Refund irregularity letter

[Luke77]

Hi. I'm after some advice and you guys are definitely the people to talk to. My wife had an email last night titled 'Refund irregularity letter'. I've pasted it below. She travels to London maybe four times a month for her job but this has only been for the last year so we don't know why this apparently goes back to 2022. If trains were late by a certain time, I know you can claim refunds which is what's happened here but beyond that, we're clueless. She's asked them for specific dates, times and location so we're waiting for their reply. It also seems odd that the company accusing someone of something wants that person to prove they didn't do it rather than them proving that the person did it. Any advice on our next steps or what to expect is more than welcome. Thanks.

 

[Darandio]

If trains were late by a certain time, I know you can claim refunds which is what's happened here but beyond that, we're clueless.

You can claim delay repay when trains pass a certain delay threshold, you cannot refund a ticket that has been used in this way. That is what they are suggesting.

 

[Haywain]

If trains were late by a certain time, I know you can claim refunds which is what's happened here

So, guilty as charged (although not actually charged at this point). If a train is delayed you are entitled to claim Delay Repay compensation - this is NOT a refund, and should be claimed from the train operator, not the retailer.

 

[Luke77]

We'll have to see what they come back with in terms of the specifics, but they're saying she had a full refund? Wouldn't they only grant that if the train was cancelled rather than just delayed? And when they talk about a settlement, is there a standard figure or is it a case by case thing?

 

[simonw]

We'll have to see what they come back with in terms of the specifics, but they're saying she had a full refund? Wouldn't they only grant that if the train was cancelled rather than just delayed? And when they talk about a settlement, is there a standard figure or is it a case by case thing?

If she applied for a refund then she implied to the railway company that she did not use the ticket to travel, not that she was delayed. it would appear that the company believes she has claimed a refund for ticket(s) that were used. At present they haven't shared the basis on which they make that assertion.




Delay repay is a completely separate process, although it is not unknown for people to claim delay repay when they weren't delayed; this would not be a valid claim but this is not being suggested atm.

 

[Luke77]

OK. I'll come back when we hear more. Thanks for the help.

 

[pedr]

Your wife needs to consider and try to recall what action she has taken after being delayed by trains.

If a passenger travels by train and arrives late because of train delays, they should contact the train company that caused the delay via a scheme called Delay Repay. This results in compensation for the delay, on a sliding scale depending on how long the delay was.

If a passenger does not travel by train but has bought a ticket which they have not used, they can usually get a refund from the retailer who sold the ticket. If the train was cancelled or delayed and that caused them to decide not to travel that day, they can receive a full refund without a fee.

But if a passenger uses a ticket to travel they are not entitled to a refund for that ticket. Claiming a refund (rather than claiming Delay Repay) is asserting that you haven't travelled using that ticket, which is why the email says this could be considered to be fraud.

If your wife was confused about the process that she should follow when delayed, the letter suggests that the train company may consider settling this, but that will involve repaying all of the refunds received, and it is now too late to claim Delay Repay for those journeys.

 

[furlong]

If she applied for a refund then she implied to the railway company that she did not use the ticket to travel,

OR that she set off, but the delay was so great that completing the journey became pointless for her so she abandoned it and returned to her origin.

 

[WesternLancer]

OK. I'll come back when we hear more. Thanks for the help.

Yes - @pedr in post #7 sets out the issue here very clearly

Your wife will not have been helped by people referring to delay - repay compensations as 'refunds' and I have often heard this word used by train staff on train announcements when the train is delayed which hardly helps, so confusion is not unusual.

I think you did the right thing to ask them for clarification and to see what they say - but if your wife has been obtaining 100% refunds for tickets that were used for travel, albeit on delayed trains I would be suggesting the best course of action is to swiftly apologise for misunderstanding the process and offering to repay the sums repaid to her in the past to prevent the matter escalating.

Going forwards have a careful read of this LNER page on Delay Repay - but you claim for the delay on the train your were travelling on from the train operator of that delayed train (not from where you bought the ticket from)

Delay Repay

If you're delayed on an LNER train for 30 minutes or more you're entitled to compensation. Choose to claim your compensation or donate it to CALM.

www.lner.co.uk

So looking at the stations mentioned in the messages sent to you, some of the days might be on LNER trains but probably some on trains operated by others (eg Thameslink / Great Northern etc - and this is worth noting as whilst LNER only pay delay -repay after 30 minutes delay, Thameslink make a payment after 15 minutes delay) which would mean that you would be seeking delay repay compensation from a variety of train operators. A heavily delayed trains can result in a delay repay compensation payment of 100% of the cost of the ticket, but note that is still not a 'refund' even though it might seem like one - at least as I understand it.

My view is that you should certainly make legitimate claims for occasions when your chosen train is delayed, but only claim refunds if the delay means you choose not to travel as a result of the delay (there may be other occasions when you wish to claim a refund but I'm not getting in to that here)

When you hear back do post any questions about this process or advice that you need.

 

[minderbinder]

In addition to the problem of refunding used tickets, it appears that your wife is also suspected of doughnutting. Looking at the stations mentioned, they seem to believe that your wife is taking the Thameslink train from Peterborough to London, but only purchasing tickets from Peterborough to Huntingdon, and from Finsbury Park to, say, St Pancras in order to get through the gates at each end.

 

[Haywain]

In addition to the problem of refunding used tickets, it appears that your wife is also suspected of doughnutting. Looking at the stations mentioned, they seem to believe that your wife is taking the Thameslink train from Peterborough to London, but only purchasing tickets from Peterborough to Huntingdon, and from Finsbury Park to, say, St Pancras in order to get through the gates at each end.

I think you're making a bit of a jump there. It is perfectly reasonable for someone living between Peterborough and Huntingdon to travel from both at different times.

 

[WesternLancer]

In addition to the problem of refunding used tickets, it appears that your wife is also suspected of doughnutting. Looking at the stations mentioned, they seem to believe that your wife is taking the Thameslink train from Peterborough to London, but only purchasing tickets from Peterborough to Huntingdon, and from Finsbury Park to, say, St Pancras in order to get through the gates at each end.

I'm not sure I read it that way (but I could be wrong)

Obviously the OP / their wife will know if they are also doing this - they don't need to say if they are or are not on this site - but if they want further advice on the consequences of such matters there are experts here to help.

 

[Bertie the bus]

I think you're making a bit of a jump there. It is perfectly reasonable for someone living between Peterborough and Huntingdon to travel from both at different times.

I don't think they are. It is there in black and white, or it would be if they hadn't missed out the word ticket. It would be very odd to add a furthermore, you need to buy a ticket for your whole journey if they don't suspect she hasn't been doing.

 

[minderbinder]

I'm not sure I read it that way (but I could be wrong)

I can’t be sure, of course, but the stations mentioned plus the phrase “Furthermore, failure to purchase a [ticket] for the entirety of the journey made, would be a breach of the Railway Bylaws.” suggests so to me.

 

[WesternLancer]

I can’t be sure, of course, but the stations mentioned plus the phrase “Furthermore, failure to purchase a [ticket] for the entirety of the journey made, would be a breach of the Railway Bylaws.” suggests so to me.

I see your point. As I say the passenger will know. Of course this text could be a standard template etc

Either way they are open to settling this without prosecution which is positive for the OP / passenger.

I can see how refund and Delay -Repay confusion can arise - that's of course not the case for deliberate short faring / doughnutting.

 

[Luke77]

Thanks for all the replies/info. I was hoping we would have an update during the day but I guess it takes some time for them to get it together. I've clarified with my wife about the Delay Repay issue. She says it isn't that and she knew D-R isn't a refund even though, on paper, it reads like one.

With the company mentioning a settlement, I get that this would include any money if it turns out she does owe them, but when it comes to their investigation costs, can anyone give us a rough figure of what that might be? I have zero frame of reference so I don't know whether to expect them to talk hundreds or thousands. And as we're yet to be told exactly what they're accusing her of, it all feels very up in the air.

 

[Titfield]

Thanks for all the replies/info. I was hoping we would have an update during the day but I guess it takes some time for them to get it together. I've clarified with my wife about the Delay Repay issue. She says it isn't that and she knew D-R isn't a refund even though, on paper, it reads like one.

With the company mentioning a settlement, I get that this would include any money if it turns out she does owe them, but when it comes to their investigation costs, can anyone give us a rough figure of what that might be? I have zero frame of reference so I don't know whether to expect them to talk hundreds or thousands. And as we're yet to be told exactly what they're accusing her of, it all feels very up in the air.

Investigation costs we normally see are in the £150 - £200 range but we have seen more for more involved investigations in the £350 - £500 range. Anything above that would be exceptional.

 

[Luke77]

Investigation costs we normally see are in the £150 - £200 range but we have seen more for more involved investigations in the £350 - £500 range. Anything above that would be exceptional.

Ouch. Would I be right in thinking when they come up with the precise details and we think we can't prove she didn't do whatever they're suggesting, then it might keep the costs on the lower scale if we apologise and offer to pay without courts etc? As far as we know with our limited info from them, she hasn't done anything but they obviously think she has and clearly believe they can prove it.

 

[furlong]

Take it one step at a time. The letter should have been accompanied by a schedule setting out the precise allegations as clearly nobody can be expected to provide an explanation without this information. It is premature to consider any response until they have provided this information.

"Should you believe our findings are incorrect" without stating what those "findings" actually are?

 

[AlterEgo]

Ouch. Would I be right in thinking when they come up with the precise details and we think we can't prove she didn't do whatever they're suggesting, then it might keep the costs on the lower scale if we apologise and offer to pay without courts etc? As far as we know with our limited info from them, she hasn't done anything but they obviously think she has and clearly believe they can prove it.

If she hasn’t committed any fraud, and is confident she has acted honestly, I would be inclined not to make any comment whatsoever. Fraud is a serious matter and if confronted with something in this way I would not speak (to the victim!) about this under any circumstances unless represented.

Take it one step at a time. The letter should have been accompanied by a schedule setting out the precise allegations as clearly nobody can be expected to provide an explanation without this information. It is premature to consider any response until they have provided this information.

"Should you believe our findings are incorrect" without stating what those "findings" actually are?

Quite. The letter is too vague to invite any comment on its content in my view.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

Given that you're dealing with LNER it suggests that they journeys made were between Peterborugh and London. I know it's possible to buy tickets through LNER to travel on other journeys so it would be helpful if @Luke77 could confirm the exact journey.

If my suspicion is correct there's then a couple of issues that arise:

• Do the tickets purchased cover the full journey? There's a suspicion that 'doughnutting' has happened, i.e. purchasing short distance tickets to getthrough the barriers at Peterborough and Kings Cross leaving a gap in the middle.
• Have any tickets been submitted for a refund? Again, my suspicious mind wonders whether a ticket that wasn't scanned was submitted for a refund (eg the barriers were open upon arrival at Kings Cross so the Finsbury Park to Kings Cross ticket didn't get scanned so was submitted for a refund

While there are legitimate reasons to refund tickets, I'm thinking that purchasing Peterborough to Huntingdon and Finsbury Park to Kings Cross tickets for the same day, Peterborough to Huntindon ticket is scanned to get through the barriers at Peterborough, no exit scan at Huntingdon and then the Finsbury Park to Kings Cross ticket submitted for a refund is bound to raise suspicion.

We don't see many cases involving LNER in this section of the forum. There is essentially two choices:

1. Co-operate with LNER. They will almost certainly offer you an out of court settlement which will be the cost of all the journeys made at the full Anytime fare plus an admin fee, typicaly around £150. No credit is likely to be given for the invalid tickets piurchased. Pay and that will be the end of the matter.

2. Do nothing. Purchasing tickets is not illegal, using them to make an invalid journey is. It is for LNER to prove the tickets were used illegally. The issue here is that you don't know what evidence LNER has to indicate who used the tickets but they will know who has applied for the refunds and who these have been paid to. Given that you've engaged with them this also complicates things as you could've inadvertently incriminated yourself. If you do go down this route you will continue to receive threateninig emails and letters from LNER.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ouch. Would I be right in thinking when they come up with the precise details and we think we can't prove she didn't do whatever they're suggesting

It’s for them to prove the allegations, not you to prove they didn’t happen. But the content of the letter does suggest she has been habitually doughnutting her tickets. Nonetheless, there is no specific allegation made and I’d still not comment on it.

 

[Luke77]

Thanks again for the replies and help. I agree that we should have received much more detailed accounts of what they're alleging she's done. It's almost impossible to offer up a defence when the allegations are so vague. We asked for the detailed info from them but that's literally it on our part.

One of the bigger problems is the timescale. If this does go back three years, I have no idea how she's meant to account for each journey. Also, the Easter weekend may delay a reply from them. As soon as I have more, I'll let you know

 

[AlterEgo]

Essentially you’re on track here to settle out of court with them. Regrettably, by engaging in the first place you’ve ended any realistic hope of not appearing guilty.

You see there is a huge problem when engaging or talking about allegations like this. An innocent person knows that they have acted honestly; they know if they buy tickets for their full journey, and they know if they have been refunding tickets they aren’t supposed to be refunding. Most innocent people would be quite angry to get a letter out of the blue like this and wouldn’t countenance settling such a matter. There could possibly be no evidence at all of wrongdoing; none happened!

As soon as you start vacillating about whether it’ll cost you hundreds or thousands to settle and um and ahh about it, an external observer will smell the guilt.

When someone confronts you with vague allegations, don’t ever ever reply. You start answering vague and establishing questions, and then you’ll get confronted with something specific and nasty which demands an answer; withholding comment only at that stage is fatal as an investigator (or a jury) will likely make an inference from it.

 

[Luke77]

Essentially you’re on track here to settle out of court with them. Regrettably, by engaging in the first place you’ve ended any realistic hope of not appearing guilty.

You see there is a huge problem when engaging or talking about allegations like this. An innocent person knows that they have acted honestly; they know if they buy tickets for their full journey, and they know if they have been refunding tickets they aren’t supposed to be refunding. Most innocent people would be quite angry to get a letter out of the blue like this and wouldn’t countenance settling such a matter. There could possibly be no evidence at all of wrongdoing; none happened!

As soon as you start vacillating about whether it’ll cost you hundreds or thousands to settle and um and ahh about it, an external observer will smell the guilt.

When someone confronts you with vague allegations, don’t ever ever reply. You start answering vague and establishing questions, and then you’ll get confronted with something specific and nasty which demands an answer; withholding comment only at that stage is fatal as an investigator (or a jury) will likely make an inference from it.

Do you mean by talking about on here that I've/we've made it look like she's guilty? Or by replying to their initial email?

 

[Hadders]

Do you mean by talking about on here that I've/we've made it look like she's guilty? Or by replying to their initial email?

Replying to the initial email.

 

[enyoueffsea]

I often find it curious that people have no knowledge of any wrongdoing but immediately start asking questions about how much they could settle the case for, that they don’t believe exists.

Are you able to account for the short journey tickets? You say your wife travels to London for work, why would she only buy a ticket home to Finsbury Park?

As you have already engaged with them, you will probably need some form of explanation. Whilst the burden lies on them proving the journeys were not valid, they’re not likely to give up without an explanation. Especially if this could be a reasonably high value (3 years of journeys between Peterborough and London).

 

[AlterEgo]

Do you mean by talking about on here that I've/we've made it look like she's guilty? Or by replying to their initial email?

The latter, I meant.

 

[Luke77]

We thought it best to reply to their email with a 'please supply more information' rather than ignoring it mainly because of their mention of taking it further if we didn't.

They're going back to 2022 but she's only been in this job for a year so we have no idea why they're talking three years of travel.

 

[WesternLancer]

We thought it best to reply to their email with a 'please supply more information' rather than ignoring it mainly because of their mention of taking it further if we didn't.

They're going back to 2022 but she's only been in this job for a year so we have no idea why they're talking three years of travel.

I think under the circumstances this is a reasonable thing to have done.

We don’t see LNER cases on here very often (but have a search) but the ones I recall seem to show Lner behaving reasonably with people.

There are things that people do (quite commonly I think) eg getting on a train then buying a ticket after having sat down, that are actually ticketing offences. But you seem to be saying you have no idea what has been done wrong. So it seems reasonable to ask them. They won’t charge admin fees unless they find something wrong.

Ref refunds. I assume your wife can check payment into a bank account from a railway company and you can look up fares for the journeys she typically makes so that would allow you to get an idea if sums paid are refund level or delay repay level. It takes a big delay to get a sum equal to the full ticket price and delays if that length are rare unless they involve connecting train journeys in my experience.