Should RDG set up a single national Delay Repay clearing house?

[Bletchleyite]

A complex Delay Repay question here:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...leg-journey-both-delayed.200906/#post-4452144

...leads me to wonder is this being done the right way? Surely far easier if there was one place to apply for "money back because the railway didn't deliver" and that to just sort it all out?

Even if RDG don't want to do this, should they be forced to perhaps?

 

[yorkie]

Yes it would be a good idea. It would also be good to get compensation and refunds in the same place.

If RDG do not want to do it, perhaps retailers could do it? That way you'd always claim from the retailer. Retailers could also ensure that TOCs compensate them for the work (this would take the workload off TOCs).

Currently retailers lose out if a customer chooses not to travel (due to disruption) as they have to issue a refund but cannot recover all their costs.

The current system benefits TOCs and disbenefits passengers and retailers alike.

 

[Dr Day]

Hopefully that is the kind of recommendation that will come out of Williams - as far as the customer is concerned 'one railway', with one set of consistent rules. Can be all sort of contracts including multiple accredited retailers (which could include TOCs) behind the scenes who get paid (by the carriers) to deal with delay repay as part of their commission package. This wouldn't mean the end of cheaper tickets on the slower trains than the faster ones etc. OT, but a single source of things like Lost Property would be useful too.

 

[sheff1]

This idea was recently discussed here:

Delay repay - why isn't administered by RDG?

 

[AndrewE]

Yet more fiddling - and costs - to try to get round the stupid structure that political dogma has saddled us with... Just dump the whole thing and give us back a pre-Railtrack railway.
One railway, no need for any RCH-type money swapping, or these (repeated) attempts to polish a turd. Sorry, that should be damage-limitation exercises.

 

[yorkie]

Yet more fiddling - and costs - to try to get round the stupid structure that political dogma has saddled us with... Just dump the whole thing and give us back a pre-Railtrack railway.
One railway, no need for any RCH-type money swapping, or these (repeated) attempts to polish a turd. Sorry, that should be damage-limitation exercises.

Please feel free to create a new thread with your proposals but this thread is specifically to discuss centralising Delay Repay claims.

 

[35B]

Yes it would be a good idea. It would also be good to get compensation and refunds in the same place.

If RDG do not want to do it, perhaps retailers could do it? That way you'd always claim from the retailer. Retailers could also ensure that TOCs compensate them for the work (this would take the workload off TOCs).

Currently retailers lose out if a customer chooses not to travel (due to disruption) as they have to issue a refund but cannot recover all their costs.

The current system benefits TOCs and disbenefits passengers and retailers alike.

And when RDG contract the work to (say) TIL, who do I deal with when this body treats me wrongly? It doesn’t care about my custom - can’t do by definition - so where is its incentive to do the right thing.
The TOCs may not be great, but could be so much worse.

 

[PG]

Everyone sitting down?...

Maybe the government should be the single port of call for delay repay using a suitable department to run it, er say the transport department

Dear God No No No, we'd be lucky to get claims settled within a year never mind correctly!

 

[sprunt]

And when RDG contract the work to (say) TIL, who do I deal with when this body treats me wrongly? It doesn’t care about my custom - can’t do by definition - so where is its incentive to do the right thing.

The ombudsman, the same as if a TOC treated you badly. With a financial incentive of some kind to do the right thing. Of course, if it were a non-TOC body operating this, it wouldn't have any incentive to do the wrong thing.

 

[35B]

The ombudsman, the same as if a TOC treated you badly. With a financial incentive of some kind to do the right thing. Of course, if it were a non-TOC body operating this, it wouldn't have any incentive to do the wrong thing.

An ombudsman whose record since being established is, shall we say, spotty? As for the assertion that if the body's non-TOC, it would have no incentive to do the wrong thing, I can think of plenty of ways that it could be set up that would stack the incentives against quick and timely payment of claims - and far fewer that would act to deter sloth, laziness and complacency in the way that being customer facing does.

The case that triggered this thread is marginal, and engages a theoretical debate that is right on the edge of what any scheme can be designed to achieve. Suggesting that the fix for problems of two shoddy TOCs buck passing is to create a new body, with no relationship to try to protect with those who rely on it, is to create the circumstances for abuse of customer rights - when simple enhancements to existing data sharing arrangements could achieve the same result.