Advice on tight connection at Wolverhampton on Lancaster to Reading

[EltonRoad]

Before I saw collybs's quote above from BestValueFares.co.uk I was in the "it's not valid" camp. At the end of the day it does depend on individual circumstances and staff's interpretations of the rules. But I think we should consider that advance fares are as cheap as they are because they're quota-controlled and only valid on that specific train.

Say your journey is from London Euston to Glasgow, and to save money you buy two advances, one from Euston to Preston and another on XC to Glasgow. I think the XC train manager could legitimately argue that this constituted two journeys, by virtue of the fact that the tickets you have bought are valid only on those specific trains, and, as is stated in a previous post, a condition of the ticket is you have to present yourself for the first train on the ticket.

BestValueFares.co.uk, in my opinion, muddies the waters by saying you can "mix and match" advances, off-peaks and anytimes. It needs to clarify what the situation is if you mix two advances and the first train is delayed. I suspect you could print out that page and show it to the guard on train 2 and you'd have a case.

Until ATOC does clarify it though, my own opinion is that the second guard is not obliged to accept your ticket, the very fact we're discussing it shows it's far from black and white, and basically it's up to you whether you risk it.

 

[button_boxer]

what if you split your advance tickets but you are on the same train? Can it be argued that's two jounreys, even though you never get off?

In that case it's irrelevant as there's no possibility of you catching the train named on the first ticket but then missing the one named on the second ticket.

 

[yorkie]

In that case it's irrelevant as there's no possibility of you catching the train named on the first ticket but then missing the one named on the second ticket.

Oh yes there is, especially on XC through Brum. If your train is badly delayed, it will be re-started at BHM and you will be terminated there and put on a replacement train. It is far from irrelevant.

I'll reply to the other points later, but it's a shame some people are ignoring what the law says on terms that are not clear, that it will be ruled in the customers favour.

 

[Ferret]

I'll reply to the other points later, but it's a shame some people are ignoring what the law says on terms that are not clear, that it will be ruled in the customers favour.

Where is there a lack of clarity? The conditions of Advance tickets are perfectly clear - they are for the train specified only. HHF correctly points out that "Passengers must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train. If they miss the first train on which they are booked for *any reason*, a new ticket must be purchased". No lack of clarity there from what I can see.

I'm afraid Yorkie you need to accept that TOC B has no legal obligation to allow travel on a later train in the situation described by the OP. However, the fact of the matter is that for simple customer service reasons, it would be pretty unreasonable of TOC B to refuse.

 

[yorkie]

So ticket A-B is a contract with TOC1 and ticket B-C is a contract with TOC2.

It is irrelevant if they are separate contracts or not. Your argument centres around the scenario of two separate TOCs being involved. So we'll have to examine that.

Condition 19 says you can use the tickets to travel from A-C via B, but it does not say that ticket A-B and ticket B-C become ticket A-C via B. TOC1 has no responsibility for ticket B-C and TOC2 has no responsibility for ticket A-B.
Now let us see that condition of use for the ticket again....



So by buying the ticket, you agreed to be at the departure station as shown on the ticket in good time. It is not TOC2's problem that you are late because your 'contract' with them is for travel from B. It's not TOC1's problem if you have missed the train from B, because their contract with you is finished when you reached B.

If it's the same TOC, then how can they deny responsibility? Of course you are going to go with the different TOC scenario so that you can use the old blame game tactic , this is the only way to make it look like you cannot combine tickets for one journey. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

And if you argue that one TOC can simply blame the other, then that is also the case with a through "and connections" ticket!

So this argument holds no water, and is just about what TOCs can theoretically say to weasel out of ANY delay on ANY ticket by blaming another TOC. This does not affect validity in any way.

So in basic terms, ticket A-B and ticket B-C are not the same contract, they are not ticket A-C via B.

Quote a source where it matters if they are "not the same contract"? It does not matter because either ticket states that you can continue your journey if you are delayed.

So your only argument, unless you are ignoring that condition, is that two tickets do not count as one journey. This argument is clearly false and is at odds with NCoC.

With both tickets being advanced ticket they are only valid for the trains they are booked on

What, even in the event of delays?

the restrictions are quite clear on this subject when bying the tickets. So if the connection at Wolverhampton is missed then im sorry its goodnight sweetheart this is what we were told in our training (im an RPI)

Where does it say in the restrictions that if connections are missed the tickets are no longer valid? Is there is a top secret condition that I cannot find anywhere in NFM05 or the FRPP. This is a training issue.

Why can't the railway companies just clear this up?

Because they cannot rule that they are not liable as that would clearly be unlawful. However they do not want to freely admit that they are liable either. This way people who know their rights will continue to save money, while others are effectively bullied or scared into paying a lot more money. This means more money for the TOCs.

ATOC expect tickets to be honoured but refuse to issue guidance stating that.

HHF, I'm of the same opinion as you where the legalities of such a situation are concerned. However, I've encountered said situation a few times and taken the common sense approach on each occasion, so long as the customer had left the minimum connection time at point B. Indeed, on one such occasion, the customer had contacted Customer Services at Station B who had then suitably endorsed his ticket for journey B-C on the next available train.
So, in conclusion, I'd say it's at the discretion of the TM on the 2nd service - he/she is entitled to charge you the full SOS fare but if you explained the situation, you'd probably be ok.

I am glad that you take a common sense approach, however this is the correct approach too. You should be more confident that you are applying the rules correctly!

Furthermore, and apologies from a newbie if this question has already come up, but what if you split a ticket across the same TOC? Or, to bring an example of a trip that I possibly could do:

If I bought an advanced for Durham - Leeds with TransPennine, travelled Leeds-Preston, then had an advanced with TransPennine for Preston - Barrow-in-Furness, but was delayed on my first train from Durham, would they honour the Preston - BiF train on the basis that it was their delay which resulted in me missing my train? Would there be any difference if my Durham - Leeds advanced had been with CrossCountry?

It actually makes no difference, however the arguments by the likes of HHF hold no water when using the same TOC, as their entire argument centers around TOC B not being responsible for a delay by TOC A. I've already said why this argument is illogical anyway as you can get a through ticket valid on multiple TOCs so if the "We aren't responsible so you can't travel" argument is to be banded about it would affect people who are not splitting tickets.

I think the best course of action is to email CrossCountry customer relations, if they say 'No you have to buy a new ticket or pay an excess if you miss the train at Wolverhampton' then it's likely you'd be made to do that on the train.

I doubt it. On board staff are generally more likely to apply more common sense than people in call centres. The chances of being asked to pay again are very unlikely. If you approach the guard (not that I believe there is any obligation to do so) then there is even less chance of being asked to pay again. Call centres can give incorrect advice.

If they say 'Yes your ticket will be valid on the next service' then buy the tickets and print out the email and take it with you on the day.

Absolutely. It's worth a try just in case they issue that response.

I think if there's two separate tickets you probably may not be accepted on the next train if the next train is a peak train and the train on your ticket is for an off-peak train.

If combining walk-on tickets? That is probably best done as a separate debate! I believe the same rules would apply as if it was a through ticket, so if you were denied travel due to missing a legitimate connection you'd be entitled to compensation based on the delay at your destination, so if they made you wait in London for 3 hours I believe they may be able to do that but would have to compensate you accordingly. However they may have to let you travel, I am unsure on this point. More investigation is needed.

So why would Cross-country be responsible for a delay on a Virgin service? The railways are now separate companies all this talk of "the railway" is irrelevant, "the railway" went to the wall at privatisation!

If I get a Poppleton to London EC & Connections ticket and the Northern is late, that means EC are "not responsible" and can make me pay again, is that what you are saying?

If the first journey is delayed the responsibility is to get you to the destination, in this case Wolves, NCoC state "it is YOUR responsibility to get to your starting station in good time", so i read it (Yorkie doesn't) that YOU must get there as this is 2 separate journeys even if booked at the same time.

First journey? There is only one journey. You have not read the NCoC that states that "two or more tickets can be used for one journey".

I must say I am amazed at the idea that a TOC can deny responsibility for a train being delayed by another TOC and equally at the same time say it was the customers responsibility, not the other TOCs. I'd also like to know where in the NCoC it states that if your journey involves multiple TOCs, the TOCs can blame the customer?

Not really relevant because I can buy separate tickets with a connection time in negative numbers, it is up to YOU to ensure you have sufficient time for the connection.

Do you agree that the minimum connectional allowance should be used when planning connections, or is this deemed insufficient by you? If it is insufficient, please can you provide us with a list of what is sufficient, and also what the authoritativeness of the list would be.

If we cannot use the rail industry's own figures for connectional allowances then I am struggling to see what figure we should allow?

I do agree with Yorkie (yes honestly) on one thing that the whole ticketing issue needs throwing in the bin and start again with a blank sheet of paper.

Thanks! But.... I'm not sure I actually believe that. However the way it's going it is getting worse all the time, and this suggestion makes more sense as time goes on. That said, I'd be opposed to any change if it wasn't in passengers' interests.

it all depends on the definition of "journey", now lets say I consider a "journey" is from my starting point (work) and my destination (home), so in that case if I miss the last bus because the train is late do they get me a taxi, um nope its my problem, so I define a railway journey as what is written on the ticket, if I have 2 tickets then that is 2 journeys.
If you buy 2 tickets FOR THE SAME TRAIN, then you will still be on the original train so no issue, but if you have 2 seperate journeys on 2 different trains then that can be a problem, its all a question of interpretation and it needs sorting.

This is a good post I have highlighted in green what I agree with, and in red what I disagree with. In orange, is an issue which in theory sounds plausible but it is not unknown for trains that are heavily delayed to terminate short and be re-started e.g. XC at BHM. It's certainly an interesting scenario though.

Where I differ from Yorkie is that I wouldnt do it (unless good reason, my decision) for starting/finishing journeys short, being off route or if deemed to be passenger/customers own fault.

This is muddying the waters, but I am unsure what you mean. Again it may be best for another topic. Starting/finishing short, presumably you are referring only to AP tickets as this is perfectly fine with walk-on tickets? I think finishing short is a lot easier to justify, especially if the passenger is unwell or has had some bad news and has to change their plans, or if their lift is picking them up from another station, etc... Being off route, should be checked with the RG and if they are off route an excess should be issued if available, if not then new tickets for the part of the journey that is not covered by the original ticket. As for deemed to be passengers fault, I am not sure that I am disagreeing with you as if it is their fault clearly then I am not going to defend that, but we'd need to go into examples really as it's impossible to generalise.

Out of Curiousity, where is "one journey" defined? It doesn't appear under "Definitions" in the NCoC thats for sure! Perhaps I have missed it somewhere?

NCoC doesn't really define terms as such, but the crucial wording is that you "can combine two or more tickets for one journey". That does not mean you have to, but it is an option you have.

To be honest, it is unlikely that even if the connection (or move) did go down the pan, that with a little explanation the Train Manager would let you on the next available wouldn't let you on, no matter what the legal gibber!

Agreed!

One thing that I do if in doubt, is get the TM of the offending service to endorse your ticket....

While I do not believe there is an obligation to do this, this is very sound advice, and if it is not possible (or the TM refuses) then it may be possible to do this at the interchange station, again I'd recommend it if possible and practicable to do so.

what if you split your advance tickets but you are on the same train? Can it be argued that's two jounreys, even though you never get off?

It clearly cannot be argued that way. Anyone doing so would not have a leg to stand on.

Incidentally, I would have advised that you would have to buy a new ticket before reading the previous threads on this subject. I have been convinced by Yorkie's cogent arguments and reasoning. One thing I do agree with, though, is that this point should be clarified once and for all by ATOC, so that everyone knows where they stand, customers and staff!

Thanks And I've tried, but they won't do it. I also found out the number of occasions that Passenger Focus had this type of complaint made to them, and IIRC it was a very small number, something like 7 cases in a year rings a bell. Of those, I believe they were able to get the tickets refunded for the passenger in all but a small number of cases (2?), it was not possible to find out exactly why those cases failed but it is likely that insufficient time was allowed to change trains (ie not adhering to the connectional allowance).

Is it a big issue? I'm assured that it isn't - if you measure it in terms of how many customers are actually chinged. But I believe it is if you measure it in terms of how many customers are put off splitting and buy more expensive tickets. This can be a LOT more expensive in the case of a journey like Poppleton to Manchester where no AP fare exists...

the very fact we're discussing it shows it's far from black and white, and basically it's up to you whether you risk it.

Well I agree with that, if there was clarity....

Where is there a lack of clarity?

... then we'd not be discussing it in this level of detail.

And where there is not clarity, the consumer law posted back on page 1 applies, I believe.

The conditions of Advance tickets are perfectly clear - they are for the train specified only.

Train? singular? And no exceptions if delayed? news to me

HHF correctly points out that "Passengers must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train. If they miss the first train on which they are booked for *any reason*, a new ticket must be purchased". No lack of clarity there from what I can see.

It actually says that if they encounter delays while travelling they may complete their journey on later trains. So I agree (on this point anyway ) with royaloak that the crucial factor therefore is whether or not two or more tickets can be used for one journey. If anyone has any evidence to say that two or more tickets can NOT be used for one journey, please present it!

I'm afraid Yorkie you need to accept that TOC B has no legal obligation to allow travel on a later train in the situation described by the OP. However, the fact of the matter is that for simple customer service reasons, it would be pretty unreasonable of TOC B to refuse.

I don't accept the legal position you state but I totally agree with you about reasonableness and I applaud your common sense approach!

 

[Ferret]

It is irrelevant if they are separate contracts or not.

Not at all. If we wanted to go down the route of legal challenge for breach of contract, that'd be the first place that m'learned friends would look at. I know it's bad for the customer but that's how contract law works - it's an unintended consequence of privatisation. But then, we all know it's unlikely to get that far - back to common sense again!

As to my personal approach in such situations - if it's good enough for Customer Relations then it's good enough for me

 

[yorkie]

Not at all. If we wanted to go down the route of legal challenge for breach of contract, that'd be the first place that m'learned friends would look at.

But what relevance does it actually have? Even if the contracts are deemed separate it does not matter as if you are delayed you can continue your "journey", and "two or more tickets can be used for one journey".

In other words, we are told that 2 contracts can be used for one journey in the NCoC but apparently some hidden condition that only rail staff know about says that because they are separate contracts they are two journeys! Hmm...

That's a complete contradiction and confliction in terms and is thus governed by consumer laws that would rule in the customers favour.

I've seen nothing that states 2 tickets cannot count as one journey, and the NCoC says they can.

I know it's bad for the customer but that's how contract law works - it's an unintended consequence of privatisation.

How does it work?

But then, we all know it's unlikely to get that far - back to common sense again!

Agreed!

As to my personal approach in such situations - if it's good enough for Customer Relations then it's good enough for me

Interesting, that's good to know and it does rather hint at what they think the legal position is I think and besides, they know what terrible publicity it would be for them if they didn't accept it and blamed the customer for a delay on a train and if that customer went to the media.

 

[323235]

Journey = The act of traveling from one place to another
Leg = the distance travelled without tacking
Tacking,syn Tack = Interchange

Taking these definitions into consideration, as far as I'm concerned from a consumer aspect, regardless of how many tickets you've got,the wording of the National Conditions of Carridge,Consumer Law and the dictionary definitions make it quite clear that if a passenger misses a connecting train, which they have an advance ticket for because one is delayed and they have allowed adequote time at there interchange station (i.e. the minimum connection time), then they would be entitled to take the next one.

The fact that TOCs and Staff are even suggesting differently, indicated that they are taking the same attitude as manager's at a certain electrical retailer with the same name as an indian dish,who seem to think quite often that consumer laws such as "a product must work for what is reasonably expected" don't apply to them, when for example a customer contacts them about a Fridge/Freezer which has gone wrong after 6 weeks of purchase and they refuse to replace the item, despite the fact Trading Standards would have a very different opinion on the matter.

 

[Ferret]

How does it work?

Well, it goes a little bit like this. Say you wanted to go down the breach of contract route. Who do you sue? VWC for making you late? Nope, they were contracted to get you from Lancaster-Wolves and did so. XC? Well, they were contracted to get you from Wolves-Reading on a specific train. It's none of XC's business how you got to Wolves! Remember, condition 19 also states you must comply with any restrictions on the ticket, one of which is "Bookd (sic!) Train Only".

Get yourself a "+ connections" ticket and straight away you've solved the contract issue - you entered into a single contract with both VWC and XC.

Still, the legality of it all is a frivolous argument for the reasons we all agree on. Publicity is the key like you say - you wouldn't expect as a customer to be charged when you were not at fault and rightly so! That's why any Customer Relations team worth their salt will take the common sense approach.

 

[323235]

Well you could try sueing the ATOC
Not that it'd probably get you very far, I can't imagine

 

[tony_mac]

there are a number of issues about advance tickets that I think would run into trouble if challenged with recent consumer legislation; the lack of adequate compensation in the event of a delayed or cancelled journey (on the part of the first TOC) is one of them.

I think that the least they could do is arrange for you to finish your train journey! It costs them nothing and stops possibly difficult legal questions being asked.
Perhaps that is why they generally do? Or perhaps that's just common sense rearing its ugly head!

 

[attics26]

sorry Yorkie for muddying the waters - I was indeed trying to tie too many threads together but back to this thread I can only repeat what happens at my station and that is if the delay is down to the railway then onward travel will be authorised on not the " next train " but on the next train of that TOC ( last train of the day the rules differ in that if there is an alternative by any TOC then that will be used). aslong as tickets are held to destination and connection times were valid the passenger/customer will get there.

 

[222007]

Yorkie i understand what the conditions of carraige state. Are you saying then that advanced fares which clearly state you MUST be on the booked train are illegal? There are very clear terms and conditions attached to these tickets hence why they are sold at such prices. If your saying the given passenger should be conveyed on the next service it makes a mockery of advanced fares t&c's really doesnt it?

 

[attics26]

but the passenger would be there for train 2 if train 1 hadnt been delayed so aslong as the delay is due to the railway the passenger shouldnt be penalised.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie i understand what the conditions of carraige state. Are you saying then that advanced fares which clearly state you MUST be on the booked train are illegal?

If you are saying that in the event of delays then it's the customers fault and they cannot complete their journey, then yes. Is that what you are saying?

There are very clear terms and conditions attached to these tickets hence why they are sold at such prices. If your saying the given passenger should be conveyed on the next service it makes a mockery of advanced fares t&c's really doesnt it?

Indeed there are, I will quote from the clear terms and conditions:

If delays occur while
travelling, they will be
allowed to take the next
available train(s) to complete
their journey.

Do you dispute this condition?

 

[222007]

I do not dispute that no. I think we have to agree to disagree on this i know you will possibly not agree on this but as seen so far in this thread different people read these conditions in different ways.

(im not going to ask peoples views on advanced tickets with railcard discount and not carrying there railcard - another minfield)

 

[yorkie]

I do not dispute that no. I think we have to agree to disagree on this i know you will possibly not agree on this but as seen so far in this thread different people read these conditions in different ways.

To simplify, there have basically been 3 arguments for not honouring this example of AP tickets, as I understand it :-
1) TOCs blaming each other and not taking responsibility for the other TOC (HHF/royaloak) - not an issue specific to splitting; you can be with 2 TOCs on 1 ticket or 1 TOC on 2 tickets, so it's a non-issue. If we are debating the specific point about can you combine AP tickets then we can use the TPE example someone posted and eliminate the TOC vs TOC argument immediately.
2) If you are delayed then it's the customer who is liable and the ticket was cheap and they can't expect to complete the journey if there's a delay based on the fact they didn't pay much and the ticket is only valid on specified trains - which seemed to be your argument? This can't possibly be the case as the conditions say otherwise.
3) 2 tickets do not count as 1 journey (ferret) - this is the only argument that cannot be immediately discounted. I can see why people may think that, but I do not agree as I believe the NCoC permits 2 tickets to be used for 1 journey.

(im not going to ask peoples views on advanced tickets with railcard discount and not carrying there railcard - another minfield)

You just have. I think it's morally wrong but I believe the correct action is to charge a new ticket to the next stop where the customer can get off OR to charge them to their destination if they prefer. The customer may be able to get a refund on the original ticket however as it is an Advance it could be refused. This means it would have been cheaper for them to have no ticket. Daft, unfair and penalises legitimate pax, but those are the rules. What is questionable is the ethics of it. Perhaps the legality can be questioned. But I don't think it's as much of a minefield as this, as it's pretty clear what the 'punishment' is and ultimately the passenger is liable for that. Passengers are not liable in the event of delays on trains during their journey.

 

[Abteilung]

Oh Blimey, what have I started? Anyway here's a rather ironic post script to my original post. After a bit of thought I noticed that the 2nd train starts at Manchester Piccadilly, if I join it there the fare is very good value, £19.50, also the train from Lancaster to Manchester advance fare is only £5.50, so the cost is £25 versus £32, the connection time is 1 hour which means little chance of missing it, I'll time this to coincide with lunch time so we can get a pie and a pint. Job Done, so my original question is now redundant, but hey, don't let me stop the lively debate!

 

[Helvellyn]

A definition, or a clear statement from ATOC would resolve the issue. The trouble with the current situation is that we have to rely on individuals interpretations! Given the information that's been posted on here, I can;t really accept the logic of sying that one journey is actually tow journeys, just because I am doing the journey with two tickets rather than one!

Oh I wish they would. Those of us on here who work in the industry have the general consensus that Condition 19 applies to split ticketing, where the journey is one train journey, i.e. board train at A and get off it at B. Yet it seems we're "anti-customer" to hold this view because we don't agree that it applies to multiple journeys on separate tickets.

 

[158757]

I was pointed to this debate by 323235, and its very interesting. I've always been of the impression that if you leave the minimum connection time between 2 advances then the second should be valid as you have made a reasonable effort to get to the station on time, if the train is delayed there is nothing you can do.

It doesn't seem fair that if you want to guarantee your second connection you must buy a full through ticket. In many cases it's 2 different companies so no "through" advances are available, or as there isn't one on the next connecting service (but there may be on the one after) it doesn't show through fares. As an example, I did Lancaster-York last January on advances, I knew full well that I was going so I booked 3 weeks in advance, but as the first train to York after the Lancaster one arrived in Manchester didn't have any advances, I had to split so I could get the second one. As it turned out all my connections worked out OK, but if they hadn't I'd have missed my second train despite making a reasonable effort to get there for it. If I know I'm going and make the effort to book in advance, why should I have to fork out for an on the day ticket (which in this case was £31 vs £14 on advances), just to guarantee connections on the off chance something goes wrong?

As it is I've never had any issues on advances being accepted, but it's certainly an area that needs clarifying. I think that providing you've left the minimum connection time, if your first train is delayed the ticket for your second train should be valid in times like these. Otherwise you're just going to put yet more people off travelling by train. And if not where do you draw the line on leaving gaps between advances? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 hour? More?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It is irrelevant if they are separate contracts or not. Your argument centres around the scenario of two separate TOCs being involved. So we'll have to examine that.....

It's the same thing Yorkie, you just can't see that because it doesn't suit your arguement.

....If it's the same TOC, then how can they deny responsibility?....

One journey, two tickets, two seperate contracts! It is your responsibility to get to the departure station as shown on your ticket in good time.

....Of course you are going to go with the different TOC scenario so that you can use the old blame game tactic , this is the only way to make it look like you cannot combine tickets for one journey. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny though.

And if you argue that one TOC can simply blame the other, then that is also the case with a through "and connections" ticket!

So this argument holds no water, and is just about what TOCs can theoretically say to weasel out of ANY delay on ANY ticket by blaming another TOC. This does not affect validity in any way....

It's not about who can blame who, you missed the point, I suggust you re-read what I have written.

....Quote a source where it matters if they are "not the same contract"? It does not matter because either ticket states that you can continue your journey if you are delayed....

I'll come back to this later in the post.....

....So your only argument, unless you are ignoring that condition, is that two tickets do not count as one journey. This argument is clearly false and is at odds with NCoC....

You fail to acknowledge the basis of the arguement and hence fail to counter it properly, maybe because you don't understand what I said.

....NCoC doesn't really define terms as such, but the crucial wording is that you "can combine two or more tickets for one journey". That does not mean you have to, but it is an option you have....

As such???? It doesn't define it at all! repeating parts of condition 19 over and over again adds nothing to the definition of the term.

If you are saying that in the event of delays then it's the customers fault and they cannot complete their journey, then yes. Is that what you are saying?

Indeed there are, I will quote from the clear terms and conditions:

If delays occur while
travelling, they will be
allowed to take the next
available train(s) to complete
their journey.

Do you dispute this condition?

No-one is saying the customer is at fault (TOC1 is at fault but that is irrelevant) and no-one disputes that condition, however, it applies to each ticket seperately, to argue otherwise is stupid, wrong and, in your case, worrying. However you FAIL to acknowledge the sentences before it in the conditions of each ticket.

You must be at the departure station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET in good time. if you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason you must purchase a new ticket.

The ticket conditions apply to each ticket not 'the journey' so you arrived late for the first train hence you missed it, you need a new ticket.

To simplify, there have basically been 3 arguments for not honouring this example of AP tickets, as I understand it :-

1) TOCs blaming each other and not taking responsibility for the other TOC (HHF/royaloak) - not an issue specific to splitting; you can be with 2 TOCs on 1 ticket or 1 TOC on 2 tickets, so it's a non-issue. If we are debating the specific point about can you combine AP tickets then we can use the TPE example someone posted and eliminate the TOC vs TOC argument immediately.

2) If you are delayed then it's the customer who is liable and the ticket was cheap and they can't expect to complete the journey if there's a delay based on the fact they didn't pay much and the ticket is only valid on specified trains - which seemed to be your argument? This can't possibly be the case as the conditions say otherwise.

3) 2 tickets do not count as 1 journey (ferret) - this is the only argument that cannot be immediately discounted. I can see why people may think that, but I do not agree as I believe the NCoC permits 2 tickets to be used for 1 journey....

1) & 3) aren't so very different (although I would probably put myself in 3 and replace the word 'journey' with 'contract' or 'ticket', as I'm not playing the blame game) and 2) hinges, in it's entirety on Condition 19. Nothing else anywhere supports your interpretation of the conditions, you mis-interpret it though.

It does indeed say you can make 'one journey', but never once says that the two tickets are as one, or that the conditions apply equally to all, not even that certain conditions apply equally. That is something you cannot argue to be true. With that being the case, the delay to journey in relation to ticket B-C can only apply once you have joined the train at B.

To argue that it applies before B is saying that ticket A-B and ticket B-C are one and the same, that the departure station 'as shown on the ticket' is always A and that both tickets share the same conditions. So what if ticket A-B was an 'Anytime' ticket rather than advance, that would mean either:

a) The 'Anytime' ticket from A-B is restricted for use on the booked services only; or

b) The 'Advance' ticket form B-C is open for use on any train.

Whilst they CAN be be used together for 'one journey' (as most right minded people would define it), neither of the above statements is true, nor could it be argued that they are, yet you insisted it is through your arguement.

The only way your arguement can stand up is if Condition 19 reads:

"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as though they are one ticket, provided that together they cover the entire journey...."

Which it doesn't and even if it did, it would lead to the problem mentioned above

In summary, TOC1 has got you to B and that's them done with, job done. You failed to get to B in time for train B-C (because of TOC1) that is your problem, not TOC2's, because they provided the train for you to use as contracted, you missed it.

Now, in a previous post (which I note was ignored by some), I did say that common sense should prevail, but that can't be guarranteed by anyone, and so advice here should be that whilst you MAY be okay, you will PROBABLY have to buy a new ticket for that part of 'the journey'.

 

[EltonRoad]

Agreed.

The problem is: you are told when you book an advance ticket that it is only valid on one specific train. Therefore if you choose to reach that train by using another train, you will be aware there is a risk of delay and that you could miss it. It's a risk you're choosing to take in order to save money. The TOCs could, I think, argue it this way.

This problem doesn't arise when you're buying a through ticket for the same journey, as clearly you're being sold one "product", even if that does encompass two trains.

However thanks to BestValueFares.co.uk which states you can mix and match advance tickets, you're probably safe to do so now!

 

[royaloak]

However thanks to BestValueFares.co.uk which states you can mix and match advance tickets, you're probably safe to do so now!

Since when have they been responsible for terms and conditions?
If they give you wrong/ or no information your arguement is with them!
You stating "well bestvaluefares didnt say I couldnt do it" will be countered with "who said you could".
I believe they mean you can mix and match for a journey on the same train.

Taking this to an illogical conclusion, is there a sign where you work saying I cant hit you round the back of the head with a cricket bat, no, so you wouldnt mind if I did then coz there isnt a sign saying I cant it must be alright then.

 

[EltonRoad]

Since when have they been responsible for terms and conditions?

Seeing as it's an ATOC site, since its inception I guess!

I believe they mean you can mix and match for a journey on the same train.

Fine, your choice to interpret it that way. It doesn't say that though.

 

[yorkie]

If I know I'm going and make the effort to book in advance, why should I have to fork out for an on the day ticket (which in this case was £31 vs £14 on advances), just to guarantee connections on the off chance something goes wrong?

Because the railways are in a strange state where they exist to provide a public service (despite some people desperately trying to deny it, it's true) and are subsidised to the tune of several £billion each year. However they are run by people who need to make a profit for their shareholders. If people pay £31 instead of £14 then that's £17 more profit for their shareholders while the people who pay the subsidy think that they are getting good value because the cheap fares do exist and they 'tick the right boxes'. I suspect box ticking is more important than reality to people at the DfT. Indeed, some of them admit that their own personal view is quite different to the official line they have to portray. I cannot say any more than that on here.

As it is I've never had any issues on advances being accepted,

Yes, there is usually no problem, and few cases reached Passenger Focus who will fight your case if they are not accepted.

but it's certainly an area that needs clarifying.

It never will be, as it's not in their interests to. They want to scare customers into paying more, but they don't actually do it.

I think that providing you've left the minimum connection time, if your first train is delayed the ticket for your second train should be valid in times like these.

Absolutely.

Otherwise you're just going to put yet more people off travelling by train.

I think that there is an assumption that people will pay whatever price they ask! The fact that some people give in and do this is only going to encourage them. Nowadays if I am offered a lift somewhere, I'll take it. I never used to do that. They don't think there is much risk of putting people off, but they don't really care if a few people are put off as they'll still get their subsidy and it'll be the cheap tickets that they are not selling, so not really denting their profits. As long as big business keeps paying silly prices like the people I saw at York who had £148 FORs from Leicester then the TOCs don't really care, as they are not interested in the fact they are given a subsidy (directly or indirectly) to provide a service.

And if not where do you draw the line on leaving gaps between advances? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 hour? More?

Well exactly. I've already asked what time we should allow on here but no answer from the anti-customer brigade was forthcoming. I find that quite interesting and says a lot. They won't answer you either I suspect!

It's the same thing Yorkie, you just can't see that because it doesn't suit your arguement.

No, you were going on about different TOCs to suit your argument. As I said before it completely falls down when using the TPE example posted earlier. Perhaps you can provide an example on why a Manchester-York plus York-Newcastle AP tickets both on TPE would not be honoured on TPE if their first train was leg? Go on, argue that point. I look forward to a completely different set of arguments being used not mentioning the TOC as it's the same...

One journey, two tickets, two seperate contracts!

So? Are you saying a building company that has 2 separate contracts (known as 'work packages') to carry out some work in a project, if they do not carry out the first work package on time, and then say that the 2nd work package cannot be carried out but still has to be paid for, as it was to start on a specific date, and the fact that they did not complete the first work package on time means that they can simply take your money and not do the 2nd work package, and they could get away with that?

It is your responsibility to get to the departure station as shown on your ticket in good time.

Yes it is the passengers responsibility to get to the first station on their journey, however if delays occur while travelling then the customer may complete their journey on later trains.

It is absolutely ludicrous to say that the wording about it being the customers responsibility to ensure they are on the right trains over-rules the wording that says that if you are delayed you can be allowed to travel.

It is clear that the easement is saying that you can do it and that you are not at fault for missing trains. If you do not believe this is clear then this applies:

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Written contracts
7. - (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

It's not about who can blame who, you missed the point, I suggust you re-read what I have written.

I have read what you have written and I look forward to reading an example of combining AP tickets with the same TOC.

You fail to acknowledge the basis of the arguement and hence fail to counter it properly, maybe because you don't understand what I said.

The basis of your argument was two separate TOCs being able to blame each other. However that is ridiculous as you can have one ticket using several TOCs, but if you are going to argue you cannot combine AP tickets then why don't you use an example of combining AP tickets offered by the same TOC, and ignore the TOC blaming TOC argument?

As such???? It doesn't define it at all! repeating parts of condition 19 over and over again adds nothing to the definition of the term.

In the absence of a full definition, we are left with the text "...you can combine two or more tickets for one journey..." there is nothing else to go on. There is nothing to say you cannot combine 2 or more tickets for one journey. You keep saying you cannot, but there is not a shred of evidence that supports that position! It is, frankly, made up. You can say that my quote does not apply but you cannot provide any alternative quote to say that you cannot combine two or more tickets for one journey!

The AP conditions say you can complete your journey in the event of delays. Even people like royaloak now admit that, and he said that what matters now is what counts as "a journey". The key question is "Can two or more tickets be combined to form one journey?" And the answer is "yes". Do you deny that is the key question?

No-one is saying the customer is at fault (TOC1 is at fault but that is irrelevant) and no-one disputes that condition, however, it applies to each ticket seperately, to argue otherwise is stupid, wrong and, in your case, worrying. However you FAIL to acknowledge the sentences before it in the conditions of each ticket.

Let's not use the word 'fault' then. You are effectively saying it is the customers responsibility to be at the departure station for each train/ticket during their journey, and that if a train company delays them, the customer is liable?

You must be at the departure station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET in good time. if you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason you must purchase a new ticket.

Providing the customer is at the original departure station then they are covered on the line of text that you have not quoted that says that in the event of delays you can complete your journey on later train(s).

The ticket conditions apply to each ticket not 'the journey' so you arrived late for the first train hence you missed it, you need a new ticket.

The condition clearly states you can continue your "journey"! As I said before they DO NOT state that you can only continue to the place printed on your ticket, they say you can complete the JOURNEY. For you to say that it does not apply to the "journey" is plain wrong.

1) & 3) aren't so very different (although I would probably put myself in 3 and replace the word 'journey' with 'contract' or 'ticket', as I'm not playing the blame game) and 2) hinges, in it's entirety on Condition 19. Nothing else anywhere supports your interpretation of the conditions, you mis-interpret it though.

Go on then, find an alternative definition of "journey" in the conditions that supports your view.

It does indeed say you can make 'one journey', but never once says that the two tickets are as one, or that the conditions apply equally to all, not even that certain conditions apply equally. That is something you cannot argue to be true. With that being the case, the delay to journey in relation to ticket B-C can only apply once you have joined the train at B.

This is just waffle. The key facts are
1) AP ticket conditions state you must be on the booked train however if you are delayed while travelling then you can complete your journey on later trains
2) The question then is what does journey mean, specifically can a journey be carried out on two or more tickets?
3) NCoC says you can combine two or more tickets for one journey
4) Nowhere does it say you cannot combine two or more AP tickets for one journey

To argue that it applies before B is saying that ticket A-B and ticket B-C are one and the same, that the departure station 'as shown on the ticket' is always A and that both tickets share the same conditions. So what if ticket A-B was an 'Anytime' ticket rather than advance, that would mean either:
a) The 'Anytime' ticket from A-B is restricted for use on the booked services only; or

b) The 'Advance' ticket form B-C is open for use on any train.

Neither! The Anytime is unrestricted and the Advance is restricted.

The Advance ticket is only for the booked train(s), not "any" train, however if you are "delayed while travelling" you can "complete your journey on later train(s)". So the Advance ticket is not "open" and only becomes valid for later train(s) in the event of connections being missed.

Whilst they CAN be be used together for 'one journey' (as most right minded people would define it), neither of the above statements is true, nor could it be argued that they are, yet you insisted it is through your arguement.

So you admit that two or more tickets can be used for one journey?

The only way your arguement can stand up is if Condition 19 reads:

"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as though they are one ticket, provided that together they cover the entire journey...."

Which it doesn't and even if it did, it would lead to the problem mentioned above

It does not need to read "as though they are one ticket". The number of tickets is not really relevant. The fact is if you are delayed on your journey you can complete the journey. A journey can use a combination of tickets.

In summary, TOC1 has got you to B and that's them done with, job done. You failed to get to B in time for train B-C (because of TOC1) that is your problem, not TOC2's, because they provided the train for you to use as contracted, you missed it.

Here we go again, using separate TOCs to use the blame game argument.

What happens if someone combines two TPE Advances? One from Liverpool-Manchester (on a train toward York) and one from Manchester-Hull? This is a real example as Max did this from the Merseyrail Challenge meet and was delayed. Your argument is that if Max failed to get to Manchester in time for Manchester-Hull because of TPE, that is not TPE's problem, because TPE provided the train for him to use as contracted, and he missed it.

Do you still believe that your statement makes sense? Or do you admit that you are playing the TOC vs TOC blame game that makes no sense when you combine AP tickets of the same TOC?

Now, in a previous post (which I note was ignored by some), I did say that common sense should prevail, but that can't be guarranteed by anyone, and so advice here should be that whilst you MAY be okay, you will PROBABLY have to buy a new ticket for that part of 'the journey'.

Now, in a previous post, which was ignored by you, I did say that Passenger Focus have very few incidents reported to them of AP tickets not being accepted in this way. So it is totally untrue to say that you will "PROBABLY" have to buy a new ticket! In fact the evidence is that you will probably be allowed to travel, however you may be asked to pay again, an act which I believe is contrary to the T&Cs and that Passenger Focus will fight on your behalf, and with a good success rate and it is also contrary to what ATOC would expect, and it is contrary to what guards such as Ferret would do (even though he believes that he could charge for a new ticket) and his Customer Services department are also happy for it to be accepted too. I have had many reports of people being allowed onward travel in the event of delays and, so far, none of anyone being denied onward travel although as I said earlier a few cases do happen (incorrectly) as Passenger Focus do get a few complaints and will chase them up.

The problem is: you are told when you book an advance ticket that it is only valid on one specific train. Therefore if you choose to reach that train by using another train, you will be aware there is a risk of delay and that you could miss it. It's a risk you're choosing to take in order to save money. The TOCs could, I think, argue it this way.

The argument falls down because of the terms allowing the journey to be completed in the event of delays, and the TOC would have to argue that the customer is liable for a delay to another train. This is an argument that I'm sure the media would find worthy of comment.

Since when have they been responsible for terms and conditions?

"They" are ATOC. I'm not sure exactly, but it would be the mid 1990s that ATOC took responsibility for T&Cs over from BR!

 

[EltonRoad]

The argument falls down because of the terms allowing the journey to be completed in the event of delays, and the TOC would have to argue that the customer is liable for a delay to another train. This is an argument that I'm sure the media would find worthy of comment.

Yet again this hinges on use of the word "journey".
And whether TOC 2 sees what you're doing as two separate journeys. Given that when you booked you were told the ticket was valid on that train only. And that is how it can be offered so cheaply.

There's one more "angle" I'd like to throw on this!

It's purely to illustrate the principle of the thing.

A while ago I flew from Bristol to Hong Kong with KLM. I had one through ticket, but the journey involved a change of planes at Amsterdam. Both planes were operated by KLM.

If I'd have booked each leg of the journey separately to save money, would KLM have been obliged to carry me from Amsterdam to Hong Kong in the event of delay on the first flight?

I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect they wouldn't.

I guess you (Yorkie) will throw the NCoC at me, but notwithstanding these, isn't the principle the same?

 

[yorkie]

Yet again this hinges on use of the word "journey".
And whether TOC 2 sees what you're doing as two separate journeys. Given that when you booked you were told the ticket was valid on that train only. And that is how it can be offered so cheaply.

I agree it hinges on use of the word journey, but I don't think that the price is relevant. Valid on the that train(s) only does not mean you are not covered in the event of a delay.

There's one more "angle" I'd like to throw on this!

It's purely to illustrate the principle of the thing.

A while ago I flew from Bristol to Hong Kong with KLM. I had one through ticket, but the journey involved a change of planes at Amsterdam. Both planes were operated by KLM.

If I'd have booked each leg of the journey separately to save money, would KLM have been obliged to carry me from Amsterdam to Hong Kong in the event of delay on the first flight?

I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect they wouldn't.

I guess you (Yorkie) will throw the NCoC at me, but notwithstanding these, isn't the principle the same?

Depends on the conditions. If is says that you can complete the journey in the event of delays, and if the conditions of plane travel (if there is such a thing) say you can combine 2 or more plane tickets for 1 journey, then yes you can.

If it didn't say that, but you booked them both from the site of the same operator, and in the same transaction and adhered to connectional allowances (does such a concept exist for planes? I do not know) then I would have thought consumer laws should protect you but I don't know.

However our domestic rail industry has more common conditions because it all used to be BR, and part of the conditions for privatisation was that through ticketing, common conditions etc would still be available and administered through ATOC.

Is there an equivalent APOC type organisation?

 

[EltonRoad]

Maybe I'm being completely thick, but I still don't see how turning up late for train 2 means they have to carry you on the next service.

Why? Because you're told when you buy the ticket that you must be there for that train.

This doesn't apply to a through ticket with connections.

You're choosing to reach train 2 by using train 1. This carries an inherent risk of delay, just as it does if you choose to reach train 2 by driving there. If you got stuck on the M1, you could argue you're not liable, you didn't cause the hold-up and it's not your fault, but that argument is unlikely to be accepted. Equally, if you were delayed by train 1, of course you're not liable - you didn't cause the delay yourself - but the risk you took when setting out has been realised. TOC 2 could argue that I wasn't there on time, it would have been made clear to me at the outset that I had to be there, it's a risk I took, and I could have bought a through ticket if I wanted to cover myself against delay.

Arguing about the definition of "journey" doesn't help either. What matters is use of the word. For example I know that my journey is (say) from London to Glasgow, and will use this in my argument to get TOC 2 to convey me from Preston to Glasgow. But TOC 2 may argue that I am making two separate journeys by virtue of the fact I hold two advance tickets, valid only on specific trains, which I knew from the outset. And because they can argue this, the NCoC condition that allows you to combine two tickets for one journey wouldn't apply, because the TOC can say it's two journeys.

 

[Greenback]

Oh I wish they would. Those of us on here who work in the industry have the general consensus that Condition 19 applies to split ticketing, where the journey is one train journey, i.e. board train at A and get off it at B. Yet it seems we're "anti-customer" to hold this view because we don't agree that it applies to multiple journeys on separate tickets.

If that is the meaning of the condition, why doesn't it actually say that? That would remove all of the confusion! Surely ATOC could arrange for the wording to be amended if that is the intention of the wording? I donm;t think the interpretation is valid, if I want to travel from Llanelli to Cardiff by changing at Swansea, as there is no through train at the time I want to go, that's two journeys on split tickets, yet only one journey if I split on a train that goes right through? It's worth pointing out that my actual journey is from Llanelli to Cardiff, regardless of whether I have to change trains or how many tickets I hold to cover the journey.

Yet again this hinges on use of the word "journey".
And whether TOC 2 sees what you're doing as two separate journeys. Given that when you booked you were told the ticket was valid on that train only. And that is how it can be offered so cheaply.

There's one more "angle" I'd like to throw on this!

It's purely to illustrate the principle of the thing.

A while ago I flew from Bristol to Hong Kong with KLM. I had one through ticket, but the journey involved a change of planes at Amsterdam. Both planes were operated by KLM.

If I'd have booked each leg of the journey separately to save money, would KLM have been obliged to carry me from Amsterdam to Hong Kong in the event of delay on the first flight?

I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect they wouldn't.

I guess you (Yorkie) will throw the NCoC at me, but notwithstanding these, isn't the principle the same?

TOC v TOC again! What if they're the same? Is someone going to answer this?

There is a huge difference betwee air and rail travel. Air travel has never been nationalised and subsequently privatised. The conditions of carriage were rewritten to prtoect rights that the public had gained through public ownership, such as interavailability. There is no concept of an integrated air network, as we once had and are trying to retain on the railway system. As such, it is not a meaningful compariosn at all, even though they may well carry you for no additional charge on the next flight. Even Easyjet have done this, as seen on Airline some years ago, when the 'complaint' from the passengers was that their flight had not been held and they had to wait six hours for the next flight!

 

[yorkie]

TOC v TOC again! What if they're the same? Is someone going to answer this?

Some people have desperately trying to cling on to the TOC v TOC argument, ignoring the actual conditions, because if they use that argument it does sound plausible. They cannot use this argument with the TPE splitting at Manchester example. So their entire argument falls apart. So where does that leave us? I think a lot of people seem to be agreeing that you are covered for your "journey" and that just leaves the question as to whether or not two or more tickets can be combined for one journey. No-one has yet shown me any evidence of a condition that says you cannot combine two AP tickets for one journey, and I have quoted evidence that you can combine two tickets for one journey.

I would be very interested to hear if people who think that TOCs can[1] charge again for a new ticket when a customer splits their ticket and the first train is delayed, still think that applies for the example of Liverpool-Manchester (TPE) + Manchester-Hull (TPE) which is not even theoretical as it was an actual journey undertaken by Max and the first train did get delayed. To those people: could TPE charge again for Manchester-Hull in your opinion?

[1] I accept people like HHF, EltonRoad, Ferret, etc may not morally think that they should be charged again and that is absolutely fine and I agree with that, but let's leave that to one side and talk about what we believe TOCs can do