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

In message
, at
13:04:06 on Tue, 12 Feb 2008, MaxB remarked:
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.

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).
--
Roland Perry

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...

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?

MaxB

On Feb 12, 9:04 pm, 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.

"He was eventually caught when he complained to London Underground's
managing director Tim O'Toole about the speed of the refunds."

LOROL.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
13:04:06 on Tue, 12 Feb 2008, MaxB remarked:
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.

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?

Paul S

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.

Maybe he should have offered a service and charged commission. I've made
about 3 claims in 10 years which can't be more than about 5% of those I
was entitled to.

ESB

"Paul Scott" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at
13:04:06 on Tue, 12 Feb 2008, MaxB remarked:
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.

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?

Paul S
So they would audit everybody claiming over about £50 a year. And how much
does each audit cost. Hardly cost effective, why not spend the money
stopping the bloody delys in the first place.

Kevin

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.

Image from Nicobobinus's Flickr photostream


HTH Phil

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