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

[Belperpete]

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.

But that £200+ is also irrespective of whose fault it is, and also bears no relation to the level of inconvenience to which you have been put

 

[SuspectUsual]

I think that the current situation where the elderly and disabled get less compensation is discriminatory.

Perhaps the solution to this apparent discrimination is to charge them the same as everyone else?

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.

So if I'm going from Glasgow to Mallaig, with a ferry connection to Armadale, and you get on at Morar with the same plan, and we both miss the ferry, we've been equally inconvenienced, so your logic doesn't work.

Whatever system is in place, some will feel aggrieved, its how it is and how it always will be

 

[AM9]

Perhaps the solution to this apparent discrimination is to charge them the same as everyone else?

The lower prices of tickets for some demographic group is a rail industry marketing choice and has no relevance to any honest compensation scheme.

 

[KNN]

But that £200+ is also irrespective of whose fault it is, and also bears no relation to the level of inconvenience to which you have been put

Aren't there far more stringent rules on the reason for delayed flights?

As I understand you wouldn't get anything if it was because of a weather issue grounding planes. Whereas the rail system compensates for everything.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Aren't there far more stringent rules on the reason for delayed flights?

As I understand you wouldn't get anything if it was because of a weather issue grounding planes. Whereas the rail system compensates for everything.

The Railway doesn't offer any compensation. It refunds the ticket cost.

The rules are pretty broad. If your driver (pilot) goes down with the trots or is caught at the airport drunk, it's still the airline's fault and they have to compensate if you arrive late.

 

[KNN]

The Railway doesn't offer any compensation. It refunds the ticket cost.

The rules are pretty broad. If your driver (pilot) goes down with the trots or is caught at the airport drunk, it's still the airline's fault and they have to compensate if you arrive late.

Delay Repay is classed as compensation however you want to define it. Compensation up to the value of the ticket price.

The rules for flights don't include anything like the range which trains do, though, as I understand it. You can claim Delay Repay for snow, which isn't anything the industry can control any more than a plane can fly through a hurricane.

 

[AM9]

The Railway doesn't offer any compensation. It refunds the ticket cost.

Agreed, despite the overriding fact that the railway owns its routes for which it is responsible, consequently it offers itself as a safe, all-weather service. There are many times that aircraft shouldn't and indeed couldn't fly owing to adverse weather conditions, - however, in their pursuit of maximum profit from minimum investment, services fail for resons that they are partly or even wholly responsible, which includes staff availability, equipment availability, overselling etc..

 

[Belperpete]

Aren't there far more stringent rules on the reason for delayed flights?

As I understand you wouldn't get anything if it was because of a weather issue grounding planes. Whereas the rail system compensates for everything.

Plenty of complaints from the airlines about having to pay out for delays that aren't their fault, such as ATC issues, terminal issues, border force, etc.

 

[AM9]

Plenty of complaints from the airlines about having to pay out for delays that aren't their fault, such as ATC issues, terminal issues, border force, etc.

The problem there is that every country which has flights that depart for or arrive from the EU and the UK would need to accept claims against their ATC service from those airlines involved.

 

[AF91]

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.

TOC staff on 75% discount would be looking forward to that one I bet.

In all seriousness though I don't see your logic as to why getting the same proportion of the fare back is discriminatory.

 

[HSTEd]

TOC staff on 75% discount would be looking forward to that one I bet.

In all seriousness though I don't see your logic as to why getting the same proportion of the fare back is discriminatory.

The potential for conflicts of interest alone would be a nightmare.

Lots of TOC staff have information that allows them to determine if a train is going to be late before it is actually late, so it could potentially allow them to buy discounted tickets and quadrouple their money.
We'd need a giant apparatus to guard against such abuse or the perception of it.

I also agree that I can't see why people who pay less for their tickets getting less back is discriminatory, if anything what is proposed is discriminatory.

 

[AM9]

The potential for conflicts of interest alone would be a nightmare.

Lots of TOC staff have information that allows them to determine if a train is going to be late before it is actually late, so it could potentially allow them to buy discounted tickets and quadrouple their money.
We'd need a giant apparatus to guard against such abuse or the perception of it.

There was, in one of the many previous discussions here about Delay Repay, a poster claiming that they worked very near to their station for travelling home, it may have been Blackfriars. They had the opportunity to work (and get paid for) whatever hours & minutes were worked, so they would monitor the status of their train service home, - ISTR it was Thameslink, and when there was a significant delay, work right up to the last time that they could arrive on the platform to catch the delayed train, knowing that a claim would be paid. The practice came in for some criticism as an abuse of a facility that was intended to mitigate in part the inconvenience of late running or cancellations.

 

[Belperpete]

In all seriousness though I don't see your logic as to why getting the same proportion of the fare back is discriminatory.

It is because it inherently means that someone using a disabled or senior railcard gets less in £sd. The fact that they used a senior or disabled railcard affects the value of the compensation paid. The method of calculating the compensation is inherently discriminatory.

If they were to say "Everyone who uses a wheelchair will get less", then that would obviously be discriminatory.

How is saying "Everybody who uses a disabled or senior citizen railcard will get less" any less discriminatory? Okay, they aren't saying that - but it is what they are doing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is because it inherently means that someone using a disabled or senior railcard gets less in £sd. The fact that they used a senior or disabled railcard affects the value of the compensation paid. The method of calculating the compensation is inherently discriminatory.

If they were to say "Everyone who uses a wheelchair will get less", then that would obviously be discriminatory.

How is saying "Everybody who uses a disabled or senior citizen railcard will get less" any less discriminatory? Okay, they aren't saying that - but it is what they are doing.

Because it's compensation in the form of a partial refund for not having delivered the service that was purchased.

If you had a bad quality meal in a restaurant would you expect anything more than not to pay for it?

It's not discriminatory because everyone receives the same proportion of their fare back for a given delay period.

 

[AF91]

It is because it inherently means that someone using a disabled or senior railcard gets less in £sd. The fact that they used a senior or disabled railcard affects the value of the compensation paid. The method of calculating the compensation is inherently discriminatory.

If they were to say "Everyone who uses a wheelchair will get less", then that would obviously be discriminatory.

How is saying "Everybody who uses a disabled or senior citizen railcard will get less" any less discriminatory? Okay, they aren't saying that - but it is what they are doing.

Delay repay is calculated on a proportion of the fare paid. They get less back because they paid less in the first place.

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

I've had some fairly significant delays, the worst being 24 hours delayed with Eurostar (I've had a delay of 5 hours with them once too, and at least one more of 120+ minutes)

I've had some really bad delays with Avanti repeatedly, though only one ever passed the 120 minute mark I think. I've also had one 120+ minute delay with LNER once.

So that puts me at five such very long delays over the last 6 years, no clue if that's better or worse than others

 

[A S Leib]

So that puts me at five such very long delays over the last 6 years, no clue if that's better or worse than others

From what I can find / remember, for delays of over one hour, since 2021 I've had

• An hour-plus delay from Waterloo to Basingstoke when there was massive disruption in June 2021
• The last Glasgow – Euston of the day cut short at Preston and the Edinburgh – Birmingham – Northampton – Euston being delayed over an hour whilst waiting for a driver at Preston (+170 by the time I got to Watford Junction)
• At least two cases of abandoning travel (/ Avanti giving up north of Preston) altogether between Hemel Hempstead and Carlisle due to extreme weather, plus one from Edinburgh to Stevenage in February 2022 where I got back at ~02:00 due to extremely poor weather
• A two-hour plus delay when a Birmingham – Watford Junction – Hemel Hempstead journey turned into a Birmingham – Coventry – Northampton – Kettering – Luton – St. Albans one
• An electrical fault at King's Cross turning Grantham – King's Cross into Grantham – Peterborough – Cambridge – Liverpool Street (I'm not sure what the final delay was, but it's ~70 minutes direct or around three hours via Harlow)

This should come with the caveat that people on this forum are probably likely to make more long train journeys than on average, and maybe less likely to switch to other modes if possible after one particularly severe delay.

 

[dcsprior]

So that puts me at five such very long delays over the last 6 years, no clue if that's better or worse than others

In the ~5 years I did Edinburgh-London every week, I'd guess I averaged two >1hr delays per year.

On a couple of those occasions, after it had all gone wrong our very delayed train was held while the following (far less delayed) train go past. I wondered at the time if it was because we were so late that they were guaranteed to have to pay out the 1hr+ delay-repay for us, but had a chance to get the following train there within the 30minute "free" window. This was one of the things that made me think thresholds rather than a smooth scale were a bad thing

 

[KNN]

In the ~5 years I did Edinburgh-London every week, I'd guess I averaged two >1hr delays per year.

On a couple of those occasions, after it had all gone wrong our very delayed train was held while the following (far less delayed) train go past. I wondered at the time if it was because we were so late that they were guaranteed to have to pay out the 1hr+ delay-repay for us, but had a chance to get the following train there within the 30minute "free" window. This was one of the things that made me think thresholds rather than a smooth scale were a bad thing

Someone will know better about pathing than me, so it might be simply they had priority from a pathing perspective. If you were a stopping train and they weren't, for example.

Also, if your train was already going to be late and they are measured by number of trains on time it is in their interests to make the other one on time at your expense.

 

[zero]

I quite like the Northern free ticket thing, but allowing you to name your own stations is only feasible because Northern's network is not too extensive.

Perhaps passengers could have a choice between the monetary compensation and a free anytime (return?) ticket for the same journey as was delayed. As the free ticket would be flexible, you could start or finish short, or combine with another ticket, if you had no need to make exactly the same journey again.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I quite like the Northern free ticket thing, but allowing you to name your own stations is only feasible because Northern's network is not too extensive

Although you can do long journeys.

My record is Hebden Bridge - Preston - Barrow - Carlisle - Newcastle - Middlesbrough - Darlington

Got a couple of funny looks from guards along the way mind

 

[A S Leib]

Perhaps passengers could have a choice between the monetary compensation and a free anytime (return?) ticket for the same journey as was delayed. As the free ticket would be flexible, you could start or finish short, or combine with another ticket, if you had no need to make exactly the same journey again.

That seems fair for passengers, but somebody with a £30 advance from London to Glasgow choosing the free anytime seems economically disadvantageous to TOCs (not that I think that should be the be-all and end-all, and offering that might help stop people quitting railways entirely after one bad delay).

 

[Islineclear3_1]

If delay repay is dealt with centrally; what would happen to prospective claims made for delays outside the railway's control - e.g., person jumping off a bridge? Would the DR team just reject the claim? Could anyone hazard a guess...? I'm inclined to think there might be more conditions put into place

 

[zero]

If delay repay is dealt with centrally; what would happen to prospective claims made for delays outside the railway's control - e.g., person jumping off a bridge? Would the DR team just reject the claim? Could anyone hazard a guess...? I'm inclined to think there might be more conditions put into place

I'm not sure how the administration of DR is related to the criteria for claims?

It's very possible that the railway could exempt itself from compensating for external factors causing delays (in airline-speak, "extraordinary / unforeseeable circumstances" - though note that sudden crew sickness away from the home base has been recently ruled by the supreme court to not be an extraordinary circumstance). But is that not independent of the organisation that processes DR claims?

 

[Egg Centric]

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.

It's not a refund either. Otherwise I'd have to return delay repay to my employer when I get trains (happening less now cause driving is sadly proving far more convenient) that are delayed, rather than seeing it as a fun perk.

 

[JamesT]

It's not a refund either. Otherwise I'd have to return delay repay to my employer when I get trains (happening less now cause driving is sadly proving far more convenient) that are delayed, rather than seeing it as a fun perk.

As noted in previous threads on delay repay where the employer is paying for the tickets, some employers do expect any delay repay to be returned to them.

 

[Egg Centric]

As noted in previous threads on delay repay where the employer is paying for the tickets, some employers do expect any delay repay to be returned to them.

Those people should get better jobs then. I think that's appalling. What next, return avios or credit card cashback?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Those people should get better jobs then. I think that's appalling. What next, return avios or credit card cashback?

In my view (and I think it is my employer's policy) it should be paid to the employer if the delay results in lost work time, whereas it should be kept by the employee if the delay results in the loss of their time, as the principle is to compensate for time lost. Same with EU261 from airlines and the likes.

 

[Egg Centric]

In my view (and I think it is my employer's policy) it should be paid to the employer if the delay results in lost work time, whereas it should be kept by the employee if the delay results in the loss of their time, as the principle is to compensate for time lost. Same with EU261 from airlines and the likes.

EU261 is pretty clear that the compensation is meant for the passenger.

There's nothing stopping an employer getting travel insurance. We has it. Technically it applies to train journeys too but I doubt it would ever be relevant for us.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Aug 2024 ==

(I think it was here that someone said their employer, who was someone like Shell or Haliburton, would only permit them to fly business class or above to "maintain the prestige of the company" or something. That's the best kind of company to travel for!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, it was Shell, and I did benefit from that...once!

Years ago so I don't know if it is still true.