Delay repay compensation and split ticketing

[mm333]

I recently travelled from New Barnet to Guiseley (FCC to Potters Bar, FCC to Stevenage, EC to Leeds then Northern to Guiseley).

I split my tickets at Knebworth, Grantham, Doncaster and Wakefield, and my trains called at all of these. The tickets were all either Anytime or Off Peak singles and all valid.

My train was 19 late into Leeds, so I missed my connection to Guiseley and so took the next train. This arrived on time, 32 minutes after I was supposed to have arrived. The delay was between Grantham and Doncaster.

I applied to East Coast for 50% of the cost of my tickets under the Delay Repay scheme. I have today received a letter which says

"In line with the National Conditions of Carriage, we can only compensate for tickets which were affected by a delay of 30 minutes or more. The tickets you used between Knebworth and Wakefield were affected by delays of less than 30 minutes and as such no compensation was due for these. I am only able to compensate you for the ticket you possessed between Wakefield and Guiseley".

So I only have £2.05, not £44, in National Rail vouchers.

Is what they're saying correct? I thought my split-ticketing was treated as one journey?

 

[bb21]

Unfortunately their interpretation is correct, as per the rule. I have this confirmed by Passenger Focus.

I also have confirmation from a reliable source that prior to the implementation of Delay Repay, all TOCs agreed in principle that it would be more sensible to treat the cost of the journey as a whole, however it has been very inconsistently implemented because the rules have been very poorly written.

My advice is to contact Passenger Focus. Although they might not be able to do much on this occasion, the more people get in touch, the more likely they will be able to take collective action in the future.

 

[pemma]

So if there was one delay of 61 minutes and that was on the first part of a journey done on split tickets opposed to the last would that mean the cost of all the tickets could still be taken in to consideration?

 

[yorkie]

EC say that delay repay is based on your "journey", so providing you had tickets to cover your "journey" as defined by the NRCoC, then I believe they should compensate based on your "journey".

EC usually do pay out under such circumstances.

I suggest contacting them again, and if they still don't resolve it, go to Passenger Focus. I am happy to proof read a letter.

It would have been cheaper for EC to have simply paid up according to what their charter says, because now they'll incur further costs dealing with your complaint and, if they don't relent, discussing the matter with Passenger Focus!

 

[bb21]

So if there was one delay of 61 minutes and that was on the first part of a journey done on split tickets opposed to the last would that mean the cost of all the tickets could still be taken in to consideration?

One ticket will be compensated for. That is all the rule provides for. I leave you to your own interpretations as to what would happen.

Remember that interpretation of the rules is varied and very inconsistently implemented.

 

[sheff1]

EC say that delay repay is based on your "journey", so providing you had tickets to cover your "journey" as defined by the NRCoC, then I believe they should compensate based on your "journey".

I suggest contacting them again, and if they still don't resolve it, go to Passenger Focus.

Unfortunately their interpretation is correct, as per the rule. I have this confirmed by Passenger Focus

Interesting !

 

[pemma]

One ticket will be compensated for. That is all the rule provides for.

It could get very completed if there are multiple delays to different operator's services then.

 

[bb21]

Interesting !

Note that there is no one definitive interpretation that is "correct" for the reasons I gave above. It is not as clear cut as we might like.

They have done the minimum they are required to do by the scheme, so in that sense, their interpretation is correct. That said, it does not mean that alternative interpretations are wrong.

As yorkie says, East Coast normally do pay out for the whole journey, however depending on which customer service agent handled a particular case, we have had people (not just one) complaining that they did not receive compensation for the whole journey.

It could get very completed if there are multiple delays to different operator's services then.

Indeed.

 

[island]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

 

[Urban Gateline]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

Seconded! I was going to say the exact same thing but held back amid fears of being hounded by those using them!

 

[sheff1]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

It really depends on the circumstances. If EC send me an email encouraging me to buy 'EC only' tickets from Doncaster to London (knowing full well I live in Sheffield) then I would expect them to refund the Doncaster - Sheffield ticket as well if I was sufficently delayed coming back from Kings Cross (and to be fair they always have done). On the other hand, if I was delayed Southbound on EC I would only submit the Doncaster - London ticket.

 

[pjnathanail]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

Seconded! I was going to say the exact same thing but held back amid fears of being hounded by those using them!

I can see your point here, it certainly seems unfair on the face of it, but I suppose it comes back to the fact that split ticketing shouldn't exist in the first place.

Given split tickets are cheaper, you could argue you're doing the TOC a favour as they'd have had to pay out more in vouchers if you'd bought full price tickets.

 

[yorkie]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

Not really, EC offer delay based on the journey (and are required to offer that), and the customer is entitled to use a combination of tickets for one journey. In some cases TOCs including London Midland and East Coast encourage passengers to use a combination of tickets.

Seconded! I was going to say the exact same thing but held back amid fears of being hounded by those using them!

Aren't you one of those who use them?

Priv holders are one of the biggest beneficiaries of "split ticketing", as a combination of Day tickets is typically a lot cheaper than an SOS/SOR for many mid to long range journeys.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can see your point here, it certainly seems unfair on the face of it,

Unfair in what way? Unfair that it costs more for one ticket, than a combination? If so, I agree.

but I suppose it comes back to the fact that split ticketing shouldn't exist in the first place.

I disagree that it "shouldn't exist" but I do like the idea that the through ticket shouldn't cost more than the combination. Sadly achieving that will be impossible and there's certainly no incentive for the TOCs to do that.

Given split tickets are cheaper

Always? Are you sure about that?

you could argue you're doing the TOC a favour as they'd have had to pay out more in vouchers if you'd bought full price tickets.

How do you define a full price ticket?

 

[island]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

Not really, EC offer delay based on the journey (and are required to offer that), and the customer is entitled to use a combination of tickets for one journey.

Yes really, I do personally think that and am entitled to.

 

[Flamingo]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

+1

 

[Starmill]

Seconded! I was going to say the exact same thing but held back amid fears of being hounded by those using them!

It is not really rational behaviour to pay more for a service if you know you can receive the exact same service but pay less for it is it? People won't not use split tickets if they can, and it saves money, will they? I would hope not, because if they were they would either be abusing the Delay Repay system or have an expectation that their journey would be delayed by 30+ minutes every time!

Though I do agree: there is an element of "You've made your decision now deal with the consequences." here.

 

[yorkie]

The Delay Repay system may or may not be "fair" (in fact, it probably isn't, because TOCs have to compensate for things that are not under their control!) but certain franchise holders are required to operate those schemes, and my understanding is that they are supposed to be compensating for the journey. So it's only right that they do what they are supposed to be doing. If they don't like the franchise terms, they can choose not to bid for the franchise.

 

[lemonic]

Why is split ticketing seen purely as a way to save money? Sometimes passengers must split tickets, for example if they wish to travel on a route that is not permitted by a through ticket, or if they want to make a circular trip A-B-C-A where there is not one ticket that permits this.

In most cases this will cost the passenger more money instead of saving them money! Should these passengers be penalised when claiming compensation?

 

[clagmonster]

The National Rail Conditions of Carriage only allow for compensation for delays greater than 60 minutes. The East Coast passengers charter states:
"•30 to 59 minutes delay – 50% of the cost of a single ticket or 50% of the cost of the relevant portion* of a return ticket;"
http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/passengers-charter1/delay-repay/#How it works

Note the words 'a single ticket', in the singular, thus in my opinion, in this case East Coast are right.

 

[island]

I think that the word single refers to tickets with SGL printed at the top right rather than meaning "one and only".

 

[yorkie]

The National Rail Conditions of Carriage only allow for compensation for delays greater than 60 minutes. The East Coast passengers charter states:
"•30 to 59 minutes delay – 50% of the cost of a single ticket or 50% of the cost of the relevant portion* of a return ticket;"
http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/passengers-charter1/delay-repay/#How it works

Note the words 'a single ticket', in the singular, thus in my opinion, in this case East Coast are right.

I'm sorry but I can't let that go without comment!

East Coast's Delay Repay page states:

"So if you’re delayed for over 30 minutes during your JOURNEY, you’re entitled to compensation in line with our ‘Delay Repay’ scheme."

(my emphasis!)

Note the use of "JOURNEY", which as we all know is defined within the NRCoC.

The part you quote is really just differentiating between single & returns, and I do not think the use of the term "ticket" in any way negates the commitment to base delay on your "journey".

As I've said before, and I'll say it again, EC usually pay based on the journey, so I think this is a mistake.

If EC are going to avoid the commitment made on their website, then there are various ways to deal with that, which will ultimately cost EC more money, and I am more than happy to proof read any letters the OP wishes to send. It's about the principle! EC cannot be allowed to make a commitment and then try to weasel out of it.

 

[clagmonster]

I accept that mm333's journey from New Barnet to Guiseley was subject to a delay of 33 minutes, hence in the wording in the passengers charter he is entitled to compensation to the tune of "50% of the cost of a single ticket or 50% of the cost of the relevant portion* of a return ticket".

A passenger intending to travel from Wakefield to Guiseley, leaving Wakefield on the same train may not have been entitled to any compensation at all as there may have been another train leaving between the scheduled departure time of the East Coast train and the actual departure time of said East Coast train which would have allowed such a passenger to arrive at Guiseley within 30 minutes of their scheduled arrival time.

That said, if there is another agreement outside of the passengers contract with East Coast that states that East Coast should compensate based on the combined value of all tickets purchased for the journey, then I accept that this should be followed up and if neccesary the other parties in said agreement informed.

 

[jp347]

I disagree with the points about having your cake and eating it. Part of the problem is that advance fares are so arbitrary. For example, I can get a cheap ticket advance purchase ticket from Peterborough to Spalding, but only by splitting tickets as cross country do not allow advance purchase from Spalding (as far as I know only East Coast allow advance purchase from Spalding), so many journeys are split. Similarly the fares to London are all any operator, so if buying on the day and planning to use FCC (or needing to save the money) then fares have to be split as an FCC and connections ticket is not available from Spalding.

 

[TonyR]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

Where would you stand on journeys which require more than one ticket to complete?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Given split tickets are cheaper, you could argue you're doing the TOC a favour as they'd have had to pay out more in vouchers if you'd bought full price tickets.

Hmmmmm......

I buy a single (through) ticket for £100 and am delayed by 32 minutes, the train company gives me back £50. Net money paid to TOC = £50

I buy a series of single (split) tickets for £50 and am delayed by 32 minutes, the train company gives me back £25. Net money paid to TOC = £25

Yeah, I'm sure they love it when you split!

....Note the use of "JOURNEY", which as we all know is defined within the NRCoC....

Not last time I looked at it, or did you forget to insert "not" in that sentence.

....Note the words 'a single ticket', in the singular, thus in my opinion, in this case East Coast are right.

....The part you quote is really just differentiating between single & returns, and I do not think the use of the term "ticket" in any way negates the commitment to base delay on your "journey"....

No, he differentiates between the singular and the plural, a single and a return, rather than singles and returns.

 

[TonyR]

Not last time I looked at it, or did you forget to insert "not" in that sentence.

Its not in the definitions true but e.g. Section 19 starts "You may use two or more tickets for one journey......"

If a journey was restricted to that on each individual ticket, then that whole section is nonsense because it effectively becomes "You may use two or more tickets for one ticket...."

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Its not in the definitions true but e.g. Section 19 starts "You may use two or more tickets for one journey......"....

The NRCoC also says the delay compensation is set out in the Passenger's Charter (Condition 42), not the company website (though you may find the Passenger's Charter on the website), and then mentions the minimum in terms of what ticket is held.

 

[Goatboy]

I personally think that wanting split tickets to be fully refunded in the case of a delay but also to be priced separately and cheaper than a through ticket smacks of wanting to have one's cake and eat it.

But if one can have ones cake and eat it, why not?

 

[Starmill]

But if one can have ones cake and eat it, why not?

My point exactly. If they don't want people using split tickets, how about a fares system that doesn't offer such significant % savings by doing it!


I say this because if I were to say what I mean, which is how about a fares system in which it is never cheaper to split would incur the wrath of the 'And how do you propose to do THAT?' brigade.

 

[yorkie]

Some TOCs do want us to use a combination tickets, and some TOCs force us to use a combination tickets for a journey, in some cases (where there is no through fare).

But above all we are explicitly permitted to use a combination of tickets for one journey.