Unsure how to Proceed with Delay Compensation **Resolved**

[Deafdoggie]

I think, more realisticly, would be a case of not having sufficient funds to pay the excess but still travelling. A lot of people wouldnt have the funds. It's what the train company would then do. I doubt they'd be prepared to go to court on the issue.
Even if you found a solicitor willing to take it on, the train company would settle out of court first.

 

[AlterEgo]

And I'm happy to pay 30% share of compensation to lawyers if a winning case means the train companies will never rip off people again.

Blissfully naive to think that if you take a company to court over a £14 excess they cease their activities immediately, and a massive win, for which a no win no fee lawyer will entertain pumping their expensive and highly qualified time into.

It is generally looked upon badly by courts if you see them as the first point of contact for consumer disputes without exhausting other, less expensive and time wasting avenues first.

 

[CentralTrainer]

Ah yes, the “strong opening”. Let’s wait and see if using the words f***, s*** and p*** alongside allegations of extortion and fraud reap the desired rewards.

If that type of letter came into the Complaints part of our work - I’d either be able to hear the laughter from the other end of the office, followed by the sound of the shredder starting up - or it being taken up to our Legal department to request actual concrete evidence of those extremely serious allegations and addressing the abuse of staff (frontline etc) in general.

 

[talltim]

.

 

[gnolife]

It would get filed in the ‘I’ll read that tome when I’ve got no other complaints to sort out’ pile

Is that a euphemism for a bin?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is that a euphemism for a bin?

Quite probably. Or 'circular filing receptacle', if you prefer!

 

[WesternLancer]

If that type of letter came into the Complaints part of our work - I’d either be able to hear the laughter from the other end of the office, followed by the sound of the shredder starting up - or it being taken up to our Legal department to request actual concrete evidence of those extremely serious allegations and addressing the abuse of staff (frontline etc) in general.

Remind me not to use goods or services your work provides if I can then....

 

[CentralTrainer]

Remind me not to use goods or services your work provides if I can then....

Feeling is more than mutual

 

[Haywain]

The fact is that words count and impact the sort of response you are likely to receive.

 

[AlterEgo]

Remind me not to use goods or services your work provides if I can then....

It's quite easy to avoid that sort of treatment'; if you complain, refrain from swearing and coarse language.

This one would have been passed round the office in my day too.

 

[yorkie]

Remind me not to use goods or services your work provides if I can then....

The rail industry knows that most people who use their services don't have much of a choice!

@Class800 the email was formatted exactly how i meant it to be formatted, all 3 companies received the email at the same time as they all have a part in it that needs addressing, if i had responded with a civil tone, then they would not perceive the issues described as a relevant factor of my complaint,...

it is possible to be civil and also assertive, to maximise the chances of getting what you want; it may not always work but I think a suitably worded letter would be more likely to succeed than one that wasn't.

If I was in this position, and if the ticket office at New Street tried to charge me the excess, I'd have boarded the train regardless; the excess would be no more expensive on the train but the vast majority of Guards would accept the ticket in these circumstances.

There is no need to seek out the Guard but I'd have probably tried to approach them and say I was advised by staff to catch this train because otherwise I'd have been stranded. The chances of being asked to pay the excess on the train would be very low indeed. If they tried it, I'd probably be inclined to refuse to pay on the basis that Avanti had an obligation to convey me under the NRCoT. If Avanti then wanted to pursue it, it would be up to them to try to chase me, rather than for me to waste my time trying to get a refund from them.

If Avanti operate the ticket office at BHM (which I think is the case) and it was they who made the incorrect charge, then it is Avanti who should refund that.

Any payment from WMT is only due/applicable/relevant if the arrival time into the destination was sufficiently late to trigger Delay Repay; this would be calculated based on the total payment made for the journey.

Chiltern did nothing wrong except their staff should have been more helpful/assertive; I'd have said something like: "Sorry you missed the connection; you can complete the journey by taking the XX:XX train from BHM, which gets you to your destination at xx:xx. Normally an excess fare would apply to upgrade the route on your ticket, but as you'd otherwise be stranded, due to the delay to your connecting service, Avanti are duty bound to get you to your destination with your existing ticket" and made sure the customer knew where they were going etc.

Unfortunately communication is not always a strong point of some rail staff; this is something some of us find difficult to accept, given the much higher standards many of us used to in our job roles, but it's just the way it is.

West Midland's didn't make it clear the excess was covered, but if that's true - then it's a good outcome for the OP

Yes, WMT were not obliged to do this, so it's good that they've covered Avanti's back.

Problem is, it gets Avanti (and their staff who behaved inappropriately) off the hook and I have very little confidence that Avanti's management will address the issues at BHM ticket office.

TOCs like Avanti have a huge cultural problem that I doubt will ever be fixed.

 

[robbeech]

And I'm happy to pay 30% share of compensation to lawyers if a winning case means the train companies will never rip off people again.

If be happy to pay the full costs for someone else if that was the result, but it never will be the result, the railway will make sure of it.

 

[WesternLancer]

Feeling is more than mutual

Well, as it happens you probably would not want to be in the position to have to do so...

It's quite easy to avoid that sort of treatment'; if you complain, refrain from swearing and coarse language.

This one would have been passed round the office in my day too.

But I am sure people in complaints services will learn or get used to that the way people get frustrated with their treatment (by front line colleagues unfortunately in most cases) can lead to extreme frustration and the increased chances of using foul language etc - it goes with the job sadly.

Response approach should simply be (after seeing who actually wants to read such a long missive) 'do we owe any compensation payment?' - if yes, pay it, if no, action with the standard apology and your comments have been noted sort of reply, esp if the customer is abusive.

But file in the bin and have a laugh at the poor service of your organisation? Not acceptable IMHO.

 

[yorkie]

But file in the bin and have a laugh at the poor service of your organisation? Not acceptable IMHO.

It's not.

But who is going to make the rail industry consistently behave in an acceptable way?

Sadly there is no proper proactive Ombudsman with any teeth who can actually carry out any enforcement action; there is no effective watchdog who actively looks for issues or responds well when issues arises; there is no decent regulator either.

(This is a rhetorical question but if anyone has any ideas feel free to make a new thread!)

 

[AlterEgo]

But I am sure people in complaints services will learn or get used to that the way people get frustrated with their treatment (by front line colleagues unfortunately in most cases) can lead to extreme frustration and the increased chances of using foul language etc - it goes with the job sadly.

Oh yes, you get used to it, but it doesn’t make it any less risible when you get a terrific rant punctuated by swearing (especially one in which, unprompted, they assert they definitely weren’t abusive to front line staff..!).

Everyone gets used to abuse whether it is aimed at the person or the company you work for, but that does not excuse it and the correct way to deal with customers like that is to accept that goodwill has evaporated and give them the bare minimum.

Response approach should simply be (after seeing who actually wants to read such a long missive) 'do we owe any compensation payment?' - if yes, pay it, if no, action with the standard apology and your comments have been noted sort of reply, esp if the customer is abusive.

That’s exactly what happens. You get the minimum level of response.

But file in the bin and have a laugh at the poor service of your organisation? Not acceptable IMHO.

A TOC can’t just put it in the bin, they do have to respond.

It's not.

But who is going to make the rail industry consistently behave in an acceptable way?

Sadly there is no proper proactive Ombudsman with any teeth who can actually carry out any enforcement action; there is no effective watchdog who actively looks for issues or responds well when issues arises; there is no decent regulator either.

(This is a rhetorical question but if anyone has any ideas feel free to make a new thread!)

Well the answer is surely a proper ombudsman instead of the joke we have at the moment. But in any case, any ombudsman looking upon correspondence containing **** piss and **** might be disinclined to exceed their minimum remit either.

 

[yorkie]

Well the answer is surely a proper ombudsman instead of the joke we have at the moment. But in any case, any ombudsman looking upon correspondence containing **** piss and **** might be disinclined to exceed their minimum remit either.

This is all very true!

 

[WesternLancer]

Oh yes, you get used to it, but it doesn’t make it any less risible when you get a terrific rant punctuated by swearing (especially one in which, unprompted, they assert they definitely weren’t abusive to front line staff..!).

Everyone gets used to abuse whether it is aimed at the person or the company you work for, but that does not excuse it and the correct way to deal with customers like that is to accept that goodwill has evaporated and give them the bare minimum.

That’s exactly what happens. You get the minimum level of response.

A TOC can’t just put it in the bin, they do have to respond.


Well the answer is surely a proper ombudsman instead of the joke we have at the moment. But in any case, any ombudsman looking upon correspondence containing **** piss and **** might be disinclined to exceed their minimum remit either.

Indeed - points well made.

 

[robbeech]

A TOC can’t just put it in the bin, they do have to respond.

There are reports every single day from people who haven’t had responses from complaints after weeks of months. And no doubt lots of people don’t say anything. There’s no way of telling what percentage of complaints that is because of course an operator who isn’t responding to complaints isn’t going to be forthcoming with accurate data on how it handles them.

That said, compared to many other industries I suspect the railway does very very well in terms of responding to complaints, regardless of whether the response and outcome are satisfactory to the customer or not.

 

[Cypher]

This will be my final entry on this matter, the situation has concluded, for those that do wanna know how this turned out i will paraphrase below in bullet points, in terms of the ''aggressive'' stance, i did apologize in all follow up emails to the companies involved, stating it was an emotional reaction to the situation, they all responded that no one in their respective companies took any of that emotion personally and i thanked them for that.

Outcome:

WMT:

1. I accepted WMT offer of full financial reimbursement + a complimentary Day Pass(these tickets used to be sold by London Midland online for 20 pound and could be used in off peak, however these new complimentary tickets have no ticket restrictions in terms of times you can use them).

Chiltern:

1. They took the longest time to respond and investigate, myself and Avanti were already in the middle of the legal arguments and counter arguments before chiltern responded, but nonetheless, they put all the blame on WMT for not calling their control team to accept the endorsement, their staff member didn't do anything wrong, but was to be retrained to do the situation right the next time it happened, they also stated that no TOC can endorse a passenger on another TOC's services.
2. They refunded my ticket despite me calling and given written evidence that this was not an accepted position, which they ignored, but as the tickets were purchased as a gift to myself from a family member, and since they were not the Passenger in this situation, it does not count from a legal perspective as a double claim to the railway and despite me trying to stop and alert Chiltern to this mistake, they ultimately just ignored me and surprisingly haven't tried to reclaim the amount from this family member.
3. They ultimately deadlocked after i called them out on their lie about endorsements not existing by showing them an extract from an email Avanti had sent me stating that chiltern/WMT should have endorsed the ticket.

Avanti:

1. So as others here have said, this conversation was between myself and the customer service agent + their legal team + their managers, ultimately we debated on the position of the situation back and forth and the conditions of the NRCoT in length, we even argued the legal position of: ''Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations also confirms the need for an excess charge under Annex I, TITLE II, Conclusion and Performance of the Contract of Carriage, Article 9''.
2. We reached a stalemate deadlock position, they maintain under condition 13.2 they had the right to charge me the excess and they were not allowed to change the condition of this under their franchise agreement with the DFT, but that situation also applies to condition 28.2 where they weren't allowed to change that condition under their franchise agreement with the DFT, i also made the argument under the legal statue above, they made a counter argument, but it wasn't a legally defensive position as the criteria for their defense was not applicable, once i informed them of that, they deadlocked the situation and maintained their position of not doing anything wrong.

Final Position:

1. I have a legal claim against them, but lets be realistic, its a £15 excess, it just isn't worth going to the courts for it.
2. I have sent an enquiring email to both the DFT and TheRailDeliveryGroup for clarification on who had the correct interpretation of the NRCoT conditions and for a further explanation as to whose position is stronger in this type of situation.
3. I accepted WMT offer so in total £47.55, the position of chiltern refunding the super off peak return is up in the air ATM, they've made no attempt to reclaim the £33.10 so technically speaking the total refund is closer to £80.60, don't know how that happened, but I've already checked legally, im not liable for Chilterns mistake and the act is on them to recover if they chose to.
4. I was contacted by the Office of Rail and Road strangely enough directly, as apparently their intrigued by the situation itself and the way it was handled and the positions each company took, why none of the companies interacted with each other regarding this matter, and the positioning of the The NRCoT conditions that led to the deadlock, i don't know for what end, but it is what it is.

I'd like to thank everyone that offered assistance and opposing views regardless if i agreed with yourselves or not on certain points, thank you for taking the time to share your opinion/expertise in this matter.

 

[Watershed]

This will be my final entry on this matter, the situation has concluded, for those that do wanna know how this turned out i will paraphrase below in bullet points, in terms of the ''aggressive'' stance, i did apologize in all follow up emails to the companies involved, stating it was an emotional reaction to the situation, they all responded that no one in their respective companies took any of that emotion personally and i thanked them for that.

Outcome:

WMT:

1. I accepted WMT offer of full financial reimbursement + a complimentary Day Pass(these tickets used to be sold by London Midland online for 20 pound and could be used in off peak, however these new complimentary tickets have no ticket restrictions in terms of times you can use them).

Chiltern:

1. They took the longest time to respond and investigate, myself and Avanti were already in the middle of the legal arguments and counter arguments before chiltern responded, but nonetheless, they put all the blame on WMT for not calling their control team to accept the endorsement, their staff member didn't do anything wrong, but was to be retrained to do the situation right the next time it happened, they also stated that no TOC can endorse a passenger on another TOC's services.
2. They refunded my ticket despite me calling and given written evidence that this was not an accepted position, which they ignored, but as the tickets were purchased as a gift to myself from a family member, and since they were not the Passenger in this situation, it does not count from a legal perspective as a double claim to the railway and despite me trying to stop and alert Chiltern to this mistake, they ultimately just ignored me and surprisingly haven't tried to reclaim the amount from this family member.
3. They ultimately deadlocked after i called them out on their lie about endorsements not existing by showing them an extract from an email Avanti had sent me stating that chiltern/WMT should have endorsed the ticket.

Avanti:

1. So as others here have said, this conversation was between myself and the customer service agent + their legal team + their managers, ultimately we debated on the position of the situation back and forth and the conditions of the NRCoT in length, we even argued the legal position of: ''Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations also confirms the need for an excess charge under Annex I, TITLE II, Conclusion and Performance of the Contract of Carriage, Article 9''.
2. We reached a stalemate deadlock position, they maintain under condition 13.2 they had the right to charge me the excess and they were not allowed to change the condition of this under their franchise agreement with the DFT, but that situation also applies to condition 28.2 where they weren't allowed to change that condition under their franchise agreement with the DFT, i also made the argument under the legal statue above, they made a counter argument, but it wasn't a legally defensive position as the criteria for their defense was not applicable, once i informed them of that, they deadlocked the situation and maintained their position of not doing anything wrong.

Final Position:

1. I have a legal claim against them, but lets be realistic, its a £15 excess, it just isn't worth going to the courts for it.
2. I have sent an enquiring email to both the DFT and TheRailDeliveryGroup for clarification on who had the correct interpretation of the NRCoT conditions and for a further explanation as to whose position is stronger in this type of situation.
3. I accepted WMT offer so in total £47.55, the position of chiltern refunding the super off peak return is up in the air ATM, they've made no attempt to reclaim the £33.10 so technically speaking the total refund is closer to £80.60, don't know how that happened, but I've already checked legally, im not liable for Chilterns mistake and the act is on them to recover if they chose to.
4. I was contacted by the Office of Rail and Road strangely enough directly, as apparently their intrigued by the situation itself and the way it was handled and the positions each company took, why none of the companies interacted with each other regarding this matter, and the positioning of the The NRCoT conditions that led to the deadlock, i don't know for what end, but it is what it is.

I'd like to thank everyone that offered assistance and opposing views regardless if i agreed with yourselves or not on certain points, thank you for taking the time to share your opinion/expertise in this matter.

Glad to hear it's now resolved. However the claim that "no TOC can endorse a passenger on another TOC's services" is 100% wrong. Given the circumstances of the rail industry, with the passenger holding a joint contract with all TOCs, it is plainly the case that one TOC has the apparent authority to bind others. That is all that matters - whether the other TOC would like to be bound by that is immaterial.

In any case, condition 28.2 applied to your situation and meant that Avanti were obliged to accept your ticket for travel free of charge. What their franchise agreement does or doesn't say is immaterial - you are not a party to the franchise agreement and so it doesn't concern you.

As you aren't out of pocket anymore (AIUI) there is little point pursuing it further, but if WMT hadn't made that offer, it might have been worth considering.

 

[yorkie]

Very poor and inaccurate responses from Chiltern and Avanti, who have shown themselves to be dishonourable train companies (no surprises there, sadly).