RailUK Forums
RailUK Forums > Fares, Ticketing & Routeing > Fares Advice & Policy


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 20th March 2017, 16:21   #1
CheesyChips
Member
 
Join Date: 18 Jun 2015
Posts: 213
Default Delay from Hayes & Harlington - Missed Onward Connection with Advance Ticket

Some thoughts on the following would be most helpful. Thank you in advance.

My journey was from Hayes and Harlington to Old Hill, 20th March, for which I used contactless from Hayes and Harlington to Paddington (GWR), Paddington to Marylebone by tube then held an advance ticket for the 14:10 Chiltern Service to Birmingham (then local LM services to Old Hill to complete my journey).

I boarded the 13:10 GWR service at Hayes and Harlington which became severely delayed between Southall and Ealing Broadway due to a failed Heathrow Connect service sat at West Ealing (so I’m told). The driver announced that he had been instructed to change ends and take us back to Hayes and Harlington to switch to the main line and take us into Paddington that way, which is what happened.

Essentially, we arrived at Paddington 63 mins late http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20960/2017/03/20

I therefore missed the train at Marylebone for which I had an advance ticket but Chiltern quite happily endorsed my ticket for the 15:10 so nothing lost there but 1 hour of time.

I have two questions:

1. Did Chiltern endorse my ticket because they’re obliged to or because they used discretion?
2. Do I have any recourse to make a claim for my delay between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington? I'm particularly interested because I used contactless.
CheesyChips is offline  
Registered users do not see these banners - join today!
Old 20th March 2017, 17:33   #2
MikeWh
Oyster expert
Senior Fares Advisor
 
MikeWh's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 Jun 2010
Location: Crayford
Posts: 4,784
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheesyChips View Post
1. Did Chiltern endorse my ticket because they’re obliged to or because they used discretion?
If the delay was verifiable and your original journey satisfied minimum connection times between Paddington and Marylebone then they should allow later travel. It's good to hear a TOC doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheesyChips View Post
2. Do I have any recourse to make a claim for my delay between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington? I'm particularly interested because I used contactless.
Yes. Your ticket can be verified by a journey history printout from TfL. Whatever compensation scheme GWR operate is the one you claim against.
__________________
Confused by the Oyster system in London? Try my independent site with an alternative explanation at: www.oyster-rail.org.uk
MikeWh is offline  
Old 20th March 2017, 17:49   #3
455driver
On Moderation
 
Join Date: 10 May 2010
Posts: 11,288
Default

Where was your rail ticket actually from?
If Marylebone then I am note sure you have any recourse because it is your responsibility to get to your starting station as listed on your ticket, thats why you would have been better with a ticket from H&H which would have been fine.
455driver is offline  
Old 20th March 2017, 19:04   #4
Joe Paxton
Member
 
Join Date: 12 Jan 2017
Posts: 754
Default

If you have not registered your contactless card with TfL, then you can get access to the last 7 day's journey & payment history by clicking on the link at the bottom left of this page. Then print it out - or, with some browsers (such as Chrome or Edge) you can natively 'print to PDF' which is useful if you want to keep a record saved to disk or if you don't have a printer.

If you have registered your contactless card, then login as usual. If you choose this moment to register your contactless card then I'm pretty sure you also then get access to recent journey and payment history on that card.

(A TfL account can have multiple contactless and/or Oyster cards attached to it, so you don't need a separate TfL account for each card.)
Joe Paxton is offline  
Old 20th March 2017, 20:43   #5
crehld
Senior Fares Advisor
 
crehld's Avatar
 
Join Date: 1 Nov 2014
Location: Between Crewe & Hellifield
Posts: 1,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 455driver View Post
Where was your rail ticket actually from?
If Marylebone then I am note sure you have any recourse because it is your responsibility to get to your starting station as listed on your ticket, thats why you would have been better with a ticket from H&H which would have been fine.
This is quite incorrect. The Op held a ticket between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington (in the format of a contactless payment card). The National Rail Conditions of Travel explicitly permit passengers to use more than one ticket to complete their journey, and customers are entitled to delay repay or whatever compensation scheme is in place for their entire journey in circumstances of delay. As explained by the Op, they had already begun their journey at the point they were delayed. Chiltern were quite correct to permit the Op to board the next available service without hassle. As MikeWh stated, so long as the journey was above board with minimum connection times and the like the Op should be entitled to their due compensation.
crehld is offline  
Old 20th March 2017, 21:49   #6
sheff1
Established Member
 
Join Date: 25 Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 2,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 455driver View Post
Where was your rail ticket actually from?
.
Hayes and Harlington, as clearly stated in the OP.
sheff1 is offline  
Old 20th March 2017, 22:06   #7
yorkie
Fares Advisor
Administrator
 
Join Date: 6 Jun 2005
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 34,211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheesyChips View Post
Some thoughts on the following would be most helpful. Thank you in advance.

My journey was from Hayes and Harlington to Old Hill, 20th March, for which I used contactless from Hayes and Harlington to Paddington (GWR), Paddington to Marylebone by tube then held an advance ticket for the 14:10 Chiltern Service to Birmingham (then local LM services to Old Hill to complete my journey).

I boarded the 13:10 GWR service at Hayes and Harlington which became severely delayed between Southall and Ealing Broadway due to a failed Heathrow Connect service sat at West Ealing (so I’m told). The driver announced that he had been instructed to change ends and take us back to Hayes and Harlington to switch to the main line and take us into Paddington that way, which is what happened.

Essentially, we arrived at Paddington 63 mins late http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/C20960/2017/03/20

I therefore missed the train at Marylebone for which I had an advance ticket but Chiltern quite happily endorsed my ticket for the 15:10 so nothing lost there but 1 hour of time.

I have two questions:

1. Did Chiltern endorse my ticket because they’re obliged to or because they used discretion?
The former.

The only loss of rights with using Contactless/Oyster on National Rail services is that you have to queue at the ticket office to get the delay verified. If you use paper tickets, you do not need to do this. As a result, you may miss a train and increase your entitlement to delay compensation, so it is surprising the rail industry has this requirement, but there you go. Full details are in the Advance Fares FAQ in The Manual, which is reproduced in our Fares Guide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CheesyChips View Post
2. Do I have any recourse to make a claim for my delay between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington? I'm particularly interested because I used contactless.
You are entitled to delay compensation for your journey, which was between Hayes & Harlington and Old Hill.

Be careful not to complicate matters in your compensation claim.

Clearly state your journey was from Hayes & Harlington to Old Hill. I'd include a photograph of your paper ticket, a screenshot of your Contactless journey history and a screenshot showing the valid itinerary from Hayes & Harlington to Old Hill departing at 13:10.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crehld View Post
...The Op held a ticket between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington (in the format of a contactless payment card). .....
Indeed. I'll quote this again, and it's as true now as it was then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ford, Modern Railways, October 2005
"What counts is the message, not the medium."
__________________
Down with Breitbart, Trump and all others who promote misogynist, xenophobic and racist material!
yorkie is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 21:18   #8
bb21
Moderator
 
bb21's Avatar
 
Join Date: 5 Feb 2010
Posts: 21,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crehld View Post
The Op held a ticket between Hayes and Harlington and Paddington (in the format of a contactless payment card).
I don't think this is quite there, as no ticket is involved. A contactless payment card is very clearly not a ticket. It is different to an Oyster which contains a Travelcard product. I have been looking for supporting material of this claim but am so far unable to find any. (It is quite possible that I might have missed it.)

What this boils down to AIUI is that the OP had a valid itinerary, and travelled according to that itinerary. On touching in with his contactless payment card, the contract for conveyance is formed, at which point the delay to his journey was not known (very important). The question then surrounds whether an indeterminable product "purchased" at the time of touch-in (however becoming determined at touch-out) equates to a paper ticket purchased at the same time for the same journey travelled (in this case Hayes & Harlington - Marylebone). I don't think there is any confirmation either way although I would argue that it would be weak to be arguing otherwise, which is what then allows this product to be combined with other paper tickets in the usual manner.
bb21 is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 21:23   #9
Mag_seven
Established Member
 
Join Date: 1 Sep 2014
Location: Almost the west country
Posts: 1,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bb21 View Post
I don't think this is quite there, as no ticket is involved. A contactless payment card is very clearly not a ticket. It is different to an Oyster which contains a Travelcard product. I have been looking for supporting material of this claim but am so far unable to find any. (It is quite possible that I might have missed it.)

What this boils down to AIUI is that the OP had a valid itinerary, and travelled according to that itinerary. On touching in with his contactless payment card, the contract for conveyance is formed, at which point the delay to his journey was not known (very important). The question then surrounds whether an indeterminable product "purchased" at the time of touch-in (however becoming determined at touch-out) equates to a paper ticket purchased at the same time for the same journey travelled (in this case Hayes & Harlington - Marylebone). I don't think there is any confirmation either way although I would argue that it would be weak to be arguing otherwise, which is what then allows this product to be combined with other paper tickets in the usual manner.
I hope that TOC's are now not going to start to wriggle out of their responsibilities if one part of a journey is made using contactless payment, bearing in mind that travel by means of contactless is bound to increase over the next few years.
Mag_seven is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 21:31   #10
bb21
Moderator
 
bb21's Avatar
 
Join Date: 5 Feb 2010
Posts: 21,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mag_seven View Post
I hope that TOC's are now not going to start to wriggle out of their responsibilities if one part of a journey is made using contactless payment, bearing in mind that travel by means of contactless is bound to increase over the next few years.
I don't know, but I am uneasy with the certainty sometimes communicated on this forum that a contactless payment card equates a paper ticket. I have yet to see any supporting evidence of that.

The only way to ease your worries for definite is for the status of contactless payment card to be clarified in the NRCoT, as it has been around for a number of years now and its usage only going to increase as you correctly stated, so the NRCoT really need to keep up with the development of new technology.
bb21 is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 21:52   #11
crehld
Senior Fares Advisor
 
crehld's Avatar
 
Join Date: 1 Nov 2014
Location: Between Crewe & Hellifield
Posts: 1,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bb21 View Post
I don't think this is quite there, as no ticket is involved. A contactless payment card is very clearly not a ticket. It is different to an Oyster which contains a Travelcard product. I have been looking for supporting material of this claim but am so far unable to find any. (It is quite possible that I might have missed it.).
Allow me to assist

For me this is enshrined in the Condition 4.2 in the National Rail Conditions of Travel:

Quote:
4.2 Some Tickets are held as an electronic record on a smartcard or electronic device, or may be transmitted to you for you to print out yourself. In such cases you will be advised of (and must comply with) the specific conditions applying to Tickets held in those formats
I'd argue use of a contactless payment card constitutes a ticket which is stored on a smartcard or electronic device. But you don't have to take my word for it. Helpfully, p.7 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel elaborates and contains the following note:

Quote:
INFORMATION: ‘Ticket’ includes a validated contactless payment
card where accepted. The ‘Tickets’ definition in Appendix B gives more information
Appendix B of the National Rail Conditions of Travel elaborates further and sets out the definitions of key terms used in the said Conditions of Travel. It defines a "ticket" as follows (my emphasis where it appears):

Quote:
“Ticket” means any physical or electronic document or record which entitles a passenger to make a journey on the National Rail Network between the stations or within the zones indicated by one or more of the operators listed in Appendix A. An electronic document or record may consist of (but not be limited to):
(i) a smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
(ii) a payment card or identity card;
(iii) a mobile telephone or tablet device;
(iv) other mobile electronic device; or
(v) a database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card bearing the "))))" symbol described in the notices and publications of the Train Company as being valid for travel on their services. Electronic documents or records may not display the same information as printed Tickets but the conditions for use of these will explain where this information can be found;
I think on this basis we can rest assured that a contactless payment card constitutes a ticket on at least equal terms with its paper counterpart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bb21 View Post
What this boils down to AIUI is that the OP had a valid itinerary, and travelled according to that itinerary.
Yes I agree completely - as is the case with all delay compensation claims where split tickets (paper or otherwise) are used.
crehld is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 21:55   #12
crehld
Senior Fares Advisor
 
crehld's Avatar
 
Join Date: 1 Nov 2014
Location: Between Crewe & Hellifield
Posts: 1,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bb21 View Post
I don't know, but I am uneasy with the certainty sometimes communicated on this forum that a contactless payment card equates a paper ticket. I have yet to see any supporting evidence of that.

The only way to ease your worries for definite is for the status of contactless payment card to be clarified in the NRCoT, as it has been around for a number of years now and its usage only going to increase as you correctly stated, so the NRCoT really need to keep up with the development of new technology.
It already is clarified in the NRCoT!!

Last edited by crehld; 21st March 2017 at 22:02.
crehld is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 22:02   #13
maniacmartin
Southern Commuter
Senior Fares Advisor
 
maniacmartin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 15 May 2012
Location: Purley
Posts: 4,842
Default

Even though the contactless payment card is now specified in the NRCoT, I still envisage it's use causing more complication than had a through paper ticket been used. It's difficult enough to get some TOCs to pay Delay Repay for all tickets used for the journey instead of just the ticket on which the delay occured without adding CPCs into the mix. This is especially true when the delay occured on a cheap ticket that connects with an expensive ticket.
__________________
Peak times are determined by the ticket, not the train

Last edited by maniacmartin; 22nd March 2017 at 08:35.
maniacmartin is offline  
Old 21st March 2017, 23:04   #14
Joe Paxton
Member
 
Join Date: 12 Jan 2017
Posts: 754
Default

I agree that there isn't the clarity regarding this that there could or should be - indeed looking at the London-area TOCs I don't think any actually mention contactless in terms of Delay Repay, and only some mention Oyster. (I haven't yet had reason to try a DR claim from a TOC when I was using contactless, though I have with Oyster.)

I'd urge the OP to put in a Delay Repay claim for the whole journey to GWR though and see what happens. It makes logical sense to me, though I note manianmartin's comments above about some TOCs being awkward about paying Delay Repay on multiple tickets.
Joe Paxton is offline  
Old 22nd March 2017, 00:11   #15
sheff1
Established Member
 
Join Date: 25 Dec 2009
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 2,952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Paxton View Post
I agree that there isn't the clarity regarding this that there could or should be - indeed looking at the London-area TOCs I don't think any actually mention contactless in terms of Delay Repay, and only some mention Oyster.
There should not be any need to specify all the different possibilities of "ticket" in the Delay Repay guidance. A "ticket" is comprehensively defined in the NRCoT, from which crehid has helpfully posted the relevant extract above.
sheff1 is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8
© RailUK Forums 2005 - 2017