Potential Fraudulent Activity Email Received

[HP1210]

Hi all,

I received this email from Greater Anglia 24 hours ago. Have replied to this acknowledging that I have received the email.

The email was a result of account activity, I have never been stopped by a member of staff or inspector without a valid ticket at any point.

Some pointers on how best to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[Huntergreed]

Hi all,

I received this email from Greater Anglia 24 hours ago. Have replied to this acknowledging that I have received the email.

The email was a result of account activity, I have never been stopped by a member of staff or inspector without a valid ticket at any point.

Some pointers on how best to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

What did you send as a reply to their email?

At this stage, it’s best just to leave the email. Only you will know whether you have been purchasing fraudulent tickets or not.

The burden of proof lies with greater anglia to demonstrate that you have been travelling without a valid ticket. It’s extremely difficult for them to do that without having stopped and/or caught you in person. I would advise just leaving this with them. Certainly, if you have done this, do not incriminate yourself or admit to anything over email.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi all,

I received this email from Greater Anglia 24 hours ago. Have replied to this acknowledging that I have received the email.

The email was a result of account activity, I have never been stopped by a member of staff or inspector without a valid ticket at any point.

Some pointers on how best to proceed would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

You should not have acknowledged the email.

Ignore it. It is not in your interests to respond.

 

[HP1210]

What did you send as a reply to their email?

At this stage, it’s best just to leave the email. Only you will know whether you have been purchasing fraudulent tickets or not.

The burden of proof lies with greater anglia to demonstrate that you have been travelling without a valid ticket. It’s extremely difficult for them to do that without having stopped and/or caught you in person. I would advise just leaving this with them. Certainly, if you have done this, do not incriminate yourself or admit to anything over email.

Irrespective of whether it is or isn't, I have never been stopped in person and have no idea how GA would go about prosecuting without doing so. My reply simply acknowledges that I have received the email without any further context. The only thing I am uncomfortable with is surely GA would have to be confident in proving the activity to be fraudulent before sending that initial email

You should not have acknowledged the email.

Ignore it. It is not in your interests to respond.

My email response did nothing other than say acknowledged. There was no further context shared. Surely GA must be confident in being able to prove what they believe to be fraudulent activity in order to send that initial email.

 

[AlterEgo]

It isn’t in your interests to even acknowledge it. These are sent out based on data analysis of your activity. There are no doubt hundreds or even thousands of these emails sent out every year and I doubt they even get a response to most of them. They lie unread, or end up in spam folders, or otherwise are read by people who decide it’s not worth their while responding. Either insulted by the question and knowing there is no evidence, or savvy enough having committed wrongdoing to know that acknowledging removes any doubt that you have received and read the email.

You are under no obligation to acknowledge, engage, or answer any of their questions. It is unlike to be in your interests to do any of those given that prosecutions for railway specific offences invariably require you to have been caught red handed while travelling.

My advice is to leave well alone from here.

 

[HP1210]

It isn’t in your interests to even acknowledge it. These are sent out based on data analysis of your activity. There are no doubt hundreds or even thousands of these emails sent out every year and I doubt they even get a response to most of them. They lie unread, or end up in spam folders, or otherwise are read by people who decide it’s not worth their while responding. Either insulted by the question and knowing there is no evidence, or savvy enough having committed wrongdoing to know that acknowledging removes any doubt that you have received and read the email.

You are under no obligation to acknowledge, engage, or answer any of their questions. It is unlike to be in your interests to do any of those given that prosecutions for railway specific offences invariably require you to have been caught red handed while travelling.

My advice is to leave well alone from here.

Appreciate it, thanks.

 

[Haywain]

surely GA would have to be confident in proving the activity to be fraudulent before sending that initial email

Reasonable suspicion is enough. More would be required to move to prosecution.

 

[AlterEgo]

Reasonable suspicion is enough. More would be required to move to prosecution.

Yes, this, basically.

To give an example to the OP: the data may show someone regularly buying tickets London to Watford Junction and Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street for the same days, inviting a question as to what, exactly, is covering the gap in the middle (in the vast majority of cases it will simply be illegal doughnutting, although there is the potential for someone to hold a season ticket or have work provide the middle part)...

You can't prosecute someone based on that data, but once you start talking, you start risking incriminating yourself.

 

[HP1210]

Yes, this, basically.

To give an example to the OP: the data may show someone regularly buying tickets London to Watford Junction and Birmingham International to Birmingham New Street for the same days, inviting a question as to what, exactly, is covering the gap in the middle (in the vast majority of cases it will simply be illegal doughnutting, although there is the potential for someone to hold a season ticket or have work provide the middle part)...

You can't prosecute someone based on that data, but once you start talking, you start risking incriminating yourself.

This makes sense. So the recommendation would largely be to sit tight in this instance?

 

[Starmill]

This makes sense. So the recommendation would largely be to sit tight in this instance?

I think the recommendation is, in addition, to ensure that you never board a train without the correct ticket for your journey too. (OK OK, you can in some exceptional circumstances such as if you've been given permission to buy onboard or there's no way of buying a ticket at your station, but you get the point!).

 

[HP1210]

I think the recommendation is, in addition, to ensure that you never board a train without the correct ticket for your journey too. (OK OK, you can in some exceptional circumstances such as if you've been given permission to buy onboard or there's no way of buying a ticket at your station, but you get the point!).

Of course! I don't actually know what the issue is to be fair, I've never been stopped in person and always had a valid ticket when asked but in future will make sure that is abundantly clear to avoid any further emails.

 

[Cuthbert]

Of course! I don't actually know what the issue is to be fair, I've never been stopped in person and always had a valid ticket when asked but in future will make sure that is abundantly clear to avoid any further emails.

It might also be due to Refunds?

 

[Hadders]

When they research ticket history they will be looking for things like:

- tickets you're not entitled to use - eg child, railcard discounted if there's no evidence of you owning the railcard
- railcard disciunted tickets used at an invalid time
- tickets that could indicate doughnutting
- excessive volume of refunds
- excessive/possible fraudulent delay repay claims
- Advance tickets used on the wrong train

I'm sure if you'll know if you've been doing any of the above. There might be other irregularities I haven't listed that they'll look for in the data as well.

Greater Anglia's letter is effectively inviting you to incriminate yourself, when it says they want to resolve the issue with you effeciently what they actually mean is they want to offer you an out of court settlement. It is unlikely that Greater Anglia will have sufficient evidence to present a case to a court to be able to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that you comitted an offence.

That said, nobody knows exactly what aditional evidence Greater Anglia does hold against you. For example, if you've been doughnutting they might have CCTV that will link ticket scan data specifically with you. I think this is highly unlikely as if they had this they would probably stop you in person, I simply mention it for completeness.

It's up to you to decide whether to engage with Greater Anglia. You're not required to do so, but if you don't there is a (remote) possibility that they might possess more concrete evidence of your wrongdoing. If they do have such evidence then they are unlikely to offer you an out of court settlement. On the other hand if you do engage they will almost certainly offer you an out of court settlement which would mean they would not be able to prosecute you in the future.

 

[HP1210]

When they research ticket history they will be looking for things like:

- tickets you're not entitled to use - eg child, railcard discounted if there's no evidence of you owning the railcard
- railcard disciunted tickets used at an invalid time
- tickets that could indicate doughnutting
- excessive volume of refunds
- excessive/possible fraudulent delay repay claims
- Advance tickets used on the wrong train

I'm sure if you'll know if you've been doing any of the above. There might be other irregularities I haven't listed that they'll look for in the data as well.

Greater Anglia's letter is effectively inviting you to incriminate yourself, when it says they want to resolve the issue with you effeciently what they actually mean is they want to offer you an out of court settlement. It is unlikely that Greater Anglia will have sufficient evidence to present a case to a court to be able to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that you comitted an offence.

That said, nobody knows exactly what aditional evidence Greater Anglia does hold against you. For example, if you've been doughnutting they might have CCTV that will link ticket scan data specifically with you. I think this is highly unlikely as if they had this they would probably stop you in person, I simply mention it for completeness.

It's up to you to decide whether to engage with Greater Anglia. You're not required to do so, but if you don't there is a (remote) possibility that they might possess more concrete evidence of your wrongdoing. If they do have such evidence then they are unlikely to offer you an out of court settlement. On the other hand if you do engage they will almost certainly offer you an out of court settlement which would mean they would not be able to prosecute you in the future.

This makes sense, thank you for the response. More than happy to share an update once I receive a response from GA.

It might also be due to Refunds?

I've never applied for or claimed a refund through any trainline so wouldn't be that. It'll absolutely be related to buying single rail tickets in a single direction at various different stops with the assumption I am travelling a greater distance to a station without barriers (likely from Colchester to Stratford). However, I have never been stopped without a valid ticket, when travelling into London I usually buy tickets for Witham or Chelmsford where I would meet friends and continue the rest of the journey together in the car. There are also times where I have been on the way to Chelmsford or Witham, plans have changed and I have continued into London, buying a ticket for the rest of the journey using the app whilst already on the train (which appears as though it breaks some sort of T+Cs). Either way, I have never been stopped/had my name taken and this is solely a result of 'suspicious activity related to my trainline account'

 

[Cuthbert]

TrainLine check for multiple reasons if fraud.
What you seemed to have triggered is short fare (I'm not saying this is what you do).
When you bought a ticket from Colchester to Witham then went to London where were you at the time along the route when you bought Witham to London?

 

[HP1210]

When they research ticket history they will be looking for things like:

- tickets you're not entitled to use - eg child, railcard discounted if there's no evidence of you owning the railcard
- railcard disciunted tickets used at an invalid time
- tickets that could indicate doughnutting
- excessive volume of refunds
- excessive/possible fraudulent delay repay claims
- Advance tickets used on the wrong train

I'm sure if you'll know if you've been doing any of the above. There might be other irregularities I haven't listed that they'll look for in the data as well.

Greater Anglia's letter is effectively inviting you to incriminate yourself, when it says they want to resolve the issue with you effeciently what they actually mean is they want to offer you an out of court settlement. It is unlikely that Greater Anglia will have sufficient evidence to present a case to a court to be able to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that you comitted an offence.

That said, nobody knows exactly what aditional evidence Greater Anglia does hold against you. For example, if you've been doughnutting they might have CCTV that will link ticket scan data specifically with you. I think this is highly unlikely as if they had this they would probably stop you in person, I simply mention it for completeness.

It's up to you to decide whether to engage with Greater Anglia. You're not required to do so, but if you don't there is a (remote) possibility that they might possess more concrete evidence of your wrongdoing. If they do have such evidence then they are unlikely to offer you an out of court settlement. On the other hand if you do engage they will almost certainly offer you an out of court settlement which would mean they would not be able to prosecute you in the future.

Replied to a separate message with this response but based on what you have outlined it'll almost certainly be for suspected doughnutting, I assume, from Colchester to Stratford given there are no barriers at Stratford.
However as I say, I have never been stopped without a valid ticket. When travelling into London I usually buy tickets for Witham or Chelmsford where I would get off the train to meet friends and continue the rest of the journey together in the car. There are times when I have been on the way to Chelmsford or Witham, plans have changed and I have continued into London, buying a ticket for the rest of the journey using the app whilst already on the train (which appears as though it breaks some sort of T+Cs). Either way, I have never been stopped/had my name taken and this is solely a result of 'suspicious activity related to my trainline account'

TrainLine check for multiple reasons if fraud.
What you seemed to have triggered is short fare (I'm not saying this is what you do).
When you bought a ticket from Colchester to Witham then went to London where were you at the time along the route when you bought Witham to London?

It would have been prior to the destination where the friends I typically meet are no longer able to meet me and drive for various reasons, in which instance I would buy the ticket from Witham to Stratford or London Liverpool Street when already on the train which I assumed was the right thing to do. Either way, surely this is going to be difficult for them to prove in whatever circumstance given I have never been stopped. I can appreciate how some of that activity may look, but I'm struggling to see how much further they can take it. As I said in the original post, I acknowledged their initial email and am happy to cooperate but it feels like a very bullish approach from them based on ticket purchase activity

 

[WesternLancer]

Replied to a separate message with this response but based on what you have outlined it'll almost certainly be for suspected doughnutting, I assume, from Colchester to Stratford given there are no barriers at Stratford.
However as I say, I have never been stopped without a valid ticket. When travelling into London I usually buy tickets for Witham or Chelmsford where I would get off the train to meet friends and continue the rest of the journey together in the car. There are times when I have been on the way to Chelmsford or Witham, plans have changed and I have continued into London, buying a ticket for the rest of the journey using the app whilst already on the train (which appears as though it breaks some sort of T+Cs). Either way, I have never been stopped/had my name taken and this is solely a result of 'suspicious activity related to my trainline account'


It would have been prior to the destination where the friends I typically meet are no longer able to meet me and drive for various reasons, in which instance I would buy the ticket from Witham to Stratford or London Liverpool Street when already on the train which I assumed was the right thing to do. Either way, surely this is going to be difficult for them to prove in whatever circumstance given I have never been stopped. I can appreciate how some of that activity may look, but I'm struggling to see how much further they can take it. As I said in the original post, I acknowledged their initial email and am happy to cooperate but it feels like a very bullish approach from them based on ticket purchase activity

I note that you say you have "never been stopped without a valid ticket" in several of your posts which is fair enough.

But have you travelled without a valid ticket for any part of your journey? That is what they will be looking into! And that's what these sorts of data trawls are trying to find people who ,ight have done, but have not been picked up by staff checks - which as many fare evaders know are often few and far between.

I'm not saying you are a fare evader, but I am saying that is what they are looking for.

If you buy a ticket en route due to a change of plans, that's fine, so long as you do it before the train calls at the station beyond which you need an additional ticket - and the train must stop there (unless you hold a season ticket that you need to extend IIRC).

 

[John R]

Yes, almost certainly short faring is their suspicion. I'm afraid the stories "my plans changed en route" and "I get a lift for the rest of the journey" are very common, judging by the number of times they crop up here, and no doubt will ring alarm bells with investigators if you do get to the point of having to justify your journeys.

But proving it will be another matter, especially if their suspensions are unfounded.

 

[HP1210]

Yes, almost certainly short faring is their suspicion. I'm afraid the stories "my plans changed en route" and "I get a lift for the rest of the journey" are very common, judging by the number of times they crop up here, and no doubt will ring alarm bells with investigators if you do get to the point of having to justify your journeys.

But proving it will be another matter, especially if their suspensions are unfounded.

I am more than happy to cooperate with GA and replied to their initial email 24 hours after receiving it. However my point was more around do I have to? If it is a general fishing attempt based on Trainline data flags then I'd rather sit tight and say nothing rather than accidentally incriminate myself by trying to be helpful when there may not be any need to

 

[John R]

I am more than happy to cooperate with GA and replied to their initial email 24 hours after receiving it. However my point was more around do I have to? If it is a general fishing attempt based on Trainline data flags then I'd rather sit tight and say nothing rather than accidentally incriminate myself by trying to be helpful when there may not be any need to

No, you don’t have to respond.

 

[HP1210]

I note that you say you have "never been stopped without a valid ticket" in several of your posts which is fair enough.

But have you travelled without a valid ticket for any part of your journey? That is what they will be looking into! And that's what these sorts of data trawls are trying to find people who ,ight have done, but have not been picked up by staff checks - which as many fare evaders know are often few and far between.

I'm not saying you are a fare evader, but I am saying that is what they are looking for.

If you buy a ticket en route due to a change of plans, that's fine, so long as you do it before the train calls at the station beyond which you need an additional ticket - and the train must stop there (unless you hold a season ticket that you need to extend IIRC).

Thanks for the reply and understand all of the above. The area where I am a little bit stuck in terms of best next steps is how keen I should be to cooperate. I am more than happy to do so as I don't believe I have done anything wrong, I also don't believe they have any way of proving otherwise. However the last thing I'd want is to accidentally say something incriminating by trying to be helpful when it may not be necessary at all. What would the risks be if I just sit tight and say nothing

 

[AlterEgo]

Learn to stop talking!!!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks for the reply and understand all of the above. The area where I am a little bit stuck in terms of best next steps is how keen I should be to cooperate. I am more than happy to do so as I don't believe I have done anything wrong, I also don't believe they have any way of proving otherwise. However the last thing I'd want is to accidentally say something incriminating by trying to be helpful when it may not be necessary at all. What would the risks be if I just sit tight and say nothing

Learn to stop talking!!!

To give a slightly different take on it from @AlterEgo:

You're not obliged to respond to anything the railway has sent you: as far as I know they don't have the power to require you to reply to them.

But against that, you don't know what information they have: you can be reasonably certain that they have details of tickets that you have bought online and it's not inconceivable (although in practice fairly unlikely) that they will know about tickets that you have bought over the counter / from a machine if you paid by plastic. You know that they have not stopped you while you have been travelling, but it's my understanding that e-tickets are logged when they are checked, whether at barriers or by an inspector. And you cannot be certain that there isn't CCTV showing you as having made journeys.

It appears that the information the railway have has caused them to suspect that there is a problem with your railway travel. You will know (and you have no obligation to share this with us) whether the railway are right in their suspicion or not.

If the railway's suspicion is wrong, then I would differ from @AlterEgo in that I would suggest that you should co-operate - you should be in a position to produce further evidence that will confirm that there is nothing for the railway to be concerned about, and so it will be possible to bring their query to a rapid conclusion. This means more hassle for you in producing evidence, but should bring matters to a fairly rapid conclusion - so less stress in the long term.

But it's a bit more complicated if the railway have in fact hit on the true facts, and your travel has been out of order. As people have said, what the railway are asking for is for you to supply evidence that will let them settle matters out of court - which (good news) would prevent them from taking you to court but (bad news) would effectively guarantee that you would have to pay them a settlement. So what will happen if you don't co-operate? In that case, it comes down to whether the railway have sufficient evidence to pursue you through the courts. To do that, in practice they would need enough (and strong enough) evidence to raise a fraud prosecution. That's a fairly high bar for the railway to clear, but you need to be aware that a conviction for fraud is substantially more serious than a conviction for fare dodging.

As I say, only you will know the full facts of your case. But if you have been fare dodging, you will need to make a judgment as to whether it's better to go down the road of providing evidence and almost certainly committing yourself to paying a settlement, or holding the line and playing a high stakes game where you (most likely) walk away without paying anything or else get hit quite hard with a fraud prosecution because it turns out that the railway do have enough evidence to pursue you.

There's a lot to be said (not least simplicity) for @AlterEgo's line of not responding. But there are scenarios when a response may be worthwhile.

 

[30907]

Provided you bought your second ticket before the train reached Witham/Chelmsford and the train called there you were perfectly in order.

However, someone who spots the RPI coming might do exactly the same - or someone who intends to refund the ticket if it is not scanned/put through a barrier.
Hence the suspicions of their AI investigator - justified or not.

 

[Somewhere]

If you have done nothing wrong, it is not in your interest to respond.
If you have done something wrong, it is in your interest not to respond.
This is a fishing exercise.

 

[Starmill]

This video is about the law of the United States so it's relevance isn't direct to any of the facts here. However, some of the principles raised here absolutely could apply in certain situations involving the UK:

Furthermore, if you're dealing with the police, a solicitor, member of the Judiciary, or an officer of a court, they are all bound by a very strict code of professional ethics. General staff at a private company are usually only bound by whatever law applies to everyone.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

f you have done nothing wrong, it is not in your interest to respond.

Would you care to give the logic behind this assertion?

 

[Somewhere]

Would you care to give the logic behind this assertion?

If you've done nothing wrong, they're being accusatory, and quite frankly, rude in their communication.
This is not the way to be treating an honest customer. These privateers should not be allowed to investigate or bring prosecutions.
Investigations and prosecutions should only be allowed by those registered with professional bodies, with strict codes of conduct.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would you care to give the logic behind this assertion?

If there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing - which there really isn't when just scraping data - there is nothing to be gained from talking to them. It's naive to think otherwise.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If you've done nothing wrong, they're being accusatory, and quite frankly, rude in their communication.
This is not the way to be treating an honest customer. These privateers should not be allowed to investigate or bring prosecutions.
Investigations and prosecutions should only be allowed by those registered with professional bodies, with strict codes of conduct.

If there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing - which there really isn't when just scraping data - there is nothing to be gained from talking to them. It's naive to think otherwise.

So getting them to go away by explaining why one's behaviour is, in fact, not suspicious isn't in one's interest?