Southern refusing to reimburse taxi - advice please!

[crablab]

Chargebacks just punish the merchant or retailer for a service they provided in good faith; you're looking for compensation/reimbursement from the company responsible for the ultimate problem and it ought to go through channels that clarify and establish their responsibility in law rather than simply get the cash back.

Whilst a chargeback for the Delay Repay element here probably isn't appropriate right now, they are not "punishment" and as a contractural agreement between all parties, do confer binding liability.
It's irrelevant whether the merchant operated in 'good faith' - if they failed to process the transaction properly or (eg.) render the service as described, they are liable to chargeback. That is the contract.
Indeed, the whole point of the chargeback process is to provide a level of consistent consumer protection throughout that card network (globally) without the need to resort to the courts.
So yes, a chargeback does establish 'responsibility' and is not simply 'getting the cash back'.

(To be clear: a valid chargeback against the taxi company is unlikely to exist here, since there is no dispute with the service they provided. I think it's clear to everyone, from the thread, that a chargeback there to recover a loss incurred by another entity failing to pay redress would be inappropriate)

 

[Haywain]

Whilst a chargeback for the Delay Repay element here probably isn't appropriate right now, they are not "punishment" and as a contractural agreement between all parties, do confer binding liability.

If the ticket wasn't purchased from Southern there can be no reasonable claim that the retailer failed to provide the service.

 

[Belperpete]

I think the issue here is exactly what the OP was told at Brighton. In similar situations, when the connection to my last train has been missed, I have been advised that it would be best if I made my own arrangements, as if I waited for them to arrange a taxi I would likely be waiting a long time. I don't know what the situation is at Brighton, but where I used to live the taxi had first to be authorised by Control, and then procured from the contracted taxi company. I have stood waiting for an hour or more, watching taxis queued up at the rank, waiting for the authorised taxi to turn up.

Was the OP explicitly told that Southern wouldn't or couldn't arrange a taxi for him? Or was he advised that the best course of action would be to arrange one himself? If the latter case, the station staff would seem to have done an excellent slopey shoulder job on the OP, as by choosing to arrange alternative transport himself, according to the NRCoT he absolves Southern of any further responsibility. In particular, I note that the OP only told Southern that he was "advised" to book his own taxi, which is ambiguous at best. Southern seem to be taking the line that the OP chose to arrange his own transport.

Likewise the station staff telling the OP that he can claim the money back just seems like a good way of getting rid of him. You can of course always submit a claim, whether you are entitled to have it paid is another matter altogether.

I suggest that if the OP doesn't get satisfaction from Southern, and takes it to the ombudsman, he should chose his words carefully as to exactly what was said to him at Brighton. If he gives the impression that it was his choice to book his own taxi, even if based on advice received from the staff, it could weaken his case.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

I always thought that if the train was cancelled, it was the staff who would arrange any taxi on the railway companies account? They shouldn't really be promising to reimburse customers if they haven't notified their control so it can be recorded correctly on their system and customers can be reimbursed with minimal delay.

 

[Belperpete]

If the ticket wasn't purchased from Southern there can be no reasonable claim that the retailer failed to provide the service.

I am aware that you do have to be careful when buying things via a third party, that it can affect your rights to chargeback. Does this apply with rail tickets? I was under the impression that rail tickets were a special case, because in many cases (such as multi TOC journeys), you inherently have to use a third party for at least part of the journey.

I think that you also have to be very careful with chargeback that you don't annul any rights that you are due under the original purchase.

 

[Haywain]

I was under the impression that rail tickets were a special case, because in many cases (such as multi TOC journeys), you inherently have to use a third party for at least part of the journey.

The rail ticket forms a contract for the provision of the service by the rail operators but if you make a chargeback it is the retailer alone who suffers - they lose not only the commission they received for supplying the ticket but also the actual cost that is passed on to the rail service providers (collectively, the retailer has no interest in how that is distributed). In the event of a chargeback it would be reasonable for a retailer to dispute it on the basis that the service they provided has not been deficient. That's my view anyway.

 

[Belperpete]

I always thought that if the train was cancelled, it was the staff who would arrange any taxi on the railway companies account? They shouldn't really be promising to reimburse customers if they haven't notified their control so it can be recorded correctly on their system and customers can be reimbursed with minimal delay.

Exactly. I would have been very wary of the advice to arrange my own taxi, as it is not what should be happening. I don't know what the taxi situation is like at Brighton late at night on a bank holiday, but if everyone in the same boat are all arranging their own taxis to places like Lewes and beyond, that could potentially lead to a run on the available taxis. Whereas if the railway were organising taxis, they would arrange sharing to minimise the number of taxis needed, and to keep a lid on the costs.

 

[crablab]

In the event of a chargeback it would be reasonable for a retailer to dispute it on the basis that the service they provided has not been deficient. That's my view anyway.

If the ticket wasn't purchased from Southern there can be no reasonable claim that the retailer failed to provide the service.

How the rail industry chooses to handle internal revenue splitting arrangements is of no interest to the network, issuer nor cardholder, and the industry is afforded no special treatment.

It is not a valid defence to a chargeback to say that the service of 'delivering a ticket' has been provided; the service the customer has purchased and formed a contract for was a rail journey, which they are entitled to expect to be delivered in line with the terms & agreement at sale.

Failure, by a sub-contractor or otherwise, to deliver that service makes the merchant liable to chargeback. It's very simple.

Of course, I have seen acquirers try to argue this - particularly with travel agents & airlines. Internal network guidance makes it very clear this doesn't fly, and it would be unwise (and expensive) to use such an argument at Arbitration.

 

[williamn]

What exactly happened is this:

- at Haywards Heath staff told passengers changing for Lewes etc to reboard the train to Brighton for alternative transport from there. This was an evening of widespread disruption and southern had been arranging rail replacement buses on the east coast way.

- on arrival at Brighton there were a few people enquiring about onward travel though seemingly no one else going East like me (this was late on 1 Jan so not a busy time). I asked staff about alternative transport, they radioed and then told me there was none.

- no other options were presented to me so I asked if I could take a taxi and claim it back and the staff said yes, gave me the email for customer services, told me to get a receipt and / or pic of the meter and said that customer service usually respond quickly.

 

[Belperpete]

I have seen acquirers try to argue this - particularly with travel agents & airlines.

Air travel and hotels booked through third parties, and also event tickets, are cases I was thinking of, where chargebacks have been denied when something is bought via a third party. In the case of things bought via a travel agent, you are also buying the services of the travel agent, who is supposed to have a duty of care for you. So it is the travel agent who is supposed to get your money back for you.

 

[crablab]

Air travel and hotels booked through third parties, and also event tickets, are cases I was thinking of, where chargebacks have been denied when something is bought via a third party. In the case of things bought via a travel agent, you are also buying the services of the travel agent, who is supposed to have a duty of care for you. So it is the travel agent who is supposed to get your money back for you.

This is not correct, I'm afraid.
The merchant has an absolute responsibility to ensure the service is delivered in line with the contract agreed with the customer. Whether or not they have recourse to suppliers or contractors is ultimately of no relevance to the cardholder or the chargeback process.

 

[Western Sunset]

What exactly happened is this...

- no other options were presented to me so I asked if I could take a taxi and claim it back and the staff said yes, gave me the email for customer services, told me to get a receipt and / or pic of the meter and said that customer service usually respond quickly.

This seems very explicit/detailed advice given by staff at Brighton. Don't see how how Southern could argue about this.

 

[Belperpete]

What exactly happened is this:

- at Haywards Heath staff told passengers changing for Lewes etc to reboard the train to Brighton for alternative transport from there. This was an evening of widespread disruption and southern had been arranging rail replacement buses on the east coast way.

- on arrival at Brighton there were a few people enquiring about onward travel though seemingly no one else going East like me (this was late on 1 Jan so not a busy time). I asked staff about alternative transport, they radioed and then told me there was none.

At which point, I would be asking how I was supposed to get to my destination. Or were they going to put me up for the night in Brighton? And demanding to see a manager if there was no satisfactory response.

- no other options were presented to me so I asked if I could take a taxi and claim it back and the staff said yes, gave me the email for customer services, told me to get a receipt and / or pic of the meter and said that customer service usually respond quickly.

This is significantly different to what you said in the OP, where you said staff advised you to take a taxi. Now we learn that it was your decision to do so. Unfortunately you appear to have voluntarily taken the responsibility of getting yourself home off their shoulders.

Of course they answered "yes" to "can I take a taxi?" (they had no right to prevent you taking a taxi if you so wished) and likewise to "can I claim it back" (nothing to stop you claiming it). But they apparently didn't advise you to take a taxi, or say that you would get your money back. There is no way that they could authorise such an open-ended expense in advance - suppose you had decided to take a luxury limo!

However, you only offered to take a taxi at your expense because the staff failed to offer you the options that you were entitled to. it seems to be very sharp practice by Southern in denying you recompense of the costs that you incurred in direct consequence of their staff's failings. If Southern refuse to reimburse you, I agree that you should be taking this to the ombudsman. And it would also be worth publicising the case, so that others aren't led into the same trap.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

- no other options were presented to me so I asked if I could take a taxi and claim it back and the staff said yes, gave me the email for customer services, told me to get a receipt and / or pic of the meter and said that customer service usually respond quickly.

Of course they answered "yes" to "can I take a taxi?" (they had no right to prevent you taking a taxi if you so wished) and likewise to "can I claim it back" (nothing to stop you claiming it). But they apparently didn't advise you to take a taxi, or say that you would get your money back.

I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but to my mind 'can I claim back my costs?' is materially different from 'can I submit a claim for my costs?'. Assuming the answer to be 'yes', I think it is implicit in the first that the costs will be paid: if the question was to be understood to be about the right to submit a claim rather than to have it paid then either the question would have to be qualified like the second or the answer would have to be qualified ('no one can stop you asking...')

 

[Class800]

While it might not be what you'd ideally want they do emphasise that they aren't responsible if you make your own attempts to mitigate the delay and that you need to follow staff advice. This is advice I've seen many times - so maybe it's just one to leave and remember next time to ask? However, everyone will take a different approach here

 

[williamn]

While it might not be what you'd ideally want they do emphasise that they aren't responsible if you make your own attempts to mitigate the delay and that you need to follow staff advice. This is advice I've seen many times - so maybe it's just one to leave and remember next time to ask? However, everyone will take a different approach here

As I pointed out in my email to them above I followed the advice from their staff.

 

[Belperpete]

As I pointed out in my email to them above I followed the advice from their staff.

But that isn't true - not according to your account in post #39. The critical point is that the staff didn't advise you to take a taxi - the initiative to do so was yours:

williamn said:
I asked if I could take a taxi and claim it back

The correct course of action should have been for Southern to arrange a taxi for you (or hotel accommodation if not possible). By taking matters into your own hands, you unfortunately relieved Southern of the responsibility of getting you home.

I do think that you were very badly advised by the station staff at Brighton, who failed to offer assistance in getting you back to your destination station, and gave the impression that you were entitled to unlimited reimbursement of whatever taxi costs you might incur. It does suggest to me as though the staff were saying whatever necessary to get rid of you, and you played nicely into their hands.

As I understand it, the NRCoT says that the railway company are under no obligation to provide reimbursement when the passenger arranges their own alternative transport, any such payment is purely discretionary. Any right you might have to reimbursement is essentially based on what the staff at Brighton told you. Do you have a witness to corroborate your account of exactly what they said?

While I agree that this is worth taking to the ombudsman if necessary, I do feel that your case is weakened by it being your unprompted decision to take a taxi. If the staff had instructed you to take a taxi, then you would have had a much stronger case.

 

[tram21]

I disagree with the above comments saying that you asking absolves them of responsibilities.

Your question, assuming it was done in the exact way you say, asks the staff if Southern would be willing to reimburse a taxi, which they said yes, basically promising you that if you arrange alternative transport, the costs will be reimbursed. The staff promised you that costs would be reimbursed, and Southern should uphold this. I'd imagine if you show you're serious about this by asking for an Ombudsman letter, they'll give the money. It can't be that much compared to some costs they've paid back!

Please ensure you continue to pursue this, and I do hope you get the outcome you deserve.

 

[James H]

The idea of a passenger arranging their own taxi and reclaiming the fare isn’t as fanciful as some posters are suggesting - it’s routine practice on the neighbouring SWR routes.

 

[Western Sunset]

We can all interpret and read things differently, but with the OP asking if he could take a taxi and claim it back and the staff clearly saying "yes", they were giving him permission. But more than that, they gave him the email for customer services, giving him detailed instructions to get a receipt and/or picture of the meter. Finally they gave him reassurance, by telling him that "customer service usually respond quickly".

To me it's clear, if outlined correctly by the OP, that the staff were giving him permission to book a taxi and reclaim the expense.

 

[Watershed]

Frankly the above discussion about the exact wording of the discussion with station staff at Brighton is otiose. GTR don't have a realistic defence to the OP's claim; at the moment it would appear the OP is only dealing with first-level customer service bods. With the greatest of respect, they will not have any legal training and thus anything they say must be taken with an according volume of salt.

Southern were liable for getting the OP to their destination one way or the other. There were no more trains and it's not a long distance, so overnight accommodation wouldn't be sensible.

Therefore, they would have been liable for the cost of alternative transport whether they provided it or the OP did. Is there a serious argument to be had that they could have organised it materially cheaper than the OP did? I doubt it.

Southern didn't provide alternative transport, which is their obligation. That obligation having been breached, the OP is under no obligation to obtain 'permission' to make arrangements whose cost they could recover (which, in my experience, would be highly unlikely to be forthcoming).

We are letting the inaccurate and irrelavant canned response distract from the essential facts of the matter. At this point I wouldn't waste any more time dealing with first-level customer services and would be escalating this in whichever way they feel comfortable with. If it were me, I would be sending a Letter Before Claim and if still no payment is forthcoming after 14 days, issuing a Court claim.

 

[Starmill]

I think the issue here is exactly what the OP was told at Brighton. In similar situations, when the connection to my last train has been missed, I have been advised that it would be best if I made my own arrangements, as if I waited for them to arrange a taxi I would likely be waiting a long time. I don't know what the situation is at Brighton, but where I used to live the taxi had first to be authorised by Control, and then procured from the contracted taxi company. I have stood waiting for an hour or more, watching taxis queued up at the rank, waiting for the authorised taxi to turn up.

Was the OP explicitly told that Southern wouldn't or couldn't arrange a taxi for him? Or was he advised that the best course of action would be to arrange one himself? If the latter case, the station staff would seem to have done an excellent slopey shoulder job on the OP, as by choosing to arrange alternative transport himself, according to the NRCoT he absolves Southern of any further responsibility. In particular, I note that the OP only told Southern that he was "advised" to book his own taxi, which is ambiguous at best. Southern seem to be taking the line that the OP chose to arrange his own transport.

Likewise the station staff telling the OP that he can claim the money back just seems like a good way of getting rid of him. You can of course always submit a claim, whether you are entitled to have it paid is another matter altogether.

I suggest that if the OP doesn't get satisfaction from Southern, and takes it to the ombudsman, he should chose his words carefully as to exactly what was said to him at Brighton. If he gives the impression that it was his choice to book his own taxi, even if based on advice received from the staff, it could weaken his case.

This is no different from the (common) scenario where you ask the station staff to arrange you a taxi as a result of the disruption and they simply say they won't. Then you have to arrange your own taxi and claim it back from a company who are very reluctant to admit it's their obligation to pay for that.

The OP reasonably asked multiple times what to do and a taxi wasn't provided. That's perfectly sufficient for the claim to succeed on its own. Which precise form of words was used by the individual staff member isn't really important. You can hardly stand there having it out with the station staff. If they make it clear they aren't going to help you then you sort yourself out and take it up with the company - you don't deal with them in person.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

I know this sounds like splitting hairs, but to my mind 'can I claim back my costs?' is materially different from 'can I submit a claim for my costs?'. Assuming the answer to be 'yes', I think it is implicit in the first that the costs will be paid: if the question was to be understood to be about the right to submit a claim rather than to have it paid then either the question would have to be qualified like the second or the answer would have to be qualified ('no one can stop you asking...')

Only someone who were trying to be deliberately unhelpful would respond to the questions in this way. If a customer asked how to get to x and there was a replacement bus, say, being organised to that destination, then the member of staff would say there will be a replacement bus, or let me check for you as we have ordered a replacement bus. They wouldn't say "nobody can stop you taking a taxi if you want to" and leave it at that, no mention of any replacement transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

The idea of a passenger arranging their own taxi and reclaiming the fare isn’t as fanciful as some posters are suggesting - it’s routine practice on the neighbouring SWR routes.

It's common practice in many parts, yes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2025 ==

I disagree with the above comments saying that you asking absolves them of responsibilities.

Your question, assuming it was done in the exact way you say, asks the staff if Southern would be willing to reimburse a taxi, which they said yes, basically promising you that if you arrange alternative transport, the costs will be reimbursed. The staff promised you that costs would be reimbursed, and Southern should uphold this. I'd imagine if you show you're serious about this by asking for an Ombudsman letter, they'll give the money. It can't be that much compared to some costs they've paid back!

Please ensure you continue to pursue this, and I do hope you get the outcome you deserve.

Even if the customer didn't know at the time that Southern were under an obligation to cover the cost of the additional transport, and therefore didn't press the matter, they do know now in hindsight that Southern's obligation was to respond to the inquiry in the affirmative, or to cover the reasonable costs of not doing so. That's just the way it is.

 

[AlterEgo]

Frankly the above discussion about the exact wording of the discussion with station staff at Brighton is otiose. GTR don't have a realistic defence to the OP's claim; at the moment it would appear the OP is only dealing with first-level customer service bods. With the greatest of respect, they will not have any legal training and thus anything they say must be taken with an according volume of salt.

Southern were liable for getting the OP to their destination one way or the other. There were no more trains and it's not a long distance, so overnight accommodation wouldn't be sensible.

Therefore, they would have been liable for the cost of alternative transport whether they provided it or the OP did. Is there a serious argument to be had that they could have organised it materially cheaper than the OP did? I doubt it.

Southern didn't provide alternative transport, which is their obligation. That obligation having been breached, the OP is under no obligation to obtain 'permission' to make arrangements whose cost they could recover (which, in my experience, would be highly unlikely to be forthcoming).

We are letting the inaccurate and irrelavant canned response distract from the essential facts of the matter. At this point I wouldn't waste any more time dealing with first-level customer services and would be escalating this in whichever way they feel comfortable with. If it were me, I would be sending a Letter Before Claim and if still no payment is forthcoming after 14 days, issuing a Court claim.

I agree with this in its entirety. This would be exactly my advice.

 

[williamn]

On going back to ask for a deadlock letter they’ve said they’ll review my taxi claim again as long as I can provide a taxi receipt which shows:

1. Price of the taxi.
2. Date the taxi journey was made.
3. Origin station.
4. Destination station.
5. logo of the taxi company

The receipt I have doesn’t have these aside from date and price. Without the name of the taxi company I can’t get one issued either. I was instructed by staff to get a receipt and picture of the metre, they didn’t mention any of this. Just feels like Southern are doing absolutely everything to avoid paying up.

 

[tram21]

logo of the taxi company

What?!

Price paid and exact journey is fine, but this! Did they provide the deadlock letter?

 

[AlterEgo]

What?!

Price paid and exact journey is fine, but this! Did they provide the deadlock letter?

Yeah it's quite naive from them - you can knock a receipt up for free on Canva and send it in.

 

[Watershed]

On going back to ask for a deadlock letter they’ve said they’ll review my taxi claim again as long as I can provide a taxi receipt which shows:

1. Price of the taxi.
2. Date the taxi journey was made.
3. Origin station.
4. Destination station.
5. logo of the taxi company

The receipt I have doesn’t have these aside from date and price. Without the name of the taxi company I can’t get one issued either. I was instructed by staff to get a receipt and picture of the metre, they didn’t mention any of this. Just feels like Southern are doing absolutely everything to avoid paying up.

A slightly more reasonable request this time, but it's well known that taxi receipts are usually little more than a scribble. I don't think they could reasonably deny your claim just because your receipt doesn't show the requested details - which are in any event arbitrary, especially with the taxi company logo as it could have been a self-employed taxi driver who doesn't belong to any association/company.

The fact you have a picture of the meter is good, as this could be referenced back to the council's taxi tariff - see here. Some quick 'back of the fag packet' calculations would suggest that tariff 3 would have applied (late night tariff due to the time of day). This starts at £5 for the first 176 yards and is then a further 30p per additional 176 yds.

The longest plausible route, taking the long way round via the A27, would be 12.2 miles or 21472 yds. I doubt there would have been much traffic at that time of night, so I'm not calculating in any time stopped at lights etc. This would lead to a fare of around £41.30. If the shortest possible route were taken it would be 8.8 miles, costing approximately £32.

If you took it to Court, the question is whether the receipt you produce is accepted by the Judge, on the balance of probabilities, as properly representing the cost you incurred for the journey in question. If the amount is vaguely in the ballpark of £30-45, and the picture of the meter shows tariff 3 being charged, I would suggest this is strong evidence that it is for a Brighton to Lewes journey between midnight and 6am with the date being that shown on the receipt.

Add on the fact you have a train ticket for the journey concerned, and knew about the (ultimately incorrect) staff instructions at Haywards Heath, and I think it would be very difficult for Southern to argue this is a fraudulent claim.

I would respond stating the above (we can proofread any email if you like) and invite them to pay up and stop wasting your time, perhaps in slightly more polite terms of course.

In future, I'd consider using the likes of Uber/Bolt/Lyft as you then have an electronic, time-stamped receipt which often even has a map of the journey. Plus the fare may be slightly cheaper, although it's dependent on demand rather than purely the time of day as with a 'black cab'.

 

[dastocks]

On going back to ask for a deadlock letter they’ve said they’ll review my taxi claim again as long as I can provide a taxi receipt which shows:

1. Price of the taxi.
2. Date the taxi journey was made.
3. Origin station.
4. Destination station.
5. logo of the taxi company

The receipt I have doesn’t have these aside from date and price. Without the name of the taxi company I can’t get one issued either. I was instructed by staff to get a receipt and picture of the meter, they didn’t mention any of this. Just feels like Southern are doing absolutely everything to avoid paying up.

Add the missing information and send it off (I would send a scan rather than the original) together with the picture of the meter.

Most of my taxis are expensed and, quite often, I'm given a blank receipt and have to fill it in myself.

 

[computerSaysNo]

In future, I'd consider using the likes of Uber/Bolt/Lyft

If station staff told someone to take a taxi and they instead took a private hire (Uber is definitely a private hire and not a taxi, I'm assuming the other two are too), would that still be covered by an expenses claim?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If station staff told someone to take a taxi and they instead took a private hire (Uber is definitely a private hire and not a taxi, I'm assuming the other two are too), would that still be covered by an expenses claim?

The term "taxi" is used by most people to mean either of those things even if by linguistic technicality that isn't the case. If they meant to say "take a Hackney carriage" or "take a black cab" (or indeed "take a minicab", the generic term for any of those or one you phone to book) they would specifically say that.