Delay Repay: Is it based on ticketed destination or actual destination?

[JamieL]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #64 originally in this thread.

Just nonsense.

Can you provide the official reference/regulation that states it is "just nonsense"? As far as I can see from the Conditions of Travel, there is no definition of "destination station" which includes any station stops before the ticketed destination?

 

[Adam Williams]

Can you provide the official reference/regulation that states it is "just nonsense"? As far as I can see from the Conditions of Travel, there is no definition of "destination station" which includes any station stops before the ticketed destination?

Why would you make the assumption that "your destination" would refer to anything other than the station that you are choosing to alight at?

There is no requirement whatsoever to hold a ticket that has meets the condition that the "alight-location == the fare destination NLC", this is enshrined in condition 16.2:

You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) before the destination shown on the Ticket

There are many types of tickets that you can hold that can be valid for a given journey without explicitly spelling that journey out on the face of the ticket. In some cases, the origin and destination may bear no resemblance to the journey being carried out. It is preposterous to try to make the case that this somehow affects the customer's delay compensation position, they were travelling entirely within the validity of their ticket.

 

[JamieL]

Why would you make the assumption that "your destination" would refer to anything other than the station that you are choosing to alight at?

There is no requirement whatsoever to hold a ticket that has meets the condition that the alight-location == the fare destination NLC, this is enshrined in condition 16.2:



There are many types of tickets that you can hold that can be valid for a given journey without explicitly spelling that journey out on the face of your ticket. It is preposterous to try to make the case that this somehow affects the customer's delay compensation position.

So it isn't specified then that destination station includes any intermediate stations? I didn't think so. Personally I would say if you buy a ticket to a specified destination then that is the destination. Applying that here, it would on the face of it be Mallaig. However, as it seems to be a split ticket, Fort William would also seem reasonable. Whilst he was fully entitled to alight at Spean Bridge, I don't think that was the destination he agreed with CS.

 

[Adam Williams]

So it isn't specified then that destination station includes any intermediate stations? I didn't think so. Personally I would say if you buy a ticket to a specified destination then that is the destination. Applying that here, it would on the face of it be Mallaig. However, as it seems to be a split ticket, Fort William would also seem reasonable.

You're not going to find an official section of the NRCoT that explicitly says "stupid interpretation from member of Caledonian Sleeper's customer support team is wrong", because nobody in their right mind would've come up with this idea in the first place. It's implicit on a ticket that supports break of journey that your destination can be any intermediate station.

 

[JamieL]

You're not going to find an official section of the NRCoT that explicitly says "stupid interpretation from member of Caledonian Sleeper's customer support team is wrong", because nobody in their right mind would've come up with this idea in the first place. It's implicit on a ticket that supports break of journey that your destination can be any intermediate station.

So even now you are describing it as a "break" rather than a destination.

 

[Adam Williams]

So even now you are describing it as a "break" rather than a destination.

The official concept - which may or may not be permitted on a specific ticket type - is called "Break of Journey". That's the section title of section 16 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, which says - very, very clearly:

Where break of journey is allowed, there is no limit to the number of times that you can do so within a Ticket’s period of validity, until the journey is completed.



[...] You may also end your journey (in either direction in the case of a return Ticket) before the destination shown on the Ticket.

If the place where you end your journey isn't a destination, I don't know what is!

This is great illustration as to why Delay Repay should have nothing to do with train operators, btw, and should be claimed directly from the retailer - which is exactly what customers want.

 

[JamieL]

The official concept - which may or may not be permitted on a specific ticket type - is called "Break of Journey". That's the section title of section 16 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, which says - very, very clearly:



If the place where you end your journey isn't a destination, I don't know what is!

This is great illustration as to why Delay Repay should have nothing to do with train operators, btw, and should be claimed directly from the retailer - which is exactly what customers want.

It might have been the end of his journey but his contracted destination was Mallaig (or maybe Fort William) and they should be the only options for securing Delay Repay. Anything is else is seeking to exploit the rules IMHO. Just because early termination is allowed, doesn't mean it should be rewarded - bear in mind such claims are all paid out of the public purse.

I do agree on Delay Repay though - it should perhaps be centrally managed by Network Rail or via the ticket retailer themselves. Although you might find the latter even harder to claim!

 

[Starmill]

So even now you are describing it as a "break" rather than a destination.

I'm curious. In your view, what happens if the situation is reversed i.e. the delay to the location on the ticket is of qualifying length for compensation, but the customer leaves the train early, ending their journey somewhere else, where the delay isn't of qualifying length?

 

[JamieL]

I'm curious. In your view, what happens if the situation is reversed i.e. the delay to the location on the ticket is of qualifying length for compensation, but the customer leaves the train early, ending their journey somewhere else, where the delay isn't of qualifying length?

I am guessing many people do fall into that bracket (as do people who haven't travelled for whatever reason) and, if they are on automated delay repay, might be offered compensation regardless. Where that has happened to me, I have always declined as it would strike me as fraudulent to claim.

 

[Starmill]

I am guessing many people do fall into that bracket (as do people who haven't travelled for whatever reason) and, if they are on automated delay repay, might be offered compensation regardless. Where that has happened to me, I have always declined as it would strike me as fraudulent to claim.

So for my own clarity your view is that the customer isn't entitled to claim on the same technicality that the operator are entitled to rely on to deny a claim when, as in this case, they've caused the customer material inconvenience? Have I got that right?

 

[JamieL]

So for my own clarity your view is that the customer isn't entitled to claim on the same technicality that the operator are entitled to rely on to deny a claim when, as in this case, they've caused the customer material inconvenience? Have I got that right?

Indeed but that is hardly unique in almost any sphere. I think the best way to see it is that Delay Repay is a great thing that increases confidence in the railway system but it is also public money and shouldn't be squandered unnecessarily. Its scope should rightly be narrow to avoid wasting public funds. Personally, if I had been assessing the OP's claim, I would have use Mallaig as his destination!

 

[Starmill]

I don't think that was the destination he agreed with CS.

And yet OP, clearly reasonably, does believe this.

If there's doubt about the meaning of a term in a consumer contract, the law provides that whichever interpretation is more favourable to the consumer is the one to be used.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2025 ==

Indeed but that is hardly unique in almost any sphere.

Actually the law provides for the opposite.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2025 ==

Its scope should rightly be narrow to avoid wasting public funds. Personally, if I had been assessing the OP's claim, I would have use Mallaig as his destination!

Your opinion, to which you're entitled. But not fact, and not something for which you've presented evidence.

 

[Adam Williams]

It might have been the end of his journey but his contracted destination was Mallaig (or maybe Fort William) and they should be the only options for securing Delay Repay. Anything is else is seeking to exploit the rules IMHO. Just because early termination is allowed, doesn't mean it should be rewarded - bear in mind such claims are all paid out of the public purse.

The customer will have been shown all of the intermediate stops at purchase time, along with their ticket's validity information (which would've covered BoJ). I don't think it's unreasonable to consider these facts may have potentially influenced their purchasing decision.

Additionally, there are advances on the flow that OP purchased their ticket for, which don't allow BoJ. So, really - they have paid for this additional flexibility. Now, one TOC may not like it, but their opinion doesn't really matter in this case. They need to pay up.

 

[JamieL]

And yet OP, clearly reasonably, does believe this.

Does he? Where does he specify that he changed his ticket to Spean Bridge?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2025 ==

Now, one TOC may not like it, but their opinion doesn't really matter in this case. They need to pay up.

Isn't it the TOC who makes the determination whether to pay? As indeed they have in their response to him.

 

[Adam Williams]

Isn't it the TOC who makes the determination whether to pay?

Initially, yeah. It'll be the Rail Ombudsman or the court in some cases if they try and play games with the wrong customer.

 

[Starmill]

Does he? Where does he specify that he changed his ticket to Spean Bridge?

What does that have to do with it? You argued for a narrow definition of the word destination. We're arguing for a different definition. Ours is the likely one to prevail.

 

[JamieL]

Initially, yeah. It'll be the Rail Ombudsman or the court in some cases if they try and play games with the wrong customer.

Then let him explore those avenues. Glancing through the Ombudsman site though - particularly disrupted travel - suggests they might not be that sympathetic in this case. But as you say, he can always commission a legal team and so forth to recover that £16. I believe the non-refundable court fees are around £35.

 

[Starmill]

Then let him explore those avenues. Glancing through the Ombudsman site though - particularly disrupted travel - suggests they might not be that sympathetic in this case. But as you say, he can always commission a legal team and so forth to recover that £16.

One doesn't need to comission legal representation to send claims to the Sherriff Court. It can be done alone without a lot of hassle, the fee is only £20 and the application form is now online.

However, there is usually an obligation in the court's rules to engage with the opposing party as far as possible to settle the claim before it reaches that stage. Therefore it's reasonable that the OP asks for advice on how to exhaust this possibility.

It's still premature to file the claim yet.

 

[Adam Williams]

I believe the non-refundable court fees are around £35.

Nothing a costs order won't take care of, if it's allowed to get that far.

 

[JamieL]

Small claims costs (as in the initial fee) are not refundable. So from the start it will cost him more than he can get in compensation.

 

[Starmill]

Small claims costs are not refundable.

It sounds like you're referring to the situation in England, if the claim were made in County Court, in which case the fee for filing would be awarded along with the value of the claim if the judgment went in their favour. Costs on top for anything else would be unlikely but can always be awarded, especially if for example one party breaks the court's rules. Presumably the OP would make the claim in Scotland however.

But more importantly than the above, as I say, it's not at that stage yet.

 

[BRX]

Retimings after booking are irrelevant unless the consumer is a) notified about the change and b) agrees to it, and there is consideration.

Is this formalised anywhere?

 

[JamieL]

It sounds like you're referring to the situation in England, if the claim were made in County Court, in which case the fee for filing would be awarded along with the value of the claim if the judgment went in their favour. Costs on top for anything else would be unlikely but can always be awarded, especially if for example one party breaks the court's rules. Presumably the OP would make the claim in Scotland however.

But more importantly than the above, as I say, it's not at that stage yet.

"Costs and Expenses

The Simple Procedure involves various costs, including court fees, potential legal representation fees, and expenses related to gathering evidence or preparing the case.
Fee waivers and remissions may be available for individuals with limited means, and it’s worth exploring these options if you’re concerned about the cost of making a claim.
If the claim is successful, it may be possible to recover some costs from the defendant.
However, it’s important to note that the ability to recover costs is limited under the Simple Procedure, and it’s not guaranteed that all costs will be recoverable."

 

[Starmill]

Is this formalised anywhere?

Not in a railway-specific way, no. It's just the standard principle of contract law.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jan 2025 ==

"Costs and Expenses

The Simple Procedure involves various costs, including court fees, potential legal representation fees, and expenses related to gathering evidence or preparing the case.
Fee waivers and remissions may be available for individuals with limited means, and it’s worth exploring these options if you’re concerned about the cost of making a claim.
If the claim is successful, it may be possible to recover some costs from the defendant.
However, it’s important to note that the ability to recover costs is limited under the Simple Procedure, and it’s not guaranteed that all costs will be recoverable."

That's accurate. If the OP filed the claim they wouldn't get any compensation for the time they wasted submitting it or attending a hearing, if there were one.

 

[JamieL]

That's accurate. If the OP filed the claim they wouldn't get any compensation for the time they wasted submitting it or attending a hearing, if there were onone

Probably best to drop the legal action nonsense then. The Ombudsman is an option of course.

 

[Adam Williams]

Probably best to drop the legal action nonsense then. The Ombudsman is an option of course.

I am not convinced the TOC would bother to defend the claim, so there could well be no hearing.

Anyway, I would argue that the prospect of legal action is less nonsensical than the definition of "destination" that has been thrown around in this thread

 

[JamieL]

I am not convinced the TOC would bother to defend the claim, so there could well be no hearing.

Anyway, I would argue that the prospect of legal action is less nonsensical than the definition of "destination" that has been thrown around in this thread

By which time the OP has paid his fee and its already cost him more than his claim.

 

[Watershed]

By which time the OP has paid his fee and its already cost him more than his claim.

The amount claimed for would include the fees.

I'm guessing you haven't taken many legal claims to trial?

 

[JamieL]

The amount claimed for would include the fees.

I'm guessing you haven't taken many legal claims to trial?

The Sheriff Court guidanxe was quoted above for your reference.

 

[Watershed]

The Sheriff Court guidanxe was quoted above for your reference.

Right, so I'm taking it your answer to my question is "no" then.

I's all well and good (miss)quoting guidance but what actually happens on the ground 99% of the time is that Court fees are included when judgment is in favour of the claimant (or pursuer, as I believe they're known in Scottish law).