or even a wild pheasant chase <gets coat>
-
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!
Refusal of compensation
- Thread starter ChrisMull
- Start date
- Status
or even a wild pheasant chase <gets coat>
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
No it doesn’t. The train manager’s statement is a bare promise and as such is not binding on the train company. Google “consideration in english law” for more information.
Just because a statement cannot be said to be legally binding this hardly means it is not influential in the event that there is a dispute over the meaning of a contractual term - which there is.
This sort of fallacy is brought up by peope who think they know a bit about Law all the time.
This sort of fallacy is brought up by peope who think they know a bit about Law all the time.
How, exactly, does the TM saying there was a fault with the train and that they should make a claim for compensation actually make any difference? There was a fault with the train, which apparently was later determined to have been caused by an impact with a bird or birds.
That impact is deemed to be outside the control of the railway, therefore the claim will be denied.
Deemed by those who have a vested interest in denying a claim.
It seems to me that this is exactly the sort of thing which should be ruled on by an ombudsman. Whether this particular case falls within the timeframe for consideration by the new Rail Ombudsman is not 100% clear, but there is no harm in the OP going down that route if they want.
Any similar claim from now on certainly will be in scope and it will be interesting to see the outcome (assuming the Rail Ombudsman publishes their decisions, which we don't know whether they will).
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Indeed - I find it rather insidious how the rail industry 'deems' things one way or another whenever it comes to compensation and the like. They are not a Court: they cannot deem things. They can merely say that they don't believe that compensation is applicable, for example. The whole way in which the system is structured, with 'claims' rather than simple demands for liquidated contractual damages, strikes me as rather more like claiming benefits than claiming a contractually agreed sum!
And for example for this situation - the rail industry does not have the power to 'deem' a bird strike a circumstance entirely outside their control. That determination can only be made by a competent authority, such as a Court or an Ombudsman, as the NRCoT do not spell out what is, and is not, such a circumstance.
The same thing applies when the rail industry 'deems' that a delay was, or was not, of a certain length, and then when you have people who try and defend the fact that the rail industry simply expects the passenger to believe its own sources as gospel, despite the obvious vested interest!
If the Ombudsman won't take up the claim because it doesn't fall within their remit, they could still take it to Transport Focus, who recently helped me to gain a compensation payment when an Open Access Operator's charter contained this exception too.
It was a battle that lasted for 11 months before the train company finally paid.
It was a battle that lasted for 11 months before the train company finally paid.
Last edited:
They really don't. The difference that even a full trainload of passenger charter payments will make to the TOCs bottom line is so insignifiant as to be a non-issue.
The simple fact is that some things have been deemed - by the regulator - to be exempt from Passenger Charter payments, and the TOC is following the rules.
Once the TOC moves over to Delay Repay the whole question of circle of control disappears anyway.
After 11 months the term "nuisance payment" comes to mind.
The most common uses of the term "nuisance payment" that I can find appear to refer to a nominal/derisory sum of money paid when a company believes the complainant has no case; it often appears to be used to be damning of the organisation who made the payment, and several newsworthy cases are followed by apologies.
I assume therefore you are taking a dig at Grand Central, who are infamous for offering derisory sums to passengers who experience delays.
Anyway Grand Central did give the customer exactly the same payout as another customer obtained for the same journey. After 11 months they were reminded of this; perhaps that helped.
Ultimately it cost Grand Central a lot more money in having to defend their case, than if they had just paid out correctly in the first place! I hope lessons have been learnt but I suspect not.
If it is a non-issue, they would pay up! I often have no idea what you are really arguing (other than arguing for the sake of arguing)
Not true. The rule is that the delay has to be "entirely outside the rail industry’s control"; so any contributory factor, such as the design of the train meaning it is more susceptible to bird strikes than other train types, being in control of the industry, does not exempt the payment from being a legitimate one.
Yes, GWR won't be able to play this game of denying legitimate so called "non-issue" (!) claims then!
Edit: unless the OP comes back with a further update, there isn't really any more advice we can give, and we risk going round in circles, so I am closing this thread.
I am aware some people wish to debate whether or not Delay Repay schemes, which pay out regardless of the reason for the delay, are better or worse than schemes which only pay out "where the rail industry is entirely at fault", and that discussion can be had here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-and-ignores-how-the-real-world-works.175204/
Last edited:
- Status