Investigating of fraud for delay repay??

[z444z]

As long as you left above the published minimum connection time to make your connection, you are entitled to claim delay repay for a delay that caused a missed connection.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, claiming for a connection which doesn’t meet the MCT would not be anywhere near enough evidence for a Fraud Act conviction. It’s perfectly reasonable for a passenger not to be aware of minimum connection times, I’d guess at least 75% won’t be.

 

[tatitiliti]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, claiming for a connection which doesn’t meet the MCT would not be anywhere near enough evidence for a Fraud Act conviction. It’s perfectly reasonable for a passenger not to be aware of minimum connection times, I’d guess at least 75% won’t be.

For sure, this wouldn’t be a consideration for a fraud prosecution - my point was that it could only invalidate the claim itself, but this should’ve led to the claim being automatically rejected by the TOC if claimed on a journey below the minimum connection time.

 

[gingerheid]

I'm not sure if I'm being helpful here, as I'm jumping in to say the same thing slightly differently, in the hope that it will be clearer.

There are two separate issues here, which it is in Nothern's interests to muddle together and the OPs interests to keep separate.

The first issue is a civil matter; whether the OP's delay repay claims were valid, and whether or not the OP may owe Northern money. This may or may not be the case; the rules are complicated. Losing a civil matter in a County Court because a judge decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the claims were invalid can lead to, usually, a money judgement against you. The judge has no power to fine or imprison or create a criminal record etc.

The second issue is a criminal matter; whether, if the OP's delay repay claims were not valid, the OP made the claims deliberately knowing that they were not valid, or with such a lack of concern as to whether they were valid that demonstrates a dishonest state of mind. This seems vanishingly unlikely. For my part, making the claims based on publically available data regarding journeys made seems like a clear demonstration of an attempt to ensure that the claims were valid. Losing this matter in a Magistrate's court because a judge decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the OP was dishonest would lead to a criminal record and conviction / fine etc. If Northern's services really were habitually late then of course the OP could get into a muddle. As z444z said, even if the claims are not based on a valid minimum connection time, that's not at all evidence of fraudulent intent or state of mind (and I assume they are based on a valid MCT, otherwise I assume they'd have pointed this out in the letter). Northern (like all operators) advertise with statements such as "If your Northern train has been delayed or cancelled and you arrive at your destination station over 15 minutes later than planned, you could be entitled to train ticket compensation through our Northern Delay Repay scheme." They also indicate that they will check claims, and advise that they will request more information if it's needed. An OP with honest intent and an honest state of mind could therefore easily think that if he arrived 15 mins late because his Northern train was delayed, he could be entitled to train ticket compensation, and that Northern would check his claims and let him know if they needed more information.

The OP should absolutely not attend the meeting; correspondence is absolutely the way to resolve this matter. The OP should start the correspondence by stating that at the time they made each claim they believed it to be valid, and that they are happy to help Northern understand each claim to the best of their recollection in order to help them check them. The OP should advice Nothern that they will be in a better position to provide useful information to help them via correspondence, as it will allow the time to provide considered replies checked against any available sources of reference information. (Normally advice might be to engage less, but I think in this case the potentially justifiable appearance of fraud means that it's better to both be and appear to be co-operative. This appears to be less of a fishing exercise on Nothern's part than, for example, some of the truly disgraceful e-mails Greater Anglia was sending out.)

 

[z444z]

I'm not sure if I'm being helpful here, as I'm jumping in to say the same thing slightly differently, in the hope that it will be clearer.

There are two separate issues here, which it is in Nothern's interests to muddle together and the OPs interests to keep separate.

The first issue is a civil matter; whether the OP's delay repay claims were valid, and whether or not the OP may owe Northern money. This may or may not be the case; the rules are complicated. Losing a civil matter in a County Court because a judge decided that, on the balance of probabilities, the claims were invalid can lead to, usually, a money judgement against you. The judge has no power to fine or imprison or create a criminal record etc.

The second issue is a criminal matter; whether, if the OP's delay repay claims were not valid, the OP made the claims deliberately knowing that they were not valid, or with such a lack of concern as to whether they were valid that demonstrates a dishonest state of mind. This seems vanishingly unlikely. For my part, making the claims based on publically available data regarding journeys made seems like a clear demonstration of an attempt to ensure that the claims were valid. Losing this matter in a Magistrate's court because a judge decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the OP was dishonest would lead to a criminal record and conviction / fine etc. If Northern's services really were habitually late then of course the OP could get into a muddle. As z444z said, even if the claims are not based on a valid minimum connection time, that's not at all evidence of fraudulent intent or state of mind (and I assume they are based on a valid MCT, otherwise I assume they'd have pointed this out in the letter). Northern (like all operators) advertise with statements such as "If your Northern train has been delayed or cancelled and you arrive at your destination station over 15 minutes later than planned, you could be entitled to train ticket compensation through our Northern Delay Repay scheme." They also indicate that they will check claims, and advice that they will request more information if it's needed. An OP with honest intent and an honest state of mind could therefore easily think that if he arrived 15 mins late because his Northern train was delayed, he could be entitled to train ticket compensation, and that Northern would check his claims and let him know if they needed more information.

The OP should absolutely not attend the meeting; correspondence is absolutely the way to resolve this matter. The OP should start the correspondence by stating that at the time they made each claim they believed it to be valid, and that they are happy to help Nothern understand each claim to the best of their recollection in order to help them check them. (Normally advice might be to engage less, but I think in this case the potentially justifiable appearance of fraud means that it's better to both be and appear to be co-operative).

I think this is well written and helpful. One little thing to add is that a civil judgement against you does not have any impact on credit score unless not paid within 28 days.

 

[Fokx]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jan 2026 ==


I scan the ticket at the barrier

On the basis that you earlier mentioned that you go back and check delays to see if you could claim for delays repay, If Northern were to look at your ticket scan history, would they find that you have been travelling on a service/s that ran on time, but you had claimed for an entirely different timed journey all together?

 

[Aaron1]

If the OP can get some evidence of this conversation over chat with a Northern employee where they said claim anyway and they will work it all out and it won't approve any which shouldn't be, it does sound like something which could be said and anybody would follow that advice surely as you have been assured by a TOC employee their system can work it all out, you would trust the system to do that!

As mentioned above I advise the OP to use every available resource to try and find that chat, a FOI request may help.

If they can find this conversation then Northern will not have a leg to stand on.


Also another point I would like to make, I though the whole point of this section of the forum was to assist and advise posters how to deal with any issues they face, it is not our job, nor is it fair to decide if somebody is guilty or not guilty, or if somebody is telling lies or not, innocent until proven guilty...

 

[SuspectUsual]

Also another point I would like to make, I though the whole point of this section of the forum was to assist and advise posters how to deal with any issues they face, it is not our job, nor is it fair to decide if somebody is guilty or not guilty, or if somebody is telling lies or not, innocent until proven guilty...

You're right, it isn't our place to judge, but equally I think its generally helpful if we look at the issue as the TOC involved might, and ask the OP the difficult questions at this stage rather than them have to face them further down the line. There are plenty of examples on this forum of threads where the OP has abruptly disappeared once inconsistencies are pointed out and detailed questions asked.

 

[Haywain]

Also another point I would like to make, I though the whole point of this section of the forum was to assist and advise posters how to deal with any issues they face, it is not our job, nor is it fair to decide if somebody is guilty or not guilty, or if somebody is telling lies or not,

We can only give appropriate advice if we have the full picture.

innocent until proven guilty.

That's for the courts.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

You're right, it isn't our place to judge, but equally I think its generally helpful if we look at the issue as the TOC involved might, and ask the OP the difficult questions at this stage rather than them have to face them further down the line. There are plenty of examples on this forum of threads where the OP has abruptly disappeared once inconsistencies are pointed out and detailed questions asked.

We also need to know the facts, in that advice that's not based on the facts in the specific case may not be good advice. That's why posters joining threads with 'Hey! The exact same thing happened to me - what should I do?' tend to get a fairly dusty answer.

 

[Aaron1]

You're right, it isn't our place to judge, but equally I think its generally helpful if we look at the issue as the TOC involved might, and ask the OP the difficult questions at this stage rather than them have to face them further down the line. There are plenty of examples on this forum of threads where the OP has abruptly disappeared once inconsistencies are pointed out and detailed questions asked.

I totally agree with that it is helpful to ask some challenging questions which the TOC's may ask as that allows them to pre-empt and think of potential answers. Forewarned is forearmed afterall.

We can only give appropriate advice if we have the full picture.

That's for the courts.

You are correct, but more on this

In my opinion the statement in post #20 something along the lines off "these claims were not accidental" implies that the poster has already decided the OP is guilty, the OP stated that some claims may have been done in error, but it has been decided in post #20 that is not the case and that they were done speculatively in the hope they would be approved.

Therefore in my view it has been decided the OP was guilty rather than innocent, surely that's up to the courts to decide as you state?

 

[35B]

I totally agree with that it is helpful to ask some challenging questions which the TOC's may ask as that allows them to pre-empt and think of potential answers. Forewarned is forearmed afterall.



You are correct, but more on this

In my opinion the statement in post #20 something along the lines off "these claims were not accidental" implies that the poster has already decided the OP is guilty, the OP stated that some claims may have been done in error, but it has been decided in post #20 that is not the case and that they were done speculatively in the hope they would be approved.

Therefore in my view it has been decided the OP was guilty rather than innocent, surely that's up to the courts to decide as you state?

The issue is that claiming delay repay requires a positive act on the part of the claimant and, on all operators that I’ve used (including Northern) that includes a declaration of truth about that claim.

It would be very helpful to have confirmation from the OP of the journey made, and the connecting point at which so many connections were missed.

 

[AlterEgo]

The issue is that claiming delay repay requires a positive act on the part of the claimant and, on all operators that I’ve used (including Northern) that includes a declaration of truth about that claim.

Doesn't make any claim which is invalid a fraud though. The declaration of truth doesn't really hold any weight in this.

It's entirely normal to have, say 17% of your claims rejected. None of what the OP has posted would raise any eyebrows with me, and I used to process DR for a living.

 

[SuspectUsual]

In my opinion the statement in post #20 something along the lines off "these claims were not accidental" implies that the poster has already decided the OP is guilty, the OP stated that some claims may have been done in error, but it has been decided in post #20 that is not the case and that they were done speculatively in the hope they would be approved.

Therefore in my view it has been decided the OP was guilty rather than innocent, surely that's up to the courts to decide as you state?

Not at all

Unless the OP has opted into automated delay replay, which we can safely assume they haven't or else they'd have said this and would have a ready watertight defence, they have made a decision to request delay repay. That's a conscious act, not an accident.

Whether the claim is correct or not is a totally different question

 

[AlterEgo]

Not at all

Unless the OP has opted into automated delay replay, which we can safely assume they haven't or else they'd have said this and would have a ready watertight defence, they have made a decision to request delay repay. That's a conscious act, not an accident.

Whether the claim is correct or not is a totally different question

That poster accused the OP of making speculative claims, which is not an accusation which is supported by any evidence we have seen. That poster also gave incorrect and misleading advice about how likely it would be for this to ever be a successful fraud prosecution. The entire post should be disregarded.

 

[BG2024]

I'll leave the legal advice to the experts, and obviously it's the duplicate claims that's the real issue, but I just wanted to chime in on this bit in Northern's letter, which they apparently feel is so egregious that they put it in bold:

Between 24 July 2023 and 05 August 2025 you have claimed one hundred and sixty-six times

So a rate of 81.6 claims per year. I made 41 DR claims with Northern in 2025. If my job was fully office-based instead of hybrid it would likely be double that, which would put me at exactly the same rate as the OP. That's from direct commutes on the Chat Moss, so it's not like you have to be travelling on a forgotten rural route to rack up those numbers: that's just the standard level of service from Northern.

Any implication from Northern that such a rate of claims is suspicious is extremely disingenuous.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Ultimately the key issue is whether the claims were for journeys actually made. As I think has been pointed out, Northern's system should have caught invalid claims (delay less than 15 minutes, minimum connection fouled*, no delay on claimed journey etc) so that would only need claiming for unmade journeys as grounds for Northern to want money back. If, as the OP says, all claims were legitimate then there is no reason to repay.

* This of course means my earlier question about the interchange point is irrelevant.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I use the northern app to go back and check if the train was delayed

Is that possible? Does the Northern app retain actuals alongside bookings?

 

[35B]

Doesn't make any claim which is invalid a fraud though. The declaration of truth doesn't really hold any weight in this.

It's entirely normal to have, say 17% of your claims rejected. None of what the OP has posted would raise any eyebrows with me, and I used to process DR for a living.

Not of itself, I agree. But there are a number of features (not including the rejection rate) of this case that do raise my eyebrows and for which it’s not inherently unreasonable for Northern to ask questions about.

The key point, which the OP has not answered, is where the interchange point is and what the minimum connection time is there. More generally, the assertions about the inability to record delays against specific journeys strain credulity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not of itself, I agree. But there are a number of features (not including the rejection rate) of this case that do raise my eyebrows and for which it’s not inherently unreasonable for Northern to ask questions about.

17% rejection is entirely normal. I used to do this all day every day. You just got loads of passengers like that, the vast majority of whom were mistaken.

The key point, which the OP has not answered, is where the interchange point is and what the minimum connection time is there.

Why would it matter in relation to a claim of dishonesty?

More generally, the assertions about the inability to record delays against specific journeys strain credulity.

Not really. I often make my DR claims after the event, and twice in December had to consult historic train running info to figure out exactly which train I took (eg: I knew it was 35 min late, so just looked up which one that was). Key to all of this will be the OP's pattern of commute.

Regardless, they are at the stage where it looks like they accept they were overpaid on some instances, so they can either write back to agree to repay the overpaid monies (and not Northern's costs, which are entirely self imposed) or just ignore any future correspondence.

It would be helpful for us to see the very latest correspondence Northern have sent.

 

[WesternLancer]

Not of itself, I agree. But there are a number of features (not including the rejection rate) of this case that do raise my eyebrows and for which it’s not inherently unreasonable for Northern to ask questions about.

The key point, which the OP has not answered, is where the interchange point is and what the minimum connection time is there. More generally, the assertions about the inability to record delays against specific journeys strain credulity.

Yes. Since they have declined / chosen not to as yet, to answer the question about stations and the change involved on their regular commute I suspect they know they can make a tight connection that’s less than the specified connection time, but when the train is a little delayed they can’t make that connection. But such claims ought presumably be rejected by the train operators claim processing software.

 

[John R]

But such claims ought presumably be rejected by the train operators claim processing software.

And that of course begs another question. If one assumes that the software is accurate (and I see no reason to do otherwise, else the whole system would be completely unfit for purpose), then how have those claims been accepted?

 

[35B]

And that of course begs another question. If one assumes that the software is accurate (and I see no reason to do otherwise, else the whole system would be completely unfit for purpose), then how have those claims been accepted?

Precisely the question about record-keeping. If a software trawl has identified the OP's claim history as suspicious, then one of the questions will be "were these journeys actually made" - at which point a record of when journeys were made will be very helpful.

 

[z444z]

And that of course begs another question. If one assumes that the software is accurate (and I see no reason to do otherwise, else the whole system would be completely unfit for purpose), then how have those claims been accepted?

Assuming software is accurate has cause some pretty major problems in this country recently.

 

[John R]

Assuming software is accurate has cause some pretty major problems in this country recently.

Ha! That’s a very fair point.

We’ve seen from numerous cases here though that the temptation to choose a different train from the one you actually travelled on is too great for some people. Maybe the number of claims has aroused suspicion and a retrospective check of scan times with the claimed journeys has revealed inconsistencies? If that were the case, whether those are due to deliberate action, or simply remembering incorrectly which train they caught when filling out DR very retrospectively would be something only the OP would know.

 

[AlterEgo]

Precisely the question about record-keeping. If a software trawl has identified the OP's claim history as suspicious, then one of the questions will be "were these journeys actually made" - at which point a record of when journeys were made will be very helpful.

Other than the fact that you think it's suspicious that people don't log every train trip they ever take that is delayed...Northern hasn't made this allegation? The specific allegation is that money was claimed when claims were duplicated (that is, the OP claimed twice for the same trip). That is the allegation in their correspondence and the only circumstance Northern have said money was paid out when it should not have been. A lot of people getting very excited here, including Northern. As it happens, the OP has already denied any fraudulent intent and Northern have reduced the value of their claim.

OP - no comment to every further question asked, send them a cheque for the value of the overpaid monies without prejudice, do not offer them any costs, and make clear that is your final offer of settlement. Your letter should be about three sentences in length.

Ha! That’s a very fair point.

We’ve seen from numerous cases here though that the temptation to choose a different train from the one you actually travelled on is too great for some people. Maybe the number of claims has aroused suspicion and a retrospective check of scan times with the claimed journeys has revealed inconsistencies?

They haven't said anything of the sort though, if you actually read Northern's letter.

 

[yorkie]

In the absence of more information, and given what has been posted so far, I would simply go with @AlterEgo 's advice.

However,as a general principle, I would advise people to make DR claims promptly and before the exact arrival time is forgotten. If anyone is unsure about a claim, seek our advice.

And that of course begs another question. If one assumes that the software is accurate (and I see no reason to do otherwise, else the whole system would be completely unfit for purpose), then how have those claims been accepted?

Train companies routinely get it wrong. It usually goes against the customer.

The systems used by certain companies is absolutely not fit for purpose.

I not infrequently get valid claims rejected ; companies like LNER for example are utterly incompetent and make false claims that trains arrived earlier than they did.

Indeed companies such as LNER act in a way that could be seen as encouraging passengers to make claims that could be seen by other companies as fraudulent!

However it's probably best to leave it there.

 

[redreni]

I would suggest the OP should be more careful, in future, to keep records.

A Google Sheets document or similar, that you can update while travelling, after submitting a claim and when a claim is paid, could be very valuable to refer back to in case any of your claims are questioned again in the future. I have one and use it to capture details like intended departure and arrival times, actual departure and arrival times, dates claims submitted, decisions, appeals, etc. Personally, I have to do this or I wouldn't be able to remember all the details in the event a claim is rejected (in order to check if it was my error or I need to appeal).

I do find Northern's letter extraordinary. The degree of incompetence and error we see routinely from TOC systems and staff whose job it is to understand and apply the rules is quite significant. It is higher, in my personal experience, than the 17% error rate suggested by the proportion of the OP's claims Northern indicates in its letter are, in its view, suspicious. I reckon about one in four of the claims I submit are dealt with erroneously, often failing to take account of information provided by me on the claim form.

Northern is also admitting to having paid out on duplicate claims, which I would suggest makes it rather rich of them to expect 100% accuracy and carefulness from regular passengers.

 

[Southern Beau]

I would suggest the OP should be more careful, in future, to keep records.

A Google Sheets document or similar, that you can update while travelling, after submitting a claim and when a claim is paid, could be very valuable to refer back to in case any of your claims are questioned again in the future. I have one and use it to capture details like intended departure and arrival times, actual departure and arrival times, dates claims submitted, decisions, appeals, etc. Personally, I have to do this or I wouldn't be able to remember all the details in the event a claim is rejected (in order to check if it was my error or I need to appeal).

I do find Northern's letter extraordinary. The degree of incompetence and error we see routinely from TOC systems and staff whose job it is to understand and apply the rules is quite significant. It is higher, in my personal experience, than the 17% error rate suggested by the proportion of the OP's claims Northern indicates in its letter are, in its view, suspicious. I reckon about one in four of the claims I submit are dealt with erroneously, often failing to take account of information provided by me on the claim form.

Northern is also admitting to having paid out on duplicate claims, which I would suggest makes it rather rich of them to expect 100% accuracy and carefulness from regular passengers.

Or just a screenshot of LDB showing the train you intended to catch which will show th relevant delay

 

[John R]

Or just a screenshot of LDB showing the train you intended to catch which will show th relevant delay

That doesn't work as the OP states that they have a connection mid journey.
I am sure they will be more careful going forward after this letter - I tend to do DR submissions within half an hour of the delay, just so it is fresh in my mind. The GWR site makes it very easy and all done within a minute, though obviously I don't know whether other sites are as quick.

 

[TheTallOne]

That doesn't work as the OP states that they have a connection mid journey.
I am sure they will be more careful going forward after this letter - I tend to do DR submissions within half an hour of the delay, just so it is fresh in my mind. The GWR site makes it very easy and all done within a minute, though obviously I don't know whether other sites are as quick.

It might still work.

A screenshot showing the actual arrival time of the second train.

That can then be compared against the expected arrival time of their usual train (assuming they always catch the same first train).

Or screenshot live departure and arrival data for both trains - and then compare the expected Vs actual duration.

The key (for anyone in this position) would be to get into the habit of taking such screenshots and keep them until the delay has been claimed for (or perhaps forever?).