Written evidence submitted by the Rail Ombudsman (RRB0030)

Executive Summary

The Rail Ombudsman suggests that considerations are given in the Rail Reform Bill to mechanisms that ensure third-party ticket retails are mandated to join the Rail Ombudsman. This will ensure consistent case handling outcomes and reporting, which mirror those already in place for current participants, with binding resolutions that consumers and other service providers alike can rely upon. This will also ensure a uniform approach across service providers, reducing confusion and improving consumer confidence.

Rail Ombudsman Response

The Rail Ombudsman’s response to this Call for Evidence will provide general feedback on the current remit and operation of the Rail Ombudsman answering points where it is relevant and appropriate for us to do so.

On 26 November 2023, the Office of Rail and Road assumed sponsorship of the Rail Ombudsman. We note the enhanced powers in this regard contained in section 6 of the Rail Reform Bill “Rail Dispute Resolution Scheme”. Given the current lens on the reform and reference to the Rail Dispute Resolution Scheme, currently operated by the Rail Ombudsman, we believe it is opportune to consider the jurisdiction of the Rail Ombudsman, specifically in relation to third-party ticket retailers given the potential for consumer detriment and confusion regarding the consistent application of consumer remedies.

Since its inception, the Rail Ombudsman has dealt with cases from consumers who have purchased their tickets from third-party ticket retailers. We note that there are over 40 retailers selling rail tickets online[1], split between train operators and third-party ticket retailers. Consumers can purchase rail tickets for all mainline services across Great Britain from all retailers, and the standard through fares (for example Advance, Off-Peak, Anytime) are the same price on all platforms. Consumers therefore have significant choice. In response to a Transport Focus survey[2] (carried out in December 2022 and January 2023), 55% of respondents reported purchasing rail tickets through websites and apps. Of those, 60% reported purchasing from Trainline (a third-party ticket retailer), 5% from other third-party ticket retailers, and the remaining 35% from train operator websites and apps.

The Rail Ombudsman has also dealt with significant volumes of cases where there is an element of complexity introduced by virtue of the fact that the consumer has made their ticket purchase via a third-party ticket retailer. Of note here is that current participants are bound by the decisions of the Rail Ombudsman, whereas these third-party ticket retailers are not, creating an uncertain landscape for consumers. This can result in confusion and could undermine confidence in how their complaints will be dealt with.

Examples include:

-         A consumer made their journey using two different train operators, having purchased their ticket from a third-party ticket retailer. The consumer did not know who to complain to about delays, so complained to all three companies, all of whom gave reasons for declining the claim. 

-         A consumer booked a train which was changed to a rail replacement service. The ticket was booked via a third-party ticket retailer. The Consumer complained to the train operator that the journey did not exist and that the third-party ticket retailer had advised the Consumer that the train operator had not provided them with the correct information.

-         A consumer claimed a refund under section 30 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel from the train operator, who referred them to the third-party ticket retailer. The consumer complained to the train operator when the third-party ticket retailer did not process their complaint. The part of the complaint that related to the third-party ticket retailer was transferred to Transport Focus.

-         A consumer complained to the rail service provider that they pre-purchased a ticket from a third-party ticket retailer, for a service that was not on the timetable. The train operator advised the consumer that the train was never on the timetable.

-         A consumer claimed for a delay from a third-party ticket retailer, which they advised was caused by a cancelled service. As this was a delay claim it was referred to the train operator. The train operator in turn declined the Delay Repay compensation claim because they had no record of a delay.

-         A consumer purchased tickets from a third-party ticket retailer. There were no services running on the date of travel. The train operator advised that the third-party ticket retailer should not have sold tickets for travel on that day as the service was not advertised to be running. Each of the respondents signposted the consumer to the other.

-         A consumer complained to the train operator that they booked a First Class train ticket via a third-party ticket retailer and no First Class was provided on the booked services. The train operator advised that no First Class service is provided on the trains used and this is in line the information provided on their website.

-         A consumer experienced disruption and purchased a new ticket on the day, via a third-party ticket retailer in the belief that their original ticket would be refunded. The train operator declined the refund claim for the original ticket as it was part used.

-         A consumer abandoned their journey partway and retuned home. The train operator advised the consumer they were due a refund from the third-party ticket retailer who advised the consumer that they were due Delay Repay compensation.

-         A consumer attempted to claim a refund from the train operator and was referred to claim from the third-party ticket retailer, who declined the claim as it was made out of time due to the train operator’s delay. Recommendations have included opportunities for improved communication between third-party ticket retailers and rail service providers, especially where claims may be subject to time limitation and this may be an area requiring further work and collaboration not currently possible given the limit remit over one party to the claim.

As the above examples illustrate, a common theme within these cases is a mismatch between the information provided by the retailer and the train operator, either information relevant to the journey or the subsequent claims process. It is not uncommon for a consumer to be stuck between the parties with both refusing to offer a remedy. One consumer who brought a case to us sums this up in the redacted quotation below:

I think the problem in gaining compensation has been that two factors caused the delay, and two train operators were involved. I have no idea if [the third-party ticket retailer], [train operator 1] or [train operator 2] are responsible for the delays, or who I should be asking for compensation - I have been guided by what they have told me - however they all seem to be trying to blame each other and pass on the responsibility.

This lack of clarity can lead to additional time and trouble for the consumer, who has no clear route to complain and also for the train companies and third-party ticket retailers who all have to respond to the complaint at a significant cost to business. The flow of information within the industry therefore generates complaints which could be dealt with by the Rail Ombudsman if third-party ticket retailers were participants, reducing consumer time and creating a fairer solution for all parties. Furthermore, the Rail Ombudsman does operate a single front door to rail industry complaints and can transfer cases out of its remit to the Statutory Appeals Bodies. However, they in turn cannot generate binding recourse, which represents a significant inconsistency and tangible consumer detriment.

Finally, as the Rail Ombudsman has no remit in relation to third-party ticket retailers, it can only assess the train operator’s action, and in some cases the train operators may offer gestures to settle a claim because the third-party ticket retailer will not.  Similarly, a significant proportion of the Rail Ombudsman’s casework is driven by the retailing and/or refund of tickets, and ticket-related issues can be ancillary to other subjects complained about too. With third-party ticket retailers not current participants of the Rail Ombudsman, this also places a reliance on the train operator taking responsibility for their passenger for the purposes of alternative dispute resolution, even though factors influencing their complaint may sit ultimately with the retailer.

About the Rail Ombudsman

The Rail Ombudsman opened its doors on 26 November 2018, offering a free to consumers, expert, alternative dispute resolution service to help sort out unresolved customer complaints about service providers within the rail industry. At present these service providers are mainly comprised of train operating companies and participation in the scheme is an Office of Rail and Road licence condition, save for National Rail Enquiries, which is a voluntary member. A full list of participating service providers is available here: Participating Service Providers - Rail Ombudsman.

Our vision is to inspire customer confidence and to deliver our service fairly to ensure the right outcome in every case. We also support the rail industry to raise standards. Like other ombudsman schemes, the Rail Ombudsman gives the parties the opportunity to settle their deadlocked disputes without the need to go to court. Firstly, we always try to resolve the dispute informally, but if this is not possible, we are empowered to make a decision that is binding upon the rail service provider.

We can also make recommendations to the rail sector (both individually to rail service providers and more broadly) to improve their service and we publish case studies and data which can help them to understand what they could do to raise standards.

March 2024

Endnotes