Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[Tazi Hupefi]

I came across this thread after searching for delay repay fraud solicitors. I wish I had found it earlier. I received the GA letter in early January. In my stupidity I didn’t respond naively thinking that due to the amounts they were quoting (5 claims under a fiver) that I would at least get a further follow up letter. If anyone gets a letter do not ignore it. The fact that you misunderstood the delay repay scheme (guilty of claiming for the train that was cancelled but went back to work for example or asking someone to pick you up from a station rather than wait for the next available train) is not going to be an acceptable response. If you have even one “dodgy” claim and 100 valid claims then ask GA for a settlement figure.

I have just received the letter from the BTP that another user had received and didn’t have any further correspondence from GA following the first letter. Having taken legal advice it seems that once you are at the police letter stage you are probably at best looking at a caution and a hefty fine plus of course legal costs.

DON’T IGNORE THE GA LETTER. A caution or a conviction could put you on the list of unemployed depending on your job. If nothing else I hope my post helps anyone else who doesn’t appreciate how serious this matter is.

You can't be cautioned AND fined, and made to pay costs. There is no cost to a conditional caution issued by the police, but it is a conviction.


I suspect your legal advice has been simplified to make it easy to understand, but you should research "Community Resolution" which is essentially a police led out of court settlement, which can have an element of compensation etc attached to it known as a "reperation". However you would have had to be cooperative at a police interview and essentially admit the offences, with remorse. This is not a conviction or recorded on the Police National Computer, (PNC), but is recorded on other police intelligence systems. If you need an Enhanced CRB it may well appear.

Risky really, if the police decide not to offer the resolution and prosecute instead, you'd not really be able to do much more than plead guilty, but you'd still receive full credit for your early plea and cooperation.

Community Resolution | Your Local Police | West Midlands Police

west-midlands.police.uk

See above link for a brief explanation.

Also, if you need a solicitor, don't pay for one at this stage. The Police are obliged to provide one free of charge, and they are genuinely independent. For an interview, you don't need anyone especially skilled in delay repay or fraud! Check if any of your insurance policies include "Legal Cover" for crime.

 

[jumble]

You can't be cautioned AND fined, and made to pay costs. There is no cost to a conditional caution issued by the police, but it is a conviction.


I suspect your legal advice has been simplified to make it easy to understand, but you should research "Community Resolution" which is essentially a police led out of court settlement, which can have an element of compensation etc attached to it known as a "reperation". However you would have had to be cooperative at a police interview and essentially admit the offences, with remorse. This is not a conviction or recorded on the Police National Computer, (PNC), but is recorded on other police intelligence systems. If you need an Enhanced CRB it may well appear.

Risky really, if the police decide not to offer the resolution and prosecute instead, you'd not really be able to do much more than plead guilty, but you'd still receive full credit for your early plea and cooperation.

Community Resolution | Your Local Police | West Midlands Police

west-midlands.police.uk

See above link for a brief explanation.

Also, if you need a solicitor, don't pay for one at this stage. The Police are obliged to provide one free of charge, and they are genuinely independent. For an interview, you don't need anyone especially skilled in delay repay or fraud! Check if any of your insurance policies include "Legal Cover" for crime.

My understanding is that the Metropolitan Police are fond of using legal advisors who are not actually qualified solicitors

 

[Haywain]

My understanding is that the Metropolitan Police are fond of using legal advisors who are not actually qualified solicitors

This is being handled by the British Transport Police, not the Met.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

My understanding is that the Metropolitan Police are fond of using legal advisors who are not actually qualified solicitors

Anybody at a police station offering legal advice for an interview is accredited under the same scheme, whether a barrister, solicitor or other accredited representative. It's a complete myth that there's any significant difference in the quality of representation.

Police station representatives accreditation scheme

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulates solicitors in England and Wales. Browse the Code of Conduct, Solicitors' Accounts Rules and CPD requirements, or apply for permission to practise. Police Station Representatives Accreditation Scheme

www.sra.org.uk

Representatives have to undertake significant training and sit a gruelling written exam amongst other requirements. They are still regulated.

So essentially, makes absolutely zero difference to a simple interview under caution. If anything, I find these non-solicitor representatives are often more familiar with the interview and disclosure process, and particularly in possession of far more local knowledge about how a particular police force (or even officer) operates, as it's their day to day bread and butter work.

The schedules of the duty solicitors (and what firm they work for) are public information too, see:

Duty solicitors: rotas, information and guidance

Duty solicitors rotas, lists, standard crime contract 2022 and contact details.

www.gov.uk

Nothing to do with the police who turns up to provide legal advice, it's just the next name on the list! So it's completely wrong to say "The Met use XYZ....." - everyone uses the duty rota which contains a mix of representatives, barristers and solicitors from many different firms.

 

[jumble]

Anybody at a police station offering legal advice for an interview is accredited under the same scheme, whether a barrister, solicitor or other accredited representative. It's a complete myth that there's any significant difference in the quality of representation.

Police station representatives accreditation scheme

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) regulates solicitors in England and Wales. Browse the Code of Conduct, Solicitors' Accounts Rules and CPD requirements, or apply for permission to practise. Police Station Representatives Accreditation Scheme

www.sra.org.uk

Representatives have to undertake significant training and sit a gruelling written exam amongst other requirements. They are still regulated.

So essentially, makes absolutely zero difference to a simple interview under caution. If anything, I find these non-solicitor representatives are often more familiar with the interview and disclosure process, and particularly in possession of far more local knowledge about how a particular police force (or even officer) operates, as it's their day to day bread and butter work.

The schedules of the duty solicitors (and what firm they work for) are public information too, see:

Duty solicitors: rotas, information and guidance

Duty solicitors rotas, lists, standard crime contract 2022 and contact details.

www.gov.uk

Nothing to do with the police who turns up to provide legal advice, it's just the next name on the list! So it's completely wrong to say "The Met use XYZ....." - everyone uses the duty rota which contains a mix of representatives, barristers and solicitors from many different firms.

This is very interesting
I have a relative who spends a large amount of time assisting arrested people in interviews and they would agree with your assessment

 

[robbeech]

Risky really, if the police decide not to offer the resolution and prosecute instead, you'd not really be able to do much more than plead guilty,

Plead guilty to fraud? If they’ve used the delay repay system instead of a refund?

 

[Haywain]

if the police decide not to offer the resolution and prosecute instead

It's a CPS decision, not the police.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It's a CPS decision, not the police.

Edited as misunderstood originally.

The CPS can / do authorise charges, but the police don't always need a specific charging decision to be made depending on the offence and circumstances.

Semantics though because the CPS aren't usually going to prosecute a case that the police don't want to be prosecuted, so it's still the police kicking the process off.

The CPS don't get to decide whether a Community Resolution is offered or not, but may suggest it as part of charging advice. That is up to the police.

 

[Haywain]

Edited as misunderstood originally.

The CPS can / do authorise charges, but the police don't always need a specific charging decision to be made depending on the offence and circumstances.

Semantics though because the CPS aren't usually going to prosecute a case that the police don't want to be prosecuted, so it's still the police kicking the process off.

The CPS don't get to decide whether a Community Resolution is offered or not, but may suggest it as part of charging advice. That is up to the police.

My point is that a case will not go to court without CPS approval, regardless of what the police think of it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

My point is that a case will not go to court without CPS approval, regardless of what the police think of it.

That's a little too generic for my liking. Lots of offences (in fact, technically speaking, the vast majority), are prosecuted at court without ANY CPS prior approval or charging decision. This is because there are a lot of low level criminal offences, e.g. motoring, bog standard public order etc that don't require authorisation.

However, for Fraud, you are fairly safe to say that a charging decision will normally be sought. It also used to be the case that all suspected fraud offences anywhere in England/Wales went to the City of London police to review too.

The other caveat is that even if the police dont request a charge, or the CPS don't provide one, GA as a private prosecutor is still at liberty to commence their own proceedings.

Whilst the CPS can then "take over" a private prosecution, (and then usually discontinue it), this is very rare and guidance is that things should be allowed to reach a natural conclusion.

It's not quite as you describe, but for all intents and purposes, you are reasonably correct.

 

[smith12]

The reason I asked a couple of questions earlier is because I have recently been in the same boat and was looking for some advice.

Anyway, let me tell you about my case (which is now ‘closed’ thankfully). Apologies for the long read.

• I received the letter on a Saturday morning, recently. Like the other letters I have seen / heard about, there were some examples of claims I had made that were highlighted as ‘potentially fraudulent’ (I had 5). I was asked to provide an explanation of them. It just gives dates of the claims and journey details. They were all dated roughly 13 months ago and within the space of just over a week
• The letter gives you 7 days to respond by email and it says that based on your response compared to their data, they will then decide whether to give you an opportunity to pay back the claims or be referred to the BTP
• I fretted about what to do for most of the day. I initially thought about ignoring it, but after coming across this forum and seeing a user say they had ignored it (and was then contacted by the BTP for an interview), that was clearly not an option. Therefore, I replied with only a couple of short paragraphs stating that I would not be able to recall my travel for the dates in question, asked if they could they provide more details and also asked what the repayment figure would be
• On the following Monday morning, I got a reply (from Mr Hillier, but possibly an auto-signature) saying they had completed the investigation into my case covering a 24 month period and gave me 6 further examples with more detail (and also said they had even more examples than this), e.g. “this date you claimed the 19:00 from here to here (15 minute delay), you entered the ticket gates at 19:50”. It then went on to ask me how I wanted to proceed. Note that they hadn’t responded to my query about the repayment figure
• The next step was the difficult one. I say this because at this point, they hadn’t actually offered me a settlement figure, so I didn’t know if they still wanted explanations, wanted me to confess (and then have email proof to hand straight to the BTP) or wanted me to plead for the opportunity to settle
• I replied saying I was clearly not aware what constituted a valid claim in all scenarios, but that I understood the implications of it all. I then just offered FULL repayment and asked for bank details
• They came back pretty much immediately with a figure, plus an admin fee. I just paid it straight away and responded to that effect. A little later, they emailed again and said the case was closed

There are a few points I wanted to state –

• In the initial letter, they suggested that THEY would decide if I would be given the opportunity to pay the money back or be reported to the BTP. Yet their email response after my first email to them asked me how I wanted to proceed. This suggested to me that I was in some sort of ‘control’ of the destiny
• I later went through my bank records and the repayment figure they wanted back in claims was far less than the total received over the period of their investigation. The admin fee was charged for their inconvenience of spending time investigating the dubious claims
• By my calculations, the repayment figure was roughly 35% of what was received over the period. The admin fee was a flat £100 on top
• It seems odd that if you ignore it, you get referred straight to the BTP, but if you engage, they are more than happy for you to eventually pay up and just close it out. Big difference between just settling versus possibly being done for fraud and everything that goes with that. Maybe it is different according to how many claims you have made and how many of them are dubious, but all letters have the same text. The only difference appears to be the list of claims in question of course
• I’m not knowledgeable about the police / court process at all, but can only assume it makes sense for them to get you pay back straight away as they get the money instantly and avoid the paperwork / hassle of referring to the BTP and possibly waiting a long time for it to reach court and get paid or not if commuter found not guilty. However, saying that, that user did ignore the letter and GA had no issue referring it to the BTP in that instance
• Their investigation covered 24 months, so it’s lucky I have not travelled for over a year now (due to Covid obviously) as there would no doubt have been more claims on my file

It was a horrible weekend and am glad it is all done and dusted now. The implications of it going to the BTP would potentially be life-changing and not for the better. This will certainly not be repeated.

Hope this helps or gives a decent insight to others

 

[furlong]

e.g. “this date you claimed the 19:00 from here to here (15 minute delay), you entered the ticket gates at 19:50”.
...
it’s lucky I have not travelled for over a year now (due to Covid obviously) as there would no doubt have been more claims on my file
...
This will certainly not be repeated.

Now that you have settled, are you able to understand how this all happened and how things began to go wrong?
Are there things you can think of that the railway could have done that might have avoided it all?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks to @smith12 for sharing their experience.

A couple of points which I think emerge from this and previous posters:
- ignoring the initial correspondence will lead to the case being referred sooner rather than later to the British Transport Police
- it seems to me from what has been said that co-operation is rewarded by a reduced percentage of claims to repay and a lower administration figure.

This isn't the thread to argue the morality of the process (we've got the other thread for that) but if I am right on the above points then our advice to anyone looking to settle should presumably be to co-operate, and look to settle quickly - it will be cheaper and (by definition) quicker. Of course, our advice may be different for someone who has been inadvertently caught up in this.

 

[smith12]

Now that you have settled, are you able to understand how this all happened and how things began to go wrong?
Are there things you can think of that the railway could have done that might have avoided it all?

Yes - I have no issue in admitting that not all my claims were 100% valid and if it only takes one to be like that, then fair enough.

Some claims are open to interpretation, which has been discussed previously in this thread. By that I mean if I wanted to get a train at 18:00 and I got down to the concourse / platform to find it had been delayed or cancelled, I might then decide to go to the shops or even go for a beer if travelling with a mate rather than get the next one in 20 mins, say. I'll then come back later and get a train at 19:30 instead. When I then get an email confirmation in the next day or two from DelayRepaySniper (I was using that) saying that the 18:00 train was delayed or cancelled by +15 mins, I would claim. GA will argue that you should have got the next train, but I think you should be able to claim for the earlier one if you were presenting yourself for travel at that time, but were unable to.

I never understood how a train that has been cancelled has a 'delay' time associated to it though? It might say cancelled and 'delay' to claim is +30 mins.

Anyway, in terms of what the railway could do, their software would have to be more clever to reject claims. They must do it on an individual train basis at the moment. If for example a 17:30 train was delayed, but you could then get the 17:36 to the same destination, it should reject a claim for the earlier one as the later one would only make you less than 15 mins late based on the original time.

Maybe they should also set out guidelines for claim examples, i.e. when you can and cannot claim.

Commuter common sense should prevail too, but it's easy to just feel entitled to claim and when the claim is accepted, you feel that it is valid and closed.

I do feel that this is all a scaremongering exercise and people with genuine claims will be forced to pay back because of the fraud threat. I mean who would actually want to go to court, even if you knew you submitted all claims genuinely? Would cause anxiety issues for the majority of people. Imagine having a court date set for 1 months' time. I wouldn't be able to sleep a single night!

Like I said in my original post, they say they will decide....but it seems that if you ask if you can pay (as of course you want to avoid the other 'option'), they will come back almost immediately with a figure to close.

 

[zero]

• I later went through my bank records and the repayment figure they wanted back in claims was far less than the total received over the period of their investigation. The admin fee was charged for their inconvenience of spending time investigating the dubious claims
• By my calculations, the repayment figure was roughly 35% of what was received over the period. The admin fee was a flat £100 on top

Are you willing to say what percentage of your claims were fully genuine?

 

[_toommm_]

I never understood how a train that has been cancelled has a 'delay' time associated to it though? It might say cancelled and 'delay' to claim is +30 mins.

For the future, the delay is for your journey, not the particular train. So if a train is cancelled and you get another one 15 minutes later, arriving 15 minutes later than planned, that’s your delay.

 

[TJ12345]

For the future, the delay is for your journey, not the particular train. So if a train is cancelled and you get another one 15 minutes later, arriving 15 minutes later than planned, that’s your delay.

But if you decide to not get the next train and wait a bit for a less packed one or a direct one you forfeit your right to claim. At least that appears to me what GA think. I was pulled up on claiming for a 4.30 train, and not getting the packed next train (5.03) that requires a change, and which only gets me into my station 10 mins or so before the direct train (5.30) that follows shortly afterwards.

To be clear I only claimed for the delay had I chosen to get the first train, not for an additional delay caused by my catching the following train

 

[robbeech]

A little update. My friend and GA appear to have reached a stalemate situation.

He still confirms and can supply indirect evidence that he was on the trains.

They still appear to imply that he made perfectly legitimate claims for the bulk of the investigated period but then suddenly every single claim is deemed suspicious. They also reiterate that he is being investigated due to an above average number of claims, and he hasn’t claimed that high a number but it is a high value season ticket so I suspect it might be based on value too.

This investigation (in this instance) is based purely on number/value of claims. They haven’t even bothered to pick some random journeys for their scare tactics, they’ve just listed the ones claimed after they’ve gone past the threshold.

He now awaits contact from the BTP. One of the studio’s solicitors has offered to help him out and it’s now a hot topic in there.

 

[packermac]

But if you decide to not get the next train and wait a bit for a less packed one or a direct one you forfeit your right to claim. At least that appears to me what GA think. I was pulled up on claiming for a 4.30 train, and not getting the packed next train (5.03) that requires a change, and which only gets me into my station 10 mins or so before the direct train (5.30) that follows shortly afterwards.

To be clear I only claimed for the delay had I chosen to get the first train, not for an additional delay caused by my catching the following train

Are you are saying you did not get the 16.30 because it was cancelled?
The GA Passenger Charter says if your train is cancelled and you choose not to travel we will give you a refund. It is quiet (of course) as to if this also applies to a season ticket.
If you then travel on a later service of your choice and it is late I assume you can still claim delay repay per the delay.
What seems unclear to me is if say the 16:30 was cancelled, and the first train is 18:30 and that is 20 minutes late at your destination is if GA are saying you can only claim for 15 minutes delay? Because if that is so that is only DR against a train you happened to be able to take, not the delay to your journey.

 

[MikeWh]

He now awaits contact from the BTP. One of the studio’s solicitors has offered to help him out and it’s now a hot topic in there.

Thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. I'd expect BTP to review the correspondance so far before responding, so there must be a chance that they will advise GA to drop it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Thanks for the update. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out. I'd expect BTP to review the correspondance so far before responding, so there must be a chance that they will advise GA to drop it.

There is nothing for GA to drop, so the BTP cannot advise that. It would also be entirely inappropriate for a police force to tell any person who believes they are a victim of crime to simply "drop it".

What BTP can do is review the evidence, and of their own accord, let GA know that whilst they have recorded their allegation against the suspect, from a police perspective there is insufficient grounds to proceed. However, it is highly unlikely that the police will claim there are insufficient grounds to proceed before they at least have a voluntary interview under caution. They have to investigate an allegation to see if a crime has been committed somehow!

I would also remind everyone that even now, this "suspect" will have a police intelligence record (not PNC, although it will have been checked) held against them for long into the future, detailing that an allegation of fraud was made against them. I would strongly recommend that once this reaches a conclusion, and presumably no action occurs, that a Subject Access Request is made to see what the police are prepared to confirm is recorded, as it normally results in comments like "Insufficient evidence to proceed" rather than "Definitely not guilty / mistaken allegation" being captured. This, for most people, is irrelevant - as they will never have any intention of working within law/policing/finance nor any other role requiring an Enhanced DBS where an unproven allegation of fraud alone is problematic, or other types of vetting procedure, e.g CTC, SC, DV. However, it does present a problem if the person was ever unlucky enough to be accused of fraud again in the future, (railway or otherwise), as it may adversely affect the perception of credibility.

 

[SteveM70]

Are you are saying you did not get the 16.30 because it was cancelled?
The GA Passenger Charter says if your train is cancelled and you choose not to travel we will give you a refund. It is quiet (of course) as to if this also applies to a season ticket.
If you then travel on a later service of your choice and it is late I assume you can still claim delay repay per the delay.
What seems unclear to me is if say the 16:30 was cancelled, and the first train is 18:30 and that is 20 minutes late at your destination is if GA are saying you can only claim for 15 minutes delay? Because if that is so that is only DR against a train you happened to be able to take, not the delay to your journey.

Delay repay applies to a journey, not a train. In that example the passenger intended to get the 1630 but got the 1830 which was 20 minutes late so there’s a 2+ hours DR claim

 

[Wuffle]

I would also remind everyone that even now, this "suspect" will have a police intelligence record (not PNC, although it will have been checked) held against them for long into the future, detailing that an allegation of fraud was made against them. I would strongly recommend that once this reaches a conclusion, and presumably no action occurs, that a Subject Access Request is made to see what the police are prepared to confirm is recorded, as it normally results in comments like "Insufficient evidence to proceed" rather than "Definitely not guilty / mistaken allegation" being captured. This, for most people, is irrelevant - as they will never have any intention of working within law/policing/finance nor any other role requiring an Enhanced DBS where an unproven allegation of fraud alone is problematic, or other types of vetting procedure, e.g CTC, SC, DV. However, it does present a problem if the person was ever unlucky enough to be accused of fraud again in the future, (railway or otherwise), as it may adversely affect the perception of credibility.

Let us hope he has a good solicitor who will ensure that BTP get it right

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Delay repay applies to a journey, not a train. In that example the passenger intended to get the 1630 but got the 1830 which was 20 minutes late so there’s a 2+ hours DR claim

Sorry.... that needs to be far clearer from an advice perspective I feel. Specifically, if a train is cancelled, AND you want Delay Repay, you MUST make the next available journey opportunity, (not necessarily a direct or quieter train). If a train is genuinely too busy to board (and not just uncomfortable), clearly that is not an available journey and you would be entitled to take the next available journey opportunity after that. Seeing a train is cancelled, going to the pub for a bit, and continuing your journey after you've had your last pint is not DR eligible as far as I can ascertain.

 

[SteveM70]

Sorry.... that needs to be far clearer from an advice perspective I feel. Specifically, if a train is cancelled, AND you want Delay Repay, you MUST make the next available journey opportunity, (not necessarily a direct or quieter train).

If you read the post I was replying to, the example specifically stated it was the next train. Stop looking for things that aren’t there

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

If you read the post I was replying to, the example specifically stated it was the next train. Stop looking for things that aren’t there

Your post(s) will be read in isolation by "new" members who won't trawl through pages and pages of advice. It is well worth making sure any comments made are as clear as possible and without the need to reference previous posts which aren't quoted properly.

 

[packermac]

If you read the post I was replying to, the example specifically stated it was the next train. Stop looking for things that aren’t there

From what those being investigated by GA I am not sure they would see my example as a 120 minute DR

 

[maniacmartin]

As I mentioned upthread, GA's PDF claim form actually makes a distinction between the train being delayed and journeys being delayed. Delays to the train can be claimed if <= 59 mins delay. I initially thought that this was a typo as I'm not aware of any other TOC doing this, but given they use different language for delays of an hour or more, I'm more inclined to think it's deliberately worded that way.

 

[NotGreaterA]

Does anyone have any recent news? I've not heard back from GA since Feb/March where they were "investigating"...

 

[robbeech]

Does anyone have any recent news? I've not heard back from GA since Feb/March where they were "investigating"...

Not a word after my friend said he looked forward to seeing them in court.