Greater Anglia - delay repay fraud

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
1,806
Thanks - understood, and perfectly good example for you to illustrate things with IMHO - anyway, it starts to sound like you have legit claims and you can support that with some proof or evidence that you have - and that importantly you stuck with the train despite the delay. I would then say you should politely dispute what GA are suggesting, that your claims were not legit. But I suspect you do need to be confident. I am sure people on here will give advice to you regarding particular delay claim examples if you are not sure about them, so long as you are clear about what you did or claimed, or as clear as you can reasonably be.

Good luck with this.

The only note of caution I would sound is what evidence to the contrary GA could have. @R2244 says he held a paper ticket, and my reading of this thread is that there is not sufficient information contained on a paper ticket or retained by the exit barriers for GA to have unquestionable evidence. As I have said previously, it is nigh on impossible to prove you were on a particular train, but GA might be able to prove when you entered or left a station. (You can prove when you might have left the office, but you can't categorically prove that you were on the 6.24 train to Chelmsford or whatever.). And in an earlier post by a friend of a passenger, GA said that the 'evidence' provided by the passenger was insufficient.


They have work records dating back to the time in question and their shift patterns match up with the trains they would have been on. They can prove they were booked to be at work and this makes sense but with the exception of a few photographs with time stamps here and there which barely proves a handful of journeys (and even fewer were actually delayed ones) they cannot prove they were on those trains, which I suspect nobody can.

On contact, GA say that if they cannot prove they were on those trains then they will be passing their details on to the police as they’ve made an above average number of claims.

they’ve offered a settlement of around £1100 which is just under twice the total claimed.

By all means, @R2244 should challenge GA, but they should be aware of the other issues raised by previous claimants.

 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
I would also get copies of your bank statements ordered or downloaded, and see what transactions you made on the day in question. If the time isn't available, you should be able to obtain it from your bank or card issuer. It may help later.

E.g. if you bought a coffee in Starbucks London Liverpool Street at 09:00, provides some evidence that you did indeed arrive around that time etc.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,485
Of course being turfed off is a total pain but I assume that the railway had some advice as to how you were expected to proceed and that advice was not to 'phone a friend for a lift'?
Why assume that? Not long after returning to this country, I was advised by a crew member (of another TOC, not GA) to make my own arrangements if I had enough cash and then claim for the costs when their train arrived horrendously late and much after the last connecting service.

Of course, the TOC then tried to avoid paying and said I should have waited in line for their overworked crew to arrange taxi or hotels! I think I was not the only similar claimant because the TOC did settle after a few days for the full amount less some small admin fee.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
3,046
Why assume that? Not long after returning to this country, I was advised by a crew member (of another TOC, not GA) to make my own arrangements if I had enough cash and then claim for the costs when their train arrived horrendously late and much after the last connecting service.

Of course, the TOC then tried to avoid paying and said I should have waited in line for their overworked crew to arrange taxi or hotels! I think I was not the only similar claimant because the TOC did settle after a few days for the full amount less some small admin fee.
In that case I assumed it because the OP did not state it was the case.

In your case the advice of another TOC member of staff would not have been authorized by GA so may have been bad advice, even if given in good faith - and esp frustrating for a passenger who was unaware of the employer distinction and then comes up against GA being reluctant to pay. But glad in your case they did eventually do so (but unsure why they would have deducted a small admin fee but that's off topic anyway)

Of course another example of poor service by the fragmented, yet now govt controlled, railway.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
Thanks Tazi, it did start out with a random letter until i challenged it and asked what "evidence" they had of the fraud. I will work through the spreadsheet they've attached which just appears to be a list of claims I've made over that period and keep to myself for now. I can easily work out when I've worked late or have been out for an evening meal or leaving drinks but doubt if I have receipts over a year after the last claim.
Have they just provided a list of every claim, or have they provided a list of specific claims? The person i know had a list of claims they were questioning through after a couple of back and forths but it is just every claim after a certain date. I can only deduce that they're still pushing this above average claim thing. Essentially there are a number of claims not on the list and a number of claims that are on the list, but they are chronological as if the date they passed the "threshold" for number of claim is the date they start asking questions.

I would also get copies of your bank statements ordered or downloaded, and see what transactions you made on the day in question. If the time isn't available, you should be able to obtain it from your bank or card issuer. It may help later.

E.g. if you bought a coffee in Starbucks London Liverpool Street at 09:00, provides some evidence that you did indeed arrive around that time etc.
This sounds rather a lot like having to prove innocence again, something we are assured is not the case.

Why assume that? Not long after returning to this country, I was advised by a crew member (of another TOC, not GA) to make my own arrangements if I had enough cash and then claim for the costs when their train arrived horrendously late and much after the last connecting service.

Of course, the TOC then tried to avoid paying and said I should have waited in line for their overworked crew to arrange taxi or hotels! I think I was not the only similar claimant because the TOC did settle after a few days for the full amount less some small admin fee.
Of course they tried to avoid it. And what is more, i can almost guarantee that the crew member that told you to do it knew full well that they'd try to avoid it.
 

R2244

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2021
Messages
5
Location
Rayleigh
Have they just provided a list of every claim, or have they provided a list of specific claims? The person i know had a list of claims they were questioning through after a couple of back and forths but it is just every claim after a certain date. I can only deduce that they're still pushing this above average claim thing. Essentially there are a number of claims not on the list and a number of claims that are on the list, but they are chronological as if the date they passed the "threshold" for number of claim is the date they start asking questions.


This sounds rather a lot like having to prove innocence again, something we are assured is not the case.


Of course they tried to avoid it. And what is more, i can almost guarantee that the crew member that told you to do it knew full well that they'd try to avoid it.
I believe they have provided me with a list of every claim I have made from 28/10/2019 - 16/03/2020
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
Have they just provided a list of every claim, or have they provided a list of specific claims? The person i know had a list of claims they were questioning through after a couple of back and forths but it is just every claim after a certain date. I can only deduce that they're still pushing this above average claim thing. Essentially there are a number of claims not on the list and a number of claims that are on the list, but they are chronological as if the date they passed the "threshold" for number of claim is the date they start asking questions.


This sounds rather a lot like having to prove innocence again, something we are assured is not the case.


Of course they tried to avoid it. And what is more, i can almost guarantee that the crew member that told you to do it knew full well that they'd try to avoid it.

You do realise that some people just want piece of mind for themselves? Getting your records in order is hardly having to prove your innocence!

It could also possibly reveal that an incorrect claim was made, and allow that to be addressed before things escalate.

You seem hell bent on making this process as difficult and obstructive as possible. You aren't adding any value.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
You do realise that some people just want piece of mind for themselves? Getting your records in order is hardly having to prove your innocence!

It could also possibly reveal that an incorrect claim was made, and allow that to be addressed before things escalate.

You seem hell bent on making this process as difficult and obstructive as possible. You aren't adding any value.
Which process am i making difficult specifically?
If the passenger has done nothing wrong, why do you think they should have to prove they are innocent else pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds? How do people get to be that anti passenger?
It's great advice to get their records in order, it's not good advice to suggest they consider paying a settlement before we have established if they've done anything wrong, it's the same tactic as GA themselves are using. Scaring people into paying back, essentially every single claim they've made within the time frame. They are not in the slightest bit interested whether people are guilty or not, they're doing it to people who have claimed above average (or above a certain threshold) in numbers and hoping they are scared into paying up. They know many will be guilty of making errors in their claims, some of which may be deliberate, some not, but the scare tactics DO work and this has been proven here. This is something that you seem comfortable with.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
Which process am i making difficult specifically?
If the passenger has done nothing wrong, why do you think they should have to prove they are innocent else pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds? How do people get to be that anti passenger?
It's great advice to get their records in order, it's not good advice to suggest they consider paying a settlement before we have established if they've done anything wrong, it's the same tactic as GA themselves are using. Scaring people into paying back, essentially every single claim they've made within the time frame. They are not in the slightest bit interested whether people are guilty or not, they're doing it to people who have claimed above average (or above a certain threshold) in numbers and hoping they are scared into paying up. They know many will be guilty of making errors in their claims, some of which may be deliberate, some not, but the scare tactics DO work and this has been proven here. This is something that you seem comfortable with.
Are you referring to a post from 14:57 that clearly specified it was based on the initial very limited information provided, or is that not convenient for your agenda?

There are no scare tactics either! There is clearly a genuine, ongoing criminal investigation into fraud that has police support. What "tactics" do you think are being used? Reporting someone to the police when you believe you're a victim of a crime isn't a tactic, it's a right.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
Are you referring to a post from 14:57 that clearly specified it was based on the initial very limited information provided, or is that not convenient for your agenda?

There are no scare tactics either! There is clearly a genuine, ongoing criminal investigation into fraud that has police support. What "tactics" do you think are being used? Reporting someone to the police when you believe you're a victim of a crime isn't a tactic, it's a right.
The general attitude is heavily biased towards paying up, even when it is clarified with a "based on the information provided".

The scare tactics are as follows.

They chase people who have claimed above average claims, and they tell them they need to prove they were on the train, or they have to pay them back for ALL of their claims (not necessarily specific ones). They tell you if you don't do this they'll go to the police.

These letters go out to people who have just made above average claims. They're not JUST going out to people where they have evidence that suggests they were not on the train (cctv, smart card etc). They go to everyone who has claimed above a certain threshold.

People (as seen here) are frightened by the thought of the police, and fraud, and are paying up. The figures they are paying are NOT based on fraudulent claims and an admin fee, as they haven't made any, they're based on ALL claims.

You are asked to pay a settlement based on the cost of ALL of your claims or you'll be reported to the police for fraud.

How is that NOT a scary thing for people?


They HAVE evidence in some (maybe most) cases and they are entitled to follow that up, i encourage them and more TOCS to do this. But they're doing an easy catch all with the claim numbers thing and those who have done no wrong are caught up in it.
It's disappointing that so many on here find that acceptable.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,485
In your case the advice of another TOC member of staff would not have been authorized by GA so may have been bad advice, even if given in good faith - and esp frustrating for a passenger who was unaware of the employer distinction and then comes up against GA being reluctant to pay. But glad in your case they did eventually do so (but unsure why they would have deducted a small admin fee but that's off topic anyway)
My claim was from the crew's TOC, not GA. The point was that some railway workers sometimes advise people to make their own way, right or wrong.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
There's been a bit more back and forth, obviously Easter in the way. I've forwarded on the offers, i think they'll be proceeding to the police / court stage though i'm not entirely up to speed on the latest so i'm not 100% sure.
 

Chew Chew

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
484
There's been a bit more back and forth, obviously Easter in the way. I've forwarded on the offers, i think they'll be proceeding to the police / court stage though i'm not entirely up to speed on the latest so i'm not 100% sure.
They've refused the offer of fantastic free assistance from the posters on this site?

How bizarre.

I would have thought that you'd have been able to make them understand just how invaluable it could be?

Even just the exchange of a couple emails.

Seems strange they've turned it down.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
They've refused the offer of fantastic free assistance from the posters on this site?

How bizarre.

I would have thought that you'd have been able to make them understand just how invaluable it could be?

Even just the exchange of a couple emails.

Seems strange they've turned it down.
No, i didn't say they've refused it, i said i've told them about it, its entirely possible they'll be happy of the help.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
No, i didn't say they've refused it, i said i've told them about it, its entirely possible they'll be happy of the help.
I do hope you're advising your friend that if it gets to police / court stage, even if they're found not guilty or NFA by the CPS, for certain occupations or careers, (or visa applications), even being investigated is a serious matter. Allegations will be recorded on PNC, and whilst it won't appear on a DBS check, for an enhanced DBS check, the police have the discretion to add non conviction information, where it may be relevant to the purpose for the DBS check. This is wholly at the discretion of the police. You'd only see this though if say applying for a key role in finance, obviously an allegation of fraud is relevant.

It absolutely should be challenged, if no offences have been committed, but it's not as cut and dry as being found not guilty (which is not the same as being found innocent) and just moving on. A legal advisor would explain the pros and cons of all this, and the nuances around it.

I'd recommend that once it's all reached a conclusion, your friend does a Subject Access Request to the relevant police force and see what the PNC narrative is recorded as. You might also be able to apply for biometrics / DNA to be destroyed.
 

Chew Chew

Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
484
No, i didn't say they've refused it, i said i've told them about it, its entirely possible they'll be happy of the help.
How long ago was it offered?

Given you've said a back and forth has started it does seem strange that they haven't taken up the offer yet.

Maybe you should try and persuade them more?

When I had issues with Scotrail and was offered assistance by people on this site I took it up straight away.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
I do hope you're advising your friend that if it gets to police / court stage, even if they're found not guilty or NFA by the CPS, for certain occupations or careers, (or visa applications), even being investigated is a serious matter. Allegations will be recorded on PNC, and whilst it won't appear on a DBS check, for an enhanced DBS check, the police have the discretion to add non conviction information, where it may be relevant to the purpose for the DBS check. This is wholly at the discretion of the police. You'd only see this though if say applying for a key role in finance, obviously an allegation of fraud is relevant.

It absolutely should be challenged, if no offences have been committed, but it's not as cut and dry as being found not guilty (which is not the same as being found innocent) and just moving on. A legal advisor would explain the pros and cons of all this, and the nuances around it.

I'd recommend that once it's all reached a conclusion, your friend does a Subject Access Request to the relevant police force and see what the PNC narrative is recorded as. You might also be able to apply for biometrics / DNA to be destroyed.
Yes, i believe he's been told this sort of thing already by them, perhaps not in detail. But they're not trying to scare/pressure anyone into just paying a settlement fee regardless of whether it is due or not of course. Thankyou though, it is worthy of note.


How long ago was it offered?

It seems strange that they haven't taken up the offer yet.

When I had issues with Scotrail in and was offered assistance by people on this site I took it up straight away.
I suspect in the days following the kind offer here when i spoke to him but the decision to take it, leave it, or wait to see if they can resolve it themselves first is theirs, not mine, or that of anyone else. I'll remind him.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
1,516
Location
London
The scare tactics are as follows.

They chase people who have claimed above average claims, and they tell them they need to prove they were on the train, or they have to pay them back for ALL of their claims (not necessarily specific ones). They tell you if you don't do this they'll go to the police.

These letters go out to people who have just made above average claims. They're not JUST going out to people where they have evidence that suggests they were not on the train (cctv, smart card etc). They go to everyone who has claimed above a certain threshold.

People (as seen here) are frightened by the thought of the police, and fraud, and are paying up. The figures they are paying are NOT based on fraudulent claims and an admin fee, as they haven't made any, they're based on ALL claims.

You have made a lot of assumptions here about what GA are or aren't doing. How would you know who the letters are going to and what criteria they've used? We can make some guesses based on the people involved here but for the umpteenth time, the majority of people who have posted on here have admitted doing one of the following (I quote from my previous post):

a) admitted they did submit some 'fraudulent' claims using Delay Repay Genie / similar system
b) Has realistically been delayed but may have slightly exaggereated a few of them (inadvertently or not)
c) Has misunderstood DR in terms of a cancelled train and not getting the next available (e.g. going for a drink).
d) Has repaid a sum of some description to GA.

And as everyone here has said, if someone is genuinely innocent they should firmly but politely stand their ground with GA and refute the allegations.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,485
And as everyone here has said, if someone is genuinely innocent they should firmly but politely stand their ground with GA and refute the allegations.
although at least one poster also warns that people will be punished at discretion of police even if not guilty of fraud if they ever want some jobs. That seems to suggest accusing fraud and not some breach of contract or agreement is a scare tactic too.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
although at least one poster also warns that people will be punished at discretion of police even if not guilty of fraud if they ever want some jobs. That seems to suggest accusing fraud and not some breach of contract or agreement is a scare tactic too.
Which is what I find the most unacceptable.

Where GA have no evidence of fraud but a passenger has made above a given threshold for claims they send out a letter. There's no point arguing that we don't know what evidence they have, as there is none to be had for a passenger that has done no wrong. So when they have no evidence, they use a threshold of claims, be that an absolute number of claims, an absolute delay time, an absolute compensation cost i don't know, but there is clearly a threshold at which they investigate, which has been discussed on the phone. I do not for one minute doubt there will be other triggers where they DO have evidence, but this number/value of claims threshold is an attempt to catch more people, and the best way to do that is to threaten them. We know it works, at least one person here has paid up for an easy life.

Then we have the select people on here that claim not to be using similar tactics but then go on to lay out the risks of even being contacted by the police regardless of guilt. This is unquestionably yet another attempt to make someone think twice about letting it escalate to this and just hand over the money, posted mere minutes after claiming people aren't trying to scare passengers into paying.




You have made a lot of assumptions here about what GA are or aren't doing. How would you know who the letters are going to and what criteria they've used? We can make some guesses based on the people involved here but for the umpteenth time, the majority of people who have posted on here have admitted doing one of the following (I quote from my previous post):
The "above average claims" which i assume they mean a specific threshold rather that literally above the mean number/value of claims is why my friend got his letter, this has been confirmed on the telephone.

The majority of people have done something wrong, but its baffling why you would therefore consider it acceptable to use methods to frighten innocent people into paying given it is clear and confirmed that these letters can be sent out without evidence of any wrong doing. Innocent people are paying back ALL (not suspicious ones, because there aren't any specific ones) of their claim value and an admin fee because they're frightened that as they cannot prove their innocence they might lose in court. And when we add in the fact that a mere allegation can stop you getting work even fi it turns out you've done nothing wrong, and there's no wonder people pay up. GA know it, and they're earning from it.

And as everyone here has said, if someone is genuinely innocent they should firmly but politely stand their ground with GA and refute the allegations.
Which is all well and good, until their message stating that comes with the frightening reminder that you'll never be a school teacher if you've been accused of fraud regardless of the result.


I've been asked by more than one person if i think <insert usernames here> are working for GA in this investigation and are just trying to get people to pay up. Whilst i'm 99% sure that's utter nonsense, i can see why they might think that.

That all said, i've absolutely no doubt that someone from there will be keeping an eye on this topic and i think that is a good thing for them.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
although at least one poster also warns that people will be punished at discretion of police even if not guilty of fraud if they ever want some jobs. That seems to suggest accusing fraud and not some breach of contract or agreement is a scare tactic too.
How is that a punishment? It's clear there is an allegation of fraud, and if the police investigate, there's going to be a record regardless of the outcome!

Something to bear in mind and consider, but it's hardly a punishment.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
How is that a punishment? It's clear there is an allegation of fraud, and if the police investigate, there's going to be a record regardless of the outcome!

Something to bear in mind and consider, but it's hardly a punishment.
It's punishment if their employment opportunities are restricted because of it.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,485
How is that a punishment? It's clear there is an allegation of fraud, and if the police investigate, there's going to be a record regardless of the outcome!

Something to bear in mind and consider, but it's hardly a punishment.
It seemed to be suggested that this would hinder the victim getting "a key role in finance" or other similar job. One could argue that making an above-average number of claims might show excellent recordkeeping and financial management skills but I suspect the police record would say that the victim was investigated for fraud and not that it was simply they made more delay claims than average and claimed to be innocent and showed consistent evidence.

How would harming someone's job prospects not be a punishment? I am surprised that police are allowed to contradict judge rulings like that, but many things about English justice surprise me. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny the truth of this police record disclosure to employers. Is this a real threat for recipients of the GA letter?
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
It seemed to be suggested that this would hinder the victim getting "a key role in finance" or other similar job. One could argue that making an above-average number of claims might show excellent recordkeeping and financial management skills but I suspect the police record would say that the victim was investigated for fraud and not that it was simply they made more delay claims than average and claimed to be innocent and showed consistent evidence.

How would harming someone's job prospects not be a punishment? I am surprised that police are allowed to contradict judge rulings like that, but many things about English justice surprise me. Maybe someone else can confirm or deny the truth of this police record disclosure to employers. Is this a real threat for recipients of the GA letter?
It may well hinder prospects, but it's just stating facts. That such person was investigated in relation to a fraud allegation. Wholly factual. Even if it doesn't go to court, there's still been an investigation. And this non-conviction information aka police intelligence, would only be released if it was felt necessary in the context of why the Enhanced DBS was being requested in the first place.

It would be the (potential) employer punishing if something happened because of that, nothing to do with the police or Greater Anglia.

Would you want to employ someone in a finance business / position of trust who had been accused of multiple frauds, even if they'd never been prosecuted? Yes that is unfair, but it's life!

That is why you can't just rule out settling - it needs careful consideration and ideally professional assistance.
 

WesternLancer

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
3,046
It may well hinder prospects, but it's just stating facts. That such person was investigated in relation to a fraud allegation. Wholly factual. Even if it doesn't go to court, there's still been an investigation. And this non-conviction information aka police intelligence, would only be released if it was felt necessary in the context of why the Enhanced DBS was being requested in the first place.

It would be the (potential) employer punishing if something happened because of that, nothing to do with the police or Greater Anglia.

Would you want to employ someone in a finance business / position of trust who had been accused of multiple frauds, even if they'd never been prosecuted? Yes that is unfair, but it's life!

That is why you can't just rule out settling - it needs careful consideration and ideally professional assistance.
Seems like a strange world to me where claiming back compensation you are contractually owed (and indeed encouraged to claim by numerous adverts made by the service provider) then ends up with you being accused of fraud by the party you are claiming from....and verging on the Kafkaesque whereby that accusation (even if unproved) results in data records that then harm your prospects of pursuing employment in certain areas.

But that's just my view of course.
 

Fawkes Cat

Member
Joined
8 May 2017
Messages
1,090
I do hope you're advising your friend that if it gets to police / court stage, even if they're found not guilty or NFA by the CPS, for certain occupations or careers, (or visa applications), even being investigated is a serious matter. Allegations will be recorded on PNC, and whilst it won't appear on a DBS check, for an enhanced DBS check, the police have the discretion to add non conviction information, where it may be relevant to the purpose for the DBS check. This is wholly at the discretion of the police. You'd only see this though if say applying for a key role in finance, obviously an allegation of fraud is relevant.
Taking something of a step back, this is news to me. IANAL, and my understanding is that you are, but please could you give a source for this statement? If police investigations that don't end in formal action are capable of appearing on an enhanced DBS, then that's something we should probably take into account when people ask us for our view on what they should do next in all sorts of disputes. Even though in effect we're no more than blokes in a pub stating our views, it would be good if the views we state are as accurate as we can make them!
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,230
That is why you can't just rule out settling - it needs careful consideration and ideally professional assistance.
But (and here is the broken record again) nobody is scaring passengers into just paying up.


Seems like a strange world to me where claiming back compensation you are contractually owed (and indeed encouraged to claim by numerous adverts made by the service provider) then ends up with you being accused of fraud by the party you are claiming from....and verging on the Kafkaesque whereby that accusation (even if unproved) results in data records that then harm your prospects of pursuing employment in certain areas.

But that's just my view of course.
Strange but acceptable in the eyes of many.


Taking something of a step back, this is news to me. IANAL, and my understanding is that you are, but please could you give a source for this statement? If police investigations that don't end in formal action are capable of appearing on an enhanced DBS, then that's something we should probably take into account when people ask us for our view on what they should do next in all sorts of disputes. Even though in effect we're no more than blokes in a pub stating our views, it would be good if the views we state are as accurate as we can make them!
It's difficult to comprehend the situation really. If this is the case, and i believe it is indeed very accurate then it does confirm that many of the rules that we would follow, and suggest passengers follow, and many of their rights are without the value we give them credit for should a police investigation which WILL automatically have a VERY HEAVY TOC bias be started, regardless of guilt.

A mere ticketing dispute where the passenger is correct but is charged and ends up in court in this case COULD impede their career. And i can sense the smugness of the railway (and some others) from here.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
1,516
Location
London
Which is what I find the most unacceptable.

Where GA have no evidence of fraud but a passenger has made above a given threshold for claims they send out a letter. There's no point arguing that we don't know what evidence they have, as there is none to be had for a passenger that has done no wrong. So when they have no evidence, they use a threshold of claims, be that an absolute number of claims, an absolute delay time, an absolute compensation cost i don't know, but there is clearly a threshold at which they investigate, which has been discussed on the phone. I do not for one minute doubt there will be other triggers where they DO have evidence, but this number/value of claims threshold is an attempt to catch more people, and the best way to do that is to threaten them. We know it works, at least one person here has paid up for an easy life.

Then we have the select people on here that claim not to be using similar tactics but then go on to lay out the risks of even being contacted by the police regardless of guilt. This is unquestionably yet another attempt to make someone think twice about letting it escalate to this and just hand over the money, posted mere minutes after claiming people aren't trying to scare passengers into paying.





The "above average claims" which i assume they mean a specific threshold rather that literally above the mean number/value of claims is why my friend got his letter, this has been confirmed on the telephone.

The majority of people have done something wrong, but its baffling why you would therefore consider it acceptable to use methods to frighten innocent people into paying given it is clear and confirmed that these letters can be sent out without evidence of any wrong doing. Innocent people are paying back ALL (not suspicious ones, because there aren't any specific ones) of their claim value and an admin fee because they're frightened that as they cannot prove their innocence they might lose in court. And when we add in the fact that a mere allegation can stop you getting work even fi it turns out you've done nothing wrong, and there's no wonder people pay up. GA know it, and they're earning from it.


Which is all well and good, until their message stating that comes with the frightening reminder that you'll never be a school teacher if you've been accused of fraud regardless of the result.


I've been asked by more than one person if i think <insert usernames here> are working for GA in this investigation and are just trying to get people to pay up. Whilst i'm 99% sure that's utter nonsense, i can see why they might think that.

That all said, i've absolutely no doubt that someone from there will be keeping an eye on this topic and i think that is a good thing for them.

Fair enough if that’s been confirmed but above average (assuming that’s the mean) will always apply to a large percentage of people which isn’t a particularly sensible way to look at it. I would hazard a guess that they are above average AND apparently suspect in some other way. I can’t imagine GA would have the resources to go for just “above average” and they’d make themselves look rather silly too.

I’ve only seen one or two copies of the correspondence and the ones I saw didn’t seem overwhelming threatening, but that might just be my interpretation of threatening. I do appreciate that getting something out of the blue when you believe there’s nothing wrong can put you immediately on the defensive but I don’t think that can be avoided when allegations are made.

Anyway perhaps everyone hasn’t been saying “refute GA if you’re innocent”, but the majority have. Although I wouldn’t wish anyone to go through court on this matter, it would make an interesting test case to see what burden of proof GA would present.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
289
Location
Nottinghamshire
Taking something of a step back, this is news to me. IANAL, and my understanding is that you are, but please could you give a source for this statement? If police investigations that don't end in formal action are capable of appearing on an enhanced DBS, then that's something we should probably take into account when people ask us for our view on what they should do next in all sorts of disputes. Even though in effect we're no more than blokes in a pub stating our views, it would be good if the views we state are as accurate as we can make them!

As I said previously, there would need to be a good and relevant reason to disclose the non conviction intelligence. You will see in the 2013/14 stats table that although over 1million people needing an enhanced DBS had this "hidden" intelligence on their police file, it only got released for around 10,000 people. Although it was as high as 25,000 in earlier years. No recent statistics are available.

‘Police intelligence’ generally relates to somebody who has never actually been convicted for the offence involved, but it may occassionally include additional information relating to a conviction.

If you have never been convicted or cautioned for a criminal offence, then there is no legal requirement for you to disclose this ‘additional information’. However, if it is disclosed on an enhanced criminal record check, then an employer may decide to take it into consideration when making a recruitment decision.

In the below quote, it focuses on protection of children etc, but similar logic applies to other careers, e.g. law enforcement, health, finance.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

Also sometimes known as police intelligence, other relevant information is only ever included on the enhanced DBS check. An enhanced DBS check is required for jobs which mean the applicant has close or one to one contact with children or vulnerable adults such as carers, teachers, nurses or nursery workers. Relevant information could be details of allegations made about the person which never went any further but were retained on file, arrests which didn’t result in charges or not guilty verdicts handed down in court. Relevant information will only ever be included on a DBS certificate when the Police feel that it has a bearing on the job being applied for. Police officers issuing the DBS certificates have to follow a complex decision-making framework when deciding what type of information should be included on a certificate. The must make sure not only that the information is relevant to the position but that the information or allegation comes from a credible source. They must also balance the chances of harm to vulnerable groups if the information Is not disclosed against the rights of the applicant to have a private life.
 

Top