Is West Midlands Railway Wrong (Delay Repay)?

[VT 390]

West Midlands Railway have rejected my appeal for delay repay with the same reason given as the first time, that WMR are not responsible for the delay and that they have passed it on to Avanti (twice), Avanti rejected (I believe correctly) the first time.
I am fairly certain WMR are wrong and that they are fully responsible for delay repay, but would like to check before contacting them as.

Journey was:
Crewe (CRE) to Malvern Link (MVL), changing at Birmingham New Street (BHM) on 24th July 2026.
Original plan:
CRE 19:04 - 20:06 BHM (Avanti West Coast)
BHM 21:00 - 21:57 MVL (West Midlands Railway)

Tickets held were:
CRE to Wolverhampton (WVH) off-peak single 1st class
WVH to BHM anytime day single 1st class Avanti only
Birmingham Stations to Great Malvern anytime return (return portion)

The 19:04 Avanti service was around an hour late and was changed to be non stop Stafford (STA) to Rugby (skipping BHM), this was obvious earlier as it left Glasgow about 45 minutes late as lost more time before CRE.
Because of this and the following Avanti at 20:04 being nearly an hour late itself I decided to travel on the 19:32 Avanti service from CRE to STA arriving 19:50.
Because of the major delays to the Avanti services and the high risk of missing the last connection service to MVL (which would have required alternative transport arrangements) I used the delayed 19:22 Cross Country service from STA to BHM arriving at BHM at around 20:35, I did ask a member of staff if it was alright to use my Avanti only ticket and they said it was fine due to the Avanti disruption/due to my onward connection.

So I arrived in BHM with plenty of time (around 25 minutes) for my 21:00 onward connection to MVL, got on this service as planned but after Droitwich Spa this service was delayed and was terminated short/diverted. I did eventually arrive in MVL but this was in the 60-119 delay repay category.


Even though Avanti did cause me to be delayed as far as BHM I still arrived in BHM in time for my original booked connection. Had the 21:00 West Midlands Railway service not been disrupted itself I would have arrived on time at my final destination (MVL) on time.
As I understand it delay repay is only supposed to only be claimed for the entire journey for the final destination arrival time, even when split tickets are held.
I believe WMR is fully responsible for delay repay and that they should pay 100% of each of the single tickets and 50% of the return ticket for the 60-119 minute delay. Is this correct?
Any advice on this would be appreciated.

 

[Haywain]

Any advice on this would be appreciated.

I had a similar problem earlier this year, and contacted WMR on X, with the message below:

Hi WMR, how long does it take for a Delay Repay appeal to be resolved? I'm getting a bit cheesed off with my claim being batted back and forth between WMR and Avanti. I was delayed but no-one wants to pay.

After sending the claim reference by DM, the claim was resolved the same day.

 

[Watershed]

West Midlands Railway have rejected my appeal for delay repay with the same reason given as the first time, that WMR are not responsible for the delay and that they have passed it on to Avanti (twice), Avanti rejected (I believe correctly) the first time.
I am fairly certain WMR are wrong and that they are fully responsible for delay repay, but would like to check before contacting them as.

Journey was:
Crewe (CRE) to Malvern Link (MVL), changing at Birmingham New Street (BHM) on 24th July 2026.
Original plan:
CRE 19:04 - 20:06 BHM (Avanti West Coast)
BHM 21:00 - 21:57 MVL (West Midlands Railway)

Tickets held were:
CRE to Wolverhampton (WVH) off-peak single 1st class
WVH to BHM anytime day single 1st class Avanti only
Birmingham Stations to Great Malvern anytime return (return portion)

The 19:04 Avanti service was around an hour late and was changed to be non stop Stafford (STA) to Rugby (skipping BHM), this was obvious earlier as it left Glasgow about 45 minutes late as lost more time before CRE.
Because of this and the following Avanti at 20:04 being nearly an hour late itself I decided to travel on the 19:32 Avanti service from CRE to STA arriving 19:50.
Because of the major delays to the Avanti services and the high risk of missing the last connection service to MVL (which would have required alternative transport arrangements) I used the delayed 19:22 Cross Country service from STA to BHM arriving at BHM at around 20:35, I did ask a member of staff if it was alright to use my Avanti only ticket and they said it was fine due to the Avanti disruption/due to my onward connection.

So I arrived in BHM with plenty of time (around 25 minutes) for my 21:00 onward connection to MVL, got on this service as planned but after Droitwich Spa this service was delayed and was terminated short/diverted. I did eventually arrive in MVL but this was in the 60-119 delay repay category.


Even though Avanti did cause me to be delayed as far as BHM I still arrived in BHM in time for my original booked connection. Had the 21:00 West Midlands Railway service not been disrupted itself I would have arrived on time at my final destination (MVL) on time.
As I understand it delay repay is only supposed to only be claimed for the entire journey for the final destination arrival time, even when split tickets are held.
I believe WMR is fully responsible for delay repay and that they should pay 100% of each of the single tickets and 50% of the return ticket for the 60-119 minute delay. Is this correct?
Any advice on this would be appreciated.

I agree, whilst Avanti's services were disrupted this didn't have a material affect on your journey because you were still able to reach your intended WMR service. WMR are the ones which are liable.

I would submit a complaint to WMT asking them to sort this out between them and Avanti and give you some compensation for messing you around.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I agree, regardless of Avanti's delay, you would have made the connection had it not been disrupted, thus the delay was caused by WMR.

Indeed you may have more luck escalating it via social media or if they have a complaints email.

 

[VT 390]

Thanks everyone for the replies.
I have submitted a complaint to WMR with a clear explanation of why they are responsible, so hopefully they will see that they should pay the delay repay and that Avanti are not responsible.

 

[Belperpete]

What itinerary did you claim for? If you claimed for your original itinerary, then WMT were correct to forward it to Avanti, as the Avanti train being delayed was the first delay to substantially affect that itinerary.

Or did you submit your revised itinerary, with the later departure? And was that a valid itinerary, meeting minimum connection times? If it was not a valid itinerary, then it may well be rejected for that reason. As you travelled on a train that your ticket was not valid on, that probably means that itinerary would be treated as not valid.

Most TOCs only ask for your scheduled itinerary. They are not interested in how you actually got to your destination. The system will then calculate what time they think you could/should have got to your destination, and therefore the delay they are going to pay out for (regardless of what delay you claimed for). It is not until your appeal is considered by a human do you get a chance to tell them how you actually got there.

As I understand it, there is nothing in the NRCoT to say which TOC is responsible for coughing up in cases like this. At the end of the day, as long as one does is all that matters. Personally, I would have immediately appealed WMT's decision to pass it to Avanti as soon as I learnt of it, and likewise I would have appealed Avanti's decision to pass it back as soon as. There is no point in waiting while they play a protracted game of ping pong.

 

[westcoaster]

Did you put down the full journey and tickets held. Surely the simple thing was to say you were travelling Birmingham to XYZ, with a ticket from Birmingham to XYZ, i think the rest of the journey just makes it confusing.

 

[Starmill]

What itinerary did you claim for? If you claimed for your original itinerary, then WMT were correct to forward it to Avanti, as the Avanti train being delayed was the first delay to substantially affect that itinerary.

The OP's journey plan suggests that although they arrived later than planned in Birmingham, they were still there over 25 minutes before the departure of the booked service to Great Malvern. So the Avanti delay cannot be said to have "substantially affected" that itinerary, as its effect was zero.

As you travelled on a train that your ticket was not valid on, that probably means that itinerary would be treated as not valid.

I don't think this makes sense unfortunately.

As I understand it, there is nothing in the NRCoT to say which TOC is responsible for coughing up in cases like this.

In this situation it is actually clear that Avanti did not cause any delay. You would be right that if the OP had arrived in Birmingham late at say 2110, well after the booked time for the departure of their connection, but their connection hadn't departed yet, and didn't do so until 2140, and then ran late to their destination, then that would be much more ambiguous. If that happens, it's usually the first one in time order that gets the claim, but also it isn't explicitly written. Generally hypotheticals shouldn't be considered.

Did you put down the full journey and tickets held. Surely the simple thing was to say you were travelling Birmingham to XYZ, with a ticket from Birmingham to XYZ, i think the rest of the journey just makes it confusing.

The customer could have claimed for two separate journeys yes. I personally don't do that as I think it could be considered cakeism. If you always intended it as two separate journeys then you could still claim it as such happily, although having claimed it as one journey now, the OP may be stuck to that.

 

[Haywain]

Did you put down the full journey and tickets held. Surely the simple thing was to say you were travelling Birmingham to XYZ, with a ticket from Birmingham to XYZ, i think the rest of the journey just makes it confusing.

That's great if you don't want the compensation to reflect the full price of tickets for the whole journey.

 

[VT 390]

What itinerary did you claim for? If you claimed for your original itinerary, then WMT were correct to forward it to Avanti, as the Avanti train being delayed was the first delay to substantially affect that itinerary.

Or did you submit your revised itinerary, with the later departure? And was that a valid itinerary, meeting minimum connection times? If it was not a valid itinerary, then it may well be rejected for that reason. As you travelled on a train that your ticket was not valid on, that probably means that itinerary would be treated as not valid.

Most TOCs only ask for your scheduled itinerary. They are not interested in how you actually got to your destination. The system will then calculate what time they think you could/should have got to your destination, and therefore the delay they are going to pay out for (regardless of what delay you claimed for). It is not until your appeal is considered by a human do you get a chance to tell them how you actually got there.

As I understand it, there is nothing in the NRCoT to say which TOC is responsible for coughing up in cases like this. At the end of the day, as long as one does is all that matters. Personally, I would have immediately appealed WMT's decision to pass it to Avanti as soon as I learnt of it, and likewise I would have appealed Avanti's decision to pass it back as soon as. There is no point in waiting while they play a protracted game of ping pong.

The first delay repay submission included the original planned route which did meet the minimum connection times (I allowed 54 minutes when the minimum is 12 minutes).
Regarding the Avanti only ticket being used on another operators service, I did ask a member of staff who approved for me to travel due to the Avanti disruption. This was never part of the original planned itinerary so should not be directly relevant to the initial delay repay claim.

WMR rejected the first delay repay submission and passed it on to Avanti and have done the exact same thing again.
I appealed this (through the delay repay appeal option) explaining the full situation of what happened and that the Avanti disruption did not cause a missed connection at BHM.
Avanti contacted me rejecting the claim forwarded to them by WMR, which I did not appeal as I believed WMR were responsible and I had already appealed to WMR.
WMR have now rejected the appeal stating the exact same reason as the first rejection and passed the claim on to Avanti for a second time (Avanti rejected the claim the first time).

I have now submitted a complaint to WMR with a full detailed explanation of why I believe they are responsible including my original plan and the services actually used. Specifically noting the Avanti disruption would not have had any impact on my final destination arrival time. I did get the original planned WMR service at BHM and it was only because of the disruption to this service that caused me to arrive at my destination station late.

Did you put down the full journey and tickets held. Surely the simple thing was to say you were travelling Birmingham to XYZ, with a ticket from Birmingham to XYZ, i think the rest of the journey just makes it confusing.

As has been mentioned by another user, this would have meant I would only get delay repay from the Birmingham to Malvern return ticket, I was claiming for my entire journey from Crewe.

The customer could have claimed for two separate journeys yes. I personally don't do that as I think it could be considered cakeism. If you always intended it as two separate journeys then you could still claim it as such happily, although having claimed it as one journey now, the OP may be stuck to that.

That is correct, I only make delay repay claims based off arrival time at my final destination even where connections/split tickets are involved, which in this case was Malvern Link, not Birmingham New Street.

 

[Belperpete]

The OP's journey plan suggests that although they arrived later than planned in Birmingham, they were still there over 25 minutes before the departure of the booked service to Great Malvern. So the Avanti delay cannot be said to have "substantially affected" that itinerary, as its effect was zero.

Yes, but that was not a valid itinerary. Let alone the ticket acceptance issue, be only got to Birmingham on time because the XC train he caught was running late. The OP also hasn't answered the question of whether the connection to the XC train met the MCT.

So the WMT automated delay repay system will see that the intended Avanti train was cancelled, and that there was no valid itinerary to get him to Birmingham in time to catch his intended train. That is why they keep saying it is Avanti to blame. The fact that he did actually make it to Birmingham in time is irrelevant, as the automated system only works on valid itineraries, not on what you actually did. Such as when you actually make a connection by the skin of your teeth, but the delay repay system assumes you will have missed it as it failed the MCT test, and so pays out more than you claimed for.

As I said previously, the automated systems that most TOCs use for initial processing of claims doesn't take into account your actual journey, and in most cases there is no way for you to even input it. Your actual journey only gets considered when a human starts considering the claim. And if you get into a ping pong situation, and each time it is passed from one TOC to another it is treated as a new claim, that may take along time to achieve. Which is why I suggest it is best to appeal as soon as a claim is forwarded.

The OP doesn't appear to say why Avanti rejected the claim, as their automated system should surely have shown them to blame by the same logic. But it doesn't surprise me, as the Avanti system seems to routinely reject perfectly valid claims for entirely spurious reasons if it involve connections and/or split tickets until you appeal them.

 

[Grumpy Git]

The Delay Repay department at LNR/WMR would seem to be in meltdown at the moment.

Last month I had a 60+ minute DR claim rejected almost immediately when the train had been cancelled (it was an hourly service). Naturally I appealed this straight away.

Today was roughly 28 days after my appeal with zero correspondence in the meantime, so I called them. Apparently, my appeal was (incorrectly) rejected because Avanti had an alternative service (I had a LNR/WMR only ticket)! Despite their 10 day promise, my appeal was in a backlog after nearly 3x this time.

Operator was able to approve it straight away, so now sorted, otherwise they are absolutely hopeless.

 

[VT 390]

Yes, but that was not a valid itinerary. Let alone the ticket acceptance issue, be only got to Birmingham on time because the XC train he caught was running late. The OP also hasn't answered the question of whether the connection to the XC train met the MCT.

The XC service I used from STA to BHM would have met the minimum connection time at BHM, however as it was delayed it was a negative timed connection at STA, had it been on time. looking at later services there would have been at least 1 other service that would have got me from STA to BHM in time for the booked WMR connection.

So the WMT automated delay repay system will see that the intended Avanti train was cancelled, and that there was no valid itinerary to get him to Birmingham in time to catch his intended train. That is why they keep saying it is Avanti to blame. The fact that he did actually make it to Birmingham in time is irrelevant, as the automated system only works on valid itineraries, not on what you actually did. Such as when you actually make a connection by the skin of your teeth, but the delay repay system assumes you will have missed it as it failed the MCT test, and so pays out more than you claimed for.

As I said previously, the automated systems that most TOCs use for initial processing of claims doesn't take into account your actual journey, and in most cases there is no way for you to even input it. Your actual journey only gets considered when a human starts considering the claim. And if you get into a ping pong situation, and each time it is passed from one TOC to another it is treated as a new claim, that may take along time to achieve. Which is why I suggest it is best to appeal as soon as a claim is forwarded.

I did expect the claim to be rejected the first time, by the automated delay repay system.
I appealed and WMR responded with the same reason as the first time that Avanti are responsible (just worded slightly differently).
I have already explained to WMR what actually happened in the appeal.

If I had only used Avanti services to get from CRE to BHM then I would have missed the last possible option to MVL (changing at Worcester Shrub Hill) resulting in alternative transport needing to be arranged and importantly for delay repay it would have been 120+ so a higher amount would be due (100% the return ticket cost instead of 50%).
Obviously it would be wrong to claim more than I am entitled to based on the final destination arrival time delay category length.

The OP doesn't appear to say why Avanti rejected the claim, as their automated system should surely have shown them to blame by the same logic. But it doesn't surprise me, as the Avanti system seems to routinely reject perfectly valid claims for entirely spurious reasons if it involve connections and/or split tickets until you appeal them.

Avanti said "we need complete journey and ticket information".
This contradicts what WMR said as they mentioned "We have sent full details of your claim, to the Customer Relations Team at Avanti West Coast".

I had already submitted the WMR appeal by the time Avanti replied.

Either Avanti are wrong in their reason for rejecting the claim or WMR are wrong and they did not send the full details of the claim, they can not both be right as they contradict each other.
I believe Avanti are wrong because many times when I have made simple Avanti only delay repay claims they have given the same reason despite the ticket information clearly being present.