Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Frankie1]

I too received a letter like others in this forum. I was told that I was flagged due to exessive claims, 65 when the average is 20. I was also told that they expect people to get the next available train if a train is cancelled.

I replied back explaining that the next available train was not always possible to overcrouding and other issues. My reason for posting is that I had a reponse saying they need to investigate my excessive claims further and that BTP may be involved. Did anyone alse have a similar response before being offered a settlement?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I too received a letter like others in this forum. I was told that I was flagged due to exessive claims, 65 when the average is 20. I was also told that they expect people to get the next available train if a train is cancelled.

I replied back explaining that the next available train was not always possible to overcrouding and other issues. My reason for posting is that I had a reponse saying they need to investigate my excessive claims further and that BTP may be involved. Did anyone alse have a similar response before being offered a settlement?

You do need to get the next available train for Delay Repay compensation is my understanding, even an overcrowded one, but clearly not one so overcrowded you cannot board. If you physically or realistically could not board, the next available train is surely one which you could actually fit on. Although simply being uncomfortable and not wanting to stand, whilst understandable, probably rules delay compensation out to some extent as I don't think you are strictly entitled to a seat or to be conveyed under any particular level of comfort.

Regardless, if you are looking to settle (for whatever reason), you need to stop disputing / raising queries, and quickly re-focus on apologies and making good your 'misunderstandings' and offering to compensate Greater Anglia for your misjudgement(s). You also need to be aware that anything you have said previously may constitute evidence.

If you are genuinely innocent, and none of your claims have ever been knowingly untrue/invalid, this forum can assist you, and certainly encourages you to not settle, but you must appreciate that this course of action will likely escalate to the police, (which hopefully would result in no charges after the police have investigated), but is still not a great situation to be in regrettably.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I guess it depends on what you mean by overcrowded. If GA said the train was full and you can't board, it's very different to you not finding a seat and waiting for the next.

 

[Frankie1]

You do need to get the next available train for Delay Repay compensation is my understanding, even an overcrowded one, but clearly not one so overcrowded you cannot board. If you physically or realistically could not board, the next available train is surely one which you could actually fit on. Although simply being uncomfortable and not wanting to stand, whilst understandable, probably rules delay compensation out to some extent as I don't think you are strictly entitled to a seat or to be conveyed under any particular level of comfort.

Regardless, if you are looking to settle (for whatever reason), you need to stop disputing / raising queries, and quickly re-focus on apologies and making good your 'misunderstandings' and offering to compensate Greater Anglia for your misjudgement(s).

If you are genuinely innocent, and none of your claims have ever been knowingly untrue/invalid, this forum can assist you, and certainly encourages you to not settle, but you must appreciate that this course of action will likely escalate to the police, (which hopefully would result in no charges after the police have investigated), but is still not a great situation to be in regrettably.

Thanks, I did offer to pay back the cancelled trains but it looks like they have refocussed their attention to the delays. I can't be 100% sure that they are all correct, the one benefit is that my claims aee consistent with my travel patterns.

I cant afford for this to go any further, I work in the city so risk losing my job. So I would absolutely settle if it meant this not going any further.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thanks, I did offer to pay back the cancelled trains but it looks like they have refocussed their attention to the delays. I can't be 100% sure that they are all correct, the one benefit is that my claims aee consistent with my travel patterns.

I cant afford for this to go any further, I work in the city so risk losing my job. So I would absolutely settle if it meant this not going any further.

If you're going to settle, I'd reply pretty quickly and just say something like

"On reflection, and now having had an opportunity to learn more about Delay Repay, I may have misjudged my entitlement to Delay Repay on some occasions over this period, and therefore accept that there is a possibility that I received compensation that I may not have been entitled to. I have learnt from this experience etc etc. I therefore would appreciate the opportunity to repay any costs you have incurred as a result of this, and apologise unreservedly".

Obviously you need to put this in your own words! Make sure it's "may" not "have".

 

[bigfats]

You do need to get the next available train for Delay Repay compensation is my understanding, even an overcrowded one, but clearly not one so overcrowded you cannot board. If you physically or realistically could not board, the next available train is surely one which you could actually fit on. Although simply being uncomfortable and not wanting to stand, whilst understandable, probably rules delay compensation out to some extent as I don't think you are strictly entitled to a seat or to be conveyed under any particular level of comfort.

But if the claim was only for the amount they would have been delayed if they had got the next available train, even if they chose to take a later one for comfort's sake, is it fraud? Would you advise settle or fight? I think we can assume this is the case, since otherwise GA's checks would not have authorised the claim. They *know* what delay they are prepared to pay for, for any particular cancellation.

 

[WesternLancer]

But if the claim was only for the amount they would have been delayed if they had got the next available train, even if they chose to take a later one for comfort's sake, is it fraud? Would you advise settle or fight? I think we can assume this is the case, since otherwise GA's checks would not have authorised the claim. They *know* what delay they are prepared to pay for, for any particular cancellation.

I suspect the issue on this becomes the tiered levels of delay repay that then get awarded - ie if the delay on next available train was 30 mins later it is a different DR sum than if you waited over an hour for numbers of people to subside, and then claimed a delay for over 60 mins - the sum obtained from DR will be higher, but the entitlement would be lower - or so GA would argue.

And this is where you would get stuck if you chose to fight. You would need proof that you could not physically board the next available train or were advised by GA staff not to get on / to wait longer. Getting such proof now would seem close to impossible.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

But if the claim was only for the amount they would have been delayed if they had got the next available train, even if they chose to take a later one for comfort's sake, is it fraud? Would you advise settle or fight? I think we can assume this is the case, since otherwise GA's checks would not have authorised the claim. They *know* what delay they are prepared to pay for, for any particular cancellation.

The reality of the situation (unfortunately) isn't about whether GA are right or wrong, whether it's fraud or a mistake etc. For most people, the outcome is the same.

If you're innocent (i.e. you never knowingly or intentionally made a claim you shouldn't have made), it's easy to say fight GA, and don't give up, but for some careers, even an allegation or police involvement is enough to seriously disrupt your life, in which case, it's pragmatic (albeit unjust) to settle and move on.

If you have intentionally made a dodgy claim, you absolutely must settle if you can. GA don't seem to be bluffing, and Fraud Act convictions will have a severe impact on everyday life, e.g. bank accounts, credit etc (see CIFAS).

It's also important to note that the Fraud Act says:

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.



"Might be untrue or misleading" is a pretty low bar to meet. Most people on this forum accept that there is the potential that some of their claims "might be" or "could possibly be" untrue or misleading.

 

[bigfats]

I suspect the issue on this becomes the tiered levels of delay repay that then get awarded - ie if the delay on next available train was 30 mins later it is a different DR sum than if you waited over an hour for numbers of people to subside, and then claimed a delay for over 60 mins - the sum obtained from DR will be higher, but the entitlement would be lower - or so GA would argue.

And this is where you would get stuck if you chose to fight. You would need proof that you could not physically board the next available train or were advised by GA staff not to get on / to wait longer. Getting such proof now would seem close to impossible.

The sum would not be obtained. GA would only pay out what was entitled, unless you appealed the payout at the time. For the appeal to succeed GA would have had to accept that reason for not boarding the earlier train was valid.

 

[WesternLancer]

The sum would not be obtained. GA would only pay out what was entitled, unless you appealed the payout at the time. For the appeal to succeed GA would have had to accept that reason for not boarding the earlier train was valid.

Fair point

 

[Frankie1]

For anyone interested I replied asking to settle to avoid the investigation going further and I was immediately sent an offer.

I have been reading this forum non stop over the past week looking for advice. I agree that if you are 100% certain that you entered all your claims correctly you should not settle. The issue is that it's possible one was entered with an error and that's all it takes for GA to say that they are all fraudulent. The other issue is that what we believe is a valid claim is different to what GA deem is valid. i.e. claiming for a cancelled train but not boarding the next available train.

If you are not sure I would recomend you offer to settle to avoid this going further, for me they were not forthcoming with a settlement offer. Whilst I'm not sure if they would have escalated this to the police I couldn't risk it due to my line of work.

I didn't have to pay an admin fee and this could be due to me offering to settle before the investigation went on for too long. I hope someone that knows they are innocent and is braver than decides to proceed with the investigation as it would be good to see a different ending than everyone else on here.

If anyone is worried and wants to know any more details of the process I went through let me know.

 

[HSP 2]

If anyone is worried and wants to know any more details of the process I went through let me know.

I think that it could/would be good for the forum to know.

 

[robbeech]

My friend has had a further letter today with a reduced settlement offer. The reduced settlement now refers to the listed claims plus an admin fee as opposed to ALL claims plus an admin fee.

A recap of the order of events for this case.

1 Received a letter stating suspicious claims.
2 Replied to suggest all claims are genuine
3 Further GA letter with a settlement offer to the price of ALL claims for the given period plus an admin fee.
4 Several phone calls and e-mails asking for specific claim details, and a request by GA to prove they were on the trains claimed for for every claim.
5 A list of several claims that are chronologically latest by claim date (proving this is done as a claim number and/or value threshold)
6 A telephone request to explain why they think they are suspicious, confirming that it is the number of claims that is "above average" which has triggered the investigation.
7 A letter with a lower settlement for all claims after a certain date plus an admin fee and a reminder of the consequences of a fraud case.

Desperate it seems.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Even if it was physically impossible (crowding would be highly likely in such circumstances) to get the earlier train?

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.

Absolutely. They are now blatantly taking the pee.

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.

To be fair to GA that is exactly what the overriding objective of the CPR mandates should be done.

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 is exactly how l operate, again as advised by staff. I've actually been told to wait for the next one....

 

[pelli]

But if the claim was only for the amount they would have been delayed if they had got the next available train, even if they chose to take a later one for comfort's sake, is it fraud? Would you advise settle or fight? I think we can assume this is the case, since otherwise GA's checks would not have authorised the claim. They *know* what delay they are prepared to pay for, for any particular cancellation.

You are assuming, sensibly, that GA checks each claim and rejects it if their running data shows that the next available train would get you to your destination with a lesser delay than you have claimed for. However, one poster in this thread (page 10) claims that they were under the mistaken belief that they should always enter "120+ min" for a cancelled train, rather than the actual delay they experienced, and the implication is that GA approved those incorrect claims at the time, and then later sent the dreaded letter demanding the money back (together with all other claims paid out, correct or not).

I emailed Andy Hillier asking for more information and he (or someone in the team) replied with a list of journeys where I had claimed that cancelled trains were 120 minutes late. I was told this is incorrect as I was not 120 minutes late. Basically, I have been filling out the Delay Repay website incorrectly. I have now been asked how I would like to proceed.... The thing is, why did they approve the claim in the first place if I had claimed incorrectly.

I had filled in a few in genuine error. You have to say why you are claiming and even if you say 'Cancelled' it asks you to fill in a time, so I would fill in 120+ min delay as that was the longest delay and the one I thought most accurately reflected a cancelled train. What it actually means is how late I was to my destination as a result of cancelled train and me having to get the next train. I think.

 

[TJ12345]

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.

GA made it clear that they expect you to get on the next available train, not the next direct train, and added that if they didn't expect us to board the next available service after a cancellation it would open the delay repay system up to be widely abused and added that anybody with a valid ticket could claim for a delay at any time of the day even if they have no intention of travelling on that day.

This particular claim showed that I was on the platform for the next direct train. I don't recall if I claimed for the time difference between the cancelled train and the next train, or the next direct one though. That was clearly my mistake. However their gate data showed I did travel.

This would also mean that if the 6.54 at Stowmarket was cancelled (which it often is) we couldn't claim a delay for the 7.18 (which doesn't run at the moment, I understand) as we should get the slow running and frequent stopping 7.03. I definitely claimed for that too on several occasions which may be why I was contacted...

 

[OnlyMe]

My friend has had a further letter today with a reduced settlement offer. The reduced settlement now refers to the listed claims plus an admin fee as opposed to ALL claims plus an admin fee.

A recap of the order of events for this case.

1 Received a letter stating suspicious claims.
2 Replied to suggest all claims are genuine
3 Further GA letter with a settlement offer to the price of ALL claims for the given period plus an admin fee.
4 Several phone calls and e-mails asking for specific claim details, and a request by GA to prove they were on the trains claimed for for every claim.
5 A list of several claims that are chronologically latest by claim date (proving this is done as a claim number and/or value threshold)
6 A telephone request to explain why they think they are suspicious, confirming that it is the number of claims that is "above average" which has triggered the investigation.
7 A letter with a lower settlement for all claims after a certain date plus an admin fee and a reminder of the consequences of a fraud case.

Desperate it seems.

Thank you. This is useful. And yes.. a tad desperate.

 

[CrispyUK]

This would also mean that if the 6.54 at Stowmarket was cancelled (which it often is) we couldn't claim a delay for the 7.18 (which doesn't run at the moment, I understand) as we should get the slow running and frequent stopping 7.03. I definitely claimed for that too on several occasions which may be why I was contacted...

You should take whichever service gets you to your destination quickest, otherwise you are willingly delaying yourself further.

If the 7:18 overtakes the slower stopping service then it makes sense that you would take the 7:18, otherwise if the 7:03 gets to your destination first then that’s the train you should catch.

 

[Wolfie]

You should take whichever service gets you to your destination quickest, otherwise you are willingly delaying yourself further.

If the 7:18 overtakes the slower stopping service then it makes sense that you would take the 7:18, otherwise if the 7:03 gets to your destination first then that’s the train you should catch.

That is logical. Would GA kick off if you took the first train and it was passed, arguing that you have deliberately delayed yourself further? What if staff tell you to take the later train?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That is logical. Would GA kick off if you took the first train and it was passed, arguing that you have deliberately delayed yourself further? What if staff tell you to take the later train?

A better way to look at it is that you have a duty to minimise your overall delay, as far as practically possible, if you want to claim compensation. Obviously if you don't want to claim compensation, you can do what you like in accordance with any ticket conditions etc.

"Practically possible" would be things like taking connecting services, (as long as you can interchange in accordance with any industry timings specified), taking an overcrowded train, albeit one you can safely fit on, even if it's a bit uncomfortable taking an alternative route etc.

If you have a reasonable expectation (i.e. not just a mere assumption), that the train would arrive earlier, if it's passed subsequently, you've still done what you practically can to try to mitigate your delay.

 

[Wolfie]

A better way to look at it is that you have a duty to minimise your overall delay, as far as practically possible, if you want to claim compensation. Obviously if you don't want to claim compensation, you can do what you like in accordance with any ticket conditions etc.

"Practically possible" would be things like taking connecting services, (as long as you can interchange in accordance with any industry timings specified), taking an overcrowded train, albeit one you can safely fit on, even if it's a bit uncomfortable taking an alternative route etc.

If you have a reasonable expectation (i.e. not just a mere assumption), that the train would arrive earlier, if it's passed subsequently, you've still done what you practically can to try to mitigate your delay.

That's reasonable enough, if that's what they actually do. It feels, from what some have said, rather that they are making it up as they go along.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

In these circumstances, then GA should at first be rejecting the claim surely? A simple journey check of the day's events should sort that out. I do believe some of these claims have come about due to poor diligence earlier in the process by GA. Which is odd considering many claims are often rejected...

GA made it clear that they expect you to get on the next available train, not the next direct train, and added that if they didn't expect us to board the next available service after a cancellation it would open the delay repay system up to be widely abused and added that anybody with a valid ticket could claim for a delay at any time of the day even if they have no intention of travelling on that day.

This particular claim showed that I was on the platform for the next direct train. I don't recall if I claimed for the time difference between the cancelled train and the next train, or the next direct one though. That was clearly my mistake. However their gate data showed I did travel.

This would also mean that if the 6.54 at Stowmarket was cancelled (which it often is) we couldn't claim a delay for the 7.18 (which doesn't run at the moment, I understand) as we should get the slow running and frequent stopping 7.03. I definitely claimed for that too on several occasions which may be why I was contacted...

I'd have thought they'd have just rejected it then in the first instance and told you why (didn't catch first available). It appears this initial "sense check" failed and we are where we are. You should compare the expected arrival time at your destination as that's obviously what the DR is based on.

That is logical. Would GA kick off if you took the first train and it was passed, arguing that you have deliberately delayed yourself further? What if staff tell you to take the later train?

A good point. In times of disruption where you have fast and stopping services sometimes you simply do not know which will get to your destination first. I hardly think a passenger should be penalised for that, but the DR team should work out the delay accordingly even though the passenger wasn't aware at the time which would be quickest. This might not have for the amount that the passenger actually experienced.

Example 1000 train cancelled and arrives at destination at 1030
1015 fast train delayed indefinitely arrives at 1045
1020 slow train showing on time but gets to destination at 1110
Passenger boards 1020 which leaves a bit late and arrives at 1115
Unknown to passenger 1015 fast train leaves 15 minutes late and arrives at 1100.

Passengers should not be penalised for fluid situations.

 

[robbeech]

If we are having a split thread then I think it’s worth considering using them. Don’t forget it’s possible to quote this thread in the other.

 

[Horizon22]

Didn't see another thread, will move anything not specific over there. But in reference to the point at hand, I think it is fair the individual refutes GA and they took what they believed was the next equivalent available service.

 

[Person2]

Just an update, I also got offered a settlement figure very quickly and paid it. They responded quick and wasnt for as much as I thought - didnt have to pay admin. Relieved as I didnt want to put any additional stress on my family, as we had lots of stress following on from losing a child and couldnt risk losing my job by challenging them. Thanks all for your support

 

[Blinkbonny]

Very best wishes to you, person 2.

 

[PL80]

Just an update, I also got offered a settlement figure very quickly and paid it. They responded quick and wasnt for as much as I thought - didnt have to pay admin. Relieved as I didnt want to put any additional stress on my family, as we had lots of stress following on from losing a child and couldnt risk losing my job by challenging them. Thanks all for your support

Pleased that you have reached a settlement and can move on.

The fact that you avoided an admin fee though just highlights the arbitrary nature of GA's actions. I had to pay a modest fee, while others on this forum have been stung for £200. I doubt the amount of "administration" spent on each case will have varied that much.

Whether they came up with a settlement figure that was 25% of your claims or 75% of your claims, you would have paid up (as did I), so really no admin on GA's part at all IMO.

 

[OnlyMe]

I too received a letter like others in this forum. I was told that I was flagged due to exessive claims, 65 when the average is 20. I was also told that they expect people to get the next available train if a train is cancelled.

I replied back explaining that the next available train was not always possible to overcrouding and other issues. My reason for posting is that I had a reponse saying they need to investigate my excessive claims further and that BTP may be involved. Did anyone alse have a similar response before being offered a settlement?

Yes, I did. I am playing the waiting game. My claims were always legit - if I've made mistakes, I haven't been given the chance to explain nor has anyone at GA highlighted the suspicious looking claims. I will wait it out and see what gives and I've massively peeved by this and won't be frightened into submission. Will keep you posted.

Just an update, I also got offered a settlement figure very quickly and paid it. They responded quick and wasnt for as much as I thought - didnt have to pay admin. Relieved as I didnt want to put any additional stress on my family, as we had lots of stress following on from losing a child and couldnt risk losing my job by challenging them. Thanks all for your support

Sorry to hear this - best wishes to you all. Glad you reached a settlement and can move on.

 

[EssexGonzo]

In these circumstances, then GA should at first be rejecting the claim surely? A simple journey check of the day's events should sort that out. I do believe some of these claims have come about due to poor diligence earlier in the process by GA. Which is odd considering many claims are often rejected...

This stands out as one of the key questions in this whole saga. GA are using threats of prosecution to compensate for their own, poor diligence in the first place. Not only is an exec somewhere trying to save face by recovering money that he/she should not have paid in the first place, but they’re also seeking to make DR claims unpopular in the future.

I’ve only made less then a handful of claims in 10+ years but I’ve learnet many, surprising things that are now allowed under the DR scheme that I had assumed were. I could have unintentionally been in the position of some of those being unfairly treated now - all because of the fact that GA have taken no responsibility for their own part in this s***show.

Just an update, I also got offered a settlement figure very quickly and paid it. They responded quick and wasnt for as much as I thought - didnt have to pay admin. Relieved as I didnt want to put any additional stress on my family, as we had lots of stress following on from losing a child and couldnt risk losing my job by challenging them. Thanks all for your support

Very good to hear and also sorry to hear you’ve been though so much.

 

[shelleywelly]

I came across this thread after searching for delay repay fraud solicitors. I wish I had found it earlier. I received the GA letter in early January. In my stupidity I didn’t respond naively thinking that due to the amounts they were quoting (5 claims under a fiver) that I would at least get a further follow up letter. If anyone gets a letter do not ignore it. The fact that you misunderstood the delay repay scheme (guilty of claiming for the train that was cancelled but went back to work for example or asking someone to pick you up from a station rather than wait for the next available train) is not going to be an acceptable response. If you have even one “dodgy” claim and 100 valid claims then ask GA for a settlement figure.

I have just received the letter from the BTP that another user had received and didn’t have any further correspondence from GA following the first letter. Having taken legal advice it seems that once you are at the police letter stage you are probably at best looking at a caution and a hefty fine plus of course legal costs.

DON’T IGNORE THE GA LETTER. A caution or a conviction could put you on the list of unemployed depending on your job. If nothing else I hope my post helps anyone else who doesn’t appreciate how serious this matter is.