Can a TOC legally stop a passenger from travelling given that passenger's reason for travelling?

[43066]

So basically then, if I pitch up at the station and am refused travel without justification there would be nothing I could do?

Thats about the size of it! Clearly this is something that wouldn’t happen in practice, but that is technically possible. In just the same way as your local pub could refuse to serve you a pint, or your local newsagent could decide not to sell you a paper.

However, we will never get a definitive answer to this because it would take a refusal to travel decision to be made by a TOC and for the matter to be challenged. Despite them seemingly having the right to deny travel for no reason at all and some of them being more than eager to restrict travel, none has done so. I can only wonder why.

Most likely because that would potentially discriminate indirectly against disabled people who cannot wear a face covering. THAT could certainly be challenged under the Equalities Act.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

They have been told definitively that they cannot impose an "essential journey" condition on their passengers (as have the London bus operators).

A condition of TfL's government bailout was that they had to remove posters talking about "essential journeys only" across their estate. Nothing more.

 

[Enthusiast]

A condition of TfL's government bailout was that they had to remove posters talking about "essential journeys only" across their estate. Nothing more.

Er...yes. So sort of indicating that non-essential journeys were permitted. If not, why remove the notices? Surely the more the message was publicised the greater the effect - especially as the material was already displayed.

Most likely because that would potentially discriminate indirectly against disabled people who cannot wear a face covering.

No it wouldn't. There is a "reasonable excuse" specifically listed in the face covering legislation:

4. For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—

(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—

(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)),

 

[BJames]

I took this picture today, at Finsbury Park station platforms 1/2 (Great Northern). There were more than one of these posters still up. Think it's about time these came down...

 

[island]

I think the better point here is that whilst the TOCs may well be in breach of their franchise agreements, EMAs or the TSA, that isn't something that is actionable by the passenger. Consistent failure of the DfT to enforce such clauses might be actionable against the DfT though.

I agree. (And I think it’s fair to say ForTheLoveOf and I do not make a habit of agreeing )

A business does not, as far as the law is concerned, have to do business with any particular person as long as they do not, in the process, discriminate against someone based on a protected characteristic.

 

[43066]

Er...yes. So sort of indicating that non-essential journeys were permitted. If not, why remove the notices? Surely the more the message was publicised the greater the effect - especially as the material was already displayed.


No it wouldn't. There is a "reasonable excuse" specifically listed in the face covering legislation:

4. For the purposes of regulation 3(1), the circumstances in which a person (“P”) has a reasonable excuse include those where—

(a)P cannot put on, wear or remove a face covering—

(i)because of any physical or mental illness or impairment, or disability (within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010(1)),

That’s the bit of the coronavirus legislation giving an exemption to disabled people etc. That has no bearing the point we see discussing, ie whether or TOCs can refuse travel.

TOCs can refuse travel for any reason other than a prohibited one, as discussed above. The reason TOCs aren’t refusing travel to those not wearing coverings is because they would risk discriminating against those who cannot wear one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railway is not the only place that has been slow to take down the "stay at home" signage. There were until quite recently, and may still be, such signs in various places on the road network, too.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Er...yes. So sort of indicating that non-essential journeys were permitted. If not, why remove the notices? Surely the more the message was publicised the greater the effect - especially as the material was already displayed.

Because the Government wanted to show who's boss to TfL. They hate Sadiq Khan because he's a Labour politician in charge of London (and there's another ground that each may make their own minds up on) and he criticises the Government. TfL was also contradicting the Government's messaging, in particular in terms of suggesting that non-key workers couldn't use their services, when the Government was at the stage of trying to encourage non-key workers to go to work if they couldn't work from home.

 

[Enthusiast]

That’s the bit of the coronavirus legislation giving an exemption to disabled people etc. That has no bearing the point we see discussing, ie whether or TOCs can refuse travel.

Quite agree. It wasn't I who raised the issue of face coverings and discrimination against those unable to wear them. You raised it as a reason why TOCs may not be restricting travel to essential journeys only.

 

[PTR 444]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but I am thinking about making a non-essential journey tomorrow and need some advice on the following:

1. I intend to travel between Poole and Southampton Central with SWR. Are they an operator that are likely to ask whether your journey is essential and refuse non-essential travel?

2. I intend to travel around 9am-10am. Bearing in mind it is a Sunday, are trains likely to reach all of their limited capacity then?

3. The leg of the journey between Bournemouth and Soton will be by replacement bus due to a line closure (reason unknown to me). Are drivers of these buses likely to refuse non-essential travel bearing in mind the capacity of these is likely to be less than that of the train.

4. Are ticket machines still available, or will I need to buy my ticket online?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

1. I intend to travel between Poole and Southampton Central with SWR. Are they an operator that are likely to ask whether your journey is essential and refuse non-essential travel?

Their website quite rightly doesn't suggest any restriction on the types of journeys they would like you to make on their network. It simply suggests the usual social distancing measures, travelling at less busy times and so on.

So the chances of being denied travel as about as near to nil as you can get.

2. I intend to travel around 9am-10am. Bearing in mind it is a Sunday, are trains likely to reach all of their limited capacity then?

Well you're travelling via, and changing at, Bournemouth so there might be a few people heading there for the beach, but I imagine it will be rather fewer numbers than would be heading to Bournemouth from the east! So I would be very surprised if social distancing capacity is exceeded.

3. The leg of the journey between Bournemouth and Soton will be by replacement bus due to a line closure (reason unknown to me). Are drivers of these buses likely to refuse non-essential travel bearing in mind the capacity of these is likely to be less than that of the train.

No; I have almost never experienced a rail replacement bus driver so much as check a ticket. They're not going to be interested in your reason for travel.

4. Are ticket machines still available, or will I need to buy my ticket online?

Yes, ticket machines are currently the preferred in-person way of buying a ticket. If you're sure you'll be travelling it might still be an idea to at least buy your ticket online in advance (even if you collect it at the machine), to give you the best chances of being allowed to travel in the unlikely event of overcrowding.

It's sad in some ways that the industry has made people so scared of travelling

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is actually really, really good:

Travelling With Us | South Western Railway | The New Name for South West Trains

Plan your journey with us, from on board Wi-Fi to First Class upgrades, our on board section has all the details you need to make sure you travel in style.

www.southwesternrailway.com

They even refer to gov.uk for who should and shouldn't travel rather than interpreting it themselves.

Perhaps other TOCs (cough, Northern) need to have a read.

 

[PTR 444]

Their website quite rightly doesn't suggest any restriction on the types of journeys they would like you to make on their network. It simply suggests the usual social distancing measures, travelling at less busy times and so on.

So the chances of being denied travel as about as near to nil as you can get.


Well you're travelling via, and changing at, Bournemouth so there might be a few people heading there for the beach, but I imagine it will be rather fewer numbers than would be heading to Bournemouth from the east! So I would be very surprised if social distancing capacity is exceeded.


No; I have almost never experienced a rail replacement bus driver so much as check a ticket. They're not going to be interested in your reason for travel.


Yes, ticket machines are currently the preferred in-person way of buying a ticket. If you're sure you'll be travelling it might still be an idea to at least buy your ticket online in advance (even if you collect it at the machine), to give you the best chances of being allowed to travel in the unlikely event of overcrowding.

It's sad in some ways that the industry has made people so scared of travelling

Thanks for the advice

I strongly agree it’s a shame that the messaging of railway operators lately has put us off train travel. It is therefore reassuring to hear that at least one is accepting some degree of leisure travel and I hope more follow suit. After all, leisure travel is essential to get the economy going again.

 

[BJames]

This is actually really, really good:

Travelling With Us | South Western Railway | The New Name for South West Trains

Plan your journey with us, from on board Wi-Fi to First Class upgrades, our on board section has all the details you need to make sure you travel in style.

www.southwesternrailway.com

They even refer to gov.uk for who should and shouldn't travel rather than interpreting it themselves.

Perhaps other TOCs (cough, Northern) need to have a read.

I like this. Fair messaging, with words like "encourage" social distancing and accepting it "may not always be possible" being much more reasonable and on par with reality.

 

[Huntergreed]

I just messaged Scotrail on Twitter. I asked:

Hi there! When the 5 mile limit on leisure travel is lifted this coming Friday, will I be able to use your trains for leisure travel?

Their response:

Hi there, I’m afraid we are currently running trains only for key workers who are working night and day to get us through the pandemic. I’m sure you can appreciate that they need our limited capacity. We will change this guidance as soon as we are safely able to do so.

I don’t believe this to be true in any way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wow, that message from ScotRail is outrageously patronising, isn't it?

I don't think making your customers feel worthless is a good long-term marketing strategy. I know people like bigging up the NHS[1], but I don't think it's right to do that with a put-down as well.

How about:

"Hi there, I'm afraid we are currently running trains only for essential use, for example getting to work, for those who have no practical alternative. I'm sure you can appreciate... <then as above>"

[1] However, it's important to remember that those of us continuing to work in the private sector are paying the taxes to enable the NHS to continue being funded, so actually all workers are important!

 

[Huntergreed]

Wow, that message from ScotRail is outrageously patronising, isn't it?

I don't think making your customers feel worthless is a good long-term marketing strategy.

They’re not the only TOC that’s been doing this during the pandemic. They’ve also been known to shame those who are seen making non-essential trips on their twitter feed.

It’s disgraceful customer service, and I stand by what I’ve said all along, TOC’s have done very long term damage with this aggressive and hostile form of messaging.

 

[scotrail158713]

I stand by what I’ve said all along, TOC’s have done very long term damage with this aggressive and hostile form of messaging

I’d agree. I know I’ll return to train travel when “normal” returns, however I realise this is because I enjoy travelling on public transport. Whereas for most people it’s just a means of travel - they’ve gone back to car travel, and may realise it works better for them, thereby a lost railway customer.

Also, that message from Scotrail is shocking. Surely they’re not encouraging me to drive home after a night at the pub?

 

[43066]

I just messaged Scotrail on Twitter. I asked:



Their response:



I don’t believe this to be true in any way.

Absolutely ridiculous. Try asking them for an exhaustive list of “key workers”, and see what they come up with.

I suspect you’ll be waiting a while...

 

[AdamWW]

Absolutely ridiculous. Try asking them for an exhaustive list of “key workers”, and see what they come up with.

I suspect you’ll be waiting a while...

Scotland may be different, but so far as I know in England and Wales the only time "key worker" has any real meaning is with regard to who can send their children to school for childcare purposes.

 

[43066]

Scotland may be different, but so far as I know in England and Wales the only time "key worker" has any real meaning is with regard to who can send their children to school for childcare purposes.

According to parents I know, even that is subject to debate. Different schools have different policies, apparently, which is ludicrous.

 

[BJames]

Scotrail also put this on twitter earlier:

We are legally unable to prevent people from travelling even if they refuse to wear a face covering. Over recent weeks, we have advised customers of the importance of using a face covering while travelling with us and it is one of our five safer rules for travel.

I don't believe the response @Huntergreed got is correct either. You can definitely use their trains for leisure travel, a limit the TOC themselves have imposed, as they can't even enforce face coverings which are part of the law.

 

[43066]

Scotrail also put this on twitter earlier:



I don't believe the response @Huntergreed got is correct either. You can definitely use their trains for leisure travel, a limit the TOC themselves have imposed, as they can't even enforce face coverings which are part of the law.

That’s not correct in every case: many people fall under one of the various exemptions from the requirement to wear a face covering, due to disabilities.

Ironically, as I was discussing upthread, TOCs *can* generally refuse to sell tickets, if they wish. But they will *never* refuse tickets, or travel, due to failure to wear a face covering, because that would indirectly discriminate against various disabled groups.

 

[AdamWW]

Scotrail also put this on twitter earlier:



I don't believe the response @Huntergreed got is correct either. You can definitely use their trains for leisure travel, a limit the TOC themselves have imposed, as they can't even enforce face coverings which are part of the law.

In England, it seems from the legislation that operators are permitted (but not required) to deny boarding to someone who is not wearing a face covering and to ask them to leave a vehicle (and if they refuse to do so, a constable may forcibly remove them).

 

[talldave]

Absolutely ridiculous. Try asking them for an exhaustive list of “key workers”, and see what they come up with.

Locksmith comes to mind !!!

 

[yorkie]

So basically then, if I pitch up at the station and am refused travel without justification there would be nothing I could do? I think not. London Underground Ltd is no different to a National Rail TOC. They have been told definitively that they cannot impose an "essential journey" condition on their passengers (as have the London bus operators).

• If a passenger had already purchased a ticket, contract law would apply and the relevant train company/companies would still be obligated to convey the customer to their destination. If they refuse to do so by train they would need to provide alternative means of transport. The company would also be liable to compensate in the event of a delay to the customers journey.
• Consumer law also applies to rail journeys; the relevant train company/companies are required to provide the service with "reasonable care and skill"; reneging on a contract to provide service for no valid reason would be a breach of consumer law.
• Train companies are bound by the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and, even more importantly, the Ticketing Settlement Agreement (TSA); compliance with these is a franchise commitment for all franchised TOCs (and any open access operators who participate in National Rail ticketing are also bound by them). The proposals in the opening post of this thread would not be compliant with the NRCoT or TSA
• Train companies are bound by the wishes of the DfT (especially at the current time!); the DfT do not want any misleading signs such as "key workers only" to be displayed. The matter of misleading signs on London Underground was brought to the attention of the DfT and one of the conditions for TfL's bailout was the removal of all such signs from their network. If any National Rail TOCs have misleading signs such as "key workers only", these should be removed. Such misleading signs have been removed from stations such as York weeks ago. If any TOC refuses to remove them, this matter can be escalated and investigated.

 

[_toommm_]

In England, it seems from the legislation that operators are permitted (but not required) to deny boarding to someone who is not wearing a face covering and to ask them to leave a vehicle (and if they refuse to do so, a constable may forcibly remove them).

Indeed, I’ve just witnessed four people being escorted off an LNER train at Peterborough by about 10 BTP officers. The guard has clearly been watching them on CCTV as she had made several announcements directly to them on the PA.

 

[6Gman]

I’d agree. I know I’ll return to train travel when “normal” returns, however I realise this is because I enjoy travelling on public transport. Whereas for most people it’s just a means of travel - they’ve gone back to car travel, and may realise it works better for them, thereby a lost railway customer.

Also, that message from Scotrail is shocking. Surely they’re not encouraging me to drive home after a night at the pub?

How many people need a train to get home from a pub? (Which, I believe, aren't open anyway)

 

[DB]

Indeed, I’ve just witnessed four people being escorted off an LNER train at Peterborough by about 10 BTP officers. The guard has clearly been watching them on CCTV as she had made several announcements directly to them on the PA.

What did they do to provoke that? Or is it predictable over-reaction?

 

[43066]

How many people need a train to get home from a pub? (Which, I believe, aren't open anyway)

Pretty much everyone in London who goes to the pub takes the train home, unless they’ve gone to their local. I’d imagine that’s the case in most UK cities with a decent metro rail network?

Plenty of pubs have already reopened (for takeaway only), and the streets outside their premises are rapidly turning into de facto beer gardens.