Delay Repay both legs. Compensation more than ticket price?

[Gaspode]

On my recent return journey I experienced delays on both legs. Out was 93 minutes. Return was 126 minutes. Different operators responsible for the delays.

I have to submit two claims to the operator's responsible for the delays. Outward was CrossCountry, return was SWR.

Do I get 50% back for the outward and 100% for the return? That'd be more than the ticket cost.

Journey details:
Out 22/08 1535 Sherborne to Blackpool North 2318. This journey was disrupted at Birmingham with my Crsscountry train from Basinstoke terminating there instead of Manchester. An incident near Stafford apparently. I had to go to Rugby, then Manchester. I arrived in Blackpool at 0051

Return journey on 25/08 was 1125 from Blackpool arriving Sherborne 1732. Via London with a route excess. This journey was disrupted at London Waterloo due to signalling problems. Should've been on the 1520 from there. This was cancelled, as were the next two trains at 1620 and 1650. I had to go to Paddington where I caught the 1635 to Reading, then 1715 to Basingstoke and finally 1807 to Sherborne arriving 1941.

 

[winks]

Re SWR, yes anything over 120 mins means a 100% refund of the ticket.
A delay on both legs of the ticket - whilst being very frustrating - can often mean getting your moneys worth from the TOCS !

 

[Hadders]

Officially, you're not allowed to be paid more in total delay repay compensation than the cost of the ticket.

In practice, the train companies are often unaware of what other companies have paid out so yo can end up being paid more than you're officially entitled to.

 

[Southern Beau]

Officially, you're not allowed to be paid more in total delay repay compensation than the cost of the ticket.

In practice, the train companies are often unaware of what other companies have paid out so yo can end up being paid more than you're officially entitled to

Can you point me to the text which says “you can’t be compensated more than the value of your ticket”

Is this it:

 

[fandroid]

You can apply for a discretionary payment, in addition to Delay Repay, if the disruption caused you other losses. That's there in NRCoT too.

 

[Haywain]

Can you point me to the text which says “you can’t be compensated more than the value of your ticket”

Is this it:
View attachment 141639

No. You need to read slightly further down , where condition 32.2 says this (my bold):

For claims made under the industry arrangements (set out at paragraph 32.1.1 above) for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Can you point me to the text which says “you can’t be compensated more than the value of your ticket”

Is this it:
View attachment 141639

There is a legal concept of betterment (or the equitable principle) in terms of civil/contract law, which Delay Repay (and the National Rail Conditions of Travel) falls under. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined.

The net effect of this is ultimately that liability is usually capped at restoring the wronged party back to the original position (i.e. value of the ticket) and cannot profit or benefit from any claim.

This applies to consequential losses too - but you also have a duty to proactively and effectively mitigate your own losses (if any).

 

[317 forever]

Isn't a delay on a return ticket based on 1/2 the return fare?

In which case, the passenger should qualify for repay of 1/2 the fare from the outbound delaying TOC and the other half from the inbound delaying TOC?

 

[Hadders]

Isn't a delay on a return ticket based on 1/2 the return fare?

In which case, the passenger should qualify for repay of 1/2 the fare from the outbound delaying TOC and the other half from the inbound delaying TOC?

Not if it's a 2 hour delay.

 

[Watershed]

There is a legal concept of betterment (or the equitable principle) in terms of civil/contract law, which Delay Repay (and the National Rail Conditions of Travel) falls under. It doesn't need to be explicitly defined.

The net effect of this is ultimately that liability is usually capped at restoring the wronged party back to the original position (i.e. value of the ticket) and cannot profit or benefit from any claim.

This applies to consequential losses too - but you also have a duty to proactively and effectively mitigate your own losses (if any).

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Delay Repay is a form of liquidated damages, so the concept of betterment (which has to do with torts) has no relevance.

There's no reason why Delay Repay couldn't exceed the value of the ticket, and indeed that used to be the case in the event of two 2+-hour delays. However the NRCoT now state that Delay Repay is capped at 100% of the cost of the ticket.

 

[island]

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Delay Repay is a form of liquidated damages, so the concept of betterment (which has to do with torts) has no relevance.

There's no reason why Delay Repay couldn't exceed the value of the ticket, and indeed that used to be the case in the event of two 2+-hour delays. However the NRCoT now state that Delay Repay is capped at 100% of the cost of the ticket.

I was just typing the same thing. Betterment is a completely different concept.

 

[35B]

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Delay Repay is a form of liquidated damages, so the concept of betterment (which has to do with torts) has no relevance.

There's no reason why Delay Repay couldn't exceed the value of the ticket, and indeed that used to be the case in the event of two 2+-hour delays. However the NRCoT now state that Delay Repay is capped at 100% of the cost of the ticket.

Quite. I have been in situations where profits have arisen out of the structures of liquidated damages arrangements.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I'm afraid this is nonsense. Delay Repay is a form of liquidated damages, so the concept of betterment (which has to do with torts) has no relevance.

There's no reason why Delay Repay couldn't exceed the value of the ticket, and indeed that used to be the case in the event of two 2+-hour delays. However the NRCoT now state that Delay Repay is capped at 100% of the cost of the ticket.

Ok so take it to the ultimate conclusion. A TOC refuses to pay out more than 100% of the ticket value and you exhaust the appeals etc.

You therefore have to progress the matter in the County Court via a civil claim.

Are you saying, with absolute certainty, that you could convince a District Judge that it is reasonable (and you have an undoubted contractual right) to refuse to accept 100% of the ticket value as delay compensation, and insist on an amount which exceeds what you already paid?

I wouldn't rate your chances.... not least the fact that you wouldn't be able to reclaim your costs back anyway in that sort of matter.

And ultimately have you got any evidence at all, whatsoever, that even if for some reason, you managed to convince a judge that you were entitled to, say 200% - that a TOC wouldn't be permitted to add a clarification in any terms etc that makes it crystal clear that you cannot claim more than 100%?

It's a wholly discretionary scheme with no statutory basis. The DfT could withdraw it tomorrow if they wanted to, and revert to the contractual position of the Conditions of Travel.

Some forum members would do well to consider that potentially taking advantage of a generous scheme, more generous than most other developed nations, is ultimately not going to end well. Train operators have clearly implemented this limit and given this discussion, it is clear that you know how the TOCs intend for the scheme to operate.

 

[Watershed]

Ok so take it to the ultimate conclusion. A TOC refuses to pay out more than 100% of the ticket value and you exhaust the appeals etc.

You therefore have to progress the matter in the County Court via a civil claim.

Are you saying, with absolute certainty, that you could convince a District Judge that it is reasonable (and you have an undoubted contractual right) to refuse to accept 100% of the ticket value as delay compensation, and insist on an amount which exceeds what you already paid?

I wouldn't rate your chances.... not least the fact that you wouldn't be able to reclaim your costs back anyway in that sort of matter.

And ultimately have you got any evidence at all, whatsoever, that even if for some reason, you managed to convince a judge that you were entitled to, say 200% - that a TOC wouldn't be permitted to add a clarification in any terms etc that makes it crystal clear that you cannot claim more than 100%?

It's a wholly discretionary scheme with no statutory basis. The DfT could withdraw it tomorrow if they wanted to, and revert to the contractual position of the Conditions of Travel.

Some forum members would do well to consider that potentially taking advantage of a generous scheme, more generous than most other developed nations, is ultimately not going to end well. Train operators have clearly implemented this limit and given this discussion, it is clear that you know how the TOCs intend for the scheme to operate.

It would help if you had actually read my post properly!

I stated that the position used to be that total Delay Repay compensation could exceed the cost of the ticket. I was clear that this is no longer the case, as the NRCoT now limit compensation to the cost of the ticket.

The very fact that this clause was added shows that the drafters recognised that this was previously possible, and wanted to limit future liability. Nowhere have I suggested that the DfT can't change the NRCoT - so I'm not sure why you are suggesting I have claimed otherwise?

Prior to that clause having been added, I would have had no qualms pursuing a County Court claim if a Delay Repay claim were wrongly refused in the circumstances described. What's reasonable is neither here nor there; it's about contractual rights.

The NRCoT and Charters say that compensation will be paid (rather than "may be considered" etc.) so it's in no way a discretionary scheme - it's a contractual entitlement. Yes, the TOCs can change it, but that's no different to how the Routeing Guide can be changed over time; no-one would suggest that that is discretionary!

 

[JBuchananGB]

Your simplest approach would be to submit the claim for 100% of the cost as you are entitled to that, and not to submit the other claim. Your conscience is then clear. If you submitted two claims, you would somehow need to annotate the 100% claim to the effect that you were only claiming 50%, which would confuse them!

 

[Haywain]

Your simplest approach would be to submit the claim for 100% of the cost as you are entitled to that, and not to submit the other claim. Your conscience is then clear. If you submitted two claims, you would somehow need to annotate the 100% claim to the effect that you were only claiming 50%, which would confuse them!

I would submit both claims. I don't agree that it is for the customer to decide what should be payable and who should be paying it. It is, though, for the customer to understand why the amount payable may be limited in the way that is set out. If the result of submitting both claims is that the customer is 'overpaid' then that is the result of the industry having unified rules but not having a unified system for managing the process.

 

[ScotTrains]

I don't see why compensation should be capped at the ticket price. It's not a refund you are asking for but something to compensate you for a delay. Compensation doesn't necessarily even need to be money, it could be a free ticket (I believe Northern sometimes do this) but most TOCs have decided to make it a varying percentage of your ticket price depending on length of you delayed journey.

It seems completely unfair that you are denied compensation for a delay on a return journey simply because you were unfortunate enough to endure a 2hr delay on you outbound journey!
Each journey should be treated individually with the compensation awarded independently of each other, even if the total monetary value is greater than ticket price.

For now I guess it's best to try and use a different TOC on your return to improve your chances of receiving the correct compensation if you're unfortunate to encounter delays on both legs.

Another possible option (depending on ticket type and how frequent you make the journey) if you have already had a 2hr delay on your outbound journey may be to buy a new return ticket (especially if your return train appears to be running late) but in reverse order. I.e. use the new outward leg to get you back and keep the old unused return leg. That way you end up with your original ticket +100% compensation and a second return ticket that may also receive compensation depending on if you were subsequently delayed. You then have a (possibly free) return journey you can make with the two unused tickets at a later date!

 

[fandroid]

Another possible option (depending on ticket type and how frequent you make the journey) if you have already had a 2hr delay on your outbound journey may be to buy a new return ticket (especially if your return train appears to be running late) but in reverse order. I.e. use the new outward leg to get you back and keep the old unused return leg. That way you end up with your original ticket +100% compensation and a second return ticket that may also receive compensation depending on if you were subsequently delayed. You then have a (possibly free) return journey you can make with the two unused tickets at a later date!

I had a chuckle over this ingenious "solution", but eventually decided it would only be worthwhile if you were really certain that you were travelling on the same journey within the next 30 days. However, you might be jeopardising your rights to delay repay on that next journey! If a significant delay did then occur, a claim might give rise to an interesting discussion with the TOC on the definition of "journey" vs "ticket".

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Another possible option (depending on ticket type and how frequent you make the journey) if you have already had a 2hr delay on your outbound journey may be to buy a new return ticket (especially if your return train appears to be running late) but in reverse order. I.e. use the new outward leg to get you back and keep the old unused return leg.

If you wait until you can see a particular return train has been cancelled or is delayed before buying the "reverse return", you'll likely be denied DR for any planned itinerary using that train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you wait until you can see a particular return train has been cancelled or is delayed before buying the "reverse return", you'll likely be denied DR for any planned itinerary using that train.

This doesn't seem to be totally clear. I've been paid DR for a ticket purchased after I knew the train was cancelled.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I've been paid DR for a ticket purchased after I knew the train was cancelled.

That could happen if the TOC concerned isn't checking the time the ticket was purchased.

But if they are checking, your DR claim ought to be denied.

Indeed a TOC might go as far as looking back through claims and see those made against a ticket purchased with a foreknowledge of a cancellation as potential fraud.

It may be the next thing they do once the well of "suspiciously high number of refunds" has run dry.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This doesn't seem to be totally clear. I've been paid DR for a ticket purchased after I knew the train was cancelled.

That ought to be rejected and is bordering on whether it would flag for secondary investigation if it was a regular occurrence.

You have no contract or rights under the conditions of travel until and unless a ticket is purchased, and therefore you cannot be delayed without a ticket, as you have no rights to travel on any journey with the railway in the first place.

There is potentially a grey area (more in terms of a good customer experience) around stations with no ticketing facilities, and a delay occurs prior to purchase, but technically there is no contract formed until the ticket is sold.

In any event, if you buy a ticket after disruption is known, (or could/should reasonably be known), that potentially has other complications around rights and obligations, such as around replacement transport etc.

I'd expect the claim to be auto rejected by default and for any specific circumstances to be taken into account on an appeal / contact with customer services - to consider a discretionary DR payment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you aware of this being in writing?

There is nothing saying the railway can't, if the ticket is purchased after the delay is known, effectively discount the journey because of the delay, or even give it free. Indeed, everything I've seen in writing states that what counts is the timetable as of 2200 the day before, not the one at the time of purchase. (It used to say at the time of purchase, it no longer does so far as I'm aware).

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Are you aware of this being in writing?

There is nothing saying the railway can't, if the ticket is purchased after the delay is known, effectively discount the journey because of the delay, or even give it free. Indeed, everything I've seen in writing states that what counts is the timetable as of 2200 the day before, not the one at the time of purchase. (It used to say at the time of purchase, it no longer does so far as I'm aware).

It is common sense and logical. There would be nothing written down, because there is nothing to write down - that's the whole issue you have - you lack standing and have no contract.

How can you be delayed for a journey/train you have absolutely no entitlement to be on in the first place?! Indeed it would likely even be a criminal offence for you to be on that train without having that contract beforehand in most cases.

I don't think there would be too much difficulty prosecuting this if it were to be repeatedly done.

I wouldn't fancy my chances of success with that via the rail ombudsman (assuming they were competent) and I'd certainly not be keen to test that as a customer in a court of law, be it civil or criminal.

I'm not sure even this forum would propose that such a course of action is advisable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is common sense and logical. There would be nothing written down, because there is nothing to write down - that's the whole issue you have - you lack standing and have no contract.

How can you be delayed for a journey/train you have absolutely no entitlement to be on in the first place?! Indeed it would likely even be a criminal offence for you to be on that train without having that contract beforehand in most cases.

I don't think there would be too much difficulty prosecuting this if it were to be repeatedly done.

OK, so it's your opinion, then. Thanks, noted.

Delay Repay is contractual, and so the contract is initiated when the ticket is purchased. If it was purchased before the scheduled departure time of the cancelled/delayed train with the intention to use that train, I can see no reason why it should not exist in that case. After all, I actually was delayed - I sat at the station for over an hour.

Furthermore, it's possible to purchase a walk-up ticket at a TVM prior to seeing the departure board, depending upon the layout of the station.

Good customer service, seeing as you mentioned that, would be that it's free (or 25%/50% discounted as appropriate) with no need to claim in that circumstance.

I'm not sure even this forum would propose that such a course of action is advisable.

You can search for the thread if you want, but I did discuss it here before making the claim, and the overriding view was that because I genuinely was delayed (the ticket was purchased before the cancelled train should have departed, and I did sit at the station for an hour and a bit for the next one) that it was completely fair game. I did expect it to be rejected nonetheless, but I don't think it was unfair or fraudulent because I did incur a delay.

It used to be made very clear that any compensation was based on the situation at ticket purchase. It now doesn't say that any more, it specifically states that the situation at 2200 the day before is what counts. It could say "or ticket purchase, whichever is later", and it might be reasonable if it did, but it doesn't.

Also, do you consider it right that anyone travelling from an unstaffed station with no ticket purchase facilities should never be able to claim DR?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

OK, so it's your opinion, then. Thanks, noted.

Delay Repay is contractual, and so the contract is initiated when the ticket is purchased. If it was purchased before the scheduled departure time of the cancelled/delayed train with the intention to use that train, I can see no reason why it should not exist in that case. After all, I actually was delayed - I sat at the station for over an hour.

Furthermore, it's possible to purchase a walk-up ticket at a TVM prior to seeing the departure board, depending upon the layout of the station.

Good customer service, seeing as you mentioned that, would be that it's free (or 25%/50% discounted as appropriate) with no need to claim in that circumstance.

Certainly given me something to investigate further. I'd be interested to see how widespread this is.

If you're making a habit of it, I think you're going to come unstuck eventually, but if you feel comfortable continuing, and that you can defend your position if it came to it, fair enough!

I personally think you're on extremely thin ice with this - if not starting to fall through it.

As I said earlier - as a customer service gesture - with a fully explained note - I can see a case for a discretionary payment on occasion.

For a delay repay claim - especially repeated claims - I don't believe you have any entitlement and it could even be a total misrepresentation and into problematic territory if it was a regular occurrence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you're making a habit of it

For a delay repay claim - especially repeated claims

I think you're making big assumptions there; I have in fact done it once that I recall. Simply because on my normal patch cancellations are actually very rare, and I felt very aggrieved because I had to sit at a station for an hour and a bit, having nothing else to do; it was my opinion that the TOC should, as good customer service, have provided alternative transport for cancellations on infrequent routes and they refused.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Just to be clear, in case there's any confusion, my position on this is:

You hold a flexible ticket already (season etc.)

You turn up to the station at 11:00 and find the 11:05 is cancelled and have to wait an hour until the 12:05. DR claim not a problem. I'd even go along with you checking the times in your office, and hanging around at work a bit longer before heading to the station.

However, if the ticket is not held at all, and after checking train times you realise the 11:05 is cancelled, so you stay at work a bit longer, and you turn up at the station instead at 12:00 for the 12:05 and buy your ticket - there is no eligibility for delay repay in my view, as you had no right to be on the 11:05.

I think you're making big assumptions there; I have in fact done it once that I recall. Simply because on my normal patch cancellations are actually very rare, and I felt very aggrieved because I had to sit at a station for an hour and a bit, having nothing else to do; it was my opinion that the TOC should, as good customer service, have provided alternative transport for cancellations on infrequent routes and they refused.

1 or 2 unusual claims are not a problem, but I am sure you can appreciate how a significant volume of claims of this nature would be quite concerning from a fraud perspective and require some investigation to get to the bottom of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to be clear, in case there's any confusion, my position on this is:

You hold a flexible ticket already (season etc.)

You turn up to the station at 11:00 and find the 11:05 is cancelled and have to wait an hour until the 12:05. DR claim not a problem. I'd even go along with you checking the times in your office, and hanging around at work a bit longer before heading to the station.

However, if the ticket is not held at all, and after checking train times you realise the 11:05 is cancelled, so you stay at work a bit longer, and you turn up at the station instead at 12:00 for the 12:05 and buy your ticket - there is no eligibility for delay repay in my view, as you had no right to be on the 11:05.

The situation I was in was actually a third one.

I turned up at the station at 10:55 (metaphorically), saw that the 11:05 was cancelled, and purchased a ticket from a TVM as there was no realistic option but to wait. I sat at the station for an hour and ten minutes until the 12:05.

1 or 2 unusual claims are not a problem, but I am sure you can appreciate how a significant volume of claims of this nature would be quite concerning from a fraud perspective and require some investigation to get to the bottom of it.

I suspect there are quite a lot of such claims from rural stations with infrequent services and no TVM, though reducing over time because of online sales and TVMs being more common.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

The situation I was in was actually a third one.

I turned up at the station at 10:55 (metaphorically), saw that the 11:05 was cancelled, and purchased a ticket from a TVM as there was no realistic option but to wait. I sat at the station for an hour and ten minutes until the 12:05.



I suspect there are quite a lot of such claims from rural stations with infrequent services and no TVM, though reducing over time because of online sales and TVMs being more common.

If you're buying your ticket 10 mins before the cancelled 11:05 was due to leave, that's fine.

What isn't fine is seeing the 11:05 is cancelled, buying your ticket at 11:06 or later (to travel on the 12:05) and then claiming for a delay on the cancelled 11:05.