• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
I'm fairly sure that someone has let us see the original letter, but I can't work out how to find it right now (tangent - is there a way to search a thread for posts with attachments?). So let's go right back to the original post: (n.b. saved so I don't lose this: work in progress).

No you can search a specific thread by keyword/phrase or for posts by a specific member but not for posts with attachments.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
They have details of ALL of their claims, and have details of ALL of their work times for the days of ALL of their claims (and of course every other day where they did not make a claim). They’re not sure which claim or claims GA have an issue with but they have details of all of them and have confirmed their work shifts for all of them. That way if GA do reply with some specifics* they already have this data.

*if there even are specifics. At the moment it is leaning towards their problem simply being ‘above average claims’ so not necessarily relating to any specific claim.
As for proof, work times and train times that match up might not be sufficient proof for them, they might want them to prove it some other way, it doesn’t have to be logical.

As I mentioned above, it’s fine to suggest that they’ll win in court because there is insufficient evidence and plenty to show their defence but this ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ does NOT have to be satisfied outside court so GA CAN and ARE offering people settlements of (in this case) nearly 2 times the ENTIRE claim amounts to stop it going to court under the pretence that whatever they state as a penalty will be lenient compared to court. In the case where the passenger has committed fraud this is accurate but in the case where they have not it is just an attempt to frighten them into paying up.

I’ve passed on messages of offers of help to them. I suspect they’ll appreciate this greatly if the matter doesn’t go away with their reply. Thanks on their behalf (and mine) for this.
Your friend, if they are certain that they have made legitimate claims, should go to their MP. Perhaps GA being called out in Parliament, with the associated legal privileges, for what appears to be perilously close to attempted blackmail, and their pernicious threatened use of the police and Courts to support that, might have some impact . ..
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
I'm fairly sure that someone has let us see the original letter, but I can't work out how to find it right now (tangent - is there a way to search a thread for posts with attachments?). So let's go right back to the original post:



I'm assuming that this is accurate, and the initial letter hasn't changed, but in the first place GA don't offer a settlement: rather, they ask for an explanation. So presumably @robbeech's friend has provided that explanation at the first opportunity, from their contemporary records

If GA haven't accepted the explanation then I agree that the effect is that further proof is being demanded, but what I am most reminded of is the TIL approach to their investigations - that what is said is irrelevant now the wheels of bureaucracy have started to turn. But with TIL, we have found that out of court settlements are in fact available - but only once the case has got away from the bureaucracy and into the hands of someone who treats it as an individual case rather than as one just like all the others (in TIL cases, that's when the prosecutor who will have to explain the case in court gets hold of it).

So it's important in these GA cases to keep in mind what sanctions are available to GA if things go formal. And as this thread has touched on before, the only formal (legal if you like) sanctions available to GA are criminal prosecution (either for a railway offence or fraud) or civil action to recover a debt. Criminal prosecution needs the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt: civil action needs the complainant (? is that the term?) to prove their point on the balance of probability.

So if GA are demanding anything beyond the relevant standards of proof, essentially they can be told to go whistle: the court will not support their more extensive demand and (on the basis of what we have been told) I (who am not a lawyer) would expect @robbeech's friend to win a criminal prosecution and (at the very least) have a good chance in a civil action.

At this point, GA's approach does appear essentially to be 'give us a quid and we'll go away'. But if @robbeech's friend doesn't want to give GA (rather more than) a quid then they need to be firm about relying on their evidence and sticking to their guns.
Yes this is potentially the most interesting case so far because as I understand it the passenger has work records and uses a paper season ticket.
What I do not understand (from either side of the fight) is how even with all that data anyone can prove that a person was on a specific train. Just because you have detailed work records proves nothing, as does GA just saying you were not on x train. The only way to prove it either way would be to provide CCTV which I suspect will no longer exist.
But by "flying a kite" GA appear to be getting quite a few settlements and even if they withdraw at a later date before court if it looks like someone is going to "take them on" they have the pleasure of knowing they have probably cost that person legal fees to build a defence that will not be needed. No court appearance no claim for costs as I understand things.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire
Your friend, if they are certain that they have made legitimate claims, should go to their MP. Perhaps GA being called out in Parliament, with the associated legal privileges, for what appears to be perilously close to attempted blackmail, and their pernicious threatened use of the police and Courts to support that, might have some impact . ..

You are a serious danger on this thread, and to those looking for advice.

This is, in no way whatsoever, any attempt at blackmail. It is extremely disappointing that you continue to persist with the view that somehow going on the offensive, causing a storm, and involving variably the media, MPs etc.

There is also no "threat" about the use of the police - they have followed through. They have reported themselves as a victim of a serious crime. Greater Anglia, whether you like it or not, are legally a potential victim and entitled to take steps, either through civil or criminal means to resolve that. In any event, reporting someone to the police, or advising you will be reporting them to the police is far from blackmail. An innocent person would welcome an independent organisation to review the information.

As has been said before, repeatedly, which you seem somehow unable to comprehend, is that an MP cannot, and usually WILL NOT get involved in active criminal legal proceedings. You are asking, essentially, for an MP to intervene and interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation into fraud. They may well assist AFTER the matter is resolved, if the customer feels particularly aggrieved. It is not difficult to see why MPs should take this position, because, if the police / courts do find reasonable grounds to proceed, it makes the MP look like a total fool (or possibly worse) for trying to prevent that case from reaching a conclusion.

You are verging on the conspiracy nut-job persona, where you are somehow implying that Greater Anglia, the police and the courts are somehow in cahoots (or are somehow being manipulated by Greater Anglia into reinforcing a criminal blackmail scheme).

The Ministry of Justice is particularly keen to ensure that only cases that absolutely need to be in court, appear in court, whether from a civil or criminal perspective. Out of court settlements in criminal matters are extremely common, especially with the likes of government agencies, DVLA, DWP, HMRC etc. A speed awareness course is essentially another form of out of court settlement.

Just because Greater Anglia may have "the wrong guy" in a small number of cases, does not mean that they are wrong to investigate or refer. Our legal system, including at investigation stage, always includes interpretation and differing opinions. Do you believe that the police don't occasionally investigate (and even charge) innocent people too?

It is without a doubt an unpleasant experience for someone wrongly accused to go through, quite understandably, but it is a fundamental principle of our justice system that anyone who feels aggrieved by another is entitled to take their case before an independent court to determine the matter, who will consider the evidence (if any exists) in their deliberations. We also have laws in place for things like malicious prosecution, abuse of process, contempt of court, vexatious litigants etc which can, and are, used against people who try to game the system. Greater Anglia, from everything reported in totality, is acting according to the law.
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
You are a serious danger on this thread, and to those looking for advice.

This is, in no way whatsoever, any attempt at blackmail. It is extremely disappointing that you continue to persist with the view that somehow going on the offensive, causing a storm, and involving variably the media, MPs etc.

There is also no "threat" about the use of the police - they have followed through. They have reported themselves as a victim of a serious crime. Greater Anglia, whether you like it or not, are legally a potential victim and entitled to take steps, either through civil or criminal means to resolve that. In any event, reporting someone to the police, or advising you will be reporting them to the police is far from blackmail. An innocent person would welcome an independent organisation to review the information.

As has been said before, repeatedly, which you seem somehow unable to comprehend, is that an MP cannot, and usually WILL NOT get involved in active criminal legal proceedings. You are asking, essentially, for an MP to intervene and interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation into fraud. They may well assist AFTER the matter is resolved, if the customer feels particularly aggrieved. It is not difficult to see why MPs should take this position, because, if the police / courts do find reasonable grounds to proceed, it makes the MP look like a total fool (or possibly worse) for trying to prevent that case from reaching a conclusion.

You are verging on the conspiracy nut-job persona, where you are somehow implying that Greater Anglia, the police and the courts are somehow in cahoots (or are somehow being manipulated by Greater Anglia into reinforcing a criminal blackmail scheme).

The Ministry of Justice is particularly keen to ensure that only cases that absolutely need to be in court, appear in court, whether from a civil or criminal perspective. Out of court settlements in criminal matters are extremely common, especially with the likes of government agencies, DVLA, DWP, HMRC etc. A speed awareness course is essentially another form of out of court settlement.

Just because Greater Anglia may have "the wrong guy" in a small number of cases, does not mean that they are wrong to investigate or refer. Our legal system, including at investigation stage, always includes interpretation and differing opinions. Do you believe that the police don't occasionally investigate (and even charge) innocent people too?

It is without a doubt an unpleasant experience for someone wrongly accused to go through, quite understandably, but it is a fundamental principle of our justice system that anyone who feels aggrieved by another is entitled to take their case before an independent court to determine the matter, who will consider the evidence (if any exists) in their deliberations. We also have laws in place for things like malicious prosecution, abuse of process, contempt of court, vexatious litigants etc which can, and are, used against people who try to game the system. Greater Anglia, from everything reported in totality, is acting according to the law.
I am not suggesting a conspiracy at all. I am not even suggesting that the majority of those GA have approached may not have what GA perceive as irregularities in some of their Delay Repay applications. What l am saying is that GA, based at least on the content of their initial letter on a deeply flawed and frankly self-serving understanding of statistics, appear to be trading on some people's unwillingness to waste hours of their time in rebutting unfair allegations and/or the fact that their professional lives make any allegation of impropriety problematic in order to potentially unjustly enrich the company.
I very carefully stated, when l offered advice on how an individual might fight back, that the individual in question must be very clear that their claims do not contain errors before they pursue that course of action.
I have to say that the tenor of much of your "so reasonable" advice so much hints, if not explicitly, at 'it will be so hard and expensive to rebut this that you should think about settling' that at times l almost wonder what exactly your position in GA is.....
Oh, and as a matter of accuracy, how exactly does an unsubstantiated allegation in a letter equate to "active legal proceedings"? Thank you for the lecture on how Courts work too. For your information l am very well aware, having handled litigation against HMG for a number of years, of the overriding objective and the CPR. I am also well aware of the number of times that MPs have engaged in ongoing cases.

Yes this is potentially the most interesting case so far because as I understand it the passenger has work records and uses a paper season ticket.
What I do not understand (from either side of the fight) is how even with all that data anyone can prove that a person was on a specific train. Just because you have detailed work records proves nothing, as does GA just saying you were not on x train. The only way to prove it either way would be to provide CCTV which I suspect will no longer exist.
But by "flying a kite" GA appear to be getting quite a few settlements and even if they withdraw at a later date before court if it looks like someone is going to "take them on" they have the pleasure of knowing they have probably cost that person legal fees to build a defence that will not be needed. No court appearance no claim for costs as I understand things.
Re your last para. In that situation l would be tempted to go after GA for the legal fees through the small claims channel. Their legal fees to defend would cost them more than the claim and as a litigant in person you get to pick the Court most convenient to you.
 
Last edited:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
It might be worth noting that there is still no actual evidence of anyone being stonewall wronged by GA in this thread, apart from the poster who said they wrongly claimed Delay Repay but ought to have claimed a refund from the point of sale instead. (They still settled and paid an admin fee which isn’t quite cricket as far as I’m concerned.)

This thread is going around in circles now and is quite far beyond the purpose of this part of the forum, where threads should focus on giving advice to people who find themselves in trouble.
 

Fat Gaz

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2020
Messages
65
Location
Sunny East Seax
I am not suggesting a conspiracy at all. I am not even suggesting that the majority of those GA have approached may not have what GA perceive as irregularities in some of their Delay Repay applications. What l am saying is that GA, based at least on the content of their initial letter on a deeply flawed and frankly self-serving understanding of statistics, appear to be trading on some people's unwillingness to waste hours of their time in rebutting unfair allegations and/or the fact that their professional lives make any allegation of impropriety problematic in order to potentially unjustly enrich the company.
Just wow.

How do you know their statistics are deeply flawed? Potentially unjustly enrich the company you say? Seeking to recover what has been (potentially) fraudulently taken from them more like.

I very carefully stated, when l offered advice on how an individual might fight back, that the individual in question must be very clear that their claims do not contain errors before they pursue that course of action.
Fight back? Interesting choice of words.

I have to say that the tenor of much of your "so reasonable" advice so much hints, if not explicitly, at 'it will be so hard and expensive to rebut this that you should think about settling' that at times l almost wonder what exactly your position in GA is.....
Sour grapes. Maybe the poster was offering some sage advice that will for some avoid the pain that will inevitably follow following punitive action from a court.

Furthermore, the same poster offered some excellent advice very early on in this thread #9 that keeps getting overlooked.
If you have used a smartcard, then you REALLY need to consider your position, because they will likely compare tap in and tap out times at ticket barriers / on board inspection taps / platform validator machines against your claimed "delayed" journeys.

And this is the nub of the matter isn't it? You have to tap in/out at EVERY occasion you travel. It's in the byelaws. Quite clear. If you have a paper card, you should use it in a barrier. If it stops working, go to the ticket office and get a new one. If you need a receipt, keep hold of the third copy that is issued with the two travel tickets. Is this is how you are demonstrating what train you are on? If you lazily don't tap in/out or let barrier staff open the gates for you without tapping in or pushing the ticket through, tough. It's not them going to court for fraud after claiming DR is it? No. It's you breaking byelaws. Item 9.2 is quite clear.


Screen Shot 2021-03-24 at 09.38.58.png
So, if the barriers are open with no staff about or there aren't any at your destination station, you must find that yellow pad or barrier to tap out or put your ticket in. You must not just walk through or accept the open gate without using your ticket/card. Alternatively, don't put in claims. Simples.

I wouldn't claim for a delay if I didn't tap in/out because I can't clearly demonstrate what train I took. I would be opening myself up for a world of pain if challenged.

I think Mr @Wolfie , Mr @Tazi Hupefi has been offering some very solid advice. If individuals have made the error of not doing as stated above, when challenged by GA about DR claims they have a series of choices to make. I would concur with @Tazi Hupefi about taking the settlement route. Paying back twice what you have claimed is a small price to pay. Ignorance is no defence apparently but very expensive all the same, this appears to be the cheaper option.

I also think that GA deserve credit for taking steps to recover monies. Fair play to them. Which ever way you cut it, it's still theft. There is no place in civilised society for that.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
If you have a paper card, you should use it in a barrier.
No...
If it stops working, go to the ticket office and get a new one. If you need a receipt, keep hold of the third copy that is issued with the two travel tickets. Because people, this is how you are demonstrating what train you are on.
Not correct.
If you lazily don't tap in/out or let barrier staff open the gates for you without tapping in or pushing the ticket through, tough. It's not them going to court for fraud after claiming DR is it? No. It's you breaking byelaws. Item 9.2 is quite clear.


View attachment 93030
So for the hard of thinking, if the barriers are open with no staff about or there aren't any at your destination station, you must find that yellow pad or barrier to tap out or put your ticket in. You must not just walk through or accept the open gate without using your ticket/card. Alternatively, don't put in claims. Simples.
It has been done to death already in this thread but it’s well known that paper ticket swipes aren’t recorded in barriers. There’s no requirement to swipe your ticket through a machine at the ticket barrier to use the station or the train. Very often you are beckoned through a side gate manned by a member of staff of you have bags or a pram for example, and those wide gates will often not have a place to pass your ticket (Milton Keynes is one such place). Many stations have no barriers at all, and the purpose of them when they are installed is not to act as a record of what train you were on.

There is certainly no requirement whatsoever to have a stamp or a machine pass on a ticket to make a valid delay repay claim. I should know, I’ve probably processed about 10,000 of them.
 

maniacmartin

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
15 May 2012
Messages
5,394
Location
Croydon
It has also been discussed earlier in this thread that touch-in times are, in my opinion, not infalliable. I doubt many people would touch in and go to the platform at Liverpool Street at their intended travel time if the train is running late, and I don't think there is any obligation to do so. In fact, the platform might not even be announced at that time! Also Byelaw 9.2 only mentions touching in when passing a barrier, not a post.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
And this is the nub of the matter isn't it? You have to tap in/out at EVERY occasion you travel. It's in the byelaws. Quite clear. If you have a paper card, you should use it in a barrier. If it stops working, go to the ticket office and get a new one. If you need a receipt, keep hold of the third copy that is issued with the two travel tickets. Is this is how you are demonstrating what train you are on? If you lazily don't tap in/out or let barrier staff open the gates for you without tapping in or pushing the ticket through, tough. It's not them going to court for fraud after claiming DR is it? No. It's you breaking byelaws. Item 9.2 is quite clear.


View attachment 93030
So, if the barriers are open with no staff about or there aren't any at your destination station, you must find that yellow pad or barrier to tap out or put your ticket in. You must not just walk through or accept the open gate without using your ticket/card. Alternatively, don't put in claims. Simples.

I wouldn't claim for a delay if I didn't tap in/out because I can't clearly demonstrate what train I took. I would be opening myself up for a world of pain if challenged.

I think Mr @Wolfie , Mr @Tazi Hupefi has been offering some very solid advice. If individuals have made the error of not doing as stated above, when challenged by GA about DR claims they have a series of choices to make. I would concur with @Tazi Hupefi about taking the settlement route. Paying back twice what you have claimed is a small price to pay. Ignorance is no defence apparently but very expensive all the same, this appears to be the cheaper option.

I also think that GA deserve credit for taking steps to recover monies. Fair play to them. Which ever way you cut it, it's still theft. There is no place in civilised society for that.
It has also been discussed earlier in this thread that touch-in times are, in my opinion, not infalliable. I doubt many people would touch in and go to the platform at Liverpool Street at their intended travel time if the train is running late, and I don't think there is any obligation to do so. In fact, the platform might not even be announced at that time! Also Byelaw 9.2 only mentions touching in when passing a barrier, not a post.
And if you’re at a station that has no barriers, it’s clearly a load of nonsense for paper tickets.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
And if you’re at a station that has no barriers, it’s clearly a load of nonsense for paper tickets.
It’s nonsense anyway, barriers or no barriers. There’s no requirement to swipe the ticket and even if you do it doesn’t create a record of journeys against the ticket.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
It’s nonsense anyway, barriers or no barriers. There’s no requirement to swipe the ticket and even if you do it doesn’t create a record of journeys against the ticket.
Pragmatically, and based on bitter past experience, if there are no staff around l will actively seek to avoid putting my paper annual season ticket through the barrier. Nearly having a nervous breakdown once previously when it didn't come back out was quite enough, thank you...
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
It’s nonsense anyway, barriers or no barriers. There’s no requirement to swipe the ticket and even if you do it doesn’t create a record of journeys against the ticket.
Oh I fully agree. Even with a smart card clause 9.2 is ambiguous - is “the proper manner” defined anywhere? And what if a gate line attendant (presumably an authorised person) opens the side gate and waves everyone through (as can happen in disruption), is this recorded by the TOC (I’d bet not)?
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Just wow.

How do you know their statistics are deeply flawed? Potentially unjustly enrich the company you say? Seeking to recover what has been (potentially) fraudulently taken from them more like.


Fight back? Interesting choice of words.


Sour grapes. Maybe the poster was offering some sage advice that will for some avoid the pain that will inevitably follow following punitive action from a court.

Furthermore, the same poster offered some excellent advice very early on in this thread #9 that keeps getting overlooked.


And this is the nub of the matter isn't it? You have to tap in/out at EVERY occasion you travel. It's in the byelaws. Quite clear. If you have a paper card, you should use it in a barrier. If it stops working, go to the ticket office and get a new one. If you need a receipt, keep hold of the third copy that is issued with the two travel tickets. Is this is how you are demonstrating what train you are on? If you lazily don't tap in/out or let barrier staff open the gates for you without tapping in or pushing the ticket through, tough. It's not them going to court for fraud after claiming DR is it? No. It's you breaking byelaws. Item 9.2 is quite clear.


View attachment 93030
So, if the barriers are open with no staff about or there aren't any at your destination station, you must find that yellow pad or barrier to tap out or put your ticket in. You must not just walk through or accept the open gate without using your ticket/card. Alternatively, don't put in claims. Simples.

I wouldn't claim for a delay if I didn't tap in/out because I can't clearly demonstrate what train I took. I would be opening myself up for a world of pain if challenged.

I think Mr @Wolfie , Mr @Tazi Hupefi has been offering some very solid advice. If individuals have made the error of not doing as stated above, when challenged by GA about DR claims they have a series of choices to make. I would concur with @Tazi Hupefi about taking the settlement route. Paying back twice what you have claimed is a small price to pay. Ignorance is no defence apparently but very expensive all the same, this appears to be the cheaper option.

I also think that GA deserve credit for taking steps to recover monies. Fair play to them. Which ever way you cut it, it's still theft. There is no place in civilised society for that.
Re the stats. If GA quote an "average" (l assume that they mean the "mean") number of claims then it is inevitable that a number, perhaps a large number, of people will have made more claims than that. When you consider that the data is even more skewed by the fact that many people don't bother claiming Delay Repay that is even more likely to be the case (the median, mode and standard deviation could be quite illuminating). As such the statistics that GA are quoting prove nothing. For your information my first degree was in maths, stats and computing. My masters was in a maths-based subject too....

Re your last para. I completely agree where there is obvious fraud. If this, even with respect to a small number of people, is more a fishing expedition aimed at getting money from those who claimed legitimately though?

Oh, and l claimed Delay Repay twice late last year for trips to Telford Central. Good luck in finding barriers or a yellow pad there.....
 

Fawkes Cat

Established Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
2,943
Re the stats. If GA quote an "average" (l assume that they mean the "mean") number of claims then it is inevitable that a number, perhaps a large number, of people will have made more claims than that. When you consider that the data is even more skewed by the fact that many people don't bother claiming Delay Repay that is even more likely to be the case (the median, mode and standard deviation could be quite illuminating). As such the statistics that GA are quoting prove nothing. For your information my first degree was in maths, stats and computing. My masters was in a maths-based subject too....
I commented on this specific point yesterday: not as clearly as I would hope to have done, so let's try again.

My expectation is that the mean number of claims won't be very high at all. While I think that it's accepted that GA ran a particularly poor service in 2019 (which one would expect to generate a lot of DR claims) as @Wolfie says

the fact (is) that many people don't bother claiming Delay Repay

So on balance, I think that means a typical claimant will have claimed once or twice in a year. To put it formally, both the median and the mode are - I think - likely to be one or two. And I would expect the number of one-or-two claimants to be so high that the mean wouldn't be much larger.

So - if my assumption about the shape of the curve is correct, and of course it might not be - people who have claimed tens or hundreds of times will stand out like sore thumbs.

But do I think that GA has written to everyone who has made a lot of claims? No, I don't. I expect that GA have applied a couple of further checks:

- a computer based analysis, based on the likelihood of someone really having incurred the pattern of delays for which they have claimed, and
- a manual sanity check, to see whether an experienced DR handler would identify the claims pattern as innocent or suspect.

Will a system like this eliminate all false positives? Of course it won't, and surely that's why GA's initial letter is a request for an explanation rather than a direct move into formal prosecution or civil action to recover the debt.

And what have we seen from the (self-selected) sample of cases we have seen here? With only two exceptions (@robbeech's friend and the lady who we found out about when she went to the Evening Standard) no-one has felt able to fight GA. Either (as has been suggested) commuters in the east of England put a very high value on a quiet life and have paid up to make GA go away, or a lot of people accept that they've been caught with their hand in the biscuit tin.

Some pages back, I tentatively suggested that GA were just on the right side of the line dividing legitimate challenge from fishing. As we fail to see a large number of inappropriate cases emerging, I become firmer in that view.

GA's approach isn't perfect (in particular I worry about my analysis that once cases are in the bureaucracy, they will be processed industrially rather than individually: in my experience this is what happens when a complex exercise is launched and no-one bothers to tell the processing staff what their job is so the staff's assumption is that you're meant to uphold the position most favourable to the employer) but neither is it vindictive or irrational: if DR has been intentionally and wrongly claimed, GA, just like any other person (real or corporate) are entitled to take steps to get their money back.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
I commented on this specific point yesterday: not as clearly as I would hope to have done, so let's try again.

My expectation is that the mean number of claims won't be very high at all. While I think that it's accepted that GA ran a particularly poor service in 2019 (which one would expect to generate a lot of DR claims) as @Wolfie says

the fact (is) that many people don't bother claiming Delay Repay

So on balance, I think that means a typical claimant will have claimed once or twice in a year. To put it formally, both the median and the mode are - I think - likely to be one or two. And I would expect the number of one-or-two claimants to be so high that the mean wouldn't be much larger.

So - if my assumption about the shape of the curve is correct, and of course it might not be - people who have claimed tens or hundreds of times will stand out like sore thumbs.

But do I think that GA has written to everyone who has made a lot of claims? No, I don't. I expect that GA have applied a couple of further checks:

- a computer based analysis, based on the likelihood of someone really having incurred the pattern of delays for which they have claimed, and
- a manual sanity check, to see whether an experienced DR handler would identify the claims pattern as innocent or suspect.

Will a system like this eliminate all false positives? Of course it won't, and surely that's why GA's initial letter is a request for an explanation rather than a direct move into formal prosecution or civil action to recover the debt.

And what have we seen from the (self-selected) sample of cases we have seen here? With only two exceptions (@robbeech's friend and the lady who we found out about when she went to the Evening Standard) no-one has felt able to fight GA. Either (as has been suggested) commuters in the east of England put a very high value on a quiet life and have paid up to make GA go away, or a lot of people accept that they've been caught with their hand in the biscuit tin.

Some pages back, I tentatively suggested that GA were just on the right side of the line dividing legitimate challenge from fishing. As we fail to see a large number of inappropriate cases emerging, I become firmer in that view.

GA's approach isn't perfect (in particular I worry about my analysis that once cases are in the bureaucracy, they will be processed industrially rather than individually: in my experience this is what happens when a complex exercise is launched and no-one bothers to tell the processing staff what their job is so the staff's assumption is that you're meant to uphold the position most favourable to the employer) but neither is it vindictive or irrational: if DR has been intentionally and wrongly claimed, GA, just like any other person (real or corporate) are entitled to take steps to get their money back.
Now that is a fine, well-balanced post. I appreciate the effort that went into it, TY.
 

Skymonster

Established Member
Joined
7 Feb 2012
Messages
1,726
The idea that it is reasonable to demand a customer produce irrefutable proof they were on a specific train twelve or eighteen months ago, when it is neither reasonable to expect nor required that a customer gathers and retains such proof every time they travel, is preposterous. Demanding money in excess of what has previously been claimed if a customer is unable to produce such proof, and threatening them with police intervention and a potential court appearance as an alternative, without rock solid evidence and especially when the claim process is prone to the risk of making occasional errors that could cast doubt on an otherwise entirely legitimate claim history, comes pretty close to extortion (def: the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats).

Ask yourself this: you are a season ticket holder, you make quite a number of claims because you are often delayed, you are "threatened" by GA, and while you are confident that every one of your claims was legitimate, you cannot guarantee every one of them was 100% correct because there is always a risk you've mis-keyed an entry on a form occasionally. What would you do - pay up or risk court?
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire
The idea that it is reasonable to demand a customer produce irrefutable proof they were on a specific train twelve or eighteen months ago, when it is neither reasonable to expect nor required that a customer gathers and retains such proof every time they travel, is preposterous. Demanding money in excess of what has previously been claimed if a customer is unable to produce such proof, and threatening them with police intervention and a potential court appearance as an alternative, without rock solid evidence and especially when the claim process is prone to the risk of making occasional errors that could cast doubt on an otherwise entirely legitimate claim history, comes pretty close to extortion (def: the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats).

Ask yourself this: you are a season ticket holder, you make quite a number of claims because you are often delayed, you are "threatened" by GA, and while you are confident that every one of your claims was legitimate, you cannot guarantee every one of them was 100% correct because there is always a risk you've mis-keyed an entry on a form occasionally. What would you do - pay up or risk court?

Would you be surprised to know that your government (and the law) expects you to retain records of this nature for 6 years? That is how long ANY person in England and Wales has to take you to a civil court to sue you. I said many posts back, just because it is called "Delay Repay" does not change what you are doing. You are filing a demand for compensation under the terms of a contract. You essentially are asking Greater Anglia to settle out of court with YOU as a result of there being a delay to your journey.

You hit me with your car 5 years ago in a car park. I'm suing you for £1000 and costs. I have your registration plate.

Please let me know where you were 5 years ago on that date and time to confirm it wasn't you.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,100
Would you be surprised to know that your government (and the law) expects you to retain records of this nature for 6 years? That is how long ANY person in England and Wales has to take you to a civil court to sue you. I said many posts back, just because it is called "Delay Repay" does not change what you are doing. You are filing a demand for compensation under the terms of a contract. You essentially are asking Greater Anglia to settle out of court with YOU as a result of there being a delay to your journey.

You hit me with your car 5 years ago in a car park. I'm suing you for £1000 and costs. I have your registration plate.

Please let me know where you were 5 years ago on that date and time to confirm it wasn't you.

I think we are entering the realms of theoretical fantasy now.
If this came to court it would go nowhere and I am pretty certain the Judge would tell the claimant not to be so stupid.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire

I think we are entering the realms of theoretical fantasy now.
If this came to court it would go nowhere and I am pretty certain the Judge would tell the claimant not to be so stupid.
You're wrong, sorry! It's a 6 year period for a reason. Both parties, would be expected to cooperate and negotiate before it got to a judge under the Civil Procedure Rules, even if the respondent thought it was a totally made up claim.

It's an impractical example for other reasons, but demonstrates the law nicely.

The government considers 6 years a reasonable amount of time to bring a civil action, 5 in Scotland. That has been the case for a VERY long time. If you can't respond to a case properly, that's your problem, assuming the other party has more accurate records than you.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
You're wrong, sorry! It's a 6 year period for a reason. Both parties, would be expected to cooperate and negotiate before it got to a judge under the Civil Procedure Rules, even if the respondent thought it was a totally made up claim.
When l was handling litigation for HMG our 'negotiation' in those circumstances scarcely went past an offer to permit them to withdraw their claims without seeking our costs. Your suggestion that the overriding objective means that you are expected to financially humour non-credible claims is farcical.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,037
Location
No longer here
Within Greater Anglia?
Makes no difference, the scheme is the same, as are the Bylaws and the Conditions of Travel. There is no requirement whatsoever to swipe your paper ticket through a barrier to log the journey, and indeed, no way of pulling up someone's history from their paper season ticket.

P.S. As a gentle reminder, you may wish to look at your employer's internal social media policy and see whether this is a good thread for you to be posting in.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire
When l was handling litigation for HMG our 'negotiation' in those circumstances scarcely went past an offer to permit them to withdraw their claims without seeking our costs. Your suggestion that the overriding objective means that you are expected to financially humour non-credible claims is farcical.

Where did I say you had to financially humour non credible claims? You have to humour them in some capacity. What if the claimant had a genuine belief?

The point of that post was just to demonstrate that 6 years is considered acceptable and reasonable as a period of time for you to either have or keep records, memories etc.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
Where did I say you had to financially humour non credible claims? You have to humour them in some capacity. What if the claimant had a genuine belief?

The point of that post was just to demonstrate that 6 years is considered acceptable and reasonable as a period of time.
Your last para is correct albeit that in some circumstances the Court can hear issues later than six years after the event.
 

jumble

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,100
You're wrong, sorry! It's a 6 year period for a reason. Both parties, would be expected to cooperate and negotiate before it got to a judge under the Civil Procedure Rules, even if the respondent thought it was a totally made up claim.

It's an impractical example for other reasons, but demonstrates the law nicely.
We will just have to agree to disagree
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,802
The point of that post was just to demonstrate that 6 years is considered acceptable and reasonable as a period of time for you to either have records, memories etc

You’re right that that’s what the law says, but there’s a massive difference between remembering (from your example) a car accident and a specific train journey. One of them is (hopefully at least) an exceptional event whilst the other for a regular commuter something that happens over 200 times a year in each direction.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire
Your last para is correct albeit that in some circumstances the Court can hear issues later than six years after the event.

You’re right that that’s what the law says, but there’s a massive difference between remembering (from your example) a car accident and a specific train journey. One of them is (hopefully at least) an exceptional event whilst the other for a regular commuter something that happens over 200 times a year in each direction.

But what if you had never even been in the car accident and it was just my accusation, and I'd gotten a digit of the registration plate wrong? Yes it's for me to prove it was you, (like Greater Anglia), but it would be foolish to think a court wouldn't want or expect you to do your own due diligence as to your whereabouts, and in any event, it would give you evidence of your innocence, if you're elsewhere!

In any event my post was purely to demonstrate the 6 year time frame. People not remembering journeys from late 2019 is insignificant in comparison. You don't HAVE to remember, you don't even have to keep a log. But it would have made things far easier, and provide you with something to rely on.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,086
Would you be surprised to know that your government (and the law) expects you to retain records of this nature for 6 years? That is how long ANY person in England and Wales has to take you to a civil court to sue you. I said many posts back, just because it is called "Delay Repay" does not change what you are doing. You are filing a demand for compensation under the terms of a contract. You essentially are asking Greater Anglia to settle out of court with YOU as a result of there being a delay to your journey.

In all probability, GA would have kept more exhaustive records than a passenger would have. GA would retain all its records for 6 years or more; a passenger claiming DR would probably dispose of any 'evidence' as soon as the claim is paid.

Having said that, how can a passenger prove which train they travelled on? There can be circumstantial evidence, such as work time sheets, but that does not prove you were on a specific train.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top