• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Mirfield to Leeds via Sowerby Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,564
You can think you can infer their meaning, unfortunately as you're not the person who wrote it (at an educated guess, at least ;) ) you can't know for sure. I can't stress this point enough, not so much with this case but certianly with others that aren't dissimilar.

At least what helps in this case is that there isn't an obvious alternative meaning that the misplaced semicolon could produce.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
The contract has not been amended- the ticket is still valid for travel between Mirfield and Leeds on all permitted routes. Permitted routes are defined by use of the Routeing Guide. I wouldn't be so certain that ATOC/RSP cannot amend the Routeing Guide at their discretion.

Im sure that ATOC can amend the NRG at their discretion, its their ability to apply it retrospectively to tickets already purchased that's in question. Since the NRCoC contains no clause on how such contract change may be effected, I would agree with those that state that contract law provides that no retrospective changes may be made to the disbenefit the passenger. The NRCoC states that routes allowed by the NRG are permitted and the situation at the start of the contract remains for the length of the contract. Note the clause in bold, if contracts are liable to change over time, they have to specify the processes used for parties to agree to changes. The NRCoC doesn't do this, presumably because in most cases the length of the contract is very short.

Next someone will be arguing that TOCs may charge existing season ticket holders more when prices rise, because they can amend prices "at their discretion". :roll:

It also hinges on "disbenefit". Both parties to a contract must be acting in good faith to enforce a contract. A passenger attempting to use a "loophole" such as this to reduce the price of their actual journeys from Sowerby Bridge to Leeds (bear in mind the Mirfield to Leeds season is £10 per week cheaper than the ticket from Sowerby Bridge) may find that a judge decides they were not acting in good faith.

Rubbish. We are in the UK, not the US or Europe and English courts (not sure about Scottish) have been historically reluctant to recognise any implicit duty of good faith in contracts. While the law in this area is in a state of flux, we are a long long way from a judge deciding that implicit "good faith"applies to the NRCoC.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
There are plenty of cases where contracts have been declared null and void because of the unconscionable behaviour of one or both parties. I would suggest that attempting to use these sorts of loopholes could be interpreted as unconscionable behaviour, something DaveNewcastle (who knows what he is on about) has also said.

And even leaving aside unconscionable behaviour, there is plenty of case law where someone attempting to enforce a mistake in a contract has been found against in court. And ATOC always phrase their amendments to the routeing guide as "correcting errors".

My point is I wouldn't be so certain that a TOC must allow travel by circuitous routes- attempting to undercut the fare on that route by 30%- just because they didn't prohibit it when the ticket was issued.

If you believe the NRCoC binds the TOC to permitted routes at the start of the ticket validity,please point out where it says it
 
Last edited:

strowger

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2013
Messages
184
There are plenty of cases where contracts have been declared null and void because of the unconscionable behaviour of one or both parties. I would suggest that attempting to use these sorts of loopholes could be interpreted as unconscionable behaviour, something DaveNewcastle (who knows what he is on about) has also said.

And even leaving aside unconscionable behaviour, there is plenty of case law where someone attempting to enforce a mistake in a contract has been found against in court. And ATOC always phrase their amendments to the routeing guide as "correcting errors".

It could be challenged in court by a TOC, but it's unlikely. Victory would be expensive and is very uncertain, and altering the routeing guide accomplishes most of what is necessary - preventing the ongoing loss of revenue.

I'm happy to "go legal" over my ticket if necessary, but in the real world it's not going to happen - Northern are (correctly) focussed on "getting the train away on time" and "has the punter got an orange piece of cardboard" rather than this nonsense.

If anyone goes to court, it's likely to be over one of the "Stevenage to Kings Cross via Aberdeen and Penzance for twelve quid" types of issues which are more obviously an error, rather than an artefact of pricing managers attempting to capture consumer surplus.
 

infobleep

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
12,556
How does one decide which route is rather long and thus perhaps considered not fair for passengers to use in terms of contract law. For example one can buy a season ticket from Guildford to London that allows travel via Reading. Were that season ticket not to exist and an any permitted ticket issued, which only allowed travel via Reading because a pricing manager hadn't spotted it, would the route be considered long winded and not fair for a passenger to use? The direct route is far quicker. 40 mins vers double that at least.
 
Last edited:

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
5,389
Location
Birmingham
If we set aside the issue of price, is the route itself really any more unreasonable than the permitted Huddersfield to Manchester via Hebden Bridge?
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
I'm happy to "go legal" over my ticket if necessary, but in the real world it's not going to happen - Northern are (correctly) focussed on "getting the train away on time" and "has the punter got an orange piece of cardboard" rather than this nonsense.

I'd agree with that, but it wasn't what I was saying.

Other posters here have said that Northern must allow travel via Sowerby Bridge because it was allowed when the ticket was bought, because contract law. That is what I was disagreeing with.

In reality Northern won't really give a stuff so long as you've given them an amount of money that's vaguely correct and have a bit of cardboard.

In terms of reasonable and unreasonable, I don't think that really matters. The Mirfield-Leeds ticket is still valid via Halifax, even though the Halifax-Leeds season costs more. The point is that ATOC/RSP have said you can't go via Sowerby Bridge.
 
Last edited:

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
There are plenty of cases where contracts have been declared null and void because of the behaviour of one or both parties. I would suggest that attempting to use these sorts of loopholes could be interpreted as unconscionable behaviour, something DaveNewcastle (who knows what he is on about) has also said.

Oddly enough I know something about contract law too:roll: I see you are changing your argument from one based on "good faith" to "unconscionable behaviour". Leaving aside that "unconscionable" has a pretty specific meaning in contract law, do any of these "plentiful cases" involving the (mis)behaviour of parties lie outside the areas where English Law has acknowledged "good faith" requirements i.e. employment, fiduciary and long term commercial contracts? And specifically do any apply to a consumer contract like the NRCoC? If so please let us know the details. Otherwise I repeat that we are a long, long way from a judge applying such a judgement to a consumer contract such as the BRCoC.

And even leaving aside unconscionable behaviour, there is plenty of case law where someone attempting to enforce a mistake in a contract has been found against in court. And ATOC always phrase their amendments to the routeing guide as "correcting errors".

While I accept that buying say a £10,000 car for £100 online may be reasonably seen to be a mistake by a buyer, I don't think that travelling from Mirfield to Leeds via Sowerby Bridge is such an obvious mistake to a consumer.

My point is I wouldn't be so certain that a TOC must allow travel by circuitous routes- attempting to undercut the fare on that route by 30%- just because they didn't prohibit it when the ticket was issued.If you believe the NRCoC binds the TOC to permitted routes at the start of the ticket validity,please point out where it says it

My point is that I am 100% certain - it is fundamental common law that the absence of a contract change clause in the NRCoC means that the contract may only be varied by oral or written agreement between both parties. A statement in the NRCoC is completely unnecessary.

It would be gross and utter incompetence on behalf of the drafting lawyers to omit such a fundamental clause if they wished the contract to be updated to reflect current versions of the NRCoC and the NRG.

Of course any such clause in a consumer contract would be subject to the The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and specifically OFT Guidance OFT311 (long pdf), Group 10 Suppliers Right to Vary Terms, which may make it rather more effort for the railway industry to implement than its worth.

I believe that legal arguments based on "good faith" and "mistakes" are just the type of theoretical point scoring arguments that some lawyers seem to love, when the TOCs have the option to simply insert a contract change clause in the NRCoC. My credit card companies, banks and other financial service providers; utility companies; mobile and broadband suppliers; Ebay & Paypal etc. all seem to be able to manage it in their ts&cs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd agree with that, but it wasn't what I was saying.

Other posters here have said that Northern must allow travel via Sowerby Bridge because it was allowed when the ticket was bought, because contract law. That is what I was disagreeing with.

In reality Northern won't really give a stuff so long as you've given them an amount of money that's vaguely correct and have a bit of cardboard.

In terms of reasonable and unreasonable, I don't think that really matters. The Mirfield-Leeds ticket is still valid via Halifax, even though the Halifax-Leeds season costs more. The point is that ATOC/RSP have said you can't go via Sowerby Bridge.

Good, hopefully something we can agree on. I disagree you that the TOCs have taken the necessary steps to disallow travel via Sowerby Bridge to existing ticket holders but that seems to be for the entirely sensible and pragmatic reason that its more effort than its worth. I agree that they don't care a stuff beyond stopping it in future.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
By your reckoning a timetable change would be enough to void a contract for an annual season ticket. I don't see that one standing up in court.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
I don't understand the relevance of the timetable here. The terms and conditions don't specify the number of trains the TOC must offer? How does a change in the 'quantity' of a service change the terms under which it may be consumed? After all, you can only be on 1 train at a time.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
By your reckoning a timetable change would be enough to void a contract for an annual season ticket. I don't see that one standing up in court.

Timetables and the level of service are not covered by the NRCoC and do not form any part of the contractual relationship, except perhaps an obligation to get you from A to B if you hold a valid ticket. On the other hand the validity of routes defined by the NRG is specifically defined in clause 13 (iii) of the NRCoC , and in the case of season tickets Clause 30 reinforces that provision.

So absolutely no way by my reckoning does a timetable change void a contract for an annual season ticket. That is complete and utter nonsense and to claim that that is my reckoning is frankly insulting. If you wish to make such idiotic claims, please at least have the decency to point out the specific clauses in the NRCoC which back up your assertion that a timetable change would void a contract. I would never claim that and it is both complete and utter nonsense and very insulting to claim I would. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't understand the relevance of the timetable here. The terms and conditions don't specify the number of trains the TOC must offer? How does a change in the 'quantity' of a service change the terms under which it may be consumed? After all, you can only be on 1 train at a time.

No, I totally agree. Daft as it seems, the NRCoC specifically and clearly protects the consumers right to travel via routes defined in the NRG, but it is pretty well silent on the level of service to be provided.

I agree with what someone posted earlier that a court may find that a cut in service from 1tph to a train every 4hours to be pretty unreasonable, but I'm not aware of any legal remedy that could be applied apart from a refund to existing ticket holders.

Of course the public outcry could be enormous, and a court may choose to join in and make pointed observations up the legal chain as far as government, but as far as I can see would be powerless to do anything about such a cut.

And naturally such a cut may breach franchise agreements, but thats between the DfT and the TOC, neither the consumer or the courts (acting on the consumers behalf) hava any direct say in that agreement.
 
Last edited:

strowger

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2013
Messages
184
Agreed.

Hopefully we're done with this now.

If any rail staff ever notice my ticket, I'll report it here...

The guard on my train home (Leeds to Sowerby Bridge) today challenged my ticket. This is the first time (since it was issued in April) that this has happened.

It happened because the ticket is now very worn and hard to read, and the ticket check occurred after Mirfield, so I appeared to be over-riding.

We had a discussion about where I was going to and the validity of the ticket. I explained that it was valid on that route at the time of issue. He was clearly unconvinced, but took no further action.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
..... He was clearly unconvinced....
Northern Guards are not trained on how to determine permitted routes.

I think Northern expect them to accept anything that looks reasonable, which of course is subjective. So it will be accepted most times, and questioned occasionally. The only ones who will know it's valid for certain are those who put their own time and effort in and go beyond their training.
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,683
Northern Guards are not trained on how to determine permitted routes.

I think Northern expect them to accept anything that looks reasonable, which of course is subjective. So it will be accepted most times, and questioned occasionally. The only ones who will know it's valid for certain are those who put their own time and effort in and go beyond their training.

The same can be said for pretty much any TOC I know!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
The guard on my train home (Leeds to Sowerby Bridge) today challenged my ticket. This is the first time (since it was issued in April) that this has happened.

It happened because the ticket is now very worn and hard to read, and the ticket check occurred after Mirfield, so I appeared to be over-riding.
Probably about time to get it re-printed, as "very worn and hard to read" is only going to draw attention during inspections...
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,564
Not any more...

Whilst looking for something else (related to doublebacks between Mirfield and Dewsbury as it happens) I noticed this in the latest update.

What's everyone's understanding of this (see thumbnail below)? Does it purely cover journeys between Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds or does it also affect longer journeys to Leeds that pass through one of these stations?

Journeys between Huddersfield; Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds and beyond may not travel via Sowerby Bridge. Journeys may however travel via Halifax. This negative easement applies in both directions
 

Attachments

  • sowerby.jpg
    sowerby.jpg
    45.5 KB · Views: 46
Last edited by a moderator:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It means doodly squat to me. Why is there a semi-colon there, why does it talk about a journey between 4 places and which journeys does it mean, and how can a journey travel - via Halifax, or otherwise?

I'm not just being pedantic, it's clear as mud what was intended when that was written - and I challenge anyone to be definitive in the converse. If they can't even be bothered to write a sentence that makes sense I would just ignore it.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
You can try and be pedantic about it if you want, but it is clear what is meant: if you are travelling from or through Huddersfield, Deighton or Mirfield to Leeds, or vice versa, you cannot travel via Sowerby Bridge but you can travel via Halifax.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
You can try and be pedantic about it if you want, but it is clear what is meant: if you are travelling from or through Huddersfield, Deighton or Mirfield to Leeds, or vice versa, you cannot travel via Sowerby Bridge but you can travel via Halifax.

That's definitely not what it actually says. It looks to me like it's talking about journeys from Huddersfield to Mirfield or Deighton being allowed to go via Halifax. Doesn't say anything at all about journeys via Huddersfield. Another example of someone thinking they 'know' what was 'intended'.
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Yes, we can figure out what they are trying to say.

However I know 12 year olds who have a better command of the English language than whoever worded some of these ludicrous "negative easements" (which, incidentally, is an oxymoron).

In theory they're only meant to change the Routeing Guide a limited number of times per year and gain DfT approval, but they have figured out that the DfT aren't really bothered what they do, so they get away with all sorts.

None of this affects the validity of tickets already bought, for which the terms of the contract are already set, so Strowger's ticket remains valid regardless of any changes.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
That's definitely not what it actually says. It looks to me like it's talking about journeys from Huddersfield to Mirfield or Deighton being allowed to go via Halifax.

It says what it means: [tickets for] journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds are not valid via Sowerby Bridge but are valid via Halifax.

Yes, it is fundamentally illiterate, and yes, I am disappointed that someone writing a document like this has little or no grasp of the English language.

I'd agree that the semicolon is incorrect and that "journeys", being an abstract noun, cannot travel anywhere. But the meaning is quite clear, and trying to claim otherwise is mere pedantry.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Does it purely cover journeys between Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds or does it also affect longer journeys to Leeds that pass through one of these stations?

I'd say it depends. There are some perfectly valid journeys though Mirfield (e.g. Manchester to Leeds route Hebden Bridge) which are impossible without travelling through Sowerby Bridge.

But I'd say that this restriction should cover tickets such as Berry Brow to Leeds with the "and beyond" bit.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It says what it means: [tickets for] journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds are not valid via Sowerby Bridge but are valid via Halifax.

I think you're seeing what you think it says, rather than reading what is actually there. Either that or you're now psychic!
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
It says what it means: [tickets for] journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds are not valid via Sowerby Bridge but are valid via Halifax.

Yes, it is fundamentally illiterate, and yes, I am disappointed that someone writing a document like this has little or no grasp of the English language.

I'd agree that the semicolon is incorrect and that "journeys", being an abstract noun, cannot travel anywhere. But the meaning is quite clear, and trying to claim otherwise is mere pedantry.

It does not say what you claim it means. The meaning is not clear at all and I find it quite frightening that ATOC believe it is acceptable to publish such barely literate nonsense.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
It says, and I quote, journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds may not travel via Sowerby Bridge. They may however travel via Halifax.

Unless one is trying to be a smart alec, I think it is abundantly clear what is meant, i.e. that you can travel direct Brighouse-Halifax but you can't go the long way round the triangle via Sowerby Bridge.

One can be a grammatical pedant about it (and it is shockingly illiterate) but I do not see how anyone can claim it means anything else.
 
Last edited:

Deerfold

Veteran Member
Joined
26 Nov 2009
Messages
12,571
Location
Yorkshire
It says what it means: [tickets for] journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds are not valid via Sowerby Bridge but are valid via Halifax.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd say it depends. There are some perfectly valid journeys though Mirfield (e.g. Manchester to Leeds route Hebden Bridge) which are impossible without travelling through Sowerby Bridge.

Aren't you agreeing in your second post that what you've said in your first post makes no sense?
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It says, and I quote, journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds may not travel via Sowerby Bridge. They may however travel via Halifax.

I'm starting to feel like a primary school teacher. This is not what it says, it's what you just wrote!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
Look at the quote TUC put up, look at what I've said, and get back to me.

If you're trying to argue that an incorrect semicolon changes the whole meaning then you're just being pedantic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Aren't you agreeing in your second post that what you've said in your first post makes no sense?

Nope

If you travel Manchester-Sowerby Bridge-Mirfield-Sowerby Bridge-Leeds you are doubling back between Brighouse and Sowerby Bridge.

If you travel Manchester-Huddersfield-Mirfield-Sowerby Bridge-Leeds the easement says you can't.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
5,459
Location
Sheffield
It says, and I quote, journeys from Huddersfield, Deighton and Mirfield to Leeds may not travel via Sowerby Bridge. They may however travel via Halifax.

It does not say that in the version I am looking at (updated 23/10/15). What version are you looking at ?

Edit: I see you are quoting yourself, not the easement in the Routeing Guide. That rather makes the discussion a waste of time !
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
It does not say that in the version I am looking at (updated 23/10/15). What version are you looking at ?

Edit: I see you are quoting yourself, not the easement in the Routeing Guide. That rather makes the discussion a waste of time !

I don't think we are getting anywhere with this. I would have thought the concept of reading what is written and analysing it is a relatively common skill and logically not too difficult. Sadly it seems some people can only ever read what they already think they are going to see. Either that, or the easement list has turned into a psychic paper.
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,564
It does not say that in the version I am looking at (updated 23/10/15). What version are you looking at ?

Edit: I see you are quoting yourself, not the easement in the Routeing Guide. That rather makes the discussion a waste of time !

Some here can now rest easy knowing that the semi-colon in the Routing Guide entry has now been replaced with a comma.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You can try and be pedantic about it if you want, but it is clear what is meant: if you are travelling from or through Huddersfield, Deighton or Mirfield to Leeds, or vice versa, you cannot travel via Sowerby Bridge but you can travel via Halifax.

Leaving aside the semi-colon issue, or the use of 'journey', I still think that the wording is unclear as to whether it does mean what you suggest. To say you cannot travel from Huddersfield, Deighton or Mirfield to Leeds, via Sowerby Bridge is one thing, but it is a very different matter to whether it means that tickets for routes on longer journeys to Leeds that go via Huddersfield, Deighton or Mirfield would not be valid for a route that was also via Sowerby Bridge.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top