Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

Haywain

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
5,274
If police investigations that don't end in formal action are capable of appearing on an enhanced DBS, then that's something we should probably take into account when people ask us for our view on what they should do next in all sorts of disputes.
Except most of the cases in this part of the forum do not involve the police, and therefore would not get close to appearing on an enhanced DBS check if court action is avoided.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
492
Location
Swanage
People who are totally in the right will pay up for a number of reasons.
For example I worked in Procurement all my life and the fact that even if I went to court and won, my employer would have regarded me with suspicion for ever more.
On a slightly non related issue I undertook a posting for 3 months in Sydney in 1994, which also effectively also included my secondment to our Engineering department for that time. I signed a Engineering posting contract that spelt out in great detail what the company would provide, accommodation, share of car, daily allowance etc.
On return after some time I put in my expense claim. This was met by a pretty swift summons to my GM's office who said he understood I had done nothing wrong but there was no way he would forward the claim to our Director as it was for more than we paid our own Procurement Manager based in Sydney. He suggested I knocked off somewhere between £1000 and £1200, I split the difference at £1100. It was made clear that I could make an issue of it, and win, but they would get it back by no annual bonus &pay award. The pay award of course impacting my salary for pension purposes, and this may continue for some years.
Sometimes even when you are in the right you just have to play the long game.
 

Fawkes Cat

Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
1,109

As I said previously, there would need to be a good and relevant reason to disclose the non conviction intelligence. You will see in the 2013/14 stats table that although over 1million people needing an enhanced DBS had this "hidden" intelligence on their police file, it only got released for around 10,000 people. Although it was as high as 25,000 in earlier years. No recent statistics are available.



In the below quote, it focuses on protection of children etc, but similar logic applies to other careers, e.g. law enforcement, health, finance.
Thanks. As I say - news to me but the Unlock page makes interesting reading.
Except most of the cases in this part of the forum do not involve the police, and therefore would not get close to appearing on an enhanced DBS check if court action is avoided.
On a first reading of the Unlock page, I think I agree with @Haywain, and note that in practice the police now seem to get in touch with whoever's records are being checked before including non-conviction intelligence in an enhanced DBS - so it seems to me that were anyone to face this, they would at least have warning. I also note from the Unlock page that

The process following L​

Following the L case, many police forces have given individuals an opportunity to comment on the disclosure that the Police intend to make. As the Court in L was clear that there is no presumption in favour of disclosure, you could argue that the disclosure was not relevant to the new post/job you are seeking or that it is so old, vague, misleading or inappropriate that it ought not be disclosed at all.

A specific example which appears to have been used is to argue that a fraud investigation might prevent someone becoming a teacher. I think this is a rather flawed argument: being a teacher isn't of itself a position of financial trust, and being (investigated as) a fraudster doesn't of itself imply that you would be a risk to the physical or moral wellbeing of school pupils. So at the very least it seems to me that a police force would face a challenge if they released details of a fraud investigation in an enhanced DBS when someone was trying to get a job as a teacher.

TL,DR - it looks as if I'm worrying about nothing. We shouldn't ignore this issue but it doesn't necessarily change what we should say. Thanks to both @Tazi Hupefi and @Haywain for their help.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,276
Except most of the cases in this part of the forum do not involve the police, and therefore would not get close to appearing on an enhanced DBS check if court action is avoided.
But in order to keep it that way there appears (as yet, and of course this may change over time) to be no option other than to pay the price they say regardless of guilt. And another reminder that this price is (in at least one case) based on ALL claims, not specific ones that they find suspicious, as there are none to find suspicious (again, in at least one claim).

I'm not yet aware (and there is of course time) of them dropping a case, so this pretty much is a case of, they name a price and you either pay it or you have these legal and potentially career changing things hanging over you for the rest of your life.


People who are totally in the right will pay up for a number of reasons.
For example I worked in Procurement all my life and the fact that even if I went to court and won, my employer would have regarded me with suspicion for ever more.
On a slightly non related issue I undertook a posting for 3 months in Sydney in 1994, which also effectively also included my secondment to our Engineering department for that time. I signed a Engineering posting contract that spelt out in great detail what the company would provide, accommodation, share of car, daily allowance etc.
On return after some time I put in my expense claim. This was met by a pretty swift summons to my GM's office who said he understood I had done nothing wrong but there was no way he would forward the claim to our Director as it was for more than we paid our own Procurement Manager based in Sydney. He suggested I knocked off somewhere between £1000 and £1200, I split the difference at £1100. It was made clear that I could make an issue of it, and win, but they would get it back by no annual bonus &pay award. The pay award of course impacting my salary for pension purposes, and this may continue for some years.
Sometimes even when you are in the right you just have to play the long game.
It's difficult for people not in that position to understand what it is like in that position. It's easy for them to offer advice based on "stand your ground" but at the same time, the relationship between the TOC and the police is better than that of the passenger and the police and there is (despite what anyone says or thinks) a bias there and an obvious risk.

As for your £1100 from your trip, i trust you've recovered that money one penny at a time in the years since.

I would hazard a guess that they are above average AND apparently suspect in some other way. I can’t imagine GA would have the resources to go for just “above average” and they’d make themselves look rather silly too.
They say "above average" but i fully agree with you, above average isn't practical or in any way useful, i assume (but cannot confirm entirely) that they will mean above a specific threshold (which will of course be above average). Whether this is above a certain number of claims, or above a certain monetary value either absolute or relative to the season ticket cost i don't know.

In terms of being suspect in any other way, they claim not, and when pushed for a list of specific claims the returned list are all chronologically the latest claims in that time period, as if a threshold has been met and that has triggered the investigation.

An example i guess would be :

Average claims 30
Threshold for Investigation 50
Person A claims 80 times
Claims marked as suspicious are claim numbers 51-80 chronologically.
 
Last edited:

NotGreaterA

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2021
Messages
19
Location
Norfolk
The general attitude is heavily biased towards paying up, even when it is clarified with a "based on the information provided".

The scare tactics are as follows.

They chase people who have claimed above average claims, and they tell them they need to prove they were on the train, or they have to pay them back for ALL of their claims (not necessarily specific ones). They tell you if you don't do this they'll go to the police.

These letters go out to people who have just made above average claims. They're not JUST going out to people where they have evidence that suggests they were not on the train (cctv, smart card etc). They go to everyone who has claimed above a certain threshold.

People (as seen here) are frightened by the thought of the police, and fraud, and are paying up. The figures they are paying are NOT based on fraudulent claims and an admin fee, as they haven't made any, they're based on ALL claims.

You are asked to pay a settlement based on the cost of ALL of your claims or you'll be reported to the police for fraud.

How is that NOT a scary thing for people?


They HAVE evidence in some (maybe most) cases and they are entitled to follow that up, i encourage them and more TOCS to do this. But they're doing an easy catch all with the claim numbers thing and those who have done no wrong are caught up in it.
It's disappointing that so many on here find that acceptable.
I think you're banging your head against a brickwall with some of these pro train people.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,785
How is that a punishment? It's clear there is an allegation of fraud, and if the police investigate, there's going to be a record regardless of the outcome!

Something to bear in mind and consider, but it's hardly a punishment.
At some point the police will face litigation over that point and likely, based on precedent for other litigation based on damage caused by retention of information relating to unproven allegations, lose. Perhaps BTP, when they have to pay out serious savages, will be less keen on assisting GA's fishing expeditions.

Edited to add: l posted this before l saw that there actually has been relevant litigation (l am completely unsurprised) that has led to modified police behaviour (the police were effectively put on notice that their actions could cost them dearly).

It may well hinder prospects, but it's just stating facts. That such person was investigated in relation to a fraud allegation. Wholly factual. Even if it doesn't go to court, there's still been an investigation. And this non-conviction information aka police intelligence, would only be released if it was felt necessary in the context of why the Enhanced DBS was being requested in the first place.

It would be the (potential) employer punishing if something happened because of that, nothing to do with the police or Greater Anglia.

Would you want to employ someone in a finance business / position of trust who had been accused of multiple frauds, even if they'd never been prosecuted? Yes that is unfair, but it's life!

That is why you can't just rule out settling - it needs careful consideration and ideally professional assistance.
You are at best a GA apologist.

Seems like a strange world to me where claiming back compensation you are contractually owed (and indeed encouraged to claim by numerous adverts made by the service provider) then ends up with you being accused of fraud by the party you are claiming from....and verging on the Kafkaesque whereby that accusation (even if unproved) results in data records that then harm your prospects of pursuing employment in certain areas.

But that's just my view of course.
Absolutely spot on. A comprehensive media investigation is well overdue.
 
Last edited:

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
905
It may well hinder prospects, but it's just stating facts. That such person was investigated in relation to a fraud allegation. Wholly factual. Even if it doesn't go to court, there's still been an investigation. And this non-conviction information aka police intelligence, would only be released if it was felt necessary in the context of why the Enhanced DBS was being requested in the first place.

It would be the (potential) employer punishing if something happened because of that, nothing to do with the police or Greater Anglia.

Would you want to employ someone in a finance business / position of trust who had been accused of multiple frauds, even if they'd never been prosecuted? Yes that is unfair, but it's life!

That is why you can't just rule out settling - it needs careful consideration and ideally professional assistance.
This is false.

Details of an investigation would not be released.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
This is false.

Details of an investigation would not be released.
You've presumably skipped all the other posts and comments demonstrating you are wrong.

Details of allegations and other intelligence CAN be released on an enhanced DBS check, but there has to be strong justification to do so, either because of the nature of the intelligence or the particular requirements of the role being vetted for. Things like the age of the allegations or intelligence, severity, impact on the person, impact on the public etc, it all needs to be carefully weighed up. Although ultimately if the police decide to include something, it's going to be a hard battle to overcome.

It is certainly not some routine process, but it happens thousands of times each year.

There's very good reason to do so as well, especially in the wider context of children and vulnerable people.

On the certificate itself, it even has a section called "Other relevant information disclosed at the Chief Officer's discretion".
 
Last edited:

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
So basically the police are saying “no smoke without fire” then?
No, the police are just saying "this person was accused of XYZ and it didn't go any further. Make your own enquiries if you're concerned". I believe some forces are currently taking a liking to disclosing whether you're an activist or demonstrator for various "potentially disruptive" groups like XR and certain religious organisations which have more extreme perceptions of the world.

I think my whole point on this has been taken out of context, it was originally just intended to demonstrate that when weighing up an out of court settlement, it's not black and white, and regardless of what side you fall on, very careful thought is required far beyond what this forum can offer.

I can assure you all, however, that ANY even slightly adverse involvement with the police in this country, is not a good thing for you at all. You will find "local" police intelligence littered with opinion, insinuations, unusual interpretations of events and things worded in such a way to be ambiguous to anyone else looking in the future, even if nothing happened to you afterwards like a caution or conviction, or you thought nothing more about it at all! The PNC side of things is more rigid and more factual. It's a disgrace, like many things in our criminal (and civil) justice system.


20210408_232234.jpg
CDIx4XFWYAIfBxC.jpg
I've got an example here. All this chap did was share a link on Twitter. Never had s conviction in his life, but now there's a narrative that could imply he's some sort of terrorist, and now somehow "MAY" hold extreme views! The police even accept the link was to a non-violent organisation! This particular chap didn't even support the organisation anyway, he just shared a news article or two about a prosecution being dropped!
 
Last edited:

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
1,827
No, the police are just saying "this person was accused of XYZ and it didn't go any further. Make your own enquiries if you're concerned". I believe some forces are currently taking a liking to disclosing whether you're an activist or demonstrator for various "potentially disruptive" groups like XR and certain religious organisations which have more extreme perceptions of the world.

I think my whole point on this has been taken out of context, it was originally just intended to demonstrate that when weighing up an out of court settlement, it's not black and white, and regardless of what side you fall on, very careful thought is required far beyond what this forum can offer.

I can assure you all, however, that ANY even slightly adverse involvement with the police in this country, is not a good thing for you at all. You will find "local" police intelligence littered with opinion, insinuations, unusual interpretations of events and things worded in such a way to be ambiguous to anyone else looking in the future, even if nothing happened to you afterwards like a caution or conviction, or you thought nothing more about it at all! The PNC side of things is more rigid and more factual. It's a disgrace, like many things in our criminal (and civil) justice system.


View attachment 94073
View attachment 94072
I've got an example here. All this chap did was share a link on Twitter. Never had s conviction in his life, but now there's a narrative that could imply he's some sort of terrorist, and now somehow "MAY" hold extreme views! The police even accept the link was to a non-violent organisation! This particular chap didn't even support the organisation anyway, he just shared a news article or two about a prosecution being dropped!

But conversely, if this chap was a real 'risk' and the police did not highlight this, they would be criticised. I'm not sure what the answer is here.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,500
But conversely, if this chap was a real 'risk' and the police did not highlight this, they would be criticised. I'm not sure what the answer is here.
The above report looks disproportionate for sharing two links. I have shared more links to this site but I am not a member of whatever company or group runs it.

But that seemed to be a political extreme organisation and a check for something like adoption. Is this something the police are likely to do with a shaky fraud allegation for a financial job, or is it a scare tactic?
 

Fawkes Cat

Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
1,109
The above report looks disproportionate for sharing two links. I have shared more links to this site but I am not a member of whatever company or group runs it.

But that seemed to be a political extreme organisation and a check for something like adoption. Is this something the police are likely to do with a shaky fraud allegation for a financial job, or is it a scare tactic?
For us here, the relevant question is surely 'what police response would be proportionate?' In these GA cases, any police investigation would be for fraud: it might make sense for this to be revealed if someone was seeking a job involving money (working in the City for example) but not if they were hoping to be a child minder. And it seems from the Unlock page that there has been some success in challenging irrelevant police disclosures.

Off the top of my head, I am not sure if City employers (bankers, accountants, whatever) are entitled to seek an enhanced DBS: if they are then we might want to flag up this risk to people enquiring about the GA letter. But if not, then the risk is minimal - if an enhanced DBS can't be sought then my understanding (now) is that the police don't get to give additional information.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
For us here, the relevant question is surely 'what police response would be proportionate?' In these GA cases, any police investigation would be for fraud: it might make sense for this to be revealed if someone was seeking a job involving money (working in the City for example) but not if they were hoping to be a child minder. And it seems from the Unlock page that there has been some success in challenging irrelevant police disclosures.

Off the top of my head, I am not sure if City employers (bankers, accountants, whatever) are entitled to seek an enhanced DBS: if they are then we might want to flag up this risk to people enquiring about the GA letter. But if not, then the risk is minimal - if an enhanced DBS can't be sought then my understanding (now) is that the police don't get to give additional information.
Only an enhanced DBS has the possibility of the additional information being released, (as well as the other vetting tools like DV etc). A normal DBS would never get that information.

The roles where fraud is more likely to be relevant will be law enforcement / security careers, legal services, anything with financial control over vulnerable people or children, various charitable activities etc. Your typical banker won't be flagged under this process.

This would also only be relevant if the case was being handled by the police OR a private prosecutor, such as a train company had already applied for a summons, at which point the court will create an entry, linked to PNC/ACRO, and later, the case result. So settling out of court and them dropping a planned court hearing will still result in a record being made, just with a Not Guilty or NFA flag attached. Settling out of court before it even gets to court would almost never have a record outside of the rail company.
 
Last edited:

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,276
I think my whole point on this has been taken out of context, it was originally just intended to demonstrate that when weighing up an out of court settlement, it's not black and white, and regardless of what side you fall on, very careful thought is required far beyond what this forum can offer.

I can assure you all, however, that ANY even slightly adverse involvement with the police in this country, is not a good thing for you at all. You will find "local" police intelligence littered with opinion, insinuations, unusual interpretations of events and things worded in such a way to be ambiguous to anyone else looking in the future, even if nothing happened to you afterwards like a caution or conviction, or you thought nothing more about it at all! The PNC side of things is more rigid and more factual. It's a disgrace, like many things in our criminal (and civil) justice system.
Perhaps so, which is why my main question is and always has been, why is this behaviour acceptable? GA KNOW the potential consequences of falsely accusing someone of fraud, or accusing them with no evidence (i don't consider the fact they've claimed more than the next person evidence) yet they are still happy to do this because there are zero negative consequences for them no matter what they do.
But conversely, if this chap was a real 'risk' and the police did not highlight this, they would be criticised. I'm not sure what the answer is here.
There's a notable difference here that i hope people can see. In the case you refer to, the person actually did something. What they did could have been linked to some wrong doing, but as it turns out, it was decided not to be the case. The results of the type of wrong doing at question here can and do result in multiple deaths, a little more serious than someone being a few hundred quid out of pocket. In the railway case, for an innocent person who has claimed a lot they have done absolutely nothing apart from follow the correct procedure, a procedure outlined by the operator themselves. Infact, the only reason the operator has taken it upon themselves to go through this process is because they themselves have let down the passenger more times.

Settling out of court before it even gets to court would almost never have a record outside of the rail company.
Again, here is this incentive to consider this option.
 

smith12

New Member
Joined
12 Apr 2021
Messages
1
Location
witham
Hi everyone,

apologies for my tardy reply. Thanks for all the positive responses to my post.

I just wanted to provide some points of clarity from my previous post. As I reminder I advised GA that the large majority of my claims were instances where my intended train was delayed/cancelled I would go for dinner or beers and take a train a couple hours later. GA’s smartcard data corroborated this.

- I appreciate that the above example seems harsh and I maintain that the claims were still valid, GR did NOT explicitly say they were not.
- I would only claim for the delay experienced, I.E. I would claim 30 mins+ despite staying for 2 hours for beers.
- GA only said the expectation was the next available service would be taken, but did not say explicitly that what I’d done was a breach of DR rules.
- however there were a small number of examples that GA gave smartcard data for which showed that the delays reported in DR claims were longer than those actually experienced....is was this claims that GA used to ‘get me’

It would seem that as GA had empirical evidence to show that some of the claims were invalid/fraudulent...they basically saw it fit to decide that all my claims were invalid and asked for repayment of every claim I had made.

i did ask GA to provide a revised figure for repayment of those claims whereby I had clearly claimed an inflated amount which I would happily pay in full however they ignored this and just said they wanted the lot to close the case.

hands up, I did it.

anyway, just thought I’d clarify, it’s maybe not quite as harsh as it first seemed, but in any case I wanted this behind me and the consequence of legal action was not worth the money to make this go away.

i came to this forum simply to confirm the original letter was valid.

hopefully my experience helps/informs others in a similar position. Apologies in advance for any further delays in replying.
Can I just ask, how did you respond after they had provided the additional examples of the claims in question? Did you 'admit' in the response or just ask what you owed?

Also, did they just respond with a figure and a bank account to pay to?
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
Can I just ask, how did you respond after they had provided the additional examples of the claims in question? Did you 'admit' in the response or just ask what you owed?

Also, did they just respond with a figure and a bank account to pay to?
Most people don't return back to this forum, for reasons I believe are generally connected to some tacit admission of guilt, albeit begrudgingly, and with a high degree of reluctance. I can well believe that a lot of these people have made perfectly genuine claims on the whole, and no doubt have had a poor experience travelling with Greater Anglia, but perhaps on the odd occasion helps them to justify a more exaggerated claim, or a claim should not have been submitted. Unfortunately, if Greater Anglia spot just one or two claims which are not by the book, the "well is poisoned" so to speak, which can cause great harm to your credibility.

From what we can piece together, as long as you don't ignore them (or rile them up), yes, they respond asking you to pay an amount of money, which is punitive. It wouldn't surprise me if this could be in the high hundreds or low thousands depending on how often you've claimed, and the value of the claims. It seems to be a case of you paying back ALL of your delay repay claims since 2019, even the genuine ones, if you want to settle out of court.

People who ignore have been directed to attend a police station for questioning under caution, relating to some fairly serious offences under the Fraud Act. We've seen actual evidence of this happening.

My advice, as always, is if you know there are some claims which are dubious, you should (must try!) to settle out of court. If that does not work, or you cannot afford to, you will probably end up with the police, and you MUST request free legal representation, even if the interview etc is "voluntary".

If your claims are all above board, it is entirely up to you whether you settle to make the problem "go away" - which isn't recommended by this forum, but your own circumstances may be that such an option makes more sense to you. If you don't settle, I'd recommend waiting for the letter from the police (if one arrives) and at that point getting some proper legal representation, but you do need to understand that however unfair it may seem, the conclusion may need to be determined by a court, and having your defence costs paid for by the prosecution (especially a Crown Prosecutor) is far, far from guaranteed, so you may still be considerably out of pocket.

Some on this forum will go into an endless spin around how unfair this is etc - but it really doesn't matter at this point. It is what it is, and unfair or not, once you're in the process, the odds are firmly stacked against you, but it is still possible to navigate a way through.

My final piece of advice is don't send angry letters to people like MPs etc, don't annoy Greater Anglia by getting yourself wound up and reacting, don't speak to the papers. Once the entire thing is over, you can go wild and tell the world and sundry how unfair it was, and if you feel it necessary, could even look at civil action. The whole thing needs to be kept nice and measured.
 

Deafdoggie

Established Member
Joined
29 Sep 2016
Messages
1,523
If you don't settle out of court, if GA take you to court for fraud and if they win (I know it's a lot of ifs) then a fraud conviction affects more than a DBS check. It will effect loan applications, mortgages, insurance, etc. Some (most?) people will think this too big a gamble & settle out of court. It might seem unfair, it might seem stacked in the TOC favour, but it is what it is. I see why so many just settle it to make it go away.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,276
If you don't settle out of court, if GA take you to court for fraud and if they win (I know it's a lot of ifs) then a fraud conviction affects more than a DBS check. It will effect loan applications, mortgages, insurance, etc. Some (most?) people will think this too big a gamble & settle out of court. It might seem unfair, it might seem stacked in the TOC favour, but it is what it is. I see why so many just settle it to make it go away.
Indeed, but it is more than that again, because A) GA go out of their way to tell you of the dangers of it going to court (even when you stand better chance in court than out) and B) GA's relationship with the police and court is better than the passengers as a rule, so there is ALWAYS a bias of assuming they're guilty. It is fine to say they need the evidence but if you walk in assuming someone is guilty (because 99% are) then you cannot say this doesn't affect the thought process.

"That signal after the junction ALWAYS clears"
 

HSP 2

On Moderation
Joined
4 Dec 2019
Messages
357
Location
11B
The thing with this thread is that GA are going back as far as they want (approx. 3 years). I would expect that GA looked at the claims at the time and then said OK we will pay out. Fine.

But to then come back and say that all of your claims are wrong. Due to using a new system to work it all out just by using the touch in or out time, yes it maybe flawed, but then to only work to one side?

If you have a paper ticket how do GA know what trains you have travelled on?

The last point that I will make is how can GA claim back all of the money?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,785
The thing with this thread is that GA are going back as far as they want (approx. 3 years). I would expect that GA looked at the claims at the time and then said OK we will pay out. Fine.

But to then come back and say that all of your claims are wrong. Due to using a new system to work it all out just by using the touch in or out time, yes it maybe flawed, but then to only work to one side?

If you have a paper ticket how do GA know what trains you have travelled on?

The last point that I will make is how can GA claim back all of the money?
Perhaps coincidentally GA went onto DR for 15 minutes delays in 2019. Perhaps it cost them more than they were expecting....
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
The thing with this thread is that GA are going back as far as they want (approx. 3 years). I would expect that GA looked at the claims at the time and then said OK we will pay out. Fine.

But to then come back and say that all of your claims are wrong. Due to using a new system to work it all out just by using the touch in or out time, yes it maybe flawed, but then to only work to one side?

If you have a paper ticket how do GA know what trains you have travelled on?

The last point that I will make is how can GA claim back all of the money?
They aren't claiming back ANY Delay Repay legally speaking. Although the overall effect of the below is that it potentially could give that impression, so it is an easy mistake to make.

They are specifying an amount (which may coincidentally correlate to the total delay repay claimed), but for a totally different purpose (to avoid potential prosecution for fraud).

Legally, they wouldn't be able to (easily) reclaim genuine Delay Repay compensation paid out. They, however, are legally allowed to specify whatever figure they like to resolve the matter out of court. Greater Anglia have simply chosen an amount which generally seems to equal the total claim values. So in effect, the average person will think they're repaying back genuine compensation, but legally and contractually, they are paying a sum of money unrelated to that, other than it happens to be an identical amount.

They could ask for £1,000,000 if they really wanted to. It's a voluntary settlement amount, neither party is obliged to offer/accept it.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,785
Most people don't return back to this forum, for reasons I believe are generally connected to some tacit admission of guilt, albeit begrudgingly, and with a high degree of reluctance. I can well believe that a lot of these people have made perfectly genuine claims on the whole, and no doubt have had a poor experience travelling with Greater Anglia, but perhaps on the odd occasion helps them to justify a more exaggerated claim, or a claim should not have been submitted. Unfortunately, if Greater Anglia spot just one or two claims which are not by the book, the "well is poisoned" so to speak, which can cause great harm to your credibility.

From what we can piece together, as long as you don't ignore them (or rile them up), yes, they respond asking you to pay an amount of money, which is punitive. It wouldn't surprise me if this could be in the high hundreds or low thousands depending on how often you've claimed, and the value of the claims. It seems to be a case of you paying back ALL of your delay repay claims since 2019, even the genuine ones, if you want to settle out of court.

People who ignore have been directed to attend a police station for questioning under caution, relating to some fairly serious offences under the Fraud Act. We've seen actual evidence of this happening.

My advice, as always, is if you know there are some claims which are dubious, you should (must try!) to settle out of court. If that does not work, or you cannot afford to, you will probably end up with the police, and you MUST request free legal representation, even if the interview etc is "voluntary".

If your claims are all above board, it is entirely up to you whether you settle to make the problem "go away" - which isn't recommended by this forum, but your own circumstances may be that such an option makes more sense to you. If you don't settle, I'd recommend waiting for the letter from the police (if one arrives) and at that point getting some proper legal representation, but you do need to understand that however unfair it may seem, the conclusion may need to be determined by a court, and having your defence costs paid for by the prosecution (especially a Crown Prosecutor) is far, far from guaranteed, so you may still be considerably out of pocket.

Some on this forum will go into an endless spin around how unfair this is etc - but it really doesn't matter at this point. It is what it is, and unfair or not, once you're in the process, the odds are firmly stacked against you, but it is still possible to navigate a way through.

My final piece of advice is don't send angry letters to people like MPs etc, don't annoy Greater Anglia by getting yourself wound up and reacting, don't speak to the papers. Once the entire thing is over, you can go wild and tell the world and sundry how unfair it was, and if you feel it necessary, could even look at civil action. The whole thing needs to be kept nice and measured.
Re your last para l'd like nothing more than a group action, perhaps including a group such as the Consumer's Association, against GA. Your last sentence reeks of appeasing GA. They can do what they want, you just shut up and take it.... Methinks not.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
Re your last para l'd like nothing more than a group action, perhaps including a group such as the Consumer's Association, against GA. Your last sentence reeks of appeasing GA. They can do what they want, you just shut up and take it.... Methinks not.
You forget that it's nothing to do with Greater Anglia after a certain point. Once the case is handed to the police, they are simply the victim, and will have handed their evidence/statements over.

It is for the benefit of the defendant (or suspect as the case may be) that they do not do anything to draw attention to themselves unnecessarily, as it can be detrimental to any future defence.

Imagine you've given a police statement under caution, and you've cooperated, giving full answers to their questions. That's now all recorded and is evidence.

Now imagine that whilst you were feeling most aggrieved by the situation, you wrote a letter to your MP, made some social media posts or spoke to a newspaper. What if the newspaper reports that you said something which you hadn't meant to be read in "that way", or in your haste to contact your MP, your letter has some differences to the police statement etc, which you think are innocuous enough, but the police, prosecutor etc is now highlighting your inconsistency, even your credibility. You also find that the judiciary, and most juries also do not like pre-empted attacks on victims, regardless of whether they are corporate bodies or individuals before the matter is resolved. If you were to be found guilty, despite your protests of innocence, you "going on the attack" could easily affect your sentence, (which will already be at the high end, because of you requesting a trial), because going on the attack may well be considered an aggravating factor, certainly does not demonstrate remorse, victim blaming etc.

So, by all means, go on the attack and tell whoever will listen how unfair the situation is - but there are serious risks associated with that approach, which in my view, are so serious that it would be exceptionally unwise (and possibly illegal depending on how far it went).

Once a trial is over OR once it is certain no police action/prosecution will be forthcoming - other than slander/libel laws - crack on and enjoy yourself.

I appreciate you (and others) do not like the fact that legally, Greater Anglia is considered to be a potential victim of a crime, in this case, a rather large number of potentially serious frauds, and that they must be afforded the same respect, courtesy and legal safeguards as any other potential victim. On that basis, "going on the attack" also needs to be VERY mindful of Section 51 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
 
Last edited:

HSP 2

On Moderation
Joined
4 Dec 2019
Messages
357
Location
11B
They aren't claiming back ANY Delay Repay legally speaking. Although the overall effect of the below is that it potentially could give that impression, so it is an easy mistake to make.

They are specifying an amount (which may coincidentally correlate to the total delay repay claimed), but for a totally different purpose (to avoid potential prosecution for fraud).

Legally, they wouldn't be able to (easily) reclaim genuine Delay Repay compensation paid out. They, however, are legally allowed to specify whatever figure they like to resolve the matter out of court. Greater Anglia have simply chosen an amount which generally seems to equal the total claim values. So in effect, the average person will think they're repaying back genuine compensation, but legally and contractually, they are paying a sum of money unrelated to that, other than it happens to be an identical amount.

They could ask for £1,000,000 if they really wanted to. It's a voluntary settlement amount, neither party is obliged to offer/accept it.

So Ga aren't claiming back any delay repay?
It's a bit odd that some (most) of the people that have posted on here have had to pay back the total of the cost of the delay repay claims. Plus a administration cost.
So legally they would not be able to claim back any genuine repay claim then?
But you are also saying that it's OK to add all the claims together and then say that is the cost? Must not forget the admin. fee.

You forget that it's nothing to do with Greater Anglia after a certain point. Once the case is handed to the police, they are simply the victim, and will have handed their evidence/statements over.
I think that in your first line it should read ( if the case is handed to the police etc.).
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,785
I trust that if the police probe GA's claims and find them unjustified a charge of wasting police time will follow...
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
333
Location
Nottinghamshire
I trust that if the police probe GA's claims and find them unjustified a charge of wasting police time will follow...

Definitely not, as it's not even close to meeting that threshold.

As long as GA genuinely hold the belief that they believe a crime has been committed, (even if they are totally wrong!), it's not wasting police time.

In any event, the law is more nuanced than that.

1) You have to knowingly make a false report to the police and;
2) That knowingly false report has to actual result in a wasteful employment of the police.

So if GA think (no matter how wrong they are) that a crime has occurred, there can be no wasteful employment of the police, as they are paid to neutrally investigate allegations. I also suspect that Greater Anglia contributes to the funding of the Transport Police in any event, so you could make a (short) observation in defence, that Greater Anglia would be wasting its own money / resource. The police obviously believe there is some merit in the allegations, because they go through the trouble of inviting people in for an interview.

But you clearly didn't contend that with any seriousness anyway.

What could be reasonably possible is a Defence Costs Order if it got to court, and you won, but this would not be straightforward, and an especially good case (not just that you'd been acquitted) would have to be made. The government would pay the costs, not the victim, Greater Anglia.

The other angle I considered, and discounted was Malicious Prosecution, but this is exceptionally unlikely to succeed (and you'd need to be acquitted first). Simple errors, misjudgements or even negligence by police will not be enough to satisfy a court that any prosecution was truly malicious. It is necessary to prove that malice played a part in the Prosecution – such as fabricating or tampering with evidence to cover up failings in the original investigation.

I'm quite afraid that most people do not remotely understand our justice system in England and Wales. Greater Anglia may well be using our justice system to their advantage, (and they are perfectly at liberty to do), but the government, and the laws they pass, amend or don't amend, gives them the right to do so.

I also would possibly have a little more sympathy with your argument if Greater Anglia was privately prosecuting these cases, but as we know, quite properly, some of these cases are referred on to the police (and no doubt the CPS later).

Ultimately, you would be better making an argument to the powers that be, that defendants who are acquitted in criminal matters (regardless of railway offences or otherwise), often suffer a severe financial loss without any mechanism to obtain compensation, experience stress and anxiety, and are often viewed by society with suspicion even after a not guilty verdict. You could also consider that "Not Guilty" does not equate to "Innocent".
 
Last edited:

Haywain

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
5,274
GA's relationship with the police and court is better than the passengers as a rule, so there is ALWAYS a bias of assuming they're guilty.
I have no idea if the above statement is true or not, but I am sure that if the police investigate and believe there is sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution the matter is then handed to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision. This would be another safeguard for the accused. The downside, for the accused, of things going this far is that the current state of the court system means that a case can take many, many months to come before a court and you've got to be very certain of your innocence to want to risk things going that far.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,785
I have no idea if the above statement is true or not, but I am sure that if the police investigate and believe there is sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution the matter is then handed to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision. This would be another safeguard for the accused. The downside, for the accused, of things going this far is that the current state of the court system means that a case can take many, many months to come before a court and you've got to be very certain of your innocence to want to risk things going that far.
Balanced
 

Top