Okay, well if you are making assurances to the OP that he will not be disadvantaged financially as a result of legal action to recover the £16, then he does indeed have that option. What he can't reclaim from CS, he can claim from the expert advice from Railforums.co.uk
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Delay Repay: Is it based on ticketed destination or actual destination?
- Thread starter JamieL
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nobody is saying the OP should definitely pursue legal action. But we are discussing, from experience of dealing with such claims, what options they have. Whereas you seem to reject anything that goes against your view that the OP is somehow morally in the wrong for wanting compensation.
Indeed. But you have assured him that if he does, his costs will be met. And yes, I do consider the Delay Repay claim to be wrong and, if paid, a waste of taxpayer cash.
It's been pointed out to you politely that it'd be premature to begin legal action at present. I don't really think there's any other way to word that.
Which isn't in dispute.
Perhaps you could direct your energy into trying to give the OP what assistance you can? Unless you believe they shouldn't be assisted, in which case the best thing for you might be not to respond?
Is this not what the conversation is about? His argument hinges on the definition of a "destination station" and, as demonstrated, despite the protestations here that is not defined quite as presented. So perhaps that needs clarification or testing - so perhaps the Ombudsman route or the legal action (now presumably underwritten) is the way forward for him. In my view though CS have made the right decision.
I agree it's possible there's room for doubt, but in that case, it's to be resolved by reference to whichever interpretation is most favourable to the OP.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 4,477
Is the view here, then, that CS's retiming of the Fort William arrival shouldn't have any impact on delay repay calculations for someone who bought their ticket before the service was retimed?
In that case the Spean Bridge vs Fort William argument seems academic.
It is interesting to read the Ombudsman comments surrounding travel during weather warnings. Whilst not directly comparable, it does give a flavour of the balanced approach taken.
www.railombudsman.org
"...In some cases, on the basis of the level of national media information provided, as well as specific messaging from the RSP, the Ombudsman concluded the consumer would reasonably have expected to incur substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. In opting to attempt to travel, it was considered that the consumer accepted the risks..."
Travel During Severe Weather - Rail Ombudsman
rail ombudsman customer complaints
www.railombudsman.org
"...In some cases, on the basis of the level of national media information provided, as well as specific messaging from the RSP, the Ombudsman concluded the consumer would reasonably have expected to incur substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. In opting to attempt to travel, it was considered that the consumer accepted the risks..."
Belperpete
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,584
As I understand it, Delay Repay is based on the journey actually made, not on the originally booked itinerary (e.g. if the passenger chooses to travel on a different train to that originally booked, it should be based on the train actually used). And as the Conditions clearly state, you are entitled to use a ticket to make a journey that starts after the ticket's origin station, and ends before the ticket's end station (except where otherwise stated).
All the Delay Repay claims that I have ever completed have asked for details of the intended itinerary (including the start and destination), and of the ticket held (usually including it's origin and end stations, as well as the cost). There is therefore a clear distinction between the intended itinerary, and the validity of the ticket. Does the same not apply with CS claims?
As CS did not retime the train's arrival at the passenger's intended destination station, surely the retiming is irrelevant?
All the Delay Repay claims that I have ever completed have asked for details of the intended itinerary (including the start and destination), and of the ticket held (usually including it's origin and end stations, as well as the cost). There is therefore a clear distinction between the intended itinerary, and the validity of the ticket. Does the same not apply with CS claims?
As CS did not retime the train's arrival at the passenger's intended destination station, surely the retiming is irrelevant?
Last edited:
I think one of the key differences is the CS is a reservation only service.
The (Furniture) Ombudsman is not a Court and its flaws are well-known on this forum.It is interesting to read the Ombudsman comments surrounding travel during weather warnings. Whilst not directly comparable, it does give a flavour of the balanced approach taken.
Travel During Severe Weather - Rail Ombudsman
rail ombudsman customer complaints
"...In some cases, on the basis of the level of national media information provided, as well as specific messaging from the RSP, the Ombudsman concluded the consumer would reasonably have expected to incur substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. In opting to attempt to travel, it was considered that the consumer accepted the risks..."
Indeed. Of course, that doesn't apply to the journey the OP took.
The CS portion would have been reservation only with it being made when he booked his ticket. The fact he could have used the Anytime on another service is irrelevant - his ticket included a reservation on the CS based on the timings he chose. This is so important. There is a discussion ongoing in the CS thread about the Highlander diverting and missing Glasgow Queen Street. But such diversions are not an issue because the CS knows who is onboard and their destinations based on their bookings.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As far as I can see they are fair and balanced. Their decisions are binding on the rail providers I believe. Also, as the only realistic appeal route for a £16 claim, I think it worth being realistic with the OP as to how they will approach the claim.
Last edited:
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,270
It is interesting to read the Ombudsman comments surrounding travel during weather warnings. Whilst not directly comparable, it does give a flavour of the balanced approach taken.
Travel During Severe Weather - Rail Ombudsman
rail ombudsman customer complaints
"...In some cases, on the basis of the level of national media information provided, as well as specific messaging from the RSP, the Ombudsman concluded the consumer would reasonably have expected to incur substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. In opting to attempt to travel, it was considered that the consumer accepted the risks..."
Several of the case studies / examples published by the Rail Ombudsman on its own website entirely disregard relevant consumer protection legislation. They provide excellent examples of the Rail Ombudsman's shortcomings, and a valuable reminder to anyone intending to refer a complaint to the Rail Ombudsman of its limitations.
Fortunately, the courts in both England and Scotland are more reliable at applying what the law says, and the Rail Ombudsman's interpretation of consumer's rights is no more authoritative an opinion than any other person's opinion.
Their website says:
"To travel in Caledonian Sleeper seated coach, you must have one of the ticket types listed above. To use these ticket types, you must also reserve a seat through our Guest Service Centre (subject to availability)."
Before Your Trip
Read our Help and Support pages for everything you need to know before you travel with Caledonian Sleeper, from booking tickets to getting to the station before you travel.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Regardless, it is the only real avenue of appeal. The idea of taking the CS to court over a £16 refund is not sensible or realistic.
All Line Rover
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 5,270
I agree that court action would not be a worthwhile use of an individual's time, unless this is a recurring issue.
Correct, for most people, but not for the journey made by the OP. So the reservation issue isn't relevant here.
The OP had a reservation - Coach S 1A - between Dalmuir and his destination at Fort William
Perfectly permitted to take up or not take up the reservation as it's not reservation compulsory.
Indeed. A reservation doesn't oblige someone to stay on board a train, and shouldn't affect their entitlement to delay repay.
Why? The issue doesn't seem to relevant or in contention here. The OP only travelled on the first of his 'split' tickets (which was for Dalmuir to Fort William) and CS have made clear they acknowledge that, hence the decision that delay repay is based on Fort William, not Malliag.
Because if it's only between the origin and destination, then you'd presumably need multiple claims to be submitted for each ticket, whereas RDG say that's not the case.
Simply an idea prior to the ombudsman to try and get them to admit the stupidity of their argument.
Why would he need multiple claims? He claims to have terminated his journey at Spean Bridge, so his argument is the rest of his journey is irrelevant.
I'm simply presenting a hypothetical scenario to be commented on.
The way delay repay works for splits (confirmed in the NRCoT) further confirms the well accepted fact that journey endpoints are not the same as ticket endpoints, and delay repay applies to journey endpoints. The only requirement is that your ticket is valid for your journey, the details of the ticket, beyond it was valid, are entirely irrelevant. Hence this rejection by CS is ridiculous
The point being made here is that the rules are being interpreted in an inconsistent way. That is, they're being interpreted in whatever way most benefits the company according to the specifics of the situation. You admitted in post 23 that you also interpret the rules in this inconsistent way, according to whichever interpretation best suits your own agenda in a given situation. An example of your agenda is: "it is also public money and shouldn't be squandered unnecessarily. Its scope should rightly be narrow to avoid wasting public funds."
The rest of us aren't trying to interpret the rules to suit any particular agenda, we're just trying to find an honest truth in them.
Parliament has decided that in situations where there is a dealing between a consumer and a business, when there is doubt about something, the benefit of that doubt usually goes to the consumer and not the other way around. This doesn't apply to business to business transactions. It also isn't affected because the company is state-owned. It seems that you disagree with that principle for some reason.
- Status