Consumer Rights Act 2015

[whole diary]

[Trowres]

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

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

[TaplowGreen]

Excellent news.

[trainer]

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.

[Tim]

what does this mean in practice?  Does it give a new avenue to pursue ToCs acting illegally over things like ticket validities?

[LiskeardRich]

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.

[trainer]

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^‡(resolve) 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.

[ellendune]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company). 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. 

[LiskeardRich]

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^▸ (Train Operating Company) fault though.

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

[paul7575]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it) 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^▸ (Train Operating Company) 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

[LiskeardRich]

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.

[grahame]

From The Mirror

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.

[ChrisB]

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

[LiskeardRich]

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.

[didcotdean]

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:

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^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Travel) as it moves from legalise to plain English.

Which? also consider the following circumstances are due compensation under the 'reasonable care and skill' definition:

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

[PhilWakely]

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^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Travel) 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?