Proposed changes to Delay Repay under GBR

[CyrusWuff]

A press release has been published by the DfT this morning teasing changes to Delay Repay under GBR.

Delay Repay changes will make rail travel easier under Great British Railways
These changes allow passengers to claim Delay Repay compensation faster and the rail industry to invest in improvements across the UK.

• under Great British Railways, it will be quicker and easier to claim for Delay Repay compensation
• passengers will be able to claim compensation more directly through third-party retailers like Trainline for the first time
• revenue protection measures are introduced for industry, helping to restore trust in the railway

For the first time, rail passengers will be able to claim Delay Repay directly from wherever they buy their ticket, making it quicker and easier to apply for compensation.

Currently, passengers have to contend with a complex system across 14 different train companies, which creates confusion and frustration.

As part of the government’s plans to simplify our railways and ensure passengers are treated fairly when travelling, compensation claim systems for delayed trains will be merged into one easy-to-use service under Great British Railways (GBR).

Customers will also be able to apply through third-party retailers like Trainline.

This seems to have come from nowhere, but at least it will save the current buck passing between TOCs that sometimes happens, assuming it comes to fruition.

 

[Dr Day]

How will TfW, Scotrail and Merseyrail etc fit into this?

 

[AlterEgo]

Aha, so this was what the stinky "get rid of DR15" idea-floating was about.

I suspected it was a bad idea they could row back on to implement less damaging (but still damaging) changes as a way of showing consensus and consultation, but if it's being rolled into an otherwise beneficial idea this also makes sense.

FWIW I support retailer-led Delay Repay (or a centralised clearing house), and hope the third party retailers are suitably recompensed for processing the claims. I certainly know who I would trust, and who not to trust, on complex or split itineraries...

 

[SuspectUsual]

The changes only make sense if the retailer is required to pay out if they are satisfied the customer was sufficiently delayed.

My worry is that they will only pay out when they know who will be repaying them, and in cases of TOC ping-pong all this does is add a third player to the game

 

[johntea]

RIP Northern complimentary tickets then

 

[OscarH]

The full press release sounded like a central system you could apply to directly, or apply through your retailer (with the decisions made centrally). So business travellers wouldn't be screwed still, and retailers wouldn't have to implement it - that said most of us have be calling for this for years and will be very keen to, it's such a common customer complaint.

The proof will be in the implementation. There is of course very little of use in this press release because it's written by politicians complimenting themselves. It's a step in the right direction, but we all know how much the DfT likes to mess things up at the implementation stage

 

[Alex-B]

This makes sense if it's "the retailer has the option of taking the claim and feeding it into a central system for the TOC to process, or the passenger can choose to claim directly to the relevant TOC", rather than "the retailer process the claim end to end including paying the customer". Especially when you get complex stuff (like you missed a train because you were stuck in a broken station lift at a station operated by a different TOC than you travelled with) or just claims on season tickets and rangers/rovers.

 

[blimmo]

If there is a central system that can also be applied to directly, I imagine the main use of the non-retailer option will be journeys where the tickets are from different retailers or multiple transactions. Or where the tickets were purchased through some terrible work travel system. The retailers have enough information to make most claims for simple journeys very easy.

 

[OscarH]

If there is a central system that can also be applied to directly, I imagine the main use of the non-retailer option will be journeys where the tickets are from different retailers or multiple transactions. Or where the tickets were purchased through some terrible work travel system. The retailers have enough information to make most claims for simple journeys very easy.

Indeed - and if well implemented the money can just be returned to the card the tickets were purchased with without faffing with bank details

 

[blimmo]

Indeed - and if well implemented the money can just be returned to the card the tickets were purchased with without faffing with bank details

Indeed, although I quite like the current system where I can buy on my credit card and get the compensation in cash to a debit card!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The losers on this will be people travelling with work where it will presumably go to their employer instead of them. Though for at least some of those people they will be doing this contrary to their employer's policy. Policies do vary on the matter between companies.

 

[Southern Beau]

RIP Northern complimentary tickets then

If you buy from northern, and delayed by northern, maybe they would still offer comps ?

 

[35B]

The losers on this will be people travelling with work where it will presumably go to their employer instead of them. Though for at least some of those people they will be doing this contrary to their employer's policy. Policies do vary on the matter between companies.

It surely depends on how the passenger nominates their refund method?

I always have a BACS transfer rather than repay the payment method, which covers not just issues of work travel, but also my own convenience

 

[Belperpete]

It surely depends on how the passenger nominates their refund method?

I always have a BACS transfer rather than repay the payment method, which covers not just issues of work travel, but also my own convenience

Exactly. Even if you bought using a credit or debit card, it may not be possible to refund to that card (e.g. if the card has been stopped or cancelled). The claimant must be given the option of how to receive the refund.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2026 ==

How will TfW, Scotrail and Merseyrail etc fit into this?

And LU, LO, Lizzy Line, etc? And the Open Access operators?

While I suspect that most journeys are made with just a single operator, many journeys (especially in the London area) involve multiple operators.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2026 ==

If you buy from northern, and delayed by northern, maybe they would still offer comps ?

Once the GBR-run central scheme comes into force, Northern will no longer process claims, they will just forward them straight on to whoever GBR have delegated to run the central scheme. You will get whatever they deem you are entitled to.

I know that some have been calling for a centrally-run scheme for some time, but to me it sounds like a complete nightmare. How on earth is delegating this customer-service function to an arms-length organisation with no interest whatsoever in keeping the customer happy possibly going to end well? No point in complaining to Northern if you don't like how your claim has been handled, as it will be nothing to do with them. And complaining to GBR will achieve about as much as complaining to NR or RDG about anything currently achieves.

 

[AlterEgo]

Exactly. Even if you bought using a credit or debit card, it may not be possible to refund to that card (e.g. if the card has been stopped or cancelled)

No problems issuing refunds to stopped or cancelled cards, the funds still go back.

 

[35B]

No problems issuing refunds to stopped or cancelled cards, the funds still go back.

And closed accounts? The ability to nominate a means of payment when that payment may be made 5-6 months after purchase (bought 3 months in advance, claimed 28 days after travel and paid a month or more later following investigation) is a basic requirement.

 

[AlterEgo]

And closed accounts? The ability to nominate a means of payment when that payment may be made 5-6 months after purchase (bought 3 months in advance, claimed 28 days after travel and paid a month or more later following investigation) is a basic requirement.

The credit card company sends you a cheque or arranges a transfer. It's a basic rule of refunds in nearly every walk of life that it goes back to the same payment method, for money laundering reasons.

 

[35B]

The credit card company sends you a cheque or arranges a transfer. It's a basic rule of refunds in nearly every walk of life that it goes back to the same payment method, for money laundering reasons.

But Delay Repay is not a refund.

 

[AlterEgo]

But Delay Repay is not a refund.

I didn't say it was!

 

[35B]

I didn't say it was!

But you introduced refund rules - which have an additional basic requirement over money laundering reasons - in response to a point about how circumstances can change. If I’m purchasing on behalf of my (adult, in full time education) children, neither I nor they want the refund coming to me when its theirs.

The present system works quite well in these circumstances, allowing the delayed passenger the ability to nominate the correct account for a delay payment to go to.

 

[AlterEgo]

But you introduced refund rules - which have an additional basic requirement over money laundering reasons - in response to a point about how circumstances can change.

No, I was telling a poster that a closed or cancelled account is not a bar to receiving a refund on that account. This is a popular and sometimes harmful misconception - that refunds can’t be received if you get a new card number or close your account. It isn’t me who started talking about refunds.

 

[35B]

No, I was telling a poster that a closed or cancelled account is not a bar to receiving a refund on that account. This is a popular and sometimes harmful misconception - that refunds can’t be received if you get a new card number or close your account. It isn’t me who started talking about refunds.

Clarification noted

 

[styles]

RIP Northern complimentary tickets then

Probably, but in fairness they were a bit of a quirk in that I don't think any other operator offered them.

I'll take a centralised and consistent compensation system which doesn't throw up all sorts of refusal reasons and buck passing, over the occasional free Northern trip any day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Mar 2026 ==

The losers on this will be people travelling with work where it will presumably go to their employer instead of them. Though for at least some of those people they will be doing this contrary to their employer's policy. Policies do vary on the matter between companies.

Does this announcement actually say the compensation will be returned as a 'refund' (in the card transaction sense) to the original payment card?

If they continue to offer the choice of payment to bank account, PayPal, rail travel vouchers etc then it's not really a change on the workers' front.

I would suggest the compensation should still go to the passenger rather than the purchaser because it's the passenger who has been inconvenienced.

 

[35B]

Probably, but in fairness they were a bit of a quirk in that I don't think any other operator offered them.

I'll take a centralised and consistent compensation system which doesn't throw up all sorts of refusal reasons and buck passing, over the occasional free Northern trip any day.

That assumes that the centralised system is a) competent, b) consistent and c) fair. Given the customer unfriendly nature of so much of what comes out of DfT, I'm afraid my expectations are low, and that we will get the worst of all worlds, administered on a lowest cost basis with absolutely no corporate interest in customer relationships.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said to the actress who propositioned him with "imagine our child, with your brains and my looks" - "But what if he had my looks and your brains".

 

[styles]

That assumes that the centralised system is a) competent, b) consistent and c) fair. Given the customer unfriendly nature of so much of what comes out of DfT, I'm afraid my expectations are low, and that we will get the worst of all worlds, administered on a lowest cost basis with absolutely no corporate interest in customer relationships.

As George Bernard Shaw allegedly said to the actress who propositioned him with "imagine our child, with your brains and my looks" - "But what if he had my looks and your brains".

It does, but only to an extent.

The current system is hopelessly incompetent, inconsistent, and unfair.

Any improvement on the current system will be a good thing.

It's hard for it to get much worse.

 

[35B]

It does, but only to an extent.

The current system is hopelessly incompetent, inconsistent, and unfair.

Any improvement on the current system will be a good thing.

It's hard for it to get much worse.

I can easily see how it could get worse - and how what levers there are would be removed. I am willing to bet a pint that, in five years time, there will be "wasn't it better when..." posts aplenty

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can easily see how it could get worse - and how what levers there are would be removed. I am willing to bet a pint that, in five years time, there will be "wasn't it better when..." posts aplenty

It is almost certain that pretty much every change GBR makes to the fares system and anything relating to it including Delay Repay will be disadvantageous to the "MoneySavingExpert" type crowd that proliferates "expert users" such as those found on this Forum. These people benefit from inconsistency and complexity because they know the system and can play it to their advantage. While I'm not as obsessive about it as some that includes me, by the way.

This is not a reason not to make such changes, because what actually matters is benefitting the majority of users who do not have that knowledge (or benefitting the taxpayer, which remember is everyone*, not some mythical thing). It is true that "something must be done, this is something, we must do this" is terrible rationale, but I think generally you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as it were, so someone somewhere will be disadvantaged somewhere by any change regardless of what it is.

* Actually everyone. Some don't pay income tax, but I doubt there's a single person alive in the UK at present who has neither paid VAT nor had it paid on something bought on their behalf.

 

[styles]

I can easily see how it could get worse - and how what levers there are would be removed. I am willing to bet a pint that, in five years time, there will be "wasn't it better when..." posts aplenty

Bet taken

 

[35B]

It is almost certain that pretty much every change GBR makes to the fares system and anything relating to it including Delay Repay will be disadvantageous to the "MoneySavingExpert" type crowd that proliferates "expert users" such as those found on this Forum. These people benefit from inconsistency and complexity because they know the system and can play it to their advantage. While I'm not as obsessive about it as some that includes me, by the way.

This is not a reason not to make such changes, because what actually matters is benefitting the majority of users who do not have that knowledge (or benefitting the taxpayer, which remember is everyone*, not some mythical thing). It is true that "something must be done, this is something, we must do this" is terrible rationale, but I think generally you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, as it were, so someone somewhere will be disadvantaged somewhere by any change regardless of what it is.

* Actually everyone. Some don't pay income tax, but I doubt there's a single person alive in the UK at present who has neither paid VAT nor had it paid on something bought on their behalf.

This is not about whether my edge case is better or worse handled in this system - I agree that it is unlikely that a change will benefit all users. Likewise, I'm not talking about expert users, but ordinary customers.

Rather, my observation is that consolidation of this kind generally levels down the quality of service to the lowest common denominator, where it becomes even more a back office function in which cost reduction takes precedence over service delivery. That dilutes accountability and makes errors harder to deal with; I also expect it to lead to longer, slower, payments. See Civil Service Pensions for an example of such en****tification

That is why I'm glad to take the bet with @styles. If my fears are wrong, and we end up with something as fast, reliable and good as the Passport Office, I'll be delighted.