Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here]. Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail News GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
May 20, 2018, 11:15:35 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[72] Windsor Branch line - services, rolling stock and signalling -...
[59] Death knell for the Portishead line ?
[35] Royal Wedding Weekend - What's going to happen?
[35] R U Sure?
[23] Bristol Temple Meads Station redevelopment
[23] Jurassic Mule runs again for 2018
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Consumer Rights Act 2015  (Read 23852 times)
Trowres
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 424


View Profile
« on: September 07, 2016, 11:11:30 pm »

Rail minister to Chair of Transport Committee, 6th September 2016:-

Quote
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

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/550780/consumer-rights-act-2015-application-to-transport-services.pdf

Logged
TaplowGreen
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3502


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2016, 08:05:10 am »

Excellent news.
Logged
trainer
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1011


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2016, 10:18:02 am »

Good item about this on 'You and Yours' (Radio4) yesterday (7th Sept) and available on radio iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07rkhb3#play

Item easily indexed on screen, but only available for a limited time, I assume.
Logged
Tim
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2721


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2016, 10:56:37 am »

what does this mean in practice?  Does it give a new avenue to pursue ToCs acting illegally over things like ticket validities?
Logged
richwarwicker
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3009

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2016, 11:07:37 am »

My understanding of the consumer rights act is that if A service isn't provided or provided as described your entitled to a refund.

To Open a can of worms, I buy a ticket specifically for the 1000 a to b with an itinerary, it's cancelled but there's another one at 1010, the one I bought for wasn't provided.

Or it's described to arrive at 1040, but arrived at 1050 it's not as described.

Now neither of those are reasonable to the railway side, but reading the consumer rights act to the word would both entitle me to a refund.
Logged
trainer
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1011


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2016, 06:52:54 pm »

I urge you to listen to the spokesman for the Rail Delivery Group (in the link I posted above) to get an idea of their take on it and likely defence if someone takes them to court because their train is a few minutes late. The key words are 'reasonable care and skill'. One would have to show that this was absent to cause the lateness in order to win the case. The RDG believe that their recent changes to delay compensation schemes will meet the law and hope that it will not need to be tested in court.
Logged
ellendune
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2835


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2016, 08:54:47 pm »

Yes lack of "reasonable care and skill" would not, in my (non legal) opinion, cover the delays outside the railway's control (e.g. person under train).  I am not clear whether it would cover Network Rail's lack of "reasonable care and skill" as the contract is with the TOC. If a TOC's trains are always breaking down, or booked connection is frequently not made, then I think the Act might apply. 

I am not sure it is as clear as some people seem to think. 
Logged
richwarwicker
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3009

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2016, 09:07:49 pm »

One of the less respected newspapers apparently is suggesting a refund is proportionate to the delay and ticket price.
The example was if you were 3 mins late on a 3 hour journey you'd be entitled to 3/180s of your ticket price.

I've read this on another forum so 3rd hand info! Apparently the paper does say it has to be the TOCs fault though.

Sounds open to fraud on a flexible ticket, isn't hard to find the biggest delay between A and B each day.

Logged
paul7755
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4409


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2016, 10:25:29 pm »

AIUI the 'delay repay' schemes introduced over the last few years must go further than the law requires, because they don't differentiate between delays under the railway's control and third party acts.   I worry that if people insist on claiming for every minor delay then there'll be an attempt by the TOCs to go back to accepting railway fault only.

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.

I also think there's much waffle and guesswork in the media.  The Standard for one seems to think that only now will delays to connections be included, but in reality they already are, claims are invariably paid on the whole journey, not individual legs.

Paul
Logged
richwarwicker
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3009

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2016, 10:29:35 pm »


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.


Agree, I also only would claim under any circumstance if I had a consequential loss, whilst they don't compensate for consequential loss, I've still had that travel so I would put the refunded ticket towards the consequential loss. If I was just late getting shopping, I would not bother. If I missed a sports match i had paid for a ticket I would claim delay repay.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 20290



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2017, 07:29:20 am »

From The Mirror

Quote
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.
Logged

TransWilts Rail - Linking North to West and South 9 times a day. [see here]
ChrisB
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9430


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2017, 02:31:56 pm »

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
Logged
richwarwicker
TransWilts Member
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3009

richardwarwicker@hotmail.co.uk
View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2017, 03:30:48 pm »

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

The law overrules individual companies T&Cs. I believe they have a line in their T&Cs stating this.
Logged
didcotdean
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 838


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2017, 03:53:29 pm »

Which? has taken an extreme interpretation of the Act that will ultimately need a legal test case in my untrained opinion.

The Act extends the non-exhaustive, indicative and illustrative ‘grey list’ of terms that may be regarded as unfair. Guidance from the Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) says that it considers terms which exclude liability for consequential loss as potentially unfair because they have the potential, in certain circumstances, to prevent a consumer from seeking redress when it should be available. However, this is because the term 'consequential loss' is not clearly understood by the general public, not that it may be unreasonable to exclude loss that is too remote from the contract. The guidance also states:

Quote
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) 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.

Which? also consider the following circumstances are due compensation under the 'reasonable care and skill' definition:
Quote
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
Logged
PhilWakely
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 812


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2017, 04:21:08 pm »


Quote
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) 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.

Let's take a couple of extreme examples.........
1) A family purchases a 'Gatwick Flyaway' ticket. An incident happens resulting in a serious delay and the family miss their flight;
2) A person purchases a ticket to an Irish destination which includes a reservation on the ferry. An incident happens resulting in a serious delay and said person misses the ferry.

In both cases, the nature of the ticket indicates onward travel beyond the railway portion. Surely there would be a case for compensation for consequential loss?
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants