Geographical routeings allowed via Hovertravel on many booking sites

[yorkie]

Anyone feeling brave enough to book this...?

Some booking sites are offering fares via the Ryde <> Southsea Hovercraft (operated by Hovertravel) on tickets that are not specifically routed via Hovertravel, eg. geographically fares routed "via Barnham", "not via London", "Any Permitted" etc.

I have attached an example of a search for a journey from Ryde Esplanade to Redhill, but many other examples exist. The fare offered is routed "via Barnham" in this case.

I'm interested in hearing from retailers, data providers, and other experts regarding their thoughts on why some booking sites are not applying negative easement "300326 (published by TOC SW)
Journeys via Ryde Hoverport must be routed HOVER TRAVEL"?

I'm also interested in hearing from anyone who is knowledgeable in consumer and contract law: can Hovertravel charge a customer, or should they bill the retailer? If a customer is charged, are they entitled to be refunded by the retailer, or some other party?

Could GTR be liable? The fares should be routed via Whitelink or Hovertravel. They should not be setting unusable fares! SWR route their fares appropriately, so GTR should be doing the same.

The root cause could be considered to be GTR's data error, and the secondary cause could be considered to be the retailers not applying the negative easement? If anyone (who has relevant knowledge or experience) has any thoughts on how the liability of each party would be determined I would be interested to hear their thoughts.

Also if anyone does try to use it, I'd be interested to hear what happens!

 

[island]

I put this to a solicitor in work but she’s leaving in one minute and will come back to me next week.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any Advances? For walk-ups, I'd imagine people will just be directed to the catamaran, on which tickets to the Isle of Wight with any route (other than the Hovertravel specific one) are accepted.

 

[alistairlees]

I used exactly this - a Redhill to Shanklin "via Barnham" fare - just over a year ago. The ticket was challenged on the hovercraft on the way back, and the check in got out his book of allowed tickets (an A4 binder with all the allowed ticket types / routes in it). There were clear instructions to only allow travel for tickets marked "+ hover travel" (or similar). After some debate (all good-natured) I and my friends were allowed on board - but I would not recommend assuming the same again.

For the avoidance of doubt, I had thought my ticket was valid:
- it showed up on a few booking engines (including Fujitsu RIBS powered ones, as well as SilverRail powered ones)
- I was only aware of this negative easement relating to Hover Travel at the time: 700534 Circuitous Route Customers may not travel via Southsea Hoverport on route 'Any Permitted'.

Had I known about the other easement that Yorkie mentions I would have realised something was wrong.

Although I'm not a lawyer, I would have thought the customer has recourse to the retailer; and the retailer has recourse to the train operator. That said, this does not explain why some retailers can get this right, yet others can't. I'll have to take a peek at the data.

 

[alistairlees]

Here's the thread from 15 months ago: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/validity-of-tickets-on-hover-travel-to-iow.156309/

 

[Paul Kelly]

Although the human-readable text of Easement 300326 sounds quite simple, it's actually implemented in the data used by journey planners as a long list of banned geographic routes, specifically:

00000 ANY PERMITTED
00001 (invalid)
00053 VIA DONCASTER
00064 VIA LEEDS
00093 VIA DUMFRIES
00129 VIA CHESTERFIELD
00135 VIA CAMBRIDGE
00200 VIA LONDON
00268 VIA BIRMINGHAM
00275 VIA CARLISLE
00294 LONDON DERBY
00305 VIA HIGH WYCOMBE
00308 VIA LEICESTER
00312 VIA MANCHESTER
00403 AP CARLISLE
00405 AP OXFORD
00420 AP GRTANG&CONCTS
00424 AP HULTRNS & EMT
00430 LNER & CONNECTNS
00431 AP HULTRNS & TPE
00438 AP SALISBURY
00478 AP GWR/TFW &CONN
00514 VIA LEATHERHEAD
00556 BUS LINK
00600 KENSNGTN OLYMPIA
00602 CLAPHM J NOT LDN
00603 CLAPHAM JUNCTION
00605 VIA FAREHAM
00612 VIA HAVANT
00614 VIA REDHILL
00616 SALISY NOT LONDN
00618 VIA SALISBURY
00635 VIA WOKING
00637 VIA SOUTHAMPTON
00700 NOT VIA LONDON
00703 LONDON NOT UND
00723 VIA GATWICK AIRP
00759 (invalid)
00803 EVESHAM/STROUD
00805 VIA EVESHAM
00809 NOT VIA WESTBURY
00828 HONITON SHAMPTON
00830 READING NOT LOND
00832 HONITON SALISBRY
00837 WESTBRY SALISBRY
00838 VIA CRAVEN ARMS
00954 RAILAIR WOKING

Interestingly, "VIA BARNHAM" is missing from the list, hence why it's being allowed. The easement dates from 2008; I wonder if Southern started adding VIA BARNHAM fares in earnest only after this?

 

[alistairlees]

It would surely have made more sense to implement this as a list of routes where one of them is mandatory (assuming that's possible in the data structure)

Routes with "Hovertravel" in are:
00183 SWR +HOVERTRAVEL
00244 VIA HOVERTRAVEL
00246 SWR &HOVERTRAVEL
00448 ADVANCE+HOVRTVL
00982 ANY PERM+HOVRTVL
40902 GA VIA HOVRTRAVL
40904 EC VIA HOVRTRAVL
40906 TL VIA HOVRTRAVL
40908 VT VIA HOVRTRAVL
40910 XC VIA HOVETRAVL
40982 ANY P+HOVERTRVL

I don't think all are in active use!

 

[island]

I put this to a solicitor in work but she’s leaving in one minute and will come back to me next week.

Hi [my name],

No straight answer to this one I’m afraid. On the one hand you can argue that whoever issued the ticket is acting as an agent of Hovertravel Ltd. (“Hovertravel”) for the part of the journey on the hovercraft, that the itinerary is part of the contract for travel, and that therefore Hovertravel should permit the passenger to travel (and then separately address the matter, and any financial implications, with the ticket seller).

On the other, you can equally argue that Hovertravel isn’t party to the contract at all. The National Rail Conditions of Travel don’t mention it, and I was unable to find anything else that does. You then have a case where the ticket seller has misrepresented the contract to you as including hovercraft transport, where it does not. In that case the ticket seller would be liable to the passenger for the damages incurred, which likely would be the cost of the hovercraft fare they are charged.

In practice, of course, if the passenger is refused travel by Hovertravel, they will inevitably need to pay for a Hovertravel fare and then seek a refund of this from the ticket seller.

If the ticket seller feels they in turn were misled by some other company because of incorrect data in a system, that would be for those two companies to sort out between themselves.

I must of course add that whilst I believe this correct I take no responsibility to you or anyone else regarding this advice.

Kind regards,

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would surely have made more sense to implement this as a list of routes where one of them is mandatory (assuming that's possible in the data structure)

Routes with "Hovertravel" in are:
00183 SWR +HOVERTRAVEL
00244 VIA HOVERTRAVEL
00246 SWR &HOVERTRAVEL
00448 ADVANCE+HOVRTVL
00982 ANY PERM+HOVRTVL
40902 GA VIA HOVRTRAVL
40904 EC VIA HOVRTRAVL
40906 TL VIA HOVRTRAVL
40908 VT VIA HOVRTRAVL
40910 XC VIA HOVETRAVL
40982 ANY P+HOVERTRVL

I don't think all are in active use!

Or, given that I think through tickets onto Island Line are only via the catamaran to Ryde Pier Head, just having a separate destination for it i.e. Ryde Hovertravel.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Or, given that I think through tickets onto Island Line are only via the catamaran to Ryde Pier Head, just having a separate destination for it i.e. Ryde Hovertravel.

The likes of this flow suggest otherwise!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The likes of this flow suggest otherwise!

I stand corrected!

Can the Routeing Guide be used to do this, or is it, as I half recall, not applicable to non-rail modes?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I stand corrected!

Can the Routeing Guide be used to do this, or is it, as I half recall, not applicable to non-rail modes?

All of the Island Line come under Portsmouth Routeing Point Group, so everything there comes under the fixed links and shortest route provisions.