Claiming twice: honest or dishonest?

[cuccir]

If I had a two tickets. One for me, one for my Sister.

Due to unforeseen circumstances she couldn't travel and I took the journey on my own.

I get delayed and it meets the criteria for delay repay.

Can I claim twice ?

This is clearer: no. Claim once, get the other refunded - that's clearly the honest approach.

The original post is harder as in theory, both tickets have been used and therefore a refund is due for neither. If it occurred to me to claim twice (and I'm not sure I'd have thought of it in the first place) I'd be tempted to go to a ticket office and try to get refund for one. If the refused, there's been an official acknowledgement that both tickets have been used and therefore claiming for delay repay on both is more justifiable, although I think probably if we had to classify it as either dishonest or honest, I'd go for 'dishonest'!

 

[najaB]

The original post is harder as in theory, both tickets have been used and therefore a refund is due for neither.

Have both actually been used though? To make the situation simple, let's assume that my starting station wasn't barriered and the first time I realised I didn't have my ticket was when the guard asked to see it. Surely in that case only the new ticket has actually been used?

 

[cuccir]

Have both actually been used though? To make the situation simple, let's assume that my starting station wasn't barriered and the first time I realised I didn't have my ticket was when the guard asked to see it. Surely in that case only the new ticket has actually been used?

Ha, we could descend into philosophical discussions of 'use' here !

Well if I hold a ticket for a journey between two unbarriered stations and it doesn't get checked, then we would all agree that the ticket has been 'used', even though I didn't need to show it.

Furthermore, if I hold a ticket for a journey and then do something to make it invalid (throw it away, go off-route, break my journey when not allowed) then I also think we'd agree that the ticket has been used. We also all agree that a ticket can be used as part of split-ticketing.

So it is possible for a ticket to be used without any material action with the ticket itself. It is also possible for a ticket to be used but to become invalid during a journey, or for the passenger to change tickets in the journey. So to that end, I think we could logically argue that the passenger was using the first ticket up to the point which they purchased the second ticket!

And then all this is a little academic because the delay repay is for the journey, not the ticket. I think my head is hurting! :-?:-? Perhaps the technically correct thing to do is to claim on both tickets but only for the fragments of the journey for which they were used! Given that doing that would be weird, just claiming for one ticket seems a reasonable action.

 

[ComUtoR]

This is clearer: no. Claim once, get the other refunded - that's clearly the honest approach.

The original post is harder as in theory, both tickets have been used and therefore a refund is due for neither.

I tried to word it as close to the original criteria as possible. The premise, to me, is simple. I buy two tickets for the same journey. Can I claim compensation for both, regardless of how, if, or who uses them.

Is delay repay based on journey or ticket. If its based on a single person being delayed. Then its dishonest. If its based per ticket for the journey then I'd say its a legitimate claim. Personally I'm with naja. The intent is to compensate for a single persons delay. If I am delayed then I can be compensated.

There are some knowledgeable people here who usually post about the NRCOC and it's minutiae. Is there a set criteria laid out by each TOC for the specific details of how and what you can claim for. Does it specifically state Per Journey or Per ticket ?

@naja. I'm aware of your post but I'm thinking more of the 'small print' version

 

[Clip]

Is delay repay based on journey or ticket. If its based on a single person being delayed. Then its dishonest.

It is based on your journey, this has been pointed out a few times already.

 

[sheff1]

There are some knowledgeable people here who usually post about the NRCOC and it's minutiae. Is there a set criteria laid out by each TOC for the specific details of how and what you can claim for. Does it specifically state Per Journey or Per ticket ?

This is moving away from the original purpose of the thread but ....

The NRCoC is specific that compensation relates to where a journey is delayed or cancelled and goes on to state that The amount that you are due will vary by Train Company and is set out in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter.

A journey can be made using any number of valid Tickets (or other valid authorities to travel) and this is where things become complicated. Someone could, for example, travel from London to Glasgow using the following overlapping combination of tickets (as long as they satisfied any 'train must call' etc rules).

London to Warrington
Crewe to Carlisle
Penrith to Glasgow.

The journey is London to Glasgow and so, in my view, if the train is delayed all 3 tickets should be taken into account when assessing a compensation claim. Some people and some TOCs think otherwise.

 

[Clip]

This is moving away from the original purpose of the thread but ....

The NRCoC is specific that compensation relates to where a journey is delayed or cancelled and goes on to state that The amount that you are due will vary by Train Company and is set out in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter.

A journey can be made using any number of valid Tickets (or other valid authorities to travel) and this is where things become complicated. Someone could, for example, travel from London to Glasgow using the following overlapping combination of tickets (as long as they satisfied any 'train must call' etc rules).

London to Warrington
Crewe to Carlisle
Penrith to Glasgow.

The journey is London to Glasgow and so, in my view, if the train is delayed all 3 tickets should be taken into account when assessing a compensation claim. Some people and some TOCs think otherwise.

Indeed I have already mentioned the issue of journey on split tickets and how it is the journey that matters.

 

[najaB]

This is moving away from the original purpose of the thread but ....

It is...

The journey is London to Glasgow and so, in my view, if the train is delayed all 3 tickets should be taken into account when assessing a compensation claim.

I agree.

 

[sheff1]

The same must then apply if the overlap was greater, say a London to Carlisle ticket and a Milton Keynes to Glasgow ticket.

Which then leads on to a case where the two tickets are London to Glasgow and MK to Glasgow. If the same principle applies then the cost of both should be taken into account for a compensation claim ... unless the fact that both have the same destination station changes things .....

... but if the second was a Milton Keynes to Paisley we are certainly back to the position where they are both taken into account.

 

[najaB]

If the same principle applies then the cost of both should be taken into account for a compensation claim ...

Only if the delay occurred on the portion of the journey covered by the first ticket and not by the second.

...unless the fact that both have the same destination station changes things...

If both tickets have the same origin and destination then they aren't split tickets....

but if the second was a Milton Keynes to Paisley we are certainly back to the position where they are both taken into account.

If the delay occurred between London and Milton Keynes, then yes. If it occurred anywhere north of Milton Keynes then only the one ticket should be considered.

 

[sheff1]

Only if the delay occurred on the portion of the journey covered by the first ticket and not by the second.

This is a new caveat which was not mentioned when you agreed with my view regarding overlapping tickets.

If both tickets have the same origin and destination then they aren't split tickets..

The tickets do not have the same origin and destination they are overlapping tickets - one with origin London and the other with origin Milton Keynes.

If the delay occurred between London and Milton Keynes, then yes. If it occurred anywhere north of Milton Keynes then only the one ticket should be considered.

That new caveat again. The journey is from London to Paisley, not Milton Keynes to Paisley. Neither ticket covers the whole journey.

 

[najaB]

That new caveat again. The journey is from London to Paisley, not Milton Keynes to Paisley. Neither ticket covers the whole journey.

Agreed. And if you experience a delay en-route you are entitled to compensation.

However, using your example London to Paisley with a London - Milton Keynes ticket combined with a Milton Keynes - Paisley ticket and you experience a delay between Preston and Carlisle, why should the London to Milton Keynes ticket factor in the compensation calculation? You didn't experience any delay while travelling on that part of the ticket.

 

[35B]

Because it's a single journey, defined by the traveller's movements rather than the specific tickets held at the point of delay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[najaB]

Because it's a single journey, defined by the traveller's movements rather than the specific tickets held at the point of delay.

A single journey which the passenger has elected to break into segments covered by a combination of tickets, rather than purchasing a through fare.

 

[sheff1]

However, using your example London to Paisley with a London - Milton Keynes ticket combined with a Milton Keynes - Paisley ticket and you experience a delay between Preston and Carlisle, why should the London to Milton Keynes ticket factor in the compensation calculation? You didn't experience any delay while travelling on that part of the ticket.

The example I gave was a London to Glasgow ticket combined with a Milton Keynes to Paisley ticket.

 

[najaB]

The example I gave was a London to Glasgow ticket combined with a Milton Keynes to Paisley ticket.

Sorry, got a bit mixed up there. But, using that example - if the delay occurs north of Preston then you can claim on either ticket but not both. The idea being that at some point between Milton Keynes and Glasgow you stop using one ticket and start using the other. So either London to Glasgow or Milton Keynes to Paisley but not both.

That said, it's all a bit academic as it's rare that someone would use a combination of tickets with such a large overlap.

 

[Clip]

The same must then apply if the overlap was greater, say a London to Carlisle ticket and a Milton Keynes to Glasgow ticket.

Which then leads on to a case where the two tickets are London to Glasgow and MK to Glasgow. If the same principle applies then the cost of both should be taken into account for a compensation claim ... unless the fact that both have the same destination station changes things .....

... but if the second was a Milton Keynes to Paisley we are certainly back to the position where they are both taken into account.

This is such a fanciful situation Im struggling to actually wonder if you are being serious or not however in that situation then its 2 tickets for one journey.

 

[sheff1]

But the NRCoC is clear that compensation relates to the journey. The journey (London to Paisley) is not fully covered by one ticket - both are needed to complete it and you previously agreed that all overlapping tickets should be taken into account when assessing the amount of compensation for a journey.

I agree that it is rare that a combination with such a large overlap would be used, but I introduced it to link back to the incident which sparked the discussion in the first place. It seems to me that if the OP in that case had been continuing beyond Paddington and had therefore bought, say, an Exeter to Acton Main Line ticket and had subsequently found the original Barnstaple to London Terminals ticket then they could submit both tickets to support a delay compensation claim for the whole journey. What I am not convinced about is when (as actually happened) the destination of both tickets is the same and hence ticket coverage is duplicated rather than overlapping and both tickets are not required to make the full journey.

 

[najaB]

But the NRCoC is clear that compensation relates to the journey. The journey (London to Paisley) is not fully covered by one ticket - both are needed to complete it and you previously agreed that all overlapping tickets should be taken into account when assessing the amount of compensation for a journey.

I do think that all tickets should be taken into consideration, but using your example *where* do you transition from one ticket to the other - bearing in mind that NRCoT 14 is a worded a bit woolly (going by memory here) making reference to the "last station at which the first ticket is valid and the first station at which the next ticket is valid".

The London to Glasgow ticket is clearly not valid after Glasgow, but where do you start making use of the Milton Keynes to Paisley ticket? (This is a genuine question, by the way). It might come into play if they were Advance tickets and you wanted to get a refund under the 'if your train is delayed or cancelled' rule.

 

[northwichcat]

the OP had already received favorable consideration from the TOC by being issued a UPFN rather than a potential prosecution letter.

Really you could say it's dishonest for a TOC to make a passenger pay again or fine them if they did genuinely purchase a valid ticket and then lose it, especially if they had previously shown the ticket they lost to a RPI/conductor. Yes I accept it's difficult to prove the passenger did genuinely have a valid ticket if they can't produce it but TOCs take the approach 'guilty unless proven innocent' which doesn't happen anywhere else. Can you imagine the manager of Sainsbury's popping up in a park and saying "Can I see your receipt for that Sainsbury's sandwich you are in possession of and if not I'll threaten to prosecute you for shoplifting"?

 

[najaB]

Really you could say it's dishonest for a TOC to make a passenger pay again or fine them if they did genuinely purchase a valid ticket and then lose it...

Sorry, not convinced by that one.

Can you imagine the manager of Sainsbury's popping up in a park and saying "Can I see your receipt for that Sainsbury's sandwich you are in possession of and if not I'll threaten to prosecute you for shoplifting"?

No, but I can imagine the manager of Sainsbury's asking you if you've paid for the sandwich you are eating inside the store, standing in front of the sandwich cooler.

 

[sheff1]

I do think that all tickets should be taken into consideration, but using your example *where* do you transition from one ticket to the other - bearing in mind that NRCoT 14 is a worded a bit woolly (going by memory here) making reference to the "last station at which the first ticket is valid and the first station at which the next ticket is valid".

The London to Glasgow ticket is clearly not valid after Glasgow, but where do you start making use of the Milton Keynes to Paisley ticket? (This is a genuine question, by the way).

I do not believe the passenger, or the TOC, need to make a decision as to where you are changing from one ticket to another for the purposes of delay compensation because that compensation is for delay to the journey. To make the journey from London to Paisley you need both tickets in the example I gave. The journey could not be legally made if you only held one of the tickets.

The "last station ..." quote from the NRCoT only relates to season, zonal or rover type tickets, not to point to point tickets. The NRCoT does refer to the need for the train to call at the station(s) where you change from one point to point ticket to another but this is only with regard to whether the tickets are valid for travel on the train services you are using and has nothing to do with claims for delay compensation.

In summary, my view is that if you are making a journey from A to B with valid tickets, and that journey is delayed, then all the tickets that you are using which are required to legally undertake the complete journey from A to B should be taken into account when assessing the amount of delay compensation, regardless of where in the journey the delay originated.

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry, not convinced by that one.
No, but I can imagine the manager of Sainsbury's asking you if you've paid for the sandwich you are eating inside the store, standing in front of the sandwich cooler.

How is it honest for a TOC to take 101 fares for 100 passenger journeys? It's really ignorance - they have no idea how many tickets they've sold or who has them.

 

[Clip]

How is it honest for a TOC to take 101 fares for 100 passenger journeys? It's really ignorance - they have no idea how many tickets they've sold or who has them.

Are you being purposely obtuse here? The person in question LOST their ticket so thats how they had another fare to pay.

 

[northwichcat]

Are you being purposely obtuse here? The person in question LOST their ticket so thats how they had another fare to pay.

NajaB's argument was it's dishonest for someone to claim Delay Repay twice if they had two valid tickets if the same passenger held both tickets because the passenger was only delayed once. By the same logic it's dishonest for TOCs to charge the same passenger twice if the passenger buys and shows a valid ticket and then can't find it for a later inspection, the TOC are getting paid for a service/product twice when they only offer them the service/product once.

 

[Clip]

NajaB's argument was it's dishonest for someone to claim Delay Repay twice if they had two valid tickets if the same passenger held both tickets because the passenger was only delayed once. By the same logic it's dishonest for TOCs to charge the same passenger twice if the passenger buys and shows a valid ticket and then can't find it for a later inspection, the TOC are getting paid for a service/product twice when they only offer them the service/product once.

Im sorry but no. You need a valid ticket to travel. That is undisputed. You lose your ticket then tough.
Delay repay is paid for your journey.

 

[northwichcat]

Im sorry but no. You need a valid ticket to travel. That is undisputed. You lose your ticket then tough.
Delay repay is paid for your journey.

If you take off your revenue protection hat that prevents you for thinking logically for a moment.

Imagine you put your ticket in your jacket and another passenger takes your jacket by mistake, realises their mistake and returns it to you AFTER an RPI has forced you to buy a new ticket. Would the TOC automatically offer you a refund on the second ticket? Of course they wouldn't. However, what have they lost by you not being able to show your ticket? A couple of minutes of the time of the RPI and the cost of printing an additional ticket, not the cost of the journey again. Then you and najaB both say it's dishonest to claim Delay Repay twice even when you hold two tickets and they were both issued for a service which was delayed. (I'm presuming both of you strongly contest the RMT's view of rail franchises being operated by greedy private companies. )

If someone took your rucksack by mistake and your lunch was in it and you purchased an additional lunch and your rucksack was then returned you have two lunches. If both the sandwiches contained a foreign object then you'd be able to get a refund on both. You wouldn't be told that because you only purchased the second sandwich after you lost the first that you're only entitled to a one refund.

Why are rail tickets their own special category with rules which only apply in some giant railway bubble?

I think this is an example where the railway industry sees the world differently from normal consumers.

Precisely.

 

[AlterEgo]

Delay repay is paid for your journey.

Delay Repay is basically a partial refund.

It is not a payment reflecting the actual inconvenience. So, if you paid one pound, you'll get a pound back. If you paid £200, you'll get £200 back, etc.

On that basis I don't see why, if a passenger has paid twice for his journey - regardless of reason - why he cannot claim the outlay back.

 

[gray1404]

The difference here is if one holds 2 tickets for the same journey then they are not claiming twice on the same ticket. They are only claiming once per each ticket held.

 

[keith1879]

"Originally Posted by jcollins
Really you could say it's dishonest for a TOC to make a passenger pay again or fine them if they did genuinely purchase a valid ticket and then lose it...

and Najab replied

Sorry, not convinced by that one."

This is all getting incredibly fanciful - but let's not forget that the O.P. in the original thread (remember that??)
did claim to have proof of purchase.

When I make rail journeys on business I get a receipt for the ticket - and the ones I get at Stalybridge actually describe the ticket that I bought.

So (and this is entirely possible) suppose I get on the train on Monday (as usual), put my ticket in my top pocket (as usual) and my receipt in my wallet (as usual) and the guard comes round but for some reason I can't find my ticket so he sells me another one .....and then I do find my original uncancelled ticket and of course I also have my receipt ..... I can prove pretty much beyond all shadow of a doubt that I have purchased two tickets for one journey and can show all the documents there and then. Would the guard cancel the second ticket and give me my money back?

If not then frankly I would say that the operating company were being somewhat dishonest.