Luton fire refund

[spag23]

GTR are declining to refund tickets from St Albans City to Luton Parkway, which we couldn't use due to Luton Airport (LUA, our final destination) being closed because of the car park being on fire.
I'd bought a pair of open return ToD tickets SAC><LTN, and collected them the day before travel from the TVM.
In the early hours of 11th October Easyjet cancelled our flight (scheduled for just four hours later) and the Airport told everyone to stay away. The Dart (for which we had separate tickets) was closed.
Fortunately Easyjet could offer a substitute flight from Gatwick at around the same time. So we hastily booked return tickets to Gatwick from SAC. At SAC, at 0400, there were no announcements that LUA was closed (not good customer service). But we were now travelling the opposite way anyway.
A week later we flew back into LUA, and obviously (!) used the return portion of our original tickets to travel home to SAC.
But Southern/GTR are refusing to refund the unused outward SAC>LTN tickets, on the grounds that we'd used the return portion. They said it's "often better" to not to use them, but to buy fresh singles. GTR say their T&Cs allow this refund rejection, but I can't see it in the NRCoT or their Charter.
I've challenged this, but would welcome thoughts.

 

[skyhigh]

You are entitled to a full refund if there is Railway disruption and you abandoned your journey. If it's outside of the Railway (i.e. airport you're travelling to closed due to a fire) then normal refund rules apply.

 

[AlterEgo]

GTR are declining to refund tickets from St Albans City to Luton Parkway, which we couldn't use due to Luton Airport (LUA, our final destination) being closed because of the car park being on fire.
I'd bought a pair of open return ToD tickets SAC><LTN, and collected them the day before travel from the TVM.
In the early hours of 11th October Easyjet cancelled our flight (scheduled for just four hours later) and the Airport told everyone to stay away. The Dart (for which we had separate tickets) was closed.
Fortunately Easyjet could offer a substitute flight from Gatwick at around the same time. So we hastily booked return tickets to Gatwick from SAC. At SAC, at 0400, there were no announcements that LUA was closed (not good customer service). But we were now travelling the opposite way anyway.
A week later we flew back into LUA, and obviously (!) used the return portion of our original tickets to travel home to SAC.
But Southern/GTR are refusing to refund the unused outward SAC>LTN tickets, on the grounds that we'd used the return portion. They said it's "often better" to not to use them, but to buy fresh singles. GTR say their T&Cs allow this refund rejection, but I can't see it in the NRCoT or their Charter.
I've challenged this, but would welcome thoughts.

One for your travel insurance I'm afraid. If trains were running it's not their problem and they won't refund you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One for your travel insurance I'm afraid. If trains were running it's not their problem and they won't refund you.

Presumably such a claim could also include the cost of the unexpected travel to Gatwick? It'd probably not be worth claiming the single figure difference between the single and return for that journey.

Or would a fire like that be considered an act of God and so they'd not pay out?

 

[Haywain]

As above, there was no disruption to the rail journey you had bought tickets for, so no refund is due. Furthermore, if you had bought a return ticket and then used the return portion there will be no refund due on the outward portion as that is considered used once the return journey has commenced. I am afraid you are going to have to put this one down to experience. Fortunately, there isn't a large amount of money involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2023 ==

One for your travel insurance

Subject to any applicable excess...

 

[Watershed]

This is a situation where you should make a claim with the airline. It's their obligation to get you from your contracted origin to your contracted destination airport; if an airport is shut and they fly you from another airport, they have to get you there - or reimburse your reasonable expenses in doing so.

Whether or not the cause of the airport closure is under the airline's control is irrelevant; indeed, airlines even had to pay up for expenses after the eruption of the Icelandic volcano back in 2011.

You therefore won't get a refund on your train ticket to Luton, but you should be able to claim back the cost of your new ticket to Gatwick - thus leaving you in the same position as if you'd flown from Luton.

 

[londonbridge]

What would the situation be if the OP was using contactless between St Albans and Luton Parkway?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What would the situation be if the OP was using contactless between St Albans and Luton Parkway?

They'd have paid for a single journey as that's what they did.

 

[londonbridge]

I was thinking in terms of whether they could have claimed back the difference in the contactless fare from SAC to Gatwick compared to SAC to Luton Parkway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking in terms of whether they could have claimed back the difference in the contactless fare from SAC to Gatwick compared to SAC to Luton Parkway.

From their airline or travel insurer? Yes, I'd imagine so.

 

[spag23]

Thanks for the replies.
I consider that there was disruption to my journey, as there was no onward connection from Thameslink's LTN onto the (cancelled) Dart towards LUA (we'd not bought tickets for this leg, as they were free to us bus pass holders).
I agree the Outward ticket would be considered "used" for travel purposes, but I don't see where this concept is contained in the Refund Terms.
Our holiday insurance is of no help, as the sums involved are below the excess.
I know that claiming off the airline would be an uphill task; last year Easyjet refused to pay out on a 26 hour flight delay, saying the unavailability of an aircrew was due their being delayed by an earlier flight's delay. Not an allowed excuse under EC261.
But hey ho.
At least we hadn't parked in Luton Airport's multi-storey

 

[John R]

From their airline or travel insurer? Yes, I'd imagine so.

I agree with this, although probably best that we don't stray into hypothetical situations and keep the thread to providing advice based on the situation that OP is in.

 

[skyhigh]

I consider that there was disruption to my journey, as there was no onward connection from Thameslink's LTN onto the (cancelled) Dart towards LUA (we'd not bought tickets for this leg, as they were free to us bus pass holders).

Not according to the definition used in the NRCOT.

Your Right to a Refund If Your Train Is Disrupted and You Choose Not to Travel
30.1 Conditions 30.1 – 30.4 cover all Tickets other than Season Tickets, and also apply if you
have begun your journey but are unable to complete it due to a delay to, or
cancellation of, your service. In such cases, you are permitted to return to your point
of origin and still get a refund.
You may return an unused Ticket to the original retailer or Train Company from whom
it was purchased, where you will be given a full refund with no administration fee
charged, if you decide not to travel because the train you intended to use is: • cancelled, or • delayed, or • rescheduled from that in Published Timetable of the Day after you have purchased a
Ticket or Tickets, or • your reservation will not be honoured

The trains were running fine, that any other services not provided by the railway weren't operating is irrelevant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with this, although probably best that we don't stray into hypothetical situations and keep the thread to providing advice based on the situation that OP is in.

It's not hypothetical. The situation they are in involves a flight and travel insurance (presumably).

 

[John R]

It's not hypothetical. The situation they are in involves a flight and travel insurance (presumably).

It is, because in the original post they say they had already bought their tickets and collected them the day before. So the question about contactless is not relevant to the advice they are looking for.

 

[sheff1]

One for your travel insurance I'm afraid.

Why would it be an insurance claim if the airline provided an alternative flight and, as stated above, should also cover the cost of getting to the point of departure of that flight ?

 

[spag23]

Not according to the definition used in the NRCOT.

NRCoT 32.1 says: If you are delayed in reaching your destination as a result of a delay or cancellation of a train service, you may be entitled to claim compensation from the Train Company that is responsible for the delay in completing your journey. Your claim can be made to any Train Company whose services you used to make your journey, who will, if necessary, forward your claim to the Train Company responsible."

Since its ticketing is embedded in the national fares structure, I take it Luton Dart counts as a "Train Company"?
NRCoT 33.4 says that for delays >60 minutes (=cancellation), compensation is regardless of the operator not being at fault.

So maybe Thameslink should be forwarding my claim to Luton Dart?

 

[Hadders]

Luton Dart is not a Train Operating Company.

 

[skyhigh]

Since its ticketing is embedded in the national fares structure, I take it Luton Dart counts as a "Train Company"?

No, it doesn't.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I know the railways don't excel at customer service, but in this case they are right. The rail services were running fine, they have no reason to provide a fee-free refund for services they provided but which you didn't need because of someone else's fault.

 

[Class800]

As above, there was no disruption to the rail journey you had bought tickets for, so no refund is due. Furthermore, if you had bought a return ticket and then used the return portion there will be no refund due on the outward portion as that is considered used once the return journey has commenced. I am afraid you are going to have to put this one down to experience. Fortunately, there isn't a large amount of money involved.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Oct 2023 ==


Subject to any applicable excess...

This seems rather obtuse when it's an airport station and in fact the airport station should be closed if the airport is closed? Another example of business being essentially self serving which isn't a good thing

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems rather obtuse when it's an airport station and in fact the airport station should be closed if the airport is closed? Another example of business being essentially self serving which isn't a good thing

Luton Airport Parkway is basically Luton South. It isn't just for the airport.

 

[scrapy]

Whilst I agree with the assessment that no refund is due, the railway industry isn't exactly consistent in helping air travellers. When Flybe and Thomas Cook went bust and I think during the ash cloud event, the rail industry were offering free free changes and refunds, and even free journeys to those who arrived back to different airports whether or not they had booked rail travel in the first place. The fire.at Luton is just as disruptive to many travellers yet no allowances are being made.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I agree with the assessment that no refund is due, the railway industry isn't exactly consistent in helping air travellers. When Flybe and Thomas Cook went bust the rail industry were offering free free changes and refunds, and even free journeys to those who arrived back to different airports. The fire.at Luton is just as disruptive to many travellers yet no allowances are being made.

Is this possibly because (and I get that getting it out of them may be hard) the airline is liable in this case, whereas in the case of FlymayBe or Thomas Cook the airline didn't exist to pay for it?

Someone mentioned the exceptions to EU/UK261 above - the exceptions don't apply to the requirement for the airline to pay for travel to an alternate airport or to provide accommodation for an overnight delay. They only apply to the compensation element, which was just intended as a means of penalising airlines for deliberately overbooking flights or advertising flights they had no intention of operating (both of which I've experienced before) and not as a sort of airline Delay Repay.

 

[skyhigh]

This seems rather obtuse when it's an airport station and in fact the airport station should be closed if the airport is closed? Another example of business being essentially self serving which isn't a good thing

You clearly have no knowledge of the station. It's not a station that exists solely for the airport, there is plenty of local usage. Closing it because the airport is shut would be even more obtuse.

 

[dosxuk]

Since its ticketing is embedded in the national fares structure, I take it Luton Dart counts as a "Train Company"?
NRCoT 33.4 says that for delays >60 minutes (=cancellation), compensation is regardless of the operator not being at fault.

So maybe Thameslink should be forwarding my claim to Luton Dart?

Others have covered the Dart not being a TOC, so I'll skip that.

If you had a through ticket to the airport then you might possibly have something to go on, but since you were only ticketed to Luton Airport Parkway, from where you were intending to use your bus pass to continue travelling, as far as the rail industry is concerned your final destination is Luton Airport Parkway - to which services were operating normally.

Furthermore, delays and cancellations are treated completely differently, with different resolutions and procedures. You can not use the NRCoT terms about delays to base how cancellations should be treated.

 

[spag23]

It's ironic that I'd collected the ToD tickets to LTN on the day before travel, precisely to avoid any issues with the TVM machine at 0500 on the day of travel, and with the ticket office closed. In the event we had to hastily book SAC>GAT tickets at 0300, with a ToD pickup at SAC at 0400; the train to GAT (for a 0740 flight) taking an hour longer than to LTN.
Had I risked leaving the original ToD collection to the last minute, I obviously would not have collected them; and simply got an auto-refund.
So Thameslink was actually benefitting from this travel disruption; we paid for a second, longer journey than planned. I know that the disruption was not Thameslink's fault (but see below for the poor station comms).
Incidentally I never said that EC261 applies to the airline in this scenario.
And I hadn't asked for the refund had to be fee-free.
That said, I'd like to think that Customer Services might take into account the extraordinary circumstances and so refund (perhaps fee-free) a journey that they know a national travel emergency left us unable to meaningfully use.

And the fact we didn't use the SAC>LTN ticket is no thanks to Thameslink. As mentioned in post #1, SAC station staff provided no signage or PA announcements that the Airport was closed. So any airport passenger who turned up at SAC at 0500 without watching the News would have found themselves stranded at a packed LTN, with little prospect of arranging a substitute flight.

 

[Watershed]

I know that claiming off the airline would be an uphill task; last year Easyjet refused to pay out on a 26 hour flight delay, saying the unavailability of an aircrew was due their being delayed by an earlier flight's delay. Not an allowed excuse under EC261.
But hey ho.
At least we hadn't parked in Luton Airport's multi-storey

Not necessarily so - airlines tend to be much more readily prepared to pay for EU/UK261 expenses than compensation. There is no 'exceptional circumstances' defence to expenses; indeed pretty much the only defences to paying expenses in this kind of case would be if they alleged they had offered alternative transport, or that your expenses were unreasonable (in which case they could cap you at what was reasonable).

Neither of these seem to apply so you have a pretty open and shut case for claiming your expenses. I submitted an expenses claim to easyJet this summer and they agreed to pay within about 2 weeks; obviously, that's just an anecdote but I'd definitely submit a claim.

Re your previously refused compensation, you can still pursue this if you like (you have 6 years from the date of the flight to do so). Unlike the rail industry, most airlines are members of a reasonably competent alternative dispute resolution provider - in easyJet's case, CEDR. This is a free option that may well get you what you're owed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Re your previously refused compensation, you can still pursue this if you like (you have 6 years from the date of the flight to do so). Unlike the rail industry, most airlines are members of a reasonably competent alternative dispute resolution provider - in easyJet's case, CEDR. This is a free option that may well get you what you're owed.

It's often said on LBC's Legal Hour that with ADR services the company incurs a processing fee of around a hundred quid as soon as a case is taken to one regardless of liability, and as such companies are enthusiastic to avoid this happening. Thus, if the claim is fairly small, simply mentioning you intend to do so and requesting the necessary deadlock letter (an explicit statement by the company that they will not further progress your complaint) may cause them to cough up.

 

[spag23]

I've followed Watershed's advice and submitted the Gatwick fare claim to Easyjet. But I'm expecting a rejection, as my wife's name does not - as demanded - appear on the Thameslink receipt. I could see no text box to explain the circumstances, or mention escalation.
Regarding last year's EC261 flight delay claim, this was rejected by both Easyjet and ADR.
A specialist claim company declined to take the case, on the basis that Easyjet had provided a hotel and a flight the next day. I thought they were obliged to do that anyway, in addition to the scheduled compensation. They'd also said that the inbound flight suffering a weather delay was a valid excuse for our own (fine weather) flight being delayed. But that some company boasts in their adverts that they'd established in Court that this selfsame excuse was not valid. I remain confused.
Anyway, this airline aspect is maybe getting a bit OT