TfW Delay Repay + 1st class refund. Who is wrong?

[flitwickbeds]

A little point of interest here is that TfW (in this instance) can put a train on without 1st class despite promising it in the timetable. A passenger can have to endure standard class, be delayed for over an hour, get the fare back through Delay Repay but have gained nothing for having sacrificed 1st class for his journey.

They do get (via Delay Repay) a full "refund" of the first class element paid.

I do think it unfair that you cannot get more than 100% of the fare back even if you're delayed by 2 hours or more on both legs of your journey. Admittedly this wouldn't happen very often (only once to me) but it did cause lots of inconvenience and a financial loss to me even after the 100% ticket repayment.

 

[317 forever]

They do get (via Delay Repay) a full "refund" of the first class element paid.

I do think it unfair that you cannot get more than 100% of the fare back even if you're delayed by 2 hours or more on both legs of your journey. Admittedly this wouldn't happen very often (only once to me) but it did cause lots of inconvenience and a financial loss to me even after the 100% ticket repayment.

Sure, but I was reflecting on their financial position following the delay being identical for the "demotion" to standard class as it would have been had they had the opportunity to travel first class.

It is interesting what you mention about a 2 hour delay. It seems that once the delay has gone over an hour they don't care anymore. Last year I had some trains cancelled from Stockport to Warrington Central. Once a Liverpool bound train did finally come, it was rerouted to avoid Warrington Central, thereby extending my delay further. Admittedly, I could guess that the reason for this was to enable to reach Liverpool more quickly and so reduce further delays in the opposite direction.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Last year I had some trains cancelled from Stockport to Warrington Central. Once a Liverpool bound train did finally come, it was rerouted to avoid Warrington Central, thereby extending my delay further. Admittedly, I could guess that the reason for this was to enable to reach Liverpool more quickly and so reduce further delays in the opposite direction.

Or it may have been to allow the trains to reach Liverpool *at all*. If the route through Warrington is blocked, then diverting via Newton at least allows a Manchester to Liverpool service to run - although Warrington passengers like you (and Liverpool South Parkway passengers like me) lose out.

 

[Tetchytyke]

A passenger can have to endure standard class, be delayed for over an hour, get the fare back through Delay Repay but have gained nothing for having sacrificed 1st class for his journey.

Which is precisely why I don't believe that is the actual legal position.

The contractual position is that if first class isn’t available you get a refund for the difference between first class and standard class (but note that the contractual entitlement is based on the walk up standard fare- lots of first class fares are less than that, and TfW seem to be being more generous with their first class refunds than the contractual minimum).

The contractual position is that if your train is delayed you receive compensation for the amount you paid.

Assume you paid £100 for your first class ticket and the standard class ticket was £60.

If first class is not available, you are entitled to a refund of £40. This means that you have only paid £60 for your ticket. Therefore, any compensation due would be based on that £60. You still get £100 back: £60 for the delay repay and £40 for the first class.

The fact you’d have still got £100 if first class had been available is neither here nor there, as you’d have paid £100 not £60. Whether this is fair or not is also irrelevant.

If anyone thinks that the legal and contractual position is different, I’d be curious why they think that. Even the Consumer Rights Act is largely based on people getting their money back, nothing more.

 

[Belperpete]

The contractual position is that if first class isn’t available you get a refund for the difference between first class and standard class (but note that the contractual entitlement is based on the walk up standard fare- lots of first class fares are less than that, and TfW seem to be being more generous with their first class refunds than the contractual minimum).

The contractual position is that if your train is delayed you receive compensation for the amount you paid.

Assume you paid £100 for your first class ticket and the standard class ticket was £60.

If first class is not available, you are entitled to a refund of £40. This means that you have only paid £60 for your ticket. Therefore, any compensation due would be based on that £60. You still get £100 back: £60 for the delay repay and £40 for the first class.

The fact you’d have still got £100 if first class had been available is neither here nor there, as you’d have paid £100 not £60. Whether this is fair or not is also irrelevant.

If anyone thinks that the legal and contractual position is different, I’d be curious why they think that. Even the Consumer Rights Act is largely based on people getting their money back, nothing more.

The fact that you subsequently got a refund, doesn't alter the amount that you paid for the ticket. Neither does it affect the price of the ticket, which is what delay repay is calculated on.

The refund does not mean that you now have some phantom ticket of lower value.

 

[rs98]

So an update from TfW. They are firm in their decision that no refund is due, have escalated to a team lead and issued a deadlock letter allowing me to ask the Rail Ombudsman to intervene if I want to - it won't cost me anything and I feel like I've already made a fuss with them, so what do I have to lose...?

I was very specific in mentioning the quotes from their website saying that "you'll be entitled" to a refund with no qualification, and that this page https://tfw.wales/help-and-contact/rail/refunds#first is specifically linked from their Terms and Conditions so therefore forms parts of the Terms of sale in my opinion. I asked for what specific wording they were relying on to deny this refund, and their selected quotes from NRCoT to back up their decision are:

32.2: For claims made under the industry arrangements (set out at paragraph 32.1.1 above) for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket or Tickets. However, in exceptional circumstances, a Train Company may consider claims for other losses. This will be for the Train Company to decide in its sole discretion, unlike your legal rights set out in paragraph 32.1 above

33.5: Please note that if you have decided not to travel and claim a full refund in accordance with Condition 30, you cannot then also claim compensation for delay under this clause through a Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter.

These don't make sense as 32.2 is specifically only for claims made via the industry arrangements (i.e. Delay Repay schemes) for losses caused by delay and/or cancellations, and I'm trying to claim a partial refund for the downgrade. 33.5 is only in cases where I decided not to travel, which is clearly not what I did. They are seemingly clutching at straws and am confident therefore that they have nothing in writing to back up their interpretation, if this is the best that they can do.


I did also include in my email

If you believe that your customers should not be both refunded and separately compensated when TfW fail to provide an acceptable service in two separate ways on the same journey, I would recommend you look into updating your website, terms and conditions, and requesting RDG make a change to NRCoT in their next update.

but that was totally ignored, unsurprisingly.