Virgin trains compensation

[maniacmartin]

You can bet that the TOC will be claiming from Network Rail in the case of a suicide, so why is it frowned upon for the passenger to claim from the TOC?

 

[35B]

You can bet that the TOC will be claiming from Network Rail in the case of a suicide, so why is it frowned upon for the passenger to claim from the TOC?

Quite. Delay Repay is for the TOC's failure to deliver on their contract to convey me from A-B according to the timetable. When I claim, which I always do, no question of blame is involved. Sometimes, I'm minded to praise the staff, at others, my thoughts are less positive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JBuchananGB]

With reference to post #3 in this thread, my daughter received 100% compensation from VTWC by means of a cheque. Most satisfactory.

 

[crosscity]

Here is a further update.

In September I raised a complaint with Transport Focus. They sided with Virgin Trains and said that I was only entitled to compensation for the ticket relating to the delayed train. I escalated this to a more senior person for review, but the reply was the same. What I found disappointing in the reply wasn't the result but it's supineness. It looks as though they contacted Virgin Trains and just accepted what they said. I was expecting at least an explanation quoting evidence as to how and why they reached their conclusion.


This was the reply from Transport Focus:
"The 0830 service that you took from Birmingham New Street to London Euston was terminated early due to delays and you have been compensated to the value of 100% of the value of this ticket cost - £17. I appreciate that you arrived over three hours late in to Euston, which had a knock-on effect on your journey to Kew Gardens. However, as you did not hold a ‘through’ ticket, but rather, were travelling on a combination of a single from New Street to Euston and then an Oyster card from London to Kew Garden, you are entitled to compensation based on the single ticket for the affected journey only (New Street to Euston).

In order to be eligible for compensation for your full journey between Northfield and Kew Gardens, you would have had to purchase a ‘Single’ ticket between these two stations rather than the combination of tickets you actually purchased, as detailed above.

As my colleague <xxxxx> has already mentioned, if a combination of tickets is used for a continuous journey, compensation applies only to the individual ticket covering the section of that journey where disruption occurs and will be calculated on the basis of the cost of the (Single or Return) ticket for that section of the journey and the length of delay to the passenger."


I thank all of you who contributed to the discussion. I personally am bemused that the Railway can't put together a concise and accurate form of words that I as a fare-paying passenger could understand and know exactly what I was entitled to if things went wrong. Terms like 'journey', 'ticket' and 'train' are not defined and are sometimes used as though they are interchangeable.

I am surprised that the local journey from Kings Norton to New St was not included in the delay-repay payment as I thought a split-ticket journey was still a journey. If, say, the train from Kings Norton had been late and I missed the Euston train I would have expected the railway to honour the Euston ticket at no extra charge to myself.

I agree with those that have said that introducing the 'return' part as part of the delay compensation is only sensible if you decide to abandon your journey. To differentiate the severity of the delay by multiples of the single journey makes more sense (Eg 50% for 30-59 minutes delay, 100% for 60-119 minutes and 200% for 120 minutes or more).

The moral issue of whether you should claim at all in the event of a delay due to suicide is an interesting one. Even if I didn't want to claim, Virgin insisted I be paid automatically. This is OK as my intention was to donate the whole of any compensation to charity.

I do not intend to pursue the claim any further, but I will still be interested in your comments.

 

[yorkie]

This is incorrect, and I will put you in touch with someone who can escalate the matter shortly.

The company is unlikely to ignore correspondence from a solicitor. I'll contact you privately tomorrow.

There are several people with ongoing cases. We'll get it sorted.

 

[bb21]

You can bet that the TOC will be claiming from Network Rail in the case of a suicide, so why is it frowned upon for the passenger to claim from the TOC?

Fatalities are not 100% Network Rail incidents. Delay attribution surrounding fatalities is incredibly complex.

 

[Starmill]

Fatalities are not 100% Network Rail incidents. Delay attribution surrounding fatalities is incredibly complex.

Certainly. But is there a 'moral' judgement made on who gets what? Or is it done though standardised procedures developed with commercial requirements in mind?

I suspect the latter, so the passenger doing that is still not different.

 

[bb21]

Certainly. But is there a 'moral' judgement made on who gets what? Or is it done though standardised procedures developed with commercial requirements in mind?

I suspect the latter, so the passenger doing that is still not different.

There is a set procedure for attribution and fatality is probably one of the most discussed subjects, but still generates lots of questions.

Not that it has any bearing on what the customer is entitled to, as it is all between NR and TOC. The "moral" side of it is all a bit of a red-herring which I would rather not touch on.

 

[Hadders]

I have an ongoing case with Transport Focus which is similar to this one. I agree that all they do is repeat what they are told by the train company - they even seem to lack an understanding of what the NRCoT says. There is absolutely no point in having Transport Focus if all they do is repeat what the train operating companies tell them without any challenge or query.

The sooner they're replaced with an organisation with proper powers to hold the train companies to account the better.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I have an ongoing case with Transport Focus which is similar to this one. I agree that all they do is repeat what they are told by the train company - they even seem to lack an understanding of what the NRCoT says. There is absolutely no point in having Transport Focus if all they do is repeat what the train operating companies tell them without any challenge or query.

The sooner they're replaced with an organisation with proper powers to hold the train companies to account the better.

It would appear that a damp squib would be (marginally) more useful than that echo chamber called Transport Focus. They have a focus on one thing and one thing only - confirming that the TOC is always right.

Unlike a proper ADR scheme, Transport Focus has the power to force the TOC to do precisely nothing. And even if they could, they don't even bother (as noted above). Perhaps the rules need to be changed to align them with the communications industry, which has in many ways many similarities - hundreds of different companies involved, disputes over liability, bad customer service and poor infrastructure in many rural areas, calls for privatisation - but there membership of a competent ADR scheme is mandatory. ADR schemes make clear they will kick out companies that don't abide by their rulings, so effectively companies are at threat of criminal Ofcom sanctions if they get kicked out of both of the two schemes currently available.

It's farcial that the TOCs try to get out of their obligation to specify a proper ADR service (which applies to almost all traders by virtue of some EU directive) by saying that, while Ombudsman Services do offer a competent relevant service, any correspondence to them will be forwarded onto the wet paper bag known as Transport Focus, as they 'already provide an arbitration service' - as if!