Train delay means I miss appointment - can I claim refund???

[whole diary]

[amiddl]

I traveled from Theale (to avoid the rail relief bus service) to Burgess Hill via Reading/Clapham Junction today for an appointment at 14.00hrs.  Unfortunately, someone was hit by a train (not sure whether suicide or accident) and the train I was traveling on between Clapham Junction and Burgess Hill sat in East Croydon for nearly two hours before being canceled and all the passengers being crammed into a very full Brighton service.

Net result - rather than arrive at 13.00 with an hour to spare I arrived over an hour late and missed the appointment and had to turn round and come straight back. Having spent five hours traveling there I then spent a further three hours coming back and need to travel back in the future for a new appointment with the purchase of a new ticket.

I feel somewhat bad asking this bearing in mind the nature of the delay but should I request a refund   Against this I got there (eventually) however I need to buy another ticket and travel again because I could not get there in time due to the delay.

What do people think and where do i stand???

[Super Guard]

Firstly, sorry to hear about the incident and the knock-on effect you experienced with missing your meeting.

I believe this falls into "factors outside the control of the Railway" and therefore I do not believe you are entitled to a refund.  At the end of the day it is FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s responsibility to get you to your destination (which they did).

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

If you had driven and missed the meeting due to a hold-up from an accident, you would not be able to claim petrol expenses of having to drive twice would you?

[amiddl]

Put that way - one can't argue. Yes if I had driven I wouldn't have claimed petrol back if there had been an accident.

It does show how (again presuming that it was suicide) apart from the very unpleasant impact on train crews and staff, the knock effect can affect many in many different ways.

[Mookiemoo]

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

That is why I think the railways should have first call on the estate of anyone killed on the railway by suicide or trespass.

1. They get compensation

2. Since most survived suicides say they were only thinking of their family then it may make them think twice if they know their loved ones would be left on the breadline (remember its the suicidee that is at fault here not the train company)

[Electric train]

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

That is why I think the railways should have first call on the estate of anyone killed on the railway by suicide or trespass.

1. They get compensation

2. Since most survived suicides say they were only thinking of their family then it may make them think twice if they know their loved ones would be left on the breadline (remember its the suicidee that is at fault here not the train company)

Very callous view, the family have lost a loved one perhaps the bread winner and then they a penalised for an action they had not control of and I suspect if the railways had such powers I doubt they would ever exercise them

[Mookiemoo]

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

That is why I think the railways should have first call on the estate of anyone killed on the railway by suicide or trespass.

1. They get compensation

2. Since most survived suicides say they were only thinking of their family then it may make them think twice if they know their loved ones would be left on the breadline (remember its the suicidee that is at fault here not the train company)

Very callous view, the family have lost a loved one perhaps the bread winner and then they a penalised for an action they had not control of and I suspect if the railways had such powers I doubt they would ever exercise them

Possibly callus but realistic.  Suicide is the cowards way out and it may make them think twice or at least choose a means that does not inconvenience thousands of others in the process.

But then I do think people who cause road accident should be sued by the hospitals for their treatment, people caught up in the tail back for their inconvenience.  They may learn to be responsible

[super tm]

Yes you can.

If the train that was delayed was a southern service they now operate delay repay which gives some refund for any journey delayed for any reason :-

http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/delay-repay/

This is a scheme which will come into effect for all franchises as they are renewed.

I will stick my neck out and say I dont agree with giving a refund in the case of a suicide.  I mean how can the railway do anything about that.  Also as the railways are subsidised then effectively it is taxpayers who are paying for the refund.  People dont get a refund from the government when there has been a road accident and they are delayed so I dont see why the government should give out money when there is a suicide on the railway.  People may not agree but that is my point of view.

[matt473]

Not wishing to start an argument on what can be a distressing subject, but even if the estate were to pas to the railways then paasengers would not see any of it. The driver affected would need to be consolled and lost wages accounted for to due the event, then you have the trauma of people who have to clean the track and the train, and finally you have the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) who have a train that they need to repair.

In my personal opinion, apart from those directly affected by the accident, no third party should have any claim to the estate which means sadly passangers lose out, but want do you really expect railway companies to do?

[Chris from Nailsea]

Possibly callus but realistic.  Suicide is the cowards way out and it may make them think twice or at least choose a means that does not inconvenience thousands of others in the process.

But then I do think people who cause road accident should be sued by the hospitals for their treatment, people caught up in the tail back for their inconvenience.  They may learn to be responsible

My personal view, not an admin intervention:

To follow that line of reasoning: Anyone who may have been delayed on a motorway because someone chose to end their life by deliberately driving into a concrete bridge support should have a financial claim on the deceased's estate?

[Mookiemoo]

To follow that line of reasoning: Anyone who may have been delayed on a motorway because someone chose to end their life by deliberately driving into a concrete bridge support should have a financial claim on the deceased's estate?

yes - there are many ways to kill yourself that do not involve inconveniencing thousands.

It won't stop them but they may think twice about their means of doing so

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm.  The closing of the motorway while the emergency services scrape body parts off the concrete doesn't involve any inconvenience to anyone?  I'm not convinced - I'd sue their estate, in such a case.

[Mookiemoo]

Hmm.  The closing of the motorway while the emergency services scrape body parts off the concrete doesn't involve any inconvenience to anyone?  I'm not convinced - I'd sue their estate, in such a case.

You misunderstood I THINK

WHOEVER caused the incident should be liable for their estate or insurance to be sued. Mainly in the cases of suicide or DUI IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) but that suits my politics.

If you deliberately cause a problem - your estate THEN insurance should pay

It gets very grey into non causative accidents and then  I'll plead two faced argument as unless there is intent (and suicide and DUI both show intent) I cant make a case for it

[Chris from Nailsea]

Why should an insurer pay out if an individual has made a conscious decision to drive into a concrete bridge support on a motorway as a means of ending their own life?

That completely negates your argument that an individual would think twice before doing so if they thought their dependants would suffer financially from their action.

[JayMac]

I broadly share FA's sentiments.

A call on the estate of a a suicide, or a financial penalty on a failed suicide may act as a deterrent to someone wishing to end their life.

However, part of the problem is that suicides who go for the spectactular are often sitcking up a final two fingers to the world. They have little care for the consequences of their action and putting a punitive punishment of their immediately family by sequestering the estate would be a double punishment for the relatives of someone who goes to thier grave in bits.

What we are almost ultimately dealing with here is people who are suffering mental health problems. And this is a very difficult group to legislate against. Just look at the statistics for people suffering at least one mental health problem in their lifetime. Mental health problems are no respecter of class or status. High-flyer, middle class family man with 2.4 children, single mum - all can reach that breaking point, when they feel that the world would be better without them.

I'm kinda shooting down my own arguement here. Essentially what I'm saying is the I agree with FA's point, but I see little headway in making it a law.

[chrisoates]

I understand you are inconvenienced having to pay out twice, but the flip side also is, why should FGW^▸ (First Great Western) lose revenue because someone (assuming it was suicide) decided to get hit by a train?

That is why I think the railways should have first call on the estate of anyone killed on the railway by suicide or trespass.

1. They get compensation

2. Since most survived suicides say they were only thinking of their family then it may make them think twice if they know their loved ones would be left on the breadline (remember its the suicidee that is at fault here not the train company)

Very callous view, the family have lost a loved one perhaps the bread winner and then they a penalised for an action they had not control of and I suspect if the railways had such powers I doubt they would ever exercise them

Possibly callus but realistic.  Suicide is the cowards way out and it may make them think twice or at least choose a means that does not inconvenience thousands of others in the process.

But then I do think people who cause road accident should be sued by the hospitals for their treatment, people caught up in the tail back for their inconvenience.  They may learn to be responsible

Already happens - traffic accident treatment can be chargeable
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_world/travel/traffic_accidents.htm#payment_for_hospital_treatment