Interesting Delay Repay refusal - GTR contend Travelcard season not valid if tap in was after scheduled departure time of train

[redreni]

As per the thread title, GTR has refused a delay repay claim I submitted for a delay on the 18:09 from City Thameslink to Slade Green, because I didn't pass through the ticket barrier at City Thameslink until 18:13. The delay was around 28 minutes and the train picked up a good portion of that delay before arrival at City Thameslink. I arrived at the station in time to catch the train had it been on time. It was showing as delayed on the departure board when I arrived, so rather than wait on a narrow and crowded platform, I thought it better to wait on the concourse for a few minutes.

Their rejection email says:

I can see by your tapping information for your return journey, that you are claiming for an 18:09 City Thameslink to Slade Green train, but you didn't tap at the barriers until 18:13. Based on this, the ticket isn't valid and I cannot accept your claim. I'm sorry, I know this is disappointing.



Section 6.0 in the National Rail Conditions of Travel states:

In order to be valid, some Tickets must be activated or endorsed with a date of travel before you board a train. This is made clear in the terms & conditions of those Tickets.

For any future journeys, please ensure you always tap in at the start of your journey before your intended service is scheduled to depart, as we use the tap data to ensure the ticket is valid for the journey you claimed for. We use this as evidence that you were at the station at that time. The system works by reviewing your tap data, so it's important to do this, even if the ticket barrier gates are open, which may happen during severe disruption.

I have to say I consider this a good example of the misuse of tapping information. The ticket I held was a 7 day Travelcard season held on a Smartcard. Unless I've missed something, there's nothing at all in the T&Cs of that ticket to say it isn't valid if I don't tap in, is there?

Moreover, on a practical level - what an appalling piece of advice to give to passengers! Go down onto the narrow platforms at City Thameslink at rush hour even if your train is severely delayed, contributing to crowding and getting in the way of people waiting for trains that are going to arrive before yours? Otherwise you won't get your delay repay? Seriously?

I'm minded to appeal this. Interested if anyone else has been told this, or similar, by GTR or any other TOC?

 

[Hadders]

I would appeal this as a human needs to look at it rather than an automated system.

Clearly, it’s impractical to expect you to wait on the platform waiting for a delayed train at somewhere like City Thameslink.

 

[redreni]

Worryingly, it has been looked at by a human. Original claim was by post. No acknowledgement received 25 days later so sent chaser email to Customer Relations attaching images of my copies of claim forms and tickets (so they couldn't deny receipt within 28 days). The reply from Customer Relations said they'd received neither form (both sent to their Freepost address as per the Thameslink website), but said they were allowing one of the claims and refusing the other (for the absurd reasons given as per my first post).

 

[Kite159]

I would appeal this as a human needs to look at it rather than an automated system.

Clearly, it’s impractical to expect you to wait on the platform waiting for a delayed train at somewhere like City Thameslink.

Or even at a terminal station, where the station staff won't want everybody waiting on the platform for a delayed train to arrive before departing back out. Even going as far as making the barriers exit only.

 

[125Spotter]

I don't understand how the quoted section of the NRCoT applies in your case. All it says is that the ticket must be valid for travel "before you board a train", which indeed it was (regardless of whether the travelcard must be tapped in to be "activated", you had indeed tapped by the time the train arrived and you were able to board).

I struggle to comprehend what mental gymnastics is required to mean tapping is equivalent to boarding, which is the only way that clause would otherwise be relevant.

I'm very interested in what happens if you appeal.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't understand how the quoted section of the NRCoT applies in your case. All it says is that the ticket must be valid for travel "before you board a train", which indeed it was (regardless of whether the travelcard must be tapped in to be "activated", you had indeed tapped by the time the train arrived and you were able to board).

I struggle to comprehend what mental gymnastics is required to mean tapping is equivalent to boarding, which is the only way that clause would otherwise be relevant.

I'm very interested in what happens if you appeal.

They seem to be claiming that:
1) A Delay Repay claim is only valid if the passenger is at the station before the scheduled time of departure. I don't think this is true.
2) They are entitled to use the time that a passenger passed the barriers to determine the above. I don't see how this can be true either

The suggestion that you need to tap in at an open barrier for Delay Repay purposes is absurd.

But they also appear to be saying that to make a valid Delay Repay claim it is necessary to have held a valid ticket before the departure time (along with an irrelevant quote from the NRCoT).
I can see how they might attempt to argue this one, but as you say in the case of a season ticket it's irrelevant.

If they really believe all of this is true, it needs to be clearly stated on their web site. I haven't looked but I bet it isn't!

Even if the amount was small, I'd be strongly tempted to push this as far as I could beacause I don't think their position is at all reasonable.

Also to put in a separate complaint flagging this as a safety issue.

Transport for Wales tried (I think) this one on me when I was using PAYG. I didn't tap in for a cancelled train because I didn't go to the station until they actually ran one. They told me my "ticket" was invalid but gave in on appeal. It wasn't a problem on subsequent claims.

Or even at a terminal station, where the station staff won't want everybody waiting on the platform for a delayed train to arrive before departing back out. Even going as far as making the barriers exit only.

Yes that's a good point. I imagine the TOCs that do this don't take such an unreasonable position on having to pass barriers before the boarding time, but it shows that the principle of having to pass a barrier before departure time can't be correct.

 

[edgar13]

Had a similar one with TfL two years ago. Got to Chesham at 12:25 for the 12:30 train which was cancelled due to signalling issues, staff advised not to tap in until the next 13:00 is confirmed to be running. Delay refund still rejected after multiple appeals, even with photo evidence of the disruption notice and timestamp, on the basis that there is no delay between my actual taps. Gave up pursuing that £1.25 in the end

 

[AdamWW]

If what they are saying is true, then their staff gave you incorrect advise.

Note how concerned they appeared to be about that...

 

[Watershed]

They seem to be claiming that:
1) A Delay Repay claim is only valid if the passenger is at the station before the scheduled time of departure. I don't think this is true.
2) They are entitled to use the time that a passenger passed the barriers to determine the above. I don't see how this can be true either

Indeed. There is nothing in the NRCoT or Passenger's Charter which backs up either requirement. So I would escalate the rejection and ask for a Letter of Deadlock so you can take it to the Rail Ombudsman.

 

[redreni]

They seem to be claiming that:
1) A Delay Repay claim is only valid if the passenger is at the station before the scheduled time of departure. I don't think this is true.
2) They are entitled to use the time that a passenger passed the barriers to determine the above. I don't see how this can be true either

The suggestion that you need to tap in at an open barrier for Delay Repay purposes is absurd.

But they also appear to be saying that to make a valid Delay Repay claim it is necessary to have held a valid ticket before the departure time (along with an irrelevant quote from the NRCoT).
I can see how they might attempt to argue this one, but as you say in the case of a season ticket it's irrelevant.

If they really believe all of this is true, it needs to be clearly stated on their web site. I haven't looked but I bet it isn't!

Even if the amount was small, I'd be strongly tempted to push this as far as I could beacause I don't think their position is at all reasonable.

Also to put in a separate complaint flagging this as a safety issue.

Transport for Wales tried (I think) this one on me when I was using PAYG. I didn't tap in for a cancelled train because I didn't go to the station until they actually ran one. They told me my "ticket" was invalid but gave in on appeal. It wasn't a problem on subsequent claims.



Yes that's a good point. I imagine the TOCs that do this don't take such an unreasonable position on having to pass barriers before the boarding time, but it shows that the principle of having to pass a barrier before departure time can't be correct.

On point (1) I can see that, if I worked for a TOC, I would be a bit suspicious that a person could leave their workplace, see that a train which they wouldn't have caught had it been on time is delayed and that they may now catch it, and claim that as a delay when in reality they were only able to catch the train because it ran late.

That is emphatically not the case here, as I got to the station at around 18:05 for a train scheduled to depart at 18:09.

I can see your point, though. If I'd killed that time by going for a walk or buying a coffee or even half a pint, and only gone to the station shortly before the train was expected to arrive, it wouldn't change the fact I'd been delayed.

 

[arb]

It's not just terminal stations or those with limited platform space where the original advice is ridiculous.

• What about stations where as soon as you go through the barrier, you're predominantly outdoors, with minimal indoor waiting room space, but which have a large booking office or indoor area before the gateline? I know which side of the gateline I'll be waiting on if it's cold or windy!
• What about stations where there is one gateline and then you immediately have to head in different directions to get to different platforms, but the platform hasn't been announced yet?
• What if the staff advise you to wait for a replacement bus that has been organised, but then the trains start running again before it arrives?

Alternatively, if they want to use tap-in times for determining the start time of your journey, maybe you should ask them to start using tap-out times when calculating the length of your delay? That would end the separate debate about differences between working/public timetables and hourly services with only 59 minute delays

 

[AdamWW]

On point (1) I can see that, if I worked for a TOC, I would be a bit suspicious that a person could leave their workplace, see that a train which they wouldn't have caught had it been on time is delayed and that they may now catch it, and claim that as a delay when in reality they were only able to catch the train because it ran late.

Yes. But they have to work within the rules just as they require passengers to.

And so far as I know, much as they might want a rule that they will only pay out if you can prove you weren't cheating in such a way, there isn't one.

And if they believe they are entitled to enforce it, it needs to be clearly stated anywhere you can look up the rules. And I suspect it isn't.

Delay Repay has to rely to some extent on trust, backed up by the ability to look over claims and search for suspicous patterns (a whole new can of worms, of course)

 

[Watershed]

What about stations where there is one gateline and then you immediately have to head in different directions to get to different platforms, but the platform hasn't been announced yet?

Or, what about stations where there are separate gatelines for each platform (or set of platforms)? The platform may not be announced until close to departure so you wouldn't know where to go through. Indeed the barriers may be closed until the station staff are prepared to let you board (e.g. Euston or Paddington). Obviously most GTR stations don't fall into this category but it just goes to show that the argument doesn't carry any weight.

 

[Hophead]

The train company's argument is clearly absurd. Why, if the train is showing as delayed, would you even want to hang around on the platform, when you could be getting a coffee, or some shopping, or continuing a conversation with a friend who is making a different journey? If the train makes up time, or the information is incorrect, then that's on you, and no compensation would be due.

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

 

[AdamWW]

The train company's company is clearly absurd. Why, if the train is showing as delayed, would you even want to hang around on the platform, when you could be getting a coffee, or some shopping, or continuing a conversation with a friend who is making a different journey? If the train makes up time, or the information is incorrect, then that's on you, and no compensation would be due.

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

Seems quite typical - you could be doing something wrong therefore we must treat you as if you are.

 

[Richardr]

The train company's argument is clearly absurd. Why, if the train is showing as delayed, would you even want to hang around on the platform, when you could be getting a coffee, or some shopping, or continuing a conversation with a friend who is making a different journey? If the train makes up time, or the information is incorrect, then that's on you, and no compensation would be due.

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

It is an issue, but I don't know the answer. When I was working in London I would see if there was a major delay on the trains at City Thameslink and Blackfriars, and as you say if there was go for a coffee / something to eat / the pub.

On the latter point though, on these trains nearly all paper tickets are not for specific trains and so I'm not sure how that would help.

 

[redreni]

The train company's argument is clearly absurd. Why, if the train is showing as delayed, would you even want to hang around on the platform, when you could be getting a coffee, or some shopping, or continuing a conversation with a friend who is making a different journey? If the train makes up time, or the information is incorrect, then that's on you, and no compensation would be due.

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

If 7 day Travelcards were available on paper, I'd probably be a luddite and get them in that format.

Some TOCs staff are like kids with a new toy when it comes to scan and tap data, and they use it inappropriately.

I'll report back on the appeal. I just went point-by-point:

• You said my ticket wasn't valid; it was.
• You quoted the NRCoT as saying I have to validate my ticket; I don't with that kind of ticket.
• You said the ticket has to be tapped before the scheduled departure time; that wouldn't be true even with a ticket that needs validated - the requirement is to validate before boarding.
• You said you use the scan data to verify when I got to the station; I can help you with that. I got there at 18:05. What time I pass through the barrier is irrelevant.

Thanks for the input, all!

It is an issue, but I don't know the answer. When I was working in London I would see if there was a major delay on the trains at City Thameslink and Blackfriars, and as you say if there was go for a coffee / something to eat / the pub.

On the latter point though, on these trains nearly all paper tickets are not for specific trains and so I'm not sure how that would help.

The other thing is, there are other routes, so there are complexities. What if I'm walking past City Thameslink in time for the 18:09 but it's showing as "delayed" with no ETA. Suppose I keep walking towards Cannon Street aiming to get a train from there? And suppose while I'm walking, the City Thameslink train gets an ETA and I think "I can still make that, I'll turn back". And suppose I get to City Thameslink after the scheduled departure time but still catch that train. Have I not been delayed? Of course I have! The test is whether, if the train departed on time, I would have caught it.

As I see it, there will be cases where they just have to take people's word for that.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

As I see it, there will be cases where they just have to take people's word for that.

It's implicit in the way that Delay Repay was designed that the TOC which has to evaluate the claim will often have no evidence except the claimant's assertion concerning their planned itinerary. It's clear that TOCs don't like paying compensation on that basis and will use any data they do have in creative ways to try to disprove the basis of a claim. They may even claim to have data they don't have and/or invent reasons why valid tickets aren't valid.

I'm currently dealing with a TOC which rejected a valid DR claim on the basis that "our ticket scan data shows that you travelled on a different train than the train you submitted a claim for". When I contacted the TOC to ask them to show me the scan data, they couldn't and conceded that I had travelled on the train I'd claimed. They then said that they could not accept the (Off Peak Day Return) ticket I'd provided as I had ended my journey short of the destination shown on the ticket, claiming that "This is due to you having to complete the full journey as written on the ticket, you are able to make a break in your journey but the journey needs to be completed by 04:29 the following day."

 

[125Spotter]

They then said that they could not accept the (Off Peak Day Return) ticket I'd provided as I had ended my journey short of the destination shown on the ticket, claiming that "This is due to you having to complete the full journey as written on the ticket, you are able to make a break in your journey but the journey needs to be completed by 04:29 the following day."

Yet another interesting (mis)interpretation of the term "journey", which doesn't have to equate to the bounds of validity printed on your ticket unless ticket terms state otherwise. NRCoT 16.2 is explicit about the ability to end the journey at a station prior to the end of validity.

The "04:29 the following day" statement is permissive, not mandatory – it refers to the time when the ticket ceases to be valid, not some directive that the traveller must complete the journey if they wished to break. It's irrelevant if they explicitly choose to end the journey at the intermediate station. I guess the ToC is trying to avoid paying out by attempting to infer journey made based on the ticket face (unless an Advance, of course).

I can think of many cases where I might leave a service at an intermediate station short of my destination in times of significant delay or disruption, and use other means to reach the final destination. Indeed I've also made my own way further up the line on several occasions, at my own inconvenience, to join my booked train when trains are being turned early due to disruption.

 

[Lewisham2221]

The train company's argument is clearly absurd. Why, if the train is showing as delayed, would you even want to hang around on the platform, when you could be getting a coffee, or some shopping, or continuing a conversation with a friend who is making a different journey? If the train makes up time, or the information is incorrect, then that's on you, and no compensation would be due.

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is absurd. The person handling the claim would appear to be looking at it along the lines of somebody who was originally intending on catching a later a train, but took advantage of the earlier train being delayed to actually get them home sooner and then trying to take further advantage by claiming delay repay compensation for that train, despite not being delayed at all based on their originally planned itinerary. It would seem that this isn't the case with the OP, but I don't think it's at all absurd that somebody handling a claim might evaluate it in that manner. I would suggest that the OP appeals the decision, clearly explaining the whole situation including the reasons why they chose not to tap-in and wait on the platforms until the train was actually due to arrive.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I don't think it's at all absurd that somebody handling a claim might evaluate it in that manner.

The person handling the claim needs to understand whether the time the claimant passed through the barrier (if known) invalidates the claim that the intention was to catch the delayed train at the scheduled time. Clearly, if the time of passing through the barrier was after the actual departure time of the train, it would invalidate the claim. As long as it's not after that time, its consistent with the claim.

Inventing a requirement that to claim DR, a ticket must be scanned at a barrier before the advertised departure time of the train the claimant was intending to catch, is absurd for the numerous reasons given above. Denying a valid claim because the fictitious requirement was not complied with is dishonest.

 

[125Spotter]

The person handling the claim would appear to be looking at it along the lines of somebody who was originally intending on catching a later a train, but took advantage of the earlier train being delayed to actually get them home sooner and then trying to take further advantage by claiming delay repay compensation for that train, despite not being delayed at all based on their originally planned itinerary.

I think that's likely what's happened, but it's redolent of someone who is biased towards minimising the number of permitted claims, who does not otherwise comprehend the various contractual terms and other published information under which the Delay Repay scheme operates and on which basis the passenger made their booking. This is not customer-focussed and results in reasonable and valid claims being rejected – and people less in the know will accept this at face value, missing out on compensation they are properly entitled to for the inconvenience to their journey.

Based on the OP's description of events, and a single Delay Repay claim, there is no prima facie evidence that the OP never intended to make the journey as stated. There is corroborating tap data to indicate the OP was indeed at the station around the relevant time, so it is reasonable they intended to make their stated journey. TOCs can assess delay repay claims in the aggregate to look for fraud, but looking for patterns in a single data point is likely to lead to wildly inaccurate conclusions. Ironically, electronic ticketing makes it much harder to pull off this type of delay repay fraud on seasons/travelcards, compared to paper tickets, where fraudulent claims could more easily be made en masse based on historic running data, without ever having travelled on the service(s) to which the claim related. It appears the TOC is trying to have its cake and eat it.

I doubt any challenge would get this far, but a TOC's defence to their position if challenged in court would be interesting. The statements required to do so, and precedent that could be set, would likely result in other undesirable consequences for positions adopted where they currently rely on no test having been made or no precedent having been set.

 

[AdamWW]

I wouldn't go as far as saying it is absurd. The person handling the claim would appear to be looking at it along the lines of somebody who was originally intending on catching a later a train, but took advantage of the earlier train being delayed to actually get them home sooner and then trying to take further advantage by claiming delay repay compensation for that train, despite not being delayed at all based on their originally planned itinerary. It would seem that this isn't the case with the OP, but I don't think it's at all absurd that somebody handling a claim might evaluate it in that manner. I would suggest that the OP appeals the decision, clearly explaining the whole situation including the reasons why they chose not to tap-in and wait on the platforms until the train was actually due to arrive.

But they didn't just reject the claim on the grounds you describe, they seemed to be saying that no valid claim could be made without a tap-in before the scheduled time of departure (i.e. not just that any tap-in had to be at the right time, but that without a tap-in they wouldn't pay out).

The Delay Repay rules place no obligation on the passenger to start writing essays on why they passed barriers when they did, or to tap in if not required for the ticket itself to be valid.

 

[Lewisham2221]

But they didn't just reject the claim on the grounds you describe, they seemed to be saying that no valid claim could be made without a tap-in before the scheduled time of departure (i.e. not just that any tap-in had to be at the right time, but that without a tap-in they wouldn't pay out).

That's not how I read it, but fair enough.

The Delay Repay rules place no obligation on the passenger to start writing essays on why they passed barriers when they did, or to tap in if not required for the ticket itself to be valid.

I never said they did. I suggested that they include such an explanation when appealing the (incorrect) decision to refuse the claim.

It's quite clear to me that the person handling the claim is trying to avoid paying out dishonest claims and has, on this occasion, come to an incorrect conclusion. Appeal with an explanation and move on. Absolutely no reason for people to be getting their knickers in a twist about it.

 

[Hadders]

Of course, this situation doesn't arise with a paper ticket! Then, it's a matter of honesty when making a claim and less chance of a dispute about when you arrived at the station.

It does! Most paper tickets contain Aztec codes and there is a record of gateline scans that can be accessed.

 

[miklcct]

It does! Most paper tickets contain Aztec codes and there is a record of gateline scans that can be accessed.

I have never seen a paper ticket containing Aztec code, apart from the Paper Roll Ticket sold by guards on board on some trains. Paper tickets are normally magnetic strip tickets which don't have any barcodes.

 

[Watershed]

I have never seen a paper ticket containing Aztec code, apart from the Paper Roll Ticket sold by guards on board on some trains. Paper tickets are normally magnetic strip tickets which don't have any barcodes.

The Paper Roll Tickets you refer to are increasingly being issued by ticket offices, including GTR ones, as the default option. Indeed this started rolling out quite a few years ago at some TOCs such as Avanti, so it's nothing new.

 

[Haywain]

The Paper Roll Tickets you refer to are increasingly being issued by ticket offices, including GTR ones, as the default option.

Got my first PRT ticket from my local GTR station this morning. Yesterday the tickets were CCST and the card receipt was PRT.

 

[setdown]

On the other side of the coin, SWR do not have such a requirement. Multiple times I've seen my train is delayed, and then left my house later as a result, turning up a few minutes before it's due. Therefore, my smart card is tapped-in accordingly, after the intended original departure time. Never had any issues with my delay repay being rejected!

 

[AdamWW]

I never said they did. I suggested that they include such an explanation when appealing the (incorrect) decision to refuse the claim.

It's quite clear to me that the person handling the claim is trying to avoid paying out dishonest claims and has, on this occasion, come to an incorrect conclusion. Appeal with an explanation and move on. Absolutely no reason for people to be getting their knickers in a twist about it.

No need to post in this thread of course if you think it's too trivial.

Personally, in a case like this I'm not inclined to jump through hoops that shouldn't be there and start offering detailed explanations of why I did what I did that aren't needed.
I'd point out (as I think the OP did) that the claim is valid and they need to pay it, regardless of what the tap in time was.

It looks to me as if the person dealing with it has gone beyond trying to avoid incorrect payouts and has moved on to making up their own rules, or has been trained by someone who has done so.
It's not something I would choose to encourage.

That's not how I read it, but fair enough.

Interesting. I can't read the bit starting "For any future journeys..." in any other way.

On the other side of the coin, SWR do not have such a requirement. Multiple times I've seen my train is delayed, and then left my house later as a result, turning up a few minutes before it's due. Therefore, my smart card is tapped-in accordingly, after the intended original departure time. Never had any issues with my delay repay being rejected!

I think I've been OK on that with TfW PAYG.

But I'm losing track and those might be the claims that were originally rejected because I didn't provide a photograph of the ticket I didn't have and are now generously (if slowly) being reconsidered.

I see nothing in the rules saying that to qualify for Delay Repay you have to spend half an hour standing on a platform when you know a train is cancelled ahead of time.