Should you keep records of journeys as evidence to prove Delay Repay claims/defend against accusations of fraud?

[35B]

Bit late to the party, but the answer to the thread title is a resounding "yes you should".

I think some forum members, and even rail passengers have become very desensitised to what Delay Repay actually is. You are making a formal claim for compensation, albeit under "industry arrangements". The onus is on you to support your claim for compensation. Delay Repay is one of three methods proscribed in the conditions of travel for you to exercise various consumer and contractual rights when delays occur. In essence, Delay Repay is essentially a reverse "out of court settlement". The TOC pays you compensation, you agree to accept it as a remedy, and the matter does not need to be escalated further. You are not obliged to use a Delay Repay scheme, and the conditions make it clear you have 2 other options, 1 of which takes you down the path of exercising your statutory rights (which could eventually end up in a civil court).

So I am afraid whilst you are not legally obliged to retain records, given that from a civil perspective (in England & Wales) you can be sued for up to 6 years afterwards, prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court up to 6 months afterwards, and in the Crown Court at an indefinite date long into the future, it would be careless not to. Simply because "Delay Repay" has a "casual" feel to it, does not take away that you are presenting a formal, legal demand for compensation/redress each and every time you claim, and affirming that it is true and accurate.

99% of the time, I would bet that you would never be contacted about that claim ever again. Unless I am missing something, it appears that the actual number of people receiving letters about "potentially suspicious" claims is likely somewhere around 1% or maybe even lower, which to me, suggests that whatever processes are currently in place for the rail industry are generally working remarkably well for the vast majority of claimants.

In which case I would expect better receipting arrangements from the TOCs for ensure online claims. I do keep logs, but not primarily for Delay Repay; once a claim has been paid (if it is), I would expect the matter to be closed - in just the same way that if I seek reimbursement for a product from a retailer, I regard the matter as closed once reimbursement has been made.

If these letters came to a question of proof, because the TOC believed a specific claim fraudulent, a log would become much more important. But the burden of proof remains with the TOC at all times.

 

[island]

I think it’s worth remembering that here in this rarefied atmosphere of the disputes forum we see a tiny microcosm of what happens (or, at least before last year, happened) on the railway. The vast majority of journeys go trouble-free, and the vast majority of DelayRepay claims are processed without a hitch. Some suggestions, including this one

Could it even be worth requesting CCTV footage of oneself on the train and at the stations concerned to provide evidence in the event of a dispute.

are rather far-fetched. If a theoretical passenger sent in Subject Access Requests of this sort every time there were a delay for which he or she wanted to claim, I wager his or her SARs would end up being refused for repetitiveness/vexatiousness after the second or third.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

In which case I would expect better receipting arrangements from the TOCs for ensure online claims. I do keep logs, but not primarily for Delay Repay; once a claim has been paid (if it is), I would expect the matter to be closed - in just the same way that if I seek reimbursement for a product from a retailer, I regard the matter as closed once reimbursement has been made.

If these letters came to a question of proof, because the TOC believed a specific claim fraudulent, a log would become much more important. But the burden of proof remains with the TOC at all times.

You make a very wide ranging statement stating that the burden of proof remains with the TOC at all times. I'm afraid that is incorrect. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Who the claimant is depends on the status of the claim.

I am not sure what you expect to receive by way of receipt that you do not already.

When I have claimed, I always receive:

1) A confirmation email outlining my delay repay claim submission;
2) Email updates at various stages
3) Email confirmation that it has been authorised and payment made to XYZ method

They sit happily in my e-mail inbox for eternity.

 

[35B]

You make a very wide ranging statement stating that the burden of proof remains with the TOC at all times. I'm afraid that is incorrect. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Who the claimant is depends on the status of the claim.

I am not sure what you expect to receive by way of receipt that you do not already.

When I have claimed, I always receive:

1) A confirmation email outlining my delay repay claim submission;
2) Email updates at various stages
3) Email confirmation that it has been authorised and payment made to XYZ method

They sit happily in my e-mail inbox for eternity.

On receipts, the TOCs with which I've dealt have provided merely provided a reference; if I do not maintain a careful record of my claims, tying ref abc123 (supplied by the TOC) to my delay on the 17:30 from Bigsville to Little Snoring is a challenge. That it is good practice does not IMHO mean it is or should be compulsory.

As for the burden of proof, I agree with your clarification - I wrote in the context of threads where a TOC is seeking to challenge claims on which it has already paid. Prior to the TOC paying a claim, I am asking them to make payment; afterwards, they are alleging that the claim should be reversed. If that allegation is a criminal allegation, then the onus is absolutely upon them to prove that the claim was fraudulent.

 

[_toommm_]

On receipts, the TOCs with which I've dealt have provided merely provided a reference; if I do not maintain a careful record of my claims, tying ref abc123 (supplied by the TOC) to my delay on the 17:30 from Bigsville to Little Snoring is a challenge. That it is good practice does not IMHO mean it is or should be compulsory.

As for the burden of proof, I agree with your clarification - I wrote in the context of threads where a TOC is seeking to challenge claims on which it has already paid. Prior to the TOC paying a claim, I am asking them to make payment; afterwards, they are alleging that the claim should be reversed. If that allegation is a criminal allegation, then the onus is absolutely upon them to prove that the claim was fraudulent.

TOCs normally have a delay repay dashboard, which ties claim abc123 with the journey you’re claiming for along with the time . Here’s an example from Northern and TPE:

 

[35B]

TOCs normally have a delay repay dashboard, which ties claim abc123 with the journey you’re claiming for along with the time . Here’s an example from Northern and TPE:

View attachment 89717

View attachment 89718

For the journeys I've claimed, the relevant TOCs (LNER and XC in the year before lockdown) did not have such screens. They absolutely would fill the purpose I'm advocating.

 

[supervalkoinen]

Delay Repay is one of three methods proscribed in the conditions of travel for you to exercise various consumer and contractual rights when delays occur.

Shouldn't that be 'prescribed'?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Shouldn't that be 'prescribed'?

Indeed it should.

 

[ainsworth74]

For the journeys I've claimed, the relevant TOCs (LNER and XC in the year before lockdown) did not have such screens. They absolutely would fill the purpose I'm advocating.

It's not all sweetness and light. My strong suspicion is that whilst these systems look fancy under the hood they've automated basically the entre system so that a computer and just go "Yes" or "No". If you give them something really simple (a journey with no changes basically) then they're fine. But as soon as you introduce a change or split tickets then they can end up all over the place. TPE have managed to bungle two of my claims with their fancy system for one of them it decided I arrived on time as I used trains that I had told the form I had not in fact used (indeed to do so I would have been travelling without valid tickets!) then the other it insisted that I should submit my claim to Northern as they caused my delay (they did not as my delay was due to TPE being late). Meanwhile the TOCs that I've claimed from that don't use fancy forms seem to be able to correctly process even fairly complex claims!

They might be shiny and I do appreciate the better case tracking offered by them but it seems to have come at the cost of the decision making (as I said I suspect they've installed a computer to just run a journey planner and then check for delays).

 

[35B]

It's not all sweetness and light. My strong suspicion is that whilst these systems look fancy under the hood they've automated basically the entre system so that a computer and just go "Yes" or "No". If you give them something really simple (a journey with no changes basically) then they're fine. But as soon as you introduce a change or split tickets then they can end up all over the place. TPE have managed to bungle two of my claims with their fancy system for one of them it decided I arrived on time as I used trains that I had told the form I had not in fact used (indeed to do so I would have been travelling without valid tickets!) then the other it insisted that I should submit my claim to Northern as they caused my delay (they did not as my delay was due to TPE being late). Meanwhile the TOCs that I've claimed from that don't use fancy forms seem to be able to correctly process even fairly complex claims!

They might be shiny and I do appreciate the better case tracking offered by them but it seems to have come at the cost of the decision making (as I said I suspect they've installed a computer to just run a journey planner and then check for delays).

Fair comment - and I was only praising the case tracking.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Bit late to the party, but the answer to the thread title is a resounding "yes you should".

I think some forum members, and even rail passengers have become very desensitised to what Delay Repay actually is. You are making a formal claim for compensation, albeit under "industry arrangements". The onus is on you to support your claim for compensation. Delay Repay is one of three methods proscribed in the conditions of travel for you to exercise various consumer and contractual rights when delays occur. In essence, Delay Repay is essentially a reverse "out of court settlement". The TOC pays you compensation, you agree to accept it as a remedy, and the matter does not need to be escalated further. You are not obliged to use a Delay Repay scheme, and the conditions make it clear you have 2 other options, 1 of which takes you down the path of exercising your statutory rights (which could eventually end up in a civil court).

So I am afraid whilst you are not legally obliged to retain records, given that from a civil perspective (in England & Wales) you can be sued for up to 6 years afterwards, prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court up to 6 months afterwards, and in the Crown Court at an indefinite date long into the future, it would be careless not to. Simply because "Delay Repay" has a "casual" feel to it, does not take away that you are presenting a formal, legal demand for compensation/redress each and every time you claim, and affirming that it is true and accurate.

99% of the time, I would bet that you would never be contacted about that claim ever again. Unless I am missing something, it appears that the actual number of people receiving letters about "potentially suspicious" claims is likely somewhere around 1% or maybe even lower, which to me, suggests that whatever processes are currently in place for the rail industry are generally working remarkably well for the vast majority of claimants.

What you are suggesting is not possible. The vast majority of my Delay Repay claims are for ranger tickets, which are tickets valid either on any train operated by a specific TOC or any train within a specified geographical area. These are paper tickets and most stations outside of major cities do not have gates and often at stations that do have gates they are programmed to reject them. It is simply impossible to prove you have travelled on a specific train. In fact it is often impossible to prove you have been anywhere near the service you are claiming for.

I have never had a claim rejected or even queried and if they did decide some months or years later to claim some of my claims looked dodgy, being a rail enthusiast, I could provide some evidence in the unit number but I doubt they keep details of which trains operated which services for years and therefore even my evidence couldn’t be cross-checked.

 

[1955LR]

I have on a number of occasions claimed out of pocket expenses ( Taxi Fares) caused by delays from both TFW and WMR . By there very nature they don't fit the online or similar claim system so go as either an email or letter to the relevant customer services. So far they have always replied in the positive, usually as a ex gratia payment. Often the ticket has been an anytime day return, using partly none gated stations so I have had no absolute proof I have actually travelled at the times concerned.

 

[robbeech]

It's not all sweetness and light. My strong suspicion is that whilst these systems look fancy under the hood they've automated basically the entre system so that a computer and just go "Yes" or "No". If you give them something really simple (a journey with no changes basically) then they're fine. But as soon as you introduce a change or split tickets then they can end up all over the place. TPE have managed to bungle two of my claims with their fancy system for one of them it decided I arrived on time as I used trains that I had told the form I had not in fact used (indeed to do so I would have been travelling without valid tickets!) then the other it insisted that I should submit my claim to Northern as they caused my delay (they did not as my delay was due to TPE being late). Meanwhile the TOCs that I've claimed from that don't use fancy forms seem to be able to correctly process even fairly complex claims!

They might be shiny and I do appreciate the better case tracking offered by them but it seems to have come at the cost of the decision making (as I said I suspect they've installed a computer to just run a journey planner and then check for delays).

It is the YES or NO element that causes the bulk of the issues. YES or HUMAN would be more passenger focussed but with that comes the cost of more humans, and of course the increased pay out cost (many people give up on rejection).
If by the time you've got through the 3rd lap of emails, particularly if you use lots of different trains on different days rather than a regular commute, it becomes tricky to track which claim is which so it is quite important in this instance to have a record of it. I have a simple spreadsheet (covered in e-dust at the moment) with numbers, trains, dates times, status. I even have a entitlement vs prediction field which shows what i am, according to the rules entitled to, and what i predict i will be offered in the first instance, as you can imagine, the difference between entitled and predicted varies between operators. It has led me to discover some interesting patterns in automated system behaviour (what they will and won't accept) and with details from other people too I can use this data to go some way to predicting the number of claims rejected by operators, and what criteria is more or less likely to be rejected.

 

[sefton]

Bit late to the party, but the answer to the thread title is a resounding "yes you should".

I think some forum members, and even rail passengers have become very desensitised to what Delay Repay actually is. You are making a formal claim for compensation, albeit under "industry arrangements". The onus is on you to support your claim for compensation. Delay Repay is one of three methods proscribed in the conditions of travel for you to exercise various consumer and contractual rights when delays occur. In essence, Delay Repay is essentially a reverse "out of court settlement". The TOC pays you compensation, you agree to accept it as a remedy, and the matter does not need to be escalated further. You are not obliged to use a Delay Repay scheme, and the conditions make it clear you have 2 other options, 1 of which takes you down the path of exercising your statutory rights (which could eventually end up in a civil court).

So I am afraid whilst you are not legally obliged to retain records, given that from a civil perspective (in England & Wales) you can be sued for up to 6 years afterwards, prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court up to 6 months afterwards, and in the Crown Court at an indefinite date long into the future, it would be careless not to. Simply because "Delay Repay" has a "casual" feel to it, does not take away that you are presenting a formal, legal demand for compensation/redress each and every time you claim, and affirming that it is true and accurate.

99% of the time, I would bet that you would never be contacted about that claim ever again. Unless I am missing something, it appears that the actual number of people receiving letters about "potentially suspicious" claims is likely somewhere around 1% or maybe even lower, which to me, suggests that whatever processes are currently in place for the rail industry are generally working remarkably well for the vast majority of claimants.

Totally disagree.

Delay Repay is part of the contractual obligation placed on the rail company when they sold you a ticket and to suggest it is some sort of “out of court settlement“ is nonsense.

The train company sets out the information it requires to validate the claim. It is at this point the rail company has the opportunity to query the information provided.

To suggest that someone retain records of their delay repay claims for six years is absurd.

Quite simply what ‘records’ would they be keeping that did not form part of the information required by the rail company in making the Delay Repay claim?

Anything they note down isn’t evidence and is no more useful than the information included in the claim.

So the only real evidence would be to get a member of rail staff to sign a statement confirming they were on a delayed train - but I suppose they would need to ensure that signature is witnessed. Should the witness be another member of rail staff or independent?

What should someone do to get that signed statement by rail staff at an unmanned station on a DOO train? Ask the driver to pop out of the cab and sign it?

 

[Vespa]

No need to get anything signed with camera phones these days and rail journeys are logged, delays will be highlighted and recorded.

To date I never really had problem getting a delay repay or first class coach declassification refund, in every claim I make a point of mentioning that I have taken photos, some have tried to turn me down at the first hurdle, I always tell them to look again at the evidence, it usually get paid then.

I suspect there was an automatic bot that turns down your first claim, so you need to get a human to look at it properly.

 

[sefton]

No need to get anything signed with camera phones these days and rail journeys are logged, delays will be highlighted and recorded.

To date I never really had problem getting a delay repay or first class coach declassification refund, in every claim I make a point of mentioning that I have taken photos, some have tried to turn me down at the first hurdle, I always tell them to look again at the evidence, it usually get paid then.

I suspect there was an automatic bot that turns down your first claim, so you need to get a human to look at it properly.

And do you catalogue all your photos with notes to support why and where it was taken and the circumstances leading up to it, and then retain the photos forever - I know six years was suggested but this could be criminal action, so better be safe.

 

[Vespa]

And do you catalogue all your photos with notes to support why and where it was taken and the circumstances leading up to it, and then retain the photos forever - I know six years was suggested but this could be criminal action, so better be safe.

I do, it's also on cloud and email storage, on my phone, I create a folder for it.

Duplicates of duplicates, I always print off two tickets for everything, one and a spare, screenshot and photo.

Covering myself several times over.

Edit to add, your photo can have geolocation tag on it so you know where its been taken, it would be beyond doubt that you're where you say you are.

 

[talldave]

Edit to add, your photo can have geolocation tag on it so you know where its been taken, it would be beyond doubt that you're where you say you are.

Tags can be edited so only prove what they were last changed to.

 

[AlterEgo]

I genuinely will never understand the lengths some people will go to over collecting "proof" that is not really anything approaching proof. I've submitted probably a hundred DR claims or more in my time and only once or twice had an actual problem, which was solved by the one thing a lot of forum members are allergic to; picking up the phone and talking to someone.

 

[johntea]

On a slightly different note, I had to submit a Northern delay repay claim last night based on a mobile ticket purchased through the Northern app and they wanted BOTH a reference number and a screenshot...which is a bit of a faff! Surely just the reference number would have been enough to automatically link it up to their database for validation

 

[robbeech]

On a slightly different note, I had to submit a Northern delay repay claim last night based on a mobile ticket purchased through the Northern app and they wanted BOTH a reference number and a screenshot...which is a bit of a faff! Surely just the reference number would have been enough to automatically link it up to their database for validation

Of course they want MORE information, the more they ask for the more likely someone is to not be able to provide it and give up.

 

[Vespa]

Of course they want MORE information, the more they ask for the more likely someone is to not be able to provide it and give up.

Indeed all the more reason to copy everything, there must come a point where their demand of proof become ridiculous and grounds for complaints.

 

[Skie]

Virgin used to ask for all sorts of reference numbers, which you never usually had if you hadn't bought the ticket from their website, so it was usually just a case of finding a code on the ticket that looked right for that particular box.

For delays with an anytime, I'd usually snap a picture of the departure boards just to prove the time I was there and if the board had a delay listed for my train then that was a bonus. Would then claim for the actual delay to me if I stuck around or found another route, or the delay until the first train I could have taken had I stuck around and not gone to the pub/office. Virgin never had an issue with their bonus pictures of a crowded Euston.

 

[ashkeba]

Sorry should have said "Penzance" amended now.

My phone is lagging and must have auto filled the wrong place.

Think I need a new phone .......

I get new phones sometimes. I would not enjoy copying gigabytes of useless station or train photos off the old phone or between cloud backups for different devices, or keeping the old phone's cloud backups. Is that really a reasonable expectation of ordinary commuters who claim for delays?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I get new phones sometimes. I would not enjoy copying gigabytes of useless station or train photos off the old phone or between cloud backups for different devices, or keeping the old phone's cloud backups. Is that really a reasonable expectation of ordinary commuters who claim for delays?

Does anyone actually even do that anymore? If I get a new phone, I just log in when setting it up, and all of my old apps, phone books, messages, photos, downloads etc automatically appear without me having to do a thing. It's seamless (usually!)

Certainly on any new Apple or Google/Android device, everything is automatically synced to Google Drive or iCloud, including photos. OneDrive etc also available...

I think that's a pretty lame excuse personally, at least for a sizeable majority of the population, even at my age!

 

[Deafdoggie]

Does anyone actually even do that anymore? If I get a new phone, I just log in when setting it up, and all of my old apps, phone books, messages, photos, downloads etc automatically appear without me having to do a thing. It's seamless (usually!)

Certainly on any new Apple or Google/Android device, everything is automatically synced to Google Drive or iCloud, including photos. OneDrive etc also available...

I think that's a pretty lame excuse personally, at least for a sizeable majority of the population, even at my age!

I have to agree. I recently switched from apple to android, but on logging into everything all the data was there seamlessly. Even for someone with no technical knowledge like myself. Of course, remembering all the passwords to log into everything is a different matter!

 

[Master29]

No they claimed realtimetrains wasn't accurate. As it was an argument over some £2.40 I didn't press the point.

You can bet if it was the other way round they would have made sure of their £2.40, however I understand your point.

 

[CentralTrainer]

And what if you don’t have a mobile/smartphone with camera and maps functionality on it?

“do you have a ladder? I want to take a brass rubbing of the dot matrix please...”

 

[ashkeba]

I have to agree. I recently switched from apple to android, but on logging into everything all the data was there seamlessly. Even for someone with no technical knowledge like myself. Of course, remembering all the passwords to log into everything is a different matter!

Yes, and you sell your privacy for that convenience. And pay for the mobile data transfer of so many pointless photos alongside the few you want.

That is up to you but I think it is an unreasonable demand to place on claimants.

 

[35B]

Yes, and you sell your privacy for that convenience. And pay for the mobile data transfer of so many pointless photos alongside the few you want.

That is up to you but I think it is an unreasonable demand to place on claimants.

There are trade offs, but keeping and transfer of images and other fiis much easier for the average person than even 10 years ago.

The more interesting point, which hasn’t been addressed in either thread, is what weight a court might put on an ordinary citizen not keeping records of this kind for years after the event. My own instinct is that, for a consumer claim that had been entered and paid, a court would draw no adverse inference from the consumer not keeping such records, and that such absence would do nothing to help a prosecutor demonstrate criminal intent on the part of the consumer. Obviously, if the consumer did generally keep those records but just happened not to have those in question, the pattern might be difficult. My experience of some TOC systems (not GA, so I can’t comment whether this is relevant) is that the response from the TOC to the online claim is devoid of all detail, putting the onus on the consumer to keep records to match a reference to a claim.