43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,255
Fully agree.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud
- Thread starter lufcjack
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Totally agree. I don't find this Tazi person at all helpful and yes, very condescending with his/her holier than thou tone. We're all here seeking advice - not to be judged by keyboard warriors.
I am not expert on TOC's but I think you need to except that GA are in a no loose situation here. Like many big companies against an individual.
Yes it can be argued they have done very poor, or no due diligence on claims they have paid out and are now trying to rectify this. Maybe an internal audit has shown up poor practice, who knows.
But
Because most people cannot obviously say (unless deliberately trying to mis claim) what trains they were on a year or more ago then GA can say we have evidence. Maybe they do maybe they do not. But if they can insert and element of doubt, or make people obviously nervous then most will probably settle to make it go away before court. Seems the settlement is all the claims that have been paid, so a good result for "the big guy" they get back the money on probably a large number of legitimate claims, many I suspect which they have counter claimed off NR. I would be surprised if NR see any monies from this exercise.
If you are 100% sure then yes you could take it to court. Risks in this I perceive are
1) You may be innocent but still loose
2) It will cost a lot and you may not get it all or any back. A cost of £650 for a solicitors letter was mentioned by one poster on the disputes thread this week.
3) Your employer will almost certainly find out about this court case and this may impact on your future promotion prospects even if found not guilty, (you would never be able to prove this of course, and is even more important if you are in the financial industry)
4) GA could let you run up costs and then pull out close to trial as was mentioned about TIL on the XC ticketing thread.
5) "No smoke without fire" people may well think that even if you are innocent and acquitted it just means you had a lawyer who was better than the one employed by GA.
Yes we are all just guys giving advice based on working in our own industries, mine was in transport but not rail, and it is of course your choice. But having a job where contact with lawyers both internal and external gave me the view that laws are always open to interpretation, this is after all how the legal profession makes most of its money.
Remember their is no such thing as bad law, only badly written laws.
@packermac Agreed.
Regardless of the outcome of each individual case there is absolutely NO way AT ALL that the passenger can come out on top. And there is nothing to stop them doing this. I suspect many other operators will see the results of this (just the financial results which is all they're interested in) and will likely follow suit. So those watching this thread with Northern, or TFW, or GTR based commutes may have all this to come. It's a cracking way to simply generate income.
Regardless of the outcome of each individual case there is absolutely NO way AT ALL that the passenger can come out on top. And there is nothing to stop them doing this. I suspect many other operators will see the results of this (just the financial results which is all they're interested in) and will likely follow suit. So those watching this thread with Northern, or TFW, or GTR based commutes may have all this to come. It's a cracking way to simply generate income.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
I think you'll find my advice is far more realistic and grounded in reality than most.
People on this forum can tell you how badly treated you are etc, but ultimately it's not going to help you one bit. You are in a mess the moment you're accused. There's no real way out that doesn't cause you a problem in some way, be it stress or money.
It makes not one bit of difference how unfair you think that is, it really doesn't. As others said, that is a battle you should take up once you've sorted it as best you can. I have set out good reason why you should only do that AFTER reaching a resolution, because you can badly stitch yourself up.
I still note that you've not denied any wrongdoing. If you've done something wrong, just hold your hands up, get the best advice we can give, and get on with your life! Simply hoping that GA don't have evidence is not going to end particularly well.
If you've come here looking for someone to tell you how unfair you've been treated, and that you can ignore GA and they'll blink first, this is the wrong place. That isn't going to happen. You're on a conveyer belt.
If you are innocent, and all your claims are faultless, some kind forum members are being especially helpful, and may be able to assist further.
I can't see any judgemental responses, from anyone, on this forum. Nobody cares whether you're guilty or not, we care that we have enough facts to help you get out of a hole.
What does wind people up is hypothetical questions or drip feeding information.
At least we can agree on this, the difference is, some forum users find it perfectly acceptable for this situation to be allowed, others do not.
I suppose one COULD argue that the passenger is actually in a mess the moment the operator let them down by providing an unacceptable service.
100%. We're also in a mess living in a commuter belt where we're captive customers - GA have us all by the short and curlies as customers and beyond. Good luck, everyone!
ashkeba
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 May 2019
- Messages
- 2,171
Do you not have to have knowingly made a dodgy claim to be essentially guilty of fraud?
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,028
To be found guilty in court, yes. To be the subject of an investigation by the train company and/or police, no - the purpose of an investigation being to establish whether there are grounds for further action which could include prosecution.
NotGreaterA
Member
I am very sceptical about this forum, Tazi Hupefi seems to take great delight in scaring everyone and you don't hear back from most people who dip in and say they've got a letter. Knowing how GA works it wouldn't be surprise me if half of these comments on here are them to maximise income from this 'investigation' as they'd take the shirt of your back if they could.
What the hell have GA been up to paying all these DRs in the first place? They regularly reject claims so they're clearly making some sort of assessment at the claim stage.
What the hell have GA been up to paying all these DRs in the first place? They regularly reject claims so they're clearly making some sort of assessment at the claim stage.
Tazi has been like this throughout the whole forum. If you're found not guilty then you're innocent but not in his eyes. He wants blood and death.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,028
This is an advice forum and his comments, unlike yours, are advice. The fact that it isn’t the advice you want to see doesn’t change that.
This has been my issue all along with the whole thing.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Scaring everyone? You mean pointing out the quite correct legal processes and procedures which benefit GA? You mean pointing out that the English justice system is stacked against you? You mean that fraud is a serious offence with real consequences on your life, unlike other matters this forum is used to? You mean the fact that defence costs are rarely awarded, even if found not guilty? Or do you mean that pointing out the police getting involved is a bad situation to be in regardless? Perhaps you mean advising people to ignore comments such as yours which incite and escalate a delicate situation because you want an ideological battle with a rail operator you dislike?
You fail to comprehend that I couldn't care less whether people are guilty or innocent. They SHOULD be very concerned, regardless, and I would be too. I have constantly advised and encouraged innocent people to make as much noise as they can manage, at the conclusion of the incident, albeit there is little you can do to inflict any significant damage.
The advice is always simple if you have done wrong - pay up (settle), apologise, shut up and move on. Same as for fare evasion matters which come along from time to time. Argue about the fairness etc after you've had confirmation it's concluded.
Anyone innocent.... What do you suggest they do @NotGreatA? I've previously went into some detail why it is very unwise to prejudice the investigation through attempting to generate adverse media coverage, pointed out an MP can't get involved, and ignoring seems to lead to a police escalation. Most people won't be entitled to legal aid if it progresses to court. The costs of legal defence may exceed the settlement amount. None of us have any idea what happens after the police get involved, save for an interview under caution, which for some people, that alone, is not surprisingly something they would not want to entertain regardless of guilt. In any event it's a few hours of your day travelling to/from a police station, waiting round and then an hour or two being questioned - for most people that's going to cost them a day's wages or leave, and that's before preparations, legal advice, charging decisions etc come into it.
You might not like the realities of our justice system that allow the police and GA to act in this way with little adverse consequence against them if it goes wrong. I don't either. But it IS the reality. It will continue to be so for decades more. If GA acting in this way concerns or surprises you, I'd say you haven't even broken the surface of understanding what else is going on in our justice system. Maybe you think it's scaremongering because you refuse to believe it happens that way, or it will never be you. Let's hope it's not.
Last edited:
I agree that if you've done absolutely nothing fraudulent and can be sure you made every single claim legitimately, then you would respond by saying so - and refusing to attend any voluntary interview with the police. You'd know they can offer zero proof of fraud.
But if you're not entirely sure every single claim was legit, or you think there's a chance they might spring some evidence further down the line because you're not entirely sure, then you'd likely want to seek a settlement.
Going by those who have opted to settle, I can only assume GA has been fairly targeted in who it has contacted. One might assume people have been picked for more than just an abnormal number of claims.
What the hell are you on about? Tazi is giving educated, informed and honest advice that people in here would be well advised to listen to. Letting emotion get in the way is not going to go well for those who have been sent letters. If you had a solicitor, they'd be telling you things you don't want to hear, not just saying 'hey, hey, calm down, chill, it's all good'.
As for why claims were paid beforehand? Well, if I make one claim today - should it be rejected on the basis it could be fraud? Surely you'd need a pattern to develop before you can suspect and investigate possible fraud?
It's pretty obvious that claims would go through, which might later be investigated. It's quite common for fare evaders who get stopped to be interviewed and tens, maybe, hundreds of previous offences to be uncovered. Fraud cases are often like this, with investigations revealing all sorts of dodgy goings on.
Finally, you're being paranoid if you think members who have been on here for some time are actually Greater Anglia in disguise, having created identities and posted about various things just to build a great cover story.
Last edited:
From a legal point of view @Tazi Hupefi has given good and helpful advice in this thread.
I think what some of us have an issue about on here is about some of the tactics used by GA. For example settling claims and then years later querying them and requesting that all claims are repaid, not just the disputed ones.
Then there's the involvement of the BTP. My view is that they should take a measured approach and consider what systems GA has in place to prevent fraud. I know we don't like comparisons with shops on this forum but if a supermarket put a display of spirits at the front door it is likely that some of it will be stolen. If the shop reports the theft to the police they would be highly unlikely to investigate - they would take the view that the shop has bought the theft upon themselves by placing high value items in a vulnerable position. One could argue that GA should have systems in place to detect fraudulent claims and reject them in a more timely fashion.
What we don't know is the level of alleged fraud. Clearly GA are of the opinion that something isn't right. I would hope that GA are investigating significant issues, for example multiple claims for 2+ hour delays when on the days in question only one train was cancelled. Although that said I would still have to question why GA paid the claim in the first place.
I think what some of us have an issue about on here is about some of the tactics used by GA. For example settling claims and then years later querying them and requesting that all claims are repaid, not just the disputed ones.
Then there's the involvement of the BTP. My view is that they should take a measured approach and consider what systems GA has in place to prevent fraud. I know we don't like comparisons with shops on this forum but if a supermarket put a display of spirits at the front door it is likely that some of it will be stolen. If the shop reports the theft to the police they would be highly unlikely to investigate - they would take the view that the shop has bought the theft upon themselves by placing high value items in a vulnerable position. One could argue that GA should have systems in place to detect fraudulent claims and reject them in a more timely fashion.
What we don't know is the level of alleged fraud. Clearly GA are of the opinion that something isn't right. I would hope that GA are investigating significant issues, for example multiple claims for 2+ hour delays when on the days in question only one train was cancelled. Although that said I would still have to question why GA paid the claim in the first place.
I'd seriously hope the police didn't argue that a shop brought the theft upon itself by placing high-value or desirable items near a store front. That's heading down the path that argues people should dress a certain way to avoid being attacked.
Shops want to entice people to come in and buy things, so they shouldn't have to hide certain things because there are criminals out there seeking to prey on them. Some stores might remove the contents from boxes, but that then poses its own set of problems.
Plus some shops, like Superdrug, have lots of small items taken on a pretty regular basis. Not particularly high-value items, but stuff that's easily sold on (likely through things like Facebook marketplace these days). You'd end up having to keep a huge neutral zone between the entrance and the store products, backed up with security guards to keep a watchful eye on anyone lingering around the entrance.
Shops want to entice people to come in and buy things, so they shouldn't have to hide certain things because there are criminals out there seeking to prey on them. Some stores might remove the contents from boxes, but that then poses its own set of problems.
Plus some shops, like Superdrug, have lots of small items taken on a pretty regular basis. Not particularly high-value items, but stuff that's easily sold on (likely through things like Facebook marketplace these days). You'd end up having to keep a huge neutral zone between the entrance and the store products, backed up with security guards to keep a watchful eye on anyone lingering around the entrance.
Unless someone from GA who deals with these matters comes on here and describes the process we will not know. However, it would be reasonable to assume that claims are paid where the claim is submitted and describes a train journey that was delayed and the claimant provides proof that they held a valid ticket for the journey.
Later on someone has reviewed the claims made and detected unusual patterns of usage/claims.
They have then asked the claimant to explain the unusual pattern of claims.
without knowing the journeys claimed against, frequency of trains and delays, it's difficult for an outsider to form an opinion on the validity of the clqims.
We're at risk of going off topic but I can assure you that is the attitude of many police forces. Around 10 years ago I was an area manager for a large chain on convenience stores. The local police inspector asked to meet with me and the conversation went along these lines:
'Your stores are reporting too much theft of alcohol and making my crime stats look bad. You need to sort it out or we'll take your alcohol licenses off you....'
I’d consider this a fair and balanced reply.
Yes. Claims are paid through a mostly automated system based on whether the journey the passenger claims they took was actually delayed or not. If it was then the system may pay out. What it will NOT do is look up tap in/out data from the ticket, trawl through cctv and phone your employer to check what time you left.
When one of these investigations starts (and as I’ve mentioned recently there will be more, all over the UK) they will then look into this sort of stuff but there has to be an initial trigger or triggers.
it’s unlikely that someone who has claimed 5 times in 3 months will be investigated even if each claim is for a different train. So the primary trigger will be number and/or value of claims.
there may be further triggers, we don’t know.
It may be that 30 claims puts you in a short list and if they’re for different trains you get a letter but if they’re all the same train each day you do not.
meanwhile someone making 50 claims gets a letter regardless of variety.
What is clear is that there’s a threshold of claims in numerical or financial value that triggers a letter regardless of variety of services or anything like tap in data.
Last edited:
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,976
Please can you point to the posts that lead you to this conclusion?
There was one quite early on, i will see if i can find it (in the 1100 or so) that mentioned they had claimed a lot for the same trains they used for their commute, and my friend has been told on the phone that they're looking at people with "above average" claims. (We can likely deduce they mean above a certain threshold rather than above a mean value).
Additionally, when asked for a list of "suspicious" claims the list returned was of the claims made latest chronologically, as if a threshold had been met and this had triggered the investigation.
Additionally, when asked for a list of "suspicious" claims the list returned was of the claims made latest chronologically, as if a threshold had been met and this had triggered the investigation.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Genuine thanks to those who recognise that I am, at least, trying, to provide realistic and useful advice, without getting drawn into the rights or wrongs of the situation.
It is inherently unclear what evidence is being relied on. Clearly, what GA can potentially access is:
I would run some sort of comparison, e.g. Between X time frame, on average, how often does a person holding a season ticket claim from Ipswich to London.
Get a list of people who are above that average. Some cursory filtering. Possibly apply a tolerance to the average to eliminate borderline (e.g. slightly above average) cases.
Possibly an additional step in further filtering to produce a list of people who trigger the "above average" flag on more than 1 occasion over a longer timeframe.
----My gut feeling is that GA is doing this or something fairly similar, and at this point, letters go out.
If settled, no further investigation.
If disputed/ignored - at this point I think more in depth analysis is made, utilising whatever data they have available (including any responses received back from the customer). If at this point the investigation turns up suspicious claims, it goes to the police, or, potentially, the matter is discontinued. The reason I think more investigation happens before going to the police, is that GA will know that they need the BTP to have some level of confidence in their accusations, or it will affect their own relationship, and contrary to some belief on this forum, both BTP and GA will not want significant levels of adverse publicity. In any event, an interview under caution based just on number of claims is likely to be a very short one!
It is inherently unclear what evidence is being relied on. Clearly, what GA can potentially access is:
- List of all claims made
- Details of train services customers claim to have used (or did use!)
- Personal information e.g. name, address, bank account number etc (needed to claim usually)
- Upload of a more traditional type of ticket, so an image. Ticket barrier data for this type of ticket is available, but seemingly not useful enough to break it down into something especially useful, except unless using a more unusual ticket which can stand out in the data
- Smartcard tickets - presumably they DO have access to the tap in and tap out data. Certainly I would work on that assumption.
- On the occasions I had to buy a season ticket, I would have to give my details etc in case I lost it (I think!) Not sure what else that (database?) potentially stores.
- Staff checks. Have customers who flag been monitored by plain clothes teams / CCTV etc? I wouldn't expect this to be common, but I'd imagine for the hardcore fraudsters (which I'm sure exist) they'd be doing a lot more.
- At the start of this, I found some references to cross checking of claims against other operators, presumably to stop duplicate claims, or to identify people in two different places at once!
I would run some sort of comparison, e.g. Between X time frame, on average, how often does a person holding a season ticket claim from Ipswich to London.
Get a list of people who are above that average. Some cursory filtering. Possibly apply a tolerance to the average to eliminate borderline (e.g. slightly above average) cases.
Possibly an additional step in further filtering to produce a list of people who trigger the "above average" flag on more than 1 occasion over a longer timeframe.
----My gut feeling is that GA is doing this or something fairly similar, and at this point, letters go out.
If settled, no further investigation.
If disputed/ignored - at this point I think more in depth analysis is made, utilising whatever data they have available (including any responses received back from the customer). If at this point the investigation turns up suspicious claims, it goes to the police, or, potentially, the matter is discontinued. The reason I think more investigation happens before going to the police, is that GA will know that they need the BTP to have some level of confidence in their accusations, or it will affect their own relationship, and contrary to some belief on this forum, both BTP and GA will not want significant levels of adverse publicity. In any event, an interview under caution based just on number of claims is likely to be a very short one!
Last edited:
I don't think there is any evidence to support your last sentence. If that was the sole basis of who they write to I very much doubt the BTP would be interested.
More likely, person A holds a season ticket from X to Y and compared to the average commuter between those two points seems to have been unfortunate and have a varied travel routine which happens to coincide with the delayed trains between those two points, rather than always travelling on the 8.52 and consistently only claiming when the 8.52 is delayed.
Howevet, until someone or preferably a number of people are prepared to share the travel info (not holding my breath), we do not know.
This is pretty much exactly how i see it, and think it will be done this way. I even think the "tolerance" will be fairly large.
The point others and I are making is that BTP do not need to be interested unless they escalate matters to them. You're absolutely right that the BTP are unlikely to entertain the idea of looking into a case where the only data is "This person has claimed a lot" but this doesn't matter because the initial contact does not involve the BTP, rather it just frightens people into paying back money that they may or may not have been due by threatening them with the BTP.
Thank you - this is useful.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
I did have an interesting thought just occur, and took me back to a criminal matter I was looking into around 5 years ago in Manchester, details aren't relevant.
Anyway, the top and bottom of it was that using the WiFi on a train / station normally required you to register and each time you connect, it would use your email address (or on subsequent attempts some sort of unique identifier).
It definitely was possible on that occasion to state that user X was connected to the WiFi on a train at Y time, and it was possible to identify (with some effort) precisely what train it was, and then what service it was working at that time.
This might be a bit abstract, but did help the client, when CCTV had long been erased.
If the same email address was used to register for WiFi and to claim compensation could be a useful source of data. Or if someone more technical knows what their phone device address is and can cross reference that instead.
I don't even know whether GA has WiFi or indeed whether anyone here even used it, if any is available. However, it opens up a possible alibi / defence opportunity, (as well as prosecution evidence for those dishonest customers).
Anyway, the top and bottom of it was that using the WiFi on a train / station normally required you to register and each time you connect, it would use your email address (or on subsequent attempts some sort of unique identifier).
It definitely was possible on that occasion to state that user X was connected to the WiFi on a train at Y time, and it was possible to identify (with some effort) precisely what train it was, and then what service it was working at that time.
This might be a bit abstract, but did help the client, when CCTV had long been erased.
If the same email address was used to register for WiFi and to claim compensation could be a useful source of data. Or if someone more technical knows what their phone device address is and can cross reference that instead.
I don't even know whether GA has WiFi or indeed whether anyone here even used it, if any is available. However, it opens up a possible alibi / defence opportunity, (as well as prosecution evidence for those dishonest customers).
There are some very interesting GDPR implications in that thought. For a start has any such use been disclosed to everyone who's data they have collected?
The Icomera train Wi-Fi system usually shows the headcode of the service you're on when you connect. I am sure there will be logs, and often you can set it to automatically reconnect when on another train. There's also station based Wi-Fi which probably does the same and, again, just being on the platform may be enough to reconnect to, say, O2 Wi-Fi or whoever provides the service.
I have no idea what the T&Cs say about sharing data as I haven't read them in any great detail. Has anyone? Maybe they should as possibly they voluntarily gave permission!
Look at the data that's out there that has placed people at or near the scene of the US insurrection in January! Obviously that's a somewhat different situation.
I have no idea what the T&Cs say about sharing data as I haven't read them in any great detail. Has anyone? Maybe they should as possibly they voluntarily gave permission!
Look at the data that's out there that has placed people at or near the scene of the US insurrection in January! Obviously that's a somewhat different situation.
Last edited:
Undiscovered
Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 412
If their algorithm throws up your claims as dodgy and they suspect you already of fraud, then plugging your email into a seperate system that they may also control is covered under 'sharing data for the prevention and detection of crime'.
Likewise, a request to monitor log on activity from particular addresses, to an outside organisation, would be covered under the same clause.
- Status