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!
I have completed my journey from Taunton to Norwich via London, which was operated by GWR and Greater Anglia. Both journeys were both delayed by more than 15 minutes, but the GWR delay did not affect the London connection with the upcoming GA journey. Therefore, it is clearly a compensation from Greater Anglia.
However, there are delay repay rejections from both operators. I have applied the first delay repay from Greater Anglia and they rejected. They forwarded the delay repay to GWR, which is a clearly rejection with appropiate reason. I appealed with the reason above with GA and unfornately they still rejected my appeal that the compensation should be with GWR...
As this is approaching the delay repay 28-day deadline soon, are there any solutions to solve with GA and through other ways?
Can you tell us the planned and actual times for your journey? Are you certain the first delay doesn’t foul the minimum connection time between the two London stations?
On 22 August
The GWR service is the 1443 Taunton to London Paddington originally arriving at 1629, arriving 19 minutes late at 1648
The GA service is the 1730 London Liverpool Street to Norwich originally arriving at 1921, arriving 22 minutes late at 1943
It was a slightly tight London connection on timetable but I arrived at Liverpool Street with Elizabeth Line at 1710. This is the reason GA throwing the ball to GWR. On the other hand, I did have more than 15 minutes connection at LST. It is the confusion between two operators...
Your details may be wrong here, which may be messing up your GA claim.
It's the 1700 Liverpool Street-Norwich (which you would have missed) that arrives at 18:39 and as you say was 19 minutes late.
The 1730 Liverpool Street-Norwich arrives at 19:21 and was 22 minutes late.
Your details may be wrong here, which may be messing up your GA claim.
It's the 1700 Liverpool Street-Norwich (which you would have missed) that arrives at 18:39 and as you say was 19 minutes late.
The 1730 Liverpool Street-Norwich arrives at 19:21 and was 22 minutes late.
Thank you and this is the correct detail. This is the typo here (editted now) but that is the journey I selected automaticly, nothing did with the incorrect details.
The minimum connection time from London Paddington to London Liverpool Street is 60 minutes (15+30+15). The GWR delay meant that you couldn’t meet MCT and catch the 1730. This is why GA are rejecting it- in their view, the GWR delay meant you couldn’t have caught the 1730.
The fact that MCTs in London are usually way too long meant you did in fact catch the 1730.
You should obviously claim based on your actual delay, but the automatic systems are not going to understand that. I’m not sure the humans are either tbh.
Personally I’d put a claim with GWR on the basis that GA told you to, and let them deal with it.
I'd be tempted to send an email to both GWR and GA customer services, making it clear in the text that you're sending it to both of them, pointing out that between them they caused a 22 minute delay, noting that they both have delay repay schemes which begin at a 15 minute delay, and that therefore one of them is liable, and can they please sort it out between them and let you know who will be paying out
In a very similar situation I once phoned GA customer service, explained what had happened, and they resolved it over the phone.
Did you actually receive a rejection from GWR? On one occassion I received a cheque for delay repay in the post from them after a different operator forwarded a delay repay claim to them, so that could well be somewhere on the way.
This does make clear once again that one place handling delay repay for all operators might be a good idea, to avoid people getting in between two operators both insisting that the other is to blame.
The minimum connection time from London Paddington to London Liverpool Street is 60 minutes (15+30+15). The GWR delay meant that you couldn’t meet MCT and catch the 1730. This is why GA are rejecting it- in their view, the GWR delay meant you couldn’t have caught the 1730.
However, with the Elizabeth line you can take the 1703 from Paddington to Liverpool Street, arriving at 1713 (actual arrival on time, 1713) which meets the MCT with departures from 1728 being valid.
Not sure if there's a hole in my logic here or not!
However, with the Elizabeth line you can take the 1703 from Paddington to Liverpool Street, arriving at 1713 (actual arrival on time, 1713) which meets the MCT with departures from 1728 being valid.
Not sure if there's a hole in my logic here or not!
The MCTs at Paddington and Liverpool Street are unchanged at 15 mins. That's probably justifiable at Liverpool Street where it's a fair old walk to/from the Liz line platforms, but it's excessive at Paddington where the distance is very short and the Liz line station is much closer to street level. 8 or 10 mins would be more reasonable there.
However there's nothing forcing you to use the Tube 'fixed link' between the two when constructing a journey - it's perfectly valid to use the scheduled Liz line timings.
The MCTs at Paddington and Liverpool Street are unchanged at 15 mins. That's probably justifiable at Liverpool Street where it's a fair old walk to/from the Liz line platforms, but it's excessive at Paddington where the distance is very short and the Liz line station is much closer to street level. 8 or 10 mins would be more reasonable there.
One problem at Paddington that isn't likely to be resolved soon, and does necessitate a longer time, is the need to use the inadequate lifts if carrying trolley luggage, which many people will be. Someone who is not carrying such luggage will do it a lot quicker of course.
Right, thank you everyone for commenting above. Everything is sorted with calling multiple customer services this morning. This is a good note for everybody if facing this kind of multiple operator delays.
So I called GA customer service and manager first and they clearly rejected and told me to contact GWR customer relations as GWR is the initial delayed service and nothing deals with them.
I called GWR customer service and they also rejected me with the reason that I did have (just enough) connection time to the GA service according to the paper (which is 1703 Paddington to 1713 Liverpool Street Elizabeth service stated above).
Then I called back to GA customer service again and of course they rejected again. I spoke to their manager and explained my situation twice and finally he decided to confirm delay repay of 25% compensation.
Right, thank you everyone for commenting above. Everything is sorted with calling multiple customer services this morning. This is a good note for everybody if facing this kind of multiple operator delays.
So I called GA customer service and manager first and they clearly rejected and told me to contact GWR customer relations as GWR is the initial delayed service and nothing deals with them.
I called GWR customer service and they also rejected me with the reason that I did have (just enough) connection time to the GA service according to the paper (which is 1703 Paddington to 1713 Liverpool Street Elizabeth service stated above).
Then I called back to GA customer service again and of course they rejected again. I spoke to their manager and explained my situation twice and finally he decided to confirm delay repay of 25% compensation.
Glad its sorted, and a shame it took such an effort. Yet another example of why, as we keep saying on here, we need a central delay repay clearing house who can deal with customers quickly and efficiently and then do all the inter-TOC bickering in private afterwards
In retrospect in such cases, provided that the OP had a ticket that permitted break of journey, he would probably have been better off applying for delay repay based on just one leg of his journey.
In retrospect in such cases, provided that the OP had a ticket that permitted break of journey, he would probably have been better off applying for delay repay based on just one leg of his journey.
A) it wouldn't be fraudulent as you don't specify that you have made a break of journey in the claim.
B) How do you know he didn't break journey? Particularly bearing in mind that exactly what constitutes a break of journey doesn't seem to be particularly well defined.
A) it wouldn't be fraudulent as you don't specify that you have made a break of journey in the claim.
B) How do you know he didn't break journey? Particularly bearing in mind that exactly what constitutes a break of journey doesn't seem to be particularly well defined.
Absolutely. The question is, which interpretation of what actually happened should a claimant use? The OP made a through journey from Taunton to Norwich. However, it might equally be true that the OP made a journey from Taunton to Paddington, and a journey from Liverpool Street to Norwich. I would apply the interpretation that best suits my interests in any particular case. I am aware that there are some on here who think this is having my cake and eating it, that it is unfair, but do they think the way the OP was treated was fair? He was made to waste a considerable amount of time chasing his entitlement to what will likely be a fairly paltry sum of compensation.
If I had been the OP, I would have considered submitting claims to GWR for the delay to his Taunton to Paddington journey, and to GA for the delay to his Liverpool Street to Norwich journey. Provided that the information provided on the claims is accurate, and provided that his ticket permitted break of journey, then I can see nothing fraudulent with this approach.
If I had been the OP, I would have considered submitting claims to GWR for the delay to his Taunton to Paddington journey, and to GA for the delay to his Liverpool Street to Norwich journey. Provided that the information provided on the claims is accurate, and provided that his ticket permitted break of journey, then I can see nothing fraudulent with this approach.
In this case both trains were delayed by more than 15 minutes. So if you make separate claims you will get 25% of x from GWR and 25% of y from GA, which is 25% of x+y in total.
If you make a combined claim then you would get 25% of x+y in total from either GWR or GA.
The only time it would be fraudulent would be if the individual wasn't delayed at their ultimate destination. And if that had been the case we wouldn't have been having this conversation.
In this case both trains were delayed by more than 15 minutes. So if you make separate claims you will get 25% of x from GWR and 25% of y from GA, which is 25% of x+y in total.
No, Delay Repay is calculated against the entire ticket price. Not an arbitrary division of the same. This is about one ticket using break of journey, not splits.
If the ticket costs £100 you get £25 from GWR and £25 from GA in the scenario where you lie about breaking your journey, but £25 from only one TOC if you claim honestly.
How is it fraudulent if the information submitted on the claims is accurate? You don't specify on the claim forms that you broke journey.
And who are you to determine if the OP did or did not break their journey? As far as I am concerned, any activity that isn't directly relevant to the journey can constitute a break of journey. Be that stopping to have a bite to eat, going shopping, picking up a free newspaper, checking my phone....
How is it fraudulent if the information submitted on the claims is accurate? You don't specify on the claim forms that you broke journey.
And who are you to determine if the OP did or did not break their journey? As far as I am concerned, any activity that isn't directly relevant to the journey can constitute a break of journey. Be that stopping to have a bite to eat, going shopping, picking up a free newspaper, checking my phone....
So it is clear to me that the journey was from Taunton to Norwich. Any advice we give about claiming delay repay should therefore reflect the fact that the journey was from Taunton to Norwich.
If we suggest 'inventing' break of journey to aid a delay repay claim then there is a risk we could mislead niot just the OP of this thread, but others who read this thread of advice in future.
Right, thank you everyone for commenting above. Everything is sorted with calling multiple customer services this morning. This is a good note for everybody if facing this kind of multiple operator delays.
So I called GA customer service and manager first and they clearly rejected and told me to contact GWR customer relations as GWR is the initial delayed service and nothing deals with them.
I called GWR customer service and they also rejected me with the reason that I did have (just enough) connection time to the GA service according to the paper (which is 1703 Paddington to 1713 Liverpool Street Elizabeth service stated above).
Then I called back to GA customer service again and of course they rejected again. I spoke to their manager and explained my situation twice and finally he decided to confirm delay repay of 25% compensation.
GA are liable because you did make the connection and therefore the first company that actually caused you to be materially delayed at your designation was GA.
Unfortunately train companies such as Northern, GA and various others typically reject such claims initially. They probably hope most people give up at that point.
The way the system is set up encourages such behaviour from train companies.
There is no effective ombudsman, passenger watchdog or regulator who has the required knowledge, desire, power or intelligence to even understand the the problem, let alone do anything about it.
I think you need to look up what fraud is and the range of dishonest behaviours it can encompass, because there are plenty of situations where "I filled in the form accurately" could be fraudulent. There are lots of things which are not on delay repay claim forms that would affect one's entitlement to claim - in many cases, the form doesn't even ask if you made the journey at all! But if you filled it out with accurate information and appropriately delayed train times and submitted a valid ticket, the form would be filled in correctly. In your case it is absolutely fraudulent because you even state that the motivation for doing so is to increase your take by making two claims.
And who are you to determine if the OP did or did not break their journey? As far as I am concerned, any activity that isn't directly relevant to the journey can constitute a break of journey. Be that stopping to have a bite to eat, going shopping, picking up a free newspaper, checking my phone....
Ridiculous and unserious. They didn't do any of this, they rushed to make a very tight connection. "I checked my phone between trains" - please. A court would likely interpret break of journey to be leaving the station premises for a substantial purpose other than completing the journey and would involve spending some time - and likely not taking the first train out of there on a tight connection.
Here is the railway's definition of break of journey from NRE, which includes a key detail that you "stop off":
Breaking your journey means you do not have to make the whole of your journey at the same time or, where allowed, on the same day.
For instance, if you have a permitted route of
Station A > Station B > Station C
and you have an Anytime Single ticket from Station A to Station C, you could travel from Station A to Station B, stop off, and complete your journey from Station B to Station C later in the day.
Your suggestion induces people to double their take on any connecting itinerary regardless of the delay to their whole journey. This runs the risk of the duplicate claims against the same ticket number being flagged and is very risky.
A court would likely interpret break of journey to be leaving the station premises for a substantial purpose other than completing the journey and would involve spending some time - and likely not taking the first train out of there on a tight connection.
That is more of less exactly what I said. A break of journey involves spending time on something other than completing the journey. But what does and does not count as a "substantial purpose"? If I stop to watch a video on my phone, is that a break of journey or not? And what exactly is the dividing line as to what is and isn't "some time"?
As to a tight connection, if you take time out to do something else and so endanger a tight connection, that surely demonstrates that you were more concerned about that something else than the connection, even if you then go on to make the connection.
All that means is that for break of journey you have to get off the train. I think it is fairly obvious that you can't claim to have broken journey if you never even got off the train. How exactly is this "key detail" relevant to anything I said?
When you submit a delay repay claim, you are not claiming a sum of money, all that you are doing is claiming that you were delayed. It is the TOC that determines what if any compensation you are due. Provided that the information that you submit is accurate, I cannot see that you would be doing anything wrong.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
However, in his very next sentence, the OP then goes on to talk about "both journeys" and "the GA journey" and the "GWR delay". So the OP clearly thinks his journey from Taunton to Norwich consisted of separate journeys on GWR and GA. To regard a complete through journey as being made up of one of more individual journeys is commonly accepted parlance. As I said in my post #20, it is clear to me that both interpretations of the term journey are valid. I am not aware of anything that rules out the separate train journey interpretation.
i don't dispute the fact that the OP made a journey from Taunton to Norwich. However, it is equally fact that the OP made individual train journeys from Taunton to London and from London to Norwich.
If we suggest 'inventing' break of journey to aid a delay repay claim then there is a risk we could mislead niot just the OP of this thread, but others who read this thread of advice in future.
An alternative view is it is misleading to claim that there is only one interpretation of the facts. Particularly when that interpretation works against the claimants best interests. Surely this website should be advising how to get the best outcome, not the worst?
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.
