Passengers' rights during a storm

[furlong]

I think it looks pretty cut-and-dried to many of us here!

"railway undertakings are obliged to give passengers compensation or assistance even in situations which they consider are outside of their, or the rail industry’s control."

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

If a train company doesn't like that, then it shouldn't have contracted to run trains! They are not being asked to do anything impossible e.g. if roads are impassible or buses/coaches and taxis aren't running.

 

[Belperpete]

I think it looks pretty cut-and-dried to many of us here!

"railway undertakings are obliged to give passengers compensation or assistance even in situations which they consider are outside of their, or the rail industry’s control."

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

If a train company doesn't like that, then it shouldn't have contracted to run trains! They are not being asked to do anything impossible e.g. if roads are impassible or buses/coaches and taxis aren't running.

Agreed that the customer is entitled to transport to their final destination at the earliest opportunity. But what does at the earliest opportunity mean? it would be entirely reasonable to argue that could mean after the weather alert is over, and trains (or RRB) are running again. It would be unreasonable to argue that it means whenever the passenger wants it.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is true, but.... The small claims court expects you to have gone through the appropriate arbitration process before taking your case to them.

The small claims court now actually includes mediation, which is non binding, and does not necessarily involve the Ombudsman.

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.

It will not, if the Ombudsman has not made its ruling based in law.

The court is far more likely to be swayed by the "expert opinion" of the independent ombudsman, than by your layman's opinion.

Courts do not decide things based on "well I reckon", they see which, if any, of the parties has broken the law, and whether anyone is due redress.

Small claims courts are not set up to argue contentious points of law

The PRO is not contentious in this regard.

, and as the previous poster has noted, this is far from cut and dried.

Because they erroneously were not looking at the PRO.

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?

The chances are, in practice, it does not ever get to court at all because TOCs settle nearly all these claims before then - it is in fact the TOCs who don't want to lose and appeal!

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

I think it looks pretty cut-and-dried to many of us here!

"railway undertakings are obliged to give passengers compensation or assistance even in situations which they consider are outside of their, or the rail industry’s control."

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

If a train company doesn't like that, then it shouldn't have contracted to run trains! They are not being asked to do anything impossible e.g. if roads are impassible or buses/coaches and taxis aren't running.

Indeed, if a passenger can source a bus ticket or a taxi then the TOC's claim that it was not possible would fail completely.

 

[GordonT]

Indeed, if a passenger can source a bus ticket or a taxi then the TOC's claim that it was not possible would fail completely.

What if the taxi driver was acting recklessly by putting himself/herself and passengers at risk from flooding, falling trees etc. in the teeth of a red warning in order to earn a fast buck? Are we not losing sight of the fact that a red warning
means "danger to life". There have been a couple of motorists killed by falling trees during the current storm.

 

[WAB]

What if the taxi driver was acting recklessly by putting himself/herself and passengers at risk from flooding, falling trees etc. in the teeth of a red warning in order to earn a fast buck? Are we not losing sight of the fact that a red warning
means "danger to life". There have been a couple of motorists killed by falling trees during the current storm.

I have called off rail replacement buses in the past in conditions far better today because there was the very real possibility that the buses would get into accidents or get stranded in the middle of nowhere. In these conditions, I absolutely would've pulled most if not all buses across Wales. That's even if the buses turned out - difficult to find drivers to take them when it's known just how bad it'll be.

 

[AlterEgo]

What if the taxi driver was acting recklessly by putting himself/herself and passengers at risk from flooding, falling trees etc. in the teeth of a red warning in order to earn a fast buck? Are we not losing sight of the fact that a red warning
means "danger to life". There have been a couple of motorists killed by falling trees during the current storm.

Are you saying anyone driving a vehicle today is doing this?

In any case, if replacement transport cannot be arranged at all, the passenger is still due overnight accommodation until it can.

 

[GordonT]

Are you saying anyone driving a vehicle today is doing this?

No.

 

[AlterEgo]

No.

So what relevance has your original point? It intimates that people driving in a red warning are being reckless.

 

[Lewisham2221]

So what relevance has your original point? It intimates that people driving in a red warning are being reckless.

Well, they potentially are.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well, they potentially are.

They either are or they aren’t. Anyone can be potentially reckless on the road. Is driving trains during a red warning reckless?

 

[Alex C.]

Have there been any posts on the forum for a dispute around these sort of arrangements where small claims action has been taken and defended by the TOC?

It is far more expensive for the train company to defend a small claims hearing that it is to for the aggrieved party to issue it, and I know both from working for a TOC where we rolled over once court action was taken, and from my own experience of issuing letter before actions (when all other avenues of normal customer service have failed, only a few times) that it is very unlikely that they won't settle prior to a hearing.

 

[Watershed]

Have there been any posts on the forum for a dispute around these sort of arrangements where small claims action has been taken and defended by the TOC?

It is far more expensive for the train company to defend a small claims hearing that it is to for the aggrieved party to issue it, and I know both from working for a TOC where we rolled over once court action was taken, and from my own experience of issuing letter before actions (when all other avenues of normal customer service have failed, only a few times) that it is very unlikely that they won't settle prior to a hearing.

Indeed - that has been my experience on every occasion that I have found it necessary to take a TOC to court to vindicate my rights.

 

[bramling]

They either are or they aren’t. Anyone can be potentially reckless on the road. Is driving trains during a red warning reckless?

On balance you’re better protected in a train. During these sorts of storms there are normally a number of deaths, normally where people get crushed by trees falling on to their car - indeed tragically this storm has proved no exception.

Notwithstanding the fact that more journeys are made by road, generally we don’t get situations where people are killed as a result of trains being hit by trees, though there have been a few nasty incidents where train drivers have had close calls over the years.

 

[robbeech]

They cannot just wash your hands of you and just refunding the ticket to nullify the contract is also insufficient.

But they do, in hundreds of incidents on the network for whatever reason they choose. People are stranded for hours or overnight, forced to buy new tickets at 5 times the price to get home because of a shortage of train crew in perfect weather so they think nothing of closing the door in the face of passengers in situations like this.

No, not at all - they are limited by the law, not what a non-binding Ombudsman says.

They’re not really limited by any law in the real world.

The Ombudsman is simply a dispute mediation service and is not a regulator.

Which body is a regulator? Who is it that regulates what the TOCs do here?

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

As AlterEgo says, you’d be on your own having to take legal action against them which would in most cases be prohibitively expensive and difficult to do.

So in essence its an "at the passengers own risk"

Using the railway at all for any journey is at the passenger’s own risk in 2024. The railway CANNOT be relied upon to get you to your destination / home at any time in any weather. It is a risk for every passenger to travel by rail without understanding the potential consequences if they do not have the means to get themselves home on their own or obtain their own hotel for aslong as necessary until the railway is able to transport them (and then they still might need to buy a new ticket). Almost all journeys arrive safely and reasonably on time but the railway is one of the largest consumer of metaphorical towels today and its care for passengers is running out.

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"

Scan your ticket on the gateline or simply arrive at the station where there is no gateline.

The railway and its retailers are very clear that once you scan your ticket to enter the station you have started your journey thus rendering you ineligible for a refund on your ticket as it is “used”. Surely the railway wouldn’t have floating definitions on things to suit them? Would they?


My overall view is that if you’re advised not to travel because of severe weather you should make every attempt not to travel. Given the severity of the weather it would have been in the employer’s interest to consider whether postponing an office Christmas party may have been wise.
At the very least you’d hope that passengers would do their bit to minimise the risk, accepting you need to do the thing Friday evening, you might not be able to travel Saturday so you may wish to book your hotel for 2 nights. Afterall if the railway is non operational the day after the bad weather then there will be many options for alternative travel that the railway should then provide.

However I do share the view that if you are travelling and the railway falls over then it should be doing much more than just closing the station doors in passengers’ faces and saying tough luck. Unfortunately though with no actual regulatory body to hold the railway to account it will never ever happen, and looking forwards I suspect we will see all of these rights revoked.

In this scenario I find it difficult to believe the passenger didn’t know about the bad weather, and didn’t know that travel home on Saturday would have been unlikely to go without issue. Had someone travelled there 10 days ago for work with a view to returning yesterday that might have been different.

If the passenger has used the railway albeit many hours later then I suspect the railway has done its job here, and maybe a delay repay claim (which would be rejected) would be the way they’d like to go.
It’s likely the member of station staff could do with a bit of training but we don’t know the exact exchange nor the “attitude” of either party here. That said a further check on their wellbeing such as “what are you going to do, have you got somewhere to go” wouldn’t have hurt, even if the passenger had initially failed the attitude test.

 

[island]

I should note that Ombudsmen tend to rule on the basis of what they consider to be "fair and reasonable in all the circumstances". As an informal, low-cost, alternative dispute resolution service, they are not bound to use a strict/direct application of applicable law. This seems to be what has been done in the case discussed in post 8 where they have weighed the contribution of the passenger to their own misfortune rather highly, despite there being little to no support in applicable law for doing so.

Naturally, an adverse Ombudsman ruling does not bind the customer who retains the right to take the matter through the court system if they so choose. This is not without financial risk, as noted in posts 25-26, but I cannot conceive of a claim under the circumstances discussed being deemed "wholly unreasonable" and resulting in a costs award against the passenger.

I note what has been said about the difference between what one is legally entitled to and what is practically possible and available at a point in time.

TOCs are not well known for defending county court cases like this; they will almost invariably settle as the value of the claim is less than the value of the staff time it would take to defend it.

 

[Wolfie]

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 Rail Ombudsman is frankly an industry shill. His views would be completely unpersuasive to a Court and indeed a decent judge would destroy them.

Make your own way home, claim your costs and if the TOC doesn't pay then off to small claims court they go..... An interesting aside is that if an individual sues a company they get to chose the venue. It would be a shame for TfW for example if someone happened to live in Newcastle or Durham.....

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2024 ==

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.

You presume wrongly. A Court certainly would not be guided let alone limited by the ill-informed, legally highly dubious, burblings of an industry appointee.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2024 ==

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.

At some point if they continue down their current track l expect the Ombudsman himself to face legal action.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2024 ==

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.


The opening clause is a bit of a nothingness.

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"

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

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

It's about £30 to go to Small Claims Court and in general (unless a claim is egregious) no costs are awarded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Dec 2024 ==

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

In a civil case they are to decide the issue, applying the appropriate legislation, on the preponderance of evidence.

 

[soil]

It's about £30 to go to Small Claims Court and in general (unless a claim is egregious) no costs are awarded.

It's £35 to file up £300, then £27 if it goes to hearing. £301-£500 is £50 then £59, etc. However, these costs are recoverable if you win.

 

[LAX54]

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.

Is it not like Airlines, bad weather flight cancelled, they dont have to get you anywhere, or give compensation, just a refund, and you are on your own.

 

[nanstallon]

The railways couldn't care less about their customers, except for their money. Some years ago, I got on a train at Truro, to go to London. Nothing was said about weather issues, nor was there any reason at Truro to suspect that there might be. All was well till the train reached Exeter, where there was then an announcement that the train was being terminated because of flooding at Cowley Bridge. There were no replacement buses, which seem to be less sensitive to weather issues, and we were told to simply go home. I had to reach London, because I had booked accommodation for several days which was not refundable and anyway I wanted to enjoy a break there. I did a bit of local research and found a local bus to Tiverton, and another from there to Taunton, where I joined an actual train to London.

Sadly, TOCs abandon passengers when they are a nuisance. The Ombudsman and the courts are as much use as a chocolate fireguard.

 

[AlterEgo]

Is it not like Airlines, bad weather flight cancelled, they dont have to get you anywhere

Yes they do, in the UK and EU.

, or give compensation

They sometimes do, depending on the exact nature of the delay.

, just a refund

No, this is wrong.

, and you are on your own.

Very wrong. EC/UK261 protections for care, accommodation, food and phone calls etc are absolutely covered even during unavoidable disruption. If you turn up at Heathrow and the storm means you're delayed until tomorrow, guess what? You will be accommodated in a hotel near the airport, given money or vouchers for food, and so on.

 

[soil]

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.)

This is the legislation being referenced

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations

Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations

www.legislation.gov.uk

1.
In the case of a delay in arrival or departure, passengers shall be kept informed of the situation and of the estimated departure time and estimated arrival time by the railway undertaking or by the station manager as soon as such information is available.

2.
In the case of any delay as referred to in paragraph 1 of more than 60 minutes, passengers shall also be offered free of charge:

(a)meals and refreshments in reasonable relation to the waiting time, if they are available on the train or in the station, or can reasonably be supplied;

(b)hotel or other accommodation, and transport between the railway station and place of accommodation, in cases where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary or an additional stay becomes necessary, where and when physically possible;

(c)if the train is blocked on the track, transport from the train to the railway station, to the alternative departure point or to the final destination of the service, where and when physically possible.

3.
If the railway service cannot be continued anymore, railway undertakings shall organise as soon as possible alternative transport services for passengers.

4.
Railway undertakings shall, at the request of the passenger, certify on the ticket that the rail service has suffered a delay, led to a missed connection or that it has been cancelled, as the case might be.

5.
In applying paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, the operating railway undertaking shall pay particular attention to the needs of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility and any accompanying persons.

 

[800001]

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?

Just wondering how this would have ended if you hadn’t been a ‘pain’?
You don’t get chucked of stations for no reason.

 

[Wolfie]

Just wondering how this would have ended if you hadn’t been a ‘pain’?
You don’t get chucked of stations for no reason.

Hmmmm.... I've sadly come across staff who believe that they are always right and won't accept proof to the contrary. Cost their employer dear when l litigated.

 

[Sonic1234]

Hmmmm.... I've sadly come across staff who believe that they are always right and won't accept proof to the contrary. Cost their employer dear when l litigated.

Not as much as it would cost to provide decent service (and uphold their obligations) to everyone.

Customers litigating is a rarity, most people are scared of the word "court". There will be a budget for the few rare "awkward" customers who do.

 

[LAX54]

Yes they do, in the UK and EU.


They sometimes do, depending on the exact nature of the delay.


No, this is wrong.


Very wrong. EC/UK261 protections for care, accommodation, food and phone calls etc are absolutely covered even during unavoidable disruption. If you turn up at Heathrow and the storm means you're delayed until tomorrow, guess what? You will be accommodated in a hotel near the airport, given money or vouchers for food, and so on.

I did get the 'get you there' part wrong, my error there, sorry.

If you look at various FB comments, Bad weather means that compensation does not have to be paid as it is 'out of their control', they do have to get you to the destination though, and out of pocket expenses if any.
You will get a new flight, or a refund, but no compensation.

UKpassengerrights.co.uk
When it comes to flight delay compensation or flight cancellation compensation, airlines worldwide use a term “extraordinary circumstances” to inform passengers that they are not entitled to any form of compensation. They claim that the delay or cancellation was not their fault, but will get...

• free meals and drinks in a reasonable relation to the waiting time,
• free hotel accommodation if a stay of one or more nights is necessary,
• two free phone calls, e-mails or faxes

You see many complaints that their holiday was ruined etc, and B.A / Virgin etc, whilst getting them there a day or so late, will not pay 'compo' for the delay.

 

[robbeech]

Hmmmm.... I've sadly come across staff who believe that they are always right and won't accept proof to the contrary. Cost their employer dear when l litigated.

There does seem to be an increasing number of staff in this pool, or maybe we are just hearing more about it as the public express their disappointment at the railway. We do still see lots of positive comments about staff though and I think looking at the bigger picture you’ll still find significantly more staff wanting to help where they can.

I don’t use Cardiff Central often but I’ve never had a negative experience there. It’s entirely possible an attitude test was failed by the passenger but it’s also very likely that the pass threshold had been adjusted significantly due to the on going situation, a shorter than normal fuse shall we say.

 

[Sonic1234]

There does seem to be an increasing number of staff in this pool, or maybe we are just hearing more about it as the public express their disappointment at the railway

While not the case in a storm, under normal conditions the best customer service is at unstaffed stations. I don't want to have to argue with someone from OnTrak about break of journey or how this off peak ticket can be used from 0900 even though most are from 0930 etc...

 

[Haywain]

While not the case in a storm, under normal conditions the best customer service is at unstaffed stations. I don't want to have to argue with someone from OnTrak about break of journey or how this off peak ticket can be used from 0900 even though most are from 0930 etc...

An absence of customer service is not customer service of any sort, good or bad.

 

[rocrat]

While not the case in a storm, under normal conditions the best customer service is at unstaffed stations. I don't want to have to argue with someone from OnTrak about break of journey or how this off peak ticket can be used from 0900 even though most are from 0930 etc...

Clearly never tried to use a call point during disruption then...