Think of it not as compensation, but as a refund. Passengers pay for a service and, like any other purchase, if the retailer (the TOC) can't provide it, they are entitled to a refund.
Compared to all that, the £80 Virgin is gonna give me seems like nothing. So win win reallyThere is a big difference though, in the delay being caused by a mistake/incompetance from the rail company, and a delay caused by external factors out of anyones control. If it were me, I wouldn't be claiming for compensation if the delay was due to bad luck rather than someone cocked up. What is more important is how the railway assists the passengers who have been caught up in the chaos. When I was stuck in Florida for an extra day because bad weather delayed my domestic flight which made me miss my connection, I didn't get the air fare refunded, but I did get booked on the next available flight to Heathrow (the following evening), a voucher for a nearby hotel, and advised where to get the shuttle bus to the hotel.
That's alright then. I'm sure none of the thousands of other passengers caught up in this have anywhere to be or anything planned to do beside sitting on a delayed train for several hours dreaming of getting their fares back.Dont worry the others will get delay repay too
As you’re so overjoyed that everyone can get delay repay, I assume you have shared your booze out to celebrate.Compared to all that, the £80 Virgin is gonna give me seems like nothing. So win win really
Anyway thankfully throughout the delay our guard has been very clear on our rights to claim delay repay and how much we can claim. So fingers crossed the whole train will be claiming
Why do you care so much what anyone else may be going to do?Compared to all that, the £80 Virgin is gonna give me seems like nothing. So win win really
Anyway thankfully throughout the delay our guard has been very clear on our rights to claim delay repay and how much we can claim. So fingers crossed the whole train will be claiming
Train companies have to compensate passengers.So not the railway's fault, yet they have to pay compensation that they won't be able to recover.
If your train is delayed/cancelled and you choose not to travel, or if you are delayed en route and you return to origin, you are entitled to a refund.Think of it not as compensation, but as a refund. Passengers pay for a service and, like any other purchase, if the retailer (the TOC) can't provide it, they are entitled to a refund.
Agreed. The tone isn't great.one of the most naive posts I've read on this forum. How on earth is "the railway" going to fine the building owner?
If any arsonists are caught, how do you expect them to find the cash to pay?
Insurance? Big assumption that is has any. A lot of disused warehouses don't.
Sorry, but this really comes across as rejoicing at other's misfortune.
So not the railway's fault, yet they have to pay compensation that they won't be able to recover.
In theory yes but in practice this won't always be possible.Why not? Whoever's responsible for the fire has arguably caused a public nuisance and the railway should be able to sue
Exactly. I dont see why not.. if the business was neglegent then absolutely they are liable for the disruption for services. And should be penilised financially as such.Why not? Whoever's responsible for the fire has arguably caused a public nuisance and the railway should be able to sue
if it's been bought for you say by your company, why would it even concern you to go for it?
In which case the building owner will need deep pockets.The building owner's insurance (if there is any in place) is very unlikely to cover consequential losses - ie it would probably cover physical damage to the railway, and any other property damaged, but unlikely to cover consequential fines paid by the railway owner to operators etc.
And I see someone mentioned 'force majeure' - in my industry (not rail) Force Majeure has a specific legal status. You have to formally declare that Force Majeure applies, and it has a legal impact on your operations. It's to be avoided at all costs, so if it has the same meaning on the railway then they would be extremely unlikely to invoke it for a lineside fire.
80-odd minutes delay in the end. Could have been a lot worst I think all in all! Everyone on my train carriage didn't seem to mind at all, Guard was very good at keeping everyone up to date.
Apparently VTWC offer automatic delay repay directly back onto original payment method these days... so lets see if this comes off. Certainly seems helpful if it works out that way.
I'd have thought this would come under third party liability cover. Consequential loss in business policies normally refers to losses incurred by the business itself as a result of a fire, such as lost production, the cost of finding temporary accomodation etc.The building owner's insurance (if there is any in place) is very unlikely to cover consequential losses - ie it would probably cover physical damage to the railway, and any other property damaged, but unlikely to cover consequential fines paid by the railway owner to operators etc.
The building owner's insurance (if there is any in place) is very unlikely to cover consequential losses - ie it would probably cover physical damage to the railway, and any other property damaged, but unlikely to cover consequential fines paid by the railway owner to operators etc.
And I see someone mentioned 'force majeure' - in my industry (not rail) Force Majeure has a specific legal status. You have to formally declare that Force Majeure applies, and it has a legal impact on your operations. It's to be avoided at all costs, so if it has the same meaning on the railway then they would be extremely unlikely to invoke it for a lineside fire.
It's all taxpayers money anyway. Claim back off yourself.
thinking about it further there may be difficulties in law (in addition to any restrictions in the insurance policy), at least in a negligence action, for a TOC claiming damages for 'pure economic loss' ie loss caused by interruption to services etc without any physical damage to its property
Train companies have to compensate passengers.
Train companies will get generous compensation from Network Rail that will dwarf any amount passed on to passengers.
It is then up to Network Rail if they think they can get compensation from the party at fault...
Interestingly, in a negligence claim brought against one of Network Rail's contractors, NR managed to claim the cost of payments made from NR to TOCs to cover TOCs' lost revenue / profit:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/644.html
That 2011 decision of the Court of Appeal was out of step with the orthodox law on 'pure economic losses'.* The public interest in allowing the claim seemed to play a part in the court's reasoning.
*And note that pure economic loss can still be such even where it is 'a consequence' of physical damage.