Anti-customer behaviour by Avanti

[All Line Rover]

Today there are engineering works, announced at the last minute, on the Trent Valley section of the West Coast Main Line. This has resulted in the withdrawal of all LNR services between London and Crewe.

Avanti services on diversion via Birmingham are running at roughly the times that LNR services would normally arrive/depart Euston and Crewe. They are marginally slower, arriving into Euston/Crewe a few minutes later.

I hold the return portion of a flexible "LNR only" ticket (London to Crewe), purchased before these engineering works were announced. I have an itinerary for today, listing a non-existent LNR train.

By travelling on the equivalently-timed Avanti service, I would arrive into London only 5 minutes later than expected. There are no direct LNR services from Crewe to London and, if I attempt to travel exclusively on LNR services, changing at Birmingham, I would arrive into London 1.5 hours later than expected.

My understanding is that, as I would arrive over 1 hour later than expected if attempting to comply strictly with the terms of my ticket, I am entitled to be conveyed on the services of suitable alternative operators - in this case, Avanti.

However, the guard on the Avanti service announced after every stop (Crewe, New Street, International, Coventry and again on the approach to Rugby) that LNR tickets were definitely "NOT VALID" and any passengers holding such tickets would be charged for an entirely new ticket. This train was then non-stop to Watford and today I initially need to travel as far as Milton Keynes, so I alighted at Rugby to catch the LNR Rugby - Milton Keynes - London shuttle service (running as a result of the engineering works). At Rugby, I noticed platform staff, wearing Avanti uniforms, telling passengers that LNR tickets were not valid. Subsequently, in the space of 5 minutes, I heard three distinct station announcements (these were not pre-recordings) stating "Would passengers please note that LNR-only tickets are NOT valid on Avanti services".

This is not the first time that Avanti are refusing to comply with passengers' legal rights. Previously, on a strike day, I held a reservation for a LNR service. All LNR services had been withdrawn and only Avanti were running a skeleton service. Both platform staff at Euston and an Avanti guard refused to accept that my "LNR-only" ticket was valid and insisted on selling a new ticket. Avanti customer services then repeatedly refused to refund the new ticket. I had to complain to my bank to receive a refund.

When Avanti services experience problems because of Avanti's constant staff shortages, and Avanti passengers are displaced onto LNR services, I do not hear similar language from LNR guards against passengers holding Avanti tickets.

There appears to be a consistent pattern of behaviour from Avanti, spanning upper management, customer services, station staff and on-board staff.

Does a train operator knowingly forcing passengers to pay for unnecessary tickets amount to fraud?

 

[zwk500]

Starting with the core issue:

Does a train operator knowingly forcing passengers to pay for unnecessary tickets amount to fraud?

Almost certainly not.

To get a bit deeper: It sounds like somebody at Avanti has read Conditions 28.2 and 30.1 in a particular mindset: https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/National Rail Conditions of Travel.pdf

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

(my emphasis). Disruption is probably taken as trains running other than to the published schedule *of the day*, which can be published very early in the morning. I get the sense that this definition will be a very contentious point.

30.1 You may return an unused Ticket to the original retailer or Train Company from whom it was purchased, where you will be given a full refund with no administration fee charged, if you decide not to travel because the train you intended to use is;
• cancelled, or
• delayed, or
• rescheduled from that in Published Timetable of the Day after you have purchased a Ticket or Tickets, or
• your reservation will not be honoured

Avanti's reading of this seems to be that because your ticket was never valid on their trains, and the cancellation is "planned", they are not required to assist under 28.2. Their view is that LNWR should refund your ticket under 30.1 and a new ticket purchased that is valid on Avanti (either Avanti only or Any Permitted).

My personal view is that LNWR should have arranged for ticket acceptance with Avanti, although Avanti may have feared their trains would be too crowded and refused.

 

[43066]

Does a train operator knowingly forcing passengers to pay for unnecessary tickets amount to fraud?

Of course not. In any case they aren’t “unnecessary” if you don’t hold a valid ticket, and no ticket acceptance is in place.

My personal view is that LNWR should have arranged for ticket acceptance with Avanti, although Avanti may have feared their trains would be too crowded and refused.

That may well be the case. Especially given the current issues with reliability meaning they may well be having to contend with overcrowding due to cancellations of their own services.

 

[Adam Williams]

To get a bit deeper: It sounds like somebody at Avanti has read Conditions 28.2 and 30.1 in a particular mindset: https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/National Rail Conditions of Travel.pdf

I suspect the NRCoT definition matters very little to OP, given the bulk of the argument made is based on Article 16(b) of the PRO (Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations Regulations). The PRO has no concept of a "published timetable of the day" or "planned cancellations".

PRO Article 6 states:

Obligations towards passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the transport contract.

So what's written in the NRCoT should not make any difference whatsoever.

Pragmatically however, this is likely moot because a number of the passenger rights set out under the PRO don't exist in practice on the ground on the UK rail network... Until this is tested, probably via the legal system, I can't see things changing - if you asked WMT to re-route you (onto Avanti, in this case) I would not expect a solution to be found.

 

[The Planner]

They arent last minute either. Prelim for the blockade and have been in the plan for well over a year.

 

[Watershed]

Today there are engineering works, announced at the last minute, on the Trent Valley section of the West Coast Main Line. This has resulted in the withdrawal of all LNR services between London and Crewe.

Avanti services on diversion via Birmingham are running at roughly the times that LNR services would normally arrive/depart Euston and Crewe. They are marginally slower, arriving into Euston/Crewe a few minutes later.

I hold the return portion of a flexible "LNR only" ticket (London to Crewe), purchased before these engineering works were announced. I have an itinerary for today, listing a non-existent LNR train.

By travelling on the equivalently-timed Avanti service, I would arrive into London only 5 minutes later than expected. There are no direct LNR services from Crewe to London and, if I attempt to travel exclusively on LNR services, changing at Birmingham, I would arrive into London 1.5 hours later than expected.

My understanding is that, as I would arrive over 1 hour later than expected if attempting to comply strictly with the terms of my ticket, I am entitled to be conveyed on the services of suitable alternative operators - in this case, Avanti.

However, the guard on the Avanti service announced after every stop (Crewe, New Street, International, Coventry and again on the approach to Rugby) that LNR tickets were definitely "NOT VALID" and any passengers holding such tickets would be charged for an entirely new ticket. This train was then non-stop to Watford and today I initially need to travel as far as Milton Keynes, so I alighted at Rugby to catch the LNR Rugby - Milton Keynes - London shuttle service (running as a result of the engineering works). At Rugby, I noticed platform staff, wearing Avanti uniforms, telling passengers that LNR tickets were not valid. Subsequently, in the space of 5 minutes, I heard three distinct station announcements (these were not pre-recordings) stating "Would passengers please note that LNR-only tickets are NOT valid on Avanti services".

This is not the first time that Avanti are refusing to comply with passengers' legal rights. Previously, on a strike day, I held a reservation for a LNR service. All LNR services had been withdrawn and only Avanti were running a skeleton service. Both platform staff at Euston and an Avanti guard refused to accept that my "LNR-only" ticket was valid and insisted on selling a new ticket. Avanti customer services then repeatedly refused to refund the new ticket. I had to complain to my bank to receive a refund.

When Avanti services experience problems because of Avanti's constant staff shortages, and Avanti passengers are displaced onto LNR services, I do not hear similar language from LNR guards against passengers holding Avanti tickets.

There appears to be a consistent pattern of behaviour from Avanti, spanning upper management, customer services, station staff and on-board staff.

Does a train operator knowingly forcing passengers to pay for unnecessary tickets amount to fraud?

Unfortunately, I fear you may be slightly barking up the wrong tree here.

Whilst this attitude to holders of WMT-only tickets is certainly not very customer friendly (especially in the context of tickets having been sold on the basis of inaccurate timetables), and gives the wider rail industry a bad reputation, it's unlikely to have been unlawful.

This is because the entitlement in the event of an anticipated delay of more than an hour is to opt to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity, i.e. the fastest route even if on a different operator. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you can simply board the next train with a ticket restricted to another operator, and it doesn't give you any rights you can enforce against the operator of the next/fastest train (Avanti, in this case). Instead it gives you rights you can enforce against the operator of the train you were originally supposed to travel with (WMT, in this case).

Unless you would otherwise be stranded (as would have been the case on the strike day, or there being no more WMT-only itineraries that day), Avanti aren't obliged to help you or to accept your WMT-only ticket. If Avanti don't want to enter into a ticket acceptance agreement with WMT, WMT would have to buy you a new ticket valid on Avanti, or give you an endorsement/permission to travel on Avanti on your existing ticket. And if they fail or refuse to do so, you would have to buy such a ticket and then claim back the cost of doing so from WMT.

Even in instances (as per strike days etc. above) where Avanti actually are in the wrong for charging for a new ticket, they're unlikely to be committing fraud, because it would be difficult to show the required mens rea. If push came to shove, they would inevitably claim that it was just a mistake by a poorly trained/misinformed member of staff. This of course leads to a highly uneven playing field when you consider that a similar mistake by a passenger can lead to them being prosecuted under the strict-liability Byelaw 18, or even the Regulation of Railways Act, but that's the way the law stands.

If there is any offence that could possibly be made out, the closest one is probably that of engaging in an aggressive commercial practice, under regulations 7/11 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. In my view, there are certainly circumstances where TOCs engage in this - but it would be highly situation-dependent and I'm unsure whether the circumstances you cite would rise to an offence. More to the point, although local weights and measures authorities (i.e. the Trading Standards division of local borough/district/unitary councils) have an obligation to enforce the law, they are generally so under-resourced that they cannot do so in practice, and would most likely refuse to do so if you referred this to them. Nor does the ORR* appear to have any interest in enforcing breaches of operators' SNRP† requirement to comply with the PRO◊.

*Office of Rail and Road
†Statement of National Regulatory Provisions, a part of their train operating licence
◊Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulations, EU Regulation 1371/2007

 

[Watershed]

They arent last minute either. Prelim for the blockade and have been in the plan for well over a year.

With how late Informed Traveller weeks are being published at the moment, that is of little assistance the OP, who bought their ticket on the basis of the normal timetable. You can't exaclty expect people to trawl section 7 of the Engineering Access Statement looking for anything that might affect their journey!

 

[All Line Rover]

Of course not.

That's a surprisingly short answer. Would you care to elaborate and explain why?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

They arent last minute either. Prelim for the blockade and have been in the plan for well over a year.

They weren't appearing in the journey planner I purchased my ticket through on Thursday evening.

 

[The Planner]

With how late Informed Traveller weeks are being published at the moment, that is of little assistance the OP, who bought their ticket on the basis of the normal timetable. You can't exaclty expect people to trawl section 7 of the Engineering Access Statement looking for anything that might affect their journey!

Presumably it has been on TOC websites though? Quick check of WMT and its there.

 

[All Line Rover]

Unfortunately, I fear you may be slightly barking up the wrong tree here.

Whilst this attitude to holders of WMT-only tickets is certainly not very customer friendly (especially in the context of tickets having been sold on the basis of inaccurate timetables), and gives the wider rail industry a bad reputation, it's unlikely to have been unlawful.

This is because the entitlement in the event of an anticipated delay of more than an hour is to opt to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity, i.e. the fastest route even if on a different operator. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean you can simply board the next train with a ticket restricted to another operator, and it doesn't give you any rights you can enforce against the operator of the next/fastest train (Avanti, in this case). Instead it gives you rights you can enforce against the operator of the train you were originally supposed to travel with (WMT, in this case).

Thank you, that's very helpful. A more insightful "no" than 43066's current attempt.

 

[zwk500]

And Pro is? (as per the forum rules, you need to expand/explain acronymns when first used)

Passenger Rights and Obligations, originally an EU law which was presumably transferred to UK law as part of the general Brexit paperwork. (UK Govt page on the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations)

I suspect the NRCoT definition matters very little to OP, given the bulk of the argument made is based on Article 16(b) of the PRO. The PRO has no concept of a "published timetable of the day" or "planned cancellations".

PRO Article 6 states:

So what's written in the NRCoT should not make any difference whatsoever.

Pragmatically however, this is likely moot because a number of the passenger rights set out under the PRO don't exist in practice on the ground on the UK rail network... Until this is tested, probably via the legal system, I can't see things changing.

I expect that the train companies will argue that Article 32(c) applies in this case:

1. The carrier shall be liable to the passenger for loss or damage resulting from the fact that, by reason of cancellation, the late running of a train or a missed connection, his journey cannot be continued the same day, or that a continuation of the journey the same day could not reasonably be required because of given circumstances.
2. The carrier shall be relieved of this liability, when the cancellation, late running or missed connection is attributable to one of the following causes:
(c) the behaviour of a third party which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances of the case, could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent; another undertaking using the same railway infrastructure shall not be considered as a third party; the right of recourse shall not be affected.

Note I don't necessarily support their interpretation!

 

[glasgowniteowl]

My understanding is that, as I would arrive over 1 hour later than expected if attempting to comply strictly with the terms of my ticket, I am entitled to be conveyed on the services of suitable alternative operators - in this case, Avanti.

In regards to your right to be re routed if delayed by over an hour, this is an obligation on LNR not Avanti, under these PRO rights you have a right to insist that LNR re route you, how that happens is down to LNR, you don't have any right to self reroute and insist that another train operator accepts you, there is no obligation under PRO that avanti must accept you(under nrcot there maybe if last train of day etc but not under PRO rights)

PRO is an obligation on your original operator not on any others

*edit more helpful replies were added whilst I was typing

 

[All Line Rover]

Unless you would otherwise be stranded (as would have been the case on the strike day, or there being no more WMT-only itineraries that day), Avanti aren't obliged to help you or to accept your WMT-only ticket. If Avanti don't want to enter into a ticket acceptance agreement with WMT, WMT would have to buy you a new ticket valid on Avanti, or give you an endorsement/permission to travel on Avanti on your existing ticket. And if they fail or refuse to do so, you would have to buy such a ticket and then claim back the cost of doing so from WMT.

Also helpful information should the same happen again, thank you.

Even in instances (as per strike days etc. above) where Avanti actually are in the wrong for charging for a new ticket, they're unlikely to be committing fraud, because it would be difficult to show the required mens rea. If push came to shove, they would inevitably claim that it was just a mistake by a poorly trained/misinformed member of staff. This of course leads to a highly uneven playing field when you consider that a similar mistake by a passenger can lead to them being prosecuted under the strict-liability Byelaw 18, or even the Regulation of Railways Act, but that's the way the law stands.

On that occasion (no LNR services at all + last Avanti train of the day about to leave Euston), I had calmly explained to the guard on the station platform* why it was not appropriate to issue a new ticket. I then complained to Avanti's customer services team in writing, followed by another two emails explaining why their response was not satisfactory. All to no avail. But their senior management are well aware of what is going on; one of them wrote to me.

(*I asked Network Rail for CCTV footage from Euston so I could, if necessary, support the facts in my complaint to Avanti. They "forgot" about my request and when I chased, they said that unfortunately the footage had been automatically deleted five days earlier! That's genuine incompetence.)

 

[Watershed]

Presumably it has been on TOC websites though? Quick check of WMT and its there.

Why would the average person think to look on TOC websites to second-guess whether the timetable in journey planners is accurate?

And how do you know that it was on WMT's website when the OP bought their ticket? Their engineering works calendar currently only goes up to 1 January, but it's possible to buy tickets much further than that into the future.

And even if it was on their site, how do we know that it gave a reasonable indication of what timetable would be in place? For instance, for these engineering works on 1 January, it currently just says:

It is not yet known how London Northwestern Railway will be affected by this engineering work.

...which is rather disingenuous, seeing as the traffic remarks for the possession will undoubtedly include at least some indication of the services that are proposed to run.

The information the industry publishes about engineering works is seriously sub-par.

 

[Adam Williams]

I expect that the train companies will argue that Article 32(c) applies in this case:

I would point them straight at the UK govt guidance around the regulation which states, quite unequivocably:

However, there are no limitations on railway undertakings obligations to their passengers in respect of compensation of the ticket price and assistance requirements set out in articles 16 to 18. This means that 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.

 

[zwk500]

I would point them straight at the UK govt guidance around the regulation which states, quite unequivocably:

And I'm not their lawyer, so I'll leave this here as it's well beyond my qualifications and the OP seems to have got the answer they needed (even if it's not the one they wanted).

 

[43066]

That's a surprisingly short answer. Would you care to elaborate and explain why?

Because all that’s happening is that a company which you have no contract with, and which has absolutely no obligation to assist you, is refusing to accommodate you. Why on earth would you imagine fraud is being committed, and by whom?

Why would the average person think to look on TOC websites to second-guess whether the timetable in journey planners is accurate?

Not to disagree with your general point, but (AIUI) TOCs have no control over journey planners and can’t reasonably be expected to do any more than put the information onto their website as soon as it is known.

I would point them straight at the UK govt guidance around the regulation which states, quite unequivocably:

Unfortunately it is a ludicrously onerous obligation, which in many cases is impossible to fulfil.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I wonder if the OP purchased a new ticket for this journey?

And also wonder if the ticket reclaimed via their bank will now be repaid? (Though if left stranded and was last train of day then NRcot would have applied)

 

[All Line Rover]

it is a ludicrously onerous obligation, which in many cases is impossible to fulfil.

I'm glad for the sake of your employer that you are not in charge of their legal risk and compliance team.

Thank you for explaining your viewpoint, by the way. I am pleased to now understand your reasoning, although I believe each of your arguments to be red herrings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

I'd also wonder if the ticket reclaimed via their bank will now be repaid? (Though if left stranded and was last train of day then NRcot would have applied)

Strike day

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

I wonder if the OP purchased a new ticket for this journey?

I don't know if the guard decided to charge passengers on the non-stop run from Rugby to Watford. I was not on board.

 

[Adam Williams]

Not to disagree with your general point, but (AIUI) TOCs have no control over journey planners and can’t reasonably be expected to do any more than put the information onto their website as soon as it is known.

I was under the impression that TOCs have access to amend and cancel their own services in the timetable data, which of course journey planners will import daily to determine which services to use in their generated itineraries.

 

[Watershed]

Passenger Rights and Obligations, originally an EU law which was presumably transferred to UK law as part of the general Brexit paperwork. (UK Govt page on the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...2007-on-rail-passengers-right-and-obligations)

I expect that the train companies will argue that Article 32(c) applies in this case:

Note I don't necessarily support their interpretation!

That is a provision of the CIV, not the PRO. The CIV does not apply to this journey; it is purely subject to the NRCoT. Furthermore, as per the government PRO guidance, and the precedent established in the European Court of Justice in 2013, Article 15 prohibits conditions of carriage from reducing or avoiding liability/obligations under the PRO. So that particular provision is essentially null and void.

Just for fun - even if it did apply, and Article 15 didn't prohibit it, I doubt that it would be effective in helping WMT avoid liability. Firstly, I would find it difficult to accept that WMT satisfied the essential condition of 32(c):

the behaviour of a third party which the carrier, in spite of having taken the care required in the particular circumstances of the case, [the operator] could not avoid and the consequences of which he was unable to prevent

Failing to ensure that the amended timetable is uploaded 3 days before travel - when the possession was known about for months, if not more than a year - demonstrates a total lack of care and skill in my view. The entire delay would have been avoidable, had the timetable been uploaded in a timeous manner.

Furthermore, I doubt that Network Rail count as a third party, being a sub-contractor to WMT as far as the passenger is concerned. But even if they were considered such in principle, 32(c) continues:

another undertaking using the same railway infrastructure shall not be considered as a third party

Network Rail taking a possession of the railway would seem to me to fall within this - they are using it to perform track works, resignalling etc. - and thus again, they are not considered a third party.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

Because all that’s happening is that a company which you have no contract with

Condition 28.2 makes clear that a ticket bought under the NRCoT constitutes a contract with all of the Train Companies (as defined in the NRCoT). Passengers will ordinarily only have rights viz-a-viz some of those companies - those on which their ticket is valid - but in the event of disruption, that changes.

Not to disagree with your general point, but (AIUI) TOCs have no control over journey planners and can’t reasonably be expected to do any more than put the information onto their website as soon as it is known.

Network Rail simply do what they ask them to, in terms of publishing/deleting/cancelling the trains that are then publicised by journey planners. If they were unsure which trains would run, they could have cancelled all their Trent Valley trains on the affected dates until they were ready to bid for the altered timetable. Or they could have taken the LNER/Avanti etc. approach of making all trains reservations compulsory and not releasing reservations (though I don't favour this approach). But there are certainly ways and means.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I'm glad for the sake of your employer that you are not in charge of their legal risk and compliance team.

Thank you for explaining your viewpoint, by the way. I am pleased to now understand your reasoning, although I believe each of your arguments to be red herrings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==


Strike day

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==


I don't know if the guard decided to charge passengers on the non-stop run from Rugby to Watford. I was not on board.

So you didn't have a valid ticket for the service whilst you were on it?

Also in regards to "strike day" that also doesn't entitle you to choose what service you travel on either, so a refund for that ticket may still have been inappropriate, if stranded and last service of day then definitely would have been entitled to refund but if not last service of day should have asked LNR what to do etc

 

[Watershed]

Also in regards to "strike day" that also doesn't entitle you to choose what service you travel on either

On a strike day where all LNR services are withdrawn, condition 28.2 applies - the passenger would otherwise be stranded and thus Avanti are obliged to assist.

so a refund for that ticket may still have been inappropriate

It's up to the passenger whether they wish to accept a refund. They're not obliged to do so; they can choose to still travel.

if stranded and last service of day then definitely would have been entitled to refund but if not last service of day should have asked LNR what to do etc

Certainly contacting LNR would be a good idea. But if/when they inevitably shrug their shoulders and blithely say to claim a refund (as if that helps!), Avanti are duty bound to help.

 

[43066]

I'm glad for the sake of your employer that you are not in charge of their legal risk and compliance team.

No need to get personal! I’ve merely pointed out the fact of the matter is that the obligation is often impossible to fulfil (hence the threads we often see on here). Are you suggesting that’s incorrect?

Thank you for explaining your viewpoint, by the way. I am pleased to now understand your reasoning, although I believe each of your arguments to be red herrings.

I can assure you that the red herring here is your suggestion that a fraud is being committed. It’s entirely up to you whether you accept that or not.

I was under the impression that TOCs have access to amend and cancel their own services in the timetable data, which of course journey planners will import daily to determine which services to use in their generated itineraries.

I suppose the issue is what happens where engineering works are arranged at short notice etc. (albeit it sounds like this was known about in advance).

Condition 28.2 makes clear that a ticket bought under the NRCoT constitutes a contract with all of the Train Companies (as defined in the NRCoT). Passengers will ordinarily only have rights viz-a-viz some of those companies - those on which their ticket is valid - but in the event of disruption, that changes.

Not sure I can quite get to the same interpretation. Part B of NRCoT provides:

When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.

So making clear that in this case there is no contract with Avanti (since we are talking about an LNR only ticket which precludes the use of Avanti services).

28.2 provides

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.

So contemplates that operators other than that with which you have contracted with will provide assistance, but only were reasonable. It’s not difficult to see why a TOC might consider it unreasonable to allow ticket acceptance for the entirety of another operator’s services.

In any case, I think we are agreed that no fraud is taking place!

Network Rail simply do what they ask them to, in terms of publishing/deleting/cancelling the trains that are then publicised by journey planners. If they were unsure which trains would run, they could have cancelled all their train on the affected dates until they were ready to bid for the altered timetable. Or they could have taken the LNER/Avanti etc. approach of making all trains reservations compulsory and not releasing reservations (though I don't favour this approach). But there are certainly ways and means.

Why, in your view, isn’t this done generally? Presumably it’s regarded as too much work for the teams involved? I realise that isn’t a particularly satisfactory answer, but I suspect it might be the correct one.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

On a strike day where all LNR services are withdrawn, condition 28.2 applies - the passenger would otherwise be stranded and thus Avanti are obliged to assist.


It's up to the passenger whether they wish to accept a refund. They're not obliged to do so; they can choose to still travel.


Certainly contacting LNR would be a good idea. But if/when they inevitably shrug their shoulders and blithely say to claim a refund (as if that helps!), Avanti are duty bound to help.

But 28.2 doesnt necessarily apply on every train they are not obliged to assist on every service

The op never chose a refund, he applied to his bank to get the new ticket refunded, which may have been incorrect, he did not have the right to travel on the service of his choosing on the day of the strike, so avanti may have been entitled to charge him a new ticket, he did have rights under the nrcot which avanti must help him with but it is not necessarily on his terms they would have been entitled to say wait for a later service etc

 

[All Line Rover]

So you didn't have a valid ticket for the service whilst you were on it?

The guard appeared to be of the view that he wasn't willing to charge passengers alighting by Rugby. In any event, my view is that if a guard insists on a supplement or new ticket, I will pay and if I consider that unreasonable, complain after the fact. I could not delay my journey by 1+ hours compared to the time promised in my booking confirmation, so was prepared to pay extra if necessary. The ticket office at Crewe was closed, no-one at the barriers; in other words, no ticket staff were available to speak with prior to boarding.

Also in regards to "strike day" that also doesn't entitle you to choose what service you travel on either, so a refund for that ticket may still have been inappropriate, if stranded and last service of day then definite

I kept that reply brief as I had already explained the circumstances in this thread - twice - and did not wish to repeat myself a third time. But for emphasis, yes, last service of the day, which if missed would have resulted in me being stranded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

No need to get personal! I’ve merely pointed out the fact of the matter is that the obligation is often impossible to fulfil (hence the threads we often see on here). Are you suggesting that’s incorrect?

I can assure you that the red herring here is your suggestion that a fraud is being committed. It’s entirely up to you whether you accept that or not.

Nothing personal; I merely meant that if you held that role you would become a very expensive liability very quickly. Risk management lawyers don't assist their clients by shaking their fists and complaining to the other side that some laws are "unfair".

I am also not suggesting, but asking, if a fraud is being committed (whether on this or on previous occasions). A talking point, in other words, which I appear to have achieved!

 

[glasgowniteowl]

So in effect you chose not to buy a new ticket prior to boarding and you became a "pay when challenged" passenger travelling without a valid ticket for the service you were on, so rather than avanti potentially commiting fraud, you were the one actually potentially committing an offence instead

 

[XAM2175]

I would point them straight at the UK govt guidance around the regulation which states, quite unequivocably:
However, there are no limitations on railway undertakings obligations to their passengers in respect of compensation of the ticket price and assistance requirements set out in articles 16 to 18. This means that 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.

Unfortunately it is a ludicrously onerous obligation, which in many cases is impossible to fulfil.

No need to get personal! I’ve merely pointed out the fact of the matter is that the obligation is often impossible to fulfil (hence the threads we often see on here). Are you suggesting that’s incorrect?

They're not impossible to fulfil at all, though.

Article 16 requires that the TOC offers a choice between a full refund, continuation or re-routing at the earliest opportunity, or continuation or re-routing at the passenger's later convenience. Here the TOC must offer a choice between those three options to have fulfilled the requirement. They have still fulfilled it even if turns out to be completely impossible to re-route the passenger.

Article 17 requires that the TOC compensate passengers for delay with an amount proportionate to the fare paid, and requires that it be paid within one month of the passenger requesting it, and that it must be paid in cash if the customer requests that, and that it must not be subject to fees or costs. It does however allow TOCs to set a minimum claim value of up to €4.00, and holds that a passenger "shall not have any right to compensation if he is informed of a delay before he buys a ticket, or if a delay due to continuation on a different service or re-routing remains below 60 minutes."

Article 18 requires that TOCs keep passengers "informed of the situation and of the estimated departure time and estimated arrival time ... as soon as such information is available", and additionally holds:

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.

This is the one that is closest to being "onerous", but even still includes exceptions where provision might not be reasonably available, or physically possible, etc etc.

Regardless, Andy's main point was that TOC's cannot disclaim their responsibilities in these articles on the grounds that the situation was outside of their control - they're expected to pay Article 17 compensation and, at the very least, attempt to provide the Article 16 and 18 remedies.

 

[43066]

Nothing personal; I merely meant that if you held that role you would become a very expensive liability very quickly. Risk management lawyers don't assist their clients by shaking their fists and complaining to the other side that some laws are "unfair".

Where have I done that? I’ve merely made an observation that this particular requirement is often impossible to meet. For example, in some circumstances (ie short notice network closure due to weather), TOCs are technically required to lay on alternative transport for tens of thousands of passengers. In my opinion any law that imposes an impossible obligation is is a rather silly law.

The rest of this comment raises a wry smile, you might be rather surprised about my background .

I am also not suggesting, but asking, if a fraud is being committed (whether on this or on previous occasions). A talking point, in other words, which I appear to have achieved!

Fair enough. You have certainly generated an interesting discussion.

So in effect you chose not to buy a new ticket prior to boarding and you became a "pay when challenged" passenger travelling without a valid ticket for the service you were on, so rather than avanti potentially commiting fraud, you were the one actually potentially committing an offence instead

Indeed.

 

[DarloRich]

To suggest fraud is silly.