SWR Delay Repay Appeal.

[Haywain]

If you have genuinely done nothing wrong then you should have confidence in the legal system.

If only that was how the real world operates.

 

[sheff1]

It's very clear the proximal failure here was due to TfL,

It isn't clear to me.

I can't see anywhere which train the OP would have been connecting into at Richmond had the service they were heading for at Gunnersbury actually run. If it was the 2259 he caught after making his own way to Richmond then TfL have not caused any delay. If it would have been an earlier departure then, yes, missing that would be due to TfL failure to provide the service.

 

[Belperpete]

I am disappointed to find certain members using this forum to dissuade people from claiming compensation that they are clearly entitled to. I get the impression that certain members really don't like people claiming delay repay.

As to claims that someone who got on a train at Richmond and got off at Earley isn't entitled to claim compensation because they didn't make a journey from Richmond to Earley, well words fail me. Ludicrous doesn't even come close to it.

It is clear to me that the OP made an honest mistake in his original claim, perhaps influenced by some misleading wording on the claim site if SWR's says similar to GWR, and is perfectly entitled to correct it.

With a flexible ticket, you are perfectly entitled to change your planned itinerary, not just before you start, but even during the journey. And the wording on GWR's claim form appears to be particularly misleading in cases where you start or finish your journey early.

To my mind, this case boils down to one simple question: did the OP use his ticket to travel to Richmond? If yes (such as if he used his ticket to travel by bus), then his journey started from Acton/Gunnersbury. If no, then he started his journey short at Richmond.

 

[blimmo]

I'm not sure you can view it that simply. Suppose I am waiting at canley for an LNWR train. Due to disruption they are all running fast between Birmingham and Coventry so I walk to Coventry and get on there. In doing so I end up on a train an hour later than the train I was originally going to catch. I think I should be entitled to delay repay even if the eventual train from Coventry runs to time but I didn't use my ticket between canley and Coventry.

did the OP use his ticket to travel to Richmond?

 

[davp]

I'm not sure we have enough info from the OP.

Was the return journey on the same day - 7th Sep? What ticket was held?

We don't know if the OP used their return ticket from Acton Central or made their own way to Richmond.

If they made their own way to Richmond then they surely started short if they held a point to point ticket.

If they used the RRB to Gunnersbury and then made their own way to Richmond it seems less clear. Is undertaking a leg of a journey independently treated as breaking your journey?

For any compensation, including if they were delayed over 60 mins, do they have to have been following a valid itinerary per the timetable of the day? Was this possible from Acton Central to Earley via Gunnersbury after 6pm with the District Line closed?

 

[Belperpete]

Oh I was making that up was I? Were you not here for the Greater Anglia delay repay fraud episode? 45 pages of dozens of people often caught doing less than what is suggested here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/advice-only-for-greater-anglia-delay-repay-fraud.213418/

Having read that thread, yes I do think you are making it up. Yes it is a thread about people having their delay repay claims questioned. However, it seems to concern people making multiple delay repay claims, mainly those using season tickets and appearing to use software that identifies trains that have been delayed so that they could claim for them. Unless I am missing something, it does not appear to have any relevance whatsoever to someone making a perfectly legitimate correction to a single isolated claim.

 

[AlterEgo]

Having read that thread, yes I do think you are making it up. Yes it is a thread about people having their delay repay claims questioned. However, it seems to concern people making multiple delay repay claims, mainly those using season tickets and appearing to use software that identifies trains that have been delayed so that they could claim for them. Unless I am missing something, it does not appear to have any relevance whatsoever to someone making a perfectly legitimate correction to a single isolated claim.

Just one instance of a few in that thread of someone getting sent threatening letters because they discovered they used the wrong process in error. Not going to fish out every single one. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...delay-repay-fraud.213418/page-25#post-5024647

Most people were on the fiddle there, but a few appeared in retrospect not to have done anything fraudulent, merely filled out forms which they think should have netted them something "something went wrong, maybe try get some money".

It is not a legitimate correction, by the way, although I note we disagree on this fact. It is fudging the system to deliver an outcome not warranted by the OP's own narrative of what happened and I strongly advise against the OP doing this for a few quid precisely because we have seen exactly how some TOCs are very aggressive if they find even a single irregularity. "Just say you broke your journey then" is at best disingenous and not advice that would be given by anyone who had recourse to any money from TfL for their own service failing, which was the first delay on the OP's journey, and to whom responsibility for the whole journey falls under their (crap) scheme. That is too bad. If TfL could be on the hook for a taxi down the line to meet the SWR train as well, might we suggest they didn't break their journey for the purposes of extracting money there?

 

[redreni]

Just one instance of a few in that thread of someone getting sent threatening letters because they discovered they used the wrong process in error. Not going to fish out every single one. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...delay-repay-fraud.213418/page-25#post-5024647

Most people were on the fiddle there, but a few appeared in retrospect not to have done anything fraudulent, merely filled out forms which they think should have netted them something "something went wrong, maybe try get some money".

It is not a legitimate correction, by the way, although I note we disagree on this fact. It is fudging the system to deliver an outcome not warranted by the OP's own narrative of what happened and I strongly advise against the OP doing this for a few quid precisely because we have seen exactly how some TOCs are very aggressive if they find even a single irregularity. "Just say you broke your journey then" is at best disingenous and not advice that would be given by anyone who had recourse to any money from TfL for their own service failing, which was the first delay on the OP's journey, and to whom responsibility for the whole journey falls under their (crap) scheme. That is too bad. If TfL could be on the hook for a taxi down the line to meet the SWR train as well, might we suggest they didn't break their journey for the purposes of extracting money there?

Well, no, what you've linked is a forum member posting that they had settled with a TOC for claiming delay repay when they hadn't been delayed but had instead incurred a taxi fare to avoid a delay. That's not what the OP has done, nor has anyone suggested they should.

I'm only on page 9 of 45; it may take me several days or longer for me to digest the entire thread. Some interesting issues do crop up. I've yet to see anything relevant to this thread, though.

 

[davp]

Repeating that we don't have all the info here.

For example, from the Scotrail website: "You may start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station along the route of travel." Does the break and resume have to be the same station or can it be a subsequent one? Does it have to be for a minimum time and specific reason? "If" the OP made their own way from Gunnersbury to Richmond not using their ticket, then what is this called if it isn't a break of journey?

I can see how we are wandering into potential fraudulent positions here, with someone deliberately breaking a journey to take advantage of a delayed train for example, but that isn't what the OP is describing here.

I also wonder if there was a valid itinerary according to the timetable of the day, and what impact that would have on any claim.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, no, what you've linked is a forum member posting that they had settled with a TOC for claiming delay repay when they hadn't been delayed but had instead incurred a taxi fare to avoid a delay. That's not what the OP has done, nor has anyone suggested they should.

I'm only on page 5 of 45; it may take me several days or longer for me to digest the entire thread. Some interesting issues do crop up. I've yet to see anything relevant to this thread, though.

I didn't ever claim that anyone there had altered their journey details.

For the avoidance of doubt, having a delay repay claim rejected and then resubmitting it with different details in order to procure compensation isn't an issue if you made a mistake. But if you're doing so because the reason you can't get any delay repay is because your own narrative is:

- TfL were on strike and closed the station, and there were no trains
- you turned up there and that's where the first issue was (important - this is what actually happened!)
- your issue is therefore with TfL who did not provide the service - under industry arrangements the first TOC who cause the problem are the ones who foot the bill
- TfL's service delay refund is rubbish and won't pay out anyway
- fine ok that sucks, let's just say we broke the journey then, not the original story or what happened nor the customer's intention, but let's go with it, might get some money, it is the magic word I have to say to shake the money beanstalk (Beanstalk is known to dislike being shaken and every time you do it a fairy dies)

which is more than "I claimed delay repay for an actually cancelled train but turns out the company says the retailer should handle this under the abandoned journey protocol". (Note how making your own way here isn't breaking your journey according to the TOC! Another inconsistency)

None of this discussion matters in the round but to be honest this is the leading rail forum in the country, SWR will read it, industry people crawl it, and I think we have a duty to be scrupulously honest when giving advice *in public*.

 

[blimmo]

My problem with viewing this as fraudulent is that the starting short description seems just as valid to me. If OP had already known about the TfL strike and gone straight to their SWR train I think there's no reasonable argument for denying delay repay. I'm not sure there's really a difference between finding out about the strike before or after going to the station. Changing your description of what happened to a different but equally accurate description is definitely not fraud. Of course a different description of the same events should result in the same payout but unfortunately the delay repay system is not robust enough for that.

 

[redreni]

I didn't ever claim that anyone there had altered their journey details.

For the avoidance of doubt, having a delay repay claim rejected and then resubmitting it with different details in order to procure compensation isn't an issue if you made a mistake. But if you're doing so because the reason you can't get any delay repay is because your own narrative is:

- TfL were on strike and closed the station, and there were no trains
- you turned up there and that's where the first issue was (important - this is what actually happened!)
- your issue is therefore with TfL who did not provide the service - under industry arrangements the first TOC who cause the problem are the ones who foot the bill
- TfL's service delay refund is rubbish and won't pay out anyway
- fine ok that sucks, let's just say we broke the journey then, not the original story or what happened nor the customer's intention, but let's go with it, might get some money, it is the magic word I have to say to shake the money beanstalk (Beanstalk is known to dislike being shaken and every time you do it a fairy dies)

which is more than "I claimed delay repay for an actually cancelled train but turns out the company says the retailer should handle this under the abandoned journey protocol". (Note how making your own way here isn't breaking your journey according to the TOC! Another inconsistency)

None of this discussion matters in the round but to be honest this is the leading rail forum in the country, SWR will read it, industry people crawl it, and I think we have a duty to be scrupulously honest when giving advice *in public*.

So do I, and I'm sure you'll want to withdraw any suggestion - entirely accidental, I'm sure - that members of this forum may not have lived up to that standard on this thread.

There is nothing in the delay repay rules that says you can't change your travel intentions when you discover a particular line or station that you expected would be open is closed. In which case your delay repay rights, if any arise, would be measured against those revised intentions.

For instance, I generally commute home from central London via the Elizabeth Line to Abbey Wood and then Southeastern or Thameslink from there, but if the Elizabeth Line is suspended due to serious disruption, I will go entirely via Thameslink instead. If I encounter a delay of 15-29 minutes when travelling on Thameslink, compared with the timetabled Thameslink train I intended to catch once I realised the Elizabeth Line was suspended, then I will claim for it. I do not say "well, TfL caused the original problem" and claim from them, nor do I have to. The ticket I use (normally a weekly 1-6 Travelcard) allows me to choose from a number of different routes and I reserve the right to do so at my absolute discretion, for any reason or no reason. And even when TfL has inconvenienced and delayed me, I am not obliged to claim against them for said delay or inconvenience. I can form a new intention to travel with another company and then, if an unexpected delay above the claimable threshold occurs with respect to that journey once I have decided to make it, I may have a valid claim.

Applying that to the OP's circumstances, I don't personally think it matters if the OP suffered a delay or not due to the fact Gunnersbury station was closed and trains weren't running on that line. He made his way to Richmond. He was delayed after that. He has a claim against SWR.

I'm sorry if you don't agree. You're perfectly entitled not to. I hope SWR are reading this, because I wouldn't like to think they would be left with the impression that your restrictive interpretation of what constitutes a valid delay repay claim is widely shared, or that they could apply it against passengers without pushback.

 

[sheff1]

- TfL were on strike and closed the station, and there were no trains
- you turned up there and that's where the first issue was (important - this is what actually happened!)
- your issue is therefore with TfL who did not provide the service - under industry arrangements the first TOC who cause the problem are the ones who foot the bill

As I said in post #32, it is not clear whether the OP was delayed due to TfL or would have still had to catch the 2259 connection from Richmond if trains were running normally from Gunnersbury.

As others have said, more info is needed before a firm conclusion can be drawn.

 

[Mark J]

Didn't realise this thread had now turned into a full scale debate.

As far as I'm concerned SWR are trying to blame TfL for me getting back to my home destination late.

I was at Richmond Station in good time for the 22:59 train back to my home station.

It was NOT TfL's fault that the 22:59 SWR service was late arriving into Richmond.

It was NOT TfL's fault that service suffered from further delays outside of Staines Railway Station.

It is NOT TfL's fault that the SWR service arrived at my home station 45 minutes late.

If the 22:59 SWR service had of been on time, and arrived at my home station on time - then there would of been no delay repay claim to begin with.

I thought when subbing a Delay Repay claim, you had to input your whole journey, so they can see how you arrived at the eventual delay.

I did not realise they can then use that info to then attempt to wriggle out of a claim, and blame others.

The info I submitted in the original claim included details of the late running 22:59 service from Richmond, which they can quite clearly see arrived 45 minutes late at my final destination.

 

[redreni]

Didn't realise this thread had now turned into a full scale debate.

As far as I'm concerned SWR are trying to blame TfL for me getting back to my home destination late.

I was at Richmond Station in good time for the 22:59 train back to my home station.

It was NOT TfL's fault that the 22:59 SWR service was late arriving into Richmond.

It was NOT TfL's fault that service suffered from further delays outside of Staines Railway Station.

It is NOT TfL's fault that the SWR service arrived at my home station 45 minutes late.

If the 22:59 SWR service had of been on time, and arrived at my home station on time - then there would of been no delay repay claim to begin with.

I thought when subbing a Delay Repay claim, you had too put your whole journey, so they can see how you arrived at the delay.

I did not realise they can then use that info to then attempt to wriggle out of a claim, and blame others.

The info I submitted in the original claim included details of the late running 22:59 service from Richmond, which they can quite clearly see arrived 45 minutes late at my final destination.

There appears to be a school of thought that we should all be letting them wriggle out of paying claims in this way, and that if we don't then it will be our fault if delay repay entitlements are curtailed (even though that's likely to happen anyway, not because people abuse the system but because the Treasury is looking for things to cut).

 

[blimmo]

In which case your delay repay rights, if any arise, would be measured against those revised intentions.

Wouldn't this mean that if you have to walk to a different station because of a cancellation and station closure you would not be entitled to compensation if the eventual train you catch is not delayed (even if this is a later one than you originally would've caught and you are therefore delayed to your destination) since your intentions have changed?

 

[Mark J]

There appears to be a school of thought that we should all be letting them wriggle out of paying claims in this way, and that if we don't then it will be our fault if delay repay entitlements are curtailed (even though that's likely to happen anyway, not because people abuse the system but because the Treasury is looking for things to cut).

Delay Repay is for arrival into your final destination.

I cannot see how some still think that TFL can be liable for me arriving at my final destination late, when their liability ended at Richmond.

As I've already stated numerous times, I was at Richmond in good time for the 22:59 SWR service.

From what I recall, I was outside the station front at 22:40.

What I am trying to establish is if I reply to the 'appeal' by amending the journey to just include the late running SWR service, but omitting the TFL journey element entirely - will I face possible accusations of fraud.

If that is the case, I have further evidence of Google maps timeline info to prove where I say I was at certain times.

 

[redreni]

Wouldn't this mean that if you have to walk to a different station because of a cancellation and station closure you would not be entitled to compensation if the eventual train you catch is not delayed (even if this is a later one than you originally would've caught and you are therefore delayed to your destination) since your intentions have changed?

Yes, but changing your intentions voluntarily by electing to make your own way to a different station is something you can do, not something you have to do.

If your intentions don't change on a voluntary basis but you end up having to walk because no suitable alternative is provided, then claiming from the relevant operator for the delay caused by that would also be in order, in my opinion. I know some will think this is cakeism, but we're talking about real delays here, and the intention of delay repay is that people get some money back if they're delayed. Putting your claim in a way that doesn't let the operator off the hook is in line with that, as far as I am concerned.

From a TOC point of view it's very simple. Don't delay passengers if you don't want them to claim against you for a delay.

 

[Mark J]

From a TOC point of view it's very simple. Don't delay passengers if you don't want them to claim against you for a delay.

Totally agree.

Plus, if they are concerned about fraud, then they should be putting in places proceedures to combat that. Instead of penalising individuals who have suffered genuine delays.

It would also help if ticket Barriers were not swinging wide open from around 8pm on a Sunday, and SWR had more frequent ticket checks.

In the last six months, I've only had my ticket checked twice on a Sunday.

Both times were on the outward journey.

Never on the return journey.

 

[blimmo]

As I've already stated numerous times, I was at Richmond in good time for the 22:59 SWR service.

Was this the train you originally intended to catch? If so I think you have a very good argument that TfL have no liability, if not I still think you should amend your claim but others disagree.

 

[Haywain]

I cannot see how some still think that TFL can be liable for me arriving at my final destination late, when their liability ended at Richmond.

Their liability relates to your whole journey, whether they are the rail provider for the whole journey or not. All rail operators pay Delay Repay compensation for the whole journey if they are considered responsible for the delay to the overall journey.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Oct 2025 ==

It would also help if ticket Barriers were not swinging wide open from around 8pm on a Sunday, and SWR had more frequent ticket checks.

In the last six months, I've only had my ticket checked twice on a Sunday.

Both times were on the outward journey.

Never on the return journey.

That's all whataboutery that has no bearing on this case.

 

[Mark J]

Was this the train you originally intended to catch? If so I think you have a very good argument that TfL have no liability, if not I still think you should amend your claim but others disagree.

Yes.

There were only two more services after that one.

Both those later services were also running over 15 minutes late - looking at the historical info.

On trains time info, plus Google Maps timeline to prove I was on the stated service.

 

[blimmo]

I don't think SWR are claiming you weren't on that train, rather that if the TfL service had run that you would have been on an earlier train that was not delayed. If you would have been on the 2259 even if the TfL service had run on time then you should appeal on the basis that TfL did not delay you and it was only SWR's late running train that caused your delay.

 

[AlterEgo]

Delay Repay is for arrival into your final destination.

I cannot see how some still think that TFL can be liable for me arriving at my final destination late, when their liability ended at Richmond.

Train companies who cause initial delays on multi leg journeys are liable for the full journey, not just a portion. That is literally how it works and TfL's liability is for the whole ticket.

Nobody is disputing that you were on a delayed SWR train.

It sucks for you that their scheme is less generous. That's bad. But it is what it is. SWR are correct to refer the claim to them based on what you told them and have told us.

 

[Mark J]

Train companies who cause initial delays on multi leg journeys are liable for the full journey, not just a portion. That is literally how it works and TfL's liability is for the whole ticket.

Nobody is disputing that you were on a delayed SWR train.

It sucks for you that their scheme is less generous. That's bad. But it is what it is. SWR are correct to refer the claim to them based on what you told them and have told us.

What is becoming clear is that a BA(Hons) degree in Delay Repay is required to successfully navigate more complex cases.

What should be a simple process becomes complex by the various rules and regs - including those that the TOC seem to grant themselves.

As far as I'm concerned the TfL part is irrelevant now. TfL do not compensate for strike action (which I also think is wrong), nor compensate for extra expenses incurred as a result.

So even if this was subbed to TfL, they would likely reject it anyway - using the excuse of 'out of our control'.

My argument is with SWR for getting me back to my final destination late.

There were problems with the line that evening, so whatever service I would of been on, I would of arrived at my final destination late.

 

[Haywain]

As far as I'm concerned the TfL part is irrelevant now. TfL do not compensate for strike action (which I also think is wrong), nor compensate for extra expenses incurred as a result.

So even if this was subbed to TfL, they would likely reject it anyway - using the excuse of 'out of our control'.

As pointed out in post #27, there remains a liability for TfL to compensate you which does not allow them a 'get out clause' of strike action:

As a result, a minimum entitlement of delay compensation (25% of the OP's return ticket) is due under the NRCoT even if not under any operator's Charter (or equivalent). In this instance I would imagine it's London Overground (i.e. TfL) that might owe that sum, but it might also be SWR.

Regardless, by making a claim to SWR within 28 days of travel, the OP has done what they need to under the NRCoT. SWR are responsible for forwarding the OP's claim if they think they are not the liable TOC.

 

[AlterEgo]

What is becoming clear is that a BA(Hons) degree in Delay Repay is required to successfully navigate more complex cases.

This isn't a particularly complex case. You arrived for a train at Gunnersbury. It was cancelled, as indeed they all were. It's at this point the delay liability kicks in, and it is just too bad that it's with TfL.

What should be a simple process becomes complex by the various rules and regs - including those that the TOC seem to grant themselves.

As far as I'm concerned the TfL part is irrelevant now. TfL do not compensate for strike action (which I also think is wrong), nor compensate for extra expenses incurred as a result.

As I've been saying, the motivation here is to jimmy the system to extract compensation from a train company which, according to what happened on the day, isn't actually liable for your journey. TfL won't pay up for your journey under service refund rules because the circumstances mean they aren't contractually liable, so we are now at the stage of going back to SWR and giving them new information which doesn't match what happened to get maybe seven pounds. As @Haywain and @Watershed point out, you can refer to the NRCoT minima to gain some level of compensation if you can argue the strike was within control of the rail industry, although I would expect this not to be straightforward.

There were problems with the line that evening, so whatever service I would of been on, I would of arrived at my final destination late.

That isn't relevant.

 

[Watershed]

As @Haywain and @Watershed point out, you can refer to the NRCoT minima to gain some level of compensation if you can argue the strike was within control of the rail industry, although I would expect this not to be straightforward.

There is no requirement for the delay to be within the industry's control for the NRCoT minimum to apply - that proviso was removed a couple of years ago. It now applies regardless of the cause of a delay.

TfL and Merseyrail (amongst others) haven't updated their policies to properly reflect this.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is no requirement for the delay to be within the industry's control for the NRCoT minimum to apply - that proviso was removed a couple of years ago. It now applies regardless of the cause of a delay.

TfL and Merseyrail (amongst others) haven't updated their policies to properly reflect this.

Apologies, I was looking at the 2022 issue which comes up top on Google. Great SEO work by NR there...!

 

[redreni]

I can just about understand the viewpoint that a TOC that delays a passenger isn't liable if another TOC has delayed a passenger earlier on in their journey and is therefore liable for the delay to the whole journey. That rule is, of course, only there to make sure passengers don't receive two lots of compensation for one delayed journey. It is not there, in my view, to prevent passengers waiving any liability owed to them by TOC A and claiming validly against TOC B. That interpretation leads to absurdity: there could be two passengers in the OP's position wanting to get from Gunnersbury to Earley, one of whom knows about the strike and sets out with the intention of walking to Richmond, the other of whom only finds out about the strike when they get to Gunnersbury. They both do the same thing, make the same journey by rail and suffer the same delay after Richmond. But according to some, the second person (which is the OP) isn't entitled to any compensation because they were delayed twice rather than once. That is, I'm afraid, palpably ridiculous.