Delay Repay results and discussion for Journeys during Storm Ciara

[robbeech]

Please feel free to disallow such a thread if you feel it necessary. I’ve been reading a few reports already of claims being reject for passengers travelling or supposedly travelling on Sunday 9th during the major disruption.
I’d be interested to hear of how people get on with their claims, certainly including positive results of which I’m rather hoping most will be.

for now, a couple of comical results (there are a few of these already) from LNER. (Not my claim of journey).


<image shows a screen shot of a reply to an LNER rejection letter with the following text :
The systems that keep a track of our train running records indicate a delay of 1128 minutes from Edinburgh to London King’s Cross on the 9th February 2020.
As the delay is under 30 minutes we are unable to offer compensation under our delay repay scheme on this occasion ........>

Now it’s clear that this is just appalling programming but these messages crop up for delays that are within standard range too so it’s obvious there are underlying issues. Of course, in these instances (there are more and more appearing already showing systemic failure I’m fairly hopeful that lner will understand the issue and manually pay out, but I’m expecting to see some TOCs fight some claims and that’s what I’m interested to see and discuss.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[PG]

I'm sure if mainstream media get hold of those screenshots LNER will be in for some stick...

 

[robbeech]

I'm sure if mainstream media get hold of those screenshots LNER will be in for some stick...

Perhaps although i don't think it would help much.
The examples above are more relating to how this new craze of automated systems are failing day in day out and are rejecting valid claims resulting in increased revenue for operators when people do not appeal it (which sadly is common). Whilst it doesn't change your suggestion about how the media would handle it i feel whilst these specific examples relate to the disruption from Storm Ciara, the concept of rejections is more widespread so perhaps isn't directly related.

 

[Haywain]

i feel whilst these specific examples relate to the disruption from Storm Ciara, the concept of rejections is more widespread so perhaps isn't directly related.

Are you seriously suggesting that these are deliberate rejections?

 

[robbeech]

Are you seriously suggesting that these are deliberate rejections?

No, i'm suggesting quite the opposite. The two examples (two of many more) shows how ridiculous the system is.

 

[gray1404]

Deliberate or not, LNER is responsible for getting it wrong and allowing it to happen. They have confirmed the delay in writing then go on to reject the claim. Its not the customer's concern if they use automated systems or not.

 

[robbeech]

Deliberate or not, LNER is responsible for getting it wrong and allowing it to happen. They have confirmed the delay in writing then go on to reject the claim. Its not the customer's concern if they use automated systems or not.

Agree entirely but I’m confident that they will resolve these issues.
HOWEVER. They’ll only do this if people appeal. If they don’t bother than lner will not proactively go through all claims ‘just in case’ the ‘system’ is setup badly.

 

[gray1404]

Exactly, the customer has had the inconvenience of the actual delay, then taken the time to submit a claim. It is not right that the customer should have to spend more time having to get what they are perfectly entitled to due to the error of the train company. But, as you rightly say, unless they do so they won't see a penny of their compensation. Once aware of the issue, LNER should be proactively checking for claims wrongly rejected and proactively contacting customers putting the matter right.

 

[yorkie]

Loads of valid claims are rejected, even cases where two people made the same journey and only one claim was accepted and the other was claimed to be under 30 mins by LNER's system.

These systems are riddled with errors, but the errors generally (if not exclusively) appear to be against the customer, rather than the other way round. Such errors have persisted for so long I am not sure that incompetence can be claimed to be the reason in perpetuity.

 

[Class800]

Another factor may be whether or not TOCs introduce temporary timetables, and whether they seek to assess delays against these.

 

[yorkie]

Another factor may be whether or not TOCs introduce temporary timetables, and whether they seek to assess delays against these.

Delay Repay claims are a contractual matter; the terms of the contract are determined when the ticket is bought so it would depend on whether the revised timetable was already in place or not at that time.

 

[gray1404]

Delay Repay claims are a contractual matter; the terms of the contract are determined when the ticket is bought so it would depend on whether the revised timetable was already in place or not at that time.

In terms of delay repay claims being contractual matter, I have always taken this view: that delay repay forms part of the contract formed with the railway companies. However, given that in a contractual dispute, a party usually has 6 years in England to commence legal proceedings is it therefore wrong that train companies try to impose a limit that a delay repay claim must be submitted within 28 days?

I recently had a dispute with a train company who said they hadn't received my claim and it was now too late to claim. I responded showing further evidence that I travelled and asked them to look at it again. They did and awarded in my favor. They made it clear this was a goodwill gesture and they are not responsible for items not delivered by Royal Mail.

I was somewhat offended by this approach for a number of reasons:
1. I had suffered a delay on the day of travel
2. I made the effort to fill our their delay repay form and put it in the post. In putting it in the post I was preaddressed with their Freepost address. This indeed was the only address I had to send it to.
3. When I contacted Royal Mail they told me that in sending it to the business freepost address it was for the business to claim to Royal Mail, not myself as I didn't have a contract with them. Royal Mail are correct here and I have since read both the retail and business terms and conditions on their site.
4. I had made the effort to contact the TOC to follow up my claim, yet they still tried to fob me off
5. I then made the effort to dispute this by asking further questions and attaching evidence of travel

Thankfully the TOC has paid out but if they hadn't was going to take the matter to the Rail Ombudsman. However, all of the above got me thinking about two thing:
1. The "postal rule" in contract law. That an item is deemed to be delivered after so many day and if this would apply to my delay repay claim I sent in the post.
2. Given that I could still issue legal proceedings (a small claim) had they not paid not on my delay repay claim for up to around 6 years since the date of the journey, is it therefore incorrect that train companies impose a 28 day limit to claiming delay repay?

 

[Haywain]

Whilst you have a contractual right to compensation under Delay Repay it would appear to also be part of the contract that you claim within 28 days. This does not seem unreasonable and you can’t pick and choose which parts of a contract you want to apply.

 

[applepie2100]

Delay repay claim to Avanti for Sunday 09/02 refused. The journey was:

11:25 Manchester Piccadilly to Preston (which ran to the best of my knowledge)
12:40 Preston to Glasgow Central (cancelled as were all subsequent services)

I opted not to travel on the 11:25 and risk becoming totally stranded at Preston and instead remained at Manchester Piccadilly and eventually travelled up the east coast via TPE and LNER which was a problem in itself due to Avanti at Manchester Piccadilly incorrectly advising of LNER ticket acceptance for Avanti customers. This resulted me having to buy two tickets for the journey between York and Glasgow and incurring an extra cost of £212 which I don't believe that I should have to bear the cost of.

Avanti have refused the delay repay claim blaming TPE. I've appealed this with Avanti and am awaiting the outcome.

 

[robbeech]

Whilst you have a contractual right to compensation under Delay Repay it would appear to also be part of the contract that you claim within 28 days. This does not seem unreasonable and you can’t pick and choose which parts of a contract you want to apply.

I would tend to agree with this on the whole, although i think exceptions should be made when there has been additional consequences that may have delayed your claim. For example, if you put in a claim and the operator tell you your claim is supposed to be with another operator after 27 days, especially if they're wrong.

 

[robbeech]

For reference, the first of "my" delay repay claims (and by "my", in this case i'm talking a colleague who was working for me using tickets purchased by the business) has been paid in full by LNER proving that the above issues noted in the opening post are clearly software failures as expected. I'll be giving my colleague the RTVs (which is the correct official procedure anyways) as they had a hell of a long couple of days.

 

[gray1404]

Delay repay claim to Avanti for Sunday 09/02 refused. The journey was:

11:25 Manchester Piccadilly to Preston (which ran to the best of my knowledge)
12:40 Preston to Glasgow Central (cancelled as were all subsequent services)

I opted not to travel on the 11:25 and risk becoming totally stranded at Preston and instead remained at Manchester Piccadilly and eventually travelled up the east coast via TPE and LNER which was a problem in itself due to Avanti at Manchester Piccadilly incorrectly advising of LNER ticket acceptance for Avanti customers. This resulted me having to buy two tickets for the journey between York and Glasgow and incurring an extra cost of £212 which I don't believe that I should have to bear the cost of.

Avanti have refused the delay repay claim blaming TPE. I've appealed this with Avanti and am awaiting the outcome.

If I was in your position, I would appeal to Avanti on the basis they were the operator of the cancelled service. However, when making your claim (or appeal) include all tickets you purchased including the additional ones and see if they pay out on that. I say that because it was the cancellation of their train that caused you to have to buy additional tickets.

Furthermore, I would make formal complaints to both LNER and Avanti asking them to refund the additional tickets. Of course you can't have two refunds but I would fie all my shots as they might be difficult about this. Avanti should not have given you incorrect information. Likewise, if there was ticket acceptance in place/you were given incorrect information by Avanti, LNER should not have charged you for new tickets.

I would make these as formal complaints and be prepared to go to the Rail Ombudsman if needed.

 

[robbeech]

There has been a lot of conflicting advice between Avanti and LNER on this matter, acceptance is in place and isn't in place at the same time with one operator sending people one way, and guards charging new tickets. The problem is if the guard hasn't been informed it comes across like LNER (and the guard for their commission) are cashing in on it, which i'm sure isn't the case.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I was unfortunate enough to have to travel on that fateful day between Euston and Wolverhampton. I couldn't put it off, I had to be back for work. Whilst in London I checked and (not surprisingly) my planned 1840 Avanti train to Wolves was cancelled. Noting their advice that journeys would take much longer than usual, I reluctantly rocked up at Euston early and placed myself on the 1620 service to Birmingham. The journey was tedious to say the least, but uneventful, arriving at New Street at 1913. When we got to New Street, the situation between there and Wolves was also pretty dire so I opted to use the Metro to get to Wolves. They were accepting train tickets at the time so there was no extra cost. The end result was that we arrived in Wolves at around the same time we would have done with the original itinerary, but at the cost of leaving significantly earlier.

All this waffle to ask the question I think I know the answer to... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time? The journey took ~4 hours vs the ~2 hours on the itinerary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All this waffle to ask the question I think I know the answer to... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time? The journey took ~4 hours vs the ~2 hours on the itinerary.

Unfortunately not (I do think this needs to be changed!)

However you could send in a manual claim to Customer Services and hope for a bit of discretion.

 

[Haywain]

All this waffle to ask the question I think I know the answer to... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time?

No, but you may be due compensation for getting home later then you perhaps should have for the time you actually travelled. As they say, if you don't ask (and specifically, ask Avanti)...

 

[sheff1]

... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time? The journey took ~4 hours vs the ~2 hours on the itinerary.

Did you have Advance or walk-up tickets ?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Did you have Advance or walk-up tickets ?

Advance tickets, on their app

 

[yorkie]

I was unfortunate enough to have to travel on that fateful day between Euston and Wolverhampton. I couldn't put it off, I had to be back for work. Whilst in London I checked and (not surprisingly) my planned 1840 Avanti train to Wolves was cancelled. Noting their advice that journeys would take much longer than usual, I reluctantly rocked up at Euston early and placed myself on the 1620 service to Birmingham. The journey was tedious to say the least, but uneventful, arriving at New Street at 1913. When we got to New Street, the situation between there and Wolves was also pretty dire so I opted to use the Metro to get to Wolves. They were accepting train tickets at the time so there was no extra cost. The end result was that we arrived in Wolves at around the same time we would have done with the original itinerary, but at the cost of leaving significantly earlier.

All this waffle to ask the question I think I know the answer to... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time? The journey took ~4 hours vs the ~2 hours on the itinerary.

Possibly, however although there is a lot of information in this post, the crucial information doesn't appear to be present.

The key questions are:

• What time was the 1840 due into Wolves?
• What time did you actually arrive into Wolverhampton?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Possibly, however although there is a lot of information in this post, the crucial information doesn't appear to be present.

The key questions are:

• What time was the 1840 due into Wolves?
• What time did you actually arrive into Wolverhampton?

The 1840 was due wolves 2036
Google location history has me arriving in Wolves at 2014 by Metro

 

[sheff1]

Deleted - misread post

 

[applepie2100]

If I was in your position, I would appeal to Avanti on the basis they were the operator of the cancelled service. However, when making your claim (or appeal) include all tickets you purchased including the additional ones and see if they pay out on that. I say that because it was the cancellation of their train that caused you to have to buy additional tickets.

Furthermore, I would make formal complaints to both LNER and Avanti asking them to refund the additional tickets. Of course you can't have two refunds but I would fie all my shots as they might be difficult about this. Avanti should not have given you incorrect information. Likewise, if there was ticket acceptance in place/you were given incorrect information by Avanti, LNER should not have charged you for new tickets.

I would make these as formal complaints and be prepared to go to the Rail Ombudsman if needed.

Thanks for this. I'm waiting on outcome of both my appeal to Avanti and also the case they sent to TPE. While I'm sure that most will agree that Virgin Trains had their issues, it feels like Avanti have very quickly dragged their customer service down to that provided by most other First Group companies.

 

[gray1404]

I was unfortunate enough to have to travel on that fateful day between Euston and Wolverhampton. I couldn't put it off, I had to be back for work. Whilst in London I checked and (not surprisingly) my planned 1840 Avanti train to Wolves was cancelled. Noting their advice that journeys would take much longer than usual, I reluctantly rocked up at Euston early and placed myself on the 1620 service to Birmingham. The journey was tedious to say the least, but uneventful, arriving at New Street at 1913. When we got to New Street, the situation between there and Wolves was also pretty dire so I opted to use the Metro to get to Wolves. They were accepting train tickets at the time so there was no extra cost. The end result was that we arrived in Wolves at around the same time we would have done with the original itinerary, but at the cost of leaving significantly earlier.

All this waffle to ask the question I think I know the answer to... are we entitled to compensation for having to leave early to get home at the same time? The journey took ~4 hours vs the ~2 hours on the itinerary.

I'm wondering if the OP may well receive automatic delay repay...

 

[Haywain]

I'm wondering if the OP may well receive automatic delay repay...

There would only be a chance of this if the ticket was bought online directly from Avanti.

 

[gray1404]

He said they were advance tickets purchased on the AWC app so automatic delay repay is possible. The passenger should check their email or any notification and bank account for the card used to purchase the tickets to see if they've received a payment.