• 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.

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Exactly, although on your final point it may not be a question of luck at all. Some trains are far less reliable than others, and prone to more frequent delay / cancellation

That's a fair point. Of course, if a train was late pretty much every single day for a whole year, you'd surely look at the trains that ran to time and adjust your travel for your own sanity?

And GA may well think that someone would be quite likely to do that, if it was the same train delayed every single day. Now if the delays varied and the passenger also varied their travel every single day to be the unfortunate victim of extreme bad luck every time, it is certainly worthy of some clarification IMO.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,802
That's a fair point. Of course, if a train was late pretty much every single day for a whole year, you'd surely look at the trains that ran to time and adjust your travel for your own sanity?

And GA may well think that someone would be quite likely to do that, if it was the same train delayed every single day. Now if the delays varied and the passenger also varied their travel every single day to be the unfortunate victim of extreme bad luck every time, it is certainly worthy of some clarification IMO.

A lot of people won’t have a choice. Depends on frequency of service, work start time, nursery or school drop off etc etc
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
I have been on numerous trains where the timings were simply unachievable. Particularly with certain connections to/from those services, you could guarantee some sort of delay every day.

As GA moved to 15 minute DR a while back, it doesn't take much to give rise to a claim.

So add on top any sort of disruption or underlying factors (industrial relations, shortforming, TSRs that aren't very temporary etc.) and daily claims become well within the realms of the possible.

I'm out - clearly everyone has their position on it, those who belive GA are saints are not going to change their minds no matter what.

Who has said they're saints? It is merely being pointed out that they are entitled to ask questions and seek to protect against fraudulent claims.

For one, how many claims are for 15 minutes versus an hour or more? If everyone on here was stating they made 100% of claims genuinely then that might be one thing, but most people have admitted they've perhaps made a claim or two 'in error'. That doesn't mean GA are saints, but have just cause.

A lot of people won’t have a choice. Depends on frequency of service, work start time, nursery or school drop off etc etc

Absolutely, but I think GA is entitled to ask for a bit more information. For one, the claims would almost certainly be consistent in that case - and so if the claims vary, it will raise suspicion.

If the person works flexible hours, it will also raise some suspicion. Again, GA can ask and the person can give their explanation accordingly.
 
Last edited:

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
Getting into the realms of making a libelous statement there, if I understand you correctly. You seem to be implying that GA is lying?

I haven't seen any evidence of that whatsoever.
Defaming a company is almost impossible in England and Wales; the company would need to show the allegedly false statement caused them direct and serious financial loss.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
So if you had all those resources, you’d not bother to defend yourself?
I’d consider the odds, and the costs in time and money, and make a commercial decision about the balance.

I’m bloody minded enough to have that balance firmly weighted towards fighting, but can understand and to a degree sympathise with someone who’d pay up.

There is a weak parallel with the American legal system, where the advantages of a plea bargain make the risk of fighting a case much greater, and there is evidence that innocent people are getting convictions as a result.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Absolutely, but I think GA is entitled to ask for a bit more information. For one, the claims would almost certainly be consistent in that case - and so if the claims vary, it will raise suspicion.

If the person works flexible hours, it will also raise some suspicion. Again, GA can ask and the person can give their explanation accordingly.
Perhaps GA should do this check when people make the claim, rather than paying out and then launching an investigation 18 months later? If there is a pattern of behaviour building up, investigate it as it becomes apparent. To go on a fishing expedition now, when they know damn well that people are exceptionally unlikely to have any evidence to support their claim is dishonest. Those being investigated might well be justified in asking GA why they did not challenge claims at the time. If nothing else it implies GA's delay repay payment process is less than robust.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
The news article and response from GA doesn't seem to imply the investigation has been stopped. Surely it gives GA even more of an incentive to find an illegitimate claim now?!

Generally I'm disapproving of such stories because:

1) It doesn't appear to have changed anything and only drew attention to the incident and herself;

2) People on this forum have accepted previously some of their claims have been essentially fraudulent, and it gives a misleading view that you should always stand your ground or run to the media, which, if you're not squeaky clean, is not going to end well.

That's not to say the lady in the story isn't genuine, of course, but I hope for her sake she hasn't dug a hole. Surely you go to the media AFTER the TOCS conclude you're innocent, rather than during the investigation? I'd also not want to highlight personally that I was being investigated for fraud, even if I was innocent, especially when she appears to be working in a regulated sector and will now likely have to declare to the relevant body she is being investigated for fraud.
My view is go after them head on.. and if you are innocent demand compensation too. If l was in her situation my MP would be all over it too. That happens to be Jeremy Corbyn, who loves TOCs....
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
823
Location
Nottinghamshire
My view is go after them head on.. and if you are innocent demand compensation too. If l was in her situation my MP would be all over it too. That happens to be Jeremy Corbyn, who loves TOCs....
Well there's no obvious legal basis for compensation, so good luck with that. So what you seem to be implying is that they should attempt to use the media to extort compensation and to cease the investigation through adverse publicity. I find that morally repulsive.

Using the media as a mechanism to attempt to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs, and as an investigator would simply motivate me to conduct that investigation to the very best of my ability, and perhaps even more thoroughly than originally intended. As a prosecutor, if something has been found, I'd be highlighting the use of media and high profile protest as a potentially aggravating element, and demonstrative of a lack of remorse.

There is also a clear legal duty on the TOC. If they suspect they are a victim of fraud, especially numerous frauds of a similar and repeated nature, which seems to be the case here, they MUST legally investigate it, either internally or with external support, or both. Company/commercial/financial reporting laws places regulatory obligations to do so. I also suspect contractual agreements relating to the franchise would require them to as well.

You are allowed to accuse people of things, even if you can't prove it. It happens hundreds of times per day in England alone.

By all means go head on, but it only needs the TOC to find 1 definitely dodgy claim out of potentially hundreds, and the media would love that story even more, the media don't like being taken for a fool.

As for politicians, I'm constantly repeating myself, but they cannot and should not intervene in live criminal investigations or subsequent proceedings. So, I'm not sure what purpose that serves. It's more logical and probably less frustrating to take it up with your MP after the matter is resolved.
 
Last edited:

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
You are allowed to accuse people of things, even if you can't prove it. It happens hundreds of times per day in England alone.
And there is a name for inviting payment to stop making baseless accusations!

Please focus on the tardiness of these accusations at least in part.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Well there's no obvious legal basis for compensation, so good luck with that. So what you seem to be implying is that they should attempt to use the media to extort compensation and to cease the investigation through adverse publicity. I find that morally repulsive.

Using the media as a mechanism to attempt to interfere in ongoing criminal investigations is an absolutely disgraceful state of affairs, and as an investigator would simply motivate me to conduct that investigation to the very best of my ability, and perhaps even more thoroughly than originally intended. As a prosecutor, if something has been found, I'd be highlighting the use of media and high profile protest as a potentially aggravating element, and demonstrative of a lack of remorse.

There is also a clear legal duty on the TOC. If they suspect they are a victim of fraud, especially numerous frauds of a similar and repeated nature, which seems to be the case here, they MUST legally investigate it, either internally or with external support, or both. Company/commercial/financial reporting laws places regulatory obligations to do so. I also suspect contractual agreements relating to the franchise would require them to as well.

You are allowed to accuse people of things, even if you can't prove it. It happens hundreds of times per day in England alone.

By all means go head on, but it only needs the TOC to find 1 definitely dodgy claim out of potentially hundreds, and the media would love that story even more, the media don't like being taken for a fool.

As for politicians, I'm constantly repeating myself, but they cannot and should not intervene in live criminal investigations or subsequent proceedings. So, I'm not sure what purpose that serves. It's more logical and probably less frustrating to take it up with your MP after the matter is resolved.
I have a real problem with the train operators being both "victims" and also the investigatory and prosecution authority for fare evasion/DR claims/etc. They stand to benefit from this process, it's not hard to see how commercial pressure could override a proper investigatory and prosecution process.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
I have a real problem with the train operators being both "victims" and also the investigatory and prosecution authority for fare evasion/DR claims/etc. They stand to benefit from this process, it's not hard to see how commercial pressure could override a proper investigatory and prosecution process.
Absolutely. I would be sceptical to put it politely about the adequacy of their disclosure in any trial.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
I am unsure regarding who would mange DR on a season that covered two TOC's routes.
The Thameslink letter up thread shows different interpretations by different TOC's.
Could a case arise where the season issuing TOC (as I guess they would be the one to process DR claims) are happy, but the other TOC is not and then undertakes a programme similar to GA.
I do not understand the process enough myself, especially re seasons and the only DR multi TOC claim was down to a delay by the issuing TOC anyway.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
I have a real problem with the train operators being both "victims" and also the investigatory and prosecution authority for fare evasion/DR claims/etc. They stand to benefit from this process, it's not hard to see how commercial pressure could override a proper investigatory and prosecution process.
They are not prosecuting this. They’re offering punters the chance to explain, defend or admit the irregularities before passing this to the police for their investigation.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I am unsure regarding who would mange DR on a season that covered two TOC's routes....
As stated before on this forum it is the TOC whose train was delayed which caused/triggered the delay to the journey; if anyone is ever any doubt, the details should be posted in a separate thread, detailing the planned itinerary and the actual travel times.
 

NotGreaterA

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2021
Messages
23
Location
Norfolk
They are not prosecuting this. They’re offering punters the chance to explain, defend or admit the irregularities before passing this to the police for their investigation.
They should be doing their own investigations before passing onto an already over burden police force to do their dirty work.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
They should be doing their own investigations before passing onto an already over burden police force to do their dirty work.

They are. That's why people are getting letters asking for an explanation before anything is passed to the police. Have you been reading this thread?
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,674
Location
Redcar
They are. That's why people are getting letters asking for an explanation before anything is passed to the police. Have you been reading this thread?

You are wasting your time. Anyone not agreeing with their point of view is either a trainspotter taking the side of the railway or working for the railway and in on the ruse.
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
755
Reading this thread is fascinating in the way different people draw different conclusions from the same basic information.

Some of the leaps of deduction made are mindblowing.

In reality only those people who made the claims know if they were all valid, contained a few errors, or were to a greater or lesser extent fraudulent.

You certainly cannot deduce anything from the responses that have appeared on here or in the press either in full support or rebuttal of either side.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
Given most people have admitted they made at least one claim in error, and so many have opted to settle instead of writing back and telling GA to go forth and multiply (has anyone here done that?), and now we hear of someone going to the press who has been claiming for almost every single day they travelled, I am going to need quite a lot of convincing that this is just some evil fishing trip by GA.

If everyone who made a claim was getting a letter, that might go some way to convincing me otherwise. For now, I think I'll side with those giving explanations who have actually worked in law/fraud prevention.

It's particularly laughable that someone has suggested that people who have been asked to explain abnormal claims should seek compensation for simply being asked. When you get asked for ID in a supermarket to buy beer, do you get outraged and demand to speak to the manager and ask for money for the embarrassment caused?!
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,912
Location
Hope Valley
Quite a few posts in this interesting thread refer to 'Greater Anglia' benefitting financially if people 'pay up'.

Under the current set-up with emergency 'agreements' I thought that all 'revenue' essentially went to the DfT.

Can anyone clarify whether any 'settlements' resulting from this series of investigations somehow escape the DfT net and thus do benefit the TOC/'franchisee'?
 

SteveM70

Established Member
Joined
11 Jul 2018
Messages
3,802
In reality only those people who made the claims can know if they were all valid, contained a few errors, or were to a greater or lesser extent fraudulent.

Ive added in an important word you’ve missed out. Nobody else can know, that’s true, but right now the overwhelming majority of claimants receiving these letters will be able to know every claim they’ve made was perfect on every respect. Yes, they’ll know if any were deliberately fraudulent, but they can’t know if any were made in good faith but contained mistakes
 

simonw

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
755
Ive added in an important word you’ve missed out. Nobody else can know, that’s true, but right now the overwhelming majority of claimants receiving these letters will be able to know every claim they’ve made was perfect on every respect. Yes, they’ll know if any were deliberately fraudulent, but they can’t know if any were made in good faith but contained mistakes
Without wishing to go down a wormhole over semantics, people may well know that on reflection submissions were in error. In fact IIRC we have had people admit as much. It is also sometimes the case that fraud can be traced back to an error which went uncorrected and then lead on to repeat incorrect submissions which are fraudulent as the submittor believes they have 'got away with it'.

But my main point is how widely different conclusions are being reached by different people from the same 'evidence'.
 
Last edited:

NotGreaterA

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2021
Messages
23
Location
Norfolk
You are wasting your time. Anyone not agreeing with their point of view is either a trainspotter taking the side of the railway or working for the railway and in on the ruse.
Yes totally, a lot of them seem to be part of the GA appreciation club and probably have never stepped on one of their trains. They take great time and enjoyment to scaremonger.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Yes totally, a lot of them seem to be part of the GA appreciation club and probably have never stepped on one of their trains. They take great time and enjoyment to scaremonger.
Notwithstanding the increasing bitterness that you’ve shown in this thread, could you let us know whether you replied to Greater Anglia to tell them all of your claims were genuine?

This would be helpful going forward, as to date, no poster who has received the letter has provided this update, only that they wished to settle the matter.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
It's particularly laughable that someone has suggested that people who have been asked to explain abnormal claims should seek compensation for simply being asked. When you get asked for ID in a supermarket to buy beer, do you get outraged and demand to speak to the manager and ask for money for the embarrassment caused?!
The supermarket ID check is unlikely to demand evidence from 2019, or offer me only choices of guilty and guilty, though.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
The supermarket ID check is unlikely to demand evidence from 2019, or offer me only choices of guilty and guilty, though.
How do you think insurance fraud is investigated? You’d think the first claim I was paid would be paid to me in good faith, but after five or six in a year, the insurers might start asking questions, no? And you don’t think insurers investigate fraud that might have happened a year or two ago? How do you think all that stuff works?

This case is from January 2019. Is this somehow unfair? https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-wiltshire-56174515
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top