Unfair Contract Terms
Discussion
Earlier this year the rail companies issued new National Rail Conditions of Travel these state
"You are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of
fault. Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination
station, as compared to the arrival time stated in the Published Timetable of the Day."
The published timetable of the day can be published as late as 10pm the day before travel.
On the days after strike action by the RMT there is a late start up of service with the result that my first train to London gets in after 11am which isn't great for going to work.
I have an annual season ticket and the response is no compensation as the first train gets in as per the Published Timetable of the Day.
Is this an unfair contract term? After all the National Rail website states
"Because of the flexibility they offer, Season Tickets are mostly bought and used by commuters traveling to and from their place of work"
In theory under the National Conditions a rail company could withdraw all peak services. So is it an unfair contract term that they can just withdraw peak hour services on less than 24 hours notice without paying any compensation?
Is the only option a Small Claims court application?
"You are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of
fault. Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination
station, as compared to the arrival time stated in the Published Timetable of the Day."
The published timetable of the day can be published as late as 10pm the day before travel.
On the days after strike action by the RMT there is a late start up of service with the result that my first train to London gets in after 11am which isn't great for going to work.
I have an annual season ticket and the response is no compensation as the first train gets in as per the Published Timetable of the Day.
Is this an unfair contract term? After all the National Rail website states
"Because of the flexibility they offer, Season Tickets are mostly bought and used by commuters traveling to and from their place of work"
In theory under the National Conditions a rail company could withdraw all peak services. So is it an unfair contract term that they can just withdraw peak hour services on less than 24 hours notice without paying any compensation?
Is the only option a Small Claims court application?
I don't think it's an unfair contract term on the basis that is sets out specific compensation and is not claiming to be the only remedy for you not receiving the service that has been paid for, You could claim money back from them for the service not provided and then take it to court if they refuse.
The amount of money involved is very small, well depending how long the strikes go on for. However its more a matter of principle. On our line its no trains after strikes, on another line its delays of over an hour caused by emergency engineering works it wont be long before this spreads around the network.
The cost to me is very small and you never know I might win!
The cost to me is very small and you never know I might win!
Chrisgr31 said:
The amount of money involved is very small, well depending how long the strikes go on for. However its more a matter of principle. On our line its no trains after strikes, on another line its delays of over an hour caused by emergency engineering works it wont be long before this spreads around the network.
The cost to me is very small and you never know I might win!
Going to court on a 'matter of principle' is generally regarded as not sensible. It could cost you more than you think since they can choose the location of the court, unless it is held online. If you lose then you also pay their reasonable costs such as travel.The cost to me is very small and you never know I might win!
to think a contract you signed up to is unfair is probably not a good starting point.
If you bought your season ticket before the change in contract terms, then you could maybe have a case that you should be able to cancel it and get your proportionate money for the remaining term back. Then you can take the car or bus in the future (or buy your ticket on short notice on the day, therefore not being impacted by strikes / have a choice to use the service on those days or find an alternative solution).
If you bought your season ticket before the change in contract terms, then you could maybe have a case that you should be able to cancel it and get your proportionate money for the remaining term back. Then you can take the car or bus in the future (or buy your ticket on short notice on the day, therefore not being impacted by strikes / have a choice to use the service on those days or find an alternative solution).
I can see how it's bloody annoying but I would have thought that going to court and arguing against the National Rail Conditions of Travel based not on an actual loss you've suffered, but rather on something that they could do in theory, will be a complete waste of time, effort and money.
IJWS15 said:
Small claims . . . . what is your loss, did your employer refuse to pay you for the morning?
When was the timetable actually published and did it allow time for you to advise your employer you would be late or make alternative arrangements?
The loss is the cost of the ticket that I have been unable to use. After all there is not much point in having a season ticket if they dont actually run any services!When was the timetable actually published and did it allow time for you to advise your employer you would be late or make alternative arrangements?
OP, you opened this thread asking “is this an unfair contract term?”.
Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
BlackWidow13 said:
OP, you opened this thread asking “is this an unfair contract term?”.
Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
I don't think that's what the op is suggesting. He is suggesting going to court to get his loss back as the train company didn't provide the service he paid for.Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
BertBert said:
BlackWidow13 said:
OP, you opened this thread asking “is this an unfair contract term?”.
Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
I don't think that's what the op is suggesting. He is suggesting going to court to get his loss back as the train company didn't provide the service he paid for.Without getting an answer, and without offering any legal view of your own on that question, you’re now talking about launching a small claims court claim. Acting for yourself, because of “principle”.
Sure this is a wise course? When you get to court and say “this term is unfair (I think?)” and the J says “err, why, as a matter of law?”, what’s your next move?
May be worth a bit of thinking and research before you fire off a claim.
Yes its not quite as simple as going to court saying this is unfair so I must win as I say it is unfair.
The National Conditions of Rail Travel are not clear on what happens in respect of compensation for no service at all. The clause the rail company is relying on is
"You are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of
fault. Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination
station, as compared to the arrival time stated in the Published Timetable of the Day."
The irony being they are paying out for actual strike days when there is no service, although they claim there is no need to.
What has happened is I complained to the rail company and they advised they were not paying compensation because they had been told not to by the Department of Transport and Rail Delivery Group. If I didnt like it I could complain to the Rail Ombudsman. I complained to the Rail Ombudsman. The rail company told the Ombudsman that it was refused due to National Rail Conditions of Travel. The Ombudsman said if that was the case then case dismissed. I would have to get the answer elsewhere.
I have complained to the Rail Ombudsman because I dont think it is as simple as the Conditions of Travel say. For a start the Conditions of Travel have changed since I bought my ticket but not only that but the Train Companies Passenger Charter says:-
"If we issue a ‘do not travel’ warning and you follow our advice and do not travel, you can apply for a full
refund from the point of purchase if you have a single or return ticket. If you have a season ticket and are
unable to travel, please contact our Customer Relations team who will process compensation covering the
cost of the journey."
On the days on question the rail company was saying "Only travel if necessary"
So if only travel if necessary saying do not travel if not necessary?
Whether the terms are unfair is merely a supplementary question to other issues, none of which have been answered as the train compoanies initial response was no as DfT and RDG say so ,and now NRCOT say no.
The National Conditions of Rail Travel are not clear on what happens in respect of compensation for no service at all. The clause the rail company is relying on is
"You are entitled to compensation if the delay was 60 minutes or longer, regardless of
fault. Compensation is based on the delay in your arrival time at the destination
station, as compared to the arrival time stated in the Published Timetable of the Day."
The irony being they are paying out for actual strike days when there is no service, although they claim there is no need to.
What has happened is I complained to the rail company and they advised they were not paying compensation because they had been told not to by the Department of Transport and Rail Delivery Group. If I didnt like it I could complain to the Rail Ombudsman. I complained to the Rail Ombudsman. The rail company told the Ombudsman that it was refused due to National Rail Conditions of Travel. The Ombudsman said if that was the case then case dismissed. I would have to get the answer elsewhere.
I have complained to the Rail Ombudsman because I dont think it is as simple as the Conditions of Travel say. For a start the Conditions of Travel have changed since I bought my ticket but not only that but the Train Companies Passenger Charter says:-
"If we issue a ‘do not travel’ warning and you follow our advice and do not travel, you can apply for a full
refund from the point of purchase if you have a single or return ticket. If you have a season ticket and are
unable to travel, please contact our Customer Relations team who will process compensation covering the
cost of the journey."
On the days on question the rail company was saying "Only travel if necessary"
So if only travel if necessary saying do not travel if not necessary?
Whether the terms are unfair is merely a supplementary question to other issues, none of which have been answered as the train compoanies initial response was no as DfT and RDG say so ,and now NRCOT say no.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff