Delay repay rejected as limited to 100% of ticket?

[pedr]

There are three different issues here, aren’t there? What the rule/policy is, what the TOC websites say the rule/policy is, and what people want the rule/policy to be/think it should be.

There isn’t anything on that LNER page that unambiguously says “on a return ticket you cannot receive more than the cost of the ticket even if both outward and return are seriously delayed.” I don’t think it even implies that - compensation is not a refund, it’s a payment in respect of some form of loss and the loss (in terms of inconvenience and disruption) on two journeys delayed by 2 hours is greater than that of one journey delayed by 2 hours so it’s a perfectly plausible interpretation of the information presented to expect compensation of twice the ticket price of both journeys are seriously delayed.

Whether that is what the TOC’s scheme actually is, and whether it should be that or not, is separate from what passengers are being told the scheme is.

For what it’s worth it seems a strange anomaly that a long delay on a single ticket provides the same compensation once it reaches one hour but the compensation doubles on a return ticket if it reaches two hours. Since a two hour delay is often pretty miserable and can have a significant knock-on effect I don’t think it would be unreasonable to provide more compensation than merely a free journey. Not having to pay to get to a destination so late that the journey might now be pointless seems to be below the minimum in compensation!

 

[4F89]

The way I see it, the max repay is 100% per ticket. If the out bound has received part of that repay, the return CAN ONLY equal the remainder as a maximum. If the total delay for the entire ticket is, say 45 out and 45 return, so 90 total, then the total repay would equal 90 mins worth. If you happen to accrue sufficient delay in the outbound to give a 100% repay, then that's the max. Its just bad luck that has lead to a second delay on return, no?

 

[Deafdoggie]

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've had more than the cost of the item back on several different occasions from Amazon due to delayed delivery. It's called customer service.

 

[AlterEgo]

The way I see it, the max repay is 100% per ticket. If the out bound has received part of that repay, the return CAN ONLY equal the remainder as a maximum. If the total delay for the entire ticket is, say 45 out and 45 return, so 90 total, then the total repay would equal 90 mins worth.

Not sure I follow! You claim per single leg.

 

[robbeech]

The way I see it, the max repay is 100% per ticket. If the out bound has received part of that repay, the return CAN ONLY equal the remainder as a maximum. If the total delay for the entire ticket is, say 45 out and 45 return, so 90 total, then the total repay would equal 90 mins worth. If you happen to accrue sufficient delay in the outbound to give a 100% repay, then that's the max. Its just bad luck that has lead to a second delay on return, no?

This makes very little sense. You don't just add up the delays, the sums might just happen to work out right for some generic calculations but (on a toc that pays out on 30 minutes), if you're 28 minutes late on the outbound and 26 minutes late on the inbound you don't get to claim 30-59 minutes because you totted up 54 minutes of delay.


With the suggestion of a move to single leg pricing (already discussed in other topics) already underway this issue will rectify itself without any further input from the operators or regulators. Of course, that does mean that your journey cost represents worse value for money as you as a passenger will automatically have less rights than you do currently, but at least there will be consistency here.

 

[matt_world2004]

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.

Airlines did.

 

[SteveM70]

I often see claims about ambiguity but there is no ambiguity from what I can see.

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 agree that it’s sensible to cap DR at the cost of the ticket(s), but there absolutely is ambiguity in the NRCoT as quoted above.

As written it limits the claim to the price of the ticket “for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service”. That’s service, singular. Not journey, not the journeys the ticket was bought for.

Surely the wording should be something like “for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of one/any/all train services used with your ticket, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket”??

 

[RHolmes]

I've had more than the cost of the item back on several different occasions from Amazon due to delayed delivery. It's called customer service.

Amazon are a private business not a public service provider operating a regulated industry wide compensation scheme.

 

[AM9]

This whole argument comes up every couple of years, i.e. is Delay-Repay geniune compensation where casts realte to the claimant's losses, or is it a quick fix partial or full refund of the fare that the traveller paid for their ticket? It would seem much more like the latter, meaning that the word 'compensation' is a misnomer and it's use is to give the impression that a disadvanteged traveller will be truly compensated. As some here have indicated, any retail customer can use consumer legislation to seek redress for actual loss via the courts. I don't have a problem with a refund system being used to refund part or all of fares paid when the railway fails to deliver, but the insistence that it is compensation for loss, disappointment or even inconvenience is either misguided or intended to decieve. That is why this type of thread appears from time to time.
here is a link to the last discussion on the matter.
The inevitable comparisons with the EU261/2004 directive have been made where a range of fixed compensatory payments are made when the delay is attributable to the airline. The loss of the passenger is independent of the fare paid, - this clearly isn't a refund arrangement, hence the protestations of low-cost carriers, who often fall short of the duty of care provisions in that same directive.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Amazon are a private business not a public service provider operating a regulated industry wide compensation scheme.

Public services don't do customer service. Thanks for clarifying the railways position on this. It is as I long thought.

 

[Watershed]

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 would be unrealistic to expect more by way of a refund than one had paid, yes. But we are not talking about a refund here - that would only be relevant where the passenger had decided not to travel, for whatever reason.

"Delay Repay" is the brand name for a system of agreed liquidated damages, i.e. compensation, for breach of contract. And it is far from daft to expect back more in compensation than you paid if the contracting party is in breach of contract.

For example, let's say you pay a tradesman £100 to conduct an annual inspection of your boiler, and whilst undertaking the inspection they break a part that costs £200 to repair. Are you suggesting you would expect only to be able to recover £100 in compensation in that case?

I think the intention of NRCoT 32.2 is clear; note that it refers to claims made under the industry arrangements. Therefore I think the industry's position is that the total amount of Delay Repay compensation, across all claims, is limited to the price of the ticket.

That said, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether Delay Repay schemes constitute an implied term on their own right, under section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If so, there could be an argument that the NRCoT limitations don't apply.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

From a morality perspective, and a practical one, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect more than 100% compensation except in the most unusual of circumstances, such as truly exceptional delays or where the delay is something highly irregular.

Before criticising this approach, I would remind members that only a few years ago, you would wait months for a voucher to turn up in the post, and even then, only where it could be demonstrated that the cause of the delay was within their control, so weather, trespass, fatalities etc, all excluded.

I attempted to compare Delay Repay to other rail schemes in Europe, and even now, this is still be far, the most generous scheme I have found.

As always, yes, some terms and conditions seem missing, unclear or open to interpretation, but this ought not to detract from the fact that the scheme itself is very generous already, and is clearly a large benefit to rail passengers.

It also appears as though these “industry arrangements” are largely discretionary, and could be easily clarified to make the “cannot exceed 100%” condition more defined. However, I suspect the people drafting these conditions have tried to make the consumer rights angle clearer, but ended up fudging things. I think the intention is that the delay repay element cannot exceed 100% of the fare paid, but they’re also trying to say that in some circumstances, this does not affect your rights to greater compensation (e.g. consequential loss), if the exceptional circumstances exist to warrant it.

 

[robbeech]

Public services don't do customer service. Thanks for clarifying the railways position on this. It is as I long thought.

You've been here long enough to know that is exactly the Railway's position on this. However, we are seeing an increasing number of examples of this lately, whether it is getting worse or is "just" increased reporting remains to be seen. We can be fairly sure that what we hear about is a tiny fraction of what goes on. Thankfully the bulk of the "real" staff go above and beyond to counteract this.

We must remember that operators are already obliged to give you more than 100% of the ticket cost in terms of getting you to your destination, be that a taxi, or overnight accommodation and perhaps a zero excess to an anytime ticket for the first train of the next day.

 

[Watershed]

From a morality perspective, and a practical one, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect more than 100% compensation except in the most unusual of circumstances, such as truly exceptional delays or where the delay is something highly irregular

I'd say that having more than 3 hours of delay on a return journey classifies as pretty exceptional, wouldn't you?

Before criticising this approach, I would remind members that only a few years ago, you would wait months for a voucher to turn up in the post, and even then, only where it could be demonstrated that the cause of the delay was within their control, so weather, trespass, fatalities etc, all excluded.

So in other words, even just few years ago, the railways gave very poor customer service during delays. How does that justify what's done (or not done) today?

attempted to compare Delay Repay to other rail schemes in Europe, and even now, this is still be far, the most generous scheme I have found.

Again, that just means that other European railways don't give as good customer service during disruption. Then again, you're less likely to have paid an extortionate fare to begin with, so swings and roundabouts...

As always, yes, some terms and conditions seem missing, unclear or open to interpretation, but this ought not to detract from the fact that the scheme itself is very generous already, and is clearly a large benefit to rail passengers.

It also appears as though these “industry arrangements” are largely discretionary, and could be easily clarified to make the “cannot exceed 100%” condition more defined. However, I suspect the people drafting these conditions have tried to make the consumer rights angle clearer, but ended up fudging things. I think the intention is that the delay repay element cannot exceed 100% of the fare paid, but they’re also trying to say that in some circumstances, this does not affect your rights to greater compensation (e.g. consequential loss), if the exceptional circumstances exist to warrant it.

The NRCoT is badly drafted and it shows.

 

[35B]

From a morality perspective, and a practical one, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect more than 100% compensation except in the most unusual of circumstances, such as truly exceptional delays or where the delay is something highly irregular.

Before criticising this approach, I would remind members that only a few years ago, you would wait months for a voucher to turn up in the post, and even then, only where it could be demonstrated that the cause of the delay was within their control, so weather, trespass, fatalities etc, all excluded.

I attempted to compare Delay Repay to other rail schemes in Europe, and even now, this is still be far, the most generous scheme I have found.

As always, yes, some terms and conditions seem missing, unclear or open to interpretation, but this ought not to detract from the fact that the scheme itself is very generous already, and is clearly a large benefit to rail passengers.

It also appears as though these “industry arrangements” are largely discretionary, and could be easily clarified to make the “cannot exceed 100%” condition more defined. However, I suspect the people drafting these conditions have tried to make the consumer rights angle clearer, but ended up fudging things. I think the intention is that the delay repay element cannot exceed 100% of the fare paid, but they’re also trying to say that in some circumstances, this does not affect your rights to greater compensation (e.g. consequential loss), if the exceptional circumstances exist to warrant it.

I find your argument somewhat tenuous - it reads rather like a race to the bottom argument.

I have a much simpler view. Railway operators advertise services, one feature of which is the timetable. They offer a scheme called Delay Repay which recognises the impact of failing to meet the timetable, and includes prescribed payment ratios. As a liquidated damage scheme, it has benefits for the railway company in terms of customer relations, and in channelling what a dissatisfied customer may demand, putting that claim within tight bounds. They then appear to be using the NRCoT as small print, to mitigate their losses from their failures.

If the payment were advertised as being capped at 100% of the ticket price, I'd accept that. What is unacceptable is advertising a scheme that offers up to 200% of the return fare paid, and then capping it in this way.

 

[island]

I think the intention of NRCoT 32.2 is clear; note that it refers to claims made under the industry arrangements. Therefore I think the industry's position is that the total amount of Delay Repay compensation, across all claims, is limited to the price of the ticket.

That said, I think there are legitimate questions to be asked about whether Delay Repay schemes constitute an implied term on their own right, under section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. If so, there could be an argument that the NRCoT limitations don't apply.

This proposition comes up from time to time on this forum, but I do not think it holds a lot of water.

Firstly, to be incorporated in the contract, there must be something “said or written to the customer”. It is not clear that a policy placed on a website or displayed on a station is “written to the customer”.

Secondly, the information must be “about the trader or the service”. It is not clear that a DelayRepay policy is information about the trader or the service.

Thirdly, and most crucially, the information must be “taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract”. I very much doubt that the average consumer takes into account the DelayRepay policy of a train company when deciding whether or not to buy a ticket. The test to be applied is whether the consumer would have made a different decision were he/she not aware of the policy. It would, I think, be very difficult indeed to prove this even to the civil standard – when deciding whether to buy a train ticket, one might consider the stations served, the speed of journey, the price, and perhaps the onboard comfort, but not the DelayRepay policy.

Fourthly, the term is subject to “anything that qualified it and was said or written to the consumer by the trader on the same occasion”. I would argue that even if the DelayRepay policy is incorporated into the contract for services, it is subject to the qualification in NRCoT 32.2 that the compensation cannot exceed the price paid for the ticket.

Now notwithstanding any of the above, nothing prevents a consumer from claiming damages for a breach of a term of the contract such as the booked arrival time, or the duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill, and nothing limits damages claimed thusly to the cost of the ticket. But naturally, a consumer cannot seek to recover twice for the same breach, so he/she would need to choose between claiming damages or DelayRepay.

 

[35B]

This proposition comes up from time to time on this forum, but I do not think it holds a lot of water.

Firstly, to be incorporated in the contract, there must be something “said or written to the customer”. It is not clear that a policy placed on a website or displayed on a station is “written to the customer”.

Secondly, the information must be “about the trader or the service”. It is not clear that a DelayRepay policy is information about the trader or the service.

Thirdly, and most crucially, the information must be “taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract”. I very much doubt that the average consumer takes into account the DelayRepay policy of a train company when deciding whether or not to buy a ticket. The test to be applied is whether the consumer would have made a different decision were he/she not aware of the policy. It would, I think, be very difficult indeed to prove this even to the civil standard – when deciding whether to buy a train ticket, one might consider the stations served, the speed of journey, the price, and perhaps the onboard comfort, but not the DelayRepay policy.

Fourthly, the term is subject to “anything that qualified it and was said or written to the consumer by the trader on the same occasion”. I would argue that even if the DelayRepay policy is incorporated into the contract for services, it is subject to the qualification in NRCoT 32.2 that the compensation cannot exceed the price paid for the ticket.

Now notwithstanding any of the above, nothing prevents a consumer from claiming damages for a breach of a term of the contract such as the booked arrival time, or the duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill, and nothing limits damages claimed thusly to the cost of the ticket. But naturally, a consumer cannot seek to recover twice for the same breach, so he/she would need to choose between claiming damages or DelayRepay.

I would suggest that tests 1 and 2 are fulfilled by the general provision of information on the provider's service, and that 4 falls foul of the bias in favour of the customer where terms are ambiguous. Item 3 is the one that is most difficult, as I know that I personally would struggle to prove that I would have chosen to travel differently had I known of the policy.

However, and to turn the question around, I am puzzled that operators do not make clear that the policy is subject to limitations. This reliance on referenced terms and lack of any real warning seems designed to create confrontation where none is needed.

 

[island]

It would certainly be a lot clearer and simpler if they did so.

 

[Watershed]

Firstly, to be incorporated in the contract, there must be something “said or written to the customer”. It is not clear that a policy placed on a website or displayed on a station is “written to the customer”.

I'm not so sure. If there's a notice at a ticket office telling you that the NRCoT apply to all ticket sales, I'm sure the TOCs would seek to rely on that having satisfactorily communicated the application of the NRCoT, even though most customers won't read it.

Secondly, the information must be “about the trader or the service”. It is not clear that a DelayRepay policy is information about the trader or the service.

I think that the Delay Repay policy is clearly a part of the service the TOCs are offering. In a way they are giving a 'money back' guarantee as to the punctuality of the service.

Thirdly, and most crucially, the information must be “taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract”. I very much doubt that the average consumer takes into account the DelayRepay policy of a train company when deciding whether or not to buy a ticket. The test to be applied is whether the consumer would have made a different decision were he/she not aware of the policy. It would, I think, be very difficult indeed to prove this even to the civil standard – when deciding whether to buy a train ticket, one might consider the stations served, the speed of journey, the price, and perhaps the onboard comfort, but not the DelayRepay policy.

Many consumers won't. But the test isn't "changed the purchasing decision", rather it's the much less onerous "taken into account". I don't think there would be massively difficult to make this one out if you are a well-informed traveller, and equally I don't see that there is any need to prove that you would have taken a different purchasing decision had the policy not existed.

Fourthly, the term is subject to “anything that qualified it and was said or written to the consumer by the trader on the same occasion”. I would argue that even if the DelayRepay policy is incorporated into the contract for services, it is subject to the qualification in NRCoT 32.2 that the compensation cannot exceed the price paid for the ticket.

I haven't seen any TOC which refers to the NRCoT in setting out their Delay Repay policy. So, by definition, it can't be a qualification given on the same occasion.

Now notwithstanding any of the above, nothing prevents a consumer from claiming damages for a breach of a term of the contract such as the booked arrival time, or the duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill, and nothing limits damages claimed thusly to the cost of the ticket. But naturally, a consumer cannot seek to recover twice for the same breach, so he/she would need to choose between claiming damages or DelayRepay.

A passenger could bring a claim for breach of contract, if they thought their Delay Repay claim had been wrongly denied. But yes, they couldn't bring a general claim for breach of contract if they agreed to settle the issue by means of a Delay Repay claim.

 

[SteveM70]

How do the rules apply in the event of a lengthy return journey using more than one TOC, with one causing a two hour delay in one direction and another similarly delaying the return leg? Is the passenger expected to realise they can’t make both claims? Presumably there’s little chance of a fragmented DR system realising?

 

[robbeech]

Firstly, to be incorporated in the contract, there must be something “said or written to the customer”. It is not clear that a policy placed on a website or displayed on a station is “written to the customer”.

Would you suggest the railway tries to argue it is not “written to the customer” whilst simultaneously arguing that not sitting in first class with a standard class ticket was “written to the customer” in the same document ?

 

[bb21]

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 agree that it’s sensible to cap DR at the cost of the ticket(s), but there absolutely is ambiguity in the NRCoT as quoted above.

As written it limits the claim to the price of the ticket “for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service”. That’s service, singular. Not journey, not the journeys the ticket was bought for.

Surely the wording should be something like “for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of one/any/all train services used with your ticket, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket”??

Possibly, but I find that an intriguing interpretation, as surely by that token if you suffered four delay/cancelled trains you would be limited to four times the ticket cost, or am I misunderstanding your arguments?

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.

I find it hard to believe that NRCoT do not apply when it is the overarching contract formed when you purchase a ticket. Delay Repay is subsequent to the formation of that contract. Are you trying to argue that Delay Repay is not an "industry arrangement" as stipulated in Condition 32.2, amongst others?

I agree with some of the posters that additional losses over the cost of the ticket can potentially be recovered via the Consumer Rights Act.

 

[35B]

Possibly, but I find that an intriguing interpretation, as surely by that token if you suffered four delay/cancelled trains you would be limited to four times the ticket cost, or am I misunderstanding your arguments?


I find it hard to believe that NRCoT do not apply when it is the overarching contract formed when you purchase a ticket. Delay Repay is subsequent to the formation of that contract. Are you trying to argue that Delay Repay is not an "industry arrangement" as stipulated in Condition 32.2, amongst others?

I agree with some of the posters that additional losses over the cost of the ticket can potentially be recovered via the Consumer Rights Act.

Yes, I am arguing that the terms of an operator’s DR scheme should prevail over NRCOT. That is based on the explicit statements, not qualified in any way, on one operator’s website.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

If I were to hold a standard return ticket, and plan to take a peak train in one direction and an off-peak in the other, then I seem to be at a disadvantage compared with holding two single tickets if my peak time (and therefore presumably more important) journey was to be delayed.

 

[robbeech]

If I were to hold a standard return ticket, and plan to take a peak train in one direction and an off-peak in the other, then I seem to be at a disadvantage compared with holding two single tickets if my peak time (and therefore presumably more important) journey was to be delayed.

If you bought, let’s say any anytime return between Bolton and London terminals. Your morning journey is the important one to get you to work. Your return is more flexible and is done after 7pm.

if your morning, ‘peak time’ journey is delayed by an hour you’d be entitled to £196 back.

if you bought an anytime single and a off peak single (much more sensible choice) you’d still be entitled to £196 back.

if you were delayed by 2 hours in the morning on the return you’d be entitled to the full £392 back, but with a single you’d be entitled to only £196.

So unless I’ve missed your point, I’d suggest that the complete opposite is true.

 

[35B]

If I were to hold a standard return ticket, and plan to take a peak train in one direction and an off-peak in the other, then I seem to be at a disadvantage compared with holding two single tickets if my peak time (and therefore presumably more important) journey was to be delayed.

I'd suggest that the point is that either approach is proportionate to the fare paid, not the importance of the journey

 

[island]

Would you suggest the railway tries to argue it is not “written to the customer” whilst simultaneously arguing that not sitting in first class with a standard class ticket was “written to the customer” in the same document ?

Not comparable. Sitting in first class with a standard class ticket is against the law (railway byelaw 13 and/or Regulation of Railways Act section 5 depending on intent). It is well-established that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I'm not so sure. If there's a notice at a ticket office telling you that the NRCoT apply to all ticket sales, I'm sure the TOCs would seek to rely on that having satisfactorily communicated the application of the NRCoT, even though most customers won't read it.

The applicability of the NRCoT is indisputably communicated to the customer as a reference to them is printed on every ticket. Notwithstanding this, I don’t believe we are in any dispute that the NRCoT form a part of the contracts between a TOC and its passengers, so this is somewhat irrelevant to the debate.

I think that the Delay Repay policy is clearly a part of the service the TOCs are offering. In a way they are giving a 'money back' guarantee as to the punctuality of the service.

I‘m not especially convinced that that point of mine was very good so I shall not further defend it.

Many consumers won't. But the test isn't "changed the purchasing decision", rather it's the much less onerous "taken into account". I don't think there would be massively difficult to make this one out if you are a well-informed traveller, and equally I don't see that there is any need to prove that you would have taken a different purchasing decision had the policy not existed.

Whilst only a court can definitely rule on what precisely “taken into account” means, if a person P makes a decision D and would make the same decision given information I, P has not taken I into account when making D; P has ignored I.

The point of section 50 of the CRA is to ensure that service providers are “on the hook” for sales patter, advertising, etc. that influence a consumer’s decision to take out their service and cannot deny responsibility by saying “it’s not in the contract”. The section is not there to allow consumers to salami-slice bits of a provider’s website and claim based on points taken in isolation.

I haven't seen any TOC which refers to the NRCoT in setting out their Delay Repay policy. So, by definition, it can't be a qualification given on the same occasion.

I randomly selected a few TOCs to test your assertion. Southeastern‘s website links to the DelayRepay policy and NRCoT from the same page (www.southeasternrailway.co.uk/help-and-contact/help/delay-repay-compensation). GWR’s passenger charter says it “should be read alongside the National Rail Conditions of Travel” (www.gwr.com/about-gwr/our-business/passengers-charter). In these cases it is abundantly clear that if (despite the above) these TOCs’ DelayRepay policies are implied into the passenger’s contract, they are subject to the qualification in NRCoT 32.2.

In the general case, if a qualification is on the same website or available on the same leaflet rack, it can certainly be argued that it is given on the same occasion.

A passenger could bring a claim for breach of contract, if they thought their Delay Repay claim had been wrongly denied. But yes, they couldn't bring a general claim for breach of contract if they agreed to settle the issue by means of a Delay Repay claim.

I don’t believe we disagree in this respect.

 

[bb21]

Yes, I am arguing that the terms of an operator’s DR scheme should prevail over NRCOT. That is based on the explicit statements, not qualified in any way, on one operator’s website.

I find it a rather odd argument the NRCoT is superceded despite the contract being entered into at the time of ticket purchase, and there is nothing in the terms of Delay Repay (covered under 32.2) explicitly doing so, unless you are arguing Delay Repay is not an "industry arrangement" which I asked in an earlier post but I don't think that is what you are arguing.

I don't think contract terms can be superceded by omission in this manner, otherwise everything in the NRCoT will have to be explicitly reproduced in documentation providing further detail/clarification on any component part which would be ludicrous, but we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

 

[bigfats]

From a morality perspective, and a practical one, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect more than 100% compensation except in the most unusual of circumstances, such as truly exceptional delays or where the delay is something highly irregular.

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.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

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.

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?