Disputed compensation claim (need train running data longer than 7 days ago)

[mb]

Hello - London Midland are trying to wriggle out of a refund, saying that my train was 19 minutes late, when it was actually cancelled (I know I was thrown off it).

Unfortunately, I didn't get a screengrab from RTT.

It was last Thursday 3rd July 0714 BHM to EUS.

Can anyone help me to get proof? Thanks in advance.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Here is the service

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/P62471/2014/07/03/advanced

I wonder if they will accept this as proof, please do let us know.

 

[mb]

You are a wonderful person. Thank you!

They did accept it for another 30+ minutes late service when I did a screengrab alongside a picture of my tickets a few months back.

The time before that, they also pulled this "it was late, not cancelled" trick on me, but it was way outside the 7 days window. Lesson learned I think. Always take a screen grab from RTT.

Will let you know if this appeal with proof works again. Thanks again.

 

[tsr]

www.raildar.co.uk is also a good (but slower) website for accessing train running information beyond 7 days ago.

 

[bb21]

RTT stores train running information for up to 28 days if you know the Train UID of the service required.

 

[mb]

www.raildar.co.uk is also a good (but slower) website for accessing train running information beyond 7 days ago.

RTT stores train running information for up to 28 days if you know the Train UID of the service required.

Thanks both. I'll make a note of these. Raildar didn't actually show the service as being cancelled in its cancellations list for the 3rd, but RTT did?
http://raildar.co.uk/default/page/type/logCancelled/data/20140703

 

[greatkingrat]

The next LM train to Euston was the 0733, exactly 19 minutes after the 0714. This appears to have run as normal on the 3rd July. So I think LM might be saying that even though the first train was cancelled, you were not delayed by over 30 minutes and therefore not eligible for any compensation.

 

[yorkie]

Raildar is better than Realtimetrains for this sort of query.

Hello - London Midland are trying to wriggle out of a refund, saying that my train was 19 minutes late, when it was actually cancelled (I know I was thrown off it)..

If the train was delayed (even by just a few minutes) or cancelled, you're entitled to a refund if you chose not to travel.

If you did make the journey, then it's compensation you're after and that applies if you arrived 30 or more minutes late at your destination. If your journey was BHM-EUS, and you were planning to catch the 0714, you were due to arrive 0927. You would have actually arrived 0946, so 19 minutes late, and therefore no compensation is due.

So unless there's something you're not telling us (e.g. if your journey was beyond London and you got further delayed into your destination), if you did make the journey, you're not entitled to anything.

 

[mb]

I thought that if the train I was booked on was cancelled, then I'm due a refund for that service I bought a ticket for, regardless of whether I chose to get the next one or not. They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up, as that information is not required at the time I use LM's 'Delay Repay' service.

So, this is news to me that they can just presume that I got another service. Does it say this anywhere?

 

[yorkie]

I thought that if the train I was booked on was cancelled, then I'm due a refund for that service I bought a ticket for

You're entitled to a full refund (without admin fee) if you choose not to travel in these circumstances.

regardless of whether I chose to get the next one or not.

If you do travel, then it's compensation that may apply, rather than a refund.

They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up, as that information is not required at the time I use LM's 'Delay Repay' service.

If you got the next train, then you were delayed and you claim under Delay Repay

If you "gave up" and did not travel, a full refund is available.

So, this is news to me that they can just presume that I got another service. Does it say this anywhere?

http://www.londonmidland.com/contact-us/contact-us/refunds/

If your tickets are unused due to disruption, where there was not a following service within a reasonable amount of time, you can apply for a refund within 28 days of the expiry of the tickets. If the tickets are unused for any other reason a refund on them will incur a £10 administration fee unless otherwise stated.

(The part I've greyed out is not mentioned in the NRCoC, but I guess, as with anything, it comes down to reasonableness, as if there was a late running train just 1 or 2 minutes later that would likely arrive at the time you were contracted to, then that could be seen as a reasonable reason to deny the refund request)

http://www.londonmidland.com/your-journey/more/delay-repay/

If your London Midland journey is delayed by 30 minutes or more, we think you ought to be compensated whether it's our fault or not. Delay Repay helps you claim a refund simply and quickly – just submit the form below within 28 days of travel (you can claim for up to 5 journeys at a time).

I think that's very clear - it's your journey that has to be delayed.

The delay to your journey was 19 minutes, wasn't it?

 

[bb21]

I thought that if the train I was booked on was cancelled, then I'm due a refund for that service I bought a ticket for, regardless of whether I chose to get the next one or not. They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up, as that information is not required at the time I use LM's 'Delay Repay' service.

So, this is news to me that they can just presume that I got another service. Does it say this anywhere?

It matters a great deal what you did next.

What did you do actually? Did you catch the next train or did you give up and not do the journey at all?

 

[Squaddie]

They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up, as that information is not required at the time I use LM's 'Delay Repay' service.

If you're using the Delay Repay process then you are, by definition, claiming for a delayed journey. The train after the one that was cancelled would have got to your destination 19 minutes later than planned, and so you are not eligible for compensation.

If you had decided not to travel at all then you should take the unused ticket to a ticket office for a full refund.

 

[Flamingo]

Yum yum, nice cake...

 

[najaB]

Yum yum, nice cake...

But if you eat the cake, how are you supposed to have it.... oh, I see what you did there.

 

[mb]

It matters a great deal what you did next.

What did you do actually? Did you catch the next train or did you give up and not do the journey at all?

Next train, which is the 19 minutes late one.

But when I claimed for a cancelled Southern Train from SRC to VIC a few months back, they paid the full cost of the journey, regardless that I got the next one behind it. London Midland have definitely paid me refunds over the years for cancelled trains.

Which is my reasoning in this case.

 

[najaB]

But when I claimed for a cancelled Southern Train from SRC to VIC a few months back, they paid the full cost of the journey, regardless that I got the next one behind it.

Well, London Midland's passenger charter says: "If a delay to your London Midland train causes a delay to your journey of 30 minutes or more, you will be entitled to claim compensation, irrespective of the cause." (My emphasis).

So it would appear that, since you were less than 30 minutes late at your destination, you aren't entitled to compensation.

 

[yorkie]

Next train, which is the 19 minutes late one.

So no entitlement then.

But when I claimed for a cancelled Southern Train from SRC to VIC a few months back, they paid the full cost of the journey, regardless that I got the next one behind it.

There is a frequent service on that line, so if it was simply a case of one train being cancelled, then Southern were obviously too trusting of the claim. They need to be more vigilant in future.

London Midland have definitely paid me refunds over the years for cancelled trains.

As I said earlier, you're entitled to a refund for a cancelled train if you choose not to travel. If you did make the journeys and claimed compensation, the claims were not valid claims and clearly LM were not attentive enough to realise this.

Looks like you've finally been rumbled!

I would advise you are extremely careful in future. While you could plead ignorance of delay compensation rules before, you can't now. Any further claims could be deemed fraudulent.

 

[bb21]

Next train, which is the 19 minutes late one.

But when I claimed for a cancelled Southern Train from SRC to VIC a few months back, they paid the full cost of the journey, regardless that I got the next one behind it. London Midland have definitely paid me refunds over the years for cancelled trains.

Which is my reasoning in this case.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you misunderstood the underlying reasons for compensation. The mere fact that your train is cancelled does not entitle you to compensation. It is only when you are sufficiently delayed due to that cancellation that you get a payout.

I would imagine that you were simply lucky that there were no thorough checks on previous occasions perhaps due to the amount of workload.

Now you know.

 

[mb]

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I think you misunderstood the underlying reasons for compensation. The mere fact that your train is cancelled does not entitle you to compensation. It is only when you are sufficiently delayed due to that cancellation that you get a payout.

I would imagine that you were simply lucky that there were no thorough checks on previous occasions perhaps due to the amount of workload.

Now you know.

I'd agree with that, but I don't think I'm alone either
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26275394

This "looks like you've been rumbled" crap insinuates I'm some sort of master compensation criminal! I'm a long suffering commuter who rightly claims when it goes wrong to claw back a tiny percentage of the thousands of pounds I spend yearly on rail fares.

Thanks to all the sensible ones who answered to help me understand it better. I'll still continue to claim where I think it's applicable.

 

[Flamingo]

Well, for all the righteous indignation, it's been established you are not "rightly" claiming when things go wrong, but fraudulently claiming when actually making the journey...

 

[OwlMan]

I'd agree with that, but I don't think I'm alone either
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26275394.............
.

Is this what you mean?

If your train is cancelled or delayed, and you choose not to travel, you can claim

Even if you travel, you may be entitled to compensation
If train is one hour late, you are entitled to a minimum 20% refund on a single ticket
Compensation may not be paid in the event of vandalism or bad weather
Claims need to be made within 28 days
Compensation is usually paid in vouchers, valid for one year
Ten companies offer "delay repay," where compensation is available after a 30-minute delay

I suggest you read the sections I have highlighted from the article you refer to.

 

[crosscity]

Well, for all the righteous indignation, it's been established you are not "rightly" claiming when things go wrong, but fraudulently claiming when actually making the journey...

This is a bit harsh on the Op. He has made a claim for a late journey because of a cancelled train. He is not entitled to any compensation because he arrived within 30 minutes of when he expected to, so LM have quite rightly rejected it. He hasn't lied or misled LM in making the claim, so what is fraudulent about it?

 

[najaB]

This is a bit harsh on the Op. He has made a claim for a late journey because of a cancelled train. He is not entitled to any compensation because he arrived within 30 minutes of when he expected to, so LM have quite rightly rejected it. He hasn't lied or misled LM in making the claim, so what is fraudulent about it?

I think the comment was in reference to the OP saying he had previously received a refund from another TOC due to his train being cancelled.

This is due to the OP stating

I thought that if the train I was booked on was cancelled, then I'm due a refund for that service I bought a ticket for, regardless of whether I chose to get the next one or not. They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up...

If the OP claimed compensation, then they were within their rights to do so. If, however, they claimed a refund (having still made the journey) then this was fraudulent as you are only entitled to a refund if you choose not to travel.

 

[crosscity]

I think the comment was in reference to the OP saying he had previously received a refund from another TOC due to his train being cancelled.

This is due to the OP stating

But when I claimed for a cancelled Southern Train from SRC to VIC a few months back, they paid the full cost of the journey, regardless that I got the next one behind it. London Midland have definitely paid me refunds over the years for cancelled trains.

Which is my reasoning in this case.

If the OP claimed compensation, then they were within their rights to do so. If, however, they claimed a refund (having still made the journey) then this was fraudulent as you are only entitled to a refund if you choose not to travel.

OK, I understand. It depends on whether 'regardless that I got the next one behind it' meant he did actually travel and told Southern he did when claiming, or whether he did actually travel and didn't tell Southern. If the former, then the Op has not misled, but if the latter he may have. There is not enough information to say one way or the other.

 

[mb]

OK, I understand. It depends on whether 'regardless that I got the next one behind it' meant he did actually travel and told Southern he did when claiming, or whether he did actually travel and didn't tell Southern. If the former, then the Op has not misled, but if the latter he may have. There is not enough information to say one way or the other.

Southern were emailed a scan of my Oyster card receipt from a few days later, which was completely honest and showed my entry and exit points and timings at both ends. Again, hardly misleading, and they refunded.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the comment was in reference to the OP saying he had previously received a refund from another TOC due to his train being cancelled.

This is due to the OP stating

If the OP claimed compensation, then they were within their rights to do so. If, however, they claimed a refund (having still made the journey) then this was fraudulent as you are only entitled to a refund if you choose not to travel.

Exactly - I was never claming a refund per se, just compensation which was within my right to do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, for all the righteous indignation, it's been established you are not "rightly" claiming when things go wrong, but fraudulently claiming when actually making the journey...

There has never been any "fraudulently claiming" on my part, and I'm getting tired of reading all the stupid replies that claim I did.. I've simply put in claims when my service was either cancelled or ran over 30 minutes late. I couldn't give a toss whether LM or Southern were understaffed or in the wrong when processing the claims. I provided all proof they requested and it's up to them whether they agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is a bit harsh on the Op. He has made a claim for a late journey because of a cancelled train. He is not entitled to any compensation because he arrived within 30 minutes of when he expected to, so LM have quite rightly rejected it. He hasn't lied or misled LM in making the claim, so what is fraudulent about it?

Hallelujah! A fellow Brummie being the voice of reason. Thank you.

 

[najaB]

Exactly - I was never claming a refund per se, just compensation which was within my right to do so.

Unfortunately, that doesn't jibe with what you said earlier:

'They don't know whether I got the next train or just simply gave up, as that information is not required at the time I use LM's 'Delay Repay' service.'

As you are required to state the delay to your journey on the Delay Repay form.

No doubt through ignorance rather than malice, if you have previously claimed a refund then the claim was invalid and could be seen as fraudulent.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It is not possible to accidentally commit fraud. One must dishonestly make a representation, which they know is or could be untrue or misleading.

 

[najaB]

Hence why I said 'could be seen as' - as in a third party may not believe that it was accidental.

 

[Tetchytyke]

He hasn't lied or misled LM in making the claim, so what is fraudulent about it?

Both the paper and online versions of the Delay Repay form ask you to state what your delay was. The online form has options of 30-59, 60-119, 120+ listed, and the paper form asks you to enter the delay in minutes.

If the OP has answered the form truthfully and to the best of his knowledge then there is no issue. LM check the train running records, discover the delay is only 19 minutes, and reject the form accordingly. All this talk of fraud is a bit silly really.

If the OP chose to inflate the delay then that is dishonest, though my view is always that it's up to the TOC to check. It depends, I've stuck stuff in when the delay is 28 or 29 minutes, though I don't when the delay is definitely only 12 or 13 minutes.

 

[mb]

I selected 120+ minute delay, as the service was cancelled. I've just re-read the rejection letter from LM and they say "we have checked the performance of the train you referred to and can confirm an overall delay of 19 minutes".

There is no reference to or inference in that letter that I got another service and this was not the service I was claiming for!