Who pays this Delay Repay?

[endecotp]

Poole to Edinburgh via London.

The SWR train was delayed 20 mins, but I still very easily got to Kings Cross in time for the LNER departure; I think I was waiting at Kings Cross for about 15-20 minutes.

The LNER train was then delayed due to a late running Cross Country train in front, and then due to following a stopping train North of Newcastle. Arrival in Edinburgh was 33 late (or maybe 30, depending on what arrival time you compare against).

I've submitted a delay repay claim to LNER, but I have the impression that they will forward it to SWR on the basis that the SWR delay meant that I should have missed the LNER departure. I don't think there's anything I can do to steer the delay attribution, is there?

I guess that really Cross Country should pay, since it was their late-running train that delayed the LNER train. Or maybe they'll forward the blame to someone else!

The SWR delay was caused by a road vehicle hitting a bridge somewhere near Winchester and trains running slowly. Who knows, maybe some driver's insurance company will end up paying!

 

[AlterEgo]

Poole to Edinburgh via London.

The SWR train was delayed 20 mins, but I still very easily got to Kings Cross in time for the LNER departure; I think I was waiting at Kings Cross for about 15-20 minutes.

The LNER train was then delayed due to a late running Cross Country train in front, and then due to following a stopping train North of Newcastle. Arrival in Edinburgh was 33 late (or maybe 30, depending on what arrival time you compare against).

I've submitted a delay repay claim to LNER, but I have the impression that they will forward it to SWR on the basis that the SWR delay meant that I should have missed the LNER departure. I don't think there's anything I can do to steer the delay attribution, is there?

Delay attribution has nothing to do with delay repay.

If the SWR train delayed you so that you would have fouled the minimum connection time they will probably end up paying regardless of whether you made the connection or not. Delay repay is a blind process; a fouled connection is a fouled connection.

I guess that really Cross Country should pay, since it was their late-running train that delayed the LNER train.

That is not hot how any of this works with customer facing delay repay.

 

[mickey]

I’ll defer to @AlterEgo who has far more experience here than me, but my take is that if you have an electronic ticket that was scanned on the KGX-EDI service (or at EDI) then this would make LNER liable to pay if you claimed from them, on the grounds that they can see you did make their service and SWR can see it’s not their fault. Otherwise, yes SWR.

 

[endecotp]

if you have an electronic ticket that was scanned on the KGX-EDI

Paper ticket.

As predicted, LNER have emailed telling me to submit a claim to SWR.

 

[AlterEgo]

Paper ticket.

As predicted, LNER have emailed telling me to submit a claim to SWR.

Not good from them. It is for LNER to forward your claim if they believe that, not ask you to do it.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I’ll defer to @AlterEgo who has far more experience here than me, but my take is that if you have an electronic ticket that was scanned on the KGX-EDI service (or at EDI) then this would make LNER liable to pay if you claimed from them, on the grounds that they can see you did make their service and SWR can see it’s not their fault. Otherwise, yes SWR.

Unless they were travelling by plane the CRS code for Waverley is EDB, just for info

 

[xotGD]

This is the sort of situation where, if I was on a flexible ticket, I would give the origin as King's Cross, with details of the train I was actually travelling on.

 

[endecotp]

This is the sort of situation where, if I was on a flexible ticket, I would give the origin as King's Cross, with details of the train I was actually travelling on.

Interesting. Of course the form does ask me to describe the entire journey; do you think I could “get in trouble” if I did as you describe?

 

[jfollows]

You ask a question, but you’re not prepared to supply the necessary information for anyone to be able to answer it.

If you allowed the minimum connection time between the booked arrival at Waterloo and the booked departure from King’s Cross, then LNER need to pay up.

But without the full story we can only guess.

The minimum connection time is probably 53 minutes, and if you booked a through ticket this would have been honoured.

 

[endecotp]

You ask a question, but you’re not prepared to supply the necessary information for anyone to be able to answer it.

Huh? “Not prepared to” - don’t be rude. No-one has asked for any additional information.

If you allowed the minimum connection time between the booked arrival at Waterloo and the booked departure from King’s Cross, then LNER need to pay up.

But without the full story we can only guess.

What do you need to know? I had a paper Super Off-Peak Single with no reservations.

The minimum connection time is probably 53 minutes, and if you booked a through ticket this would have been honoured.

Right; the delay to the SWR train meant that I had only about 45 minutes, so LNER say that I missed their train which is SWR’s fault. But actually I caught it (easily), and it was delayed en route to Edinburgh.

Do you want all the actual times?

 

[Hadders]

Do you want all the actual times?

It's helpful if you can supply the booked times in a table format as this helps us to understand what went wrong and where the liability for delay repay lies.

 

[AlterEgo]

The liability is SWR's. At the time their train was late they fouled the OP's connection; that they made it and were subsequently delayed is immaterial, as a delay has been suffered and the first operator to cock up is the one that pays. It would only be immaterial if the OP was never delayed into their final destination at all which would mean they had no claim.

 

[endecotp]

It's helpful if you can supply the booked times in a table format as this helps us to understand what went wrong and where the liability for delay repay lies.

Here are a couple of RTT links, first for the Poole-Waterloo train and second for the Kings Cross - Edinburgh train:

Realtime Trains | 1120 Weymouth to London Waterloo | 29/12/2025

Real-time train running information for 1120 departure from Weymouth to London Waterloo on 29/12/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 1530 London Kings Cross to Edinburgh | 29/12/2025

Real-time train running information for 1530 departure from London Kings Cross to Edinburgh on 29/12/2025. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[gray1404]

I would appeal the LNER decision stating that you made their train and it was their train that caused you to arrive late.

 

[jfollows]

Huh? “Not prepared to” - don’t be rude. No-one has asked for any additional information.

Sorry for coming across as rude, I should have said something more like “please provide details of your journey so that we can advise you properly”. Which you’ve now done.
The time allowed (booked, not actual) between trains in London is greater than the minimum connection time so you can claim for the cost of the entire trip, once you get someone to agree to pay up.
This is one of the unfortunate problems with Delay Repay as implemented when you’re clearly delayed but two parties involve you in their arguments against having to pay, when they should just sort it out between themselves.

EDIT Staff also misrepresent the Minimum Connection Time. The fact you only ended up with 45 minutes but you still made the connection means just that - you made the connection and your initial delay wasn’t the cause of any delay to your total journey. MCT is about whether or not a connection is valid or not, and yours was. It has nothing to do with the actual connection time available. If a booked connection is valid, you can claim Delay Repay for the entire journey from the operator which delayed you.
Also, you don’t need reservations on a ticket like yours, you just need an itinerary (which doesn’t need to be formally issued as such, it can just be your plan based on the scheduled train times) which conforms to the MCT in order to be able to claim for the entire journey.

 

[endecotp]

I submitted the same claim to SWR and they have replied:

"We have checked the journey you have claimed for and our records show that this service was operated by another train operator (London North Eastern Railway). Therefore, we are unable to process your claim."

Edited to add: apparently SWR have forwarded it to LNER!

 

[jfollows]

From what you’ve told us, it’s LNER which needs to pay. You made their train. It ran late. As stated by @gray1404 above.

 

[Watershed]

I submitted the same claim to SWR and they have replied:

"We have checked the journey you have claimed for and our records show that this service was operated by another train operator (London North Eastern Railway). Therefore, we are unable to process your claim."

This is the point at which you should raise a complaint to both companies for messing you about rather than sorting it out amongst themselves.

Even if SWR allege that they're not liable for the Delay Repay, they are obliged to pass your claim on to the company responsible. Refusing your claim and leaving that on you is not an acceptable outcome.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Is there an option to send one email to both SWR and LNER customer services, making that clear so each knows the other is included on the message, setting out the facts, appending a scan of the ticket, and asking them to resolve it between them and let you know which one of them is going to pay out?

 

[jfollows]

It’s rubbish, and @Watershed is right, you’re entitled to Delay Repay and you shouldn’t have to care who pays it.
Some of us here argue for a centralised system, perhaps run by an “independent“ party, to avoid this nonsense.

There seem to be people who are incentivised to save trivial amounts of money by messing people around and providing poor service. If someone took a proper look they’d realise that this trivial nonsense is destructive.

 

[Snow1964]

This is the point at which you should raise a complaint to both companies for messing you about rather than sorting it out amongst themselves.

Even if SWR allege that they're not liable for the Delay Repay, they are obliged to pass your claim on to the company responsible. Refusing your claim and leaving that on you is not an acceptable outcome.

Sounds like SWR did correct thing, forwarded in LNER and advised customer.

LNER are blatantly in the wrong asking customer to submit it to SWR when their train was late at destination, and connection into it was made.

 

[redreni]

The liability is SWR's. At the time their train was late they fouled the OP's connection; that they made it and were subsequently delayed is immaterial, as a delay has been suffered and the first operator to cock up is the one that pays. It would only be immaterial if the OP was never delayed into their final destination at all which would mean they had no claim.

Is this stated by the railway anywhere authoritative?

If that's the rule, fine, but it is contrary to the way the concepts of 'material' and 'immaterial' are used in any other walk of life.

If something is immaterial, it makes no difference to the outcome.

If something is material, it makes a difference to the outcome.

In this particular case, the delay inbound to Waterloo only made a theoretical difference: it theoretically fouled the connection. It didn't actually foul the connection. So it made no difference to the outcome.

Every time I've ever been told by a TOC that another TOC is liable because an earlier delay fouled the MCT, in circumstances where I still made the connection, I have explained this to them and they have eventually accepted it. I admit this is may be because I can be quite persistent and at some point they may just find it easier to agree with me than to continue the correspondence, but I really don't see how an event that might have caused a missed connection but didn't can possibly be viewed as 'material' as that concept is generally understood?

I realise it's difficult to find alternative language to express that a delay on a leg other than the final leg of the passenger's journey will make a TOC liable if and only if it fouls the MCT for the intended connection.

As a general rule, I tend to think a policy that can't easily be expressed in language the end user will understand, is probably one that should be changed.

 

[moleman212]

Not the first time that LNER has tried to shirk on its responsibilities.

 

[Kite159]

Is this stated by the railway anywhere authoritative?

If that's the rule, fine, but it is contrary to the way the concepts of 'material' and 'immaterial' are used in any other walk of life.

If something is immaterial, it makes no difference to the outcome.

If something is material, it makes a difference to the outcome.

In this particular case, the delay inbound to Waterloo only made a theoretical difference: it theoretically fouled the connection. It didn't actually foul the connection. So it made no difference to the outcome.

Every time I've ever been told by a TOC that another TOC is liable because an earlier delay fouled the MCT, in circumstances where I still made the connection, I have explained this to them and they have eventually accepted it. I admit this is may be because I can be quite persistent and at some point they may just find it easier to agree with me than to continue the correspondence, but I really don't see how an event that might have caused a missed connection but didn't can possibly be viewed as 'material' as that concept is generally understood?

I realise it's difficult to find alternative language to express that a delay on a leg other than the final leg of the passenger's journey will make a TOC liable if and only if it fouls the MCT for the intended connection.

As a general rule, I tend to think a policy that can't easily be expressed in language the end user will understand, is probably one that should be changed.

Especially when some of the minimum connection times are a bit excessive to the point where someone can easily walk between the London stations within the time they are meant to allow.

 

[dastocks]

If it's one through ticket you can claim against LNER supplying details of their train (or trains) you traveled on that resulted in the delay that you are claiming for. LNER don't need to know how you got to KGX.

This is how it's always worked for me when heading to The North on tickets that include cross-London travel.

 

[jfollows]

It doesn’t have to be “one through ticket”, whatever you mean by that. Multiple tickets are fine, with the MCT proviso mentioned already.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is this stated by the railway anywhere authoritative?

No.

If that's the rule, fine, but it is contrary to the way the concepts of 'material' and 'immaterial' are used in any other walk of life.

The only reference to "material delays" comes up on here. It isn't in the NRCoT or anywhere passenger-facing as far as I know. I am using the term immaterial in my post to refer to the unimportance that the passenger made their connection to the liability of the first TOC, SWR, to pay the full amount.

Every time I've ever been told by a TOC that another TOC is liable because an earlier delay fouled the MCT, in circumstances where I still made the connection, I have explained this to them and they have eventually accepted it.

Why bother? It's not your fight. Delay Repay doesn't care what you did, other than the start and end time of your journey versus the timetable. It is a blind process. If you arrive 8 minutes late into a 15 minute connection half of the people might make the next train and half might not. Delay Repay isn't there to do anything complex like appropriate losses based on how fast you walk, it merely falls to the first TOC who delayed you and would cause a threshold-meeting delay. Very simple.

To be clear, some examples:

A passenger arrives 15 late into Waterloo from Woking on a journey to York via the Tube and King's Cross. SWR has fouled the minimum connection time which means the industry considers it not a legal, or possible, connection. The passenger is entitled to take the full 50 minutes or whatever to make the connection. But, they run, catch a perfect tube connection, and make their booked train at King's Cross. The passenger is not delayed into final destination and there is no delay repay payable.

As above, but the passenger takes the full 50 minutes, as they are entitled to do, and makes the train 30 minutes after the one booked from King's Cross. SWR are responsible for the 30 minute delay at destination this causes.

As above, but the passenger runs, makes the booked train off Kings Cross, but this train subsequently fails and passengers are put onto the next one, suffering a 30 minute delay. SWR will pay for that, because they fouled the connection. "Oh wait no no actually I am a fast walker, I made the train" - don't care. You're due the compensation from someone and it should be from the first TOC who delayed you. All they do is put the journey into the journey planner and backwards calculate it, if the first delay fouled the connection the TOC doesn't pick up the phone and ask you how fast you walked and whether you went for a pee, the liability is quite simply the first TOC's. Delay Repay is consequence- and fault-blind. You may *feel* that LNER should be penalised for their failed train after you busted a gut to make the "right" train following SWR's lateness, but that is not what Delay Repay is about. All Delay Repay is about is the passenger getting some money back for a delay.

It isn't up to the customer to claim from the correct company either, TOCs will pass claims between each other if they deem liability to be elsewhere (this was called OTOCing - "Other TOCing" - back in the day). The NRCoT explains they will do this.

 

[redreni]

No.


The only reference to "material delays" comes up on here. It isn't in the NRCoT or anywhere passenger-facing as far as I know. I am using the term immaterial in my post to refer to the unimportance that the passenger made their connection to the liability of the first TOC, SWR, to pay the full amount.


Why bother? It's not your fight. Delay Repay doesn't care what you did, other than the start and end time of your journey versus the timetable. It is a blind process. If you arrive 8 minutes late into a 15 minute connection half of the people might make the next train and half might not. Delay Repay isn't there to do anything complex like appropriate losses based on how fast you walk, it merely falls to the first TOC who delayed you and would cause a threshold-meeting delay. Very simple.

To be clear, some examples:

A passenger arrives 15 late into Waterloo from Woking on a journey to York via the Tube and King's Cross. SWR has fouled the minimum connection time which means the industry considers it not a legal, or possible, connection. The passenger is entitled to take the full 50 minutes or whatever to make the connection. But, they run, catch a perfect tube connection, and make their booked train at King's Cross. The passenger is not delayed into final destination and there is no delay repay payable.

As above, but the passenger takes the full 50 minutes, as they are entitled to do, and makes the train 30 minutes after the one booked from King's Cross. SWR are responsible for the 30 minute delay at destination this causes.

As above, but the passenger runs, makes the booked train off Kings Cross, but this train subsequently fails and passengers are put onto the next one, suffering a 30 minute delay. SWR will pay for that, because they fouled the connection. "Oh wait no no actually I am a fast walker, I made the train" - don't care. You're due the compensation from someone and it should be from the first TOC who delayed you. All they do is put the journey into the journey planner and backwards calculate it, if the first delay fouled the connection the TOC doesn't pick up the phone and ask you how fast you walked and whether you went for a pee, the liability is quite simply the first TOC's. Delay Repay is consequence- and fault-blind. You may *feel* that LNER should be penalised for their failed train after you busted a gut to make the "right" train following SWR's lateness, but that is not what Delay Repay is about. All Delay Repay is about is the passenger getting some money back for a delay.

It isn't up to the customer to claim from the correct company either, TOCs will pass claims between each other if they deem liability to be elsewhere (this was called OTOCing - "Other TOCing" - back in the day). The NRCoT explains they will do this.

Fair enough, but in the cases where I've had to argue, the claim wasn't forwarded. It wasn't forwarded in this case, either. More often than not, in my experience, claims are not forwarded.

And it's very annoying if the first TOC to cause a delay that fouled the MCT, but didn't prevent you making the connection, has a stingier delay repay scheme than the TOC that actually caused the delay you're claiming for. In that circumstance, it does matter to the customer which TOC is liable.

 

[AlterEgo]

And it's very annoying if the first TOC to cause a delay that fouled the MCT, but didn't prevent you making the connection, has a stingier delay repay scheme than the TOC that actually caused the delay you're claiming for. In that circumstance, it does matter to the customer which TOC is liable.

It matters in the reverse too (first TOC pays 15 min DR, second one doesn't), just one of those things. Nobody complaining about the first TOC paying out in that case I expect!

 

[endecotp]

As above, but the passenger runs, makes the booked train off Kings Cross, but this train subsequently fails and passengers are put onto the next one, suffering a 30 minute delay. SWR will pay for that, because they fouled the connection.

SWR don’t seem to agree with you.

Could you please cite some sort of regulation that I can quote, if necessary?

(FWIW, I didn’t run; I even had time to buy a sandwich and coffee and still had a good 10 mins before the platform was shown. Not that that is “material”.)