Email from Trainline asking about suspicious activity

[spag23]

requesting one too many refunds

In 65 years of ticket purchasing, I've not once had the need to ask for a refund.
So if I worked in Trainline Investigations [I don't!], I'd set the algorithm to start raising a flag (gently at first) as soon as a customer submitted even just a second refund claim in the same year. (Disruption days aside of course)
Their actual threshold is probably higher, but the OP's pattern seems to have nonetheless triggered it.

 

[Feuillesmortes]

those staff have then begun investigating the whole account and it's links to other accounts. It's not just a line in a report now

Yes, the level of detail (and mistakes) in the letter does indicate that this is not something dashed off on chatgpt.

 

[WesternLancer]

By way of a background comment - whilst as other's have pointed out can't recall cases on here where Trainline have initiated investigations that have resulted in threads on the forum - I did have a recollection of them a while back saying they were working with the industry to tackle fraud - and I found this article from July 2021 on that

Trainline partners with Great Western Railway to reduce refund fraud by 39% | RailBusinessDaily

Trainline has partnered with Great Western Railway (GWR) to reduce refund fraud by 39% across all its routes. Trainline’s fraud and tech teams work Trainline has partnered with Great Western Railway (GWR) to reduce refund fraud by 39% across all its routes.

news.railbusinessdaily.com

Trainline has partnered with Great Western Railway (GWR) to reduce refund fraud by 39% across all its routes.
Trainline’s fraud and tech teams work together to identify customers most likely to claim a fraudulent self-serve refund through analysis of a combination of factors, including previous behaviour. Those most likely to have submitted a fraudulent claim are then systematically contacted in order to prevent further refund abuse.

This case looks like that sort of thing, if they have rolled it out to other train companies - which would seem a highly likely thing to happen.

 

[AlterEgo]

In 65 years of ticket purchasing, I've not once had the need to ask for a refund.
So if I worked in Trainline Investigations [I don't!], I'd set the algorithm to start raising a flag (gently at first) as soon as a customer submitted even just a second refund claim in the same year. (Disruption days aside of course)
Their actual threshold is probably higher, but the OP's pattern seems to have nonetheless triggered it.

I make about 10 legitimate refunds a year. I don't think that's too unusual.

 

[Haywain]

I make about 10 legitimate refunds a year. I don't think that's too unusual.

I think it's very unusual.

 

[telstarbox]

Context is key here. If you're buying £10 tickets on 200 days a year and end up refunding 10 of them that's 5% refunds - not impossible given the random effects of strikes, cancellations, COVID etc. If you're buying £100 tickets once a quarter and refunding two of them, that's 50% refunds, plus a higher absolute amount of refund - both more likely to raise a flag on the data.

I'm also a bit surprised that the Trainline rep (hi if you're reading this) would specifically mention "doughnutting and short faring" at this early doors stage rather than letting the OP come forward with information and incriminate themselves.

 

[Titfield]

I make about 10 legitimate refunds a year. I don't think that's too unusual.

The "trigger" for a flag to be raised is probably a % of the number of tickets purchased with then again possibly some check on the total number of tickets purchased.

So for example:

1. Customer books 100 tickets in a year and requests a refund on 5 of them. 5% refund rate no flag raised.
2. Customer books 10 tickets in a year and requests a refund on 5 of them. 50% refund rate flag raised. Investigate in more detail.
3. Customer books 5 tickets in a year and requests a refund on all of them. 100% refund rate flag raised. Checking of dates shows strike action. NFA.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine refunding a ticket that has been scanned would also "raise heckles" very quickly. Doing this once might be an accident or a misunderstanding of how you claim disruption refunds or delay repay. Doing it twice in reasonably close succession is almost certainly wilful fraud, at least worth a "what are you doing" letter (where it can be explained that it was disruption both times, quoting which trains were disrupted so they can check).

I think I've refunded walk up tickets discretionally fewer than five times ever. If you're not sure if you're going to travel, why would you buy a walk up ticket in advance when you can just get one on the day? I suppose pseudocompulsory reservations have an effect but most people have worked that out now.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it's very unusual.

This also includes exchanges of Advance tickets which effectively require a new purchase + claim a refund on sites like TrainSplit.

 

[Haywain]

This also includes exchanges of Advance tickets which effectively require a new purchase + claim a refund on sites like TrainSplit.

I wouldn't regard those as refunds, regardless of the process.

 

[skyhigh]

It's the OPs actions of requesting one too many refunds has caused the automation to flag it to staff and those staff have then begun investigating the whole account

Looking at the email, it was actually started by the OP being daft enough to misuse their system then contact them asking to look at the details on their account as to why they didn't get a refund they requested....

 

[WelshBluebird]

I think I've refunded walk up tickets discretionally fewer than five times ever. If you're not sure if you're going to travel, why would you buy a walk up ticket in advance when you can just get one on the day? I suppose pseudocompulsory reservations have an effect but most people have worked that out now.

Well for a start claiming refunds isn't just about deciding not to travel because you weren't sure you were going to travel, its also about where you decide not to travel due to disruption. As for why you'd buy in advance, given modern ticketing systems, "in advance" could also be a ticket bought when walking to the station! If you do that (like I do), and the disruption only occurs after you've got onto the platform then you will have scanned the ticket to get through the barriers but still claimed a refund. Or it could be that there was disruption but the real time systems and the ToC were saying the train you were aiming for would be fine but when you got to the station it was clear it wasn't fine! (both have happened to be over the last 8 months).

I would imagine refunding a ticket that has been scanned would also "raise heckles" very quickly. Doing this once might be an accident or a misunderstanding of how you claim disruption refunds or delay repay. Doing it twice in reasonably close succession is almost certainly wilful fraud, at least worth a "what are you doing" letter (where it can be explained that it was disruption both times, quoting which trains were disrupted so they can check).

I'd agree it should be a flag to look at it, but I wouldn't agree it is "almost certainly wilful fraud" given what I've said above.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think I've refunded walk up tickets discretionally fewer than five times ever. If you're not sure if you're going to travel, why would you buy a walk up ticket in advance when you can just get one on the day? I suppose pseudocompulsory reservations have an effect but most people have worked that out now.

FWIW with this sort of thing I think there are very different purchasing patterns generationally - various industries have managed to be successful in getting people to buy things on line in advance well before they need to - esp younger people. I went out on Saturday by train for a short local journey with 3 friends. All of them had bought their tickets on line in advance of arrival at the station (2 the day before) - thus also preventing us buying Groupsave on the day(!) - I digress. Only I had bought my ticket after arriving at the station, glancing at departure board first to check train was running. On that journey if the train had been delayed or cancelled the next viable alternative would have been a local bus - I would have parted with nothing before changing to that plan, my friends would all have had to have gone through a refund process, or waited for the next train.

Loads of people do things like that - esp if no financial penalty like an admin fee for doing so.

The railway has got a lot of people into that habit via the general promotion of Advance fares too. Which orgs like Trainline also contribute to IMHO

I rather digress but some people will have a fair few higher legit refunds than many forum regulars. Having said that it's also a thing for people trying to evade fares when they think 'my ticket wasn't checked, they won't know if I ever used it' as we have discussed on other threads.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Feb 2023 ==

Well for a start claiming refunds isn't just about deciding not to travel because you weren't sure you were going to travel, its also about where you decide not to travel due to disruption. As for why you'd buy in advance, given modern ticketing systems, "in advance" could also be a ticket bought when walking to the station! If you do that (like I do), and the disruption only occurs after you've got onto the platform then you will have scanned the ticket to get through the barriers but still claimed a refund. Or it could be that there was disruption but the real time systems and the ToC were saying the train you were aiming for would be fine but when you got to the station it was clear it wasn't fine! (both have happened to be over the last 8 months).

I'd agree it should be a flag to look at it, but I wouldn't agree it is "almost certainly wilful fraud" given what I've said above.

Yes, we cross posted, but I do agree with these points.

 

[Doubleplus]

By way of a background comment - whilst as other's have pointed out can't recall cases on here where Trainline have initiated investigations that have resulted in threads on the forum - I did have a recollection of them a while back saying they were working with the industry to tackle fraud - and I found this article from July 2021 on that

Trainline partners with Great Western Railway to reduce refund fraud by 39% | RailBusinessDaily

Trainline has partnered with Great Western Railway (GWR) to reduce refund fraud by 39% across all its routes. Trainline’s fraud and tech teams work Trainline has partnered with Great Western Railway (GWR) to reduce refund fraud by 39% across all its routes.

news.railbusinessdaily.com

This case looks like that sort of thing, if they have rolled it out to other train companies - which would seem a highly likely thing to happen.

from that same article: “Trainline’s data capabilities have also been key in identifying customers who have bought tickets with a railcard discount applied, without owning a valid railcard.”

Remarkable two-facedness considering how happily Trainline will sell railcard discounted tickets to customers by accident and with no warnings or checks whatsoever.

 

[Richardr]

The "trigger" for a flag to be raised is probably a % of the number of tickets purchased with then again possibly some check on the total number of tickets purchased.

So for example:

1. Customer books 100 tickets in a year and requests a refund on 5 of them. 5% refund rate no flag raised.
2. Customer books 10 tickets in a year and requests a refund on 5 of them. 50% refund rate flag raised. Investigate in more detail.
3. Customer books 5 tickets in a year and requests a refund on all of them. 100% refund rate flag raised. Checking of dates shows strike action. NFA.

or (and not saying this is what has happened here as I have no idea) some combination of:

1 (a) - customer books 100 tickets and requests a refund on 5 of them, but all of the requested refunds are long journeys to the same destination as the other 95, and purchased online just before arrival, but the other 95 are all from one stop from the destination, all purchased on the train.

 

[WesternLancer]

from that same article: “Trainline’s data capabilities have also been key in identifying customers who have bought tickets with a railcard discount applied, without owning a valid railcard.”

Remarkable two-facedness considering how happily Trainline will sell railcard discounted tickets to customers by accident and with no warnings or checks whatsoever.

Point rather well made.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well for a start claiming refunds isn't just about deciding not to travel because you weren't sure you were going to travel, its also about where you decide not to travel due to disruption. As for why you'd buy in advance, given modern ticketing systems, "in advance" could also be a ticket bought when walking to the station! If you do that (like I do), and the disruption only occurs after you've got onto the platform then you will have scanned the ticket to get through the barriers but still claimed a refund. Or it could be that there was disruption but the real time systems and the ToC were saying the train you were aiming for would be fine but when you got to the station it was clear it wasn't fine! (both have happened to be over the last 8 months).

Disruption refunds are, on all sales sites I've used, done via customer services to avoid Advance non-refundability/a £10 admin fee. People do get confused about that, though, you do occasionally see threads in Disputes and Prosecutions about people who have scanned into a station, given up, gone home and used the refund button then been accused of travelling and refunding.

It would help if the apps had a very clear question when you press "refund" to choose "I didn't travel due to disruption, or abandoned my journey and returned home without reaching my destination by train" or "I chose not to travel for another reason", to direct people the right way. Or just process all disruption refunds as 100% delay repay claims.

 

[FOH]

I'd suggest the algorithm is more complex than people here are making out, and quite possibly using AI modelling and probability. The email implies not only there has been some volume of refunds but also at least one instance of buying a ticket seconds before exiting a barrier. This implies to me that the model correlates various known triggers to suggest an account requires further examination.

 

[spag23]

Remarkable two-facedness considering how happily Trainline will sell railcard discounted tickets to customers by accident and with no warnings or checks whatsoever.

Agreed. Especially when a previous thread put the entire onus on customers to check their Railcard expiry. ISTR it was considered impractical for Trainline to "know" a customer's railcard status.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd suggest the algorithm is more complex than people here are making out, and quite possibly using AI modelling and probability. The email implies not only there has been some volume of refunds but also at least one instance of buying a ticket seconds before exiting a barrier. This implies to me that the model correlates various known triggers to suggest an account requires further examination.

The email implies the account was flagged following a suspicious refund, and that all of the other work was done by the agent, who has pieced together the journey history. This isn't difficult work; I could do it.

 

[Towers]

Presumably the suspicion here is either mobile tickets being purchased, downloaded to obtain the QR code, a screenshot or similar being taken and the ticket then being immediately refunded and the screenshot used for travel; or a simple 'refund after use' situation.

Only the OP knows whether any such accusation is founded, but if indeed it is then there would be hard evidence of this if any of the QR codes from refunded tickets had been scanned, either by on board staff or via a gateline.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Disruption refunds are, on all sales sites I've used, done via customer services to avoid Advance non-refundability/a £10 admin fee. People do get confused about that, though, you do occasionally see threads in Disputes and Prosecutions about people who have scanned into a station, given up, gone home and used the refund button then been accused of travelling and refunding.

It would help if the apps had a very clear question when you press "refund" to choose "I didn't travel due to disruption, or abandoned my journey and returned home without reaching my destination by train" or "I chose not to travel for another reason", to direct people the right way. Or just process all disruption refunds as 100% delay repay claims.

The last time I had to get a refund via the Trainline app (this time before I had scanned the ticket), it picked up that the train I had was supposed to be one was cancelled and automatically waived the admin fee as part of the refund process. No customer services involvement needed.

Though granted I can't speak for how the app works if you had already scanned the ticket but I'd have hoped it would be able to link up the fact there was disruption like it did when I hadn't scanned the ticket, or even use that and the data of where the scan took place to judge (e.g. if the scan in was done at the origin station only, no scans en route or at the destination, and there is record of disruption on that route at around that time on the day in question, then waive the admin fee).

 

[AlbertBeale]

If - as seems to be the case here, if I understand correctly - someone has prima facie been both doughnutting and then refunding for the same journey, well, talk about asking for trouble...

 

[Bletchleyite]

The last time I had to get a refund via the Trainline app (this time before I had scanned the ticket), it picked up that the train I had was supposed to be one was cancelled and automatically waived the admin fee as part of the refund process. No customer services involvement needed.

That's a welcome improvement if so, but obviously only works if the cancelled train is the one on your itinerary.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I think it's very unusual.

I do probably half a dozen, even as a fairly light rail user, maybe ~75 legs per year, mainly of ToD non-advance tickets for business trips that I no longer need or have to change, or the timetable has changed, or it's a strike day. Always simple point to point walk-up tickets to London Terminals or an airport.

The Thameslink site makes this extremely easy when logged in and completely free so I tend to use this for simple journeys where I want peace of mind of getting my bookings all in place early, but that there is any possibility of cancellation. It also issues an itinerary on Travelcard and LU destinations which not all do. I use Trainsplit for the majority but anything that might be cancelled gets booked through TL.

I also booked a duplicate having forgotten I had booked it already when planning the trip, and that was uncollected and refunded seamlessly even after the date of travel. I never collected the ticket so it was a few clicks and done.

But I fulfil more than I refund, even with Thameslink, my "refundable" choice of booking site, and even with half a dozen bookings cancelled out of maybe 20 a year, I would be surprised any algorithm would be that sensitive. And there are no irregularities in my history so would never expect a letter even if flagged.

Refunding almost everything is another matter...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get it if people are required to use a company portal, which would look at these things differently, but why on earth would you purchase walk-up fares in advance otherwise? That just creates you work you wouldn't have if you just bought it once the trip was a certainty.

 

[Hadders]

Some of the discussion about refunds and investigation tactics is starting to go off topic. These subjects are probably best discussed in a new thread so we can keep this thread for the purposes of assisting the OP.

 

[philthetube]

Lots of advice to see a solicitor now, I cant see the point, wait until you get further contact, then get the advice if needed. Solicitor would probably tell you to hang on anyway.

 

[UserM]

Lots of advice to see a solicitor now, I cant see the point, wait until you get further contact, then get the advice if needed. Solicitor would probably tell you to hang on anyway.

This is demonstrably not true. A solicitor if availed of the full facts, which the OP seems reluctant to share with us. Would be able to offer advice on whether or not replying to Trainline’s inquiries are in their best interest. Be able to offer advice in the realistic chance that he was charged with an offence even under RoRA or the railway bye laws.

They would also be able to start putting together the facts, ascertaining exactly what went on. They would further be able to explore any defences. I cannot emphasise enough the serious nature of at the very least attempting to find a solicitor that offers a free initial 30 minutes consultation, to at least discuss whether or not their involvement will be helpful. Z

As demonstrated by the Greater Anglia mass delay replay fraud case. You do not necessarily need to be guilty for this to cost a lot of money. Many innocent people there no doubt had to pay a lot of money to keep a clean record.

I thus repeat my advice to the OP, if you are not willing to tell us the truth -I’m not accusing you, just the dots currently don’t add up - seek legal advice at your earliest opportunity, hoping this problem will go away will only harm you. It almost certainly will not if you have done anything wrong, potentially not even if everything is above board.

 

[6Gman]

This is demonstrably not true. A solicitor if availed of the full facts, which the OP seems reluctant to share with us. Would be able to offer advice on whether or not replying to Trainline’s inquiries are in their best interest. Be able to offer advice in the realistic chance that he was charged with an offence even under RoRA or the railway bye laws.

They would also be able to start putting together the facts, ascertaining exactly what went on. They would further be able to explore any defences. I cannot emphasise enough the serious nature of at the very least attempting to find a solicitor that offers a free initial 30 minutes consultation, to at least discuss whether or not their involvement will be helpful. Z

As demonstrated by the Greater Anglia mass delay replay fraud case. You do not necessarily need to be guilty for this to cost a lot of money. Many innocent people there no doubt had to pay a lot of money to keep a clean record.

I thus repeat my advice to the OP, if you are not willing to tell us the truth -I’m not accusing you, just the dots currently don’t add up - seek legal advice at your earliest opportunity, hoping this problem will go away will only harm you. It almost certainly will not if you have done anything wrong, potentially not even if everything is above board.

I think this is wise advice. But I would also strongly advise the OP to say nothing further on here because I don't see any benefit and potential downsides.

If the reality is anything close to what is being suggested (doughnutting and/or fraudulent refunds for which they hold a nice electronic audit trail) then you really, really need legal advice.