Delay protection when purchasing seperate tickets

[AlterEgo]

All EU regulations have been transcribed into UK law, with a view to "cleaning them up" later, so they absolutely are.

I would bet a large sum of money on nobody at Newcastle Central being aware of EU Regulation 1371/2007.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You have the absolute right to take the next service that complies with your ticket's route and/or TOC restriction. That may necessitate an inconvenient wait of multiple hours, but it is not as if you are stranded.

One thing to add here is that Article 16 of EU Regulation 1371/2007 gives you the right to be rerouted "at the earliest opportunity" if a delay of more than 60 minutes is anticipated. Therefore if waiting for the next Lumo service would cause a delay of 4 hours, you ought to be rerouted onto LNER so as to reduce your delay. However, how that would work out in practice is another matter.

Lumo certainly have "rerouted" people onto LNER, though possibly more because with their short trains they might well not be able to carry them that day otherwise.

 

[Watershed]

I think most staff would argue that EU regulations aren’t valid in the UK due to brexit.

As with almost all EU law, it was retained in UK law. In this case through the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

The EU Regulation is also referenced in Part B of the NRCoT, although rather conveniently, even the latest version of the conditions (issued last month) omit to mention the right to rerouting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would bet a large sum of money on nobody at Newcastle Central being aware of EU Regulation 1371/2007.

You are most likely correct. The thing I was countering was the view that they didn't apply, which they do because they're now all UK law, e.g. (and this came up on the LBC Legal Hour t'other day) EU261 (the air passenger rights one) is now duplicated as UK261.

Any new ones of course may not be.

 

[miklcct]

You have the absolute right to take the next service that complies with your ticket's route and/or TOC restriction. That may necessitate an inconvenient wait of multiple hours, but it is not as if you are stranded.

One thing to add here is that Article 16 of EU Regulation 1371/2007 gives you the right to be rerouted "at the earliest opportunity" if a delay of more than 60 minutes is anticipated. Therefore if waiting for the next Lumo service would cause a delay of 4 hours, you ought to be rerouted onto LNER so as to reduce your delay. However, how that would work out in practice is another matter.

Does that mean I can rely on this right to board an LNER service in case my Lumo-only advance connection is missed, or board an SWR service in case my two-hourly XC advance connection is missed, and claim back any new ticket / penalty fare afterwards or as a defence to prosecution?

 

[Watershed]

I would bet a large sum of money on nobody at Newcastle Central being aware of EU Regulation 1371/2007.

Indeed. I would also be quite sure that most of them haven't ever heard of the NRCoT, or if they have, that they've never read any of it. That will of course affect passengers' practical remedies on the day, but not their legal remedies afterwards.

 

[Haywain]

Lumo certainly have "rerouted" people onto LNER

I don't dispute that they may have done but they are likely to have paid to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't dispute that they may have done but they are likely to have paid to do so.

I expect they did, yes. To be fair, the EU reg doesn't say how that has to be arranged, just that it does have to. If anyone ever manages to force Ryanair to re-route onto BA per EU261, it'll likely involve a senior member of staff stood at the BA ticket desk buying tickets - there's no mechanism for rerouting a ticket* from an airline that doesn't issue them at all.

* BA for instance is an e-ticketed airline - there is an IATA format ticket in a database which can for instance be transferred to another airline "in the background". Ryanair is a ticketless airline, such a "virtual ticket" is not there so there's nothing to reroute.

 

[realemil]

I would bet a large sum of money on nobody at Newcastle Central being aware of EU Regulation 1371/2007.

As with almost all EU law, it was retained in UK law. In this case through the Rail Passengers' Rights and Obligations (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

The EU Regulation is also referenced in Part B of the NRCoT, although rather conveniently, even the latest version of the conditions (issued last month) omit to mention the right to rerouting.

In practice, how would this turn out though? I doubt that the people writing the NRCoT know themselves about said Regulation.

Nobody at Newcastle Central would be aware of it, let alone a TM - so if you boarded a service and argued with that regulation, would that be valid?

 

[Watershed]

In practice, how would this turn out though?

That's a good question. I imagine it would vary. Some staff would apply common sense and good customer service, and would be happy to carry delayed passengers, no matter what the rule is.

Others seem to be of a mentality that the railway can do no wrong and so the customer must always be penalised (and might well apply the same attitude even if there is something less controversial at stake, for example if someone held a through Advance and had missed their connection).

And most are probably somewhere in between.

I doubt that the people writing the NRCoT know themselves about said Regulation.

They evidently are, since they reference the PRO and mention some of its provisions (e.g. to refreshments if a delay of more than 1 hour is anticipated). I can't help but feel the decision to then omit to mention the right to rerouting was deliberate.

Nobody at Newcastle Central would be aware of it, let alone a TM - so if you boarded a service and argued with that regulation, would that be valid?

The Regulation is silent on how "continuation or rerouting" works in practice. In my view, there is no formality required to 'validate' your ticket to travel on another service in reliance upon the Regulation, as there is nothing in the text which suggests anything like that - and on many stations and routes there would be nobody you could ask anyway (either station staff or even a guard).

It simply says that:

Where it is reasonably to be expected that the delay in the arrival at the final destination under the transport contract will be more than 60 minutes, the passenger shall immediately have the choice between:

(a) [a refund] or,

(b) continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at the earliest opportunity

Perhaps @tspaul26, as a solicitor, may wish to comment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In practice, how would this turn out though? I doubt that the people writing the NRCoT know themselves about said Regulation.

Nobody at Newcastle Central would be aware of it, let alone a TM - so if you boarded a service and argued with that regulation, would that be valid?

The Regulation does not give you the right to just board, and indeed you would be expected to change your ticket to the next available train (which could be tomorrow if they're all full today) on the typical European compulsory reservation high speed service. It gives you rights similar to airline passengers, not to get on anyway and stand in the gangway.

 

[realemil]

That's a good question. I imagine it would vary. Some staff would apply common sense and good customer service, and would be happy to carry delayed passengers, no matter what the rule is.

Others seem to be of a mentality that the railway can do no wrong and so the customer must always be penalised (and might well apply the same attitude even if there is something less controversial at stake, for example if someone held a through Advance and had missed their connection).

And most are probably somewhere in between.

Most would look at you confused and just tell you to speak to the train manager or tell you it's not valid.

TM would (in most cases) just let you board, but you can land that one.

They evidently are, since they reference the PRO and mention some of its provisions (e.g. to refreshments if a delay of more than 1 hour is anticipated). I can't help but feel the decision to then omit to mention the right to rerouting was deliberate.

In that case, I feel like it's deliberate - no way that they mention everything else but omit that...

The Regulation does not give you the right to just board, and indeed you would be expected to change your ticket to the next available train (which could be tomorrow if they're all full today) on the typical European compulsory reservation high speed service. It gives you rights similar to airline passengers, not to get on anyway and stand in the gangway.

It does not give you the right to board right away, but it doesn't explain what re-routing your ticket is either.

The Regulation is silent on how "continuation or rerouting" works in practice. In my view, there is no formality required to 'validate' your ticket to travel on another service in reliance upon the Regulation, as there is nothing in the text which suggests anything like that. It simply says that

As said here - there's no actual advice on how it works in theory.

What happens in the EU doesn't necessarily apply to the UK, as well, our staff would be clueless on said topic.

 

[Watershed]

As said here - there's no actual advice on how it works in theory

The EU interpretive guidelines give a clear indication of what "continuation or rerouting" means and what "comparable transport conditions". They state that:

where passengers can only be re-routed on another rail carrier or on a transport mode of a higher class or with a higher fare than paid for the original service, re-routing shall be offered without additional costs for the passenger;

So clearly it is envisaged that in some cases, it will be necessary to travel on a different operator to minimise delays.

But there is little indication on the modalities of exercising this right.

 

[miklcct]

And in this case here, if I really miss the Lumo due to delay from a connection on a valid travel itinerary using separate tickets booked in a single Trainsplit journey, and get an any permitted single to take the LNER, can I refund my Lumo advance without fee?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does not give you the right to board right away, but it doesn't explain what re-routing your ticket is either.

Re-routeing is having your ticket changed to another route and/or operator. It is a well-defined term in an airline context, so it will be taken to have that standard transport industry meaning by any Court unless defined otherwise.

An example usage (that has actually happened to me, well, it did until I declined it because I was in a rush - I asked for another more timely alternative that had seats, but they decided it was easier to bump someone else instead) might be "I was supposed to be flying from Heathrow to Amsterdam with KLM, but they had overbooked, so they gave me EUR250 compensation and re-routed me with Air France via Paris instead".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2022 ==

What happens in the EU doesn't necessarily apply to the UK, as well, our staff would be clueless on said topic.

Traditionally the UK has offered better rights than European rail operators, so this (coupled with the huge increase in the use of Advances) is the first time this has really come to the fore.

 

[miklcct]

An example usage (that has actually happened to me, well, it did until I declined it because I was in a rush - I asked for another more timely alternative that had seats, but they decided it was easier to bump someone else instead) might be "I was supposed to be flying from Heathrow to Amsterdam with KLM, but they had overbooked, so they gave me EUR250 compensation and re-routed me with Air France via Paris instead".

So in case of air travel, can you demand that the re-routing is on the next scheduled flight (if a space is still available, i.e. a ticket can be still be sold), regardless of carrier, running on the same route to the destination?

 

[Watershed]

It is a well-defined term in an airline context, so it will be taken to have that standard transport industry meaning by any Court unless defined otherwise.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. Whilst there are of course similarities between the aviation and rail sectors, the legal obligations of carriers do vary significantly in some cases.

For example, rail carriers are obliged to pay compensation in the case of delays - even if exceptional circumstances apply - whereas airlines are not.

Accordingly I don't think you can take the aviation industry meaning of 're-routing' (which must be seen in the context of all flights being "compulsory reservation") and apply it to the railways (where most services do not require any reservations).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2022 ==

Does that mean I can rely on this right to board an LNER service in case my Lumo-only advance connection is missed, or board an SWR service in case my two-hourly XC advance connection is missed, and claim back any new ticket / penalty fare afterwards or as a defence to prosecution?

In principle, I would have said yes - if the delay would otherwise be more than 60 minutes. However, uninformed staff may decide to apply their own rules...

 

[island]

So in case of air travel, can you demand that the re-routing is on the next scheduled flight (if a space is still available, i.e. a ticket can be still be sold), regardless of carrier, running on the same route to the destination?

I'd suggest making a new thread in the aviation forum to discuss flight rerouting rules

 

[Cantab26]

That's a good question. I imagine it would vary. Some staff would apply common sense and good customer service, and would be happy to carry delayed passengers, no matter what the rule is.

Others seem to be of a mentality that the railway can do no wrong and so the customer must always be penalised (and might well apply the same attitude even if there is something less controversial at stake, for example if someone held a through Advance and had missed their connection).

And most are probably somewhere in between.


They evidently are, since they reference the PRO and mention some of its provisions (e.g. to refreshments if a delay of more than 1 hour is anticipated). I can't help but feel the decision to then omit to mention the right to rerouting was deliberate.


The Regulation is silent on how "continuation or rerouting" works in practice. In my view, there is no formality required to 'validate' your ticket to travel on another service in reliance upon the Regulation, as there is nothing in the text which suggests anything like that - and on many stations and routes there would be nobody you could ask anyway (either station staff or even a guard).

It simply says that:


Perhaps @tspaul26, as a solicitor, may wish to comment.

A purposive construction is required such that the objective is to reduce delay to the passenger. This means that the passenger may ‘continue’ on the originally planned route or take a different route if this would be quicker.

In the aviation context, re-routeing would encompass not only re-routeing on a different airline, but also on a different mode. I am not aware of any cases under the PRO regulations which touch on the point, but I see no reason in principle why the same interpretation would not apply in a rail context.

For example, if a passenger faces a four hour wait for the next train, but could catch a coach in 20mins, then he should be re-routed onto that coach.

In practice, I would not expect ‘the railway’ to do that so he would need to pay out of pocket and then seek to recover the expense from the relevant operator.

 

[Watershed]

A purposive construction is required such that the objective is to reduce delay to the passenger. This means that the passenger may ‘continue’ on the originally planned route or take a different route if this would be quicker.

In the aviation context, re-routeing would encompass not only re-routeing on a different airline, but also on a different mode. I am not aware of any cases under the PRO regulations which touch on the point, but I see no reason in principle why the same interpretation would not apply in a rail context.

For example, if a passenger faces a four hour wait for the next train, but could catch a coach in 20mins, then he should be re-routed onto that coach.

In practice, I would not expect ‘the railway’ to do that so he would need to pay out of pocket and then seek to recover the expense from the relevant operator.

Thank you, much appreciated. Would you say that it is necessary for the passenger to incur such out of pocket expenses (e.g. on a new Any Permitted ticket) to reduce the delays, or would you say the ticket is already valid owing to the PRO?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thank you, much appreciated. Would you say that it is necessary for the passenger to incur such out of pocket expenses (e.g. on a new Any Permitted ticket) to reduce the delays, or would you say the ticket is already valid owing to the PRO?

In an EU context the ticket definitely *is not* valid, but I would say that it is the operator's responsibility to arrange the new one.

 

[Cantab26]

Thank you, much appreciated. Would you say that it is necessary for the passenger to incur such out of pocket expenses (e.g. on a new Any Permitted ticket) to reduce the delays, or would you say the ticket is already valid owing to the PRO?

It is not necessary for the passenger to incur expense because the responsibility to arrange re-routeing (or continuation) lies on the operator.

However, if the operator fails so to do then the passenger has no choice but to make his own arrangements and then seek to recover the expense from the operator on the basis that it has breached its obligations.

In an EU context the ticket definitely *is not* valid, but I would say that it is the operator's responsibility to arrange the new one.

I agree.

 

[trover]

Sorry for replying to an old thread. What I encountered recently is a NT train was delayed so I missed my onward NT trains. If I caught the next available NT trains the delay would expected to be just over 60 mins because of the timetable. There was a VT train departing from the intermediate station which could bring the delay down to nearly zero. Does the responsibility to reroute lies with NT, VT, or the ticket office at the intermediate station?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Sorry for replying to an old thread. What I encountered recently is a NT train was delayed so I missed my onward NT trains. If I caught the next available NT trains the delay would expected to be just over 60 mins because of the timetable. There was a VT train departing from the intermediate station which could bring the delay down to nearly zero. Does the responsibility to reroute lies with NT, VT, or the ticket office at the intermediate station?

Did you have ticket(s) valid on Northern only?

 

[trover]

Did you have ticket(s) valid on Northern only?

Yes all tickets I hold are Northern advance

 

[Haywain]

Does the responsibility to reroute lies with NT, VT, or the ticket office at the intermediate station?

It lies with the service provider, Northern. However, other companies *may* choose to assist as a matter of goodwill, if you ask nicely.

 

[trover]

It lies with the service provider, Northern. However, other companies *may* choose to assist as a matter of goodwill, if you ask nicely.

Okay, probably I was served by two incompetent staff members.

The one from NT said I maybe able to use the next available NT train but no guarantee because I have advance tickets - utterly wrong as advance tickets can be protected to next available service given minimum connection time is fulfilled, immediately in breach of condition 28.2 of NRCoT and Article 16(b) of PRO.

The one from VT operated ticket office said he works for VT so I have to speak with NT staffs to sort it out, no endorsement was given, not even verbal advice - in breach of condition 28.2 of NRCoT as it states any TOC in position must assist during disruption.

 

[Haywain]

The one from VT operated ticket office said he works for VT so I have to speak with NT staffs to sort it out, no endorsement was given, not even verbal advice - in breach of condition 28.2 of NRCoT as it states any TOC in position must assist during disruption.

Your train was delayed, that is not necessarily considered to be disruption.

 

[trover]

Your train was delayed, that is not necessarily considered to be disruption.

It was delayed to the point that I missed my connection so it was a disruption to my journey, National Rail Enquiries also note on the journey planner “disrupted, alternative trains” in search results, and “Disrupted — This service is disrupted and you may not meet your connection” in the itinerary, where connecting train is missed due to delay.