I have been made aware of a case from earlier this year which has now been resolved.
A customer was to travel on a Transport for Wales service originating at Manchester Piccadilly, with their destination of Crewe, one Sunday morning. They noted that the train was shown as cancelled on the National Rail Enquiries service, which was reflected by station screens.
The customer travelled on a later train, arriving some time later than planned, and claimed Delay Repay. Transport for Wales rejected the claim on the basis that there had been no delay. Confused, the customer appealed, and the appeal was rejected for the same reason.
The customer then spoke to Transport for Wales, spending time on the phone to ask why there had been a rejection of the appeal, given they had been delayed. The telephone advisor told the customer that they could see that the train had run and arrived at Crewe one minute late. The customer disagreed with that, so the telephone advisor suggested they raise a complaint. The customer did so. This process took around one month, the customer having made the claim the day after their journey.
A further month then passed. TfW replied by email explaining that the travel details corresponded to information on their internal system which showed the train running 1 minute late. TfW included a screenshot from a service called Web Gemini to demonstrate that they thought that the train was not cancelled. The customer couldn't interpret anything from this, so they replied to that effect, but added that they were now more unhappy than they had been when they made their journey for two reasons: firstly that TfW had not apologised for the delay or paid the compensation they're required to in more than 2 months, and secondly that they might actually have run the train, but marked it as cancelled, which would presumably mean that most customers wouldn't be travelling on it. They added that this means that the inconvenience was caused needlessly.
TfW replied explaining in granular detail what each field on the screenshot meant. They added that that because the train had run with a delay of only one minute, they would not provide any compensation. The customer replied to this email explaining that even though they now accepted that the train may have run, they were still delayed, and therefore were still entitled to compensation. The customer asked for the Customer Relations manager to review the case.
Approximately two and a half months after the journey, the customer received a letter from Adam Spear at Transport for Wales, who introduced themselves as the Team Leader. Mr Spear explained that he had looked at all of the evidence in the case and that Transport for Wales had handled it correctly. This meant, according to Mr Spear, that they were 'unable to offer any compensation'.
As the customer had exhausted the normal procedure of complaints at Transport for Wales and was still dissatisfied, they made a complaint to the Rail Ombudsman. Some time was needed to decide whether to continue to pursue the matter at this stage. The process of adding all of the documents from the above case to the form. They therefore took another couple of months before getting everything together and having long enough to make the complaint. They tell me they had to set aside a period of 2 hours to take screenshots of all of the evidence and to fully complete all of the sections on the Ombudsman's form.
The Ombudsman asked the customer a couple of pieces of further information, including the question of whether they had waited on the platform for the train or not. The customer responded that they did not understand the question, because by definition cancelled trains do not have a platform number, so they could not head to a platform.
Approximately a month later, Transport for Wales sent a message to the Rail Ombudsman explaining that they had found something that they call a "pager message" that could explain the problem. They stated that the message had been issued the day before the customer's journey and that it referred to the train which the customer was to catch and said that it would start from Crewe instead of Manchester Piccadilly, or to put it another way that the train would be part cancelled. They added that this was not reflected in the live train running data which they had, and described this as an "unusual situation" and said that it was not something that would normally happen. They also said that they could not say for certain what impact this message would have had on what they called "services providing train running data for customers". As a result of this so-called uncertainty, Transport for Wales offered the customer a settlement. The customer then accepted this. There was a further (minor) delay while the payment was made which meant that it was almost half a year after the customer's journey when they received their compensation.
So, what have we learnt from the above case? I could pose some questions:
- What is Web Gemini and why is it used for calculating delay repay claims if it's not an accurate source of historical information from the customer information systems?
- What is a 'pager message' and what does it do to the information on station screens and the National Rail Enquiries app?
- Why might a train run normally while station screens and the National Rail Enquiries app say it is cancelled?
Perhaps more importantly, we can also ask why the battle for fair compensation is so deeply skewed in favour of the firm and contrary to the consumer? If we follow the above, procedure we can see that the customer had to make contact with the company nine times in order to get their money back:
1. Initial claim
2. Claim appeal
3. Telephone call
4. Written complaint
5. First follow-up on written complaint
6. Second follow-up on written complaint
7. Complaint referred to Ombusdman
8. Further information required to progress case at Ombudsman
9. Acceptance of settlement and arranging payment
Most people would have given up before this, especially when they receive a letter saying that the complaints process at TfW has been exhausted.
I will add that this does at least show that, in a few cases, the Ombudsman is working by giving the customer an additional hearing at the service provider. Notably the Ombudsman gave no judgement in this case because the service provider changed their mind and offered a settlement at the very last opportunity, so it does not reflect the accuracy or integrity of the Ombudsman's thinking. It is good that the customer got what they had asked for, but it does not seem right that the larger party with more resources can ignore the customer's point, time and again, and then give in only at the very end, when they know that the vast majority of people to whom they might owe money will have given up long before that stage.
Allowing them the initial rejection, on the strength of the unusual circumstances TfW had five opportunities to find this 'pager message', but unfortunately they got it wrong on all five occasions! There is, however, no penalty for them for doing that, while on every occasion they did it, the customer had to spend more time and effort in recovering their money.
A customer was to travel on a Transport for Wales service originating at Manchester Piccadilly, with their destination of Crewe, one Sunday morning. They noted that the train was shown as cancelled on the National Rail Enquiries service, which was reflected by station screens.
The customer travelled on a later train, arriving some time later than planned, and claimed Delay Repay. Transport for Wales rejected the claim on the basis that there had been no delay. Confused, the customer appealed, and the appeal was rejected for the same reason.
The customer then spoke to Transport for Wales, spending time on the phone to ask why there had been a rejection of the appeal, given they had been delayed. The telephone advisor told the customer that they could see that the train had run and arrived at Crewe one minute late. The customer disagreed with that, so the telephone advisor suggested they raise a complaint. The customer did so. This process took around one month, the customer having made the claim the day after their journey.
A further month then passed. TfW replied by email explaining that the travel details corresponded to information on their internal system which showed the train running 1 minute late. TfW included a screenshot from a service called Web Gemini to demonstrate that they thought that the train was not cancelled. The customer couldn't interpret anything from this, so they replied to that effect, but added that they were now more unhappy than they had been when they made their journey for two reasons: firstly that TfW had not apologised for the delay or paid the compensation they're required to in more than 2 months, and secondly that they might actually have run the train, but marked it as cancelled, which would presumably mean that most customers wouldn't be travelling on it. They added that this means that the inconvenience was caused needlessly.
TfW replied explaining in granular detail what each field on the screenshot meant. They added that that because the train had run with a delay of only one minute, they would not provide any compensation. The customer replied to this email explaining that even though they now accepted that the train may have run, they were still delayed, and therefore were still entitled to compensation. The customer asked for the Customer Relations manager to review the case.
Approximately two and a half months after the journey, the customer received a letter from Adam Spear at Transport for Wales, who introduced themselves as the Team Leader. Mr Spear explained that he had looked at all of the evidence in the case and that Transport for Wales had handled it correctly. This meant, according to Mr Spear, that they were 'unable to offer any compensation'.
As the customer had exhausted the normal procedure of complaints at Transport for Wales and was still dissatisfied, they made a complaint to the Rail Ombudsman. Some time was needed to decide whether to continue to pursue the matter at this stage. The process of adding all of the documents from the above case to the form. They therefore took another couple of months before getting everything together and having long enough to make the complaint. They tell me they had to set aside a period of 2 hours to take screenshots of all of the evidence and to fully complete all of the sections on the Ombudsman's form.
The Ombudsman asked the customer a couple of pieces of further information, including the question of whether they had waited on the platform for the train or not. The customer responded that they did not understand the question, because by definition cancelled trains do not have a platform number, so they could not head to a platform.
Approximately a month later, Transport for Wales sent a message to the Rail Ombudsman explaining that they had found something that they call a "pager message" that could explain the problem. They stated that the message had been issued the day before the customer's journey and that it referred to the train which the customer was to catch and said that it would start from Crewe instead of Manchester Piccadilly, or to put it another way that the train would be part cancelled. They added that this was not reflected in the live train running data which they had, and described this as an "unusual situation" and said that it was not something that would normally happen. They also said that they could not say for certain what impact this message would have had on what they called "services providing train running data for customers". As a result of this so-called uncertainty, Transport for Wales offered the customer a settlement. The customer then accepted this. There was a further (minor) delay while the payment was made which meant that it was almost half a year after the customer's journey when they received their compensation.
So, what have we learnt from the above case? I could pose some questions:
- What is Web Gemini and why is it used for calculating delay repay claims if it's not an accurate source of historical information from the customer information systems?
- What is a 'pager message' and what does it do to the information on station screens and the National Rail Enquiries app?
- Why might a train run normally while station screens and the National Rail Enquiries app say it is cancelled?
Perhaps more importantly, we can also ask why the battle for fair compensation is so deeply skewed in favour of the firm and contrary to the consumer? If we follow the above, procedure we can see that the customer had to make contact with the company nine times in order to get their money back:
1. Initial claim
2. Claim appeal
3. Telephone call
4. Written complaint
5. First follow-up on written complaint
6. Second follow-up on written complaint
7. Complaint referred to Ombusdman
8. Further information required to progress case at Ombudsman
9. Acceptance of settlement and arranging payment
Most people would have given up before this, especially when they receive a letter saying that the complaints process at TfW has been exhausted.
I will add that this does at least show that, in a few cases, the Ombudsman is working by giving the customer an additional hearing at the service provider. Notably the Ombudsman gave no judgement in this case because the service provider changed their mind and offered a settlement at the very last opportunity, so it does not reflect the accuracy or integrity of the Ombudsman's thinking. It is good that the customer got what they had asked for, but it does not seem right that the larger party with more resources can ignore the customer's point, time and again, and then give in only at the very end, when they know that the vast majority of people to whom they might owe money will have given up long before that stage.
Allowing them the initial rejection, on the strength of the unusual circumstances TfW had five opportunities to find this 'pager message', but unfortunately they got it wrong on all five occasions! There is, however, no penalty for them for doing that, while on every occasion they did it, the customer had to spend more time and effort in recovering their money.
