In other events the normal situation would be to refund the difference between the price paid and the price of the ticket used. In the event of this being the result of a cancellation the admin fee is not applied. In the case under discussion, this would yield slightly less than the 50% that would apply for severe disruption so the difference is hardly worth arguing about.
I really don't know, maybe after 30+ years in the industry I don't see a single cancelled train as severe disruption but the author of the info does.
I would always treat it as the ticket used, and it's difficult to see why there should be a SVS fare for that journey. The internal instructions state that:
Using the SVS for the calculation would appear to require the retailer to accept that they would overcharge for the single journey.
A cancellation of the first leg of the itinerary causing a delay of an hour and missed connections absolutely is severe disruption in the context of the passenger's journey.
The use of the term 'severe disruption' is in a section which also has the clarifications that disruption is "because of bad weather and operational difficulties".
I suppose its to do with the definition of journey. Maybe they are looking at it that it's one booking and ignoring all the individual train tickets. My brother had to shoulder the cost of petrol to Crewe and back to Derby. Given the petrol crisis we were lucky he had topped up his tank.
However the cancellation of the train constitutes a breach of contract, and accordingly if OP rectified this breach by making his own way to Crewe, the railway can't simply keep all of the money OP paid - as they've fundamentally not provided the contracted service in full.
He did not have to do this. You could have taken the next available services (consulting with staff to check the details of these) and claimed Delay Repay.
From a passenger point of view, this really isn't relevant whether it is due to operational difficulties or any other reason; a delay is a delay and it's an internal rail industry matter.
Agreed; the only issue here I forsee is that the burden is taken off the train company responsible and placed on the retailer.
You could have covered the cost.
I understand, and was simply advising the facts of this.
The retailer appears to be making every effort not to make a loss on this. And this is not unfair to retailers, it is something they choose to sign up to in order to be a retailer; all train companies (well, almost all) are affected in a similar way by being required to sell tickets for all other operators.
It's a harsh practice but the same could be said about Delay Repay - whereby TOCs make a loss (or would have done under franchising) every time that a claim is made.
I think there is a very strong case to say that train companies are acting in a way that is anti-competetive but it's really a discussion for another topic; this is just the tip of the iceberg.
They do get the ORCATS revenue back, but they don't get back any of their retailing costs (fulfilment fees, card charges etc.).
Do they? I'd hazard a guess that where Network Rail is at fault, a TOC may actually profit overall from a particular delay, especially so as not all affected passengers will submit a 'Delay Repay' claim. Difficult to quantify, though, as I doubt the financial info will ever normally be in the public domain.
But in the event of a cancelled train, the OP accepts provisions in the contract that say:
Well I couldn't get on the train as they cancelled it, I couldn't abandon the whole journey home it was about 6 hours. By the way i'm a she.
I didn't want to take the next train as that would have set my back at least an hour waiting for that train to come along and in turn meant I would have to take a later train on all the successive trains. Which would results in me getting home far later, than the 9 pm I eventually got home. and risk of cancellations or delay if something cropped up along the way. I was travelling 350 miles I didn't want to get stuck somewhere on such a long train journey with my mobility issues on my own.
Sorry for the assumption!
Sorry for the assumption!
The correct thing to do in the situation where a train is cancelled, is to
However, in the situation where you decided neither to abandon your journey nor were delayed, there is nothing in the National Rail Conditions of Travel which permit you to be reimbursed in my view.
You may have other statutory rights which other posters will be better placed to advise you on
Firstly, buying multiple tickets doesn't automatically mean you are making one journey - NRCoT 14.1:
"May" means this is a right which can be exercised at the sole discretion of the passenger.
So it would be quite wrong to suggest that, just because the NRCoT bestow contractual rights such that passengers may claim a refund, or may claim Delay Repay, this means that there is no other remedy available to the passenger.
EMR aren't the retailer and you didn't use the return leg, so they're not involved.
Seems like a waste of time, I don't want to waste time going to court for £11. I can't be bothered about that, think next time I'll just fly.
I don't agree.
They could, and if they did that, their journey would be Derby to Crewe, no issue.
Never claimed the NRCoT was legally exhaustive.
That's precisely what the retailer are probably hoping you'll do - go away because it's a small amount.
That's one meaning.
And that's another meaning. None of these meanings are excluded by the way the NRCoT are drafted.
Does it have to? Sounds to me like, in the case of OP's return journey, it was Crewe to Hamilton. She never took the train from Derby to Crewe so I struggle to see how that could form part of the journey.
Can't see how the NRCoT say you must have one definition of journey and stick to it. OP would clearly have no difficulty getting a refund if she'd bought each ticket from a separate retailer, or as separate transactions. Why should she be penalised for buying all her tickets at once, from one retailer?
So clearly you accept it is possible for the journey to be defined in multiple ways depending on the circumstances?
Your post here:
Certainly seems to suggest that, because the OP has accepted the NRCoT and the NRCoT only explicitly mention those two options, those are her only options.
I don't agree and just asserting that a term can have multiple definitions in the same document which can magically all mean the most favourable thing to the passenger *at the same time* doesn't really convince me.
By the same logic, if the OP took the car the whole way, would you argue there was no journey at all? So no abandoned journey?
Because if the passenger buys other tickets separately, or is even gifted them by another person, the retailer has no idea the tickets are being used as part of a wider journey unless that is declared to them by the passenger.
I have consistently used the definition of a passenger's journey as being where they travel from and to. I also think that the man on the Clapham omnibus would think the journey was Derby to Hamilton and I would expect a judge to think that was what the NRCoT intend by its use of the term journey, too.
I personally don't know what her other options are, and said elsewhere other posters may be able to assist. Nonetheless, I do not think it is reasonable to expect unsubstantiated assertions from anonymous posters on the internet who haven't declared their expertise, to constitute good advice when it comes to finding out one's legal position. I, for one, am certainly much less than convinced that the term "journey" can have multiple, spurious definitions within the same contract, and saying "yes it can yes it can" isn't really cutting it, at least for me.
I paid by debit card so can't do anything with that I believe.
