Southern Delay Repay problem

[AdamWW]

Anyone come across this before?

I claimed for a delay due to a missed connection caused by a late running Southern train, putting in the separate legs of the itinerary in my claim.

It came back (eventually) as refused because they couldn't find my journey, which according to the refusal included "Changing at station" N/A.
I was invited to resubmit including any "changeover details" (new word to me) in my claim.

Yet not only am I sure that I did include that first time, I had no choice because the form will only let you pick from journeys in its database anyway.

Possibly I somehow made a mistake in one of the legs though - they aren't so stupid as to let you actually see the details of your previous claim.

It did offer me a "journey I'd previously made" as a quick option when claiming again, but again without seeing the details.

Any ideas how this happened?

I generally go for the incompetence over malice explanation but I'm struggling to see how this could legitimately happen.

And as a final bit of fun, to resubmit you go through the same claim process as usual and there doesn't seem to be any extension to the time limit to allow for the long time it took them to reject the first one.

 

[Haywain]

If you're having problems with a form, or just feel it's easier to explain, send them an email or phone them.

 

[WesternLancer]

I do recall having to appeal a GTR delay repay claim by contacting their customer services as couldn’t find another way explain why their decision was wrong.
That was more than 18 months ago so I don’t know if their on line process has changed

I used an online customer service page and tried to set it out as clearly as I could with the train info and what happened listed clearly and made it clear it was an appeal ref the original d-r claim reference number automatically given by the original claim.

IIRC this did resolve it.

Not sure this really answers your questions but might be a way forward that circumvents automated systems that can’t cope with what sounds like a relatively straightforward claim…