• 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!

Availability of accessible rail replacement coaches

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I did no such thing, and no reasonable interpretation of what I wrote could come up with that conclusion.
I said that I have asked the Department for Transport, the Office of Rail and Road and the DVSA for their information as to whether (some) rail replacement services are subject to the accessibility regulations, and that I've commissioned a barrister to produce an informed opinion on the situation, and that whilst I haven't ruled out legal action down the line, I'm trying these other routes for an "official" answer before considering whether to take legal action. So I haven't made any decision to take legal action, I haven't even considered doing so yet - and when I do, I won't be "looking for a case to take to court".
Claiming this is "looking for a case to take to court" is unsupportable twisting of my words.

Sorry, but who in hell would go to the expense of commissioning a barrister if they didn't intend to take a case to court if neccessary? All I can say is if you have the sort of money to commission a barrister without any intention of going to court then I would suggest you have more money than sense... and I really do mean that in the nicest possible way.

It would mean that you are wrong, and that some other posters are wrong (not all.) However "the entire Bus/coach industry" hasn't expressed an opinion on this (you made a sweeping generalisation there), and the Traffic Commissioners and the Rail Regulatory authorities have neither given an opinion on the subject nor published anything stating either way. Which is why I'm asking them. So your claim that they believe that PSVAR doesn't apply to rail replacement buses is not verifiable.
sorry but where did I claim that they had expressed an opinion... dare I say it, if you are going to ask someone to stop "twisting your words" then it isn't a good idea to twist that persons words in your response!

The fact that you need a contract with a TOC before you board is irrelevant for the purposes of determination as to whether they are subject to PSVAR.

No, of course not, because it is provided under a different basis than that of those local services which are required to register with the Traffic Commissioner. But that is not relevant for the purposes of determination of applicability of PSVAR. It is not only services that are subject to the obligation to register with the Traffic Commissioners, that are subject to the PSVAR. That's why the PSVAR refer to Section 2 for the definition of local services, and not to Section 6.

Whether or not a service is a scheduled service under the Transport Act 1985 is irrelevant, because the PSVAR uses its own internal definition and criteria of a "Scheduled service" and makes no reference to the Act in this regard.

I have now, a number of times, explained why RRB do not meet the test of being a scheduled service as defined by PSVAR. Quite simply no-one pays a seperate, graduated fare to use a RRB, neither you the passenger, nor the TOC.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I'm not claiming anything of the sort. The simple fact is you purchase a rail ticket which means you enter a contract with the TOC to travel between 2 points. The fact that they then put you on a replacement bus is immaterial. you still haven't paid for a bus journey you've paid for a rail journey. They have just transferred you to a free, gratis, complimentary replacement bus. So you, as a passenger, haven't paid a fare to travel on the bus... now it could be argued that the train operator has paid a bus fare on your behalf... but they haven't. that's not how RRB contracts work. The bus operator isn't paid per passenger carried... or by how far that passenger travels.. the TOC will say to the bus operator "I need a bus for this saturday... 6am- midnight" the bus operator will then quote a price for the hire of the vehicle for that time period. The payment will not be dependant on how many passengers use the bus or how far they travel... therefore no seperate fares have been paid.

Where does it say in the regulations that the payment has to be to the bus operator? I don't believe it does.

At the end of the day, if I am travelling between Newport and Bristol Parkway and it is a replacement bus instead of a train, I have still paid a fare to travel on that bus. Sure it may have been a railway fare, but the regulations do not say it has to be a bus fare, and as journey is by bus and I paid the fare, in simple English, I have paid a fare to travel on the bus.

Especially if the ToC has a member of staff at the RRB stop selling tickets and only allows you to board the RRB if you have a ticket, then I think the argument that RRB's are free is pretty flimsy!

As I said, I think a lot of this is just down to very poor and vague wording. In no way do I think the regulations actually mean for such services to be included, but the poor wording means that at very least there is an argument that could be made.
 
Last edited:

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Where does it say in the regulations that the payment has to be to the bus operator? I don't believe it does.
At the end of the day, if I am travelling between Newport and Bristol Parkway and it is a replacement bus instead of a train, I have still paid a fare to travel on that bus. Sure it may have been a railway fare, but the regulations do not say it has to be a bus fare, and as journey is by bus and I paid the fare, in simple English, I have paid a fare to travel on the bus.
As I said, I think a lot of this is just down to very poor and vague wording. In no way do I think the regulations actually mean for such services to be included, but the poor wording means that at very least there is an argument that could be made.

I'm going to ask a rather strange question now.... you're on a plane back from Malaga to Luton Airport. Halfway back the captain says "Due to fog at Luton we will be diverting to Bristol. When we get there go to the customer services desk, as the airline has organised a coach to take you home, as an apology for the inconvenience caused, anyone who wishes to will be dropped at the bus stop nearest their door."

Now the question is... would that "Plane replacement service" be subject to PSVAR? after all it is could be argued that everyone on board has paid a fare!
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
I'm going to ask a rather strange question now.... you're on a plane back from Malaga to Luton Airport. Halfway back the captain says "Due to fog at Luton we will be diverting to Bristol. When we get there go to the customer services desk, as the airline has organised a coach to take you home, as an apology for the inconvenience caused, anyone who wishes to will be dropped at the bus stop nearest their door."

Now the question is... would that "Plane replacement service" be subject to PSVAR? after all it is could be argued that everyone on board has paid a fare!

No because such services would not be operating to a timetable and so cannot be called scheduled.

Now say if every flight to Luton was being diverted to Bristol and a timetable was put in place for "replacement" coaches from Bristol to Luton? Then you'd have a much closer analogy!
 

lincman

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Messages
118
I must disagree that the 1985 act is irrelevant, PSVAR is by it's own wording guidance for what type of vehicle is to be on what type of service as defined by the 1985 act
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
No because such services would not be operating to a timetable and so cannot be called scheduled.
ok another example then.... Luton airport is closed... they lay on a shuttle bus service to Stansted because that's where all flights have been diverted to... they announce that the service will run every 5 minutes....now it is a scheduled service... but has a fare been paid for that service? that's the question
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
Seperate fares is the downfall in the theory. The bus company doesn’t receive seperate fares per passengers, they receive a set rate, approx £50 per hour on GWR for example.
Secondly buses join the queue at the origin station on planned replacement, therefore are not running to schedule as they get sent on their way by the controller when they are full. They are instructed where to call by the controller adhoc.
If I private hired one of our fleet to you, let’s say for a group holiday, and you charge all your group £50 each for the travel, my bus is still on private hire.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
4,923
ok another example then.... Luton airport is closed... they lay on a shuttle bus service to Stansted because that's where all flights have been diverted to... they announce that the service will run every 5 minutes....

Then I'd say you could certainly make the argument. Though in reality I doubt it because you couldn't just rock up and buy a ticket to do that journey there and then. Whereas with RRB's you can.

That is all I am saying here - making the argument. I am not saying RRB's are covered by the regulations, just that because of the wording, you could make the argument.
(indeed the main reason I started posting in this thread were people saying RRB's never have timetables - which is pure rubbish).

Seperate fares is the downfall in the theory. The bus company doesn’t receive seperate fares per passengers, they receive a set rate, approx £50 per hour on GWR for example.

The regulations do not say the bus company have to receive separate fares, just that the passengers have to pay separate fares (to whom is not specified).

Secondly buses join the queue at the origin station on planned replacement, therefore are not running to schedule as they get sent on their way by the controller when they are full.

Very much depends on the operation. Certainly on the South Wales Valleys when there are replacement buses between them and Cardiff, there absolutely is a timetable that services run to. As is there for the GWR replacement buses in operation between Newport and Bristol Parkway this weekend.
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
Very much depends on the operation. Certainly on the South Wales Valleys when there are replacement buses between them and Cardiff, there absolutely is a timetable that services run to. As is there for the GWR replacement buses in operation between Newport and Bristol Parkway this weekend.

Ok so it’s not a blanket case. We did some rail replacing and it was all sent off by the controller. There were no timetables supplied, just call at A, B & C
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
My simple rule of thumb is quite simple, if the service is available to the "General Public" it needs to be accessible. If the service is restricted ie: the passenger needs a specific pre purchased ticket as Rail ticket and the general public is excluded then it does not need to be accessible. Please do not think that I am in any way unsympathetic to your aspirations, but these things take time.
In which case, school buses should not need to be accessible.
But some are, even though they only take school children and those children('s parents) have to pay the council invadvance.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I totally despair with some of the silliness on here. It's certainly a complicated issue but many people are just going over the same ground all the time. Nobody takes any notice of issues that don't suit their own personal agenda and it's made it impossible to have any sensible debate. Probably best if I just leave you to it - a test case would be a nice way forward and I hope it progresses in the way I expect it will.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
(b)references to a vehicle being “used” or “in use” means the regulated public service vehicle is being used to provide either a local service or a scheduled service."

Therefore only vehicles used on local or scheduled service are covered by PSVAR.
Yep.
Ergo the question is whether Rail Replacements come under the scope of local/ scheduled services.
Yep. Scheduled services are defined in the PSVAR, local services defined in the PSVAR as being defined under S2 Transport Act. But:
obviously, Rail Replacement services do, one way or the other, meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered a scheduled/ local service.
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me, and I contend that rail replacement services do not meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered as a scheduled service, as defined under the PSVAR, or a local service, as defined under S2 Transport Act.
RRB is in operation from A to D via B and C.... what if the journey is considered 3 different journeys... A to B B to C and C to D... in that case everyone boarding at A have paid the same fare and have travelled the full length of route to B ok so half the people stay on board at B and go on to C... that is immaterial B to C is a seperate journey {much as happens on local services which have been "split" to comply with the 50km rule}
Every service could disapply itself from this requirement, rail replacement or otherwise. I think that breaking it down like this is stretching the definition to breaking point.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Yep. Yep. Scheduled services are defined in the PSVAR, local services defined in the PSVAR as being defined under S2 Transport Act. But:
It may be obvious to you, but it is not obvious to me, and I contend that rail replacement services do not meet the conditions to be exempted from being considered as a scheduled service, as defined under the PSVAR, or a local service, as defined under S2 Transport Act.
Every service could disapply itself from this requirement, rail replacement or otherwise. I think that breaking it down like this is stretching the definition to breaking point.
I note that you repeatedly ignore my posts regarding how RRB do not meet the definition of scheduled service under PSVAR due to the fact that no fares are charged.... you really are beginning to remind me of Vikki Pollard "yeah but no but yeah but" It seems to me that you will keep asking the same questions in different ways until everyone gives up and agrees with you... and you then ignore anything that you can't argue back against.

It's quite simple no seperate fares are paid to anyone or by anyone which is one of the tests under PSVAR to qualify as a scheduled service under those regulations.

You may not like it, or agree with it... for what it's worth as I have stated over and over there should be no exceptions to the rules all psv's should be subject to the rules... but that doesn't change the facts. RRBs do not meet the test and so therefore are exempt!
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Again I say... you purchase your rail ticket... that means you enter into a contract with the TOC for you to travel with them... you get halfway to your destination and the line is blockaded and there is a replacement bus service {because the TOC has a mandatory obligation to provide the service} and you are transferred to the bus to complete your journey. What fare have you paid to get on that bus? It doesn't matter what is printed on your rail ticket, that is your fare for the rail journey. The point is that you have not paid a single penny to get on the bus. No fare. Nada. Therefore Rail Replacement Services are exempt from PSVAR.

I understand your point but disagree.
Paying for a rail fare entitles one to avail oneself of the services provided or procured by the TOC or TOCs concerned in order to get to the destination. Where part or all of that journey is disrupted and cannot be continued by rail, the TOC has an obligation to provide alternative transport wherever possible. This is typically by means of a rail replacement bus. So when paying for a fare, one is entering into a contract with the TOC for a fee; and that fee entitles one (as part of a package of rights) to access said alternative transport provided by the TOC.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I understand your point but disagree.
Paying for a rail fare entitles one to avail oneself of the services provided or procured by the TOC or TOCs concerned in order to get to the destination. Where part or all of that journey is disrupted and cannot be continued by rail, the TOC has an obligation to provide alternative transport wherever possible. This is typically by means of a rail replacement bus. So when paying for a fare, one is entering into a contract with the TOC for a fee; and that fee entitles one (as part of a package of rights) to access said alternative transport provided by the TOC.
but specifically, and this really does matter at law... your contract is for rail travel. Now the oddity at law of a TOC is, as I am sure you are aware, that they cannot refuse to enter into that contract. ie they can't say "sorry line closed, find an alternative way" they have to offer to complete your journey.

To give an example.. you book a cinema ticket at the local odeon. When you arrive the manager says "sorry, there's a power cut so we can't open tonight. Here's your money back, and complimentary vouchers for another showing within the next month" Train operators do not have that option.. the law requires that they do provide the service... even if every train has broken down, all viable lines are blocked etc. That's why we have RRB services in the first place... in fact, considering that RRB's are invariably slower than the train service, and have a time penalty built in transfering to/ from the bus I would contend that all passengers would be entitled to compensation for the TOC having failed to complete their journey as advertised in the rail timetable {and here I am talking about the published ie printed timetable}

But as I have said many times now as no seperate fares are paid specifically for the bus journey by anyone to anyone then a RRB does not pass the test of scheduled service as laid down in PSVAR.... and I think that here you have got to the point that would make or break any claim under PSVAR rules. What needs to be tested at law is whether it is deemed that a fare has been paid on an RRB
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,316
If I buy a ticket for a journey which I know is going to be by RRB (because it's been planned in advance and is in the published timetable as such) am I paying a fare for a bus journey or not?
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,439
Location
Yorkshire
I understand your point but disagree.
Paying for a rail fare entitles one to avail oneself of the services provided or procured by the TOC or TOCs concerned in order to get to the destination. Where part or all of that journey is disrupted and cannot be continued by rail, the TOC has an obligation to provide alternative transport wherever possible. This is typically by means of a rail replacement bus. So when paying for a fare, one is entering into a contract with the TOC for a fee; and that fee entitles one (as part of a package of rights) to access said alternative transport provided by the TOC.
Where disruption which results in the use of rail replacement buses is known about in advance, TOCs often refuse to convey cycles. Are they allowed to do that, in your opinion?
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Again I say... you purchase your rail ticket... that means you enter into a contract with the TOC for you to travel with them... you get halfway to your destination and the line is blockaded and there is a replacement bus service {because the TOC has a mandatory obligation to provide the service} and you are transferred to the bus to complete your journey. What fare have you paid to get on that bus?
An unquantifiable proportion of the rail fare, by which one enters into a contract with the TOC including the obligation of the TOC to make all reasonable efforts to get the passenger to the destination and the right of the passenger to travel on relevant services.
It doesn't matter what is printed on your rail ticket, that is your fare for the rail journey.
I have been having a look at the National Rail Conditions of Travel. The conditions don't say that the fare paid for the ticket is solely paid for the rail portion.
When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use. The Conditions set out the rights and obligations of passengers and the Train Companies...
If things go wrong we will, in the circumstances set out in this document below, ... make sure you get home by another means of transport ...
From time to time, it may be necessary to replace a train service with a bus or coach. ...
Wherever engineering work is planned in advance we will make you aware of any need to operate a rail replacement service. The Train Company or Licensed Retailer from whom your purchase your Ticket will include any extended or altered times in timetable information. This information will also be provided at www.nationalrail.co.uk so that you can make an informed decision about your travel plans.
Quite clearly "scheduled", by-the-by
If the replacement is at short notice and you cannot complete your journey because we are unable to transport your luggage, articles, animals and/or cycles by road vehicle, and you therefore decided not to travel, you will be entitled to claim a refund...
In all other respects these Conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services
So there is no difference between the Rail portions of the trip, and the Coach / Bus portions. The ticket covers those elements of the trip that are done by Coach, every bit as much as those portions of the trip that are done by Rail. Hence the fare paid incorporates the right to travel on the Coach / Bus segments just as much as it pays for the right to travel on the Rail segments.
So I still disagree with your interpretation.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
An unquantifiable proportion of the rail fare, by which one enters into a contract with the TOC including the obligation of the TOC to make all reasonable efforts to get the passenger to the destination and the right of the passenger to travel on relevant services.I have been having a look at the National Rail Conditions of Travel. The conditions don't say that the fare paid for the ticket is solely paid for the rail portion.

Quite clearly "scheduled", by-the-by

So there is no difference between the Rail portions of the trip, and the Coach / Bus portions. The ticket covers those elements of the trip that are done by Coach, every bit as much as those portions of the trip that are done by Rail. Hence the fare paid incorporates the right to travel on the Coach / Bus segments just as much as it pays for the right to travel on the Rail segments.
So I still disagree with your interpretation.
where does it say catagorically "scheduled"? in any case it has already been established in this thread that "scheduled" as in "planned" is not what is meant by PSVAR rules, but that the route runs to a fixed timetable, a set route and that differential fares are charged. Where, in the conditions of carriage does it specifically say you are paying to travel on an RRB? what the conditions of carriage is that you are entering into a contract with the TOC for them to get you to your destination.... and then sets down how they will effect that contract should they be unable to provide a train for that purpose. As I have now stated more than once, you purchase a rail ticket, but should the TOC not be able to meet their statutory duty to provide a train service they will provide a RRB free of charge to the passenger.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I totally despair with some of the silliness on here. It's certainly a complicated issue but many people are just going over the same ground all the time. Nobody takes any notice of issues that don't suit their own personal agenda and it's made it impossible to have any sensible debate. Probably best if I just leave you to it - a test case would be a nice way forward and I hope it progresses in the way I expect it will.

I'd agree but for one concern. This is exactly the kind of case that legal teams thrive on, and could go on long enough for Whitehall civil servants to cave in and set regulations that mean only accessible vehicles can ever be offered, be there disabled persons that require them or not. And when it is not possible, which will happen, services will simply be cancelled completely to the detriment of able bodied and disabled people alike.

What is lacking in this thread is any sense of practicality. For example if a TOC cannot book an accesible vehicle, regardless of when booked or the reasons why, is it acceptable as a reasonable adjustment to make alternative arrangements for disabled persons, say book a suitable taxi? For all the discussion on the subject across a few threads I can see only two objections raised about this possible solution. That the taxi may be delayed or get stuck in traffic, something that is often the case with RRBs. And the other being that some people don't really like using taxis. Other than this I cannot for the life of me see why a taxi alternative isn't a reasonable adjustment, rendering much of this threat moot?
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I'd agree but for one concern. This is exactly the kind of case that legal teams thrive on, and could go on long enough for Whitehall civil servants to cave in and set regulations that mean only accessible vehicles can ever be offered, be there disabled persons that require them or not. And when it is not possible, which will happen, services will simply be cancelled completely to the detriment of able bodied and disabled people alike.
but of course the problem is that TOC's are legally obliged to provide a replacement service if they are unable to operate the train service. catch 22 for them!
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
to specifically exempt Rail Replacement services maybe?
If they wanted to do that, they could have done so much more clearly, as they did (for other purposes) in S6 Transport Act 1985.
after all... the replacement bus is put on as a courtesy. you are not charged for it. therefore you don't pay a fare, therefore RRB's do not meet the test to be included in PSVAR rules
The Conditions of Travel are clear that, with the exception of the potential practical inability to accept some types of luggage, articles, animals and cycles, in all other respects the conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services. So there is no reason to think that the rail replacement services are treated any different from the rail journey element they replace, in terms of fares.
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Right, considering that you believe that PSVAR are the only rules that need to be considered [in glorious isolation to the rest of law]
That is demonstrably incorrect; I have shown how the PSVAR interact with the Transport Act 1985 and the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981, in some detail; indeed I did so in the email you quote.
you cannot or will not explain what fares have been paid... again I point out that you get on the replacement bus for free... there is no way round this fact, no matter how much you try.
It is your assertion that rail replacement buses are free. You have not backed that up with anything in statute (be it primary or secondary legislation) or anywhere else; you have just repeated it many times in the assumption that by doing so you are an inalienable and unquestionable authority of that fact.
I have shown that the Conditions of Travel - which set out the basis of the contract entered into when a ticket is bought - state that aside for the practical elements affecting what luggage can be carried, for the purposes of the contract rail replacement buses are to be treated the same as the trains they replace.
Where is your evidence that rail replacement buses are free? What is your basis for stating this? What legal basis? Because that's what we're talking about; the applicability of the accessibility regulations to rail replacement buses, through the various primary and secondary legislation. And to the best of my knowledge, nowhere does any of it state that rail replacement services are considered to be "free". On the contrary, as you have previously stated, they are to meet the obligation on the part of the train operating company to enable passengers who have purchased a ticket, to complete the journey set out on that ticket, and are legally treated precisely the same as the train they replace.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
If they wanted to do that, they could have done so much more clearly, as they did (for other purposes) in S6 Transport Act 1985.

The Conditions of Travel are clear that, with the exception of the potential practical inability to accept some types of luggage, articles, animals and cycles, in all other respects the conditions apply to the use of rail replacement services. So there is no reason to think that the rail replacement services are treated any different from the rail journey element they replace, in terms of fares.
no, what it means is that the replacement bus service does not nullify any duty or obligation that either party to the contract {pax/ TOC} has... so in the same way as, for example, if you were abusive towards a member of the TOCs staff you would be refused travel without recompense then the same conditions apply to the RRB
 

kingqueen

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2010
Messages
421
Location
Wetherby, North Yorkshire
Now, I'm not an expert, but if a "Scheduled Service" has to include "(a)along specified routes,
(b)at specified times" then this doesn't include RRB, or at least ALL RRB, so are therefore excluded.
If any of the station stops on the rail replacement service are less than 15 miles apart, then those elements of the route are "local services" - you could end up with (say) two "local services" with an over-15-mile segment between them that isn't, for example.
For that over-15-mile segment, if the stops aren't scheduled, then the PSVAR don't apply.
That is my understanding anyway.
Though where any of the segments are less than 15 miles in length and thus subject to PSVAR, it would probably make practical sense to use a PSVAR vehicle for the whole lot anyway...
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
That is demonstrably incorrect; I have shown how the PSVAR interact with the Transport Act 1985 and the Public Passenger Vehicle Act 1981, in some detail; indeed I did so in the email you quote.
It is your assertion that rail replacement buses are free. You have not backed that up with anything in statute (be it primary or secondary legislation) or anywhere else; you have just repeated it many times in the assumption that by doing so you are an inalienable and unquestionable authority of that fact.
I have shown that the Conditions of Travel - which set out the basis of the contract entered into when a ticket is bought - state that aside for the practical elements affecting what luggage can be carried, for the purposes of the contract rail replacement buses are to be treated the same as the trains they replace.
Where is your evidence that rail replacement buses are free? What is your basis for stating this? What legal basis? Because that's what we're talking about; the applicability of the accessibility regulations to rail replacement buses, through the various primary and secondary legislation. And to the best of my knowledge, nowhere does any of it state that rail replacement services are considered to be "free". On the contrary, as you have previously stated, they are to meet the obligation on the part of the train operating company to enable passengers who have purchased a ticket, to complete the journey set out on that ticket, and are legally treated precisely the same as the train they replace.
ok so you keep of accusing me of being wrong, and failing to back up my assertions... so provide the evidence that, at law, you have been deemed to have paid a fare to use the RRB. At the end of the day, you are the one who asks questions, gets given answers, and then spends hours going yeah but no but. I have been consistent in my answers to you. I don't have all the legal documents surrounding me and at hand but I have been involved in RRB's both as a driver and organiser, so know what guidelines I am expected to abide by... so please if you really do think that the law states that you have paid to use the RRB then please test it at court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top