Could I claim delay compensation for a journey I only intended to make if delays occurred?

[neilmc]

Here's a scenario. I live somewhere in Leeds and am travelling up from London (or indeed any distance away). I know that Northern are having problems running the advertised service. So, instead of buying a London-Leeds ticket I buy London-Headingley for the same price or thereabouts. I may not live in Headingley, or I may normally catch the bus home, but this is what I do. I now have a nice itinerary which shows my connection at Leeds.

And, oh joy, the connection doesn't run. So I claim Delay Repay for my whole journey from London to Headingley even though the actual delayed bit was just the last three miles or so which I have no intention of doing anyway. Any problem with this?

I suppose someone might say I need to have shown that I actually caught the first train possible to Headingley (although of course even people who genuinely wanted to go to Headingley may well have given up and caught the bus instead). Fair enough, I'll potter around Leeds centre a bit, catch whatever train Northern manage to provide to Headingley and then walk or get a bus to where I actually want to go. Well worth it for what I can claim, and no loss if Northern do actually come up with the connection.

This would of course apply to large numbers of towns with a short-journey Northern connection at the main line station.

 

[superalbs]

Yes quite a large problem, because you never intended to make the journey, and never actually made the journey, so weren't late.

 

[paddington]

Yes quite a large problem, because you never intended to make the journey, and never actually made the journey, so weren't late.

He didn't intend to make the final part of the journey if it was on time, but he did make the journey when it turned out to be delayed. There isn't really any way for a TOC to know... since if he isn't delayed he won't claim, except now this idea has been posted on here.

I'll potter around Leeds centre a bit, catch whatever train Northern manage to provide to Headingley and then walk or get a bus to where I actually want to go. Well worth it for what I can claim, and no loss if Northern do actually come up with the connection.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If your question is whether you can break your journey on a walk-up ticket from London to Headingley at Leeds, the answer is yes. If your other question is whether you are entitled to delay compensation for a delay in reaching Headingley then your answer is also yes (provided it is of a qualifying length).

It is somewhat unusual for someone to suggest actually taking the train to a destination that they know will incur delays (as opposed to merely claiming that they did so), but if you are prepared to actually undergo the delay then I see no reason why you should not be able to claim compensation for the delay, just because you decided whether or not you were going to finish your journey at Leeds on the basis of whether or not the Headingley trains were late.

 

[yorkie]

The key question is whether the cancellation or delay was advertised/known at the time you bought the ticket.

If it was, then you aren't entitled to claim delay compensation

If, at the time you bought the ticket, a contract was available to the final ticketed destination, then delay compensation is applicable on that basis.

The suggestion appears to be that booking a longer journey increases the chances of a delay occuring but that isn't necessarily true. You may also occur greater costs (depending on ticket type) booking a longer journey, so over time this is unlikely to be "profitable".

If you admit you deliberately booked a longer journey that you only intended to make if you were delayed, a sensible conclusion would be that you have no valid claim.

 

[robbeech]

So to clarify, as I see this.

You’re not travelling to Headingley. Regardless of whether a train is delayed or not, that’s not where you’re going. You’re buying a ticket there because there’s a potential tight but valid connection that may be cancelled.
Your plan is to see when that service is cancelled, travel from London on the train that connects into that one and claim delay repay based upon that delay to the journey?

There are several issues with this. The main issue as I see it is of course you’re not making the journey you claim to be doing so your claim isn’t valid.

It’s unlikely that you’d get caught for this frankly fraudulent behaviour (unless someone is now looking out for it) but if I have understood your intentions correctly then I feel it only right to warn you that the railway would take this very seriously should they find out.

You should only claim delay repay on the journey you make. If you do need to get to Headingley and you are delayed and you get a later train then you are eligible. If your journey is delayed and you decide to wander around Leeds and get a bus 3 hours later then whilst technically you’re not eligible for any compensation as you didn’t make the journey, then many people see no real issue with making a claim based on the time you would have got there on the next train.

There’s certainly a part in my head that (with respect) is thinking that you’re likely to claim for a journey that is delayed and catch one that isn’t. Though I’m happy to accept I have read your intentions wrong and apologise if that is the case.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This is about the difference between 'can' and 'should'.

Can you do this? Yes, and unless you leave a visible trace you will get away with it.

Should you do this? No, because it's debatable whether it's within the letter of the delay repay scheme, and it's certainly outside the spirit of it.

Is it worth noting that there is a reason why the rules for Delay Repay are so vague? The reasons why a journey might be delayed are many, and the solutions that passengers will take on the day are many as well, so rather than trying to spell out every possible scenario, the rules are loose. In principle, the railways promise to play fair, and pay out in genuine cases: the flip side to this is that as customers we also play fair, and only make genuine claims. The alternative is much longer, more prescriptive rules.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In principle, the railways promise to play fair, and pay out in genuine cases

The issue is that whilst the railway might promise to play fair, operators such as Northern and LNER are known to cause problems with paying out correctly on a number of occasions. With that background, as well as the refusal to provide any alternative services for many lines during the Northern strike, it is perhaps somewhat more understandable that people might want to 'get their own back' on the likes of Northern. Of course, there are probably better ways of doing this, such as choosing the ticket(s) you buy very carefully such as to minimise the revenue they get!

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The issue is that whilst the railway might promise to play fair, operators such as Northern and LNER are known to cause problems with paying out correctly on a number of occasions. With that background, as well as the refusal to provide any alternative services for many lines during the Northern strike, it is perhaps somewhat more understandable that people might want to 'get their own back' on the likes of Northern.

1) The phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' is well enough known that it needs no further elaboration
2) There's a lack of looking ahead here. Delay repay is a scheme run by the railways, with rules made by the railways. If customers find ways of misusing the current rules to the detriment of the railways, then we can expect that the railways will block the loopholes, leading to more complex rules that are harder to get round. I cannot see how more complex rules will be in the interest of anyone with a legitimate delay repay claim - the process of applying for delay repay will become more complex (so deterring legitimate claimants from bothering to pursue their claim) and the treatment of edge cases will become more favourable to the railways and less favourable to the customers. Is this an outcome that we would want to encourage?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

1) The phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' is well enough known that it needs no further elaboration
2) There's a lack of looking ahead here. Delay repay is a scheme run by the railways, with rules made by the railways. If customers find ways of misusing the current rules to the detriment of the railways, then we can expect that the railways will block the loopholes, leading to more complex rules that are harder to get round. I cannot see how more complex rules will be in the interest of anyone with a legitimate delay repay claim - the process of applying for delay repay will become more complex (so deterring legitimate claimants from bothering to pursue their claim) and the treatment of edge cases will become more favourable to the railways and less favourable to the customers. Is this an outcome that we would want to encourage?

I'm certainly not condoning it. I'm perhaps giving an insight as to why people other than ourselves - who might not necessarily be aware of the rules, let alone the potential impact of breaking them - might still want to make a claim that isn't appropriate.

 

[yorkie]

... If customers find ways of misusing the current rules to the detriment of the railways...

It's an interesting one.

A passenger lives near Headingley but it's easier to get the bus from Leeds straight home, rather than walk from the station which may be less convenient, but they choose to book to Headingley because they know that the reliability of the train is such that they will increase the chances of their journey being delayed.

If the train to Headingley is on time, they can choose to finish short and get the bus, or they can choose to get the train to Headingley and be on time. The passenger says they will finish short in this situation for convenience.

If the train to Headingley is late, they can choose to wait for the train, and then claim delay compensation if they arrived into their final destination 30 or more minutes late. The passenger says they will travel to Headingley in this situation so that they are entitled to claim compensation for a delay that did occur.

I am not sure if this is "misusing the rules" or not, but I do not see how you could prevent people having the flexibility to finish their journey at Leeds or Headingley. The customer is proposing that they complete their journey to their final destination of Headingley if the train is delayed, but finish short at Leeds if the train is on time. It wouldn't be practicable to deny people the right to finish short at Leeds on a ticket to Headingley so I am not sure that you can "stop" people from doing what is described here.

If the customer travels to Headingley they are not doing anything fraudulent by claiming for a delay that occured with a journey to Headingley.

 

[freddie1729]

I may be interpreting this wrongly, but aren't you entitled to a refund if you abandon your journey because it's delayed? Then in this case you could just not travel to Headingley and claim a full refund.

 

[yorkie]

I may be interpreting this wrongly, but aren't you entitled to a refund if you abandon your journey because it's delayed? Then in this case you could just not travel to Headingley and claim a full refund.

No, you are not entitled to a full refund if you choose to finish short; any use you made of the ticket would be deducted. If we are talking about flexible fares, the price is the same, so no refund.

An abandoned journey where you return to your origin because you cannot realistically make the journey is a different matter. For example if your journey was from Headingley to London and you got to Leeds to discover all trains were cancelled. You would be given the option of using the ticket the next day, or not making the journey to London, returning back to Headingley and claiming a full refund.

If there was no rail provision from Leeds to Headingley, you would not need to return to the origin as you would be able to get buses or taxis as it's not far.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I have a vaguely similar thing. When buying tickets I will usually but them to/from Longport, even though I am going to change at Stoke. Longport is far easier for me to get to/from by public transport. But sometimes I will get a lift/Stay at a friends/etc and start/end at Stoke instead. No problem, the ticket is usually the same price, or near enough as not to matter. No one minds me travelling short for that, and I consider it better than booking to Stoke and travelling "over"-even if the fare is the same.
On Northbound journeys there is only 5-10 minutes between the XC and VT arrivals at Stoke and the hourly departure to Longport. Missing that connection means an automatic hour delay. It is not unusual for the XC or VT train to miss the connection. Rather than wait an hour, I will often get buses from Stoke instead (I'll get home about the same time as waiting an hour!) but I will claim the delay repay as my journey was delayed, I just (usually) choose not to wait. I could wait the hour, but I'd rather be moving (albeit round every housing estate in the city on a bus) than sat at the station. Should I wait at the station to claim? Or as the journey is delayed but I choose to get myself home another way, should I not claim? As I say, my actual arrival time home is roughly the same as waiting the hour, the bus from Longport and the bus I come in on are usually following each other when I get off.

 

[neilmc]

The scenario occurred to me when reading a post about someone being stranded at Leeds trying to get from London to Halifax, and that if you are delayed then Delay Repay would apply to your WHOLE journey and the cost would be borne by the company on whose journey the delay occurred, irrespective of length of each individual component. I actually used to live in Cross Gates and hardly ever caught the train since a very frequent bus service dropped me off right at my front door whereas the train was intermittent and left me with a 15-minute walk, but if I could tag a short local journey with a company known to have reliability issues at the end of a long journey with a company that doesn't, then suddenly there's a further incentive to use the train locally! I used Headingley in my example because bizarrely the pricing for Cross Gates often involved changing at York rather than Leeds.
This could potentially cost Northern in particular lots of money since they have lots of local stations in the vicinity of large city stations.

There is no issue as to what my "intentions" are, as Delay Repay is based on the ticket you hold and not on any alternative journey which might exist in my mind. I was suggesting that you might actually make that badly-delayed journey to Cross Gates, Headingley or whatever and then catch a bus from there to wherever you actually live just to make it crystal clear that you "wanted" to go there and did so, but I don't think there'd be any way of proving otherwise if you didn't. Nobody would do this to get back two or three pounds but fifty or a hundred pounds, surely that's a different matter!