Delay Repay both legs. Compensation more than ticket price?

[MrJeeves]

However, if the ticket is not held at all, and after checking train times you realise the 11:05 is cancelled, so you stay at work a bit longer, and you turn up at the station instead at 12:00 for the 12:05 and buy your ticket - there is no eligibility for delay repay in my view, as you had no right to be on the 11:05.

Because I am forced to stay at work for an extra hour instead of going home and putting my feet up, I should be entitled to nothing?

What isn't fine is seeing the 11:05 is cancelled, buying your ticket at 11:06 or later (to travel on the 12:05) and then claiming for a delay on the cancelled 11:05.

With this logic, if I use a PAYG method for my journey, I should never be entitled to any DR compensation because I actually pay for my journey the next day, and only tap in when going to board my train.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Because I am forced to stay at work for an extra hour instead of going home and putting my feet up, I should be entitled to nothing?



With this logic, if I use a PAYG method for my journey, I should never be entitled to any DR compensation because I actually pay for my journey the next day, and only tap in when going to board my train.

Point 1 - correct. You have no contract with the railway.

Point 2 - not necessarily correct. For TfL, the authority to travel/contractual relationship is met with a suitable payment card being available, so you have a valid authority to travel prior to the delay.

For non TfL PAYG, such as on GWR and South West Trains, it would depend on whether you had registered for the PAYG product in advance, which involves linking it to a debit or credit card (not just in possession of a blank smartcard which isn't set up for PAYG by default).

 

[MrJeeves]

Point 1 - correct. You have no contract with the railway.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The situation I was in was actually a third one.

I turned up at the station at 10:55 (metaphorically), saw that the 11:05 was cancelled, and purchased a ticket from a TVM as there was no realistic option but to wait. I sat at the station for an hour and ten minutes until the 12:05.

So, at the time you arrived at the station, you were intending to catch the 11:05. But at the time you made a contract with the railway, knowing the 11:05 had been cancelled, you were intending to catch the 12:05, and were aware that would involve waiting at the origin station and arriving at you destination later that you had originally intended.

Which intention is the relevant one, in respect of your claim for DR? Would it be relevant that earlier in the that day you had been intending to catch to 09:05, but changed your mind?

The TOC would say; you made the contract with them, knowing you would have to wait for the 12:05.

I don't think it needs to be literaly spelled out in the T&Cs that it's your intended journey at the time you make the contract, and not any earlier intentions you may have had, which is the relevant one against which any delay caused by the TOC is measured.

 

[Haywain]

With this logic, if I use a PAYG method for my journey, I should never be entitled to any DR compensation because I actually pay for my journey the next day, and only tap in when going to board my train.

Well, GTR clearly don't take this view as they were happy to issue DR to me after the Brighton debacle a couple of weeks ago in spite of using KeyGo. I was sitting in a pub at the time of my planned departure, due to the station being blocked to entry, and when there was eventually a train to board I was unable to touch in so the only real evidence they had was my arrival time at my destination.

On the wider subject, there is nothing in the NRCoT to say you must have bought your ticket at a certain time to qualify for DR and even if a ticket is bought after the scheduled departure time of delayed train, you can hardly be expected to know how late it is going to arrive, or cause you to arrive, at your destination. Therefore claiming appears entirely legitimate to me.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Well, GTR clearly don't take this view as they were happy to issue DR to me after the Brighton debacle a couple of weeks ago in spite of using KeyGo. I was sitting in a pub at the time of my planned departure, due to the station being blocked to entry, and when there was eventually a train to board I was unable to touch in so the only real evidence they had was my arrival time at my destination.

On the wider subject, there is nothing in the NRCoT to say you must have bought your ticket at a certain time to qualify for DR and even if a ticket is bought after the scheduled departure time of delayed train, you can hardly be expected to know how late it is going to arrive, or cause you to arrive, at your destination. Therefore claiming appears entirely legitimate to me.

Happy to.... or the automated system simply didn't check it out? It's like saying that a ticket barrier accepting your ticket automatically makes it valid, which is obviously nonsense. If it's PAYG, as above, I explain that is perfectly fine so long as you have the pay as you go product in advance of the delay.

 

[Haywain]

Happy to.... or the automated system simply didn't check it out?

It took several days to be paid out because it was flagged as being reviewed so, yes, happy to pay.

 

[Southern Beau]

This is a really interesting topic. The word used for delay repay terms is “intended”.

I intended to catch the 12:00 service.
I see the 12:00 service is cancelled.
I wait at home for another hour.
Then get to the station for 12:50 and buy a ticket.
Then travel on the 13:00 service.

I “intended” to catch the 12:00 service. Surely that is the only the requirement to make a DR claim?

 

[AlterEgo]

This is a really interesting topic. The word used for delay repay terms is “intended”.

I intended to catch the 12:00 service.
I see the 12:00 service is cancelled.
I wait at home for another hour.
Then get to the station for 12:50 and buy a ticket.
Then travel on the 13:00 service.

I “intended” to catch the 12:00 service. Surely that is the only the requirement to make a DR claim?

I wouldn't want to try that logic more than once, for obvious reasons.

 

[Southern Beau]

I wouldn't want to try that logic more than once, for obvious reasons.

Umm, it regularly happens for me on my line (an hourly service) where for the last 3-4 months the services are regularly decimated (ie: 50% of services are cancelled)

I unfortunately have the pleasure of commuting with Northern and this week we’ve had 100% reliability which is the first for some time

 

[AlterEgo]

Umm, it regularly happens for me on my line (an hourly service) where for the last 3-4 months the services are regularly decimated (ie: 50% of services are cancelled)

I unfortunately have the pleasure of commuting with Northern and this week we’ve had 100% reliability which is the first for some time

I'm sure you can see how you will eventually run into problems by doing what you're doing, though - not purchasing a ticket until after the delayed/cancelled train. I would strongly advise you to buy your ticket before the train you want to catch is due to leave, if you intend to claim.

 

[BigCj34]

I travelled with a Northern complimentary voucher, which was a return. I was then delayed going out by an hour (resulting in a return voucher as part of my claim), and then by over 30 minutes on the return trip (where I could claim a single voucher). I was able to make both claims, so profited by having more vouchers than I started the jounrney with. Northern saw no issue with the claim. But it's a compimentary voucher so maybe the rules are different?

If I choose to claim a voucher for a short journey I paid for, then use the voucher to make a longer journey, then I am profiting form Delay Repay that way.

 

[Southern Beau]

I'm sure you can see how you will eventually run into problems by doing what you're doing, though - not purchasing a ticket until after the delayed/cancelled train. I would strongly advise you to buy your ticket before the train you want to catch is due to leave, if you intend to claim.

Although I agree, what would be the repercussion? The TOC accuse me of fraud, I disagree, they pursue prosecution and we go to court.
Who would the onus be on to prove their stance.
Would I need to prove I intended to catch that train.
Or would the TOC need to prove that I did not intend to catch that train?

And how do you prove “intent” in this instance?

Edited to add: if my intended train is at 5:00am, it is cancelled and I get the 6:00am, I am not going to the station for 4:50 to buy a ticket to then return home and then go back for the 6:00am service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think it needs to be literaly spelled out in the T&Cs that it's your intended journey at the time you make the contract, and not any earlier intentions you may have had, which is the relevant one against which any delay caused by the TOC is measured.

With regard to Delay Repay yes, I would say it does. Delay Repay is not based around standard contract law. It's a specific thing whose rules are defined in the NRCoT, and there's no reason it can't work in the way stated.

 

[MrJeeves]

This is a really interesting topic. The word used for delay repay terms is “intended”.

I intended to catch the 12:00 service.
I see the 12:00 service is cancelled.
I wait at home for another hour.
Then get to the station for 12:50 and buy a ticket.
Then travel on the 13:00 service.

I “intended” to catch the 12:00 service. Surely that is the only the requirement to make a DR claim?

In my eyes, yeah. I've claimed DR on many tickets bought only a few minutes before the train I end up catching.

If I'm sat at home and eating breakfast and I see my normal train is cancelled, I will definitely leave home later as a result, and only buy my ticket before the train I actually end up catching.

I don't see why I am not entitled to delay repay simply because I chose to sit at home rather than sit at the station. Both are delays to my journey that I am entitled to compensation for.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Although I agree, what would be the repercussion? The TOC accuse me of fraud, I disagree, they pursue prosecution and we go to court.
Who would the onus be on to prove their stance.
Would I need to prove I intended to catch that train.
Or would the TOC need to prove that I did not intend to catch that train?

And how do you prove “intent” in this instance?

Edited to add: if my intended train is at 5:00am, it is cancelled and I get the 6:00am, I am not going to the station for 4:50 to buy a ticket to then return home and then go back for the 6:00am service.

In reality, I think a prosecutor explaining to a magistrate is going to be easily paint a picture of fraud.

You intended to travel on the 11am train?
Yes.

But you were a few miles away, with your feet up in your office with a nice hot coffee at the time of departure?
Yes.

And you only realised there was a potential delay in the first place because you looked at an app.
Yes.

And if that train had suddenly been reinstated/back on time, it would have been almost impossible for you to have made it in time from your office and coffee?
Correct.

And you didn't hold a ticket for that train?
Correct

And the train you did travel on was not delayed?
Correct

And you only purchased a ticket almost an hour after the 11am train had left the station?
Yes.

And you've done this how many times before?
(Answer is more than a handful)


....
You get the general idea.

Can debate the rights or wrongs all day long on this forum - but I'd not feel too comfortable trying to defend that position at court. Perhaps others would. I can understand both perspectives but I very much think this is, being generous, skirting a very fine line of legality whether civil or criminal.

 

[AlterEgo]

In my eyes, yeah. I've claimed DR on many tickets bought only a few minutes before the train I end up catching.

If I'm sat at home and eating breakfast and I see my normal train is cancelled, I will definitely leave home later as a result, and only buy my ticket before the train I actually end up catching.

I don't see why I am not entitled to delay repay simply because I chose to sit at home rather than sit at the station. Both are delays to my journey that I am entitled to compensation for.

I don’t disagree that morally you’re entitled to do this, but I question the wisdom - especially when you have avoided making a contract with the train company and they had no obligation whatever to transport you on the original service.

 

[Southern Beau]

In reality, I think a prosecutor explaining to a magistrate is going to be easily paint a picture of fraud.

You intended to travel on the 11am train?
Yes.

But you were a few miles away, with your feet up in your office with a nice hot coffee at the time of departure?
Yes.

And you only realised there was a potential delay in the first place because you looked at an app.
Yes.

And if that train had suddenly been reinstated/back on time, it would have been almost impossible for you to have made it in time from your office and coffee?
Correct.

And you didn't hold a ticket for that train?
Correct

And the train you did travel on was not delayed?
Correct

And you only purchased a ticket almost an hour after the 11am train had left the station?
Yes.

And you've done this how many times before?
(Answer is more than a handful)


....
You get the general idea.

Can debate the rights or wrongs all day long on this forum - but I'd not feel too comfortable trying to defend that position at court. Perhaps others would. I can understand both perspectives but I very much think this is, being generous, skirting a very fine line of legality whether civil or criminal.

So how does this thinking work on a return portion of an open return ticket? Should you never claim delay repay for that leg of your journey?

I don’t disagree that morally you’re entitled to do this, but I question the wisdom - especially when you have avoided making a contract with the train company and they had no obligation whatever to transport you on the original service.

So how does this thinking work on a return portion of an open return ticket? Should you never claim delay repay for that leg of your journey as you have 1 calendar month to complete the journey and obviously no contract made from a time stamp point of view?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

So how does this thinking work on a return portion of an open return ticket? Should you never claim delay repay for that leg of your journey?



So how does this thinking work on a return portion of an open return ticket? Should you never claim delay repay for that leg of your journey as you have 1 calendar month to complete the journey and obviously no contract made from a time stamp point of view?

You have a contract with the railway is the main difference. You are entitled to all of the benefits (and obligations) of the conditions of travel, which Delay Repay is part of.

No ticket (or travel authority such as PAYG), no delay repay.

Certain people on this forum are seemingly trying to imply that purchasing a ticket not only gives you rights to travel after purchasing it, but it ALSO gives you historical/retrospective National Rail Conditions of Travel rights automatically, just by stating they had an intention to enter into that contract earlier, but they chose not to, because of an advertised delay. It's a huge stretch. (Assuming facilities exist to purchase to keep things simple here!)

I'd still maintain no eligibility for Delay Repay, but a nicely worded email to customer services explaining the scenario and being clear as to the circumstances is the correct approach, with the potential of discretionary compensation. It's a fairly significant and pertinent fact to bring to the attention of the railway - not to simply hope an automated software tool overlooks it.

 

[Southern Beau]

You have a contract with the railway is the main difference. You are entitled to all of the benefits (and obligations) of the conditions of travel, which Delay Repay is part of.

No ticket (or travel authority such as PAYG), no delay repay.

Certain people on this forum are seemingly trying to imply that purchasing a ticket not only gives you rights to travel after purchasing it, but it ALSO gives you historical/retrospective National Rail Conditions of Travel rights automatically, just by stating they had an intention to enter into that contract earlier, but they chose not to, because of an advertised delay. It's a huge stretch. (Assuming facilities exist to purchase to keep things simple here!)

I'd still maintain no eligibility for Delay Repay, but a nicely worded email to customer services explaining the scenario and being clear as to the circumstances is the correct approach, with the potential of discretionary compensation. It's a fairly significant and pertinent fact to bring to the attention of the railway - not to simply hope an automated software tool overlooks it.

So if I purchase a ticket the evening before travel, check LDB the following morning and see the 5:00am train is cancelled (which I intended to travel on), travel on the 6:00am service which is running as scheduled; you would be happy for me to claim for DR? Or do you feel that I should be on the platform for 1h05 mins to make the claim?

 

[MotCO]

And you didn't hold a ticket for that train?
Correct

Is the answer that you should buy a ticket on line at home before the train was due to leave?

 

[Southern Beau]

Is the answer that you should buy a ticket on line at home before the train was due to leave?

That’s looks to be the only solution if you want to claim delay repay.
It’s no hardship to be honest and it provides that all important contract before travel which @Tazi Hupefi argues very well

 

[tspaul26]

You have no contract or rights under the conditions of travel until and unless a ticket is purchased, and therefore you cannot be delayed without a ticket, as you have no rights to travel on any journey with the railway in the first place.

It is common sense and logical. There would be nothing written down, because there is nothing to write down - that's the whole issue you have - you lack standing and have no contract.

These assertions are fundamentally wrong in law: it is not a necessary precondition for a ticket to be purchased in order for a contractual relationship to have formed.

With regard to Delay Repay yes, I would say it does. Delay Repay is not based around standard contract law. It's a specific thing whose rules are defined in the NRCoT, and there's no reason it can't work in the way stated.

Delay Repay and the NRCOT are standard contract law in operation, subject to sundry legal interventions such as consumer protection legislation.

 

[guilbert]

In reality, I think a prosecutor explaining to a magistrate is going to be easily paint a picture of fraud.

You intended to travel on the 11am train?
Yes.

...

Has this ever actually happened though? The actual delay repay causes I'm aware of (actual ones that made it to court, not vague threats from Greater Anglia) are far more clear cut than that, ie £10k+ of claims, forged tickets etc.

 

[OscarH]

a nicely worded email to customer services explaining the scenario and being clear as to the circumstances is the correct approach, with the potential of discretionary compensation. It's a fairly significant and pertinent fact to bring to the attention of the railway - not to simply hope an automated software tool overlooks it.

I think you'd be more likely to get blood from a stone then getting anything from asking any TOC for discretionary compensation

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Has this ever actually happened though? The actual delay repay causes I'm aware of (actual ones that made it to court, not vague threats from Greater Anglia) are far more clear cut than that, ie £10k+ of claims, forged tickets etc.

Not yet. But I'm sure there will be some investigation in due course....

Unless anyone is doing this persistently, I wouldn't be too concerned.

I await with anticipation the first post on this forum once a letter arrived!

These assertions are fundamentally wrong in law: it is not a necessary precondition for a ticket to be purchased in order for a contractual relationship to have formed.

Delay Repay and the NRCOT are standard contract law in operation, subject to sundry legal interventions such as consumer protection legislation.

That's for you to prove if you want to defend a prosecution or commence a civil claim against an operator ultimately. It may not always be necessary, I agree, but for the most part, it is necessary.

I think, on the balance of probabilities, in a civil matter, you'd not have much success at all.

For a criminal matter, I really wouldn't rate your chances either - whether before a jury or bench of magistrates - I'm sure that most everyday people wouldn't see this (repeated) type of claim as legal.

I was in the middle of buying a home insurance policy before my house caught fire, but I couldn't get the website to work an hour before the fire, but I had the intention to buy the insurance, honestly, and I did buy it successfully shortly after I knew about the fire. So you'll pay out?

 

[tspaul26]

That's for you to prove if you want to defend a prosecution or commence a civil claim against an operator ultimately. It may not always be necessary, I agree, but for the most part, it is necessary.

With the greatest respect, you made unqualified assertions to the effect of ‘no ticket, no contract’ - assertions which were (and are) erroneous in law as you now seem to admit.

This rather colours any other opinions you might have on this matter.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

With the greatest respect, you made unqualified assertions to the effect of ‘no ticket, no contract’ - assertions which were (and are) erroneous in law as you now seem to admit.

This rather colours any other opinions you might have on this matter.

You're trying to bring in a very technical and complicated part of tort/civil/contract law, necessity etc which for the most part is totally irrelevant to this discussion, except in certain circumstances, most of which would not apply at the vast majority of stations with working ticketing facilities.

For the vast majority of customers, the overwhelming majority of the rights and obligations under the conditions do not apply unless and until a valid ticket is obtained or other services accessed/utilised.

Let's say the hypothetical 11am train was cancelled, (that you didn't hold any ticket for already) and there were no further services at all that day, and tickets totally withdrawn from sale/became unavailable. In fact, they even closed the station.

Do you believe the customer is entitled to onward / alternative travel? If yes, on what basis? If no, then presumably you accept there is no liability on the TOC to do so in the absence of a contract to convey that person to the destination they intended to reach.

What if they just refused you access to their private property? They didn't want you as a customer, (Equality Act aside), therefore refused to sell you a ticket. You, after all, have no right to travel by train and a TOC has absolutely no obligation to enter into a contract with you in the first place (so long as not on the basis of discrimination etc).

 

[tspaul26]

You're trying to bring in a very technical and complicated part of tort/civil/contract law, necessity etc which for the most part is totally irrelevant, except in certain circumstances, most of which would not apply at the vast majority of stations with working ticketing facilities.

More nonsense. You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you.

For the vast majority of customers, the overwhelming majority of the rights and obligations under the conditions do not apply unless and until a valid ticket is obtained or other services accessed/utilised.

In other words, your original assertions were wrong in law.

And even this latest attempt misrepresents the legal position.

 

[MrJeeves]

I think you'd be more likely to get blood from a stone then getting anything from asking any TOC for discretionary compensation

Except when you get a lovely GTR employee who gave me £30 in exchange for not writing any more 7 paragraph emails to them