Meet Bob. Bob purchased a return train ticket to travel from Bristol to Reading by a train at 15:22 on Friday 23/09/22, and to return a week later, for £105.
Bob arrived at the station platform at 15:18 to embark his train, but only to be informed by the platform attendant that for some unknown reason, his train (along with the one scheduled at the same time on the day prior) had actually left at 15:15, despite being scheduled for 15:22.
Bob went to the train operator's service counter where the operator's representative unequivocally apologized for the issue and taking full responsibility, issued him a "travel authorization" that would allow him to board any reading-bound trains that day via any route. Bob then waited for about an hour and was over an hour later arriving in reading than planned, causing him to be very late to an event which he had paid £25 for a ticket to attend, which caused him embarrassment.
Meet Charles. Charles paid a lawyer £150 for a consultation and to submit some paperwork for a deadline that was coming up in a few weeks, both components of which services were explicitly agreed to be covered by the payment of £150. They have their consultation in which Charles rigourously explains the entire situation to the lawyer, who tells him to send over relevant materials and to "leave it with her". More than 6 months later, she then still hasn't gotten back to Charles at all, despite him giving an email to follow up and a call to her office whose receptionist assured him she would follow up, both before the relevant several-weeks deadline.
Bob has been advised that the first remedy under the consumer rights act is a repeat performance, as Charles has also been so advised.
For Bob, how can the travel authorization to travel more than an hour later than he had purchased his ticket (and so contracted with the rail operator) for, so is that truly an adequate performance at all, much less a repeat performance, of the operator's contractual obligations?
For Charles, who was advised that under the CRA he is to firstly give the other party an opportunity for repeat performance, but how can there be any if the relevant deadline has already long passed and he indeed had to find another lawyer to deal with the issue?
What are Bob's and Charles's respective positions?