Disruption refund refused on carnet tickets

[gaj2002]

Hi there

I commute WGC to London Terminals, the most cost-effective way of doing that nowadays (apart from those who travel often enough to justify a full annual season ticket) is to use contactless for the peak morning journey and then off-peak carnet tickets to get home in the evening. Fortunately we don't have any evening peak restrictions on our carnet tickets although I'm aware at other stations those exist. Previously I used peak and off-peak carnet tickets until the flexi-season brought about the demise of the peak carnet tickets.

Anyway I've seen many times on the National Rail website, Great Northern website the condition that only full books of carnet tickets can be refunded. I had always assumed this related to a personal choice refund request; it had never occurred to me that this could be applied to a disruption refund situation.

After many many years, I finally found myself in the situation where I had a cancelled train (having already dated the ticket), my plans changed accordingly and I didn't travel that day, and I requested a disruption refund. This has been refused, even after my complaining, based on the "full books only for refund" condition mentioned above.

My reading of the National Rail Conditions of Travel is that section 29 allows conditions such as "full books only" to be imposed on personal choice refunds, however section 30 requires the rail operator to offer a refund without admin fee in the event of disruption and there is no option to impose any conditions.

My complaint to Great Northern brought this to their attention but they just said "yes we know what the conditions say, but those don't apply to special tickets such as carnet or advance tickets". I can only see this is total nonsense, how can they exempt themselves from the National Rail Conditions of Travel, that makes the document worthless?

I've put this in to the Rail Ombudsman and am expecting them to find in my favour... is there something I'm missing here? Anything else I should mention when an Ombudsman picks the case up and starts looking at it?

Admittedly this may not be worth the hassle over £6.40 but it's now something of a point of principle.

 

[hkstudent]

Hi there

I commute WGC to London Terminals, the most cost-effective way of doing that nowadays (apart from those who travel often enough to justify a full annual season ticket) is to use contactless for the peak morning journey and then off-peak carnet tickets to get home in the evening. Fortunately we don't have any evening peak restrictions on our carnet tickets although I'm aware at other stations those exist. Previously I used peak and off-peak carnet tickets until the flexi-season brought about the demise of the peak carnet tickets.

Anyway I've seen many times on the National Rail website, Great Northern website the condition that only full books of carnet tickets can be refunded. I had always assumed this related to a personal choice refund request; it had never occurred to me that this could be applied to a disruption refund situation.

After many many years, I finally found myself in the situation where I had a cancelled train (having already dated the ticket), my plans changed accordingly and I didn't travel that day, and I requested a disruption refund. This has been refused, even after my complaining, based on the "full books only for refund" condition mentioned above.

My reading of the National Rail Conditions of Travel is that section 29 allows conditions such as "full books only" to be imposed on personal choice refunds, however section 30 requires the rail operator to offer a refund without admin fee in the event of disruption and there is no option to impose any conditions.

My complaint to Great Northern brought this to their attention but they just said "yes we know what the conditions say, but those don't apply to special tickets such as carnet or advance tickets". I can only see this is total nonsense, how can they exempt themselves from the National Rail Conditions of Travel, that makes the document worthless?

I've put this in to the Rail Ombudsman and am expecting them to find in my favour... is there something I'm missing here? Anything else I should mention when an Ombudsman picks the case up and starts looking at it?

Admittedly this may not be worth the hassle over £6.40 but it's now something of a point of principle.

Your case is still within the jurisdiction of London Travelwatch. They are more powerful compare to Rail Ombudsman.

 

[alistairlees]

You are due a refund because you did not travel because of the disruption. The terms and conditions of the ticket apply to a customer-requested refund; not to one where the TOC is at fault. The conditions of the NRCoT override the specific ticket T&Cs when this happens.

Write to them again to point this out. You should not have to, really.

 

[Watershed]

The conditions of the NRCoT override the specific ticket T&Cs when this happens.

Indeed, and it is absolutely unambiguous:

Conditions 30.1 –30.4 cover all Tickets other than Season Tickets

Season Ticket has a specific definition, namely:

a Ticket sold as such which allows you to travel for a period of 7 consecutive days or longer, or any 8 in 28 days

which a book of carnet tickets doesn't fall into.

I wouldn't expect any help from the Ombudsman - it's demonstrated on several occasions that it is completely useless and simply takes at face value any claim the TOC makes. You may find it easier to pursue your claim in other ways, e.g. London Travelwatch as noted above, or simply processing a partial chargeback.

 

[skyhigh]

I've put this in to the Rail Ombudsman and am expecting them to find in my favour... is there something I'm missing here?

Yes, the Ombudsman is completely useless and will likely just accept what the TOC says. But that aside, you have a completely valid claim for a refund based on your circumstances.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Are you trying to claim a refund or Delay Repay for an abandoned journey

 

[gaj2002]

Are you trying to claim a refund or Delay Repay for an abandoned journey

Refund, I didn’t travel and that (should) get me 100% compared to 50% as it would have been less than sixty minutes’ delay has I caught the next train

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2022 ==

You are due a refund because you did not travel because of the disruption. The terms and conditions of the ticket apply to a customer-requested refund; not to one where the TOC is at fault. The conditions of the NRCoT override the specific ticket T&Cs when this happens.

Write to them again to point this out. You should not have to, really.

I couldn’t have been clearer, they just were so absorbed in their groupthink that it just went nowhere. “Yes the conditions may say that but they don’t apply” (paraphrasing)

 

[Starmill]

Refund, I didn’t travel and that (should) get me 100% compared to 50% as it would have been less than sixty minutes’ delay has I caught the next train

It's worth pointing out that while you were clear in your opening post, and subsequently, that it was in fact a refund on an unused ticket you're seeking, rather than compensation for a delay, a lot of operators pay refunds on season tickets, and sometimes other tickets, using Delay Repay. This is generally only on days when customers have been advised not to travel, and only for those who bought their tickets before such advice was given.

The practice is rather misleading given the name of the scheme is Delay Repay, but I imagine it simplifies their processes quite a lot so it has been fairly widely adopted. It's also frustrating because it means that the frequently quoted 'rule' that Delay Repay is compensation for delays while using the ticket and refunds are for tickets that were not used is in fact not actually true at all.

 

[gaj2002]

Indeed, and it is absolutely unambiguous:


Season Ticket has a specific definition, namely:

which a book of carnet tickets doesn't fall into.

I wouldn't expect any help from the Ombudsman - it's demonstrated on several occasions that it is completely useless and simply takes at face value any claim the TOC makes. You may find it easier to pursue your claim in other ways, e.g. London Travelwatch as noted above, or simply processing a partial chargeback.

Ok thanks, I’ve never used the Ombudsman before so wasn’t aware.

Based on your advice, I’ve also applied to London Travelwatch for a review, so let’s see what happens there.

I’m not so sure about the chargeback, I think the likes of Amex would be persuaded by the carnet terms and conditions and it would be too fine a point to say NRCoT takes precedence. I once pursued a refused chargeback with the Financial Ombudsman Service; they sided with Amex and said there’s a lot of hype around rail chargebacks and many aren’t being / shouldn’t be granted.

Is it worth trying Transport Focus as well? Tickets were bought outside London with a primarily outside London rail operator? Or should I just wait for the Rail Ombudsman and London Travelwatch?

Thanks so much for help

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2022 ==

It's worth pointing out that while you were clear in your opening post, and subsequently, that it was in fact a refund on an unused ticket you're seeking, rather than compensation for a delay, a lot of operators pay refunds on season tickets, and sometimes other tickets, using Delay Repay. This is generally only on days when customers have been advised not to travel, and only for those who bought their tickets before such advice was given.

The practice is rather misleading given the name of the scheme is Delay Repay, but I imagine it simplifies their processes quite a lot so it has been fairly widely adopted. It's also frustrating because it means that the frequently quoted 'rule' that Delay Repay is compensation for delays while using the ticket and refunds are for tickets that were not used is in fact not actually true at all.

Ok thanks for the clarity, I don’t think there’s any confusion at Great Northern on that point and I’m also clear

 

[Starmill]

Ok thanks for the clarity, I don’t think there’s any confusion at Great Northern on that point and I’m also clear

Yes that's no problem at all! I just thought I'd mention it in case that's what the post you were responding to was getting at.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2022 ==

I’m not so sure about the chargeback, I think the likes of Amex would be persuaded by the carnet terms and conditions and it would be too fine a point to say NRCoT takes precedence. I once pursued a refused chargeback with the Financial Ombudsman Service; they sided with Amex and said there’s a lot of hype around rail chargebacks and many aren’t being / shouldn’t be granted.

Obviously this is absolutely a possibility, unfortunately. However I think that it very much is still a useful tool because it's free and doesn't prejudice any further action in the form of litigation, at least not in general.

I agree with your suggestion of waiting until the processes you've started at the Rail Ombudsman and London Travelwatch are exhausted before choosing your next steps.

As it would appear to be common ground that you paid for a service but didn't actually receive it, and you've got clear and straightforward evidence that a failure of the provider is the reason you didn't, you should have really very straightforward arguments for damages based on common law. You can also easily rely on the care and skill provision set out in the Consumer Rights Act, and the remedies set out there are a repeat performance or the return of the money paid, so again clearly a right to your refund here. Obviously the product terms and conditions cannot contract you out of that right.

The care and skill provision may persuade the Ombudsman in their adjudication if the claim just based on the written product conditions doesn't. You can submit multiple grounds to them as long as you do it before you agree for them to move to their adjudication.

A final point which may or may not be useful to you is that you can try to engage your Ombudsman a little bit more actively if you'd like to. You can send them a message asking for them to speak to you on the phone, or call them directly if a contact number has been provided as part of your case. If the Ombudsman tries to run through the mediation stages with the TOC staff and the TOC refuse to offer anything to settle the claim, you can try to intervene by suggesting multiple grounds to your Ombudsman which they could put to the TOC. If you do speak on the phone with your Ombudsman, and mediation ultimately is fruitless, you will likely receive slightly more consideration of your points when you do progress to their adjudication, although they won't be able to pre-judge what they decide or tell you in advance what your outcomes will be. If you don't want to speak to them on the phone you can still set out all of the different grounds you believe you in one big long letter.

I'm afraid I can't guarantee that any of these suggestions will help you but hopefully they'll give you something to think about.

 

[gaj2002]

Yes that's no problem at all! I just thought I'd mention it in case that's what the post you were responding to was getting at.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2022 ==


Obviously this is absolutely a possibility, unfortunately. However I think that it very much is still a useful tool because it's free and doesn't prejudice any further action in the form of litigation, at least not in general.

I agree with your suggestion of waiting until the processes you've started at the Rail Ombudsman and London Travelwatch are exhausted before choosing your next steps.

As it would appear to be common ground that you paid for a service but didn't actually receive it, and you've got clear and straightforward evidence that a failure of the provider is the reason you didn't, you should have really very straightforward arguments for damages based on common law. You can also easily rely on the care and skill provision set out in the Consumer Rights Act, and the remedies set out there are a repeat performance or the return of the money paid, so again clearly a right to your refund here. Obviously the product terms and conditions cannot contract you out of that right.

The care and skill provision may persuade the Ombudsman in their adjudication if the claim just based on the written product conditions doesn't. You can submit multiple grounds to them as long as you do it before you agree for them to move to their adjudication.

A final point which may or may not be useful to you is that you can try to engage your Ombudsman a little bit more actively if you'd like to. You can send them a message asking for them to speak to you on the phone, or call them directly if a contact number has been provided as part of your case. If the Ombudsman tries to run through the mediation stages with the TOC staff and the TOC refuse to offer anything to settle the claim, you can try to intervene by suggesting multiple grounds to your Ombudsman which they could put to the TOC. If you do speak on the phone with your Ombudsman, and mediation ultimately is fruitless, you will likely receive slightly more consideration of your points when you do progress to their adjudication, although they won't be able to pre-judge what they decide or tell you in advance what your outcomes will be. If you don't want to speak to them on the phone you can still set out all of the different grounds you believe you in one big long letter.

I'm afraid I can't guarantee that any of these suggestions will help you but hopefully they'll give you something to think about.

Ok thanks

As someone coming at this with zero prior experience of going through the Rail Ombudsman, it’s quite a shock to hear such a consensus of opinion that I have a pretty high probability of receiving a completely perverse decision. It’s an utterly straightforward point so I hadn’t anticipated that.

I’m not suggesting anyone here is wrong, it’s just a shock. What is the point of this service if they can’t produce a correct decision?

Anyway I’m taking on board all comments and will update in the new year when hopefully something has happened.

 

[Watershed]

Ok thanks

As someone coming at this with zero prior experience of going through the Rail Ombudsman, it’s quite a shock to hear such a consensus of opinion that I have a pretty high probability of receiving a completely perverse decision. It’s an utterly straightforward point so I hadn’t anticipated that.

I’m not suggesting anyone here is wrong, it’s just a shock. What is the point of this service if they can’t produce a correct decision?

Anyway I’m taking on board all comments and will update in the new year when hopefully something has happened.

The point of the Rail Ombudsman is so that politicians and the regulator can point to it and say "there's an Ombudsman whose decisions are binding on operators" to dismiss any media pressure. That's essentially why the Ombudsman took over the complaints escalation role from Transport Focus, who couldn't bind operators.

The fact that the Ombudsman is useless is almost a technicality as far as these people are concerned.

The Ombudsman's ineffectiveness is no doubt largely attributable to the fact that they pay their case assessors a pittance, and don't require them to have a high level of experience with the peculiarities of the rail industry.

 

[island]

I suppose the "rationale" of not giving refunds on carnet tickets for disrupted journeys is that you can use the ticket a different day.

Not saying I agree with it, but that's perhaps one of the matters in play.

 

[NeilWatson]

But not once the carnet has been dated, which is the situation here.

 

[gaj2002]

But not once the carnet has been dated, which is the situation here.

Yes it is an extremely niche / rare event, I've been using these tickets I think for about ten years, it's never happened before, I don't expect it to happen again.

It had never occurred to me that a refund would be an issue in the event of these circumstances arising.

I have got a decent professional job and this £6.40 isn't touching the value of my time expended on this, I'm just pursuing this in the hope of forcing an improvement here as I'm sure others have been denied similarly and can't be bothered to dispute it.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Refunds aren't given on Advance tickets either but Delay Repay is, can you see where I'm going with this?

 

[Starmill]

Refunds aren't given on Advance tickets either but Delay Repay is, can you see where I'm going with this?

I think that you're misunderstanding. Refunds on Advance tickets are straightforward to pay out when, as with this case, the train is cancelled.

In any case, the customer needs a refund here, because if they'd claimed delay compensation they wouldn't get the full value of their ticket back.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I understand that but as there is no mechanism to refund a Carnet Delay Repay may be the better avenue to explore as by dating the carnet the ticket is used.

 

[gaj2002]

I understand that but as there is no mechanism to refund a Carnet Delay Repay may be the better avenue to explore as by dating the carnet the ticket is used.

I think when weighing up value of my time versus financial refund then yes it might have been easier to get £3.20 back by claiming against the thirty-minute delay (although strictly speaking not quite legit as I did not actually travel).

And yes, it would have been even better to have waited and dated the ticket just before boarding the train. Which I usually do but just this one time out of ten years' use of these tickets, I seem to have been caught out.

However, in addition to the broader point of principle and others' future benefit, I simply did not imagine I would get this response (repeatedly) from Great Northern and by the time it became apparent they really were going to stick to their guns and not pay any refund, the delay repay window had expired. Leaving me with pursuing this refund through the Rail Ombudsman / London Travelwatch or accepting zero.

 

[Haywain]

I think when weighing up value of my time versus financial refund then yes it might have been easier to get £3.20 back by claiming against the thirty-minute delay (although strictly speaking not quite legit as I did not actually travel).

Actually, the suggestion is that most train companies have indicated that 'refund' claims against Flexi seasons (which are very similar to carnets) should be made through the Delay Repay process and this may be seen by the train company as the correct way of 'refunding' an activated (dated) carnet ticket. If that is so it would result in the £6.40 value of the ticket being recovered.

 

[Adam Williams]

The point of the Rail Ombudsman is so that politicians and the regulator can point to it and say "there's an Ombudsman whose decisions are binding on operators" to dismiss any media pressure. That's essentially why the Ombudsman took over the complaints escalation role from Transport Focus, who were at least a little more competent, but couldn't bind operators.

The fact that the Ombudsman is useless is almost a technicality as far as these people are concerned.

The Ombudsman's ineffectiveness is no doubt largely attributable to the fact that they pay their case assessors a pittance, and don't require them to have a high level of experience with the peculiarities of the rail industry.

I feel like if we want this to change, rather than just accepting the status quo here, the only answer is to encourage folks to attempt the rail ombudsman through to the end and then exhaust the ombudsman's internal complaints procedure when the inevitable happens. It's not enough to simply wait for the Ombudsman's response and then do nothing.

I know "do this thing that will almost certainly be a waste of your individual time" is frustrating, but if the number of final complaints sky-rocketed, I think it would get noticed.

 

[maniacmartin]

Actually, the suggestion is that most train companies have indictade that 'refund' claims against Flexi seasons (which are very similar to carnets) should be made through the Delay Repay process and this may be seen by the train company as the correct way of 'refunding' an activated (dated) carnet ticket. If that is so it would result in the £6.40 value of the ticket being recovered.

Except Greater Anglia who may threaten to prosecute you if you use Delay Repay when you should have claimed a refund. So much consistancy!

I can see why the TOC doesn't want to pay out. In their minds they probably see this as a loophole where one could buy a carnet set, use the ones you want to, and then wait for a day with some delays to use as an excuse to refund the rest. This would undercut buying non-carnet tickets. However, whatever their reasoning is, it doesn't override the NRCoT so they should pay up.

As for the Rail Ombudsman, I wouldn't put too much faith in thinking that they will come to the correct conclusion, sadly.

 

[Haywain]

Except Greater Anglia who may threaten to prosecute you if you use Delay Repay when you should have claimed a refund. So much consistancy!

This comment is unhelpful here because the thread is about Great Northern, not Greater Anglia, and the circumstances are not the same.

 

[Class800]

What is the point of this service if they can’t produce a correct decision?

They're not independent, they are an industry body. They offer a useful service to TOCs by defending them and hopefully from their perspective dissuading customers from taking legal action, it's a PR stunt really. I expect this won't be controversial to 99% of people here

 

[Watershed]

Except Greater Anglia who may threaten to prosecute you if you use Delay Repay when you should have claimed a refund. So much consistancy!

I can see why the TOC doesn't want to pay out. In their minds they probably see this as a loophole where one could buy a carnet set, use the ones you want to, and then wait for a day with some delays to use as an excuse to refund the rest. This would undercut buying non-carnet tickets. However, whatever their reasoning is, it doesn't override the NRCoT so they should pay up.

Although of course, in this respect, it is absolutely no different to getting a refund on a daily ticket due to disruption. Ultimately, without several measures being rolled out to the entire network (e.g. gatelines at all stations, with all tickets becoming e-tickets or smartcards and scanning through the gates being mandatory) there is always going to be a residual risk of fraud to operators.

But in the absence of credible evidence of such fraud, operators can no more deny refund claims than they can deny Delay Repay on the basis that "how do we know you actually were on (or intended to take) the delayed train?".

This comment is unhelpful here because the thread is about Great Northern, not Greater Anglia, and the circumstances are not the same.

Some of the posts in the Greater Anglia Delay Repay "fraud" thread suggested that some of the people caught up in that exercise had simply submitted refund claims using the incorrect procedure, or vice versa. Nobody could foresee that GA would pursue allegedly fraudulent claims with such vigour, so long after they had been made - so it would be dangerous to rule out the possibility of the same happening at other operators.

 

[gaj2002]

Except Greater Anglia who may threaten to prosecute you if you use Delay Repay when you should have claimed a refund. So much consistancy!

I can see why the TOC doesn't want to pay out. In their minds they probably see this as a loophole where one could buy a carnet set, use the ones you want to, and then wait for a day with some delays to use as an excuse to refund the rest. This would undercut buying non-carnet tickets. However, whatever their reasoning is, it doesn't override the NRCoT so they should pay up.

As for the Rail Ombudsman, I wouldn't put too much faith in thinking that they will come to the correct conclusion, sadly.

Yeah I follow what you’re saying although I would question whether this is any more or less open to fraud than delay repay.

Surely either can be caught by someone making an abnormally high number of claims?

I’ve always made delay repay claims but a proportionate number to how bad the service has been; they’ve never been questioned, nor should they be, they are genuine. Surely my first ever refund claim should be ok, I don’t do this regularly, no reason to think it’s not genuine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2022 ==

Update on this so far --

Rail Ombudsman: acknowledged but asking for a more formal deadlock letter, seems like a bit of a pointless admin task but anyway I'm trying to get that from Great Northern

London Travelwatch: although I sent my initial correspondence to London Travelwatch, they seem to have bounced me (without explanation) to Transport Focus. I have answered their follow-up questions and received an acknowledgement.

Should I question being bounced from LT to TF? I don't know whether they've done that based on my address or the fact it's Great Northern rather than TFL, or perhaps the fact the intended journey was not entirely within London. Do I have a better chance of a favourable outcome with one rather than the other?

Thanks

 

[hkstudent]

Yeah I follow what you’re saying although I would question whether this is any more or less open to fraud than delay repay.

Surely either can be caught by someone making an abnormally high number of claims?

I’ve always made delay repay claims but a proportionate number to how bad the service has been; they’ve never been questioned, nor should they be, they are genuine. Surely my first ever refund claim should be ok, I don’t do this regularly, no reason to think it’s not genuine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2022 ==

Update on this so far --

Rail Ombudsman: acknowledged but asking for a more formal deadlock letter, seems like a bit of a pointless admin task but anyway I'm trying to get that from Great Northern

London Travelwatch: although I sent my initial correspondence to London Travelwatch, they seem to have bounced me (without explanation) to Transport Focus. I have answered their follow-up questions and received an acknowledgement.

Should I question being bounced from LT to TF? I don't know whether they've done that based on my address or the fact it's Great Northern rather than TFL, or perhaps the fact the intended journey was not entirely within London. Do I have a better chance of a favourable outcome with one rather than the other?

Thanks

London TravelWatch Area Map - London TravelWatch

www.londontravelwatch.org.uk

Your case is still wholly within the boundary of London Travelwatch, so they cannot transfer the case out of their remit. It doesn't matter where you live, but whether the service is inside their boundary.

If they still bounce your case out, better point to them that WGC is south of Stevenage and that's wholly within their territory.

 

[gaj2002]

London TravelWatch Area Map - London TravelWatch

www.londontravelwatch.org.uk

Your case is still wholly within the boundary of London Travelwatch, so they cannot transfer the case out of their remit. It doesn't matter where you live, but whether the service is inside their boundary.

If they still bounce your case out, better point to them that WGC is south of Stevenage and that's wholly within their territory.

That’s great info, thanks ever so much

However it hasn’t really answered the question as to whether I should be agitating to keep this with LT or if it really doesn’t make any difference to me if it goes to TF, can anyone advise there?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2022 ==

Update --

I rang London Travelwatch and the lady gave the very strong impression that there was very little difference between the two organisations, possibly as far as cases being handled by people on adjacent desks

Anyway I've asked for an explanation, I suppose if I'm asking these people to decide on the finer points of other people's rules then at least they should be able to apply their own rules correctly!

 

[gaj2002]

Update: the Rail Ombudsman people have said they won't consider my issue as it relates to "policy" and therefore should sit with Transport Focus / London Travelwatch.

I haven't got very far with London Travelwatch yet, I'll update when I feel I have something to report.

So far I'm not very impressed though - LT can't force anything so surely they can find in my favour and GN can ignore... and the binding route (Rail Ombudsman) won't look at the case, leaving me stuck?! If LT agree with me but GN won't budge, can I then take that to the Office of Rail and Road? Any ideas?

Thanks

 

[Watershed]

Update: the Rail Ombudsman people have said they won't consider my issue as it relates to "policy" and therefore should sit with Transport Focus / London Travelwatch.

I haven't got very far with London Travelwatch yet, I'll update when I feel I have something to report.

So far I'm not very impressed though - LT can't force anything so surely they can find in my favour and GN can ignore... and the binding route (Rail Ombudsman) won't look at the case, leaving me stuck?! If LT agree with me but GN won't budge, can I then take that to the Office of Rail and Road? Any ideas?

Thanks

Except this isn't a matter of policy - it's a matter of them complying with their own Conditions of Travel! That being said, the Ombudsman refusing to deal with the case is probably no great loss as we have seen time and again that they simply take anything the TOC says at face value, no matter how ridiculous it is.

London Travelwatch are a little more effective but as you say, cannot force GTR to comply with their decision.

There's no point going to the Office of Rail and Road as they will not intervene in individual cases, like most regulators.

Ultimately if you can't get any further, you will have to pursue this in the same way as any other contractual dispute and debt. If the value of the carnets were at least £100 and you paid using a credit card, you would have the option of making a section 75 claim against your lender, which would give you recourse to the Financial Ombudsman if they declined your claim - but I don't think this is the case here.

Therefore your only remaining option is to pursue legal action; the first step in this process is to send a Letter Before Claim.