Proposals to remove 15-minute Delay Repay

[Angmering1974]

I've implemented Play Integrity and Apple's App Attest. They are better than nothing at increasing the barrier to entry, but they not remotely foolproof. Historically it was Magisk and devices without the ability to do hardware-backed attestation, nowadays there are plenty of compromised OEM keyboxes you can use to get a tampered-with Android device to pass device integrity.

If you think this is a good enough foundation to build an entire country's ticketing system's security on, I've got a bridge to sell you.

If we can have banking apps, we can have GPS-based ticketing apps. Security isn't binary. We wouldn't build anything if we gave up because something isn't foolproof. You just need risk management and for the the levels of fraud to be acceptable.

There is a ton more risk scoring you can do, too.

I'll buy that bridge off you.

edit: I'm not intending to make an argument for GPS-based ticketing btw. I still want TVMs to accept cash and for the credit-card sized card paper tickets to remain.. !

 

[VT 390]

That's a good point.

I'd give up the 15 min delay repay if the longer delays were better compensated.

For example for delays of between an hour and two hours, I think you should get the full price of a return ticket - even if this is in the form of vouchers rather than money.

I definitely agree with this.
I would also say for longer delays you should be able to include 2 advance/70 flex singles to count as a return (if booked at the same time for from the same stations) as the way fares are likely to go will remove return ticket options as shown by the LNER fares trial.
This means passengers are worse off when a 2+ hour delay occurs, even if singles were no more than half the return fare because you would only ever be able to claim the fare for one way where as with a return you would be able to claim the entire value of your trip. When a delay is over 2 hours it can be very inconvenient especially for day trips.

 

[Adam Williams]

If we can have banking apps, we can have GPS-based ticketing apps. Security isn't binary. We wouldn't build anything if we gave up because something isn't foolproof. You just need risk management and for the the levels of fraud to be acceptable.

There is a ton more risk scoring you can do, too.

I'll buy that bridge off you.

I use a banking app that doesn't play this stupid game, because they recognise it's pointless. If you have a rooted phone they can detect, you are given a warning message you tap to dismiss and that's it. They're not stupid enough to think that they're going to be able to reliably detect rooted devices or that preventing people from managing their own money when they have made an adult decision to use a rooted device is remotely sensible.

Unfortunately I have first-hand experience that many banks are too stupid to understand this and enjoyed throwing vast amounts of money at consultants to waste time on further security-through-obscurity measures (which made them think they were invincible and then didn't need to invest time on a secure backend that wasn't vulnerable to SQL injection...). These same banks were also still using IBM mainframes and character encodings that supported nothing more than uppercase ASCII, which tells you a bit about their engineering culture. Their app-based security measures still got bypassed. Sadly I won't get the time back in my life that I wasted on-site with these companies.

 

[yorksrob]

I definitely agree with this.
I would also say for longer delays you should be able to include 2 advance/70 flex singles to count as a return (if booked at the same time for from the same stations) as the way fares are likely to go will remove return ticket options as shown by the LNER fares trial.
This means passengers are worse off when a 2+ hour delay occurs, even if singles were no more than half the return fare because you would only ever be able to claim the fare for one way where as with a return you would be able to claim the entire value of your trip. When a delay is over 2 hours it can be very inconvenient especially for day trips.

I agree with your points, although I'm not sure that return fares will disappear entirely.

 

[VT 390]

I agree with your points, although I'm not sure that return fares will disappear entirely.

Until Great British Railways fully launches its difficult to predict exactly what will happen with fare options although I expect anytime returns will remain in some form but as these are far more expensive than removed off peak options I don't see many leisure travellers buying these and I would think these types of passengers will be more likely to want to claim delay repay.

 

[Kite159]

If anything those operators who don't offer delay repay after 15 minutes should be forced* to change. Although isn't it only LNER & XC who don't pay out for anything under 30 minutes for the English operators (excluding open access).

Even a 25 minute delay on a 2 hour InterCity journey isn't ideal. Automatic delay repay only works for advance tickets or other smart card based systems where both start & finish have barriers.

(*For open access, include it as a condition of getting their paths)

 

[TUC]

On multiple issues, Labour are the government who levels down,

 

[Howardh]

Until Great British Railways fully launches its difficult to predict exactly what will happen with fare options although I expect anytime returns will remain in some form but as these are far more expensive than removed off peak options I don't see many leisure travellers buying these and I would think these types of passengers will be more likely to want to claim delay repay.

When are we likely to find out? This year?

 

[TUC]

I never bother with 15 minute delay repay myself as it's too much of a rigmarole without enough reward.

I always claim even for small amounts, and would encourage others to do so, as financial pain is a good incentive for TOCs to improve.

 

[Alex C.]

If they were actually looking at reducing costs for delay repay and making the process easier, processing claims nationally through a single national portal would surely be an obvious start... except anything that actually makes the process of submitting a claim easier for passengers is likely to increase the costs of the system.

Ultimately, the fare 'freeze' this year gives them the ammunition to say that nationalisation is improving the railways. Underneath that, there is no desire to increase funding and bluntly, it's not a vote winner (nationalisation of the railways has always had a majority of public support but the majority of people don't even use a train once a month) - so once you have the headline, much better to direct money into roads and making driving cheaper as that is a much bigger vote winner.

I'm not persuaded that the scheme does anything at all to improve punctuality either, if anything it results in a zero flexibility approach to running the railways which is not always the right thing to be doing.

 

[VT 390]

If they were actually looking at reducing costs for delay repay and making the process easier, processing claims nationally through a single national portal would surely be an obvious start... except anything that actually makes the process of submitting a claim easier for passengers is likely to increase the costs of the system.

After the initial set up costs would it not reduce costs as each operator would not require its own delay repay team. Also, when passengers claim from the wrong operator it can result in claims being passed from operator to operator and sometimes back again which would be eliminated if there was a single place where all claims were processed.

 

[talldave]

It was. DR has always been political.

Now, we see the real anti-passenger agenda. A real idiot's idea, this - of course, instead of extending DR15 they plan to make things worse for most rail passengers. The idea it would be revenue neutral is laughable, and automatic delay repay on flexible tickets is a pipe dream at this stage.

I'd be surprised if they implemented this, because it has the whiff of floating a very stinky idea (which will affect a vast portion of rail travellers) so they can pretend to "listen" and "compromise" and implement some other still-awful ideas. Seen it many times.

Well spotted, a time-honoured political technique. Announce an extreme proposal, get credit for "listening to feedback" and wait for the electorate to actually thank you for implementing the less-evil alternative which was your original plan all along. The government's Covid stupidity was a masterclass in the technique.

In reality the government don't care about any of us. Even EV owners are currently having the smug smiles wiped off their faces with a wave of fresh taxation. With a few rare exceptions, those in government care about one thing - doing the minimum necessary to get themselves another 5 years on the all-expenses paid gravy train, whilst maximising income from side hustles, consultations and any back-handers going. The current faux re-nationalisation of rail will cost us millions and achieve somewhere between very little and bugger all.

 

[Buzby]

Having just made 2 extended journeys with XC of over 4 hrs recently I was surprised to see they only accept DR claims over 30 minutes, have they jumped the gun, or what TOC’s ignore the 15 minute DR?

 

[VT 390]

Having just made 2 extended journeys with XC of over 4 hrs recently I was surprised to see they only accept DR claims over 30 minutes, have they jumped the gun, or what TOC’s ignore the 15 minute DR?

National Rail Operators that do not currently offer 15 minute delay repay include:

LNER (30 minutes)
Cross Country (30 minutes)
Caledonian Sleeper (30 minutes)
Cross Country (30 minutes)
Heathrow Express (30 minutes, worded as delay repay unsure if it is delay repay or compensation)
LNER (30 minutes)
Lumo (30 minutes)
ScotRail (30 minutes)

Elizabeth Line (30 minutes, compensation not delay repay)
Grand Central (60 minutes, compensation not delay repay)
London Overground (30 minutes, compensation not delay repay)
Merseyrail (30 minutes, compensation not delay repay)

 

[yorksrob]

Until Great British Railways fully launches its difficult to predict exactly what will happen with fare options although I expect anytime returns will remain in some form but as these are far more expensive than removed off peak options I don't see many leisure travellers buying these and I would think these types of passengers will be more likely to want to claim delay repay.

Yes, the destruction of off-peak needs to be resisted, otherwise any fares "reform" will just be a massive price gouge.

I always claim even for small amounts, and would encourage others to do so, as financial pain is a good incentive for TOCs to improve.

Fair point - although my personal laziness is s factor !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

If anything those operators who don't offer delay repay after 15 minutes should be forced* to change. Although isn't it only LNER & XC who don't pay out for anything under 30 minutes for the English operators (excluding open access).

Even a 25 minute delay on a 2 hour InterCity journey isn't ideal. Automatic delay repay only works for advance tickets or other smart card based systems where both start & finish have barriers.

(*For open access, include it as a condition of getting their paths)

LNER seem to be the petri-dish for developing anti-passenger practice these days, so its no surprise that their terms are worse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Feb 2026 ==

Well spotted, a time-honoured political technique. Announce an extreme proposal, get credit for "listening to feedback" and wait for the electorate to actually thank you for implementing the less-evil alternative which was your original plan all along. The government's Covid stupidity was a masterclass in the technique.



In reality the government don't care about any of us. Even EV owners are currently having the smug smiles wiped off their faces with a wave of fresh taxation. With a few rare exceptions, those in government care about one thing - doing the minimum necessary to get themselves another 5 years on the all-expenses paid gravy train, whilst maximising income from side hustles, consultations and any back-handers going. The current faux re-nationalisation of rail will cost us millions and achieve somewhere between very little and bugger all.

To be fair, electric motorists will need to be replacing lost fuel tax revenue at some stage. The sooner the better IMO.

 

[Alex C.]

After the initial set up costs would it not reduce costs as each operator would not require its own delay repay team. Also, when passengers claim from the wrong operator it can result in claims being passed from operator to operator and sometimes back again which would be eliminated if there was a single place where all claims were processed.

Sorry what I mean is the overall cost would increase - single platform which makes claiming easier means reduces operating costs but increase delay repay expenditure.

 

[Bishopstone]

The DR scheme represents a transfer of value to the well-organised and sharp-elbowed – a sub-set of the older middle classes, mostly – from the less well informed, the young, and those with busier or chaotic lifestyles who don’t have time/ability to deal with form-filling.

So I’m not a big fan of the scheme, although I can see why it was introduced on the privatised railway, to mitigate criticism of profits being withdrawn whilst train reliability deteriorated.

Let’s see what the eventual proposals are.

 

[Adam Williams]

don’t have time/ability to deal with form-filling

Entirely pointless form-filling, I might add, given that the retailer has all of the information required to assess and pay out a Delay Repay claim - if only they were permitted to do so.

 

[D1537]

The DR scheme represents a transfer of value to the well-organised and sharp-elbowed – a sub-set of the older middle classes, mostly – from the less well informed, the young, and those with busier or chaotic lifestyles who don’t have time/ability to deal with form-filling.

Yes, this exactly. As even as someone who does know how to use DR, I still rarely use the 15-minute version. I use two TOCs regularly - one doesn't do 15-minute DR, and the average fare on the other that I pay is usually <£10, so I often can't be bothered.

 

[Egg Centric]

I've no idea whether I support this or not without seeing the figures. But tend to agree that a 29 minute delay, while meaningful (indeed a 2 minute delay is meaningful) isn't something that requires compensation. If this leads to cheaper rail fares for most then it's a good thing. If it drives people off the railway as they're only making it work with the delay repayment then it's bad

 

[Llanigraham]

Entirely pointless form-filling, I might add, given that the retailer has all of the information required to assess and pay out a Delay Repay claim - if only they were permitted to do so.

How is it pointless, if like me, you buy your tickets from a machine or a ticket office, as do many other people? The ToC has no record of my details.

 

[plugwash]

Personally I think delay repay has two major design flaws.

1. The thresholds are independent of journey length, but the amount of compensation paid depends on the price of the customer's ticket(s) which depend on the journey length. The result is a system that is very generous to long distance travellers and barely worth claiming for local travellers.
2. The thresolds chosen, being round subdivisions of an hour, combined with our train timetables using half-hourly or hourly repeating patterns lead to an unnessacerally large number of cases where people fall just on the border between two bands.

 

[OneOfThe48]

If this leads to cheaper rail fares for most then it's a good thing.

Are you in the market for a bridge?

I’m sure you're being facetious though!

 

[VT 390]

Sorry what I mean is the overall cost would increase - single platform which makes claiming easier means reduces operating costs but increase delay repay expenditure.

I get what you mean now, I can certainly see more people claiming if the process of submitting claims is simplified for users.

 

[Snow1964]

With railways returning to state control it is inevitable that the various benefits of privatisation are removed as the government begins to realise their cost.

It's only costly, when they fail in basic concept of sticking to the timetable that they previously agreed.

Reducing the threshold is just not respecting some of those that have offered poor service to (when they have paid for a service).

 

[VT 390]

1. The thresholds are independent of journey length, but the amount of compensation paid depends on the price of the customer's ticket(s) which depend on the journey length. The result is a system that is very generous to long distance travellers and barely worth claiming for local travellers.

While this can generally be applied to many flexible tickets this is often not the case as I usually get a higher amount of delay repay for my local journeys (no more than 60 minutes) compared to longer journeys I make to London (around 130-150 minutes) for the same 15-29 minute delay category because the Advance fares I often get for Longer journeys often cost less than the Anytime tickets I use for local journeys.

 

[LittleRedTrain]

2. The thresolds chosen, being round subdivisions of an hour, combined with our train timetables using half-hourly or hourly repeating patterns lead to an unnessacerally large number of cases where people fall just on the border between two bands.

Indeed, setting the thresholds at say 25 mins and 55 mins rather than 15min, 30min and 60mins would reduce the delay repay claims for people doing short trips on turn up and go services, but would still genuinely compensate those who suffer a severe delay or cancellation on an hourly or half-hourly service.

 

[VT 390]

Indeed, setting the thresholds at say 25 mins and 55 mins rather than 15min, 30min and 60mins would reduce the delay repay claims for people doing short trips on turn up and go services, but would still genuinely compensate those who suffer a severe delay or cancellation on an hourly or half-hourly service.

I have thought before, regardless if the lowest category is 15+ minutes or 30+ minutes, that the delay repay categories should be amended by even just 1 minute to 29-58, 59-118 and 119+. I would consider something like this to potentially be a good balance between removing the 15-29 delay repay category but still offering a decent delay repay scheme for passengers.

 

[Adam Williams]

How is it pointless, if like me, you buy your tickets from a machine or a ticket office, as do many other people? The ToC has no record of my details.

The point is that it is a waste of time for the overwhelming majority of passengers who are not in that position. I think this was fairly obvious from my post, to be honest.

I know we all like to wheel out the whataboutery with edge cases on the forum, but I care about improvements that will affect the 90+% of passenger experiences on the railway whilst not making things worse for pax who don't or can't use modern digital ticketing.

 

[markymark2000]

For 15-30 minute delays, rather than offering compensation in the form of bank transfer (or similar), instead they should offer one time use rail vouchers which can be redeemed online via any ticket seller (not just at ticket offices). This then keeps the money in the rail industry and people can put the funds towards future purchases. Store credit is a common compensation method in other industries for reimbursing people for more minor issues.


Partially unrelated, how long before they cut delay repay on split tickets and only let you reimburse one ticket? Because I can genuinely see that coming in if the current actions are anything to go by.

Entirely pointless form-filling, I might add, given that the retailer has all of the information required to assess and pay out a Delay Repay claim - if only they were permitted to do so.

I want to know why a TOC requires my address or phone number to process these claims? What does my address or phone number have to do with processing the original claim? Of course I can understand address if someone wants vouchers (or cheque in Avantis case), but then request the address when the person confirms how they wish for reimbursement to be claimed. It feels like most TOCs are just data mining at this point with the personal details requested (none of which relevant to actually claiming) and at times trying to demand signing up for systems.

Ticket details too they ask you for every intricate detail of the ticket, but surely from the ticket number, they should be able to know all the details. How is it that a guard/RPI can scan my QR code and know almost every intricate detail, but the delay repay system apparently needs all of the details typing out separately? Feels like the system is already deliberately built to put people off by it being too much effort to claim.