TOC (GWR Night Riviera) responsibility during industrial action

[DMU180]

I have the exact same issue with the Caledonian Sleeper, was due to travel EUS - FTW departing on 27th July.

I'm now having to drive but need to be in Fort William in the morning of 28th July so faced with the prospect of driving on 27th and overnighting in a hotel, or driving through the night.

I called the Sleeper and quoted NRCOC about overnight accommodation but they weren't interested. Told me to email and they'd review case by case and openly said they wouldn't read it until after 27th July. Apparently because they have given me 'plenty of notice' (1 week) and so NRCOC doesn't apply.

Do I take the risk and book a hotel myself then seek to recover the cost?

 

[skyhigh]

and so NRCOC doesn't apply.

Just as a heads up, NRCOC has been replaced by the National Rail Conditions of Travel

 

[AlterEgo]

I have the exact same issue with the Caledonian Sleeper, was due to travel EUS - FTW departing on 27th July.

I'm now having to drive but need to be in Fort William in the morning of 28th July so faced with the prospect of driving on 27th and overnighting in a hotel, or driving through the night.

I called the Sleeper and quoted NRCOC about overnight accommodation but they weren't interested. Told me to email and they'd review case by case and openly said they wouldn't read it until after 27th July. Apparently because they have given me 'plenty of notice' (1 week) and so NRCOC doesn't apply.

Do I take the risk and book a hotel myself then seek to recover the cost?

Interestingly, the NRCOT says this:

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.

(my bold)

I am not certain you can rely on the NRCoT to force a train company to provide overnight accommodation well in advance of travel for a service cancelled a week or two ahead of schedule. There may be other rights or legal avenues for this, but the NRCOT seems to word this condition to suggest that it applies "in the moment", when you are travelling, on the day.

 

[DMU180]

Just as a heads up, NRCOC has been replaced by the National Rail Conditions of Travel

Noted with thanks

Interestingly, the NRCOT says this:

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.

(my bold)

I am not certain you can rely on the NRCoT to force a train company to provide overnight accommodation well in advance of travel for a service cancelled a week or two ahead of schedule. There may be other rights or legal avenues for this, but the NRCOT seems to word this condition to suggest that it applies "in the moment", when you are travelling, on the day.

I interpreted that slightly differently, although given they have just refunded all tickets automatically, I no longer have a ticket at all which is probably their get out of jail free card.

 

[AlterEgo]

I interpreted that slightly differently, although given they have just refunded all tickets automatically, I no longer have a ticket at all which is probably their get out of jail free card.

Yes, I think so - at least as far as the NRCoT is concerned. Other legal rights may be available.

 

[paul1609]

Compensation is almost a secondary issue. The cost of a hotel will far exceed any delay compensation the OP could be entitled to.

You also speak as if the OP is reliant on some sort of goodwill gesture. But they're not; they have contractual and statutory rights in this situation. These rights aren't reduced just because TOCs such as GWR are now effectively public sector organisations. Even if the government directed TOCs to try and save money, it wouldn't change the legal position.

Presumably the government can change the statutory rights though. Has anybody ever been paid out on this legislation in these circumstances?

 

[AlterEgo]

Presumably the government can change the statutory rights though. Has anybody ever been paid out on this legislation in these circumstances?

I cannot recall a similar case here.

In the case where a passenger has a ticket *and* a berth supplement, one can very strongly argue they have paid separately for the accommodation for the night and the train company can't just treat it as a train ticket. I am sure @Watershed will argue that, just as when a hotel cancels your booking, there is a breach of contract. Normally a hotel will rebook you in a "comparable" property nearby (this can sometimes happen on the day! In the US this is called being "walked").

 

[Watershed]

Sorry, somehow I missed these last few posts on Friday.

I don't think that @DMU180's case is really impeded just because CS have foisted a refund upon them. The NRCoT provide no facility for a train company to force a passenger to accept a refund, and even if they did so, this could well be an unfair term in a consumer contract (and hence not binding).

It's also worth noting that Article 16 of the PRO explicitly gives the passenger the right to choose between whether they wish to receive a refund, be re-routed, or travel on another date. The TOC doesn't have the right to make that decision for them.

I've seen this before with airlines, whereby they simply give people a refund when the flight is cancelled - even though that may be peanuts in comparison with the cost of a newly booked flight at such short notice. By all means, they can deduct the amount refunded from any amount they still owe you, but they can't try and claim it means you have acceded to the contract being terminated.

I can see the argument being made around NRCoT 28.2 but ultimately, even if that point were valid, you still have the PRO rights to rely on - which are not in any way qualified based on whether the journey has been started.

I also have severe doubts as to whether the "is being used" phrase can be taken literally - because otherwise (in the absence of the PRO) it would mean that passengers would purpurtedly have no right to alternative transport or accommodation, in spite of the TOC being in breach of contract. That would also seem likely to be an unfair term in a consumer contract, thus not binding.

The fact that "plenty of notice" has been given is neither here nor there. You can't get a refund on an Advance just because you give "plenty of notice". You can't unilaterally decide to travel on a non-permitted route by giving "plenty of notice". It is simply a nonsensical suggestion made by someone who clearly has little or no understanding of the NRCoT, let alone consumer and contract law.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is however worth noting that to get the rights that @Watershed always says you legally have - and you do, at least theoretically - you are very likely to have to at least threaten Court action on the TOC, probably to have to carry it out. They are very unlikely indeed to agree them otherwise.

If CS is your employer (or GWR is the original poster's employer) or you/they intend on working for them in future (don't answer that, but bear it in mind) consider the very probable negative effects on your employment relationship of attempting that.

 

[Watershed]

It is however worth noting that to get the rights that @Watershed always says you legally have - and you do, at least theoretically - you are very likely to have to at least threaten Court action on the TOC, probably to have to carry it out. They are very unlikely indeed to agree them otherwise.

If CS is your employer (or GWR is the original poster's employer) or you/they intend on working for them in future (don't answer that, but bear it in mind) consider the very probable negative effects on your employment relationship of attempting that.

I don't think that the OP / @DMU180 would have had to pay for a ticket if they were employed by GWR / CS... but agreed.