Delay repay rejected as limited to 100% of ticket?

Status
Not open for further replies.

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
5,447
Location
Merseyside
Super Off Peak Return held. Delayed on outward journey by 60 minutes. Received compensation for 50% of cost of ticket.

Return journey delayed 120 minutes. Claimed and rejected. On appeal I received 50% of cost of ticket for a 60 minute delay. I appealed again and was advised I'd received the maximum compensation possible.

Is it correct that my return journey compensation could not be 100% of ticket cost as I'd already received 50% from outward journey?

I'm wondering if I should complain to customer services or go to the Rail Ombudsman.

Thanks.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Kilopylae

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2019
Messages
319
Location
South-west England
That sounds like nonsense from the TOC. Delay Repay is awarded based on the journey, not the ticket. You're in the right.

EDIT: From the posts that appeared as I was typing this, I assume I'm mistaken. Ah well. We'd have made the same mistake!
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
5,447
Location
Merseyside
I guess that is the essence of my question, is delay repay limited to the cost of the ticket per portion of the ticket (i.e. outward and then return) or limited to the total cost of the ticket overall across the 2 portions (outward or return). Is this documented anywhere? The way I am reading the NRCoT I would not say it is exactly clear.

I've gone back through the correspondence and the first rejection says there was no delay, first appeal said they could only find a 60 minute delay (so 50% compensation) and the final response says I've been paid the correct amount of compensation so nothing further due. I am therefore inclined to write to Customer Services asking them to check this is correct and see what they say. They are yet to communicate with me that delay repay is limited to the total cost of the ticket across both outward and return journeys and I received the first 50% already on the outward journey.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
55,781
Location
Yorkshire
I am not aware of this being documented anywhere

This topic crops up from time to time and the confusion persists.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
5,447
Location
Merseyside
On the basis it is not documented anywhere (I am yet to see it anywhere too) I am inclined to write to Customer Service simply asking them to check the amount of compensation I received for my claim is correct as I was under the impression that for a 2 hour delay I was entitled to 100% of the value of the return ticket, and they've only paid 50% for this delay despite my appeal. I will keep it simple like that so as not to complicate anything and provide a list of planned vs actual train times. I'll see what they say and let them be the ones to tell me about any policy to only pay the total value of the ticket overall.

On the basis that, even if Customer Service don't pay up the remaining 50%, I will have received 100% of the ticket value - 50% on outward and 50% on return, I will not take this case to the Rail Ombudsman but if anyone thinks I should please say so. It would be so much for customer friendly if a policy was clearly documented somewhere and formed part of the contract when buying a train ticket.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
3,717
32.2. For claims made under the industry arrangements for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket.

I suggest this is what they are using as the basis from the NRCOT, although there is nothing to suggest whether this is in total, or per claim, and of course, nor is there anything to suggest this refers specifically to delay repay, and of course, where there is ambiguity......



As for your wide selection of initial fobbing off excuses, i would pursue this on those grounds if nothing else.
It is clear that this operator had no intention of paying and has used 3 separate excuses to avoid doing so. Whether these are pulled out of a hat or based on some (likely flawed) data they have is largely irrelevant as it shows a clear intent to reject a compensation payment without clear understanding of whether it is a valid claim or not.

These "This train didn't exist" / "The train did not call at this station" / "You didn't travel so you need a refund" / "You journey between Par and Shepperton was delayed by Scotrail so you need to claim from them" / "We cannot see a delay on the system for that service" / "The service was cancelled due to animals on the line, as such you claim to Northern has been rejected" drivel is getting out of hand, and of course there is a thread dedicated to this sort of thing now.
 

bb21

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,137
I suggest this is what they are using as the basis from the NRCOT, although there is nothing to suggest whether this is in total, or per claim, and of course, nor is there anything to suggest this refers specifically to delay repay, and of course, where there is ambiguity......

Then again clue is in the name - repay. Applying the logic usually used on this forum, delay repay cannot overwrite terms in the NRCoT. You receive compensation to the amount stipulated, however overall amount is still subject to the NRCoT as there is nothing in delay repay terms overwriting it. Compensation amount is stated in delay repay schemes for each portion, and nowhere in the terms gives anything less generous than the NRCoT either.

Whether the name "delay repay compensation" is an oxymoron isn't something that is of use here so I won't get into that.

I often see claims about ambiguity but there is no ambiguity from what I can see. Of course claiming from two separate companies for each leg would not be enforceable in terms of overall limit, but that is rather the consequence of a fragmented system than anything else.
 

323235

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2007
Messages
1,895
Location
North East Cheshire
I suggest this is what they are using as the basis from the NRCOT, although there is nothing to suggest whether this is in total, or

This and the associated rules of delay repay would not though limit your rights of claim under the Consumer Rights Act where appropriate.

One could argue that being delayed over 60 minutes on both the outward and return portions was an exceptional lack of reasonable care and skill, given how much punctuality has improved since COVID.

In my view they should be paying you 100% + additional free travel vouchers for those delays and all the subsequent hassle that seems to have ensued.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
13,916
Location
No longer here
Which TOC is involved? Delay Repay schemes and TOC passenger charters cannot give you *less* extensive rights than what's in the NRCoT but they may give you more favourable ones.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
Then again clue is in the name - repay. Applying the logic usually used on this forum, delay repay cannot overwrite terms in the NRCoT. You receive compensation to the amount stipulated, however overall amount is still subject to the NRCoT as there is nothing in delay repay terms overwriting it. Compensation amount is stated in delay repay schemes for each portion, and nowhere in the terms gives anything less generous than the NRCoT either.

Whether the name "delay repay compensation" is an oxymoron isn't something that is of use here so I won't get into that.

I often see claims about ambiguity but there is no ambiguity from what I can see. Of course claiming from two separate companies for each leg would not be enforceable in terms of overall limit, but that is rather the consequence of a fragmented system than anything else.
I was prompted to look at the LNER Delay Repay pages by this thread, and there is nothing in those that would suggest that the payment would be subject to that clause in the NRCOT. As such, were I to be caught in that situation, I would absolutely be taking the line that LNER were in breach of contract by failing to deliver on the absolute terms of their public offer.
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
718
Forgive my simple mind, but how can one expect to be reimbursed more than they paid for the original ticket?
 

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
190
Location
Buckinghamshire
Forgive my simple mind, but how can one expect to be reimbursed more than they paid for the original ticket?
In some peoples mind ‘compensation’ can be more than the monetary value of the product/service. It should also pay for the inconvenience conferred.
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
718
In some peoples mind ‘compensation’ can be more than the monetary value of the product/service. It should also pay for the inconvenience conferred.
I see no other industry offering more back than originally paid though for a delay in receiving the product or service. Surely delay repay means you get repaid from the original cost, not additionally on top? Seems daft to me to expect more out if the pot than what you put in. Maybe it's just me.
 

Haywain

Established Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
6,698
I see no other industry offering more back than originally paid though for a delay in receiving the product or service. Surely delay repay means you get repaid from the original cost, not additionally on top? Seems daft to me to expect more out if the pot than what you put in. Maybe it's just me.
It’s not just you.
 

adamskiodp

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2011
Messages
190
Location
Buckinghamshire
I see no other industry offering more back than originally paid though for a delay in receiving the product or service. Surely delay repay means you get repaid from the original cost, not additionally on top? Seems daft to me to expect more out if the pot than what you put in. Maybe it's just me.
I didn’t say that I agreed with it, just offering a thought why some might think they are entitled to more.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
595
Location
Nottinghamshire
I think this is another example of where some people on this forum have some very strange expectations of what they are “entitled” to.

You have had a 100% complete refund, presumably fairly quickly, AND a return journey which has ultimately cost nothin, albeit late.

Is that not a fair arrangement?

How much are we even talking about?
 

pedr

Member
Joined
24 Aug 2016
Messages
67
The damages recoverable for a breach of contract can (and very often do) exceed the reimbursement of the price paid. But while there are complex and probably unresolved questions over what the terms of buying a rail ticket actually are, when it comes to delay repay, for general contract claims the courts are likely to accept that the section of the Conditions of Travel is a fair agreement of the available compensation for breach of contract relating to delay/cancellation so compensation beyond those terms would have to be on alternative grounds such as a Consumer Rights Act claim.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
I see no other industry offering more back than originally paid though for a delay in receiving the product or service. Surely delay repay means you get repaid from the original cost, not additionally on top? Seems daft to me to expect more out if the pot than what you put in. Maybe it's just me.
Delay Repay is in proportion to the ticket price, and an exclusive remedy - meaning I can’t claim for other things that have no relationship to what I’ve spent. It doesn’t, in itself, mean that exceeding 100% of the ticket price is or isn’t fair.

My problem is that the Delay Repay schemes are presented as offering over 100% in certain unlikely circumstances.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,009
Delay Repay is in proportion to the ticket price, and an exclusive remedy - meaning I can’t claim for other things that have no relationship to what I’ve spent. It doesn’t, in itself, mean that exceeding 100% of the ticket price is or isn’t fair.

My problem is that the Delay Repay schemes are presented as offering over 100% in certain unlikely circumstances.

I really don't think they are presented as doing that, rather some are choosing to believe that's the case. None of the TOC's website pages on delay repay I've seen suggest that more than 100% is payable.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
I see no other industry offering more back than originally paid though for a delay in receiving the product or service. Surely delay repay means you get repaid from the original cost, not additionally on top? Seems daft to me to expect more out if the pot than what you put in. Maybe it's just me.
Well Aviation does through the EU rules that O'Leary keeps bleating about. Although I actually agree with him on buying a ticket for £20 yet getting a delay payment in three figures.
 

Tazi Hupefi

Member
Joined
1 Apr 2018
Messages
595
Location
Nottinghamshire
Well Aviation does through the EU rules that O'Leary keeps bleating about. Although I actually agree with him on buying a ticket for £20 yet getting a delay payment in three figures.
Aviation also has far more exclusions and ways to legitimately decline a claim. You essentially can only get ANY compensation if it's demonstrated that the delay was the fault of the airline.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
It says that the amounts are 50% and 100%, and gives the criteria for them. Nowhere does it say that more than 100% will be paid - that is, I'm afraid, just wishful thinking.
It says 100% of the return fare for certain criteria. If I fulfil those criteria on both legs of my journey (and, believe me, that is not wishful thinking!), it nowhere states that my claim is limited to the price of the ticket - not even by reference to the NRCOT. And, for those minded to suggest that it’s perhaps just advertising copy that is dealt with sideways by being entirely under the conditions of travel, I note a very specific clarification about the treatment of AP singles. If they can do it for them, they can do it for fares capping.
 

4F89

Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
718
It says 100% of the return fare for certain criteria. If I fulfil those criteria on both legs of my journey (and, believe me, that is not wishful thinking!), it nowhere states that my claim is limited to the price of the ticket - not even by reference to the NRCOT. And, for those minded to suggest that it’s perhaps just advertising copy that is dealt with sideways by being entirely under the conditions of travel, I note a very specific clarification about the treatment of AP singles. If they can do it for them, they can do it for fares capping.
So, you have been delayed, so they give you the return journey for free, and you are still wanting more than paid out initially, is that correct?
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,009
It says 100% of the return fare for certain criteria. If I fulfil those criteria on both legs of my journey (and, believe me, that is not wishful thinking!), it nowhere states that my claim is limited to the price of the ticket - not even by reference to the NRCOT. And, for those minded to suggest that it’s perhaps just advertising copy that is dealt with sideways by being entirely under the conditions of travel, I note a very specific clarification about the treatment of AP singles. If they can do it for them, they can do it for fares capping.

I don't follow. If you held two AP singles and were delayed on both journeys, you can be eligible for up to 100% of the price of both of them. i.e. you get all your money back.
If you held a return ticket and were delayed on both journeys, you can be eligible for up to 100% of the price of it. What's the difference?
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
1,964
So, you have been delayed, so they give you the return journey for free, and you are still wanting more than paid out initially, is that correct?
No, I want the operator to do what their advertising states rather than add insult to injury following such an extreme delay. This is not about the absolute sum, but honouring a commitment.
I don't follow. If you held two AP singles and were delayed on both journeys, you can be eligible for up to 100% of the price of both of them. i.e. you get all your money back.
If you held a return ticket and were delayed on both journeys, you can be eligible for up to 100% of the price of it. What's the difference?
On an open return, over 2 hours entitles to 100% of the return fare; using AP tickets they are only treated as singles.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,761
Location
0036
There is nothing to stop a traveller pursuing a claim for damages in contract against a TOC for failing to perform a service with reasonable care and skill, which is a term implied into the contract by section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. But a traveller cannot seek to recover twice for the same loss, such as by claiming under DelayRepay and also for breach of contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top