The vast majority of LNER staff at Newcastle station aren't impartial even though they're supposed to be. It's been an issue there for a long time. It's worse depending on which TOC you're travelling with too - if you're XC's customer they'll generally be reasonable, Northern and TPE you'll liklely be fobbed off, and as for Lumo they won't even deal with you 99% of the time!
You have a right to be offered a choice of a refund or rerouting. But you do not have the right to unilaterally choose to reroute yourself. The rerouteing is to be provided by the transport provider who has let you down - Lumo - by arranging ticket acceptance or buying new tickets for you.
They are entitled to be re-routed but the problem is that companies such as Lumo do not seem to understand this - or if they do, they simply do not care.
Not that that would necessarily help anyone who didn't have the funds to buy a new ticket.
With no guarantee of a seat, for a longer journey!
Indeed and therefore they should use their representatives at Kings Cross to issue zero-fare tickets to any passengers who are unable to buy their own.
Corrected that for you.
I'm sure it would be possible to issue their representatives with ticket machines and thus they could issue zero-fare tickets, just as RPIs do for instance. But either way - telling people to wait an hour and a half to cram onto the next Lumo service, or to take an Avanti service round the houses, is an absolute joke.
RPI's normally only issue zero fare tickets in lieu of 'dubious' tickets. If Lumo were to issue zero fare tickets in such circumstances they would still be required to make appropriate payments for them.
Of course - it just might make things a little bit quicker when processing potentially tens or hundreds of customers. And it would avoid the need for these representatives to be issued with a company card.
Whilst not ideal, suggesting use of Avanti keeps it "in group" so tends to be less hassle in terms of arranging ticket acceptance, and the xx:23 services are likely to be less busy than the Glasgows due to the extended journey time.
Some people may feel that the delay repay payment makes up for arriving 3 hours later.
Sarcasm doesn't always work then!!
You know it's going to be a bad day when your recommended alternative travel provider is Avanti West Coast!
I wonder the right to be accommodated in "comparable transport conditions" is violated, right?
They do?
At the very least they have a habit of leaving passengers stranded at Chester-le-Street. They repeatedly refuse to provide any alternative transport when they cancel trains there.
You have a right to be transported from your origin to your destination, not to be transported on the exact same route.
The following is a direct quote from the EU website (the related regulation has been retained post-Brexit):
The regulation specifically uses the phrase "re-routed" in comparable conditions, so I fail to see how actually being re-routed is a violation.
Being re-routed isn't the problem - the issue is that re-routing passengers on Avanti isn't remotely close to being the "earliest opportunity".
I was responding to the post in the assumption that they objected either to Avanti or to being taken via a route that they hadn't carefully planned for themselves - especially seeing as they've now doubled-down on complaining about the "comparable conditions" aspect rather the the delay-to-arrival aspect.
In that situation (red or black status disruption) there would be ticket acceptance on LNER as the longer LNER trains would be prioritised for a limited number of paths available.
I’m not sure that an alternative operator is a reasonable option if a later date is chosen.
The exact wording of the article is "continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at a later date at the passenger’s convenience", without any mention of it needing to be reasonable.
When the next Lumo service is able to run, comparable transport conditions certainly mean a Lumo service, right?The exact wording of the article is "continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at a later date at the passenger’s convenience", without any mention of it needing to be reasonable.
However, I made that statement with the intent it be read as applying only until the next Lumo service was able to run. I personally wouldn't expect to be allowed to travel on an LNER service with a Lumo-only ticket at some distant point in the future on the strength of this regulation - but on the wording of the regulation alone there is perhaps an argument that doing exactly that would be permitted.
Your dutiful concern for your employer's revenue is noted regardless, though
