Grand Central Abandoning Customers

[TUC]

It's a lot easier to sort an Uber/Bolt/whatever as an individual than it is to book them en masse. APIs are possible, but if your app is connected to your Uber the whole experience is just easier.

Certainly I am more than happy with this policy - "sort it out yourself and we WILL pay you back" is my preferred policy. Same with booking hotels, I have enough tools on my phone to book any room that's likely to be available nearby (including the very last resort of making a voice call). By far my preference over standing in a potentially very long queue.

If there are significant numbers of travel-savvy people who prefer that, letting them do so, assuring you'll cover the cost (up to specified limits if you want*) and actually doing so is likely cheaper, when you consider staff time, than making them wait for you to do it.

* If say the limit is £200 a night but I prefer to pay £400 for a fancy hotel, no reason not to allow that and just pay £200 against the £400 receipt - that's one more room you can get for someone who can't pay.

The problem is that it will be the least capable, most vulnerable passengers who are left at risk.

 

[Wolfie]

Good luck with getting a refund. I've certainly heard of the much praised Hull Trains doing this and then not refunding passengers.


In this case, the fact they haven't made alternative arrangements is unforgivable

Sue every time.

 

[TUC]

Sue every time.

But it takes a certain amount of ability and self-confidence to do that.

 

[Watershed]

It's a lot easier to sort an Uber/Bolt/whatever as an individual than it is to book them en masse. APIs are possible, but if your app is connected to your Uber the whole experience is just easier.

Certainly I am more than happy with this policy - "sort it out yourself and we WILL pay you back" is my preferred policy. Same with booking hotels, I have enough tools on my phone to book any room that's likely to be available nearby (including the very last resort of making a voice call). By far my preference over standing in a potentially very long queue.

If there are significant numbers of travel-savvy people who prefer that, letting them do so, assuring you'll cover the cost (up to specified limits if you want) and actually doing so is likely cheaper, when you consider staff time, than making them wait for you to do it.

The problem here, of course, is that GC have basically said "sort yourself out and we WON'T pay you back".

When I encountered disruption due to a level crossing accident on Metrolink (the commuter rail in Los Angeles, not the tram in Manchester!) I thought they sorted it out very well.

Their Twitter and live running pages had links to an Uber voucher code which paid for the first $60 (IIRC) of a journey starting at a Metrolink station. That way people don't need to pay upfront and go through the hassle of claiming later. Sure, a tiny number of non-rail (and rail) passengers might make unintended use of the offer, and $60 won't be enough for all jourenys (especially if surge pricing kicks in) but by and large it's a pretty foolproof system.

There's no obvious reason why UK rail operators couldn't adopt a similar system.

 

[TUC]

When I encountered disruption due to a level crossing accident on Metrolink (the commuter rail in Los Angeles, not the tram in Manchester!) I thought they sorted it out very well.

Their Twitter and live running pages had links to an Uber voucher code which paid for the first $60 (IIRC) of a journey starting at a Metrolink station. That way people don't need to pay upfront and go through the hassle of claiming later. Sure, a tiny number of non-rail (and rail) passengers might make unintended use of the offer, but by and large it's a pretty foolproof system. I would very much be in favour of UK rail operators doing the same.

Exactly, and I've been on trains in years past when paper authorisations of a similar kind were made available to passengers. Hard to see why such a system couldn't readily be set up?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that it will be the least capable, most vulnerable passengers who are left at risk.

It's not, though, because what you've done is got all the people who can sort themselves out to go away and do that, and you're just left with a relatively small number of people to help directly who can't do that.

It's solid practice in the airline industry too. Why have a whole 747 queueing up for two people to spend hours sorting out rebooking and hotels when you can ask those who can to go away and rebook using their phone and send a bill for the hotel, and be left with maybe 50-100 of them who need it done for them? Indeed I'm almost certain at least one airline has a booking.com type interface on their website to allow people to book their own hotel while stranded.

 

[ainsworth74]

The problem is that it will be the least capable, most vulnerable passengers who are left at risk.

Not really. The logical approach is to say "Please make your own arrangements and we will reimburse you for these additional costs. If for any reason you cannot do this please contact us via [insert contact methods] or speak to member of our staff on the train and we'll sort you alternative travel/accommodation".

It doesn't need to mean that the only option is "sort yourself out" but it does make sense to make it clear that people who can do so (which is going to be lots of them) can just crack on with getting themselves a hotel, taxi, new ticket, etc meaning that GC (or any other TOC) only have to worry about the smaller number of people who maybe don't have the cash on hand to fork out for new ticket to London potentially costing many times what they've already paid, or who aren't tech savvy enough to organise things like this from their phone, or have some other vulnerability.

Asking people to make their own arrangements doesn't mean that that's the only choice!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, and I've been on trains in years past when paper authorisations of a similar kind were made available to passengers. Hard to see why such a system couldn't readily be set up?

Back in the days when customer service was important, in the North West a cancellation that'd leave you stuck for over an hour would easily result in a taxi chit, which you just took to the rank and gave to the driver, who took you where you were going and billed the railway. Had a good few of those for cancelled Ormskirk services and missed connections at Preston as that always meant a wait of over an hour.

Sometimes the old way was easier...

 

[Wolfie]

It should be a condition of their access agreement that there is adequate customer service provision, especially at times of disruption and even more so at a list of defined major stations. If the applicant chooses not to provide that resource themselves - either at any stations or just not at the less important ones - they should demonstrate the subcontracting arrangement they intend using prior to being granted their access agreement

Absolutely. If they can't demonstrate the ability to operate to the conditions of their license then they shouldn't be operating at all, fullstop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Asking people to make their own arrangements doesn't mean that that's the only choice!

Not only that, but it means it's easier to provide good service to those who can't because you've got maybe 50 people to deal with rather than 500 (I expect the proportion would be very much like that on a typical SWR commuter service).

 

[Wolfie]

None of the East Coast long distance operators behave consistently well when disruptive incidents occur, sadly, and GC is probably the worst in this area.

If there is a later GC train that day, but it would incur a delay of over 60 minutes at the passengers destination to wait for it, then GC should arrange an alternative, at no additional cost to passengers. If GC fail or refuse to do so, a customer has the right to purchase a ticket for such an alternative (if they are able to do so) and GC are obliged to refund the customer the cost of the more expensive ticket. GC cannot simply refund the cheapest ticket as that is not acceptable.

If there is no later GC train that day, or if the customer would otherwise be stranded (e.g. they may be relying on a subsequent connection, which a later train would miss) then the customer can rely on Condition 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel; this obliges any operator in a position to help, to do so. This includes LNER, even if LNER don't want to. If LNER have a problem with this, they need to take it up with GC using whatever means at their disposal. Customers have to be conveyed and cannot becone victims of any disagreements between the relevant TOCs.

As for GC's behaviour on Twitter, it is disgraceful and has been rightly called out.

Someone sent me GC's policy regarding disruptive incidents, which sadly GC do not consistently adhere to:

https://www.grandcentralrail.com/sites/default/files/files/timetables/PIDD%20Delivery%20Plan.pdf

Note the use of wording such as "ensure passengers reach their intended destinations." and "they will not be required to purchase a new ticket, upgrade their ticket, or pay an excess fare"; this all sounds fine in theory, but in practice they are not infrequently found to behave differently.

GC really do not like it when anyone informs GC passengers of their contractual entitlements, and therefore GC has taken the decision to prevent anyone replying to their tweets. However they cannot stop re-tweets.

Sounds like a candidate for a super-consumer complaint and/or a group legal action to me....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds like a candidate for a super-consumer complaint and/or a group legal action to me....

They've been so bad at it for so long (and so unreliable for so long because 180s are junk) that I'm astonished nobody already has, to be honest.

 

[Wolfie]

This is the railway in 2024. We need to step back and look at the reality here.
It’s all well and good (and absolutely necessary here as the original question relates to where passengers stand legally) dwelling on the contractual obligations, the rules, the regulation, the law but unfortunately as I say, this is the railway in 2024 and I’m incredibly disheartened to say none of that matters.

We are in a position where it makes not a blind bit of difference what any of these documents we so frequently refer to state, the railway dipped its toe in the water years ago to see if they could get away with breaking the law. It’s a resounding success almost everytime so they’re encouraged to continue doing so.
Every single regulatory body (of which there seem to be so many, none of which seem to be responsible for anything at all) is little short of a con.

This action by GC goes against a whole heap of regulations and absolutely nothing will be done about it. Its happened before with them, nothing was done. The best an individual can hope for is a refund on their original cheap as chips ticket. They will have to pay the full undiscounted anytime fare to continue. I suspect GC may even get more from the ORCATS share of a £150 anytime single than they would from a £14 advance so it could be a tidy earner for them, better still if they refuse a refund initially and blame the automated system.

Once again, this IS the railway of 2024.

You can decide to trust the railway to follow its legal obligations and get you to your destination where it reasonably can or you can wake up and accept that it has no real world obligation to do anything the regulations it is bound by says it must do.

Anyone travelling by train in 2024 who does not have the ability to fend for themselves in terms of buying another expensive ticket, paying for a very expensive taxi, paying for a hotel, paying to hire a car etc is taking a risk. A risk they should never have to take. That is a large number of people, and understandably, these things are expensive at a time when money is tight for the majority of people who have no choice.

So I’m completely unsurprised to see things like this happening more and more. The level of service is going down hill, the level of competence is going down hill, the level of regulation is essentially nil.

It’s only a matter of time before the railway lets someone down against its legal obligations and that person ends up hurt or worse as a result for this IS the railway in 2024.

They are doing this for their own financial purposes. The only sensible consumer response is to sue them every single time. When it really starts hurting their bank accounts and the media/politicians are all over them like a rash then things will change.

And the passenger then points out that it’s GC who are breaking the law by refusing to convey them or arranging for another TOC to do so, nice publicity for GC if BTP then arrest the passenger for exercising their legal right to onward carriage.

Even nicer if it goes to Court....

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

If they're pushed to hard to provide compensation/alternative options there is untimely a risk that they could go out of business. Not something anyone would want to see if you rely on them.

If they can't meet basic legal obligations then absolutely they should go out of business.

If it's not viable to trade while complying with all relevant entitlements and regulations in law and the NRCoT, then your business is not viable and should close down. It's as simple as that.

What else should they save money on - safety?



I think their attitude stinks and the railway would be better off without them (indeed, I think public transport in the UK as a whole would be better off without Arriva as a whole, but this is one particularly rotten part of it that I'd knock on the head first). If the routes are viable to run properly someone else (e.g. FirstGroup) will come in and do it (not that Lumo is 100% on this behaviour, but it's certainly better).

In the end, it's simply wrong that any business should be allowed to continue trading and making a profit while failing to comply with all legal and contractual matters applying to them. That's a bad business.

Spot on, well said.

But it takes a certain amount of ability and self-confidence to do that.

True

 

[Starmill]

Whilst arranging taxis and or hotels etc would be nice I suspect that this would wipe our Grand Central profits so I can understand why they are unable to offer these things.

If they're pushed to hard to provide compensation/alternative options there is untimely a risk that they could go out of business. Not something anyone would want to see if you rely on them.

Surely it's better for companies who can't meet their lawful obligations to cease trading? I'd argue that for any sector, not only rail / GC. These are "zombie businesses" which get in the way of new and better start-ups, or take up talent which would be put to better use elsewhere. It's common across the economy, and, unfortunately, some short term pain for long term gain is the only way out sometimes.

See also Ryanair whining about having to pay EU/UK261 compensation. In the end they just have to cough up. It's a level playing field for all, and if you can't make a profit that way then your business model simply doesn't work and you should either change it so it does (e.g. charge a bit more for a less woeful service) or shut down the company.

Thankfully, we still just about live in a legal and political environment where even behemoths like Ryanair are obligated to pay up when they get it wrong. However reluctantly, they do now do so. Note that when circumstances are genuinely out of their control they are not obligated to pay the compo!

 

[Horizon22]

An interesting point. Why is it ok for PCV drivers to be expected to turn up at short notice, forfeiting their plans, when train drivers have minimum requirements of how much notice they get for things like a change in start time? Is it just that train drivers have a better union?

They aren’t necessarily, and they certainly aren’t required to which is why arranging ad-hoc (not planned but that’s also harder than it was) rail replacement transport is not as easy as some here claim it to be.

But the pay element will mean some will always take the opportunity if it arises.

 

[TheManOnThe172]

Surely it's better for companies who can't meet their lawful obligations to cease trading?

And likewise for watchdogs/regulators that cannot fulfill their supposed jobs of protecting consumers.

Transport Focus (like Ofcom and Ofwat) appears to be designed as "placeholder" regulator - their main purpose being to exist and so prevent anyone from trying to set up anything more effective.

Transport Focus seem inordinately pleased with themselves when they politely to ask a seriously-misbehaving TOC to sort out a problem, and end up with a one-off remedy that puts an individual complainant back to a sensible position. But how often do we hear them securing a promise to a fundamental change in behaviour?

 

[Horizon22]

That still amounts to passengers managing to find taxis that TOCs are too incompetent to find,

You clearly have no idea of procurement and the work that goes into arranging mass taxis, especially during an evening disruption.

It is arguably much easier for a station manager / supervisor to go out to the main lot speak to a taxi, get them to call their control and ask for as many taxis as they can get.

Even then trying to shift even 200 people (a low load for an intercity service) to different destinations (depending on the disruption next station might be available, but it might not) which may be many miles away is going to be either several hours or almost impossible, especially if it’s at night and it’s getting later.

Calling it “incompetent” is a disservice to the people trying to help move passengers under difficult circumstances.

Increasingly TOCs (SWR is one example) understand this difficulty and are allowing passengers to book their own transport, keep receipts and claim it back. It’s easier for 200 people to try and arrange their own individual transport by trying any local companies and clubbing together than for one central control (which may also be overwhelmed with other tasks) to coordinate this through one process sometimes. Obviously this is only good enough for people who have the upfront money to do it, but it does ease the situation somewhat so that the more vulnerable passengers can be then prioritised by the station / TOC who can book but for a reduced nimber.

 

[43066]

That still amounts to passengers managing to find taxis that TOCs are too incompetent to find,

How many times does it need to be explained to you that it isn’t physically possible to magic taxis out of thin air at zero notice? What competent operators do is thin out demand by encouraging people to make their own arrangements, or preferably use other routes or travel on a different day. That way those who can’t do that for whatever reason can be better catered for.

Not really. The logical approach is to say "Please make your own arrangements and we will reimburse you for these additional costs. If for any reason you cannot do this please contact us via [insert contact methods] or speak to member of our staff on the train and we'll sort you alternative travel/accommodation".

It doesn't need to mean that the only option is "sort yourself out" but it does make sense to make it clear that people who can do so (which is going to be lots of them) can just crack on with getting themselves a hotel, taxi, new ticket, etc meaning that GC (or any other TOC) only have to worry about the smaller number of people who maybe don't have the cash on hand to fork out for new ticket to London potentially costing many times what they've already paid, or who aren't tech savvy enough to organise things like this from their phone, or have some other vulnerability.

Asking people to make their own arrangements doesn't mean that that's the only choice!

Precisely. It’s pragmatic management of the situation.

 

[TUC]

How many times does it need to be explained to you that it isn’t physically possible to magic taxis out of thin air at zero notice? What competent operators do is thin out demand by encouraging people to make their own arrangements, or preferably use other routes or travel on a different day. That way those who can’t do that for whatever reason can be better catered for.

My point is that passengers are apparently expected to be able to magic taxis out of thin air at short notice-and many do, showing that where the will is there, it can be done.

As said above, at the very least there should be an app passengers are given access to, for them to find and book taxis, and for these to be directly charged to the TOC. That avoids passengers being expected to have sufficient resources to both pay for a taxi and then wait to get the money back.

 

[Mainline421]

Not only that, but it means it's easier to provide good service to those who can't because you've got maybe 50 people to deal with rather than 500 (I expect the proportion would be very much like that on a typical SWR commuter service).

Indeed my understanding is that SWR will advise people to source their own transport and claim it back, but will also arranges taxis if requested.

 

[Horizon22]

As said above, at the very least there should be an app passengers are given access to, for them to find and book taxis, and for these to be directly charged to the TOC. That avoids passengers being expected to have sufficient resources to both pay for a taxi and then wait to get the money back.

That sounds absoutely rife for abuse though, unless there is some sort of verification process and the app is only available once "activated" by the TOC and some sort of code provided.

Even then it's likely to be slower than just phoning the local companies via a smartphone and keeping reciepts.

 

[TUC]

That sounds absoutely rife for abuse though, unless there is some sort of verification process and the app is only available once "activated" by the TOC and some sort of code provided.

Yes, very standard app functionality.

Even then it's likely to be slower than just phoning the local companies via a smartphone and keeping reciepts.

Not really. It is how many people order taxis these days. Why would spending 10 minutes calling multiple companies be quicker?

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, very standard app functionality.


Not really. It is how many people order taxis these days. Why would spending 10 minutes calling multiple companies be quicker?

I said a smartphone; it might also involve an app. Although if you require a taxi outside your usual area, that might not be useful to you.

 

[harz99]

Good luck with trying to find enough local taxis to shift 50-100 people on a Sunday in a small market town like Northallerton. In fact good luck finding any taxi drivers even at work...

Outside the big cities and large Metropolitan conurbations it can be very very difficult to get a taxi without having prebooked several hours before.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

All this talk of suing them is hot air and misrepresents how our civil justice system works. It is, and must be, a last resort after all else has failed.

You can't just sue someone and start a claim without first complying with various protocols. That includes:

1) Setting out your problem clearly with the other party, advising them what reasonable course of action you want them to do in order to resolve the matter.

2) Give them a reasonable period of time to resolve the matter. Typically 21 days minimum, but it must be sufficient, reasonable and proportionate for the other party to investigate and respond.

3) You must not unreasonably refuse any offers of compensation or reimbursement, even if it's not exactly what you were hoping to achieve. Courts take a dim view of people squabbling over insignificant amounts. Similarly, if they request an extension of time, and provide good reason, you should ordinarily agree this.

4) Reviewing whether your case is suitable for ADR - Alternative Dispute Resolution. If Grand Central suggested it, and you declined to participate, this has consequences.

5) Remember that it's unlikely you will get your costs back (aside from the claim/court fee) unless you can cross the very high threshold of unreasonable behaviour - and for small claims, that is virtually impossible to achieve save for some extremely unusual circumstances. Simply experiencing poor or disappointing behaviour isn't usually enough. You'll also have to front the cost of the claim issuing fee, and then three figures for each hearing, if it gets that far.

6) You also have a duty to mitigate your losses, so whatever replacement ticket/transport etc was used must be reasonable, proportionate and demonstrably sensible.

You'd be better considering a Chargeback, but only after giving notice to Grand Central that you are considering that course of action and give them a chance to resolve it.

 

[TUC]

There are already websites and apps that will find taxis in multiple parts of the country, come up with quotes and get a link to book online. It would be very possible for TOCs to have arrangements with several of these apps whereby a code provided to passengers can be inserted at the booking stage which then results in the journey being paid by the relevant TOC. Abuse can be avoided by simply regularly changing the code that train staff would providr.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

There are already websites and apps that will find taxis in multiple parts of the country, come up with quotes and get a link to book online. It would be very possible for TOCs to have arrangements with several of these apps whereby a code provided to passengers can be inserted at the booking stage which then results in the journey being paid by the relevant TOC. Abuse can be avoided by simply regularly changing the code that train staff would providr.

TOCs do have these arrangements and often pay a premium for them.

However, individual taxi drivers will often refuse work booked under them, as they want payment immediately, and not long into the future after a purchase order / invoice etc has worked through the system. I suspect the taxi firms will also be taking a cut.

Especially when desperate passengers stranded at stations will be throwing cash around to get home.

TOCs aren't doing this on the cheap either - they spend a fortune on alternative transport, but it's just not attractive for the individual drivers.

With the best will in the world, even a TOC Managing Director would struggle to put these sorts of charges on a credit/charge card - you're talking £tens of thousands in a very short space of time, during mass disruption. These credit limits aren't unlimited.

 

[skyhigh]

I suspect the taxi firms will also be taking a cut.

They do, I was talking to a driver recently. CMAC take a cut, the taxi firm take a cut and the driver is left with a percentage of what the TOC actually pays out - when they finally pay.

It's much more lucrative for them to take a direct booking from the firm or a street/rank hire (if applicable).

 

[Horizon22]

They do, I was talking to a driver recently. CMAC take a cut, the taxi firm take a cut and the driver is left with a percentage of what the TOC actually pays out - when they finally pay.

It's much more lucrative for them to take a direct booking from the firm or a street/rank hire (if applicable).

Which effectively means the "pay and claim back later" (some well-to-do 'stockbroker belt' types might forget) approach used by SWR is more expensive to the TOC. So it's a far cry from being forgotten, even it's a "DIY alternative routing" as ultimately this approach is more likely to get you to where you need to go quicker in some situations rather than awaiting orders of minibuses / taxis / coaches.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Which effectively means the "pay and claim back later" (some well-to-do 'stockbroker belt' types might forget) approach used by SWR is more expensive to the TOC. So it's a far cry from being forgotten, even it's a "DIY alternative routing" as ultimately this approach is more likely to get you to where you need to go quicker in some situations rather than awaiting orders of minibuses / taxis / coaches.

I do think SWR is possibly more a case of "we're not paying, the DfT bears the cost" plus the franchise will be gone in a couple of months, so who cares, fill your boots...!? I suspect GBR will be less 'generous'.

Whereas Open Access obviously has completely different commercials at play.