Hull Trains not compensating on split tickets

[Hadders]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #14 were originally in this thread.

Hull Trains’s Delay Repay scheme is shambolic. They refuse to pay out where a valid combination of tickets is used, claiming that split tickets constitutes separate journeys.

 

[westv]

Hull Trains' scheme is pretty similar to VTEC - I think the only difference is a lack of a full refund for longer delays:
https://www.hulltrains.co.uk/customer-services

You sure? I got a 100% refund not that long ago for a 60+ minute delay.

 

[humbersidejim]

You sure? I got a 100% refund not that long ago for a 60+ minute delay.

You may well be correct, however it's not stated on the headline of their page.

 

[robbeech]

You may well be correct, however it's not stated on the headline of their page.

Perhaps you refer to them not paying 100% of a RETURN fare on a delay of 120 minutes or more. Something that would have to be paid out MOST times they cancel a service as they are 2 hourly.

Utilising the 1225 service from Doncaster also has the right calling points for traffic joining or leaving at Retford, one of the stations with very few services. Retford having 25% of VTEC services as any other station on the southern part of the VTEC network and i believe the least of all of them as far as Edinburgh (Though Dunbar is likely close)

 

[whhistle]

Hull Trains’s Delay Repay scheme is shambolic. They refuse to pay out where a valid combination of tickets is used, claiming that split tickets constitutes separate journeys.

But in the eyes of the tickets, they are separate journeys... you just took them one straight after another.

 

[Starmill]

Hull Trains’s Delay Repay scheme is shambolic. They refuse to pay out where a valid combination of tickets is used, claiming that split tickets constitutes separate journeys.

It's also not mandatory, so it could be withdrawn at any time and replaced with the compensation rules from the NRCoT - i.e only up to 50% back, and that only if delayed 60 minutes, and no compensation at all if they judge that the cause of the delay was outwith their control.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's also not mandatory, so it could be withdrawn at any time and replaced with the compensation rules from the NRCoT - i.e only up to 50% back, and that only if delayed 60 minutes, and no compensation at all if they judge that the cause of the delay was outwith their control.

Something else to keep in mind is that, whilst the compensation levels are the same, they do not call it "Delay Repay" and just refer to claiming compensation. It is very much their own scheme which just happens to work broadly in line with what has become the industry standard. Perhaps also worth nothing that Hull Trains, even if they're not compensating for journeys but for tickets, are still more generous that Grand Central!

 

[Hadders]

But in the eyes of the tickets, they are separate journeys... you just took them one straight after another.

In the eyes of the NRCoT you may use more than one ticket to make a journey.

It's also not mandatory, so it could be withdrawn at any time and replaced with the compensation rules from the NRCoT - i.e only up to 50% back, and that only if delayed 60 minutes, and no compensation at all if they judge that the cause of the delay was outwith their control.

I was using a combination of tickets for my journey. HT refuse to compensate where a combination of tickets is used., which is not acceptable in my view.

 

[robbeech]

I was using a combination of tickets for my journey. HT refuse to compensate where a combination of tickets is used.

They are wrong to do this but of course they will try to follow this procedure. This is acceptable for them the same way it is acceptable for them to leave a lone female stranded at Doncaster with no way of getting to London after cancelling their last southbound service.

 

[Starmill]

I was using a combination of tickets for my journey. HT refuse to compensate where a combination of tickets is used., which is not acceptable in my view.

In my view they have no choice but to pay out in accordance with NRCoT in this situation. It's unclear that they are required to pay out any more than that, but I do not see how they could get out of offering 50% for a delay of 60 mins or more if it were within their 'control'.

 

[Hadders]

Worse still, Transport Focus took HT’s side. It’s as though Anthony Smith (who sent the final response) sticks his fingers in his ears shouting la, la, la.

 

[IanXC]

Worse still, Transport Focus took HT’s side. It’s as though Anthony Smith (who sent the final response) sticks his fingers in his ears shouting la, la, la.

So you are unhappy that Transport Focus refused to side with you, in your demand that a set of conditions the DfT apply to franchises, which therefore do not apply to Hull Trains, was not imposed against Hull Trains?

 

[Hadders]

I am unhappy that TF refused to acknowledge that a journey made with more than one ticket (as allowed by the NRCoT which applies to Hull Trains) was eligible for delay compensation because they took HT’s view that each ticket constitutes a separate journey.

The length of delay and how much HT pay out is immaterial. It’s the fact that they refuse to pay out when a combination of tickets is used that is the issue.

 

[whhistle]

In the eyes of the NRCoT you may use more than one ticket to make a journey.

That's true.
However, the company will still view each ticket as a separate part of the journey, because that's what it is.

You can keep harping on about it, or just accept Transport Focus' ruling.
I don't see many people siding with you in this thread, sorry.

 

[Tetchytyke]

However, the company will still view each ticket as a separate part of the journey, because that's what it is.

The journey is from A to B. The NRCoT make it clear you can use a ticket from A to B, or you can use tickets A-C-D-B if you would prefer. It is still one journey. NRCoT actually makes the distinction between ticket and journey, as at condition 14.1 for example.

I wouldn't expect Hull Trains to offer compensation exceeding that set out in NRCoT, but they should offer that level of compensation.

Transport Focus' "adjudication" is, regrettably, often little more than ringing up the TOC and asking them what they reckon. TF have neither the skills nor the desire to truly stand up to TOCs. I wouldn't say TF were quite as useless as a chocolate teapot, but they're not that far short.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's fair to say there is a need for an Ombudsman with the teeth to fine TOCs for non-compliance.

 

[AlterEgo]

In the eyes of the NRCoT you may use more than one ticket to make a journey.

I sigh every time I hear someone quote this.

Could you tell us what a "journey" is, according to the NRCoT?

If I travel on way from London to Newcastle on an Advance Single ticket, how many journeys have I made? (that's an easy one)

If I travel from London to Newcastle on an Anytime Single, but spend a night in York, then the following day visit all the museums there and in the evening travel up to Newcastle, how many journeys is that?

If I travel from London to Birmingham on an Advance Single, then immediately take XC from Birmingham to Stansted on a separate Advance Single (that route as a whole would not be permitted on a through ticket), how many journeys is that?

If I am using an All Line Rover and travel from Plymouth to Birmingham, then spend the whole day covering the entire West Midlands network in a crisscross (but stopping for three hours to watch a football game and get some dinner) , then head to Stafford, how many journeys have I made?

And so on.

I agree that TOCs ought to pay out on split tickets, but I disagree that you can use the NRCoT to force them to do so.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I sigh every time I hear someone quote this.

Could you tell us what a "journey" is, according to the NRCoT?

If I travel on way from London to Newcastle on an Advance Single ticket, how many journeys have I made? (that's an easy one)

If I travel from London to Newcastle on an Anytime Single, but spend a night in York, then the following day visit all the museums there and in the evening travel up to Newcastle, how many journeys is that?

If I travel from London to Birmingham on an Advance Single, then immediately take XC from Birmingham to Stansted on a separate Advance Single (that route as a whole would not be permitted on a through ticket), how many journeys is that?

If I am using an All Line Rover and travel from Plymouth to Birmingham, then spend the whole day covering the entire West Midlands network in a crisscross (but stopping for three hours to watch a football game and get some dinner) , then head to Stafford, how many journeys have I made?

And so on.

I agree that TOCs ought to pay out on split tickets, but I disagree that you can use the NRCoT to force them to do so.

Now that "journey" is undefined, I would suggest it takes on the meaning it does in ordinary English - see the OED definition:

"An act of travelling from one place to another."

Hence I would say your journey ends at the point where, if you were delayed, it would no longer have an impact on any connecting trains you wanted to catch. Hence I would say the first is one journey, the second is two journeys, the third is one journey, the fourth is one journey up to the point you stop for football and another when you go to Stafford.

Obviously there are cases which are definitely up to interpretation, but taking the third case as an example, though it's a highly circuitous route, I don't see why it shouldn't qualify as one journey and hence DR be payable on both tickets if you are delayed by either.

 

[AlterEgo]

Now that "journey" is undefined, I would suggest it takes on the meaning it does in ordinary English - see the OED definition:

"An act of travelling from one place to another."

Hence I would say your journey ends at the point where, if you were delayed, it would no longer have an impact on any connecting trains you wanted to catch. Hence I would say the first is one journey, the second is two journeys, the third is one journey, the fourth is one journey up to the point you stop for football and another when you go to Stafford.

Obviously there are cases which are definitely up to interpretation, but taking the third case as an example, though it's a highly circuitous route, I don't see why it shouldn't qualify as one journey and hence DR be payable on both tickets if you are delayed by either.

So, essentially you define a journey here as having a purpose.

You must travel from one place to another.

I’d posit that the fundamental distinction between all those journeys is what you do when you leave the train. If you are catching another train, the first available, then there is no doubt that’s the same journey. But what if you stay entirely within the station for two hours and have lunch? Is that two journeys now? What if you spend four hours spotting trains, and being in York is actually the purpose of the first “journey”? (You wanted to be in York for a specific purpose before going to Newcastle for a separate but specific purpose?)

I agree with how you define the examples I have in terms of number of journeys, except the third - I don’t agree that track bashing trips which use itineraries not available on a through ticket in the routing guide count as a single journey. But we can split hairs.

A specific definition of journey must be defined in the next NRCoT and there must be an ombudsman to enforce it (as well as make representations!).

 

[Silverdale]

I think it's fair to say there is a need for an Ombudsman with the teeth to fine TOCs for non-compliance.

An Ombudsman doesn't issue fines or impose penalties. He/she/it investigates complaints and seeks redress, that's all.

As a boater on the inland waterways, I find the Ombudsman appointed to look at complaints about Canal River Trust and its subsidiaries no more useful than the chocolate teapot mentioned earlier. He/she/it invariably takes CRT's interpretations of the various statutes, bylaws and rules to be the correct ones. In short I wouldn't be holding out too much hope that an Ombudsman for the passenger railways would challenge a TOC's interpretation as to what constitutes a journey with respect to DelayRepay

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So, essentially you define a journey here as having a purpose.

You must travel from one place to another.

I’d posit that the fundamental distinction between all those journeys is what you do when you leave the train. If you are catching another train, the first available, then there is no doubt that’s the same journey. But what if you stay entirely within the station for two hours and have lunch? Is that two journeys now? What if you spend four hours spotting trains, and being in York is actually the purpose of the first “journey”? (You wanted to be in York for a specific purpose before going to Newcastle for a separate but specific purpose?)

I agree with how you define the examples I have in terms of number of journeys, except the third - I don’t agree that track bashing trips which use itineraries not available on a through ticket in the routing guide count as a single journey. But we can split hairs.

A specific definition of journey must be defined in the next NRCoT and there must be an ombudsman to enforce it (as well as make representations!).

Definitely agreed on NRCoT definition of journey. (I'd also like to see the minimum qualifying delay put to 30 minutes and 100% compensation for very long delays codified, as well as the 'outside rail industry's control' excuse revoked).

However - take this example, a journey which I am making this week. I shall be travelling from Birmignham to Euston, spending a short time (about an hour) in London and then continuing on back to Birmingham via Paddington and Reading. I am splitting tickets for a variety of reasons, including the savings. Yet my trip is really a track bash despite following only permitted routes. Is it all one journey? Am I due compensation on all the tickets if I am delayed?

It gets even more complicated if I then want to use my season ticket to go to Stafford at the end of that journey. Is my journey from Birmingham to Stafford via London and Reading? Or is it a late-started return journey from Stafford to London, again following permitted routes, with split single and season tickets?

 

[yorkie]

That's true.
However, the company will still view each ticket as a separate part of the journey, because that's what it is.

You may combine two or more tickets for one journey.

You can keep harping on about it, or just accept Transport Focus' ruling.
I don't see many people siding with you in this thread, sorry.

TF have not made a "ruling".

They are not carrying out their mandate on this issue, which is worrying.

 

[AlterEgo]

TF have not made a "ruling".

They are not carrying out their mandate on this issue, which is worrying.

Do we know if TF will continue to exist once this magical ombudsman is (eventually) set up?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Do we know if TF will continue to exist once this magical ombudsman is (eventually) set up?

As I understand it, the new ombudsman will be rail-only. So TF will at least still have a role in the bus and other transport markets.

 

[yorkie]

.... I shall be travelling from Birmignham ... to Stafford ....

Is it all one journey?

Potentially, though if you deem it to be a circular journey, you may be offered a shortcut to remain on time and this may not be what you want.

Am I due compensation on all the tickets if I am delayed?

...I suggest a lengthy layover is planned for at least one place when on a 'circular' journey, because at some point you may have to 'define' what your 'journey' is, and it might not be to your advantage to state your journey is [Birmingham] to [Stafford]....

However my understanding is that Hadders journey is very clearly a simple matter of a straightforward journey between two stations using a combination of tickets which should not be contentious in anyway, so anyone else's journeys that may be convoluted and potentially problematical are not relevant to this case.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I sigh every time I hear someone quote this.

Could you tell us what a "journey" is, according to the NRCoT?

In absence of specific definition, it will take it's ordinary dictionary meaning. An act of travelling from one place to another.

NRCoT clearly makes the distinction between ticket and journey by categorically stating that you may use multiple tickets to complete one journey.

Given that compensation arrangements specifically apply to journeys, as at condition 32.1, I don't see how you can argue that compensation cannot be paid on split tickets.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In absence of specific definition, it will take it's ordinary dictionary meaning. An act of travelling from one place to another.

NRCoT clearly makes the distinction between ticket and journey by categorically stating that you may use multiple tickets to complete one journey.

Given that compensation arrangements specifically apply to journeys, as at condition 32.1, I don't see how you can argue that compensation cannot be paid on split tickets.

I think the ambiguity arises when you are not just taking a through train from origin to destination. Some TOCs may question whether you are still making 'one' journey. After all, one ticket may be used to make several journeys - over the course of a month for the return portion of SORs, SVRs etc. - if you break your journey several times at intermediate stations.

 

[AlterEgo]

In absence of specific definition, it will take it's ordinary dictionary meaning. An act of travelling from one place to another.

I still don't think that's a satisfactory enough definition for the purposes of this discussion, and people on this forum may find that a court could find in the TOC's favour.

If you travel from London to York and then from York to Newcastle, changing trains from VTEC to XC at York, most of us would agree that's one journey. But what if the trains had a three hour gap between the two? In the context of travelling "from one place to another" has the passenger travelled from London to York and then York to Newcastle?

Does what the traveller gets up to in York and their rationale impact on the definition as to whether that's "travelling on a journey from London to Newcastle", or "Travelling on a journey from London to York and then from York to Newcastle"?

What if the traveller:

1) Stays on the station for the whole time, never leaving the premises, taking some photos of trains and enjoying a pint in the station Pub. They have no real business in York. The reason they have two tickets is to save money and the 3 hour break between trains saves them £100.

2) Leaves the station and visits their girlfriend, who lives in York city centre, goes shopping with her, and then returns to the station three hours later to catch the XC train?

Split tickets where the passenger does not leave the train at all are unquestionably one journey in my mind.

 

[Starmill]

I wouldn't expect Hull Trains to offer compensation exceeding that set out in NRCoT, but they should offer that level of compensation.

Exactly. This is about them offering this minimum contractual level of compensation. If they don't, it could be breach of contract. I shan't get worked up about their own compensation scheme not having as good terms as that because it's still a much better compensation scheme than (say) Chiltern or Grand Central offer.

In my view the good outcome for the passenger here would be to take the DfT's 'Delay Repay' terms and enshrine those in NRCoT, ushering out the last few remaining charter discount schemes. These are a dying breed anyway and this would make it much easier for passengers to understand their right to compensation. It would also prevent the likes of Grand Central from offering the very, very low amount that they do.

Transport Focus' "adjudication" is, regrettably, often little more than ringing up the TOC and asking them what they reckon.

I can attest to this personally from other cases they have taken on for me.

 

[AlterEgo]

I can attest to this personally from other cases they have taken on for me.

I can attest to this too, as someone on the TOC side who used to handle some of their contacts!