Lumo Revenue Enforcement on Strike Day

[John Palmer]

I do not see the significance of any route or operator restrictions to which the tickets held by the OP were subject. As advance tickets, they were only valid on the 10:27 Newcastle departure (presumably the three advances covered travel on different legs of the same train's journey), and they were not valid on any other train, LNER services included. As @furlong points out in post #195, if prevented by disruption from using those tickets their holder was compelled to rely on other contractual provisions. Foremost amongst these is NRCoT 28.2, and I would argue that this condition became engaged by cancellation of the 10:27 service. Train Companies' obligations under that condition are not qualified by route or operator restrictions that had been applicable to the tickets for the disrupted journey, a point reinforced by the corresponding absence of any such qualification to the following passage in Condition 5 of the Advance Tickets Conditions of Use: “If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.” No mention there of the next available train having to be one provided by the operator of the disrupted service. In these circumstances I would be disinclined to concede in correspondence that the OP was at fault in making use of the Lumo train, and agree with @MrJeeves that the letter to Lumo should mention its obligations under Condition 28.2.

 

[gray1404]

Has the OP written an appeal against the UFN yet to LUMO?

 

[Western Sunset]

I do not see the significance of any route or operator restrictions to which the tickets held by the OP were subject. As advance tickets, they were only valid on the 10:27 Newcastle departure (presumably the three advances covered travel on different legs of the same train's journey), and they were not valid on any other train, LNER services included. As @furlong points out in post #195, if prevented by disruption from using those tickets their holder was compelled to rely on other contractual provisions. Foremost amongst these is NRCoT 28.2, and I would argue that this condition became engaged by cancellation of the 10:27 service. Train Companies' obligations under that condition are not qualified by route or operator restrictions that had been applicable to the tickets for the disrupted journey, a point reinforced by the corresponding absence of any such qualification to the following passage in Condition 5 of the Advance Tickets Conditions of Use: “If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.” No mention there of the next available train having to be one provided by the operator of the disrupted service. In these circumstances I would be disinclined to concede in correspondence that the OP was at fault in making use of the Lumo train, and agree with @MrJeeves that the letter to Lumo should mention its obligations under Condition 28.2.

I agree with John.

Keep it all simple. Focus on 1027 being cancelled; next available London service 1055.

 

[AdamWW]

I would argue, as per my last post, the TOC restriction is that you can only used the booked service (hence the TOC for that booked service), and then any TOC for the connections either side of that booked leg. Sure, it would have a mixture of TOCs but the key point is that LNER will be one of them, and it will almost certainly be the booked service, by my understanding, and that portion of the journey hence bears the TOC restriction. I do this this is definitely a point up for debate, though.

I do agree, actually, that the splitting of tickets has likely caused an issue here, though... I didn't think of that.

Some time ago I came across what purpoted to be a GNER (or subsequent franchisee - I forget) internal guidance document online (suitably redacted). where it said that some travel planners would sell a GNER only ticket for journeys that only had a very small portion on GNER, but since the same planners would sell other operator tickets where the main part was actually on GNER they were content to leave well alone.

 

[Rugose]

Has the OP written an appeal against the UFN yet to LUMO?

There doesn't seem to be a "right of appeal" against Lumo's issuing of the UFN, as Mak1981 pointed out (#205). Given the tight deadline I've been given for paying (Tues 11 April, the day after Easter Monday) I have emailed Lumo's agent the letter I posted yesterday (#236) requesting that they reconsider.

Thank you John Palmer (#241), Western Sunset (#243) and others for helpful comments. In my letter I don't specifically mention the obligations on Lumo under NRCoT section 28.2 but make the more general point about "the lack of cooperation between Lumo and LNER following my train’s cancellation on a strike day". However, my letter was accompanied by a more detailed helpful letter from my tickets' vendor, TrainSplit, which does address obligations under NRCoT. Part of their letter says:

"I would like to remind Lumo of its obligations as an Open Access operator under the NRCoT - in particular, condition 28.2 which reads:

> 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".

 

[ModernRailways]

There doesn't seem to be a "right of appeal" against Lumo's issuing of the UFN, as Mak1981 pointed out (#205). Given the tight deadline I've been given for paying (Tues 11 April, the day after Easter Monday) I have emailed Lumo's agent the letter I posted yesterday (#236) requesting that they reconsider.

Thank you John Palmer (#241), Western Sunset (#243) and others for helpful comments. In my letter I don't specifically mention the obligations on Lumo under NRCoT section 28.2 but make the more general point about "the lack of cooperation between Lumo and LNER following my train’s cancellation on a strike day". However, my letter was accompanied by a more detailed helpful letter from my tickets' vendor, TrainSplit, which does address obligations under NRCoT. Part of their letter says:

"I would like to remind Lumo of its obligations as an Open Access operator under the NRCoT - in particular, condition 28.2 which reads:

> 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".

Depending on the response from the First Customer Contact team, and whether it is satisfactory then you can proceed down further routes. The contact you have made (that you posted previously) is a good first response, it gives them the opportunity to look over all of the facts and the evidence you have provided. Should they wish to continue with this, and reject your appeal you can begin to use the NRCoT to your advantage.

The additional station call over a very simple ticketing matter is extremely bizarre and I am very surprised the driver didn’t tell the crew where to go. If the Lumo crew member wanted your details then these could’ve been provided on board the train and as previously stated this would’ve been £62 rather than £72 which they are claiming for.

——————
As an aside, and more out of curiosity for some of the more experienced members here, the £72 UFN will that money not go to LNER/XC (possibly TPE) as they are the only operators on that flow (NCL-DON) or does a UFN payment just go the TOC who issued it?

 

[Meole]

Would the LNER ever assist a stranded LUMO passenger without payment ?

 

[greyman42]

Would the LNER ever assist a stranded LUMO passenger without payment ?

It would depend on the circumstances and the guard.

 

[Watershed]

Would the LNER ever assist a stranded LUMO passenger without payment ?

They would be obliged to do so, if they're in a position to do so. Whether they actually would is another matter.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

They would be obliged to do so, if they're in a position to do so. Whether they actually would is another matter.

The undefined definition of "stranded" in the NRCoT does not help on that matter either

 

[Watershed]

The undefined definition of "stranded" in the NRCoT does not help on that matter either

The word stranded isn't actually used, but yes, condition 28.2 is somewhat ambiguously worded, much like the rest of the NRCoT.

 

[island]

Some time ago I came across what purpoted to be a GNER (or subsequent franchisee - I forget) internal guidance document online (suitably redacted). where it said that some travel planners would sell a GNER only ticket for journeys that only had a very small portion on GNER, but since the same planners would sell other operator tickets where the main part was actually on GNER they were content to leave well alone.

Words to this effect can still be found in internal knowledgebase article 125575.

 

[Rugose]

Resolution! A short while ago I received the following email from First Customer Contact (on behalf of Lumo):

"Thank you for taking the time to contact the Revenue recoveries and Prosecutions unit.
Please accept my apologise for the slight delay in providing a response. This was due to wanting to undertake a thorough review of the notice issued and the documentation provided.
After doing so, I have made the decision to close this matter and no further action will be taken by ourselves.
Thank you again for time and cooperation."

A big thank you to the many contributors on this Forum who provided me with helpful advice and comments. It's good to know that the expertise and experience I have benefitted from is publicly available through such a medium.

I can now see the vital importance of clarifying and enforcing train operators' obligations under NRCoT, but will leave those of you with rail service experience to discuss and pursue. This will probably be my final posting.

 

[Doubleplus]

Excellent news, a good result. It’s a shame that they didn’t apologise for anything other than the delay in responding, but at least the outcome is the best and proper one.

 

[MrJeeves]

I would have, at the very least, expected an apology for their conduct, but I suppose a "no further action" response is still far far better than an attempted prosecution.

Glad it all worked out!

 

[Western Sunset]

Short, but sweet for you. Maybe short, but slightly bitter from them...
Thanks for letting us know the resolution.

Organisations seldom sincerely apologise.
Organisations rarely (if ever) explain their actions.

 

[furlong]

And next time, they should just tell their staff to take photos of the tickets and send them to LNER saying "We've carried your passengers - please send us over the ticket money". And I'm sure LNER would be equally happy then to send Lumo the bill whenever they carry their passengers! Don't involve innocent passengers in internal railway squabbling over "unfair" revenue allocation.

 

[Segedunum]

What an embarrassing saga but I'm glad it's been resolved - even though it should have never got to this ridiculous stage.

 

[AlterEgo]

An apology would have been too much to ask. But even so, the perfunctory decision to close the case is the correct decision, and well done for sticking with it.

Strongly smacks of a case handler getting passed this dumpster fire of a case and going “oh Jesus, what a mess, the easy and right thing to do is close it!”

 

[Hadders]

A good result in the end. Well done for persevering.

 

[Watershed]

A reasonable result in the circumstances. If you are particularly aggrieved and would like to take the matter further, you might like to consider waiting until 6 months after the incident happened (to absolutely ensure there's no possibility of Lumo prosecuting, not that we've heard of them doing so in the past) and then look at the data protection angle of things. If you were entitled to use Lumo, they weren't entitled to take your details and certainly not to use them to harass you in this manner.

Obviously you may just be happy with the outcome and want nothing more to do with Lumo, in which case I'm glad we've been able to help you resolve things.

 

[PG]

I would suggest keeping that email safe for a while - just in case their left hand doesn't talk to the right hand!

 

[ModernRailways]

The correct outcome and thanks for coming back to let us know. Of course keep hold of this correspondence somewhere important.

Shame they couldn’t offer an apology but I imagine that would be more for customer relations whereby you would need to log a complaint regarding the entire situation. I imagine though that you’re just happy that it’s closed now and so will want nothing more to do with Lumo in the future, including advising against travelling with theme.

 

[RollingStock19]

I think above someone said that Lumo trains are DOO - so maybe the guard isn't even going to be standing in a doorway at station stops?

You'll probably find them standing on the platform

Would the LNER ever assist a stranded LUMO passenger without payment ?

I have a few "friends" who work for LNER, and they take great pleasure in charging LUMO passengers if they board the wrong train. I have known their station staff refuse to help Lumo customers despite it being an LNER run station where they a paid to do so.

I'd be curious who the Lumo official was in London, given that Lumo pay GC staff to assist at Kings Cross and dont have any station staff based anywhere.