Delay Repay compensation for return tickets, with lengthy delays in both directions

[LondonJohn]

Can you receive more than the cost of a ticket back in delay repay?

Circumstances are Saver Return, 3 hour delay on outbound journey so 100% refund, 1hr delay on return journey on different day Train operator South Western Railway each way.

 

[yorkie]

I see no reason why not.

Here is the view of another member:

If you are delayed by 120+ on both legs then surely you are entitled to the same compensation (100%) for both. After all, delay compensation is compensation and not a refund (despite some TOCs' best efforts at misnaming it!). If it were a refund I'd agree that you can't claim back more than the cost of the ticket, but as compensation, I don't think claiming back more than the cost of the ticket is impossible. See for example EU261 flight compensation, where it might be possible to claim back €250 (~£220) for a flight that only cost you a tenner if it was on Ryanair.

If it was two separate claims to separate companies, I have no doubt each would pay without quibble. I don't see why any justification for a TOC refusing to pay compensation on the return journey purely on the basis that they already compensated you for an entirely separate delay on the outward journey.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed, I think this is precisely the kind of scenario where you would be entitled to more back in compensation than you had originally paid for the ticket.

 

[andrewkeith5]

In my opinion it’s compensation, not a refund, so you are simply being compensated for two entirely separate events.

The fact that the level of compensation happens to be calculated based on the ticket price doesn’t come into it in my opinion.

 

[Silverdale]

Circumstances are Saver Return, 3 hour delay on outbound journey so 100% refund, 1hr delay on return journey on different day Train operator South Western Railway each way.

What do the conditions of SWR's Delay Repay scheme actually say? For a return ticket, compensation is related to the length of delay. The question is whether delays on outward and return journeys are treated separately, as they are when calculating the minimum compensation payable according to NRCoT, or in aggregate.

As long as SWR's scheme pays no less compensation than the minimum set out in NRCoT, it can relate compensation the the aggregate delay. The idea would be to benefit a customer who, say, had suffered a delay of 50 mins on their outward journey and 80 mins on their return, so maybe that was the intention.

On the other hand, if the intention was to compensate customers by more than 100% of the cost for very long delays, something seems to have gone wrong in relation to those purchasing out and back singles, who are only entitled to a maximum of 100% of the total cost of both tickets.

My suspicion is that SWR intended that their scheme would calculate compensation based on the aggregate delay. Whether the way it is worded makes that clear is another matter entirely.

 

[andrewkeith5]

What do the conditions of SWR's Delay Repay scheme actually say? For a return ticket, compensation is related to the length of delay. The question is whether delays on outward and return journeys are treated separately, as they are when calculating the minimum compensation payable according to NRCoT, or in aggregate.

As long as SWR's scheme pays no less compensation than the minimum set out in NRCoT, it can relate compensation the the aggregate delay. The idea would be to benefit a customer who, say, had suffered a delay of 50 mins on their outward journey and 80 mins on their return, so maybe that was the intention.

On the other hand, if the intention was to compensate customers by more than 100% of the cost for very long delays, something seems to have gone wrong in relation to those purchasing out and back singles, who are only entitled to a maximum of 100% of the total cost of both tickets.

My suspicion is that SWR intended that their scheme would calculate compensation based on the aggregate delay. Whether the way it is worded makes that clear is another matter entirely.

So you're suggesting that two entirely separate journeys (out and return), that make up one trip, should not be compensated in accordance with the compensation rate defined in the Delay Repay system?

It's not a refund - it's compensation. The value of compensation bears no relevance to what someone paid - it is a payment in lieu of inconvenience.

In your example of two singles, in most cases with SWR the person with two singles has paid about twice as much as the one with a return, so I don't really accept that point. The rates of calculation are clear and it seems ridiculous to me to consider out and return a single journey.

In a very simple and relevant alternative: In the airline industry, compensation is a flat rate and it's possible to be entitled to hundreds of percent of the value of your ticket in compensation on every individual flight on a multi-leg trip.

The entire point of a compensation scheme is to incentivise the service provider to perform properly and make a gesture of apology to the customer for not having done so, not give them excuses not to perform.

 

[island]

For TOCs which pay the modern compensation of 100% of the return fare for a 2 hour or longer delay, I see no reason why a passenger delayed by that amount of time on both outbound and return journey should not receive twice the cost of the ticket in total, and therefore more than he/she paid. Despite it being calculated by reference to the ticket price, DelayRepay is compensation for one’s inconvenience rather than some contrivance of a refund for the ticket.

Any suggestion that the delays on the outbound and return legs of a return journey must somehow be aggregated for the purpose of calculating or capping compensation is based on such a tortured misreading of the rules that I do not concern myself with it.

 

[gray1404]

The best thing to do here would be to submit two separate claims. One for the outward journey that was delayed, enclosing or scanning in the outward portion ticket, and another for the return journey that was also delayed, enclosing or scanning the return portion ticket. Then the train company can make the two decisions and we shall know for certain what the state of play is and what decision they make.

 

[furlong]

Were the journeys this week (Monday or later)? If so, and if SWR does cap the total amount, you now have a Rail Ombudsman (with a background in consumer law) available to consider the matter independently.

 

[Silverdale]

In your example of two singles, in most cases with SWR the person with two singles has paid about twice as much as the one with a return, so I don't really accept that point. The rates of calculation are clear and it seems ridiculous to me to consider out and return a single journey.

In the SWR scheme, compensation is based on the full cost of a return ticket. In other TOCs' schemes (and the minimum compensation specified in NRCoT for a 60+ min delay) compensation is based on the cost of the relevant portion of a return ticket.

For other TOCs' schemes, compensation is calculated on the delay per outward and/or return, maxing out at 50% of the cost of each portion. With delays on both journeys, the compensation maxes out at 100% of the full cost of the return ticket.

My surmise is that when SWR pay compensation it is done on the 'Length of delay' being the aggregate of out and back delays, also maxing out at 100% of the cost of the return ticket.

If that is the way the compensation is being calculated by SWR, I don't see why it would be ridiculous.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In the SWR scheme, compensation is based on the full cost of a return ticket. In other TOCs' schemes (and the minimum compensation specified in NRCoT for a 60+ min delay) compensation is based on the cost of the relevant portion of a return ticket.

For other TOCs' schemes, compensation is calculated on the delay per outward and/or return, maxing out at 50% of the cost of each portion. With delays on both journeys, the compensation maxes out at 100% of the full cost of the return ticket.

My surmise is that when SWR pay compensation it is done on the 'Length of delay' being the aggregate of out and back delays, also maxing out at 100% of the cost of the return ticket.

If that is the way the compensation is being calculated by SWR, I don't see why it would be ridiculous.

There are no TOCs out there that assess compensation for delays on the aggregate delay to both the outward and return portions of a journey. That is the ridiculous suggestion. There is no such provision in the NRCoT or in any TOC's Passenger Charter.

Equally, I am not aware of any TOC whose Charter states that they will not compensate more than the ticket is worth (other than in respect of season tickets).

 

[andrewkeith5]

In the SWR scheme, compensation is based on the full cost of a return ticket. In other TOCs' schemes (and the minimum compensation specified in NRCoT for a 60+ min delay) compensation is based on the cost of the relevant portion of a return ticket.

For other TOCs' schemes, compensation is calculated on the delay per outward and/or return, maxing out at 50% of the cost of each portion. With delays on both journeys, the compensation maxes out at 100% of the full cost of the return ticket.

My surmise is that when SWR pay compensation it is done on the 'Length of delay' being the aggregate of out and back delays, also maxing out at 100% of the cost of the return ticket.

If that is the way the compensation is being calculated by SWR, I don't see why it would be ridiculous.

The fact that they have selected a different method of calculating the value of compensation due is irrelevant to the entitlement to it.

There are two separate journeys, two separate delays, two separate compensation claims due.

Even if it's not immediately clear from the terms, you can't move for precedents that go against your assertion. SWR would be crazy to try and defy that - if they don't want to pay out as much, they can always change their rate and see how big the backlash is?

Maybe what we need is an EU264 style fixed compensation scheme so we can finish up these conversations for good? Perhaps £5/15min, £20/30min, £100/hr, £250/2hr per sector (halved if the sector is under an hour, maximum 200% of ticket value if ticket is Advance) or 25% of that rate if it's genuinely outside of the industry's control?

 

[Silverdale]

There are no TOCs out there that assess compensation for delays on the aggregate delay to both the outward and return portions of a journey. That is the ridiculous suggestion. There is no such provision in the NRCoT or in any TOC's Passenger Charter.

Nothing in NRCoT would prohibit any particular scheme, as long as it provides the minimum compensation for a delay of 60 min or more on either or both of the outward/return journeys.

Far from being ridiculous, there would be a lot of sense in basing compensation for delay for a return ticket on the aggregate rather then delay per journey. Consider a customer who is delayed by 25mins on their outward journey and 45 mins on their return. Southern, whose compensation is based on the delay per journey and cost of the relevant portion, would calculate compensation at 25% of the outward plus 50% of the return, being 37.5% of the return ticket cost. Basing compensation on the aggregate delay and full ticket cost, it would be 50%, so the customer is better compensated for the totality of their delay.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Nothing in NRCoT would prohibit any particular scheme, as long as it provides the minimum compensation for a delay of 60 min or more on either or both of the outward/return journeys.

Far from being ridiculous, there would be a lot of sense in basing compensation for delay for a return ticket on the aggregate rather then delay per journey. Consider a customer who is delayed by 25mins on their outward journey and 45 mins on their return. Southern, whose compensation is based on the delay per journey and cost of the relevant portion, would calculate compensation at 25% of the outward plus 50% of the return, being 37.5% of the return ticket cost. Basing compensation on the aggregate delay and full ticket cost, it would be 50%, so the customer is better compensated for the totality of their delay.

But that is not how the scheme works for any TOC. If you have a proposal that this is how it should work, feel free to make a thread in the Speculative Ideas section.

 

[andrewkeith5]

Nothing in NRCoT would prohibit any particular scheme, as long as it provides the minimum compensation for a delay of 60 min or more on either or both of the outward/return journeys.

Far from being ridiculous, there would be a lot of sense in basing compensation for delay for a return ticket on the aggregate rather then delay per journey. Consider a customer who is delayed by 25mins on their outward journey and 45 mins on their return. Southern, whose compensation is based on the delay per journey and cost of the relevant portion, would calculate compensation at 25% of the outward plus 50% of the return, being 37.5% of the return ticket cost. Basing compensation on the aggregate delay and full ticket cost, it would be 50%, so the customer is better compensated for the totality of their delay.

I think you'll struggle to find any support for your cause. There are very few situations where it will work better for the customer, and little in the way of benefit for the industry except an excuse to reduce the number of claims (and presumably they'd advertise some success even though that's unlikely).

Ultimately, it would be a PR disaster for the first company to do it, if anyone was crazy enough to try and go against the well established precedent in the first place.

 

[Silverdale]

Maybe what we need is an EU264 style fixed compensation scheme so we can finish up these conversations for good? Perhaps £5/15min, £20/30min, £100/hr, £250/2hr per sector (halved if the sector is under an hour, maximum 200% of ticket value if ticket is Advance) or 25% of that rate if it's genuinely outside of the industry's control?

I agree there is a lot of merit in having fixed levels compensation based on the delay incurred, rather than weighting it by ticket cost (either aggregate or per leg). The inconvenience of a delay is the same for all customers, regardless of the amount they paid for their ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The inconvenience of a delay is the same for all customers, regardless of the amount they paid for their ticket.

Not necessarily. Some people might just be doing a journey for the sake of the journey itself (or even the stock used). In that case they might not perceive a delay as any inconvenience at all. On the other hand, a business traveller who is delayed in arriving at an important meeting (or someone who is travelling to a job interview), might perceive even a delay of a few minutes as extremely inconvenient.

One might say that often the level of compensation and the amount paid will tend to be in some kind of proportion, with business travellers tending to use more expensive Anytime tickets, whereas leisure travellers are perhaps more likely to be on cheaper Off-Peak or Advance tickets.

But as I say; regardless of the merit of your proposals, they are not how the system works at current, and I can see no official proposals to change the system. Any discussion on the matter would probably be best directed to the Speculative Ideas section

 

[Silverdale]

But that is not how the scheme works for any TOC. If you have a proposal that this is how it should work, feel free to make a thread in the Speculative Ideas section.

I make no comment about how it should work.

 

[Silverdale]

Not necessarily. Some people might just be doing a journey for the sake of the journey itself (or even the stock used). In that case they might not perceive a delay as any inconvenience at all. On the other hand, a business traveller who is delayed in arriving at an important meeting (or someone who is travelling to a job interview), might perceive even a delay of a few minutes as extremely inconvenience.

Good point. But the schemes based on effectively refunding some or all of the ticket price don't reflect that perceived inconvenience. The person who is indifferent to a delay, but has paid a higher ticket price, gets more compensation than the person who has paid less, but for whom the delay is extremely inconvenient.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Good point. But the schemes based on effectively refunding some or all of the ticket price don't reflect that perceived inconvenience. The person who is indifferent to a delay, but has paid a higher ticket price, gets more compensation than the person who has paid less, but for whom the delay is extremely inconvenient.

Such an inequality is bound to continue until such time as forensic investigations into the amount of inconvenience a delay has caused become cost effective enough to be worth it. I suspect that will never become the case!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal view, contrary to what most others have said, is that Delay Repay is intended to be capped at the full price of the ticket(s) held (so if you claim for 2hrs in one direction you can't claim for the other direction). However, lazy drafting has meant that it's quite possible that people can indeed justify a claim legally for more than that price.

I may yet find myself in a position to find out if I get much later...the WCML has not been having fun today.

 

[yorkie]

My personal view, contrary to what most others have said, is that Delay Repay is intended to be capped at the full price of the ticket(s) held ..

I think you are trying to say "the value of two Delay Repay claims for delays of 120+ minutes to both outward and return portions of Return tickets..." however there is no evidence of this.

I've spoken with someone who works for SWR in head office, though not in their delay compensation department, and he does not see any evidence of this either.

There is nothing to say that a customer who experiences a 120+ minute claim on their outward journey is not entitled to claim anything for a delay to their return journey; people are making this up!

@LondonJohn please contact me directly to get this thread updated when you have heard back, so you can provide us with an update (and obtain further advice if applicable).

In the mean time, if anyone wishes to discuss Silverdale's idea, feel free to do so here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/delay-repay-compensation-idea-for-return-tickets.174285/