So which regulation in the NRCoT states this?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Delay Repay: Is it based on ticketed destination or actual destination?
- Thread starter JamieL
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Are you really denying that this is the case? Or are you just trying to waste people's time in your attempt to justify your own viewpoint?
As per Starmill, I am interested in the honest truth here. I have looked through the NRCoT and cannot see anywhere that states what is described.
The closest is probably this (my emphasis):
Destination is defined as (OED) "the place to which someone or something is going or being sent". Note the future tense and the implied need for a stated location. Applying that to the facts, his destination was Mallaig so you could argue by the strict definition he isn't entitled to anything because he never arrived there through his own choice! CS have taken a much broader approach seeing his split ticket to Fort William as the destination under NRCoT. Based on comments above about split tickets, that probably seems correct (although that also raises questions about giving split ticket holders more rights and benefits than 'through' ticket holders).
The NRCoT can be accessed here:
Which regulation confirms what you say? Very happy to defer if you can point to the specific regulation you all seem to suggest is the absolute, obvious and clearly stated norm.
Last edited:
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 4,536
"Your destination" seems pretty unambiguous to me - it's the destination of the passenger, not the train.
Also, the OP was not using a split ticket.
Also, the OP was not using a split ticket.
Now this topic has been de-latched from the Spean Bridge/Malliag question, it might be worth considering some of the broader implications if the destination for delay repay is entirely the choice of the customer and that choice can be made whilst travelling and without need to communicate it in anyway to the operator.
Scenario: Let's take a request stop as an example. A train is timetabled to travel from Station A, to Station B and onto Station C. Station B is a request stop. A passenger boards at Station A with an Anytime ticket valid to Station C but resolves before the train passes through Station B that he will get off there. He opts not to tell the Guard as he is not required to do so by the NRCoT. Nobody else asks to get off at Station B so the train blasts through ultimately arriving at Station C on time. However, as the passenger missed the destination he set enroute, he changes at Station C and heads back to Station B where he arrives over 60 minutes late.
Delay Repay (Actual Destination): Delay Repay should surely be payable? The customer chose his destination and the NRCoT state he is entitled to alight there. The NRCoT do not impose any obligations on passengers for request stops. And the arguments above indicate he is not required to inform the Operator of his end destination as long as it is within the validity of his ticket.
Delay Repay (Ticketed Destination): Delay Repay would not be payable as the customer arrived at Station C, his ticketed destination, on time. The customer could of course have liaised with the Guard to exercise his right under NRCoT to terminate his journey early or break.
As can be seen from the above utilising actual destination, rather than ticketed destination, creates an anomaly. Indeed, if actual destination is indeed the norm, there is an option for free travel to all request stops. As such, ticketed destination is clearly the correct interpretation.
Scenario: Let's take a request stop as an example. A train is timetabled to travel from Station A, to Station B and onto Station C. Station B is a request stop. A passenger boards at Station A with an Anytime ticket valid to Station C but resolves before the train passes through Station B that he will get off there. He opts not to tell the Guard as he is not required to do so by the NRCoT. Nobody else asks to get off at Station B so the train blasts through ultimately arriving at Station C on time. However, as the passenger missed the destination he set enroute, he changes at Station C and heads back to Station B where he arrives over 60 minutes late.
Delay Repay (Actual Destination): Delay Repay should surely be payable? The customer chose his destination and the NRCoT state he is entitled to alight there. The NRCoT do not impose any obligations on passengers for request stops. And the arguments above indicate he is not required to inform the Operator of his end destination as long as it is within the validity of his ticket.
Delay Repay (Ticketed Destination): Delay Repay would not be payable as the customer arrived at Station C, his ticketed destination, on time. The customer could of course have liaised with the Guard to exercise his right under NRCoT to terminate his journey early or break.
As can be seen from the above utilising actual destination, rather than ticketed destination, creates an anomaly. Indeed, if actual destination is indeed the norm, there is an option for free travel to all request stops. As such, ticketed destination is clearly the correct interpretation.
I'd say the passenger is at fault for not requesting the train to stop at the request stop and the industry is not at fault for the delay and no compensation is payable.
The delay has certainly been caused by the passenger's intransigence - but that is irrelevant if the rules allow it. So the challenge is where is that laid down in the NRCoT? As far as I can see, it isn't. And I believe Delay Repay is "no fault"? So if destination is defined as whatever the passengers chooses it to be at anytime, subject to it being with the range of his existing ticket, then the passengers intransigence is endorsed by the rules and the taxpayer (or private TOC) must pay. Moreover, for those willing to incur delay, they can initiate it themselves by modifying their destination and thus get free travel.
Where does the NRCoT state a passenger must press the door open button on a train in order to alight? If I don't which means I miss my stop, should I not get delay repay for this?
That would be captured on the NRCoT rules on validity of ticket and entitlement to travel. So if you have a ticket that is valid to Station C, and you do not alight at Station C, you might be violating those rules. By way of example, rule 13.4 which states that "if you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey". Ergo not pressing the door button at your ticketed destination is a violation of NRCoT. And this illuminates why destination must be based on ticketed destination. Because if you are ticketed to Station C but chose to prematurely end your journey at Station B but opted not to press the open door button, then you have been delayed and under actual destination then there must be a pathway for delay repay. Clearly that would be ridiculous. In contrast, delay repay calculated on ticketed destination can be fairly and accurately determined based on door release and as such is auditable and accountable.
Last edited:
But I had no idea I had to press the button! It's not stated anywhere that I have to in the NRCoT, so the train overcarried me as a result. That of course must be the operator's fault rather than my own. I assume the doors would open themselves, as I've only ever travelled on the Tube and through the Thameslink Core.
It's quite clearly no different than if my ticket was to a request stop and I was unaware I had to request for the train to stop so was overcarried to the next scheduled call!
Adam Williams
Established Member
Thinking about it, I'm not actually sure the NRCoT explicitly specifies the way in which I should get on the train either...
Which regulation in the NRCoT specifies you have to physically go through the doorway? Does anyone know? Can I make a complaint to the rail ombudsman if I didn't manage to board the train because I didn't know how to, and the retailer won't provide me with an abandoned journey refund?
Again this is covered off by the NRCoTs and English law, in particular strict liability and Equality legislation. For the latter, the railway has made reasonable adjustments to ensure people can press the button or seek assistance to do so. And thus for former, there is no real defence to being on the train after your ticketed destination. By contrast, if the destination is broadly unbounded - which actual destination relies upon - then it would require a whole set of passenger obligations to be further defined in NRCoT.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Covered in Part A of NRCoT - "If you have a disability, we will provide assistance upon request to help ensure that you enjoy your journey on the National Rail Network at no additional cost". Accordingly for those unable to process how to board a train, assistance can be provided.
Are you saying someone that hasn't used a train before inherently has a disability?
The average reasonable person can and will understand to press the 'Open' button on a door. It is reasonable that someone who cannot process that information has a disability of some sort which is accordingly covered under Part A of the NRCoT. Even if you do not subscribe to that argument, a broader definition is also covered in NRCoT Article 21.1 which expands the definition to "other passengers that may need extra help".
Surely these passengers who aren't under this extra help category can also hear the announcements about a upcoming request stop, and act on it as well, in the same way they can operate an open door button themselves :P
Yes of course they can hear and act upon it. The key is they are not compelled to do so by the NRCoT for any stop that comes before the ticketed destination. They are compelled to act by NRCoT for their ticketed destination (or they will incur penalty). As you know, the NRCoT sets the minimum requirements for the industry to adhere to and the maximum obligations for the consumer. So, as the NRCoT does not require passengers to take action to avoid delay if they are using an intermediate stop, i.e. not their ticketed destination, it follows that if delay repay is paid by actual destination (as determined by the passenger at anytime during their journey) then it is unbounded. As such, the consequences of saying delay repay being paid by actual destination rather than ticketed destination are significant.
Last edited:
redreni
Established Member
What a silly discussion!
If I travel from Bromley North to Slade Green on the return portion of an off-peak day return Dartford to Bromley North, I could well encounter a delay in making my intended journey to Slade Green in circumstances where, had I been going to the destination on my ticket (Dartford), I would not have been delayed. This is because not all of the trains that could get me to Dartford pass through or call at Slade Green. Nonetheless, Slade Green is on a permitted route from Bromley to Dartford and I am allowed to break or end my journey there.
I have claimed delay repay in circumstances like this many times and on no occasion has the TOC disregarded the destination I entered on the claim form (Slade Green) and instead assessed the claim based on the "To" station printed on my ticket (Dartford). If they did, I would appeal and I would expect to win. This is because my destination is the place where I'm going. Other places I could have gone to on the same ticket do not seem to me to be relevant. I don't even think this should be limited, or is limited, to situations of ending a journey short. One sometimes finds oneself claiming delay repay on a delayed arrival at an intermediate destination. Provided it is where you're going next, it is your destination - the fact you then intend to go somewhere else later doesn't change that fact. "Destination" surely has to be given its natural meaning, here, if it's not otherwise defined in the NRCoT or anywhere else relevant.
If I travel from Bromley North to Slade Green on the return portion of an off-peak day return Dartford to Bromley North, I could well encounter a delay in making my intended journey to Slade Green in circumstances where, had I been going to the destination on my ticket (Dartford), I would not have been delayed. This is because not all of the trains that could get me to Dartford pass through or call at Slade Green. Nonetheless, Slade Green is on a permitted route from Bromley to Dartford and I am allowed to break or end my journey there.
I have claimed delay repay in circumstances like this many times and on no occasion has the TOC disregarded the destination I entered on the claim form (Slade Green) and instead assessed the claim based on the "To" station printed on my ticket (Dartford). If they did, I would appeal and I would expect to win. This is because my destination is the place where I'm going. Other places I could have gone to on the same ticket do not seem to me to be relevant. I don't even think this should be limited, or is limited, to situations of ending a journey short. One sometimes finds oneself claiming delay repay on a delayed arrival at an intermediate destination. Provided it is where you're going next, it is your destination - the fact you then intend to go somewhere else later doesn't change that fact. "Destination" surely has to be given its natural meaning, here, if it's not otherwise defined in the NRCoT or anywhere else relevant.
Adam Williams
Established Member
Some common sense!
Which is why I used the Oxford English definition earlier in the thread. More broadly, given you have cited a specific example, I would point out the NRCoT specify they are a minimum standard and individual TOCs can exceed them when appropriate (see NRCoT Part B).
Last edited:
redreni
Established Member
You may have quoted it, but you seem to be arguing for a narrower definition.
No, I am using the definition as stated.
Looking at your example of Slade Green, I would surmise that a Dartford train going via Slade Green is not going to endure a significantly delay repay delta between arrival at Slade Green and arrival at Dartford. They are approximately 2 miles apart so not much time to make up time. Therefore I should imagine that an assessment for that specific train would give the same result whether they assess against Slade Green or Dartford. Referencing back to the fact you could have sought a faster train from Bromley to Dartford via an alternative route, the NRCoT allow use of permitted routes (12.2) and do not oblige you to mitigate your loss of time. So I don't think such claims are problematic within the framework of what is being discussed here.
redreni
Established Member
Well, hang on, many of the posts on this page touch on self-imposed delay. The NRCoT don't oblige you to mitigate your loss of time, but that doesn't mean TOCs can't or shouldn't throw out delay repay claims, or pay them at a lower rate, if the delay is partly or wholly self-imposed. If you insist on travelling from Bromley North to Dartford only using trains that calls at Slade Green, that limits the trains you can use, which sometimes won't but sometimes will make a difference to your arrival time in Dartford. In some cases it will make a big difference. If it does make a difference, then anyone assessing a delay repay claim based on Dartford being the destination should regard that difference as a self-imposed delay and should not pay out on it, unless the passenger provides a reasonable explanation for why they took the train they did when a faster option was available. On the other hand if the customer said their destination was Slade Green and Slade Green is regarded as the destination, then quicker journey opportunities to Dartford not by way of Slade Green have to be disregarded.
To give another recent example, I went from Yeovil Junction to Salisbury on the return portion of a Boundary Zone 6 to Yeovil Junction ticket. The train I was on left Yeovil Junction about 40 minutes late and arrived at Salisbury about 35 minutes late. On arrival at Salisbury the guard announced the train would be skipping a load of stops. Out of curiosity I checked later and it arrived at Waterloo about 12 minutes late. SWR paid out on that claim good as gold. Admittedly it would have been difficult for them to establish what time the train arrived at Boundary Zone 6, but if they'd looked for the arrival time at Waterloo they wouldn't have paid out. And they did.
Maybe you're right and everybody else, including SWR and Southeastern as well as pretty much everyone on this thread, is wrong. You should consider the other possibility, though.
As you seem so keen to try to base everything on what is written in the NRCoT, please can you cite where it states that the customer must communicate their choice to break their journey? Or where it states that this decision must be made before the journey starts?
I suspect you will struggle...
There are some basic principles of contract law which it would be useful to familiarise yourself with, such as implied terms. It is clearly an implied term of the NRCoT that you need to inform staff if you intend to board or alight a train at a request stop.
Similarly it's an implied term that you must operate the door controls to board or alight at a station, unless you are travelling on one of the few trains and sections or route where doors operate automatically.
None of these implied principles have any bearing on your argument about the destination. Frankly they are red herrings.
So which provision of the NRCoT could the TOC cite to justify this?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I would gently observe I have been citing the rules throughout and asking you guys to do the same.
On the communication side of things, I have already covered this. Look at the definition of destination that I cited earlier and the application of that.
On the door side I things, I would note the conversation only moved in that direction as it was seemingly the best retort by another poster to my comments. I believe I have shown how it fits within the frame of discussion.
Last edited:
alistairlees
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 4,416
This is a truly bizarre thread. Delay Repay is unambiguously paid out if you arrive late (by a sufficient amount) at your intended destination, i.e. the railway station (or other physical location such as a rail replacement bus stop). It is calculated by comparing your actual time of arrival at the location, compared to the scheduled time of arrival.
Most tickets are between specific stations - for example York to Leeds. However, there are many tickets that are to destinations that are not physical, but are instead conceptual, for example:
- London Zones 1-6 Travelcard
- London Zone U1
- London Boundary Zone 6
- all Rovers and Rangers
What would be the "destination" on these tickets against which Delay Repay is measured?
Equally, split tickets could consist of a sequence such as (for a York to Lancaster journey):
- York to Leeds
- Leeds to Skipton
- Skipton to Lancaster
Delay Repay applies to the intended destination of Lancaster; it should not be payable if the train is late at intermediate stops such as Leeds or Skipton, if it then makes up time and is below the DR threshold on arrival at Lancaster. The customer was not affected by the intermediate timings, as neither Leeds or Skipton was their destination.
Most tickets are between specific stations - for example York to Leeds. However, there are many tickets that are to destinations that are not physical, but are instead conceptual, for example:
- London Zones 1-6 Travelcard
- London Zone U1
- London Boundary Zone 6
- all Rovers and Rangers
What would be the "destination" on these tickets against which Delay Repay is measured?
Equally, split tickets could consist of a sequence such as (for a York to Lancaster journey):
- York to Leeds
- Leeds to Skipton
- Skipton to Lancaster
Delay Repay applies to the intended destination of Lancaster; it should not be payable if the train is late at intermediate stops such as Leeds or Skipton, if it then makes up time and is below the DR threshold on arrival at Lancaster. The customer was not affected by the intermediate timings, as neither Leeds or Skipton was their destination.
redreni
Established Member
It's not really a controversial position that requires the TOCs to cite anything to justify it. They need only say "we pay out when you are delayed, not if you choose to delay yourself". The delay repay scheme is for when the passenger is delayed.
In the case of the Bromley North to Slade Green journey, I would probably buy the ticket online so it would be issued against an itinerary. I would pay no attention to said itinerary either at time of purchase or subsequently - it may specify a train that runs via Slade Green or it may not. Either way, it is a flexible ticket so the expectation would be that I would turn up at Bromley North in time for my intended train, I would take the first train to Grove Park, I would take the first train from there to Lewisham and then I would take the first train from there to my destination. If my destination is Dartford and I remain at Lewisham letting Dartford trains go because my itinerary said travel via Slade Green, that's not a case of me failing to mitigate my delay, that's a self-imposed delay. It is only when you accept that my destination is Slade Green that I gain the right to let trains running to Dartford via Bexleyheath or Sidcup go and wait for one that goes via Woolwich and Slade Green without being regarded as having contributed to my own delay.
Surely you recognise that if self-imposed delay were eligible for compensation, people would be able to travel free routinely as long as they were prepared to spend a bit of extra time doing it?
This thread came about due to a set of circumstances where that scenario was a possibility. Indeed, my argument is that delay repay should be immune to such exploits on public policy grounds. Such an approach needs to based in the T&Cs though and can't just have the TOCs disapply the NRCoT and the various statutory protections that exist. However, as I have mooted in this thread, I believe Delay Repay is protected within the T&C framework by using a ticketed destination approach.
And yes, I agree entirely that self imposed delay, in any form, should not attract Delay Repay!
redreni
Established Member
So what would you have done with my Yeovil to Salisbury claim, then? My ticket was to Boundary Zone 6. I also held a monthly Z1-6 Travelcard season (though I didn't include details of that with my claim as I wasn't using it at the relevant time).
What was my destination, in your opinion?
In this scenario my take is that delay repay is based on the delay on arriving at your destination (based on your intended itinerary - in this case to Slade Green). If you do not take trains not stopping there, but which are going to Dartford, they are irrelevant to any delay repay claim, which should be based on the time the train you took arrived at Slade Green, relative to the time the train you expected to take (which may or may not be the same as the one you did) should have done.
redreni
Established Member
Agreed. That is how it works. But it only works because I put Slade Green as the destination when I claim, and the TOC accepts that my destination is where I say it is and not necessarily what it says on my ticket.
- Status