LNER confirm delay repay policy for split tickets on cross-TOC journeys

[bussnapperwm]

Following an FOI made to London North Eastern Railway, they have today released their operational guidance for staff dealing with Delay Repay claims, including claims where split ticketing is used.

Attached below is scanned from their response, which states effectively that if a LNER train is delayed, and the passenger is travelling on split tickets, including where the use of other TOCs are involved, they are effectively not eligible for the additional split if it involves a section using another TOC.

(The question asked to them was for "operational guidance for dealing with delay repay claims, including cases where split tickets were used")

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I've said before I don't consider this unfair - however I am not convinced it is in line with the NRCoT.

 

[gordonthemoron]

That's all very well but what about flows where they do not provide Advance tickets?

 

[yorkie]

Following an FOI made to London North Eastern Railway, they have today released their operational guidance for staff dealing with Delay Repay claims, including claims where split ticketing is used.

Attached below is scanned from their response, which states effectively that if a LNER train is delayed, and the passenger is travelling on split tickets, including where the use of other TOCs are involved, they are effectively not eligible for the additional split if it involves a section using another TOC.

(The question asked to them was for "operational guidance for dealing with delay repay claims, including cases where split tickets were used")

can you type up a quote in text format please? Or just a summary if it's too long as not all members can see images (I am sure @Blindtraveler will be interested to read LNER's appalling response!)

As I've said before I don't consider this unfair

I challenged you on that last time; you claimed that it was unfair for passengers to receive the appropriate sum for their entire journey, on the basis that their tickets probably cost less, however in some cases their tickets would not have cost less, and in any case Delay Repay is always based on the price paid, so it's an irrelevance.

however I am not convinced it is in line with the NRCoT.

Indeed it isn't.

 

[Starmill]

I don't really see how they can use the excuse that their software is only licensed for LNER train running records.

For example if somebody books a London to Knaresborough ticket and they miss their connection at York, LNER need to know what time the next available train from York arrived at Knaresborough in order to validate the claim. The Northern train could be further delayed changing the level of delay repay due, so they must have access to other TOC train running records, independently of any split-ticket related issues.

 

[bussnapperwm]

can you type up a quote in text format please? Or just a summary if it's too long as not all members can see images (I am sure @Blindtraveler will be interested to read LNER's appalling response!)

I will when I get home this evening (forum won't work on office computers - typical web blocking software).

 

[superalbs]

(original post)

This is the LNER statement, as transcribed from the image:
Regarding split ticketing, our current systems are not able to log or validate split tickets that are cross-TOC journeys (using multiple train operating companies) this is because our validation tool is only licensed to LNER train running records. Furthermore split tickets across multiple train operator companies exist as individually purchased tickets and not what is called a 'through ticket', therefore the purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys and not the journey in its entirety. For example, a customer purchases two ticks, Ticket (a) Newcastle to KGX with LNER, and Ticket (b) Paddington to Plymouth with GWR. If the LNER journey was delayed 29 minutes (under the 30 minute threshold for Delay Repay) and caused the customer to miss the GWR train, they would not be entitled to any compensation from LNER. This is because the LNER ticket is just for LNER and not any connections. Since the customer chose to purchase a split ticket their delay is only counted by LNER as 29 minutes.

 

[Paul Kelly]

For example if somebody books a London to Knaresborough ticket and they miss their connection at York, LNER need to know what time the next available train from York arrived at Knaresborough in order to validate the claim. The Northern train could be further delayed changing the level of delay repay due, so they must have access to other TOC train running records, independently of any split-ticket related issues.

Well another possible conclusion is that they don't actually check the delay on the other TOC, and it's a massive loophole...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone has access to any TOC's running records - RTT. It'd be stupid to base a business on one free website, but the data is not exactly hard to come by.

 

[westv]

LNER hogwash.

 

[maniacmartin]

LNER's internal policies do not form part of the contract with the passenger.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Furthermore split tickets across multiple train operator companies exist as individually purchased tickets and not what is called a 'through ticket', therefore the purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys and not the journey in its entirety

I think anyone can see how they are contradicting themselves several times, and bringing up completely irrelevant matters, here.

Firstly, they say that the tickets "exist as individually purchased tickets". This is true - but whether or not the tickets are purchased individually is of zero relevance here. There is no doubt that a combination of tickets is "not a through ticket"!

They then say that "the purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys". This is wrong on so many levels. If you go from Newcastle to Plymouth with less than an hour between connections in London then, regardless of how many tickets you have for that journey, I think any person fluent in the common use of the English language would call that one journey! Not only that, but NRCoT 28.2 explicitly gives the passenger the right to make one journey with a combination of tickets - and to receive the associated rights that having only one journey involves. Are they denying that the NRCoT applies to them?!

It gets worse. They then say that "purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys and not the journey in its entirety"! So which is it - one journey, or multiple journeys? They are directly contradicting themselves.

This policy is unbelievably shambolic and it is totally unacceptable. I encourage any passengers who travel with LNER using a combination of tickets, and incur a delay such that LNER is liable for delay compensation, to take the matter to its fullest extent - including to Court if need be. LNER need to realise that this policy is utterly unacceptable.

If they continue to mislead passengers into believing they have no right to compensation because they have split tickets, then I would like to hope that they would be prosecuted for fraud (as all the elements of the offence are made out in my mind), and that an order be made that all passengers who were fobbed off be reimbursed in full.

 

[Starmill]

Anyone has access to any TOC's running records - RTT. It'd be stupid to base a business on one free website, but the data is not exactly hard to come by.

This is a sideshow, but:
- RTT and the Open Data feeds (which I imagine is what you actually mean by this) are not really the same thing.
- The feed does not necessarily go back far enough, whether you use RTT or not.
- Even if it did, is Open Data suitable for the purpose in question? It seems very unlikely. For one thing it may present a licensing issue.

Well another possible conclusion is that they don't actually check the delay on the other TOC, and it's a massive loophole...

This is quite true!

 

[marcouk2]

They seem to be applying this to non-split tickets as well, currently battling to get the correct amount of delay repay paid on a rover ticket, they only want to pay out for the VTEC portion of the journey.

 

[yorkie]

They seem to be applying this to non-split tickets as well, currently battling to get the correct amount of delay repay paid on a rover ticket, they only want to pay out for the VTEC portion of the journey.

Yes, the quoted text states that they won't pay out for the full journey if it involves a non-LNER connection, which is wrong.

It's a strange company; they have some very good people (some of whom get treated disgracefully by the company) and some very bad too.

There are some rather dubious characters in their customer services department who are based in the North East (not at their York HQ) who appear to make things up as they go along. I had a chat with one particularly obnoxious 'manager' who shouted at me and demanded to know who my employer was (!) and denied that the internal KnowledgeBase exists.

Quite frankly, head office needs to sort these people out as they bring the company into disrepute. How on earth they can allow this nonsense to go on I don't know. It's a sign of weak management. They need to stop mistreating their good staff and sort out the bad ones. Not exactly difficult, surely?!

 

[bussnapperwm]

They seem to be applying this to non-split tickets as well, currently battling to get the correct amount of delay repay paid on a rover ticket, they only want to pay out for the VTEC portion of the journey.

I've managed to get hold of their "work flows" for their staff "process maps" for dealing with Delay Repay claims as well (will post them when I get chance to get to a scanner next week...)

(Tis the benefits of having a TOC having to answer FOI requests - they are under much more scrutiny!)

 

[Skymonster]

This is the LNER statement, as transcribed from the image:
Regarding split ticketing, our current systems are not able to log or validate split tickets that are cross-TOC journeys (using multiple train operating companies) this is because our validation tool is only licensed to LNER train running records. Furthermore split tickets across multiple train operator companies exist as individually purchased tickets and not what is called a 'through ticket', therefore the purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys and not the journey in its entirety. For example, a customer purchases two ticks, Ticket (a) Newcastle to KGX with LNER, and Ticket (b) Paddington to Plymouth with GWR. If the LNER journey was delayed 29 minutes (under the 30 minute threshold for Delay Repay) and caused the customer to miss the GWR train, they would not be entitled to any compensation from LNER. This is because the LNER ticket is just for LNER and not any connections. Since the customer chose to purchase a split ticket their delay is only counted by LNER as 29 minutes.

Whoever wrote that response should not have been allowed to put something into the public domain that is so full of holes. Was that statement really checked by LNER corporate / legal???

This is the LNER statement, as transcribed from the image:
Regarding split ticketing, our current systems are not able to log or validate split tickets that are cross-TOC journeys (using multiple train operating companies) this is because our validation tool is only licensed to LNER train running records...

Huh? So the statement says that the validation system is only licenced to LNER trains - and yet the overall implication is that they can pay compensation for an entire journey if it is on one ticket, but not on splits. How is it their licensing works OK for non-splits, and yet doesn't work for splits?

This is the LNER statement, as transcribed from the image:
...this is because our validation tool is only licensed to LNER train running records.
...this is because the LNER ticket is just for LNER and not any connections.

Ah, so two different excuses for the same challenge...

I encourage any passengers who travel with LNER using a combination of tickets, and incur a delay such that LNER is liable for delay compensation, to take the matter to its fullest extent - including to Court if need be. LNER need to realise that this policy is utterly unacceptable.

Its not going to happen though is it - because no one individual is going to take them on, with all the rigmarole involved, for what in most cases will amount to less than one hundred quid.

If they continue to mislead passengers into believing they have no right to compensation because they have split tickets, then I would like to hope that they would be prosecuted for fraud (as all the elements of the offence are made out in my mind), and that an order be made that all passengers who were fobbed off be reimbursed in full.

What it needs is for the organisation behind the split ticketing websites, such as TrainSplit, taking them on. This will only be resolved by an institutional challenge, and not be an individual challenge. Where are the websites that encourage splitting on taking action over this? It's either these organisations taking on LNER directly, or promoting the interests of splitting via the regulatory authorities to the extent where the authorities take action. No one is going to do it individual ally because it isn't worth the time, effort, hassle and potential costs.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Its not going to happen though is it - because no one individual is going to take them on, with all the rigmarole involved, for what in most cases will amount to less than one hundred quid

Making a County Court claim at the Small Claims Track is not trivial to the same extent making a complaint is, however it is forgiving of mistakes and it is not overly complex. I am sure there are members of this forum who are happy to give advice if anyone would like to pursue that avenue.

I think the difficulty with split ticketing websites pursuing the matter is that they could only really do so as the advocates of the individuals affected if it were pursued civilly - sadly a private prosecution is very expensive if you are doing it as a one-off, or if you are prosecuting an offence as serious as fraud. It would be difficult to do a class action lawsuit on behalf of all claimants, as there are only a very limited number of cases in which this is allowed in English law (vs US law, for example).

 

[yorkie]

What it needs is for the organisation behind the split ticketing websites, such as TrainSplit, taking them on. This will only be resolved by an institutional challenge, and not be an individual challenge. Where are the websites that encourage splitting on taking action over this?

If one day a Trainsplit customer has a valid Delay Repay claim refused, I am sure Mike will be happy to give them a call, but until then...

I'd say Transport Focus should do something; it's their job to do this sort of thing. Unfortunately Anthony Smith does not want to talk about it, and isn't interested...

@David Dunning do you think this could be newsworthy? Maybe some media pressure would do the trick.

 

[ainsworth74]

Whoever wrote that response should not have been allowed to put something into the public domain that is so full of holes. Was that statement really checked by LNER corporate / legal???

As per the OP that's LNER's internal guidance not a statement prepared specially. Which I actually think is worse...

 

[island]

LNER's internal policies do not form part of the contract with the passenger.

Nor, in some views, does its DelayRepay policy.

 

[ScotTrains]

"our current systems are not able to log or validate split tickets that are cross-TOC journeys "
Are LNER therefore saying they will accept split tickets as long as all legs are on LNER trains?

It then goes on to say:
"split tickets across multiple train operator companies exist as individually purchased tickets and not what is called a 'through ticket', therefore the purchaser is only entitled to delay repay for the individual journeys".
Does this mean split tickets NOT across multiple train operators CAN create one journey according to them? They are effectively redefining a journey depending on what operator you travel with. This is NOT what the NRCoT says.

LNER seem to be making up the rules up as they go. LNER MUST follow the NRCoT rules which quite clearly state multiple tickets can be used for one journey and have the associated rights regarding delay repay.

The LNER operational guidance is simply wrong!

 

[Silverdale]

LNER seem to be making up the rules up as they go. LNER MUST follow the NRCoT rules which quite clearly state multiple tickets can be used for one journey and have the associated rights regarding delay repay.

The LNER operational guidance is simply wrong!

NRCoT doesn't refer to Delay Repay in such a specific way. It simply says that "Where your journey is delayed or cancelled, you may be entitled to compensation. The amount that you are due will vary by Train Company and is set out in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter."

NRCoT only states the minimum level of compensation for a delay of 60 minutes, but the amount is defined in relation to the price of the ticket (singular). No mention of multiple tickets.

Refer to LNER's Passenger Charter, and it says that Delay Repay lets you claim back some of the cost of your ticket (singular). The only mention of multiple tickets is to state that where a round trip has been purchased as two advance tickets, they do not together constitute a return ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

NRCoT doesn't refer to Delay Repay in such a specific way. It simply says that "Where your journey is delayed or cancelled, you may be entitled to compensation. The amount that you are due will vary by Train Company and is set out in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter."

Refer to LNER's Passenger Charter, and it says that Delay Repay lets you claim back some of the cost of your ticket (singular). The only mention of multiple tickets is to state that where a round trip has been purchased as two advance tickets, they do not together constitute a return ticket.

However the NRCoT refers to compensation for a delayed journey - and through 28.2 the passenger is explicitly given the right to be considered to be making one journey (with all the associated benefits) despite using multiple tickets. If the compensation is for a delayed journey, which part of this journey (i.e. which ticketed portion) is the compensation to be based upon, if not upon the combined value of all tickets used? Do you just select a ticket at random?

I think the only answer that makes any sense is that compensation must be based on the combined value of all tickets used. The fact that, through custom and practice this is the normal procedure for most TOCs, must be taken into account when interpreting the contract - and in any case any unclear terms must be read in favour of the consumer (Section 69 Consumer Rights Act 2015) and in favour of the party which did not draft the contract (contra proferentem).

I agree that the current situation is far from ideal but LNER are on very shaky (legal) ground on their current policy. Let's hope that the next iteration of the NRCoT makes the matter indisputably clear (in favour of the passenger!).

 

[wellhouse]

Well, I have a curious case of LNER claiming I have used split tickets when I have made two delay repay claims.

A few weeks ago I travelled from Slaithwaite to Doncaster on a return ticket, and then from Doncaster to Kings Cross on an Advance. I had planned to spend an hour in Doncaster between trains, but an incident near Adwick delayed the service by over 60 minutes. My Advance was for the following service from Leeds, but that was cancelled. I therefore scrubbed my stop in Doncaster, and remained on the first train, which eventually arrived over 2 hours late, and therefore over 60 minutes later than my booked service.

Since I had planned a Doncaster stop, and the LNER Delay Repay site doesn't cope with multiple tickets, I submitted two claims for compensation. The claim for delayed arrival at Doncaster has been settled, but the one for delayed arrival at Kings Cross has-been denied on the basis that a) I was using split tickets and b) I arrived in Doncaster too late for my booked service (the service that was cancelled!)

I am challenging this.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well, I have a curious case of LNER claiming I have used split tickets when I have made two delay repay claims.

A few weeks ago I travelled from Slaithwaite to Doncaster on a return ticket, and then from Doncaster to Kings Cross on an Advance. I had planned to spend an hour in Doncaster between trains, but an incident near Adwick delayed the service by over 60 minutes. My Advance was for the following service from Leeds, but that was cancelled. I therefore scrubbed my stop in Doncaster, and remained on the first train, which eventually arrived over 2 hours late, and therefore over 60 minutes later than my booked service.

Since I had planned a Doncaster stop, and the LNER Delay Repay site doesn't cope with multiple tickets, I submitted two claims for compensation. The claim for delayed arrival at Doncaster has been settled, but the one for delayed arrival at Kings Cross has-been denied on the basis that a) I was using split tickets and b) I arrived in Doncaster too late for my booked service (the service that was cancelled!)

I am challenging this.

They are wrong on both counts for denying the claim. The first is just not a valid reason, full stop. And the second is not factually correct!

 

[Silverdale]

If the compensation is for a delayed journey, which part of this journey (i.e. which ticketed portion) is the compensation to be based upon, if not upon the combined value of all tickets used? Do you just select a ticket at random?

It is quite possible, and it is not at all unusual in law, for the same word to have two different interpretations, even in the same statute, or as would be the case here, the same conditions of travel.

Unless "journey" is defined somewhere, you cannot simply infer that because a journey can be made with multiple tickets in one context, a journey can't be made with an individual ticket in another. A legal ruling could be that the meaning of journey was dependent on the context.*

*I have recently been following a very convoluted and long winded legal case about licensing of boats on rivers which hinged on the meaning of "main navigable channel" - the phrase being used in different parts of the bylaws. The court in it's wisdom decided that in the context of the requirement to dredge the river, "main navigable channel" meant the central part of the river, used for navigation, but in the context of where a vessel was required to be licensed, it was the entire width of of the river, including the banks.

 

[yorkie]

It is quite possible, and it is not at all unusual in law, for the same word to have two different interpretations, even in the same statute, or as would be the case here, the same conditions of travel.

I don't see how there can be any sane interpretation that a journey is not a journey of a passenger uses a combination of tickets to make that journey.

In fact, National Rail Enquiries will inform passengers if their journey requires multiple tickets.

RDG would not have accredited "split ticket" websites if they did not sell tickets that were valid for the journey made.

Unless "journey" is defined somewhere, you cannot simply infer that because a journey can be made with multiple tickets in one context, a journey can't be made with an individual ticket in another. A legal ruling could be that the meaning of journey was dependent on the context.*

The right to make a journey using a combination ofof ticke is enshrined in the NRCoT.

Journey is an inaleniable term defined as "the act of travelling from one place to another" and could not possibly be argued to mean "using a ticket to a place from which they are using another ticket" or whatever it is that you propose.

Journey does not need to be defined in the NRCoT as it already has a clear meaning, and the rights to make such a journey are made clear in the conditions.

Please do not attempt to cause confusion for what is a very simple matter.

 

[island]

Either of the interpretations could turn out to be correct. It will take a court case, and an appeal, to set any precedent on the matter.

 

[yorkie]

Either of the interpretations could turn out to be correct. It will take a court case, and an appeal, to set any precedent on the matter.

No. Journey is already a defined term; it cannot be redefined. There is no need for a court case, however consumer law is pretty clear that if there is any ambiguity then the interpretation that is most favourable to the customer is that which will prevail.