Avanti WC delay repay

[dvboy]

Hi all

After some advice on AWC DR as I expect my two claims put in for travel yesterday to be automatically rejected, annoyingly there is nowhere to submit any notes on the form.

Journey 1:
1810 Birmingham New Street to London Euston
The train ran roughly on time but was short formed of a Voyager instead of a Pendolino, and passengers who could not find a seat were advised to travel on the 1830 instead (which was a Pendolino instead of a Voyager).

Journey 2:
2330 London Euston to Birmingham New Street
The train ran roughly on time, but the timetable was changed for engineering works since I purchased my ticket, so I had expected to arrive at 0135 but since we were diverted via Stafford, it was 0200.

Should I expect both of these to be automatically rejected and have to appeal, and what are people's experiences with appealing DR with AWC generally?

Thanks

 

[Haywain]

On journey 1 which train did you travel on?

 

[dvboy]

The 1830 as advised as I could not get a seat on the 1810. I had an advance for the 1810.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding number 1 I'm not sure that would entitle you to DR unless you were physically unable to board. A seat is not an entitlement, they just gave you a bit of helpful advice.

If, rather than advising, they had barred you from boarding (or it was so rammed you couldn't get on), then DR would apply.

 

[dvboy]

There was an announcement on the 1810 that tickets would be accepted on the 1830 due to the short form, so this wasn't my own decision, I was following advice given.

I had a seat reservation on the 1810 which had I travelled on that as planned could not be honoured anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was an announcement on the 1810 that tickets would be accepted on the 1830 due to the short form, so this wasn't my own decision, I was following advice given.

It was advice. You could still have travelled on the 1810 and stood up.

AIUI Delay Repay only applies where you physically cannot board or are instructed that you must not do so.

 

[dvboy]

That sounds fair, I suppose I could have stayed on the 1810 and stood up in the hope a seat became available later in the journey.

Do you think I have a claim on the second journey? This was on an off peak single ticket, purchased 13 December. I have the original itinerary with the arrival time of 0135 on a confirmation email.

 

[35B]

It was advice. You could still have travelled on the 1810 and stood up.

AIUI Delay Repay only applies where you physically cannot board or are instructed that you must not do so.

Is that true where the operator is advising passengers to take an alternative train?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you think I have a claim on the second journey? This was on an off peak single ticket, purchased 13 December. I have the original itinerary with the arrival time of 0135 on a confirmation email.

Yes, that one sounds reasonable, DR is based on the timetable that was in force when you bought your ticket.

 

[Hadders]

If the claims get rejected then appeal and this allows a free text box where you can enter details.

Unfortunately Avanti won't take any Delay Repay claims via customer relations, although they helpfully did put a note on my case reference when I phoned them to complain after a rejection.

 

[gray1404]

I think the OP has a valid claim for both journeys. Their reservation was no honoured and they were thus advised by AWC to take the 1830. They therefore arrived at their destination late so I'd say delay repay is payable. Appeal if its rejected, with both claims.

 

[packermac]

I think the OP has a valid claim for both journeys. Their reservation was no honoured and they were thus advised by AWC to take the 1830. They therefore arrived at their destination late so I'd say delay repay is payable. Appeal if its rejected, with both claims.

It will be interesting to see on Journey 2 if they take the SWR view regarding emergency timetables. If a replacement timetable was published I guess they will reject any claim for journey 2 if not late to that emergency timetable.
This is the words in their charter
The length of delay will be based on the published timetable, which can include any emergency timetable that we implement. Where an emergency timetable is operating, this will be publicised in advance.

 

[gray1404]

Delay repay is based on the timings given when the contract was formed. So in the OPs case its against the itinerary they were given when they booked their ticket.

 

[packermac]

Which train company do you work for? Are you repeating what Management have told you?

None retired airline staff, just basing it on the SWR thread I read yesterday.
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...t-2-5-hour-delay-on-pre-booked-ticket.197212/
and some personal research of the new SWR Pax Charter, the Avanti one and the 2019 NRCoT and its associated link to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Just looking at it as someone who used to write and administer both procurement and service contracts. As far as I can see (although happy to be corrected) NRCoT just seems to refer customers to the charter for the applicable TOC rather than specify what should be used for delay repay in case of revised timetables.
Maybe I am just a barrack room lawyer (albeit a bad one!)

 

[robbeech]

Hi all

Should I expect both of these to be automatically rejected and have to appeal, and what are people's experiences with appealing DR with AWC generally?

Thanks

To directly answer your question, YES. You should expect both of these claims to be immediately rejected outright by the operator. This of course does NOT mean they aren't valid claims, just that the system is coincidentally "tuned" to bias towards the more profitable result for the operator with claims.
The first train, i can see the argument that if there was room (seated or standing) on the 1810 then you could have boarded it and tried to claim some form of compensation for no reserved seat, although it's unlikely that would get very far. However, were staff saying "you can get the 1830 if you would prefer" or were they saying " there are no seats, get the 1830"? If the latter i would argue that you have been told to get the later train and compensation is due.
The second train there is no doubt whatsoever that compensation is due based on the contracted itinerary, or proposed journey based upon the timetable in place when you booked the ticket. It may help if you can give evidence of this time table changing between you purchasing the ticket (forming the contract) and making the journey. Despite this there are operators that will happily go against the rules we can refer to in contract law because they know full well that they'll rarely be challenged by passengers, and certainly not the regulators.

 

[philthetube]

It will be interesting to see on Journey 2 if they take the SWR view regarding emergency timetables. If a replacement timetable was published I guess they will reject any claim for journey 2 if not late to that emergency timetable.
This is the words in their charter
The length of delay will be based on the published timetable, which can include any emergency timetable that we implement. Where an emergency timetable is operating, this will be publicised in advance.

That really doesn't sound like an emergence timetable to me????? emergencies do not usually allow advance warning.

 

[yorkie]

Both are valid claims in my opinion

But good luck getting Avanti to accept this!

For the second one, do you have an itinerary showing the original timings? If you do, include this. If not, it may be a struggle to claim, though it's a valid claim.

 

[dvboy]

Journey 1 has been rejected and I have appealed.

Journey 2 is yet to be rejected.