saturday to see their sister and it is late once a month then we start to get there very fast.


I have done a fairly solid month of claims 5 days a week for consistently bad service where missed connections are involved in the past, with another operator.

 

[AlterEgo]

I had LNR claim that it was a 29 minute delay once a while back because the train after the cancelled one happened to arrive one minute early. However, this was recovery time and if you looked at RTT every train that day (except the one that was cancelled) had arrived one minute early.

I appealed, basically saying, paraphrased, "don't take the mick, I'm clearly 30 minutes later than if the train had operated", and to my great surprise they coughed up.

This used to be the default when I worked at Virgin. 28 and 58 minutes were the informal thresholds.

 

[ashkeba]

464 individual times - the single journey component! Oops.

I still do not understand the basis for assuming she only makes the average number of journeys.

Saying it is difficult to make such a high above average number of claims from an average number of journeys seems obvious. But if she makes more journeys than the average, as season ticket holders are allowed to do, then it becomes more easy.

 

[AlterEgo]

I still do not understand the basis for assuming she only makes the average number of journeys.

Saying it is difficult to make such a high above average number of claims from an average number of journeys seems obvious. But if she makes more journeys than the average, as season ticket holders are allowed to do, then it becomes more easy.

The basis is that we don’t know the data GA holds on this person.

As this thread now surrounds a named and identifiable person and their claims, it’s probably unwise for me to discuss their case further. I don’t think we will be hearing from either party publicly in the press.

 

[[.n]]

It's as if some on here believe that there is some conspiracy to hide the terms in which you can claim, so define 'small print'. I've just randomly chosen four TOC's, searched Delay Repay on Google and clicked the first result.

Greater Anglia has this in bold on the second line of the page:



LNER has a large header at the top stating this:



GWR has this on the second line:



ScotRail has a header in large font stating:

Actually in this instance GWR seems to be the clearest - its unambiguous about arriving at your destination station - the others refer to delays / journeys.

And in fact GWR are wrong, there are some destinations that GWR serve that aren't strictly stations!

Yep, been there done it - the line from Woking to London was only a few times actually on time in the morning for me, but very rarely did it trigger DR thresholds. The person in question filed 118 claims in 6 months recouping £1100 - against a ticket price of “nearly £7000” a bit of rough maths tells us that, this punter, on average was delayed on every single day they travelled and for over 30 minutes on every single occasion. The issue here is not that people are claiming for one and two minute delays (else the company wouldn’t pay out), but that punters have been defrauding the company by claiming to be on trains they weren’t on. It’s as simple as that.

I know of several travellers in this period did in fact manage to claim nearly an average of once a day - there were some trains that almost always attracted a delay of >15 minutes, at one point you managed to accrue around 5-10 minutes between waterloo + clapham junction on a regular basis (both ways).

Going back to GA [and previous incarnations] - I used to commute between Colchester / Colchester Town (St. Botolphs) / Hythe and Stratford/Liverpool Street [with sometimes a side trip to Chelmsford on the way]. I claimed DR fairly regularly I was entitled to it, as the journey I was making quite often, failed to connect me to my intended destination at the intended time. I doubt my pattern is very unusual, but it doesn't lend itself to any detailed statistical analysis. I left roughly between a set period of time in the morning, and back in the evening, but not always, equally, I may have hopped off at Chelmsford. As an example if I happened to get a train that stopped at Stratford I would get off and take the Central line (same platform interchange), and so didn't always arrive at Liv. Street. On the way home I would mostly get the train from Liv. Street (more trains, faster ones, better chance of a seat).

There's no way that I would remember, after 18 months what I did, even with cross-referencing my diary. But I would know that it was accurate at the time.

 

[OldNick]

I think there is often an assumption that if one train is delayed, the next one always runs to time.

I used to catch a stopper that was regularly deliberately delayed in a passing loop so a (remarkably often) late running long distance service which didn't serve my station could pass it. Obviously long routes can build up much bigger delays and this prioritising tries to mitigate that, but it didn't help me.

There are many many reasons for delays, and I imagine regular travellers on some problem routes with local route/timetable quirks could easily experience at least some amount of delay, daily. (Whether above the 10/15/30 min threshold or otherwise), particularly if they travel more than once a day in each direction or at weekends.

I doubt it would be common though, so I think the "above average" factor for highlighting their potential fraud is probably unfair by its very nature - higher users are more likely to experience delay.

 

[robbeech]

I think there is often an assumption that if one train is delayed, the next one always runs to time.

Some Operator's entire delay repay systems were (possibly still are) based entirely on that premise which of course is overwhelmingly convenient for them as it always is.

 

[Sarah231]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

 

[WesternLancer]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

Thanks for sharing that, I suspect others will find that important to see.

EDIT - in the light of post #887 I have deleted the rest of my previous post with questions to @Sarah231 as I see no reason for answers to be given to the points I asked, given the content of the next couple of posts.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I did warn everyone that this all didn't strike me as something GA was "messing around with".

Looking at the police signature, it seems to have a dedicated Operation, "Op Parch".

This is very serious, Fraud by False Representation / S6 Fraud Act 2006.

You should not attend a voluntary police interview UNTIL you have arranged legal representation (or at least made it clear to BTP that you require them to provide it). You need legal representation. I do not doubt that you will eventually be arrested if you continue to ignore. I suspect any legal advice will be to respond "No Comment" unless you are adamant you have not done anything wrong, even on a single occasion.

If they can prove just 1 claim is dodgy, you'll be a bit stuck, especially as you have ignored them.

You can be arrested and detained after a voluntary interview if necessary. You may find in fraud cases that the police seize mobile devices, computers etc, and may already have been through your financial records, banks etc. You may not want to take this type of equipment with you to the police station, (including bank cards, cheque books, phones, laptops etc).

Anybody who attends the police station for an interview under caution is entitled to free and independent legal advice. You should preferably arrange this PRIOR to agreeing to attend, although if you agree to the interview and inform the officer that you want independent legal advice in advance, they must arrange it for you.

 

[AlterEgo]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

Specific legal advice is beyond the scope of this forum, but I advise you not to speak to the police unless you are arrested, placed under caution and a solicitor is present.

Do not respond to other posters in this thread, or to me. Do not give any further details of your case to anyone you do not know and trust.

I do hope other posters will begin to take these developments more seriously now GA have collected their evidence and passed it to the police who have deemed it worthy of investigating the matter.

 

[ta-toget]

Specific legal advice is beyond the scope of this forum, but I advise you not to speak to the police unless you are arrested, placed under caution and a solicitor is present.

Do not respond to other posters in this thread, or to me. Do not give any further details of your case to anyone you do not know and trust.

I do hope other posters will begin to take these developments more seriously now GA have collected their evidence and passed it to the police who have deemed it worthy of investigating the matter.

Will it still have to pass through the CPS afterwards (assuming that's the result), or would it be prosecuted by BTP/back to the TOC?

 

[AlterEgo]

Will it still have to pass through the CPS afterwards (assuming that's the result), or would it be prosecuted by BTP/back to the TOC?

It will go to the CPS. The TOC will not, and does not have the expertise to prosecute a case of fraud, which is a serious crime.

 

[eoff]

If they can prove just 1 claim is dodgy, you'll be a bit stuck, especially as you have ignored them.

Depends what you mean by "dodgy", the police would be looking for some evidence of a dishonest claim made to gain an advantage or cause a loss, not just a suspicious one.

 

[skyhigh]

Depends what you mean by "dodgy", the police would be looking for some evidence of a dishonest claim made to gain an advantage or cause a loss, not just a suspicious one.

Given that this is clearly an operation set up in conjunction with BTP, BTP will feel that they have a reasonable suspicion of dishonest claims, otherwise they wouldn't have got involved. To me it's quite clear that this isn't simply a fishing expedition and that they have some form of evidence with which to investigate. They wouldn't be threatening arrest if they had nothing to go on. To anyone who is involved in this - take it seriously, and follow the advice in post 887.

 

[eoff]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

I thought the following web page might be useful to you for the information it contains (I have no connection with this firm and am not recommending them in any way)...

A Guide to Voluntary Police Interviews - Noble Solicitors

www.noblesolicitors.co.uk

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Depends what you mean by "dodgy", the police would be looking for some evidence of a dishonest claim made to gain an advantage or cause a loss, not just a suspicious one.

Dodgy would be any claim that where any material element of it (or all of it) was (or might be) false or misleading.

One claim of that nature may be able to be passed off as a mistake, depending on what is said in interview.

More than one claim of that nature begins to look like a conspiracy to attempt to commit or actually commit fraud or other offences of dishonesty.

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.

(2)A representation is false if—
(a)it is untrue or misleading, and
(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Just to emphasise the seriousness of this:

(3)A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

Now, on summary conviction, (i.e. the Magistrates), you can only be sentenced for up to 6 months imprisonment for each offence, (or a combined maximum of 12 months).

I suspect that for people with low value claims, maybe a handful of fraudulent ones, you'll be issued a police caution, or at worse, a community sentence/fined.

But for those with scores of claims, or claims of significant value, I don't think prison can be ruled out, albeit probably only for a few months, and even then probably suspended on an early guilty plea. Really hardcore offenders (i.e. 100+ fraudulent claims will probably be in a whole other category).

Either way, the letter from the police is strongly worded and robust, suggesting they have a high degree of confidence.

 

[Egg Centric]

Can we* read anything into the fact the operation is being headed by a PC as opposed to someone more senior?

*I am in no way involved

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Can we* read anything into the fact the operation is being headed by a PC as opposed to someone more senior?

*I am in no way involved

Seems to be a part of Operation Parch whatever that is, so I suspect there's a team involved, possibly working alongside the train operator. Lucky to have a PC involved these days, a lot of crime is investigated by "civil" police staff and handed over once the case looks a bit more worthwhile.

 

[Haywain]

Can we* read anything into the fact the operation is being headed by a PC as opposed to someone more senior?

*I am in no way involved

Is the PC in question heading the operation or are you guessing?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Is the PC in question heading the operation or are you guessing?

It says he is the Lead Investigator in the letter, but there is probably some sort of Inspector or CID actually managing the overall operation.

 

[Egg Centric]

Is the PC in question heading the operation or are you guessing?

It says he is the Lead Investigator in the letter, but there is probably some sort of Inspector or CID actually managing the overall operation.

Exactly - I'm just taking "Lead Investigator" as meaning the "guy in charge" but it may well mean something more specific to those in the know

 

[Tallguy]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

Firstly I’m no Lawyer however, these allegations are very serious. The purpose of a voluntary interview is for the Police to get you to incriminate yourself. We all talk too much and this is what the Police will rely on to gain information that they can use against you. You are not obliged to attend a voluntary interview. One of the purposes of these letters is the ‘frightened effect’ which try to make you engage under the threat of worse things to come if you don’t. Read the wording of the letter carefully......

Only you know if you have submitted fraudulent claims (and I am in no way suggesting that you have) but it is clear that the TOC have passed this to the Police as they believe there is substance to the claims being made. In my non legal opinion you do not have to respond to this letter, which is basically a request for information but things may accelerate and escalate from here if you do or don’t engage. Not sure what your career is but think about the implications of this, just being arrested regardless of any conviction can cause problems entering countries such as the USA. If convicted for Fraud a number of companies won’t offer employment. At the moment you haven’t responded to any of the letters, this gives you space to breathe for a short period and contemplate your response.

I suggest you review your position and if you feel you may have made an incorrect claim(s) that could be construed as fraudulent consult a criminal Lawyer without delay with the view to obtaining an opinion on your position and representation should a warrant be issued for your arrest or you decide to attend a voluntary interview. if I was in your position that is what I would do.

I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

It's perhaps worth summarising what we now know (or, on the limited evidence we have seen, we can assume):

- GA are writing to some people who have claimed Delay Repay (DR) seeking repayment along with an administrative fee
- where people choose to make the repayment in settlement, that's the end of the matter
- to at least some extent, GA are prepared to correspond about the matter, giving further details of some of the DR claims that they are challenging. But we have seen nothing to suggest that GA are prepared to negotiate down the size of the settlement (and neither have we seen anything to suggest that they aren't).
- we have not seen GA refuse to offer a settlement
- GA are prepared to pass cases on to BTP. We don't know if these are cases where the people involved haven't engaged with the process, or where a settlement hasn't been agreed.
- BTP state that they consider that the matter falls under sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. From this I infer that they also think that they have (or at least have a realistic chance of obtaining) sufficient evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution. I further understand that charges under S1 or S2 can go to Crown Court instead of the magistrates.

So without getting into another round of whether (morally speaking) GA should be acting in the way they are, I think that our advice should now emphasize to anyone who has intentionally claimed DR they weren't entitled to that the matter could get serious (as in a crown court conviction and conceivably prison) so it is well worth trying to settle out of court.

Edited to add: For people who have got to the stage of getting the 'police letter', my feeling is that we are close to being out of our depth: we know about trains, and to some extent about railway-specific law. But not many of us are lawyers or police officers, so we can't really tell them what will happen now that the police are involved. My feeling is that we need to point them towards talking to a real lawyer (with the usual advice on where to find one) - or at the very least to take a friend with them if they go to see the police.