Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud - Discussion of wider issues/rights/wrongs/etc

[zwk500]

It seems to me some of what GA are doing is sailing pretty close to the law on blackmail. If I got a letter and hadn't knowingly claimed incorrectly I'd be tempted to make a complaint to the local territorial police. I appreciate that's easy to say as someone without any skin in the game though.

I believe this was covered in detail at the beginning of the advice thread, and the conclusion was that it wasn't anything near blackmail.

 

[packermac]

Indeed in areas of civil litigation in England and Wales, there is a long standing REQUIREMENT to make every effort to settle and resolve the matter etc without the need for the court to be involved. Failing to enter into such negotiations with an open mind can be held against a party.

In criminal matters, again, there is a long history of plea agreements, e.g. negotiating the offence to something less serious in return for a guilty plea, or even basic matters like being caught speeding, being offered an educational course (at punitive cost, i.e. more than it costs to actually run it) in return for a promise not to prosecute you. The DVLA also extensively make use of out of court settlements in criminal matters (albeit related to the keeping and adminstration of vehicles).

Yes my dad had this issue Devon & Cornwall Police. Letter saying were you the driver, which he confirmed. Then a letter we will be prosecuting you for driving without due care and attention, failing to stop and failure to report an accident. I said you never told me you were involved in an accident. He was not, they alleged he brushed another car in a car park, no photo or video evidence provided. Owner of "other car" never made a claim on my dad's insurance. Police said if you plead guilty we will drop all but due care and you can have 3 points and a fine or a £200 driver awareness course, which he chose.

 

[robbeech]

I believe this was covered in detail at the beginning of the advice thread, and the conclusion was that it wasn't anything near blackmail.

A lot has changed since the beginning of the thread, i would agree it isn't blackmail but the attitude and focus has become more clear as time passes.

 

[Titfield]

I'd say it was a pointless exercise, GA can and will do what they want in this. Nobody will do anything about it, why would they?

It would be interesting to know what the Consumers Association view of this is?

I wonder whether the view of London Travelwatch or Rail Ombudsman would be any different?

 

[robbeech]

It would be interesting to know what the Consumers Association view of this is?

I wonder whether the view of London Travelwatch or Rail Ombudsman would be any different?

Unlikely, I suspect the way they’re funded will play a part but can’t be sure.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

It would be interesting to know what the Consumers Association view of this is?

I wonder whether the view of London Travelwatch or Rail Ombudsman would be any different?

For more reasons than I care to repeat, it is not a good idea at this stage to bring all these other bodies etc into the mix. Guilty or innocent, it's all about keeping everything calm and all cards on the table. When things are resolved for the particular customer, then they are free to take a more direct approach.

Fraud Act 2006 offences are probably well beyond the knowledge of those bodies anyway and I'd not be surprised if they'd be reluctant to get involved.

I think you also have to consider that the integrity of the Delay Repay scheme could be threatened if GA have identified a lot of (real) fraud. Some consumer rights groups may be keen to support GA taking a harder approach to protect these rights for the majority in the longer term.

Definitely not straightforward.

 

[zwk500]

A lot has changed since the beginning of the thread, i would agree it isn't blackmail but the attitude and focus has become more clear as time passes.

I totally agree a lot has changed as the thread has developed, and there are very big questions about GA's motives and methods. Having said that, blackmail is a criminal matter and AIUI no evidence has been presented by any poster that even suggests GA have committed blackmail.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think GA have conducted themselves well in the slightest, but that's very different to acting criminally.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The DVLA also extensively make use of out of court settlements in criminal matters (albeit related to the keeping and adminstration of vehicles).

I usually only post on railway matters but the following may be relevant.

VOSA (as was) issued fixed penalty notices on doubtful grounds, but operators feel that £200 is cheaper than legal representation in court with the risk of magistrates not understanding complexities.

VOSA also do their own prosecutions and they prosecuted me, without foundation on fact. I employed legal representation with traffic law expertise and not only was the case dismissed but the magistrates ordered VOSA to pay my costs.

So you can win - but I might be on a hit list somewhere...

 

[Haywain]

I can’t see that the ‘territorial’ police would be taking any interest in this as a blackmail case.

 

[MotCO]

I totally agree a lot has changed as the thread has developed, and there are very big questions about GA's motives and methods.

I think what should be done is for each TOC to set out the rules and criteria for claiming DR. Several people have been caught out by claiming DR when a train is cancelled, and I believe different remedies are available for this, but what is clear is that there is much confusion as to what should be claimed. Other examples are if you know your train is cancelled, do you still have to turn up on time at the station; if your train is cancelled, do you have to catch the next train (which might be a slow service or involve a change of trains), or the next direct train; if you can't get on the next train due to overcrowding, what should you claim; etc etc.

 

[zwk500]

I think what should be done is for each TOC to set out the rules and criteria for claiming DR. Several people have been caught out by claiming DR when a train is cancelled, and I believe different remedies are available for this, but what is clear is that there is much confusion as to what should be claimed. Other examples are if you know your train is cancelled, do you still have to turn up on time at the station; if your train is cancelled, do you have to catch the next train (which might be a slow service or involve a change of trains), or the next direct train; if you can't get on the next train due to overcrowding, what should you claim; etc etc.

I totally agree. I would go further, and have a single agreed framework that covers delays, cancellations and abandoned (in whole or in part) journeys. The TOCs could be given some room to set their thresholds and repayment levels as they deem appropriate (within reason or subject to checks). What each party's responsibilities are would also be part of the Conditions of Carriage or something similar.

 

[OnlyMe]

I usually only post on railway matters but the following may be relevant.

VOSA (as was) issued fixed penalty notices on doubtful grounds, but operators feel that £200 is cheaper than legal representation in court with the risk of magistrates not understanding complexities.

VOSA also do their own prosecutions and they prosecuted me, without foundation on fact. I employed legal representation with traffic law expertise and not only was the case dismissed but the magistrates ordered VOSA to pay my costs.

So you can win - but I might be on a hit list somewhere...

This is interesting. Forgive my ignorance but who are VOSA?
And when you say the case was dismissed, does that mean it never went to trial? Or it did and you won?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is interesting. Forgive my ignorance but who are VOSA?
And when you say the case was dismissed, does that mean it never went to trial? Or it did and you won?

VOSA are (were) a government agency regulating professional drivers and vehicles.

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency ( VOSA ) has closed. It’s been replaced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency ( DVSA ). DVSA services and information These services are now provided by DVSA : MOT and vehicle testing vehicle approval check for vehicle, part or accessory recalls...

www.gov.uk

 

[CentralTrainer]

This is interesting. Forgive my ignorance but who are VOSA?
And when you say the case was dismissed, does that mean it never went to trial? Or it did and you won?

The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) replaced by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).


Its examiners were granted the ability to issue fixed penalty tickets from 1 April 2009. These cover a range of offences including breaches of drivers hours legislation, overloaded vehicles and also mechanical defects. These tickets can be issued to both UK and foreign nationals.

In the first 3 months since the implementation of fixed penalties, the Agency more than £500,000 in fines.

Its remit was:

• To improve road safety and the environment and safeguard fair competition by promoting and enforcing compliance with commercial operator licensing requirements;
• Processing applications for licences to operate lorries and buses;
• Registering bus services;
• Operating and administering testing schemes for all vehicles, including the supervision of the MOT Testing Scheme;
• Enforcing the law on vehicles to ensure that they comply with legal standards and regulations;
• Enforcing drivers' hours and licensing requirements;
• Providing training and advice for commercial operators; and
• Investigating vehicle accidents, defects and recalls.

 

[Titfield]

For more reasons than I care to repeat, it is not a good idea at this stage to bring all these other bodies etc into the mix. Guilty or innocent, it's all about keeping everything calm and all cards on the table. When things are resolved for the particular customer, then they are free to take a more direct approach.

Fraud Act 2006 offences are probably well beyond the knowledge of those bodies anyway and I'd not be surprised if they'd be reluctant to get involved.

I think you also have to consider that the integrity of the Delay Repay scheme could be threatened if GA have identified a lot of (real) fraud. Some consumer rights groups may be keen to support GA taking a harder approach to protect these rights for the majority in the longer term.

Definitely not straightforward.

I am not involved in any dispute with GA. My point about asking what the Consumers Association view would be of this was not to inflame any potential situation but simply how they would view it. I would be surprised if this has not been brought to their attention given the number of letters that appear to have been sent.

As you say Tazi one has to wonder if the integrity of the DR scheme is at risk given the events discussed in this thread. Fraud can never be condoned but questions have to be asked such as: (1) does the scheme as it is currently operated encourage fraud (2) do those making claims fully appreciate the exact terms under which claims can be made.

The experiences outlined in a number of postings suggest to me that there are issues with what are differences of opinion as to what passengers see as sensible behaviour (e.g. checking a train remotely, finding it is delayed and as a result going to the pub for 30 minutes) and what GA sees as what it expects of passengers to establish they were indeed genuinely delayed ie actually turning up at the station.

My point about whether Travelwatch or the Rail Ombudsman would have a different view was precisely because of their close links to the industry. It has sometimes been suggested (though I cant remember where I read this) that Ombudsmen have not always viewed things with an impartial view because they are "too close" to the trade.

 

[ashkeba]

I think what should be done is for each TOC to set out the rules and criteria for claiming DR. Several people have been caught out by claiming DR when a train is cancelled, and I believe different remedies are available for this, but what is clear is that there is much confusion as to what should be claimed.

No, this should be done at industry level by the regulators. Part of the problem has been that other TOCs say to claim DR for cancellations but GA does not and calls it fraud!

 

[robbeech]

Inconsistency is profitable. Be it one operator allowing and even recommending a procedure and another calling it fraud, or one guard telling a passenger to do something and then later being prosecuted under RORA, or anything else.

 

[Wolfie]

I think what should be done is for each TOC to set out the rules and criteria for claiming DR. Several people have been caught out by claiming DR when a train is cancelled, and I believe different remedies are available for this, but what is clear is that there is much confusion as to what should be claimed. Other examples are if you know your train is cancelled, do you still have to turn up on time at the station; if your train is cancelled, do you have to catch the next train (which might be a slow service or involve a change of trains), or the next direct train; if you can't get on the next train due to overcrowding, what should you claim; etc etc.

Actually l slightly disagree. There should be one set of Delay Repay criteria, set out in a clear, simple manner, applied nationally. There should be a standard claims process too. The current situation where each TOC does their own thing is potentially an at least partial cause of the current situation. Particularly when some journeys involve the use, due to needing to change trains, of the services of different TOCs which might have quite different policies and views.

As others have said though some TOCs which are benefitting from the current ambiguity may be opposed.....

The Consumers Association has a special legal status as a body able to issue a super-complaint. I doubt though, as others have said, that they'd wish to go anywhere near an active criminal investigation.

 

[Merle Haggard]

And when you say the case was dismissed, does that mean it never went to trial? Or it did and you won?

The case was heard at a magistrates court.
The initial allegation was on the basis that I did not hold a licence to drive the vehicle involved. Reading my licence would have clearly shown that I was entitled - it was the green printed type (still valid, not 'old', as the VOSA man described it) and on the front it indicated my entitlement in the form of a code letter, and a key to the codes on the back. The VOSA man refused to read it, and cautioned me. By way of background, my licence carries 'A', which the key explains as 'any vehicle', but on a photocard type licence, 'A' means 'motorcycle'. VOSA unable to comprehend that there are two systems, despite several subsequent phone calls.
When the case was heard in court, a slightly different allegation was made that centred around the vehicle - a passenger carrying one - and whether I was entitled to drive it. However, this allegation could be easily dismissed by reference to an official document produced by DVLA.

The magistrates, feeling their time had been wasted (not helped by the VOSA counsel's attitude I fancy - verbose and pompous, particularly when cornered) dismissed the case and made an award that my legal costs (i.e., my solicitor) should be paid by VOSA. I was told by my solicitor this was not uncommon. In effect, I think that 'case dismissed' means that there was no basis for it to be brought. VOSA do not have to go through the Crown Prosecution Service; if they had, they might have saved taxpayers some money.

 

[D1024]

(2) do those making claims fully appreciate the exact terms under which claims can be made.

This in my opinion is a very important point. I have just whiled away some time looking through many TOC websites Delay Repay sections. All are exceptionally good at telling you how to claim and how much you (may) be entitled to. However, the detail on when to claim, the conditions attached and what you are expected to do in the event of delay or cancellation is extremely lacking beyond generic "if you were delayed by 15/30 mins arriving at your destination you can claim" type advice. One exception (took a bit of digging in the FAQs) is SWR which does tell you that you must take the next available service. Overall though, considering its supposedly a national scheme, the detail just isn't there.

 

[Nottingham59]

The exact terms under which claims can be made.

And GA themselves say that "If ... you have been delayed by 15 minutes or longer when travelling with us you can claim delay repay compensation, no matter what the reason for the delay." (my emphasis)

Which rather seems to pemit almost any claim.

 

[talldave]

And GA themselves say that "If ... you have been delayed by 15 minutes or longer when travelling with us you can claim delay repay compensation, no matter what the reason for the delay." (my emphasis)

Which rather seems to pemit almost any claim.

And it’s a very big leap from someone possibly not understanding undescribed nuances when claiming to being guilty of fraud.

 

[robbeech]

And it’s a very big leap from someone possibly not understanding undescribed nuances when claiming to being guilty of fraud.

But they don’t have to be guilty of fraud. They don’t have to be guilty of anything at all. All they have to ‘be’ is frightened enough.

 

[talldave]

But they don’t have to be guilty of fraud. They don’t have to be guilty of anything at all. All they have to ‘be’ is frightened enough.

Oh totally agree, but it sounds like the letters are implying "you're a fraudster- pay up or go to court.".

Now although the last year has severely dented my faith in some areas of the establishment, I still (perhaps naively) don't believe a court would convict for fraud on some of the hypothetical scenarios discussed. If Mr Clumsy has inadvertently claimed 30 minutes instead of 15 on a number of occasions, it shows a consistent misunderstanding for sure, but does it show intentional fraud? Even if the total "overclaim" is a couple of hundred pounds, is it logical to take it to a court that costs thousands a day to run? All in the hope of convincing a jury that Mr Clumsy deliberately claimed more money from GA than the badly specified scheme permitted?

It just doesn't make sense, unless the long game is to undermine Delay Repay and hasten its demise.

 

[robbeech]

Oh totally agree, but it sounds like the letters are implying "you're a fraudster- pay up or go to court.".

Now although the last year has severely dented my faith in some areas of the establishment, I still (perhaps naively) don't believe a court would convict for fraud on some of the hypothetical scenarios discussed. If Mr Clumsy has inadvertently claimed 30 minutes instead of 15 on a number of occasions, it shows a consistent misunderstanding for sure, but does it show intentional fraud? Even if the total "overclaim" is a couple of hundred pounds, is it logical to take it to a court that costs thousands a day to run? All in the hope of convincing a jury that Mr Clumsy deliberately claimed more money from GA than the badly specified scheme permitted?

It just doesn't make sense, unless the long game is to undermine Delay Repay and hasten its demise.

That's essentially what they're implying, but they don't mean it, unless they happen to have evidence.

A court absolutely wouldn't convict for fraud MANY of the cases seen here, even those who have admitted claiming when they perhaps shouldn't have would be questionable. Certainly any of the people who have claimed DR when it should have been a refund, or claimed for the next train but actually caught the one after, especially in cases where they haven't gained financially. It's incredibly unlikely it would even be entertained by the BTP in the first instance which is why it is absolutely crucial to frighten them into paying before they have to do this as in many cases GA won't stand a chance on a fraud conviction.

And let us not forget, even for passengers where they would have a case, when they find the ones that have inevitably been trying it on (and there will be plenty of them) it is still not in their interest to take them to court as there is likely a larger financial gain from a settlement, the additional differences are just further negatives for the passenger with no gain to the operator. In fact it goes further. If they get convicted and lose their job, they might not need to renew their season ticket.

 

[MotCO]

That's essentially what they're implying, but they don't mean it, unless they happen to have evidence.

A court absolutely wouldn't convict for fraud MANY of the cases seen here, even those who have admitted claiming when they perhaps shouldn't have would be questionable. Certainly any of the people who have claimed DR when it should have been a refund, or claimed for the next train but actually caught the one after, especially in cases where they haven't gained financially. It's incredibly unlikely it would even be entertained by the BTP in the first instance which is why it is absolutely crucial to frighten them into paying before they have to do this as in many cases GA won't stand a chance on a fraud conviction.

And let us not forget, even for passengers where they would have a case, when they find the ones that have inevitably been trying it on (and there will be plenty of them) it is still not in their interest to take them to court as there is likely a larger financial gain from a settlement, the additional differences are just further negatives for the passenger with no gain to the operator. In fact it goes further. If they get convicted and lose their job, they might not need to renew their season ticket.

Plus, if they go to Court, would GA receive as much in compensation as the 'fines' they suggest passengers should pay them?

 

[robbeech]

Plus, if they go to Court, would GA receive as much in compensation as the 'fines' they suggest passengers should pay them?

I’d say it’s unlikely they’d receive more (as a net value after costs) so it’s a risk for them. In many cases I’d think it’s a bigger risk financially to GA than it is to the passenger, the main difference is there are zero repercussions for GA when they get it wrong, as is so often the case with “The Railway”

 

[Haywain]

Plus, if they go to Court, would GA receive as much in compensation as the 'fines' they suggest passengers should pay them?

If the matter is handed over to the police it is not GA’s decision whether it goes to court.

 

[SteveM70]

Would the DR system not be a whole lot simpler if the claim consisted of the passenger advising the journey they intended to make only, and then the TOC claims software/team working out how much to pay, ie putting the onus on the TOC.

 

[zwk500]

Would the DR system not be a whole lot simpler if the claim consisted of the passenger advising the journey they intended to make only, and then the TOC claims software/team working out how much to pay, ie putting the onus on the TOC.

It would, but how do you verify they actually intended to travel if they claim to have abandoned their journey at origin? For people on season tickets or Pay-as-you-tap smartcard (I've got no idea what smartcard system GA use) it's not as simple as having bought a ticket. There's also a possible issue where the data says a passenger could have got home in, say, 25 mins but because the first train was rammed to bursting (not unlikely with delays at Liverpool St) they had to get the 2nd train, so were actually 40 minutes late.

The DR process needs to be more transparent, more consistent, and more intuitive to claim from. But it also needs to be robust enough to ensure that people aren't scamming it, otherwise there'll be no money left in the industry at all.