NRCoC refunds on unused tickets: taking the biscuit?

[saxsux]

Hello!

I was booked to travel from Exeter Central - Waterloo on an advance ticket back in December, but had to change my plans at the last minute.

I kept the ticket and a few days after I would have travelled, I checked on opentraintimes.com to see that the train had left EXC one minute late!

I know it's incredibly, thoroughly cheeky, but could I claim a refund under the NRCoC refund rules?

26. Refunds on tickets that have not been used
(b) if the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be honoured, your ticket or relevant portion of it is completely unused, you decide not to travel and you submit a claim for a refund within 28 days of the expiry of the ticket to the Ticket Seller you will be given a full refund as shown in Condition 27 as soon as practicable and in any case within one month of your claim being received

I've previously used this rule to claim a refund after I changed my mind and didn't travel on a train which left half an hour late. But with one minute... well, I can imagine my claim form might get chucked in the bin.

Does anybody have any experience of claiming under these rules? Cheers!

 

[bb21]

I know it's incredibly, thoroughly cheeky, but could I claim a refund under the NRCoC refund rules?

No...

 

[455driver]

This has got to be a wind up, a refund because a train (which you weren't even on) left one minute late, seriously? :roll:

 

[PermitToTravel]

No...

Why not? Condition 26 doesn't define a minimum length of delay, and nor does it seem to exclude advance tickets.

 

[bb21]

Why not? Condition 26 doesn't define a minimum length of delay, and nor does it seem to exclude advance tickets.

I doubt you will get far with that argument.

Should this be declined by the TOC and matter taken to court, I would like to hear the verdict.

 

[PermitToTravel]

This has got to be a wind up, a refund because a train (which you weren't even on) left one minute late, seriously? :roll:

You can get a refund if a train is delayed and you decide not to travel on it, or compensation if you do travel on a train and it is delayed more than a certain threshold.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt you will get far with that argument.

Why not though? It's what the rules say.

Anecdotally, I believe other forum members have successfully claimed such refunds for delays of that magnitude.

 

[bb21]

Why not though? It's what the rules say.

Anecdotally, I believe other forum members have successfully claimed such refunds for delays of that magnitude.

For a one-minute delay, which was probably not even advertised? Remember that a decision had to be made at the time not to travel according to Condition 26. How would the passenger know that the train was one minute late, which in almost all cases would not even be the defining factor for any eventual delays, if any, at the following stations?

For something like a 10/15-minute delay then yeah, possibly, but for a one-minute delay, I doubt it.

There is a time and place for arguing over technicalities. I doubt this is a good example for it.

 

[miami]

So if the train was three hours late would that be acceptable?

if the train you intend to use is ... delayed, your ticket .... is completely unused ... you decide not to travel .and you submit a claim for a refund within 28 days of the expiry of the ticket

All of those conditions were met.

you will be given a full refund as shown in Condition 27 as soon as practicable and in any case within one month of your claim being received

I'm sure the intention wasn't that a 1 minute delay would allow a refund, especially as it's likely that minute was made up later in the trip, but that doesn't appear to be what's in the coc, there's no "significantly delayed" statement.

 

[bb21]

So if the train was three hours late would that be acceptable?



All of those conditions were met.



I'm sure the intention wasn't that a 1 minute delay would allow a refund, especially as it's likely that minute was made up later in the trip, but that doesn't appear to be what's in the coc, there's no "significantly delayed" statement.

For a 3-hour delay, if the passenger decided not to travel as a result, then yes, of course, but that is not the case here.

Not applicable whatever length the delay if the passenger did not even bother to turn up for the trip.

 

[74A]

As you said yourself the reason you did not travel is because your plans have changed. The NRCoC says you can get a refund if due to the train being late you decide not to travel. As this does not apply then no you can't get a refund

 

[PermitToTravel]

For a one-minute delay, which was probably not even advertised?

It doesn't matter whether it was advertised, as it will appear in the system the TOC use to check such delays.

Remember that a decision had to be made at the time not to travel according to Condition 26.

It might seem like that initially, but the connective used is 'and'. Nothing is said about temporal sequence or causality (it's not "and then" or "and so")

How would the passenger know that the train was one minute late?

By checking online, as they've said.

 

[bb21]

I am just going to say that the forum do not condone lying. That is not what happened with the OP so there is no valid claim for a refund under Condition 26 imo.

I am not prepared to be dragged into a discussion as to whether one-minute qualifies as a "delay" in the eyes of the NRCoC. My answers are clear. I will just say that if you think your interpretation were correct, then you are welcome to take this matter to court should the refund claim be rejected.

 

[furlong]

Well this is just another example of the railway's sloppy drafting. Everyone can see that a connection between the delay and the decision not to travel was intended, but it isn't stated, nor is any minimum amount of delay quantified, and you can't even infer a time order from the logical sequence as the condition actually begins:

If you decide not to use a ticket (other than a Season Ticket - see Condition 36) to make all or part of your intended journey, then: ... (b) if the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be honoured,...

First you decide not to use the ticket.
Then the train is delayed.

If silly claims like this ever do succeed, the railway really has only itself to blame!

 

[Starmill]

I suppose you could have tried it. It's unlikely you would have gotten away with it though, and definitely do not now that you have just admitted publically that that isn't the reason you weren't travelling. If you submit a claim that is premised on lies... -> Fraud.

 

[PermitToTravel]

But there isn't any lying required! Try re-reading the condition in question. It says nothing about the passenger's reasons for not travelling.

 

[Starmill]

OK then I will go with the slightly revised viewpoint that yes your claim is valid. As long as you don't tell the train company the one minute delay was your reason for not travelling you are, it would appear, fully entitled to the refund. If they ask what your reason was (which methinks likely given a delay of just one minute) and you answer truthfully that it was because of something completely different, then I think your claim is still valid. But how likely do you think they would be to pay it? Additionally, might we anticipate any changes to the wording of the condition following this...?

Feel free to take them to court over it

 

[miami]

But there isn't any lying required! Try re-reading the condition in question. It says nothing about the passenger's reasons for not travelling.

Perhaps wording along the lines of

"If a delay to your journey means the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to your original travel plan, you will receive within 7 days a refund of any unused tickets, any tickets already used on the journey, and a return journey to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity"

Perhaps with a minimum delay specified (say 30 minutes, certainly no more than an hour - as you'd get a full refund from delay-repay)

 

[PermitToTravel]

Perhaps wording along the lines of

"If a delay to your journey means the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to your original travel plan, you will receive within 7 days a refund of any unused tickets, any tickets already used on the journey, and a return journey to the first point of departure at the earliest opportunity"

Perhaps with a minimum delay specified (say 30 minutes, certainly no more than an hour - as you'd get a full refund from delay-repay)

Absolutely. But that's unequivocally very different from the condition already extant, despite some struggling to grasp that.

 

[furlong]

There are two questions here:

1) What is the minimum delay that constitutes "delayed" under the terms of the contract?
(which might lead you to a dictionary definition of the word or to consider whether a normal person would consider 1 minute to constitute a delay to the train, and even the industry usies delay "minutes")

2) Can there be any inferred requirement for that delay to be either known or knowable by the passenger prior to the decision not to travel being made?
(the tenses and the logical progression are all mixed up in the drafting)

The difficulty for the railway is that it would have been easy for the railway to have provided answers to both of those questions by using different wording had it intended to do so, but it didn't.

 

[Starmill]

Absolutely. But that's unequivocally very different from the condition already extant, despite some struggling to grasp that.

Given the context, and the fact that the TOCs will be thinking what we were thinking rather than what you and Furlong were thinking, I think we can be excused.

I wonder how long it will take for this to be reworded? You should all be being paid for this service you know.

Ooh, I knew there was something this reminded me of!

 

[PermitToTravel]

Yes, the NRCoC is reworded all the time

 

[bb21]

There are two questions here:

1) What is the minimum delay that constitutes "delayed" under the terms of the contract?
(which might lead you to a dictionary definition of the word or to consider whether a normal person would consider 1 minute to constitute a delay to the train, and even the industry usies delay "minutes")

2) Can there be any inferred requirement for that delay to be either known or knowable by the passenger prior to the decision not to travel being made?
(the tenses and the logical progression are all mixed up in the drafting)

The difficulty for the railway is that it would have been easy for the railway to have provided answers to both of those questions by using different wording had it intended to do so, but it didn't.

The wording may not be the best but the intention, as pointed out previously, was clear. There is only one interpretation that makes sense, one where the sub-clauses describe the scenarios that the decision to not use the ticket arose from. If the Condition were read in a way such that the decision to not use the ticket had been made prior to the given circumstances occurring, then the whole Condition makes no sense.

I cannot realistically see such a case arguing over a one-minute delay being received favourably by a magistrate. Anyone who wishes to give it a go would be free to try it out.

On the matter of further clarification of the NRCoC, all I will say is that one should be careful what one wishes for. The current wording, as I see it, plays largely to the passenger's favour, in the vast majority of cases. Should further clarification be put in, I highly doubt that they would be favourable changes.

With that, I bow out as I have said all I want to say. Some people will insist that I were wrong. That is fine. They are free to prove me wrong.

 

[kieron]

I don't think there's any question that saxsux could claim. The claim may be accepted or may not, but the wording in the NRCOC means that the worst outcome for saxsux, assuming that he doesn't say or write anything he doesn't believe to be true, would be to receive no refund.

I do feel that discussing an issue like this on an open forum which may be read by representatives of the TOC concerned is unlikely to improve his likely outcome.

 

[Clip]

But did the train arrive at its destination on time?

 

[embers25]

But did the train arrive at its destination on time?

It doesn't say it can't arrive on time it just says delayed and so in theory if you have a ticket from Exeter to Waterloo and it leaves 10 mins late but arrive on time due to the amount of padding in the timetable then you could still claim as it was delayed at your point of boarding.

 

[najaB]

The T&C's for Advance tickets make it clear that the delay has to come before your decision not to use the ticket, rather than the other way around (my bold):

Your ticket is non-refundable. However, if the train you purchased a ticket for is cancelled or delayed and as a result you decide not to travel a refund will be offered on completely unused tickets and you will not be charged an administration fee.

It will be hard to make a believable claim that one minute was enough of a delay to make you decide not to travel.

 

[DaleCooper]

I know it's incredibly, thoroughly cheeky, but could I claim a refund under the NRCoC refund rules?

This is nothing to do with NRCoC wording and it is not cheeky; it is dishonest.

 

[miami]

The T&C's for Advance tickets make it clear that the delay has to come before your decision not to use the ticket, rather than the other way around (my bold):It will be hard to make a believable claim that one minute was enough of a delay to make you decide not to travel.

That seems clear then.

I'd be very concerned of black and white terms and conditions were interpreted by "intention"

 

[furlong]

That seems clear then.

(But that term doesn't attempt to qualify the existing right under the NRCoC and could be argued as providing an independent right to a refund. Yes, I think the NRCoC wording should be tightened.)

 

[Dent]

This is nothing to do with NRCoC wording and it is not cheeky; it is dishonest.

What is "dishonest" about giving a truthful account of events and claiming an entitlement specified in the contract?