Delay repay policy questions

[redreni]

Even after reading and contributing to numerous threads on the subject, I still don't think I've seen a definitive answer to these questions:

1. Is operator A responsible for delaying a passenger if its train arrives at an interchange station late enough that it would have fouled the MCT for the intended connection to operator B's train had operator B's train departed on time, but because operator B's train departs the interchange station late, the passenger has enough time (i.e. at least the MCT) to make the connection?
2. Is operator A deemed responsible for delaying a passenger if its train arrives at an interchange station late enough to foul the connection to operator B's train, but the passenger makes a sub-MCT connection and departs the interchange station on operator B's train on time and is then delayed after that?

I have heard conflicting answers to (2) from @AlterEgo and @yorkie .

I have also heard it said that these "which TOC is responsible?" questions are no concern of the passenger's, because you just claim from whichever operator and they forward it if necessary. I disagree, because different TOCs have different delay thresholds.

If I experience a delay of 15-29 minutes on a journey involving a mixture of DR15 and DR30 operators, I would like to know what the rules are so I can push back if I am delayed by a DR15 operator but they try to say a DR30 operator is responsible. Conversely, if I experience a delay of 15-29 minutes and a DR30 TOC is responsible, I don't want to waste my or anybody else's time putting in a claim.

I currently have a claim in with GWR for a 16 minute delay and they have said TfL (Elizabeth Line) is responsible. Obviously, I thought GWR was responsible, which is why I claimed from them. Who is right? Well, in this particular case, it depends on the answer to question (1), above.

I used a GWR train that was 9 mins late into Paddington, which fouled the MCT for my intended Elizabeth Line train to Abbey Wood (or would have done had it been on time), but as it happened, that Elizabeth Line train was also late so I did have exactly 15 minutes (which is the MCT) available to catch it and did catch it. But because it was late, I arrived at Abbey Wood later than scheduled, missed my connection there and arrived at my final destination 16 mins late.

The first delay was GWR's, but it only fouled the intended connection, not the actual connection, because the second train was also late. If the delay is GWR's fault I am owed compensation. If the delay is TfL's fault I am not owed compensation.

Is there any chance of getting clarity on this? I really think if a consistent approach were taken to these things, we wouldn't have the level of delay repay ping-pong we have currently.

I would like to understand the rules not only so I can argue my case confidently if a valid claim is rejected, but also to ensure I won't inadvertently submit any claims that aren't valid. I do a lot of journeys that include a mixture of DR15 and DR30 operators (the latter being the Elizabeth Line and London Overground).

Final question: what is the point of GWR forwarding my claim to TfL in the circumstances described above? Don't they know that the Elizabeth Line is a DR30 operator? Surely if GWR believes the delay was TfL's fault, it should just reject it, since the delay claimed for was below 30 minutes? I wouldn't knowingly waste TfL's time by claiming from them for a 16 minute delay on the Elizabeth Line - why are TOCs wasting each other's time in this way?

 

[Watershed]

I don't think there is anything in the NRCoT which clearly establishes the answer to your scenarios. You have to 'read between the lines' to work out what the implied terms are.

The only clause that is really relevant is the first paragraph of condition 32.1:

you may be entitled to claim compensation from the Train Company that is responsible for the delay in completing your journey

This suggests that it's the TOC which materially causes your arrival to be delayed that is liable. Of course working out which one this is, when two (or more) of your intended trains are delayed, is very difficult. This is why most people generally accept the 'first TOC to materially delay you' rule, as it keeps things simple. In practical terms I believe it's what operators and Delay Repay claims systems have worked to since the scheme was introduced.

Is operator A responsible for delaying a passenger if its train arrives at an interchange station late enough that it would have fouled the MCT for the intended connection to operator B's train had operator B's train departed on time, but because operator B's train departs the interchange station late, the passenger has enough time (i.e. at least the MCT) to make the connection?

One argument is that operator A is liable because - for tight connections - you couldn't have arrived on time once their first train became late. Therefore, operator B shouldn't be penalised for not breaking your connection or indeed, in some cases, holding their service for the train you've come off.

The counterargument is that operator B is liable, because you would have been late at your destination either way due to their train's delay - even if the first train was on time. I am more inclined to believe that operator A is liable if the delay to their train was at least 15 minutes, since that way - under most TOCs' schemes - there would be a claim if train A was the full extent of your journey. But I can see that the position currently isn't clearly defined in the NRCoT or in practice, with TOCs invariably arguing for whichever method favours them.

Is operator A deemed responsible for delaying a passenger if its train arrives at an interchange station late enough to foul the connection to operator B's train, but the passenger makes a sub-MCT connection and departs the interchange station on operator B's train on time and is then delayed after that?

In my mind, minimum connection times are only relevant in terms of limiting the connections that can be considered "official" and that you will be offered by journey planners. In other words, they only apply at the planning stage.

In practice, if you make a connection that is quicker than the MCT then I don't think an operator can treat your claim as if you didn't make that connection. They didn't cause you to miss your connection so they - at least arguably - aren't "responsible for the delay in completing your journey". But in some cases we come back to the issues discussed above, about connections only being made because the second train is running late (or is held deliberately).

Equally, an operator can't assume you made a sub-MCT connection unless you tell them so, e.g. by stating that your delay was 30-59 mins when it would otherwise be 60+ mins.

Sorry that I can't be more helpful, but it's a nuanced issue and I think we can only argue in favour of what seems logical rather than providing a definitive answer. The matter would proabbly have to be decided in Court (which is vanishingly unlikely) for that to happen.

Final question: what is the point of GWR forwarding my claim to TfL in the circumstances described above? Don't they know that the Elizabeth Line is a DR30 operator? Surely if GWR believes the delay was TfL's fault, it should just reject it, since the delay claimed for was below 30 minutes? I wouldn't knowingly waste TfL's time by claiming from them for a 16 minute delay on the Elizabeth Line - why are TOCs wasting each other's time in this way?

I think we have to remember that most TOC staff don't know what their own TOC has as a Delay Repay policy, let alone what others do. So never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence, or even just processes being followed rigidly even if they make little sense.

More to the point GWR could argue they are simply fulfilling their duty under the NRCoT to forward your claim to the TOC responsible. It's up to that TOC to determine whether or not you have a valid claim.

 

[redreni]

One argument is that operator A is liable because - for tight connections - you couldn't have arrived on time once their first train became late. Therefore, operator B shouldn't be penalised for not breaking your connection or indeed, in some cases, holding their service for the train you've come off.

The counterargument is that operator B is liable, because you would have been late at your destination either way due to their train's delay - even if the first train was on time. I am more inclined to believe that operator A is liable if the delay to their train was at least 15 minutes, since that way - under most TOCs' schemes - there would be a claim if train A was the full extent of your journey. But I can see that the position currently isn't clearly defined in the NRCoT or in practice, with TOCs invariably arguing for whichever method favours them.

Thanks for the detailed answer.

I can't help thinking the delay repay scheme would be cheaper to administer if some of the ambiguities that crop up again and again could be cleared up, with guidance issued to ensure consistency.

On your bolded point, that's fair enough, but a delay of less than 15 minutes that causes a missed connection can still result in an overall delay of over 15 minutes even if there are no further delays, even on high-frequency services like the Elizabeth Line and the North Kent Line, if my intended 5-minute connection at Abbey Wood is missed then the timetable means that results in a 15 minute delay.

So in the case of my GWR claim, I have a 9 mins delay on the GWR train inbound to Paddington which, the way I see it, made the 15 minute delay into my final destination inevitable, since if everything else had been on time, I would have missed my intended Elizabeth Line train and had to take the next one, causing me to miss my intended connection at Abbey Wood and be at least 15 minutes late to my destination. As it is, the Elizabeth Line train was also late which salvaged the connection at Paddington, but this did not salvage the connection at Abbey Wood, so I was still 15 minutes late. The lateness of the Elizabeth Line train into Paddington was actually helpful if anything: if it had been on time then, according to delay repay theory, I would have missed it!

 

[Belperpete]

So in the case of my GWR claim, I have a 9 mins delay on the GWR train inbound to Paddington which, the way I see it, made the 15 minute delay into my final destination inevitable, since if everything else had been on time, I would have missed my intended Elizabeth Line train and had to take the next one, causing me to miss my intended connection at Abbey Wood and be at least 15 minutes late to my destination. As it is, the Elizabeth Line train was also late which salvaged the connection at Paddington, but this did not salvage the connection at Abbey Wood, so I was still 15 minutes late. The lateness of the Elizabeth Line train into Paddington was actually helpful if anything: if it had been on time then, according to delay repay theory, I would have missed it

What connection would have been available if the GWR train had arrived on time? If you could have caught a previous Elizabeth line train that was also running late, that would be even more argument for saying that GWR were responsible.

 

[redreni]

What connection would have been available if the GWR train had arrived on time? If you could have caught a previous Elizabeth line train that was also running late, that would be even more argument for saying that GWR were responsible.

The GWR was due into Paddington at 18:52 and actually arrived 19:01. If it had been on time I would, in reality, have easily caught the 19:04 to Abbey Wood, but of course the rules of this ridiculous game are that I must pretend I couldn't have done that since the MCT is 15 minutes.

The 19:11 from Paddington to Abbey Wood was due to call at Maidenhead at 18:30 (4 minutes after the GWR departed Maidenhead), so if there were no realistic prospect of connecting to an earlier train at Paddington, there wouldn't be any point in taking the GWR at all, yet I can only claim against a journey with valid connections. Consequently I must pretend I intended to connect needlessly at Paddington without saving (or losing) any time compared to taking the Elizabeth Line to Abbey Wood direct from Maidenhead.