Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

I understand revenues are down but this is a new level of desperation.

Also, I see ugly parallels between what GA is doing and the American 'justice' system: reach a settlement to avoid court. We all know the system would fall apart if every case went to court. This is so bonkers to me.

I very much doubt it's primarily about money. In the scheme of things, genuine compensation payouts and things like these settlements will be a miniscule fraction of their revenue. Whilst "every penny helps" is undeniably true, I doubt it's a significant factor, especially when you do add in the costs of staff, investigation time, software licenses etc.

If you listen to the news, it would seem as though the government essentially prop up these companies anyway at the moment, so who knows were the money even ends up.

This is the first direct train to my destination, yes. There is another where I'd have to change trains just before that, but I prefer not to bother with that hassle, especially as the time saving over waiting for the 5.30 is minimal and the connecting train is more often than not cancelled itself.

OK - I think you are on some dodgy ground here. My understanding is that YOU don't get to make that choice AND claim compensation.

You can delay yourself further (which you seem to have done for a more comfortable journey) but I believe you waive your right to compensation (or I suppose may be entitled to less, depending on what time you potentially could have arrived at your destination). There is no "right" to a direct train as far as I am aware. However, from a criminal perspective, I'd only expect action if it meant your claim fell into a higher bracket than it should have otherwise done. E.g (made up times).

Cancelled Train arrives at your destination at 18:00
Connecting Journey would have arrived at your destination at 18:51 (30+ min delay compensation)
Direct Train would have arrived at your destination at 19:00 (60+ min delay compensation)

If the connecting train alternative and the direct train were both within the same delay band, technically it's an invalid claim surely, but I can't see it being worthy of prosecution.

 

[packermac]

I very much doubt it's primarily about money. In the scheme of things, genuine compensation payouts and things like these settlements will be a miniscule fraction of their revenue. Whilst "every penny helps" is undeniably true, I doubt it's a significant factor, especially when you do add in the costs of staff, investigation time, software licenses etc.

If you listen to the news, it would seem as though the government essentially prop up these companies anyway at the moment, so who knows were the money even ends up.


OK - I think you are on some dodgy ground here. My understanding is that YOU don't get to make that choice AND claim compensation.

You can delay yourself further (which you seem to have done for a more comfortable journey) but I believe you waive your right to compensation (or I suppose may be entitled to less, depending on what time you potentially could have arrived at your destination). There is no "right" to a direct train as far as I am aware. However, from a criminal perspective, I'd only expect action if it meant your claim fell into a higher bracket than it should have otherwise done. E.g (made up times).

Cancelled Train arrives at your destination at 18:00
Connecting Journey would have arrived at your destination at 18:51 (30+ min delay compensation)
Direct Train would have arrived at your destination at 19:00 (60+ min delay compensation)

I am no expert but I would agree if you choose to not take the next possible service then you have chosen to forgo a claim.

Of course if GA do have such good genuine data I wonder why they have not written to those who have claims or no claims below their average. Or at least write to them to find out why they do not bother. After all a good company would want to know if its systems are user friendly or not.

 

[Starmill]

If the 16:30 service to/from wherever was cancelled, was the 17:13 (i.e. 43 minutes later) the very earliest opportunity to make your journey? i.e. there was nothing else departing before 17:13? If so, I believe your claim is valid.

If there was an earlier opportunity, I suspect your claim would be invalid.

I disagree strongly that there's any requirement for the replacement service to be, to use your phrase "the very earliest opportunity". Your claim is based on comparison between your scheduled journey and what actually happened. For example, it's often impossible to know in advance which train will arrive earliest at your destination where there are two due at a similar time during disruption, doubly so where trains to your destination may take various routes.

Personally what I usually do in the situation where my train is cancelled completely before I begin my journey on it, is speak to a member of staff, usually showing them my ticket and querying what I might do next. If I follow their advice, as is likely, and arrive subsequently at my destination with delay over the threshold for compensation, I am entitled to claim notwithstanding that, had I been given different or better advice, I may have been able to arrange to arrive with less delay and thus sub-threshold for a compensation entitlement.

I have experienced this myself when claiming because the company I travelled with said that I should have used an earlier departure and arrival after suffering a similar cancellation, despite the fact that the ticket I held wasn't valid on it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I disagree strongly that there's any requirement for the replacement service to be, to use your phrase "the very earliest opportunity". Your claim is based on comparison between your scheduled journey and what actually happened. For example, it's often impossible to know in advance which train will arrive earliest at your destination where there are two due at a similar time during disruption, doubly so where trains to your destination may take various routes.

Personally what I usually do in the situation where my train is cancelled completely before I begin my journey on it, is speak to a member of staff, usually showing them my ticket and querying what I might do next. If I follow their advice, as is likely, and arrive subsequently at my destination with delay over the threshold for compensation, I am entitled to claim notwithstanding that, had I been given different or better advice, I may have been able to arrange to arrive with less delay and thus sub-threshold for a compensation entitlement.

What actually happened is the passenger chose to deliberately delay their journey further to wait for a direct train, which they preferred to do, partially because they had an adverse perception of the connecting train's reliability. Perfectly understandable in my view.

However, I don't think it's fair to then expect the train operator to pay out more compensation than would have been due if the customer had simply made the next possible journey. It's not exactly unreasonable to change trains, albeit inconvenient. [Edited to add that if a customer had a disability etc, it could be unreasonable to change].

If the connecting train option or the direct service both fell within, say, the 30 min time band - I'd agree and say it shouldn't make any difference. If the passenger waiting for the direct train pushed that delay into the 60 min bracket, I'd say the compensation should only be for 30 mins.

 

[robbeech]

@AlterEgo , still absolutely solid advice.

Just to clear this up - I've had the letter too and the evidence in the follow up emails is based on cross referencing the claims against the gate data.

An example:

xxth date you claimed the 16:30 from xx to xx, you entered the automatic ticket gates at London Liverpool Street at 17:13.

This is an interesting one though - why would I have entered the barriers when the train was cancelled? I clearly went through the barriers in time for the next direct train to my station. Is it not acceptable to claim for a cancelled train when I had intended to travel on it?

You can't, but if that is what they've set up as the trigger / criteria for reporting it as fraud then there is nothing you can do about it. If everything is above board, its UNLIKELY (but not impossible) it would fail in court, or be thrown out before it got that far, but there's a financial incentive to deliberately not mention this to you to frighten people into paying.

Are GA really that thick? How do you go through the barriers when the train is cancelled so there is no platform advertised. That is utterly laughable as a reason for it being flagged as a fraudulent transaction.

It's not "thick" at all, it's actually very clever. It's financially rewarding to use these absurd reasons and criteria.

If the 16:30 service to/from wherever was cancelled, was the 17:13 (i.e. 43 minutes later) the very earliest opportunity to make your journey? i.e. there was nothing else departing before 17:13? If so, I believe your claim is valid.

If there was an earlier opportunity, I suspect your claim would be invalid.

Agreed, in this of course the 1713 is the barrier time rather than the train time rather than the train time. It may well have been an hourly service so they were able to go through the barriers at 1713 and get on the 1730 to wait. I think this passenger needs to think carefully about these types of journey, taking the following into account. ...

I'm sure I read an earlier post in this thread where people claimed for intended journeys that were cancelled, despite never leaving their home (their apps notified them of cancellations). I don't understand: so you can or cannot claim DR for a journey you were not on?


The mind boggles! Surely GA honoured the DR claim because they could see the train HAD in fact been cancelled? I've had DRs rejected because the delay was <15min.
I understand revenues are down but this is a new level of desperation.

Also, I see ugly parallels between what GA is doing and the American 'justice' system: reach a settlement to avoid court. We all know the system would fall apart if every case went to court. This is so bonkers to me.

You did read where people had claimed for journeys that they hadn't taken yes. They were absolutely wrong to do so. You can argue that they were due some form of refund for the journey but the hard facts are they used the wrong system so the delay repay they claimed was not correct. Fraud would not be the correct charge here, but we have seen how they are behaving here so who knows what will happen.

As for your second paragraph, The way the claims system works is (or at least was) completely independent of fraud investigation. If a journey that you claim to have taken is eligible for delay repay and you claim for it it will usually be paid. It is only after the fact that your claim pattern, history, numbers, value or a combination of al of them will create this.

As for your last paragraph. This happens in the UK, all the time, so really it is just "The justice system"

 

[maniacmartin]

I commented way back in this thread that gateline touch-in times are not very helpful as no-one would touch in and go to the platform for a train that is cancelled and might not even have a platform advertised. A touch in time proves when you entered the platform of the train you eventually took, not the train you intended to take. For any TOC to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

I claim for the difference in scheduled arrival time of my intended itinerary and the earliest I could have arrived if I had taken the first available trains based on information available at the time, even if I choose to further delay myself to avoid a very overcrowded train. Whilst this is not valid to the letter of the schemes, it is within the spirit of them. Customer services at another operator (not Greater Anglia) actually told me to claim this way!

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I claim for the difference in scheduled arrival time of my intended itinerary and the earliest I could have arrived if I had taken the first available trains based on information available at the time, even if I choose to further delay myself to avoid a very overcrowded train. Whilst this is not valid to the letter of the schemes, it is within the spirit of them. Customer services at another operator (not Greater Anglia) actually told me to claim this way!

That seems a pragmatic approach in my view. Even, as you say, if that is not the intended mechanism, there can be no loss to the operator as a result of that approach, as you are still correctly representing your overall delay.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sure I read an earlier post in this thread where people claimed for intended journeys that were cancelled, despite never leaving their home (their apps notified them of cancellations). I don't understand: so you can or cannot claim DR for a journey you were not on?

You cannot claim for a journey you did not take nor intended to take.

There are cases where you're eating your cornflakes at home and see the 0800 - your usual, and intended train - is cancelled, and you subsequently contact work and tell them you'll be late, and stick the news on and chill, and take the next train instead, say the 0900, and claim. Some posters believe this to be a grey area as to whether you can claim, but I see these claims as entirely legitimate and within both the rules and the spirit of the scheme.

The mind boggles! Surely GA honoured the DR claim because they could see the train HAD in fact been cancelled? I've had DRs rejected because the delay was <15min.
I understand revenues are down but this is a new level of desperation.

DRs should be rejected if the delay fails to meet the threshold; you may only claim if your journey was delayed above the threshold, which in GA's case is 15 minutes.

This is the first direct train to my destination, yes. There is another where I'd have to change trains just before that, but I prefer not to bother with that hassle, especially as the time saving over waiting for the 5.30 is minimal and the connecting train is more often than not cancelled itself.

If the difference between those two outcomes is that the earlier of those two options means you cannot claim, and the later one triggers the threshold and you can claim, then the claim is not valid. You don't get to knowingly delay yourself further for [reasons] and increase the company's liability to you. (see @Starmill's post about this too which is v useful).

Nonetheless, I don't consider such an action to be fraudulent, as your claim no doubt specifies which train you took, and there is no false representation whatsoever. It's up to the TOC to reject the claim under the TnCs.

 

[robbeech]

I disagree strongly that there's any requirement for the replacement service to be, to use your phrase "the very earliest opportunity". Your claim is based on comparison between your scheduled journey and what actually happened. For example, it's often impossible to know in advance which train will arrive earliest at your destination where there are two due at a similar time during disruption, doubly so where trains to your destination may take various routes.

Personally what I usually do in the situation where my train is cancelled completely before I begin my journey on it, is speak to a member of staff, usually showing them my ticket and querying what I might do next. If I follow their advice, as is likely, and arrive subsequently at my destination with delay over the threshold for compensation, I am entitled to claim notwithstanding that, had I been given different or better advice, I may have been able to arrange to arrive with less delay and thus sub-threshold for a compensation entitlement.

I have experienced this myself when claiming because the company I travelled with said that I should have used an earlier departure and arrival after suffering a similar cancellation, despite the fact that the ticket I held wasn't valid on it.

I think its one of those cases where the term "reasonable" would be beneficial although when we look at the behaviour or the operator in question, and the behaviour of the passengers (not specifically any here) you can no doubt see how this would fall apart very quickly. You can't be expected to know that getting a different train and changing at an unknown station to get a different service will save you 6 minutes (maybe crossing a compensation threshold) to just getting the next train, particularly if the next similar train is one that you catch some days anyway. However, none of this would be seen as fraud so it would be limited to how easily the operator can scare you into paying back EVERY CLAIM (i keep stressing that the figures when offered a settlement are sometimes for EVERY claim, not specific ones).

What actually happened is the passenger chose to deliberately delay their journey further to wait for a direct train, which they preferred to do, partially because they had an adverse perception of the connecting train's reliability. Perfectly understandable in my view.

However, I don't think it's fair to then expect the train operator to pay out more compensation than would have been due if the customer had simply made the next possible journey. It's not exactly unreasonable to change trains, albeit inconvenient.

If the connecting train option or the direct service both fell within, say, the 30 min time band - I'd agree and say it shouldn't make any difference. If the passenger waiting for the direct train pushed that delay into the 60 min bracket, I'd say the compensation should only be for 30 mins.

The attitude taken by the operator strongly suggests they are focussed on maximum return for this exercise and as such, and armed with the suggestion that they're using barrier timing as "evidence" it is clear that none of this is likely to be acceptable for them.

I commented way back in this thread that gateline touch-in times are not very helpful as no-one would touch in and go to the platform for a train that is cancelled and might not even have a platform advertised. A touch in time proves when you entered the platform of the train you eventually took, not the train you intended to take. For any TOC to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

I claim for the difference in scheduled arrival time of my intended itinerary and the earliest I could have arrived if I had taken the first available trains based on information available at the time, even if I choose to further delay myself to avoid a very overcrowded train. Whilst this is not valid to the letter of the schemes, it is within the spirit of them. Customer services at another operator (not Greater Anglia) actually told me to claim this way!

That seems a pragmatic approach in my view. Even, as you say, if that is not the intended mechanism, there can be no loss to the operator as a result of that approach, as you are still correctly representing your overall delay.

Pragmatic yes, sensible yes, legal no and as above, with the line they are taking on this matter we should not be surprised if they do not accept anything like this, even when no additional compensation has been claimed. Of course, it wouldn't stand up in court, at least not on a fraud charge, but that isn't the plan is it, the plan is to get people to pay up whilst the operator have no rule or regulation.

 

[AlterEgo]

I commented way back in this thread that gateline touch-in times are not very helpful as no-one would touch in and go to the platform for a train that is cancelled and might not even have a platform advertised. A touch in time proves when you entered the platform of the train you eventually took, not the train you intended to take. For any TOC to think otherwise is just plain stupid.

Yes, this is a very weird sideline from GA. The touch in time merely tells GA what time you passed through the barrier line, which as you say isn't evidence whatsoever of which train you originally intended to take.

I claim for the difference in scheduled arrival time of my intended itinerary and the earliest I could have arrived if I had taken the first available trains based on information available at the time, even if I choose to further delay myself to avoid a very overcrowded train. Whilst this is not valid to the letter of the schemes, it is within the spirit of them. Customer services at another operator (not Greater Anglia) actually told me to claim this way!

Practical and entirely correct IMO.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

If @OnlyMe can answer this, it would clear a lot up!

When you claimed your delay, did you tell Greater Anglia that you caught the later direct train?
If the answer is YES - (and assuming no other cases) - there is absolutely no issue and you are quite right to stand your ground!

If you told them you took the earlier "connecting journey" - then that is a misrepresentation and you probably need some further advice and analysis, albeit there is potentially some good mitigation available if the overall compensation would have been the same as the direct train, (as no loss has been caused).

Finally, is this just a one-off, or do you do this regularly when your service is cancelled/delayed etc- are you being accused in regards to other claims?

 

[guilbert]

However, I don't think it's fair to then expect the train operator to pay out more compensation than would have been due if the customer had simply made the next possible journey. It's not exactly unreasonable to change trains, albeit inconvenient. [Edited to add that if a customer had a disability etc, it could be unreasonable to change].

If the connecting train option or the direct service both fell within, say, the 30 min time band - I'd agree and say it shouldn't make any difference. If the passenger waiting for the direct train pushed that delay into the 60 min bracket, I'd say the compensation should only be for 30 mins.

It's one thing for the TOC to refuse the DR request at the time (arguably a bit stingy depending on the precise circumstances) - but another entirely to be accusing them of fraud over a year later.

 

[pelli]

When you claimed your delay, did you tell Greater Anglia that you caught the later direct train?
If the answer is YES - (and assuming no other cases) - there is absolutely no issue and you are quite right to stand your ground!

If you told them you took the earlier "connecting journey" - then that is a misrepresentation and you probably need some further advice and analysis, albeit there is potentially some good mitigation available if the overall compensation would have been the same as the direct train, (as no loss has been caused).

To clarify an important point: I believe the Delay Repay claim form used by Greater Anglia and many other TOCs does not ask which train you did end up taking, it only asks you to select whether the length of delay was 15+, 30+, 60+ or 120+ minutes, and in fact when claiming it is impossible to tell GA what you did do as there is no text box in which you can leave a message.

If the form simply had asked "what train did you actually travel on in the end?" then almost all the cases [EDIT: considered illegitimate by GA] in this thread would have immediately been rejected at the claim stage as incorrect, or been clear cases of fraud. Instead, we've got a thread with over 1000 posts...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

To clarify an important point: I believe the Delay Repay claim form used by Greater Anglia and many other TOCs does not ask which train you did end up taking, it only asks you to select whether the length of delay was 15+, 30+, 60+ or 120+ minutes, and in fact when claiming it is impossible to tell GA what you did do as there is no text box in which you can leave a message.

If the form simply had asked "what train did you actually travel on in the end?" then almost all the cases [EDIT: considered illegitimate by GA] in this thread would have immediately been rejected at the claim stage as incorrect, or been clear cases of fraud. Instead, we've got a thread with over 1000 posts...

Ah that simplifies matters then.

As long as both the connecting train opportunity and the direct train both had the same overall level of delay, (e.g. 30 minutes), there can't be any misrepresentation! Easy

The only time there is a potential problem then, it appears, is if the connecting train fell into a lower band, (e.g. not eligible at all / 15+ min) and you select 30+ mins.

 

[OnlyMe]

I very much doubt it's primarily about money. In the scheme of things, genuine compensation payouts and things like these settlements will be a miniscule fraction of their revenue. Whilst "every penny helps" is undeniably true, I doubt it's a significant factor, especially when you do add in the costs of staff, investigation time, software licenses etc.

If you listen to the news, it would seem as though the government essentially prop up these companies anyway at the moment, so who knows were the money even ends up.


OK - I think you are on some dodgy ground here. My understanding is that YOU don't get to make that choice AND claim compensation.

You can delay yourself further (which you seem to have done for a more comfortable journey) but I believe you waive your right to compensation (or I suppose may be entitled to less, depending on what time you potentially could have arrived at your destination). There is no "right" to a direct train as far as I am aware. However, from a criminal perspective, I'd only expect action if it meant your claim fell into a higher bracket than it should have otherwise done. E.g (made up times).

Cancelled Train arrives at your destination at 18:00
Connecting Journey would have arrived at your destination at 18:51 (30+ min delay compensation)
Direct Train would have arrived at your destination at 19:00 (60+ min delay compensation)

If the connecting train alternative and the direct train were both within the same delay band, technically it's an invalid claim surely, but I can't see it being worthy of prosecution.

I'm sure I read an earlier post in this thread where people claimed for intended journeys that were cancelled, despite never leaving their home (their apps notified them of cancellations). I don't understand: so you can or cannot claim DR for a journey you were not on?

If @OnlyMe can answer this, it would clear a lot up!

When you claimed your delay, did you tell Greater Anglia that you caught the later direct train?
If the answer is YES - (and assuming no other cases) - there is absolutely no issue and you are quite right to stand your ground!

If you told them you took the earlier "connecting journey" - then that is a misrepresentation and you probably need some further advice and analysis, albeit there is potentially some good mitigation available if the overall compensation would have been the same as the direct train, (as no loss has been caused).

Finally, is this just a one-off, or do you do this regularly when your service is cancelled/delayed etc- are you being accused in regards to other claims?

I haven't been asked this. I haven't been asked anything, just prompted if there's something I need to admit.

 

[ashkeba]

If the 16:30 service to/from wherever was cancelled, was the 17:13 (i.e. 43 minutes later) the very earliest opportunity to make your journey? i.e. there was nothing else departing before 17:13? If so, I believe your claim is valid.

If there was an earlier opportunity, I suspect your claim would be invalid.

I have not checked historic data for extra possible services but the National Rail travel planner only shows me direct hourly Liverpool Street to Stowmarket trains around that time of day, so I think a reasonable person would conclude that the next direct service at 1730 was the train to use. I also think its platform may have been advertised as early as 1713 to help clear the cancelled train's passengers from the central concourse.

 

[Haywain]

There are cases where you're eating your cornflakes at home and see the 0800 - your usual, and intended train - is cancelled, and you subsequently contact work and tell them you'll be late, and stick the news on and chill, and take the next train instead, say the 0900, and claim. Some posters believe this to be a grey area as to whether you can claim, but I see these claims as entirely legitimate and within both the rules and the spirit of the scheme.

The problem with this is that it may not take into account a situation where a special stop order has been issued for the train that would otherwise hurtle through non-stop at 08:15, with the specific aim of picking up the passengers for the cancelled 08:00 train. And therefore the person who stayed at home claimed for a significantly longer delay than others waiting at the station for the same train.

Yes, this is a very weird sideline from GA. The touch in time merely tells GA what time you passed through the barrier line, which as you say isn't evidence whatsoever of which train you originally intended to take.

It does, however, tell GA that you were not on a train that departed prior to that touch in time, and in the DR claim you will have stated which your intended train was.

 

[robbeech]

The problem with this is that it may not take into account a situation where a special stop order has been issued for the train that would otherwise hurtle through non-stop at 08:15, with the specific aim of picking up the passengers for the cancelled 08:00 train. And therefore the person who stayed at home claimed for a significantly longer delay than others waiting at the station for the same train.

From experience (with a different operator) special stop orders or last minute replacement buses do not necessarily get logged properly in the data for delay repay purposes. I've put in a claim before where the hourly stopping service was cancelled but a service due to pass afterwards stopped at the station and allowed me to get to my destination around 20 minutes late instead of 60. I put in a claim for a 15 to 29 minute delay and it was REJECTED initially because the train "doesn't exist", but later accepted when i explained. I suspect had i not been honest and claimed for an hour it would have been paid, but that isn't acceptable.
Infact, with the risk of straying slightly OT, until recently at least one operator used to use TIMETABLE data OUTRIGHT to work out delay repay acceptance rather than running data. So if the 1200 was cancelled it would use the TIMETABLE to work out which service you should have got and NOT the actual events on the day. meaning in times of disruption, if the 1200 and 1230 were cancelled it would still only pay out as if the 1230 ran. So there's really no telling what data is used for what purpose initially unless anyone actually knows for sure.

It does, however, tell GA that you were not on a train that departed prior to that touch in time, and in the DR claim you will have stated which your intended train was.

(my bold) Though it appears (according to pelli in post #1183) that in the GA delay repay form you don't fill in an actual journey, just your intended journey and the length of delay to your journey, although i'm not familiar with their delay repay process as i haven't needed to use it for several years.

 

[Riker87]

Just had my mail back asking payment of all claims over the last 24 months (including the £200 admin fee)
I opted to simply pay it and just move on.

After reading some of the replies others have got it feels like they also trying to put off a lot of people from ever claiming again.

 

[Haywain]

(my bold) Though it appears (according to pelli in post #1183) that in the GA delay repay form you don't fill in an actual journey, just your intended journey and the length of delay to your journey, although i'm not familiar with their delay repay process as i haven't needed to use it for several years.

The GA process includes submitting an intended departure time - the poster you refer to was stating that the process/form doesn't ask which train was actually taken.

 

[SteveM70]

It does, however, tell GA that you were not on a train that departed prior to that touch in time, and in the DR claim you will have stated which your intended train was.

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting your comment, but are you saying that any claim where a passenger passes through the gateline after the departure time of the cancelled train should have their claim refused, or merely that it may explain the questions from GA?

 

[robbeech]

Just had my mail back asking payment of all claims over the last 24 months (including the £200 admin fee)
I opted to simply pay it and just move on.

After reading some of the replies others have got it feels like they also trying to put off a lot of people from ever claiming again.

Would you be prepared to tell us if you felt that there may have been some discrepancies in your claims or whether you’ve paid up because you felt pressured into it despite being innocent. I understand if you would rather not say. If the former, Did they provide any evidence or claim they had it or did you deduce yourself that it could exist ?

With regard to your final paragraph, of course they are. In an ideal world nobody would claim again, that way they could provide whatever service level they wanted (or not). But I don’t think that is unexpected.

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting your comment, but are you saying that any claim where a passenger passes through the gateline after the departure time of the cancelled train should have their claim refused, or merely that it may explain the questions from GA?

I suspect they mean GA are using this as one of many tactics to obtain settlement from as many people as they can. They almost certainly wouldn’t be able to use this in court, but, once again, that’s not the intention, the intention is to get people to pay up before they have to follow any rules.

 

[bigfats]

Ah that simplifies matters then.

As long as both the connecting train opportunity and the direct train both had the same overall level of delay, (e.g. 30 minutes), there can't be any misrepresentation! Easy

The only time there is a potential problem then, it appears, is if the connecting train fell into a lower band, (e.g. not eligible at all / 15+ min) and you select 30+ mins.

I can't see how there can be fraud here. Claim form says "What train was was delayed?" and "How much were you delayed?". Victim answers 100% honestly "16:30" and "60+ minutes".

GA could say, "hang on, you should only have been delayed by 30+ minutes if you got the 17:02 and changed, so we're only going to pay out for that". Or they can accept that the direct train was OK and paid out for that. Either way, the victim has done nothing wrong and all this should have been sorted out at the time the claim was made.

What seems to have happened here is that GA are now saying "If you really were at Liverpool St at 16:30 then you would have got the 17:02 and the gate time would reflect that, but because you only went through at 17:13, you were lying about intending to catch the 16:30 and that's fraud". This is nonsense.

 

[English]

Just had my mail back asking payment of all claims over the last 24 months (including the £200 admin fee)

Did your claims go back 24 months? Most are reporting going back to October 2019.

 

[Haywain]

Sorry if I’m misinterpreting your comment, but are you saying that any claim where a passenger passes through the gateline after the departure time of the cancelled train should have their claim refused, or merely that it may explain the questions from GA?

No, I'm suggesting that if your claim is that you would have been on the 16:30 train and you touch in at 17:13 it would be evidence that you weren't on the 17:00 train as, potentially, claimed.

 

[Riker87]

Did your claims go back 24 months? Most are reporting going back to October 2019.

As with previous posts on here, they sent me a list of times of barrier entry exits and questioned why I had claimed.

They always tell you to wait in the main concourse and not other side of barrier at big stations, so that's what you do.
Their argument of, how do we know you intended to get the cancelled train? Is basically your word against theirs and unfortunately without solid proof it's impossible to prove and the big companies always win that fight.

They also ignore the fact barriers are open so no tap when cancellations for extended period of time and the station is overflowing.

24 months is the period is the period I've switched to a smart card.

The amount they asked to settle for over the 24 months, I won't give specifics, but was in low 3 figures but the admin fee bumped it up a lot.

For me I can't be bothered with the hassle and aggro just paid up and moved on

 

[robbeech]

Congratulations GA. another win, regardless of whether deserved or not.
This is exactly their intention so they’ll be pleased.

 

[EssexGonzo]

I can't see how there can be fraud here. Claim form says "What train was was delayed?" and "How much were you delayed?". Victim answers 100% honestly "16:30" and "60+ minutes".

GA could say, "hang on, you should only have been delayed by 30+ minutes if you got the 17:02 and changed, so we're only going to pay out for that". Or they can accept that the direct train was OK and paid out for that. Either way, the victim has done nothing wrong and all this should have been sorted out at the time the claim was made.

What seems to have happened here is that GA are now saying "If you really were at Liverpool St at 16:30 then you would have got the 17:02 and the gate time would reflect that, but because you only went through at 17:13, you were lying about intending to catch the 16:30 and that's fraud". This is nonsense.

And what about of you had tried to get the 17.02 but didn’t managed to get through the crushed concourse in time? Or that the gate line was open at that platform because of the crunch, but then closed again at 17.13? Or couldn’t actually get on the 17.02? Or any other number of scenarios that play out at Liverpool St during disruption?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

As with previous posts on here, they sent me a list of times of barrier entry exits and questioned why I had claimed.

They always tell you to wait in the main concourse and not other side of barrier at big stations, so that's what you do.
Their argument of, how do we know you intended to get the cancelled train? Is basically your word against theirs and unfortunately without solid proof it's impossible to prove and the big companies always win that fight.

They also ignore the fact barriers are open so no tap when cancellations for extended period of time and the station is overflowing.

24 months is the period is the period I've switched to a smart card.

The amount they asked to settle for over the 24 months, I won't give specifics, but was in low 3 figures but the admin fee bumped it up a lot.

For me I can't be bothered with the hassle and aggro just paid up and moved on

I'd let the issue lie silently for a little while longer, but I'm not so sure you need to move on and forget about it. Let things cool down a little and let some time pass. Have you had confirmation the matter is resolved in writing?

Once whatever is currently going on starts to die down, (probably when this forum page starts getting very quiet), you might want to make some noise to your MP, "Transport Focus" and Greater Anglia directors at their registered office. You can try the media, but you probably don't want your name to be associated with this publicly I'd imagine, especially if you could be perceived as admitting wrongdoing by settling (although that is not the case). I doubt it will do much, but might make you feel better, and you never know, may turn up something positive.

Note to anyone else reading: it's important this type of response only happens AFTER settling and it's confirmed the matter is closed OR they confirm the matter is closed for another reason, e.g. after receiving your responses.

 

[Riker87]

I'd let the issue lie silently for a little while longer, but I'm not so sure you need to move on and forget about it. Let things cool down a little and let some time pass. Have you had confirmation the matter is resolved in writing?

Once whatever is currently going on starts to die down, (probably when this forum page starts getting very quiet), you might want to make some noise to your MP, "Transport Focus" and Greater Anglia directors at their registered office. You can try the media, but you probably don't want your name to be associated with this publicly I'd imagine, especially if you could be perceived as admitting wrongdoing by settling (although that is not the case). I doubt it will do much, but might make you feel better, and you never know, may turn up something positive.

Note to anyone else reading: it's important this type of response only happens AFTER settling and it's confirmed the matter is closed OR they confirm the matter is closed for another reason, e.g. after receiving your responses.

I was told the matter will be settled and closed upon the treasury department sending receipt of the payment. They should mail be back with that, which will probably be 1-3 days?? Others who have already settled should be able to answer that. I'm just glad I finally had a response and can have a bit of peace of mind.