Suggestions on how to get a better deal for passengers when delays cause journey to be abandoned

[Bletchleyite]

On a point of order, the policy is actually quite simple and clear: if you decide not to travel or if you abandon your journey due to either changes to the timetable or delays then you are entitled to a full refund from the ticket seller.

The problem is implementation.

It would be a lot easier if it was simply considered that a failure to reach your destination was seen as a 2 hour Delay Repay claim instead.

 

[Haywain]

The situation is unfair on retailers, who incur all sorts of costs for very little commission,

The current system is unfair on retailers

What is so unfair to retailers about the current refund system?

 

[yorkie]

The current refund/compensation system is complex and causes confusion for staff and passengers alike.

If a passenger chooses not to travel, they need to seek a refund from the retailer. They are entitled to a refund for all ticket(s) used for the journey, and this should apply equally to both portions if this is a return journey. This is problematical if a customer has used multiple retailers for their journey, as retailers for parts of the journey that are unaffected may refuse to pay out.

If a passenger attempts to travel, but abandons their journey and returns to the point of origin, again they are entitled to a refund, but this also needs to go back to the retailer. As above this can cause issues if there are multiple retailers involved. To make matters worse, some train company staff refuse to accept that a passenger as a right to abandon their journey and may be obstructive in allowing passengers to return to their point of origin without requiring them to pay for yet another ticket. Some retailers refuse to refund tickets that have been scanned/marked/stamped, which of course a ticket for a journey that was abandoned part way through may well be!

If a passenger does make the journey, they are entitled to delay compensation from the train company whose train caused the initial delay.

A passenger who abandons their journey part way through may find it harder to get a refund than a passenger who stuck with the journey and arrived late at their destination.

Also if a delay occurs and the journey is no longer viable by train, a passenger who uses another method of transport may be told by a train company that they are entitled to absolutely nothing. For example, a Season ticket holder whose train is cancelled who then gets a lift with a work colleague instead. This is because delay compensation is not considered to apply (as they did not make the journey) and therefore refund arrangements apply, but they are told that their Season ticket is "already discounted" and therefore no pro-rota refund applies. No other industry treats its most loyal customers as badly as this, yet some train companies routinely do exactly that.

The result is that passengers can be sent back and forth between retailer and train company and can be left out of pocket as well as potentially giving up hours of their time writing letters. There have been numerous instances of railway staff giving incorrect information to passengers who then find their claim rejected because it went to the wrong place.

 

[yorkie]

What is so unfair to retailers about the current refund system?

They incur a lot of costs but don't get properly reimbursed by train companies.

 

[Haywain]

They incur a lot of costs but don't get properly reimbursed by train companies.

That's part of the deal of choosing to sell rail tickets. Train companies have to deal with the same thing.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That's part of the deal of choosing to sell rail tickets. Train companies have to deal with the same thing.

Whilst I don't think fairness comes into a commercially negotiated deal (as the agreements required to sell tickets are), train companies aren't in the same position as third party retailers, seeing as their franchise bids include an effective subsidy for their online ticket selling operation - i.e. if they were permitted to charge booking fees etc. then bids would no doubt be adjusted slightly to have higher premiums or lower subsidies.

So, in a way, there isn't a level playing field because the TOCs are somewhat subsidised by the DfT in their ticket selling operation.

 

[Haywain]

Whilst I don't think fairness comes into a commercially negotiated deal (as the agreements required to sell tickets are), train companies aren't in the same position as third party retailers, seeing as their franchise bids include an effective subsidy for their online ticket selling operation - i.e. if they were permitted to charge booking fees etc. then bids would no doubt be adjusted slightly to have higher premiums or lower subsidies.

So, in a way, there isn't a level playing field because the TOCs are somewhat subsidised by the DfT in their ticket selling operation.

There isn't a level playing field because TOCs don't have a choice about carrying out these activities. And are they allowed to charge booking fees?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think complexity for the customer is a big part of the problem. Who do you go to, and how do you get them to believe you.

I've long believed there should be a single Delay Repay clearing house. It wouldn't be hard to extend that to handle refunds due to non-performance as well, i.e. simply to add "or the passenger abandoned their journey and returned to their origin because in their sole opinion the delay rendered the journey pointless, which they are entitled to do free of charge using their original outward ticket" to the definition of a 2 hour delay.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I've long believed there should be a single Delay Repay clearing house. It wouldn't be hard to extend that to handle refunds due to non-performance as well, i.e. simply to add "or the passenger abandoned their journey and returned to their origin because in their sole opinion the delay rendered the journey pointless, which they are entitled to do free of charge using their original outward ticket" to the definition of a 2 hour delay.

This is something I totally agree with. It puts a lot of passengers off that they need to know which company they travelled with in order to claim compensation; people are confused and genuinely believe that the system is rigged against them to try and avoid paying compensation.

To restore passengers' trust in the compensation system and to make it genuinely good, a centralised claim organisation (associated with the National Rail brand perhaps) is a good step forwards. They would then also be able to mediate in cases of a dispute as to what compensation is applicable.

Unfortunately I can't see this happening in a million years, since it is in no-one's interest from the TOCs' perspective. Just more cost and more administration to them, and the age old problem of the railway being run to the exact wording and obligations in contractual agreements (and, in recent years not even that!). Rather than being run in the spirit of goodwill and passengers' interest.

Note - I'm not saying that this has to mean nationalisation. But a paradigm shift in terms of attitudes is necessary.

 

[yorkie]

I think the TOCs need to be careful to avoid a position where they could be found to be in breach of this:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consumers/abuse_en.html

Abuse of a dominant position
A company can restrict competition if it is in a position of strength on a given market. A dominant position is not in itself anti-competitive, but if the company exploits this position to eliminate competition, it is considered to have abused it.

Examples include:

• charging unreasonably high prices
• depriving smaller competitors of customers by selling at artificially low prices they can't compete with
• obstructing competitors in the market (or in another related market) by forcing consumers to buy a product which is artificially related to a more popular, in-demand product
• refusing to deal with certain customers or offering special discounts to customers who buy all or most of their supplies from the dominant company
• making the sale of one product conditional on the sale of another product.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note - I'm not saying that this has to mean nationalisation. But a paradigm shift in terms of attitudes is necessary.

Just forcing a national, wholly independent Delay Repay clearing house on them (which would include refunds for non-delivery of service) would solve the issue.

One set of rules to follow, decided by an organisation with no inside interest. Then the TOCs mandatorily billed for the monies due once it has been paid out.

 

[mallard]

To make matters worse, some train company staff refuse to accept that a passenger as a right to abandon their journey and may be obstructive in allowing passengers to return to their point of origin without requiring them to pay for yet another ticket.

Unfortunately the NRCoT is completely silent about this issue. There appears to be no actual "right" to be returned to your point of origin without purchasing an additional ticket, nor is there any right for this additional ticket to be refunded. As with many things in the railway, the rules are written to provide an illusion of "fairness" and "reasonableness", but are anything but in their detail.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Unfortunately the NRCoT is completely silent about this issue. There appears to be no actual "right" to be returned to your point of origin without purchasing an additional ticket, nor is there any right for this additional ticket to be refunded. As with many things in the railway, the rules are written to provide an illusion of "fairness" and "reasonableness", but are anything but in their detail.

Whilst it is true that there are a number of de facto policies which are no longer enshrined in the NRCoT (e.g. that change of route excesses should be half the relevant difference for a return), this is not the case for this instance. Condition 30.1 of the NRCoT is quite clear that:

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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst it is true that there are a number of de facto policies which are no longer enshrined in the NRCoT (e.g. that change of route excesses should be half the relevant difference for a return), this is not the case for this instance. Condition 30.1 of the NRCoT is quite clear that:

Unfortunately that doesn't say you can return to your point of origin for free, just that for refund of your original ticket you need to return there. Clearly this is strongly implied and is a reasonable assumption, but is not stated explicitly.

This is one of many reasons the NRCoT is a very poorly-written document.

 

[mallard]

Whilst it is true that there are a number of de facto policies which are no longer enshrined in the NRCoT (e.g. that change of route excesses should be half the relevant difference for a return), this is not the case for this instance. Condition 30.1 of the NRCoT is quite clear that:

Yes, it states that you have to return to your point of origin. It does not state that you will be allowed to do so without additional charge. While I believe such a clause should be added, you can end up opening a whole can of worms when you consider what, if any, ticket restrictions should apply to this part of the "non-journey", especially since we already know there is disruption. It would have to be worded something like "You will be allowed to travel back to your point of origin without additional charge. You should obey any route or TOC restrictions printed on your outbound ticket to the extent possible in the circumstances." Which is full of subjective language, something that should be avoided in any legally-binding ruleset. Stating the easier-to-interpret "You may return to your point of origin via any reasonable route without additional charge." is very unlikely to be considered acceptable by the TOCs (who are in charge of writing the rules, as constituents of RDG).

Policies "which are no longer enshrined in the NRCoT" are best considered as having been removed deliberately and should not be relied upon, even if some staff still operate in accordance with them.

 

[BigCj34]

I never even knew that the process for a refund for abandoning a journey was different to Delay Repay, but from what I see the procedure stinks. If we're going to have this fragmented rail system at least integrate it more at user level. While I can buy a through ticket to Wick but I have to go through different delay repay site depending on where it took place, or as it turns out, potentially another site altogether if I decide to not travel at all. I like the idea of a unified clearing house for delays, really the whole network should be more TfL style with one interface so any private sector operations are done under the hood.

I agree with the notion about NRCoC being ambiguous, split ticket delays are not specifically mentioned and few TOC passenger charters specifically state split ticket claims are permissible. It's only due to an insider industry document in The Manual that split tickets are as valid as a through ticket in the event of a delay.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I agree with the notion about NRCoC being ambiguous, split ticket delays are not specifically mentioned

They are not specifically spelled out, but it is clearly stated that you have the right to be considered to be making one journey using multiple tickets, and all the protections are said to apply to your journey. It's not necessary to spell it out twice; it's already there.

few TOC passenger charters specifically state split ticket claims are permissible.

And none rule it out, so the claims by some TOCs that it is "their policy" only to pay out on subsections of the journey is nothing more than wilful evasion of contractual debts.

It's only due to an insider industry document in The Manual that split tickets are as valid as a through ticket in the event of a delay.

Absolutely not the case. Again, you have the right to be considered to be making one journey when using multiple tickets. And it is specifically stated (9.4) that you will be permitted to travel on a later train if you encounter delays en-route whilst on an Advance. There is no need whatsoever to refer to "The Manual" to find out this information; indeed, "The Manual" is merely the rail industry's guidance for its own staff and positively cannot be relied upon (contractually) by a passenger.

 

[BigCj34]

They are not specifically spelled out, but it is clearly stated that you have the right to be considered to be making one journey using multiple tickets, and all the protections are said to apply to your journey. It's not necessary to spell it out twice; it's already there.


And none rule it out, so the claims by some TOCs that it is "their policy" only to pay out on subsections of the journey is nothing more than wilful evasion of contractual debts.


Absolutely not the case. Again, you have the right to be considered to be making one journey when using multiple tickets. And it is specifically stated (9.4) that you will be permitted to travel on a later train if you encounter delays en-route whilst on an Advance. There is no need whatsoever to refer to "The Manual" to find out this information; indeed, "The Manual" is merely the rail industry's guidance for its own staff and positively cannot be relied upon (contractually) by a passenger.

While delays on split advances hasn't been an issue for myself in practice, delay repay has been. So while staff should be trained properly on the matter, stating so in the passenger charters/ NRCoC would not go amiss.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

While delays on split advances hasn't been an issue for myself in practice, delay repay has been. So while staff should be trained properly on the matter, stating so in the passenger charters/ NRCoC would not go amiss.

I certainly agree; however, despite myself experiencing numerous cases where TOCs have not been willing to pay the correct compensation, I have ultimately been successful in being paid what I am owed every time.