Should there be discretion on Delay Repay thresholds?

[AlterEgo]

How does ot work then? You tap in and out, normally 25 minutes apart, but one day you stop for a coffee and tap out 65 minutes after tapping in - do you get automatic delay repay?

The system reconciles your tap in to the train you must have taken.

 

[Starmill]

How does ot work then? You tap in and out, normally 25 minutes apart, but one day you stop for a coffee and tap out 65 minutes after tapping in - do you get automatic delay repay?

It guesses which service you travelled on based on the tap times. If both arrived right time, it won't award anything at all.

If the first one was 3 minutes late and the second was 5 minutes late, you might get 5 minutes rather than 3, it's true. However if anyone cares enough to waste their day to game a system like that for 10p then they can have it, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Egg Centric]

It just seems counter productive if hoping train loses time to get more delay Repay, rather than hoping it makes up time.

Counter productive how? Your "hoping" won't make the train any faster or slower! I suppose you could in principle be a bit deliberately slow at dispatch to try to delay the train but this would be picked up upon pretty quickly and if it were proven a good way to end up in the poorhouse as well as prison.

If you value delay repay over your time - and there's nothing wrong with that - then I suggest becoming familiar with minimum change times at various stations. This can on long itineraries in principle cascade literally a minutes delay into an hour or more. Certainly a lot more fun than trying to game EU261!

 

[megabusser]

In an ideal world, you might have a system where you get compensation of, say, 15% for 15 mins late, then an extra 2% for every additional minute late (16 mins = 22%, 17 mins = 24% etc) up to the max 100%. You could do this in a revenue-neutral way (ie the new system costs the same as the current one with the appropriate numbers), but avoid the artificial ‘cliff edges’. After all a 30 min delay isn’t twice as bad as a 15 min one.

However, I suspect that for many people, the simplicity of the current system is preferred, and for regular travellers it does all balance out in the wash (you win some you lose some).

 

[redreni]

It isn't possible to measure that though.

I'd just limit claims to a minimum of 5 quid and that would eliminate a huge amount of costly processing. There's a lot of arguing about one minute or forty five pence that goes on by people who want to argue a principle rather than anything else, classic vexatious time wasters really.

My consultancy fees are reasonable.

If sums under £5 are too trivial to worry about, could fares under £5 be reduced to zero to avoid the paperwork?

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal view is that the thresholds should be processed as 13, 28, 58, 118 minutes, but publicised as they are now as 15, 30, 60, 120.

This deals with the silly edge cases relating to trains running a minute early (which make the railway look really petty - if a train on an hourly frequency was cancelled you are an hour late as that one would have been a minute early too) without creating expectations of discretion.

 

[Watershed]

My personal view is that the thresholds should be processed as 13, 28, 58, 118 minutes, but publicised as they are now as 15, 30, 60, 120.

This deals with the silly edge cases relating to trains running a minute early (which make the railway look really petty - if a train on an hourly frequency was cancelled you are an hour late as that one would have been a minute early too) without creating expectations of discretion.

Agreed, that is the sensible way of handling the situation to be honest. If rolling that out is seen as too costly, you could only apply the leeway if the customer selected the next up band of compensation when claiming.

For example if the customer said they were 30-59 minutes late and the delay was recorded as 29 minutes, pay out the 30-59 minute rate. But if they said they were 15-29 minutes late, only pay that much.

 

[Bill57p9]

For example if the customer said they were 30-59 minutes late and the delay was recorded as 29 minutes, pay out the 30-59 minute rate. But if they said they were 15-29 minutes late, only pay that much.

It would be logical that a delay leading to a missed connection to a half hourly service (assuming the passenger makes the next one) would be treated as a 30 minute delay. To consider it less just feels wrong and certainly not customer focused - as do the behaviours @yorkie cites above.

Given the rules have been all but written to invite that kind of time wasting for both sides, I can't say it's the first bit surprising. I personally don't want to engage with that level of hassle and have personally got better uses for my time, but I can see the annoyance. Especially for a season ticket holder who commutes five days a week, and is delayed multiple times a week, having to argue over their 45p a journey must be mind-numbingly boring. But I also don't blame them for doing it when it's that or nothing.

Many will consider 45p not worth arguing over, however when a season ticket holder is inconvenienced several times over their ticket period both the admin and compensation will really add up.

My family and myself recently used an 8 in 15 rover. I have just submitted the resulting 17 DR claims (5 for all 3 of us plus 1 for 2 of us). None of these will be >£5 and all bar 2 will be <£2.25, but they add up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, that is the sensible way of handling the situation to be honest. If rolling that out is seen as too costly, you could only apply the leeway if the customer selected the next up band of compensation when claiming.

For example if the customer said they were 30-59 minutes late and the delay was recorded as 29 minutes, pay out the 30-59 minute rate. But if they said they were 15-29 minutes late, only pay that much.

It absolutely makes sense to cap the compensation paid at the lower of what is due and what the customer said they were claiming. I've had quite a few overpayments and those are all a waste of money when this could be fixed by a single line of code. The customer is not going to be unhappy if paid what they asked for, even if it was less than was strictly due.

 

[AlterEgo]

If sums under £5 are too trivial to worry about, could fares under £5 be reduced to zero to avoid the paperwork?

What paperwork?

As it stands claiming Delay Repay is a useless exercise in bureaucracy and personal time and only a small proportion of mostly captive customers who generally dislike the railway anyway tend to claim very small sums out of sheer principle. I'm pessimistic about the possibility or need for every claim to be automated.

You could get rid of all the piddly claims which are not really compensating any terrific inconvenience with basically no political fallout or negative effect on the bottom line. A few thousand people would wail and gnash their teeth on the Internet but the railway does not need to care about that. See all the other changes the railway has made recently with basically no meaningful pushback.

I know it's unpopular on here but everything I think should happen with the railway considers the political landscape we have to work with. That political landscape is not going to change much given that the loudest voices are generally power users who do not have any goodwill the railway needs to worry about losing.

 

[py_megapixel]

It absolutely makes sense to cap the compensation paid at the lower of what is due and what the customer said they were claiming. I've had quite a few overpayments and those are all a waste of money when this could be fixed by a single line of code. The customer is not going to be unhappy if paid what they asked for, even if it was less than was strictly due.

It's not clear to me why they bother even asking the customer how long they think the delay was, given this appears to be completely ignored.

 

[Harpo]

Given the frequent difficulties already seen with a supposedly rules-bound system, a hazy discretionary payment area isn’t going to go well is it?

 

[35B]

What paperwork?

As it stands claiming Delay Repay is a useless exercise in bureaucracy and personal time and only a small proportion of mostly captive customers who generally dislike the railway anyway tend to claim very small sums out of sheer principle. I'm pessimistic about the possibility or need for every claim to be automated.

You could get rid of all the piddly claims which are not really compensating any terrific inconvenience with basically no political fallout or negative effect on the bottom line. A few thousand people would wail and gnash their teeth on the Internet but the railway does not need to care about that. See all the other changes the railway has made recently with basically no meaningful pushback.

I know it's unpopular on here but everything I think should happen with the railway considers the political landscape we have to work with. That political landscape is not going to change much given that the loudest voices are generally power users who do not have any goodwill the railway needs to worry about losing.

A de minimis is reasonable, but £5 is too high - the system needs to acknowledge the value of time even on short journeys. A £1 threshold would make more sense.

However, the bigger issue is the obsessive focus on rights, and not accepting the rough with the smooth. I've had plenty of 28/31 minute scenarios, and never seen a hint that the outcome was Delay Repay related - it has been regulation every time. I bank the win when I get it, and put the loss down to experience.

Meanwhile, we lose sight of the real importance of schemes like Delay Repay. A friend of my daughter was delayed on Saturday night, and a last train connection not held when it reasonably could have been*. The TOC sorted her out with a taxi, but her half hour delay was more than doubled by having to be taxied.

* - the connecting train was late approaching, both were delayed by a trespass incident, and then the onward train was released before anyone could have made the connection.

 

[styles]

To me, the issue isn't applying discretion to delays of 29 or 29.5 minutes - it's that the body deciding what the precise delay is is the same body as is benefitting from not paying out compensation.

I still see no great reason not to centralise Delay Repay claims to a central body, independent from the TOCs.

This will solve a number of issues such as:

• Passengers not knowing which train operating company to claim from
• Train operating companies, ahem, "fudging" the numbers to classify a 31 minute delay as 29.5 minutes to avoid a payout
• The inconsistency of companies providing different methods of compensation payout options
• Train operating companies bouncing claims from one to another because they disagree on the delay attribution
• Inconsistencies in ancillary compensation claims e.g. what breakfast cost can be claimed when being delayed overnight
• Confusion from passengers not knowing if they can claim a taxi or a hotel or an Uber or a breakfast

Among many other things.

It's clear that most of the train operating companies have an agenda of avoiding paying out to passengers or reducing the amount of payout. I see no great argument for this all being delegated to the individual operators. And with the exception of open access operators who are meant to stand on their own two feet, employing people across different companies with different policies and procedures and attitudes is surely more costly than a centralised body under GBR.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This thread reminds me of why I have never claimed Delay Repay. It just seems so much hassle

 

[Bletchleyite]

This thread reminds me of why I have never claimed Delay Repay. It just seems so much hassle

I've never found it hassle. It takes a couple of minutes.

 

[35B]

To me, the issue isn't applying discretion to delays of 29 or 29.5 minutes - it's that the body deciding what the precise delay is is the same body as is benefitting from not paying out compensation.

I still see no great reason not to centralise Delay Repay claims to a central body, independent from the TOCs.

This will solve a number of issues such as:

• Passengers not knowing which train operating company to claim from
• Train operating companies, ahem, "fudging" the numbers to classify a 31 minute delay as 29.5 minutes to avoid a payout
• The inconsistency of companies providing different methods of compensation payout options
• Train operating companies bouncing claims from one to another because they disagree on the delay attribution
• Inconsistencies in ancillary compensation claims e.g. what breakfast cost can be claimed when being delayed overnight
• Confusion from passengers not knowing if they can claim a taxi or a hotel or an Uber or a breakfast

Among many other things.

It's clear that most of the train operating companies have an agenda of avoiding paying out to passengers or reducing the amount of payout. I see no great argument for this all being delegated to the individual operators. And with the exception of open access operators who are meant to stand on their own two feet, employing people across different companies with different policies and procedures and attitudes is surely more costly than a centralised body under GBR.

And if this is outsourced, the existing limited incentives on TOCs to get it right will be weakened further. All of the benefits described there could be achieved by compelling the TOC receiving the claim to action it under the rules, and then settle up within the industry, but without creating the circumstances for an arms length body to stall as much as possible because it's rewarded based on KPIs set by the industry.

 

[AlterEgo]

Given the frequent difficulties already seen with a supposedly rules-bound system, a hazy discretionary payment area isn’t going to go well is it?

This actually worked fine on Virgin West Coast back in the day. The official thresholds were 45 minutes on the Wolverhampton and Birmingham to London route and 60 on every other route. But I think we paid out at 43 and 57 minutes in reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

This thread reminds me of why I have never claimed Delay Repay. It just seems so much hassle

It is very easy if you decide to ignore the minutae. Takes about five minutes tops. The only complicated stuff is where TOCs can't decide which one has to pay out. That's a minority of cases.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

A de minimis is reasonable, but £5 is too high - the system needs to acknowledge the value of time even on short journeys.

Delay Repay makes no value judgement at all on one's time.

Meanwhile, we lose sight of the real importance of schemes like Delay Repay. A friend of my daughter was delayed on Saturday night, and a last train connection not held when it reasonably could have been*. The TOC sorted her out with a taxi, but her half hour delay was more than doubled by having to be taxied.

The only thing DR does is provide liquidated damages, it is not in any way an incentive to run trains on time. No Control decision has ever been made with Delay Repay in mind.

 

[Haywain]

• Inconsistencies in ancillary compensation claims e.g. what breakfast cost can be claimed when being delayed overnight
• Confusion from passengers not knowing if they can claim a taxi or a hotel or an Uber or a breakfast

These are completely unrelated to Delay Repay. Being provided with overnight accommodation has not bearing on it, other than confirming that the delay is over 60 or 120 minutes as applicable.

 

[35B]

Delay Repay makes no value judgement at all on one's time.

An unduly high de minimis would make such a judgment by extension, based on the fare - if set at £5, a £9.95 fare would be excluded for 50%, a £10.00 fare would be included, for the same degree of delay.

I'd generally be against the principle, because the value of Delay Repay could be progressively reduced over time by raising the cap.

 

[Starmill]

Many will consider 45p not worth arguing over, however when a season ticket holder is inconvenienced several times over their ticket period both the admin and compensation will really add up.

It sure will. An annual ticket holder who travels four or five times a week would know it well. These people of course still exist.

 

[Tetragon213]

A real frustration is when the arrival time is measured just outside the station so that it is regarded as 29 minutes, even though that was really 31 minutes when the train actually stopped at the station.

Ah, the XC special. Never 31 minutes late, always 29 and a half even if the doors didn't open until 32 minutes late with photographic evidence...

That was a fun one to argue on behalf of a colleague.

 

[walkingsophie]

In an ideal world, you might have a system where you get compensation of, say, 15% for 15 mins late, then an extra 2% for every additional minute late (16 mins = 22%, 17 mins = 24% etc) up to the max 100%. You could do this in a revenue-neutral way (ie the new system costs the same as the current one with the appropriate numbers), but avoid the artificial ‘cliff edges’. After all a 30 min delay isn’t twice as bad as a 15 min one.

However, I suspect that for many people, the simplicity of the current system is preferred, and for regular travellers it does all balance out in the wash (you win some you lose some).

Something like this is what I think too. The issue does stem from the delay to repay function not being continuous.

 

[35B]

Something like this is what I think too. The issue does stem from the delay to repay function not being continuous.

If you make it continuous, you add complexity and confusion, and put in conflict points at every point of the journey.

 

[py_megapixel]

If you make it continuous, you add complexity and confusion, and put in conflict points at every point of the journey.

It suppose it could be argued that passengers will find a continuous function more confusing, but what do you mean by "put in conflict points at every point of the journey"?

 

[redreni]

What paperwork?

The ticket. Why should I have to bother buying it if the railway is only getting £4 out of it? Can't they just suck up the loss and save me the bother?

And that's to say nothing of the paperwork that ensues if somebody does fail to pay a sub-£5 fare when it is due and gets caught....

A similar point could be made about low-value, sub-£5 change-of-route exesses. The railway wants to be able to impose disproportionate and deterrent sanctions against people for not paying those, whilst at the same time making them all but impossible to buy.

I totally get that things don't happen just because members of this forum think they ought to, but the trouble with a de minimis principle - or any principle - is there's absolutely no reason why anybody ought to accept it if it's one-sided and thus manifestly unreasonable. The silent majority to whom you seem to be appealing already don't claim small sums. You may be right that the people who do create paperwork by claiming small sums are not the sort of people who would be put off travelling by rail by your proposed rule, but they would fight it and they would have a point if the railway insists on retaining the right to fine or prosecute people for evading less than £5 at a a time in fares.

The fixed cost of the bureaucracy has to exist anyway for the claims that do meet your arbitrary threshold for being worth processing, and any marginal bureaucratic cost of scrutinising piddly claims could be avoided by just paying them without checking them, if, as you seem to be asserting, the sums involved aren't worth worrying about. (You might start scrutinising when the same person has claimed £3 or £4 more than, say, 25 times).

Personally I'm not going to be told I shouldn't be claiming a couple of quid by an industry that will quite happily go back and forth with me by email 6 or 7 times and trouble the Rail Ombudsman for the sake of a couple of quid. Even when they are quite obviously in the wrong.

As a commuter, the railway already reserves the right to delay me by 14 minutes in each direction (or 29 minutes in each direction if the delay is caused by the Elizabeth Line) - more than that if you factor in the discrepancy between the timing of the connections I usually make in reality, versus the MCTs - without attaching any value to that time at all or paying any compensation. It can add hours per week to my commute without compensation. Arguing that there should be a further barrier to getting any compensation because the value of a single claim may not reach the £5 threshold is certainly something London MPs would get their ears bent about if it ever were to happen. For my part I would be quite happy for a £5 limit to apply per claim if I could consolidate several delayed journeys into one claim, but of course the industry doesn't permit that, so maybe you can see why it wouldn't go down awfully well if the solution to all the admin was just to stop me claiming anything at all?

 

[Gaelan]

I've never found it hassle. It takes a couple of minutes.

It certainly is hassle when - as I did recently - claiming for a group of 3, with tickets split 3 ways, delayed in both directions. Absolutely worth it in that case though, as I'm getting 3 figures back!

 

[teaspoon]

Meanwhile, we lose sight of the real importance of schemes like Delay Repay. A friend of my daughter was delayed on Saturday night, and a last train connection not held when it reasonably could have been*. The TOC sorted her out with a taxi, but her half hour delay was more than doubled by having to be taxied.

An Avanti revenue protection chappie on the gates at Euston recently tried to stop me from boarding a service to Glasgow (on which I had a Seatfrog upgrade), because it was full - and tried directing me to the service going via Birmingham. I wasn't quite quick enough to point out to him that the extra hour it took would have cost the company ~£140. It turned out that the preceding service had been cancelled, so perhaps by that point they'd more or less written off the day's fares.

This thread reminds me of why I have never claimed Delay Repay. It just seems so much hassle

It does reduce the cost of travel somewhat - I've had several hundred pounds reimbursed already this year. I'd much rather be on time.
(and I say that as someone currently on a service that looks like it's going to get to Euston about 14 minutes late.)

 

[35B]

It suppose it could be argued that passengers will find a continuous function more confusing, but what do you mean by "put in conflict points at every point of the journey"?

Sorry, I meant user journey. At the moment, there's a monetary threshold at 15, 30 and 60 minutes. This would introduce that conflict at every whole minute, albeit that the amount at issue would be smaller.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

- I've had several hundred pounds reimbursed already this year. I'd much rather be on time.

Wow. That is a lot!