The DfT seem to have no interest in increasing their subsidy for rail even further by standardising on Delay Repay 15. They have been in charge of LNER for years but have made no effort to introduce it there.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Interesting Delay Repay refusal - GTR contend Travelcard season not valid if tap in was after scheduled departure time of train
- Thread starter redreni
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I presume at one point it was a franchise requirement, rather than the TOCs choosing to be more generous.
It does mean that when they pretend a half hour delay isn't half an hour because a train arrived "early" you still get something.
I would be quite surprised if CrossCountry started offering it at 15 minutes either in addition to the aforementioned LNER. But then, who knows what's going to happen!
It's not just you though, as lots of people seem to misremember, even here, that they can claim for 15 minute delays on CrossCountry, LNER, ScotRail, Lumo, Cal Sleeper and so on and so forth. In reality the only way to know for sure is to consult the relevant operator's charter. It is equally a terrible mess understanding what, if anything, can be claimed under the charter prescribed amounts if you have a reserved seat and, when you travel, no seat can be found for you.
Last edited:
I could imagine consistency being achieved by removing Delay Repay 15 where it exists. And I don't think it would be that unreasonable.
Tunnel Bore
Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 49
I'm pleased to see this thread because I had 4 delay-repay claims rejected by GTR in February for "Invalid Ticket" which after some faffing about turned out to be because I wasn't tapped in. Typically I catch 07:25 ThamesLink from Balcombe but I (like most people) check the trains on line before leaving the house and if the 07:25 is cancelled (all too frequently the case in February) I'd wait at home and leave in time to catch the 07:55. That now means missing out on the delay-repay. If I want the DR I now need to go to the staton tap-in for a train that won't arrive, go home and wait in the warm and go back to the station later. That can't be right - it make a bad situation worse.
I would encourage you to submit a complaint listing out every occasion this happened and requesting compensation be paid. Unfortunately you would have to include the delay repay reference for every one in a list along with the date of the journey, but if they can't resolve your complaint you can ask for a deadlock letter to make your case to the Rail Ombudsman.
This is one of many reasons why I will avoid Smartcard ticketing for as long as possible. It simply opens up too many pointless arguments like this.
To reiterate, there is nothing in the NRCoT or an Passenger's Charter (that I'm aware of) which requires you to be at the station at the original departure time, let alone to prove this by means of touching in (or otherwise).
GTR appear to be inventing such a requirement, to put it nicely. @Starmill has aptly advised you on the best methods for escalation.
redreni
Established Member
Yes, from the way GTR have dug their heels in on this one, I'm not surprised to learn I am not the only one to have been told this. They are applying a policy that, it seems to me, doesn't respect passengers' rights under their own passenger charter and the NRCoT. It would be nice if the Ombudsman had a flurry of cases to look into, rather than just one, which makes it harder for him to take the view that it's only one crank who's complaining.
I'd take removal of the 15-29 minute bracket in return for that.
The delay repay claim GTR and I are both being rather petty about (though at least I'm only being petty, as opposed to both petty and wrong) is a case in point - in reality that train is supposed to get into Slade Green at 18:52 where it dwells for 2 minutes, but the timetable says it arrives and departs at 18:54. The delayed train I am claiming for arrived at 19:22, so in reality the delay was half an hour if you compare with what would actually happen if it was on time, but it's only 28 minutes comparing with the public-facing timetable. The arrival time would have been exactly the same if the train had been cancelled but the one behind it had been on time. It would be unfortunate if there was no recompense for these sorts of delays at all.
If I were standardising, I would set the threshold at 25 minutes. And I would reduce the 60 minute threshold to 55. This would reduce the nonsense with timetable padding meaning cancellations tend to cause delays one or two minutes under the threshold. People should be compensated for cancellations on routes with 30 minute headways.
I'd take removal of the 15-29 minute bracket in return for that.
The delay repay claim GTR and I are both being rather petty about (though at least I'm only being petty, as opposed to both petty and wrong) is a case in point - in reality that train is supposed to get into Slade Green at 18:52 where it dwells for 2 minutes, but the timetable says it arrives and departs at 18:54. The delayed train I am claiming for arrived at 19:22, so in reality the delay was half an hour if you compare with what would actually happen if it was on time, but it's only 28 minutes comparing with the public-facing timetable. The arrival time would have been exactly the same if the train had been cancelled but the one behind it had been on time. It would be unfortunate if there was no recompense for these sorts of delays at all.
Last edited:
miklcct
On Moderation
The same argument can be made for arbitrary frequencies, on routes with 18, 20, 24, etc. minute-frequencies. If the threshold is at 25 minutes a single cancellation on a 24-minute headway service will cause no compensation if the next train is on time, but something if the next train is delayed by a minute. Only a continuous function can solve this problem completely.
redreni
Established Member
Agreed, but of course there are a lot more routes with 30 or 60 minute headways than routes with 24 or 25 minute headways, so changing to 25 and 55 minutes would solve a bigger problem than it would create.
It's incredibly rare to find trains running on a 24 minute headway consistently.
Even that would not solve the problem completely though. Plenty of routes have variations in the train headways as much as +/- 5 minutes. Occasionally it's even longer. Take a look at the departure times from Inverurie towards Aberdeen e.g. 1129, 1156, 1246, 1258, 1328, 1431, 1451, 1515, 1551, 1617, 1644, 1700 - it's like this pretty much all day.
Last edited:
Indeed - you could just have a % per minute above 15 or 30 minutes.
Wouldn't it?
Miss a train and the next is 25 minutes later, so you get paid for 25 minutes delay...what's the problem with that?
What about when the following one is 17 minutes later? Or 14? Unless you would say compensation should apply for delays of 5 minutes. Or even for 2 minutes.
Egg Centric
Established Member
I guess he meant to say strictly monotonic continuous function rather than just continuous function
Sorry, I didn’t read the whole thread.
The main reason that I would wait at the concourse at City Thameslink is because there is no phone signal on the underground platforms. once you’re down there it becomes much harder to keep an eye on what’s going on on train company websites, Twitter, realtime trains etc.
The main reason that I would wait at the concourse at City Thameslink is because there is no phone signal on the underground platforms. once you’re down there it becomes much harder to keep an eye on what’s going on on train company websites, Twitter, realtime trains etc.
And it's very hard to see a reading of the Delay Repay rules that say you should do that if you have a ticket that has validity regardless of when you tap in.
I think - given the requirement to hold a valid ticket - the railway may be within its rights to refuse Delay Repay for PAYG where someone hasn't tapped in for the original service. I don't, however, think that it is reasonable for them to do this and I presume the reason that the rules are written as they are s only because they weren't written with PAYG in mind.
People have already given good reasons and I expect we can think of more that it doesn't make sense - even if already at the station - to pass barriers in time for a cancelled train.
I have made a few claims with TfW PAYG where I've caught the train after a cancelled one and only tapped in for that train. They approved them, apart from one where they said I didn't have a valid ticket but it was approved on appeal.
I guess so but then you'd have to set a minimum payout which would just reintroduce the same issue of a tipping point. The alternative would be bizarre, what about a delay of half a minute?I guess he meant to say strictly monotonic continuous function rather than just continuous function
miklcct
On Moderation
A minimum delay is not a problem if the payout can be as low as 5p per minute, e.g. if the cut off is 15 minutes and the delay is 16 minutes, you can get a compensation of 5p; for 17 minutes, 10p, etc. Therefore any disputes of the amount are usually too trivial to care about, solving the problem where people are appealing the accuracy of timing points.
redreni
Established Member
Would that not exacerbate the existing issue of admin costs being disproportionate to some of the amounts in question?
You can't have no checks at all, or the system would be vulnerable to skimming by bots creating multiple identities and claiming for a large number of very slightly delayed journeys.
Kilopylae
Member
Not to distract from the abstract maths (I had to ask my partner what a "strictly continuous monotonic function" was...), but does anyone else find the abysmal English of GTR's response a little distracting?
"I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy ... I hope I can help explain the reason for this". This sounds like a primary school teacher dealing with a shouting child! "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 ... 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". Where are they taught this patronising creole language? Inter alia, it's totally unidiomatic and strange to say a ticket is (or isn't) "classed as" valid.
Plus, "I hope your next journey with us runs smoother". I was taught not to use comparatives as adverbs. It should be more smoothly.
"I’m sorry to hear you’re unhappy ... I hope I can help explain the reason for this". This sounds like a primary school teacher dealing with a shouting child! "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 ... 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". Where are they taught this patronising creole language? Inter alia, it's totally unidiomatic and strange to say a ticket is (or isn't) "classed as" valid.
Plus, "I hope your next journey with us runs smoother". I was taught not to use comparatives as adverbs. It should be more smoothly.
Brent Goose
Member
I’ve not yet grasped why the form asks you about the nature of the delay when it is seemingly ignored when they make a decision
I think the award for the worst final sentence is from Penalty Services - Thank you for using Penalty Services. As if you have a choice!
Quite usual these days, from what I've seen.
At least you can be fairly sure it was written by a human - computers do much better with grammar these days!
I don't know about GTR, but quite often these days when I'm on a disrupted train there are reminders that I should claim Delay Repay. Odd, then, that when one does claim, they seem so reluctant to pay...
redreni
Established Member
In all honesty, I don't feel entitled to expect a particularly high standard of English in this sort of correspondence. I do object to the patronising tone, particularly coming from people who lack a basic understanding of matters on which it is their job to have a good level of expertise, though.
Odd that they told me to submit a valid ticket next time "to avoid any delays in receiving any compensation due". Presumably a line intended for cases where the claimant has a valid ticket but doesn't submit it first time around, but pure gobbledygook in the context of this matter.
Absolutely. Complete rubbish.
I think it's just 'bog standard' to use this kind of English nowadays as what we could call "customer service speak". The case handlers are so often paid at, or just above, the legal minimum, and generally aren't tasked with top-quality copy. It seems to seek to use the least offensive language forms and some heavy business-speak or a bit of false formality. It's very poor communication indeed in my book, for the reasons you suggest, and more, but unfortunately it does seem widespread.
Indeed. Of course, GTR's obligation by license is to make their best efforts to inform passengers that compensation might be available if they are likely to have faced a qualifying delay. There's no such licence obligation to pay "correctly".
Last edited:
redreni
Established Member
No. It's part of the contract under which you buy your ticket, so when you encounter a qualifying delay you are contractually entitled to compensation as per the NRCoT and, by reference, the TOC's Passenger Charter. However there's no practical remedy - they no doubt suspect I'm unlikely to make a money claim in the County Court for £1.90. I will, however, do my bit to try to deter this behaviour by making sure their admin costs dealing with the resultant complaints casework far exceeds the amount of compensation they owe but haven't paid.
Ah. That would indeed explain this behaviour.
185
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 5,473
Just to add to the above, the operator is absolutely in the wrong in stating the time they've chosen to go by is the one related to your smartcard scan data - that's irrelevant, as in a world of live tracking and apps, customers, for example should not be excluded from delay repay as they've chosen to remain in Wetherspoons or Costa Coffee until the train gets closer. That's a nonsense and the operator should be forced to explain this one to the adults in the DfT.
londonbridge
Established Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,660
If they continue to refuse to pay, ask for a deadlock letter and go to the ombudsman