Northern Strike Days Delay Repay

[ainsworth74]

So they can say what they like about people in an email? I guess that’s why they do it then. They’re lawyers will have said it’s ok.

Surely that goes without saying? In private correspondence you can basically say whatever you like (obvious exceptions apply such as threatening to kill someone or abusing them racially for example) as it is private between two parties. I don't see how it can work any other way to be honest! Northern's statement was clearly unwise (as has been said far better to include a generic paragraph at the bottom of the email warning about fraud) but I don't see why they can't say it and I certainly can't see how it would rise to libel or slander.

If Northern had said on their Twitter feed "Passenger X had their delay repay claim refused on suspicion of fraud" then you'd have case (probably multiple actually as I would imagine that would be a data breach as well) but in private email? Not a chance.

 

[Deafdoggie]

So you can call someone what you like in an email, as long as you don't threaten them? Can I have your email address?

But solicitors do not agree with you alas http://bloomsbury-law.com/defamation/email-defamation/

 

[Deafdoggie]

I also still don’t get how buying a ticket for a journey is fraud? Selling it might be, as they knew full well there neither trains nor replacements, but not buying it. Maybe they meant they had committed fraud! (Allegedly)

 

[najaB]

But solicitors do not agree with you alas http://bloomsbury-law.com/defamation/email-defamation/

I don't think an advert counts as a primary source.

 

[najaB]

I also still don’t get how buying a ticket for a journey is fraud?

Claiming Delay Repay against a journey that you never made would be fraudulent (not that this applies in the OP's case).

 

[Deafdoggie]

I don't think an advert counts as a primary source.

Maybe not, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut as “say what you like in an email it’s not libellous” though

 

[Deafdoggie]

Claiming Delay Repay against a journey that you never made would be fraudulent (not that this applies in the OP's case).

So Northern are trying to say I purchased the tickets, never intending to make the journey, just so I could claim delay repay? As they are the facts Northern had when claiming this fraud.

 

[ainsworth74]

But solicitors do not agree with you alas http://bloomsbury-law.com/defamation/email-defamation/

I maintain my position that for any claim for defamation or libel to succeed you'd have to be able to show that your reputation had been actually damaged. If the only place an email has been sent is to your personal email address I'm far from convinced you'd be able to show that damage had actually been inflicted.

You are, of course, entitled to a different opinion and I encourage you to take whatever action you see fit. My opinion remains that such an action, assuming that they only recipient was you, would be very unlikely to succeed.

 

[najaB]

Maybe not, but I don’t think it’s as clear cut as “say what you like in an email it’s not libellous” though

It can't be libel.

Firstly, for a statement to be defamatory it must "cause serious harm". It is difficult to show that a private email between two parties can cause serious harm, unless it is forwarded by the recipient. Secondly, it is highly likely to be the case that a private email between two parties would meet the standards of the honest opinion defence.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Still appalling customer service though

 

[sheff1]

I don't think an advert counts as a primary source.

Maybe not, but it is a far more convincing source than a random post on an internet forum. If Bloomsbury Law are making false or misleading claims on their website I am sure action could be taken and, for this reason, a law firm (in particular) is likely to take great care not to make such claims.

 

[najaB]

Maybe not, but it is a far more convincing source than a random post on an internet forum.

I quoted a primary source (the legislation) in a subsequent post (they don't). Note, also, that they say that "All emails thereafter are considered a new publication and any other person who forwards or shares that email may be implicated in any resulting cases." - which accords with the legislation.

 

[ainsworth74]

Still appalling customer service though

100% agree with that!

 

[some bloke]

To add to comments on the unpleasant emails mentioning possible fraud:

It seems to me that they might dissuade some legitimate claimants, which would be highly undesirable.


A person cannot be defamed - their reputation cannot be damaged - simply by an email to them. The offence must involve "publication to" a third party.

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/types-of-claim/defamation/
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/defamation-law-the-basics.html
https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/tmt--sourcing/media-law/defamation/


On limits to what people can lawfully say in private emails, these might be relevant:

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment

Wordings such as "has been marked as potentially fraudulent" look like carefully crafted passages by lawyers. It may be important not to take these personally. Maybe a good way to challenge the appropriateness of this kind of thing is by Twitter.

 

[matthewluck]

Northern sent me the same response 'potentially fraudulent'

A search of Twitter shows that they are sending this response to a number of people who are rightly annoyed Take a look at these search results: https://twitter.com/search?q=@northernassist fraudulent&s=09

 

[Starmill]

Wordings such as "has been marked as potentially fraudulent" look like carefully crafted passages by lawyers. It may be important not to take these personally.

If that is what their lawyers have come up with then I despair.

In line with a number of other things that this franchise alone are now doing, such as the lack of alternatives on strike days, a revenue protection policy that shows no regard for the regulations and a lack of their 'voice' to defend their reputation in the face of media criticism over the May timetable change or the RMT in their industrial dispute, this all seems to suggest that they have stopped really caring. They have been unable to introduce their enhancements as planned and reliability has taken a turn for the worst. I get the impression that they have somewhat lost their vision for completing the full term of their franchise.

 

[Deafdoggie]

So, Northern have apologised profusely for making wild fraud claims, but deny any delay repay claim is due. I should go to Virgin, as the ticket retailer, and ask for a refund.

Virgin deny any refund is due, as most of the journey was in fact made, and that I should go to Northern for a Delay Repay claim.

I am just the fare-paying passenger, who has had enough of the railways attitude to its passengers. I have purchased a car instead. Nice work guys, a whole family of us lost from rail travel due to rail staffs attitudes.Great work everyone!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So, Northern have apologised profusely for making wild fraud claims, but deny any delay repay claim is due. I should go to Virgin, as the ticket retailer, and ask for a refund.

Virgin deny any refund is due, as most of the journey was in fact made, and that I should go to Northern for a Delay Repay claim.

I am just the fare-paying passenger, who has had enough of the railways attitude to its passengers. I have purchased a car instead. Nice work guys, a whole family of us lost from rail travel due to rail staffs attitudes.Great work everyone!

If you classify your journey as having been abandoned, and returned to your origin, then a full refund is due as you are deemed not to have received what was paid for - travel to Morecambe. Such a refund would have to be from the retailer, Virgin. If you classify it as being merely a delay to your journey, then delay compensation is what you are looking for - and this is payable by the train company which first caused your journey to become delayed - Northern here.

In either case, they cannot both refuse to pay out.

Under the terms of the contract (NRCoT 30.1), how much of the journey you made before abandoning it is immaterial to any refund claim. It is, of course, material to a compensation claim, as you cannot claim compensation if you did not actually make/complete the journey.

If they continue to refuse to pay out, you can take legal action against both of them jointly (against their legal names, West Coast Trains Ltd. and Arriva Rail North Ltd.), and let the Court decide who ought to pay out.