Delay Repay Irregularity

[Southern Beau]

They'd never pin anything on me, I have a camera reel of timestamped train photos and RTT screenshots for every journey I ever take!

Perhaps you have some of these?

I would hazard a guess that very few passengers would have this level of info for every journey they take

 

[Royston Vasey]

I would hazard a guess that very few passengers would have this level of info for every journey they take

Screenshots of Trainline or other departure boards/running information taken as an aide memoire perhaps, or to send to a loved one. Even one or two snippets for one or two claims would be strong circumstantial evidence. I take more photos than I realise day to day.

 

[greyman42]

Over the years I’ve travelled to London anything from twice a month to two or three times a week. The trains are always delayed but I don’t always get a chance to claim for them.

LNER are not too bad for delays, so if your trains are always delayed you have been quite unlucky.

 

[Bensonby]

From what has been written I don’t think you have much to worry about. Of course, if they were to bring a prosecution then the burden of proof lies with them and they would have to specify specifically what claims were fraudulent. Nevertheless, if I was in your shoes I would probably start drawing up a list of each claim (date, service you were on etc) and start trying to source evidence that you were in the city that you took the train to, preferably about the same time: did you stay in a hotel? Did you buy a coffee near Kings Cross at the relevant time (or at the other end before you got on the train)? Do you have a diary with work meetings in? Etc etc. it would give me peace of mind, even if never used and despite how time consuming it would be.

 

[Jamiescott1]

I've made over 40 genuine delay repay requests this year with gwr.
I cycle to and from station so have strava and garmin data of my cycle rides that link up to all the delayed services

 

[Southern Beau]

Screenshots of Trainline or other departure boards/running information taken as an aide memoire perhaps, or to send to a loved one. Even one or two snippets for one or two claims would be strong circumstantial evidence. I take more photos than I realise day to day.

I have screenshots of NR Departure Boards as I keep them to remind me to submit the claim, and text messages to say I’ll be late etc.

 

[The North Briton]

I can’t imagine businesses in any other industry going straight to accusing its customers of fraud in writing without first considering there might be an innocent explanation (like the customer was right and the trains were delayed by the requisite amount of time). Absolutely disgusting approach from LNER and its minion Tom Smith!

 

[AlterEgo]

I can’t imagine businesses in any other industry going straight to accusing its customers of fraud in writing without first considering there might be an innocent explanation

Insurance, airlines, phone contracts, just three that I've come across.

 

[greyman42]

The OP states that most of his tickets were paper tickets. Would LNER still have these tickets?

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP states that most of his tickets were paper tickets. Would LNER still have these tickets?

Yes, if they were physically sent in. They will have the copies of them if copies were sent.

 

[Southern Beau]

Yes, if they were physically sent in. They will have the copies of them if copies were sent.

If the tickets were put through a barrier at say KX, would that not be recorded somewhere remotely with a time stamp at the least?

 

[AlterEgo]

If the tickets were put through a barrier at say KX, would that not be recorded somewhere remotely with a time stamp at the least?

If it is a magstripe ticket then no, there is no central record remotely.

 

[Southern Beau]

If it is a magstripe ticket then no, there is no central record remotely.

Would the ticket hold that info though? That could be very useful for the OP.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would the ticket hold that info though? That could be very useful for the OP.

It might, if the ticket is still intact and undamaged, and this assumes of course that they have been passed through a barrier to have the time written to it.

 

[greyman42]

It might, if the ticket is still intact and undamaged, and this assumes of course that they have been passed through a barrier to have the time written to it.

What about tickets with a QR code on them?

 

[BRX]

Although carefully worded, that letter from LNER is making a very serious allegation. If they now resort to silence or bland guff I would recommend that the OP demand an apology in writing. If that doesn't work, get their MP and/or local media involved.

I agree.

If they weren't making any specific allegations that I could respond to, and if I knew I hadn't made any fraudulent claims, I don't see why I should be obliged to waste my time replying. I'd be inclined to get back to them with a complaint along these lines and a request for an apology.

Recieving this kind of letter could cause considerable anxiety and stress for many people - it's really not at all acceptable to send it out as a fishing excercise.

 

[Haywain]

Recieving this kind of letter could cause considerable anxiety and stress for many people - it's really not at all acceptable to send it out as a fishing excercise.

But it may not be a fishing exercise, it may actually be based on rather strong evidence. Only the OP and LNER can know the truth of the matter and it is possible that there is more to it than we are being told.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I agree.

If they weren't making any specific allegations that I could respond to, and if I knew I hadn't made any fraudulent claims, I don't see why I should be obliged to waste my time replying. I'd be inclined to get back to them with a complaint along these lines and a request for an apology.

Recieving this kind of letter could cause considerable anxiety and stress for many people - it's really not at all acceptable to send it out as a fishing excercise.

Having said which, I would argue that a response of some sort should be made.

The absence of a response could be interpreted in two ways:
- as disdain from the recipient for an unwarranted accusation
- as a guilty party hoping that if they ignore it, it will go away.

I would expect the railway to treat silence as the second option, So silence seems to progress you down the road to prosecution, with everything that means in terms of cost and inconvenience.

I would suggest to the OP that they should reply. That reply should be brief, and if there's nothing to admit then nothing should be admitted. But it should also be courteous, to support the position that the OP is helping the railway resolve a problem of the railway's own making, and that the OP is not trying to throw the railway off the scent.

 

[Watershed]

But it may not be a fishing exercise, it may actually be based on rather strong evidence. Only the OP and LNER can know the truth of the matter and it is possible that there is more to it than we are being told.

In my mind, the fact that there's no details given of the claims that are alleged to be fraudulent, or any sort of breakdown of how the amount demanded is calculated, suggests it's more likely to be a fishing exercise.

 

[Titfield]

The only phrase in what the OP has stated that just makes me wonder if duplicate claims have somehow been made is the phrase "works booking system".

Is it possible the OPs company has somehow been reimbursed for delays and the OP has also claimed?

I appreciate that this is NOT implied by the letter sent to the OP.

 

[Watershed]

The only phrase in what the OP has stated that just makes me wonder if duplicate claims have somehow been made is the phrase "works booking system".

Is it possible the OPs company has somehow been reimbursed for delays and the OP has also claimed?

I appreciate that this is NOT implied by the letter sent to the OP.

Delay Repay is claimed by the passenger, regardless of who books their ticket. So unless the company was getting refunds on tickets that the OP had also claimed Delay Repay on, that's not really a possibility.

 

[kkong]

I would suggest to the OP that they should reply.

If you read the OP's messages, you will see he has already responded - twice - without receiving any reply from LNER.

 

[fandroid]

If the OP wants to offer any facts to LNER, perhaps they could just report how many train journeys (2 for every return journey) they made in that timeframe, and how many Delay Repay claims they made in the same period. For all TOCs, not just LNER. Then ask LNER to check for themselves the overall rail statistics of delays over the same months/years.

 

[kkong]

If the OP wants to offer any facts to LNER, perhaps they could just report how many train journeys (2 for every return journey) they made in that timeframe, and how many Delay Repay claims they made in the same period. For all TOCs, not just LNER. Then ask LNER to check for themselves the overall rail statistics of delays over the same months/years.

It's not for the OP to offer any facts to LNER.

LNER have initiated this process; it is incumbent on them to provide specific details of what they are accusing the OP of doing.

Sending a letter demanding over £2,000 - with the threat of prosecution if this is not done - without details of how their demand has been calculated is quite extraordinary.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not wise to enter into any kind of discussion or prolong or invite any additional discourse. Every interaction you have leads to a cumulative risk of incriminating yourself or accidentally making yourself look worse. Even a good faith "please send me the journeys you are concerned about" is unwise; making this statement suggests you will be confident of explaining a claim, several years on, and what if you're not actually able to find the hotel receipt or the text message or the email which substantiates it? It will make you look worse.

The proper first response to a speculative, unsubstantiated allegation of a crime like fraud is either "no comment", or to ignore the correspondence, or at the very most acknowledge it and refute the allegations abruptly, without elaboration or justification.

It is for the train company to provide evidence of the allegation of fraud, not you to refute or explain it. Do NOT invite this scenario; it is naive.

 

[Hadders]

The only phrase in what the OP has stated that just makes me wonder if duplicate claims have somehow been made is the phrase "works booking system".

Is it possible the OPs company has somehow been reimbursed for delays and the OP has also claimed?

I appreciate that this is NOT implied by the letter sent to the OP.

A few years back my employer's corporate travel provieder signed up to an automated delay repay scheme where claims were handled on our behalf. We didn't need to do anything. It was all quite farcical really and it was quietley dropped. I wonder if this is anything to do with it although I'd expect duplicate claims to be rejected straight away.

Although the OP tells us they normally use Anytime Return tickets which are fully flexible, I'm wondering if LNER are looking at the service selected at the time of booking booking and comparing it to the delayed service claimed for, especially if the claims are never for the train originally selected as part of the booking process.

 

[jon0844]

Hasn't the OP admitted there were some claims made for the wrong date, but later corrected? I assume the correct date also had the same level of delay and compensation owed? It is otherwise going to potentially set alarm bells ringing if claims are made for trains with the biggest delay, and then someone says 'Oh, sorry, I didn't mean that train/day'.

I assume when you make an online claim you must declare that you are sure you have entered the right details?

We clearly can't know the specifics here, but it does sound like LNER may be looking for out of the ordinary looking journeys, maybe on inconsistent days and times, but an open ticket allows such flexibility so unless there's something else going on, it does sound like a fishing exercise.

 

[Vespa]

I've made delay repay claims in the past, uploaded the evidence and it was usually knocked back at the first opportunity by a computer process and I always asked for a human to look at the evidence again and I always get my money back, the last two claims was paid without fuss.

For a claim to be approved evidence is usually presented, evidence checked and if correct the claim is paid out.

I never used LNER I would imagine the process is the same, the OP had his claim approved after the evidence is checked, so why bring it up now ? Why the blanket £2000 claim without listing the journeys claimed against, if it did go to prosecution they would have to provide an evidence pack to the OP listing the alleged "fraudulent" claims without the OP giving evidence refute it in the first place in the initial letter.

The non reply to the OP emails is in itself suspicious and weakens their case, I would be keeping the emails as evidence you have tried to reach out and asked for evidence.

Sounds like a new broom trying to make his mark making an audit sweep to justify his salary without considering the disruption to peoples lives with immediate threats of prosecution in the first instance, sounds like a fishing letter.

Time to involve the local MP and media, when faced with bad PR business usually backs down.

 

[The North Briton]

Given the almost incredible lack of professionalism in the correspondence received from LNER, and their subsequent radio silence, is anyone ‘in the know’ able to check that the bank account details supplied are actually correct?

 

[BRX]

For a claim to be approved evidence is usually presented, evidence checked and if correct the claim is paid out.

I'm not defending the letter sent out by LNER in this case, but...

The fact is, it's not very difficult - for anyone so inclined - to defraud the Delay Repay system, if they have any kind of flexible ticket (it doesn't even need to be an anytime).

If the ticket is valid on a number of different services (whether on one day or over multiple days) it's now quite easy to check retrospectively whether any of those services suffered a serious delay. And then, when the delay repay system asks you for the intended start and finish times of your journey, it would be easy to enter times that matched the delayed service rather than the one you actually travelled on.

I have never been asked to submit any kind of evidence other than the tickets themselves (and/or booking receipts). And in many cases, as far as I know, there's no way to tell from that "evidence" which services I actually travelled on. Sometimes a paper ticket might be stamped with a train headcode, but that seems to happen increasingly rarely. Often they'll just have a scribble on them. Sometimes they simply won't have been checked anywhere on the journey. Maybe they will have gone through some gateline machines but as far a I know these don't record or communicate anything about a specific ticket to anywhere (maybe I'm wrong).

Maybe I've never claimed for anything controversial enough but I've never been asked to submit any other form of evidence, anything beyond the tickets themselves, to demonstrate I was in a certain place at a certain time.

99% of the time, if a claim is challenged or if they ask for additional info, it's because of some kind of bureaucratic silliness or error at their end.

(To be clear, I don't engage in this kind of fraud myself, but I have always been aware of the possibility, and slightly surprised that such a large loophole is left open)