Rerouting when delayed

[SirAlf]

Can someone please clarify a rule for me? I was booked Chesterfield - Grantham - Ely on split tickets, both EMR advances. My train at 1155 was cancelled and the next one at 1254 was delayed by about 40 minutes. I could therefore get to Ely quicker via Leicester

As I understood the rules *any* train company was supposed to help me with rerouting if I had a delay > 1 hour.

But Chesterfield would only reroute my journey to Leicester and told me to buy a new ticket Leicester to Ely because it was a different train company.

Have I got the rules wrong?

 

[LowLevel]

It all sounds so blissfully easy when people quote the European regulations on here but of course it isn't. Short of paying out yourself to take the train operator to court you have little to no chance of success in using said passenger rights for domestic UK operations.

They feature in no training for front line staff that I'm aware of (I've been a train guard for a long time and I'd never heard of them until people started quoting them as a solution on here) and you'll struggle to get any customer relations staff or managers to acknowledge their existence either, again, probably because they genuinely aren't aware of them.

The penalties for non compliance are vague at best.

There is no compulsion on the alternative train operator to accept or make arrangements for your rerouting, so theoretically you are reliant on the original train operator buying you a new ticket and handing it to you, which, again is unlikely.

Outside of the UK rail industry's own "Customer Service Level 2 (CSL2)" arrangements for ticket acceptance between TOCs in disruption, or individual arrangements made for particular trains, you are likely to be told to lump it and claim delay repay or buy your own ticket.

I make no comment as to the rights and wrongs of this situation but this is the reality on the ground for what the UK TOCs see, rightly or wrongly, as a fairly trivial short delay of sub 2 hours.

For what it's worth it is no different in mainland Europe, except that you're much more likely to have them wash your hands of you entirely over there.

In conclusion - you are very unlikely to get a positive result on a given day by arguing your rights under the European PRO at a UK ticket office.

 

[redreni]

Wouldn't it be in both train companies' interests for EMR to save the delay repay and pass, say, 90% of the saving on to the other company (cross-country?) in return for accepting the person's ticket?

I mean, I'm probably way out of line for suggesting that an approach a normal industry might take if they valued customer satisfaction and repeat business and thinking it could possibly be relevant to the rail industry in Britain, but there we are.

 

[Deafdoggie]

Wouldn't it be in both train companies' interests for EMR to save the delay repay and pass, say, 90% of the saving on to the other company (cross-country?) in return for accepting the person's ticket?

I mean, I'm probably way out of line for suggesting that an approach a normal industry might take if they valued customer satisfaction and repeat business and thinking it could possibly be relevant to the rail industry in Britain, but there we are.

A coordinated railway system. Working in passengers interests. Funniest post I've ever read

 

[Haywain]

Wouldn't it be in both train companies' interests for EMR to save the delay repay and pass, say, 90% of the saving on to the other company (cross-country?) in return for accepting the person's ticket?

I mean, I'm probably way out of line for suggesting that an approach a normal industry might take if they valued customer satisfaction and repeat business and thinking it could possibly be relevant to the rail industry in Britain, but there we are.

How would it be in CrossCountry's interest to carry fir nothing someone who hasn't paid to ne on their service to save another company paying compensation? And in which other industries would this sort of thing happen?

 

[redreni]

How would it be in CrossCountry's interest to carry fir nothing someone who hasn't paid to ne on their service to save another company paying compensation? And in which other industries would this sort of thing happen?

It wouldn't. That is not what I suggested.

 

[sprunt]

It wouldn't. That is not what I suggested.

It's not what you suggested, although I would suggest that it might be in all the TOCs' interests to agree to carry each other's passengers without a charge in these circumstances because it would reduce the delay repay for all of them over time.

 

[thedbdiboy]

As I understood the rules *any* train company was supposed to help me with rerouting if I had a delay > 1 hour.


Have I got the rules wrong?

The key words you have omitted that appears in the legislation is 'where they reasonably can'.

Whilst there is plenty of froth and fury on this and other sites about what people think it should mean, it's never been established in law. The word is vague enough to allow for it to mean almost anything.

Presumably one day it will get tested in court - but anything that risks driving up Government costs is likely to be quickly nipped in the bud.

 

[Watershed]

The key words you have omitted that appears in the legislation is 'where they reasonably can'.

There is no such caveat in terms of the obligation to re-route passengers:

Where it is reasonably to be expected that the delay in the arrival at the final destination under the transport contract will be more than 60 minutes, the passenger shall immediately have the choice between:
... (b) continuation or re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to the final destination at the earliest opportunity;

Whilst there is plenty of froth and fury on this and other sites about what people think it should mean, it's never been established in law.

It's long established in law that the equivalent obligation in EU261 (which has identical wording in all material respects) imbues an obligation to rebook passengers at the earliest opportunity, using other operators or even modes of transport where appropriate.

It would be implausible to argue that the same words have a fundamentally different meaning in the PRO, and to do so would be to argue the existence of an exception or limitation to the law which simply does not exist.

The Recitals to EU261 set out the Regulation's aim of achieving a high level of consumer protection and have been influential in the interpretation of that Regulation. The PRO has very similar Recitals - again, it would be implausible to argue that a narrow, anti-consumer interpretation should be taken.

The word is vague enough to allow for it to mean almost anything.

Which part of the above-quoted legislation are you suggesting is vague?

Presumably one day it will get tested in court - but anything that risks driving up Government costs is likely to be quickly nipped in the bud.

That's as may be, but for the time being the law stands and TOCs must abide by it.

As for the suggestion it may increase government costs, I'm afraid that's the opposite of what happened here; had the OP been re-routed via Leicester (as was EMR's obligation) they would have been delayed by 30-59 minutes and so only entitled to receive 50% of their fare in Delay Repay. By refusing to re-route them, EMR increased the delay to well over 60 minutes and so doubled their Delay Repay liability.

In any event the purported "cost" of re-routing is a pathetic exercise in wooden dollars, given that the revenues of almost all TOCs (including both EMR and XC) flow to the government. I might have a shred of sympathy for the argument if we were talking about Lumo vs LNER, for example, but that's not the case.

 

[miklcct]

Presumably one day it will get tested in court - but anything that risks driving up Government costs is likely to be quickly nipped in the bud.

Can you explain the last sentence? The UK is a country with rule of law where the Government isn't above the law like everyone else.

 

[Haywain]

It wouldn't. That is not what I suggested.

My apologies for misunderstanding the words "in both train companies' interests".

 

[thedbdiboy]

There is no such caveat in terms of the obligation to re-route passengers:

It's long established in law that the equivalent obligation in EU261 (which has identical wording in all material respects) imbues an obligation to rebook passengers at the earliest opportunity, using other operators or even modes of transport where appropriate.

It would be implausible to argue that the same words have a fundamentally different meaning in the PRO, and to do so would be to argue the existence of an exception or limitation to the law which simply does not exist.

The Recitals to EU261 set out the Regulation's aim of achieving a high level of consumer protection and have been influential in the interpretation of that Regulation. The PRO has very similar Recitals - again, it would be implausible to argue that a narrow, anti-consumer interpretation should be taken.

Which part of the above-quoted legislation are you suggesting is vague?

That's as may be, but for the time being the law stands and TOCs must abide by it.

As for the suggestion it may increase government costs, I'm afraid that's the opposite of what happened here; had the OP been re-routed via Leicester (as was EMR's obligation) they would have been delayed by 30-59 minutes and so only entitled to receive 50% of their fare in Delay Repay. By refusing to re-route them, EMR increased the delay to well over 60 minutes and so doubled their Delay Repay liability.

In any event the purported "cost" of re-routing is a pathetic exercise in wooden dollars, given that the revenues of almost all TOCs (including both EMR and XC) flow to the government. I might have a shred of sympathy for the argument if we were talking about Lumo vs LNER, for example, but that's not the case.

Re delays, yes of course you're right.

In terms of stating that TOCs need to abide by the law, yes, they do but the remedy in case of failure to do so is ultimately through the courts.

You're right that in this case the 'cost' would have been lower but the problem I see is that there is a mess of overlapping bits of legislation and/or conditions covering delay and re-routing requirements which are hard for customers to understand and it would appear even harder for TOCs to apply consistently. It is a symptom too of a network being operated via individual TOC contracts so that the overall cost/benefit between them is completely lost.

My observation is very much one of a fag-end Government with no bandwidth or ambition to try and sort things out until/unless things make it to court. It's certainly not a defence of what is a very far from ideal situation.

 

[LowLevel]

There is no such caveat in terms of the obligation to re-route passengers:



It's long established in law that the equivalent obligation in EU261 (which has identical wording in all material respects) imbues an obligation to rebook passengers at the earliest opportunity, using other operators or even modes of transport where appropriate.

It would be implausible to argue that the same words have a fundamentally different meaning in the PRO, and to do so would be to argue the existence of an exception or limitation to the law which simply does not exist.

The Recitals to EU261 set out the Regulation's aim of achieving a high level of consumer protection and have been influential in the interpretation of that Regulation. The PRO has very similar Recitals - again, it would be implausible to argue that a narrow, anti-consumer interpretation should be taken.


Which part of the above-quoted legislation are you suggesting is vague?


That's as may be, but for the time being the law stands and TOCs must abide by it.

As for the suggestion it may increase government costs, I'm afraid that's the opposite of what happened here; had the OP been re-routed via Leicester (as was EMR's obligation) they would have been delayed by 30-59 minutes and so only entitled to receive 50% of their fare in Delay Repay. By refusing to re-route them, EMR increased the delay to well over 60 minutes and so doubled their Delay Repay liability.

In any event the purported "cost" of re-routing is a pathetic exercise in wooden dollars, given that the revenues of almost all TOCs (including both EMR and XC) flow to the government. I might have a shred of sympathy for the argument if we were talking about Lumo vs LNER, for example, but that's not the case.

"The law stands and TOCs must abide by it"

Except they don't, do they?

 

[Watershed]

You're right that in this case the 'cost' would have been lower but the problem I see is that there is a mess of overlapping bits of legislation and/or conditions covering delay and re-routing requirements which are hard for customers to understand and it would appear even harder for TOCs to apply consistently. It is a symptom too of a network being operated via individual TOC contracts so that the overall cost/benefit between them is completely lost.

The NRCoT were modified so as to pay lip service to the PRO, but frontline briefings to explain the new rights have never really been created or distributed. The situation is a mess, but in my view it's entirely of the industry's own making, even within the myopic industry structure.

In terms of stating that TOCs need to abide by the law, yes, they do but the remedy in case of failure to do so is ultimately through the courts.

"The law stands and TOCs must abide by it"

Except they don't, do they?

"Must" isn't the same as "do", of course

As above, in practice it simply serves to give a right of recourse for when TOCs inevitably act in breach of their obligations. Sadly the regulator appears to have no interest in enforcing the law or indeed the licence conditions it rather pointlessly imposed on the TOCs (requiring them to comply with the PRO), so it falls on individuals to take TOCs to Court when need be.

On the plus side, in my experience the TOCs tend to cough up when they receive a Court claim form at their registered office

 

[Wolfie]

"The law stands and TOCs must abide by it"

Except they don't, do they?

If they face a barrage of County Court cases as a result, which will cost them serious money in employing lawyers, let's not hear moans from some on here....

 

[yorkie]

Wouldn't it be in both train companies' interests for EMR to save the delay repay and pass, say, 90% of the saving on to the other company (cross-country?) in return for accepting the person's ticket?

You mean taxpayers interests? Yes it would but not many train companies are particularly bothered about that.

I mean, I'm probably way out of line for suggesting that an approach a normal industry might take if they valued customer satisfaction and repeat business and thinking it could possibly be relevant to the rail industry in Britain, but there we are.

Generally speaking, when things go wrong, the rail industry does not act in a way that indicates a value customers. Individual companies are all too often only interested in the (short term) interests for themselves. If passengers abandon rail then this isn't an issue because TOCs still get funding. The Government is happy because they don't need to find so much stock.

If they face a barrage of County Court cases as a result, which will cost them serious money in employing lawyers, let's not hear moans from some on here....

What a strange post; are you condoning behaviour by train companies that is against consumer rights legislation, against the interest of passengers/taxpayers, purely on the basis that if people stood up for their rights it would cost train companies money?

The right answers have been posted by @Watershed.

 

[Wolfie]

You mean taxpayers interests? Yes it would but not many train companies are bothered about that.

What a strange post; are you condoning behaviour by train companies that is against consumer rights legislation, against the interest of passengers/taxpayers, purely on the basis that if people stood up for their rights it would cost train companies money?

Re your second para no, far from it. I am saying that many on here defend frankly appalling behaviour by the rail industry come what may.

 

[yorkie]

Re your second para no, far from it. I am saying that many on here defend frankly appalling behaviour by the rail industry come what may.

Ok, that's a relief as I had read it that you were saying the opposite! That's a problem with saying 'some on here ' when there are two opposing sides

 

[Wolfie]

Ok, that's a relief as I had read it that you were saying the opposite! That's a problem with saying 'some on here ' when there are two opposing sides

True enough