Rerouting when 64 minutes late to get back on schedule - request denied

[allotments]

Travelling with split tickets with this itinerary:
Ticket 1
16:23 Llandudno Junction - Chester
17:32 Chester - Crewe (Avanti train cancelled after 10pm day before)
Ticket 2
18:13 Crewe - Euston (LNR only ticket)

As 17:32 CTR-CRE was cancelled I missed connection for 18:13 CRE-EUS and am travelling on 19:13 CRE-EUS expecting to arrive 64 minutes later than original schedule.

At Crewe, facing a 64 minute delay, I asked to be rerouted onto Avanti 18:32 CRE-EUS so that I could arrive EUS on time. That request was denied unless I bought a new ticket (I didn't).

Avanti had the opportunity to get the passenger back on schedule after a cancellation of one of their trains caused a missed connection. Opportunity missed: poor customer experience!

Passenger rights and obligations (PRO) right to be rerouted at earliest opportunity comes to mind.

Should Avanti have rerouted me to travel at no extra charge to make up time? I would prefer that to delay repay.

This situation is going to recur regularly on my Friday commute until Avanti stop frequent cancellation of the 17:32 CTR-CRE. So your advice would be appreciated and provide me with ammunition!

 

[Watershed]

Travelling with split tickets with this itinerary:
Ticket 1
16:23 Llandudno Junction - Chester
17:32 Chester - Crewe (Avanti train cancelled after 10pm day before)
Ticket 2
18:13 Crewe - Euston (LNR only ticket)

As 17:32 CTR-CRE was cancelled I missed connection for 18:13 CRE-EUS and am travelling on 19:13 CRE-EUS expecting to arrive 64 minutes later than original schedule.

At Crewe, facing a 64 minute delay, I asked to be rerouted onto Avanti 18:32 CRE-EUS so that I could arrive EUS on time. That request was denied unless I bought a new ticket (I didn't).

Avanti had the opportunity to get the passenger back on schedule after a cancellation of one of their trains caused a missed connection. Opportunity missed: poor customer experience!

Passenger rights and obligations (PRO) right to be rerouted at earliest opportunity comes to mind.

Should Avanti have rerouted me to travel at no extra charge to make up time? I would prefer that to delay repay.

This situation is going to recur regularly on my Friday commute until Avanti stop frequent cancellation of the 17:32 CTR-CRE. So your advice would be appreciated and provide me with ammunition!

Yes, Avanti were obliged to re-route you at the earliest opportunity (i.e. on their 18:32 service in this case) once you asked them. It's particularly egregious that they failed to organise re-routing on one of their own trains - there can be no possible argument about "getting permission" or suchlike nonsense.

Their refusal to re-route you is a breach of the PRO - though sadly such breaches are extremely frequent, as over 3 years on from its coming into force, TOCs still seem to think that complying with the PRO is some sort of optional extra rather than a condition of their operating licence.

You could have bought a new ticket and then recovered the cost of this afterwards, but clearly that would be suboptimal as you would then be left out of pocket, possibly for a considerable period of time. It shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is and it's highly unlikely that anything will change in this regard anytime soon.

 

[allotments]

On board the 16:23 I asked Avanti Twitter as follows:

"I'm travelling now from LLJ 16:23 to EUS but 17:32 CTR-CRE Avanti service is cancelled. My ticket from CRE-EUS is LNR only but due to the cancellation I'm now expected to arrive EUS 64 minutes late 21:28 instead of 20:24. Therefore I have a right to be rerouted according to PRO (Passenger Rights & Obligations). Please provide me authorisation to use an Avanti service such as 18:32 CRE-EUS so that I can still arrive at EUS by 20:24"

I was advised speak to staff at Crewe. I replied there may not be enough time to do this.

I asked Crewe booking office to reroute me at no cost. The response was travel on 19:13 LNR service or buy new ticket for 18:32 Avanti.

Time ran out... 18:32 departed.

 

[jamiearmley]

Does the PRO apply to 'anticipated' delay, or only kick in once 60 minutes late at final destination has passed?

 

[allotments]

Guidance on regulation No 1371/2007 on rail passengers' rights and obligations

www.gov.uk

“Where there is a reasonable expectation that a delay that will lead to arrival at the final destination 60 minutes or more late, passengers may either choose to have a:

• refund of the fare when the journey will no longer serve the passenger’s originally planned purpose. The refund will include the return journey where appropriate

or

• continuation or re-routeing under comparable transport conditions to the final destination at the earliest opportunity

or

• continuation or re-routeing under comparable transport conditions to the final destination at a later date at the passenger’s convenience”

 

[Watershed]

Does the PRO apply to 'anticipated' delay, or only kick in once 60 minutes late at final destination has passed?

Just requires an anticipated delay of 61+ minutes:

Where it is reasonably to be expected that the delay in the arrival at the final destination under the transport contract will be more than 60 minutes, the passenger shall immediately have the choice between ...

It would be pretty meaningless if it required the passenger to actually delay themselves by 61+ mins. Though, to be fair, it already is fairly meaningless because TOCs are ignoring it with impunity.

 

[allotments]

What would the booking office method be to provide zero fare authorisation to travel when a passenger exercises PRO rights？

Rather than ending up in an argument I would rather provide guidance to how to uphold passenger rights without getting any rail staff into trouble.

 

[miklcct]

Yes, Avanti were obliged to re-route you at the earliest opportunity (i.e. on their 18:32 service in this case) once you asked them. It's particularly egregious that they failed to organise re-routing on one of their own trains - there can be no possible argument about "getting permission" or suchlike nonsense.

Their refusal to re-route you is a breach of the PRO - though sadly such breaches are extremely frequent, as over 3 years on from its coming into force, TOCs still seem to think that complying with the PRO is some sort of optional extra rather than a condition of their operating licence.

You could have bought a new ticket and then recovered the cost of this afterwards, but clearly that would be suboptimal as you would then be left out of pocket, possibly for a considerable period of time. It shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is and it's highly unlikely that anything will change in this regard anytime soon.

What will happen if you refuse to buy a new ticket on the 18:32 service? Can you use the breach of PRO right as a defence for fare evasion?

 

[Watershed]

What would the booking office method be to provide zero fare authorisation to travel when a passenger exercises PRO rights？

They could issue a zero fare ticket, as RPIs do when they come across an irregularity. They could issue a written note giving you permission, or endorse your ticket on the back (or in the database if it's an e-ticket. If push came to shove, they could simply buy you a new ticket and pay using a company card.

The problem is that they won't want to do any of the above, generally just because it's "not company procedure" and it's more hassle for them than just letting you be inconvenienced. That's assuming they even knew what the PRO was (highly unlikely), let alone how those rights work in practice.

 

[Starmill]

What would the booking office method be to provide zero fare authorisation to travel when a passenger exercises PRO rights？

Issue a paper slip with the station stamp on it, requesting that the holder be conveyed by either specific services or any service of a particular company from relevant origin to relevant destination. Some companies have specifically designed slips, others have a more general form. Avanti West Coast used to be able to issue Authority to Travel sundries from their TIS to go with this, though I think those were endorsed for Avanti West Coast services only.

Avanti West Coast ticket clerks are empowered to issue these for Avanti services themselves, without having to seek a further layer of authorisation. However, it's likely that this wouldn't be relevant, because they're taking the view that you're not entitled to any rerouting.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Feb 2023 ==

Rather than ending up in an argument I would rather provide guidance to how to uphold passenger rights without getting any rail staff into trouble.

A noble aim, but I think that you're better off accepting that the station staff just won't intervene help you in these circumstances. By all means, ask them politely to arrange rerouting for you every time it happens; indeed, if you don't ask, you may be on very weak ground when you come to complain, but don't expect a helpful response. To actually get a response that deals with the subject, you'll need to contact customer relations, and see what excuses they put up for inconveniencing you so badly.

If you have a credit card, such as an American Express card, you could also just purchase a ticket the next time these circumstances arise. Then complain about the lack of rerouting to the operator who caused the delay. If they won't pay you back the value of the extra ticket you paid for, you can then apply for a chargeback. The Rail Ombudsman route is also available, but it's slow and there's no guarantee of success.

 

[Watershed]

What will happen if you refuse to buy a new ticket on the 18:32 service? Can you use the breach of PRO right as a defence for fare evasion?

Nobody really knows. There is no precedent on that particular issue, or indeed very much precedent on the PRO as a whole - except to establish that delay compensation under it is payable even in force majeure circumstances.

I think a prosecution in those circumstances could be liable to be stayed as an abuse of process, but that would require an application which most ordinary people would want a solicitor to do for them. The cost of said solicitor would not necessarily be recoverable.

This just goes to show how the TOCs enjoy a disproportionate position of power.

 

[Starmill]

If you suffer as a consequence of a breach of contract, that might be useful mitigation to present in any case where you're charged of an offence in connection with the same facts. However, as a general principle it is unlikely that suffering a breach of contract will be a defence against prescriptive charges, such as failure to show a valid ticket when asked. This means that you'd potentially have to go down the route of trying to persuade the Court that the prosecution was wholly unreasonable, or assert that its unfair for some reason or that the prosecutor doesn't have standing. These are rather more difficult.

For all practical purposes, just forget about this avenue. It's far less risky and comes with equal or better chances of success to just pay up if you've explained your case politely and they won't budge, then go down one of the routes to reclaiming your money.

 

[allotments]

They could issue a zero fare ticket, as RPIs do when they come across an irregularity. They could issue a written note giving you permission, or endorse your ticket on the back (or in the database if it's an e-ticket. If push came to shove, they could simply buy you a new ticket and pay using a company card.

Issue a paper slip with the station stamp on it, requesting that the holder be conveyed by either specific services or any service of a particular company from relevant origin to relevant destination. Some companies have specifically designed slips, others have a more general form. Avanti West Coast used to be able to issue Authority to Travel sundries from their TIS to go with this, though I think those were endorsed for Avanti West Coast services only.

Avanti West Coast ticket clerks are empowered to issue these for Avanti services themselves, without having to seek a further layer of authorisation. However, it's likely that this wouldn't be relevant, because they're taking the view that you're not entitled to any rerouting.

Thanks！ I'll refer to your advice next time .

To actually get a response that deals with the subject, you'll need to contact customer relations, and see what excuses they put up for inconveniencing you so badly.

I'll start a case with Avanti customer relations and report back here.

 

[fandroid]

• continuation or re-routeing under comparable transport conditions to the final destination at the earliest opportunity

Do you think it's possible that they are interpreting the "comparable transport conditions" as meaning a semi-fast service (ie LNR) as opposed to Avanti's fast service?

 

[Watershed]

Do you think it's possible that they are interpreting the "comparable transport conditions" as meaning a semi-fast service (ie LNR) as opposed to Avanti's fast service?

I don't think they have thought through it at all! EU interpretive guidance suggests that "comparable transport conditions" refers to factors such as the number of changes and class of travel. If re-routing were only possible on the same "type"of train it would render the right nugatory.

 

[mrmartin]

Ignoring this specific case, but imagine someone who was going from Crewe to London on LNR only ticket. Their train is delayed/cancelled by 60 minutes so are entitled to get Avanti instead.

Who actually pays for this? LNR, and if so by what actual mechanism? Surely Avanti won't be just carrying all of LNR passengers for free, especially given (at least in times of decent service) there will be a lot more passengers wanting to get rerouted LNR to Avanti, rather than Avanti to LNR given the speed/frequencies on offer.

 

[miklcct]

Ignoring this specific case, but imagine someone who was going from Crewe to London on LNR only ticket. Their train is delayed/cancelled by 60 minutes so are entitled to get Avanti instead.

Who actually pays for this? LNR, and if so by what actual mechanism? Surely Avanti won't be just carrying all of LNR passengers for free, especially given (at least in times of decent service) there will be a lot more passengers wanting to get rerouted LNR to Avanti, rather than Avanti to LNR given the speed/frequencies on offer.

Avanti in this case because it delayed the passenger.

 

[Watershed]

Ignoring this specific case, but imagine someone who was going from Crewe to London on LNR only ticket. Their train is delayed/cancelled by 60 minutes so are entitled to get Avanti instead.

The next train would have to be anticipated to get them to their destination more than an hour, i.e. 61+ minutes late - the Crewe to London LNR services are now mostly clockface, so the cancellation of a single service wouldn't necessarily give rise to the right to re-routing (as the anticipated delay would then be exactly 60 minutes).

In this particular instance, the LNR train after the OP's intended one is scheduled to arrive at Euston 64 minutes later, hence the entitlement to be re-routed does apply in this instance.

Who actually pays for this? LNR, and if so by what actual mechanism? Surely Avanti won't be just carrying all of LNR passengers for free, especially given (at least in times of decent service) there will be a lot more passengers wanting to get rerouted LNR to Avanti, rather than Avanti to LNR given the speed/frequencies on offer.

It is down to the operator that has caused the passenger to become delayed, in much the same way as Delay Repay liability. If LNR had cancelled one if their services then they would be the ones liable for re-routing the passengers (subject to the above-mentioned caveat), including any associated costs.

As you say, in general it is likely that more people will be entitled to be re-routed from a "regional" to an "intercity" TOC than vice versa, but that is to be expected given that the whole purpose of the right to be re-routed is to catch up delays, which will often necessitate taking a quicker than planned route or service.

 

[pedr]

What would the repercussions be if agents of one TOC made a habit of writing authorisations to travel on the trains of another TOC, without any agreement between the management of the two companies?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What normally happens if a LNR is canned is that Avanti agree to carry to Rugby, from which the passengers transfer to LNR services from Birmingham.

 

[alistairlees]

Ignoring this specific case, but imagine someone who was going from Crewe to London on LNR only ticket. Their train is delayed/cancelled by 60 minutes so are entitled to get Avanti instead.

Who actually pays for this? LNR, and if so by what actual mechanism? Surely Avanti won't be just carrying all of LNR passengers for free, especially given (at least in times of decent service) there will be a lot more passengers wanting to get rerouted LNR to Avanti, rather than Avanti to LNR given the speed/frequencies on offer.

It’s irrelevant right now and has been for the past three years. All revenue from Avanti goes to the government. All revenue from LNWR goes to the government. So the total revenue received is identical in both cases. All that the TOCs need to do is to run trains on time.

 

[Jack Hay]

This happened to me in the other direction recently; I had an LNR only ticket from London to Crewe and the train was cancelled, next one an hour later, if it wasn't cancelled too. Passengers for Crewe were advised to catch the next Avanti Liverpool service, which I did. Unsurprisingly, there was no ticket check on the train so I can't say how Avanti staff reacted to my ticket.

 

[mrmartin]

It’s irrelevant right now and has been for the past three years. All revenue from Avanti goes to the government. All revenue from LNWR goes to the government. So the total revenue received is identical in both cases. All that the TOCs need to do is to run trains on time.

That's true but way too simplistic. Just because the revenue eventually goes to the government doesn't mean it affects how each TOCs finances look, and how much subsidy they need (I appreciate your point from a passenger experience point of view though).

Let me rephrase, if it hadn't been for covid changing the system how would this have been handled/planned to be handled? Is there even a mechanism for this? Would LNR just buy have to buy a load of avanti tickets?

 

[Watershed]

Let me rephrase, if it hadn't been for covid changing the system how would this have been handled/planned to be handled? Is there even a mechanism for this? Would LNR just buy have to buy a load of avanti tickets?

Yes, if they couldn't come to an agreement with Avanti as to ticket acceptance.

 

[-Colly405-]

Not an expert in the legalities of this at all, but does it being split tix change what is required?Technically does it become your responsibility to get to Crewe in time for the 1813?

 

[Watershed]

Not an expert in the legalities of this at all, but does it being split tix change what is required?Technically does it become your responsibility to get to Crewe in time for the 1813?

I appreciate where you're coming from and indeed it's the position for airlines and most other countries' rail networks; however, condition 14.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel entitles you to use multiple tickets to make one journey. The PRO right is dependent on the delay in arriving at the final destination under the contract, which is therefore London in this case.

 

[-Colly405-]

I appreciate where you're coming from and indeed it's the position for airlines and most other countries' rail networks; however, condition 14.3 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel entitles you to use multiple tickets to make one journey. The PRO right is dependent on the delay in arriving at the final destination under the contract, which is therefore London in this case.

Ok. Thanks for the swift reply!

 

[AlbertBeale]

If you suffer as a consequence of a breach of contract, that might be useful mitigation to present in any case where you're charged of an offence in connection with the same facts. However, as a general principle it is unlikely that suffering a breach of contract will be a defence against prescriptive charges, such as failure to show a valid ticket when asked. This means that you'd potentially have to go down the route of trying to persuade the Court that the prosecution was wholly unreasonable, or assert that its unfair for some reason or that the prosecutor doesn't have standing. These are rather more difficult.

For all practical purposes, just forget about this avenue. It's far less risky and comes with equal or better chances of success to just pay up if you've explained your case politely and they won't budge, then go down one of the routes to reclaiming your money.

Surely the original ticket, giving the traveller a legal right - under the law quoted - to be on the alternative train because of the delay, is a valid ticket for that re-routed journey?

 

[xotGD]

In this case it has actually cost Avanti money as they are liable for the Delay Repay.

 

[dosxuk]

Surely the original ticket, giving the traveller a legal right - under the law quoted - to be on the alternative train because of the delay, is a valid ticket for that re-routed journey?

It depends on your interpretation of the legislation, as there is no precedent currently set to clarify the meaning. Some argue that the ticket automatically becomes valid for whichever of the options the passenger unilaterally chooses, others argue that it just places an obligation on the operator to provide those options to the passenger.

The legislation is based off of the airline rules, where passengers do not have the opportunity to unilaterally decide which of the similar options they choose, they have to engage with the airline to resolve the situation. Certainly your ticket / boarding pass doesn't automatically become valid for any other flight running the same route, although the same obligation to transport the passenger in comparable conditions is one of the options available.