London North Eastern Railway (LNER) First Class service

[47271]

No hot food or drinks in First Class at any point on the 1500 King's Cross-Edinburgh on Thursday.

I can't remember the last time I travelled with them and there wasn't something broken or missing from the service. And the fares drift upwards...

Further to the above, I received an online survey from them on Friday. I don't normally bother with Virgin's surveys, but I was so irritated with yet another service failure combined with a £150ish ticket price that I went on to give them 6/10 and slated them in the comments sections. To be fair there wasn't anything else to complain about other than the ongoing dire state of First Class.

Luckily for them I didn't have time to use the First Class lounge at King's Cross - no doubt it was it's usual paper cup and crumb infested self - or the score would've been lower still.

Then, it what was to me a new development, yesterday I got what looked like an automated response by way of apology. An automated apology I hear you say, what kind of foolish organisation would send those out?

In it, I was promised 'fresh new interiors' (got those thanks) 'tasty menu in Standard' (no mention of First, lol), 'free wifi' (got it) and 'choose your seat' (had it for years).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Trust me. If I do not get hot food in first class on a weekday, when I am travelling on a journey over 70 minutes with VTEC and rightfully possess a valid first class ticket, there will be complaints. And I will be getting compensated!

 

[marks87]

Trust me. If I do not get hot food in first class on a weekday, when I am travelling on a journey over 70 minutes with VTEC and rightfully possess a valid first class ticket, there will be complaints. And I will be getting compensated!

"Subject to availability".

They might give something as a goodwill gesture, but those three little words mean they're under absolutely no obligation to do so.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Oh. Egg on my face there then.

 

[yorkie]

I think you may have a case if there is no complimentary offer at all, but if there is food but it's not hot, I am not convinced.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Oh ok. Gosh, it would be disappointing though, wouldn’t it!

 

[ModernRailways]

"Subject to availability".

They might give something as a goodwill gesture, but those three little words mean they're under absolutely no obligation to do so.

They can make that case, however by using that little line it will push people away. You're paying extra for your ticket so there must be something extra involved, it's been discussed in the past in this thread I believe too. I'm sure if you buy your tickets via a Credit Card then they'd be on your side.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

They can make that case, however by using that little line it will push people away. You're paying extra for your ticket so there must be something extra involved, it's been discussed in the past in this thread I believe too. I'm sure if you buy your tickets via a Credit Card then they'd be on your side.

Couldn’t agree more!

 

[marks87]

They can make that case, however by using that little line it will push people away. You're paying extra for your ticket so there must be something extra involved, it's been discussed in the past in this thread I believe too. I'm sure if you buy your tickets via a Credit Card then they'd be on your side.

Why on earth would they be on your side?

Not providing a complimentary offer might be annoying, but the terms and conditions indemnify them against any legal recourse.

The Consumer Credit Act would be utterly irrelevant here. There’s no breach of contract, and the “three little words” also rule out misrepresentation.

Oh, and the something extra for the increased ticket cost? That’s called being allowed to travel in first class.

 

[yorkie]

Why on earth would they be on your side?

Not providing a complimentary offer might be annoying, but the terms and conditions indemnify them against any legal recourse.

The Consumer Credit Act would be utterly irrelevant here. There’s no breach of contract, and the “three little words” also rule out misrepresentation.

Oh, and the something extra for the increased ticket cost? That’s called being allowed to travel in first class.

If the customer has taken the complimentary food offering into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract, and that is not available, then a partial refund/compensation clearly is due.

For more information, see this thread: what happens if complimentary catering is unavailable? and in particular post #11

 

[marks87]

Well, that thread has failed to reach a consensus so I think it’s wrong to make the claim in your first paragraph.

If it’s the case that a passenger might take into account the complimentary offer when buying a first class ticket, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to take the “subject to availability” disclaimer into account also.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, that thread has failed to reach a consensus so I think it’s wrong to make the claim in your first paragraph.

If it’s the case that a passenger might take into account the complimentary offer when buying a first class ticket, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to take the “subject to availability” disclaimer into account also.

If the service might not be available, the ticket should be priced on the assumption that the service might not be available - I.e. for the basic larger seat with minimal extras.

 

[marks87]

If the service might not be available, the ticket should be priced on the assumption that the service might not be available - I.e. for the basic larger seat with minimal extras.

The first class food and drink offering is described as "complimentary", which in my vocabulary means "free". So in my view, the wording of the advertising means (legally) the ticket already is priced on the assumption that the service might not be available.

It's also worth noting that a walk-up first class ticket from Edinburgh-London Terminals is more expensive route Any Permitted than VTEC Only. The former is technically valid on a series of operators whose First Class offering is significantly worse than VTEC's (ScotRail, TPE etc.).

 

[yorkie]

The first class food and drink offering is described as "complimentary", which in my vocabulary means "free". So in my view, the wording of the advertising means (legally) the ticket already is priced on the assumption that the service might not be available.

That's dubious.

NRE (who are hardly going to be encouraging claims) even state:

The CRA also allows for claims where a decision to purchase is based on information presented at the time of purchase....

Which? state:

you might be entitled to claim a full or partial refund in the following circumstances:

....

• Failure to provide food on a train journey if it was part of the described service

VTEC provide various literature which gives reasons for upgrading to 1st class. If there is no food provided whatsoever for a journey where it would reasonably be expected there should be, and the passenger was encouraged - and chose - to pay extra on that basis, then the act clearly does apply.

Clearly nothing can ever be "guaranteed" completely; the train cannot be guaranteed to run, but if something is offered as part of the service then that should be considered part of the contract.

The company's disclaimers about "subject to availability" are hidden away and in small fonts and do not get them out of their obligations, in the same way that the provision of a seat or even the existence of 1st class accommodation cannot be completely "guaranteed", yet clearly compensation would apply if a customer who had reserved a 1st class seat was not provided with one.

Can we now get back on-topic please? Thank you.

 

[marks87]

That's not correct; if the adv

That's not correct.

NRE even state:


VTEC provide various literature which gives reasons fro upgrading to 1st class. If there is no food provided whatsoever for a journey where it would reasonably be expected there should be, and the passenger was encouraged - and chose - to pay extra on that basis, then the act clearly does apply.

Can we now get back on-topic please? Thank you.

Surely this is on-topic? It's discussing whether or not the VTEC first class offering is a part of the fare, or something extra provided in addition?

In any case, your quote proves my point.

The CRA also allows for claims where a decision to purchase is based on information presented at the time of purchase, where, for example, the provision of that service is guaranteed.

The First Class service is not guaranteed. It's "subject to availability", something that is stated wherever the offering is advertised including at the time of purchase.

 

[47271]

In my particular case, no part of my low rating of their First Class service involved me wishing to make a claim for compensation. I was provided with food (albeit a clammy packet sandwich and a bag of crisps) and could probably have consumed a whole bottle of wine over the four or so hours occupied by the journey, if that's what I'd wanted to do. But I bought an expensive ticket on the basis that I'd receive a decent meal at some point and at least a couple of cups of coffee. As it was I had to go and buy more sandwiches at Waverley to keep me going until I got home.

If this was the first time they'd failed in, say, ten journeys then I would've thought 'these things happen'. But now there's something every journey, either through technical failures or crew shortages. The breezy automated 'apology' put the tin lid on it.

Look on the bright side, no hot food meant no sausage roll to contend with. The last time but three this was the only hot option available.

 

[Chrism20]

We can argue the point about subject to availability till the cows come home, however it is blatant that VTEC are using food as a selling point to upgrade to First Class or to purchase a First Class ticket therefore there is an expectation that this service will happen in its entirety.

Taking VTEC website as an example. When you go onto the FC pages on the webite you are told four times that you will be served food or food from a menu which is endorsed by a celebrity chef no less than four times before the words “Complimentary” or “Subject to availability” are even mentioned whilst on the pages detailing what the menu actually is there is no mention of “Complimentary” or “Subject to availability”.

If you are travelling on an infrequent basis and you don’t get the lamb tagine or whatever on an infrequent basis yes you can hide behind the “Subject to availability” crap and get away with it. The difference is when someone is travelling on a VTEC service twice a day five days a week and this advertised service - Complimentary or not is not delivered in its entirety on upto eight journeys a week you are in the situation where they are not delivering the service they advertise - again Complimentary or not you are being miss-sold as they are clearly using the food as a selling point. It is part of the offer and the ASA would expect VTEC to deliver it - again Complimentary or not for a large percentage of the time.

Up until now it’s just been shortages of individual items or hot food replaced with cold food etc etc and again they will get away with this to an extent, however the new trend is that there is nothing available at all on a growing number of services which opens a new can of worms as they are delivering nothing at all and again - Complimentary or not is non-delivery of what is being advertised as a selling point to upgrade your ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

We can argue the point about subject to availability till the cows come home, however it is blatant that VTEC are using food as a selling point to upgrade to First Class or to purchase a First Class ticket therefore there is an expectation that this service will happen in its entirety.

Taking VTEC website as an example. When you go onto the FC pages on the webite you are told four times that you will be served food or food from a menu which is endorsed by a celebrity chef no less than four times before the words “Complimentary” or “Subject to availability” are even mentioned whilst on the pages detailing what the menu actually is there is no mention of “Complimentary” or “Subject to availability”.

If you are travelling on an infrequent basis and you don’t get the lamb tagine or whatever on an infrequent basis yes you can hide behind the “Subject to availability” crap and get away with it. The difference is when someone is travelling on a VTEC service twice a day five days a week and this advertised service - Complimentary or not is not delivered in its entirety on upto eight journeys a week you are in the situation where they are not delivering the service they advertise - again Complimentary or not you are being miss-sold as they are clearly using the food as a selling point. It is part of the offer and the ASA would expect VTEC to deliver it - again Complimentary or not for a large percentage of the time.

Up until now it’s just been shortages of individual items or hot food replaced with cold food etc etc and again they will get away with this to an extent, however the new trend is that there is nothing available at all on a growing number of services which opens a new can of worms as they are delivering nothing at all and again - Complimentary or not is non-delivery of what is being advertised as a selling point to upgrade your ticket.

I agree with this entirely.

VTEC's service failures are now so regular that their continued advertising of complimentary food alongside the idea of upgrading to obtain it almost amounts to sharp practice.

The Consumer Rights Act might have something to say about this.

 

[yorkie]

Surely this is on-topic? It's discussing whether or not the VTEC first class offering is a part of the fare, or something extra provided in addition?

In any case, your quote proves my point.



The First Class service is not guaranteed. It's "subject to availability", something that is stated wherever the offering is advertised including at the time of purchase.

No. It does not. The existence of the train is not guaranteed, neither is a seat. However if the train doesn't run, or is late, or if a passenger with a seat reservation is unable to be seated, or if 1st class accommodation is declassified, then compensation does apply.

What matters is that the customer was encouraged by the company to pay extra on the basis that a particular service would be offered.

We can argue the point about subject to availability till the cows come home, however it is blatant that VTEC are using food as a selling point to upgrade to First Class or to purchase a First Class ticket therefore there is an expectation that this service will happen in its entirety.....

Absolutely. I am very puzzled as to why marks87 is arguing otherwise.

 

[marks87]

No. It does not. The existence of the train is not guaranteed, neither is a seat. However if the train doesn't run, or is late, or if a passenger with a seat reservation is unable to be seated, or if 1st class accommodation is declassified, then compensation does apply.

Those are completely different because they are about what holding a ticket and seat reservation, entitle you to.

The complimentary (important word) First Class food and drink is not something you are entitled to. As the terms and conditions make clear.

What matters is that the customer was encouraged by the company to pay extra on the basis that a particular service would be offered.

And if they are encouraged by advertising, then they should equally have an element of discouragement from the "subject to availability" disclaimer.

I'm not sure why you and others think that "subject to availability" is any different to any other term or condition on the railway. If I were still under 25 and encouraged to buy a 16-25 railcard based on the massive "SAVE 1/3rd ON RAIL FARES" claims, would I be entitled to compensation when I was subsequently told I couldn't get a discount on a sub-£12 fare in the AM peak?

The answer is "no", because of the T&Cs that I accepted when purchasing the railcard.

The same applies to the purchase of a First Class ticket for travel on VTEC.

 

[yorkie]

That's a ludicrous comparison; there is no point in me continuing the discussion. I and others have explained the situation.

 

[marks87]

That's a ludicrous comparison; there is no point in me continuing the discussion. I and others have explained the situation.

Why is it ludicrous? Both situations attempt to sell on the basis of a headline advertisement, and both situations are limited by T&Cs that should be read and understood before purchase.

If VTEC don't provide the complimentary food and/or drink in First Class, the T&Cs have indemnified them. That's my position and only VTEC losing a test case in the courts would convince me otherwise (but I doubt they would lose).

 

[AlterEgo]

Why is it ludicrous? Both situations attempt to sell on the basis of a headline advertisement, and both situations are limited by T&Cs that should be read and understood before purchase.

If VTEC don't provide the complimentary food and/or drink in First Class, the T&Cs have indemnified them. That's my position and only VTEC losing a test case in the courts would convince me otherwise (but I doubt they would lose).

The Consumer Rights Act was brought in specifically to clarify rights in these sorts of situations.

Essentially, you cannot advertise something as being part of the experience, and using that to leverage a purchasing decision (which is *exactly* what VTEC are doing by saying things like:

An even tastier journey

Tastebuds, get excited. We’ve teamed up with award-winning chef James Martin, to bring you a new and exclusive First Class menu. Each and every dish is created with locally-sourced, high-quality ingredients – recommended by the man himself. Here’s to a gloriously tasty journey.

Now that’s First Class.

etc, etc...and then not deliver that without repercussion.

The caveat "oh yeah sorry the service might fail" is neither here nor there.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the service doesn't happen because of disruption, all of us will shrug and say it happens.

If the service doesn't happen because Virgin didn't load enough stock, and run out of food at Darlington on a Newcastle-London train (as was the case on my last 1st class "experience"), then we won't.

The caveat is fine for unusual circumstances. But when it is routinely being used, that is sharp practice. You can't hide behind "subject to availability" if you don't ever provide sufficient availability.

 

[yorksrob]

If I were still under 25 and encouraged to buy a 16-25 railcard based on the massive "SAVE 1/3rd ON RAIL FARES" claims, would I be entitled to compensation when I was subsequently told I couldn't get a discount on a sub-£12 fare in the AM peak?

That's not really comparable in my opinion. In the example you mention, the terms and conditions clearly define when the third off discount is available and when it isn't.

 

[yorkie]

That's not really comparable in my opinion. In the example you mention, the terms and conditions clearly define when the third off discount is available and when it isn't.

Quite. It's a completely different subject. I've heard better rail ticketing & supermarket analogies to be frank. That such a comparison was brought up demonstrates a complete lack of understanding.

 

[trainophile]

I can't find a definition of complimentary that implies that it may or may not be applicable in a given situation. It simply seems to mean "free of charge".

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Yes, but the price is included in the first class fare.

 

[Starmill]

And if they are encouraged by advertising, then they should equally have an element of discouragement from the "subject to availability" disclaimer.

That is not actually included anywhere in the advertising, even if what you say is true (and I am very far from convinced that it is).

Their own website says in several places that those in First Class get free food - without saying it's subject to availability.



Image reads:
3. Eat, drink and be merry
You'll find all manner of things to tickle your tastebuds and keep your tummy from rumbling on board, and if you're in First Class it's all free, and served at your seat.


https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.com/rail-travel/the-best-way-to-travel/benefits-of-train-travel/

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Ha! If the staff can be bothered, that is!