Scotrail Delay Repay - Rejected

GaryMcEwan · 5 May 2019

Looking for a bit of advice please folks.

I was travelling from Glenrothes with Thornton to Glasgow Queen Street on Friday evening after a work night out. I got on the 1852 from Glenrothes and due to get into Edinburgh Waverley 1956. This left me 4 minutes to catch the 2000 to Glasgow Queen Street.

Due to a trespass incident at Polmont, this meant this service was cancelled at the next service wasn't due until 2030 which was due to arrive into Queen Street at 2119, which would have made me 31 minutes late, so I would be entitled to Delay Repay.

Scotrail have rejected it, because I travelled to Glasgow Central on the LNER service which departed at 2017 and arrived into Glasgow Central at 2125.

Were they right to reject, due to the fact the the train I got from Edinburgh took slightly longer (albeit 6 minutes) or are they just at it?

Any wise words as always is appreciated.

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite · 5 May 2019

I can't see why it should be rejected, though my view would be that if you took, purely on your own choice, a longer service than the next available one any compensation should be based on what you were advised to do by staff rather than the slower option you actually took.

Appeal and explain the details. When I've done this (not with SR admittedly) they tend to be accepted on the second go.

Silverdale · 5 May 2019

I think the problem is that travelling via Edinburgh (which is a valid route) the 20:00 departure to Queen St. isn't a valid connection off the 18:52 from Glenrothes. It allows only 4 minutes when the minimum time for connecting at Edinburgh is 10.

As such, the first valid connecting service from Edinburgh to Glasgow Stations is the 20:17 departure. The LNER service which you actually travelled on. As that arrived right time at Central, you weren't in fact delayed on your journey via Edinburgh.

However... if you had elected to change at Haymarket onto the (cancelled) service into Queen St, that would have been a valid connection and you would have been entitled to delay repay, for having to miss the cancelled service and travel into Central on the LNER service.

najaB · 5 May 2019

GaryMcEwan said:
Were they right to reject, due to the fact the the train I got from Edinburgh took slightly longer (albeit 6 minutes) or are they just at it?

They were right to reject if you claimed based on changing at Waverly (4 minutes vice 10 minute MCT), but they may consider that you could have changed at Haymarket.

On the face of it, it does appear you have a valid claim, I'm just not sure if it makes any difference that you arrived at Central rather than Queen Street.

GaryMcEwan · 5 May 2019

It was actually ScotRail Gateline staff who told me to head to Platform 8 to get the LNER and to keep hold of my ticket to put the claim in.

My ticket had Glasgow Central/Queen Street and via Any Permitted Route.

najaB · 5 May 2019

GaryMcEwan said:
My ticket had Glasgow Central/Queen Street and via Any Permitted Route.

The reason that I mentioned Central rather that Queen Street is that if you add the five minute walk between the stations, that would mean you only arrived 28 minutes late taking Central as your intended destination.

Silverdale · 6 May 2019

najaB said:
The reason that I mentioned Central rather that Queen Street is that if you add the five minute walk between the stations, that would mean you only arrived 28 minutes late taking Central as your intended destination.

Regardless of the walk time between the stations, it remains the case that by taking the 18:52 from Glenrothes, the OP could not have legitimately arrived at Queen St via Edinburgh at 20:48. As that is the arrival time against which the delay is being claimed, it still seems to me that the claim is not a valid one.

GaryMcEwan · 6 May 2019

I actually arrived into Waverley at 1950 into platform 15 and the 2000 was due to depart from platform 14.

So technically it's 10 minutes to the dot. Add to that there was announcements to keep hold of our tickets to claim Delay Repay.

Silverdale · 6 May 2019

GaryMcEwan said:
I actually arrived into Waverley at 1950 into platform 15 and the 2000 was due to depart from platform 14.

The train actually arrived early. If it had arrived on time, you would not have had sufficient connection time to catch the 20:00 (if it had not been cancelled). Therefore, at the time you caught the 18:52 from Glenrothes, you could not have expected to arrive at Queen St at 20:48, which is the basis of your claim for being delayed.

GaryMcEwan said:
Add to that there was announcements to keep hold of our tickets to claim Delay Repay.

Was the announcement specific to customers arriving on the 18:52 from Glenrothes or was it a more general announcement for passengers intending to catch the cancelled 20:00 to Queen St?

Anyone starting their journey from Waverly, or those making a valid connection there onto the 20:00 would be entitled to Delay Repay. The service you took from Glenrothes doesn't make such a valid connection at Edinburgh, so unfortunately you cannot make a claim. You weren't, in fact, delayed. You were just unable to take advantage of the early arrival of your train into Edinburgh to make a connection onto a train which would have got you to Glasgow earlier than you could have expected.

najaB · 6 May 2019

Silverdale said:
The service you took from Glenrothes doesn't make such a valid connection at Edinburgh, so unfortunately you cannot make a claim.

That pair of trains is valid changing at Haymarket, staying on and changing at Waverley doesn't change that.

island · 6 May 2019

DelayRepay calculation is based on what you actually did, not what you could have done.

If you planned to and did make your journey via Edinburgh Waverley, then you cannot calculate your delay as though you had travelled via Haymarket, any more than you could calculate it based on having travelled via Falkirk, or Inverness, or Loch Eil Outward Bound.

The first valid connection to Glasgow at Edinburgh Waverley from the 1852 from Glenrothes with Thornton was the 2017, which you took. No compensation is due.

GaryMcEwan · 6 May 2019

island said:
DelayRepay calculation is based on what you actually did, not what you could have done.

If you planned to and did make your journey via Edinburgh Waverley, then you cannot calculate your delay as though you had travelled via Haymarket, any more than you could calculate it based on having travelled via Falkirk, or Inverness, or Loch Eil Outward Bound.

The first valid connection to Glasgow at Edinburgh Waverley from the 1852 from Glenrothes with Thornton was the 2017, which you took. No compensation is due.

So why on earth did Gateline staff at Waverley tell me to get on the 2017 service to Central and then the announcements at Waverley itself to tell us to keep our tickets to claim compensation?

Haywain · 6 May 2019

GaryMcEwan said:
So why on earth did Gateline staff at Waverley tell me to get on the 2017 service to Central and then the announcements at Waverley itself to tell us to keep our tickets to claim compensation?

They directed you towards the 2017 because it was the next train to Glasgow and they probably didn't have any certainty that the 2030 would run, and they advised customers to keep tickets for compensation claims because many may have had valid claims due to the cancellation - if they hadn't come off the same train as you.

najaB · 6 May 2019

island said:
DelayRepay calculation is based on what you actually did, not what you could have done.

I disagree. The exact same thing would have happened had the OP changed at Haymarket, the fact that they stayed onboard until Waverley is immaterial.

island said:
If you planned to and did make your journey via Edinburgh Waverley, then you cannot calculate your delay as though you had travelled via Haymarket, any more than you could calculate it based on having travelled via Falkirk, or Inverness, or Loch Eil Outward Bound.

Except that, in all those examples, there would have been different trains and routes involved. In what was was the outcome affected by changing at Waverley?

island · 6 May 2019

The outcome was unaffected. The amount by which the OP was delayed was not.

najaB · 6 May 2019

island said:
The outcome was unaffected. The amount by which the OP was delayed was not.

It was not. They had exactly the same choice of trains at Waverley as they would have had at Haymarket. The itinerary that NRE provides for the journey the OP made matches that which the OP used with the only difference being the point at which they changed trains.

Again, in what material way did it affect anything that they changed at Waverley rather than Haymarket given that it was the same trains involved?

island · 6 May 2019

Except they didn’t. The minimum connection time at Edinburgh Waverley is 10 minutes and the OP’s intended itinerary allowed four.

GaryMcEwan · 6 May 2019

island said:
Except they didn’t. The minimum connection time at Edinburgh Waverley is 10 minutes and the OP’s intended itinerary allowed four.

It might have allowed me 4 minutes, but I arrived into Waverley at 1950. That gave me exactly 10 minutes...

najaB · 6 May 2019

island said:
Except they didn’t. The minimum connection time at Edinburgh Waverley is 10 minutes and the OP’s intended itinerary allowed four.

We all agree that the MCT at Waverley is 10 minutes, but you still haven't said how the OP's experience would have been different in any way had they changed at Haymarket rather than Waverley.

island · 6 May 2019

najaB said:
We all agree that the MCT at Waverley is 10 minutes, but you still haven't said how the OP's experience would have been different in any way had they changed at Haymarket rather than Waverley.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this, but the OP's delay is calculated against an itinerary, not an "experience". No itinerary could have shown a change from the 1956 arrival onto the 2000 departure.

_toommm_ · 7 May 2019

najaB said:
We all agree that the MCT at Waverley is 10 minutes, but you still haven't said how the OP's experience would have been different in any way had they changed at Haymarket rather than Waverley.

Delay repay is only eligible against a valid itinerary. If I went Ormskirk to Blackpool South, even though it's the same train through interworked, it technically isn't a valid itinerary as the minimum connection at Preston isn't met, therefore I wouldn't be eligible for delay repay. It's the same in this circumstance, otherwise people would be leaving 1 minute change times and complaining to the TOC that they should be entitled to comp.

najaB · 7 May 2019

_toommm_ said:
It's the same in this circumstance, otherwise people would be leaving 1 minute change times and complaining to the TOC that they should be entitled to comp.

They did have a valid itnerary - the trains that they intended to use were the trains that are suggested by the NRE journey planner. The OP just chose to make a connection on the flat at Waverley rather than having to go over the footbridge at Haymarket. If they didn't say that they changed at Waverley there would be no way to know that they hadn't.

I admire pedantry as much as the next guy, but in this case there is zero difference between changing at Haymarket and Waverley. Had the OP missed the connection at Waverley then I 100% agree that they wouldn't be entitled to Delay Repay.

yorkie · 7 May 2019

GaryMcEwan said:
Looking for a bit of advice please folks.

I was travelling from Glenrothes with Thornton to Glasgow Queen Street on Friday evening after a work night out. I got on the 1852 from Glenrothes and due to get into Edinburgh Waverley 1956. This left me 4 minutes to catch the 2000 to Glasgow Queen Street.

Due to a trespass incident at Polmont, this meant this service was cancelled at the next service wasn't due until 2030 which was due to arrive into Queen Street at 2119, which would have made me 31 minutes late, so I would be entitled to Delay Repay.

Scotrail have rejected it, because I travelled to Glasgow Central on the LNER service which departed at 2017 and arrived into Glasgow Central at 2125.

Were they right to reject, due to the fact the the train I got from Edinburgh took slightly longer (albeit 6 minutes) or are they just at it?

Any wise words as always is appreciated.

I think you mean your journey was to Glasgow Central/Queen Street using the following itinerary:

Glenrothes 1852
Haymarket 1949

Haymarket 2005
Glasgow Queen Street 2048

Had your journey been specifically to Queen Street, you'd have arrived there at 2119, 31 mins late, so that'd be a valid claim.

As your journey was to Glasgow more generally, you followed staff instructions to take the first available train, and got to Central at 2125, which is also a valid claim.

Scotrail are wrong to reject the claim, however you have probably confused matters if you stated that your journey was specifically via Waverley; there was no valid connection onto the 2048 arrival into GLQ unless you changed at Haymarket.

In the event, doubling back to Waverley (which is permitted, and even recommended by journey planners providing there is sufficient time) did not make any material difference; given there was no immediate train from Haymarket that is what I would have done.

In future, please do check that any itinerary you submit as your intended itinerary is a valid one.

Appeal your complaint and let us know the outcome in this thread and also can you post a link to this thread from here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/have-you-had-valid-delay-repay-claims-rejected.179231/ (likewise anyone else who has a valid claim rejected please let us know on there what happened and what the outcome was).

najaB said:
They did have a valid itnerary - the trains that they intended to use were the trains that are suggested by the NRE journey planner. The OP just chose to make a connection on the flat at Waverley rather than having to go over the footbridge at Haymarket. If they didn't say that they changed at Waverley there would be no way to know that they hadn't.

I admire pedantry as much as the next guy, but in this case there is zero difference between changing at Haymarket and Waverley. Had the OP missed the connection at Waverley then I 100% agree that they wouldn't be entitled to Delay Repay.

Agreed!

Silverdale · 7 May 2019

najaB said:
That pair of trains is valid changing at Haymarket, staying on and changing at Waverley doesn't change that.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there was a valid itinerary providing for an arrival at Queen St at 20:48, had the OP chosen to change trains at Haymarket. However, the OP chose to travel from Glenrothes to Glasgow using the longer, but valid, route via Edinburgh with a correspondingly later arrival time at Glasgow.

They are perfectly entitled to do that, but having done so, they cannot simultaneously claim they have been delayed versus the time they could have expected to arrive at Queen St had they chosen not to.

najaB said:
I admire pedantry as much as the next guy, but in this case there is zero difference between changing at Haymarket and Waverley.

There is a significant difference, which is the validity of the connections between the two trains at the two stations.

Haywain · 7 May 2019

yorkie said:
Scotrail are wrong to reject the claim, however you have probably confused matters if you stated that your journey was specifically via Waverley; there was no valid connection onto the 2048 arrival into GLQ unless you changed at Haymarket.

I think the big question here is whether the OP travelled to Waverley in the knowledge that the 20:00 train was cancelled or found out when hew got there. In my view if it is the latter, then the connection was not valid as there is no guarantee that the inward service would arrive in sufficient time to make the connection, regardless of its time at Haymarket.

najaB · 7 May 2019

Silverdale said:
They are perfectly entitled to do that, but having done so, they cannot simultaneously claim they have been delayed versus the time they could have expected to arrive at Queen St had they chosen not to.

Ignoring the MCT at Waverley, what is the difference between the time they could have arrived by changing at Haymarket versus the time they actually arrived by changing at Waverley?

yorkie · 7 May 2019

Silverdale said:
...They are perfectly entitled to do that, but having done so, they cannot simultaneously claim they have been delayed versus the time they could have expected to arrive at Queen St had they chosen not to....

I agree that if the connection would have been made at Haymarket, but not (officially) at Waverley, that would invalidate the connection.

However the intended train was cancelled and the next available trains to Glasgow were equally valid connections from Haymarket or Waverley, so it makes absolutely no difference in this particular case.

Scotrail are clearly incorrect to refuse the Delay Repay claim, but I do not know what correspondence was made; if the correspondence was worded in the same manner as the opening post, I can see how they made that decision because the original post contained misleading information about the validity of the originally planned itinerary.

Silverdale · 7 May 2019

yorkie said:
However the intended train was cancelled and the next available trains to Glasgow were equally valid connections from Haymarket or Waverley, so it makes absolutely no difference in this particular case.

The difference is the OP chose (for whatever reason) not to travel via Haymarket (where a change provides a valid connection onto the train which arrives Queen St at 20:48) but to travel via Waverley instead (where the minimum connection time precludes a connection with that train).

It's not clear why the OP made that choice, but by doing so they passed-up the opportunity of following a valid itinerary with a 20:48 arrival at Queen St. Having done so, they can't legitimately claim a delay against that arrival time.

Of course, anyone in the OP's position could make a fraudulent claim, by pretending they hadn't actually travelled beyond Haymarket, but I hope that isn't what the forum is suggesting the OP should have done.

Silverdale · 7 May 2019

yorkie said:
Scotrail are clearly incorrect to refuse the Delay Repay claim, but I do not know what correspondence was made; if the correspondence was worded in the same manner as the opening post, I can see how they made that decision because the original post contained misleading information about the validity of the originally planned itinerary.

What is misleading about the information in the OP? It states that the connection (albeit not allowing the MCT) was intended to be made at Edinburgh off the 19:56 arrival from Glenrothes onto the 20:00 departure to Queen St and that the OP actually travelled via Edinburgh. Yet you state:

yorkie said:
I think you mean your journey was to Glasgow Central/Queen Street using the following itinerary:

Glenrothes 1852
Haymarket 1949

Haymarket 2005
Glasgow Queen Street 2048

Are you trying to mislead or are you actually suggesting to the OP that in order to get a Delay Repay payment they should have made a fraudulent claim?

najaB · 7 May 2019

Silverdale said:
Of course, anyone in the OP's position could make a fraudulent claim, by pretending they hadn't actually travelled beyond Haymarket, but I hope that isn't what the forum is suggesting the OP should have done.

Again, there is no fraud. There was no difference to the delay incurred nor to the outcome. The OP had exactly the same trains available to take. I'm still waiting for someone to answer how (ignoring the MCT) there was any practical difference between changing at Haymarket vs Waverley. There were exactly zero additional journey options available at Haymarket vs Waverley.

Scotrail Delay Repay - Rejected

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Member

Member

Veteran Member