Does strike action void the NRCoT 28.2 right to be re-routed?

[Kilopylae]

Hi everyone. I've received a message from CrossCountry this morning claiming that NRCoT 28.2 does not apply on strike days - "No alternatives are provided or are required to be provided when strike action is taking place". I can't find this written down anywhere, and if a right to travel exists today, I want to use it.

More specifically, my friend purchased a series of Advance split tickets in conjunction with an itinerary for the 16:27 CrossCountry service from Exeter St Davids to Leeds as part of a journey from Exeter St Davids to Thirsk (using TPE for the final leg between Leeds and Thirsk). We received an automatic e-mail from Trainsplit advising that the 16:27 has been cancelled with the usual message about taking the next XC service, but XC has decided not to run any trains to the south west today. It is still possible to reach Thirsk via London so I sent XC a message quoting NRCoT 28.2, mentioning our willingness to use the option via London, and asking for advice.

They have replied: "Hello. This is cancelled due to well publicised strike action that is taking place across the UK. No alternatives are provided or are required to be provided when strike action is taking place so we would advise that your friend travels on another date or obtain a refund from the point of purchase if they choose not to travel. There would be 1 or 2 options for travel on strike days for which the ticket would be valid for, however that would mean leaving in the morning (last option today is to leave at 09:15 and go via London)."

Is this actually true?

 

[Starmill]

No. It's nothing more than what's convenient for them.

There's no evidence that the contract has become 'frustrated', and in any case it is not clear that's what their argument would be. Alternative transport is practically possible. Their only excuse for not providing it is that they don't want to.

The original contract stands on the terms it was made at the time.

However, the only realistic way to regularise this position will be through litigation. They will likely refuse all attempts to claim for damages under the contract and there's little point in complaining to the Ombudsman. Anyone wanting to go down the litigation route will still need to waste time in correspondence which is getting nobody anywhere, however. I admire anyone who has the necccesary stamina to deal with it.

It's common for replacement transport to be provided anyway. For example, Metrolink are using a rail replacement bus between Timperley and Altrincham before 0700 and after 1900, when Network Rail have refused to provide the route they're contracted to.

 

[Kilopylae]

No. It's nothing more than what's convenient for them.

There's no evidence that the contract has become 'frustrated', and in any case it is not clear that's what their argument would be. Alternative transport is practically possible. Their only excuse for not providing it is that they don't want to.

The original contract stands on the terms it was made at the time.

This was exactly as I suspected, thank you.

Pretty shameless to instruct the customer service team to lie, barefaced, to passengers about their rights. I'm used to fairly good customer service and common sense from XC so I have to say I'm quite disappointed.

 

[Starmill]

Making things up and presenting them as factual is a pretty important part of their business model to be fair. Imagine the mess if they actually faced the full consequences of not providing the service people have paid for?

They tell people to claim vouchers, refunds or exchanges because they know most people will just go along with whatever they claim, and doing this results in minimal losses to their business.

 

[Kilopylae]

Update: CrossCountry have conceded that my friend would have had the right to travel via London, but now claim that their last option to do so was the 9:15. I have pointed out that they can still get as far as York by rail, and said that it would fall to any train company in a position to help to call them a taxi from York to Thirsk. XC state: "If your partner wants to go to York, that is fine, but there is no connection from York to Thirsk though and no alternatives will be provided."

I have asked why the NRCoT (apparently) doesn't apply to this journey.

Imagine the mess if they actually faced the full consequences of not providing the service people have paid for?

True! But that just sounds like a reason not to sell Advance tickets on days when they anticipate possible industrial action.

 

[Starmill]

I have asked why the NRCoT (apparently) doesn't apply to this journey.

I honestly wouldn't bother. They're not going to change their position unless you're prepared to litigate.

You could also take the political route of accountability, but I imagine they'll be happy to tell your MP the same untruths they're telling you.

True! But that sounds like a reason not to sell Advance tickets on days when they anticipate possible industrial action.

Indeed - this however would put them at a huge commercial disadvantage. Wheras telling people things that aren't true costs nothing, and allows them to hold on to their commercial advantage.

 

[Kilopylae]

I honestly wouldn't bother. They're not going to change their position unless you're prepared to litigate.

I'll probably arrange a taxi from York and then whine at them afterwards to refund it. As I'd be prepared to go as far as the Ombudsman ex post.

 

[Starmill]

I'll probably arrange a taxi from York and then whine at them afterwards to refund it. As I'd be prepared to go as far as the Ombudsman ex post.

You're entitled to make the complaint and refer the matter to the Ombudsman, and your MP also if you like. I would encourage you to do so. But you should only do this with a clear view that your chances of success are very low.