LNER deny refund on Off-Peak Return where return leg cancelled due to strike

[MKB]

I used the outward ticket on an Avanti Off-Peak Return (SVR), purchased on LNER, but I had to make alternative arrangements for the return journey as it fell on a strike day.

When this happened before, I was refunded half the fare paid. This time, LNER have entirely rejected my refund request, stating:

The return portion of an off peak has next to no value to it as it is a saver ticket and the value lies in the outward journey, my apologies for any inconvenience. This means that if you have used the outbound portion of an off peak return, we are unable to provide a refund on the return portion that remains, as it holds a value of around £1.00.

Off peak returns are a budget option and the return basically comes free, meaning that the equivalent single ticket is only around £1.00 cheaper than a return.

We are sorry for any inconvenience caused, thanks again for contacting LNER.

The reply is factually wrong: the difference between the SVR and the equivalent SVS is actually £10.60, and obviously the term "saver" for an SVR has not been used for several years, not that any of that is relevant here.

Under what legal chicanery is the remedy for failure to run half the contracted round trip not, as a minimum, half the fare paid?

 

[Wallsendmag]

Did you select industrial action in the refund reason?

 

[redreni]

Even if LNER were unaware that the reason for the refund was industrial action, their reply is still what's technically known in the industry as utter BS, isn't it?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Even if LNER were unaware that the reason for the refund was industrial action, their reply is still what's technically known in the industry as utter BS, isn't it?

The refund amount will normally take into account any use you have made of the ticket and in some circumstances no refund will be paid.

If industrial action wasn't the cause, clearly there would be very little/no refund due. Being the cost of an Off Peak Single deducted from an Off Peak Return, minus a £5 fee.

In this case, there is apparently a £10.60 difference between Single and Return.

You don't charge a £5 fee because of industrial action.

That ordinarily leaves a refund of £5.60, but in this case, £10.60 is due.

Some TOCs, at their discretion, take a more pragmatic and customer centered approach - but I can't see that there's any contractual condition to do so.

 

[yorkie]

I used the outward ticket on an Avanti Off-Peak Return, purchased on LNER, but I had to make alternative arrangements for the return journey as it fell on a strike day.

When this happened before, I was refunded half the fare paid. This time, LNER have entirely rejected my refund request, stating:



The reply is factually wrong: the difference between the OPR and the equivalent OPS is actually £10.60, and obviously the term "saver" for an OPR has not been used for several years, not that any of that is relevant here.

Under what legal chicanery is the remedy for failure to run half the contracted round trip not, as a minimum, half the fare paid?

This is wrong.

If you had bought the ticket through us, we'd be refunding half the fare.

You could ask LNER if you are "in deadlock" and then take the matter to the Rail Ombudsman.

 

[Adam Williams]

If industrial action wasn't the cause, clearly there would be very little/no refund due. Being the cost of an Off Peak Single deducted from an Off Peak Return, minus a £5 fee.

In this case, there is apparently a £10.60 difference between Single and Return.

You don't charge a £5 fee because of industrial action.

That ordinarily leaves a refund of £5.60, but in this case, £10.60 is due.

This is simply incorrect. Refer to iKB -> Refunds - Disruption -> Passenger Journey Tickets

 

[redreni]

I can see that the method of deducting the price of a single from the price of a return might be justifiable where the customer just chooses not to use the return portion. Otherwise, where the difference between the single and the return fare is big enough, it would be better to buy a return and then pay the £5 admin fee to get half the purchase price refunded, rather than buy a single. (And if that's what the rules are, it's perhaps worth knowing).

It can't be justifiable, surely, where (as the OP mentions) the service simply wasn't provided for the return leg so the customer was unable to travel as planned. Particularly if (as I assume was the case) the lack of any service at all for the return leg wasn't known at time of purchase (and being a flexible ticket, the customer is, of course, entitled to buy it before they know exactly when within the period of validity they intend to travel).

 

[DanNCL]

I had similar with the return leg of a return purchased from LNER for use on a another TOC (TPE) a few months ago, only that time LNER’s claim was a) that they had no mechanism to refund only one portion of a return ticket, and b) it wasn’t their train not running so not their problem - they referred the matter to TPE who, unsurprisingly and correctly, said that the matter was for point of purchase, and TPE even wrote to LNER saying exactly that but that still didn’t get LNER to budge.

After weeks a bit of back and forth between myself and LNER customer relations dealing with multiple different people, as well as TPE customer relations who LNER dragged in needlessly, I sent an email to David Horne which got the matter resolved pretty quickly with the full cost of the ticket being refunded as well as a goodwill gesture.

 

[Adam Williams]

I sent an email to David Horne which got the matter resolved pretty quickly with the full cost of the ticket being refunded

So they still did it wrong, even with his involvement?

Still, not something to complain about from a passenger perspective, I suppose.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I sent an email to David Horne which got the matter resolved pretty quickly with the full cost of the ticket being refunded as well as a goodwill gesture.

Were you also told "staff have been reminded of the correct procedure"? Clearly they haven't been.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is simply incorrect. Refer to iKB -> Refunds - Disruption -> Passenger Journey Tickets

It's not incorrect - I chose my wording very carefully.

There is no contractual entitlement.

There is, indeed, internal advice:

Return (Off-Peak or Anytime) portion of ticket unused: Refund 50% of price paid for the return ticket

But I'm not aware (happy to be proved wrong?) that this is published to customers anywhere or forms any part of the customer contract?

 

[MKB]

Did you select industrial action in the refund reason?

The online system wouldn't work, so I called, and they told me to email. My email explained fully and succinctly what the situation was including the reason why the trains were not running that day.

I've already asked for a review of their decision or Deadlock Letter.

 

[Starmill]

But I'm not aware (happy to be proved wrong?) that this is published to customers anywhere or forms any part of the customer contract?

The entitlement to a refund of the difference in fares is written out in Condition 29.2, but it only applies where the customer chooses not to travel, as it begins with "In such cases...".

For a case where the customer could not complete their journey because of a delay or cancellation, the Conditions are not prescriptive either way. They simply say "...entitled to a full refund on any Tickets held for that journey...".

 

[redreni]

It's not incorrect - I chose my wording very carefully.

There is no contractual entitlement.

There is, indeed, internal advice:



But I'm not aware (happy to be proved wrong?) that this is published to customers anywhere or forms any part of the customer contract?

It's reasonable to expect them to follow their own guidance, I would say.

Perhaps this is just one of the many quirks of railway ticketing in Britain that it might sometimes pay to know.

 

[Adam Williams]

There is no contractual entitlement.

Do you genuinely think that a consumer is only entitled to the difference to the equivalent single back when the railway hasn't provided half of the services promised? Not to mention that the 50% refund policy during disruption is often advertised to consumers, or documented in FAQs/terms of service/refund policy guidance. It doesn't need to be in the NRCoT to create a contractual obligation.

The internal advice would appear to me to be consistent with the rights afforded under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

[Starmill]

It's reasonable to expect them to follow their own guidance, I would say.

Perhaps this is just one of the many quirks of railway ticketing in Britain that it might sometimes pay to know.

Even if that guidance didn't exist internally, there's no approach to calculating a refund prescribed in a circumstance where no trains are running for one of the journeys on a ticket that covers two, and the other journey having been taken. I think that calculating a cost per journey is the only logical approach which satisfies the principles of contract law if no value has been prescribed.

Do you genuinely think that a consumer is only entitled to the difference to the equivalent single back when the railway hasn't provided half of the services promised?

The internal advice would appear to me to be consistent with the rights afforded under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Precisely. If there were any doubt about the entitlement under the contract, the customer would be entitled to rely on their statutory rights.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Do you genuinely think that a consumer is only entitled to the difference to the equivalent single back when the railway hasn't provided half of the services promised? Not to mention that the 50% refund policy during disruption is often advertised to consumers, or documented in FAQs/terms of service/refund policy guidance. It doesn't need to be in the NRCoT to create a contractual obligation.

The internal advice would appear to me to be consistent with the rights afforded under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I think 50% is the right thing to do, and a good remedy to any Consumer Rights Act claims.

Most, probably all, TOCs take this approach, even if at first, it needs the internal advice pointing out to them.

I don't think the customer has any contractual entitlement/right to a 50% refund in this circumstance. I haven't seen it advertised in the way you describe.

If you are correct on it being advertised, clearly it would be persuasive, although even if that is the case, I'd question whether it was advertised/considered at the time the customer entered into the contract, (purchased the ticket) and therefore, whether the customer could actually rely on that to any significant degree.

If that wholly internal advice did not exist, presumably you'd agree that a 50% refund would certainly not be straightforward/ guaranteed and you'd have to rely on using consumer legislation rather than NRCoT?

However, this is now heading into speculation/theoretical so I'll leave it there.

 

[OscarH]

Most, probably all, TOCs take this approach, even if at first, it needs the internal advice pointing out to them.

Aside from whether the customer is contractually entitled to it, given it's clear and established internal policy I damn well hope every TOC and every other retailer follows this rule, and that any that didn't wouldn't be accredited, or would face high priority tickets from RDG to sort it out sharpish.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Aside from whether the customer is contractually entitled to it, given it's clear and established internal policy I damn well hope every TOC and every other retailer follows this rule, and that any that didn't wouldn't be accredited, or would face high priority tickets from RDG to sort it out sharpish.

It's not part of accreditation, but you are correct that RDG would have a word!

That said, so much stuff is already self-accredited or frankly just non-compliant, perhaps not. Accreditation tends to relate to ticket issuing equipment/systems. Other agreements do exist though covering problems like this.

The easiest solution seems to be to remove the SVR Off Peak Return anyway

 

[OscarH]

It's not part of accreditation, but you are correct that RDG would have a word!

The ins and outs of your backoffice system including refund validation are quite a key part. I'd be concerned if a TIS was deemed compliant if it didn't enforce the 50% rule when a disruption refund reason is selected. Obviously bad customer service isn't accredited though, so customer's can always be told no anyway.

That said, so much stuff is already self-accredited or frankly just non-compliant, perhaps not

I'd agree there's a hell of a lot of non-compliance around, so it wouldn't surprise me if the above didn't get spotted

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The easiest solution seems to be to remove the SVR Off Peak Return anyway

LNER may find that the easiest solution for flows they price.

The OP may find that the easiest way to avoid these disputes in future is not to purchase their tickets from LNER.

 

[DanNCL]

So they still did it wrong, even with his involvement?

Still, not something to complain about from a passenger perspective, I suppose.

Very true!

Were you also told "staff have been reminded of the correct procedure"? Clearly they haven't been.

Something along those lines.

The OP may find that the easiest way to avoid these disputes in future is not to purchase their tickets from LNER.

That’s exactly what I did. Unless my journey is exclusively on their trains I no longer buy my tickets through them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s exactly what I did. Unless my journey is exclusively on their trains I no longer buy my tickets through them.

At the moment Monzo users are slightly pushed to do so, though, as they're offering fairly decent cashback at 5% (I'll probably use them to buy a few walk up tickets at the weekend as a result). However I've generally found that while it's a bit of a Trainline clone it doesn't handle some things LNER do differently very well, such as this.

(If the reason for using them is Monzo, though, the Virgin Trains Ticketing app presently offers a single use 8%!)

 

[HurdyGurdy]

At the moment Monzo users are slightly pushed to do so, though, as they're offering fairly decent cashback at 5%

That cashback saving appears to come at the cost of getting decent customer service. Like @DanNCL, I used to purchase my rail tickets through LNER, but quit due to their poor attitude to customer service and obligations under NRCoT. It would take far more than a 5% cashback incentive for me to revert.

 

[MKB]

...
The OP may find that the easiest way to avoid these disputes in future is not to purchase their tickets from LNER.

That would come at the cost of losing the 10% cashback they offer currently. I prefer to take the cashback and fight their customer service when it falls short.

 

[DanNCL]

It would take far more than a 5% cashback incentive for me to revert.

100% cashback would do it for me

 

[embers25]

I wonder if LNER were asked to refund the return half of one of those few returns that are cheaper than the single if they would instead ask you to pay the extra fare up to the single instead!