Greater Anglia First Class Refund

[Essexman]

I travelled from Norwich to Liverpool St with a GA First Class Advance ticket. Due to a set swap there was no First Class accommodation.

GA have offered a 25 percent refund which after some discussion it appears is their standard refund in these circumstances.

I believe that the difference between First and Standard Advance fares is generally more than 25 percent. I’ve looked at fares for the same train over the next ten working days and the average difference in 54 percent.

I appreciate that it will be hard to determine what the Standard Advance fare was at the time I bought my ticket but feel that 25 percent is not a fair refund for the service that I paid for but was not provided.

It is more a matter of principle as the sums are fairly small but multiplied by the number of refunds GA must have to make it seems they are unfairly gaining for the 25 percent policy.

Would it be reasonable to pursue this further with GA?

 

[gray1404]

What was the price of the advance ticket you travelled on? What was the origin and destination of the ticket? Also the date of travel please and any Railcard discounts?

Once we have this information we will be able to tell you the price of the equivalent advance ticket in standard and thus the exact amount you are entitled to by way of a refund?

 

[Watershed]

I travelled from Norwich to Liverpool St with a GA First Class Advance ticket. Due to a set swap there was no First Class accommodation.

GA have offered a 25 percent refund which after some discussion it appears is their standard refund in these circumstances.

I believe that the difference between First and Standard Advance fares is generally more than 25 percent. I’ve looked at fares for the same train over the next ten working days and the average difference in 54 percent.

I appreciate that it will be hard to determine what the Standard Advance fare was at the time I bought my ticket but feel that 25 percent is not a fair refund for the service that I paid for but was not provided.

It is more a matter of principle as the sums are fairly small but multiplied by the number of refunds GA must have to make it seems they are unfairly gaining for the 25 percent policy.

Would it be reasonable to pursue this further with GA?

As most TOCs have the same number of tiers of Advance tickets for standard and First, it's possible to work out what the "equivalent" tier of standard ticket would have been for your journey.

Greater Anglia are no exception; each of the their standard Advances have a First equivalent (e.g. OS1 = OF1). You can see a list of all Advances between Liverpool St and Norwich here (the fares are the same in either direction - I've put in from Liverpool St to avoid the Travelcard clutter).

Now of course, without having noted it at the time, there is no way of knowing what tier of standard Advance would have been available when you booked your First Advance. But generally speaking, similar tiers of Advances will tend to be available at the same time, as otherwise First would become cheaper than standard and then the situation would correct itself again. So it is a reasonable approximation for how much you "overpaid" by.

Clearly, this difference is what GA owe, which as you correctly identify is likely to be rather more than 25%. So I would push back and insist on the difference between the equivalent tiers of Advance.

 

[306024]

One morning a few months back the conductor on an up Norwich was baffled why first was so busy. Turned out the advance fare was so cheap many grabbed it. So be careful, they may reduce your 25% on appeal

 

[Essexman]

10th May
17.03 Norwich to Liverpool St
Advance first class single
Senior railcard
I paid ££33.65.

 

[skyhigh]

Clearly, this difference is what GA owe, which as you correctly identify is likely to be rather more than 25%. So I would push back and insist on the difference between the equivalent tiers of Advance

Using that method (according to my calculations) you would be due an extra £1.49 over the 25% they've offered.

 

[AlterEgo]

10th May
17.03 Norwich to Liverpool St
Advance first class single
Senior railcard
I paid ££33.65.

That is an OF5 Advance tier.

The equivalent standard Advance is OS5, costing £23.75

£9.90 is owed.

 

[Essexman]

Thanks to all for replies.
I’m not sure it’s worth pursuing for £1.49 but with the information that’s been posted it wouldn’t seem too hard for GA to refund the correct amounts rather than the set 25 percent which would seem to favour them more times than not.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks to all for replies.
I’m not sure it’s worth pursuing for £1.49 but with the information that’s been posted it wouldn’t seem too hard for GA to refund the correct amounts rather than the set 25 percent which would seem to favour them more times than not.

Unfortunately most TOCs are in the habit of short-changing passengers; this is just one example. Overcharging for tickets, wrongly refusing Delay Repay claims and charging people for new tickets (or issuing a Penalty Fare, denying travel or prosecuting) where the original ones were valid are all common practices.

The ORR and DfT have all demonstrated they have no interest whatsoever in looking into any of these issues. They seem to think that anything reported to them is simply a one-off occurrence or mistake, and have no procedures in place for auditing companies to ensure that they are doing things properly.

Even official documents such as the NRCoT cement the industry's position that passengers should be grateful they're transported at all, purporting to exclude compensation in the event of timetable changes as little as 2 hours before departure.

Across the industry, there is sadly a widespread perception that consumer law is some kind of frippery or optional extra, not an integral part of operating a law abiding business. Training given to members of staff who deal with the public is lacking in many respects.

I'm sure some apologist will soon be along to point out that some passengers also "defraud" TOCs and and that this somehow makes it all ok...

 

[Essexman]

I wrote back to GA, not asking for more money but raising a general complaint as to their policy on first class refunds when first class accommodation isn’t provided.

They appear to prefer to ignore the complaint but instead have given me an extra £10 as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Unfortunately most TOCs are in the habit of short-changing passengers; this is just one example. Overcharging for tickets, wrongly refusing Delay Repay claims and charging people for new tickets (or issuing a Penalty Fare, denying travel or prosecuting) where the original ones were valid are all common practices.

The ORR, DfT and Transport Focus have all demonstrated they have no interest whatsoever in looking into any of these issues. They seem to think that anything reported to them is simply a one-off occurrence or mistake, and have no procedures in place for auditing companies to ensure that they are doing things properly.

Even official documents such as the NRCoT cement the industry's position that passengers should be grateful they're transported at all, purporting to exclude compensation in the event of timetable changes as little as 2 hours before departure.

Across the industry, there is sadly a widespread perception that consumer law is some kind of frippery or optional extra, not an integral part of operating a law abiding business. Training given to members of staff who deal with the public is lacking in many respects.

I'm sure some apologist will soon be along to point out that some passengers also "defraud" TOCs and and that this somehow makes it all ok...

There is much that could be done to make fares simpler, which would reduce 'honest' mistakes and the far too common mis-application for rules; the current situation is indefensible but is a product as much of DfT/government unwillingness to truly work with the industry to tackle the myriad of baked-in, conflicting and confusing rules.

However, I would point out that the Delay Repay compensation scheme is one of the most generous in the world. No other transport undertaking has a scheme that not only pays out after 15 minutes, but does so regardless of the cause (even storms, Acts of God, lineside fires etc). Now that Government is directly bankrolling the railway, the costs of this scheme are coming under scrutiny, and I suspect this is one of the reasons behind the 'timetable of the day' rule being applied.

As someone who worked in the industry from before the Passenger's Charter (the BR fore-runner of Delay Repay) I think the entire scheme has evolved to represent a classic example of state-sponsored bureaucratic incompetence - it is both expensive, offers far more in comparison to comparable transport schemes and yet is the cause of angst, fraud prosecutions, and often seems to achieve the opposite of what is intended which is a) to incentivise on-time running and b) to provide some sort of meaningful gesture for severe delays. As it stands it is instead an extremely inefficient taxpayer-funded fares reduction that delights no-one. It really could only have been dreamt up by Ministers and the civil service.

 

[Watershed]

There is much that could be done to make fares simpler, which would reduce 'honest' mistakes and the far too common mis-application for rules;

Indeed. Though the mis-application of rules is not exactly helped by the inadequate training usually given to staff.

the current situation is indefensible but is a product as much of DfT/government unwillingness to truly work with the industry to tackle the myriad of baked-in, conflicting and confusing rules.

I'm sure this is a major contributor, but the industry hardly has a pro-customer stance either - witness the gnashing of teeth over ticket acceptance on the WCML and ECML, for example.

However, I would point out that the Delay Repay compensation scheme is one of the most generous in the world. No other transport undertaking has a scheme that not only pays out after 15 minutes, but does so regardless of the cause (even storms, Acts of God, lineside fires etc). Now that Government is directly bankrolling the railway, the costs of this scheme are coming under scrutiny, and I suspect this is one of the reasons behind the 'timetable of the day' rule being applied.

As someone who worked in the industry from before the Passenger's Charter (the BR fore-runner of Delay Repay) I think the entire scheme has evolved to represent a classic example of state-sponsored bureaucratic incompetence - it is both expensive, offers far more in comparison to comparable transport schemes and yet is the cause of angst, fraud prosecutions, and often seems to achieve the opposite of what is intended which is a) to incentivise on-time running and b) to provide some sort of meaningful gesture for severe delays. As it stands it is instead an extremely inefficient taxpayer-funded fares reductions that delights no-one. It really could only have been dreamt up by Ministers and the civil service.

The irony is that, as with privatisation, it probably influenced the EU to introduce passenger rights legislation enshrining an entitlement to delay compensation!

The EU entitlement is has thresholds and percentages not nearly as generous as Delay Repay, but with the change to the NRCoT (as well as TfL's much more conservative Service Delay Refund policy) there are now actually circumstances where the EU entitlement kicks in. Perhaps "Britannia Unchained" will rid itself of such red tape...

The change to the NRCoT was probably needed to clarify that engineering work and other changes can be made to the timetable, but there are currently no written constraints on the limits of these changes (c.f. Avanti removing its only pre-9am arrival into Manchester from Stoke). The fact that the industry thinks it's OK to set out, in writing, its policy that timetables can be changed without proactively notifying customers and with 2-26 hours' notice, is a prime example of everything that's wrong with the industry's attitude to customer service.

You know it's bad when flying with Ryanair offers you better rights!

 

[thedbdiboy]

The irony is that, as with privatisation, it probably influenced the EU to introduce passenger rights legislation enshrining an entitlement to delay compensation!

The EU entitlement is has thresholds and percentages not nearly as generous as Delay Repay, but with the change to the NRCoT (as well as TfL's much more conservative Service Delay Refund policy) there are now actually circumstances where the EU entitlement kicks in. Perhaps "Britannia Unchained" will rid itself of such red tape...

The change to the NRCoT was probably needed to clarify that engineering work and other changes can be made to the timetable, but there are currently no written constraints on the limits of these changes (c.f. Avanti removing its only pre-9am arrival into Manchester from Stoke). The fact that the industry thinks it's OK to set out, in writing, its policy that timetables can be changed without proactively notifying customers and with 2-26 hours' notice, is a prime example of everything that's wrong with the industry's attitude to customer service.

You know it's bad when flying with Ryanair offers you better rights!

For my sins one of my jobs was trying to triangulate the overlapping obligations of the EU Passenger Rights Obligations and the NRCoT. The EU had a mission to try and regulate both air and international/long distance rail travel. The mainland European networks were very nervous of this and lobbied hard to clip the wings of the emerging legislation; ironically in most case GB rail was already far more generous, so the complexities tended to be around things such as offering of refreshments and/or hotel accommodation, where the drafting ended up potentially imposing completely disproportionate obligations on commuter networks (due to the way their license was constructed they fell within the draft EU definition of a main line/long distance operator). By and large though, the domestic passenger rights were already way ahead of the minimum EU requirement.
My main issue with the application of these rules is that they are driven more by short term Government PR spin rather than effective and sustainable planning. So the application of ever more generous schemes was seen politically as playing well with voters because the 'spin' was that those nasty private sector operators were getting a damn good thrashing from the Minister; but this completely ignored the fact that all these obligations had to be priced into the cost of the franchise - and once COVID collapsed that model, the self same Government then tries to find ways to backtrack because they can't avoid the fact that the bill has to be paid and they are now exposed to how much the whole shebang is costing.
In terms of the bureaucratic mess, there are some similarities with the EU air passenger rights. It all looks jolly wonderful, but when a flight costs £50, a mandatory flight delay payout of 250 Euros for a 3 hour delay is a very blunt remedy - it may be appropriate for some, but for many it is like a slot machine win - random and unpredictable; with the added complexity of claiming because (unlike GB rail) there are all sorts of potential exclusions the airline will try and use.

 

[Essexman]

I agree that delay repay is far too generous and expensive, particularly for short delays or when not the railways' fault. No other public transport pays this.

However in this case I was claiming for a service that wasn't provided, so expected a refund of the difference between First & Standard. In making a complaint I wanted them to justify the unfair policy not send me more money.