Refused Claim for Taxi

[WillBtrnz]

Hello everyone, first time poster here looking for some help please. TIA

I pre-purchased tickets with cross country using the nationalrail website. Tickets from Southampton central to oxford on the 9th November 2025 at 1015.

I arrived at the station early and could see there were lots of cancellations.

I queued up and asked what the problem was and was informed by a memeber of SWR staff that engineering works had over run and currently no trains running. I asked about replacement buses and was told there werent any and passengers are advised to get a taxi and claim it back but another engineering works update would be made soon.

I waited for the next update and the more cancellations were made, i was told there was a crack in the line so trains cannot use the line until it's fixed. I was advised to get a taxi to Basingstoke the next servicable station on my route to Oxford by SWR staff at Southampton Central.

I have submitted my claim to Crosscountry who are refusing to refund the cost of the taxi as SWR advised me to get the taxi. I cannot claim with SWR as i am a crosscountry customer.


Please advise is there any hope of getting the taxi fare returned?

 

[Watershed]

SWR act as CrossCountry's agents at the stations they manage. The suggestion that you can't claim for the taxi because it wasn't a member of XC staff who advised you is ridiculous, especially since there could never be a XC member of staff at the station, because they don't manage any stations themselves.

Based on what you've described you acted perfectly reasonably in waiting for updates, waiting for replacement buses and ultimately speaking to station staff, and then only taking a taxi presumably as far as Basingstoke rather than all the way to Oxford.

I would send in a Letter Before Claim to CrossCountry giving them 14 days to pay before you bring a County Court claim against them. There's no point messing about with the Rail Ombudsman in our experience - they are utterly useless and mostly just take whatever a train company says at face value, without even stopping to think whether it makes any sense.

Happy to help with drafting such a letter if you'd like. Of course if you prefer to still consider the Ombudsman option first, we can guide you through that too.

 

[WillBtrnz]

Thanks so much for that, sounds hopeful. Yes please help with the letter I'd really appreciate

 

[Watershed]

There are several templates available online, I would start with something like the one on the Which? website and fill in the relevant details. If you can upload your draft LBC we can suggest any changes that might help.

For the section that refers to an ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) scheme, this is where the Rail Ombudsman would be an option - but I would state that you do not consider them to be an effective ADR scheme and therefore instead propose 'discussion and negotiation' as per the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct.

Presumably you have also filed a Delay Repay claim based on your delay in arriving at Oxford? This should result in you getting compensation of up to 100% of the cost of your ticket depending on the length of your delay - this entitlement is on top of getting reimbursed for your taxi. If you haven't filed a claim yet, it is unfortunately now too late to do so as you need to submit it within 28 days of the journey. However you would still be entitled to a smaller amount of delay compensation (25-50% depending on the delay) under the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO). There is no 28-day time limit for a PRO claim, so it's only subject to the general 6-year rule for civil claims in England.

You would also be entitled to claim for reimbursement of any reasonable food and drink expenses you incurred in the delay, though presumably you wouldn't have any receipts anymore. If you paid by card and the location makes it sufficiently clear it would have been during the journey (e.g. if it says "Costa Southampton Central") then this would still be worth pursuing in my view.

Finally you are entitled to claim for a fixed sum of £50 if you begin a civil claim, for costs associated with bringing your claim. This is under Civil Procedure Rule 45.17 - see the table here. You can't claim much more than this even if it goes to a hearing - essentially just interest on the amount claimed (usually at 8%), plus travel expenses and time off work. It probably won't make a huge difference to the way XC respond, but I would still mention this in your LBC as an amount you'd be claiming if it goes to Court.

The Which? template mentions 28 days for a response but this is a fairly simple claim so I don't think you need to give them more than 14 days. Make sure you have your bank details on the letter (obviously redact those before you send us your template), or state if you prefer a cheque.

 

[z444z]

[deleted, raised a question that had already been answered, I concur with Watershed’s excellent advice!]

 

[Haywain]

Going against the grain here but I think the taxi fare should be claimed from SWR.

 

[Watershed]

Going against the grain here but I think the taxi fare should be claimed from SWR.

What would the OP's contractual (or other) basis be for doing so?

 

[LowLevel]

Going against the grain here but I think the taxi fare should be claimed from SWR.

Nah, Cross Country pay a station access fee to SWR to provide customer service staff in lieu of them not having their own staff available.

They're entitled to provide advice on behalf of Cross Country and if Cross Country are unsatisfied they should take it up internally. I worked for a station servicing Cross Country and considered by them to be a hub station some years ago and it was basically the case that we acted on their behalf.

Just customer relations staff being rubbish.

 

[WillBtrnz]

Thanks everyone for this excellent advice, really helps. Will get onto them tomorrow

 

[Haywain]

What would the OP's contractual (or other) basis be for doing so?

That it was SWR who advised the OP to do that. Without knowing what tickets were held, they may also provide a contractual basis for such a claim.

 

[island]

That it was SWR who advised the OP to do that. Without knowing what tickets were held, they may also provide a contractual basis for such a claim.

It would be difficult to claim that a contract was formed between the OP and SWR by the actions of a random SWR staff member, not least because no consideration was given by the passenger.

If the ticket held had validity on SWR then there might be an argument on that front.

 

[Haywain]

It would be difficult to claim that a contract was formed between the OP and SWR by the actions of a random SWR staff member, not least because no consideration was given by the passenger.

Except that this was, effectively, a case of mutual ticket acceptance. In my view.

 

[z444z]

It would be difficult to claim that a contract was formed between the OP and SWR by the actions of a random SWR staff member

My understanding is that a contract could have been formed if found that a reasonable person would take the view that the staff member had authority to enter into such a contract on behalf of the company. If the staff member told the OP to pay for a taxi and that SWR would reimburse the cost, and the passenger agreed, would that not form a contract?

 

[island]

My understanding is that a contract could have been formed if found that a reasonable person would take the view that the staff member had authority to enter into such a contract on behalf of the company. If the staff member told the OP to pay for a taxi and that SWR would reimburse the cost, and the passenger agreed, would that not form a contract?

No. In the law of England and Wales, for a contract to subsist between two parties, each party must give consideration. This means giving up something, promising something, etc. In the example where a staff member promises something to the passenger and the passenger gives nothing in return, the law considers this a "bare promise" and it is not legally binding. (The law of consideration says that past consideration is no consideration, so the amount previously paid for the ticket does not count.) The staff member's authority or not to bind the company doesn't arise.

Except that this was, effectively, a case of mutual ticket acceptance. In my view.

I understand, but I don't agree unless the ticket had validity on SWR, as previously mentioned.

 

[z444z]

No. In the law of England and Wales, for a contract to subsist between two parties, each party must give consideration. This means giving up something, promising something, etc. In the example where a staff member promises something to the passenger and the passenger gives nothing in return, the law considers this a "bare promise" and it is not legally binding. (The law of consideration says that past consideration is no consideration, so the amount previously paid for the ticket does not count.)

Thanks for clarifying