Delay repay, who pays?

[jthjth]

Trip from A to C with a change of train and TOC at B.
A to B train delayed. This would have caused the B to C connection to be missed and thus generated about an hours delay.
However B to C train also late so connection made. Upshot is arrived at destination late.
Which TOC is responsible for paying me?

 

[blimmo]

Unclear, see this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/delay-repay-policy-questions.297180/

Practically I suspect whoever you submit to they will forward it to the other TOC. You may eventually need to contact customer services for one or both TOCs (possibly simultaneously). Good luck!

 

[jthjth]

Unclear, see this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/delay-repay-policy-questions.297180/

Practically I suspect whoever you submit to they will forward it to the other TOC. You may eventually need to contact customer services for one or both TOCs (possibly simultaneously). Good luck!

Ha! You realise the situation I’m in. Just at first appeal stage with A to B TOC.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ha! You realise the situation I’m in. Just at first appeal stage with A to B TOC.

Why are you appealing? If the TOC thinks it isn't their responsibility they must forward it on to the one they think is responsible.

 

[jthjth]

Why are you appealing? If the TOC thinks it isn't their responsibility they must forward it on to the one they think is responsible.

They did forward it. B to C TOC claim it is the responsibility of A to B TOC and have sent it back to them. This could be an infinite loop….

 

[AlterEgo]

They did forward it. B to C TOC claim it is the responsibility of A to B TOC and have sent it back to them. This could be an infinite loop….

What was the exact journey (dates/times/stations) and which TOCs are involved?

 

[furlong]

If you're hoping for informed opinions, you'll need to provide full details of the journey! Impossible to know with the limited information you've given so far.

There may be certain variations depending on the train operators involved, but basically you need to compare the actual time you BOARDED the second train (not the time it departed if it sat in the platform for any length of time after boarding) with the (earlier) scheduled departure time of that service and consider the difference against the minimum payout threshold of the FIRST operator. If the threshold is met, then the first operator should deal with it. If not, then there's no qualifying delay under the first operator's scheme (as they didn't cause any actual meaningful delay to your journey under their own definitions) so consider it under the second operator's scheme.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the first train fouled the connection and the journey was delayed at final destination the first TOC should pay, regardless of how late or otherwise the second train was or whether it was boarded successfully or not owing to the second TOC delay. These questions are really dull and were uncontroversial until recently, where "meaningful delay" has been introduced onto the forum's lexicon by posters (it appears nowhere else, and certainly not in anything contractual) meaning we now get all this farting about.

The only questions are:

- was the passenger late into final destination?
- if yes, which TOC caused the first delay?

That's it. Nothing else is relevant. First TOC causing a delay pays. Nothing else stands up to any logic.

 

[BurtonM]

Trip from A to C with a change of train and TOC at B.
A to B train delayed. This would have caused the B to C connection to be missed and thus generated about an hours delay.
However B to C train also late so connection made. Upshot is arrived at destination late.
Which TOC is responsible for paying me?

By the book, the 'fault' lies with the first TOC that delay you, and as such you claim to the TOC for A-B.
More specifically, it's the first delay that would cause the itinerary you are travelling on to become impossible - in this case, A-B is delayed enough that the minimum connection time at B for the service B-C is fouled, then the itinerary can't be adhered to, and 'fault' is with TOC #1. It is The itinerary is provided before travel and does not react or adapt to delays. The delay on service B-C should be immaterial, as if B-C was running to time, then according to the itinerary you would have not met the minimum connection and had to catch a later service. TOC #1 couldn't refute this and should approve Delay Repay.


It sounds like someone at TOC #1 has reviewed the Delay Repay claim and either doesn't know how it works, or is trying to bend the rules to avoid a payout:
It seems that they're arguing that the delayed departure of B-C was long enough after A-B arrived at B, that it theoretically satisfied the minimum connection time at B, and due to this, their initial delay was immaterial because you still caught the service B-C as specified on your itinerary: the delay A-B didn't affect your actual arrival time, so TOC #2 should pay out, and only for the delay on that segment.
This logic is incorrect (itineraries are static, they don't adapt to delays), and I suspect that TOC #2 would refuse to pay and say it's not their problem as TOC #1's delay preceded theirs. TOC #2 should not pay out for this, and if they did you'd get less than you were entitled to.
Unfortunately the fact that TOC #1 are passing the buck is a tacit admission that they did in fact delay you IMO, as if they reject your claim in any way then they're trying to tell you they didn't delay you despite the fact their service didn't run to time .

It's the first TOC's problem, if they keep rejecting it just keep appealing, get a deadlock letter and go to the Ombudsman.

 

[jthjth]

If the first train fouled the connection and the journey was delayed at final destination the first TOC should pay, regardless of how late or otherwise the second train was or whether it was boarded successfully or not owing to the second TOC delay. These questions are really dull and were uncontroversial until recently, where "meaningful delay" has been introduced onto the forum's lexicon by posters (it appears nowhere else, and certainly not in anything contractual) meaning we now get all this farting about.

The only questions are:

- was the passenger late into final destination?
- if yes, which TOC caused the first delay?

That's it. Nothing else is relevant. First TOC causing a delay pays. Nothing else stands up to any logic.

Intended trip:

6th Jan. Leicester to Chester via Nuneaton.
1016 dep Leicester Cross Country
1054 Nuneaton to Crewe West Midlands Trains
1221 Crewe to Chester Transport for Wales

Actual trip:
1016 hit a tree near Hinckley and we spent around half an hour stopped whilst the driver inspected things
The 1054 was itself around half an hour late so we caught that. This then terminated at Stafford with little warning and we had to change to a Liverpool bound WMT train. At Crewe we caught an Avanti to Chester and arrived 56 minutes later than the original itinerary.

 

[AlterEgo]

Intended trip:

6th Jan. Leicester to Chester via Nuneaton.
1016 dep Leicester Cross Country
1054 Nuneaton to Crewe West Midlands Trains
1221 Crewe to Chester Transport for Wales

Actual trip:
1016 hit a tree near Hinckley and we spent around half an hour stopped whilst the driver inspected things
The 1054 was itself around half an hour late so we caught that. This then terminated at Stafford with little warning and we had to change to a Liverpool bound WMT train. At Crewe we caught an Avanti to Chester and arrived 56 minutes later than the original itinerary.

Not even an edge case, XC have to pay there.

 

[jthjth]

Not even an edge case, XC have to pay there.

May I have your reasoning, as I feel I might need it for future correspondence? Thanks

 

[AlterEgo]

May I have your reasoning, as I feel I might need it for future correspondence? Thanks

They fouled your connection and made the rest of the itinerary impossible, and you were delayed into your final destination over the qualifying threshold.

They don't get to absolve their liability because a subsequent TOC was also late.

 

[jthjth]

They fouled your connection and made the rest of the itinerary impossible, and you were delayed into your final destination over the qualifying threshold.

They don't get to absolve their liability because a subsequent TOC was also late.

Thank you.

 

[Puffing Devil]

They fouled your connection and made the rest of the itinerary impossible, and you were delayed into your final destination over the qualifying threshold.

They don't get to absolve their liability because a subsequent TOC was also late.

Correct. The key is looking at the scheduled times rather than what actually happened on the day. Delay Repay is based on the contract you bought, which is the timetable, not the fluke that occurred because two things went wrong at once.

If you look at the standard working timetable for that route, the 10:16 CrossCountry from Leicester is scheduled to arrive at Nuneaton at 10:44. The OP's connecting West Midlands Train was scheduled to depart at 10:54. That gives them a valid 10-minute connection.

However, because the CrossCountry train was around half an hour late, hitting the tree, the OP would have arrived at Nuneaton at roughly 11:14. At that point, their scheduled connection had technically departed 20 minutes ago. The contract was broken right there by CrossCountry. The fact that the West Midlands Train was also running 30 minutes late is legally irrelevant. It was a lucky escape that let the OP physically board the train, but it does not erase the fact that CrossCountry failed to get them to the interchange on time.

In this case, the claim is with XC because their delay made the printed itinerary impossible. The rest is just noise.

 

[jthjth]

Correct. The key is looking at the scheduled times rather than what actually happened on the day. Delay Repay is based on the contract you bought, which is the timetable, not the fluke that occurred because two things went wrong at once.

If you look at the standard working timetable for that route, the 10:16 CrossCountry from Leicester is scheduled to arrive at Nuneaton at 10:44. The OP's connecting West Midlands Train was scheduled to depart at 10:54. That gives them a valid 10-minute connection.

However, because the CrossCountry train was around half an hour late, hitting the tree, the OP would have arrived at Nuneaton at roughly 11:14. At that point, their scheduled connection had technically departed 20 minutes ago. The contract was broken right there by CrossCountry. The fact that the West Midlands Train was also running 30 minutes late is legally irrelevant. It was a lucky escape that let the OP physically board the train, but it does not erase the fact that CrossCountry failed to get them to the interchange on time.

In this case, the claim is with XC because their delay made the printed itinerary impossible. The rest is just noise.

As a follow up:
After my initial claim XC rejected it saying it was forwarding the claim to WMT.
At that point I used a facility on their website to appeal the claim on the basis that they were the cause of delay.
Time passes….
WMT email saying they’ve sent the claim to XC
Time passes…
XC email today saying they are paying.
Right result, but they’ve wasted both my time and WMT’s time in the process.
Thank you to those that clearly explained the position up thread.