NRCoC replaced by NRCoT from 1/10/2016

[furlong]

or on trains carrying a specific branding.

Except operational efficiencies now mean the 'branding' in the T&Cs is no longer carried on the 'train' the passenger sees at the station but counter-intuitively solely by a portion of a timetable entry - leaving the passenger in considerable confusion!

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding the "branding" issue, I remember when the Caledonian Sleeper services were an integrated part of the wider Scotrail franchise/TOC as a sub-brand, Sleeper berth and seated car tickets had something like "SR CAL SLEP" printed in the "Route" field.

This clearly demonstrated that the Caledonian Sleeper services were operated by a TOC - Scotrail.

The problems south of the mighty Thames regarding the plethora of fares along London, Brighton, & South Coast Railway metals should be sorted out once and for all. For example, Govia Thameslink Railway could have one lowest priced and one highest priced fare removed at the next fares round, and repeating that until gradually the middle point is reached. Then it would just be the one fare left across all the brands.

Furthermore, I do not recognise Southern, Thameslink, or Gatwick Express as TOCs, as all three do not exist - similar as to how Glasgow Rangers FC has not existed since the end of the season in 2012, when they were forced to go into liquidation when they got caught operating a tax dodging scam. The present outfit started out as a brand new organisation Sevco, fronted by Charles Green (the same Charles Green who was the "saviour" of Sheffield United, then trousered a lot of money out of it before walking away).

If the new NRCoT is going to be explicit about sub-brands, then they should have it similar as to how to when the CS was part of Scotrail i.e. "GTR TLINK", "GTR STH", and "GTR GATEX" in the "Route" field. Without the "GTR", Southern, Thameslink, and Gatwick Express are not legitimate TOCs at all.

 

[furlong]

In writing government guidance, the following words have specific meanings'

We're talking about legally-enforceable terms and conditions. Anything other than 'must' leads to ambiguity.

 

[sheff1]

But ideally, to be clearer, what that condition should say is:

".. or on trains carrying a specific branding ...."

Then there is little doubt and no need for the information panel.

That would only be the case if the branding carried by the train is the branding of the TOC whose service it is.

Leaving aside the 'Gatwick' fiasco which has been done to death I can remember travelling on the following (there may be more):

* SWT branded unit working an EMT service

* Northern branded unit working a TPE service (and vice versa)

* EMT branded HST working an East Coast and a VTEC service

* EMT branded HST working a XC service.

There is also no point in saying "listen to the announcement" or "look at the the screens". With auto announcements/displays it is very often the case that what is being announced/displayed bears no relation to which train is actually in the platform

 

[najaB]

But ideally, to be clearer, what that condition should say is:

"Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, on trains travelling via a certain route or routes, on trains you hold a seat reservation supplied with the Ticket, or on trains carrying a specific branding. These are only examples; other restrictions may apply at the option of the Train Company."

Is it the branding of the train (i.e. the vechicle) or of the service that matters?

Edit: I can see that furlong and others have got there first!

 

[cool110]

...
I agree something similar, with these terms probably capitalised and defined at the start, would be good here.

They SHOULD just stick the standard boilerplate in.

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

 

[bb21]

Is it the branding of the train (i.e. the vechicle) or of the service that matters?

Edit: I can see that furlong and others have got there first!

Both.

Good practice is that customers be given the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Both.

Well...I would say officially it would be what it says on the timetable. It might be good practice to add window stickers or put it on the PIS if there is going to be a train "on hire"[1] just as bus companies are required to do with legal lettering.

[1] It might not quite be what has gone on legally, but stickers saying "on hire to ThamesLink" on a GatEx unit would make the situation clear enough.

Good practice is that customers be given the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

I would agree - "but I got on because it says Thameslink on it" should certainly be accepted as an excuse for holding the incorrect ticket, if it indeed says Thameslink on it but is a GatEx.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the new NRCoT is going to be explicit about sub-brands, then they should have it similar as to how to when the CS was part of Scotrail i.e. "GTR TLINK", "GTR STH", and "GTR GATEX" in the "Route" field. Without the "GTR", Southern, Thameslink, and Gatwick Express are not legitimate TOCs at all.

That is rather a moot point - the new format tickets have it much more verbose, e.g. "valid on Thameslink services only".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Furthermore, I do not recognise Southern, Thameslink, or Gatwick Express as TOCs, as all three do not exist

They indeed aren't TOCs, but they are brands, and the NRCoT permits TOCs to route tickets based on any factor they wish, of which brand is one.

It sort of makes sense - with an integrated TOC like GWR, for instance, they might want to offer discounted tickets which are only usable on their regional services - so a route "NOT HST" might be something they genuinely wish to consider once the Thames Valley regional services have their capacity upped by the new EMUs. I see no reason they should not do this if they consider that it will appeal to passengers and be profitable to do so, and thanks to the new NRCoT they are now allowed to do so.

 

[Merseysider]

I think there's a fine line, as it's a Condition that could easily be misused.

There aren't a great number of situations where a geographical route restriction wouldn't suffice in place of a TOC/brand restriction.

The former are clearly preferable as they are subject to regulation which the latter aren't.

However if we are going to go down the line of brand restrictions, it's important that Any Permitted fares stay the same and lower priced 'Not XXX' are introduced, rather than the Any Permitted being increased in price alongside a 'Not XXX' at the current price.

 

[Kite159]

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

Thanks


-----


Sheff1, there is another one you can add to your list, a SWT unit working a GWR service.

 

[yorkie]

I'm with hhf on this - there's too much wishful thinking instead of a focus on what the contract actually does say, and why it's so clumsy. It's as if there are certain things the TOCs would prefer people to think might not be allowed even though they are allowed - a situation outlawed by the consumer regulations.

This is very much it!

Clearly the DfT did not give permission for "company" to change to "brand", so they've added an information box, which does not form part of the contract and therefore doesn't have to be approved by the DfT as a material change.

So the status quo remains: those in the know pay less than the tourists, who don't know any better, and if anyone is charged, they continue to get refunds as the TOC won't want it to go to court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is very much it!

Clearly the DfT did not give permission for "company" to change to "brand", so they've added an information box, which does not form part of the contract and therefore doesn't have to be approved by the DfT as a material change.

So the status quo remains: those in the know pay less than the tourists, who don't know any better, and if anyone is charged, they continue to get refunds as the TOC won't want it to go to court.

I really don't see why this is such a problem other than the (entirely justified) dislike of GTR that is present in these forums.

A TOC can already have fares which are valid only on one of their brands of train; it can be done using Advance quotas.

I don't see why this should not be extended to walk-up fares.

 

[yorkie]

I don't see why this should not be extended to walk-up fares.

Rather than get into a debate about why I disagree with you, I will say this:

Well it hasn't been!

 

[infobleep]

Well...I would say officially it would be what it says on the timetable. It might be good practice to add window stickers or put it on the PIS if there is going to be a train "on hire"[1] just as bus companies are required to do with legal lettering.

[1] It might not quite be what has gone on legally, but stickers saying "on hire to ThamesLink" on a GatEx unit would make the situation clear enough.

At East Croydon the CIS said ThamesLink. Not sure about the PIS but it may well have done. The side of the train most certainly didn't.

The train wasn't on hire though.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[furlong]

A TOC can already have fares which are valid only on one of their brands of train; it can be done using Advance quotas.

Specific provisions exist for Advance Purchase Train-specific fares - no problems with the paperwork there.

I don't see why this should not be extended to walk-up fares.

Because there's the small matter of navigating through the Franchise Agreement and the DfT (perhaps more interested in exploring flashy new technology than revising boring out-dated documents?)... Not impossible, but I'd argue that if it's to be done, it should be done in a way that never leaves the passenger in any doubt as to validity, unlike the existing confusion of restrictions and liveries.

 

[maniacmartin]

Please can you take all GTR branding discussion elsewhere and not let it spill onto every thread

 

[yorkie]

Well...I would say officially it would be what it says on the timetable. It might be good practice to add window stickers or put it on the PIS if there is going to be a train "on hire"[1] just as bus companies are required to do with legal lettering.

[1] It might not quite be what has gone on legally, but stickers saying "on hire to ThamesLink" on a GatEx unit would make the situation clear enough.

This is becoming bonkers again, the trains are on lease to GTR, end of. Can we get back to the real world please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well it hasn't been!

By the wording of the NRCoT, it most certainly has been. Even without the information box. The listed examples are stated as being examples - "such as" - not an exhaustive list.

It might be that the NRCoT as written are a breach of something else e.g. franchise agreements, ticketing agreements etc. If they are, that is a rather different issue.

 

[Starmill]

I think we should all just accept whatever has been written. If there were a new condition which said that branded trains may cost more then perhaps this argument would have validity. As we've had a wholesale change to the structure and wording of most of the conditions, and the ammendments that you want / think exist / try to pretend exist are not there. This applies to more than just Gatwick Express. Most of us cannot possibly "know" what the train companies "intended".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The details are in the Metro cross boundary guide, available vis the pdf link at http://www.wymetro.com/howtogetto/cross-boundary/ . It would be far better in terms of clarity if Metro cross-referred to these in their MCard conditions.

That's the old website. They have a new tickets & passes website which I have linked to. And that doesn't appear it ever applied to MCards.

 

[Agent_c]

I'll keep it short.

I don't believe this:

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?

I think it does and it doesn't.

In theory. A contract is supposed to be, at its core, an agreement between two "persons", a meeting of the minds. In a perfect world we'd all think the same way and use precise language such that interpretation wouldn't ever be a question for a court to consider. Unfortunately, we don't live in such a world.

The language there is clearly demonstrating what the "TOC" person means by the terms they are proposing. So whilst they are not the contract, they explain what the words mean. Much like a court might look to government statements or hansard when trying to figure out what a bill means, or (and perhaps more releavantly) might look at the conduct of parties when trying to understand what the terms of a contract mean.

One example thats floating back at me from Obligations class, is a case where a buyer and seller are buying a painting. Lets say you and I believe the painting in my lounge is a Van Gough (but neither of us are professional validators), and on that basis you make an offer "For the Van gough in my lounge".

If it turned out that the painting in my lounge was not painted by Van Gough, IIRC a court would still find that to be valid - we both understood the term at the time to refer to that painting, even though we were both mistaken as to what the painting was.

It might seem a little sidetracked, but the point I'm getting at is the interpretation makes clear one party's intent, which then gives meaning to the words in the contract, and that meaning might be independent of the meaning of the words printed - like my non-van-gough being a van gough for the purpose of the contract.

 

[infobleep]

All ATOC need to do is amend the new conditions. Simple.

If they don't do that within so many months then I will start to assume they want the conditions to be ambiguous.

Have to allow them time to make the changes of course. Early days.

It's Intresting to note that there is a consultation on Govia ThamesLink Railway Services in the future but I'm not aware of any consultation on these new terms and conditions. I only mention GTR as that's the only railway consultation I'm aware of that is currently on going.

Surely these T&Cs are just as important as the rail services as these legally define what one can and cannot do. Well taking into account the wording usually; normally and may.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[TUC]

That's the old website. They have a new tickets & passes website which I have linked to. And that doesn't appear it ever applied to MCards.

If you Google for Metro cross boundary that's what comes up. I don't see any new version on the new website, but nothing that says this version isn't still valid either, particularly bearing in mind it's a pdf of a leaflet, so won't have been affected by the change of website-and anyone who tries to argue on a train that it doesn't apply to MCards because they aren't mentioned, even though MCards are effectively electronic versions of Metro Cards, should get the response that pedants deserve.

 

[47513 Severn]

"Your ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services"

Seems clear enough to me. If the customer has difficulty distinguishing between those certain train services that would be a different argument.

How about if GTR went down the FGW Paddington peak route and gave their brand restricted tickets a restriction code that specifically prohibited travel on the 0600, 0615, 0630 and so on departures from Victoria (and in the other direction obviously) that were branded Gatwick Express. To avoid being accused of having overly complex restrictions they could assist customers by marking these trains in the timetable etc, perhaps something like "Gatwick Express"...

But frankly it doesn't matter how the restriction is written. We all know the intention behind the restricted tickets and I believe they are a good thing, allowing a cheaper option on some journeys. The fact is some people have made it their life's mission to insist that the wording means one can travel first class on GX using a Victoria platform ticket and aren't going to let it go, sadly to the point of obsession.

And if we're opening cans of worms...how about condition 15.1? I believe this deals with the old "advertised first class" nonsense once and for all. No mention of the timetable or what is advertised, if a train has first class it has first class, end of!

 

[RJ]

"Your ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services"

Seems clear enough to me. If the customer has difficulty distinguishing between those certain train services that would be a different argument.

How about if GTR went down the FGW Paddington peak route and gave their brand restricted tickets a restriction code that specifically prohibited travel on the 0600, 0615, 0630 and so on departures from Victoria (and in the other direction obviously) that were branded Gatwick Express. To avoid being accused of having overly complex restrictions they could assist customers by marking these trains in the timetable etc, perhaps something like "Gatwick Express"...

But frankly it doesn't matter how the restriction is written. We all know the intention behind the restricted tickets and I believe they are a good thing, allowing a cheaper option on some journeys. The fact is some people have made it their life's mission to insist that the wording means one can travel first class on GX using a Victoria platform ticket and aren't going to let it go, sadly to the point of obsession.

And if we're opening cans of worms...how about condition 15.1? I believe this deals with the old "advertised first class" nonsense once and for all. No mention of the timetable or what is advertised, if a train has first class it has first class, end of!

Whilst I agree on the absurd nature of the all too frequent Gatwick Express debates, your assertion about First Class isn't correct in all circumstances. Round my way it is proactively advertised that the First Class accommodation is available for use by Standard Class ticket holders on certain services. On Southern it is even automatically announced on board through the passenger information system.

 

[yorkie]

"Your ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services"

Yes, such as Off Peak or Advance tickets.

Seems clear enough to me. If the customer has difficulty distinguishing between those certain train services that would be a different argument.

Not sure what you mean by this.

How about if GTR went down the FGW Paddington peak route and gave their brand restricted tickets a restriction code that specifically prohibited travel on the 0600, 0615, 0630 and so on departures from Victoria (and in the other direction obviously) that were branded Gatwick Express. To avoid being accused of having overly complex restrictions they could assist customers by marking these trains in the timetable etc, perhaps something like "Gatwick Express"...

Off Peak tickets could bar their use from specific departures. During the evening peak, GWR do restrict some Off Peak tickets from being used on their faster trains to Reading.

Yes, in theory, GTR could restrict some Off Peak tickets from being used on their slower trains to Gatwick (their fastest ones at peak times are the Southern branded ones calling only at Clapham Jn and East Croydon).

But this is a completely different argument! I suggest you post your proposals in a new thread.

But frankly it doesn't matter how the restriction is written.

It absolutely matters.

We all know the intention behind the restricted tickets and I believe they are a good thing, allowing a cheaper option on some journeys. The fact is some people have made it their life's mission to insist that the wording means one can travel first class on GX using a Victoria platform ticket and aren't going to let it go, sadly to the point of obsession.

The intention of NRCoC Condition 10 has always been to restrict tickets to that of a train company. It's never been an issue anywhere else, as tickets restricted to merged companies then became valid on the new company and were usually quite promptly correctly re-named.

And if we're opening cans of worms...how about condition 15.1? I believe this deals with the old "advertised first class" nonsense once and for all. No mention of the timetable or what is advertised, if a train has first class it has first class, end of!

Do trains from Inverness to Kyle, Wick and Thurso have first class?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, such as Off Peak or Advance tickets.

Or, under this new Condition, anything the TOC wants. It doesn't matter legally what the original intention was, it simply matters what is written.

Do trains from Inverness to Kyle, Wick and Thurso have first class?

Interesting question. Unless labelled as Standard accommodation, I would suggest they now will.

FWIW it surprises me that ScotRail don't introduce it. It'd get an extra few quid off the tourists without bothering anyone else.

 

[najaB]

Do trains from Inverness to Kyle, Wick and Thurso have first class?

Interesting question. Unless labelled as Standard accommodation, I would suggest they now will.

Some certainly have first class accommodation, often it is declassified but I'm not sure that it always is.

 

[yorkie]

Or, under this new Condition, anything the TOC wants. It doesn't matter legally what the original intention was, it simply matters what is written.

That is not how the Conditions are written.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Some certainly have first class accommodation...

Can you show me which trains in the current timetable those are?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...As I have said, the through-train rule is a concession that allows the use of non-permitted routes in specific circumstances a....

I've created a new thread here: Taking direct/through trains (taking routes not otherwise permitted): is BOJ allowed?

We do need a new thread for this, as it's cropped up loads of times in the past (at some point I'll try to dig out a list) and it will be difficult to refer people to this thread!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some certainly have first class accommodation, often it is declassified but I'm not sure that it always is.

It is always declassified, though only by way of the timetable.

 

[yorkie]

It is always declassified, though only by way of the timetable.

These trains have standard seating only.

Again, we are getting side-tracked, with false or misleading claims being made. I suggest people make new threads to discuss matters that go off on a tangent.

Edit: I have now created a new thread for this purpose: Train services which do not include first class accommodation