• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Delay Repay claims becoming too much hassle?

MKB

Member
Joined
15 Oct 2008
Messages
628
Apologies, this is me venting.

I am getting fed up with having to spend a couple of hours every 28 days submitting Delay Repay claims. I just want the trains to run on time, but that is rarely the case. Sadly, I am bloody-minded enough and brought up with an attitude that you don't let big organisations get away with shoddy service, and claim every penny. It would eat away at me if I didn't claim. I wish I wasn't like that, but I am cursed with it.

I have been doing Delay Replay claims for decades, so I know what I'm doing. It used to be the odd one every other month. Now, typically I'll have around four delayed journeys every month to claim. Because I travel with my husband on a Two Together Railcard, it's double that number in separate claims, because they invariably reject, or pay out for just one passenger, if you try to claim for multiple passengers on a single claim.

My claims are mainly with London Northwestern (LM) or Avanti, and I am often using split tickets.

Each month, LM reject around half the claims for spurious reasons, usually saying wrongly there was no delay or paying out for a shorter delay. You have to appeal, usually more than once, and sometimes involve customer services before a claim is finally accepted. The bureacracy and time involved is maddening, requiring a spreadsheet to keep track of everything. The initial two hours just to submit the month's worth of claims starts to grow substantially.

With Avanti, I have reported before how they reject claims for the same journey as duplicates, even though the claim for each passenger has unique ticket numbers. They previously advised me to change the passenger name on each claim, and that was working for a while. As of this month's claims, it seems that when you change the passenger name on the specific claim, their system updates the account name as well. So I now have a claim for a journey where the acknowledgement email says "Dear <my name>" but the subsequent correspondence for the same claim reference says "Dear <husband's name>".

For one journey, Avanti have approved the claim in my husband's name, but rejected the one in my name saying it's because I used split tickets and did not upload all the tickets. Except I did.

Talking to Avanti by phone, they claimed the rejection reason is incorrect, and it is because both claims for the same journey are in my husband's name, even though I have the original confirmation emails, one addressed to me, one addressed to my husband.

Their position was that they could not discuss my own Delay Repay account with me because it was in my husband's name. Unbeknownst to me, their system updated the account name when I changed the passenger name on the final claim. It seems their system is not distinguishing between the name on the specific claim and the account name. When you change one, the other is updated. Whether it was always this way, I don't know. I do know that this is the first month where changing the passenger name on a claim has caused an issue.

So fair enough, GDPR rules do not allow them to talk to me about my own account because it is now showing in my husband's name. But -- and this is the kicker -- after correcting the account details back to my name, i.e. the name it was in for all but 13 hours (and would have stayed in but for a bug/feature of their system), they still would not talk to me about my account, as my name does not match the previous name on the account! (Of course, if Avanti actually cared about GDPR, they would have a system that prevents name changes by the end user. Any decent system locks this down after account creation and requires proof of name-change to be submitted.)

Avanti's stated position today is that every single passenger travelling together must create a separate Delay Repay account and do their own claims from their own account. One person in the household is not allowed to take on the role of submitting the claims for every passenger on the journey, (although clearly they have no way of knowing who is signing into an account and submitting the claim). This means that the details for subsequent passengers on the same journey have to be entered from scratch in a different account. (When you are doing it on one account, the train journey from the previous claim is usually available to select and not re-key.)

It is pretty obvious, that the rail industry, well LM and VT at least, is trying to make the system of making Delay Repay claims as onerous as possible, and is incentivised to deny payments and cares not whether the reasons are valid. The time required to overcome all of the obstacles placed in your way is increasing each month in my own very frustrating experience.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,770
Location
Yorks
I've had Avanti turn down my claim for spurious reasons. Wouldn't trust them with a barge pole.
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
1,615
Location
Slade Green
Maddening.

I had an issue submitting an online delay repay form to Avanti because (as their data protection officer subsequently admitted) they miscategorised a cookie that was required to make the form work as a performance cookie rather than an essential cookie, meaning anyone who had rejected non-essential cookies would get all the way through the form submission process to the very end, and then when they clicked 'submit' the form would clear.

It's not an accident, imho. They wouldn't let their retail site perform as poorly as that, because they would lose sales. It's only the form you use to get the compensation you are due, not the one you use to buy a ticket in the first place, that is full of these highly irritating bugs and defects.

If I were you I would print a couple of pdf delay repay claim forms (both Avanti and LNR have these on their website), pre-populate one with your details and one with your husband's details, photocopy a batch of each, complete your claims that way and send them in the post. Less efficient overall, but potentially more efficient for you. Just remember to take scans of everything you send and record it on your spreadsheet - some TOCs in my experience aren't great at opening their post, so you sometimes have to chase them up and it's good to have copies.
 

ivorytoast28

Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
217
Location
Sheffield
Yeah, I kind of feel like I should "claim" for the same reasons as you but it's always so much hassle for each tiny amount that it's just not worth my time
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
4,333
Yeah, I kind of feel like I should "claim" for the same reasons as you but it's always so much hassle for each tiny amount that it's just not worth my time
I take the opposite approach. Even small individual values, when added together, becomes a larger amount of financial pain for a TOC, which they need to feel in order to incentivise being a better performer.
 

styles

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2014
Messages
788
Location
Midlothian
Maddening.

I had an issue submitting an online delay repay form to Avanti because (as their data protection officer subsequently admitted) they miscategorised a cookie that was required to make the form work as a performance cookie rather than an essential cookie, meaning anyone who had rejected non-essential cookies would get all the way through the form submission process to the very end, and then when they clicked 'submit' the form would clear.

It's not an accident, imho. They wouldn't let their retail site perform as poorly as that, because they would lose sales. It's only the form you use to get the compensation you are due, not the one you use to buy a ticket in the first place, that is full of these highly irritating bugs and defects.
I'm pretty sure I've had the same issue with Avanti cookies, and I had to disable uBlock Origin in my browser for the form to work.

Avanti are far from the only website where I've had to do this mind. I've even had to disable it or add an exception on some online card payments pages, which is pretty absurd imo.
 

superalbs

Verified Rep - Superalbs Travels
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,616
Location
Exeter
The one that they keep trying recently on FirstGroup TOCs is to constantly ask for "the full journey details" when starting/finishing short. It's nonsense, they don't even have the ability to explain why they want these non-existent legs of my journey.
 

BlueLeanie

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2023
Messages
526
Location
Haddenham
So you were instructed to use a made-up name in order that their systems could process a refund, and then they unilaterally changed the account name to your partner's name?

That's a formal complaint to the ICO.
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,671
Location
LBK
I take the opposite approach. Even small individual values, when added together, becomes a larger amount of financial pain for a TOC, which they need to feel in order to incentivise being a better performer.
Delay repay doesn’t incentivise train companies and never has; it’s a drop in the ocean. It’s all effectively bankrolled by the government now anyway.
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
1,615
Location
Slade Green
Delay repay doesn’t incentivise train companies and never has; it’s a drop in the ocean. It’s all effectively bankrolled by the government now anyway.
Agreed, it doesn't work like that.

The fact it's a drop in the ocean doesn't stop His Majesty's Treasury, particularly under this government, leaning hard on DfT to reduce the outlay, though. They're leaning hard on all sorts of people to reduce spending that is microscopic in the grand scheme. I've seen indications from a few different sources that there is a drive to "tighten up" on delay repay payouts (possibly coded as tightening up on fraud and error), which I think does end up taking the form of massively increasing the admin costs for all concerned, not really getting any better at distinguishing valid from invalid claims but nonetheless refusing or underpaying more claims (and having to deal with the failure demand from that). Success or failure is only going to be measured by the amount paid out, one suspects, not the negative impact on repeat business or the ridiculous admin burdens TOCs impose on themselves as well as passengers.

Accordingly, responding to this behaviour by continuing to claim and complaining to them about the defects in their process, seems to me to be the only appropriate response. If you don't claim, you're enabling them to say to DfT and the Treasury "we tightened up on fraud and error and reduced payouts by X%", which is what they want to be able to say if they've been told to tighten up on it. So it is rewarding them.

As long as number goes down (either in absolute terms or as a percentage of revenue), in the current political climate I don't think anybody who matters is going to quibble over whether they really have achieved the reduction by driving down fraud and error (as they will claim), or whether they've achieved it by making it so difficult to get the compensation you're owed that people don't bother.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
1,637
Location
Nottinghamshire
First of all, if you look at the official statistics, millions of people have no issues claiming delay repay across the industry. This forum on the whole, generally forgets, or is unable to recognise that if you're a member here, you're probably in an "awkward minority". Perfectly valid tickets no doubt, but a completely different type of passenger to most.

Railway processes and systems are designed to accommodate what the vast majority of people do, and rightly so. It would be a waste of tax payers cash to pay over the odds to develop solutions for every possible permutation and demographic of customer.

The railway actually does a really good job of delay repay overall, but that also does not mean that it is perfect and that because of the scale of the audience using it, the low single figure % that does have an issue, is still a sizeable number in real terms.

The DfT isn't interested in reducing compensation payouts. If anything, some "franchises" are monitored and incentivised to increase the number of claims they receive, and the amount they pay out - as part of customer experience strategies.

What the DfT is interested in, is the cost of administrating the delay repay schemes. The software, the people sat in call centres, the physical handling and processing etc. For the most part, this is predominantly outsourced, and cost drives this, which also drives quality.

You have minimum wage (or barely above) staff, with little to no rail experience, trying to use systems that are designed to reduce human input, and built against tight budgets. These staff are probably told that they have to process a minimum number of claims per hour or something like that anyway, so I suspect speed over quality is an issue. Add in anything remotely out of the ordinary and it's simply going to fail.
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
1,615
Location
Slade Green
First of all, if you look at the official statistics, millions of people have no issues claiming delay repay across the industry. This forum on the whole, generally forgets, or is unable to recognise that if you're a member here, you're probably in an "awkward minority". Perfectly valid tickets no doubt, but a completely different type of passenger to most.
Of the bugbears highlighted in this thread, only the one about starting or stopping short could potentially fall into this category, surely?

I can't imagine it's particularly unusual for a couple to want to be able to submit their claims together, for example (or at the very least to be able to have one person submit both claims separately without having them rejected as duplicates).

Nor do I think the one I moaned about could be described as especially esoteric: a London commuter waiting on the concourse for a delayed train? Not representative of the majority of passengers, perhaps, but hardly an edge case either. And the TOC doubled down on that one, suggesting it's a policy that's inevitably going to affect other people as well, not just those of us who come on here and complain about it.

What the DfT is interested in, is the cost of administrating the delay repay schemes. The software, the people sat in call centres, the physical handling and processing etc. For the most part, this is predominantly outsourced, and cost drives this, which also drives quality.

You have minimum wage (or barely above) staff, with little to no rail experience, trying to use systems that are designed to reduce human input, and built against tight budgets. These staff are probably told that they have to process a minimum number of claims per hour or something like that anyway, so I suspect speed over quality is an issue. Add in anything remotely out of the ordinary and it's simply going to fail.

They may well be designed to reduce human input by staff. They're definitely not optimised for reducing human input by passengers; that cost is externalised.

It's interesting to learn that the cost of administering the claims is regarded as important.

Surely they can't be including the cost of dealing with manual claims, appeals and complaints arising from rejections as admin costs? Otherwise, wouldn't an absence of any interest in the amount paid out combined with a desire to minimise admin costs, result in them just paying out (or, at least, not digging in quite so hard when they're asked to look at a claim again)?
 

Ken_Ilworth

Member
Joined
10 Feb 2010
Messages
88
I don't spend as much time as the OP on claims, but I do claim every disrupted journey, also with LM in my case. Lately I've had a few occasions at Euston where adjacent trains were cancelled and I physically couldn't board any of the 4 or 8 coaches (including one occasion whereby the platform was closed easily 10 minutes prior to departure). I took a couple of photos and knowing that "Train too busy to board" is a drop-down reason in the delay-repay form, submitted claims.

Always initially rejected;
Appeal rejected;
Ask customer relations for deadlock letter for Ombudsman - customer relations then sort it out.

The latest advice I got from customer relations for this scenario was: "..If you do face this issue again, please contact us before you appeal and we can step in and override the decision made by the Delay Repay team"

Long story short: I agree that for many people Delay Repay claims will be becoming too much hassle. (And why have "Train too busy to board" as a DR reason and then totally ignore it, both initially and on appeal..?)
 

Blindtraveler

Established Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
10,509
Location
Nowhere near enough to a Pacer :(
Train too busy to board is probably open to huge amounts of interpretation depending on the individual. Those who simply don't like crowds and won't board anything where there are no seats and a generous number of people standing fall into one camp and those who simply try buy hook or by crook to board. Despite the fact that people are standing down the aisles and sitting in the luggage racks and you physically couldn't get the skinniest person in the world on board fall into another


On a more general point though I agree that delay repay is becoming harder and harder to claim, and I suspect more and more dependant on an algorithm even at the appeal stage with operators trying to slash their costs. As it happens for me. I tend to have a higher success rate because the majority of claims I submit are done by email to customer services. As the automated Delay Repay system simply isn't accessible to me and my assistive technology. The exceptions are tickets for Southeastern trains bought via their own app where the process is a lot more straightforward, particularly if I've got the ticket on my smart card. But sadly once again we have as a general rule. Yet another series of fine examples of the Railway not caring about its customers and either denying claims or making them very difficult to resolve is simply showing utter contempt for us as passengers.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
1,637
Location
Nottinghamshire
Paid for by the taxpayer.
Not necessarily.

Open Access operators are paying directly out of their profits.

Even if you claim from a DfT TOC - there's a good chance that ultimately the money has come from a completely private source, indirectly, from either a freight or open access operator - if they were the organisation responsible for causing the delay, as part of the contractual and regulated delay attribution costs. Those costs are supposed to cover the impacts of delays that TOCs experience, including the administration of compensation, even if it's not directly linked.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,508
They may well be designed to reduce human input by staff. They're definitely not optimised for reducing human input by passengers; that cost is externalised.
In my experience thats just a fact of customer service these days. Whereas the customer would rather like to send an email detailing what they require, which the company can respond to at their leisure, what the company wants to do is have the customer use an infuriating "AI" bot (I'm far from convinced many of them have any AI at all) to go through an hours worth of inane questions before the chat being closed for no apparent reason. Any and every company that doesn't force that on its customers is one I want to be a customer of!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Not necessarily.

Open Access operators are paying directly out of their profits.

Even if you claim from a DfT TOC - there's a good chance that ultimately the money has come from a completely private source, indirectly, from either a freight or open access operator - if they were the organisation responsible for causing the delay, as part of the contractual and regulated delay attribution costs. Those costs are supposed to cover the impacts of delays that TOCs experience, including the administration of compensation, even if it's not directly linked.

Thats a bit of red herring really. OAOs and freight operators would be paying the same regardless of the existence of Delay Repay.
 

redreni

Established Member
Joined
24 Sep 2010
Messages
1,615
Location
Slade Green
In my experience thats just a fact of customer service these days. Whereas the customer would rather like to send an email detailing what they require, which the company can respond to at their leisure, what the company wants to do is have the customer use an infuriating "AI" bot (I'm far from convinced many of them have any AI at all) to go through an hours worth of inane questions before the chat being closed for no apparent reason. Any and every company that doesn't force that on its customers is one I want to be a customer of!
Agreed.
Thats a bit of red herring really. OAOs and freight operators would be paying the same regardless of the existence of Delay Repay.
I think what Tazi is referring to is the charges levied on open access and frieght operators by the TOC that paid out the delay repay claim, under delay attribution arrangements, rather than the track access charges or any other charges they have to pay anyway.

I've no idea whether they also have to cover the cost of pursuing them for that money?
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,508
I think what Tazi is referring to is the charges levied on open access and frieght operators by the TOC that paid out the delay repay claim, under delay attribution arrangements, rather than the track access charges or any other charges they have to pay anyway.

I've no idea whether they also have to cover the cost of pursuing them for that money?

The Delay Attribution process results in certain sums of money changing hands between Network Rail, DfT awarded TOCs, OAO TOCs, freight operators etc etc.

The amount of money has no direct relationship to any Delay Repay activity whatsoever. The party causing the delay does not, for instance, pay a different amount under Delay Attribution depending on whether they delayed Northern (Delay Repay 15), LNER (Delay Repay 30) or a FOC (no Delay Repay).
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
20,397
The amount of money has no direct relationship to any Delay Repay activity whatsoever. The party causing the delay does not, for instance, pay a different amount under Delay Attribution depending on whether they delayed Northern (Delay Repay 15), LNER (Delay Repay 30) or a FOC (no Delay Repay).
Not only that but the party causing the delay may well be paying out through delay attribution arrangements and paying Delay Repay to its own customers.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,742
Location
Sheffield
On a more general point though I agree that delay repay is becoming harder and harder to claim,
My most recent claim was maybe the easiest ever. I thought there could be potential problems as I had used split tickets and a cancelled connecting train was operated by a TOC other than the one who caused the original delay, but ...
* firstly, I did not need to create a DR account, unlike with some operators
* virtually the first question asked was whether I had used split tickets (cle'arly explaining what they were) and when I answered 'yes' presented fields to complete for each ticket and upload them
* after selecting my intended journey, it immediately presented the actual trains I ended up using, taking into account the above cancellation
* when I confirmed them it indicated the amount of compensation to which I would be entitled, should the claim be approved
* within 24 hours claim was approved and compensation authorised.
If only all TOCs were as efficient.

As this was LNER, hopefully the system they use will be the basis on which any GBR-wide system will be introduced.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
14,989
Location
Isle of Man
The experience depends on the type of claim.

If it is straightforward then the automated systems just process it and spit out an amount at the end. Sometimes you win on this, I’ve had claims where I’ve very carefully claimed for the actual route I took to minimise my delay but the automated system has paid out based on the route my booking was for. The industry has vetted my claim so I presume they are right.

It’s where the automated systems are unable to process a claim when the issues start. You’ll see rejections for stupid reasons because, as far as I can see, the systems must spit out that claims to a human with a reason and the human doesn’t check that reason before closing it. For complex cases you need a human to properly look at it but that costs the TOC money.

I think some TOCs must have more advanced automated claims software too. Maybe the change to GBR will help as everyone will use the same software (he jokes).
 

Russel

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2022
Messages
2,515
Location
Whittington
Only ever had one issue with Avanti...

Disruption on the WCML meant everything was 30+ late, was waiting for the 0718 from Tamworth to Euston as I had booked an advance for it, Delay Repay refused as they stated that I was under 15m late into Euston as I could have caught the 0648 to Euston that left Tamworth at 0720... Despite me waiting for the 0718 to turn up as I didn't fancy chancing it on the delayed earlier train, I've seen first hand how some Avanti train crew conduct themselves when it comes to ticketing.

Didn't bother appealing as I'd only paid £7 for the ticket.
 

Sonic1234

Member
Joined
25 Apr 2021
Messages
352
Location
Croydon
For complex cases you need a human to properly look at it but that costs the TOC money.
You can have more luck claiming by post in such cases, as a human has to be involved if only to feed it into the automated system. Does feel old fashioned though, especially the TOCs that send you a cheque for an approved claim.
 

Top