Making the assumption that each fraudulent claim was accompanied by proof that the claimant held an annual season between Pulborough and London, and that £3,500 is an accurate assessment of the amount of compensation obtained by fraud in Martins' case, the implication of the newspaper reports is that his research revealed 470 occasions on which a Pulborough-London (or vice versa) train was at least 30 minutes late, and formed the basis of a fraudulent claim obviously fewer delays required if the research revealed delays in excess of an hour.* I have seen nothing in the reports to indicate the length of the period over which these frauds were perpetrated, but if it was no more than, say, two years then it suggests that a 30+ minute delay on this route was occurring nearly every other weekday. Is Southern's punctuality record on this service really that bad?
*This is on the basis that each 30 minute delay qualifies for refund of 1/464th of the ticket price which is, I think, the current regime. Using the December 2013 Southern Passengers Charters relevant fraction of 1/520th, the number of 30+ minute delays required to found a total claim of £3,500 rises to 527. This is on the basis of the annual season costing about £3,450. Seems likely some of these offences were committed under the old regime.
