• 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
41,415
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
1,530
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
214
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
4,252
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
493
Location
Fife (the Kingdom)
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

Established Member
Joined
3 Jul 2014
Messages
2,588
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
466
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

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
24,113
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
1,530
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
1,578
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
1,530
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)?
 

Top