Great Western Railway compensation for delays involving connections

[adrock1976]

I have had a claim for compensation rejected, even though it caused me to miss a connecting service which led to me arriving greater than 30 minutes at my destination. The fare involved was a Standard Class Advance Single with the Route field being "Great Western Only".

The trains in question were:
21:23 Pewsey - London Paddington arrive 22:36 (IC125)
23:00 London Paddington - Ealing Broadway arrive 23:09 (Thames Turbo)

As the 21:23 was 22 minutes delayed upon arrival at Paddington, the next available departure to Ealing Broadway was the 23:33 Oxford, arriving Ealing Broadway around 23:45 (slight delay upon departure).

My claim was rejected on the basis that the delay to my journey was less than one hour. Looking at the Thames Trains/GWR Link section of the webpage, there is a reference to being compensated for delays of 30 minutes if the journey is less than one hour.

Of note, although it was the HS service that caused me to miss the connection, the delay for that leg was less than one hour. Nowhere on that webpage is there any references to connecting services that involve the traditional Intercity routes with one or both of the former Regional Railways Wales & West and Network SouthEast routes. It does seem to be a total mess.

 

[bb21]

The ex-intercity FGW scheme applies in your case, so the response from GWR is correct, unfortunately.

Generally speaking, under the old Passenger's Charter compensation arrangement, where a journey covers a combination of schemes, the intercity ones take precedence.

 

[adrock1976]

Many thanks for the response.

I do feel that there needs to be a nationwide Delay Repay scheme enshrined in the National Conditions of Travel. That way, all passengers would know exactly where they stand regarding length of delay and level of compensation.

 

[bb21]

Things will be better, in due course, as all remaining franchises transfer to the Delay Repay arrangements when they are next renewed, even if not explicitly stated in the NRCoC, but even so the NRCoC will be gradually clarified in that direction.

The government learned it the hard way that if you want to vary the terms mid-contract then be prepared to pay a handsome price, and won't do so any more without a very very good justification.

There is also the difficulty for inclusion in the NRCoC that the government cannot make its mind up as to what threshold they want Delay Repay to be at, with 15 min ones already introduced without having had all franchises on the 30 minute scheme.

 

[bb21]

Things will be better, in due course, as all remaining franchises transfer to the Delay Repay arrangements when they are next renewed, even if not explicitly stated in the NRCoC, but even so the NRCoC will be gradually clarified in that direction.

The government learned it the hard way that if you want to vary the terms mid-contract then be prepared to pay a handsome price, and won't do so any more without a very very good justification.

There is also the difficulty for inclusion in the NRCoC that the government cannot make its mind up as to what threshold they want Delay Repay to be at, with 15 min ones already introduced without having had all franchises on the 30 minute scheme.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I really do have a problem with GWR's scheme, just because the different levels of compensation based on which service is delayed.
In your case it can cause confusion if multiple services are used, and in other cases it can just be confusing full stop. E.g. take Bath Spa to Bristol which can either be the high speed services or the local services - both have different compensation levels. Or what about a journey like Oldfield Park to Cardiff Central, which can be done totally on "local" services or by a mix of local and high speed.

 

[jimm]

I really do have a problem with GWR's scheme, just because the different levels of compensation based on which service is delayed.
In your case it can cause confusion if multiple services are used, and in other cases it can just be confusing full stop. E.g. take Bath Spa to Bristol which can either be the high speed services or the local services - both have different compensation levels. Or what about a journey like Oldfield Park to Cardiff Central, which can be done totally on "local" services or by a mix of local and high speed.

Calling it GWR"s scheme isn't really accurate - it is a mish-mash of the schemes used by the intercity-only version of First Great Western, Thames Trains and Wessex Trains (and InterCity, NSE and Regional Railways before them).

The DfT decided it was too much like hard work to sort it out in 2004 (when Thames became part of FGW) or 2006 (when Wessex was added), kicking the issue down the road to the next franchise contest, which for various reasons still has not happened - and they have left well alone during direct award negotiations with First Group.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Calling it GWR"s scheme isn't really accurate - it is a mish-mash of the schemes used by the intercity-only version of First Great Western, Thames Trains and Wessex Trains (and InterCity, NSE and Regional Railways before them).

The DfT decided it was too much like hard work to sort it out in 2004 (when Thames became part of FGW) or 2006 (when Wessex was added), kicking the issue down the road to the next franchise contest, which for various reasons still has not happened - and they have left well alone during direct award negotiations with First Group.

But it's GWR's decision to continue with the scheme isn't it? Couldn't they move to a much more sensible scheme if they wanted to? Indeed I was under the impression there were talks about GWR moving to a proper delay repay scheme but as it wasn't a franchise commitment (the only commitment was to co-operative with the DfT regarding the issue) they didn't bother.

 

[najaB]

But it's GWR's decision to continue with the scheme isn't it? Couldn't they move to a much more sensible scheme if they wanted to?

That would constitute a unilateral alteration to the franchise - could be quite expensive.

 

[bb21]

But it's GWR's decision to continue with the scheme isn't it? Couldn't they move to a much more sensible scheme if they wanted to? Indeed I was under the impression there were talks about GWR moving to a proper delay repay scheme but as it wasn't a franchise commitment (the only commitment was to co-operative with the DfT regarding the issue) they didn't bother.

GWR are not a charity.

 

[WelshBluebird]

GWR are not a charity.

True - but haven't other ToC's introduced more favorable terms without it being forced upon them? (e.g. Virgin).

 

[bb21]

Yes, upon agreement with the DfT.

I suspect this may well have been discussed, but a price could not be agreed on. Just my inkling.

 

[joncombe]

I think it is ridiculous that how much compensation you are entitled to is based on what former company might have been running the train if they still existed. Even now the GWR passengers charters talks about services on "Former Great Western services", "Former First Great Western Link Services" and "Former Wessex Trains services". The last two of those haven't existed for more than 10 years. How they expect the public to know what company might have operated the service they were travelling on 10 years ago I don't know.

 

[island]

But it's GWR's decision to continue with the scheme isn't it? Couldn't they move to a much more sensible scheme if they wanted to? Indeed I was under the impression there were talks about GWR moving to a proper delay repay scheme but as it wasn't a franchise commitment (the only commitment was to co-operative with the DfT regarding the issue) they didn't bother.

And why on earth would they want to do that?