Greater Anglia sued, warrant for baliffs issued

[shredder1]

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

I definitely watch too much TV , but yes the TOC control for periods, franchise and I guess don`t really own anything, is that right?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In any case, I don't think this commuter won their case entirely on the basis of merit - it seems to have been a procedural screwup by AGA. Similarly with the warrant - though I'm not sure what they could actually seize that's AGA's!

That said, AFAIK when a warrant is issued, it's up to the debtor to prove that any property on their premises is not theirs to prevent it being taken - do they have ownership documents for the trains?! Obviously AGA don't own them, but I'd be amused at the thought of a train being clamped, and that causing further delays!

Is there anyone with actual legal knowledge that concerns the matter that I have emboldened in the posting extract above?

 

[Puffing Devil]

Similarly with the warrant - though I'm not sure what they could actually seize that's AGA's! Is there anyone with actual legal knowledge that concerns the matter that I have emboldened in the posting extract above?

If they enter the offices of the company, then anything that isn't leased is fair game: Desks, Chairs, Computers, Plasma TVs. For large companies that have ignored/overlooked/missed the writ it's this disruption that normally brings a payment pretty quickly.

 

[yorkie]

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?

I think one of the reasons for "glee" as you call it is the fact that some train companies have hauled passengers through the courts already, and this may be seen as some step towards karma and evening things up a bit. Personally I'd love to see certain TOCs hauled before the courts for consumer and contract law breaches (I am aware of so many), but not really for something like this, but I can understand why some people are pleased.

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?

This is one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I think one of the reasons for "glee" as you call it is the fact that some train companies have hauled passengers through the courts already, and this may be seen as some step towards karma and evening things up a bit. Personally I'd love to see certain TOCs hauled before the courts for consumer and contract law breaches (I am aware of so many), but not really for something like this, but I can understand why some people are pleased.

This is one of the most bizarre posts I've ever seen.

Where do we draw the line on the blame game though yorkie? I suspect many people even on this forum are unaware of how many delays primary cause are actually nothing to do with TOC's alleged incompetence/ blatant disregard of consumer law.

On the Cambrian this week we've had a tresspass / threatened Suicide on the Barmouth Bridge and a staff member being assulated near Telford as causes of delays/ cancellations.

There was a case back in the 1990's with a suicide on the London Tilbury and Southend line in the evening peak and pin stripped commuters demanded that trains ran over the body parts so they could get home and objected to being delayed.

Should outraged commuter be suing people with suicidal thoughts? Possibly not.

Are GA deliberately out to sabotage journeys or is that many of the problems in the South east stem from the decision taken by successive Governments since the 1930's to overheat the economy of London and the South East at the expense of the rest of the UK without providing the investment in transport?

 

[farleigh]

pin stripped commuters demanded that trains ran over the body parts

Was it only the pin striped ones?

 

[Spurs]

Where do we draw the line on the blame game though yorkie? I suspect many people even on this forum are unaware of how many delays primary cause are actually nothing to do with TOC's alleged incompetence/ blatant disregard of consumer law.

On the Cambrian this week we've had a tresspass / threatened Suicide on the Barmouth Bridge and a staff member being assulated near Telford as causes of delays/ cancellations.

There was a case back in the 1990's with a suicide on the London Tilbury and Southend line in the evening peak and pin stripped commuters demanded that trains ran over the body parts so they could get home and objected to being delayed.

Should outraged commuter be suing people with suicidal thoughts? Possibly not.

Are GA deliberately out to sabotage journeys or is that many of the problems in the South east stem from the decision taken by successive Governments since the 1930's to overheat the economy of London and the South East at the expense of the rest of the UK without providing the investment in transport?

One-off incidents though are quite different to a service that seems to be delayed almost as often as it's on time. You shouldn't be allowed to advertise a service you're consistently failing to actually deliver.

 

[Gareth Marston]

One-off incidents though are quite different to a service that seems to be delayed almost as often as it's on time. You shouldn't be allowed to advertise a service you're consistently failing to actually deliver.

The bulk of problems London commuters face are caused by the sheer volume of trains/passengers and the underlying capacity constraints of the network. Having termini are a huge capacity constraint on urban mass transit systems yet that it what London has because Members of Parliament in the 1830's banned the new fangled railway from coming within a mile of the City so the rail company's all built termini on the fringe of that limit. Government since the 1930's have deliberately overheated the economy of London and the South East driving the railway beyond its point of optimum efficiency. If you wanted a railway that could run to time within those constraints you would have to cut a third of services and limit numbers traveling at peak times. (Queue howls of protest).

Its far easier to blame a TOC and pretend that some Consumer legislation can solve things than actually deal with the primary underlying causes.....

 

[Taunton]

The TOC is responsible for it all. That is who your ticket makes a contract with. It is then up to them to manage the relationship with their employees, their train suppliers, their fuel supplier, their provider of infrastructure (Network Rail), what their other customers do, etc. That's what TOCs do for a living.

and pin stripped commuters demanded that trains ran over the body parts so they could get home and objected to being delayed.

Firstly, pin stripes had gone out of fashion by the 1990s, and those who might have once worn them were far more likely anyway to commute in from leafy Kent or Surrey than the riverside grey sprawl of Essex Boys and Girls "down the Tilbury". But whatever events may happen, the TOCs pretty much know what they are in for from time to time, and when they (voluntarily) bid they should ensure they have what it takes to hand. So many of the continuing gross delays are brought on by insufficient staff on hand, no management around allowed to take decisions (especially outside 9-5 Mon-Fri; notice how the gross delays invariably happen then), purchase of stock with incompatible couplings because it saves a few bob, failure to keep crews current on diversionary routes, etc.

PPMs are set because various incidents do happen, and are an encouragement to clear things up promptly, otherwise operators will try to claim "knock on effect" for the rest of the day. But TOCs have come to see the PPM allowance as "theirs", to minimise relief crews and accept the resulting cancellations from time to time within their PPM allowance, or to schedule ludicrously tight turnrounds of stock and crews that can only work if nothing goes wrong, expecting the entire PPM allowance to be there to absorb any fallout from that.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The TOC is responsible for it all. That is who your ticket makes a contract with. It is then up to them to manage the relationship with their employees, their train suppliers, their fuel supplier, their provider of infrastructure (Network Rail), what their other customers do, etc. That's what TOCs do for a living.


Firstly, pin stripes had gone out of fashion by the 1990s, and those who might have once worn them were far more likely anyway to commute in from leafy Kent or Surrey than the riverside grey sprawl of Essex Boys and Girls "down the Tilbury". But whatever events may happen, the TOCs pretty much know what they are in for from time to time, and when they (voluntarily) bid they should ensure they have what it takes to hand. So many of the continuing gross delays are brought on by insufficient staff on hand, no management around allowed to take decisions (especially outside 9-5 Mon-Fri; notice how the gross delays invariably happen then), purchase of stock with incompatible couplings because it saves a few bob, failure to keep crews current on diversionary routes, etc.

PPMs are set because various incidents do happen, and are an encouragement to clear things up promptly, otherwise operators will try to claim "knock on effect" for the rest of the day. But TOCs have come to see the PPM allowance as "theirs", to minimise relief crews and accept the resulting cancellations from time to time within their PPM allowance, or to schedule ludicrously tight turnrounds of stock and crews that can only work if nothing goes wrong, expecting the entire PPM allowance to be there to absorb any fallout from that.

Government of course has known for years that either massive investment or cutting back services are the only way to achieve good running on London commuter lines however nether option is acceptable to them - plus it looks like their responsible if they do either so its better to "pretend" we can wave magic contract clauses and shovel on the blame...

 

[philthetube]

One-off incidents though are quite different to a service that seems to be delayed almost as often as it's on time. You shouldn't be allowed to advertise a service you're consistently failing to actually deliver.

They are all delayed by one off incidents, just different ones every day. proven by the fact that they occasionally run to time

 

[CHAPS2034]

The commuter has won and GA have paid up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-43751468

A commuter who sued a train firm over delays has received compensation after a court threatened to send in bailiffs to seize its assets.

Seph Pochin, 43, of Halesworth, Suffolk, has received a cheque for £462 from Greater Anglia (GA) after suing them over "appalling" delays.

He said he wanted others to use the same consumer legislation to force train firms to run a better service.

GA said it was "sorry that Mr Pochin felt the need to take this action."

"Generally, just under 90% of GA trains run on time," a spokeswoman for the rail franchise said.

A warrant was issued last month for bailiffs to seize GA property after it failed to comply with a judgement in December ordering it to pay Mr Pochin's £350 claim.

He has now received that amount, plus costs.

The ecologist, who moved to Halesworth a year ago, used the Consumer Rights Act 2016, paying £35 to lodge small claims court case "to highlight the regular deficiencies with the service".

"I hope the victory encourages others to do like me, and maybe Greater Anglia and other train companies will learn from this as well," he said.

"You can't just ignore passengers, many of them who have no choice but to use the railways, and shunt them off with pre-drafted letters for their extremely poor service."

He documented 550 journeys in which he experienced 183 delays, claiming this amounted to about 28 hours wasted over 12 months.

According to his figures, the majority of the delays were between one and 10 minutes, 26 were of more than 15 minutes, and there was one 100-minute delay in August.

'Train faults'
The train firm admitted previously that 23% of delays were "directly attributable to Greater Anglia due to incidents such as train faults".

Its "delay repay" scheme only meets passenger claims for delays of more than 30 minutes.

Network Rail, which runs the rail infrastructure, automatically compensates train firms for any delays attributable to it.

"Our delay repay scheme is the usual route for claiming compensation for delays," the spokeswoman for GA said.

She added it was "looking into" introducing compensation for journeys delayed by 15 minutes and that GA was spending more than £5m improving train reliability, with Network Rail investing £68m to replace local signals and points.

Despite winning his case, Mr Pochin said he would be leaving "beautiful" Halesworth and moving to Ipswich next month to avoid commuting by train.

"I don't need the stress of checking morning and afternoon for delays from an appalling service," he said.

 

[JN114]

The commuter has won and GA have paid up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-43751468

Well that’s a precedent and a half to set.

I can see the daytime TV ads now - “Have you been delayed on a train service that was the operators fault? Then use our no-win no-fee claims form...”

And who’s going to pay for all of this? Farepayers.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well that’s a precedent and a half to set.

I can see the daytime TV ads now - “Have you been delayed on a train service that was the operators fault? Then use our no-win no-fee claims form...”

And who’s going to pay for all of this? Farepayers.

Not exactly precedent in the legal sense - it's not binding (as it was only at the County Court), so it's, at most, persuasive. A claim like this is highly fact-dependent in any case.

Arguably, farepayers do already pay the price of 'compensation' - in that franchise bids account for ever more prevalent and greater Delay Repay, and that the DfT expects fares to rise to counter increasing costs, rather than subsidising the railway further.

 

[Starmill]

Not exactly precedent in the legal sense - it's not binding (as it was only at the County Court), so it's, at most, persuasive.

Indeed. And I have to wonder how persuasive this particular case might be in future, if it really is true that Greater Anglia just didn't take any action when they should, rather than the facts having actually been considered by the court?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Indeed. And I have to wonder how persuasive this particular case might be in future, if it really is true that Greater Anglia just didn't take any action when they should, rather than the facts having actually been considered by the court?

A default judgement, as in this case, makes no reference to the quality of the submissions of either party - it merely means that the defendant has not engaged with the process.

So really, unless this had actually been argued out in a hearing, and a decision found in favour of the claimant, then it means very little. Even then, only cases with very similar circumstances - perhaps another commuter on the same line - would see any relevance in this case.

 

[LAX54]

Only takes someone to mislay the paperwork in an office, and miss the hearing, and of course will be found guilty by not appearing or defending, or who is to say they never got the summons, as many seem to say on here ! lol, and have just paid up anyway ? what was the sum, £460 for delay/repay and costs ?

 

[Haywain]

So, GA have paid out because it is cheaper than fighting the case.

 

[farleigh]

I hope that he would have won even if they had contested fully. The service was not acceptable - simple as that.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I hope that he would have won even if they had contested fully. The service was not acceptable - simple as that.

I disagree. The majority of delays, as he said, were between 1 and 10 minutes and that *is* acceptable - if it's not then he, or even you without wishing to be confrontational, need to appreciate the reality of a situation that involves hundreds of people and many possible causes of minor delay. 156 of the delays were up to 15 minutes with only 27 that were longer. My particular irritation with the chap who made the claim is that he says the delays amounted to 28 hours over a year, as if he had been somehow deprived of a continuous period of 28 hours that he could have used for doing something that took 28 hours. For me, that's the biggest piece of nonsense. Don't get me wrong, the service could be better but it's badly contrained, as others have described, and commuters don't pay enough for what they get to expect it to be quite as perfect as they would like. I commuted from Lewisham for a while and it was pretty bad at times with overcrowding but it got me where I needed to be, along with thousands of others, and the price was basically cheap.

 

[JN114]

I hope that he would have won even if they had contested fully. The service was not acceptable - simple as that.

Less than 5% of 550 journeys delayed by 15 minutes or more; or approximately 1 journey every 2 weeks (assuming an out-and-back 5 days per week). That’s actually a better performance figure than AGA’s published performance statistics; and so should come as no surprise to anyone who is moving to an area and making a decision to move there based on punctuality - as the initial post implies.

If that level of service is truly unacceptable to the point you would take legal action against a train operator then don’t travel by train. Because if TOCs have to start compensating at that level of minutiae then no operator will be able to afford to stay in business without raising fares massively to pay for it. TOCs aren’t charities, and the government sure won’t pay for it - and don't think a nationalised railway would offer a better compensation regime!

The key phrasing is “reasonable care and skill” - I’m not sure how this, or a lack thereof, can be demonstrated by any complainant; given the sheer number of external factors that are outside of the Train Operating Companies’ control.

Then again this is the same country you can be compensated thousands of pounds for tripping over a cracked paving slab; so why am I so surprised.

 

[MP33]

I have just won my last two delay repay appeals with Greater Anglia and have been paid. I am not a serial claimer and average around one a month at the most. My success rate is over 90%, however the last two claims were a total of around £12.

You can claim for more than just delays. I have claimed for a lack of rail replacement bus when there was a mix up between Greater Anglia and the Bus Inspector where he sent the drivers for their break as he thought that the train had been cancelled and also for when the carriage with 1st class was locked out of use. No doubt you can claim for no advertised catering or other facilities.

 

[LAX54]

I disagree. The majority of delays, as he said, were between 1 and 10 minutes and that *is* acceptable - if it's not then he, or even you without wishing to be confrontational, need to appreciate the reality of a situation that involves hundreds of people and many possible causes of minor delay. 156 of the delays were up to 15 minutes with only 27 that were longer. My particular irritation with the chap who made the claim is that he says the delays amounted to 28 hours over a year, as if he had been somehow deprived of a continuous period of 28 hours that he could have used for doing something that took 28 hours. For me, that's the biggest piece of nonsense. Don't get me wrong, the service could be better but it's badly contrained, as others have described, and commuters don't pay enough for what they get to expect it to be quite as perfect as they would like. I commuted from Lewisham for a while and it was pretty bad at times with overcrowding but it got me where I needed to be, along with thousands of others, and the price was basically cheap.

Indeed, odd that on a Saturday when there are no commuters and less passengers services run on time or early, as for the so called delays Halesworth to Ipswich of mainly 1 to 10 mins.....he should try the A12....he'll soon come running back

 

[Starmill]

I disagree. The majority of delays, as he said, were between 1 and 10 minutes and that *is* acceptable

This is a question of judgement. It is acceptable to you. It's not acceptable to someone else - farleigh in this case. It's clearly not acceptable to the claimant.

What would have been interesting would be to hear from the court if it were 'acceptable' or otherwise. Particularly as they would have more time and a lot more information than anyone here to consider it. Disappointingly it would seem that this has not happened.

However, I am pleased that a consumer who has been inconvenienced has recieved some compensation for this. I do not know the particulars of this case or this line, but I think we all of us know that performance is often below the standard we would expect, as customers.

 

[dgl]

Weren't we all just really waiting for someone form Greater Anglia to appear in the Disputes & Prosecutions section

 

[Gareth Marston]

Well he got lucky through the quirks of our legal system. I'm sure the next person who try's it will not find it so easy. The TOC' s will be expecting it and the legal teams will have fine tuned their arguments already.

Good luck to anyone who try's maybe some of the Forums barrack room lawyer types fancy their chances

 

[farleigh]

Well he got lucky through the quirks of our legal system. I'm sure the next person who try's it will not find it so easy. The TOC' s will be expecting it and the legal teams will have fine tuned their arguments already.

Good luck to anyone who try's maybe some of the Forums barrack room lawyer types fancy their chances

Sorry to be ignorant but what quirks or luck was there?
I thought he sued them for appalling service and won???
Therefore he was wholly in the right and the Toc completely in the wrong.

What am I missing?

 

[najaB]

I thought he sued them for appalling service and won???

As I understand it, he sued, the company didn't defend the case so he was awarded damages by default. Not the same thing as having the evidence tested and winning on that basis.

 

[farleigh]

As I understand it, he sued, the company didn't defend the case so he was awarded damages by default. Not the same thing as having the evidence tested and winning on that basis.

Who won the day then?

 

[najaB]

Who won the day then?

The TOC lost, that's for sure. But it's hardly a great victory to be remembered in story and song when the other side didn't even show up.