Solicitor recommendations - delay repay

[Hitman33]

Hi there.



I am dealing with GTR over a delay repay dispute - I know I am in the wrong and would be grateful for some specialist solicitor recommendations who deal with such incidents.



I have seen the below quoted in similar threads, but just wanted to know if there are others out there too.



https://makwanas.co.uk/ and https://manaksolicitors.co.uk



The thread below is a similar situation to mine albeit not as severe.



https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-repay-claims-fraud-please-dont-judge.294718/



In this thread the OP noted “I hired that solicitor who is mentioned a lot on this very forum for these kinds of issues.” But did not specify the solicitor in question. That thread is also closed and I cannot seem to be able to contact the OP to check.



Thanks in advance

 

[zzwiz]

Can you explain a little bit about your situation and where is the investigation at right now?

 

[Hitman33]

I Received an email from customer services at GTR noting they are carrying out a review of my Delay Repay claims my account due to the volume and pattern of submissions identified.

They noted the is significantly higher than we would normally expect and, alongside this, they identified 3 journeys where the details claimed do not clearly align with the journey data available.

They want me to explain my travel patterns over the period in question and address the 3 discrepancies they identified.

I have a week to respond and I will respond accordingly and cooperate.

I am to respond noting that I accept that the journey details submitted did not accurately reflect the journeys recorded on those dates.

On my journey patterns I am to respond by nothing that I do not consistently travel on the same services or at the same times each day, and my journeys vary depending on my schedule.



Thanks

 

[Haywain]

The forum is here to provide advice, not to recommend solicitors. However, what you are dealing with is not fare evasion and would be more likely to be dealt with as fraud. For this you could use the services of any solicitor who works in criminal law. If the stakes are high you should definitely take legal advice before responding.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

With thanks to @WesternLancer and others who generated this, specialist lawyers that we're aware of include the following:

Manak Solicitors

Fare Evasion Solicitors | Kent & London | Manak Solicitors

Manak Solicitors: Skilled legal defence for fare evasion cases. Rely on our experienced team to protect your rights, challenge penalties, and guide you through the process.

manaksolicitors.co.uk


Makwanas


Fare Evasion Solicitors London | High Success Rate | TFL Solicitors

www.makwanas.co.uk

Gray Hooper Holt LLP Solicitors

Solicitors offering a wide range of legal services

www.grayhooperholt.co.uk

Fare Evasion - Penman Sedgwick

penmansedgwick.com

 

[Egg Centric]

I Received an email from customer services at GTR noting they are carrying out a review of my Delay Repay claims my account due to the volume and pattern of submissions identified.

They noted the is significantly higher than we would normally expect and, alongside this, they identified 3 journeys where the details claimed do not clearly align with the journey data available.

They want me to explain my travel patterns over the period in question and address the 3 discrepancies they identified.

I have a week to respond and I will respond accordingly and cooperate.

I am to respond noting that I accept that the journey details submitted did not accurately reflect the journeys recorded on those dates.

On my journey patterns I am to respond by nothing that I do not consistently travel on the same services or at the same times each day, and my journeys vary depending on my schedule.



Thanks

Have you responded to them in any sense, including acknowledging the email? Has there been any communication in writing or any other method than email?

If the answers to both are "no", then while I can't possibly advise you to ignore it, it does strike me that any serious organisation with genuine intention of taking this further really ought to be using a more reliable method to be putting you on notice.

Personal anecdote: I was literally 2 weeks late this year in paying some CGT, after 1 week I had two answerphone messages from HMRC which I figured I'd get around to when I was less busy at work and a week later they were at my door (very nice chap btw, although him asking if my cars were on finance as he headed off had an amusing bit of subtle menace as there was an obvious subtext) and I made a special trip to bank to get the payment done. That's how a serious organisation operates.

The nature of email is that - depending on what they have embedded in it and the settings of your email client - they probably don't even know whether you've received it or not. And on that they're meant to make a final decision about a figure which I assume is in four or five figures? It doesn't ring true to me for a sensible organisation.

But on the other hand - a) TOCs are not sensible organisations b) reading between the lines it sounds like you accept this is a "fair cop" and are concerned about the consequences. Which is why I can't morally suggest you to ignore it - stop being a scammer please - but it's something to think about.

 

[Rahain20]

I Received an email from customer services at GTR noting they are carrying out a review of my Delay Repay claims my account due to the volume and pattern of submissions identified.

They noted the is significantly higher than we would normally expect and, alongside this, they identified 3 journeys where the details claimed do not clearly align with the journey data available.

They want me to explain my travel patterns over the period in question and address the 3 discrepancies they identified.

I have a week to respond and I will respond accordingly and cooperate.

I am to respond noting that I accept that the journey details submitted did not accurately reflect the journeys recorded on those dates.

On my journey patterns I am to respond by nothing that I do not consistently travel on the same services or at the same times each day, and my journeys vary depending on my schedule.



Thanks

Don't ignore it.
As most things are digital these days the first point of contact is email.

How many claims are you making? How often do you travel?

I believe they are working on % of claims made if you are making more than average, it is flagged.

 

[Undiscovered]

If the answers to both are "no", then while I can't possibly advise you to ignore it, it does strike me that any serious organisation with genuine intention of taking this further really ought to be using a more reliable method to be putting you on notice.

GTR don't really have to do anything at all. If they suspect fraud, which they state they do, they only have to gather the evidence, which they think they have, and pass it to the Police. The first notice most alleged offenders have, is a knock on the door and a ride to the local nick.

Whilst it may seem unprofessional, GTR are at least giving the OP a 'heads up', so that they can refute the allegations, or seek suitable advice, from a qualified source. Far better, in my opinion, than being in an interview room, with the duty solicitor saying "no comment" all day. There are other considerations alongside too- many employment contracts state that you must notify them if you are arrested/charged with an offence, which creates additional problems.

It may well be that, even with everything the OP does, GTR may still go for a fraud charge. After all, what better deterrent than a piece in the local news. Fraud is a lot more serious than fare evasion and might make others think twice about their actions on the railway.

 

[KNN]

I am dealing with GTR over a delay repay dispute - I know I am in the wrong and would be grateful for some specialist solicitor recommendations who deal with such incidents.

If I were you I'd save the money for paying back what you've fraudulently claimed instead of paying a solicitor. The reason they've contacted you rather than going directly to the police is that they think they can recoup the money more quickly and easily by avoiding court.

If you cooperate and agree a repayment plan then everyone wins. The TOC's main aims are getting the money back and stopping you doing it again.

 

[AlterEgo]

If I were you I'd save the money for paying back what you've fraudulently claimed instead of paying a solicitor. The reason they've contacted you rather than going directly to the police is that they think they can recoup the money more quickly and easily by avoiding court.

If you cooperate and agree a repayment plan then everyone wins. The TOC's main aims are getting the money back and stopping you doing it again.

If you are under investigation for a serious offence like fraud which can lead to prison you need to protect yourself by getting represented. Until you are represented, say nothing. Making admissions is fraught with danger.

 

[KNN]

If you are under investigation for a serious offence like fraud which can lead to prison you need to protect yourself by getting represented. Until you are represented, say nothing. Making admissions is fraught with danger.

I respectfully disagree. The evidence is already there to convict by this point, unless it's massive, repeat offence, staff or a criminal gang the TOC cares more about getting its money back now than getting a conviction in two years time (and their money + some costs back in exchange for a lot of paperwork).

 

[Undiscovered]

I respectfully disagree. The evidence is already there to convict by this point, unless it's massive, repeat offence, staff or a criminal gang the TOC cares more about getting its money back now than getting a conviction in two years time (and their money + some costs back in exchange for a lot of paperwork).

It could also be that the railway is doing due diligence, so as to be able to handover a solid case to the Police. While they will do their own investigation, it is far easier for GTR to give a file over that contains OPs admissions, has weeded out any unnecessary details, and presents the facts in a clear, concise, manner. Indeed, GTR are suggesting a solicitor indicates that they don't want any potential evidence or information gathered at interview or correspondence to be thrown out later due to claims of coercion, extortion or bullying by them.

Giving a stack of papers and claims to an already overstretched, and probably not au fais with the railway world, Police force, could mean that it gets put to the bottom of the pile and takes months, maybe years, to bring to the Criminal Prosecution Service, who then decide it's not worth it.
If they do give the go ahead, then, whilst may take however long to get there, you can be sure that the news interest around the case will be food for thought. It would also put GTR in a strong position for a pre-court settlement, before trial, if that is still an option open to them, at that time.

 

[KNN]

Indeed, GTR are suggesting a solicitor indicates that they don't want any potential evidence or information gathered at interview or correspondence to be thrown out later due to claims of coercion, extortion or bullying by them.

I don't think GTR mentioned solicitors from what was written, the OP thinks they need one, not unreasonably, but I don't think it's necessary. If it's enormous amounts definitely get one, if it's a few thousand all a solicitor will do is cost you more money for the same outcome of settling out of court.

 

[Undiscovered]

I don't think GTR mentioned solicitors from what was written, the OP thinks they need one, not unreasonably, but I don't think it's necessary. If it's enormous amounts definitely get one, if it's a few thousand all a solicitor will do is cost you more money for the same outcome of settling out of court.

Ah, yes, you're right. GTR haven't suggested a solicitor at all. My apologies.

As yet, we haven't seen any detailed correspondence and, most importantly, we're not in position to determine GTRs willingness to either settle or prosecute. In the situation described, I would certainly be having a free chat with a solicitor, rather than risking it escalating to a day in court.

A lot of home insurance policies offer legal assistance included, as do some unions and workplace welfare schemes.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ah, yes, you're right. GTR haven't suggested a solicitor at all. My apologies.

As yet, we haven't seen any detailed correspondence and, most importantly, we're not in position to determine GTRs willingness to either settle or prosecute. In the situation described, I would certainly be having a free chat with a solicitor, rather than risking it escalating to a day in court.

A lot of home insurance policies offer legal assistance included, as do some unions and workplace welfare schemes.

This legal assistance is for civil disputes and generally won't cover you if you're suspected of a criminal offence (in the case of a union, add "outside of your employment" to thay caveat).

Getting off a fraud charge is not something you should attempt unrepresented and the consequences for it going wrong are vastly higher than your average railway Bylaw offence.

 

[30907]

GTR don't really have to do anything at all. If they suspect fraud, which they state they do, they only have to gather the evidence, which they think they have, and pass it to the Police. The first notice most alleged offenders have, is a knock on the door and a ride to the local nick.

Suspecting fraudulent behaviour (which I don't think they have actually said BTW) is one thing, going for a Fraud Act prosecution and involving the police is another, which we never (well, hardly ever) come across.