The story is made more complicated by my decision to head for Victoria rather than London Bridge, on the basis that was the first London departure from Brighton when I arrived there, and (if I recall correctly) the stock for the London Bridge train was not in the platform.
There is an issue with short notice cancellations early morning from Brighton, when they discover problems with the stock upon start-up from Lovers Walk depot, or the crew fail to arrive (1), hence my decision that a train in the platform, about to leave for London, was worth two on the departures board. My commuting philosophy, during disruption and when time is pressing, is to get to Zone 1 and worry about the rest later.
I consider I have a claim based upon the time I would have arrived at London Bridge station - not Victoria, or my desk - had I not re-arranged my 'final mile' at some inconvenience, to get to work as soon as possible.
I think - to paraphrase - some are suggesting I have invalidated any claim entirely, by changing my destination in response to disruption and arriving
0 minutes late into Victoria as an 'equivalent', although that isn't really where I wanted to be.
Others have suggested - a good point - that after the missed connection at Lewes, the next option showing on journey planner is the move to Brighton followed by the London Bridge train which would give a figure of 28 late at LBG, assuming this ran to time on the date concerned.
So I go back to my original question, which was broader than the specifics here:
If a passenger intended to travel via Plumpton, and rail staff do not provide guidance on alternatives, should the passenger 'know' about the journey via Brighton being quicker than awaiting the next direct service? Therefore, should Delay Repay claims be automatically rejected on this basis?
I imagine the scheme rules must cover this scenario: perhaps they just work off Journey Planner, as hinted by a couple of posters? I can see the logic in that, and also that strict application along these lines minimises fraudulent claims, but if this sort of robust approach is to be taken by the TOCs, I feel they should be held to account for the quality of the on-train information they provide around connection opportunities during times of disruption.
(It's probably incidental, but on the day in question the branch train ran 6-7 minutes late. Experience suggested the LBG connection would probably be held at Lewes, and indeed might be held at Southerham Junction for us to proceed ahead into the station.
The conductor checked tickets at Newhaven, was aware of the tight connection but commented that as the LBG train was reported 2-3 minutes down at Polegate, it would almost certainly be held. We were then subject to a severe signal check at Southerham, where it became clear the LBG train had been pathed ahead. As we entered the pointwork at Lewes station, the conductor - or possibly the driver, who had received a radio call audible from the front compartment - came on the PA to note the London train had not been held. No further advice was provided, and the conductor did not visit the carriage again during the remainder of the journey.
The point I'm getting to is that, even with a smartphone in hand, there was insufficient time to examine options before making the call as to whether to 'stay' or 'leap' at Lewes.)
(1) Exemplified by the lateness of the 05.47 from BIP which started this saga.
