1st Class Upgrade on a Split Ticket

[yorkie]

Does XC's policy anywhere define journey? Why would we believe it imports the NRCoC definition?

I don't think XC can legitimately deny the right to combine two or more tickets for one journey. Such an attempt would fail. However the claim appears to be that the wording is out of date and XC are changing their policy to charge it on a per ticket basis, rather than a per journey basis. The suggestion that passengers may not combine two or more tickets for one journey is absurd as clearly, they may do so.

I imagine that, as with many aspects of railway ticketing: in a courtroom common sense would be applied, but this isn't the sort of thing that would ever result in litigation, so the guards are free to decide for themselves. Most will decide they'd rather have the commission than send the passenger back to standard (c.f. standard advances)

I agree, but there are always going to be a very small proportion who would rather see the company lose revenue, lose commission themselves, and see a passenger dissatisfied with the service.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Is everyone arguing past each other and purposefully misunderstanding the other's point?

I don't think XC can legitimately deny the right to combine two or more tickets for one journey.

What does that sentence even mean?!

 

[yorkie]

Passengers have the right (NRCoC 19) to use "two or more tickets for one journey".

XC cannot deny people that right.

But I do not think XC are trying to re-define journey, more likely they are either not thinking it through and/or they have not got specified the correct wording in NRE.

 

[PermitToTravel]

XC are not denying people that right. XC do have the right though to write their own contracts with their own definition of journey.

As they haven't defined journey, or imported a definition from the CoC or elsewhere, the English language applies.

 

[sheff1]

It's nothing to do with anyone "supporting" XC. It matters little whether anyone likes or loathes the policy - they have made the commercial decision to set the rule and if you want to buy the ticket you have to accept the conditions with come with it.

Where are these conditions published ? Apologies if I have missed the link, but the only things I have seen linked from this thread are the NRCoC and statements on NRE.

 

[AlterEgo]

Passengers have the right (NRCoC 19) to use "two or more tickets for one journey".

XC cannot deny people that right.

But I do not think XC are trying to re-define journey, more likely they are either not thinking it through and/or they have not got specified the correct wording in NRE.

In fact XC are supporting the right to buy two or more tickets to make a journey by...selling them two or more upgrades. Aren't they?

What is a "journey", anyway? Where is this defined?

 

[yorkie]

XC are not denying people that right. XC do have the right though to write their own contracts with their own definition of journey.

At present the conditions state that the price depends on the "journey", and the contract allows two or more tickets to be used for one "journey".

I do agree that XC can withdraw from offering Weekend First and offer something else that does not refer to being priced according to the "journey".

I do not agree that XC can claim the existing wording, referring to "journey" prevents people from using tickets for their journey in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage.

As they haven't defined journey, or imported a definition from the CoC or elsewhere, the English language applies.

In that case the journey on XC is York to Birmingham, as the OP wishes, so I am glad we are in agreement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fact XC are supporting the right to buy two or more tickets to make a journey by...selling them two or more upgrades. Aren't they?

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/pr3744bcc35ce7410024862c7ece4649.aspx

Priced at either £5.00, £10.00, £15.00 or £20.00 depending on the journey being made.

So if the journey made is York to Birmingham, there is a price for that, and that is the fare to be charged.

What is a "journey", anyway? Where is this defined?

The NRCoC gives prd101 the right to use two or more tickets for his journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yorkie, you've still not defined what a journey is.

If someone travels Chester-le-Street to Northampton with a ticket that splits at York, what is his journey? If he then travels to Milton Keynes after going to an off-station pub for three hours, but on a separate ticket, what is his journey?

XC cannot sell a customer an upgrade to cover "his journey" because that would require us to accept his journey is - for the purposes of the upgrade - between York and Birmingham. But is that "his journey"?

The concept of a journey is not defined and the sooner we can agree on this the better.

 

[jkdd77]

XC are not denying people that right. XC do have the right though to write their own contracts with their own definition of journey.

As they haven't defined journey, or imported a definition from the CoC or elsewhere, the English language applies.

Indeed, the natural meaning of the word 'journey' in the English language leads me to the certainty that a passenger who travels from A to Z without break has made a single journey, regardless of whether the passenger holds an A -> Z ticket, two separate A -> M & M -> Z tickets, 25 separate A -> B, B -> C ...etc... to Y -> Z tickets, or even no ticket at all (the latter of which would almost certainly be an offence).

If I go from A to Z by car without stopping, have I made one journey or twenty-five journeys? There is no reason why the answer should be any different if I travel by rail instead. If, hypothetically, I travel on XC without a ticket, and am prosecuted after being detected attempting to leave at Z without having paid my fare, will XC claim in court that I have made 25 journeys, or one journey?
The answer speaks for itself.

There is no divine right to upgrade a standard class ticket to first class, and XC may choose to sell or not to sell discretionary upgrades as they please, and they already choose not to sell such tickets to the holders of standard Advance tickets.

However, if they advertise that the upgrade is available to all walk-up (non-Advance) standard class ticket holders for a fixed price 'per journey', and neither honour this nor expressly re-define the phrase 'journey' to mean what they want it to mean, it may constitute false or misleading advertising.

In principle, similar considerations apply to railcard minimum fares, which the relevant T & Cs define relative to "journeys" but which are actually, in practice, applied per ticket.

I'm not convinced that a passenger refused an upgrade would have any legal remedy. In the case of railcard minimum fares on split tickets, it might be possible to construct a claim based on the alleged misapplication of the minimum fare requirement, contrary to the wording of the contract (the T & Cs) and to the detriment of the passenger. Whether it would be worthwhile in practice to pursue a civil claim for the alleged overcharge is another matter entirely.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie, you've still not defined what a journey is.

I don't need to define what a "journey" is; what matters is that passengers may combine tickets for one journey.

If someone travels Chester-le-Street to Northampton with a ticket that splits at York, what is his journey?

The passenger may choose for this to be a CLS-NMP journey, if they wish.

If he then travels to Milton Keynes after going to an off-station pub for three hours, but on a separate ticket, what is his journey?

The passenger may break their journey if they wish to do so, so that is what it is. You can't easily define "journey" but rights have been given to passengers that state they may use two or more tickets for one journey.

XC cannot sell a customer an upgrade to cover "his journey" because that would require us to accept his journey is - for the purposes of the upgrade - between York and Birmingham. But is that "his journey"?

As XC do not sell Weekend First fares for anything other than the portion of the journey that is with them, then in this case it would be York to Birmingham. If a through Weekend First fare was available then that should be offered to the customer.

The ultimate irony is that XC do not like people purchasing a combination of tickets, so XC insist on refusing to sell a through upgrade for their journey, and attempting to sell them a combination of upgrades to get back at them

The concept of a journey is not defined and the sooner we can agree on this the better.

Passengers are allowed to use two or more tickets for one journey, and that is the key issue here.

 

[PermitToTravel]

At present the conditions state that the price depends on the "journey", and the contract allows two or more tickets to be used for one "journey".

I do not agree that XC can claim the existing wording, referring to "journey" prevents people from using tickets for their journey in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage.

The contract for the journey and the contract for the upgrade are separate. The former has published conditions. The latter doesn't. If XC would like to add conditions, they can make it clear before you buy, either by writing some (they haven't), or by saying that you'll have to pay two upgrades (most TMs won't )

 

[yorkie]

...There is no divine right to upgrade a standard class ticket to first class, and XC may choose to sell or not to sell discretionary upgrades as they please, and they already choose not to sell such rights to the holders of standard Advance tickets.

However, if they advertise that the upgrade is available to all walk-up (non-Advance) standard class ticket holders for a fixed price 'per journey', and neither honour this nor expressly re-define the phrase 'journey' to mean what they want it to mean, it may constitute false or misleading advertising.

Absolutely spot on, yes.

 

[PermitToTravel]

There is no divine right to upgrade a standard class ticket to first class, and XC may choose to sell or not to sell discretionary upgrades as they please, and they already choose not to sell such rights to the holders of standard Advance tickets.

However, if they advertise that the upgrade is available to all walk-up (non-Advance) standard class ticket holders for a fixed price 'per journey', and neither honour this nor expressly re-define the phrase 'journey' to mean what they want it to mean, it may constitute false or misleading advertising.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

 

[yorkie]

The contract for the journey and the contract for the upgrade are separate.

The upgrade still has to comply with the NRCoC, and the current wording of the upgrade on NRE is that it applies per "journey".

The former has published conditions. The latter doesn't. If XC would like to add conditions, they can make it clear before you buy, either by writing some (they haven't), or by saying that you'll have to pay two upgrades (most TMs won't )

I agree, that if XC do want to add these conditions, they need to make it very clear, which is not currently the case.

I also don't believe they can simply "add conditions" without re-naming the product to distinguish the fact that what they are now apparently attempting to offer is seemingly rather different to the well-established product offered elsewhere.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The upgrade still has to comply with the NRCoC, and the current wording of the upgrade on NRE is that it applies per "journey".

I don't understand that sentence either

I also don't believe they can simply "add conditions" without re-naming the product to distinguish the fact that what they are now apparently attempting to offer is seemingly rather different to the well-established product offered elsewhere.

This is a good salient point.

I wonder why we're arguing when we're in agreement...

 

[yorkie]

I don't understand that sentence either

The upgrade is subject to the NRCoC (ie, Condition 19 is still relevant)

The upgrade conditions currently state that it is priced "depending on the journey being made" (ie, if people are wondering whether or not the customer may use two or more tickets for one journey, they can read Condition 19 to discover the answer)

This is a good salient point.

I wonder why we're arguing when we're in agreement...

In that case we are not arguing; we are simply discussing.

 

[PermitToTravel]

The upgrade is subject to the NRCoC (ie, Condition 19 is still relevant)

This whole thread is you repeating that and everyone asking you for a source

 

[John @ home]

This whole thread is you repeating that and everyone asking you for a source

One source consists of the words printed on the back of each XC Weekend Upgrade voucher.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Is it a common stock ticket?

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't need to define what a "journey" is; what matters is that passengers may combine tickets for one journey.

The passenger may choose for this to be a CLS-NMP journey, if they wish.

The passenger may break their journey if they wish to do so, so that is what it is. You can't easily define "journey" but rights have been given to passengers that state they may use two or more tickets for one journey.

As XC do not sell Weekend First fares for anything other than the portion of the journey that is with them, then in this case it would be York to Birmingham. If a through Weekend First fare was available then that should be offered to the customer.

The ultimate irony is that XC do not like people purchasing a combination of tickets, so XC insist on refusing to sell a through upgrade for their journey, and attempting to sell them a combination of upgrades to get back at them

Passengers are allowed to use two or more tickets for one journey, and that is the key issue here.

But little of this is relevant to the situation in the OP.

We rely on insisting that NRE states that the passenger may upgrade their "journey", but you cannot tell me what that journey is. Saying "you can use two or more tickets to make a journey" is not defining what a journey is.

Is it their full journey? No, clearly not, as many passengers are travelling on journeys which may start or end off the XC network. So it cannot mean their full journey on the National Rail network - and this is the definition of "journey" we cling to most on this forum.

Is it their journey solely on XC trains?

Is it their journey made on their ticket, treating each individual ticket as a separate journey?

A passenger may indeed use more than one ticket for one journey, but we are still unsure what a journey actually is. If a passenger is travelling on two tickets, York to Birmingham and Birmingham to Leeds, and they turn around immediately at BHM, for whatever purpose (haulage, who knows?), is that one journey? Should XC sell him one upgrade when requested?

If the passenger travels from York to Plymouth on two tickets, York to Birmingham on Saturday and Birmingham to Plymouth on Sunday, and stays overnight at BHM, is this one journey? Should XC sell him one upgrade (no cheating by saying an upgrade is valid for one day, because NRE says they're supposed to upgrade his "journey", right?)

I'm afraid the concept of "a journey" is far from a black and white issue on the railway. All we know is passengers are allowed to use more than one ticket to make a journey, whatever that is.

 

[jkdd77]

On further reflection, I no longer think that the NRCoC defines the word "journey". In my view, a passenger travelling A to B on day 1, B to C on day 20 and C to D on day 28 has made three separate journeys notwithstanding that all three journeys might well be covered by the return portion of a single Off-Peak Return. It is possible to envisage other grey areas.

However, in the specific instance where a passenger travels directly from A to C without BoJ (as defined by the NRCoC), I am certain that they have made a single journey, regardless of whether they have one, two, or even no tickets.

 

[AlterEgo]

On further reflection, I no longer think that the NRCoC defines the word "journey". In my view, a passenger travelling A to B on day 1, B to C on day 20 and C to D on day 28 has made three separate journeys notwithstanding that all three journeys might well be covered by the return portion of a single Off-Peak Return. It is possible to envisage other grey areas.

However, in the specific instance where a passenger travels directly from A to C without BoJ (as defined by the NRCoC), I am certain that they have made a single journey, regardless of whether they have one, two, or even no tickets.

This is what I think too.

My only point in trying to make is that we cannot rely on the NRCoC or NRE to define "journey", so it is not useful to refer back to it in the OP's case.

Common sense would dictate that the OP made a single journey. Indeed, if he had complained to me about his experience I would probably have (unthinkingly) replied with something like "I'm sorry you had a bad journey" or "we want your journey to be enjoyable".

The concept of a journey comes down to individual interpretation and common sense and it may mean different things to different people in different scenarios.

Here, NRE says "first class fares are available for most journeys", when they mean a fare flow: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46557.aspx

On the *same page*, discussing normal weekly upgrades via an excess they say:

Simply pay the difference between the price of the single ticket you hold and the cost of the appropriate First Class Single for the journey you're making.

What they mean is you pay the difference in fare on your *ticket* (or ticketS), which we all know is the correct procedure. If you split tickets you have to excess both of them.

 

[furlong]

This whole thread is you repeating that and everyone asking you for a source

That simply comes from the TSA:

“Through Fare” means:-
(a) a Fare which is valid for a journey that must involve the use of the trains of more than one Operator; or
(b) a combination of two or more Fares in respect of the whole journey and which are together valid for such a journey.
...
“Upgrade” means the right, if the person with that right Purchases a Fare, to use a National Class of Accommodation or an Operator’s service which is different from the one that the Fare would otherwise entitle him to use but which is not an Excess Fare.
...
4-52 ABILITY TO CREATE UPGRADES
(1) Circumstances in which Upgrades may be Created
An Operator may (by itself or in conjunction with any other Operator(s)) only Create an Upgrade if it is allowed to do so pursuant to sub-Clause (2) or (3)[sic] below.
(2) Upgrades in respect of its own trains
Each Operator may Create an Upgrade in respect of a journey that is to be made on its own trains.
...
4-53 OPERATORS’ ABILITY TO REQUIRE OR MAKE AVAILABLE UPGRADES
(1) An Operator may permit Upgrades to be Purchased in respect of its own trains, for use in conjunction with any Fare it specifies.
(2) However the Operator’s policy for requiring and charging for Upgrades must not discriminate between, on the one hand, Through Fares and Inter-available Fares and, on the other hand, the Dedicated Fares of that Operator.
...
PART IV: RESERVATIONS AND UPGRADES
8-8 THE NATURE AND TERMS OF THE CONTRACT
(1) The parties to the contract
The Purchase of a Reservation or an Upgrade gives rise to a contract between the person by or on behalf of whom the Reservation or Upgrade was Purchased and:-
(a) if the Reservation or Upgrade was Purchased from an Operator, that Operator; and
(b) the Operator(s) to whose train(s) the Reservation or Upgrade relates.

(2) The terms of the contract
The contract referred to in sub-Clause (1) above contains the following terms:-
(a) the National Rail Conditions of Carriage; and
(b) any terms and conditions published by any Operator to whose trains the Reservation or Upgrade relates (although these only apply to the relationship between the person by or on behalf of whom the Reservation or Upgrade was Purchased and that Operator).

 

[najaB]

That simply comes from the TSA

Thanks for that. The problem I see with it is that the definition of upgrade

“Upgrade” means the right, if the person with that right Purchases a Fare

doesn't say 'through fare'. If it did then XC would be bang to rights in the wrong.

 

[furlong]

Well at one level 4-53(2) seems to apply some constraints: where, for example there's an XC ONLY fare, then if XC allows that to be upgraded then it seems it must also allow split tickets for the same journey to be upgraded.

 

[AlterEgo]

Well at one level 4-53(2) seems to apply some constraints: where, for example there's an XC ONLY fare, then if XC allows that to be upgraded then it seems it must also allow split tickets for the same journey to be upgraded.

It does not mention that it is banned to discriminate against split tickets, so I don't think we can draw that conclusion.

The section merely says that "the Operator’s policy for requiring and charging for Upgrades must not discriminate between, on the one hand, Through Fares and Inter-available Fares and, on the other hand, the Dedicated Fares of that Operator."

I'm not sure how that could possible be read to say "if there are split tickets held only one upgrade must be sold."

 

[furlong]

In broader terms, going beyond the precise codification in the TSA, a policy that discriminates against holders of split tickets ought perhaps to be subject to review under competition rules.

 

[najaB]

Well at one level 4-53(2) seems to apply some constraints: where, for example there's an XC ONLY fare, then if XC allows that to be upgraded then it seems it must also allow split tickets for the same journey to be upgraded.

I agree. And they do - individually.

 

[furlong]

I'm not sure how that could possible be read to say "if there are split tickets held only one upgrade must be sold."

Through Fare definition (b) = split tickets
Dedicated Fare = XC ONLY

Finding the consistent definition of 'journey' strikes me as a side-issue here. The underlying question for me when split tickets are involved is whether discrimination against split tickets may be deemed anti-competitive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree. And they do - individually.

If the total price or terms are different, then surely that amounts to forbidden discrimination.

 

[AlterEgo]

Through Fare definition (b) = split tickets
Dedicated Fare = XC ONLY

Finding the consistent definition of 'journey' strikes me as a side-issue here. The underlying question for me when split tickets are involved is whether discrimination against split tickets may be deemed anti-competitive.

Yes, thanks - I see your point now, thanks for illustrating it. Interesting. My only point about the journey was to eliminate that erroneous line of reasoning. You have shown something less woolly.

I'm not sure I could take an educated stab at whether discriminating against split tickets would be "anti competitive" or not. Who would be the arbiter of this? Are you suggesting it's actually illegal, or just anti-competitive in a moral sense?

As najaB says, XC *do* allow split tickets to be upgraded - individually. This is the same process as would happen Monday-Friday with two separate Standard tickets - each individual ticket would need to be excessed and two "upgrades" paid.