No access to platform until 20 min before departure

[jumble]

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

I had more in mind that the OP should be able to take the next train that appears after the scheduled time of departure of their booking
perhaps we are talikng at cross purposes
It is not in my view particularly unreasonable to ban access to the platform more than 20 minutes before scheduled time of departure

 

[43066]

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.

None of that means the interpretation I’ve suggested (and clearly the railway followed on this case) isn’t reasonable, if not the most customer friendly possible one. Advance tickets are purposely made more restrictive to differentiate the market. If your booked train is delayed the intended remedy is that you’re allowed to use a subsequent train and/or claim compensation for the delay.

The OP seemed to suggest that they wanted to take an earlier train that would’ve got them to their destination early. That’s starting to smack of using an advance ticket as if it were an open ticket.

I had more in mind that the OP should be able to take the next train that appears after the scheduled time of departure of their booking
perhaps we are talikng at cross purposes
It is not in my view particularly unreasonable to ban access to the platform more than 20 minutes before scheduled time of departure

Yes I’d agree with all of that!

 

[Wolfie]

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?

Haven't got time to look this up fully right now but in general:

The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law which states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that created, introduced, or requested that a clause be included.

 

[43066]

Haven't got time to look this up fully right now but in general:

The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law which states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that created, introduced, or requested that a clause be included.

That requires the clause to be ambiguous, and next unambiguously means later. The clause doesn’t say “any other available train” (which I’d agree could mean either earlier or later).

None of these are arguments will be relevant to discussion with gateline staff. It’s clear that the way the system is intended to work is that, if you buy an advance ticket and your train is delayed, you are entitled to board that train or a later one, and then claim compensation. Asking to board an earlier train is going off piste and gaming the system.

 

[Wolfie]

That requires the clause to be ambiguous, and next unambiguously means later. The clause doesn’t say “any other available train” (which I’d agree could mean either earlier or later).

None of these are arguments will be relevant to discussion with gateline staff. It’s clear that the way the system is intended to work is that, if you buy an advance ticket and your train is delayed, you are entitled to board that train or a later one, and then claim compensation. Asking to board an earlier train is going off piste and gaming the system.

Personally l can find no way that the contract text could be interpreted as permitting use of a train scheduled to depart prior to the planned service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The OP seemed to suggest that they wanted to take an earlier train that would’ve got them to their destination early. That’s starting to smack of using an advance ticket as if it were an open ticket.

The TOC isn't providing the service that was sold to the passenger as part of their itinerary. If needing to be there by a specific time, why isn't that reasonable? In my book it absolutely, 100% is.

Flexible tickets are provided for people who wish to pay more to be able to choose when they travel regardless of delays.

If the TOC, for whatever reason, isn't honouring the original itinerary, then it's a lot friendlier to allow the passenger to choose an alternative that meets their needs than to cost yourself money to not permit them to do so.

Personally l can find no way that the contract text could be interpreted as permitting use of a train scheduled to depart prior to the planned service.

Not even if that train is late, and ends up departing after the planned one's scheduled departure time, i.e. it is the next train to depart to the ticketed destination? I'm surprised you can't see that interpretation.

 

[zwk500]

Not even if that train is late, and ends up departing after the planned one's scheduled departure time, i.e. it is the next train to depart to the ticketed destination? I'm surprised you can't see that interpretation.

This would be my interpretation as well. You can't board a train before your scheduled time, but if you're booked on the 1305 and the 1235 calls at 1312 you should be able to use it (subject to crowding).

 

[Wolfie]

This would be my interpretation as well. You can't board a train before your scheduled time, but if you're booked on the 1305 and the 1235 calls at 1312 you should be able to use it (subject to crowding).

If we are talking about a train leaving your boarding station after your scheduled departure time l can see some logic in your position. I had missed how the thread had developed.

 

[father_jack]

Late to the cartoon here but how did the gateline know what train the OP was booked on ? Any ticket for the day opens the gate. You go through, speak to the TM or worry later.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are talking about a train leaving your boarding station after your scheduled departure time l can see some logic in your position. I had missed how the thread had developed.

Yes, that's where it started. I don't think anyone thinks it means you could take one several hours earlier, though I do think that should be allowed anyway (as it is in for instance Germany).

To me the clause is intended to say "If due to delays during your journey you miss your connection, you may take the next available connecting train of the same operator as the one you had booked". But it doesn't actually say that...

 

[43066]

Not even if that train is late, and ends up departing after the planned one's scheduled departure time, i.e. it is the next train to depart to the ticketed destination? I'm surprised you can't see that interpretation.

Is that what was being suggested? It wasn’t clear from the OP who I note posted a complaint but then refused to provide any further details. They also seemed to say that the train they wanted to travel on would have got them to their destination before their booked train.

Even during disruption, “Next available” train still clearly implies trains after the train you’re booked on. I can see the logic of making exceptions if things are so disrupted that an earlier train arrives before the booked departure time, but this should only be in truly exceptional circumstances (a la declassifying first class).

People can’t really blame staff for sticking to the letter of what’s allowed, and it’s a little off when (as so often happens) people refuse to accept they the conditions can possibly mean anything other than the interpretation that best suits them at that time, and then accuse the staff of getting it wrong!

Late to the cartoon here but how did the gateline know what train the OP was booked on ? Any ticket for the day opens the gate. You go through, speak to the TM or worry later.

That’s a good point. There’s something rather odd about the post.

 

[Starmill]

Well technically, the railway would argue they've _altered_ your contract

They could put that argument forward if they communicated that at the time, I agree.

That argument can't be advanced if no notification to the other party is provided. It is rare for such notifications to be communicated.

Publishing the information on a website isn't sufficient to establish that the other party has agreed to the variation in the contract. Such an argument wouldn't even get off the ground...

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s a good point. There’s something rather odd about the post.

I am almost certain that I read here that some gatelines can, with e-ticketed Advances only, read the departure time from the origin station and not open until a specified period before it.

However what's perhaps more likely is that the gateline was either rejecting all Advances or didn't read the OP's ticket correctly, and the member of staff they then had to show it to refused.

 

[Starmill]

Haven't got time to look this up fully right now but in general:

The contra proferentem rule is a legal doctrine in contract law which states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that created, introduced, or requested that a clause be included.

Indeed. However the as one party is a consumer and the other parties are not, the consumer can rely on their statutory right to have any possible doubt about the meaning of words in a contract resolved in their favour.

Any business which finds the effects of that right inconvenient is of course 100% free not to trade with consumers. Plenty don't.

 

[jupiter]

Booked on a 1330 out of KX to York, arrived to find it cancelled and told to get on the 1300. Along with everyone else apparently, it was packed, but I was grateful to travel.

 

[zwk500]

Booked on a 1330 out of KX to York, arrived to find it cancelled and told to get on the 1300. Along with everyone else apparently, it was packed, but I was grateful to travel.

If you're authorised to travel early by a member of staff that's a very different situation.

 

[richw]

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."

It’s quite reasonable to not expect a customer to turn up hours early.
If I’m booked on the 1500, which is heavily delayed, the next available train isn’t the on time 1430, as for all intents and purpose it’s reasonable to expect that to have left and not be the next service.
The dictionary definition of next means the 1430 is not the next service after the cancelled or delayed 1500.

 

[Bikeman78]

If his booked train is at 1300 and delayed, is the 1240 the next train. No it isn’t.

What if the 1240 departs at 1304?

 

[Starmill]

What if the 1240 departs at 1304?

People have tried to point that out so many times but it's apparently not something some people wish to understand. I think that it's clear some people are attempting to deliberately misunderstand the point.

as for all intents and purpose it’s reasonable to expect that to have left and not be the next service.

Nobody is saying that though.

What people are saying is that if the customer were on the platform in time before the doors had begun closing for the 1430 (so at say 1427) they should be permitted to use it. Certainly there's no possible room for question there if the booked service has been cancelled, therefore why would there be if the booked service is expected with a delay of say 70 minutes? Why do you claim it's not reasonable for someone to be at a station just 35 minutes before their booked service? I can think of many occasions when I've waited at least that long for my booked train on a longer journey?

It's a nonsense to imply that the railway company would intentionally delay a customer, I'm sure you agree? In particular, given the customer would have grounds for a complaint and likely to receive all of their money back in compensation were they delayed by just over 60 minutes in their arrival, it would be unusual in the extreme to suggest that the company has an entitlement under the contract to refuse travel on the 1430 and thus fail to offer reasonable mitigation for breaking the contract?

 

[Krokodil]

That requires the clause to be ambiguous, and next unambiguously means later.

I disagree, I've just checked a thesaurus and among the synonyms for 'next' is 'nearest'. I would say that there is definitely some ambiguity here.

Besides, it's just good customer service to use any means available to mitigate a customer's delay - you might even manage to make it sub-threshold and save the TOC some money.

If you're authorised to travel early by a member of staff that's a very different situation.

If the OP had come up to my train and explained the situation, I certainly would have authorised earlier travel. In fact, I've done it, I've authorised a customer to join my train an hour earlier than their booked one because their booked onward connection (TPE, surprise surprise) had been cancelled.

 

[zwk500]

I disagree, I've just checked a thesaurus and among the synonyms for 'next' is 'nearest'. I would say that there is definitely some ambiguity here.

Of the 6 definitions given for 'next' by Collins https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/next the 4 that involve time all state next is 'after' whatever you are currently doing. The only definition that talks about nearest is one that refers to space, not time. I think it would be a stretch to claim that the context of the use of 'next' in the NRCOT was talking about anything other than time.

Besides, it's just good customer service to use any means available to mitigate a customer's delay - you might even manage to make it sub-threshold and save the TOC some money.

If the OP had come up to my train and explained the situation, I certainly would have authorised earlier travel. In fact, I've done it, I've authorised a customer to join my train an hour earlier than their booked one because their booked onward connection (TPE, surprise surprise) had been cancelled.

As you say, these are just good customer service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the event of a cancellation, a choice between the train before and the train after is what most TOCs will tend to offer to Advance holders generally. It's not strictly an entitlement but it is extremely common to the point of universal, and allows the passenger the choice between arriving on time and no Delay Repay or arriving late and a claim.

 

[bakerstreet]

Was not going to join this, but for info.

Just at Euston. The 1653 Avanti to Manchester has been cancelled. Auto announcement just said something like (my bold)

“Passengers for Milton Keynes Central, your next direct Avanti West Coast service to is now expected to be the 1643 Liverpool Lime Street service from platform 1.“

Make of that what you will.

 

[richw]

What if the 1240 departs at 1304?

It would be the next train. If the 1240 departs at 1240 it is not the next train. The definition of next in the dictionary is very clear. The previous train is not the next train.

 

[yorkie]

It would be the next train. If the 1240 departs at 1240 it is not the next train

If you are at the station at 1239 of earlier, then 1240 is the next train

. The definition of next in the dictionary is very clear. The previous train is not the next train.

See previous posts.

Was not going to join this, but for info.

Just at Euston. The 1653 Avanti to Manchester has been cancelled. Auto announcement just said something like (my bold)

“Passengers for Milton Keynes Central, your next direct Avanti West Coast service to is now expected to be the 1643 Liverpool Lime Street service from platform 1.“

Make of that what you will.

Indeed; it would be absurd for anyone to suggest the 1643 is not the next train for those passengers.

 

[island]

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).

That change would make a lot of sense.

But will not, of course, apply to travel within the UK absent an active decision by the British government to adopt it.

 

[Jimini]

There’s a good live example of this going on right now: if you check the 1230 and 1330 northbound XC departures from Coventry right now (the 1230 is due at 1338 and the 1330 at 1342 — if you had a ticket for the latter could you just jump on the former as it’s due after your scheduled departure time?).

 

[43066]

There’s a good live example of this going on right now: if you check the 1230 and 1330 northbound XC departures from Coventry right now (the 1230 is due at 1338 and the 1330 at 1342 — if you had a ticket for the latter could you just jump on the former as it’s due after your scheduled departure time?).

I would have thought so - always worth double checking first, of course!

 

[maniacmartin]

I would say that the next available train is the one that turns up soonest after the original train’s scheduled departure time, even if it arrives before the original train you intended to catch.

 

[Iskra]

An "incident" is delaying all trains. The train I'm booked on has left starting point late - enough to guarantee I'll get money back - but the barriers won't let me on to try and get the previous train (already late). The "assistant" on the barriers will not bend the rules. Would you accept jobsworth "lack of assistance", or jump the barrier, or buy a ticket to the nearest station?

Would a platform ticket not suffice to resolve the situation?