XC refusing Delay repay

[richw]

A friend has been discussing this matter with me and appealing to XC over a delay repay.

SWR due at Exeter st David’s 2042
XC due to depart towards Plymouth at 2050.

The XC was approximately 85 minutes late. They keep sending the delay repay back to SWR as SWR was 4 mins late arriving at EXD. They are saying IF they were on time friend would have missed the XC train. SWR understandably sending back to XC and going round in circles.

Exeter st David’s minimum connection I understand is 6 minutes, but connection was platform 3 to 4 which is cross platform transfer taking 30 seconds at most.

XCs excuse to not pay up for their 85 minute delay is he would have missed the connection because of the minimal delay to SWR took it under 6 minutes from the SWR arrival to the XC scheduled departure. As a result XC think SWR should pay up based on him hypothetically missing their service if it had been on time

Any thoughts please, this has been going round in circles for some time now.

 

[AlterEgo]

XCs excuse to not pay up for their 85 minute delay is he would have missed the connection because of the minimal delay to SWR took it under 6 minutes from the SWR arrival to the XC scheduled departure. As a result XC think SWR should pay up based on him hypothetically missing their service if it had been on time

SWR caused the first delay, fouling the connection, is this what you're saying? If so, SWR must foot the full cost.

Is your friend saying they did, in fact, make the connection as they moved quickly?

 

[richw]

SWR caused the first delay, fouling the connection, is this what you're saying? If so, SWR must foot the full cost.

Is your friend saying they did, in fact, make the connection as they moved quickly?

The SWR is (we think) irrelevant and he didn’t have to move fast to get anywhere as the XC was 85 minutes late, so he actually had to sit at EXD for 89 minutes to wait for it. The XC didn’t arrive at EXD until 2225.
XC are saying he’d have missed the connection IF they’d have been on time so he should claim from SWR for whatever the delay would have been to the next train after them.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The XC was approximately 85 minutes late.

Was this at departure from Exeter St Davids or arrival at PLymouth? Or (quite likely) both

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2024 ==

The SWR is (we think) irrelevant and he didn’t have to move fast to get anywhere as the XC was 85 minutes later, so he actually had to sit at EXD for 89 minutes to wait for it. The XC didn’t arrive at EXD until 2225.
XC are saying he’d have missed the connection IF they’d have been on time so he should claim from SWR for whatever the delay would have been to the next train after them.

Oh. Already answered while I was typing.

 

[richw]

Was this at departure from Exeter St Davids or arrival at PLymouth? Or (quite likely) both

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Mar 2024 ==


Oh. Already answered while I was typing.

The XC was 85 late at EXD

 

[furlong]

Was the passenger ACTUALLY on the platform in sufficient time for the 2050 departure? If so, then it's unarguably XC because the passenger was in the position to catch the train at its scheduled departure time. If not (e.g. luggage/lifts, passage through station involved), then it would be SWR. The claim arises at the point of the first delay that has a material impact on the final arrival time. Minimum connection times are not mandatory connection times. Had the second train been on time, the passenger was not obliged to stand on the platform and let it go because of the minimum connection time at the station! Further, if such a passenger did that, they would not be eligible for Delay Repay.

 

[richw]

Was the passenger ACTUALLY on the platform in sufficient time for the 2050 departure? If so, then it's unarguably XC because the passenger was in the position to catch the train at its scheduled departure time. If not (e.g. luggage/lifts, passage through station involved), then it would be SWR.

Yes, it was platform 3 to 4 at Exeter st David’s. It’s a cross platform transfer. No lifts stairs or passage required.

 

[AlterEgo]

The SWR is (we think) irrelevant and he didn’t have to move fast to get anywhere as the XC was 85 minutes late, so he actually had to sit at EXD for 89 minutes to wait for it. The XC didn’t arrive at EXD until 2225.
XC are saying he’d have missed the connection IF they’d have been on time so he should claim from SWR for whatever the delay would have been to the next train after them.

SWR have fouled the timetabled connection at EXD by being late themselves, which is triggering the journey validation system to "blame" SWR.

If the claim went to SWR they'd have to pay up, so I can see XC's logic here. The system is agnostic as to whether a passenger actually makes a connection or not.

Have XC sent the claim to SWR?

 

[richw]

Have XC sent the claim to SWR?

Yes, and SWR are declining the claim. So if I’m understanding correctly as SWR fouled the booked connection they are at fault even though the XC was subsequently 85 mins late and my friend had to sit at EXD for 89 mins as a result of the XC delay?

 

[yorkie]

XC are in the wrong; the passenger DID make the connection and therefore got SWR off the hook.

I will try to put pressure on them by tweeting.

I suggest you state you will go to the Rail Ombudsman next and ask if you are "in deadlock" in order to escalate the matter to them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, and SWR are declining the claim. So if I’m understanding correctly as SWR fouled the booked connection they are at fault even though the XC was subsequently 85 mins late and my friend had to sit at EXD for 89 mins as a result of the XC delay?

It's a philosophical argument, but the first delay was caused by SWR, which meant that the connection was fouled. The general practice is that XC should pay out here based on what the passenger *actually did*, so I'd ask XC to look at it again.

 

[redreni]

I would humbly suggest, in working out if a delay might have caused a missed connection, delay repay systems should not look at whether the incoming train arrived at least X minutes (where X minutes is the minimum connection time) before the scheduled departure time of the second train.

Instead, they should consider the delay to the first train to be immaterial if there was at least X minutes between the arrival of the first train and the actual departure time of the second train.

 

[furlong]

What was the FIRST delay on the journey, when compared to the schedule, that ACTUALLY caused a late arrival at the passenger's final destination? In this case, if the XC train had been on time, the passenger would not have had a claim so there is no way to attribute the cause to SWR except by ignoring the FACT that the passenger performed the connection in fewer minutes than they were permitted to take if they needed to.

Or to put it another way, there were TWO delays on this journey that were separate - not connected - and this claim is for the second of them. It's easier to see if you have a 3-leg journey - A, B and C. If leg A is delayed but you still make it for leg B which runs on time, but leg C is delayed over the threshold, the claim is against leg C not leg A.

 

[BRX]

The passenger really ought not to need to be party to this kind of back and forth between TOCs... We ought to have one place where you submit a claim, the bickering happens behind the scenes, and the system spits out what you're entitled to. This nonsense (where you have to get involved in chasing it up yourself) happens even when there's nothing contentious and it's just someone at one of the TOCs making a mistake.

 

[richw]

What was the FIRST delay on the journey, when compared to the schedule, that ACTUALLY caused a late arrival at the passenger's final destination? In this case, if the XC train had been on time, the passenger would not have had a claim so there is no way to attribute the cause to SWR except by ignoring the FACT that the passenger performed the connection in fewer minutes than they were permitted to take if they needed to.

Or to put it another way, there were TWO delays on this journey that were separate - not connected - and this claim is for the second of them. It's easier to see if you have a 3-leg journey - A, B and C. If leg A is delayed but you still make it for leg B which runs on time, but leg C is delayed over the threshold, the claim is against leg C not leg A.

This was the logic that my friend and I were working on. He didn’t miss the connection at EXD nor would he have done regardless of minimum connection being breached by the late arrival so why should SWR pay out.

 

[Zerothebrake!]

The XC service stops at the western end of platform 4 and SWT stops at the eastern end of platform 3 so even though it's a cross platform movement it can also involve a lengthy walk especially if there's luggage involved.

Very often the signaller holds the XC service when it's on time for an Exmouth service to cross it's bows into platform 1 to allow the (illegal) connection to make - and this also spares the station staff from getting it in the neck from the SWT punters for letting the XC go.

I can't believe that there wasn't a FGW service to Plymouth that he could have taken instead of waiting for 89 minutes?

 

[richw]

I can't believe that there wasn't a FGW service to Plymouth that he could have taken instead of waiting for 89 minutes?

There should have been. It was even later!

 

[jfollows]

The passenger really ought not to need to be party to this kind of back and forth between TOCs... We ought to have one place where you submit a claim, the bickering happens behind the scenes, and the system spits out what you're entitled to. This nonsense (where you have to get involved in chasing it up yourself) happens even when there's nothing contentious and it's just someone at one of the TOCs making a mistake.

This is totally correct; I was going to make a similar point but I saw your post.

The passenger was clearly eligible for Delay Repay but shouldn’t have to put up with being involved in the bickering minutiae, but this is the reality today - the money wasted by arguing about claims like this must surely be more than is saved when people give up and don’t press their claims.

 

[AdamWW]

The passenger really ought not to need to be party to this kind of back and forth between TOCs... We ought to have one place where you submit a claim, the bickering happens behind the scenes, and the system spits out what you're entitled to. This nonsense (where you have to get involved in chasing it up yourself) happens even when there's nothing contentious and it's just someone at one of the TOCs making a mistake.

Or you submit a claim, the system pays what you're owed, and if the TOCs want to fight over who is ultimately responsible they can do it afterwards.

Given that all the money is now going to the same place anyway it's not clear to me that all this effort trying to push claims onto someone else is an overall benefit to the taxpayer anyway.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I've had this petty squabbling between TOCs many times. In all cases, I've told them both it's not my problem and to pay out within 7 days. In all cases both TOCs paid out straight away!

 

[Hadders]

It'll be best for the OP to contact CrossCountry and explain exactly what happened, I imagine they will then pay out.

 

[richw]

It'll be best for the OP to contact CrossCountry and explain exactly what happened, I imagine they will then pay out.

@yorkie has assisted via Twitter and they’re still not budging

 

[AlterEgo]

Take it to the Ombudsman after getting a deadlock letter. They will have to adjudicate on this one and it will effectively set a precedent. If I was a betting man I reckon they will decree SWR should pay. They fouled the connection first, and if they do so it is of no relevance whether XC was on time or not. Custom and practice has meant that XC would normally have paid following a manual review, but I'm not solidly of the view that they should.

I think none of us believe, for example, a passenger should go out of their way to try hard to make a 2 minute connection that has been reduced from 6 minutes owing to a delay.

Delay Repay is an entirely dispassionate process completely unconcerned about human factors, or fault. It seems intuitive that the long wait the OP had at Exeter was XC's *fault* because their train was very late, but that isn't really how Delay Repay works. It should be extremely simple - you fouled the connection first, you caused the initial delay, everything else is irrelevant.

Anyway, roll on the Railway Clearing House for Delay Repay! Please.

 

[AdamWW]

Take it to the Ombudsman after getting a deadlock letter. They will have to adjudicate on this one and it will effectively set a precedent. If I was a betting man I reckon they will decree SWR should pay. They fouled the connection first, and if they do so it is of no relevance whether XC was on time or not. Custom and practice has meant that XC would normally have paid following a manual review, but I'm not solidly of the view that they should.

Would it be necessary to take both TOCs indvidually to the Ombudsman?

You'd think they couldn't then rule in each case that the relevant TOC was in the right and the other one ought to pay, but...

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As a side query, does it cost the TOC(s) any fee when an unresolved case gets referred to the Rail Ombudsman? Not sure how much 'Delay Repay' @richw's friend has at stake / is currently being withheld. An Off Peak Day Single from Exeter to Plymouth is £14.00 but guess that's not the full journey and likely much more's at stake.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a side query, does it cost the TOC(s) any fee when an unresolved case gets referred to the Rail Ombudsman? Not sure how much 'Delay Repay' @richw's friend has at stake / is currently being withheld. An Off Peak Day Single from Exeter to Plymouth is £14.00 but guess that's not the full journey and likely much more's at stake.

I believe there is no fee; the Ombudsman is funded centrally by the industry, not on a per case basis.

 

[yorkie]

Would it be necessary to take both TOCs indvidually to the Ombudsman?

No; the delay occured on XC and I would just persue XC.

I'd tell the Ombudsman that XC are wrongly trying to pin it on SWR

The Ombudsman are very incompetent so I have no idea which way they will rule on this but either way the OP should get the monies due.

...We ought to have one place where you submit a claim, the bickering happens behind the scenes, and the system spits out what you're entitled to...

Proposals for a new system are welcome in the Speculative Discussion section.

A thread exists already at:

Delay Repay should be provided by retailers

The current system, whereby a refund request goes to the retailer but a delay repay request goes to the TOC who is deemed to have caused the delay, is not fit for purpose. Passengers get confused and not only that but TOCs themselves have been known, on numerous occasions, to erroneously palm...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[richw]

An Off Peak Day Single from Exeter to Plymouth is £14.00 but guess that's not the full journey and likely much more's at stake.

Yeovil junction to Plymouth £46 and some pence

 

[AlterEgo]

The important thing is that this does go to the Ombudsman - nobody can disagree that the money is owed, so they *have* to make a judgment on *who* is responsible.

 

[sheff1]

If this happened to me I would be minded to take Deafdoggie's approach (post #20).