Glasgow QS [GLQ] to London King's Cross [KGX] compensation

[philcfc1905]

Good morning All,
I hope I have posted this in the right place, apologies if not.

I am looking for some advice on delay repay on our journey from Glasgow Queen St to London King's Cross 27th Dec 2014.

Our booked train was 09:45 from Glasgow QS to Edinburgh Waverley, to connect to the 11:00 Edinburgh Waverley to London King's Cross (Finsbury Park).
1st Class advance fare.

On checking train times around 04:00 on the 27th Dec I saw all journeys to London would be subject to delays and cancellations because of over running engineering works as per the Eastcoast web site.

Thinking Eastcoast may lift travel time restrictions we decided to get up and leave Glasgow as early as possible.

We boarded the 06:30 First Scot Rail service from Glasgow Queen St to Edinburgh Waverley.
This train arrived at Edinburgh at 07:25.

We headed straight to platform 8 where the 07:30 Eastcoast service to Finsbury Park was departing from.
This service was due to arrive in London at 11:45.

The train was at the platform just about to depart.
We asked a member of Eastcoast Staff if restrictions had been lifted to which she replied no they hadn't been and we were denied boarding the train. To her credit she shouted to a colleague further down the platform just to confirm if what she had just told us was correct.
The reply back from here colleague was all restrictions had been lifted and we were allowed to board.

Our train arrived at Finsbury Park at around 15:00.
Approximatly3 hours late.

My question is although we were originally booked for the 11:00 service from Edinburgh to London, and it was our choice to use an earlier service can we claim for the delay to the service we did board ?

Apologies for the long post just wanted to give you as much background information as possible.

Thank you in advance for any information, very much appreciated.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Eligibility for delay repay should be determined by reference to the booked time of arrival, i.e. the time of arrival of the 11:00hrs service as stated at the time of purchase.

 

[Haywain]

Eligibility for delay repay should be determined by reference to the booked time of arrival, i.e. the time of arrival of the 11:00hrs service as stated at the time of purchase.

However, there is no harm in asking East Coast as you have nothing to lose.

 

[philcfc1905]

Thank you for your reply's. Much appreciated.

 

[yorkie]

That's a long post but all we really need is two times: booked arrival time vs actual arrival time at your destination which you stated to be King's Cross.

The booked arrival time appears to be missing, but would appear to be approximately 1530 into King's Cross.

The actual arrival time is also missing, but we can estimate, based on...

Our train arrived at Finsbury Park at around 15:00.

...that it would be unlikely to be late at all, based on the likely journey time from Finsbury Park to King's Cross being under 30 minutes.

So, the short answer is there is no entitlement.

However, providing you complete the form honestly so there is no possibility of fraud, it would be down to EC's discretion whether or not they compensate you for the fact you chose to leave early in order to avoid being delayed.

But let's be clear: you are asking not for compensation for a delay to your arrival time, but for choosing to depart earlier in order to avoid a delay. There is no entitlement to this, but discretion may well be shown.

 

[bb21]

If the passenger arrived at the destination before the booked arrival time of the originally intended service, then no compensation is due AIUI. It simply does not sit right with me morally to claim compensation in these situations, but that is only my opinion.

However if you explain that you travelled earlier but were delayed en route, they may send you some vouchers for the inconvenience of having to sit on a train for longer than you might normally expect. There is no automatic right to it imo.

 

[Abpj17]

If the passenger arrived at the destination before the booked arrival time of the originally intended service, then no compensation is due AIUI. It simply does not sit right with me morally to claim compensation in these situations, but that is only my opinion.

However if you explain that you travelled earlier but were delayed en route, they may send you some vouchers for the inconvenience of having to sit on a train for longer than you might normally expect. There is no automatic right to it imo.

Morally, it doesn't seem too awful to claim if a three hour journey took six hours tho. I guess it depends on what people see the claim as being for - disruption/extended journey time and/or inconvenience/late arrival.

 

[yorkie]

Morally, it doesn't seem too awful to claim if a three hour journey took six hours tho. I guess it depends on what people see the claim as being for - disruption/extended journey time and/or inconvenience/late arrival.

There is nothing wrong with being honest about what happened, and letting the Company decide what compensation they feel is appropriate.

 

[Starmill]

If the passenger arrived at the destination before the booked arrival time of the originally intended service, then no compensation is due AIUI. It simply does not sit right with me morally to claim compensation in these situations, but that is only my opinion.

I partly agree with you. But the other thing to consider is that not offering any discretionary compensation in these cases would create a perverse incentive for that traveller next time - i.e. hang around all day and go for your booked train, only to be many hours delayed possibly missing the last connection to complete your journey in some cases. That could cost the TOC 100% compensation on the tickets and a big taxi bill or overnight accommodation.

My suspicion is that given the high profile nature of this disruption in national media, East Coast will strongly want to avoid being seen to deny passengers compensation, and thus are very likely to make an offer of discretionary compensation if a politely worded letter is sent, as yorkie says, clear on the facts.

 

[Mike99]

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was allowed to travel earlier to avoid delay but now hopes for compo, presumably enough so the journey will work out as free,

 

[Starmill]

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was allowed to travel earlier to avoid delay but now hopes for compo, presumably enough so the journey will work out as free,

I reject this - in what way is it a 'sad reflection'? Service disruption causes people inconvenience - do they not deserve to be compensated?

Alternatively, you might consider it a' sad reflection'on the modern industry just how stacked against passengers the system is in every other aspect of ticketing and passenger rights.

 

[philcfc1905]

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was allowed to travel earlier to avoid delay but now hopes for compo, presumably enough so the journey will work out as free,

I was hoping to use the 11:00 service and get up at a reasonable hour for our journey home. I was also hoping to receive the limited first class service Eastcoast offer over the holiday period for which I paid a higher ticket price for but did not get because halfway through the journey first class was declassified, and to only be sitting on a train for around 4.5 hours not 7 hours.

I appreciate the fact the engineering over run was not Eastcoast's fault.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I reject this - in what way is it a 'sad reflection'? Service disruption causes people inconvenience - do they not deserve to be compensated?

Alternatively, you might consider it a' sad reflection'on the modern industry just how stacked against passengers the system is in every other aspect of ticketing and passenger rights.

starmill, Thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's a long post but all we really need is two times: booked arrival time vs actual arrival time at your destination which you stated to be King's Cross.

The booked arrival time appears to be missing, but would appear to be approximately 1530 into King's Cross.

The actual arrival time is also missing, but we can estimate, based on...

...that it would be unlikely to be late at all, based on the likely journey time from Finsbury Park to King's Cross being under 30 minutes.

So, the short answer is there is no entitlement.

However, providing you complete the form honestly so there is no possibility of fraud, it would be down to EC's discretion whether or not they compensate you for the fact you chose to leave early in order to avoid being delayed.

But let's be clear: you are asking not for compensation for a delay to your arrival time, but for choosing to depart earlier in order to avoid a delay. There is no entitlement to this, but discretion may well be shown.

Thank you for your help. I think I will put this one down to one of those days. I foolishly did not make a note of the exact arrival time of the service we travelled on and would not want to approximate times on any potential claim. You are correct we left early to avoid delay.
I do appreciate we were allowed to travel on an ealier service. With the delay we had, I hate to think what time we would have arrived back home had we travelled on the 11:00.

 

[yorkie]

....halfway through the journey first class was declassified....

You would be entitled to a pro-rata refund of the difference between Standard and 1st class fares for the part of the journey where 1st was declassified.

 

[philcfc1905]

First class was declassified after we left York. A previous train had cancelled and the train crew were unable to get their catering trolleys through the train due to the large number of passengers having to stand.

 

[Wolfie]

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was allowed to travel earlier to avoid delay but now hopes for compo, presumably enough so the journey will work out as free,

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was forced to start travelling early to mitigate the effects of rail industry ineptitude and incompetence and now, despite the sacrifice of his own time, some in that industry would seek to deny him morally justified compensation.

Make no mistake, if the head of Network Rail has the chutzpah to announce publicly he will consider taking a bonus for this year, after apparently refusing to cut short his family's Cornish break, then damned right the OP should probe what he can claim. For sure East Coast will be compensated by Network Rail....

 

[Hadders]

Ok, I'm not defending what happened, it was a total shambles and could have been dealt with much better.

But it does make me smile when people start looking for compensation from the rail industry when something goes wrong and they are delayed.

A few years ago I had to spend the night in my car on the M6, severely delaying my journey and causing me huge discomfort and inconvenience. I wonder why we never hear demands for compensation from the highways authorities when they get things wrong?

 

[talldave]

Ok, I'm not defending what happened, it was a total shambles and could have been dealt with much better.

But it does make me smile when people start looking for compensation from the rail industry when something goes wrong and they are delayed.

A few years ago I had to spend the night in my car on the M6, severely delaying my journey and causing me huge discomfort and inconvenience. I wonder why we never hear demands for compensation from the highways authorities when they get things wrong?

Well the highways agency doesn't operate a delay compensation scheme. If they did, you'd no doubt hear discussions about it.

If customers decide to pay £x for a journey that's shown to take 4.5 hours and yet it takes 7 hours, they might feel that they would rather have chosen an alternative method. It's simple business practice, if you fail to deliver the service paid for, expect to get complaints. The fact that the delays were due to incompetence in finishing a job on time (as compared to uncontrollable weather issues) removes any doubt as to whether complaint is justified.

In the OP's case, they inconvenienced themselves in order to try to mitigate the impact of NR's incompetence but, despite that, still found themselves suffering from a delay and inferior service to that which they'd paid for. Whilst I'm no legal expert (wrong Dave!), I would say that at the point the TOC accepted the OP onto the earlier train, the originally scheduled arrival time becomes an irrelevance and the OP was entitled to expect to arrive at their destination to the schedule of that earlier train.

 

[bb21]

I reject this - in what way is it a 'sad reflection'? Service disruption causes people inconvenience - do they not deserve to be compensated?

Alternatively, you might consider it a' sad reflection'on the modern industry just how stacked against passengers the system is in every other aspect of ticketing and passenger rights.

I don't think asking for the possibility of compensation constitutes a "sad reflection". I would like to think that it is a sign that people are more aware of their rights and are actually exercising them, which is not necessarily a bad thing, a bit more of a double-edged sword.

I can only speak in terms of what a passenger is entitled to in definite terms, which is that if they arrived at their destination half an hour or more later than their original booked time, then compensation is due. There is simply no automatic entitlement to compensation if the passenger chooses to travel earlier which is the reason behind my wording in reply to the OP.

I was hoping to use the 11:00 service and get up at a reasonable hour for our journey home. I was also hoping to receive the limited first class service Eastcoast offer over the holiday period for which I paid a higher ticket price for but did not get because halfway through the journey first class was declassified, and to only be sitting on a train for around 4.5 hours not 7 hours.

I appreciate the fact the engineering over run was not Eastcoast's fault.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


starmill, Thank you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Thank you for your help. I think I will put this one down to one of those days. I foolishly did not make a note of the exact arrival time of the service we travelled on and would not want to approximate times on any potential claim. You are correct we left early to avoid delay.
I do appreciate we were allowed to travel on an ealier service. With the delay we had, I hate to think what time we would have arrived back home had we travelled on the 11:00.

You really need to provide all the relevant facts if you want to get a more appropriate answer to your query, rather than drip-feed information.

If First Class were officially declassified, then you will be entitled to a pro rata refund as yorkie described. If you simply did not receive First Class offerings for part of the journey, while not automatically entitled to anything (because they are complimentary officially speaking), it is AIUI East Coast's policy that you will be compensated for the section affected, but that is very much discretionary. There is a minor but subtle difference between the two. Luckily with East Coast, either way there will be some compensation due.

A sad reflection of the world we live in, the OP was forced to start travelling early to mitigate the effects of rail industry ineptitude and incompetence and now, despite the sacrifice of his own time, some in that industry would seek to deny him morally justified compensation.

Who is trying to deny him his "morally justified" compensation?

Make no mistake, if the head of Network Rail has the chutzpah to announce publicly he will consider taking a bonus for this year, after apparently refusing to cut short his family's Cornish break, then damned right the OP should probe what he can claim. For sure East Coast will be compensated by Network Rail....

The relevance of this "bonus" business being?

Some of the compensation East Coast receives will not be paid to passengers because the threshold for payout is 30 minutes. Similarly some of the consequential costs to East Coast, one of which is illustrated by the OP's very own circumstances, will have to be borne by East Coast themselves. It is nowhere near as black and white as you seem to put it.

I partly agree with you. But the other thing to consider is that not offering any discretionary compensation in these cases would create a perverse incentive for that traveller next time - i.e. hang around all day and go for your booked train, only to be many hours delayed possibly missing the last connection to complete your journey in some cases. That could cost the TOC 100% compensation on the tickets and a big taxi bill or overnight accommodation.

My suspicion is that given the high profile nature of this disruption in national media, East Coast will strongly want to avoid being seen to deny passengers compensation, and thus are very likely to make an offer of discretionary compensation if a politely worded letter is sent, as yorkie says, clear on the facts.

You are not really disagreeing with me though, are you? You are saying that there may be compensation due, but it is still discretionary.

This is another good way to show that the whole cost/benefit analysis for East Coast is not as simple as "being compensated for delays but not all is paid out to passengers" as some people in past threads were at pains to argue.

But there is a key word which runs throughout the theme of this discussion on the possibility of compensation - discretionary.

Well the highways agency doesn't operate a delay compensation scheme. If they did, you'd no doubt hear discussions about it.

Agreed.

If customers decide to pay £x for a journey that's shown to take 4.5 hours and yet it takes 7 hours, they might feel that they would rather have chosen an alternative method. It's simple business practice, if you fail to deliver the service paid for, expect to get complaints.

Agreed.

However is it just me who appreciates that there is always a chance that unexpected events could occur, especially at a sensitive time like the first day of operation after Christmas and that is just the nature of rail travel, thereby make contingency plans for it?

The fact that the delays were due to incompetence in finishing a job on time (as compared to uncontrollable weather issues) removes any doubt as to whether complaint is justified.

Do we actually know that for sure?

In the OP's case, they inconvenienced themselves in order to try to mitigate the impact of NR's incompetence but, despite that, still found themselves suffering from a delay and inferior service to that which they'd paid for. Whilst I'm no legal expert (wrong Dave!), I would say that at the point the TOC accepted the OP onto the earlier train, the originally scheduled arrival time becomes an irrelevance and the OP was entitled to expect to arrive at their destination to the schedule of that earlier train.

That would be a debatable point, but I can see where you are coming from. In response, I could say that because the OP chose to travel earlier in view of the disruption, they did so on the reasonable expectation that they would arrive no later than their originally booked time, but then this argument can just go around in circles as I think both ways of looking at the problem has its merits, and who is to say which is right?

The way I see it is that the OP took a sensible approach in view of the disruption, and arrived at their destination in good time, so all is well. I have no problem with people wanting to seek compensation for the inconvenience of sitting on a train for much longer than they initially expected (or were willing to put up with, as I indicated in my original reply to the OP), but AFAIK there is no automatic entitlement to compensation on that basis, and I don't think anyone has managed to come up with any evidence to show otherwise.

 

[PermitToTravel]

A few years ago I had to spend the night in my car on the M6, severely delaying my journey and causing me huge discomfort and inconvenience. I wonder why we never hear demands for compensation from the highways authorities when they get things wrong?

You're welcome to politely write to them and ask, as is the OP with regards to EC.

 

[bb21]

You're welcome to politely write to them and ask, as is the OP with regards to EC.

I think we can all imagine what the reply will be.

But we will be straying off-topic there.

 

[Starmill]

You would be entitled to a pro-rata refund of the difference between Standard and 1st class fares for the part of the journey where 1st was declassified.

Yes and if they are going to go around calculating that to the penny, then good luck to them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If First Class were officially declassified, then you will be entitled to a pro rata refund as yorkie described. If you simply did not receive First Class offerings for part of the journey, while not automatically entitled to anything (because they are complimentary officially speaking), it is AIUI East Coast's policy that you will be compensated for the section affected, but that is very much discretionary. There is a minor but subtle difference between the two. Luckily with East Coast, either way there will be some compensation due.

I'm not sure. East Coast have refused to compensate me before when no First Class complimentary offer was available for a part of the journey where it normally would be, but First was not technically declassified.

You are not really disagreeing with me though, are you? You are saying that there may be compensation due, but it is still discretionary.

...


But there is a key word which runs throughout the theme of this discussion on the possibility of compensation - discretionary.

I'm not sure what your point is. Some compensation is discretionary, some is not. Getting the passenger to their destination by rail never is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However is it just me who appreciates that there is always a chance that unexpected events could occur, especially at a sensitive time like the first day of operation after Christmas and that is just the nature of rail travel, thereby make contingency plans for it?

And what a saint you are for doing so. Pray what services do the Highways Agency sell to consumers?

 

[bb21]

I'm not sure. East Coast have refused to compensate me before when no First Class complimentary offer was available for a part of the journey where it normally would be, but First was not technically declassified.

That is the first instance I have heard of East Coast refusing to offer passengers a "goodwill" gesture after failing to provide advertised complimentary offerings. AFAIK it is EC's policy to offer some compensation, but that is something I knew of from speaking to other forum members who I consider to be reliable sources and through my own experience, so I cannot offer any guarantee. If their policy has changed then I am happy to be corrected.

If it happens to you again, it might be worth writing to them again explaining that you were dissatisfied with their response and see if the matter gets looked at again. Sometimes customer services staff do make errors so it is always better to challenge them if you do not consider the response satisfactory.

I'm not sure what your point is. Some compensation is discretionary, some is not. Getting the passenger to their destination by rail never is.

You've lost me. I never said the TOCs don't have an obligation to get the passengers to their destination.

My point is that neither you, nor me, nor anyone else on this forum, can give the OP any assurance that he is due compensation for taking an earlier train and arriving at his destination before his original booked time, simply because there is no automatic entitlement to it that I can see, even if the journey took much longer than expected. All you have been doing, and I have done earlier, is advising the passenger to provide East Coast with a factual account of the events (including any expression of disappointment at the standard of service offered) and "hope for the best" so to speak, so essentially compensation is entirely discretionary in this case. I don't mean compensation is discretionary in the wider context, only in this specific case.

The talk of potential costs to East Coast in alternative scenarios may have some bearing on whether they decide to offer him compensation, but equally it may not. I am unable to say either way because I don't know.

And what a saint you are for doing so. Pray what services do the Highways Agency sell to consumers?

Highways Agency? Again you have lost me.

If a passenger's experience falls within the scope of compensation as clearly set out in various official documents, then by all means claim for it. That is an entitlement you have. Alternatively if a passenger feels that the service he received fell below satisfactory standards but it fell outside the scope of those documents then he is free to complain and seek compensation if he so wishes. I don't have an issue with that. Different people have different levels of expectation and tolerance so we will all likely take different actions somewhere down the line even after similar experiences.

There are certain dates during the year where there is a higher chance that things could go wrong, 27th December being one of them, as several factors that could adversely impact the performance of the railway have a higher chance of stacking up and causing big problems across the network. For those days, if I were to be travelling, I would normally spend a bit more effort than usual having some sort of plan for alternative options in case things go wrong, especially if I have places to be by a certain time. This does not always mean that it will work, and if a few major problems occur at the same time like what happened this year, it will probably go into the "sh*t happens sometimes" pile.

I am not saying that the train companies should not be expected to run their services punctually and maintain their usual standards of service on those days, but surely it is not beyond the wits of most people to appreciate that some days are more at risk than others. These days may vary depending on which service one catches and which area one travels in. I am also not saying that one should not complain and seek compensation, if felt appropriate, on such days, but if a journey took 7 hours instead of 4, it needn't be a big deal. Start earlier if one can like what the OP did by being organised, make some more allowances for delays on higher-risk days, and make the best of whatever one can even in difficult circumstances. The bottom line is that the railway will get you to your destination (via alternative means if necessary) if there are problems, and if you arrive sufficiently later than planned, you will be entitled to compensation. It won't always work as sometimes it is pure luck that problems prop up all over the places at the same time, but there is no guarantee that going by an alternative mode of transport would be 100% problem free.

By taking some of these steps it can help minimise the effects of many of the inconveniences one might experience, but if it doesn't, make the best of what you can, and after the event take whatever is considered appropriate actions to address the issues experienced.