How flexiable are LNR with 59 vs 60 minute delays for delay repay payouts?

[gray1404]

A recently had a journey delayed on LNR as my train was cancelled so I had to wait an hour for the next. Recent Train Times showing the arrival time on the next train into Euston 1 minute early so a 59 minute delay. Realtime Trains shows it arriving at 1/4 past the minute so a 45 second delay.

How flexible are LNR in giving the benefit of the doubt over c.1 minute for delay repay? I say this because by the time the train pulled into the platform at Euston and the doors were released it had just turned to the next minute so a full one hour delay. I was looking at the clock on my phone (which is automatic) and I made it a 60 minute delay overall for delay repay. I really don't want to have to be arguing the toss over 1 minute if possible.

Fair is fair, it the train came to a stop and doors released thus making a 59 minute delay then I'd accept that but that's not what happened. Should I go straight in and claim on the delay repay form for 60 minutes?

Thanks.

 

[Wolfie]

A recently had a journey delayed on LNR as my train was cancelled so I had to wait an hour for the next. Recent Train Times showing the arrival time on the next train into Euston 1 minute early so a 59 minute delay. Realtime Trains shows it arriving at 1/4 past the minute so a 45 second delay.

How flexible are LNR in giving the benefit of the doubt over c.1 minute for delay repay? I say this because by the time the train pulled into the platform at Euston and the doors were released it had just turned to the next minute so a full one hour delay. I was looking at the clock on my phone (which is automatic) and I made it a 60 minute delay overall for delay repay. I really don't want to have to be arguing the toss over 1 minute if possible.

Fair is fair, it the train came to a stop and doors released thus making a 59 minute delay then I'd accept that but that's not what happened. Should I go straight in and claim on the delay repay form for 60 minutes?

Thanks.

Lately LNR seem to be nickle and diming delay repay claims. They chopped one of mine from 30-59 mins to 15-29 mins with zero real explaination, even after an appeal, of why except to claim (wrongly in my view) that they are correct.

 

[gray1404]

In which case I might have to apply for delay repay as normal and hope it is paid out for a 60 minute delay. Appeal if needed with the above explanation. If still to no avail I might need to contact Customer Relations and ask them to look at it again. Thanks.

 

[Haywain]

LNR will use a single source to establish the length of delay, not look at a range of websites to see which one suits them best. If you were delayed by 60 minutes you should, obviously, claim for that but if it was 59 minutes then that is what you should claim for.

 

[gray1404]

For the avoidance of doubt, the train came to a stop at the platform and doors released 60 minutes after the time I should have arrived at Euston.

 

[deltic]

Surely it is the time of arrival and not when the doors are released is the key factor and that is what will be checked.

 

[andythebrave]

.....

 

[gray1404]

I am positive at the time the train came to a halt in the platform I was 60 minutes late. I was watching the clock on my phone at the time. That's without even accounting for the additional seconds for the doors to be released.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It will be automatically based on what whatever system they used says. But if you appeal it they might be reasonable.

I forget the exact journey, but I had a case where a delay caused me to miss a connection resulting in me arriving on the train timetabled 30 minutes later than the one I was supposed to be on. This arrived one minute early at the destination, meaning it was technically 29 minutes. However, I looked at RTT and found that all of the trains on that day were WTT scheduled to arrive one minute before the public time, so in actual fact I had arrived exactly 30 minutes later than I would have done had the connection not being missed, even though by the public timetable it was only actually 29 minutes. I appealed it with text pointing this out and saying I thought they were taking the mick (politely), and they paid the higher amount.

 

[Watershed]

The time the train stops is irrelevant. What if for some reason the opening of the doors is delayed, say because the guard is awaiting the attendance of the police to 'deal with' an unruly passenger?

It's the time that the doors open which is the arrival time as far as Delay Repay and delay compensation schemes are concerned.

Of course in most circumstances the two will be so similar as to make no difference. But where it does matter, TOCs basically have to take passengers' accounts at face value if they claim the doors weren't released until a given delay threshold had passed.

 

[100andthirty]

The arrival time is an estimate based on a) the actual time that the last track circuit before stopping at the station is occupied plus b) an estimate of how long it takes for the train to get from that location to the stopping position. At terminal stations, that estimate may or may not be borne out in reality as they have to go slowly to avoid being tripped on the 10mph TPWS loops. Then there needs to be an allowance for the LNWR door release process which involves the guard having to open their door and check the train is berthed in the right place before releasing the doors. Thus, if RTT says 59 minutes it's perfectly reasonable that it might have been a bit later.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's the time that the doors open which is the arrival time as far as Delay Repay and delay compensation schemes are concerned.

...in your opinion. It's not written anywhere and you're relying on the TOC to be reasonable.

 

[Watershed]

...in your opinion. It's not written anywhere and you're relying on the TOC to be reasonable.

No, it's not written anywhere, but consider the example I gave above. If the doors are kept shut for 10 minutes awaiting the attendance of the police, or as might be more common, for a few minutes whilst coupling up to another unit - nobody could reasonably claim the train "arrived" when the wheels first stopped. The train might as well be held outside the station as far as the passenger is concerned.

I am sure that a judge would take a similar view if someone took the TOC to court over a rejected claim. There is relevant jurisprudence as respects EU261 compensation (the moment the doors open is what matters, not when the aircraft stops), and I see no reason why this would be seen any differently.

TOCs could of course play hardball if they really wanted to. They could reject every single Delay Delay claim, and force passengers to take them to Court - but they're not in the habit of doing so, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.

 

[AlterEgo]

No, it's not written anywhere, but consider the example I gave above. If the doors are kept shut for 10 minutes awaiting the attendance of the police, or as might be more common, for a few minutes whilst coupling up to another unit - nobody could reasonably claim the train "arrived" when the wheels first stopped.

I am quite certain that a judge would take a similar view if someone took the TOC to court over a rejected claim. There is similar jurisprudence as respects EU261 compensation (the moment the doors open is what matters, not when the aircraft stops), and I see no reason why this would be seen any differently.

TOCs could of course play hardball if they really wanted to. They could reject every single Delay Delay claim, and force passengers to take them to Court - but they're not in the habit of doing so, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up.

Equally I'm not sure why you are bringing up your own personal speculation (not noted in Delay Repay conditions or the NRCoT anywhere) of determining what constitutes an arrival when received wisdom is that TOCs simply go by the train running data.

Unlike aircraft door opening times, train door openings are not recordable data against punctuality measures, and your edge-case example doesn't satisfy me that a judge would consider the five seconds between wheel-stop and door-opening that is the case 99.9% of the time would be of material consequence.

 

[Wolfie]

No, it's not written anywhere, but consider the example I gave above. If the doors are kept shut for 10 minutes awaiting the attendance of the police, or as might be more common, for a few minutes whilst coupling up to another unit - nobody could reasonably claim the train "arrived" when the wheels first stopped. The train might as well be held outside the station as far as the passenger is concerned.

I am quite certain that a judge would take a similar view if someone took the TOC to court over a rejected claim. There is similar jurisprudence as respects EU261 compensation (the moment the doors open is what matters, not when the aircraft stops), and I see no reason why this would be seen any differently.

TOCs could of course play hardball if they really wanted to. They could reject every single Delay Delay claim, and force passengers to take them to Court - but they're not in the habit of doing so, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.

Re your last para they could indeed. However, there would be two consequences in England and Wales (probably similar in Scotland but l'm not familiar with that system):
1. Given that the Civil Procedures and Rules state that going to Court should be a last resort the TOCs would soon attract very unwelcome attention from the judiciary (the Lord Chief Justice most likely), the Secretary of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor and likely soon afterwards the Secretary of State for Transport.

2. They would incur legal costs for every single case which would, given that litigants in person get to pick the Court venue that suits them, would be at County Courts all over England and Wales.

 

[Watershed]

Equally I'm not sure why you are bringing up your own personal speculation (not noted in Delay Repay conditions or the NRCoT anywhere) of determining what constitutes an arrival when received wisdom is that TOCs simply go by the train running data.

Unlike aircraft door opening times, train door openings are not recordable data against punctuality measures, and your edge-case example doesn't satisfy me that a judge would consider the five seconds between wheel-stop and door-opening that is the case 99.9% of the time would be of material consequence.

In most cases as you say, the difference is so small that it makes no difference. But where it does mean that a threshold is exceeded, it can't be ignored. Again the EU261 precedent is relevant.

 

[AlterEgo]

In most cases as you say, the difference is so small that it makes no difference. But where it does mean that a threshold is exceeded, it can't be ignored. Again the EU261 precedent is relevant.

I hate to do this, but why is it relevant and why can’t it be ignored?

 

[island]

I agree with Watershed that, were a case such as this to reach court, the case law establishing that the length of delay suffered on a flight is measured until the doors open would be persuasive in an attempt to convince a court to come to the same conclusion with respect to a train journey. If I am on a train and cannot get off at the time at which I have contracted to arrive, it matters not a jot whether I am in the middle of nowhere, a mile short of the destination, or on the platform with the doors locked. Delay compensation is compensation for the passenger‘s lost time, and I lose time if I am on a train from which I cannot alight.

Whether a theoretical claimant can prove the exact time of the doors being released is of course another matter.

 

[Wolfie]

I agree with Watershed that, were a case such as this to reach court, the case law establishing that the length of delay suffered on a flight is measured until the doors open would be persuasive in an attempt to convince a court to come to the same conclusion with respect to a train journey. If I am on a train and cannot get off at the time at which I have contracted to arrive, it matters not a jot whether I am in the middle of nowhere, a mile short of the destination, or on the platform with the doors locked. Delay compensation is compensation for the passenger‘s lost time, and I lose time if I am on a train from which I cannot alight.

Whether a theoretical claimant can prove the exact time of the doors being released is of course another matter.

Measured.

 

[Super Hans]

RTTI is essentially a TOCs proof, it's publicly available info. I really think if you're going to go against that you should be providing your own proof, like a video of you getting off the train and pointing directly up to the departure board.

Otherwise it's just your word against theirs, and they have what they consider to be proof.