Delay Repay - Who to claim from

[sefton]

Now we come to train 3. As far as I can make out, you found out at an early point (presumably on arrival on train 2) that train 3 had been cancelled,and you very sensibly did not hare across to wherever train 3 should have departed from only to find out that it wasn't there. So we cannot be certain whether you would - or would not - have caught train 3 if it was running on time.

I can be certain I would not have caught train 3. As train 2 was delayed and arrived with less than the minimum connection time, by the time I had walked over to the platform for train 3 (no dawdling, but no running) it was after its scheduled departure time.

Interesting to hear thoughts but can't say I agree with the reasoning.

Anyway, given the unreliability of these services which I now have to use regularly (looking at the recent service records I can't find a single day when the minimum connection time has been met by train 2 and train 3 has rather a habit of being suddenly cancelled), so I can easily see the alternative scenario of train 2 being delayed again and train 3 leaving on time, but the following train 3 (1/2 hour later) being cancelled.

From what has been said I think we can agree train 2 is definitely liable for the first 1/2 hour delay in this situation, but do they just have to suck up that the delay is now an hour? Or is it two claims, one each for trains 2 and 3? Or is train 2 off the hook and train 3 now gets to pay for the whole hour delay?

I can see some interesting correspondence ahead.

 

[tiptoptaff]

....
From what has been said I think we can agree train 2 is definitely liable for the first 1/2 hour delay in this situation, but do they just have to suck up that the delay is now an hour? Or is it two claims, one each for trains 2 and 3? Or is train 2 off the hook and train 3 now gets to pay for the whole hour delay?

I can see some interesting correspondence ahead.

I don't think everyone is in agreement that TOC2 is responsible for any delay at all. At least, that's not how I've interpreted anyone's response but yours.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

From what has been said I think we can agree train 2 is definitely liable for the first 1/2 hour delay in this situation, but do they just have to suck up that the delay is now an hour? Or is it two claims, one each for trains 2 and 3? Or is train 2 off the hook and train 3 now gets to pay for the whole hour delay?

I can see some interesting correspondence ahead.

I don't think we can agree any such thing, but ultimately it is your claim, and it's up to you how you pursue it - and also up to the various railway companies as to how they respond.

In terms of practicalities, someone should be along shortly with chapter and verse, but the general arrangement is one journey = one claim, regardless of how many legs the journey is made up of. So you need to submit your one claim to the TOC at fault, and it is them who will pay your compensation.

 

[sefton]

I don't think everyone is in agreement that TOC2 is responsible for any delay at all. At least, that's not how I've interpreted anyone's response but yours.

Sorry?

So if train 2 arrives late so the connection to the on time train 3 is missed then who is liable if not train 2?

 

[tiptoptaff]

Sorry?

So if train 2 arrives late so the connection to the on time train 3 is missed then who is liable if not train 2?

But that didn't cause any ACTUAL delay to your journey. The cancellation of TOC3's train did. And that is the basis upon which you should be claiming.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Sorry?

So if train 2 arrives late so the connection to the on time train 3 is missed then who is liable if not train 2?

What on time train 3 is that?

The choice is between hypothesising that train 3 would be on time, or looking at the actual fact that there was no train 3.

The details of your journey that you gave to us show that a train being late does not necessarily mean that your overall journey is delayed - you showed this by telling us that train 1's late arrival did not prevent you getting train 2. So it doesn't follow that just because train 2 was late arriving that you would have missed train 3. The one undoubted fact that meant that train 3 would not get you to your final destination on time was the fact that train 3 was cancelled.

 

[tiptoptaff]

The one undoubted fact that meant that train 3 would not get you to your final destination on time was the fact that train 3 was cancelled.

And this alone should be the basis of your claim, and you should only claim ONCE, from one TOC, TOC 3

 

[sefton]

The details of your journey that you gave to us show that a train being late does not necessarily mean that your overall journey is delayed - you showed this by telling us that train 1's late arrival did not prevent you getting train 2. So it doesn't follow that just because train 2 was late arriving that you would have missed train 3. The one undoubted fact that meant that train 3 would not get you to your final destination on time was the fact that train 3 was cancelled.

Yes the late arrival of train 2 did mean I would have missed train 3.

The minimum connection time is eight minutes and train 2 arrived two minutes before the scheduled departure for train 3. By the time I had walked the length of the platform from where I got off train 2, over the bridge to the platform for train 3 (no dawdling, but no running) it was after train 3's scheduled departure time. Ergo the late arrival of train 2 meant with certainty I missed train 3 whether it ran not. In fact there could be many people who did not know train 3 had been cancelled as it had disappeared from the boards by the time we got there, so in good faith would submit their claim to train company 2 for the delay they caused.

Anyway this should get interesting as this will now be a regular journey. I have checked the history of train 2. For November it arrived with sufficient time to make the connection with train 3 on only four out of 22 weekday journeys, and in October only twice. Seems like there will be an awful lot of 1/2 price or free journeys whether train company 2 or 3 is paying for the Delay Repay.

 

[tiptoptaff]

Head. Against. Brick. Wall.

TOC2 did not ACTUALLY delay you, TOC 3 did.

 

[Haywain]

You cannot be certain that train 3, had it not been cancelled, would have departed on time therefore you cannot be certain that you would have missed it. That is the reality of the situation.

Feel free not to waste your time and ours in replying as you have very clearly made your mind up already.

 

[sefton]

Head. Against. Brick. Wall.

TOC2 did not ACTUALLY delay you, TOC 3 did.

They did. They arrived with insufficient time to make the connection.

it is illogical to say that if train 3 ran then train 2 is liable, but if train 3 didn't then train 3 is liable.

 

[sefton]

You cannot be certain that train 3, haditha not been cancelled, would have departed on time therefore you cannot be certain that you would have missed it. That is the reality of the situation.

So the argument that the late arriving train 2 is not liable is that the cancelled train 3 might have departed late if it hadn't been cancelled? Hmm...

As before, it is illogical to say that if train 3 ran then train 2 is liable, but if train 3 didn't then train 3 is liable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Arguments precisely like this are why solicitors (more in the US than here, but still here to a somewhat more limited extent) will sometimes simply sue all parties involved where there is a legal claim. The Courts can then decide who is to be liable (and in some matters they will assign percentual liability and not liability to just one party).

 

[sefton]

Arguments precisely like this are why solicitors (more in the US than here, but still here to a somewhat more limited extent) will sometimes simply sue all parties involved where there is a legal claim. The Courts can then decide who is to be liable (and in some matters they will assign percentual liability and not liability to just one party).

Seems quite sensible. To me if there is an element of doubt there seems nothing wrong with submitting a claim to each company (obviously letting them know you had submitted claims to all of them as your aim is not to be paid multiple times) and letting the companies fight it out. However there seems to be quite some antipathy here to doing that.

Considering the regular permutations which seem to occur -

1. Train 2 arrives late not allowing the minimum connection time, train 3 departs on time, the following service for train 3 departs on time so a 30 minute delay
2. Train 2 arrives late not allowing the minimum connection time, train 3 is cancelled, the following service for train 3 departs on time so a 30 minute delay
3. Train 2 arrives very late after the departure time of train 3, train 3 departs on time and the following service for train 3 departs on time so a 30 minute delay
4. Train 2 arrives very late after the departure time of train 3, train 3 is cancelled and the following service for train 3 departs on time so a 30 minute delay
5. Train 2 arrives on time allowing the minimum connection time, train 3 is cancelled, the following service for train 3 departs on time so a 30 minute delay

In my view it is only in circumstance 5 can it be said that train 3 caused the person to be delayed.

If the argument is that situation 2 was train 3's fault then you could argue that is the same for situation 4, but that really would make no sense.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

(Edited to remove a different post that I had meant to remove earlier)

So the argument that the late arriving train 2 is not liable is that the cancelled train 3 might have departed late if it hadn't been cancelled? Hmm...

As before, it is illogical to say that if train 3 ran then train 2 is liable, but if train 3 didn't then train 3 is liable.

And that's why compensation is based on the one course of events that actually happened, rather than allowing anyone to choose one of the infinite number of possible courses of events that could have happened but didn't over all of the other possibilities that didn't happen either.

 

[sefton]

(Edited to remove a different post that I had meant to remove earlier)


And that's why compensation is based on the one course of events that actually happened, rather than allowing anyone to choose one of the infinite number of possible courses of events that could have happened but didn't over all of the other possibilities that didn't happen either.

And the course of events that did ACTUALLY happen is train 2 was late and didn't allow sufficient connection time so causing the delay. The THEORETICAL argument is train 3 might have been delayed, but as you say you have to work on what ACTUALLY happened rather than what might have happened.

Anyway, which of scenarios 1 to 5 do you think fall to train 3?

 

[robbeech]

I think that to come and ask for peoples views, then when pretty much all of them are different to yours to throw them out as simply stupid regardless of the arguments given is somewhat rude.

It has been suggested by a range of people both inside and outside the industry that claiming from TOC 3 is the most sensible course of action, warning you that an attempt to claim from TOC 2 is likely to cause problems which may indeed go on to see you getting nothing back. Of course, this is your journey and your claim so you are welcome to claim from TOC 2 as you seem so set on doing regardless of the results of the advice you asked for.

I hope your claim is accepted and you get the necessary compensation for your delayed journey.

 

[yorkie]

And the course of events that did ACTUALLY happen is train 2 was late and didn't allow sufficient connection time so causing the delay. The THEORETICAL argument is train 3 might have been delayed, but as you say you have to work on what ACTUALLY happened rather than what might have happened.

Anyway, which of scenarios 1 to 5 do you think fall to train 3?

Leg 3 was delayed. This is not theoretical.

What is theoretical is if leg 3 departed on time. But it didn't.

The way I see it is this:

• The customer can only claim from one TOC
• The customer has a definite claim against TOC 3
• The customer has an arguable claim against TOC 2 as the first company to cause a delay in theory, but it's not clear-cut; I could foresee that TOC arguing that TOC 3 should be liable.

While it is true to say the first TOC that causes a delay should pay out, there is the issue that when a connecting service arrives at the interchange station, the passenger is arguably obligated to make their way promptly (but NOT by running) to the next available platform, where applicable/appropriate. If the passenger then makes the next available onward train, and the delay to the inbound service does NOT cause a later train to be caught, and the customer arrives late into their final destination due to an issue with their onward train, then arguably the liability falls with the provider of the onward train and not the inbound one.

It does not sound like advice is being sought on what to do; it sounds like reasons are sought to back up one specific line of argument.

 

[sefton]

Leg 3 was delayed. This is not theoretical.

Agree.

What is theoretical is if leg 3 departed on time. But it didn't.

Agree, and equally theoretical is if it might have departed late.

The way I see it is this:

• The customer can only claim from one TOC

I would agree the customer can only be paid the total amount of Delay Repay due, but I don't necessarily see that it has to come from one TOC - as I mentioned before TOC 1 causing the initial problem and TOC 2 increasing that problem, it seems a bit unfair if it all falls to one of them.

• The customer has a definite claim against TOC 3

I would suggest that they only have a definite claim if they were stood on the platform when TOC 3's train was due to leave. If they were still walking over the bridge then they don't.

• The customer has an arguable claim against TOC 2 as the first company to cause a delay in theory, but it's not clear-cut; I could foresee that TOC arguing that TOC 3 should be liable.

I can see why TOC 2 might want to get out of this, but don't consider that TOC 3 simply failing to run their train is good enough if the customer was still walking over the bridge to TOC 3's platform due to TOC 2's delay.

While it is true to say the first TOC that causes a delay should pay out, there is the issue that when a connecting service arrives at the interchange station, the passenger is arguably obligated to make their way promptly (but NOT by running) to the next available platform, where applicable/appropriate. If the passenger then makes the next available onward train, and the delay to the inbound service does NOT cause a later train to be caught, and the customer arrives late into their final destination due to an issue with their onward train, then arguably the liability falls with the provider of the onward train and not the inbound one.

Completely agree. If the customer manages to catch the connecting service then although the first provider is late then their 'failure' is washed away. However if the customer cannot catch the onward train then they are liable.

Where I struggle to see the logical argument which others have put forward is that if a train which could not be caught because the customer was not physically there because of the actions of the first company, that the second company becomes liable.

For example, train due to arrive 20:00 and connection at 20:09.

• Train arrives at 20:00 and connection cancelled, well clearly TOC 2 is to blame.
• Train arrives at 20:15 and connection runs on time but customer isn't there to get on it, well clearly TOC 1 is to blame
• Train arrives at 20:08 and connection runs on time but customer didn't manage to get to the platform on time, still TOC 1 is to blame
• Train arrives at 20:08 and connection is cancelled, but irrespective customer didn't manage to get to the platform on time, now the argument is TOC 2 is now to blame. Sorry I don't get it.

It does not sound like advice is being sought on what to do; it sounds like reasons are sought to back up one specific line of argument.

Simply testing the logic of the assertions, since as I mentioned looking at the performance of the intermediate TOC on the services I am likely to use, over the last 12 weeks 50% are more than 5 minutes late and they are arriving an average of 14 minutes late. And this is for a connection of 9 minutes at a station with a minimum 8 minute connection time, so things don't look great.

 

[yorkie]

I would agree the customer can only be paid the total amount of Delay Repay due, but I don't necessarily see that it has to come from one TOC - as I mentioned before TOC 1 causing the initial problem and TOC 2 increasing that problem, it seems a bit unfair if it all falls to one of them.

That's a separate argument. If we are to discuss this further, it needs a proposal to be posted in the Speculative Ideas section.

I would suggest that they only have a definite claim if they were stood on the platform when TOC 3's train was due to leave. If they were still walking over the bridge then they don't.

The passenger was at the platform in time for the first available train which ran from the interchange station to the final destination station after the booked arrival time of the connecting train though.

I can see why TOC 2 might want to get out of this, but don't consider that TOC 3 simply failing to run their train is good enough...

I think failing to run a train is a fairly substantial thing; it seems the priority for you is to claim from the TOC that you have a particular dislike for. That's fine to have that opinion but it doesn't mean that is the most appropriate TOC to claim from.

if the customer was still walking over the bridge to TOC 3's platform due to TOC 2's delay.

The fact is that a TOC whose train arrives late at an interchange station may or may not be liable for compensation claims depending on various factors out of their control, such as whether passengers are making connections or whether onward trains are also delayed, but that's just the way it is.

Completely agree. If the customer manages to catch the connecting service then although the first provider is late then their 'failure' is washed away. However if the customer cannot catch the onward train then they are liable.

Yes and TOC 2's delay did not mean a missed connection. TOC 2 was lucky, as was TOC 1. That's their luck.

Where I struggle to see the logical argument which others have put forward is that if a train which could not be caught because the customer was not physically there because of the actions of the first company, that the second company becomes liable.

What train could not be caught? You were not prevented from catching any train due to a delay on a previous train.

For example, train due to arrive 20:00 and connection at 20:09.

• Train arrives at 20:00 and connection cancelled, well clearly TOC 2 is to blame.
• Train arrives at 20:15 and connection runs on time but customer isn't there to get on it, well clearly TOC 1 is to blame
• Train arrives at 20:08 and connection runs on time but customer didn't manage to get to the platform on time, still TOC 1 is to blame
• Train arrives at 20:08 and connection is cancelled, but irrespective customer didn't manage to get to the platform on time, now the argument is TOC 2 is now to blame. Sorry I don't get it.

What's not to get? There has to be a line drawn somewhere, and sometimes a TOC gets lucky and avoids liability due to the failings of another.

Simply testing the logic of the assertions, since as I mentioned looking at the performance of the intermediate TOC on the services I am likely to use, over the last 12 weeks 50% are more than 5 minutes late and they are arriving an average of 14 minutes late. And this is for a connection of 9 minutes at a station with a minimum 8 minute connection time, so things don't look great.

OK I get it; you want to teach TOC 2 a lesson and you want them to amend their timetable accordingy so that their train is re-timed to arrive later. This means that the connection into TOC 3 is no longer a valid one, which means an extended journey and a reduction in Delay Repay claims. Well, feel free to ask them to do this. Alternatively you could book a journey with extended connection times (there are websites that let you do this).

 

[MikeWh]

This thread has been going round in circles for over 50 posts. I think it has run its course. If anyone thinks they have anything substantially new to add to the argument, please contact the moderating team who will consider re-opening it.