GWR compensation scheme

[Gnasher11]

Hi all,
On 1st Jan I got delayed by over an hour on a journey from Exeter St David's to Paddington, due to a fatality between Iver and Paddington. (GWR Service)

I haven't submitted a claim as I assume that GWR will site circumstances beyond their control and not compensate. Is this correct?
In the event apart from the initial confusion, the incident was dealt with quickly, but thoughts must go out to all involved.
Sadly I see the same has happened tonight.

 

[najaB]

I haven't submitted a claim as I assume that GWR will site circumstances beyond their control and not compensate. Is this correct?

You are correct that there's no obligation on them to pay out, however that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't.

 

[bb21]

If you can be a bit more specific which train it was then we may be able to look it up for you to save any unnecessary effort claiming.

 

[Gnasher11]

Hi all, sorry for not coming back with more info, but it's been a bit hectic at work. I did submit a claim in the end and to my utter amazement, got a reply within 30 minutes to say that they were refunding the full amount! Better still it's gone straight to my GWR account, they usually send me a cheque regardless of which option I select.

 

[gazthomas]

You’re lucky. My train was 58 minutes mate whixh I thought would be good enough for GWR to treat as the minimum 60 but sadly not!

 

[gray1404]

If you can be a bit more specific which train it was then we may be able to look it up for you to save any unnecessary effort claiming.

Sometimes it can be worth putting a claim in regardless in case the train company pays out or offers a good will gesture (or indeed just pays in Rail Travel Vouchers so, in effect, they retain the money/free travel voucher).

 

[wbm00]

I haven't submitted a claim as I assume that GWR will site circumstances beyond their control and not compensate. Is this correct?

The hypocrisy is that they will accept compensation from Network Rail for the incident in question while denying customer claims for compensation. Thus GWR appear to profit from tragic incidents such as 'person hit by train.'

 

[najaB]

The hypocrisy is that they will accept compensation from Network Rail for the incident in question while denying customer claims for compensation.

There's no hypocrisy - they are entitled to the payments from NR as part of their track access contract and they aren't required to make any payments under their passenger charter. They are doing what every business does: maximising revenue and minimising costs. To do otherwise wouldn't be meeting their obligations to shareholders.

 

[bb21]

The hypocrisy is that they will accept compensation from Network Rail for the incident in question while denying customer claims for compensation. Thus GWR appear to profit from tragic incidents such as 'person hit by train.'

TOCs do not always profit from that, especially with fatalities.

It is very irresponsibly cynical and incorrect to suggest that it is a way for the TOCs to profit, if you have any idea how delay attribution works.

Utter rubbish.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So - they are making a loss even when not paying Delay Repay, and those TOCs which give Delay Repay are making an even bigger loss?

Something doesn't add up there - the reality would seem to be that they are swallowing the compensation from Network Rail for their shareholders, while claiming that it is "outside the rail industry's control" and hence they don't have to refund passengers for a service not given.

 

[najaB]

...while claiming that it is "outside the rail industry's control" and hence they don't have to refund passengers for a service not given.

They don't have to provide compensation as it's not an obligation under their Customer Charter. When the franchise is renewed they will have to offer Delay Repay.

 

[JN114]

So - they are making a loss even when not paying Delay Repay, and those TOCs which give Delay Repay are making an even bigger loss?

Something doesn't add up there - the reality would seem to be that they are swallowing the compensation from Network Rail for their shareholders, while claiming that it is "outside the rail industry's control" and hence they don't have to refund passengers for a service not given.

As others have already said; they’re following their contractual requirements. First is a business at the end of the day, and the tiny percentages of revenues that actually end up with shareholders is their incentive to actually operate the service. I’m sure GWR Twitter have said a number of times negotiations to switch to Delay Repay are ongoing - because it doesn’t “cost” other TOCs any more than they budgeted for when bidding; why should GW be any different?

Unfortunately this is the nasty side of privatisation - and you can’t really sugar coat that. But to put TOCs at the mercy of government spending strategies and savings targets would be a much, much worse fate...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

My comments are more in relation to consumer legislation. Not refunding someone for a service not provided, because it was "outside your control" (but you were nevertheless compensated for it), seems a flagrant violation of the Consumer Rights Act etc.

 

[JN114]

My comments are more in relation to consumer legislation. Not refunding someone for a service not provided, because it was "outside your control" (but you were nevertheless compensated for it), seems a flagrant violation of the Consumer Rights Act etc.

But it was outside of their control. I’m not aware of a restaurant /having/ to compensate booked diners if the restaurant is closed by fire.

 

[najaB]

My comments are more in relation to consumer legislation. Not refunding someone for a service not provided, because it was "outside your control" (but you were nevertheless compensated for it), seems a flagrant violation of the Consumer Rights Act etc.

If passengers are unable to travel then they can get a refund.

 

[Haywain]

When the franchise is renewed they will have to offer Delay Repay.

Unfortunately, that may still be several years away.

 

[bb21]

So - they are making a loss even when not paying Delay Repay, and those TOCs which give Delay Repay are making an even bigger loss?

Something doesn't add up there - the reality would seem to be that they are swallowing the compensation from Network Rail for their shareholders, while claiming that it is "outside the rail industry's control" and hence they don't have to refund passengers for a service not given.

You win some, you lose some, and yes, sometimes TOCs will lose big money over an incident not entirely within the industry's control, eg. fatality, vandalism, ill passenger, if you look at each incident in isolation. Compensation is just one aspect, which is not guaranteed to flow one way. You then add on added costs due to stock and crew displacement, customer compensation, additional transportation costs for customers, etc.

It might not add up for you, but railway finance is a massively complex subject and this is only a very small part. Things cannot always be looked at in isolation.

There are many fallacies floating around the forum about TOC finance, usually from people who have no idea about the subject and just want to have a moan, often influenced by the gutter press who probably got their gen from this forum.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This may well be - but my point is that if it really were 'outside the rail industry's control' as they claim as a get-out, then they would not be being compensated (handsomely) by NR. So they're being deliberately 'economical' with the truth.

 

[najaB]

This may well be - but my point is that if it really were 'outside the rail industry's control' as they claim as a get-out, then they would not be being compensated (handsomely) by NR.

Sorry but, with respect, you don't appear to have a clue about the things you are commenting on.

 

[JN114]

This may well be - but my point is that if it really were 'outside the rail industry's control' as they claim as a get-out, then they would not be being compensated (handsomely) by NR. So they're being deliberately 'economical' with the truth.

Can you please explain how a person being hit by a train is within the Railway Industry’s control. Or severe weather-related disruption. Or a terrorist/security alert.

 

[bb21]

This may well be - but my point is that if it really were 'outside the rail industry's control' as they claim as a get-out, then they would not be being compensated (handsomely) by NR. So they're being deliberately 'economical' with the truth.

Money flowing between Network Rail and the TOCs has nothing to do with whether the incident is within the control of the industry or not.

You are confusing two very separate concepts.

In fact, the intention was that the TOCs end up no better and no worse financially due to the incident if the incident is not within their control. In reality this is impossible to get 100% each time due to various factors involved, some of which not necessarily quantifiable. As a result, the TOCs will lose on some and win on some others.

In addition to incidents where responsibility clearly lies, you then have the added complexity of defining how incidents not within the control of the industry should be dealt with. The agreement is that some types would be allocated to the TOCs and some others to Network Rail. As you can see, in the former case the TOCs actively lose money for some incidents not within their control.

I have no idea where these allegations about TOCs deliberately profitting from such money comes from. I am not aware of any reputable, reliable and knowledgeable sources making such a claim.

 

[robbeech]

I have no idea where these allegations about TOCs deliberately profitting from such money comes from. I am not aware of any reputable, reliable and knowledgeable sources making such a claim.

It comes from people knowing very very little about how things work. They look at the transactions between the customers, the TOCs, and NR and don’t see any of the details. They read (likely on here) that in the event that a delay not caused by a specific TOC then NR foot the bill so to speak. Then then put 2 and 2 together and get 6.8 by thinking that NR pays the TOC and they TOC doesn’t pay the customer = profit. If you look at in this amount of detail it does appear that way. In reality of course there is far more to it.

 

[Deafdoggie]

As a 'normal' fare-paying passenger, what annoys me is that some train companies will pay, and others wont! I understand all the different franchise agreements, etc, and I know it's a complex thing, but the general public just think either trains pay you or they don't, and some companies paying and others not is just confusing.

 

[Haywain]

As a 'normal' fare-paying passenger, what annoys me is that some train companies will pay, and others wont! I understand all the different franchise agreements, etc, and I know it's a complex thing, but the general public just think either trains pay you or they don't, and some companies paying and others not is just confusing.

And that is almost entirely the work of the government who keep changing the 'rules' unless you happen to be Great Western.

 

[wbm00]

I have no idea where these allegations about TOCs deliberately profitting from such money comes from. I am not aware of any reputable, reliable and knowledgeable sources making such a claim.

Network Rail pays the TOC for an incident, such as a person hit by train. TOC does not pay delay claims to passengers.

Network Rail does not pay the TOC if a mechanical fault stops the train running. TOC has to pay delay claims to passengers.

 

[tgrb]

I've got to say FGW/GWR have always been fair and usually generous in their compensation when I have claimed, they are usually slow and always send me a cheque whatever form of compensation I ask for.....

I will not claim to even begin to understand the complexities of delay repay - but from reading on hear, I would think us GWR users may be worse off... I stand to be corrected and look forward to a explanation of the dynamics.... I guess one benefit would be payout for shorter delays??

 

[infobleep]

As an aside, when the GWR contract was extended, I'm surprised they didn't introduce delay repay then, as a franchise requirement. Personally I'm not keen on payments for suicides. Maybe there is good reason to do it but it never feels right to me.

 

[tgrb]

I can see a poll coming here...

 

[bb21]

Network Rail pays the TOC for an incident, such as a person hit by train. TOC does not pay delay claims to passengers.

Network Rail does not pay the TOC if a mechanical fault stops the train running. TOC has to pay delay claims to passengers.

Equally TOC pays Network Rail for any passenger disorder and other such incidents.

For a person hit by train, depending on various factors, the TOC may end up paying Network Rail more than money flowing the other way. I don't know why people insist on this forum that fatalities only see money flowing into the TOC. Anyone with the most basic understanding of Delay Attribution will know they are not attributed all to Network Rail, which I have mentioned numerous times on this forum before. (Indeed I cannot think of such an occurrence at all.)

At the end of the day, what money flows between Network Rail and the TOCs has nothing to do with what money flows between the TOCs and passengers. They were never intended to be related, nor should they be.

 

[AlterEgo]

My comments are more in relation to consumer legislation. Not refunding someone for a service not provided, because it was "outside your control" (but you were nevertheless compensated for it), seems a flagrant violation of the Consumer Rights Act etc.

No it doesn’t.

Can you explain how it violates the Act?