Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Wolfie]

Absolutely

But I’d be intrigued to know whether any of the DR claims that GR have pushed back on based on tap in data for this sort of scenario.

Normally get the 17:00 but it’s cancelled

Go to the shops / pub, end up being a couple of hours


Get the 20:00

Note that the 17:30 ran on time so claim 30 minute DR

GA say “hang on a minute pal, you were on the 20:00 and it was on time, pay up or we’ll see you in court”

Interesting and hard to prove one way or the other. How would the TOC even know that you were there for the 1700?

I must admit that most of my claims have related more to delays in journey (e.g. cancellation of connections or missed connections due to delays) than to delayed start of journey.
I did, due to refusing to sit on a freezing cold station for an indeterminate length of time awaiting line reopening once trespassers were cleared off the line, miss the first train that ran and caught the second. I clearly annotated the paper claim form to this effect and LNWR happily coughed up. I was though travelling on a paper ticket on a station without barriers.

 

[WesternLancer]

Absolutely

But I’d be intrigued to know whether any of the DR claims that GR have pushed back on based on tap in data for this sort of scenario.

Normally get the 17:00 but it’s cancelled

Go to the shops / pub, end up being a couple of hours


Get the 20:00

Note that the 17:30 ran on time so claim 30 minute DR

GA say “hang on a minute pal, you were on the 20:00 and it was on time, pay up or we’ll see you in court”

Kind of creates another reason to stick to paper tickets maybe....

although knowing how some parts of the railway are, how long will it be before people who have paper tickets start to get considered as people 'conspiring to dodge fares....'

 

[Titfield]

As has been said before the issue coming to the fore is proving that the claimant was intending to travel on the "delayed train" and thus was indeed inconvenienced.

 

[Class360/1]

I mean, GA delay repay is the worst. my train from woodbridge to ipswich was full, the conductor told us to claim delay repay. We then managed to get on the next train, an hours later. Then when my family tried to claim delay repay, we got nothing

 

[SteveM70]

I mean, GA delay repay is the worst. my train from woodbridge to ipswich was full, the conductor told us to claim delay repay. We then managed to get on the next train, an hours later. Then when my family tried to claim delay repay, we got nothing

That happens all the time, with nearly all TOCs, because the first validation is only “did the train run late”. And in cases like yours, it didn’t, so they reject. Appeal it, more than once if necessary, and you’ll get it eventually

 

[_toommm_]

I mean, GA delay repay is the worst. my train from woodbridge to ipswich was full, the conductor told us to claim delay repay. We then managed to get on the next train, an hours later. Then when my family tried to claim delay repay, we got nothing

I got told by them that split tickets aren’t eligible for delay repay, and got told on the phone that because GA don’t run freight trains, it’s not their fault one broke down and messed up the GEML meaning my train was delayed.

 

[WesternLancer]

I got told by them that split tickets aren’t eligible for delay repay, and got told on the phone that because GA don’t run freight trains, it’s not their fault one broke down and messed up the GEML meaning my train was delayed.

shocking - maybe the effort the GA team have put into to chasing up these questionable claims could have been matched by the effort taken to consider perfectly legit claims accurately.....

 

[b0b]

The railway industry is compensating me for the inconvenience caused by their issues. How l choose to spend the time that l have lost as a result really is none of their business.

While I 100% agree, it looks like GA is presenting tap data as evidence of when travel was attempted, and thus claiming Delay Repay payments were potentially fraudulent. Waiting over a year to have an issue with the claim means (reasonably IMHO) the circumstances have been forgotten. I would feel especially aggrieved by this tactic.

It also suggests an unwritten rule of "tap data is authoritative" and/or claimants will have to retain evidence of the delay should they choose to delay arriving at the tap-in point knowing their intended service is delayed. Even then, it will be on the claimant to overcome the tap data evidence.

Obviously claiming anything other than the original delay (ie 2hrs in the pub vs 40 mins on a platform / delayed train) should rightly be followed up.

 

[ashkeba]

Not being a smart card user yet, I do not know this but how many tap in points are located before the departure information displays? I think I saw them on platforms. Even then, would you tap in much before the train is expected to come? Is there a maximum time allowed between tap in and getting on a train, like in some metro systems?

 

[Wolfie]

While I 100% agree, it looks like GA is presenting tap data as evidence of when travel was attempted, and thus claiming Delay Repay payments were potentially fraudulent. Waiting over a year to have an issue with the claim means (reasonably IMHO) the circumstances have been forgotten. I would feel especially aggrieved by this tactic.

It also suggests an unwritten rule of "tap data is authoritative" and/or claimants will have to retain evidence of the delay should they choose to delay arriving at the tap-in point knowing their intended service is delayed. Even then, it will be on the claimant to overcome the tap data evidence.

Obviously claiming anything other than the original delay (ie 2hrs in the pub vs 40 mins on a platform / delayed train) should rightly be followed up.

Re your first para while l agree that rather looks like an attempt by the TOC to retrospectively rewrite history when they know that the passengers will be in a weak position to defend themselves. Personally l would have the media and my MP all over this like a rash. The TOC deserves to get as much grief as possible such that their costs vastly outweigh any gains. They operate with no good will and deserve even less in response. Make it bloody uncomfortable for their management!

 

[robbeech]

shocking - maybe the effort the GA team have put into to chasing up these questionable claims could have been matched by the effort taken to consider perfectly legit claims accurately.....

The effort chasing these ‘questionable’ (and as we have seen in more than one case here, entirely fraudulent) claims is profitable.
Considering legitimate claims and being customer focussed in any way is absolutely not profitable.
The focus is clear, it won’t be changing any time soon.

 

[jon0844]

It does sound like this was a bit more than a random fishing expedition, given how many people have so quickly admitted to possibly making the odd incorrect claim, not understanding things properly and so on. The fact so many sought to settle, or mention additional evidence (smartcard data) also supports this theory.

It certainly won't be changing as I'm sure there are a lot more people involved, and so far it doesn't seem as if they're going after people who might have chosen to change their travel plans by an hour or two having seen a delay when at work/home.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It does sound like this was a bit more than a random fishing expedition, given how many people have so quickly admitted to possibly making the odd incorrect claim, not understanding things properly and so on. The fact so many sought to settle, or mention additional evidence (smartcard data) also supports this theory.

It certainly won't be changing as I'm sure there are a lot more people involved, and so far it doesn't seem as if they're going after people who might have chosen to change their travel plans by an hour or two having seen a delay when at work/home.

This.

I stepped back from this particular sub forum because I didn't think people particularly appreciated my perspective from a more black and white / neutral position. The fact of the matter is that for several cases here, posters DO recall and fully accept either intentionally (you could substitute "fraudulently") or dubiously making an invalid claim for compensation (even if those claims were made some time ago!). The fact that they may have made perfectly legitimate claims 98% of the time on other occasions is neither here nor there, as repaying even the "genuine" amounts back is likely to be considerably more beneficial to the claimant than what would happen should the police and justice system become involved.

A bit of shock and awe, with some financial recompense isn't a bad outcome in most cases. I still maintain that anybody who is certain they have not claimed unlawfully have nothing to fear from letting the situation play out to a conclusion.

 

[English]

I paid up as well, not as much as £850 but it was in the 100's. They also provided me with SmartCard tap in data as evidence. Has anyone received a letter saying the case is closed?

How far did the dates go back?

 

[furlong]

The elephant in the room is that "Delay Repay" does not appear to be defined consistently and accurately anywhere in the public domain. There is a lot of genuine confusion about what would or would not constitute a valid claim, so in cases like these, you're left to fall back on whether or not any of the declarations made while applying were manifestly false. As has already been mentioned, elements of GA's claims process are open to varying interpretations. So, realistically, it's only the most egregious abuses that could be pursued - both the passenger and the company seem to have significant margins of discretion in claims at the moment. Amazingly, the paper form doesn't even require any explicit declaration - everything is based on informal and implicit assumptions and interpretations of ill-defined terms such as "your train". It asks for length of delay and implies that up to 59 minutes that means the length of delay to the train you were on (which might be different from the delay to your journey), whereas 60 minutes or over it means the delay to you (which might be different from the delay to "your train"). Or in other words, there remain a lot of grey areas in these schemes.

So while posters in this forum have evolved towards a generally-agreed nuanced interpretation of what should or should not constitute a valid claim, that's largely based on the application of "common sense" to the intentions that are thought to be behind the scheme and hearsay about successful and unsuccessful claims and appeals.

The question facing people in receipt of one of these letters is whether or not any of their contentious claims fall clearly outside any of the grey areas such that they should not have been submitted in the way that they were.

 

[Horizon22]

I do feel for you, that does seem harsh and when I lived in London I could easily see myself getting caught out by this too, it doesn't take long to figure out if the service is messed up in the evening rush, it's often a good choice to partake in a beer or 3 and catch later trains that might be running better and also not rammed. I can see myself thinking I was delayed by the train company too.

The scenario wouldn't have to be "or else". You can absolutely take later trains but the crucial point is you'd need to claim against your next available. As others have alluded to the smart card issue can cause GA to look back and go "but your train wasn't delayed". You can easily reply and say actually yes it was, but clearly some reform is required for DR as otherwise you'd be in a back and forth of appealing etc.

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

just a genuine enquiry... if both legs of a return journey qualify for delay repay can you claim for both journeys as it could in practice amount to more than cost of the return ticket ?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

just a genuine enquiry... if both legs of a return journey qualify for delay repay can you claim for both journeys as it could in practice amount to more than cost of the return ticket ?

Would it effectively be capped at something like 2 x 1/464th of the cost of an annual season ticket?

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

Would it effectively be capped at something like 2 x 1/464th of the cost of an annual season ticket?

scenario for instance Open return Euston/Manchester delayed over 120 minutes ; claim made ; two weeks later on return; same delay ; in theory twice price of original ticket ?

 

[alistairlees]

scenario for instance Open return Euston/Manchester delayed over 120 minutes ; claim made ; two weeks later on return; same delay ; in theory twice price of original ticket ?

It’s capped at the cost of the ticket

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

fair enough; suppose the ticket numbers are stored in database anyway.. cheers

 

[island]

just a genuine enquiry... if both legs of a return journey qualify for delay repay can you claim for both journeys as it could in practice amount to more than cost of the return ticket ?

It’s capped at the cost of the ticket

I do not believe this assertion has any basis.

 

[Watershed]

I do not believe this assertion has any basis.

It is now true - see NRCoT 32.2.

 

[island]

Every day's a school day!

 

[[.n]]

It is now true - see NRCoT 32.2.

I wonder that that works in reality, and how much (real) onus that its possible to put on you on the customer claiming. As an example

Outward Journey, delayed by 35 mins, so lets say this TOC refunds 50% in this scenario, and you put the claim in but it has yet to be processed, so you don't know if its been accepted

Return Journey, delayed by 125 minutes, so now you're expecting a TOC refund of 100%....BUT wait NRCOT 32.2 says no more than the cost of your ticket - how do you fill in the delay repay form?

 

[Watershed]

I wonder that that works in reality, and how much (real) onus that its possible to put on you on the customer claiming. As an example

Outward Journey, delayed by 35 mins, so lets say this TOC refunds 50% in this scenario, and you put the claim in but it has yet to be processed, so you don't know if its been accepted

Return Journey, delayed by 125 minutes, so now you're expecting a TOC refund of 100%....BUT wait NRCOT 32.2 says no more than the cost of your ticket - how do you fill in the delay repay form?

I don't think that the NRCoT stop you making claims beyond what you're entitled to, they just mean the TOCs aren't obliged to pay out more than the ticket's face value in Delay Repay. Hardly any claimants will be aware of that clause anyway.

Of course this can only enforced in practice through the use of cross-industry DR databases.

 

[[.n]]

I don't think that the NRCoT stop you making claims beyond what you're entitled to, they just mean the TOCs aren't obliged to pay out more than the ticket's face value in Delay Repay. Hardly any claimants will be aware of that clause anyway.

Of course this can only enforced in practice through the use of cross-industry DR databases.

But it seems that from this thread at least one TOC will try and claim you're doing wrong and seek to take you to court for "fraud" years after any alleged offence. So whats's to stop something like this happening in the above example? Especially if I've been foolish enough to buy and load this ticket onto a "smartcard" / used an online delay repay service / bought using an app

 

[Watershed]

But it seems that from this thread at least one TOC will try and claim you're doing wrong and seek to take you to court for "fraud" years after any alleged offence. So whats's to stop something like this happening in the above example? Especially if I've been foolish enough to buy and load this ticket onto a "smartcard" / used an online delay repay service / bought using an app

TOCs probably do have the right to recover payments after the fact, even though that would be terrible customer service. It wouldn't be fraud though, because the claim wasn't fundamentally based on the premise of an inexistent delay, as GA are claiming for several cases here.

 

[P Binnersley]

just a genuine enquiry... if both legs of a return journey qualify for delay repay can you claim for both journeys as it could in practice amount to more than cost of the return ticket ?

You claim for the delay (in minutes), not for an amount in pounds. It is up to the train company to decide how much you are compensated. If they round-up or "over pay" you are free to accept their offer of compensation. If they then want a refund you can query it and possibly charge for your time in doing so.

"claims" are limited to the price paid for a ticket, but it is unclear if that is per claim or for all claims on one ticket. For a return journey you are issued two tickets. (Out & return).

 

[All Line Rover]

It is now true [that if both legs of a return journey qualify for delay repay the total amount you can claim is capped at the cost of the return ticket] - see NRCoT 32.2.

I don't see anything of the sort.

"For claims made under the industry arrangements (set out at paragraph 32.1.1 above) for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket.

However, in exceptional circumstances, a Train Company may consider claims for other losses. This will be for the Train Company to decide in its sole discretion."

This clause refers to "the delay", so one delay, not multiple delays. It is clearly directed at contractual claims for losses such as consequential losses that exceed the amount offered under the rail industry's Delay Repay schemes and exceed the price of the ticket.

I'm not sure what the real purpose of Delay Repay is. But if the purpose is to compensate for the inconvenience of delays, offering total compensation greater than the value of a return ticket where a passenger has been significantly delayed on both the outward and return journeys is not, in my opinion, surprising or unreasonable. Nor is offering compensation worth more than the value of a ticket, in response to lengthy delays, any different to existing practice in the airline industry.