Late train made me miss bus to hotel

[island]

The starting point is that the railway is responsible for conveying you to the final destination on your railway ticket.

In line with the NRCoT and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the railway may be responsible for consequential losses caused by delays. Some other points to consider:

1. We do not know the cause of the delay. Whilst DelayRepay is paid regardless of the cause of a delay, a consequential losses claim requires more. To make a successful Consumer Rights Act claim, the traveller would need to show that the TOC failed to perform the service with reasonable care and skill. Whether it did or not in this instance is a question of fact.
   • For example, if the delay was due to unexpected poor weather, it would be unlikely to be possible to show this.
   • If, on the other hand, the delay was caused by staff shortages, it would potentially be possible to show that the railway failed to use reasonable care and skill by having standby staff ("spare turns") available.
   • The burden of proving that the service was not performed with reasonable care and skill lies on the traveller.
2. It is not possible to claim for the same event/loss twice under different heads. As Titfield alluded to above, it is potentially arguable that the passenger has claimed via DelayRepay money that might not be recoverable from a CRA claim, and they cannot "have it both ways".
3. The railway would likely be able to successfully argue that the passenger failed to mitigate their loss, such as by seeking assistance from train or station staff.
4. The railway would also argue that the passenger was not stranded but chose not to wait for the connection, and had already been paid the maximum DelayRepay payout.

 

[Starmill]

In any practical sense it is, unless you are one of those people willing to pursue quite small sums through the Courts at potentially high cost.

The railway is responsible for getting you to the place on your ticket (or set of contiguous split tickets with proper connection times allowed). You are going to have to prove negligence in Court to get any more.

Simple breach of contract is all that's required, not negligence. You're really wrong on this I'm afraid. Three hours is overwhelmingly likely to be viewed as breach of contract. That's not to say any damages are recoverable as it depends on all of the other factors I've pointed out, and as has been suggested by others.

 

[class17]

Perhaps the OP may consider travel insurance if he wants to cover such eventualities in the future?

 

[221129]

Perhaps the OP may consider travel insurance if he wants to cover such eventualities in the future?

Depending on the reason for the delay, then a simple email back to customer services should suffice.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps the OP may consider travel insurance if he wants to cover such eventualities in the future?

For £13? This is the sort of cost you budget for and bake into a trip. That isn’t to say there couldn’t be some limited circumstances where the sum could be claimed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Simple breach of contract is all that's required, not negligence. You're really wrong on this I'm afraid. Three hours is overwhelmingly likely to be viewed as breach of contract. That's not to say any damages are recoverable as it depends on all of the other factors I've pointed out, and as has been suggested by others.

Can you cite any caselaw on this matter please?

Specifically this situation, not general breach of contract.

You would have to first find a train journey delayed for 3 hours that wasn't caused by outside matters, e.g. weather. Not common at all.

 

[Starmill]

Can you cite any caselaw on this matter please

No. It is unnecessary since the NRCoT change, as the new conditions specifically state that claims may be made under this pathway instead of using 'Delay Repay' or other charter or NRCoT minimum delay compensation.

It was true before the NRCoT were revised to make that clear, of course. But it now specifically includes references to claims made under the Consumer Rights Act, or other common law claims for damages in the first paragraph in the Introduction and the first part of condition 32.

In general few people will choose this over the Delay Repay option, where that exists, because it's just so much quicker and easier to do that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2021 ==

Not common at all.

Do you think? A train of mine was recently cancelled as a result of 'a shortage of train crew'. My delay was therefore two hours. Not especially uncommon in my view, although I myself choose to just claim under 'Delay Repay' for speed and convenience.

 

[Dai Corner]

To our collective knowledge, has anyone ever claimed against a TOC for consequential losses after being delayed?

Something like loss of earnings for an hourly-paid employee should be easy to prove.

 

[Llanigraham]

Simple breach of contract is all that's required, not negligence. You're really wrong on this I'm afraid. Three hours is overwhelmingly likely to be viewed as breach of contract. That's not to say any damages are recoverable as it depends on all of the other factors I've pointed out, and as has been suggested by others.

As a layman perhaps ypu could explain, since I read my "contact" with the railway is as stated on my ticket, so that when I get to the final station the contract then ends? Any subsequent journey after that is my problem, even if it does mean I might have to wait 3 hours for the next bus.

 

[221129]

To our collective knowledge, has anyone ever claimed against a TOC for consequential losses after being delayed?

Something like loss of earnings for an hourly-paid employee should be easy to prove.

I've claimed for and been provided taxis for missing the last bus home more than once.

 

[1955LR]

I have claimed successfully without exception on a number of occasions for a Taxi fare from a TOC due to a late running train making me miss the last bus of the day to my home destination . On all occasions they have stated it was an ex gratia payment , as they claim they are not liable for consequential losses. I claimed outside the delay repay schemes.

 

[seagull]

Indeed but ‘v poor’ in terms of customer service is something the railway is good at so I don’t think we should be too surprised if that were the case.

See below.

I've claimed for and been provided taxis for missing the last bus home more than once.

I have claimed successfully without exception on a number of occasions for a Taxi fare from a TOC due to a late running train making me miss the last bus of the day to my home destination .

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. It is unnecessary since the NRCoT change, as the new conditions specifically state that claims may be made under this pathway instead of using 'Delay Repay' or other charter or NRCoT minimum delay compensation.

It was true before the NRCoT were revised to make that clear, of course. But it now specifically includes references to claims made under the Consumer Rights Act, or other common law claims for damages in the first paragraph in the Introduction and the first part of condition 32.

In general few people will choose this over the Delay Repay option, where that exists, because it's just so much quicker and easier to do that.

So you can't prove any such case has ever succeeded?

Do you think? A train of mine was recently cancelled as a result of 'a shortage of train crew'. My delay was therefore two hours. Not especially uncommon in my view, although I myself choose to just claim under 'Delay Repay' for speed and convenience.

Other than the Carlisle bridge washaway which was an act of God, and 2 suicides which aren't in any way the railway's fault, I have had precisely two "full return refund" Delay Repay claims ever.

Granted, users of infrequent rural lines will see a few more, but a prudent user of such lines has some sort of leeway in their arrangements knowing this fact.

 

[Deerfold]

Perhaps the OP may consider travel insurance if he wants to cover such eventualities in the future?

Do you know any companies that would cover this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you know any companies that would cover this?

Most travel policies cover UK trips in some way, typically with a minimum number of nights away from home. The OP mentions a hotel so a policy may well have covered it.

 

[Starmill]

So you can't prove any such case has ever succeeded?

Most people are just paid, as long as they follow the NRCoT and don't attempt to claim twice over the same events. Some people may have made a claim in the County Court and won, but that wouldn't help either here as relevant case law. Plus lots of people who make a claim in the County Court are offered a settlement, or 'win' by a default judgment.

So no, if you don't believe me and all of the other posters who've said they've made such a claim before themselves, then you don't believe me and that's that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most people are just paid, as long as they follow the NRCoT and don't attempt to claim twice over the same events. Some people may have made a claim in the County Court and won, but that wouldn't help either here as relevant case law.

So no, if you don't believe me and all of the other posters who've said they've made such a claim before themselves, then you don't believe me and that's that.

I have difficulty believing that such a court case would succeed. I don't have difficulty believing that some TOCs may make ex gratia, without prejudice payments as good customer service in certain cases, but that is not the same thing.

 

[Starmill]

I have difficulty believing that such a court case would succeed. I don't have difficulty believing that some TOCs may make ex gratia, without prejudice payments as good customer service in certain cases, but that is not the same thing.

They describe the payments as 'ex gratia' in order to preserve the consumer misunderstanding which you yourself have had regarding their liability.

 

[Deerfold]

Most travel policies cover UK trips in some way, typically with a minimum number of nights away from home. The OP mentions a hotel so a policy may well have covered it.

Just checked my annual policy. It would cover it...except the excess is £40.

 

[323235]

Just quote the Consumer Rights Act and that should deliver any additional compensation. It always has done for me.

 

[island]

Just quote the Consumer Rights Act and that should deliver any additional compensation. It always has done for me.

I think you’ll find it’s a bit more complicated than that.

The OP has already claimed under DelayRepay and cannot recover twice for the same event.

 

[Watershed]

The railway would likely be able to successfully argue that the passenger failed to mitigate their loss, such as by seeking assistance from train or station staff.

Contributory negligence may constitute a partial defence, meaning that any award of damages could be reduced by the proportion that OP unnecessarily contributed to/caused it.

However it is unlikely to constitute a full defence; for example, if the railway would have expended £10 on a taxi (due to having access to preferential rates) whereas it cost the OP £20, the OP would still be able to recover £10.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Looking at this practically, the amount at stake is £13. We seem to be agreed that (rightly or wrongly) the railway will not give this amount up easily. So subject to the values that the OP puts on their time and the principle of the matter, the rational advice is to write off the £13 and forget about it.

 

[Wolfie]

The change between NRCOC and NRCOT is interesting. Does anyone know why exactly that change was made? I certainly wouldn't wish to litigate on the basis of that change though.

 

[Watershed]

The change between NRCOC and NRCOT is interesting. Does anyone know why exactly that change was made? I certainly wouldn't wish to litigate on the basis of that change though.

The change occurred when the Consumer Rights Act began applying to the rail industry. The new wording in the NRCoT merely reflects the new legal position.

 

[Wolfie]

The change occurred when the Consumer Rights Act began applying to the rail industry. The new wording in the NRCoT merely reflects the new legal position.

TY

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, for those in the know, to what extent does the CRA protect against consequential loss? Are there specific limits or is it about "reasonableness"?

One can certainly envisage, even at a consumer level, large consequential losses which it wouldn't be reasonable for a business to pay for, e.g. a faulty mobile phone meaning a missed call about a house sale, meaning it falling through and legal costs being lost for work already done?

 

[AlterEgo]

The key is whether the service was delivered with “reasonable care and skill”. So the cause of the delay is important. If it was a staff shortage or the passenger being misdirected then it probably would be. A fatality or bad weather probably wouldn’t be. The OP hasn’t given details of the train they caught so we can’t advise further.

 

[island]

So, for those in the know, to what extent does the CRA protect against consequential loss? Are there specific limits or is it about "reasonableness"?

One can certainly envisage, even at a consumer level, large consequential losses which it wouldn't be reasonable for a business to pay for, e.g. a faulty mobile phone meaning a missed call about a house sale, meaning it falling through and legal costs being lost for work already done?

Consequential losses are a matter of common law and the phrase “consequential loss” doesn’t appear in the CRA 2015.

The courts will attach a test of whether the consequential is “reasonably foreseeable” – at the date of the contract, not of the breach.

The leading case law is Hadley & Another v Baxendale & Others, [1854] EWCH Exch J70. The claimant, a miller, experienced damage to a crankshaft in his mill. To arrange for a new part to be built by the manufacturers across the country, the manufacturers requested the broken crankshaft be sent to them so they could ensure compatibility. The claimant engaged the defendant to deliver the broken crankshaft next-day at the cost of 44 shillings. The defendant failed to deliver the item for a week or so, and the claimant claimed for the breach and lost profits consequential on it, totalling £300. Gloucester Assizes awarded damages of £50 but this was overturned in the Exchequer Court which held that the loss of profits could not be reasonably considered a consequence of the breach at the time the contract was made.

 

[[.n]]

Not even on a 'PlusBus' type ticket?

But if xxx Bus was the destination, I would definitely expect to have alternate arrangements made (if the last bus had departed). The same is true for what I believe are still supposed to be official Bus/Train connections