Excessive Refund Fraud - AWC

[Haywain]

Don't need machine learning for a company to think "why the heck is this guy refunding twenty tickets a month??" or whatever it actually is

Quite - a mildly intelligent human can assess whether the volume of refunds on one account warrants further investigation.

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite - a mildly intelligent human can assess whether the volume of refunds on one account warrants further investigation.

I rather suspect this is a very blunt spreadsheet exercise with no intervention between that and the correspondence going out.

 

[Lewisham2221]

I rather suspect this is a very blunt spreadsheet exercise with no intervention between that and the correspondence going out.

What intervention could there be? As several people have already commented, the pattern of refunds by the OP is/was  very unusual. AWC send letter to OP asking them to explain and setting out the ways which the investigation may progress. OP replies with explanation. AWC say "thanks, no further action". Simple. Job done. Not sure what the big deal is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What intervention could there be? As several people have already commented, the pattern of refunds by the OP is/was  very unusual. AWC send letter to OP asking them to explain and setting out the ways which the investigation may progress. OP replies with explanation. AWC say "thanks, no further action". Simple. Job done. Not sure what the big deal is?

It would have been nice if they'd actually apologised for a false allegation, if nothing else!

 

[AlterEgo]

What intervention could there be? As several people have already commented, the pattern of refunds by the OP is/was  very unusual. AWC send letter to OP asking them to explain and setting out the ways which the investigation may progress. OP replies with explanation. AWC say "thanks, no further action". Simple. Job done. Not sure what the big deal is?

But it seems Avanti hadn’t even collected any evidence of fraud, just a large number of refunds.

If they’d found a scanned ticket which had been refunded, for example, this would certainly warrant sending an email, but just refunding tickets in line with the terms of those tickets? Sorry, it’s a fishing exercise and they should do a little due diligence before accusing their customers of fraud.

 

[Lewisham2221]

But it seems Avanti hadn’t even collected any evidence of fraud, just a large number of refunds.

If they’d found a scanned ticket which had been refunded, for example, this would certainly warrant sending an email, but just refunding tickets in line with the terms of those tickets? Sorry, it’s a fishing exercise and they should do a little due diligence before accusing their customers of fraud.

This was the due diligence. As far as I can tell, they never actually accused anybody of fraud. They simply said that the number of refunds, and transaction history had caused reason for investigation. They even acknowledge that it could be a misunderstanding. They are clearly satisfied with the explanation given by the OP. The point is that they asked for an explanation before going with a more heavy handed approach.

They said:

“
Working with various industry systems and data, we have identified that you have submitted a significant number of refunds for travel on Avanti West Coast Services. The number of refunds has highlighted your Trainline transactions leading to further investigation.

We understand that mistakes can happen, and it is possible there may be a misunderstanding or error in our records. Our aim is to ensure that our processes are transparent and fair to all our valued customers.

…

Based on your response the decision will be to either (a) offer you the opportunity to repay any funds relating to claims that you have not been entitled to make; (b) pass your file to our prosecuting services or the British Transport Police for further action to be taken; or (c) to close the case and cease any further investigations into your transactions.”

 

[island]

If they’d found a scanned ticket which had been refunded, for example, this would certainly warrant sending an email, but just refunding tickets in line with the terms of those tickets?

I think it’s reasonable to make enquiries of someone who buys a lot of walk up e-tickets and refunds a haphazard subset of them. It is known that there exist customers who will routinely apply for refunds on e-tickets when they get to their destinations without the tickets having been scanned.

Sorry, it’s a fishing exercise and they should do a little due diligence before accusing their customers of fraud.

They did not accuse any customer of fraud. They very politely asked for an explanation, acknowledged that they may have misunderstood, and promptly confirmed no further action once a reasonable explanation was provided. The only thing I could fault them on was not apologising for the inconvenience – if indeed they didn’t; I don’t think we’ve seen the full discontinuance letter.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it’s reasonable to make enquiries of someone who buys a lot of walk up e-tickets and refunds a haphazard subset of them. It is known that there exist customers who will routinely apply for refunds on e-tickets when they get to their destinations without the tickets having been scanned.

They did not accuse any customer of fraud. They very politely asked for an explanation, acknowledged that they may have misunderstood, and promptly confirmed no further action once a reasonable explanation was provided. The only thing I could fault them on was not apologising for the inconvenience – if indeed they didn’t; I don’t think we’ve seen the full discontinuance letter.

They said they were looking into fraud potentially perpetrated by the Op and would like their input. Most people who don’t have a legal brain would consider that an accusation.

These tickets were all refunded in line with the terms and conditions and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest any wrongdoing.

Perhaps Avanti would be best advised getting their train managers to scan tickets again if they’re worried about this sort of thing. Very poor.

 

[island]

They said they were looking into fraud potentially perpetrated by the Op

When, precisely, did Avanti use the word “fraud”?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

When, precisely, did Avanti use the word “fraud”?

While we only have the OP's paraphrase, they started the thread thus:

So i’ve just received an email from AWC claiming that there’s a potential fraud due to the excessive refund claims being submitted.

 

[Lewisham2221]

While we only have the OP's paraphrase, they started the thread thus:

We don't only have the OP's paraphrase, though. The OP posted the actual wording of the correspondence in post #4, which I have quoted in post #96. The word "fraud" does not appear.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

We don't only have the OP's paraphrase, though. The OP posted the actual wording of the correspondence in post #4, which I have quoted in post #96. The word "fraud" does not appear.

I must read properly through the thread before replying.
I must read properly through the thread before replying.
I must read properly through the thread before replying.
<repeat a further 97 times and think about what I have done....>

Sorry!

 

[AlterEgo]

When, precisely, did Avanti use the word “fraud”?

They suggested they had claimed funds they were not entitled to; that's good enough for me, and good enough for the OP, who knew full well what they were being accused of.

If the police call me in to the station for an interview about my finances and say at the outset "well, look, we aren't charging you yet, but based on your interview, we could proceed with a charge based on the fact you have claimed refunds you shouldn't have", that's an accusation. The police could voluntarily interview me about fraud and never once use the word fraud yet the context be entirely clear what they are asking me about.

I'm not going to get into a pettifogging argument over whether Avanti used the F-word. The recipient of the correspondence knows exactly what is being alleged and why it's been sent. As would the man on the Clapham omnibus.

 

[island]

They suggested they had claimed funds they were not entitled to; that's good enough for me, and good enough for the OP, who knew full well what they were being accused of.

I'm not going to get into a pettifogging argument over whether Avanti used the F-word. The recipient of the correspondence knows exactly what is being alleged and why it's been sent. As would the man on the Clapham omnibus.

No, what we have here is you trying to advance a personal animus against Avanti by putting words in their mouth that they did not use. I suggest you stop.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, what we have here is you trying to advance a personal animus against Avanti by putting words in their mouth that they did not use. I suggest you stop.

I do not have a personal animus against Avanti; what a strange thing to suggest, and I don't appreciate you suggesting my posts are insincere or have an agenda. I would not make a similar swipe at you, and even when we occasionally disagree on a matter I have the good grace to take your posts at face value.

 

[Mag_seven]

Whether the term "fraud" was or wasn't used is now academic - Avanti have withdrawn their claim against the OP and the issue is therefore resolved.

thanks everyone.