Delay Repay should be provided by retailers

[yorkie]

The current system, whereby a refund request goes to the retailer but a delay repay request goes to the TOC who is deemed to have caused the delay, is not fit for purpose.

Passengers get confused and not only that but TOCs themselves have been known, on numerous occasions, to erroneously palm the claim off to another TOC who was not actually responsible.

In some cases it is not always immediately obvious who to submit the claim to; in other cases it is obvious but the TOC responsible still denies it, potentially due to inadequate training and/or a desire to avoid paying out.

I propose all claims therefore go to the retailer; the retailer would then be able to impartially* handle the claim and the TOC deemed responsible would then be automatically billed the relevant amount (of course this would have to include a reasonable cost for the retailer to process the claim).

Just a very tiny selection of the issues that can occur, which is just a subset of those posted on this forum, which in turn is just a tiny fraction of those issues that do occur:

My Delay Repay claim has been rejected and I'm being passed between GWR and TFW....

He's applied to GW, but they say he's got to claim through Trainline (where he bought the tickets). Trainline say apply through GW...
He's going round in circles.

....I recently made a journey from Stevenage to Aberdeen, changing at Doncaster and Edinburgh. The train from SVG to DON was 6 minutes late meaning I had less than the minimum connection time at DON. But it’s a same platform connection and I made the connection.

The train from EDB to ABD was 30 minutes late. I claimed delay repay from Scotrail who rejected the claim and passed it to Scotrail. I appealed the decision pointing out that as I made the connection at DON I considered Scotrail responsible. I’ve not had a reply from Scotrail but in the meantime LNER have paid up!

I had a journey which involved several TOCs, starting with a journey on South Western Railway and finishing on Northern Trains. I was over 15 minutes late due to Northern on the final leg. I therefore submitted a Delay Repay claim to Northern. I have received a rejection of the claim from SWR. I will challenge this, but I am surprised at the claim being sent onto them. As Northern was the cause of the delay, shouldn't it have dealt with the claim?

....I submitted my initial delay repay claim to Avanti on 6th June, who said, on 9th June, that the delay was caused by TfW. TfW replied on 6th July saying the initial delay was caused by GWR. GWR then replied on 28th July saying the delay was caused by TfW.

Could anyone possibly advise what I could do as my claim is taking ages and seems to be going round in circles?...

And below are examples where there wasn't necessarily a problem but we had to advise the passenger what to do as it was not obvious to them:

Need some advice on how to claim:

Journey was EUS to MAN with three tickets:

EUS-BHM -- Super Off Peak Single LNR Only £12.50
BHM-SOT -- Advance Single XC Only £6.25
SOT-MAN -- Advance Single XC Only £3.85

Booked to leave Euston at 15:56 and arrive in Manchester at 19:59. Outbound LNR was delayed at Northampton and ended up arriving in Birmingham International 41 late where it was then turned early. I had missed my original connection at this point so boarded the next XC from BHI which eventually arrived in Manchester at 2037, giving me an overall delay of 38 minutes to my journey.

Could someone advise me on who to claim from and how to do this with three tickets?

Suppose you want to travel from station A to station C, changing at B. The train from A-B is operated by TOC 1 & the train from B-C is operated by TOC 2.

Your train from A to B is delayed, to the extent where you would have just missed your B-C train, had it left on time.

However the train from B-C is stuck in the station for a while, so you make the connection.

You then arrive at C more than 15 minutes late.

Who is responsible for the delay repay? TOC 1 caused the initial delay, but ultimately it didn't affect your overall delay.

It’s one of those cases where it might even be clear to the DfT that a centralised delay repay function would be a good idea

Hi. I’m after some advice on a Delay Repay claim where more than one TOC is involved, and where split ticketing means I might have to fight a bit anyway.

I’m en route from Newton Abbot (NTA) to Manchester Airport (MIA). The itinerary was:
11:27 GWR service to Newport arriving 13:55
14:05 TFW service to Manchester Piccadilly arriving 17:15
17:26 TPE service to MIA arriving 17:42

Advances were bought from TrainSplit, and were NTA to Taunton (TAU), TAU to Bristol Temple Meads (BRI), BRI to NWP, Newport (NWP) to Leominster (LEO), LEO to MIA.

The first train (GWR) arrived 13 minutes late into Newport, meaning that the connection would have been missed. However, that train was cancelled, so we boarded the 15:08. This was delayed, departing around 15:37 and accruing further delays since then, meaning we’ll definitely get to MIA more than sixty minutes late.

Do I claim from GWR as the first operator, since their late running meant that the 14:05 would have been missed if it had been running, or TFW because the 14:05 was cancelled and then their next train delayed?

In other cases, TOCs seem to be incentivised to reject claims, but if this was independent, there would be no incentive to reject valid claims:

I was on the scheduled 19:21 Lumo service Newcastle to Edinburgh on Sunday gone.
Train was delayed by a broken down train between York and Northallerton and I arrived in Edinburgh 43 minutes late.

I had bought two tickets for me and my partner Edinburgh to Newcastle and back but my partner couldn't travel so I cancelled the tickets but kept one of the Newcastle to Edinburgh tickets and booked a fresh ticket Edinburgh to Newcastle.

Submitted my delay Repay claim today and immediately got it rejected...

Last friday I travelled with Avanti from London euston to Birkenhead Hamilton Square (BKQ)..
.
...However, Avanti just rejected my delay repay claim, as they state there was no timetabled journey was found.

I intend to appeal....

There is also an entire thread here, which I've not quoted from:

Delay Repay Rejected​

(* of course if the TOC who caused the delay is the retailer, then impartiality cannot be guaranteed, but the retailer is within the customers' control, so they could always switch if they are unhappy with the service provided!)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would go a different way. A single clearing house should be set up to handle both Delay Repay and refunds due to passengers not travelling due to disruption (which means passengers needn't know which they're claiming for and thus go a different way for each); only discretionary refunds would go to the retailer. That clearing house would establish if a claim was valid and bill TOCs accordingly.

 

[Haywain]

In some cases it is not always immediately obvious who to submit the claim to; in other cases it is obvious but the TOC responsible still denies it, potentially due to inadequate training and/or a desire to avoid paying out.

There is no assurance that moving the handling of claims away from the TOC would prevent problems occurring through inadequate training or a desire to avoid paying out. It might even incentivise such problems.

the TOC deemed responsible would then be automatically billed the relevant amount (of course this would have to include a reasonable cost for the retailer to process the claim).

Who would determine what "a reasonable costs for the retailer" would look like? Would this be a fixed amount or on a commission basis? And would your proposal also have an audit process?

The current system is not perfect but there are serious differences in how retailers process any customer contacts and moving the DR processing would most likely move the problems elsewhere and see inconsistencies moved. In my view, a central processing house would be better, with retailers redirecting claims where necessary, alongside a consistent application of DR across the industry.

 

[yorkie]

There is no assurance that moving the handling of claims away from the TOC would prevent problems occurring through inadequate training or a desire to avoid paying out.

If a customer experiences poor service from a retailer, they can switch.

It might even incentivise such problems.

I don't see how; in any case if any retailers are doing a poor job, the customer has the option to use an alternative in future.

Who would determine what "a reasonable costs for the retailer" would look like? Would this be a fixed amount or on a commission basis? And would your proposal also have an audit process?

If the costings for TOCs providing DR schemes are made available, I could have a go at answering that. Is that information in the public domain, and if not, is anyone able to divulge this?

The current system is not perfect but there are serious differences in how retailers process any customer contacts and moving the DR processing would most likely move the problems elsewhere and see inconsistencies moved. In my view, a central processing house would be better, with retailers redirecting claims where necessary, alongside a consistent application of DR across the industry.

I would agree with a central processing house providing they are competent.

However given how incompetent Transport Focus, the Rail Ombudsman and other bodies are, I would have no faith in the 'powers that be' setting up a competent central processing house; the track record of the DfT in this area is absolutely abysmal.

I would go a different way. A single clearing house should be set up to handle both Delay Repay and refunds due to passengers not travelling due to disruption (which means passengers needn't know which they're claiming for and thus go a different way for each); only discretionary refunds would go to the retailer. That clearing house would establish if a claim was valid and bill TOCs accordingly.

Yes if they are competent, but if the DfT have anything to do with setting this up, they will surely not be competent and will reject many valid claims.

The Ombudsman lacks even basic knowledge; they are run by a furniture ombudsman who are clueless about furniture, let alone rail fares.

How could we be assured that a central clearing house would actually be competent? If the DfT have any say in setting it up, incomptence would surely be baked-in!

 

[Haywain]

If the costings for TOCs providing DR schemes are made available, I could have a go at answering that. Is that information in the public domain, and if not, is anyone able to divulge this?

I wasn't asking what the charges would be - I was asking how you would envisage charges being made.

 

[greatkingrat]

Do retailers even have access to all the necessary information to be able to validate claims (particularly for more complex claims)?

What happens if the retailer pays out, but then the TOC disputes the claim and refuses to reimburse?

 

[Helvellyn]

Do retailers even have access to all the necessary information to be able to validate claims (particularly for more complex claims)?

What happens if the retailer pays out, but then the TOC disputes the claim and refuses to reimburse?

This would only work if you had a centralised system that everyone had to use to determine delays, and that was open to the public (I.e. claim for delay from X to Y with operator A, but upon submitting it shows delay was not within parameters). I've had claims where Realtime Trains said it was 15 or 30 minutes but the TOC has come back with 14 or 29 because they use another system.

 

[yorkie]

Do retailers even have access to all the necessary information to be able to validate claims (particularly for more complex claims)?

Is there anything you had in mind where this may be a potential problem?

What happens if the retailer pays out, but then the TOC disputes the claim and refuses to reimburse?

It depends on how it is structured; at present TOCs can erroneously refute claims with what appears to be impunity. The Ombudsman rarely seems to side with passengers when TOCs get it wrong (based on what I've witnessed/observed) and even if the Ombudsman sides with the passenger, the hoops people have to go through are huge.

I doubt a perfect system could ever be introduced, especially as the DfT will no doubt thwart any attempts at improving things, but it would be difficult to make things worse than they are now, and there is certainly huge scope for drastic improvement.

I wasn't asking what the charges would be - I was asking how you would envisage charges being made.

There are several ways this could be achieved; I can have a discussion with some relevant people and reply back in due course, but I doubt that this challenge would be insurmoutantable.

 

[Haywain]

There are several ways this could be achieved; I can have a discussion with some relevant people and reply back in due course, but I doubt that this challenge would be insurmoutantable.

It's not about discussions - it's a simple question. It's relevant because one could be seen to incentivise approval of claims to earn more commission and the other would take no account of the volume of claims handled. Both sides of this have relevance as the retailers are going to have to cover the costs of handling DR claims in your proposal. They won't have a consistent cost base and some will find it easier than others to do because of their sales volumes. Even now, some retailers contract out elements of refund processing while others handle them in house.

 

[yorkie]

It's not about discussions - it's a simple question.

'Simple' questions may have multiple potential answers and may not have one clearly defined 'right' answer; what I don't want to do is be rushed into giving an answer, as my views are based on observations and also discussions with relevant people, which I think is a sensible approach to take. This thread is merely an idea on this forum rather than a formal proposal, in which case yes I'd have already held such discussions before submitting it.

It's relevant because one could be seen to incentivise approval of claims to earn more commission...

If we had a competent independent adjudicator, then any successful appeals against the retailer could count against them, thus deterring this. However I don't trust the DfT to ensure that anyone of any competence is in any such position, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Do you concede that the current system could be seen as incentivising TOCs to deny claims? We are seeing many valid claims refused, and it benefits the TOCs to do this.

and the other would take no account of the volume of claims handled. Both sides of this have relevance as the retailers are going to have to cover the costs of handling DR claims in your proposal.

The costs are not new to the industry; they are currently borne by TOCs, but that doesn't mean that it should be TOCs who do this.

They won't have a consistent cost base and some will find it easier than others to do because of their sales volumes.

Is that not the case now, with TOCs? Some of the flaws in the existing system would remain; it would be inevitable, unless a truly independent, competent single body handled all claims, which I've already said I'd support, if done correctly.

Even now, some retailers contract out elements of refund processing while others handle them in house.

I would imagine that would be the case for TOCs too?

 

[skyhigh]

So if the retailer were to be responsible for Delay Repay claims - how would it work where split tickets are involved, but the different legs are purchased from different retailers? Particularly if a delay is incurred on one ticket but not the other and the journey as a whole is delayed?

 

[Travelmonkey]

Another question would be how do we get it all on a level playing field as different operators have different DR & refund criteria, if it was brought into the 15 minutes scheme for everyone that would be a good start, I know XC are 30mins but most others are 15 mins or 60 mins before you get any payback.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is one of the more interesting proposals but I’d still be in favour of a centralised clearing house. Nothing stopping a retailer bidding to run it, of course - but the current system of buckpassing is awful for passengers, especially as the delay repay rules aren’t clear (for example where is it written down anywhere that it’s the FIRST delay which counts for the whole journey?).

Back in the mists of time - 12 years ago - I was processing delay repay for Virgin West Coast and yet still hardly any of the more annoying issues have been fixed.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

I would go a different way. A single clearing house should be set up to handle both Delay Repay and refunds due to passengers not travelling due to disruption (which means passengers needn't know which they're claiming for and thus go a different way for each); only discretionary refunds would go to the retailer. That clearing house would establish if a claim was valid and bill TOCs accordingly.

I very much agree with this.

 

[devon_belle]

I prefer OP's idea. The privatised railways in many cases lack the principle benefit of competition, so putting the burden of compensation on the retailer would hopefully encourage them to negotiate with each other (aka TOCs) for reimbursement, rather than messing around the consumer.

Do we think this could lead to certain retailers refusing to sell tickets to, say, xyz company because of their recent delay record. What about if a customer incident or other major disruption occurs, will retailers be able to stop selling tickets that they know will be refunded... questions of regulation.

 

[DanNCL]

I’m not sure this would resolve things. In the last few weeks for a point of purchase refund for an abandoned journey I’ve had point of purchase (LNER) refuse and try dumping it on TPE, who correctly sent the matter back to LNER who are now not engaging in any correspondence. Unfortunately it’s looking likely that the matter will have to go to the Rail Ombudsman.

With that in mind I’m not convinced that having delay repay coming from the retailer would resolve anything if the TOCs are only going to ignore NRCOT anyway. A centralised system for both delay repay and refunds on all TOCs is the only system that will help.

 

[devon_belle]

How about a centralised system for tickets and delay repay? I guess this could be a GBR thing, but I haven't read the white paper.

 

[Haywain]

Do we think this could lead to certain retailers refusing to sell tickets to, say, xyz company because of their recent delay record.

That would be a dangerous slippery slope which would be unlikely to have any benefits for the consumer. As things stand, there is a requirement to sell the products of all train operators and that should be protected.

I haven't read the white paper.

Don't bother, it's been kicked into the long grass.

 

[devon_belle]

That would be a dangerous slippery slope which would be unlikely to have any benefits for the consumer. As things stand, there is a requirement to sell the products of all train operators and that should be protected.

Exactly, as long as the requirement is upheld the idea could work.

Don't bother, it's been kicked into the long grass.

As booked...

 

[Adam Williams]

I missed this thread, but this is absolutely how it should work.

I've lost count of how many times TOCs/OA operators have argued (incorrectly) that Delay Repay compensation isn't payable when the customer clearly travelled. If the retailer could just sort it on behalf of customers, it'd be much more passenger-friendly, you wouldn't need to have "delay repay claim forwarding", and the customer proposition would be much simpler. Customers would also benefit from far superior customer service depending on their chosen retailer.

 

[yorkie]

I would go a different way. A single clearing house should be set up to handle both Delay Repay and refunds....

If there is to be a single clearing house, it would need to be both; if it was just DR then it would defeat part of the purpose (as customers would still end up being sent from retailer to clearing house and vice versa).

But, could it realistically be the case that a single clearing house can be responsible for forcing a retailer to issue a refund? That could be a thorny issue; especially as the DfT cannot be trusted to put a reputable, knowledgeable organisation in place to do it.

A lot of your suggestions appear to be based on a little knowledge, but not a lot of knowledge, in the relevant industry. I am not saying that I have full access to all the relevant information to say definitively either way, but I know enough to know that your suggestion would surely be contentious and may be unworkable.

The customer has a choice of retailer and I think retailers need to be in charge of refunds. That means, for consistency, retailers should also handle Delay Repay.

If a retailer does a rubbish job, consumers have the option to change retailer. But with DR, there is no way to choose a competent supplier as you are in the hands of train companies who may be utterly incompetent and pass on your details to a completely unrelated company, which is bonkers.

Another thing that should change is that retailers still get charged fees from RDG when issuing refunds; that is very wrong, but it's arguably a separate matter to this issue, but if that doesn't change then a central clearing house ordering a retailer to issue a refund might not be lawful; I'd have to bow to others knowledge in this area but I certainly would have my doubts about this.

 

[crablab]

This might help resolve the issue of inappropriate Trainline refunds (although I accept there are other ways to resolve it too).

I'd suggest that to most passengers the idea that they have to claim something called "delay repay" from a random company which they haven't bought anything from is pretty alien. To them, they are getting a "refund" and helpfully Trainline have put a big "refund" button in their app. I'd say it's a byzantine railway thing to expect customers to understand how this works under the hood (claiming with the company that caused the delay, split tickets count for the whole journey etc.).

At the risk of an inappropriate analogy - Amazon don't make you disappear off to a 3rd party seller's website to request a refund!

It'd be a significantly improved passenger experience to have the retailer handle all this on the customers' behalf; one centralised refund flow, a few questions to establish if they travelled or if they were unable to, what delay was incurred (if any) and whether they followed the itinerary. Nice and simple for the passenger and what happens in the background with the relevant TOCs really is not their concern.

I'd suggest the DR calculations are implemented in a similar way to ticket issuing, but I don't know how disagreements about errors are resolved.

 

[Haywain]

At the risk of an inappropriate analogy - Amazon don't make you disappear off to a 3rd party seller's website to request a refund!

It is an inappropriate analogy as rail ticket retailers don't make you do that either. However, in a more appropriate analogy, airline tickets can be purchased from third party retailers but delay compensation would still come from the airline.

 

[crablab]

It is an inappropriate analogy as rail ticket retailers don't make you do that either.

As I stated, the line between "refund" and "compensation" is often unclear and muddy for passengers, who just want their money back after being inconvenienced.
That one comes from the retailer and the other from a TOC (which one, you have to work out) is an unnecessary barrier for passengers.

 

[Watershed]

It is an inappropriate analogy as rail ticket retailers don't make you do that either. However, in a more appropriate analogy, airline tickets can be purchased from third party retailers but delay compensation would still come from the airline.

I hardly think the airline industry provides a model the rail industry should strive towards!

Moreover, there seems to be a significant level of confusion amongst the general public when it comes to the concept of refunds vs compensation. Lots of people say things like "my flight arrived X hours late, how can I claim a refund"... I'm not sure how easy it would be for the rail industry to overcome this sort of basic misunderstanding.

 

[Haywain]

I hardly think the airline industry provides a model the rail industry should strive towards!

And that is certainly not something I would be advocating either. If anything it is the reverse that should happen.

Moreover, there seems to be a significant level of confusion amongst the general public when it comes to the concept of refunds vs compensation.

This I very much agree with but it is not restricted to the transport sector, it goes across all sectors of business.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good luck getting TPRs onboard

I don't think they would get to refuse if RDG made it part of the accreditation requirements, would they?

 

[py_megapixel]

Moreover, there seems to be a significant level of confusion amongst the general public when it comes to the concept of refunds vs compensation.

It doesn't help that it's called "repay". The railway does seem to like digging itself into its own holes sometimes when it comes to customer service, and expecting passengers to draw a distinction between a "repayment" and a "refund" is an excellent example.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

It doesn't help that it's called "repay". The railway does seem to like digging itself into its own holes sometimes when it comes to customer service, and expecting passengers to draw a distinction between a "repayment" and a "refund" is an excellent example.

I suspect someone liked the sound of delay repay, delay compensation would be a clearer description.