Trainline Potentially Fraudulent Refunds

[sash234]

Hi all, would really appreciate some advice. I received the below email from Digital Fraud investigations. I didn't reply to the first email (which said something similar) because it was sent to an email account rarely used. Is it worth responding? Will they leave it alone given its "potentially" fraudulent? They are referring to some tickets that were never scanned and were therefore refunded


We contacted you by email 7 days ago and have not received any reply to date.

As previously stated, working with various industry systems and data, we have identified that you have submitted a significant number of refunds for travel on Avanti West Coast Services. The excessive number of claims appears suspicious and have been highlighted as potentially fraudulent.

We have the details of your refund requests which appear to be fraudulent together with the amount repayable to Avanti West Coast. Please respond to us within 7 days by email at [email protected] quoting the reference number *** in the subject field.

Based on your response the decision will be to either (a) offer you the opportunity to repay any claims that have proved to have been made fraudulently; or (b) pass your file to our prosecuting services or the British Transport Police for further action to be taken.

If option (a) is chosen, you will be given details of how to make payment.

If we do NOT hear from you within 7 days, we will start preparing our case to be sent to our prosecutors.

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

[jfollows]

It's possibly a bit hard to advise you because nobody mentions option "c", the refunds were all correctly submitted and no further action is required, and you don't want to incriminate yourself here if that's not the case.
If you obtained a refund for tickets which had actually been used (just not scanned) then it would seem wise to avail yourself of option (a) and explain to them what you did, apologise, explain what you've learned, and offer to make appropriate payment including for their investigation costs. Basically engage with them, apologise, and demonstrate what you've learned and why you won't do it again.
If your refunds were all properly made, then you choose option (b) and tell them that you'll defend any case in court.

 

[methecooldude]

If you obtained a refund for tickets which had actually been used (just not scanned) then it would seem wise to avail yourself of option (a) and explain to them what you did, apologise, explain what you've learned, and offer to make appropriate payment including for their investigation costs. Basically engage with them, apologise, and demonstrate what you've learned and why you won't do it again.

Considering the OP wrote "They are referring to some tickets that were never scanned and were therefore refunded", I have a feeling your advise about option (a) would be best for the OP here

 

[jfollows]

Will they leave it alone given its "potentially" fraudulent? They are referring to some tickets that were never scanned and were therefore refunded

No, I don't think they will drop this now, they've gone to the trouble of writing to you and there will now be a process which they will follow.
But please leave it a day or two for other opinions here, if you don't have an immediate deadline. Welcome to the forum, and you will get good advice from a number of people.

 

[alholmes]

They are referring to some tickets that were never scanned and were therefore refunded

In this scenario, were the tickets refunded because you requested a refund, or were they just automatically refunded by Trainline after the ticket had expired because there had been no scan, with no prompting from you?

 

[skyhigh]

In this scenario, were the tickets refunded because you requested a refund, or were they just automatically refunded by Trainline after the ticket had expired because there had been no scan, with no prompting from you?

Trainline does not auto refund unscanned tickets, only TOD that is not collected. So any refunds will have been requested by the OP.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

I know nothing about what patterns these Digital Fraud people look for, but I’d imagine they have some sophisticated tools which automatically flag any statistical anomalies for further investigation.

One such anomaly would presumably be when someone has been refunding an unusually high percentage of the unscanned tickets they’ve bought. I’d imagine that for this, the “threshold” percentage for investigation would be relatively low.

If one normally takes the same service(s) each day, they may also be able to see if ticket checks were carried out on these services. If there’s a strong correlation between tickets not being checked and the person claiming not to have travelled that day, they may well conclude that the probability of all such refunds being genuine was astronomically low. Whether such a calculation would be usable in court I couldn’t say.

Essentially, the OP could be in bother here, and it may be that they should pull out all the stops (including hiring a solicitor) in order to secure a settlement offer.

 

[John R]

It’s the use of the word “therefore” in the OP’s comment about being refunded which interests me. It suggests that either it was an automatic process, which I think we’ve concluded it isn’t, or that there was an entitlement to seek a refund on an unscanned ticket, even if used.

Clearly if every ticket that wasn’t scanned, clipped or passed through a gateline was refunded there would be a huge loss to the industry, so I don’t see how a reasonable person could have mistakenly made that assumption.

Hopefully we’ll hear back from the OP soon with some more info, so that the advice can be tailored accordingly.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd ignore the email as a fishing mission. It's unlikely they have hard evidence of the unscanned tickets being used, and the best option is often to avoid corresponding and incriminating oneself.

 

[madjack]

This previous thread of a similar situation (though with a different TOC) may be helpful - with the arguments for and against responding and the outcome in that case, which was a settlement.

If I were in this situation, my question would be around how I could engage with the TOC positively without incriminating myself.

Contacted by Digital Fraud Team regarding excessive refunds

Hi hope I can explain my situation,my seventeen year old son was this week contacted by the Digital Fraud Team of West Midlands trains regarding excessive refunds made on his Train-line account last year. The dates concerned are 1/6/22 to 21/6/22 when he refunded 13 tickets for a total of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Hadders]

In many respects this is quite a tricky case to advise on. Ticket fraud costs the railway £millions each year and digital ticketing means it is easier than every to looks for abnormal patterns and trends.

If @sash234 has travelled using the tickets, and then requested a refund on the basis they were not scanned then I would advise them to come clean and pay up to avoid the matter escalating.

On the other hand if the refunds were genuine and travel was not undertaken then there is no need for the OP to reply and potentially incriminate themselves. That said, if they take this course of action they should be prepare themselves for a police interview/investigation. This doesn't mean the case would result in being charged but the OP would need to be able to mount credible defence.

It is possible that refunds were requested instead of delay repay. If this is the case then the OP might want to explain this although I suspect this isn't actually the case if there are a lot of claims.

Only @sash234 knows the truth here...

 

[Wallsendmag]

Trainline does not auto refund unscanned tickets, only TOD that is not collected. So any refunds will have been requested by the OP.

Are you sure?

 

[cactustwirly]

In many respects this is quite a tricky case to advise on. Ticket fraud costs the railway £millions each year and digital ticketing means it is easier than every to looks for abnormal patterns and trends.

If @sash234 has travelled using the tickets, and then requested a refund on the basis they were not scanned then I would advise them to come clean and pay up to avoid the matter escalating.

On the other hand if the refunds were genuine and travel was not undertaken then there is no need for the OP to reply and potentially incriminate themselves. That said, if they take this course of action they should be prepare themselves for a police interview/investigation. This doesn't mean the case would result in being charged but the OP would need to be able to mount credible defence.

It is possible that refunds were requested instead of delay repay. If this is the case then the OP might want to explain this although I suspect this isn't actually the case if there are a lot of claims.

Only @sash234 knows the truth here...

Worth noting that a police interview is optional here, you do not have to attend and risk incriminating yourself.

This applies to any other interview, so if an RPI questions you you do not have to answer unless you are asked for your name or address.

 

[Hadders]

Are you sure?

I could see uncollected ToD transactions being refunded but there’s no way an I scanned e-ticket would get refunded.

Many of my e-tickets never get scanned, auto refunding unscanned e-tickets would be farcical.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I could see uncollected ToD transactions being refunded but there’s no way an I scanned e-ticket would get refunded.

Many of my e-tickets never get scanned, auto refunding unscanned e-tickets would be farcical.

Wouldn't it just but the is Trainline we're talking about.

 

[AlterEgo]

Wouldn't it just but the is Trainline we're talking about.

This definitely doesn't happen on Trainline, I can attest from experience. The OP has been requesting these refunds.

 

[Hadders]

Wouldn't it just but the is Trainline we're talking about.

I’d be absolutely flabbergasted if any retailer is auto-refunding unscanned e-tickets.

There would be a huge revenue risk. I don’t know what percentage of e-tickets get scanned but it can’t be 100%

 

[NeilCr]

I’d be absolutely flabbergasted if any retailer is auto-refunding unscanned e-tickets.

There would be a huge revenue risk. I don’t know what percentage of e-tickets get scanned but it can’t be 100%

Definitely not 100%

I do the same journey once a week. The gateline is always open at my destination station and it's rare for an onboard check (trip is just over 20 minutes)

On the return the gateline is usually in operation but there isn't one at Ramsgate and - again - not checked on train and very unusual for inspectors to be waiting

 

[island]

It’s the use of the word “therefore” in the OP’s comment about being refunded which interests me. It suggests that either it was an automatic process, which I think we’ve concluded it isn’t, or that there was an entitlement to seek a refund on an unscanned ticket, even if used.

Clearly if every ticket that wasn’t scanned, clipped or passed through a gateline was refunded there would be a huge loss to the industry, so I don’t see how a reasonable person could have mistakenly made that assumption.

Indeed. This, and the use of the passive voice “were refunded” rather than the active “I submitted them for a refund” indicating a subliminal desire by the OP to distance themselves from the actions taken, suggest to me that the OP has been systematically requesting refunds on e-tickets for journeys which they made but on which the ticket was not scanned. If so, this is fraud.

To the OP – I would agree with the advice of jfollows in post 2.

 

[MotCO]

Although the consensus seems to be that the refunds were not appropriate, (and the absence of further posts by the OP suggests this could be the case), on the off-chance that the claims were valid I would advise the OP to see if there was any evidence that they did not catch those trains. For example, work records, ATM withdrawals, phone location reports etc. Although it is up to the rail company to prove that you did wrong, it may be helpful to curtail their investigations if you could prove you did not catch the train / use the tickets.

 

[greyman42]

Hi all, would really appreciate some advice. I received the below email from Digital Fraud investigations. I didn't reply to the first email (which said something similar) because it was sent to an email account rarely used. Is it worth responding? Will they leave it alone given its "potentially" fraudulent? They are referring to some tickets that were never scanned and were therefore refunded


We contacted you by email 7 days ago and have not received any reply to date.

As previously stated, working with various industry systems and data, we have identified that you have submitted a significant number of refunds for travel on Avanti West Coast Services. The excessive number of claims appears suspicious and have been highlighted as potentially fraudulent.

We have the details of your refund requests which appear to be fraudulent together with the amount repayable to Avanti West Coast. Please respond to us within 7 days by email at [email protected] quoting the reference number *** in the subject field.

Based on your response the decision will be to either (a) offer you the opportunity to repay any claims that have proved to have been made fraudulently; or (b) pass your file to our prosecuting services or the British Transport Police for further action to be taken.

If option (a) is chosen, you will be given details of how to make payment.

If we do NOT hear from you within 7 days, we will start preparing our case to be sent to our prosecutors.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Was there not a similar thread not too long ago regarding a person travelling between York and London on LNER?