3 ms·

What's fraudulent about this?

bonobocop 2y ago
I don’t think it’s fraud on the DR side if you actually take the trains and intend to travel. If you didn’t actually intend to travel, then claiming DR is fraud.
- underyx 2y ago
  What’s fraudulent about traveling without intending to travel?
  - bonobocop 2y ago
    Claiming delay compensation if you don’t have intent to travel is the fraud part. Easiest example is if you have a season ticket, but you have the day off. You weren’t going to take the train to work that day, so no intent to travel. If you claim DR, then that’s fraud for the compensation.
    - underyx 2y ago
      But you end up hundreds of miles away from home, who could possibly argue that you moved halfway across the country without intent?
- Nextgrid 2y ago
  I wonder how this works if you intend to travel should the train be on time, but become aware of the delay (or likelihood of it) and change your plans - what counts as proof of intent? It would be better if the law was changed so that any transport company selling a ticket is forced to refund if they couldn't fulfil their obligation, regardless of whether the ticket was used or intended to be used. Can't provide the service? Then don't sell it!
  - bonobocop 2y ago
    If you choose not to travel, then you are eligible for a refund, rather than Delay Repay: https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-assistance/compensation-and-refunds/ https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-assistance/compensat... There’s differences in consumer rights effectively between a refund and compensation (like DR)
switch007 2y ago
I didn't claim it was fraudulent, as IANAL (but I probably agree that it isn't). I should have put "fraud" in quotes as they are not too strict when claiming that. "fraud"/"abuse"/"irregularity" detection systems It doesn't have to meet a legal definition of fraud for them to be able to shake you down either. They do plenty of fishing exercises and allegations without much of a strong case, hoping you'll pay up. The government is very very hands off when it comes to the railway - law unto their own (except for the operators owned by the government - no escaping blame there!). A lot of railway legislation offences are strict liability offences - ie there is no excuse and no proof of intent required. It is from there comes a lot of their bullying behaviour and a belief of what they say goes.

I don’t think it’s fraud on the DR side if you actually take the trains and intend to travel. If you didn’t actually intend to travel, then claiming DR is fraud.

underyx 2y ago
What’s fraudulent about traveling without intending to travel?
- bonobocop 2y ago
  Claiming delay compensation if you don’t have intent to travel is the fraud part. Easiest example is if you have a season ticket, but you have the day off. You weren’t going to take the train to work that day, so no intent to travel. If you claim DR, then that’s fraud for the compensation.
  - underyx 2y ago
    But you end up hundreds of miles away from home, who could possibly argue that you moved halfway across the country without intent?
Nextgrid 2y ago
I wonder how this works if you intend to travel should the train be on time, but become aware of the delay (or likelihood of it) and change your plans - what counts as proof of intent? It would be better if the law was changed so that any transport company selling a ticket is forced to refund if they couldn't fulfil their obligation, regardless of whether the ticket was used or intended to be used. Can't provide the service? Then don't sell it!
- bonobocop 2y ago
  If you choose not to travel, then you are eligible for a refund, rather than Delay Repay: https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-assistance/compensation-and-refunds/ https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/help-and-assistance/compensat... There’s differences in consumer rights effectively between a refund and compensation (like DR)

switch007 2y ago

I didn't claim it was fraudulent, as IANAL (but I probably agree that it isn't). I should have put "fraud" in quotes as they are not too strict when claiming that. "fraud"/"abuse"/"irregularity" detection systems It doesn't have to meet a legal definition of fraud for them to be able to shake you down either. They do plenty of fishing exercises and allegations without much of a strong case, hoping you'll pay up. The government is very very hands off when it comes to the railway - law unto their own (except for the operators owned by the government - no escaping blame there!). A lot of railway legislation offences are strict liability offences - ie there is no excuse and no proof of intent required. It is from there comes a lot of their bullying behaviour and a belief of what they say goes.