Chiltern refusing to pay delay compensation for both tickets on split ticket journey UPDATE:resolved

[najaB]

No!

He had two journeys, one covered by his paper ticket on Chiltern and one from his start NR station to Marylebone LU. The price is completely different if the two legs of the Oyster journey are treated separately.

I misunderstood the journeys.

 

[island]

Did your throughout itinerary allow the requisite minimum connection times?

 

[t_star2001uk]

Does this answer the question

Refund policy for additional tickets
Our policy is that customers should not be forced to pay more to travel by train because of disruption, when buying a National Rail ticket, than would otherwise have been the case. We will offer refunds to customers with valid National Rail tickets who are forced to pay more through no fault of their own. This does not apply to Oyster users as the Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services states that, during service disruption, customers will be charged the fare appropriate for the services and zones actually used.

 

[mmh]

Just how much of the NRCoT has ever gone before a County Court, let alone a Court whose ruling would be binding? I'm willing to bet that, at least in the case of the NRCoT, the answer could be counted on one hand at best.

I agree that the status of Oyster has changed significantly from just a few years ago. If there is to be a test case, this is surely as good as any - as it is me as the passenger who is deciding who goes before Court, not the other way around!

Go for it then. It'd be good to see you actually using all your legal know-how for once rather than continually advising other people they should, and if you're successful it'd be for the greater good. What's to lose?

 

[maniacmartin]

If Oyster had been used for London Underground only, it would not be one journey. However, as the Oyster part of the journey contained at least one NR leg, so the Oyster leg is subject to the Oyster Conditions of use on National Rail services which says

1.1. These conditions of use (“Conditions of Use”) set out your rights and obligations when using an Oyster card to travel on National Rail services. They apply in addition to the conditions set out in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which you can view and download from the National Rail website nationalrail.co.uk/nrcoc. Where these Conditions of Use differ from the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, these Conditions of Use take precedence when you are using your Oyster card.

(Yes, it hasn't been updated to refer to the new NRCoT, but I am going to consult the NRCoT as its accepted that it supercedes the NRCoC)

3.21 If, as a result of service disruption or planned engineering works, you use an alternative route for your journey, the amount deducted from your pay as you go balance will be the fare appropriate for the services and zones you actually use. You may be entitled to compensation for any delays according to the provisions of the Train Company’s Passenger Charter. Please contact the relevant Train Company customer relations department for details.

So, Chiltern won't refund any extra that is charged to your Oyster because of delays (presumably because you can usually already get this refunded by calling the Oyster helpline anyway). Delay Repay is a separate concept though, and Oyster travel can qualify for Delay Repay.

We all know one way the NRCoT allows multiple tickets to be used for one journey:

14.1 Unless shown below, you may use a combination of two or more Tickets to make a journey provided that the train services you use call at the station(s) where you change from one Ticket to another.

However, neither NRCoT 33.1 nor Chiltern's Passenger Charter doesn't explicitly mention what happens when multiple tickets are used, so it may be difficult to get them to pay Delay Repay based on both tickets.

 

[Hadders]

Does this answer the question

Refund policy for additional tickets
Our policy is that customers should not be forced to pay more to travel by train because of disruption, when buying a National Rail ticket, than would otherwise have been the case. We will offer refunds to customers with valid National Rail tickets who are forced to pay more through no fault of their own. This does not apply to Oyster users as the Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services states that, during service disruption, customers will be charged the fare appropriate for the services and zones actually used.

The OP is not seeking a refund. He is after compensation following a delay - a completely different issue.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Go for it then. It'd be good to see you actually using all your legal know-how for once rather than continually advising other people they should, and if you're successful it'd be for the greater good. What's to lose?

I am more than happy to do so; I'm just looking to see if there is anyone who can help me resolve the matter amicably. If that is not possible, then I do think Court action may be necessary.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If Oyster had been used for London Underground only, it would not be one journey. However, as the Oyster part of the journey contained at least one NR leg, so the Oyster leg is subject to the Oyster Conditions of use on National Rail services which says

(Yes, it hasn't been updated to refer to the new NRCoT, but I am going to consult the NRCoT as its accepted that it supercedes the NRCoC)


So, Chiltern won't refund any extra that is charged to your Oyster because of delays (presumably because you can usually already get this refunded by calling the Oyster helpline anyway). Delay Repay is a separate concept though, and Oyster travel can qualify for Delay Repay.

We all know one way the NRCoT allows multiple tickets to be used for one journey:

However, neither NRCoT 33.1 nor Chiltern's Passenger Charter doesn't explicitly mention what happens when multiple tickets are used, so it may be difficult to get them to pay Delay Repay based on both tickets.

Thanks for that. I agree the one sticking point will be the fact that the situation of having multiple tickets is not addressed in Chiltern's Charter. However in any legal case I would make the points that:

• Several other TOCs have provisions in their Charters that they will pay out on all tickets used for multi-ticket delayed journeys, and none have provisions that they will not pay out on all tickets. Of course that does not mean that Chiltern is explicitly promising to pay out on all tickets, but it is an indication of the general industry attitude towards delay compensation on multi-ticket journeys.
• Neither Chiltern's Charter nor the NRCoT exclude multi-ticket journeys from full compensation. It would be entirely incongruous for passengers to be explicitly granted the right to be considered to be making one journey when using multiple tickets, and yet for compensation to be based off only one of these tickets - given that the compensation is based on a delay to the journey as a whole.
• Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 dictates that any ambiguous terms must be interpreted in favour of the consumer. It may be considered as ambiguous whether or not full compensation is payable in the context of this kind of delay, and so it should be interpreted in the consumer's favour (i.e. full compensation is payable).

I will obtain legal advice as to the most appropriate way to go about this kind of a claim if it becomes necessary, as I think a Part 8 claim - where one asks the Court to declare the position of a certain element (delay compensation for multi-ticket journeys) within a contract - may be more useful than a mere money claim.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Did your throughout itinerary allow the requisite minimum connection times?

Absolutely. That is not in dispute by Chiltern.

 

[centraluser]

The Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services state:

"3.16 You are not allowed to break your journey when travelling using pay as you go. Each time you leave a station whilst using pay as you go, you must touch out as set out in 3.13 and you will be deemed to have ended that particular journey. However, if you are making a journey which involves you having to leave a station by touching out, and enter another station by touching in to continue your journey (see 3.4), provided you do so promptly, you will only be charged for a single journey."

Would this mean that the Oyster PAYG Journey finished when leaving the Underground and the National Rail ticket from Marylebone would be a completely separate journey?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services state:

"3.16 You are not allowed to break your journey when travelling using pay as you go. Each time you leave a station whilst using pay as you go, you must touch out as set out in 3.13 and you will be deemed to have ended that particular journey. However, if you are making a journey which involves you having to leave a station by touching out, and enter another station by touching in to continue your journey (see 3.4), provided you do so promptly, you will only be charged for a single journey."

Would this mean that the Oyster PAYG Journey finished when leaving the Underground and the National Rail ticket from Marylebone would be a completely separate journey?

No, because the National Rail Conditions of Travel state that Oyster is a form of ticket (definition of ticket on p.32), and because it states that a combination of tickets may be used to make one journey (Condition 14.1). If Oyster was not intended to be included in this, then it should have been excluded from such combinations through explicit wording in Condition 14.1.

To those interested in the outcome of this matter, I can't comment further at the moment, as the matter remains unresolved. However, I will make an update when the matter is resolved.

 

[centraluser]

I was rather hoping for views of others. The Oyster Conditions do though appear to take precedence, albeit not updated with refeterence to NRCoT:

"1.1. These conditions of use (“Conditions of Use”) set out your rights and obligations when using an Oyster card to travel on National Rail services. They apply in addition to the conditions set out in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which you can view and download from the National Rail website nationalrail.co.uk/nrcoc. Where these Conditions of Use differ from the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, these Conditions of Use take precedence when you are using your Oyster card."

 

[AlterEgo]

I was rather hoping for views of others. The Oyster Conditions do though appear to take precedence, albeit not updated with refeterence to NRCoT:

"1.1. These conditions of use (“Conditions of Use”) set out your rights and obligations when using an Oyster card to travel on National Rail services. They apply in addition to the conditions set out in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which you can view and download from the National Rail website nationalrail.co.uk/nrcoc. Where these Conditions of Use differ from the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, these Conditions of Use take precedence when you are using your Oyster card."

If the Oyster terms take precedence then I agree that the Oyster journey is clearly defined as a separate journey and cannot be claimed for in the OP’s case.

 

[yorkie]

The Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services state:

"3.16 You are not allowed to break your journey when travelling using pay as you go. Each time you leave a station whilst using pay as you go, you must touch out as set out in 3.13 and you will be deemed to have ended that particular journey. However, if you are making a journey which involves you having to leave a station by touching out, and enter another station by touching in to continue your journey (see 3.4), provided you do so promptly, you will only be charged for a single journey."

Would this mean that the Oyster PAYG Journey finished when leaving the Underground and the National Rail ticket from Marylebone would be a completely separate journey?

No it would not.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why not?

If a customer uses Oyster from say, Zone 3 to London Euston, and is delayed, missing their connection and causing an hour's wait, they don't get delay repay or NRCoT compensation. They must refer to the Oyster/TfL compensation schedule instead. Oyster is clearly a separate journey.

There are some situations where there is a customer benefit to having the journeys treated that way.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Why not?

If a customer uses Oyster from say, Zone 3 to London Euston, and is delayed, missing their connection and causing an hour's wait, they don't get delay repay or NRCoT compensation. They must refer to the Oyster/TfL compensation schedule instead. Oyster is clearly a separate journey.

There are some situations where there is a customer benefit to having the journeys treated that way.

How is it a separate journey though? Only because of the wording of the ambiguous Oyster term? The Oyster terms are contradicted by the NRCoT very clearly.

 

[35B]

How is it a separate journey though? Only because of the wording of the ambiguous Oyster term? The Oyster terms are contradicted by the NRCoT very clearly.

And state that they take precedence over NRCoT where the two conflict.

 

[AlterEgo]

How is it a separate journey though? Only because of the wording of the ambiguous Oyster term? The Oyster terms are contradicted by the NRCoT very clearly.

There is nothing ambiguous at all about the Oyster term saying Oyster takes precedence in case of conflict. This seems very clear to me.

 

[island]

How is it a separate journey though? Only because of the wording of the ambiguous Oyster term? The Oyster terms are contradicted by the NRCoT very clearly.

The NRCoT are irrelevant to the matter. The Oyster terms are entirely clear in stating they override the NRCoT where there is a contradiction.

 

[yorkie]

The term journey is an inalienable term that cannot be re-defined for the purpose of making a through journey using a combination of fares/authorities to travel.

The conflicting use of the term journey for the specific case of determining a PAYG fare does not redefine the fact that the overall journey was made using a combination of PAYG and paper tickets.

I see no evidence that PAYG was brought in to remove rights, and I do not believe the attempts to define a PAYG "journey" for the purposes of determining the PAYG fare, is intended to remove any rights, nor that it does so.

 

[island]

Of course the term journey can be defined in conditions. It has to be defined reasonably, and usual contract law rules about unfair terms would apply, but the TOCs are entitled to define that a journey ends when you touch out if they wish.

I agree with the suggestion that PAYG and the relevant conditions were not brought in to remove rights. What is less clear is whether they have inadvertently done so.

 

[AlterEgo]

Of course the term journey can be defined in conditions. It has to be defined reasonably, and usual contract law rules about unfair terms would apply, but the TOCs are entitled to define that a journey ends when you touch out if they wish.

I agree with the suggestion that PAYG and the relevant conditions were not brought in to remove rights. What is less clear is whether they have inadvertently done so.

I agree. The Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail Services are clear your journey starts when you touch in.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I am now in a position to confirm that Chiltern have paid the claim in full, although only after coming perilously close to having me issue a Default Judgment for failing to issue their defence in time!

I would highly encourage any other passengers who have been fobbed off by train companies, including Chiltern, to take matters further - whether that be to the Rail Ombudsman or to the County Court. I would be more than happy to advise people of the procedure to follow for the latter (for the former it is self explanatory, I think).

It is not as expensive or complicated as some might think to take a claim to the County Court - it is normal practice to issue the claim online, in fact. The most you are likely to lose if you are the claimant is the claim issue fee of £25 (this is higher if the claim is for more than £300) - you can always discontinue the claim at any point, if you realise that you feel your case is weak or that you don't want to take it all the way.

The "point of no return" is probably when the matter proceeds to having a hearing date issued, as that is when the higher hearing fee is due. If you are successful, you will of course have all Court fees added to the Judgment, and it is standard practice at the Small Claims Track (i.e. most cases under £10,000) that solicitors' costs are not recoverable in either direction.

 

[_toommm_]

I am now in a position to confirm that Chiltern have paid the claim in full, although only after coming perilously close to having me issue a Default Judgment for failing to issue their defence in time!

I would highly encourage any other passengers who have been fobbed off by train companies, including Chiltern, to take matters further - whether that be to the Rail Ombudsman or to the County Court. I would be more than happy to advise people of the procedure to follow for the latter (for the former it is self explanatory, I think).

It is not as expensive or complicated as some might think to take a claim to the County Court - it is normal practice to issue the claim online, in fact. The most you are likely to lose if you are the claimant is the claim issue fee of £25 (this is higher if the claim is for more than £300) - you can always discontinue the claim at any point, if you realise that you feel your case is weak or that you don't want to take it all the way.

The "point of no return" is probably when the matter proceeds to having a hearing date issued, as that is when the higher hearing fee is due. If you are successful, you will of course have all Court fees added to the Judgment, and it is standard practice at the Small Claims Track (i.e. most cases under £10,000) that solicitors' costs are not recoverable in either direction.

So, if you don't mind me asking, did you end up paying the fee and starting proceedings, or did you send an LBA and they replied just in time?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So, if you don't mind me asking, did you end up paying the fee and starting proceedings, or did you send an LBA and they replied just in time?

I did indeed pay the fee and start proceedings. Naturally, they also reimbursed me the fee (plus interest on the claim).

 

[tom73]

You experienced delay on only one ticket, your ticket from Marylebone to wherever. How you got to Marylebone is surely none of Chiltern's concern. I believe most of us would only have claimed on that one ticket to begin with. I am heading to Leeds soon and have to go across London to get to King's Cross. If my train from King's Cross to Leeds was seriously delayed en route, I would not even think of claiming for the journey made prior to boarding the train at King's Cross

 

[superjohn]

So you got your pound back.

Clap...clap...clap

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You experienced delay on only one ticket, your ticket from Marylebone to wherever. How you got to Marylebone is surely none of Chiltern's concern. I believe most of us would only have claimed on that one ticket to begin with. I am heading to Leeds soon and have to go across London to get to King's Cross. If my train from King's Cross to Leeds was seriously delayed en route, I would not even think of claiming for the journey made prior to boarding the train at King's Cross

Condition 14.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel establish that, in essence, the rights of passengers with one single through ticket and multiple adjoining tickets are the same. This has been the case since the Conditions of Carriage introduced at privatisation over 20 years ago, and possibly even before then. It is by no means a new or alien concept.

I am sure you would claim delay compensation if you had a through ticket and were delayed, therefore it makes very little sense to me why you should think that the situation is any different if you hold multiple adjoining tickets, which have, for over 20 years, been treated as functionally equivalent to a through ticket.

Of course you're free to pursue or not to pursue whatever you like, but it seems surprising that anyone would actively opt to renege on contractual rights they have that may entitle them to (substantial in some cases) compensation.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So you got your pound back.

Clap...clap...clap

It is about the principle, that train companies cannot get away with refusing valid claims. Would you have the same reaction to a train company prosecuting over a fare "evasion" in relation to a few pounds (this has happened many times previously)? I would have thought not.

They have the right to prosecute cases of any value - even where no actual amount of money has been underpaid - and frequently imply that not paying upfront is a sign of dishonesty, or intent to avoid payment. If that's dishonesty, I'd love to see what rejecting a valid claim for months and stringing it out counts as! It's a shame there isn't the equivalent of the Regulation of Railways Act in relation to companies owing people money.

Whilst you're entirely free to think of this matter what you wish, I merely posted the update as I perhaps thought that others might be interested as to the outcome! (And hearing of a success such as this may encourage them to claim for amounts they have been incorrectly refused)

 

[ainsworth74]

Thanks for the update. It's an interesting one and it will be interesting to see how this develops (using Small Claims Court). I'm aware of at least one other case where action has successfully been taken against a TOC via this avenue. So it's starting to crop up more often.

One wonders whether they'll up their game or just treat it as a cost of doing business and overall the savings from poor customer service standards outweigh the costs of the odd court claim.