• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scotrail Delay Repay - Rejected

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
I'm still waiting for someone to answer how (ignoring the MCT) there was any practical difference between changing at Haymarket vs Waverley.

All kinds of itineraries can be imagined if MCTs are simply ignored. Many of them can, practically, be made on any given day, but it doesn't make them valid bases for determining the advertised arrival time against which Delay Repay can be claimed.

Can the MCT at Edinburgh be simply ignored, when an intended itinerary requires a connection at that station?

And if it can be ignored for the purposes of the OP's claim, can a TOC ignore an MCT when rejecting a Delay Repay claim on the basis that the customer could, practically, have made a particular connection even though it provided less time than the MCT requires?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,693
Location
Scotland
Can the MCT at Edinburgh be simply ignored, when an intended itinerary requires a connection at that station?
It did not require it, the passenger's itinerary required changing at Haymarket, but they had enough time to go to Waverley and back.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
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).
Given the 20:00 EDB - GLQ was cancelled, the connection to the next available Glasgow services automatically became via Waverley.
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.
The passenger had a valid itinerary onto the cancelled train at Haymarket. The train was then cancelled. The next available itinerary involved a recommended change at Waverley. The passenger did this, and followed instructions given by staff.
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.
There is no fraud involved in making a claim; travel via Waverley is both permitted, and was also recommended in the circumstances of the 20:00 EDB - GLQ being cancelled.

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 20:05 departure to Queen St and that the OP actually travelled via Edinburgh.
I agree that the original itinerary was only a valid one if the OP had changed at Haymarket, but given the onward train was cancelled, that meant the new itinerary involved a recommended change at Waverley.

Yet you state:

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?
I am not providing any misleading information whatsoever, and there is no fraud involved.

If a customer is making a journey that involves a connection that is valid at Haymarket, but not at Waverley, they may choose to double-back to Waverley anyway; the ticket is still valid, but the connection is at their own risk, and they wouldn't be able to claim if they missed the connection as a result of a delay on their train into Edinburgh. However, in this case, the next train that was actually running was not departing Waverley until long after the customer was due to arrive there, so the double-back did not invalidate the claim.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,881
Given the 20:00 EDB - GLQ was cancelled, the connection to the next available Glasgow services automatically became via Waverley.

The passenger had a valid itinerary onto the cancelled train at Haymarket. The train was then cancelled. The next available itinerary involved a recommended change at Waverley. The passenger did this, and followed instructions given by staff.

There is no fraud involved in making a claim; travel via Waverley is both permitted, and was also recommended in the circumstances of the 20:00 EDB - GLQ being cancelled.


I agree that the original itinerary was only a valid one if the OP had changed at Haymarket, but given the onward train was cancelled, that meant the new itinerary involved a recommended change at Waverley.


I am not providing any misleading information whatsoever, and there is no fraud involved.

If a customer is making a journey that involves a connection that is valid at Haymarket, but not at Waverley, they may choose to double-back to Waverley anyway; the ticket is still valid, but the connection is at their own risk, and they wouldn't be able to claim if they missed the connection as a result of a delay on their train into Edinburgh. However, in this case, the next train that was actually running was not departing Waverley until long after the customer was due to arrive there, so the double-back did not invalidate the claim.
This doesn’t answer the question of whether the OP knew about the cancellation before arrival at Haymarket, or after arrival at Waverley. This is why a number of posters are questioning the validity of the claim.
 

GaryMcEwan

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2013
Messages
1,604
Location
Bridgeton, Glasgow
Well this has caused some discussion hasn't it? However, it's good news from Scotrail. They've decided that as I was 30+ minutes delayed, I'm getting Delay Repay of 50% of the Anytime Single.

For folk that were banding 'fruad' about, fancy explaining why you think I was making a fraudulent claim?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
This doesn’t answer the question of whether the OP knew about the cancellation before arrival at Haymarket, or after arrival at Waverley. This is why a number of posters are questioning the validity of the claim.
If it was me, I'd have been looking at the status of both trains when approaching Haymarket; I would have seen the 20:05 was cancelled and seen that the train I was on was running around 5 minutes early and was expected into Waverley at around 19:50, and would have remained on board, knowing I was maximising my chances of a seat on the next train.
Christ, who would have thought Haymarket and Waverely would cause such a drama.
You'd be surprised at the problems it can cause from a fares and timetabling point of view ;)
 

GaryMcEwan

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2013
Messages
1,604
Location
Bridgeton, Glasgow
If it was me, I'd have been looking at the status of both trains when approaching Haymarket; I would have seen the 20:05 was cancelled and seen that the train I was on was running around 5 minutes early and was expected into Waverley at around 19:50, and would have remained on board, knowing I was maximising my chances of a seat on the next train.

You'd be surprised at the problems it can cause from a fares and timetabling point of view ;)

From past experience, I've noticed that conductors actually don't worry to much about Haymarket or Edinburgh. Would still like to know from those people why they think I was making a fraudulent claim?
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
14,881
From past experience, I've noticed that conductors actually don't worry to much about Haymarket or Edinburgh. Would still like to know from those people why they think I was making a fraudulent claim?
Did anyone say it was fraudulent? What we were trying to do was determine the validity of your claim. The circumstances behind your actions would determine this. In simple terms, we simply asked at what point you became aware of the cancellation of the 20:00 service - something we still don’t know.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
Did anyone say it was fraudulent? What we were trying to do was determine the validity of your claim. The circumstances behind your actions would determine this. In simple terms, we simply asked at what point you became aware of the cancellation of the 20:00 service - something we still don’t know.
The claim was made here:
....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.
but it's a false claim, based on a misunderstanding of the principles involved.
 

GaryMcEwan

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2013
Messages
1,604
Location
Bridgeton, Glasgow
Did anyone say it was fraudulent? What we were trying to do was determine the validity of your claim. The circumstances behind your actions would determine this. In simple terms, we simply asked at what point you became aware of the cancellation of the 20:00 service - something we still don’t know.

I didn't know of the cancellation until I got to Waverley and then went and spoke to Scotrail Gateline Staff...
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
I didn't know of the cancellation until I got to Waverley and then went and spoke to Scotrail Gateline Staff...
But presumably you only stayed on to Waverley in the knowledge that your train has departed early, and that you'd have around 15 minutes between actual arrival and the booked departure time.

If your train had got stuck in the tunnel between Haymarket and Waverley, and the 20:00/20:05 had departed on time and you missed it, you'd then not have had a valid claim though.
 

Quakkerillo

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2015
Messages
553
Well this has caused some discussion hasn't it? However, it's good news from Scotrail. They've decided that as I was 30+ minutes delayed, I'm getting Delay Repay of 50% of the Anytime Single.

For folk that were banding 'fruad' about, fancy explaining why you think I was making a fraudulent claim?

From what I read, I don't think people were saying you were making a fraudulent claim, as you claimed your journey via Edinburgh, as you did. Whether or not you'd be entitled to claim compensation via this route, as the minimum connection time according to the timetable wasn't met (that you arrived early doesn't matter; as arriving delayed also doesn't mean the minimum connection time starts only when you arrive to entitle you to delay repay), is something where there's disagreement in here. If you knew - before arrival at Haymarket - that the first option was cancelled, nothing would've stopped you from travelling to/via Edinburgh Waverley and get the next option there, and still get delay repay.
However, if your plan was to go via Edinburgh to begin with, with a non-valid minimum connection time onto a cancelled train, this would technically invalidate the connection and your right to delay repay. And if you then decided, as Yorkie suggested, to claim your itinerary actually was via Haymarket, that would technically be fraud, as that was not a journey you made, nor planned to make.

I'm glad you actually got the money that you were logically due, but in the future, do take note of minimum connection times at stations (you can look this up on http://www.brtimes.com/#home ). If you didn't mention Edinburgh Waverley to begin with, and just went with the valid itinerary via Haymarket, you'd have gotten your money in the first go, I'm sure.
 

GaryMcEwan

Established Member
Joined
20 Aug 2013
Messages
1,604
Location
Bridgeton, Glasgow
But presumably you only stayed on to Waverley in the knowledge that your train has departed early, and that you'd have around 15 minutes between actual arrival and the booked departure time.

If your train had got stuck in the tunnel between Haymarket and Waverley, and the 20:05 had departed on time and you missed it, you'd then not have had a valid claim though.

If it was the case the Glenrothes train was running to time, I would have definitely got off at Haymarket. I'd rather stay on the train to the final station and go from Platform 15 to Platform 14 and to get a seat. To me that's a no brainer...maybe even common sense.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
If it was the case the Glenrothes train was running to time, I would have definitely got off at Haymarket. I'd rather stay on the train to the final station and go from Platform 15 to Platform 14 and to get a seat. To me that's a no brainer...maybe even common sense.
Yes, that makes sense and is exactly what I'd have done.

To avoid misunderstandings in future, I'd supply both your original intended itinerary (which was as I posted earlier in the thread) and your actual itinerary.

The original booked itinerary, changing at Haymarket, was valid and that's the main thing. Interchanging at Waverley did not invalidate this particular claim, though it could invalidate other claims in other circumstances which are not applicable here.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I don't think anyone apart from the OP can really know the truth about what itinerary he was following, therefore whether it was valid or not.

It appears to be a sensible outcome for both parties involved, ScotRail not be involved in a long-running dispute with a customer therefore incurring more costs on resources, and OP happy he had some money.

I don't see what else can be gained arguing over semantics on something no one can know the truth to. There are two schools of thought in play and from what I can see both a valid. Sometimes it is simply not possible to establish the truth and benefit of the doubt has to be given for the most economical solution for all involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top