Train not stopping at advertised station; can I Get a refund?

EdGasket

The only point of taking it to a small claim would be to get a judgement that they are in breach of contract by not stopping at the advertised stops; I would like to see them forced to desist from missing out stops as it is so inconvenient.

wealdroam

EdGasket wrote: »

The only point of taking it to a small claim would be to get a judgement that they are in breach of contract by not stopping at the advertised stops; I would like to see them forced to desist from missing out stops as it is so inconvenient.

Yes, I'm sure it is inconvenient for those wishing to alight at the missed stops, but surely you understand that the reason for doing so is get the service back to normal as soon as possible.

As another poster said, "there will always be winners and losers!"

cookie365

EdGasket wrote: »

Well under section 7 it says:

"Train Company’s responsibilities
The Train Company whose trains you have the right to use, or who has agreed to provide you with any other goods or services, is responsible for providing the goods or services it has agreed to provide."

They agreed to take me from A to B on said service. Then once on said service they decided not to stop at station B. So I would say they have not provided the 'services it has agreed to provide.'

Would that be a correct interpretation?

No, because of Condition 42(c).

Kite2010

I'm assuming the OP was travelling to either Fleet or Farnborough on a semi-fast from Poole (departs XX:43), which was late enough for the XX:54 stopper to go in front, meaning the OP would have to catch the XX:24 stopper (assuming it's off-peak), meaning a max delay of 45 minutes (going off-peak, most likely less delay going in the peak where there are more stopping services between Basingstoke & Woking.

jun_man

Seems like you are not alone.... the front page of the Standard today carried a story on this issue, seems like it's been happening a lot:

"Rail chiefs were today accused of stranding commuters by “skipping” stations more often to avoid trains being late.

MPs today highlighted the growing fury of commuters waiting on platforms who see their train go past rather than stopping as scheduled.

Some passengers have been unable to get off their train after failing to hear announcements that it is no longer stopping at their station.

Official figures reveal a huge rise in the number of part-cancellations, which includes “skipping” trains, in the past two years.

On Southeastern services, they jumped from 1,651 in the second quarter of 2013/14 to 2,804 in the same period for 2015/16, according to the Office of Rail Regulation.

At Govia Thameslink Railway — which includes Southern, Great Northern and Thameslink — they spiral- led from 4,148 to 6,732.

Conservative MP Chris Philp, of Croydon South, said: “Commuters on the Brighton main line are furious that stations are frequently missed out and they are left standing on the platform watching their train shoot past, often without notification.”

For Stagecoach South Western Trains, which includes South West Trains, part-cancellations increased from 1,638 to 2,248 for the second quarter of 2015/16, though this was slightly lower than the same period in 2014/15 when the figure was 2,284.

Kingston and Surbiton Tory MP James Berry said: “Passengers who pay high fares —often only for the chance to stand on a packed train — rightly expect the trains will be punctual.

“However, the train operating companies’ solution can’t simply be skipping stations to make up for delays.”

Govia said “skipping stations” lets delayed trains “catch up” and recover their slot in the timetable. “It’s never a decision taken lightly and only done at times of disruption so that fewer passengers are delayed overall,” it added.

“Any train that skips a station counts as an immediate punctuality failure so we have nothing to gain from this practice. The overriding concern is to recover the published timetable as quickly as possible.”

Southeastern and Network Rail emphasised that during periods of disruption it was “sometimes necessary” to run trains fast to their destinations to avoid delaying other trains and even larger numbers of people.

South West Trains emphasised that its services run to its published timetable unless there are “specific extenuating circumstances”.

But it added: “However, during periods of disruption, we may have to change stopping points ... to reduce the impact of problems and ensure as few passengers as possible are inconvenienced.”

The Department for Transport said: “When a train service is running significantly late, operators can decide not to call at stations in exceptional circumstances in order to prevent major knock-on delays on the rail network, but we are absolutely clear that this should only be done when there is no other solution.”

But the article suggests that you don't have a right to a claim either. Perhaps this publicity will help get a change on policy?

cookie365

At least Southern do delay repay, so you can get some money back if it causes you delay of half an hour or more, unlike SWT's hour minimum.

yorkie2

For the semi-fast train the OP catches, if it skips the relevant stations, it will get a clear run on the fast line, and be on time (or, at least, much less delayed) for the passengers already on it going to London, and for the rest of the day's diagram.

If it doesn't skip the stations, then it's going to have to use the slow line. However as it's missed it's path, it will be stuck behind the all-stoppers for much of the journey, thus incurring further delay.

Therefore, the decision needs to take into account the overall impact to a wide range of people, not just those going to certain stations.

EdGasket

cookie365 wrote: »

No, because of Condition 42(c).

42c:

"This Condition 42 sets out the entire liability of the relevant Train Companies in relation to delays, cancellations and poor service. Except as shown in this Condition 42, the Train Companies do not accept liability for any loss (including consequential loss) caused by the delay and/or cancellation of any train. However, they will consider additional claims in exceptional circumstances."

That doesn't mean that they haven't broken their contract. I think they are talking about other losses than the cost of the ticket here; otherwise 42c would negate any need to ever refund anyone as it includes delays and they already agree to make a refund if you are over an hour delayed.

EdGasket

Ref. "South West Trains emphasised that its services run to its published timetable unless there are “specific extenuating circumstances”."

Well I wouldn't call running 15 minutes late "extenuating circumstances". Bunch of liars. Another one to quote back at them except they have not bothered to respond to my initial complaint yet.

wealdroam

EdGasket wrote: »

Ref. "South West Trains emphasised that its services run to its published timetable unless there are “specific extenuating circumstances”."

Well I wouldn't call running 15 minutes late "extenuating circumstances". Bunch of liars. Another one to quote back at them except they have not bothered to respond to my initial complaint yet.

I would suggest to you that there may well have been “extenuating circumstances” that caused your train to be running fifteen minutes late.

As you appear to have no idea what caused the train to be late, I'm not sure you have any reason to call anyone liars.