Full and Immediate Refund

[Tom B]

I attempted to travel from Paddington today, but services were seriously disrupted with most cancelled. I had purchased a ticket from King's Cross, that being my nearest station.

I decide to abandon my journey. I wish to obtain a refund for the ticket which is of no use to me, and according to the NRCOC I can obtain one by going to the ticket office :-

(a) if the train you intended to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not

be honoured, you decide not to travel and at that time you return the unused

ticket to any ticket office, the Train Company responsible for that ticket office will,

wherever possible, give you an immediate full refund as shown in Condition 27;

I queue for about 15 minutes to speak to the ticket clerk, who states that there can be no refund as I purchased them from East Coast. I pointed out that the NRCOC said that you should return the ticket to *any* ticket office, and the train company would give you an immediate full refund. He said, I quote, "Those are the National Rail rules, but we are First Great Western". He insisted that I went to King's Cross.

I go to King's Cross. I speak to an East Coast clerk who says it is nothing to do with him and he cannot refund it, because it is First Great Western who are at fault by cancelling their service, so I should go back to Paddington.

I go back to Paddington. I speak to the station supervisor, because by now the queue for the ticket office is way out into the concourse. He says that "we used to, but we don't do immediate refunds anymore". When asked why this was still advertised on the NRCOC as happening, "Oh, well that's up to National Rail to set. We just don't give them out, you have to write in". He acknowleged that the system was *supposed* to work so that you go to any ticket office, and then if there is a different firm at fault, the companies fight it out between themselves. "But that's just not how it works anymore".

As far as I can see, the NRCOC says that I should have been able to obtain a refund from either station, in cash there and then. Am I wrong? Are companies permitted to ignore this?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Tbf, the wording in the NRCoC contains "wherever possible", however, the refund application should still be accepted by the issuing office.....

(b) if the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be
honoured, your ticket or relevant portion of it is completely unused, you decide
not to travel and you submit a claim for a refund within 28 days of the expiry
of the ticket to the Ticket Seller you will be given a full refund as shown in
Condition 27 as soon as practicable and in any case within one month of your
claim being received.

Any other office should still be able to 'pass on' the refund application.

 

[richa2002]

Yet another glorious indictment on the fragmented privatised railway.

 

[richw]

I have a complaint with FGW at the moment, their twitter feed says one thing, their call centre says the same as twitter. The station effectively said the twitter and call centre didn't know what they're on about and are talking s**t.
The two aforementioned told me to take medical documents to the station and the admin fee would be waived as reason for not travelling was mrs richw being admitted to hospital.
Station told me not only could the admin fee not be waived under any circumstance that they have to send the remainder of the refund to area manager by post for approval and couldn't even tell me if I'd get a refund less an administration fee.
Twitter have since reconfirmed they were correct, so I submitted screen prints of my twitter conversation with my complaint.
The station told me the NRCoC are a guidance and as such didn't have to be followed

 

[Haywain]

Both stations are wrong, which is very disappointing.

 

[Matt Taylor]

How can the NRCoC be 'for guidance' when it is the the legal contract that exists between client and business when a ticket is purchased?

 

[Harpers Tate]

If both stations have indeed made "an innocent mistake" then I believe a penalty fee or administration fee ought to be applicable. From both of them.

 

[maniacmartin]

At least if its only guidance then passengers won't have to abide by it...

 

[richw]

In follow up to my wait for a refund, I have this evening tweeted FGW to chase up as they told me 2 weeks maximum on 6th June. The Twitter account had advised me a cheque will be sent and will be about a week. Allowing a few days for postage, then to put the cheque to the bank another 4-5 days for clearance, I will be looking at around 5-6 weeks to receive cleared funds for the refund.
An interesting turn around time when the NRCoC states immediate refund.

 

[Tom B]

A complaint was made to FGW and East Coast. FGW are yet to reply. East Coast replied, quoting another clause which says "except where your train is cancelled or delayed, you must write off to get your money back on online-sold tickets". It appears that the person writing the email failed to read the original complaint, which centres around a train being cancelled, and as such this get-out cannot be used!

 

[Qwerty133]

A complaint was made to FGW and East Coast. FGW are yet to reply. East Coast replied, quoting another clause which says "except where your train is cancelled or delayed, you must write off to get your money back on online-sold tickets". It appears that the person writing the email failed to read the original complaint, which centres around a train being cancelled, and as such this get-out cannot be used!

Reply to their email asking for the complaint to be reviewed, and if they get it wrong again send it to Passenger Focus/ London Travel Watch (delete as appropriate, think its PF but as its london terminals im not sure)

 

[Clip]

Yet another glorious indictment on the fragmented privatised railway.

No it isnt. It is a case of 2 sets of staff who should know better but do not. Has nothing to do with the railway being privatised.

 

[Tom B]

Reply to their email asking for the complaint to be reviewed, and if they get it wrong again send it to Passenger Focus/ London Travel Watch (delete as appropriate, think its PF but as its london terminals im not sure)

The complaint is regarding the (in)action of employees at a London Terminal - the destination of the ticket is outwith London but I never got anywhere, so that's immaterial.

I have replied pointing out the error in his logic, should I not receive a reply within a reasonable amount of time I shall contact them.

No it isnt. It is a case of 2 sets of staff who should know better but do not. Has nothing to do with the railway being privatised.

The fragmented privatised railway does, however, allow both sets of staff and both companies to hide behind the excuse that "it's another company mate". Ostensibly, companies are supposed to work together to provide a seamless ticketing service to the customer - dealing with any subsequent shuffling around of monies between themselves - but naturally the customer ends up worst off!

 

[maniacmartin]

The complaint is regarding the (in)action of employees at a London Terminal - the destination of the ticket is outwith London but I never got anywhere, so that's immaterial.

You might be interested in this clarification:

Thank you for contacting London TravelWatch. The decision as to whether we, or Passenger Focus, deal with a complaint is based on where the actual problem occurred; if the problem occurred within our remit, then we would take responsibility for the case.

(regardless of what the whole journey is)

 

[Tom B]

Update - East Coast have apologised and admitted they were wrong; FGW haven't bothered to reply to an email sent to them three weeks ago!

 

[Abpj17]

Update - East Coast have apologised and admitted they were wrong; FGW haven't bothered to reply to an email sent to them three weeks ago!

1) check your email spam folder

2) check whether you received an auto-response/maximum timescale.

3) if they exceed the timescale for a reply, forward the email to them again, copying in travel watch/passenger focus

 

[richw]

Update - East Coast have apologised and admitted they were wrong; FGW haven't bothered to reply to an email sent to them three weeks ago!

FGW took 4 weeks to respond to me, no acknowledgment was received when initially submitted

 

[Tom B]

I received an auto response indicating I could expect a response in 5 days - almost three weeks ago. I telephoned and was told that they were not answering email in anything like that amount of time, blaming a "new computer system". The operator to whom I spoke was adamant that I was not entitled to a refund from them because of where I purchased the ticket and that the employee to whom I spoke was correct. I asked if he would tell me where in the NRCOC there was anything which said that was the case, but he declined to provide detail.

 

[Starmill]

A ticket office shirking it's condition 26(a) responsibilities? Now that's not something that happens often is it!

Have you seen any funds on this yet? Are you charging interest?

 

[Greenback]

I received an auto response indicating I could expect a response in 5 days - almost three weeks ago. I telephoned and was told that they were not answering email in anything like that amount of time, blaming a "new computer system". The operator to whom I spoke was adamant that I was not entitled to a refund from them because of where I purchased the ticket and that the employee to whom I spoke was correct. I asked if he would tell me where in the NRCOC there was anything which said that was the case, but he declined to provide detail.

Disappointing, but not totally surprising. There was a lot of confusion at ticket offices and misinformation rom FGW when I used to work for them.

 

[Tom B]

I received an email from FGW today, reiterating that I should have gone to King's Cross, and "I do not understand why East Coast didn't refund you, as they took your money off you".

I shall reply asking for an explanation from somebody who can differentiate arse and elbow. They say they will post some RTVs out in view of the inconvenience, but I'm more concerned that their staff as a whole appear poorly trained.

 

[richw]

I received an email from FGW today, reiterating that I should have gone to King's Cross, and "I do not understand why East Coast didn't refund you, as they took your money off you".

I shall reply asking for an explanation from somebody who can differentiate arse and elbow. They say they will post some RTVs out in view of the inconvenience, but I'm more concerned that their staff as a whole appear poorly trained.

Inconvenience was their excuse for refunding me as well, despite clear instructions from their twitter and call centre I would be refunded on production of medical documents.

 

[maniacmartin]

At this point I would be considering a credit card chargeback

 

[richw]

At this point I would be considering a credit card chargeback

The joys of paying by debit card.

 

[Starmill]

The joys of paying by debit card.

Isn't that just all in the terminology? ie 'chargeback' isn't the same thing as Section 75?

I'd still be sceptical about either though!

 

[richw]

Isn't that just all in the terminology? ie 'chargeback' isn't the same thing as Section 75?

I'd still be sceptical about either though!

A chargeback on debit card is incredibly difficult and long winded. You must prove the original transaction is done without authority

 

[Clip]

Isn't that just all in the terminology? ie 'chargeback' isn't the same thing as Section 75?

I'd still be sceptical about either though!

I think a section 75 claim has to be £100 or over.

 

[maniacmartin]

Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, credit card issuers are jointly liable for the whole amount of any purchase between £100 and £30,000 even if only part of it was made by card.

A chargeback is a separate thing - it has no limits but it does require the merchant to be solvent so the bank can claw the funds back (unlike S75 which can be invoked even if the merchant is bankrupt). However, as the OP paid by debit card, this is probably not a useful avenue to explore as banks aren't keen at all to chargeback a debit card unless you didn't agree to the transaction in the very first place

 

[Tom B]

I'm presuming there is some process for a chargeback, since otherwise you could maliciously ask for a transaction to be charged back to defraud somebody out of money.

Since the money will (eventually) be refunded - although not in the method I used to pay - I'm not so bothered about that. I am bothered about the fact that they do not seem to take the point on board and are spouting the same crap.

 

[richw]

Chargeback seems complicated and little known about
Reading this it seems your bank and the other parties bank need to agree their is a breach of contract to get the money back.

When can chargeback be used?

Chargeback can be used in cases of goods not arriving, arriving damaged, arriving not as described, or where the merchant has ceased trading.

You can ask your card provider to try to claw back the money you paid or part of it using our template letter to make a chargeback claim.

If, for example, you ordered two items but only one arrived, you can ask for the money back on the item you didn't receive. But you can't claim back the cost of fixing a faulty item.

Chargeback doesn't mean there is joint liability on the card company. Claims must be addressed to the bank that provides your debit or credit card, which in turn will put in a request to the merchant's bank.

As a result, you could get your money back from the merchant's bank if the money is there to be recovered.

But, there are no guarantees your bank will be able to recover the money through chargeback, or that the trader will accept that you were justified in taking the money back.

The trader could argue that you're in breach of contract for not paying.

Conditions of chargeback

The main requirement for getting your money back through chargeback is evidence that there's been a breach of contract.

Time limit There is a time limit on chargeback claims - typically 120 days - which starts from the day you become aware of a problem. There is also an overall cut off point of 540 days for Visa chargeback. Therefore, your deadline for requesting a chargeback is 120 days from discovering you have a problem, or 540 days from the transaction date, whichever comes first.

Shop/online purchase In the case of tangible goods that you've purchased from a high street shop or an online retailer, the time limit on chargeback would start from the day you receive your items.

Flight purchase In the case of an airline going bust after you've booked a flight, the breach of contract would be from the day the flight was due to depart. However, if an airline had told you at an earlier date that the flight would not be going ahead, the breach of contract that allows for chargeback would not apply.