Delay Repay claims rejected

[styles]

Northern are an extremely thick train company, this is probably low wattage incompetence as usual from them rather than some conspiracy to steal four pounds.

While I'm sure the individual customer service agents are just following a script or process book and these are honest mistakes, at what point do we consider Northern to be wilfully flouting the rules when they get so many knockbacks? At some point someone in management should be saying hmm we are getting threatened with the ombudsman then paying up more often than we should, I wonder if we need to change something. It also appears coincidental when companies change their mind at the mere threat of an ombudsman, and it makes me suspicious.

For example, after this incident, have the initial colleagues who responded to the claim and the appeal been informed of a different way of checking the existence of a train service? Because that would be the natural course of action. But I'm betting we see it again.

I had a complaint with my bank recently, a very polite one as I believed it to be genuine error. They were excellent at communicating with me and even informed me what specific retrospective actions they've taken to prevent it happening to others (a short training course for a particular call handler). I would probably be, politely, requesting this information from Northern.

 

[Kite159]

It will only change when cases which get upheld by the ombudsman come with a large cost to the operator.

 

[styles]

It will only change when cases which get upheld by the ombudsman come with a large cost to the operator.

Issue is, the operators often cough up to prevent things getting to the ombudsman to begin with, so the impact is being hidden somewhat.

Similar to how operators will cave in to people who threaten to make a 'small claims court' claim for something wrong with their service.

We end up losing the data on people who were eligible for some form of claim but didn't take it far enough.

 

[redreni]

I sent a paper claim to GWR (because I find their website incredibly shonky - it seems to dislike my VPN).

They entered the journey details entirely incorrectly, selecting a totally different service than the one I travelled on (operated by somebody else), and rejected the claim because that other train wasn't late.

I appealed saying "I dispute the journey plan you have calculated" and explained I took, and intended to take, the 18:26 GWR, not the 18:11 Elizabeth Line. They have just replied saying they've forwarded my claim to TfL because the 18:11 is operated by TfL. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.

I'm a bit disappointed by this as GWR is normally one of the better operators. This level of stupidity is not my usual experience of them.

 

[gray1404]

I've heard back from Avanti again today. To recap:
Claim submitted 03/12/25
Declined 18/12/25
Appeal submitted: 18/12/25
Request to update claim received 09/01/25
Claim updated: 09/01/25

They declined the claim incorrectly as they have overlooked the fact I was using a valid split ticket combination. It was on this basis I appealed.

They have asked for the claim to be updated on the basis that I did not provide copies of the tickets. I provided copies of all tickets both in the first claim and subsequent appeal and again for a third time in today's claim update.

 

[SWT_USER]

I'm having some issues claiming from TPE for a delay last Sunday.

I travelled from Kings Cross to Liverpool Lime Street, changing at Leeds.

The LNER was late in to Leeds but we managed to make the connection to the TPE service (which was also late). The TPE was then cancelled from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool causing a delay of over an hour.

TPE have rejected the claim, telling me the delay was caused by LNER. LNER have subsequently emailed me advising to claim from them... I did and they've rejected it saying TPE caused the delay. Where do I go from here?

 

[Watershed]

I'm having some issues claiming from TPE for a delay last Sunday.

I travelled from Kings Cross to Liverpool Lime Street, changing at Leeds.

The LNER was late in to Leeds but we managed to make the connection to the TPE service (which was also late). The TPE was then cancelled from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool causing a delay of over an hour.

TPE have rejected the claim, telling me the delay was caused by LNER. LNER have subsequently emailed me advising to claim from them... I did and they've rejected it saying TPE caused the delay. Where do I go from here?

I'd submit a complaint to both making it clear you expect them to sort it out between themselves.

 

[gray1404]

I've heard back from Avanti again today. To recap:
Claim submitted 03/12/25
Declined 18/12/25
Appeal submitted: 18/12/25
Request to update claim received 09/01/25
Claim updated: 09/01/25

They declined the claim incorrectly as they have overlooked the fact I was using a valid split ticket combination. It was on this basis I appealed.

They have asked for the claim to be updated on the basis that I did not provide copies of the tickets. I provided copies of all tickets both in the first claim and subsequent appeal and again for a third time in today's claim update.

I have today received confirmation my appeal of my original claim has finally been approved for the correct amount and I will be paid by BACs.

 

[Belperpete]

I'm having some issues claiming from TPE for a delay last Sunday.

I travelled from Kings Cross to Liverpool Lime Street, changing at Leeds.

The LNER was late in to Leeds but we managed to make the connection to the TPE service (which was also late). The TPE was then cancelled from Manchester Victoria to Liverpool causing a delay of over an hour.

TPE have rejected the claim, telling me the delay was caused by LNER. LNER have subsequently emailed me advising to claim from them... I did and they've rejected it saying TPE caused the delay. Where do I go from here?

Personally, I would have appealed TPE's rejection of your claim as soon as received, without waiting for LNER to contact you. You caught the TPE train, and it was their cancelling short of that train that caused your delay.

I had similar thing with a recent claim where TfW rejected my claim and said that they would be passing it to Avanti. I immediately appealed, and TfW agreed the appeal the same day.

The problem is that when claims are first received, they are put through an automatic verification tool. If that says the first train was sufficiently late to infringe the minimum connection time, it will automatically say the delay was the first TOC's fault, regardless of whether it was or not. The claim will only be properly looked at if you appeal.

 

[redreni]

The problem is that when claims are first received, they are put through an automatic verification tool. If that says the first train was sufficiently late to infringe the minimum connection time, it will automatically say the delay was the first TOC's fault, regardless of whether it was or not. The claim will only be properly looked at if you appeal.

But it works both ways; some TOCs will also deny being the cause of your delay even if its train did foul the MCT, because it will say the delay would have occurred anyway (e.g. because the second train was also late).

An event can have more than one cause.

If two TOCs apply the 'but for' test; i.e. they consider whether you would have been delayed but for the delay to their train, there's no reason why both TOC's can't arrive at the answer "yes" and thus say that the delay to their train wasn't the cause of your delay.

In @SWT_USER 's case, LNER can pass the 'but for' test because their delay did not, in fact, foul a connection. If TPE applies the 'but for' test it gets interesting, because if their train ran on time, SWT_USER would have (presumably) missed it because of LNER's delay. So the delay would still have occurred.

The NRCoT doesn't specify how you determine if a TOC caused your delay. This would appear to me to be an example of a situation where two TOCs failed to provide the service as per the timetable and these failures caused the passenger's delay, but it cannot be said either that:

1. but for the delay to the LNER service, the delay would not have occurred; or
2. but for the lateness and subsequent short termination of the TPE service, the delay would not have occurred.

I am increasingly of the view that until the railway clarifies how causation of delays is to be determined where two or more TOCs are involved, I will interpret this in whatever way happens to be convenient for me / result in the greatest amount of compensation on a case by case basis. I see no particular need for me to be consistent about this - nor to restrain myself from taking a nakedly self-serving view - if the TOCs aren't prepared to.

 

[Belperpete]

If you manage to catch your scheduled second train, then surely the first train can't have been the cause of you arriving late at destination. Unfortunately the initial delay repay claim doesn't ask for what trains you actually caught, this information can only be given on appeal.

 

[redreni]

If you manage to catch your scheduled second train, then surely the first train can't have been the cause of you arriving late at destination. Unfortunately the initial delay repay claim doesn't ask for what trains you actually caught, this information can only be given on appeal.

But conversely, if your first train doesn't arrive at the interchange station until after your second train was due to leave, the failure of the second train to run on time cannnot be the cause of your delay either. Because if the second train had been on time, you couldn't have caught it.

 

[aar0]

I have asked for a deadlock letter and so far (a week) Jesus hasn’t provided one. I asked GWR their opinion and Noah (clearly a theme here) said GWR’s position was that Thameslink cancelled my train and Thameslink ought to pay out, regardless of a multiple connection alternative route that may have got me on the Swansea train on time.

Immediate fold and £175 on its way from Thameslink. Slight apology, though they still tried to blame GWR.

 

[Belperpete]

Immediate fold and £175 on its way from Thameslink. Slight apology, though they still tried to blame GWR.

Good to get the desired outcome after all this time. But I suggest that you would have been better off immediately appealing Thameslink's initial decision that it was GWR's fault. Once you let them start this game of ping-pong, you are likely to be in for a long wait.

 

[londonbridge]

I've heard back from Avanti again today. To recap:
Claim submitted 03/12/25
Declined 18/12/25
Appeal submitted: 18/12/25
Request to update claim received 09/01/25
Claim updated: 09/01/25

They declined the claim incorrectly as they have overlooked the fact I was using a valid split ticket combination. It was on this basis I appealed.

They have asked for the claim to be updated on the basis that I did not provide copies of the tickets. I provided copies of all tickets both in the first claim and subsequent appeal and again for a third time in today's claim update.

I had similar once, Avanti advance singles between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly and a return from Piccadilly to Horwich parkway, on the return I missed the Avanti connection and Northern rejected my claim for “Horwich Parkway to Piccadilly” as it wasn’t sufficiently delayed, despite the fact I’d made clear I was claiming for the through journey from Horwich to London and enclosed both tickets, thankfully they paid up on the first appeal.

 

[gray1404]

I had similar once, Avanti advance singles between Euston and Manchester Piccadilly and a return from Piccadilly to Horwich parkway, on the return I missed the Avanti connection and Northern rejected my claim for “Horwich Parkway to Piccadilly” as it wasn’t sufficiently delayed, despite the fact I’d made clear I was claiming for the through journey from Horwich to London and enclosed both tickets, thankfully they paid up on the first appeal.

The payment finally hit my bank account today so matter resolved.

It sounds like the initial claim was just rejected by an automated system however if it is so automated why did it take them so many weeks to reject.

It sounds like once a person looked at the appeal they were hopeless at understanding split tickets so asked for additional information. Then when I simply uploaders the same tickets yet again for a third time the person who looked at that saw sense and approved it.

 

[py_megapixel]

Having a slight problem with Transpennine Express who think my claim is "missing the first leg of my journey". It isn't - the reason they think this is that I started my return journey (legitimately) from a different station than the destination of my return ticket.

Unfortunately there seems to be no way to explain this to them on the delay repay site - the only option I have is to update my claim to add the leg they think is missing (which I can't do because it doesn't exist).

Unless anyone here has a better idea I will try emailing their customer services later.

 

[ainsworth74]

Having a slight problem with Transpennine Express who think my claim is "missing the first leg of my journey". It isn't - the reason they think this is that I started my return journey (legitimately) from a different station than the destination of my return ticket.

Unfortunately there seems to be no way to explain this to them on the delay repay site - the only option I have is to update my claim to add the leg they think is missing (which I can't do because it doesn't exist).

Unless anyone here has a better idea I will try emailing their customer services later.

When I had a not dissimilar issue (finishing short, they kept asking for a ticket to my destination even though I had one, it just was to a further station) with TPE I ended up ringing them. Emailed complaints got nowhere but a ten minute phone call got it sorted. So I might just phone them to be honest!

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Unfortunately there seems to be no way to explain this to them on the delay repay site - the only option I have is to update my claim to add the leg they think is missing (which I can't do because it doesn't exist).

When Northern have done the same to me in the past, I just re-submit the claim exactly as it was and it usually gets accepted.

 

[J.C.]

Contact made by telephone on 11 December, case explained, a promise that the information would be passed back to be reconsidered.
Nothing has happened.
Letter going in today.
It's like they hope you'll just give up.

My final update on this.
Following my letter, I got an email within 10 days apologising for the inconvenience caused by the rejection of my initial delay repay claim.
It has now been approved with a generous number of complimentary Northern return tickets as compensation.

 

[Kite159]

My final update on this.
Following my letter, I got an email within 10 days apologising for the inconvenience caused by the rejection of my initial delay repay claim.
It has now been approved with a generous number of complimentary Northern return tickets as compensation.

Although don't hold your breath until the tickets arrive in the mail

 

[Jamiescott1]

Gwr.
Planned journey
1650 Paddington to maidenhead
1716 maidenhead to bourne end
1731 bourne end to marlow

Maidenhead to bourne end service is every 30 minutes. 1716 and 1746 were cancelled. 1816 departed 19 minutes late meaning it missed the connection to marlow at bourne end.

Abandoned journey at 1825 at maidenhead as had to be in marlow by 1845.
Monthly season ticket holder.
Delay repay claim rejected as "your tickets were used for travel.. on an alternative route to avoid disruption"

 

[AlterEgo]

Gwr.
Planned journey
1650 Paddington to maidenhead
1716 maidenhead to bourne end
1731 bourne end to marlow

Maidenhead to bourne end service is every 30 minutes. 1716 and 1746 were cancelled. 1816 departed 19 minutes late meaning it missed the connection to marlow at bourne end.

Abandoned journey at 1825 at maidenhead as had to be in marlow by 1845.
Monthly season ticket holder.
Delay repay claim rejected as "your tickets were used for travel.. on an alternative route to avoid disruption"

Do GWR tell you to claim delay repay for abandoned journeys as a season ticket holder?

 

[Skymonster]

Sigh… Overcarried on a Derby-Belper journey due to the doors in the front carriage of a three-car 170 not opening at Belper. When I reached the Guard in the back cab, after the train had departed, it was suggested I travel to Matlock, wait on the train and then return to Belper, making me over one hour late. Signed documentation from the Guard on the train acknowledging the fault / overcarry was included with the claim, but EMR’s response is no delay repay due as train called at Belper on time (it did - I just could not get off it!). I just know this one was going to be trouble - do they not actually bother to look at claims properly?

 

[SuspectUsual]

do they not actually bother to look at claims properly?

I think we all know the answer to that, unfortunately

 

[tram21]

Sigh… Overcarried on a Derby-Belper journey due to the doors in the front carriage of a three-car 170 not opening at Belper. When I reached the Guard in the back cab, after the train had departed, it was suggested I travel to Matlock, wait on the train and then return to Belper, making me over one hour late. Signed documentation from the Guard on the train acknowledging the fault / overcarry was included with the claim, but EMR’s response is no delay repay due as train called at Belper on time (it did - I just could not get off it!). I just know this one was going to be trouble - do they not actually bother to look at claims properly?

EMR customer services are always exceptionally helpful so I'd probably try them!

 

[redreni]

Just had a third rejection in a row of the same claim from GWR. It's one of those cases where, in a 3-legged journey, they operated leg 1 which was 9 minutes late. That led to an overall delay of 15 minutes to the final destination. The delay to leg 1 would have been sufficient, by itself, to cause the 15 minute delay even if everything else had been on time, as the intended connection at Paddington would have been missed and that would have caused the next connection to be missed as well. But the train for leg 2 (Elizabeth Line) was also late, meaning I did catch my intended train for leg 2, but only because it was late. They are saying it's the lateness of the Elizabeth Line train caused my delay and the lateness of their train was immaterial. They've reviewed it twice now and are adamant.

I obviously don't agree that the late running Elizabeth Line train was the cause of the delay, and it does matter because the delay was under 30 minutes which is not something I can claim for against TfL. The problem here is both GWR and TfL can point at each other and say "their train was late as well, so you'd still have been delayed even if our train was on time". And they're both correct. I needed both my intended GWR and Elizabeth Line trains to be more or less on time in order to make my intended connections at Paddington and Abbey Wood, and both of them were late. Either delay, without the other, would still have delayed me. But the late arrival into Paddington on GWR happened first, so that's the one that counts as far as I'm concerned.

So I'm not letting this one go.

I've also had a new and bizarre refusal reason from GTR. In short, if you fill in their online form and select the ticket type as "Season ticket - Smartcard (e.g. The Key)", it just asks you to put in the Smartcard number and doesn't ask for an image of the ticket to be uploaded. It isn't possible to upload anything, in fact. But, if the Smartcard belongs to another TOC (mine is LNER), they reject your claim for not providing a ticket, despite the fact their claim form doesn't ask for and doesn't accept the evidence they're faulting you for not providing. The rejection email tells you to resubmit your claim and provide a ticket this time, but when you try to do that, it still isn't possible to provide a ticket. I've emailed the booking confirmation for my season ticket to GTR's customer relations email along with the reference number and await their response.

I don't know if it's the form that's at fault or the way they're processing the claims? I would have thought, given the Smartcard number, they could see who it belongs to and what tickets were on it at the time of the journey being claimed for? It's quite aggravating, anyway.

 

[styles]

I've also had a new and bizarre refusal reason from GTR. In short, if you fill in their online form and select the ticket type as "Season ticket - Smartcard (e.g. The Key)", it just asks you to put in the Smartcard number and doesn't ask for an image of the ticket to be uploaded. It isn't possible to upload anything, in fact. But, if the Smartcard belongs to another TOC (mine is LNER), they reject your claim for not providing a ticket, despite the fact their claim form doesn't ask for and doesn't accept the evidence they're faulting you for not providing. The rejection email tells you to resubmit your claim and provide a ticket this time, but when you try to do that, it still isn't possible to provide a ticket. I've emailed the booking confirmation for my season ticket to GTR's customer relations email along with the reference number and await their response.

I don't know if it's the form that's at fault or the way they're processing the claims? I would have thought, given the Smartcard number, they could see who it belongs to and what tickets were on it at the time of the journey being claimed for? It's quite aggravating, anyway.

Seems like yet another reason to centralise this.

 

[AlterEgo]

All delay repay should be centralised, the cottage industry of fobbing off should be nuked from space with extreme prejudice.

 

[MikeWh]

All delay repay should be centralised, the cottage industry of fobbing off should be nuked from space with extreme prejudice.

Agreed! Especially as it all comes from the same pot now.