LNER delay repay refusal

[andylikestrain]

Hi all
on Sat. 20th September I took a return journey from Huntingdon to Blackburn.
My delay & claim relate to the return journey, as follows:

1805 Blackburn to Leeds (off peak day return from Doncaster to Blackburn) change to
1945 Leeds to Doncaster (same ticket as previous leg) change to
2025 Doncaster to Peterborough (advance single). This service was delayed and arrived at 2129 (scheduled arrival at Peterborough was 2114), so 15 minutes late and I missed the connection at 2124 from Peterborough to Huntingdon.
2154 Peterborough to Huntingdon (super off peak day return)

So, overall a 30 minute delay at my final destination.

I bought the Huntingdon to Peterborough ticket at Huntingdon, the advance single from Doncaster to Peterborough on the LNER website and the Doncaster to Blackburn ticket at Doncaster.

LNER have refused my delay repay application stating ‘as your tickets were purchased in different places we are not able to compensate for a missed connection’.

I was of the understanding that where I purchased the tickets didn’t matter. Perhaps I’m wrong. Would anyone here know if LNER are fobbing me off here?

Thanks very much for looking at this.

 

[Snow1964]

I think LNER are fobbing you off provided all the tickets were booked in advance (even if booked in instalments to complete an itinerary)

What you can't do is get delayed, then walk up to a ticket office or TVM and purchase ticket for next train, then claim they were part of same journey, rather than a journey with late add on

 

[andylikestrain]

I think LNER are fobbing you off provided all the tickets were booked in advance (even if booked in instalments to complete an itinerary)

What you can't do is get delayed, then walk up to a ticket office or TVM and purchase ticket for next train, then claim they were part of same journey, rather than a journey with late add on

Thank you Snow1964, yes the 2 flexible tickets were bought on the day at the beginning of their respective journeys. The advance was bought in advance!

 

[AlterEgo]

Invented lie from LNER. Appeal it.

 

[Belperpete]

The 1805 from Blackburn appears to have run late, only arriving in Leeds at 1941, so you did well to catch the 1945.

Fastjp shows the scheduled arrival time of the 2025 from Doncaster into Peterborough as 2118, not 2114, making the 2124 an invalid connection. So I am not sure that you have a valid claim against LNER. But not for the reason they have given!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==

Fastjp gives an itinerary that involves catching the 1945 from Leeds, and staying on it through to Peterborough, where it makes a valid connection with the Huntington train the OP intended to catch. Instead the OP got off at Doncaster to catch a later train to Peterborough, that his advance ticket was valid on, but does not appear to have a valid connection to that Huntingdon train. Are LNER trying to say because the OP bought a separate advance ticket not valid for that through itinerary, he didn't have a valid through itinerary?

 

[andylikestrain]

The 1805 from Blackburn appears to have run late, only arriving in Leeds at 1941, so you did well to catch the 1945.

Fastjp shows the scheduled arrival time of the 2025 from Doncaster into Peterborough as 2118, not 2114, making the 2124 an invalid connection. So I am not sure that you have a valid claim against LNER. But not for the reason they have given!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==

Fastjp gives an itinerary that involves catching the 1945 from Leeds, and staying on it through to Peterborough, where it makes a valid connection with the Huntington train the OP intended to catch. Instead the OP got off at Doncaster to catch a later train to Peterborough, that his advance ticket was valid on, but does not appear to have a valid connection to that Huntingdon train. Are LNER trying to say because the OP bought a separate advance ticket not valid for that through itinerary, he didn't have a valid through itinerary?

I had wondered that, but the LNER timetable states arrival at Peterborough at 2114, rather than 2118:


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==

I had wondered that, but the LNER timetable states arrival at Peterborough at 2114, rather than 2118:

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2025 ==

Also, here’s a screenshot of LNER’s website booking page for a Saturday coming up, showing the same times with the original connection at Peterborough:

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fastjp gives an itinerary that involves catching the 1945 from Leeds, and staying on it through to Peterborough, where it makes a valid connection with the Huntington train the OP intended to catch. Instead the OP got off at Doncaster to catch a later train to Peterborough, that his advance ticket was valid on, but does not appear to have a valid connection to that Huntingdon train. Are LNER trying to say because the OP bought a separate advance ticket not valid for that through itinerary, he didn't have a valid through itinerary?

I'm a bit confused by what actually happened here now, but speaking generally for a valid Delay Repay claim to be made:

1. The user needs to have actually travelled on a valid itinerary up until the point it went wrong giving rise to the claim.
2. The user needs to have held a set of valid tickets covering its entirety. Arguably some of the wordings regarding "a journey" would suggest these must all be held at the start of the itinerary, if I recall, but I don't know if this is definitive.

If (1) or (2) wasn't satisfied there is indeed no through claim; what that would arguably constitute is a set of separate journeys which could be claimed for individually if eligible. But it doesn't follow that the itinerary has to follow a Permitted Route for a through journey, indeed one of the main reasons for using splits aside from saving money is to travel via a different route than that Permitted on a through ticket - but for the itinerary to be valid for a through DR claim it does need to respect minimum connection times.

 

[andylikestrain]

Thanks for all the replies so far.
To clarify, I bought the Huntingdon to Peterborough return ticket on the day at the very start of the trip, the advance leg(s) on LNER before the day, then the Doncaster to Blackburn return ticket after arriving at Doncaster.
So, as all tickets were not held at the beginning of the whole journey, but were all held at the beginning of the return journey. that would mean that (2) wasn’t satisfied, Bletchleyite?

I‘ve just looked again at the LNER refusal and they quote a delay of 11 minutes arriving at Peterborough, so the minimum connection time issue doesn’t apply here. I think?

 

[AlterEgo]

I‘ve just looked again at the LNER refusal and they quote a delay of 11 minutes arriving at Peterborough, so the minimum connection time issue doesn’t apply here. I think?

They aren't refusing the claim based on the connection time. It's a red herring to your claim against them.

However the timetabled arrival that day was 2118, not 2114, which doesn't make a valid connection to the 2124, as Peterborough has an 8 minute minimum connection time. The paper timetable is immaterial; the Published Timetable of the Day is what matters, which is available on journey planners etc. Hopefully you aren't planning your trips off a paper timetable, especially at weekends!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To clarify, I bought the Huntingdon to Peterborough return ticket on the day at the very start of the trip, the advance leg(s) on LNER before the day, then the Doncaster to Blackburn return ticket after arriving at Doncaster.
So, as all tickets were not held at the beginning of the whole journey, but were all held at the beginning of the return journey. that would mean that (2) wasn’t satisfied, Bletchleyite?

I think them being held at the beginning of the return journey would be fine. A return ticket allows two journeys to be made, in effect. But the NRCoT wording on this is messy in the extreme and not all of it will be intended to apply to this situation! I just think that, using an example of my own, if I bought a connecting ticket from MKC to Bletchley after a journey from Wick somewhere around Wolverton knowing the connection was going to miss (as it very often does because it's quite tight and Avanti timekeeping isn't the best) it wouldn't seem right for me to be able to claim DR on the whole thing! But if I had that ticket when I started out and it was part of my intended journey at that point it would clearly be appropriate, and indeed in that latter case I've had 100% payouts based on that connection alone missing, the following one being cancelled, and being sat there for an hour! (I could have just got a taxi home but wasn't in a rush and preferred to get a free trip ).

I think it's probably a red herring here though. The issue is that your itinerary wasn't valid on that day, though you could treat it as two separate journeys in that case if that gives rise to any sort of claim. LNER's reason is rubbish, but there's little point of appealing if your claim would fail on other grounds.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think it's probably a red herring here though. The issue is that your itinerary wasn't valid on that day, though you could treat it as two separate journeys in that case if that gives rise to any sort of claim. LNER's reason is rubbish, but there's little point of appealing if your claim would fail on other grounds.

If they wanted to reject on those grounds, that is the ground they should have used, not some made-up different reason.

Also, how does one check the published timetable of the day after the fact? I remember there being some discussion on here that it may require checking a journey planner at exactly 22:00 the day before.

And can we be sure that the 21:18 was the scheduled ARRIVAL time at Peterborough, not the scheduled DEPARTURE time. The latter would match the paper timetable above? I've definitely seen journey planners (outside the UK) mix those two up in the past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they wanted to reject on those grounds, that is the ground they should have used, not some made-up different reason.

I completely agree, but it's not worth the OP's effort appealing if it will only be rejected on the correct grounds at appeal. One should fight the battles one can win.

Also, how does one check the published timetable of the day after the fact? I remember there being some discussion on here that it may require checking a journey planner at exactly 22:00 the day before.

Realtime Trains is a reasonable bet (though doesn't go back far enough for this case).

The 2200 thing is a bit moot really, it's just what was in place on the day. P-coded cancellations (shown as CAN on Realtime Trains) are deemed not to exist in the timetable, for instance.

And can we be sure that the 21:18 was the scheduled ARRIVAL time at Peterborough, not the scheduled DEPARTURE time. The latter would match the paper timetable above? I've definitely seen journey planners (outside the UK) mix those two up in the past.

It's possible...if that is the case then an appeal would be appropriate.

 

[BG2024]

Thank you Snow1964, yes the 2 flexible tickets were bought on the day at the beginning of their respective journeys. The advance was bought in advance!

If you appeal, be careful over the language you use. If you refer to "journeys" plural, then it's not unreasonable for LNER to deny the claim on that basis.

 

[Watershed]

According to Timetable History, the 20:25 was advertised as arriving at PBO at 21:18 since 1 June this year. Unless the OP booked their Advance before this - and it seems unlikely that LNER would have opened up reservations before then, since this was a day with Carlisle diversions - then 21:18 would have been the PBO arrival time they would have been told from the outset.

As others have said, this is why reference to a printed or PDF timetable can be misleading. In practical terms it would clearly be feasible to make an 6 minute connection like that, but it's not an official connection. The next Thameslink train (the fist one with a valid connection) would have been half an hour later and ran on time.

 

[Royston Vasey]

I completely agree, but it's not worth the OP's effort appealing if it will only be rejected on the correct grounds at appeal. One should fight the battles one can win.



Realtime Trains is a reasonable bet (though doesn't go back far enough for this case).

You can actually hack RTT a little bit to display some older (but still recent) journeys and any altered schedules, as long as the train's UID remains the same (in this case Y23334) by selecting that service from a more recent day, and then editing the URL to the date you wish. This works quite well for an extra couple of weeks of journeys if all else remains the same.

I selected the same train a week later, on 27th Sept, and then amended the URL to "20".

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:Y23334/2025-09-20

The advertised and WTT scheduled time of arrival were both 2118, and the train arrived at 2130.

This may not work for too long, as searching for that service on Saturday 13th also works but that service on Saturday 6th displays a double yellow signal and the message:

More information
​

We're in the process of launching a new subscription service to Realtime Trains.

This means that some functionality that unofficially worked before will be officially supported as part of a subscription service. You've accessed one of those pages.

(My bold) I think the above is the sort of unofficial functionality to which this message refers

 

[blimmo]

What you can't do is get delayed, then walk up to a ticket office or TVM and purchase ticket for next train, then claim they were part of same journey, rather than a journey with late add on

Really? Surely what matters is your intended itinerary rather than the tickets you hold? In fact you might need to buy tickets after a delay is known if you decide to reroute yourself to avoid a worse delay for example.

 

[Trainbike46]

I completely agree, but it's not worth the OP's effort appealing if it will only be rejected on the correct grounds at appeal. One should fight the battles one can win.

Agreed. Personally, I would check the arrival time listed in the booking confirmation of the LNER advance in this case, and decide based on what that says.

Realtime Trains is a reasonable bet (though doesn't go back far enough for this case).

Cheers!

 

[AlterEgo]

Really? Surely what matters is your intended itinerary rather than the tickets you hold? In fact you might need to buy tickets after a delay is known if you decide to reroute yourself to avoid a worse delay for example.

No ticket, no contract, unless the contract is implied by legally being allowed to purchase after boarding.

 

[blimmo]

I appreciate I would have no consumer rights claim from the contract but delay repay is very often significantly more generous (and sometimes more restrictive) than this.

 

[AdamWW]

I appreciate I would have no consumer rights claim from the contract but delay repay is very often significantly more generous (and sometimes more restrictive) than this.

I was wondering about that. So far as I'm aware Delay Repay rights aren't based on the idea of having a legal contract for the journey.

 

[Watershed]

I was wondering about that. So far as I'm aware Delay Repay rights aren't based on the idea of having a legal contract for the journey.

They are a contractual remedy so having a contract (i.e. a ticket) is a key prerequisite.

 

[AlterEgo]

I appreciate I would have no consumer rights claim from the contract but delay repay is very often significantly more generous (and sometimes more restrictive) than this.

It isn't, in theory, although it may be the case that handlers or programs simply don't notice the purchase time of the ticket.

I was wondering about that. So far as I'm aware Delay Repay rights aren't based on the idea of having a legal contract for the journey.

What is it based on then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is it based on then?

Delay Repay is contractual (albeit offering that contractual term is mandatory for most TOCs as part of their contract), and so if no ticket is held there is no contract. PRO is legal right, though the delay provisions in that are much weaker. This is quite ironic, because TOCs are generally (cases like this aside) willing to hand DR out like sweets but not comply to the PRO's rerouteing provision and in doing so mitigate their need to pay it!

 

[andylikestrain]

That’s interesting, Watershed. Thank you. I’ve looked at my advance ticket and it does say 2118 as the arrival time at Peterborough. However, when I did a through itinerary for the trip beforehand, the through times offered on the LNER booking engine were on the 2124 from Peterborough to Huntingdon, even though the connection time was apparently 6 minutes.


Anyway, I’ve simply replied to their email saying that I disagree and would like to appeal. (I had to email my claim in the first place as theLNER delay repay portal can’t cope with a mixture of flexible & advance tickets apparently!).

I‘ll let you all know what happens!
Thanks for all your suggestions

 

[AdamWW]

What is it based on then?

Of course Delay Repay is contractual, but I don't think it's specifically based on having a contract and in particular on having a contract for the full journey before setting off. So I don't see why it would be valid to argue that if someone buys a ticket part way through a journey they can't have delay repay. So far as I know you have to have made the journey and have held tickets or equivalent for the whole thing.

What you can't do is get delayed, then walk up to a ticket office or TVM and purchase ticket for next train, then claim they were part of same journey, rather than a journey with late add on

Does that apply if I use PAYG for a leg of a journey?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course Delay Repay is contractual, but I don't think it's specifically based on having a contract

How can something contractual apply if you don't have a contract?

and in particular on having a contract for the full journey before setting off. So I don't see why it would be valid to argue that if someone buys a ticket part way through a journey they can't have delay repay. So far as I know you have to have made the journey and have held tickets or equivalent for the whole thing.

This is a bit more debatable and I certainly have had it including tickets purchased part way (but before the delay became apparent). I think you'd be on a hiding to nothing if you were already delayed before you purchased a later part of your journey which would then be subject to a claim based on delay to the part already done, unless that latter part was the only part delayed. Simpler overall just to have all the components at the start then there's no debate.

 

[AdamWW]

How can something contractual apply if you don't have a contract?

My vague and wooly thinking is that under consumer law you'd need the contract in place for the full journey beforehand, but I don't see where the Delay Repay rules say that's the case.

Quite possibly I'm talking nonsense.

But even without bringing PAYG into the equation I can imagine situations where it would be reasonable to claim having bought a ticket for part of a journey even after the delay was known.

Suppose I board a train at a station without a ticket office and have to buy a ticket when I get off - I presume we both agree that doesn't prevent a Delay Repay claim if that train is late. I have my contract by the end even though maybe I didn't while actually travelling.

Now suppose I have a season ticket for the journey on that train and I'm catching a connecting service which I miss because the train was late.

Doesn't seem reasonable to me that the railway's inability to provide ticket purchasing facilities at the originating station should mean I've lost my crack at Delay Repay if the first train is late and I miss my connection just because my first opportunity to buy is after the train I missed departed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Suppose I board a train at a station without a ticket office and have to buy a ticket when I get off - I presume we both agree that doesn't prevent a Delay Repay claim if that train is late. I have my contract by the end even though maybe I didn't while actually travelling.

Would not the contract implicitly exist in that case by way of the rules stating that you can board without a ticket if there isn't the means of purchasing one on the basis that one will be purchased at the first opportunity? It's a good question though as there isn't consideration (payment) at that point, and normally for a contract to exist there has to be consideration, hence why things (e.g. failing businesses) are often sold for £1 rather than given for free.

It's not directly relevant to the OP, though. The OP's claim isn't valid because they weren't travelling on a valid itinerary.

 

[AdamWW]

Would not the contract implicitly exist in that case by way of the rules stating that you can board without a ticket if there isn't the means of purchasing one on the basis that one will be purchased at the first opportunity?

NRCoT specifically states (my bold): "They comprise the binding contract that comes into effect between you and the Train Companies1 that provide scheduled rail services on the National Rail Network, when you purchase a Ticket."

But anyway that's not the important bit - the question is whether I'm denied Delay Repay for the second scenario because I didn't have a contract for the second part until I knew it was delayed.

It's not directly relevant to the OP, though. The OP's claim isn't valid because they weren't travelling on a valid itinerary.

Yes true so I should probably shut up and get on with something more useful.

 

[Watershed]

Would not the contract implicitly exist in that case by way of the rules stating that you can board without a ticket if there isn't the means of purchasing one on the basis that one will be purchased at the first opportunity? It's a good question though as there isn't consideration (payment) at that point, and normally for a contract to exist there has to be consideration, hence why things (e.g. failing businesses) are often sold for £1 rather than given for free.

It's not directly relevant to the OP, though. The OP's claim isn't valid because they weren't travelling on a valid itinerary.

The consideration doesn't have to be paid straight away - you have a binding contract when you sit down in the barber's chair and start having your hair cut, even though you don't pay until the end. Same with restaurants, tradespeople etc.

The NRCoT oversimplify slightly by saying the contract is entered into when you buy your ticket. Or rather, the situation of buying your ticket onboard (legitimately) is considered enough of an edge case to not warrant a mention.