My idea for maximum Delay Repay threshold of 75%

[AlterEgo]

The difference would be that, where there is a period of regular disruption due to external factors, such as suicides or snow, the affected TOCs would not be operating a 'free' service. Which is what sparked this thread.

Why is this a concern?

Your argument seems to stem from the idea that as long as you have taken *something* from the service offered then it’s wrong to receive a full refund by way of compensation.

Hence my pizza analogy upthread which you unsatisfactorily countered by suggesting “well you’d be buying a *high quality* pizza” and that this doesn’t apply to railway journeys. But it does. You can’t have the scenario where someone from the TOC stands up and says “look, sometimes it’s really crap, okay, so we’re still going to keep 25% of the fare. We never said it’d be any GOOD.”. That would be Monty Python-esque.

The reason that you would receive a full refund on a bad pizza you’d had a few mouthfuls of is because that’s a neat resolution and good customer service. That’s it. And that’s why you get a full refund when you have a bad journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

And that is the fundimental problem with train companies in the UK; even if they are completely incompetent they don't suffer any penalty. So what incentive is there to deliver anything vaguely acceptable.

Delay Repay is a drop in the ocean on a TOC’s balance sheet. 200% isn’t going to cut the mustard.

You’d be better off looking at other methods within the franchise, in relation to financial incentives and disincentives.

 

[Starmill]

One thing I noticed that was stated on their site was that you can't claim above the value of the ticket for any given ticket.

That might be their opinion, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

This (assuming compensation is at issue and not a refund):

200% refunds are not available. It caps out at the ticket full value.

is not supported by reliable evidence anywhere that I am aware of.

 

[Starmill]

My experience is that the Delay Repay claims I tend to make are not resulting from fatalities. Most are due to either train failures or the failure of signalling or OHLE. When I was regularly commuting on London Midland it was normally due to staff shortages or a failed LM train. Fatalities were not common.

My own claims are almost always from either a catastrophic train or infrastructure failure which sees the line closed for hours (be it damage to overhead wires, signalling or power supply problem, track defect or broken down train) or for a cancellation due to a shortage of train crew. Anything else is pretty rare.

 

[All Line Rover]

Why is this a concern?

Your argument seems to stem from the idea that as long as you have taken *something* from the service offered then it’s wrong to receive a full refund by way of compensation.

Hence my pizza analogy upthread which you unsatisfactorily countered by suggesting “well you’d be buying a *high quality* pizza” and that this doesn’t apply to railway journeys. But it does. You can’t have the scenario where someone from the TOC stands up and says “look, sometimes it’s really crap, okay, so we’re still going to keep 25% of the fare. We never said it’d be any GOOD.”. That would be Monty Python-esque.

The reason that you would receive a full refund on a bad pizza you’d had a few mouthfuls of is because that’s a neat resolution and good customer service. That’s it. And that’s why you get a full refund when you have a bad journey.

I respect your view and feel you make some very valid points. But I believe it is worth stressing that I wasn't suggesting rail journeys should not be high quality. My view is that being transported from A to B an hour or two late doesn't tend to justify (what amounts to) a full refund - particularly first class travel on long distance TOCs, where delayed journeys can be quite pleasant (dinner/restaurant services in particular). Just as, if the main course in a restaurant is fine but not quite up to scratch in one way or another, one would be content with a partial discount.

Obviously some delayed journeys *are* poor quality, such as where one ends up standing because prior services were cancelled, or because the delay is 3+ hours, or because the air conditioning is not working, etc. But, were Delay Repay less generous, there would be nothing to stop TOCs issuing a full refund in the aforementioned circumstances in the interests of good service service, and many of those circumstances apply to journeys which are not delayed - something which Delay Repay does not address. (The Consumer Rights Act does, but the appropriate financial remedy is more difficult to quantify and obtain.)

 

[Tetchytyke]

were Delay Repay less generous, there would be nothing to stop TOCs issuing a full refund in the aforementioned circumstances in the interests of good service

The point is that the TOCs *don't* give refunds/compensation unless they are forced to. Delay Repay came about precisely because TOC s couldn't be trusted to treat their passengers fairly. Those TOCs that don't have Delay Repay mandated in their franchises still don't give appropriate service recovery.

Service recovery with Grand Central, for instance, still consists of little more than a Gallic shrug, even when the failure is due to the industry. That's the reality of TOC attitudes.

 

[Tetchytyke]

My own claims are almost always from either a catastrophic train or infrastructure failure which sees the line closed for hours (be it damage to overhead wires, signalling or power supply problem, track defect or broken down train) or for a cancellation due to a shortage of train crew.

It's different experiences, definitely, but with London Midland it tended to be niggling but escalating delays, especially at the smaller WCML stations. It was very very rarely I had a spectacular failure. On the ECML, travelling intercity, it is a bit different though.

 

[Deafdoggie]

It's different experiences, definitely, but with London Midland it tended to be niggling but escalating delays, especially at the smaller WCML stations. It was very very rarely I had a spectacular failure. On the ECML, travelling intercity, it is a bit different though.

Connections are an issue too. Southbound VTWC only gives the minimum connection at Crewe out of the Preston train onto the Derby train. There is an hours delay there, for just a few minutes delay of a journey (and a delay VTWC are not too bothered about as the train waits at Wolverhampton anyway)

 

[bb21]

The point is that the TOCs *don't* give refunds/compensation unless they are forced to. Delay Repay came about precisely because TOC s couldn't be trusted to treat their passengers fairly. Those TOCs that don't have Delay Repay mandated in their franchises still don't give appropriate service recovery.

You don't know anything about TOC Customer Service operations going by these words. Most TOCs very much give discretionary compensation/refunds appropriate to the merits of each case, often over and above the absolute minimum required.

Delay Repay came about because it is easy for everyone to understand and very much expected to be cheaper to administer. You can put down your scepticism hat.

Service recovery with Grand Central, for instance, still consists of little more than a Gallic shrug, even when the failure is due to the industry. That's the reality of TOC attitudes.

Delay Repay would be the last thing to consider when making Service Recovery decisions. It almost never comes into the equation.

Any operation prioritising Delay Repay over performance will very quickly see itself in deep financial trouble.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You don't know anything about TOC Customer Service operations going by these words. Most TOCs very much give discretionary compensation/refunds appropriate to the merits of each case, often over and above the absolute minimum required.

When things have been particularly bad, with delays of hour after hour, that much is mostly (but not entirely) true. Although my experience is that the "additionals" were normally complimentary vouchers (e.g. first class upgrades) rather than cold hard cash. Nice, sometimes very nice, but often not as nice as getting your actual money back.

But for more run of the mill situations it wasn't true. Before very recent franchise changes and the introduction of Delay Repay you got bugger all from First Great Western and even less from Northern, to pick two examples.

"Service recovery" was referring to making things right after the event. Grand Central, as open access, give you the barest minimum because that's all they have to do. I don't see any TOC who would do more.

 

[bb21]

"Service recovery" was referring to making things right after the event. Grand Central, as open access, give you the barest minimum because that's all they have to do. I don't see any TOC who would do more.

That would most likely be down to poor service recovery techniques/arrangements than anything to do with Delay Repay or whatever it is they call theirs.

I don't really know exactly which as I don't use their services but I would be astonished if compensation were the biggest factor playing on their minds. It is far outweighed in magnitude by a number of other things.

 

[Camden]

Which is why Delay Repay really needs to be subject to a maximum repayment threshold of 75%, as is the practice for similar schemes in certain continental European countries. Getting a person from A to B is not a 'worthless' service no matter how late that person arrives at B (otherwise they would have abandoned their journey and received a full refund), especially over the long distances covered by TOCs such as Virgin WC.

It's a huge assumption that someone travelling has not endured a worthless service if they are late. Firstly if they are already in transit they may have little choice but to continue, and secondly you are valuing the TOCs time but not the passengers'. A TOC could easily cost a passenger far more than the value of their ticket with a delay, in all sorts of ways.

Why should railway companies be protected from the consequences of not running the service they are meant to?...

Of course there are always alternative ways of doing things. First of all, Delay Repay could be made much less burdensome on the railway companies by them automatically refunding customers who have paid electronically, rather than dealing with all the paperwork that goes with claims.

And since the majority of journeys are now paid for electronically, and all arrival times are known electronically, how about instead of >30 minutes late 50%, >1 hour late 100% but instead a minute-by-minute sliding scale, starting from 2 minutes late arrival. Applicable to any journey a passenger has a ticket for, with the delay amount as a percentage of the proper journey time equalling the percentage refund.

An hour's journey, two minutes late in = 2% refund. An hour's journey an hour late = 100% refund. An hour's journey two hours late = 200% refund...

Making refunds automatic and starting them at a much lower threshold should do much to ensure that a) the railway companies employ enough staff/equipment to run their services to time, and b) make sure those in their employ do finish their tea breaks/turn up for work on time.

 

[bb21]

Making refunds automatic and starting them at a much lower threshold should do much to ensure that a) the railway companies employ enough staff/equipment to run their services to time, and b) make sure those in their employ do finish their tea breaks/turn up for work on time.

a) As I mentioned before, no, Delay Repay only has a very small impact. Many other factors have far more significant financial impact.
b) You are having a laugh aren't you?

I really don't understand why some people think amending the way Delay Repay works is going to have such a wonderful impact on how TOCs operate, and in any case, any increase in projected costs due to an amended Delay Repay scheme will simply be built into the franchise bids, so funded out of general taxation essentially, not TOC profits.