Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

I suspect many people trying to be reasonable have given up because a number of posters seem to have devoted much of their time to showing their enjoyment in watching passengers suffer.

The fact is that we've seen yet another post where someone has spoken to a solicitor and has been advised that as they cannot prove they are innocent, they don't stand a chance. This is somehow considered acceptable. I expect a couple of people commenting here will be cracking open a bottle of bubbly knowing that the railway wins again despite having no real evidence either way of whether the claims made were correct, incorrect through a misunderstanding (not fraud), or fraudulent, but it is increasingly clear that it matters not, and any claim GA are unhappy about IS fraudulent. I agree that quoting a percentage of a figure is unhelpful as a fixed admin charge is likely, if this poster is willing to give us absolute values it will help us understand how GA are looking into this. It comes across as if GA have found a discrepancy, perhaps 1, perhaps more, and as such are considering 100% of claims to be fraudulent and are expecting that money back, would people consider that acceptable?

It does not matter one jot whether you or anyone else thinks it is or is not acceptable. It is legal, and it is generally quite common outside of rail, although usually hidden behind an NDA.

People came to this forum to get advice on what the best way to proceed is/was, not debate the semantics.

As some have found, independent solicitors have advised some forum members along similar lines, to settle. As others have found, the police are seemingly more than happy to require attendance at a police station for an interview under caution in regards to a suspect fraud for those who wish to dispute their actions or ignore Greater Anglia. Unless the police, independent solicitors and Greater Anglia are all part of a conspiracy, you might want to consider the possibility that people tend to rationalise fraud as a genuine mistake or a misunderstanding, and even after some time, will not come to terms with that accusation. Additionally, there is clearly some sort of data analysis / software / review process in place in the first place to identify potential offenders, which is clearly relatively effective.

There may well be some genuinely "innocent" cases, and I'm pretty sure the advice to them on this very forum has been to see it through to the end. If innocent people chose not to do that, and to settle anyway, perhaps because of convenience or cost, nobody makes them do that, they obviously make a calculated decision based on what they know (or don't know).

What is unhelpful and extremely dangerous is to suggest going on any "offensive" as some members suggested. The whole process needs to be calmly de-escalated and approached with an open mind. Why would you antagonise the person or organisation that could potentially cause you to be convicted, and potentially use your offensive actions against you? Even if you are innocent, why would you even take that chance? Get it all resolved and then make a noise!

 

[EssexGonzo]

I suspect many people trying to be reasonable have given up because a number of posters seem to have devoted much of their time to showing their enjoyment in watching passengers suffer.

The fact is that we've seen yet another post where someone has spoken to a solicitor and has been advised that as they cannot prove they are innocent, they don't stand a chance. This is somehow considered acceptable. I expect a couple of people commenting here will be cracking open a bottle of bubbly knowing that the railway wins again despite having no real evidence either way of whether the claims made were correct, incorrect through a misunderstanding (not fraud), or fraudulent, but it is increasingly clear that it matters not, and any claim GA are unhappy about IS fraudulent. I agree that quoting a percentage of a figure is unhelpful as a fixed admin charge is likely, if this poster is willing to give us absolute values it will help us understand how GA are looking into this. It comes across as if GA have found a discrepancy, perhaps 1, perhaps more, and as such are considering 100% of claims to be fraudulent and are expecting that money back, would people consider that acceptable?

I tend to agree here. There is a view right here that says if one perspective on the data - that with the manpower, records and desire to prove wrongdoing - shows wrongdoing, then it must be true. But passengers are, at best with many forum members, an inconvenience. And obviously, at worst, routine criminals.

It does not matter one jot whether you or anyone else thinks it is or is not acceptable. It is legal, and it is generally quite common outside of rail, although usually hidden behind an NDA.

People came to this forum to get advice on what the best way to proceed is/was, not debate the semantics.

As some have found, independent solicitors have advised some forum members along similar lines, to settle. As others have found, the police are seemingly more than happy to require attendance at a police station for an interview under caution in regards to a suspect fraud for those who wish to dispute their actions or ignore Greater Anglia. Unless the police, independent solicitors and Greater Anglia are all part of a conspiracy, you might want to consider the possibility that people tend to rationalise fraud as a genuine mistake or a misunderstanding, and even after some time, will not come to terms with that accusation. Additionally, there is clearly some sort of data analysis / software / review process in place in the first place to identify potential offenders, which is clearly relatively effective.

There may well be some genuinely "innocent" cases, and I'm pretty sure the advice to them on this very forum has been to see it through to the end. If innocent people chose not to do that, and to settle anyway, perhaps because of convenience or cost, nobody makes them do that, they obviously make a calculated decision based on what they know (or don't know).

“There may well be some “innocent” cases”.

Well.......there may some innocence among the sea of guilt. Innocent until prov.....oh, hang on, not really.

And “innocent”. Not innocent. Inverted commas clearly mean something.

 

[Wolfie]

I hope that some on here don't complain when passengers use every means at their disposal to make life uncomfortable and expensive for GA..... After all, it's "legal" so must be ok.....

 

[thedbdiboy]

Unfortunately some of this debacle needs to be laid at the door of DfT and Ministers who over the years seemed to think that making 'compensation' easy to claim was somehow an answer to poor service when the real issues (an overcrowded network being overstressed with too many trains pathed on to inadequate infrastructure) was papered over. The demand to make claims a simple one-click process without allowing for adequate controls creates temptations that have no doubt also had repercussions for some genuine claimants. Given that for most commuting journeys a 'claim' is normally only pence in the pound I'm quite sure most would rather just have a good service.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact is that we've seen yet another post where someone has spoken to a solicitor and has been advised that as they cannot prove they are innocent, they don't stand a chance.

One of the inherent weaknesses with this part of the forum is that we need posters to tell us the truth. We can’t help them effectively if they don’t. However, in many cases, new posters who have committed wrongdoing may approach these threads with the aim of giving as little away as possible, lest they be judged or their posts discovered by the countless TOC staff that read these public forums. That’s understandable, of course.

A criminal prosecution for fraud of this nature will need significant evidence to be successful, because it isn’t up to the accused to prove their innocence. It’s up to the police and the CPS, in conjunction with the victim of the fraud, to provide evidence to convince a jury or magistrates bench of the accused’s guilt.

If I was baselessly accused of fraud, and consulted a solicitor who said “ah well hard lines, you can’t prove you’re innocent, I’d pay up”, I think I’d be looking for a new solicitor as well as getting a refund of my fees. I’m not inclined to believe we are hearing the full truth from some posters, although that may be sensible from their perspective for the purposes of self-preservation.

This is somehow considered acceptable. I expect a couple of people commenting here will be cracking open a bottle of bubbly knowing that the railway wins again despite having no real evidence either way of whether the claims made were correct, incorrect through a misunderstanding (not fraud), or fraudulent, but it is increasingly clear that it matters not,

This is an unfair post. It seems the police are happy to interview and possibly arrest people suspect of fraud in this case. You and I aren’t privy to the bulk of the evidence and we aren’t ever likely to be. I’m inclined to think that GA have identified a lot of actual fraud using a blunt tool method that has also scooped up people who were using Delay Repay instead of claiming abandoned journeys (which is not a fraud btw). This view is informed by my experience in processing Delay Repay - experience which might be unique among the posters in this part of the forum - and knowing the ease with which suspicious claimants can be identified. Your view appears to be informed by antipathy towards the company and little else.

We routinely see posters claim to have made “a mistake, more than once” in the Disputes section. I wasn’t born yesterday and neither are most of the other posters who take it upon themselves to give advice - advice, by the way, always geared to assisting the accused and keeping them out of the way of the courts.

If a person accused by GA of fraud is innocent, then they should absolutely write back and say so.

There is a systematic bias in this part of the forum for posters to suggest to the accused to “go nuclear” and dig in. That’s mostly informed by the fact it’s not them under the microscope for the offence, and I’m sorry to say a bias towards thinking the accused must be in the right and must be telling us the whole truth. It isn’t usually like that - this is a messy forum full of reading between the lines, and half truths, but generally my advice in this thread has been:

1) If you fiddled your Delay Repay, engage and cooperate. It’ll cost you, but you won’t get done for fraud, which is a whole kettle of fish different and way more serious than RORA or the Bylaws.

2) If you didn’t, tell them so, very abruptly, and do not say anything else.

We’re still waiting for a single poster to come back and say they took option 2.

To everyone unhappy with Greater Anglia’s actions here, I would ask them to consider whether they’d just prefer to skip the civil mediation stage and dump the files on the desk of the police and get them to do the work? Would that be better, having passengers arrested? I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t be better.

 

[Wolfie]

One of the inherent weaknesses with this part of the forum is that we need posters to tell us the truth. We can’t help them effectively if they don’t. However, in many cases, new posters who have committed wrongdoing may approach these threads with the aim of giving as little away as possible, lest they be judged or their posts discovered by the countless TOC staff that read these public forums. That’s understandable, of course.

A criminal prosecution for fraud of this nature will need significant evidence to be successful, because it isn’t up to the accused to prove their innocence. It’s up to the police and the CPS, in conjunction with the victim of the fraud, to provide evidence to convince a jury or magistrates bench of the accused’s guilt.

If I was baselessly accused of fraud, and consulted a solicitor who said “ah well hard lines, you can’t prove you’re innocent, I’d pay up”, I think I’d be looking for a new solicitor as well as getting a refund of my fees. I’m not inclined to believe we are hearing the full truth from some posters, although that may be sensible from their perspective for the purposes of self-preservation.


This is an unfair post. It seems the police are happy to interview and possibly arrest people suspect of fraud in this case. You and I aren’t privy to the bulk of the evidence and we aren’t ever likely to be. I’m inclined to think that GA have identified a lot of actual fraud using a blunt tool method that has also scooped up people who were using Delay Repay instead of claiming abandoned journeys (which is not a fraud btw). This view is informed by my experience in processing Delay Repay - experience which might be unique among the posters in this part of the forum - and knowing the ease with which suspicious claimants can be identified. Your view appears to be informed by antipathy towards the company and little else.

We routinely see posters claim to have made “a mistake, more than once” in the Disputes section. I wasn’t born yesterday and neither are most of the other posters who take it upon themselves to give advice - advice, by the way, always geared to assisting the accused and keeping them out of the way of the courts.

If a person accused by GA of fraud is innocent, then they should absolutely write back and say so.

There is a systematic bias in this part of the forum for posters to suggest to the accused to “go nuclear” and dig in. That’s mostly informed by the fact it’s not them under the microscope for the offence, and I’m sorry to say a bias towards thinking the accused must be in the right and must be telling us the whole truth. It isn’t usually like that - this is a messy forum full of reading between the lines, and half truths, but generally my advice in this thread has been:

1) If you fiddled your Delay Repay, engage and cooperate. It’ll cost you, but you won’t get done for fraud, which is a whole kettle of fish different and way more serious than RORA or the Bylaws.

2) If you didn’t, tell them so, very abruptly, and do not say anything else.

We’re still waiting for a single poster to come back and say they took option 2.

To everyone unhappy with Greater Anglia’s actions here, I would ask them to consider whether they’d just prefer to skip the civil mediation stage and dump the files on the desk of the police and get them to do the work? Would that be better, having passengers arrested? I’m inclined to think it wouldn’t be better.

That is a balanced post.

I would never defend anyone who has committed fraud. Out of curiosity l tried to check what limited records that l have and l have made less than double digit Delay Repay claims, from varying TOCs, over the last 4-5 years. Ironically two of those claims were on the same route with the same TOC within a month. Given that the trains in question (both journeys were at the same time three weeks apart) were both the most heavily delayed on that day some on here would say that looks dubious.

Those who have made a mistake, e.g. in how they make a claim, though..... Particularly if processes vary between TOCs.... I don't think that they are being treated fairly. I can't help feeling that perhaps there but for the grace of God.....

 

[robbeech]

A development to settle some questions.

This evening I’ve spoken to someone who has had a letter and further correspondence but has not posted here.

They have made an above average number of claims and this is suspicious. There was no initial indication that the journeys were suspicious, it merely links the above average claims itself as being suspicious. Clearly the concept of averages is lost on them here.

This person uses one of two train combinations on their outward journey and one of two train combinations on the return as a rule with the odd different one or leisure journey thrown in for good measure. They have work records dating back to the time in question and their shift patterns match up with the trains they would have been on. They can prove they were booked to be at work and this makes sense but with the exception of a few photographs with time stamps here and there which barely proves a handful of journeys (and even fewer were actually delayed ones) they cannot prove they were on those trains, which I suspect nobody can.

On contact, GA say that if they cannot prove they were on those trains then they will be passing their details on to the police as they’ve made an above average number of claims.
they’ve offered a settlement of around £1100 which is just under twice the total claimed.

They are in two minds what to do. They know for a fact they’ve not intentionally filled anything in wrong, and they have a paper ticket. They know for a fact that on every single delay repay claim they can prove they were at work at times that fit the travel times as they’ve been through it to check.

I’d love to say, let them take you to court, but I’m absolutely not convinced that GA’s word won’t be enough to persuade the cps, given the bias that in likely 99.9% of their cases GA win and are right to do so.

They have not been given any specific information about any particular claims, no hint as to dates, times, direction of travel. Just that it’s above average numbers and it’s suspicious for that reason. He did tell me the number of claims but I cannot remember but shall confirm. It wasn’t particularly high. Most claims are 30 minutes due to missed connection and service frequency.
It’s a little shack to London season so the claim amount is what I’d call small.

So, with this it does confirm :

*Guilty until proven innocent using proof that it’s unlikely anyone will have. (In a
Non criminal matter)

*Frightened into paying back every single claim and almost as much again

*Threatened with court just because they’ve made an above average number of claims.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I said, I take everything said in this part of the forum with a heavy pinch of salt. Feel free to DM me the person’s details and I’ll be happy to give them some advice on how to deal with the company, because it sounds like they’re being badly treated.

I’m one of very few posters on this thread who isn’t anonymous and links his public profile in his signature.

Some of the moderating team will also be able to vouch that during my time at two TOCs I acted as a go-to for customer service issues to catch posters who’d been wronged by my colleagues or my employer, and put things right in a fair and just way.

So, I have very little to lose from offering to help, and if I do find that your contact has been mistreated in this way I shall be happy to use my public profile to ask Greater Anglia - publicly - what the hell they are doing.

 

[Chew Chew]

As I said, I take everything said in this part of the forum with a heavy pinch of salt. Feel free to DM me the person’s details and I’ll be happy to give them some advice on how to deal with the company, because it sounds like they’re being badly treated.

I’m one of very few posters on this thread who isn’t anonymous and links his public profile in his signature.

Some of the moderating team will also be able to vouch that during my time at two TOCs I acted as a go-to for customer service issues to catch posters who’d been wronged by my colleagues or my employer, and put things right in a fair and just way.

So, I have very little to lose from offering to help, and if I do find that your contact has been mistreated in this way I shall be happy to use my public profile to ask Greater Anglia - publicly - what the hell they are doing.

I hope Rob's acquaintance does get in contact with you so you can help them if they are as innocent as Rob says they are.

 

[furlong]

Greater Anglia should be treading extremely carefully here. 'Above average' is irrelevant - by definition there will always be some above average and some below average. That on its own should not present any reasonable grounds for suspicion (but might when placed alongside other specific information). Each claim is separate and independent - that's a key premise of this new complicated system the government imposed. Nobody should be being asked to pay back any claim that was valid and correct, while remembering how poor and inconsistent is the "Delay Repay" information in the public domain about what may or should be claimed, as well as the seeming government encouragement to make claims and to do that in a simple unthinking way that often doesn't even allow for guided categorisation of the circumstances leading to any specific claim.

Revision of the schemes is long overdue. The DfT needs to fill in the gaps, Find a way to specify in detail what does and does not qualify and make sure all the separate schemes that share the same name work the same way. Decide nationwide whether or not refunds on cancellation form part of the scheme. The application form should guide people through the detailed circumstances and provide space where other relevant information must be provided - some don't allow any free-form text. While discouraging 'wrong' claims, it would also simplify prosecutions if unambiguous statements such as "I made the complete journey by train as I have documented" were collected and then later disproved from other data sources. I don't envy a prosecutor trying to build even an "obvious" case at the moment - so many hurdles that could have been avoided if a bit more thought had gone into the system.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

They know for a fact that on every single delay repay claim they can prove they were at work at times that fit the travel times as they’ve been through it to check.

I'd encourage @robbeech 's friend to take up @AlterEgo 's offer, but on my understanding of the criminal justice system (and of course IANAL) the point I've quoted means that as far as seeing off prosecution is concerned they're home and dry.

Remember, in law it's not for the defendant to prove their innocence - it's for the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And since the person in this case can show contemporary records matching the trains for which they claimed Delay Repay, there has to be - at the very least - substantial doubt as to whether the claims were fake. So the jury cannot be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the claims were fraudulent and so cannot convict.

 

[Horizon22]

I suspect many people trying to be reasonable have given up because a number of posters seem to have devoted much of their time to showing their enjoyment in watching passengers suffer.

The fact is that we've seen yet another post where someone has spoken to a solicitor and has been advised that as they cannot prove they are innocent, they don't stand a chance. This is somehow considered acceptable. I expect a couple of people commenting here will be cracking open a bottle of bubbly knowing that the railway wins again despite having no real evidence either way of whether the claims made were correct, incorrect through a misunderstanding (not fraud), or fraudulent, but it is increasingly clear that it matters not, and any claim GA are unhappy about IS fraudulent. I agree that quoting a percentage of a figure is unhelpful as a fixed admin charge is likely, if this poster is willing to give us absolute values it will help us understand how GA are looking into this. It comes across as if GA have found a discrepancy, perhaps 1, perhaps more, and as such are considering 100% of claims to be fraudulent and are expecting that money back, would people consider that acceptable?

And how would you (or indeed any of us know this?) GA are evidently not going to be broadcasting their evidence for all to see. And the fact that someone has got a letter from the BTP - as well as others claiming they paid up after being given some spurious journey details by GA - suggests they do at least have some "real evidence".

Unless someone writes back and uneqovically states "yes these are all accurate and I am innoncent" of this (which I don't think anyone here has), then we won't know. We can only go on what people tell us here - only they truly know whether they are or are not innocent. And if they are they should strongly refute it and ask for the investigation to be stopped providing as much details as they can muster. As @AlterEgo suggests, these will be a very small number of edge cases. I also agree they've probably used a blunt tool, although >99% of Delay Repay claimaints on GA need not worry. I don't think "above average" would be a criteria they would use. Probably "significantly above average" at the very least.

 

[EssexGonzo]

This may be a naive question but why did GA not challenge these claims at the point of claim? Or are they retrofitting some recent realisation that they dropped the ball when approving claims?

Or even when a claimant reached the threshold for “above average” if their cased is based on a pattern, rather than a belief that a single claim was fraudulent?

I’d have to concur with @robbeech that this is yet another example of the railway proving that it (or those in control of it) really does like to prove that it is, in no way, passenger-friendly when it comes to fares and rules.

 

[robbeech]

This may be a naive question but why did GA not challenge these claims at the point of claim? Or are they retrofitting some recent realisation that they dropped the ball when approving claims?

Or even when a claimant reached the threshold for “above average” if their cased is based on a pattern, rather than a belief that a single claim was fraudulent?

I’d have to concur with @robbeech that this is yet another example of the railway proving that it (or those in control of it) really does like to prove that it is, in no way, passenger-friendly when it comes to fares and rules.

I’m not sure. It’s been suggested (I don’t remember if it’s based on fact or a sensible possibility) that they are using a new ‘system’ which has the ability to match up details, perhaps using tap in and out data although several examples here are paper tickets so ‘number of claims’ must be a driving factor if not the initial driving factor behind this.

I think their actions overall are appalling but unlike a few here I do stand with the TOCs and understand why they want to minimise fraud and incorrect claims and this operation appears to be doing that, it’s just disappointing that innocent people will and are getting caught up in the cross fire but that is the railway.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't think "above average" would be a criteria they would use. Probably "significantly above average" at the very least

Indeed, I can imagine 'significantly above average' being one of the criteria that GA would use - and probably at an early stage of the process. Assuming the type of average in question to be the mean (stick with me, I'm not just being a pedant arguing about different types of average) number of claims then eliminating people who have made below average numbers of claims will have the effect of eliminating cases where the cost of recovering overpaid Delay Repay greatly exceeds the amount recovered. And I also think that it would eliminate the overwhelming number of potential cases: while I don't have cause to travel on GA, I imagine that most people who claim Delay Repay only ever claim once or twice, rather than making multiple claims each week/month/etc. (I of course accept that there are some people whose journey experience has been such that they have cause to make multiple legitimate claims - but there won't be many of these people). What this means is that there will be a lot of people who have made below average numbers of claims (one or two each) and a small number who have made an above average number of claims (some tens or hundreds of claims). If that's the shape of the curve of number of claimants, then the average number of claims will be something like 1 or 2 or 3. So by having eliminated the long tail of people who have only ever claimed once or twice, GA has (a) saved itself money and (b) avoided the risk of annoying an awful lot of its customers by asking them to pay money back.

But my expectation is that having used the 'above average' criterion to reduce the number of potential cases, other tests would be applied. We've discussed this a number of times in this thread. It might be that GA have compared claims actually made against the most profitable trains to claim against. It might be that they have used smartcard data to see when someone's claim didn't match their apparent location. I'm guessing that it's a combination of these and other tests that we don't know about - and then finally a manual sanity check: @AlterEgo has explained how staff who handle Delay Repay can spot dubious looking claims, so I imagine that experienced staff will look at the list of people due to be sent the initial letter, and remove cases where there's an obvious explanation for a lot of claims.

Will a system like this be perfect? No - as we've all said, some people do some very odd things on their daily commute and they're entirely entitled to do so. But my expectation would be that most letters that GA have issued will be well-founded. Which means that our job here, in giving advice, is to help those people who have received well-founded requests from GA for repayment to see that early settlement is in their best interests, and to help those who have received repayment requests which aren't well-founded to understand what GA have got wrong, clarify that point and get the problem to go away as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

 

[Horizon22]

I think their actions overall are appalling but unlike a few here I do stand with the TOCs and understand why they want to minimise fraud and incorrect claims and this operation appears to be doing that, it’s just disappointing that innocent people will and are getting caught up in the cross fire but that is the railway.

Are they though? Some innocent people might get caught up, but any investigation at any level normally involves accusing innocent people at some point. That isn't solely a "railway" thing. It happens with the police every day! Its happened to me before - it isn't pleasant but if there's reasonable suspicion then it can happen.

As many have said here, the vast vast majority of innocent people have nothing to fear and won't even get a letter. And for those that have posted here, I think almost all have admitted some wrongdoing (although it may not have been deliberately fraudulent per se). This is a very, very small proportion of people that have been targeted. Indeed, by picking up some innocent people - presumably unintentionally - it allows GA or any TOC to refine their model better and improve the targeting of the genuine fraudulent claims.

 

[Haywain]

This may be a naive question but why did GA not challenge these claims at the point of claim?

One reason is that an individual claim in itself may not be obviously dubious but a pattern of claims can be, and once that starts to appear a continuation will provide more evidence for further action to be taken. It should be remembered that it is not making the claim that is the crime, it is the resultant gain from the claim being successful.

 

[Horizon22]

One reason is that an individual claim in itself may not be obviously dubious but a pattern of claims can be, and once that starts to appear a continuation will provide more evidence for further action to be taken. It should be remembered that it is not making the claim that is the crime, it is the resultant gain from the claim being successful.

Is it not a crime (or maybe something else) if it the claim was knowingly false (i.e claiming for a train an individual was never intending to catch)? Because the onus then goes onto the operator accepting / denying it as going into crime territory which seems rather odd.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Is it not a crime (or maybe something else) if it the claim was knowingly false (i.e claiming for a train an individual was never intending to catch)? Because the onus then goes onto the operator accepting / denying it as going into crime territory which seems rather odd.

Knowingly making a false statement, (such as selecting a train you did not catch, or intend to catch), or causing a computer or web form to act in a certain way, based on an electronic response with the intention to make a gain (e.g. compensation) or cause a loss (e.g. Greater Anglia loses money) is fraud all day long.

Whilst the police and Greater Anglia are using the Fraud Act 2006, there could also potentially be offences under Section 3 Computer Misuse Act 1990, depending on whether anyone has attempted to "trick" the claim form.

 

[Fat Gaz]

A development to settle some questions.

This evening I’ve spoken to someone who has had a letter and further correspondence but has not posted here.

They have made an above average number of claims and this is suspicious. There was no initial indication that the journeys were suspicious, it merely links the above average claims itself as being suspicious. Clearly the concept of averages is lost on them here.

This person uses one of two train combinations on their outward journey and one of two train combinations on the return as a rule with the odd different one or leisure journey thrown in for good measure. They have work records dating back to the time in question and their shift patterns match up with the trains they would have been on. They can prove they were booked to be at work and this makes sense but with the exception of a few photographs with time stamps here and there which barely proves a handful of journeys (and even fewer were actually delayed ones) they cannot prove they were on those trains, which I suspect nobody can.

On contact, GA say that if they cannot prove they were on those trains then they will be passing their details on to the police as they’ve made an above average number of claims.
they’ve offered a settlement of around £1100 which is just under twice the total claimed.

They are in two minds what to do. They know for a fact they’ve not intentionally filled anything in wrong, and they have a paper ticket. They know for a fact that on every single delay repay claim they can prove they were at work at times that fit the travel times as they’ve been through it to check.

I’d love to say, let them take you to court, but I’m absolutely not convinced that GA’s word won’t be enough to persuade the cps, given the bias that in likely 99.9% of their cases GA win and are right to do so.

They have not been given any specific information about any particular claims, no hint as to dates, times, direction of travel. Just that it’s above average numbers and it’s suspicious for that reason. He did tell me the number of claims but I cannot remember but shall confirm. It wasn’t particularly high. Most claims are 30 minutes due to missed connection and service frequency.
It’s a little shack to London season so the claim amount is what I’d call small.

So, with this it does confirm :

*Guilty until proven innocent using proof that it’s unlikely anyone will have. (In a
Non criminal matter)

*Frightened into paying back every single claim and almost as much again

*Threatened with court just because they’ve made an above average number of claims.

Can I ask please if your acquaintance taps in/out or passes their ticket through the barriers at every occasion that they travel please?

 

[MotCO]

They have work records dating back to the time in question and their shift patterns match up with the trains they would have been on.

On contact, GA say that if they cannot prove they were on those trains then they will be passing their details on to the police as they’ve made an above average number of claims.

I'm a bit confused. If your friend has got a note of all the trains he claimed DR for and can match this with his work records, why is GA saying he cannot prove he was on those trains. No-one can prove they were on a particular train short of video evidence, or a witness statement from each guard etc., so why is GA saying his work records are not good enough - surely that is better than most people will be able to prove.

They have not been given any specific information about any particular claims, no hint as to dates, times, direction of travel.

Yet GA has not specified these, and therefore your friend does not know which he is being challenged on, and for which he may be able to obtain further evidence that he caught these trains. If the case goes to Court, then the prosecutors have to provide details of their evidence, so why not do this now?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm a bit confused. If your friend has got a note of all the trains he claimed DR for and can match this with his work records, why is GA saying he cannot prove he was on those trains. No-one can prove they were on a particular train short of video evidence, or a witness statement from each guard etc., so why is GA saying his work records are not good enough - surely that is better than most people will be able to prove.



Yet GA has not specified these, and therefore your friend does not know which he is being challenged on, and for which he may be able to obtain further evidence that he caught these trains. If the case goes to Court, then the prosecutors have to provide details of their evidence, so why not do this now?

Providing evidence upfront is not common at all. It is normal for evidence, or even talking about what evidence potentially exists, to only happen much further down the line, normally during an interview under caution.

It's a good tactic to let people deny everything, claim total innocence, and let them stitch themselves up. And, magically, during an interview, the police or agency suddenly produce something that contradicts their story, and all credibility has been lost.

A genuinely honest person need not concern themselves about any "evidence", because they must surely be confident that none exists that contradicts their story. If you protest your innocence, why would I try to change your mind? I don't have to convince you, I have to convince the court.

 

[CentralTrainer]

Timothy Evans was innocent…

I suppose GA have to pay for their shiny new Stadler Flirts somehow

 

[Fat Gaz]

I'm a bit confused. If your friend has got a note of all the trains he claimed DR for and can match this with his work records, why is GA saying he cannot prove he was on those trains. No-one can prove they were on a particular train short of video evidence, or a witness statement from each guard etc.,

Maybe they can. I did a 20 minute google search and pulled up two documents that were very clear in how this could be established.

so why is GA saying his work records are not good enough - surely that is better than most people will be able to prove.

Depends on how far away/long it takes to get to the station, for everybody that could vary. So how does it prove any particular train? It doesn't. Maybe there is a method to establish a person's presence at a particular time that would correlate only with only one departing train in the vicinity? Hmmmmmmmmmm

 

[talldave]

If the claims were based on specific trains, surely GA have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant wasn't on those trains?

If the claims were based on total delay incurred, then surely GA have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant wasn't delayed by the duration they claimed for?

 

[ashkeba]

It's a good tactic to let people deny everything, claim total innocence, and let them stitch themselves up. And, magically, during an interview, the police or agency suddenly produce something that contradicts their story, and all credibility has been lost.

This only seems good if your priority is winning more than gettig to the truth. I know that British justice is adversarial but ambush interviews are awful. There could be a legitimate explanation which the ambush victim either cannot remember or does not have the records with them for.

A genuinely honest person need not concern themselves about any "evidence", because they must surely be confident that none exists that contradicts their story. If you protest your innocence, why would I try to change your mind? I don't have to convince you, I have to convince the court.

Even a genuinely honest person could be concerned that their actions could be made to look bad. Judges and juries are humans, after all.

 

[ukkid]

This only seems good if your priority is winning more than gettig to the truth. I know that British justice is adversarial but ambush interviews are awful. There could be a legitimate explanation which the ambush victim either cannot remember or does not have the records with them for.

That's why people are advised to take a legal adviser with them, who should ask for disclosure before interview and advises accordingly.

 

[eoff]

That's why people are advised to take a legal adviser with them, who should ask for disclosure before interview and advises accordingly.

This is a good point. When there was an earlier discussion about being invited to a voluntary police interview I had a look at a few sites to learn more about this. One strong reason for getting legal representation at such an interview (albeit suggested by the legal profession) was that the police are far more likely to disclose details of any evidence.

At the moment I'm thinking that GA may have statistical reasons to target some people but I can't imagine they would go forward without something stronger, meaning examples of claims where there is an inconsistency in the claim and their records of service delays. This could be due to a misunderstanding of Delay Repay or a mistake on the part of the claimant. Unless someone who has no reason to believe they have any invalid claims gets to the further stages in the legal process and reports back we are not going to find out.

 

[robbeech]

I'm a bit confused. If your friend has got a note of all the trains he claimed DR for and can match this with his work records, why is GA saying he cannot prove he was on those trains. No-one can prove they were on a particular train short of video evidence, or a witness statement from each guard etc., so why is GA saying his work records are not good enough - surely that is better than most people will be able to prove.



Yet GA has not specified these, and therefore your friend does not know which he is being challenged on, and for which he may be able to obtain further evidence that he caught these trains. If the case goes to Court, then the prosecutors have to provide details of their evidence, so why not do this now?

They have details of ALL of their claims, and have details of ALL of their work times for the days of ALL of their claims (and of course every other day where they did not make a claim). They’re not sure which claim or claims GA have an issue with but they have details of all of them and have confirmed their work shifts for all of them. That way if GA do reply with some specifics* they already have this data.

*if there even are specifics. At the moment it is leaning towards their problem simply being ‘above average claims’ so not necessarily relating to any specific claim.
As for proof, work times and train times that match up might not be sufficient proof for them, they might want them to prove it some other way, it doesn’t have to be logical.

As I mentioned above, it’s fine to suggest that they’ll win in court because there is insufficient evidence and plenty to show their defence but this ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ does NOT have to be satisfied outside court so GA CAN and ARE offering people settlements of (in this case) nearly 2 times the ENTIRE claim amounts to stop it going to court under the pretence that whatever they state as a penalty will be lenient compared to court. In the case where the passenger has committed fraud this is accurate but in the case where they have not it is just an attempt to frighten them into paying up.

I’ve passed on messages of offers of help to them. I suspect they’ll appreciate this greatly if the matter doesn’t go away with their reply. Thanks on their behalf (and mine) for this.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

As I mentioned above, it’s fine to suggest that they’ll win in court because there is insufficient evidence and plenty to show their defence but this ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ does NOT have to be satisfied outside court so GA CAN and ARE offering people settlements of (in this case) nearly 2 times the ENTIRE claim amounts to stop it going to court under the pretence that whatever they state as a penalty will be lenient compared to court. In the case where the passenger has committed fraud this is accurate but in the case where they have not it is just an attempt to frighten them into paying up.

I'm fairly sure that someone has let us see the original letter, but I can't work out how to find it right now (tangent - is there a way to search a thread for posts with attachments?). So let's go right back to the original post:

I’ve had a letter from GA telling me that some delay repay claims look suspicious, with a list of 5 or 6 claims from February/March 2020 and asking for an explanation within seven days.

I'm assuming that this is accurate, and the initial letter hasn't changed, but in the first place GA don't offer a settlement: rather, they ask for an explanation. So presumably @robbeech's friend has provided that explanation at the first opportunity, from their contemporary records

If GA haven't accepted the explanation then I agree that the effect is that further proof is being demanded, but what I am most reminded of is the TIL approach to their investigations - that what is said is irrelevant now the wheels of bureaucracy have started to turn. But with TIL, we have found that out of court settlements are in fact available - but only once the case has got away from the bureaucracy and into the hands of someone who treats it as an individual case rather than as one just like all the others (in TIL cases, that's when the prosecutor who will have to explain the case in court gets hold of it).

So it's important in these GA cases to keep in mind what sanctions are available to GA if things go formal. And as this thread has touched on before, the only formal (legal if you like) sanctions available to GA are criminal prosecution (either for a railway offence or fraud) or civil action to recover a debt. Criminal prosecution needs the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt: civil action needs the complainant (? is that the term?) to prove their point on the balance of probability.

So if GA are demanding anything beyond the relevant standards of proof, essentially they can be told to go whistle: the court will not support their more extensive demand and (on the basis of what we have been told) I (who am not a lawyer) would expect @robbeech's friend to win a criminal prosecution and (at the very least) have a good chance in a civil action.

At this point, GA's approach does appear essentially to be 'give us a quid and we'll go away'. But if @robbeech's friend doesn't want to give GA (rather more than) a quid then they need to be firm about relying on their evidence and sticking to their guns.