Railway Touring Company - Check Terms & Condition before you book!

[12LDA28C]

The op had the contract with RTC that's who they would claim, even though RTC wouldn't be involved in any potential "negligence" they would still potentially be liable for negligence on the part of other companies who are acting on their behalf, RTC would then in turn have a claim against them

If this were actually true, that would kill the charter market stone dead as no tour operators would even attempt to run any tours due to the risks involved of being liable for just about any eventuality completely outside their control. I suggest that the disclaimer on the website about liability in the event of non-availability of the rostered traction, which seemingly anyone else who books on such a tour agrees to and accepts, is sufficient to divest the tour operator of any threat of a claim being brought against them.

 

[Sultan]

By them accepting your booking creates a contract and they have a duty to fulfil their part of it based on your expectations. If you book a steam railway tour then it can reasonably be expected that this is what should be delivered, especially if it's presented as being a major part of the offer. They can't hide behind T&C's that would preclude them from giving recompense should these major parts not be delivered. Proving it is another matter and likely requires a visit to the Small Claims Court where you can present your argument that the service you received was not what you paid for. If successful, you would possibly be awarded the difference between what you paid and a reasonable estimation of how much it would have been for the service you did receive. Replacing the Flying Scotsmon with a diesel engine is far more significant than another steam engine.

However, as the service hadn't happened when you requested a refund, it could not be known what reduction in expectation would occur. Did the trip actually go ahead and if so, in what capacity? Had it been cancelled entirely, then you may have been entitled to a refund. If you didn't go, and it did take place in its reduced capacity, then your entitlement to compensation may be limited also, as you have chosen to not avail yourself of the contract.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and such a purchase should be seen as similar to a holiday - do you have insurance? Maybe it's something that these railtours should offer as an optional extra to cover such risks.

When booking any service, you don't have to accept the T&C's as read - you are entitled to make any changes, including adding your own clauses. But this must be done in advance of the booking process and accepted by the service provider prior to the contract (booking) itself being accepted as being part of the contract. Whether they accept is another matter (probably not in this type of service) but it's worth remembering.

Unexpected things always happen and this is what insurance is for. Your own Consumer rights in a contract are significant, but aren't designed (and cannot foresee) all eventualities, especially those not within direct control.

 

[Bertie the bus]

The op had the contract with RTC that's who they would claim, even though RTC wouldn't be involved in any potential "negligence" they would still potentially be liable for negligence on the part of other companies who are acting on their behalf, RTC would then in turn have a claim against them

They quite obviously wouldn't have a claim against RTC. Whoever caused the mishap wasn't even acting on behalf of RTC at the time.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

If this were actually true, that would kill the charter market stone dead as no tour operators would even attempt to run any tours due to the risks involved of being liable for just about any eventuality completely outside their control. I suggest that the disclaimer on the website about liability in the event of non-availability of the rostered traction, which seemingly anyone else who books on such a tour agrees to and accepts, is sufficient to divest the tour operator of any threat of a claim being brought against them.

Yes normally I would agree it would be sufficient, I am not saying they would be liable to have to payout for just about any eventuality, just incase there is found to be a serious negligent act, where by RTC would then likely have a claim against who ever they have their contract with to provide the traction

They quite obviously wouldn't have a claim against RTC. Whoever caused the mishap wasn't even acting on behalf of RTC at the time.

RTC would have a claim against whoever they had a contract with to provide the traction, just because the passenger is once or twice removed from who caused the negligence doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a claim, as an example the passenger wouldn't claim the heritage railway, the passenger would claim against who they had the contract with, who would in turn claim against the company who provided the traction who in turn claim against the heritage railway

No, you have misread it - in fact I am doubtful you have read it at all if you come to this conclusion. You are giving unhelpful advice to someone in a difficult and unfortunate situation.

So again where does the Consumer Rights Act say that reasonable skill and care is only for when a service hasn't been provided? It's clearly doubtful you have even read it as that section clearly says it's how the service was been provided

 

[jumble]

Im sharing my recent experience to warn potential travellers about The Railway Touring Company. Last October, my daughter and I excitedly planned a trip aboard the iconic Flying Scotsman. Unfortunately, our anticipation turned to disappointment when the train was involved in a collision shortly before our scheduled departure.

Due to the ongoing investigation into the crash, uncertainty loomed over whether the Flying Scotsman would run from the week commencing 2nd October. This uncertainty deeply affected my daughter, who suffers from PTSD. Recognising her distress, I promptly informed The Railway Touring Company of our need to cancel.

Despite our situation, The Railway Touring Company rigidly upheld their policy and refused any refund.

Appeals for understanding fell on deaf ears, leaving me, as pensioners, out of pocket by over £530. Even efforts by my Member of Parliament were unsuccessful.

Key Points to Note About The Railway Touring Company before you book.

1. They reserve the right to change the booked locomotive without providing refunds,
potentially depriving you of the experience you desired.
2. A switch to a diesel engine from a steam one may occur without any refund
offered.
3. Illness does not warrant a refund, regardless of the circumstances.

My advice:

Carefully review the terms and conditions before making any bookings.
If you're uncomfortable with the uncertainty and refund policy, consider visiting the National Railway Museum in York instead – a delightful alternative for train enthusiasts and it FREE. If your a train 'geek' its the place for you!

Don't overlook the risks associated with booking with The Railway Touring Company. Make an informed choic

Yes normally I would agree it would be sufficient, I am not saying they would be liable to have to payout for just about any eventuality, just incase there is found to be a serious negligent act, where by RTC would then likely have a claim against who ever they have their contract with to provide the traction

I don't understand the point you are trying to make
Even if the the driver at Aviemore is found to be negligent in what I understand to be a bump at 7 mph ( calling this a crash is IMHO somewhat over dramatic) I don't understand how this has affected RTC in any respect.
If you were running a business would you refund the OP?
I am with @AlterEgo in agreeing that you are not being very helpful to the OP and I wonder if a small claims court might deem such a claim as vexatious

 

[AlterEgo]

So again where does the Consumer Rights Act say that reasonable skill and care is only for when a service hasn't been provided? It's clearly doubtful you have even read it as that section clearly says it's how the service was been provided

@island already made the point that:

The provision of the service had not commenced at the time the passenger chose to cancel their plans, so any claim that the service had, at that point, been provided without due skill and care is doomed to fail.

I am not sure what else there is to say.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make
Even if the the driver at Aviemore is found to be negligent in what I understand to be a bump at 7 mph ( calling this a crash is IMHO somewhat over dramatic) I don't understand how this has affected RTC in any respect.
If you were running a business would you refund the OP?
I am with @AlterEgo in agreeing that you are not being very helpful to the OP

If I was running a business and I believed I would lose a small claims court case and my subcontractor had caused the issue through their negligence which had been determined by an external government body then I as a company owner would be making a claim against my subcontractor to cover my losses to payout my customer

As for not being very helpful, all I am saying is when the report is released to reconsider their position,

No, you have misread it - in fact I am doubtful you have read it at all if you come to this conclusion. You are giving unhelpful advice to someone in a difficult and unfortunate situation.

@island neatly summarises the situation.

It would be quite different had they been booked on the train which did have the collision, or if their own tour service was cancelled as a result of said collision. But it wasn't.

Now you are trying to change your argument.

You clearly said "The “reasonable care and skill” clause refers to when a service specifically hasn’t been provided"

That is a general sweeping statement which is patently incorrect

 

[Sultan]

If I was running a business and I believed I would lose a small claims court case and my subcontractor had caused the issue through their negligence which had been determined by an external government body then I as a company owner would be making a claim against my subcontractor to cover my losses to payout my customer

As for not being very helpful, all I am saying is when the report is released to reconsider their position,

Isn't this optional business insurance? Although insuring against losses caused by a third party being unable to provide a unique service, namely the Flying Scotsman, might be prohibitively expensive.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

@island already made the point that:



I am not sure what else there is to say.

Another way to look at this would say for LNER to say they are having trouble with a unit and may not beable to run their timetable tomorrow but then at 08.55 say that the 09.00 service will run, so what you are saying is that passengers wouldn't have a claim as the service did run regardless of the fact that it wasn't confirmed to the last minute, I would say consumer rights and reasonable skill certainly would come into play here and the ops situation is not entirely dissimilar, nrm said all tours under review on the 2nd October, on the 6th confirmed they would run, RTC was next morning

Isn't this optional business insurance? Although insuring against losses caused by a third party being unable to provide a unique service, namely the Flying Scotsman, might be prohibitively expensive.

That would be the risk you take if you want to run a company in part of events business etc

Having insurance doesn't absolve other parties of liability

 

[AlterEgo]

Now you are trying to change your argument.

You clearly said "The “reasonable care and skill” clause refers to when a service specifically hasn’t been provided"

That is a general sweeping statement which is patently incorrect

There is little point debating this with you; as multiple posters have told you, you are incorrect. The railtour ran, and hence they cannot claim that the service (the railtour) was not provided with reasonable care and skill. There is nothing else to add.

 

[Sultan]

Another way to look at this would say for LNER to say they are having trouble with a unit and may not beable to run their timetable tomorrow but then at 08.55 say that the 09.00 service will run, so what you are saying is that passengers wouldn't have a claim as the service did run regardless of the fact that it wasn't confirmed to the last minute, I would say consumer rights and reasonable skill certainly would come into play here and the ops situation is not entirely dissimilar, nrm said all tours under review on the 2nd October, on the 6th confirmed they would run, RTC was next morning



That would be the risk you take if you want to run a company in part of events business etc

Having insurance doesn't absolve other parties of liability

That is a given, but one would hope that the business that operates the Flying Scotsman have insurance to cover any inability they might have to fulfil a contract, subject to the 'reasonableness' clauses (such as a different, equally respected steam engine).

 

[Haywain]

Having insurance doesn't absolve other parties of liability

It appears that you hold the opinion that providing the advertised service doesn't absolve them of responsibility for failing to do so either.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

It appears that you hold the opinion that providing the advertised service doesn't absolve them of responsibility for failing to do so either.

Well if a train is cancelled then reinstated at the very last minute that doesn't mean the train company isn't responsible for losses incurred as a result of doing so, if a passenger had to make alternative arrangements as a result of the communications put out then certainly a case could be made for the liability for any additional costs incurred even though the train runs

 

[skyhigh]

Well if a train is cancelled then reinstated at the very last minute

It wasn't though so this is irrelevant. You are talking nonsense based on your opinion and not reality.

 

[Sultan]

Given the OP hasn't posted since their first post yesterday, is any new advice really being offered? Perhaps a new thread to discuss contract law in the General forum?

Just a thought.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

It wasn't though so this is irrelevant. You are talking nonsense based on your opinion and not reality.

Well actually it sort of was, from 2nd to 6th October there was communication that tours might not go ahead until it was checked, on the 6th it was finally confirmed it would run on the 7th, its not unreasonable to say that was on short notice

I also get the impression that some people would hang a toc out to dry on a technicality but woe betide someone try and make a claim against a heritage operator

 

[Brissle Girl]

Well actually it sort of was, from 2nd to 6th October there was communication that tours might not go ahead until it was checked, on the 6th it was finally confirmed it would run on the 7th, its not unreasonable to say that was on short notice

There’s a huge difference between telling people the train is cancelled, at which point the contract is void and a refund is due, and expressing a degree of uncertainty over whether it will run. So no, it sort of wasn’t.

And remember that the cause of the requested cancellation was illness due to the uncertainty, not a consequence that is remotely foreseeable by the operator. There are so many hurdles at which any claim would fall, a no win no fee solicitor would run a mile from taking on the case.

 

[12LDA28C]

Well actually it sort of was, from 2nd to 6th October there was communication that tours might not go ahead until it was checked, on the 6th it was finally confirmed it would run on the 7th, its not unreasonable to say that was on short notice

I also get the impression that some people would hang a toc out to dry on a technicality but woe betide someone try and make a claim against a heritage operator

Tours 'might not go ahead' i.e. be cancelled outright , or 'might not go ahead with the advertised traction' which is allowed for within the Ts & Cs of the operator and implicitly agreed to and accepted by potential customers as a condition of booking? What exactly did the communication say?

 

[Bertie the bus]

RTC would have a claim against whoever they had a contract with to provide the traction, just because the passenger is once or twice removed from who caused the negligence doesn't mean they aren't entitled to a claim, as an example the passenger wouldn't claim the heritage railway, the passenger would claim against who they had the contract with, who would in turn claim against the company who provided the traction who in turn claim against the heritage railway

What is any of this based on? Why would anybody be claiming anything when the relevant tour apparently ran?

Well actually it sort of was, from 2nd to 6th October there was communication that tours might not go ahead until it was checked, on the 6th it was finally confirmed it would run on the 7th, its not unreasonable to say that was on short notice

I also get the impression that some people would hang a toc out to dry on a technicality but woe betide someone try and make a claim against a heritage operator

Who was this communication from? RTC or just general reports in the media? Unless RTC communicated with their customers telling them the tour might not run they cannot be held responsible for any issues the OP's daughter had and also can't be held responsible for the accident they weren't involved in or any communication she might have seen in the media.

 

[The exile]

What is any of this based on? Why would anybody be claiming anything when the relevant tour apparently ran?

Who was this communication from? RTC or just general reports in the media? Unless RTC communicated with their customers telling them the tour might not run they cannot be held responsible for any issues the OP's daughter had and also can't be held responsible for the accident they weren't involved in or any communication she might have seen in the media.

Even if the communication was from RTC, they would merely be informing of facts as they were at the time so that passengers could weigh up the risks and decide what action they wish to take - but that action is the passengers’ own choice. There is always a risk that things might not happen as advertised. Just imagine the furore if there had been a “cover up” and nothing had been said until a diesel turned up on the front.

 

[sheff1]

Given the OP hasn't posted since their first post yesterday, is any new advice really being offered?

As far as I can see the OP didn't ask for advice, they were in fact advising anyone considering booking with RTC to make sure they understood the T&Cs and included background information as to why they were doing so.

 

[Tallguy]

In my view everyone is going in the wrong direction on this one.

the OP appears to have cancelled on the basis that his Daughter’s PTSD would have been made worse by riding on the replacement train tour. The OP booked for a tour with the Flying Scotsman as the loco. The specified loco wasn’t going to be available on the day and a substitute was pulled in. The OP should have requested a refund on the basis that what was being provided wasn’t what had been booked. If the rail tour company refused a refund citing their T and C’s then the OP should have issued a letter before action, citing breach of contract. If the rail tour operator still refused a refund then the correct course of action would have been to issue a claim using the small claims procedures in the County Court. Very simple to do online and a court of law can and has on many millions of occasions over ruled so called T and C’s, as a contract is only fair if it is fair to both parties.

The OP booked a ticket for a train hauled by the Flying Scotsman, not a diesel loco. I would want my money back in a similar position.

Imagine booking a concert ticket to see AC/DC and having the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra come on stage as the replacement group…..

sadly the OP didn’t follow the correct course of action and will have to chalk it up to experience.

 

[Puffing Devil]

In my view everyone is going in the wrong direction on this one.

the OP appears to have cancelled on the basis that his Daughter’s PTSD would have been made worse by riding on the replacement train tour. The OP booked for a tour with the Flying Scotsman as the loco. The specified loco wasn’t going to be available on the day and a substitute was pulled in. The OP should have requested a refund on the basis that what was being provided wasn’t what had been booked. If the rail tour company refused a refund citing their T and C’s then the OP should have issued a letter before action, citing breach of contract. If the rail tour operator still refused a refund then the correct course of action would have been to issue a claim using the small claims procedures in the County Court. Very simple to do online and a court of law can and has on many millions of occasions over ruled so called T and C’s, as a contract is only fair if it is fair to both parties.

The OP booked a ticket for a train hauled by the Flying Scotsman, not a diesel loco. I would want my money back in a similar position.

Imagine booking a concert ticket to see AC/DC and having the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra come on stage as the replacement group…..

sadly the OP didn’t follow the correct course of action and will have to chalk it up to experience.

The OP should have made that clear when booking and allowed the operator to take the booking with that stipulation. Taking a booking with an additional clause is additional risk for the operator and would, no doubt, require additional payment if they were to agree with it.


That said - I've seen so many poor reviews for the operator I wouldn't book with them: the service received seems to be a lottery. One rogue complaint I can understand, though the numbers online show a trend.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The specified loco wasn’t going to be available on the day and a substitute was pulled in. The OP should have requested a refund on the basis that what was being provided wasn’t what had been booked.

The OP booked a ticket for a train hauled by the Flying Scotsman, not a diesel loco. I would want my money back in a similar position.

The minor problem with this argument is that RTC never confirmed the tour would run with any other loco, and indeed it ran as advertised.

Hard to ask for your money back when the company provided exactly the service it advertised.

 

[Tallguy]

The minor problem with this argument is that RTC never confirmed the tour would run with any other loco, and indeed it ran as advertised.

Hard to ask for your money back when the company provided exactly the service it advertised.

I didn’t pick up on that, if the tour ran as advertised with the relevant loco then the OP has no claim in my view. However, hopefully my guidance above will be useful to some in the future. I have the proud record, as does my Mother of never having lost in court.

 

[father_jack]

On the 45118 tour that was 37s in October 2022 (and 45118 still isn't fettled yet !) Intercity/LSL wouldn't refund for a dead person.....

 

[Trackman]

On the 45118 tour that was 37s in October 2022 (and 45118 still isn't fettled yet !) Intercity/LSL wouldn't refund for a dead person.....

At least they put something half decent on, unlike that 40 013 railtour when a 47 or something rocked up. You can imagine the scenes.

 

[12LDA28C]

In my view everyone is going in the wrong direction on this one.

the OP appears to have cancelled on the basis that his Daughter’s PTSD would have been made worse by riding on the replacement train tour. The OP booked for a tour with the Flying Scotsman as the loco. The specified loco wasn’t going to be available on the day and a substitute was pulled in. The OP should have requested a refund on the basis that what was being provided wasn’t what had been booked. If the rail tour company refused a refund citing their T and C’s then the OP should have issued a letter before action, citing breach of contract. If the rail tour operator still refused a refund then the correct course of action would have been to issue a claim using the small claims procedures in the County Court. Very simple to do online and a court of law can and has on many millions of occasions over ruled so called T and C’s, as a contract is only fair if it is fair to both parties.

The OP booked a ticket for a train hauled by the Flying Scotsman, not a diesel loco. I would want my money back in a similar position.

Imagine booking a concert ticket to see AC/DC and having the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra come on stage as the replacement group…..

sadly the OP didn’t follow the correct course of action and will have to chalk it up to experience.

In my view, this is nonsense.

If you were a tour operator and risked being taken to court every time the advertised steam loco wasn't available for reasons outside your control, you would simply never advertise any specific traction, just in case of failure etc. And your concert ticket comparison is ridiculous. If a band were not available due to illness or whatever, the gig would be cancelled and a refund offered, or it would be rescheduled. Your cited example just wouldn't happen.

 

[Tallguy]

In my view, this is nonsense.

If you were a tour operator and risked being taken to court every time the advertised steam loco wasn't available for reasons outside your control, you would simply never advertise any specific traction, just in case of failure etc. And your concert ticket comparison is ridiculous. If a band were not available due to illness or whatever, the gig would be cancelled and a refund offered, or it would be rescheduled. Your cited example just wouldn't happen.

Well let’s see if someone tried it in court with a rail tour, plenty of other people have had success On other things.

 

[Brissle Girl]

To be fair to RTC, I don't think their Terms and Conditions could make it any clearer. (My bolding.)

UK Steam Rail Day Trips and Worldwide Rail Holidays

The Railway Touring Company has a long established reputation for providing an interesting variety of UK day trips by steam train and tours in the UK, Europe and Worldwide.

www.railwaytouring.net

Every effort will be made to ensure that the locomotive, rolling stock, route and timings which are hired in from third parties, will run as advertised. However, the organisers reserve the right to alter these details at any time and shall not incur any liability to any person who has bought, or contracted to buy a ticket or tickets, as a result of any such changes. There may be occasional re-scheduling or re-routing of a train. Please note whilst every effort will be made to ensure the use of the advertised steam locomotive the organisers reserve the right to substitute a different steam locomotive on occasions should it be required, for operational reasons, which would have to be accepted, no refunds will be offered for changes to advertised locomotives.

The nature of steam trains is that breakdowns, delays and substitutions have to be accepted. Every genuine effort will be made to ensure that the tour runs as planned and advertised, or as close to it as possible. In the event of a failure of the scheduled steam locomotive prior to departure of the trip, every best effort will be made to find a suitable steam locomotive as a replacement. However, if this is not possible and if there is insufficient time available to cancel or postpone the trip, then a diesel may be used as substitute. In such circumstances, outside of our control, acceptance of these terms signifies your acceptance of such a change and no refund will be due.