Yet another DR overpayment!

[Bletchleyite]

And yet again I've been overpaid a Delay Repay claim, I put in for 30-59 minutes and have been paid for 60+ (it was an Advance Single so no 120+ band). Only a small amount this time but still.

The railway must be frittering away money simply by virtue of not setting their systems to pay the lower of what you put in for and what they think you are due. I wonder why this simple thing is not put in place?

 

[robbeech]

It won’t even come close to offsetting the amount saved by the 70% of people that don’t claim what they’re owed, or the countless people who give up when a valid claim is rejected though.

However THAT won’t offset the millions lost to fare evasion over the course of a year so it’s somewhat swings and roundabouts for them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

he railway must be frittering away money simply by virtue of not setting their systems to pay the lower of what you put in for and what they think you are due. I wonder why this simple thing is not put in place?

Given it’s automated for a lot of these claims, it’s probably not worth the cost of putting that extra barrier in, especially as the TOCs won’t want to put too much store in what box a claimant ticks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given it’s automated for a lot of these claims, it’s probably not worth the cost of putting that extra barrier in, especially as the TOCs won’t want to put too much store in what box a claimant ticks.

The impression I have from a few of these is that the automation checks if the minimum connection was met at every station, and if not assumes you missed it even if you didn't, and then looks up the next valid itinerary and uses that. Because ScotRail didn't put the Highland Mainline buses in the timetable data (which was quite bad as it meant people didn't know they were running unless they delved into NRE) it will probably have assumed the next valid itinerary was the LNER bus the next day (which was put in) and so paid a maximum claim.

However it wouldn't seem hard to cap it at what was claimed, as the customer is clearly happy with that or they wouldn't have claimed that.

 

[redreni]

Given it’s automated for a lot of these claims, it’s probably not worth the cost of putting that extra barrier in, especially as the TOCs won’t want to put too much store in what box a claimant ticks.

I wouldn't want to have to explain that to an auditor, frankly.

"Why are you paying out money that hasn't been claimed?"

"We don't want to put too much store in what box a claimant ticks."

Realistically, that's not gonna be the end of that conversation, is it?

If it's auto delay repay, I can understand why asking the passenger how much they want and paying the lesser of that or the amount the TOC thinks is due, would add unnecessary bureaucracy. But when I fill in a manual claim and they ask me to enter the cost of the ticket(s) and which delay repay bracket I'm claiming for, then I really can't see what the problem would be in taking that into account rather than ignoring it?

Nor can I see why they ask the passenger how long the delay was if they're going to ignore the passenger's answer?

What I can see, however, is that it might cost money to rectify the system once it's been designed incorrectly so that it can pay more than has been claimed. But capping payments at the amount claimed absolutely should have been in the design specs for any software that is supposed to automate (fully or partly) the processing of claims, in my humble opinion.

 

[MrJeeves]

The money saved with automation almost certainly outweighs the money "accidentally" paid out in situations like this.

 

[mrmartin]

I've also had this. What's the point of asking the passenger for the delay they experienced if you are going to always override it (higher or lower)m

MrJeeves the point the OP is making is if you put eg a 30 min delay in, but their system thinks it is a 60 min one, you get paid the 60 min delay even if you thought it was 30!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The impression I have from a few of these is that the automation checks if the minimum connection was met at every station, and if not assumes you missed it even if you didn't, and then looks up the next valid itinerary and uses that

Yeah, it does. I’ve had it where I was travelling Newcastle to Halifax and my itinerary was to change at Huddersfield. They assumed I followed that route and therefore had an hour’s delay rather than changing at Leeds instead to mitigate the delay.

Swings and roundabouts. Had it plenty of times the other way where their system reckons it’s an 28/58 minute delay when it wasn’t.

I claim correctly and keep a record but if they overpay I’m not losing any sleep, put it that way.

I wouldn't want to have to explain that to an auditor, frankly.

"Why are you paying out money that hasn't been claimed?"

"We don't want to put too much store in what box a claimant ticks."

If I accidentally tick the 2 hour box on a 30 minute delay they’re going to check and they’re not going to pay me if I’ve ticked the wrong box.

But if I accidentally tick the 30 minute box on a 2 hour delay then suddenly it’s binding and they don’t need to check?

Hmm. Not sure I agree there.

the OP is making is if you put eg a 30 min delay in, but their system thinks it is a 60 min one, you get paid the 60 min delay even if you thought it was 30!

But it works the other way too. I think it’s a 62 minute delay but their system thinks it’s a 58 minute delay.

Paying people based on what the official industry systems determine is the actual delay. Whatever next!

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Don't complain, have yourself an extra 'cheeky Nando's' as a present from the industry!

As per many of the responses, I have had the same experience. I claim correctly, tick the appropriate 'delay experienced' box and accept what comes. Not my fault if they calculate incorrectly. I simply assume "I am too thick to have worked it out correctly myself and they, being much more knowledgeable and experienced than me, must have calculated correctly". If they underpay I generally let that go to, swings and roundabouts. Only if they wholly refuse a valid claim do I go into argue mode.

I assume very little checking of claims is undertaken, perhaps some random verification process. I claimed incorrectly for a journey - firstly by attaching a ticket from several months previous 'stored online' in my delay repay account instead of attaching the current correct ticket. The claim was paid (I directed that payment to the charity option). I made a second claim immediately after the first for the same journey but with the correct ticket attached. That claim was also paid. There is no way in the system to contact them to add any additional supporting information or, in this case, to alert them to my error. Bring back the free text box, bring back an email contact point to a real human!

 

[ainsworth74]

Not just Delay Repay they do this. A month or so ago I put in a for a partial refund to Northern (the operator and retailer) on my weekly season as I was unable to use it all for one days validity due to disruption (problem in the morning, meaning I had to drive to work). I also suggested they might prefer to offer me a complimentary return ticket instead if that was simpler.

A few days a go I was given a full refund of the value of the season ticket. This is not what I asked for and nothing in my original email suggested that it was what I was asking for...

 

[redreni]

If I accidentally tick the 2 hour box on a 30 minute delay they’re going to check and they’re not going to pay me if I’ve ticked the wrong box.

But if I accidentally tick the 30 minute box on a 2 hour delay then suddenly it’s binding and they don’t need to check?

Hmm. Not sure I agree there.

Fixing mistakes is one of the reasons appeals are possible. Appeal and say "I ticked the wrong box, the delay was actually 2 hours".

If the customer underclaims and doesn't take the opportunity to correct it by way of an appeal, what's the problem with them receiving what they asked for?

The percentage of the fare being claimed is one of the inputs to the system, so I don't see where the alleged additional cost of not paying out more than that comes in? That cost can only arise after the system has been designed to ignore that input and thus would need to be expensively redesigned to take it into account.

It may be true that, after the blunder, it is cheaper to keep overpaying than fix it (though that will depend on the time horizon considered, of course). But that doesn't, in my opinion, excuse an industry that is constantly complaining that subsidy is too high and revenue too low giving back some of its revenue to people who don't ask for it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And another one - a fat 160 quid this time! Again the claim was correctly entered for a 30 minute delay.

When will the railway realise how much money it's wasting doing this?

I'll stop posting these now as I'm sure it's getting boring, but that's now over £300 in total I've received in the last couple of years or so that I haven't claimed.

 

[MalaiseForever]

You’re very fortunate. I can’t even get Avanti to pay me two very simple cases of delay repay they owe me.