Delay Repay - How can I check GWR Explanation

[Essexman]

On Saturday 16th June I was delayed by more than an hour after the 11.00 Plymouth to Paddington was cancelled.

I was told that this was due to knock on delays from problems near Paddington the previous day.

GWR have replied to my delay repay claim saying it was due to a person hit by a train near Penzance, so they won’t pay.

I don’t claim if it is person hit by train but nothing was said about this at the time and can find no indication that it happened on 16th June.

How can I check?

 

[_toommm_]

Due to the sensitive nature of someone being hit by a train, they may not have wanted to shout that out - delays of this nature are often announced as 'due to emergency services dealing with an incident' - even so, I really doubt there would be any room to manoeuvre as the delay repay isn't based on what you were told was the cause of the delay, it's on the actual cause of the delay.

I believe GWR are changing to a proper delay repay scheme soon, or at least in the next franchise, enabling you to claim no matter the cause of the delay whether it be inside the railway's control or not.

 

[JN114]

There was a person struck by a train at Southall on June 15th which caused significant knock-on through the evening peak. It is feasible that this has caused set balance/displacement issues that carried into the next day.

Whether that is within or outwith their control would be a matter for you to debate with them; but the cancellation was coded to the incident that caused the previous days disruption.

 

[Essexman]

I think that is the disruption that I was told caused the cancellation.
So it raises two issues.
1. Was there a person hit by train near Penzance on 16th which is what GWR reply said to me?
2. If not is it reasonable for GWR to refuse compensation due to an incident the previous day?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think that is the disruption that I was told caused the cancellation.
So it raises two issues.
1. Was there a person hit by train near Penzance on 16th which is what GWR reply said to me?
2. If not is it reasonable for GWR to refuse compensation due to an incident the previous day?

I can’t help with 1, but on 2 I suspect it is not reasonable and you should pursue this further.

 

[4069]

I think that is the disruption that I was told caused the cancellation.
So it raises two issues.
1. Was there a person hit by train near Penzance on 16th which is what GWR reply said to me?

No, there was no-one reported as hit by a train in Cornwall on 15 or 16 June.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think that is the disruption that I was told caused the cancellation.
So it raises two issues.
1. Was there a person hit by train near Penzance on 16th which is what GWR reply said to me?
2. If not is it reasonable for GWR to refuse compensation due to an incident the previous day?

I see this as having some similarities to the EU flight delay system (though there are many differences too) - where compensation is not payable if the direct cause of the delay is outside the control of the airlines, as well as outside their normal function (e.g. lightning strikes are to be reckoned with when flying metal objects through clouds, therefore it is not deemed an extraordinary circumstance, but security alerts are not to be expected and are outside the airline's control hence they are).

In the same way, if the direct cause of the delay is "entirely outside the control of the rail industry" (NRCoT 33.4), such as freak weather or a person hit by a train where suitable precautions have been taken, then I agree that GWR are not obliged to pay compensation under the NRCoT scheme. However, if the above are mere indirect causes and the direct cause of the delay is GWR being unable to shift their units and staff around as needed, then I would not say that it is "entirely" outside their control (as they could, if they were willing to spend the money, have more spare units and staff). In this way, liability could not be escaped - in the same way that if your aircraft is late into the airport because of bad weather at its origin, that does not exculpate the airline from compensation liability as the direct cause is the fact that they overutilise their fleet and don't have enough backup and recovery time!

Obviously these are all very technical arguments and unless you are willing to study them in depth or engage a solicitor to do so for yourself (both of which would cost large and unrecoverable amounts of time and money, respectively), in order to present them at Court, then I think it unlikely you will be able to force the compensation out of GWR. However, it is still entirely possible they may pay out at least something as a "gesture of goodwill" if you pester them enough. This is all of course ignoring any possible consumer rights avenues - such as if GWR could be deemed not to have performed the service with reasonable care and skill - in which case a price reduction might be applicable.

 

[Essexman]

Thanks
I'll start by asking them to check that they were not mistaken and that there was actually a person hit by train near Penzance on 16th june.

 

[najaB]

However, if the above are mere indirect causes and the direct cause of the delay is GWR being unable to shift their units and staff around as needed, then I would not say that it is "entirely" outside their control (as they could, if they were willing to spend the money, have more spare units and staff).

They can have all the units and staff in the world, but if the tracks aren't open when they need them to be (in order to shift the units around) then it's still out of their control.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

They can have all the units and staff in the world, but if the tracks aren't open when they need them to be (in order to shift the units around) then it's still out of their control.

Of course - but there are always options. There are many TOCs who stable units at stations overnight. Could GWR not do this, for example? As I have previously said, the NRCoT 33.4 exemption's wording of "entirely outside the rail industry's control" is much narrower than how some TOCs interpret it.

I don't think most of the 'punters' or non-rail-industry members of this forum have enough information in order to be able to determine whether the cause of the delay really was entirely outside the rail industry's control.

But denying delay compensation claims on that basis is certainly a very easy way of putting off a lot of those who even go through the process of claiming - hence if there is any question of the cause potentially not being exempt, l I would always ask for evidence that it really was entirely outside the rail industry's control.

 

[najaB]

There are many TOCs who stable units at stations overnight. Could GWR not do this, for example?

They do. However, if the trains can't get to the stations...

 

[Haywain]

They do. However, if the trains can't get to the stations...

... and the drivers start their shifts in a different place to where the trains are stabled...

 

[_toommm_]

... and the drivers start their shifts in a different place to where the trains are stabled...

And the paths to get the stock to where it should be aren't available...

 

[bb21]

Of course - but there are always options. There are many TOCs who stable units at stations overnight. Could GWR not do this, for example?

No. You can't just leave trains at any old random place.

There are various factors to consider: maintenance requirements (checks, tanking, refuelling, etc), security, cleaning, platform availability (seemingly empty stations may have a lot of stock moves in the small hours), etc. You also have the biggest issue as Haywain pointed out with crew positioning. They all have their booking on points and you will end up with crew and stock in completely different places, resulting in more disruption than necessary.

So, where possible, you should have the correct number of trains of each rolling stock type in the correct booked location, unless you can find an alternative arrangement which took into account all those requirements, which can often be virtually impossible.

 

[najaB]

No. You can't just leave trains at any old random place.

Indeed. There are very specific rules about not leaving trains unattended on the running lines. Just look at what happened at Lac-Mégantic for a worst-case demonstration of why.

 

[LAX54]

and if there any possessions, you cannot leave a train in the middle of one of those either.

 

[GB]

Of course - but there are always options. There are many TOCs who stable units at stations overnight. Could GWR not do this, for example? As I have previously said, the NRCoT 33.4 exemption's wording of "entirely outside the rail industry's control" is much narrower than how some TOCs interpret it.

.

Having options and them being reasonable are two entirely different things.

 

[Quaver]

This is a big pet peeve of mine. People shouldn't claim comp for a fatality or medical emergency

I just find some of them so damn disrespectful and i personally believe that even with the introduction of delay repay, a delay due to fatality should NOT warrant compensation - though I fear this may be a controversial opinion, maybe I should post it in that thread.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I just find some of them so damn disrespectful and i personally believe that even with the introduction of delay repay, a delay due to fatality should NOT warrant compensation - though I fear this may be a controversial opinion, maybe I should post it in that thread.

If we start making exceptions for individual causes of delays (as opposed to the current system, where train companies may exempt delays entirely outside the control of the rail industry), then we come to this question - what is the purpose of delay compensation anyway?

Most people don't have a material loss as a result of rail delays (though of course some do, in which case the delay compensation can go towards those losses). But virtually all will be inconvenienced, or annoyed, at delays - regardless of what the cause is.

Then we also have to consider the fact that all affected TOCs will receive compensation from Network Rail for delays and cancellations caused by fatalities. As long as that continues - mind you, on a minute-by-minute basis whereas passengers only get compensation for delays 60 minutes or over on GWR - I see no reason whatsover for making fatalities an exemptable delay cause.

 

[Hadders]

I just find some of them so damn disrespectful and i personally believe that even with the introduction of delay repay, a delay due to fatality should NOT warrant compensation - though I fear this may be a controversial opinion, maybe I should post it in that thread.

Your personal opinion isn't relevant as you are obliged to implement the rules of the scheme.

With most companies operating a delay repay scheme it is understandable that they expect GWR to do the same.

 

[MotCO]

then we come to this question - what is the purpose of delay compensation anyway?

Another purpose is surely to make TOCs 'up their game' and provide a decent service. Without something like Delay Repay in place, how else are TOCs going to be hit in the pocket for poor performance?

 

[AlterEgo]

Another purpose is surely to make TOCs 'up their game' and provide a decent service. Without something like Delay Repay in place, how else are TOCs going to be hit in the pocket for poor performance?

For the 100th time on this forum...

Delay Repay is not a punitive scheme and is utterly peanuts in the scheme of things. TOC poor performance is punished through Schedule payments for delay minutes caused.