Delay repay is it destructive?

[gazthomas]

Apologies if this topic has been approached before, I had a look but can't see anything quite the same.

I regularly make trips with Avanti and I almost budget for delay repay refunds now.

Staff on the train are very proactive about communicating the right to compensation but I can't help thinking this is just takes money out that should be used to invest for reliability.

I for one would rather have certainty of arrival time over compensation.

 

[bramling]

Apologies if this topic has been approached before, I had a look but can't see anything quite the same.

I regularly make trips with Avanti and I almost budget for delay repay refunds now.

Staff on the train are very proactive about communicating the right to compensation but I can't help thinking this is just takes money out that should be used to invest for reliability.

I for one would rather have certainty of arrival time over compensation.

I’ve never really agreed with it. Firstly, as you say, I’d prefer things to run on time, having some money back doesn’t make up for lost time. But it essentially imposes an extra time penalty in having to go through the bother of claiming, so if one doesn’t want to lose a further few minutes in messing around putting in a claim you are effectively subsidising others.

Then on top of that there’s the system being open to fraudulent claims, which would be very easy on something like my local Thameslink service where there’s pretty much always a list of cancelled services to choose from.

 

[Dewedin]

I'd be happy with a blanket fares reduction of 20% in exchange for abolishing Delay Repay, nothing less with how unreliable things are at the moment.

 

[Msq71423]

I think the point is that the railway is supposed to provide a system whereby your train runs on time for the fair paid. If this system fails not only is it compensation for the fair payer for not receiving what they've paid for but also punishment and incentive for the TOC/whoever is to blame. Where I would question the payouts are for scenarios where no-one in the railway is to blame for the delay yet they are still forced to pay out, as this is neither punishment nor incentive!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Delay Repay 15 is a bit pointless. It's easy to incur a short delay like that and it's generally not very consequential.

I would keep 30, 60 and 120 minute claims, but have these actually done (on an unpublicised basis) at 27, 57 and 117 minutes to avoid the silly edge cases.

 

[brad465]

I like the concept, partly for making fares technically cheaper, but also it should exist as an incentive for TOCs to do better. However, this doesn't seem to have worked for the latter, but I wonder if in part it's because the TOC isn't within 100% control of the ability to reduce delays.

 

[gazthomas]

I think Delay Repay 15 is a bit pointless. It's easy to incur a short delay like that and it's generally not very consequential.

I would keep 30, 60 and 120 minute claims, but have these actually done (on an unpublicised basis) at 27, 57 and 117 minutes to avoid the silly edge cases.

I think 15 mins in particular would make sense based on over journey length. Trips of 20 minutes and 3 hours being treated the same seems odd

 

[Magdalia]

Are there any numbers on what delay repay costs, and how big it is compared to total ticket revenue?

 

[HSTEd]

If delay repay was abolished, would that money be used to "invest for reliability", or would it just be used to reduce railway subsidies by the commensurate amount?

Indeed I would argue it would probably lead to less spending on reliability because it would weaken the business case of reliability work.

 

[Sonic1234]

or would it just be used to reduce railway subsidies by the commensurate amount?

Of course it would. The Government are getting twitchy about Delay Repay, especially the 15 min threshold now they're on the hook for it.

Delay Repay was a political move signalling that the Government was on your side against "fat cat private operators" and standing up for the "long suffering commuter". Now the Government is the operator effectively, they're not so keen.

 

[JamesT]

Are there any numbers on what delay repay costs, and how big it is compared to total ticket revenue?

For 2024/25, total fare revenue was £11.5bn, delay repay was £150m.

 

[Djgr]

For 2024/25, total fare revenue was £11.5bn, delay repay was £150m.

Presumably paid out rather than "incurred"?

 

[35B]

Apologies if this topic has been approached before, I had a look but can't see anything quite the same.

I regularly make trips with Avanti and I almost budget for delay repay refunds now.

Staff on the train are very proactive about communicating the right to compensation but I can't help thinking this is just takes money out that should be used to invest for reliability.

I for one would rather have certainty of arrival time over compensation.

I fundamentally disagree with the central premise of the question. It misses a really key point - that the railway operator has breached its contract with its customer by not adhering to the timetable that is the basis of its offer. The customer is who is affected, and it is the customer whose money the railway has taken in return for (not) providing the advertised service.

I also doubt that getting rid of Delay Repay would reduce the costs of the railway. What is presently a largely automated system which throws out few exceptions would instead become an ad-hoc system without specific rules, in which people would make random demands that the train operators would have to manage specifically on a case by case basis. At the start, it would also generate very toxic press for both operators and government, which might well be felt in reduced custom.

If the railway genuinely wants to hang onto that money, it just needs to do what it says its going to.

 

[JamesT]

Presumably paid out rather than "incurred"?

Yes, that’s paid out. Apparently 45% of eligible passengers claim.

 

[Sonic1234]

Apparently 45% of eligible passengers claim.

It would be interesting if there was any data on who claims and who does not. I would expect a higher proportion of claims from frequent rail users (aware of Delay Repay), where the ability to claim has been announced on the train and from holders of cheaper/split tickets and Advances (switched on to saving money). I would expect there are very few claims from Oyster users due to the low amount of any claim and the fuss of getting proof of travel.

 

[JamesT]

It would be interesting if there was any data on who claims and who does not. I would expect a higher proportion of claims from frequent rail users (aware of Delay Repay), where the ability to claim has been announced on the train and from holders of cheaper/split tickets and Advances (switched on to saving money). I would expect there are very few claims from Oyster users due to the low amount of any claim and the fuss of getting proof of travel.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-delays-and-compensation-2025 Are the reports that the 45% headline number comes from.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Yes, that’s paid out. Apparently 45% of eligible passengers claim.

But presumably more than 45% of the eligible value, as those with low value but valid claims will be most likely not to bother??

 

[flitwickbeds]

I think Delay Repay 15 is a bit pointless. It's easy to incur a short delay like that and it's generally not very consequential.

I would keep 30, 60 and 120 minute claims, but have these actually done (on an unpublicised basis) at 27, 57 and 117 minutes to avoid the silly edge cases.

Thameslink peak time train ticket from Flitwick to London is £47.70.

12.5% of that is £5.96 which is rounded up to £6 for Delay Repay payouts for a 15 minutes delay on one leg.

Our school and nursery charge more than that per 10 minutes of lateness at pickup.

So definitely not inconsequential for us.

 

[Djgr]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-delays-and-compensation-2025 Are the reports that the 45% headline number comes from.

So sounds like TOCs don't do too badly with Delay Repay at the moment, as the actual net financial outgoing rates for failure are effectively halved.

 

[The exile]

But presumably more than 45% of the eligible value, as those with low value but valid claims will be most likely not to bother??

Though once you’ve made one claim, all subsequent ones are a lot simpler (especially on a.season)

 

[stevieinselby]

The flip side is to look at how many passengers the railways would be at risk of losing if people felt they were not being treated fairly and were not getting any compensation when their journeys were severely disrupted. I can imagine a lot of people would balk at paying the high price for train travel if they had had a couple of bad delays and got no redress. It would solve all the problems XCountry have around capacity at a stroke!

 

[JamesT]

As hinted at by @35B the Consumer Rights Act hoves into view. Passengers have the right to compensation on the basis of poor performance by the service provider. The delay repay system is arguably the way that obligation is being met currently. So if you get rid of it, what are you putting in place instead?

 

[35B]

As hinted at by @35B the Consumer Rights Act hoves into view. Passengers have the right to compensation on the basis of poor performance by the service provider. The delay repay system is arguably the way that obligation is being met currently. So if you get rid of it, what are you putting in place instead?

I had the Consumer Rights Act in mind, but my point was independent of it. The complaints and demands for refunds will come in anyway, and they won’t be constrained.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As hinted at by @35B the Consumer Rights Act hoves into view. Passengers have the right to compensation on the basis of poor performance by the service provider. The delay repay system is arguably the way that obligation is being met currently. So if you get rid of it, what are you putting in place instead?

We could return to the older system where the railway has to be at fault (i.e. the service "not delivered with reasonable care and skill") and with higher thresholds (I think it was 20% for an hour). Delay Repay is exceptionally generous. A full refund for an hour's delay is something air passengers can only dream of.

(I don't advocate that by the way but I do advocate getting rid of DR15.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 08:38 ==

Thameslink peak time train ticket from Flitwick to London is £47.70.

12.5% of that is £5.96 which is rounded up to £6 for Delay Repay payouts for a 15 minutes delay on one leg.

Our school and nursery charge more than that per 10 minutes of lateness at pickup.

So definitely not inconsequential for us.

If your journey is such that a delay of 15 minutes means your kid is picked up late, your planning is off. It is prudent when doing something critically important to leave at least one train "spare" in case of a delay or cancellation. Probably more than one on a frequent service like Thameslink.

I don't think this is a good reason to keep DR15.

 

[Tester]

We could return to the older system where the railway has to be at fault (i.e. the service "not delivered with reasonable care and skill") and with higher thresholds (I think it was 20% for an hour). Delay Repay is exceptionally generous. A full refund for an hour's delay is something air passengers can only dream of.

(I don't advocate that by the way but I do advocate getting rid of DR15.)

It is indeed - something the government of the time thought was a good idea when it wasn't their money.

Now it is.

 

[Djgr]

It is indeed - something the government of the time thought was a good idea when it wasn't their money.

Now it is.

We could return to the older system where the railway has to be at fault (i.e. the service "not delivered with reasonable care and skill") and with higher thresholds (I think it was 20% for an hour). Delay Repay is exceptionally generous. A full refund for an hour's delay is something air passengers can only dream of.

Although in practice an hour's delay costs the TOCs a 50% refund.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Made my first delay repay 2 weeks ago. A bit tedious- not sure if it is a pointless scheme or not. Avanti btw.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although in practice an hour's delay costs the TOCs a 50% refund.

It's a full refund of that leg. That that is expressed as 50% of a walk up return ticket is moot - you are getting all your money back for the journey that was delayed.

I don't understand the "100% of return" thing for 2 hours - it makes no sense for it to be different based on whether you have a single or return ticket. Either that should be dropped, or it should be 200% of the single leg, or maybe 100% plus a flat sum or smaller percentage recognising that a 2 hour delay is exceptional and really inconvenient.

 

[osmarks]

It would be nice in some ways to unbundle them, so that passengers can get a (cheaper) ticket and separately some kind of parametric insurance paying out in case of delays, with the option to buy more insurance than the cost of your ticket in case you really want to be on time. On the other hand, the railway directly taking on some of the delay cost probably helps align incentives.

 

[Djgr]

It's a full refund of that leg. That that is expressed as 50% of a walk up return ticket is moot - you are getting all your money back for the journey that was delayed.

I don't understand the "100% of return" thing for 2 hours - it makes no sense for it to be different based on whether you have a single or return ticket. Either that should be dropped, or it should be 200% of the single leg, or maybe 100% plus a flat sum or smaller percentage recognising that a 2 hour delay is exceptional and really inconvenient.

What I mean is that as only 50% of passengers ever claim it is the equivalent of the TOC having to pay out 50% of the ticket revenue for each one hour delay (i.e. 50%*100%+50%*0%= 50%)

In other words, if I was producing a budget or a business proposal within a TOC I would make an delay repay expense allowance based on 50% rather than 100%.