obtaining refunds after service disruption

[mnolan83]

Hi,

I was wondering if I could pick all your brains relating to a refund eligibility.

We had a traveller who was due to travel on the 18th May from Bristol - London however due to a fire in the Reading area all the trains were cancelled so the traveller aborted there travel plans.

We applied to Trainline for a full refund on the 16th June which was 29 days after the original expiry date on the ticket as the ticket they hold was an off peak day travelcard fare.

Trainline refused to process the refund saying it was after the 28 days past the expiry day on the ticket. Should this still apply when it's an instance of service disruption?

In addition if trainline were right to refuse this are we able to apply for compensation with Great Western using the delay repay scheme?

Any advise appreciated.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

When you pay a fare on the railway, yourself, the company(s) you are entitled to use and, if different, the ticket seller, agree to a contract, the terms of that contract are set out in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Condition 26 explains what rights you have to a refund, in this case part b is appropriate.

26. Refunds on tickets that have not been used

If you decide not to use a ticket (other than a Season Ticket - see Condition 36) to make all
or part of your intended journey, then:

(b) if the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be
honoured, your ticket or relevant portion of it is completely unused, you decide
not to travel and you submit a claim for a refund within 28 days of the expiry of
the ticket to the Ticket Seller you will be given a full refund as shown in Condition
27 as soon as practicable and in any case within one month of your claim being
received.

So unfortunately you cannot claim a refund if the ticket expired more than 28 days previously.

Delay Repay requires that a journey took place. If the journey did not take place it cannot be claimed, in any case, I believe delay repay also needs to be submitted within 28 days.

 

[DarloRich]

First bit of advice: Dont use the trainline

 

[kieron]

First bit of advice: Dont use the trainline

I don't think mnolan83 would have any more joy applying for a refund from a company the traveller in question didn't buy the ticket from.

 

[Darandio]

I don't think mnolan83 would have any more joy applying for a refund from a company the traveller in question didn't buy the ticket from.

Indeed, but the sound advice will save them money in the future.

 

[westv]

Why did it take so long to claim?

 

[sheff1]

I may be wrong, but the OP suggests to me a situation where the Trainline are contracted to book tickets for an employer. If so, the OP will have no choice in who they book with.

 

[TimG]

When you pay a fare on the railway, yourself, the company(s) you are entitled to use and, if different, the ticket seller, agree to a contract, the terms of that contract are set out in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Condition 26 explains what rights you have to a refund, in this case part b is appropriate.



So unfortunately you cannot claim a refund if the ticket expired more than 28 days previously.

Delay Repay requires that a journey took place. If the journey did not take place it cannot be claimed, in any case, I believe delay repay also needs to be submitted within 28 days.

They should not be so petty and apply common sense.

 

[kieron]

They should not be so petty and apply common sense.

Perhaps they should do something different. But what are you going to do if they don't?

 

[221129]

They should not be so petty and apply common sense.

Or perhaps the passenger should put in for a refund in a timely manner?

 

[455driver]

They should not be so petty and apply common sense.

What like allowing 28 days to claim, if 28 days isnt enough then how long do you propose to allow and why, if they cant claim within 28 days, do you think another few days would make any difference?

 

[TimG]

What like allowing 28 days to claim, if 28 days isnt enough then how long do you propose to allow and why, if they cant claim within 28 days, do you think another few days would make any difference?

Obviously there needs to be an upper limit that can be enforced where there's a good reason. Morally (as part of good customer service) they should refund and only refuse future untimely claims.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Define "good reason". A company, whose aim it is too make money, may consider that abiding by the agreement made (and consequently saving money) is "good reason", even if you don't agree.

 

[Starmill]

I've always wondered why you only have 28 days to claim a refund if your train is cancelled and you don't travel. You have 6 months if you buy goods which are faulty to return them for a refund, don't you?

Perhaps DfT could look at changing the conditions to allow 6 months after the journey for refund and compensation claims.

 

[najaB]

I've always wondered why you only have 28 days to claim a refund if your train is cancelled and you don't travel. You have 6 months if you buy goods which are faulty to return them for a refund, don't you?

Perhaps DfT could look at changing the conditions to allow 6 months after the journey for refund and compensation claims.

And how, exactly, are the train tickets faulty?

 

[Starmill]

And how, exactly, are the train tickets faulty?

Where, exactly, did I suggest they were?

 

[najaB]

Where, exactly, did I suggest they were?

Well what's the point in making a comparison to the time period for returning faulty goods then?

 

[Starmill]

Because the service that you paid for was not what was advertised, as a result of delays or cancellations. Given there's an established right to a refund if one chooses not to take the service up as a result of that, it's not a huge leap. There's also some benefit in harmonised conditions for similar things.

There's really no need for you to be so pedantic you know. I think you understood the comparison I was drawing, but just wanted to act a little superior to me by pointing out that they're not quite the same, even though it's clear I already recognise that. If you're not going to comment constructively there's really no need to do so at all.

 

[Clip]

Because the service that you paid for was not what was advertised, as a result of delays or cancellations. Given there's an established right to a refund if one chooses not to take the service up as a result of that, it's not a huge leap. There's also some benefit in harmonised conditions for similar things.

There's really no need for you to be so pedantic you know. I think you understood the comparison I was drawing, but just wanted to act a little superior to me by pointing out that they're not quite the same, even though it's clear I already recognise that. If you're not going to comment constructively there's really no need to do so at all.

They werent being pedantic though - you tried to compare the consumer rights act - which travel tickets do not fall under - to the terms and conditions of purchasing a ticket alluding to them being faulty(or else why would you mention it) the two are vastly seperate entities which you well know.

Quite simply if you dont travel you can apply for a refund that very same day and up to 28 which is very generous as it will be in your mind whereas discovering a fault within 6 months really wont be as you expect goods to be fault free.

 

[DaiGog]

28 days is quite reasonable for compensation claims.

If 'common sense' were to be applied for a case at 29 days, should you then consider one at 30 days, or is that a step too far - and if so, why (not) and then where do you stop? You need to draw a line in the sand somewhere and stick to it.

 

[najaB]

Because the service that you paid for was not what was advertised, as a result of delays or cancellations. Given there's an established right to a refund if one chooses not to take the service up as a result of that, it's not a huge leap. There's also some benefit in harmonised conditions for similar things.

But the contract that existed was for transportation, the customer chose not to travel because the journey times no longer suited their needs. It would have been immediately clear to the customer that they would not have been making the journey. That is different to receiving a refund for products that are materially faulty, where it may take some time for the fault to become apparent - you don't suddenly realise three months later that you didn't actually make that trip to Birmingham. There's no equivalence between the two.

It is closer to the situation that exists under distance selling regulations where you have 14 days to decide to change your mind because what you thought you were buying didn't match your needs or what you actually received.

 

[Starmill]

Don't the goods need to be faulty at the time you bought them for that to apply? I think there are relatively few such cases where the fault only becomes apparent 5 months later. Increasing the time is a good move because it gives people making late return journeys or leaving the country extra time and offers a lot of goodwill at relatively little extra cost. There would only be a small number of marginal claims, but it would look good.

 

[najaB]

Don't the goods need to be faulty at the time you bought them for that to apply? I think there are relatively few such cases where the fault only becomes apparent 5 months later.

It's actually up to six years for larger items if you can provide reasonable proof that the fault is due to a defect in either manufacturing or design meaning that the item wasn't 'of suitable quality' to be offered for sale in the first place (though the refund will be pro-rata depending on how long past the original warranty period you are).

And there are plenty of situations where a manufacturing defect only becomes apparent months after the product is purchased. For example, I might replace my boiler towards the end of the heating season and then not use it again for several months. It then breaks as soon as I start using it again the following autumn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There would only be a small number of marginal claims, but it would look good.

As you said, there will be very few additional claims so is it a change worth making as the additional costs (setting up accounting systems to back date claims that far) won't be worth the very small amount of additional goodwill?

 

[IanD]

I think the refund claim period should be 1 calendar month - much easier to work out than 28 days and would harmonise with the validity of non-day returns.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think the refund claim period should be 1 calendar month - much easier to work out than 28 days....

You might find it easier, but I think you'd be surprised about some of the rest of the population.

 

[LAX54]

I think the refund claim period should be 1 calendar month - much easier to work out than 28 days and would harmonise with the validity of non-day returns.

People would then argue May 16th to June 15th is not a 'month' but two weeks in each calendar month ! 28 days is simple, and more importantly very clear.

 

[najaB]

People would then argue May 16th to June 15th is not a 'month' but two weeks in each calendar month ! 28 days is simple, and more importantly very clear.

Plus the fact that a calendar month isn't actually a consistent number of days. If I buy my ticket in February I have fewer days to refund it than someone who bought theirs in July.

 

[IanD]

People would then argue May 16th to June 15th is not a 'month' but two weeks in each calendar month ! 28 days is simple, and more importantly very clear.

What's difficult about a calendar month? You have a ticket that expires on the 16th July you have until 15th August to get a refund. With the 28 days you have until 13th August or is it the 12th or 14th?

Plus the fact that a calendar month isn't actually a consistent number of days. If I buy my ticket in February I have fewer days to refund it than someone who bought theirs in July.

You'd have at 28 days in most Februarys same as now so no-one loses. Some years you'd even have more. So for 3 years you'd be no worse off and every 4th year you'd have an extra day (except in 2400, 2800 etc). It's no different from buying a monthly season or return - some months are shorter than others - you win some, you lose some but it's something we've managed to live with for a long time.

 

[najaB]

You'd have at 28 days in most February's same as now so no-one loses.

The person who buys their ticket in February loses as compared to the person who buys theirs in July.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's difficult about a calendar month? You have a ticket that expires on the 16th July you have until 15th August to get a refund.

You'd be surprised the number of people who argue that a week from Saturday is Saturday.

 

[IanD]

The person who buys their ticket in February loses as compared to the person who buys theirs in July.

Only relative to the current timescales. People buying in February would still have 28 days as they do now.