split ticketing

[Bletchleyite]

I paid by debit card so can't do anything with that I believe.

You can't do a S75 but you can do a chargeback.

 

[1lor]

You can't do a S75 but you can do a chargeback.

What is that?

 

[Watershed]

I don't agree and just asserting that a term can have multiple definitions in the same document which can magically all mean the most favourable thing to the passenger *at the same time* doesn't really convince me.

We can't just say "ah that's ONE journey if you want to claim Delay Repay" (and extract the maximum possible recompense) while at the same time insist that the journey was Derby to Crewe for the purposes of extracting an abandoned journey refund, conveniently ignoring we just said the passenger's journey was the entire Derby to Hamilton.

By the same logic, if the OP took the car the whole way, would you argue there was no journey at all? So no abandoned journey?

This is clearly inconsistent.

Because if the passenger buys other tickets separately, or is even gifted them by another person, the retailer has no idea the tickets are being used as part of a wider journey unless that is declared to them by the passenger.

I have consistently used the definition of a passenger's journey as being where they travel from and to. I also think that the man on the Clapham omnibus would think the journey was Derby to Hamilton and I would expect a judge to think that was what the NRCoT intend by its use of the term journey, too.

If you buy separate tickets for a single itinerary, and decide to refund three of the four, it's daft to suggest the original itinerary is the "journey".

Ok - I don't think we're going to agree on this one. But it doesn't matter, because OP is not limited to relying on the NRCoT provisions - as you rightly say yourself.

I personally don't know what her other options are, and said elsewhere other posters may be able to assist. Nonetheless, I do not think it is reasonable to expect unsubstantiated assertions from anonymous posters on the internet who haven't declared their expertise, to constitute good advice when it comes to finding out one's legal position. I, for one, am certainly much less than convinced that the term "journey" can have multiple, spurious definitions within the same contract, and saying "yes it can yes it can" isn't really cutting it, at least for me.

There's nothing unsubstantiated about linking to the NRCoT and CRA. But yes, if the OP wants formal legal advice then a rail forum is unlikely to be able to offer that.

I paid by debit card so can't do anything with that I believe.

You can still raise a chargeback. Ultimately those are your options at this stage - chargeback, Rail Ombudsman or continuing to try and get something directly out of the retailer.

What is that?

Here is a brief guide to chargebacks.

 

[Raileasy]

What is that?

Hi there, I can confirm we have refunded you and emailed you confirmation of this. If you need any further help just reply to our email. Thanks, Joe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is that?

Just for information as Raileasy have replied confirming a refund has been sent to you (note it may take 3-5 days to appear in your bank account depending on your bank), so there is no need for you to actually do this.

There are 2 ways to get money back from a transaction on a credit/debit card.

A S75 (Section 75) claim is where you claim against the card company who then try to get it back from the retailer. if they don't get it back from the retailer that is the card company's loss. It stems from the way credit cards work legally, in that in legal effect the card company buys the goods/services and you buy them off the card company, which renders them liable for the performance of the contract. This only applies to credit cards, and only for an item costing over £100 (I think that is per single product or service, so it may not apply here anyway even if you did pay by credit card). S75 is particularly useful where you've bought goods or services from a company which then goes bust and those goods/services were either not delivered or were faulty, because you get your money even if the supplier is completely bankrupt.

A chargeback is where you ask your bank to reverse the transaction. The reason isn't different from S75, but there is no lower limit of cost, it can be done on debit as well as credit cards, and you don't get the money unless they succeed in getting the funds back from the merchant.

I hope that is useful, but as mentioned it seems this has now been resolved without the need for this.

 

[1lor]

Hi yes I just saw the refund notification in my email thanks.

 

[MotCO]

To go back to the OP's earlier concern about being worried if a long journey, as she tried to undertake, is delayed at any stage meaning that she will be late getting home. If your journey (i.e. the whole of Derby to Hamilton) is delayed at any stage, and you miss your last connection, the railway has an obligation to get you to your final destination (Hamilton). This may mean you being directed to take a train by a train company not listed on your tickets, arranging a taxi to get you to your destination, or putting you up in a hotel for the night. I don't know what your disability is, and it might make it more difficult, but that should not excuse the railway. The key is to ask staff for their advice should any delay occur.

 

[yorkie]

I do not think the solution is to fly; you'd have the hassle of getting to/from the airports. There is also less choice over travel time, with few suitable flights per day.

I would go by train, bearing this in mind:

To go back to the OP's earlier concern about being worried if a long journey, as she tried to undertake, is delayed at any stage meaning that she will be late getting home. If your journey (i.e. the whole of Derby to Hamilton) is delayed at any stage, and you miss your last connection, the railway has an obligation to get you to your final destination (Hamilton). This may mean you being directed to take a train by a train company not listed on your tickets, arranging a taxi to get you to your destination, or putting you up in a hotel for the night. I don't know what your disability is, and it might make it more difficult, but that should not excuse the railway. The key is to ask staff for their advice should any delay occur.

and, as I said earlier, if arrival time is crucial, book an earlier itinerary than the one you need.

If you do get delayed by over an hour, the relevant train company would compensate you to the full value of the ticket(s) for the entire outward or return journey.

If you start getting lifts or taxis etc at your own expense in order to minimise a delay, things can get very complicated, you may reduce your entitlement to delay compensation and may not get anything back.

 

[1lor]

I do not think the solution is to fly; you'd have the hassle of getting to/from the airports. There is also less choice over travel time, with few suitable flights per day.

I would go by train, bearing this in mind:

and, as I said earlier, if arrival time is crucial, book an earlier itinerary than the one you need.

If you do get delayed by over an hour, the relevant train company would compensate you to the full value of the ticket(s) for the entire outward or return journey.

If you start getting lifts or taxis etc at your own expense in order to minimise a delay, things can get very complicated, you may reduce your entitlement to delay compensation and may not get anything back.

I used to fly but they changed the service so there's a layover, I had to use a train this time as I was carrying a large item and didn't want to pay extra for carriage on the plane.

I would have done national express if the service was back to normal.

 

[Starmill]

I've been in the situation myself where I paid for a return ticket and wasn't able to make the return journey by rail because the train was withdrawn from the timetable. I was refunded but only for the difference between the price I'd paid and the price of the appropriate single for the journey i.e. I only got about 2% of my money back. I didn't think there was really anything that could realistically be done there because it would have inconvenienced me significantly to try travelling and then be delayed so I just accepted the loss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've been in the situation myself where I paid for a return ticket and wasn't able to make the return journey by rail because the train was withdrawn from the timetable. I was refunded but only for the difference between the price I'd paid and the price of the appropriate single for the journey i.e. I only got about 2% of my money back. I didn't think there was really anything that could realistically be done there because it would have inconvenienced me significantly to try travelling and then be delayed so I just accepted the loss.

That sounds like an error. As you abandoned your return journey due to the railway cancelling the train after you bought your ticket, a 50% refund would be due. Though plenty of TOCs seem to try to argue otherwise.

 

[Starmill]

That sounds like an error. As you abandoned your return journey due to the railway cancelling the train after you bought your ticket, a 50% refund would be due. Though plenty of TOCs seem to try to argue otherwise.

The trouble is I don't know of anything publicly available to say it's a 50% refund? The quote given where it says it is from internal knowledgebase.

 

[Watershed]

The trouble is I don't know of anything publicly available to say it's a 50% refund? The quote given where it says it is from internal knowledgebase.

I think you're reliant on common law, and/or the definition of 'appropriate amount' in the Consumer Rights Act.

Some TOCs and retailers would argue that, if you hold a return ticket but abandon the return journey due to disruption, you are due a refund of the difference to the single (which is often a negligible sum) - after all, this is what you 'should' have paid.

But this is not an entirely relevant hypothetical; I think most passengers would balk at paying 98% of the cost of a return to make a one-way journey. I think 50% is more likely to be a fair, and therefore 'appropriate' amount in most circumstances.

 

[Starmill]

I think you're reliant on common law, and/or the definition of 'appropriate amount' in the Consumer Rights Act.

Some TOCs and retailers would argue that, if you hold a return ticket but abandon the return journey due to disruption, you are due a refund of the difference to the single (which is often a negligible sum) - after all, this is what you 'should' have paid.

But this is not an entirely relevant hypothetical; I think most passengers would balk at paying 98% of the cost of a return to make a one-way journey. I think 50% is more likely to be a fair, and therefore 'appropriate' amount in most circumstances.

Agreed on all points I think.

 

[AlterEgo]

The trouble is I don't know of anything publicly available to say it's a 50% refund? The quote given where it says it is from internal knowledgebase.

There isn't, although having paid for a return journey and being forced to travel by the railway's omission only one way, it seems unfair for the railway to stick you with the financial penalty as if you'd bought a single from the outset.

 

[Haywain]

There isn't, although having paid for a return journey and being forced to travel by the railway's omission only one way, it seems unfair for the railway to stick you with the financial penalty as if you'd bought a single from the outset.

Forced? It is, as @yorkie has stated, a choice. It may not be a great choice, but it is not forced.

 

[Starmill]

Forced? It is, as @yorkie has stated, a choice. It may not be a great choice, but it is not forced.

It is technically a choice I think yes, although it could be described as a Hobson's choice maybe. I think if 'do not travel' advice had been issued it would have not actually been a choice, and I might therefore have pursued the refund of a larger proportion more assertively, but as it was my bank account was credited with the £1 or whatever it was and I just couldn't be bothered with the hassle of arguing. Incidentally if the tickets were all just set as singles at exactly half of a current return then this would automatically solve this one. But of course there are other factors there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is technically a choice I think yes, although it could be described as a Hobson's choice maybe. I think if 'do not travel' advice had been issued it would have not actually been a choice, and I might therefore have pursued the refund of a larger proportion more assertively, but as it was my bank account was credited with the £1 or whatever it was and I just couldn't be bothered with the hassle of arguing. Incidentally if the tickets were all just set as singles at exactly half of a current return then this would automatically solve this one. But of course there are other factors there.

Single-fare pricing solves a very large number of problems, to be fair - not just this! But yes, this is one of the things it fixes.

 

[Starmill]

Single-fare pricing solves a very large number of problems, to be fair - not just this! But yes, this is one of the things it fixes.

Oh it sure does yes. Just an incidental example.

 

[317 forever]

I wasn‘t referring to delays, just the simple fact of planning the journey in terms of routing and cost in the first place.

Indeed road traffic delays can be just as bad and at times worse than rail delays and are often far more stressful than a train delay, as you can normally walk around on the train and, on occasions get a drink or or a snack on board.

Another contrast is that with train delays they usually tell you what is happening and often give estimates or even specific revised arrival times. Once you are delayed in traffic the length of delay is unpredictable, and of course unannounceable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

In August I travelled from Stockport to Woking, splitting my ticket at Crewe and Euston, the walked to St Pancras to reach Woking via London Bridge & Waterloo. I had plenty of time so reached London with a combo of Northern and LNWR.

Anyway, I reached Crewe and London on time but the train reached Woking 25 minutes late. The SWR guard promised us we were entitled to 25 % Delay Repay. I believed in my case this would mean 25% of my London - Woking ticket.

I decided, all things considered, to make do without the relatively small compensation. This thread has made me curious as to whether I might have been entitled to 25% compensation on my full itinerary, although I genuinely believe it was unlikely at the time never mind 6 weeks after the event. Even if the answer would have been Yes, I accept it is too late now and am happy to have had a good value journey in full with not too long a delay really.

 

[Watershed]

Another contrast is that with train delays they usually tell you what is happening and often give estimates or even specific revised arrival times. Once you are delayed in traffic the length of delay is unpredictable, and of course unannounceable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

In August I travelled from Stockport to Woking, splitting my ticket at Crewe and Euston, the walked to St Pancras to reach Woking via London Bridge & Waterloo. I had plenty of time so reached London with a combo of Northern and LNWR.

Anyway, I reached Crewe and London on time but the train reached Woking 25 minutes late. The SWR guard promised us we were entitled to 25 % Delay Repay. I believed in my case this would mean 25% of my London - Woking ticket.

I decided, all things considered, to make do without the relatively small compensation. This thread has made me curious as to whether I might have been entitled to 25% compensation on my full itinerary, although I genuinely believe it was unlikely at the time never mind 6 weeks after the event. Even if the answer would have been Yes, I accept it is too late now and am happy to have had a good value journey in full with not too long a delay really.

Yes, provided your itinerary allowed the minimum connection time throughout, you are entitled to delay compensation based on the cost of all tickets held.

 

[Starmill]

I decided, all things considered, to make do without the relatively small compensation. This thread has made me curious as to whether I might have been entitled to 25% compensation on my full itinerary, although I genuinely believe it was unlikely at the time never mind 6 weeks after the event. Even if the answer would have been Yes, I accept it is too late now and am happy to have had a good value journey in full with not too long a delay really.

Yes in theory. In practice claims are often not paid including the value of the tickets which were finished being used before a qualifying delay occurred. It's very tricky to get those paid. The Rail Ombudsman will probably just accept the argument from the company that the trains weren't late at that point, despite that being inconsistent with the Conditions. You may have needed to make a County Court claim to recover the difference between what they paid out willingly and the full value of the compensation due.

 

[317 forever]

Thank you both for your replies. This is all academic and I am still not going to pursue Delay Reply. However, I did stop off in Crewe for an hour for lunch. This may put any entitlement for compensation on the Stockport - Crewe ticket in doubt. I did not walk too quickly from Euston to St Pancras, and even let 2 or 3 465s go past at London Bridge so that I could use a 375 instead. So I can understand a legal argument that I reached Woking late through "contributory negligence", not just the railway delay.

 

[Wolfie]

Forced? It is, as @yorkie has stated, a choice. It may not be a great choice, but it is not forced.

Fine, MCOL it is...Litigate every time in such circumstances. That will cost the TOCs bucketloads....

 

[yorkie]

Another contrast is that with train delays they usually tell you what is happening and often give estimates or even specific revised arrival times. Once you are delayed in traffic the length of delay is unpredictable, and of course unannounceable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

In August I travelled from Stockport to Woking, splitting my ticket at Crewe and Euston, the walked to St Pancras to reach Woking via London Bridge & Waterloo. I had plenty of time so reached London with a combo of Northern and LNWR.

Anyway, I reached Crewe and London on time but the train reached Woking 25 minutes late. The SWR guard promised us we were entitled to 25 % Delay Repay. I believed in my case this would mean 25% of my London - Woking ticket.

I decided, all things considered, to make do without the relatively small compensation. This thread has made me curious as to whether I might have been entitled to 25% compensation on my full itinerary, although I genuinely believe it was unlikely at the time never mind 6 weeks after the event. Even if the answer would have been Yes, I accept it is too late now and am happy to have had a good value journey in full with not too long a delay really.

If it was all one journey, on a valid itinerary, then yes you can claim for the whole journey.

Sometimes claiming for such a journey can be tricky, but if you held a through itinerary (e.g tickets bought through a split ticket provider) and one or more of the trains in that itinerary was delayed, that would be very strong evidence of your claim.

However...

Thank you both for your replies. This is all academic and I am still not going to pursue Delay Reply. However, I did stop off in Crewe for an hour for lunch. This may put any entitlement for compensation on the Stockport - Crewe ticket in doubt. I did not walk too quickly from Euston to St Pancras, and even let 2 or 3 465s go past at London Bridge so that I could use a 375 instead. So I can understand a legal argument that I reached Woking late through "contributory negligence", not just the railway delay.

... in this case, given the extended breaks, I think it would be unreasonable to make a claim from Stockport to Woking; it looks to me like London to Woking was arguably for all intents and purposes a separate journey, and I don't think it would be reasonable to claim for anything other than London to Woking (which would be 25% of the cost of a single, or 12.5% of the cost of a return)

 

[Wolfie]

If it was all one journey, on a valid itinerary, then yes you can claim for the whole journey.

Sometimes claiming for such a journey can be tricky, but if you held a through itinerary (e.g tickets bought through a split ticket provider) and one or more of the trains in that itinerary was delayed, that would be very strong evidence of your claim.

However...

... in this case, given the extended breaks, I think it would be unreasonable to make a claim from Stockport to Woking; it looks to me like London to Woking was arguably for all intents and purposes a separate journey, and I don't think it would be reasonable to claim for anything other than London to Woking (which would be 25% of the cost of a single, or 12.5% of the cost of a return)

Absolutely agree your last para. Passengers should no more try it on than TOCs.

 

[317 forever]

If it was all one journey, on a valid itinerary, then yes you can claim for the whole journey.

Sometimes claiming for such a journey can be tricky, but if you held a through itinerary (e.g tickets bought through a split ticket provider) and one or more of the trains in that itinerary was delayed, that would be very strong evidence of your claim.

However...

... in this case, given the extended breaks, I think it would be unreasonable to make a claim from Stockport to Woking; it looks to me like London to Woking was arguably for all intents and purposes a separate journey, and I don't think it would be reasonable to claim for anything other than London to Woking (which would be 25% of the cost of a single, or 12.5% of the cost of a return)

Thank you for replying to both my points.

I have gleaned that if we split our tickets on an advertised reasonable through itinerary, we should be able to claim Delay Repay for all our tickets rather than just the one for the journey leg where the delay occurred.

 

[Haywain]

Fine, MCOL it is...Litigate every time in such circumstances. That will cost the TOCs bucketloads....

Don’t be ridiculous. The OP has received a refund, which I had stated was due. My comment was about the words being used and not the outcome.

 

[Starmill]

I think we can all agree that, in general, litigation against a train company is much, much, more likely to get you what you actually want than a lengthy process of backwards and forwards attempting to get them to accept being wrong voluntarily.

 

[Haywain]

Most available options require engagement first, so whilst it may be the way to yield results in the long run it should never be seen as the first option.