Passengers' rights during a storm

[Pat Figg]

I came down to Cardiff last night for my work Christmas meal. I stayed the night but I'm still in Cardiff now as no trains have been running up to the Valleys all day due to the bad weather.

As I've got a valid ticket (a weekly) to travel back to Aberdare am I right to think they've got an obligation to get me home?

I mentioned this in Cardiff Central earlier and it didn't go go down well. I was told they had no obligation to fulfill my journey due to the red storm warning.

I'm not sure but I doubt that's even included in the rules. I asked to speak to a manager but it didn't go well. She repeated the same mantra and I was eventually chucked out of the station for being a pain.

Any views?

 

[Wivenswold]

As there was a red weather warning and advisories against any travel in the area, I think a judge would politely suggest that you are the author of your own misfortune.

 

[AlterEgo]

That's an interesting salvo of anti-customer takes, because passenger rights, the NRCoT, and the obligations for train companies to convey the passenger, or provide accommodation or rerouting happen to be mostly unaffected by the fact there is bad weather. The train company was obliged to assist the OP.

 

[MontyP]

That's an interesting salvo of anti-customer takes, because passenger rights, the NRCoT, and the obligations for train companies to convey the passenger, or provide accommodation or rerouting happen to be mostly unaffected by the fact there is bad weather. The train company was obliged to assist the OP.

In line with usual on this forum, the customer is always wrong and the industry is always right!

 

[Pat Figg]

I went last night. I don't think there was a red weather warning in place at the time. Not one I'd heard of anyway. And are railways, ambulances, police etc going to use that as an excuse now when something goes wrong. There were no such warnings even a few years ago.

 

[AlterEgo]

I went last night. I don't think there was a red weather warning in place at the time. Not one I'd heard of anyway. And are railways, ambulances, police etc going to use that as an excuse now when something goes wrong. There were no such warnings even a few years ago.

Your best bet is to arrange alternative transport like a taxi yourself, and claim it back at this stage. You will get your costs refunded, and if you don't, head to Disputes on the forum and ask for further advice.

 

[signed]

In line with usual on this forum, the customer is always wrong and the industry is always right!

Some members seem to despise that the exceptional circumstances clauses doesn't exist in the UK

 

[Topological]

The relevant link here would appear to be: https://www.railombudsman.org/travel-during-severe-weather/

In some cases, on the basis of the level of national media information provided, as well as specific messaging from the RSP, the Ombudsman concluded the consumer would reasonably have expected to incur substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. In opting to attempt to travel, it was considered that the consumer accepted the risks and was therefore responsible for bearing the cost of the alternative transport taken.

In one example they quote a refund of the ticket is concluded to be the right outcome.

• Consumer D attempted travel despite severe weather warnings, and all services were cancelled with no alternative offered. So they booked a hotel and travelled the next day by coach. The RSP provided a refund, but offered no contribution to costs.

In Consumer D’s case, a red weather warning was put in place just before the Consumer began their journey. Furthermore, there had been a forecast of severe weather since at least the day before, alongside widespread national media information relating to this warning, as well as messaging from the RSP. On this basis, the Rail Ombudsman found that the consumer was reasonably informed prior to travel to expect substantial disruption or not be able to complete their journey using the railway. Additionally, the scheduled service and subsequent services were cancelled before departure, due to severe weather, which also impacted the ability to provide safe alternative services.

 

[Aaron_TTL]

All well and good saying 'do not travel' but what if you don't have any choice? I wanted to go home!

The red warning came out around 11am yesterday, I guess this is a lesson to check the weather next time before you go.

 

[Wivenswold]

The current Met Office warning system has been in place for at least 14 years. They originally started issuing warnings for severe weather as a result of the 1987 storm.
The Red Weather Warning for Cardiff was issued at 10 am yesterday morning after the daily meeting with the head meteorologist at the Met Office in Exeter.

While the full effects of the storm won't be known until daylight, on balance and based on the model data I was looking at in the days before, I'd say it was the right call and has probably saved lives.

 

[Pat Figg]

The relevant link here would appear to be: https://www.railombudsman.org/travel-during-severe-weather/


In one example they quote a refund of the ticket is concluded to be the right outcome.

Fair play. That's a sensible answer. Thank you!

 

[AlterEgo]

The relevant link here would appear to be: https://www.railombudsman.org/travel-during-severe-weather/


In one example they quote a refund of the ticket is concluded to be the right outcome.

The Ombudsman does not issue decisions which bind any party and notably their stance here is not in line with the passenger contract nor the PRO.

Notably, this:

The Rail Ombudsman wants to increase consumer awareness of the meaning of Do Not Travel messaging, as noted above. The rail companies will always attempt to run services where it is possible and safe to do so, but in advising ‘Do Not Travel’, they are attempting to minimise the amount of people using the network to enhance safety, because severe disruption is expected and alternative services may not available. There will usually be entitlement to a refund if this is the case (from the retailer), and/or alternative options to use tickets at a later date.

- is quite simply insufficient and not actually in line with what the customer is entitled to, which is to travel, either by rail or comparable means, or to be provided a taxi, bus, rerouting or accommodation. They cannot just wash your hands of you and just refunding the ticket to nullify the contract is also insufficient.

That's actually a really great example of how the Rail Ombudsman is completely useless.

 

[yorkie]

That's an interesting salvo of anti-customer takes...

If anyone spots any inaccurate, misleading or unconstructive replies to any fares dispute matter, please use the report button and a member of the volunteer moderation team will look into it as soon as possible. We may issue advice to the posters and/or remove the posts, depending on the circumstances. Thanks.

 

[bramling]

I went last night. I don't think there was a red weather warning in place at the time. Not one I'd heard of anyway. And are railways, ambulances, police etc going to use that as an excuse now when something goes wrong. There were no such warnings even a few years ago.

Notwithstanding the rights or wrongs of it, in practical terms in these situations this problem is always going to arise. Finding a bus or taxi company that’s prepared to go out in the midst of a red warning is going to be difficult, and not necessarily sensible either.

There can be all the obligations in the world, however if there’s no transport then there’s no transport.

I do sympathise, indeed we went out today for something not entirely essential and the journey back was rather tense, with the prevailing thought being “just hope these overhead wires can hold out until we get home”, and preferring not to think about what might happen if something did go wrong. But we weren’t out in a red warning, had that applied for our area then the decision would have tipped the other way.

 

[Topological]

The Ombudsman does not issue decisions which bind any party and notably their stance here is not in line with the passenger contract nor the PRO.

Notably, this:



- is quite simply insufficient and not actually in line with what the customer is entitled to, which is to travel, either by rail or comparable means, or to be provided a taxi, bus, rerouting or accommodation. They cannot just wash your hands of you and just refunding the ticket to nullify the contract is also insufficient.

That's actually a really great example of how the Rail Ombudsman is completely useless.

This may be a bigger issue, but I would assume that today a passenger can only expect to be limited by decisions of the Ombudsman.

The page I linked has other examples and it may be that they offer suggestion for the OP about additional options that may be open. I am not qualified to offer advice, so will not.

I would always avoid travel wherever possible. Certainly, I would not be going to work if that had meant travel today. However, I do appreciate there are many who have no choice but to travel. The broader response to bad weather has to recognise such necessary travel cases, whilst also doing all it can to dissuade attempts at non-essential travel.

 

[Pat Figg]

I just wanted to get home to be honest. I can't afford a taxi and it's actually quite difficult to find one to take you that far at this time of night. I love the railways and it sometimes pisses me off that they appreciate me less than I appreciate them.

 

[Belperpete]

The Met Office issued the red warning at 09:48 yesterday morning, and was widely reported in news media. The government warning to all mobile phones in the affected area was sent early evening, I think I got mine before 7pm. I find the idea that someone could be oblivious to the warning somewhat far fetched, but then nowadays some people do seem to live in their own little bubble.

I think the more pertinent point is when did TfW issue a Do Not Travel warning for today? I am fairly certain that it was by late afternoon yesterday. Certainly my local bus company had put out a Facebook message that all Traws Cymru bus services throughout Wales were cancelled by 6pm yesterday.

 

[Watershed]

The Met Office issued the red warning at 09:48 yesterday morning, and was widely reported in news media. The government warning to all mobile phones in the affected area was sent early evening, I think I got mine before 7pm. I find the idea that someone could be oblivious to the warning somewhat far fetched, but then nowadays some people do seem to live in their own little bubble.

A fair point, however...

I think the more pertinent point is when did TfW issue a Do Not Travel warning for today? I am fairly certain that it was by late afternoon yesterday. Certainly my local bus company had put out a Facebook message that all Traws Cymru bus services throughout Wales were cancelled by 6pm yesterday.

...I'm not sure why either a red weather warning or "do not travel" notice would have any relevance to the OP's question, which is about their legal rights. Neither the NRCoT nor the PRO state that there are exceptions to the right to alternative transport if there is severe weather or advance warning/notice is given.

The obligation is to provide alternative transport to the extent it's physically possible to do so. If you are able to get a taxi, that is clear proof that it would have been possible for the TOC to organise a taxi for you - so they would be liable for the cost, having refused to do so.

 

[Topological]

Driving on the M4 on Thursday night the signs that display safety messages were all on and saying do not travel today. I drove from Newport to Swansea, and the majority of the signs are in the Newport/Cardiff area. That is a very advanced warning. I appreciate not everyone travels on the M4 to see such a message.

It was those messages on the road that caused me to check what was going on.

 

[Wivenswold]

Brings back memories of my 4 hour bus adventure when the LTS shut down due to the Burns Day Storm in 1990. Working at Basildon station but lived in London and couldn't leave the booking office until we'd refunded all the tickets we'd sold.

 

[AlterEgo]

This may be a bigger issue, but I would assume that today a passenger can only expect to be limited by decisions of the Ombudsman.

No, not at all - they are limited by the law, not what a non-binding Ombudsman says. The Ombudsman is simply a dispute mediation service and is not a regulator.

Passengers' statutory rights are not affected by the fact an Ombudsman was set up on the cheap, nor do they even have to use the Ombudsman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2024 ==

The obligation is to provide alternative transport to the extent it's physically possible to do so. If you are able to get a taxi, that is clear proof that it would have been possible for the TOC to organise a taxi for you - so they would be liable for the cost, having refused to do so.

Very succinctly put.

 

[Topological]

No, not at all - they are limited by the law, not what a non-binding Ombudsman says. The Ombudsman is simply a dispute mediation service and is not a regulator.

Passengers' statutory rights are not affected by the fact an Ombudsman was set up on the cheap, nor do they even have to use the Ombudsman.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2024 ==


Very succinctly put.

As a non-industry person, who would you appeal to if the Ombudsman finds in favour of the train operating company?

The problem is that there is a big disconnect between what the letter of the law says, what the spirit of the law says, what case law says, and what bodies (such as the Ombudsman) apply.

It appears more like this is a question of whether the Ombudsman should be positioned closer to the passenger position, rather than whether people can really expect to get refunded on taxis etc. based upon the interpretation of the law as set out in the travel conditions.

Unless I am missing something and claims can be escalated today when the Ombudsman does not appear to have stuck to the law.

 

[AlterEgo]

As a non-industry person, who would you appeal to if the Ombudsman finds in favour of the train operating company?

You'd just issue a letter before action before taking it to small claims.

The problem is that there is a big disconnect between what the letter of the law says, what the spirit of the law says, what case law says, and what bodies (such as the Ombudsman) apply.

It appears more like this is a question of whether the Ombudsman should be positioned closer to the passenger position, rather than whether people can really expect to get refunded on taxis etc. based upon the interpretation of the law as set out in the travel conditions.

The Ombudsman is quite simply ignoring the law here and what rights passengers actually have, likely because they are incompetent (they are the same people who run the Furniture Ombudsman!!), and because their existence is a political sop and it isn't in their interests to be too bolshy.

Unless I am missing something and claims can be escalated today when the Ombudsman does not appear to have stuck to the law.

Claims can always be made in court, for the costs incurred by such refusal. The Ombudsman's decision is immaterial to the passenger's actual rights under the law.

 

[Belperpete]

Pat Figg said:
All well and good saying 'do not travel' but what if you don't have any choice? I wanted to go home

Wanting to go home and having no choice are very different things. You do have a choice, and I would suggest that the more sensible choice would be to stay put until it is safe to go home. You say that you stayed overnight in Cardiff Friday night, couldn't you have extended your stay for an extra night?

Whether you are entitled to assistance from TfW in staying put, and whether the ombudsman will support you in that if TfW refuse, are again very different things. There will be people who made their outward journey long before the warning was issued, such as those who were abroad and who flew back into the UK late Friday, expecting to travel back into Wales on Saturday. They will genuinely have had no choice, and who should be entitled to assistance.

 

[Topological]

You'd just issue a letter before action before taking it to small claims.


The Ombudsman is quite simply ignoring the law here and what rights passengers actually have, likely because they are incompetent (they are the same people who run the Furniture Ombudsman!!), and because their existence is a political sop and it isn't in their interests to be too bolshy.


Claims can always be made in court, for the costs incurred by such refusal. The Ombudsman's decision is immaterial to the passenger's actual rights under the law.

So in essence its an "at the passengers own risk" claim to the court and it could result in very large costs for the passenger (Irrespective of whether the seeming interpretation of the law would point to the passenger winning)

Reading the national conditions of travel I am not sure I would want to take it to court at my own risk. There are too many "or" clauses.

28.1 We want you to be satisfied with your journey. If you have any problem that cannot be resolved to your satisfaction at the time, every Train Company provides details of how to make a complaint or comment on its website and on notices at stations and on trains.

The opening clause is a bit of a nothingness.

28.2 Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.

This "is being used" raises alarm bells to me. If you do not start your journey (or it is a return where you have not set off from the destination) then is that ticket "being used"

28.3 Where your train is likely to be delayed for more than 60 minutes, you may use your Ticket to make your journey at a later date subject to comparable restrictions on your Ticket. Please refer to your Train Company’s website or contact them directly for details on how to obtain a replacement Ticket.

This seems fair, but is not part of the issue here

28.4 In other circumstances disruption to train services may mean that you are entitled to compensation or a refund on your Ticket. Part F explains your rights to refunds and compensation.

This is true, hence the option to refund being ruled by the Ombudsman. The final clause is a non-clause

28.5 If your train is delayed for more than 60 minutes, your Train Company may, in certain circumstances, provide you with meals and refreshments if they are available on the train or in the station, or can reasonably be supplied, and in reasonable relation to the waiting time.

 

[Watershed]

So in essence its an "at the passengers own risk" claim to the court

Well, you could say the same about any contractual right under the NRCoT or statutory right under the PRO or Consumer Rights Act, really.

it could result in very large costs for the passenger (Irrespective of whether the seeming interpretation of the law would point to the passenger winning)

Costs in terms of the time spent to bring a claim? Yes, sure, particularly if it goes to trial and/or if the passenger isn't experienced in Court procedures. But the risk of having significant costs awarded against you, if you lose, is minimal. The whole point of the Small Claims Track of the County Court (which any such claim would inevitably be allocated to) is that the recoverable costs are very limited.

They primarily comprise the Court fees (£35 for the claim issue and £27 if it proceeds to a hearing), direct costs for attending the trial (i.e. travel expenses and any time taken off work), and interest. Not exactly "very large", though I will accept even these relatively modest costs may be beyond some passengers' means.

This "is being used" raises alarm bells to me. If you do not start your journey (or it is a return where you have not set off from the destination) then is that ticket "being used"

I think any such argument would be a complete non-starter. The railway is perfectly happy to consider someone to be travelling, for the purposes of fares irregularities, once they attempt to pass through a barrier or enter a station - for example, by bringing (or threatening to bring) prosecutions for attempting to avoid payment of the fare (s.5(3)(a) RoRA).

In any event you aren't limited to bringing a claim under the NRCoT. You can always bring a claim under the PRO, which has no such "being used" proviso and creates a clear entitlement to alternative transport under Article 16(b) or 18(3) (depending on the circumstances).

This is true, hence the option to refund being ruled by the Ombudsman. The final clause is a non-clause

It's a reference to the right to refreshments for a 60+ mins delay, already established under the PRO. It is indeed couched in far more provisos than the other rights, but I have raised claims on this basis a few times.

A TOC once tried to claim that the inclusion of "may" (which is incorrect really, as the PRO requires such refreshments to be provided if reasonably possible) means this right is was entirely at the TOC's discretion - and that they had chosen not to do so, so I couldn't claim back any expenses for obtaining my own refreshments! Needless to say, I gave that nonsensical take short shrift and the TOC didn't try and defend this in Court.

 

[sheff1]

As there was a red weather warning and advisories against any travel in the area, I think a judge would politely suggest that you are the author of your own misfortune.

I thought judges were there to rule whether the 'accused' party had acted in accordance with the law.

 

[Topological]

Well, you could say the same about any contractual right under the NRCoT or statutory right under the PRO or Consumer Rights Act, really.


Costs in terms of the time spent to bring a claim? Yes, sure, particularly if it goes to trial and/or if the passenger isn't experienced in Court procedures. But the risk of having significant costs awarded against you, if you lose, is minimal. The whole point of the Small Claims Track of the County Court (which any such claim would inevitably be allocated to) is that the recoverable costs are very limited.

They primarily comprise the Court fees (£35 for the claim issue and £27 if it proceeds to a hearing), direct costs for attending the trial (i.e. travel expenses and any time taken off work), and interest. Not exactly "very large", though I will accept even these relatively modest costs may be beyond some passengers' means.


I think any such argument would be a complete non-starter. The railway is perfectly happy to consider someone to be travelling, for the purposes of fares irregularities, once they attempt to pass through a barrier or enter a station - for example, by bringing (or threatening to bring) prosecutions for attempting to avoid payment of the fare (s.5(3)(a) RoRA).

In any event you aren't limited to bringing a claim under the NRCoT. You can always bring a claim under the PRO, which has no such "being used" proviso and creates a clear entitlement to alternative transport under Article 16(b) or 18(3) (depending on the circumstances).


It's a reference to the right to refreshments for a 60+ mins delay, already established under the PRO. It is indeed couched in far more provisos than the other rights, but I have raised claims on this basis a few times.

A TOC once tried to claim that the inclusion of "may" (which is incorrect really, as the PRO requires such refreshments to be provided if reasonably possible) means this right is was entirely at the TOC's discretion - and that they had chosen not to do so, so I couldn't claim back any expenses for obtaining my own refreshments! Needless to say, I gave that nonsensical take short shrift and the TOC didn't try and defend this in Court.

Thank you for the detailed reply.

It looks like the answer lies in the PRO rather than NRCoT.

I do not think I will be trying it though. Not under a red warning anyway.

 

[furlong]

You should be looking at this link https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations rather than the watered-down version in the NRCoT ("in addition to the industry arrangements set out under these Conditions and Passenger’s Charters, you are also able to rely on statutory rights") - in particular the crucial article 16 that they seem to be hiding deliberately on that page (missing out the number). (They were informed and said they'd correct it but of course never did.)

 

[Belperpete]

You'd just issue a letter before action before taking it to small claims.

Claims can always be made in court, for the costs incurred by such refusal. The Ombudsman's decision is immaterial to the passenger's actual rights under the law.

That is true, but.... The small claims court expects you to have gone through the appropriate arbitration process before taking your case to them. If you don't, your claim is unlikely to be viewed positively. If you do take your case to the ombudsman and it is rejected, the ombudsman's decision will weigh against you. The court is far more likely to be swayed by the "expert opinion" of the independent ombudsman, than by your layman's opinion. Small claims courts are not set up to argue contentious points of law, and as the previous poster has noted, this is far from cut and dried. So the chances are that you would lose and have to appeal to a higher court. And the chances of you getting legal assistance for that?