Delay repay - Train didn't get to my destination but got almost there

[jednick]

I got a train last night from London Paddington, intending to get off at Worcester Foregate Street.

It arrived into Worcester Shrub Hill approximately 25 minutes late and terminated there. It was cancelled between Shrub Hill and Foregate Street.

How much delay repay do I get?

Would it be considered they got me close enough to my destination station, and I claim the 25 minute delay?

Are the two stations together classified as "Worcester Stations" and for this purpose they are treated together as one?

Or, given the fact the train never actually got me to my destination station, can I claim more?

Either way, on the delay repay form, when it asks what time I got to my destination station - I never actually got there, so what do I put?

 

[AlterEgo]

How did you get to Foregate Street in the end? Or did you walk home directly for example?

 

[jednick]

How did you get to Foregate Street in the end? Or did you walk home directly for example?

I had my bike with me. It meant I had a further mile or so to get home. By chance, my route home took me right past Foregate Street station.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

@jednick. Were you on the 1752 from London Paddington to Worcester Foregate Street? Booked to arrive at Worcester Shrub Hill at 2002 and at Worcester Foregate Street at 2010. Actual arrival time at Worcester Shrub Hill (platform 1) at 2028 and was then terminated? Whilst there was a 2033 departure from Worcester Shrub Hill (platform 2) which would perhaps have gotten you over to Worcester Foregate Street for 2036, that's up and over the overbridge, and in any event it doesn't quite meet the Minimum Connection Time at Worcester Shrub Hill of seven minutes. Be inclined therefore to claim for a 30+ minute delay.

 

[jednick]

Yes, I was on that train, and they offered the connection as you say, for people wanting to get to Foregate Street. They did say you might not make the connection especially if travelling with luggage (but in reality I probably would have, despite being only 5 minutes), in which case get a later train.

Either way, at that point, it was quicker and easier for me to bike home from Shrub Hill anyway.

Where do I stand, though, given the fact I was offered that connection but didn't actually use it? I still didn't actually alight at Foregate Street. I suppose there is no way they can know, either way.

Also, please tell me, if they see there was this five minute connection, as you say, they will definitely have to accept that in theory it isn't enough time to make it? (Makes a difference between claiming under 30 min / over 30 min delay).

 

[trainophile]

Wouldn't this count as an abandoned journey due to disruption, and qualify for a full ticket refund? Or is that not how it works?

 

[Trainguy34]

From a look at RTT, the next valid connection would've got you into Foregate St roughly 59 minutes late (20:10 -> 21:09).

 

[Deerfold]

Wouldn't this count as an abandoned journey due to disruption, and qualify for a full ticket refund? Or is that not how it works?

The rules for abandoned journeys now say you must return to your origin to claim.

 

[blimmo]

I would claim based on the time you cycled past (guess). It probably won't matter since they'll almost certainly ignore the amount you claim for anyway but always good to have a justification.

 

[jednick]

I would claim based on the time you cycled past (guess). It probably won't matter since they'll almost certainly ignore the amount you claim for anyway but always good to have a justification.

Thanks. I put in a claim saying I was 30+ minutes late.

The time I cycled past was approximately 35 minutes late.

Fairest I could do. Thanks for all replies.

 

[thedbdiboy]

The rules for abandoned journeys now say you must return to your origin to claim.

Can you point to where it says that? It shouldn't; although we're talking edge cases, if you have to abandon your journey enroute due to failure of the train service, you do not have to prove you returned to your starting point.
In this case, although it's a bit extreme, technically I suppose it could be argued as an abandoned journey; but the principle is supposed to deal with getting, say, from London to York when your destination is Scarborough. If someone picks you up because the service beyond York has fallen over, you have no train delay to cite for a delay repay claim and you never made it to your destination. It would be ridiculous to insist that you had to go back to London to be entitled to any sort of remedy..

 

[bcarmicle]

Can you point to where it says that?

Condition 30.1 of the NRCOT reads:

You are also entitled to a refund under these Conditions if you begin your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or cancellation of your service and you return to your point of origin.

 

[Watershed]

Condition 30.1 of the NRCOT reads:

But of course the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO) also applies, and means that in some situations you are entitled to a refund even when the NRCoT says you're not. For example under Article 16(a), if the anticipated delay in arrival is 61+ minutes, you're entitled to opt for:

reimbursement of the full cost of the ticket ... for the part or parts of his or her journey not made and for the part or parts already made if the journey is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger’s original travel plan

In the OP's case, firstly the anticipated delay probably didn't reach the 61 minute threshold. But even if it did, the question would be whether getting to Worcester Shrub Hill meant the journey no longer served any purpose in relation to the original plan. Given that the OP simply cycled slightly further and still travelled to their destination, it probably did serve a purpose and so there's no refund entitlement under Article 18.

 

[mickey]

When this situation happened to me at Shrub Hill the local staff held the connecting train to make sure passengers got over the bridge - they deliberately looked out to make sure everyone did before departing.

Now I’m sure that this never got passed back to the DR team and I probably could have claimed for the next train that went round the curve after the official MCT, but personally I’d submit a fairer answer (as it seems did the OP).

 

[Adam Williams]

But of course the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO) also applies, and means that in some situations you are entitled to a refund even when the NRCoT says you're not. For example under Article 16(a), if the anticipated delay in arrival is 61+ minutes, you're entitled to opt for:


In the OP's case, firstly the anticipated delay probably didn't reach the 61 minute threshold. But even if it did, the question would be whether getting to Worcester Shrub Hill meant the journey no longer served any purpose in relation to the original plan. Given that the OP simply cycled slightly further and still travelled to their destination, it probably did serve a purpose and so there's no refund entitlement under Article 18.

The issue is that the industry pays no heed to the PRO whatsoever, to the point where when retailers have asked if they can issue refunds in these circumstances they have been told "no" and that the passenger should be directed back to the operator for a "goodwill gesture".

It's the same with the PRO's entitlement to travel at a later date, I do not think there's any guidance on how this should work from a systems perspective (LENNON etc) to be able to generate a new ticket valid for travel under comparable conditions on another date.

 

[blimmo]

The issue is that the industry pays no heed to the PRO whatsoever, to the point where when retailers have asked if they can issue refunds in these circumstances they have been told "no" and that the passenger should be directed back to the operator for a "goodwill gesture".

Presumably the law actually requires the operator rather than the retailers to provide the refund?

If the PRO actually applies to the retailer here, surely RDG cannot require the retailer to break the law?

I appreciate that your legal department is probably not sufficiently well funded to actually be arguing these questions but I will ask them as a hypothetical

 

[Adam Williams]

Presumably the law actually requires the operator rather than the retailers to provide the refund?

I did think so (I think the PRO refers to railway undertakings across the board?), but I'm not convinced the operator's customer services team staff would have any more clarity! Really I'd want it all codified in the NRCoT and made simple for the customer to claim (which ideally would mean 'from point of sale' with the retailer able to refund it in the settlement system)

 

[blimmo]

I did think so (I think the PRO refers to railway undertakings across the board?), but I'm not convinced the operator's customer services team staff would have any more clarity! Really I'd want it all codified in the NRCoT and made simple for the customer to claim (which ideally would mean 'from point of sale' with the retailer able to refund it in the settlement system)

I do think the PRO was drafted with the intent the railway's t&cs would codify all its requirements and no one would actually refer to the law. I do wonder if the NRCoT will ever be updated to compliance. Perhaps when someone gets annoyed enough to actually claim in court.

 

[Watershed]

I do think the PRO was drafted with the intent the railway's t&cs would codify all its requirements and no one would actually refer to the law. I do wonder if the NRCoT will ever be updated to compliance. Perhaps when someone gets annoyed enough to actually claim in court.

The NRCoT was ostensibly updated to comply with the PRO when the long-standing domestic exemption was removed a few years back.

Some positive changes were made, for example tickets became transferable unless specifically issued under someone's name/ID (e.g. season tickets). However, by and large, the industry evidently considered its existing arrangements to be sufficient to comply with the PRO.

Condition 28.4 was added to the NRCoT to comply with the PRO obligation to redate a ticket free of charge, but no effort whatsoever seems to have been made to come up with a process for TOCs or retailers to actually issue new tickets. On the handful of occasions I've tried to exercise that right I've been fobbed off or told to use existing ticket acceptance (which doesn't let you travel at a date of your convenience).

I agree that it will take a bigger legal challenge, or perhaps the intervention of the ORR (pigs can fly...) for anything to change.

 

[yorkie]

Wouldn't this count as an abandoned journey due to disruption, and qualify for a full ticket refund? Or is that not how it works?

No; if you don't immediately return to origin, and instead actually make use of the ticket to get somewhere. By making use of the ticket to get to an intermediate point, then the value of the journey you did would need to be taken into consideration for any refund. In this case, the refund value is effectively £0.

Therefore, the customer should claim Delay Repay.

If the alternative train would have arrived 30+ late, but the customer took a bike journey that got them there quicker than that but still 30+ late, then it's still a valid claim in my opinion. If the bike beat that and the passenger was under 30 mins late, then it's a grey area; a claim based on completing the journey by rail should succeeed but it's not clear that it would be legitimate.

Arguably a TOC shouldn't be able to duck out of compensation on the basis that customers have their own transport to reduce a delay, but that's a debateable point that has no definitive answer, as far as I know. It's probably a subject for a whole new thread.