• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

LNER and GWR want to restrict passengers' rights during disruption: is this right?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
Any ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the consumer. That's settled law and I honestly don't know why everyone goes on considering potential different meanings and which one is most likely to be intended, when all that doesn't matter at all, since you can just pick the most favourable meaning and use that.

If a court finds that terms are ambiguous, the law states that the ambiguity is resolved in favour of the customer.

That is hugely different from stating that because you and I disagree about the meaning of a term, the customer can pick which meaning should apply to them.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
If a court finds that terms are ambiguous, the law states that the ambiguity is resolved in favour of the customer.

That is hugely different from stating that because you and I disagree about the meaning of a term, the customer can pick which meaning should apply to them.
If there is a disagreement as to the meaning of a term between the TOC (as here) and the passenger, then clearly there is any ambiguity. Trying to argue that the term is unambiguous is a very silly strategy and if they are relying on that, they are virtually admitting defeat!
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
In the case of a London Terminals to Newcastle Super Off-Peak ticket, which is this 'same operator' with whom a customer is 'booked'? Apart from the specific trains on which the ticket concerned is not valid, it may be used on trains run by any operator and on any permitted route.
If the customer was originally scheduled to take, as per their planned itinerary, an LNER train then that would be the operator. I'm not sure how many other operators you're suggesting operate through trains from London to Newcastle?!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
In the case of a London Terminals to Newcastle Super Off-Peak ticket, which is this 'same operator' with whom a customer is 'booked'? Apart from the specific trains on which the ticket concerned is not valid, it may be used on trains run by any operator and on any permitted route.

FWIW it is absolutely clear to me that this term is not designed to apply to walk-up tickets in any form, and thus acceptance of these is (for right or wrong) totally down to staff discretion - even if it is a through ticket. (This scenario could easily apply to a through ticket from somewhere in the NSE area via London to somewhere on an IC route).
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
If the customer was originally scheduled to take, as per their planned itinerary, an LNER train then that would be the operator. I'm not sure how many other operators you're suggesting operate through trains from London to Newcastle?!

With a walk-up ticket one does not have to use a through train.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
FWIW it is absolutely clear to me that this term is not designed to apply to walk-up tickets in any form, and thus acceptance of these is (for right or wrong) totally down to staff discretion - even if it is a through ticket. (This scenario could easily apply to a through ticket from somewhere in the NSE area via London to somewhere on an IC route).

Which is not right, and clearly a breach of contract law.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Which is not right, and clearly a breach of contract law.

Is it? The contract consists of the ticket restrictions, and in most cases in NSE-land those are "valid on any train to London then the restrictions apply from there".

It's morally wrong, but I'm not convinced there is a legal issue with it.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Is it? The contract consists of the ticket restrictions, and in most cases in NSE-land those are "valid on any train to London then the restrictions apply from there".

It's morally wrong, but I'm not convinced there is a legal issue with it.

The contract is formed when you book the tickets along with an itinerary.
In @yorkie's example, the contract is between the passenger, GWR & LNER; departing from Exeter at 1055, and arriving in Newcastle at 1951.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
FWIW it is absolutely clear to me that this term is not designed to apply to walk-up tickets in any form, and thus acceptance of these is (for right or wrong) totally down to staff discretion - even if it is a through ticket. (This scenario could easily apply to a through ticket from somewhere in the NSE area via London to somewhere on an IC route).
How is that clear? An Advance ticket is only given as an example of the kind of ticket it might apply to. It does not state or imply that Advance tickets are the only kinds of tickets which it applies to, and there is no other conclusion that can be drawn than that 9.4 is drafted to deal with exactly the situation we find here.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
Well, as one example a walk-up ticket is not restricted to the "booked operator" unless it's TOC specific.
Plenty of Advance tickets are not restricted by TOC at all (e.g. route "AP X" tickets, or the connecting part of route "X & Connections" tickets), and yet these are still included within 9.4. The automatic right to take the next available service is still limited to the originally booked TOC; if there are no more services by that TOC for the rest of the day, them obviously the ticket must be accepted by other operators.

There is no justifiable reasoning as to why time restricted walk-up tickets are excluded from 9.4. Any term purporting to exclude walk-up tickets from it is at risk of being an unfair term in a consumer contract (as it represents an additional charge being required for the breach of contract committed by the TOC, which effectively gives the right to the trader to vary the subject matter, i.e. price, of the contract after it has been made), as well as in breach of the requirement to provide the service with reasonable care and skill.

Even if the intention of the RDG is to exclude time restricted walk-up tickets from 9.4 (which I doubt), that is not the effect achieved by the current wording, and any attempt to do so would be highly unenforceable anyway.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
If there is a disagreement as to the meaning of a term between the TOC (as here) and the passenger, then clearly there is any ambiguity. Trying to argue that the term is unambiguous is a very silly strategy and if they are relying on that, they are virtually admitting defeat!

There is no 'clearly' about it. Ambiguous means that the relevant term is open to have more than one interpretation, not that there is disagreement about how it should be interpreted. If you think disagreement is synonymous with ambiguity, then we actually disagree about what ambiguous means*.

*Would the fact of our disagreement mean that the meaning of ambiguous is itself, ambiguous?


If the customer was originally scheduled to take, as per their planned itinerary, an LNER train then that would be the operator. I'm not sure how many other operators you're suggesting operate through trains from London to Newcastle?!

You need to show your working there. I don't see how the 'originally scheduled' use of a flexible ticket reads across to the use of a ticket on a specified booked services or services in 9.4. The ticket is flexible, and remains so. Its validity and eventual use is in no way specified by any given itinerary or 'originally scheduled' use.

You also need to help me out by showing where 'through train' becomes relevant to the provisions of 9.4, as it isn't clear at all. When applied to advance tickets, whether the missed connection and/or the next available service is or isn't a 'through train' to the destination is irrelevant.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
There is no 'clearly' about it. Ambiguous means that the relevant term is open to have more than one interpretation, not that there is disagreement about how it should be interpreted. If you think disagreement is synonymous with ambiguity, then we actually disagree about what ambiguous means*.

*Would the fact of our disagreement mean that the meaning of ambiguous is itself, ambiguous?




You need to show your working there. I don't see how the 'originally scheduled' use of a flexible ticket reads across to the use of a ticket on a specified booked services or services in 9.4. The ticket is flexible, and remains so. Its validity is in no way specified by any given itinerary or 'originally scheduled' use.

You also need to help me out by showing where 'through train' becomes relevant to the provisions of 9.4, as it isn't clear at all. When applied to advance tickets, whether the missed connection and/or the next available service is or isn't a 'through train' to the destination is irrelevant.
I don't know what you're on about. There is only one operator that would possibly operate the 'next available service' from London to Newcastle and that is LNER. This is different to, say, a ticket to Doncaster. But we are talking about a station which only has one TOC with direct services, so there is no need to confuse the matter by questioning who the originally booked company is. They were and remain LNER.

And claiming that there is a difference between an ambiguous term and one with multiple interpretations... What are you on about? If a term is ambiguous then, by definition, it will have multiple interpretations! And if there are multiple interpretations, S69 intervenes and says that the most favourable interpretation to the consumer applies. As stated, if a TOC is relying on an argument like this which is splitting nonexistent hairs, they really are dredging the bottom and quite frankly might be liable to an adverse costs order for wasting the Court's time for such a ridiculous suggestion.

And as regards 'originally booked', it is quite clear what this means - it is the train which you originally intended to use. Whether or not you are mandated to use that specific train is quite irrelevant to whether or not you are booked on it. If your planned itinerary includes the use of that train, you are booked on it. Even more so if you already have a reservation for it.

It seems like you are trying to justify the TOC's atrocious and tortious behaviour. Is there any reason why you think the passenger should be made to wait for 4 hours, or alternatively have to pay a three-figure sum, for something that is entirely the TOC's fault?!
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
@ForTheLoveOf. Your arguments have become very difficult to follow and almost circular, so I can only refer you to my earlier posts regarding the applicability of 9.4.

It seems like you are trying to justify the TOC's atrocious and tortious behaviour. Is there any reason why you think the passenger should be made to wait for 4 hours, or alternatively have to pay a three-figure sum, for something that is entirely the TOC's fault?!

As it happens, I don't think it right that a customer is forced to pay extra to mitigate a delay caused by earlier disruption to their journey on the supposed National Rail network. There should be a provision in the Ts&Cs to avoid that, but as far as I can see, looking at the applicable restrictions, terms and conditions, there isn't. I respect the fact that you disagree.

The customer didn't need to wait 4 hours. Their ticket was valid on the 15:02 departure from St Pancras, using EMT and XC to arrive at Newcastle at 19:33, which is still a significant delay versus the intended arrival time, but is an option which nobody here has mentioned. Was it mentioned to the customer at the time, as an alternative to either paying the excess or waiting for the 19:00 departure from Kings Cross?

The OP is rather sparse on detail, probably quite properly, for reasons of confidentiality. But I would be very interested to know if the validity of the the tickets offered for the customer's itinerary was fully explained by the retailer and in particular what the customer's options would be should disruption mean the requested itinerary could not be completed. If the retailer sold the tickets on the basis that in combination they would be valid for travel on the 15:00 from Kings Cross, that would put a very different complexion on the matter.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
@ForTheLoveOf. Your arguments have become very difficult to follow and almost circular, so I can only refer you to my earlier posts regarding the applicability of 9.4.



As it happens, I don't think it right that a customer is forced to pay extra to mitigate a delay caused by earlier disruption to their journey on the supposed National Rail network. There should be a provision in the Ts&Cs to avoid that, but as far as I can see, looking at the applicable restrictions, terms and conditions, there isn't. I respect the fact that you disagree.

The customer didn't need to wait 4 hours. Their ticket was valid on the 15:02 departure from St Pancras, using EMT and XC to arrive at Newcastle at 19:33, which is still a significant delay versus the intended arrival time, but is an option which nobody here has mentioned. Was it mentioned to the customer at the time, as an alternative to either paying the excess or waiting for the 19:00 departure from Kings Cross?

The OP is rather sparse on detail, probably quite properly, for reasons of confidentiality. But I would be very interested to know if the validity of the the tickets offered for the customer's itinerary was fully explained by the retailer and in particular what the customer's options would be should disruption mean the requested itinerary could not be completed. If the retailer sold the tickets on the basis that in combination they would be valid for travel on the 15:00 from Kings Cross, that would put a very different complexion on the matter.
Unless we are told that the retailer had promised validity on the 15:00, I don't see there's any reason to get into that.

What matters is not what the passenger was explicitly told, but what his contractual rights are.

I can tell there is no way we are going to agree, so let's leave it at this.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
But what if you don't book the ticket with an itinerary?
Doesn't matter; the itinerary is still a valid one, which anyone can look up. It can become problematical if the timetable changes after the date of booking. But that isn't what happened here. Delays between Exeter and London caused the passenger to miss their intended train from King's Cross, resulting in the next available train being a train that is barred for a London <> Newcastle Super Off Peak Return. But any such time restrictions cannot be justifiably applied to a passenger who has encountered a delay to their journey.
The customer didn't need to wait 4 hours. Their ticket was valid on the 15:02 departure from St Pancras, using EMT and XC to arrive at Newcastle at 19:33, which is still a significant delay versus the intended arrival time, but is an option which nobody here has mentioned. Was it mentioned to the customer at the time, as an alternative to either paying the excess or waiting for the 19:00 departure from Kings Cross?
I believe the customer was charged on board the 1500, so mentioning that option (not that it's a sensible option) wouldn't have been relevant by that point.

It appears both @Bletchleyite and @Silverdale are arguing that there isn't any clear provision in the NRCoT to allow holders of flexible tickets to get the next train in the event of delays, while both admit that there is clear provision in the NRCoT to allow holders of Advance tickets to get the next train. It appears both are therefore arguing that the conditions allow for a flexible ticket holder to be significantly delayed, while a non-flexible ticket holder wouldn't be.

Notwithstanding that there is no logic whatsoever in these conclusions, it would be totally against both contract and consumer laws for such an interpretation to be applied, and therefore their arguments do not hold water in terms of the legal position.

However I would agree the NRCoT should be clarified, to avoid the ludicrous situation where some people incorrectly interpret Advance ticket holders to have greater rights than [Super] Off Peak ticket holders.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
Notwithstanding that there is no logic whatsoever in these conclusions, it would be totally against both contract and consumer laws for such an interpretation to be applied, and therefore their arguments do not hold water in terms of the legal position.

I don't understand why the restrictions and/or conditions applied to one ticket should necessarily and automatically be transferable to another in the way you describe. If you can point me to the particular parts of contract and consumer law which make that so, I would be very pleased to find out about it.


However I would agree the NRCoT should be clarified, to avoid the ludicrous situation where some people incorrectly interpret Advance ticket holders to have greater rights than [Super] Off Peak ticket holders.

I don't accept that Advance ticket holders generally have greater rights than Super Off-Peak ticket holders. They have different rights. However, in the specific case where disruption to travel causes delay, no holder of any kind of ticket should be expected to pay more to mitigate that delay. Provision is made for the holders of tickets valid on specific (booked) services such as Advance tickets to avoid paying extra to travel on the next available service(s). The same or equivalent provision should be made for all as a matter of principle.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It appears both @Bletchleyite and @Silverdale are arguing that there isn't any clear provision in the NRCoT to allow holders of flexible tickets to get the next train in the event of delays, while both admit that there is clear provision in the NRCoT to allow holders of Advance tickets to get the next train. It appears both are therefore arguing that the conditions allow for a flexible ticket holder to be significantly delayed, while a non-flexible ticket holder wouldn't be.

Notwithstanding that there is no logic whatsoever in these conclusions, it would be totally against both contract and consumer laws for such an interpretation to be applied, and therefore their arguments do not hold water in terms of the legal position.

However I would agree the NRCoT should be clarified, to avoid the ludicrous situation where some people incorrectly interpret Advance ticket holders to have greater rights than [Super] Off Peak ticket holders.

Yes, agreed. I was only arguing the technicality of the wording. I would have, as noted above, been rather miffed had I had issues in my situation above with regard to the Southern WLL service, given its unreliability (though in the event the train did run).
 

kieron

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2012
Messages
3,048
Location
Connah's Quay
I suppose this hinges on whether an Off Peak walkup ticket is "a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services". Let's imagine for a moment that the passenger held a hypothetical through ticket from Exeter to Newcastle instead, which had the same restriction on leaving King's Cross as mentioned upthread. Would anyone actually argue that due to s. 9.4 they would have to wait at King's Cross for hours due to a delay on the first train?
First of all, an Exeter-Newcastle "any permitted" super off peak single has a 5A restriction code, which restricts your arrival time into London, but not your departure time to Newcastle. A Pinhoe-Newcastle ticket does have a 9D one, if that's of any use.

Second, every rail ticket which is sold to the general public is valid on specific services. For one thing, the services have to be scheduled within the validity period of the ticket.

I find it easier to understand the effect 9.4 would have in the event of a delay involving a ticket with compulsory reservations (such as an advance ticket) than it is on something which doesn't, like an earlybird season ticket. Or, indeed, a super off peak return.

I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not going to try to guess whether it's worth pursuing an argument that it affects tickets which don't come with compulsory reservations.
 

philthetube

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2016
Messages
3,749
I have just been looking at the passenger charter for the two companies, LNER is the much better one but doesn't help in this case.

LNER state that if you miss a connection caused by one of there trains being late and that this will delay you by more than one hour then they will provide alternative transport if that would be quicker than waiting for the next train.

And they do, I benefited from a taxi from York to Whitby through this policy.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
In the case of a London Terminals to Newcastle Super Off-Peak ticket, which is this 'same operator' with whom a customer is 'booked'?
Whoever operated the train selected when the customer booked. In this case this is LNER.

Asking a question with a very obvious answer and trying to imply there's a confusion about the meaning isn't a good strategy to get your point across ;)
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I have just been looking at the passenger charter for the two companies, LNER is the much better one but doesn't help in this case.

LNER state that if you miss a connection caused by one of there trains being late and that this will delay you by more than one hour then they will provide alternative transport if that would be quicker than waiting for the next train.

And they do, I benefited from a taxi from York to Whitby through this policy.

That's unusually good, and does hark back to latter day BR - a missed Preston-Ormskirk (due to a connection) always meant a taxi without argument, for instance (the frequency being at the time about every 1.25 hours).
 

whhistle

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
The question is: what does the customer want?
Their feedback listened to, so the company will (hopefully) change?
An empty apology?
Someone to moan at?
Some sort of money back?

Whatever the outcome, the customer needs to have an appropriate approach.

The problem has been exasperated by "Matthew Leslie" who has joined in and made (IMO) sarcastic remarks. Not exactly helping the OP and I suspect "JC" doesn't care anymore. Treat the company stupidly, they won't care anymore.

Keep hammering and you'll become a name that is remembered, and any correspondence will not be taken seriously and simply filed. The company will do whatever to shut you up but they won't take on board your comments.
You're one in a million, and the odds that you'll turn that one into significant numbers are low.

That's how nearly all customer services I've worked in, led or consulted for have worked. It's the way life is and I don't think it'll ever change.

I honestly don't know why some people (nobody in particular) have an axe to grind against certain companies or industries. I don't think any industry I am connected to gives me the services I expect be it banking, utilities, car garages, insurances, supermarkets, other retail outlets.
That's why mobile phone companies and broadband companies in particular don't really have existing customer deals any more. If you leave, you'll be replaced by another customer. They've figured it out so don't have great renewal deals. Hence we're now in generation switch.

We all want a better service, I totally agree.
But if you really want to make a change, get a job in that industry, work your way up and change it. Because in reality, if it was easy it would have happened by now.

But it is true the rail industry is slow.
Then again so is the motor industry. How long have USB phones been around? And it' only in recent years they've begun to replace the old cig lighter power supply socket.

In in this particular case, if the customer was delayed on the first part of their journey, causing them to miss a booked train, then they should have been accepted as the delay wasn't their fault.

There is always another option than the train.
Vote with your feet, write to your MP.

Apologies for the huge post. Well done if you read it all!
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
The question is: what does the customer want?
Their feedback listened to, so the company will (hopefully) change?
An empty apology?
Someone to moan at?
Some sort of money back?
I'd hope they will become compliant with the law, as well as apologise and provide a refund.
Whatever the outcome, the customer needs to have an appropriate approach.
The customer did nothing wrong. If you are attempting to blame the victim, it doesn't wash with me. The company needs to have an appropriate approach, and that has been lacking.
The problem has been exasperated by "Matthew Leslie" who has joined in and made (IMO) sarcastic remarks. Not exactly helping the OP and I suspect "JC" doesn't care anymore. Treat the company stupidly, they won't care anymore.
It's an irrelevance. He made two comments criticising the company and the company gave an incorrect response going on about air travel which is totally irrelevant. Let's focus on the facts of the matter.
Keep hammering and you'll become a name that is remembered, and any correspondence will not be taken seriously and simply filed. The company will do whatever to shut you up but they won't take on board your comments.
A dangerous game if that's what LNER want to do.
You're one in a million, and the odds that you'll turn that one into significant numbers are low.

That's how nearly all customer services I've worked in, led or consulted for have worked. It's the way life is and I don't think it'll ever change.
I'd be curious to learn who you worked for, so I can ensure I don't use that company.
I honestly don't know why some people (nobody in particular) have an axe to grind against certain companies or industries. I don't think any industry I am connected to gives me the services I expect... be it banking, motor, supermarkets, other retail.
Is that a criticism at me for supporting the passenger?
That's why mobile phone companies, broadband companies don't really have existing customer deals any more. If you leave, you'll be replaced by another customer.
Even they don't treat their customers as badly as the rail industry.
We all want a better service, I agree.
But if you really want to make a change, get a job in that industry and change it. Because in reality, if it was easy, it would have happened by now.
I am doing everything I reasonably can to change it but even people who work for companies like GWR and LNER can't change their policies to be compliant with the relevant legislation and industry guidelines.

I'm not quite sure what job you think any of us should get to be able to change all the things that are wrong in the industry, or how we would go about doing it, so perhaps you can enlighten me.
In in this particular case, if the customer was delayed on the first part of their journey, causing them to miss a booked train, then they should have been accepted as the delay wasn't their fault.
Agreed, it should have been accepted.
There is always another option than the train.
Vote with your feet, write to your MP.
For Newcastle to London? Not really. But yes, he should write to his MP too.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,050
The question is: what does the customer want?
Their feedback listened to, so the company will (hopefully) change?
An empty apology?
Someone to moan at?
Some sort of money back?

Whatever the outcome, the customer needs to have an appropriate approach.

The problem has been exasperated by "Matthew Leslie" who has joined in and made (IMO) sarcastic remarks. Not exactly helping the OP and I suspect "JC" doesn't care anymore. Treat the company stupidly, they won't care anymore.

Keep hammering and you'll become a name that is remembered, and any correspondence will not be taken seriously and simply filed. The company will do whatever to shut you up but they won't take on board your comments.
You're one in a million, and the odds that you'll turn that one into significant numbers are low.

That's how nearly all customer services I've worked in, led or consulted for have worked. It's the way life is and I don't think it'll ever change.

I honestly don't know why some people (nobody in particular) have an axe to grind against certain companies or industries. I don't think any industry I am connected to gives me the services I expect be it banking, utilities, car garages, insurances, supermarkets, other retail outlets.
That's why mobile phone companies and broadband companies in particular don't really have existing customer deals any more. If you leave, you'll be replaced by another customer. They've figured it out so don't have great renewal deals. Hence we're now in generation switch.

We all want a better service, I totally agree.
But if you really want to make a change, get a job in that industry, work your way up and change it. Because in reality, if it was easy it would have happened by now.

But it is true the rail industry is slow.
Then again so is the motor industry. How long have USB phones been around? And it' only in recent years they've begun to replace the old cig lighter power supply socket.

In in this particular case, if the customer was delayed on the first part of their journey, causing them to miss a booked train, then they should have been accepted as the delay wasn't their fault.

There is always another option than the train.
Vote with your feet, write to your MP.

Apologies for the huge post. Well done if you read it all!
Making it damn expensive for them to do otherwise is a very effective way to ensure permanent change.
 

gray1404

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2014
Messages
6,575
Location
Merseyside
Frustratingly the rail industry, in cases like this, has all the correct policies in place. E.g. The NRCoT would state in my view the customer should have been allowed on the next service without additional charge. The problem is getting the employees concerned to respect such policies and apply them correctly rather then mistreating a customer, denying them their contractual rights and trying to fob them off. Or I this case extraction of money under false pretences. The hard work, I.e. Writing up and publishing the policies has been done, the TOCs and their staff need to respect this and enact them correctly. Mass cultural change required on the railways.
 

Silverdale

Member
Joined
14 Apr 2018
Messages
522
Whoever operated the train selected when the customer booked. In this case this is LNER.

Asking a question with a very obvious answer and trying to imply there's a confusion about the meaning isn't a good strategy to get your point across ;)

The confusion is about what relevance a particular retail experience can have on the customer's right to be carried. If the ticket is purchased, e.g. from a TVM, without an itinerary, my question doesn't have the answer which you patronisingly suggest is obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top