Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud - Discussion of wider issues/rights/wrongs/etc

[35B]

I fully understand your Contract Law point, but even at the moment we seem to only apply these to certain types of transport when it suits a political need or mantra (DR, EU 261). So next to no bus operators offer some sort of refund, I believe (happy to be corrected) National Express do not either.
I am sure none of us would want Heritage Railways to be required to provide some sort of refund either, but some of those do connect with other public services (e.g. MHR with SWR at Alton, NYMR with Northern at Grosmont, Swanage with the 50 bus to Bournemouth at Swanage). All connections that passengers, even those "just having a ride" may be relying on.

I think buses and (especially) coaches are an anomaly. Heritage trains are an interesting question; my personal view would be that they are not offered as a public transport service and therefore are reasonably excluded on those grounds.

However, the existence of an anomaly is not in my view reason to deprive consumers of the protections they enjoy as a result of that anomaly, and should instead provoke questions about how that anomaly is resolved to consumer advantage.

 

[talldave]

Because my view is based on contract principles, there is a balance required. If I am unable to travel on the 17:00, and as a result choose to go to the pub for a while, my claim can only be for the difference between the time I should have completed my journey, and the time that I could have completed that journey on that ticket based on that evening's operations. So, if the 17:00 would have got me in at 18:00, and the next train is the 17:30, which is slightly faster and due in at 18:28, it's the timekeeping of the 17:30 that matters to any claim, and nothing else.

If I understand things correctly, GA consider a claim for the 17:30 as fraud if you weren't actually on it.

 

[35B]

If I understand things correctly, GA consider a claim for the 17:30 as fraud if you weren't actually on it.

And that is where I would stand my ground robustly, based on the 17:00 that I’d have been unable to travel on.

 

[zwk500]

And that is where I would stand my ground robustly, based on the 17:00 that I’d have been unable to travel on.

But (in GA's eyes) you've abandoned your journey by going to the pub, and started a new one. You didn't give GA a chance to get you home any earlier, such as skipping stops on the 17.30, or organising an Special Stop Order on the 17.15 that normally passes through your station. Or buses, taxis, etc...

I personally feel that in this situation of deliberate delay people should still be able to apply for some kind of refund, but I do understand the position of the TOCs that delay repay isn't payable due to the customer not being on either train they are claiming against.

 

[35B]

But (in GA's eyes) you've abandoned your journey by going to the pub, and started a new one. You didn't give GA a chance to get you home any earlier, such as skipping stops on the 17.30, or organising an Special Stop Order on the 17.15 that normally passes through your station. Or buses, taxis, etc...

I personally feel that in this situation of deliberate delay people should still be able to apply for some kind of refund, but I do understand the position of the TOCs that delay repay isn't payable due to the customer not being on either train they are claiming against.

My local TOC is LNER; whenever I have had a claim that has been anything less than 100% clear, I have taken care to make sure that the uploaded image of my ticket has included a written note of the precise journey I have made. In a case like this, I would also have checked RTT to verify that, had I given the TOC the opportunity to provide me with travel, they would have delivered me without further claim.

 

[zwk500]

My local TOC is LNER; whenever I have had a claim that has been anything less than 100% clear, I have taken care to make sure that the uploaded image of my ticket has included a written note of the precise journey I have made. In a case like this, I would also have checked RTT to verify that, had I given the TOC the opportunity to provide me with travel, they would have delivered me without further claim.

To play devil's advocate, the claim from the TOC would be that they could have made alternative arrangements at the time had they been made aware of the true number of people intending to travel.

For example, if the train calling at Peterborough is cancelled to mitigate further delay to non-stop York trains and only 5 people are hanging around on the concourse for the P'bro train because the rest have sodded off to the pub, then the case for further disrupting an already late train with an SSO is pretty weak. However, if 100 people turn up and the next train isn't for an hour, then the case for getting those 100 people off the concourse and onto a train is much stronger for the extra disruption caused by an SSO.
(These are random numbers, not meant to be a real-world examples).

It gets more complicated if the TOC specifically advises to stay away or delay travel.

 

[robbeech]

If I understand things correctly, GA consider a claim for the 17:30 as fraud if you weren't actually on it.

I am not convinced they would specifically call it fraud in generalised terms. However, for the benefit of this investigation of fraud, they are using things like this as evidence. It in itself might not constitute fraud in court, but it is enough to threaten them with to make them pay OUT of court (where zero evidence is required).
Personally I think rejecting a claim like this is fair enough, but i don't think fraud is a suitable term. People can argue all day whether this SHOULD be allowed or not, but the fact is there isn't really anything to confirm it IS allowed, and there's plenty of wording that would suggest it isn't. If people would like it to be allowed then they'd be best to contact the relevant bodies and see if it can be changed.

To play devil's advocate, the claim from the TOC would be that they could have made alternative arrangements at the time had they been made aware of the true number of people intending to travel.

For example, if the train calling at Peterborough is cancelled to mitigate further delay to non-stop York trains and only 5 people are hanging around on the concourse for the P'bro train because the rest have sodded off to the pub, then the case for further disrupting an already late train with an SSO is pretty weak. However, if 100 people turn up and the next train isn't for an hour, then the case for getting those 100 people off the concourse and onto a train is much stronger for the extra disruption caused by an SSO.
(These are random numbers, not meant to be a real-world examples).

It gets more complicated if the TOC specifically advises to stay away or delay travel.

I agree, particularly if the next train due to call there is likely to be busy based on their internal knowledge.

 

[35B]

To play devil's advocate, the claim from the TOC would be that they could have made alternative arrangements at the time had they been made aware of the true number of people intending to travel.

For example, if the train calling at Peterborough is cancelled to mitigate further delay to non-stop York trains and only 5 people are hanging around on the concourse for the P'bro train because the rest have sodded off to the pub, then the case for further disrupting an already late train with an SSO is pretty weak. However, if 100 people turn up and the next train isn't for an hour, then the case for getting those 100 people off the concourse and onto a train is much stronger for the extra disruption caused by an SSO.
(These are random numbers, not meant to be a real-world examples).

It gets more complicated if the TOC specifically advises to stay away or delay travel.

From experience, the chances of that happening are such that I'd not let it worry me.

 

[seagull]

That's because you've sodded off to the pub...

 

[ashkeba]

That's because you've sodded off to the pub...

Yes, because of course railway staff love it so much if passengers remain on the concourse and complain to them during disruption. I believe with difficulty some of the suggestions on here. How often do GA add stop orders during disruption? I do not remember ever noticing it under GA but I never commuted far.

 

[robbeech]

Yes, because of course railway staff love it so much if passengers remain on the concourse and complain to them during disruption. I believe with difficulty some of the suggestions on here. How often do GA add stop orders during disruption? I do not remember ever noticing it under GA but I never commuted far.

It's not particularly relevant how often they do it, and it's even less relevant how often you personally remember them doing it. They fact remains that the option is available for them to take at any time.

 

[ashkeba]

It's not particularly relevant how often they do it, and it's even less relevant how often you personally remember them doing it. They fact remains that the option is available for them to take at any time.

It is unreasonable to expect people to wait on cold platforms after a cancel instead of in a warm pub or café nearby because there is a theoretical possibility another train may make an unadvertised extra stop. GA very nearly never do that. I suspect the tracks are generally too busy.

 

[Dai Corner]

It is unreasonable to expect people to wait on cold platforms after a cancel instead of in a warm pub or café nearby because there is a theoretical possibility another train may make an unadvertised extra stop. GA very nearly never do that. I suspect the tracks are generally too busy.

With modern communication technology it's possible to keep an eye on train running from the pub/cafe and drink up and get back to the station if there's a train earlier than you expected, of course.

 

[robbeech]

With modern communication technology it's possible to keep an eye on train running from the pub/cafe and drink up and get back to the station if there's a train earlier than you expected, of course.

It certainly requires both parties to be both willing and able to use these methods though.

 

[talldave]

The problem is that in Delay Repay terms there's no way to differentiate between the person who's been in the pub for a couple of hours and staggers on to the 19.30 service and the person who gets on the same train (which they always intended to catch) but decides to put in a DR claim for the 17:00 delay, because they can.

 

[87electric]

My local TOC is LNER; whenever I have had a claim that has been anything less than 100% clear, I have taken care to make sure that the uploaded image of my ticket has included a written note of the precise journey I have made. In a case like this, I would also have checked RTT to verify that, had I given the TOC the opportunity to provide me with travel, they would have delivered me without further claim.

I do exactly this for my claims, mainly LNER, as I don’t want to give the TOC any wriggle room if I have encountered a delay or cancellation. This is, IMHO, taking responsibility and being in control of the situation. Relying on a third party to automatically do claims is laziness, however it’s dressed up.
The enthusiast in me always downloads a pdf of every journey I have made from RTT anyway.

 

[js1000]

Don't live in the area but I have mixed feelings on this.

Greater Anglia don't come out of it very well by adopting a blanket approach. Totally unnecessarily and over the top getting the police. They'd be better calling it an audit process. Maybe the Conditions of Carriage or Delay Repay terms need to change that allows the TOC to contact you for annual audit process by phone or email and check a few claims to verify it is you and they are bona fide claims rather than trying to criminalise passengers from the get go and threaten them into a settlement. Delay repay fraud exists but it certainly does not warrant a blanket approach as GA appear to have adopted.

Or maybe I and GA are overthinking it and the solution is actually more simple: run trains on time so as few delay repay claims exist.

Equally, I can't believe some would "embellish" their claims in the knowledge that Oyster/smartcards data can be used against them. I've always advocated paper season tickets and not smartcard and phone apps - your data is harvested. Not to mention it keeps your local manned ticket office open and a railway worker in a job. Final thought, you're best taking complimentary tickets as compensation if they are offered. Any monetary refund on suspicious claims is going to arose attention. TOCs are more comfortable with potentially losing out on fares through complimentary tickets than having to return revenue to passengers.

 

[Skie]

The problem is that in Delay Repay terms there's no way to differentiate between the person who's been in the pub for a couple of hours and staggers on to the 19.30 service and the person who gets on the same train (which they always intended to catch) but decides to put in a DR claim for the 17:00 delay, because they can.

If the DR forms asked for a few simple details:

1. Time arrived at station
2. Final Destination
3. Time of intended departure and detail of any onward connections
4. Time of actual arrival at connection and final destination

Then the system could easily identify the 'real' delay at the point of claim by using a journey planner that runs on historical train information. The passenger who went to the pub because his train was cancelled and therefore missed out on the poorly communicated extra stop added to a following service would be given the correct delay repay payment and shown why (TOC laid on another train) or refused if the real delay was below the threshold. They could supply further details to a human if they wanted to challenge it, especially if the communication about the extra service wasnt done well, and TOCs would hopefully learn from these events.

None if this is helped by the Delay Repay schemes being so varied across TOCs as well as largely devoid of actual details when it comes to the edge cases.

 

[packermac]

If the DR forms asked for a few simple details:

1. Time arrived at station
2. Final Destination
3. Time of intended departure and detail of any onward connections
4. Time of actual arrival at connection and final destination

Then the system could easily identify the 'real' delay at the point of claim by using a journey planner that runs on historical train information. The passenger who went to the pub because his train was cancelled and therefore missed out on the poorly communicated extra stop added to a following service would be given the correct delay repay payment and shown why (TOC laid on another train) or refused if the real delay was below the threshold. They could supply further details to a human if they wanted to challenge it, especially if the communication about the extra service wasnt done well, and TOCs would hopefully learn from these events.

None if this is helped by the Delay Repay schemes being so varied across TOCs as well as largely devoid of actual details when it comes to the edge cases.

Whilst I sort of agree where you are coming from, all the above could be "created" by using RTT and choosing a cancelled train and a subsequent one that was some time after that.

 

[jon0844]

It is unreasonable to expect people to wait on cold platforms after a cancel instead of in a warm pub or café nearby because there is a theoretical possibility another train may make an unadvertised extra stop. GA very nearly never do that. I suspect the tracks are generally too busy.

If there's disruption and train cancellations, it may be quite easy to put on a SSO. It may even be beneficial/necessary for the train operator if there's a need to move crew around.

I'd imagine stop orders and not to call orders are actually quite commonly issues every day by every train company, and a good point has been made that if a platform is full of people there's a greater chance of control opting to stop a train, over authorising the booking of taxis or seeking to find a bus, or just making people wait if the next train is less than an hour away.

In my opinion you MUST allow the operator to try and find a way to get you to your destination, and if you opt to go to the pub and just wait until things settle down then you've given up the right to claim on Delay Repay - but could certainly seek compensation by some other means using the other rights you have.

 

[robbeech]

Agree 100%, though I know many here don’t. There has to be some give and take, and I feel if your train is cancelled you should get on the next available and suitable service to your destination or forfeit the rights to delay repay (not ignoring factors where the next service is too full to board of course). However, I think there should be some leeway as to what the next service is and how much knowledge the passenger needs to have in finding it. If there’s a half hourly service but there’s an hourly journey that allows a change that saves 5 minutes I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect the passenger to know about it. Let’s face it, many railway staff won’t be able to think fast enough to present that as an option to them so it’s unfair to penalise the passenger for not doing something that staff aren’t able to advise. Of course, we see here that this is exactly what the railway IS doing.

A little reminder that fraud is a serious offence and the punishments are severe, but the threshold is also high. Claiming delay repay when you should have claimed a refund is not fraud, claiming delay repay when you got the next direct service instead of a more convoluted route saving 5 minutes is not fraud, tapping in to get the 1730 and claiming for the 1630 because you’re told to stay on the concourse and don’t know the platform number is not fraud, these would almost certainly be thrown out of court or likely would never get there, unless someone in court and senior GA staff play golf together of course. The trouble is, GA don’t need to provide evidence of fraud, they only need to provide the threat to get their money.

THE REALITY IS, GA could contact ANY of its passengers it has details for, ANY single one of them and ask for £1000 to stop them reporting them to the BTP, and there is nothing to stop them doing this. They don’t need an ounce of evidence to show this person has done a single thing wrong because they don’t NEED to report anyone to the BTP because many people would just pay up. I could send letters to each of my clients from the last
2 years saying they haven’t paid an invoice, and if they don’t pay it and an admin fee I’m going to the police, some would just pay up. This event is of course not quite as ridiculous, many (most) people have done wrong (be it fraud or not) so there is at least some reason to contact them and in many (most) cases a need to obtain money from them which makes the probability of being paid much higher, even if it’s not due.

 

[35B]

If there's disruption and train cancellations, it may be quite easy to put on a SSO. It may even be beneficial/necessary for the train operator if there's a need to move crew around.

I'd imagine stop orders and not to call orders are actually quite commonly issues every day by every train company, and a good point has been made that if a platform is full of people there's a greater chance of control opting to stop a train, over authorising the booking of taxis or seeking to find a bus, or just making people wait if the next train is less than an hour away.

In my opinion you MUST allow the operator to try and find a way to get you to your destination, and if you opt to go to the pub and just wait until things settle down then you've given up the right to claim on Delay Repay - but could certainly seek compensation by some other means using the other rights you have.

My experience of a regularly missed booked connection, with dreadful onward delays (extra change, and 90 minute delay) was that the TOC concerned were extremely reluctant to authorise SSOs, with information being virtually impossible to obtain even when services weren’t disrupted.

In disruption, information became to obtain except when provided generally, and proactively seeking it out a fool’s errand.

 

[maniacmartin]

When lots trains on a line are delayed, the last thing I'd advise is trying to save 5 minutes by relying on a connection! You are likely to miss the connection and delay yourself further than taking the direct train. The connecting train might even later end up being cancelled, leaving you at the intermediate station. In my experience, the best way to mitigate one's delay when there is widespread disruption is to stick to direct trains.

It's easy to look back using RTT, but things aren't so obvious on the ground at the time. e.g. For my non-GA commute, during disruptions, often they will dispatch multiple trains in quick succession, then hold some just outside the station and let others overtake (even those with similar calling patterns). A passenger on the concourse will have no way of knowing at the time which train will get the line first

 

[robbeech]

When lots trains on a line are delayed, the last thing I'd advise is trying to save 5 minutes by relying on a connection! You are likely to miss the connection and delay yourself further than taking the direct train. The connecting train might even later end up being cancelled, leaving you at the intermediate station. In my experience, the best way to mitigate one's delay when there is widespread disruption is to stick to direct trains.

It's easy to look back using RTT, but things aren't so obvious on the ground at the time. e.g. For my non-GA commute, during disruptions, often they will dispatch multiple trains in quick succession, then hold some just outside the station and let others overtake (even those with similar calling patterns). A passenger on the concourse will have no way of knowing at the time which train will get the line first

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for operators to expect you to have taken the service that actually gets there next regardless of the timetable, as if you have some kind of knowledge of the future. I’ve had a claim rejected (not by GA) because I had taken the next available service TIMETABLED to arrive next but a further delay and missed connection meant I got to my destination later than had I had a quick pint and got the one after. This was rectified and paid but needed escalation and a threat of Transport Focus (pre ombudsman days).

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for operators to expect you to have taken the service that actually gets there next regardless of the timetable, as if you have some kind of knowledge of the future. I’ve had a claim rejected (not by GA) because I had taken the next available service TIMETABLED to arrive next but a further delay and missed connection meant I got to my destination later than had I had a quick pint and got the one after. This was rectified and paid but needed escalation and a threat of Transport Focus (pre ombudsman days).

That is bloody ridiculous.

 

[robbeech]

That is bloody ridiculous.

It’s nothing more sinister than incompetence though.

 

[zwk500]

It’s nothing more sinister than incompetence though.

Doesn't stop it from being ridiculous though.

 

[Wolfie]

It’s nothing more sinister than incompetence though.

I never suggested otherwise.

Doesn't stop it from being ridiculous though.

Agreed

 

[robbeech]

My friends legal representative has suggested that if GA drop the case without going to court that he should take action against GA for trying to obtain money from him. And of course if it goes to court and it gets thrown out or GA lose, particularly on an insufficient evidence basis then the same should apply.

I personally agree although I’d worry it wouldn’t get anywhere but I’m losing track of how many outstanding cases we have on the forum and the status of them all so I’m not sure if this applies to anyone else.

Is anyone else here still stuck with an open case, and importantly, is anyone else here claiming they have done nothing wrong (intentionally or otherwise) or has everyone paid up now (rightly or wrongly)?

 

[Haywain]

My friends legal representative has suggested that if GA drop the case without going to court that he should take action against GA for trying to obtain money from him. And of course if it goes to court and it gets thrown out or GA lose, particularly on an insufficient evidence basis then the same should apply.

That seems a fairly risky thing to consider. Whether it goes to court or not, failing to meet the burden of proof in a criminal case does not mean there is no case and that GA would also lose in a civil case where the burden of proof is lower.