Northern claiming "do not travel" exempts them from consequential loss claim

[td97]

I submitted a consequential loss claim to Northern last month for a taxi journey, after the well documented Manchester area problems on 06/08/26 (power failure at Manchester ROC).

None of their ticket acceptance options were suitable for my journey.

I was mightily surprised that Northern rejected my claim with the nonsense response below, not least as this cost would be passed on to Network Rail.

I have replied and quoted the Consumer Rights Act 2015, but have not received any further communication yet (this was 3 weeks ago).

Posting for others' awareness and to document the ongoing poor customer service by Northern.

Thank you for contacting Northern, I hope you are doing well.

I am writing to you regarding your disrupted journey on the 6th August 2026 wherein a failure with the electricity supply resulted in your travels from Manchester being disrupted.

Firstly, I would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused by the disruption on this occasion, I can see that the issue on the line was due to a failure with the electricity supply in the North West Region results in all lines being blocked and several routes impacted. Consequently, train services were unable to operate. Due the significant impact on the network and to all Train Operating Companies that operate inside and outside of Manchester, it was also not possible to get Rail Replacement Alternatives in place. Due to this a Do Not Travel Warning was put in place at 14:40 advising customers not to travel on our services.

Alongside the Do Not Travel, Northern also arranged ticket acceptance with other Train Operating Companies and local travel providers in Liverpool and Blackpool alongside the MetroLink to keep customers moving.

I can see from your journey details that the journey impacted was your outward journey and this took place after the Do Not Travel was put in place, on this basis unfortunately we would not be liable for the additional cost you incurred, and I apologise if you was advised otherwise on the day. Ultimately, a Do Not Travel was put in place for the best interest of our customers and due to the vast extent of the disruption – I apologise for any further frustration this may cause to you.

 

[Kite159]

Next step the Small Claims Court?

 

[AlterEgo]

I was mightily surprised that Northern rejected my claim with the nonsense response below, not least as this cost would be passed on to Network Rail.

No it wouldn't. Northern foot the bill for compensation regardless of the cause and do not invoice other responsible parties.

 

[Haywain]

I was mightily surprised that Northern rejected my claim with the nonsense response below, not least as this cost would be passed on to Network Rail.

I don't think you can assume that a claim should be accepted just because Northern might be able to get something back from another company. The two are separate issues.

That's not to make a judgement on your claim and how you should proceed. Obviously, there are a number of options open to you - Ombudsman, Small Claims etc.

 

[D1537]

I'm not understanding Northern's reply. Are they saying that if I had an advance ticket with Northern from X to Y leaving at 15:00 that day, and I had to make alternative arrangements to get there because Northern's trains weren't running, they can just say "Do Not Travel issued at 14:40. Not our problem mate"?

 

[AlterEgo]

This really ought to be simple breach of contract or failure of the PRO, I am unsure a Consumer Rights Act claim would succeed here. Northern couldn't run any trains through no fault of their own and it would be difficult to argue their actions here would fall short of reasonable care and skill based on the realities and accepted practices of the industry. That is the test of reasonable care and skill.

 

[Watershed]

This really ought to be simple breach of contract or failure of the PRO, I am unsure a Consumer Rights Act claim would succeed here. Northern couldn't run any trains through no fault of their own and it would be difficult to argue their actions here would fall short of reasonable care and skill based on the realities and accepted practices of the industry. That is the test of reasonable care and skill.

I think the evident lack of a backup power supply could be argued to be a lack of reasonable care and skill ! but that's a moot point as you say; whether or not Northern were at fault, they were still required to provide alternative transport under the NRCoT and PRO so there are at least those two avenues under which this can be recovered.

If it were me, I would be sending a Letter Before Claim giving them 2 weeks to pay and then initiating a court claim if payment isn't forthcoming. But I recognise not everyone is necessarily open to taking such a step. Unfortunately I wouldn't hold out much hope with the Ombudsman since they have previously made nonsensical rulings in operators' favour in similar situations.

 

[Fokx]

I submitted a consequential loss claim to Northern last month for a taxi journey, after the well documented Manchester area problems on 06/08/26 (power failure at Manchester ROC).

None of their ticket acceptance options were suitable for my journey.

Why were none of the ticket acceptance options suitable?

What was the journey you were intending to make?

 

[Harpo]

Northern couldn't run any trains through no fault of their own and it would be difficult to argue their actions here would fall short of reasonable care and skill based on the realities and accepted practices of the industry. That is the test of reasonable care and skill.

There are a huge variety of incidents which have external factors outside of TOC (or even NR) control as a cause. Excluding one which was within the collective industry’s gift (i.e. providing and proving of continuous power supply and operational control) sets a very low bar.

 

[AlterEgo]

There are a huge variety of incidents which have external factors outside of TOC (or even NR) control as a cause. Excluding one which was within the collective industry’s gift (i.e. providing and proving of continuous power supply and operational control) sets a very low bar.

Northern cannot be held liable for a power outage they themselves have no control over under the Consumer Rights Act under the guise of reasonable care and skill. The test is whether *Northern* - not the infrastructure operator they are beholden to by way of monopoly - conducted their business in a way in which a competent trader or business in the same line of work would do. The court looks at Northern's behaviour, not the outcome. "Collective industry's gift" has no bearing here.

Where the collective industry comes into play is in a judge deciding whether Northern - and Northern ONLY - acted in line with common industry practice, like issuing a Do Not Travel warning and organising ticket acceptance. This is basically professional benchmarking and arguing the industry as a whole is a bag of toss won't get you very far. Northern could well defend the failure to magic up buses under the same proviso, though they would have more trouble depending on the exact circumstances.

That is different to complete breach of contract (NRCoT) or PRO failures, neither of which are contingent on the above and both of which are much better avenues to pursue a claim.

A lot will turn on these questions:

Why were none of the ticket acceptance options suitable?

What was the journey you were intending to make?

In relation to the above.

 

[island]

This really ought to be simple breach of contract or failure of the PRO, I am unsure a Consumer Rights Act claim would succeed here. Northern couldn't run any trains through no fault of their own and it would be difficult to argue their actions here would fall short of reasonable care and skill based on the realities and accepted practices of the industry. That is the test of reasonable care and skill.

I would agree with this assessment.

The claim should be grounded in the NRCoT or the PRO, and the answers to the questions raised by Fokx above are relevant.

 

[35B]

Northern cannot be held liable for a power outage they themselves have no control over under the Consumer Rights Act under the guise of reasonable care and skill. The test is whether *Northern* - not the infrastructure operator they are beholden to by way of monopoly - conducted their business in a way in which a competent trader or business in the same line of work would do. The court looks at Northern's behaviour, not the outcome. "Collective industry's gift" has no bearing here.

Where the collective industry comes into play is in a judge deciding whether Northern - and Northern ONLY - acted in line with common industry practice, like issuing a Do Not Travel warning and organising ticket acceptance. This is basically professional benchmarking and arguing the industry as a whole is a bag of toss won't get you very far. Northern could well defend the failure to magic up buses under the same proviso, though they would have more trouble depending on the exact circumstances.

That is different to complete breach of contract (NRCoT) or PRO failures, neither of which are contingent on the above and both of which are much better avenues to pursue a claim.

In general, I agree with this analysis, though (depending on the precise wordings) I can see why Northern might argue force majeure and also why that might be reasonable.

However, I do want to pick up the point about the role of the contract with Northern in assessing a claim under the Consumer Rights Act. A lot seems to being made of the idea that Northern are somehow insulated from consequence because the failure was external. Yet that failure was part of a chain of contracts (@td97/Northern; Northern/Network Rail; Network Rail/electricity company). In that scenario, surely the contractual liability of the TOC remains in place and it is for them to manage the liabilities down the contract chain, meaning that the CRA steps are bypassed.

 

[td97]

No it wouldn't. Northern foot the bill for compensation regardless of the cause and do not invoice other responsible parties.

I don't think you can assume that a claim should be accepted just because Northern might be able to get something back from another company. The two are separate issues.

That's not to make a judgement on your claim and how you should proceed. Obviously, there are a number of options open to you - Ombudsman, Small Claims etc.

Perhaps my original post was poorly worded. Northern would have received compensation from Network Rail for the disruption (delay minutes), which Northern presumably use towards compensation claims. This is different to a cancellation due to (e.g.) a broken down train, where Northern would foot compensation bill entirely.

I'm not understanding Northern's reply. Are they saying that if I had an advance ticket with Northern from X to Y leaving at 15:00 that day, and I had to make alternative arrangements to get there because Northern's trains weren't running, they can just say "Do Not Travel issued at 14:40. Not our problem mate"?

Yes, exactly this. My ticket was an advance purchased 5 days prior to the journey.

Why were none of the ticket acceptance options suitable?

What was the journey you were intending to make?

Northern's response describes ticket acceptance with local travel providers in Liverpool, Blackpool and the Manchester Metrolink. These did not provide full coverage between the origin and destination of the ticket I held. It's worth adding Northern did not provide any rail replacement buses whatsoever.

 

[AlterEgo]

Perhaps my original post was poorly worded. Northern would have received compensation from Network Rail for the disruption (delay minutes), which Northern presumably use towards compensation claims. This is different to a cancellation due to (e.g.) a broken down train, where Northern would foot compensation bill entirely.

That's not how it works. The compensation under Schedule 8 is there to cover the reputational damage to the TOC's future fare box, not to pay for the immediate fallout. Train companies do not use it to pay for taxis, accommodation or Delay Repay.

 

[Harpo]

That's not how it works. The compensation under Schedule 8 is there to cover the reputational damage to the TOC's future fare box, not to pay for the immediate fallout. Train companies do not use it to pay for taxis, accommodation or Delay Repay.

In ORR’s words-

Network Rail’s train performance regime is intended to compensate train operators for the financial impact of unplanned service disruption caused by Network Rail and other train operators.

The regime is intended to provide financial incentives to Network Rail to improve train performance and to train operators to limit the delay they cause to other operators.

In lawyer-speak at the outset of privatisation it was a ‘pre-estimate of liquidated damages’.

https://www.orr.gov.uk/media/22542/download

 

[philthetube]

Without knowing what the journey was it is impossible to know if Northern are being reasonable or not.

 

[td97]

Without knowing what the journey was it is impossible to know if Northern are being reasonable or not.

The journey was Manchester Victoria to Bolton; I used the ticket acceptance with Metrolink to Radcliffe and then the taxi claim covers Radcliffe to Bolton. This was explained in my claim to Northern.

 

[Fokx]

The journey was Manchester Victoria to Bolton; I used the ticket acceptance with Metrolink to Radcliffe and then the taxi claim covers Radcliffe to Bolton. This was explained in my claim to Northern.

Why would you not just catch the 8, 36 or 37 bee network bus?

The 8 stops directly outside the station and there was ticket acceptance with Bee Network buses

 

[py_megapixel]

Why would you not just catch the 8, 36 or 37 bee network bus?

The 8 stops directly outside the station and there was ticket acceptance with Bee Network buses

There's also a frequent bus service (524) from Radcliffe tram stop to Bolton, so even if OP went to Radcliffe without realising the 8 was an option, they still could easily have completed their journey without requiring a taxi.

I think Northern's response could be better here (the "Do Not Travel" thing is certainly a red herring) and in general it's often the case that not enough information is provided to passengers about how to use alternative travel options. They should do better. But assuming the buses were available (and not e.g. overcrowded or inaccessible to you) I'm not sure that should extend to them paying for a taxi along the bus route!

 

[td97]

Why would you not just catch the 8, 36 or 37 bee network bus?

The 8 stops directly outside the station and there was ticket acceptance with Bee Network buses

Because I paid for a rail journey which is timetabled to take 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the 1hr+ bus, I would have refunded my ticket and caught the bus.
Ultimately, Northern did not organise any rail replacement transport and I don't think the claim I submitted was unreasonable.

 

[Trackman]

Because I paid for a rail journey which is timetabled to take 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the 1hr+ bus, I would have refunded my ticket and caught the bus.
Ultimately, Northern did not organise any rail replacement transport and I don't think the claim I submitted was unreasonable.

I know someone who did a similar claim for a taxi, the TOC reply was sort of 'Why didn't you get a bus? we would have paid for that'

 

[py_megapixel]

Because I paid for a rail journey which is timetabled to take 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the 1hr+ bus, I would have refunded my ticket and caught the bus.
Ultimately, Northern did not organise any rail replacement transport and I don't think the claim I submitted was unreasonable.

Did the tram to Radcliffe and taxi to Bolton even save much time compared to the direct bus? I'd be surprised if there's more than 10 minutes or so in it either way.

The point being made is that their ticket acceptance arrangements were in fact suitable for your journey, so we can see why Northern might question your choice not to make full use of them

 

[Horizon22]

Because I paid for a rail journey which is timetabled to take 20 minutes. If I wanted to take the 1hr+ bus, I would have refunded my ticket and caught the bus.
Ultimately, Northern did not organise any rail replacement transport and I don't think the claim I submitted was unreasonable.

Probably because getting so much rail replacement transport over such a widespread area and to every impacted station was likely to take hours, if it was even possible (which I sincerely doubt).

I am not saying Northern's "Do Not Travel" response to your claim was reasonable, but what was reasonable was the alternative transport provision offered which could have you go you to your destination (albeit slower, as expected). The section in bold was definitely an option to you, considering there was going to be no immediate fix of a railway service.

 

[td97]

Did the tram to Radcliffe and taxi to Bolton even save much time compared to the direct bus? I'd be surprised if there's more than 10 minutes or so in it either way.

The point being made is that their ticket acceptance arrangements were in fact suitable for your journey, so we can see why Northern might question your choice not to make full use of them

Yes, the bus at peak hours is timetabled at around 1hr 30 with 56 stops! The Metrolink/taxi combination took around 35 minutes.
I do not see a world where a bus timetabled at 4.5x the length of the rail journey is an adequate alternative provision.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Ultimately, Northern did not organise any rail replacement transport

They did - they arranged for you to be able to get the bus

I do not see a world where a bus timetabled at 4.5x the length of the rail journey is an adequate alternative provision

There's no definition anywhere of how fast a road replacement journey must be compared to the train

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, the bus at peak hours is timetabled at around 1hr 30 with 56 stops! The Metrolink/taxi combination took around 35 minutes.
I do not see a world where a bus timetabled at 4.5x the length of the rail journey is an adequate alternative provision.

I don't understand why you didn't just take a cab from Victoria. Taking the tram to Radcliffe and then getting a taxi would have taken 45-50 minutes, not 35. Either way your beef here is just a simple breach of contract, Northern haven't done anything which is significantly off base here.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, the bus at peak hours is timetabled at around 1hr 30 with 56 stops! The Metrolink/taxi combination took around 35 minutes.
I do not see a world where a bus timetabled at 4.5x the length of the rail journey is an adequate alternative provision.

Would Metrolink then bus (as some users have suggested) have been more reasonable?

 

[Haywain]

Would Metrolink then bus (as some users have suggested) have been more reasonable?

The bus takes 24 minutes from Radcliffe Metrolink stop to Bolton Interchange and the tram takes 22 minutes from Victoria, so the overall journey shouldn't have taken above an hour.

 

[Horizon22]

The bus takes 24 minutes from Radcliffe Metrolink stop to Bolton Interchange and the tram takes 22 minutes from Victoria, so the overall journey shouldn't have taken above an hour.

Thanks. You can see why northern have rejected the claim then (although not with the explanation given). I’d understand more if the “last mile” section had no suitable replacement transport or local buses / towards the end of night when routes wind down.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Whilst I don't agree with Northern simply refusing to take any accountability in terms of reimbursing your taxi, and religiously play the 'we told you not to travel' card, I equally don't think that the alternative options you had were in any way unreasonable. There are multiple buses direct from Manchester to Bolton (8/36/37), plus the option of the 524 from Radcliffe. The Greater Manchester is one of the most vast and integrated transport systems outside of London; you were never going to be stranded, it's not as if you were on Shetland or the Outer Hebrides.