Advice on tight connection at Wolverhampton on Lancaster to Reading

[Ferret]

Well, here's one that'll have Yorkie's blood pressure going through the roof!

A gentleman holds a 'plus connections' ticket for the train in front of mine. He was delayed by flooding and missed his connecting train, so he rang National Rail Enquiries. They told him his ticket was invalid and he'd need to buy a new one!!!! So, about 10 minutes before departure, he comes to find me, seemingly ready to buy a new ticket for fear of being in trouble! Needless to say he's currently sat down in the carriage travelling on his original ticket, but why have NRES told him that?!

Oh, and I've just copped a faredodger in the toilet! Never a dull moment......!

 

[Greenback]

I'm not particulalry surprised. I doubt most of the people who answer the enquiries have ever seen a train, let alone understand anything about tickets!

 

[OwlMan]

As ATOC on their own website (www.bestvaluefares.co.uk)- see below- say that tickets can be combined and that if there is a delay you can catch the next train.
Can anyone show me where it says that if you are delayed on one stage of your journey that you can not continue on a later train?

http://www.bestvaluefares.co.uk/guide-to-tickets/advance-tickets (my highlights)
Is it for me?
If you are able to plan ahead, Advance tickets can offer fantastic value for money. There are limited numbers of Advance tickets, so generally speaking, the earlier you book, the cheaper the ticket – with many tickets going on sale around 12 weeks in advance. Advance fares are usually for longer distance journeys and are sold as single fares, but can be mixed and matched with other Advance, Off-Peak or Anytime Single fares to get the best value tickets for your journey.

http://www.bestvaluefares.co.uk/our-commitment.aspx (my highlights)
Points to note
•If you purchase an Advance ticket from a train company, you must use that ticket on the train services specified. However, if you miss this service because your connecting train was delayed you will be able to travel on the next service provided by the same train company without penalty.

The terms and conditions for Advance Tickets stae the following

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey. [1]

It does not say that this must be on the same ticket - just that if delays occur while travelling.
Can anyone show me where it says that the delays must be on the same ticket as the advanced part of journey?

Unless some convincing proof is shown to me (not just made up points) I fully agree with Yorkie that if you are delayed on your first ticket you can complete your journey be using the second (i.e. advanced) ticket on a later train.


[1] Note that this term does not say rail journey just "delays while travelling" - does it apply to bus services etc?
Peter

 

[EltonRoad]

Hi. This is my response to Yorkie's post.

In my opinion, Max did not meet the conditions of his advance ticket from Manchester to Hull by virtue of the fact he wasn't there, and therefore TPE can charge him to travel on the next train.

Max would have seen that the ticket is only valid on that one train from Manchester to Hull when he bought it, and by wishing to save money, he took a slight risk by travelling to Manchester by train on another advance ticket.

Risk? Yes, because although NCoC says you can combine two tickets for one journey, the conditions of the advance ticket are that you can only use it on the train it's booked on. This means that to allow it on a later Manchester - Hull service TPE would have to use discretion.

Could Max have argued that he was combining two tickets for one journey, and that it was legitimate to do so under the NCoC? Yes of course he could, he can argue what he likes.

To counter it, TPE could argue that the conditions on the advance tickets were explicit from the outset, i.e. valid only on one train. To maximise their income, they may look for an argument to get him to pay up. And that argument could be that he is actually making two separate journeys and therefore he isn't covered against delay howsoever caused and therefore he has to pay up.

At the end of the day this thread shouldn't be about who's right and who's wrong, it's about what arguments could be put forward by both traveller and TOC and the likely outcomes.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....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....

Conditions of use for the ticket from Manchester to York....

You have arrived at you departing station in good time....CHECK

You have not missed your first booked train....CHECK

You have missed a connection because of a delay since leaving Manchester....NOT APPLICABLE - DIRECT SERVICE

Conditions of use for the ticket from York to Newcastle....

You have arrived at your departing station in good time....NO, YOU WERE LATE

You have not missed your first booked train....NO, YOU WERE LATE

You have missed a connection because of a delay since leaving York....NOT APPLICABLE - YOU MISSED THE TRAIN FROM YORK

Does TPE have an obligation to get you to Newcastle on your Advance ticket? No, they have not broken any of the conditions of the ticket.

....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?....

I think we both know that is not the same thing, the train was still provided, it's just that you missed it.

....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....

The condition for ticket B is that you get to Station B in good time, you failed to do that therefore you did not uphold the conditions of the contract.

....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 doesn't, it is a seperate ticket/contract from the previous ticket, therefore you are not actually travelling under the conditions of Ticket B untill you leave Station B.

....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:....

See above.

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

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?....

No, it is about two seperate tickets and how the actions of TOC1 during ticket A-B are seperate from ticket B-C or TOC2 (irrespective of who TOC 1 and TOC2 are, or even if they are the same TOC)

....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!....

I had said quite clearly that using two tickets to travel a longer distance is fine, but that you can't mix conditions to suit yourself, each ticket has it's own conditions and they are applied seperately.

....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?....

See above.

....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?

The customer bought the tickets, by doing so agreed to ALL the conditions of use, no matter what they are.

....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)....

Here we go again! Were they at the departing station as shown on their ticket in good time for the first booked service, no. They can't be delayed whilst travelling if they have not started to travel (on that 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....

That condition is irrelevant. The first ticket has ended and is no longer important, the second hasn't even started yet and you have failed to adhere to a condition of it's use already.

If you got to Station A by taxi and it was late, is that your fault? No. Would you be allowed to travel on the next train? No.

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

I don't need to, it is you that relies on it's definition and one no-one can produce one.

....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....

1) I agree, you were on the booked train for ticket A, you missed the booked train on ticket B, but you're not travelling under the conditions of ticket B-C until you have left station B. The conditions of ticket A-B no longer apply as that 'journey' has finished.

2) Yes, but the conditions of use apply to each ticket seperately.

3) It does indeed say you can complete a longer journey on two or more tickets, but it does not say the conditions for one apply to both.

4) Indeed but nowhere does it say that the conditions of one become integral to the conditions of the other, or that events during one affect the conditions of the other.

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

So you agree that the conditions of one ticket are seperate to that of the other?

....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....

So when did you start travelling on ticket B-C, it can't be before station B because the ticket wasn't valid.

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

I have never denied it, but I accept that the conditions for each must be adhered to.

....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....

But you must adhere to the conditions of both tickets, you have failed to adhere to a condition of ticket B-C.

....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....

I've answered that already I think.

....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?....

I'm not blaming anyone, just saying how it is. What I believe makes sense is largely irrelevant.

....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....

How many cases have not been reported to Passenger focus? How many of those were dealt with in a way in which you find unacceptable?

I honestly don't think we will agree on this matter, I can't respond now until atleast Monday, by which time I'm sure an even longer post awaits me and I doubt it will contain anything new to add to the debate. I think the fact that others, not just me, have indicated the same feeling on the matter adds weight to our point of view. You will not accept that, that is your choice, but I will once again say that whilst you believe you are right, it is not right to claim your opinion as truth when there is still doubt.

As a note on BestValueFares, or whatever it is called, that mearly states what Condition 19 already states, it changes nothing.

 

[Ferret]

Peter, it's been briefed out to me/'us' that the advice on that website refers to return journeys. IE - where the SVR is not valid, and the SOR is expensive you can get Advance tickets for both ways, or an advance out and a CDS back.

 

[OwlMan]

Peter, it's been briefed out to me/'us' that the advice on that website refers to return journeys. IE - where the SVR is not valid, and the SOR is expensive you can get Advance tickets for both ways, or an advance out and a CDS back.

Again quotes of briefings and meetings etc but nothing in the public domain.

If that is what ATOC want it to mean they should change their website.

Peter

 

[EltonRoad]

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

I don't understand your response actually! My post clearly said that both planes were operated by KLM.

There is a huge difference betwee air and rail travel. Air travel has never been nationalised and subsequently privatised.

Really? Quote from Wikipedia:

"The British Airways Group was formed on 1 September 1974 through nationalisation by the Labour Government of the time. BA was formed from two large London-based airlines, BOAC and BEA, and two much smaller regional airlines, Cambrian Airways Cardiff and Northeast Airlines Newcastle upon Tyne. All four companies were dissolved on 31 March 1974 to form British Airways (BA) and almost thirteen years later, in February 1987, the company was 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.

There are similarities though. Several airlines operating from the same airport, some competing with each other on the same route, business = to get passenger from A to B etc.

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!

So it is a meaningful comparision then.

As I said in my post, it was to illustrate the principle of the thing.

 

[Helvellyn]

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.

My understanding is that the present Condition 19 was brought in with specific regards to split tickets. It used to be the case that to use a split ticket you had to physically get off and then back on the train, because the tickets you had were for two journeys, even though it was a through journey on a single train. This was changed to say only that when using split tickets the train must stop at the station. The exceptions to this being those listed, e.g. a zonal ticket. Hence how someone who has a Zone 1-6 Annual Oyster can buy an extension to Winchester and then travel on a train non-stop Waterloo to Winchester.

Condition 19 does need made more specific as to what it applies to because this thread shows some people believe it applies to any rail trip that may involve separate tickets for separate journeys.


Here's something else to add to the mix. With all the bad weather this past week or so why have we had daily Retail Bulletins specifically stating that due to the adverse weather, and the delays/disruption resulting, TOCs have agreed to honour advance tickets on services other than those on which the passenger was booked? East Coast were even saying that whilst in many cases this was only the passenger wanting the next train, they were also honouring some the next day. If TOCs need to brief staff that tickets are being accepted on the next train due to delays then this tells me it is not the norm to do so - because if we were doing it anyway as a rule we would have just been told about the next day acceptance.

As many other staff in this thread have said, if a passenger who is delayed approaches a staff member they will usually find that common sense will be displayed, and discretion used. Sometimes it's not clear cut, as the passenger is a few service after the booked one. In that case for SWT travel I'll issue an Unpaid Fare Notice. No money is taken and they can ask for it be rescinded without payment where someone has the ability to take the time to ask all the questions of other parties.

I'm not going to ask peoples views on advanced tickets with railcard discount and not carrying there railcard - another minfield

Conditions of railcard use are that it is carried on all journeys. No railcard and the ticket is invalid because the user has no proof of their entitlement to the discount. The rail staff member checking the ticket has no way of knowing if the ticket was bought by you or someone else showing their railcard, or at a TVM/online, in which case you may not even have a railcard.

In a Penalty Fare area you can even receive a Penalty Fare for not carrying your railcard. On SWT this would be issued under the reason "no supporting documents."

 

[Greenback]

I don't understand your response actually! My post clearly said that both planes were operated by KLM.

I apologise for my carelessness!

Really? Quote from Wikipedia:

"The British Airways Group was formed on 1 September 1974 through nationalisation by the Labour Government of the time. BA was formed from two large London-based airlines, BOAC and BEA, and two much smaller regional airlines, Cambrian Airways Cardiff and Northeast Airlines Newcastle upon Tyne. All four companies were dissolved on 31 March 1974 to form British Airways (BA) and almost thirteen years later, in February 1987, the company was privatised."

There are similarities though. Several airlines operating from the same airport, some competing with each other on the same route, business = to get passenger from A to B etc.

So it is a meaningful comparision then.

As I said in my post, it was to illustrate the principle of the thing.

Whatever similarities may or may not exist the fact remains that it can't be a meaningful comparison because the airline model was one that was proposed by the original privatisation plans (IIRC every TOC was to have their own ticket offices, and tickets were definitely non interavailable) and rejected because of the loss of benefits that passengers had acquired.

If, however, we accept that the comparison is a valid one, then how does the acceptance of the Easyjet tickets fit in? The cusotmers, a middle aged couple, had bought separate tickets from the Easyjet website for two flights, one from Europe to liverpool and one from Liverpool to Belfast. They were upset that their 'connection; had not been held, but the staff said it wasn;t a coonnection as they had two separate tickets! (I doubnt it would have been held if they had a through ticket either though!). There was no problem at all in transferring them to the next flight with no charge. Of all the companies I woudle xpect to take a hard line on this it would be a low cost airline!

My understanding is that the present Condition 19 was brought in with specific regards to split tickets. It used to be the case that to use a split ticket you had to physically get off and then back on the train, because the tickets you had were for two journeys, even though it was a through journey on a single train. This was changed to say only that when using split tickets the train must stop at the station. The exceptions to this being those listed, e.g. a zonal ticket. Hence how someone who has a Zone 1-6 Annual Oyster can buy an extension to Winchester and then travel on a train non-stop Waterloo to Winchester.

Condition 19 does need made more specific as to what it applies to because this thread shows some people believe it applies to any rail trip that may involve separate tickets for separate journeys.


Here's something else to add to the mix. With all the bad weather this past week or so why have we had daily Retail Bulletins specifically stating that due to the adverse weather, and the delays/disruption resulting, TOCs have agreed to honour advance tickets on services other than those on which the passenger was booked? East Coast were even saying that whilst in many cases this was only the passenger wanting the next train, they were also honouring some the next day. If TOCs need to brief staff that tickets are being accepted on the next train due to delays then this tells me it is not the norm to do so - because if we were doing it anyway as a rule we would have just been told about the next day acceptance.

As many other staff in this thread have said, if a passenger who is delayed approaches a staff member they will usually find that common sense will be displayed, and discretion used. Sometimes it's not clear cut, as the passenger is a few service after the booked one. In that case for SWT travel I'll issue an Unpaid Fare Notice. No money is taken and they can ask for it be rescinded without payment where someone has the ability to take the time to ask all the questions of other parties.

Conditions of railcard use are that it is carried on all journeys. No railcard and the ticket is invalid because the user has no proof of their entitlement to the discount. The rail staff member checking the ticket has no way of knowing if the ticket was bought by you or someone else showing their railcard, or at a TVM/online, in which case you may not even have a railcard.

In a Penalty Fare area you can even receive a Penalty Fare for not carrying your railcard. On SWT this would be issued under the reason "no supporting documents."

I agree with most of that Helvellyn, especially the clarification fo condition 19 that would end all of this debate! IIRC, the condition regarding split tickets was changed because it was realised how ludicrous it was to expect a customer to actually alight from a train and then reboard it again. How could it possibly be effectively policed?!

With the recent bad weather, the daily bulletins were probably meant to refer to the difficulties that the TOC's were having running trains as much as the difficulty people had getting to the station on time. I doubt any TOC would have wanted to be in a position of having to defend its actions in penalising a customer who failed to arrive at their origin station on time when they were unable to run their own trains on time, or to the usual timetable. (I'm not moaning about the trouble the trains had, just saying that it's a reasonable response when everyone was struggling with the snow and ice).

At the end of the day, there are some journeys I wish to make that simply don't ever have through Advance fares available. I have a choice, split my tickets or don't travel by train, since I can't afford to pay the walk up fares. Perhaps I should abandon the railway for all except my daily commute, which as it costs less than 3 daily CDR's I find to be excellent value!

 

[yorkie]

You have missed a connection because of a delay since leaving York....NOT APPLICABLE - YOU MISSED THE TRAIN FROM YORK

Does TPE have an obligation to get you to Newcastle on your Advance ticket? No, they have not broken any of the conditions of the ticket..

Are you are telling me that TPE can hold me liable if I am delayed on a TPE train?

Do I also have to pay them compensation for them making me late?

 

[EltonRoad]

Whatever similarities may or may not exist the fact remains that it can't be a meaningful comparison

Yes it can - it's still a method of travel from A to C via B on two separate planes run by the same company booked on a through ticket (or separate ones).

because the airline model was one that was proposed by the original privatisation plans (IIRC every TOC was to have their own ticket offices, and tickets were definitely non interavailable) and rejected because of the loss of benefits that passengers had acquired.

My post was far less complicated than you're making it. KLM is Dutch anyway.

I used the example of BA to counter your argument that "air travel" (as you put it) has been nationalised and privatised.

If, however, we accept that the comparison is a valid one,

Good!

then how does the acceptance of the Easyjet tickets fit in?

Well, you've answered my question, which was basically "what would happen on the airlines in similar circumstances?".

Enough of this anyway.

 

[yorkie]

<p>Well, you've answered my question, which was basically "what would happen on the airlines in similar circumstances?".

I don't mind the comparison, I think the customer should be covered but what do the relevant conditions / laws say?

we know that NCoC applies to domestic rail travel in Britain and we know what Advance ticket conditions say, but I don't know what applies to plane travel.

 

[cuccir]

Thing is, there is no right or wrong here. If this condition that 'two or more tickets can be combined to make one journey' didn't exist then the situation would be clear: by buying an advanced ticket, you have to get to the train for which it is valid on time - and it doesn't matter whose fault it is if you miss it. A little harsh, but then you're benefiting from the cheap price. To continue the airline metaphors, it's like recognising that with Ryanair you'll get the bare minimum customer service, and with BA you'll get a lot more.

However, that condition does exist and it clearly, if nothing else, muddies water (if something can muddy water clearly!). Given that advanced tickets include the condition that if delayed on part of your journey you can use the next legitimate train, and at another place (perhaps with different intentions, but that is not the point) it is stated that two or more tickets can be one journey, I'd go as far as saying that both interpretations are fairly legitimate.

One thing I've not seen is a response to Yorkie's recourse to

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

Given that both interpretations have some legitimacy - and surely both sides are not too myopic to acknowledge that - for me this swings the balance in the 'you can use the second ticket' favour; though clearly it would be incumbent on the passenger, in any legal case, to show that their doubt was reasonable.

 

[yorkie]

cuccir - exactly; they are silent on the crucial issue of that law.

but I think we'd still have a good case if it wasn't for the rules you quote in our favour on the basis that it would be an unfair term if a toc can hold us liable for their delay.

the terms you quote clear (un-muddy !) the water, IMO

 

[EltonRoad]

they are silent on the crucial issue of that law.

For good reason!

For one thing, I'm not a lawyer.

When I'm buying train tickets I check all the conditions and try and get a balance between travelling when I want to and getting hold of the cheapest ticket. If I can't make my journey fit the conditions (or vice-versa) then I assume it's not a valid thing to do and I don't do it.

As I can't resolve the issue in my mind about what happens when delayed when combining two advance tickets, I'm not going to do it. This is because if I were challenged I don't know what I'd say. I also have a sneaking suspicion that somehow I'm bending the system too far and it won't be viewed favourably. However there is one thing I've seen which bends the argument the other way, on BestValueFares.co.uk, which says you can mix and match advance tickets. That is pretty clear, and I can't see how a guard could argue with it.

 

[323235]

My understanding is that the present Condition 19 was brought in with specific regards to split tickets."

which is what the OP would be doing by splitting at Wolverhampton.

Using a Combination of Advance Tickets, which together cover the entire journey he is making.

 

[Helvellyn]

cuccir - exactly; they are silent on the crucial issue of that law.

You brought the law up in this case yorkie, and as I'm not particularly familiar with this piece of legislation I personally chose not to start making responses to it when I haven't the knowledge of it.

What I would come back with again though is that general consensus of rail staff posts seems to be that they are not valid, based on training given and briefings issued out. Therefore, the interpretation we take is based on what is cascaded down to us as a policy position. Now you state that particular piece of legislation means that the TOCs are wrong. Well I'm afraid that I, and I suspect many of my rail industry colleagues, will continue to enforce the rules as per our training, and reinforced with briefing documents rather than take the word of a passenger that "the law" says it's valid. Of course should someone actually take this to Court, and it be found the conditions we are briefed are wrong, then that would be a different matter.

Yet I'd come back to what I and other of my industry colleagues have said - approach someone and actually the passenger may find discretion would be used. But based on what we are trained, don't expect it as a right.

Whilst there is a disagreement on this matter as an industry employee I'll take my direction based on company policy and my training/briefings - not on what I read online on a forum. It is up to those who want to travel on several tickets and several trains in order to make one trip to decide what course of action they may want to take.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

which is what the OP would be doing by splitting at Wolverhampton.

Using a Combination of Advance Tickets, which together cover the entire journey he is making.

And to put the quote you placed back into context, if you read the post you will see I was talking about split tickets where the passenger is on the same train throughout, not using several trains and tickets to complete their trip.

 

[Greenback]

I can see where you;re coming from Helvelyn, and I respect your position as an employee of a TOC. What Id; be very itnerested in knowing is whether it would make any difference if one of my tickets is an advance, and the other a season ticket. I have an annual season from Llanelli - Swansea, and if travelling on my own I opt for tickets from Swansea.

I don't know whether you'd be prepared to reveal the info, but do the briefings and training you have received differentiate between splitting a season and an advance, or does it relate only to splitting advance tickets? Or does it not specifically refer to splitting with an advance ticket at all, and just reinforce the fact that any advance ticket is only valid on the booked service(s)?

 

[yorkie]

But based on what we are trained, don't expect it as a right.

It clearly is a right that you can "complete your journey" in the event of delays "while travelling".

Whilst there is a disagreement on this matter as an industry employee I'll take my direction based on company policy and my training/briefings - not on what I read online on a forum.

I'll counter that with this then:-

Whilst there is a disagreement on this matter as a responsible person I'll take my direction based on what the rules and laws say - not on what I read online on a forum. (or, for that matter, what internal publications say - these do NOT form part of the contract)

And to put the quote you placed back into context, if you read the post you will see I was talking about split tickets where the passenger is on the same train throughout, not using several trains and tickets to complete their trip.

If you are saying that you cannot combine 2 tickets for 1 journey if you are changing trains, please provide a reference for that.

If you believe that the definition of "journey" has a different meaning, then please provide an alternative definition and a source for it.

As for the law, people who obey the incorrect instructions of their superiors, with ignorance of the law, can and have been punished for that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can see where you;re coming from Helvelyn, and I respect your position as an employee of a TOC. What Id; be very itnerested in knowing is whether it would make any difference if one of my tickets is an advance, and the other a season ticket.

If one ticket is a season the train does NOT need to stop. So I believe that it would make a difference with pick-up/set-down stops, ie. Euston-Watford season + Watford to Birmingham Advance would be valid from Euston on Virgin, whereas a non-season from Euston to Watford plus Advance would not be valid as the train is pick up only at Watford.

 

[Helvellyn]

Greenback, it again comes to the interpretation of Condition 19. In terms of what you are asking I would say that based on my training, and briefings I've read, if you travelled to Swansea on your Season, and you were delayed and missed your booked train on which your Advance ticket was booked, the TOC would not be obliged to honour you on another train. Then again, as I and others have emphasised, if you spoke to someone alternative arrangements would likely be made.

If you are saying that you cannot combine 2 tickets for 1 journey if you are changing trains, please provide a reference for that.

If you believe that the definition of "journey" has a different meaning, then please provide an alternative definition and a source for it.

I was talking of Condition 19. And I go back to my earlier post where I said ATOC making it more specific would be welcome. Where is the source for your interpretation of Condition 19?

As for the law, people who obey the incorrect instructions of their superiors, with ignorance of the law, can and have been punished for that.

I've never been to Nuremberg. I'll look forward to it.

 

[Greenback]

What I want to know is whether the internal briefings referred to by Helvellyn refer tot he following sort of example:

I use my annual to catch the 0644 ATW Llanelli - Swansea train, in order to connect with the 0728 FGW Swansea - London service. Cockett tunnel is flooded due to heavy rain and the train is diverted via the Swansea District Line, arriving in Swansea at 0745.

The argument is that I might, based on discretion, be allowed to continue my journey if I had two advance tickets, because that is the training and briefings given by the TOC's to its staff. What do the training and briefings say about this instance?

I appreciate that Helvellyn is not really in a position to say that our view is correct even if he agrees, as he is employed by a TOC that is saying the opposite. However, in my own experience of the ticket office from 1998-2001 I can provide many, many examples of where the instructions from senior colleagues and the TOC itself were plainly wrong. I challenged some internally, where I knew them to be incorrect, but would not have been able to do that publicly without disciplinary action being taken! Some of the instructions I followed in good faith but subsequently discovered them to be wrong. There was a great deal of confusion and misinformation about during my employment on the railway!

 

[yorkie]

I was talking of Condition 19. And I go back to my earlier post where I said ATOC making it more specific would be welcome. Where is the source for your interpretation of Condition 19?

It's the ticket conditions that say you can complete your journey. Nowhere does it say a journey must be on one ticket. Condition 19 supports the view that two or more tickets can be used for the journey. If you think that it is not clear, consumer law rules in favour of the customer.

However, in my own experience of the ticket office from 1998-2001 I can provide many, many examples of where the instructions from senior colleagues and the TOC itself were plainly wrong. I challenged some internally, where I knew them to be incorrect, but would not have been able to do that publicly without disciplinary action being taken! Some of the instructions I followed in good faith but subsequently discovered them to be wrong. There was a great deal of confusion and misinformation about during my employment on the railway!

That's typical of the rail industry in the UK. Confusing rules and incorrect information, and very poor training. This is compelling evidence that we need to examine the conditions for ourselves and not take the word of rail employees and internal documents to always be totally correct.

WSMR found out that ignoring experts here (who were actually trying to help them gain revenue for a flow they are entitled to revenue from) can lead to telephone calls from ATOC instructing them that they are in fact wrong. The same can happen to other TOCs. If any of these people are prepared to give more information on where the instructions to charge for new tickets in the event of delays are coming from, then some calls to ATOC and some words with the DfT and other key organisations & people can be made...

 

[Greenback]

Even ATOC were wrong on one occasion in 2000, when they tried to tell us (meaning the Reading ticket office) that tickets Reading - Gatwick Airport should only be sold via London (a higher fare) despite the direct trains being more convenient and just as quick, if not quicker, than crossing London!

That was soon knocked on the head! But it does illustrate, if more evidence were needed (!) that even ATOC didn;t understand their own routeing guide. Or should that be in the present tense?!!!

 

[yorkie]

Even ATOC were wrong on one occasion in 2000, when they tried to tell us (meaning the Reading ticket office) that tickets Reading - Gatwick Airport should only be sold via London (a higher fare) despite the direct trains being more convenient and just as quick, if not quicker, than crossing London!

That was soon knocked on the head! But it does illustrate, if more evidence were needed (!) that even ATOC didn;t understand their own routeing guide. Or should that be in the present tense?!!!

How strange. I doubt senior people at ATOC would approve that (at least not these days!), but a lot of things may have changed since then. I'm not saying ATOC are always right, but they generally are - IF you get to talk to the experts. If you just call and speak to someone who picks up the 'phone, then you are unlikely to be talking to someone with a great deal of expertise and experience.

I believe the minimum requirements that ticket offices have to abide by are in the Retail Standards Guide, which I don't have a copy of, but Glynn80 has quoted from it before so he may be able to quote the relevant section.

 

[Greenback]

Yes, it was very strange! At first i laughed, I thought it was an April Fools wind up (in August)! I'm sure things are much better now!

 

[glynn80]

I believe the minimum requirements that ticket offices have to abide by are in the Retail Standards Guide, which I don't have a copy of, but Glynn80 has quoted from it before so he may be able to quote the relevant section.

You are correct about the Retail Standards Guide. I can certainly confirm ATOC do not currently advocate ticket office staff, when there are alternatives routes, the longer and more expensive option of the routes.

What it states within the guide is that:

Where the customer does not specify which fare they want and more than one is available that may meet their requirements, the Retailer must seek additional information to enable the correct fare to be sold. If more than one fare is suitable for their needs, the Retailer must explain the main features of the alternatives impartially.

The method of seeking additional information is summed up nicely by two ATOC produced flow diagrams which show very clearly that the longer and more expensive route should only be offered if a customer specifically requests to travel that route:

I hope that clears things up on the current official ATOC position on this topic.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Are you are telling me that TPE can hold me liable if I am delayed on a TPE train?

Do I also have to pay them compensation for them making me late?

It is a condition of the ticket that you arrive in good time at your origin station AS PRINTED ON YOUR TICKET, if you miss the first booked train FOR ANY REASON, you must buy a new ticket, note the FOR ANY REASON bit. You agreed to that condition by buying the ticket, you can't simply ignore it, so, you'd have to buy a new ticket. I add to the exibits from the NCoC, Condition 12.

12. Restrictions on when you can travel
Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets (including those bought with a Railcard) such
as the dates, days, and times when you can use them, and the trains in which they can
be used. These restrictions are set out in the notices and other publications of the Train
Companies whose trains you are entitled to use. If a restriction applies and the ticket you
are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then:
(a) you will be liable to pay an excess fare (the difference between the price
paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket
available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel in that
train for the journey shown on the ticket); or
(b) in the case of some types of discounted tickets (as indicated in the notices and
publications) the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply.

cuccir - exactly; they are silent on the crucial issue of that law.

but I think we'd still have a good case if it wasn't for the rules you quote in our favour on the basis that it would be an unfair term if a toc can hold us liable for their delay.

the terms you quote clear (un-muddy !) the water, IMO

Where does it say, clearly or otherwise, in condition 19 that you can pick which conditions of the ticket you can ignore to suit your [altered] journey plans?

If you arrived at the origin station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET after the departure time of your first booked train FOR ANY REASON, you clearly have not arrived in good time at the origin station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET.

What I want to know is whether the internal briefings referred to by Helvellyn refer tot he following sort of example:

I use my annual to catch the 0644 ATW Llanelli - Swansea train, in order to connect with the 0728 FGW Swansea - London service. Cockett tunnel is flooded due to heavy rain and the train is diverted via the Swansea District Line, arriving in Swansea at 0745.

The argument is that I might, based on discretion, be allowed to continue my journey if I had two advance tickets, because that is the training and briefings given by the TOC's to its staff. What do the training and briefings say about this instance?....

In any instance, you must obey the conditions of the ticket. As mentioned many times, you must be at the origin station as shown on the ticket in good time. If you miss the first booked train for any reason you must buy a new ticket.

However the TOC may decide that, because of a delay beyond their control or a major incident, restrictions can be relaxed, that is not a right, but an option for the TOC to persue.

 

[OwlMan]

Where does it say, clearly or otherwise, in condition 19 that you can pick which conditions of the ticket you can ignore to suit your [altered] journey plans?
If you arrived at the origin station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET after the departure time of your first booked train FOR ANY REASON, you clearly have not arrived in good time at the origin station AS SHOWN ON YOUR TICKET.
In any instance, you must obey the conditions of the ticket. As mentioned many times, you must be at the origin station as shown on the ticket in good time. If you miss the first booked train for any reason you must buy a new ticket.

Condition 12 says
Restrictions apply to the use of some tickets (including those bought with a Railcard) such as the dates, days, and times when you can use them, and the trains in which they can be used. These restrictions are set out in the notices and other publications of the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use. If a restriction applies and the ticket you are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then.

As you well know the t&cs for advanced tickets state

You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket in good time to catch the train. If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased.
If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

What part of the highlighted phrase If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey says that the delays must be on the same ticket as the one about to be used?

All it says is that "if delays occur while travelling" and if a delay occurs on the first leg of a journey using two advanced tickets the delays occured when travelling.


Peter

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Is there or is there not, a condition of the ticket that states that you must be at the origin station as shown on the ticket (station B for ticket B-C) in good time?

Does it not also say if the first booked train is missed (bearing in mind this is ticket B-C) for any reason, you must buy a new ticket?

You can't simply ignore this condition as if it doesn't exist. It is there and you agree to it by buying the ticket. It does not matter how you get to station B, by train, by car, by bus, by helicopter, the condition still applies.

You are on time or early, brilliant.

You are late for any reason, your tough luck.