Lack of "complimentary" catering — any successful legal action?

[hexagon789]

I think if it was very clear they could just about get away with it[1], but it's still morally questionable to include it in any way in the advertising if non-provision does not result in a partial refund to reflect the "bait and switch" that has occurred, even if not intentional.

[1] Something like "A food and drinks service is provided on some trains subject to availability; this service may differ from day to day so please ask your traincrew what is available on the train you are on". That won't, however, sell First Class tickets, it's more likely to increase the takings at M&S Food and Upper Crust.

ScotRail put very similar wording in their timetables in relation to catering trolley provision, presumably that's so they don't have to compensate for the times they cannot provide it

 

[WesternLancer]

Why? Meals are not provided at weekends. A sandwich is about as much as can be expected on a Sunday evening.

Thanks, but as already pointed out - I was not expecting or seeking a cooked meal on a sunday evening! But sandwiches are advertised (and menus on table for them), but they had run out of the complimentary ones. The OP in the thread was about comp items.

It was a sandwich I was expecting...but as can be the case, it may on some occasions be too much to even expect that...

 

[Haywain]

Thanks, but as already pointed out - I was not expecting or seeking a cooked meal on a sunday evening!

My reply was addressed to yorkie, and hence quoted his post. I was not challenging your expectation.

 

[yorkie]

Does that mean everytime ScotRail can't provide a catering trolley, then they are also liable to pay compensation?

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/consumer-law-and-complimentary-items.171826/; for example if a train company were to say "on occasions, first class ticket holders may be supplied with complimentary snacks, though this is subject to availability" then arguably not, however if they were to say "Upgrade to 1st class to receive an at seat-service consisting of a meal, hot & cold beverages, upgraded WiFi, wide reclining seats and newspapers" and a passenger chose to pay the upgrade on the basis of such items being available, and they were not, then clearly yes.

 

[island]

It would be very interesting to see what became of a case of this sort that made it to court. I doubt any TOC would ever let it get that far, and much less to a court which could set a precedent. A court would take all the circumstances into consideration in the round.

And section 50 of the CRA is not absolute:

Anything taken into account by the consumer as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b) is subject to

(a)anything that qualified it and was said or written to the consumer by the trader on the same occasion

So if LNER say “we’ll offer you complimentary meals and drinks in first class” and also say at the same time “on occasion, meals and drinks may not be offered for various reasons”, that would probably be caught by this subsection.

What they currently say is “Please note that our First Class menu is complimentary. We may not always have your preferred tasty choice available. We apologise for the rare occasions when it’s not possible to offer your dish or drink of choice.” This could be interpreted as saying it is not a guaranteed part of the service, and I am aware that at least one forum member was refused compensation for unavailable catering by LNER. But it could equally be interpreted as saying they’ll always give you some catering, albeit not always something that you especially want.

By contrast, a recent complaint of mine to Virgin Trains (RIP) for compensation for non-provision of complimentary First Class refreshments was met with a cheque for £27, which was about the difference in price of the tier of advance ticket I had.