Tazi Hupefi
Member
It does not matter one jot whether you or anyone else thinks it is or is not acceptable. It is legal, and it is generally quite common outside of rail, although usually hidden behind an NDA.I suspect many people trying to be reasonable have given up because a number of posters seem to have devoted much of their time to showing their enjoyment in watching passengers suffer.
The fact is that we've seen yet another post where someone has spoken to a solicitor and has been advised that as they cannot prove they are innocent, they don't stand a chance. This is somehow considered acceptable. I expect a couple of people commenting here will be cracking open a bottle of bubbly knowing that the railway wins again despite having no real evidence either way of whether the claims made were correct, incorrect through a misunderstanding (not fraud), or fraudulent, but it is increasingly clear that it matters not, and any claim GA are unhappy about IS fraudulent. I agree that quoting a percentage of a figure is unhelpful as a fixed admin charge is likely, if this poster is willing to give us absolute values it will help us understand how GA are looking into this. It comes across as if GA have found a discrepancy, perhaps 1, perhaps more, and as such are considering 100% of claims to be fraudulent and are expecting that money back, would people consider that acceptable?
People came to this forum to get advice on what the best way to proceed is/was, not debate the semantics.
As some have found, independent solicitors have advised some forum members along similar lines, to settle. As others have found, the police are seemingly more than happy to require attendance at a police station for an interview under caution in regards to a suspect fraud for those who wish to dispute their actions or ignore Greater Anglia. Unless the police, independent solicitors and Greater Anglia are all part of a conspiracy, you might want to consider the possibility that people tend to rationalise fraud as a genuine mistake or a misunderstanding, and even after some time, will not come to terms with that accusation. Additionally, there is clearly some sort of data analysis / software / review process in place in the first place to identify potential offenders, which is clearly relatively effective.
There may well be some genuinely "innocent" cases, and I'm pretty sure the advice to them on this very forum has been to see it through to the end. If innocent people chose not to do that, and to settle anyway, perhaps because of convenience or cost, nobody makes them do that, they obviously make a calculated decision based on what they know (or don't know).
What is unhelpful and extremely dangerous is to suggest going on any "offensive" as some members suggested. The whole process needs to be calmly de-escalated and approached with an open mind. Why would you antagonise the person or organisation that could potentially cause you to be convicted, and potentially use your offensive actions against you? Even if you are innocent, why would you even take that chance? Get it all resolved and then make a noise!