Great Western Coffee Shop

I am writing to inform you of the Government's decision that the Consumer Rights Act should apply in full to all transport services, including mainline passenger rail services, from 1 October 2016

Personally, I don't think it is morally correct to claim if someone jumps in front of my train, or causes delays to following trains which affects me.

Train companies are acting as if they are “above the law” by failing to properly inform passengers about their rights, consumer group Which? claims.

They are accused of using industry-wide terms and conditions as a “smokescreen” to stop delayed travellers claiming compensation for expenses including missed flights, taxi fares and child-minding fees.

Under the Consumer Rights Act (CRA), which came into force on the railways on October 1 last year, passengers are entitled to claim for consequential losses when a service is not provided with “reasonable care and skill”.

But Which? said the National Rail Conditions of Travel undermine passenger rights by unlawfully limiting liability for train firms.

The consumer group also found that 17 out of 24 operators are not providing enough information on passengers’ rights on their websites.

Many include references to consumers’ legal rights in relation to compensation but fail to make clear this includes rights enshrined in the CRA, it added.

Which? director of campaigns Vickie Sheriff said: “It’s now six months since the Consumer Rights Act came into force in the rail industry but train companies are acting as if they are above the law and this is going unchallenged.

“Passengers have rights and must be aware of what they can claim for when they have a problem with their service.
"Train companies urgently need to address the misleading information they’re providing on their websites and comply fully with the law.”

A spokesman for the Rail Delivery Group, representing train operators, said: “Which? is wrong, train companies are not breaking any laws.

“Train companies’ compensation arrangements already go beyond what is required under consumer law, and customers are getting an even better deal with new improved rights.

“Customers are clearly advised of their rights to money back. All train companies comply with the Consumer Rights Act and display the National Rail Conditions of Travel - which are approved by the Government - on their websites.

“Train companies will always consider reasonable claims for consequential loss where appropriate.”

The latest bi-annual National Rail Passenger Survey by Transport Focus in autumn last year revealed that just 81% of passengers are satisfied with Britain’s railways, a figure which has not been lower since spring 2007.

Consequential Loss? Oh no they (always) won't! Some even say in their Terms that they won't accept consequential loss for delays.

But otherwise, I do think Which? Again has overstated the problem

Fairness is more likely to be achieved, for example, by excluding liability for: 
(a) losses that were not foreseeable to both parties when the contract was formed; 
(b) losses that were not caused by any breach on the part of the trader; and 
(c) business losses, and/or losses to non-consumers

A severely overcrowded train because too few carriages are available
A service that’s delayed for less than the time limit that applies under other compensation schemes
Unavailability of a particular seat, where you’ve paid for a specified seat or a seat in a certain coach or carriage (such as first class)
A consistently late running service if you have bought a season ticket
Failure to provide access to a toilet on longer journeys
Failure to provide food on a train journey if it was part of the described service
The Wi-Fi service you paid for does not work

(a) seems the most relevant as it isn't clear to a transport provider when they sell a ticket that this is part of an interconnecting journey for example and maybe this needs to go in the NRCOT as it moves from legalise to plain English.

But where do you draw the line?

I think that's a very pragmatic commentary grahame.

In respect of travellers making flights they should have insurance, and let the insurers be the judge as to whether the delay and original allowance made for delays in the planning of the journey warranted a successful claim.

The compensation culture is one of the more depressing aspects of today's society in my opinion. At the risk of digression, I notice that the man who lost the Supreme Court case for taking his children to Florida in term time is (very openly) a highly successful businessman who owns a PPI Claims company. So he could certainly well afford to travel outside term time, and I do question his motives for bringing the case in the first instance. "Been unfairly fined for taking your children out of school, we could get you compensation..." 

But where do you draw the line? If A family of 4 is travelling to Australia first class and miss their flight because the train is cancelled and the next hourly one gets them to the airport just too late? So they've lost maybe 25k worth of flights.  Is it reasonable for the railway to compensate them for the full amount because their original train would have arrived 5 mins before the recommended check in time?

I'd personally rather spend an extra 1-2 hours in the airport than risk a missed flight. I need a buffer, I can't deal with the stress of running close to time on something so critical.

Compensation should be in proportion to the cost of the service provided, not the consequential loss.

Post for discussion ...

1. Money for repayments and compensation has to come from somewhere - and that's probably going to be from passengers through higher fares if there's a significant rise in the number / amount of payments.