Delay repay on both legs

[Class800]

If you have the misfortune of a one hour outbound delay and a two hour return leg delay on a return ticket csn you claim both or only the 2 hour so as to not exceed ticket price. Very aware of avoiding allegations of fraudulent claims valid or otherwise

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only the 2 hour. Make sure you claim that one as it's likely if you only claim the 1 hour you'll have to go through a load of faff to get it.

 

[jfollows]

National Rail Conditions of Travel (https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...3/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Travel_2024.pdf)

32.2 For claims made under the industry arrangements (set out at paragraph 32.1.1 above) for losses caused by the delay and/or cancellation of a train service, you can only recover up to the price of your Ticket or Tickets. However, in exceptional circumstances, a Train Company may consider claims for other losses. This will be for the Train Company to decide in its sole discretion, unlike your legal rights set out in paragraph 32.1 above.

 

[Hadders]

There's nothing stopping you from making two claims. In fact in some circumstances you'd have to:

Let's say you had an Off Peak Return dated 1st March with the return portion expiring on 31st March.
You travel out on the 1st and return on the 31st.
If you were delayed on the outward journey you wouldn't want to delay making a claim until after the return journey because you would be out of time because you only have 28 days to claim.

The total amount payable in delay repay claims should not exceed the price of the ticket, but my personal view is train comanies have some responsibility in this situation. Customers should be able to submit a claim based on what happened, the train company should calculate how much delay repay is paid.

 

[Haywain]

There's nothing stopping you from making two claims. In fact in some circumstances you'd have to:

Let's say you had an Off Peak Return dated 1st March with the return portion expiring on 31st March.
You travel out on the 1st and return on the 31st.
If you were delayed on the outward journey you wouldn't want to delay making a claim until after the return journey because you would be out of time because you only have 28 days to claim.

The total amount payable in delay repay claims should not exceed the price of the ticket, but my personal view is train comanies have some responsibility in this situation. Customers should be able to submit a claim based on what happened, the train company should calculate how much delay repay is paid.

I agree with this. In addition, submitting both ensures that both events are recorded in the claim statistics.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

There's nothing stopping you from making two claims. In fact in some circumstances you'd have to:

The total amount payable in delay repay claims should not exceed the price of the ticket, but my personal view is train comanies have some responsibility in this situation. Customers should be able to submit a claim based on what happened, the train company should calculate how much delay repay is paid.

I agree with this. In addition, submitting both ensures that both events are recorded in the claim statistics.

The difficulty in submitting two claims, potentially exceeding the value of the ticket if both are paid in full, is how do you communicate with the train company to explain that is what you have done? None of the Delay Repay online forms I have used allow you to add any free text. Neither do they have a means of communicating with the specific team responsible for dealing with claims (rather than a generic 'customer services' address).

I have just submitted such a dual claim. A two hour delay outward to one company and a 75 minute delay return to another company. It has an added complication that the delay was exactly 120 minutes. Some sites, including the one to which I have submitted my claim, state 'a delay over two hours', whilst others state 120 minutes or longer.

If I receive 100% recompense for the outward journey I am entitled to nothing further for the delay on the return journey. However, if I am only recompensed 50% for the outward journey, as it was not over two hours, then compensation for the return delay comes into play.

I assume, as I used an e-ticket, that the fact that ticket has been claimed against will be flagged against a central register, but my assumption may expect too much joined up thinking!

I covered myself by sending an email to the generic 'customer services' address. Not my problem if they don't pass it on to the correct people.

 

[Hadders]

The difficulty in submitting two claims, potentially exceeding the value of the ticket if both are paid in full, is how do you communicate with the train company to explain that is what you have done?

my personal view is train companies have some responsibility in this situation. Customers should be able to submit a claim based on what happened, the train company should calculate how much delay repay is paid.

I don’t think the onus can be fully upon customers in this situation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t think the onus can be fully upon customers in this situation.

Equally doing both claims with the view that they will probably be paid and the intent to keep it if they do is fraud, albeit low level fraud. As I said I would just make the two hour claim.

 

[Hadders]

Equally doing both claims with the view that they will probably be paid and the intent to keep it if they do is fraud, albeit low level fraud. As I said I would just make the two hour claim.

We will have to agree to disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with claiming for what happened. If a delay occurred then there’s nothing wrong with submitting a claim. I really don’t think the customers should be expected to know the minutiae delay replay rules, their responsibility is to submit a claim based on the journey they took, i.e. their claim reflects the journey they actually made.

It is for the train company to decide whether to accept or reject the claim and decide how much (if anything) to pay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We will have to agree to disagree. I see absolutely nothing wrong with claiming for what happened. If a delay occurred then there’s nothing wrong with submitting a claim. I really don’t think the customers should be expected to know the minutiae delay replay rules, their responsibility is to submit a claim based on the journey they took, i.e. their claim reflects the journey they actually made.

I would agree that that it isn't on the customer to know the rules, but if the customer does know the rules and still deliberately and wilfully makes a claim such that they have the intent to obtain more money than that to which they know they are entitled, then that is a textbook case of fraud to me.

 

[MikeWh]

Equally doing both claims with the view that they will probably be paid and the intent to keep it if they do is fraud, albeit low level fraud. As I said I would just make the two hour claim.

So if you were delayed on the 1st July on the outward by 1 hour, do you not claim in case the return delay on the 31st July would cause you to exceed the ticket price? What happens if the train is on time on the way back? Do you think the TOC would allow a late claim for the outward because you were waiting to see what happened on the return?

 

[Watershed]

I would agree that that it isn't on the customer to know the rules, but if the customer does know the rules and still deliberately and wilfully makes a claim such that they have the intent to obtain more money than that to which they know they are entitled, then that is a textbook case of fraud to me.

How would they possibly prove your intentions by submitting a claim for legitimately incurred delays on both the outward and return journeys?

Suggestions that this is fraudulent are frankly speculative and not helpful to the OP.

 

[sheff1]

The difficulty in submitting two claims, potentially exceeding the value of the ticket if both are paid in full, is how do you communicate with the train company to explain that is what you have done?

I don't see any need to communicate anything to the TOC(s) other than the fact you were delayed and by how long. It is then up to the TOC(s) to assess your claims and make whatever payment(s) you are due according to the rules.

 

[AlterEgo]

All the Conditions say is in effect you can't be paid more than the value of the ticket. That is up to the train companies to sort out; they administer the scheme.

 

[mickey]

It’s would be hard (and unfair) to push a claim of fraud against a customer submitting two journeys if they’re both delayed. If the rail company chooses to limit the second one because they see a claim has already been paid for the outward portion, that’s up to them. Their systems do track claims against the same ticket, so it’s easy enough for them to do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would they possibly prove your intentions by submitting a claim for legitimately incurred delays on both the outward and return journeys?

An undetectable crime is still a crime.

Suggestions that this is fraudulent are frankly speculative and not helpful to the OP.

I strongly disagree. Why waste your time putting in two claims when one, the 2 hour one, will bring the maximum amount of compensation due. Putting in both has but one purpose - trying to wilfully and illicitly obtain more money than one is entitled to.

The OP should simply enter the 2 hour claim. It will be paid and that will be that.

Entering both is either a waste of the OP's time or dishonest in terms of what they are trying to obtain.

 

[Hadders]

Entering both is either a waste of the OP's time or dishonest in terms of what they are trying to obtain

It is not dishonest to make a claim of you travelled on a train that was delayed and that delay resulted in you arriving late at your destination.

Are you seriously suggesting that you shoukd delay submitting a claim for an outward journey, in case the return is delayed by two hours? If you are I’d like to see the proposed wording for the delay repay claim guide.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Noting that the OP isn't from the area, but if the TOC causing the delays was Northern, could you legitimately claim one of their complimentary travel vouchers for the delayed outward journey, & then for 100% of the cash value for the heavily delayed return?

 

[styles]

Equally doing both claims with the view that they will probably be paid and the intent to keep it if they do is fraud, albeit low level fraud. As I said I would just make the two hour claim.

It would be nearly impossible to prove the intent aspect of a fraud charge in this situation.

Passenger is delayed on a journey, claims for it. Passenger is delayed on another journey, claims for it. These seem like perfectly rational actions that the average passenger might take.

Proving that they had knowledge about delays repay totals not exceeding the fare and that they made separate claims in the hope they were overpaid would be very difficult.

I'm not convinced the onus should be on the passenger to ensure the delay repay scheme isn't too generous.

I'm not even convinced that I haven't accidentally done this myself at some point!

 

[MrJeeves]

I don’t think the onus can be fully upon customers in this situation.

Indeed. For the vast majority of passengers (using barcode tickets), systems exist to record delay repay issuance to prevent illegitimate double-claims. If TOCs cared, they could easily include the repaid amount in the messages too.

When I've claimed from the same TOC with the same ticket multiple times, they have made sure to cap the payout to the ticket price, but when claiming from multiple TOCs this hasn't been the case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not dishonest to make a claim of you travelled on a train that was delayed and that delay resulted in you arriving late at your destination.

It is if you do so with the intent of receiving more compensation than is due.

Let's say the outward journey was delayed 2 hours and this was already claimed. How would you feel about it then? A further claim could have only one purpose, which if the passenger knows of the limit to claims can only be dishonest.

Are you seriously suggesting that you shoukd delay submitting a claim for an outward journey, in case the return is delayed by two hours? If you are I’d like to see the proposed wording for the delay repay claim guide.

No, I'm suggesting a passenger who hasn't claimed either shouldn't dishonestly make claims that might lead to overpayment when they can make one claim that will lead to a full refund of the return fare.

But if you did want to word thus, "passengers should not claim Delay Repay until they have completed all use of both legs of the return ticket in order to ensure they do not accidentally claim more than the fare paid in compensation" is fairly simple wording; you could even go further with "Making a claim for Delay Repay indicates that use of both outward and return legs of the ticket is fully complete and no further travel may be made on it once a claim has been submitted". But I don't think that's necessary for those who are in the know about the rules to ensure they only make claims compliant with the rules and honest. We aren't talking about catching people out who don't know that's the rule, we're talking about people who know the rule who shouldn't be wilfully and dishonestly exploiting it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2025 ==

It would be nearly impossible to prove the intent aspect of a fraud charge in this situation.

One should not need the disincentive of punishment in order to act honestly and with integrity. To me, acting with integrity in this case is simply to make the two hour claim which will result in a full refund of the return fare. To do otherwise is either a waste of time or dishonest (or potentially both).

If people on the Forum think it's OK to knowingly overclaim Delay Repay, then surely they must also think it's OK to dodge their fare? Because both involve obtaining something from the railway to which they are not entitled. Sure, the latter is specifically illegal and the former only tenuously so, but one should not require the law to know that it is dishonest and morally wrong to wilfully seek to obtain more than one is entitled to without doing so in an honest and forthright manner (e.g. approaching customer services to request higher discretionary compensation on specific grounds e.g. having had to pay for a taxi).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Realistically, if someone did this once, the overwhelmingly most likely outcome would be that nothing would happen: a stroppy letter requiring repayment would limp in as a poor second and a fraud prosecution probably wouldn't make it out of the starting gates. It just wouldn't be cost effective for the railway to pursue a one-off unusual infraction terribly hard.

Things might be different for multiple excess claims (although for that to happen for a significant amount of money, it seems to me you need a frequent long-distance traveller with substantially worse luck than average, or someone systematically looting the system by claiming for trips they didn't make - and that second scenario is way more serious than over claiming delay repay for journeys actually made) but as has been pointed out, could an ordinary customer be expected to be aware of the limit? But things might be different for subscribers to this list...

 

[styles]

One should not need the disincentive of punishment in order to act honestly and with integrity.

Perhaps not, but the average passenger on an open return isn't unlikely to make separate claims for delays on separate journeys.

I would file my delay repay claims as the average passenger might. In my case I actually file them as soon as the journey has finished so that I don't forget. I would advise any other passenger to do the same as it's easy to forget.

If operators want to prevent overpaying delay repay then they should put technical solutions in place to prevent it happening.

So from a practical point of view a fraud charge is incredibly unlikely to succeed (or even be made in the first place tbh), and if operators really want to prevent this edge case then they should ensure their systems prevent overpayment.

I don't think it's practical advice to tell the OP here that it may be fraud.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps not, but the average passenger on an open return isn't unlikely to make separate claims for delays on separate journeys.

It doesn't matter what the average passenger does. We are advising someone who is posting here, and we should do so in the context of what the rules are (because we know what they are) and not outside of that.

I would file my delay repay claims as the average passenger might. In my case I actually file them as soon as the journey has finished so that I don't forget. I would advise any other passenger to do the same as it's easy to forget.

If operators want to prevent overpaying delay repay then they should put technical solutions in place to prevent it happening.

So it's OK not to pay your fare if making a journey from (for example) Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Wendover on a DOO train at 10pm where it's pretty much guaranteed nobody will check? To me that's exactly the same (and yes, I would pay, and the fact that I would pay has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there might be a check or not and what might happen if there was).

So from a practical point of view a fraud charge is incredibly unlikely to succeed (or even be made in the first place tbh), and if operators really want to prevent this edge case then they should ensure their systems prevent overpayment.

I don't think it's practical advice to tell the OP here that it may be fraud.

It's practical advice to tell the OP that they are entitled to a full refund of their fare and so they should just claim the 2 hour delay which will do that. Claiming in excess of that is dishonest (or if it's the same TOC they'll probably check and so it's simply a waste of time entering two claims), and I don't think it is usual for the Forum to advise people to wilfully and knowingly break the rules, is it?

 

[styles]

Realistically, if someone did this once, the overwhelmingly most likely outcome would be that nothing would happen: a stroppy letter requiring repayment would limp in as a poor second and a fraud prosecution probably wouldn't make it out of the starting gates. It just wouldn't be cost effective for the railway to pursue a one-off unusual infraction terribly hard.

Things might be different for multiple excess claims (although for that to happen for a significant amount of money, it seems to me you need a frequent long-distance traveller with substantially worse luck than average, or someone systematically looting the system by claiming for trips they didn't make - and that second scenario is way more serious than over claiming delay repay for journeys actually made) but as has been pointed out, could an ordinary customer be expected to be aware of the limit? But things might be different for subscribers to this list...

I agree.

On the multiple instances issue, this would signify a terrible state of play for the railway and the customer could even launch their own defence that they felt they were entitled to more under their consumer rights on the basis of repeated and significant delays. It would be for a prosecutor to prove this was false, hard to do.

In practice, this just won't happen as it's such an egregious example. If an operator was delaying both journeys on a return ticket by over an hour each way enough times for it to be flagged up, bringing a prosecution against the passenger would only serve to highlight to the DfT why they shouldn't have the franchise!

 

[RyanOPlasty]

The argument that the OP should claim only the return leg assumes that the full value of the ticket will be refunded. If the train company deems the delay is exactly two hours ( or slightly less ) then this will not be the case. It is therefore reasonable to also claim for the outward leg as the OP cannot know how much compensation they will receive for the return journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the multiple instances issue, this would signify a terrible state of play for the railway and the customer could even launch their own defence that they felt they were entitled to more under their consumer rights on the basis of repeated and significant delays.

The correct way to seek to do this is an approach to Customer Services, and in the likely event of getting nowhere to progress to the Ombudsman, not to make dishonest Delay Repay claims.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2025 ==

The argument that the OP should claim only the return leg assumes that the full value of the ticket will be refunded. If the train company deems the delay is exactly two hours ( or slightly less ) then this will not be the case. It is therefore reasonable to also claim for the outward leg as the OP cannot know how much compensation they will receive for the return journey.

It's pretty easy to know - check Realtime Trains to find the exact extent of the delay. This will tell you the same information as the Delay Repay checker will see.

Again, this is something we know about, the average person perhaps does not, but we act based on the information we know and we should do so honestly and with integrity.

What I'd probably do, though, is stick the 2 hour claim in, and if determined to be a one hour claim then stick the other one in (because appealing is a lot more faff). That's honest and is also saving of effort compared to pointlessly keying the 1 hour claim as well as the 2 hour one but still only being paid the 2 hour one.

 

[styles]

It doesn't matter what the average passenger does. We are advising someone who is posting here, and we should do so in the context of what the rules are (because we know what they are) and not outside of that.

Because we're advising a passenger, not an operator, is precisely why I would advise simply filing the claims as they happen and leaving the administration of the delay repay scheme to the operators, which is their job.

So it's OK not to pay your fare if making a journey from (for example) Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Wendover on a DOO train at 10pm where it's pretty much guaranteed nobody will check? To me that's exactly the same (and yes, I would pay, and the fact that I would pay has nothing whatsoever to do with whether there might be a check or not and what might happen if there was).

That's a starting station which has ticket buying facilities and which is part of a penalty fare scheme. No, people shouldn't board without a ticket and shouldn't be surprised if they are issued with a penalty fare.

The average passenger (man on the Clapham omnibus if we want to use legal precedence) would know they need to buy a ticket and if they don't they could be issued a penalty fare. It's common sense and it's also detailed on A2 (A1?) posters.

It's practical advice to tell the OP that they are entitled to a full refund of their fare and so they should just claim the 2 hour delay which will do that. Claiming in excess of that is dishonest (or if it's the same TOC they'll probably check and so it's simply a waste of time entering two claims), and I don't think it is usual for the Forum to advise people to wilfully and knowingly break the rules, is it?

I am not advising people to 'break the rules'. I am advising doing what a normal person would do - file the delays as they happen. The operator is responsible for determining the level of compensation and even if they pay more than the ticket value, that could merely be the operator intentionally doing so in recognition of the significant inconvenience.

That's not dishonest, it's just what the man on the Clapham omnibus would do.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Again, this is something we know about, the average person perhaps does not, but we act based on the information we know and we should do so honestly and with integrity.

I think I agree: my line above about members of this list potentially having less of a defence should the original (and as I understand it, hypothetical) situation proceed to court isn't flippant. We can't advise people to cheat because they will get away with it.

However, I can see the reality of claiming immediately for the outward journey before making the return journey. Even leaving aside the (surely unusual?) case of the DR submission period having expired before the return journey, the delayed passenger is likely to forget if they have to hang around for their return journey before claiming the outward.

As far as I know, all TOCs still accept paper DR claims. So if an online claim for the return leg would result in an overclaim, submit on paper with a covering letter explaining the limited extent of the claim.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am not advising people to 'break the rules'. I am advising doing what a normal person would do - file the delays as they happen. The operator is responsible for determining the level of compensation and even if they pay more than the ticket value, that could merely be the operator intentionally doing so in recognition of the significant inconvenience.

No, it wouldn't be. Operators do not intentionally overcompensate past the value of the ticket intentionally by way of the Delay Repay process; this is only done by way of conversations with Customer Services. Sometimes they accidentally overcompensate based on how they work out the timings - this is poor design of the process as if the customer honestly enters a one hour claim they shouldn't be accidentally paying two, they should cap it at what the customer asked for, and there is no way to pay it back! (And yes, I have tried to find a way to do so when I was in receipt of such a payment, as an honest person would do).

Exactly the same line could be used for casual fare evasion, I'm afraid. I cannot possibly agree with the idea of someone who knows the rules and how it works entering a claim that could result in excess payment when they do not have to do so per the process. And equally, I do not think it is honest to base judgement on what is the right thing to do on how likely one is to be caught.

With that I am out because we are going round in circles, unless some other aspect of the discussion comes up, but my advice to the OP remains submit only the two hour claim as that will result in payment of the full sum due and cannot be seen to be dishonest nor is it a waste of time entering two claims when one will result in the full amount due.