Delay Repay claims rejected

[AlterEgo]

My whole point is that this consequence of refusal, justified or not, is precisely where the customer relationship is part of the DR function, and commercial organisations will take interest in how they manage DR. Do it well and fairly, they get less aggro, lower costs and better customer relations; do it less well and they get more aggro, higher costs, and erode their relationship with customers.

Amazing then, that that is the way it has always been, and it has resulted in bad outcomes that are getting much worse. This is corporate imagination speaking rather than paying attention to what is actually happening and why, based on what you think should happen *in theory*.

TOCs, in the main, are not customer-responsive organisations. Their principal concerns are around satisfying their agreements with each other and the government. Delay Repay is merely an afterthought.

There is an issue about the built in incentives to send cases round to others. It's inherent in the current system, and the behaviour is wrong. But the suggestion that the answer is large scale reorganisation into a central clearing house, detached from any customer relationship, will necessarily improve things is a triumph of hope over experience.

Large scale reorganisation is going to happen anyway, most likely, under GBR.

It will entrench all the negative incentives, and only marginally touch the issues that get discussed here. That's why I instead focus on fixing the current core problem, and putting the obligation on the opertaor to implement the claim whether or not they are liable. The worst that will happen is that we get what we have today, but there is upside.

Not at all - there is no reason to suspect that fewer claims will be *refused*. The only issue this fixes is ping ponging, but that is before we start on the non-starter idea that a TOC can actually adjudicate the liability of another, sometimes competing TOC for liquidated damages - at present they can only pass the claim on for consideration. There is no way your idea would be acceptable under a multi-TOC system, and it will not ever happen.

 

[Haywain]

Delay Repay is merely an afterthought.

More an imposition than an afterthought. There is no good reason that anyone seeking a franchise would have volunteered to pay so much compensation regardless of responsibility for the delay.

 

[AlterEgo]

More an imposition than an afterthought. There is no good reason that anyone seeking a franchise would have volunteered to pay so much compensation regardless of responsibility for the delay.

Quite, it is an inconvenience imposed by governments.

See the open access TOCs which haven't had this imposition and can choose their own regime as long as it complies with the NRCoT. Any of them on DR15 because of their "customer focus"? Anyone? How are Grand Central doing with their NRCoT minima? (GC pay - or paid, it may have changed - XC to process their delay repay minima compo. Not a single toss given if customers didn't like their desultory payment, or getting told "no compo due" when the delay was 57 minutes.)

 

[35B]

Amazing then, that that is the way it has always been, and it has resulted in bad outcomes that are getting much worse. This is corporate imagination speaking rather than paying attention to what is actually happening and why, based on what you think should happen *in theory*.

TOCs, in the main, are not customer-responsive organisations. Their principal concerns are around satisfying their agreements with each other and the government. Delay Repay is merely an afterthought.

Large scale reorganisation is going to happen anyway, most likely, under GBR.

Not at all - there is no reason to suspect that fewer claims will be *refused*. The only issue this fixes is ping ponging, but that is before we start on the non-starter idea that a TOC can actually adjudicate the liability of another, sometimes competing TOC for liquidated damages - at present they can only pass the claim on for consideration. There is no way your idea would be acceptable under a multi-TOC system, and it will not ever happen.

A worsening position that is precisely because the focus of DfT is on cost rather than operating commercially. I am observing what is happening in reality, and bemused that otherwise intelligent people seem so determined to double down on it by reinforcing precisely the forces that are causing damage

On other points:
* Adjudication on the part of another. That is already what happens on a range of fares matters, is inherent in the concept of a clearing house, and catered for in the complex web of agency contracting that underpins railway ticketing. This is not BA adjudicating on Virgin Atlantic.
* Large scale reorganisation. You may be right, depending on how GBR comes into being. The question is why you would add to that haemorrhage (cf G Fiennes)
* Excessive refusals. No, my proposal addresses that as well by putting the focus on objective rules. The clearing house idea could also achieve this, but would be subject to the other pressures I've already described to focus on cost minimisation first and foremost
* Inability to conceive change. I propose a change, and yet I am somehow unable to imagine change away from the current system. Some mirrors are called for

I do not suggest a panacea. There is too much wrong with the relationship of Britain's railways with farepayers for anything to make miraculous change. I merely suggest a way in which the pendulum could be swung slightly back in the customer's favour, rather than still further away from us.

 

[AlterEgo]

A worsening position that is precisely because the focus of DfT is on cost rather than operating commercially.

As has been mentioned many times, no, the TOCs do not treat this like some commercial issue. They never have. It is rather more like a benefits office (another place I've worked!) - eternally under resourced, with no actual customer focus, giving what the government deems to be the lawful level of recompense per a SLA written in a contract the thickness of a telephone directory.

Virgin Trains - certainly the masters of commercial enterprise on UK rail - used to offer 1 hour thresholds for delay compensation, and 45 minutes on the EBW route. Who decided that? Whose idea do you think it was to make all the routes 30 minutes for Delay Repay? If you can't accept that Delay Repay is not and never has been part of some "commercial operation" or part of a customer relations exercise then I do not think you are grasping the issue.

I am observing what is happening in reality, and bemused that otherwise intelligent people seem so determined to double down on it by reinforcing precisely the forces that are causing damage

Purely out of interest, do you have any experience in this field beyond submitting your own claims? Because I do. It doesn't make my opinion on any change worth more than anyone else's, but I am very familiar with the *actual forces* causing damage, which aren't what you claim.

On other points:
* Adjudication on the part of another. That is already what happens on a range of fares matters

Like what? Where do TOCs unilaterally adjudicate on the part of another?

, is inherent in the concept of a clearing house

Not really, that would be more like ORCATS, which is run by a third party deciding revenue splits.

, and catered for in the complex web of agency contracting that underpins railway ticketing. This is not BA adjudicating on Virgin Atlantic.

It would be. Where would the incentive be for any TOC to adjudicate they were at fault instead of anyone else?

* Inability to conceive change. I propose a change, and yet I am somehow unable to imagine change away from the current system.

Nowhere have I said that you are unable to imagine change away from the current system, I have said it is merely possible to ask for better rather than assume any changes made will end up making everyone worse off because it will be inevitably implemented in a way which is unfavourable, which is the central thesis to your objection to the clearing house ("I speculate it'll be cheap and foreign" when that is not what anyone has proposed).

merely suggest a way in which the pendulum could be swung slightly back in the customer's favour, rather than still further away from us.

...by admitting scrapping DR15 is likely just to tidy up your idea, meaning significantly less will be paid out to a lot of customers. In fact, I suspect a vast number of DR claims are made under 15-29 mins owing to the vast number of people travelling on those TOCs who operate it and that the level of delay is the most common to be claimed for.

It really doesn't sound like a customer-focused idea at all. The customer will just have to lump it, to fit the bureaucracy's desire for simplicity.

 

[Haywain]

A worsening position that is precisely because the focus of DfT is on cost rather than operating commercially.

The DfT alone cannot be blamed for the focus on costs. The franchising model and fares regulation meant that there were few areas where franchisees could make changes to the finances of the business - trains and track access were fixed, costs of drivers in particular were escalating but back office staff were ripe for cuts and introduction of cheaper outsourcing and, more recently, automation. And nobody will invest more than they absolutely have to in the business of giving money away.

 

[35B]

As has been mentioned many times, no, the TOCs do not treat this like some commercial issue. They never have. It is rather more like a benefits office (another place I've worked!) - eternally under resourced, with no actual customer focus, giving what the government deems to be the lawful level of recompense per a SLA written in a contract the thickness of a telephone directory.

Virgin Trains - certainly the masters of commercial enterprise on UK rail - used to offer 1 hour thresholds for delay compensation, and 45 minutes on the EBW route. Who decided that? Whose idea do you think it was to make all the routes 30 minutes for Delay Repay? If you can't accept that Delay Repay is not and never has been part of some "commercial operation" or part of a customer relations exercise then I do not think you are grasping the issue.

You keep repeating this, and keep ignoring the point that the coming together is not in the administration but in the corporate attitude. DR is established, and DfT extended it when they thought they could do stuff for free in an earlier version of franchising. I'm under no illusions that they'll do it from the goodness of their hearts, and the contract obligations will remain important. But the attitude will vary, a lot, depending on whether it is purely a cost centre, or seen as part of the wider customer relationship.

Purely out of interest, do you have any experience in this field beyond submitting your own claims? Because I do. It doesn't make my opinion on any change worth more than anyone else's, but I am very familiar with the *actual forces* causing damage, which aren't what you claim.

Plenty of experience of working for an outsourcer, with a lot of familiarity how business decisions are made and the factors that lie behind them. Including working with government bodies, and experiencing the dead hand of the Treasury. I also have real world experience as a charity trustee where there is a live proposal to do to us an equivalent change, and the professionals who actually do the work overwhelmingly oppose the change because they see it making the service a lot worse.

It would be. Where would the incentive be for any TOC to adjudicate they were at fault instead of anyone else?

They'd want their bills paid.

...by admitting scrapping DR15 is likely just to tidy up your idea, meaning significantly less will be paid out to a lot of customers. In fact, I suspect a vast number of DR claims are made under 15-29 mins owing to the vast number of people travelling on those TOCs who operate it and that the level of delay is the most common to be claimed for.

DR15 will end up either extended or canned under GBR, precisely because of industry alignment. It is no more under my proposal than under a clearing house; indeed, I'd suggest DR15 may be safer when aligned to a customer centric view than a centralised organisation which regards GBR/the TOCs as its customers. From long and bitter experience, when those managing a public facing function refers to "the customer" as anything other than the people they are actually serving, the quality of service will go down the plughole

Nowhere have I said that you are unable to imagine change away from the current system, I have said it is merely possible to ask for better rather than assume any changes made will end up making everyone worse off because it will be inevitably implemented in a way which is unfavourable, which is the central thesis to your objection to the clearing house ("I speculate it'll be cheap and foreign" when that is not what anyone has proposed).

I also want better, and think we should ask. I just happen to believe that the answer proposed, in the context in which the industry operates, risks locking in the worst of all possible worlds rather than dealing with what is a genuine consumer issue.

The DfT alone cannot be blamed for the focus on costs. The franchising model and fares regulation meant that there were few areas where franchisees could make changes to the finances of the business - trains and track access were fixed, costs of drivers in particular were escalating but back office staff were ripe for cuts and introduction of cheaper outsourcing and, more recently, automation. And nobody will invest more than they absolutely have to in the business of giving money away.

Precisely. Which is why consolidation into a clearing house model would be a great opportunity to rip out costs, but without providing the consumer means to deal with it.

 

[AlterEgo]

You keep repeating this, and keep ignoring the point that the coming together is not in the administration but in the corporate attitude. DR is established, and DfT extended it when they thought they could do stuff for free in an earlier version of franchising.

No, DR15 has been extended even during the current regime, post-franchising, into direct awards/direct contracts. See Chiltern for one. It's never been "stuff they could do for free", DR has been priced into every single bid even during the legacy years and cap-and-collar in the same way everything else in a franchise agreement is.

I'm under no illusions that they'll do it from the goodness of their hearts, and the contract obligations will remain important. But the attitude will vary, a lot, depending on whether it is purely a cost centre, or seen as part of the wider customer relationship.

It's never going to be seen as part of a wider customer relationship. It never has been. Why do you think that would change after nearly 20 years of the delay repay scheme? DR is a cost centre, nothing else. Hence there is minimal impact on centralising the function.

DR15 will end up either extended or canned under GBR, precisely because of industry alignment.

That is a very bold and convenient claim to make in defence of your proposal to give passengers less money back while supposedly being customer focused. There is no evidence of this happening, not even industry rumour. GBR will be based on something akin to sectorisation by geography; inconsistencies will remain, there is likely to be differentiation between intercity/regional/suburban at the customer level.

 

[35B]

No, DR15 has been extended even during the current regime, post-franchising, into direct awards/direct contracts. See Chiltern for one. It's never been "stuff they could do for free", DR has been priced into every single bid even during the legacy years and cap-and-collar in the same way everything else in a franchise agreement is.


It's never going to be seen as part of a wider customer relationship. It never has been. Why do you think that would change after nearly 20 years of the delay repay scheme? DR is a cost centre, nothing else. Hence there is minimal impact on centralising the function.


That is a very bold and convenient claim to make in defence of your proposal to give passengers less money back while supposedly being customer focused. There is no evidence of this happening, not even industry rumour. GBR will be based on something akin to sectorisation by geography; inconsistencies will remain, there is likely to be differentiation between intercity/regional/suburban at the customer level.

Fine, in which case DR15 would be unaffected by my suggestion. The point is that consolidation of administration, in any form, will put pressure on outliers

 

[nathann1]

Hi, pretty new poster so unsure if this is the right place.

I need a bit of help trying to understand how Delay Repay works, i do find it very confusing!!

I was travelling from Hull to Long Eaton on 16/01/25, with the following schedule:
Northern Hull - Sheffield 19:25 - 20:48
EMR Sheffield - Long Eaton 21:00 - 21:40.

The Northern service was delayed by 16 minutes, arriving into Sheffield at 21:04.
The 21:00 EMR was cancelled in addition to that.
I had to take the 21:45 EMR instead, arriving to Long Eaton at 22:28, thus a delay of 48 minutes.

I submitted the form to EMR, who rejected it to Northern saying its their train, so then i submitted it to Northern, who have again passed it to EMR saying it is their train.

Would anyone be able to please advice which of them is correct here, or do i even get anything?!
Thanks

 

[800Travel]

Hi, pretty new poster so unsure if this is the right place.

I need a bit of help trying to understand how Delay Repay works, i do find it very confusing!!

I was travelling from Hull to Long Eaton on 16/01/25, with the following schedule:
Northern Hull - Sheffield 19:25 - 20:48
EMR Sheffield - Long Eaton 21:00 - 21:40.

The Northern service was delayed by 16 minutes, arriving into Sheffield at 21:04.
The 21:00 EMR was cancelled in addition to that.
I had to take the 21:45 EMR instead, arriving to Long Eaton at 22:28, thus a delay of 48 minutes.

I submitted the form to EMR, who rejected it to Northern saying its their train, so then i submitted it to Northern, who have again passed it to EMR saying it is their train.

Would anyone be able to please advice which of them is correct here, or do i even get anything?!
Thanks

Usually it is advisable to open a new thread for individual cases, but I will try to help

You would be eligible to receive delay repay compensation given your delay of 48 minutes, regardless of which TOC was responsible.

One of the forum members more familiar with delay repay intricacies will hopefully be along to advise shortly, but generally I think the advice tends to be to email the customer relations team of each TOC with full details and request they work it out between themselves.

 

[AlterEgo]

Hi, pretty new poster so unsure if this is the right place.

I need a bit of help trying to understand how Delay Repay works, i do find it very confusing!!

I was travelling from Hull to Long Eaton on 16/01/25, with the following schedule:
Northern Hull - Sheffield 19:25 - 20:48
EMR Sheffield - Long Eaton 21:00 - 21:40.

The Northern service was delayed by 16 minutes, arriving into Sheffield at 21:04.
The 21:00 EMR was cancelled in addition to that.
I had to take the 21:45 EMR instead, arriving to Long Eaton at 22:28, thus a delay of 48 minutes.

I submitted the form to EMR, who rejected it to Northern saying its their train, so then i submitted it to Northern, who have again passed it to EMR saying it is their train.

Would anyone be able to please advice which of them is correct here, or do i even get anything?!
Thanks

Northern caused the first delay and are liable for the full amount.

Did EMR pass the claim to Northern? They should have done this, rather than getting you to make your own claim.

 

[nathann1]

Thank you both for your responses.

Northern caused the first delay and are liable for the full amount.

Did EMR pass the claim to Northern? They should have done this, rather than getting you to make your own claim.

Yes, they did although Northern rejected it for some more information, then rejected it again saying it is not their train.

I spoke to their customer services who said:
'Okay so it would be two separate claims if your EMR train cancelled. So you would need to do one with us and one with them.'

Since its split tickets at Sheffield i assume that means i apply for a 15min delay from Hull - Sheffield from Northern, and then a 30-60 min delay from EMR?
Its all so confusing!!

 

[tram21]

'Okay so it would be two separate claims if your EMR train cancelled. So you would need to do one with us and one with them

That's not correct. The rules of split ticketing state that you use them exactly the same as a through ticket. It'll be Northern you are claiming from, for a 30 minute delay, as they caused the initial delay. The fact the EMR was cancelled is entirely irrelevant, as you would have missed it anyway.

Definitely insist you get the full thing from Northern.

As a side note remember Northern offer complimentary tickets if that's something that interests you, you can go a long way for free, definitely worth more than the compensation you would get, but of course its up to you whether you'd use it!

 

[nathann1]

That's not correct. The rules of split ticketing state that you use them exactly the same as a through ticket. It'll be Northern you are claiming from, for a 30 minute delay, as they caused the initial delay. The fact the EMR was cancelled is entirely irrelevant, as you would have missed it anyway.

Definitely insist you get the full thing from Northern.

As a side note remember Northern offer complimentary tickets if that's something that interests you, you can go a long way for free, definitely worth more than the compensation you would get, but of course its up to you whether you'd use it!

Thank you, no idea why they told me that then - i thought it was a bit strange as haven't heard that before. I'll push Northern again instead of waiting for EMR to rightly reject it.

That complimentary ticket does sound quite good actually!!

 

[Kite159]

Just remember Northern are the company who will do anything to avoid paying out

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you both for your responses.

Yes, they did although Northern rejected it for some more information, then rejected it again saying it is not their train.

I spoke to their customer services who said:
'Okay so it would be two separate claims if your EMR train cancelled. So you would need to do one with us and one with them.'

A lie from Northern. Dreadful company, incredibly thick and incompetent. They have to foot the whole cost under the terms of Delay Repay. Too bad for them, ha ha.

 

[nathann1]

A lie from Northern. Dreadful company, incredibly thick and incompetent. They have to foot the whole cost under the terms of Delay Repay. Too bad for them, ha ha.

Definitely agree with what your saying there.

They are still insisting that 'The delay repay would be ourselves. The cancellation would be EMR, who you have to contact separately.' It just seems like they aren't looking at what is being sent to them, and responding with their standard responses.

I'm going to give them a call & tell them what everyone here has said, thank you for letting me know which is correct.

 

[Hadders]

I'm going to give them a call & tell them what everyone here has said, thank you for letting me know which is correct.

Good idea to call them but I'd be telling them to look at Page 15 of their own Passenger Charter:

https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/sites/default/files/2025-06/Passengers%27%20Charter%20booklet%202024%20V1.pdf

If you have a combination of tickets for your journey, we will compensate you for your whole journey. The easiest way to make your claim is through our website where you can upload a scan of your ticket or send us a photo of it.

 

[nathann1]

I'd be telling them to look at Page 15 of their own Passenger Charter:

Thank you very much, showed them that and they eventually payed out to me.

Really appreciate the help.

 

[Hadders]

Thank you very much, showed them that and they eventually payed out to me.

Really appreciate the help.

You’re welcome! Thanks for letting us know they’re paying out.

 

[mmh]

More an imposition than an afterthought. There is no good reason that anyone seeking a franchise would have volunteered to pay so much compensation regardless of responsibility for the delay.

Are there any statistics available around this?

I would take a completely uneducated guess that delay repay is an insignifance against whatever any particular TOC is paid to run (because that's how it works these days, they don't get the fare revenue directly) and that there's often an assumption on here that delay repay is far more of a consideration to the companies than it actually is.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2026 ==

Plus, some TOCs have indeed volunteered. Why would some have decided to have a 15 minute scheme rather than 30 when it's not imposed on them?

 

[Haywain]

I would take a completely uneducated guess that delay repay is an insignifance against whatever any particular TOC is paid to run (because that's how it works these days, they don't get the fare revenue directly) and that there's often an assumption on here that delay repay is far more of a consideration to the companies than it actually is.

It was a reference to how they came to be running the TOCs.

Plus, some TOCs have indeed volunteered. Why would some have decided to have a 15 minute scheme rather than 30 when it's not imposed on them?

Not volunteering so much as accepting the terms imposed by DfT.

 

[AlterEgo]

Plus, some TOCs have indeed volunteered. Why would some have decided to have a 15 minute scheme rather than 30 when it's not imposed on them?

Because it was part of either the tender or a condition of their direct award.

 

[Hadders]

Plus, some TOCs have indeed volunteered. Why would some have decided to have a 15 minute scheme rather than 30 when it's not imposed on them?

Something you can put in your bid when you’re trying to win a franchise. Looks good but in the grand scheme of things costs pennies.

 

[island]

My wife had an Avanti claim rejected relating to a service in late November. She was travelling from London to Birmingham Intl on a Glasgow service that was diverted due to a meltdown in Rugby and skipped stops up to Wolverhampton. Avanti are claiming the service ran only 7 minutes late, which it possibly did, but the skip stop meant she had to use a much later service arriving over an hour late.

She intends to appeal but may need evidence in due course to support things.

 

[redreni]

A lie from Northern. Dreadful company, incredibly thick and incompetent. They have to foot the whole cost under the terms of Delay Repay. Too bad for them, ha ha.

If Northern are thick and incompetent, what does that make GWR?

In a directly comparable case, they've just sent me their fifth response (the first having been an incorrect refusal based on a completely false claim that the train I took ran on time, the second being an incorrect referral to TfL, the third being a claim that a subsequent delay of another train on my itinerary lets them off the hook for some reason, and the fourth being an email asking me to confirm journey details which I had already provided on the original paper claim form).

Thank you for providing further information.

I would like to firstly apologise for any frustrations caused as I understand you have been passed between train operators and your claim has not yet been resolved. I appreciate that you have provided further information regarding your journey.

We sincerely apologise that the 18:26 service was delayed arriving into London Paddington. I understand despite this delay, as the second leg of your journey was also delayed, you were able to board your connecting service to Abbey Wood (London).

As per our Delay Repay scheme and the National Rail Conditions of Travel s32, if you are delayed in reaching your destination as a result of a delay or cancellation of a train service, you may be entitled to claim compensation. Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination station, as compared to the arrival time shown in the timetable in place on the day that you travel. On this occasion, your destination would be Slade Green. Although the 18:26 service was delayed, as you were still able to board your intended services, no compensation would be due on this occasion.

For more information, please visit:

National Rail Conditions of Travel | National Rail

I apologise that this may not be the response you had hoped for.

Thanks again for getting in touch.

I've gone back with

Page 43 of your Passengers' Charter states "If part of your journey was with another train company, we will compensate you if we caused the delay. If we were not responsible for the delay, we will pass your claim to the other train company and ask them to contact you. We will always let you know when we have done this."

You were responsible for the delay. In order for you not to be responsible for the delay, you would have needed to deliver me to Paddington by 18:56, as that is the latest time I could arrive there and still have a valid connection (15 minutes) onto my intended 19:11 Elizabeth Line train, based on its scheduled departure time. If you had delivered me to Paddington by no later than 18:56 and then, after that, the 19:11 was late, and this fouled my intended connection at Abbey Wood, then you would not be responsible for the delay and TfL would be. That is not the situation.

I also accept that if you had delivered me to Paddington at 19:01 but I was swift enough of foot to make it onto the 19:11, had it been on time, then I wouldn't have been delayed at all and there would be no claim. That is not the situation either. The connection I actually made was not faster than the minimum connection time.

What happened was, you delivered me to Paddington at 19:01, which made the remainder of my intended journey impossible to complete without missing my intended connection at Abbey Wood, and thus arriving at Slade Green at least 16 minutes late. You cannot say you are not responsible for my delay under those circumstances. It doesn't matter that the Elizabeth Line train was late, because if it had been on time, I would have missed it and had to catch the next one.

To illustrate this, let us consider what would have happened if all trains other than yours had run on time. In that case, my intended and actual journeys would have been:

Intended:
Maidenhead (dep) 18:26
Paddington (arr) 18:52
Paddington (dep) 19:11
Abbey Wood (arr) 19:41
Abbey Wood (dep) 19:47
Slade Green (arr) 19:53

Actual:
Maidenhead (dep) 18:30 (4 late)
Paddington (arr) 19:01 (9 late)
[19:11 to Abbey Wood departs on time, but connection missed as minimum connection time fouled]
Paddington (dep) 19:19 (as scheduled)
Abbey Wood (arr) 19:49 (as scheduled)
[19:47 departs on time, but connection missed as a consequence of earlier missed connection]
Abbey Wood (dep) 19:59 (as scheduled)
Slade Green (arr) 20:09 (as scheduled)

As you can see, if every train had been on time apart from yours, I wouldn't have got to Slade Green any sooner than I did. I would still have been 16 minutes late. There would have been no earlier trains I could have caught once you had delivered me to Paddington late.

It cannot be true, therefore, that you are not responsible for my delay. Nor can it be true that TfL is responsible, since they actually delivered me to Abbey Wood slightly earlier than the timetable says they should, given my arrival time at Paddington, albeit this didn't affect the connection I was able to make at Abbey Wood.

In addition, your Passengers' Charter does not permit you to reject a claim under these circumstances. It only allows you to accept that you are responsible or forward the claim to the TOC that is responsible. Your Passengers' Charter plainly does not contemplate a scenario where a customer is delayed by 15-29 minutes but no TOC is responsible and the customer's claim is therefore rejected by everybody. This tends to reinforce my point that somebody has to be responsible, and GWR delayed me first.

When you next reply, please either pay up or issue a letter of deadlock so that the Rail Ombudsman can consider this matter. If you do not reply by the 7th of February, I will take this claim to the Rail Ombudsman anyway, as 40 working days will have passed since the date you acknowledge you received my claim.

Edit: On day 39, after I had explicitly told them I would go to the Ombudsman on day 40, GWR responded with.

Thank you for getting back in contact with Great Western Railway. I am sorry to hear that you were not happy with my previous response. I am also sorry for the delay in responding back to you, I had your complaint escalated and reviewed by a senior member of the team.

As per the National Rail Conditions of Travel, which sets out the rights and obligations of passengers and Train Companies, compensation for delays is provided based on the delay experienced at the final destination and it is also paid by the operator that caused the first material delay.

Looking at your claim, although our train was 9 minutes late, arriving at 1901, this had no material impact on the journey as you still had 16 minutes before your connection departed. If the delay had resulted in there being less than 15 minutes, until it departed (station minimum connection time) then we would be responsible, as the delay on our service would have had a material impact.

Therefore, there is no entitlement to compensation from us but as a goodwill gesture, we will be happy to issue £1.85. This amount matches the compensation for a delay of 15-29 minutes to your ticket.

I believe their offer to pay up means the Ombudsman would not consider the substance of this matter, since they've already resolved it in the way they would have to if they conceded that they are liable, albeit without admitting that they are liable.

So, I wrote back thanking them for their email denying that they are liable, reiterating my belief that they are liable, but agreeing magnanimously, on this occasion, to accept their offer of a discretionary payment in lieu of the money they owe me. As a gesture of goodwill on my part, of course.

I do think this is unsatisfactory. They kept the correspondence going for 39 working days. They never once shifted their position, even though it is clearly wrong. In doing so, they imposed administrative costs on themselves far in excess of the value of the claim.

Although they forwarded the claim to TfL, they never disputed it when TfL passed it back to them saying they didn't think they were liable. They never explained whether they still think that somebody else is liable for my delay, or if they now think that nobody is liable for my delay. They repeatedly rejected my claim in circumstances where their own Passengers Charter only allows them to either pay or forward the claim to another TOC, and this decision was upheld by a senior manager even after the decision's non-compliance with their Passengers Charter was pointed out to them by me. If they do still maintain that TfL is responsible, they have not explained why liability should rest with TfL rather than with them even though TfL conveyed me from Paddington to Abbey Wood more quickly than the timetable says they should, given the late arrival into Paddington of my connecting GWR train from Maidenhead. They have not explained why it is the second delay, rather than the first delay, that is the material delay in this case.

This is just cakeism and intransigence from the rail industry. There is no coherent or consistent set of standards - they will just make stuff up to deny claims.

In these circumstances, I refuse to impose consistent standards on myself. Where there is ambiguity in the rules, I will pick whichever interpretation is most favourable to me and - just as GWR has done in this case - I will repeatedly and dogmatically refuse to accept any interpretation that isn't convenient for me at any particular time.

 

[kristiang85]

I had the following DR claim rejected by SWR today - before I spend time sending back an appeal, can someone let me know who's correct?

Travel Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026
Departing: 09:36 from BASINGSTOKE to LONDON WATERLOO
Decision: Unsuccessful

We're sorry you experienced a delay on one of our services. We've reviewed your claim and calculated the overall delay to your journey was 7 minutes. Therefore, on this occasion no compensation is due. We used the following information to calculate your delay: The intended leg from 09:36 BASINGSTOKE, scheduled to arrive at LONDON WATERLOO at 10:26 could not be taken because the train arrived late. The alternative leg from 09:16 BASINGSTOKE left at 09:46, scheduled to arrive at LONDON WATERLOO at 10:11, actually arrived 10:33. Total journey delay: 7 minutes - your intended arrival time was 10:26 and the calculated arrival time for your journey was 10:33.

My ticket was an off peak travel card bought with an Annual Gold card discount, which is of course only valid for trains after 9.30am. So presumably I wouldn't have been able to get on the delayed 0916 train, given it was before this time? And I'm sure I've asked in the past when a similar situation happened and I was told technically I couldn't get on the delayed 0916 as my ticket wouldn't be valid?

 

[MikeWh]

As far as I can tell, the Annual Gold Card discount is not valid for travel between 0430-0929. There is no mention of scheduled time. The restrictions on the ticket say not valid on trains timed to arrive at Waterloo before 1000, so it looks like it was valid on the 0916 because it departed after 0930 and was due to arrive at Waterloo after 1000.

 

[kristiang85]

SeeAs far as I can tell, the Annual Gold Card discount is not valid for travel between 0430-0929. There is no mention of scheduled time. The restrictions on the ticket say not valid on trains timed to arrive at Waterloo before 1000, so it looks like it was valid on the 0916 because it departed after 0930 and was due to arrive at Waterloo after 1000.

Ah ok thanks, I've been given the wrong info in the past then.