GA fraud allegation

[rd749249]

I work at another TOC and know someone in receipt of a letter from GA re Trainline ticket purchases. It is vague in its recipient as GA only have an email address to go on.

I’m purposely not piggy-backing on other similar threads as I think this is a little different.

Scenario is this: Person has ‘free travel facilities’ (will not elaborate more on this suffice to say it is 100% legitimate) enabling travel from station A to station B, where the validity of the GA ticket starts. Person does not go through any barrier at station B but crosses platforms to get the GA train. Person then gets off at correct destination of GA ticket (I will call this station C).

Ticket is purchased for correct fare (anytime day return) from station B to station C, albeit with a valid railcard quoted (valid railcard here means the holder is entitled to use it but not necessarily for this journey). However, when you make a ticket fare enquiry on BRFARES or RSTONLINE, the price with railcard is not discounted from the price without one. They are the same. I assume the system knows from the railcard that no discount is due.

So in my mind there are no irregularities.

Person is hesitant to engage. First thinking it’s a scam letter but having spoken with me, realises it’s legitimate.

I have said to engage given I think there is no case to answer. Person doesn’t want the ongoing stress of more communications.

Is my advice correct?

 

[Watershed]

We're going to need a bit more detail to know whether or not there has actually been an irregularity committed, which will influence the best course of action.

What Railcard has been used from B to C and what time of day/day of the week has the travel typically been? Do the tickets that have been issued show the Railcard discount? And how much is the Anytime Day Return in question?

What does GA's email say in terms of allegations?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I work at another TOC and know someone in receipt of a letter from GA re Trainline ticket purchases. It is vague in its recipient as GA only have an email address to go on.

I’m purposely not piggy-backing on other similar threads as I think this is a little different.

Scenario is this: Person has ‘free travel facilities’ (will not elaborate more on this suffice to say it is 100% legitimate) enabling travel from station A to station B, where the validity of the GA ticket starts. Person does not go through any barrier at station B but crosses platforms to get the GA train. Person then gets off at correct destination of GA ticket (I will call this station C).

Ticket is purchased for correct fare (anytime day return) from station B to station C, albeit with a valid railcard quoted (valid railcard here means the holder is entitled to use it but not necessarily for this journey). However, when you make a ticket fare enquiry on BRFARES or RSTONLINE, the price with railcard is not discounted from the price without one. They are the same. I assume the system knows from the railcard that no discount is due.

So in my mind there are no irregularities.

Person is hesitant to engage. First thinking it’s a scam letter but having spoken with me, realises it’s legitimate.

I have said to engage given I think there is no case to answer. Person doesn’t want the ongoing stress of more communications.

Is my advice correct?

I think engaging is the right thing to do in that the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to suggest that this is a specific check that won't just go away if you ignore it.

A couple of other steps that might be worth taking:

- if the person is a union member (or if they have dependent's travel facilities, whoever is the source of the facilities is a union member) talk to a union rep
- check that the facilities are being used properly: for example, the travels described sounds as if it could be commuting: can the facilities be used for commuting, or is the usage legitimate but GA need reassurance of this
- check whether the B to C ticket shows the use of a railcard: my impression (which may well be wrong so don't rely on this) is that if you try to book online with an invalid railcard then the ticket issued won't show the railcard. If I am right on this then surely there's no railcard irregularity


(Edited to add)

As a further thought, is GA's concern that the B to C ticket isn't being logged as going through the barrier at B, so they think that the person is short faring? If so, disclosing how the A to B leg is covered may be enough to resolve the matter.

 

[Tramfan]

As a further thought, is GA's concern that the B to C ticket isn't being logged as going through the barrier at B, so they think that the person is short faring? If so, disclosing how the A to B leg is covered may be enough to resolve the matter.

This was my thought as well, does station B have barriers? If so, possibly GA have trawled through some data for ticket purchases between 2 stations, and cross-referenced it to barrier scan data?

 

[rd749249]

Thanks for the replies. I'm trying to avoid disclosing anything of substance that can identify anyone here.

The letter and subsequent follow-up is identical to the OP in this thread Greater Anglia Travel irregularity

What Railcard has been used from B to C and what time of day/day of the week has the travel typically been? Do the tickets that have been issued show the Railcard discount? And how much is the Anytime Day Return in question?

Without incriminating/disclosing, it is a railcard with age restrictions. Travel has been in the week morning/evening peak. The return fare is around £10 and as I mentioned previously, is identical whether railcard has been applied or not. An anytime return ticket is always purchased.

What does GA's email say in terms of allegations?

It is identical, word for word almost, to the thread given above. This tells me they've got a massive mail drop out there to suspicious activity.

I think engaging is the right thing to do in that the circumstances are sufficiently unusual to suggest that this is a specific check that won't just go away if you ignore it.

I agree

- check that the facilities are being used properly: for example, the travels described sounds as if it could be commuting: can the facilities be used for commuting, or is the usage legitimate but GA need reassurance of this

The travel from A-B is ok for commuting. To be clear, none of this travel is done under PRIV conditions.

- check whether the B to C ticket shows the use of a railcard: my impression (which may well be wrong so don't rely on this) is that if you try to book online with an invalid railcard then the ticket issued won't show the railcard. If I am right on this then surely there's no railcard irregularity

I don't know without speaking to the person again but in any case, no difference in fare would indicate to me that you are correct here.

As a further thought, is GA's concern that the B to C ticket isn't being logged as going through the barrier at B, so they think that the person is short faring?

I think this is exactly the situation. Station B does indeed have barriers.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Person is hesitant to engage. First thinking it’s a scam letter but having spoken with me, realises it’s legitimate.

I have said to engage given I think there is no case to answer. Person doesn’t want the ongoing stress of more communications.

My general advice is always to only respond to direct questions and not to respond to anything else. The GA emails and letters do not make any specific allegation and should therefore be treated with due caution.

If the staff travel is a common product that GA will be familiar with and can easily check, and the person does not do any other travel with GA, then in this case there will be some benefit to replying with a brief statement to that end.

If the product isn’t a common product that GA will be familiar with and aware of then it is probably best to ignore the email, tbh.

As always, the lack of scans on a ticket is not evidence of misuse and GA will find it impossible to prove such without an admission. Fishing trips can go away by ignoring them- no admission means no evidence of wrongdoing.

The benefit of engaging is that, where the travel is legitimate, it can resolve the situation and not leave someone hanging.

But the danger of engaging is that, if the staff product is niche or unusual or you simply get a gormless GA official, that GA won’t be familiar with it and will ask for more and more evidence of the product. This will lead to a protracted dispute and may even end up bringing the person’s employer into it. Walk with care.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What does GA's email say in terms of allegations?

It is identical, word for word almost, to the thread given above. This tells me they've got a massive mail drop out there to suspicious activity.

This changes my view a little in that his seems to be a general sweep of people whose behaviour could be explained by them being fare dodgers - but in your person's case has another legitimate explanation.

The benefit of engaging is that, where the travel is legitimate, it can resolve the situation and not leave someone hanging.

But the danger of engaging is that, if the staff product is niche or unusual or you simply get a gormless GA official, that GA won’t be familiar with it and will ask for more and more evidence of the product. This will lead to a protracted dispute and may even end up bringing the person’s employer into it. Walk with care.

I would agree with the first part of @Tetchytyke here, but not with their warning of the risks. Ultimately, this is a difference in view between @Tetchytyke and me: I generally think that the benefits of engagement outweigh the risks, while it seems to me that they think the opposite. I fear that we will not resolve this on this thread, so I leave that as a note explaining the difference in advice rather than seeking to enter an argument.

 

[furlong]

So what are you actually trying to say?

Someone who is commuting uses their travel facilities in full accordance with the rules (permitted to commute) on a non-GA service, then changes to a GA service for which they purchase an undiscounted anytime return as an e-ticket? The railcard thing is irrelevant as there's just a bug in the app making it look as if the railcard was used when actually it wasn't due to a minimum fare?

Then GA goes on a fishing expedition writing to people who have etickets that regularly weren't scanned making false allegations of misuse and you're asking what to do?

Simple answer: if you're sure everything about the travel is above board, file the email in the spam folder/bin. Alternatively kick up a fuss about malpractice in the industry. Report the incident as part of the ORR's review into revenue protection practices.

If they really cared about this, they could simply check tickets when changing platform or on board the second train and know for sure!

 

[AlterEgo]

No comment to everything, don't engage.

Speak to your union rep.

 

[furlong]

Making unspecified allegations against law-abiding ticket holders brings the railway industry into further disrepute. Any letters like this must accept that the unexplained data might have come from behaviour that was entirely legitimate and so they must be worded to provide the recipient with sufficient information for them to make that determination for themselves (after taking advice if necessary).

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm replying not to start or continue an argument but to explain my reasoning as to why I think engagement on this types of email is generally a bad idea and to provide that context to the OP (and others).

I happen to hold the same qualification in investigative practice that many of the TOC investigation/prosecution staff also seemingly hold. I don't pretend to be an expert in these things but I've had exactly the same training that they have had.

You obviously don't want to show all your cards to a suspect at the start of an investigation but best practice is very much that you should disclose enough information to a suspect to allow them to understand what they are suspected of. The very simple rationale for this is that if you don't set the position out to a suspect then any sensible suspect will simply offer no comment.

The TOC staff know that this is best practice and I know they know: they've had the same training that I have had where I was taught that this is best practice.

Therefore, what really bothers me about these emails is the complete lack of detail. At the very least, the investigator should be setting out the bare facts: you bought [x number of tickets] between [common short faring station pair] between [dates], can you please explain why this is? As an aside, the TOCs would probably get more people to catch themselves in a lie if they did do it that way.

My view is that if the investigator is unable or unwilling to provide the basic details of what you are suspected of then you should simply ignore the correspondence or, if you're worried about ignoring it tipping you into a process, reply to state that you offer no comment without further specifics.

My opinion is that an investigator who sends out generic boilerplate emails simply doesn't have any evidence about what's going on and is simply hoping someone will drop themselves in it. If you engage and the investigator doesn't understand your reply then you're simply opening yourself up to more investigation. The simplest response is always to offer no comment.

 

[rd749249]

Thanks you for the replies, particularly the last one. We have a resolution here and I shall quote with redactions:

Initial response:
Hello,
Please let me know how I may help with your enquiries.
Regards (no name)

Reply from GA:
Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your reply.

Your account was highlighted due to tickets between B and C either being purchased on board the trains or on arrival at C. Tickets need to be purchased before boarding the train to be valid. This flagged your account as possible fraudulent travel.

On this occasion we will be closing your case with a warning. Please be mindful in the future when purchasing your tickets, other wise this will cause data in being flagged.

Your account will be monitored.

———

Having spoken to person, there is an admission that tickets are sometimes bought close to boarding at B (whilst travelling from A), or indeed en route from B, but never at the gate line at C.

I’ve suggested the person buys their ticket the day before, which they have said they will do.

 

[furlong]

Tickets need to be purchased before boarding the train to be valid.

This sentence is false and that message should not have been sent. The situation is far more nuanced than that as we all know here! It should be of major concern that investigators are unable to explain the law correctly. Why is there not a template to use for a message like this that has been checked for accuracy by a lawyer?

 

[Egg Centric]

Thanks you for the replies, particularly the last one. We have a resolution here and I shall quote with redactions:

Initial response:
Hello,
Please let me know how I may help with your enquiries.
Regards (no name)

Reply from GA:
Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your reply.

Your account was highlighted due to tickets between B and C either being purchased on board the trains or on arrival at C. Tickets need to be purchased before boarding the train to be valid. This flagged your account as possible fraudulent travel.

On this occasion we will be closing your case with a warning. Please be mindful in the future when purchasing your tickets, other wise this will cause data in being flagged.

Your account will be monitored.

———

Having spoken to person, there is an admission that tickets are sometimes bought close to boarding at B (whilst travelling from A), or indeed en route from B, but never at the gate line at C.

I’ve suggested the person buys their ticket the day before, which they have said they will do.

The above (from my point of view) is an excellent example of why engaging is fraught with risks. The assumption was that this was about staff travel and all was fine. In reality it was about something else and all was not fine. Not engaging would almost certainly have led to no action whatsoever. Fortunately it has worked out fine in this instance.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks you for the replies, particularly the last one. We have a resolution here and I shall quote with redactions:

Initial response:
Hello,
Please let me know how I may help with your enquiries.
Regards (no name)

Reply from GA:
Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your reply.

Your account was highlighted due to tickets between B and C either being purchased on board the trains or on arrival at C. Tickets need to be purchased before boarding the train to be valid. This flagged your account as possible fraudulent travel.

On this occasion we will be closing your case with a warning. Please be mindful in the future when purchasing your tickets, other wise this will cause data in being flagged.

Your account will be monitored.

———

Having spoken to person, there is an admission that tickets are sometimes bought close to boarding at B (whilst travelling from A), or indeed en route from B, but never at the gate line at C.

I’ve suggested the person buys their ticket the day before, which they have said they will do.

Thanks for coming back to us. This gives us useful feedback on how GA respond to engagement, which may be helpful if other people bring similar cases to our attention.

 

[Haywain]

This sentence is false and that message should not have been sent.

Your statement is as false as theirs.