Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[CentralTrainer]

Looks like a case of "all mouth and no trousers" from GA - they obviously have made enough out of scaring people into paying up to hit their financial targets for the year.

They know that they'd be laughed out of court if someone accused of this wrongly manages to engage a solicitor who knows the industry.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Looks like a case of "all mouth and no trousers" from GA - they obviously have made enough out of scaring people into paying up to hit their financial targets for the year.

They know that they'd be laughed out of court if someone accused of this wrongly manages to engage a solicitor who knows the industry.

There is an unlimited amount of time available to Greater Anglia - I wouldn't get too comfortable. It would be worth confirming with GA that any potential investigation has been closed, and letters etc haven't gone missing, or they are still looking into matters.

 

[stew]

I do wonder how many posters on this thread are employees of GA?

Failing that, I imagine the “Case Managers” from GA are monitoring these pages and rub their hands where posters are being “encouraged” to pay everything which GA request.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I do wonder how many posters on this thread are employees of GA?

Failing that, I imagine the “Case Managers” from GA are monitoring these pages and rub their hands where posters are being “encouraged” to pay everything which GA request.

I doubt there would be any at all posting.

I am quite sure they will be monitoring and well aware of the content!

 

[jon0844]

I doubt there would be any at all posting.

I am quite sure they will be monitoring and well aware of the content!

That is certainly guaranteed! They absolutely would not post anything at all, any more than they'd post in response to anything else in the Disputes and Prosecutions section.

 

[nw1]

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 is quite appalling if he is being investigated simply due to an "above average number of claims". If this is indeed true, and they do not have a shred of evidence of actual fraud, why should he have to write an explanatory letter like he is some sort of criminal?

Imagine if you walked through some well-to-do housing estate an "above average number of times", but on public roads, so they can't get you for trespass. It would be like the police writing a threatening letter to you asking for explanation of this, because you "might" have committed a burglary.

 

[AlterEgo]

If this is indeed true, and they do not have a shred of evidence of actual fraud

None of us know if this is the case; it's the thread that won't die. Almost everything in the thread is supposition based on, at best, incomplete evidence and testimony from all involved.

 

[robbeech]

This is quite appalling if he is being investigated simply due to an "above average number of claims". If this is indeed true, and they do not have a shred of evidence of actual fraud, why should he have to write an explanatory letter like he is some sort of criminal?

Imagine if you walked through some well-to-do housing estate an "above average number of times", but on public roads, so they can't get you for trespass. It would be like the police writing a threatening letter to you asking for explanation of this, because you "might" have committed a burglary.

It’s one of many triggers. Most people here appear to have triggered a letter based on tap in and out data, much of which has caught them red handed proving the necessity of a scheme such as this.

As for walking and having to explain why you were walking to prove you’re not a burglar, this sort of thing certainly happens.
Another example is on the roads, there’s a road not too far from me that on an evening, if you drive on it more than twice in an hour you’ll get flagged and you’ll get a letter talking about anti social behaviour, or if officers are in the area you’ll be stopped and immediately assumed to be a criminal, having to prove you were doing something innocent or you’ll face a potential prosecution. I don’t think any of it has ever gone anywhere without further evidence but you absolutely are a criminal if it’s convenient for you to be a criminal in many areas.

 

[nw1]

It’s one of many triggers. Most people here appear to have triggered a letter based on tap in and out data, much of which has caught them red handed proving the necessity of a scheme such as this.

As for walking and having to explain why you were walking to prove you’re not a burglar, this sort of thing certainly happens.
Another example is on the roads, there’s a road not too far from me that on an evening, if you drive on it more than twice in an hour you’ll get flagged and you’ll get a letter talking about anti social behaviour, or if officers are in the area you’ll be stopped and immediately assumed to be a criminal, having to prove you were doing something innocent or you’ll face a potential prosecution. I don’t think any of it has ever gone anywhere without further evidence but you absolutely are a criminal if it’s convenient for you to be a criminal in many areas.

Sorry for the OT reply - but - I'm certainly aware of police stopping you "there and then" on these sorts of occasions - including one when I was running for a train and got stopped by the police because they thought I was a criminal. Luckily I still got train - just - but would have been none too happy if the police had stopped me getting the train. However writing a letter later on based on earlier "suspicious behaviour", as opposed to actual observed criminal activity, would probably not happen.

 

[norfolk123]

My partner received one of the infamous GA threatening letters in March this year, relating to journeys made during 3-4 months prior to the first lockdown in 2020. They were given very little time to respond and their case was passed to BTP. Since then we have have not heard anything. My partner is a very anxious person and suffers from stress, so the last six months have been absolute hell with the prospect of a legal case hanging over us. My partner's employer has asked their staff to return to the office to work from October. My partner is terrified of commuting now, not just because of the pandemic, but largely because they fear being targetted by GA again, so has taken voluntary redundancy.
Does anyone know how long BTP take once a case has been handed to them?
My partner's health continues to deteriorate and is now further stressed as they have no job.

 

[WesternLancer]

My partner received one of the infamous GA threatening letters in March this year, relating to journeys made during 3-4 months prior to the first lockdown in 2020. They were given very little time to respond and their case was passed to BTP. Since then we have have not heard anything. My partner is a very anxious person and suffers from stress, so the last six months have been absolute hell with the prospect of a legal case hanging over us. My partner's employer has asked their staff to return to the office to work from October. My partner is terrified of commuting now, not just because of the pandemic, but largely because they fear being targetted by GA again, so has taken voluntary redundancy.
Does anyone know how long BTP take once a case has been handed to them?
My partner's health continues to deteriorate and is now further stressed as they have no job.

This of course is all not good at all - and sorry to read it. But I assume GA would not target anyone in the future (admittedly who was not on their list) if such a person refrained from making any delay repay claims and ensured they had a valid ticket at all times (and I would think that if you bought paper tickets they would not even know that someone who had received one of their letters was using a train again). Simply buy tickets from machines or staffed counter with cash - ok perhaps not an annual season ticket, but.... That's what I generally do anyway, just as that's how I prefer to manage my money.

Ref the letters from GA had your partner made any 'questionable' D-R claims would you say?

Apols, can't answer on how long BTP take to respond on this. I think somewhere up thread but prob not easy to find was someone who had posted saying had been questioned by BTP. I just hope i recalled that correctly.

Genuinely sorry to hear this has had the impact on your partner that you describe however.

 

[guilbert]

My understanding is that proceedings in a magistrates court would have to be started within 6 months. I think technically crown court proceedings could be brought at any time but that seems pretty unlikely assuming we're not talking about some massive fraud. GA could also bring civil proceedings within 6 years but clearly the longer they leave it the harder their case becomes to prove. I'm not a layer though and may be wrong on that.

In any case though:

• It's been nearly 5 months since anyone reported a new letter or any sort of contact from GA or the BTP on here.
• It seems fairly obvious that the negative publicity of going after a large number of commuters who submitted claims as a result of their delayed trains is going to make the whole exercise self limiting.
• Neither the BTP nor the CPS are going to have a great deal of enthusiasm for dealing with a large number of dubious-at-best "fraud" claims for a few quid going back months/years.

I would be willing to bet that GA have shelved the whole thing and that your case never made it to the BTP and would be inclined to forget about it (and, frankly there's not much you can actually do anyway).

 

[AlterEgo]

My understanding is that proceedings in a magistrates court would have to be started within 6 months. I think technically crown court proceedings could be brought at any time but that seems pretty unlikely assuming we're not talking about some massive fraud. GA could also bring civil proceedings within 6 years but clearly the longer they leave it the harder their case becomes to prove. I'm not a layer though and may be wrong on that.

In any case though:

• It's been nearly 5 months since anyone reported a new letter or any sort of contact from GA or the BTP on here.
• It seems fairly obvious that the negative publicity of going after a large number of commuters who submitted claims as a result of their delayed trains is going to make the whole exercise self limiting.
• Neither the BTP nor the CPS are going to have a great deal of enthusiasm for dealing with a large number of dubious-at-best "fraud" claims for a few quid going back months/years.

I would be willing to bet that GA have shelved the whole thing and that your case never made it to the BTP and would be inclined to forget about it (and, frankly there's not much you can actually do anyway).

It’s not correct to state that if nothing has happened within six months she is safe.

Fraud, regardless of the size or severity, is an *indictable offence* and is not subject to the six month limitation whether it ends up in a crown court or dealt with by magistrates.

 

[guilbert]

It’s not correct to state that if nothing has happened within six months she is safe.

Fraud, regardless of the size or severity, is an *indictable offence* and is not subject to the six month limitation whether it ends up in a crown court or dealt with by magistrates.

You're right, apologies.

Nonetheless - I think the odds of hearing anything further are pretty slim.

 

[nanstallon]

The 'presumption of innocence' only applies when a case is being heard in Court, and only in criminal cases at that. Of course most people don't want to risk their day in Court, so they're highly likely to agree to settlements - even if they didn't do anything wrong - if the railway makes an accusation against them and threatens to prosecute/claim.

The problem here arises because our legal system allows private prosecutions, and even goes so far as to delegate private entities like TOCs the right to issue their own summonses and SJPNs. The normal checks and balances of the judicial system are completely sidestepped by this, and since I private prosecutions inherently involve a conflict of interests, there is no place for such biased systems in a modern society.

I agree. The OP can hardly be expected to remember details from almost a year ago, while the TOC has the advantage of having its records of train running. I suspect that the TOCs are trying to discourage delay repay claims; if word gets around that your claim is going to be looked into months later with the risk of prosecution, many people will not want to risk even making an honest claim. The whole system is weighted towards the TOC's favour.

More and more, I feel like just jumping in the car, given the adversarial attitude of TOCs towards the customer.

 

[AlterEgo]

You're right, apologies.

Nonetheless - I think the odds of hearing anything further are pretty slim.

I can’t be certain, but everything seems to have gone very quiet since the first posts in this thread so I’m inclined to agree the majority (if not all) of actions have been dropped.

 

[vinnym70]

GA have a PR piece out today about recovering £4m+ from fare dodgers and fraudsters in 2021 - confirming over £450k of this figure is from recovery of fraudulent delay repay per this thread.

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/abo...fraudsters-pay-over-£4-million-greater-anglia

Interestingly: Greater Anglia’s fraud department uncovered £451,184.16 in fraudulent delay repay claims, where passengers had claimed delay repay compensation for journeys they hadn’t made.

 

[jon0844]

I wonder how much they're going to get by clamping down on short ticketing.

 

[robbeech]

GA have a PR piece out today about recovering £4m+ from fare dodgers and fraudsters in 2021 - confirming over £450k of this figure is from recovery of fraudulent delay repay per this thread.

https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/abo...fraudsters-pay-over-£4-million-greater-anglia

Interestingly: Greater Anglia’s fraud department uncovered £451,184.16 in fraudulent delay repay claims, where passengers had claimed delay repay compensation for journeys they hadn’t made.

£3.5m from people scared into paying them to avoid prison.

 

[Deafdoggie]

£3.5m from people scared into paying them to avoid prison.

But how much have they now lost from people not wanting to catch a train again?

 

[robbeech]

But how much have they now lost from people not wanting to catch a train again?

Given they’re not earning from tickets revenue I should think it doesn’t matter.

 

[30907]

£287k from people scared into paying them to avoid court

Corrected version! £287k according to them.
The other £3m is from PFs and ordinary fare evasion prosecutions.

 

[jon0844]

If someone knew 100% they hadn't made any false claims, surely a great deal would have gone to court and called Abellio's bluff? Sounds to me, especially from many posts made on here that made various admissions, that they likely had strong cases.

 

[robbeech]

If someone knew 100% they hadn't made any false claims, surely a great deal would have gone to court and called Abellio's bluff? Sounds to me, especially from many posts made on here that made various admissions, that they likely had strong cases.

I suspect a very small number would do that. The costs involved would immediately outweigh the settlement figure in many cases and there’s no guarantee you’d get it back even if you won, and absolutely no chance of getting it back if GA pulled out the day before which would be a crafty trick.
This whole thread goes into great detail about why people who have done nothing wrong may still need to avoid going to court at all costs. Going to court on a fraud charge and subsequently being found not guilty is orders of magnitude worse than not going to court in some lines of work. I suspect the majority of cases they had were strong but there’s clear evidence that they used catch all techniques and some passengers got caught up in it. Some will have paid up through fear, some will have paid up through dynamically assessing the risks and outcomes of a not guilty verdict, some will thankfully have allowed it to go to court. Some of those court cases will not have happened yet so there’s interesting things on the horizon I’m sure. With other operators on board with this behaviour now it will be interesting to see if the courts bias towards the or against railway even further.

 

[gingerheid]

The average person is scared of courts.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Going to court on a fraud charge and subsequently being found not guilty is orders of magnitude worse than not going to court in some lines of work.

Really? Am I reading that right? Surely being found guilty would be even worse?!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? Am I reading that right? Surely being found guilty would be even worse?!

Yes, it would. But the point is that even a suspicion of fraud is enough to be a problem.

Along similar lines (but worse in terms of the offence), being arrested on suspicion of a sexual offence would be disclosed on an Enhanced DBS check and would result in a lifetime ban from the Scout Association (for one example), even if found not guilty.

I am not sure what I think of this, as on one side it is a cautious approach which will prevent instances of child abuse (or, per the thread, further fraud), but also it is possible to ruin someone's life with a simple false allegation.

 

[robbeech]

The average person is scared of courts.

Of course they are. And rightly so as the result of some cases can be life changing.

Yes, it would. But the point is that even a suspicion of fraud is enough to be a problem.

Exactly this. As this thread has mentioned, to take a fairly extreme bit not unrealistic example.

A person has some bad luck with trains, their short connection is often fouled and they end up an hour late on average 3 times a week*
GA obviously don’t like this and start the ball rolling based on high number of claims.
GA threaten to take the passenger to court if they don’t pay them back every claim they’ve ever made plus £250 to make the matter go away. The passenger has done nothing wrong so goes to court. GA have evidence of higher than average claim numbers but none that stands up. The case is thrown out of court as quick as it went in. 2 years later the passenger (ex passenger as they always take the car now) tries to get a job in a senior position for a bank. They don’t even get an interview. And why would they as there’s a chance they committed fraud.

*This was the generic threshold. Anyone with this number of claims or higher from a selected pool got a letter. There were other triggers too. (This is confirmed)

 

[island]

Exactly this. As this thread has mentioned, to take a fairly extreme bit not unrealistic example.

A person has some bad luck with trains, their short connection is often fouled and they end up an hour late on average 3 times a week*
GA obviously don’t like this and start the ball rolling based on high number of claims.
GA threaten to take the passenger to court if they don’t pay them back every claim they’ve ever made plus £250 to make the matter go away. The passenger has done nothing wrong so goes to court. GA have evidence of higher than average claim numbers but none that stands up. The case is thrown out of court as quick as it went in. 2 years later the passenger (ex passenger as they always take the car now) tries to get a job in a senior position for a bank. They don’t even get an interview. And why would they as there’s a chance they committed fraud.

Actually, it's very unrealistic. Even a CEO of a bank only requires a standard DBS check, which will show spent and unspent convictions, but not "soft information" like an enhanced disclosure does.

 

[robbeech]

Actually, it's very unrealistic. Even a CEO of a bank only requires a standard DBS check, which will show spent and unspent convictions, but not "soft information" like an enhanced disclosure does.

I was going on details I thought had been presented to us within this thread regarding jobs. There certainly are job roles where this would affect someone although understandably they’re few and far between.