Delay Repay claims rejected

[AlterEgo]

I have had some back and forth recently with no success yet (this may justify its own thread if wanted). Thameslink service cancelled from Horsham, as was the subsequent one, so caught a Southern service to Victoria, tube to Paddington, where I just missed the GWR train to Swansea and so was an hour delayed, and the following hour’s train was then delayed en route. Claimed with Thameslink who said claim with GWR. Claimed with GWR who said claim with Thameslink. GWR have the option to appeal so I did that and stated that Thameslink had told me to claim from GWR. GWR said they would contact Thameslink directly, after a week I contacted Thameslink directly, and two weeks later Jesus from Thameslink said that I should have taken an alternative route to Reading, via Three Bridges and East Croydon, and I would have caught the GWR. He also pointed out that I had seats booked on a later service that wasn’t delayed - which is true but only because I had to select a train to get an anytime single and the freedom that offers.

I feel like I’m playing delay repay ping pong and Thameslink are hoping I’ll just let it slide - but I was delayed for nearly two hours from my planned arrival!

Precisely why train companies shouldn't be allowed to process their own claims. What a tedious exercise all round for everyone.

 

[Wolfie]

However, receiving a sum which you know you are not entitled to, does mean you should notify the payer(s) of their error. It is then up to them whether they decide to request reimbursement or not.

While l agree, which one though? It would be bloody unfunny if they both then asked for the cash back!

 

[35B]

Precisely why train companies shouldn't be allowed to process their own claims. What a tedious exercise all round for everyone.

That presumes the answer is a central clearing house. I'd suggest that it's why the operator receiving the claim should be obliged to process it for the customer, and then seek reimbursement from the operator causing the delay if it's not "their fault". The details also point to the complexity for those handling claims of assessing what is "valid" - a range of possible routings, and tickets with itineraries (an industry driven move) that don't align to the journey actually planned or taken.

 

[mr_jrt]

Had a similar experience with Thameslink a year or two ago - journey was Thameslink to Farringdon, Crossrail Farringdon to Paddington, then Paddington to GWR land. TL service was cancelled when I arrived at the station, which meant I missed my GWR service, and the following GWR service I ended up on broke down and limped to Swindon where we were kicked onto a much later local service. Was delayed 3 hours and TL refused my DR claim 2-3 times with the same line to contact GWR, ignoring my argument that had they not cancelled their service I wouldn't have even been on the GWR service that broke down and would have arrived on time.

Finally paid out on the third attempt.

 

[PG]

While l agree, which one though? It would be bloody unfunny if they both then asked for the cash back!

One for the rail ombudsman

 

[aar0]

Seems like Thameslink are going out of their way to fob you off. You absolutely have a valid claim based on your post. Don't give up, get a deadlock letter if needs be. Heck, take them to court if it comes to it. They can't be allowed to get out their responsibility of paying you delay replay, however much they don't wan't to.

Had a similar experience with Thameslink a year or two ago - journey was Thameslink to Farringdon, Crossrail Farringdon to Paddington, then Paddington to GWR land. TL service was cancelled when I arrived at the station, which meant I missed my GWR service, and the following GWR service I ended up on broke down and limped to Swindon where we were kicked onto a much later local service. Was delayed 3 hours and TL refused my DR claim 2-3 times with the same line to contact GWR, ignoring my argument that had they not cancelled their service I wouldn't have even been on the GWR service that broke down and would have arrived on time.

Finally paid out on the third attempt.

I will continue to pester them. No apology for my delayed journey or their slow response either!

 

[dvboy]

However, receiving a sum which you know you are not entitled to, does mean you should notify the payer(s) of their error. It is then up to them whether they decide to request reimbursement or not.

It was a relatively small amount and morally I balanced it against a time when one of them had refused to pay out.

I didn’t claim to GWR, that was XC’s decision

 

[wilsontown]

Another TPE one where the passenger is supposed to magically predict the future:



The delay to the 09:19 was caused by coupling two units in platform 11 at York, and while waiting for this to happen the 09:22 left on time. Generally, the 09:19 would still be able to pass the 09:22 as the 09:22 calls at Church Fenton. This time the delay was enough for 09:22 to be put in front of the 09:19, delaying it further. Presumably I was supposed to predict all this, and make my way to platform 7 for the 09:22 (in much less than the official connection time at York) so I would only be delayed by 14 minutes...

This one eventually got paid on appeal (all £2.88 of it). It's probably not news, but it looks like TPE does an automated first look which will spit out nonsense like the above. Then if/when you appeal someone actually looks at it properly. I imagine a lot of people don't bother.

 

[JordR]

This one eventually got paid on appeal (all £2.88 of it). It's probably not news, but it looks like TPE does an automated first look which will spit out nonsense like the above.

I think an automated first look is a good principle, it can approve a large proportion of cases instantly if configured sensibly. My Northern claim made on 11 October is still unresolved, having seemingly been manually reviewed once (given it took a fortnight) and now awaiting an appeal consideration.

Although you'd think in your case it should be programmed with rules that would dismiss that alternative journey as being below the minimum connection time at the station. It might also be sensible to place rejections in a manual review queue rather than also issue them instantly.

But of course, TOCs are directly disincentivised from doing these things. They have a customer base that is majority captive so the coldly commercial way to proceed is minimum compliant offering and minimum payment. Who on earth, when designing the system, thought it would be a great idea to give the responsibility for administering it to the party with a directly opposing commercial interest to the passenger?

 

[Tester]

I think an automated first look is a good principle, it can approve a large proportion of cases instantly if configured sensibly. Although you'd think in your case it should be programmed with rules that would dismiss that alternative journey as being below the minimum connection time at the station. It might also be sensible to place rejections in a manual review queue rather than also issue them instantly.

But of course, TOCs are directly disincentivised from doing these things. They have a customer base that is majority captive so the coldly commercial way to proceed is minimum compliant offering and minimum payment. Who on earth, when designing the system, thought it would be a great idea to give the responsibility for administering it to the party with a directly opposing commercial interest to the passenger?

"British Rail is deeply inefficient" - J Major Esq.

 

[styles]

I think an

I think an automated first look is a good principle, it can approve a large proportion of cases instantly if configured sensibly. Although you'd think in your case it should be programmed with rules that would dismiss that alternative journey as being below the minimum connection time at the station. It might also be sensible to place rejections in a manual review queue rather than also issue them instantly.

It's a lost opportunity really. It should be reasonably straightforward to build a model based on the past claims, use this model to approve or 'provisionally rejected', move the provisionally rejected ones into a manual review queue, handle the provisionally rejected ones manually through to completion, then feed the results of this manual review back into the machine learning solution to build an updated model, and over time it'll automate a huge amount of it.

But of course, TOCs are directly disincentivised from doing these things. They have a customer base that is majority captive so the coldly commercial way to proceed is minimum compliant offering and minimum payment. Who on earth, when designing the system, thought it would be a great idea to give the responsibility for administrating it to the party with a directly opposing commercial interest to the passenger?

Indeed.

 

[35B]

I think an automated first look is a good principle, it can approve a large proportion of cases instantly if configured sensibly. My Northern claim made on 11 October is still unresolved, having seemingly been manually reviewed once (given it took a fortnight) and now awaiting an appeal consideration.

Although you'd think in your case it should be programmed with rules that would dismiss that alternative journey as being below the minimum connection time at the station. It might also be sensible to place rejections in a manual review queue rather than also issue them instantly.

But of course, TOCs are directly disincentivised from doing these things. They have a customer base that is majority captive so the coldly commercial way to proceed is minimum compliant offering and minimum payment. Who on earth, when designing the system, thought it would be a great idea to give the responsibility for administering it to the party with a directly opposing commercial interest to the passenger?

And if you give it to a body controlled by those same operators, but who now don't have to take the rap for errors - what then?

The core point is in your argument about the interests of customers - my experience with Delay Repay has been good, because the operators I've used do see themselves having to compete for demand, and see being efficient as a part of good customer service.

We should maybe think about why that's not true of others, and how it can be made true.

 

[JordR]

I'm sure it's too late to fundamentally change now, but perhaps from the origin setting up a central body that was able to allocate liability for claims to TOCs might have been the way to go. There'd be no incentive either to deny claims, make the process difficult to reduce claims or allocate those claims unjustly to the TOCs.

I don't think TOCs compete over the majority of the network, in some cases not even where they share routes. We know even less competition is the direction of travel too, perhaps GBR will remove the commercial incentive and we might see a change then?

 

[SuspectUsual]

It feels like we go through this every other week.

The customer cares about WHAT has happened - in this case they've been delayed, so authenticate the delay and pay out

The customer doesn't really care about WHY it happened - the TOCs can fight over this in the background

 

[35B]

It feels like we go through this every other week.

The customer cares about WHAT has happened - in this case they've been delayed, so authenticate the delay and pay out

The customer doesn't really care about WHY it happened - the TOCs can fight over this in the background

Hence better to fix by giving the receiving TOC the duty to process the claim throughout, and settle up with the “culpable” TOC after the event.

 

[E100]

Had a few times at Chester where the gate line staff haven’t seemed to be super helpful. Their barriers swallow the tickets so I find I have to ask to be let through showing the ticket. I find myself often having to explain in depth about why I wish to retain my ticket. They then always deface it (despite it often being extremely late or an advance so the likelihood of being reused is minimal but sure.

In terms of rejections I’ve recently had an issue with Seatfrog being rejected on TPE which on appeal was granted.

 

[JordR]

Hence better to fix by giving the receiving TOC the duty to process the claim throughout, and settle up with the “culpable” TOC after the event.

Unless they're the state-owned TOCs, I think this might risk amplifying the opposing commercial interests even further which would further drive a culture of minimum necessary compliance. I'm not saying that's right, but I'm saying it's possible it would be the result.

I suppose on the positive side, the commercial incentive will disappear when GBR operates the entire network so the direction of travel is hopefully set for a more passenger-friendly system.

 

[35B]

Unless they're the state-owned TOCs, I think this might risk amplifying the opposing commercial interests even further which would further drive a culture of minimum necessary compliance. I'm not saying that's right, but I'm saying it's possible it would be the result.

I suppose on the positive side, the commercial incentive will disappear when GBR operates the entire network so the direction of travel is hopefully set for a more passenger-friendly system.

My fear is that the removal of the commercial incentive under GBR will do anything but deliver a more passenger-friendly system as it becomes a policy delivery system - which is also why I'm opposed to a central clearing house model, totally detached from the customers who actually pay the fares. That's why I'd leave the responsibility with the operator, and have them settle up in the background - if they're already working a minimum necessary compliance culture, then it won't get worse, but if they're any better, they will lose the incentive to reject cases that aren't "theirs".

 

[Scott W]

Northern rejected one of my three claims for an identical journey earlier (having approved the other two) 'as it doesn't meet the criteria stated in our current policy.'

A quick check with the Social Media team confirmed further details that 'the customer has made 3 claims in the last 7 day(s) for the 120+ delay band - this has exceeded the allowed threshold of 2 claims and consequently this claim has been referred for review.'

Rather than review, it was just rejected and a call to the Customer Service team quickly resolved, but not before ironically being thanked for splitting my split ticket claims to make processing them easier!

I did suggest an headline of Northern rejects Delay Repay Claim as customer has been delayed too much.

 

[Belperpete]

If you make the receiving TOC responsible for paying up regardless of who was responsible, then everyone is just going to send all their claims to the TOC that is the quickest and easiest payer, so there would be an obvious incentive not to be that TOC. Better to be a TOC that handles claims poorly, taking a long time and with lots of spurious rejects, so that people send their claims elsewhere. Such a system would provoke a race to the bottom.

Fundamentally any system that hands money back to the customers isn't going to be popular with the industry regardless of how it is configured.

 

[35B]

If you make the receiving TOC responsible for paying up regardless of who was responsible, then everyone is just going to send all their claims to the TOC that is the quickest and easiest payer, so there would be an obvious incentive not to be that TOC. Better to be a TOC that handles claims poorly, taking a long time and with lots of spurious rejects, so that people send their claims elsewhere. Such a system would provoke a race to the bottom.

Fundamentally any system that hands money back to the customers isn't going to be popular with the industry regardless of how it is configured.

I think that's unduly cynical - most people will simply go for one of the operators on their journey.

 

[Kite159]

Had a few times at Chester where the gate line staff haven’t seemed to be super helpful. Their barriers swallow the tickets so I find I have to ask to be let through showing the ticket. I find myself often having to explain in depth about why I wish to retain my ticket. They then always deface it (despite it often being extremely late or an advance so the likelihood of being reused is minimal but sure.

In terms of rejections I’ve recently had an issue with Seatfrog being rejected on TPE which on appeal was granted.

Reminds me of a couple months at the EMR platforms at St Pancras where due to various issues a train from Sheffield rolled in around 25 minutes late following a train from Nottingham which itself was around 30 minutes late.
You would think with two late trains the staff would have the barriers open to get passengers out of the way as quick as possible so the trains could start loading for the return legs, but the barriers were in operation with a grumpy member of staff manning a manual gate for anybody with paper tickets who quite rightly requested to keep hold for delay repay.

 

[lawried123]

Precisely why train companies shouldn't be allowed to process their own claims. What a tedious exercise all round for everyone.

I had a case when all trains at Waterloo were canceled running through Staines and I needed to get back to Bracknell. The notice said get taxis and claim back. So I did the obvious thing and got a train from Paddington to Maidenhead and then a taxi. But that got refused because apparently I should only have got a taxi from an SWR station even though Maidenhead was the nearest station where any trains were running. They insisted that I could not get a taxi from another company's station.
Has anyone heard of that rule.
Eventually after complaining twice they relented and refunded the fare, but I could easily have just given up.

Lawrie

 

[125Spotter]

I recently had a scenario whereby a delay repay claim was rejected due to inability to find a timetabled journey (a processing error). On appeal a few days later, this was further rejected because a claim “had already been paid out” on the ticket concerned.

I normally retain my paper ticket in delay repay cases, but on this occasion I deposited it in the barrier at my destination by mistake, where it was retained. I had already filed the delay repay case, so didn’t feel the need to ask staff to retrieve the ticket for me.

I eventually got this paid out (and cannot fault the relevant TOC’s customer service at all – they were excellent) on the basis that I was clearly entitled to the DR payment – I’d filed it first while actually on the train, name on ticket matched etc. However I’m left puzzled as to what enabled someone else to file a fraudulent claim and whether this is a wider occurrence. I had it confirmed that the other claim showed a clear (but different) photo of my paper ticket as featured in my first claim. Considering I’d collected it from a ticket machine and it had stayed in my wallet throughout, this suggests it came into someone else’s possession after it went into the barrier.

I’m also curious what, if anything, will happen to the other claimant – or whether this just becomes part of an intelligence picture to enable the TOC to track fraudulent claims. I appreciate it’s not my place to know, though, and grateful that it eventually came to a positive conclusion.

 

[AlterEgo]

I recently had a scenario whereby a delay repay claim was rejected due to inability to find a timetabled journey (a processing error). On appeal a few days later, this was further rejected because a claim “had already been paid out” on the ticket concerned.

I normally retain my paper ticket in delay repay cases, but on this occasion I deposited it in the barrier at my destination by mistake, where it was retained. I had already filed the delay repay case, so didn’t feel the need to ask staff to retrieve the ticket for me.

I eventually got this paid out (and cannot fault the relevant TOC’s customer service at all – they were excellent) on the basis that I was clearly entitled to the DR payment – I’d filed it first while actually on the train, name on ticket matched etc. However I’m left puzzled as to what enabled someone else to file a fraudulent claim and whether this is a wider occurrence. I had it confirmed that the other claim showed a clear (but different) photo of my paper ticket as featured in my first claim. Considering I’d collected it from a ticket machine and it had stayed in my wallet throughout, this suggests it came into someone else’s possession after it went into the barrier.

I’m also curious what, if anything, will happen to the other claimant – or whether this just becomes part of an intelligence picture to enable the TOC to track fraudulent claims. I appreciate it’s not my place to know, though, and grateful that it eventually came to a positive conclusion.

That'll be one for the BTP, I think we know what's been going on there. Wouldn't be the first time either.

 

[aar0]

I have had some back and forth recently with no success yet (this may justify its own thread if wanted). Thameslink service cancelled from Horsham, as was the subsequent one, so caught a Southern service to Victoria, tube to Paddington, where I just missed the GWR train to Swansea and so was an hour delayed, and the following hour’s train was then delayed en route. Claimed with Thameslink who said claim with GWR. Claimed with GWR who said claim with Thameslink. GWR have the option to appeal so I did that and stated that Thameslink had told me to claim from GWR. GWR said they would contact Thameslink directly, after a week I contacted Thameslink directly, and two weeks later Jesus from Thameslink said that I should have taken an alternative route to Reading, via Three Bridges and East Croydon, and I would have caught the GWR. He also pointed out that I had seats booked on a later service that wasn’t delayed - which is true but only because I had to select a train to get an anytime single and the freedom that offers.

I feel like I’m playing delay repay ping pong and Thameslink are hoping I’ll just let it slide - but I was delayed for nearly two hours from my planned arrival!

Jesus informs me:
“After reviewing your claim and the information that you have provided we have decided that we cannot accept your Delay Repay claim. Whilst I appreciate that as you live in Swansea you are not a regular user of GTR services, the faster alternatives were still available and the journey could have been made to your booked GWR connection.”
How helpful that is to know after the event I don’t know. My one previous experience of Three Bridges in maybe 2014 was that the connection is over a long footbridge and the train I was meant to catch would not wait for my slightly delayed GTR service, so I was further delayed by 30 minutes.

Jesus continues:
“Also, as you have explained that you arrived in London Paddington at 14:01, we can confirm that the 13:48 train that you had booked didn't depart from London Paddington until 14:06, therefore there should have been enough time to board this train. I would advise you to contact GWR for any compensation you may seek for this journey as their trains were running late.”

On arrival at Paddington the 1348 was showing as departing at 1401, arriving after 1401 had passed I knew there was no way I would make that and so didn’t try. Obviously in hindsight I could have made it - but at the time it was clear I couldn’t!

I guess I should ask for a deadlock letter? This feels ridiculous.

 

[Murray J]

Had a similar experience with Thameslink a year or two ago - journey was Thameslink to Farringdon, Crossrail Farringdon to Paddington, then Paddington to GWR land. TL service was cancelled when I arrived at the station, which meant I missed my GWR service, and the following GWR service I ended up on broke down and limped to Swindon where we were kicked onto a much later local service. Was delayed 3 hours and TL refused my DR claim 2-3 times with the same line to contact GWR, ignoring my argument that had they not cancelled their service I wouldn't have even been on the GWR service that broke down and would have arrived on time.

Finally paid out on the third attempt.

I had a similar but even more baffling one, with my GWR from Gatwick to Guildford getting delayed by an hour due to (iirc) a signal failure between Gatwick and Redhill. They rejected a delay repay claim and an appeal, saying they didn't operate the train I was getting and I should be claiming to Southern! And the weird thing? I then claimed to Southern and they accepted it...

Yet when I claimed back the bus fare from Gatwick to Redhill I took as all the trains were cancelled GWR were fine paying that...

 

[WesternLancer]

A GWR one involving a relative of mine I have helped with that has been refused twice

Sunday 12 Oct (travel from Bath Spa to Oxford with a change at Didcot). On arrival at Didcot the planned connection (10.03 from Didcot towards Oxford a 5 car train) was full and standing and platform PA announcements advised passengers not to board and wait for the next train. The next trains was a 10.30 departure (was a longer IET 9 car I think), arrival I understand to be thus 29 mins late (no longer on RTT for me to check), but certainly over the 15 min threshold if not the 30 minute one.

I assume GWR would retain a record of advice to passengers not to board a particular train?

First D-R claim rejected, then an appeal rejected with the following reason given (extracts of reply from GWR):

Your claim has been checked using a set process and the details of any delay verified using industry systems holding historic train running information.​

Thank you for your recent Delay Repay claim submission. We've rejected your claim as it doesn't meet the criteria stated in our current policy. If you would like to continue with this claim or provide further supporting information, then please contact our customer relations team.​

If you still believe we've made the wrong decision, or that you've given us the wrong information, please get in touch with our Complaints Handling team via​

Applicant is submitting this for another review
But I note:

- reference to their 'current policy' - whilst I've not yet read the current policy, is it really plausible that GWR staff instruct passengers not to board, and thus delay them, and that would be a reason to reject a D-R claim, but you would think be considered at the 1st stage Appeal?

- I note the instructions on what to do for next stage challenge are not even clearly stated and this must be standard info on every reply at this stage in the GWR process - should this go to Customer Relations Team or to Complaints Handling Team....?

 

[AdamWW]

A GWR one involving a relative of mine I have helped with that has been refused twice

Sunday 12 Oct (travel from Bath Spa to Oxford with a change at Didcot). On arrival at Didcot the planned connection (10.03 from Didcot towards Oxford a 5 car train) was full and standing and platform PA announcements advised passengers not to board and wait for the next train. The next trains was a 10.30 departure (was a longer IET 9 car I think), arrival I understand to be thus 29 mins late (no longer on RTT for me to check), but certainly over the 15 min threshold if not the 30 minute one.

https://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/ goes back 6 months.

Amusingly, I discovered it when TfW referred me to it as evidence that a 30 minute delay I'd claimed was actually 29 minutes - but it showed 30 minutes.

 

[WesternLancer]

https://www.recenttraintimes.co.uk/ goes back 6 months.

Amusingly, I discovered it when TfW referred me to it as evidence that a 30 minute delay I'd claimed was actually 29 minutes - but it showed 30 minutes.

Many thanks - I'd used that before a long time ago but found it a bit clunky - however I have just used it to check the train concerned which i managed OK - so it's a good resource to have to hand! appreciated