Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[47421]

One observation. If someone who has made invalid claims, including via a third party service when they have not actually made the journeys claimed, and they wish to settle, I would suggest wording your email carefully. Say something like "I am not certain these claims were valid and would like the opportunity to repay them" or simply "I would like to settle this matter by repaying the claim". Obviously any offer to pay does not look good, but my point is that saying for example that you relied on a third party service and did not make the journeys is effectively admitting to fraud and makes a prosecution easy. Do not state expressly that you did not make the journeys in question.

In reality GA want to balance (1) resolving these quickly and profitably by settlements, including material admin fees as well as repayment of amounts claimed i expect, and (2) pursuing some via fraud prosecutions for the publicity.

To avoid falling into (2) you need to convey message that you will settle but without clearly admitting you did commit fraud and can be successfully and simply convicted.

To get the message right, and if a fraud conviction would cause you big problems, may well want to use a solicitor.

 

[NSB2017]

So there is a "delay repay genie" that automatically claims delay repay for season ticket holders for any delayed journey they theoretically could have used, at a time when people are making fewer journeys than ever? That was never going to end badly and fraudulently, was it...

 

[Beazer]

So there is a "delay repay genie" that automatically claims delay repay for season ticket holders for any delayed journey they theoretically could have used, at a time when people are making fewer journeys than ever? That was never going to end badly and fraudulently, was it...

No. That's not correct.
There are a number of websites that collate feeds from operators showing delayed train times. They they help the user to make two claims per day (out/rtn) for journeys they travelled on. It is not automatic.
They were set up in response to the Train Operating Companies being slow at offering their own online systems. GA, for example, now have this but for years made 'customers' complete paper forms and send in their original ticket.
This, of course, was during normal times and pre-dates COVID.

 

[Wolfie]

Why would they? Why would they like a service that people use to claim for journeys they didn't make?

There is a difference between people using the service to get exact travel times for journeys that they actually made and claiming for journeys that they didn't make l agree. How did anyone actually believe that the latter was acceptable?

 

[Watershed]

GA are being rather "courageous" with these letters - the fact that claims were not always for the same train each time, or that they were submitted via a claims platform, or even that they don't meet "standard patterns", is hardly sufficient evidence to prove fraud.

Realistically, smartcard touch in/out records, CCTV or mutually exclusive Delay Repay claims would be needed for GA to reach the criminal burden of proof for fraud. I strongly suspect that they have none of those forms of evidence in most cases.

Seeing as they have insufficient proof to take the matter to Court as it stands, they are clearly they are hoping that most people they write to will fall into one of the below camps:

1. People who made dishonest claims and will either pay up, or are foolish enough to voluntarily incriminate themselves
2. People who truly can't remember what trains they took, but nevertheless pay up or make incriminating remarks
3. People who know they are innocent but pay up because they're afraid of being convicted of fraud

Rather fewer customers will fall into the category of taking legal advice and/or calling GA's bluff.

If GA truly believe there is widespread fraud going on, they should pass the files onto the BTP or CPS. That they're not doing so suggests that this is little more than a fishing expedition to bring in a bit of extra income.

It is one thing to recover wrongful claims. It is quite another to do so years after the fact, when most people will no longer have any independent evidence with which to exonerate themselves.

 

[Haywain]

GA are being rather "courageous" with these letters - the fact that claims were not always for the same train each time, or that they were submitted via a claims platform, or even that they don't meet "standard patterns", is hardly sufficient evidence to prove fraud.

Realistically, smartcard touch in/out records, CCTV or mutually exclusive Delay Repay claims would be needed for GA to reach the criminal burden of proof for fraud. I strongly suspect that they have none of those forms of evidence in most cases.

Seeing as they have insufficient proof to take the matter to Court as it stands, they are clearly they are hoping that most people they write to will fall into one of the below camps:

1. People who made dishonest claims and will either pay up, or are foolish enough to voluntarily incriminate themselves
2. People who truly can't remember what trains they took, but nevertheless pay up or make incriminating remarks
3. People who know they are innocent but pay up because they're afraid of being convicted of fraud

Rather fewer customers will fall into the category of taking legal advice and/or calling GA's bluff.

If GA truly believe there is widespread fraud going on, they should pass the files onto the BTP or CPS. That they're not doing so suggests that this is little more than a fishing expedition to bring in a bit of extra income.

It is one thing to recover wrongful claims. It is quite another to do so years after the fact, when most people will no longer have any independent evidence with which to exonerate themselves.

You are accusing GA of guessing, which is exactly what you are doing.

 

[eoff]

(image of letter)

Thanks very much for posting the letter.

If I had received this letter and note that I have only ever put in a small number of Delay Repay claims (all valid) I would respond along the following lines.

With reference to your recent letter indicating that your Fraud Investigations team has highlighted some of my claims as potentially fraudulent.
I also treat this as a serious matter. I stand by all of my claims and will respond to any specific information you provide that you think proves any are invalid. However I should point out that I expect to be recompensed for any expense in doing so and suggest you review the procedures that led to the sending of the letter.

I realise others may suggest a different tack here as normal advice on these forums is not to annoy the railway operating companies.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

GA are being rather "courageous" with these letters - the fact that claims were not always for the same train each time, or that they were submitted via a claims platform, or even that they don't meet "standard patterns", is hardly sufficient evidence to prove fraud.

Realistically, smartcard touch in/out records, CCTV or mutually exclusive Delay Repay claims would be needed for GA to reach the criminal burden of proof for fraud. I strongly suspect that they have none of those forms of evidence in most cases.

Seeing as they have insufficient proof to take the matter to Court as it stands, they are clearly they are hoping that most people they write to will fall into one of the below camps:

1. People who made dishonest claims and will either pay up, or are foolish enough to voluntarily incriminate themselves
2. People who truly can't remember what trains they took, but nevertheless pay up or make incriminating remarks
3. People who know they are innocent but pay up because they're afraid of being convicted of fraud

Rather fewer customers will fall into the category of taking legal advice and/or calling GA's bluff.

If GA truly believe there is widespread fraud going on, they should pass the files onto the BTP or CPS. That they're not doing so suggests that this is little more than a fishing expedition to bring in a bit of extra income.

It is one thing to recover wrongful claims. It is quite another to do so years after the fact, when most people will no longer have any independent evidence with which to exonerate themselves.

IANAL, but isn't this overstating the level of evidence required for something to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'? Assuming for the moment that delayed trains occur randomly in each day's service (something that we all know as railway enthusiasts or professionals know not to be true, but please let it stand for the moment) imagine the following scenario:

- in week 1, Mr Passenger claims every day for the most delayed train from A to B.

Has it been proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Passenger is putting in fraudulent claims? I don't think so - maybe he had particular work commitments that week, or had to rush home early for a whole series of domestic emergencies.

- in weeks 2, 3 and 4, Mr Passenger does the same.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt yet? Probably not. Mr Passenger may just be very unlucky with his work and home life.

- in months 2 and 3, Mr Passenger continues to claim.

By this point, and without CCTV, or barrier checks, or other evidence, then in the absence of any special evidence in Mr Passenger's favour it's unbelievable that someone's journey pattern always coincides with the worst possible train. That Mr Passenger has been falsely claiming is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course, as above, delays aren't random - and for reasons we all understand, they are worse in peak times. So it's by no means impossible that the 1730 train is almost invariably delay-repayable. But all that means is that it will take longer to establish a pattern that is beyond reasonable doubt (conceivably forever, although at some point surely a reasonable person would start going for a different train).

Even the criminal courts don't need to be absolutely certain of the facts; they don't even have to know that there isn't another explanation of what happened. They just have to think that the explanation they accept is the only one that in the real world explains what happened.

 

[LondonExile]

It's not clear how much evidence GA have yet. It could be that those claiming delay repay all acted perfectly honestly and an overzealous fraud department has picked up on people working overtime or going for a post-work pint who happened to use a delayed train to get home.

It could also be that they are subjects of targeted investigations where CCTV shows the barriers are closed, shows nobody jumping over them, and Barrier data shows that the season ticket held wasn't used to access the trains they're claiming for,

Earlier in the thread - the suggestion was made of honeypot data. I doubt those posting have any conclusive knowledge that that hasn't been done? (I'm sure some fraud department staff are on here - but I doubt they fancy leaving their employment by revealing something like that without authorization).

If I was in the position of those receiving these letters and was confident that I had not made any erroneous claims (let's set aside whether or not a mistake is fraudulent or not) - then I'd be seeking to find any evidence that supports my position. You are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but if the TOC shows in court "The defendant claimed for all the delayed trains in a week - with a wildly varying pattern. The defendant claimed delay repay for the 08:17 from Little Snoring and the CCTV and Barrier evidence shows their Season Ticket wasn't used that day..." then you will almost certainly be found guilty if your only response is "That's not good enough proof" (even if the reason you didn't use your season ticket was you'd forgotten it, and bought a return that morning)

If you're not certain every claim was accurate - you are probably best off trying to settle (even if you vehemently feel a hefty admin fee is unjust for a simple mistake)

 

[billyb750]

Surely if you have done nothing wrong, you can legitimately go back to GA to state just that, and that they can check any CCTV they might be able to find to validate your case?

If the latter case, and one is keen to minimise a conviction likelihood, noting I am NOT a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, I wonder if a without prejucice-save-as-to-costs offer (Calderbank offer) of a settlement of a few hundred pounds, and which does not contain any form of admission of the supposed offences, might be something to consider doing? In that way, this banked offer of a settlement might seemingly place some commercial pressure on GA to settle, noting this settlement could end up giving GA more than taking you to court? Might be one option to definitely consider talking through with a lawyer, if it was me?

Though to be clear, I completely frown upon anyone who has knowingly gamed the system to make fraudulent claims. Little sympathy in that respect!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Typing in 'Delay Repay Genie' came up with, amongst others, 'Reviews'.
The first one I read said 'you get a list off all the trains delayed on your route'.

 

[Watershed]

It could also be that they are subjects of targeted investigations where CCTV shows the barriers are closed, shows nobody jumping over them, and Barrier data shows that the season ticket held wasn't used to access the trains they're claiming for,

Except the latter data won't exist, because most season tickets weren't even smartcard enabled during the period the allegations relate to.

Earlier in the thread - the suggestion was made of honeypot data. I doubt those posting have any conclusive knowledge that that hasn't been done? (I'm sure some fraud department staff are on here - but I doubt they fancy leaving their employment by revealing something like that without authorization).

The data that the relevant claims tools use is sourced from Network Rail feeds. So NR would have to have been 'in' on this scheme several years ago for that even to be a possibility.

and that they can check any CCTV they might be able to find to validate your case?

CCTV is usually overwritten after 30 days on most systems. It is not kept unless there is a request to do so, e.g. from the police, revenue protection department or the person depicted therein. As a majority of the allegations GA are making relate to trains and claims from many months or years ago, there is very little chance that there will be any CCTV available.

 

[island]

Surely if you have done nothing wrong, you can legitimately go back to GA to state just that, and that they can check any CCTV they might be able to find to validate your case?

As with just about every time someone suggests checking CCTV on this forum, that will be of no help. The journeys being investigated are over a year in the past, well beyond the length of time CCTV is kept for.

 

[Hadders]

Am I correct in saying that everyone contacted about this so far:

1. Is a season ticket holder
2. Used a 3rd party handling service to submit their delay repay claims

GA must believe the pattern of the delay repay claims is 'suspect' however given the amount of time that has elapsed since the claims gathering evidence either way is likely to be tricky for GA.

There is unlikely to be CCTV available as ordinarily CCTV images are erased after 31 days. They can be kept as part of an investigation but this would need to be a very specific thing, not just part of a fishing expedition.

It would be interesting to know whether the season tickets were held on smartcards (didn't GA have a big push to remove paper seasons a couple of years ago?) If so the tap in and out data could be the key piece of evidence GA have. It would be interesting to know what GA's policy is on journey history data retention. There would be nothing stopping GA from retaining journey data longer than normal as part of a specific investigation but if they shouldn't be retaining this data 'just in case' in might be useful in the future.

It might be worth a regular GA passenger submitting a subject access request.

 

[Titfield]

Cant help but wonder if the TOCS now have some form of algorithm to run over multiple claims from an individual to highlight "outliers" to investigate?

 

[billyb750]

As with just about every time someone suggests checking CCTV on this forum, that will be of no help. The journeys being investigated are over a year in the past, well beyond the length of time CCTV is kept for.

The point is more the sentiment; a guilty party would never say go check the CCTV in writing

 

[HSP 2]

Cant help but wonder if the TOCS now have some form of algorithm to run over multiple claims from an individual to highlight "outliers" to investigate?

If that is the case a lot of enthusiasts could be getting letters from different TOCs due to the very nature of how we travel.

 

[reb0118]

The point is more the sentiment; a guilty party would never say go check the CCTV in writing

They might if they know that there is unlikely to be CCTV evidence.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Cant help but wonder if the TOCS now have some form of algorithm to run over multiple claims from an individual to highlight "outliers" to investigate?

Presumably railway companies retain details of train running times for quite a while (it's not personal data so no GDPR problems) and it's routine for banks to hang on to financial transaction data for six years - so it's not too difficult to see that a railway company could also hang on to details of the delay repay payments they have made for that sort of time as well.

Assuming those 2 sources of data, I don't see any great technical difficulty in

- working out the most 'profitable' DR claims that could be made each day for each pair of stations (presumably Liverpool Street and Home Station)
- comparing the results of this against claims made by any given passenger (either using the same season ticket, or by email/name/bank account combination)
- sending stroppy letters to people whose names appear persistently on the compared data.

Would this stand up in court? As I have said in an earlier post, I think so - there comes a point when coincidence is no longer an adequate explanation. And should the railway go to the County Court to get their money back, they only need to prove that it's more likely than not that a claim wasn't legitimate.

 

[vinnym70]

I see huge difficulties for most people to remember specific journey details from over a year ago. My own experience with delay repay claims is that I fill in the form in the time immediately after the delay, wait for the response, take my refund and move on.

I've commuted the same route for over 20 years and, aside from very specific journeys most are totally mundane. So, were a TOC to now challenge a specific claim, I'd find it very hard to provide any evidence to support my patronage on a particular train, especially as someone who frequently works varying hours - including starting or finishing my day with a period of home-working to make best use of the hours in a day and on some days that will include ad-hoc decisions to not commute based on various factors.

So it would seem, going forward, any future claims should be logged and retained for future reference? That probably means retaining some information about why you travelled on a specific train on that day.

 

[Titfield]

It may be that they look out for odd patterns ie season ticket holders claiming delays on different time trains above what the normal hit ratio would be.

 

[Tallguy]

When I used to commute daily into London on he Met line from Ickenham, I must have submitted a claim every week, sometimes daily when things were bad and kept a stack of the forms in my briefcase- filling them out on the train gave me something to do during the delayed journey, completing the exit time when I left at my destination station then popping the form in the postbox on my walk to my car. I travelled (and still do in London) solely on Oyster PAYG so was confident that the touch ins/outs would back any claim. Never had a claim denied.

I suspect the TOC in this case now have time on their hands and are investigating previous claims that don’t fit a regular travel pattern.

 

[packermac]

Presumably railway companies retain details of train running times for quite a while (it's not personal data so no GDPR problems) and it's routine for banks to hang on to financial transaction data for six years - so it's not too difficult to see that a railway company could also hang on to details of the delay repay payments they have made for that sort of time as well.

Assuming those 2 sources of data, I don't see any great technical difficulty in

- working out the most 'profitable' DR claims that could be made each day for each pair of stations (presumably Liverpool Street and Home Station)
- comparing the results of this against claims made by any given passenger (either using the same season ticket, or by email/name/bank account combination)
- sending stroppy letters to people whose names appear persistently on the compared data.

Would this stand up in court? As I have said in an earlier post, I think so - there comes a point when coincidence is no longer an adequate explanation. And should the railway go to the County Court to get their money back, they only need to prove that it's more likely than not that a claim wasn't legitimate.

I believe HMRC require companies to retain financial data for 7 years, although of course an individual TOC (or its parent company) data retention policy may specify longer than that.
Without discussing if the claims are valid or not does any TOC really expect any person who holds a season ticket to remember what train they took 13 months ago? Sure some may use the same trains each day, especially inbound, but most jobs stopped having a guaranteed finishing time many years ago.

I also think it is wrong to assume that companies operate responsibly, I know were I worked and with two friends who worked in our complaints department we would often just reject an issue to see if someone wanted to take it further, even if the issue was valid.

 

[ukkid]

No one is obliged to write back and engage with the TOC

 

[Haywain]

Thanks very much for posting the letter.

If I had received this letter and note that I have only ever put in a small number of Delay Repay claims (all valid) I would respond along the following lines.

With reference to your recent letter indicating that your Fraud Investigations team has highlighted some of my claims as potentially fraudulent.
I also treat this as a serious matter. I stand by all of my claims and will respond to any specific information you provide that you think proves any are invalid. However I should point out that I expect to be recompensed for any expense in doing so and suggest you review the procedures that led to the sending of the letter.

I realise others may suggest a different tack here as normal advice on these forums is not to annoy the railway operating companies.

No one is obliged to write back and engage with the TOC

To my mind, failing to respond to the TOC or responding in a particularly combative manner will likely seethe matter being passed to the BTP if the TOC feel they have evidence. If one is innocent of fraudulent claims a simple and polite letter stating that you believe all claims have been made legitimately would be more appropriate and do less to suggest having something to hide.

 

[Randomer]

Although I agree that a politely worded letter denying the allegations would make sense to me personally if the matter is passed to BTP though what realistically are the police going to do about it?

In terms of investigation is the matter going to have a realistic prospect of conviction with:
- The likelihood of CCTV still existing being very low.
- A pattern of claims although perhaps suspicious not itself being evidence of criminality.
- The likelihood that such matters would have to go to crown court and pass the public interest aspect of the CPS decision to prosecute.

I would suspect that although I'm sure GA would argue it is a serious offence would BTP view it in that light especially when if a number of matters are passed to them so long after the alleged offence has taken place.

As others have pointed out the onus on the prosecution to prove that you made the claims fraudulently (if done on a paper ticket season not smartcard) after this length of time especially if the person refuses to engage with GA or BTP, i.e. going no comment at interview with a written statement saying they used the trains in question would seem to be a very high one. Now if you have a smartcard season and potentially made claims that weren't valid it would potentially be a different matter.

Likewise politely asking the TOC precisely which journeys they deem to be suspicious and for what reasons is not something that could be argued as to increase suspicions.

From my limited point of view it does look like a fishing expedition by whoever in GA runs there prosecutions in order to justify the departments existence, or more controversially to meet a target, at a time when the actual number of cases suitable for prosecution is probably far lower than normal.

 

[Wolfie]

Although I agree that a politely worded letter denying the allegations would make sense to me personally if the matter is passed to BTP though what realistically are the police going to do about it?

In terms of investigation is the matter going to have a realistic prospect of conviction with:
- The likelihood of CCTV still existing being very low.
- A pattern of claims although perhaps suspicious not itself being evidence of criminality.
- The likelihood that such matters would have to go to crown court and pass the public interest aspect of the CPS decision to prosecute.

I would suspect that although I'm sure GA would argue it is a serious offence would BTP view it in that light especially when if a number of matters are passed to them so long after the alleged offence has taken place.

As others have pointed out the onus on the prosecution to prove that you made the claims fraudulently (if done on a paper ticket season not smartcard) after this length of time especially if the person refuses to engage with GA or BTP, i.e. going no comment at interview with a written statement saying they used the trains in question would seem to be a very high one. Now if you have a smartcard season and potentially made claims that weren't valid it would potentially be a different matter.

Likewise politely asking the TOC precisely which journeys they deem to be suspicious and for what reasons is not something that could be argued as to increase suspicions.

From my limited point of view it does look like a fishing expedition by whoever in GA runs there prosecutions in order to justify the departments existence, or more controversially to meet a target, at a time when the actual number of cases suitable for prosecution is probably far lower than normal.

Re your penultimate para it would be far from suspicious given that if a case goes to Court the rules on disclosure say that exactly that has to happen.

 

[matt_world2004]

Unless there is some certain evidence of fraud. I find it difficult to see how they can send the letter they sent out in good faith. I would not be able to tell you what time the train I got home was last week let alone last year. Struggle to remember what date I was at the pub a year ago would be difficult

 

[Jo78]

My letter doesn’t contain any dates just says several journeys. Over what period I don’t know. I have not travelled into work since beginning of last March. To go back and know is an impossibility at the best of times and given my anxiety that I’ve had throughout this pandemic. Some I know was assaulted on a train recently and BTP was informed 4 days after and they said they couldn’t prosecute as they had no cctv after 4 days. I’m going to seek some legal advice tomorrow. My hours vary far to day as I am on an overtime rota that I do early shifts, work to 11pm, attend meet and greet at theatres and weekend (when we had normal lives).

 

[sefton]

So the advice to anyone who really believes that they are being unfairly accused must be to check what journeys they are being challenged on (on the basis of the letter above, Greater Anglia seem to be telling you the day and the route but not the time - but presumably the various autoclaiming companies or Greater Anglia let them know at the time of the claim the specific journey being claimed for). Then try and see what evidence they have of why they might have got that train: do worklogs or timesheets or emails give a hint? If the challenge is (for example) regularly for Tuesday evenings because you regularly play squash after work on a Tuesday? And so on. Then my personal view would be to engage with Greater Anglia and share your evidence: the downside of this is that you are showing your hand, but the upside is that Greater Anglia (who have shown some of theirs by showing what days they are interested in) may then have enough information to walk away.

That is poor advice.

The onus is on GA to prove that a fraud has taken place.

Never, ever, enter into a discussion with a law enforcement organisation to explain; and certainly don’t try and recall something from a year ago as it is far too easy to be tripped up even if you are telling the truth.

I would suggest responding that all claims were made due to delays on their service and that if there is a specific claim they wish to ask for further information that they provide details, but as the journey was made a year ago that you may or may not be able to assist.