Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud - Discussion of wider issues/rights/wrongs/etc

[bigfats]

The DR process needs to be more transparent, more consistent, and more intuitive to claim from. But it also needs to be robust enough to ensure that people aren't scamming it, otherwise there'll be no money left in the industry at all.

TOCs can only lose money proportional to how bad their service is. DR needs to be punitive in order to give TOCs an incentive to improve their service. The system needs to be easy and fair, even if it opens up the possibility for bad people to commit fraud. If there weren't so many delays, there wouldn't be the any opportunity for scamming.

 

[robbeech]

A centralised system for delay repay with a clear set of rules for both passengers AND the railway to stick to would solve many of the ongoing problems, but then the divide between DR and refunds would cause further problems. A centralised system for retail would solve this but would see many retailers (both TOC based and 3rd party, the latter of which seem to represent the best and the worst in retail) out of business. A difficult situation.

Whilst ever TOCs don't have to answer to anyone in practise and can get away with doing what they want, they will continue to get away with what they want. At the same time though, whilst ever the measures for tackling real fraud, on top of things such as fare evasion isn't working efficiently you won't see any incentive for the operators to improve.

 

[AlterEgo]

TOCs can only lose money proportional to how bad their service is. DR needs to be punitive in order to give TOCs an incentive to improve their service. The system needs to be easy and fair, even if it opens up the possibility for bad people to commit fraud.

Delay Repay is far more generous than most schemes elsewhere. In Switzerland, you need to be delayed for an hour to claim just 25% of your ticket price back. The same in France, Sweden and Italy. I could search for more. Try getting money back if your flight is 45 minutes late (or even, three hours late if it wasn't the airline's fault!), or if your bus is late.

I would personally abolish all delay repay schemes and replace it with a scheme similar to EC 261 which applied to the airlines, with fixed payouts and only for the most severe delays.

Delay Repay is a big hobby horse of this forum but almost no normal discretionary passenger chooses the train based on the idea that if it's late they'll get some form of refund (which they usually have to claim anyway). They'd prefer not to be late in the first place, and the vast majority of passengers that travel every day aren't delayed.

Delay Repay on season tickets is an invitation to, at best, gaming the scheme, and at worst, outright fraud. There's not a compelling reason to have the scheme; it's more expensive to administer than the cost of the compensation, and it makes very little difference to passenger choices.

If there weren't so many delays, there wouldn't be the any opportunity for scamming.

Seems to me to be victim blaming.

The problem with scamming is that Delay Repay is already extremely loose, and is effectively treated as an honesty box scheme. If I have a paper Off Peak Return from London to Manchester there really is no way for the TOC to be satisfied I travelled on the 1100 train I claimed to have done.

 

[bigfats]

Delay Repay on season tickets is an invitation to, at best, gaming the scheme, and at worst, outright fraud. There's not a compelling reason to have the scheme; it's more expensive to administer than the cost of the compensation, and it makes very little difference to passenger choices.

I completely disagree. As a commuter, I really have no choice. I need DR on my season ticket to compensate me for the extremely poor service. Why should I pay full price for shoddy service? Delays need to cost TOCs, otherwise they have no incentive to improve. It is not a competitive market so they don't have any other incentive.

 

[AlterEgo]

I completely disagree. As a commuter, I really have no choice. I need DR on my season ticket to compensate me for the extremely poor service. Why should I pay full price for shoddy service? Delays need to cost TOCs, otherwise they have no incentive to improve. It is not a competitive market so they don't have any other incentive.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not a competitive market, because you’ve chosen to live far away from your place of work so there is only one realistic option; a natural monopoly for many people. And, I’m going to assume, if you’re brutally honest about it, delay repay doesn’t make a huge difference to your choice of transport to work?

Season ticket discounts upon renewal were a much better and more sensible way of being compensated for people who chose to keep travelling by train for this purpose rather than the Kafka-esque notion you have to log all your delays and claim for each individual one, even as low as 15 minutes.

 

[Wolfie]

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not a competitive market, because you’ve chosen to live far away from your place of work so there is only one realistic option; a natural monopoly for many people. And, I’m going to assume, if you’re brutally honest about it, delay repay doesn’t make a huge difference to your choice of transport to work?

Season ticket discounts upon renewal were a much better and more sensible way of being compensated for people who chose to keep travelling by train for this purpose rather than the Kafka-esque notion you have to log all your delays and claim for each individual one, even as low as 15 minutes.

Re your last para l agree except of course that means that you de facto get no compensation for any problems which arise during the validity of your last season ticket.

 

[MotCO]

Going back to basics (where have I heard that before?!), why are trains delayed?

1. Train cancelled due to no rolling stock
2. Train cancelled due to no staff
3. NR infrastructure failure
4. Passenger incident
5. Any others?

For 1 and 2 this is in the hands of the TOC. If they recruited more drivers (in lieu of DR repayment staff) this should help. Any Thameslink mega problems when the full timetable was introduced was surely down to insufficient staff and bad planning and should not happen.

For 3, this is outside the control of the TOC, and would affect all trains probably to the same degree - there could be a fixed sum rebate which would reduce any claim disputes.

For 4, I'm not sure the TOC should be responsible - it is out of their hands - and I'm not sure DR should apply. It is akin to being delayed on the motorway due to an accident, and car drivers receive no compensation, so why should train passengers?

So, in summary, TOCs should be incentivised to run timetabled services, which may mean employing more staff. They should be fined by the DfT if they fail to meet these standards by a sum which exceeds the cost of employing more staff. In this way we eliminate these delays, and provide an improved train service and therefore DR is not required.

 

[AlterEgo]

Re your last para l agree except of course that means that you de facto get no compensation for any problems which arise during the validity of your last season ticket.

That's fine by me. The discount was upon renewal/repurchase, which is no different really to many customer service resolutions you'd find in any other industry. I don't really see what makes the railway special; it almost never competes against other transport operators (and where it does, those operators, like buses and trams, don't offer compensation like Delay Repay!), only the private car, whose use is being increasingly discouraged financially.

There isn't a compelling reason other than politics for Delay Repay to exist.

So, in summary, TOCs should be incentivised to run timetabled services, which may mean employing more staff. They should be fined by the DfT if they fail to meet these standards by a sum which exceeds the cost of employing more staff. In this way we eliminate these delays, and provide an improved train service and therefore DR is not required.

Much better and more sensible IMO.

 

[Haywain]

They should be fined by the DfT if they fail to meet these standards by a sum which exceeds the cost of employing more staff.

So, in the current situation and that which applied to many TOCs already, the DfT should effectively fine itself?

 

[Deafdoggie]

TOCs should be incentivised to run timetabled services,

All they would do is slash the timetable to provide what they knew they could. This doesn't help passengers

 

[robbeech]

I'm not sure the private car is being discouraged financially compared to the train. My running costs have risen each year at less than the average ticket price increase, and that is before you look into the various stealth increases that happen. Each time I replace a vehicle, the new one costs comparatively similar to the last, and its fuel consumption is generally the same or in most cases better.

Removing passenger's rights for frequent users is a stealth price increase, you get less value for your money. Removing delay repay means it costs passengers more each year, and those affected the most by poor service (regardless of reason) are the ones that are in effect the worst hit by this.
You also remove much of the incentive to improve the service.

Crucially it is about a change in value, right or wrong, we currently have what we have, and changing that alters the value of the product and service you buy.

 

[Wolfie]

All they would do is slash the timetable to provide what they knew they could. This doesn't help passengers

To below franchise commitments? There are financial penalties for that too....

 

[MotCO]

So, in the current situation and that which applied to many TOCs already, the DfT should effectively fine itself?

No, because hopefully they would employ more staff to reduce the delays since this would be a cheaper option.

 

[skyhigh]

Re your last para l agree except of course that means that you de facto get no compensation for any problems which arise during the validity of your last season ticket.

How about if you chose not to renew your season ticket, you got the same value in Rail Travel Vouchers that you would have got as a discount off the next season?

 

[AlterEgo]

The idea that Delay Repay is an incentive to improve the service is fanciful, and recurring one on the forum which is generally divorced from how things actually work.

Schedule 4 and 8 payments and the delay attribution cottage industry are infinitely more important.

Some TOCs will end up paying far more through intra-industry arrangements in one or two massive at fault Code Red incidents than the entire Delay Repay budget for the year.

 

[Wolfie]

How about if you chose not to renew your season ticket, you got the same value in Rail Travel Vouchers that you would have got as a discount off the next season?

Now that would be fair. Keeps the money in the railway too.

 

[35B]

You’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s not a competitive market, because you’ve chosen to live far away from your place of work so there is only one realistic option; a natural monopoly for many people. And, I’m going to assume, if you’re brutally honest about it, delay repay doesn’t make a huge difference to your choice of transport to work?

Season ticket discounts upon renewal were a much better and more sensible way of being compensated for people who chose to keep travelling by train for this purpose rather than the Kafka-esque notion you have to log all your delays and claim for each individual one, even as low as 15 minutes.

Those discounts assume that the traveller was content to be recompensed in arrears, based on a view of the service as a whole and without reference to their personal experience. In my 25 years in the working population, I have rarely been in a position to have an annual season ticket, and have generally either used standard returns, or weekly and monthly seasons, often held discontinuously. My experience - which I accept is not entirely typical - is that DR is a far fairer method of compensating me for the inconvenience I have suffered than a system that relied upon my spending more with the retailer in order to be compensated for their previous failures.

The idea that Delay Repay is an incentive to improve the service is fanciful, and recurring one on the forum which is generally divorced from how things actually work.

Schedule 4 and 8 payments and the delay attribution cottage industry are infinitely more important.

Some TOCs will end up paying far more through intra-industry arrangements in one or two massive at fault Code Red incidents than the entire Delay Repay budget for the year.

Speaking from experience in another sector, a service credit based model (which is what DR is) will have that issue - is effective in driving improved behaviour when introduced and when the level of payout changes markedly. It is also something that has value to a company when considering the business case for making changes, and puts costs on something that will worsen the service customers experience.

I would not remove DR, believe it's important, but agree that it isn't some magic bullet that will make things magically better.

Now that would be fair. Keeps the money in the railway too.

That's completely the wrong approach - it suits a company to keep money within the fold, but that may well be completely against the customer's interest. To the extent (see above) that DR has a value in driving behaviour, it is having to pay money out that will make the difference, not internal wooden dollars.

 

[SteveM70]

Those discounts assume that the traveller was content to be recompensed in arrears, based on a view of the service as a whole and without reference to their personal experience.

This

The system is weighted heavily in favour of the TOC, where peak time trains (and therefore a greater proportion of customers) generally perform worse, but service quality is measured as an average across all services.

 

[AlterEgo]

Those discounts assume that the traveller was content to be recompensed in arrears, based on a view of the service as a whole and without reference to their personal experience.

If we are being hard-hearted, it doesn't matter whether the traveller was happy to not because there isn't a scrap of evidence this affects passengers' decision to use the train.

Speaking from experience in another sector, a service credit based model (which is what DR is) will have that issue - is effective in driving improved behaviour when introduced and when the level of payout changes markedly.

I really cannot stress enough how little Delay Repay matters to decisions about service improvement. The cost of compensation is a pittance, the cost of administration large, and minds are only focused on delay attribution and reducing the minutes attributed to self. I worked in Control for two years and never, ever witness any decision made based on the fact Delay Repay might be liable.

It just doesn't work like that.

It is also something that has value to a company when considering the business case for making changes, and puts costs on something that will worsen the service customers experience.

I would not remove DR, believe it's important, but agree that it isn't some magic bullet that will make things magically better.

It's been around in some form or another since privatisation and hasn't made the tiniest bit of difference to the passenger experience.

At present, we have the most onerous system possible for season ticket holders. First, that every time they are delayed they must take the time to claim, and secondly, that each claim is minuscule by comparison yet has to be administered by someone, somewhere, who must adjudicate all the claims.

 

[TPO]

I am not involved in any dispute with GA. My point about asking what the Consumers Association view would be of this was not to inflame any potential situation but simply how they would view it. I would be surprised if this has not been brought to their attention given the number of letters that appear to have been sent.

As you say Tazi one has to wonder if the integrity of the DR scheme is at risk given the events discussed in this thread. Fraud can never be condoned but questions have to be asked such as: (1) does the scheme as it is currently operated encourage fraud (2) do those making claims fully appreciate the exact terms under which claims can be made.

The experiences outlined in a number of postings suggest to me that there are issues with what are differences of opinion as to what passengers see as sensible behaviour (e.g. checking a train remotely, finding it is delayed and as a result going to the pub for 30 minutes) and what GA sees as what it expects of passengers to establish they were indeed genuinely delayed ie actually turning up at the station.

My point about whether Travelwatch or the Rail Ombudsman would have a different view was precisely because of their close links to the industry. It has sometimes been suggested (though I cant remember where I read this) that Ombudsmen have not always viewed things with an impartial view because they are "too close" to the trade.

On the subject of bodies having close links to the rail industry.

If these matters had to go through the "normal" County Police forces rather than BTP (which is funded by the industry through a levy), one wonders if the local county police would actually be giving this the level of attention that BTP appear to have been? Should the question also be asked about whether the railway police are too close to this to be investigating in a proportionate manner (when compared for example to stuff like "county lines" drug dealing and the general criminality that the local county police force deals with but which BTP had possibly much less of to deal with when fewer people were travelling on trains due to COVID)?

Do the BTP have an elected Commissioner the way other Police forces do? If so, perhaps this would be a good place to raise questions about their priorities in tackling crime and how such priorities are set. The county police forces clearly serve the public- hence the role of elected commissioners; but whom do the BTP serve- "the railway"? Is "the railway" defined as the companies that run it or the passengers that use it? There's a logical train of thought that says the BTP are there to protect the railway companies (rather than the public), and if so surely this should be a topic of wider public debate as it's a rather different remit to that of other police forces which are there to serve all of us.

Note: I've never travelled on a GA train, so I've no involvement in the specific situation that triggered the debate.

TPO

 

[43096]

If we are being hard-hearted, it doesn't matter whether the traveller was happy to not because there isn't a scrap of evidence this affects passengers' decision to use the train.

That may well have been the case previously (and the railway’s general contempt for its customers is blatantly obvious). Post pandemic many commuters will have a choice: commute of work from home to varying degrees. Quality of service becomes very important then if they want people travelling 2 or 3 days rather than 1 or 2.

 

[AlterEgo]

That may well have been the case previously (and the railway’s general contempt for its customers is blatantly obvious). Post pandemic many commuters will have a choice: commute of work from home to varying degrees. Quality of service becomes very important then if they want people travelling 2 or 3 days rather than 1 or 2.

There isn't an argument here about quality of service.

Delay Repay matters on this forum because there's a survivorship bias; this is a self-selecting forum of nerds and wonks of varying types and we all know how best to exercise our rights, and to a certain extent, game the system. Our opinions are therefore often out of line with normies. Elsewhere on the forum, you'll find people bemoaning - when it suits them to score a point - the fact that "hardly anyone actually bothers to claim Delay Repay" and statistics do indeed that show the vast majority of what's due simply lies unclaimed.

So, we can choose. Would we rather have an imperfect system where all passengers - not just the highly engaged ones - are given some form of flat rate compensation, which is almost impossible to game? Or would we rather have a policy which has been shown to indirectly exclude time-poor, less engaged passengers from compensation so that those who care the most can extract a higher level of compensation, but which leaves the railway vulnerable to fraud and abuse?

Quality of service matters very much to people in a post-COVID world, but the things that will get people back on trains are price, convenience, and ease of getting a seat. Delay Repay is very far down the list of the priorities of more normal passengers.

 

[guilbert]

How about if you chose not to renew your season ticket, you got the same value in Rail Travel Vouchers that you would have got as a discount off the next season?

They used to do this for delay repay - it was a complete PITA because they could only used at a manned ticket office. I always had a pile of them for about £3 each I had to try to remember to find a use for before they expired. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a cash refund (ie BACS transfer) and it's probably easier for everyone. I agree though that the delay replay model doesn't really work for regular minor delays - it's more suited to one-off larger delays.

On the subject of bodies having close links to the rail industry.

If these matters had to go through the "normal" County Police forces rather than BTP (which is funded by the industry through a levy), one wonders if the local county police would actually be giving this the level of attention that BTP appear to have been? Should the question also be asked about whether the railway police are too close to this to be investigating in a proportionate manner (when compared for example to stuff like "county lines" drug dealing and the general criminality that the local county police force deals with but which BTP had possibly much less of to deal with when fewer people were travelling on trains due to COVID)?

Do the BTP have an elected Commissioner the way other Police forces do? If so, perhaps this would be a good place to raise questions about their priorities in tackling crime and how such priorities are set. The county police forces clearly serve the public- hence the role of elected commissioners; but whom do the BTP serve- "the railway"? Is "the railway" defined as the companies that run it or the passengers that use it? There's a logical train of thought that says the BTP are there to protect the railway companies (rather than the public), and if so surely this should be a topic of wider public debate as it's a rather different remit to that of other police forces which are there to serve all of us.

Note: I've never travelled on a GA train, so I've no involvement in the specific situation that triggered the debate.

TPO

It's hard to imagine the "normal" (territorial) police putting much effort investigating an alledged fraud for a few pounds that happened over a year ago. The TOCs have representatives on the BTP authority but don't have any power to directly set objectives. They do have a service agreement with the BTP though. Territorial forces do charge for covering things like football matches but I don't think you can pay to get complaints you make given higher priority.

 

[43096]

There isn't an argument here about quality of service.

Delay Repay matters on this forum because there's a survivorship bias; this is a self-selecting forum of nerds and wonks of varying types and we all know how best to exercise our rights, and to a certain extent, game the system. Our opinions are therefore often out of line with normies. Elsewhere on the forum, you'll find people bemoaning - when it suits them to score a point - the fact that "hardly anyone actually bothers to claim Delay Repay" and statistics do indeed that show the vast majority of what's due simply lies unclaimed.

I think you need to be clear as to what you mean by "gaming the system". That sounds very like you might be making accusations.

So, we can choose. Would we rather have an imperfect system where all passengers - not just the highly engaged ones - are given some form of flat rate compensation, which is almost impossible to game? Or would we rather have a policy which has been shown to indirectly exclude time-poor, less engaged passengers from compensation so that those who care the most can extract a higher level of compensation, but which leaves the railway vulnerable to fraud and abuse?

So how do you do that with people who are not engaged?

Quality of service matters very much to people in a post-COVID world, but the things that will get people back on trains are price, convenience, and ease of getting a seat. Delay Repay is very far down the list of the priorities of more normal passengers.

Agreed, but if I'm commuting and getting a s*** service, then if I'm not compensated for said lack of service, it plays a (however minor) part in their buying habits.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you need to be clear as to what you mean by "gaming the system". That sounds very like you might be making accusations.

Gaming the system isn’t the same as committing wrongdoing.

So how do you do that with people who are not engaged?

Do what exactly?

Agreed, but if I'm commuting and getting a s*** service, then if I'm not compensated for said lack of service, it plays a (however minor) part in their buying habits.

If *you* are, maybe. But there is no appreciable link I’ve ever seen between passenger satisfaction and delay compensation. It’s an extremely low priority for almost everyone.

 

[43096]

Gaming the system isn’t the same as committing wrongdoing.

How about answering the question? What exactly do you mean by "gaming the system"?

Do what exactly?

Get compensation to passengers who don't currently claim it. Have the guard walk down the train with tenners, handing them out?

If *you* are, maybe. But there is no appreciable link I’ve ever seen between passenger satisfaction and delay compensation. It’s an extremely low priority for almost everyone.

Hence my comment about "(however minor)". It is an established fact that businesses can recover reputation lost from poor service by the way they react to it. Obviously the railway comes from a really poor starting position as it needs to understand the concept that it actually has customers.

 

[AlterEgo]

How about answering the question? What exactly do you mean by "gaming the system"?

Just as with any complex system involving fares, there are numerous ways to game the system in an honest and perfectly legal manner based on the ticket/s held. I’m not going to outline all the (not especially imaginative, tbh) strategies one can use to increase a TOC’s liability to a passenger, for the same reason you don’t find all the juicy mistake fares and loopholes in the public forum either.

Get compensation to passengers who don't currently claim it. Have the guard walk down the train with tenners, handing them out?

There’s already instant Delay Repay for some simpler itineraries, but I already outlined - for season tickets - exactly how to compensate passengers who aren’t engaged enough to claim. You simply offer them a discount upon renewal (or vouchers, as another poster helpfully suggested, if they don’t renew).

As it is, there are people who are perfectly happy with the current setup because they benefit from it, because they are engaged enough and keen enough to keep claiming when they are so entitled. But most people aren’t. They just want to get home, and I argue the system should on balance be fairer to them - the majority - which at the same time would allay the current level of fraud with season ticket delay repay schemes.

Hence my comment about "(however minor)". It is an established fact that businesses can recover reputation lost from poor service by the way they react to it. Obviously the railway comes from a really poor starting position as it needs to understand the concept that it actually has customers.

Season ticket holders’ overwhelmingly negative perception of commuter TOCs doesn’t affect their bottom line, I’m afraid. It’s a captive market.

 

[43096]

There’s already instant Delay Repay for some simpler itineraries, but I already outlined - for season tickets - exactly how to compensate passengers who aren’t engaged enough to claim. You simply offer them a discount upon renewal (or vouchers, as another poster helpfully suggested, if they don’t renew).

Ironically enough that used to be the case on the TOC that I formerly had a season ticket with (until the pandemic started), until the franchise changed when it went to claim every journey, once the new franchisee bothered to tell us about it. Given what you've said, am I being too cynical if I was to say that the change (driven by DfT, no doubt) was intended to cut delays payments to the punters while being dressed up as an improvement for them?

As it is, there are people who are perfectly happy with the current setup because they benefit from it, because they are engaged enough and keen enough to keep claiming when they are so entitled. But most people aren’t. They just want to get home, and I argue the system should on balance be fairer to them - the majority - which at the same time would allay the current level of fraud with season ticket delay repay schemes.

TBH, I always thought the discount system was reasonably fair - it basically tallied with my recollection of below par service.

Season ticket holders’ overwhelmingly negative perception of commuter TOCs doesn’t affect their bottom line, I’m afraid. It’s a captive market.

Basically, it's a monopoly and arguably should be regulated as such. It's a bizarre situation where the TOCs take for granted their most loyal customers - it's not unique, however (thinking of things like insurance where the discounts go to new customers). My negative perception of the TOC (SWR) I had a season with has come from day one when they failed to tell us of the change from discount on renewal to Delay Repay, and only found at next renewal. At least under Stagecoach they did give some hint of recognition of annual season ticket holders by sending us free "anywhere on SWT" tickets (effectively SWT day ranger) every year - doesn't cost them anything and is at least a recognition of your business.

 

[robbeech]

There are many ‘systems’ within the railway that are setup or adjusted with the illusion that it will be better for all passengers, but in reality it is indifferent for some and worse, sometimes considerably for others. That said I do agree that many users of this forum are not typical railway users so they have different requirements of the railway and may not benefit or lose in the same way. They also represent a tiny portion of rail users.

People seem to think that a series of organisations that exist for the sole purpose of making profit will voluntarily entertain ideas that reduce that profit. Businesses that take that stance frequently fail unless they can offer something else in exchange, which in this case they cannot do, as there’s little to no way to improve the service level by such a margin to compensate for any change in fares structure or delay repay scheme.

 

[35B]

If we are being hard-hearted, it doesn't matter whether the traveller was happy to not because there isn't a scrap of evidence this affects passengers' decision to use the train.


I really cannot stress enough how little Delay Repay matters to decisions about service improvement. The cost of compensation is a pittance, the cost of administration large, and minds are only focused on delay attribution and reducing the minutes attributed to self. I worked in Control for two years and never, ever witness any decision made based on the fact Delay Repay might be liable.

It just doesn't work like that.


It's been around in some form or another since privatisation and hasn't made the tiniest bit of difference to the passenger experience.

At present, we have the most onerous system possible for season ticket holders. First, that every time they are delayed they must take the time to claim, and secondly, that each claim is minuscule by comparison yet has to be administered by someone, somewhere, who must adjudicate all the claims.

You worked in control, which deals with the day to day tactical issues of the railway. What were the strategic decisions being taken, and what were the drivers for those?

As for claiming individual journeys vs. compensation at renewal, I can simultaneously be suspicious of motives and find the individual system better.

But, ultimately, @43096 has it right - this is about the railway recognising that its customers are customers, and not victims to be sucked dry. I’d like Delay Repay to be an irrelevance because my trains run on time; I value it because it acknowledges that the failure to provide the journey offered has an impact on me.