ATOC response - Splitting costs rights

[yorkie]

Some ticket restrictions are more widely known about than others, personal responsiblity enters in to it aswell ignorance is not an excuse in eyes of the law ie Sorry officer didnot realise it was a 30 mph speed limit on this road Have signs been put up to make public aware of restriction

But you earlier said that the case against the Prof was not carried forward because it could not be proven. You are now saying ignorance is no excuse. Which is it?

Example you gave about super off peak ticket, if guard announces super off peak ticket not valid on this service & you are caught with said ticket then you have as many legs to stand on as Douglas Bader

So if I use a Super Off Peak at a time it isn't valid but on a train where it is not announced, it is not enforceable? (If not, what is the meaning of your statement above?)

Given that ticket restrictions apply to tickets, not trains, most of the time such blanket announcements cannot be given (or, when they are, they are incorrect).

 

[blacknight]

But you earlier said that the case against the Prof was not carried forward because it could not be proven. You are now saying ignorance is no excuse. Which is it?

In case of Prof was bought by third party & as such third party agreed to T&Cs not Prof. The outcome may have been judge differently if Prof had bought ticket himself we will never know
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if I use a Super Off Peak at a time it isn't valid but on a train where it is not announced, it is not enforceable? (If not, what is the meaning of your statement above?)

In making a judgement in favour of TOC as the company done all that is reasonable & practicable to make passenger aware of ticket restrictions ie going to expense of producing bookets to explain ticket restriction & placingthem in public area but passenger fails to observe them who is wrong, dont the passenger have an obligation to take personal responsibility & check first.
So if on wrong ticket at wrong time of day Bader rule still applies.

 

[yorkie]

What ticket restriction booklets are those? I've not seen them. If someone has bought me a Super Off Peak ticket and I can see no booklet and hear no announcement so therefore I can get any train, right? After all it "was bought by third party & as such third party agreed to T&Cs not [me]"

You can't have it both ways!

Either admit that some restrictions are enforceable and some are not, or admit that none are enforceable if a 3rd party bought the ticket and the 3rd party idea is a red herring?

 

[blacknight]

So suddenly lost the power of speech? you could always ask a member of staff what the worst that could happen apart from them saying "No your ticket is not valid"
Is there not a duty on passenger to all that is reasonable & practical to ensure their tick is valid for travel.

 

[Oswyntail]

It seems that the above debate between these two trusty warhorses is typical of the "Customer Service" v "Legal rights of TOCs" debate (see just about every thread on fares, routing etc). There are two facts that strike me as utterly clear:-

1. Restrictions on tickets (including Ts&Cs and routes) are so poorly expressed and hidden in such a non-accessible way that no ordinary customer could be expected to be familiar with them (or even that they exist);
2. TOCs are usually in the (technical) right in such debates, but asserting that right can lead to very damaging PR consequences.

These two are closely linked, and the solution is stunningly obvious - standardise and clarify everything. Make the same restrictions apply everywhere; get rid of stupid restrictions (like no short journeys). As with fares and routes, this sounds complex but isn't really. Start by asking "Why are we putting on this restriction/Term/Condition?". Can the effect be achieved more clearly, or in a more customer-friendly way?
In fact, it might be profitable to start with an even more basic question: "What are our priorities in running this railway?". In my experience, the answer that leads to highest profit for the business is "Customers, then staff, then profit". Companies that say "Profit (and legal rights) first, everything else last" tend to fail.

 

[A60K]

So suddenly lost the power of speech? you could always ask a member of staff what the worst that could happen apart from them saying "No your ticket is not valid"
Is there not a duty on passenger to all that is reasonable & practical to ensure their tick is valid for travel.

The big problem with this is that many of the staff don't have a clue about whether a ticket is valid. There is no technical reason why the restriction can't be printed on the ticket and an additional coupon printed with each ticket to state the precise wording of the restrictions. Until it is made clear and written in the public domain for passengers then I don't think it is reasonable for the passenger to rely on asking a member of staff to recite a tortuous restriction when they may well not be willing or know how to do so correctly.

 

[First class]

Whilst reading the byelaws earlier on today, I'm sure something has changed. It seems to put the onus on passengers to provide proof that their ticket is valid, not the other way round.

(2) A person shall hand over his ticket for inspection and verification of validity when asked to do so by an authorised person.

 

[A60K]

I can see that being read in two ways: that the passenger hands over his ticket and something that verifies its validity; or that the passenger hands over his ticket so that the railwayperson can check that it's valid.

Logic would suggest the second, but perhaps the first applies if you have to provide some sort of ID to make a ticket valid - a railcard perhaps, or a credit card for an e-ticket cross-check.

 

[First class]

I wondered at first whether it was referring to something to do with Oyster, but it says "and verification of validity" not "or verification of validity".

Perhaps it is supposed to be deliberately open to interpretation.

 

[A60K]

Perhaps it is supposed to be deliberately open to interpretation.

That's a very cynical opinion of it. I agree with you entirely

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Is there not a duty on passenger to all that is reasonable & practical to ensure their tick is valid for travel.

That is a VERY good question, (although the way you phrase it suggests you already have a view!).

My quick answer is : No.
The ticket is the token which indicates that a transaction has been completed (the traveller paying a fare) and that the TOC has contracted themselves into an obligation to convey the ticket holder.

Any "checking" would rightly be carried out at the time of purchase; but at that point, we can only expect that would be to confirm that it requires the TOC(s) to convey the passenger at the time and to the place intended (and NOT to confirm that it entitles the traveller to be conveyed - it wouldn't be a railway ticket if it didn't!).

The long answer is : Yes, but only up to a point.
As above, the ticket acts as a token - it indicates that one element of the contract has been completed (the payment).
The question of checking that "it is valid" can have 2 meanings
- in most circumstances that would mean some confirmation that it wasn't a forged, stolen, used, ancient or otherwise improper to be used as confirmation that the Payment element of a contract has been completed
- the special meaning of 'valid' which is used on the UK railways is not the normal use of the word. This is a validity which has nothing to do with checking that the token (the ticket) is genuine and still available for use - its a meaning which includes additional prohibitions on use, some of which ONLY the railway operating companies introduce to tie passengers into some of their specific services (e.g. Specific timed departures or class of accomodation), and some of which are customer-related (e.g. being of the qualifying age for age-related discounts or being at the departure station in good time for a departure).

However, that second category (customer buying a ticket having correctly established THEIR eligibility for certain tickets) is surely something that can rightly be "verified" at any time between purchase and completion of travel, but, the first category, should not return the customer back to any position of doubt about the validity which was established at the time of purchase. (The transaction is completed - the Terms cannot alter).
The passenger still has some "reasonable & practical" obligations - to do with how they seek to take advantage of the right which the rail operator has granted to them (such as choosing to enter the class of accomodation corresponding to their ticket (their permit to be conveyed), but surely these must be restricted to the customer's obligations. Not to the rail companies' performance?)

To be clear about this - if the ticket is bought, in honesty, in good faith, and with full disclosure of all relevant factors, then it is NOT reasonable to then expect the traveller to undertake further 'checks' on validity. They should feel entirely entitled to walk into a station bearing their ticket and board a train to their destination. *

Any 'checking' which results in restricting the passenger's right to be conveyed to their destination should NOT be introduced at the platform or on-board but, emphatically, must be made clear at the time of purchase. And accepted by the passenger when taking their token which gives the TOC(s) a compulsion to convey a passenger (the ticket).

My assessment of the passenger's obligations to 'check their ticket' falters after the completion of their element of the contract (the payment). The remaining elements must include the "performance" - which in the case of rail travel is remarkable, because it places an obligation on the railways to convey the passenger, but places absolutely no obligation on the passenger to travel.

[* Verring off topic, but consider: TOC provides half-hourly services from SmallCity via MidTown to BigCity. Passenger is on platform at MidTown ready to board the 12noon service to BigCity and holds a 'valid' ticket for that 12noon train. A train arrives just before noon from SmallCity to BigCity. Its the delayed 11:30. Passenger boards. Passenger is denied 'validity'. Passenger is accused of failing to check what that is "reasonable and practical"????]