Delay repay on split tickets

[trainophile]

If you arrive over 15 minutes late at a split point on your tickets but have recovered time by your final destination, is it ethical to claim on the ticket where the delay occurred?

 

[ainsworth74]

If you arrive over 15 minutes late at a split point on your tickets but have recovered time by your final destination, is it ethical to claim on the ticket where the delay occurred?

I would say no as otherwise we're trying to have our cake and eat it. Either multiple tickets can be used to make one journey in which case it's the delay to the journey that matters not the individual legs or they can't in which case delay repay is only due on delayed legs not the whole journey.

 

[jon81uk]

If you were delayed reaching the destination printed on the ticket I don't see an issue with claiming for the delay in reaching that destination, even if you hold a ticket for onward travel to another.

 

[Watershed]

I would say no as otherwise we're trying to have our cake and eat it. Either multiple tickets can be used to make one journey in which case it's the delay to the journey that matters not the individual legs or they can't in which case delay repay is only due on delayed legs not the whole journey.

If you've relied on multiple tickets constituting one journey - e.g. in order to take a later train on an Advance ticket (due to missing your on-time connection) then I'd concur.

However, otherwise I think it's fair game to claim for a delay to the split point. After all, you are limited to using trains that call at your split points - which often limits your choice of trains - and you will only be receiving compensation for part of the total fare you've paid.

Most importantly, the NRCoT don't say that you must be making one journey when using multiple tickets, just that you can.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you've relied on multiple tickets constituting one journey - e.g. in order to take a later train on an Advance ticket (due to missing your on-time connection) then I'd concur.

However, otherwise I think it's fair game to claim for a delay to the split point. After all, you are limited to using trains that call at your split points - which often limits your choice of trains - and you will only be receiving compensation for part of the total fare you've paid.

Most importantly, the NRCoT don't say that you must be making one journey when using multiple tickets, just that you can.

OP asked for opinions on whether it was ethical or not. My view is that that interpretation may well be technically correct but I do not think it is right to have ones cake and attempt to eat it which that still very much feels like to me. Presumably if a TOC attempted to refuse Delay Repay on that basis the argument would be that that's wrong as you can use multiple tickets to make one journey? And yet here the argument is that you can claim Delay Repay as you have multiple tickets and you don't have to be making one journey.

It doesn't feel right to me even if technically permitted.

 

[Watershed]

OP asked for opinions on whether it was ethical or not. My view is that that interpretation may well be technically correct but I do not think it is right to have ones cake and attempt to eat it which that still very much feels like to me. Presumably if a TOC attempted to refuse Delay Repay on that basis the argument would be that that's wrong as you can use multiple tickets to make one journey? And yet here the argument is that you can claim Delay Repay as you have multiple tickets and you don't have to be making one journey.

It doesn't feel right to me even if technically permitted.

Fair enough - however, I imagine there are still scenarios where you'd agree that it was fair to claim.

For instance, let's say you wanted to travel from Carlisle to Newcastle but stop off for a few hours in Edinburgh. Obviously that's not permitted on a through ticket so you have to split, e.g. at Edinburgh. If you were delayed in arriving at Edinburgh, and thus had less (or no) time to explore the city, I'd say it would be eminenly reasonable to make a claim - even though Edinburgh wasn't your final destination.

Equally, you might have a generous cross-London connection, which should in theory allow you to enjoy the First Class lounge at your departing London terminal - but due to a delay, you have to get straight on the train. Again, making a claim to London doesn't seem unreasonable in those circumstances.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, there is no real way to disallow claims in these circumstances without requiring people to register their combination of tickets in advance, or something similar. I can't see that happening.

 

[AlterEgo]

Fair enough - however, I imagine there are still scenarios where you'd agree that it was fair to claim.

For instance, let's say you wanted to travel from Carlisle to Newcastle but stop off for a few hours in Edinburgh. Obviously that's not permitted on a through ticket so you have to split, e.g. at Edinburgh. If you were delayed in arriving at Edinburgh, and thus had less (or no) time to explore the city, I'd say it would be eminenly reasonable to make a claim - even though Edinburgh wasn't your final destination.

I think most of us would reasonably consider that two journeys. Going somewhere, doing something with a purpose, and then going to another place seems like two journeys to me.

 

[Merseysider]

I would say no as otherwise we're trying to have our cake and eat it. Either multiple tickets can be used to make one journey in which case it's the delay to the journey that matters not the individual legs or they can't in which case delay repay is only due on delayed legs not the whole journey.

I agree with this.

That said, if it’s a TOC which has arsed me about in the past over PTOD* or otherwise wrongfully refused to pay delay repay then I probably would claim anyway. Righting a past wrong and all that

*Published Timetable Of the Day, the latest non-existent, contractually uncompliant get out of jail free card by the industry/DafT.**

**Department for Transport, who occasionally know what they’re doing.

 

[robbeech]

If you arrive over 15 minutes late at a split point on your tickets but have recovered time by your final destination, is it ethical to claim on the ticket where the delay occurred?

As most seem to suggest, you define a journey when you plan it, if your journey uses multiple tickets it’s still 1 journey so delay repay is based on your arrival time at the end of it.

For instance, let's say you wanted to travel from Carlisle to Newcastle but stop off for a few hours in Edinburgh. Obviously that's not permitted on a through ticket so you have to split, e.g. at Edinburgh. If you were delayed in arriving at Edinburgh, and thus had less (or no) time to explore the city, I'd say it would be eminenly reasonable to make a claim - even though Edinburgh wasn't your final destination.

This is unquestionably 2 journeys so you would definitely have a claim for the 1st journey.

 

[Watershed]

This is unquestionably 2 journeys so you would definitely have a claim for the 1st journey.

Is it though? If there were a through ticket that were valid, it could simply be a break of journey.

Clearly, with no contractual definition of "journey" or "break of journey", and the right (but not obligation) to be considered to be making one journey when using multiple tickets, the passenger is afforded a lot of leeway.

 

[island]

I agree that this is attempting to have one's cake and eat it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think most of us would reasonably consider that two journeys. Going somewhere, doing something with a purpose, and then going to another place seems like two journeys to me.

I think I'd see that as two journeys too, because if you've got enough of a gap in the break you can't really envisage a claim as one without a very serious delay indeed.

In a sense you probably need to decide what it is in your mind at the time of purchase, and then claim according to that. It being bought from Trainsplit usually signifies intention for it to be one journey, unless you whacked in a long layover en route.

Obviously there are grey areas, particularly where doing complex multi-ticket journeys of the kind mostly done by enthusiasts. But to use two examples:
1. I go from Windermere to MKC via Manchester Picc. I decide en route to miss one train so I can have a sit down lunch at Picc. I'd call this a break in one journey.
2. I go from Windermere to MKC but stop to meet friends at Manchester. I spend a full day there, or stay overnight. I'd call that two journeys even if it might also be possible to do it as a break in a through journey.

I think people just need to be sensible over this. If it's abused too much the industry will just change the system so it applies only to a through ticket, and then we lose.

 

[mangyiscute]

I guess you then get the equivalent question of: if you are travelling from Newcastle to Glasgow on an off peak/anytime single, and you want to spend a few hours in Edinburgh by breaking your journey there - perfectly valid route. You take the first train into Edinburgh, and its an hour late, so you spend 1 hour less exploring Edinburgh, and then take the intended train onto Glasgow and arrive in Glasgow on time. I think most people would agree that this is two journeys, and that you are entitled to some delay repay on the first journey, but a) how much and b) how do you get that.
I think the obvious answer to a) is that you should get delay repay of the amount that you would get by claiming on a Newcastle to Edinburgh off peak/anytime single. But then b) is difficult - you could claim on a Newcastle to Edinburgh journey using the Newcastle to Glasgow ticket, but I'm not sure what sort of compensation the TOC would pay you in this case, or you could claim on the whole Newcastle to Glasgow journey with the route of if you had not been breaking the journey in Edinburgh, but then you would probably not be getting the amount of money that you "should" be getting

 

[neilmc]

I can't believe that people are arguing about this - if you have two tickets they are technically separate journeys, if your first journey is delayed you can claim Delay Repay for that journey both morally and legally even though your end time at the final destination may be the same, you just spent less time at the interchange point; you may have missed an anticipated meal or on the other hand saved yourself a long cold wait, doesn't matter. You may have got lucky and still arrived at your final destination on time but others who have maybe missed an infrequent bus connection or a key appointment will be losing out.

In the above examples using split tickets no TOC will be disputing this because they don't know your final destination, and in the unlikely event they ever did then you need to consider split split ticketing, buying both parts by separate transactions and separate means so there is no electronic link!

 

[NorthWestRover]

No, that's rubbish unless you planned to do something in the split and you could no longer do it. If you've got a 45 minute wait and your first train is delayed 40 minutes so your wait is only 5 minutes, that is not a delay to your journey.

 

[neilmc]

No, that's rubbish unless you planned to do something in the split and you could no longer do it. If you've got a 45 minute wait and your first train is delayed 40 minutes so your wait is only 5 minutes, that is not a delay to your journey.

But the point is, if you have bought tickets A to B and B to C, you were 40 minutes late arriving at B so you can claim Delay Repay like everyone else who were inconvenienced at that point. What you were planning to do at B - in this case, catch another train on to C - is immaterial since you have split your tickets, the TOC don't know that (I think!!) and no reason they should. Occasionally a train delay can even work in a passengers favour, if for example they can have a coffee in a nice warm waiting room at their origin instead of a long wait at some grim windswept halt but that doesn't mean you shouldn't claim for it.

 

[NorthWestRover]

Yes it does. Your journey has not been delayed.

 

[mangyiscute]

But the point is, if you have bought tickets A to B and B to C, you were 40 minutes late arriving at B so you can claim Delay Repay like everyone else who were inconvenienced at that point. What you were planning to do at B - in this case, catch another train on to C - is immaterial since you have split your tickets, the TOC don't know that (I think!!) and no reason they should. Occasionally a train delay can even work in a passengers favour, if for example they can have a coffee in a nice warm waiting room at their origin instead of a long wait at some grim windswept halt but that doesn't mean you shouldn't claim for it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you can't do that, but that morally you shouldn't do that

 

[Fawkes Cat]

But the point is, if you have bought tickets A to B and B to C, you were 40 minutes late arriving at B so you can claim Delay Repay like everyone else who were inconvenienced at that point. What you were planning to do at B - in this case, catch another train on to C - is immaterial since you have split your tickets, the TOC don't know that (I think!!) and no reason they should. Occasionally a train delay can even work in a passengers favour, if for example they can have a coffee in a nice warm waiting room at their origin instead of a long wait at some grim windswept halt but that doesn't mean you shouldn't claim for it.

Following this logic through, if the result of me being delayed on my A-B journey is that I miss my connection for B-C, then I can’t claim for delay from B-C because it’s a separate journey. Yes?

Ultimately, the position is this: by the rules, you are allowed to split tickets and claim delay repay for the whole journey (i.e. all your split tickets). If you were doing your journey on a single ticket, a delay that didn’t affect your final arrival time wouldn’t generate delay repay, so why should you be in a more beneficial position for compensation because you have split your tickets?

Practically speaking, should you be delayed on one leg but not your final arrival then an attempt to claim delay repay for that one leg will be undetectable as being outside the rules. So it comes down to a personal choice - do you do what is immediately most beneficial to you (claiming delay repay for the one leg), or do you abide by the rules - either because it’s morally right, or because ultimately if too many people play outside the rules then the rules will be changed to your long-term disadvantage.

 

[317 forever]

I think most of us would reasonably consider that two journeys. Going somewhere, doing something with a purpose, and then going to another place seems like two journeys to me.

I believe that if we have 2 separate Advance tickets with a clear intention to spend time at the intermediate point, as in the Edinburgh example above, that if our inbound train arrives say 1 hour late we should be allowed to postpone our onward journey by 1 hour. Otherwise, as things stand at the moment, our only option is to give up or at best "sell" an hour of our time there.

Same with day return trips consisting of 2 Advance Singles.

 

[Watershed]

Following this logic through, if the result of me being delayed on my A-B journey is that I miss my connection for B-C, then I can’t claim for delay from B-C because it’s a separate journey. Yes?

The rules don't currently require you to declare what your journey is before setting out. It is up to the passenger to decide what their journey is.

To put another example to the test -

why should you be in a more beneficial position for compensation because you have split your tickets?

In this case, splitting tickets might increase your rights. But it also introduces other restrictions - namely the requirement to go via, and call at, the split point - even if this causes inconvenience during disruption (in the event of serious disruption the rules are of course different). You are also likely to struggle to get a refund on your second ticket if you decide to abandon your journey due to disruption/pre-planned cancellation, if you bought it from a different retailer (or in some cases even just a different transaction) from the first ticket.

will be undetectable as being outside the rules.

I don't think there is anything in any of the rules that this would be in breach of. Clearly some people think it's morally unjustified, but there are mixed opinions.

or because ultimately if too many people play outside the rules then the rules will be changed to your long-term disadvantage.

As stated previously, I can't see that this is a feasible proposition.

 

[robbeech]

As stated previously, I can't see that this is a feasible proposition.

We would have confidently said that about Published timetables of the day this time last year.

I can't believe that people are arguing about this - if you have two tickets they are technically separate journeys,

The very railway itself disagrees with that when it tells us we may use more than one ticket for our journey.

I think people need to be careful what they wish for.
If we start splitting hairs for things like this then we WILL see changes to the rules which only lets you claim for the delayed part or parts of the journey. And if we tighten up those restrictions we will see the use of split tickets in general be tightened up too, particularly when staying on the same train. It wouldn’t be beyond the railway to implement a rule that suggests that where splitting tickets the journeys are treated as separate, that would scupper people in the event of disruption as they may miss a later train and be denied boarding a different service.

 

[Watershed]

We would have confidently said that about Published timetables of the day this time last year.

To be fair, the industry has long held the position that "planned" engineering works or emergency timetables are what are used for calculating delay compensation. So the principle wasn't new - it was just expanded in a completely barmy manner.

Coming back to the issue at hand, how could any such requirement be enforced? You would have to provide some sort of form or website for people to 'declare' their journey before setting out. This seems improbable and impractical in the extreme.

The only other alternative would be to refuse to recognise combinations of tickets as one journey. But this would be a complete U-turn of the longstanding current policy - and in that sense, the complete opposite of the PToD example you gave. With major retailers such as Trainline now offering split tickets, I just can't see this happening.

I also doubt that any change is going to come as a result of more people doing this. It is, as everyone agrees, effectively impossible for the railway to know what someone's intended journey was. Therefore it is impossible to tell if many, if any, people are "mis-declaring" their journey (insofar as such a concept even exists).

 

[robbeech]

Coming back to the issue at hand, how could any such requirement be enforced? You would have to provide some sort of form or website for people to 'declare' their journey before setting out. This seems improbable and impractical in the extreme.

But they don’t need to enforce it if they change the basic ruling which they could do if they were to ……

refuse to recognise combinations of tickets as one journey.

It’s not in the railway’s interest to pay out compensation, it’s not in their interest to be passenger focussed (as the funding is for the most part unrelated to the popularity of the railway). What the railway says goes, whilst it’s unlikely to have any effect in the short and medium term, I suspect the longer term plans they have for ticketing will work in their favour.