Delay repay where ticket is not used in full

[Class800]

Could someone advise what the policy is for claiming delay repay where the journey claimed for is not the entirety of the ticket due to break of journey? To make it more concrete, on 15 June the 19.46 from Bridgwater to Taunton was cancelled as was the one an hour later. This caused a 2 hour delay on my journey from Bridgwater to Cranbrook Devon. I was using the return half of a Plumstead to Exeter St David's super off peak return (but starting short at Bridgwater due to break of journey) and an evening out single from Exeter St David's to Cranbrook. The split tickets is something I'm used to, but unsure how GWR will 'value ' Bridgwater to Exeter St David's as its not my total ticket price.

 

[Watershed]

Delay Repay is still due based on your total ticket price. You might be asked to give the details of your 'full' journey for the Plumstead ticket, but it is perfectly valid to break your journey and then claim from the place where you have recommenced your journey.,

 

[Class800]

Delay Repay is still due based on your total ticket price. You might be asked to give the details of your 'full' journey for the Plumstead ticket, but it is perfectly valid to break your journey and then claim from the place where you have recommenced your journey.,

Thanks

 

[styles]

Delay Repay is still due based on your total ticket price. You might be asked to give the details of your 'full' journey for the Plumstead ticket, but it is perfectly valid to break your journey and then claim from the place where you have recommenced your journey.,

This may be somewhat unrelated to @Class800 's scenario, but if you had a ticket which allowed break of journey between A and C (informally via B), and actually because of break of journey you decided you were going to end your journey at B, and you were delayed getting to B, could you claim delay repay for this? From reading the NRCoT, I think the answer should be yes, but practically speaking you'd need to show the operator you took a shorter journey?

 

[Watershed]

This may be somewhat unrelated to @Class800 's scenario, but if you had a ticket which allowed break of journey between A and C (informally via B), and actually because of break of journey you decided you were going to end your journey at B, and you were delayed getting to B, could you claim delay repay for this? From reading the NRCoT, I think the answer should be yes, but practically speaking you'd need to show the operator you took a shorter journey?

Yes, you could claim for the delay to B. You can claim for the delay to the journey you actually made, even if that's a shorter journey than the full validity the ticket gives you.

Delay Repay is effectively based on trust; there is no requirement to prove which journey you took (or intended to take). There is generally no record of which trains you took with a paper ticket. With a digital ticket (e.g. smartcard, eTicket) there may be scan/touch records that can be used to get an idea of what travel you undertook, but it will often only paint an incomplete picture.

 

[styles]

Yes, you could claim for the delay to B. You can claim for the delay to the journey you actually made, even if that's a shorter journey than the full validity the ticket gives you.

Delay Repay is effectively based on trust; there is no requirement to prove which journey you took (or intended to take). There is generally no record of which trains you took with a paper ticket. With a digital ticket (e.g. smartcard, eTicket) there may be scan/touch records that can be used to get an idea of what travel you undertook, but it will often only paint an incomplete picture.

That's what I thought, but wasn't sure. Thanks!

 

[Belperpete]

If your ticket permits break of journey, then you are generally allowed to start short and/or end short. I quite frequently do both, and have always been able to get the compensation when delayed. On a few occasions I have had to appeal an initial rejection as they claimed I had not entered details of the full journey, but generally just re-entering the journey details again works. Only on one occasion did I have to spell it out that my ticket from Croydon was valid via Euston, and therefore valid for a journey starting from Euston.

 

[rocrat]

What happens when a TOC (or indeed, the rail Ombudsman) refuses delay repay unless you provide (seemingly?) unrelated information?

E.g., a ticket from A to Z, where you intentionally break your journey at B and then again at C, and are then delayed between C and D (with an intentional overnight BoJ at D) before travelling without incident D to Z? I often take journeys like this around summer and Xmas when visiting friends on open returns, and only one TOC takes such issue.

Said TOC argues their delay repay is only between "stations on the ticket" and so the Ombudsman sides with the TOC...

Or the flip side... the TOC notices you have an unrelated journey 4 hours prior to a different station within the same station group, and so claims that this is therefore a "through" journey and therefore, despite delaying you >2hrs, claims there to be no overall delay.

Presumably they cannot have their cake and eat it?

 

[Ben Rhydding]

My wife had a claim rejected by Northern. Outward journey Leeds to Giggleswick was on time. She joined a guided walk from Giggleswick to Long Preston whence she travelled back to Leeds using the return portion of the Giggleswick ticket. The train from Long Preston to Leeds was cancelled and she was delayed by more than an hour.

Northern rejected delay repay on the grounds that she wasn`t claiming for her full journey. She explained how and why her return journey had begun at Long Preston. She reminded them that she was entitled to waste the ticket between Giggleswick and Long Preston and commence her journey there. Northern insisted that she wasn`t eligible for delay repay and proceeded to refund the Giggleswick to Leeds ticket which, they said, she had been unable to use because the train from Giggleswick had been cancelled". My wife got this refund stopped telling Northern that she would not be party to claiming refund of a ticket which had been used.

Eventually, they agreed delay repay of more than an hour but sent her a free single which is the tariff for a delay of 30 to 59 minutes. A complaint about this drew a second single ticket.

 

[Watershed]

What happens when a TOC (or indeed, the rail Ombudsman) refuses delay repay unless you provide (seemingly?) unrelated information?

E.g., a ticket from A to Z, where you intentionally break your journey at B and then again at C, and are then delayed between C and D (with an intentional overnight BoJ at D) before travelling without incident D to Z? I often take journeys like this around summer and Xmas when visiting friends on open returns, and only one TOC takes such issue.

Said TOC argues their delay repay is only between "stations on the ticket" and so the Ombudsman sides with the TOC...

Or the flip side... the TOC notices you have an unrelated journey 4 hours prior to a different station within the same station group, and so claims that this is therefore a "through" journey and therefore, despite delaying you >2hrs, claims there to be no overall delay.

Presumably they cannot have their cake and eat it?

If it's the TOC I think you're referring to, you're probably going to have to (threaten to) take legal action to get anywhere. But as always, the details matter - and I'm not quite sure what you mean about the "unrelated journey" - so algebra doesn't particularly help with understanding the situation

 

[Belperpete]

Northern insisted that she wasn`t eligible for delay repay and proceeded to refund the Giggleswick to Leeds ticket which, they said, she had been unable to use because the train from Giggleswick had been cancelled". My wife got this refund stopped telling Northern that she would not be party to claiming refund of a ticket which had been used.

Accepting the refund would have been the easy path, but I think your wife was right. If she had accepted the refund, she could have laid herself open to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

Accepting the refund would have been the easy path, but I think your wife was right. If she had accepted the refund, she could have laid herself open to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket.

Travelling without a valid ticket? On what possible grounds could the ticket have been invalid? Because two months into the future, Northern might refund it without any claim for refund being made? On that basis, every ticket ever issued would potentially be invalid.

She refused the refund (1) because she was not prepared to accept refund of a ticket which had been used, (2) because Northern were talking utter nonsense and (3) because she was entitled to a free return under Northern`s delay repay which was worth a lot more than the refund.

The point at issue is that the automated system cannot accommodate the journey being of shorter duration than the ticket. And sometimes, Customer Services are not much better. This is not the only time it has happened.

Why did my wife not simply claim that her journey was from Giggleswick? That would have saved a lot of hassle but would have been dishonest. It would have doubled her entitlement to two return tickets. The frequency from Giggleswick being less than from Long Preston, the delay would have been longer than the one actually suffered.

 

[Belperpete]

Travelling without a valid ticket? On what possible grounds could the ticket have been invalid? Because two months into the future, Northern might refund it without any claim for refund being made? On that basis, every ticket ever issued would potentially be invalid.

Because if she had accepted a refund for that ticket, made on the basis that she hadn't used it for her return journey, what ticket did she use for that journey?

You are right that every ticket ever issued is potentially invalid. It all depends on how it is subsequently used.

The fact that Northern instigated the refund, rather than your wife requesting it, is immaterial. It is the accepting of it that is important - if you collude in something, you are a party to it. She was right to refuse something that she knew was wrong.

 

[Haywain]

what ticket did she use for that journey?

A valid ticket that had not been refunded. Refunding a used ticket is wrong because in claiming a refund you would be fraudulently claiming that it was unused. However, that does not make the ticket invalid at the time that it was used.

 

[greatkingrat]

If a company chooses to offer you more than you are entitled to, then accepting that is not fraud, assuming you did not provide the company with false information.

 

[Belperpete]

If a company chooses to offer you more than you are entitled to, then accepting that is not fraud, assuming you did not provide the company with false information.

It all depends on the manner in which the money is offered and accepted. If you accept money, or goods, you make yourself a party to that transaction. It doesn't matter that you didn't ask for it, if you know that you are not entitled to what you are being offered, you make yourself complicit if you accept it.

For example, if you are offered goods that have been stolen, you have done nothing wrong. it is the act of accepting them that is wrong. Likewise, if money appears in your bank account, that you know that you are not entitled to, you have done nothing wrong. But if you spend that money, knowing that it is not rightfully yours, then you have.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

A valid ticket that had not been refunded. Refunding a used ticket is wrong because in claiming a refund you would be fraudulently claiming that it was unused. However, that does not make the ticket invalid at the time that it was used.

But if she had accepted Northern's refund, she would have been accepting that she did not use that ticket.

 

[Haywain]

But if she had accepted Northern's refund, she would have been accepting that she did not use that ticket.

That still doesn't equate to travelling without a valid ticket.

 

[Belperpete]

That still doesn't equate to travelling without a valid ticket.

I think we are arguing technicalities here. Agreed that she had a valid ticket, but if she had accepted the refund she would wrongly have accepted that it wasn't valid, and that she therefore hadn't used it for that journey.

And if she had accepted the refund made on the understanding that she hadn't used the ticket, and then Northern had subsequently found proof that she had used the ticket, this could have put her in an interesting position.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

The purpose of my posts 9 and 12 was to highlight the inability of the automated system, and sometimes also the human one, to comprehend a journey of shorter duration than the ticket.

The thread has descended into a discussion as to whether a passenger may be pursued either for fraud or for travelling without a valid ticket in the event that, two months later, the railway refunds the ticket in error.

 

[Belperpete]

The purpose of my posts 9 and 12 was to highlight the inability of the automated system, and sometimes also the human one, to comprehend a journey of shorter duration than the ticket.

The thread has descended into a discussion as to whether a passenger may be pursued either for fraud or for travelling without a valid ticket in the event that, two months later, the railway refunds the ticket in error.

That may have been your purpose, but if so why raise the issue about the refund in the first place? Your first post was all about the refund, and said nothing at all about automated systems. It is ridiculous to complain when people comment on something that you yourself have raised.

 

[greatkingrat]

I think we are arguing technicalities here. Agreed that she had a valid ticket, but if she had accepted the refund she would wrongly have accepted that it wasn't valid, and that she therefore hadn't used it for that journey.

And if she had accepted the refund made on the understanding that she hadn't used the ticket, and then Northern had subsequently found proof that she had used the ticket, this could have put her in an interesting position.

If I buy a £10 ticket, then make a claim for 50% delay repay, and the TOC chooses to send me £10 instead of £5, that does not mean I have "accepted the ticket wasn't valid". If the TOC comes back next week and says they made a mistake, then there may be an obligation to return the money paid in error, but none of that has any bearing on the validity of the original ticket.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

That may have been your purpose, but if so why raise the issue about the refund in the first place? Your first post was all about the refund, and said nothing at all about automated systems. It is ridiculous to complain when people comment on something that you yourself have raised.

If you take the trouble to read my first post, you`ll see that it was not all about the refund. It was about claiming delay repay on a journey from Long Preston when the ticket was from Giggleswick. It was directly relevant to the OP`s post no 1.

It can be difficult claiming delay repay when the journey is, quite legitimately, of shorter duration than the ticket. This is a problem which passengers, including the OP, can face on a regular basis.

By contrast, I doubt very much that a passenger has ever been prosecuted for using a ticket which was valid at the time but was retrospectively invalidated because the railway refunded it in error two months later.

And this is my last post.

 

[Class800]

Delay Repay is still due based on your total ticket price. You might be asked to give the details of your 'full' journey for the Plumstead ticket, but it is perfectly valid to break your journey and then claim from the place where you have recommenced your journey.,

Well they replied with an action message saying journey missing a leg. Link to update claim but there was nowhere to add text to explain. So resubmitted as is hoping different person will view it differently and also emailed customer service

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

So the 2nd person rejected it too. Laughable really. Still saying incomplete journey. Now appealed though only have 250 characters!

 

[Haywain]

Well they replied with an action message saying journey missing a leg. Link to update claim but there was nowhere to add text to explain. So resubmitted as is hoping different person will view it differently and also emailed customer service

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

So the 2nd person rejected it too. Laughable really. Still saying incomplete journey. Now appealed though only have 250 characters!

Contacting GTR on X can be very productive.

 

[Class800]

Contacting GTR on X can be very productive.

It's GWR. I've submitted appeal let it go through the process.

 

[W-on-Sea]

I have on numerous occasions claimed delay repay (from GWR) for a journey that is shorter than the validity of the ticket I typically hold when making that journey, and have never had any problems or difficulties with getting this accepted.

Oddly had my ticket covered just that shorter journey, it would have cost more than the longer journey for which it was valid. I'm not checked to see if the repayments I've received were based upon the more expensive journey I actually made or the cheaper longer one that the ticket covered.

 

[Haywain]

It's GWR.

Sorry, got mixed up with another thread.

 

[Belperpete]

If I buy a £10 ticket, then make a claim for 50% delay repay, and the TOC chooses to send me £10 instead of £5, that does not mean I have "accepted the ticket wasn't valid". If the TOC comes back next week and says they made a mistake, then there may be an obligation to return the money paid in error, but none of that has any bearing on the validity of the original ticket.

Nowhere in any of the TOC forms that I have ever submitted do you specify what percentage or sum of money you are claiming. You provide the details of the ticket and intended journey and delay suffered, and the TOC calculates how much they think you are owed. As far as I am aware, you are quite entitled to accept whatever the TOC offers in delay repay..

That is a very different scenario to the one being discussed, where the TOC came back and said that the claimant wasn't entitled to delay repay, but they were instead offering a refund. And they specifically stated that they were offering the refund as the ticket wasn't used. Accepting that refund would have been to accept the terms on which it was offered, which were patently untrue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

Oddly had my ticket covered just that shorter journey, it would have cost more than the longer journey for which it was valid. I'm not checked to see if the repayments I've received were based upon the more expensive journey I actually made or the cheaper longer one that the ticket covered.

Almost certainly based on the price of the ticket that you submitted with the claim.

 

[Class800]

@Watershed Gwr not handling this very well. Not had issues with them in past. Want full itinerary for my day even though its 2 unrelated journeys that just happen to be on same ticket the second one doesn't even start (Bridgwater) where 1st one ended (Parson St). I'm trying to tell them how straightforward this is. 2 evening cancelled trains out of Bridgwater equals 2 hour delay. Its by email now. But they seem to be focusing on the full day and have identified a cancelled Southeastern train on my 1st journey of day and highlighted it to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they bounce the claim to Southeastern! Even though that train had no material impact. And there was a 7 hour gap between the 2 journeys so they can't really be seen as one? I'll see what they say ...

 

[Watershed]

@Watershed Gwr not handling this very well. Not had issues with them in past. Want full itinerary for my day even though its 2 unrelated journeys that just happen to be on same ticket the second one doesn't even start (Bridgwater) where 1st one ended (Parson St). I'm trying to tell them how straightforward this is. 2 evening cancelled trains out of Bridgwater equals 2 hour delay. Its by email now. But they seem to be focusing on the full day and have identified a cancelled Southeastern train on my 1st journey of day and highlighted it to me. I wouldn't be surprised if they bounce the claim to Southeastern! Even though that train had no material impact. And there was a 7 hour gap between the 2 journeys so they can't really be seen as one? I'll see what they say ...

I would reiterate to them that you broke your journey intermediately and resumed it at Bridgwater, meaning anything before then is irrelevant. I wouldn't even tell them about what you did before then, it has no bearing on your claim.