Update: is it time for a rail ombudsman?

Hi John, thank you for spotting that error. I’ve corrected the error now. It’s annoying when these things slip through the net, we’ll double our efforts to make sure this doesn’t happen. Thanks

It also brings home the short-termism of many government decisions. The blinkered and inept perception that led to the wholesale destruction of most of the Railway system in the ’60s under Beeching and Marples has, essentially, led to the current situation. Government and Politics do not make good bedfellows.

As well as the question of mandatory participation by all the train operating companies, there are many details to resolve in introducing a new Ombudsman service for the railways.

One of the compelling reasons for requiring full participation is that many journeys involve more than one operator and passengers should not be left guessing whether or not they have a right to redress for, or at least to the consideration of, things that have gone wrong. If is determined that participation will not be compulsory then two safeguards need to be introduced: First, the company should be required to show an informative statement on any medium they use for dealing with the public that it is outside the national rail ombudsman scheme. Second, it should be required to produce acceptable certification that its complaints-handling, compensation and remediation procedures are at least as good as those under the Ombudsman. For example, I could foresee that Transport for London could reasonably claim exemption and Merseyrail might also be able to demonstrate a high standard. Some of the commercial franchisees might be able to as well but once the scheme goes down this route the fragmentation becomes a problem in itself and it would be better to insist on total coverage with no exceptions, however good they are. If they are indeed that good then the Ombudsman will rarely be troubled.

One of the questions that needs to be resolved is how the compensation payments received by the train companies from Network Rail for delays caused by infrastructure defects should be allocated to passengers. At present the train companies receive much more than they pay out – because many delayed passengers do not make formal claims and automatic delay-repay is not universal across the industry. Should all the delay attribution payments go to the Ombudsman centrally for distribution in response to claims with any surpluses held for investment in passenger benefits? This is something which the Office of Rail and Road [ORR] considered in the context of the Which? super complaint. One of the outcomes of this was the recommendation to make passengers more aware of their right to compensation and to make it easier to claim. I don’t know how successful this has been – does Which? know if that policy is working in passengers’ favour?

On complaint resolution, I hope the Ombudsman will be empowered to resolve passenger complaints where the train company has not been able to [to the passenger’s satisfaction]. Perhaps this could follow the Energy Ombudsman model where the company would be given a set period within which to respond [this is one of the present bones of contention – there are no externally-driven timescales]; in the absence of a response, or a deadlock, the passenger should have the right to take it to the Ombudsman.

What powers should the Railways Ombudsman have? My suggestion is (a) no limit on the scope of complaints from fares and access to timekeeping and service quality, (b) to require the train company to offer an apology, an explanation of what went wrong, action to rectify the problem, and/or an award of compensation [financial or material as desired by the complainant], and (c) any ruling or award by the Ombudsman should be enforceable at law.

Should the Ombudsman make any compensation payments centrally for efficiency and finality, or should it be left to the train companies? Ideally the train companies will settle complaints and compensate passengers to avoid involving the Ombudsman, so if the Ombudsman is the last resort then there is a case for compensation where justified to be issued by the Ombudsman to the passenger with the ruling and not left in an administrative vacuum with the possibility of it being vexatiously delayed.

I see no reason why participation in the Railways Ombudsman Scheme should not be a mandatory requirement of each forthcoming new operating franchise imposed at the outset by the Department for Transport. Existing franchises that elect not to participate would have to consider their future commercial prospects if they entertain the possibility of winning the franchise again when it comes up for renewal.

What we need to know, and have not been told, is what the inflation rate for operating train services is. After all, train operating companies are facing increases in costs like every other business but, without an import component, it might be lower than for other commercial companies. Is their electricity more or less expensive now than it was? – now that more energy-efficient trains are in service unit costs per passenger kilometre should have fallen; but many trains run on diesel which has definitely dropped in price. The companies are running longer trains and carrying more passengers – which should mean bigger profits as the economies of scale accrue.

As was fairly reported on the News today, the increase in rail fares is entirely the responsibility of the government and not the train companies or Network Rail . The train companies have some flexibility over how to distribute the pain but not a lot. I think it’s about time the overall economics were analysed to see whether this is a fair increase or just another fare increase [or a kick in the teeth as Alex Hayman elegantly expresses it – well, perhaps “expresses” is the wrong word here].

Perhaps, Ian, the government is under the impression that public sector pensioners stop using the railways as soon as they retire and so are sheltered from such increases.