SWR Strike action to affect journey

[LottieLongLegs]

Hi all,

I live in Plymouth, and have a hospital appointment in London next Tuesday (7th) and therefore purchased advanced tickets through Trainpal a few weeks ago to get the best deal.

The (split) tickets purchased were an off-peak day single to Pinhoe from Plymouth at 10:15 (with Devon & Cornwall Railcard) followed by an advance single from Pinhoe to Clapham Junction. The only physical change of service required was to be at Exeter St David’s.

I’ve now been informed by email that the SWR service from Exeter to Waterloo has been cancelled due to the industrial action.

I don’t particularly want to refund this ticket as it is considerably cheaper than one I could now purchase, so what are my options? Would it be permitted to travel into Paddington on the GWR service?

Thanks for any assistance in advance.

 

[Watershed]

Since SWR presumably won't be running any services at all on the West of England line that day, you'd be waiting until at least the next day. You'd be stranded overnight.

Accordingly, condition 28.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) requires any train company in a position to assist you - such as GWR, who will still be running services as you say - to help you reach your destination. GWR would therefore have to accept your ticket on their services.

It's possible that they might refuse to do so, but if it were me, I would be relying on this and paying any wrongly charged fare under duress, with a view to claiming it back from GWR afterwards.

It's worth noting that since the delay by waiting for the next available SWR service from Pinhoe would be (well) over an hour, you're also entitled to require SWR to re-route you to your final destination at the earliest opportunity, under Article 16 of the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation (PRO). This means they are required to arrange ticket acceptance, or alternatively to endorse your ticket or provide you with a new one that allows you to travel via the fastest available alternative route.

Given that GWR will still be running services via Taunton, SWR should arrange for you to use their services at no additional cost. At the moment their website says:

"This is a national strike which will significantly affect all train companies on different dates between Tuesday 7 May and Thursday 9 May. Because of this, cross-operator ticket acceptance will not be possible, however you are also advised to check for updates on the day of travel."

Of course, cross-operator ticket acceptance is possible, as a minimum for those operators who aren't on strike on the same day - it's just that they haven't bothered to arrange it.

If you want to take advantage of your re-routing rights, I would suggest contacting SWR on social media to ask what alternative arrangements they'll make to re-route you via GWR. If and when they refuse to do so or otherwise fob you off, you have clear written evidence of their refusal to comply with the PRO and thus could also recover any additional ticket you're forced to buy from SWR.

 

[LottieLongLegs]

Thank you for your detailed response, @Watershed. I have already contacted SWR via Twitter but am yet to receive a response five hours on.

Okay, I resubmitted the tweet and got a swift response from SW_Help, in the negative (pictured below):

“Hi Charlotte, I am afraid we currently don’t have ticket acceptance in place with other TOC’s for 7 May, sorry ^MC”

 

[redreni]

Thank you for your detailed response, @Watershed. I have already contacted SWR via Twitter but am yet to receive a response five hours on.

Okay, I resubmitted the tweet and got a swift response, in the negative…

Did you just ask them whether ticket acceptance will be in place?

Unless you've asked them already, I would recommend asking the specific question suggested by @Watershed above, namely what arrangements they will make to re-route you given that you still wish to travel.

Under the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation you have three options: a refund, re-routing at the earliest opportunity or re-routing at a later date at your convenience. The purpose of asking the question is to establish that you wish to opt for re-routing and to get their response. If you end up being charged for travelling on GWR, this will help establish that you had no alternative but to re-route yourself because SWR refused to re-route you when asked.

For the same reason, it's important not to ask for a refund on your SWR ticket - they would then say you had opted for the refund option under the PRO Regulation instead of re-routing. You also need your ticket as you'll be asking GWR to accept that under condition 28.2 NRCoT.

 

[LottieLongLegs]

Did you just ask them whether ticket acceptance will be in place?

Unless you've asked them already, I would recommend asking the specific question suggested by @Watershed above, namely what arrangements they will make to re-route you given that you still wish to travel.

Under the Passenger Rights and Obligations Regulation you have three options: a refund, re-routing at the earliest opportunity or re-routing at a later date at your convenience. The purpose of asking the question is to establish that you wish to opt for re-routing and to get their response. If you end up being charged for travelling on GWR, this will help establish that you had no alternative but to re-route yourself because SWR refused to re-route you when asked.

For the same reason, it's important not to ask for a refund on your SWR ticket - they would then say you had opted for the refund option under the PRO Regulation instead of re-routing. You also need your ticket as you'll be asking GWR to accept that under condition 28.2 NRCoT.

My question, after explaining the journey, was “what are my options? Am I able to travel on GWR?”

I did not mention wanting a refund.

 

[redreni]

My question, after explaining the journey, was “what are my options? Am I able to travel on GWR?”

I did not mention wanting a refund.

Yeah, I should think that's enough to make it clear they're not complying with the obligation to re-route.

If you wanted to remove all possible doubt that that is what you're asking for, I suppose you could ask a follow-up like "okay, so if GWR aren't going to accept my ticket because you haven't arranged ticket acceptance with them, how will you re-route me? Will you, for example, endorse my ticket or provide me with a ticket that is valid on GWR?"

 

[43066]

My question, after explaining the journey, was “what are my options? Am I able to travel on GWR?”

I did not mention wanting a refund.

Be aware that on a strike day, where there’s no ticket acceptance in place, it may well be that GWR refuse to let SWR passengers travel as a blanket policy, in order to manage numbers. They are entitled to do this under the national rail conditions, as the obligation to assist passengers isn’t absolute. My own operator has certainly been known to do this, on occasion.

In that case, from a practical point of view, you’ll need to buy a ticket valid on GWR services to travel with them and claim it back, (or ask SWR to do so for you, or otherwise re route you). So probably worth planning for that eventuality.

 

[redreni]

Be aware that on a strike day, where there’s no ticket acceptance in place, it may well be that GWR refuse to let SWR passengers travel as a blanket policy, in order to manage numbers. They are entitled to do this under the national rail conditions, as the obligation to assist passengers isn’t absolute. My own operator has certainly been known to do this, on occasion.

In that case, from a practical point of view, you’ll need to buy a ticket valid on GWR services to travel with them and claim it back, (or ask SWR to do so for you, or otherwise re route you). So probably worth planning for that eventuality.

I know that's what TOCs say but the argument falls apart instantly when they say:

TOC staff: Sorry, we can't assist you because we have no spare capacity.
Passenger: Would you have enough capacity if I give you £130 (or whatever it is) for a new ticket?
TOC staff: Sure, just insert your credit card here and then you can hop on board!

 

[43066]

I know that's what TOCs say but the argument falls apart instantly when they say:

TOC staff: Sorry, we can't assist you because we have no spare capacity.
Passenger: Would you have enough capacity if I give you £130 (or whatever it is) for a new ticket?
TOC staff: Sure, just insert your credit card here and then you can hop on board!

What happens in practice is that the relevant staff simply deny travel in the usual way, unless the person has a ticket valid on their services. It makes sense as a strategy, when the overall objective is to prevent dangerous levels of overcrowding, because relatively few will purchase another ticket (note also that, if crowding becomes dangerous, it could well become impossible to operate services altogether, so the intention is to prevent that occurring).

Therefore, if I was in the OP’s position, I’d ensure I had the means to buy another ticket and claim back if this proves necessary.

 

[redreni]

What happens in practice is that the relevant staff simply deny travel in the usual way, unless the person has a ticket valid on their services. It makes sense as a strategy, when the overall objective is to prevent dangerous levels of overcrowding, because relatively few will purchase another ticket (note also that, if crowding becomes dangerous, it could well become impossible to operate services altogether, so the intention is to prevent that occurring).

Therefore, if I was in the OP’s position, I’d ensure I had the means to buy another ticket and claim back if this proves necessary.

I agree completely in terms of advice to the OP or any other passenger.

Where I suspect we may differ is on whether what you're describing is justifiable or in line with the NRCoT.

There's nothing about the wording of 28.2 NRCoT that suggests TOCs can legitimately decline to assist a passenger who would otherwise be stranded and asks for assistance, taking no account of the circumstances of the individual case, based on a guess made days before as to whether it would be possible to assist everyone who may ask.

As Watershed mentions above, their only legitimate defence against having to reimburse a passenger who contends that they were not assisted under 28.2 when they should have been, would be to establish that they couldn't have helped that particular passenger. Hypothetical scenarios based on what might have happened if general ticket acceptance had been put in place wouldn't cut it if it came before the small claims court, I wouldn't think. The TOCs are, therefore, completely vulnerable to the argument set out above when the passenger tells the judge "the alleged overcrowding issue evaporated the nanosecond I opened my wallet and then when I got on the train, it was by no means full."

 

[43066]

Where I suspect we may differ is on whether what you're describing is justifiable or in line with the NRCoT.

There's nothing about the wording of 28.2 NRCoT that suggests TOCs can legitimately decline to assist a passenger who would otherwise be stranded and asks for assistance, taking no account of the circumstances of the individual case, based on a guess made days before as to whether it would be possible to assist everyone who may ask.

The obligation under 28.2 on the TOC is to help where it reasonably can, hence the TOC might well consider it’s reasonable not to help on a strike day, for the reasons noted above. In fact it’s hard to think of a scenario where such a refusal would be more appropriate and reasonable than when an entire adjacent TOC isn’t providing services.

The assumption on here appears to be that 28.2 imposes an absolute obligation to assist, which is clearly not the position contemplated by the conditions - otherwise they’d have been drafted accordingly. There’s perhaps more mileage in citing the PRO obligations and asking SWR to reimburse additional costs incurred later, but the cost will still need to be fronted.

Hypothetical scenarios based on what might have happened if general ticket acceptance had been put in place wouldn't cut it if it came before the small claims court, I wouldn't think. The TOCs are, therefore, completely vulnerable to the argument set out above when the passenger tells the judge "the alleged overcrowding issue evaporated the nanosecond I opened my wallet and then when I got on the train, it was by no means full."

I disagree (and I’ve never heard of any cases being brought, despite travel regularly being denied by operators in these situations). In any case the staff operating the services will likely wish to follow the instructions given to them by their employer, and will have zero interest in hypothetical discussions about what may or may not happen at a small claims court.

 

[redreni]

The obligation under 28.2 on the TOC is to help where it reasonably can, hence the TOC might well consider it’s reasonable not to help on a strike day, for the reasons noted above. In fact it’s hard to think of a scenario where such a refusal would be more appropriate and reasonable than when an entire adjacent TOC isn’t providing services.

The assumption on here appears to be that 28.2 imposes an absolute obligation to assist, which is clearly not the position contemplated by the conditions - otherwise they’d have been drafted accordingly. There’s perhaps more mileage in citing the PRO obligations and asking SWR to reimburse additional costs incurred later, but the cost will still need to be fronted.



I disagree (and I’ve never heard of any cases being brought, despite travel regularly being denied by operators in these situations). In any case the staff operating the services will likely wish to follow the instructions given to them by their employer, and will have zero interest in hypothetical discussions about what may or may not happen at a small claims court.

Nobody has assumed that the obligation to assist is absolute, just that if a TOC reasonably could have assisted a passenger but doesn't, it is in breach. That's just what the NRCoT says.

Not whether it could reasonably have assisted hundreds or thousands of people - whether it could reasonably have assisted the passenger concerned. Not whether the TOC considers it could reasonably assist - that's not how contracts work. The drafting party doesn't get to decide that unilaterally and without paying any attention to individual circumstances.

As for the rest of your post, I'm unsure if that's directed at me or somebody else? I certainly wouldn't want to suggest any of the arguments advanced here would work on frontline staff carrying out instructions.

 

[43066]

Nobody has assumed that the obligation to assist is absolute, just that if a TOC reasonably could have assisted a passenger but doesn't, it is in breach. That's just what the NRCoT says.

Arguably it can’t reasonably assist on a strike day, due to limited capacity and associated safety concerns. Just as it might be unable to assist in various other situations.

could reasonably have assisted the passenger concerned. Not whether the TOC considers it could reasonably assist - that's not how contracts work. The drafting party doesn't get to decide that unilaterally and without paying any attention to individual circumstances.

I’m fully aware of how contracts work, the contra preforentem rule etc. and I can’t honestly see why there’s any issue with the interpretation the TOCs adopt, and have successfully followed for many years, seemingly without challenge. It seems to me the natural interpretation of what was intended by the draftsman in the context of railway operations.

Anyway, I’ve given my view of the position, and advice to the OP (at least that’s something we can agree on ) so there’s little mileage in discussing further.

 

[redreni]

Yeah, happy to agree to differ.

I would just point out that companies who receive a letter before claim and then offer the person some money to go away, tend not to publicise the fact. Not even internally, in many cases (see the Post Office inquiry, where even some quite senior Post Office staff knew about the criminal and civil cases they'd "won" but not about the cases they'd dropped for fear of losing).

Moreover, even if it is true they've been getting away with the self-serving interpretation of 28.2 NRCoT which you've so eloquently set out, that'll probably be because most people don't have the time, inclination or knowledge to corner them and threaten to take them - or actually take them - to court. Combined with the fact the regulator and the Ombudsman are useless, so they can do more or less whatever they like. It doesn't mean their interpretation has any merit.

There's nothing about 28.2 that suggests it might be open to TOCs to have a blanket policy on a particular day of not assisting anybody, even if they reasonably could have assisted many of them (if not all). Nothing whatsoever. All anybody seeking reimbursement would have to show is that there was room for them on the relevant train. If they actually travelled on the relevant train after buying a new ticket, then there you go.

 

[Watershed]

There's nothing about 28.2 that suggests it might be open to TOCs to have a blanket policy on a particular day of not assisting anybody, even if they reasonably could have assisted many of them (if not all). Nothing whatsoever. All anybody seeking reimbursement would have to show is that there was room for them on the relevant train. If they actually travelled on the relevant train after buying a new ticket, then there you go.

I would concur absolutely. If the passenger is charged for travelling on an alternative operator, that charge is prima facie evidence that the other operator could have accepted their ticket - it just chose not to do so, and is thus in breach of contract.

I agree that it is always wise to ensure you have means available to pay for a new ticket in case you are wrongly charged for one, but I wouldn't be going out of my way to do so.

 

[LottieLongLegs]

Yeah, I should think that's enough to make it clear they're not complying with the obligation to re-route.

If you wanted to remove all possible doubt that that is what you're asking for, I suppose you could ask a follow-up like "okay, so if GWR aren't going to accept my ticket because you haven't arranged ticket acceptance with them, how will you re-route me? Will you, for example, endorse my ticket or provide me with a ticket that is valid on GWR?"

After following your advice, I received this subsequent response from SW_Help on Twitter…

”Hi Charlotte, as we advise passengers not to travel I am afraid we don't have ticket acceptance in place and are unable to provide you with ticket valid on other TOC's; you are eligible to claim full on your current ticket; apologies ^MC”

https://x.com/sw_help/status/1786089189378793599?s=61&t=r5Z1kyWpS13Ylni-f4GddQ

 

[Watershed]

After following your advice, I received this subsequent response from SW_Help on Twitter…




https://x.com/sw_help/status/1786089189378793599?s=61&t=r5Z1kyWpS13Ylni-f4GddQ

Completely useless, as expected. They seem to labour under the misapprehension that just because an operator has advised passengers not to travel:

a) People don't still have journeys they need to make (such as your hospital appointment, or anything else that's time-critical and can't easily be moved).

b) This gets them out of their contractual and PRO obligation to get your destination.

Unfortunately a lot of train companies think that advising passengers not to travel is some magical wand with which they can waive away all their obligations, if they simply fob passengers off with a refund.

I'd reiterate my earlier advice to use GWR and claim back any fare you're wrongly forced to pay from them or SWR.

 

[redreni]

After following your advice, I received this subsequent response from SW_Help on Twitter…




https://x.com/sw_help/status/1786089189378793599?s=61&t=r5Z1kyWpS13Ylni-f4GddQ

Okay, no surprises there. If you incur extra costs there can be no doubt they had refused to re-route you.

GWR are, by tghe looks of things, telling people not to expect to be conveyed on their services on a SWR ticket as well. Who knows if they really intend to breach the NRCoT in that way, or if they're merely saying they will in order to discourage travel on the strike day because they're concerned about possible overcrowding? It wouldn't be very surprising if it was the former, sadly.

I'm unfamiliar with Plymouth station - are there ticket barriers? If there are, I doubt they would reprogram them so presumably your SWR ticket will get you through.

So on the assumption you won't be stopped from boarding the GWR train, I assume (though happy to be corrected) that the worst that would likely happen on board is the guard might charge you for the cheapest walk-up fare to Clapham Junction that is normally valid on that train, which (depending if it departs Plymouth before or after 08:19) would be either £169.50 Anytime Single or £128.60 Super off-peak Single. (I have no idea what is supposed to be super about that fare - the non-super off peak doesn't seem to exist).

I'd reiterate my earlier advice to use GWR and claim back any fare you're wrongly forced to pay from them or SWR.

If it were me I would do the same, but it would involve being prepared to pay for the walk-up ticket if necessary (though I would only do so under duress) without any cast-iron guarantee of getting it back (although I reckon the OP would have a compelling case under both the NRCoT and the PRO routes). Persistence and tenacity may be required to get anything out of either company.

 

[Watershed]

I'm unfamiliar with Plymouth station - are there ticket barriers? If there are, I doubt they would reprogram them so presumably your SWR ticket will get you through.

Plymouth station does have barriers, but the OP is splitting with a walk-up ticket as far as Honiton, so they already have a ticket that will get them through the Plymouth barriers and that's valid on the GWR service as far as Exeter. It's therefore purely a question of staying beyond Exeter on that GWR service.

So on the assumption you won't be stopped from boarding the GWR train, I assume (though happy to be corrected) that the worst that would likely happen on board is the guard might charge you for the cheapest walk-up fare to Clapham Junction that is normally valid on that train, which (depending if it departs Plymouth before or after 08:19) would be either £169.50 Anytime Single or £128.60 Super off-peak Single. (I have no idea what is supposed to be super about that fare - the non-super off peak doesn't seem to exist).

In theory they may try and claim that you have 'overtravelled' and thus have to pay the Anytime Single. But if the guard is 'generous' enough to 'only' charge you the Super Off-Peak fare, it's much better to ask for this to be issued to Paddington since GWR's 60% single leg pricing is in operation for that flow, reducing the Super Off-Peak Single to £62.80 (from Exeter).

There just isn't an Off-Peak Single for that flow - there is, however, an Off-Peak Return. GWR probably wisely thought it a bad idea to cause confusion by having an Off-Peak Single with the time restrictions of the Super Off-Peak Return.

 

[LottieLongLegs]

The thing is now, it is probably more cost-effective to get a super off-peak return and be done with. The original single fare price that I had purchased in advance was a little under £30, and I was going to purchase the ticket back either the day before travelling or on the day, due to not having a definite time for it yet (I’m expected to be in hospital for a week).

It is ridiculous for the original advance ticket to not be honoured, though, at the price paid. It makes a nonsense of such a ticket being offered if, through no fault of my own, it suddenly becomes invalid with the net result being Jen where I’m now having to pay (at least) double.

 

[redreni]

The thing is now, it is probably more cost-effective to get a super off-peak return and be done with. The original single fare price that I had purchased in advance was a little under £30, and I was going to purchase the ticket back either the day before travelling or on the day, due to not having a definite time for it yet (I’m expected to be in hospital for a week).

It is ridiculous for the original advance ticket to not be honoured, though, at the price paid. It makes a nonsense of such a ticket being offered if, through no fault of my own, it suddenly becomes invalid with the net result being Jen where I’m now having to pay (at least) double.

First of all I hope your treatment goes well. The situation you've been put in in relation to your journey there is just appalling.

If you do that then you'd be re-routing yourself at your own expense, which given SWR's responses to your queries you'd be well within your rights to do and then pursue them for reimbursement of your costs in doing so, since they are obligated to re-route you.

If you also want to pursue GWR for those costs then I'd recommend asking them directly if they will accept your ticket in these circumstances - their website message in the thread above seems to suggest they might change their minds about this later. If they tell you your ticket won't be accepted and you buy a new ticket based on that advice, then I struggle to see what their defence would be if you pursued them for those costs on the basis of their failure to adhere to 28.2 NRCoT.

The only slight dilemma is whether to obtain a refund on the £30 already paid. If you can afford to be without the £30 for a period of time then I'd be inclined not to, so that it can't be said that you opted for the refund option under PRO (which would release SWR from its obligation to re-route you). On the other hand you could argue that you opted for re-routing but this was refused, leaving you no choice but to obtain the refund in order to put that money towards the up-front cost of a new ticket.

If you do that you may want to respond to SWR's latest tweet explaining that you feel you have no choice but to accept a refund, but this is without prejudice to your right to seek reimbursement for the cost of re-routing given that you opted for re-routing and SWR refused. I don't know if @Watershed would like to comment on the possible effect of accepting a refund on the original £30 ticket?

 

[43066]

After following your advice, I received this subsequent response from SW_Help on Twitter…




https://x.com/sw_help/status/1786089189378793599?s=61&t=r5Z1kyWpS13Ylni-f4GddQ

Seems reasonable enough and to be an expected in the circumstances. I’d just refund the ticket and rebook, as life is too short.

 

[infobleep]

Seems reasonable enough and to be an expected in the circumstances. I’d just refund the ticket and rebook, as life is too short.

Clearly life isn't too short for the train operating companies in this case, as they didn't give in.

 

[Wolfie]

Completely useless, as expected. They seem to labour under the misapprehension that just because an operator has advised passengers not to travel:

a) People don't still have journeys they need to make (such as your hospital appointment, or anything else that's time-critical and can't easily be moved).

b) This gets them out of their contractual and PRO obligation to get your destination.

Unfortunately a lot of train companies think that advising passengers not to travel is some magical wand with which they can waive away all their obligations, if they simply fob passengers off with a refund.

I'd reiterate my earlier advice to use GWR and claim back any fare you're wrongly forced to pay from them or SWR.

Agreed, with MCOL as the default fallback in the event that payment is refused.

Seems reasonable enough and to be an expected in the circumstances. I’d just refund the ticket and rebook, as life is too short.

Your proposed strategy allows the TOC to drive a coach and horses through contractual law and its obligations. That's not only a 'no' in my view its a 'hell no'. Perhaps if more people were as robust in defending their interests as the TOCs are then the latter might actually do what they are supposed to.

Clearly life isn't too short for the train operating companies in this case, as they didn't give in.

Indeed and rather too many on here believe that is perfectly acceptable.

 

[43066]

Your proposed strategy allows the TOC to drive a coach and horses through contractual law and its obligations. That's not only a 'no' in my view its a 'hell no'. Perhaps if more people were as robust in defending their interests as the TOCs are then the latter might actually do what they are supposed to.

The OP has been given notice, offered a refund and has said she can rebook cost effectively. That would certainly be my approach in this situation; not everyone wants to spend their free time getting into battles with train operators!

In the last load of strikes I ended up picking up my ex GF from Gatwick because there were no trains. In the real world people just work around it.

Clearly life isn't too short for the train operating companies in this case, as they didn't give in.

The TOCs are just doing what the DfT wants. They get paid whether trains run or not so they don’t care.

 

[Wolfie]

The OP has been given notice, offered a refund and has said she can rebook cost effectively. That would certainly be my approach in this situation; not everyone wants to spend their free time getting into battles with train operators!

In the last load of strikes I ended up picking up my ex GF from Gatwick because there were no trains. In the real world people just work around it.



The TOCs are just doing what the DfT wants. They get paid whether trains run or not so they don’t care.

So basically in your world contracts are meaningless for one side but rigidly enforced by the other when it suits them. If the issue can be resolved 'cost effectively' it is incumbent on the party breaking the contract to do that, not the innocent party. If they refuse then sue! If everyone did that every time l guarantee that things would change massively.

 

[Watershed]

I don't know if @Watershed would like to comment on the possible effect of accepting a refund on the original £30 ticket?

I would suggest not refunding the original ticket, since under both the NRCoT and PRO this is framed as an alternative to making the journey. You just know that if you take up the readily proferred refund, SWR (and GWR) will later claim this absolves them of any responsibility for the OP.

The OP has been given notice, offered a refund and has said she can rebook cost effectively.

The amount of notice given has no bearing on SWR's obligations and in this case, makes no difference to the OP's rebooking options since they are planning on buying a walk-up ticket as a replacement in any event.

That would certainly be my approach in this situation; not everyone wants to spend their free time getting into battles with train operators!

Easy to say if you are earning well above the national average salary ... not everyone is as lucky as that, and getting into a battle with a train operator can be worth it if there's half a day's income at stake, for example.

In the real world people just work around it.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting that we are not in the real world or that the OP isn't already working around SWR's abandonment of their obligations.

I will readily admit that 90%+ of passengers will just accept the advice and be fobbed off. That doesn't change the fact that the OP has come here for advice on their rights, and we have informed them of what they are. It's up to the OP how they choose to proceed.

The TOCs are just doing what the DfT wants.

I'm not at all convinced that the DfT wants operators to palm passengers off. If anything, it should surely be encouraging cooperation and ticket acceptance between operators so that the effect of strikes is minimised.

It seems much more likely that the DfT, like most rail industry bodies, simply doesn't understand the problems that passengers face and therefore hasn't directed TOCs one way or the other on ths point.

Similarly, I'm not sure that SWR's position here is necessarily malicious. It's just one of total incompetence and indifference, not realising or caring that there are still some journeys where alternative operators are running on their strike days.

They get paid whether trains run or not so they don’t care.

Very true, unfortunately.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The OP has been advised to challenge GWR's non-acceptance of the tickets they hold, by not refunding them, but using them to travel on a GWR service from Exeter to London and that if they do this, GWR may charge them the Anytime [Day] Single fare for the journey, which is £149.50.

If, as is likely, GWR disagree that they are liable for the extra cost the OP will have been forced to pay, there is the backstop of letters before action and a MCOL (Money Claim Online). That will incur a court fee of £35. It will be added to the amount GWR has to pay back to the OP if their claim is successful. However, if GWR disputes the claim, there could be further court costs incurred in taking the case to trial.

I would support anyone who believes they have good case to challenge a company who ignores their contractual obligations. I have followed the MCOL route myself where I believed I had such a case. But anyone following that route has to be aware that if a court ultimately finds against their claim, they could be in a significant financial hole. This should have been explained to the OP.

The OP's other option is to purchase a new ticket from Plymouth to London (when I looked yesterday, Advances and walk-ups could be had for ~£70) and claim a refund of the ~£30 they paid for the tickets they originally purchased.

My view is that when the OP posted to enquire what their options were, they should have been fully advised about both these options, including any potential for further financial loss, from the outset. Once they have the information they've requested, it's entirely up to the OP to decide what is in their best interests. I would certainly not criticise the OP if they choose to simply take the refund, purchase a new ticket and get to their appointment without further ado.

 

[Wolfie]

The OP has been advised to challenge GWR's non-acceptance of the tickets they hold, by not refunding them, but using them to travel on a GWR service from Exeter to London and that if they do this, GWR may charge them the Anytime [Day] Single fare for the journey, which is £149.50.

If, as is likely, GWR disagree that they are liable for the extra cost the OP will have been forced to pay, there is the backstop of letters before action and a MCOL (Money Claim Online). That will incur a court fee of £35. It will be added to the amount GWR has to pay back to the OP if their claim is successful. However, if GWR disputes the claim, there could be further court costs incurred in taking the case to trial.

I would support anyone who believes they have good case to challenge a company who ignores their contractual obligations. I have followed the MCOL route myself where I believed I had such a case. But anyone following that route has to be aware that if a court ultimately finds against their claim, they could be in a significant financial hole. This should have been explained to the OP.

The OP's other option is to purchase a new ticket from Plymouth to London (when I looked yesterday, Advances and walk-ups could be had for ~£70) and claim a refund of the ~£30 they paid for the tickets they originally purchased.

My view is that when the OP posted to enquire what their options were, they should have been fully advised about both these options, including any potential for further financial loss, from the outset. Once they have the information they've requested, it's entirely up to the OP to decide what is in their best interests. I would certainly not criticise the OP if they choose to simply take the refund, purchase a new ticket and get to their appointment without further ado.

@HurdyGurdy The general principle, with only very limited exceptions, is that each side bears their own costs in small claims court.

One other little "feature" is that a litigant in person taking action against a company can choose the venue to suit themselves and (within reason obviously). There would be a certain pleasure in someone Cornwall-based exercising that right against say TPE or Northern....

Edited to add:
I suspect that OP's legal recourse would be against to the entity selling the original ticket (unclear if that is SWR, GWR or a third party), which is the entity breaking the contract, not GWR if the latter insisted on a new ticket.

 

[Haywain]

I suspect that OP's legal recourse would be against to the entity selling the original ticket (unclear if that is SWR, GWR or a third party), which is the entity breaking the contract, not GWR if the latter insisted on a new ticket.

Surely it would be against SWR as the service provider? The retailer is not at fault for selling a ticket before strike action was announced.