Ticket retailer refusing to refund unused ticket after passenger decides not to travel due to disruption

[Starmill]

I can't think of a circumstance where such a small delay (with no onward rail connections though perhaps there is a last bus or something) would cause me to abandon my plans.

Does that count as reasoning? You wouldn't do it so nobody can? Sounds deeply flawed to me.

In that case, 1 minute late is a delay, and could be a way used to get a refund on an unwanted advance. I suspect that’s the real story here. Unwanted advance, seen a way of getting a refund.

With respect, nobody asked for your opinion on the OP.

My recommendation is that if you only have unpleasant things to say about people, you should stay silent.

It is not.

Of course, we're fortunate that the adjective 'delayed' is listed in many dictionaries.

The Cambridge Dictionary gives us the following definition:

happening at a later time than expected or intended

Also available online at dictionary.cambridge.org.

TfL wouldn’t though, as its delay threshold for a refund is set at 15 minutes.

I can't see the relevance of this here. This is for used tickets. The OP did not use their ticket.

It arrived at the destination 9 minutes late which is the important delay for any claim.

It's impossible for the arrival time of a train the OP wasn't on to be relevant to anything...

 

[Fawkes Cat]

While the consensus may be right that by the letter of the rules any delay (however small) is enough to trigger the ‘abandoned journey refund’ provisions, I can’t help but think that the railway is likely to resist this interpretation - and if it is used too much we might find a less favourable definition being written into the rules.

Maybe we need to be a little careful in what we wish for.

 

[talldave]

While the consensus may be right that by the letter of the rules any delay (however small) is enough to trigger the ‘abandoned journey refund’ provisions, I can’t help but think that the railway is likely to resist this interpretation - and if it is used too much we might find a less favourable definition being written into the rules.

Maybe we need to be a little careful in what we wish for.

Perhaps, but for the moment the unambiguous rule the industry wrote themselves is the one they should operate under. I'm surprised how many respondents think otherwise for something so clearly defined.

 

[Watershed]

While the consensus may be right that by the letter of the rules any delay (however small) is enough to trigger the ‘abandoned journey refund’ provisions, I can’t help but think that the railway is likely to resist this interpretation - and if it is used too much we might find a less favourable definition being written into the rules.

Maybe we need to be a little careful in what we wish for.

The current rule is very clear. Given the comparatively small number of claims for refunds under what some might argue as 'marginal' circumstances, I think it's a much less significant issue than (say) Delay Repay being payable based on the timetable when booking, which is what led to the attempted introduction of the "Published Timetable of the Day" concept.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The current rule is very clear. Given the comparatively small number of claims for refunds under what some might argue as 'marginal' circumstances, I think it's a much less significant issue than (say) Delay Repay being payable based on the timetable when booking, which is what led to the attempted introduction of the "Published Timetable of the Day" concept.

Indeed. What more evidence is needed that the railways can and do change the rules in their own favour?

 

[Watershed]

Indeed. What more evidence is needed that the railways can and do change the rules in their own favour?

I think this is merely evidence that the railway will do so if something is perceived as a sufficiently large problem. The "Published Timetable of the Day" idea will likely have originated with the DfT, since they are the ones ultimately funding Delay Repay costs.

With fee-free refunds to tickets there is much less at stake in terms of costs, especially since a significant proportion of processing costs are carried by third party retailers due to the percentage of tickets sold through them. And there is even less at stake if (say) the suggestion is there should be a 15 minute delay threshold for being able to claim a refund, since most people will not refund their tickets under such circumstances.

At the end of the day, I don't think there is any point in having rights one is afraid or unable to exercise. If the powers that be decide to change the rules, so be it. There's not an awful lot we can do about it and I doubt that posting about it here is going to influence the decision in any material way.

 

[rs101]

I can't think of a circumstance where such a small delay (with no onward rail connections though perhaps there is a last bus or something) would cause me to abandon my plans.

The OP didn't abandon their plans - they had an advance ticket for a specific train, which didn't run on time, so wanted to refund that and travel on a later train. I've had similar disruptions which caused me to change plans (but had an anytime or off peak ticket, so could just get the later train).
Eg, if I'm travelling home from Stratford station and there are delays, I'll often pop into Westfield and get something to eat before travelling, rather than eating when I get home.

 

[fandroid]

Massive amount of waffle here. I'd remind all those trying tell us what "disruption" means that their argument is irrelevant as NRCoT uses the word "delayed". If the passenger decides not to travel due to a delay, as is their right, then a no-quibble refund should be given without question and without costly time-wasting by all concerned. It's not as if an automated refund system would cost the seller more than a pittance. 12 mins is easily longer than the 5 mins that the automated pa systems use as their definition of delayed. If it went to court I'd guess that the judge would say that the railway routinely and publicly defines 5 mins as "delayed" so that's a good working definition for all affected.

 

[scrapy]

The OP is definitely entitled to a refund. I'm sure any PA at the station would announce the train as DELAYED by approximately 12 minutes not on time. Even a 1 minute delay entitles them to a refund if they choose not to travel.

I have abandoned journeys for short delays, where for example I have a tight bus connection and the next one isn't for an hour or two. If the bus connection is 15 minutes after the train is due, and the stop a couple of minutes walk from the platform, I would not risk travelling on a 12 minute delay.

 

[duffield]

The OP is definitely entitled to a refund. I'm sure any PA at the station would announce the train as DELAYED by approximately 12 minutes not on time. Even a 1 minute delay entitles them to a refund if they choose not to travel.

I have abandoned journeys for short delays, where for example I have a tight bus connection and the next one isn't for an hour or two. If the bus connection is 15 minutes after the train is due, and the stop a couple of minutes walk from the platform, I would not risk travelling on a 12 minute delay.

Agreed. I've abandoned a train journey because a short connection to a two-hourly bus service for an afternoon walk made the entire trip unworkable when the train was delayed by ten minutes at its origin.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. I've abandoned a train journey because a short connection to a two-hourly bus service for an afternoon walk made the entire trip unworkable when the train was delayed by ten minutes at its origin.

I've done similar (though it was an Isle of Wight ferry, not a bus) - one cancelled branch service would have meant missing the ferry, knackering the timings on the whole thing. Went to the booking office and got the ticket non-issued (despite the fact it had been partly used) and replaced with one just to Brockenhurst and went for a wander round there instead. Theoretically I could have got an abandonment full refund but that didn't sit right with me as I didn't change modes or go back straight away, rather I just changed my destination.

 

[spotify95]

Or indeed the 'Plan B' may involve abandoning the railway and using some other mode of transport (the cost of which wouldn't be reimbursed for a delay of this magnitude).

Indeed.

For example, my Plan A of getting to work and back is the 07:13 from Wellingborough to Corby, arrives 7:30, which gives me enough time to get to work. But the next one afterwards, which is 07:39 departure, arrives in Corby at 7:57 and it is impossible to get to work from the train station in just 3 minutes.
Hence, my Plan B (if I spot before leaving home that Plan A won't work) is using the car to get straight to Corby.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I'm sure we were briefed some time ago that a 1 minute delay would trigger a fee free refund on any type of ticket if the customer decided not to travel

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'm sure we were briefed some time ago that a 1 minute delay would trigger a fee free refund on any type of ticket if the customer decided not to travel

Almost certainly. Whilst not in line with the spirit of the rules, it's perfectly in line with the actual wording in the NRCoT.

 

[Haywain]

I'm sure we were briefed some time ago that a 1 minute delay would trigger a fee free refund on any type of ticket if the customer decided not to travel

Now, is that a 1 minute delay to the time the train arrives at the station you're joining at, or only a 1 minute delay to the departure time?

 

[Starmill]

Now, is that a 1 minute delay to the time the train arrives at the station you're joining at, or only a 1 minute delay to the departure time?

I guess a delay is a delay.

For practical reasons, though, you'd be unable to make a decision not to use an Advance ticket on account of delay if there were no expected delay before boarding.

 

[Krokodil]

I guess a delay is a delay.

For practical reasons, though, you'd be unable to make a decision not to use an Advance ticket on account of delay if there were no expected delay before boarding.

So if a train was expected to depart 1L but arrived on time at its destination, should someone be eligible?

 

[Starmill]

So if a train was expected to depart 1L but arrived on time at its destination, should someone be eligible?

It probably depends on whether there's a reasonable belief it would arrive late as a result of leaving late. For example if it were a long-distance journey with few stops I can't imagine you could show that. But if the delay were already entered into the arrival time as 10 late then clearly you could. In other words some may argue successfully that leaving late and arriving on time isn't a "delay", but if so, that would have to come down to whether it was expected to arrive on time or not.

 

[urbophile]

It doesn't really matter what the passenger's underlying motivations are. But yes, it is a way of getting a refund on an unwanted Advance ticket.

Seems to me it's only 'unwanted' because the ticket couldn't be used instead on the next train. Presumably if it could the OP would have no problem. I can see the point of Advance tickets if they offer a significant reduction for long-distance journeys, but for a short local journey? Short-distance fares should be cheap enough so that complications like this don't arise.

 

[sheff1]

So if a train was expected to depart 1L but arrived on time at its destination, should someone be eligible?

Yes. There is no way to know before abandoning a journey because of an already existing delay whether the train will arrive at the destination on time, early, or be further delayed.

 

[Watershed]

Now, is that a 1 minute delay to the time the train arrives at the station you're joining at, or only a 1 minute delay to the departure time?

I would have thought an anticipated delay in departure. If the screens at the station say anything other than "On time" I would say that qualifies.

 

[Starmill]

Seems to me it's only 'unwanted' because the ticket couldn't be used instead on the next train. Presumably if it could the OP would have no problem. I can see the point of Advance tickets if they offer a significant reduction for long-distance journeys, but for a short local journey? Short-distance fares should be cheap enough so that complications like this don't arise.

For most of the short journeys in question we could accommodate the demand by just selling the Anytime tickets near the top of the Advance price range (ideally through pay as you go though, so there's a discount for loyalty for the day or week, in the form of capping) yes.

The barrier arises when it's unclear what's a short journey and what's a long one.

 

[robbeech]

I can’t help but think that the railway is likely to resist this interpretation

Of course it will, it’ll do anything not to pay out a few quid, even if it costs an order of magnitude more to do so. It’s pettier than some of its users.

and if it is used too much we might find a less favourable definition being written into the rules.

Maybe we need to be a little careful in what we wish for.

Agreed, though I would say this thread is more of a risk than the small number of people utilising this right.

I'm sure we were briefed some time ago that a 1 minute delay would trigger a fee free refund on any type of ticket if the customer decided not to travel

It makes sense, they’re the rules as we interpret it. It can’t really be abused.

The "Published Timetable of the Day" idea will likely have originated with the DfT, since they are the ones ultimately funding Delay Repay costs.

I’m not hugely convinced on this. I think these things often start with someone at an operator (or retailer in this case) not following the rules for financial gain, this then gets seen by many as a good little earner and spreads. It’s only then that it becomes a rule. This is what happened with PToD, Northern had been unlawfully rejecting delay repay on these grounds well over a year before this rule came into play, and in that time we saw a few more TOCs jump on board because they knew Northern were getting away with it. Then as if by magic the rule comes in. It takes a lot of different law breakers to make a railway.

So if a train was expected to depart 1L but arrived on time at its destination, should someone be eligible?

Yes. There are trains I catch that a 1 or 2 minute delay will mean missing a path further down which will turn into a 6 or 7 minute delay which will lead to a missed connection which will turn into a 2 hour delay. As it’s already quicker and much cheaper than a flexible ticket to drive direct to the destination then I see no issue in treating a delay of 1 or 2 minutes as a high risk and abandoning the journey by rail. Every situation is different, someone going to the next stop would be the same 1 minute late, so it’s unlikely to affect them but do we change the rules to mean I’m forced to be 2 hours late because they’d only be 1 minute late? That sounds very ……. Actually that does sound like the railway.

Yes. There is no way to know before abandoning a journey because of an already existing delay whether the train will arrive at the destination on time, early, or be further delayed.

We take a chance everytime we catch a train On Time that it won’t be delayed, just as we do when we get in the car and head to the motorway. So something already delayed is higher risk.

 

[rs101]

Almost certainly. Whilst not in line with the spirit of the rules, it's perfectly in line with the actual wording in the NRCoT.

Spirit of the rules means nothing though - we've seen countless cases on here where the ToC applies the exact wording, whether it makes sense to or not.

 

[SteveM70]

I’m not hugely convinced on this. I think these things often start with someone at an operator (or retailer in this case) not following the rules for financial gain, this then gets seen by many as a good little earner and spreads. It’s only then that it becomes a rule. This is what happened with PToD, Northern had been unlawfully rejecting delay repay on these grounds well over a year before this rule came into play, and in that time we saw a few more TOCs jump on board because they knew Northern were getting away with it. Then as if by magic the rule comes in. It takes a lot of different law breakers to make a railway.

And who was running Northern at the time?

 

[Krokodil]

Yes. There are trains I catch that a 1 or 2 minute delay will mean missing a path further down which will turn into a 6 or 7 minute delay which will lead to a missed connection which will turn into a 2 hour delay. As it’s already quicker and much cheaper than a flexible ticket to drive direct to the destination then I see no issue in treating a delay of 1 or 2 minutes as a high risk and abandoning the journey by rail.

That doesn't apply to the OP though, no chance any missed paths on that journey. To be honest I've never come across timetabling so tight that a two minute delay will result in a missed path, though I suppose that it may happen in the Thameslink core.