EMR reject my delay repay

[Aaron1]

Hi,
I am hoping somebody more in the know could advise me please regarding a delay repay claim being rejected.

On 30/10 I had a ticket for Grimsby town to Ely, it was an advance single.

my journey is as follows
18:39 EMR service, alight Lincoln Central, arrived into Lincoln Central 21 mins late, a fact backed up on Search - Recent Train Times
20:25 LNER service, alight Peterborough (Advance fare applied for this train)
21:47 GA service alight Ely.

I was delayed arriving into Lincoln Central by 21 mins (EMR delay repay kicks in after 15 mins), but I did not miss my connecting trains, I explained this to the EMR conductor on the train who advised me to claim as it does not matter if I still caught my connecting train in time or not, the fact I was still delayed I would still be able to claim.

So I did claim but today it has been rejected as they do not see a delay, I am assuming this was because I did not miss my Connecting train/s despite being delayed into Lincoln.

This contradicts the advice the EMR conductor gave me.

Were they right to reject this claim? or are they wrong to reject it? if they are wrong then I will appeal it of course but I don't want to appeal something if they were correct to reject the original claim.

 

[ModernRailways]

They are correct to deny. Delay Repay is for the time you arrive at your destination. As you weren't late to your destination no delay repay is issued.

 

[_toommm_]

They’re right to reject your claim. Delay repay applies to the journey you make as a whole, so even though you were delayed on EMR, your overall journey wasn’t actually delayed so therefore you’re not entitled to delay repay.

 

[MotCO]

Your journey was Grimsby to Ely, and you arrived on time. Why do you think you are entitled to DR?

 

[Snow1964]

From EMR website

Our Delay Repay scheme allows you to claim compensation if your journey with us is delayed by 15 minutes or more, or you miss a booked connection because of a delay on our trains. We must receive your Delay Repay claim within 28 days of the date of your delayed journey.

journey with us, or you miss connection.
Or means either, doesn’t have to be both

Appears to me your EMR journey was delayed (it says us, not a combined journey with another operator), so other part regarding connection is irrelevant to decision.

EMR are rather changing the dictionary definition of us, if they mean ourself and (later on) another.

 

[Aaron1]

Your journey was Grimsby to Ely, and you arrived on time. Why do you think you are entitled to DR?

I did query that and was told i would still be able to claim.

another claim for different journey with identical circumstances has been successful, so in that respect it seems the scheme is inconsistent in terms of of how the train companies apply it.

From EMR website


journey with us, or you miss connection.
Or means either, doesn’t have to be both

Appears to me your EMR journey was delayed (it says us, not a combined journey with another operator), so other part regarding connection is irrelevant to decision.

EMR are rather changing the dictionary definition of us, if they mean ourself and another.

I will appeal based on that, still expect therm to reject it however.

sorry for double post, forgot to qoute and can't see option to delete the previous post!

 

[gray1404]

You have no basis for a delay repay claim or an appeal. You were not delayed by 15 minutes or more arriving at your destination.

 

[skyhigh]

another claim for different journey with identical circumstances has been successful, so in that respect it seems the scheme is inconsistent in terms of of how the train companies apply it.

I would suggest caution - given the way Greater Anglia retrospectively threated legal action over dodgy delay repay claims I would not make or appeal claims that are clearly invalid based on the potential risk of comeback even if they're paid out. Your claim is clearly invalid under the rules of the scheme.

 

[MotCO]

I did query that and was told i would still be able to claim.

another claim for different journey with identical circumstances has been successful, so in that respect it seems the scheme is inconsistent in terms of of how the train companies apply it.

I will appeal based on that, still expect therm to reject it however.

sorry for double post, forgot to qoute and can't see option to delete the previous post!

If your journey was only Grimsby to Lincoln, you would have a right to DR, but your journey was Grimsby to Ely and you arrived on time.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

No major inconvenience being sat on the delayed service into Lincoln, the OP would otherwise have been waiting over 50 minutes at Lincoln for the onward service to Peterborough, and as the OP has pointed out, no delay in arriving at the final destination of Ely. Therefore can't see any basis for a valid Delay Repay claim on a through Grimsby Town -> Ely ticket.

 

[Aaron1]

It would have helped if the EMR Conductor gave me the correct info.

 

[Snow1964]

No major inconvenience being sat on the delayed service into Lincoln, the OP would otherwise have been waiting over 50 minutes at Lincoln for the onward service to Peterborough, and as the OP has pointed out, no delay in arriving at the final destination of Ely. Therefore can't see any basis for a valid Delay Repay claim on a through Grimsby Town -> Ely ticket.

Logically Op didn’t get delayed overall, so this approach of no valid claim would seem reasonable. But that is not the way it is worded on EMR website (with use of words : us, or).

My view is delay repay claim has to be what they advertise, even if wasn’t intention to cover this combination.

 

[gray1404]

It would have helped if the EMR Conductor gave me the correct info.

Let it go. I'm sure he didn't misadvise you on purpose.

 

[SteveM70]

Look at it another way. You could have had a 10 minute connection, and your inbound train arrived 12 minutes late. The inbound train doesn’t breach the threshold for DR, but by causing you to miss your connection they become liable for DR for the whole journey.

 

[furlong]

So appeal, pointing out that they seem to have made a mistake because you were already told by the company that you would have a valid claim and indeed that the company's policy on the website supports this. There are many inconsistencies, ambiguities and errors in the way Delay Repay is defined and administered and it's beyond comprehension that the industry hasn't standardised it. Many members of this forum have formed a reasonably consistent view as to how Delay Repay ought to work in practice but that is not a documented standardised industry view and there seem to be many variations in practice, such as the one encountered here.

 

[AlterEgo]

So appeal, pointing out that they seem to have made a mistake because you were already told by the company that you would have a valid claim and indeed that the company's policy on the website supports this. There are many inconsistencies, ambiguities and errors in the way Delay Repay is defined and administered and it's beyond comprehension that the industry hasn't standardised it. Many members of this forum have formed a reasonably consistent view as to how Delay Repay ought to work in practice but that is not a documented standardised industry view and there seem to be many variations in practice, such as the one encountered here.

The guard simply made an error, which everyone in the thread seems to accept.

By all means advise the poster to appeal, go to the Ombudsman and waste their time but they will get nothing from this because their journey was not subject to a delay. The only thing that might happen is the wording on EMR's website will change to stop other people from wasting their time.

 

[furlong]

The guard simply made an error, which everyone in the thread seems to accept.

By all means advise the poster to appeal, go to the Ombudsman and waste their time but they will get nothing from this because their journey was not subject to a delay. The only thing that might happen is the wording on EMR's website will change to stop other people from wasting their time.

What public EMR documentation can you point in support of that position?

We are told that the company agreed to pay DR through one of its employees subject to a claim being submitted. If that employee acted beyond their authority in making that agreement that would be a matter for the company to resolve internally, but the company policy published on its website apparently supports that position.

 

[AlterEgo]

the company policy published on its website apparently supports that position.

I don't agree that "your journey with us" necessarily does.

We all know the intention of the policy is not so, and we now have a real example of the company putting it into practice by saying "no".

 

[furlong]

Seems unambiguous to me.

"If you’re delayed by 15 minutes or more when you travel with us, you can claim compensation. "
"A delayed train is usually classed as a service running behind the planned, advertised timetable"
"We check our train running system to confirm there was a delay to your journey."

Doesn't say anything relating to an additional dependency on the arrival time at your final destination, and the employee's understanding of the company's policy expressed at the time would surely carry substantial weight. Different train companies implement different schemes. EMR for example also offers "Delay Repay if you decide not to travel because of disruption" but other companies do not.

 

[yorkie]

The legal position is likely as @furlong says ; in theory EMR could be made to cough up. But good luck achieving that; it would cost many times more than the value of the claim!

But the Guard made a mistake and Delay Repay is not supposed to be due, in the circumstances described, for a journey to Ely.

Now had there been a combination of tickets used for the journey, with a split at Lincoln, simply submitting the first ticket in accordance with the instructions of the Guard would have yielded a payment of 25% of the value of that ticket. This is an example of where it can actually be beneficial to "split" But as it was a through fare, this is a moot point.

 

[AlterEgo]

Seems unambiguous to me.

"If you’re delayed by 15 minutes or more when you travel with us, you can claim compensation. "
"A delayed train is usually classed as a service running behind the planned, advertised timetable"
"We check our train running system to confirm there was a delay to your journey."

Doesn't say anything relating to an additional dependency on the arrival time at your final destination, and the employee's understanding of the company's policy expressed at the time would surely carry substantial weight. Different train companies implement different schemes. EMR for example also offers "Delay Repay if you decide not to travel because of disruption" but other companies do not.

EMR doesn’t say they do the whole “delay repay if you decide not to travel” on their website:

Delay Repay if you decide not to travel because of disruption​

You can apply for a refund in cases like these, just be sure to include your reasons for not being able to travel. Apply for a refund at the place where you bought your ticket.

 

[furlong]

But the Guard made a mistake and Delay Repay is not supposed to be due, in the circumstances described, for a journey to Ely.

If you take that view, the company's website is also "a mistake".

It couldn't be clearer.

How delays are decided

A delayed train is usually classed as a service running behind the planned, advertised timetable.

The focus of its scheme is on the company's *train* rather than the overall journey. That is how the delay "is decided".
It would have been trivial for the website to have said otherwise but it simply doesn't! (Perhaps this also helps them to discourage claims where tickets are combined - who knows!)

 

[Aaron1]

The legal position is likely as @furlong says ; in theory EMR could be made to cough up. But good luck achieving that; it would cost many times more than the value of the claim!

But the Guard made a mistake and Delay Repay is not supposed to be due, in the circumstances described, for a journey to Ely.

Now had there been a combination of tickets used for the journey, with a split at Lincoln, simply submitting the first ticket in accordance with the instructions of the Guard would have yielded a payment of 25% of the value of that ticket. This is an example of where it can actually be beneficial to "split" But as it was a through fare, this is a moot point.

My full journey was actually to Cambridge but Trainsplit decided the cheapest way was to split at Ely! If only it was a split at Lincoln aswell!

 

[zero]

I have successfully claimed for partial journeys many times but the OP here had an advance ticket. If there was a convincing reason for the OP to require 50 minutes to use station facilities at Lincoln I wonder if that would work? I have occasionally chosen advance tickets with a long interval at an intermediate station in order to have a meeting there, my plans have always worked out so far.

 

[yorkie]

I have successfully claimed for partial journeys many times but the OP here had an advance ticket. If there was a convincing reason for the OP to require 50 minutes to use station facilities at Lincoln I wonder if that would work? I have occasionally chosen advance tickets with a long interval at an intermediate station in order to have a meeting there, my plans have always worked out so far.

It's a grey area. If you have a meeting at a specific location I'd allow a lengthy buffer and if you want to ensure Delay Repay would be paid, you'd need separate tickets to/from the meeting point to be certain of a payout.

Break of journey is not allowed with Advance tickets, but as you say the use of station facilities is allowed. For example someone could theoretically arrange a meeting at York Tap which is within York station, and make a case for delay compensation of their meeting/drinking time at the Tap was reduced due to a delay, even if the onward connection was made. I don't think it's an argument I'd be wanting to make, when using a through Advance ticket. We could debate the technicallties indefinitely and never reach universal agreement on such a matter!

 

[norbitonflyer]

Maybe not applicable if it's an advance ticket, but on other tickets break of journey is allowed so would each leg be covered separately?

Your arrival at your final destination was on time, but your 50 minute layover at Lincoln was curtailed. This may have interrupted your plans - if nothing else you may have intended to buy some provisions during the wait which might be possible at Lincoln at 1935 (there is a CoOp opposite the station) but not when you got to Ely nearly three hours later.

I tried to challenge a DR decision once - travelling from Buxton to Euston, heavily delayed by a points failure at Hazel Grove. Arrived in Stockport to see an ATW train to Crewe across the platform so we jumped on. After changing at Crewe we got to Euston 63 minutes late. It turned out that we could have got to Euston quicker by waiting for the next direct train, but there had been no time to weigh up the possiblities. DR would only pay for what we could have done (which would have been a delay of about 55 minutes, rather than what actually happened.

 

[ModernRailways]

Maybe not applicable if it's an advance ticket, but on other tickets break of journey is allowed so would each leg be covered separately?

Your arrival at your final destination was on time, but your 50 minute layover at Lincoln was curtailed. This may have interrupted your plans - if nothing else you may have intended to buy some provisions during the wait which might be possible at Lincoln at 1935 (there is a CoOp opposite the station) but not when you got to Ely nearly three hours later.

I tried to challenge a DR decision once - travelling from Buxton to Euston, heavily delayed by a points failure at Hazel Grove. Arrived in Stockport to see an ATW train to Crewe across the platform so we jumped on. After changing at Crewe we got to Euston 63 minutes late. It turned out that we could have got to Euston quicker by waiting for the next direct train, but there had been no time to weigh up the possiblities. DR would only pay for what we could have done (which would have been a delay of about 55 minutes, rather than what actually happened.

If there’s a break of journey and the second leg was delayed then you would be eligible. You would likely have to appeal the claim providing additional information but I have had a DR claim approved for a BoJ when I was heading back from Carlisle and break my journey in Hexham.

 

[yorkie]

Maybe not applicable if it's an advance ticket, but on other tickets break of journey is allowed so would each leg be covered separately?

Your arrival at your final destination was on time, but your 50 minute layover at Lincoln was curtailed. This may have interrupted your plans - if nothing else you may have intended to buy some provisions during the wait which might be possible at Lincoln at 1935 (there is a CoOp opposite the station) but not when you got to Ely nearly three hours later.

It is a grey area.

If being able to claim compensation for a delay at your break of journey is important to you, I would strongly advise "splitting" tickets at that point, to avoid ambiguity and costing yourself more in wasted time arguing with a train company who might take a different view.

 

[robbeech]

It would have helped if the EMR Conductor gave me the correct info.

Unfortunately some of them haven’t got the slightest idea about the rules.

Let it go. I'm sure he didn't misadvise you on purpose.

Agreed it wasn’t on purpose but we are seeing incorrect staff advice more and more and when we look at the way operators are behaving with “suspicious claims” it’s concerning that their staff are giving out advice that lead to this.

The only thing that might happen is the wording on EMR's website will change to stop other people from wasting their time.

That would be a win in my opinion, the clearer websites can be the less chance of people getting it wrong snd getting into trouble when the lawless railway gets involved.

What public EMR documentation can you point in support of that position?

We are told that the company agreed to pay DR through one of its employees subject to a claim being submitted. If that employee acted beyond their authority in making that agreement that would be a matter for the company to resolve internally, but the company policy published on its website apparently supports that position.

The legal position is likely as @furlong says ; in theory EMR could be made to cough up. But good luck achieving that; it would cost many times more than the value of the claim!

The legal position is of no concern to EMR as they are above the law. There is absolutely nobody that could get them to cough up here.

Now had there been a combination of tickets used for the journey, with a split at Lincoln, simply submitting the first ticket in accordance with the instructions of the Guard would have yielded a payment of 25% of the value of that ticket. This is an example of where it can actually be beneficial to "split" But as it was a through fare, this is a moot point.

I still stand by my opinion that this “having your cake and eating it” attitude will see the rules on split ticketing changed in favour of the railway if we are not careful. A journey is a journey and should be defined as such. We can define it how we want but it must be consistent.

 

[pelli]

I tried to challenge a DR decision once - travelling from Buxton to Euston, heavily delayed by a points failure at Hazel Grove. Arrived in Stockport to see an ATW train to Crewe across the platform so we jumped on. After changing at Crewe we got to Euston 63 minutes late. It turned out that we could have got to Euston quicker by waiting for the next direct train, but there had been no time to weigh up the possiblities. DR would only pay for what we could have done (which would have been a delay of about 55 minutes, rather than what actually happened.

So in this case you boarded the next available service and Northern refused full delay repay because you should have waited for the faster train that would have got you to the destination sooner. Meanwhile, in another current thread, a passenger let a slower train go in order to board a later fast train that was scheduled to arrive first, and when that train incurred additional delays Avanti refused full delay repay because they should have taken the next available service:

Avanti denying full Delay Repay: we should have taken next service, even though that was scheduled to be overtaken

Avanti seem to have invented a new rule with Delay Repay. You must be psychic! There were two of us travelling on the return leg of a Super Off-Peak Return ticket from Euston to Coventry on Sunday 18 July. Intended train: VT: EUS 20:11 due COV 21:20 - Cancelled Actual train: VT: EUS 20:54...

www.railforums.co.uk