Delay repay on both legs

[styles]

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.

Fare evasion is not remotely comparable. It's a strict liability offence for starters. It is also what the man on the Clapham omnibus would expect - if there's somewhere to buy a ticket before you board, you should buy one. That is not the same as delay repay where actually it's probably reasonably common for people to file claims separately for their journeys so that they don't forget.

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.

Fair enough, though I think new points were being raised in each comment so I don't believe it was going round in circles.

I disagree with this advice still, but we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[blimmo]

I think the thing that Bletchleyite is missing is that claiming only for the return leg may result in the claim deadline for the outward leg passing while the claim is being considered. If at this point the return leg is deemed to not qualify for 100% compensation then you did have a claim for the outward leg but you're now too late. I don't think it's dishonest to get a claim in before the claim deadline to ensure that you won't miss it and this is the main reason I always claim once I finish each leg of the journey.

 

[styles]

I think the thing that Bletchleyite is missing is that claiming only for the return leg may result in the claim deadline for the outward leg passing while the claim is being considered. If at this point the return leg is deemed to not qualify for 100% compensation then you did have a claim for the outward leg but you're now too late. I don't think it's dishonest to get a claim in before the claim deadline to ensure that you won't miss it and this is the main reason I always claim once I finish each leg of the journey.

It's not even dishonest to claim for your journeys as they happen, even if you're turn journey is a day later.

The idea that this would end up in court on a fraud charge is wild.

 

[blimmo]

I don't think anyone is claiming it would end up in court, only that it is dishonest (I don't think this either)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea that this would end up in court on a fraud charge is wild.

To make my point clear (I did say I was out, but I think I do need to clarify what I was saying), it wasn't that someone would be likely to be prosecuted for this any more than one would have any chance of encountering any sort of ticket inspection while travelling between outer stations on the Aylesbury branch in the late evening (there's really almost no chance of that either, the number of people they would catch would not make it economically sensible to have such inspections in place), but that it is dishonest. One should not need the risk of punishment to determine how one should act based on what one knows.

I am happy to agree to disagree on the matter, by the way, in line with you saying the same - I'm just making my point clear.

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

I don't think anyone is claiming it would end up in court, only that it is dishonest (I don't think this either)

Correct. I think it would be unlikely to end up in Court, but also that people should not choose how they act based on how likely they are to get caught!

 

[Iggy12a]

We don't know the timings but there have been instances where a passenger has claimed for a 2 hour delay, only for them to told that their delay was only 1 hour 59 mins, thereby reducing the compensation by 50%.
A claim for a 2 hour delay, does not guarantee 100% compensation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We don't know the timings but there have been instances where a passenger has claimed for a 2 hour delay, only for them to told that their delay was only 1 hour 59 mins, thereby reducing the compensation by 50%.
A claim for a 2 hour delay, does not guarantee 100% compensation.

As I already mentioned, one knows if one is close to the line and it can be checked using Realtime Trains.

 

[Tester]

As I already mentioned, one knows if one is close to the line and it can be checked using Realtime Trains.

This is a rather strange hill to die on!

There have certainly been cases where TOC's adjudications have not precisely aligned with RTT, to the claimant's disadvantage. In addition, the time limit for delay repay claims being shorter than a common validity period for return tickets is an industry choice.

To me, the claimant's obligation is to report, accurately, the actual delay(s) incurred. It is for the TOC, with all its resources, to determine the appropriate outcome.

The lack of free text boxes, to enable claimants to clarify the situation, is also a choice which TOCs have made.

Suggestions that claimants, reasonably protecting their own interests, should be considered as committing fraud are entirely inappropriate here.

 

[snail]

What seems to have been missed in this argument is that most if not all online delay repay claims simply ask for the services used and the amount of delay encountered. So claiming for a 2 hour delay on the return is really the only truthful option, even if a claim has already been submitted for the outward journey. It's then up to the TOC to investigate and issue a refund as appropriate - the return claim should be 100%, less the outward claim, but if the TOCs decide to pay both claims in full then why should it be up to the claimant to dispute it?

On a separate tangent, having a discrete monetary cap linked to the ticket price can be unfair. If I'm delayed by an hour on a local journey I may get £10-15 for 100% or more of my journey time. The same delay on a 3 hour journey could give me £50-100 but the time factor is only a third. If I'm delayed, I'm delayed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a separate tangent, having a discrete monetary cap linked to the ticket price can be unfair. If I'm delayed by an hour on a local journey I may get £10-15 for 100% or more of my journey time. The same delay on a 3 hour journey could give me £50-100 but the time factor is only a third. If I'm delayed, I'm delayed.

I think it's fairer all round than the fixed sums used for air travel, which I personally agree with Ryanair are grossly unfair because they can wildly exceed what someone has paid. It isn't a per-hour rate, it's a partial refund for services not delivered as sold, effectively.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The part of the argument relating to whether to claim immediately after the first leg, or after both legs of the journey have been completed (or ticket validity expires) is to move from claims having to be submitted within 28 days to (say) 35 days (to give a few days grace to get round to claiming). Train performance data beyond 28 days is publicly available regardless of internal industry systems used. There does need to be a claim deadline but it should not be less than a widely used ticket (OPR) validity period.

As to claiming beyond the amounts due according to the rules (ie an over one hour and a two hours claim) is this really intentional fraud or simply protecting ones interests by registering your claim prior to the arbitrary 28 day deadline and prior to any confirmation by the operator of what payout will (rather than theoretically might) be paid?

If you make a claim, receive 100% compensation and then submit a second claim for the return journey, then that is intentional.

Submitting a claim immediately after a delayed journey is entirely sensible. Particularly so if you make many journeys or use paper tickets as, in either case, they can easily be misplaced. More so the longer you leave it to claim.

To misquote: Claim early, claim often. (vote early, vote often).

 

[sheff1]

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.

Make a claim if you have been delayed is what many guards on delayed trains tell people to do.

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.

As has been clarified many times "Delay Repay" and "refund" are two completely different things which need to be claimed in different ways.

Now, after banging on about giving correct advice, you are suggesting that someone with a 2 hour delay is entitled to a full refund but should claim it via Delay Repay.

 

[Class800]

I didn't know rules hence I asked - I will submit the 2 hour one

 

[trainophile]

Surely the sensible thing would be for TOCs to make the final claim submission date a calendar month from date of outbound journey, rather than 28 days. This would then encompass a return journey even on the very last day of validity.

 

[Haywain]

Surely the sensible thing would be for TOCs to make the final claim submission date a calendar month from date of outbound journey, rather than 28 days. This would then encompass a return journey even on the very last day of validity.

So if you make the return journey on the last possible date and are delayed, you have to submit the claim that very day? That's not going to work.

 

[trainophile]

So if you make the return journey on the last possible date and are delayed, you have to submit the claim that very day? That's not going to work.

Oh I don't know, almost everyone has a smart phone these days.

 

[Watershed]

Oh I don't know, almost everyone has a smart phone these days.

And then what happens if your return journey is planned to arrive close to midnight - but you end up delayed. Would you have to submit a claim before you've even arrived, taking a guess at the length of delay?

 

[Cantab26]

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.

I may confess that i remain unconvinced of this assertion.

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.

I think you will need to articulate how the relevant points to prove for a fraud offence are made out in a case like this one in order to persuade anyone else that your view is correct as a matter of law.

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?

This is a false equivalence.

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).

You appear to be working under the assumption that a passenger is not “entitled” to anything over and above delay repay compensation. That is incorrect as a matter of law.

To make my point clear (I did say I was out, but I think I do need to clarify what I was saying), it wasn't that someone would be likely to be prosecuted for this any more than one would have any chance of encountering any sort of ticket inspection while travelling between outer stations on the Aylesbury branch in the late evening (there's really almost no chance of that either, the number of people they would catch would not make it economically sensible to have such inspections in place), but that it is dishonest. One should not need the risk of punishment to determine how one should act based on what one knows.

You appear to believe that dishonesty and fraud are coterminous, but that would be incorrect as a matter of law: dishonest behaviour does not constitute the offence of fraud in se.