Greater Anglia sued, warrant for baliffs issued

[njamescouk]

top bloke, more of this might induce the traincos to run a railway instead milking passengers and taxpayers for profit. not holding my breath though.

 

[AlterEgo]

But if the train is very frequently late (which appears to be the case) a court may not consider that de minimus applies to even small delays.
Further, the Consumer Rights Act allows a claim for consequential loss.
The claimant appears to be using the train for commuting to work, consequential loss could arise from lost working time for some of the more serious delays.

You would need to surely be able to show that the delays were caused because the TOC did not fulfil the service by failing to use "reasonable care or skill". In my opinion the number of delays that are due to the TOC actually making a mistake (eg: failing to roster traincrew, foreseeable technical fault, foreseeable heavy flows of passengers, various "operational incidents" etc) - are very small, really.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think it would be difficult to argue that any delayed journey failed to meet those criteria. The majority of delay minutes are not caused by the affected TOC, for a start, and only in a minority of cases could you argue that a delay was caused by the TOC not applying reasonable care or skill.

If the delays are caused by other operators, or something outside the control of the rail industry, such as severe weather, then I don't think you can hold them liable for this. But I don't see that TOCs can get out of the duty to use reasonable care and skill by subcontracting - eg blaming cleaners, train maintenance or Network Rail!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

But if the train is very frequently late (which appears to be the case) a court may not consider that de minimus applies to even small delays.
Further, the Consumer Rights Act allows a claim for consequential loss.
The claimant appears to be using the train for commuting to work, consequential loss could arise from lost working time for some of the more serious delays.

I agree - it is a question of fact. On a one-off journey, a delay of a few (<5-10) minutes would not, in my view, constitute a breach of contract. For sustained such delays for a season ticket holder, I think it's more likely to be held as such.

 

[eastdyke]

You would need to surely be able to show that the delays were caused because the TOC did not fulfil the service by failing to use "reasonable care or skill". In my opinion the number of delays that are due to the TOC actually making a mistake (eg: failing to roster traincrew, foreseeable technical fault, foreseeable heavy flows of passengers, various "operational incidents" etc) - are very small, really.

Failing to use 'reasonable care or skill' by continuing to run a timetable that has been shown to frequently fail?

 

[najaB]

You would need to surely be able to show that the delays were caused because the TOC did not fulfil the service by failing to use "reasonable care or skill".

Plus, if you are going to win a claim for consequential losses you'd be asked if it was reasonable to schedule your working day such that a sub five-minute delays caused you a loss.

 

[AlterEgo]

If the delays are caused by other operators, or something outside the control of the rail industry, such as severe weather, then I don't think you can hold them liable for this. But I don't see that TOCs can get out of the duty to use reasonable care and skill by subcontracting - eg blaming cleaners, train maintenance or Network Rail!

Network Rail is not a subcontractor to a TOC. The trains run on their infrastructure.

If National Express run a coach on the M6 toll road then IFM (or whoever owns that road now) is not a subcontractor to National Express.

I have already outlined an inexhaustive list of TOC-caused delays above which includes some delays which may be the result of subcontractors to TOCs, like train maintenance.

 

[najaB]

Failing to use 'reasonable care or skill' by continuing to run a timetable that has been shown to frequently fail?

The TOC doesn't exclusively set the timetable, nor are they exclusively responsible for ensuring that it's met. If they are given paths by NR that just don't work, there's not much they can do about it other than asking for it to be reviewed.

 

[AlterEgo]

Failing to use 'reasonable care or skill' by continuing to run a timetable that has been shown to frequently fail?

What timetable should they use then? Genuine question. Bring on the slower and less frequent train services.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

What timetable should they use then? Genuine question. Bring on the slower and less frequent train services.

I can give an example. I regularly catch a busy stopper each morning. It's (normally) scheduled to depart 2 minutes after a HST is, and they both go along the same route, and due to signal locations, station speed limits etc. the starting signal for the stopper will never clear any sooner than about 1.5 to 2 minutes after the HST departure. In some timetables the stopper is even scheduled to depart 1 minute after the HST.

With curved platforms, manually operated slam doors and tight dwell timings, the HST virtually never departs on time. As a result, the stopper is regularly delayed by about 5 minutes. The next service after my stopper is another stopper, about 9 minutes later. Why doesn't NR fix this? Surely they can see the statistics that show that, apparently, over the long term, the stopper has a mere 27% right time arrival statistic.

That stinks of a lack of reasonable skill and care to me. Yet it's been this way for the best part of a decade, at least. So yes, in this case I would be happy to have a slightly slower timetable. As long as it reflects reality and can be relied upon, I don't care about a few extra minutes' journey time. I care when they lie by giving a timetable that they know is virtually never adhered to.

 

[eastdyke]

What timetable should they use then? Genuine question. Bring on the slower and less frequent train services.

De facto that is what it is!
I am only commenting on the possible reasons for an action succeeding. I do not pretend to have the answers for the East Suffolk Line. The line could, of course, be improved by major (and uneconomic) investment in both infrastructure and rolling stock.
The reliability aspect of the latter may already be in hand with the Flirt fleet.
You are still left with (especially) delays caused by earlier delays, late running or broken down freight trains and delays awaiting a platform at Ipswich (which are set to get worse when the Flirts are introduced without new platforms),

 

[AlterEgo]

I can give an example. I regularly catch a busy stopper each morning. It's (normally) scheduled to depart 2 minutes after a HST is, and they both go along the same route, and due to signal locations, station speed limits etc. the starting signal for the stopper will never clear any sooner than about 1.5 to 2 minutes after the HST departure. In some timetables the stopper is even scheduled to depart 1 minute after the HST.

With curved platforms, manually operated slam doors and tight dwell timings, the HST virtually never departs on time. As a result, the stopper is regularly delayed by about 5 minutes. The next service after my stopper is another stopper, about 9 minutes later. Why doesn't NR fix this? Surely they can see the statistics that show that, apparently, over the long term, the stopper has a mere 27% right time arrival statistic.

That stinks of a lack of reasonable skill and care to me. Yet it's been this way for the best part of a decade, at least. So yes, in this case I would be happy to have a slightly slower timetable. As long as it reflects reality and can be relied upon, I don't care about a few extra minutes' journey time. I care when they lie by giving a timetable that they know is virtually never adhered to.

As you say, NR provide the timetable. Not the TOC. Can't see how you'd be able to sue the TOC for this, or NR (with whom you have no contractual relationship).

There are some services which have regular delays due to increased dwells or tight paths.

It may be the case that if you tried to retime that stopping train, it no longer had a path, and therefore would have to be cancelled. Or they could just leave it as it is.

 

[shredder1]

It would be funny the bailiffs going into Crown Point and seizing a Class 91 for auction.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Leaving aside the "glee element" of this thread are we know going to start suing one of the primary causes of trains delays- fellow passengers?

Doris and her mates from the Senior Knitting Club all load through the same door - slowly on a 158 even though theirs plenty of other doors up and down the platform on a 4 car set or how about those pesky passengers that get taken ill on board and require medial attention?

Will angry of Commuter land sue the Road Haulage Industry the next time a lorry does a bridge strike?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As you say, NR provide the timetable. Not the TOC. Can't see how you'd be able to sue the TOC for this, or NR (with whom you have no contractual relationship).

There are some services which have regular delays due to increased dwells or tight paths.

It may be the case that if you tried to retime that stopping train, it no longer had a path, and therefore would have to be cancelled. Or they could just leave it as it is.

I think the fact that the passenger doesn't have a contract with NR is a key element as to why the TOC cannot absolve themselves of liability by claiming it's 'not their fault'. Otherwise, the TOC could simply subcontract the running of their trains to a shell company and say it's 'not their fault'. In my view, the responsibilities on subcontractors are the same as on the principals with whom the passenger has a contract.

 

[eastdyke]

It would be funny the bailiff`s going into Crown Point and seizing a Class 91 for auction.

Now that would be impossibly funny

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the fact that the passenger doesn't have a contract with NR is a key element as to why the TOC cannot absolve themselves of liability by claiming it's 'not their fault'. Otherwise, the TOC could simply subcontract the running of their trains to a shell company and say it's 'not their fault'. In my view, the responsibilities on subcontractors are the same as on the principals with whom the passenger has a contract.

Ask yourself how much control a TOC has over say, its subcontracted cleaning and catering staff, its subcontracted maintenance teams, or its agency staff. The TOC sets the parameters and exercises considerable control over all of those things.

Then ask yourself how much control a TOC has over a timetable for a train which is set by Network Rail and which might even be a DfT franchise requirement to run.

The Consumer Rights Act is clearly a very welcome piece of legislation, setting out additional rights and expanding consumer power. However it can be tiresome to read on these forums that you can just chuck it in a letter regardless of the circumstances and expect companies to soil themselves. (Not saying you’ve done that btw, but other posters have; just an observation.)

 

[lejog]

Network Rail is not a subcontractor to a TOC. The trains run on their infrastructure.

TOCs have a Track Access Agreement (a contract) with Network Rail which defines the services a TOC can run on NR's infrastructure and other aspects of the commercial relationship including payments made for the services and penalties for non-performance. NR are the TOCs' subcontractor.. As far as the consumer is concerned it is irrelevant whether the delay is due to the TOC or Network Rail. The TOC is responsible to the consumer for delivery of the services to the consumer and managing Network Rail on the consumers behalf.

 

[GB]

It would be funny the bailiff`s going into Crown Point and seizing a Class 91 for auction.

Forget there is no Class 91 at Crown Point for moment, bailiffs can not seize goods that belong to a third party and the value of the seizure should be proportional to the value of the debt where possible.

 

[JN114]

In short - if a legal precedent were set things would get very ugly, very quickly - in much the same way as PPI claims, Ambulane chasers and all the other legal vultures have caused other industries to go; a well-meaning, consumer-empowering piece of legislation may well end up not being in the long-term interests of the consumer. Perhaps it’s that foresight that has seen AGA ignore the gentleman’s claim, and why bailiffs - who I’m sure will have quickly been paid off with a cheque or similar - have now been employed.

 

[shredder1]

Now that would be impossibly funny

OK class 90 they wouldnt know the difference anyway.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

bailiffs can not seize goods that belong to a third party

It depends on the type of bailiff. High Court bailiffs can seize goods at the debtor's given address unless whatever authorised person is present at that address can prove that the goods to be seized are not owned by the debtor - i.e. the onus of proof is reversed.

In non-residential premises the High Court bailiffs also have a power of entry. I'm not sure how this intersects with the fact that most of these facilities, e.g. maintenance depots, are likely to be restricted areas under Railway Byelaws (and probably loads of different Victorian railway Acts), and so would the bailiffs be committing an offence in the execution of their writ? Who knows, it's perhaps somewhat similar to airplane repossession at airports.

 

[shredder1]

It depends on the type of bailiff. High Court bailiffs can seize goods at the debtor's given address unless whatever authorised person is present at that address can prove that the goods to be seized are not owned by the debtor - i.e. the onus of proof is reversed.

In non-residential premises the High Court bailiffs also have a power of entry. I'm not sure how this intersects with the fact that most of these facilities, e.g. maintenance depots, are likely to be restricted areas under Railway Byelaws (and probably loads of different Victorian railway Acts), and so would the bailiffs be committing an offence in the execution of their writ? Who knows, it's perhaps somewhat similar to airplane repossession at airports.

I`ve never heard of that airplane repossession at airports, does that actually happen?

 

[LAX54]

I can give an example. I regularly catch a busy stopper each morning. It's (normally) scheduled to depart 2 minutes after a HST is, and they both go along the same route, and due to signal locations, station speed limits etc. the starting signal for the stopper will never clear any sooner than about 1.5 to 2 minutes after the HST departure. In some timetables the stopper is even scheduled to depart 1 minute after the HST.

With curved platforms, manually operated slam doors and tight dwell timings, the HST virtually never departs on time. As a result, the stopper is regularly delayed by about 5 minutes. The next service after my stopper is another stopper, about 9 minutes later. Why doesn't NR fix this? Surely they can see the statistics that show that, apparently, over the long term, the stopper has a mere 27% right time arrival statistic.

That stinks of a lack of reasonable skill and care to me. Yet it's been this way for the best part of a decade, at least. So yes, in this case I would be happy to have a slightly slower timetable. As long as it reflects reality and can be relied upon, I don't care about a few extra minutes' journey time. I care when they lie by giving a timetable that they know is virtually never adhered to.

Network Rail can suggest 'fixes' there is one at Ipswich that has a too tight arrival with a departure from the same platform, NR have put forward a simple solution, and it means that the local arrives 1 min earlier, this means at a stop further back the local has to leave 1 min earlier, making it a 1 min stop vice 2. however NR cannot alter it yet, as the TOC say they cannot agree until the May issue of the timetable

Its the TOCs that request the paths, and work out their timetable, NR validate it based on timings etc,

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I`ve never heard of that airplane repossession at airports, does that actually happen?

Apparently - there's a TV show Airplane Repo I think!

 

[shredder1]

Apparently - there's a TV show Airplane Repo I think!

Ah yes, I was thinking about a full sized plane, yes your right I remember that now you mention it, cheers mate.

 

[Clip]

It depends on the type of bailiff. High Court bailiffs can seize goods at the debtor's given address unless whatever authorised person is present at that address can prove that the goods to be seized are not owned by the debtor - i.e. the onus of proof is reversed.

In non-residential premises the High Court bailiffs also have a power of entry. I'm not sure how this intersects with the fact that most of these facilities, e.g. maintenance depots, are likely to be restricted areas under Railway Byelaws (and probably loads of different Victorian railway Acts), and so would the bailiffs be committing an offence in the execution of their writ? Who knows, it's perhaps somewhat similar to airplane repossession at airports.

You've watched too many TV shows and again got it wrong.

If they can prove an item belongs to another then even the high court bailiffs leave it alone. They don't need another person that to tell thwm

 

[island]

You could change things so that delay repay paid out on a 5 minute delay. What would ne the result? Marginally more trains on time but a big rise in ticket prices to pay for it, I reckon.

Doesn’t c2c pay out for 2 minutes?

 

[35B]

Network Rail is not a subcontractor to a TOC. The trains run on their infrastructure.

If National Express run a coach on the M6 toll road then IFM (or whoever owns that road now) is not a subcontractor to National Express.

I have already outlined an inexhaustive list of TOC-caused delays above which includes some delays which may be the result of subcontractors to TOCs, like train maintenance.

Actually, NR are a supplier to a TOC, just as IFM are to a firm using the M6 Toll. And if my suppliers fail to deliver in a way that prevents me delivering to my customers, that is my problem which I may then recover from my supplier(s).

Whether that is fair or just when NR are a monopoly supplier and can dictate what the TOCs can offer is another question, as is what should be done about it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You've watched too many TV shows and again got it wrong.

If they can prove an item belongs to another then even the high court bailiffs leave it alone. They don't need another person that to tell thwm

Is that not what I said? I said the onus of proof is reversed compared to what you might expect. High Court bailiffs can take goods at the given address of the debtor, unless the person(s) present can prove that the goods are not owned by the debtor.