Consequential Losses - FGW compensate passenger for missed coach connection

[whole diary]

[LiskeardRich]

The second branch refers to indirect losses, such as consequential loss. These arise from the special circumstances of each individual case, and are only recoverable if it can be said that the party in breach of contract knew of those special circumstances for the other party at the time the contract was entered into

So if the passenegr has a discussion at point of sale with the fgw ticket office staff that they are buying the ticket to catch a flight at xx:xx, fgw would know at the time the contract is entered.

Last time I took the train to Gatwick, when I went to buy my train tickets, I advised to the ticket office that I need to be at Gatwick for check in at xx:xx and I want to be there x hours before. The ticket office staff then recommended and reserved me seats on the most suitable service for my criteria. The company therefore knew my circumstances at time I entered the contract for that ticket.

[didcotdean]

Consequential or indirect loss has its main legal precedent dating back almost as far as the railway - 1854 to be precise (Hadley v Baxendale for those who want to look it up). Consequential damages are linked to knowledge and foreseeability at the time of contracting.

For example, if you bought an assembled table and one of the legs fell off you are entitled to a refund or a replacement table. If it happened to have your prized Ming vase on it at the time you can't claim for this as the seller of the table couldn't forsee that you would have put something so valuable on it. If however it had been sold as a Ming vase stand it might be a direct loss.

The law has crept on this in resent years in favour of the contractee and some matters what used to be considered indirect have crossed the line. However, there is still a test under English law as to whether both parties could be reasonably aware of the risk of the possible loss at the time of the contract.

Tickets are sold under a standard contract and I doubt a clerk can vary the terms. It is a case where the buyer needs insurance to be sure of recovering loss.

Disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer, and look terrible in a wig.

[JayMac]

Tickets are sold under a standard contract and I doubt a clerk can vary the terms.

And that is the perfect response to richwarwicker's scenario.

The ticket is sold subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Those set out the minimum compensation arrangements and state that consequential loss is not covered. Nothing you advise the ticket seller of can change that contract. If it were to be the case that you could advise the seller of your journey reasons to cover you for consequential loss just how would you do so with an online purchase or one from a TVM^▸ (Ticket Vending Machine)?

[ChrisB]

If you don't like the terms in the NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage), you have the choice of not entering into the contract. I.e. not buying a ticket.

[John R]

If that were the case, the whole concept of unfair contract legislation would not need to exist.   

Though I'm not for one moment suggesting that the current NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) are unfair, far from it, particularly with regard to consequential loss.

But as a principle, firms cannot have consumer contracts that give them unreasonable/one sided rights and use the argument that if the customer doesn't like them then they shouldn't enter into them.

[TaplowGreen]

Notwithstanding FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s reliance on a blanket approach to not paying out in respect of consequential loss for which it is responsible, each time I have put in a reasonable and genuine claim for expenses incurred as a result (ie taxi fares) with a polite letter they have paid up without question.........whilst this may be on a "goodwill" basis I always recommend to others to do the same and largely it seems to produce the desired result - if people take the time to write in, they generally get something in return it would seem, and would point to an acknowledgement of fair play, if not contractual obligation.

[thetrout]

Some interesting comments here. I was going to update on my opinion based on situations where I have successfully  challenged consequential loses with FGW^▸ (First Great Western) and GreaterAnglia.

In the case of GreaterAnglia. I successfully recovered a ^50 Taxi Fare in cash after a serious misunderstanding with their Rail Replacement Bus Services. I boarded a Bus marked "Shenfield" ... I hold GreaterAnglia fully responsible for the fact I ended up in London Liverpool Street having just been sent to Newbury Park from that very same station! Believe it or not, this has happened to me twice. First time it was prevented by a local who knew the driver was going the wrong way. The second time it only became apparent the driver was going the wrong way until we were on the outskirts of London. The driver was foreign and pulled over to show us his sheet that he was a London service. When questioned as to why the bus said Shenfield on the front the driver just shrugged and said "That's not my fault or my problem" ... Generally speaking if the bus says Shenfield you expect it to go there. Which it did over an exceptionally cavorted route. When we got back to Newbury Park a few passengers then asked the driver to wait for 10 minutes for toilet breaks. At the thought of the driver losing 20 very angry passengers - he drove off.

That being the last rail replacement service. I was very much stranded. Fortunately a cabbie I know personally offered to take me Stansted as she had to do a pickup there anyway. I caught the X30 from there to Southend-on-Sea.

GreaterAnglia refunded my taxi fare in cash as they agreed that the consequential loss was forced by their agents actions and therefore remained liable. They also provided additional rail travel vouchers as a GoGW. So I was entirely happy with their outcome.


I think with the consequential losses that FGW should and could be held accountable to missed connections for domestic travel such as buses, other trains etc within reason. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that they should be liable for ^10 Million contract signings being delayed or aborted. If the contract was worth that much then the person in question I would very likely thought would have the means to arrange a Taxi and would better plan his day. But without knowing the full circumstances there it's difficult to pass any judgement. I agree that the railway should not be liable to such cases.

However I think there is merit in missing the last bus, train etc if the delay is within the control of the railway.


Although this is Aviation Related. I had a terrible Ryanair experience a few years ago when I took a flight to Bournemouth. Due to reasons unknown to anyone at the time, we landed in Glasgow. Ryanair provided the most horrible tin can coaches and informed everyone they must board the coach. Upon inspection of the coaches I discovered there were no toilets onboard so asked about the comfort stop arrangements. There was to be a break of 30 minutes 4 hours into the journey and the possibility of a second 30 minute break on the M25 area. I refused this and said I would make my own way to Bournemouth at my own expense.

I was told that as I had paid to get to Bournemouth. I must travel to Bournemouth and ended short at Glasgow was not acceptable.

A rather nasty but comical argument broke out between myself and this member of staff around 80 minutes later. A crash course was given to her on what Asperger Syndrome is and how to correctly define your variables to achieve desired task results.

"Get on a Coach" defines the coach as a variable object and not specific to any vehicle. I took this to mean the possibility of the National Express Coach sitting in the stop nearby. This is what she said so I was going with that albeit trying to be smart by being my "normal"

"Get on any of these 3 Coaches" would define any of the following 3 vehicles that I must board. This does however not give the completion instruction so could still get off coach even if it was yet to move.

The argument ended on a stalemate call of Godwins Law...

Anyhow I contacted the coach company in question and asked them the time the coaches arrived in Bournemouth which they supplied without suspicion or objection. This took the delay well into compensation arrangements of maximum tier for EU^» (European Union - about) flights. The coach took 15 hours start - finish.

I then wrote to Ryanair to seek compensation from a considerably lower tier and using the case of accepting the change of contract with arrival at Glasgow instead of Bournemouth for reasoning. I followed up the complaint about their agent in Glasgow in a separate correspondence.

Remarkably they objected my claim and that there was no way I could know the time the coach arrived at Bournemouth without being there or on it. I just forwarded the email from the coach company to them. Ryanair dropped their trousers at this point and paid out more than I was asking. They also offered to cover my rail fare as a GoGW. As I don't like take advantage, I photographed the ticket and told them they should only pay a certain amount of it based on me travelling First Class. I included the Standard Class fare for them in the email. They paid the First Class fare in full which was surprising as I wasn't expecting anything back at all for that. But a win win all round

[ChrisB]

The two examples you give are very much in the control of the operators' direct agents, and thus yes, both claimable - one could almost declare that these aren't what are described by TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) as consequential losses.

[Timmer]

re: Ryanair flight ending in Glasgow. I would have done exactly the same as you and made my own arrangements and taken the train to complete my journey. There would have been quite an angry and loud confrontation with any member of staff telling me I had to get on a coach for a 15 hour journey, my idea of travelling hell. My understanding is that they can't make you use their alternative if you don't want to but don't expect compensation?

[Super Guard]

re: Ryanair flight ending in Glasgow. I would have done exactly the same as you and made my own arrangements and taken the train to complete my journey. There would have been quite an angry and loud confrontation with any member of staff telling me I had to get on a coach for a 15 hour journey, my idea of travelling hell. My understanding is that they can't make you use their alternative if you don't want to but don't expect compensation?

Correct, I think it's a "we will get you from A to B".  The fact you don't like the alternative isn't their issue.  Of course, in this case you know that their alternative delays your arrival past compensation limits is fairly obvious in this case, but even then EU^» (European Union - about) compensation would be expected, I wouldn't then expect a refund for my choice of alternative, as they did offer a mode of transport - although as others state I wouldn't have taken it!