Northern Delay repay

[vectra33]

Myself and some friends used Northern a couple of weeks ago, The outbound train was on time.

The return trip was cancelled, the station has an hourly service, no major issue as we were in no rush home, we should have left at 1915 , arriving home 2010,

The next train departed at 20.15 , we caught that but it was terminated mid route due to staff shortages, we then had to wait a further hour at an intermediate station for the next train,1 hour later.

We arrived at the destination at 2210 and submitted delay repay claims for 2 hours.

Northern are claiming we were only delayed 119 minutes and are offering reduced payment, based on a 1 hour delay, can we challenge this decision?

EDITED TO INCLUDE TIMES AS REQUESTED

04 July 2023
Clitheroe to Bromley Cross

1915 ex Clitheroe cancelled, expected Bromley Cross 2008
2023 clitheroe to Man Vic terminated at Blackburn
2145 Blackburn -Bromley Cross arr 2208

 

[Watershed]

It would be useful if you could tell us the date and journey in question, so that we can look up what internal industry systems say about the delay.

It's possible (though by no means guaranteed) that Northern will simply cough up on appeal.

 

[yorkie]

You can ask for a "deadlock letter"; this may cause the matter to be resolved but if not, it'll enable you to refer the matter to the Rail Ombudsman.

If you can state the planned and actual itinerary and date of travel, someone may be able to look at the records.

 

[Kite159]

No doubt they will come up with an excuse like "You were only delayed by 119 minutes & 30 seconds" which sadly is too common on routes with an hourly service by most of the operators to reduce the pay-outs

(I think it was @Bletchleyite who suggested the thresholds be changed to 29/59/119 minutes to cater for such events because for the man on the Clapham Omnibus would say it was a 2 hour delay)

 

[td97]

Definitely appeal. The open data timing shows you arrived at 2208, such as

Realtime Trains | 2J20 2123 Clitheroe to Rochdale | 04/07/2023

Real-time train running information for 2J20 2123 departure from Clitheroe to Rochdale on 04/07/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Can you share the portion of the rejection email under the heading "We used the following information to calculate your delay:"

 

[Bletchleyite]

(I think it was @Bletchleyite who suggested the thresholds be changed to 29/59/119 minutes to cater for such events because for the man on the Clapham Omnibus would say it was a 2 hour delay)

Correct - I did actually successfully appeal one with LNR basically stating they were taking the mick by claiming it to be 29 minutes when if you looked at Realtime Trains every single train that day bar the cancelled one had arrived one minute early!

Clearly by any sensible definition if you're on a half hourly service and one is cancelled you're half an hour late, and anything else is just jobsworthery.

 

[WesternLancer]

Correct - I did actually successfully appeal one with LNR basically stating they were taking the mick by claiming it to be 29 minutes when if you looked at Realtime Trains every single train that day bar the cancelled one had arrived one minute early!

Clearly by any sensible definition if you're on a half hourly service and one is cancelled you're half an hour late, and anything else is just jobsworthery.

Seem to recall Barry Doe in Rail magazine not so long ago say that train companies were under pressure from govt to implement this 29 / 59 minutes late type stance specifically in order to reduce delay repay payouts. If I recalled it correct.
But for the OP - definitely appeal it. You have nothing to lose by doing so.

 

[furlong]

Seem to recall Barry Doe in Rail magazine not so long ago say that train companies were under pressure from govt to implement this 29 / 59 minutes late type stance specifically in order to reduce delay repay payouts. If I recalled it correct.

I saw that but think Barry Doe called that one wrongly - it is a matter of determining the correct legal interpretation of the contract, and what the DfT was reported to have said just represented one opinion (without legal citations) which I also think is incorrect. I go with the 'time the doors opened' interpretation - and trains don't routinely arrive on platforms and sit there "waiting for time" before they open their doors - you have to compare with whatever "normally" would have happened, which you can determine by comparing with instances that were not disrupted.

 

[WesternLancer]

I saw that but think Barry Doe called that one wrongly - it is a matter of determining the correct legal interpretation of the contract, and what the DfT was reported to have said just represented one opinion (without legal citations) which I also think is incorrect. I go with the 'time the doors opened' interpretation - and trains don't routinely arrive on platforms and sit there "waiting for time" before they open their doors - you have to compare with whatever "normally" would have happened, which you can determine by comparing with instances that were not disrupted.

Thanks for those thoughts

 

[fandroid]

Seem to recall Barry Doe in Rail magazine not so long ago say that train companies were under pressure from govt to implement this 29 / 59 minutes late type stance specifically in order to reduce delay repay payouts. If I recalled it correct.
But for the OP - definitely appeal it. You have nothing to lose by doing so.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jul 2023 ==

I remember the Barry Doe article in Rail Magazine. He was supporting a reader who made a delay repay claim against GWR. GWR insisted on using the working timetable for the expected arrival time of the later train and comparing it with the public timetable of the original train! The working timetable showed a slightly later arrival for the service than the public timetable did. Enough to flip the delay from 60 minutes to less than 60 minutes for every event when an hourly connection was missed .

 

[Hadders]

I might be misremembering the Barry Doe article but didn't RDG suggest that the delay repay should be paid in cases like this but they were over ruled by the DfT?

 

[xotGD]

If you are due to reach your destination at 20:10 and actually arrive at 22:09 then your delay is under the 2 hour threshold.

 

[janb]

If you are due to reach your destination at 20:10 and actually arrive at 22:09 then your delay is under the 2 hour threshold.

To give the precise details, 1916 supposed to arrive at 2009. In the reality they arrived at 2208 (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:P44346/2023-07-04/detailed#allox_id=0) which is why Northern will say 119 minute delay. The argument that some on this forum have is that given the latter train is publicly advertised as a 2209 arrival like the original being 2009 then companies should pay on a 120 minute basis.

 

[Southern Beau]

I had the 120 v 119 mins argument with Northern too. The train did actually arrive in to the station 119 mins after my intended arrival however the guard did not release the doors until 120 mins (from memory they were trying to complete a ticket sale).
They said the data showed I arrived 119 mins late, I argued the difference between “arrival time” vs “actually being able to get off the train”.
Eventually they paid out for the 120+ delay, they may have just got sick of me!