Complexities of using NRCoT 28.2 during disruption

[nilvaj395]

Interesting one, I thought I would ask the forum's opinion on.

If, due to an unexpected event outside of the TOC's control (i.e signal failure), you get stuck somewhere, and then ticket acceptance is granted to another operator at a station nearby to your destination. Ticket acceptance with the participating TOCs is done under 'acceptance via any reasonable route', but you have to pay for the cost of the onward leg from the station with another TOC (as the TOC you have your ticket with cannot get you there). What's the situation regarding compensation for this additional ticket?

Rough example, going from Leeds to Headbolt Lane via Liverpool, due to issues getting there via the Northern method (and there being ticket acceptance with TPE the other way around) and having to pay for the Merseyrail leg as it is outside of any agreed ticket acceptance (Ticket acceptance only being with the likes of TPE/EMR/etc).

This is a question I posed to Northern, which they reasonably addressed by referencing the Consumer Rights Act and explaining that a signal fault is an issue outside of their control. I know they are correct with this. However, what about scenarios where the last train to your destination station (on the TOC in question) is also cancelled, meaning even if you went via the normal, ticketed route, you would get stranded at a connecting station anyway, having been unable to use the last train of the day that you were supposed to. In this example, the final train of the day to your destination *was not* cancelled due to a signal or fault that the TOC cannot control, but rather as an issue with staff (controllable).

And due to the earlier uncontrollable issues blocking the line, you were advised to get to your destination through the use of the agreed ticket acceptance with other TOCs to the only possible connection point then purchasing the additional ticket after they informed you to do so.

Is this not where NRCoT 28.2 can be enacted for the reasonable costs incurred? Where the customer has have had to pay for the alternative route due to being stranded by a service issue within the TOCs control. It seems sensible and both economical for the train company to cover your alternative route/ticket by rail that you had to purchase as opposed to the alternative, like insisting on a taxi from that connecting station, especially when a taxi may be very expensive for the distance required.

 

[Hadders]

If your journey is disrupted, to the point that you are unable to reach your destination, then arrangements should be made for you to get their by alternative rail services or by alternative transport.

You are not required to purchase any additional tickets. In fact, you should be claiming delay repay.

 

[redreni]

Whether the delay is for a reason within any TOC's control is beside the point.

 

[lawried123]

If your journey is disrupted, to the point that you are unable to reach your destination, then arrangements should be made for you to get their by alternative rail services or by alternative transport.

You are not required to purchase any additional tickets. In fact, you should be claiming delay repay.

When thtrains out of Waterloo were seriously disrupted sometime ago and there were no trains going to anywhere near Bracknell, the notice said you could use a taxi and claim it back. As the nearest station where trains were running was Maidenhead, I traveled to there and got a taxi across to Bracknell.

When I applied to claim for the taxi fare it was refused apparently on the basis that it had to be a taxi from an SWR station. As the nearest SWR station where any trains were running was further away than Maidenhead, I thought I was doing the most sensible thing. I had to appeal twice before they relented. Has anyone heard of this rule before ?

Lawrie

 

[Watershed]

When thtrains out of Waterloo were seriously disrupted sometime ago and there were no trains going to anywhere near Bracknell, the notice said you could use a taxi and claim it back. As the nearest station where trains were running was Maidenhead, I traveled to there and got a taxi across to Bracknell.

When I applied to claim for the taxi fare it was refused apparently on the basis that it had to be a taxi from an SWR station. As the nearest SWR station where any trains were running was further away than Maidenhead, I thought I was doing the most sensible thing. I had to appeal twice before they relented. Has anyone heard of this rule before ?

Lawrie

There is no such hard-and-fast rule. It may be that SWR's original notice only referred to taxis between two SWR stations, so technically speaking they could argue your claim fell outside the notice's remit.

That said, if there were no trains running, SWR were failing to provide replacement transport and there no feasible other public transport - then you would have a claim under NRCoT 28.2 and the PRO regardless of what kind of notice SWR did or didn't publish.

 

[Hadders]

When thtrains out of Waterloo were seriously disrupted sometime ago and there were no trains going to anywhere near Bracknell, the notice said you could use a taxi and claim it back. As the nearest station where trains were running was Maidenhead, I traveled to there and got a taxi across to Bracknell.

When I applied to claim for the taxi fare it was refused apparently on the basis that it had to be a taxi from an SWR station. As the nearest SWR station where any trains were running was further away than Maidenhead, I thought I was doing the most sensible thing. I had to appeal twice before they relented. Has anyone heard of this rule before ?

Lawrie

I can sort of understand why a claim from Maidenhead might get rejected in the first instance. It shouldn't be rejected but ultimately I think it would depend on the explanation that accompanied the claim, and getting it dealt with by someone sensible.

 

[nilvaj395]

Thank you both, Hadders and Redreni, for this. I suspected the same, and it is therefore rather cheeky for Northern to claim "we don't have to" quoting the CRA 2015 for this, because one of the delays was due to issues technically out of their control (even if the one that caused the stranded status was not due to such). They did offer a payment for the ticket, which they described as a "goodwill" gesture (of which I have yet to receive any link for). Still, the wording that they used, as if they didn't have to help at all, was just rather cheeky to me, as if having to pay for an extra train ticket as the only option to get to the destination via another rail routing was not already silly enough. I was well aware of the NRCoT 28.2 already due to similar experiences (albeit one where I'm actually at the last connection and it cancels rather than having to undertake a completely different routing off the bat), so receiving the email about how "they did not have to, but we will as goodwill" just rubbed me the wrong way because it is made to sound like I am inconveniencing them for a totally reasonable request. As I said, the alternative would have been to follow my original routing as much as possible to my original connection point on my itinerary, and to claim a taxi from there, as the last train of the day to the destination was cancelled from there. Therefore, I have probably saved them a few pounds there. The sequence of events would have been no different regardless of TPE's ticket acceptance or not, as crucially, that last connection was cancelled.

It was not merely a question of delay repay, as the new routing allowed me to get there at the same time, if not before I was supposed to, but the fact that I had to pay out of my own pocket when I should not have had to for the service failures for my original journey itinerary that were not the customer's fault.

 

[Haywain]

If it becomes clear during your journey that you are going to miss a connection to the last train to your destination, you should advise the train operator at the earliest opportunity in order that they have ample opportunity to make alternative arrangements for you. In general terms it should not be for you to claim for a taxi, but for one to be provided if alternative rail services are not available. Sometimes this fails but the opportunity for it to succeed should be provided.

 

[gray1404]

Northern are very incorrect to quote the Consumer Rights Act and say that it is outside of their control. Signaling faults are well within the control of the Railway.

 

[nilvaj395]

If it becomes clear during your journey that you are going to miss a connection to the last train to your destination, you should advise the train operator at the earliest opportunity in order that they have ample opportunity to make alternative arrangements for you. In general terms it should not be for you to claim for a taxi, but for one to be provided if alternative rail services are not available. Sometimes this fails but the opportunity for it to succeed should be provided.

I did exactly this, having informed them before even having left my starting point, as more crucially, I did not know what options to make or how long the fault was going to go on for. This could have left the next (and final) service cancelled, leaving me totally stranded over 100 miles away. It turned out that this later service did run, but the issue of missing the last connecting train of the day (even if it ran, which it didn't) would still have been outstanding. They advised me to use the TPE ticket acceptance (of which I had never known about) and then to pay for the extra ticket onwards from there (i.e with Merseyrail).

One slight annoyance with the railway for me is how, during incidents like this, it is at a significant disadvantage to those who cannot or don't know how to use their phone. I was lucky enough to know how to communicate with Northern electronically in real time, but what if someone is old or impaired? The starting point was not a Northern-owned station, and the information available was essentially none without the use of mobile phones, etc. Either that or approaching the staff who stood in the dimly-lit out-of-the-way place of the station. No negatives to the staff, though; they were super lovely and helpful, and I got my answer before Northern got back to me. This is a really good argument nevertheless as to why we should never remove station staff.

Northern are very incorrect to quote the Consumer Rights Act and say that it is outside of their control. Signaling faults are well within the control of the Railway.

Maybe this is a classic case of clear separation between the TOCs and Network Rail as to who is at fault or held responsible for delays. Besides, it is not like there is any other way to claim that isn't through the TOC; it is not like you can claim your delay through Network Rail for a signal fault because technically it wasn't a specific TOC fault. If you claimed a delayed repayment normally for the time delay caused by the fault, you would get it regardless of who was actually at fault, whether that be the TOC or Network Rail. So why would it be suddenly different in Northern's view when it's compensation for any reasonable incurred losses due to their failing to meet their part of the contract from A to B? especially given that this was the suggested alternative rail route that Northern had given at the time?. At the time they told me this alternative route, I asked them about compensation for the incurred loss, to which they told me to email them about it (which led to this silly CRA response). They must have checked the entire journey before replying to the email or making their decision, and if they did, they surely would have seen that the final connecting train to the destination was cancelled for a reason that is none other than Northerns - that being an issue with staff.