GWR compensation - disabled passenger

[Unixman]

A friend of mine has a severely disabled son who is confined to an electric wheelchair. This morning they had booked a disabled space on the 12:10 from Worcester Shrub Hill to Oxford so that they could attend an event at Helen and Douglas House which is a specialist hospice & palliative care institution that provides help for children and young adults. Unfortunately this train (1P47) was cancelled due, according to RTT, a lack of a guard.

They waited an hour for the 13:06 (1P51) which duly arrived. Despite it being a 125 and the guard and my friend wandering up and down the train, there was no disabled bay in any of the coaches suitable for an electric wheelchair. (The duty lady at Worcester Shrub Hill dragged the ramp behind her). The train left 7 late from Worcester - almost certainly due to this happening - and without my friend, her son and, importantly, a couple of carers who were to accompany them. (He is that bad).

They were offered a taxi to Oxford but declined it for the following reasons:

• They felt that they couldn't be guaranteed that the taxi was suitable for a wheelchair of that type and weight.
  
  
• Driving from Worcester to the near centre of Oxford would have taken much longer than rail and they would have missed most of the event so as to make the journey pointless. Additionally, one of the major reasons that they use the train, is it is a far more comfortable experience for her son in his wheelchair.

What compensation are they entitled to? In particular for the cost of the extra carers that were hired in to accompany them.

It must be added that the individual staff at Worcester and on the train were very embarrassed by what happened.

 

[jimm]

As they didn't travel as a result of a cancellation, they are entitled to a full refund of the rail fares.

https://www.gwr.com/help-and-support/refunds-and-compensation/unused-ticket-refunds

They will need to ask GWR whether it would be willing to make a gesture of goodwill when it comes to the costs of hiring the carers. The National Rail Conditions of Travel state that operators will not accept liability for any other loss caused by delay or cancellation of a train service, expect in exceptional circumstances - what count as exceptional circumstances is up to each train operator.

 

[Gareth Marston]

If they bought the tickets at Shrub Hill then the booking office there can do the refund on the spot. They would have to contact GWR Customer Services separately.

If they gone to athird party online retailer the tickets will have to be refunded by them.

 

[furlong]

AThe National Rail Conditions of Travel state that operators will not accept liability for any other loss caused by delay or cancellation of a train service, expect in exceptional circumstances - what count as exceptional circumstances is up to each train operator.

You missed out the key new part that means some consequential losses are now covered:

This section and section 32 do not affect rights and remedies you would otherwise have under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unless the law allows this.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Regarding the issue of compensation for the extra carers - they would have been "employed" anyway if the original service had ran the OP's friend would not have been expecting GWR to pay for them? I don't think theirs any reasonable expectation that a train company should pay for carers accompanying a passenger regardless of circumstance the national conditions of carriage relate to provision or not of a journey.

I agree that a GOGW given the circumstances would be appropriate.

 

[Unixman]

No they wouldn't have been. They were specially brought in for this trip.

Let me explain. My friend has a fixed package which allows them to bring in outside carers as and when needed. They are not full-time employees of my friend, so by having the extra carers brought in for this has meant that the care package has taken an unwarranted dent. Hardly surprising, my friend is spitting at GWR since this reduces the long term options for her son.

 

[221129]

I think a Gesture of good will would definitely be appropriate in this case, also a refund of the tickets that you are entitled to. Although I think asking for reimbursement of the carers is taking things a bit too far. They would just argue that you could have completed the journey as they offered alternative transport which you refused.

 

[Hadders]

A most unfortunate occurrence. I would imagine GWR would want to deal with this appropriately as it woukdn’t Look at all good if it got into the press.

 

[Unixman]

I think a Gesture of good will would definitely be appropriate in this case, also a refund of the tickets that you are entitled to. Although I think asking for reimbursement of the carers is taking things a bit too far. They would just argue that you could have completed the journey as they offered alternative transport which you refused.

There is a huge difference between, what I would call, "normal" alternative transport and that required for someone in a 200kg (yes) electric wheelchair. His disability means that he has virtually no movement at all and requires assistance at all times ( normally from his family but this time from carers). If in my friend's judgement that the alternative transport would ( and she has vast experience of this) not be suitable then surely she has every right to turn it down.

 

[dyst]

I know when I've used Worcester stations with a powered wheelchair, no appropriate alternative transport has been available. Yes, they have black cabs, but those don't take many powered wheelchairs.

 

[bb21]

No they wouldn't have been. They were specially brought in for this trip.

Therefore that is not an additional cost incurred as a result of this cancellation, unless I understood you incorrectly?

 

[Unixman]

They still needed to be paid for their time. Nasty things called contracts. Let's put it this way: their services were only required for the train journey and the visit to the hospice in Oxford. So my friend was out of pocket.

 

[bb21]

They still needed to be paid for their time. Nasty things called contracts.

So if I understand you correctly, what you mean is the cost of the additional hours they were employed due to the cancellation? Did they have to be paid additional hours due to the delay? Remember that this would be compared to the cost of their services for the duration of the event. Was the return journey delayed too?

 

[Unixman]

So if I understand you correctly, what you mean is the cost of the additional hours they were employed due to the cancellation? Did they have to be paid additional hours due to the delay? Remember that this would be compared to the cost of their services for the duration of the event. Was the return journey delayed too?

They didn't even get to Oxford. That is the point. The carers were paid for the time that they were asked to do so, even though the reason for them being employed didn't actually happen.

 

[bb21]

They didn't even get to Oxford. That is the point. The carers were paid for the time that they were asked to do so, even though the reason for them being employed didn't actually happen.

I seriously doubt you would be able to argue consequential loss in that case, unfortunately, as no additional cost was incurred.

I used to work in care, and we had a few similar cases. The argument for consequential loss in respect of carer costs would not be related to whether your friend got to Oxford or not, as either way these are expected costs, not additional costs.

The issue in this case is that the intended purpose for additional care was not fulfilled, so basically a ruined day, not consequential loss.

 

[Hadders]

I seriously doubt you would be able to argue consequential loss in that case, unfortunately, as no additional cost was incurred.

I used to work in care, and we had a few similar cases. The argument for consequential loss in respect of carer costs would not be related to whether your friend got to Oxford or not, as either way these are expected costs, not additional costs.

The issue in this case is that the intended purpose for additional care was not fulfilled, so basically a ruined day, not consequential loss.

With respect I think you misunderstand.

The OP’s friend planned a day out for her son which required additional carers to look after him. These carers would not have been required had they have stayed at home and not made the trip.

The trip was abandoned due to GWR’s failure to provide suitable transport. Clearly the cost of the fare will be refunded but the OP’s friend is out of pocket here as the trip did not take place due to the failure of GWR. Whether you call that consequential loss or something else i don’t know.

This incident doesn’t show GWR (or the railway in general) in a very good light and I would hope that once their customer relations department are fully aware of the facts that appropriate recommence would be made.

 

[bb21]

I did not misunderstand.

Further up the thread, there were whispers about consequential loss, which was an effect of (relatively) new consumer rights legislation. I was merely answering that technicality. It wasn't meant to be targetting anyone in particular.

Because the OP asked about "entitlements", the answer from my experience in such matters is pretty much "none" in addition to the full refund, and that is what my posts were aimed at answering.

Whether an additional goodwill gesture should be made would elicit different responses depending on one's perspective, and has no correct answer, and is one I do not wish to wade into. As far as I can see, this would be entirely discretionary, so YMMV.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Unfortunately there's no easily demonstrable consequential loss. You can argue that the care package is like a carnet of 10 tickets and that you have "lost" one of them however theirs no guarantee that all 10 would be used anyway, circumstances change there may be a time limit on them etc etc.

 

[Gareth Marston]

There is a huge difference between, what I would call, "normal" alternative transport and that required for someone in a 200kg (yes) electric wheelchair. His disability means that he has virtually no movement at all and requires assistance at all times ( normally from his family but this time from carers). If in my friend's judgement that the alternative transport would ( and she has vast experience of this) not be suitable then surely she has every right to turn it down.

If your friend had decided to use road transport to get to Oxford she would have made arrangements to source a suitable vehicle in advance due to the specialist requirements. I don think she would have chanced expecting one to be found at short notice on the day if organising herself? Unfortunate but the reality of sourcing at short notice that GWR had to face. I agree your friends judgement not to use due to special circumstances was right.

 

[najaB]

With respect I think you misunderstand.
...

It seems quite clear to me. The carers were hired for (random number) four hours work. There has only been a loss if they were on duty for (and had to be paid for) for more than four hours.

That said, it would be good corporate citizenship to refund some or all of the care costs as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[richw]

It isn’t a consequential loss in legal terms as far as the additional career cost, so wouldn’t be an entitlement under the consumer law.
The taxi was refused before they had chance to source, they may well have had contact with a company who can source a suitable taxi for the weight of wheelchair, if they were made aware of that requirement. The passenger has refused that opportunity, even if GWR had been able to source something appropriate, so therefore the potential loss is at the passengers fault for not offering that chance. Let gwr make the call, be told no suitable taxi vehicle available, then it’s a whole different situation. I don’t believe they’d offer a gesture of goodwill as they weren’t given a chance to provide alternative transport.

 

[AlterEgo]

It seems quite clear to me. The carers were hired for (random number) four hours work. There has only been a loss if they were on duty for (and had to be paid for) for more than four hours.

That said, it would be good corporate citizenship to refund some or all of the care costs as a gesture of goodwill.

I agree with this. I would be surprised if GWR didn’t issue some sort of gesture of goodwill.

 

[jon0844]

A gesture of goodwill sounds like the correct way to deal with this.

 

[gray1404]

Is there definitely no suitable space on a 125? What sort of train would the cancelled service have been booked for?

 

[30907]

Is there definitely no suitable space on a 125? What sort of train would the cancelled service have been booked for?

According to GWR, there are 2 compliant (700x1200mm) spaces in Standard class, and a substandard one in 1st.
That doesn't necessarily mean they were available on the day.

The booked train would have been a 165/166, which might have been able to take a larger-than-standard chair.

 

[richw]

Both standard class wheelchair spaces are in Coach C. If coach C is removed from the train for any reason there will be only the 1st class space. This should however if available be offered to a standard ticket holder

 

[dyst]

Both standard class wheelchair spaces are in Coach C. If coach C is removed from the train for any reason there will be only the 1st class space. This should however if available be offered to a standard ticket holder

The problem is that the first class space is narrow - my 17" manual wheelchair will fit in that space, my electric wheelchair wont, so that may have been so for the OP.

 

[SussexMan]

I can fully understand the "loss" which the OP's friend feels they have suffered. It sounds like the disabled person may receive Direct Payments from their local authority which they use to purchase assistance as and when required. They feel they have effectively "wasted" some of the valuable allowance they have been allocated (and in these times of austerity and local government cutbacks getting appropriate help is hard). It isn't clear what the actual purpose of the visit was but if they are going to have to go again because they didn't make it the first time then there is a clear loss which has been suffered. So at the moment there hasn't been any additional cost incurred but if they are going to have to rearrange the visit then there will be an additional cost incurred at that time. Having said all of that, GWR should agree to make a goodwill payment.

 

[richw]

Sussex man makes an interesting point. If the travel has to be done again as a result of the cancellation the extra cost of care at a later date would be a consequestial expense.

 

[Starmill]

I would hope you would not need to try to enforce a consequential loss claim. If they write in saying politely how dissappointed they were that they couldn't get on the train and that they will now have to make the journey again on a different day, with another set of arrangements of travel and the even, they may even offer to refund the ticket price and offer another free journey to Oxford as a goodwill gesture.