Claiming Delay Repay - instead of a refund - for journeys not made during disruption

[NEtraveller]

Hello,

I know of someone who purchases tickets for trains which they know are going to be delayed in order to claim a free single or return ticket to travel anywhere in Northern England.

I assume that it is somewhat fraudulent to purchase tickets with no intention to travel. They buy tickets for a short journey and use the free ticket they are sent after a delay repay claim to travel all over the north of England.

Are they likely to face any problems doing this?

 

[yorkie]

If they do not travel, due to disruption, then they are not entitled to claim Delay Repay.

Instead they should request a refund from the retailer.

However it would be difficult to prove that someone did not travel!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Are they likely to face any problems doing this?

Yes: they are committing fraud and if caught could be sent to prison.

As Yorkie points out, it may be difficult for the railway to demonstrate that the fraud has occurred, but I don't see that we can encourage someone to commit a crime even if the crime is hard to detect.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thinking a little further, I'm not sure how undetectable something like this would be. The current Channel 5 series about fare evasion on TfL is instructive: computers are used to identify unusual patterns of behaviour, and then human investigators look at the results, with the aim of confirming that offences really are being committed and then challenging the offender. It's easy to see how similar approaches could be used against someone gaming Delay Repay. Multiple claims from the same person? The same email address? Paying to the same bank account? From the same IP address (i.e. the same computer)? For an unlikely travel pattern?

 

[yorkie]

If a journey is made, it's Delay Repay. If a journey is not made, it's a refund.

However many people do not know this, and indeed some train companies are in the habit of telling people to claim a refund when they should claim Delay Repay while some retailers are in the habit of telling people to claim Delay Repay when they should claim a refund.

Sometimes the train company and retailer is the same company, which disagrees with itself:

In many cases (usually when it suits them) the Retail side of a TOC and an operator side of a TOC are completely separate in terms of how they interact with customers. I'm trying to find the email forwarded to me from a colleague who had a standard "picked out a hat" rejection from Northern as he "didn't travel" (he did) where Northern (TOC) rejected the claim and referred him to Northern (Retailer) as it was their issue, and Northern (Retailer) rejected a refund claim and referred them to Northern (TOC) to sort out a delay repay claim. The whole saga went on about 7 months and he finally got a Gesture of Goodwill from Northern (TOC) as even though he didn't travel (he did) it was clear that they couldn't come to a better conclusion. Coincidentally, this decision was made when he mentioned legal action.
Makes you wonder what their homes are like doesn't it.

I have to question whether it is remotely sensible to propose that passengers who are entitled to refunds should be prosecuted for fraud for claiming Delay Repay.

 

[gray1404]

Also given the way some TOCs have been operating as of late: Northern and West Midland Trains (and if we think not too far back GTR), customers can be forgiven for having many delay repay claims outstanding.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Also given the way some TOCs have been operating as of late: Northern and West Midland Trains (and if we think not too far back GTR), customers can be forgiven for having many delay repay claims outstanding.

Yes - poor wording on my part. I wouldn't expect having a lot of claims just by itself to be a reason for a TOC to want to look closely at a pattern of claims. But if these claims are somehow unlikely (as the OP suggested, short journeys on persistently late services, maybe with origins and destinations that seem chosen to limit the cost of the ticket rather than to be convenient for where the claimant lives) I can see that the fact that there are multiple claims could be an aggravating factor in Northern deciding whether to investigate or not.

 

[NEtraveller]

You have all given something to think about. I will speak to her soon, was a bit concerned that she would get caught easily. The tickets have all been for local journeys.

Will advise to actually make the journeys - the station is only 5 minutes away!

 

[Smidster]

As someone with an "M Card" (which Northern classify as being the wrong type of ticket) I have thought about doing something similar during disruption.

I know that Northern will not do anything based on my ticket (and i would stress that I have no other practical option for the journey) so to me it does not seem unreasonable to purchase a new ticket in order to get some redress.

Would you also see that as being border / over the line?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As someone with an "M Card" (which Northern classify as being the wrong type of ticket) I have thought about doing something similar during disruption.

I know that Northern will not do anything based on my ticket (and i would stress that I have no other practical option for the journey) so to me it does not seem unreasonable to purchase a new ticket in order to get some redress.

Would you also see that as being border / over the line?

Yup. That's still fraud. At the very least, you're falling foul of the 'two wrongs don't make a right' argument.

 

[gray1404]

I do recall some posts on here from users who had received emails from the TOC branding it's self as Southern, in essence accusing them of delay repay fraud, or at least implying such due to a high number of claims. This was at a time when delays were a daily nightmare in both directions of travel.

My understanding is that compensation is not usually payable if the disruption is known before the ticket is purchased, although in reality, this is seldom enforced. What your friend is committing is fraud and it needs to stop. Perhaps you could direct her to the D&P section of this forum to give her a taste of what she is telling herself in for if she continues.

The reality is, if it is a low number of occasional claims then the train company will have no way of knowing Also, in claiming free tickets it is not actually costing them an outlay as such.

Personally speaking, the journeys I make with free tickets tend to be longer journeys which I wouldn't have taken if not for the free voucher. So in essence, the cost to the TOC is Zero. That is because I am not using the voucher for a journey I would otherwise have paid for and the trains I am travelling on would have travelled anyway. I do also have a multi journey ticket that covers my usual journeys anyway. I have not had need to claim to Northern for 2 and a half years and then recently I encountered 3 60 minute delays over 2 days - all while using free tickets. Yet I have a family member who has been delayed with Northern once or twice a week or the past 2 months continually.

What I am saying there is not always a pattern of travel that can be established, moreover when most journeys made a delay free. However, it is only a matter of time before the train company realise something is suspect and your friend gets caught. They need to stop it now.

 

[dtaylor84]

If a journey is made, it's Delay Repay. If a journey is not made, it's a refund.

What if the holder of a season ticket chooses not to make a journey?

 

[Wallsendmag]

Season tickets are different and have their own set of delay repay rules

 

[Starmill]

What if the holder of a season ticket chooses not to make a journey?

Northern advised customers who didn't travel on their season ticket due to strikes to claim for this through the delay repay scheme.

 

[benk1342]

Fraud is fraud regardless of whether you get caught.

 

[Qwerty133]

I have to question whether it is remotely sensible to propose that passengers who are entitled to refunds should be prosecuted for fraud for claiming Delay Repay.

While I would agree that it would be rather heavy handed to attempt to prosecute genuine travellers who mistakenly claim delay repay rather than a refund on their pre-booked tickets when disruption subsequently becomes apparent in this particular case I would argue that it is both sensible and in the public interest to prosecute.
The lady in question is only purchasing her tickets when it is apparent that the timetabled services will be disrupted and never has any intentions of making the journeys that she buys the tickets for, and does so for the sole reason to dishonestly claim free tickets for much longer journeys for which the true cost of a ticket is much higher. The facts of the particular situation suggest rather strongly that the lady is guilty of premeditated fraud on numerous occasions for the sole benefit of making journeys at a much lower than true cost and is dishonestly depriving Northern of revenue on a fairly regular basis.
Furthermore, if a larger number of people started acting in such a way Northern would have no choice but to withdraw the offer of free tickets following a delay rather than the conventional delay repay offerings which are regularly much less generous meaning that it is in both Northern's and genuine passenger's interests for people committing such fraud to be treated in the strongest possible way as a deterrent.

 

[londonbridge]

If a journey is made, it's Delay Repay. If a journey is not made, it's a refund.

However many people do not know this, and indeed some train companies are in the habit of telling people to claim a refund when they should claim Delay Repay while some retailers are in the habit of telling people to claim Delay Repay when they should claim a refund.

Agree, I once arrived at Newcastle central to catch a train to Chester Le Street. The train was delayed to the extent that I would miss my appointment so I approached an LNER staff member who told me to claim delay replay from TPE! I then went to the ticket office who gave me a straight refund.