Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

It also only takes 1 "domino to fall" so to speak.

You (the customer) needs to be certain ALL of your claims are genuine and legitimate.
The TOC (GA) only needs to be certain that ONE of your claims is NOT genuine and/or legitimate.

Again, some forum members may not like that fact, but it is perfectly legal and even outside of the rail industry, is very common. If the police can't "get" you for what they really want you for, if you dig hard enough or wait long enough, you will ALWAYS find a reason to (arrest or) prosecute somebody.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Similar to declarations for insurance purposes?

Uberrimae Fidei = everything is expected to be declared in the utmost good faith.

 

[island]

If the police can't "get" you for what they really want you for, if you dig hard enough or wait long enough, you will ALWAYS find a reason to (arrest or) prosecute somebody.

See also section 69 of the Ways and Means Act

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

See also section 69 of the Ways and Means Act

Precisely! Or for a "breach" in Scots

 

[User50]

@NotGreaterA I recently received the same letter. I acknowledged the letter and they provided a list of my claims between the same period (!) October 19 and March 20. i've also been advised that my number of claims is more than average (which is apparently 20). I feel very threatened by the letter and am not sleeping at night!

 

[Wolfie]

@NotGreaterA I recently received the same letter. I acknowledged the letter and they provided a list of my claims between the same period (!) October 19 and March 20. i've also been advised that my number of claims is more than average (which is apparently 20). I feel very threatened by the letter and am not sleeping at night!

Someone needs to give GA a stats lesson. They are very good at quoting the mean, which is biased by those who don't claim, but carefully neglect to mention the standard deviation. Of course, if their campaign continues and results in more people not claiming then the mean is driven lower.... I look forward to someone with starts expertise getting this letter as they will destroy GA!

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

@NotGreaterA I recently received the same letter. I acknowledged the letter and they provided a list of my claims between the same period (!) October 19 and March 20. i've also been advised that my number of claims is more than average (which is apparently 20). I feel very threatened by the letter and am not sleeping at night!

I shouldn't worry too much. Worst case you can pay the settlement fee and forget the matter. Just don't do or say anything to the operator that inflames the situation.

How you handle it depends on you really, and only you know the truth.

If any of your claims are potentially dubious - negotiate a settlement or contact a solicitor for advice.
If your claims are 100% definitely not dubious - I'd still recommend contacting a solicitor, or writing (very politely) to GA asking for further information.

You're only going to be in any serious trouble if:

1) You annoy GA to the point they won't settle out of court and;
2) They have evidence that you have submitted dubious or fraudulent claims;
3) And they can't have (2) if you've genuinely not done anything wrong.
4) If they do have evidence and refer to the police, as long as the £ value is comparatively low, you'll end up with a police caution more than likely, which for most people (and jobs) is an annoyance, not a massive life changing problem.
5) You're only going to be seeing a courtroom if you refuse a police caution (bearing in mind even getting that far will be unlikely) AND the value or quantity of dodgy claims (if any) is of any real value.

If your claims are smartcard-based, that's probably not in your favour given prior information posted here.

 

[AlterEgo]

Around £6.5k. Yes 6 months.

Let's do a bit of fag-packet maths.

GA take the "single journey rate" to be 1/464th of your ticket.

1/464th of £6500 is £14, give or take a penny.

You have:
Recouped £820 over 78 claims.

The average value of a claim is 820/78 = £10.51

This indicates that, the majority of the time you claim, it is for a full hour's delay, although GA's scheme provides thresholds at 15 minutes (25%) and 30 minutes (50%).

Given that you travel very irregularly, why is it that most of the time you are delayed, it's for an hour or more.

You'd probably expect someone with 78 claims to have a more varied distribution of experiencing delays - mostly, claiming for 15-29 minutes, then 30-59 minutes, then 60 minutes and above as by far the least common. I probably wouldn't expect to be delayed by one hour on, I dunno, sixty occasions in six months. That's more than twice a week.

Can you see why GA might be suspicious of your claims? Is it possible that many of your claims just happen to coincide with the most delayed train of the day, and that's why your journey times with them might seem "irregular"?

Think about the evidence they have, and how it will appear to them, and think about how you would respond to someone outlining an argument like the one above in a court.

 

[NotGreaterA]

Whilst I would not disagree with the logic of any of that, I know that my former employer (I am now retired) would advise any manager NOT to get involved with issuing any statement, written or verbal, about any times an employee may or may not arrived or have left work. Even if that data was recorded on some sort of clocking in or flex time recording system I am unsure on the legality of that data being accessed for this purpose.
"Proof" does appear to be an area heavily weighted in favour of the TOC.

I travel regularly... That's why I have a season ticket....

Have you frequently traveled with GA?

 

[35B]

Let's do a bit of fag-packet maths.

GA take the "single journey rate" to be 1/464th of your ticket.

1/464th of £6500 is £14, give or take a penny.

You have:
Recouped £820 over 78 claims.

The average value of a claim is 820/78 = £10.51

This indicates that, the majority of the time you claim, it is for a full hour's delay, although GA's scheme provides thresholds at 15 minutes (25%) and 30 minutes (50%).

Given that you travel very irregularly, why is it that most of the time you are delayed, it's for an hour or more.

You'd probably expect someone with 78 claims to have a more varied distribution of experiencing delays - mostly, claiming for 15-29 minutes, then 30-59 minutes, then 60 minutes and above as by far the least common. I probably wouldn't expect to be delayed by one hour on, I dunno, sixty occasions in six months. That's more than twice a week.

Can you see why GA might be suspicious of your claims? Is it possible that many of your claims just happen to coincide with the most delayed train of the day, and that's why your journey times with them might seem "irregular"?

Think about the evidence they have, and how it will appear to them, and think about how you would respond to someone outlining an argument like the one above in a court.

They are fair questions, and it's right to anticipate how they'd be asked. But, when I used to commute, my claims (different TOC) were weighted towards claims of over an hour because of the distance I was travelling and the effect of delay. These questions may be reasonably explicable.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Whilst I would not disagree with the logic of any of that, I know that my former employer (I am now retired) would advise any manager NOT to get involved with issuing any statement, written or verbal, about any times an employee may or may not arrived or have left work. Even if that data was recorded on some sort of clocking in or flex time recording system I am unsure on the legality of that data being accessed for this purpose.
"Proof" does appear to be an area heavily weighted in favour of the TOC.

A fair point: I should perhaps have made it clearer that this is no more than an example: given that the onus is on the railway to demonstrate their case, the important thing for anyone incorrectly accused of obtaining DR that they weren't entitled to is to cast doubt on the railway's case. A letter from a boss is one way to do this. There are others, including appearing as a witness and stating that one's working hours are irregular. Of course, there are some people who lie - but the fact that a witness gives evidence on oath will eliminate some of those, and the chance for the other side to cross-examine a witness will in many cases distinguish between the truthful and the liar.

 

[AlterEgo]

They are fair questions, and it's right to anticipate how they'd be asked. But, when I used to commute, my claims (different TOC) were weighted towards claims of over an hour because of the distance I was travelling and the effect of delay. These questions may be reasonably explicable.

Were you delayed by over an hour, on average, more than twice a week? Over six months?

GA have been bad in the past but this is a very high number of claims and would certainly raise an eyebrow.

 

[philthetube]

Three claims a week would have me looking

 

[NotGreaterA]

GA service is dreadful and even worse if you have a commectiont to catch on a branch line. Mixed delays of 15 mins, 30, 60 & 120. MPs have written to CEO of GA regarding the poor service. Let's get real, GA are no saints.

 

[jumble]

I suspect it's quite simple and in their desire to meet the arbitrary 20 day target to conclude the claim set by the regulator, (and probably to provide a decent customer experience to their genuine claimants) they have probably relaxed checks or certain process elements at congested periods, e.g. mass disruption events to speed things up, or avoid requesting further information.

I suspect, however, that they weren't totally stupid and still flagged suspect claims, and Covid provided an opportunity to make a start reviewing these in a quieter period. It could also tie in with the introduction of a new fraud feature or tool that has been ran retrospectively.

Legally, as you'd probably expect, they are on solid ground, there's no statute of limitations on prosecuting fraud, as it can be prosecuted on indictment. Perhaps for the average lay person 18-24 months seems unreasonable, but in legal circles that is exceptionally quick for fraud! Consider that if a defendant needs a Crown Court trial now, just for a "in pencil" date, it's mid 2023 at the earliest. And that could be for something far more serious than fraud! Best hope the witnesses and victim has a good memory, or the defendant can remember their alibi!

Incidentally, I suspect if GA did report to the police, if the total amount of dodgy compensation is under £500 and it was admitted, you'd probably end up with a police caution or possibly an outcome under the Restorative Justice scheme for very low level offenders, which is probably a letter of apology and paying some compensation to avoid prosecution, along with perhaps a requirement to attend an educational course.

I am pleased to see that you have changed your previous advice that people tied up in this might get 12 months porridge

 

[AlterEgo]

GA service is dreadful and even worse if you have a commectiont to catch on a branch line. Mixed delays of 15 mins, 30, 60 & 120. MPs have written to CEO of GA regarding the poor service. Let's get real, GA are no saints.

Sure - but it might be helpful to focus your mind on what are effectively allegations of fraud or malpractice levelled against you by them at the moment and think about a way forward that will help you. We have already helped a number of people who have admitted to defrauding the TOC in this thread avoid court or police action, and also some people who seem to have been caught unwittingly in the net.

I recommend you choose your next course of action carefully.

 

[35B]

Were you delayed by over an hour, on average, more than twice a week? Over six months?

GA have been bad in the past but this is a very high number of claims and would certainly raise an eyebrow.

I can think of one journey I used to make where a missed (and unavoidable) connection would guarantee a 61 minute delay, with the first train not having to be 15 late; it was quite remunerative. It's unlikely, but not out of the question. I agree that @NotGreaterA should think carefully about the journeys made and whether the claims are plausible for the journeys made and claimed for.

 

[AlterEgo]

I am pleased to see that you have changed your previous advice that people tied up in this might get 12 months porridge

@Tazi Hupefi continues to assert that any fraud charge levied six months after the offence can only be dealt with in the Crown Court, which is wrong.

Fraud is triable either way and not subject to the six months statute of limitations imposed on summary-only offences in the Magistrates' Court.

Anyway, a non-sequitur. We should concentrate on helping those people who have been contacted by the company.

 

[Wolfie]

Were you delayed by over an hour, on average, more than twice a week? Over six months?

GA have been bad in the past but this is a very high number of claims and would certainly raise an eyebrow.

That's logical. Particularly if the claim relates to one of a small number of delayed trains on a particular day.

 

[gingerheid]

Three claims a week would have me looking

I've had a lot more than that (though no letter) ! Remember they had a *little* bit of a service meltdown!

 

[MikeWh]

As for paper ticket and barrier data, logically the following must be captured by the barrier:

Start date, expiry date, Origin, Destination, Route, Adult/Child, Discount (seems they can reject Railcard tickets reading other forums), ticket type (so can manage peak of off peak), some sort of indication that it can be used on things like the Underground.

Forum members say the ticket number isn't available.

I believe they CAN be tracked, in a way. If I buy an Anytime Single with my senior Railcard from St Pancras to Nottingham, and walk through the ticket barrier at London, the above details are captured surely, otherwise the barrier couldn't determine validity and open. So say that's at 10:00. If I then use the barrier at Nottingham to exit at 12:00, I suspect you could identify it as the same ticket used at 10:00 in London, and then calculate the most likely service I used. If the barrier at London records anything electronically on my ticket stripe, that makes it even more likely. It MUST record something on the stripe because I've tried to leave and come back with the same ticket and it doesn't let me back in.

Just to finally put this claim to bed. The data you mention is stored on the ticket and is used to inform the gates so that rejections can be made. There is a ticket number of sorts, but it is 5 numerical digits long and in no way provides unique identification. It can be used to spot the same ticket being put through the same barrier to prevent passback, but that literally is as far as it goes.

See correction from Haywain later in the thread.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I am pleased to see that you have changed your previous advice that people tied up in this might get 12 months porridge

They still can if they get to court. Longer possibly.

It appears to me very easy to imagine someone found making 50+ dodgy claims being sent to prison.

Nobody is going to prison for one or two claims of relatively low value.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2021 ==

@Tazi Hupefi continues to assert that any fraud charge levied six months after the offence can only be dealt with in the Crown Court, which is wrong.

Fraud is triable either way and not subject to the six months statute of limitations imposed on summary-only offences in the Magistrates' Court.

Anyway, a non-sequitur. We should concentrate on helping those people who have been contacted by the company.

Just to finally put this claim to bed. The data you mention is stored on the ticket and is used to inform the gates so that rejections can be made. There is a ticket number of sorts, but it is 5 numerical digits long and in no way provides unique identification. It can be used to spot the same ticket being put through the same barrier to prevent passback, but that literally is as far as it goes.

I don't follow your logic here. You say there is a 5 digit ticket number captured, which by itself is not unique, but if it's available, it's surely being recorded.

Let's say there might be 1000 tickets with ticket number 12345

However, how many tickets with number 12345 would have the exact same dates, origin, destination, discounts, ticket type etc .

The ticket number combined with everything else would cause such low probabilites of a duplicate / identical ticket, you could track that ticket with a high degree of confidence in my view.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Feb 2021 ==

@Tazi Hupefi continues to assert that any fraud charge levied six months after the offence can only be dealt with in the Crown Court, which is wrong.

Fraud is triable either way and not subject to the six months statute of limitations imposed on summary-only offences in the Magistrates' Court.

Anyway, a non-sequitur. We should concentrate on helping those people who have been contacted by the company.

How are you getting past S127 Magistrates Court Act 1980 out of interest?

You can't rely on 127(2) because it clearly only applies to offences on indictment, meaning it has to go to the Crown.

 

[AlterEgo]

How are you getting past S127 Magistrates Court Act 1980 out of interest?

You can't rely on 127(2) because it clearly only applies to offences on indictment, meaning it has to go to the Crown.

Fraud is an indictable offence! Offences that can be tried either way are indictable. They are not "indictable only", but they are indictable.

I've personally been involved in a fraud case which was over three years since the offence was committed, dealt with in the Mags as it was simple and of relatively low value.

I'd recommend reading this: https://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/magistrates-intro.htm which clearly says that the statute of limitations of six months in the magistrates' court is for summary only offences.

And if you still don't think that's right, have a look at this chap dealt with under the Fraud Act 2006, yes, in the Mags, and where the offences were several years old. https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/fraudulent-harry-potter-trader-ordered-5008038 Just the top result following a quick Google.

This one's three years between offence and appearing in court: https://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/19086128.man-admits-insurance-fraud/

You can do lots of reading on the subject but, very clearly, this firm of actual, qualified solicitors says:

In relation to indictable and indictable only cases the starting point is that there is no time limit in bringing the prosecution.

here: https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/prosecution-time-limits-and-abuse-of-process/ - note how it makes a clear distinction between summary only offences, and how the rest are all indictable.

Wheedling a few hundred quid out of a TOC on bogus Delay Repay claims will see you dealt with in the magistrates court, if it ever got that far.

 

[philthetube]

Three claims a week would have me looking

I've had a lot more than that (though no letter) ! Remember they had a *little* bit of a service meltdown!

consistently over a 6 month period?

 

[NotGreaterA]

GA have sent the same letter to 100s if not 1000s of people, are they really going to take everyone to court? Is this a fishing expedition to claw as much money back as they can in the shortest time possible?

 

[Haywain]

Just to finally put this claim to bed. The data you mention is stored on the ticket and is used to inform the gates so that rejections can be made. There is a ticket number of sorts, but it is 5 numerical digits long and in no way provides unique identification. It can be used to spot the same ticket being put through the same barrier to prevent passback, but that literally is as far as it goes.

I’m afraid this is incorrect. There is no ticket number in the mag stripe. Passback is identified through the marker that the barrier writes to the ticket and relies on the coded time of that marker being identified within the set passback time limit. And for what it’s worth the time is written, and recorded in the back office, in 5 minute units.

 

[AlterEgo]

GA have sent the same letter to 100s if not 1000s of people, are they really going to take everyone to court? Is this a fishing expedition to claw as much money back as they can in the shortest time possible?

It doesn't appear to be a fishing expedition, because nearly everyone who has posted here has something which doesn't add up about their claims.

GA may decide to take people who have abused the process to the County Court to sue them for the amount falsely claimed, or they may pass the files onto the police for their consideration, at which point some people, based on the strength of the evidence against them, might be arrested and interviewed under caution with a view to prosecuting people in the criminal courts.

As with the many, many thousands of cases of ticket irregularities, from simple bylaw infractions to deliberately avoiding paying the fare, the TOC is usually more minded to settle out of court. This is easier and better for both parties as it avoids the courts. So, it is not surprising to read of many posters here deciding to settle the claims with the train company. It's clear that at least some posters here have admitted outright to defrauding the company and have avoided criminal sanctions by choosing to settle the matter directly with the victim of the crime - the company.

The best and most honest thing we can do to posters here is explain how their case will look to the train company.

 

[gingerheid]

consistently over a 6 month period?

No, but for many weeks I had at least one claim each time I made a return journey. There have been two weeks I've had every penny I paid in train tickets back; one mainly bc of the earlier TL/GN meltdown on the first leg of the journey, and one because of a combination of the GA meltdown and their general unreliability.

It may be forgotton to the mists of time now, but the "signalling problem" meltdown was severe, it was long lasting, and it was absolute hell to be on the receiving end of (and ofc came on top of the usual grim unreliability).

However, as I say, I didn't get a letter...

 

[MikeWh]

I’m afraid this is incorrect. There is no ticket number in the mag stripe. Passback is identified through the marker that the barrier writes to the ticket and relies on the coded time of that marker being identified within the set passback time limit. And for what it’s worth the time is written, and recorded in the back office, in 5 minute units.

Thanks for letting me know - I've corrected my post.

 

[robbeech]

The result is basically the same - a refund. Certainly not a fraud on anyone’s part who gets it wrong.

The same result for the passenger yes, but a different result for the distribution in funds, The percentage of the ticket given to the retailer is recovered, and the split of the remaining distributed between TOCs is recovered, delay repay for £10 costs more than a refund of £10 unless the TOC gets 100% of the share, and is the retailer, and even then, different departments different budgets etc. So yes, i agree it would be ridiculous to consider fraud, but understandable why the TOC would want it dealing with.

If you are satisfied that you have not been overclaiming, but that all your claims were legitimate, then the ball is in GA's court - ultimately it's for them to take you to court and prove to the appropriate level that actually you were claiming money that you weren't entitled to.

But can I give a couple of caveats:
- the level of proof depends on whether GA take a civil action against you to get the money back, or seek to prosecute you for the crime of fraud. In a civil action at the county court, the standard of proof is 'the balance of probabilities': so if GA argue that your record of claiming looks much like that of someone who is cheating then (unless you come back with some sort of answer against this) then in my view they would have gone quite some way in the direction of showing on the balance of probabilities that you owed them money. In a criminal case at the crown court, GA would have to prove their point 'beyond reasonable doubt': showing that your behaviour was the sort of thing a fraudster did would go some way towards that but (again, in my view) they would need to come up with further evidence to support their view - maybe evidence that you weren't on a train that you said you were, or evidence that you were on a train when you said you weren't. Is this evidence readily available? I don't know.
- so in the light of this while the onus is on GA to adequately prove their point, it probably makes sense to carry on engaging with them. If you do not respond at all to their correspondence, GA are unlikely to conclude that this means that you are innocent: much more likely they will read it as you having something to hide. So my advice would be to respond openly and honestly - which means making it clear that you have good reason for believing your journey patterns were as claimed: while you might not be able to find a witness to prove that on 2 January 2020 you left work early but were delayed because the 1500 train was cancelled, you travelled as normal on the 1700 on 3 January 2020, and left work late on 4 January 2020 and so were delayed by the cancellation of the 1900 that day, you need to be able to honestly tell GA that you would be able to get confirmation from your boss that it was entirely normal that some days you finished early and on others you finished late.

A balance of probabilities with this is monumentally biased towards the railway, and unsurpassably flawed. There does not have to be any form of proof that this passenger has made a fraudulent claim here it seems. All they have to do is claim more than average, an average that is created by there being people who claim more than it, and they're essentially guilty. We have seen this process has caught out a lot of people that have done it wrong (deliberately or otherwise) but if they're just picking on those who have already suffered with the worst service then it's orders of magnitude more appalling than we might have initially thought.

Whilst I would not disagree with the logic of any of that, I know that my former employer (I am now retired) would advise any manager NOT to get involved with issuing any statement, written or verbal, about any times an employee may or may not arrived or have left work. Even if that data was recorded on some sort of clocking in or flex time recording system I am unsure on the legality of that data being accessed for this purpose.
"Proof" does appear to be an area heavily weighted in favour of the TOC.

Absolutely, this is fairly common and in many businesses where it would be deemed acceptable to do this, its less likely that the railway would believe it anyway.

Let's do a bit of fag-packet maths.

GA take the "single journey rate" to be 1/464th of your ticket.

1/464th of £6500 is £14, give or take a penny.

You have:
Recouped £820 over 78 claims.

The average value of a claim is 820/78 = £10.51

This indicates that, the majority of the time you claim, it is for a full hour's delay, although GA's scheme provides thresholds at 15 minutes (25%) and 30 minutes (50%).

Given that you travel very irregularly, why is it that most of the time you are delayed, it's for an hour or more.

You'd probably expect someone with 78 claims to have a more varied distribution of experiencing delays - mostly, claiming for 15-29 minutes, then 30-59 minutes, then 60 minutes and above as by far the least common. I probably wouldn't expect to be delayed by one hour on, I dunno, sixty occasions in six months. That's more than twice a week.

Can you see why GA might be suspicious of your claims? Is it possible that many of your claims just happen to coincide with the most delayed train of the day, and that's why your journey times with them might seem "irregular"?

Think about the evidence they have, and how it will appear to them, and think about how you would respond to someone outlining an argument like the one above in a court.

Agree, and in most cases here we have seen they have had every right to question it, even if they haven't gone about it in the best way (which is subjective). However, any claims on a line with 1tph would always return a 1hour delay if it is cancelled, or indeed if it was a connection from a busier line that had a short (but valid) connection time.

I shouldn't worry too much. Worst case you can pay the settlement fee and forget the matter. Just don't do or say anything to the operator that inflames the situation.

Essentially, what we are saying here is, even if you have done nothing wrong, if you just pay a few hundred quid to a Train Operating Company who have consistently let you down time and time again over the years (which is the sole reason for this farce to exist in the first place) that'll be the end of it. And, perhaps don't claim the money you're due for the failings of the Operator and/or railway in general moving forward lest you find yourself in trouble for doing what you're told to do again. Remind me who is the fraud again?