NRCoC replaced by NRCoT from 1/10/2016

[infobleep]

Scanning it, I was under the impression it was just no dogs on seats ?

It referred to dogs for the blind and deaf but not any dogs working for anyone with any other disabilities.

It seems someone forget or didn't know that there is more people than just people who are deaf and blind using dogs.

Perhaps they should have consulted far and wide on the different points of the document.

Given that TOC pricing managers read these forums and make changes, could ATOC do the same?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[MichaelAMW]

It is very much allowed in the current set of rules, and I'm not someone out to exploit it.

No: I and many others think that a reasonable reading of the current rules is that an any permitted ticket may be used on a through train from the origin to destination of the ticket over a non-permitted route but that break of journey is not allowed over that route. The idea that you can break your journey if you only use those through trains is a deliberate twisting of the words.

How do I know which journeys I can or cannot break and resume, or start short? And if I can end my outward journey short why can't I start my return journey short?

And if I should be "caught out", what type of Excess Fare should I get? And what would be the fare calculation?

Doesn't seem like any thought has gone into this.

I'm not sure if that question is intended to be wider than the through trains rule, but if it isn't my first answer suffices: you can't break your journey on a non-permitted route. I understand this relaxation of the requirement for the shortest or a permitted route to be a specific concession to allow the convenience of the use of a through train.

 

[Agent_c]

That is rather up to a Court. I have a feeling the railway will find that it in fact does.

I would agree that it could be argued that the statements have contractual effect.

They might not be in the official list, but that wouldn't exclude them being seen as having contractual effect... They clearly demonstrate what the TOCs mean by the more formal statements, and are a useful guide to interpretation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When at university there was a disability officer in a wheelchair who had an assistance dog. Now he was neither blind nor deaf as fat as I am aware but his dog clearly did something to help him as they had working dog notices on them.

Someone with more knowledge may be able to explain how a dog can help a non blind or deaf disabled person.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

The most obvious examples I can think of are therepy dogs to manage anxiety, and dogs that predict and warn when the user is going to have an epileptic fit.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Reading the varying interpretations here for some of the new/revised/reclarified rules, does anyone predict a nightmare when TOCs, particular revenue officers, start to take on their own interpretations?

My prediction is that Condition 14 will continue to be enforced in exactly the same way as the current Condition 19, and any disputes as to the interpretation will never make it as far as a "higher" Court because ATOC won't want a Judge to decide how a given Condition should actually be interpreted...Not that I'm even remotely cynical, you understand.

 

[TUC]

For the new condition 14.2, does a train have to be following the same line of route for a zonal/concessionary pass and ticket combination to be valid? e.g. if there are two routes betwern stations A and C, and for route 1 there is an intermediate station B within the zonal boundary for which the pass is valid from A to B, and you have a separate ticket from B to C. However, you are on a train that runs non-stop from A to C via route 2 rather than route 1, would the combination of tickets nevertheless be valid?

 

[jon0844]

My prediction is that Condition 14 will continue to be enforced in exactly the same way as the current Condition 19, and any disputes as to the interpretation will never make it as far as a "higher" Court because ATOC won't want a Judge to decide how a given Condition should actually be interpreted...Not that I'm even remotely cynical, you understand.

I think you've nailed it. So many things that really need clarifying in court never get there.

 

[sheff1]

Regarding the new restrictions on dogs this could cause some interesting issues (please correct me if I have misinterpreted)

The only new restriction relates to animals on seats.

Two dogs are still allowed, as before, unless a TOC has set out special conditions relating to their own services. Has any TOC done so ?

 

[Kite159]

Question for clarification reference BZ tickets.

If a passenger holds a daily 1-6 travelcard and purchases (for example) a BZ6 - Cambridge ticket, would that combination still be valid on the non-stop Great Northern services?

 

[Haywain]

I do wonder if these new restrictions are to do with 'religious sensitivity' rather than any health or hygiene issue?

Or perhaps it just recognises that in spite of some finding it difficult to comprehend, there are many people in the general population who simply do not like dogs.

 

[maniacmartin]

Question for clarification reference BZ tickets.

If a passenger holds a daily 1-6 travelcard and purchases (for example) a BZ6 - Cambridge ticket, would that combination still be valid on the non-stop Great Northern services?

Yes. Boundary Zone tickets have always been a special case with unpublished rules outside of the neat categories that dictate how other tickets are combined

 

[infobleep]

Yes. Boundary Zone tickets have always been a special case with unpublished rules outside of the neat categories that dictate how other tickets are combined

How about publishing the rules I this age of transparency? What would be the problem in doing such a thing?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The information panel under 16.4 . . .

16.4 INFORMATION: . . . . .
However, you would not normally be allowed to get off at an intermediate station where the fare would have been higher.

. . .
I'm not sure that use of words like "generally" and "normally" (Condition 16.4) are appropriate in a contractual document of this nature.

I agree. These terms recur throughout the document. They render much of it uncertain. All very similar to one of the greatest criticisms of the prior NRCoC, which were areas of ambiguity which I had hoped might be resolved in this revision.

Condition 31.1 . . . .
"Cheapest valid standard class fare available on the service you used" is horribly vague though.

It is.

Well I think they've made a right mess of Condition 19 (now 14).

It's astonishing messy!

 

[Hadders]

Condition 10.2 on Penalty Fares concerns me:

10.2 Train Companies are required to ensure that warning notices are clearly
displayed on trains and stations where such schemes operate. Within the
areas where such schemes operate, you may be charged a Penalty Fare if:
(a) You travel on a train service without a Ticket or Permit to Travel;
(b) You travel in first class accommodation with a standard class Ticket;
(c) You travel on a train service at a time when your Ticket is not valid;
(d) You travel with a Train Company for which your Ticket is not valid;
(e) You do not have the necessary supporting document(s), where required (for example a valid Railcard or photocard).

Although condition 9.4 contradicts this:

If you have an ‘off-peak’ or ‘super off-peak’ Ticket, correctly dated but invalid for the service on which you are travelling; you are using a route for which your
Ticket is not valid; or you break your journey when you are not permitted to do
so, you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid and
the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

 

[infobleep]

I agree. These terms recur throughout the document. They render much of it uncertain. All very similar to one of the greatest criticisms of the prior NRCoC, which were areas of ambiguity which I had hoped might be resolved in this revision.
It is.
It's astonishing messy!

How does this kind of thing get past their legal department? I assume lawyers review it but I don't know.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

For the new condition 14.2, does a train have to be following the same line of route for a zonal/concessionary pass and ticket combination to be valid? e.g. if there are two routes betwern stations A and C, and for route 1 there is an intermediate station B within the zonal boundary for which the pass is valid from A to B, and you have a separate ticket from B to C. However, you are on a train that runs non-stop from A to C via route 2 rather than route 1, would the combination of tickets nevertheless be valid?

I would say no, under both the new and the current rules.

 

[Richard_B]

How the new clause 14 reads to me.

14.1 - no change really, says you can still use multiple tickets for a journey if you like

14.2 - essentially increases the validity of area tickets to be used to "split ticket" when the train doesn't stop at the changeover point, to all area tickets, and seasons. For example Euston to Manchester would be valid on VT with a season to rugby, then West Midlands day ranger, then Cheshire day ranger. I don't agree with the interpretations that say this limits journeys to 2 tickets, the clause reads more to be about each individual change of ticket to ticket.

14.3 and 14.4 seem pretty superfluous, clarifying that some tickets can have extra restrictions and then saying that it's your responsibility to be on a valid ticket

 

[infobleep]

Condition 10.2 on Penalty Fares concerns me:




Although condition 9.4 contradicts this:

They say may. So maybe in those cases listed in 9.4 it means you won't be. Whether there are any other ticket types remaining where they could issue a penalty fare I don't know.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although condition 9.4 contradicts this:

9.4 assumes it is possible to ticket any arbitrary route, but also needs to say "or, if no through ticket exists by the route being used, a combination of tickets", because it isn't possible to ticket any arbitrary route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Question for clarification reference BZ tickets.

If a passenger holds a daily 1-6 travelcard and purchases (for example) a BZ6 - Cambridge ticket, would that combination still be valid on the non-stop Great Northern services?

Yes. A BZ ticket is in a way an excess, and leaves you with what is in effect one ticket made up of two (or three, if a return) coupons.

 

[Starmill]

9.4 assumes it is possible to ticket any arbitrary route, but also needs to say "or, if no through ticket exists by the route being used, a combination of tickets", because it isn't possible to ticket any arbitrary route.

A route needn't be arbitrary for no tickets to be available.

Many of the fastest routes have no tickets available.

 

[Hadders]

They say may. So maybe in those cases listed in 9.4 it means you won't be. Whether there are any other ticket types remaining where they could issue a penalty fare I don't know.

I'm inclined to agree but I don't believe you can be PF'd for travelling at an invalid time. An excess fare would be applicable.

This introduces more fear, uncertainty and doubt. Just imagine what GTR would think.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reading the varying interpretations here for some of the new/revised/reclarified rules, does anyone predict a nightmare when TOCs, particular revenue officers, start to take on their own interpretations?

Yes.

One of the problems we are seeing with "plain English" rather than legalese is that the latter, when carefully drafted, can ensure a clear single meaning, but the former is invariably more nuanced.

 

[yorkie]

I do think that the Southern/Thameslink/Gatwick Express issue has now been solved. Sadly to the detriment of those who used GatEx with other, cheaper, tickets.

Ultimately, the way to save money is simply not use it. It's not much quicker, if at all, and there are other ways to get cheap any permitted tickets that work.

Consider it good while it lasted.

Eh?

The relevant condition now reads:

Some Tickets, particularly advance Tickets, require you to travel on a specific
train service or services, or the services of a particular Train Company or
Companies. We will make these conditions clear to you when you purchase
your Ticket

Clearly Thameslink Only tickets remain valid on the train company of that name.

Information boxes are not Conditions. The wording "groups of train services indicated by a particular brand name or identity" is a nonsense piece of "information" which clearly someone has tried to add for dubious reasons but it does not alter the Conditions.

The "information" is unhelpful, makes no sense in the context of the actual conditions, and should be removed to avoid confusion.

 

[TUC]

I would say no, under both the new and the current rules.

If that was correct i hink that difficulty could come for passengers who don't know specific routes or lines. If a passenger knows that two trains run between A and C, but that one stops at B and the other doesn't, how are they to know whether the non-stopper is following the same route as the stopper or a different route and so whether or not a zonal/other ticket combinwtion split at B is valid?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Clearly Thameslink Only tickets remain valid on the train company of that name.

There is no Train Company called "Thameslink"; that is a service sub-brand (OK, it's "ThamesLink", but that doesn't matter as on a ticket it'd be printed "THAMESLINK" anyway, would it not?).

There is one called "Govia Thameslink Railway" or "GTR" for short, but that is not the same thing. That name is never shortened to simply "Thameslink" and so I disagree with the above interpretation, and would expect a Court to do the same.

The new wording clearly legitimises sub-brand routeing, and this is what is clearly happening here. It is totally clear, now, what a ticket routed "Thameslink" means, and it is totally clear that that does not include trains branded "Gatwick Express". The NRCoC did not permit GTR to have that condition, the NRCoT does. So to me, that is the end of the dodge, and I'm sure a prosecution, if one is attempted, will be successful.

The only get-out I can see is that the clarification is in one of the supposedly non-contractual information panels. As mentioned I think this actually would be seen as contractual by a Court (though I would be interested to see DaveNewcastle's learned view on this) and that the "weasel words" are superfluous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If that was correct i hink that difficulty could come for passengers who don't know specific routes or lines. If a passenger knows that two trains run between A and C, but that one stops at B and the other doesn't, how are they to know whether the non-stopper is following the same route as the stopper or a different route and so whether or not a zonal/other ticket combinwtion split at B is valid?

If a passenger wishes to use a split ticket, it is up to them to correctly inform themselves of its validity, by asking staff if necessary.

 

[yorkie]

There is no Train Company called "Thameslink"; that is a service sub-brand (OK, it's "ThamesLink", but that doesn't matter as on a ticket it'd be printed "THAMESLINK" anyway, would it not?).

There is one called "Govia Thameslink Railway" or "GTR" for short, but that is not the same thing. That name is never shortened to simply "Thameslink" and so I disagree with the above interpretation, and would expect a Court to do the same.

Nonsense. Train company names are often abbreviated on tickets.

How could a court rule that a ticket which is restricted to a company called "Thameslink" is only valid on some of that company's trains?

The new wording clearly legitimises sub-brand routeing, and this is what is clearly happening here. It is totally clear, now, what a ticket routed "Thameslink" means, and it is totally clear that that does not include trains branded "Gatwick Express". The NRCoC did not permit GTR to have that condition, the NRCoT does. So to me, that is the end of the dodge, and I'm sure a prosecution, if one is attempted, will be successful.

Absolute nonsense again. :roll:

Boxes headed "Information" are not conditions and are not part of the contract.

The only get-out I can see is that the clarification is in one of the supposedly non-contractual information panels. As mentioned I think this actually would be seen as contractual by a Court (though I would be interested to see DaveNewcastle's learned view on this) and that the "weasel words" are superfluous.

Several people who are familiar with contract law are pretty clear that an "information" box does not over-rule the Conditions.

If a passenger wishes to use a split ticket, it is up to them to correctly inform themselves of its validity, by asking staff if necessary.

Ask 10 staff and you may get 10 answers
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where does it say this in WYPTE's conditions ?

Neil Williams just made it up, I think.

 

[Jonfun]

The often frustrating thing with this forum is that folk often confuse their opinion with fact. And even now this Southern/GatEx/Thameslink restrictions malarkey is in black and white as being acceptable we still have folk claiming it isn't.

I think, barring a couple of clarifications here and there, the new NRCoT is much better and clearer than the one it replaces. Much less scope for misinterpretation.

 

[yorkie]

The often frustrating thing with this forum is that folk often confuse their opinion with fact. And even now this Southern/GatEx/Thameslink restrictions malarkey is in black and white as being acceptable we still have folk claiming it isn't.

Yes, the contractual terms are in black and white.

I think, barring a couple of clarifications here and there, the new NRCoT is much better and clearer than the one it replaces. Much less scope for misinterpretation.

In some cases there is less scope for misinterpretation, but not all. There is plenty of evidence of people disagreeing over interpretations in this thread! So quite how you can say there is "much less scope for misinterpretation" I have no idea!

The introduction of "information" boxes, some of which purport to introduce additional conditions (but, as worded, contractually do not) is a cause for concern and appears to be causing more misinterpretation in some areas.

 

[furlong]

I don't think it is intentional, but I can't deny what is in the NRCoT, the particulars of the Travelcard agreement do not seem to be in the contract between traveller and TOC, but rather between ATOC and TfL.

Without the franchise agreement (which pulls in the Travelcard Agreement), I don't think a TOC has any basis for its contract with a passenger. As they stand, I'd argue that, rather than risking breaches of franchise agreements and consumer regulations, it would be wise to delay the stated implementation date from 1st October so that the flaws pointed out on this thread can be considered in detail, and revisions made where deemed necessary.

 

[Merseysider]

I'll keep it short.

I don't believe this:

We have included a number of ‘Information’ panels to help you understand the meaning of certain Conditions. Please note that these panels are not intended to have contractual effect and do not form part of our contract with you.

could be any clearer.

This raises a question. Do we take into account these 'information' panels when interpreting the Conditions? If no, then they should be left out altogether or incorporated as new Conditions themselves. If yes, then they would have contractual effect, except they don't, because well it says right there they don't.

Clearly, with the already large amount of disagreement caused by ambiguity, the new Conditions should be postponed, rehashed and rewritten until a coherent, precise document can be produced. That isn't too much to ask surely?

 

[Starmill]

]Neil Williams just made it up, I think.

The only conditions I can find which relate to my green MCard make no mention.

The general conditions for pink Mcards make no mention either. I believe Yorksrob has a yellow corporate Mcard, so he may need to check the specific ones for that.