Northern Rail refusal to compensate on multi-modal tickets

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,383
Location
Yorkshire
https://www.parliament.uk/business/...s/written-question/Commons/2018-03-15/132871/
It is the view of the Department for Transport that Delay Repay does apply to multi-modal tickets, such as Metro Cards:
Joseph Johnson said:
The Government introduced the Delay Repay scheme whereby rail passengers are entitled to compensation if a delay to their train journey means that they are late in reaching their destination by 30 minutes or more. This applies to all ticket types.

The practical arrangements for implementing this policy, including in relation to multi-modal products, are a matter for the train operating companies.

Delay Repay should be paid on the rail element of multi-modal tickets.
I understand Northern Rail are still refusing to comply with this.

Has anyone on here had a recent claim refused? Have you tried making a claim through Small Claims Court? What did Transport Focus say?

Another option could be to keep a log of all rejected claims and make a Section 75 claim from your card issuer (if you purchased a Metro Card costing more than £100, such as an annual ticket, with a personal credit card)

Anyone in the media interested in covering this story? I am happy to help...
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
14,811
Location
Manchester
The company have said for some time that Railpass tickets are not eligible for compensation on strike days under the Delay Repay scheme because they're "issued on behalf of a PTE".

This is despite the fact that, as the name suggests, they aren't even multi-modal!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
53,340
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
What is quite interesting is that the London and South East TOCs (well, Southern, LM as was and LNR as is now) do cough up on Travelcards, and not only that but on the rather favourable-to-the-passenger interpretation that the ticket is only used for a simple return journey. So you could ride round the Zones all day, but if your train home was 2 hours late you'd still get the whole outboundary Travelcard fare back.

It is no great surprise that Northern are taking the mick, though, as is their wont.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
From the MCard site:

The West Yorkshire Ticketing Company Limited (WYTCL) apologises to all MCard customers who have been inconvenienced by the travel disruptions caused by the May timetable service changes and industrial action this year. We are liaising with our partners to improve service delivery and our Customer Services team at the West Yorkshire Combined Authority has replied to customers queries relating to reimbursement for affected rail journeys.

While Delay Repay is not part of MCards General Terms and Conditions, a special compensation scheme, which rail companies Northern and TransPennine Express have agreed with the government, is now in place for passengers who have been affected or severely delayed by the introduction of new rail timetables.

Compensation is currently available for all rail customers with season bus & rail MCard tickets, travelling from all stations on the routes specified below in or through West Yorkshire between 1 April and 30 June 2018.

If your journeys on the following services have been affected during this time, you can make a claim directly with the rail operator.

Northern

  • Leeds to York via Cross Gates
  • Leeds to Selby
  • Leeds to Nottingham via Barnsley
  • Manchester Victoria to Bradford/Leeds via Huddersfield and Halifax
  • Manchester Victoria to Leeds via Rochdale
Find out more and submit a claim online with Northern.

TransPennine Express

  • Liverpool to Scarborough
  • Liverpool to Newcastle
  • Manchester Airport – Middlesbrough
  • Manchester Piccadilly – Hull
  • Manchester Piccadilly – Leeds
Find out more and submit a claim online with TransPennine Express.

Should you have any additional queries regarding compensation for rail journeys, we urge you to contact the rail operator directly. Other enquiries should be sent to our Customer Service team.
https://www.m-card.co.uk/faqs/

As a user of an MCard I have long been aware that Metro, as the owner of the product, make it clear that MCards are not covered by the normal Delay Repay scheme. Now whether this is morally and/or legally right is under debate and untested. I would certainly be interested to know if it should be, but as a product not owned by a TOC and without Delay Repay negociated as part of this I would be suprised if this could easily be reversed, at least without a substantial cost to it's users.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,063
The terms of the M Card are in themselves inconsistent.

They say that Delay Repay does not apply "because" it is a multi modal ticket, which is a non-sequitor. There will only very rarely be an alternative means of public transport covered by an M Card that will enable any delay caused by a train cancellation to be mitigated. So what relevance the fact that it is a multi modal product has, is beyond me.

Furthermore, it states that passengers are still eligible for compensation under the relevant operators' Passenger's Charters. Delay compensation is set out in these very charters, so how exactly does that not totally contradict the previous statement then?!

And furthermore, are they seriously suggesting that travel on National Rail services on an M Card is not subject to the NRCoT? Because if it is, as seems almost certain to be the case, then surely NRCoT 33 means that passengers are indeed entitled to compensation, as, unlike some other terms (e.g. 14.3), there is no means for excluding certain tickets from being eligible for compensation.

The fact that the terms purport to exclude an M Card from compensation also does not exempt the M Card from the implied term that the service will be performed with reasonable care and skill. For delays within the control of the rail industry, that may well mean that term is breached. For a breach of that implied term, the consumer is entitled to a price reduction, aka a partial refund. Is that not analogous to delay compensation? I would say so; it means that there is already an automatic scheme for delay compensation where the delay is within the rail industry's control. So like the old Passenger's Charter arrangements that some TOCs (most notably GWR) still use.

Overall, it is far from obvious that the M Card terms succeed in excluding it from compensation. I don't think it is possible at all, really, in the context of a ticket valid on National Rail services, and in the context of a ticket bought by a consumer (as opposed to a business).
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
The terms of the M Card are in themselves inconsistent.

They say that Delay Repay does not apply "because" it is a multi modal ticket, which is a non-sequitor. There will only very rarely be an alternative means of public transport covered by an M Card that will enable any delay caused by a train cancellation to be mitigated. So what relevance the fact that it is a multi modal product has, is beyond me.

Furthermore, it states that passengers are still eligible for compensation under the relevant operators' Passenger's Charters. Delay compensation is set out in these very charters, so how exactly does that not totally contradict the previous statement then?!

And furthermore, are they seriously suggesting that travel on National Rail services on an M Card is not subject to the NRCoT? Because if it is, as seems almost certain to be the case, then surely NRCoT 33 means that passengers are indeed entitled to compensation, as, unlike some other terms (e.g. 14.3), there is no means for excluding certain tickets from being eligible for compensation.

The fact that the terms purport to exclude an M Card from compensation also does not exempt the M Card from the implied term that the service will be performed with reasonable care and skill. For delays within the control of the rail industry, that may well mean that term is breached. For a breach of that implied term, the consumer is entitled to a price reduction, aka a partial refund. Is that not analogous to delay compensation? I would say so; it means that there is already an automatic scheme for delay compensation where the delay is within the rail industry's control. So like the old Passenger's Charter arrangements that some TOCs (most notably GWR) still use.

Overall, it is far from obvious that the M Card terms succeed in excluding it from compensation. I don't think it is possible at all, really, in the context of a ticket valid on National Rail services, and in the context of a ticket bought by a consumer (as opposed to a business).
Indeed. I would also question, given all that you have set out, if the T&Cs which purport to exclude the product from Delay Relay themselves breach the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the latest legislation which addresses unfair terms and conditions of contract). If a Court is asked to decide it could get very expensive very fast for WYTCL...
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
48,383
Location
Yorkshire
From the MCard site:

https://www.m-card.co.uk/faqs/

As a user of an MCard I have long been aware that Metro, as the owner of the product, make it clear that MCards are not covered by the normal Delay Repay scheme
The existence of an infair/illegal term doesn't override the legal and contractual position!

Train companies are required to comply with the terms of their franchise agreements, relevant legislation and agreements.

You are looking at it from the wrong way around; the suggestion that an unfair term negates the legal and contractual position is absurd.

. Now whether this is morally and/or legally right is under debate and untested.
See my post above! There is no debate about these facts.
... as a product not owned by a TOC and without Delay Repay negociated as part of this ....
It is irrelevant who 'owns' the product. Northern get the revenue and pocket the money when they don't provide the advertised service.

Delay Repay is negotiated with the DfT as part of the franchise agreement; not on an individual product basis.

It is a fact that Metro Card holders are entitled to Delay Repay, regardless of what Northern or Metro say.

That isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is what happens next, which may depend on what legal actions are taken, how much Maps take notice, and how much media coverage this gets....
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
The rail industry appears to regard itself as some special case which is entitled to set it's own rules above the law. I sincerely hope that certain TOCs (Northern right up there at the front of the queue) get some VERY expensive lessons in the Courts.... and, given that they would be crucified by public opinion and the media if they did so (possibly also the EU for illegal state aid), there is no way that any politician will sanction use of public funds to bail then out.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The existence of an infair/illegal term doesn't override the legal and contractual position!

Train companies are required to comply with the terms of their franchise agreements, relevant legislation and agreements.

You are looking at it from the wrong way around; the suggestion that an unfair term negates the legal and contractual position is absurd.


See my post above! There is no debate about these facts.

It is irrelevant who 'owns' the product. Northern get the revenue and pocket the money when they don't provide the advertised service.

Delay Repay is negotiated with the DfT as part of the franchise agreement; not on an individual product basis.

It is a fact that Metro Card holders are entitled to Delay Repay, regardless of what Northern or Metro say.

That isn't up for debate. What is up for debate is what happens next, which may depend on what legal actions are taken, how much Maps take notice, and how much media coverage this gets....
I'm sorry Yorkie but there is a debate about this. Northern are a vendor of MCards (as are Metro at their bus stations, and of course through the mobile apps), they as far as I know don't pocket all the receipts because the revenue has to be shared amongst all TOCs, and all bus operators in West Yorkshire as well as whatever amount goes back to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (whose funds are dwindling). By all means seek legal action this, but simply closing the debate because you don't think its correct doesn't change the fact that this has been in place for as long as Delay Repay has been in existence, without any legal challenge and in the full knowledge of all responsible parties. Is it right? That's another matter, but the debate is very much open.

And then even if some legal recourse found it illegal, and required Delay Repay for MCards how would this be enforced? For example in London, the Oyster cards have a tap-in, tap-out system to log the use of the cards. Most West Yorkshire stations do not have tap-in points, in fact it is still very possible to use a MCard for a length of time without any log of its use, and as MCards are transferrable multiple people can use them over a period of time. Simply enforcing Delay Repay, whilst doubtless very welcome to users initially, would leave the scheme open to widespread abuse and almost certainly resulting in Northern wanting a lot more of the share to cover this, costs that would be passed by the WYCA to the passengers. That's not saying it shouldn't apply by the way, but there would be consequences.

I'm not against Delay Repay in itself, especially for longer delays (I'm still not sure that a 15 minute delay really requires compensation frankly). But we are risking getting into the situation where it becomes an increasing burden, after all most of the payments come from Network Rail, which in turn comes from DfT, which comes from The Treasury, which comes from the taxpayers. If costs rise too much, especially if as a result of abuse, then I can see some politicians (my local MP would definitely be one) using this to put the skids under the whole scheme. I can see their argument now, "Taxpayers subsidising people for being delayed a few minutes". For some more cynical politicians, that's political gold.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
I'm sorry Yorkie but there is a debate about this. Northern are a vendor of MCards (as are Metro at their bus stations, and of course through the mobile apps), they as far as I know don't pocket all the receipts because the revenue has to be shared amongst all TOCs, and all bus operators in West Yorkshire as well as whatever amount goes back to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (whose funds are dwindling). By all means seek legal action this, but simply closing the debate because you don't think its correct doesn't change the fact that this has been in place for as long as Delay Repay has been in existence, without any legal challenge and in the full knowledge of all responsible parties. Is it right? That's another matter, but the debate is very much open.

And then even if some legal recourse found it illegal, and required Delay Repay for MCards how would this be enforced? For example in London, the Oyster cards have a tap-in, tap-out system to log the use of the cards. Most West Yorkshire stations do not have tap-in points, in fact it is still very possible to use a MCard for a length of time without any log of its use, and as MCards are transferrable multiple people can use them over a period of time. Simply enforcing Delay Repay, whilst doubtless very welcome to users initially, would leave the scheme open to widespread abuse and almost certainly resulting in Northern wanting a lot more of the share to cover this, costs that would be passed by the WYCA to the passengers. That's not saying it shouldn't apply by the way, but there would be consequences.

I'm not against Delay Repay in itself, especially for longer delays (I'm still not sure that a 15 minute delay really requires compensation frankly). But we are risking getting into the situation where it becomes an increasing burden, after all most of the payments come from Network Rail, which in turn comes from DfT, which comes from The Treasury, which comes from the taxpayers. If costs rise too much, especially if as a result of abuse, then I can see some politicians (my local MP would definitely be one) using this to put the skids under the whole scheme. I can see their argument now, "Taxpayers subsidising people for being delayed a few minutes". For some more cynical politicians, that's political gold.
Northern (and other relevant TOCs) are already being compensated by Network Rail for delays. All that the current situation does is allow them not to pass on some of that money to affected passengers who happen to be traveling with one particular ticket type (something which DfT have said is wrong). There would be NO extra compensation from Network Rail if that changes.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Northern (and other relevant TOCs) are already being compensated by Network Rail for delays. All that the current situation does is allow them not to pass on some of that money to affected passengers who happen to be traveling with one particular ticket type (something which DfT have said is wrong). There would be NO extra compensation from Network Rail if that changes.
In that case that hits the margins of the company, who will seek to recover that from elsewhere, for example asking the WYCA to contribute more. This is the nature of private industry, nothing is for free. And I'll state because I know how opinion here can spiral out of control, I am not necessarily against Delay Repay for MCard users where serious disruption occurs. I do however see the need for debate on the matter, as well as caution because MCards are very flexible without being very trackable. The potential for abuse could be great, so any enforcement would need serious consideration.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
53,340
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
In that case that hits the margins of the company, who will seek to recover that from elsewhere, for example asking the WYCA to contribute more. This is the nature of private industry, nothing is for free. And I'll state because I know how opinion here can spiral out of control, I am not necessarily against Delay Repay for MCard users where serious disruption occurs. I do however see the need for debate on the matter, as well as caution because MCards are very flexible without being very trackable. The potential for abuse could be great, so any enforcement would need serious consideration.
So are London Travelcards, but full Delay Repay compensation is still paid on those.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So are London Travelcards, but full Delay Repay compensation is still paid on those.
Well that is obviously as a result of an agreement between the owners of that scheme & the TOCs. This, as shown below does not exist in respect to the MCard:

The Terms and Conditions state that the rail industry's Delay Repay Scheme which entitles rail ticket holders to compensation when services are delayed, only applies to rail operator only tickets and not to multi-operator, multi-modal season tickets such as MCards.

The reason for this clause is that it is not yet practical to administer claims due to the flexibility of the MCard tickets offering multi-modal transport at any time of the day. We know that MCard customers value this flexibility to travel on nearly all buses and trains across West Yorkshire in their chosen zones. We have taken this approach because it meets the needs of the many thousands of people who use MCard to make millions of journeys every year. This very flexibility makes Delay Repay impossible to administer, as MCard tickets are valid on all journeys being operated across the zone in question. Meaning a railway-style Delay Repay scheme would open up the MCard to the risk of fraudulent activity. We take revenue protection very seriously as it makes sure we avoid any needless price increases.

However, we also understand recent customer concerns regarding rail service cancellations and delays caused by the May timetable service changes and industrial action and that service levels may have inconvenienced many MCard customers this year. We are working closely with all operators and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to improve service delivery and promote alternative services to keep people travelling around West Yorkshire on public transport.
https://www.m-card.co.uk/news/mcard...dditional-compensation-scheme-for-rail-users/

So as far as Metro / WYCA are concerned, MCards are outside the remit of Delay Repay for any journeys in West Yorkshire, save any that might have had special arrangements with Northern / TPE as detailed up-thread. I feel fairly confident at this point that DfT, Transport Focus and any other associated bodies would be aware of this, and if they felt it was not the correct course of action taken the necessary steps to enforce Delay Repay.

Again, I'm not saying its right just how it is, and how its been for quite some time. Its also worth remembering that MCards can be very good value, for the cost of just under £115pcm I can commute daily which otherwise would cost me in excess of £200pcm, and that's not including using it for leisure. So you should at least be able to see why this situation exists, the revenue (around £30M for 2017-18 I believe) has to be spread pretty thinly across the interested parties. If Northern started to repay for delays, especially where verification of itinerates would be practically impossible, they would doubtless expect WYCA to increase their share (possibly not morally right, but this is business) which would more or less instantly have to be passed onto the passengers. So any move towards Delay Repay needs careful consideration of the consequences.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,046
Location
Redcar
And then even if some legal recourse found it illegal, and required Delay Repay for MCards how would this be enforced? For example in London, the Oyster cards have a tap-in, tap-out system to log the use of the cards. Most West Yorkshire stations do not have tap-in points, in fact it is still very possible to use a MCard for a length of time without any log of its use, and as MCards are transferrable multiple people can use them over a period of time.
I will grant you the transferability aspect is different but otherwise such a product is no different a Travelcard. There is no ability to touch in/out a paper Travelcard in London and yet Delay Repay will still be offered.


But we are risking getting into the situation where it becomes an increasing burden, after all most of the payments come from Network Rail, which in turn comes from DfT, which comes from The Treasury, which comes from the taxpayers.
Considering that Delay Repay is a DfT lead initiative that they are writing into Franchise Agreements and the Rail Minister from the DfT said the following:

Joseph Johnson said:
The Government introduced the Delay Repay scheme whereby rail passengers are entitled to compensation if a delay to their train journey means that they are late in reaching their destination by 30 minutes or more. This applies to all ticket types.

The practical arrangements for implementing this policy, including in relation to multi-modal products, are a matter for the train operating companies.

Delay Repay should be paid on the rail element of multi-modal tickets.
You'll forgive me, therefore, for saying that the DfT cannot be too concerned by any costs that they my incur. Indeed such a statement suggests that they will have been factored into the scheme from the start.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I will grant you the transferability aspect is different but otherwise such a product is no different a Travelcard. There is no ability to touch in/out a paper Travelcard in London and yet Delay Repay will still be offered.

Considering that Delay Repay is a DfT lead initiative that they are writing into Franchise Agreements and the Rail Minister from the DfT said the following:

You'll forgive me, therefore, for saying that the DfT cannot be too concerned by any costs that they my incur. Indeed such a statement suggests that they will have been factored into the scheme from the start.
As per my previous reply, I expect that the Travelcard owners (presumably TfL?) will have made arrangements with the TOCs, whereas Metro / WYCA have not.

As for the DfT, they will be concerned by the cost (and watch this space as budgets are squeezed further), and the Minister may well believe it but may not be sighted on such exceptions that are in existence.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
4,992
Location
Merseyside
Northern should be paying delay repay on these sorts of tickets. If I travel on a regular ticket on a journey with multiple train companies operating on the route, a TOC would not try and limit my delay repay amount on the basis they have only had a share of the revenue on the ticket, not all of it.

Serious question though, Northern operate in a lot of PTE areas. Yorkshire, Manchester, Newcastle, Merseyside - plus more. Therefore will have a lot of multi model tickets. Is anyone aware of them rejecting delay repay PTE claims in other areas aside from Yorkshire?

I am aware of them doing this in Merseyside. This is a massive widespread issue they need taking to task on.

While they are still refusing to pay out, anyone with a claim should claim anyway and make sure Northern give it to them in writing or email the outcome. Then when this matter is finally corrected they will have to pay up.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Northern should be paying delay repay on these sorts of tickets. If I travel on a regular ticket on a journey with multiple train companies operating on the route, a TOC would not try and limit my delay repay amount on the basis they have only had a share of the revenue on the ticket, not all of it.

Serious question though, Northern operate in a lot of PTE areas. Yorkshire, Manchester, Newcastle, Merseyside - plus more. Therefore will have a lot of multi model tickets. Is anyone aware of them rejecting delay repay PTE claims in other areas aside from Yorkshire?

I am aware of them doing this in Merseyside. This is a massive widespread issue they need taking to task on.

While they are still refusing to pay out, anyone with a claim should claim anyway and make sure Northern give it to them in writing or email the outcome. Then when this matter is finally corrected they will have to pay up.
Does the PTE in Merseyside have a similar caveat to that of WY Metro on Delay Repay exemption?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,046
Location
Redcar
As for the DfT, they will be concerned by the cost (and watch this space as budgets are squeezed further), and the Minister may well believe it but may not be sighted on such exceptions that are in existence.
I'm sorry but this seems bizarre. A statement from the Rail Minister in answer to a Parliamentary question will have been past his Civil Servant support (indeed they will have written it for him). So to suggest that they do not know how a scheme they devised and implemented is supposed to work strikes me as almost unbelievable.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
Northern should be paying delay repay on these sorts of tickets. If I travel on a regular ticket on a journey with multiple train companies operating on the route, a TOC would not try and limit my delay repay amount on the basis they have only had a share of the revenue on the ticket, not all of it.

Serious question though, Northern operate in a lot of PTE areas. Yorkshire, Manchester, Newcastle, Merseyside - plus more. Therefore will have a lot of multi model tickets. Is anyone aware of them rejecting delay repay PTE claims in other areas aside from Yorkshire?

I am aware of them doing this in Merseyside. This is a massive widespread issue they need taking to task on.

While they are still refusing to pay out, anyone with a claim should claim anyway and make sure Northern give it to them in writing or email the outcome. Then when this matter is finally corrected they will have to pay up.
Absolutely. Of course the matter should also be taken further - a letter to your MP asking him/her to engage with DfT quoting Jo Johnson could be interesting...
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
22,046
Location
Redcar
Does the PTE in Merseyside have a similar caveat to that of WY Metro on Delay Repay exemption?
As you have already been told a contract that contains an unfair/illegal term doesn't override the legal position. I would be interested to hear how you'd defend against an action brought by a passenger via Small Claims beyond pointing at that because I would suspect the Court would be more minded to go with the preponderance of evidence suggesting that the intent behind the scheme was as stated by the relevant Minister.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
I'm sorry but this seems bizarre. A statement from the Rail Minister in answer to a Parliamentary question will have been past his Civil Servant support (indeed they will have written it for him). So to suggest that they do not know how a scheme they devised and implemented is supposed to work strikes me as almost unbelievable.
As a current Civil Servant, albeit thankfully never in DfT, who has drafted such responses (which have to be signed off at the responsible Senior Civil Service - ie upper management - level) l can confirm that your understanding of the process is spot on.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
4,992
Location
Merseyside
I do not know the answer to that. However I know it stares that's travel is subject to the conditions of travel on the operator's on whose services are being used. Northern have repeatedly told my uncle travelling on a Merseytravel PTE product (one paid for, not a free pass) when he has asked Northern staff at his local station and on the phone to their Customer Expensive Centre, that he cannot claim delay repay for individual journeys because he doesn't have a normal train ticket.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
I do not know the answer to that. However I know it stares that's travel is subject to the conditions of travel on the operator's on whose services are being used. Northern have repeatedly told my uncle travelling on a Merseytravel PTE product (one paid for, not a free pass) when he has asked Northern staff at his local station and on the phone to their Customer Expensive Centre, that he cannot claim delay repay for individual journeys because he doesn't have a normal train ticket.
The obvious response, copied to his MP, is to ask them to show where in the Delay Repay documentation it says that. Ask the MP to ask DfT the same question.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I'm sorry but this seems bizarre. A statement from the Rail Minister in answer to a Parliamentary question will have been past his Civil Servant support (indeed they will have written it for him). So to suggest that they do not know how a scheme they devised and implemented is supposed to work strikes me as almost unbelievable.
Welcome to the public sector....

As you have already been told a contract that contains an unfair/illegal term doesn't override the legal position. I would be interested to hear how you'd defend against an action brought by a passenger via Small Claims beyond pointing at that because I would suspect the Court would be more minded to go with the preponderance of evidence suggesting that the intent behind the scheme was as stated by the relevant Minister.
I am not defending the position, simply stating how it is. If other PTEs as suggested above also have products that have exceptions, then frankly I would be amazed (though maybe not that amazed) if DfT were not aware of such.

Just as an aside, when I first started in the public sector (sorry, but for professional reasons I prefer not to say where), one of the first things an instructor said to us was "For every situation there is a rule, and for every rule there is an exception.". Its as true today as it was, so much so that back in the early days I actually thought the series 'Yes Minister' was a documentary....

As a current Civil Servant, albeit thankfully in DfT, who has drafted such responses (which have to be signed off at Senior Civil Service ie upper management level) l can confirm that your understanding of the process is spot on.
That doesn't mean the responses are always correct, or are made with full awareness of the facts. They should be in principle, but in practice they aren't always. And I can say this with confidence from over three decades of public service. including a lot of exposure to these kind of procedures.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
4,992
Location
Merseyside
I'll start getting my uncle to claim anyway, so there is a paper trail. Unfortunately most people would just not bother claiming once the booking office or customer service has told them they cant. Surprises me the amount of friends who will complain their train was delayed but will not have kept hold of their ticket or even noted the train time to enable a valid delay repay claim.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
Welcome to the public sector....



I am not defending the position, simply stating how it is. If other PTEs as suggested above also have products that have exceptions, then frankly I would be amazed (though maybe not that amazed) if DfT were not aware of such.

Just as an aside, when I first started in the public sector (sorry, but for professional reasons I prefer not to say where), one of the first things an instructor said to us was "For every situation there is a rule, and for every rule there is an exception.". Its as true today as it was, so much so that back in the early days I actually thought the series 'Yes Minister' was a documentary....



That doesn't mean the responses are always correct, or are made with full awareness of the facts. They should be in principle, but in practice they aren't always. And I can say this with confidence from over three decades of public service. including a lot of exposure to these kind of procedures.
Re Yes Minister l agree.

Statements to Parliament, including answers to questions, must always be accurate. Civil Servants can face disciplinary action if they are not. They may not, however, always include material which is potentially relevant but not within direct scope of the question.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
4,796
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Re Yes Minister l agree.

Statements to Parliament, including answers to questions, must always be accurate. Civil Servants can face disciplinary action if they are not. They may not, however, always include material which is potentially relevant but not within direct scope of the question.
That's correct, they *should* always be accurate. Whether or not they are is another matter, through no fault of the person(s) drafting the response, communication channels, understanding of the nature of the question, confusion over procedure, regulation or legislation can all fail at some point along the communications trail. I cannot say why I know this to be true, but I do.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
2,190
That's correct, they *should* always be accurate. Whether or not they are is another matter, through no fault of the person(s) drafting the response, communication channels, understanding of the nature of the question, confusion over procedure, regulation or legislation can all fail at some point along the communications trail. I cannot say why I know this to be true, but I do.
OSA88 l assume.
 

Top