Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Hello - I've just joined because I too have received a letter from GA today!
I emailed immediately and I've been sent examples of journeys they say are fraudulent from January this year and November 2019. Am very alarmed. Of the five examples they sent, two are in 2019 so I need to find my diary from then (if I even still have it), one I can see what the issue is (I claimed for a late train late at night and exited my home station earlier in the evening BUT i had run back there to pick something up I needed for a work thing and was driven down to the event by someone I know who was also going there! And then got the train back). One I am genuinely certain is wrong and I have a photo from that date, on the train, which I sent to a Whatsapp group at the time I should have been on the train I claimed for. There's also one train that I'm so so sure was delayed (first day back at work and I remember moaning to my husband about it when I got home!)
One I cannot explain at all. I was working in a different city on the date of the claim. So I can only think I've put the wrong date in?
The November 2019 ones look quite dodgy too - I mean, I know I wasn't claiming fraudulently, I think it must be a human error on my part but I'm also aware that there's no way that isn't going to sound like me making excuses. They've got me tapping out at times I said I was on a train and it's hard to argue with that, isn't it?
The email said they had more examples so I've asked them to send them through but I'm not at all sure what to do next. It's all a bit 'my word against your data' and if it's not correct then I guess I should pay it back - BUT i wouldn't have put in a claim if I wasn't on a delayed train so it doesn't really make sense.
I've become a bit invested in this thread so I'll share my thoughts, although bear in mind I am probably the least knowledgeable person here about railway ticketing, I do have vast legal knowledge.
To be blunt, I think you're in the category of "seek legal advice urgently". Mainly because you seem to admit, that there are numerous claims which you appear to accept are invalid or not a true reflection of your journey. I appreciate you claim you did not have the requisite "intent" to commit fraud, but from an independent person looking at this, once or twice might be a mistake, three or four, raising an eyebrow, more than five, I'd be shaking my head in disbelief. Where do you draw the line between human error / incompetence / criminal intent, it's really not black and white unfortunately. So it really depends on your history, how many claims we are talking about, at the values involved.
If some of your journeys are in January 2021, you definitely need to consider legal assistance, as there is a strong possibility they could use the "quick" option of a Magistrates' Court appearance, unlike the older claims.
The good news seems to be that they are open to an "Out of Court Settlement" to resolve the matter, although £650 was quoted earlier, based on that poster's circumstances.
I thought the T&Cs say you must always tap in and out even with a season ticket?
I know we've discussed this before, and many think it's rather pointless and unnecessary - but I suppose not tapping in/out does then make it rather difficult to prove you made a journey in situations where you subsequently need to make a claim.
Even if gates are open, you should still be able to tap as normal.
I would also be interested to know whether any of the smartcards involved have been scanned on the train itself by a member of staff, perhaps with a mobile device reader of some kind? I would imagine those sort of devices exist and presumably "stamp" the smartcard, or at least send some data back to a database, maybe including the specific train service, staff ID etc?
I would also be interested to know whether any of the smartcards involved have been scanned on the train itself by a member of staff, perhaps with a mobile device reader of some kind? I would imagine those sort of devices exist and presumably "stamp" the smartcard, or at least send some data back to a database, maybe including the specific train service, staff ID etc?
Yes, they do record details so it can be cross referenced with gateline data later. This enables people using contactless cards to be 'caught' by TfL if the card hasn't been seen before the timestamp of the revenue check. I don't know if the device is programmed with the train head code or anything, but at the very least it would have the time.
I don't know how TOCs might do it, but I've seen the TV programme that followed how TfL had software to flag up suspicious activity to prompt further investigation. Sounds like Abellio has invested in something similar.
I've become a bit invested in this thread so I'll share my thoughts, although bear in mind I am probably the least knowledgeable person here about railway ticketing, I do have vast legal knowledge.
To be blunt, I think you're in the category of "seek legal advice urgently". Mainly because you seem to admit, that there are numerous claims which you appear to accept are invalid or not a true reflection of your journey. I appreciate you claim you did not have the requisite "intent" to commit fraud, but from an independent person looking at this, once or twice might be a mistake, three or four, raising an eyebrow, more than five, I'd be shaking my head in disbelief. Where do you draw the line between human error / incompetence / criminal intent, it's really not black and white unfortunately. So it really depends on your history, how many claims we are talking about, at the values involved.
If some of your journeys are in January 2021, you definitely need to consider legal assistance, as there is a strong possibility they could use the "quick" option of a Magistrates' Court appearance, unlike the older claims.
The good news seems to be that they are open to an "Out of Court Settlement" to resolve the matter, although £650 was quoted earlier, based on that poster's circumstances.
Ah - I'm an idiot, forgot we'd actually made it into 2021! No, the journeys are from January 2020.
I somehow managed to miss about four pages of this thread and lots of things seem to have been answered already and some questions asked that I might otherwise have answered - I used a monthly or weekly season ticket on a Smartcard (though I think there might be the odd claim which was for a single/return ticket where I wasn't commuting for a few days so waited to renew). They have tap in evidence which contradicts a couple of my claims but in one case I can explain it and in one I am absolutely certain it's wrong. But my proof of that - a photograph sent on a WhatsApp group! - seems pretty blooming shaky even to me.
I also, like an idiot, replied with all this info. I did ask them for more records.
I didn't use a delay repay program or anything, though? I had no idea they existed. Just either claimed online while I was still on the delayed train or, if the signal was bad (as it often is between Shenfield and Colchester), note down that I was on a delayed train and claimed later on in batches. I think these must be the ones which are wrong? As obviously I'm not going to get the details wrong while I'm on the actual train!
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect that 'I'm just crap at keeping notes' isn't going to stand up very well as a defence, even if it's true.
It may also be relevant that there's no gates at my station - though I think a tap in thing was installed a while back? But I don't know if you're supposed to tap in with them with a season ticket? Though... now that I write that down, what else would they be for? When I get to my London station (Stratford) I then cross over onto the Overground and there are no barriers between those either so quite often I'd do a journey where the only point where I'd tap in or out was when I got to my final Overground destination (or when I started there). I also sometimes get off at Colchester rather than my actual station which is a bit further down the line, and get a bus from there as I sometimes have difficulty walking and the train station in my town is a big old schlep from my house, whereas the bus from Colchester drops me a few moments away. So sometimes I'd take trains to/from there and usually tap in/out there. Perhaps that looks unusual?
Do you - or anyone else - know how an out of court settlement works? I really don't want to drag this out - though I'm happy to send them the evidence I have it's not much, really (unless the other claims they send through I can see a reason for, which is possible, of course) and they can point to at least one journey (which - because I'm an idiot, as mentioned previously) I already said in my email reply to them that I can't explain as I was working in a different city. Or - should I fight it because I know some are wrong?
I'm flat broke at the moment so I'm rather anxious that paying back a large sum all at once would be impossible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
oh - and thank you, Tazi, for taking the time to reply to me!
Ah - I'm an idiot, forgot we'd actually made it into 2021! No, the journeys are from January 2020.
I somehow managed to miss about four pages of this thread and lots of things seem to have been answered already and some questions asked that I might otherwise have answered - I used a monthly or weekly season ticket on a Smartcard (though I think there might be the odd claim which was for a single/return ticket where I wasn't commuting for a few days so waited to renew). They have tap in evidence which contradicts a couple of my claims but in one case I can explain it and in one I am absolutely certain it's wrong. But my proof of that - a photograph sent on a WhatsApp group! - seems pretty blooming shaky even to me.
I also, like an idiot, replied with all this info. I did ask them for more records.
I didn't use a delay repay program or anything, though? I had no idea they existed. Just either claimed online while I was still on the delayed train or, if the signal was bad (as it often is between Shenfield and Colchester), note down that I was on a delayed train and claimed later on in batches. I think these must be the ones which are wrong? As obviously I'm not going to get the details wrong while I'm on the actual train!
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect that 'I'm just crap at keeping notes' isn't going to stand up very well as a defence, even if it's true.
Do you - or anyone else - know how an out of court settlement works? I really don't want to drag this out - though I'm happy to send them the evidence I have it's not much, really (unless the other claims they send through I can see a reason for, which is possible, of course) and they can point to at least one journey (which - because I'm an idiot, as mentioned previously) I already said in my email reply to them that I can't explain as I was working in a different city. Or - should I fight it because I know some are wrong?
I'm flat broke at the moment so I'm rather anxious that paying back a large sum all at once would be impossible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
oh - and thank you, Tazi, for taking the time to reply to me!
No problem. If you want to settle out if court, reply back to the person sending you the letter explaining that you accept in some (but not all) cases you have made an error and would like the opportunity to resolve the matter. In your case, perhaps talk about your financial position and explain that you are happy to pay their costs incurred and repay compensation, but you politely request an ability to pay by installments. They don't have to accept, but I imagine as long as you propose a sensible repayment plan, they'll accept. E.g. for a £300 settlement, 3 X £100 monthly payments would (at least to me) seem reasonable.
Keep correspondence short and sweet! Don't suggest any numbers yourself, and don't go into too much detail around specific claims.
Well if you assume 232 working days per annum (260 minus 28 days annual leave and bank hols, but no sickness, working from home days ) at 2 journeys per day = 464 journeys.
So 41 claims = a shade under 9%.
hmm I dont know the route statistics but from my own commuting a few years ago that seems a bit on the high side but could indeed be true.
Going back and forth twice in a day may take some explaining / corroboration as that would seem unusual / unlikely but not impossible.
It's around £650 which is under 1 months season ticket amount. From the list they sent there is one I know there's an error on but it was a year ago so I have no idea what the correct date should be. Normally when I make a mistake they reject it and I correct it. I did ask how long do I have to find the evidence and what evidence is needed but they didn't answer so I have no idea if I can find the necessary evidence to
If you have conclusive proof that one of these GA are claiming to be fraudulent claims is correct, and there is no firm evidence that others are false then you should not have too much to worry about, however, if there are any claims which are impossible to be honest, for example, because the ticket went through a gate at one location when you claimed to be somewhere else, that would be a different ball game.
Ah - I'm an idiot, forgot we'd actually made it into 2021! No, the journeys are from January 2020.
I somehow managed to miss about four pages of this thread and lots of things seem to have been answered already and some questions asked that I might otherwise have answered - I used a monthly or weekly season ticket on a Smartcard (though I think there might be the odd claim which was for a single/return ticket where I wasn't commuting for a few days so waited to renew). They have tap in evidence which contradicts a couple of my claims but in one case I can explain it and in one I am absolutely certain it's wrong. But my proof of that - a photograph sent on a WhatsApp group! - seems pretty blooming shaky even to me.
I also, like an idiot, replied with all this info. I did ask them for more records.
I didn't use a delay repay program or anything, though? I had no idea they existed. Just either claimed online while I was still on the delayed train or, if the signal was bad (as it often is between Shenfield and Colchester), note down that I was on a delayed train and claimed later on in batches. I think these must be the ones which are wrong? As obviously I'm not going to get the details wrong while I'm on the actual train!
I'm no legal expert, but I suspect that 'I'm just crap at keeping notes' isn't going to stand up very well as a defence, even if it's true.
It may also be relevant that there's no gates at my station - though I think a tap in thing was installed a while back? But I don't know if you're supposed to tap in with them with a season ticket? Though... now that I write that down, what else would they be for? When I get to my London station (Stratford) I then cross over onto the Overground and there are no barriers between those either so quite often I'd do a journey where the only point where I'd tap in or out was when I got to my final Overground destination (or when I started there). I also sometimes get off at Colchester rather than my actual station which is a bit further down the line, and get a bus from there as I sometimes have difficulty walking and the train station in my town is a big old schlep from my house, whereas the bus from Colchester drops me a few moments away. So sometimes I'd take trains to/from there and usually tap in/out there. Perhaps that looks unusual?
Do you - or anyone else - know how an out of court settlement works? I really don't want to drag this out - though I'm happy to send them the evidence I have it's not much, really (unless the other claims they send through I can see a reason for, which is possible, of course) and they can point to at least one journey (which - because I'm an idiot, as mentioned previously) I already said in my email reply to them that I can't explain as I was working in a different city. Or - should I fight it because I know some are wrong?
I'm flat broke at the moment so I'm rather anxious that paying back a large sum all at once would be impossible.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
oh - and thank you, Tazi, for taking the time to reply to me!
Others are eminently better qualified than me and will doubtless be along soon to give you their view, but from what you’ve said whilst you accept some of the claims or mistaken, it sounds like the mistake is getting a date or train time wrong, not making entirely spurious claims.
Surely it’s worth pointing that out to them, as I guess the net effect would be close to zero, assuming the length of delay claimed is consistent?
There is a pattern here. We have all had the same letter, listing a few claims, saying there are more, threatening language. We respond asking for more details so we can investigate. We think most are valid but we may have made a mistake on one. They ignore this and send a total sum to settle, plus an admin fee.
And all this is coming from the same person at GA.
Quite likely just a single name used to sign off letters, as it can be quite common for certain job roles to protect the real names of staff given the line of work they're in (i.e. taking legal action).
There is a pattern here. We have all had the same letter, listing a few claims, saying there are more, threatening language. We respond asking for more details so we can investigate. We think most are valid but we may have made a mistake on one. They ignore this and send a total sum to settle, plus an admin fee.
And all this is coming from the same person at GA.
Most people so far have admitted they have submitted a few potentially dubious claims. Of course there would be a pattern, they are using some sort of algorithm clearly which is going to produce batches of cases, probably hundreds if not more.
I haven't seen anyone report threatening language, what do you think is threatening?
They don't have to provide you with any information at all, it's also really common in criminal investigations to drip feed just enough evidence at key stages.
It's your decision how to proceed. If you have also submitted dubious claims, clearly you'll be wanting to settle. If you don't settle, you can wait and see what happens, but that may well be the police knocking at your door. But if you are confident you are 100% in the clear, surely you don't need to worry and can just sit back and wait?
Quite likely just a single name used to sign off letters, as it can be quite common for certain job roles to protect the real names of staff given the line of work they're in (i.e. taking legal action).
First note that I'm only commenting in the case of people who have submitted valid claims.
I have a feeling that the only thing that will help here is bad publicity for harassing the longsuffering public. Since the TOC accepted the claims the opportunity has likely gone to be insistent or prove that journeys were undertaken that were long in the past. If the TOC is ignoring proof that journeys were taken or are not providing further details that limits the options. Perhaps time to talk to MPs, press, consumers' organisations, but this would be much better done by people who can prove the TOC wrong in specific cases they mention and can explain what is most likely an unusual pattern of claims.
The fact that people seem to have been playing the system is not going to help.
First note that I'm only commenting in the case of people who have submitted valid claims.
I have a feeling that the only thing that will help here is bad publicity for harassing the longsuffering public. Since the TOC accepted the claims the opportunity has likely gone to be insistent or prove that journeys were undertaken that were long in the past. If the TOC is ignoring proof that journeys were taken or are not providing further details that limits the options. Perhaps time to talk to MPs, press, consumers' organisations, but this would be much better done by people who can prove the TOC wrong in specific cases they mention and can explain what is most likely an unusual pattern of claims.
The fact that people seem to have been playing the system is not going to help.
I did explain earlier, as part of criminal investigations, it is perfectly normal to permit fraudulent activity in a controlled environment, long enough to construct a stronger case, before one random day in the future, ending the game.
As well as uniformed Revenue Protection Inspectors, Greater Anglia also employs plain clothes Fraud Investigations Officers who use the latest technology and systems to detect fraudulent activity, specialising in travel fraud, such as delay repay fraud rings.
For the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that any of the posters in this thread are or have been a member of a delay repay fraud ring. I am simply drawing to the attention of readers that self evidently GA have identified and encountered fraud rings and self evidently now conduct operations to identify and take action against such fraud.
I want to say yes to this but it looks like I've submitted at least one claim that isn't valid for the day I said it was so I don't think I can truly say I am. But I am definitely saying that I had absolutely no intention of committing fraud at all: any claims I've made that are wrong are mistakes. I feel like a fool, though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Others are eminently better qualified than me and will doubtless be along soon to give you their view, but from what you’ve said whilst you accept some of the claims or mistaken, it sounds like the mistake is getting a date or train time wrong, not making entirely spurious claims.
Surely it’s worth pointing that out to them, as I guess the net effect would be close to zero, assuming the length of delay claimed is consistent?
Well if you assume 232 working days per annum (260 minus 28 days annual leave and bank hols, but no sickness, working from home days ) at 2 journeys per day = 464 journeys.
So 41 claims = a shade under 9%.
hmm I dont know the route statistics but from my own commuting a few years ago that seems a bit on the high side but could indeed be true.
Going back and forth twice in a day may take some explaining / corroboration as that would seem unusual / unlikely but not impossible.
It did feel like there was a period where almost every train I got was delayed - and I guess it would be reasonably easy to find figures on that?
I very rarely went back and forth twice in a day - but I do an unusual second job and I can easily prove that and explain why I might have done that (sorry to be cryptic, but it's quite an outing thing!).
There is a pattern here. We have all had the same letter, listing a few claims, saying there are more, threatening language. We respond asking for more details so we can investigate. We think most are valid but we may have made a mistake on one. They ignore this and send a total sum to settle, plus an admin fee.
And all this is coming from the same person at GA.
If they did create some false logs to trigger delay repay claim sites to show specific trains as being late that weren't, they may well be keeping this quiet for now.
"Hmm, these lot seem to always get the late trains, but, looking at other data we have, never travel on the same trains at any other times..."
Short formed trains would be another possibility, having a few hundred claims for a train that can only seat 50pax. Short form info may not always be readily available to other, non-operational, departments.
"Hmm, these lot seem to always get the late trains, but, looking at other data we have, never travel on the same trains at any other times..."
Short formed trains would be another possibility, having a few hundred claims for a train that can only seat 50pax. Short form info may not always be readily available to other, non-operational, departments.
The short form one is an interesting one (I'm getting quite into the logistics of this now!) - having been crammed on many a short form train from Stratford, surely how many it can actually seat is almost irrelevant?
My travel patterns are a bit unusual anyway because of the nature of my job(s) so I'm wondering if that's been a bit of a red flag.
I think what some posters are missing here is that GA have sent a very punchy template letter to a number of 'customers' about a few claims made many months ago, adding that there are more. GA do not share the full details of the claims so it is therefore difficult for the 'customer' to determine their travel patterns and how the delay, or even cancellation, impacted them. When this is queried, GA simply reply with a total amount to settle. The details of the other claims they refer to, and that are included in this sum, are not disclosed at all.
What is not being considered is that these claims could all be valid. But GA don't share the information.
Guilty until proven innocent?
So will that stand up in court?
"Hmm, these lot seem to always get the late trains, but, looking at other data we have, never travel on the same trains at any other times..."
Short formed trains would be another possibility, having a few hundred claims for a train that can only seat 50pax. Short form info may not always be readily available to other, non-operational, departments.
This reminds me - I had a fair few DR claims with Northern because I physically couldn’t get on a short formed train. Every time I took a photo; every time the claim was rejected; every time appealing with the photo as evidence worked
Well yes the presumption is and has to be innocent until proven guilty.
However by making a delay repayment claim the claimant is saying "I was on that train, I suffered that delay and therefore I am claiming that delay payment".
It is not unreasonable for the TOC to ask for reconfirmation from the claimant that they were on the train stated and if possible furnish proof. The TOC could reject the claim on the basis that they were not satisfied that the claimant was on the train stated. The onus would then be back on the claimant to furnish proof. If the claimant was aggrieved they could pursue the matter further (appeal) or simply take it on the chin and ensure that going forward they had proof of travel on a specific train to back up any delay claim in the future. Any appeals process would consider the facts of the case and I suspect that without proof any appeal would be dismissed.
In some respects this is no different to a householder being burgled claiming for a plasma TV and the insurer asking for proof that the householder did indeed own a plasma TV and it was stolen. (Admittedly this would be easier to establish with a receipt, online purchase record etc).
However a TOC rejecting a claim is one thing. Taking it to the next level where the TOC has made a repayment but is now seeking proof after the event is a different matter. I think claimants could simply (re) state that the claims they made were on the basis that they were travelling on those trains, they were delayed and hence a legitimate claim was made. If they were not on those trains then they have made a false statement. Whilst mistakes can be made the TOC may take a view on the likelihood of a genuine mistake being made or whether or not a deliberately false claim was made. Each case would turn on its facts: ie number of claims, likely number of journeys, likelihood of being on a delayed journey, any evidence the TOC has in the form of tap in tap out, machine read ticket. etc etc.
The claimants probably range from those whose claims are 100% legitimate (ie were on the delayed train), through those who have made a mistake by misremembering, to those who have made false claims knowingly. GA will be trying to establish which category these claimants belong in and act accordingly. Only the claimant will know their "status" and it is up to them to decide how to respond.
