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

[robbeech]

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.

I think it’s more a case of they’ve demanded in excess of a thousand pounds from a passenger they’ve let down and are unable to provide ANY evidence to support their claim.

It’s (in their mind, and they tend to work on high profile cases rather than this sort of thing so this may blur their vision perhaps) barely a step away from threatening to take the bloke behind you in the queue at the post office to court if he doesn’t give you a fiver.

 

[Haywain]

I think it’s more a case of they’ve demanded in excess of a thousand pounds from a passenger they’ve let down and are unable to provide ANY evidence to support their claim.

That, of course, is the opinion of your friend but it's reasonable to think that GA have a different view. If it goes to the police and CPS we will find out (well, your friend will find out), but that will still be around there being sufficient evidence to proceed to court in a criminal case.

 

[robbeech]

That, of course, is the opinion of your friend but it's reasonable to think that GA have a different view. If it goes to the police and CPS we will find out (well, your friend will find out), but that will still be around there being sufficient evidence to proceed to court in a criminal case.

Indeed. If it goes to court (regardless of outcome) is seems unnecessary but if they drop the case before they pass it on, then it (according to the solicitor and I’m inclined to agree) shows pretty clearly that they didn’t have any (or at the very least enough) to even consider passing on the case. And if they didn’t have evidence, then it’s difficult for them to explain why they tried it on.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

if they drop the case before they pass it on, then it (according to the solicitor and I’m inclined to agree) shows pretty clearly that they didn’t have any (or at the very least enough) to even consider passing on the case.

This doesn't follow. How will your friend know that GA did not consider the case very carefully and then decide that the evidence didn't - by anything down to the smallest of margins - meet the threshold that GA have set for passing cases on to the next stage, as opposed to (as your friend's solicitor seems to be saying) the evidence being so thin that there was no point in passing the case forward?

Why does this matter? I have absolutely no knowledge of either the law or practice for challenging unfounded investigations, but I would bet that GA having some evidence but then choosing to discontinue the process because what evidence there was wasn't strong enough would be more of a defence for GA against having to pay compensation than having no evidence at all and then discontinuing the process. If your friend is going to get heated about this they may need to recognise that GA withdrawing may be the best that they will get, and looking for an apology or compensation may be a mug's game.

 

[packermac]

This doesn't follow. How will your friend know that GA did not consider the case very carefully and then decide that the evidence didn't - by anything down to the smallest of margins - meet the threshold that GA have set for passing cases on to the next stage, as opposed to (as your friend's solicitor seems to be saying) the evidence being so thin that there was no point in passing the case forward?

Why does this matter? I have absolutely no knowledge of either the law or practice for challenging unfounded investigations, but I would bet that GA having some evidence but then choosing to discontinue the process because what evidence there was wasn't strong enough would be more of a defence for GA against having to pay compensation than having no evidence at all and then discontinuing the process. If your friend is going to get heated about this they may need to recognise that GA withdrawing may be the best that they will get, and looking for an apology or compensation may be a mug's game.

I would tend to agree it is probably pointless pursuing it if GA do withdraw.
It maybe I suppose that the individual and his legal team feel that GA are "kite flying" and just hoping to get people to cough up through fear. To then withdraw when challenged costs them little, and despite others saying make a claim in the Small Claims Court for any legal fees you have incurred, I am far from convinced of the likely success of that.

 

[robbeech]

This doesn't follow. How will your friend know that GA did not consider the case very carefully and then decide that the evidence didn't - by anything down to the smallest of margins - meet the threshold that GA have set for passing cases on to the next stage, as opposed to (as your friend's solicitor seems to be saying) the evidence being so thin that there was no point in passing the case forward?

Why does this matter? I have absolutely no knowledge of either the law or practice for challenging unfounded investigations, but I would bet that GA having some evidence but then choosing to discontinue the process because what evidence there was wasn't strong enough would be more of a defence for GA against having to pay compensation than having no evidence at all and then discontinuing the process. If your friend is going to get heated about this they may need to recognise that GA withdrawing may be the best that they will get, and looking for an apology or compensation may be a mug's game.

I suspect because there cannot be any evidence and the only thing they've supplied as "evidence" is the fact they've made above average claims, they've said in a phone call (recorded with consent) that they are pursuing this based on the fact that they've made above average claims and they've already reduced the settlement offer once.

I would tend to agree it is probably pointless pursuing it if GA do withdraw.
It maybe I suppose that the individual and his legal team feel that GA are "kite flying" and just hoping to get people to cough up through fear. To then withdraw when challenged costs them little, and despite others saying make a claim in the Small Claims Court for any legal fees you have incurred, I am far from convinced of the likely success of that.

I do agree it's probably pointless.
It's clear that even if he did go through with it and GA realised they had gone too far he would just be paid off on the quiet to avoid bringing further attention to it allowing them to keep getting away with their behaviour indefinitely. An isolated win for an individual is almost ALWAYS a win for the railway afterall.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

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)?

Not a chance.

That legal representative is talking nonsense. Anyone can ask for money from anyone so long as there's no "menace" which is not what GA is doing here, contrary to what some think. They'd have to threaten to break your legs, or similar violence / threats. Reporting their suspicion to the police is not menacing.

Your friend needs to prove a loss, and that GA were a direct cause of that loss, AND that your friend took reason action to mitigate said loss. With evidence.

Costs in the small claim court are not usually recoverable, even if you win, so you'd be down on those too. You also have to follow the Civil Procedure Rules prior to issuing a claim.

You could try on the basis of using personal data in breach of GDPR, but I'm pretty sure they'll be safely behind law enforcement / investigation exemptions, even if their investigation reveals no wrong doing. However, even if successful, the courts have determined that an amount of around £700 to be the appropriate compensation for a breach of GDPR, so not exactly a lot once you've deducted the time, effort and costs!

 

[robbeech]

That legal representative is talking nonsense. Anyone can ask for money from anyone so long as there's no "menace" which is not what GA is doing here, contrary to what some think. They'd have to threaten to break your legs, or similar violence / threats. Reporting their suspicion to the police is not menacing.

It's unquestionably not his field, its unlikely he's done a sub 8 figure case in over a decade in court, he mainly deals with contractual / rights / copyright work now as a bit of a "can't be bothered to keep going to court mid life crisis" (His words not mine). The behaviour has opened his eyes though that's for sure.

That said, how do you define "menace"? Threatening with a fraud case is threatening to end many people's career and/or livelihood. Many would likely lose their home, and their job, i'd sooner have my legs broken given a choice.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It's unquestionably not his field, its unlikely he's done a sub 8 figure case in over a decade in court, he mainly deals with contractual / rights / copyright work now as a bit of a "can't be bothered to keep going to court mid life crisis" (His words not mine). The behaviour has opened his eyes though that's for sure.

That said, how do you define "menace"? Threatening with a fraud case is threatening to end many people's career and/or livelihood. Many would likely lose their home, and their job, i'd sooner have my legs broken given a choice.

Menace (Blackmail) is a criminal offence anyway, so wouldn't be relevant. But it is defined.

Words or conduct which would not intimidate or influence anyone to respond to the demand would not be menaces … but threats and conduct of such a nature and extend that the mind of an ordinary person of normal stability and courage might be influenced or made apprehensive so as to accede unwillingly to the demand would be sufficient for a jury's consideration".
(R v Clear [1968] 1 QB 670.)

However, GA have a defence.

A demand with menaces will be unwarranted unless the demander genuinely believes both of the following:

That he has reasonable grounds for making the demand.
That it is proper to reinforce it with those particular menaces.
The test is subjective, so there is no requirement that the demander must have reasonable grounds for his belief. Once this issue is raised as a defence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving it to the criminal standard.

GA clearly believe (even if they are totally and utterly wrong or misguided, and even if they admit it's unreasonable), that there is reason to suspect fraud. They have also not demanded anything. They've simply asked for a voluntary settlement which your friend is clearly at liberty to refuse. A reasonable person also wouldn't be fearful of being reported to police, especially if they felt they were innocent.

 

[robbeech]

A reasonable person also wouldn't be fearful of being reported to police, especially if they felt they were innocent.

The irony of this statement isn't lost on me after you've spent the last month telling people that even if they're innocent it will prevent them getting some jobs, and will always be on their record etc,

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The irony of this statement isn't lost on me after you've spent the last month telling people that even if they're innocent it will prevent them getting some jobs, and will always be on their record etc,

I did say "reasonable" person!

Most ordinary people wouldn't even know about what happens behind the scenes. For 95% of people, the hidden records won't make any difference.

 

[sefton]

You do need to get the next available train for Delay Repay compensation is my understanding, even an overcrowded one, but clearly not one so overcrowded you cannot board. If you physically or realistically could not board, the next available train is surely one which you could actually fit on. Although simply being uncomfortable and not wanting to stand, whilst understandable, probably rules delay compensation out to some extent as I don't think you are strictly entitled to a seat or to be conveyed under any particular level of comfort.

Sorry but that is absurd and probably illegal.

Firstly there is the straightforward issue that you have been delayed and now the railway company is compounding the issue by insisting that if you want some pitiful compensation for that delay that you need to inconvenience yourself further by cramming yourself onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour!

Then there is the illegality of that position as it doesn’t reflect the fact that not every customer is able to force their way onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour, so would need to wait until for a following less overcrowded train - but obviously only being able to claim for the delay on the original cancelled train not the choice to wait.

And before someone suggests that such people should make themselves aware to rail staff, aside from the issue of finding staff during cancellations who have the time or training to deal with this type of issue, would you fancy describing your private medical history to a random person on a crowded platform or information desk?

If the train companies have a problem with people falsely claiming for delays by claiming that they intended to catch a train they never intended to catch, then the train companies need to firstly make it explicitly clear what you are expected to do following a cancellation (which the current guidance doesn’t) and secondly create a mechanism so those who cannot suffer a long stand on an overcrowded train are not penalised.

 

[jumble]

Sorry but that is absurd and probably illegal.

Firstly there is the straightforward issue that you have been delayed and now the railway company is compounding the issue by insisting that if you want some pitiful compensation for that delay that you need to inconvenience yourself further by cramming yourself onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour!

Then there is the illegality of that position as it doesn’t reflect the fact that not every customer is able to force their way onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour, so would need to wait until for a following less overcrowded train - but obviously only being able to claim for the delay on the original cancelled train not the choice to wait.

And before someone suggests that such people should make themselves aware to rail staff, aside from the issue of finding staff during cancellations who have the time or training to deal with this type of issue, would you fancy describing your private medical history to a random person on a crowded platform or information desk?

If the train companies have a problem with people falsely claiming for delays by claiming that they intended to catch a train they never intended to catch, then the train companies need to firstly make it explicitly clear what you are expected to do following a cancellation (which the current guidance doesn’t) and secondly create a mechanism so those who cannot suffer a long stand on an overcrowded train are not penalised.

I agree
If anyone tried to suggest making my 81 year old mother stand on a train for no logical reason having not taken her money and not delivered the serviced their disability officer would be having very noisy conversation with me

 

[Titfield]

If anyone tried to suggest making my 81 year old mother stand on a train for no logical reason having not taken her money and not delivered the serviced their disability officer would be having very noisy conversation with me

Why a "noisy" conversation?

 

[WesternLancer]

Why a "noisy" conversation?

Perhaps because when you have to continually help frail and vulnerable /disabled relatives with respect to bureaucratic and inflexible organisations who fail to deliver the reality set down in their equal opps policy docs etc etc you can get very stressed and, for some people, lose your patience with organisations who have devised procedures to make it more difficult to obtain what their publicity leads you to believe you are entitled to?

as an example (so not wishing to go off topic)
I've seen this happen by my dad (who is my disabled mum's main carer) with parts of the NHS when over bureaucratic procedures and impossible to use (for him) phone or on line systems etc prevent otherwise straightforward access to services by an organisation that should be geared up to dealing with those sorts of 'customers', so I can well imagine, if being given the run around by the railway, patience would be limited!

In the example cited I would generally expect rail staff to not require that of an 81 year old person, but in a world of DOO and minimally / unstaffed stations, or the sorts of poor service noted on this forum in other threads about say staff at London terminals, or outsourced 'security' staff working on platforms, I can imagine there is a chance that it would happen in some cases.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Sorry but that is absurd and probably illegal.

Firstly there is the straightforward issue that you have been delayed and now the railway company is compounding the issue by insisting that if you want some pitiful compensation for that delay that you need to inconvenience yourself further by cramming yourself onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour!

Then there is the illegality of that position as it doesn’t reflect the fact that not every customer is able to force their way onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour, so would need to wait until for a following less overcrowded train - but obviously only being able to claim for the delay on the original cancelled train not the choice to wait.

And before someone suggests that such people should make themselves aware to rail staff, aside from the issue of finding staff during cancellations who have the time or training to deal with this type of issue, would you fancy describing your private medical history to a random person on a crowded platform or information desk?

If the train companies have a problem with people falsely claiming for delays by claiming that they intended to catch a train they never intended to catch, then the train companies need to firstly make it explicitly clear what you are expected to do following a cancellation (which the current guidance doesn’t) and secondly create a mechanism so those who cannot suffer a long stand on an overcrowded train are not penalised.

You are not guaranteed or even promised a seat or to travel in any particular level of comfort, regardless of disability. Your contract is to be conveyed between A and B. The only time you may be guaranteed a seat is if you have or buy a seat reservation, but I don't even know if these are available universally.

I repeat my previous post. You are required to take the next available train / connecting train if you want to claim delay repay. Available train, as I stated, is one that you can physically and realistically board. So if someone, say, in a wheelchair, (as a random disability example), couldn't fit on, that clearly isn't an available train for that person.

I am not saying your 81 year old mother could not get a later, more comfortable train, I am saying that her entitlement to delay repay may well be dependent on whether she chooses comfort or compensation.

Being uncomfortable and crammed into a train, even in your older years, is not, unfortunately any different from someone in their teens or a middle aged commuter, although social norms would normally prevent that happening anyway, by the offer of a seat. Being old (alone) is not a disability.

I also strongly suspect that any train operator would look very favourably on delay repay in that circumstance anyway, but as discretion, not an absolute right.

 

[packermac]

I agree
If anyone tried to suggest making my 81 year old mother stand on a train for no logical reason having not taken her money and not delivered the serviced their disability officer would be having very noisy conversation with me

You would have prove what you paid for does include a guaranteed seat, hence a reservation. In times of disruption reservations may be withdrawn then it becomes a sensible conversation with the TOC. My understanding is a normal ticket (of any type) does not guarantee a seat.

 

[sefton]

You are not guaranteed or even promised a seat or to travel in any particular level of comfort, regardless of disability. Your contract is to be conveyed between A and B. The only time you may be guaranteed a seat is if you have or buy a seat reservation, but I don't even know if these are available universally.

I repeat my previous post. You are required to take the next available train / connecting train if you want to claim delay repay. Available train, as I stated, is one that you can physically and realistically board. So if someone, say, in a wheelchair, (as a random disability example), couldn't fit on, that clearly isn't an available train for that person.

I am not saying your 81 year old mother could not get a later, more comfortable train, I am saying that her entitlement to delay repay may well be dependent on whether she chooses comfort or compensation.

Being uncomfortable and crammed into a train, even in your older years, is not, unfortunately any different from someone in their teens or a middle aged commuter, although social norms would normally prevent that happening anyway, by the offer of a seat. Being old (alone) is not a disability.

I also strongly suspect that any train operator would look very favourably on delay repay in that circumstance anyway, but as discretion, not an absolute right.

Please point me to where in the Delay Repay guidance it makes the requirement you state - and please ensure this is a ‘plain English’ statement and not something you assume or imagine the words say.

But to let me save you some time - There is no requirement. Anywhere. At all.

You might wish there was, but there isn’t.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For what it's worth, it is not at all unusual for me to take the second train out in disruption rather than the first, as it's typically quieter. When I do this, my Delay Repay claim is generally based on the lower sum that would be payable if I'd taken the first one, because I could have done that.

That seems reasonable to me; it's reasonable "mitigation of damages" in law, or whatever the term is.

 

[sefton]

For what it's worth, it is not at all unusual for me to take the second train out in disruption rather than the first, as it's typically quieter. When I do this, my Delay Repay claim is generally based on the lower sum that would be payable if I'd taken the first one, because I could have done that.

That seems reasonable to me; it's reasonable "mitigation of damages" in law, or whatever the term is.

If it wasn’t clear from my post - of course.

Although with the exception that when I have been at the station and couldn’t physically get onto the next train, then that is also counted into the delay.

 

[robbeech]

Sorry but that is absurd and probably illegal.

Firstly there is the straightforward issue that you have been delayed and now the railway company is compounding the issue by insisting that if you want some pitiful compensation for that delay that you need to inconvenience yourself further by cramming yourself onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour!

Then there is the illegality of that position as it doesn’t reflect the fact that not every customer is able to force their way onto an overcrowded train and stand for an hour, so would need to wait until for a following less overcrowded train - but obviously only being able to claim for the delay on the original cancelled train not the choice to wait.

And before someone suggests that such people should make themselves aware to rail staff, aside from the issue of finding staff during cancellations who have the time or training to deal with this type of issue, would you fancy describing your private medical history to a random person on a crowded platform or information desk?

If the train companies have a problem with people falsely claiming for delays by claiming that they intended to catch a train they never intended to catch, then the train companies need to firstly make it explicitly clear what you are expected to do following a cancellation (which the current guidance doesn’t) and secondly create a mechanism so those who cannot suffer a long stand on an overcrowded train are not penalised.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the railway doesn’t care about this and there is nobody to stop them doing it.

For what it's worth, it is not at all unusual for me to take the second train out in disruption rather than the first, as it's typically quieter. When I do this, my Delay Repay claim is generally based on the lower sum that would be payable if I'd taken the first one, because I could have done that.

That seems reasonable to me; it's reasonable "mitigation of damages" in law, or whatever the term is.

It seems perfectly logical and reasonable. However, as this thread shows, if you do that, do be advised that in 2 years time the operator may come back at you and report you for fraud, and suggest you pay an out of court settlement to avoid it, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on whether we consider it acceptable or not.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it wasn’t clear from my post - of course.

Although with the exception that when I have been at the station and couldn’t physically get onto the next train, then that is also counted into the delay.

Absolutely. Not being able to physically board counts as a delay.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the railway doesn’t care about this.

It seems perfectly logical and reasonable. However, as this thread shows, if you do that, do be advised that in 2 years time the operator may come back at you and report you for fraud, and suggest you pay an out of court settlement to avoid it, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on whether we consider it acceptable or not.

The way I have done that in the past is by selecting the train I did take but the lower amount of delay, and adding a note. That would absolutely not be convicted as a fraud case in Court as there is no deception, so they could try if they liked.

The DR scheme does not contain a term requiring the passenger to take a specific train to be entitled to compensation.

An actual break of journey would be different, of course. It would be fraud to claim DR for a journey you didn't intend to make.

 

[robbeech]

The way I have done that in the past is by selecting the train I did take but the lower amount of delay, and adding a note. That would absolutely not be convicted as a fraud case in Court as there is no deception, so they could try if they liked.

This seems very sensible and hopefully this works out. Sadly I wouldn’t put it past some operators to try it though.

 

[NotGreaterA]

Absolutely. Not being able to physically board counts as a delay.

The problem on this forum is you have people who think they know everything but have never been a commuter or travelled with GA. A peak train out of Liverpool Street delayed by an hour means 1,000s are queuing up for the first train out of which everyone will not be able to board. If GA reject your claim and you object they will very likely change their mind and pay for the delay as you were not able to get the first available train out. Also on some occasions they will close the platform if there are too many already on a train so they know there will be lots of people delayed further waiting on the platform.

 

[EssexGonzo]

The problem on this forum is you have people who think they know everything but have never been a commuter or travelled with GA. A peak train out of Liverpool Street delayed by an hour means 1,000s are queuing up for the first train out of which everyone will not be able to board. If GA reject your claim and you object they will very likely change their mind and pay for the delay as you were not able to get the first available train out. Also on some occasions they will close the platform if there are too many already on a train so they know there will be lots of people delayed further waiting on the platform.

Exactly this. I have rarely claimed DR (maybe once or twice in 20 years?) but have been delayed many times.

However, I rarely go through the motions of trying to get the first train during a significant delay for this reason - unless you got lucky and were standing right by the gate when the platform was announced, you won’t be on it.

This “first available train” rule being applied retrospectively seems a little nuts. Does the scheme really state that I have to have fought to get on a train and be turned back art the doors/gate to qualify for a payment? How can they prove that someone didn’t?

 

[sefton]

It seems perfectly logical and reasonable. However, as this thread shows, if you do that, do be advised that in 2 years time the operator may come back at you and report you for fraud, and suggest you pay an out of court settlement to avoid it, you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on whether we consider it acceptable or not.

Of course you would have a leg to stand on, in fact you would have two.

Any accusation of fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, you don’t need to prove your innocence.

Firstly it would be a stupid prosecutor who tried to invent conditions which don’t exist. I have been involved in enough cases to know that judges don’t like being taken for mugs and do like to carefully consider and examine what the contract actually says rather than what people wish it says.

Then for many any accusation of fiddling by saying “well you didn’t actually intend to catch that train” needs some proof other than a vague belief by the accuser, and is easily rebuffed as many people catch the same time trains, day in day out, week in week out, month in month out - other than when the service is cancelled!

For years I caught a single specific time train into London, and Monday to Thursday a specific time train out of London and on Friday a different (earlier) time train. Day in day out, week in week out, month in month out - other than when the service was cancelled!

And most of my colleagues in the office did exactly the same thing.

So frankly if someone was stupid enough to bring a prosecution alleging that you never intended to catch the cancelled 17.30 which you catch every day, and which the train company had announced was cancelled via their website so someone didn’t need to physically go to the station to see, and the ‘proof’ was the person didn’t scan in for the cancelled 17.30 or for the overcrowded and standing room only 18.00 but waited for the 18.30 where they got a seat. Then all I can say to the prosecutor is ”do you enjoy being laughed at in court”.

 

[35B]

Of course you would have a leg to stand on, in fact you would have two.

Any accusation of fraud must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, you don’t need to prove your innocence.

Firstly it would be a stupid prosecutor who tried to invent conditions which don’t exist. I have been involved in enough cases to know that judges don’t like being taken for mugs and do like to carefully consider and examine what the contract actually says rather than what people wish it says.

Then for many any accusation of fiddling by saying “well you didn’t actually intend to catch that train” needs some proof other than a vague belief by the accuser, and is easily rebuffed as many people catch the same time trains, day in day out, week in week out, month in month out - other than when the service is cancelled!

For years I caught a single specific time train into London, and Monday to Thursday a specific time train out of London and on Friday a different (earlier) time train. Day in day out, week in week out, month in month out - other than when the service was cancelled!

And most of my colleagues in the office did exactly the same thing.

So frankly if someone was stupid enough to bring a prosecution alleging that you never intended to catch the cancelled 17.30 which you catch every day, and which the train company had announced was cancelled via their website so someone didn’t need to physically go to the station to see, and the ‘proof’ was the person didn’t scan in for the cancelled 17.30 or for the overcrowded and standing room only 18.00 but waited for the 18.30 where they got a seat. Then all I can say to the prosecutor is ”do you enjoy being laughed at in court”.

An approach that only works where the travel pattern is that consistent. Knowing my travel pattern when I used to commute, I can well imagine it being less straightforward to make that case.

 

[sefton]

An approach that only works where the travel pattern is that consistent. Knowing my travel pattern when I used to commute, I can well imagine it being less straightforward to make that case.

But you don’t need to “make that case”.

It is the job of the prosecutor to prove you didn’t intend to catch that train, so even harder for them to do that if you caught all sorts - the accused does not need to prove anything.

Fact 1 - train A was cancelled
Fact 2 - the next train B was excessively busy as a result
Fact 3 - the train company’s scanners show you caught the next less crowded train C

Where is their evidence to show that you were not intending to catch train A?

Their “but, but, but…” isn’t evidence, but common sense to avoid standing on an overcrowded train for an hour.

 

[robbeech]

Where is their evidence to show that you were not intending to catch train A?

Their “but, but, but…” isn’t evidence, but common sense to avoid standing on an overcrowded train for an hour.

I think you may need to read / re-read this thread to understand that whilst you are happy to say “they can’t do this” and “they need evidence” that the actual real world facts show quite clearly that they do can and do do this and they need no evidence. That’s one of the key reasons this thread has gone on as long as it has, going around in the same circles people saying they can’t do something followed by evidence of them doing it.

 

[sefton]

I think you may need to read / re-read this thread to understand that whilst you are happy to say “they can’t do this” and “they need evidence” that the actual real world facts show quite clearly that they do can and do do this and they need no evidence. That’s one of the key reasons this thread has gone on as long as it has, going around in the same circles people saying they can’t do something followed by evidence of them doing it.

The thread involves some people who were deliberately or accidentally careless with the facts and admit they claimed for things they should not have done - my comments do not relate to such people, who understandably might be happy to settle their guilt with an offer.

My comments relate to the false premise that you must catch the following train after a cancellation, and if you don’t then you are guilty of fraud without any further proof.