Advice Only for Greater Anglia - Delay Repay Fraud

[ashkeba]

Will they get their abandoned journey refund? Probably not. (And it will merely total a 1hr delay under DR anyway!)

One poster has already tried to reclaim a misclaimed abandoned journey using the correct form and been denied because GA say it was too long ago! https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/greater-anglia-delay-repay-fraud.213418/post-5024626

I feel no one would make stuff up like this and the misrepresentation of what fraud is, and I hope GA get a bloody nose for it eventually. Even if they have caught some frauders, they have probably bullied some innocents into paying along side.

 

[Wolfie]

One poster has already tried to reclaim a misclaimed abandoned journey using the correct form and been denied because GA say it was too long ago! https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/greater-anglia-delay-repay-fraud.213418/post-5024626

I feel no one would make stuff up like this and the misrepresentation of what fraud is, and I hope GA get a bloody nose for it eventually. Even if they have caught some frauders, they have probably bullied some innocents into paying along side.

GA's rules can deny it all they want. Their rules don't and can't stop legal action against the company and the deadline for civil litigation is six years after the event. I really hope that everyone affected goes after GA. That'll do wonders for their legal costs. Oh, and as a claimant against a company you can pick the most convenient Court for you. Wouldn't it be sad if some cases were heard in Cornwall or Durham. Just more expense for GA..... So sad!

 

[robbeech]

This MAY well stem from incompetence but it is frightfully convenient for the operator isn't it.

GA know full well that they have the upper hand here regardless of whether passengers have done something wrong deliberately, accidentally, under the advice of GA themselves or have done nothing wrong at all. They know they can essentially do whatever they want, say whatever they want, write whatever they want in order to recover as much money that they've paid out as they can. It comes across as if it is of little interest to them whether that money was claimed correctly, in good faith, or fraudulently, the primary aim is to recover as much money as they can.

There's certain things we know, and that GA also know.

* Very few people, as low as 30% in some cases actually claim delay repay in the first place. So a fair sized benefit to GA here from the outset.
* GA DO reject a fair number of claims, some (comparatively small no doubt) of these are valid claims leaving the passenger without compensation they are entitled to.
* GA Know full well that when they reject valid claims, a fair number of the passengers will NOT appeal this decision. This is a small win for them and provides no incentive to improve.
* GA Know that the longer they wait, the less chance there is of a passenger having evidence to prove they were on a particular train on a particular day.
* GA Know that many passengers aren't particularly knowledgeable with the system and that it could be easy to make a mistake with a complicated journey involving a missed connection.
* GA Know that by sending letters out with minimal information it will get people to pay up, even if it is not due.
* GA Know that if someone questions it they can threaten them with the police in an attempt to get them to settle. This WILL work in many cases, even when it is not due.
* GA Know that their relationship with the police and the courts is, by default, better than that of their passengers and there is an immediate initial bias in their favour.
* Many passengers know that they do not START in a good place with the police or a court should they not be able to prove where they were on the day.
* GA Know that passengers won't want the potential risk of losing, even if they have done nothing wrong.
* GA Know that anyone who settles (whether it was due or not) is unlikely to risk claiming delay repay ever again, this may be a win per case to GA of hundreds of pounds per year.
* GA Know that anyone who fights them stands little chance of winning but fi they do, the absolute worst case for GA is they don't get the money back.
* GA Know that those people will be less likely to claim again also.

I think we need to remember the difference in claim types when we talk about why they didn't reject them in the first place. What we need to look at is how the DR system interprets data, and what data it has access to, and what it can use to compare to make a decision. If the 1600 arrival arrives at 1637 and a passenger who claims to be travelling on that train puts in a claim for that train then if the system has no link to any other data, it should (and in most cases will) accept this as a valid claim and pay out. If they claimed to be on the 1700 arrival which arrived at 1703, it should reject this. I don't think this system is faulty here, it is still accepting and rejecting claims based on the running information in most cases. (There will always be rejection for valid claims with complicated routes, missed connections, double missed connections almost always get rejected, it's poor, its unacceptable but it doesn't appear to be related to this issue here).

It appears that GA have taken the data and have then linked it to smart card tap in and out data to validate the claims, this topic has been through the potential issues with that, and i'm not buying the suggestion that GA might have overlooked those, they're not stupid, but ignoring these WILL be more financially rewarding. Adding in "above average" claims is truly abysmal, you're, by default, causing more headaches for those who have suffered the most, although it appears to have yielded good solid results. GA aren't stupid enough to understand that the whole concept of the average being where it is is BECAUSE some people have claimed more, they're just using it to their advantage using the knowledge from the bullet points above.

If they started with 2021 claims and started linking up smart card data to test this i don't think anyone would have a real problem with it (other than those, of which there are a couple here, that seem to think that they should never try to recover money that they are due) but to be going back to 2019 knowing how difficult it is (see above) for people to prove otherwise is incredibly poor.

I am interested to see how this pans out in the long term. I'm not aware of anyone that has come here that is firmly standing their ground but i'd be interested to know just how far they will push these people who have done nothing wrong. I'd also be interested to know what happens when someone goes to court for it as i am still not convinced that on a charge of non payment of funds (not fraud) they'd almost certainly be guilty until proven innocent, with the same benefit of the 2 year gap.

 

[packermac]

I may be being thick but having looked at the GA Passenger Charter, pages 15 and 16 refer to what to do if your train is late or cancelled. Where is a passenger supposed to know that a cancelled train is not part of the delay repay process, as I can see no mention of any other way of claiming a refund other than a possible threat of a £10 fee for refunding your money if you do not travel at all, which is not the case of a few that have been accused of using the incorrect process by GA.

 

[robbeech]

I may be being thick but having looked at the GA Passenger Charter, pages 15 and 16 refer to what to do if your train is late or cancelled. Where is a passenger supposed to know that a cancelled train is not part of the delay repay process, as I can see no mention of any other way of claiming a refund other than a possible threat of a £10 fee for refunding your money if you do not travel at all, which is not the case of a few that have been accused of using the incorrect process by GA.

It doesn't matter whether they have misled you into using the wrong system. The fact is that 2 years later you will be accused of fraud because of it. People on this very forum consider this acceptable.

 

[kermit]

This MAY well stem from incompetence but it is frightfully convenient for the operator isn't it.

GA know full well that they have the upper hand here regardless of whether passengers have done something wrong deliberately, accidentally, under the advice of GA themselves or have done nothing wrong at all. They know they can essentially do whatever they want, say whatever they want, write whatever they want in order to recover as much money that they've paid out as they can. It comes across as if it is of little interest to them whether that money was claimed correctly, in good faith, or fraudulently, the primary aim is to recover as much money as they can.

There's certain things we know, and that GA also know.

* Very few people, as low as 30% in some cases actually claim delay repay in the first place. So a fair sized benefit to GA here from the outset.
* GA DO reject a fair number of claims, some (comparatively small no doubt) of these are valid claims leaving the passenger without compensation they are entitled to.
* GA Know full well that when they reject valid claims, a fair number of the passengers will NOT appeal this decision. This is a small win for them and provides no incentive to improve.
* GA Know that the longer they wait, the less chance there is of a passenger having evidence to prove they were on a particular train on a particular day.
* GA Know that many passengers aren't particularly knowledgeable with the system and that it could be easy to make a mistake with a complicated journey involving a missed connection.
* GA Know that by sending letters out with minimal information it will get people to pay up, even if it is not due.
* GA Know that if someone questions it they can threaten them with the police in an attempt to get them to settle. This WILL work in many cases, even when it is not due.
* GA Know that their relationship with the police and the courts is, by default, better than that of their passengers and there is an immediate initial bias in their favour.
* Many passengers know that they do not START in a good place with the police or a court should they not be able to prove where they were on the day.
* GA Know that passengers won't want the potential risk of losing, even if they have done nothing wrong.
* GA Know that anyone who settles (whether it was due or not) is unlikely to risk claiming delay repay ever again, this may be a win per case to GA of hundreds of pounds per year.
* GA Know that anyone who fights them stands little chance of winning but fi they do, the absolute worst case for GA is they don't get the money back.
* GA Know that those people will be less likely to claim again also.

I think we need to remember the difference in claim types when we talk about why they didn't reject them in the first place. What we need to look at is how the DR system interprets data, and what data it has access to, and what it can use to compare to make a decision. If the 1600 arrival arrives at 1637 and a passenger who claims to be travelling on that train puts in a claim for that train then if the system has no link to any other data, it should (and in most cases will) accept this as a valid claim and pay out. If they claimed to be on the 1700 arrival which arrived at 1703, it should reject this. I don't think this system is faulty here, it is still accepting and rejecting claims based on the running information in most cases. (There will always be rejection for valid claims with complicated routes, missed connections, double missed connections almost always get rejected, it's poor, its unacceptable but it doesn't appear to be related to this issue here).

It appears that GA have taken the data and have then linked it to smart card tap in and out data to validate the claims, this topic has been through the potential issues with that, and i'm not buying the suggestion that GA might have overlooked those, they're not stupid, but ignoring these WILL be more financially rewarding. Adding in "above average" claims is truly abysmal, you're, by default, causing more headaches for those who have suffered the most, although it appears to have yielded good solid results. GA aren't stupid enough to understand that the whole concept of the average being where it is is BECAUSE some people have claimed more, they're just using it to their advantage using the knowledge from the bullet points above.

If they started with 2021 claims and started linking up smart card data to test this i don't think anyone would have a real problem with it (other than those, of which there are a couple here, that seem to think that they should never try to recover money that they are due) but to be going back to 2019 knowing how difficult it is (see above) for people to prove otherwise is incredibly poor.

I am interested to see how this pans out in the long term. I'm not aware of anyone that has come here that is firmly standing their ground but i'd be interested to know just how far they will push these people who have done nothing wrong. I'd also be interested to know what happens when someone goes to court for it as i am still not convinced that on a charge of non payment of funds (not fraud) they'd almost certainly be guilty until proven innocent, with the same benefit of the 2 year gap.

Very well put. Pure speculation, but it may be the case that some decisions have been made at GA about whether, to pursue past claimants, and what tone/tactics to use, influenced by the knowledge that there seems to be at least one website or app that will facilitate, or even encourage, fraudulent claims based on misuse of published train performance information. The old adage that two wrongs don't make a right might apply here. Has anyone considered raising the issues outlined above with their MP? It might be the case that there are ways to restrict the opportunities for fraud, as well as establishing benchmarks for better behaviour by TOCs when they believe they may have been defrauded. Basically improving a system that has evident flaws.

 

[MotCO]

Some Machavelian thoughts:

1) Maybe GA know that some claims at the time were dodgy, but they were keen to pay out quickly. A year later they challenge the passenger, and get paid back not just the dodgy claim, but also additional sums for admin expenses. Kerching!
2) How can a passenger check if his train was delayed a year after the event? I don't think RTT allows historic queries. Kerching!

 

[AlterEgo]

Some Machavelian thoughts:

1) Maybe GA know that some claims at the time were dodgy, but they were keen to pay out quickly. A year later they challenge the passenger, and get paid back not just the dodgy claim, but also additional sums for admin expenses. Kerching!
2) How can a passenger check if his train was delayed a year after the event? I don't think RTT allows historic queries. Kerching!

GA aren’t asking people to check if the train was late. The trains on the claims were late - of course. The problem is whether the claimant was on the train.

 

[PauloDavesi]

Has anyone asked GA to explain and justify their "alleged" investigation costs? To do a mass mailing from a computerised report would cost significantly less that £1 per item, especially as posters have said a very low grade, and therefore cheap, paper was used.

Also, by not properly verifying the claims at the time they were originally submitted, it could be argued that GA have actually created the costs themselves, and if they had carried out a proper verification process when the claim was submitted they would not only have avoided the fraud investigation costs, but would have had a significantly higher level of funds available from the date the claims were paid.

 

[robbeech]

Has anyone asked GA to explain and justify their "alleged" investigation costs? To do a mass mailing from a computerised report would cost significantly less that £1 per item, especially as posters have said a very low grade, and therefore cheap, paper was used.

Also, by not properly verifying the claims at the time they were originally submitted, it could be argued that GA have actually created the costs themselves, and if they had carried out a proper verification process when the claim was submitted they would not only have avoided the fraud investigation costs, but would have had a significantly higher level of funds available from the date the claims were paid.

It is possible they did not have the ability to check at the time, and now they do. As mentioned before, these are not claims for a late train when the train ran to time, the trains the passengers claimed to be on WERE delayed, but it is possible that they now have the ability to go back through claim history and see if the passenger actually tapped in and out at suitable times to allow them to travel on that train, and are trying their luck with passengers who have claimed above average numbers too.

 

[jon0844]

They may not know something is suspicious until there's a long history of claims, so I don't think paying out initially is a sign of incompetence.

There are clearly a lot of people on here very anti-railway and, going by usernames, anti GA.

 

[35B]

Has anyone asked GA to explain and justify their "alleged" investigation costs? To do a mass mailing from a computerised report would cost significantly less that £1 per item, especially as posters have said a very low grade, and therefore cheap, paper was used.

Also, by not properly verifying the claims at the time they were originally submitted, it could be argued that GA have actually created the costs themselves, and if they had carried out a proper verification process when the claim was submitted they would not only have avoided the fraud investigation costs, but would have had a significantly higher level of funds available from the date the claims were paid.

The computer costs money too, as do the people who interpret the data it produces. Those costs are legitimate to seek to reclaim.

On the other hand, the argument about GA’s contribution to the cost incurred is an interesting question.

 

[AlterEgo]

Also, by not properly verifying the claims at the time they were originally submitted, it could be argued that GA have actually created the costs themselves, and if they had carried out a proper verification process when the claim was submitted they would not only have avoided the fraud investigation costs, but would have had a significantly higher level of funds available from the date the claims were paid.

It's not reasonable for GA to verify the claims in the way many people think they should - by checking passengers are on board the trains they say they are. This is impossible for paper tickets and very difficult for smartcards. I proposed upthread that DR should not apply to seasons because it is impossible to administer properly and invites dishonest people to commit fraud, but as it is, DR does apply and effectively operates on honesty when it comes to passengers with non-train specific tickets claiming they were on delayed services. The only way to spot people on the make is to wait for a pattern of suspicious activity to form.

You could argue GA have created costs themselves, but that's only something that would fly in here and not in a court. "You should have seen this person was stealing from you!" tends not to be something laywers wheel out very often, I imagine!

 

[[.n]]

118 claims over six months (which is what the article implies) is...a lot. A TOC assumes 232 single journeys in a six month period.

On the first (I stopped counting after reaching this landmark) 100 journeys I took when SWR took over from SWT EVERY SINGLE ONE was late. Not all DR late but still late. I travelled (commuted and leisure) around 6 days week on average across a vast portion of the SWR network.

 

[WesternLancer]

On the first (I stopped counting after reaching this landmark) 100 journeys I took when SWR took over from SWT EVERY SINGLE ONE was late. Not all DR late but still late. I travelled (commuted and leisure) around 6 days week on average across a vast portion of the SWR network.

This is a good point - seems like an obv question but we don't know if the GA 'algorithym' is picking up people who are DR late in terms of having got payment - or people who claimed every time they were late even if they did not get paid.

It's possible someone might do that - claim for short delays - either to 'annoy' the railway company that kept delaying them (as they might see it) or if they did not understand DR fully, in the hope they may get some sort of refund for the delay. After all, all the DR publicity goes big on claiming if your train is late - only when you read the 'small print' do you realise that 10 mins delay would not be a claim that would be accepted.

 

[Darandio]

After all, all the DR publicity goes big on claiming if your train is late - only when you read the 'small print' do you realise that 10 mins delay would not be a claim that would be accepted.

It's as if some on here believe that there is some conspiracy to hide the terms in which you can claim, so define 'small print'. I've just randomly chosen four TOC's, searched Delay Repay on Google and clicked the first result.

Greater Anglia has this in bold on the second line of the page:

Get compensation from 15 minutes onwards.

LNER has a large header at the top stating this:

If you're delayed for 30 minutes or more you're entitled to compensation.

GWR has this on the second line:

If you arrive at your destination station more than 15 minutes late because your GWR train was delayed or cancelled, you could be entitled to compensation.

ScotRail has a header in large font stating:

Delayed for more than half an hour? Get some or all of your money back.

 

[WesternLancer]

It's as if some on here believe that there is some conspiracy to hide the terms in which you can claim, so define 'small print'. I've just randomly chosen four TOC's, searched Delay Repay on Google and clicked the first result.

Greater Anglia has this in bold on the second line of the page:



LNER has a large header at the top stating this:



GWR has this on the second line:



ScotRail has a header in large font stating:

I totally agree that you can find the info quite easily - I'm saying that some people will not bother to look at that at all - and just claim regardless - possibly for reasons I have posited. Of course I would not expect this to be that many people, but I can't quantify how many it would possibly be.

Where I have some sympathy with some posters on this forum who ciriticise other forum users for being 'trainspotters and rail fans' is that you do sometimes have to step back and think about how much some people really hate the railway - REALLY hate it - they hate their commute, they hate the fares they are asked for, they hate the uncomfortable and dirty trains, they resent having to go to work on them, they resent the perpetual fare rises etc etc - now we know that most of this is all down to govt policy but I would say most people neither care nor are even vaguely interested - they would happily never go on another train ever - even if it were at no cost to them.

I think some forum members my not fully appreciate this mentality.

Of course it is the reason why post pandemic it's game over for much of the railway as we have known it for the last few decades as people will do anything to avoid their rail commutes and work from home more etc etc, but that's a a different topic.

 

[AlterEgo]

On the first (I stopped counting after reaching this landmark) 100 journeys I took when SWR took over from SWT EVERY SINGLE ONE was late. Not all DR late but still late. I travelled (commuted and leisure) around 6 days week on average across a vast portion of the SWR network.

Yep, been there done it - the line from Woking to London was only a few times actually on time in the morning for me, but very rarely did it trigger DR thresholds. The person in question filed 118 claims in 6 months recouping £1100 - against a ticket price of “nearly £7000” a bit of rough maths tells us that, this punter, on average was delayed on every single day they travelled and for over 30 minutes on every single occasion. The issue here is not that people are claiming for one and two minute delays (else the company wouldn’t pay out), but that punters have been defrauding the company by claiming to be on trains they weren’t on. It’s as simple as that.

 

[WesternLancer]

Indeed - that must be the case. Or they were on the trains and GA does not believe it and they can't prove it.

A shame that we still have not had a poster who has answered the question to say they have refuted GA's allegation, or been able to refute it.

 

[HSP 2]

but that punters have been defrauding the company by claiming to be on trains they weren’t on. It’s as simple as that.

Strong words, more so if you can't prove them. Some of them have used the wrong claim method yes by not knowing it was wrong one, but GA still payed out so that looks to be correct for how to claim for that type of problem.
Some people have admitted to using the web search web sites that clamed to get you lots of money back forgetting that they used tap in tap out tickets. Now that is deliberate fraud.
Then we have another type that has got the date mixed up by putting in say 3/4/20 instead of 4/3/20 and getting payed out. Is that deliberate fraud? Not in my view it was a simple mistake.
Then we have the lady that has gone to the press, she made 118 claims in 6 months receiving £1100 in compensation. That works out at approx. 1/6 of the price of her years ticket, if she had a large number of 15 min. delays along with a smaller number of 1hour+ and then a reasonable number of 2+ delays it will soon add up. The lady is sure she had only clamed for what she is entitled to, so no fraud.

In one of the posts near the start of this thread mentioned that GA asked for all of the delay repay money back and the admin. cost. Not hat I would call fraud, or at the least getting money by default.

 

[talldave]

Yep, been there done it - the line from Woking to London was only a few times actually on time in the morning for me, but very rarely did it trigger DR thresholds. The person in question filed 118 claims in 6 months recouping £1100 - against a ticket price of “nearly £7000” a bit of rough maths tells us that, this punter, on average was delayed on every single day they travelled and for over 30 minutes on every single occasion. The issue here is not that people are claiming for one and two minute delays (else the company wouldn’t pay out), but that punters have been defrauding the company by claiming to be on trains they weren’t on. It’s as simple as that.

When did GA switch to 15 minutes?

According to one part of their website the minimum claimable delay is still 30 minutes.

 

[AlterEgo]

When did GA switch to 15 minutes?

According to one part of their website the minimum claimable delay is still 30 minutes.

GA’s delay threshold is 15 minutes: https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/our-performance/delay-repay

I can’t recall when it changed though.

 

[Darandio]

When did GA switch to 15 minutes?

According to one part of their website the minimum claimable delay is still 30 minutes.

15 minutes started in April 2019.

 

[talldave]

GA’s delay threshold is 15 minutes: https://www.greateranglia.co.uk/about-us/our-performance/delay-repay

I can’t recall when it changed though.

I know. You used 30 in post #866 so I wondered if the historical claims were 30 or 15. A delay of 15 minutes or more day in day out is entirely believable, 30 minutes less so.

15 minutes started in April 2019.

So their website's nearly 2 years out of date!

 

[Wolfie]

I totally agree that you can find the info quite easily - I'm saying that some people will not bother to look at that at all - and just claim regardless - possibly for reasons I have posited. Of course I would not expect this to be that many people, but I can't quantify how many it would possibly be.

Where I have some sympathy with some posters on this forum who ciriticise other forum users for being 'trainspotters and rail fans' is that you do sometimes have to step back and think about how much some people really hate the railway - REALLY hate it - they hate their commute, they hate the fares they are asked for, they hate the uncomfortable and dirty trains, they resent having to go to work on them, they resent the perpetual fare rises etc etc - now we know that most of this is all down to govt policy but I would say most people neither care nor are even vaguely interested - they would happily never go on another train ever - even if it were at no cost to them.

I think some forum members my not fully appreciate this mentality.

Of course it is the reason why post pandemic it's game over for much of the railway as we have known it for the last few decades as people will do anything to avoid their rail commutes and work from home more etc etc, but that's a a different topic.

Re your first two paras, do l accept that some may do that? Yes, it's very possible. Do l think that clicking "accept" in those circumstances, when in my experience there is always either an explicit statement and/or a tickbox that says that in doing so you accept the T&C's and are making an honest claim, is dangerous? Hell yes. Frankly if anyone is dumb enough to do that they deserve everything that they get.

 

[AlterEgo]

I know. You used 30 in post #866 so I wondered if the historical claims were 30 or 15. A delay of 15 minutes or more day in day out is entirely believable, 30 minutes less so.

So their website's nearly 2 years out of date!

Ah that was just more ciggy-packet maths, taking the single journey price [season value/464] and figuring out the average value of each of her 118 claims.

The threshold has been 15 minutes for the whole duration of the time period GA seem to be investigating with the claimants.

Of course, if the journey involves a change of train onto a low-service branch, it might be near impossible to be delayed by 15 minutes. It could be that you make the connection or have a 30, 45 or 60 minute delay. It’s the frequency of and the “sheer bad luck” surrounding the claims which are at play here.

 

[MotCO]

Of course, if the journey involves a change of train onto a low-service branch, it might be near impossible to be delayed by 15 minutes.

But if there is a 5 minute connection time, and your train is always 6 minutes late, then if your branch line is every 30 minutes then you will be delayed by 25 minutes each time. Enough to trigger a 15 minute delay, but not the 30 minute delay threshold. With regards to the £1,100 claim which you calculated meant that a journey each day was delayed by more than 30 minutes, then the branch line service must be every 45 minutes or more: is there any such line?

 

[AlterEgo]

But if there is a 5 minute connection time, and your train is always 6 minutes late, then if your branch line is every 30 minutes then you will be delayed by 25 minutes each time. Enough to trigger a 15 minute delay, but not the 30 minute delay threshold. With regards to the £1,100 claim which you calculated meant that a journey each day was delayed by more than 30 minutes, then the branch line service must be every 45 minutes or more: is there any such line?

No, you’ll be delayed by 30 minutes each time if you miss a connection on a branch with a 30 minute frequency.

 

[ashkeba]

No, you’ll be delayed by 30 minutes each time if you miss a connection on a branch with a 30 minute frequency.

Unless you're delayed over 30 minutes plus the connection time.

The £1100+ claimant was pictured by the newspaper at Ipswich. The East Suffolk and Felixstowe branches are both hourly. Services towards Bury St Edmunds are hourly with extras. London services are roughly four an hour, I think, with different stopping patterns.

So I think a branch line user changing at Ipswich for London could easily have been delayed both ways by more than 15 minutes most days on a commute for some of the fleet changeover, plus possibly more journeys each day if they use their season ticket to travel short distances on the edge of London, or into Ipswich for an evening out (because they have a season ticket, so why not use it as much as possible?). A few stations like Elmswell lost services while problems with doors were fixed and I don't know if the delays caused by that mean Delay Repay claims.

While 118 claims in 6 months sounds a lot, that only averages about 9 every two weeks so definitely above average but far from impossible for a branch line user during disturbed service. I wonder if GA compared her to the average for all customers or to the average for her branch line.

 

[cornishjohn]

No, you’ll be delayed by 30 minutes each time if you miss a connection on a branch with a 30 minute frequency.

Maybe not the exact scenario, but today train arrivals at Hertford East are:

1601, 1631, 1704, 1733, 1803, 1833,...

so if the 1704 is cancelled, the delay is only 29 minutes. I used to "suffer" from a similar situation on an hourly service where i would only get 58 minutes delay.

Also delay repay is on actual arrival time, so if you get in delayed but a minute "early" that can bring you below the 30 minutes.