RAIL fares expert Barry Doe says the May timetable will never operate in full.
AT last there has been a resolution of the Mobberley to St Ives case I detailed in The Fare Dealer for RAIL 904 and 908 - but it’s taken more than half a year of indecision, and a lot of principles remain to be thrashed out for the future.
As a reminder, a reader travelled with his wife from Mobberley to St Ives, having bought £40 Advance tickets from Raileasy in early September for travel via London on November 16.
It involved arriving at Euston at 1120, then using the Tube to Paddington for the 1203 to St Erth. Their tickets made clear that “if cancelled or delayed trains cause you to miss a connection, the National Rail Conditions of Travel entitles you to catch the next available train to your destination”.
Furthermore, it added: “If a train has been retimed or cancelled at some point after you booked it … your tickets will also be valid on the next train.”
On the day, our reader found the Tube from Euston Square to Paddington closed owing to engineering work. Despite using a taxi, they arrived at Paddington at 1207 and the clerk insisted it was their fault for missing their 1203 train, making them buy new tickets for the 1303 for £90.
On his return he complained to Great Western Railway (GWR) Customer Services, who refused a refund on the grounds that the Underground closure was for scheduled engineering works which they should have been aware of before the date of travel.
In fact, nobody knew that in early September, so how was our reader meant to know about these works?
It’s from here onwards that the whole web of buck-passing and excuses began. Firstly, he went to the Rail Ombudsman, which was a great mistake as the adjudication sided with GWR… but then told him to obtain a refund from Raileasy!
The whole concept of a Rail Ombudsman was never needed. Its creation was a political move to make it seem as if the Government was doing something. Transport Focus (TF) had been doing the job effectively for years - and still does. All that was needed was legislation to ensure that its decisions were binding.
Raileasy said GWR should have carried our reader on the 1303 without charge and that GWR should refund. So, on my advice, our reader then went to TF.
TF was clear that if the Underground is used as a connection between two National Rail services on a through-booked journey, then any delay permits onward travel on the next available service - just as would be the case if a National Rail leg were delayed.
The grey area is what happens if those delays are caused by pre-planned engineering work. In that case, it seems the retailer (in this instance Raileasy) should notify the customer in advance or the customer should check himself if such engineering work exists.
Raileasy told me it was not aware of such work - and in any case, if the customer had booked his ticket at a station, how would anyone then be able to contact him?
That puts the onus on the customer. So, let’s say our reader had checked the day before travel and found the Tube was to be closed. What could he have done? He couldn’t have left earlier with an Advance ticket to allow for it.
Raileasy then discussed this with GWR. A spokesman said he “wasn’t exactly sure where the responsibility lies for informing customers to check their journeys before travel” but that
nevertheless “prior to our interaction at Paddington on the day of travel we had no prior involvement with the customer so don’t feel we were at fault and therefore responsible for the refund”.
TF agreed it’s a grey area and has now said it hopes the National Conditions can be modified to specifically allow onward travel, even if an Underground closure is because of engineering work.
In the meantime, TF itself went to GWR to ask if, because of the doubt, it would refund the £90 as a goodwill gesture - not least as GWR had the original fare and so would not be out-of-pocket by doing so. GWR refused.
TF’s Chief Executive told me he was so frustrated that he intended trying again in a final attempt to get this settled.
In the meantime, I decided to have one more go myself. I contacted GWR’s Head of Customer Relations, asking him if he had really assessed the damage already done in terms of loss of goodwill to GWR, so would he therefore please reconsider for the sake of the reputation of the industry, rather than see GWR appear in this column for a third time in a negative light?
He replied: “I think in the ongoing discussions we’ve had with various people, the customer has been forgotten, so I’m happy to make that good and provide the refund.”
All credit to GWR for climbing down, but this has taken all this year and could have been totally avoided - not least if the original clerk at Paddington had used sensible discretion and offered some ‘John Lewis-style’ customer service.