Yes, but why should an operator inconvenience its own passengers by accepting others* if they aren’t compensated for it. It’s a business to maximise profit at the end of the day, even if it’s run by the government. It shouldn’t be, but it is.Surely other operators have high loadings regardless of whether or not you buy a new ticket, or they have ticket acceptance?
All it does is cause more inconvenience to people
The operational process for this is huge whereas some form of rail warrant can be authorised entirely with a couple of calls or messages and someone to hand them out. The paperwork and shifting of funds can be done afterwards when the dust settles and passengers can be on their way. Such a warrant would also include another operator organising onward travel in a taxi for example.GC could have simply purchased tickets for their stranded customers, but didn't. I suspect that is down to the cash GC would have to outlay, not the lack of a ready mechanism for obtaining a ticket.
An agreement at company level is even easier, whether a wide ranging all-eventualities agreement or on a case-by-case basis - one phone call, trainload of people dealt with! For reasons unknown, GC seem unable or unwilling to reach a satisfactory agreement with LNER (and, let's face it, they haven't got an option of dealing with anyone else).The operational process for this is huge whereas some form of rail warrant can be authorised entirely with a couple of calls or messages and someone to hand them out.
Perhaps. The safety and consumer regulation "hats" the ORR wears are separate, and it's not exactly the case that staff could be redeployed from one "hat" to the other. But overall it's clear that the ORR lays supreme importance on railway services being provided in absolute safety, or else not at all.Too busy throthing over slam doors and third rails presumably.
Perhaps. The safety and consumer regulation "hats" the ORR wears are separate, and it's not exactly the case that staff could be redeployed from one "hat" to the other. But overall it's clear that the ORR lays supreme importance on railway services being provided in absolute safety, or else not at all.
Little weight is given to considerations such as the climate (c.f. third rail and electrification standards), the wider public interest (c.f. red/green zone working and standards for new or refurbished vehicles, stations and lines), or passengers being protected from operators' aggressive practices (c.f. assistance during disruption).
Awfully convenient for them. Not me gov.GC seem to have deleted the tweet from last night - in fact they seem to have deleted everything going back to 2021 apart from a post from 20 March sating they're not affected by strike action and today's posts - tough if you're looking to confirm the advice you were given.
I can see more than that on Google - AIUI if you're not logged into X you won't be able to see them.GC seem to have deleted the tweet from last night - in fact they seem to have deleted everything going back to 2021 apart from a post from 20 March stating they're not affected by strike action and today's posts - tough if you're looking to confirm the advice you were given.
I can see more than that on Google - AIUI if you're not logged into X you won't be able to see them.
That’s quite the allegation if it’s being suggested that a TOC has deleted tweets in order to obscure the advice they offered customers in the event of disruption
That’s the whole point though. There won’t be any approach, robust or otherwise from any authority.One would sincerely hope that any operator who really was behaving in such a manner could expect a robust approach from the relevant authority. Not to mention the damage to their reputation from lost customer goodwill, of course. It’d be quite the risky strategy in order to save a few quid.
Swr have seemingly got form for telling passengers to hire and pay for their own taxi and then making it as difficult or impossible as can be to get the money back
MCOL every day of the week.... Sue them every time. If their business model is based on ignoring legitimate obligations they shouldn't be in business, end of.Now they've tweeted at 2053 they've got acceptance on the 2200 LNER but that still raises the question of what if you want a station other than York and Thirsk (the tweet is silent on this) and what about those people who, in the intervening half an hour, followed the advice and refunded their original ticket and bought expensive new ones? Or you can travel tomorrow on your existing GC ticket but then says nothing about who is forking out for the hotel at zero notice.
Honestly this is a spectacularly poor.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Re your last sentence time for a group action. Me learned friends love guff like that and will destroy the company...An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
Around subjective matters not part of the contract, such as travelling ambience, sure. However, the Conditions, PRO and Consumer Rights Act would treat GC only tickets identically to LNER only, Hull Trains nly, Avanti West Coast only (etc) in respect of getting from a to b.An alternative view - operator-specific tickets are cheaper because they come with greater risk. If the customer had purchased an open ticket then the issue would not have arisen.
In other words, you pays your money and you takes your chances.
At the end of the day I would like to support the business model of GC. But if the company can't improve over their position today, I'd say it's better for the consumer if they don't exist. I take no joy in that whatsoever, but we can't allow special pleadings just because it's a train service.Re your last sentence time for a group action. Me learned friends love guff like that and will destroy the company...
Indeed. It was unlawful even before the Consumer Rights Act and PRO took effect, but now that they have, it's unambiguous....is not an acceptable way for any business to operate.
At the end of the day I would like to support the business model of GC. But if the company can't improve over their position today, I'd say it's better for the consumer if they don't exist. I take no joy in that whatsoever, but we can't allow special pleadings just because it's a train service.
It's not really very risky at all as they know the risk of customers or regulators pursuing them is near-zero. In the unlikely event a customer does take them to Court, they can just settle the case.That’s quite the allegation if it’s being suggested that a TOC has deleted tweets in order to obscure the advice they offered customers in the event of disruption. Perhaps somebody should tweet them and ask for a clarification of the original info!
One would sincerely hope that any operator who really was behaving in such a manner could expect a robust approach from the relevant authority. Not to mention the damage to their reputation from lost customer goodwill, of course. It’d be quite the risky strategy in order to save a few quid.
To be fair it is the way airlines work - but railways are regulated differently so it's not a fair comparison...is not an acceptable way for any business to operate.
I think the argument could absolutely be made that all passenger operators licensed by the ORR are in breach of their licence if they just say "no trains, no alternatives", as it's alleged that GC did here, though of course it may in some way depend on why they're saying so. I wouldn't like to comment on exactly what the details of the obligations or the different types of licences are for two reasons: one is that this would be long and boring and the other is that at the end of the day none of us is a party to the license, so in law there's actually not anything we can do about it being broken. Because of the latter I'm not sure exactly what turns on this point, maybe not much. But it's a principle to ponder isn't it.When an OA operator first applies to run a service, shouldn’t one of the questions in the TAA form P be about their disruption plans? So if they cannot reasonably get you going within an hour, the application fails. If after the last train of the day is cancelled they have no watertight process to deal with stranded passengers, the application fails. Etc etc.