Bailiffs pursued Northern over passenger compensation

[John @ home]

BBC report that 'A train passenger's lengthy fight for compensation from a rail company got to the stage where bailiffs were "pursuing them at their registered office"'.

Phil Davies claimed compensation and won a legal case, but said he was left waiting for about £300 from Northern.

On 10 June, Mr Davies was travelling to Barnsley when the line suffered signal problems. He said they were left on the platform of Wakefield Westgate Kirkgate with no access to toilets, with a promise of a Northern representative arranging their onward journey not kept. British Transport Police eventually advised passengers to walk into Wakefield and find a taxi.

Mr Davies said he complained, but was still waiting for a response after four weeks so began a small claims court case against the company. In October, a court ruled in favour of his claim for £283 plus £25 court fees, as Northern did not attend the hearing. After two weeks, Mr Davies said the bailiffs "automatically stepped in" as no payment had been made.

"It's frustrating when a big corporation just snubs a consumer - we're small and insignificant." Mr Davies said. "Too often, the public are fobbed off by big corporations and they simply can't be bothered. It's about challenging poor standards so they're improved."

Northern said: "We apologise for any distress and frustration experienced by our customer following the incident and his subsequent contact with Northern. We fully accept the judgement of the court and have made contact to ensure the matter is settled. We have also made a significant offer of compensation to our customer - which is over and above the figure set out by the court. We are now undertaking a review of our processes to help ensure such situations do not happen again."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-42283561

John @ home: Although the BBC News web site reports the incident taking place at Wakefield Westgate, it is evident from TV coverage on Look North that it was at Wakefield Kirkgate.

 

[Starmill]

"It's frustrating when a big corporation just snubs a consumer - we're small and insignificant." Mr Davies said. "Too often, the public are fobbed off by big corporations and they simply can't be bothered. It's about challenging poor standards so they're improved."

Mr Davies makes a very relevant point. It's only a shame there aren't more people out there with his determination, patience and skill to defend their rights.

 

[matt_world2004]

So Northern got their own medicine?

 

[falcon]

Some porkies there. The case is won by default if the defendant does not turn up so there was no actual 'court case' a bit of poetic licence there!

Second Bailiffs do not "Automatically step in" they have to be engaged by the plaintiff after a default period of time after judgment.

 

[A Challenge]

Second Bailiffs do not "Automatically step in" they have to be engaged by the plaintiff after a default period of time after judgment.

Exactly, so it basically automatic as there was no input by him, and so if he didn't know it had to be done by someone he might assume it was just automatic.

 

[AngusH]

I think it's clear that this was a case that would be seen in the small claims court, hence "small claims court case".

It's not a lie to say that surely?

 

[Deerfold]

Exactly, so it basically automatic as there was no input by him, and so if he didn't know it had to be done by someone he might assume it was just automatic.

You appear to have read the opposite meaning into falcon's comment.

 

[Starmill]

The case is won by default if the defendant does not turn up

Is that outcome actually different to if they turned up and lost? Did they have a good reason for not turning up? If they did they didn't say so.

 

[falcon]

Is that outcome actually different to if they turned up and lost? Did they have a good reason for not turning up? If they did they didn't say so.

The 'result' is same the plaintiff wins. But the legal argument has not been tested in a court with both sides putting their arguments. It is a lot better if the defendant fights the case in court with the plaintiff defending it and wins that way. Then we know that the plaintiffs argument was sound.

It's a bit like saying that because Bill did not turn up to the fight that Fred is the best fighter. It's best if they fight then you know the truth and are not speculating. You know how to bet next time he fights.LOL

 

[falcon]

Exactly, so it basically automatic as there was no input by him, and so if he didn't know it had to be done by someone he might assume it was just automatic.

No ! He is the plaintiff so if he does not engage baliffs they don't "Automatically go in".

He does not assume anything he say's quote: "After two weeks, Mr Davies said the bailiffs "automatically stepped in" as no payment had been made" end quote.

Baliffs never automatically step in" they want paying before they move a muscle.

He's trying to sensationalise and glamourise his success.

 

[Deerfold]

The 'result' is same the plaintiff wins. But the legal argument has not been tested in a court with both sides putting their arguments. It is a lot better if the defendant fights the case in court with the plaintiff defending it and wins that way. Then we know that the plaintiffs argument was sound.

It's a bit like saying that because Bill did not turn up to the fight that Fred is the best fighter. It's best if they fight then you know the truth and are not speculating. You know how to bet next time he fights.LOL

Although we have Northern quoted:

"Northern said: "We apologise for any distress and frustration experienced by our customer following the incident and his subsequent contact with Northern. We fully accept the judgement of the court and have made contact to ensure the matter is settled. We have also made a significant offer of compensation to our customer - which is over and above the figure set out by the court. We are now undertaking a review of our processes to help ensure such situations do not happen again."

which suggests they have no argument with the court's finding.

 

[yorksrob]

Since Northern were found to be in the wrong, one wonders whether they paid a similar level of compensation to those passengers delayed on the same service, and who submitted claims for delay repay etc,

 

[richw]

Baliffs never automatically step in" they want paying before they move a muscle.

Bailiffs recover their fee when they attend the defendants address. If they went to recover £300, they’d recover £300 plus their cost from the defendants.

I suppose taking possession of a pacer would have scrap value of bout £500

 

[falcon]

Bailiffs recover their fee when they attend the defendants address. If they went to recover £300, they’d recover £300 plus their cost from the defendants.

I suppose taking possession of a pacer would have scrap value of bout £500

Wrong.The baliffs do not recover their costs from the debtor (defendant)at all.

Baliffs have to be paid by the plaintiff before they do anything. That fee is then added onto the cost of the debit to the debitor (the defendant). The bailiffs as individuals( people collecting the money) are paid from the company that they work for a pecentage of the money they recover.
Any money recovere

Although we have Northern quoted:

"Northern said: "We apologise for any distress and frustration experienced by our customer following the incident and his subsequent contact with Northern. We fully accept the judgement of the court and have made contact to ensure the matter is settled. We have also made a significant offer of compensation to our customer - which is over and above the figure set out by the court. We are now undertaking a review of our processes to help ensure such situations do not happen again."

which suggests they have no argument with the court's finding.

The court did not find anything as there was no case it is just a matter of paperwork. Northern never defended the case. So it was never tested.

 

[Busaholic]

Some double thinking going on here. My local newspaper reported a young man who didn't turn up at court where he was accused of evading a rail fare of £3.50 facing a criminal record, a fine of several hundred pounds and associated costs to the tune of over £1.000 in total. He was named in the report, which was prominent in the paper. Rather less prominently featured, about six months later, a small paragraph saying that, on appeal, his fine had been reduced to £3.50 and his non-appearance explained by his having moved house and hence had received no summons. It used to be that proof of serving a summons had to be provided, but lax 'justice' can now be practised on the cheap.

 

[johntea]

Good for the guy on pursuing this, but how did his claim get so large for what essentially sounds like a taxi ride from Wakefield to Barnsley?

Also, I'm fairly sure there is a taxi booking telephone at Kirkgate station, or there certainly used to be! I know Northern should have arranged it all but still...

 

[neilmc]

Joyoue. I remember when I worked for Lloyds Bank, we had a similar situation with the bank ignoring a successful claim against them, that is until bailiffs turned up at a branch and were eyeing the PCs to take away in payment of the debt and frantic phone calls got the money released. Maybe we need to keep an old depot open as a rail pound, to which bailiffs can order locos/units to be driven until the TOC pay up?

 

[richw]

GWR best watch out with their 10-12 week turn around on delay repay!

 

[Puffing Devil]

Some double thinking going on here. My local newspaper reported a young man who didn't turn up at court where he was accused of evading a rail fare of £3.50 facing a criminal record, a fine of several hundred pounds and associated costs to the tune of over £1.000 in total. He was named in the report, which was prominent in the paper. Rather less prominently featured, about six months later, a small paragraph saying that, on appeal, his fine had been reduced to £3.50 and his non-appearance explained by his having moved house and hence had received no summons. It used to be that proof of serving a summons had to be provided, but lax 'justice' can now be practised on the cheap.

And not informed the court, and not set-up any mail redirection. I can't see how fines and costs come to over £1K on a first (non)appearance - do you have a copy of the newspaper report, or a link?

 

[paddington]

Is that outcome actually different to if they turned up and lost? Did they have a good reason for not turning up? If they did they didn't say so.

A "good" reason may be that it would cost them more to pay their lawyer to turn up or perhaps all their lawyers were involved in prosecuting fare evaders (I don't know anything about Northern's legal arrangements), however they could just have responded to the court summons and agreed with the passenger's claim without needing to go to court at all.

And of course with many small claims nobody actually travels to a court and the case is decided on the evidence submitted.

The court did not find anything as there was no case it is just a matter of paperwork. Northern never defended the case. So it was never tested.

It may not have been tested in court, but the statement from Northern reads like they agree they did owe the money claimed. But it also demonstrates that the person who wrote it has a poor understanding of the legal system.

And not informed the court, and not set-up any mail redirection. I can't see how fines and costs come to over £1K on a first (non)appearance - do you have a copy of the newspaper report, or a link?

It isn't a crime not to set up mail redirection and if he really had not received any summons before moving, how would he even know about any pending court cases. I've never set up mail redirection when I have moved although I haven't evaded any rail fares either.

 

[Puffing Devil]

It isn't a crime not to set up mail redirection and if he really had not received any summons before moving, how would he even know about any pending court cases. I've never set up mail redirection when I have moved although I haven't evaded any rail fares either.

Indeed it isn't. However, people who fail to set-up mail redirection when then move cause themselves many problems that can be avoided (including identity theft). In this case it looks as if the matter returned to court following a Statutory Declaration, not an "appeal".