Application of the Delay Repay Scheme

[leyscjd]

My understanding was that companies specified by the DFT to apply the Delay Repay scheme all have to apply it in exactly the same way.

Specifically, in the case of delays over 120 minutes, if a return ticket is held, compensation equivalent to the total price of the return ticket (not just one leg of it) is payable.

As far as I can tell, all companies that participate in DR agree with what I am saying, with one exception, First Capital Connect.

Their charter does not refer to delays over 120 minutes and in a current dispute I am involved in, they are claiming different companies apply Delay Repay rules in different ways, and the 120 minute rule DOES NOT apply to them.

Are they correct in that judgement?

 

[thedbdiboy]

They are not all identical - Passenger's Charter/Delay Repay schemes are all franchise specific. The rules for the specific scheme will apply in your case.

FCC's charter will be part of their franchise agreement - if the charter doesn't state that they refund both portions for a delay of over 120 minutes, then they won't....

 

[Merseysider]

I don't think it's particularly clear cut. I have no idea whether FCC refund extra for 120m+ delays, but do some serious digging. We all know TOCs like to pretend rules don't apply to them when it suits them best.

 

[northwichcat]

Not all franchises have a scheme called 'Delay Repay', some of the older franchises like Northern still operate on the previous scheme.

 

[Tetchytyke]

FCC operate Delay Repay, although their literature doesn't specify additional compensation if your train is two hours late.

If you've been declined additional compensation, it's probably worth going to London TravelWatch/Passenger Focus and escalating the complaint, saying you don't believe the compensation offered was suitable and sufficient for the inconvenience they caused. It sometimes works.

If it's hypothetical I wouldn't worry about it, given that First Capital Connect ceases to exist in a month.

 

[leyscjd]

Thanks for the replies.

Every other Delay Repay TOC other than FCC mentions the 120+ minute delay rule so I assume this is a (probably deliberate) omission.

Regardless of what is says or doesn't say in Passenger Charters, the Delay Repay scheme should be applied consistently between companies as that was the main reason for introducing it as opposed to older schemes that vary hugely between companies.

For FCC to wriggle out of it on the basis that it is omitted from their charter is wrong but is to be expected from a company that often treats customers with contempt.

 

[swt_passenger]

I did a bit of digging and found an FOI request about delay repay. In the final response, a 2007 letter shown here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ... Sittampalam FOI ICO Delay Repay Released.pdf

...they seem to be explaining that FCC (and 'one' at that time) had early versions of delay repay, and that the future versions would include an extra 'newer' requirement for the 120+ minutes threshold. (This is suggested by the table between paras 9 and 10 of the letter.)

I think the likelihood is that if GA are offering 120+ delay repay it will be because their franchise has been renewed since 2007, and FCC's hasn't?

Without studying the whole FOI response from start to finish, I think there's a distinct possibility that FCC are still on their trial version of delay repay, and am assuming that the next franchise under GTR will probably bring it into line, as suggested in an earlier post.