Twyford Tfl Rail Delay

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed. “Sufficiently late” in this instance is one hour, as defined in the contract (the NRCoT). The OP was 40 minutes late.

The NRCoT, since the start of this month, set out that you can claim compensation for a 60+ minute delay under all circumstances - regardless of the operator or cause of the delay. This is set out in Conditions 33.3 and 33.4.

It also sets out that operators may pay compensation for lesser delays, and makes any such policies legally binding (Condition 32.1.1.2). For journeys within the PAYG area TfL have chosen to offer more compensation than they have to pay for 1 hour delays (the full fare), for delays of 30+ minutes. They state that they do not pay compensation for delays not under their control and then exemplify security alerts and customer incidents for when this would be the case.

A signal failure is quite clearly not covered by this exemption, and accordingly "accordingly late" is actually defined as 30 minutes in this case.

 

[island]

Lists of examples are not exhaustive. A signal failure is under Network Rail’s control, not TfL Rail’s.

(Contrast with, for example, Chiltern Railways’ policy which refers to events outside “the railway industry’s control”.)

 

[matt_world2004]

Lists of examples are not exhaustive. A signal failure is under Network Rail’s control, not TfL Rail’s.

(Contrast with, for example, Chiltern Railways’ policy which refers to events outside “the railway industry’s control”.)

A driver shortage is under MTRS control not TfL's . If you are passing off things under contractor control as not being under the control of TfL it means there is virtually no reason to pay delay repay

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Lists of examples are not exhaustive. A signal failure is under Network Rail’s control, not TfL Rail’s.

(Contrast with, for example, Chiltern Railways’ policy which refers to events outside “the railway industry’s control”.)

Of course they're not. But they're a clear indication of the intention of the exclusion.

And if signal failures are outside of TfL's control because they don't own the signals, then why is a train failure not also outside their control? After all, they don't maintain or build the trains themselves. Where do you stop? What if the driver couldn't get into work because of a road traffic accident?

The list is examples is quite clear that the exclusion is intended to, and indeed only does, apply to events that could otherwise be known as "force majeure".

In any case, Section 69 of the CRA intervenes in the consumer's favour if there is any ambiguity as to whether routine infrastructure failures are "outside of TfL's control".

 

[Hadders]

TfL Rail cannot offer less compensation than that set out in the NRCoT, so if the NRCoT says that compensation is paid regardless of the cause of the delay then TfL Rail cannot change that.

 

[cactustwirly]

TfL Rail cannot offer less compensation than that set out in the NRCoT, so if the NRCoT says that compensation is paid regardless of the cause of the delay then TfL Rail cannot change that.

Until they fob you off, pretending not to be part of NR

 

[island]

TfL Rail cannot offer less compensation than that set out in the NRCoT, so if the NRCoT says that compensation is paid regardless of the cause of the delay then TfL Rail cannot change that.

Indeed it can’t. But the NRCoT says compensation is paid for 60 minute or longer delays, and TfL Rail certainly can say it will pay more compensation, or compensation for shorter delays, in certain circumstances.

Of course they're not. But they're a clear indication of the intention of the exclusion.

And if signal failures are outside of TfL's control because they don't own the signals, then why is a train failure not also outside their control? After all, they don't maintain or build the trains themselves. Where do you stop? What if the driver couldn't get into work because of a road traffic accident?

The list is examples is quite clear that the exclusion is intended to, and indeed only does, apply to events that could otherwise be known as "force majeure".

In any case, Section 69 of the CRA intervenes in the consumer's favour if there is any ambiguity as to whether routine infrastructure failures are "outside of TfL's control".

I think we shall have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[transmanche]

TfL Rail cannot offer less compensation than that set out in the NRCoT

They don't.

so if the NRCoT says that compensation is paid regardless of the cause of the delay then TfL Rail cannot change that.

The NRCoT says "you are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of fault" (33.4) with the level of compensation for a single ticket being set at 50%. And TfL complies with that.

The issue is regarding the level of compensation that the various operators offer over and above the minimum prescribed by the NRCoT. GWR offers compensation for delays of 15 mins or more, regardless of fault, but at a lower rate. TfL Rail (and London Overground) offers a full refund for delays of 30 mins or more, but they exclude "delays outside our control".

Whether one scheme or the other is 'more generous' will depend on a) the length of the delay and b) the cause of the delay:

• A 20 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 25% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 50% refund on GWR, but a 100% refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 100% refund on both GWR and TfL Rail.

• A 20 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 25% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 50% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 100% refund on GWR, but a 50% refund on TfL Rail (if outside the PAYG area).

 

[hkstudent]

They don't.

The NRCoT says "you are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of fault" (33.4) with the level of compensation for a single ticket being set at 50%. And TfL complies with that.

The issue is regarding the level of compensation that the various operators offer over and above the minimum prescribed by the NRCoT. GWR offers compensation for delays of 15 mins or more, regardless of fault, but at a lower rate. TfL Rail (and London Overground) offers a full refund for delays of 30 mins or more, but they exclude "delays outside our control".

Whether one scheme or the other is 'more generous' will depend on a) the length of the delay and b) the cause of the delay:

• A 20 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 25% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 50% refund on GWR, but a 100% refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 100% refund on both GWR and TfL Rail.

• A 20 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 25% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 50% refund on GWR, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 100% refund on GWR, but a 50% refund on TfL Rail (if outside the PAYG area).

but to add on, TfL's delay compensation won't pay the connecting journey in less than 60 minutes delay, so,

• A 20 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 25% refund on GWR + connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 50% refund on GWR + connecting journey, but a 100% refund on TfL Rail, for TfL journey section only.
• A 65 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 100% refund on GWR + connection, 100% on TfL journey + 50% on connecting journey.

• A 20 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 25% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 50% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 100% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but a 50% refund on TfL Rail + connecting journey.

 

[bb21]

but to add on, TfL's delay compensation won't pay the connecting journey in less than 60 minutes delay, so,

• A 20 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 25% refund on GWR + connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 50% refund on GWR + connecting journey, but a 100% refund on TfL Rail, for TfL journey section only.
• A 65 min delay caused by a train failure will get you a 100% refund on GWR + connection, 100% on TfL journey + 50% on connecting journey.

• A 20 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 25% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 35 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 50% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but no refund on TfL Rail.
• A 65 min delay caused by a security alert will get you a 100% refund on GWR+ connecting journey, but a 50% refund on TfL Rail + connecting journey.

You have only just repeated his point, so what is your point?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

You have only just repeated his point, so what is your point?

Hkstudent has added 'and connection' to the first set.

 

[bb21]

Hkstudent has added 'and connection' to the first set.

Yes but what is the difference to the point made in the quoted post?

 

[hkstudent]

Yes but what is the difference to the point made in the quoted post?

It's the difference in total payout.
Tfl will only pay for the section it operates, but not any other NR services
For example, from Greenford to Hayes&Harlington (H&H), TfL will only pay West Ealing to H&H. But, GWR will pay full journey from Greenford to H&H.

 

[bb21]

transmanche already made the point that whether one is more generous than the other will depend on the specific circumstance of each case. Adding a connection doesn't change that. Indeed a connection can work "to one's favour", so to speak, pushing an ineligible first leg over the threshold over the whole journey, or have the completely opposite effect. It just adds more complexity.

All you are doing is reinforcing his point, or were you trying to say something different?

 

[transmanche]

transmanche already made the point that whether one is more generous than the other will depend on the specific circumstance of each case.

I think you probably explained it better than I could!

Some people seemed to be be assuming that one scheme was 'better' than the other. Or that because TfL Rail's scheme was not exactly the same as GWR's scheme, that somehow it didn't comply with the NRCoT. As you surmised, the point I was making was a simple one: that for some delays the GWR scheme is more 'generous' but in other situations, the TFL Rail scheme is more 'generous'.

It wasn't meant to be a definitive list of all possible scenarios, merely to demonstrate the 'swings and roundabouts' nature of the scheme differences.

 

[hkstudent]

transmanche already made the point that whether one is more generous than the other will depend on the specific circumstance of each case. Adding a connection doesn't change that. Indeed a connection can work "to one's favour", so to speak, pushing an ineligible first leg over the threshold over the whole journey, or have the completely opposite effect. It just adds more complexity.

All you are doing is reinforcing his point, or were you trying to say something different?

Indeed for the scheme difference, it swings, but, more importantly I put on focus on whether the value of the connecting leg will also be paid in a valid claim scenario.
TfL's pay can be even more inferior if the connecting journey is a very expensive one (e.g. Connecting to Manchester from Wilesden Junction and Euston)

 

[matt_world2004]

Indeed for the scheme difference, it swings, but, more importantly I put on focus on whether the value of the connecting leg will also be paid in a valid claim scenario.
TfL's pay can be even more inferior if the connecting journey is a very expensive one (e.g. Connecting to Manchester from Wilesden Junction and Euston)

.I don't think it's true that tfl will only refund their portion of the journey on LO and TfL rail

 

[hkstudent]

.I don't think it's true that tfl will only refund their portion of the journey on LO and TfL rail

I have tried with couple of case for Clapham Junction delay + connecting to Southeastern network and was paid out only LO section fare (only £1.50) for 30-59 minute delay. I appealed and still failed.
Was I being mistreated?

 

[island]

Was your throughout journey delayed by over an hour?

 

[hkstudent]

Was your throughout journey delayed by over an hour?

For my cases, mostly no. It's rather difficult to get an hour delay.
[Not relevant to this thread] I also get cases for Underground delay + Southeastern connections being paid only Undergound Zone 1-2 fare. [/Not relevant to this thread]

 

[island]

Whilst the National Rail Conditions of Travel would (it appears) oblige TOCs to pay out for the throughout journey for a delay of an hour or more, TfL and its subsidiaries are entitled to, and do, pay only in respect of their part of the trip for shorter delays.

 

[cactustwirly]

Whilst the National Rail Conditions of Travel would (it appears) oblige TOCs to pay out for the throughout journey for a delay of an hour or more, TfL and its subsidiaries are entitled to, and do, pay only in respect of their part of the trip for shorter delays.

That's incorrect, TfL rail is a National Rail operator, and must abide by the NRCoT which obliges TfL to pay out for the full journey.
London Underground is different because it is not part of NR, therefore it doesn't have to pay out for the full journey.

 

[island]

I’m not going round in circles with this again, please re-read the entire thread.

 

[transmanche]

That's incorrect, TfL rail is a National Rail operator, and must abide by the NRCoT which obliges TfL to pay out for the full journey.

It has been explained multiple times that TfL Rail complies with the NRCoT.

The NRCoT specify that TOCs have to pay compensation for the full journey if the passenger is delayed for 60 mins or more. TfL Rail does this. Anything else offered may be a requirement of the franchise/concession, but is over and above the minimum requirements of the NRCoT.