Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

Firstly I’m no Lawyer however, these allegations are very serious. The purpose of a voluntary interview is for the Police to get you to incriminate yourself. We all talk too much and this is what the Police will rely on to gain information that they can use against you. You are not obliged to attend a voluntary interview. One of the purposes of these letters is the ‘frightened effect’ which try to make you engage under the threat of worse things to come if you don’t. Read the wording of the letter carefully......

Only you know if you have submitted fraudulent claims (and I am in no way suggesting that you have) but it is clear that the TOC have passed this to the Police as they believe there is substance to the claims being made. In my non legal opinion you do not have to respond to this letter, which is basically a request for information but things may accelerate and escalate from here if you do or don’t engage. Not sure what your career is but think about the implications of this, just being arrested regardless of any conviction can cause problems entering countries such as the USA. If convicted for Fraud a number of companies won’t offer employment. At the moment you haven’t responded to any of the letters, this gives you space to breathe for a short period and contemplate your response.

I suggest you review your position and if you feel you may have made an incorrect claim(s) that could be construed as fraudulent consult a criminal Lawyer without delay with the view to obtaining an opinion on your position and representation should a warrant be issued for your arrest or you decide to attend a voluntary interview. if I was in your position that is what I would do.

I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice.

If you don't go to a "voluntary" police interview, the outcome is generally:

1) Your are simply arrested, on suspicion of the offence(s);
2) You are circulated as "wanted" until you are arrested.

You should always go to a voluntary police interview in my view, but only after making all the necessary preparations, e.g. consulting and appointing a solicitor. You need to be in control of the process as much as possible. Being spontaneously arrested will take you by surprise and you will be on the back foot. A solicitor may recommend or suggest an alternative approach of providing a "prepared statement" in advance, but the police will almost certainly still want to put questions to a suspect under caution (even if they know if will be No Comment).

Since the US ESTA revisions, a fraud conviction shouldn't affect eligibility as it is not a fraud against the government. However, a CIFAS marker will likely appear against you eventually, which will probably see your bank accounts shut, credit lines withdrawn and financial institutions will want nothing to do with you for 6 years.

 

[Haywain]

BTP state that they consider that the matter falls under sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. From this I infer that they also think that they have (or at least have a realistic chance of obtaining) sufficient evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution. I further understand that charges under S1 or S2 can go to Crown Court instead of the magistrates.

I think you go further than is reasonable here. I would say that BTP believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, and that could lead to criminal prosecution. My view is that if they believed they had sufficient evidence to succeed in a prosecution they would be making arrests rather than writing polite letters.

Further to comments above about what the recipient of a BTP letter should do, I would advise taking legal advice before attending a voluntary interview, but don't ignore it and wait to be arrested and don't give a 'no comment' interview unless that is what a solicitor advises.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I think you go further than is reasonable here. I would say that BTP believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, and that could lead to criminal prosecution. My view is that if they believed they had sufficient evidence to succeed in a prosecution they would be making arrests rather than writing polite letters.

Further to comments above about what the recipient of a BTP letter should do, I would advise taking legal advice before attending a voluntary interview, but don't ignore it and wait to be arrested and don't give a 'no comment' interview unless that is what a solicitor advises.

I can't see at the moment that arrests would be necessary. The police can't just go round arresting people unless there's an element of necessity, which is usually risk of harm, prevent further offending, preserve and secure evidence etc, or eventually, failing to attend voluntarily.

Especially if there's lots of cases like this. You'd have the custody suite packed out, and from experience BTP generally share facilities with the local force.

It also looks better during the prosecution phase as it makes the police look like they tried to give voluntary opportunities to cooperate at an early stage.

 

[Haywain]

I can't see at the moment that arrests would be necessary. The police can't just go round arresting people unless there's an element of necessity, which is usually risk of harm, prevent further offending, preserve and secure evidence etc, or eventually, failing to attend voluntarily.

Especially if there's lots of cases like this. You'd have the custody suite packed out, and from experience BTP generally share facilities with the local force.

It also looks better during the prosecution phase as it makes the police look like they tried to give voluntary opportunities to cooperate at an early stage.

Clearly the BTP have provided an opportunity to voluntarily cooperate, and arrests don't always need to happen but having a policeman turn up at your front door will focus the mind and could be embarrassing at the least.

 

[AlterEgo]

The most telling thing about the police now seeking to voluntarily interview people is that they clearly have more questions to ask than "that's a lot of claims, isn't it?".

 

[Kane11]

I presume it is GA’s preference to resolve these with the individuals and without the need to refer them on to BTP?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

So without getting into another round of whether (morally speaking) GA should be acting in the way they are, I think that our advice should now emphasize to anyone who has intentionally claimed DR they weren't entitled to that the matter could get serious (as in a crown court conviction and conceivably prison) so it is well worth trying to settle out of court.

I think you go further than is reasonable here. I would say that BTP believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, and that could lead to criminal prosecution. My view is that if they believed they had sufficient evidence to succeed in a prosecution they would be making arrests rather than writing polite letters.

I'm not going to say you're wrong. But I think the point to draw - whether from how you word it or how I do - is that ignoring GA and hoping the problem will go away is no longer an option. Without getting into the morality of what GA are doing, they clearly believe that they are on firm ground. We can't advise people who come to us for help to treat this as fishing by GA (and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't think that you have been doing so).


********** Posts automerged - a new issue below **********

I presume it is GA’s preference to resolve these with the individuals and without the need to refer them on to BTP?

We're starting from a pretty small evidence base, but as far as we've seen no-one who has sought a settlement has been refused - and from the one police letter that we've seen, that seems to have followed the railway letter.

 

[talldave]

Exactly - I'm just taking "Lead Investigator" as meaning the "guy in charge" but it may well mean something more specific to those in the know

"Lead investigator" is conveniently ambiguous. It could be someone who investigates leads along with lots of other lead investigators or it could be the person leading the operation. This is American, but the sentiment still applies: Don't talk to the police.

It would be interesting to hear the questions asked in a voluntary interview, even if a brief "No Comment" one, as it would require BTP to put some or all of their cards on the table.

 

[WesternLancer]

"Lead investigator" is conveniently ambiguous. It could be someone who investigates leads along with lots of other lead investigators or it could be the person leading the operation. This is American, but the sentiment still applies: Don't talk to the police.

It would be interesting to hear the questions asked in a voluntary interview, even if a brief "No Comment" one, as it would require BTP to put some or all of their cards on the table.

excellent link - enjoyable to listen to (not that this would apply to our good old British bobbies, surely.... )

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

"Lead investigator" is conveniently ambiguous. It could be someone who investigates leads along with lots of other lead investigators or it could be the person leading the operation. This is American, but the sentiment still applies: Don't talk to the police.

It would be interesting to hear the questions asked in a voluntary interview, even if a brief "No Comment" one, as it would require BTP to put some or all of their cards on the table.

It's going to be pretty routine in first interview.

What is your email address? Is THIS your email address?
Is this your bank/PayPal/debit card? Do you have sole control of it? Who else knows the details?
On x data at x time do you remember your whereabouts?
Where do you work?
What hours do you normally work?
Are those hours usually fixed?
Do you know what Delay Repay is? Tell me your understanding of the scheme.
Have you ever claimed Delay Repay?
How often have you claimed Delay Repay?
Do you know what fraud is?
Have you ever committed fraud?
Have you ever claimed Delay Repay?
Why did you claim Delay Repay?
Are all of your claims genuine?
Did you make THIS (and other) claims?
Tell me what you know/remember about this/these claims.
Is it possible you've made some mistakes/ errors in the claims?

A second interview (if necessary) would probably be more intense and start revealing their evidence, e.g.:

Can you explain why this data shows your smartcard (that you previously admitted nobody else uses, and you've never given to anyone else), in Location A at this date/time, but your claim (that you admit you made) shows you in Location B?

Your employer advises you were in X location that day on a business trip, can you explain why you claimed for your "usual commute"?

We have CCTV (or other evidence, e.g. bank card being used in a shop etc) of xyz - proving you were not in that location / on that train.


And so on. The first interview should instill a sense of "safety", a sense that it's just a friendly conversation. In reality, it's a trap, as "routine" questions can bite you later, assuming you have been up to no good.

 

[Wuffle]

My late father in law was a policeman his advice - say nothing without a solicitor

 

[philthetube]

After explaining that I had unwittingly (wrongly) claimed delay repay for an “abandoned journey” .....total of 4 journeys over the last 15 months totalling £35 in paid out compensation I was informed that the delay repay dept is separate from customer services and that ignorance of the law is no excuse blah blah and that the compensation claims were still fraudulent and “how would I like to continue ?”...long story short I work in the city and can’t risk a blot on my copybook and so settled for a total sum less than £100.
Maybe I watch too many court room dramas on TV but would you risk your career on a moot point of train bye laws?GA obviously think not

It's perhaps worth summarising what we now know (or, on the limited evidence we have seen, we can assume):

- GA are writing to some people who have claimed Delay Repay (DR) seeking repayment along with an administrative fee
- where people choose to make the repayment in settlement, that's the end of the matter
- to at least some extent, GA are prepared to correspond about the matter, giving further details of some of the DR claims that they are challenging. But we have seen nothing to suggest that GA are prepared to negotiate down the size of the settlement (and neither have we seen anything to suggest that they aren't).
- we have not seen GA refuse to offer a settlement
- GA are prepared to pass cases on to BTP. We don't know if these are cases where the people involved haven't engaged with the process, or where a settlement hasn't been agreed.
- BTP state that they consider that the matter falls under sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. From this I infer that they also think that they have (or at least have a realistic chance of obtaining) sufficient evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution. I further understand that charges under S1 or S2 can go to Crown Court instead of the magistrates.

So without getting into another round of whether (morally speaking) GA should be acting in the way they are, I think that our advice should now emphasize to anyone who has intentionally claimed DR they weren't entitled to that the matter could get serious (as in a crown court conviction and conceivably prison) so it is well worth trying to settle out of court.

Edited to add: For people who have got to the stage of getting the 'police letter', my feeling is that we are close to being out of our depth: we know about trains, and to some extent about railway-specific law. But not many of us are lawyers or police officers, so we can't really tell them what will happen now that the police are involved. My feeling is that we need to point them towards talking to a real lawyer (with the usual advice on where to find one) - or at the very least to take a friend with them if they go to see the police.

The above post suggests to me that they are prepared to negotiate down, though it does not specifically say so, I cannot imagine them starting a chase, expecting a return of less than £100

 

[robbeech]

- BTP state that they consider that the matter falls under sections 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006. From this I infer that they also think that they have (or at least have a realistic chance of obtaining) sufficient evidence to succeed in a criminal prosecution. I further understand that charges under S1 or S2 can go to Crown Court instead of the magistrates.

I would suggest (and this is based on experience of a (non railway) matter that was duly thrown out of court and the company trying to bring fraud charges got in a LOT of trouble for it for presenting no real evidence) that it is entirely possible that the BTP are acting on the basis that GA may have TOLD them they have sufficient evidence and their initial involvement is relying on this. Of course this has the similar levels of convenience to the letters from GA in that it frightens people.

Further to comments above about what the recipient of a BTP letter should do, I would advise taking legal advice before attending a voluntary interview, but don't ignore it and wait to be arrested and don't give a 'no comment' interview unless that is what a solicitor advises.

I'm afraid I would have to disagree and suggest that a 'no comment' interview MUST be the default unless a solicitor advises otherwise. You would only have to make a genuine mistake converting from a 24 hour clock in an answer and it's another tick in the box.

 

[yorkie]

Please note that the forum cannot give legal advice and anyone contacted by the BTP is strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice.

While I cannot personally recommend any specific solicitors, I am aware of other forum members who had success with Penman Sedgwick (I have no connection to this company and indeed have not had any communications with them); they specialise in areas such as railway fare evasion as well as fraud defence matters:

https://penmansedgwick.com/fare-evasion/

If you need any advice relating to fare evasion please contact us, and we will respond as soon as possible, or call us on 01923 225212.

If you need any advice relating to fraud defence please contact us, and we will respond as soon as possible, or call us on 01923 225212.

 

[jumble]

Anyone in doubt about these delay repay letters from Greater Anglia, I received a letter from the British transport police asking for me to make contact. I ignored the letter from Greater Anglia and now the police are involved. Beware guys!!

My only observations in conjunction to all the other excellent advice you have received are
The Police are not your friends
You are playing a game with the police where they make the rules and have plenty of practice.
A legal representative at any interview acting as an umpire should help ensure the police are not tempted to misbehave by misleading you .
You need to be prepared to be waiting for a considerable time for a legal rep to turn up if on spec for a voluntary attendance as it is my understanding that nowadays the legal reps work on the most convenient calls by route rather than by order of time of call.
You should follow the legal representatives advice to the letter as they do this every day and you probably do not.

 

[Haywain]

I'm afraid I would have to disagree and suggest that a 'no comment' interview MUST be the default unless a solicitor advises otherwise.

Unless you think trying a 'no comment' interview without having a solicitor present is a good idea, then we are in agreement.

 

[jumble]

Unless you think trying a 'no comment' interview without having a solicitor present is a good idea, then we are in agreement.

Just a small correction in case anyone is confused
My understanding is that there is no guarantee that the person who turns up in a police station who has been called by the Police will be a solicitor
He/she could be an accredited representative from solicitors firm

 

[Foolish2020]

This thread has gone quiet, are there any updates from anyone?

I had the letter, responded and of the hand full detailed in the letter, there did appear to be a few mistakes. Instantly agreed to pay, then the figure dramatically increased to a sum that is in no way accurate.
Advised if I don’t pay, I would be reported to the BTP.
I have paid the sum, along with the admin fee, as I want the issue closed with no further action.

My gut feel is that, all delay repay is being treated as fraud and every payment has been clawed back for 2019/20. I don’t have any data and having spoken to a solicitor, I will never win.

I have paid now, so hopefully it’s finished with, but I am wondering if anyone else had a similar experience? Or if indeed you have pushed back and they have backed down ?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This thread has gone quiet, are there any updates from anyone?

I had the letter, responded and of the hand full detailed in the letter, there did appear to be a few mistakes. Instantly agreed to pay, then the figure dramatically increased to a sum that is in no way accurate.
Advised if I don’t pay, I would be reported to the BTP.
I have paid the sum, along with the admin fee, as I want the issue closed with no further action.

My gut feel is that, all delay repay is being treated as fraud and every payment has been clawed back for 2019/20. I don’t have any data and having spoken to a solicitor, I will never win.

I have paid now, so hopefully it’s finished with, but I am wondering if anyone else had a similar experience? Or if indeed you have pushed back and they have backed down ?

People who went on the offensive, appear to have ended up in a worse position anecdotally or simply did not return to update us, which probably speaks for itself really. At least one person who just ignored it received a letter from the police telling them they were being invited to a police station to be interviewed under caution for fraud by false representation, with a distinct hint of "voluntary, but not really" about it. So it's not a bluff.

The "sum" they requested did not have to be an accurate repayment of what you'd incorrectly claimed, and indeed, it probably should have had an element of a "penalty" about it. Otherwise, people making "mistakes" whether accidentally, or fraudulently, would simply only return the money they'd benefited from. There had to be a punitive element (as well as administrative costs incurred). I suspect you originally just wanted to repay back the incorrect claim value, but that was never going to be acceptable.

I don't think you are correct either, that ALL delay repay is being treated as fraud. There would have been millions of claims, (or certainly hundreds of thousands), from hundreds of thousands of different people. There is some sort of criteria and filtering being applied, arguably quite effectively, if you have conceded that multiple claims you have made yourself had some "mistakes" in them.

There have been very few (any?) people on this forum who have protested that they are sure that they have never made any mistakes and are sure their claims are entirely genuine. We have advised anybody who is sure they have never knowingly committed fraud to follow the process to a conclusion, instead of settling. However, only you and others receiving the letter will know whether your multiple mistakes were "fraudulent". People justify mistakes in different ways, carelessness, confusion etc, but the train operator only has to prove that ONE single claim was knowingly dodgy. Lots of commuters will have taken advantage, thinking one or two "mistakes" wouldn't get flagged, and certainly not imagining that they were committing fraud with that mindset.

If you accept you've made mistakes, and have paid up - I'd put the matter behind you, and take more care in the future. If you're going to create a fuss about it, I would definitely wait a lot longer before you do so. There's an active police operation, and you definitely do not want to be dragged into that.

 

[Foolish2020]

People who went on the offensive, appear to have ended up in a worse position anecdotally or simply did not return to update us, which probably speaks for itself really. At least one person who just ignored it received a letter from the police telling them they were being invited to a police station to be interviewed under caution for fraud by false representation, with a distinct hint of "voluntary, but not really" about it. So it's not a bluff.

The "sum" they requested did not have to be an accurate repayment of what you'd incorrectly claimed, and indeed, it probably should have had an element of a "penalty" about it. Otherwise, people making "mistakes" whether accidentally, or fraudulently, would simply only return the money they'd benefited from. There had to be a punitive element (as well as administrative costs incurred). I suspect you originally just wanted to repay back the incorrect claim value, but that was never going to be acceptable.

I don't think you are correct either, that ALL delay repay is being treated as fraud. There would have been millions of claims, (or certainly hundreds of thousands), from hundreds of thousands of different people. There is some sort of criteria and filtering being applied, arguably quite effectively, if you have conceded that multiple claims you have made yourself had some "mistakes" in them.

There have been very few (any?) people on this forum who have protested that they are sure that they have never made any mistakes and are sure their claims are entirely genuine. We have advised anybody who is sure they have never knowingly committed fraud to follow the process to a conclusion, instead of settling. However, only you and others receiving the letter will know whether your multiple mistakes were "fraudulent". People justify mistakes in different ways, carelessness, confusion etc, but the train operator only has to prove that ONE single claim was knowingly dodgy. Lots of commuters will have taken advantage, thinking one or two "mistakes" wouldn't get flagged, and certainly not imagining that they were committing fraud with that mindset.

If you accept you've made mistakes, and have paid up - I'd put the matter behind you, and take more care in the future. If you're going to create a fuss about it, I would definitely wait a lot longer before you do so. There's an active police operation, and you definitely do not want to be dragged into that.

Agreed, I want the matter closed.

I was simply curious as to what other people were seeing.

 

[Tallguy]

I had the letter, responded and of the hand full detailed in the letter, there did appear to be a few mistakes. Instantly agreed to pay, then the figure dramatically increased to a sum that is in no way accurate.

Would you be willing to state the amount you first offered to pay and the amount you ended up paying? Or the percentage difference between the 2 please as this may help brief/warn others what to expect.....

 

[Foolish2020]

From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.

Would you be willing to state the amount you first offered to pay and the amount you ended up paying? Or the percentage difference between the 2 please as this may help brief/warn others what to expect.....

From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.


From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.

That's not all that helpful! A £100 settlement for a £10 "dodgy delay repay claim" is 900% more, but still more than fair.

Percentages aren't overly helpful here I'm afraid.

 

[HSP 2]

From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.


From the figures quoted in the letter, the actual amount paid including the admin charge was a 1215% increase.

Are you sure that you have got the % figures correct?

 

[ashkeba]

There is some sort of criteria and filtering being applied, arguably quite effectively, if you have conceded that multiple claims you have made yourself had some "mistakes" in them.

But @Foolish2020 only said that there appeared to have been mistakes. We do not know if @Foolish2020 still had their own records of the claims to confirm whether there were real mistakes, or even whether those mistakes were like the one discussed above of using Delay Repay Thameslink-style for cancellations when GA requires people to use a different form.

There have been very few (any?) people on this forum who have protested that they are sure that they have never made any mistakes and are sure their claims are entirely genuine.

I do not think that is correct. I am confident there are many forum users who are sure our claims were entirely genuine. But so far we are yet to get letters, maybe because we have not claimed much from GA, or maybe because we do not use smartcards. If we do get letters, some of us do not have detailed records of claims so whether we can defend ourselves or have to settle will depend on which claims GA challenge.

but the train operator only has to prove that ONE single claim was knowingly dodgy. Lots of commuters will have taken advantage, thinking one or two "mistakes" wouldn't get flagged, and certainly not imagining that they were committing fraud with that mindset.

It may be "lots" to you, but it still will be a tiny percent.

 

[Foolish2020]

Are you sure that you have got the % figures correct?

Yes they are correct

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

But @Foolish2020 only said that there appeared to have been mistakes. We do not know if @Foolish2020 still had their own records of the claims to confirm whether there were real mistakes, or even whether those mistakes were like the one discussed above of using Delay Repay Thameslink-style for cancellations when GA requires people to use a different form.


I do not think that is correct. I am confident there are many forum users who are sure our claims were entirely genuine. But so far we are yet to get letters, maybe because we have not claimed much from GA, or maybe because we do not use smartcards. If we do get letters, some of us do not have detailed records of claims so whether we can defend ourselves or have to settle will depend on which claims GA challenge.


It may be "lots" to you, but it still will be a tiny percent.

My point was that the poster seemed to be under some illusion ALL claimants from 2019-20 were being contacted. If that was the case, we'd have seen thousands of people on this forum, and even more in the media, so it's clearly not the case. As you say, it will be a tiny number, probably under 1%.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do not think that is correct. I am confident there are many forum users who are sure our claims were entirely genuine. But so far we are yet to get letters, maybe because we have not claimed much from GA, or maybe because we do not use smartcards.

Or maybe because your claims are genuine and there is nothing suspicious about them.

It still hasn't hit home to a lot of people on this thread that bogus claims on season tickets across a year or so stick out like a sore thumb. The continuous theme of "hmm this must be a fishing exercise" has been mostly informed by existing antipathy to GA, and has been absolutely diabolical and irresponsible advice to people suspected of a serious criminal offence.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Or maybe because your claims are genuine and there is nothing suspicious about them.

It still hasn't hit home to a lot of people on this thread that bogus claims on season tickets across a year or so stick out like a sore thumb. The continuous theme of "hmm this must be a fishing exercise" has been mostly informed by existing antipathy to GA, and has been absolutely diabolical and irresponsible advice to people suspected of a serious criminal offence.

Agreed, particularly the last point. Some of the anti Greater Anglia sentiment on here has potentially influenced readers and visitors to this forum to go on the offensive or ignore letters because certain members were so critical. I note that since confirmation of police involvement, most of those posters have wisely stepped back.

Businesses, especially those considering legal proceedings don't just go on a fishing trip and make threats of police involvement without at least some basis to it. Greater Anglia provided people with an opportunity to respond and settle or deny and have the police review the case.

Just because a train operator may not have the greatest customer service, or their trains are late often, does not mean they conspire to rip off their customers.

 

[robbeech]

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?