• 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!

Question regarding claiming on short notice timetable changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

142blue

On Moderation
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Messages
261
Location
UK
Hi

I've seen it mentioned before that if a timetable is amended or changed by 10pm the night before travel this is allowing TOCs to potentially deny claims for delay repay

My question is where is this documented for the public to see / access

Thanks
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
11,651
A supplementary question... What happens if such a timetable amendment then results in the cancellation of a service on which an advance ticket had already been booked?
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,276
Hi

I've seen it mentioned before that if a timetable is amended or changed by 10pm the night before travel this is allowing TOCs to potentially deny claims for delay repay

My question is where is this documented for the public to see / access

Thanks
It was announced in the Feb 2022 amendment to the National Rail conditions of travel. It introduced the concept of the “Published Timetable of the Day”.

We had a long discussion about it in January, I expect most possible related questions are in there:
 

furlong

Established Member
Joined
28 Mar 2013
Messages
3,480
Location
Reading
There are references to a Published Timetable of the Day in the latest Conditions of Travel https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/conditions-of-travel.aspx. It is supposed to be published on www.nationalrail.co.uk no later than 22:00 the day before travel but this is not yet happening. The 10pm you mention is only the last possible time this document can be published - I would expect that when they start to do it it would normally get published earlier so they don't risk failing to publish it before the deadline. The Journey Planner facility there is stated as incorporating this timetable, as well as any subsequent changes, so it cannot currently be relied upon as a source of the information in this document. (The term "pig's ear" comes to mind. Why didn't they just define it as whatever the website shows at precisely 22:00 then taken a daily snapshot of the contents and offered a retrospective query checkbox to be used for delay repay purposes?)
 

142blue

On Moderation
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Messages
261
Location
UK
So if this is not yet happening can TOCs refuse delay repay if a customer books a train in advance, then finds it isn't running as it's been pulled so has to take the next one thus putting them an hour late.

How is the customer supposed to know about this final working timetable, if they checked at 8pm for a 5am train and it shows it, then journey planners show it as pulled by 9pm, what recourse does this person have

What if a regular person travels with say Northern, they have an hourly service to Crewe every Sunday but this week on Saturday they realise oh, we've not enough staff for Sunday and pull out every other train. Person turns up in good faith at 9am to go to say Chelford to find they've pulled the train and the next one is over an hour. Is it basically just get a refund or be allowed to be rerouted on next available train but no money gets returned to them

It all feels very naughty and I've seen nothing as a train user that has informed me of these changes
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
So if this is not yet happening can TOCs refuse delay repay if a customer books a train in advance, then finds it isn't running as it's been pulled so has to take the next one thus putting them an hour late.

How is the customer supposed to know about this final working timetable, if they checked at 8pm for a 5am train and it shows it, then journey planners show it as pulled by 9pm, what recourse does this person have

What if a regular person travels with say Northern, they have an hourly service to Crewe every Sunday but this week on Saturday they realise oh, we've not enough staff for Sunday and pull out every other train. Person turns up in good faith at 9am to go to say Chelford to find they've pulled the train and the next one is over an hour. Is it basically just get a refund or be allowed to be rerouted on next available train but no money gets returned to them

It all feels very naughty and I've seen nothing as a train user that has informed me of these changes
It's incredibly underhanded and I have severe doubts as to whether the exclusion is a fair term in a consumer contract. It smacks of "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done", and clearly no thought whatsoever has gone into the implications.

In any case, it effectively just codifies what many TOCs' automated systems were already doing.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,192
Location
St Albans
Given the many views here (in the referenced threads earlier in the year expressing doubt that the change would actually work in practice), is it likely that there will be a challenge in the small claims court, (thinking particularly of changes affecting genuine advance bookings). For instance, if somebody had a medium length journey (say 50-100 miles) to catch a flight or attend an important appointment, where an early start might demand that the passenger doesn't hang around until 22:00 just to see if the railway has changed its mind about a service. There could be consequential costs which although outside the Delay Repay scheme, might well be the focus of litigation where incompetance is involved. Consumer law has established the presumption of ambiguous information being determined in favour of the buyer so the profile of such a case would be raised to a suitable level of embarassment for the railway.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
It's incredibly underhanded and I have severe doubts as to whether the exclusion is a fair term in a consumer contract. It smacks of "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done", and clearly no thought whatsoever has gone into the implications.

In any case, it effectively just codifies what many TOCs' automated systems were already doing.
As I’ve said in the past when this change came in, the railway has chosen to offer DelayRepay in excess of its legal obligations and can choose what terms and rules it applies to DelayRepay claims. The provision of DelayRepay does not form part of the contract between the railway and the passenger and its terms are not assessable under unfair consumer contract terms rules.

What the railway cannot, of course, do, is use the “Published Timetable of the Day” clause to exclude claims under the relevant statutes such as delay compensation pursuant to regulation 1371/2007 or a price reduction for failing to perform a service contract with reasonable care and skill pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act. A court would quite correctly not take into account the Published Timetable of the Day in assessing such a claim.

It is important not to mix and match these rules as a consumer must choose which head to recover their claims under – it is not permissible to seek to recover twice for the same loss.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,234
Location
Bolton
The provision of DelayRepay does not form part of the contract between the railway and the passenger and its terms are not assessable under unfair consumer contract terms rules.
In your opinion.

An alternative view is that there's not a reason why the relevant Charter doesn't form part of the contract. There are areas of the NRCoT where what's in the Charter changes the meaning of the Conditions. This makes it obvious that at the very least it needs to be considered. I would go further and say that it's clearly intended to form a part of the terms of the agreement. It is for this reason that it has been renamed "Customer Promise" by some operators.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
An alternative view is that there's not a reason why the relevant Charter doesn't form part of the contract. There are areas of the NRCoT where what's in the Charter changes the meaning of the Conditions. This makes it obvious that at the very least it needs to be considered. I would go further and say that it's clearly intended to form a part of the terms of the agreement. It is for this reason that it has been renamed "Customer Promise" by some operators.
The terms of the contract are the NRCoT. If the customer charters were to be imported into the contract, they or the NRCoT would say so.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
As I’ve said in the past when this change came in, the railway has chosen to offer DelayRepay in excess of its legal obligations and can choose what terms and rules it applies to DelayRepay claims. The provision of DelayRepay does not form part of the contract between the railway and the passenger and its terms are not assessable under unfair consumer contract terms rules.

What the railway cannot, of course, do, is use the “Published Timetable of the Day” clause to exclude claims under the relevant statutes such as delay compensation pursuant to regulation 1371/2007 or a price reduction for failing to perform a service contract with reasonable care and skill pursuant to the Consumer Rights Act. A court would quite correctly not take into account the Published Timetable of the Day in assessing such a claim.

It is important not to mix and match these rules as a consumer must choose which head to recover their claims under – it is not permissible to seek to recover twice for the same loss.
The railway is indeed under no obligation to offer anything more generous than the statutory minima. However, it has chosen to do so - and in so doing, it opens up the terms of these schemes to legal scrutiny, particularly under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

The "Published Timetable of the Day" concept affords such latitude to the TOC that I cannot possibly see how it would be a fair term in a consumer contract. It effectively says "we will pay you compensation if you are delayed... unless we don't fancy doing so".

The terms of the contract are the NRCoT. If the customer charters were to be imported into the contract, they or the NRCoT would say so.
The NRCoT makes multiple references to rights arising under Charters - for instance, condition 32.1.1.2 sets out that delay compensation may be claimed in accordance with the arrangements set out in the relevant operator's Charter.

In view of this, it would frankly be a complete non-starter to suggest that the Charters aren't incorporated into the contract.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,234
Location
Bolton
The terms of the contract are the NRCoT.
Nobody argues they aren't the terms. However, your argument appears to be based on the idea that they are exclusively the terms, which is obviously incorrect. The NRCoT don't say they're exclusive.

Consider for example cases where tickets entitle the customer to a competition entry. Are the terms and conditions of the competition ineffectual just because the ticket is issued under the NRCoT? Of course not.

What about a ticket which takes other conditions such as attraction entry or bus travel? Nobody would argue that the additional terms un relation to those services don't apply.

Of course you might argue this is all irrelevant to the question of compensation.

But you go on to point out that:
If the customer charters were to be imported into the contract, they or the NRCoT would say so.
... which as Watershed points out above they already do.

I'm afraid that your argument here is entirely illogical. It's also clearly driven by a desire on your part to be contrary to what you perceive as overreach by a group of railway enthusiasts. That wish to portray yourself as 'an adult in the room' is understandable in its own way, but equally I don't think you can honestly say that you're giving your best dispassionate analysis by trying to suggest that it's incorrect to rely on the rights set out in the relevant Charter! I also don't think that railway industry management share this view.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,192
Location
St Albans
Maybe in a strictly legal sense, what @island is saying is true that the 'contract' is only what is specifically stated in the NRCoT. However, any mention of delay compensation in any official TOC documentation constitutes a salient part of the offer of service as viewed by a prospective customer, and so failure to provide whatever that detail is or to indicate that somehow that wasn't a contractual commitment - especially after a failure to deliver would surely fall foul of the Trade Description Act 2010.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
Maybe in a strictly legal sense, what @island is saying is true that the 'contract' is only what is specifically stated in the NRCoT. However, any mention of delay compensation in any official TOC documentation constitutes a salient part of the offer of service as viewed by a prospective customer, and so failure to provide whatever that detail is or to indicate that somehow that wasn't a contractual commitment - especially after a failure to deliver would surely fall foul of the Trade Description Act 2010.
It is quite clear that the NRCoT isn't, and could not possibly be, the full extent of the contract.

The NRCoT references all sorts of other documents and sources which must be referred to in order to determine the contractual rights and arrangements - such as the Charters, the Routeing Guide, the time restriction codes, the Conditions of Carriage of non-NRCoT transport/service providers, and the Railcard Conditions.

And even if the NRCoT purported that it represented the entirety of the contract - which it doesn't - section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would nevertheless mean that any statements, policies etc. which the consumer considered in their purchasing decision were terms of the contract.

Incidentally, the relevant provisions of the Trades Description Act 1968 were repealed and replaced by the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; the Consumer Rights Act expanded on this.
 

pdsalford

Member
Joined
14 Mar 2014
Messages
49
Given the many views here (in the referenced threads earlier in the year expressing doubt that the change would actually work in practice), is it likely that there will be a challenge in the small claims court, (thinking particularly of changes affecting genuine advance bookings). For instance, if somebody had a medium length journey (say 50-100 miles) to catch a flight or attend an important appointment, where an early start might demand that the passenger doesn't hang around until 22:00 just to see if the railway has changed its mind about a service. There could be consequential costs which although outside the Delay Repay scheme, might well be the focus of litigation where incompetance is involved. Consumer law has established the presumption of ambiguous information being determined in favour of the buyer so the profile of such a case would be raised to a suitable level of embarassment for the railway.
Remember, anything decided in a small claims court has no binding other than in the particular case the decision was made. This means that\ say someone else won their case using an argument, anybody else using that argument would need to start from scratch as it were,
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
11,954
Location
UK
Remember, anything decided in a small claims court has no binding other than in the particular case the decision was made. This means that\ say someone else won their case using an argument, anybody else using that argument would need to start from scratch as it were,
It's not legally binding, although it could nevertheless be cited as non-binding precedent in the same way that judgements from other jurisdictions are occasionally used.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
It's also clearly driven by a desire on your part to be contrary to what you perceive as overreach by a group of railway enthusiasts. That wish to portray yourself as 'an adult in the room' is understandable in its own way
This is not only wrong, but offensive and completely unbefitting a member of forum staff. I will be taking no further part in this thread.
 

FenMan

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2011
Messages
1,364
This is not only wrong, but offensive and completely unbefitting a member of forum staff. I will be taking no further part in this thread.
But, strangely, you don't say why you think the poster is incorrect in their assertion, or produce the evidence that clinches your case.

You have chosen to make a personal accusation of a long-standing and, in my opinion, generally reliable forum member that they have posted something that offends you. Flouncing off without explanation when you disagree with a forum member's assertion is not befitting of a member of forum staff. You may be right, you may be wrong, but how are readers of this forum meant to react to your decision when no explanation is provded?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top