Will my Delay Repay be validated?

[Ferret]

Especially when you can just expect the customer to take the financial penalty for the delay

Is there always a financial penalty to the customer when there's a delay? Especially in this day and age where more people work on the move?

Thats really not fair, is it? Ferret has never indicated he'd do that so it's really not cricket to use the fact that other staff might to counter his own views in this thread.

Haha, agreed and post duly ignored! It's an interesting debate though, not saying my line of argument is necessarily right, but I do intend it to be thought provoking.

 

[Goatboy]

Is there always a financial penalty to the customer when there's a delay? Especially in this day and age where more people work on the move?

Financial penalty in the sense of paying for something (a train advertised to arrive at 10am) you didn't receive

Haha, agreed and post duly ignored! It's an interesting debate though, not saying my line of argument is necessarily right, but I do intend it to be thought provoking.

It's difficult isn't it because there is sense and logic on both sides of the argument. I would, for example, dispute a solution whereby customers were offered a 100% cash refund in the case of a delay caused by weather, but think RTV's are a useful compromise whihc both addresses the concerns of the customer - they paid for what they didn't get - with the operational constraints of the operator - ie RTV's cost them less than a refund.

 

[DelayRepay]

Is there always a financial penalty to the customer when there's a delay? Especially in this day and age where more people work on the move?

No, but on the flip side, sometimes the financial penelty will be more than the delay repay vouchers.

 

[Ferret]

No, but on the flip side, sometimes the financial penelty will be more than the delay repay vouchers.

That could also be true!

Financial penalty in the sense of paying for something (a train advertised to arrive at 10am) you didn't receive

That then depends on your attitude to the contract. I'm off on holiday soon - have I suffered any financial penalty if my airline fail to get me to my destination at the exact time their timetable suggests? I'd argue not really. My hotel costs the same as it did if I arrive at 15:00 or 16:00. All I've lost is an hour. Maybe it's just me, but if the weather is this cack come the end of this week, I'll be glad to leave LHR anywhere close to on time!

 

[radamfi]

As far as I can tell, the delays on the Brighton Line were primarily due to a broken down train and safety checks in the Hooley tunnel. Before these events, Southern seemed to be running OK despite the snow. There may have been additional delays due to the broken down FCC train at Blackfriars which wrecked the Bedford to Brighton service, but again, as far as I know, this was not snow related.

Would you say it is unethical to claim Delay Repay if the problem is not the fault of the railway?

Ultimately, the passenger and tax payer pays for the compensation anyway.

 

[Ferret]

As far as I can tell, the delays on the Brighton Line were primarily due to a broken down train and safety checks in the Hooley tunnel. Before these events, Southern seemed to be running OK despite the snow. There may have been additional delays due to the broken down FCC train at Blackfriars which wrecked the Bedford to Brighton service, but again, as far as I know, this was not snow related.

Would you say it is unethical to claim Delay Repay if the problem is not the fault of the railway?

In no way is it unethical of you as the OP to be claiming compensation which the Passenger's charter says you are entitled to!

Ultimately, the passenger and tax payer pays for the compensation anyway.

It's more the burden on the latter of those two that has caused me to mount my soapbox!

 

[DelayRepay]

Financial penalty in the sense of paying for something (a train advertised to arrive at 10am) you didn't receive

I misunderstood what was meant by financial penelty. My reply was referring to out of pocket expenses, e.g. someone having to get a taxi home because the train was late causing them to miss the bus.

However..... If I pay for a peak ticket, I am paying a premium because I need to be in London before 9:30 (or whatever time applies). If my train is delayed and doesn't arrive until 10:30 I would feel aggrived that I had paid "extra" for something which had not been delivered. In the same way as I would be unhappy if I had paid for a first class seat and the train only had standard coaches.

 

[Ferret]

However..... If I pay for a peak ticket, I am paying a premium because I need to be in London before 9:30 (or whatever time applies). If my train is delayed and doesn't arrive until 10:30 I would feel aggrieved that I had paid "extra" for something which had not been delivered. In the same way as I would be unhappy if I had paid for a first class seat and the train only had standard coaches.

I can't disagree with that. Should that scenario *always* be compensated?

 

[telstarbox]

There's another good reason behind compensation vouchers - customer goodwill. If a passenger is delayed on a journey then if they have a choice between modes (eg train or car), the delay might push them in the direction of the car next time round, which means the railway loses custom in the long run. Giving out £50 in vouchers keeps the customer onside as they can only use the vouchers to buy more train tickets, but it's a better solution than just saying to the passenger "put up or shut up" or giving them cash which they wouldn't spend on the railway.

 

[DelayRepay]

I can't disagree with that. Should that scenario *always* be compensated?

I think so, but you've still got the issue of what is a delay? If the train arrives at 09:34, would I want compensation? Probably not. So you'd have to impose a limit. And then you'd have to have some way of administering it. And it would get very complex and costly....

I wonder how much Delay Repay actually costs? I don't mean in terms of vouchers but in terms of processing claim forms, postage of vouchers, the accounting system etc? It wouldn't surprise me if the admin actually cost as much as the vouchers issued.

 

[Ferret]

There's another good reason behind compensation vouchers - customer goodwill. If a passenger is delayed on a journey then if they have a choice between modes (eg train or car), the delay might push them in the direction of the car next time round, which means the railway loses custom in the long run. Giving out £50 in vouchers keeps the customer onside as they can only use the vouchers to buy more train tickets, but it's a better solution than just saying to the passenger "put up or shut up" or giving them cash which they wouldn't spend on the railway.

But in the case of snow, say you get stuck on the M1 for hours and watch Pendolinos passing you all evening, next time you might think - hmmm, the roads always fail in cack weather, next time I'll take the train - especially as I don't get a delay repay on my road tax and I used more petrol inching along! Double-edged sword methinks! And of course, if we had a mature attitude to delays in bad weather, would you need to compensate people to retain goodwill? Maybe not!

 

[telstarbox]

Some TOCs don't seem bothered about the cost. I recently put in a claim for a delay of 2 hours. According to the TOC's Delay Repay rules, I would have been entitled to the cost of the ticket (£14) yet I was sent £100 in RTVs (!) with what read like a generic letter relating to the disruption that day.

 

[DelayRepay]

Some TOCs don't seem bothered about the cost. I recently put in a claim for a delay of 2 hours. According to the TOC's Delay Repay rules, I would have been entitled to the cost of the ticket (£14) yet I was sent £100 in RTVs (!) with what read like a generic letter relating to the disruption that day.

Yes, last year (or the year before perhaps) I submitted a claim to Southeastern. I was owed about a fiver but as well as the rail vouchers they sent me a £25 Msrks and Spencer voucher as a goodwill gesture. Very kind of them but I didn't expect it - I simply expected the rail voucher which I was entitled to.

 

[Ferret]

Some TOCs don't seem bothered about the cost. I recently put in a claim for a delay of 2 hours. According to the TOC's Delay Repay rules, I would have been entitled to the cost of the ticket (£14) yet I was sent £100 in RTVs (!) with what read like a generic letter relating to the disruption that day.

Crumbs!!! Good result for you though.

 

[telstarbox]

But not for the taxpayer (which includes me). Does anyone know how much RTVs actually cost the TOCs?

I've half a mind to book a load of cheap Advances during the next heavy snowfall then watch the compo roll in

 

[Goatboy]

I've half a mind to book a load of cheap Advances during the next heavy snowfall then watch the compo roll in

You don't profit from it though, you just end up effectively not paying anything to travel on a severely delayed train, which to be honest is fair enough.

 

[telstarbox]

Not if the compensation is 7x than the ticket price as above.

 

[Ferret]

Not if the compensation is 7x than the ticket price as above.

Is it safe to assume that the company concerned too the attitude that it would cost us far too much in terms of administration to process things properly, so we'll just grab a handful of vouchers, bung them in an envelope with a standard letter and leave it at that? That attitude weakens my argument regarding sifting out claims for weather delays doesn't it?!

 

[michael769]

One thing that constantly amazes me is the railway seems to be the only form of transport that pays compensation for delays, whether within it's control or not.

While I accept that the weather is outwith the industry's control, the resilience of the railways to bad weather, and how it copes with it is entirely within it's control. Yesterday's snow was well within what is to be expected in a normal winter so it can hardly have come as a surprise.

If the industry willfully chooses not to take the necessary steps to cope with normal British weather then it is entirely resonable to expect it to compensate it's passengers for it's failures.

 

[Ferret]

If the industry willfully chooses not to take the necessary steps to cope with normal British weather then it is entirely resonable to expect it to compensate it's passengers for it's failures.

Which brings us round full circle to about 2 pages ago!

 

[Flamingo]

While I accept that the weather is outwith the industry's control, the resilience of the railways to bad weather, and how it copes with it is entirely within it's control. Yesterday's snow was well within what is to be expected in a normal winter so it can hardly have come as a surprise.

If the industry willfully chooses not to take the necessary steps to cope with normal British weather then it is entirely resonable to expect it to compensate it's passengers for it's failures.

But my original point is what other form of transport offers equivalent compensation? Nobody has been able to give an example.

The railways could be made totally snow-proof. It would have to be paid for by passengers and tax-payers the other 360 days of the year it's not required, though.

 

[D1009]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that in accordance with the performance regime, Network Rail has to compensate TOCs for almost all delays which are not the responsibility of the TOCs, which includes weather, fatalities and other issues over which NR has no control. This is why TOCs used to get away with saying something along the lines of 90% of the delays to our services are caused by Railtrack. Surely in this situation it is reasonable that some of this money should end up in fare payer's pockets?

 

[maniacmartin]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that in accordance with the performance regime, Network Rail has to compensate TOCs for almost all delays which are not the responsibility of the TOCs, which includes weather, fatalities and other issues over which NR has no control. This is why TOCs used to get away with saying something along the lines of 90% of the delays to our services are caused by Railtrack. Surely in this situation it is reasonable that some of this money should end up in fare payer's pockets?

Indeed. If a TOC thinks that snow is beyond a company's control, why do they claim compensation from Network Rail in this case? I don't think that they can have it both ways with respect to snow - by claiming from Network Rail but not compensating their own customers.

I personally believe Delay Repay is jusitifed. Sometimes there will be issues beyond your control, such as weather, but this is just a cost of doing business. Lots of companies incur expenses which they couldn't foresee, and have to eat the costs. I think the rail industry has it very easy, refunding in RTVs, whereas in most industries, the refund would probably be in cash, which is the method I think Delay Repay should pay in.

It's not easy to compare with other forms of transport, because with say a bus, you usually buy your ticket on the day, so no bus means no payment was taken. With rail, you're more likely to have already bought the ticket and parted with your money upfront.

I'm sorry if you think that passengers expecting trains to run according to the timetables is "whining". I don't see it as an unreasonable request. I know from experience that it can be very frustrating commuting on a train that runs 20 minutes late most days and not getting any compensation at all for those delays.

 

[Tom B]

Because in that scenario there is the additional factor of having to deter fare dodging.

It could be argued that being responsible financially to passengers gives an additional factor to deter avoidable delays!

There's another good reason behind compensation vouchers - customer goodwill. If a passenger is delayed on a journey then if they have a choice between modes (eg train or car), the delay might push them in the direction of the car next time round, which means the railway loses custom in the long run. Giving out £50 in vouchers keeps the customer onside as they can only use the vouchers to buy more train tickets, but it's a better solution than just saying to the passenger "put up or shut up" or giving them cash which they wouldn't spend on the railway.

Quite - many large companies, if a customer complains about something, will throw them a credit note or voucher, and a photocopied generic letter, and hope they shut up. Then if the customer makes more noise, actually investigate their issue. Presumably this is cheaper than spending hours chasing up every Mrs Goggins who is upset that Tesco ran out of baked beans on Thursday lunchtime.

 

[michael769]

But my original point is what other form of transport offers equivalent compensation? Nobody has been able to give an example.

Air travel? http://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/travel/passenger-rights/air/index_en.htm
Ferry travel? http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...rry-and-coach/ferry-delays-and-cancellations/

It is actually bus travel that is the odd man out in the lack of any compensation.

I agree that delay repay goes further in not having such a generous weather get out, but one must remember that not all TOCs are under it yet and a considerable number of impacted passengers will get next to nothing.

 

[sarahj]

What delayed the OP was that large iceicles were starting to form in the Quarry tunnel. Thus NR closed it for safety reasons, meaning everything was sent via Redhill.
Of course most delays yesterday were caused by poor pick up on the third rail system. For that you can blame a meeting held in around 1923 were it was decided to move forward with the third rail system and not extend the overhead of the LBSCR and in fact pull down what was there. It was of course cheaper to do this, and the effect is still felt today, but thats another topic for another day.

 

[Chrisgr31]

Southerns Delay Repay scheme now issues rail vouchers that can either be used for rail travel or exchanged for cash at one of their stations.

Mind you its a pain that their default repay method if you are registered on their website is an electronic voucher, as those with a company supplied season ticket struggle to spend them which of course is not the idea is it!

 

[FGW_DID]

It's not easy to compare with other forms of transport, because with say a bus, you usually buy your ticket on the day, so no bus means no payment was taken. With rail, you're more likely to have already bought the ticket and parted with your money upfront.

I'm sorry if you think that passengers expecting trains to run according to the timetables is "whining". I don't see it as an unreasonable request. I know from experience that it can be very frustrating commuting on a train that runs 20 minutes late most days and not getting any compensation at all for those delays.

I would think the vast majority of rail tickets are bought 'on the day', hence the large queues I quite often see at the ticket office window, TVM's and TE's with their little ticket machines.

or do you mean buying tickets 'on the train' as normally on a bus you will pay the driver when you board?

As for whining about running to timetables, no its not an unreasonable request.
The bus's I regularly catch, well i sometimes wonder why they actually publish a timetable! The bus is regularly late between 10 - 30 mins and the other evening took 40 mins to do approx 4 miles! Do I get compo for the delays, no! 99% of the time it is outside the bus operators control (pure traffic density, accidents, weather etc) so it does annoy me when I have someone whinging and demanding compo because their train was 2 mins late and therefore missed a "connection"!

 

[AlterEgo]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rail_Conditions_of_Carriage
Details of the contract formed when you buy a ticket. Wikipedia, I know, but the quoted conditions seem accurate.

The Conditions of Carriage make no reference to a contract for rail travel to be "as the timetable", it describes tickets as evidence of a right to make a journey and no more - it does however lay out minimum compensation levels applicable in the event of a delay.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's another good reason behind compensation vouchers - customer goodwill. If a passenger is delayed on a journey then if they have a choice between modes (eg train or car), the delay might push them in the direction of the car next time round, which means the railway loses custom in the long run. Giving out £50 in vouchers keeps the customer onside as they can only use the vouchers to buy more train tickets, but it's a better solution than just saying to the passenger "put up or shut up" or giving them cash which they wouldn't spend on the railway.

And that's precisely the point of Rail Travel Vouchers! Ultimately the railway is charged with the responsibility of getting customers out of the cars and onto trains. Encourage people back with a free journey next time, and they should see the service is reliable, changing attitudes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree that delay repay goes further in not having such a generous weather get out, but one must remember that not all TOCs are under it yet and a considerable number of impacted passengers will get next to nothing.

I am only aware of First Great Western that will decline compensation claims due to severe weather. Other "grandfather" TOCs like Virgin do compensate.

 

[radamfi]

Going back to the original question, can anyone in the business here please check that the historical train running information does actually show an arrival time at Gatwick?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I am only aware of First Great Western that will decline compensation claims due to severe weather. Other "grandfather" TOCs like Virgin do compensate.

Do Virgin compensate for all events like TOCs under Delay Repay? So is the only difference is that Virgin only pay for delays over one hour whereas Delay Repay TOCs pay out after thirty minutes delay?