Not eligible for delay repay when travelling earlier to avoid a delay?

[henryb]

During the chaos at Paddington today, GWR said that I could arrive earlier to catch an earlier train, this disrupted my plans but I did because I thought the later ones would be busier. But they have just informed me that because I travelled earlier (and on a train that was delayed by 50mins and was terminated early) I’m not eligible for delay repay because I still arrived at the same arrival time as planned, despite leaving 2 hours earlier. Surely this isn’t right?

 

[Hadders]

Unfortunately what you've been told is correct. If you had departed at the booked time and suffered a delay then you could've claimed (assuming the delay hit the minimum delay repay threshold). If you choose to travel earlier but do not suffer a delay to your arrival time then no delay repay is paid.

What tickets did you use. If it was a flexible ticket then I would say you could still claim as the ticket isn't linked to a specific journey and you're at liberty to decide when you travel. If it was an Advance ticket then you don't have that foexibility.

 

[henryb]

I used advance tickets. The different train I caught though was delayed by 50 minutes and then we had to change at Exeter St David’s as they were skipping Newton Abbot, and we get no compensation for this??

 

[yorkie]

I used advance tickets. The different train I caught though was delayed by 50 minutes and then we had to change at Exeter St David’s as they were skipping Newton Abbot, and we get no compensation for this??

Correct.

GWR are not a customer focussed company and only begrudgingly pay delay repay when forced to by Government.

In future if you want to maximise compensation, don't travel earlier and instead accept the delay and you would then be eligible.

If arrival time is crucial to you, plan to travel earlier than desired and then when a delay occurs you will be compensated but still arrive at an acceptable time.

 

[methecooldude]

I used advance tickets. The different train I caught though was delayed by 50 minutes and then we had to change at Exeter St David’s as they were skipping Newton Abbot, and we get no compensation for this??

So you received confirmation that you could, with permission of the ToC, break a fundamental term of an advance ticket, namely it only being valid on the booked train. Then seek delay repay because it didn't go as planned? You can't have it both ways unfortunately

 

[henryb]

So you received confirmation that you could, with permission of the ToC, break a fundamental term of an advance ticket, namely it only being valid on the booked train. Then seek delay repay because it didn't go as planned? You can't have it both ways unfortunately

I broke the term of the advance tickets, because the booked train was cancelled…. I literally couldn’t have caught it

 

[John R]

So you received confirmation that you could, with permission of the ToC, break a fundamental term of an advance ticket, namely it only being valid on the booked train. Then seek delay repay because it didn't go as planned? You can't have it both ways unfortunately

Isn’t what GWR offered the industry standard now? Ie If your train is cancelled you can catch either of the previous two or subsequent two services? (Although I’m not sure how public this is.)

 

[Haywain]

Whilst you cannot claim Delay Repay just for travelling earlier than planned in these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to claim for a delay to the train that you travelled on.

Surely this isn’t right?

Agreed.

 

[td97]

The best course of action would be to write a complaint about the service not being delivered with reasonable care and skill, and that compensation equivalent to the delay repay threshold for the time you left earlier would be a satisfactory outcome to account for your inconvenience.

 

[Benjwri]

Whilst you cannot claim Delay Repay just for travelling earlier than planned in these circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to claim for a delay to the train that you travelled on.

Agreed.

I would agree with this. GWR are trying to have their cake and eat it here. The industry argument is if you choose to travel earlier then you have changed your planned train, so get no compensation. They should not then turn around and say you can't claim delay repay on that new train because you planned a later one. If your earlier train suffered a delay repay eligible delay, you should be able to claim on that.

 

[IanD]

I would agree with this. GWR are trying to have their cake and eat it here. The industry argument is if you choose to travel earlier then you have changed your planned train, so get no compensation. They should not then turn around and say you can't claim delay repay on that new train because you planned a later one. If your earlier train suffered a delay repay eligible delay, you should be able to claim on that.

I think it's the customer who is trying to have their cake and eat it. The clue is in the name "Delay Repay". No delayee, no repayee.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's the customer who is trying to have their cake and eat it. The clue is in the name "Delay Repay". No delayee, no repayee.

It's clear the present scheme doesn't provide for this - but I don't see why it shouldn't, you've still lost time - it's probably just a classic "we didn't think of that in the rules and we apply them to the letter so go away" that the railway is so fond of.

However, what does seem reasonable to me is that if you were allowed acceptance to travel on a different itinerary than that booked and that itinerary is delayed then it should be paid for that. It would be were it a flexible ticket used on an itinerary other than the one booked, provided it was valid for that itinerary, and the acceptance renders it valid.

 

[IanD]

However, what does seem reasonable to me is that if you were allowed acceptance to travel on a different itinerary than that booked and that itinerary is delayed then it should be paid for that. It would be were it a flexible ticket used on an itinerary other than the one booked, provided it was valid for that itinerary, and the acceptance renders it valid.

But it wasn't a flexible ticket. They have already made concessions by allowing the passenger to travel early to enable them to avoid a delay. It was their choice whether they took up this offer or took a later service and claimed for the delay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it wasn't a flexible ticket. They have already made concessions by allowing the passenger to travel early to enable them to avoid a delay. It was their choice whether they took up this offer or took a later service and claimed for the delay.

They haven't avoided a delay, though, if that replacement itinerary was delayed.

In effect, they've been offered a free rebooking rather than paying £10+difference for it. If they rebooked it with the fee they'd be entitled to claim for delays to the new itinerary.

 

[IanD]

They haven't avoided a delay, though, if that replacement itinerary was delayed.

In effect, they've been offered a free rebooking rather than paying £10+difference for it. If they rebooked it with the fee they'd be entitled to claim for delays to the new itinerary.

They have avoided a delay if they arrived at or before their booked itinerary, which was clearly stated in this case.

They didn't rebook, they just took an earlier train so avoided the £10 rebooking fee plus difference in fare which could also be seen as compensation. Seems like receiving delay repay as well would be double cake eaten.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They didn't rebook, they just took an earlier train so avoided the £10 rebooking fee plus difference in fare which could also be seen as compensation. Seems like receiving delay repay as well would be double cake eaten.

Not at all. Because of the railway they are experiencing added inconvenience, none of which would have arisen if the railway had delivered their booked journey. It's not eating double cake at all, it's picking up a crumbled piece of cake from the mud on the floor and throwing it at them.

Why do people on here seem to object so much to the principle that customer service when someone has already been inconvenienced by the railway's failure to deliver the journey they sold someone should be truly excellent and accommodating to the passenger? And don't say "because Advances are super cheap price dumped tickets" because that's no longer true - Advances are now the default for most long distance passengers and represent the only affordable fare, particularly in the LNER "trial" area, and are very rarely now offered at bargain rates on most TOCs.

 

[Haywain]

They didn't rebook, they just took an earlier train so avoided the £10 rebooking fee plus difference in fare which could also be seen as compensation. Seems like receiving delay repay as well would be double cake eaten.

So, having cancelled their booked train they should feel grateful that they haven't been charged extra for travelling on a different train? And that should be seen as compensation for a journey that took considerably longer than advertised (close to 2 hours longer in this case, it appears). I don't know how you can defend this!

 

[WesternLancer]

They didn't rebook, they just took an earlier train so avoided the £10 rebooking fee plus difference in fare which could also be seen as compensation. Seems like receiving delay repay as well would be double cake eaten.

I disagree. It does not seem like that at all.

The compensation can be seen as based on time available to you to do something else when not on the train / on a journey that is scheduled to take a set period of time according to the timetable. If you were advised to alter your departure time by the train company and travel an hour earlier, lets say, the appointment you had arranged for 17.00hrs (when the original train was due to arrive) can be moved forward to 16.00. If the train you then travel on is subsequently delayed and arrives at 16.30 - you have missed your re-arranged appointment and been inconvenienced. You should be due delay repay in my view.

 

[AlterEgo]

But it wasn't a flexible ticket. They have already made concessions by allowing the passenger to travel early to enable them to avoid a delay. It was their choice whether they took up this offer or took a later service and claimed for the delay.

Either way, they have been inconvenienced by spending more or less time than they wanted at their origin or destination.

 

[IanD]

And don't say "because Advances are super cheap price dumped tickets" because that's no longer true - Advances are now the default for most long distance passengers and represent the only affordable fare, particularly in the LNER "trial" area, and are very rarely now offered at bargain rates on most TOCs.

Why not? Like it or not (and cheap or not) Advances are sold as restricted tickets and the compensation available during disruption reflects that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not? Like it or not (and cheap or not) Advances are sold as restricted tickets and the compensation available during disruption reflects that.

To be fair, I think the restrictions (aside from "booked train only outside of disruption") on Advances in general need some serious review - they do reflect "bargain basement" which is no longer how Advances are priced or used. Certainly in disruption, when Advance customers should receive the same options as those on a flexible fare, because the railway has failed to provide what it said it would do (the itinerary it sold) so should do the absolute utmost to put it right, whether the fare cost £3 or £300. The way compensation is a proportion of fare deals with the comparative price of tickets.

Your view here does sum up the railway's strong anti-customer ethos, though, so it's entirely in keeping with what TOCs like LNER want to happen.

 

[IanD]

My view is that everyone should travel for free but that's not going to happen. But then people would still be wanting compensation during disruption.

 

[Benjwri]

Why not? Like it or not (and cheap or not) Advances are sold as restricted tickets and the compensation available during disruption reflects that.

So your view is people should travel for free, but if that’s not possible they should have to buy new tickets because the railways can’t run a proper service?

The passenger has already had to inconvenience themselves by travelling earlier, but to add to that they are delayed by nearly an hour on that journey, and you think they shouldn’t be entitled to the delay repay they would’ve if they got the service after?

 

[IanD]

but if that’s not possible they should have to buy new tickets because the railways can’t run a proper service?

Where did I say that?

 

[Benjwri]

They have avoided a delay if they arrived at or before their booked itinerary, which was clearly stated in this case.

They didn't rebook, they just took an earlier train so avoided the £10 rebooking fee plus difference in fare which could also be seen as compensation. Seems like receiving delay repay as well would be double cake eaten.

Where did I say that?

Here, by saying that they should’ve had to pay to travel on an earlier service, despite it being an industry arrangement not to, you are saying that if they still wanted to make it anywhere near on time they should’ve had to pay extra.

 

[IanD]

Here, by saying that they should’ve had to pay to travel on an earlier service, despite it being an industry arrangement not to, you are saying that if they still wanted to make it anywhere near on time they should’ve had to pay extra.

I didn't say that at all, I was responding to Bletchleyite who said they had effectively rebooked and I quite clearly said they did not rebook and did not have to pay any extra.

Not sure why thinking the current compensation arrangements are adequate is seen as so controversial. Time to leave this discussion.