GWR Delay compensation: poor adhesion not a valid criterion?

[NSEFAN]

I recently had a delay repay claim to GWR rejected. The cause of the delay was extremely poor adhesion from my starting point of Newbury, causing me to miss a connecting train at Reading.

GWR have rejected my claim because:

"The delay to your journey was caused by leafs on the track which is outside if our control. This causes the tracks to become slippery and so the train can not operate until the tracks clear."

However, according to the GWR Compensation for Delays form, this is not the case:

The arrangements for compensation do not apply for certain delays which are outside the control of the rail industry. These include trespass, vandalism, security alerts and severe weather conditions.

I would argue that poor adhesion due to leaves is inside the industry's control, given the use of MPV water cannon trains to clear the leaf mulch off the railheads. This of course is not Network Rail's responsibility and not GWR's, however the wording is "industry control", so arguing about TOC vs NR isn't relevant for the purposes of delay repay. I can't see any other information about this on the GWR site. Can anyone here clarify if my claim is in fact valid or not?

 

[_toommm_]

I recently had a delay repay claim to GWR rejected. The cause of the delay was extremely poor adhesion from my starting point of Newbury, causing me to miss a connecting train at Reading.

GWR have rejected my claim because:


However, according to the GWR Compensation for Delays form, this is not the case:


I would argue that poor adhesion due to leaves is inside the industry's control, given the use of MPV water cannon trains to clear the leaf mulch off the railheads. This of course is not Network Rail's responsibility and not GWR's, however the wording is "industry control", so arguing about TOC vs NR isn't relevant for the purposes of delay repay. I can't see any other information about this on the GWR site. Can anyone here clarify if my claim is in fact valid or not?

Only someone internal to GWR Delay Repay would be able to clarify the official criteria on this issue.

In my opinion, it's worth fighting. People on here know that the RHTT hasn't been as effective this season, with some of them breaking down regularly, and more and more delays being attributed to it.

If not, you could try Transport Focus, but they may not side with you unfortunately.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I recently had a delay repay claim to GWR rejected. The cause of the delay was extremely poor adhesion from my starting point of Newbury, causing me to miss a connecting train at Reading.

GWR have rejected my claim because:


However, according to the GWR Compensation for Delays form, this is not the case:


I would argue that poor adhesion due to leaves is inside the industry's control, given the use of MPV water cannon trains to clear the leaf mulch off the railheads. This of course is not Network Rail's responsibility and not GWR's, however the wording is "industry control", so arguing about TOC vs NR isn't relevant for the purposes of delay repay. I can't see any other information about this on the GWR site. Can anyone here clarify if my claim is in fact valid or not?

I would thoroughly agree. Network Rail have a responsibility to deal with leaf fall on their network, and I would strongly doubt that leaf fall is a cause of delay that is "entirely outside the control of the rail industry".

A parallel might well be drawn with compensation for flight delays under EC Regulation 2004/261: there there is a similar exemption, which can only come into effect where the airline has made all reasonable efforts to prevent or mitigate the delay, and the cause of the delay is not something that the airline would normally be expected to deal with. Case law has shown that infrastructure problems are generally not considered eligible for the exemption.

Note that, as this is an exemption, the burden of proof as to that the delay was entirely outside the control of the rail industry lies upon GWR and not upon you. Therefore, if you were to take the matter further, they would effectively have to provide evidence of the measures which they took to prevent and mitigate the delay.

Is this a first level rejection, or have you already taken it further? Have you raised a complaint - if not I would do this.

If this is their final response, you might want to consider taking the matter to Transport Focus. They might actually be able to negotiate a resolution with GWR. But if you don't want to do that, or you try it and it hasn't worked, then it may be worth considering taking legal action. Obviously this would be something you would only want to do after careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages.

 

[big all]

the only way they can say its not there fault iff exceptional weather far worse than normal
if you have the first hard frost off the season or exceptionally windy conditions you will have problems

 

[kristiang85]

I thought Delay Repay was for ANY delay reason? Or do GWR have different rules? (but I thought it was meant to be uniform across all TOCs?)

 

[robbeech]

There is a minimum requirement for delay repay. A lot of TOC have more favourable rules set out in their passenger charter.

 

[Mag_seven]

I thought Delay Repay was for ANY delay reason? Or do GWR have different rules? (but I thought it was meant to be uniform across all TOCs?)

I don't think GWR do "Delay Repay"?

 

[big all]

I thought Delay Repay was for ANY delay reason? Or do GWR have different rules? (but I thought it was meant to be uniform across all TOCs?)

it does
it looks like they are claiming it was not there fault as they had taken all reasonable steps but i could be wrong on that

 

[James H]

GWR's compensation scheme predates the era of 'Delay Repay'

 

[Chris Butler]

I thought Delay Repay was for ANY delay reason? Or do GWR have different rules? (but I thought it was meant to be uniform across all TOCs?)

No, yes and no. Policies can vary by TOC and do, but the National Rail Conditions of Travel set a minimum standard that all must meet or exceed which includes the exclusion in question here .... BUT ....

... I would strongly doubt that leaf fall is a cause of delay that is "entirely outside the control of the rail industry".

.. as pointed out (implicitly) in the above post the minimum standard includes the word "entirely" which, in their usual weasel way, GWR omit from their leaflet. I also agree with ForTheLoveOf; GWR don't have a hope in court. They are relying on you giving up like they usually do.

 

[Chris Butler]

GWR's compensation scheme predates the era of 'Delay Repay'

Not really relevant. They are still subject to (and overridden by) the National Rail Conditions of Travel

 

[_toommm_]

Not really relevant. They are still subject to (and overridden by) the National Rail Conditions of Travel

It sort of is relevant As GWR don't operate delay repay (at least not for another year or two) - they currently operate a more restrictive Passengers Charter

 

[yorkie]

I'd fight this. GWR have been caught mistreating passengers on a range of issues recently.

While it is true their delay compensation scheme is vastly inferior to most TOCs, it does require the matter to be entirely out of the control of the rail industry for it to be excluded, which this isn't, as the delay would almost certainly not have happened if Network Rail had run a railhead treatment train (RHTT) shortly before your train.

 

[Chris Butler]

It sort of is relevant As GWR don't operate delay repay (at least not for another year or two) - they currently operate a more restrictive Passengers Charter

True, but I don't understand what your point is. Why do you think that has any relevance to the OP's question which was: "Are they correct to deny my claim ?"

 

[_toommm_]

True, but I don't understand what your point is. Why do you think that has any relevance to the OP's question which was: "Are they correct to deny my claim ?"

Maybe not directly relevant, but it was probably in direct reply to someone else further up

 

[NSEFAN]

Thank you for your replies. I have emailed back to GWR customer services and will let you know how it pans out.

 

[NSEFAN]

I'd fight this. GWR have been caught mistreating passengers on a range of issues recently.

While it is true their delay compensation scheme is vastly inferior to most TOCs, it does require the matter to be entirely out of the control of the rail industry for it to be excluded, which this isn't, as the delay would almost certainly not have happened if Network Rail had run a railhead treatment train (RHTT) shortly before your train.

I have received a reply from GWR which re-asserts that leaves on the line counts as a weather related issue, therefore they will not accept my claim. Do you think I should escalate this to Transport Focus?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I have received a reply from GWR which re-asserts that leaves on the line counts as a weather related issue, therefore they will not accept my claim. Do you think I should escalate this to Transport Focus?

What a load of tosh. You can take it to Transport Focus if you like, though your success may be limited, and will be slow if it does occur (think months not weeks).

If TF doesn't result in an amicable resolution of the matter it's time for good old fashioned Court...

 

[Starmill]

The idea that a delay is "outside our control" is apparently used as a fig leaf by some companies to avoid paying valid claims for delay compensation where they are claiming the exception granted by NRCoT.

I recently received my compensation from another company that employs this exception after an 11 month battle with them. They tried to claim that a short turnaround time, a train fault on another operator's train and waiting for a member of train crew all came under "entirety outside of the rail industry's control".