Refund irregularity letter

[Luke77]

Yeah, until they give us a lot more detail, we're left with a load of stress and questions. Hopefully, I'll have more to go on tomorrow.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

How does your wife purchase her tickets? Online, with LNER or Trainline, for example?
If so, you can jointly review yourselves what tickets have actually been purchased. Allegations of short-distance tickets would be simple to refute.

 

[AlterEgo]

To be honest without saying it they’re alleging serial doughnutting over years and will probably have evidence of this. Your wife will know exactly what she’s been up to if that is the case. So better have a chat with her.

Better still, pull all the ticket history she has and see why LNER are making this allegation. They don’t send many of these letters and they don’t come across as incompetent either.

Now you’ve started correspondence with them, if you’re certain she has had no dishonest intent, she should reply quite succinctly to that end. If she’s been doughnutting then you need to settle this promptly, especially if there are also illicit refunds.

 

[Luke77]

No further contact from LNER, unfortunately. I guess it was unlikely so quickly but we hoped for it before the Easter break.

I think she buys her tickets direct through LNER. We're still confused about the letter going back to May 2022 when she's only been in her job her year. Now wondering if 2022 was a typo for 2024. Until they give a lot more detail, we're stuck.

 

[minderbinder]

Until they give a lot more detail, we're stuck.

You're not really stuck in terms of figuring out what they are asking about. @AlterEgo has provided an explanation of what is being alleged in post #33 along with directions on how you can check this for yourselves.

To ask you directly:
(1) Has your wife ever purchased tickets travelling from Peterborough to Huntingdon and from Finsbury Park to a London station on the same day?
(2) Has your wife ever used a train ticket and then had it refunded?

Based on LNER's correspondence, I'm assuming the answer to both of these questions is yes?

 

[WesternLancer]

You're not really stuck in terms of figuring out what they are asking about. @AlterEgo has provided an explanation of what is being alleged in post #33 along with directions on how you can check this for yourselves.

To ask you directly:
(1) Has your wife ever purchased tickets travelling from Peterborough to Huntingdon and from Finsbury Park to a London station on the same day?
(2) Has your wife ever used a train ticket and then had it refunded?

Based on LNER's correspondence, I'm assuming the answer to both of these questions is yes?

I’m not sure if it’s wise for the op to answer this on a public forum given Lner won’t have sent that letter with those specific places to many people and could match an answer here to who they know the op is by viewing this.

Even though I understand why you are asking.

 

[Luke77]

When I say 'stuck', I mean we still have no concrete accusations to mount a defence to/give an explanation regarding. It could well be a case of them accusing her of doughnutting (a new one on me), but until we get precise details of exactly what they're saying, I'm not going to be too specific simply because I don't know what I'm being specific about. I appreciate that makes giving advice that much harder and I'm also really grateful for the information from everyone. If on the off chance they respond over the long weekend, I'll let you know.

 

[John R]

When I say 'stuck', I mean we still have no concrete accusations to mount a defence to/give an explanation regarding. It could well be a case of them accusing her of doughnutting (a new one on me), but until we get precise details of exactly what they're saying, I'm not going to be too specific simply because I don't know what I'm being specific about. I appreciate that makes giving advice that much harder and I'm also really grateful for the information from everyone. If on the off chance they respond over the long weekend, I'll let you know.

The point is, you and/or your wife know whether she has been doing something she should not. So are you really "clueless"? And I disagree that there are no concrete accusations. Paragraph 2 spells out perfectly clearly what they think you have been doing. Refunding tickets when you have travelled and doughnutting. How much clearer do you need it to be?

There is a danger of acting the innocent and not coming clean at the first opportunity in that you might appear uncooperative, and we always advise honesty and full cooperation if you want to maximise the opportunity of an out of court settlement.

 

[minderbinder]

I’m not sure if it’s wise for the op to answer this on a public forum given Lner won’t have sent that letter with those specific places to many people and could match an answer here to who they know the op is by viewing this.

That’s a fair point - it’s quite a specific combination of allegations.

I did try to phrase the questions in such a way that OP would not incriminate his wife if he chose to answer, but perhaps not entirely successfully.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

That’s a fair point - it’s quite a specific combination of allegations.

One might wonder whether LNER are making allegations about a system whereby a journey from A to D is broken into separate tickets A to B, B to C and C to D. If inspected on the train, they will always be valid tickets even if the split is financially illogical. The point is that if any of the tickets, most likely the B to C one, are not inspected or marked in some way as having being used, then they can be refunded. The train has to stop at B and C of course.

It's easily detected if an investigator looks for it by following the trail from the refunds.

 

[Hadders]

One might wonder whether LNER are making allegations about a system whereby a journey from A to D is broken into separate tickets A to B, B to C and C to D. If inspected on the train, they will always be valid tickets even if the split is financially illogical. The point is that if any of the tickets, most likely the B to C one, are not inspected or marked in some way as having being used, then they can be refunded. The train has to stop at B and C of course.

It's easily detected if an investigator looks for it by following the trail from the refunds.

Bear in mind that if the journey is between Peterborough and London the only possible split would be at Stevenage and there are no southbound trains in the morning peak that call at both Peterborugh and Stevenage and only one northbound in the evening peak that calls at Stevenage and Peterborough.

 

[AlterEgo]

One might wonder whether LNER are making allegations about a system whereby a journey from A to D is broken into separate tickets A to B, B to C and C to D. If inspected on the train, they will always be valid tickets even if the split is financially illogical. The point is that if any of the tickets, most likely the B to C one, are not inspected or marked in some way as having being used, then they can be refunded. The train has to stop at B and C of course.

It's easily detected if an investigator looks for it by following the trail from the refunds.

The stations are Peterborough, Huntingdon, Finsbury Park and London Kings Cross, so none of these combinations would be valid splits. They (PBO-HUN, FPK-KGX) are also the cheapest combinations of tickets that would work the barrier at both ends of the trip. Perhaps some tickets which have gone unscanned have then been refunded, and the volume of those has perhaps triggered the audit.

There’s not much point giving any further advice until we know precisely what the allegations are.

Nonetheless, it’s unlikely that the OP/their wife doesn’t know what’s going on here. LNER don’t send these letters out willy nilly.

I expect LNER will be back in touch in the week after Easter holidays with a spreadsheet of the journeys under question.