Should delay-repay be a smooth scale rather than having thresholds at 30/60/etc minutes

[dcsprior]

These comments in a thread about a disputed arrival time for delay repay

hi everyone,
Thanks for all your comments.
I don’t think I will raise a complaint,it probably wouldn’t go in my favour since their internal systems show it arriving a minute before.
The frustrating thing is that Alan any other time, it wouldn’t matter, I wish that in these circumstances where there’s conflicting info about when the train arrived that they would just pay delay repay anyway, since in practice, there’s not much difference between being delayed by 14 or 15 minutes, but I suppose they have to set the threshold somewhere.

And if they were this thread would be about a delay of 13 minutes.

Do you know that to be the case, or are you speculating?

Ask for a deadlock letter to take it to the ombudsman. They might not rule in your flavour but it will cost Avanti more in admin than they would have paid out.

I think it was @Bletchleyite who once said the thresholds should be 14, 29 & 59 minutes to take into account the odd second where the train might be 14 minutes and 58 seconds late, which to all purposes is 15 minutes late.

Have reminded me of something I've long believed:

Delay repay should be a sliding scale rather than with big jumps.

So instead of being:

• 25% for delays over 15 mins (certain TOCs only)
• 50% for delays over 30 mins
• 100% for delays over 60 mins
• 100% of the return for delays over 120 mins

It could be something like:

• Nothing for a delay of up to 10 mins + 5% of the scheduled journey time
• 2% per minute after that

Which'd look like this:

 

[Haywain]

No, it shouldn't be a smooth scale as that just complicates matters and ensures that nobody will ever be happy with what they receive, creating an ongoing circle of disputes. And the figures you have given are not correct as there is never 200% compensation, but there is a variation in what is received depending on whether the ticket held is a single or return. And not all companies use the same scale.

 

[dcsprior]

Not, it shouldn't be a smooth scale as that just complicates matters and ensures that nobody will ever be happy with what they receive, creating an ongoing circle of disputes.

I would've thought the opposite. it would mean that the impact of the time being mis-measured by 1 minute would only be 1.5% of ticket value, not up to 50% of it. So it could significantly reduce the stakes in any dispute - people (from either the customer or TOC side) aren't going to argue for the sake of 1.5% of ticket value!

And the figures you have given are not correct as there is never 200% compensation, but there is a variation in what is received depending on whether the ticket held is a single or return. And not all companies use the same scale.

Yeah, I think I covered both those things accurately in the text, but was limited in what could show in the picture

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably a bit complicated. What I would do is keep the present published thresholds, but actually pay out based on something like 14, 28, 56 and 112 minutes in order to avoid these downright silly cases where a cancelled 2tph service results in a "28 minute delay" that is really a half-hour one because of recovery time that applies to all services.

Alternatively, where there is a cancellation, calculate it based on the difference between the timetabled times of the planned itinerary and the one taken rather than based on train running, unless the latter train is also delayed in which case take the longer of the two. Where it's an actual delay the thresholds are fair - the issue is cancellations on regular interval services where the railway is basically taking the mick and waving two fingers over a technicality of timetabling.

 

[Jim the Jim]

Sounds like a lot of added scope for problematic inconsistency between when the passenger thinks the train arrived and when the system thinks the train arrived.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I would've thought the opposite. it would mean that the impact of the time being mis-measured by 1 minute would only be 1.5% of ticket value, not up to 50% of it. So it could significantly reduce the stakes in any dispute - people (from either the customer or TOC side) aren't going to argue for the sake of 1.5% of ticket value!

I disagree. I think your proposal effectively creates the possibility that every delay repay outcome could be challenged, because every additional minute has a monetary value, whereas at the moment it's only a proportion of the edge cases. I'm not saying that would happen, but I suspect the overall number of queries would increase.

Alternatively, where there is a cancellation, calculate it based on the difference between the timetabled times of the planned itinerary and the one taken rather than based on train running, unless the latter train is also delayed in which case take the longer of the two.

Yes, this is a good idea

 

[JonathanH]

If delay repay is being reformed, one question is whether, with the railway being nationalised and the fare income no longer contributing to private profits, removing delay repay and its associated costs would be a better step.

Part of the reason for delay repay was a sense that the privateers running the railway shouldn't be able to get away with running a poor service while still making big profits. With that no longer being the case, it may be time to remove it.

Of course, running trains on time would have the same effect, and it may be that nationalisation achieves this.

 

[KNN]

I'd rather they rebalanced it based on length of journey. 15 minutes late on a 5 hour trip to Glasgow isn't the same as being 25 minutes late on a 12 minute commute.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd rather they rebalanced it based on length of journey. 15 minutes late on a 5 hour trip to Glasgow isn't the same as being 25 minutes late on a 12 minute commute.

The fare does that. You get more compensation (after all it is meant to be compensation) for a more expensive journey which is typically a longer one.

 

[Oxfordblues]

It's so frustrating when your train is running over 60 minutes late but just as it approaches its destination there's a hidden recovery margin and it squeezes in at only 59 minutes late. Bang goes your free ride!

 

[AM9]

It's so frustrating when your train is running over 60 minutes late but just as it approaches its destination there's a hidden recovery margin and it squeezes in at only 59 minutes late. Bang goes your free ride!

The idea is to minimise delays to passengers, not encourage a few to game the system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea is to minimise delays to passengers, not encourage a few to game the system.

It's the railway that's gaming the system in that situation. If you have a half hourly clockface service and one is cancelled you are delayed precisely 30 minutes. Not 29 because of recovery time which applies to every train.

 

[Topological]

It's the railway that's gaming the system in that situation. If you have a half hourly clockface service and one is cancelled you are delayed precisely 30 minutes. Not 29 because of recovery time which applies to every train.

Exactly

To my mind the whole thing should be simple. If your hourly train is cancelled and you end up on the one an hour later then you are an hour late.

I have a 57 minutes case from Wednesday, 1W12 stopped short at Wilmslow and ended up on 1W13 (the one-hour-later TfW from South Wales into Manchester). In that case it is a bit more cheeky because 1W13 has less recovery time from Stockport and so is actually scheduled to arrive 59 minutes later than 1W12 (despite hour long gaps at other stations)

It gets even more complicated because of the locations of timing points.

In essence, some discretion towards the side of passengers from the delay repay system would be welcomed.

 

[Belperpete]

The fare does that. You get more compensation (after all it is meant to be compensation) for a more expensive journey which is typically a longer one.

I think that the current situation where the elderly and disabled get less compensation is discriminatory. Just because someone has paid a discounted fare doesn't mean that they have been any less inconvenienced than someone who has paid full fare.

I believe that the compensation should be based on the standard single fare for that journey, regardless of what type of ticket you actually held (single, return, season, rover, railcard discounted, whatever). That way the compensation would more truly reflect the journey length and relative inconvenience caused.

 

[KNN]

The fare does that. You get more compensation (after all it is meant to be compensation) for a more expensive journey which is typically a longer one.

You've misunderstood what I meant, 15 minutes late on a 5 hour trip is unlikely to make a difference to your day, being 28 minutes late on a journey which should take ten is worse.

Currently they both fall in to the same bracket.

 

[SuspectUsual]

You've misunderstood what I meant, 15 minutes late on a 5 hour trip is unlikely to make a difference to your day, being 28 minutes late on a journey which should take ten is worse.

Currently they both fall in to the same bracket.

What if your ten minute journey is the last leg of a five hour route? The train has had five hours in which things can go wrong, you just pitch up for the last little bit

 

[Bletchleyite]

You've misunderstood what I meant, 15 minutes late on a 5 hour trip is unlikely to make a difference to your day

Depends why you're going. It might mean a missed last bus and thus significant added cost.

That it varies with the fare handles the situation perfectly well in my eyes.

 

[KNN]

What if your ten minute journey is the last leg of a five hour route? The train has had five hours in which things can go wrong, you just pitch up for the last little bit

I'm only talking about your own journey time, as happens now.

I'm basically saying that applying the same rules to long distance and commuter routes doesn't make any sense if it's intended as a compensation for inconvenience.

It's hard to know how better to do it, but I think a % of journey time metric could work, so an hour late in 5 gets you 20%, 15 late for a 15 minute journey gets you 100%.

But being 4 hours late to Glasgow and not getting the full amount back also seems unfair. So maybe a better solution is keep the rules but introduce a minimum amount, say a £5 for 15, £10 for 30, up to an hour, then after an hour keep the rules the same.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2024 ==

Depends why you're going. It might mean a missed last bus and thus significant added cost.

That it varies with the fare handles the situation perfectly well in my eyes.

Being twice as late as your journey time and getting 25% back seems too little to me. It lets commuter TOCs off the hook.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think we’re losing sight of the fact that any change to delay repay ought to simplify it (eg single central administration). Anything else makes it harder and more costly to administer, and that cost has to come from somewhere, and in a nationalised industry that’s us

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we’re losing sight of the fact that any change to delay repay ought to simplify it (eg single central administration).

Yes, I've long called for a single refund clearing house which would also deal with refunds where you didn't travel due to disruption. Only discretionary refunds would remain with the retailer.

Alternatively, get the retailers to do it and bill the relevant TOC(s).

 

[AM9]

I think that the current situation where the elderly and disabled get less compensation is discriminatory. Just because someone has paid a discounted fare doesn't mean that they have been any less inconvenienced than someone who has paid full fare.

I believe that the compensation should be based on the standard single fare for that journey, regardless of what type of ticket you actually held (single, return, season, rover, railcard discounted, whatever). That way the compensation would more truly reflect the journey length and relative inconvenience caused.

That's a point that I made a few years ago that Delay-Repay is not compensation. Compensation is for a loss or inconvenience, and other than refunding the fare, it doesn't discriminate between sombody being slightly late arriving and somebody just missing a signifficant event/appointment. DR is just a partial or full refund to buy off complaints. A journey may have more importance than just the fare.

 

[Belperpete]

That's a point that I made a few years ago that Delay-Repay is not compensation. Compensation is for a loss or inconvenience, and other than refunding the fare, it doesn't discriminate between sombody being slightly late arriving and somebody just missing a signifficant event/appointment. DR is just a partial or full refund to buy off complaints. A journey may have more importance than just the fare.

Except that it is specifically marketed as a compensation scheme NOT a refund.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that it is specifically marketed as a compensation scheme NOT a refund.

It's compensation albeit based on the fare (which is probably fairer than the airline version which is a fixed sum). It doesn't have to deal with consequential losses to be compensation, though it might be possible in some cases to pursue such things in Court.

 

[Belperpete]

I think we’re losing sight of the fact that any change to delay repay ought to simplify it (eg single central administration). Anything else makes it harder and more costly to administer, and that cost has to come from somewhere, and in a nationalised industry that’s us

Sadly I think that any change to the way it is calculated would be made in a way that disbenefited the pasengers, in the same kind of way that tickets are being simplified by increasing the fares.

But once all the TOCs are under GBR control, it would as you say be to their benefit to have a single central administration for delay repay, rather than continue to have multiple teams.

 

[AM9]

Except that it is specifically marketed as a compensation scheme NOT a refund.

So what? - that doesn't make it a true compensation scheme.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2024 ==


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Aug 2024 ==

Sadly I think that any change to the way it is calculated would be made in a way that disbenefited the pasengers, in the same kind of way that tickets are being simplified by increasing the fares.

But once all the TOCs are under GBR control, it would as you say be to their benefit to have a single central administration for delay repay, rather than continue to have multiple teams.

I do however agree that a central clearing house is how it should be anyway rather than an opportunity for TOCs to shuttle the blame backwards anf forwards between themselves.

 

[Belperpete]

Personally, I consider a central clearing house would be a disadvantage to passengers. Currently, you can get 100% of a return ticket for a delay to the outward journey, and another 100% for a delay to the return journey - provided that they are from different TOCs. A central clearing house would likely stop that. I consider it totally wrong that someone can be delayed for 2+ hours and get no compensation whatsoever for that delay.

 

[Bald Rick]

If delay repay is being reformed, one question is whether, with the railway being nationalised and the fare income no longer contributing to private profits, removing delay repay and its associated costs would be a better step.

That is a very good question.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally, I consider a central clearing house would be a disadvantage to passengers. Currently, you can get 100% of a return ticket for a delay to the outward journey, and another 100% for a delay to the return journey - provided that they are from different TOCs. A central clearing house would likely stop that. I consider it totally wrong that someone can be delayed for 2+ hours and get no compensation whatsoever for that delay.

As the DR terms have been updated to prevent that, such claims would be fraudulent.

Plus how often do you get delays of that length? I think I've had 3 or 4 ever.

 

[Belperpete]

As the DR terms have been updated to prevent that, such claims would be fraudulent.

Plus how often do you get delays of that length? I think I've had 3 or 4 ever.

Each TOC runs its own independent DR scheme, so you only have to comply with the terms of the TOC that you are applying to with regards to each individual claim.

If you were based on a line where the service interval is only a train every 2 or 3 hours, you may have it happen quite regularly.

 

[BlueLeanie]

That's a point that I made a few years ago that Delay-Repay is not compensation. Compensation is for a loss or inconvenience, and other than refunding the fare, it doesn't discriminate between sombody being slightly late arriving and somebody just missing a signifficant event/appointment. DR is just a partial or full refund to buy off complaints. A journey may have more importance than just the fare.

Exactly. It's simply a refund for a journey that the operator failed to deliver to the published schedule, there's not punishment. I don't really care whose fault it was.

If Ryanair fail to take me from Luton to the continent on their £19.99 fare within 3 hours of the scheduled time, they'll give me £200+ in compensation.