First leg of journey cancelled

[TUC]

I was due to travel on a journey involving two services. On arriving at the station I discovered that the train for the first leg of the journey had been cancelled. As my journey is time-critical, my only option was to drive to the connecting station for the 2nd leg-a journey of around 20 miles.

Where does this leave me? It does not readily fall into Delay Repay as I will arrive on time. On the other hand, when it comes to asking for a refund as the journey was cancelled and I decided to therefore not travel, this is the case for the first half of the journey, but the ticket has been used for the 2nd half.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's down to a discretionary matter for customer services which realistically probably means nowt. Though one thing that could be an option depending on circumstances would be to purchase a ticket for the journey you actually did (before you did it) and get a full refund on the other as the cancellation made you "decide not to travel". This, depending on circumstances, may or may not save you any money.

There's also the option of just claiming the Delay Repay anyway as it would have been if you had travelled. Of course that won't work if your ticket is marked with the train you caught, and it is fraud even if not really enforceable.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would have said there may be a chance you can recover the costs you incurred in driving to the connecting station - this could be the alternative option you present to customer services, if they do not wish to provide you with Delay Repay or a refund proportional to the use of the ticket you had.

 

[Starmill]

I would also add that, in my view, there is a very strong case for a refund of the difference between the price you paid, and the price of the cheapest ticket you could have bought for the travel you actually used. Note that if you had a return, this might be a combination of singles, and it might not result in very much, or even any, refund being due. This refund of differences would be the very minimum they should be offering.

 

[Silverdale]

This refund of differences would be the very minimum they should be offering.

As that would be the difference to which you were entitled (by getting a free refund on the ticket(s) you had and purchasing new ones) I agree there is a strong case for you to be made whole by that amount.

Probably easier for the TOC to justify, than agreeing to pay the cost incurred in taking alternative means of transport, so to claim on that basis is more likely to be successful.

 

[yorkie]

I was due to travel on a journey involving two services. On arriving at the station I discovered that the train for the first leg of the journey had been cancelled. As my journey is time-critical, my only option was to drive to the connecting station for the 2nd leg-a journey of around 20 miles.

Where does this leave me? It does not readily fall into Delay Repay as I will arrive on time. On the other hand, when it comes to asking for a refund as the journey was cancelled and I decided to therefore not travel, this is the case for the first half of the journey, but the ticket has been used for the 2nd half.

There is no automatic entitlement to anything (had you waited for the next train, you'd have been conveyed at no further cost and would also have been able to claim Delay Repay if sufficiently delayed), but I would expect a suitably worded email to get a good result such as discretionary payment, or complimentary travel pass or similar.

An easier way to generate an entitlement to a refund would be to purchase a new ticket for the new journey, and claim a refund of the original ticket which would remain unused, however there is insufficient information to establish if this would have been prudent or not. If the original ticket was a walk-up ticket then it would have been, but possibly not if the original was an Advance.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would also add that, in my view, there is a very strong case for a refund of the difference between the price you paid, and the price of the cheapest ticket you could have bought for the travel you actually used. Note that if you had a return, this might be a combination of singles, and it might not result in very much, or even any, refund being due. This refund of differences would be the very minimum they should be offering.

Agreed. If it were up to me processing the claim for a TOC I would probably give full delay repay or a comp journey.

 

[Belperpete]

If you had made the journey by taxi, you could have tried claiming for the cost of the taxi fare, but to be honest it is unlikely such a claim would be accepted. As you made the journey by your own car, there is no way of showing how much it cost, and therefore little point in trying to claim for the cost.

My starting point would be to ask for the cost of a return for the part of the journey you didn't make, based on the fare applicable at the time you would have made the journey. Also, if you parked in the station car park at the connecting station, a refund of the parking charge. Of course, what you ask for and what you get are two different things. As others have already said, this doesn't fall into the standard compensation categories, so you are very much reliant on the goodwill of customer services. However, it might be worth pointing out what you would have been entitled to in delay compensation had you simply waited for the next train.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

but to be honest it is unlikely such a claim would be accepted

That can be said about many kinds of claims one might make against a train company, but I don't think it is a reason not even to try.

As you made the journey by your own car, there is no way of showing how much it cost, and therefore little point in trying to claim for the cost.

The standard HMRC mileage rate would be one option, or alternatively one can produce a copy of the latest fuel receipt and a statement of the make and model so that the fuel economy can be estimated. Either way, out of all the potential issues with any such claim, I think proving the cost of driving is the least of your worries.

you are very much reliant on the goodwill of customer services.

Not really - this was a breach of contract and the OP enacted "self-help" to remedy the breach and reduce their and the TOC's costs and liabilities. The OP is most certainly entitled to either their costs, or the "overpaid" fare. The TOC is not legally permitted to fail to provide the service and yet refuse appropriate reimbursement!

 

[Silverdale]

The TOC is not legally permitted to fail to provide the service and yet refuse appropriate reimbursement!

If an advertised service is cancelled, and the customer decides not to travel, the appropriate reimbursement is a full refund of the fare paid, on presentation of the unused ticket.

In other circumstances, the only reimbursement to which the customer would be entitled is that determined by a court. When courts have been asked to consider cases involving cancelled trains, have they found that a single cancellation amounts to a breach of contract and if so, what level of reimbursement and/or determination of consequential loss/damages has been awarded?

I would have thought that, given the number of instances of trains being cancelled, there should be no shortage of such cases by which we can assess what the OP should be entitled to.

 

[Starmill]

As you made the journey by your own car, there is no way of showing how much it cost, and therefore little point in trying to claim for the cost.

I have never come across a case where this is the actual problem to be honest. There are Advisory Fuel Rates set by the government for tax purposes when claiming expenses. It's fairly irrelevant if that rate is not, in my opinion or yours, all that accurate. Some people drive their electric cars for work, with electricity supplied free (or next to free) of charge, and claim expenses similarly to the maximum allowed in the Advisory Fuel Rates. That is just what is permitted under tax law and their employer's policy, despite the marginal cost of that driving being remarkably low.

Instead, the problem might be that the train company doesn't agree that they are liable to pay this cost at all. They might have a reasonable case to argue for that, depending on how long it was until the next train would have arrived at the destination. Not knowing to a high degree of accuracy the cost of making that journey is a bit of a weak excuse.

 

[yorkie]

I would have thought that, given the number of instances of trains being cancelled, there should be no shortage of such cases by which we can assess what the OP should be entitled to.

No, because very few people know what to do, or would be prepared to go through the process of taking the matter to a court.

I am aware of some cases of passengers taking action against TOCs for alleged contractual breaches, but based on what I've seen so far, TOCs rarely seem to contest these, and just accept the default judgement.

In any case, most TOCs will provide compensation when disruption occurs; in this case the 'complication' is with the customer being honest about how they avoided a delay by incurring their own costs. If the tickets just went in for a Delay Repay claim it'd be accepted and paid without question.

 

[Silverdale]

I am aware of some cases of passengers taking action against TOCs for alleged contractual breaches, but based on what I've seen so far, TOCs rarely seem to contest these, and just accept the default judgement.

Or offer to settle for (figuratively) pennies. It's the pragmatic thing for the TOC to do. They know, as you say, that only a minority of those affected by breaches of contract will think it worth dragging through the courts.

If the tickets just went in for a Delay Repay claim it'd be accepted and paid without question.

Unless the OP's ticket was marked in a way which showed which train they had actually used.

Suggesting that a consideration should be made for the fact of the cancellation seems fair enough. As does the idea that it should be based on either the DR which would, otherwise, have been claimed, or the difference in price between the original tickets held and the fare for the journey actually made. It's far more difficult to argue for reimbursement of motoring costs incurred, as contractually the TOC would only be liable if it knew, or should have known, that the OP would have no alternative but to drive between the two stations, as a consequence of the cancellation.

 

[yorkie]

Suggesting that a consideration should be made for the fact of the cancellation seems fair enough. As does the idea that it should be based on either the DR which would, otherwise, have been claimed, or the difference in price between the original tickets held and the fare for the journey actually made. It's far more difficult to argue for reimbursement of motoring costs incurred, as contractually the TOC would only be liable if it knew, or should have known, that the OP would have no alternative but to drive between the two stations, as a consequence of the cancellation.

Yes absolutely, but the suggestion of motoring costs was only made if "they do not wish to provide you with Delay Repay or a refund proportional to the use of the ticket you had".

 

[Belperpete]

The OP is most certainly entitled to either their costs, or the "overpaid" fare. The TOC is not legally permitted to fail to provide the service and yet refuse appropriate reimbursement!

The problem is that the OP is highly unlikely to be able to show that he incurred any costs. Unlike taking a taxi, where you produce a receipt to prove that you both made a journey and paid for it, how does the OP demonstrate that he actually drove in his own car to the interchange station? As opposed to say getting a lift with someone else. This is not the same as claiming mileage expenses, where there is prior agreement not just to make the journey, but in what class of car. Whilst it would be nice to think that, should I choose to use my chauffer-driven Rolls-Royce in a similar situation, that I would get the costs back, I somehow doubt it. Especially with nothing to show that I actually made the journey at all, let alone in a Rolls.

The overpaid fare may be zero. For example, the fares from my local station are the same as those from my interchange station. So if I were to do the same, the difference in fares between the journey made as opposed to that paid for would be zero.

Given FortheLoveof's requirement that the TOC should either pay the costs of my Rolls journey or reimburse my zero fares difference, I know which option I would choose if I were the TOC!

I certainly would not recommend claiming delay repay as standard, as others appear to be suggesting. Claiming for a delay that you did not actually incur would be fraud, and could carry serious consequences if detected. On the other hand, explaining what you actually did, and suggesting that the TOC should pay the same amount as you would have been entitled to had you waited for the next train, to help defray the costs that you incurred, would be entirely legitimate and reasonable.

Unfortunately the delay repay compensation may also be fairly insignificant, depending on how long the delay would have been and how much the tickets cost. For example, for a delay of say 58 minutes and cheap Advance tickets, the compensation may be fairly small. Certainly compared to what the OP may have paid to park at the interchange station all day. So, in my view it would also be reasonable to request any parking charge be refunded. Especially if the fee were paid to the same TOC as the cancelled train, as the TOC should not financially benefit from the OP as a consequence of their cancelled train.

My opening gambit would be to request whichever is the largest:
* the difference in fares
* the compensation that you would have been entitled to had you waited for the next train
* the cost of a return from your local station to the Interchange station (the journey you didn't make by train)
to help defray the costs of you driving there and back, plus a refund of any parking fee that you may have paid (supported by a receipt if possible). When they respond, the minimum that you should accept is the compensation that you would have been entitled to had you waited.

 

[Silverdale]

Yes absolutely, but the suggestion of motoring costs was only made if "they do not wish to provide you with Delay Repay or a refund proportional to the use of the ticket you had".

The suggestion was made that the OP was "most certainly entitled" to either their motoring costs, or the "overpaid" fare.

If reimbursement of motoring costs is an entitlement, I don't understand why it would be conditional on the TOC refusing to pay some other amount. If that is what @ForTheLoveOf is saying, it would be helpful to the OP if that could be clarified.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I certainly would not recommend claiming delay repay as standard, as others appear to be suggesting. Claiming for a delay that you did not actually incur would be fraud, and could carry serious consequences if detected. On the other hand, explaining what you actually did, and suggesting that the TOC should pay the same amount as you would have been entitled to had you waited for the next train, to help defray the costs that you incurred, would be entirely legitimate and reasonable.

Fraud requires there to be an intent to gain an unlawful gain (or to unlawfully deprive another of something). If you are claiming Delay Repay in a situation where you have performed the company's obligations at your own cost I think there is no unlawfulness about it at all, if they allege you would not be able to get anything otherwise.

The problem is that the OP is highly unlikely to be able to show that he incurred any costs. Unlike taking a taxi, where you produce a receipt to prove that you both made a journey and paid for it, how does the OP demonstrate that he actually drove in his own car to the interchange station? As opposed to say getting a lift with someone else

A witness statement of the circumstances would be plenty to show the incurrence of costs. Are you suggesting that the TOC would accuse the OP of lying about this? I don't think so! As previously stated - if there are any issues with this situation, proving you've incurred the cost of driving is going to be the very least of your issues!

Whilst it would be nice to think that, should I choose to use my chauffer-driven Rolls-Royce in a similar situation, that I would get the costs back, I somehow doubt it. Especially with nothing to show that I actually made the journey at all, let alone in a Rolls.

The duty to reasonably mitigate losses exists. If you decided to travel in a Rolls-Royce then you will not be able to recover more than the reasonable cost of driving a 'normal' car.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The suggestion was made that the OP was "most certainly entitled" to either their motoring costs, or the "overpaid" fare.

If reimbursement of motoring costs is an entitlement, I don't understand why it would be conditional on the TOC refusing to pay some other amount. If that is what @ForTheLoveOf is saying, it would be helpful to the OP if that could be clarified.

Because the TOC could argue for either, really, but they could not credibly claim nothing at all is due.

 

[Silverdale]

It really doesn't follow that if the TOC refuses to pay some amount to which the OP is entitled, it then becomes liable to pay some other amount to which the OP isn't entitled.

So, unless it's the case that the OP is entitled to be reimbursed for their motoring costs, your statement, suggesting they are "most certainly entitled" is not very helpful to the OP.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It really doesn't follow that if the TOC refuses to pay some amount to which the OP is entitled, it then becomes liable to pay some other amount to which the OP isn't entitled.

So, unless it's the case that the OP is entitled to be reimbursed for their motoring costs, your statement, suggesting they are "most certainly entitled" is not very helpful to the OP.

I'm really not sure what you are trying to add of value to the OP here; you may be understood to be taking a position of devil's advocate reductio ad absurdum.

What I am saying is that, if this went to Court, the OP would be entitled to argue their claim on two limbs (a proportional refund, and their motoring costs) and let the Court decide which limb is permitted to go forwards. But what is clear is that nothing is not an acceptable answer. I don't think it is relevant that there were further trains later on, except in the context of potentially attempting to mitigate the TOC's liability. The contract was made on the basis of the trains which the OP booked, and not some other trains, and accordingly the OP is entitled to attempt to remedy the breach themselves and to recover amounts for having done so.

 

[Silverdale]

I'm really not sure what you are trying to add of value to the OP here; you may be understood to be taking a position of devil's advocate reductio ad absurdum.

I'm trying to clarify the basis for your bald statement that the OP is "most certainly entitled" to the reimbursement of their motoring costs.

What I am saying is that, if this went to Court, the OP would be entitled to argue their claim on two limbs (a proportional refund, and their motoring costs) and let the Court decide which limb is permitted to go forwards.

That is certainly a clarification.

If you are no longer saying that the OP is entitled to reimbursement of their motoring costs, but that they could make such an argument to a court and that the court would decide the matter, I'm happy to agree with you.

But what is clear is that nothing is not an acceptable answer.

Again, I agree along with others here, that's the case.

I don't think it is relevant that there were further trains later on, except in the context of potentially attempting to mitigate the TOC's liability.

The cancellation of the train the OP intended to catch meant that they were entitled to a full refund of the fare paid from the retailer, if they decided not to travel.

As the OP did decide to travel, it's not clear that the TOC or TOCs who operate the services on which their ticket is valid have any liability to mitigate a delay (e.g. of the OP having to wait for the next available service), other than to provide those services with a reasonable degree of skill and care.

The contract was made on the basis of the trains which the OP booked, and not some other trains, and accordingly the OP is entitled to attempt to remedy the breach themselves and to recover amounts for having done so.

The OP was entitled to make their own way to the interchange station and to continue to use their ticket from there. They are also entitled to argue in court, variously, that the cancellation of a single train represents a breach of contract, that the TOC or TOCs concerned had a liability to transport them to the interchange station by other means, that the TOC failed to provide the service(s) with a reasonable degree of skill and care... and to seek reimbursement of their motoring costs. Whether the court would accept any of those arguments and if so, what it might award in such a circumstance is, as you have recently conceded, a matter for it to decide.