Possible suspicious activity

[AlterEgo]

It’s rather difficult to follow (if indeed it is even known as yet) what issue Northern have with the OP’s travel. I’m assuming they don’t have a problem with them claiming free tickets from free tickets as whilst I wouldn’t put it past them this would be disastrous for their reputation when they were accused of prosecuting people for their own mistake. I can assume their suspicion comes from elsewhere.

It's difficult to tell, and we're at a point where the OP is just saying "I have this letter, anyone else had this?" rather than loudly claiming innocence and injustice.

The OP may have a good idea what the issue is, and I strongly recommend they get hold of a solicitor who will advise whether attending the interview is a good idea in the first place. They should be honest and frank with their legal representative, because, so often, we see information tactfully witheld in this part of the forum which prevents us giving accurate advice.

 

[js1000]

If I have understood the OP correctly, the position is as follows:

1) OP held a season ticket for their regular journey (let's call it stations A to B). On a number of occasions (on the basis of post #8 at least 32 occasions) their A-B journey (or the B-A return journey) was delayed by at least 30 minutes and so delay repay was claimed in the form of a Northern complementary ticket.
2) The season ticket expired. The OP continued travelling between A and B, using (post #34) tickets bought at the station or online, or on at least 32 occasions the complementary tickets already held. A number of these journeys resulted in further claims for delay repay. It seems that delay repay was claimed for some journeys made using the complementary tickets.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to sound like the railway here, and ask some questions where the answer might not show the OP in the best light. But that's so that we can understand quite what has happened, and so say whether we think that the railway has a leg to stand on in wanting to interview the OP and maybe take them to court.

a) Is what I have written above an accurate summary of what you (the OP) have told us? If so, then
b) when you were claiming delay repay in step (1), were all the claims for journeys at the same sort of time? So were you always claiming for trains leaving A for B at the start of the morning, or going from B to A at the end of the working day? If your pattern was different, is there a reason for that? I can see that you could have a reason for travelling at odd times - you might have variable shifts.
c) did you actually make the journeys from A to B (and back again) that you claimed delay repay for?
d) or did you obtain the complementary tickets from somewhere else (buying them from someone on the internet or a man in a pub or something: were they passed on to you by a friend or relative*)?

e) Looking at step (2), did you claim delay repay on any journeys that you made using a complementary ticket? If so, in what form did you claim the delay repay (money back, or another complementary ticket)?
f) when you were claiming delay repay in step (2), were all the claims for journeys at the same sort of time? So were you always claiming for trains leaving A for B at the start of the morning, or going from B to A at the end of the working day? If your pattern was different, is there a reason for that? I can see that you could have a reason for travelling at odd times - you might have variable shifts.
g) did you actually make the journeys from A to B (and back again) that you claimed delay repay for?

(Yes, I know questions (f) and (g) are almost the same as (b) and (c) - but I'm asking about different stages in the process, so the answers might be different.)

I'm asking all these questions because there are a number of points where the OP could have broken the rules: they might not have been entitled to the complementary tickets in the first place, or they may not have been able to claim delay repay in the second place. I do have to say that for a regular commute 32 complementary tickets seems to be a remarkably high number to have obtained so (in practice if not in law) there's something of a need for the OP to show why they had that many.

The OP also asks if there is any way they can get legal advice. The suggestion that someone has made upthread of asking if the OP is a member of a union is a good one - it's a quite frequent benefit of union membership. If that's not available, it's said that quite a few solicitors will offer an initial free consultation. But as far as I can make out, legal aid only cuts in for criminal cases if the case gets as far as being arrested or going to court. https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid (and the following pages) have something to say about this - see what it says on https://www.gov.uk/legal-aid/eligibility:


If the OP can't get legal advice and does go to interview, then they should at least ask whether they can bring someone with them. If the OP has a friend or relative who knows about the law, then so much the better - but just taking someone sensible who can take notes of what is said, and who can (if necessary) give moral and emotional support is a really good idea.

*I'm not sure if Northern Rail complementary tickets are transferable or not. Maybe someone here knows without us having to start a major search through the rules?

Not really. I've had about 70 Northern complimentary tickets in lieu of a monetary refund. Many date from the May 2018 timetable debacle which pretty much continued until March 2020 when Covid struck. It's only now with fewer passengers that the rail network is less susceptible to delays thank god.

I would personally not attend an interview until it was made specifically clear in writing what you are being accused of. It would seem very reasonable to me that you request it is written down in writing what exactly they are accusing you of. If you feel you have to go then consult legal advice.

As a measure to get them to explain to you in writing, I would make a subject access request to Northern Trains Limited as a matter of urgency. Although it would not be expected they would divulge information that forms part of a criminal investigation, a TOC as a limited company is not a competent authority and if they are not willing to explain what they believe you have done wrong then it only seems reasonable you have the right to resort to GDPR as they clearly hold information on you and are assuming you are not aware of SARs. Furthermore, if this is just an interview to ascertain your response and it is not yet at a criminal investigation stage, then they would be compelled to give you information they hold. This subject access request includes any email or paper file that has your name on in their organisation - they are legally compelled to provide such information whether they like it or not. If it ends up in court and they produce information on you that they have not disclosed as part of a previous SAR then any fine may just end up with the ICO for non-compliance. When put to them I don't think Northern would take that risk - nor do I believe an interview is the correct way to go as a first step and it is reasonable to ask for an explanation as to what you are being accused of. They clearly have a lot of information on you that they cannot deny does not exist.

Some thoughts as to what they may suspect:
- You're claiming delay repay for unusual journeys for delayed/cancelled that arouse suspicion as potential fraud. Your claims do seem quite high and are increasing in frequency although as I can attest from my personal situation potentially nothing abnormal - just that you're on a line which suffers from poor punctuality (i.e. an hourly service). The fact the letter states 'fraud investigator' probably means it's something to do with delay repay.
- You're claiming full ticket refunds on "unused" journeys even though they have been used. This is a very common one that TOCs are cracking down on.
- They think you have used a complimentary ticket multiple times. Unlikely given it's not a good look to go round pointing fingers at customers who only have complimentary tickets from Northern's original balls ups with train delays/cancellations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Nov 2021 ==

So an annual season ticket? Say an average of one delay of more than 30 minutes per week. Maybe 50 free (single) tickets in a year? Use them after the season expires - that's a month or so of free journeys. But why would you not use them up consecutively and then buy another annual season?

On any given day, what determined whether you would use up a couple of complimentary single tickets or buy a new one?

In fairness, the value of the Northern complimentary tickets is longer distance journeys. If it is a short £5 commute, you may as buy season tickets and save the complimentary tickets for days out to further afield destinations like Manchester, Leeds, Peak District at £20 let's say etc. It isn't a criminal offence to save them for longer journeys. If Northern are worried about complimentary tickets being misused perhaps they should not be issuing them in the first place?

 

[robbeech]

In fairness, the value of the Northern complimentary tickets is longer distance journeys. If it is a short commute, you may as buy season tickets and save the complimentary tickets for days out to Manchester, Leeds, Peak District etc. It isn't a criminal offence to save them for longer journeys. If Northern are worried about complimentary tickets being misused perhaps they should not be issuing them in the first place?

Indeed. I’d never consider using one for a Worksop to Sheffield run even if that’s where a number of mine have come from. They’ll get used on a trip to Liverpool or Carlisle etc.

 

[NorthWestRover]

Quite. I have two return comps waiting to be used. One was from a £7 ticket, the other from a big delay on a rover. I wouldn't use the comps to go on anything worth less than £25.

 

[Dai Corner]

I wonder whether Northern have noticed a correlation between whether the OPs journey was delayed and whether he/she bought a new ticket or used a complimentary one?

 

[js1000]

I wonder whether Northern have noticed a correlation between whether the OPs journey was delayed and whether he/she bought a new ticket or used a complimentary one?

Thinking about this, I may have a theory why they are not willing to divulge anything to you. I think the problem lies in the complimentary tickets you have.

They may suspect you of fare evading on the odd day when you did not have a season ticket and if no barriers/ticket checks were carried out. The problem is that if you have ~30 of the complimentary tickets, if Northern challenge a few dates where they believe you did not have a ticket, you could in theory write the date and time of your journeys on the unused complimentary tickets almost as a get out of jail card to show you did have a "ticket" when in reality you did not on the day of travel. Clearly you should not be doing this as this is not how complimentary tickets are meant to be used.

If someone abused the complimentary tickets in that way then that would potentially torpedo their investigation. All of the information and CCTV of you entering/exiting stations and trains they have compiled to date, probably to a very substantial cost, will all be for nothing if you have a ticket for that day and journey in question filled in on a complimentary ticket. This is why the may be unwilling to explain to you what they suspect you have done wrong and the dates in question. The problem with complimentary tickets in their current configuration, is that Northern have no record from their end when they are used. In court a completed complimentary ticket with stations and date would be viewed as a valid ticket - but Northern have no way of corroborating if it was not and filled in later.

If one of the first questions they will "how many complimentary tickets do you have?" and "how many have you used?" then it's obvious they suspect you of fare evading on certain days and are testing the water to see whether they are wasting time and money investigating you further. You also say you have used the train from May to October. As the end of the 6 month limitation period is coming up they are looking to make a decision on whether to issue you a fine or court summons, or drop the case altogether.

Notwithstanding, the preferred result from their end is to deter you from doing rather than escalating it further and that you know that they have been checking suspicious activity. As others have said, only the OP will know what they have done. All we can do is speculate as to reasons why they have opened an investigation and shed some light on it.

 

[skyhigh]

As others have said, only the OP will know what they have done. All we can do is speculate as to reasons why they have opened an investigation and shed some light on it.

I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the complementary tickets are nothing to do with the letter the OP got sent.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The problem is that if you have ~30 of the complimentary tickets, if Northern challenge a few dates where they believe you did not have a ticket, you could in theory write the date and time of your journeys on the unused complimentary tickets almost as a get out of jail card to show you did have a "ticket" when in reality you did not on the day of travel.

Yes, you could, but I’d imagine there’d be a follow up question along the lines of “please can we see the tickets from all your previous journeys” and then an awkward moment when it becomes clear they have somehow retained tickets for all the journeys Northern have subsequently taken an interest in, but none of the others

 

[robbeech]

Whilst I wouldn’t put it past operators such as Northern to simply attempt to extract money out of any passengers they feel they can get away with scaring into paying up regardless of guilt I feel that this entire thing is very unlikely to be based around fare evasion unless there is significant evidence relating to scanning tickets.

I think it is as has been pointed at by several people this is more likely to be relating to delay repay claims.

A few points relating to the free tickets, yes, you could write dates in afterwards but this makes no sense. Northern would gain nothing by stating they think you travelled on a certain date, you could just as easily claim you had a paper ticket, you would not need to prove you had a ticket in court, it would be for Northern to prove you did not have a ticket and travelled.
On the flip side, had they checked on the day you’d be guilty of travelling without a ticket so filling in a free ticket after the fact would be pointless.

In terms of free tickets, unique QR codes on them scannable by the apparatus Northern use would minimise abuse.

 

[Tallguy]

The reason the OP is being invited in for a voluntary interview is so that Northern can try and get him/her to incriminate themselves. There is no other purpose to that interview. My attitude on these things is that if someone has something against me then let them prove it. I won’t be helping them to do that task. I suggest the OP issues an SAR against Northern without delay. Once that info is received, a Solicitors advice may be required.

I’m no lawyer.

 

[RPI]

The reason the OP is being invited in for a voluntary interview is so that Northern can try and get him/her to incriminate themselves. There is no other purpose to that interview. My attitude on these things is that if someone has something against me then let them prove it. I won’t be helping them to do that task. I suggest the OP issues an SAR against Northern without delay. Once that info is received, a Solicitors advice may be required.

I’m no lawyer.

The purpose of a voluntary interview is to give the person the opportunity to explain themselves, its stated in the letter that it will be a PACE interview so its quite clear that this will be an interview under caution.

I certainly would advise to OP to get legal advice on whether to a) attend and b) what to say if they do.

By not attending its likely that Northern will continue with the case anyway

 

[Tallguy]

The purpose of a voluntary interview is to give the person the opportunity to explain themselves, its stated in the letter that it will be a PACE interview so its quite clear that this will be an interview under caution.

I certainly would advise to OP to get legal advice on whether to a) attend and b) what to say if they do.

By not attending its likely that Northern will continue with the case anyway

And by attending you are giving them more evidence to use against you. The purpose of the voluntary interview is not for you to explain yourself, it is so the TOC can get you to incriminate yourself on tape so they can use it against you. Same with the Police when they suspect you of committing a crime, it’s an evidence gathering exercise, nothing else.

 

[Watershed]

And by attending you are giving them more evidence to use against you. The purpose of the voluntary interview is not for you to explain yourself, it is so the TOC can get you to incriminate yourself on tape so they can use it against you. Same with the Police when they suspect you of committing a crime, it’s an evidence gathering exercise, nothing else.

Indeed. And it's worth noting that a negative inference (for not raising a defence sooner, i.e. "you've just made that up at Court") only arises once the suspect has been interviewed under caution. If the OP does not attend the voluntary interview, that inference cannot arise.

That's not to say that refusing is necessarily the right course of action, but there are pros and cons to either approach and OP would be well advised to seek legal advice.

 

[RPI]

And by attending you are giving them more evidence to use against you. The purpose of the voluntary interview is not for you to explain yourself, it is so the TOC can get you to incriminate yourself on tape so they can use it against you. Same with the Police when they suspect you of committing a crime, it’s an evidence gathering exercise, nothing else.

Yes it is to gather evidence, but also to put your side of the story across. If no offence has been committed then this would become apparent in an interview, the point is, not going to the interview won't make it go away. Again, I'd strongly advise the OP to obtain professional legal advice before deciding whether to attend or not.

 

[robbeech]

Yes it is to gather evidence, but also to put your side of the story across. If no offence has been committed then this would become apparent in an interview, the point is, not going to the interview won't make it go away. Again, I'd strongly advise the OP to obtain professional legal advice before deciding whether to attend or not.

It would only become apparent if Northern wanted it to. The idea is NOT to go to court. The idea is to extract as much money as possible from as many passengers as possible OUT of court where zero evidence of an offence is required. If it goes to court, they have to prove an offence was committed, if they can’t do that they won’t want it to go to court and if they’re anything like Greater Anglia they’ll back down pretty sharpish when you fight back.
If they DO have evidence of an offence then people would be fools to let it go to court.

 

[MotCO]

If they DO have evidence of an offence then people would be fools to let it go to court.

But the problem is Northern has not said it has any evidence, or if it has, they are not showing their hand. I bow to the greater legal knowledge of others who suggest taking legal advice.

 

[AlterEgo]

But the problem is Northern has not said it has any evidence, or if it has, they are not showing their hand. I bow to the greater legal knowledge of others who suggest taking legal advice.

Northern would be foolish to show it’s hand before an interview. The purpose of the interview is to establish whether an offence has been committed, and in the later stages, if the interviewee hasn’t made an admission, confront them with evidence. The Police don’t arrest you and list their entire evidence file as you get out in the back of the van.

 

[Tallguy]

Northern would be foolish to show it’s hand before an interview. The purpose of the interview is to establish whether an offence has been committed, and in the later stages, if the interviewee hasn’t made an admission, confront them with evidence. The Police don’t arrest you and list their entire evidence file as you get out in the back of the van.

The purpose of the interview is NOT to establish whether an offence has been committed. That is the purpose of a court of law. Should this progress to court the prosecution will have to disclose their evidence. The purpose of the voluntary interview is to get you to incriminate yourself and give the TOC more evidence.

 

[Deerfold]

Northern would be foolish to show it’s hand before an interview. The purpose of the interview is to establish whether an offence has been committed, and in the later stages, if the interviewee hasn’t made an admission, confront them with evidence. The Police don’t arrest you and list their entire evidence file as you get out in the back of the van.

They do, though, tell you you what offence you're accused of.

 

[jumble]

And by attending you are giving them more evidence to use against you. The purpose of the voluntary interview is not for you to explain yourself, it is so the TOC can get you to incriminate yourself on tape so they can use it against you. Same with the Police when they suspect you of committing a crime, it’s an evidence gathering exercise, nothing else.

Agreed
If it were true then why does Northern refuse to disclose what they know in advance?
(Easy answer they want to spring a trap on the OP)

The interviewer is not the OPs friend, and will probably be very skilled at their job and the OP should be very careful
I personally would be tempted to tell the person calling me in for interview that I want to help but would not consider attending until I have the results of my SAR
I would certainly attend with a solicitor because the interviewer is far less likely to misbehave if there is legal representation present

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Nov 2021 ==

The purpose of the interview is NOT to establish whether an offence has been committed. That is the purpose of a court of law. Should this progress to court the prosecution will have to disclose their evidence. The purpose of the voluntary interview is to get you to incriminate yourself and give the TOC more evidence.

Northern would be foolish to show it’s hand before an interview. The purpose of the interview is to establish whether an offence has been committed, and in the later stages, if the interviewee hasn’t made an admission, confront them with evidence. The Police don’t arrest you and list their entire evidence file as you get out in the back of the van.

That may be true but the police can arrested a person and force an interview even if the accused goes "No Comment"
Northern are unable to do so.

 

[Haywain]

That may be true but the police can arrested a person and force an interview even if the accused goes "No Comment"
Northern are unable to do so.

They can, however, issue a summons if they believe there is a case to answer.

 

[jumble]

They can, however, issue a summons if they believe there is a case to answer.

I agree
However as we all know the best evidence that a prosecutor can have is an admission of guilt

 

[Haywain]

I agree
However as we all know the best evidence that a prosecutor can have is an admission of guilt

Maybe, but then you might have an opportunity to settle out of court. If you go straight to court I suspect the court won't be overly impressed at using the court's time to deal with the matter when it could have been done outside. This could lead to a little less sympathy whether found guilty or not. Which could mean not recovering any costs if you are found not guilty (or less chance than usual).

 

[island]

Maybe, but then you might have an opportunity to settle out of court. If you go straight to court I suspect the court won't be overly impressed at using the court's time to deal with the matter when it could have been done outside. This could lead to a little less sympathy whether found guilty or not. Which could mean not recovering any costs if you are found not guilty (or less chance than usual).

Just to note that there is no obligation to attempt to settle a criminal matter out of court. That would only be the case for civil matters.

 

[Haywain]

Just to note that there is no obligation to attempt to settle a criminal matter out of court. That would only be the case for civil matters.

That isn't what I was referring to. My point was that failing to cooperate with an investigation and then taking up the court's time discussing the case in detail may not be looked on kindly.

 

[Watershed]

That isn't what I was referring to. My point was that failing to cooperate with an investigation and then taking up the court's time discussing the case in detail may not be looked on kindly.

Assisting the prosecution is indeed likely to lead to a reduction in sentence under section 74 of the Sentencing Code, but this would only normally apply for serious cases where there is a signed agreement in place - for example, where a member of a gang agrees to provide witness testimony in exchange for a reduced sentence.

This is likely to be of little to no relevance for a relatively minor fares/Delay Repay related case.

 

[AlterEgo]

That isn't what I was referring to. My point was that failing to cooperate with an investigation and then taking up the court's time discussing the case in detail may not be looked on kindly.

Why would that matter if the OP is innocent of wrongdoing? It’s only an issue if they’re guilty.

 

[Haywain]

Why would that matter if the OP is innocent of wrongdoing? It’s only an issue if they’re guilty.

If they're not guilty they might want to ask the court to make an order to cover their costs.

 

[robbeech]

That isn't what I was referring to. My point was that failing to cooperate with an investigation and then taking up the court's time discussing the case in detail may not be looked on kindly.

But if the saga from the other operator that pulled this stunt is anything to go by, the passengers are made to feel as if they don’t have a choice. It’s either settle with whatever figure they say (with no evidence that the passenger owes it) or take it to court (even if it’s a hollow threat if they don’t have evidence). So passengers will have to expect to “waste the court’s time” if they feel the money is not due.
Of course if it turns out like aforementioned other TOC they won’t take it to court anyway as they don’t stand a chance but they’ll make a tidy sum from scared passengers in the meantime.

 

[Moss32]

I received a letter today from Northern rail asking me to go for an interview about the possible suspicious activity on my account? Has anyone else had this?


Any help appreciated

Did you manage to get it all sorted?