Delay Repay entitlement to be cut?

[bramling]

I seriously doubt that such a choice exists - we're more likely to get both.

I suspect you’re right, however any saving from tightening delay repay would presumably show up somewhere.

Personally I’m not really a fan of it in principle anyway.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure how this would be implemented, as I don't believe one can be 'refunded' for more than 100% of the original cost of a transaction.

Delay Repay isn’t a refund but rather a form of liquidated damages agreed in advance between customer and train company. It’s only called delay repay because it rhymes - a better name is “passenger compensation scheme”. There’s no reason it has to be linked to the ticket price.

 

[bramling]

Delay Repay isn’t a refund but rather a form of liquidated damages agreed in advance between customer and train company. It’s only called delay repay because it rhymes - a better name is “passenger compensation scheme”. There’s no reason it has to be linked to the ticket price.

So part of the grubby compo culture really. I don’t have an issue for really severe delays, but 15 minutes is way too generous, even for metro applications.

 

[VC00]

15 minute delay repay should be abolished really; it must be totally uneconomical to operate as the cost from all parties in time must be more than the actual compensation, in most cases!

I've found most DR systems are automatic for values under a certain amount, perhaps the automation could be rolled out to more expensive tickets

 

[yorkie]

I've found most DR systems are automatic for values under a certain amount, perhaps the automation could be rolled out to more expensive tickets

OK so if my train is cancelled (which could include P-coding), how does the system know which train I caught? Alternatively fact if the train is running late before I board, how does it know I didn't spot this, set off earlier, and get an earlier one?

If my connecting train is 5 mins late, leaving me with an invalid connection (but still potentially do-able if I get off at the right door and walk speedily), how does it know if I made the connection or not?

If I have a TOC-specific ticket, how does it know if ticket acceptance was in place or not (there is no industry data for this, as far as I am aware)?

Automatic delay repay is fundamentally flawed and I certainly wouldn't want to spend my time faffing around to get it when the delay is 15 minutes and it's a low value sum.

And of course all this assumes that you intend to stick to your booked itinerary, which you are not obligated to do (unless you are using (an) Advance ticket(s))

 

[VC00]

OK so if my train is cancelled (which could include P-coding), how does the system know which train I caught? Alternatively fact if the train is running late before I board, how does it know I didn't spot this, set off earlier, and get an earlier one?

If my connecting train is 5 mins late, leaving me with an invalid connection (but still potentially do-able if I get off at the right door and walk speedily), how does it know if I made the connection or not?

If I have a TOC-specific ticket, how does it know if ticket acceptance was in place or not (there is no industry data for this, as far as I am aware)?

Automatic delay repay is fundamentally flawed and I certainly wouldn't want to spend my time faffing around to get it when the delay is 15 minutes and it's a low value sum.

And of course all this assumes that you intend to stick to your booked itinerary, which you are not obligated to do (unless you are using (an) Advance ticket(s))

Sorry, didn't make it clear, I was referring to claims submitted manually by the customer. Usually, if the claim is under a certain value the system doesn't require staff to review it. If all TOCs could do this, in addition to allowing multiple tickets per claim (similar to First Groups systems) then the operating costs could be reduced dramatically.

 

[blakey1152]

I've had mixed issues with Delay Repay, I found that Avanti West Coast were surprisingly easy to deal with but Southeastern will make you go through so hoops it was unreal.
However, the tickets I had with Avanti were standard off peak returns and the issues I had with Southeastern were with a Travelcard on Oyster.
I seem to recall first Southeastern wanted the journey history so they see that I made the journey (fair enough), Then they eventually replied back asking for proof that there was a Travelcard on the Oyster,
Then they wanted to know how much I paid for the Travelcard, then they wanted to see proof of how much I paid with a bank statement, I half expected them to want a signed solicitors letter or something next.
They did eventually pay out and it was a small amount as well and with all the hassle it caused and the time taken going to and fro with them asking for each thing individually I don't think I'd bother again.
Think it took about 5 weeks to get my Delay Repay back from them

 

[Bertie the bus]

It does seem quite strange that on a long distance service if your train is 9 min 59 secs late you are "on time" but if your train is 15 mins late you are so inconvenienced you should receive compensation.

Providing they just get rid of the 15 min late band and leave the rest as is and don't start giving what 15 min delays currently get for 30 min delays I can't see a problem with the change.

 

[m00036]

On my line, trains are roughly on an every 20 minute pattern at peak times - those minutes eat into the working day and can mean a greater than 30 minute 'delay' on the train home as I need to get my work finished. It's not uncommon for this to happen once a week, perhaps once a fortnight - if I go into the office 4 days a week, then that's either 6% or 13% of trains being cancelled. I agree that the delay repay threshold isn't really an incentive for TOCs to be more reliable, but to just remove it seems to be accepting that 10% of trains being cancelled is acceptable. Under the old season ticket charters, that used to equate to a 5% or 10% discount on your next year's season ticket, so having 15 minute delay repay at least goes some way towards that.

As for administrative burden, I'm struggling to see the argument. Lots of industry delay repay systems are (or appear) automated based on the data they hold. If they can't match a journey and it gets rejected, only those who actually get value from claiming the compensation for 15 minutes will do so - that seems like the right way of doing things (in a perverse way). If this happens a lot then that's only an incentive to fix the systems - all of the data is there so it shouldn't be taking this long to do properly. Agreed also regarding Automatic Delay Repay - it's likely to lead to far more issues (people getting paid out incorrectly and lots of manual customer service communication when you take a different train to your itinerary).

There is plausibly an argument for delays to be increased to a higher threshold for one-off ticket buyers, whilst season ticket holders would be entitled to compensation based on aggregate minutes lost per week of the ticket's validity (they can quickly add up!). I would argue that ensures that costs are reduced for leisure users who are less likely to be genuinely inconvenienced by a 15 minute delay (if it's a one-off, time-sensitive task then you would typically try to allow more than that), while ensuring that regular users are rewarded as such. Indeed, it could drive people back to season tickets which may well be something the railway needs.

 

[Watershed]

It does seem quite strange that on a long distance service if your train is 9 min 59 secs late you are "on time" but if your train is 15 mins late you are so inconvenienced you should receive compensation.

There are always going to be perverse outcomes, no matter what thresholds you use. You could use the same argument with 29 min 59 secs under the new, reduced entitlement.

Providing they just get rid of the 15 min late band and leave the rest as is and don't start giving what 15 min delays currently get for 30 min delays I can't see a problem with the change.

The problem is that it normalises anti-passenger policies. If the DfT can get away with this change, what's to say they won't try and reduce the threshold to 60 mins, or even scrap it entirely and exempt the domestic railways once again from the PRO requirement to pay compensation? You can hardly take the DfT's word on such a matter!

I agree that the delay repay threshold isn't really an incentive for TOCs to be more reliable, but to just remove it seems to be accepting that 10% of trains being cancelled is acceptable. Under the old season ticket charters, that used to equate to a 5% or 10% discount on your next year's season ticket, so having 15 minute delay repay at least goes some way towards that.

Exactly. Unsurprisingly, there is no suggestion of charter discounts being reintroduced as a quid pro quo. Though the mechanism is crude and the targets often very lax, it certainly did offer a simple way of incentivising better performance, particularly as the discount would be automatically applied.

As for administrative burden, I'm struggling to see the argument. Lots of industry delay repay systems are (or appear) automated based on the data they hold. If they can't match a journey and it gets rejected, only those who actually get value from claiming the compensation for 15 minutes will do so - that seems like the right way of doing things (in a perverse way). If this happens a lot then that's only an incentive to fix the systems - all of the data is there so it shouldn't be taking this long to do properly. Agreed also regarding Automatic Delay Repay - it's likely to lead to far more issues (people getting paid out incorrectly and lots of manual customer service communication when you take a different train to your itinerary).

I think the argument would be along the lines that the administrative cost is out of all proportion with the claim amounts. That may well be true, but if so it is surely an argument for better software for automated checking of claims, that doesn't spuriously reject claims as often!

There is plausibly an argument for delays to be increased to a higher threshold for one-off ticket buyers, whilst season ticket holders would be entitled to compensation based on aggregate minutes lost per week of the ticket's validity (they can quickly add up!). I would argue that ensures that costs are reduced for leisure users who are less likely to be genuinely inconvenienced by a 15 minute delay (if it's a one-off, time-sensitive task then you would typically try to allow more than that), while ensuring that regular users are rewarded as such. Indeed, it could drive people back to season tickets which may well be something the railway needs.

That's certainly an interesting suggestion; though I still don't agree with taking away established passenger rights, it does at least show that there's scope for innovation when it comes to attracting back season ticket holders. But of course that's a dirty word with the narrow-minded, penny-pinching DfT. I bet they'd have NR bypass their electricity meters if they thought they could get away with it!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd accept this if they would make the 30 minute threshold 25 minutes, the 60 55 and the 120 115. It really, really riles when they come out with "but you were only 29 minutes late" when there's a cancellation on a half hourly service, when in fact had the cancelled train operated you'd have arrived, due to recovery time, precisely 30 minutes earlier.

I did once get an appeal paid by stating just how stupid this was, using as evidence an RTT extract for that day showing that every single train that ran arrived precisely one minute early, but I doubt that would be the norm.

 

[Bertie the bus]

There are always going to be perverse outcomes, no matter what thresholds you use. You could use the same argument with 29 min 59 secs under the new, reduced entitlement.

You couldn't say the same for the new threshold at all because a train arriving 29 min 59 secs late isn't classed as "on time". With the current 15 min claim band you can claim when a train arrives just 5 minutes later than the official "on time" definition.

The problem is that it normalises anti-passenger policies. If the DfT can get away with this change, what's to say they won't try and reduce the threshold to 60 mins, or even scrap it entirely and exempt the domestic railways once again from the PRO requirement to pay compensation? You can hardly take the DfT's word on such a matter!

What-iffery and the usual DfT blah, blah, blah doesn't really add anything. It was the DfT who put adoption of Delay Repay into franchise ITTs so the likelihood of them suddenly scrapping it is minimal.

 

[AlterEgo]

On my line, trains are roughly on an every 20 minute pattern at peak times - those minutes eat into the working day and can mean a greater than 30 minute 'delay' on the train home as I need to get my work finished. It's not uncommon for this to happen once a week, perhaps once a fortnight - if I go into the office 4 days a week, then that's either 6% or 13% of trains being cancelled. I agree that the delay repay threshold isn't really an incentive for TOCs to be more reliable, but to just remove it seems to be accepting that 10% of trains being cancelled is acceptable. Under the old season ticket charters, that used to equate to a 5% or 10% discount on your next year's season ticket, so having 15 minute delay repay at least goes some way towards that.

As for administrative burden, I'm struggling to see the argument. Lots of industry delay repay systems are (or appear) automated based on the data they hold. If they can't match a journey and it gets rejected, only those who actually get value from claiming the compensation for 15 minutes will do so - that seems like the right way of doing things (in a perverse way). If this happens a lot then that's only an incentive to fix the systems - all of the data is there so it shouldn't be taking this long to do properly.

It used to cost about £15 per claim eight years ago when I did this for a living. Previous to the 15 minute policy, when the DR was 30+ min and above, Virgin West Coast had 8-10 people per shift processing delay repay, which did include a full CRM database and journey checking software. It cost the company about £500,000 per year simply to employ the staff, never mind the other costs in handling the claims.

There’s more automation now but at most TOCs someone is still there checking your ticket details, inputting them into a CRM and formulating the letter. It probably takes 3-4 minutes to process a simple, successful claim.

These aren’t insurance payouts they’re often small change of just a few quid.

Delay repay is almost never cited as a reason passengers shift transport modes and is a low priority for the government and the railway. Yes, service should be better, we can all agree on that. But 15 minutes is a vast amount of claims for low payouts.

 

[A Challenge]

I suspect you’re right, however any saving from tightening delay repay would presumably show up somewhere.

I admire your optimism it will turn up in 'the railway' (such as that is a thing)

 

[Watershed]

You couldn't say the same for the new threshold at all because a train arriving 29 min 59 secs late isn't classed as "on time". With the current 15 min claim band you can claim when a train arrives just 5 minutes later than the official "on time" definition.

I'm unsure what the relevance of any official definition of 'on time' is? PPM is, in any event, no longer one of the statistics that most TOCs measure their performance against. 'Time to 3' and 'time to 15' is much more common.

Your point seemed to me to be that it's arbitrary to have a 15 minute cutoff, and my response to that is that any threshold will inherently be arbitrary.

What-iffery and the usual DfT blah, blah, blah doesn't really add anything. It was the DfT who put adoption of Delay Repay into franchise ITTs so the likelihood of them suddenly scrapping it is minimal.

So you're saying you saw this coming then? Until this leak happened, anyone would have said that the chances of 15 minute DR being scrapped was minimal. The chances of the DfT ordering XC to take the HSTs off-lease also seemed minimal until it happened, given that they started having major overhauls (C6 exams I believe?) done just a couple of months ago.

Nothing is now off the table for the desperate DfT; they must be stopped in their quest to ruin the railway.

 

[Wolfie]

I've had mixed issues with Delay Repay, I found that Avanti West Coast were surprisingly easy to deal with but Southeastern will make you go through so hoops it was unreal.
However, the tickets I had with Avanti were standard off peak returns and the issues I had with Southeastern were with a Travelcard on Oyster.
I seem to recall first Southeastern wanted the journey history so they see that I made the journey (fair enough), Then they eventually replied back asking for proof that there was a Travelcard on the Oyster,
Then they wanted to know how much I paid for the Travelcard, then they wanted to see proof of how much I paid with a bank statement, I half expected them to want a signed solicitors letter or something next.
They did eventually pay out and it was a small amount as well and with all the hassle it caused and the time taken going to and fro with them asking for each thing individually I don't think I'd bother again.
Think it took about 5 weeks to get my Delay Repay back from them

Cynically l would say, with respect to your penultimate para, that they achieved their aim then.

 

[westv]

Some operators are on 30 minutes minimum delay already, e.g. ScotRail.

ScotRail's claim process is very good and quick to settle in my experience.

I thought LNER and Hull Trains were still on 30 mins too and had never been 15 mins.

 

[Haywain]

I thought LNER and Hull Trains were still on 30 mins too and had never been 15 mins.

They are on 30 minutes and have never been on 15 minutes. That's part of the problem - inconsistency. Travel with Avanti or Great Western and it's 15 minutes, then travel with LNER or Hull Trains and it's 30 minutes.

 

[island]

They are on 30 minutes and have never been on 15 minutes. That's part of the problem - inconsistency. Travel with Avanti or Great Western and it's 15 minutes, then travel with LNER or Hull Trains and it's 30 minutes.

or an hour on Grand Central

I would selfishly be opposed to the 15 minute threshold being put back up to 30 in that most of the claims I make are for 15-29 minutes

Nevertheless, if there is to be a change, the opportunity should be taken to put the change in the NRCoT rather than having a hodgepodge of DelayRepay schemes with different times and rules. This would also put beyond doubt the vexed question of what is a contractual entitlement and what is not.

Consideration might also be given to introducing a minimum compensation amount – from memory it's €4 in the EU – to head off silly low value claims.

 

[Haywain]

or an hour on Grand Central

Although they don't claim that it's Delay Repay. Which is even worse, really.

 

[SAPhil]

It's not all about you. Plenty of people make much longer journeys than you do (and don’t get stressed by delays of 15 minutes).

It's not a one off 15 min delay that would cause stress - it's when it's nearly every day and it both directions!

 

[Horizon22]

It's not all about you. Plenty of people make much longer journeys than you do (and don’t get stressed by delays of 15 minutes).

It is very dependent though isn't it; a London & SE metro operator running with 20 minutes is a big deal - going intercity for 4 hours or so, not so much.

 

[paulcleaver]

I worry that this is salami slicing by the DfT. By removing the 15 minute delay criteria, what next? The 30 minute one goes next. Anything that diminishes a customer's rights is a bad thing in my book.

A few quid refund is a lot of money to some people at the moment. Goodness knows how difficult it is to get a delay repay relayed, as it is.

 

[sheff1]

There’s more automation now but at most TOCs someone is still there checking your ticket details, inputting them into a CRM and formulating the letter. It probably takes 3-4 minutes to process a simple, successful claim.

It took Cross Country multiple emails and 10 weeks elapsed time, including forwarding the claim to another TOC who don't operate on the line concerned, to process my latest simple claim. When they finally settled they paid the wrong amount (over 60 mins, rather than 30-59) despite me emphasing in said emails how long the delay was. XC, of course, do not compensate for 15 min delays - if they did I would be making far more frequent claims.

 

[Watershed]

Nevertheless, if there is to be a change, the opportunity should be taken to put the change in the NRCoT rather than having a hodgepodge of DelayRepay schemes with different times and rules. This would also put beyond doubt the vexed question of what is a contractual entitlement and what is not.

There can be no doubt that Delay Repay is a contractual entitlement (where offered); condition 32.1.1 refers.

However I agree that forcing all operators to have a level threshold would be a significant step forward, and most particularly having one industry-wide claim portal (though no doubt the devolved operators will seek to try and do things in their own way...).

 

[A Challenge]

It took Cross Country multiple emails and 10 weeks elapsed time, including forwarding the claim to another TOC who don't operate on the line concerned, to process my latest simple claim.

CrossCountry forwarded my last claim to another train operator when I knew I'd sent it to them correctly (and not travelled with the second operator) so I was expecting to have to fight it, but strangely the second operator paid up so I've let it be.

 

[nitten_travell]

Book a LNER service on the LNER site and have a delay , you'l see it then

This summer I was on a delayed LNER from Edinburgh. I got the delay repay processed notification on my phone before I’d even left the platform at King’s Cross. Whatever it is LNER do to get it right, the other companies ought to do.

 

[infobleep]

I’ve mixed views to be honest. 15 minutes means there are lots of low value claims but there does need to be an incentive to get the TOCs to run their services on time.

One thing that definitely does need sorting is when the next service arrives early meaning you miss out on a DR payment (or get downgraded). That really isn’t on.

The other issue is where a train is cancelled and the next one is due to depart 29 or 59 minutes later, due to the timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other issue is where a train is cancelled and the next one is due to depart 29 or 59 minutes later, due to the timetable.

More usually the next one is timetabled to be in 30 minutes but arrives one minute early due to recovery time, so you only get a 29 minute claim. This is taking the proverbial because the cancelled one would have done too; as I said above having the thresholds at 25/55/115 minutes would make more sense as it avoids this stupidity that just makes the railway look bad.

 

[infobleep]

It used to cost about £15 per claim eight years ago when I did this for a living. Previous to the 15 minute policy, when the DR was 30+ min and above, Virgin West Coast had 8-10 people per shift processing delay repay, which did include a full CRM database and journey checking software. It cost the company about £500,000 per year simply to employ the staff, never mind the other costs in handling the claims.

There’s more automation now but at most TOCs someone is still there checking your ticket details, inputting them into a CRM and formulating the letter. It probably takes 3-4 minutes to process a simple, successful claim.

These aren’t insurance payouts they’re often small change of just a few quid.

Delay repay is almost never cited as a reason passengers shift transport modes and is a low priority for the government and the railway. Yes, service should be better, we can all agree on that. But 15 minutes is a vast amount of claims for low payouts.

Automating the system so that staff don't have to manually input stuff into a CRM is possible but only if their is software that allows such thing?

Are there companies that automate the inputting of details into their CRM system?