Disagreement over reimbursement with NS due to missed connection onto Eurostar

[Trainbike46]

Last week, I travelled from a station in the Netherlands to London, changing onto the final London-Bound Eurostar of the day at Rotterdam. I took the train to Rotterdam 30 minutes earlier than recommended by NS International, giving me 81 minutes at Rotterdam.

Due to severe delays on the national network, I arrived at Rotterdam with about 77 minutes delay. At this point, the door to the Eurostar security check had been locked (and the eurostar was actually in the platform. I asked platform staff for advice and was directed to the ticket office.

The ticket office, staffed by NS, was deeply unhelpful, and their initial suggestion was to buy a new Eurostar ticket for the next day. I asked if there were eurostar staff at the station, and was told there were none. When I asked about options including an extra change at Brussels, the ticket office suggested I buy a ticket to Brussels and speak to Eurostar staff there. I decied to do this, as I did not think I would get anywhere with the ticket office staff.

At Brussels, the final London-bound eurostar had left, but eurostar staff rebooked me onto the first train the next morning (without charge) and recommended hotels in the area. They also suggested I should not have been sent to Brussels in the first place, but instead rebooked onto a later Eurostar from Rotterdam.

I wrote to NS to request they refunded the extra ticket I was charged for Rotterdam-Brussels, as well as to request they reimbursed the costs for the hotel. NS replied very quickly, but refused ANY compensation on the grounds that:
- NS general terms and conditions limit liability to the costs of the ticket
- As I had separate tickets for the eurostar and the train to Rotterdam, delays on the way to Rotterdam are my responsibilty, and I should have bought a new Eurostar ticket all the way.

NS's position doesn't appear to be remotely reasonable to me, given their delays caused the issue in the first place, but what are arguments I should raise with them in my reply? It does appear Eurostar doesn't agree with the NS position, given I was allowed to travel on my original Eurostar ticket from Brussels to London. When I look for the European Passenger Rights, everything does refer to through tickets.

Also, the reply was signed by the Director Customer Service. Is that normal?

EDIT: I paid everything with a (UK) credit card, so I could go straight for section 75 protection or a chargeback, instead of continuing to have a fight with NS customer service

 

[Benjwri]

Unfortunately in Europe the situation on connections with split tickets is rather less generous than the UK. The only real protection is called HOTNAT, but this doesn’t apply at Rotterdam, and doesn’t cover hotels. Unfortunately rights are very limited when you don’t have a through ticket. Eurostar tend to be very good at showing discretion and letting people travel on the next train free of charge, even without the obligation to do so, but some of the European operators can be bad for this.

Do you have travel insurance, some (typically more expensive) policies would cover something like this, and if you do Id suggest contacting them to see what you’re entitled to.

You’re also likely to be eligible for the Dutch version of Delay Repay, obviously only based on your NS ticket, and it will unfortunately be rather small compared to the cost of the hotel etc, but might go some way. You can look into this here.

 

[Trainbike46]

Unfortunately in Europe the situation on connections with split tickets is rather less generous than the UK. The only real protection is called HOTNAT, but this doesn’t apply at Rotterdam, and doesn’t cover hotels. Unfortunately rights are very limited when you don’t have a through ticket. Eurostar tend to be very good at showing discretion and letting people travel on the next train free of charge, even without the obligation to do so, but some of the European operators can be bad for this.

Do you have travel insurance, some (typically more expensive) policies would cover something like this, and if you do Id suggest contacting them to see what you’re entitled to.

I do have a limited travel insurance I think, it's an unusual policy in that it explicitly doesn't cover healthcare, but might cover this. I will check the policy.

However, I don't think the extra ticket I was sold at Rotterdam was either correct or reasonable, I don't think NS should get extra revenue for their delays! So I would be tempted to either try again with NS for at least that bit, or attempt a chargeback.

You’re also likely to be eligible for the Dutch version of Delay Repay, obviously only based on your NS ticket, and it will unfortunately be rather small compared to the cost of the hotel etc, but might go some way. You can look into this here.

Thank you for the suggestion!

 

[Watershed]

However, I don't think the extra ticket I was sold at Rotterdam was either correct or reasonable, I don't think NS should get extra revenue for their delays! So I would be tempted to either try again with NS for at least that bit, or attempt a chargeback.

From a moral standpoint, I agree. But train companies often don't work based on morals - they work based off the strict letter of the law and the contract.

Legally speaking, unless you bought it as a single journey, NS were only obliged to get you to Rotterdam. What you did after that was your own concern - just the same as if you had missed a flight as a result.

This is why having adequate travel insurance is absolutely vital. It costs very little to obtain such insurance unless you have medical problems.

 

[Trainbike46]

From a moral standpoint, I agree. But train companies often don't work based on morals - they work based off the strict letter of the law and the contract.

Legally speaking, unless you bought it as a single journey, NS were only obliged to get you to Rotterdam. What you did after that was your own concern - just the same as if you had missed a flight as a result.

This is why having adequate travel insurance is absolutely vital. It costs very little to obtain such insurance unless you have medical problems.

Is there any significant disadvantage to attempting a chargeback for the extra ticket, and only claiming it from travel insurance if the chargeback fails?

 

[Watershed]

Is there any significant disadvantage to attempting a chargeback for the extra ticket, and only claiming it from travel insurance if the chargeback fails?

What would the basis for your chargeback be? You can't just make a chargeback because you're unhappy with a (lawful) policy/contractual position.

I would suggest claiming from your travel insurer now that NS have made clear they're unwilling to reimburse you as a gesture of goodwill.

 

[Bletchleyite]

From a moral standpoint, I agree. But train companies often don't work based on morals - they work based off the strict letter of the law and the contract.

Legally speaking, unless you bought it as a single journey, NS were only obliged to get you to Rotterdam. What you did after that was your own concern - just the same as if you had missed a flight as a result.

This is why having adequate travel insurance is absolutely vital. It costs very little to obtain such insurance unless you have medical problems.

The EU could certainly do with legislating for UK like rights across the EU, but unfortunately the likes of SNCF and DB and the Governments that own them are too powerful. However I'd agree on insurance - if you can't afford insurance you can't afford the trip.

It is odd though that they did legislate significantly to airlines' disadvantage with EU261 despite several European Governments owning airlines, though.

 

[Trainbike46]

The EU could certainly do with legislating for UK like rights across the EU, but unfortunately the likes of SNCF and DB and the Governments that own them are too powerful. However I'd agree on insurance - if you can't afford insurance you can't afford the trip.

I do actually have (limited) travel insurance (and worst comes to worst, I can afford all the extra expenditure I made), I'm currently trying to figure out whether this situation is covered. It certainly was covered in 2024, but the policy changed significantly from January first so I'm currently not sure.

It is odd though that they did legislate significantly to airlines' disadvantage with EU261 despite several European Governments owning airlines, though.

I agree it would be good to expand passenger rights on the railways, especially given certain operators make buying through tickets a hassle.

 

[furlong]

From what you say, I would suggest that NS may have been in breach of its duty under the AJC agreement to help you when you spoke to its staff at Rotterdam. A complaint along those lines might be more productive i.e. more staff training and compensation for incorrect information.

You were entitled to take the next Eurostar service from Rotterdam at no additional charge (in this case the next morning) but needed to follow some particular steps to do so which NS should have helped you with (obtaining proof of the delay to show to Eurostar). You were not entitled to overnight accommodation nor to alternative travel on NS.

AJC was designed to fill some of the gaps in the other schemes mentioned (CIV, PRO, HOTNAT).

Read about it here:

Agreement on Journey Continuation (AJC)

cer.be

https://cer.be/images/publications/agreements-resolutions/ajc-note_2024-09-01_en.pdf

The staff are trained to support you with the AJC procedure.

If you had been given correct information about the AJC at the time, would you have NOT purchased the unnecessary extra ticket to Brussels, but rather stayed overnight (at your own expense) in Rotterdam? That could be a basis of an argument for seeking its refund (together with any notional difference in cost of the night's accommodation if like-for-like accommodation in Brussels cost more than Rotterdam).