Fraudulent Trainline refunds

[Skymonster]

It offers the opportunity to go to court.

So you think it’s acceptable for Northern to basically say “we have decided you are guilty of fraud, either pay us a ransom or we’ll see you in court”? I don’t view that as reasonable in a fair and just system. Had Northen said “we suspect you of fraud, here’s the evidence we have, so please explain / provide mitigation or we will take further action which may include court” I would see it as much more acceptable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you think it’s acceptable for Northern to basically say “we have decided you are guilty of fraud, either pay us a ransom or we’ll see you in court”? I don’t view that as reasonable in a fair and just system. Had Northen said “we suspect you of fraud, here’s the evidence we have, so please explain / provide mitigation or we will take further action which may include court” I would see it as much more acceptable.

As mentioned above I'd certainly support an outright ban on financial out of court settlement of criminal cases (any criminal cases whatsoever), as it's tantamount to blackmail*. Though indeed if you aren't guilty then it might well be worth accepting being taken to Court and embarrassing the TOC there. This isn't really like people being RoRA'ed for failure to buy a ticket, it's a classic fraud case, and it should be reasonably easy to prove well beyond reasonable doubt if a given case was guilty or not guilty with not much scope for miscarriage of justice.

* Actually I would support a ban on private prosecutions outright. They are very difficult in Scotland to the point of there being a de-facto ban, and to me that's a better situation. If the TOC has identified fraud, it should be reported to the Police/CPS for prosecution, like any other business likely would if it uncovered fraud contrary to the Fraud Act.

 

[AlterEgo]

So you think it’s acceptable for Northern to basically say “we have decided you are guilty of fraud, either pay us a ransom or we’ll see you in court”? I don’t view that as reasonable in a fair and just system. Had Northen said “we suspect you of fraud, here’s the evidence we have, so please explain / provide mitigation or we will take further action which may include court” I would see it as much more acceptable.

If you were a police officer investigating fraud, do you think you'd straight up confront a suspect with evidence?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were a police officer investigating fraud, do you think you'd straight up confront a suspect with evidence?

I think if a Police Officer investigating fraud went to the person being investigated and said "give me 100 quid and we can forget it all" we would call that "corruption", though.

There are certainly countries that tolerate that, but the UK isn't one of them.

 

[Skymonster]

If you were a police officer investigating fraud, do you think you'd straight up confront a suspect with evidence?

No, but I’d expect the police officer to interview the suspect under caution before saying “I think you’re guilty,see you in court.” As @Bletchleyite has said very eloquently, private prosecutions should be outlawed - or be held to similar standards as criminal prosecutions.

 

[Starmill]

There are certainly countries that tolerate that, but the UK isn't one of them.

It hasn't been, but it is worth noting that the justice system has deteriorated enormously in recent years, leaving victims without redress and guilty people unconvicted, or worse in cases where legal aid applications are rejected, all because of straightforward shortages of hearings. Systematic underfunding will not result in just outcomes any more than a history of corruption will. Worthy of note that the Treasury recently rejected proposals that might have gone some way to fixing the problems too, on the grounds of "too expensive".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2021 ==

No, but I’d expect the police officer to interview the suspect under caution before saying “I think you’re guilty,see you in court.” As @Bletchleyite has said very eloquently, private prosecutions should be outlawed - or be held to similar standards as criminal prosecutions.

Indeed. As long as I can get your name and address I can try charging you with any old minor crime I care to come up with, and put pressure on you to pay me to drop the matter. If you call my bluff, you know that you'll have to attend a hearing. You may need to pay out of pocket for legal help and advice before doing so. You'll lose significant time and you'll likely be very unfamiliar with the process. If you actually do attending a hearing and are duly found not guilty then good luck to you in claiming your costs back!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As long as I can get your name and address I can try charging you with any old minor crime I care to come up with, and put pressure on you to pay me to drop the matter. If you call my bluff, you know that you'll have to attend a hearing. You may need to pay out of pocket for legal help and advice before doing so. You'll lose significant time and you'll likely be very unfamiliar with the process. If you actually do attending a hearing and are duly found not guilty then good luck to you in claiming your costs back!

Is this not effectively an abuse of process by the litigant?

 

[Starmill]

Is this not effectively an abuse of process by the litigant?

It is yes. And it's possible to try and get redress if you think you've been prosecuted "wholly unreasonably" - but the risk and cost of doing so will be on you.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think if a Police Officer investigating fraud went to the person being investigated and said "give me 100 quid and we can forget it all" we would call that "corruption", though.

Well it would be obviously corrupt, because the police officer hasn't suffered any loss!

If I rob my employer, for example, of £100 of stolen goods from the shelves, and I am told that I am dismissed and can either pay the company the cost of the goods plus restitution for their time taken in finding me out, or...they call the police, then I don't really consider that corrupt.

No, but I’d expect the police officer to interview the suspect under caution before saying “I think you’re guilty,see you in court.” As @Bletchleyite has said very eloquently, private prosecutions should be outlawed - or be held to similar standards as criminal prosecutions.

So when the police suspect someone of an offence, they question them, and usually ask establishing questions as well as giving the opportunity for the suspect to incriminate themselves. Incrimination is almost always more powerful than denial plus evidence. Evidence may be drip fed later in order to induce a confession. Perhaps the letter in this case should give the recipient a direct opportunity to explain their actions, which is the only criticism I would find valid of the company's actions here.

Or would you prefer it if the company just called the police on passengers who have got suspicious refunds? I don't want to hear about how the police won't turn up for this sort of thing; that's their failure.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Oct 2021 ==

Indeed. As long as I can get your name and address I can try charging you with any old minor crime I care to come up with

Fraud is not a minor crime regardless of the value of the offences. Plus, I think there is a difference between being a vexatious litigant who just "makes stuff up" and having five dodgy refunds in a row.

I would tend to agree that private prosecutions are a load of old cock in this day and age, but when the police won't bother themselves to investigate low level criminality I don't really see why companies taking the matters - legally - into their own hands is unjustifiable.

 

[Watershed]

Well it would be obviously corrupt, because the police officer hasn't suffered any loss!

There is no need to be the victim (or even to have suffered a loss) to bring a private prosecution. That's one of many things wrong with the system.

So when the police suspect someone of an offence, they question them, and usually ask establishing questions as well as giving the opportunity for the suspect to incriminate themselves. Incrimination is almost always more powerful than denial plus evidence. Evidence may be drip fed later in order to induce a confession. Perhaps the letter in this case should give the recipient a direct opportunity to explain their actions, which is the only criticism I would find valid of the company's actions here.

Or would you prefer it if the company just called the police on passengers who have got suspicious refunds? I don't want to hear about how the police won't turn up for this sort of thing; that's their failure.

I think that if a TOC wants to accuse a passenger of fraud, which is an allegation of the utmost seriousness, it should give exact details of the nature of the alleged offences.

And if it doesn't want to give the game away, it could start by saying "we want to make some enquiries about the refund for a ticket from A to B you claimed on X date" - rather than straight out make an accusation of fraud.

The average person would be well justified in thinking this is some sort of scam if they received a letter like the one linked to in the first post. It's only because we know that the railway gets up to these sorts of antics, that we know it's not a scam. It's little more than a lawful kind of bribery.

 

[Starmill]

If someone starts an improper private prosecution, and it hasn't already been thrown out, in theory the Crown Prosecution Service can apply directly to the court to take it over, and either fix it or stop it. But again, this process relies on the CPS being adequately resourced and on the ball. There are a number of other areas where the CPS have either made very basic errors or allowed themselves to be pushed around for political motives.

 

[robbeech]

I’m surprised TTL allows you to refund tickets that have been marked as scanned (not that that is any sort of mitigation of course).

I was under the impression that in the early days of e-tickets when nothing was joined up, it’s database didn’t receive info about scans so never knew it had been scanned. Of course this left them open to abuse and I assumed that had been fixed promptly.

I am not up-to-date with the current situation with tickets and may have misunderstood something. However, what would be the situation if a passenger had passed through the gates, got their ticket validated, or whatever, and then found that their train is cancelled or badly late. In that case they have a valid reason to expect a refund, but it may appear that they have travelled.

Indeed. And this is the concern here, I’m 100% behind any operator reducing fraud but they should ensure they’re only chasing known cases not hoping for the best which I suspect is what they’re doing to a point.

That isn't my experience. If somebody has their screen dark or it's a Samsung curved screen phone then it can take longer to scan depending on the device used. I've got a handheld scanner and can use the camera on my Envoy ticket machine so depending on the scenario and which of my 17 hands I feel like using that day it use one or the other.

Many apps automatically turn my iPhone to full brightness when on the ticket QR code page. I’m not sure if Trainline is one of them, but the Apple wallet certainly does.

That is possible; it is not unknown for people to get confused between a refund and delay compensation

Indeed. Infact only a couple of weeks ago EMR social media staff directed a customer who had abandoned their journey to claim delay repay for some absolute nonsense reason. This is bad enough, but when we start adding the possibilities of fraud convictions months later then frankly the appalling level of knowledge staff have here could lend someone in a lot of trouble.

You may know that, but do Northern?

More to the point, do they care?

It is unacceptable that there is such a lack of clarity when the industry is able and willing to prosecute for fraud.

But this is the railway. Lack of clarity and inconsistency is one of their party pieces.

No nor would I.

I'd show it to the staff and tell them I was abandoning my journey and the reason why and ask how I could get a refund. Ideally there would be a way for staff to record this against the e-ticket computer record to prove I was attempting fraud.

Even if there was, it’s unlikely staff would know how to do it or be bothered to do it.

I think if a Police Officer investigating fraud went to the person being investigated and said "give me 100 quid and we can forget it all" we would call that "corruption", though.

There are certainly countries that tolerate that, but the UK isn't one of them.

The railway tolerates this every day when it says “the ticket machine was broken but you could have used the app so the penalty fare stands”

If I rob my employer, for example, of £100 of stolen goods from the shelves, and I am told that I am dismissed and can either pay the company the cost of the goods plus restitution for their time taken in finding me out, or...they call the police, then I don't really consider that corrupt.

I think it depends on evidence. If your employer can prove you’ve had the stuff then they should be entitled to recover it plus costs. If £100 of stuff went missing and they think it might have been you because you were wearing a similar item the next day and they demanded you pay it back or go to court then it’s very different.

if they can prove passengers have done this, and it has been done with intent to defraud then it seems acceptable to try for an out of court settlement. It’s easier for everyone around.
However, if they just suspect it, but cannot prove fraud and they try for an out of court settlement then I do not co sister this acceptable at all. They’re just scaring passengers into paying up where that is the case.

Go to a room with 100 people and tell them all they did something wrong 6 months ago and they need to pay you £100 or you’ll take them to court. A fair number will pay up. Northern know this just as GA knew it.

I suspect there isn’t sufficient evidence to convict someone of fraud in MOST cases here, but they don’t need an ounce of evidence unless it goes to court. As always, if you’ve tried it on, pay what they ask at the first opportunity and don’t do it again.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The railway tolerates this every day when it says “the ticket machine was broken but you could have used the app so the penalty fare stands”

Something of a tangent, but are the railway saying this yet? I don’t recall seeing any reports of this behaviour - although I can foresee it happening eventually when the railway consider that everyone has access to ticketing on their phone.

 

[RPI]

I must say whilst I'm not against private prosecution, as it takes a huge burden off the CPS for minor offences clogging up the courts, this does seem a bit dodgy by Northern.

A letter should be sent inviting the accused in for an interview under caution in order for them to put their side of the story across, now should they decline that then Northern would have little option but to proceed to court should there be enough evidence.