Fraudulent Trainline refunds

[MotCO]

a scan may not be accurate in terms of what the customer was actually doing (for example it may record them as being on a different train to what they were actually travelling on; you couldn't necessarily conclusively deny a Delay Repay claim on that basis).

You may know that, but do Northern?

 

[LowLevel]

You may know that, but do Northern?

Presumably.

In our case it is reliant on the inspector correctly setting their phone to the train they're working and I'd imagine that that is generally the case.

More than once I've chucked it in the bag, forgotten to change it when I've boarded another service and it's had a hissy fit when I've tried to scan my first ticket. I just set it to no clip, change it and scan it again but I've sat on a train before hearing the scanner reject every single ticket that's scanned and wondered if the inspector has their machine set up correctly.

 

[londonbridge]

That is possible; it is not unknown for people to get confused between a refund and delay compensation.

That includes railway staff. I had an instance at Newcastle Central where my train to Chester-le-street was showing as delayed. Needed to be there by 9.00am for parkrun, so with no sign of it I abandoned the journey and went to Newcastle parkrun instead. After the run, on discovering that the train had actually been cancelled, the first staff member I spoke to insisted I should claim delay repay rather than a refund. She wouldn’t listen to the fact that I hadn’t actually travelled, so I spoke to another staff member who issued me a refund without any problems.

 

[XAM2175]

More than once I've chucked it in the bag, forgotten to change it when I've boarded another service and it's had a hissy fit when I've tried to scan my first ticket.

At least it should be easier to notice than having the wrong info set on a Zifa stamp!

 

[Starmill]

After the run, on discovering that the train had actually been cancelled, the first staff member I spoke to insisted I should claim delay repay rather than a refund. She wouldn’t listen to the fact that I hadn’t actually travelled, so I spoke to another staff member who issued me a refund without any problems.

Railway staff not understanding that refunds are only for "unused" tickets and delay repay is only for "used" tickets is unfortunately not as rare as it could be.

As others have already pointed out, a ticket may be considered "unused" for the purposes of a refund application if the journey were begun but then abandoned and the customer returned to their origin as a result of service disruption.

In addition to a huge spike in refund fraud, the advent of instant sales in-app has also likely caused a large rise in short faring. Manual ticket inspection has grown in importance as a result.

 

[Cdd89]

I think a bigger issue is that this system practically invites fraud, in putting temptation in front of people. When reviewing a traveled ticket, the first button they see is a big one called “refund”. While most of us wouldn’t press it illegitimately (whether due to ethics, or awareness of the consequences of rail fraud); plenty of people have neither.

The enforcement methods also only catch the naive who have likely been tempted into fraud. Hardened scammers will be purchasing their tickets via anonymous means and not allowing a pattern to build against their identity.

I've been thinking why scanned tickets should be refunded. The obvious one as mentioned earlier is that you pass through the barriers on to the platform and then realise your train is delayed, cancelled,or possibly run through without stopping.

One that happened to me recently: after entering CBG, realised that the most convenient train was a GA service and that I could therefore get away with a restricted ticket. Purchased replacement e-Ticket and then refunded the first from the platform while waiting for the train.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think a bigger issue is that this system practically invites fraud, in putting temptation in front of people. When reviewing a traveled ticket, the first button they see is a big one called “refund”. While most of us wouldn’t press it illegitimately (whether due to ethics, or awareness of the consequences of rail fraud); plenty of people have neither.

I go round the shops all the time and see small items I can't afford. Sorry but if I start pilfering items because it's "easy" I am still a criminal and my culpability and guilt is no less because "hey well some people do organised crime and steal whole lorries of the stuff".

There are lots of ways to game the system on the railways that are easy and obvious, and dishonest people do it all the time, and are often caught.

 

[Cdd89]

There are lots of ways to game the system on the railways that are easy and obvious, and dishonest people do it all the time, and are often caught.

If this were true, then net fare evasion wouldn’t have increased. (You might be right and it hasn’t!).

But my inclination is that a button saying “Refund”, pressed in the privacy of one’s own home by someone who hasn’t thought through the consequences, is a lot more tempting than short-fareing or other things that are risky “in the moment”.

 

[Starmill]

I think a bigger issue is that this system practically invites fraud, in putting temptation in front of people. When reviewing a traveled ticket, the first button they see is a big one called “refund”. While most of us wouldn’t press it illegitimately (whether due to ethics, or awareness of the consequences of rail fraud); plenty of people have neither.

I've also known some people refund their ticket in genuine error too. But of course only once. Not five consecutive times.

 

[bunnahabhain]

Do all scans consistently register the time and location/train accurately?

A lot of data is collected and traincrew can add messages (EG an endorsement) to tickets as well as mark why they've accepted the tickets, eg "Accepted with an excess fare", "Accepted with penalty fare", "Rejected, no railcard" etc. Provided you have set the scanner up to the train you will be adding that data to the ticket as well. Every time the ticket is interacted with by staff or a gateline a log is created. Depending on the system used I've noticed other staff members IDs, headcodes and entire names attached to the ticket saying they've scanned.

If everybody is scanning the ticket when they inspect it you will consistently and reliably collect all of the data right down to the train travelled on, time the ticket was scanned, and what they did with the scan (accept, reject, do nothing, attached a message, etc).

 

[43096]

I don't know about 29k but a 4k Delay Repayfraud resulted in a suspended sentence:
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19502006.poole-fraudulently-claimed-4-000-railway-firms/

The name associated with that sounds very familiar... Something to do with previous offences for possession of a stolen ticket machine.

Amazed at the sentencing in that case, given the previous.

 

[RPI]

QR and Bar codes are pretty difficult to scan on train.
You have to line up two electronic screens, one with a rapidly changing autofocus, to be at a distance of exactly 6inches, for 3-5seconds, while on a moving platform.
Assuming you can get capture, you're then relying on the machine playing ball and reading the ticket, rather than demanding a reset.

To scan every ticket would take forever so you have to sometimes pretend that the ticket has been scanned (while you look at their screen to check ticket codes, rail cards etc, and frown convincingly at your own screen while you confirm validity), or give a wave and move on.
Play the averages that the ticket will have at least been scanned once.

I scan about 2000 a month and the vast majority take a second or less, made easier with the opticon scanners, as has been pointed out, the only issues are Samsung curved screens but if the brightness is up nice and high even those scan easy.

At the moment there are a few fake ones going about where a few random dots have been photoshopped onto the barcode meaning that it is impossible to scan.

 

[Dai Corner]

At the moment there are a few fake ones going about where a few random dots have been photoshopped onto the barcode meaning that it is impossible to scan.

Is a passenger presenting such a barcode treated as not holding a valid ticket?

 

[RPI]

Is a passenger presenting such a barcode treated as not holding a valid ticket?

They certainly should be, if the barcode is illegible then the ticket is not valid, should it be displayed in the relevant app then its easier to make a professional judgment on whether its real or not but certainly in the case of a screenshot or printed ticket

 

[Skymonster]

While I in no way condone fraudulent behaviour, it seems there is another TOC fishing for dirt with menaces and demands for money while not producing detailed evidence. Furthermore, its seems clear from that letter that Northern do not know whom the customer is:note the saluation “Dear Sir / Madam” and the lack of a name and postal address, so presumably Northern only have an email address to link behaviour. There is also no breakdown of the alleged offences, only an amount being demanded while the letter makes no provision for those who are compensated to offer mitigation.

Thankfully I have never used Trainline (not that I’ve ever attempted to defraud the railway either, not even travelled without a ticket), but on its website TTL says that it passes on email addresses to TOCs to enable the issue of tickets and contact in the case of disruption. Was I a Trainline customer, I’d be somewhat concerned my details were being passed on and being used for additional purposes (fraud being one thing that may be viewed as reasonable if not specifically allowed for in the Ts&Cs, but potentially others such as tracking travel).

 

[RPI]

While I in no way condone fraudulent behaviour, it seems there is another TOC fishing for dirt with menaces and demands for money while not producing detailed evidence. Furthermore, its seems clear from that letter that Northern do not know whom the customer is:note the saluation “Dear Sir / Madam” and the lack of a name and postal address, so presumably Northern only have an email address to link behaviour. There is also no breakdown of the alleged offences, only an amount being demanded while the letter makes no provision for those who are compensated to offer mitigation.

Thankfully I have never used Trainline (not that I’ve ever attempted to defraud the railway either, not even travelled without a ticket), but on its website TTL says that it passes on email addresses to TOCs to enable the issue of tickets and contact in the case of disruption. Was I a Trainline customer, I’d be somewhat concerned my details were being passed on and being used for additional purposes (fraud being one thing that may be viewed as reasonable if not specifically allowed for in the Ts&Cs, but potentially others such as tracking travel).

TTL would be obliged to hand over details if it is for the apprehension or prosecution of persons suspected of a criminal offence, the TOC have to complete a data release form signed by the person investigating, we complete these forms on a regular basis when investigating fraudulent travel (though not as yet for suspected dodgy refunds, a higher grade deal with this)

 

[js1000]

Fairly easy problem to solve if you delay refunds until the next day and after a check has been made to ensure the ticket hasn’t actually been scanned at the destination or on a train that wasn’t delayed. If it has, then ask for more info before issuing the refund.

It does seem like the railway is failing to design fraud out of ticketing systems.

Claiming refunds on used tickets is stupid. There are clearly daft passengers who don't realise when these mobile tickets are scanned on QR readers at barriers or on staff handheld devices they are logged as used.

Although the above comment about conducting an automatic check to see if the ticket has been used before processing a refund is equally valid.

 

[Watershed]

I've no doubt that a significant number of people will be caught 'fair and square' through this initiative. And if so, it's quite right that they should have to repay the refunds they have illegitimately obtained.

However, I have three main concerns:


1) Some people will have legitimate reasons for claiming a refund even though their ticket has been scanned.

If they passed through the ticket barrier before realising the train is delayed or cancelled, their ticket would have been scanned even though they didn't travel.

And indeed, passengers can quite legitimately abandon their journey part way through and return to their origin, if there is disruption en-route. They would still be entitled to a full refund in this case.

Based on the past behaviour of TOCs' prosecutions departments, I don't necessarily trust them to accept an explanation as above. It's quite possible that people would be told that they will still be prosecuted regardless of what they say.

That, of course, also assumes that people are given sufficient detail to work out what journeys the letter is referring to. The letter we've been linked to doesn't give any detail at all.

And even if people are told (or work it out), if the letter refers to journeys that took place more than a few months ago I think it would be difficult for most people to recall exactly what happened. We saw this with the Greater Anglia Delay Repay "fraud" thread, where people simply can't say exactly what happened on a random journey a year ago, so felt they had no choice but to settle out of Court.


2) Some people will have claimed a refund in error, e.g. because the train was delayed and they were told they could "claim money back".

Lots of TOCs' customer services and frontline staff don't seem to know the difference between a refund and Delay Repay - so customers can hardly be blamed for confusing the two.

Again, where this is the case, I wouldn't trust prosecutions departments to play ball. I could quite imagine them saying "you would have been entitled to Delay Repay, but because you claimed back through the wrong mechanism we're prosecuting you".


3) Overall, this has strong echoes of GA's Delay Repay fraud intiative. Whilst, as there, I'm sure they are catching people who are in the wrong, a blanket £90 "admin fee" seems unlikely to represent a true approximation of Northern's costs. I suspect it is (and is intended as) a thinly veiled penalty.

It also seems wrong that, when Northern are making an accusation as serious as fraud, and in the same letter offer a bribe settlement to avoid legal action, they do not give exact details of their allegations. I would also be interested to know in what percentage of cases they actually intend to take to Court if the settlement isn't paid. A prosecution for fraud requires strong evidence and isn't a 'run of the mill' prosecution as with what TOCs often have sessions at Court for.


Overall, I think Trainline need to improve their refund processes - it needs to be much clearer what you are requesting and what this means in terms of the validity of your ticket, and potential criminal liability if you request a refund where you are not entitled to one. The industry also needs to brief every single customer facing member of staff on the difference between Delay Repay and a refund. It is unacceptable that there is such a lack of clarity when the industry is able and willing to prosecute for fraud.

 

[Dai Corner]

If a passenger abandons their journey after passing through a barrier they will have to pass back through the barrier. That would seem to be a good point for staff to record the fact and reason for abandonment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This to me is a good idea. Using a ticket then refunding it is very clear fraud, just as it would be if you did the self same thing with a paper ticket. Actual fraud is something I do believe the railway should be able to prosecute for.

I do worry a little about "what next", though, as to whether they would for example start pursuing people for much more minor infringements afterwards, such as being off route and being let through by staff, or such as the definitely-against-the-rules-but-very-minor approach of missing a connection, claiming Delay Repay for the whole lot and spending it on a taxi, which while it's against the rules I don't believe to be in the slightest bit morally wrong and actually I think it should be allowed precisely because it both stops people having to wait around and solves alternative transport without the railway having to faff about doing it themselves. Big data can be abused in the hands of an organisation that is "blackmail"*-happy, and that is a big concern.

The best way to solve this, though, is to include in the refund process a check that the ticket hasn't been scanned, and if it has to require manual intervention to complete the refund so a check can be carried out as to e.g. if there was disruption at the time of the scan that might have resulted in abandonment, including perhaps asking the passenger which train they intended to take which was delayed/cancelled.

* I consider out of Court settlements to criminal matters to be tantamount to blackmail; they should either prosecute every case of actual fraud of this nature or not bother. To me they should only be legally permissible in a civil case where only financial compensation is being pursued.

 

[Haywain]

I've no doubt that a significant number of people will be caught 'fair and square' through this initiative. And if so, it's quite right that they should have to repay the refunds they have illegitimately obtained.

However, I have three main concerns:


1) Some people will have legitimate reasons for claiming a refund even though their ticket has been scanned.

If they passed through the ticket barrier before realising the train is delayed or cancelled, their ticket would have been scanned even though they didn't travel.

And indeed, passengers can quite legitimately abandon their journey part way through and return to their origin, if there is disruption en-route. They would still be entitled to a full refund in this case.

Based on the past behaviour of TOCs' prosecutions departments, I don't necessarily trust them to accept an explanation as above. It's quite possible that people would be told that they will still be prosecuted regardless of what they say.

That, of course, also assumes that people are given sufficient detail to work out what journeys the letter is referring to. The letter we've been linked to doesn't give any detail at all.

And even if people are told (or work it out), if the letter refers to journeys that took place more than a few months ago I think it would be difficult for most people to recall exactly what happened. We saw this with the Greater Anglia Delay Repay "fraud" thread, where people simply can't say exactly what happened on a random journey a year ago, so felt they had no choice but to settle out of Court.


2) Some people will have claimed a refund in error, e.g. because the train was delayed and they were told they could "claim money back".

Lots of TOCs' customer services and frontline staff don't seem to know the difference between a refund and Delay Repay - so customers can hardly be blamed for confusing the two.

Again, where this is the case, I wouldn't trust prosecutions departments to play ball. I could quite imagine them saying "you would have been entitled to Delay Repay, but because you claimed back through the wrong mechanism we're prosecuting you".


3) Overall, this has strong echoes of GA's Delay Repay fraud intiative. Whilst, as there, I'm sure they are catching people who are in the wrong, a blanket £90 "admin fee" seems unlikely to represent a true approximation of Northern's costs. I suspect it is (and is intended as) a thinly veiled penalty.

It also seems wrong that, when Northern are making an accusation as serious as fraud, and in the same letter offer a bribe settlement to avoid legal action, they do not give exact details of their allegations. I would also be interested to know in what percentage of cases they actually intend to take to Court if the settlement isn't paid. A prosecution for fraud requires strong evidence and isn't a 'run of the mill' prosecution as with what TOCs often have sessions at Court for.


Overall, I think Trainline need to improve their refund processes - it needs to be much clearer what you are requesting and what this means in terms of the validity of your ticket, and potential criminal liability if you request a refund where you are not entitled to one. The industry also needs to brief every single customer facing member of staff on the difference between Delay Repay and a refund. It is unacceptable that there is such a lack of clarity when the industry is able and willing to prosecute for fraud.

All very well but the reality is that while these can and do happen to people it is highly unusual for anybody to have multiple instances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All very well but the reality is that while these can and do happen to people it is highly unusual for anybody to have multiple instances.

I've refunded tickets single-figures numbers of times ever, to be honest. It really is very rare, so someone who even "genuinely" refunds a ticket multiple times a year probably at least merits looking at to see if it does all look genuine and isn't something dodgy. One could certainly see purchase and refund of high value tickets for cash as an effective method of money laundering, for example.

Amazon are a reasonable example - they do refund things very easily, but every now and then you hear of someone being banned from their services for doing it way too much and clearly misusing the facility, e.g. effectively borrowing goods rather than purchasing them to keep.

 

[Starmill]

I've no doubt that a significant number of people will be caught 'fair and square' through this initiative.

As ever, the people it will be designed to capture will be those whom a commercial case indicates are most likely to pay a settlement, or be convicted and ordered to pay compensation or costs (or both). It won't be necessarily the people who are most culpable and who have caused most harm, though there may be more or less overlap at different times and in different areas.

It certainly isn't the sort of thing done with the requirement to pass a public interest test is it.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I've no doubt that a significant number of people will be caught 'fair and square' through this initiative. And if so, it's quite right that they should have to repay the refunds they have illegitimately obtained.

However, I have three main concerns:


1) Some people will have legitimate reasons for claiming a refund even though their ticket has been scanned.

If they passed through the ticket barrier before realising the train is delayed or cancelled, their ticket would have been scanned even though they didn't travel.

And indeed, passengers can quite legitimately abandon their journey part way through and return to their origin, if there is disruption en-route. They would still be entitled to a full refund in this case.

Based on the past behaviour of TOCs' prosecutions departments, I don't necessarily trust them to accept an explanation as above. It's quite possible that people would be told that they will still be prosecuted regardless of what they say.

That, of course, also assumes that people are given sufficient detail to work out what journeys the letter is referring to. The letter we've been linked to doesn't give any detail at all.

And even if people are told (or work it out), if the letter refers to journeys that took place more than a few months ago I think it would be difficult for most people to recall exactly what happened. We saw this with the Greater Anglia Delay Repay "fraud" thread, where people simply can't say exactly what happened on a random journey a year ago, so felt they had no choice but to settle out of Court.


2) Some people will have claimed a refund in error, e.g. because the train was delayed and they were told they could "claim money back".

Lots of TOCs' customer services and frontline staff don't seem to know the difference between a refund and Delay Repay - so customers can hardly be blamed for confusing the two.

Again, where this is the case, I wouldn't trust prosecutions departments to play ball. I could quite imagine them saying "you would have been entitled to Delay Repay, but because you claimed back through the wrong mechanism we're prosecuting you".


3) Overall, this has strong echoes of GA's Delay Repay fraud intiative. Whilst, as there, I'm sure they are catching people who are in the wrong, a blanket £90 "admin fee" seems unlikely to represent a true approximation of Northern's costs. I suspect it is (and is intended as) a thinly veiled penalty.

It also seems wrong that, when Northern are making an accusation as serious as fraud, and in the same letter offer a bribe settlement to avoid legal action, they do not give exact details of their allegations. I would also be interested to know in what percentage of cases they actually intend to take to Court if the settlement isn't paid. A prosecution for fraud requires strong evidence and isn't a 'run of the mill' prosecution as with what TOCs often have sessions at Court for.


Overall, I think Trainline need to improve their refund processes - it needs to be much clearer what you are requesting and what this means in terms of the validity of your ticket, and potential criminal liability if you request a refund where you are not entitled to one. The industry also needs to brief every single customer facing member of staff on the difference between Delay Repay and a refund. It is unacceptable that there is such a lack of clarity when the industry is able and willing to prosecute for fraud.

I'm with @Haywain on this one: it's worth remembering the wise words of Auric Goldfinger (as reported by Ian Fleming):

Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action'.

 

[Starmill]

If a passenger abandons their journey after passing through a barrier they will have to pass back through the barrier. That would seem to be a good point for staff to record the fact and reason for abandonment.

Would you scan your ticket from the station you're at to exit? I wouldn't, because experience dictates that in an overwhelming majority of cases this will not work. Furthermore, even if it did work, it might be rejected for 'passback' if you'd only used it a couple of minutes ago.

If I decided I needed to leave the gated area again after going in, which does happen when to me from time to time, such as when I go through gates for a train leaving very shortly and then reach it only to realise that the doors are already closing, I would just show the ticket to the staff and say "I've just come in but I need to go back out again, please" and they may scan it themselves, or more likely just let me out. I wouldn't scan it again.

 

[Watershed]

I'm with @Haywain on this one: it's worth remembering the wise words of Auric Goldfinger (as reported by Ian Fleming):

Or, as Blackstone's Ratio says:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

 

[Dai Corner]

Would you scan your ticket from the station you're at to exit? I wouldn't, because experience dictates that in an overwhelming majority of cases this will not work. Furthermore, even if it did work, it might be rejected for 'passback' if you'd only used it a couple of minutes ago.

If I decided I needed to leave the gated area again after going in, which does happen when to me from time to time, such as when I go through gates for a train leaving very shortly and then reach it only to realise that the doors are already closing, I would just show the ticket to the staff and say "I've just come in but I need to go back out again, please" and they may scan it themselves, or more likely just let me out. I wouldn't scan it again.

No nor would I.

I'd show it to the staff and tell them I was abandoning my journey and the reason why and ask how I could get a refund. Ideally there would be a way for staff to record this against the e-ticket computer record to prove I was attempting fraud.

 

[Starmill]

No nor would I.

I'd show it to the staff and tell them I was abandoning my journey and the reason why and ask how I could get a refund. Ideally there would be a way for staff to record this against the e-ticket computer record to prove I was attempting fraud.

Yes you'd think that might be doable. The reality of course is likely to be very different!

 

[Skymonster]

Ideally there would be a way for staff to record this against the e-ticket computer record to prove I was attempting fraud.

But has been said many times on here before, it’s not in the interest of the railway to protect the innocent who are outlying cases when it’s easier and potentially more lucrative to go after those who appear to be low-hanging fruit regardless of their true intentions.

Again, while I do not condone fraud it is a cause for concern that this action by Northern offers neither no obvious avenue for redress for those accused nor any evidence other than a menacing demand for money.

 

[Haywain]

this action by Northern offers neither no obvious avenue for redress

It offers the opportunity to go to court.

Or, as Blackstone's Ratio says:

Plenty of guilty parties will get away with it by virtue of not making the mistake of repeating the action too often.