Delay Repay for a partially abandoned journey

[philosopher]

I was caught up in the Avanti largely giving up running services north of Preston disruption on Saturday 7th October. I was meant to travel from London Euston to Oxenholme on the 08:30 train, which should have arrived at 11:10. My friend, who was driving from Southeast England was due to pick me from Oxenholme. However this train terminated at Preston and as a result I had to be picked up from Preston and so I never completed my journey as intended. We never passed Oxenholme station so I can’t be certain how much longer the journey would have been if I was picked from Oxenholme. However my guess is the journey took between 30 to 45 minutes longer than it would have done so otherwise. The ticket I was using was an advance single.

Therefore, my question is whether I able to claim delay repay for this journey as I abandoned making the last part of the journey by train?

 

[MrJeeves]

I was caught up in the Avanti largely giving up running services north of Preston disruption on Saturday 7th October. I was meant to travel from London Euston to Oxenholme on the 08:30 train, which should have arrived at 11:10. My friend, who was driving from Southeast England was due to pick me from Oxenholme. However this train terminated at Preston and as a result I had to be picked up from Preston and so I never completed my journey as intended. We never passed Oxenholme station so I can’t be certain how much longer the journey would have been if I was picked from Oxenholme. However my guess is the journey took between 30 to 45 minutes longer than it would have done so otherwise. The ticket I was using was an advance single.

Therefore, my question is whether I able to claim delay repay for this journey as I abandoned making the last part of the journey by train?

I would count this as abandoned as you couldn't make it to your destination by TOC- provided transport (train, rail replacement, paid-for taxi).

I'd argue you'd be eligible for a full refund from the retailer, as per the NRCoT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would count this as abandoned as you couldn't make it to your destination by TOC- provided transport (train, rail replacement, paid-for taxi).

I'd argue you'd be eligible for a full refund from the retailer, as per the NRCoT.

Taxis were provided in this instance.

 

[MrJeeves]

Taxis were provided in this instance.

But the OP didn't use them.

 

[philosopher]

I would count this as abandoned as you couldn't make it to your destination by TOC- provided transport (train, rail replacement, paid-for taxi).

I'd argue you'd be eligible for a full refund from the retailer, as per the NRCoT.

The only reason I part abandoned the journey is because my friend agreed to pick me up from Preston instead. If I had not done this I would have likely waited for one of the few trains that were running north that day, which from what I gather from Real Train Times would have meant I would have not arrived until 1403, an almost three hour delay. If taxis were available I would have only used them if I was pretty confident I could have got a refund, but even in this case I would have still been delayed.

However I did still the train for the majority of the intended journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the OP didn't use them.

I know, which means they ended their journey short on an Advance, which isn't permitted and so might mean they're due nothing in Delay Repay terms.

Abandonment refund is an interesting option, I can't remember if you can just abandon or have to abandon and go home?

 

[MrJeeves]

Abandonment refund is an interesting option, I can't remember if you can just abandon or have to abandon and go home?

You have the option to go home in the NRCoT, but it's not a requirement.

The only reason I part abandoned the journey is because my friend agreed to pick me up from Preston instead. If I had not done this I would have likely waited for one of the few trains that were running north that day, which from what I gather from Real Train Times would have meant I would have not arrived until 1403, an almost three hour delay. If taxis were available I would have only used them if I was pretty confident I could have got a refund, but even in this case I would have still been delayed.

However I did still the train for the majority of the intended journey.

IMO it's pretty clear-cut. You abandoned the train as you didn't want to continue the disrupted journey and sought your own alternative transport to your destination via your friend.

You should claim a full refund for an abandoned journey due to disruption from the ticket retailer.

 

[yorkie]

I know, which means they ended their journey short on an Advance, which isn't permitted and so might mean they're due nothing in Delay Repay terms.

Abandonment refund is an interesting option, I can't remember if you can just abandon or have to abandon and go home?

My understanding is that if it is advantageous to the customer, insofar as any (potential) delays are mitigated, a customer should be allowed to finish short in order to get a lift etc however this falls outwith the scope of either Delay Repay or a refund for an abandoned journey.

An abandoned journey involves returning to the origin, not making use of the journey; it does not constitute finishing short to use alternative transport (or visit an alternative destination).

If the customer holds a combination of fares, they can get a refund on any fares that are unused, e.g. if a passenger books London to York plus York to Scarborough, and decided to either have a day in York instead of gets a lift to/from Scarborough, then the unused York to Scarborough is refundable.

Alternatively a customer could potentially claim delay compensation on the basis of what the delay would have been had they made the journey in full, but technically if the passenger does not actually complete the journey, this should be declared to the TOC and it's then a matter of goodwill. The good news here is that I have heard of people doing this and being given delay compensation as if they had made the journey, rather than finished short.

 

[MrJeeves]

An abandoned journey involves returning to the origin

An abandoned journey can include returning to the origin. It's not a requirement.

From the NRCoT:

apply if you have begun your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of, your service. In such cases, you are permitted to return to your point of origin and still get a refund.

At no point does it say you must return to your point of origin, just that you are permitted to.

 

[yorkie]

An abandoned journey can include returning to the origin. It's not a requirement.

From the NRCoT:


At no point does it say you must return to your point of origin, just that you are permitted to.

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if someone tried a Penzance to Poppleton journey, 'abandoning' at York if the connection was missed; does a full refund really apply?

Northern don't think so:

Northern Rail

northernrail.my.site.com

If you are unable to complete your journey due to a delay or cancellation and return to your point of origin, you're entitled to a refund from the original retailer or train company who sold you the ticket with no administration fee.

Maybe this is one where the NRCoT is currently worded in a way that is effectively a loophole; there is surely no way this is intended?

 

[Brissle Girl]

What's not clear to me is at what length of delay does it become reasonable to abandon your journey and get a refund? A direct taxi to Oxenholme could conceivably have arrived around 30 mins after the train was due if it left fairly promptly (obviously we don't know if this is the case as the journey wasn't attempted). It feels to me unreasonable to ask for an abandonment and refund under those circumstances, particularly as the OP actually made use of ticket for the majority of the journey.

 

[MrJeeves]

What's not clear to me is at what length of delay does it become reasonable to abandon your journey and get a refund?

There is no set cut-off. The NRCoT simply states "disruption" which is open to interpretation. Some could suggest that a delay of even 1 minute could be seen as "disruption". To me, I would say a delay of >15 minutes (not necessarily to your final destination, just any particular service) or any disruption that results in a broken itinerary (missed connection) could be counted as "disruption".

I believe it's written like this to allow some judgment to take place as to whether a refund is suitable or not.

Northern don't think so:

Northern are also the same TOC who incorrectly deny delay repay requests, post false information regarding the NRCoT on Twitter, charge FPNs as a workaround for PF legislation, and incorrectly issue Penalty Fares altogether.

I'm not any TOC, let alone Northern, are a glowing example of correct info in the industry.

Maybe this is one where the NRCoT is currently worded in a way that is effectively a loophole; there is surely no way this is intended?

Why not? If I'm on my way to Manchester, and I end up stuck in Birmingham because the WCML has collapsed, should I not be allowed to decide to spend my day in Birmingham instead and make my way home another way at a future date?

The NRCoT is built on judgment and common sense. Sometimes, this results in extra benefits for a customer, and other times for the TOCs.

 

[Watershed]

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if someone tried a Penzance to Poppleton journey, 'abandoning' at York if the connection was missed; does a full refund really apply?

Northern don't think so:

Northern Rail

northernrail.my.site.com

Maybe this is one where the NRCoT is currently worded in a way that is effectively a loophole; there is surely no way this is intended?

The requirement to refund if the journey is abandoned comes from the PRO; I agree that there is arguably a loophole if you can abandon your journey when 90% of the way to your destination and receive a full refund, but equally I can see nothing in the NRCoT that says you must return to your origin. It does refer to being "unable" to complete your journey, but no definition is provided for this (as usual) so it would usually be difficult to reject claims on this basis.

The PRO is couched in arguably more sensible terms:

reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket, under the conditions by which it was paid, for the part or parts of his or her journey not made and for the part or parts already made if the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan

The problem is how to work out what the cost of the "parts already made" is; this sort of concept works much better in the airline industry (which is where it originates - in EU261) since multi-leg journeys are often priced using multiple constituent fares. I'm sure the rail industry would favour using the fares from the origin station to the station where the journey was abandoned (an approach that just so happens to favour them!), but I would have said it has to be done on a proportional basis, likely by rail mileage.

 

[MrJeeves]

for the part or parts already made if the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan

This also shows that a stop off in Birmingham as a replacement for a stop-off in Manchester, in my opinion, would still present a case for a refund as it wasn't the original travel plan.

I do think there should be additional work to unify PRO and NRCoT further to what was done a few years ago. It would make more sense to change the NRCoT to incorporate some of the PRO wording for this, particularly the quotes section above.

 

[Haywain]

I do think there should be additional work to unify PRO and NRCoT further to what was done a few years ago. It would make more sense to change the NRCoT to incorporate some of the PRO wording for this, particularly the quotes section above.

Whilst not disagreeing, I think that even the small number of scenarios outlined on this thread show that a form of wording that covers all eventualities would be difficult to achieve. This is an area where Delay Repay plays a part as well, in that the results can be similar either way.

 

[MrJeeves]

I think that even the small number of scenarios outlined on this thread show that a form of wording that covers all eventualities would be difficult to achieve

Yeah, I agree. People (we) will always find loopholes in what's been written.