Ticket acceptance in times of disruption

[James Wake]

Hi all

Is there any regulations more up to date than the ATOC regulations of 2014 that state any passenger should be given access to next available route regardless of operator if travelling with an operator specific ticket?

In this example my friend had in excess of a 1 hour delay on the operator they are booked with their train being cancelled but another operator would’ve got them to their destination 5 mins late but didn’t help at all, despite ticket acceptance being in place from another station for passengers on that train.

 

[Watershed]

Unfortunately the rail industry is terrible at this kind of thing, largely because TOCs take a highly parochial view and can't possibly be persuaded to think of the reputation of the wider industry - let alone simply doing the right thing by customers or minimising their Delay Repay liability. Any ATOC guidance for TOCs is clearly ignored in practice.

In theory, if you face an anticipated arrival delay of 61+ minutes you have the right under the PRO to require the operator 'at fault' to re-route you at the earliest opportunity (i.e. arrange ticket acceptance or if necessary buy you a new ticket). But this is something that most (if not all) TOCs routinely ignore, leaving you with the invidious choice of paying up and trying to claim back your costs, or just accepting the delay.

 

[tomoufc]

Unfortunately the rail industry is terrible at this kind of thing, largely because TOCs take a highly parochial view and can't possibly be persuaded to think of the reputation of the wider industry - let alone simply doing the right thing by customers or minimising their Delay Repay liability. Any ATOC guidance for TOCs is clearly ignored in practice.

In theory, if you face an anticipated arrival delay of 61+ minutes you have the right under the PRO to require the operator 'at fault' to re-route you at the earliest opportunity (i.e. arrange ticket acceptance or if necessary buy you a new ticket). But this is something that most (if not all) TOCs routinely ignore, leaving you with the invidious choice of paying up and trying to claim back your costs, or just accepting the delay.

Or get on the train anyway, explain the situation to the guard, and only pay more if they insist on it, before claiming it back.

By the way, can you retrospectively claim for an additionally purchased ticket under PRO? In other words, claim because the original TOC hadn't made an effort to re-route?

 

[m00036]

Unfortunately the rail industry is terrible at this kind of thing, largely because TOCs take a highly parochial view and can't possibly be persuaded to think of the reputation of the wider industry - let alone simply doing the right thing by customers or minimising their Delay Repay liability. Any ATOC guidance for TOCs is clearly ignored in practice.

In theory, if you face an anticipated arrival delay of 61+ minutes you have the right under the PRO to require the operator 'at fault' to re-route you at the earliest opportunity (i.e. arrange ticket acceptance or if necessary buy you a new ticket). But this is something that most (if not all) TOCs routinely ignore, leaving you with the invidious choice of paying up and trying to claim back your costs, or just accepting the delay.

Interesting this is something that changed a few months ago in EU law such that self re-routing is now allowed in the EU, but obviously the UK no longer updates their inherited EU law (including the one that 'requires re-routing').

 

[Watershed]

Interesting this is something that changed a few months ago in EU law such that self re-routing is now allowed in the EU, but obviously the UK no longer updates their inherited EU law (including the one that 'requires re-routing').

In my view, the new EU version of the PRO is actually worse in most respects. Whilst it explicitly calls out the right to recover expenses for self re-routing, it requires passengers to wait 100 minutes after the scheduled departure time before even beginning to make arrangements. It also limits you to re-routing yourself via bus, coach or other rail operators.

Under the retained UK version of the PRO none of these limitations exist; it is also undisputed that there is a right to recover reasonable expenses if a TOC refuses or fails to re-route you upon request. Since most TOCs' customer facing staff seem blissfully unaware of the existence of the PRO, obtaining such refusal is rarely hard to come by!

The new EU PRO also introduced a "force majeure" exception to delay compensation after strong lobbying from the nationalised operators, without even increasing compensation amounts or reducing thresholds to balance out this reduction in rights. The retained UK PRO has no such exception.

 

[800Travel]

In my view, the new EU version of the PRO is actually worse in most respects. Whilst it explicitly calls out the right to recover expenses for self re-routing, it requires passengers to wait 100 minutes after the scheduled departure time before even beginning to make arrangements. It also limits you to re-routing yourself via bus, coach or other rail operators.

Under the retained UK version of the PRO none of these limitations exist; it is also undisputed that there is a right to recover reasonable expenses if a TOC refuses or fails to re-route you upon request. Since most TOCs' customer facing staff seem blissfully unaware of the existence of the PRO, obtaining such refusal is rarely hard to come by!

The new EU PRO also introduced a "force majeure" exception to delay compensation after strong lobbying from the nationalised operators, without even increasing compensation amounts or reducing thresholds to balance out this reduction in rights. The retained UK PRO has no such exception.

@Watershed If the TOC refuses PRO reimbursement, does the Ombudsman usually sort it or are they usually oblivious too?

 

[Watershed]

@Watershed If the TOC refuses PRO reimbursement, does the Ombudsman usually sort it or are they usually oblivious too?

The Ombudsman is a chocolate teapot, but fortunately I've not yet had any cases where TOC has refused PRO reimbursement. I have had to bring legal claims for the much longer-standing NRCoT right to alternative transport or accommodation though. At the end of the day you have to be willing to potentially put in a fair amount of effort to get back what you're owed.

 

[redreni]

The Ombudsman is a chocolate teapot, but fortunately I've not yet had any cases where TOC has refused PRO reimbursement. I have had to bring legal claims for the much longer-standing NRCoT right to alternative transport or accommodation though. At the end of the day you have to be willing to potentially put in a fair amount of effort to get back what you're owed.

I have bookings with Grand Central from London to and from York and to Halifax on separate weekends in February and March.

It is my general policy to avoid Grand Central if there's another option that is not significantly slower or more expensive, but if there's no such option then I book with Grand Central and I take along my printed copy of the PRO Regulations. This is because by all accounts they have a nasty habit of cancelling trains without putting in place ticket acceptance with other operators, leaving their customers with a wait of several hours for an alternative train that will inevitably be seriously overcrowded.

If they do this to me I will request re-routing and obtain evidence of their response and if it's a refusal I will re-route myself by buying the cheapest new ticket I can that is valid for the next available train. I will then seek reimbursement of the cost of that new ticket from Grand Central and will pursue them for that reimbursement at the County Court if necessary.

I expect this to cost more in time and trouble than it is worth, with the inherent risk of losing the court case and court fees (although I would be surprised and disappointed if I were to lose), but I happen to think it outrageous that we have a rail industry where a company can defy the law with the acquiescence of their industry body, the regulator and seemingly the government.

As others have said, this isn't an EU thing (and as it happens the EU appears to be in the process of making it's trains as inefficient and passenger-unfriendly as it possibly can), it's a regulation passed by the UK Parliament which every reputable company ought to comply with. The rights set out therein are entirely reasonable and modest.

 

[Haywain]

it's a regulation passed by the UK Parliament

No, it isn't. The PRO is a European law that has been absorbed into British law following our departure from the EU.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, it isn't. The PRO is a European law that has been absorbed into British law following our departure from the EU.

By being passed by the UK Parliament (en masse).

Thus the changes in the EU don't come to the UK unless we specifically legislate for them to do so (which is unlikely).

 

[SuspectUsual]

I have bookings with Grand Central from London to and from York and to Halifax on separate weekends in February and March.

It is my general policy to avoid Grand Central if there's another option that is not significantly slower or more expensive, but if there's no such option then I book with Grand Central and I take along my printed copy of the PRO Regulations. This is because by all accounts they have a nasty habit of cancelling trains without putting in place ticket acceptance with other operators, leaving their customers with a wait of several hours for an alternative train that will inevitably be seriously overcrowded.

If they do this to me I will request re-routing and obtain evidence of their response and if it's a refusal I will re-route myself by buying the cheapest new ticket I can that is valid for the next available train. I will then seek reimbursement of the cost of that new ticket from Grand Central and will pursue them for that reimbursement at the County Court if necessary.

Well, good luck with that!

You're right of course, but Grand Central will almost certainly not offer re-routing in the event of their train being cancelled.

I have it in writing from them that they believe that catching the next available Grand Central train is compliant with PRO16. Make of that what you will

 

[Haywain]

By being passed by the UK Parliament (en masse).

So not looked at in the remotest detail, which is my point.

 

[Ben Rhydding]

I have bookings with Grand Central from London to and from York and to Halifax on separate weekends in February and March.

It is my general policy to avoid Grand Central if there's another option that is not significantly slower or more expensive, but if there's no such option then I book with Grand Central and I take along my printed copy of the PRO Regulations. This is because by all accounts they have a nasty habit of cancelling trains without putting in place ticket acceptance with other operators, leaving their customers with a wait of several hours for an alternative train that will inevitably be seriously overcrowded.

If they do this to me I will request re-routing and obtain evidence of their response and if it's a refusal I will re-route myself by buying the cheapest new ticket I can that is valid for the next available train. I will then seek reimbursement of the cost of that new ticket from Grand Central and will pursue them for that reimbursement at the County Court if necessary.

I expect this to cost more in time and trouble than it is worth, with the inherent risk of losing the court case and court fees (although I would be surprised and disappointed if I were to lose), but I happen to think it outrageous that we have a rail industry where a company can defy the law with the acquiescence of their industry body, the regulator and seemingly the government.

As others have said, this isn't an EU thing (and as it happens the EU appears to be in the process of making it's trains as inefficient and passenger-unfriendly as it possibly can), it's a regulation passed by the UK Parliament which every reputable company ought to comply with. The rights set out therein are entirely reasonable and modest.

Has the poster actual experience of enforcing PRO against any railway, not just Grand Central? If so, was it by simply showing a copy of the Regulation, by claiming reimbursement following refusal, by threatening legal action in pursuit of reimbursement or by actually issuing a claim in the County Court? If the last mentioned, did the railway defend the claim or just ignore it and land a CCJ by default?

It would be interesting to know how far the TOCs carry their ignorance of/ contempt for the law and whether a determined passenger does succeed in the end.

Or is the poster`s middle paragraph (above) just a threat?

 

[redreni]

Has the poster actual experience of enforcing PRO against any railway, not just Grand Central? If so, was it by simply showing a copy of the Regulation, by claiming reimbursement following refusal, by threatening legal action in pursuit of reimbursement or by actually issuing a claim in the County Court? If the last mentioned, did the railway defend the claim or just ignore it and land a CCJ by default?

It would be interesting to know how far the TOCs carry their ignorance of/ contempt for the law and whether a determined passenger does succeed in the end.

Or is the poster`s middle paragraph (above) just a threat?

It's not a threat I've carried out yet, because the circumstances haven't arisen. I hope they won't arise.

I single them out because they are notorious on this board for not putting ticket acceptance in place when they cancel trains, which happens quite regularly.

As for the sequence, the PRO Regulations confer the right to choose from several options, one of which is re-routing. It is only fair to give them every opportunity to re-route you before you re-route yourself - the regulation is drafted on the assumption that train companies will re-route passengers. Reimbursing passengers after they've been forced to re-route themselves at their own expense would not represent compliance with the PRO Regulations; it would be a remedy for the passenger's losses arising from a failure to comply with the PRO Regulations.

Based on other forum members' experience I would expect it to go:
- train cancelled
- me: please re-route me at the earliest opportunity, which is such and such an LNER train
- GC: unfortunately ticket acceptance is not in place - you can have a refund or wait for the next GC train in 3 hours
- me: I would like to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity as per the PRO Regulation, here it is
- GC: [repeat of the the above]
- I buy a ticket for the next LNER train
- I write to GC for reimbursement.

I'm not sure what would happen next. I'm given to understand they may be rather intransigent.

 

[Watershed]

Has the poster actual experience of enforcing PRO against any railway, not just Grand Central? If so, was it by simply showing a copy of the Regulation, by claiming reimbursement following refusal, by threatening legal action in pursuit of reimbursement or by actually issuing a claim in the County Court? If the last mentioned, did the railway defend the claim or just ignore it and land a CCJ by default?

It would be interesting to know how far the TOCs carry their ignorance of/ contempt for the law and whether a determined passenger does succeed in the end.

Or is the poster`s middle paragraph (above) just a threat?

I can't speak for others but my experience is that TOCs have responded in a variety of ways with little in the way of a clear pattern.

All have refused re-routing unless they had already arranged ticket acceptance anyway (perhaps not publicising it, but that's a topic for another thread).

Some have then paid up straight away when putting in a complaint. Others have paid up upon receipt of a Letter Before Claim whilst in one case it was only paid up once I brought a claim in the County Court. So far I haven't had to let any incident proceed to trial and indeed I can't see that a TOC would ever want it to do so, if nothing else due to the costs of defending the matter likely being greater than the sum claimed.

 

[bigfoote]

...

Based on other forum members' experience I would expect it to go:
- train cancelled
- me: please re-route me at the earliest opportunity, which is such and such an LNER train
- GC: unfortunately ticket acceptance is not in place - you can have a refund or wait for the next GC train in 3 hours
- me: I would like to be re-routed at the earliest opportunity as per the PRO Regulation, here it is
- GC: [repeat of the the above]
- I buy a ticket for the next LNER train
- I write to GC for reimbursement.

I'm not sure what would happen next. I'm given to understand they may be rather intransigent.

Have had this situation once from Hartlepool - Kings Cross
Was advised by GC twitter team that I had to wait for the next GC in 4 hours. I advised them of PRO and asking for acceptance to re-route. Got the same. Spoke to station staff (Northern), told "officially" they couldn't go over GC's rules, but to travel to Sunderland gratis and ask there as it's the starting station for the GC route and better staffed than HPL.

Sunderland told me to rebook and claim back. Ended up travelling Sunderland to NCL, LNER to KGX. Took multiple to and fro with GC who relented after being advised I was escalating to Ombudsman.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[wilbers]

Your mileage may vary.

As the OP is asking about re-routing is that a deliberate or accidental pun?

 

[redreni]

Have had this situation once from Hartlepool - Kings Cross
Was advised by GC twitter team that I had to wait for the next GC in 4 hours. I advised them of PRO and asking for acceptance to re-route. Got the same. Spoke to station staff (Northern), told "officially" they couldn't go over GC's rules, but to travel to Sunderland gratis and ask there as it's the starting station for the GC route and better staffed than HPL.

Sunderland told me to rebook and claim back. Ended up travelling Sunderland to NCL, LNER to KGX. Took multiple to and fro with GC who relented after being advised I was escalating to Ombudsman.

Your mileage may vary.

Cheers!