Ticket acceptance - meaning of "disruption" and applicability to Lumo

[dcsprior]

I'm on the 20:27 Lumo train from King's Cross to Edinburgh Waverley.

Some passengers just got on at Newcastle - from what I can overhear of their long conversation with the guard, they have an LNER + connections and had in itinerary to catch a northern train to York then an LNER train from there. Their Northern train was late, meaning their connection with the LNER (last of day) was missed; they were advised to stay on to Newcastle and get the Lumo. Their ticket is not being accepted on the Lumo train as it's an LNER-only ticket and "It would be for Northern as the company who caused the delay, or for LNER as the company which issued the ticket, to be responsible for arranging to get you home"

After overhearing this, I caught the guard and asked her if she was 100% sure, as NRCoT says:

28.2 Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.

She said that didn't apply because*

1. "It doesn't apply to us, we're not part of that because we're private" - is Lumo exempt from NRCoT because they're an open-access-operator?
2. "That's about disruption, which is when there's something major which our control have told us about, not about an individual train being delayed" - is this correct?

* Actually initially said it would only apply to the company that was responsible, rather than them. I pointed out it said "any Train Company", and she corrected herself

Oh, a couple of updates:

• I've heard one of the staff say to the other that there's another couple of passengers in the same situation
• The couple near me haven't been charged cash for the fare, but have fill in some form for it to be investigated. Hopefully that means it all gets sorted out as I'm guessing it should've been already - and doesn't somehow wind up in a fine for the passengers.

One other thing to add is that the guard is very friendly, both towards the customers, and to me when I asked her if she was sure. I could imagine some people getting defensive in that scenario, and there wasn't any hint of that.

 

[Gaelan]

"It doesn't apply to us, we're not part of that because we're private" - is Lumo exempt from NRCoT because they're an open-access-operator?

Conveniently, the NRCoT’s Appendix A lists the operators it applies to. Lumo is there.

 

[Watershed]

I'm on the 20:27 Lumo train from King's Cross to Edinburgh Waverley.

Some passengers just got on at Newcastle - from what I can overhear of their long conversation with the guard, they have an LNER + connections and had in itinerary to catch a northern train to York then an LNER train from there. Their Northern train was late, meaning their connection with the LNER (last of day) was missed; they were advised to stay on to Newcastle and get the Lumo. Their ticket is not being accepted on the Lumo train as it's an LNER-only ticket and "It would be for Northern as the company who caused the delay, or for LNER as the company which issued the ticket, to be responsible for arranging to get you home"

After overhearing this, I caught the guard and asked her if she was 100% sure, as NRCoT says:


She said that didn't apply because*

1. "It doesn't apply to us, we're not part of that because we're private" - is Lumo exempt from NRCoT because they're an open-access-operator?
2. "That's about disruption, which is when there's something major which our control have told us about, not about an individual train being delayed" - is this correct?

* Actually initially said it would only apply to the company that was responsible, rather than them. I pointed out it said "any Train Company", and she corrected herself

Oh, a couple of updates:

• I've heard one of the staff say to the other that there's another couple of passengers in the same situation
• The couple near me haven't been charged cash for the fare, but have fill in some form for it to be investigated. Hopefully that means it all gets sorted out as I'm guessing it should've been already - and doesn't somehow wind up in a fine for the passengers.

Unfortunately Lumo seem to have a track record for conveniently ignoring what the NRCoT say (let alone their obligations under the PRO).

The first claim is absolute nonsense; Lumo are listed in Appendix A, page 29 of the NRCoT as one of the Train Companies (and they would fall under the definition even if they weren't listed). Indeed a ticket issued for Lumo will state that it's been issued subject to the NRCoT (likely on the bottom if an e-ticket, or reverse if a physical ticket)!

As for the second claim, there's nothing in there which requires individual members of staff to have been informed of the disruption. Nor is there a requirement for the disruption to be major. The only requirement is that there is disruption; a delay clearly qualifies as disruption, particularly so in the context of missing your connection onto what would otherwise be the last train of the day.

In any event, the Lumo member of staff is fundamentally incorrect for claiming that the tickets aren't valid. The ticket is routed LNER & Connections, which doesn't exclude Lumo (in theory it would even be possible to obtain one of these on an itinerary involving a Lumo service), so with the LNER connection having been missed, the ticket is valid on Lumo regardless.

And even if it were routed LNER & Northern (not that there's such a ticket route, AFAIK), the Advance ticket terms and conditions entitle passengers to take the "next available train" in the event of delays and cancellations. This condition is often overlooked.

I would be very concerned if I were amongst the passengers who had their details taken. If it's anything like the thread we had a month or two ago, it will likely lead to an Unpaid Fare Notice being sent (at best), or possibly even a threat of prosecution.

I wouldn't let this one go. Even if you can't convince the member of staff to act correctly, I would contact Lumo, LNER and Northern on social media to raise the issue. I would also make sure you speak to all the affected passengers to inform them of this forum (in case they encounter problems), what their rights are and how Lumo are bang out of order here.

 

[Hadders]

The petty squabbling between Lumo and LNER needs to stop.

The staff on the Lumo train are incorrect. They are a subject to the NRCoT and have to abide by what it says, whether they like it or not. A delay to an individual train meaning a connection is missed is sufficient for tickets to be accepted.

 

[yorkie]

I'm on the 20:27 Lumo train from King's Cross to Edinburgh Waverley.

Some passengers just got on at Newcastle - from what I can overhear of their long conversation with the guard, they have an LNER + connections and had in itinerary to catch a northern train to York then an LNER train from there. Their Northern train was late, meaning their connection with the LNER (last of day) was missed; they were advised to stay on to Newcastle and get the Lumo. Their ticket is not being accepted on the Lumo train as it's an LNER-only ticket and "It would be for Northern as the company who caused the delay, or for LNER as the company which issued the ticket, to be responsible for arranging to get you home"

After overhearing this, I caught the guard and asked her if she was 100% sure, as NRCoT says:


She said that didn't apply because*

1. "It doesn't apply to us, we're not part of that because we're private" - is Lumo exempt from NRCoT because they're an open-access-operator?
2. "That's about disruption, which is when there's something major which our control have told us about, not about an individual train being delayed" - is this correct?

* Actually initially said it would only apply to the company that was responsible, rather than them. I pointed out it said "any Train Company", and she corrected herself

Oh, a couple of updates:

• I've heard one of the staff say to the other that there's another couple of passengers in the same situation
• The couple near me haven't been charged cash for the fare, but have fill in some form for it to be investigated. Hopefully that means it all gets sorted out as I'm guessing it should've been already - and doesn't somehow wind up in a fine for the passengers.

One other thing to add is that the guard is very friendly, both towards the customers, and to me when I asked her if she was sure. I could imagine some people getting defensive in that scenario, and there wasn't any hint of that.

Lumo trains are driver only operated; this person is a Customer Experience Ambassador* rather than a Guard but that's a moot point; the staff member is incorrect.

Let's see if Lumo respond:

https://twitter.com/RailUKForums/status/1661148183505014785

A reminder @LumoTravel you *are* required to convey customers who'd be otherwise stranded https://railforums.co.uk/threads/ticket-acceptance-meaning-of-disruption-and-applicability-to-lumo.249108/ Please provide appropriate training to staff on board your trains

*This is the job spec:

Our Customer Experience Ambassadors are the face of Lumo. As an integral part of our on-board team you will ensure that our customers are your priority. Our Customer Experience Ambassadors will have a passion for delivering outstanding customer experiences from the moment our customers board, and throughout the journey, you will have an engaging personality and a strong sense of pride in delivering an industry leading travel experience. You will always seek opportunities to delight the customer and enhance their experience to ensure their journey is unforgettable.

I think it's safe to say this journey will be "unforgettable", but not for the right reasons. <sigh>

Please feel free to show the passengers this thread; advise them not to pay a penny to Lumo and if Lumo want to take it to court, I will ensure the customers have legal representation at no cost to them. Of course I am sure that wouldn't actually happen, as I am confident that Lumo will be backing down.

 

[crablab]

The ticket is routed LNER & Connections, which doesn't exclude Lumo (in theory it would even be possible to obtain one of these on an itinerary involving a Lumo service), so with the LNER connection having been missed, the ticket is valid on Lumo regardless.

Mhmm, I'm not sure about that. From iKB (noting in particular the last part, however):

Can a passenger travel on any train if they are booked on specific TOC’s Advance ticket e.g. “XC &Connections”?

A: As a connecting TOC into the main TOC shown in the routing on the ticket – yes.

As a replacement for the main TOC shown on the ticket - no*. (However, during times of disruption, retail and on-train staff should use their discretion, as advised by their Control office).

 

[dcsprior]

Lumo trains are driver only operated; this person is a Customer Experience Ambassador* rather than a Guard but that's a moot point; the staff member is incorrect.

Ah, I think I'd heard them introducing themselves as something like that on the PA, but had assumed it was just fancy label for a guard rather than something else.

Let's see if Lumo respond:

https://twitter.com/RailUKForums/status/1661148183505014785

Thanks for that

Please feel free to show the passengers this thread; advise them not to pay a penny to Lumo and if Lumo want to take it to court, I will ensure the customers have legal representation at no cost to them. Of course I am sure that wouldn't actually happen, as I am confident that Lumo will be backing down.

Thanks, I'll try and catch them when we get off at Waverley. Having already spoken to the guard about this and been told I was wrong, I'm really not keen to do it while on the train.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks, I'll try and catch them when we get off at Waverley. Having already spoken to the guard about this and been told I was wrong, I'm really not keen to do it while on the train.

Shame I'm not on board as I'd be very keen to inform them

 

[Leisurefirst]

Lumo trains are driver only operated; this person is a Customer Experience Ambassador* rather than a Guard but that's a moot point; the staff member is incorrect.

Let's see if Lumo respond:

https://twitter.com/RailUKForums/status/1661148183505014785

*This is the job spec:

I think it's safe to say this journey will be "unforgettable", but not for the right reasons. <sigh>

Please feel free to show the passengers this thread; advise them not to pay a penny to Lumo and if Lumo want to take it to court, I will ensure the customers have legal representation at no cost to them. Of course I am sure that wouldn't actually happen, as I am confident that Lumo will be backing down.

Interestingly, when I had a telephone conversation with somebody high-up in their Customer Services regarding my recent stand-off with them re alternative travel on my already purchased advance tickets following cancellation of travel due to engineering work and had quoted NRCoT, IIRC I was told by them that it only applied to delays and not to cancellation due to engineering etc.!

 

[dcsprior]

I've quote-tweeted what you sent to Lumo https://twitter.com/dcsprior/status/1661152205708365824

Hi @LumoTravel, it was me who was on your train and overheard the difficulties another couple of passengers were having - if you'd like any further details, please do get in touch.

FYI @LNER and @northernassist

 

[Watershed]

Mhmm, I'm not sure about that. From iKB (noting in particular the last part, however):

The iKB doesn't form part of the contract though. Where, in the contract, does it say that? Nowhere really. In fact, the "next available train(s)" bit of condition 5 of the Advance T&C's directly contradicts any such restriction.

Interestingly, when I had a telephone conversation with somebody high-up in their Customer Services regarding my recent stand-off with them re alternative travel on my already purchased advance tickets following cancellation of travel due to engineering work and had quoted NRCoT, IIRC I was told by them that it only applied to delays and not to cancellation due to engineering etc.!

Evidently they have no qualms in misinterpreting it to try and justify their chosen outcome!

 

[yorkie]

Mhmm, I'm not sure about that. From iKB (noting in particular the last part, however):

But this is the last train of the day so NRCoT 28.2 applies. @Watershed is correct.

The text you quote is notwithstanding the possibility that the passenger could be stranded; in such cases the passenger must be assisted by any TOC in a position to do so (whether they like it or not!)

 

[crablab]

But this is the last train of the day so NRCoT 28 applies. @Watershed is correct.

Yes, I'm absolutely not disputing that at all, which is why I included the "noting" part.

The iKB doesn't form part of the contract though.

But I am saying it's unfortunate that the iKB which staff access is seemingly very at odds with the actual ticketing contract.

I'm not sure that having an "LNER& Connections" advance with an itinerary that soley includes a Northern service and a reservation on Lumo is particularly intuitive. So I think it's clear that it's not the intention to issue tickets for that situation, which is why iKB suggests you can't replace the "primary" operator when named on the ticket (despite NRCoT not actually enforcing that).

The text you quote is notwithstanding the possibility that the passenger could be stranded

Yes...and the part of Watershed's post I was responding to was suggesting the ticket could be valid irrespective of disruption as "LNER&Connections" "doesn't exclude Lumo", which is not what iKB would lead staff to believe.

 

[dcsprior]

Shame I'm not on board as I'd be very keen to inform them

I decided I shouldn't be so chicken and tried to catch them before we got off, but I couldn't identify which ones they were (I'd had my back to them).

I'll see if lumo reply to your tweet or mine tomorrow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I bet that "form" ends with a £100 plus fare settlement. Lumo have been reported on here before to be particularly willing to do this kind of thing.

 

[dcsprior]

They've got back to my tweet asking me to DM them, so I have - will update with how that goes.

 

[yorkie]

Lumo have replied, but not the best response:

https://twitter.com/LumoTravel/status/1661443816958689307

Hello. Thanks for getting in touch. Our team have confirmed we did not refuse carriage to any passenger, nor did any provider contact Lumo in advance to arrange carriage due to their delay. (1)

If a delay by another provider led to an unpaid fare notice being issued, that provider will reimburse the passenger for their onward travel.

 

[Watershed]

Lumo have replied, but not the best response:

https://twitter.com/LumoTravel/status/1661443816958689307

Indeed. "I didn't murder them, I only hurt them!"

 

[Parham Wood]

My concern would be for the passengers who had to fill in forms, would this mean they might be prosecuted or charged in some way for the journey? I doubt whether the OP's communications with Lumo will result in any Lumo investigation of any potential actions taken against the travellers. What is needed here is a means to report this potentially serious matter to a higher authority who can demand Lumo investigate and confirm the situation in respect of these travellers. I doubt the DfT would be interested although in theory it is a potential serious matter demanding money where none is due.

 

[Watershed]

My concern would be for the passengers who had to fill in forms, would this mean they might be prosecuted or charged in some way for the journey? I doubt whether the OP's communications with Lumo will result in any Lumo investigation of any potential actions taken against the travellers. What is needed here is a means to report this potentially serious matter to a higher authority who can demand Lumo investigate and confirm the situation in respect of these travellers. I doubt the DfT would be interested although in theory it is a potential serious matter demanding money where none is due.

I'd expect these "forms" are UFNs, which will lead to the passengers being (wrongly) prosecuted if they don't pony up.

It's an unacceptable outcome but I can't say I'm surprised in the slightest. Lumo have demonstrated a blatant disregard for passenger rights and seem to want to have their cake and eat it when it comes to being part of the National Rail network.

Unfortunately the chances of the DfT or any other authority being interested is minimal. They will no doubt consider this an "isolated incident" that doesn't warrant investigation.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

I'd expect these "forms" are UFNs, which will lead to the passengers being (wrongly) prosecuted if they don't pony up.

It's an unacceptable outcome but I can't say I'm surprised in the slightest. Lumo have demonstrated a blatant disregard for passenger rights and seem to want to have their cake and eat it when it comes to being part of the National Rail network.

Hopefully they come here if they ever get sent legal threats.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hello. Thanks for getting in touch. Our team have confirmed we did not refuse carriage to any passenger, nor did any provider contact Lumo in advance to arrange carriage due to their delay. (1)

Are we still on the February 2022 NRCoT? If so, I think the relevant clause is

28.2 Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.

(n.b. manually transcribed so e&oe)

The thing that strikes me is that nowhere in that clause do I see a requirement for the alternative means of travel /overnight accommodation to be provided at no cost to the passenger. Might Lumo have made a similar reading?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Providing something would generally be taken, I'd have thought, as free of charge.

By constrast, if it said arrange, then I would see it as e.g. "we'll book a hotel for you but you have to pay".

LNER and Lumo really need to bang their heads together and sort this out. It seems that they genuinely dislike each other and won't co-operate at all. This is in massive contrast to the WCML, where WMT and Avanti accept each others' passengers in disruption despite being in competition. I realise Lumo is an OAO, but in practice taking those passengers cost them half of nothing.

 

[MrJeeves]

where WMT and Avanti accept each others' passengers in disruption despite being in competition

And Chiltern on their mainline, too!

 

[Watershed]

Are we still on the February 2022 NRCoT? If so, I think the relevant clause is



(n.b. manually transcribed so e&oe)

The thing that strikes me is that nowhere in that clause do I see a requirement for the alternative means of travel /overnight accommodation to be provided at no cost to the passenger. Might Lumo have made a similar reading?

Perhaps, but I think they would have to be deliberately misinterpreting it to come to that conclusion.

Contracts set out the parties' rights and obligations. NRCoT 28.2 sets out the TOCs' obligation to provide alternative transport/accommodation. If there were the intention to have a corresponding obligation for the passenger to pay for such assistance (which would be a highly onerous term), it would have to be explicitly spelled out. As it isn't, there is no such obligation.

Contracts are interpreted by Courts in a purposive manner. It would make little sense for an obligation to provide assistance to be conditional on paying for it; the passenger could just as well arrange a hotel/taxi themselves, or buy a new ticket. Courts would therefore only interpret the contract that way if it explicitly indicated this was the intention.

I appreciate you're playing devil's advocate here to try and understand Lumo's position, but I really don't think there is an arguable point here.

The reality is that this is all rather a moot point. Lumo will send threatening letters to the passengers. It's 90% likely that they will just (reluctantly) pay up. The remainder will be threatened with prosecution, and will either accept a settlement offer or let it go to Court, where they'd probably be (wrongly) convicted.

It's an entirely inequitable set-up, but unfortunately there is nothing to stop TOCs from abusing their powers in this way.