Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[AlterEgo]

I tend to agree BUT, depending on the cause of the "memory problems", the TOC could well be falling into an Equality Act trap. Asking someone with say brain damage due to a stroke to recall why they did something in excess of a year ago doesn't really offer them any opportunity to defend/justify their actions. Any records that they may have kept were likely long since disposed of.

Um, when investigating fraud, you are allowed to ask people why they did something.

 

[Wolfie]

Um, when investigating fraud, you are allowed to ask people why they did something.

Absolutely.

My reading of Niceguy21's post is not that they admitted making up a "best guess" delay when filling in Delay Repay, but rather that they cannot recall submitting the Delay Repay because it was so long ago

That's how l read it too.

 

[AlterEgo]

Absolutely.

So there is no Equality Act angle here. People with memory problems and a whole range of disabilities are perfectly capable of committing fraud, as well as any other criminal offence, and there is nothing wrong with investigating that - including writing to them to ask what happened, even if it was long ago, and interviewing them. If you're stopped by an RPI and you claim some sort of protection from the Equality Act because of "memory problems", you won't get very far with your defence.

 

[43096]

However, I still maintain that your average commuter would not be so blissfully unaware of such a change for an entire 12 months, least one active on these forums.

Funny how you struggle to think to believe it happened, yet someone on these forums doesn't know who SWR are.

Why would I know? I buy my ticket in December and renew the following December. I have no need to claim Delay Repay because it's not payable on my ticket. So from August I'm expecting to be paid for delays when I renew. When I do renew, I only get a refund for the period up to the franchise change, nothing after. Now I know I have had delays (it was around the time of the Waterloo re-build). Only then do I find out that the system has changed - and I wasn't the only one. They have my name and address, so they could have told me, but didn't.

 

[BusterEdwards]

I’ve had a letter from GA telling me that some delay repay claims look suspicious, with a list of 5 or 6 claims from February/March 2020 and asking for an explanation within seven days.

1) is it reasonable at this stage to ask them for details as to why they think the claims are suspicious?
2) are there any similar threads on here that I can’t see - or does anyone have experience of dealing with this? Any signposting/guidance appreciated.

As a (previous) 4/5 day a week commuter I obviously can’t remember delays from almost a year ago. Thanks in advance.

Hi
New to the forum but also received the above letter (i have an annual season ticket) with a list of 5 claims that were deemed fraudulent and a request for details/explanation.My issue (apart from not tapping in/out which meant i was a “ghost” and GA had no details of much of my travel ) was arriving at the home station,seeing that my train is cancelled and then getting a taxi to a station further up the line and arriving in London close to what would have been the original arrival time.I would claim for the train that was cancelled and personally wear the taxi cost.Can’t do this apparently?!

 

[furlong]

getting a taxi to a station further up the line and arriving in London close to what would have been the original arrival time.I would claim for the train that was cancelled and personally wear the taxi cost.Can’t do this apparently?!

Ask them to point to some public document that says you can't do that? Or offer to repay those claims if they reimburse you for the full cost of the taxis? Ultimately what did you declare when making the claims and did you follow all the guidance the company provided? What does the company say in its guidance notes about how to complete the form in a situation like this? Did the form you completed ask for the delay to the train, the delay to your journey that would have happened if you hadn't taken a taxi, or the actual delay based on the alternative arrangement you made?

Or does the company actually give no guidance whatsoever, and leave it up to you to decide what is reasonable to claim in such circumstances?

I'll just add that it's best only to use the web-based form in the case of a straightforward claim. Anything out of the ordinary and use a paper form so you can write the extra information on it, and then if the claim is accepted they have no comeback later.

 

[talldave]

Hi
New to the forum but also received the above letter (i have an annual season ticket) with a list of 5 claims that were deemed fraudulent and a request for details/explanation.My issue (apart from not tapping in/out which meant i was a “ghost” and GA had no details of much of my travel ) was arriving at the home station,seeing that my train is cancelled and then getting a taxi to a station further up the line and arriving in London close to what would have been the original arrival time.I would claim for the train that was cancelled and personally wear the taxi cost.Can’t do this apparently?!

If they didn't have tap in/out data, how did they know anything was unusual about your claim?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Funny how you struggle to think to believe it happened, yet someone on these forums doesn't know who SWR are.

Why would I know? I buy my ticket in December and renew the following December. I have no need to claim Delay Repay because it's not payable on my ticket. So from August I'm expecting to be paid for delays when I renew. When I do renew, I only get a refund for the period up to the franchise change, nothing after. Now I know I have had delays (it was around the time of the Waterloo re-build). Only then do I find out that the system has changed - and I wasn't the only one. They have my name and address, so they could have told me, but didn't.

So what you are actually saying is that you spent thousands of pounds presumably on an annual rail ticket and didn't check the latest terms and conditions or ticket information before you handed over payment? Do you regularly assume change never happens, especially when a train company changes over?

If you renewed AFTER the changes had already been made and then a further 12 months before you realised you hadn't checked the latest terms and conditions, very little sympathy.

 

[alistairlees]

So what you are actually saying is that you spent thousands of pounds presumably on an annual rail ticket and didn't check the latest terms and conditions or ticket information before you handed over payment? Do you regularly assume change never happens, especially when a train company changes over?

If you renewed AFTER the changes had already been made and then a further 12 months before you realised you hadn't checked the latest terms and conditions, very little sympathy.

This is an unnecessarily anti-customer post. Any business should treat its customers with the respect that they deserve, and inform them about such things; doing otherwise will lead to the business becoming unviable.

 

[BusterEdwards]

If they didn't have tap in/out data, how did they know anything was unusual about your claim?

Sorry should have said I don’t tap in/out at the home station as there are no barriers and would always head to an open barrier at Liverpool st if there is one as it’s a quicker exit ..so GA I suppose only have limited data on my travels (didn’t think there was an obligation to tap in / out?)...used the below example as reason for making my own way to London on that date (no taxis/buses laid on) but I guess I should have stood on the platform and waited for the next available train and then claimed? Just not clear in the delay repay literature

 

[43096]

So what you are actually saying is that you spent thousands of pounds presumably on an annual rail ticket and didn't check the latest terms and conditions or ticket information before you handed over payment? Do you regularly assume change never happens, especially when a train company changes over?

If you renewed AFTER the changes had already been made and then a further 12 months before you realised you hadn't checked the latest terms and conditions, very little sympathy.

Jeepers, you manage to be both hard of understanding and insulting at the same time.

At the time I bought the ticket, the T&Cs were the same as before; they were, apparently, changed during the period of validity. I was not told this and found out myself when I next renewed the ticket. I await your next explanation and insult as to how this is my fault.

 

[Wolfie]

Ask them to point to some public document that says you can't do that? Or offer to repay those claims if they reimburse you for the full cost of the taxis? Ultimately what did you declare when making the claims and did you follow all the guidance the company provided? What does the company say in its guidance notes about how to complete the form in a situation like this? Did the form you completed ask for the delay to the train, the delay to your journey that would have happened if you hadn't taken a taxi, or the actual delay based on the alternative arrangement you made?

Or does the company actually give no guidance whatsoever, and leave it up to you to decide what is reasonable to claim in such circumstances?

I'll just add that it's best only to use the web-based form in the case of a straightforward claim. Anything out of the ordinary and use a paper form so you can write the extra information on it, and then if the claim is accepted they have no comeback later.

Re your last para l do exactly that too.

Jeepers, you manage to be both hard of understanding and insulting at the same time.

At the time I bought the ticket, the T&Cs were the same as before; they were, apparently, changed during the period of validity. I was not told this and found out myself when I next renewed the ticket. I await your next explanation and insult as to how this is my fault.

I'm not entirely sure that unilateral changes in a contract part way through are actually legal.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry should have said I don’t tap in/out at the home station as there are no barriers and would always head to an open barrier at Liverpool st if there is one as it’s a quicker exit ..so GA I suppose only have limited data on my travels (didn’t think there was an obligation to tap in / out?)...used the below example as reason for making my own way to London on that date (no taxis/buses laid on) but I guess I should have stood on the platform and waited for the next available train and then claimed? Just not clear in the delay repay literature

If this is the case, the railway deems it an abandoned journey, which is a different process to delay repay. Any refund you’re due is in cash and will account for any use you’ve made of the ficket.
Most people don’t really know about it. I’d reply to GA with your evidence (hopefully you got some taxi receipts or a bank statement?), as your claim doesn’t seem fundamentally dishonest. They likely targeted you because you claimed for a delay even though you arrived on time, and proved you weren’t on the train you said you were on. You filled out the form wrongly and went through the wrong process, but that’s very different to committing a fraud.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is an unnecessarily anti-customer post. Any business should treat its customers with the respect that they deserve, and inform them about such things; doing otherwise will lead to the business becoming unviable.

Nonsense.

A rail operator becoming unviable because they don't inform a commuter renewing a season ticket there has been a change to compensation methods unprompted? Absolutely bonkers statement to make.

In any event that is based on an assumption that the ticket was bought in person and from that train operator in the first place.

 

[alistairlees]

Nonsense.

No, really a very sensible approach to customers.

 

[SteveM70]

Nonsense.

Possibly, but probably not for the reasons you have in mind. Most TOCs operate near monopolies and the vast majority of their season ticket customers don’t have a realistic alternative, so are forced to stay “loyal”

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Re your last para l do exactly that too.


I'm not entirely sure that unilateral changes in a contract part way through are actually legal.

Of course they are legal, so long as the original contract you agree to has a mechanism to do so. Usually the caveat is the changes can be rejected by the customer, and the contract terminated prior to the introduction of the changes, in such a case of a season ticket, I'd expect a pro rata refund for the remaining period. Sufficient notice (usually defined) would usually also be required, probably an absolute minimum of 14 days to be considered a fair consumer term.

But that assumes the original contract has those terms. If it does not, the contract can still be terminated and a refund issued, but the customer may be entitled to further compensation above a pro rata refund in that scenario.

 

[Hadders]

We have a number of new members who have come to this thread to ask for advice and it is important that our discussions are not taken too far off topic getting bogged down in legal terms and conditions etc.

I would urge @BusterEdwards to reply to GA with as much evidence as he can of what he did. I do have to wonder why GA are taking this course of action now, they really should have checked the claims submitted more thoroughly and queried anything that looked suspicious at the time. To pay up, then query over a year later accuse passengers of fraud, and demand repayment of all the delay repay claims (not just the suspicious ones) doesn't show GA in the best light.

 

[Wolfie]

Of course they are legal, so long as the original contract you agree to has a mechanism to do so. Usually the caveat is the changes can be rejected by the customer, and the contract terminated prior to the introduction of the changes, in such a case of a season ticket, I'd expect a pro rata refund for the remaining period. Sufficient notice (usually defined) would usually also be required, probably an absolute minimum of 14 days to be considered a fair consumer term.

But that assumes the original contract has those terms. If it does not, the contract can still be terminated and a refund issued, but the customer may be entitled to further compensation above a pro rata refund in that scenario.

Really. I suggest that you check the legislation relating to unfair terms and conditions of contract.

 

[jon0844]

This is an unnecessarily anti-customer post. Any business should treat its customers with the respect that they deserve, and inform them about such things; doing otherwise will lead to the business becoming unviable.

Do we know the TOC didn't inform? Delay Repay is heavily marketed by all the TOCs that have it, especially when they introduced it, but they can't force you to read the marketing literature, the T&Cs of the season ticket or anything else.

Hi
New to the forum but also received the above letter (i have an annual season ticket) with a list of 5 claims that were deemed fraudulent and a request for details/explanation.My issue (apart from not tapping in/out which meant i was a “ghost” and GA had no details of much of my travel ) was arriving at the home station,seeing that my train is cancelled and then getting a taxi to a station further up the line and arriving in London close to what would have been the original arrival time.I would claim for the train that was cancelled and personally wear the taxi cost.Can’t do this apparently?!

The thing with Delay Repay is it is down to the delay getting to your destination, so if you found a way to avoid being delayed then you wouldn't necessarily be entitled to claim.. but you could potentially put in a separate claim for the taxi.

I think the issue would be taking the hit on the taxi and then making the claim, which could breach the terms and conditions and arouse suspicion - even though you actually saved them money.

As I've said a way back, I think the idea would be to turn up to the station - speak to staff and get them to authorise a taxi. And if the taxi got you to your destination 15 minutes or more late, you'd also be entitled to claim Delay Repay.

 

[ashkeba]

I think the issue would be taking the hit on the taxi and then making the claim, which could breach the terms and conditions and arouse suspicion - even though you actually saved them money.

As I've said a way back, I think the idea would be to turn up to the station - speak to staff and get them to authorise a taxi. And if the taxi got you to your destination 15 minutes or more late, you'd also be entitled to claim Delay Repay.

In your opinion, the terms of Delay Repay require the customer to cost GA more and probably incur a worse delay? Have I read that wrong?

And I doubt anyone at a GA station would authorise a taxi unless there was something special like it being last service but that is another thing there is no clarity on. This does not attract people to rail travel.

 

[jon0844]

In your opinion, the terms of Delay Repay require the customer to cost GA more and probably incur a worse delay? Have I read that wrong?

And I doubt anyone at a GA station would authorise a taxi unless there was something special like it being last service but that is another thing there is no clarity on. This does not attract people to rail travel.

My point is Delay Repay is for a certain type of claim - a delay getting to the destination. People can make other claims, but it wouldn't be part of the Delay Repay scheme.

A taxi might be authorised if another train isn't due for an hour, and the cost to the TOC could be claimed against, say, Network Rail if it was an infrastructure problem.

The point is, the train operator would expect to be given an opportunity to rectify the issue and minimise the delay. It may be possible to stop another train and if someone hasn't gone to the station, they'd not be able to reduce the delay.

It might be well meaning to pay for a taxi, then put in a claim for a train delay that the person wasn't on, and it may well save the TOC money - but in the grand scheme of things, the potential for fraud would outweigh the occasional honest person that isn't out to defraud.

 

[Kane11]

Hello.

It’s interesting to read other people have received this GA letter.

I have a few questions if people would like to offer their opinion.

Is it unreasonable for GA to now ask evidence of journeys made 18 months ago? I don’t know how this can be proved. As somebody who has a paper ticket and not a smart card I don’t know how this can be proved either way.

GA have said that when a train is cancelled they expect the passenger to travel on the next available train. The reality of this can be different. What happens when you’re held back on the concourse or you cannot get on the next train due to overcrowding?

There have been occasions where I have personally incurred costs getting to another station down the line to avoid the main point of the delay.

If the trains are delayed is it unreasonable for one to stay at home, work, go the gym, go for a drink until the trains are running again and then still submit a claim? If your intended journey was 5pm but the trains were cancelled and you didn’t travel until 7pm, the fact remains you still arrived at your destination late.

In the event of being advised ‘not to travel’ is a claim reasonable (although from reading this thread it could be a different claim and not a delay repay claim - this is a misunderstanding).

How have people try to resolve this? Have people just paid because they can’t actually provide evidence or has anyone actually decided to fight them?

This does strike me as a possible revenue generator for a struggling railway company. The correspondence from them is also written as if you are guilty and unprofessional in my opinion.

 

[telstarbox]

Tracsis are a significant supplier of specialised rail industry software in both commercial and operational areas.

Being cynical - if Tracsis provide both Delay Repay Genie and GA's internal software, could GA have put pressure on Tracsis to do the fishing through their own records of Delay Repay Genie claims?


Also being cynical - GA may have realised that many of their Liverpool Street commuters work in finance or law firms and would be particularly keen to avoid allegations of fraud.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hello.

Hello.

This response is likely to sound unsympathetic. I'm sorry about that, but what I am trying to do here is explain what are likely responses to the points you raise. If you're looking to challenge GA, then you need to be able to understand where they're coming from - even if that's not a view you share.

It’s interesting to read other people have received this GA letter.

I have a few questions if people would like to offer their opinion.

Is it unreasonable for GA to now ask evidence of journeys made 18 months ago? I don’t know how this can be proved. As somebody who has a paper ticket and not a smart card I don’t know how this can be proved either way.

This is a difficult one to answer precisely - because what is 'reasonable' varies in every case. But in these challenges from GA, there doesn't seem to have been anything issued with the Delay Repay (DR) payment to suggest that the recipient should hang on to their evidence in case GA wanted to come back to the matter in future. And it would be unusual to retain correspondence for eighteen months without a particular reason to do so. So on balance, it probably is unreasonable of GA to ask for evidence at this point.

GA have said that when a train is cancelled they expect the passenger to travel on the next available train. The reality of this can be different. What happens when you’re held back on the concourse or you cannot get on the next train due to overcrowding?

At the risk of playing with words, if you can't get on the next train to run, then surely that isn't a train that's available for you. But of course to make this argument, you would have to still have records of what you did on a particular day, which (as above) it doesn't seem reasonable for you to have retained. It might be legitimate - if a particular journey can be identified - to challenge GA to demonstrate that there were no difficulties getting through the barrier or physically on to the train on that occasion.

There have been occasions where I have personally incurred costs getting to another station down the line to avoid the main point of the delay.

But this is something that isn't part of the DR scheme. The scheme is based on the assumption that someone delayed at the start of their journey will wait around for the next available opportunity to travel by rail (or at least at the railway's expense - maybe a rail replacement bus or even a taxi that the railway staff have summoned for you) rather than by making their own arrangements. In this scenario, the railway's expectation would be that the traveller would complain and seek either compensation or an ex gratia payment from the railway rather than DR. This may not be what the assumption behind DR should be - but it is what it is.

If the trains are delayed is it unreasonable for one to stay at home, work, go the gym, go for a drink until the trains are running again and then still submit a claim? If your intended journey was 5pm but the trains were cancelled and you didn’t travel until 7pm, the fact remains you still arrived at your destination late.

As above, what is reasonable or unreasonable is different in every case. But it's important to remember that DR is a scheme for repayment when the railways have failed. So if your 5pm train didn't run and you went for a drink until 7pm, but the 5.30pm train did run, then it seems reasonable to claim DR for half an hour (because that's the point at which you could have made your train journey) but not to claim for two hours (because the railway didn't make you go to the pub until 7pm - that was your choice).

In the event of being advised ‘not to travel’ is a claim reasonable (although from reading this thread it could be a different claim and not a delay repay claim - this is a misunderstanding).

I think your current understanding is correct - this isn't one for DR

How have people try to resolve this? Have people just paid because they can’t actually provide evidence or has anyone actually decided to fight them?

This is one where I can only go by what other people have said on this thread. As far as I can make out, everyone who has received 'the letter' has decided to comply, repaying the DR and an admin fee of a couple of hundred pounds or so. And that seems to have been because they feel that in at least some of the claims they have made, they may have exaggerated the delay they fell victim to - so even if they did have evidence to hand after 18 months or so, they could not have shown that in every case their claim was legitimate.

This does strike me as a possible revenue generator for a struggling railway company. The correspondence from them is also written as if you are guilty and unprofessional in my opinion.

As you'll have seen, there's an ongoing debate as to whether GA are trying to recover money that they should never have paid out (which is legitimate) or whether they are fishing to get people to repay money that was correctly paid (which isn't). Quite simply, we don't have a definite answer to this point.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hello.

It’s interesting to read other people have received this GA letter.

I have a few questions if people would like to offer their opinion.

Is it unreasonable for GA to now ask evidence of journeys made 18 months ago? I don’t know how this can be proved. As somebody who has a paper ticket and not a smart card I don’t know how this can be proved either way.

No, it is not unreasonable. The company is investigating potential fraud, and so you shouldn't be surprised to ask to account for your actions if they are under suspicion. If the file was passed to the police, you could expect to be arrested (subject to the strength of the evidence GA has) and interviewed, and asked exactly the same thing.

If you do not have evidence of your journeys, then I don't think that's especially surprising, so, assuming you have never fraudulently claimed Delay Repay, write a brief letter back to them and explain something along the lines:

Thank you for your letter of (X date).

I do not keep records of my journeys and, as a paper ticket holder, am sure you understand that I cannot provide you with evidence of journeys made. I have only ever claimed Delay Repay with honest intentions, and can say that every time I have claimed it was in line with the scheme conditions as I understand them.

Kind regards

X

The matter will likely then just go away, unless of course, you've made claims which are dodgy.

GA have said that when a train is cancelled they expect the passenger to travel on the next available train. The reality of this can be different. What happens when you’re held back on the concourse or you cannot get on the next train due to overcrowding?

Has this ever happened to you? Was it the reason for putting in a claim which may appear to be inflated from GA's perspective?

There have been occasions where I have personally incurred costs getting to another station down the line to avoid the main point of the delay.

If the trains are delayed is it unreasonable for one to stay at home, work, go the gym, go for a drink until the trains are running again and then still submit a claim? If your intended journey was 5pm but the trains were cancelled and you didn’t travel until 7pm, the fact remains you still arrived at your destination late.

If I turn up at Euston at 4:45pm for the 5pm train and see all trains are cancelled, and decide to stay in town until 8pm for a few bevvies, it is improper to file a claim for a three hour delay, if trains begin running again at 5:30pm and I could have got back much earlier.

In the event of being advised ‘not to travel’ is a claim reasonable (although from reading this thread it could be a different claim and not a delay repay claim - this is a misunderstanding).

"Do not travel" advice is intended to prevent people from travelling, but the railway knows some people will always want to catch the train. If I am advised not to travel on Sunday because there is a vastly reduced service, but travel anyway, and incur a delay against the timetable, a claim is perfectly okay.

How have people try to resolve this? Have people just paid because they can’t actually provide evidence or has anyone actually decided to fight them?

If you read the whole thread, you can see numerous people paying up because they submitted fraudulent claims, and a couple who seem to have been caught in the net unwittingly.

This does strike me as a possible revenue generator for a struggling railway company. The correspondence from them is also written as if you are guilty and unprofessional in my opinion.

I suppose the golden question is, did you submit any claims dishonestly? If you did, I recommend engaging with the process to settle to avoid the matter being passed to the police. If you didn't, and your conscience is clean, see my earlier advice, and advise the company quite simply that you have only ever claimed in line with the conditions.

 

[Haywain]

Being cynical - if Tracsis provide both Delay Repay Genie and GA's internal software, could GA have put pressure on Tracsis to do the fishing through their own records of Delay Repay Genie claims?

I don’t claim any expertise in this area but I think there’s a huge difference between supplying software and having access to the data. And massive legal implications.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I don’t claim any expertise in this area but I think there’s a huge difference between supplying software and having access to the data. And massive legal implications.

Would be legal IF the operator made a formal request to Tracsis / Genie, on the basis of crime prevention/detection/law enforcement, likely with some signed statement of truth/declaration. It is unlikely to be lawful on an "everyone" basis, they would have to send specific names and details of people they had a reasonable (even if ultimately misguided) suspicion of fraud/dishonesty.

Tracsis would have to satisfy themselves to some extent that the operator was acting reasonably in the circumstances before releasing the data.

 

[Kane11]

Hello.

This response is likely to sound unsympathetic. I'm sorry about that, but what I am trying to do here is explain what are likely responses to the points you raise. If you're looking to challenge GA, then you need to be able to understand where they're coming from - even if that's not a view you share.


This is a difficult one to answer precisely - because what is 'reasonable' varies in every case. But in these challenges from GA, there doesn't seem to have been anything issued with the Delay Repay (DR) payment to suggest that the recipient should hang on to their evidence in case GA wanted to come back to the matter in future. And it would be unusual to retain correspondence for eighteen months without a particular reason to do so. So on balance, it probably is unreasonable of GA to ask for evidence at this point.


At the risk of playing with words, if you can't get on the next train to run, then surely that isn't a train that's available for you. But of course to make this argument, you would have to still have records of what you did on a particular day, which (as above) it doesn't seem reasonable for you to have retained. It might be legitimate - if a particular journey can be identified - to challenge GA to demonstrate that there were no difficulties getting through the barrier or physically on to the train on that occasion.


But this is something that isn't part of the DR scheme. The scheme is based on the assumption that someone delayed at the start of their journey will wait around for the next available opportunity to travel by rail (or at least at the railway's expense - maybe a rail replacement bus or even a taxi that the railway staff have summoned for you) rather than by making their own arrangements. In this scenario, the railway's expectation would be that the traveller would complain and seek either compensation or an ex gratia payment from the railway rather than DR. This may not be what the assumption behind DR should be - but it is what it is.

As above, what is reasonable or unreasonable is different in every case. But it's important to remember that DR is a scheme for repayment when the railways have failed. So if your 5pm train didn't run and you went for a drink until 7pm, but the 5.30pm train did run, then it seems reasonable to claim DR for half an hour (because that's the point at which you could have made your train journey) but not to claim for two hours (because the railway didn't make you go to the pub until 7pm - that was your choice).

I think your current understanding is correct - this isn't one for DR

This is one where I can only go by what other people have said on this thread. As far as I can make out, everyone who has received 'the letter' has decided to comply, repaying the DR and an admin fee of a couple of hundred pounds or so. And that seems to have been because they feel that in at least some of the claims they have made, they may have exaggerated the delay they fell victim to - so even if they did have evidence to hand after 18 months or so, they could not have shown that in every case their claim was legitimate.

As you'll have seen, there's an ongoing debate as to whether GA are trying to recover money that they should never have paid out (which is legitimate) or whether they are fishing to get people to repay money that was correctly paid (which isn't). Quite simply, we don't have a definite answer to this point.

Thanks for your reply. I think the DR scheme is very confusing and possibly has terms/conditions that I wasn’t aware of. I will reply to GA and seek to resolve the matter with them.

No, it is not unreasonable. The company is investigating potential fraud, and so you shouldn't be surprised to ask to account for your actions if they are under suspicion. If the file was passed to the police, you could expect to be arrested (subject to the strength of the evidence GA has) and interviewed, and asked exactly the same thing.

If you do not have evidence of your journeys, then I don't think that's especially surprising, so, assuming you have never fraudulently claimed Delay Repay, write a brief letter back to them and explain something along the lines:

Thank you for your letter of (X date).

I do not keep records of my journeys and, as a paper ticket holder, am sure you understand that I cannot provide you with evidence of journeys made. I have only ever claimed Delay Repay with honest intentions, and can say that every time I have claimed it was in line with the scheme conditions as I understand them.

Kind regards

X

The matter will likely then just go away, unless of course, you've made claims which are dodgy.

Has this ever happened to you? Was it the reason for putting in a claim which may appear to be inflated from GA's perspective?

If I turn up at Euston at 4:45pm for the 5pm train and see all trains are cancelled, and decide to stay in town until 8pm for a few bevvies, it is improper to file a claim for a three hour delay, if trains begin running again at 5:30pm and I could have got back much earlier.

"Do not travel" advice is intended to prevent people from travelling, but the railway knows some people will always want to catch the train. If I am advised not to travel on Sunday because there is a vastly reduced service, but travel anyway, and incur a delay against the timetable, a claim is perfectly okay.

If you read the whole thread, you can see numerous people paying up because they submitted fraudulent claims, and a couple who seem to have been caught in the net unwittingly.

I suppose the golden question is, did you submit any claims dishonestly? If you did, I recommend engaging with the process to settle to avoid the matter being passed to the police. If you didn't, and your conscience is clean, see my earlier advice, and advise the company quite simply that you have only ever claimed in line with the conditions.

I appreciate your response thank you. No claims have been made fraudulently but couldve possibly not complied with their T&Cs. I will go back to them.

 

[Wolfie]

Thanks for your reply. I think the DR scheme is very confusing and possibly has terms/conditions that I wasn’t aware of. I will reply to GA and seek to resolve the matter with them.

I appreciate your response thank you. No claims have been made fraudulently but couldve possibly not complied with their T&Cs. I will go back to them.

I think that your response highlights a big issue. It appears that GA at least has certain, apparently unpublished, assumptions about how DR should operate. Excluding cases of actual fraud, which could never be justified, this issue may come down to them attempting to retrospectively impose those assumptions on passengers. The acceptability of this, particularly legally, is a very interesting question. I suspect that the company is banking on people settling as they fear litigation. However, they could come a very nasty cropper not least due to consumer legislation. Certainly l seriously doubt that they would wish the validity of their approach to be tested in any Court where the verdict would set a binding precedent.