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

[SteveHFC]

I have, when travelling into London from Leagrave, often waited in the warm in the car in the car park if I know there is a delay, especially if its wet or cold (or both). Never had a problem having my Delay Repay claim accepted.

 

[nanstallon]

Some staff are incredibly creative with inventing rules. It gives the railway a bad name.

 

[Kite159]

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

Whereas some credit card sized paper tickets contain the codes, they are very much in the minority. At least on the SWR network.

Other operators it might be different.

Unless you are including the paper roll tickets which only have the code printed on, not a magnetic strip.

 

[Haywain]

Whereas some credit card sized paper tickets contain the codes, they are very much in the minority. At least on the SWR network.

They are in a tiny minority nationally, and the barcode is incapable of being usefully scanned.

Unless you are including the paper roll tickets which only have the code printed on,

I think this is what was being referred to, and with GTR now transitioning to issuing on PRT that may tip things towards scannable barcoded paper tickets being in the majority.

 

[Kite159]

They are in a tiny minority nationally, and the barcode is incapable of being usefully scanned.

I think this is what was being referred to, and with GTR now transitioning to issuing on PRT that may tip things towards scannable barcoded paper tickets being in the majority.

Until TfL start accepting barcoded tickets for cross London journeys & out boundary travelcards then they won't be in the majority for paper tickets

 

[Hadders]

Until TfL start accepting barcoded tickets for cross London journeys & out boundary travelcards then they won't be in the majority for paper tickets

I suspect most paper tickets do not involve crossing London or outboundary travelcards.

I also suspect TOCs will redouble efforts to issue outboundary travelcards to smartcards.

 

[redreni]

I suspect most paper tickets do not involve crossing London or outboundary travelcards.

I also suspect TOCs will redouble efforts to issue outboundary travelcards to smartcards.

I would think most people boarding or alighting at City Thameslink aren't using paper tickets at all. Nor are they using e-tickets; it's mostly PAYG and Smartcards.

Of the minority using paper tickets at City Thameslink, I've no idea how it will break down between CCST and PRT, now that GTR are switching to PRT. There will still be a high proportion of cross-London tickets and day Travelcards given the location, albeit those using London Terminals or London Thameslink tickets will now tend to be given them on PRT.

 

[Kite159]

I suspect most paper tickets do not involve crossing London or outboundary travelcards.

I also suspect TOCs will redouble efforts to issue outboundary travelcards to smartcards.

Depends on the route and even the time of day.

Some passengers will buy child rate paper tickets as they know the risks of buying those tickets online and creating a digital fingerprint (compared to buying at a TVM) if they get caught by a RPI who doesn't believe they are 15 years old.

 

[Starmill]

I frequently don't show up at the station for departure time if I can see that my intended service is delayed such that it can't possibly make it there for then. I have never heard of it being suggested that this is an obligation.

The above would only apply where I'm already a ticket holder.

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.

Ultimately anyone lying about delays is going to get caught eventually and there's no justification for it.

I'd say it's pretty darn clear you're telling the truth in this instance though.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I suspect most paper tickets do not involve crossing London or outboundary travelcards.

I also suspect TOCs will redouble efforts to issue outboundary travelcards to smartcards.

Most LNER CCST are exactly that along with internal Scottish tickets.

 

[redreni]

UPDATE:

GTR Customer Relations replied today:

Dear

Thanks for getting back in touch about your Delay Repay claim for your return journey on 29 January 2025.
I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy with the outcome of the claim, and I hope I can help explain the reason for this.
When we review Delay Repay claims, we look at a variety of different sources to verify the delay and validity of the claim. Part of this involves checking ticket validity, which includes looking at the area covered and whether the ticket was activated at the time of travel. Having looked at your ticket, I can see this wasn't tapped in time for your intended departure time, so it wouldn’t be classed as valid for your intended journey. Although the ticket is valid for that route, it isn't valid for that particular service that you're claiming for.
This requirement has always been in place to check ticket validity, and we're currently taking more steps to be more vigilant. This applies to paper tickets also, as the ticket does need to be printed/purchased before your intended service is scheduled to depart.
Your tap information isn't matching with the journeys you're claiming for, so your ticket wouldn't be valid. I'm unable to offer any compensation this time. I'm sorry, I know this is disappointing.
Whilst I appreciate the circumstances you’ve explained, due to the fact you’ve been unable to provide a valid ticket for travel we won’t be taking this claim further. This is in line with the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) which can be found here.
Should you need to claim Delay Repay compensation again, please ensure to provide a valid ticket for your journey to avoid any delay in receiving any compensation due.
I hope your next journey with us runs smoother.

Kind regards

[Redacted]

Customer Relations Advisor

I'm wondering if I should interpret the refusal to look at the claim again as an indication we are in deadlock, and go next to the Ombudsman, or if it's worth one final attempt to get some sense out of GTR?

I notice their response to me pointing out the provisions of the NRCoT they quoted before (which related to tickets requiring validation) were irrelevant, is to simply quote the NRCoT generally, without saying which provision(s) they believe support their position. I did have a look, and all I can see are provisions which say they have to compensate me for the delay under these circumstances (notably 31 and 32, read in conjunction with section 14.0 of their Passenger Charter, which sets out the details of their delay repay scheme).

There is a requirement under 33.1 NRCoT for the ticket to be valid for that journey. They seem to be relying on that (they haven't quoted it, but they do say they're rejecting because the ticket wasn't valid). So I'm minded to focus principally on the simple fact the ticket was valid for that journey.

 

[AdamWW]

UPDATE:

GTR Customer Relations replied today:

I'm wondering if I should interpret the refusal to look at the claim again as an indication we are in deadlock, and go next to the Ombudsman, or if it's worth one final attempt to get some sense out of GTR?

I notice their response to me pointing out the provisions of the NRCoT they quoted before (which related to tickets requiring validation) were irrelevant, is to simply quote the NRCoT generally, without saying which provision(s) they believe support their position. I did have a look, and all I can see are provisions which say they have to compensate me for the delay under these circumstances (notably 31 and 32, read in conjunction with section 14.0 of their Passenger Charter, which sets out the details of their delay repay scheme).

There is a requirement under 33.1 NRCoT for the ticket to be valid for that journey. They seem to be relying on that (they haven't quoted it, but they do say they're rejecting because the ticket wasn't valid). So I'm minded to focus principally on the simple fact the ticket was valid for that journey.

Complete rubbish, isn't it?

Inventing rules that travelcards have to be "activated" for each journey made (er....no....) and that the time you tap a smartcard at a barrier is somehow the same as the purchase time of a paper ticket.

I suspect you'd be within your rights to go to the Ombudsman now (for what that's worth). How long has this taken? I think after a certain amount of time you don't need a deadlock letter.

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.

Ultimately anyone lying about delays is going to get caught eventually and there's no justification for it.

I don't know. If every time I travel I check to see if the train before was cancelled, and if so I pretend I was going to catch that and claim for a delay, it might well start to look suspicious.

But it isn't valid to just pick someone out because they have an unusual pattern of claims and then use that pattern itself as evidence of misbehaviour. You'd have to show that it was so unlikely that there is a very low chance that this could happen to any passenger, not that it is unlikely to happen to someone picked at random.

(In practise I suppose you just threaten them with prosecution for fraud and see if they own up, and if not you move on.)

 

[Starmill]

I don't know. If every time I travel I check to see if the train before was cancelled, and if so I pretend I was going to catch that and claim for a delay, it might well start to look suspicious.

But it isn't valid to just pick someone out because they have an unusual pattern of claims and then use that pattern itself as evidence of misbehaviour. You'd have to show that it was so unlikely that there is a very low chance that this could happen to any passenger, not that it is unlikely to happen to someone picked at random.

No indeed, this is absolutely never an approach I endorse. It needs active investigation.

(In practise I suppose you just threaten them with prosecution for fraud and see if they own up, and if not you move on.)

Sadly this may have been what happened in some of the cases we saw. I don't think we can say for certain, but...

 

[AdamWW]

No indeed, this is absolutely never an approach I endorse. It needs active investigation.

I don't know how you could investigate the case I describe above though. It would I think be rather hard work to figure out what train someone actually intended to catch.

Sadly this may have been what happened in some of the cases we saw. I don't think we can say for certain, but...

Indeed.

 

[redreni]

I suspect you'd be within your rights to go to the Ombudsman now (for what that's worth). How long has this taken? I think after a certain amount of time you don't need a deadlock letter.

I sent the postal claim on 30 January but used the Freepost address so don't have proof of posting. They have denied receiving each of the last three claims I've submitted that way to the Freepost address on their website, so I assume either they haven't paid their bill to Royal Mail, or it's just a deliberate policy to deter postal claims by denying receipt of all but registered post. Either way it's not a good look.

They admit having received my claims by email on 26th February.

Perhaps I'll have one more go, but make it clear I would like them to either pay up or provide a deadlock letter when they next reply.

Incidentally, does anyone know on what basis TfL believes it can deny compensation for delays for reasons outside its control but within Network Rail's control? They refused a claim I submitted for a 32 minute delay on the Elizabeth Line, initially on the spurious ground that they delay was caused by planned engineering work (it wasn't), then on appeal on the ground it was due to an obstruction on the line which they say is outside their control. The TfL Conditions of Carriage purport to exclude compensation for any delay outside TfL's control, but isn't that contrary to the NRCoT?

Condition 33.4 allows Train Companies to exclude claims where the delay was under 60 minutes and the cause was "entirely outside the rail industry’s control", which is a much higher bar than TfL's "outside our control" clause. I've never had a delay repay claim denied because the delay was caused by an obstruction on the line or similar - would the TOC not normally just pay up and then pursue Network Rail for its costs in respect of that delay? Is there anything underpinning TfL's belief that the rules don't apply to the National Rail services it operates?

 

[sheff1]

L

Complete rubbish, isn't it?

Indeed, including the bit about printing paper tickets.
If someone buys a ticket for TOD collection, sees there is a delay and so doesn’t arrive at the station to print the ticket until after the scheduled departure time, it is absolutely valid on the delayed train. If the ticket in question is an Advance it is only valid on the delayed train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, including the bit about printing paper tickets.
If someone buys a ticket for TOD collection, sees there is a delay and so doesn’t arrive at the station to print the ticket until after the scheduled departure time, it is absolutely valid on the delayed train. If the ticket in question is an Advance it is only valid on the delayed train.

I wonder if they'd try to apply the same at Victoria, where you can't tap in until after the original departure time because they won't tell you the platform early enough to do so?

This is utterly preposterous and the OP should go to the Ombudsman.

 

[AlterEgo]

How much is the amount being claimed here? I’m wondering how much staff time they’ve wasted on this so far. Hope it’s a hilariously small amount.

 

[Starmill]

I don't know how you could investigate the case I describe above though. It would I think be rather hard work to figure out what train someone actually intended to catch.

It depends on how the person is reacting. If they're wasting their personal time actually carrying out pointless journeys they decided to make in order to impose the "delay" on themselves then I guess it's not worth trying to stop them claiming the odd few quid in compensation. How many people actually have the free time and patience to go doing that I don't know. If you're just doing it when it so happened the train before the one you wanted was cancelled you will hit this quite rarely.

I wonder if they'd try to apply the same at Victoria, where you can't tap in until after the original departure time because they won't tell you the platform early enough to do so?

This is utterly preposterous and the OP should go to the Ombudsman.

Indeed. Every chance passengers are asked to wait on the concourse during disruption at a number of their other locations including London Victoria, Brighton and maybe the odd few smaller places.

 

[redreni]

How much is the amount being claimed here? I’m wondering how much staff time they’ve wasted on this so far. Hope it’s a hilariously small amount.

I believe it's £76 / 10 / 4 = £1.90. Assuming they calculate it correctly as per their own Passenger Charter, which they don't always.

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe it's £76 / 10 / 4 = £1.90. Assuming they calculate it correctly as per their own Passenger Charter, which they don't always.

One pound and ninety pence and about thirty pounds of staff time wasted on this pettifogging.

Very stupid industry. Just pay it for god's sake

 

[Watershed]

I sent the postal claim on 30 January but used the Freepost address so don't have proof of posting. They have denied receiving each of the last three claims I've submitted that way to the Freepost address on their website, so I assume either they haven't paid their bill to Royal Mail, or it's just a deliberate policy to deter postal claims by denying receipt of all but registered post. Either way it's not a good look.

You can get proof of posting with Freepost - you just need to go to a Post Office counter and ask for the proof of posting slip.

Perhaps I'll have one more go, but make it clear I would like them to either pay up or provide a deadlock letter when they next reply.

I think that would make sense. I would keep the reply short and sweet, and just say that:

• You have invited them to point out where in the NRCoT (or elsewhere) there is a requirement to "activate" an already valid season ticket, but they have failed to do this
• If they are still refusing the claim, you require them to provide you with a Letter of Deadlock.

Incidentally, does anyone know on what basis TfL believes it can deny compensation for delays for reasons outside its control but within Network Rail's control? They refused a claim I submitted for a 32 minute delay on the Elizabeth Line, initially on the spurious ground that they delay was caused by planned engineering work (it wasn't), then on appeal on the ground it was due to an obstruction on the line which they say is outside their control. The TfL Conditions of Carriage purport to exclude compensation for any delay outside TfL's control, but isn't that contrary to the NRCoT?

Condition 33.4 allows Train Companies to exclude claims where the delay was under 60 minutes and the cause was "entirely outside the rail industry’s control", which is a much higher bar than TfL's "outside our control" clause. I've never had a delay repay claim denied because the delay was caused by an obstruction on the line or similar - would the TOC not normally just pay up and then pursue Network Rail for its costs in respect of that delay? Is there anything underpinning TfL's belief that the rules don't apply to the National Rail services it operates?

Essentially it comes down to the fact that compensation for delays of less than 60 minutes is discretionary; train companies don't have to offer it under the NRCoT or PRO. If they do choose to offer it, it can be subject to whichever provisos they see fit. So I don't think that you can rely on condition 33.4 in this instance.

Whether an obstruction on the line could be deemed within Network Rail's control will depend on the circumstances. If part of the infrastructure itself obstructs the line (e.g. the wires comes down) then I would regard that as within their control. If a trespasser blocks the line or a trampoline gets blown onto the line, less so.

 

[Howardh]

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.

One could tap in, go to the platform, find the train substantially delayed, then wish to leave the station, tap out and then and then re-tap in later. Even if there was no delay repay claim, would a passenger be allowed to do that; or would the gate "flag" that it's been tapped in twice?

 

[redreni]

You can get proof of posting with Freepost - you just need to go to a Post Office counter and ask for the proof of posting slip.

Good to know, thanks!

I think that would make sense. I would keep the reply short and sweet, and just say that:

• You have invited them to point out where in the NRCoT (or elsewhere) there is a requirement to "activate" an already valid season ticket, but they have failed to do this
• If they are still refusing the claim, you require them to provide you with a Letter of Deadlock.

Yes, I think I will do that.

Essentially it comes down to the fact that compensation for delays of less than 60 minutes is discretionary; train companies don't have to offer it under the NRCoT or PRO. If they do choose to offer it, it can be subject to whichever provisos they see fit. So I don't think that you can rely on condition 33.4 in this instance.

Whether an obstruction on the line could be deemed within Network Rail's control will depend on the circumstances. If part of the infrastructure itself obstructs the line (e.g. the wires comes down) then I would regard that as within their control. If a trespasser blocks the line or a trampoline gets blown onto the line, less so.

Yes, I get that the NRCoT doesn't require the TOC to offer delay repay at all for sub-60 minute delays, but most of them (including TfL) have elected to do so. Would you not say NRCoT 33.4 intends to limit the scope of any exclusions based on cause of delay that a TOC may place on sub-60 minute claims that are otherwise permitted by its Passenger Charter, to delays whose cause is entirely outside the rail industry's control? Otherwise, why is that wording there, and what does it mean? If it means to say they can have any exclusions they like, why include the bit about the cause being entirely outside the rail industry's control?

I certainly don't accept that whether there are objects blocking the line is entirely outside the rail industry's control: there are various things that can be done to manage the risk of obstructions occurring and shorten the time it takes to get them cleared when they occur. I readily concede it's not entirely within the industry's control either - few things are - but that's not the test.

One could tap in, go to the platform, find the train substantially delayed, then wish to leave the station, tap out and then and then re-tap in later. Even if there was no delay repay claim, would a passenger be allowed to do that; or would the gate "flag" that it's been tapped in twice?

You would be allowed to do it on a Travelcard without any penalty, certainly.

But the barrier probably wouldn't open if you tried to leave at the same station you just entered, so you'd have to ask to be let through. Which may be a faff as you're reliant on the person on the gateline being satisfied (whether by dint of the error code produced by the gate, or by inspecting the Smartcard on which the Travelcard is held, or by deciding to trust you) that you do actually have a valid ticket.

 

[Watershed]

Would you not say NRCoT 33.4 intends to limit the scope of any exclusions a TOC may place on sub-60 minute claims that are otherwise permitted by its Passenger Charter based on the cause of the delay, to delays whose cause is entirely outside the rail industry's control?

That is one reading, but I would intepret it as clarifying that you are only guaranteed compensation for delays above 60 minutes. If you look at the overall context, wherein Passenger's Charters have long had exclusions relating to delays outwith industry control, I thin kthat is the interpretation that makes the most sense.

Of course if one views it as open to multiple interpretations then section 69 of the Consumer Right Act may dictate that the most favourable one to the customer prevails. Not sure this is an argument I'd want to be relying on in the circumstances, though.

If it means to say they can have any exclusions they like, why include the bit about the cause being entirely outside the rail industry's control?

It's a very confusing clause that mixes up various things - firstly, the fact that not all operators pay compensation for delays of less than 60 minutes (think of TfL or Merseyrail for journeys that extend beyond their network). Secondly, the fact that some do pay compensation for delays below this threshold, but not for delays outside the industry's control. I think the last sentence is key as it summarises the meaning of the clause:

If the delay is 60 minutes or longer, you are entitled to compensation regardless of fault.

But I do see where you are coming from. The NRCoT would be so much better off as a document drafted in clear legal terms, rather than attempting to be 'chatty' or readable (which it patently isn't!).

I certainly don't accept that whether there are objects blocking the line is entirely outside the rail industry's control: there are various things that can be done to manage the risk of obstructions occurring and shorten the time it takes to get them cleared when they occur. I readily concede it's not entirely within the industry's control either - few things are - but that's not the test.

A fair point. I'm not sure a judge would necessarily agree, unfortunately. There is considerable latitude afforded to them to come to decisions on questions of fact. They may say that such blockages are sufficiently rare and difficult to prevent (even if not impossible) that they are entirely outside the industry's control. Not that I necessarily agree with that argument, but if I were playing the devil's advocate it's what I would say.

 

[MotCO]

It's a very confusing clause that mixes up various things - firstly, the fact that not all operators pay compensation for delays of less than 60 minutes (think of TfL or Merseyrail for journeys that extend beyond their network). Secondly, the fact that some do pay compensation for delays below this threshold, but not for delays outside the industry's control. I think the last sentence is key as it summarises the meaning of the clause:

But will it be standardised under Great British Railways?

 

[Starmill]

But will it be standardised under Great British Railways?

It is very unlikely. Merseyrail and London Overground / Elizabeth line would most likely be very unwilling to start paying compensation after delays of 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes, regardless of fault. Also, TfL always pay out at 100% of an affected leg or 0%. GBR isn't likely to change that. GC, HT and LD also operate their own charter compensation schemes all filled with their own niches.

There may be some improvements in consistency for the rest as TfW already have a similar scheme to the most generous ones there are. ScotRail and Cal Sleeper may also continue to be a little different.

 

[AdamWW]

It is very unlikely. Merseyrail and London Overground / Elizabeth line would most likely be very unwilling to start paying compensation after delays of 15 minutes, or even 30 minutes, regardless of fault. Also, TfL always pay out at 100% of an affected leg or 0%. GBR isn't likely to change that. GC, HT and LD also operate their own charter compensation schemes all filled with their own niches.

There may be some improvements in consistency for the rest as TfW already have a similar scheme to the most generous ones there are. ScotRail and Cal Sleeper may also continue to be a little different.

Quite - it's already pretty well standardised under Delay Repay, isn't it, except for operators like TfL which presumably will continue to be different anyway?

So far as I know TfW just operates the standard delay repay policy (though in my experience with a very tough line on using padding in the passenger timetable to pretend a half hour delay is really only 15 minutes).

 

[Starmill]

Quite - it's already pretty well standardised under Delay Repay, isn't it, except for operators like TfL which presumably will continue to be different anyway?

So far as I know TfW just operates the standard delay repay policy (though in my experience with a very tough line on using padding in the passenger timetable to pretend a half hour delay is really only 15 minutes).

It depends on how you think about the "standard" and whether it becomes 15 or 30 minutes.

 

[AdamWW]

It depends on how you think about the "standard" and whether it becomes 15 or 30 minutes.

Isn't 15 minutes now standard across most TOCs?

Maybe I don't get out enough.I know GWR used to be a complete mess with it depending on which franchise used to run the route but now it's just 15 throughout.