Delay Repay on multimodal tickets

[ASharpe]

Has anybody on here had much luck getting delay repay for a journey on a multimodal ticket?

Northern are telling me they don't accept claims on MCards and indeed the Mcard terms and conditions say it's not eligible for Delay Repay.

However recent correspondence in parliament casts doubt on this.

Joseph Johnson
Answered on: 23 March 2018

The Government introduced the Delay Repay scheme whereby rail passengers are entitled to compensation if a delay to their train journey means that they are late in reaching their destination by 30 minutes or more. This applies to all ticket types.

The practical arrangements for implementing this policy, including in relation to multi-modal products, are a matter for the train operating companies.

Delay Repay should be paid on the rail element of multi-modal tickets.

 

[yorkie]

I think Northern are acting incorrectly here, but I am not at all surprised.

I'd escalate the matter to Transport Focus and your MP. Let us know how you get on!

 

[_toommm_]

TransPennine do delay repay on multi modal (at least for the SY TravelMasters) - they treat them as season tickets, so for a 28-day ticket they divide the cost by 20 to give you some recompense.

As for Northern, they claim as you can travel by tram or bus with your ticket, that Delay Repay isn't allowed, even if there isn't another option for you at the time.

 

[island]

As the terms and conditions say that the ticket is exempt from DelayRepay (and assuming they are adequately brought to the customer’s attention) then that is surely the end of the matter.

It is a basic and ancient principle of legal interpretation in England & Wales that when a general statement and a specific statement in a contract contradict one another, the specific statement “wins”.

 

[_toommm_]

As the terms and conditions say that the ticket is exempt from DelayRepay (and assuming they are adequately brought to the customer’s attention) then that is surely the end of the matter.

It is a basic and ancient principle of legal interpretation in England & Wales that when a general statement and a specific statement in a contract contradict one another, the specific statement “wins”.

I don't know about the Metro tickets, but I've never seen anything about the TravelMasters not being eligible for Delay Repay. I do know they specifically disallow using it where the train passes through the border stations e.g. Dore, South Elmsall, Denby Dale

 

[yorkie]

As the terms and conditions say that the ticket is exempt from DelayRepay (and assuming they are adequately brought to the customer’s attention) then that is surely the end of the matter.

It is a basic and ancient principle of legal interpretation in England & Wales that when a general statement and a specific statement in a contract contradict one another, the specific statement “wins”.

A term stated by a train company could be deemed unlawful. I'm aware of numerous cases of train companies acting unlawfully.

 

[island]

It could, and the Prime Minister could drop dead in the morning. Neither is especially likely. The mere fact that the term acts to limit a TOC’s liability and you do not like it does not make it unlawful.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It could, and the Prime Minister could drop dead in the morning. Neither is especially likely. The mere fact that the term acts to limit a TOC’s liability and you do not like it does not make it unlawful.

I am pretty sure @yorkie would not be saying that unless there were good reason to believe it is true.

There are a number of people here on the forums and elsewhere who are used to a 'status quo' of 'the railway' being unassailable, because some of its most unreasonable terms and practices have been held as binding and acceptable over the past decades and centuries. They then dispute any suggestion that this could ever not be the case.

However I don't think such people consider the possibility that modern, more consumer friendly laws could have previously unseen implications on whether or not such clauses and practices are actually binding or acceptable. For instance, whether the penalty of £150 in this case is acceptable or not - or whether it breaches one or more kinds of consumer or penalty law.

 

[island]

I agree – though until a court with the capability to issue binding precedents has ruled on the matter, we owe it to readers to make clear what is fact and what is our interpretation, and to give appropriate warnings when we give advice that could expose someone to cost and inconvenience even when they are entirely in the right.

The current leading case in the law on penalties is OFT vs Abbey and others which states that charges for non-compliance with a contract are not assessable for fairness. There has of course been intervening legislation which may change things. But until there is another case in the higher courts, we are where we are.