thebigcheese
Member
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2012
- Messages
- 165
Rail company Govia Thameslink Railway Limited are facing a claim for "damages for loss suffered by rail passengers travelling on the London-Brighton mainline as a result of pricing and other practices".
An application made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal resulted in the publication earlier today of a "Notice...to commence collective proceedings". This application, if successful, would allow the two individuals raising the claim, to do so on behalf of "at least one million individuals" and the notice invites those potentially included in this class to opt-out if they wish to do so.
The notice states that the application was made by "Mr Vermeer, an IT expert and rail passenger campaigner, and Mr Boyle, a journalist, author and rail passenger campaigner" who both claim to be "experienced rail passenger campaigners and spokespersons for rail passengers’ interests."
The notice states that Mr Vermeer and Mr Boyle "have agreed to waive their entitlement to their own individual compensation out of class damages" and have also "entered into a litigation funding agreement with a leading third-party litigation funder which has agreed a sufficient budget to cover the costs associated with bringing these proposed collective proceedings."
We're told the application alleges that "The regulatory regime (including the conditions of travel with passengers) to which GTR is subject does not entitle GTR to issue fares restricting travel to only one or two of the three train brands it operates on the London-Brighton mainline." and that "Brand-restricted fares unlawfully limit rail passengers’ rights that the regulatory regime grants them to travel on any of GTR’s trains along permitted routes on the London-Brighton mainline for the flow to which the fare relates"
As a result of this it is claimed that GTR "In breach of the regulatory regime, ... has at all material times issued and issues fares restricting travel on the London-Brighton mainline" and "rail passengers who have purchased Any Permitted or Not Gatwick Express fares have suffered loss and damage by paying higher prices for travel rights they should be afforded in any event."
Additionally it is claimed that "passengers have suffered loss and damage through the imposition of penalty fares and excess fares...in circumstances where rail passengers are caught by ticket inspectors travelling on train brands of GTR which are unlawfully excluded by the lower-priced fares purchased by those passengers."
And it is claimed that "GTR has at all material times misinformed and misinforms rail passengers that it is entitled to issue brand-restricted fares and charge a premium for Any Permitted and Not Gatwick Express fares on the basis – quod non – that Gatwick Express, Southern, and/or Thameslink are distinct train operating companies or different trading entities for ticketing purposes."
The proposed class is described as including:
"any person who between 1 October 2015 and the date of final judgment or earlier settlement of the claims purchased or paid for:
(a) Any Permitted fares (tickets) issued by GTR for travel in either direction between stations on the London-Brighton mainline (including fares covering travel on London Underground) but excluding fares for travel exclusively within the Travelcard Zones;
(b) Not Gatwick Express fares issued by GTR for travel in either direction between stations on the London-Brighton mainline (including fares covering travel on London Underground) but excluding fares for travel exclusively within the Travelcard Zones;
(c) Train travel where a passenger taps in or out at platforms 13 and 14 at London Victoria with Oyster PAYG or other contactless payment cards when travelling to or from another station on the GTR train network (including stations north of London); and/or
(d) Penalty fares or excess fares when travelling on the London-Brighton mainline on a GTR train brand excluded by the relevant fares originally purchased by the person."
The issues the court will be asked to consider are described as:
"i. The relevant limitation period applicable to the claims;
ii. Whether GTR is dominant on the relevant markets implicated by the claims;
iii. Whether the conduct of GTR on the London-Brighton mainline through
(a) issuing fares restricted to certain brands,
(b) charging higher prices for Any Permitted and Not Gatwick Express fares as compared with fares which are more restrictive from a train brand perspective,
(c) charging higher prices for rail passengers tapping in or out at platforms 13 and 14 at London Victoria as compared with rail passengers tapping in or out at other platforms at London Victoria,
(d) imposing penalty and excess fares on rail passengers travelling on GTR train brands excluded by their fares, and
(e) misinforming rail passengers that GTR is permitted to issue fares restricted to certain brands constitutes abuse of dominance in breach of the Chapter II Prohibition;
iv. Whether and to what extent the abuse of dominance had an impact on the prices of fares
purchased by proposed class members;
v. The appropriate interest rate at which to adjust damages suffered by proposed class members;
vi. Whether interest should be awarded on a simple basis or as damages on a compound basis."
An application made to the Competition Appeal Tribunal resulted in the publication earlier today of a "Notice...to commence collective proceedings". This application, if successful, would allow the two individuals raising the claim, to do so on behalf of "at least one million individuals" and the notice invites those potentially included in this class to opt-out if they wish to do so.
The notice states that the application was made by "Mr Vermeer, an IT expert and rail passenger campaigner, and Mr Boyle, a journalist, author and rail passenger campaigner" who both claim to be "experienced rail passenger campaigners and spokespersons for rail passengers’ interests."
The notice states that Mr Vermeer and Mr Boyle "have agreed to waive their entitlement to their own individual compensation out of class damages" and have also "entered into a litigation funding agreement with a leading third-party litigation funder which has agreed a sufficient budget to cover the costs associated with bringing these proposed collective proceedings."
We're told the application alleges that "The regulatory regime (including the conditions of travel with passengers) to which GTR is subject does not entitle GTR to issue fares restricting travel to only one or two of the three train brands it operates on the London-Brighton mainline." and that "Brand-restricted fares unlawfully limit rail passengers’ rights that the regulatory regime grants them to travel on any of GTR’s trains along permitted routes on the London-Brighton mainline for the flow to which the fare relates"
As a result of this it is claimed that GTR "In breach of the regulatory regime, ... has at all material times issued and issues fares restricting travel on the London-Brighton mainline" and "rail passengers who have purchased Any Permitted or Not Gatwick Express fares have suffered loss and damage by paying higher prices for travel rights they should be afforded in any event."
Additionally it is claimed that "passengers have suffered loss and damage through the imposition of penalty fares and excess fares...in circumstances where rail passengers are caught by ticket inspectors travelling on train brands of GTR which are unlawfully excluded by the lower-priced fares purchased by those passengers."
And it is claimed that "GTR has at all material times misinformed and misinforms rail passengers that it is entitled to issue brand-restricted fares and charge a premium for Any Permitted and Not Gatwick Express fares on the basis – quod non – that Gatwick Express, Southern, and/or Thameslink are distinct train operating companies or different trading entities for ticketing purposes."
The proposed class is described as including:
"any person who between 1 October 2015 and the date of final judgment or earlier settlement of the claims purchased or paid for:
(a) Any Permitted fares (tickets) issued by GTR for travel in either direction between stations on the London-Brighton mainline (including fares covering travel on London Underground) but excluding fares for travel exclusively within the Travelcard Zones;
(b) Not Gatwick Express fares issued by GTR for travel in either direction between stations on the London-Brighton mainline (including fares covering travel on London Underground) but excluding fares for travel exclusively within the Travelcard Zones;
(c) Train travel where a passenger taps in or out at platforms 13 and 14 at London Victoria with Oyster PAYG or other contactless payment cards when travelling to or from another station on the GTR train network (including stations north of London); and/or
(d) Penalty fares or excess fares when travelling on the London-Brighton mainline on a GTR train brand excluded by the relevant fares originally purchased by the person."
The issues the court will be asked to consider are described as:
"i. The relevant limitation period applicable to the claims;
ii. Whether GTR is dominant on the relevant markets implicated by the claims;
iii. Whether the conduct of GTR on the London-Brighton mainline through
(a) issuing fares restricted to certain brands,
(b) charging higher prices for Any Permitted and Not Gatwick Express fares as compared with fares which are more restrictive from a train brand perspective,
(c) charging higher prices for rail passengers tapping in or out at platforms 13 and 14 at London Victoria as compared with rail passengers tapping in or out at other platforms at London Victoria,
(d) imposing penalty and excess fares on rail passengers travelling on GTR train brands excluded by their fares, and
(e) misinforming rail passengers that GTR is permitted to issue fares restricted to certain brands constitutes abuse of dominance in breach of the Chapter II Prohibition;
iv. Whether and to what extent the abuse of dominance had an impact on the prices of fares
purchased by proposed class members;
v. The appropriate interest rate at which to adjust damages suffered by proposed class members;
vi. Whether interest should be awarded on a simple basis or as damages on a compound basis."
