Delay repay is it destructive?

[JamesT]

What I mean is that as only 50% of passengers ever claim it is the equivalent of the TOC having to pay out 50% of the ticket revenue for each one hour delay (i.e. 50%*100%+50%*0%= 50%)

In other words, if I was producing a budget or a business proposal within a TOC I would make an delay repay expense allowance based on 50% rather than 100%.

The spread of claims isn't even. Only 32% of sub-£10 tickets claim, whereas 55% of over £50 ticketholders claim. That excludes season tickets, where 63% claim. So by value it is likely to be more than half of those eligible.

 

[The Pelican]

What would be useful is an organisation publishing a map of reliability by line, and working out how much would need to be spent to improve it slightly on each individual line in the country, then going after the most significant of those projects.
At least having good numbers on how reliability trades off with frequency along busy route sections, like Woking to Waterloo or Deansgate - Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport, would allow politicians and the public to work out the tradeoffs.

 

[osmarks]

At least having good numbers on how reliability trades off with frequency along busy route sections, like Woking to Waterloo or Deansgate - Manchester Piccadilly - Stockport, would allow politicians and the public to work out the tradeoffs.

I'm pretty sure NR already has this, or at least estimates for it.

 

[Palmerston]

Though once you’ve made one claim, all subsequent ones are a lot simpler (especially on a.season)

They sure are. I've made about 300 to South Western Railway. It shows the number when you log in.

 

[Sealink]

Apologies if this topic has been approached before, I had a look but can't see anything quite the same.

I regularly make trips with Avanti and I almost budget for delay repay refunds now.

Staff on the train are very proactive about communicating the right to compensation but I can't help thinking this is just takes money out that should be used to invest for reliability.

I for one would rather have certainty of arrival time over compensation.

It certainly isn't fit for purpose.
On a trip to Scotland where I had to pay for an overnight hotel such was the delay, I received my fare and to be er, fair, the hotel. But nothing for the abject stress I was put through (arriving London at 00.15 instead of my planned 18.00), with a 12+ hour journey still ahead of me.

On another trip, I allowed such time that despite 90 minute delays on three trains (and one delay of 120 minutes) out of four - I received a full refund, but arrived on time.

I didn't have to claim it but my "emotional distress" at the previous journey made the decision for me.


However, I don't know what the answer is.

 

[Stossgebet]

Delay repay, is the UK compliance with eu law.
It was previously mandated in 1371/2007, where it stayed until Brexit. It is now within 782/2021. And as it eu law, it has been retained in UK law, and will be so, until it is specifically revoked or overwritten. The UK law needed to create GBR (and overwrite the retained eu laws of railway privatisation) will no doubt update the delay repay policy, and retain it, though perhaps less generously.
I must note, that as with most eu laws of this nature, it sets a minimum standard (for delay compansation), and as long as that eu minimum was met, a member state was free to offer higher levels of compensation, and do so at lower thresholds. Which is what the UK did. Spain is also particularly generous, with its high speed AVE delay compensation set at 100% of the fare for a delay of 31 minutes or more, though it is set at 90 minutes for other services. Incredibily, RENFE used to give a full refund for delays of just 5, yes FIVE minutes of delay, to trains on its original Seville to Madrid high speed line.

 

[jon81uk]

I think Delay Repay 15 is a bit pointless. It's easy to incur a short delay like that and it's generally not very consequential.

I would keep 30, 60 and 120 minute claims, but have these actually done (on an unpublicised basis) at 27, 57 and 117 minutes to avoid the silly edge cases.

The National Rail leg of my commute is around 18-21 minutes depending exactly which service I get, therefore a 15 minute delay almost doubles the length of that journey. If I get delayed on the Underground by 15 minutes then TfL gives a full refund. For shorter distance journeys I think having the 15 minute delay repay makes sense. But yes for a longer 3 hour one its less needed.

 

[William3000]

I think Delay Repay 15 is a bit pointless. It's easy to incur a short delay like that and it's generally not very consequential.

I would keep 30, 60 and 120 minute claims, but have these actually done (on an unpublicised basis) at 27, 57 and 117 minutes to avoid the silly edge cases.

I suspect fewer than 5% of people actually claim

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 21:50 ==

Delay repay, is the UK compliance with eu law.
It was previously mandated in 1371/2007, where it stayed until Brexit. It is now within 782/2021. And as it eu law, it has been retained in UK law, and will be so, until it is specifically revoked or overwritten. The UK law needed to create GBR (and overwrite the retained eu laws of railway privatisation) will no doubt update the delay repay policy, and retain it, though perhaps less generously.
I must note, that as with most eu laws of this nature, it sets a minimum standard (for delay compansation), and as long as that eu minimum was met, a member state was free to offer higher levels of compensation, and do so at lower thresholds. Which is what the UK did. Spain is also particularly generous, with its high speed AVE delay compensation set at 100% of the fare for a delay of 31 minutes or more, though it is set at 90 minutes for other services. Incredibily, RENFE used to give a full refund for delays of just 5, yes FIVE minutes of delay, to trains on its original Seville to Madrid high speed line.

I suspect a very small percentage claim

 

[Magdalia]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-delays-and-compensation-2025 Are the reports that the 45% headline number comes from.

A late thanks for the response and the link.

I suspect fewer than 5% of people actually claim

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 21:50 ==


I suspect a very small percentage claim

The data show that what you suspect is wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is indeed - something the government of the time thought was a good idea when it wasn't their money.

Now it is.

Never a truer word spoken, though DR has always been political and I would be surprised to see DR15 go - it would be a hard sell from the Government.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Wednesday at 08:43 ==

What I mean is that as only 50% of passengers ever claim it is the equivalent of the TOC having to pay out 50% of the ticket revenue for each one hour delay (i.e. 50%*100%+50%*0%= 50%)

In other words, if I was producing a budget or a business proposal within a TOC I would make an delay repay expense allowance based on 50% rather than 100%.

Not quite. It's 50% of passengers, not 50% of monies.

Passengers are more motivated to claim £50 than they are £2.71, so the claim value will skew as a result.

 

[The exile]

If your journey is such that a delay of 15 minutes means your kid is picked up late, your planning is off. It is prudent when doing something critically important to leave at least one train "spare" in case of a delay or cancellation. Probably more than one on a frequent service like Thameslink.

That’s easy to say - less easy to do when your hourly train has a fifteen minute “connection” onto your hourly bus.

 

[35B]

That’s easy to say - less easy to do when your hourly train has a fifteen minute “connection” onto your hourly bus.

Not just that, but for many of us, we often do not have that degree of power to choose our timings.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

I really think it needs to be rethought though now it's not private operators losing money, generally schemes like this is only an incentive if the company losing the money can do anything about.

Not to go too far off topic but I think it's similar to the fines handed out to water companies for discharge, only effective of they can do something about it otherwise it's just an operating cost and budgeted for

I personally think they should do away with delay repay and just have large fines/repayments for cancellations.

 

[35B]

I really think it needs to be rethought though now it's not private operators losing money, generally schemes like this is only an incentive if the company losing the money can do anything about.

Not to go too far off topic but I think it's similar to the fines handed out to water companies for discharge, only effective of they can do something about it otherwise it's just an operating cost and budgeted for

I personally think they should do away with delay repay and just have large fines/repayments for cancellations.

So because financial incentives don’t work, you’d replace a payment to the person affected with a fine. Not sure I get that logic

 

[Sonic1234]

Not quite. It's 50% of passengers, not 50% of monies.

Passengers are more motivated to claim £50 than they are £2.71, so the claim value will skew as a result.

Wouldn't be surprised if the claim rate for the lowest tier of Advances was very high, as they'll be bought by the price sensitive crowd who do think claiming a small sum is worth it and will have an interest in money saving.

 

[Palmerston]

I really think it needs to be rethought though now it's not private operators losing money, generally schemes like this is only an incentive if the company losing the money can do anything about.

I personally think they should do away with delay repay and just have large fines/repayments for cancellations.

It's not just to punish TOCs though. It gives the customer some security that if they get delayed, their ticket price gets reduced. It may help encourage people to use, and keep using, the railway.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not just to punish TOCs though. It gives the customer some security that if they get delayed, their ticket price gets reduced. It may help encourage people to use, and keep using, the railway.

Travel vouchers used to do that, but the cash compo now means the money flows out of the industry.

 

[35B]

Travel vouchers used to do that, but the cash compo now means the money flows out of the industry.

So? In what other industry would paying people their purchase price for non-delivery be considered controversial because “it’s going out of the industry”? That idea is one of the most destructive in the industry

 

[AlterEgo]

So? In what other industry would paying people their purchase price for non-delivery be considered controversial because “it’s going out of the industry”? That idea is one of the most destructive in the industry

Not a fair comparison; not non-delivery but rather an imperfect service - regardless of fault. Very many industries give compensation for imperfect services delivered in the form of things other than money, quite often by the use of voucher codes.

Delay repay worked fine when it was just vouchers, the only problem was they were cumbersome to use - which some TOCs rectified with e-vouchers. This was uncontroversial until the politicians got involved under the guise of Punishing Bad Private Companies in order to protect You The Consumer.

 

[moonarrow458]

I really think it needs to be rethought though now it's not private operators losing money, generally schemes like this is only an incentive if the company losing the money can do anything about.

Not to go too far off topic but I think it's similar to the fines handed out to water companies for discharge, only effective of they can do something about it otherwise it's just an operating cost and budgeted for

I personally think they should do away with delay repay and just have large fines/repayments for cancellations.

So under your ideals what should i get when i've suffered a 75 minute delay as i did today travelling from Christs Hospital to London as the line was blocked with multiple trains cancelled. With delay repay that entitles me to a full refund. 75 minutes is not inconsequential. Even 30 minutes is significant.

That’s easy to say - less easy to do when your hourly train has a fifteen minute “connection” onto your hourly bus.

This is a very good point about the merits of DR15. I do wonder though whether those who advocate scrapping DR15 ever make such multimodal journeys, or whether theyd be okay with a system where even a missed connection onto a bus from late train would warrant compensation at the level of delay at the final destination by bus

 

[William3000]

A late thanks for the response and the link.


The data show that what you suspect is wrong.

That’s really interesting - I’m a regular rail user and even I don’t claim every time. I obviously can’t argue with the stats but when people are delayed and I explain they can use delay repay, literally everyone I’ve ever spoken to about it was unaware of delay repay let alone having claimed it. I appreciate that this is just an anecdote.

 

[Bantamzen]

We could return to the older system where the railway has to be at fault (i.e. the service "not delivered with reasonable care and skill") and with higher thresholds (I think it was 20% for an hour). Delay Repay is exceptionally generous. A full refund for an hour's delay is something air passengers can only dream of.

(I don't advocate that by the way but I do advocate getting rid of DR15.)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Tuesday at 08:38 ==

To be fair to the aviation industry, it's a lot harder to recover delays that get baked into schedules when issues arise earlier in the day. I think a 1 hour scheme would send many operators straight into bankruptcy. For the most part, 3 hours for flights seems about right. Not ideal if you have onward connections, but then being delayed is a risk people have to consider when booking connections.

If your journey is such that a delay of 15 minutes means your kid is picked up late, your planning is off. It is prudent when doing something critically important to leave at least one train "spare" in case of a delay or cancellation. Probably more than one on a frequent service like Thameslink.

I don't think this is a good reason to keep DR15.

That's not always going to be possible or practical if say you only have 1 train per hour. Hence why I think the 15 minute delay replay should remain, especially as the government takes ownership of more and more of the TOCs. It might help focus minds to actually start to plan to aim for a network where delays aren't such a common thing. I'm going to bet it worked in the aviation industry when EU Reg 261/2004 (the EU regulation defining when to compensation and how much for anyone unaware) came into law in the EU, I can well imagine that focused a lot of minds into improving their operations to reduce the risk of 3+ hour delays.

 

[35B]

Not a fair comparison; not non-delivery but rather an imperfect service - regardless of fault. Very many industries give compensation for imperfect services delivered in the form of things other than money, quite often by the use of voucher codes.

Delay repay worked fine when it was just vouchers, the only problem was they were cumbersome to use - which some TOCs rectified with e-vouchers. This was uncontroversial until the politicians got involved under the guise of Punishing Bad Private Companies in order to protect You The Consumer.

There are two issues here. The first is around what constitutes delivery of the services, where I take a hard view that the timetable is an intrinsic part of the contract, meaning that it is a contract to convey from X to Y at the times stated in the timetable at the time of booking (and, yes, I know about attempts that DfT/the industry have to flex that particular point).

That's a view on which there can be legitimate difference, both in principle and on the detail of the thresholds and levels at which a delay should trigger payment. That isn't really fundamentally about the OP's original question of whether DR is destructive.

My comment, to which that post is a reply, was that the idea that "the money is leaving the industry" is in itself destructive. I don't dispute the bare facts that money refunded to a customer is "lost" and, in another life, I'd of course try to make sure that any compensation has to be used with my firm so that the impact is limited to the cost, not revenue.

However, what the statement also includes is a statement of entitlement, that somehow once money has been paid to a company or industry, that company or industry is entitled to retain that money. It's that concept that I take deep issue with, and I believe the widespread belief in it is a symptom of deep failings within the rail industry. The logic of the statement is also evident in the claims of the industry that fare rises now are justified to pay for investment later - a laughable claim that no other industry dares make*. It implies that the rail industry is somehow above ordinary mortal demands, and that those who pay serve it, not the other way round. It is also evident in any number of customer service failings, where operational convenience is put first.

* - there's a possible exception in aviation where airports raise fees in advance of new work. As Heathrow demonstrates, that's not a well respected view.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

So because financial incentives don’t work, you’d replace a payment to the person affected with a fine. Not sure I get that logic

Sorry I meant the TOC cancelling the service not the passenger

 

[flitwickbeds]

If your journey is such that a delay of 15 minutes means your kid is picked up late, your planning is off. It is prudent when doing something critically important to leave at least one train "spare" in case of a delay or cancellation. Probably more than one on a frequent service like Thameslink.

I don't think this is a good reason to keep DR15.

Agreed on the planning if it's just one train which is cancelled or delayed by 15+ minutes, especially on Thameslink when trains are (at the times in question) generally more than every 15 minutes.

However if I'm, say, 27 minutes late on a service which is advertised (as someone else says above, that forms part of the contract) as being every 10 minutes or so at peak times, then I do think I should be entitled to some recompense. Especially if, as in times gone by, the problem is infrastructure related and the TOC gets compensation which they don't have to pass on to their customers.

Your line about ensuring I have two or three trains worth of flexibility built into my schedule every time I travel is plainly ridiculous. I already leave 2 hours to do a roughly 1h25 journey, so I already have a 25% leeway. Would you say the same to someone on a 1tph line - "oh yeah, you absolutely should leave work 3 hours early every day in case the trains are delayed and you get a late pickup fine! If you don't do this it's absolutely not the railway industry's problem!"?

This is not even getting into the problems with the Thameslink mid-Bedfordshire stations being constantly skip-stopped in disruption even though trains can move through the area absolutely fine.

And definitely let's not even get into whoever made the decision that Flitwick station can cope with two exit barriers located just inside one single doorway which entering passengers have to use too, causing a 5-minute queue to even get out of the station at busy times.

Maybe, just maybe, if GBR/GTR can improve the station flow (reopening the second entrance/exit straight onto the bridge which has been closed since COVID would help massively, even if just at peak times) and can sort out the skip-stopping issues at the three affected stations (my personal record is a two hour delay simply because they decided to go fast between Bedford and Luton for FIVE trains in a row) then I would accept a reduction in the Delay Repay thresholds.

 

[Dr Hoo]

However if I'm, say, 27 minutes late on a service which is advertised (as someone else says above, that forms part of the contract) as being every 10 minutes or so at peak times, then I do think I should be entitled to some recompense. Especially if, as in times gone by, the problem is infrastructure related and the TOC gets compensation which they don't have to pass on to their customers.

On this aspect in particular it’s worth pointing out (yet again on these Forums) that the performance regime compensation is purely calibrated to cover the Marginal Revenue Effect, i.e. loss of future business triggered by the rail product being seen as unreliable. It does not cover Delay Repay, refunds, taxis and compensation relating to an individual incident.

 

[Watershed]

There are two issues here. The first is around what constitutes delivery of the services, where I take a hard view that the timetable is an intrinsic part of the contract, meaning that it is a contract to convey from X to Y at the times stated in the timetable at the time of booking (and, yes, I know about attempts that DfT/the industry have to flex that particular point).

That's a view on which there can be legitimate difference, both in principle and on the detail of the thresholds and levels at which a delay should trigger payment. That isn't really fundamentally about the OP's original question of whether DR is destructive.

My comment, to which that post is a reply, was that the idea that "the money is leaving the industry" is in itself destructive. I don't dispute the bare facts that money refunded to a customer is "lost" and, in another life, I'd of course try to make sure that any compensation has to be used with my firm so that the impact is limited to the cost, not revenue.

However, what the statement also includes is a statement of entitlement, that somehow once money has been paid to a company or industry, that company or industry is entitled to retain that money. It's that concept that I take deep issue with, and I believe the widespread belief in it is a symptom of deep failings within the rail industry. The logic of the statement is also evident in the claims of the industry that fare rises now are justified to pay for investment later - a laughable claim that no other industry dares make*. It implies that the rail industry is somehow above ordinary mortal demands, and that those who pay serve it, not the other way round. It is also evident in any number of customer service failings, where operational convenience is put first.

* - there's a possible exception in aviation where airports raise fees in advance of new work. As Heathrow demonstrates, that's not a well respected view.

I agree, there is a fundamental disconnect in the industry between the fare paid and the service provided. Part of that has been due to the fragmentation caused by privatisation but even with the industry gradually being reintegrated now, no-one seems to want to take accountability for delivering a good service.

I think there is a wider attitude problem whereby lots of decision makers focus on what benefits their own 'domain' or reduces their exposure, without considering or caring about the wider implications on the industry. For example:

• TOCs' Pricing Managers creating countless new ticket types or restriction codes to 'increase revenue' whilst essentially duplicating existing ones, leading to public confusion and avoidable inconsistencies - e.g. how EMR and TfW have their own Group ticket types but don't accept GroupSave-discounted regular tickets, and wildly varying Off-Peak restrictions
• TOCs' Pricing Managers increasing unregulated fares above inflation to raise revenue (e.g. GWR doing so three times in 2025 in the Thames Valley area!) without caring about the reputational impact this causes
• TOCs introducing early dispatch policies (e.g. doors close 2 mins before departure at London termini) to aid punctuality whilst ignoring the effect on people who are unaware of these poorly publicised policies and understandably rely on the time shown on their ticket/app
• TOCs adding padding to the advertised timings to improve punctuality statistics whilst changing nothing in practice, e.g. Avanti now advertising Piccadilly departures as being 1 minute earlier than WTT, or the widespread arrival padding. Longer journey times also put people off so have incur a revenue loss
• TOCs failing to allow the use of the next available service regardless of operator or route during disruption, in a bid to avoid 'undermining' TOC/route/time restrictions, whilst ignoring the fact this incurs them greater Delay Repay liability
• TOCs' Operational Standards or Safety departments introducing defensive driving policies without having any reason to care about the increased journey times
• TOCs setting Penalty Fare or ticket selling targets for their revenue protection staff or guards, leading to improperly issued PFs/missold tickets
• The ORR banning third rail extensions and imposing onerous rules on OLE extensions because of 'safety' whilst ignoring the environmental, running cost and journey time implications due to the upgrades that accordingly don't happen

 

[Sonic1234]

reputational impact this causes

They don't care. This has been a shift in recent years as the railway has edged towards nationalisation and cost cutting has become the primary focus.

The railway has realised that you're on the train because you have no other acceptable option for that journey. A lot of routes have demand in excess of capacity and the population is growing, so even if you never take the train again in protest of a bad experience, someone else will take your seat (or standing space).

Cynically, the Government would prefer you drive, which raises a lot of revenue for national and local government.