I'm just asking out of curiosity since I know a number of forum members were rather excited a few years back when the Consumer Rights Act was extended to cover rail travel. It was suggested at the time that this may be able to be used to receive compensation when, for instance, "complimentary" first class offerings weren't provided.
Has this actually happened in practice?
I've not read of any such case. I suspect that no such case has been brought to a contested hearing, or if it has, then the TOC has agreed to pay the claimant enough to keep them quiet. With the frequency that promised First Class catering fails to materialise nowadays, the TOCs might be paying out quite a lot if it became public knowledge that there was a decided case in the favour of passengers.
That shouldn't in any way put off someone like yourself who has not been provided with the advertised catering - the Small Claims Track process for money claims is quite approachable for the layperson and doesn't attract substantial costs or potential liabilities.
As to whether or not compensation is due when catering is not provided, there is a series of tests to be undertaken to determine this.
First of all, does the contract explicitly define any compensation? The answer to that is no - neither the NRCoT nor any operator's Passenger Charter promises any compensation in that circumstance.
So, is the catering an entirely discretionary matter or is it something that is part of the contract? Again, the NRCoT doesn't make any mention of catering. However,
Section 50(1) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 implies any statement made by (or on behalf of) a trader into the contract, if it affects the consumer's purchasing decision or any post-purchase decision.
This has extremely wide-ranging implications; almost all timetables of trains which have first class catering include a reference to such catering being available (whether that's in paper timetables or online). Operators with First Class catering usually have pages that detail what catering is offered and on which services.
It's not at all unreasonable to consider that a prospective First Class passenger looks at, and considers, these documents (and the statements made therein) before deciding whether to travel by rail at all, whether to travel in First or Standard Class, whether to upgrade to First Class once they already have a ticket, and so on. Any statements made in them thereby become a term of the contract, whether the TOCs like it or not - and so failure to provide the catering could be a breach of contract.
It's true that many of these statements contain provisos along the lines of "subject to availability". However, not all do (e.g. abbreviated timetables), and proviso are usually in much smaller font than the main text detailing the catering, and in an entirely separate part of the page that you might not even read at all.
Very few operators give sufficient notice that catering may not be provided as advertised and that the operators consider it a discretionary matter - e.g. saying something like "The following catering may be provided if available:"
The fact that some First Class catering is complimentary only really means you can't point to a receipt saying you've paid £X for [food item]. It doesn't mean that it's an entirely discretionary service when it has been promised in such a way as the TOCs do it.
If a breach of consumer contract happens, the CRA sets out some of the remedies available. In brief, the most appropriate would probably be a "price reduction" (a partial refund in non-legalese) of an "appropriate amount".
@Merle Haggard suggests that Virgin ascribed a very insignificant value to their First Class catering items for VAT purposes. I'm not at all surprised, since it's in their interests to minimise their VAT and First Class catering bills (whilst maximising the cost of an upgrade)! But the cost of "raw materials" doesn't really bear any relation on the damages available if something isn't provided.
If a given TOC would normally charge you £10 on the trolley for the same amount of food and drink you would get for free on a certain service, it's not at all unreasonable to expect a price reduction of £10. Alternatively, if it's difficult to ascribe a financial cost, then perhaps a percentage of any upgrade/difference to the Standard fare would be appropriate - say anywhere between 20 and 50% to account for the fact that First Class is also about space and comfort (depending on exactly how much catering was promised).
All of the above is probably irrelevant to most people in practice, unfortunately. Most people are afraid of taking companies to Court when they refuse to pay what they owe, because they perceive it as being more of a hassle than it really is, or they think it's more expensive than it is, or they think they need a solicitor when they don't actually necessarily. I suspect the majority of people who do do it, come out prepared to do it again more readily.
For the few who are prepared to escalate first or second line refusals from Customer Services to pay appropriate compensation (probably on the purported basis that "it's complimentary" or "it's subject to availability") a higher-level review of their case could see them being given some fob-off compensation. Or even better for the company, a free ticket. But the number of people who will ever take this to Court - and a contested hearing - is going to remain miniscule for as long as the current illogical attitude to customer service, and adhering to contracts, remains within the rail industry.
