Greater Anglia sued, warrant for baliffs issued

[Merseysider]

From BBC

A commuter fed up with "continually" delayed trains has won a legal bid for compensation against the rail company.

Seph Pochin, of Halesworth, Suffolk, had described the service between his home and Ipswich as "woeful", with one train delayed by 100 minutes.

A warrant has now been issued for bailiffs to seize Greater Anglia (GA) property after it failed to pay him £350 compensation.

GA confirmed it was in a legal dispute with Mr Pochin but could not comment.

Mr Pochin, an ecologist, who moved to Halesworth a year ago, said he was considering moving to Ipswich to avoid the delays, which he claims added up to almost 28 hours over 12 months.

Between February 2017 and February 2018, he made 550 journeys and recorded 183 delays. According to his figures, the majority of trains were between one and 10 minutes late. Mr Pochin said 26 journeys were late by more than 15 minutes, with the 100-minute delay on a journey last August.

GA has a delay-repay scheme, paying out compensation for journeys more than 30 minutes late.

Mr Pochin, who corresponded regularly with the firm about the quality of the service, said the 100-minute delay was the last straw.

Using the Consumer Rights Act 2016, he paid £35 to lodge a case at a small claims court "to highlight the regular deficiencies with the service".

Judgement ruling
In September, Mr Pochin and the rail company both agreed to mediation to resolve the matter.

But after GA failed to provide dates to meet, Mr Pochin applied for a judgement ruling, which he won in December, and the train operator was ordered to pay him £350.

In February, after failing to get this money, Mr Pochin paid £77 for a warrant to be served on GA to seize assets worth £350.

The courts and tribunal service confirmed a warrant had been issued against GA, which will now have to pay the sum or face the bailiffs.

If only 26 of 550 journeys were more than 15 minutes late, I can’t see how the service can be said to have been performed without reasonable care and/or skill?

 

[gazthomas]

If you had one tear in a sweater you just bought would you take it back? Yes! You don’t need many holes under consumer law to prove that goods or services are faulty

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

If you had one tear in a sweater you just bought would you take it back? Yes! You don’t need many holes under consumer law to prove that goods or services are faulty

Whilst I feel strongly for passengers' rights, delays to trains aren't as clear cut as a hole in a sweater. The rights given by the Consumer Rights Act are also more limited when it comes to services - the question is not whether the service doesn't live up to expectations, but whether it is delivered without reasonable care and skill. Unfortunately, most train delays are down to bad luck (e.g. signal failures, trespassers), with only a minority being down to (or at least being attributed on the official record to) a lack of reasonable care and skill being exercised by the train operator.

Personally, perhaps a better avenue for consumer rights is to consider the duty to deliver the service within a reasonable time. That's rather ambiguously worded, and I think it's more focused on things like making builders start working within, e.g. a month rather than a year, but I can see how it might be interpreted as requiring the train companies to reasonably adhere to the timetable.

In any case, I don't think this commuter won their case entirely on the basis of merit - it seems to have been a procedural screwup by AGA. Similarly with the warrant - though I'm not sure what they could actually seize that's AGA's! That said, AFAIK when a warrant is issued, it's up to the debtor to prove that any property on their premises is not theirs to prevent it being taken - do they have ownership documents for the trains?! Obviously AGA don't own them, but I'd be amused at the thought of a train being clamped, and that causing further delays!

 

[najaB]

If only 26 of 550 journeys were more than 15 minutes late, I can’t see how the service can be said to have been performed without reasonable care and/or skill?

If you had one tear in a sweater you just bought would you take it back? Yes! You don’t need many holes under consumer law to prove that goods or services are faulty

I agree with @Merseysider here - less than 4% of journeys were delayed so it appears that the TOC was meeting its performance targets. Was Mr Pochin entitled to some compensation? Yes. To the point of getting bailiffs in? That's questionable.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

4% of journeys, only one of which had a serious delay... no, I wouldn't have bothered going to law over it at all. Delay claim for the serious one, but I wouldn't personally have bothered about any of the others at all.

 

[pdeaves]

I'd be amused at the thought of a train being clamped, and that causing further delays!

This did happen in the early(ish) days of railways. I cannot remember which railway it was now but there was one where a locomotive was chained to the track as a way to 'solve' a dispute.

 

[jellybaby]

though I'm not sure what they could actually seize that's AGA's!

A computer from head office would seem fairly straightforward and something the bailiffs would be familiar with.

 

[farleigh]

Good luck to him. They brought this upon themselves

 

[richw]

Was Mr Pochin entitled to some compensation? Yes. To the point of getting bailiffs in? That's questionable.

I can’t speak for GA, but reports GWR are taking over 6 months to pay up, he’s got a legitimate claim, if the TOC can’t get it’s house in order to settle payments in reasonable time, why shouldn’t he get the bailiffs in to recover his entitlement.
I assume the £350 awarded would be roughly the delay repay (or relevant scheme) entitlement?

 

[najaB]

I can’t speak for GA, but reports GWR are taking over 6 months to pay up, he’s got a legitimate claim, if the TOC can’t get it’s house in order to settle payments in reasonable time, why shouldn’t he get the bailiffs in to recover his entitlement.

Hence why I said it's questionable.

 

[BRX]

I can’t speak for GA, but reports GWR are taking over 6 months to pay up, he’s got a legitimate claim, if the TOC can’t get it’s house in order to settle payments in reasonable time, why shouldn’t he get the bailiffs in to recover his entitlement.
I assume the £350 awarded would be roughly the delay repay (or relevant scheme) entitlement?

I can't see how he could be due that if nearly all his delays were under the 30 minute threshold. Or is it related to a season ticket? Or is it simply based on the fact that GA failed to turn up for a mediation session?

As usual the news article fails to give us the important details of what actually happened.

 

[cuccir]

I have some sympathy with the argument regular delays of 1-10 minutes are still delays with impact. Even if these aren't counted as deserving of compensation or as delays in terms of railway accounting, they are still 'real time' delays, and could be understood as failure to provide the advertised service.

While a one-off or occasional delay of this kind could and should be understood as chance, there are services out there which have these delays on the majority of days. There's nothing particularly which encourages TOCs to fix recurring delays of this magnitude. If a commuter is usually delayed by 5 minutes a journey, and occasional large delays offset the days when you're on time, then this could easily be an hour or so a week of 'lost' time.

All that said, even under this measure Mr Pochin only recorded 33% of services delayed. This doesn't sound like a great service, but it also doesn't sound like a major failing either.

 

[falcon]

I can't see how he could be due that if nearly all his delays were under the 30 minute threshold. Or is it related to a season ticket? Or is it simply based on the fact that GA failed to turn up for a mediation session?

As usual the news article fails to give us the important details of what actually happened.

It's a win by default.

So it is quite possible that had GA turned up to court after failing to agree mediation dates and the plaintiff issuing the summons that he the plaintiff would have failed in his claim.

The fact that the court has said £350 damages must be paid does not mean that the plaintiff had the facts assessed by a court and they found he was right. He was awarded because GA remained silent and did not defend the claim.

He the plaintiff then engaged baliffs to recover goods to the value of.

The matter has never been before a judge only admin staff stamping forms.

 

[Wolfie]

From BBC



If only 26 of 550 journeys were more than 15 minutes late, I can’t see how the service can be said to have been performed without reasonable care and/or skill?

Perhaps an example of where the railway's assertion that up to 10 mins late is on time meets the real world where the Court says that it is, to the man on the Clapham Omnibus (i.e. in it's natural English meaning), late!

 

[aye2beeviasea]

A computer from head office would seem fairly straightforward and something the bailiffs would be familiar with.

More likely to be owned by an IT outsourcing company.

 

[Taunton]

Best to seize some component off a train. A loco windscreen wiper is probably worth about the amount claimed. Put the bailiff's seizure document and a chain/padlock on one on a loco found at Norwich station, then they can't move it. It would then have to stay there even if they paid up instantly until the case was extinguished by the court. And that takes a while ... airports do this to aircraft where the airline is not paying their landing fees.

If this case has gone right through multiple legal judgements to this stage and the company has done nothing then the company lawyer needs to be shown the door.

 

[TheEdge]

Best to seize some component off a train. A loco windscreen wiper is probably worth about the amount claimed. Put the bailiff's seizure document and a chain/padlock on one on a loco found at Norwich station, then they can't move it. It would then have to stay there even if they paid up instantly until the case was extinguished by the court. And that takes a while ... airports do this to aircraft where the airline is not paying their landing fees.

Oh come on, be real man! Its not an episode of Can't Pay, all that will happen is GA will pay using money when the first letter arrives, if they have not already.

 

[jon0844]

And the train belongs to a ROSCO anyway.

 

[6Gman]

Mr Pochin must be a wow at dinner parties.

"What have you been up to recently?"

"I've sued a train company because 11.2% of my journeys in the last three months have been 1-3 minutes late, and ....."

"zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"

 

[Taunton]

Oh come on, be real man! Its not an episode of Can't Pay, all that will happen is GA will pay using money when the first letter arrives, if they have not already.

Well they haven't done with repeated formal documents, otherwise the bailiffs order would not have been issued, they have just ignored everything. The law doesn't particularly care for such a cavalier attitude.

 

[matt_world2004]

It's a win by default.

So it is quite possible that had GA turned up to court after failing to agree mediation dates and the plaintiff issuing the summons that he the plaintiff would have failed in his claim.

The fact that the court has said £350 damages must be paid does not mean that the plaintiff had the facts assessed by a court and they found he was right. He was awarded because GA remained silent and did not defend the claim.

He the plaintiff then engaged baliffs to recover goods to the value of.

The matter has never been before a judge only admin staff stamping forms.

Isnt this how AGA win most fare evasionncases thoughm whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[najaB]

Isnt this how AGA win most fare evasionncases thoughm

Many, but I doubt most.

 

[farleigh]

Is there a thread on here for TOCs being prosecuted by passengers?

 

[falcon]

Isnt this how AGA win most fare evasionncases thoughm whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

The case above is a civil case and AG take offenders to a magistartes court which is a criminal court.They are two completely different legal proceses.

The magistartes is the state (the people) taking the offender to court for an offence against the people.

In a civil court it is the individual against the individual and nothing to do with the state. The plaintiff sues for compensation or restitution it is not a fine like it is in a magistartes court.

 

[bb21]

I have a funny feeling it is not necessarily the poorer choice for GA in such a case not defending it.

 

[eastdyke]

I have a funny feeling it is not necessarily the poorer choice for GA in such a case not defending it.

But they could have avoided this bit of publicity by paying up when the judgement ruling was issued.
GA will surely be facing many challenges in the next couple of years, failing to deal with this small one does not auger well for their ongoing public image.

 

[deltic]

I have a funny feeling it is not necessarily the poorer choice for GA in such a case not defending it.

Precisely given the UK system of precedents - not defending is less risky than defending and losing with all the subsequent follow on claims

 

[matt_world2004]

The case above is a civil case and AG take offenders to a magistartes court which is a criminal court.They are two completely different legal proceses.

The magistartes is the state (the people) taking the offender to court for an offence against the people.

In a civil court it is the individual against the individual and nothing to do with the state. The plaintiff sues for compensation or restitution it is not a fine like it is in a magistartes court.

That doesnt change my point though

 

[306024]

Leaving the legal issues to the ‘experts’, perhaps £350 worth of assets is a laptop. Hardly a great loss in the grand scheme of things. As always there must be more to this than meets the eye though.

The East Suffolk Line timetable at Halesworth was doubled in December 2012 from two hourly to hourly with the completion of Beccles loop. Of course this means that both up and down trains have to be on time for this to work. At the Southern end services have to mix with all the Felixstowe freight, so the line isn’t the simplest to operate. Perhaps they shouldn’t have bothered and left the two hour gaps.

Regarding delay repay, never had any bother with GA, most I’ve waited is two weeks, and once got double we were entitled to as a goodwill gesture after a particularly awful lash-up.

 

[Qwerty133]

Leaving the legal issues to the ‘experts’, perhaps £350 worth of assets is a laptop. Hardly a great loss in the grand scheme of things. As always there must be more to this than meets the eye though.

Not really. Sounds like an administrative failure has led to GA failing to respond to the court paperwork and therefore the court had no choice but to award in favour of the claimant however weak his case may have been. In civil law absence a defence courts will always find in favour of the claimant and with civil court costs being relatively small some people will always take cases to court that are not really justifiable (and many large companies have had occasional failings in responding to such cases).