How to explain 19(c) splits?

jonmorris0844 said:

In such cases, it would never make court. There would be an out of court settlement in your favour.

Indeed, I suspect in some cases where people are offered out of court settlements for £80, they'd also not proceed to court if you told them to stuff it. Not that I expect anyone would chance it, which is kind of why they offer these settlements! It's often a bluff, and they hold all the cards.

Click to expand...

Could you insist on going to court to prove you were right?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Amy Worrall said:

"40 years I've been doing this. 40 years it's been the same."

Click to expand...

He is talking complete nonsense. No rational person would think that the conditions which pertained under British Rail would continue unchanged until now. In the real world, rather than his fantasy one, the latest change was less than a fortnight ago.

I agree with those who say make a formal complaint. He is effectively accusing you (and presumably others) of committing a criminal offence and should not be allowed to continue to do so.

infobleep said:

Could you insist on going to court to prove you were right?

Sent from my . . . .

Click to expand...

It is a fundamental constitutional right of every UK citizen that they have access to Justice [with a very small number of designated exceptions] and to bring to Court a civil claim, or a criminal prosecution, or to apply for an injunction, or for a Judicial Review of a legal process.

I don't know what you mean by "going to court to prove you were right" in the context of a Court hearing, because a) if there is any technical dispute over details of a dispute, then Case Management will require that expert witnesses have agreed a joint statement of facts and, if there are any disagreements, on which the Court is requested to give a determination, then that is made clear at the outset. Usually, the experts can work within the sector to reach an informed outcome out of Court (OOC) rather that ask non-specialist Magistrates or Judges to reach that decision, and b) anyone bringing an action in Court with the intention of vindicating their prior belief should be very clear about the possible responses of whoever they have chosen to prosecute (Criminal offences), or to claim against (Civil claims), or to seek to be restricted in their actions (an injuction), or to have their prior process challenged (Judicial Review). [There are other forms of Court Order but I cant see that they would help you].

What you cannot do is ask a Court to let you express your opinions on a matter and ask for an interpretation unless it is in the context of a legal action with an indentified party (as in the forms of action I've mentioned above) and with a body of evidence properly presented.

Amy Worrall said:

I should do....

Click to expand...

Please do.

The culture needs to change.

sheff1 said:

He is talking complete nonsense.

Click to expand...

and if it is not nonsense, then it certainly wrong.

sheff1 said:

He is effectively accusing you (and presumably others) of committing a criminal offence and should not be allowed to continue to do so.

Click to expand...

Be very careful what you say. The staff member did not make that accusation, and the words reported on here are not "effectively accusing you".

It would be more productive if any responses were based on the simple fact that he was mistaken. No more, and no less.
Perhaps even a reasonably held false belief.
And its presumably such a long held belief that any comunication from a much younger person, or from a more recent entrant to the industry, or from a remote 'customer services' unit will be treated with the same suspicion :- 'that they don't know the rules like I do after my forty plus years'.

DaveNewcastle said:

It is a fundamental constitutional right of every UK citizen that they have access to Justice [with a very small number of designated exceptions] and to bring to Court a civil claim, or a criminal prosecution, or to apply for an injunction, or for a Judicial Review of a legal process.

I don't know what you mean by "going to court to prove you were right" in the context of a Court hearing, because a) if there is any technical dispute over details of a dispute, then Case Management will require that expert witnesses have agreed a joint statement of facts and, if there are any disagreements, on which the Court is requested to give a determination, then that is made clear at the outset. Usually, the experts can work within the sector to reach an informed outcome out of Court (OOC) rather that ask non-specialist Magistrates or Judges to reach that decision, and b) anyone bringing an action in Court with the intention of vindicating their prior belief should be very clear about the possible responses of whoever they have chosen to prosecute (Criminal offences), or to claim against (Civil claims), or to seek to be restricted in their actions (an injuction), or to have their prior process challenged (Judicial Review). [There are other forms of Court Order but I cant see that they would help you].

What you cannot do is ask a Court to let you express your opinions on a matter and ask for an interpretation unless it is in the context of a legal action with an indentified party (as in the forms of action I've mentioned above) and with a body of evidence properly presented.

Click to expand...

That's fascinating. My point was if the rail company says you travelled illegally when you didn't but then decide they would rather settle out of court, could you say no I wish to go to court so a point can be made to prove I'm within my rights to travel.

If they settle out of court could the rail company be made to admit they were wrong to charge you first or does out of court always mean they don't have to admit they were wrong?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Haywain said:

There are often complaints and criticism on this forum about poor training, but I would argue that this is a case of having entrenched views. I doubt anyone would accept an argument that this individual has not had any training in 40 years! More concerning is that he will be seen as a 'senior' member of the guards community on that TOC and may be listened to by more junior members, and thus peer pressure takes over from training.

Click to expand...

In my experience many of these 'senior' types will fail to read any issued briefings (both operational and commercial) and openly answer back or ignore any such matters brought up in team brief , because they've been there X number of years and know better.

As I say it's not just retail, I heard a venerable colleague the other day telling a group of newbies that a new SDO instruction was nonsense 'and they can suspend me for not doing it if they want to'.

DaveNewcastle said:

Be very careful what you say.

Click to expand...

Those who need to be particularly more careful are the TMs encountered by the OP!

DaveNewcastle said:

The staff member did not make that accusation, and the words reported on here are not "effectively accusing you".

Click to expand...

It's just semantics really. They are hinting at that, if not accusing.

DaveNewcastle said:

It would be more productive if any responses were based on the simple fact that he was mistaken. No more, and no less.
Perhaps even a reasonably held false belief.

Click to expand...

If they were just mistaken they would have worded it differently.

Was it the same guard you encountered twice?

Most VTWC guards are fine. They either understand the rules or are willing to give passengers who actually do understand the rules the benefit of the doubt.

Station staff and RPIs, on the other hand, I am generally less impressed by.

infobleep said:

That's fascinating. My point was if the rail company says you travelled illegally when you didn't but then decide they would rather settle out of court, could you say no I wish to go to court so a point can be made to prove I'm within my rights to travel.

If they settle out of court could the rail company be made to admit they were wrong to charge you first or does out of court always mean they don't have to admit they were wrong?

Click to expand...

(IANAL)

If they drop the matter, then you can't make them take you to court - you would have to do so yourself. Finding a case to do so would be difficult in most cases I imagine.

If by "settle out of court" you mean requesting a financial settlement, then you are of course within your rights to refuse this.

LexyBoy said:

(IANAL)

If they drop the matter, then you can't make them take you to court - you would have to do so yourself. Finding a case to do so would be difficult in most cases I imagine.

Click to expand...

I suppose you could ask the court for a declaration/declarator, but it would probably be a lot for a moral victory, presuming the court is willing to even bother when there is no real matter in dispute.

DaveNewcastle said:

It would be more productive if any responses were based on the simple fact that he was mistaken. No more, and no less.

Click to expand...

That was how I phrased my complaint. I stated why my tickets are valid, then stated what the train manager had said to me, then asked them to ensure their staff were better trained in ticket validity, and also asked them for a letter stating that my specific combination was valid, in case it happens again.

All Line Rover said:

Was it the same guard you encountered twice?

Click to expand...

No. The first one genuinely seemed to believe me but hadn't heard of the rule (but was willing to learn), then got incorrect advice from their control. The most recent one seemed to be sure that my tickets were not valid, and was not open to discussion at all, but allowed me to travel anyway.

Since starting using this combination, I've encountered a few other Virgin staff. The Euston gateline ones have mostly been good, there's one in particular who remembers me and waves me through. (I've had my problems with Euston gateline staff in the past, but no problems relating to this combination of tickets, touch wood.) On the train, if the ticket check is after Nuneaton I tend to just show my season ticket and all is fine.

LexyBoy said:

I generally explain that if one of the tickets is a season then the train does not need to call - generally this gets either a response of "OK you're the expert!" or "No it doesn't, I know the rules, but I'll let you off this time". Also, if the part of the journey I'm on when inspected is valid on one ticket alone I will usually show only that one.

Usually if someone is convinced they're right there's no point in trying to explain why they are not - it will just aggravate the situation since they feel they're being told how to do their job. I have yet to encounter someone who didn't "let me off" though, but I'd certainly not buy another ticket if I did!

It does seem a strange message back from Control: perhaps they didn't know where Berkswell is, or understand the journey being made? I don't see what relevance routeing points have either since Berkswell-London is obviously valid for Rugby-London.

Click to expand...

The reworded condition now makes clear that whilst a train does not need to call where you change from a Season Ticket to another ticket, it only applies to that split. Any further splits need to be where the train calls unless linking to another ticket that doesn't need the train to call (e.g. a Zonal ticket).

Amy Worrall said:

Issues again today. He clipped my ticket but told me it wasn't valid, and that he'd let me off today but I should think more carefully next time.

"Do we stop at Rugby? Answer me that?"
<I attempt to explain 19C splits, he cuts me off>
"40 years I've been doing this. 40 years it's been the same."

It worries me in case I encounter this train manager on a future week.

Click to expand...

So he's been in the job for 40 years and he still doesn't know what he's talking about? It's in these situations he should probably be keeping quiet about the length of his experience - quality, not quantity.

Sorry to hear you're having trouble. From my own experiences with guards rejecting split tickets, issuing stupid Penalty Fares/Unpaid Fare Notices and all the rest of it, there is a way to complain. The standard channels - appealing notices and Customer Relations are broken as they will always side with whatever the "experienced" guards come out with. The companies that handle appeals don't know how to determine the validity of tickets and Customer Relations won't consult with a colleagues who know what they're talking about before deciding on how to respond to complaints. Trust me when I say it's a waste of time dealing with them.

If your objective is to get the guards to stop hassling you, the most effective way is to get someone they might listen to to tell them to stop. My tactic was to ring the prosecutions manager directly. I explained that having exhausted the correct channels beyond reasonable measures with no success, I'd simply undermine the system in place by not paying any notices or entertaining any guards on boards trains who decided that my valid tickets were not valid. It was only once it got to this level, that something was done to stop those guards rejecting the tickets I was using.

The truth is, ongoing training is a problem on the railways owing to insurmountable communication barriers between those who set the fares policies and those who need to enforce them. Any fares briefs issued by ATOC or retail management that are longer than a few, very concise sentences will be lost on the majority of their intended audience, soon forgotten or will never actually reach them. I've often seen long winded briefs met with derision and tossed aside. Any effective form of imparting that information to the staff that need it probably won't be done on the grounds of prohibitive expense and resource requirements. It's probably deemed easier for them to get their staff to pass individuals who persist with using split tickets on an individual basis - and sell new, full price tickets to those who legitimately do it but won't argue with supposedly knowledgeable ticket inspectors. I read the fares briefs when I was at Virgin - there was one on split tickets. I don't recall any reference to anything from 19c, but there was an instruction to charge customers who didn't get it right.

If it's just guards telling you no before "letting you off", you're best off leaving it be. It's not an effective use of your time to do anything else, unless it becomes a tangible problem by them charging you extra money or trying to throw you off their train. If that ever happens, you're welcome to send me a PM and I can do my bit to try and stop that happening again. The upshot is, I don't think Virgin will do much to get their staff to understand why your tickets are valid. Sorry ad:

I wonder if the new Conditions of Travel will enable more people to be able to use split tickets and that they might become more common.

thedbdiboy said:

The reworded condition now makes clear that whilst a train does not need to call where you change from a Season Ticket to another ticket, it only applies to that split. Any further splits need to be where the train calls unless linking to another ticket that doesn't need the train to call (e.g. a Zonal ticket).

Click to expand...

Except it doesn't actually say that, does it? While the rail industry might want it to say that, I certainly wouldn't describe the wording in the NRCoT as "clear".

thedbdiboy said:

The reworded condition now makes clear that whilst a train does not need to call where you change from a Season Ticket to another ticket, it only applies to that split. Any further splits need to be where the train calls unless linking to another ticket that doesn't need the train to call (e.g. a Zonal ticket).

Click to expand...

As ALR notes, it does not say that. Looking at the wording of the NRCoT, if you have more than two tickets the train must call. 14.2 does not seem to allow for more than two tickets.

It may or may not be the intention, it may or may not be what you want to hear, but that is how it is written.

gray1404 said:

I wonder if the new Conditions of Travel will enable more people to be able to use split tickets and that they might become more common.

Click to expand...

How many people do you think read them?

hairyhandedfool said:

It may or may not be the intention, it may or may not be what you want to hear, but that is how it is written.

Click to expand...

As discussed on the main thread, that is *one* interpretation of how it's written, and not a convincing one. Condition 14.1 says you can use two or more tickets and 14.2 doesn't say anything about the total number of tickets you can use. Therefore you can use more than two tickets even if one or more of them are season/rover/PTE tickets.

More people then you might think, and if not the whole thing, then extracts or key information from them has become more common play. Martin Lewis for example has been a long time advocate of split ticketing now, it is not uncommon for commuters with season tickets to buy an additional ticket when needed and also people will concessionary passes to by an add-on ticket.

gray1404 said:

More people then you might think, and if not the whole thing, then extracts or key information from them has become more common play. Martin Lewis for example has been a long time advocate of split ticketing now, it is not uncommon for commuters with season tickets to buy an additional ticket when needed and also people will concessionary passes to by an add-on ticket.

Click to expand...

Those people probably haven't read the CoC/CoT. When people have a need to change or extend a ticket and a logical solutions exists, they will generally ask staff for guidance and get a positive response (sometimes.) Neither party has to read or understand the Conditions for that to take place.

On some lines, the Conditions aren't even enforced - so non compliant splits are willingly accepted on non stop trains and long standing arrangements, not explained by any written rules, are in place.

RJ said:

Those people probably haven't read the CoC/CoT. When people have a need to change or extend a ticket and a logical solutions exists, they will generally ask staff for guidance and get a positive response (sometimes.) Neither party has to read or understand the Conditions for that to take place.

On some lines, the Conditions aren't even enforced - so non compliant splits are willingly accepted on non stop trains and long standing arrangements, not explained by any written rules, are in place.

Click to expand...

How do you know they are in place. Is guidance written down somewhere for staff, regardless of whether they read them?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

infobleep said:

How do you know they are in place. Is guidance written down somewhere for staff, regardless of whether they read them?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

An example that I've benefited from, if only due to disruption at Guildford. A SWT guard told me that it was local custom and practice to treat tickets via Guildford to Blackwater and Camberley as being interchangeable (at least on SWT services). In this instance, I had a ticket to Blackwater, but asked to travel to Camberley instead.

Note: I have never tested GWR's view on this by using a Camberley ticket to board or disembark at Blackwater.

infobleep said:

How do you know they are in place. Is guidance written down somewhere for staff, regardless of whether they read them?

Click to expand...

Because he said:

RJ said:

On some lines, the Conditions aren't even enforced - so non compliant splits are willingly accepted on non stop trains and long standing arrangements, not explained by any written rules, are in place.

Click to expand...

infobleep said:

How do you know they are in place. Is guidance written down somewhere for staff, regardless of whether they read them?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

They're unwritten rules. For example, LM out of Euston are very lax at enforcing split ticketing rules and try asking at St Pancras what passes for a peak time upgrade in the evenings on the Thameslink side.

Haywain said:

Because he said:

Click to expand...

I know what RJ side but for the rules to be unwritten RJ has to know about them or how could RJ make such a statement. Therefoee there had to be a reason how he knows. That is what I was getting at.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

RJ said:

They're unwritten rules. For example, LM out of Euston are very lax at enforcing split ticketing rules and try asking at St Pancras what passes for a peak time upgrade in the evenings on the Thameslink side.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

Let's be fair, LM out of Euston at present seem to do near enough no enforcement of any ticketing matter, unless you get stopped at the 8-11 barrier, and even then flashing something vaguely orange and white is likely to get you through.

Whilst I appreciate the comments, made by RJ, I am not sure that poor enforcement and unwritten rules are necessarily the same thing.

At the risk of putting a spanner in the works, was the season ticket in question purchased under the NRCoC and thus should be challenged under the NRCoC, even if the additional ticket is purchased under NRCoT?

talldave said:

At the risk of putting a spanner in the works, was the season ticket in question purchased under the NRCoC and thus should be challenged under the NRCoC, even if the additional ticket is purchased under NRCoT?

Click to expand...

I believe the official position is that the conditions in force on the day of travel are to be used, not those on the date of purchase.