No compensation for taxi after last train cancelled

[robertbishop]

Hello,

I am looking for advice regarding compensation I am seeking from Thameslink. In short, the last train was cancelled, I had to take a taxi, but the first reply I've had from Thameslink is to reject my request for compensation. Before I reply back, I would like to know what others think.

My brother and I tried to travel from Gatwick Airport to East Croydon in the early hours of 1 October 2022, having arrived back from holiday on a delayed flight (1-2 hours, IIRC). We arrived at Gatwick Airport station at around 01:10, in time to catch the advertised 01:46 to Bedford. We were intending to travel as far as East Croydon, so we could each get buses home from there.

However, just after we went through the ticket barriers using my Oyster card a member of staff shouted that the last train to London had left and there were no more. I asked about the 01:46 and they informed me that it was cancelled, without giving a reason. The station staff recommended that I take a taxi and then submit my receipt for compensation.

I went to the taxi area at the airport and got a taxi, which eventually left around 02:30. I got home at about 03:00 and my brother around 03:30. The taxi cost £154 to go from Gatwick Airport to our two respective destinations (I have the receipt).

I submitted this as a query to Thameslink using their online form. As far as my research had got me (National Rail, Thameslink websites), it appeared as if I was probably entitled to compensation. However, I received a reply about two weeks afterwards rejecting my request for compensation. To summarise, they said that:

• 1 October was an industrial action day, and because they 'advised against making all but the most essential journeys' on that date, they will not 'cover any additional costs incurred by choosing to travel'
• it was 'unfortunate that you felt you had to get a taxi'
• 'the compensation and refund arrangements have now been agreed and won't be changed', so they 'can't offer anything additional'

While I'm not certain (not being an expert), my reflex is that:

• It wasn't a strike day and I don't see how the cancellation of the train was connected to the industrial action. Doesn't a train in the early hours form part of the previous day's timetable?
• My journey was essential and unavoidable. While our holiday obviously wasn't essential, the strike was announced after we had left the UK and I had to get back from Gatwick Airport somehow. The train was advertised as running, so it wasn't as if I was playing chicken with an obvious and pre-determined train cancellation.

While it is technically true that I travelled on 1 October, I think for these reasons that their rejection is unfair.

Any thoughts on the matter would be much appreciated. Many thanks to those who help out on these cases week after week!

Best wishes,
Robert

 

[spag23]

Have you put all of this to Thameslink, or were you limited by the size of the claim's text box? The staff suggestion that you get yourself a taxi (rather than their offering a solution) seems to weaken their case.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Unfortunately GTR are correct to state that 1st October was a strike day (with both ASLEF and the RMT on strike.)

That said, the train in question is one of a handful that are showing on timetablehistory.com as having been cancelled rather than removed from the "timetable of the day" altogether.

 

[Watershed]

The reasons they've given for rejecting your claim are, as I'll explain, frankly made-up and would be entirely unmeritorious in most cases.

Unfortunately, the problem you have is that you didn't hold a ticket prior to the train being cancelled. This means that when you touched in, you didn't have any entitlement to alternative transport - or indeed to be transported anywhere at all.

Had you bought a paper ticket ahead of time, at a point when the train was not yet cancelled, you would have been in a much stronger position. But I'll keep the comments below for future reference.

However, I received a reply about two weeks afterwards rejecting my request for compensation. To summarise, they said that:

• 1 October was an industrial action day, and because they 'advised against making all but the most essential journeys' on that date, they will not 'cover any additional costs incurred by choosing to travel'

Them advising against travel doesn't change anything. There's nothing in the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) or the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO) which exempts them from liability in the case of advice against travel, or industrial action.

If you hold a ticket purchased before trains are cancelled, your rights are the same regardless of whether there's industrial action or it's a day ending in "Y".

it was 'unfortunate that you felt you had to get a taxi'

It was unfortunate that their staff felt you to take one! Had you been entitled to assistance, that direction would likely have sufficed to establish liability for the reasonable cost of a taxi.

However, the other issue which you would have faced would have been that you couldn't recover the full cost of a taxi to Tooting or Lewisham when you only held a ticket to Croydon. Accordingly, the amount you'd be entitled to be reimbursed for would have been reduced - likely in proportion to the additional distance travelled, over taking a taxi direct to East Croydon.

'the compensation and refund arrangements have now been agreed and won't be changed', so they 'can't offer anything additional'

That is effectively just saying "we don't feel like paying you". Which, unsurprisingly, isn't a defence!

It wasn't a strike day and I don't see how the cancellation of the train was connected to the industrial action. Doesn't a train in the early hours form part of the previous day's timetable?

On days when signallers are on strike, the network does shut down during the night, until the contingency signallers book on. The time of shutdown doesn't affect most operators, but GTR run some services through the night (including the one you'd intended to take), and accordingly some of these do get cancelled in the early hours of strike days.

My journey was essential and unavoidable. While our holiday obviously wasn't essential, the strike was announced after we had left the UK and I had to get back from Gatwick Airport somehow. The train was advertised as running, so it wasn't as if I was playing chicken with an obvious and pre-determined train cancellation.

Whether or not the journey was essential is irrelevant; there's no definition of "essential" and in any event, even if you had been making a "non-essential" journey, that doesn't change your rights or their obligations.

 

[WesternLancer]

The reasons they've given for rejecting your claim are, as I'll explain, frankly made-up and would be entirely unmeritorious in most cases.

Unfortunately, the problem you have is that you didn't hold a ticket prior to the train being cancelled. This means that when you touched in, you didn't have any entitlement to alternative transport - or indeed to be transported anywhere at all.

Had you bought a paper ticket ahead of time, at a point when the train was not yet cancelled, you would have been in a much stronger position. But I'll keep the comments below for future reference.


Them advising against travel doesn't change anything. There's nothing in the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) or the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO) which exempts them from liability in the case of advice against travel, or industrial action.

If you hold a ticket purchased before trains are cancelled, your rights are the same regardless of whether there's industrial action or it's a day ending in "Y".


It was unfortunate that their staff felt you to take one! Had you been entitled to assistance, that direction would likely have sufficed to establish liability for the reasonable cost of a taxi.

However, the other issue which you would have faced would have been that you couldn't recover the full cost of a taxi to Tooting or Lewisham when you only held a ticket to Croydon. Accordingly, the amount you'd be entitled to be reimbursed for would have been reduced - likely in proportion to the additional distance travelled, over taking a taxi direct to East Croydon.


That is effectively just saying "we don't feel like paying you". Which, unsurprisingly, isn't a defence!


On days when signallers are on strike, the network does shut down during the night, until the contingency signallers book on. The time of shutdown doesn't affect most operators, but GTR run some services through the night (including the one you'd intended to take), and accordingly some of these do get cancelled in the early hours of strike days.


Whether or not the journey was essential is irrelevant; there's no definition of "essential" and in any event, even if you had been making a "non-essential" journey, that doesn't change your rights or their obligations.

I suggest the OP is going to have to set out their case in writing, and send it register post to head office - as opposed to faffing with character limited on line forms, I suspect - to stand a good chance of making their case. Might have to write 2 or 3 times I suspect.

 

[Gloster]

Was the price of £154 to East Croydon Station or to your home, or possibly homes? I don’t know about nowadays, but in days of yore the taxi was station to station unless specially authorised otherwise in advance.

 

[WesternLancer]

Was the price of £154 to East Croydon Station or to your home, or possibly homes? I don’t know about nowadays, but in days of yore the taxi was station to station unless specially authorised otherwise in advance.

well I assume that technically the OP should have contacted Thameslink before getting their own taxi - or got the station staff member who 'helpfully' advised them (maybe not even "Thameslink" staff tho almost certainly TSGN staff) to get on to do that. A member of staff who no doubt can not be traced nor nor will admit in writing to giving such advice...

But like any reasonable person the OP just chose to act on the word of staff on site at the time. And ends up £135+ out of pocket.

Probably would have been cheaper to go back into the airport, kip down in passenger seating, and get the 1st service bus or strike day train that run somewhere around crack of dawn.

 

[island]

Unfortunately, the problem you have is that you didn't hold a ticket prior to the train being cancelled. This means that when you touched in, you didn't have any entitlement to alternative transport - or indeed to be transported anywhere at all.

This is the key point and disposes of the case.

Even if it can be proven that a staff member promised that reimbursement would be given for a taxi fare (which would probably be "OP's word against theirs"), that promise wouldn't legally bind GTR as no consideration was given for it.

As such, the OP's claim has been correctly refused albeit for the wrong reason. If they wish to pursue it in the hope of obtaining a gesture of goodwill, that is up to them.

They can still claim a refund of any entrance charge made to their Oyster card, which needs to go via TfL.

 

[class68fan]

The reasons they've given for rejecting your claim are, as I'll explain, frankly made-up and would be entirely unmeritorious in most cases.

Unfortunately, the problem you have is that you didn't hold a ticket prior to the train being cancelled. This means that when you touched in, you didn't have any entitlement to alternative transport - or indeed to be transported anywhere at all.

Had you bought a paper ticket ahead of time, at a point when the train was not yet cancelled, you would have been in a much stronger position.

What a brilliant weeze the railway has come up with. Use contactless or oyster its so convenient but when we feel like it we will shaft you for using it.

 

[AlterEgo]

What a brilliant weeze the railway has come up with. Use contactless or oyster its so convenient but when we feel like it we will shaft you for using it.

It’s not really a wheeze; the passenger is in the same situation regardless of payment method because they didn’t buy in advance, and hence had no existing contract to travel.

 

[Watershed]

It’s not really a wheeze; the passenger is in the same situation regardless of payment method because they didn’t buy in advance, and hence had no existing contract to travel.

I think the point being made is that, for journeys within the Zones, Oyster/contactless is now the only affordable option. Accordingly, the TOCs effectively have complete discretion over whether they want to run a proper service, as there is little penalty for failing to do so.

For Gatwick it's a little different as the premium for paper tickets is less, and indeed in the case of a return journey, paper tickets can be cheaper.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This isn't a new problem - it was always one at unstaffed stations where payment was on board.

 

[Watershed]

This isn't a new problem - it was always one at unstaffed stations where payment was on board.

It's a new problem for major stations which have long had ticketing facilities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's a new problem for major stations which have long had ticketing facilities.

I can't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude at Londoners having to experience something the users of rural branch lines have had to for years. Probably easier in London as at least taxis and Ubers are plentiful. Try getting one at Nethertown or Braystones!

(Rural users can now mitigate by buying an e-ticket I suppose...)

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the point being made is that, for journeys within the Zones, Oyster/contactless is now the only affordable option. Accordingly, the TOCs effectively have complete discretion over whether they want to run a proper service, as there is little penalty for failing to do so.

Even so, on most metro services, people tended to just turn up and buy immediately before travel in the days of paper tickets.

 

[hkstudent]

This is the key point and disposes of the case.

Even if it can be proven that a staff member promised that reimbursement would be given for a taxi fare (which would probably be "OP's word against theirs"), that promise wouldn't legally bind GTR as no consideration was given for it.

As such, the OP's claim has been correctly refused albeit for the wrong reason. If they wish to pursue it in the hope of obtaining a gesture of goodwill, that is up to them.

They can still claim a refund of any entrance charge made to their Oyster card, which needs to go via TfL.

Would the case be easier to escalate to London Travelwatch or a newspaper, which will better guarantee a chance of a refund or a better goodwill gesture?
(Note: London Travelwatch does cover most London airports' railway transports)

 

[MrJeeves]

It may also be worth contacting Thameslink via Twitter DM?

Many times I have had issues which have been resolved by explaining the issue via Twitter DMs, and they have escalated things internally (ranging from last trains cancelled -- organised a prebooked taxi on my behalf, ticket barriers being set up incorrectly resulting in smartcard taps not registering at a non-GTR managed station, and delay repay claims being incorrectly rejected).

Getting in touch there often seems to be the best point of contact with GTR seeing as it's 24/7 with very swift response times (every response I've had coming through in less than 30 mins in most cases).

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Had you bought a paper ticket ahead of time, at a point when the train was not yet cancelled, you would have been in a much stronger position. But I'll keep the comments below for future reference.

Out of interest, would this still have applied had the OP had a paper Travelcard?

 

[Watershed]

Out of interest, would this still have applied had the OP had a paper Travelcard?

Yes, same principle applies.

 

[ashkeba]

well I assume that technically the OP should have contacted Thameslink before getting their own taxi - or got the station staff member who 'helpfully' advised them (maybe not even "Thameslink" staff tho almost certainly TSGN staff) to get on to do that. A member of staff who no doubt can not be traced nor nor will admit in writing to giving such advice...

But like any reasonable person the OP just chose to act on the word of staff on site at the time. And ends up £135+ out of pocket.

As the OP was coming from abroad, maybe they have travel insurance that covers this?

It certainly saved me the first time I was stranded in London and foolishly believed a railway staff who said the way it works in the UK is you get your own hotel room, having honest effort to keep the cost down, and then claim it back, rather than the Austrian system where you are given a hotel voucher listing addresses of compatible hotels. The railway refused, then eventually offered £75 (even then, not enough for any hotel with late checking), so my insurer paid me and took over my claim against the train operator. I bet they paid eventually.

 

[WesternLancer]

As the OP was coming from abroad, maybe they have travel insurance that covers this?

It certainly saved me the first time I was stranded in London and foolishly believed a railway staff who said the way it works in the UK is you get your own hotel room, having honest effort to keep the cost down, and then claim it back, rather than the Austrian system where you are given a hotel voucher listing addresses of compatible hotels. The railway refused, then eventually offered £75 (even then, not enough for any hotel with late checking), so my insurer paid me and took over my claim against the train operator. I bet they paid eventually.

Good advice I suspect.

 

[Cowley]

Thread reopened for @robertbishop to provide an update.
Over to you Robert.

 

[robertbishop]

Thanks, Cowley.

Just wanted to post again to (a) say thank you very much all for the replies above and (b) update what happened in the end, especially as someone may come upon this thread and not find the solution otherwise.

• Thameslink were intransigent in the face of further one further round of emails where I relayed some of the logic provided above. They referred back to their argument that they advised people not to travel on strike days and therefore do not provide compensation.
• I also contacted Easyjet, who operated the flight I came in on at Gatwick. I asked them for compensation, along much the same lines as Thameslink, but they argued the delay fell below the necessary threshold (as provided for in Regulation EC 261/2004). I complained about this decision, broadly on the basis that the resulting delay to my overall journey was much more, but they refused.
• I made a claim through my travel insurance which, in the end, was successful. I had to provide all the usual documentation, notably including proof that I had reached the end of the line (heh) with Thameslink and Easyjet and both were refusing to compensate. Unfortunately (but expectedly) the excess charged ate up a significant portion of the award.

My further lines of inquiry would have been, as suggested above, Thameslink/GTR head office, their Twitter via DM, London Travelwatch or a consumer affairs section of a newspaper. There might be a way via these to get the full amount of money back, but I've done reasonably well and the returns versus time spent are diminishing!

Thanks again all,
Robert

 

[185]

I'd still push GoAhead/Keolis Thameslink for a deadlock letter and ask the ombudsman to oversee their decision to offer no road transport.