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!
Hi all
I have a journey tomorrow to Millom from Euston booked via trainsplit, it's basically broken down into 4. My question is the 1313 connection at Barrow is pre cancelled and starting from Workington. My connection was the 1202 at Lancaster to Barrow to meet with this. My ticket states im on the 1202 from Lancaster to Barrow, am I allowed to instead get the 1319 from Lancaster I would now have to wait at Barrow for this anyway. Would this be permitted?
Moral of the story is I'd rather wait at Lancaster and have a pint for over an hour than at dreary Barrow!!!!
My apologies!
Lancaster to Barrow is advance single and Barrow to Millom is also advance single. I'd have to wait for the 1319 Lancaster to Sellafield at Barrow anyway due to the pre cancellation so it's all.about the Lancaster to Barrow bit
Might it be argued that if the 1202 Northern train service from Lancaster to Barrow-in-Furness is still running, and the OP has an Advance Single ticket specifically for that service, then they would be expected to use that booked service?
Arrives Barrow-in-Furness 1302. Onward connection normally the 1313 to Millom (arrive 1340). As that's cancelled, next train from Barrow-in-Furness is the 1424 from Barrow-in-Furness to Millom (arrives 1451). That's a one hour delay, so should be a 100% pay out on the total of the four single tickets bought. So, a "freebie" journey, but does mean having to kill time in Barrow-in-Furness.
Thanks, whichever option it is im getting to the destination at the same time with delay repay regardless so not really gaining anything but I get the the principle of what's on the ticket.
To bump this
I made this jouney on the 7th and it indeed turned out ok albeit over 60 late as predicted. Northern keep.rejecting my delay repay and at one point insisted it was Avantis fault which it wasn't. I appealed and still rejected. I think the split tickets are the problem despite me uploading them correctly. I have been given a northern complaints email on the rejection email, Any advice on particular wording I should include on this would be very welcome!.
They just keep saying its not their fault but Avanti when it blatantly is a northern service truncated to start from Workington when it would normally have been Barrow (1313) surely the records show what journey i had to take!! Even said this in the wording on the appeal. The bot just doesn't like the claim !
You could explain one more time that you're claiming in respect of a Northern service, and then set out which one precisely. I would ask for complaint reference number to be provided from enquiries@northernrailway.co.uk if you haven't already.
If you don't then get a response that addresses the substance of your complaint you can complain to the Rail Ombudsman. The place to do this step is here https://portal.railombudsman.org/signin but note that you need to have waited for eight weeks from the original claim if they don't provide a "deadlock letter".
You can also warm Trainsplit up to this issue if you would like to, email customer.support@trainsplit.com with the reference number from your original booking confirmation. You could attach a copy of the complaint you have sent to Northern. I would expect they would be supportive of your rights under the PRO, some guidelines to this provision in British law are available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...f-delays-missed-connections-and-cancellations
Your Avanti service was 2 or 3 (depending on systems rounding up or down) minutes late arriving at Lancaster and failed to meet the minimum connection time of 6 minutes for the 12:02 departure. Therefore Northern clearly see Avanti as being on the hook for this one.
Your Avanti service was 2 or 3 (depending on systems rounding up or down) minutes late arriving at Lancaster and failed to meet the minimum connection time of 6 minutes for the 12:02 departure. Therefore Northern clearly see Avanti as being on the hook for this one.
They didn't, because it was cancelled. But we do always tell people that it's the first train that delays you that defines DR liability, and that would point to Avanti. I had a similar situation a couple of weeks ago where my first train was cancelled but I caught a late running earlier one, and the second train was also cancelled causing the delay - it was the operator of the first train that paid out.
They didn't, because it was cancelled. But we do always tell people that it's the first train that delays you that defines DR liability, and that would point to Avanti. I had a similar situation a couple of weeks ago where my first train was cancelled but I caught a late running earlier one, and the second train was also cancelled causing the delay - it was the operator of the first train that paid out.
The Avanti train met the connection as its on the same platform as i saw it go, what i ended up doing was waiting for the 1319 from Lancaster to go through to Millom (after being advised at the office at Lancaster that this was fine) as even if I had taken the 1202 to Barrow i would have had to have waited for what was the 1319 from Lancaster anyway at Barrow so the outcome is the same, the 1313 connection at Barrow now starts from Workington at Northerns choice not mine so in cant see how Avanti as much as I dislike them are in any way culpable.
The 1202 to Barrow from.Manchester Airport was definetley not cancelled.
This is incredibly risky advice. It's your view that the eyes of the railway made this connection miss, but it probably wouldn't be Avanti's if the connection was actually made, which is why I asked.
If the customer claimed from Avanti they would have no possible claim for a three minute delay by arrival at Lancaster and a zero minute one further down the road as a result of that delay. If the connection is in fact missed, then that changes matters. If the connection is in fact made then claiming from the first operator, in this case Avanti, is likely to be viewed as fraud. Northern doesn't appear to be arguing that Avanti are on the hook regardless of the subsequent delay to the journey on Northern legs; here's nothing to suggest that position, and it'd be completely and utterly illogical. Instead it's simply a misunderstanding based on an over-reliance of electronic systems to calculate delays. If the actual circumstances were explained to Northern it may change the outcome.
Yes, the first operator who causes a delay is indeed liable. However, this isn't defined clearly in the case of connections. A logical analysis suggests that the only a operator who are the root cause of the final delay can be liable, otherwise it's arbitrary and up to random chance.
If the OP hasn't made the train because they chose to delay themselves they'll have to argue that this is permitted under the policy as a result of the cancelled trains policy, which allows two trains before or after by the same operator, including for connections. They do need to make this argument with Northern though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
the 1313 connection at Barrow now starts from Workington at Northerns choice not mine so in cant see how Avanti as much as I dislike them are in any way culpable.
This is incredibly risky advice. It's your view that the eyes of the railway made this connection miss, but it probably wouldn't be Avanti's if the connection was actually made, which is why I asked.
If Avanti don't accept their liability they should be forwarding the claim to Northern for them to action it. In the same way, I would have expected that Northern forward the claim to Avanti but I am aware that this doesn't always happen (EMR don't forward claims when they reject them, which means the hassle of making claims for two people is doubled!). In this case Northern have rejected the claim and are likely to stick with that so there is no harm that I see in claiming from Avanti.
I see no case for any suggestion of fraud as the OP will be following the information provided by Northern, and claiming for a journey that was indeed delayed.
If Avanti don't accept their liability they should be forwarding the claim to Northern for them to action it. In the same way, I would have expected that Northern forward the claim to Avanti but I am aware that this doesn't always happen (EMR don't forward claims when they reject them, which means the hassle of making claims for two people is doubled!). In this case Northern have rejected the claim and are likely to stick with that so there is no harm that I see in claiming from Avanti.
I see no case for any suggestion of fraud as the OP will be following the information provided by Northern, and claiming for a journey that was indeed delayed.
Your Avanti service was 2 or 3 (depending on systems rounding up or down) minutes late arriving at Lancaster and failed to meet the minimum connection time of 6 minutes for the 12:02 departure. Therefore Northern clearly see Avanti as being on the hook for this one.
In my experience this is how it's always done - if a minimum connection is breached DR is paid based on the connection having missed even if it wasn't. This has also resulted in me being paid higher claims than I put in for.
Thus the OP should claim from Avanti and the claim will be paid.
I'm surprised Northern haven't passed it to them to be honest. They did when I made a similar claim and it was paid by Avanti with no faff at all.
Is the "first material delay" rule documented anywhere?
I've never quite understood why delays that technically foul a connection by breaching the MCT are regarded as material if the connection is in fact made or, as in this case, where the connection that has been fouled is plainly immaterial because the passenger making or not making said connection makes no difference to their arrival time at their destination.
I'm sure it's been said before, but the OP really shouldn't be troubled by any dispute between Northern and Avanti over liability. It's very annoying to be passed about between different bits of the railway.
My advice for what it's worth would be to tell Northern that you are not going to contact Avanti. If they think Avanti are liable they are free to forward the claim on to them, but I would say I'm not going to forward it on because the cancellation - by Northern - of my intended train from Barrow meant that whether or not I could make the connection onto the 12:02 at Lancaster was neither here nor there in terms of my final arrival time at Millom, therefore in my opinion the small delay to my arrival time at Lancaster cannot be material. I would say that if Northern do not pay and do not forward the claim to Avanti, I will complain to the Rail Ombudsman, so when they next respond could they please either:
Pay up; or
confirm they have forwarded the claim to Avanti; or
Thank you very much to all for the advice, some really good enlightening points made. I'll email northern that way a real person might read it and it not a case of ' computer says no'
It's quite possible they have forwarded it to Avanti but if they have I haven't had any acknowledgement from Avanti as yet , making me wonder if they have batted it back quickly.
It's the fact this is £72 that im not letting it go!
In my experience this is how it's always done - if a minimum connection is breached DR is paid based on the connection having missed even if it wasn't. This has also resulted in me being paid higher claims than I put in for.
Thus the OP should claim from Avanti and the claim will be paid.
I'm surprised Northern haven't passed it to them to be honest. They did when I made a similar claim and it was paid by Avanti with no faff at all.
When claims were all handled manually this was the opposite of the usual practice, it only really happens these days because of a widespread over-reliance on computer-based systems to assess them. There are obviously people who think it's over-generous too, because GWR recently started rejecting valid claims for journeys because the computer assessed that even a one minute interchange was sufficient to make the connection.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I've never quite understood why delays that technically foul a connection by breaching the MCT are regarded as material if the connection is in fact made
I don't think anyone actually holds that position though. It would defy logic.
For example if the journey in this case were to Carnforth and the OP had joined the connection, nobody would be of the opinion that they would have a valid claim, as they arrived on time. Logically there's not a difference between that and claiming from Avanti for this delay.
For the OP as they quite rightly point out they were delayed. They did suffer the inconvenience which it's stated that the compensation of this kind is intended to cover for, and they clearly do meet the usual rules. The above situation may risk a claim being viewed as fraud. That does not apply to the OP, as it's actually just confusion about precisely where the claim should go.
You're right there is still a lot of arbitrary decision making. For example if your first train is cancelled, but you're able to join a different one by another operator just 5 minutes later. That train meets your next connection at the interchange comfortably, say, because it's actually slightly faster than your cancelled booked train. But then a delay causes the connection to be missed. In that case it's really really unclear if the root cause of the delay is the operator whose train was cancelled or the one which ran a few minutes late. I'd say the first one in time order of departure makes sense in that case. I could see another argument though.
Just a slight update on this. Northern in the end passed this to Avanti a week ago who predicitably came back today and said no chance its not our train, so they have now forwarded it back to Northern. In the midst off all this I wrote a separate email.to Northern outline what happened which I've yet to hear back about! I'm not letting it go!
Just a slight update on this. Northern in the end passed this to Avanti a week ago who predicitably came back today and said no chance its not our train, so they have now forwarded it back to Northern. In the midst off all this I wrote a separate email.to Northern outline what happened which I've yet to hear back about! I'm not letting it go!
No surprise that Avanti aren't paying out on a two minute delay that didn't cause a connection to be missed. I am not sure there was ever a chance they would.
No surprise that Avanti aren't paying out on a two minute delay that didn't cause a connection to be missed. I am not sure there was ever a chance they would.
I have had a claim referred from TPE/Northern (forget which) to them in almost the exact same circumstances and they paid it. As noted above it seems to be based on whether the minimum connection time is fouled and not whether the connection was missed.
I have had a claim referred from TPE/Northern (forget which) to them in almost the exact same circumstances and they paid it. As noted above it seems to be based on whether the minimum connection time is fouled and not whether the connection was missed.
That may happen sometimes, but there are loads of cases where claims may be done incorrectly in the customer's favour by the automated system. If a human is looking at it, though, they are very, very unlikely to approve it regardless. So I don't think you can be surprised they didn't. Perhaps you're right in certain circumstances like Northern, referred claims don't get human review. But in this case I would be very surprised if it was allowed to be paid out without human review.
Just had this ....Let's see how many rounds in the ring these two can go on for , though I know some members made this point on the connection time. Eventually one will have to give in I'm a patient guy.
At this point I would write to both of them (same letter) telling them to sort out who pays your valid claim between themselves or send you a deadlock letter so that you can take it to the ombudsman.
To bump this
I made this jouney on the 7th and it indeed turned out ok albeit over 60 late as predicted. Northern keep.rejecting my delay repay and at one point insisted it was Avantis fault which it wasn't. I appealed and still rejected. I think the split tickets are the problem despite me uploading them correctly. I have been given a northern complaints email on the rejection email, Any advice on particular wording I should include on this would be very welcome!.
It's nothing to do with split tickets; train companies such as Avanti and Northern are very keen to avoid paying Delay Repay and will claim another operator is responsible wherever they think they can get away with it. This applies regardless of whether it's on a through fare or a combination of fares.
There are plenty of examples of the exact same issue occurring on through fares.
It sounds like Northern are liable, however it is difficult for us to help, when it's written in this style, rather than listed in a format that an itinerary would typically appear.
When people are seeking advice regarding itineraries, delay claims, etc, it is a good idea to list the planned itinerary in list format. After the journey, the actual journey times can be listed in the same format, with notes regarding which trains were delayed/cancelled.
Hey, I travelled yesterday on a journey involving a somewhat strange collection of tickets, and I’m wondering what my delay repay entitlements are.
Journey from Deal to Cambridge
Intended itinerary:
19:26 Deal to St. Pancras arriving 20:54
21:39 King’s Cross to Cambridge arriving 22:31
Actual itinerary:
19:26 service was delayed, arriving at St. Pancras at 21:34
22:09 King’s Cross to Cambridge, actual arrival 23:07
Tickets used to complete journey:
Super off peak day travelcard, Cambridge to London Zones 1-6 (return portion)
Super off peak day return, London Terminals to Dover Priory any permitted (return portion)
Off peak day return, Deal to Dover Priory (outbound portion)
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
