Authorised person attempting to overrule another authorised person

[sheff1]

Yesterday I was travelling on TPE from Manchester Piccadilly to Glasgow when the conductor announced that any passengers on board who had been due to travel on the cancelled Northern train to Preston to connect for Glasgow, and had now been advised to travel on the TPE through to Glasgow, could not in fact do so. He said that they must alight at Preston and get the next VTWC forward as the advice to travel on his train was incorrect. He repeated this a few times always stressing that the permission given at Piccadilly was incorrect. He also said that as they would now arrive in Glasgow an hour later that booked they would be entitled to a full ticket refund.

Two questions:

* Is there anything in the NRCoT or Byelaws which states that a second authorised person can overrule permission originally given by another authorised person ?

* If passengers had travelled through on the TPE they would have arrived in Glasgow less than 30 mins late (and hence not be due any compensation) so are Northern entitled to turn down any Delay Repay claims ?

In the event, there were no ticket checks at all in my carriage so anyone who ignored the second instruction would not have been challenged anyway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Ones surmising here but one TOC will only agree to carry other TOC's passengers in extreme circumstances. If TPE Control has not given permission then that explains the Conductors announcements. Perhaps staff at Manchester Piccadily had verbally instructed inviduals to use TPE without it being officially sanctioned?

 

[kevconnor]

Ones surmising here but one TOC will only agree to carry other TOC's passengers in extreme circumstances. If TPE Control has not given permission then that explains the Conductors announcements. Perhaps staff at Manchester Piccadilly had verbally instructed individuals to use TPE without it being officially sanctioned?

I'm presuming this would only be relevent for those with advanced tickets? Anyone with an off-peak or anytime ticket could surely get onto TPE with impunity?

 

[Fare-Cop]

I'm presuming this would only be relevent for those with advanced tickets? Anyone with an off-peak or anytime ticket could surely get onto TPE with impunity?

Not if the ticket was a TOC or route specific fare and endorsed 'Virgin WC Trains Only' or similar

 

[sheff1]

Yes, sorry, he did refer just to Advances or tickets marked Virgin only.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yet another case making it clear that such permission should change to only being given in writing.

 

[sheff1]

Ones surmising here but one TOC will only agree to carry other TOC's passengers in extreme circumstances. If TPE Control has not given permission then that explains the Conductors announcements. Perhaps staff at Manchester Piccadily had verbally instructed inviduals to use TPE without it being officially sanctioned?

Whilst this is no doubt true, the internal workings of the railway are just that - internal. The point I am trying to establish is that once someone has been given permission travel by an authorised person (as defined in legislation) is another authorised person lawfully entitled to overrule that permission even if the permission should not actually have been given?

Leaving aside the legalities, how can a passenger know which of two people giving conflicting advice/instructions is correct? There is no hard and fast rule that the second person in such a situation is always the one who is correct.

 

[sheff1]

Yet another case making it clear that such permission should change to only being given in writing.

The conductor fully accepted that the passengers had been given permission to travel on his train. He was just insistent that they could not. Even if it had been in writing, I guess he would still have insisted it was issued incorrectly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The conductor fully accepted that the passengers had been given permission to travel on his train. He was just insistent that they could not. Even if it had been in writing, I guess he would still have insisted it was issued incorrectly.

If issued in writing, the correct action would then be to retain the ticket (for that is what it would be) for investigation and issue a temporary replacement allowing the completion of the journey as ticketed (by the permission given). There would be no scope for the passengers to be refused travel without him failing to accept a valid ticket (whether he thought it should be valid or not) and therefore subject to disciplinary action if he did not take the correct approach of treating it as a ticket *issue* irregularity (in the same vein as, for example, a normal ticket issued at an incorrect fare).

The likely outcome would then probably be VTWC being billed by TPE for the passengers carried. Not the passengers' problem. Which is exactly how it should be.

Personally if I was feeling stubborn enough I'd have refused to alight and seen how far it could be taken. With some spare time it would be an interesting one to challenge in Court. Mind you, if I wasn't in a hurry and changing as requested would take me into a full Delay Repay refund that may have been preferable, with a formal complaint obviously made in retrospect.

 

[sheff1]

If issued in writing, the correct action would then be to retain the ticket (for that is what it would be) for investigation and issue a temporary replacement allowing the completion of the journey as ticketed (by the permission given). There would be no scope for the passengers to be refused travel without him failing to accept a valid ticket (whether he thought it should be valid or not) and therefore subject to disciplinary action if he did not take the correct approach of treating it as a ticket *issue* irregularity (in the same vein as, for example, a normal ticket issued at an incorrect fare).

Someone given verbal permission to travel by an authorised person is travelling legally so, unless there is something in legislation allowing the permission to be overruled (which is what I am trying to find out), the same argument should apply. The conductor certainly seemed to believe there was scope for the passengers to be refused travel.

 

[Mathew S]

Not if the ticket was a TOC or route specific fare and endorsed 'Virgin WC Trains Only' or similar

All walk-up fares on that route are either TPE specific or any operator. The affected customers would have been on "VTWC + connections" advances. AIUI nothing stopping them using the TPE to cover the missed connection, but after that presumably they'd have to stick with VTWC.

Does seem a very harsh interpretation by the TPE conductor though, and pretty dire customer service.

I wonder whether the TPE was especially busy. Those 350s can be like sardine tins on that route.

EDIT: According to brfares, VTWC only fares do still exist from MAN to GLC, in the same flow as from Wigan or Warrington. But as there are no VTWC services from Manchester to Scotland anymore, I don't imagine you can actually buy one.

 

[ComUtoR]

Doesn't the same argument apply if you are not authorised to travel by an 'authorised person' but then another 'authorised person' then stated you could travel. What if travel arrangements changed ? It cannot be a case of where the initial authorisation will apply indefinitely. What if a change of circumstance went in your favour. I'm sure that the passenger would certainly allow the previous person to be overruled.

 

[Gareth Marston]

All walk-up fares on that route are either TPE specific or any operator. The affected customers would have been on "VTWC + connections" advances. AIUI nothing stopping them using the TPE to cover the missed connection, but after that presumably they'd have to stick with VTWC.

Does seem a very harsh interpretation by the TPE conductor though, and pretty dire customer service.

I wonder whether the TPE was especially busy. Those 350s can be like sardine tins on that route.

EDIT: According to brfares, VTWC only fares do still exist from MAN to GLC, in the same flow as from Wigan or Warrington. But as there are no VTWC services from Manchester to Scotland anymore, I don't imagine you can actually buy one.

In theory you can get a Northern service to Preston etc and then change onto Virgin their. You get an AP fare on the 0831 from Manchester O Rd changing Preston arriving Glasgow for £13.50 tomorrow....clearly not sold out, however the equivalent train on Saturday the 0851 has them for £37.00 so I suspect theirs some market at certain times there.

 

[Clip]

Whilst this is no doubt true, the internal workings of the railway are just that - internal. The point I am trying to establish is that once someone has been given permission travel by an authorised person (as defined in legislation) is another authorised person lawfully entitled to overrule that permission even if the permission should not actually have been given?

Leaving aside the legalities, how can a passenger know which of two people giving conflicting advice/instructions is correct? There is no hard and fast rule that the second person in such a situation is always the one who is correct.

Trouble is, is that you don't know who gave those people permission to get on board and therefore you don't know if they were an authorised person.

 

[najaB]

The conductor certainly seemed to believe there was scope for the passengers to be refused travel.

I cannot see any such basis in the Byelaws/legislation as written.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I cannot see any such basis in the Byelaws/legislation as written.

I suspect his contention was that the so-called authorised person was not in fact authorised to allow travel on his train.

That's another benefit of the idea of giving authority on paper. The definition of "authorised person" becomes "someone who is in possession of an authority pad and stamp". Any bickering about whether they should or not becomes an internal disciplinary and accounting matter.

 

[bb21]

Personally if I was feeling stubborn enough I'd have refused to alight and seen how far it could be taken. With some spare time it would be an interesting one to challenge in Court. Mind you, if I wasn't in a hurry and changing as requested would take me into a full Delay Repay refund that may have been preferable, with a formal complaint obviously made in retrospect.

If BTP were called on you, then you could be arrested.

In theory, the guard has the ultimate say on who should be on his train. If this turned out to be unreasonable or incorrect, then that would be a matter for the customer to take up with the company. BTP would not be an arbitrator in ticket validity, so would simply follow the guard's instructions. Guard can overrule station staff, if needed.

That is, in theory. I strongly urge people not to try this approach in such circumstances.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If BTP were called on you, then you could be arrested.

I very much doubt that provided all parties remained polite but firm. I would more expect the issue of an UFN and a prosecution attempt in retrospect. Indeed, I'd probably make it clear that I would accept a UFN but *not* pay any fare.

BTP being called for simple matters of refusal to pay a fare is rather unusual.

But this assumes I had time to do so. In reality I would probably either get off or pay an Anytime Single fare and challenge it later, because it's unlikely I would have the time to deal with a prosecution attempt at present. (I'm making the assumption he didn't have a problem with people remaining on the train if they willingly purchased another ticket, which is generally the non-PF-area approach taken by guards where there is fare differentiation, e.g. the use of LM Only tickets on VT and vice versa).

 

[najaB]

I suspect his contention was that the so-called authorised person was not in fact authorised to allow travel on his train.

When this question has been asked previously (in various different guises) the general consensus has been that as long as the person gives the appearance of being authorised (e.g. they are in TOC uniform) then they meet the requirement of the legislation.

 

[najaB]

I very much doubt that provided all parties remained polite but firm.

At the end of the day, if the Guard is insistent that you have to pay and you refuse then BTP will remove you from the train. Attempting to pursue the matter further at that point would likely result in your being arrested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the end of the day, if the Guard is insistent that you have to pay and you refuse then BTP will remove you from the train. Attempting to pursue the matter further at that point would likely result in your being arrested.

If BTP were called and attended, yes (when they turn up is probably the point to stop arguing). But the likelihood of them being called and attending rather than a UFN being issued for that sort of matter is I think fairly low, though it depends exactly where the train was (e.g. attendance at Wigan or Preston would be quite easy as there are some based there, beyond that it would probably result in an unacceptable delay to the train).

Mind you if the guard was that stubborn...

 

[pemma]

Yes, sorry, he did refer just to Advances or tickets marked Virgin only.

Surely they won't be any tickets marked Virgin Only as Virgin don't operate Manchester-Preston or Manchester-Wigan services. If the tickets said Manchester to Glasgow Route:VWC+Connections then they would have been valid on TPE to Preston anyway even if passengers had itineraries saying to use Northern.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely they won't be any tickets marked Virgin Only as Virgin don't operate Manchester-Preston or Manchester-Wigan services. If the tickets said Manchester to Glasgow Route:VWC+Connections then they would have been valid on TPE to Preston anyway even if passengers had itineraries saying to use Northern.

Questionable - there's still the debate as to whether +Connections tickets can only be used on services which don't have an Advance quota (i.e. shown as reservable in the timetable).

 

[pemma]

Questionable - there's still the debate as to whether +Connections tickets can only be used on services which don't have an Advance quota (i.e. shown as reservable in the timetable).

I've been sold advance tickets from Knutsford to northern WCML stations which say VWC+Connections and the itinerary has included a TPE service as a connection to the Virgin service at Preston. Although I can't buy a TPE+Connections advance ticket from Knutsford.

Regardless if the suggested Northern connection is cancelled and the next possible connection is TPE surely you don't need to obtain authorisation to travel on it if you are travelling on a VWC+Connections ticket - provided you still switch to VWC at the appropriate interchange station.

 

[Mathew S]

In theory you can get a Northern service to Preston etc and then change onto Virgin their. You get an AP fare on the 0831 from Manchester O Rd changing Preston arriving Glasgow for £13.50 tomorrow....clearly not sold out, however the equivalent train on Saturday the 0851 has them for £37.00 so I suspect theirs some market at certain times there.

Market will largely in the hours opposing the TPE services, I imagine. TPE alternate Glasgow/Edinburgh hourly, so if you want the other one you change at Wigan/Preston.

 

[lejog]

Two questions:* Is there anything in the NRCoT or Byelaws which states that a second authorised person can overrule permission originally given by another authorised person ?

No there isn't, the byelaws unequivocally say "No person who has been given permission to travel by an authorised person" is in breach of the byelaws. Consumer law says (amongst other things) that anything said or written to the consumer by the trader is considered as part of the contract if it is they use it to base a decision about the service (like the decision to travel on the TPE). The contract can be only then be changed with the agreement of the consumer, not by the TPE guard.

Of course legal remedies for breach of contract or consumer law are time consuming and frankly not usually worth the effort.

Ones surmising here but one TOC will only agree to carry other TOC's passengers in extreme circumstances. If TPE Control has not given permission then that explains the Conductors announcements. Perhaps staff at Manchester Piccadily had verbally instructed inviduals to use TPE without it being officially sanctioned?

That may be true, but the internal workings of the industry are of no concern whatsoever to passengers or consumer law.

 

[sheff1]

So this:

No there isn't, the byelaws unequivocally say "No person who has been given permission to travel by an authorised person" is in breach of the byelaws. Consumer law says (amongst other things) that anything said or written to the consumer by the trader is considered as part of the contract if it is they use it to base a decision about the service (like the decision to travel on the TPE). The contract can be only then be changed with the agreement of the consumer, not by the TPE guard.

answers my first question, unless anyone can point to a source in legislation regarding this:

Guard can overrule station staff, if needed.

~~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone have an answer to the second question:

* If passengers had travelled through on the TPE, as originally instructed, they would have arrived in Glasgow less than 30 mins late (and hence not be due any compensation) so are Northern entitled to turn down any Delay Repay claims ?

 

[pemma]

I doubt ALL affected passengers were starting their journey at Manchester and travelling through to Glasgow.

 

[sheff1]

I doubt ALL affected passengers were starting their journey at Manchester and travelling through to Glasgow.

I do not get the point you are making. The overruling instructions were given by the conductor to people who boarded at Piccadilly holding Advance or Virgin only tickets for use on VTWC between Preston & Glasgow.

 

[pemma]

I do not get the point you are making. The overruling instructions were given by the conductor to people who boarded at Piccadilly holding Advance or Virgin only tickets for use on VTWC between Preston & Glasgow.

So what if someone was travelling from Stockport to Carlisle - would they have arrived over 30 minutes late after not being able to remain on the TPE train?