Delay Repay - Connection times and other disruptions mitigating delay

[OnTheBuffers]

Firstly, thanks to all for providing interesting and insightful information about ticketing, routes, stations and rolling stock that has avoided the need for me to ask questions previously. But this time I can't find an answer on whether my Delay Repay claim is valid, and would appreciate views.

I travelled from Surbiton to Manchester Piccadilly, starting with the 19:08 from Surbiton using an Off Peak ticket purchased as walk-up 5 minutes earlier. I was aiming to join the 19:53 from EUS to MAN. This was a bit tighter than I had intended but I had regularly boarded trains at EUS less than 45 mins after leaving SUR, or vice versa on the southern trip. Cross-London travel went fine and I was at EUS concourse by about 19:45 – which when I look at it seems quite impressive. I saw that all services were currently delayed due to trespassers on the line and having taken a few mins to consider options thought that on-train catering might be disrupted so bought a meal at Burger King. Potentially usefully the receipt shows 19:49, indicating I was there in good time for my intended train.

I submitted a Delay Repay claim to Avanti in relation to the 19:53 which eventually departed at 20:19 (26 minutes late), picked up additional delay travelling behind a freight service (I think) and arrived 45 minutes late at 22:50.

It’s taking a long time to get a reply on the claim, and I wonder if I will be told it is not valid because the connection times I achieved are less than those in ‘planned’ journeys – and if so is that a valid reason to decline?

Specifically, the NR planner generally connects journeys starting from SUR with an EUS departure just over an hour later. Another way of reading it is that end-end SUR-MAN is usually about 3h30m. Based on my 19:08 departure from SUR the first ‘valid’ service would have been the 20:33 from EUS due to arrive MAN 22:45. Perhaps of importance this service was also delayed – by 47 minutes.

Avanti could say that I shouldn’t have reasonably expected to arrive at MAN before 22:45, and that because I was able to catch the delayed 19:53 ex-EUS which got me there at 22:50 I only had a 5 minute delay – so no repayment due.

I would argue a repayment is due on the grounds that either:

1. I was at EUS in time to join the 19:53 at its scheduled time, which had a 45 minute delay.
2. The 20:33 service they expected me to join had a 47 minute delay.

As a semi-aside it’s made me realise that the extended cross-London connection times may count against things here. Perhaps I’d be better using TFL contactless to do that so I can then state the train I wanted to catch at EUS as my ticket and claim start point, especially if I get a reservation on it even though my Off Peak will be valid on other services if necessary.

 

[redreni]

I think you're out of luck - they don't have to pay for delays against an intended journey that includes unofficial connections, even if you did in fact get to an interchange station in time to make an unofficial connection and the delay occurred after that.

The fact you bought your ticket after the last train from Surbiton that would have connected validly with the 19:45 from Euston had left, means I would be astonished if they pay.

Morally, I wouldn't have a problem if somebody aimed for an unofficial connection like this, made it to Euston in time, and claimed for a delay that occurred subsequent to that. The cross-London MCTs are excessive and it's a nonsense to pretend a delay that occurs after somebody has already made it to their departing London terminal in time for their intended train aren't real delays - they are real delays. So I sympathise.

In order to claim successfully, though, that hypothetical person would have had to either pretend to have taken an earlier train than they really did for the connecting leg (which would be dishonest and which I would not condone), or only supply details of their intended journey from Euston, as one might if one had started short at Euston (which might still be regarded as dishonest by deliberate omission by some people). But purchasing the ticket at Surbiton after the last official connecting service had already left essentially means that whatever you say, if they check where and when the ticket was purchased, they should not pay, as you didn't hold a valid ticket for the earlier departure from Surbiton that you would have needed to catch in order to connect validly with the 19:45 from Euston.

 

[Starmill]

I think you're out of luck - they don't have to pay for delays against an intended journey that includes unofficial connections, even if you did in fact get to an interchange station in time to make an unofficial connection and the delay occurred after that.

The fact you bought your ticket after the last train from Surbiton that would have connected validly with the 19:45 from Euston had left, means I would be astonished if they pay.

Morally, I wouldn't have a problem if somebody aimed for an unofficial connection like this, made it to Euston in time, and claimed for a delay that occurred subsequent to that. The cross-London MCTs are excessive and it's a nonsense to pretend a delay that occurs after somebody has already made it to their departing London terminal in time for their intended train aren't real delays - they are real delays. So I sympathise.

In order to claim successfully, though, that hypothetical person would have had to either pretend to have taken an earlier train than they really did for the connecting leg (which would be dishonest and which I would not condone), or only supply details of their intended journey from Euston, as one might if one had started short at Euston (which might still be regarded as dishonest by deliberate omission by some people). But purchasing the ticket at Surbiton after the last official connecting service had already left essentially means that whatever you say, if they check where and when the ticket was purchased, they should not pay, as you didn't hold a valid ticket for the earlier departure from Surbiton that you would have needed to catch in order to connect validly with the 19:45 from Euston.

In this instance if the OP had followed this approach and waited for the 2033 they would have been delayed by well over half an hour. Arguably if they'd done so they'd be entitled. Seems daft to refuse to pay on that basis to me.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that practically speaking you have any chance at all of getting anywhere with this. If it had been me I'd have been tempted to try submitting a claim for a price reduction of 20% or something under the Consumer Rights Act. Unfortunately it may be too late now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jul 2025 ==

Perhaps I’d be better using TFL contactless to do that so I can then state the train I wanted to catch at EUS as my ticket and claim start point, especially if I get a reservation on it even though my Off Peak will be valid on other services if necessary.

You can do that of course, it's perfectly permitted. However be aware it makes it a lot more difficult to access compensation for the whole journey if your journey into London is delayed enough to make you miss your onward train. Surbiton won't be a big risk for that but loads of places would have that if just one train were cancelled. So you pays your money and you takes your chance.

 

[OnTheBuffers]

Thanks both. I made the claim in good faith based on the delay to the train I was on but its useful to know how it aligns (or not) with the policy for repay.

 

[redreni]

I haven't worked out the MCTs to work out which is the first official connection the OP could have made. As it was a flexible ticket, as I understand it the expectation (in the absence of a reason why not) would be that the passenger would take the first available train from Euston, defined as the first one to actually leave Euston after the OP arrived at Waterloo and the MCTs and cross-London transfer times had elapsed. That might include trains that wouldn't have been a valid connection if they'd run on time, but turned out to be a valid connection due to late running. Of course, if the OP tells them he actually took an earlier train than that, then they're entitled to rely on what the OP tells them.

So it would be a case of comparing what theoretically should have happened if everything ran on time and the OP made the quickest valid connection, with what actually happened, and seeing if there was a qualifying delay.

 

[jfollows]

Minimum connection time is 25+15+15=55 minutes from Waterloo to Euston at that time of day (https://www.brtimes.com/!board?stn=EUS&show=info).

19:08 from Surbiton due 19:24 into Waterloo.

First valid train for Delay Repay 20:19 or later from Euston.

20:33 due 22:45 into Manchester is the first train departure from Euston to Manchester at or after 20:19.

You can claim Delay Repay for arrival after 22:45 regardless of which train you actually took.

Avanti’s calculation is correct.

Delay Repay is based on a scheduled arrival time taking minimum connection times into account. Then actual arrival time later than this for any payment under Delay Repay.

 

[Belperpete]

As others have said, the itinerary that you submit needs to be a valid one, that meets the minimum connection times wherever a change is made. I find the fastjp tool useful for this, as it produces itineraries for previous days, unlike most journey planners which are trying to sell you a ticket so only produce future itineraries.
https://www.fastjp.com/

 

[OnTheBuffers]

Thanks all. If I'd not made it to EUS in time for the 19:53 I would not have made a claim as my optimistic departure at SUR would clearly have been the cause. I'm a bit surprised that having made it to EUS with time to spare it is apparently still judged invalid - but useful to know.

 

[andythebrave]

Tbf I've generally found that Avanti auto complete journeys based on valid MCTs and I've been paid DR on that basis regardless of the actual journey actually made (eg Glasgow to MK, kicked off at Preston, self rerouted via Manchester, delay approx 90 minutes, DR payout stated delay 120 mins + - would have been around 10 hours if we'd waited at Preston).
I would expect them to pay out based on the later departure from Euston provided you used the online form rather than a manual claim.

 

[Belperpete]

Tbf I've generally found that Avanti auto complete journeys based on valid MCTs and I've been paid DR on that basis regardless of the actual journey actually made (eg Glasgow to MK, kicked off at Preston, self rerouted via Manchester, delay approx 90 minutes, DR payout stated delay 120 mins + - would have been around 10 hours if we'd waited at Preston).
I would expect them to pay out based on the later departure from Euston provided you used the online form rather than a manual claim.

The problem in this case is that the valid itinerary would have got the OP to Manchester at 2245, and as he actually arrived at 2250,:he would only be claiming for a 5 minute delay. Claiming a longer delay could be seen as fraudulent.

On the DR form you only specify your intended itinerary and delay suffered in reaching your destination. You don't specify how you got there, or even what time you got there. I think that the DR system has to assume that you are taking the same routing as your intended itinerary. Many passengers will not know if rerouting is possible, or permissible with their ticket.

 

[redreni]

The problem in this case is that the valid itinerary would have got the OP to Manchester at 2245, and as he actually arrived at 2250,:he would only be claiming for a 5 minute delay. Claiming a longer delay could be seen as fraudulent.

On the DR form you only specify your intended itinerary and delay suffered in reaching your destination. You don't specify how you got there, or even what time you got there. I think that the DR system has to assume that you are taking the same routing as your intended itinerary. Many passengers will not know if rerouting is possible, or permissible with their ticket.

True, but I think Andy is correct that TOCs do routinely ignore what the passenger says when claiming, even to their own detriment.

As I understand it, however, they will look for the first valid connection the OP could have made based on actual arrival and departure times and compare that with the fastest valid journey per the timetable to work out if there's a qualifying delay. As the 19.45 Departed at 20.19 (according to the OP), it would be tight, but that's probably the one they will assume the OP took based on arrival in Waterloo plus the MCTs and transfer time. So I expect they'll base it on the train the OP took, not just because of what he told them, but because that turned out (because of the delay) to be the first departure from Euston that met the MCT.

 

[Belperpete]

True, but I think Andy is correct that TOCs do routinely ignore what the passenger says when claiming, even to their own detriment.

I think they routinely ignore the delay time that you claim for, and use the time that their system thinks you should have got to destination. Which is why you sometimes get credited for a longer delay than you claimed for.

As I understand it, however, they will look for the first valid connection the OP could have made based on actual arrival and departure times and compare that with the fastest valid journey per the timetable to work out if there's a qualifying delay. As the 19.45 Departed at 20.19 (according to the OP), it would be tight, but that's probably the one they will assume the OP took based on arrival in Waterloo plus the MCTs and transfer time. So I expect they'll base it on the train the OP took, not just because of what he told them, but because that turned out (because of the delay) to be the first departure from Euston that met the MCT.

Agreed, I think that their system will show that he should have been able to catch the delayed 1945. As I said, that train actually got the OP to Manchester at 2250. And as the fastest valid itinerary per timetable would have got him there at 2245, that would only be a 5 minute delay.