![]() |
|
Tube delay refunds
On 14 Feb, 08:23, wrote:
On 12 Feb, 21:04, MaxB wrote: The case reported on the BBC about false tube delay refunds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7241264.stm says the offender had made 2000 claims. One wonders how many other people are making a good living out of this facility. MaxB Well here is someone who was even more greedy only more than 7000. Makes your chap look a bit amaturish http://londonist.com/2007/12/this_fare_refun.php This Fare Refund Swindle Has Ceased To Be We're still wondering whether civil servant, Trushar Patel, is either a clever sod, just another thieving crook, or a bit of both. Either way he's spending the next 18 months on the tax payers board and lodging for: conspiring to procure the execution of a valuable security. Or, in the long-lasting Queen's English, he swindled London Underground out of twenty two grand by getting his family to fill in bogus fare refund forms. Now we've never bothered filling in one of these forms, but we hear it's a bit of a bind. So you have to give the guy some credit for the effort involved. And it only took London Underground noticing that there were 7,105 claims from the same address for the con to be rumbled. We're told the claims amounted to an average of 8 per day, which when balanced out across everyone liable to claim for a delay who doesn't, is probably quite fair cost wise. Perhaps if he been a touch more Robin Hood like when laundering the cash. But what we really love about the story are the comments made by the Prosecutor regarding the administration of the refund scheme. Not happy to settle with the Judge's comments that the scheme showed: a high level of incompetence, Francis Sheridan went one better, announcing: the administration of this scheme was a complete shambles of Monty Pythonesque proportions. Anyone wishing to imagine Bob and Ken once upon a time skipping around the TFL offices, battering each other with stuffed parrots screaming "Oh no, not the comfy chair" please feel free. I'm very glad to hear that both the judge and the prosecutor put the boot in. The whole thing seems absolutely mind-numbingly incompetent. |
Tube delay refunds
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 00:03:54 -0800 (PST), MaxB
wrote: On 13 Feb, 02:57, James Farrar wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), MaxB wrote: The case reported on the BBC about false tube delay refunds http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7241264.stm says the offender had made 2000 claims. One wonders how many other people are making a good living out of this facility. Thanks for posting this - reminded me that I needed to claim for my journey today :) This should be an interesting test of the system, as it happens... No problem. As a matter of interest (as I a London council tax payer!) how many claims have you made? ;) Four last year, this is the third so far this year. If my memory is accurate! (The year in question starts on 18th December). |
Tube delay refunds
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 18:30:10 on Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Zen83237 remarked: I wonder why their auditors don't make a point of examining all multiple claims for the same person, above some reasonable threshold (a couple of dozen a year, perhaps). You would hope they are doing, after the first high profile fraud revealed (in the courts) a few weeks ago. Presumably these cases take quite a few months to come to trial? So they would audit everybody claiming over about £50 a year. Not £50, people making large numbers of claims. They have the figures, so perhaps just the 1% of "top claimants". And how much does each audit cost. All it involves is getting a list of names, addresses and claims, sorted by the number of claims. Then skim off the top (say) 1%. Hardly cost effective, why not spend the money stopping the bloody delys in the first place. Surely you can agree that having a close look at anyone claiming more than 365 times a year would be a good thing? -- Roland Perry But making 365 claims a year would be in excess of £1000, not what was suggested. Kevin |
Tube delay refunds
In message , at 18:17:57 on
Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Zen83237 remarked: I wonder why their auditors don't make a point of examining all multiple claims for the same person, above some reasonable threshold (a couple of dozen a year, perhaps). You would hope they are doing, after the first high profile fraud revealed (in the courts) a few weeks ago. Presumably these cases take quite a few months to come to trial? So they would audit everybody claiming over about £50 a year. Not £50, people making large numbers of claims. They have the figures, so perhaps just the 1% of "top claimants". And how much does each audit cost. All it involves is getting a list of names, addresses and claims, sorted by the number of claims. Then skim off the top (say) 1%. Hardly cost effective, why not spend the money stopping the bloody delys in the first place. Surely you can agree that having a close look at anyone claiming more than 365 times a year would be a good thing? But making 365 claims a year would be in excess of £1000, not what was suggested. My point was that auditing all claims over £50 might be a bit over-zealous. Better would be the "top 1%" [by volume], or some other percentage. -- Roland Perry |
Tube delay refunds
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: My point was that auditing all claims over £50 might be a bit over-zealous. Better would be the "top 1%" [by volume], or some other percentage. plus a random sample. -- Shenanigans! Shenanigans! Best of 3! -- Flash |
Tube delay refunds
In message , at 12:18:11 on Tue,
19 Feb 2008, Mike Bristow remarked: My point was that auditing all claims over £50 might be a bit over-zealous. Better would be the "top 1%" [by volume], or some other percentage. plus a random sample. Yes, that would be useful too. -- Roland Perry |
All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk