Some TOCs are refusing to pay Delay Repay if the timetable has changed since booking

[superalbs]

I have escalated my claim after many failures to Andy Mellors CEO of SWR, who has confirmed, once again, that "there is no compensation due for delays caused by this action".

 

[island]

Ultimately the next escalation points are Transport Focus or the courts.

 

[superalbs]

Ultimately the next escalation points are Transport Focus or the courts.

Has gone to Transport Focus, am now awaiting the outcome.

 

[maniacmartin]

I’ve had a few claims in the past rejected by GTR, with them claiming the train didn’t exist, despite it being in journey planners. I just called them a few times until they gave in and issued RTVs as “goodwill”.

 

[Mathew S]

Northern certainly haven't. A couple of strikes ago they were asking season ticket holders to claim, even if they weren't travelling on that day.

Indeed. I've had so many free Northern return tickets from claiming for strike days that I haven't bothered to even buy a season ticket this month, don't need one.

 

[Chrisgr31]

With GTR isnt the Delay Repay effectively paid for by the DfT? This would potentially imply that the decision not to pay is a DfT decision as its possible they have been looking at the amount of money given out in delay repay.

I have just looked on the National Rail website for a train on my line (Uckfield) for 11th November, and beside all trains there is a Yellow triangle under status, hovering on it elicits the message
"Service Update
Engineering works take place on weekends, evenings and bank holidays

The journey time shown here is subject to change. Please re-check your journey 7 days ahead of travel."

Checking times for next Sunday there is no triangle but a green tick.

Seems to me that it in these case it would be reasonable to refuse delay repay if the engineering works were in the timetable 7 days in advance.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

With GTR isnt the Delay Repay effectively paid for by the DfT? This would potentially imply that the decision not to pay is a DfT decision as its possible they have been looking at the amount of money given out in delay repay.

I have just looked on the National Rail website for a train on my line (Uckfield) for 11th November, and beside all trains there is a Yellow triangle under status, hovering on it elicits the message
"Service Update
Engineering works take place on weekends, evenings and bank holidays

The journey time shown here is subject to change. Please re-check your journey 7 days ahead of travel."

Checking times for next Sunday there is no triangle but a green tick.

Seems to me that it in these case it would be reasonable to refuse delay repay if the engineering works were in the timetable 7 days in advance.

For passengers who look on NRE before booking, perhaps. For passengers who book elsewhere that's not really an argument. And in any case, the contract is made on the basis of the timetable as of the booking date. Are you saying the TOC can unilaterally change the timetable without recourse? Can they just remove half the services and refuse delay repay for resultant delays (with respect to what was booked)?

 

[najaB]

And in any case, the contract is made on the basis of the timetable as of the booking date. Are you saying the TOC can unilaterally change the timetable without recourse?

The passenger would be within their rights to not travel and request a refund. Where it gets slightly hazier is where Delay Repay is claimed.

Notionally, Delay Repay is compensation for an unexpected delay to your journey. If the timetable was ammended more than a week in advance of travel, there's an argument to be made that the delay wasn't unexpected since it's not unreasonable to expect that the passenger would have double-checked the timetable.

This appears to be the line that GTR are taking.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Notionally, Delay Repay is compensation for an unexpected delay to your journey

It's for a delay to your journey with respect to what you were told when you booked.

If the timetable was ammended more than a week in advance of travel, there's an argument to be made that the delay wasn't unexpected since it's not unreasonable to expect that the passenger would have double-checked the timetable.

Exactly how many booking sites tell you to do that? Even if they do, reserving that right - to unilaterally change the timetable without recourse - is very likely to be considered an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it would give the trader the right to change the subject matter of the contract without recourse.

 

[yorkie]

The passenger would be within their rights to not travel and request a refund. Where it gets slightly hazier is where Delay Repay is claimed.

Notionally, Delay Repay is compensation for an unexpected delay to your journey. If the timetable was ammended more than a week in advance of travel, there's an argument to be made that the delay wasn't unexpected since it's not unreasonable to expect that the passenger would have double-checked the timetable.

This appears to be the line that GTR are taking.

What matters is the timetable in place at the time of purchase, surely?

 

[najaB]

What matters is the timetable in place at the time of purchase, surely?

You and I think so, but others do not.

 

[some bloke]

In the Uckfield example, the yellow triangle appears on the Southern website for times displayed when booking tickets, as well as NRE. So they might argue that you haven't booked on the basis of a fixed timetable.

On the other hand, someone might say that isn't clear enough if it gives you an itinerary which doesn't make the doubt explicit. Maybe some people wouldn't find the triangle an adequate sign.

You’re entitled to compensation for any delay or cancellation that causes you to arrive 15 minutes or more behind schedule, except where delays have been caused by planned engineering works.
https://www.southernrailway.com/help-and-support/journey-problems/delay-repay-compensation

Under our Delay Repay scheme, if your journey is delayed by 15 minutes or more, irrespective of what caused the delay, you’re entitled to claim compensation.

Southern might try and reconcile those two by saying that the triangle means there isn't a delay relative to what you were told when you booked.

Do some retailers not mention the uncertainty at all?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In the Uckfield example, the yellow triangle appears on the Southern website for times displayed when booking tickets, as well as NRE. So they might argue that you haven't booked on the basis of a fixed timetable.

I think the yellow triangle and text would have to be utmost clear that the timetable is merely an indication, and not a guarantee, for that argument to hold water in my view.[/QUOTE]

Do some retailers not mention the uncertainty at all?

Absolutely. Certainly when booking on most mobile apps you will not be told about the uncertainty, and many booking offices will not warn you either. Even "good" retailers like TrainSplit will not tell you that the timetable is subject to change, as really it is a ridiculous notion in the first place - although it does advise you to have another look at the timetable before travelling. However you can be sure that such retailers will provide assistance if there is a timetable change and the TOC refuses delay compensation!

 

[some bloke]

Beyond the issue of Delay Repay, it would seem a basic function to tell passengers when a train they pay money for is not certain to be included in the main timetable. The value to people of being on time may be far more than the price of the ticket.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don’t understand the apparent assumption that the timetable at purchase is effectively locked in for the duration of a season ticket. It is widely known that the normal timetable can be changed twice a year.

Is it seriously being proposed that a delay claim can be based on an out of date timetable, just because your season ticket was bought before a well publicised change?

Convoluted example now.
What happens if your favourite half hourly service is moved five minutes earlier around the clock face to ease some long term constraint. With 15 min thresholds for delay repay could you claim that 5 mins forced you onto the opposite train and made you 25 mins late every day?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I don’t understand the apparent assumption that the timetable at purchase is effectively locked in for the duration of a season ticket. It is widely known that the normal timetable can be changed twice a year.

Is it seriously being proposed that a delay claim can be based on an out of date timetable, just because your season ticket was bought before a well publicised change?

Convoluted example now.
What happens if your favourite half hourly service is moved five minutes earlier around the clock face to ease some long term constraint. With 15 min thresholds for delay repay could you claim that 5 mins forced you onto the opposite train and made you 25 mins late every day?

I agree that in that example it is extremely unreasonable, but I'd ask what you suggest the alternative position is. Should people who book a flexible ticket (walkup or season) many months or weeks advance just accept that the timetable is just "whatever the TOC feels like running"? I think there is a balance to be found; if a timetable were substantially changed to the detriment of a passenger holding a long-duration ticket (e.g. as in your example) then I think a pro-rata fee-free refund, if handing the ticket in, is the minimum appropriate remedy.

 

[JN114]

I’m not sure Delay Repay is really the right mechanism for dealing with timetable changes - it’s certainly not within the spirit of what it’s designed for in my opinion.

Inconvenience is relative - the example swt_passenger gives may not seem an inconvenient to most people - but if that effective 25 minute “delay” impacts childcare arrangements for example; the ramifications could be quite serious - should the TOC thus have to pay out every day for 7 months of a Jan - Jan season ticket because the May timetable change “delayed” you by 25 minutes? Where do you fairly and definitively draw the line? I’d suggest the only fair way of doing it is to stipulate delays due to timetable changes don’t count - anything else is too open to abuse or excessive.

Delay Compensation is a minefield that frankly would do the industry, the passenger and the taxpayer a great deal of good if it just died a quiet death. I’d justify my opinion more but don’t want to drag the thread hopelessly off topic.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I’m not sure Delay Repay is really the right mechanism for dealing with timetable changes - it’s certainly not within the spirit of what it’s designed for in my opinion.

Inconvenience is relative - the example swt_passenger gives may not seem an inconvenient to most people - but if that effective 25 minute “delay” impacts childcare arrangements for example; the ramifications could be quite serious - should the TOC thus have to pay out every day for 7 months of a Jan - Jan season ticket because the May timetable change “delayed” you by 25 minutes? Where do you fairly and definitively draw the line? I’d suggest the only fair way of doing it is to stipulate delays due to timetable changes don’t count - anything else is too open to abuse or excessive.

Delay Compensation is a minefield that frankly would do the industry, the passenger and the taxpayer a great deal of good if it just died a quiet death. I’d justify my opinion more but don’t want to drag the thread hopelessly off topic.

If you limit your proposal to long-term timetable changes (i.e. at May/December) being exempt, with season ticket holders whose tickets' usefulness is reduced being given the option of a fee-free pro-rata refund, then I would agree with you. For short-notice or temporary timetable changes, and in respect of walk-up tickets and certainly Advances, I don't think an exemption is really justifiable.

A passenger can get a refund on a season ticket for a nominal fee, and will end up paying only what they would originally have paid. Whilst a timetable change that eliminates the usefulness of the rail service is a pain, I don't think it's fundamentally unfair for planned changes and transitions to happen from time to time, and as I say, the passenger has the right to "change"/withdraw from the contract so I think it's acceptable that the TOC may (effectively) do so under some circumstances.

However, since a passenger is not entitled to a refund of an Advance simply because their plans change (or where they are, they can only exchange it for another Advance along the same route, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for free), I don't see that it's equitable for the TOCs to have the right to unilaterally change the contract.

Walkup tickets are kind of in an in-between void; for Day tickets I would be more inclined towards the position on Advances, especially given any refund fee for passengers' changes of plan will likely be a substantial percentage of the ticket's value. For an Anytime Return I lean a little more towards the season ticket position, since the refund fee is usually a much lower percentage of the ticket's value, and it fundamentally offers flexibility similar to a season ticket in many ways.

 

[JN114]

But the railway is obligated to carry that passenger on their advance ticket by the next available service at no extra charge (and will often do so on other services upon request) - given the relative saving that passengers would make over a walkup ticket for those services their ticket is not valid on, I would say they’re already being compensated by a relaxing of the stringent conditions on their ticket.

As you say with walkup/season tickets - even purchased to an itinerary weeks in advance - the option exists for the customer to withdraw from the contract.

 

[Starmill]

But the railway is obligated to carry that passenger on their advance ticket by the next available service at no extra charge (and will often do so on other services upon request) - given the relative saving that passengers would make over a walkup ticket for those services their ticket is not valid on, I would say they’re already being compensated by a relaxing of the stringent conditions on their ticket.

This wouldn't be a problem if the industry hasn't imploded it's timetabling in the past year or so.

If timetables are confirmed to the public 12 weeks in advance, as they should be and as the standard was set for, and then kept frozen at that point, as is theoretically meant to happen in all but exceptional cases, then this issue would not arise. Ultimately, the reason this is a problem is because enginering work timetables are uploaded far, far too late. In some cases they're only uploaded a few days before travel. This really is not the customer's fault, given they're encouraged to book in advance. As such Delay Repay is and must be an option for those who have already booked.

 

[najaB]

Ultimately, the reason this is a problem is because enginering work timetables are uploaded far, far too late.

Most of the issues we've seen have been due to causes in the TOC's domain (eg strike action, staff shortages) rather than engineering work.

 

[35B]

Most of the issues we've seen have been due to causes in the TOC's domain (eg strike action, staff shortages) rather than engineering work.

In which case, the argument for Delay Repay is even stronger.

 

[sprunt]

But the railway is obligated to carry that passenger on their advance ticket by the next available service at no extra charge (and will often do so on other services upon request) - given the relative saving that passengers would make over a walkup ticket for those services their ticket is not valid on, I would say they’re already being compensated by a relaxing of the stringent conditions on their ticket.

If the condition is "you must travel on train x" and train x doesn't exist, relaxing that condition is not compensation, it's the barest minimum that can be expected.

 

[pemma]

Northern have added this message on their Delay Repay page

Claiming while we are operating an amended Northern service

If your journey is delayed by 30 minutes or more, you can claim compensation. Whilst we work with our industry partners to reduce short notice cancellations, our passengers travelling on Northern can claim against the train service in place on the day you travelled.

Please only claim for the train you intended to catch and the total delay you experienced. For example if you claim for consecutive trains on a particular day you may have your claims declined.

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/corporate/compensation-information

 

[Belperpete]

Just to throw a couple of extra pebbles into the debate:
What if you bought a ticket that included a seat reservation for a particular service, and then you turned up to find that train didn't exist anymore, wouldn't you also have a claim for the failure to provide the reserved seat?
What are you supposed to do if you do know in advance that the timetable has changed? Do you contact the website that sold you the ticket to ask for a new reservation, or are you supposed to contact the train company running the train?
As has already been pointed out, someone travelling from say Aberdeen to Woking may not be aware of any local publicity regarding changes to South London services. If you buy a ticket on-line, then they have your email address, so if you have a reservation on a train that is no longer running, surely they should then inform you? (I recently secured substantial compensation from Brussels Airlines because I only found out that my flight had been cancelled when I attempted to check-in the day before flying.)

Even if I am not sure exactly what train I will be using, I usually ask for a reservation on the train I am most likely to use, as this increases my leverage if the connection is missed. And I always keep the itinerary issued with the ticket until I have completed both outward and return journeys, so that I can submit it with any compensation claim.

I have also heard that you are more likely to get compensation if you ask for a voucher, as it doesn't actually cost the train company money, as compared to asking for a cheque.

As well as delay repay, don't forget you now also have rights under the Consumer Rights Act if the train company has failed to act with "reasonable care and skill" . See
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/train-delays/

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Just to throw a couple of extra pebbles into the debate:
What if you bought a ticket that included a seat reservation for a particular service, and then you turned up to find that train didn't exist anymore, wouldn't you also have a claim for the failure to provide the reserved seat?
What are you supposed to do if you do know in advance that the timetable has changed? Do you contact the website that sold you the ticket to ask for a new reservation, or are you supposed to contact the train company running the train?
As has already been pointed out, someone travelling from say Aberdeen to Woking may not be aware of any local publicity regarding changes to South London services. If you buy a ticket on-line, then they have your email address, so if you have a reservation on a train that is no longer running, surely they should then inform you? (I recently secured substantial compensation from Brussels Airlines because I only found out that my flight had been cancelled when I attempted to check-in the day before flying.)

Even if I am not sure exactly what train I will be using, I usually ask for a reservation on the train I am most likely to use, as this increases my leverage if the connection is missed. And I always keep the itinerary issued with the ticket until I have completed both outward and return journeys, so that I can submit it with any compensation claim.

As well as delay repay, don't forget you now also have rights under the Consumer Rights Act if the train company has failed to act with "reasonable care and skill" . See
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/train-delays/

I agree that a lot of people are unaware of their rights. Sadly, the impact of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the context of passenger railway services had yet to be ruled on in any substantive or binding manner by the Courts. I suspect it will take a major case (e.g. a season ticket holder who experienced significant disruption throughout the validity of their ticket) for anything like this to happen.

 

[Belperpete]

Sadly, the impact of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in the context of passenger railway services had yet to be ruled on in any substantive or binding manner by the Courts. I suspect it will take a major case (e.g. a season ticket holder who experienced significant disruption throughout the validity of their ticket) for anything like this to happen.

I thought I read in the press relatively recently that someone had secured compensation under this act? Can't remember the details though, so not sure how substantive the issue was.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I thought I read in the press relatively recently that someone had secured compensation under this act? Can't remember the details though, so not sure how substantive the issue was.

I imagine a number of people have secured compensation by quoting the Consumer Rights Act; but I don't believe any such claim has properly gone before the Courts. Until a claim does, we are all rather guessing in the dark.

 

[island]

I thought I read in the press relatively recently that someone had secured compensation under this act? Can't remember the details though, so not sure how substantive the issue was.

I don’t know of any case that’s gone to court, though a colleague of mine recovered around 10% of the cost of his season ticket from GWR (on top of renewal discounts) after threatening county court action.

 

[superalbs]

Additional £29.95 claim for SWR. This brings my total for SWR to £71.10.

Reason stated is 'invalid claim'.