Theoretical: Delay replay on split ticket

[najaB]

So, continuing the discussion from this thread: Delay repay on a split ticket

I think a journey is fairly clear cut. It is start to end. Origin to Destination. Splits in between are simply legs of a journey. Shame that some TOCs don't see it that way.

It is not in the least bit clear cut.

It is clear-cut.

So, entitlement to delay repay should be based on the delay to the end-to-end journey being made, rather than the delay encountered on any leg(s)?

The passenger is entitled to make a journey from Darlington to London using two or more tickets and is entitled to claim Delay Repay for their journey.

Are they entitled to make a delay repay claim if, for example, the train operating one leg is delayed but they arrive at their destination less than 30 minutes later than expected by taking an alternate service?

With respect, that doesn’t define what a journey is. All we know is that whatever a journey it is, it can be made using more than one ticket.

Is a passenger entitled to make a delay repay claim if, for example, the train operating one leg is delayed but they arrive at their destination with a delay of less than 30 minutes by varying their itinerary?

 

[JamesRowden]

So, continuing the discussion from this thread: Delay repay on a split ticket

Is a passenger entitled to make a delay repay claim if, for example, the train operating one leg is delayed but they arrive at their destination with a delay of less than 30 minutes by varying their itinerary?

An experience I had in November 2016 may give some insight:

• Made a Battle-Waterloo-Winchester journey, and then a Winchester-Basingstoke-Exeter-Barnstaple journey using a Battle-Barnstaple return and a Basingstoke-Winchester return.
• A cable fire at Frant led me to being delayed by over 30 minutes on my Battle-Waterloo-Winchester journey.
• I made a delay repay claim using the Southeastern website inputting a Battle to Winchester via Waterloo journey with both tickets included in the claim.
• The claim was rejected. I called Southeastern where I was told that the claim was rejected since the origin and destination of the journey did not match a ticket which I had bought. The Southeastern employee then looked up how much I would have been delayed if I had made the Battle-Waterloo-Exeter-Barnstaple journey without breaking the journey using the train that I had caught from Battle. The result was a delay of over 2 hours resulting in me getting 100% of the price of the Battle-Barnstaple ticket refunded, even though in such a situation I could have arrived at Barnstaple at the time scheduled via Basingstoke if I had travelled via Paddington (which is the route that I would have taken if I wasn't travelling to Winchester).

So I was refunded based upon the route which I had planned to take whilst using the ticket upon which the disruption occured on, and subsequently I received compensation for a longer journey and a bigger delay than the journey that I was actually delayed on (since I broke the journey on that ticket at Basingstoke where I transferred to the Basingstoke-Winchester return ticket).

 

[AlterEgo]

An experience I had in November 2016 may give some insight:

• Made a Battle-Waterloo-Winchester journey, and then a Winchester-Basingstoke-Exeter-Barnstaple journey using a Battle-Barnstaple return and a Basingstoke-Winchester return.
• A cable fire at Frant led me to being delayed by over 30 minutes on my Battle-Waterloo-Winchester journey.
• I made a delay repay claim using the Southeastern website inputting a Battle to Winchester via Waterloo journey with both tickets included in the claim.
• The claim was rejected. I called Southeastern where I was told that the claim was rejected since the origin and destination of the journey did not match a ticket which I had bought. The Southeastern employee then looked up how much I would have been delayed if I had made the Battle-Waterloo-Exeter-Barnstaple journey without breaking the journey using the train that I had caught from Battle. The result was a delay of over 2 hours resulting in me getting 100% of the price of the Battle-Barnstaple ticket refunded, even though in such a situation I could have arrived at Barnstaple at the time scheduled via Basingstoke if I had travelled via Paddington (which is the route that I would have taken if I wasn't travelling to Winchester).

So I was refunded based upon the route which I had planned to take whilst using the ticket upon which the disruption occured on, and subsequently I received compensation for a longer journey and a bigger delay than the journey that I was actually delayed on (since I broke the journey on that ticket at Basingstoke where I transferred to the Basingstoke-Winchester return ticket).

Interesting that you class that as two journeys.

Many would argue you only made one journey. This is not based on anything concrete, but rather the logic rests on the NRCoT saying “you may use two or more tickets to make a journey”. What that clause does NOT say is that if you have two or more tickets then this is always just one journey.

The concept of a journey is undefined and relies entirely, on my view, on individual circumstances.

The longer I read the NRCoT the happier I am that it leaves an enormous swathe of circumstances very much undefined.

 

[robbeech]

I like to think (which I have mentioned before) that if they are leaving it so vague and find it acceptable to do so then it should be down to the passenger to define the journey. If they cared so much they’d make sure it was defined better.

 

[AlterEgo]

I like to think (which I have mentioned before) that if they are leaving it so vague and find it acceptable to do so then it should be down to the passenger to define the journey. If they cared so much they’d make sure it was defined better.

If you let the passenger define what the journey is in all cases then you leave yourself open to preposterous interpretations. I could give lots of examples.

 

[robbeech]

If you let the passenger define what the journey is in all cases then you leave yourself open to preposterous interpretations. I could give lots of examples.

Sensible ones, within the realms of the ticket validity. Though I know what you’re saying.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that you class that as two journeys.

Many would argue you only made one journey. This is not based on anything concrete, but rather the logic rests on the NRCoT saying “you may use two or more tickets to make a journey”. What that clause does NOT say is that if you have two or more tickets then this is always just one journey.

The concept of a journey is undefined and relies entirely, on my view, on individual circumstances.

The longer I read the NRCoT the happier I am that it leaves an enormous swathe of circumstances very much undefined.

I've never claimed for the first part of a trip involving break of journey. I've always taken the view that not proceeding from the start on the ticket to the end of the ticket by as time-sensitive a manner as possible (on any Permitted Route) basically renders you ineligible. At a push, only the bit after the break would be, and I think that's the only case I'd claim for.

 

[sheff1]

If you let the passenger define what the journey is in all cases then you leave yourself open to preposterous interpretations. I could give lots of examples.

Many terms are defined in the NRCoT and it would be within 'the railway's' power to define a "journey" therein. As they have chosen not to, it is surely reasonable to assume that they are content for passengers do define their own.

 

[AlterEgo]

Many terms are defined in the NRCoT and it would be within 'the railway's' power to define a "journey" therein. As they have chosen not to, it is surely reasonable to assume that they are content for passengers do define their own.

The NRCoT is equally binding on passenger and TOC with rights and responsibilities outlined for each. It’s neither more nor less reasonable to suggest passengers define undefined terms on their own, as it is to suggest TOCs do the same thing.

It is clearly not reasonable for individual passengers to make up their own definition of terms in a legally binding document.

A court would probably decide, based on common sense and/or legal precedent. A lot of people might not like to hear what a judge thinks a journey is.

I would prefer to see “journey” defined thus: a railway itinerary based over a single day, or, where not practical, including an overnight break of journey but NOT breaks of journey on the same calendar day, along a route permitted by the Routeing Guide or otherwise offered by NRE’s booking engine available on a single ticket, between origin and destination.

This prevents people from claiming that their track bashing trip from Weymouth to Bristol via London on more than one ticket is “a journey”, and prevents people from wilfully abusing the principle of Delay Repay.

The above definition isn’t perfect but it’s a start.

 

[robbeech]

There is some logic there certainly. I guess one problem would they’d have to play the *reasonable* card in there.
If you had a connection to make, one option was 5 minutes and the other 12 and You deliberately went for the 12 minute one to enable you to use station facilities* and this slightly later train subsequently broke down then you could argue a toc would say they won’t pay out on the full journey as you should have caught the earlier one.
(This is assuming minimum connection. Times are made).

*not a break of journey

 

[sheff1]

It is clearly not reasonable for individual passengers to make up their own definition of terms in a legally binding document.

I don't disagree with those sentiments at the highest level, but Rail Settlement Plan Ltd (who are apparently the copyright holders for the NRCoT) did not, for whatever reason*, feel the need to define all the terms in their document and indeed removed some definitions - for example, "Break of journey" which you mention in post #9 is not defined in the NRCoT, although it was defined in the NRCoC which were superseded by NRCoT.

If the document owners leave gaps then the only option for passengers is to try and fill in the gaps when seeking recompense under the conditions. If other parties to the agreement are unable to agree with the passsnger's "gap filling" then, as you say, it appears a court ruling would probably be required.

* Accepted good practice when drafting legally binding documents is to define specific terms within them to make clear what the binding conditions mean. Why the authors of the NCRoT decided not to follow such practice only they can answer.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't disagree with those sentiments at the highest level, but Rail Settlement Plan Ltd (who are apparently the copyright holders for the NRCoT) did not, for whatever reason*, feel the need to define all the terms in their document and indeed removed some definitions - for example, "Break of journey" which you mention in post #9 is not defined in the NRCoT, although it was defined in the NRCoC which were superseded by NRCoT.

Probably because there’s little point defining a break of journey if you can’t define what a journey is in the first place.

If the document owners leave gaps then the only option for passengers is to try and fill in the gaps when seeking recompense under the conditions.

Equally, I hope you agree that the same applies to the Train Operating Companies - for every part of the document. It is not their document; they all have to abide by it as part of their franchise. They are as equally bound to it as the passenger.