Delay Repay VTWC and connections split tickets

[1B85]

There was an A-B-C VTWC and connections Advance ticket that was very much more expensive than an A-B non VT operator specific single plus a B-C VTWC Advance. So I bought the latter, even though it meant that the journey I made had a connection of 1h10m at B.

So my train from A-B was on time, and so was the VTWC train from B to C, however this was cancelled part way through the journey, and so I had to get another train, arriving more than an hour late.

I made a claim for delay repay and submitted both my tickets from A-B and the VTWC Advance from B-C as they arguably made up a single journey for which I was delayed by more than one hour and the responsibilty for that delay was Virgin. Virgin say that they won't refund me the full cost of the journey including my A-B ticket- they have only coughed up for the VTWC Advance fare. Who is right?

 

[najaB]

Who is right?

You used a combination of tickets to make your journey and you were delayed on that journey. Therefore you are entitled to Delay Repay based on the value of the combination of tickets. It's not very hard, but VTWC have a habit of getting it wrong. Contact them again and explain the situation. You should get the rest of the compensation you're due and possibly £20 on top.

 

[1B85]

You used a combination of tickets to make your journey and you were delayed on that journey. Therefore you are entitled to Delay Repay based on the value of the combination of tickets. It's not very hard, but VTWC have a habit of getting it wrong. Contact them again and explain the situation. You should get the rest of the compensation you're due and possibly £20 on top.

That's what I thought, thanks...

 

[gray1404]

Here we go again, Virgin Trains West Coast not paying up correctly when customers use split tickets. This is becoming too much of a regular occurrence for my liking. Makes me think their staff have been instructed to work to some internal policy briefing that is clearly incorrect.

 

[AlterEgo]

It would be helpful to know exactly what tickets were held, so we can be satisfied they did indeed “join up”.

When transiting London, sometimes passengers make the mistake of not properly “joining” splits.

 

[Starmill]

When transiting London, sometimes passengers make the mistake of not properly “joining” splits.

What sort of mistake did you have in mind?

 

[gray1404]

Do not joining the tickets up correctly in London also mean Delay Repay is not paid on the full amount, or is it just being allowed on the next available service in the event of a delay that matters?

 

[Starmill]

I don't see what 'not joining tickets correctly' is. One ticket to London Terminals and then another one from London Terminals is fine.

 

[gray1404]

I thought one is not covered if they use Oyster UNLESS they can get the delay on the LU confirmed. Also worth noting that surely one still holds a valid itinerary if they allow enough walking time (according to the set times) to walk between London Terminals without any use of the LU at all?

 

[Starmill]

I thought one is not covered if they use Oyster UNLESS they can get the delay on the LU confirmed.

I was not referring to cases where there are LU delays and I don't think that AlterEgo was, but I could be wrong.

Also worth noting that surely one still holds a valid itinerary if they allow enough walking time (according to the set times) to walk between London Terminals without any use of the LU at all?

Only a very small number of cross-London 'fixed links' have a walk available.

There is a 'Transfer' for some but this typically implies road or other transport at your own cost rather than a walk.

 

[najaB]

I don't see what 'not joining tickets correctly' is. One ticket to London Terminals and then another one from London Terminals is fine.

Minimum connection times, mainly.

 

[AlterEgo]

Minimum connection times, mainly.

This, and to check that tickets were issued to/from London Terminals and not “Tottenham Hale” for example.

It is possible for people to fail to join tickets correctly, and leave themselves foul of protection, even though they were well intentioned.

 

[1B85]

Just to clarify, I am usually loathe to post full journey details unless absolutely necessary as you never know who's reading. But it did not involve a change at London Terminals. It involved travelling from my station A, a non VTWC station, (but is an origin/destination point for which VTWC and connections Advance tickets are sold) to B, (a station which VTWC services call at) and onwards to C (served by VTWC services calling at B without needing to change trains). A-B-C is a permitted route for an A-C 'Any Permitted' ticket.

Not sure what the minimum connection time for B was, but I allowed over 1 hour for my connection

 

[gray1404]

In that case VT should have paid delay repay based on the combination of tickets held, not just one of them. Email customer.relations@virgintrains.co.uk and explain that you held a valid combination of tickets as permitted under the National Rail Conditions and Travel and they should have paid delay repay based on this rather then just one of the tickets. Ask that your case be looked at again and they award the correct amount of compensation. Be sure to quote your reference number.

If they do not play ball then you will need to take it to Transport Focus. Transport Focus are hopeless much of the time and I often find that emails worded the right way when you ask for your case to be looked at again by the train company are much more fruitful then anything Transport Focus ever does - I am sure there are exceptions to this thought. However, Virgin Trains seem to be making a habit of denying people their rights under Delay Repay when they travel on split tickets on an ongoing basis. So much so I think their staff are being instructed, by internal policy, to.

 

[island]

Transport Focus has previously ruled that a train company is within its rights to pay DelayRepay based on only the tickets relating to the delayed portion of a journey where a passenger has chosen to travel with split tickets. As DelayRepay is not a contractual entitlement (the contractual entitlements to delay compensation, which are lower, are set out in section 32.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel), it may prove difficult to get additional compensation even via court.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Transport Focus has previously ruled that a train company is within its rights to pay DelayRepay based on only the tickets relating to the delayed portion of a journey where a passenger has chosen to travel with split tickets. As DelayRepay is not a contractual entitlement (the contractual entitlements to delay compensation, which are lower, are set out in section 32.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel), it may prove difficult to get additional compensation even via court.

Section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would beg to differ. It wouldn't be difficult to show that the availability of Delay Repay better than the contractual NRCoT minimum would influence your buying or itinerary decision. If they refuse to comply with the implied term that Delay Repay will be paid as promised, you have the right to recover it in Court (Section 54(7)(a)).

 

[najaB]

It wouldn't be difficult to show that the availability of Delay Repay better than the contractual NRCoT minimum would influence your buying or itinerary decision.

An argument which would hold water if the combination of tickets was more expensive than a through ticket, but if you've saved money through splitting then most judges would see that as the main influencing factor (considering that the through ticket would've still entitled you to Delay Repay).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

An argument which would hold water if the combination of tickets was more expensive than a through ticket, but if you've saved money through splitting then most judges would see that as the main influencing factor (considering that the through ticket would've still entitled you to Delay Repay).

I think I've in fact understated the wide-ranging inclusiveness of the Act. It says that "anything that is said or written to the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader, about the trader or the service" must merely "[be] taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, or ... [be] taken into account by the consumer when making any decision about the service after entering into the contract" (S50(1)) in order to become an implied term of contract.

IMO wouldn't be at all difficult to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the availability of fair recourse when delays occur (regardless of cause) would be taken into account when deciding whether to go by train, and if so, which tickets to buy.

 

[Starmill]

Transport Focus has previously ruled that a train company is within its rights to pay DelayRepay based on only the tickets relating to the delayed portion of a journey where a passenger has chosen to travel with split tickets. As DelayRepay is not a contractual entitlement (the contractual entitlements to delay compensation, which are lower, are set out in section 32.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel), it may prove difficult to get additional compensation even via court.

Your view that the Passenger's Charter does not form part of the contract, even though it is referenced within the NRCoT, is not one shared by all.

 

[najaB]

IMO wouldn't be at all difficult to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the availability of fair recourse when delays occur (regardless of cause) would be taken into account when deciding whether to go by train, and if so, which tickets to buy.

I get your point. However, the problem with that particular argument is that Delay Repay would be available for the through ticket as well so it doesn't hold water that it was a significant factor in deciding to choose split tickets over a through ticket.

Note, I'm not saying that the VTWC shouldn't pay out (c.f. my first post in this thread), just that the specific line of argument you are using might not be the most productive.

 

[najaB]

Your view that the Passenger's Charter does not form part of the contract, even though it is referenced within the NRCoT, is not one shared by all.

Passenger Charters are (by name), however Delay Repay is not.

 

[yorkie]

Transport Focus has previously ruled that a train company is within its rights to pay DelayRepay based on only the tickets relating to the delayed portion of a journey where a passenger has chosen to travel with split tickets. As DelayRepay is not a contractual entitlement (the contractual entitlements to delay compensation, which are lower, are set out in section 32.5 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel), it may prove difficult to get additional compensation even via court.

An argument which would hold water if the combination of tickets was more expensive than a through ticket, but if you've saved money through splitting then most judges would see that as the main influencing factor (considering that the through ticket would've still entitled you to Delay Repay).

Sorry but the above posts are just making things up.

What matters is that you may use a combination of tickets to make one journey. This is clearly stated in the contract.

 

[najaB]

What matters is that you may use a combination of tickets to make one journey.

Which is what i said in my original reply. The latter post was solely in response to @ForTheLoveOf trying to bring the Consumer Rights Act into play where it doesn't need to be.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Which is what i said in my original reply. The latter post was solely in response to @ForTheLoveOf trying to bring the Consumer Rights Act into play where it doesn't need to be.

I'm not sure why it doesn't need to be there - it is the only legislation that I can tell of that concretely gives remedies to consumers when companies make statements or promises that they don't uphold. Such as Delay Repay.

If split ticketing counted as separate journeys (i.e. if NRCoT didn't include the "you may use multiple tickets for one journey" clause), then I would agree totally that Delay Repay would only be due on the value of the ticket corresponding to the delayed leg of the journey. However, Delay Repay is payed on a journey basis*, and a journey is defined as being travelable on multiple tickets - hence Delay Repay applies to all tickets.

*In VTWC's Passenger Charter, 5.2: "If your train is delayed or cancelled, or a delay or cancellation of a Virgin train causes a delay to your overall journey, you may be entitled to claim compensation ... Our Delay Repay scheme means that if you hold a ticket for a single or return journey you can claim compensation". They could just as well have said "causes a delay to the part of your journey covered by the ticket you used on our train", or somesuch. They didn't, so that clearly entitles the passenger to compensation, even with split tickets.

 

[najaB]

They didn't, so that clearly entitles the passenger to compensation, even with split tickets.

The passenger is entitled to compensation when using split tickets. By the NRCoT. There's no need to try and involve the Consumer Rights Act and implied terms.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The passenger is entitled to compensation when using split tickets. By the NRCoT. There's no need to try and involve the Consumer Rights Act and implied terms.

No, but not only the silly-low rates in the NRCoT, but the 'enhanced' rates offered by virtually all TOCs. So when they try to refuse paying, you don't just have a right under good customer service, you have a statutory entitlement.

 

[najaB]

No, but not only the silly-low rates in the NRCoT, but the 'enhanced' rates offered by virtually all TOCs.

The NRCoT say you can use a combination of tickets for your journey and Delay Repay is based on the amount you paid for your journey. So the case is made already - no need to invoke consumer law and implied conditions. Not to mention that VTWC do pay out for split-ticket journeys, they just (unfortunately) occasionally need prodding to get it right.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The NRCoT say you can use a combination of tickets for your journey and Delay Repay is based on the amount you paid for your journey. So the case is made already - no need to invoke consumer law and implied conditions. Not to mention that VTWC do pay out for split-ticket journeys, they just (unfortunately) occasionally need prodding to get it right.

Okay, but there are other TOCs which make all sorts of excuses not to. To me, it's a simple case of 1 - send in Delay Repay request. 2 - wait a reasonable time and/or repeat request if refused. 3 - if still no luck after escalating complaint internally, letter before action. 4 - Money Claim Online if they still don't pay. I wouldn't bother to get Transport Focus involved, they're a useless bunch.

 

[island]

Sorry but the above posts are just making things up.

It is 100% not "making things up" that Transport Focus has ruled as I said; it was posted on this forum last year. I'm disappointed that you traduce me in this way.

 

[island]

Section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would beg to differ. It wouldn't be difficult to show that the availability of Delay Repay better than the contractual NRCoT minimum would influence your buying or itinerary decision. If they refuse to comply with the implied term that Delay Repay will be paid as promised, you have the right to recover it in Court (Section 54(7)(a)).

We've had this discussion on a previous thread; the suggestion that a passenger takes the availability of DelayRepay into account when buying a train ticket is arguable both ways.