Missing last connection due to full train

[Mathieu]

Hypothetically if I couldn’t board the train due to it being too full (in this current environment) and that train I miss meats up with the last train to my final destination does the TOC have a responsibility to get me replacement transport to get me to my final destination?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You'd have an entitlment to alternative transport (or overnight accommodation) if:

• the TOC has a policy of offering alternative transport if you don't board the train because it's too full - Scotrail have this policy currently:

If you are unable to board the last service of the day because you think it’s not safe and your journey is essential, we will arrange alternative transport for you if you hold a valid ticket. You can use the station Help Point to contact us

• the train was physically too full to board - in all cases, regardless of what the TOC's policy is.

 

[Mathieu]

You'd have an entitlment to alternative transport (or overnight accommodation) if:

• the TOC has a policy of offering alternative transport if you don't board the train because it's too full - Scotrail have this policy currently:

​

• the train was physically too full to board - in all cases, regardless of what the TOC's policy is.

Thank you for showing that, the twitter team say otherwise but I’ll go with what’s on the website

https://twitter.com/scotrail/status/1287756047344521217?s=21

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Thank you for showing that, the twitter team say otherwise but I’ll go with what’s on the website

https://twitter.com/scotrail/status/1287756047344521217?s=21

Wouldn't be the first time that a TOC's Twitter team has been totally wrong about something to do with passengers' rights...

 

[reb0118]

Define too busy?

 

[py_megapixel]

Define too busy?

One would assume that the definition of "too busy" would be "not possible to be on the train while following government social distancing advice" which in this case means unable to maintain 1 metre distance while wearing a mask

 

[Mathieu]

Interesting conversation about the matter, seems ScotRail are not providing it even though they should under NRCoT 28.2 and their website says “you think it’s not safe” meaning it’s a judgement call made by the passenger...

https://twitter.com/mathieudocherty/status/1288089250701946880?s=21

Seems ScotRail have now removed this policy from the website after asking about it.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Seems ScotRail have now removed this policy from the website after asking about it.

How awfully convenient of them. If social distancing isn't important enough that they'll provide alternative transport if it can't be achieved, they are tacitly admitting it's a total waste of time. And/or that they don't give a flying fig whether passengers travel safely.

 

[robbeech]

How awfully convenient of them. If social distancing isn't important enough that they'll provide alternative transport if it can't be achieved, they are tacitly admitting it's a total waste of time. And/or that they don't give a flying fig whether passengers travel safely.

Who was funding these taxis when this rule was introduced? Was is Scotrail or was it funded by the government? Has this funding changed recently that has caused them to change their policy? All operators (Scotland England and Wales) have been discouraging travel since March, and of course with good reason, but they’ve been funded (I appreciate it’s not straightforward) by the government so there’s no incentive to carry passengers. As time moves on and we see this funding stop there will be a change in attitude when passenger numbers matter again financially. This will be noticeable more in some areas than others.

 

[CentralTrainer]

ScotRail reply on that Twitter thread:

“[NRCoT 28.2] doesn't apply as it's not disruption. I just want to make sure you are aware that a taxi wouldn't be arranged and you're responsible for your own travel choices. Our advice would be not to travel with us if you're concerned that you won't feel safe on our services. ^Paul”

 

[Mathieu]

ScotRail reply on that Twitter thread:

“[NRCoT 28.2] doesn't apply as it's not disruption. I just want to make sure you are aware that a taxi wouldn't be arranged and you're responsible for your own travel choices. Our advice would be not to travel with us if you're concerned that you won't feel safe on our services. ^Paul”

As far as I’m aware if the train is too busy to board it still falls under 28.2

 

[221129]

As far as I’m aware if the train is too busy to board it still falls under 28.2

Depends on your definition of Disruption. If the overcrowding isn't due to disruption I am not convinced it is covered.

 

[robbeech]

Depends on your definition of Disruption. If the overcrowding isn't due to disruption I am not convinced it is covered.

Without written rule suggesting it isn’t covered there is too much ambiguity and as such, it’s covered.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

ScotRail reply on that Twitter thread:

“[NRCoT 28.2] doesn't apply as it's not disruption. I just want to make sure you are aware that a taxi wouldn't be arranged and you're responsible for your own travel choices. Our advice would be not to travel with us if you're concerned that you won't feel safe on our services. ^Paul”

They are correct inasmuch as the default position is that you can't expect them to guarantee that social distancing would be possible throughout your journey.

However if it is their policy that you will be provided with alternative transport if social distancing cannot be achieved on the last connection of the day (as seems to have been the case up until this was raised on Twitter ) then that is binding.

Given the statement now seems to have been removed from their website, any tickets purchased for ScotRail travel from now on wouldn't be covered under that policy. So the NRCoT default would apply, which is that you're only entitled to alternative transport/accommodation if you miss the last connection of the day due to it being physically impossible to board, not just at social distancing capacity.

 

[SteveM70]

So the NRCoT default would apply, which is that you're only entitled to alternative transport/accommodation if you miss the last connection of the day due to it being physically impossible to board, not just at social distancing capacity.

So I guess that gives us three scenarios, two of which are subtly different....

1 - physically unable to board due to overcrowding. Accepted they have to provide onward transport

2 - unable to board because the customer didn’t feel “safe”. Presumably there’ll be some sort of precedent for this, eg woman travelling alone and the last train is a sprinter full of drunken yobs. What would happen in those circumstances?

3 - unable to board without breaching social distancing. Is this then a legal issue?

 

[221129]

2 - unable to board because the customer didn’t feel “safe”. Presumably there’ll be some sort of precedent for this, eg woman travelling alone and the last train is a sprinter full of drunken yobs. What would happen in those circumstances?

3 - unable to board without breaching social distancing. Is this then a legal issue?

Both of these are down to the passenger so the TOC isn't liable. Unless you are prevented boarding by staff.

 

[py_megapixel]

3 - unable to board without breaching social distancing. Is this then a legal issue?

I'm no expert, but...

I guess it depends on who, technically, is responsible under the current legislation.

If the TOC is legally obligated to provide socially distanced travel, or advertised that they would do so, then they have failed to provide the required service and I'd guess that they have to provide alternative transport.

If the responsibility is of the passenger to socially distance, then I imagine it's treated as if they chose not to board the train for any other reason, which is the same as them just missing the train. In which case, they are on their own.

 

[221129]

If the TOC is legally obligated to provide socially distanced travel

Social Distancing isn't a legal requirement.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Social Distancing isn't a legal requirement.

For England and Scotland, it's only relevant inasmuch as any duty would exist under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. This is unlikely to give rise to a duty to guarantee social distancing.

For Wales, employers are required to take all reasonable measures to ensure:

that a distance of 2 metres is maintained between any persons on the premises (except between two members of the same household, or a carer and the person assisted by the carer)

So it would be fairly accurate to say that it's a legal requirement in Wales (so far as it's reasonably practicable), but only a recommendation elsewhere in the UK.

 

[Mathieu]

Given that I bought train tickets before I raised this issue causing them to remove it, would it still stand as those were the rules at the moment I bought the ticket?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Given that I bought train tickets before I raised this issue causing them to remove it, would it still stand as those were the rules at the moment I bought the ticket?

Strictly speaking it would depend on it becoming a term of the contract by virtue of your purchasing decision, or your post-purchase decisions about the contract (e.g. which train you take on a flexible ticket), being influenced by the statement. See section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act.

In practice that isn't a particularly high bar to satisfy in the context of a flexible train ticket. Note in particular that the above decision needs only be influenced ("[the statement] is taken into account"), not necessarily changed or entirely based upon the statememt. So I would suggest that the answer is yes, it's binding.

 

[Mathieu]

Strictly speaking it would depend on it becoming a term of the contract by virtue of your purchasing decision, or your post-purchase decisions about the contract (e.g. which train you take on a flexible ticket), being influenced by the statement. See section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act.

In practice that isn't a particularly high bar to satisfy in the context of a flexible train ticket. Note in particular that the above decision needs only be influenced ("[the statement] is taken into account"), not necessarily changed or entirely based upon the statememt. So I would suggest that the answer is yes, it's binding.

Didn’t mention flexible ticket once, the ticket in question is an open return ticket

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Didn’t mention flexible ticket once, the ticket in question is an open return ticket

Perfect, in which case it's not difficult to justify engaging section 50 and the statement thus being a term of the contract. Don't expect any first-level response to recognise what the Consumer Rights Act even is, let alone the relevance of section 50.

 

[Mathieu]

I

Perfect, in which case it's not difficult to justify engaging section 50 and the statement thus being a term of the contract. Don't expect any first-level response to recognise what the Consumer Rights Act even is, let alone the relevance of section 50.

I asked them in the twitter thread a few times if it will stand (linked above) but they’re now giving me the cold shoulder

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I

I asked them in the twitter thread a few times if it will stand (linked above) but they’re now giving me the cold shoulder

Such tactics are common when difficult questions are posed. Twitter is best used solely for simple, uncontroversial requests (e.g. asking for seat/bike reservations).

 

[Starmill]

How awfully convenient of them. If social distancing isn't important enough that they'll provide alternative transport if it can't be achieved, they are tacitly admitting it's a total waste of time. And/or that they don't give a flying fig whether passengers travel safely.

I agree very much with this. In my opinion if train operators want me to travel regularly and frequently again with them, they must undertake not to charge me a higher price if their trains are over-capacity (which I've suggested defining as more people onboard than seats, because at that point it's totally clear that social distancing will break down) and I offer to wait for the next one as a result. I've asked, and my conclusion on the answers is that either can't be bothered to come up with a policy, or desperately want to hold onto their contractual rights to charge higher prices if that happens, at their own convenience.

ScotRail reply on that Twitter thread:

“[NRCoT 28.2] doesn't apply as it's not disruption. I just want to make sure you are aware that a taxi wouldn't be arranged and you're responsible for your own travel choices. Our advice would be not to travel with us if you're concerned that you won't feel safe on our services. ^Paul”

I think that response puts it beyond all doubt that I'll never travel with ScotRail for the foreseeable future tbh. It's essentially their decision to abdicate any responsibility to try to operate safely, unless there is a possibility of legal enforcement. To be fair it's probably mutually convenient that I don't use their train.

Such tactics are common when difficult questions are posed. Twitter is best used solely for simple, uncontroversial requests (e.g. asking for seat/bike reservations).

It's horrible how truly ignorant they are of people's genuine concerns.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think that response puts it beyond all doubt that I'll never travel with ScotRail for the foreseeable future tbh. It's essentially their decision to abdicate any responsibility to try to operate safely, unless there is a possibility of legal enforcement. To be fair it's probably mutually convenient that I don't use their train.

TBH you'd have to abstain from most TOCs if you judged them based on what their Twitter feed, or in fact most first-level CS reps, said.

 

[Mathieu]

I wonder if it would be worth bringing this to the attention of the media or someone who is in the position to ensure TOCs aren’t doing anything dodgy?

 

[Starmill]

TBH you'd have to abstain from most TOCs if you judged them based on what their Twitter feed, or in fact most first-level CS reps, said.

Well almost everyone in the country actually is still abstaining entirely from rail travel.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Well almost everyone in the country actually is still abstaining entirely from rail travel.

The reasons are almost entirely down to the much obviated need to commute to work, as well as the Government's and TOCs' messaging about the use of public transport. The latter of which is something that will have been decided at a relatively high level. Neither have anything to do with the level of customer service the industry (fails to) provide.