Discussion: Is claiming delay repay twice for a multi-leg journey fraudulent?

[Esker-pades]

(Originally inspired by some posts in this thread.)

Let's imagine someone was taking a journey from British Steel Redcar to Wrexham Central on a single ticket (no splits) using the following itinerary (taken from National Rail Enquires):
07:57 British Steel Redcar to Darlington arr 08:38.
08:49 Darlington to Manchester Oxford Road arr 10:45.
10:56 Manchester Oxford Road to Shotton arr 12:04.
12:55 Shotton to Wrexham Central arr 13:32.

On the day, the first train is delayed by 20 minutes, arriving at 08:58. They have missed their connection and are unable to "catch-up" in order to make it to Wrexham Central on time. They claim the full cost of the ticket back from Northern, as that was the TOC that caused the original delay. Northern pays out.
However, on their final train to Wrexham Central, there is another delay. They arrive into Wrexham Central at 15:12 (rather than the advertised 14:32). They also claim from Transport for Wales the cost of half their ticket due to that 40 minute delay.
This means, in total, they have claimed back 150% of the cost of their ticket (IE: they have made a profit).

Is this a reasonable thing to do, or has this passenger abused the system?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would say that that is fraudulent.

If you have split tickets, you have two options. One is to treat it as two or more separate journeys, and claim Delay Repay on those separate journeys. The other is to consider it all as one journey, and claim Delay Repay based on the arrival time at the final destination on the sum of the cost of all the tickets.

You cannot choose both of these. Practically, the best advice is most probably to do the one that will net you the most money!

Doing both is very clearly out of order. If too many people do it, the TOCs will start requiring us to send physical tickets in again, which would be a right nuisance, so let's not abuse the trust and do that.

However, having just re-read, you are talking about one ticket and making the journey stated on it (it becomes a bit more of a matter of discretion if you are ending short, breaking your journey or whatever), which is the simple case.

In this simple case, the only thing that matters is the final arrival at your destination as per the ticket. The way you do this is to claim off the TOC which caused a claimable delay to your journey first. So in the example you would claim off Northern based on the delay to your *entire* journey, even if the delay to their train was minor, and are not eligible to claim anything else.

Some examples:

1.
You are going A-B-C with a 10 minute connection at B. A-B is operated by TOC 1, B-C by TOC 2. The service on B-C is hourly. The train from A-B is 11 minutes late, and therefore you miss your connection. Your journey was delayed for 60 minutes and therefore you can claim 100% of a single fare or 50% of a return. You claim this from TOC 1.

2.
You are again going A-B-C, but this time B-C runs only every two hours and A-B is also infrequent, meaning your connection at B is 61 minutes. The train A-B is delayed for 60 minutes. Your connection is cross-platform so you make it with time to spare despite having only one minute to do so, and arrive at C on time. You are not eligible for any compensation as your overall journey was not delayed.

3.
Another A-B-C, but this time your connection at B is 10 minutes. Train A-B is 9 minutes late. You make your connection, but then train B-C is delayed along the way and is 61 minutes late when you arrive at C. You are eligible for a 100% single/50% return refund, and you claim this from TOC 2, as the first delay that had an impact on your journey was on their train.

4.
Let's go E-F-G this time as we got bored of A-B-C, with again a 10 minute connection at F. Train E-F is 11 minutes late, so you miss your connection, causing a 30 minute delay to your overall journey. The later F-G train you take is also 30 minutes late. The total delay is 60 minutes, entitling you to a 100% single/50% return refund. In this case you claim this off TOC 1 (operator of E-F), because their train was the first one that caused an effect on your journey.

With regard to the general case, the scheme is called Delay Repay, which clearly implies that it's a partial or full refund. You can't be repaid more than 100% of the cost of your ticket, as you haven't paid it in the first place!

So yes, the example you give would indeed be fraudulent.

 

[MikeWh]

Absolutely an abuse of the system. The first claim is for the complete journey. If a further delay occurs later on then it may well improve the compensation due in the original claim.

 

[Esker-pades]

That's what I thought as well. One should never claim for more than the cost of the ticket (plus any extra costs incurred such as a taxi fare/bus ticket).

 

[Haywain]

Fraudulent. All you are directly entitled to is the cost of the ticket or a proportion thereof.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what I thought as well. One should never claim for more than the cost of the ticket (plus any extra costs incurred such as a taxi fare/bus ticket).

Yes, out of pocket costs are entirely separate and are paid in addition to Delay Repay, which is a partial or full refund to compensate for your wasted time. For Delay Repay, you can only claim up to 100% of the single or return ticket you hold; once you reach that no further claims can be made. For instance, if you are delayed 120+ minutes in both directions, you can still only claim a full refund of the return ticket, not 200% of it.

 

[robbeech]

100% fraudulent and people trying to do this should be prosecuted accordingly. The system relies on trust which makes it convenient for people to claim without additional faff. It works quite well generally (of course there are times when there are disagreements but this is a separate issue).

I also have issues with the journey definition. If you are on split tickets and one half is delayed enough to claim but your entire journey is not delayed then you should not claim on one ticket. That is completely unfair, you cannot have it both ways. You define a journey and that must be it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Yes, out of pocket costs are entirely separate and are paid in addition to Delay Repay, which is a partial or full refund to compensate for your wasted time. For Delay Repay, you can only claim up to 100% of the single or return ticket you hold; once you reach that no further claims can be made. For instance, if you are delayed 120+ minutes in both directions, you can still only claim a full refund of the return ticket, not 200% of it.

I'm not sure that the last part is correct. If you are delayed by 120+ on both legs then surely you are entitled to the same compensation (100%) for both. After all, delay compensation is compensation and not a refund (despite some TOCs' best efforts at misnaming it!). If it were a refund I'd agree that you can't claim back more than the cost of the ticket, but as compensation, I don't think claiming back more than the cost of the ticket is impossible. See for example EU261 flight compensation, where it might be possible to claim back €250 (~£220) for a flight that only cost you a tenner if it was on Ryanair.

 

[yorkie]

For instance, if you are delayed 120+ minutes in both directions, you can still only claim a full refund of the return ticket, not 200% of it.

I'm not sure about this. But it's a different concept to that described in this thread .Please create a new thread with your evidence .

 

[Deafdoggie]

I do feel you should only claim once. But I see no harm in making the claim from the TOC who would pay out the most, if one or more TOC caused a delay, and it would make a difference. Of course, many times there is only one TOC who caused the delay, so no other option.

Don't TOCs note down ticket numbers that they pay out on anyway?

 

[cuccir]

I think TfW would be in their rights to reject a claim, never mind the ethics.

It's Northern's fault that you were on the train which was delayed into Wrexham Central - had their train been on time, you'd have been on an earlier service. The further delay is a result of the iniitial delay, therefore, it's all on Northern - I don't think there's a legitimate claim to be made against TfW.

 

[Belperpete]

Fraudulent. All you are directly entitled to is the cost of the ticket or a proportion thereof.

On what do you base that assertion? If a TOC has delayed you, then you are entitled to claim compensation from that TOC. Agreed that you should not be able to claim compensation twice for the same delay, but claiming for two separate delays is another matter.

To take an extreme case, if you are delayed by over two hours, you are entitled to claim for the cost of the whole return fare. If I were delayed over two hours on the outward journey, I would claim that. If I were then unlucky enough to be delayed over two hours on my return journey, I would feel perfectly entitled to put in another similar claim, and I can see nothing in the delay repay rules that says I would not be entitled to do so, even though through the two claims I would have got back more than I paid.

On a recent journey, I was delayed by an hour by one TOC, and then by another half-hour by a second TOC. The ticket I held entitled me to break journey, so even if the first train had been on time, I could still have broken journey and then been delayed by the second train, and therefore entitled to claim from the second TOC. The reason that I caught that second late-running train is therefore irrelevant. I submitted claims to both TOCs in accordance with their published rules, and received compensation accordingly. I did not in this case get back more than I had paid for the ticket, but I would not have done anything wrong if I had.

The way I look at it is that the TOCs get paid by NR when their train is delayed. Any of that which is not claimed back by the passengers is extra, undeserved profit for the TOC. It is therefore up to every passenger to claim back as much compensation as they rightfully can. The TOCs stick strictly to the rules when claiming compensation from NR, and likewise passengers should stick strictly to the rules when claiming compensation from the TOCs. And there is nothing in the rules I can see that explicitly states you can't claim back more compensation than you paid.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

On what do you base that assertion? If a TOC has delayed you, then you are entitled to claim compensation from that TOC. Agreed that you should not be able to claim compensation twice for the same delay, but claiming for two separate delays is another matter.

To take an extreme case, if you are delayed by over two hours, you are entitled to claim for the cost of the whole return fare. If I were delayed over two hours on the outward journey, I would claim that. If I were then unlucky enough to be delayed over two hours on my return journey, I would feel perfectly entitled to put in another similar claim, and I can see nothing in the delay repay rules that says I would not be entitled to do so, even though through the two claims I would have got back more than I paid.

On a recent journey, I was delayed by an hour by one TOC, and then by another half-hour by a second TOC. The ticket I held entitled me to break journey, so even if the first train had been on time, I could still have broken journey and then been delayed by the second train, and therefore entitled to claim from the second TOC. The reason that I caught that second late-running train is therefore irrelevant. I submitted claims to both TOCs in accordance with their published rules, and received compensation accordingly. I did not in this case get back more than I had paid for the ticket, but I would not have done anything wrong if I had.

The way I look at it is that the TOCs get paid by NR when their train is delayed. Any of that which is not claimed back by the passengers is extra, undeserved profit for the TOC. It is therefore up to every passenger to claim back as much compensation as they rightfully can. The TOCs stick strictly to the rules when claiming compensation from NR, and likewise passengers should stick strictly to the rules when claiming compensation from the TOCs. And there is nothing in the rules I can see that explicitly states you can't claim back more compensation than you paid.

I agree that the rules do not prevent you from claiming back more than you have paid - after all, delay compensation is compensation and not a (partial or full) refund.

However, claiming twice from different TOCs for the same journey does seem tawdry to me. It's one thing claiming twice for a ticket portion which you used to make two journeys (though a second claim may not be accepted). But claiming twice if you didn't break your journey doesn't sit right with me and there is a risk that the relevant TOC(s) start automatically rejecting future claims from you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that claiming over the ticket value because of a two hour delay on one portion is debatable. I think it's not OK, others think it is, I can't find any documentation that confirms either way so it would I guess be for a Court to decide if it came to it. I'd be interested to know if anyone has successfully claimed 200% of the ticket value due to two two-hour delays on the same return journey (which must be incredibly rare, as I've had a "100% of return" claim precisely twice).

However, claiming over the ticket value in one direction or on a single ticket should not be possible, as it is very clear that you are not making two journeys using a single leg, you are, as the NRCoT makes very clear, making one journey which you can break and resume as desired (where permitted). As that is one journey, I can't see how you could, for instance, claim for a delay A-B *and* a delay B-C on the same ticket. The journey is A-C, any claim is for that. Only if you *end* at B and do not resume could I see it being valid to claim A-B instead.

 

[Clip]

On what do you base that assertion? If a TOC has delayed you, then you are entitled to claim compensation from that TOC. Agreed that you should not be able to claim compensation twice for the same delay, but claiming for two separate delays is another matter.

Be careful what you wish for as that is why some TOCs right now are not paying out for qall legs of your journey if you use split ticketing

 

[Bensonby]

I do agree that it seems against the spirit of the scheme, but what if you used half of a return portion between A-B on one day with TOC 1 (and we’re delayed by an hour) and on the same ticket, perfectly validly, travelled from B-C with TOC 2 on another day and also incurred a delay?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do agree that it seems against the spirit of the scheme, but what if you used half of a return portion between A-B on one day with TOC 1 (and we’re delayed by an hour) and on the same ticket, perfectly validly, travelled from B-C with TOC 2 on another day and also incurred a delay?

You made one journey which you broke overnight (or over several nights), and therefore can only claim the latter. I'm not aware of any documentation that would allow one to construe the entirety of what you do on one through ticket as anything other than one journey (or part of a larger one if used in combination with other tickets). Only if you split tickets is there scope to consider a particular through trip as one or two journeys as you see fit, and it is very clear that Delay Repay is payable only on delay to your complete journey, not bits of it.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I can see arguments on all sides. But, say, I travelled A-C broke journey at B. Delayed both A-B and B-C. Are we saying that on one ticket you get only one delay repay, but on split tickets you could get two lots?
This seems to be yet another thing to promote split ticketing. Ultimately I think through tickets will become a thing of the past, as the industry seems hell-bent on making split tickets better for passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can see arguments on all sides. But, say, I travelled A-C broke journey at B. Delayed both A-B and B-C. Are we saying that on one ticket you get only one delay repay, but on split tickets you could get two lots?

You speak as if Delay Repay is a fixed sum, when in fact it's based on delay and ticket price. The amount paid in both cases, 200% claims due to 2hr+ delays in both directions excepted, won't exceed what you paid.

Fundamentally if you wish to make two journeys, buy two tickets. This (using your right to break of journey to save a bit of money by making two entirely separate journeys using one ticket) is incredibly niche and must account for under 1% of Delay Repay claims.

 

[Esker-pades]

I can see arguments on all sides. But, say, I travelled A-C broke journey at B. Delayed both A-B and B-C. Are we saying that on one ticket you get only one delay repay, but on split tickets you could get two lots?
This seems to be yet another thing to promote split ticketing. Ultimately I think through tickets will become a thing of the past, as the industry seems hell-bent on making split tickets better for passengers.

But your total spend on the split tickets would be less than the single ticket (which is the point of split ticketing). Therefore, your total compensation would be reduced if you split, not increased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But your total spend on the split tickets would be less than the single ticket (which is the point of split ticketing). Therefore, your total compensation would be reduced if you split, not increased.

That sort-of depends.

If you have a through ticket A-C with trains running A-B and B-C, train A-B could be 15+ minutes late but the connection still be made, thus entitling no compensation at all, whereas with a split you could get compensation for A-B alone. (That might not be intended but there's nowt can be done to stop it).

But fundamentally you cannot by any definition I've seen make two journeys with one ticket. You make one journey with a break of whatever length you choose within the validity period, and ending short if you wish. Therefore to me there is no scope for an intermediate claim on a through ticket unless ending your journey at the intermediate station.

 

[Esker-pades]

That sort-of depends.

If you have a through ticket A-C with trains running A-B and B-C, train A-B could be 15+ minutes late but the connection still be made, thus entitling no compensation at all, whereas with a split you could get compensation for A-B alone. (That might not be intended but there's nowt can be done to stop it).

But fundamentally you cannot by any definition I've seen make two journeys with one ticket. You make one journey with a break of whatever length you choose within the validity period.

Rovers and Season tickets?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Rovers and Season tickets?

OK, there's always an exception to every rule FWIW I did think that season Delay Repay was a right can of worms and should have stayed how it was (albeit with increased poor performance discounts).

For seasons, it's worked out as being based on 5 full-route return journeys a week as is typical, and when I've claimed for an outboundary Travelcard it's been based on one return journey as that's what most people actually do with them. How on earth is it worked out for a rover, particularly something like an ALR?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

How on earth is it worked out for a rover, particularly something like an ALR?

Depends on the mood and/or competence of the responsible delay compensation team!

Almost anything goes, it seems. Sometimes Day Rangers are treated as Return tickets. And sometimes multi-day tickets are treated as Carnets.

 

[snail]

Northern now have something about multiple claims on their Delay Repay page https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/compensation-information

Please only claim for the train you intended to catch and the total delay you experienced. For example if you claim for consecutive trains on a particular day you may have your claims declined.

 

[Belperpete]

Fundamentally if you wish to make two journeys, buy two tickets.

Why on earth should I pay more than I need to? For example, I often travel from Derby onto the Cambrian, and on the return break journey at Birmingham overnight. Buying separate Derby-Birmingham and Birmingham-Cambrian tickets would be significantly more expensive than the through ticket. As the through ticket entitles me to break journey in the way I want, why shouldn't I buy it? Furthermore, if I explained at a ticket office what I intended to do, I would expect them to offer the through ticket, and not try and sell me two separate tickets, as they are supposed to offer the cheapest option.

Fraudulent.

100% fraudulent and people trying to do this should be prosecuted accordingly.

Fraud involves misrepresentation. Provided that you answer the questions the TOC asks honestly and accurately, you are NOT committing fraud.

You are legally entitled to claim compensation whenever you want, for whatever reason you want. Whether you are entitled to the compensation, and whether the TOC will pay it if you are entitled to it, is another matter. It is up to the TOC to administer the rules of the scheme.

Some TOCs claim, for example, that they won't pay out in cases of trespass (despite the fact that they will likely be getting compensation from NR). You are perfectly entitled to put in a claim even if the TOC's form seems to indicate that you are not entitled to compensation under Delay Repay, as you may be entitled to a claim under the Consumer Rights Act, and TOCs can and do make discretionary payments in cases where they claim you are not entitled.

However, claiming twice from different TOCs for the same journey does seem tawdry to me.

ForTheLoveof, do you honestly think that when TOCs claim compensation from NR, they say something like "I am not going to claim compensation in this case because it seems a bit tawdry, not in the spirit of things"? Heck as like! The TOCs are legally-bound to claim compensation when they are due it. I don't see why you should think anything different should apply to passengers claiming their portion of that compensation from the TOC.

The TOCs try and interprete the rules in their favour, and I am perfectly entitled to interprete the rules in my favour. On one occasion, I was delayed on the second leg of a journey. When I claimed compensation, the TOC concerned (XC I think) stated that they would not pay compensation based on the price of the ticket that I had bought, but only on the price of a ticket for that leg of the journey. If a TOC can interprete a journey involving a change as two separate legs when it works in their favour, I don't see why I shouldn't when it works in my favour.

As far as I am concerned, if the compensation rules state that I am entitled to compensation, then I am entitled to compensation, regardless of whether other people think it "tawdry" or "not in the spirit of things". If passengers don't claim the compensation that they are legally entitled to, then it is extra, undeserved profit for the TOC.

If too many people do it, the TOCs will start requiring us to send physical tickets in again, which would be a right nuisance,

To say that people should not claim the compensation that they are legally entitled to because if everybody did so the TOCs would start making it more difficult to claim is one of the most preposterous things I have heard in a long time.

I'd be interested to know if anyone has successfully claimed 200% of the ticket value due to two two-hour delays on the same return journey (which must be incredibly rare, as I've had a "100% of return" claim precisely twice).

I have certainly successfully claimed 150% of the cost, due to a two-hour delay in one direction and a one-hour delay in the other (can't remember which way round now, it was quite awhile ago). And as far as I am concerned, I was fully justified in claiming it. And it was the same TOC that paid both claims.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

ForTheLoveof, do you honestly think that when TOCs claim compensation from NR, they say something like "I am not going to claim compensation in this case because it seems a bit tawdry, not in the spirit of things"? Heck as like! The TOCs are legally-bound to claim compensation when they are due it. I don't see why you should think anything different should apply to passengers claiming their portion of that compensation from the TOC.

The TOCs try and interprete the rules in their favour, and I am perfectly entitled to interprete the rules in my favour. On one occasion, I was delayed on the second leg of a journey. When I claimed compensation, the TOC concerned (XC I think) stated that they would not pay compensation based on the price of the ticket that I had bought, but only on the price of a ticket for that leg of the journey. If a TOC can interprete a journey involving a change as two separate legs when it works in their favour, I don't see why I shouldn't when it works in my favour.

As far as I am concerned, if the compensation rules state that I am entitled to compensation, then I am entitled to compensation, regardless of whether other people think it "tawdry" or "not in the spirit of things". If passengers don't claim the compensation that they are legally entitled to, then it is extra, undeserved profit for the TOC.

I am all for passengers' rights, however on any given delayed journey there is only one TOC that can ever be liable for delay compensation: the TOC that first caused the journey to become delayed (note, this is not necessarily the first TOC whose services were delayed; after all, a delayed service might still not cause you to miss a connection if you have allowed a lot of time for the connection).

It is therefore, by nature of the system, impossible to claim twice from different TOCs for the same journey, unless other TOCs that aren't actually liable nevertheless decide to cough up.

What you could of course do, but what is morally and legally unjustifiable in my view, is to define your journey in different ways for different claims. For example, if you had a ticket from A to D via B and C, claiming compensation from TOC 1 for your delay on your journey from A to C, and then claiming compensation from TOC 2 for your delay on your journey from B to D.

You can only claim once, from A to B, C or D (though in my view it is acceptable to frame your journey to a shorter distance than what you actually travelled, e.g. claiming only for A to B, even if this is to increase the compensation payable).

Whilst claiming several times from different TOCs for the same delay may work, you don't know which TOCs share data (it could be some, it could be all), and so it would seem a very risky maneuver for what is ultimately not going to be a massive amount of compensation (i.e. it's not as if you're going to net thousands this way unless you really do travel 24/7!).

 

[Haywain]

the TOCs get paid by NR when their train is delayed. Any of that which is not claimed back by the passengers is extra, undeserved profit for the TOC.

This is, as has been discussed many time before, complete tosh. Delays, no matter what the cause, cost TOCs money both in Delay Repay and through numerous different types of penalty payment and additional cost. If delays were profitable, as you suggest, there would be no incentive for TOCs to put a great deal of effort into trying to improve performance, which is what actually happens. And any payments from Network Rail will only apply when NR have caused the delay through an infrastructure failure - when the delay is caused by the TOC they receive nothing from external sources.

Some TOCs claim, for example, that they won't pay out in cases of trespass (despite the fact that they will likely be getting compensation from NR).

Some TOCs still operate 'Passengers Charter' compensation which means they don't pay out when the delay cause is outside of the railway industry. However, by the same token, when the delay is the responsibility of the TOC they pay out twice - to their customers and to other TOCs and Network Rail.

 

[najaB]

For example, I often travel from Derby onto the Cambrian, and on the return break journey at Birmingham overnight. Buying separate Derby-Birmingham and Birmingham-Cambrian tickets would be significantly more expensive than the through ticket.

That's one journey, so using one ticket is perfectly correct. Claiming for delay on both the Cambrian-Birmingham and Birmingham-Derby legs on successive days would not be.

 

[trainophile]

Fancy me finding this thread when I was just about to ask a similar question.

Ticket is an Advance from Southport to Carlisle. Itinerary says depart Southport at 0852, but train did not depart until 0916 (inbound late re. slippery rails). I will now miss my 0938 connection from WGW and have to get the 1025.

However the 1025 is now delayed due to a bridge strike, so I may end up on the 1038 resulting in arriving an hour late at Carlisle.

Had I caught the 0938 as per original itinerary I would have arrived on time.

So I really need to claim half the cost from Northern and half from Virgin. How would I word this when claiming on their delay repay forms?