Is there any eligibility for a refund/delay repay if your service is changed prior to departure?

[yorkie]

Northern are wrong, as usual. This sort of behaviour is not uncommon for a train company like Northern. In any other industry I would be surprised. But I am not surprised in this case. Poor customer service is endemic at companies such as Northern.

You can refer the matter to the Rail Ombudsman

(You may also want to tweet Northern; the forum's Twitter account can back you up. This will likely achieve nothing but at least we can highlight the issue to others)

 

[Watershed]

Well an update - Northern claim they will not pay out because the outbound journey was 'not made in full by train' - due to final leg being via taxi. I would have thought the TOC is liable for the taxi fare and the delay repay if they cause the delay. Lo and behold, it is indeed in their website T&Cs, but feels very unfair...

That is an exclusion which is not stated in their Customer Promise and therefore has no legal bearing on the matter. Since they refused to organise alternative transport, you would have faced a delay of probably 8 hours or more if you had waited for the next train. Would they prefer to compensate you at the 2+ hour mark, as well as incurring the cost of a hotel for you?

Their current position appears to be rather facetious.

 

[js517]

The outward train did exist in the timetable when Hull trains sold you the tickets. Northern cancelled it between Hull and Bridlington the day after you bought the tickets. See here: Sheffield to Bridlington on 15/04/2021

 

[robbeech]

That is an exclusion which is not stated in their Customer Promise and therefore has no legal bearing on the matter. Since they refused to organise alternative transport, you would have faced a delay of probably 8 hours or more if you had waited for the next train. Would they prefer to compensate you at the 2+ hour mark, as well as incurring the cost of a hotel for you?

Their current position appears to be rather facetious.

They wouldn’t have compensated for the 2 hour mark.

Northern often only compensate you for their part of the journey as a rule (until you appeal). They’ll make a price up based on single or return tickets and offer you the compensation level on that.
For example if you were due to travel to Filey from London, using LNER or HT as far as Hull and Northern between Hull and Filey, If Northern cancelled a service and made you an hour late, they’ll often (not always) only offer you 25% of a Hull to Filey SVR / CDR. It’s incredibly wrong but it’s exactly the sort of behaviour we expect.
I’m fairly convinced the bulk of the training they get is how to fob passengers off with made up rules rather than actual training on the rules themselves. A shame they give the majority of staff (who are usually very good) a bad name.

 

[superalbs]

South Western Railway playing at this as well, but instead of denying Delay Repay, they can't be bothered to supply a taxi that allows me to finish my journey.

In the end, someone did, but it took a lot of arguing.

 

[Skymonster]

The train companies can be very slippery when it comes to this sort of thing. Case in point:

* I was travelling Advance LNER and connections (bought via the LNER website) from Glasgow Queen Street to Doncaster via Edinburgh Waverley last summer, with an itinerary and a stated departure time from Queen Street and a timed reservation from Edinburgh Waverley to Doncaster
* There was a land slip on the fast route between Glasgow and Edinburgh a few days before I travelled, but after I'd booked and got an itinerary. Scotrail subsequently removed all the Express services between Queen Street and Waverley from the timetable until the repair work was done, meaning my train from Glasgow no longer existed
* I received no notification of the changes to the Glasgow - Edinburgh services, despite having supplied my email address when buying the ticket
* I found out about the removal of the Express trains and called LNER asking to rebook my Waverley - Doncaster train. They denied that and told me I needed to leave Glasgow earlier than originally planned
* I showed up at Queen Street slightly before the time for the Express train on my itinerary, was told that train no longer existed, and was instead directed onto a slower stopper
* This slower journey meant I missed my connection to LNER at Waverley
* LNER staff at Waverley initially told me I could not go on a later train because my Advance had become invalid - they said I should have left Glasgow earlier
* When I told them I was getting on the next train come what may and would escalate the matter as high as necessary they relented and endorsed the ticket
* I arrived at Doncaster more than an hour later than booked
* Jockrail denied delay repay on the basis I should have travelled earlier from Glasgow to Edinburgh and should have checked the Express was running
* LNER denied delay repay on the basis it was ScotRail that caused the problem
* I appealed the ScotRail decision
* ScotRail said delay repay didn't apply because I was [just] under half an hour late into Edinburgh on the stopper
* I appealed the LNER decision - they again said it wasn't their problem even though I had booked through them, and told me to contact ScotRail
* I emailed ScotRail again informing them expected delay repay for the whole journey because they had caused me to miss my LNER train causing further delays and arrival at my destination was more than an hour late. I added that if I didn't receive the level of delay repay I expected I would make a complaint to Transport Focus / Rail Ombudsman
* ScotRail finally paid out for a one hour plus delay on the total value of the ticket

For what its worth I knew the Express services had been removed from the timetable, but I had matters to deal with in Glasgow that meant I could not be at Queen Street earlier than the Express train in my itinerary. So I also knew I would miss my connection at Waverley and would get to Doncaster more than an hour late. Even though I knew ahead of time that I would be over an hour late (and it really didn't matter that much to me), my delay reclaim was a matter of principle: if a TOC want to muck me about after I have booked and paid, they will get claim for delay repay. Moral of story: the train companies will make it difficult, but its worth pressing the case for delay repay even if initial attempts are rebuffed.

 

[ABB125]

Apologies for hijacking this thread but I have a query which is related to it.

Basically, can I get a refund on a ticket which I bought two minutes prior to departure, only to discover that there were delays which meant that there was no point in me travelling?

Earlier today, I discovered 37422 was due to pass through King's Norton (KNN) at 1612, so I decided to go and see it. The plan was to take the 1541 from University (UNI) (final destination Bromsgrove). This was due to arrive at KNN at 1549, so plenty of time before 37422 was due. I arrived at UNI around 1538, and bought a return to KNN (the time printed on the ticket is 1539). I went down to platform 2, only to be greeted by an announcement "we are sorry that the 1541 to Bromsgrove is delayed due to an object being found on the overhead wires. Please listen for further announcements". There was a similar announcement for the following 1551 to Redditch. Looking at a signal map, it turns out that the 1541 was still at Aston (and is still there now). After waiting for around 10 minutes, I decided it was pointless being there as there was no way I could get to KNN in time, so I went to the ticket office to ask if they could give me a refund. The answer was no (I think possibly due to the fact that I bought the ticket from a machine rather than the office), but I could apply online using the Delay Repay form.
I've gone through the form, but it doesn't appear to be suitable, as there's no "I decided not to travel" option, and there's nowhere to write a brief explanation of why I want a refund. I had a look at the refunds page on the WMR website, and it says use their online refund page... except this is for season tickets! Nevertheless, I've worked my way through the form, but again there's no option for any explanation as to why I want a refund, and I'm not sure whether they'll just accept a day return ticket.

Could someone please advise? Thanks

(The ticket cost £2.05, so whilst it's not the end of the world if I don't get a refund, it would be nice! )


EDIT: alternatively, I could just go to KNN later to see, for example, whatever ROG locomotive is heading back to Derby after taking something to Newport for scrap

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I've been looking into Delay Repay and found this letter from the Department for Transport:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/561033/response/1335955/attach/4/F0017245.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

“Some train companies (such as Northern and SWR) appear to be claiming that the franchise commitment they have made to provide Delay Repay does not, in fact, apply where the contracted itinerary as supplied at the time of purchase, is subsequently changed due to changes made to the timetable after the time of booking. If any exemptions for Delay Repay are in place, please provide details of all such exemptions”.

Your request has been considered under the FOI Act 2000. The Department for Transport (DfT) has now completed its search for the information. I can confirm that there are no exemptions to the Delay Repay Scheme. Delay Repay compensation is paid on all ticket types, whatever the cause of the delay to the service. It should be noted, however, that Delay Repay is based upon the timetable in force on the day of travel. Passengers may find that if they have booked tickets in advance of travel that services may be subject to change. In this event then passengers are entitled to claim a full refund for their ticket if they no longer wish to travel.

The DfT appear to suggest that the policy is therefore that it doesn't matter what your original itinerary is booked for, (as far as Delay Repay is concerned). However, you have other rights. My reading of their letter, is that you can either choose not to travel on the revised timetable, and obtain a full refund (presumably with no fee), OR, you accept the new timetable on the day, and lose the right to delay repay, (unless that new timetable itself is delayed).


In any event, if that is what the Government believes the policy to be, and what they have instructed their franchise holders to adopt, I don't really think the operators can be blamed. They are simply doing as they are contractually obliged to do. (If I'm reading that letter correctly).

 

[Watershed]

My reading of their letter, is that you can either choose not to travel on the revised timetable, and obtain a full refund (presumably with no fee), OR, you accept the new timetable on the day, and lose the right to delay repay, (unless that new timetable itself is delayed).

That appears to be their policy position, hence it is what various TOCs have adopted. It is debatable how enforceable that is, however there can be no question of extinguishing the right to compensation under the NRCoT minima (50% compensation for a 60+ minute delay).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That appears to be their policy position, hence it is what various TOCs have adopted. It is debatable how enforceable that is, however there can be no question of extinguishing the right to compensation under the NRCoT minima (50% compensation for a 60+ minute delay).

It appears as though the government believe the "delay" is based on the timetable on the day itself, however. E.g. not a 60+ min delay against the original itinerary.

The way I interpreted it is if you elect to still travel, you would lose the right to compensation under any scheme (as far as the government is concerned anyway) unless the timetable ON THE DAY itself was disrupted.

I can't see that an Ombudsman etc can do much about it on an individual case basis, as they are surely bound to find that the TOC is meeting their franchise conditions. Sounds like something that either needs to be resolved judicially or politically. I do think it is unfair to point the finger at the individual operators though to some extent, as it doesn't appear to be a policy of their own making, and you would assume that they are bound to follow DfT policy for matters like this.

I believe, although open to correction, that airlines operate like this. Either you can have a full refund and lose your flight/compensation, or you can accept accept a revised schedule... not my area of speciality at all though!

 

[Watershed]

It appears as though the government believe the "delay" is based on the timetable on the day itself, however. E.g. not a 60+ min delay against the original itinerary.

The way I interpreted it is if you elect to still travel, you would lose the right to compensation under any scheme (as far as the government is concerned anyway) unless the timetable ON THE DAY itself was disrupted.

I can't see that an Ombudsman etc can do much about it on an individual case basis, as they are surely bound to find that the TOC is meeting their franchise conditions. Sounds like something that either needs to be resolved judicially or politically. I do think it is unfair to point the finger at the individual operators though to some extent, as it doesn't appear to be a policy of their own making, and you would assume that they are bound to follow DfT policy for matters like this.

I believe, although open to correction, that airlines operate like this. Either you can have a full refund and lose your flight/compensation, or you can accept accept a revised schedule... not my area of speciality at all though!

That may be the government's position and likely many TOCs' position, but it is not the contractual position. The NRCoT does not contain any provision limiting compensation under its minima to delays compared to the timetable in place on the day.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

That may be the government's position and likely many TOCs' position, but it is not the contractual position. The NRCoT does not contain any provision limiting compensation under its minima to delays compared to the timetable in place on the day.

Be that as it may, this forum seems to specialise in theories! Realistically, the only way you’d “win” against a TOC in this situation is either relentless pressure or some sort of legal action.

I’d also wager that a County Court District Judge would likely side with the TOC in that a TOC would have to breach its own contract with the DfT, although there is a responsibility for the DJ of their own accord to reference the Consumer Rights Act implications. Not that I’m saying that’s the correct decision, but a DJ is not likely to override government policy easily, if indeed that argument is put forward.

I don’t think it is certain the customer would initially succeed, and may need to appeal or seek a judicial review, especially with some TOCs now being government owned.

 

[Starmill]

Be that as it may, this forum seems to specialise in theories! Realistically, the only way you’d “win” against a TOC in this situation is either relentless pressure or some sort of legal action.

I’d also wager that a County Court District Judge would likely side with the TOC in that a TOC would have to breach its own contract with the DfT, although there is a responsibility for the DJ of their own accord to reference the Consumer Rights Act implications. Not that I’m saying that’s the correct decision, but a DJ is not likely to override government policy easily, if indeed that argument is put forward.

I don’t think it is certain the customer would initially succeed, and may need to appeal or seek a judicial review, especially with some TOCs now being government owned.

I think it rather more likely, based on experience, that the company would not respond to court papers, causing the judgement to be given in the default, or alternatively for the company to offer to pay a settlement before any hearing could take place. Neither outcome would seem to give any one legal argument more or less credence.

 

[robbeech]

Indeed, it is worth far more to pay off anyone causing a fuss.

As for the DfT creating this policy and operators doing as they’re told, do we know when this came into force.

I’d say there’s a chance that operators made it up and it has just become a rule because one or more operators said so.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Apologies for hijacking this thread but I have a query which is related to it.

Basically, can I get a refund on a ticket which I bought two minutes prior to departure, only to discover that there were delays which meant that there was no point in me travelling?

You can indeed get a refund on a ticket in such circumstances, in line with Condition 30.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel.

If the train you intended to use is cancelled, delayed, or your reservation will not be honoured, and you decide not to travel, you may return the unused Ticket to the original retailer or Train Company from whom it was purchased, where you will be given a full refund with no administration fee being charged.

This Condition applies to all Tickets, including Tickets (such as Advance Tickets) that are otherwise non-refundable, and also applies if you have begun your journey but are unable to complete it due to delay or cancellations and return to your point of origin.

Sadly it's not unusual to have experiences like the one you had when attempting to claim such a refund, however.

 

[ABB125]

You can indeed get a refund on a ticket in such circumstances, in line with Condition 30.1 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel.



Sadly it's not unusual to have experiences like the one you had when attempting to claim such a refund, however.

Thanks - I thought that might be the case. However, it's probably easier if I just go on a random trip to King's Norton this evening, to use up the ticket!

 

[yorkie]

Apologies for hijacking this thread but I have a query which is related to it.

Basically, can I get a refund on a ticket which I bought two minutes prior to departure, only to discover that there were delays which meant that there was no point in me travelling?

Earlier today, I discovered 37422 was due to pass through King's Norton (KNN) at 1612, so I decided to go and see it. The plan was to take the 1541 from University (UNI) (final destination Bromsgrove). This was due to arrive at KNN at 1549, so plenty of time before 37422 was due. I arrived at UNI around 1538, and bought a return to KNN (the time printed on the ticket is 1539). I went down to platform 2, only to be greeted by an announcement "we are sorry that the 1541 to Bromsgrove is delayed due to an object being found on the overhead wires. Please listen for further announcements". There was a similar announcement for the following 1551 to Redditch. Looking at a signal map, it turns out that the 1541 was still at Aston (and is still there now). After waiting for around 10 minutes, I decided it was pointless being there as there was no way I could get to KNN in time, so I went to the ticket office to ask if they could give me a refund. The answer was no (I think possibly due to the fact that I bought the ticket from a machine rather than the office), but I could apply online using the Delay Repay form.
I've gone through the form, but it doesn't appear to be suitable, as there's no "I decided not to travel" option, and there's nowhere to write a brief explanation of why I want a refund. I had a look at the refunds page on the WMR website, and it says use their online refund page... except this is for season tickets! Nevertheless, I've worked my way through the form, but again there's no option for any explanation as to why I want a refund, and I'm not sure whether they'll just accept a day return ticket.

Could someone please advise? Thanks

(The ticket cost £2.05, so whilst it's not the end of the world if I don't get a refund, it would be nice! )


EDIT: alternatively, I could just go to KNN later to see, for example, whatever ROG locomotive is heading back to Derby after taking something to Newport for scrap

The ticket office were wrong.

While there are some good ticket offices, your experience is by no means uncommon, sadly.

I've been looking into Delay Repay and found this letter from the Department for Transport:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/561033/response/1335955/attach/4/F0017245.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

The DfT appear to suggest that the policy is therefore that it doesn't matter what your original itinerary is booked for, (as far as Delay Repay is concerned). However, you have other rights. My reading of their letter, is that you can either choose not to travel on the revised timetable, and obtain a full refund (presumably with no fee), OR, you accept the new timetable on the day, and lose the right to delay repay, (unless that new timetable itself is delayed).


In any event, if that is what the Government believes the policy to be, and what they have instructed their franchise holders to adopt, I don't really think the operators can be blamed. They are simply doing as they are contractually obliged to do. (If I'm reading that letter correctly).

The DfT are talking nonsense, as usual.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I think it rather more likely, based on experience, that the company would not respond to court papers, causing the judgement to be given in the default, or alternatively for the company to offer to pay a settlement before any hearing could take place. Neither outcome would seem to give any one legal argument more or less credence.

The ticket office were wrong.

While there are some good ticket offices, your experience is by no means uncommon, sadly.


The DfT are talking nonsense, as usual.

Be that as it may, Delay Repay appears to be a discretionary scheme controlled by DfT, as an enhancement to the contractual conditions specified in the conditions of travel (which also appears to be controlled by the DfT in any event). My understanding is that the DfT mandates that the TOCs adopt this scheme as part of a franchise award.

As far as I can tell, DfT are at liberty to set whatever Delay Repay conditions they like, so long as the minimum contractual terms within the conditions of travel are still available and not adversely impacted.

A TOC is obliged (it appears) to be bound by a franchise agreement or similar, which you would expect to align with DfT stated policy.

I'm really not sure why you say DfT are talking nonsense, when it's a scheme of their creation, and they ultimately determine whether a TOC has complied with their scheme or not. Are you saying that the response within the letter is not their policy, or that it is their policy, but you disagree with it? Or have I misunderstood how Delay Repay is controlled?

 

[Watershed]

I’d also wager that a County Court District Judge would likely side with the TOC in that a TOC would have to breach its own contract with the DfT, although there is a responsibility for the DJ of their own accord to reference the Consumer Rights Act implications. Not that I’m saying that’s the correct decision, but a DJ is not likely to override government policy easily, if indeed that argument is put forward.

You'd like to hope that a District Judge - who would typically be a solicitor or barrister - would correctly see any such suggestion as fanciful. The passenger has a contract with the TOC(s), not the DfT, so arrangements between the latter two are irrelevant as far as the passenger is concerned.

It's notable that the open access operators fall under the same NRCoT regime, even though they do not have franchises and are under no obligation to offer any additional compensation under a Passenger's Charter.

I don’t think it is certain the customer would initially succeed, and may need to appeal or seek a judicial review, especially with some TOCs now being government owned.

A judicial review would only be applicable if you wanted to do something like challenging the DfT's policy on Delay Repay (and it is highly unlikely the eligibility criteria for bringing a review would be met).

If the District Judge erred in an ordinary money claim such as it would be here, you would need to bring an appeal - normally heard by the Circuit Judge.

I'm not sure what relevance the ownership of the TOC has.

You are absolutely right as to the potential difficulty of claiming the NRCoT minimum compensation. But, if the amount at stake is more than nominal (as it could be in the OP's case), I wouldn't put anyone off trying to claim it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

You'd like to hope that a District Judge - who would typically be a solicitor or barrister - would correctly see any such suggestion as fanciful. The passenger has a contract with the TOC(s), not the DfT, so arrangements between the latter two are irrelevant as far as the passenger is concerned.

It's notable that the open access operators fall under the same NRCoT regime, even though they do not have franchises and are under no obligation to offer any additional compensation under a Passenger's Charter.


A judicial review would only be applicable if you wanted to do something like challenging the DfT's policy on Delay Repay (and it is highly unlikely the eligibility criteria for bringing a review would be met).

If the District Judge erred in an ordinary money claim such as it would be here, you would need to bring an appeal - normally heard by the Circuit Judge.

I'm not sure what relevance the ownership of the TOC has.

You are absolutely right as to the potential difficulty of claiming the NRCoT minimum compensation. But, if the amount at stake is more than nominal (as it could be in the OP's case), I wouldn't put anyone off trying to claim it.

As someone reasonably neutral, like a District Judge, and not an enthusiast etc with an encyclopaedic knowledge of rail ticketing, I don't think the DfT position is unreasonable on the face of it. It's not great customer service, but it's not "unfair". You can travel (at no extra cost) on an alternative train, or get s full fee-free refund.

You're needing to prove (as the one bringing a claim) that there was a specific contract or term which you relied upon, that made you reasonably believe that you'd be entitled to Delay Repay if your train was rescheduled, when you booked your ticket. I'm not so sure that's straightforward, even on the balance of probabilities. A (Deputy) District Judge will place great weight on DfT Policy in reaching their conclusion, primarily because it's a compelling alternative perspective (and still seems "reasonable"), and the fact that some operators seem to be complying with that policy. The TOCs defence would be that the discretionary Delay Repay scheme is controlled by the DfT who set the policy, therefore DfT policy is evidence of what the actual terms are.

I'm still very unclear what the exact terms and conditions of the delay repay scheme are. Does anyone know whether this is a schedule to a franchise agreement?

 

[Watershed]

As someone reasonably neutral, like a District Judge, and not an enthusiast etc with an encyclopaedic knowledge of rail ticketing, I don't think the DfT position is unreasonable on the face of it. It's not great customer service, but it's not "unfair". You can travel (at no extra cost) on an alternative train, or get s full fee-free refund.

You're needing to prove (as the one bringing a claim) that there was a specific contract or term which you relied upon, that made you reasonably believe that you'd be entitled to Delay Repay if your train was rescheduled, when you booked your ticket. I'm not so sure that's straightforward, even on the balance of probabilities. A (Deputy) District Judge will place great weight on DfT Policy in reaching their conclusion, primarily because it's a compelling alternative perspective (and still seems "reasonable"), and the fact that some operators seem to be complying with that policy. The TOCs defence would be that the discretionary Delay Repay scheme is controlled by the DfT who set the policy, therefore DfT policy is evidence of what the actual terms are.

I'm still very unclear what the exact terms and conditions of the delay repay scheme are. Does anyone know whether this is a schedule to a franchise agreement?

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I was referring to the minimum NRCoT entitlement - the DfT's position on Delay Repay bears no relation to that.

With Delay Repay, as you say it is more of an arguable issue.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I think we may be talking at cross purposes here. I was referring to the minimum NRCoT entitlement - the DfT's position on Delay Repay bears no relation to that.

With Delay Repay, as you say it is more of an arguable issue.

Ah, yes, agree more with you on that point. Had to look up what NRcOT was first though! Learning every day ☺️

 

[Kite159]

I've been caught out in the past when SWR/Network Rail have been late in confirming timetables which means the train I was booked on ceased to exist, terminated at Basingstoke or sent on a magical mystery tour via Staines.

 

[Starmill]

You'd like to hope that a District Judge - who would typically be a solicitor or barrister - would correctly see any such suggestion as fanciful. The passenger has a contract with the TOC(s), not the DfT, so arrangements between the latter two are irrelevant as far as the passenger is concerned.

I agree that this is the more likely view to be taken. However I would still be amazed if the company sent representation to a hearing, and they advanced the argument that their own contract with a government entity somehow took precedence over a term in a consumer contract. I would be even more amazed if a Judge were persuaded by that idea.

You're needing to prove (as the one bringing a claim) that there was a specific contract or term which you relied upon, that made you reasonably believe that you'd be entitled to Delay Repay if your train was rescheduled, when you booked your ticket. I'm not so sure that's straightforward, even on the balance of probabilities.

This really does not sound difficult. Relevant facts are very easily established by bringing copies of your tickets and booking to the court. It's indisputable that the NRCoT form a part of your contract and that the relevant provisions of consumer law apply to the dealing. You may then advance the argument that the customer charter of the company you're travelling with also forms a part of your contractual terms. These are freely available for you to read before paying for your tickets and are referred to by the NRCoT. If there is an exception in the charter, you can acknowledge that and point out that the criteria for the exception are unmet. Conclude that the company owe you the compensation bill and are refusing to pay, asking the judge to find that there's an unpaid bill due to you for the value of compensation plus interest and the fee as relevant.

It's for the company to then come back arguing that your train was in some way not cancelled, even though you paid to travel on it specially and it then did not run. No doubt they'll have no record to show the court that they or their agents gave any notice of any "rescheduling" because inevitably that hasn't happened. It's also for them to bring up what you refer to as DfT policy, and try to use that to persuade the judge with. I doubt rather that this even would be brought up, but if it were I imagine they'd struggle to be persuasive.

I'm still very unclear what the exact terms and conditions of the delay repay scheme are. Does anyone know whether this is a schedule to a franchise agreement?

Not all compensation arrangements are delay repay. They're all set out in the charter of the relevant company. Mersyrail and Chiltern Railways offer charter compensation that's more than the NRCoT level but not "Delay Repay". Grand Central and Hull Trains are similar in their policy. TfL Rail and London Overground operate a compensation policy specified by TfL called Service Delay Refund.

 

[robbeech]

Without wishing to stray too far from the delay repay / refund theme. What are people’s opinions on the obligation to fulfil 28.2 of the conditions of travel should there be a timetable change?
Particularly interested to hear opinions of those who are in favour of this setup whereby an operator can change a timetable overnight and completely ruin someone’s plans with no liability to even compensate them for their lateness. How does this relate to being stranded at the end of the day? Do we feel if no compensation is due as we are using the timetable on the day that it’s also acceptable to leave someone stranded at a station (likely far from home due to the nature of how return trips work) with no help from “The Railway”.

We know it’s already a significant risk to rely on the railway to get you home during disruption (sometimes justifiable) so is this a stealthy step towards them wiping their hands of this responsibility too?

 

[Watershed]

Without wishing to stray too far from the delay repay / refund theme. What are people’s opinions on the obligation to fulfil 28.2 of the conditions of travel should there be a timetable change?
Particularly interested to hear opinions of those who are in favour of this setup whereby an operator can change a timetable overnight and completely ruin someone’s plans with no liability to even compensate them for their lateness. How does this relate to being stranded at the end of the day? Do we feel if no compensation is due as we are using the timetable on the day that it’s also acceptable to leave someone stranded at a station (likely far from home due to the nature of how return trips work) with no help from “The Railway”.

We know it’s already a significant risk to rely on the railway to get you home during disruption (sometimes justifiable) so is this a stealthy step towards them wiping their hands of this responsibility too?

Condition 28.2 doesn't set out an exception relating to timetable changes that happen between the date of purchase and the date of travel. In fact, the NRCoT don't envisage such a situation at all.

In order to qualify for assistance in getting to your destination (or overnight accommodation), it must merely be the case that:

disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used

If you were left stranded and had to make your own arrangements, I'm sure that some TOCs might try to claim that there isn't "disruption" if they didn't actually intend to run the service in question.

But really, this condition is just restating rights which already exist under other provisions:

• by virtue of the implied terms of the contract - i.e. that the relevant TOC(s) will transport you from A to B (and if not by train then by alternative means)
• by virtue of consumer rights under the Consumer Rights Act - e.g. the requirement to provide the service with reasonable care and skill
• by virtue of EU Regulation 1371/2007 (which still applies post-Brexit, with the previous domestic exemption having finished in 2019).

It is the latter Regulation which helpfully defines delay as:

the time difference between the time the passenger was scheduled to arrive in accordance with the published timetable and the time of his or her actual or expected arrival

So here it is the "published timetable" that is relevant. Again, this could be a point of some contention, as a TOC may argue (based on industry practice) that the "published timetable" is the one in place at 10pm the night before.

However, I think that would be an unduly narrow interpretation - if a passenger books a ticket, then surely the timetable that was advertised at that point is the "published timetable". At the very least, the times of the train they have selected will have been published to them.

It's a complex subject, but the rather too often held position of "we can change the timetable whenever we want, and we're the arbiters of whether you'll get any compensation or alternative transport" is clearly untenable.

 

[superalbs]

Without wishing to stray too far from the delay repay / refund theme. What are people’s opinions on the obligation to fulfil 28.2 of the conditions of travel should there be a timetable change?
Particularly interested to hear opinions of those who are in favour of this setup whereby an operator can change a timetable overnight and completely ruin someone’s plans with no liability to even compensate them for their lateness. How does this relate to being stranded at the end of the day? Do we feel if no compensation is due as we are using the timetable on the day that it’s also acceptable to leave someone stranded at a station (likely far from home due to the nature of how return trips work) with no help from “The Railway”.

We know it’s already a significant risk to rely on the railway to get you home during disruption (sometimes justifiable) so is this a stealthy step towards them wiping their hands of this responsibility too?

That's exactly what I had to face on Tuesday, nobody was forthcoming to the idea, but eventually they relented. It was utterly pathetic to suggest they would not have to get me home.

 

[CrispyUK]

I believe, although open to correction, that airlines operate like this. Either you can have a full refund and lose your flight/compensation, or you can accept accept a revised schedule... not my area of speciality at all though!

The airlines do however get in contact with you to tell you that the flight times have changed and giving that option to cancel and refund if they are no longer suitable. This doesn’t seem to happen on the railways, leaving the onus on the passenger to run a journey planner search the night before travel to make sure the timetable hasn’t changed. I also don’t think they tell you of the need to do this, so timetable changes for many passengers will be a “nice surprise” on the day.

 

[robbeech]

The airlines do however get in contact with you to tell you that the flight times have changed and giving that option to cancel and refund if they are no longer suitable. This doesn’t seem to happen on the railways, leaving the onus on the passenger to run a journey planner search the night before travel to make sure the timetable hasn’t changed. I also don’t think they tell you of the need to do this, so timetable changes for many passengers will be a “nice surprise” on the day.

Yet it is often (not always of course) very easy to contact passengers that have bought online to tell them the time table has changed. Very very few retailers do this, and some of those that do implement it poorly despite it being fairly simple to do because there are no negative effects for them.

 

[Argyle 1980]

I was curious of this this too. Last week I travelled on the weekday 0652 Plymouth-Paddington as part of an advance single of Plymouth to Folkestone Central for £24. It's original schedule arrival into Paddington was 0959 when I booked, but this was later pushed back to 1031 (I think)
As it was part of a longer connecting journey, I only arrived 8 minutes late into Folkestone, but I wonder what the circumstances would have been for someone who had a ticket just to Paddington who obviously would have been delayed by over 30 minutes on retimed service compared to the journey they originally booked for ?