Railway Touring Company - Check Terms & Condition before you book!

[Tallguy]

To be fair to RTC, I don't think their Terms and Conditions could make it any clearer. (My bolding.)

UK Steam Rail Day Trips and Worldwide Rail Holidays

The Railway Touring Company has a long established reputation for providing an interesting variety of UK day trips by steam train and tours in the UK, Europe and Worldwide.

www.railwaytouring.net

Just because someone has something in their terms and condition’s doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned in court. The law sits above any contract.

 

[12LDA28C]

Just because someone has something in their terms and condition’s doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned in court. The law sits above any contract.

So you keep saying. So, in your opinion, are RTC's Ts & Cs not reasonable given the nature of steam locomotives and other factors outside RTC's control? Because it seems the vast majority of their customers believe them to be acceptable and are happy to book tickets having agreed to those Ts & Cs.

 

[Iskra]

At least they put something half decent on, unlike that 40 013 railtour when a 47 or something rocked up. You can imagine the scenes.

Was that the one to Liverpool? If so, it still ran with a 40 on it, but only one rather the two originally advertised.

On the 45118 tour that was 37s in October 2022 (and 45118 still isn't fettled yet !) Intercity/LSL wouldn't refund for a dead person.....

That is ridiculous. And my condolences.

 

[northwichcat]

A relevant question is did they operate a tour on 2 October?

If they failed to operate they are legally required to refund.

If they operated the advertised service but a health condition of one person meant you wanted to cancel, then surely it's a travel insurance issue rather than one for the provider of a non-refundable service.

I'm booked to go on a flight that's scheduled to operated by a Boeing 737 MAX 9 later in the year. The airline have other planes in their fleet and haven't found issues with the ones they have, so I don't expect them to be offering refunds to anyone who doesn't wish to travel.

 

[John R]

A relevant question is did they operate a tour on 2 October?

If they failed to operate they are legally required to refund.

Its well established that it ran, with Flying Scotsman hauling it as advertised.

 

[Haywain]

If they failed to operate they are legally required to refund.

I have no doubt that if that had been the case then they would have issued refunds.

 

[John R]

So you keep saying. So, in your opinion, are RTC's Ts & Cs not reasonable given the nature of steam locomotives and other factors outside RTC's control? Because it seems the vast majority of their customers believe them to be acceptable and are happy to book tickets having agreed to those Ts & Cs.

Exactly. And the clarity with which those terms are set out prior to passengers booking would no doubt be a material factor in any assessment of whether they are fair or not.

 

[island]

Just because someone has something in their terms and condition’s doesn’t mean it can’t be overturned in court. The law sits above any contract.

What law do you claim makes the terms and conditions invalid?

 

[John R]

What law do you claim makes the terms and conditions invalid?

Probably the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

 

[island]

Probably the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Which section would that be? You can read the Act at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50

 

[John R]

Which section would that be? You can read the Act at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1977/50

I was just suggesting which act @Tallguy was thinking of - I’ll let him quote which section he thinks is relevant. I’m not at all convinced that it would apply.

 

[Tallguy]

So you keep saying. So, in your opinion, are RTC's Ts & Cs not reasonable given the nature of steam locomotives and other factors outside RTC's control? Because it seems the vast majority of their customers believe them to be acceptable and are happy to book tickets having agreed to those Ts & Cs.

No I don’t believe them to be reasonable. The operator rents in the train from the owner who should be under contract to provide the specified train etc, if that train isn’t available then all bets are off.

 

[AlterEgo]

No I don’t believe them to be reasonable. The operator rents in the train from the owner who should be under contract to provide the specified train etc, if that train isn’t available then all bets are off.

You simply wouldn't have a heritage railtour scene then, at all.

 

[Puffing Devil]

How many of us have blindly accepted T&Cs when booking or buying something? Caveat Emptor: If it's a big ticket item, or you have special needs or concerns, you must make sure the T&Cs fit your circumstances. Unless you can show that they do not comply with consumer legislation or can show that they are unfair under the Unfair Contract Terms Act, you're going to struggle if anything goes wrong.

You need an agreement to change the terms or insurance to cover any shortfall. Or you take it on the chin and accept you might lose out if things don't go as planned.

 

[12LDA28C]

No I don’t believe them to be reasonable. The operator rents in the train from the owner who should be under contract to provide the specified train etc, if that train isn’t available then all bets are off.

Locomotives fail. Accidents happen. Operational restrictions are put in place for a number of reasons. If you fail to accept that, you simply don't understand the nature of heritage steam locomotives, charter operations or the railway in general.

 

[island]

No I don’t believe them to be reasonable. The operator rents in the train from the owner who should be under contract to provide the specified train etc, if that train isn’t available then all bets are off.

That's fine, but if you want to make your booking conditional on specific traction being available, you would need to propose that condition to the provider prior to purchase so they could consider whether and on what terms to accept it.

Until such time as the published condition saying they reserve the right to use replacement traction is ruled against by a court of competent jurisdiction, it has a presumption of legality.

 

[LAX54]

Reading the OP's post again, and reading between the lines, I don't think they read the T&C's before booking the trip, which of course many do not. not only with tours like this, then get burnt, when it goes wrong, the illness was long term, and they would know it could cause issues, so taking out insurance would have been the obvious way to go, if you don't need it, then you have had a good day, but its there just in case.

 

[spag23]

the illness was long term, and they would know it could cause issues, so taking out insurance would have been the obvious way to go,

Yeah but... most travel insurance won't cover known pre-existing or chronic conditions. And once disclosed, any Company that did accept this risk would apply a prohibitively expensive loading of the premium.

 

[renegademaster]

In my view everyone is going in the wrong direction on this one.

the OP appears to have cancelled on the basis that his Daughter’s PTSD would have been made worse by riding on the replacement train tour. The OP booked for a tour with the Flying Scotsman as the loco. The specified loco wasn’t going to be available on the day and a substitute was pulled in. The OP should have requested a refund on the basis that what was being provided wasn’t what had been booked. If the rail tour company refused a refund citing their T and C’s then the OP should have issued a letter before action, citing breach of contract. If the rail tour operator still refused a refund then the correct course of action would have been to issue a claim using the small claims procedures in the County Court. Very simple to do online and a court of law can and has on many millions of occasions over ruled so called T and C’s, as a contract is only fair if it is fair to both parties.

The OP booked a ticket for a train hauled by the Flying Scotsman, not a diesel loco. I would want my money back in a similar position.

Imagine booking a concert ticket to see AC/DC and having the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra come on stage as the replacement group…..

sadly the OP didn’t follow the correct course of action and will have to chalk it up to experience.

A more apt analogy is you went to the theatre to see a particular actor in a play you liked but he was sick so someone had to replace him. Which happens all the time and i dont think anyone has successfully sued for

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Any comeback if the tour company in question routinely (maybe misleadingly) advertised steam haulage as being provided but, this, in retrospect, never actually happened?

 

[jumble]

No I don’t believe them to be reasonable. The operator rents in the train from the owner who should be under contract to provide the specified train etc, if that train isn’t available then all bets are off.

Perhaps if you ever fly BA and you purchased a flight that was sold as having Club Suite and then they subbed the aircraft for an older one with Club World do you think you would get very far asking for a refund?

 

[Tallguy]

Perhaps if you ever fly BA and you purchased a flight that was sold as having Club Suite and then they subbed the aircraft for an older one with Club World do you think you would get very far asking for a refund?

BA don’t advertise selling a ticket for a club suite, they advertise a class of ticket. As previously stated, if I booked a ride on the Flying Scotsman and ended up behind a diesel shutter then I would want a refund and be prepared to pursue the matter in court if necessary. If other want to accept alternatives then they can. I wouldn’t. My final comments on this thread.

 

[FenMan]

As previously stated, if I booked a ride on the Flying Scotsman and ended up behind a diesel shutter then I would want a refund and be prepared to pursue the matter in court if necessary. If other want to accept alternatives then they can. I wouldn’t. My final comments on this thread.

This is the root of the misunderstanding. The operator is offering a rail tour where particular traction is planned to be used, subject to obvious and reasonable contractual caveats. If the rail tour happens and the operator can demonstrate they made all reasonable endeavours to provide the advertised traction they have met their contracted obligations, even if the advertised traction had to be replaced for reasons outside of the operator's control.

Any customer pursuing a legal claim against the operator on the basis the advertised traction had not been provided would be unlikely to succeed. The key is, the operator is offering a rail tour, not a guaranteed ride behind a particular locomotive.

For reasons of goodwill the operator may well provide disappointed customers with vouchers to book future rail tours at a discounted rate, but they are not contractually obliged to do this.

 

[820KDV]

This is the root of the misunderstanding. The operator is offering a rail tour where particular traction is planned to be used, subject to obvious and reasonable contractual caveats. If the rail tour happens and the operator can demonstrate they made all reasonable endeavours to provide the advertised traction they have met their contracted obligations, even if the advertised traction had to be replaced for reasons outside of the operator's control.

Any customer pursuing a legal claim against the operator on the basis the advertised traction had not been provided would be unlikely to succeed. The key is, the operator is offering a rail tour, not a guaranteed ride behind a particular locomotive.

For reasons of goodwill the operator may well provide disappointed customers with vouchers to book future rail tours at a discounted rate, but they are not contractually obliged to do this.

I think this is correct.

I recall that probably 25 years ago, or more, there was a claim from HMRC that rail tours should be subject to VAT as they were pleasure trips. I remember that the sort of multi-loco tours which basically kept going all day now went to a specific destination, terminated there and restarted later. This enabled them to be defined as a transport service, where no VAT is payable.

Its a bit like the question is a Jaffa Cake a cake or a biscuit, which was also a VAT related question. If the rail tour takes you to the advertised destination and back again then the contract is fulfilled. To base the contract on anything else would take it out of being a transport service and into areas likely attract the attentions of HMRC.