Virgin trains compensation

[bb21]

However, we have been here and done this before. I remember cases where people were told, many years ago, that Advance tickets purchased as part of a return journey were to be treated as such for the purposes of refunds and compensation. Some forum members disagreed that this was appropriate then and I am sure they will continue to do so now - perhaps because it simply makes them happy.

I remember that well.

For refunds, if the customer elect not to travel, both outward and return can be refunded as refunding only one leg is ridiculous due to the other leg being meaningless.

For compensation, I cannot remember the exact wording but discretion is supposed to be exercised. The outward leg being late does not result in the return leg automatically being eligible for compensation, however if it were clear that the delay on the outward portion had a significant impact on the customer's purpose for the journey, then the return portion should be considered for compensation too.

If the OP did not explain that it had severely impacted on his plans for the day, there would be no compensation for tickets of the return leg.

 

[yorkie]

Except on the booking confirmation screen, where it is clearly stated the fare type purchased?

That's a fare type. At the moment you select the fare you want, only single fares are shown. All fares are "singles" and it is made clear that these are valid for a "return journey".

The website automatically converts singles into returns if you select the same fare type, in the case of Off Peak & Anytime category fares, but the customer is only informed at the very last stage, when viewing the "Basket", before paying.

It is absolutely absurd to suggest that a passenger should have such detailed knowledge of the inside workings of a booking engine and it is also absurd to suggest that a passenger has in any way "selected" a single as NajaB suggests (unless NajaB is counting the selections necessary to buy a return fare as also selecting singles, in which case that hardly strengthens the anti-customer argument!).

Regardless of whether the fare type shown in the basket, after selecting two singles, is a "Return" or two singles, the fact is that this is shown as constituting a "Return journey".

I trust that settles the matter.

 

[bb21]

I will agree to disagree.

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure if you are trying to wind us up, but it certainly feels like it. It's not going to make me go away; quite the contrary.

I don't know why you think that anyone is trying to make anyone go away. Nor why you appear to believe that I'm picking a battle with you personally.

The OP specifically asked for opinions as to if they were correct or not, I provided one. sheff1 made a comparison to Ryanair, I provided a rebuttal to that comparison.

If you don't want me to provide opinions then say so and I'll quite happily find something else to occupy my time.

 

[najaB]

I will agree to disagree.

We can disagree together.

 

[yorkie]

I provided a rebuttal to that comparison..

I will examine that "rebuttal" one last time:

Ryanair is a bit different in that they don't offer return fares. In this case there are return fares defined, the OP chose to purchase two single fares instead.

Just in case anyone was in any doubt just how wrong the above anti-customer comment is, when you "choose your tickets", ALL fares shown are "single tickets" in order to "offer more flexibility", and this is for a "return journey".

It really couldn't be clearer. The customer made a return journey.

This thread shows what huge barriers customers can be up against. To hear such anti-passenger comments just makes me more determined to fight for what's right for customers.

It angers me, it saddens me, but I won't give up.

 

[bnm]

It angers me too, Yorkie.

And it saddens me that there are many apologists for the TOCs' actions.

 

[dcsprior]

It must be remembered that treating return journeys booked with single tickets as being a return (which'd be to the OP's advantage) could sometimes result in the customer losing out:

Compensation for delays between 60-120 minutes is 100% of the cost of a single or 50% of the cost of a return - so if tickets such as held by the OP count as a return, and you were delayed on the direction that you'd paid more for, you'd get less than you get under the interpretation that most (all?) TOCs currently apply.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

 

[yorkie]

It must be remembered that treating return journeys booked with single tickets as being a return (which'd be to the OP's advantage) could sometimes result in the customer losing out:

Compensation for delays between 60-120 minutes is 100% of the cost of a single or 50% of the cost of a return - so if tickets such as held by the OP count as a return, and you were delayed on the direction that you'd paid more for, you'd get less than you get under the interpretation that most (all?) TOCs currently apply.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

I don't think that's the correct interpretation; where a return journey is made on single fare(s), clearly it is the cost of the single fare(s) used at the time in question that matters. The only time the overall cost comes into it is for extensive 2+ hour delays, when compensation is elevated to take the other leg into consideration.

In the case of a return journey made using return fare(s) there is no alternative sensible option but to consider the value of the single leg in question to be half the overall cost.

 

[najaB]

In the case of a return journey made using return fare(s) there is no alternative sensible option but to consider the value of the single leg in question to be half the overall cost.

The problem with that 'sensible' option is that both the NRCoT and Virgin Trains' website say that compensation is based on the ticket held, not the journey being taken.

Two single tickets are not a return ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Saying "two single tickets are not a return ticket" I'd a meaningless statement (indeed, to be issued with a return ticket on the VT website, you can select two single fares, as I mentioned above!)

It is made clear Delay Repay applies to a disrupted "journey".

If course the value is taken from the "ticket(s)" held but they also say, for delays of 120mins, it applies to " (i.e. both portions not just one way)"

When you "choose your ticket" you are always choosing single fares (even if a return ticket ends up being issued!) .

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that 'sensible' option is that both the NRCoT and Virgin Trains' website say that compensation is based on the ticket held, not the journey being taken.

Two single tickets are not a return ticket.

The sensible thing is for it to change so Delay Repay to apply only to one leg of the journey (i.e. always to a single journey), even if for a very long (2hr +) delay it increases to, say, 150% of the fare paid.

It's quite unfair that someone making a return journey may well be compensate better than someone making a single journey.

 

[Cantab26]

Saying "two single tickets are not a return ticket" I'd a meaningless statement (indeed, to be issued with a return ticket on the VT website, you can select two single fares, as I mentioned above!)

It is made clear Delay Repay applies to a disrupted "journey".

If course the value is taken from the "ticket(s)" held but they also say, for delays of 120mins, it applies to " (i.e. both portions not just one way)"

When you "choose your ticket" you are always choosing single fares (even if a return ticket ends up being issued!) .

I may confess that I agree with najaB and bb21: I do not think that it is correct to treat two single tickets (i.e. an outward single and a return single) as if they were a return ticket for the purposes of calculating Delay Repay (or NRCOT) compensation as the public documents are currently worded.

I do not consider that the circumstances in which the passenger came to be in possession of a single versus a return ticket are relevant (leaving the unfair commercial practices regulations to one side).

My view is that the Virgin Trains booking matrix - which I think is awful for many reasons, including the fact that it obscures what it is doing in the background - does not change the key question: when the delay occurred, was the passenger travelling using a single ticket or a return ticket?

That being said, if I was a manager reviewing this file internally following an escalation by the customer, for such a paltry sum of less than £10 I would toe the company line on paper, but bung out £20 or similar in rail vouchers and make clear that this is an ex gratia payment and not a payment under the Delay Repay scheme.

---

There is of course a simple solution to this mess:

The sensible thing is for it to change so Delay Repay to apply only to one leg of the journey (i.e. always to a single journey), even if for a very long (2hr +) delay it increases to, say, 150% of the fare paid.

Simply amend the compensation provisions for delays of 120 mins or more to match that for delays of 60 to 119 mins:

"We will pay you compensation to the value of 200% of the cost of your single ticket or 200% of the cost of the relevant portion of your return ticket."

 

[AlterEgo]

A lot of people missing something rather key which would settle the matter - the definition of a "journey".

There is (in my view deliberately) no written down or codified definition of what "a journey" is in the NRCoT or any other document of its ilk. The ambiguity is enshrined thus.

I have read Virgin's Passenger Charter and can see both sides of the argument here!

Personally, I think that the Charter is clear enough in saying that compensation is based on the ticket and does refer to "a single ticket" or "portion of your return ticket". Two Advances are definitely not two portions of the same ticket, in my eyes.

This notwithstanding, TOCs will pay out on seasons and rovers not listed in their Charter as eligible for Delay Repay, so there is some wiggle room.

It would be more helpful if Virgin would reword their Charter to explain what it is they mean, exactly - given the ambiguity about what a "journey" actually is.

 

[Merseysider]

Simply amend the compensation provisions for delays of 120 mins or more to match that for delays of 60 to 119 mins [...]

I don't think that would be unreasonable at all.

Airlines are required to compensate above the price of the ticket for excessive delays, and that certainly worked out in the customer's favour.

 

[Andyh82]

The sensible thing is for it to change so Delay Repay to apply only to one leg of the journey (i.e. always to a single journey), even if for a very long (2hr +) delay it increases to, say, 150% of the fare paid.

It's quite unfair that someone making a return journey may well be compensate better than someone making a single journey.

That would make sense as a large number of long distance passengers are probably using a combination of advance singles rather than returns, and really the other part of a return is nothing to do with the delay being claimed for.

2 hours plus being 150% of the cost of the ticket, 4 hours plus being 200% would be a good idea in my opinion. The ticket being defined as either a single or 50% of a return.

 

[Merseysider]

That would make sense as a large number of long distance passengers are probably using a combination of advance singles rather than returns, and really the other part of a return is nothing to do with the delay being claimed for.

2 hours plus being 150% of the cost of the ticket, 4 hours plus being 200% would be a good idea in my opinion. The ticket being defined as either a single or 50% of a return.

What about 5-6 hour delays?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think that would be unreasonable at all.

Airlines are required to compensate above the price of the ticket for excessive delays, and that certainly worked out in the customer's favour.

That assumes the airline ticket was cheap. In some circumstances you could say the airline is required to compensate less than the value of the ticket.

The airline is also only required to pay out if it can be shown it was their fault.

 

[rmt4ever]

Why are you entitled to anything back? Someone getting hit by a train (I'm guessing suicide or attempted) is not the fault of the railway, therefore I wouldnt expect anything

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would make sense as a large number of long distance passengers are probably using a combination of advance singles rather than returns, and really the other part of a return is nothing to do with the delay being claimed for.

2 hours plus being 150% of the cost of the ticket, 4 hours plus being 200% would be a good idea in my opinion. The ticket being defined as either a single or 50% of a return.

This kind of thing might also motivate the organising of proper timely evacuation plans where the job really has stopped.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why are you entitled to anything back? Someone getting hit by a train (I'm guessing suicide or attempted) is not the fault of the railway, therefore I wouldnt expect anything

Because that's how the franchises and compensation schemes work. The money is already accounted for - TOCs set aside sums for this. Of course, it will have a marginal effect on fares, too.

 

[najaB]

Why are you entitled to anything back? Someone getting hit by a train (I'm guessing suicide or attempted) is not the fault of the railway, therefore I wouldnt expect anything

Delay Repay is a 'no fault' scheme. Claiming (or not) is up to the conscience of the individual passenger.

 

[najaB]

A lot of people missing something rather key which would settle the matter - the definition of a "journey".

The NRCoC and Virgin Trains' website speak to what ticket is held, not what journey you were making.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Delay Repay is a 'no fault' scheme. Claiming (or not) is up to the conscience of the individual passenger.

Which is only the case because TOCs took the mick. They brought it on themselves.

Personally, my decision to claim goes roughly thus:-
- Mechanical issues; always claim
- Staffing issues; always claim
- Any outside issue, such as suicides, vandalism, weather; default is not to claim, however in the event I feel that the aftermath was handled particularly badly[1] I do claim.

[1] The conduct of one particular member of Virgin Trains staff at Preston when the bridge failed near Carlisle cost VT around £300 in RTVs, for example (and that got spent on work trips as they had paid, so I claimed mainly to make a point). And I told them so in the claim, though I bet they didn't read it, as they paid a sum that bore no resemblance to what was due and had to be prompted.

 

[AlterEgo]

The NRCoC and Virgin Trains' website speak to what ticket is held, not what journey you were making.

The Virgin Trains charter also speaks about journeys, somewhat unhelpfully. That's why I would prefer Virgin rewrote their charter to be less ambiguous.

If your train is delayed or cancelled, or a delay or cancellation of a Virgin train causes a delay to your overall journey, you may be entitled to claim compensation. If not, we will consider claims on an ex-gratia basis.

We do not normally accept claims in cases where trains are delayed if you were notified of the delay before you purchased your ticket and you still decide to travel. We will, however, consider each case on its own merits.

Our Delay Repay scheme means that if you hold a ticket for a single or return journey you can claim compensation for a delay of 30 minutes or more, irrespective of what caused the delay.

 

[najaB]

The Virgin Trains charter also speaks about journeys, somewhat unhelpfully. That's why I would prefer Virgin rewrote their charter to be less ambiguous.

Indeed. But on the form it asks what kind of ticket you are claiming for.

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. But on the form it asks what kind of ticket you are claiming for.

Yes, and you can claim for tickets not listed in the Charter...

It is all a bit confusing to the uninitiated.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

On Tue 11th July I arranged to go from my local station (Northfield) to Kew Gardens to visit the National Archive for the day, returning home in the evening.

The whole of the journey there and back cost £29.25 and was covered by the following:
1) An Anytime Return (with Senior Railcard discount) from Northfield to Birmingham Stations costing £3.50. This ticket was not bought from Virgin trains.
2) Two Advance tickets from the virgintrains website bought on 14th March as follows
• First Class seat on the 0830 Birmingham New St-Euston costing £17
• Standard Class seat on 1923 Euston-Birmingham New St costing £4
3) Pay-as-you go Oyster Card (with Senior Railcard discount) from Euston to Kew Gardens and return costing £4.75

The journey didn’t go according to plan because a person was hit by a train at Milton Keynes. I actually arrived at Euston at 13:11, 3h16m late.

I sent an email to Virgintrains requesting compensation for the severe delay, expecting, because I arrived more than two hours late, the cost of both the outward and return journey minus the automatic payment that Virgin made for the £17 ticket. I provided scanned images of all the tickets and reservations, plus the pdf of my Oyster history.

I have now received a reply from Virgintrains which says:
"Upon investigation I can confirm that you have already received a £17.00 refund which is 100% of the cost of your ticket and the correct refund amount. You can see from the details contained in your booking that your purchased a series of single tickets rather than a return ticket type therefore you are not due any further refund or compensation."

This doesn't sound right. Do you agree and what, if anything, should I do next?

On the assumption that the OP is still reading and looking for advice, this is based on what Virgin publish:

The Virgin Trains passenger charter is at https://www.virgintrains.co.uk/-/me...hash=2BC53219EEBE3EEC1EAF79196823ECE8C97AC964

They explain about how they think their delay repay scheme works at section 5.2 on page 9:

5.2 Compensation
If your train is delayed or cancelled, or a delay or cancellation
of a Virgin train causes a delay to your overall journey, you may
be entitled to claim compensation.
We do not normally accept claims in cases where trains are delayed
if you were notified of the delay before you purchased your ticket
and you still decide to travel. We will, however, consider each case
on its own merits.
Our Delay Repay scheme means that if you hold a ticket for
a single or return journey you can claim compensation for a delay
of 30 minutes or more, irrespective of what caused the delay.
If you are delayed by;
30 – 59 minutes
We will pay you compensation to the value of 50% of the cost
of your single ticket or 50% of the cost of the relevant portion*
of your return ticket.
60 – 119 minutes
We will pay you compensation to the value of 100% of the cost
of your single ticket or 100% of the cost of the relevant portion*
of your return ticket.
120 minutes or longer
We will pay you compensation to the value of 100% of the cost of
your single ticket or 100% of the cost of your return ticket
(i.e. both portions not just one way).
* by ‘relevant portion’ we mean either the outward or return portion of a return ticket,
depending upon whether you were delayed on your outward or return journey.

Your delay at Euston on the way out was 3 hrs 11 minutes, and I don't see any way that the Euston - Kew Gardens stage would have gone so swimmingly that your delay on arrival at Kew Gardens would have been less than 2 hours (120 minutes).

Since the '120 minutes or longer' clause of the passengers' charter quotes a maximum compensation of 100% of cost, the maximum amount involved here is £29.25 (amount paid) less £17 (already refunded by Virgin) = £12.25. It is for you to decide whether this is an amount that is worth your time and effort to pursue. Your decision may, of course, also take into account whether there is a point of principle that you want to pursue.

Assuming that you do want to pursue the matter, then Virgin are being unhelpful in the way they mix the terms 'journey' and 'ticket': section 5.2 only makes sense if one journey has been made with one ticket (and isn't that true in the overwhelming majority of cases? The fact that we here split tickets makes us pretty unusual). So any challenge you make to Virgin has to be based on the argument that

- you made one journey (Northfield - Kew Gardens - Northfield), and
- the outward leg of that journey was delayed by over 120 minutes, and
- the entire journey was made by National Rail services (recognising, of course, that London Overground is a National Rail operator).

 

[Andyh82]

Delay Repay is a 'no fault' scheme. Claiming (or not) is up to the conscience of the individual passenger.

I think I'd always claim because even if it's not the fault of the railway, there will always have been other situations that were the fault of the railway but not eligible for any refund (such has having to stand in wedged conditions for a long time due to some sort of disruption, but where you yourself were not actually delayed, or faulty air con on a sealed unit, or indeed when you were delayed but it was 29 mins and caused your plans to change)

 

[island]

That assumes the airline ticket was cheap. In some circumstances you could say the airline is required to compensate less than the value of the ticket.

The airline is also only required to pay out if it can be shown it was their fault.

To be technical, the airline is required to pay out unless it can show the cancellation or delay was owing to extraordinary circumstances which could not have been prevented by the taking of reasonable precautions. That is to say, the airline must show that it is not liable to pay, rather than the converse.