Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

The same result for the passenger yes, but a different result for the distribution in funds, The percentage of the ticket given to the retailer is recovered, and the split of the remaining distributed between TOCs is recovered, delay repay for £10 costs more than a refund of £10 unless the TOC gets 100% of the share, and is the retailer, and even then, different departments different budgets etc. So yes, i agree it would be ridiculous to consider fraud, but understandable why the TOC would want it dealing with.

A balance of probabilities with this is monumentally biased towards the railway, and unsurpassably flawed. There does not have to be any form of proof that this passenger has made a fraudulent claim here it seems. All they have to do is claim more than average, an average that is created by there being people who claim more than it, and they're essentially guilty. We have seen this process has caught out a lot of people that have done it wrong (deliberately or otherwise) but if they're just picking on those who have already suffered with the worst service then it's orders of magnitude more appalling than we might have initially thought.

Absolutely, this is fairly common and in many businesses where it would be deemed acceptable to do this, its less likely that the railway would believe it anyway.

Agree, and in most cases here we have seen they have had every right to question it, even if they haven't gone about it in the best way (which is subjective). However, any claims on a line with 1tph would always return a 1hour delay if it is cancelled, or indeed if it was a connection from a busier line that had a short (but valid) connection time.


Essentially, what we are saying here is, even if you have done nothing wrong, if you just pay a few hundred quid to a Train Operating Company who have consistently let you down time and time again over the years (which is the sole reason for this farce to exist in the first place) that'll be the end of it. And, perhaps don't claim the money you're due for the failings of the Operator and/or railway in general moving forward lest you find yourself in trouble for doing what you're told to do again. Remind me who is the fraud again?

Did you just skim read and miss out the rest of my post that didn't suit your agenda? If you re-read my post, it clearly ALSO says:

If your claims are 100% definitely not dubious - I'd still recommend contacting a solicitor, or writing (very politely) to GA asking for further information.

 

[jon0844]

Has anyone gone back to GA and insisted all of their claims were 100% genuine and that they won't be entertaining any suggestion of repaying anything?

There's still a lot of assuming going on here, despite the actual evidence in this thread showing that the people contacted had made false/incorrect claims and immediately accepted paying money back to avoid further action. In some cases, further information was provided to back up the fraud allegation, which was not contested.

 

[robbeech]

Did you just skim read and miss out the rest of my post that didn't suit your agenda? If you re-read my post, it clearly ALSO says:

No, i did read that bit as well. I think it backs up my point quite even more (which you seem to feel is an agenda) that if you are innocent, you still need a solicitor. Either way it is unquestionably guilty unless you can prove you are innocent, and a grotesquely convenient delay of in excess of a year just to maximise the chances that people will no longer be able to prove they are innocent.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

No, i did read that bit as well. I think it backs up my point quite even more (which you seem to feel is an agenda) that if you are innocent, you still need a solicitor. Either way it is unquestionably guilty unless you can prove you are innocent, and a grotesquely convenient delay of in excess of a year just to maximise the chances that people will no longer be able to prove they are innocent.

That is the case in the world outside of rail too. It's how our justice system has worked for centuries. Most people already have have legal insurance (as an extra to home insurance, car, trade union policies etc), covering initial consultations with lawyers, receive 30 mins free advice, or can pay £50 or so for a letter.

Ultimately it is always on the person making the accusation to prove it to the judiciary or a jury.

As I have repeatedly advised, 1 year is QUICK, almost very quick to progress a fraud investigation to this point. I really do think some of you would be absolutely shocked should you ever find yourself being investigated, charged and prosecuted for an indictable offence. If you were arrested for fraud today, you'd not see a trial until Summer-Autumn 2023, and even then it would be a "floater", i.e. if another trial ends early you MIGHT get a trial.

What I'm really reading a lot about is that people on this forum simply do not like our justice system, that GA is able to utilise if they believe they are a victim of crime, in a perfectly acceptable and lawful manner. Just because you disagree with their perspective, or how they are responding, they are still potentially a victim of multiple and repeated frauds.

If you don't like the fact that people who believe they are victims can take action against people they believe are the perpetrators of the crimes against them, then take it up with your MP. You'll need to ask that private prosecutions, private investigations, out of court settlements etc are banned. However, I'm pretty sure you'll find that will likely cause people to be unnecessarily criminalised, when an amicable and mutual out of court remedy would have been beneficial to everybody.

 

[robbeech]

when an amicable and mutual out of court remedy would have been beneficial to everybody.

But you are suggesting that those who have done nothing wrong should expect to need to pay for (or use legal cover on their home insurance!) legal advice just because the railway wanted a cash boost. What other industries do we see this sort of behaviour in, and more importantly what industries where we DO see this behaviour do they continuously get away with it? Can you give any examples, i'm not suggesting there are none.

Ultimately it is always on the person making the accusation to prove it to the judiciary or a jury.

But we see here precisely the opposite, and we really don't tend to see it to this simple extent outside the rail industry very often.

 

[35B]

If you don't like the fact that people who believe they are victims can take action against people they believe are the perpetrators of the crimes against them, then take it up with your MP. You'll need to ask that private prosecutions, private investigations, out of court settlements etc are banned. However, I'm pretty sure you'll find that will likely cause people to be unnecessarily criminalised, when an amicable and mutual out of court remedy would have been beneficial to everybody.

That is a false comparison. The unscientific sampling in this forum suggests that Scotrail, who lack the same legal powers as the English and Welsh operators, do not take such an aggressive approach to enforcement of cases.

I suggest that is because the barrier to bringing a prosecution in Scotland is much higher, and therefore they need to take a more nuanced approach to recovering what is due.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is a false comparison. The unscientific sampling in this forum suggests that Scotrail, who lack the same legal powers as the English and Welsh operators, do not take such an aggressive approach to enforcement of cases.

I suggest that is because the barrier to bringing a prosecution in Scotland is much higher, and therefore they need to take a more nuanced approach to recovering what is due.

What additional barriers are there, out of interest? Why not just pass the files to the police? Is fraud harder to prosecute in Scotland?

 

[35B]

What additional barriers are there, out of interest? Why not just pass the files to the police? Is fraud harder to prosecute in Scotland?

The inability to prosecute privately, and therefore the requirement to meet the standards of the Scottish equivalent of the CPS (Crown Office?).

 

[AlterEgo]

The inability to prosecute privately, and therefore the requirement to meet the standards of the Scottish equivalent of the CPS (Crown Office?).

I don't think GA intend to prosecute a fraud case privately; I have never seen a TOC in England prosecute anything which isn't RORA or bylaw related.

The files would be passed the police.

 

[island]

What additional barriers are there, out of interest? Why not just pass the files to the police? Is fraud harder to prosecute in Scotland?

Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal will not take on minor fare evasion matters due to limited resources.

 

[Cb44]

I also received a letter today. Is everyone sure this is genuine and not a phishing scam. Is there any way to verify the email address? What are the outcomes, I’m inclined to pay to make it go away but don’t know how to do this? It’s signed Andy Hillier who LinkedIn suggests is an Area Customer Service Manager not Fraud & Investigation Manager as the letter purports?

 

[AlterEgo]

I also received a letter today. Is everyone sure this is genuine and not a phishing scam. Is there any way to verify the email address? What are the outcomes, I’m inclined to pay to make it go away but don’t know how to do this? It’s signed Andy Hillier who LinkedIn suggests is an Area Customer Service Manager not Fraud & Investigation Manager as the letter purports?

The outcomes could range from anything like "it will go away and they will take no further action" to "you will be arrested by the police, interviewed under caution on suspicion of fraud, sent to court and receive a criminal record".

What's likely to happen will depend heavily on the evidence GA have of fraud or abuse.

If you have made fraudulent claims - which, for the avoidance of doubt, are claims you knew you were not entitled to make but made anyway for your own benefit - you should attempt to reach a settlement with the company to prevent the possibility of them passing the case to the police. At that point the matter will "go away".

If you did not make any fraudulent claims, you should defend yourself and write a short letter to the company explaining that you will not be repaying any of the money, that your claims were legitimate and you complied with the TnCs of Delay Repay to the best of your knowledge.

Those are basically your two best options, and your choice should be informed by whether you made false claims or not.

Some posters have suggested the company may deal with this in the County Court, where the burden of proof for them making a civil claim is much lower, but I rather suspect GA's strategy here is twofold:
1) To recoup money paid out under Delay Repay that was dishonestly claimed.
2) To find a few very strong cases of fraud, work with the police to convict those people of fraud, and use it in the press and their own communications as a deterrent for future misuse of the scheme (which to a large part works like an honesty box, whether we like it or not).

 

[Haywain]

Is everyone sure this is genuine and not a phishing scam. Is there any way to verify the email address?

By the number of cases reported on this thread, it seems safe to assume that this is genuine. In which case you should be able to be confident in the email address provided.

 

[RT4038]

I suggest that is because the barrier to bringing a prosecution in Scotland is much higher, and therefore they need to take a more nuanced approach to recovering what is due.

More nuanced, or people are just let 'get away with it'?

Police Scotland and the Procurator Fiscal will not take on minor fare evasion matters due to limited resources.

So purely that a organ of the State can't be bothered then?

 

[SteveM70]

So purely that a organ of the State can't be bothered then?

Not so much can’t be bothered as under resourced and having to choose which cases to prosecute

 

[pelli]

Is everyone sure this is genuine and not a phishing scam. Is there any way to verify the email address?

By the number of cases reported on this thread, it seems safe to assume that this is genuine. In which case you should be able to be confident in the email address provided.

These detailed public posts about genuine cases would also allow a fraudster to generate convincing scam letters with contact details altered, so you should still verify the contact details you use to respond.

As long as the email address ends with "@greateranglia.co.uk" you can be certain that it goes to GA's email servers and thus most likely someone acting officially on their behalf (although in theory it could be a rogue employee or a hacker). If it ends with something else, then you need to be wary and investigate further - in particular, if it's a free email provider like Gmail then it's most likely a scam.

If the letter contains personal information that only the railway industry would have access to (such as your journey/claim details), or if you send a query to the email address and they reply with such information, then it is also likely to be genuine.

Earlier in this thread Beazer uploaded a photo of their letter mentioning "[email protected]", and given that the letters contained specific information about some claims they had made it is likely that their letter was genuine.

View attachment 89555

View attachment 89556
View attachment 89557

(There's also the extremely unlikely possibility that this is all a big ruse in which a demand letter template is created, and several fabricated reports of people verifying their authenticity and successfully paying them off are posted to public forums, followed by similar letters being sent out to unsuspecting targets, so that when the targets search the internet for verification/advice they see these reports and become convinced that the letters are genuine.)

 

[Haywain]

These detailed public posts about genuine cases would also allow a fraudster to generate convincing scam letters with contact details altered,

Your fraudster would also need access to Greater Anglia's season ticket database or Delay Repay database in order to send the letters to appropriate people. It's not really all that likely, is it?

 

[pelli]

These detailed public posts about genuine cases would also allow a fraudster to generate convincing scam letters with contact details altered, so you should still verify the contact details you use to respond.

Your fraudster would also need access to Greater Anglia's season ticket database or Delay Repay database in order to send the letters to appropriate people. It's not really all that likely, is it?

I agree it's very unlikely, although if it's just the question about addressing the letter (as opposed to journey/claim details as I mention later in the post), then you wouldn't need such access. It could be an acquaintance of the target that knows their name and address and knows that they commute, who suddenly has a desperate need for money and decides to set up a fake email address and send this letter to a few people for the cost of a few stamps in the hope that someone will take the bait. Admittedly if this kind of chancing was being done on a large scale we should have seen a post from someone about it by now saying "I've never travelled on/had a season ticket with/claimed delay repay from GA and yet I've received this letter".

Checking that the email address ends in "@greateranglia.co.uk" and checking that the letter contains correct specific journey/claim details is almost zero effort, so is worthwhile to do even if you're already certain that it is not a scam.

(Edited to add: Another, very remote, possibility is a rogue GA employee, either IT or Fraud Investigations, tasked with looking at journey/claim records while working from home, deciding to jot down details on a piece of paper for borderline cases that GA has decided not to pursue, then privately print out and send off identical demand letters, with an altered email address and phone number that cannot be traced back to themselves. Only once the target has lowered their defenses and agreed to pay would traceable information such as bank details for payment be provided.)

 

[Cb44]

Thanks.

 

[talldave]

Thanks. I’ve heard back and he says that there is a total of £X refunded but I’ve since left my job so can’t align the times to client events and kids school stuff as I no longer have access to my diary. How do I offer to pay the sum stated? Do I just state this in response?

That doesn't mean you're guilty of anything.

 

[MotCO]

As I have repeatedly advised, 1 year is QUICK, almost very quick to progress a fraud investigation to this point. I really do think some of you would be absolutely shocked should you ever find yourself being investigated, charged and prosecuted for an indictable offence. If you were arrested for fraud today, you'd not see a trial until Summer-Autumn 2023, and even then it would be a "floater", i.e. if another trial ends early you MIGHT get a trial.

The difference is that, if there was a specific incident (non-train ticket related) which led to a Court case 2 years' hence, the chances are that you would remember the incident because it was an unusual event. What we have here are incidents relating to some daily occurances (i.e. a regular commute), such that one day is so much like another and it is not reasonable to expect someone to remember what happened on any particular day. If my train was late on, say 3rd November 2019, I would not be able to recall whether it was a cancellation, signal failure, slow running train, whether or not I could not get on a train, whether or not I worked late that day etc etc.

GA seem to be able to produce evidence of when you tapped in and out, but that cannot tell the whole story, and the onus on the passenger to say and prove otherwise after such a long time has elapsed is neither reasonable nor fair. A previous poster said that he no longer had access to his work emails which could provide some circumstantial evidence of when he left the office - this would be a good example of the delay on the part of GA to question a Delay Repay payment not being reasonable. If GA stated that there was a requirement, when submitting a claim, to retain all evidence for a minimum of x years, that would be reasonable - I've not seen any evidence of that.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

GA seem to be able to produce evidence of when you tapped in and out, but that cannot tell the whole story, and the onus on the passenger to say and prove otherwise after such a long time has elapsed is neither reasonable nor fair

If a case here should proceed to court, then the onus remains on GA to make their case, not on the passenger to prove GA wrong. I know this is a subtle distinction, but in the context of giving advice, I think it is an important one.

Why does this matter? Because what it means is that GA have to come up with a cast iron case (more cast iron if we're talking about the criminal courts where the allegation has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in the civil courts the allegation has to be proved on the balance of probability): all the passenger has to do is cast sufficient doubt on GA's case to prevent it meeting the relevant level of proof.

I think it's obvious that the best way of doing this would be for the passenger to be able to respond to an accusation that they did not attempt to get the 1900 train on 29 February 2020 and yet they claimed Delay Repay for that journey would be by the passenger producing documentation, photographs, witness statements and so on expressly demonstrating that they were at the station on the given day and at the given time - but the train wasn't. But as has been repeatedly said on this thread, a year on most people won't have that level of proof to hand. But they may be able to produce some external evidence to show what their normal everyday pattern of behaviour was (whether that's that they invariably went for the 1900 train, or that they normally went for the 1700 train - but sometimes finished early and got the 1500, and sometimes finished late so got the 1900): and importantly, there is nothing to stop the passenger going into the witness box, swearing or affirming that they will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - and then explaining what they normally did. Having once had to appear on oath in a specialist tribunal, I can confirm that taking the oath impacts on you: it is clear that you are facing not just moral sanction if you lie, but the legal sanctions for perjury. So sworn evidence - evidence given under the rigours of having sworn to be truthful - is taken seriously.

What does all this mean if the case hasn't yet got to court? Essentially the advice that has been given upthread (most recently by @AlterEgo in post #672 at 10.36 today, 1 March 2021). If someone has received 'the letter' but they know that all their Delay Repay claims are genuine, then they should tell GA this and not hand over any money: while the case hasn't got to court, GA's only sanction will be to go to court so GA is not in a position to demand a higher standard of evidence than would be needed to convince the court. If, on the other hand, the recipient of 'the letter' knows that their claims are dodgy, then knowing that it will be hard (if not impossible) to lie to the court then the best bet is to settle with GA as soon as possible, essentially on the terms that GA offer: admin costs will not reduce as time passes by so better terms are unlikely to be available later.

 

[XAM2175]

What additional barriers are there, out of interest? Why not just pass the files to the police? Is fraud harder to prosecute in Scotland?

The inability to prosecute privately, and therefore the requirement to meet the standards of the Scottish equivalent of the CPS (Crown Office?).

So purely that a organ of the State can't be bothered then?

To clarify: private prosecutions are allowed by Scots law, but any person wishing to bring a private prosecution must first apply to the High Court of Justiciary for permission (in the form of a "Bill of Criminal Letters"). Historically such permission has almost never been granted - I believe only two or three times in the last hundred years, for example - and as a result private prosecution is very much a last resort in Scotland, after all options with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and even the Lord Advocate in person have been exhausted.

 

[PL80]

I also received a letter today. Is everyone sure this is genuine and not a phishing scam. Is there any way to verify the email address? What are the outcomes, I’m inclined to pay to make it go away but don’t know how to do this? It’s signed Andy Hillier who LinkedIn suggests is an Area Customer Service Manager not Fraud & Investigation Manager as the letter purports?

Hi Cb44. The letter is genuine. But I had my doubts to start with as mine had obviously been printed from home on cheap paper (on an even cheaper printer) and posted with a stamp affixed, not franked. The language of the letter was also borderline childish, repeated use of the word "fraud" (rather than Revenue Protection) and an email address which I couldn't find on the GA website. So I called GA and after a while said they thought it was genuine. It was only once I was provided with a list of claims that I took it seriously.

I had a paper ticket, so no tap in/tap out data. I expect I got the letter purely on volume of claims. A previous poster mentioned that GA told them the "average" person makes 22 claims over a 6 month period. 3.66 claims a month On GA?Seriously?! If the majority of delayed commuters don't claim DR that's their choice, but it shouldn't negate the validity of mine on that basis. Personally, I preferred what Great Eastern used to do; declare a day "void" and send a cheque in the post. Or in the case of one year (2005-ish) when everyone trousered a 5pct discount at renewal.

Ultimately, GA won here, as like many others on this thread I paid back what they considered fraudulent just to make the problem "go away". I have absolutely no way of proving to GA I was on x train at x time some 12-18 months ago, and I couldn't be bothered going down the legal route.

 

[Kane11]

Hi Cb44. The letter is genuine. But I had my doubts to start with as mine had obviously been printed from home on cheap paper (on an even cheaper printer) and posted with a stamp affixed, not franked. The language of the letter was also borderline childish, repeated use of the word "fraud" (rather than Revenue Protection) and an email address which I couldn't find on the GA website. So I called GA and after a while said they thought it was genuine. It was only once I was provided with a list of claims that I took it seriously.

I had a paper ticket, so no tap in/tap out data. I expect I got the letter purely on volume of claims. A previous poster mentioned that GA told them the "average" person makes 22 claims over a 6 month period. 3.66 claims a month On GA?Seriously?! If the majority of delayed commuters don't claim DR that's their choice, but it shouldn't negate the validity of mine on that basis. Personally, I preferred what Great Eastern used to do; declare a day "void" and send a cheque in the post. Or in the case of one year (2005-ish) when everyone trousered a 5pct discount at renewal.

Ultimately, GA won here, as like many others on this thread I paid back what they considered fraudulent just to make the problem "go away". I have absolutely no way of proving to GA I was on x train at x time some 12-18 months ago, and I couldn't be bothered going down the legal route.

Hello. I’m in a similar boat. I can’t prove that I was on a particular train. I also had a paper ticket too so no smart card tap in records. Can I ask how did you pay them back? Did they send an invoice/provide bank details etc?

 

[PL80]

Hello. I’m in a similar boat. I can’t prove that I was on a particular train. I also had a paper ticket too so no smart card tap in records. Can I ask how did you pay them back? Did they send an invoice/provide bank details etc?

No invoice, just an email with an amount and bank details to pay to. Then after a few days a follow up email to say matter closed.

Maybe once this is all over they'll do another round of letters going back 18-24 months, then 24-30 months and so on...lolz.

I'm fairly chilled about the whole thing now as I'm under no hurry to travel GA again. Ive seen the new rolling stock, and the "Ryanair" style seating configuration don't appeal much either!

 

[Kane11]

No invoice, just an email with an amount and bank details to pay to. Then after a few days a follow up email to say matter closed.

Maybe once this is all over they'll do another round of letters going back 18-24 months, then 24-30 months and so on...lolz.

I'm fairly chilled about the whole thing now as I'm under no hurry to travel GA again. Ive seen the new rolling stock, and the "Ryanair" style seating configuration don't appeal much either!

Yeah me too, I won’t be dependent on them for my daily commute anymore anyway.

 

[MotCO]

I'm fairly chilled about the whole thing now as I'm under no hurry to travel GA again. Ive seen the new rolling stock, and the "Ryanair" style seating configuration don't appeal much either!

Yeah me too, I won’t be dependent on them for my daily commute anymore anyway.

That seems to be a successful outcome for GA

 

[AlterEgo]

Really bizarre (ahem) to see multiple posters claim that they have done nothing wrong yet still settling out of court, I have to say.

If a company claimed I had defrauded them, and I hadn’t, I certainly wouldn’t give them money.

 

[bakerstreet]

Yep correct. I have previously claimed for abandoned journeys via DP. I didn’t know any different. I think this is why I am flagging on their system.

It was only after receiving their letter that I have been made aware that this isn’t the correct process.

I have to say I might have found myself in a difficult situation had I been delayed on GA as this is exactly what I am told to do on my local line.

(picture shows Thameslink tweet with link to delay repay saying
“If you are a season ticket holder and did not travel on 25th/26th July, you are entitled to compensation. Please apply at [Delay repay link - https://www.thameslinkrailway.com/help-and-support/journey-problems/delay-repay] and select 120 minutes as your length of delay to ensure you receive a full day of compensation”)

I kept a print screen copy in case of difficulties in the future. Thameslink have tweeted this advice a number of times during disruption.