Why not cash refunds for delay repay

[bb21]

I guess people on here have successfully paid using them on the train?

In my experience, VT, EC, XC and AW guards all accepted it when I tried to use one, Northern and TPE guards both refused. EMT was mixed.

Make of that what you may.

 

[maniacmartin]

I think they don't want to write that you can use them on the train, in case it gives the impression that you can buy on board if boarding at a staffed station. I've only ever had problems using them when I lived in East Midlands with Central Trains.

 

[Flamingo]

If you don't mind paying for a stamp and the risk of it getting lost, you can post the cheque to your bank, enclosing your soft code and account number. It's never failed me.

Cue thread about the money-grabbing TOC's not paying the cost of the stamp...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my experience, VT, EC, XC and AW guards all accepted it when I tried to use one, Northern and TPE guards both refused. EMT was mixed.

Make of that what you may.

I take them fairly regularly on FGW. Sometimes to pay for that journey, sometimes to pay for a later ticket, sometimes to purchase an upgrade.

They are a bit of a faff, but they go through as a warrant.

The only thing is, no change can be given.

I don't see why a cash refund needs to be given. RTV's are the same as a credit note from a shop where there is a returned item, but no statutory obligation for a refund. It is something the railway offers in the same way, but as far as I am aware there is no legal obligation to offer a cash refund if the journey is completed. (I'm sure that lots of posters will now give a lot of wibble for me saying that, but to preempt the posts, can I have facts from people who know, not waste my time reading opinion from people who don't.)

The T&C of buying the ticket say that refunds for delays are in RTV's. If this is considered an unacceptable condition of the contract, maybe another operator with different T&C should be considered.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The T&C of buying the ticket say that refunds for delays are in RTV's. If this is considered an unacceptable condition of the contract, maybe another operator with different T&C should be considered.

Such as?

The railway is basically a cartel, which is why it needs a bit of regulation on this kind of matter.

Neil

 

[Flamingo]

Such as?

The railway is basically a cartel, which is why it needs a bit of regulation on this kind of matter.

Neil

I've looked at the T&C in bus companies and coach companies, I can't find any mention of refunds for delays.

Who regulates them?

 

[andrewkeith5]

I've looked at the T&C in bus companies and coach companies, I can't find any mention of refunds for delays.

Who regulates them?

Compensation from bus operators is usually in the form of travel vouchers for free journeys - but is usually only payable in the event that it's the fault of the bus company. Depending on how nicely worded your complaint is, which way the wind is blowing and the attitude of the customer services agent, you might get nothing but a badly worded response that essentially says "go away, we don't care" (in my experience, Arriva) or you may get one or more free travel vouchers and a very nicely worded explanation and apology (in my experience, Go Ahead).

I'm not really bothered about getting compensation in cash for a train delay, but the ability to use it online would be a way better solution for me than having to gamble on whether I'll be able to use it with Southern's non-staffing policy at ticket offices! (I don't hold grudges at all...). However, I think there should be a central pool for managing such vouchers - Southern's offer of online credit isn't much use to me considering I don't buy most of my tickets from them.

Incidentally the one time I have tried to use an RTV on the train was when Southern didn't bother to staff the ticket office at Crawley. The guard would have been very happy to accept it but couldn't get the Avantix to process it

 

[Be3G]

FWIW the implication here:

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/45185.aspx#vouchers

is that RTVs are only usable at staffed stations and telesales, not on board. Which is what I long thought was the case.

Neil

Although contradicting that, right at the top of the very same page, it says:

The following are accepted as methods of payments at National Rail stations and retail outlets. They also apply to paying on-train when no opportunity to purchase beforehand existed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Compensation from bus operators is usually in the form of travel vouchers for free journeys - but is usually only payable in the event that it's the fault of the bus company.

Yeah, Delay Repay is generous in that it is paid even when not the railway's fault, but I don't claim it unless I believe it was the railway's fault[1]. I certainly wouldn't claim it for a suicide or similar.

It's harder to do that for buses because traffic is not in their control.

[1] Railway's fault in my view = anything involving staffing, train failures or infrastructure failures, or overrunning engineering works. Not railway's fault = severe weather where police or TOC have advised not to travel purely because of the weather, passenger action e.g. suicides, assaults or vandalism, unless in the latter case I think it could reasonably have been handled far better.

Neil

 

[Deerfold]

I've looked at the T&C in bus companies and coach companies, I can't find any mention of refunds for delays.

Who regulates them?

Try this one:

https://www.trentbarton.co.uk/fares-and-tickets/moneybackguarantee

Yeah, Delay Repay is generous in that it is paid even when not the railway's fault, but I don't claim it unless I believe it was the railway's fault[1]. I certainly wouldn't claim it for a suicide or similar.

It's harder to do that for buses because traffic is not in their control.

[1] Railway's fault in my view = anything involving staffing, train failures or infrastructure failures, or overrunning engineering works. Not railway's fault = severe weather where police or TOC have advised not to travel purely because of the weather, passenger action e.g. suicides, assaults or vandalism, unless in the latter case I think it could reasonably have been handled far better.

Neil

Do you think the TOC won't be claiming from NR for many of these?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you think the TOC won't be claiming from NR for many of these?

Can a TOC really claim from NR for something that is totally out of NR's control, e.g. tree on the line or suicide?

That just shows how broken the system is.

Neil

 

[Flamingo]

Can a TOC really claim from NR for something that is totally out of NR's control, e.g. tree on the line or suicide?

That just shows how broken the system is.

Neil

NR's responsible for keeping people and objects off the track...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Can a TOC really claim from NR for something that is totally out of NR's control, e.g. tree on the line or suicide?

That just shows how broken the system is.

There's nothing 'broken' about this. It is a fundamental principle in English Law that a person is responsible for the maintenance of their property, the security (e.g. fencing) of their property and can claim damages for the 'escape' of anything from an another person's property. It is quite rightly enshrined in the Railway's regulatory framework.
If either of these eventualities arise, then the Railway operator is entitled to claim for the suspension of their agreed right to pass trains along the track.

Please stop all these uninformed attempts to twist everything to your own agenda in which the industry is in such dire need of radical reform. And please don't come up with another of your 'ideas' in which the railway operators just have to accept their bad luck if Network Rail fail to provide access.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please stop all these uninformed attempts to twist everything to your own agenda in which the industry is in such dire need of radical reform. And please don't come up with another of your 'ideas' in which the railway operators just have to accept their bad luck if Network Rail fail to provide access.

Please stop trying to stifle discussion in this discussion forum just because you don't agree with it.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NR's responsible for keeping people and objects off the track...

It is, though there has IMO to be a degree of reasonableness there. Without installing Platform Edge Doors on every station, which due to the amount of stock around with differing door layouts is not possible, it is not possible to absolutely prevent people accessing the track.

Network Rail have spent a lot on anti-suicide measures such as the platform fences - but there is only so far they can go, and I don't feel that once they have done everything that is reasonably practicable they should be acting as a State insurance policy for the TOCs. If the TOCs as private companies wish to ensure against what you might term "acts of God", IMO they should take out a private insurance policy, just as I might insure against a tree falling through my house roof, where there would only be a claim against the tree's owner if the tree was in a poor state of repair.

Neil

 

[infobleep]

Surely if a TOC manages a station in behalf of NR and someone sadly commits suicide there, the TOC should take some responsible for allowing them to get onto the track.

I personally am less inclined to claim compensation for suicide delays.

As for vouchers. I'm lucky to live in an area with good ticket office facilities.

I wasn't aware though that online refunds give you less money back, despite the system being cheaper to administer. I don't see why RTV can't be issued for £1.61 the rather than £1.70.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wasn't aware though that online refunds give you less money back, despite the system being cheaper to administer. I don't see why RTV can't be issued for £1.61 the rather than £1.70.

Possibly because all rail fares are rounded to the nearest 5p, which among other things will mean stations don't need to carry a float of one and two pence coins?

Payment by card online is of course different.

Neil

 

[RJ]

Surely if a TOC manages a station in behalf of NR and someone sadly commits suicide there, the TOC should take some responsible for allowing them to get onto the track.

I personally am less inclined to claim compensation for suicide delays.

As for vouchers. I'm lucky to live in an area with good ticket office facilities.

I wasn't aware though that online refunds give you less money back, despite the system being cheaper to administer. I don't see why RTV can't be issued for £1.61 the rather than £1.70.

RTVs are rounded to the nearest penny round my way, if there aren't any spare coppers lying around the change will be rounded to the nearest 5p, in the customer's favour.

 

[bicbasher]

Can you still redeem Southern RTV's at a Southern ticket office for cash?

 

[Flamingo]

It is, though there has IMO to be a degree of reasonableness there. Without installing Platform Edge Doors on every station, which due to the amount of stock around with differing door layouts is not possible, it is not possible to absolutely prevent people accessing the track.

Network Rail have spent a lot on anti-suicide measures such as the platform fences - but there is only so far they can go, and I don't feel that once they have done everything that is reasonably practicable they should be acting as a State insurance policy for the TOCs. If the TOCs as private companies wish to ensure against what you might term "acts of God", IMO they should take out a private insurance policy, just as I might insure against a tree falling through my house roof, where there would only be a claim against the tree's owner if the tree was in a poor state of repair.

Neil

So, if this "reasonableness" extends to what circumstances a TOC can claim from Network Rail due to it's services being delayed, then why should a delayed passenger be able to claim for their delay from the TOC due to the same incident?

The basic issue with insurance is that the not inconsiderable sum it will cost will just be added on to the ticket price, and also it is more money leaving the industry rather than paying for improvements.

 

[bb21]

Can you still redeem Southern RTV's at a Southern ticket office for cash?

Yes..

 

[Starmill]

RTVs are rounded to the nearest penny round my way, if there aren't any spare coppers lying around the change will be rounded to the nearest 5p, in the customer's favour.

A surprisingly customer-focussed approach. Whenever CrossCountry have the good sense to issue me with £5.73 RTVs they tend to be met with exasperation, or sometimes an attempted theft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, if this "reasonableness" extends to what circumstances a TOC can claim from Network Rail due to it's services being delayed, then why should a delayed passenger be able to claim for their delay from the TOC due to the same incident?

As I said above I agree, to the extent that I put my money where my mouth is and do not claim for incidents where it clearly was not the railway's fault, e.g. suicides and severe weather events.

Neil

 

[Flamingo]

As I said above I agree, to the extent that I put my money where my mouth is and do not claim for incidents where it clearly was not the railway's fault, e.g. suicides and severe weather events.

Neil

Fair enough, but that doesn't alter the basic point.

 

[Muzer]

A surprisingly customer-focussed approach. Whenever CrossCountry have the good sense to issue me with £5.73 RTVs they tend to be met with exasperation, or sometimes an attempted theft.

I'm assuming by "attempted theft" you mean them short-changing you? To be honest, I'm not sure I'd care too much in such as situation, in that I hate having pennies around as much as most people do! Unless the short-change was more than four pence...

 

[muz379]

There's nothing 'broken' about this. It is a fundamental principle in English Law that a person is responsible for the maintenance of their property, the security (e.g. fencing) of their property and can claim damages for the 'escape' of anything from an another person's property. It is quite rightly enshrined in the Railway's regulatory framework.
If either of these eventualities arise, then the Railway operator is entitled to claim for the suspension of their agreed right to pass trains along the track.

Please stop all these uninformed attempts to twist everything to your own agenda in which the industry is in such dire need of radical reform. And please don't come up with another of your 'ideas' in which the railway operators just have to accept their bad luck if Network Rail fail to provide access.

I beg to differ . If someone jumps off the end of the platform in front of an express train at a remote station is there much that the railway could have done here to prevent that happening ?

I agree the railway has a duty to maintain the property which is why they are prosecuted for cases when people have died at crossings through problems with that maintenance . But you can hardly hold them responsible for someone deciding to jump under at a station .

Personally I dont think TOCS should be able to be compensated by network rail for those types of fatalities and in turn I dont think passengers should be compensated either .

if the passenger was in their car driving and someone jumped off a motorway bridge closing the road for hours they would not get any compensation .

 

[Muzer]

To be honest, I think it's a reasonable motivation to encourage Network Rail to look into doing more to prevent railway suicides, especially in hotspots. As they have been doing. Not sure whether this is financially motivated on NR's part, motivated by the desire to avoid delays on the TOCs' part, or actually genuinely humanitarian. Probably a mix of three.

But whatever the underlying motivation, if these penalties in part cause NR (who, after all, really do have the responsibility here) to do more and therefore save lives, isn't that worth it? No matter how strange a system it might seem.



I agree that there will obviously be "false positives" — ones where NR pay up even when nothing could reasonably have been done. But given how much money is being pointlessly handed around anyway for various stupid reasons, I don't think this is a big problem.

 

[Starmill]

I'm assuming by "attempted theft" you mean them short-changing you? To be honest, I'm not sure I'd care too much in such as situation, in that I hate having pennies around as much as most people do! Unless the short-change was more than four pence...

I don't give a hoot about four pence, and the resulting loss of utility it causes me. But I'm sure you'd wonder why railway staff are happy to engage in such things with clear conscience every time! It makes me worry about what else might happen, when the sum involved is less insignificant, or the consequences greater.

 

[Muzer]

Hang on, don't you not get change from an RTV anyway?

 

[cool110]

You don't get change from RTVs. But if you're paying part RTV, part cash then as tickets are priced in 5p increments they might not have any smaller coins for change.

 

[bnm]

Hang on, don't you not get change from an RTV anyway?

Depends who's taking them.

I've had change given on train and at a ticket office.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They aren't meant to give change on them, but I have heard of staff giving change on them and keeping the voucher until someone buys a ticket larger than its value, and offsetting it against that instead so their till still balances.

Neil