Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[RHolmes]

I think that your response highlights a big issue. It appears that GA at least has certain, apparently unpublished, assumptions about how DR should operate. Excluding cases of actual fraud, which could never be justified, this issue may come down to them attempting to retrospectively impose those assumptions on passengers. The acceptability of this, particularly legally, is a very interesting question. I suspect that the company is banking on people settling as they fear litigation. However, they could come a very nasty cropper not least due to consumer legislation. Certainly l seriously doubt that they would wish the validity of their approach to be tested in any Court where the verdict would set a binding precedent.

Or people just don’t read the terms and conditions before agreeing to them

 

[Wolfie]

Or people just don’t read the terms and conditions before agreeing to them

That is a possibility. Where are they published in full? Tell me where they state that you must take (as opposed to claim for the delay until) the next available train for example.... Or indeed retain evidence, apparently indefinitely, of why you made a particular claim in the way that you did.

 

[swt_passenger]

Of course they are legal, so long as the original contract you agree to has a mechanism to do so. Usually the caveat is the changes can be rejected by the customer, and the contract terminated prior to the introduction of the changes, in such a case of a season ticket, I'd expect a pro rata refund for the remaining period. Sufficient notice (usually defined) would usually also be required, probably an absolute minimum of 14 days to be considered a fair consumer term.

But that assumes the original contract has those terms. If it does not, the contract can still be terminated and a refund issued, but the customer may be entitled to further compensation above a pro rata refund in that scenario.

IIRC we had a thread about this way back, and all extant long SWR seasons carried on with their normal charter discounts until they expired. There were some confusing web pages initially, but no T&Cs were actually altered in practice.

 

[Wolfie]

IIRC we had a thread about this way back, and all extant long SWR seasons carried on with their normal charter discounts until they expired. There were some confusing web pages initially, but no T&Cs were actually altered in practice.

Now that is what l would expect, just as l would expect the T&Cs pertaining at the time of purchase of any ticket to apply throughout its validity.

 

[Haywain]

IIRC we had a thread about this way back, and all extant long SWR seasons carried on with their normal charter discounts until they expired. There were some confusing web pages initially, but no T&Cs were actually altered in practice.

TThis is what I believe happened.

 

[43096]

IIRC we had a thread about this way back, and all extant long SWR seasons carried on with their normal charter discounts until they expired. There were some confusing web pages initially, but no T&Cs were actually altered in practice.

They didn’t. The charter discounts as per the SWT franchise stopped at franchise change. I received discounts at next renewal up to the change date - and I know there were days after that which would have qualified. To be blunt, SWR used it as an excuse to screw its regular customers so it could keep the cash.

 

[35B]

Would be legal IF the operator made a formal request to Tracsis / Genie, on the basis of crime prevention/detection/law enforcement, likely with some signed statement of truth/declaration. It is unlikely to be lawful on an "everyone" basis, they would have to send specific names and details of people they had a reasonable (even if ultimately misguided) suspicion of fraud/dishonesty.

Tracsis would have to satisfy themselves to some extent that the operator was acting reasonably in the circumstances before releasing the data.

Nonetheless, against a very serious legal backdrop given the scale of potential penalties under GDPR.

 

[talldave]

I get the feeling that most posters are happy that if the 5pm train is cancelled and you bale out for a pint/coffee/etc, eventually catching the 7pm service, you can claim for a 30 minute delay because the 5.30pm service ran on time.

But in GA's world of suspicious smartcard taps, you tapped in for the 7pm service which ran to time. No delay - you're a fraudster. They can claim you've just looked back at the data on a website.

Now you might be able to claim that as your regular journey is 5pm they should believe you, but where's the evidence?

It gets worse if you deviated from your regular service as you left early because you had some time owing. Go for the 3pm, it's cancelled so you eventually get the 5pm service but claim for the 3.30pm that ran. Now it looks as if you just did your normal commute but claimed for an earlier cancellation because a random website you signed up on informed you of it?

 

[Wolfie]

I get the feeling that most posters are happy that if the 5pm train is cancelled and you bale out for a pint/coffee/etc, eventually catching the 7pm service, you can claim for a 30 minute delay because the 5.30pm service ran on time.

But in GA's world of suspicious smartcard taps, you tapped in for the 7pm service which ran to time. No delay - you're a fraudster. They can claim you've just looked back at the data on a website.

Now you might be able to claim that as your regular journey is 5pm they should believe you, but where's the evidence?

It gets worse if you deviated from your regular service as you left early because you had some time owing. Go for the 3pm, it's cancelled so you eventually get the 5pm service but claim for the 3.30pm that ran. Now it looks as if you just did your normal commute but claimed for an earlier cancellation because a random website you signed up on informed you of it?

An excellent summary.

 

[AlterEgo]

I get the feeling that most posters are happy that if the 5pm train is cancelled and you bale out for a pint/coffee/etc, eventually catching the 7pm service, you can claim for a 30 minute delay because the 5.30pm service ran on time.

But in GA's world of suspicious smartcard taps, you tapped in for the 7pm service which ran to time. No delay - you're a fraudster. They can claim you've just looked back at the data on a website.

Now you might be able to claim that as your regular journey is 5pm they should believe you, but where's the evidence?

It gets worse if you deviated from your regular service as you left early because you had some time owing. Go for the 3pm, it's cancelled so you eventually get the 5pm service but claim for the 3.30pm that ran. Now it looks as if you just did your normal commute but claimed for an earlier cancellation because a random website you signed up on informed you of it?

A strange situation.

Delay Repay on season tickets and open tickets requires an unprovable intent to travel on a given train, and works on the basis of honesty. Hard to know where to go from here!

 

[Hadders]

I get the feeling that most posters are happy that if the 5pm train is cancelled and you bale out for a pint/coffee/etc, eventually catching the 7pm service, you can claim for a 30 minute delay because the 5.30pm service ran on time.

But in GA's world of suspicious smartcard taps, you tapped in for the 7pm service which ran to time. No delay - you're a fraudster. They can claim you've just looked back at the data on a website.

Now you might be able to claim that as your regular journey is 5pm they should believe you, but where's the evidence?

It gets worse if you deviated from your regular service as you left early because you had some time owing. Go for the 3pm, it's cancelled so you eventually get the 5pm service but claim for the 3.30pm that ran. Now it looks as if you just did your normal commute but claimed for an earlier cancellation because a random website you signed up on informed you of it?

If something like this happened why the hell did GA pay the claims out int he first place? It appears to me as though they just paid anything claimed by passengers then 18 months later accuse them of fraud.

 

[robbeech]

This is an unnecessarily anti-customer post. Any business should treat its customers with the respect that they deserve, and inform them about such things; doing otherwise will lead to the business becoming unviable.

"The Railway" has what appears to be an increasing anti-customer approach sadly.

Of course they are legal, so long as the original contract you agree to has a mechanism to do so. Usually the caveat is the changes can be rejected by the customer, and the contract terminated prior to the introduction of the changes, in such a case of a season ticket, I'd expect a pro rata refund for the remaining period. Sufficient notice (usually defined) would usually also be required, probably an absolute minimum of 14 days to be considered a fair consumer term.

But that assumes the original contract has those terms. If it does not, the contract can still be terminated and a refund issued, but the customer may be entitled to further compensation above a pro rata refund in that scenario.

Essentially, what this says is that the contract really only applies for the customer, the railway can do what it wants, the idea that a customer would ever be entitled to further compensation as a rule (excluding the odd exception where they push hard) is laughable.

We have a number of new members who have come to this thread to ask for advice and it is important that our discussions are not taken too far off topic getting bogged down in legal terms and conditions etc.

I would urge @BusterEdwards to reply to GA with as much evidence as he can of what he did. I do have to wonder why GA are taking this course of action now, they really should have checked the claims submitted more thoroughly and queried anything that looked suspicious at the time. To pay up, then query over a year later accuse passengers of fraud, and demand repayment of all the delay repay claims (not just the suspicious ones) doesn't show GA in the best light.

It's unlikely they're interested in being shown in the best light, as the focus here is to maximise profit, which as a business makes sense. If we look at this whole saga logically, if they had done this 12 months ago there is more chance that people WOULD remember what they were doing, and might still have some form of proof that they did indeed take the train they claimed to have taken. The longer they wait, the more chance there is of people no longer having this evidence, evidence that is required to prove they are innocent.

Really. I suggest that you check the legislation relating to unfair terms and conditions of contract.

I suspect if 1 in 10 did that it's still a tidy earner.

The matter will likely then just go away, unless of course, you've made claims which are dodgy.

I'm not entirely convinced it would. There seems to be this necessity to prove innocence still, though i agree it is the first step.

If something like this happened why the hell did GA pay the claims out int he first place? It appears to me as though they just paid anything claimed by passengers then 18 months later accuse them of fraud.

Whilst we are on a (justifiably) cynical path here, do you think that it's actually more profitable?

 

[zwk500]

Whilst we are on a (justifiably) cynical path here, do you think that it's actually more profitable?

Interesting theory - because if they investigate the claim at the start and decline it, they can't charge an admin fee (nor would I want to be able to do so). But they can claim admin costs when recovering money paid out when it shouldn't have been....

 

[Wolfie]

Interesting theory - because if they investigate the claim at the start and decline it, they can't charge an admin fee (nor would I want to be able to do so). But they can claim admin costs when recovering money paid out when it shouldn't have been....

Or, being cynical, when they assert that it shouldn't have been, with vague hints of legal action lurking in the background, and the original claimant doesn't have the evidence to disprove that..

 

[Skie]

I saw a Virgin claim rejected because they (or their system) flat out got confused about a journey that involved an onward leg on the Chester to Chester via Liverpool. They were claiming that their 20 minute delay hadn't caused the passenger to miss an onward Merseyrail journey, but they were looking at the wrong lap of the loop and somehow thinking he'd have been able to arrive earlier than physically possible. That one went to the ombudsman after a failed appeal, and it was adjudged to be a valid claim. Was bloody confusing, too.

 

[talldave]

If something like this happened why the hell did GA pay the claims out int he first place? It appears to me as though they just paid anything claimed by passengers then 18 months later accuse them of fraud.

It does seem weird. In an ideal world - when journalists knew how to investigate - it would have been an interesting question for someone in the media to ask them.

 

[Hadders]

It does seem weird. In an ideal world - when journalists knew how to investigate - it would have been an interesting question for someone in the media to ask them.

I suggest that people caught up in this might want to consider involving MPs and the media. I am not condoning people who have made incorrect claims but GA's behaviour in all of this doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I suggest that people caught up in this might want to consider involving MPs and the media. I am not condoning people who have made incorrect claims but GA's behaviour in all of this doesn't seem quite right to me.

No MP is going to intervene in a potential ongoing criminal investigation. Nor would it be wise to poke sticks at the TOC at an early stage by escalating to an MP or the media.

My advice would be, by all means, contact whoever you like, but only AFTER you've sorted the issue out with the operator. It isn't going to be sorted by asking the media or MP to assist. That is the role of a lawyer.

You've also got to be a bit realistic too. The police investigate, arrest or charge innocent people daily. It's part of life. It's not a pleasant experience, but it happens. The TOC is no different to the police from an investigative point of view really. It would be amazing to only ever arrest criminals, but they don't often walk around identifying themselves as such!

The TOC can make accusations, they can question, they can even lie or mislead to secure evidence in many circumstances. They can manage what they do and don't disclose, and if they do disclose, they can control to an extent at what point they disclose. The safeguard is that ultimately their opinion doesn't matter, it's an impartial jury or judiciary which can ultimately determine guilt. This is the English justice system, and isn't especially different whether it's a TOC, the RSPCA or the police.

 

[NorthWestRover]

I don't think anyone has a problem with any TOC pursuing fraudulent or otherwise incorrect claims. What seems to stick in the craw is the bullying that this TOC is using to get out of court settlements. I know you don't agree, but you're looking at it from a legal (legalistic) point of view, not a customer protection point of view. The two sides of this debate are not going to agree.

 

[Wolfie]

No MP is going to intervene in a potential ongoing criminal investigation. Nor would it be wise to poke sticks at the TOC at an early stage by escalating to an MP or the media.

My advice would be, by all means, contact whoever you like, but only AFTER you've sorted the issue out with the operator. It isn't going to be sorted by asking the media or MP to assist. That is the role of a lawyer.

You've also got to be a bit realistic too. The police investigate, arrest or charge innocent people daily. It's part of life. It's not a pleasant experience, but it happens. The TOC is no different to the police from an investigative point of view really. It would be amazing to only ever arrest criminals, but they don't often walk around identifying themselves as such!

The TOC can make accusations, they can question, they can even lie or mislead to secure evidence in many circumstances. They can manage what they do and don't disclose, and if they do disclose, they can control to an extent at what point they disclose. The safeguard is that ultimately their opinion doesn't matter, it's an impartial jury or judiciary which can ultimately determine guilt. This is the English justice system, and isn't especially different whether it's a TOC, the RSPCA or the police.

Are you so sure about that? Delay repay, particularly in its current form, was imposed on the industry by politicians. Any apparent attempt by the industry to minimise payments by apparently doubtful means is likely to go down like a bucket of sick with at least some politicians.
I do find your general stance fascinating. I'm not sure that there is much which a TOC could do that you wouldn't seek to defend.

 

[zwk500]

The TOC can make accusations, they can question, they can even lie or mislead to secure evidence in many circumstances.

Are you sure about deliberately misleading to secure evidence? I'm not a lawyer, but from my knowledge of common law it is very, very rare for evidence obtained by deceit to be admissible in court. The risk of committing entrapment is very large.

 

[Hadders]

I agree about settling the situation and then complaining. I am not condoning fraudulent behaviour, and some posters here have admitted to making claims that are not totally genuine. That said:

Greater Anglia had the opportunity to reject those claims when they were first submitted and chose not to. For example if a train on a line with a half hourly service is cancelled then there's no way GA should be paying out for a 2+ hour delay, the system should have simply rejected it.

It appears GA have demanded repayment of all delay repay claims, not just the suspicious ones. That does not seem right to me.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Are you sure about deliberately misleading to secure evidence? I'm not a lawyer, but from my knowledge of common law it is very, very rare for evidence obtained by deceit to be admissible in court. The risk of committing entrapment is very large.

They can't intentionally mislead or lie to a court, e.g. to secure a warrant or conviction. They cannot fabricate evidence.

But legally, there's fairly broad scope during an investigation or an interview for artistic license and the use of smoke and mirrors. A question could be "are we going to see your face on the CCTV?" - hoping it spooks the suspect, when there may not even be any CCTV available, just as a simple example.

"Lie" was probably a strong word on reflection, but they certainly don't have to play with a straight bat.

As for entrapment, that is not a defence in England, however depending on the circumstances, where the defendant can PROVE entrapment (your responsibility to do so), a court MAY (at it's discretion) stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. However, what many people think of entrapment in the first place, usually is not.

I agree about settling the situation and then complaining. I am not condoning fraudulent behaviour, and some posters here have admitted to making claims that are not totally genuine. That said:

Greater Anglia had the opportunity to reject those claims when they were first submitted and chose not to. For example if a train on a line with a half hourly service is cancelled then there's no way GA should be paying out for a 2+ hour delay, the system should have simply rejected it.

It appears GA have demanded repayment of all delay repay claims, not just the suspicious ones. That does not seem right to me.

My understanding is that GA have not made ANY demands whatsoever.

They've provided a figure that they feel is adequate in their opinion to resolve the matter. As far as I'm aware it's always been offered on a voluntary and optional basis, with no demands to accept it.

Nobody has to pay GA anything, and I don't think GA have said otherwise.

You could just say "no thanks" and see what happens. If they really don't have any evidence or reasonable suspicion, it's not going to get far.

The value of any settlement is bound to exceed the value of dubious claims, and realistically there has to be a punitive element, (and administration costs), because you could submit as many fraudulent claims as you like safe in the knowledge that you will only have to pay them back if caught, and you are no worse of.

 

[Hadders]

They can't intentionally mislead or lie to a court, e.g. to secure a warrant or conviction. They cannot fabricate evidence.

But legally, there's fairly broad scope during an investigation or an interview for artistic license and the use of smoke and mirrors. A question could be "are we going to see your face on the CCTV?" - hoping it spooks the suspect, when there may not even be any CCTV available, just as a simple example.

"Lie" was probably a strong word on reflection, but they certainly don't have to play with a straight bat.

As for entrapment, that is not a defence in England, however depending on the circumstances, where the defendant can PROVE entrapment (your responsibility to do so), a court MAY (at it's discretion) stay the proceedings as an abuse of process. However, what many people think of entrapment in the first place, usually is not.


My understanding is that GA have not made ANY demands whatsoever.

They've provided a figure that they feel is adequate in their opinion to resolve the matter. As far as I'm aware it's always been offered on a voluntary and optional basis, with no demands to accept it.

Nobody has to pay GA anything, and I don't think GA have said otherwise.

You could just say "no thanks" and see what happens. If they really don't have any evidence or reasonable suspicion, it's not going to get far.

The value of any settlement is bound to exceed the value of dubious claims, and realistically there has to be a punitive element, (and administration costs), because you could submit as many fraudulent claims as you like safe in the knowledge that you will only have to pay them back if caught, and you are no worse of.

Legally perhaps that is the position (I am not a lawyer) but morally, and from a brand perception point of view the way they have gone about it doesn't seem right.

As I said earlier, which no-one has answered, GA had the opportunity to reject many of these claims when they were first submitted and chose not to. If a train is cancelled on a line which has a half hourly service then why have they paid out on a 2 hour claim?

To be fair we haven't got all of the information that GA has but something still doesn't seem quite right.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Legally perhaps that is the position (I am not a lawyer) but morally, and from a brand perception point of view the way they have gone about it doesn't seem right.

As I said earlier, which no-one has answered, GA had the opportunity to reject many of these claims when they were first submitted and chose not to. If a train is cancelled on a line which has a half hourly service then why have they paid out on a 2 hour claim?

To be fair we haven't got all of the information that GA has but something still doesn't seem quite right.

I suspect it's quite simple and in their desire to meet the arbitrary 20 day target to conclude the claim set by the regulator, (and probably to provide a decent customer experience to their genuine claimants) they have probably relaxed checks or certain process elements at congested periods, e.g. mass disruption events to speed things up, or avoid requesting further information.

I suspect, however, that they weren't totally stupid and still flagged suspect claims, and Covid provided an opportunity to make a start reviewing these in a quieter period. It could also tie in with the introduction of a new fraud feature or tool that has been ran retrospectively.

Legally, as you'd probably expect, they are on solid ground, there's no statute of limitations on prosecuting fraud, as it can be prosecuted on indictment. Perhaps for the average lay person 18-24 months seems unreasonable, but in legal circles that is exceptionally quick for fraud! Consider that if a defendant needs a Crown Court trial now, just for a "in pencil" date, it's mid 2023 at the earliest. And that could be for something far more serious than fraud! Best hope the witnesses and victim has a good memory, or the defendant can remember their alibi!

Incidentally, I suspect if GA did report to the police, if the total amount of dodgy compensation is under £500 and it was admitted, you'd probably end up with a police caution or possibly an outcome under the Restorative Justice scheme for very low level offenders, which is probably a letter of apology and paying some compensation to avoid prosecution, along with perhaps a requirement to attend an educational course.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think anyone has a problem with any TOC pursuing fraudulent or otherwise incorrect claims. What seems to stick in the craw is the bullying that this TOC is using to get out of court settlements. I know you don't agree, but you're looking at it from a legal (legalistic) point of view, not a customer protection point of view. The two sides of this debate are not going to agree.

Where's the evidence of bullying? If someone is writing back explaining why they make journeys at different times, who is to say they aren't backing off?

It does rather sound to me that in these cases, they do have some further evidence to back up their accusations and it isn't just some random fishing expedition.. but of course nobody can know for sure unless they work for GA in the fraud team!!

 

[Hadders]

Incidentally, I suspect if GA did report to the police, if the total amount of dodgy compensation is under £500 and it was admitted, you'd probably end up with a police caution or possibly an outcome under the Restorative Justice scheme for very low level offenders, which is probably a letter of apology and paying some compensation to avoid prosecution, along with perhaps a requirement to attend an educational course.

The police really shouldn't be going anywhere near these cases. They have far too much other stuff to deal with than to worry about a few quid of dodgy delay repay claims, where some of the passenger facing rules are a little ambiguous, and where it could be argued GA could have carried out more robust checks in the first place.

 

[FenMan]

We'll likely never know, but it would be interesting to learn GA's planned next steps when there is no response to their communications or they've been told "I stand by my delay repay claims, go away."

 

[zwk500]

We'll likely never know, but it would be interesting to learn GA's planned next steps when there is no response to their communications or they've been told "I stand by my delay repay claims, go away."

Several posters have mentioned that on the second point GA's response is to send data (usually smartcard tap-in/out data from ticket barriers) that appears to, at least in part, justify their suspicions.

 

[Kane11]

Several posters have mentioned that on the second point GA's response is to send data (usually smartcard tap-in/out data from ticket barriers) that appears to, at least in part, justify their suspicions.

In my case, I have a paper ticket. GAs second correspondence to me was to send me a spreadsheet of all DR claims for the past 18 months. They do not have any smart card tap in data to use as evidence against me so I find the whole process extremely suspicious.