Delay Repay with Short or Broken Journeys

[Belperpete]

There have been a number of recent threads about delay repay claims being rejected where the traveller has started or ended their journey short, or has broken their journey. As this seems to be a recurrent theme, I thought I would raise a generic thread about it.

It appears that at least one TOC (GWR) is using some very misleading wording on its Delay Repay claim page:

Enter your complete journey as stated in your ticket, not just the GWR portion which was delayed.

If you ended up catching a different train because of the disruption, please entered the scheduled departure time of the original train you planned to catch.

TfW is using some similarly very misleading wording:

please provide your full journey details—including your origin and destination—exactly as shown on your ticket.

Firstly, they refer to ticket – singular. This implies that you can only claim for one ticket. For those who are travelling with split tickets, you are entitled to claim for the complete journey, using multiple tickets.

Secondly, the GWR one refers to “journey as stated in your ticket” and “the original train you planned to catch”, while the TfW site states even more explicitly “full journey details - exactly as shown on your ticket”. However, with a flexible ticket, you are entitled to change your itinerary at any time, even during the journey. The journey details shown on the ticket are irrelevant. Compensation is based on the journey that you actually made, or attempted to make.

Thirdly, the wording “complete journey as stated in your ticket” implies that you have to enter a journey with origin and destination stations as shown on the ticket. The TfW site is even more explicit in this: "including your origin and destination—exactly as shown on your ticket". However, with a ticket that permits break of journey, you don’t have to start your journey at the station shown on the ticket, nor do you have to end your journey at the station shown on the ticket. You are entitled to start and end short, and break journey. Again, compensation should be based on the journey that you actually made, or attempted to make.

A couple of posters have apparently been misled into thinking that they have to enter the stations shown on their ticket, rather than the journey they actually made. Which has led to the TOC concerned rejecting the claim. If I were a cynical person, I might think that the TOCs are deliberately misleading claimants in order to reject claims.

Worse still, on at least one thread where it has been suggested that they appeal using the option of journey details incorrectly entered, in order to enter details of the journey they actually made, there have been suggestions from some posters that amending the journey details could lead to the claim being considered fraudulent.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The automated processes now in place do not make claiming at all easy. As has been suggested in another current thread, the use of paper forms, where you can write your explanation in advance of any initial decision (or include a separate piece of paper) remains available.

I have submitted technically incorrect claims just to get round the rigid systems and prevent rejection due to station name mismatches. For example, if starting late, or breaking my journey, I just enter the origin station as written on the ticket rather than the actual station used. Entering the time I would have left had I not started late or broken my journey. Providing this does not result in an incorrect amount of Delay Repay being paid I see nothing wrong with this approach. It wouldn't work in every scenario though. It may also contradict any evidence gained from ticket scans by gatelines or conductors - should someone be carrying out detailed investigations into a travellers claims history.

Never mind Free Nelson Mandela, Free Text Boxes!

 

[Barnetby HQ]

There have been a number of recent threads about delay repay claims being rejected where the traveller has started or ended their journey short, or has broken their journey. As this seems to be a recurrent theme, I thought I would raise a generic thread about it.

It appears that at least one TOC (GWR) is using some very misleading wording on its Delay Repay claim page:


TfW is using some similarly very misleading wording:


Firstly, they refer to ticket – singular. This implies that you can only claim for one ticket. For those who are travelling with split tickets, you are entitled to claim for the complete journey, using multiple tickets.

Secondly, the GWR one refers to “journey as stated in your ticket” and “the original train you planned to catch”, while the TfW site states even more explicitly “full journey details - exactly as shown on your ticket”. However, with a flexible ticket, you are entitled to change your itinerary at any time, even during the journey. The journey details shown on the ticket are irrelevant. Compensation is based on the journey that you actually made, or attempted to make.

Thirdly, the wording “complete journey as stated in your ticket” implies that you have to enter a journey with origin and destination stations as shown on the ticket. The TfW site is even more explicit in this: "including your origin and destination—exactly as shown on your ticket". However, with a ticket that permits break of journey, you don’t have to start your journey at the station shown on the ticket, nor do you have to end your journey at the station shown on the ticket. You are entitled to start and end short, and break journey. Again, compensation should be based on the journey that you actually made, or attempted to make.

A couple of posters have apparently been misled into thinking that they have to enter the stations shown on their ticket, rather than the journey they actually made. Which has led to the TOC concerned rejecting the claim. If I were a cynical person, I might think that the TOCs are deliberately misleading claimants in order to reject claims.

Worse still, on at least one thread where it has been suggested that they appeal using the option of journey details incorrectly entered, in order to enter details of the journey they actually made, there have been suggestions from some posters that amending the journey details could lead to the claim being considered fraudulent.

I have heard countless examples from passengers and staff alike describing the same pattern of confusion and inconsistency. The operators tend to update their website information several times each year, yet these updates are often out of step with their mobile apps and other public-facing systems that are supposed to reflect the same policies.

For example, throughout much of 2023 and even into early 2024, many operator websites were still displaying the original National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCOT) wording from 2022, despite the fact that updates had already been implemented at a national level. This created a situation where different parts of the same company’s communication platforms were saying slightly different things.

Typically, the passenger charter of each company, their main website, the app interface, and even the printed or PDF instructions are all updated at different times, sometimes months apart. As a result, customers and often front-line staff are left navigating multiple interpretations of the same set of rules. Staff at Knebworth, Newark Castle, and Hastings being points in question. In some cases, it can feel as though there are ten or more “versions” of the rules in play for a single operator within one calendar year.

During 2024, many operators began retrospectively correcting their systems to align with the rewording introduced in the NRCOT 2022 update. However, because each company has different IT platforms, data feeds, and update cycles, this process has been slow and fragmented.

The result has been a kind of staggered, multi-system update cycle in which well-intentioned policy revisions have actually produced new contradictions. Operators are effectively tripping over their own updates, trying to bring consistency across multiple systems that do not update or synchronise together.

Interestingly, the areas that have caused the greatest confusion are precisely those that this discussion’s original post was referring to — the four key policy points that have become somewhat tangled during implementation. These are:

1. If a train is cancelled and you travel later, you must still describe the details of the original train you planned to take, not the actual service you eventually boarded. Updates starting early 2024 and still ongoing
2. If disruption occurs on a single leg of your journey, you should still list the entire ticketed journey — not just the portion that was affected. Updates largely completed by summer 25’
3. If the delay or cancellation is caused by another Train Operating Company (TOC), your claim will be referred to that operator, and the systems will record both the overall delay and the responsibility allocation.
4. If your train is cancelled, you are allowed to travel on a service up to two trains earlier or later, and you may still submit a delay claim if your re-travelled service is also delayed.

In summary, what we’re seeing is thirteen different train operators, each attempting to implement changes across four major policy areas, within four to six separate digital systems per operator, and often without unified oversight or synchronisation meaning that at any singular point in time during 2024 or 2025 there has been
780 separate opportunities for contradictory system instructions across all TOCs, systems, and rules in respect of just those 4 update areas, which is by no means the totality of change areas.


It is not an easy task, and it is fair to say that, so far, it hasn’t gone particularly well. The combination of differing update schedules, inconsistent messaging, and fragmented technical infrastructure has created a landscape where both passengers and staff struggle to know which version of the rules actually applies at any given moment.