The answers to the below question all depend on your interpretation of NRCoT condition 30.1. My interpretation thereof is that it is the passenger's choice whether or not they return to their origin. If the journey is not completed and the reason for this is disruption, a full refund is payable regardless of how (or whether) the passenger chooses to proceed.
This is arguably an unintended outcome, but the railway has decided to word the NRCoT in this way and has notably
not included the proviso that the PRO has in its equivalent provision. An exception cannot be read into the wording just because it is an (arguably) harsh outcome for the railway to have to refund a passenger who has travelled 95% of the way.
Scenario 1:
I want to visit Gunnislake, but first want to visit Plymouth. I spend some time in Plymouth (i.e. break my journey) and then see the train to Gunnislake is cancelled and decide I wouldn't have enough time to do what I want to do in Guinnislake if I wait for the next train (let's say there is no bus replacement and the next train is an hour). I then travel back to York.
In this scenario, my view is that a full refund is due. It is irrelevant that you decided to break your journey; the scenario is effectively the same as if you had left York at a later time, such as to arrive at Plymouth at the time you decided to continue to Gunnislake but found the train cancelled.
Scenario 2:
Initially the same as Scenario 1, however I really do need to get to Gunnislake and get there ASAP, so a friend picks me up from Plymouth station and I manage to get to Gunnislake only a few minutes late, but without using the train from Plymouth and having experienced the inconvenience of someone having to pick me up.
In this scenario, my view is that it's the passenger's choice whether they deem the journey to have been abandoned (thus entitling them to a full refund as per scenario 1) or whether they claim Delay Repay for any delay incurred, with the lift (or other means of transport) representing the passenger providing transport in lieu of the railway. Of course in this case, it's likely the delay is too small to claim Delay Repay so claiming a full refund is clearly the more financially attractive option.
Scenario 3:
I only want to visit Gunnislake. Everything is fine until Plymouth, but then the onward train is delayed/cancelled (or maybe I am delayed into Plymouth and miss the connection; same effect). However, a friend offers to pick me up from Plymouth, so I do reach Gunnislake, but my rail journey ended at Plymouth. Or alternatively, would it make a difference if I see there is a delay while en-route and arrange for my friends/family to see me in Plymouth instead? In all such cases, I've clearly made use of the ticket as far as Plymouth, but was genuinely disrupted.
I would regard this in the same way as scenario 2, i.e. you can choose whether to claim a full refund or Delay Repay. Of course, any Delay Repay claim would have to be based on the station (or town) you actually travel to - so if you decided to stay in Plymouth and to claim Delay Repay, it would have to be based on any delay in arriving at Plymouth. Again, claiming a refund is likely to be more financially attractive.
Scenario 4.
I am watching a football game in Plymouth. I am not too fussed if I visit Gunnislake, but I plan sufficient time before the football game to get a return visit to Gunnislake before the match kicks off. However, due to a cancellation, I do not get to do the trip to Gunnislake (which was to be a simple out and back journey, not spending any more time there than the train takes to come back). I have achieved my main aim of the trip, which was to visit Plymouth, but had I gone to Gunnislake I would have missed kick-off, so I never went to Gunnislake.
I don't think that the length of the intended stay at the destination has any effect on your rights, so I would regard this the same as scenarios 2 and 3.
It has (recently) been suggested to me that, in cases similar to scenario 2, the journey has not been abandoned because the passenger got to where they wanted to be, and there is no entitlement to Delay Repay compensation.
I think it's up to the passenger whether or not they deem the lift (or other means of transport) to be provided in lieu of the railway - in which case the journey has been completed and Delay Repay would be applicable if sufficiently delayed - or simply a 'frolic of their own'.
I don't see why taking alternative means of transport would eliminate the entitlement to Delay Repay. Any Delay Repay claim would of course have to be submitted carefully, so as to make clear the actual delay incurred, to be distinguished from the delay that would have been incurred if the next railway-provided option had been taken (which will be the default assumption underlying most claim handling systems).
The suggestion is that passengers ask for a goodwill gesture or discretionary payment from the Train Company under these circumstances, which may not be forthcoming.
That's certainly one way of handling the situation, but as you say, I would have little confidence that a reasonable sum would be paid or that the matter would be handled within a reasonable time. I would only consider this option as a last resort and certainly not be suggesting it as a default option to passengers.
I am not personally entirely convinced by this logic, and suspect customers may be able to make representations using e.g. the Consumer Contract Regulations that the service wasn't provided with reasonable care and skill under some circumstances.
The Consumer Rights Act in this case (the CCR are only of limited relevance to rail contracts), but yes.
The NRCoT is also sufficiently ambiguous that I think a customer could argue it was an abandoned journey (and that there is a right to return back to the point of origin, but not an obligation) and that their private transport arrangements are out of scope of the document.
I think it's sufficiently ambiguous that the passenger can effectively argue it either way! But certainly it is a right rather than an obligation to return to the origin - the wording is "permitted to return".
In Scenario 1, article 15 of the Rail Passenger Rights and Obligations states:
If a customer was only attending a football match and could tell that they were going to miss the kick-off, or perhaps they had a job interview to get to: there seems to be a clear refund right (to 100% of the cost of the "ticket"). It doesn't say the passenger has to return back to the origin station. The break of journey muddies the waters because you could argue the journey still served some purpose in relation to the original plan.
You're absolutely correct there - but I think the PRO has to be distinguished from the NRCoT. The NRCoT has effectively copied some of the provisions of the PRO, but that doesn't mean that the NRCoT provisions are subject to the same provisos and exclusions as those in the PRO.
As is often the case, sometimes it is more advantageous to avail of rights under the NRCoT, whilst at other times the PRO is more generous; the passenger can choose which of the two they claim under.
I am not convinced that Delay Repay as a scheme currently meets all of these requirements, particularly on routes with single leg pricing.
Exactly - and it's for this reason that I would regard it as being the passenger's choice whether they proceed with a refund or a Delay Repay claim.
Why is it any of the railway's business why the journey is being made?
It would be relevant for a refund claimed under the PRO for the reasons set out by
@Adam Williams above, but not for a refund under the NRCoT. For the latter, the only questions that matter are whether the passenger reached their destination and if not, whether this was due to disruption.
Isn't it the case that they have failed to provide the service and therefore you are entitled to a refund because that is what the terms and conditions of the contract say?
Absolutely and that's why - in my view - a full refund is payable even if some benefit is derived from the travel actually undertaken.
Where it gets perhaps complicated is that if you have got some (perhaps even most) of the value out of a ticket, should that be accounted for?
Normally I would have said yes, but the NRCoT provisions are - in my view - clear that a full refund is due.
The moral argument is highly subjective but what I am trying to figure out is what the entitlement is. However different people within the industry come up with different conclusions.
For example, can a retailer legitimately refund a ticket that has clearly been used to make the vast majority of the journey and do RDG accept that?
Based on my interpretation of the NRCoT, yes. There can be no doubt that a full refund is payable where the passenger returned to their origin, and I don't see anything in the NRCoT that says you must do so. But who knows what the RDG view on this is - I would be surprised if you can get a logically consistent answer!
Similarly some TOCs try to get out of Delay Repay if the passenger used an alternative mode of transport to complete their journey; do they have a legitimate right to do so?
Absolutely not; there is nothing in the NRCoT or any of the Passenger's Charters that says you lose your entitlement to Delay Repay if you use alternative transport to mitigate a delay. Clearly you can only claim based on the delay you
actually experience and it may be that using alternative transport brings your delay under the Delay Repay threshold. But that is no different to if the railway provided you with a taxi, for example.
In some cases a TOC will say "contact the retailer for a refund" while a retailer may feel that it is a matter for the TOC.
Such buck-passing is very unhelpful to passengers - to whom the industry's internal arrangements are of supreme indifference. In my view, a company seeking to provide good customer service - whether a TOC or retailer - would pay the passenger what they are owed and if necessary pursue the other party they believe is liable.
TOCs are incentivised to get retailers to issue refunds
In theory, yes, but I don't think this is the reason why they refer passengers back to the retailer - they probably genuinely believe they are right in doing so. In any event, other than for the handful of open access TOCs, the financial arrangements with the franchising/contracting authority are generally such that any costs are reimbursed.
while retailers cannot recover their full costs if the burden falls on them (e.g. various fees charged by RDG - i.e. the TOCs acting collectively - are charged and retained by RDG even if the fare is refunded)
The same could be said of TOCs' liability for Delay Repay - they are often unable to recover their full costs from the party that caused the disruption. At the end of the day, this is simply one of the costs of doing business and whilst it might be regarded as unfair, it is something that retailers sign up to when they enter the market.
www.railforums.co.uk
However, this is far from the first time this has cropped up!
