Northern have given similar advice many times
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud
- Thread starter lufcjack
- Start date
- Status
Northern have given similar advice many times
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,302
Consider, though, if you had a job in the city in banking, finance, insurance, the law etc. You don't want a fraud accusation hanging over you as it is potentially career limiting (or ending). If every claim you had made was legitimate, would you trust the process to work through to the right outcome given that it's 12 months+ since some of the claims and you can't evidence which train you got that day? For many that would be too big a risk and you'd settle - regardless of the rights of it.
I suspect GA know this and are on a fishing trip with some claimants.
Precisely. Look at it from GA's perspective - are they really convinced that they could necessarily prove fraud to the criminal (or even civil) standard in each case, or that the police would be interested?
As long as they can come up with convincing threats - with a handful of blatant cases taken to court - a significant percentage of people they write to will pay up.
For those that don't pay up to begin with, they can write back with more and more "incriminating" evidence, making all but the most determined cave in. After all, who wants to (or can even afford to) pay to get proper representation for a fraud trial?
As for those who really want their day in court, they can drop most, if not all, of those cases. It's a better use of resources to focus on those who pony up readily.
This is really no different to how TIL and their ilk have operated for years. In some ways it's surprising that it's taken so long for a TOC to hop on this particular gravy train.
Last edited:
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
So, just to be clear, you think the train company are knowingly contacting customers whom they know to be honest, and just, like....threatening them just to get "some money back"?
I have the benefit from personal experience of knowing how extensive Delay Repay fraud is, and the reason we're seeing so many posters suddenly decide to settle claims is because, I'm afraid, they were dishonest. Nobody in the thread has claimed absolute innocence; in fact, there's barely been anything you'd call outrage. Just a sea of people who vary from having "hands up" committed fraud, to those who mysteriously disappear having been given advice.
I think a significant majority of people GA contacted have actually submitted false, inflated, or otherwise spurious claims. We've seen one person so far who fell into the net unwittingly because they claimed DR instead of an abandoned journey, and I'm sure there will be others. Those will no doubt be straightened out. But I'm inclined to think GA's strategy is sound; it is recouping money for the railway which should not have been siphoned off by dishonest punters, and so far nobody is going to court.
Tend to agree with AlterEgo, if you're an honest person and would only submit claims for compensation when you have actually suffered some inconvenience, there is no way you're going to "settle out of court" or even accept in court that you have committed fraud.
Same as if Tesco sent me a letter claiming I'd shoplifted last year and need to pay it back, I would absolutely not do so as I haven't.
What this whole saga does seem to indicate though is that the Delay Repay system needs a thorough overhaul, and can only work properly with limited opportunity for abuse when every station in the country has a "check-in" or "touch-in" which recognises every ticket, and thus would require any claimant to have done so, and then suffered delay either before journey commencement or during journey. None of the "I saw it was late so went to the pub instead" stuff. After all, you can't do that at an airport, check-in is always required first, to my knowledge.
TL;DR: The system is flawed.
Same as if Tesco sent me a letter claiming I'd shoplifted last year and need to pay it back, I would absolutely not do so as I haven't.
What this whole saga does seem to indicate though is that the Delay Repay system needs a thorough overhaul, and can only work properly with limited opportunity for abuse when every station in the country has a "check-in" or "touch-in" which recognises every ticket, and thus would require any claimant to have done so, and then suffered delay either before journey commencement or during journey. None of the "I saw it was late so went to the pub instead" stuff. After all, you can't do that at an airport, check-in is always required first, to my knowledge.
TL;DR: The system is flawed.
When the events in question are so long ago, and the scheme rules so unclear in certain key respects, how can anyone do that?
We have had several people who have said they do not think they made any inaccurate claims. And I hardly think the posters that come to this forum are a representative sample of the people who receive these letters.
If this is about ensuring that GA pays out the right amount of DR, isn't it awfully odd that they put no effort whatsoever into tracing and paying out compensation to the two-thirds of passengers that never claim?
Quelle surprise. If it's going to cost you £5000 to defend yourself in court with no guarantee you'll win (even if you are truly innocent), or £800 to make the matter go away, what are people likely to choose?
NotGreaterA
Member
Seems to be a lot of pro train spotters on here and probably have never commuted regularly over a number of years in their life, or are they're part of the rail network to make people pay back as much as they can. The chat seems to go of track (excuse the pun) on all sorts of different subjects in an attempt to scaremonger like GA.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
I have claimed Delay Repay for about 15 years and have never ever filed a fraudulent claim. I would claim absolute innocence and so would anyone who hasn't committed a fraud. Fraud is a crime where you are knowingly deceptive; I would know if I had knowingly deceived someone, and I know when I conduct myself honestly.
We don't know their claim history, but given I used to work for a TOC doing Delay Repay, and given you could spot the dodgy claimants a mile off (we took at one point to refusing to pay out on a few customers' claims because they were so outlandishly fraudulent), I am reasonably sure that not only are Greater Anglia experiencing a lot of fraud, but that they are entitled to do something about it. Because we don't have the posters' claim history in front of us, we aren't able to examine the facts, but we can give people advice.
I'm pretty confident that people who have intentionally claimed for journeys they did not make would know they were up to something, and that people who are scrupulously honest would be horrified at any allegation of fraud, and would absolutely know they wouldn't do such a thing.
Therefore, if you have always claimed honestly, and acted within the TnCs of Delay Repay to the best of your knowledge, my advice has always been to write back simply saying so. People accused of fraud who have not defrauded anyone should defend themselves.
If posters have claimed dishonestly, they should engage with Greater Anglia to ensure that the matter goes no further and to settle the case privately.
It's not about that; it is about catching dishonest people and your argument is as much a red herring as saying "oh well the TOCs never tell you how to get the cheapest ticket properly" when dealing with someone who's jumped the barriers.
I would defend myself against any allegation of fraud, and I think most people would - especially middle-class people with reputations, a degree and financial resources.
All of this discussion is very interesting, but it is clogging up the thread, which is intended to offer advice for people who are in a lot more trouble than your average bylaw infraction.
Two consecutive quotes from two consecutive posts showing that whichever way you look at it, you have to prove innocence.
The risk or rather the consequences of it going wrong (and there are lots of examples on this forum where the railway has won) is potentially MUCH greater than the cost of making it go away. Anyone who suffers with anxiety issues, or is going through a particularly rough patch (maybe they've recently lost a loved one, possibly something with a increased probability recently) and they just don't have the time to deal with. Maybe they are afraid to have to go to court and possibly risk their household when they return, perhaps as someone else says they have a job where even having to go to court for something like this will increase the risk of dismissal. Maybe they do not feel knowledgeable enough to fight the railway on the rules of the railway, despite the majority of the railway not knowing them (yes, majority). Maybe they can't risk paying thousands of pounds to a solicitor for GA to turn around at the last minute and drop the case. Maybe, and this is likely an important one, they're just not sure if every claim was 100%. They attempted to claim what they were due, and maybe financially received what was due, but if they went about it the wrong way then GA can (and will) still threaten them in this way. 1 claim you made in good faith when you should have claimed a refund and you could easily have them on your back threatening you with court, you said yourself it can't be considered for fraud, but whilst this might be solvable, the tone of their letters will frighten people into paying up, and has done as proven here.
There's lots of reasons why they'll make people pay, and they know it, it's working for them. It's a cracking little earner with some (probably mostly) good results but it is (as proven here) causing innocent people to pay up too, which they also know, and do not give a damn about because its all extra money. The long term benefits haven't been touched upon much here, but the obvious ones are, these people (whether they were in the wrong or not) are much much less likely to claim delay repay again. With fewer claims comes another tidy little increase in profit.
GA (or any other operator) will rarely put an ounce of effort into anything that could DECREASE profits in any way. Gaps in staff knowledge always seem to fall in favour of the operator, and this is because ones that fall in favour of the passenger are stopped by retraining the staff as soon as possible. This is a cost, but it is a cost that generates higher revenue. Whenever there is a ticketing discrepancy, and it is at cost to the passenger, that discrepancy remains indefinitely. Where a similar discrepancy showed favour to the passenger this will be dealt with as soon as possible. The same applies to delay repay. Lots of valid claims are rejected and no training is given, but if ever invalid claims are accepted, once discovered it is nipped in the bud quite quickly to stop repeats, and in cases like this, the passenger is chased for money back.
The overall result of this exercise they're doing will likely follow the same plan. They will no longer accept as many invalid claims thus solving the discrepancy in the passenger's favour, but they will NOT stop rejecting the valid claims, thus the discrepancy that falls in favour of "The Railway" will remain.
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,187
don't think this is accurate really. If you look at people who fit that description on here you could step back and think - well, they are close observers of the system, know how it works, understand the regs round the penalties etc. But what it's NOT is a forum to help people who have broken the regs / law etc 'get off' without paying what they owe - at least in terms of the fare plus the costs of that.
But yes, it's not the equivalent of a forum for shoplifters telling the guilty how not to get penalised after they have taken goods without paying.
Last edited:
When there were major delays, pre covid, you could not even into GA stations, I remember Chelmsford and Liverpool Street stations both being closed for safety reasons due to overcrowding on quite a few occasions. It is best for passengers to stay well away from the station, at home or in the office where possible, where it is warm, dry and there is access to Toliets and seats.
As you say there does need to be some reform to the system, I am not sure having to tap in is the answer. The very vast majority of passengers under rather than over claim, any system should seek that all parties are properly compensated.
GA have queried one of my delay repay claims in the past, I wrote back to them giving the circumstances and received the compensation. This is the way it should work, passengers have a time limit in which to claim, TOC's should have a time limit in which to pay and close the case.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Most people will already have sufficient legal assistance cover as part of their trade union benefits, professional cover, home or car insurance policies, or if not, anyone who deliberately chooses NOT to select that "add-on" (if not already included) really must not understand how legal aid works in this country, (hint, if you're working in a pretty typically paid job or have equity in your home, legal aid barely works at all. If the police (or anyone) accuses you of a crime, you are VERY unlikely to get your defence costs back, even if found not guilty or the case is dropped).
I pay £7.28 a month and get:
I appreciate some people cannot afford £7.28 a month (other policies available!) - although if you cannot afford that amount, you are probably:
1) Not able to pay an Out of Court settlement costing hundreds if not more;
2) Probably eligible for Legal Aid anyway, so may as well ride it out to trial if you are genuinely not guilty.
Obviously starting to digress massively from Delay Repay fraud, but I am continually saddened about how poorly people underestimate our justice system in England and Wales. If you become tangled in it, whether a private prosecution from Greater Anglia, a witness who misidentifies you in a crime, or a bodged / poorly conducted / lazy police investigation, a once in a lifetime road traffic incident, guilty or not, you will almost certainly be out of pocket to the tune of 4 figures that is not generally recoverable from the other side.
In a perfect world, only the guilty would ever be accused and/or prosecuted, and then convicted. However, our world is far from perfect, and justice always comes at a price.
If GA had sent me one of those letters, and I was genuinely innocent, I would have been able to make one phone call to my insurer and sit back and relax.
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,187
All good points - but the 'law of avgs' means most people don't get entangled in this stuff, nor even know people who do, so probably go on line, do an insurance comparison and buy the cheapest policy, which skips that sort of cover - which they probably never claim on...so don't have to learn 'the hard way'.
I have noticed in recent years, when renewing insurance, more and more stuff is excluded from the 'main policy' to keep the headline quote attractive. It would be very easy to find yourself not covered for a whole lot of this sort of stuff.
Large numbers of people are now not home owners ('trapped' in the private rented sector in many cases) - so won't have any home insurance beyond possession insurance at best.
And being in a trade union is a minority activity these days and declining. Professions must always have been a minority.
But you are spot on with your point.
By the way "I would have been able to make one phone call to my insurer and sit back and relax." - this sounds like a good recommendation for an insurer - but has it happened to you that way? On the rare occasions I have had to contact insurers in relation to claims the calls have never been esp relaxing as it seems par for the course to a) find ways to avoid paying the claim and b) find a way to increase the next premium...
How would they do that though? They have contact details for season ticket holders, but the expectation is that the customer will make a claim when delayed. For someone who buys a paper ticket from a machine, then gets delayed, but for whatever reason doesn't claim, how will the TOC "trace" them? Short of promoting/reminding of delay repay during disruption, there's not much more I can see them doing.
I suppose if the ticketing system eventually becomes all smartcard based, and requiring smartcards to be registered to a person with contact details, tap in/out data could be used to prompt customers to pay. Eg, a journey normally taking 1 hour appeared to take 2 hours, there was known disruption on that route at that time, if you were delayed, would you like to claim?
The system does have room for improvement.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
I am fairly fortunate in that the policy is a corporate procured one provided by my employer, as part of my optional benefits package, (along with the usual cinema tickets, holiday discount bundles etc).By the way "I would have been able to make one phone call to my insurer and sit back and relax." - this sounds like a good recommendation for an insurer - but has it happened to you that way? On the rare occasions I have had to contact insurers in relation to claims the calls have never been esp relaxing as it seems par for the course to a) find ways to avoid paying the claim and b) find a way to increase the next premium...
There are very few limitations, e.g. where I am eligible for means tested legal aid, or where I've committed a crime and then bought an insurance policy after realising I'd been caught... Not really that much scope for them to wriggle out of paying up to be honest!
Last edited:
Lets say you got one of the GA letters. It’s 18 months after the event, so you’d have renewed your insurance in the intervening period. Does that not fail the second of your tests?
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Depends on the policy wording. It depends on the policy definition around "known event".
In my policy wording, I can commit fraud 18 months ago, (I may say accidentally) and avail from the insurance policy, so long as I've not taken the insurance policy out once my front door has been flattened by the police raiding my office.
Essentially, most restrictions in legal policies like this have wording designed to prevent you taking a policy out once you are already aware you are facing legal action, not necessarily after being aware you have committed a potential crime. You are not proven to have committed a crime, in any event, until you are convicted (or alternatively disposed) anyway.
Simply, the "known event" is the "known I was facing legal action", rather than "known I had or potentially had committed a crime".
Regardless, of your wording, and regardless of your prior crimes, my advice still stands strong - because you don't know what else awaits you in the future!
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,187
Thanks for the explanation. I suspect maybe 'untypical' circs in the sense many people will not be in roles that offer such a benefits package (speaking personally it would be beyond the scope of any job I could ever see myself doing, ever....) - which cuts both ways of course since the insurer will be keen to keep the business of your employer, which may well be in respect of a significant number of people being covered.
Not that this undermines your basic point, which is sound.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
A moderator might want to hive this part of the discussion elsewhere, but if anyone regularly works or interacts with the public, or is a civil servant, security sector, or undertakes various commercial activities, transport, training, sales, sports, HR, accountancy, pensions, insurance, healthcare etc you can join PCS, even if your workplace does not usually recognise them or has no union recognition at all.
I suspect most people can find a union to join that fits their role reasonably well - (you don't have to use it), and most will have a similar benefits package available. Although I would suggest that joining a union, even discreetly, is likely more beneficial if you participate in its aims and objectives. (Yes, there is usually a union membership fee plus the cost of the optional benefits, but it should still be pretty reasonable considering the advantages!)
Having specifically decided not to join PCS, who organised in my workplace, because of their policies at a leadership level, I think it only fair to point out that in joining a union you are also subscribing to a body and would need to be comfortable with being a member of that body.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
And to try and steer this discussion back on "track"
For the benefit of any (potential) receivers of letters from any train operator relating to delay repay, fraud or fare evasion (or any crime really):
1) Check your existing insurance / trade union policies - you may be covered;
2) If you have NOT yet received a letter, get some insurance before you do, as you probably won't be covered after you become aware of an investigation.
Then, if you are genuinely innocent, you are in a much stronger position to effectively refute the allegations, and have a backup in case things go wrong and you end up in court.
For the benefit of any (potential) receivers of letters from any train operator relating to delay repay, fraud or fare evasion (or any crime really):
1) Check your existing insurance / trade union policies - you may be covered;
2) If you have NOT yet received a letter, get some insurance before you do, as you probably won't be covered after you become aware of an investigation.
Then, if you are genuinely innocent, you are in a much stronger position to effectively refute the allegations, and have a backup in case things go wrong and you end up in court.
And to try and steer this discussion back on "track"
For the benefit of any (potential) receivers of letters from any train operator relating to delay repay, fraud or fare evasion (or any crime really):
1) Check your existing insurance / trade union policies - you may be covered;
2) If you have NOT yet received a letter, get some insurance before you do, as you probably won't be covered after you become aware of an investigation.
Then, if you are genuinely innocent, you are in a much stronger position to effectively refute the allegations, and have a backup in case things go wrong and you end up in court.
Thats all true and probably good advice, but at the end of the day it doesn’t guarantee you a “not guilty” in the event of GA proceeding to court.
No legal eagle in the world can guarantee that - even the likes of Nick Freeman lost sometimes.
The bottom line is that for some people receiving these letters, depending on their circumstances, any likelihood of conviction greater than 0% makes paying up based on GA’s unproven allegations the only sensible option.
Valid comments but do not assume any legal cover you have may cover dealing with GAAnd to try and steer this discussion back on "track"
For the benefit of any (potential) receivers of letters from any train operator relating to delay repay, fraud or fare evasion (or any crime really):
1) Check your existing insurance / trade union policies - you may be covered;
2) If you have NOT yet received a letter, get some insurance before you do, as you probably won't be covered after you become aware of an investigation.
Then, if you are genuinely innocent, you are in a much stronger position to effectively refute the allegations, and have a backup in case things go wrong and you end up in court.
Because it was renewed last week and still on my desk I checked my buildings and contents insurance. Phone or written legal consultation only, so no good if you wanted to go to court and fight.
Car insurance legal cover normally I believe only covers motoring issues.
Also do not assume everyone is a union member. At my employer only pilots, ground staff and cabin crew tended to belong to a union. I doubt if you could find many office staff that did.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 2,990
In general, when we suggest that someone might need to involve a lawyer, we normally suggest looking at their insurance policies, union membership or support from their students union if they happen to be a student (as quite a number of people who travelled without a Young Person's Railcard turn out to be). Beyond that, I have on occasion suggested asking nicely in their wider community - it's always worth asking if (for example) someone at your church can help out. I am led to understand that Citizens Advice can't help with criminal matters and I'm not sure if they can help if you are being pursued for civil matters - but there was something that turned up a couple of months ago (from TfL?) where they suggested asking Citizens Advice for help, so maybe I am too limited in my view of what they can do.
Does this give comprehensive coverage? No, of course it doesn't. But I would hope that it does help some people to find affordable representation.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
Wouldn't bother with Citizens Advice, well meaning organisation, but woefully under resourced.
If someone can't obtain legal insurance, (although standalone policies can be found I'm sure), the best options would be:
1) Most solicitors offer a free telephone consultation for 20-30 mins to give general advice, (or even just a bit of reassurance, or a touch of reality) which usually is unbiased and not trying to win them work. Be totally honest with them;
2) A solicitor will probably write a letter protesting your innocence/ requesting evidence on your behalf for about £50 if you want to show an operator you are serious.
3) If it does progress, always avail yourself of the free legal representation (available to all, regardless of financial circumstances) for any interview under caution;
4) Can always try pro bono outfits - https://www.lawworks.org.uk/ to see whether you can get some free legal representation, although they make the same recommendation as me:
5) Worst case, represent yourself, but take a McKenzie friend with you, e.g. someone with a bit of legal knowledge or experience in court.
Just because one home / car insurance policy doesn't include legal expenses (or not a sufficient legal expenses) enhancement, doesn't mean they all do, so shop around!
Phone or written legal consultation is basic, but would (should) be sufficient for handling initial communications with a rail operator (and again, essentially giving you some hope or a dose of reality.
Everyone CAN be a union member if they want to be. Nothing stopping people from joining a union, even if others in their company are not a member. Plenty of possible unions for office staff! My point from earlier is that your colleagues not part of a union (and with insufficient insurance coverage) will be more than likely absolutely and unexpectedly stuffed if they ever face criminal legal action!
Last edited:
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,238
In addition to all of the previous suggestions about legal advice, many employers will have a third party provider dealing with a range of matters such including legal advice (alongside things like counselling, money and debt advice, therapies and relationship and property concerns).
No no
Of course when you reach management level union membership does not really sit well anyway.
Nothing stops people joining a union but many do not want to or feel the need to. Many like me at my company left union membership when we were told what we wanted (flextime) was not in our best interest as the union did not like it.
Of course when you reach management level union membership does not really sit well anyway.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
You're totally missing the point.
Forget it's a union. Forget it's politics - it's irrelevant for the purposes being discussed here.
The union is purely a way to obtain decent insurance policies, (as well as holiday discounts, appliances etc) at reasonable rates, for events like this.
You don't have to actually use the union for anything other than obtaining the legal cover! Don't tell your employer you've joined, don't go to them with employment or pay issues. Just pretend you're not a member for all intents and purposes. As an example, whether you pay £10 to the union in subscriptions and (say) £5 extra for enhanced criminal legal cover through their benefits package, or just £15 straight to an insurer, who cares? It's still £15.
No you are missing my point I think. Most people would not join a union to get legal cover for things that are nothing to do with the industry you are working in. It will provided mainly for legal issues with employment for anything else that is just an add on benefit. You would have to think you were going to be accused of something to join just to obtain legal cover.
Tazi Hupefi
Member
That's precisely what I am warning everyone about. You need to have that mindset NOW, that your life could come crashing down around you, regardless of innocence or guilt, on the basis of a single allegation or incident. Many people do not realise the horrifying reality of legal aid cuts, to the point that it's almost always unobtainable for the typical working person or anyone with equity in their home. If you can afford to insure against it, you should do.
You don't buy home insurance just because you "think" your house might be burgled or collapse. You buy it "just in case". People haven't tweaked in society (yet) that legal protection is not really something you want to have no cover for, because they are under a delusion that thr government will provide a solicitor, and because they think being accused of a crime is only something that happens to "other" people.
- Status