Delay repay rejected as limited to 100% of ticket?

[Deafdoggie]

And yet, that is precisely what the TOCs expect when it is the customer who makes a mistake like forgetting to check their rail card is in date. IMO, when a train is delayed by 2 hours the TOC should write a letter to the customer. In it they should say

- That they are sorry for what has happened
- What they have learned from the incident
- That they are keen to settle the matter without the need for court action
- Offer to repay the full fare and the the customers administrative costs in dealing with the matter

They should then expect the customer to ask them for an additional £200 or so as an adminstrative fee to settle the matter.

This made me laugh out loud. Very funny. Well done.

 

[trebor79]

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......

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

Before you even get to the CRA, the NRCoT wording says the claim is limited to 100% of the ticket value. If doesn't say that the sum of separate claims (eg outward and return delay) is limited to 100% of the ticket value.

As an aside, I have to say I was impressed with my LNER delay repay. Travelling on split tickets I expected to have a bit of a palaver getting the proper compensation but they paid it correctly first time. In the past I've had LNER try to only pay for a portion of the journey based upon split points.

 

[35B]

I think that the term for this is a 'false equivalence'. Even accepting that the point of this post is satire, you are comparing the positions where
- a customer wilfully or carelessly fails to follow the rules: would we argue that someone who deliberately bilks the railway should not be punished, and can we accept that it is at least arguable that someone who does it by accident should be incentivised to do it right next time by finding out the hard way that actions (even mistaken ones) have consequences: and
- the railway carelessly or through no fault of their own fails to deliver the service advertised: as with passengers there may be a case that the railway should be incentivised to do it right next time by finding out the hard way that actions (even mistaken ones) have consequences, but is it arguable that the railway should be punished when matters are beyond their control?

I'm not sure the equivalence is that false; the asymmetry of response to error (as distinct from deliberate wrongdoing) is noticeable, and the learning expected of an individual is significantly more onerous than that expected of the organisation.

If I accidentally forget to renew my railcard before travel, I am at risk of criminal prosecution and/or significant financial penalty of several times the price I have paid. If the railway causes me disruption through accident, it's losses are capped under NRCOT at 100% of the fare I've paid.

There are sound reasons for why things work as they do, but it's not unreasonable to find the cumulative action of these processes oppressive in their effect.

 

[Watershed]

I think that the term for this is a 'false equivalence'. Even accepting that the point of this post is satire, you are comparing the positions where
- a customer wilfully or carelessly fails to follow the rules: would we argue that someone who deliberately bilks the railway should not be punished, and

Someone who deliberately sets out to avoid the fare probably deserves some level of penalty. But that doesn't come close to representing everyone who is accused of fare evasion, or railway fares offences in general.

Equally, I'm minded to believe that the majority of incorrect Delay Repay rejections are genuine errors. But there are other times where it's clear there is a policy of incorrectly rejecting claims - for example, claiming that the timetable can be changed without notice, and without any liability for delay compensation (even at the NRCoT minima).

can we accept that it is at least arguable that someone who does it by accident should be incentivised to do it right next time by finding out the hard way that actions (even mistaken ones) have consequences: and

Surely exactly the same principle can be applied to the railways? That actions (rejecting Delay Repay claims, or delaying people) have consequences?

- the railway carelessly or through no fault of their own fails to deliver the service advertised: as with passengers there may be a case that the railway should be incentivised to do it right next time by finding out the hard way that actions (even mistaken ones) have consequences, but is it arguable that the railway should be punished when matters are beyond their control?

Again, in the vast majority of cases, delays and cancellations are unavoidable (at least on a day to day basis). For example, inclement weather or trespass incidents.

But there are cases where the railway could reasonably be said to have caused avoidable delays/cancellations. For example, failing to train a sufficient number of traincrew to reliably operate the timetable, or advertising a Sunday service but having Sundays outside the working week.

Really, the only difference between these two situations is that the law, and the practical application thereof, is heavily weighed in favour of the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Before you even get to the CRA, the NRCoT wording says the claim is limited to 100% of the ticket value. If doesn't say that the sum of separate claims (eg outward and return delay) is limited to 100% of the ticket value.

You might get away with that claim if you went to Court, but it is called Delay Repay. You can't repay something that wasn't paid in the first place, and therefore it is the clear intention that you cannot be paid more than you paid in. That being the case, if a claim was launched and successful the NRCoT would just get changed.

If it was called something else such as Delay Compensate, that would not be clear. But the name and that term makes it very clear that it is in effect a partial refund for the element of the service (the timetable) not delivered.

 

[35B]

You might get away with that claim if you went to Court, but it is called Delay Repay. You can't repay something that wasn't paid in the first place, and therefore it is the clear intention that you cannot be paid more than you paid in. That being the case, if a claim was launched and successful the NRCoT would just get changed.

If it was called something else such as Delay Compensate, that would not be clear. But the name and that term makes it very clear that it is in effect a partial refund for the element of the service (the timetable) not delivered.

We're going round in circles, but the LNER information previously linked to explicitly contradicts that argument in the way that it's set out.

 

[robbeech]

You might get away with that claim if you went to Court, but it is called Delay Repay. You can't repay something that wasn't paid in the first place, and therefore it is the clear intention that you cannot be paid more than you paid in. That being the case, if a claim was launched and successful the NRCoT would just get changed.

If it was called something else such as Delay Compensate, that would not be clear. But the name and that term makes it very clear that it is in effect a partial refund for the element of the service (the timetable) not delivered.

It is Delay Repay with a capital R, so a name. As such, we cannot determine anything from the name alone. Clearly, the intention of the operators is to limit Delay Repay to 100% of the ticket price (of course the intention is to limit it to 0% but they aren't allowed to do that) but it isn't clear, and whilst ever it isn't clear there will be these discussions.

Your favourite concept of single leg pricing solves this as i mentioned before, whilst obviously devaluing the ticket it does set the record straight on what can be allowed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We're going round in circles, but the LNER information previously linked to explicitly contradicts that argument in the way that it's set out.

I've viewed that link and while it's badly worded I don't agree that it does at all.

It is Delay Repay with a capital R, so a name. As such, we cannot determine anything from the name alone. Clearly, the intention of the operators is to limit Delay Repay to 100% of the ticket price (of course the intention is to limit it to 0% but they aren't allowed to do that) but it isn't clear, and whilst ever it isn't clear there will be these discussions.

Your favourite concept of single leg pricing solves this as i mentioned before, whilst obviously devaluing the ticket it does set the record straight on what can be allowed.

Indeed, yet another thing in its favour. It really does have very, very few disadvantages indeed. If accompanied by the abolition of the admin fee so there is no penalty for changing your return date, the only people who really lose out are those who make overnight breaks of journey on a whim once already en route, which is probably about 0.000000000000000000001% of journeys.

 

[trebor79]

You might get away with that claim if you went to Court, but it is called Delay Repay. You can't repay something that wasn't paid in the first place, and therefore it is the clear intention that you cannot be paid more than you paid in. That being the case, if a claim was launched and successful the NRCoT would just get changed.

If it was called something else such as Delay Compensate, that would not be clear. But the name and that term makes it very clear that it is in effect a partial refund for the element of the service (the timetable) not delivered.

The name of the scheme is neither here nor there, it's the Ts&Cs that are important.
They state that claims cannot exceed the value of the ticket. That's very clear.
Nowhere do they say that in cases where more than one claim is made on the same ticket, the aggregate compensation cannot exceed the ticket value.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Nowhere do they say that in cases where more than one claim is made on the same ticket, the aggregate compensation cannot exceed the ticket value.

Apologies if already mentioned upthread, but what happens if valid "Delay Repay" claims are submitted to different TOCs for lengthy delays on both the outward and return legs of a badly disrupted return journey, as might happen, for example, on the Northern section of the ECML, where different operators share the same section of track.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The name of the scheme is neither here nor there, it's the Ts&Cs that are important.
They state that claims cannot exceed the value of the ticket. That's very clear.
Nowhere do they say that in cases where more than one claim is made on the same ticket, the aggregate compensation cannot exceed the ticket value.

The intent is very clear, and if the intent isn't to compensate in excess of the ticket value, you will need to pursue the TOC in Court to receive what you believe you are entitled to, and if such a case does occur then the NRCoT will just get changed.

Apologies if already mentioned upthread, but what happens if valid "Delay Repay" claims are submitted to different TOCs for lengthy delays on both the outward and return legs of a badly disrupted return journey, as might happen, for example, on the Northern section of the ECML, where different operators share the same section of track.

They might not notice but in principle you shouldn't do it.

 

[trebor79]

The intent is very clear, and if the intent isn't to compensate in excess of the ticket value, you will need to pursue the TOC in Court to receive what you believe you are entitled to, and if such a case does occur then the NRCoT will just get changed.

Yes, I think the intent is clear that a claim cannot exceed the ticket value. It's also clear that one ticket can have more than one claim.

If the TOCs get challenged and find the NRCoT doesn't day what they think or would like it to say, and change the NRCoT accordingly, I'd have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is people claiming that the NRCoT says that the total compensation paid against one ticket cannot exceed the ticket value. They do not say that, in fact they implicitly state the opposite.

 

[gray1404]

I've had a further reply from the TOC. Positive outcome although no clearer on my inital question in the thread title as no mention was made in their reply of any previous correspondence. They've sent the standard sorry your journey was delayed letter and stated under the terms of the delay repay scheme I'm entitled to compensation to the value of 100% of my ticket for a 2 hour delay. They've then enclosed RTVs for the full value of my return ticket. They go onto state I can exchange these for cash at one of their ticket offices.

So, although no clarification as to if my inital delay repay claim was handelled correctly I do think they have sent a decent reply. I therefore don't see the point in getting back in touch for anything further or going to the Rail Ombudsman for an opinion on this occasion.

Although they've sent RTVs and my inital delay repay claim was a BACs payout request, I think it will be fair to say I'll be able to either use the RTVs for another ticket or be passing one of their booking offices to cash them in within the next 12 months so I'm fine with that. @yorkie

 

[trebor79]

Apologies if already mentioned upthread, but what happens if valid "Delay Repay" claims are submitted to different TOCs for lengthy delays on both the outward and return legs of a badly disrupted return journey, as might happen, for example, on the Northern section of the ECML, where different operators share the same section of track.

They might not notice but in principle you shouldn't do it.

I think they may notice where both TOCs use the same outsourced provider to process the claims.
I see no reason why a passenger who has suffered disruption on both outward and return should not make a claim for both, regardless of TOC.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think they may notice where both TOCs use the same outsourced provider to process the claims.
I see no reason why a passenger who has suffered disruption on both outward and return should not make a claim for both, regardless of TOC.

Because it is a partial refund for failure to offer the full services required. You can't be refunded more than you paid.

The only real answer is not offering the "100% of return" level, which makes no real sense anyway. Return ticket holders don't deserve more compensation (proportionally) than single ticket holders.

 

[Watershed]

Because it is a partial refund for failure to offer the full services required. You can't be refunded more than you paid.

The only real answer is not offering the "100% of return" level, which makes no real sense anyway. Return ticket holders don't deserve more compensation (proportionally) than single ticket holders.

It's not a refund though. It's an agreed sum of liquidated damages for breach of contract.

Delay Repay is completely separate to any claim you might want to bring under the Consumer Rights Act, which may then result in a price reduction (i.e. a refund, where the fare has already been paid).

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not a refund though. It's an agreed sum of liquidated damages for breach of contract.

Though it's predicated around a refund even if it isn't legally one. It's called Delay Repay. That gives a clear understanding of the intention.

Yes, you might, if you sue a TOC, get what you want on a technicality, but the intention is to me abundantly clear. So if too many people do it the rules will just change to make it clearer.

I wonder how often this happens? I've had a very small number of 100% DR claims ever, a 2+ hour delay is very rare indeed.

 

[gray1404]

This is my first time having a two hour delay in one direction and also a delay in the other direction thus bringing up this question. Pervious 2 hour delays have been meet to no delay in the other direction.

 

[35B]

Though it's predicated around a refund even if it isn't legally one. It's called Delay Repay. That gives a clear understanding of the intention.

Yes, you might, if you sue a TOC, get what you want on a technicality, but the intention is to me abundantly clear. So if too many people do it the rules will just change to make it clearer.

I wonder how often this happens? I've had a very small number of 100% DR claims ever, a 2+ hour delay is very rare indeed.

The intention is also that the timetable is when trains will depart and arrive, yet the railway has long had terms and conditions that relieve them of responsibility for actually meeting it.

As for the scenario - I agree, it is absolutely an edge case. As it should be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The intention is also that the timetable is when trains will depart and arrive, yet the railway has long had terms and conditions that relieve them of responsibility for actually meeting it.

And that's why Delay Repay is there - to repay (give back) part of the fare paid in recognition of the fact that only part of the contract was performed - they did get you there, but not at the specified time. (If they didn't get you there, the situation would be different - indeed, that gives further credence to my view, because it would be absolutely ridiculous were one refunded more for arriving 2 hours late both ways than for not getting there at all!

I suspect that the fact that it is an edge case (as 2+ hour delays are very rare) means they didn't think of it at the time.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

And that's why Delay Repay is there - to repay (give back) part of the fare paid in recognition of the fact that only part of the contract was performed - they did get you there, but not at the specified time. (If they didn't get you there, the situation would be different - indeed, that gives further credence to my view, because it would be absolutely ridiculous were one refunded more for arriving 2 hours late both ways than for not getting there at all!

I suspect that the fact that it is an edge case (as 2+ hour delays are very rare) means they didn't think of it at the time.

I also wonder whether Single tickets (or season tickets where this isn't a problem), are the bulk of the tickets used by passengers, or will be increasingly in the future. Didn't the government plan to axe return tickets in the past, something about single leg fares or something similar?

Even if I make a return journey to London, I'm increasingly buying 2 X Advance Singles.

 

[swt_passenger]

I also wonder whether Single tickets (or season tickets where this isn't a problem), are the bulk of the tickets used by passengers, or will be increasingly in the future. Didn't the government plan to axe return tickets in the past, something about single leg fares or something similar?

Even if I make a return journey to London, I'm increasingly buying 2 X Advance Singles.

Yes, single leg pricing has been seriously proposed and will potentially remove this problem completely. But it doesn’t actually seem to meet with broad approval, I think from previous discussions because people like the idea of a single day ticket for convenience.

Many of my journeys include outboundary day travelcards, everything on one coupon and I hope they continue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, single leg pricing has been seriously proposed and will potentially remove this problem completely. But it doesn’t actually seem to meet with broad approval, I think from previous discussions because people like the idea of a single day ticket for convenience.

Many of my journeys include outboundary day travelcards, everything on one coupon and I hope they continue.

That of course only applies to Travelcards, which I suspect in the medium term will end up issued on smartcards only so TfL can decommission their magstripe reading kit.

All other return tickets are issued as two pieces, so there is no practical difference between a day return that actually happens to be two singles and one that is actually a return. The pricing is a bit more challenging (due to the deep discount of off peak day returns) so they may well stick around, I suppose. But a major delay both ways on a journey short enough for an off peak day return to be available is heading into real niche territory, as most people facing a 2 hour (or even 1 hour) delay on the outward of a journey that short (typically no more than 50 miles, and mostly much shorter) are just going to get a refund and go home for the car.