Govia Thameslink Railway (Southern) - Delay repay declined

[farleigh]

Disgusting behaviour by GTR

Good luck OP

 

[Chrisgr31]

I suspect there is a huge amount of fraud around Delay Repay and there are significant numbers of people who will claim for trains that they weren't on and had no intention of being on. I am aware of a number of people who I believe might claim for journeys they haven't made nor intended to make. I believe this from comments I have seen them make on Twitter, which just shows how dangerous it can be to comment publicly. There will however be a few people who are unfortunate enough to regularly been delayed sufficiently to claim delay repay.

I was interested by the OP in the other thread talking about claiming for a cancelled train because they "intended" to travel on it. I happen to know why the word "intended" is there because I was the one that suggested it.

It appears because prior to that the traveller was obliged to confirm that they travelled on the relevant train. By definition you cannot travel on a cancelled train, therefore the word intended was added.

 

[Sonadagothalus]

My view on this has always been that if I get to the station to get say the 06:00 and the service gets to it's end destination at say 07.30 then if this is cancelled, delayed or curtailed and I get to my end destination at 08:00 this is a valid 30 minute delay.

With services like the Uckfield line where it's at the end of a branch and no other train services is possible, if 2 trains are cancelled back to back, I'll always keep any alternative evidence like bus or taxi tickets and still work out my delay based on arrival time at my end destination as I don't think someone should be forced to wait on a platform for 2 hours in the hopes of a train arriving.

It is a really sorry state of affairs where you run such a shambolic service and your main focus is to deflect attention by claiming fraud.

 

[farleigh]

I am genuinely shocked that GTR should intimate that you are fraudulently claiming with absolutely no evidence. It is a disgusting thing to do.

 

[gingerheid]

I am genuinely shocked that GTR should intimate that you are fraudulently claiming with absolutely no evidence. It is a disgusting thing to do.

Disgusting and... oddly enough... a breach of the Fraud Act 2006, even if done to chance luck without knowledge of whether or not it was true.

I suspect that if a solicitor's letter threatens a private prosecution they will trip over their legs while running to claim that it was a terrible mistake.

 

[Sonadagothalus]

Disgusting and... oddly enough... a breach of the Fraud Act 2006, even if done to chance luck without knowledge of whether or not it was true.

I suspect that if a solicitor's letter threatens a private prosecution they will trip over their legs while running to claim that it was a terrible mistake.

Hence my post expressing curiosity if this I am the only one being targeted like this?

 

[AlterEgo]

Disgusting and... oddly enough... a breach of the Fraud Act 2006

In what way is it a breach of the Act?

 

[farleigh]

Luckily the OP seems pretty level-headed and confident of his rights. For many people, an allegation such as this would induce extreme anxiety. Somebody at GTR should feel very ashamed.

 

[island]

Disgusting and... oddly enough... a breach of the Fraud Act 2006, even if done to chance luck without knowledge of whether or not it was true.

I suspect that if a solicitor's letter threatens a private prosecution they will trip over their legs while running to claim that it was a terrible mistake.

Would you care to elaborate on what part of the Fraud Act you claim this breaches?

 

[gingerheid]

If the suggestions made in this thread are correct then the elements of an offence under s2 Fraud Act 2006 would be met as follows:

- s2(1)(a part) A false representation was made (that GTR know a large portion of Sonadagothalus' claims delay repay claims are fraudulent and have CCTV proving this)

- s2(1)(b)(i) By making this statement GTR intended to make a gain for themselves (fail to pay sums that were due and obtain repayment of sums that were not due) or s2(1)(b)(ii) cause a loss to another (the inverse of the above in re Sonadagothalus)

- s2(2) The representation is false because it is untrue or misleading (if Sonadagothlus is telling the truth) and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading (if it is the case that this is merely a fishing exercise directed at frequent claimants, and there is no reasonable way GTR could have thought that the claims form a suspicious pattern. The "might be" is key here; you have to know that you are telling the truth and can't be careless about making a statement to see what happens.).

- s2(1)(a remainder) And, apply our judgement and case law here, that the above was done dishonestly. To decide what is dishonest we should form a view of what GTR's belief was of the facts. If they, albeit mistakenly, truly believed that the claims were false, that they really did form a pattern so suspicious that they couldn't possibly be true, and that they had CCTV evidence that proved this, then they would not be dishonest; they would merely have made a mistake. If however they knew this was not the case, or if they didn't really know whether or not it was the case but thought it was possible that it could be the case and felt they could bully Sonadagothalus by saying it anway, then that would have been dishonesty. This would be the subjective element of a potential offence. If they do it once it's easy to claim it was a mistake. If they do it lots of times to different people as part of a one off mistaken implementation of an automated process it's less likely it was a mistake but still vaguely possible. If the facts are as people here say they are, and they double down on the lie after being asked for things like the CCTV, then it's difficult for them to claim they were honest. If they are engaged in similar correspondence with other people it's almost impossible for them to claim they were honest.

For my part; I hope they get their reliability back in gear again, but until then I'm lucky to have a car to fall back on and to be making a journey you can reasonably do by car. I hate driving, but by train I was arriving 58m late about twice a week and more than an hour late around once a week, and the weak link was almost always the GTR part of the journey

 

[AlterEgo]

This is not likely to be dishonesty on the part of GTR. It is likely to be astonishing incompetence for which they need slapping down by the relevant authorities.

 

[island]

The dishonesty element is never going to be proven to a criminal standard.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This is not likely to be dishonesty on the part of GTR. It is likely to be astonishing incompetence for which they need slapping down by the relevant authorities.

I'm sure you have good reasons for having this view - but could you elaborate why you think it's not a case of them having a policy of demanding money back from their biggest claimers, no matter what? It sounds very much like that at the moment.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm sure you have good reasons for having this view - but could you elaborate why you think it's not a case of them having a policy of demanding money back from their biggest claimers, no matter what? It sounds very much like that at the moment.

Firstly I agree that I think GTR are unilaterally demanding money back from their biggest claimers. I would reckon the majority of their most frequent claimers have made at least several fraudulent claims and potentially dozens or hundreds. I can say this because I know how the whole game works - there’s a lot of fraud about, the larger scale ones are perpetrated via season tickets on irregular routes with journeys that don’t match up to reason or logic.

For there to be a fraud on the part of GTR, you need to be satisfied that GTR wilfully contacted the OP *in the knowledge that* they were not due any money back from them.

I am not satisfied this is the case. I don’t think anyone at GTR has even looked at the claim history. I only needed two minutes to have a brief look at the OP’s travel habits and purchase history to see that it was legit. Not only was it clearly legit, but it would also not even be reasonable for anyone to believe a fraud was being perpetrated by the OP.

GTR are astonishingly incompetent and have the lowest standards of customer service I’ve ever seen.

I doubt GTR intend to defraud the OP but they are guilty of the most basic, gross, outrageous incompetence. I am sure if you asked GTR how they sent the letters out, theyd reply “well we got the details of the top ten claimers, then sent them identical letters”.

We often see disputes on this part of the forum where the consequences are likely to be RORA or bylaw convictions.

This is much more serious - an accusation by a TOC (implicit) of criminal fraud made against the OP. This is very serious and I hope the matter is being taken as far as it can be.

However, I don’t think anyone is going to be able to prove that GTR’s actions are a fraud to any criminal standard (as @island says) so we should drop that idea and concentrate on realistic methods of redress.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I strongly agree with Island and AlterEgo - there will not be Evidence of a Fraud to give any realistic prospect of success.

 

[gingerheid]

For there to be a fraud on the part of GTR, you need to be satisfied that GTR wilfully contacted the OP *in the knowledge that* they were not due any money back from them.

I am not satisfied this is the case. I don’t think anyone at GTR has even looked at the claim history.

That's not quite correct; if GTR demand money saying that it is due, but without knowledge of whether it is due, that is also fraud by false representation.

If they say they have evidence that the money is due to them when they don't, or when they do not know whether or not they do, that is also a false representation.

Since last year the measure of "dishonest" has changed. We now only have to ask "would a reasonable and honest person send a number of letters demanding money that may or may not be due, claiming to have evidence that they either know they do not have or that they do not know whether they have?".

Now obviously they aren't going to be prosecuted for fraud, but the way they could provide the remaining evidence needed is by keeping on repeating any lie so many times that it couldn't any longer be a mistake. Tactically they would therefore be mad not to claim innocent *one off* terrible error at the first opportunity fraud was suggested.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That's not quite correct; if GTR demand money saying that it is due, but without knowledge of whether it is due, that is also fraud by false representation.

If they say they have evidence that the money is due to them when they don't, or when they do not know whether or not they do, that is also a false representation.

Since last year the measure of "dishonest" has changed. We now only have to ask "would a reasonable and honest person send a number of letters demanding money that may or may not be due, claiming to have evidence that they either know they do not have or that they do not know whether they have?".

I have spoken to someone who is familiar with these laws (dealing with them daily). They say that, given the facts in this situation, fraud is clearly shown as there is a false representation (your claims are fraudulent/we have evidence that your claims are fraudulent), which is said in an attempt at financial loss for others or gain for self (repayment of Delay Repay). As we all know though, prosecuting the TOC is sadly not a realistic option and it's not like there's any public authority that would be bothered.

 

[gingerheid]

I worked in such a role for 13 years, crossing the 2006 Act but, sadly, leaving before Ivey v Genting Casinos would have made my life even easier still! If the facts are as stated the fraud is clear; that would be the easy bit (tbh I'd still have fancied my chances under the 68/78 deception style offences and the Ghosh test). It's the "dishonest" bit that would be hardest, and then of course proving it (but this would be resolved once they'd denied it a certain number of times). The people I worked for were more likely to take up fraud cases than others (partly we were around because others were so bad at it), but I think we'd have needed about 10-15 examples of cases like this one before we'd have done it, to utterly remove all doubt.

If the threat of a private prosecution was delivered though... it's a very credible one, and unless OP states otherwise here (where it will no doubt be read by the TOC and passed on to the people dealing with him), GTR have no way of knowing how bitter and twisted he has got over the matter and whether or not he would follow it through!

PS... I am bitter and twisted, I would do it (though perhaps this is also because I've experience of the issue and would be confident of success.) In the last month I regularly took the train I had over £100 off GTR in delay repay, and it certainly wasn't even nearly enough to make me happy that that this was a sensible way of travelling. I'll go back to the train if it becomes less awful.

 

[Abpj17]

Suffering GTR passengers take pictures of departure boards on a regular basis - the public messaging about trains can be very inconsistent. Departure board snapshot helps to remind. Personally, I'm now more likely to screen shot what is showing on a travel app (live trains being my favourite). I have a dozen or so such pictures this year so far...

A £1000 claim per year doesn't seem unreasonable for GTR - particularly if you have an erratic travel pattern in terms of time and location, meaning walk-up fares instead of a season ticket.

Going forwards, you may want to instead just track yourself and use data from online services to validate each claim yourself. My favourite is http://recenttraintimes.co.uk/ (but need to tick actual times)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Suffering GTR passengers take pictures of departure boards on a regular basis - the public messaging about trains can be very inconsistent. Departure board snapshot helps to remind. Personally, I'm now more likely to screen shot what is showing on a travel app (live trains being my favourite). I have a dozen or so such pictures this year so far...

A £1000 claim per year doesn't seem unreasonable for GTR - particularly if you have an erratic travel pattern in terms of time and location, meaning walk-up fares instead of a season ticket.

Going forwards, you may want to instead just track yourself and use data from online services to validate each claim yourself. My favourite is http://recenttraintimes.co.uk/ (but need to tick actual times)

However, beware that this is only a way of checking the delays of trains - not the delays to journeys. If you turn up at a station you're not going to wait for a heavily delayed 'early' service: you'll rather take the on-time 'later' service instead. The same goes for journeys involving changes.

 

[bb21]

it's not like there's any public authority that would be bothered.

While I have an inclination to agree with your other points, I must strongly challenge this one.

If a TOC were committing fraudulent acts, the DfT would be the first ones to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Those who deal with the authority will know what I am talking about as there have been several big cases recently where the TOCs found themselves in big dodo after being caught red-handed.

Whether the authority were competent enough to realise it is one thing, but if it were brought to their attention, and they agreed with the opinion that GTR were doing dodgy things, they would not hesitate to act. They are certainly no pushover, as often suggested on here.

 

[Tetchytyke]

This is not likely to be dishonesty on the part of GTR.

Govia repeatedly lied to reject delay repay claims when I commuted using London Midland, so I do not share your optimism. Normally I don't ascribe to malice what is incompetence. But with GoVia I make an exception.

I regularly took photos of departure boards to show that trains were not advertised to call at a station (Apsley) that LM said they did.

 

[mallard]

If a TOC were committing fraudulent acts, the DfT would be the first ones to come down on them like a ton of bricks. Those who deal with the authority will know what I am talking about as there have been several big cases recently where the TOCs found themselves in big dodo after being caught red-handed.

If there have been "serveral big cases" recently then surely these are a matter of public record? There must therefore be a news story or press release that you can link to. Odd that nobody has heard of them...

If a regulator acts in secret, it's seriously failing in its duty. Justice (whether applied by the courts or by a regulator directly) must be seen to be done. A large part of the purpose of a regulator is to give the public confidence that bad behaviour is dealt with.

Considering that, anecdotally at least, the number of instances of TOCs acting in "fradulent" manners (such as denying delay repay claims, refusing travel on valid tickets, issuing invalid PFs, etc.) is rapidly increasing accross the industry, clearly whatever part of the DfT is supposed to "come down on them like a ton of bricks" is not doing its job effectively.

Normally I don't ascribe to malice what is incompetence.

Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. In my opinion, the delay repay "departments" (seemingly staffed by a handful of "multi-skilled", i.e. spend most of their time doing other things, workers) of most, if not all, TOCs are "sufficiently advanced" in this regard.

 

[matt_world2004]

If a regulator acts in secret, it's seriously failing in its duty. Justice (whether applied by the courts or by a regulator directly) must be seen to be done. A large part of the purpose of a regulator is to give the public confidence that bad behaviour is dealt with.

Considering that, anecdotally at least, the number of instances of TOCs acting in "fradulent" manners (such as denying delay repay claims, refusing travel on valid tickets, issuing invalid PFs, etc.) is rapidly increasing accross the industry, clearly whatever part of the DfT is supposed to "come down on them like a ton of bricks" is not doing its job effectively.
.

I agree I wish the ORR had the power to mystery shop ticketing issues./Audit ticket irregularities. with loss of PFs and ticket misuse revenue (Eg out of court settlements) for those that regularly misuse railway bylaws/The Pf System.

 

[bb21]

If there have been "serveral big cases" recently then surely these are a matter of public record? There must therefore be a news story or press release that you can link to. Odd that nobody has heard of them...

If a regulator acts in secret, it's seriously failing in its duty. Justice (whether applied by the courts or by a regulator directly) must be seen to be done. A large part of the purpose of a regulator is to give the public confidence that bad behaviour is dealt with.

No, there is nothing out in the open I'm afraid.

Not every infraction the DfT issue would be available to the general public. Don't ask me why. Some I suspect may be down to commercial reasons.

Considering that, anecdotally at least, the number of instances of TOCs acting in "fradulent" manners (such as denying delay repay claims, refusing travel on valid tickets, issuing invalid PFs, etc.) is rapidly increasing accross the industry, clearly whatever part of the DfT is supposed to "come down on them like a ton of bricks" is not doing its job effectively.

Anecdotal, or simply hear'say? What proportion does it represent out of the total number of claims?

(I don't know the answer unfortunately.)

If a regulator acts in secret, it's seriously failing in its duty. Justice (whether applied by the courts or by a regulator directly) must be seen to be done. A large part of the purpose of a regulator is to give the public confidence that bad behaviour is dealt with.

I doubt the government care that much what the general public, or more specifically a group of railway enthusiasts on an internet forum, think regarding how well the DfT perform their regulatory tasks. Perhaps it should be more transparent for the reasons you stated, but I'm not a politician.

DfT certainly aren't pushovers, especially if they catch you on the fiddle systematically.

 

[mallard]

No, there is nothing out in the open I'm afraid.

So basically, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the DfT actually takes serious action against TOCs who regularly defraud, deceive and generally abuse the travelling public. While I'm sure you're just as trustworthy as any other random stranger on the Internet, I tend not to believe outlandish claims that contradict my own experiences without evidence.

Not every infraction the DfT issue would be available to the general public.

Sure, but where it concerns a TOC's interaction with the public it jolly well should be. Especially if it's a "major case".

Some I suspect may be down to commercial reasons.

What other reason could there be? I very much doubt the DfT ever gives a TOC more than a slap on the wrist anyway; I suspect that making this public would just reveal how pathetic such "enforcement" really is. I'm sure RDG has convinced the DfT that drawing attention to bad behaviour will bring the entire industry into disrepute and harm the "brands" of "innocent" (if such a thing exists) TOCs. In my opinion, the entire industry deserves to be brought into disrepute.

The fact that Go-Ahead Group (aka Govia) in particular are apparently still profitable (their shares are trading at pretty much the same level as they were a year ago at least) despite their shambolic performance and utter contempt for their customer base just goes to show how there are no real consiquences for bad behaviour in the rail industry; as long as they keep paying their premiums to the DfT, of course.

I doubt the government care that much what the general public [...] think

Completely agreed.

 

[Abpj17]

No, there is nothing out in the open I'm afraid.

Not every infraction the DfT issue would be available to the general public. Don't ask me why. Some I suspect may be down to commercial reasons.



Anecdotal, or simply hear'say? What proportion does it represent out of the total number of claims?

(I don't know the answer unfortunately.)



I doubt the government care that much what the general public, or more specifically a group of railway enthusiasts on an internet forum, think regarding how well the DfT perform their regulatory tasks. Perhaps it should be more transparent for the reasons you stated, but I'm not a politician.

DfT certainly aren't pushovers, especially if they catch you on the fiddle systematically.

Targeted FOI requests can be a very effective tool at extracting information. Railway enthusiasts are tax payers and fare payers as well.

 

[bb21]

So basically, I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the DfT actually takes serious action against TOCs who regularly defraud, deceive and generally abuse the travelling public. While I'm sure you're just as trustworthy as any other random stranger on the Internet, I tend not to believe outlandish claims that contradict my own experiences without evidence.



Sure, but where it concerns a TOC's interaction with the public it jolly well should be. Especially if it's a "major case".



What other reason could there be? I very much doubt the DfT ever gives a TOC more than a slap on the wrist anyway; I suspect that making this public would just reveal how pathetic such "enforcement" really is. I'm sure RDG has convinced the DfT that drawing attention to bad behaviour will bring the entire industry into disrepute and harm the "brands" of "innocent" (if such a thing exists) TOCs. In my opinion, the entire industry deserves to be brought into disrepute.

The fact that Go-Ahead Group (aka Govia) in particular are apparently still profitable (their shares are trading at pretty much the same level as they were a year ago at least) despite their shambolic performance and utter contempt for their customer base just goes to show how there are no real consiquences for bad behaviour in the rail industry; as long as they keep paying their premiums to the DfT, of course.



Completely agreed.

All I can say is that it is entirely your own prerogative. Of course I know some of your cynicism is misplaced, and so do other people who have dealt with the department, but I don't really have the power to divulge the type of information you would like. An FoI request may yield the desired result but I won't know what you can find out from that.

If you prefer to think I talk nonsense then that is your choice. I am merely presenting a more balanced and objective view from an informed perspective.

 

[bb21]

Targeted FOI requests can be a very effective tool at extracting information. Railway enthusiasts are tax payers and fare payers as well.

They can be, but one of the difficulties is obviously knowing exactly what it is that is under DfT's remit and what information they actually do hold.

 

[mallard]

Of course I know some of your cynicism is misplaced

You "know" no such thing. You cannot read my mind.

If you prefer to think I talk nonsense then that is your choice. I am merely presenting a more balanced and objective view from an informed perspective.

I would prefer that you didn't post outlandish claims without supporting evidence. Unverifiable claims are not "objective", by definition. I assume you use the word "balanced" in the same way as a popular right-wing US TV news channel...

It's obvious to anybody who relies on the railways regularly that the current regulatory framework for ensuring adequate customer service is utterly inadequate. Hardly a day goes by when I don't witness or experience a TOC "misbehaving". Common "offenses" include lying about ticket time restrictions, lying about passenger rights during disruption and overcharging by various means. It's not just me, the ORR's 2016/17 Annual rail customer report is pretty damning; 20% of passengers overcharged for tickets (from TVMs), 80% of passengers dissatisfied with information given during disruption, 52% dissatisfied with complaints handling, 66% of ORR "mystery shoppers" given incorrect information regarding compensation claims, etc. etc. Source; PDF warning. I look forward to the publication of this year's report, but I doubt it will show much improvement.

Of course, the merest hint at a passenger "misbehaving" (which usually means misunderstanding the absurdly complex, by design, railway "rules") results in swiftly applied financial and criminal penalties, but I've seen no evidence to suggest that effective penalties exist in the other direction.

Maybe things will change once the promised "railway ombudsman" is established, but since we were promised "details" of that service by the end of last year it appears the industry is doing its very best to prevent that from ever happening.