Claiming twice: honest or dishonest?

[najaB]

Simple scenario, based on [thread=148753]this thread[/thread]:

• I buy a ticket for a train journey, which I lose en-route.
• I pay for the journey again (to keep things simple, assume that the guard allows me to just buy a new ticket).
• The journey is delayed such that I would be entitled to 100% compensation under delay repay.
• I find the original ticket while getting ready to make my delay repay claim.

Question: In your opinion, would it be dishonest to claim Delay Repay twice? What's the reasoning behind your answer.

 

[najaB]

This was posted in the linked thread:

I think many members of the public would think it reasonable that either one of the tickets is refunded (because only one was journey was made), or if this is denied, then both should be compensated because the service was delayed.

NOW, that's not the way it works, I know. And such a claim would fail. BUT, it's a stretch to say that a reaonable person would say it is dishonest to make such a claim and that the claimant ought to have known as much (which is roughly what the test for dishonesty is when trying to show fraud). Afterall, it's very likely that such a claimant would make the claims together perhaps with a covering letter in the same envelope. Hardly the hallmarks of a fraudster.

As per my post in the linked thread, my position is that it's compensation not a refund so you're only entitled to one payment as you were only delayed once.

 

[jimbo99]

In the simple case described, no. I do not think it is dishonest.

It might be that the claim fails because of the rules, but I do not think it dishonest to make the claim provided you disclose what happened.

The original context was the assertion that such a claim would be "blatantly fraudulent". Fraud has a very specific two-part legal test for dishonesty, the "Ghosh" test. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Ghosh). This sets a slightly higher hurdle than what plain English might drive you to think.

Some would say that in principle, the traveller shouldn't be in this position. Having found the original ticket, then the replacement should be refunded anyway. Only the original should be considered under delay-repay.

Any alleged "dishonesty" is a consequence of "dishonesty" by the railway company in not refunding the replacement once the original has been found (and there is no dispute about the facts).

 

[najaB]

Having found the original ticket, then the replacement should be refunded anyway. Only the original should be considered under delay-repay.

Exactly! It's dishonest, bordering on fraudulent to claim *delay* repay twice as you were only delayed once. Asking for a refund of the unused ticket is a different matter.

The reason that I say it is particularly dishonest in the original thread is because the OP had already received favorable consideration from the TOC by being issued a UPFN rather than a potential prosecution letter.

 

[jimbo99]

I think this is an example where the railway industry sees the world differently from normal consumers.

Exactly! It's dishonest, bordering on fraudulent to claim *delay* repay twice as you were only delayed once. Asking for a refund of the unused ticket is a different matter.

A person was only delayed once. But if no refund for the unused ticket is available, then two journeys were purchased. Both of which were delayed. So both should be refunded.

In "railway industry speak", delay-repay might be defined as compensation, but most people would see it as a refund for something defective. Hence the "repay" in "delay-repay". If it is truly compensation, then it would be unrelated to the cost of the ticket. It would be more to do with lost earnings, cost of a taxi, etc.

In layman's terms, "delay-repay" is simply money back cos what was sold went wrong.

The reason that I say it is particularly dishonest in the original thread is because the OP had already received favorable consideration from the TOC by being issued a UPFN rather than a potential prosecution letter.

Again this is a railway view. In other consumer industries, people wouldn't have to feel so grateful for not receiving a "prosecution letter" in a situation such as this that to have the gall to ask for both tickets to be refunded becomes tantamount to fraud.

But in any case, the two issues are separate. Whether or not a prosecution is decided upon doesn't impact the extent to which the subsequent behaviour of the traveller is assessed as honest or not.

 

[Essan]

Yes, it would be dishonest.

You only made one journey and it's not the TOC's fault you mislaid your ticket.

 

[185143]

Yes, it would be dishonest.

You only made one journey and it's not the TOC's fault you mislaid your ticket.

I'm of the opinion that to just claim delay repay twice would be dishonest-however to claim, attaching all your tickets and an explanation will do no harm.

 

[najaB]

Again this is a railway view. In other consumer industries, people wouldn't have to feel so grateful for not receiving a "prosecution letter" in a situation such as this that to have the gall to ask for both tickets to be refunded becomes tantamount to fraud.

Delay repay is not a refund, it is compensation.

I would be within my rights to ask for a refund of the unused ticket. However, to take advantage of a 'no questions asked' compensation scheme to make up for a loss that was entirely my fault (it was me who mislaid the ticket, not the TOC) would be dishonest.

 

[BML247]

I believe so yes because they lost their first ticket so thats their fault and lucky not to be prosecuted from what I can see and even if they did find it again, or anyone, then a refund on the second one bought and one claim.

Id be shocked if anyone thinks they could claim twice for the same journey no matter how many tickets they held

 

[swt class 450]

Simple scenario, based on [thread=148753]this thread[/thread]:

• I buy a ticket for a train journey, which I lose en-route.
• I pay for the journey again (to keep things simple, assume that the guard allows me to just buy a new ticket).
• The journey is delayed such that I would be entitled to 100% compensation under delay repay.
• I find the original ticket while getting ready to make my delay repay claim.

Question: In your opinion, would it be dishonest to claim Delay Repay twice? What's the reasoning behind your answer.

That is perfectly honest and fine to do. As you purchased two tickets you should be entitled to two delay repays. That seems fair. I don't see anything dishonest about that.

 

[CheesyChips]

When the railway sells a ticket, it does so with delay repay as part of the contract.

When the railways sells the second ticket, it does so again with delay repay as part of the contract.

Two contracts, each with compensation built into the equation. No it's not dishonest. The railway is no worse off than if the second person claimed using the second ticket.

Isn't it more dishonest to suggest that the railway should retain two fares for one journey?

 

[Cowley]

What about if you convinced yourself that you were travelling with your imaginary friend who you bought a ticket for and although he mislaid it for a bit you feel that he was delayed too?

In all seriousness I don't actually know what the right answer is but I'm feeling slightly more towards claiming the money back on both because the TOC wouldn't (and shouldn't because that's how the system is set up) have made any money from any amount of the tickets for that station due to the delay.

 

[robbeech]

One question to ask would be if one ticket was for you, and the other your friend, and your friend decided not to travel, would you claim for both? That would be dishonest in my opinion, and one has to look at where the difference is, you can only use 1 ticket at once (i appreciate the overlap allowed with a season ticket / rover but this is hardly relevant here).
I'm not suggesting one way or the other here as i do not really know the answer, but i think i would lean towards it being dishonest especially if you couldn't produce ticket A when requested by the guard.

 

[PermitToTravel]

You could pretty easily justify it to yourself by considering that the compensation you're entitled to, for a delay of this length, is the amount that you've paid to travel.

 

[robbeech]

I sort of agree, but if you did not have one of the tickets on you when you travelled you cannot claim that you used that ticket to travel on that train, and at best you should be entitled to a refund less admin fee for it.

 

[najaB]

As I posted above, the main problem I have with it is that the only reason that a second ticket entered the picture was because the first was misplaced. It doesn't seem right to use a delay compensation scheme to recover from that self-induced loss.

 

[ninhog]

A train ticket is simply a permit to travel between two points on the rail network. At the time of being asked to show the entitlement to travel on the rail network, someone didn't have this and couldn't show that they had a permit to travel. Being able to provide this is a condition of carriage.
The person needed a permit to travel, so a second ticket was purchased.
It's unfortunate that the person later found their ticket but it's their fault they weren't able to prove their right to travel on the rail network.
Why would the TOC issue a refund? How do they know that two people haven't travelled together and that someone is dishonestly trying to claim a refund? If you bought something from the shop and lost it, so bought a replacement and started to use that, would you return it because you found the original item?
Claiming delay replay for two tickets on the same journey IS dishonest as only one journey was made.
If I went to someone's grandmother's house and charged her £1,000.00 to paint the front door, would it be acceptable if she was happy/willing to pay me?
Just because delay repay is offered on a per-ticket basis, it isn't a bonus prize and I'd like to think that a TOC would question and reject the second claim.

 

[Wombat]

Is there any financial difference between refunding one ticket and claiming delay repay on the other, versus forgoing the refund and claiming delay repay on both?

 

[robbeech]

a £10 administration fee, which on a £400 ticket is not much but on a £17.30 one is a fair chunk.

 

[Wombat]

So if I were to go down the route of claiming delay repay for both tickets, the TOC wouldn't have to do the refund administration and I would save on the £10 admin fee. Isn't that a win-win?

Admittedly, I'm assuming here that the cost of processing a delay repay claim for two tickets is the same as for one, which might be a false assumption. Still, 'fraud' seems a bit much.

 

[najaB]

So if I were to go down the route of claiming delay repay for both tickets, the TOC wouldn't have to do the refund administration and I would save on the £10 admin fee. Isn't that a win-win?

Not necessarily. The TOC might be under no obligation to refund the unused ticket (e.g. if it were an Advance), but delay repay is notionally a 'no questions asked' compensating scheme.

 

[sheff1]

Delay repay is not a refund, it is compensation.

Not according to posters displayed by EMT at their stations which clearly equate Delay Repay to a refund.

 

[najaB]

Not according to posters displayed by EMT at their stations which clearly equate Delay Repay to a refund.

Their website says it is compensation.

We hate to be late as much as you do, so our Delay Repay scheme is an easy way to claim compensation for any delays over 30 minutes.

You can simply claim by completing the claim form (with details of your delayed journey made within 28 days), upload your ticket or booking information. You can choose how you would like compensation to be paid or if you would rather give it to charity. It’s as easy as that. If you didn’t travel at all, due to the disruption to our train service, you can obtain a full refund at the place where you bought your ticket. See further details.

We pay compensation in various ways (to ensure this suits your needs) and within 14 days of your claim being agreed.

Could you be kind enough to provide a picture of one of the posters?

 

[sheff1]

Could you be kind enough to provide a picture of one of the posters?

I will try and remember next time I see one. Someone else reading this might see one first and be able to take a picture.

 

[35B]

Surely it is both compensation, in that it is available in response to a delay, and a refund, in that the compensation is a proportion of up to 100% of the fare paid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

Surely it is both compensation, in that it is available in response to a delay, and a refund, in that the compensation is a proportion of up to 100% of the fare paid.

Nope. Just compensation. It's accounted for differently (yes, Yorkie, not the passenger's concern, I know) and has a different legal status. Not to mention that a refund would come out of the pocket of the person who sold the ticket, which would make claiming it a lot harder.

It's not uncommon for compensation to be based on the amount paid.

 

[Wombat]

Not necessarily. The TOC might be under no obligation to refund the unused ticket (e.g. if it were an Advance), but delay repay is notionally a 'no questions asked' compensating scheme.

Fair enough! I still don't see this as a big deal, though.

If I don't lose my ticket the net result is that I travel, am delayed, claim delay repay and the TOC ultimately doesn't get or lose any money. If I do lose my ticket and then buy another one, am delayed, find my original ticket and claim delay repay on both, the TOC still doesn't get or lose any money.

I expect that there are points of law that lawyers (professional and armchair alike) will care about. From a passenger's point of view, it's not clear to me what fundamental principle of fairness is breached by claiming delay repay on both tickets.

 

[TrainfanBen]

In my opinion,

If the first ticket is found then surely it would be refunded as if not travelled.

The second ticket remains valid and then gets the appropriate delay repay.

This is the situation that accounts for both contracts being entirely valid.

I don't believe the position of a TOC not to impose a UFN or penalty to be relevent; The passenger is subsequently able to prove there journey was paid for correctly.

So claiming for two delay repay is dishonest.

Working in a hotel, we get people with duplicate bookings and situations like this.

 

[Clip]

Fair enough! I still don't see this as a big deal, though.

If I don't lose my ticket the net result is that I travel, am delayed, claim delay repay and the TOC ultimately doesn't get or lose any money. If I do lose my ticket and then buy another one, am delayed, find my original ticket and claim delay repay on both, the TOC still doesn't get or lose any money.

I expect that there are points of law that lawyers (professional and armchair alike) will care about. From a passenger's point of view, it's not clear to me what fundamental principle of fairness is breached by claiming delay repay on both tickets.

Because delay repay is based on the journey that you took - and that would be one journey:-

with details of your delayed journey made within 28 days

NOT how many tickets you hold. Remember this when you claim for split ticketed journeys where you hold multiple tickets its still 'One Journey'

 

[ComUtoR]

If I had a two tickets. One for me, one for my Sister.

Due to unforeseen circumstances she couldn't travel and I took the journey on my own.

I get delayed and it meets the criteria for delay repay.

Can I claim twice ?