Delay Repay

[Rahain20]

I got the following email from Govia Thameslink:
What do you suggest

We are writing to you regarding your Delay Repay claims submitted throughout 2025 and in previous years.

Following a recent audit of your claims history, we have identified a number of submissions that do not align with the travel activity recorded on your Flexi season ticket. In several instances, the journey times claimed do not correspond with the times your ticket was used to enter and exit stations. This discrepancy has been noted across multiple claims and appears to be part of a recurring pattern. We believe that you may be researching delay information rather than experiencing actual delay.

Additionally, our records show that you have two accounts registered under variations of your name, both linked to the same postal address and contact number.

Concerns regarding your claims have been raised previously, dating back to 2020. With the increased clarity provided by Flexi ticket data, we are now in a stronger position to assess the validity of submissions. We are now currently conducting a full review of both accounts. If it is determined that any claims have been made fraudulently, we will take appropriate steps to recoup any funds that were awarded in error. You may also be restricted from submitting further claims if misuse is confirmed.

If you believe any of the declined claims were submitted in error or wish to provide clarification, we encourage you to contact us directly. In the absence of a suitable explanation your claims will be withheld.

We appreciate your cooperation.

 

[John R]

If you have been putting in fraudulent claims on an industrial scale for a period of time then you might need to consider using a solicitor.

 

[Horizon22]

What we suggest depends on whether there is any truth to Thameslink's findings or not...

So are there any times you have claimed Delay Repay for services you did not actually travel on or not? If the answer is "Yes", then the question will be "How many times?"

 

[AlterEgo]

I got the following email Thameslink:
What do you suggest



We are writing to you regarding your Delay Repay claims submitted throughout 2025 and in previous years.

Following a recent audit of your claims history, we have identified a number of submissions that do not align with the travel activity recorded on your Flexi season ticket. In several instances, the journey times claimed do not correspond with the times your ticket was used to enter and exit stations. This discrepancy has been noted across multiple claims and appears to be part of a recurring pattern. We believe that you may be researching delay information rather than experiencing actual delay.

Additionally, our records show that you have two accounts registered under variations of your name, both linked to the same postal address and contact number.

Concerns regarding your claims have been raised previously, dating back to 2020. With the increased clarity provided by Flexi ticket data, we are now in a stronger position to assess the validity of submissions. We are now currently conducting a full review of both accounts. If it is determined that any claims have been made fraudulently, we will take appropriate steps to recoup any funds that were awarded in error. You may also be restricted from submitting further claims if misuse is confirmed.

If you believe any of the declined claims were submitted in error or wish to provide clarification, we encourage you to contact us directly. In the absence of a suitable explanation your claims will be withheld.

We appreciate your cooperation.

What we'd suggest depends on what the truth of the matter actually is.

 

[Rahain20]

What we suggest depends on whether there is any truth to Thameslink's findings or not...

So are there any times you have claimed Delay Repay for services you did not actually travel on or not? If the answer is "Yes", then the question will be "How many times?"

My problem is intentions?
If I know a train is going be delayed, I will catch another one.

Surely I can claim? But the tap data will be different?

 

[Watershed]

Are you saying that the tap data will match your claims (in terms of the actual time you travelled)?

Is there any truth in their allegations that you deliberately searched for delayed trains and then claimed for those?

 

[Rahain20]

What we'd suggest depends on what the truth of the matter actually is.

Unfortunately- its do with intentions

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

Are you saying that the tap data will match your claims (in terms of the actual time you travelled)?

Is there any truth in their allegations that you deliberately searched for delayed trains and then claimed for those?

The app sends status updates and I plan my journey accordingly.

If I was planning to go at a certain time but train is cancelled I will wait for next.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

Are you saying that the tap data will match your claims (in terms of the actual time you travelled)?

Is there any truth in their allegations that you deliberately searched for delayed trains and then claimed for those?

I use their app to check trains
And check sites if delayed

 

[AlterEgo]

Have you, or have you not, been fraudulently claiming delay repay?

 

[Watershed]

Have you, or have you not, been fraudulently claiming delay repay?

Indeed, that's the crucial question. If the OP is unable to give us a straight answer then we're going to struggle to help them.

 

[WesternLancer]

I presume an option would be for the op to respond explaining what they have done and why they believe the claims they submitted are legit / made in good faith. Perhaps provide some examples to support that position and politely invite the railway company to consider if any of that is inappropriate and potentially at this or a later stage of correspondence offer to repay any claims that are not in fact correctly claimed.

At this or a later stage it might be worth asking GTR for a list of claims they have concerns about.

But no lies should be stated as it’s always necessary to think about the worst case outcome which is presumably the potential to be taken to court and the need to be able to defend yourself in court, where a lie to the court might be more serious than the issue itself.

 

[Horizon22]

Unfortunately- its do with intentions

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==


The app sends status updates and I plan my journey accordingly.

If I was planning to go at a certain time but train is cancelled I will wait for next.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==


I use their app to check trains
And check sites if delayed

So okay lets use an example:

You are at home planning to catch the 0900 train and it’s 0850. You see that the 0900 is cancelled or very delayed. The 0915 is also cancelled. You wait and you catch the 0930 instead which runs on time and you tap into the station at 0925.

Are you then claiming Delay Repay of the 0900 train, even though you tapped in at 0925 and caught the on-time 0930?

 

[mmh]

So okay lets use an example:

You are at home planning to catch the 0900 train and it’s 0850. You see that the 0900 is cancelled or very delayed. The 0915 is also cancelled. You wait and you catch the 0930 instead which runs on time and you tap into the station at 0925.

Are you then claiming Delay Repay of the 0900 train, even though you tapped in at 0925 and caught the on-time 0930?

The approach I'd take here is that if a train is cancelled I should not be expected to tap in before the cancelled train didn't depart, just as I wouldn't be expected to go through a ticket barrier with a paper ticket, to stand on a platform to wait for the next train. At many stations you wouldn't do that because you wouldn't know which platform your next train will go from, and your sources of information and assistance are the other side of the barrier.

I've made a number of delay repay claims myself where I've scanned my ticket long after the train I've claimed against was supposed to depart, all successful.

This must happen countless times a day.

 

[greatkingrat]

Lets try a different question for the OP. Are all your claims at similar times, or are you claiming for the 0630 one day, then the 1015 the next, etc?

 

[Ben Rhydding]

If the tap in is for the train immediately after the cancelled one, then a claim may be credible. But if the tap in is for a later (or even an earlier) train, then a claim for the cancellation is probably false. The claim must be for delay resulting from cancellation of the intended train and the journey must be followed through. There cannot be a requirement to tap in on time for the cancelled train and then wait on the platform for the next one. But nor can one complete the journey on one`s selected train and then search on the internet for one which was cancelled and claim you were delayed by that.

 

[WesternLancer]

The approach I'd take here is that if a train is cancelled I should not be expected to tap in before the cancelled train didn't depart, just as I wouldn't be expected to go through a ticket barrier with a paper ticket, to stand on a platform to wait for the next train. At many stations you wouldn't do that because you wouldn't know which platform your next train will go from, and your sources of information and assistance are the other side of the barrier.

I've made a number of delay repay claims myself where I've scanned my ticket long after the train I've claimed against was supposed to depart, all successful.

This must happen countless times a day.

Yes. And you may scan in to go to the platform, decide your train was getting more delayed and abandon your journey, seek a full ticket refund on that basis as is permitted- and then be accused of making fraudulent refund claims because your ticket had been scanned and thus ‘used’….

 

[Horizon22]

The approach I'd take here is that if a train is cancelled I should not be expected to tap in before the cancelled train didn't depart, just as I wouldn't be expected to go through a ticket barrier with a paper ticket, to stand on a platform to wait for the next train. At many stations you wouldn't do that because you wouldn't know which platform your next train will go from, and your sources of information and assistance are the other side of the barrier.

I've made a number of delay repay claims myself where I've scanned my ticket long after the train I've claimed against was supposed to depart, all successful.

This must happen countless times a day.

Sure and I’m not saying that is wrong, but it’s just the OP appears to being deliberately vague, so I thought some examples would help ascertain some facts.

 

[Rahain20]

Lets try a different question for the OP. Are all your claims at similar times, or are you claiming for the 0630 one day, then the 1015 the next, etc?

Yes

All around the same time

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

Sure and I’m not saying that is wrong, but it’s just the OP appears to being deliberately vague, so I thought some examples would help ascertain some facts.

Sorry for being vague.

Lets say 18.31 is cancelled
I will claim for that even though I stayed back and caught a later train

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

So okay lets use an example:

You are at home planning to catch the 0900 train and it’s 0850. You see that the 0900 is cancelled or very delayed. The 0915 is also cancelled. You wait and you catch the 0930 instead which runs on time and you tap into the station at 0925.

Are you then claiming Delay Repay of the 0900 train, even though you tapped in at 0925 and caught the on-time 0930?

Yes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

Indeed, that's the crucial question. If the OP is unable to give us a straight answer then we're going to struggle to help them.

Embrassingly
.yes

 

[saismee]

Lets say 18.31 is cancelled
I will claim for that even though I stayed back and caught a later train

This isn't fraudulent if you caught the next available train after a cancellation. It is fraudulent if you caught one after this one, or the one before your cancelled train.

There has been another thread with delay repay being rejected by GTR (?) for someone not tapping in until a delayed train arrived, though that is for delays and not cancellations.

It would be unreasonable to say that someone needs to tap in on time and wait on the platform for X minutes until the next running train. What if they want to sit down, eat, or smoke?

 

[Rahain20]

This isn't fraudulent if you caught the next available train after a cancellation. It is fraudulent if you caught one after this one, or the one before your cancelled train.

There has been another thread with delay repay being rejected by GTR (?) for someone not tapping in until a delayed train arrived, though that is for delays and not cancellations.

It would be unreasonable to say that someone needs to tap in on time and wait on the platform for X minutes until the next running train. What if they want to sit down, eat, or smoke?

I put in such claims but they all get rejected

 

[mmh]

I put in such claims but they all get rejected

Unless you're claiming for trains earlier than you could have used, you're doing nothing wrong. If you haven't, I'd suggest earlier questions about whether your journeys are all at the same time or not are irrelevant. The whole point of a season ticket is that it's valid at any time you choose to use it, no matter how wildly different the times are.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

Unless you're claiming for trains earlier than you could have used, you're doing nothing wrong.

This is incorrect. If you`re claiming for trains you had no intention of using but which happen to have been delayed or cancelled, you are certainly doing something wrong. If you hold a flexible ticket, delay repay has to be taken on trust. If you say you were intending to board the cancelled train and actually travelled by the next available one, then it is unlikely that anyone can dispute this. But if you establish a pattern by frequency of claims, you might sooner or later get caught. If the ticket is scanned in time for a train earlier than the one cancelled or after departure of the next available service, then you`re leaving a trail.

 

[Titfield]

The app sends status updates and I plan my journey accordingly.

Hmm - this does not read well. It could be interpreted that you see which trains are delayed and the you decide that you were planning to travel on that train.

 

[Horizon22]

This is all going to be a matter of percentages and average distribution.

GTR will know how many times people claim delay repay. Those towards the very top end (perhaps the highest 1% or so) of number of claims might warrant some extra investigation. A few people will have valid reasons - especially if they regularly take some of the TOC's worst performing trains. But people claiming at various different times, over an extended period of time will naturally raise an eyebrow.

 

[mmh]

Hmm - this does not read well. It could be interpreted that you see which trains are delayed and the you decide that you were planning to travel on that train.

Nonsense. I also use tickets not tied to a certain train. Sometimes these are "m-tickets" which need to be activated before travel. Why on earth would I activate, or scan, such a ticket before I know the train will actually exist?

The railway provides delay and cancellation information to people's phones. Of course they're going to use that information to decide when to turn up at the station.

Fairly often for me, I will be in a pub across the road from the station. If I know my train's cancelled or delayed, I'll stay in the pub. I imagine most people, knowing that, would.

"It could be interpreted" is irrelevant here. A season ticket is valid for a train at any time. The only relevant question is whether there were claims where there was a train between the one being claimed against and the one used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2025 ==

This is all going to be a matter of percentages and average distribution.

GTR will know how many times people claim delay repay. Those towards the very top end (perhaps the highest 1% or so) of number of claims might warrant some extra investigation. A few people will have valid reasons - especially if they regularly take some of the TOC's worst performing trains. But people claiming at various different times, over an extended period of time will naturally raise an eyebrow.

It will be a matter of proof. Regardless of patterns being suspicious and triggering investigation, a season ticket can be used at any time the holder wants.

When I've had a season ticket I've used it for both work and leisure journeys, at times all over the place. This isn't unusual, and the OP said it was a flexi season - these were introduced on the basis not everyone commutes on the same days, (or at the same time).

 

[Titfield]

Nonsense. I also use tickets not tied to a certain train. Sometimes these are "m-tickets" which need to be activated before travel. Why on earth would I activate, or scan, such a ticket before I know the train will actually exist?

The railway provides delay and cancellation information to people's phones. Of course they're going to use that information to decide when to turn up at the station.

Fairly often for me, I will be in a pub across the road from the station. If I know my train's cancelled or delayed, I'll stay in the pub. I imagine most people, knowing that, would.

"It could be interpreted" is irrelevant here. A season ticket is valid for a train at any time. The only relevant question is whether there were claims where there was a train between the one being claimed against and the one used.

My view is that the majority of people who travel by train have a plan in advance and then may revise it upon receiving delay / cancellation information or rechecking.

Many commuters plan to catch the same train to work each day and plan to catch the same train back each day. This is their default. Yes there may be minor variations perhaps caused for example by there always being an early finish on Fridays or the team going for a drink after work on a Thursday.

The OPs post says that he receives those status updates and plans his journey accordingly. He does not say that he revises his plans. My specific point is that the wording used by the OP is capable of at least two very different interpretations.

As Horizon has stated in post #22 this is going to be a matter of percentages and average distribution. An analysis of the OPs tickets, scans at the gateline or onboard may reveal a pattern which gives rise to suspicions of making delay repay claims to which the OP is not entitled to.

 

[Belperpete]

This is all going to be a matter of percentages and average distribution.

But people claiming at various different times, over an extended period of time will naturally raise an eyebrow.

Not everyone works set hours, and so travels at set times. Students whose course schedule varies each day, people on flexible hours, etc.

I think that the OP having a significant number of declined claims is going to look suspicious. Is there any reason why the OP didn't appeal? Surely if you put in a claim that you think is valid, but it is rejected, then you would appeal it. Just accepting multiple rejections could look like the OP is "fishing" in the hope that some of his claims bite.

 

[Hadders]

My view is that the majority of people who travel by train have a plan in advance and then may revise it upon receiving delay / cancellation information or rechecking.

Many commuters plan to catch the same train to work each day and plan to catch the same train back each day. This is their default. Yes there may be minor variations perhaps caused for example by there always being an early finish on Fridays or the team going for a drink after work on a Thursday.

The OPs post says that he receives those status updates and plans his journey accordingly. He does not say that he revises his plans. My specific point is that the wording used by the OP is capable of at least two very different interpretations.

As Horizon has stated in post #22 this is going to be a matter of percentages and average distribution. An analysis of the OPs tickets, scans at the gateline or onboard may reveal a pattern which gives rise to suspicions of making delay repay claims to which the OP is not entitled to.

I’ve done ‘field based’ jobs requiring extensive travel from home to a geographical area, and then travel within that geographical area.

Travel was at all different times. Then add in leisure travel and there was little or nowhere pattern to my travel.

 

[Titfield]

I’ve done ‘field based’ jobs requiring extensive travel from home to a geographical area, and then travel within that geographical area.

Travel was at all different times. Then add in leisure travel and there was little or nowhere pattern to my travel.

Indeed but it can usually be backed up with a "evidence" if required.

Fundamentally though it will be the deviation of the "hit" rate from the average expected (the mean) which would probably trigger an investigation, the hit rate being the % of journeys for which a delay repay claim was made.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think the key advice the OP is asking for is how best to respond to the correspondence they have received from GTR.
Further thoughts on that would probably be helpful to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the key advice the OP is asking for is how best to respond to the correspondence they have received from GTR.

The advice very much depends on what has, in fact, been going on, and whether the OP admits or refutes the claims. So far they have declined to answer this question.

These claims date back five years and apparently the behaviour has been suspicious for some time, claims the correspondence, and the company thinks that now the tap data supports allegations of impropriety.

It's impossible to know where to start if we don't know if the OP wants to accept the fraud allegations and settle the case or defend their position.