No access to platform until 20 min before departure

[Haywain]

More "railway logic" - in normal English the OP was travelling from the moment they left their accommodation.

Are you suggesting that the railways appeoach to delays should gome into play if your car breaks down on the way to the station? Your *rail* journey does not commence before you get to the station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you suggesting that the railways appeoach to delays should gome into play if your car breaks down on the way to the station? Your *rail* journey does not commence before you get to the station.

There is an argument that in the interests of just being nice (because that's how you gain customers) the railway should indeed take into account bus delays and even a "flat tyre rule" as some US airlines do (with evidence). However that's indeed not how things are - the journey starts on an Advance in this context by arriving at the station before the departure time of the first booked train.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

Really? Who says - can you point me to a definition in the conditions please as you seem certain you're correct?

So as 5.2 starts 'While travelling' I assume the question being asked is at what moment does 'travel' begin?

2.1 in the Advance ticket terms says 'Tickets must be purchased in advance of travel.' As we know many Advance tickets can be bought at the station shortly before boarding a train. Are we saying that these should not be purchasable at the station because travel has in fact begun at the time the passenger has set foot on their origin station or even before then?

All references to 'travel' in NRCoT are clearly referring to travel on rail services.

When travelling on a rail ticket I would consider my 'travelling' to have begun when I have departed my origin station on a rail service. 8.4 seems a lot more suitable than 5.2 to rely on to seek travel on an alternative service before departing the origin station.

 

[Starmill]

2.1 says 'Tickets must be purchased in advance of travel.' As we know Advance tickets can be bought at the station shortly before boarding a train. Are we saying that these should not be purchasable at the station because travel has in fact begun when the passenger has arrived?

No, because that's an obvious straw man.

All references to 'travel' in NRCoT are clearly referring to travel on rail services.

This is wrong for a start because buses, trams and other "transfers" between stations are mentioned under the Conditions. Even if this weren't the case however it doesn't change the fact that travel has already begun when the customer arrives to commence their journey. For obvious reasons they can't do so if they've no ticket as there is no journey.

When travelling on a rail ticket I would consider my 'travelling' to have begun when I have departed my origin station on a rail service.

Great for you, I'm sure. But is it reasonable for you to apply a very odd definition to someone else's journey?

8.4 seems a lot more suitable than 5.2 to rely on to seek travel on an alternative service before departing the origin station.

Both are pretty clear cut. As is the fact that you will nearly always have an arrival time specified in your contract for travel, which the company are obliged to honour wherever they are able.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

No, because that's an obvious straw man.

When does 'travel' begin then in 'tickets must be purchased in advance of travel' then and how can that be considered different from when 'travelling' begins in 'If delays occur while travelling'?

This is wrong for a start because buses, trams and other "transfers" between stations are mentioned under the Conditions. Even if this weren't the case however it doesn't change the fact that travel has already begun when the customer arrives to commence their journey.

NRCoT talks about buses in two contexts 1. Rail replacements, which are still considered 'rail services' and 2. Tickets that also include rights to bus travel under a contract with the bus travel provider. There is nothing about trams but if you can find something contradictory in NRCoT that 'travelling' includes journeying to the origin station/train please point me to it.

Probably the clearest statement of where 'travel' begins is right at the beginning of the Introduction.

'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.'

There we are, the conditions are referring to travel on train (rail) services.

 

[Starmill]

When does 'travel' begin then in 'tickets must be purchased in advance of travel' then and how can that be considered different from when 'travelling' begins in 'If delays occur while travelling'?

When you have a ticket and are at the station in time for your intended train, at the latest.

NRCoT talks about buses in two contexts 1. Rail replacements, which are still considered 'rail services' and 2. Tickets that also include rights to bus travel under a contract with the bus travel provider. There is nothing about trams but if you can find something contradictory in NRCoT that 'travelling' includes journeying to the origin station/train please point me to it.

Probably the clearest statement of where 'travel' begins is right at the beginning of the Introduction.

'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.'

There we are, the conditions are referring to travel on train (rail) services.

It's specifically stated that your ticket may entitle you to a service from a third party in 4.4. I don't see how this is controversial. However, it doesn't really make a huge amount of difference if the OP's ticket didn't include any additional legs, I was pointing out that lots of tickets entitle ths holder to bus, tram or other travel, which is something you were, for whatever reason, trying to refute.

 

[richw]

If you're at the station at 1230 and there's a 1240 then it's the next available train. Hope this helps.

I don't agree with your interpretation. This also doesn't make any sense because it would put the company in breach of their obligations under the PRO, as well as increasing their liabilities to pay compensation.

I would say such a person is a "jobsworth" except that's not quite correct, as a "jobsworth" is someone who does their job to the letter defying common sense, but this isn't doing the job correctly to begin with!

So how much before your train is reasonable?

By your interpretations there is nothing stopping someone turning up at the station 2 hours early knowing their train is already delayed at the other end of its journey and jumping on the next available train 2 hours earlier. I don’t agree with that interpretation.

 

[yorkie]

So how much before your train is reasonable?

By your interpretations there is nothing stopping someone turning up at the station 2 hours early knowing their train is already delayed at the other end of its journey and jumping on the next available train 2 hours earlier. I don’t agree with that interpretation.

If you are booked on the 0001 arrival into Pwllheli and you knew this was going to be at least an hour late, it would be totally reasonable to board the previous train (2118 arrival); it would be a breach of the Rail Passenger Rights and Obligations (PRO) Regulations to disallow a passenger from taking such a service.

 

[Watershed]

So how much before your train is reasonable?

By your interpretations there is nothing stopping someone turning up at the station 2 hours early knowing their train is already delayed at the other end of its journey and jumping on the next available train 2 hours earlier. I don’t agree with that interpretation.

You may disagree, but that's what the PRO requires in the event of anticipated delays of 61+ minutes, and what the industry has chosen to adopt as its terms and conditions. We have provided examples which demonstrate why any other interpretation is clearly unsustainable.

Being able to take the next available train in the hypothetical situation you describe doesn't seem outlandish, particularly so if the frequency of services is hourly or even less. For instance, imagine you're travelling on the Far North Line, where there are only four end to end services a day. If one train is anticipated to be delayed, meaning you'd miss your planned connection/appointment etc. it would be entirely reasonable to be able to take the previous one, even if that's 3 hours earlier.

But clearly that is a very niche situation - most people will not turn up to the station that early, or be able to change their plans on the day to that degree. Far more people will be in the situation of being at the station in time for an earlier, delayed train, which is would be unreasonable to bar people from taking. For one thing, why should the railway avoidably increase its Delay Repay liability?

 

[Starmill]

So how much before your train is reasonable?

By your interpretations there is nothing stopping someone turning up at the station 2 hours early knowing their train is already delayed at the other end of its journey and jumping on the next available train 2 hours earlier. I don’t agree with that interpretation.

However long is necessary to complete the journey. If the delay is longer than an hour, the company is obliged to offer what alternatives are possible. Plainly, if they're running a different train which isn't meeting with delay, nobody can argue that's not an alternative just because it's two hours before the booked time. Why do you disagree with the obligation to offer rerouting?

Now if you were saying that the customer can't set off several departures and whole eight hours earlier than planned then sure, becuse that's not likely to be the next available service.

 

[WAB]

The railway's life would be a lot easier if there was less pettiness over this sort of thing. In the event of an anticipated 30-minute delay, travelling on an earlier train should be permitted unless it would cause serious overcrowding. For an hour +, this should be automatic.

 

[richw]

Now if you were saying that the customer can't set off several departures and whole eight hours earlier than planned then sure, becuse that's not likely to be the next available service.

That’s the extreme of the point I’m trying to make.
Where do you draw the line?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s the extreme of the point I’m trying to make.
Where do you draw the line?

The train before the delayed one, whenever that is. That is, one that will enable them to arrive at or before their booked arrival time rather than one that as it's delayed won't.

 

[yorkie]

Agreed; if there is an opportunity to avoid the customer being delayed, it should be available to the customer, if at all possible.

 

[stephen rp]

Good grief. Is this still going?

If I've got an advance ticket for a TPE that's "cancelled" the night before, they've broken my contract before I start my "travel". I'm rolling up for whatever train I feel like on the day, and just hope I don't meet a jobsworth like in some of the replies on here!

 

[crablab]

Well technically, the railway would argue they've _altered_ your contract and you're not entitled to any delay repay because that's calculated against the timetable of the day, and if they've removed your booked train from the timetable of the day, then it didn't exist as far as they are concerned.

I'm not saying I agree with the way the rules purport this to be true, but this is how some of the NRCoT can be interpreted.

Clearly your rights under the PRO do apply and (as in NRCoT) you'd be able to take the next available service. But claiming any delay repay might be more difficult...

 

[Haywain]

Clearly your rights under the PRO do apply and you'd be able to take the next available service

That's not how rights under PRO work though.

 

[crablab]

That's not how rights under PRO work though.

As has been quoted above, the NRCoT clause on taking the "next available service" applies, as does Article 18 of the PRO with regard to delays over 60 minutes (requiring the operator to reroute you).

 

[Haywain]

As has been quoted above, the NRCoT clause on taking the "next available service" applies, as does Article 18 of the PRO with regard to delays over 60 minutes (requiring the operator to reroute you).

Yes, and "requiring the operator to reroute you" is not the same as being "able to take the next service", unless the operator has been cooperative.

 

[crablab]

Yes, and "requiring the operator to reroute you" is not the same as being "able to take the next service", unless the operator has been cooperative.

Yes, and "able to take the next service" is included in the NRCoT (the applicability of which I don't think is in dispute), the intended meaning of which was debated extensively above. So the rights under the PRO and those in the NRCoT apply, as I alluded to.
I'm sorry if my post was unclear to you. I'll edit to make it explicitly clear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's notable that the PRO is about to add "self rerouteing" where after I think 120 minutes of delay you can purchase a ticket and bill it back to the original operator. You're still not entitled to just board, though, and sadly it only extends to surface transport (often a flight is what is applicable when you consider a need to get somewhere that day and regaining of lost time). Notably it does include coach and bus travel as options though.

 

[jumble]

The term says next. It isn’t ‘next’. There is enough info to know the train they are trying to catch is 20 mins earlier than their scheduled service.
Therefore no grounds to use his ticket on the previous service without authorising. Gateline has declined.

So the railway have made an agreement with the OP to carry them at a particular time
They breach that agreement and then the opportunity comes for the railway to mitigate their failure
However you think it is reasonable that they delay the OP further for no reason?
Perhaps we should interpret the words "next available" to mean "next opportunity to take whatever train makes itself available."

 

[43066]

Perhaps we should interpret the words "next available" to mean "next opportunity to take whatever train makes itself available."

I doubt there’s any need. Only on here would “next available” be interpreted to mean a train that could be hours earlier!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt there’s any need. Only on here would “next available” be interpreted to mean a train that could be hours earlier!

I don't think it reasonably could be interpreted as meaning the 0530 when the booked train was 1500, except possibly in extreme circumstances*. However if one turns up at the station for 1500 to find the booked train delayed to 1730, but the 1430 is half an hour late and will depart at 1500 (or even 1455), then I think that should quite reasonably be included.

But in the end this is the railway's fault like usual because it hasn't stated properly what it means. It's quite easy to construct a sentence describing the entitlement without ambiguity, whatever it might happen to be. But remember that if there is ambiguity then a Court will tend to rule in favour of the customer.

* For example the Far North Line, where if you're going to England you would be stranded if booked on the midday train and forced to wait for the evening one.

 

[43066]

I don't think it reasonably could be interpreted as meaning the 0530 when the booked train was 1500, except possibly in extreme circumstances*. However if one turns up at the station for 1500 to find the booked train delayed to 1730, but the 1430 is half an hour late and will depart at 1500 (or even 1455), then I think that should quite reasonably be included.

But in the end this is the railway's fault like usual because it hasn't stated properly what it means. It's quite easy to construct a sentence describing the entitlement without ambiguity, whatever it might happen to be. But remember that if there is ambiguity then a Court will tend to rule in favour of the customer.

* For example the Far North Line, where if you're going to England you would be stranded if booked on the midday train and forced to wait for the evening one.

“Next available” to me would tend to imply taking a train after the train booked (and then claiming compensation), not me turning up early and demanding to be let onto an earlier train with an advanced ticket because the train I am booked on is running late. That won’t be an interpretation people on here like, but it’s a reasonable one.

If you want more flexibility you can buy an open ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

“Next available” to me would tend to imply taking a train after the train booked (and then claiming compensation), not me turning up early and demanding to be let onto an earlier train with an advanced ticket because the train I am booked on is running late. That won’t be an interpretation people on here like, but it’s a reasonable one.

If you want more flexibility you can buy an open ticket.

It's not an interpretation a Court will make, because there's ambiguity.

Simply adding the word "after" to the sentence would make this clear. I'm not quite sure why you'd defend that ambiguity when it's easy to fix it if the intended interpretation is as you say (which I think it may well be - but a Court will rule on what it says, not what it should say).

However, I do think that above a specified threshold (15 minutes in line with Delay Repay perhaps?), and certainly when a connection is missed, an Advance should simply become an Anytime Day. People often need to be somewhere for a specific time, and suggesting they should pay extra to do so when the problem is the railway's fault is grossly unfriendly. That would also save the railway money as Delay Repay would not be claimable. It says everything about the railway's customer unfriendly attitude that it prefers to pay compensation AND annoy the customer than do something that would save them that compensation and please the customer that would cost them precisely £0.

 

[43066]

It's notable that the PRO is about to add "self rerouteing" where after I think 120 minutes of delay you can purchase a ticket and bill it back to the original operator. You're still not entitled to just board, though, and sadly it only extends to surface transport (often a flight is what is applicable when you consider a need to get somewhere that day and regaining of lost time). Notably it does include coach and bus travel as options though.

That change would make a lot of sense.

 

[Haywain]

“Next available” to me would tend to imply taking a train after the train booked (and then claiming compensation), not me turning up early and demanding to be let onto an earlier train with an advanced ticket because the train I am booked on is running late. That won’t be an interpretation people on here like, but it’s a reasonable one.

If you want more flexibility you can buy an open ticket.

Circumstances may vary, it cannot be so simply black and white.

 

[43066]

It's not an interpretation a Court will make, because there's ambiguity.

Simply adding the word "after" to the sentence would make this clear. I'm not quite sure why you'd defend that ambiguity when it's easy to fix it if the intended interpretation is as you say (which I think it may well be - but a Court will rule on what it says, not what it should say).

I’m not defending an ambiguity - I’m just pointing out that it’s another reasonable interpretation. We all agree it’s a badly written document. People bending over backwards to interpret ambiguities in the way they approve of doesn’t mean that others can’t and won’t take a different view.

We don’t know what a court would say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m not defending an ambiguity - I’m just pointing out that it’s another reasonable interpretation. We all agree it’s a badly written document. People bending over backwards to interpret ambiguities in the way they approve of doesn’t mean that others can’t and won’t take a different view.

We don’t know what a court would say.

We don't know, but it is generally the approach of a Court when dealing with consumer transactions that any ambiguity that has a customer-friendly interpretation and a customer-unfriendly one will default to the customer-friendly one, and that a Court will rule on what it says, not what the writer wanted it to say.

@Wolfie might perhaps be able to provide the actual chapter and verse on this perhaps?