Customer Service & Disruption

The Issue

The Consumer, who was visually impaired, complained that whilst travelling one of the legs of their journey was cancelled. As a result of the cancellation, the Consumer boarded a replacement bus service. However, in doing so, the Consumer missed their connecting train.

The Consumer reported that a member of staff at one of the stations advised the Consumer that they could be taken via a taxi to their final destination. The Consumer proceeded; however, halfway through their journey, the driver turned back due to road conditions bought on by the weather.

The Consumer was then informed that they would be provided with hotel accommodation for the night, but later, this was refuted and instead an alternative taxi route was proposed. The Consumer refused the alternative taxi route, as they were already conscious of the weather conditions. The Consumer asserted that they were told their only option would be to wait at the station.

The Response

The Rail Service Provider (RSP) investigated the complaint and explained that the weather conditions affected the route taken by the taxi and the alternative route, which would have involved driving on small country roads. As a result, the driver had to return to the station. The RSP added that the Consumer was travelling late at night, and the delays resulted in the Consumer being returned to the station in the early hours of the morning. The RSP stated that £300.00 was offered in compensation to the Consumer. The Consumer rejected this, stating they felt vulnerable, particularly as they were not provided with appropriate guidance on what would be happening.

What the Ombudsman Did

The Rail Ombudsman considered that the RSP attempted to provide alternative means of travel to the Consumer’s destination. Given that taxis were still operating, despite national weather warnings about snow, ice and flooding, they noted that it was reasonable for the RSP to determine that the Consumer could have reached their destination by road.

However, the taxi driver deemed that the driving conditions did not allow them to complete their journey and returned the Consumer to the station. At this point, the Rail Ombudsman considered that the appropriate option would have been to organise accommodation for the Consumer, especially given the weather conditions. However, this was not offered.

After returning to the station, the Consumer waited for the next service in the waiting room. The Consumer noted that there was heating, but it only kicked-in when the room dropped to a given temperature. Furthermore, they stated that they were only offered bottled water. The Ombudsman acknowledged the Consumer’s vulnerability, especially given the fact that the Consumer was waiting in the station from 04:00, and felt unsafe.

When assessing the Consumer’s claim, the Ombudsman considered the aggravating factors such as the fact that overnight accommodation would have been a reasonable option for the RSP to offer the Consumer. The Ombudsman also considered that only bottled water was provided to the Consumer, and the RSP acknowledged that they should have offered the Consumer a hot drink, as a minimum. In order to establish the award, the Ombudsman applied the Rail Ombudsman’s Compensation Framework (The Rail Ombudsman Compensation Framework) and using the ‘moderate time’ and ‘high trouble’ criteria, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint in part, awarding £500.00. This amount factored in both the aggravating factors, and The Rail Ombudsman Compensation Framework. The Rail Ombudsman acknowledged that as this case specifically related to accessibility issues, it was necessary to consider the Equality Act 2010, as there was no question that this incident would have been particularly distressing for the Consumer.