I was intrigued by
@Tazi Hupefi 's suggestion that wifi could be used to prove if someone was not on a train thay claimed Delay Repay for. But if the train they wanted to catch was cancelled which therefore delayed their journey (and for which a DR was appropriate), and they caught the next train which was not delayed, than GA could assume that the claim was inappropriate. They would be claiming for the earlier cancelled train but the wifi would 'prove' that they were on the later train which was not delayed. Is this where some of the problems arise?
I think the idea that the company is using WiFi login details to support the allegations is very far fetched.
Never seen a thread so full of hot air in my life.
The thing is, guilt doesn't have to be proved by direct evidence ('Mr A claimed Delay Repay for being on the 1800 train, but we have irrefutable proof that at that time on that day he was meeting the Prime Minister in Downing Street so we know he wasn't on the train'): all that is needed is proof beyond reasonable doubt: so at least in theory, the following argument might work: 'It is agreed that Mr A always works from 0830 to 1630: he never leaves his desk early, he never stays in town in the evening and always walks to the station arriving in time for the 1700 train. At his destination he always buys an evening paper from the newsagents that closes at 1800. Yet Mr A has claimed Delay Repay on the most remunerative train each day for hundreds of occasions each year, whether that train leaves at 1030 or 2300 or any other time. Mr A says that it is just luck, and he took those trains. We say that Mr A is lying and it is statistically impossible that he caught the trains he says he did. We invite the jury to find that it is beyond reasonable doubt that these claims weren't genuine.'
Of course, the weak point of this argument is whether Mr A's claimed journey pattern is really impossible, and I suspect a good brief for Mr A would get in a statistician as an expert witness. But if the jury don't go with the expert witness then Mr A loses, and all on circumstantial evidence.
This is really the only post recently that makes any sense.
So many posters are getting wound up by thinking of cases in the individual - that is, if I, a traveller, travelling from London to Manchester, claim for the 0900 which was cancelled, using a flexible one way ticket, how do they know I intended to take it?
The answer in that case is, nobody can prove, and the claim will inevitably be paid.
The allegations GA are levelling are ones of
systemic abuse amounting to fraud, and for that, you don't need to drill down to each individual claim, but rather look at
patterns of behaviour. I have said, repeatedly, that if a person uses RTT or a delay repay "finder" website to claim for the most delayed train every time it's convenient for the bottom line, then don't be surprised if you aren't the only person who's had such an entry-level idea to defraud the company.
I would be very interested to see how many of GA's letter-receivers happen to have claimed for the same, most-delayed trains, multiple times. As nobody has, yet, shared their detailed travel histories sent by GA (very wisely too, I should add), we aren't able to prejudge the cases one way or another.
There has been very little in the way of assistance offered to recent posters, so I will repeat, for the benefit of anyone new here who finds themselves caught in the net:
If you have made fraudulent claims - which, for the avoidance of doubt, are claims you knew you were not entitled to make but made anyway for your own benefit - you should attempt to reach a settlement with the company to prevent the possibility of them passing the case to the police. At that point the matter will "go away".
If you did not make any fraudulent claims, you should defend yourself and write a short letter to the company explaining that you will not be repaying any of the money, that your claims were legitimate and you complied with the TnCs of Delay Repay to the best of your knowledge.
