Advice during disruption to Grand Central services

[wellhouse]

I could have sworn I saw a post in this thread regarding similar instances a while ago whereby GC staff were on platforms exchanging tickets to allow travel on other operators. I cannot find it now.

Anyway, this exchange happened on Twitter today:





Nearly into the realms of the classic VTEC smart arse reply there! Of course the customer has a choice, but if choosing the GC only ticket means they have to fork out again when the service goes tits up.....

Post #41

 

[Darandio]

Post #41

So it was, thankyou.

 

[philthetube]

Surely they could have laid on some replacement buses. London isn’t in the back of beyond, there are many coach companies in the area.

I wonder if you would get a refund on both the GC ticket, as the service was cancelled, and the LNER ticket, as they’ve said they will refund it.

With all these issues, cancellations that have been going on months, I do wonder how they keep winning all the awards and the ‘best operator’ gongs. I suppose they are under the radar somewhat.

There are not many coaches floating round on a Summer Sunday and busses are really not suitable for this sort of work.

 

[TUC]

There are not many coaches floating round on a Summer Sunday and busses are really not suitable for this sort of work.

This is often said, but is there any regularly updated databases that TOCs can access where coach companies in each locality can record their avaiability each day?

 

[Haywain]

This is often said, but is there any regularly updated databases that TOCs can access where coach companies in each locality can record their avaiability each day?

It's not just vehicles that are needed, but drivers as well.

 

[Deafdoggie]

This is often said, but is there any regularly updated databases that TOCs can access where coach companies in each locality can record their avaiability each day?

We normally get a "send to all" text asking what there is when it all goes belly up! It can be quite funny, as they have three mobile numbers, and they send it to all! When all three go off at the same time, we look at each other and go "Railway shut"

 

[Tetchytyke]

Certainly for any journeys I make in future on the ECML I am very seriously put off considering getting Hull Trains Only or Grand Central Only tickets

Anyone would think that's David Horne's intention...

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Time for GC to hire in the unwanted 365s and run them up the ECML! They're the new 442s you know...

(Yes, yes, 100mph stock and driver knowledge, I'm not being entirely serious)

 

[island]

Several interesting points raised.

On the NRCoT
Section 28.2 obliges any TOC to carry stranded passengers when they reasonably can do so. Apparently, LNER determined its own services were too crowded for it to reasonably accommodate displaced GC passengers. Assuming that this was so – I have no reason to doubt that it was – then LNER was relieved of its obligation under the tickets issued to those GC passengers.

Some posters suggest that the fact LNER accommodated passengers who purchased walk-up tickets implied that its decision not to accommodate passengers with GC Only ticket was unreasonable. I disagree. Once those passengers entered into a new contract by purchasing an any permitted ticket, LNER was then obliged to carry them whether reasonable or not.

On CSL2
As several folks have mentioned, the internal workings of the rail industry are no concern of passengers’. This works both ways – Grand Central is not under any obligation to declare CSL2, and any obligations LNER may have when this happens are owed to Grand Central. They are not enforceable by Grand Central’s customers, and nor is Grand Central obliged to declare CSL2.

On speaking to the guard before boarding
It seems reasonable to me for the guard to be given discretion whether GC passengers could be carried on a particular train, absent a CSL2 declaration.

On needing to pay for new tickets and reclaim
Whilst this might have presented liquidity problems or other difficulties for a minority of passengers, it seems to me to have been the fastest way to get the majority of passengers on the move to their destinations. I have no reason to doubt that GC was willing and able to repay passengers for the extra tickets purchased. For those for whom this presented a problem, the final sentence of the GC instruction suggested they speak to a GC representative at Kings Cross. I am not sure what the representatives were going to do, but I suspect they would have been getting hold of ticket machines and issuing affected customers with complimentary any permitted tickets – which they would then end up accounting for through ORCATS.

On contracts
A couple of posts seem to suggest that a ticket holder has an absolute unfettered and unrestricted right to be carried to their destination. This in law is known as specific performance. The contract to be carried is not one for which a court would be likely to grant specific performance as a remedy for breach.

GC, on the face of it, committed an anticipatory breach of the contract by announcing it would not carry passengers on the specified trains. This breach is one for which damages and/or rescission of the contract are a valid remedy – in other words, GC would have to allow passengers to cancel their travel plans and obtain full refunds on the tickets, or pay to the passengers the costs incurred as a result of its breach.

This is precisely what it said it would do.

On coaches
Contrary to the apparent beliefs of some posters, TOCs do not have a limitless supply of coaches and drivers on standby to provide an on-demand replacement service when the railway service fails to go to plan. Expecting GC to pay for black taxis/PHVs/hotels is fanciful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A question on this...could LNER actually refuse to sell GC any tickets to pass to passengers? I doubt Ryanair would readily flog tickets to easyJet[1]...

There is no obligation for any business to sell to any customer, provided the reason for not doing so is not related to a legally protected characteristic. Being a TOC isn't a protected characteristic.

[1] Well, actually they probably would, then splatter it all over the newspapers the next day

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

GC, on the face of it, committed an anticipatory breach of the contract by announcing it would not carry passengers on the specified trains. This breach is one for which damages and/or rescission of the contract are a valid remedy – in other words, GC would have to allow passengers to cancel their travel plans and obtain full refunds on the tickets, or pay to the passengers the costs incurred as a result of its breach.

Expecting GC to pay for black taxis/PHVs/hotels is fanciful.

These two quotations might appear to be contradictory! GC can't simply decide they don't want to perform the contract and then refund the passenger - as the passenger can similarly not just decide they don't want to perform the contract and demand their money back on an unrefundable Advance!

GC has an obligation AFAICT to perform the contract. In the case of an Advance it is amply clear what the obligation is, but even in the case of a GC-only walkup ticket where the last trains of the day are cancelled, it is clear this obligation persists. They can choose to abide by the obligation later - by saying you should take the next morning's first train and arranging overnight accomodation, plus compensating passengers - but they cannot simply turf passengers out at KGX and refuse to pay or reimburse for either accomodation or onward transport!

It is a shame that this has not occurred in a much more newsworthy and significant way. Otherwise TOCs such as GC would rapidly learn that events such as Sunday are a quick way of making your business go bankrupt, through the bad press and possible legal action. They deliberately chose not to buy people new tickets there and then - and they deserve to suffer for the penny-pinching shortsightedness and corporate greed this demonstrates.

 

[Starmill]

Whilst this might have presented liquidity problems or other difficulties for a minority of passengers

IMO this is understating it somewhat. Given it is more than £130 for a London to Sunderland single I think that would cause quite a few people 'liquidity issues'. In particular it may take a couple of weeks for GC to read the email and authorise the transfer before funds are back in the customer's account. If you could afford that, good for you. But could most people?

 

[Hadders]

On declaring CSL2 would a single service cancellation warrant this course of action.

I'm surprised GC directed passengers to purchase new tickets from LNER to travel. It would've made more sense for GC to have issued the tickets themselves from their own ticket machine because they'd have got the commission on the 'sales'. By purchasing from LNER Grand Central will effectively have to pay the full price (via refunds to customers) rather than the full price less the commission.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

On declaring CSL2 would a single service cancellation warrant this course of action.

I'm surprised GC directed passengers to purchase new tickets from LNER to travel. It would've made more sense for GC to have issued the tickets themselves from their own ticket machine because they'd have got the commission on the 'sales'. By purchasing from LNER Grand Central will effectively have to pay the full price (via refunds to customers) rather than the full price less the commission.

On the other hand, not all passengers will have decided to travel in the light of this - those who don't have the money for a new ticket will simply have been stuck! So I would imagine that this alone is probably going to reduce their 'reimbursement' bill by far more than getting the commission off sales would.

 

[Starmill]

Expecting GC to pay for black taxis/PHVs/hotels is fanciful.

Again - on what basis? I'm aware of a forum member who was once in a taxi travelling from Edinburgh to Hull at the expense of ScotRail. I'm aware of another forum member who was offered a hotel for the night in Edinburgh following a long delay which resulted in them missing the final England-bound service of the day. I once assisted a group of foreign tourists who had become stranded at Carlisle in finding staff late at night. The Virgin Trains staff then agreed to send them all onto London, from Carlisle, by taxi.

 

[island]

These two quotations might appear to be contradictory! GC can't simply decide they don't want to perform the contract and then refund the passenger - as the passenger can similarly not just decide they don't want to perform the contract and demand their money back on an unrefundable Advance!

GC has an obligation AFAICT to perform the contract. In the case of an Advance it is amply clear what the obligation is, but even in the case of a GC-only walkup ticket where the last trains of the day are cancelled, it is clear this obligation persists. They can choose to abide by the obligation later - by saying you should take the next morning's first train and arranging overnight accomodation, plus compensating passengers - but they cannot simply turf passengers out at KGX and refuse to pay or reimburse for either accomodation or onward transport!

They aren’t contradictions at all. And GC did not refuse to pay or reimburse for onward transport – see post 1 where they explicitly undertook to pay for passengers to travel on LNER!

 

[Bletchleyite]

They aren’t contradictions at all. And GC did not refuse to pay or reimburse for onward transport – see post 1 where they explicitly undertook to pay for passengers to travel on LNER!

...if the passenger could afford to "pay and claim", which is not good enough.

 

[Silverdale]

Perhaps the wording of GC's advice could have been better. It should not have said that customers booked or intending to travel on the cancelled services would be "required to purchase additional tickets to complete their journeys using LNER services and connections". Customer's aren't required to do this. Instead they can choose not to travel at all and have their fare refunded by GC, or they can travel by other means and make a claim to GC for the reasonable costs incurred. The advice should have made that clear.

...if the passenger could afford to "pay and claim", which is not good enough.

The advice issued does conclude by saying; "If you require assistance, please speak to the Grand Central reps at London Kings Cross" and I would expect a sensible TOC to look at any such customers' specific needs and deal with them reasonably. That might mean issuing or endorsing a "TOC-only" ticket to travel by other services, where a customer didn't have the means to pay and claim, or it could mean arranging a specific means of alternative transport for, say, a customer who is disabled or who has other special needs which would not be met simply by switching to the LNER services.

If there were cases where passengers were left stranded, or their needs not dealt with by GC on this occasion, it would be right to criticise and condemn. However, island #69 is right to point out that contractually, a TOC is not required to issue replacement tickets for other services in the event of a cancellation.

 

[Starmill]

a TOC is not required to issue replacement tickets for other services in the event of a cancellation.

Several people have made this point now, but I'm afraid I can't see why. Nobody has asked them to do so. They themselves have decided that this is the course of action that's needed.

What's required of Grand Central is to run either the advertised train service or to offer replacement transport by one means or another. I note that you and others seem very happy to queue up to excuse the fact that they have failed in this instance to do either.

In my view, if a train company cannot or will not run trains or offer their customers replacement transport, they don't deserve their licence to carry passengers.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That might mean issuing or endorsing a "TOC-only" ticket to travel by other services, where a customer didn't have the means to pay and claim

So if that is possible, why not actually treat your passengers fairly and do that for everyone (as has been claimed in this thread happened in the past)?

 

[Taunton]

LNER had not suspended selling tickets on their own service. They are quite happy to sell open tickets when it is known that services are already beyond capacity. I think the only operator who actually suspend bookings when they are overwhelmed is London Underground.

If the ORR as Rail Regulator did their job properly they would have dealt with nonsense situations like this long ago. NRCoT, which all operators are signed up to, section 28.1 is quite clear. It does not state there needs to be "acceptance".

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

LNER had not suspended selling tickets on their own service. They are quite happy to sell open tickets when it is known that services are already beyond capacity. I think the only operator who actually suspend bookings when they are overwhelmed is London Underground.

If the ORR as Rail Regulator did their job properly they would have dealt with nonsense situations like this long ago. NRCoT, which all operators are signed up to, section 28.1 is quite clear. It does not state there needs to be "acceptance".

I suspect one reason, or at least part of the reason, that the regulatory authorities do little to nothing about cases like this is because they otherwise risk putting off franchise bidders. Considering a number of franchises recently have had only 2 or 3 bidders, compared to the 4 or 5 which were often seen in years gone by, this may be a big concern. They wouldn't want to put their political masters in a situation where the ideal of a privatised railway is proven impracticable because enforcing the rules puts off all the bidders, leading to a lack of competition!

 

[island]

What's required of Grand Central is to run either the advertised train service or to offer replacement transport by one means or another.

...or to pay compensation/damages for breaching their contract.

Ticket holders do not have an unqualified right to specific performance of the contract.

 

[Silverdale]

So if that is possible, why not actually treat your passengers fairly and do that for everyone (as has been claimed in this thread happened in the past)?

As I said, the advice was misleading. Customers with "GC-only" tickets should not have been told they were required to purchase tickets to travel by LNER and connections.

If customers had been given the correct advice - either to ask for a refund or to make their own arrangements and claim back any reasonable expense incurred - perhaps some would have chosen to purchase tickets for travel by LNER, but others may not. In the event of a cancellation, the choice of whether to travel or not, and by what means, is the customer's. As a customer, I would expect to retain that choice and not have GC issue me with a replacement ticket for travel by LNER on a take it or leave it basis.

On the other hand, if I wanted to travel but had no means to purchase additional tickets, I would expect GC to endorse the ticket I held or issue a ticket on my behalf. I would understand that I could not insist that they do this, but that if they did, it would be in lieu of my making a claim against them for any costs I incurred as a result of the cancellation.

[Edit] Have any customers reported that were unable to purchase tickets to complete their journey and they asked GC to help, but were refused and left stranded?

 

[Haywain]

That might mean issuing or endorsing a "TOC-only" ticket to travel by other services,

GC would not have any right to do this after having LNER refuse to carry passengers holding "GC Only" tickets.

 

[Haywain]

LNER had not suspended selling tickets on their own service. They are quite happy to sell open tickets when it is known that services are already beyond capacity.

Stopping selling flexible tickets is virtually impossible. You can stop selling at the ticket office but not from TVMs, the websites or other stations. The only available option is to restrict boarding to those holding reservations but even that is only a (very poor) option at barriered platforms.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As I said, the advice was misleading. Customers with "GC-only" tickets should not have been told they were required to purchase tickets to travel by LNER and connections.

If customers had been given the correct advice - either to ask for a refund or to make their own arrangements and claim back any reasonable expense incurred - perhaps some would have chosen to purchase tickets for travel by LNER, but others may not. In the event of a cancellation, the choice of whether to travel or not, and by what means, is the customer's. As a customer, I would expect to retain that choice and not have GC issue me with a replacement ticket for travel by LNER on a take it or leave it basis.

On the other hand, if I wanted to travel but had no means to purchase additional tickets, I would expect GC to endorse the ticket I held or issue a ticket on my behalf. I would understand that I could not insist that they do this, but that if they did, it would be in lieu of my making a claim against them for any costs I incurred as a result of the cancellation.

[Edit] Have any customers reported that were unable to purchase tickets to complete their journey and they asked GC to help, but were refused and left stranded?

Well of course they didn't have to travel etc etc. But that isn't what we are talking about here.
We are talking about passengers who did have to travel, who couldn't afford to (or didn't want to) pay the £100+ upfront for a new ticket because Grand Central cancelled their train.
It simply is NEVER acceptable in my opinion for people to have to pony up money like that to then have to claim it back after the fact if they need to travel, despite already having a valid ticket for travel. Grand Central should be providing alternative travel in some way.

Stopping selling flexible tickets is virtually impossible. You can stop selling at the ticket office but not from TVMs, the websites or other stations. The only available option is to restrict boarding to those holding reservations but even that is only a (very poor) option at barriered platforms.

Such a tactic is done quite often in certain places when you have events etc. No reason at all why it couldn't work at Kings Cross!

 

[Haywain]

Such a tactic is done quite often in certain places when you have events etc. No reason at all why it couldn't work at Kings Cross!

I take it you chose to reply without considering how it might be achieved.

 

[Silverdale]

Well of course they didn't have to travel etc etc. But that isn't what we are talking about here.
We are talking about passengers who did have to travel, who couldn't afford to (or didn't want to) pay the £100+ upfront for a new ticket because Grand Central cancelled their train.
It simply is NEVER acceptable in my opinion for people to have to pony up money like that to then have to claim it back after the fact if they need to travel, despite already having a valid ticket for travel.

It might not be acceptable to you, but however loud you SHOUT, those are the terms of the contract that you enter into when you purchase a rail ticket.

Grand Central should be providing alternative travel in some way.

There would be some justification for saying that if customers were going to be left stranded, otherwise. Do we actually know whether anyone who wanted to was unable to get to their destination as a result of the GC cancellations last Sunday? Do we even know how GC responded to any customers who couldn't (or didn't want to) pay for a new ticket and asked for assistance?

I criticise GC for their published advice, which was misleading.

I would also criticise GC if they have failed to take reasonable steps to assist their customers get to their destinations when asked for help, but before I do, I'd like to know whether that was actually the case.

 

[Darandio]

I cannot confirm this, but looking at Twitter it does seem that some people did indeed buy new tickets as instructed. One in particular then tried to claim the refund and was then told they could only claim the amount minus the price of the original ticket. They also claim that tweets promising a full refund have now been deleted.