Delay repay - why isn't administered by RDG?

As per title. It's struck me on several occasions that delay repay would be better administered the the RDG or some other central body than by individual TOCs. This would be better for both passengers and TOCs.

Case in point. Today I was 1 hour 2 minutes late on my Attleborough to Sleaford journey. The 0652 GA service to Cambridge was cancelled. As often happens in these situation, the following EMR to Liverpool made additional stops at Wymondham and Attleborough, so I got my first connection.
Unfortunately the EMR service was a few minutes late leaving Norwich and was further delayed by the additional stops, so I missed my connection at Peterborough.
It's only an 11 minute connection, but if the EMR hadn't been further delayed by making additional stops I think I'd have just about made the connection at Peterborough.

So Greater Anglia can legitimately say they didn't delay me as they arranged for EMR to pick us up. But EMR can say they aren't responsible as if the GA train had run as planned we'd still have made Peterborough in time.

So I risk having to appeal claims and the TOCs risk pinging the claim back and forth till one of them caves. What a waste of everyone's time and effort.
If it was centrally administered "the railway" would accept the delay was genuine, pay my compensation without delay and then sort out the attribution as an internal matter for "the railway".
"The railway" would also avoid the cost of duplicating administrative functions to manage delay repay.
Win win? Why is it split by TOC (most of whome seem to use the same third party technology provider in any case)?
I know not all TOCs have the same delay repay thresholds etc, but a central clearing house would be able to manage that.

I don't really want to claim against EMR, as that will only encourage them to not make additional stops when the GA service is cancelled.

This reads clearly like GA's fault to me - their service was cancelled first, and with or without the EMR stop order you'd have been delayed either way.

I think that your point still holds for someone doing a journey from Norwich via Peteborough purely on EMR instead - in this case their delay will be on an EMR train, but caused by GA. How the industry deals with this I don't know!

The delay was clearly caused by the cancellation of the GA train; claim from them. This should be a straightforward case.

If delay repay was administered centrally then it would be easier for the customer, as there would only one place to go. But the claim would still need to be apportioned correctly between operators (though this would not be the customer's issue). Even if the railways were nationalised, apportionment would still be a problem (assuming the railway was run using business units, each of whom would wish to protect their bottom lines (most commentators argue that sectorisation was BR's zenith).

An easier solution would be for the retailer of your tickets to deal with this. Everyone knows where they bought their tickets from. The retailer could then apportion as appropriate and to an agreed set of rules.

Yes, I would say that there should be a central clearing house which determines responsibility, pays out and bills the appropriate TOC. All you have to do is tell them the facts of the case.

I would also incorporate into the Delay Repay system dealing with refunds due to cancellation/delay where you didn't travel. Much easier that you just go to one place, tell them what went wrong, provide proof of ticket(s) and let them sort it out.

I would say it is EMR who is liable to pay out for the delay here.

Although your planned 06.52 Attleborough to Thetford was cancelled, you were still able to make your connection. You boarded your planned 07:19 Thetford to Peterborough early. So in essence you got on your planned train earlier then planned.

However, this train arrived late in Peterborough and caused you to miss your connection at 08:33 from Peterborough to Sleaford. You missed this because the EMR train didn't arrive in Peterborough on time. You should therefore claim from EMR as the delay to their train caused you to miss your connection.

Why their train was delayed in an internal railway industry matter. Once EMR pay out they may very well, going through the delay attribution process, remover the money from GA internally. The thing is though, even though the 06.52 was cancelled, you still made your connection at Thetford, hence why I am saying your claim is with EMR rather then GA.

Can we get the intended vs actual itineraries in an easy to read format please (e.g. bullet pointed)?

trebor79 said:

The 0652 GA service to Cambridge was cancelled. As often happens in these situation, the following EMR to Liverpool made additional stops at Wymondham and Attleborough, so I got my first connection.

Click to expand...

Your journey was from where to where? What connection did you make?

trebor79 said:

Unfortunately the EMR service was a few minutes late leaving Norwich

Click to expand...

Just to clarify Norwich isn't relevant here, you are just describing a train being late, right?

trebor79 said:

and was further delayed by the additional stops, so I missed my connection at Peterborough.

Click to expand...

Was this your second connection? You say you made the first?

trebor79 said:

It's only an 11 minute connection, but if the EMR hadn't been further delayed by making additional stops I think I'd have just about made the connection at Peterborough.

Click to expand...

OK; would you have got to Peterborough earlier if the original train had not been cancelled?

trebor79 said:

So Greater Anglia can legitimately say they didn't delay me as they arranged for EMR to pick us up. But EMR can say they aren't responsible as if the GA train had run as planned we'd still have made Peterborough in time.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of text here but very little in terms of actual detail for us to go on.

trebor79 said:

So I risk having to appeal claims and the TOCs risk pinging the claim back and forth till one of them caves. What a waste of everyone's time and effort.

Click to expand...

As I am reading this, so far I really don't know who is right or wrong...

trebor79 said:

If it was centrally administered "the railway" would accept the delay was genuine, pay my compensation without delay and then sort out the attribution as an internal matter for "the railway".

Click to expand...

Maybe, but they would still want to put the cost somewhere and it isn't clear from the description what the details of the journey were.

gray1404 said:

I would say it is EMR who is liable to pay out for the delay here.

Although your planned 06.52 Attleborough to Thetford was cancelled, you were still able to make your connection. You boarded your planned 07:19 Thetford to Peterborough early. So in essence you got on your planned train earlier then planned.

However, this train arrived late in Peterborough and caused you to miss your connection at 08:33 from Peterborough to Sleaford. You missed this because the EMR train didn't arrive in Peterborough on time. You should therefore claim from EMR as the delay to their train caused you to miss your connection.

Why their train was delayed in an internal railway industry matter. Once EMR pay out they may very well, going through the delay attribution process, remover the money from GA internally. The thing is though, even though the 06.52 was cancelled, you still made your connection at Thetford, hence why I am saying your claim is with EMR rather then GA.

Click to expand...

If the passenger was on the booked EMR train into Peterborough, but the train simply arrived late, as you described then it really couldn't be simpler: claim from EMR.

It sounds like a really simple claim has been made overly complex for no apparent reason.

It is not for a passenger to worry about why the EMR was late; if EMR are due some compensation or other payments from other TOCs for impacting on their train, then they will get it regardless and that process is separate from Delay Repay.

yorkie said:

Can we get the intended vs actual itineraries in an easy to read format please (e.g. bullet pointed)?

Your journey was from where to where? What connection did you make?.

Click to expand...

Sure, I was using it as example of why I think a clearing house would be better for this sort of thing, certainly from a passenger POV, but here it is:
Intended journey:
Attleborough Depart 0652
Thetford Arrive 0705 Depart 0719 [in real life I change at Ely so I can get a coffee, but irrelevant really]
Peterborough Arrive 0822 Depart 0833
Sleaford Arrive 0918

Actual journey
Attleborough Depart 0652 - CANCELLED
Thetford 0719 departure made an additional stop at Attleborough around 0715
Arrived Peterborough around 0835 Departed 0935
Sleaford Arrived 1020

yorkie said:

If the passenger was on the booked EMR train into Peterborough, but the train simply arrived late, as you described then it really couldn't be simpler: claim from EMR.

Click to expand...

I've put the claim into GA on the basis they were the first TOC to cause me a delay, which I think is the general principle. If that's wrong I suppose they will pass it to EMR.
Already expecting difficulties because the delay repay site picked up the funny ticket value (split tickets) and a box popped up asking me to make sure all the details were correct. First split ticket I've had to claim for in this way so I'll be interested to see how that goes. My previous split claim involved the service passing the split point being delayed, so I just made 2 separate claims.

yorkie said:

It sounds like a really simple claim has been made overly complex for no apparent reason.

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But opinion seems split as to whether I should have claimed from GA or EMR, which kind of backs up my view that delay repay would be better (from a passenger POV) administered by some central clearing house.
I guess in practice GA didn't delay me, but they were responsible for the first part of the itinerary to depart from plan, and I believe that's the principle that one is meant to use. I've claimed from GA in the past for a delay whereby I was only a few minutes late into Cambridge to make a connection. There was another train a few minutes later to my destination, so ordinarily my delay would have been fairly inconsequential, but that train then became heavily delayed and I was very late. I don't see how that's fundamentally much different - although I didn't make the booked connection in that case, it was the other TOC and not GA who really caused my delay, yet GA still paid out.
Perhaps the missed connection make the difference.

yorkie said:

It is not for a passenger to worry about why the EMR was late; if EMR are due some compensation or other payments from other TOCs for impacting on their train, then they will get it regardless and that process is separate from Delay Repay.

Click to expand...

Yes I think you are correct. Equally, it shouldn't be for the passenger to worry about who to claim from?

You should claim from Greater Anglia as they were the TOC that first delayed you. Has their train not been cancelled you would not have been delayed.

The cancellation of the GA service did not cause to to miss your connection at Thetford. Therefore GA not the company to claim delay repay from.

The delay to the EMR service caused you to miss your connection at Peterborough. Therefore EMR is the company to claim delay repay from.

gray1404 said:

The cancellation of the GA service did not cause to to miss your connection at Thetford. Therefore GA not the company to claim delay repay from.

The delay to the EMR service caused you to miss your connection at Peterborough. Therefore EMR is the company to claim delay repay from.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Had the GA service operated then the OP would have made the connection.
The EMR service was not due to call at Attleborough but it made a special stop due to the cancellation of the GA service.

The EMR service was subsequently delayed causing the OP to miss his connection at Peterborough. The root cause of the delay was the cancellation of the 06:52 GA service.

Hadders said:

You should claim from Greater Anglia as they were the TOC that first delayed you. Has their train not been cancelled you would not have been delayed.

Click to expand...

gray1404 said:

The cancellation of the GA service did not cause to to miss your connection at Thetford. Therefore GA not the company to claim delay repay from.

The delay to the EMR service caused you to miss your connection at Peterborough. Therefore EMR is the company to claim delay repay from.

Click to expand...

QED

Furthermore if you claim from EMR they are likely to reject the claim saying they don't operate a 07:16 service from Attleborough.

I am inclined to agree with Hadders here - GA is to blame (as I originally said). Of course, if you could just claim delay repay off the retailer (just like you go to the retailer for a refund) then it would be even simpler than having one place for refunds, and one for delay repay (with the consequential arguments, to be played out in future rail forum threads, of “am I entitled to delay repay or should I get a refund, and who should I apply to for this?” Being avoided).

trebor79 said:

"The railway" would also avoid the cost of duplicating administrative functions to manage delay repay

Click to expand...

Or more likely the same people would still be employed as they'd be arguing it out internally with the RDG people as an extra level on top.

Much like happens in the civil service when two departments merge...

That's not to say it's not a good idea since it gives passengers one focal point of contact for any claim.

alistairlees said:

If delay repay was administered centrally then it would be easier for the customer, as there would only one place to go.

Click to expand...

I agree that it would make it simpler to claim. But I very much suspect that it would make it less likely that you would get a payment.

I think there is a hidden assumption being made here that a central clearing house, with no accountability to the passengers or any interest in public relations, would somehow apply the rules more fairly than some TOCs currently do. I think the reverse is far more likely to be the case - the attitude would inevitably be set by the most payout-averse TOC. And I can't see TOCs allowing someone else to handout discretionary payments on their behalf. No way will all of the TOCs (if any!) agree to the clearing house handing out their money unlimited - the clearing house would inevitably be tasked to limit payouts. And when anyone complained about it, they would just bounce responsibility between the clearing house and the TOCs.

I have had several discretionary payments over the years, and several payments that the TOC concerned claimed were discretionary but I am sure I was entitled to. I am certain that I would not have received any of these from a central clearing house.

Claiming that a central clearing house is a good idea because you know who to complain to is a bit like claiming that a dictatorship would be a good idea because you would know who to complain to.

Any increasing number of TOCs are outsourcing the processing of their delay repay administration to third party agents anyway. One such company is Travel Compensation Services who works on behalf of several TOCs. When you submit your claim, it goes to them.

The downside to this is that some Customer Relations Departments seem increasingly unable to deal with delay repay issues and say that is dealt with by a separate team or require you to have attempted (and appealed) delay repay before they will look at something.

RDG administering delay repay sounds like a great idea.

Belperpete said:

I agree that it would make it simpler to claim. But I very much suspect that it would make it less likely that you would get a payment.

Click to expand...

For Delay Repay, I do not see why that would be the case. DR is payable regardless of what caused the delay. The length of any delay is a matter of fact - the difference between the scheduled arrival time and the actual arrival time. The internal arguments (even in this thread !) about which TOC was responsible for the delay have no bearing on the amount of DR compensation due.

Belperpete said:

I can't see TOCs allowing someone else to handout discretionary payments on their behalf.

Click to expand...

Discretionary payments are subjective and outwith Delay Repay. A claim/request for a discretionary payment would need to be made direct to the appropriate TOC.

The other benefit of centralisation is that having all claims in one place would make it easier to identify those making fraudulent claims spanning multiple TOCs

So to bring my story up to date...
GA rejected my claim as it wasn't their cancellation which delayed me, and passed the claim to EMR. I had to redo the claim on the EMR delay repay system as GA had entered it as a single leg from Attleborough to Sleaford, which unsurprisingly was flagged as an "invalid journey".
Anyway, a nice lady from EMR has just phoned me to say that they aren't liable for the delay "As we stopped our train at Attleborough as a contingency to help out. So even though you would have joined that train at Ely anyway, it was Greater Anglia's cancelled train that first delayed you and if our train hadn't stopped the delay would have been even greater. So Greater Anglia are liable."

So I've appealed the GA rejected claim to this effect.

I think this illustrates my original point - why as an already inconvenienced passenger should I get involved at all in arbitrating the delay attribution? "The railway" delayed me, I just want "The railway" to pay me the compensation without undue effort on my part and "The railway" can have the bun fight behind closed doors.
I can see this going one of two ways. I get frustrated and give up, or continue to appeal both claims until one pays out (or perhaps both would as it's such a disjointed system). But it's all a total waste of my time for the sake of £16.

trebor79 said:

I can see this going one of two ways. I get frustrated and give up, or continue to appeal both claims until one pays out (or perhaps both would as it's such a disjointed system). But it's all a total waste of my time for the sake of £16.

Click to expand...

Assuming you're over 25 at minimum wage that's less than 2 hours so yes unless your time is free you end up subsidising your own claim

yorkie said:

If the passenger was on the booked EMR train into Peterborough, but the train simply arrived late, as you described then it really couldn't be simpler: claim from EMR.

It sounds like a really simple claim has been made overly complex for no apparent reason.

It is not for a passenger to worry about why the EMR was late; if EMR are due some compensation or other payments from other TOCs for impacting on their train, then they will get it regardless and that process is separate from Delay Repay.

Click to expand...

Apparently "The Railway" disagrees. It's not simple because both TOCs say it's not their fault and it's for me to worry about, using my time passing the claim back and forth and appealing their decisions to reject.
I'm due compensation from one of them, I don't really care whos bank account it comes out of. Why should passengers have to get involved to this extent?

trebor79 said:

Apparently "The Railway" disagrees. It's not simple because both TOCs say it's not their fault and it's for me to worry about, using my time passing the claim back and forth and appealing their decisions to reject.
I'm due compensation from one of them, I don't really care who's bank account it comes out of. Why should passengers have to get involved to this extent?

Click to expand...

The railway system is fragmented and noone takes the responsibility / blame...

PG said:

Assuming you're over 25 at minimum wage that's less than 2 hours so yes unless your time is free you end up subsidising your own claim

Click to expand...

That assumes it would be possible for the OP to work for that period of time.

It’s clearly Greater Anglia’s fault; they cancelled a train as a result of which you arrived late. Point this out to them again. If there’s no luck, write to the ombudsman. It shouldn’t need to take much of your time.

Noticed after I submitted the appeal that for some reason they have me down as intending to travel on the 0552, not the 0652. I did definitely put it in correctly originally, so why it's now wrong is anyone's guess.
I guess that's caused some confusion. Unfortunately, having submitted the appeal the details can't be changed. Ho hum, wait for second rejection then appeal again I suppose!

trebor79 said:

Noticed after I submitted the appeal that for some reason they have me down as intending to travel on the 0552, not the 0652. I did definitely put it in correctly originally, so why it's now wrong is anyone's guess.
I guess that's caused some confusion. Unfortunately, having submitted the appeal the details can't be changed. Ho hum, wait for second rejection then appeal again I suppose!

Click to expand...

I would suggest you send a new delay repay application, with a note saying that the previous application, the time was marked wrongly.
I am concerned that they reject you at the end saying that you have given wrong information, and "claim" they don't hold the delayed train information anymore.

No, beyond the 14 day time limit for making a new claim.
Might just have to put this one down to experience.

But I still think the RDG should run a central system rather than passengers get involved in claim ping pong between TOCs.

28 days is the limit. EMR are liable as they caused you to miss your connection

I would not be putting this down to experience. My view is that GA are responsible for the claim as their initial cancellation was the root cause of the problem and the convention is to claim from the TOC that first causes a delay.

As this is relatively complicated I would telephone GA customer services and explain the situation. This is probably the best way to get a positive outcome.