Festive closure

We will close at 5pm on Tuesday 24 December 2024 and reopen at 9am Friday 3 January 2025. You can still submit complaints through our online form, but we won't respond until we reopen.

Decision report 201102183

  • Case ref:
    201102183
  • Date:
    January 2012
  • Body:
    Strathclyde Partnership for Transport
  • Sector:
    Local Government
  • Outcome:
    Not upheld, no recommendations
  • Subject:
    Policy/administration

Summary
Mr A intended to use the Gourock to Kilcreggan ferry. When he arrived at the terminal it was clear that there was an issue with the operation of the ferry. He enquired about the ferry services for the rest of the day and was advised that the service had been cancelled for the day. As a result he shared a taxi with other passengers to complete his journey. He sought a refund of this expenditure from the ferry operator, Clyde Marine, and Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT), on whose behalf the service is operated.

He was advised that the service had not been cancelled for the day, but was suspended between 16:00 and 17:30 and that the final sailing of the day had gone ahead. In these circumstances neither Clyde Marine nor SPT felt it was appropriate to refund the costs of the taxi journey. SPT advised that their conditions of contract specifically removed them from liability in respect of loss arising for the failure to operate journeys and that their investigation had indicated that it had been staff employed by the operator of the pier facilities who had given Mr A the incorrect information about the cancellation of the services, as Mr A had stated in his first correspondence.

Mr A's MSP also complained to SPT about this matter, advising that Mr A had received the information about the cancellation of the service from a helpline operated by Clyde Marine. SPT advised that they had nothing further to add to their previous correspondence. Mr A's MSP raised the matter with the Ombudsman. We decided that as there was no firm, objective evidence of what information Mr A had been given or who by, there would be no practical outcome in our pursuing the matter further. We, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

 

Updated: March 13, 2018