Delay repay potential fraud

[BestWestern]

What exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected? The only action I could see would be to somehow 'report' the matter to the TOC. Nobody else is likely to be remotely interested. Unless of course there is a confession, in which case dismissal would presumably be easy enough. Otherwise, it's difficult to see what an employer could hope to achieve, assuming the individual maintains their innocence.

 

[Gareth Marston]

One strongly suspects the Season Ticket Holder/Delay Repay Claimer is already a target and HR are looking for a way to manage him/her out the company.

As other posters have pointed out the TOC's CS Dept's are well aware of fraudulent attempts to claim delay repay if they have claimed the levels of delay repay the OP states its highly unlikely that its not been flagged and looked into and action taken if necessary.

This is where my knowledge is sketchy. With Individuals that have claimed delay repay erroneously obviously any communication/letters will be between the TOC and them would the corporate purchase necessarily know?

 

[Clip]

One strongly suspects the Season Ticket Holder/Delay Repay Claimer is already a target and HR are looking for a way to manage him/her out the company.

As other posters have pointed out the TOC's CS Dept's are well aware of fraudulent attempts to claim delay repay if they have claimed the levels of delay repay the OP states its highly unlikely that its not been flagged and looked into and action taken if necessary.

This is where my knowledge is sketchy. With Individuals that have claimed delay repay erroneously obviously any communication/letters will be between the TOC and them would the corporate purchase necessarily know?

No. It has nothing to do with the provider of the funds to buy the season ticket - only between the TOC and the ticket holder

 

[gray1404]

One strongly suspects the Season Ticket Holder/Delay Repay Claimer is already a target and HR are looking for a way to manage him/her out the company.

I think that the company needs to be very careful indeed if this is what they are doing. It may not be grounds for dismissal at all and the employee could end up, depending on the exact circumstances, taking them to an employment tribunal.

 

[najaB]

I think that the company needs to be very careful indeed if this is what they are doing. It may not be grounds for dismissal at all...

I'd like to think that the company's HR department would be more familiar with the colleague's employment contract than random members of an Internet forum.

 

[gray1404]

I'd like to think that the company's HR department would be more familiar with the colleague's employment contract than random members of an Internet forum.

That's why I say "may" not. I didn't say "is not". And company HR departments make a lot of mistakes, hence the numbers of successful employment tribunals we see each year.

Quite honestly, if they want to get rid of someone it would be better they did this on their basis of something they have (certainly) done as part of their actual employment rather then something he might (only might) have done in their free time. Proving these delay repay claims are fake is going to be hard for the company anyway and I think they might be making a rod for their own back.

There are things from the employees private life maybe they can prove for certain, but I do not think this is one of them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Having conversed with the OP over PM I think your concerns are misplaced, gray1404.

 

[gray1404]

Having conversed with the OP over PM I think your concerns are misplaced, gray1404.

AlterEgo, I am not privy to any PMs you have had with the OP. I am speaking about this matter in general terms though. I really do feel it would be risky, in general, to try to use delay repay claims as evidence for disciplinary action. However, I do respectfully accept that you know more about the specifics of this case then the rest of us.

 

[najaB]

I really do feel it would be risky, in general, to try to use delay repay claims as evidence for disciplinary action.

It's risky - in general - to say anything - in general - about HR cases, except that they are all incredibly specific.

 

[tsr]

I'm always one for agreeing that flagging up potentially fraudulent activity is worth doing, and for that matter I wouldn't be offended if somebody queried something I did which needed explaining.

I'm glad the OP is diligent about this sort of thing, and I hope their thread of private messages has proved useful.

However, I've come across unusual situations involving RTVs before. For me, often in scenarios where I haven't had much time to decide if the use has been valid or not, there have rarely been reasons to refuse. Ticket offices seem more susceptible to various problems involving walk-up customers appearing out of the blue with odd purchase requests, or other questions. I believe some of our esteemed fellow members have mentioned problems with people cashing in RTVs at remote ticket offices before.

Some people will probably think that their employer, if it isn't a TOC, will not bat an eyelid at more obscure transactions because expertise on this sort of thing is lacking.

However, I can think of other possible explanations which might be against Terms and Conditions, but not intended to defraud the train operator through false claims (etc. etc.).

One wonders if this could be a case of two people commuting on two separate season tickets for vaguely the same route (flatmates / husband and wife / etc.), therefore accruing two sets of vouchers each time they are both working and using the trains at the same time. One of them then needs to renew the season, the other doesn't. As a result, the first ticket holder gets given the RTVs to renew, while the second is quite happy with a bank transfer / paying household bill [x] in full for a while / etc. The claims have been legitimately made, it's just that the vouchers have changed hands for what is (from a human point of view) a perfectly normal sort of reason.

A delay on a substantial leisure journey could also account for an unusual spike. Some relatives of mine recently got a legitimate, large Delay Repay refund for using VTEC First Class tickets during a day of absolutely massive disruption, way above what either would usually get for their usual local journeys.

Lastly, I wonder if perhaps some sort of enhanced compensation scheme for major disruption of some description could result in a bulk issue of RTVs with a similar value.

Other scenarios are, of course, also available!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected? The only action I could see would be to somehow 'report' the matter to the TOC. Nobody else is likely to be remotely interested.

Well, options include a private Prosecution, just as such a prosecution is available to a railway company, regulator or other individual.

It's risky - in general - to say anything - in general - about HR cases, except that they are all incredibly specific.

Very wise words.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, options include a private Prosecution, just as such a prosecution is available to a railway company, regulator or other individual.
Very wise words.

An employer could launch a private prosecution based on a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's? If any judge in the land has time for nonsense like that, we've gone very badly wrong somewhere!

 

[najaB]

An employer could launch a private prosecution based on a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's?

Anybody can launch a private prosecution for anything (in England and Wales).

If any judge in the land has time for nonsense like that, we've gone very badly wrong somewhere!

If the magistrate feels that the case is without merits then it will be thrown out and costs awarded to the defendant.

 

[AngusH]

Probably too late this time, but have you considered issuing a receipt for the vouchers giving the total amount, and including some text about the vouchers being received by the employee in compensation for valid claims for delays.

Then get the person to sign and date it, signifying that the company has received that amount in vouchers. Give them a copy to show that the company has received the amount.

Then you've got a signed statement from the person that the vouchers were legitimately received by them. The employee has a receipt for the vouchers and that the company is on the hook if the vouchers are lost.

Both sides get something?

I've seen similar things done for other types of vouchers (although not rail vouchers)

 

[BestWestern]

Anybody can launch a private prosecution for anything (in England and Wales).If the magistrate feels that the case is without merits then it will be thrown out and costs awarded to the defendant.

The magistrate would presumably have no choice, considering that there would be absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented by the prosecution.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected? The only action I could see would be to somehow 'report' the matter to the TOC. Nobody else is likely to be remotely interested.

Well, options include a private Prosecution, just as such a prosecution is available to a railway company, regulator or other individual.

An employer could launch a private prosecution based on a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's? If any judge in the land has time for nonsense like that, we've gone very badly wrong somewhere!

I feel you have reinterpreted your question.
I wasn't proposing Criminal proceedings following "a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's?".
I was answering the "what exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected?" and where the only action you could see is to make a report to the victim. Your question presumed a situation where there was good reason to believe that a fraud had been committed.

The magistrate would presumably have no choice, considering that there would be absolutely no evidence whatsoever presented by the prosecution.

Well if there was no evidence whatsoever, you wouldn't be considering taking it anywhere near a Magistrate. Your question was what a person is at liberty to do where a fraud IS suspected, which presumes that the person looking for options available to them have some substantive reason to support the 'suspicion'.


The phrase "having gone badly wrong somewhere" would apply if there was no deterrent, no means to recover a loss and no penalties for frauds.
It is a separate question to argue that there is something 'wrong' about allowing (almost) everyone access to justice. I see many hopeless claims coming to Court, including those that are brought to some of the sharpest minds in the Judiciary. I may call them hopeless, but the litigant is ensured the opportunity to bring their case, and to have it carefully and impartially analysed in relation to the Law.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I don't understand why this is your concern? Are you out to cause trouble? If the person was out to benefit from false claims then they would be using the vouchers for their own personal use.

it appears the OP is the budget holder/ authorised signatory for the account / part of the business in question and does not want to be implicated in fraud

As it also appears the situation involves people subject to professional regulation as well, there can be issues with that side of things if a colleague / superior signs off on things tht turn out to be less than above board .

 

[AnonymousUser1]

What exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected? The only action I could see would be to somehow 'report' the matter to the TOC. Nobody else is likely to be remotely interested. Unless of course there is a confession, in which case dismissal would presumably be easy enough. Otherwise, it's difficult to see what an employer could hope to achieve, assuming the individual maintains their innocence.

or the individual in question in in regualted profession and the employer makes a fitness to practice allegation on the basis of 'conduct unbecoming' / ' damaging public confidence in the profession or falsification of records ...

 

[BestWestern]

I feel you have reinterpreted your question.
I wasn't proposing Criminal proceedings following "a wholly unproven theory about a individual holding too many RTV's?".
I was answering the "what exactly is an employer at liberty to do if fraud is suspected?" and where the only action you could see is to make a report to the victim. Your question presumed a situation where there was good reason to believe that a fraud had been committed.
Well if there was no evidence whatsoever, you wouldn't be considering taking it anywhere near a Magistrate. Your question was what a person is at liberty to do where a fraud IS suspected, which presumes that the person looking for options available to them have some substantive reason to support the 'suspicion'.


The phrase "having gone badly wrong somewhere" would apply if there was no deterrent, no means to recover a loss and no penalties for frauds.
It is a separate question to argue that there is something 'wrong' about allowing (almost) everyone access to justice. I see many hopeless claims coming to Court, including those that are brought to some of the sharpest minds in the Judiciary. I may call them hopeless, but the litigant is ensured the opportunity to bring their case, and to have it carefully and impartially analysed in relation to the Law.

Thank you, Dave, for an as ever informed and interesting answer. To clarify, I was basing the question on what appears to be the current situation; that somebody with no responsibility for the issue or administration of RTVs thinks there might be a problem, because they have made an unqualified judgement that somebody 'has too many'. I find it difficult to see where any further 'evidence', sufficient to go into a court of law, would be obtained, unless as I said before the alleged offender coughs. If the organisation contacts the issuing TOC to raise a question about who they've issued vouchers too, when and why, they are very highly likely to be told to mind their own business. If the alleged 'fraudster' tells them the same, what else is there that they can realistically do? No offence has been committed against them, and as you say it's surely unlikely that a court would entertain proceedings with a level of evidence which doesn't rise beyond suspicion.