ATOC response - Splitting costs rights

[First class]

My question:

Dear ATOC,

I would like to ask for clarification regarding train service disruption when it is caused by the failure of the railway companies.

I travel from Southport to London via Liverpool regularly, I usually find it cheaper to buy a Southport to Liverpool ‘Anytime’ Single and a Liverpool-London ‘Advance’ ticket. I am permitted to use more than one ticket for one journey under condition 19 of the NRCoC.

However, if my train from Southport to Liverpool was delayed by say 45 minutes, and this causes me to miss the last train to London, is Merseyrail, (the TOC operating between Southport and Liverpool and those responsible for the delay), obliged to provide me with onward transport (taxi etc) or overnight accommodation as per condition 43? The minimum connection time at Liverpool Central is 10 minutes, and had my train been on time I would be able to easily make the final train to London, but due to a train failure or other fault within the control of Merseyrail, I have subsequently missed the final train to London and have become stranded.

ATOC's reply:

Dear "First Class",

I am sorry that it has taken us so long to reply to you. Our answers to your questions are below:

1. If Merseyrail refused to get me to London by alternative transport or provide overnight accommodation, would they be in breach of the NRCoC?

No – as you have two separate tickets your rights are not exactly the same. In this case, Merseyrail had delivered you to Liverpool as per their ticket;

2. If Merseyrail claimed that they would only help if I had been delayed by over an hour, (and still missing the last train), could I be left stranded overnight?

The TOC has a reasonable duty of care, so should recognise your circumstances. If you were truly stranded with no means to look after yourself, a reasonable alternative might be to return you home.

3. Do I have less extensive rights by having separate tickets for each leg, (despite Condition 19 claiming otherwise)?

Condition 19 allows you to combine certain tickets but does not automatically confer all the rights of a through ticket. A Train Company cannot simply abandon you but does not have to discharge all the obligations of every ticket that you might hold – reasonableness applies, as above.

4. If Merseyrail refuse to assist me in these circumstances, and they are liable to help me, what can I do?

If a TOC does not deal with a complaint to your satisfaction, the next stage is to take it to Passenger Focus.

I trust that this information is useful to you.

Kind regards,

John Horncastle
Customer Relations Manager
ATOC

 

[yorkie]

Oh dear.

Other senior people at ATOC take a different view.

A very disappointing response showing a lack of knowledge and common sense. This is appears to be made-up by him, none of this appears to be documented. Where is a list of which "rights" will be eroded by using a combination of tickets? He's made that up.

I doubt he is as knowledgeable on ticketing as many on this forum. He's a customer relations person, not a ticket expert.

Passenger Focus are funded by the DfT and are useless in situations like this. If anyone knows how to talk to someone at PF who has a clue, I'd be interested to know.

 

[First class]

This 'representative' is supposedly senior enough (Customer Service Manager).

I do wonder whether whether Condition 19 may eventually all go with the exception of 19C.

 

[Ferret]

What's always worried me in the case of disruption during split ticketing is the thought that the TOC could take the attitude that the customer wanted to save some money but yet still wants the same rights conferred to those who haven't split tickets. It seems that the person from ATOC that First Class emailed is of that opinion.

In practice, I think onward travel would always be authorised, but overnight accomodation provided? If you're at the point of split, then I have my doubts that any overnight accomodation would be provided!

 

[First class]

I emailed ATOC because I witnessed Merseyrail refuse to provide onward transport after a 40 min delay to one of their services.

A group of passengers held a Southport-Liverpool SDS and a Liverpool-London Advance (for the last train). They would have arrived on time (with 40 mins to spare) had the Merseyrail train not broken down. As a result of that delay, they missed the last train to London, (and any connections anywhere remotely that way), Merseyrail said that because it wasn't a through ticket, (and the delay was under an hour), they were not responsible and told them they couldn't provide taxis/hotels etc... as a result, they were stuck in Liverpool overnight and they claimed they had no other money etc.

Obviously I disagreed with that decision and asked management to reconsider but was basically told I was incorrect so I emailed ATOC with a general query trying to get an 'official' response.

I was under the opinion that Condition 19 and 43 protected these passengers.

 

[Ferret]

I was under the opinion that Condition 19 and 43 protected these passengers.

So was/is Yorkie! We've been here before, but the potential issue is that if Merseyrail have discharged their contractual obligation to get the ticketholder to Liverpool Crime Street, then that's them in the clear. It sounds as though this is what the staff at Liverpool said...

 

[First class]

I personally think that until challenged successfully with ATOC, the advice given to forum members should be that splitting tickets may not guarantee you will reach your final destination in the event of disruption etc and that by splitting, you do not get all rights.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the way the railway want it to be interpreted and until challenged legally, this is the way it will remain.

 

[yorkie]

This 'representative' is supposedly senior enough (Customer Service Manager).

Others who are at least as senior have had a different view. Someone was given to quite different views from two people in ATOC.

The brief of someone in customer services at ATOC is going to be to play down our rights as much as possible and fob us off (OK I am deliberately describing it in strong language, but that's the essence of it).

Rail ticketing is confusing and few people know their rights. The vast majority can be fobbed off.

John Horncastle appears to have switched roles to take over from Tony Ewers. I doubt John is as knowledgeable given he must be relatively new to the job, but even Tony wasn't as knowledgeable as some of the real experts.

The ATOC was breaking the law for several years by not consulting with the relevant bodies over the Routeing Guide.

Knowledge within ATOC is an issue. Yes, there are knowledgeable people, but they are in the minority.

I don't see the view of a customer services manager as definitive.

ATOC are effectively being allowed to act as a regulator in many respects. This was a mistake. But ATOC have to be careful. If they are too anti-customer their position is more likely to be challenged. There are some members of the public who ATOC do appear to respect and be scared of, due to their knowledge and contacts, who have the ability to make ATOC think very carefully.

ATOC do need to be careful here...

 

[Ferret]

I personally think that until challenged successfully with ATOC, the advice given to forum members should be that splitting tickets may not guarantee you will reach your final destination in the event of disruption etc and that by splitting, you do not get all rights.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the way the railway want it to be interpreted and until challenged legally, this is the way it will remain.

I agree with all of that. A legal case is probably what's needed to settle it once and for all, but as Yorkie says - will that ever happen? TOCs (and any other business for that matter!) do not like setting legal precedents, unless they are guaranteed to be in their favour!

 

[yorkie]

In all cases of me getting a taxi I have been on a combination of tickets. No-one ever said my rights were reduced, and I would have not stood for it if they had.

I am unaware of anyone actually being refused in such circumstances, however I have known TOCs deny responsibility and pass the buck when a passenger had one ticket. My conclusion is that if they want to deny responsibility and refuse to honour their obligations they will make such an attempt irrespective of ticketing.

First Class - would you like assistance in drafting up a response?

 

[Greenback]

The reply sent by the Customer Service Manager is non specific, despite the specific questions asked by First Class. It is an attempt to hide behind the term reasonable, and is just further proof that ATOC do not want to provide anything like a definitive statement on splitting tickets when this includes an Advance one.

I can quite understand this position, even though I don't agree with it. I have long believed that should ATOC make such a statement, more people will split tickets to save money, while at the moment some people will not want to take a chance and pay more than they would by splitting.

In practice, I suspect that there have been very few instances where a delay to the services of another TOC have led to any great difficutly for the passenger. ATOC clearly fear that revenue for their memebrs will fall if they do announce that passenger with split Advance tickets will be covered in the event of any railway delay.

 

[dan_atki]

John Horncastle appears to have switched roles to take over from Tony Ewers.

It makes me wonder what happened to Tony now...

 

[yorkie]

The reply sent by the Customer Service Manager is non specific,

He doesn't know the specifics.

It is an attempt to hide behind the term reasonable,

I suggest First Class asks for definitions.

and is just further proof that ATOC do not want to provide anything like a definitive statement on splitting tickets when this includes an Advance one.

Unless something is very clear-cut, they do not like providing definitive statements. They also do not like answering "hypothetical" questions; yet real life examples specific to a particular journey can be fobbed off to the appropriate TOC and then "contact PF" etc...

I can quite understand this position, even though I don't agree with it. I have long believed that should ATOC make such a statement, more people will split tickets to save money, while at the moment some people will not want to take a chance and pay more than they would by splitting.

I don't think it will make a huge difference overall but it may make a difference to people who are "in the know" about split ticketing but who like to "play it safe" and are not confident at arguing their position / being assertive with staff in the event of delays.

In practice, I suspect that there have been very few instances where a delay to the services of another TOC have led to any great difficutly for the passenger. ATOC clearly fear that revenue for their memebrs will fall if they do announce that passenger with split Advance tickets will be covered in the event of any railway delay.

Quite probably.

 

[Ferret]

I don't think it will make a huge difference overall but it may make a difference to people who are "in the know" about split ticketing but who like to "play it safe" and are not confident at arguing their position / being assertive with staff in the event of delays.

Well, you can be as assertive with staff as you like, but if it's a strong-willed member of staff who doesn't want to concede the point then you're pretty much stuffed! Indeed, with some staff, being assertive or bolschy may only make them dig their heels in even further!

I recall saying some time ago that split ticketing late at night is a risky business and I'd advise against doing it! At this point in time, I'd like to stand by that bit of advice because until we have a legal precedent to refer to, we're left with a very unsatisfactory position.

 

[sheff1]

I recall saying some time ago that split ticketing late at night is a risky business and I'd advise against doing it! At this point in time, I'd like to stand by that bit of advice because until we have a legal precedent to refer to, we're left with a very unsatisfactory position.

Twice I have been delayed on split tickets and missed the last train. On both occasions I was provided with a taxi without actually being asked to show the tickets.

The strangest one however was when I had no ticket at all - I was waiting at Langley Mill (unstaffed) when the the St Pancras - Sheffield was diverted via Derby. Customer Services/Control arranged for a taxi to take me to Chesterfield. When I arrived there, there had been further delays and the chargeman arranged for another taxi to Sheffield. I thought about contacting Midland Mainline to enquire about buying a ticket but then realised that I would have been able to claim back full compensation for the delay anyway so didn't bother.

 

[Greenback]

I'm sure that these are just a couple of example sof what happens around the system every day!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What's always worried me in the case of disruption during split ticketing is the thought that the TOC could take the attitude that the customer wanted to save some money but yet still wants the same rights conferred to those who haven't split tickets.

In terms of any policy which a TOC (or even ATOC) might apply to the interpretation of the Conditions of Carriage (CoC), that policy could NOT follow your line of thought there Ferret. (your reasoning that if passenger having paid less, then a TOC could expect to provide less).

There is absolutely no reason why a journey made on 2 (or more) tickets which cover the distance travelled would cost more or less than the price of one ticket for the entire journey. It is more in some cases, and less in others. Its very, very easy to buy a walk-up ticket to extend a previously planned journey with a ticket already in-hand, and find that the total cost is more than if a straight-through ticket had been bought in the first place. In fact, when a season ticket provides the authorisation for part of the journey, its often going to be the case that the season (based on 5-dy/wk) plus the extension will cost more than a ticket for the whole journey would have done.

I'm not trying to split hairs, here. This is a crucial test for any policy on "split ticketing" - that policy could never make any assumption about the amount of money paid by the passenger.

[Off topic - I amused a guard a few weeks ago with what was, I think, his first experience of a bicycle travelling on split-tickets! He'd received advance notification that there was a bycycle leaving and another arriving at the same station. I was able to tell him that the bike would be staying on-board the DVT!)

 

[wibble]

I think Merseyrail were right to refuse a hotel/onward travel.

When you buy a ticket, you enter into a contract for the journey on your ticket. If you choose to buy more than one ticket for your journey, you will have multiple contracts. Merseyrail fulfilled their obligation by getting you to Liverpool and that is where their obligation ends. They may, at their discretion, provide onward transport but are not obliged to do so.

However, the NRCoC are a bit woolly on this and do not explicitly say that split tickets can be treated in the same way as a through ticket. I'm sure, after the next revew of the NRCoC this will be clarified.

 

[button_boxer]

However, the NRCoC are a bit woolly on this and do not explicitly say that split tickets can be treated in the same way as a through ticket. I'm sure, after the next revew of the NRCoC this will be clarified.

I somehow doubt it, it's been unclear for years and isn't in their interests to clarify.

 

[OwlMan]

I agree that Meseyrail were probably not liable for future travel but Virgin were in my opinion as the future travel was their ticket and the delays occured while travelling (as per advance ticket terms - see below)

The question not asked and the vital one is-
Was "Virgin" (I assume Virgin as it was the last train to London) responsible for your further travel under the delays clause of the Advance Tickets

Advance tickets Conditions of use
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.
Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held.
First Class Advance tickets do not always grant access to First Class Lounges at stations. Please check with the train company you are travelling with to confirm policy at specific stations.

That is the question that ATOC need to answer.

Peter

 

[cuccir]

Condition 19 allows you to combine certain tickets but does not automatically confer all the rights of a through ticket. A Train Company cannot simply abandon you but does not have to discharge all the obligations of every ticket that you might hold – reasonableness applies, as above.

Hmm, been reading the NCoC. Page one is quite interesting:

"When you buy a ticket to travel on the National Rail Network you enter into an
agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have the right to use. That
agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or
within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought... These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights... The Train Companies may not give you less extensive
rights"

So rights cannot be removed unless stated, and condition 19 makes no mention of the restriction of any rights. I therefore don't see how the quoted restrictions of rights can apply here. If splitting tickets did not confer all the rights of a through ticket, the condition would have to state so. The agreement for travel is for the ticket (singular) for your journey; condition 19 allows for this ticket to become 'tickets'. Any agreement is with the train companies, plural.

I think this should be fairly clear. In my understanding of this wording, the TOC would be obliged to transport you on delayed travel with split tickets. I think it's rather explicit that you enter into one agreement with multiple companies who have an obligation between one another to convey you for the whole journey. Condition 19 modifies the initial 'ticket' by saying that you can use 'tickets', provided you follow condition 19 appropriately. This condition makes no mention of restricting rights, and therefore no restrictions of rights can take place if invoking this condition.

--

Advance tickets Conditions of use
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.
Railcard holders travelling on a discounted ticket must carry their Railcard when they travel. If a Railcard holder fails to produce a valid Railcard with their ticket, a new ticket must be purchased as if no Railcard and/or no ticket were held.
First Class Advance tickets do not always grant access to First Class Lounges at stations. Please check with the train company you are travelling with to confirm policy at specific stations.

That is the question that ATOC need to answer.

Peter

Under condition 19, no restriction of the right to invoke the third sentence of this set of T&Cs is mentioned. Therefore, this right cannot be revoked if travelling on split tickets!

 

[wibble]

I agree that Meseyrail were probably not liable for future travel but Virgin were in my opinion as the future travel was their ticket and the delays occured while travelling (as per advance ticket terms - see below)

The question not asked and the vital one is-
Was "Virgin" (I assume Virgin as it was the last train to London) responsible for your further travel under the delays clause of the Advance Tickets

Virgin have no responsibilty as they have provided their advertised service to London.

If you were to drive, walk or take the bus to the station, arrived late (for whatever reason) and missed your train, the TOC would be under no obligation to convey you on a later service.

 

[OwlMan]

Virgin have no responsibilty as they have provided their advertised service to London.

If you were to drive, walk or take the bus to the station, arrived late (for whatever reason) and missed your train, the TOC would be under no obligation to convey you on a later service.

Yes, but the terms of Advance Tickets allow you to catch a later train if delays occur while travelling, (as you were combining your tickets under the NCOC to form one journey, delays occurred whilst travelling,) therefore Virgin are liable to allow you to complete your journey.
They can later recover the money from Merseyrail.

Peter

 

[Ferret]

Yes, but the terms of Advance Tickets allow you to catch a later train if delays occur while travelling, (as you were combining your tickets under the NCOC to form one journey, delays occurred whilst travelling,) therefore Virgin are liable to allow you to complete your journey.
They can later recover the money from Merseyrail.

Peter

But then (speaking in contractual terms here) Virgin could claim that they were not party to the agreement with Merseyrail, had no knowledge of it, and therefore are not liable for any losses arising from the performance of the Merseyrail contract.

It really isn't as clear cut as you think collybs - and it really does need a proper clarification from ATOC or even a legal case to establish a precedent. Until then, any posts on here (including mine) are just idle speculation and opinions.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think we are going to get very dizzy when we stop going round in circles! :roll:

Cuccir, no-one needs to remove any part of Condition 19, but no-one can add bits that don't exist either.

At no point does condition 19 say (or imply) either...

(a) ... The conditions for one or more tickets apply as if they are one ticket in these conditions.

or

(b) ... You can ignore as many conditions of any of the tickets as you like if they don't suit you or your journey plans.

... So it is irrelevant. The important condition is that of the advance fare where it says....

....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....

You have broken a condition of the ticket by not getting to Liverpool in time, a condition you have been made aware of and agreed to when you bought the ticket, so you must buy a new ticket. Yet you still expect the TOC to let you continue travelling to London as if they are at fault (Virgin Trains have done nothing wrong) without doing so.

 

[Greenback]

I want to travel from Castleton (Manchester) to Llanelli. There is no Advance fare. I cna pay £70.90 for an off peak return, or I can use an alternative means of tranpsort that's cheaper, or I cna buy a single to Machester and combine it with an Advance to Llanelli if I am able to booke arly enough.

Now, ATOC want me to travel by train, so in practice I won;t have much of a problem if I buy the Advance and a single on the day. If the service on the Rochdale line through Castleton is completely up the spout, and I miss my Carmarthen/Milford Haven train at Piccadilly, I am pretty sure I will be OK tot ravel, evne if I have to explain the circumstances about the delay and the inability to buy a through Advance ticket from Castleton.

However, ATOC doesn't want to say this explicitly, because there are some people who will buy the £70.90 return fare, either because they don't think about splitting tickets or because they are worried they will be stranded. Either way, they are not going to answer, because any increase in custom at the cheaper end of the amrket is, they guess, bound to be offset by others trading down and splitting. Hence, revenue is lost to their members.

It doesn't matter how many times we have the debate, we won;t get a straight answer out of them! We can theorise and pontificate all we like about contract law, NCoC, Advance T&C's, but in the real world people will continue to be helped by sensible front line staff. Ferret is correct; in the absence of a legal ruling or ATOC clarification(!!), it's all guesswork.

 

[cuccir]

I think we are going to get very dizzy when we stop going round in circles! :roll:

I'm aware that we tend to!

Cuccir, no-one needs to remove any part of Condition 19, but no-one can add bits that don't exist either.

At no point does condition 19 say (or imply) either...

(a) ... The conditions for one or more tickets apply as if they are one ticket in these conditions.

or

(b) ... You can ignore as many conditions of any of the tickets as you like if they don't suit you or your journey plans.

... So it is irrelevant. The important condition is that of the advance fare where it says....

....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....

I think the point of disagreement is on your argument a. If I start on a journey, according to page 1, I have various rights (and responsibilities!) associated with a journey. Page 1 uses the word 'ticket'; condition 19 extends the rights for a journey to one or more 'tickets'. If it doesn't do this, then what does it do?

I'm not claiming b: I'm not saying that you can ignore travel restrictions because you combine tickets. That's not being disputed: I can't (for example) use an anytime single Durham to York on a train that is scheduled to arrive after my advance York to Manchester train departs and claim a right to travel. I can't use a TOC specific ticket on a different TOC's service, etc.

The point at hand is what happens if you get delayed whilst on your journey, that is, once you have made the first train on time. If you are using one ticket, the TOCs are compelled to convey you on your whole journey. If you are using more than one, then so long as you meet points a,b and c of condition 19, then they are still compelled to convey you, as your rights have not changed.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Then you cannot deny you have not adhered to the conditions of the advance ticket. The condition you have broken is quite specific....

....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....

I'm not saying the condition about being delayed can or should be ignored, but this condition still applies and the departure station in question is Liverpool, not Southport.

You have missed your first booked train and you must buy a new ticket.

The advance ticket you hold no longer covers the journey being made, and as such can't be used under condition 19.

The only way to suggest differently is to ignore the condition about the departure station and first booked train, or suggest it applies to the previous ticket, which it can't.

 

[button_boxer]

condition 19 extends the rights for a journey to one or more 'tickets'. If it doesn't do this, then what does it do?

It's pretty obvious to me (and I suspect to most other people too) that the original intention of condition 19 must have been to cover the case of using two or more tickets for different parts of a journey on a single train - the fact that it says "the train [singular] you are in calls at..." is a pretty strong indication of that. I would contend that the main purpose of condition 19 is to permit the extension of a season ticket with a non-season ticket on a non-stopping train. The way it's worded could also be read to include situations where you use ticket 1 on a train from A to B and ticket 2 on a different train from B to C but I sincerely doubt that was what whoever wrote the original condition had in mind - you don't need a special condition to tell you that you're allowed to use split tickets in this situation.

But of course it doesn't matter what the condition was intended to mean, what's important is what it actually says and that is well known to be ambiguous. I suspect that something like this would more accurately express the intention:

You may use a combination of tickets to make a journey on a single train service provided that at each point on the journey you can produce a ticket valid at that point, and at each point where you change from one ticket to another one of the following holds: (a) both tickets are zonal tickets covering adjacent areas, (b) the train stops at the station where you change from one ticket to the other or (c) one of the tickets is a season ticket and the other is not.

But even that would open up some new loopholes (season + non-season + season, for example).

 

[cuccir]

Then you cannot deny you have not adhered to the conditions of the advance ticket. The condition you have broken is quite specific....

....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....

I'm not saying the condition about being delayed can or should be ignored, but this condition still applies and the departure station in question is Liverpool, not Southport.

You have missed your first booked train and you must buy a new ticket.

The advance ticket you hold no longer covers the journey being made, and as such can't be used under condition 19.

The only way to suggest differently is to ignore the condition about the departure station and first booked train, or suggest it applies to the previous ticket, which it can't.

But if one advance ticket covers two trains and your first train arrives late, you can get a suitable later train onwards: "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."

I don't read anything in condition 19 which suggests that it doesn't give you all of the rights you have if travelling with one ticket, as "two or more tickets can be used for one journey". So if I match an anytime ticket with an advance ticket (in that order) and my train on the anytime leg is late then, providing I have given enough connection time between trains, I have made my first train and been delayed whilst travelling; thus I can take the next available train.

I understand that if you don't sign up to the belief that condition 19 means that one or more tickets act identically to one ticket, then you would not think it possible to get a later train if delayed at a point of ticket splitting. I can see that reading in there. But I disagree with it and I don't think it would occur to me upon reading the NCoC.