Challenging a change to a permitted route

[transmanche]

I'm sure this question must have been asked before, but a both a site search and a Google search have drawn a blank.

As I'm sure most of you are aware, there were big changes to the Routeing Guide last year, which led to the loss of many previously permitted routes.

I've identified that one change affects journeys between Newcastle (NCL) and Chester(CTR)/Wrexham Group routeing points[*], which are no longer permitted via Liverpool. I've only noticed this because with the start of the new TPE NCL-LIV via Manchester Victoria (MCV), many NCL-CTR journeys are now faster via LIV - whereas previously this only happened on rare occasions. And of course journeys via LIV can be done with a single change; whilst journeys on the new permitted route require two or three changes.

I've made an FOI request to the DfT about the change, but I'd also like lodge a complaint/appeal with ATOC about the change - and don't know the best way to go about it.

If anybody's got any suggestions, I'd be very grateful!

[* And possibly others, I haven't checked.]

 

[All Line Rover]

You are unlikely to get anywhere dealing directly with ATOC. In my experience they simply pass the buck to the Train Operating Companies and/or don't take complaints seriously.

I suggest that your first point of call is to contact TPE, pointing out the change and asking them to confirm that it will be reverted by a specified date. If they do not reply within the specified deadline or their reply is not to your satisfaction, complain to Passenger Focus. If Passenger Focus' reply is not to your satisfaction, and once you have exhausted their appeals procedure, contact your MP and ask them to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

PS. Your link is broken.

 

[transmanche]

You are unlikely to get anywhere dealing directly with ATOC. In my experience they simply pass the buck to the Train Operating Companies and/or don't take complaints seriously.

I suggest that your first point of call is to contact TPE, pointing out the change and asking them to confirm that it will be reverted by a specified date. If they do not reply within the specified deadline or their reply is not to your satisfaction, complain to Passenger Focus. If Passenger Focus' reply is not to your satisfaction, and once you have exhausted their appeals procedure, contact your MP and ask them to refer the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

PS. Your link is broken.

Thank you, much appreciated. (Link should now be fixed.)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

You are unlikely to get anywhere dealing directly with ATOC. In my experience they simply pass the buck to the Train Operating Companies and/or don't take complaints seriously.

I agree.
However, I suggest that it can often be helpful in any subsequent discussions or disputes if there is an audit trail of the complaint having been raised, whether or not it provided a meaningful or helpful response at the time.

 

[All Line Rover]

I have to admit this is one of the best examples I have ever seen of a disadvantageous change to a reasonable routeing.

When contacting the DfT/TPE/PF, don't let them dodge your questions. I find that one of the best ways to achieve this is to ask specific questions that only have a yes/no answer. If they don't give a yes/no answer, direct them to the question again until they do give a yes/no answer.

I think you are unlikely to get anywhere with TPE and will eventually have to raise the matter with Passenger Focus. I retain a measure of hope that Passenger Focus will be able to resolve the issue and you won't have to raise it with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

As part of your complaint, try to get Passenger Focus (better still the DfT) to explain in detail the procedure which TOCs must follow when making changes to the routeing guide and the procedure which passengers must follow when disputing changes (e.g. who must passengers contact? can passengers seek a refund of unnecessary ticket expenditure between the time of raising their complaint and the time the RG gets changed?). There is little authoratative guidance on these matters (especially the 'disputed routeings procedure', which no-one seems to know anything about despite it being mentioned in the Routeing Guide). Your complaint provides a prime opportunity to extract this sort of information.

I suspect you'll have to wait quite a while to resolve this issue, given that most organisations are entitled to take around 1 month to reply and the TOCs have this bad habit of 'forgetting' to reply to more complex enquiries. If the thread gets locked in the meantime just contact a moderator to get it reopened (although I'm sure you already know this!).

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'd hazard a guess that, in the real world, nobody would think twice about accepting such a ticket via Liverpool as perfectly reasonable, regardless of what the Routeing Guide says.

Remember that the only printed edition was the original one from 1996, the logic being that staff could use Avantix or RJIS, once they were introduced, to check routes. I also wouldn't be surprised to discover that most Customer Relations departments don't know what the "Disputed Routeing" procedure (as laid down in Section A of the NRG) is, let alone how to use the Guide.

 

[transmanche]

I have to admit this is one of the best examples I have ever seen of a disadvantageous change to a reasonable routeing.

When contacting the DfT/TPE/PF, don't let them dodge your questions. I find that one of the best ways to achieve this is to ask specific questions that only have a yes/no answer. If they don't give a yes/no answer, direct them to the question again until they do give a yes/no answer.

Well I've sent off my FOI request to DfT. For those who can't access the link, these are the questions I've asked.

• Did ATOC request consent from the DFT for the routeing guide change affecting this journey opportunity (along with many others)?
• Did the DfT consult with any passenger organisations regarding this change?
• What was the outcome of that consultation?
• What criteria did the DfT use when considering whether or not to approve the change?
• Did the DfT take into account the forthcoming change to TPE service patterns in May 2014 (and the consequent impact on passengers and journeys) when considering the change?
• Please provide copies of any correspondence between DfT, ATOC, TOCs and any passenger representative groups regarding this change.

Hopefully the answers to those questions will shed some light on the matter.

I think you are unlikely to get anywhere with TPE and will eventually have to raise the matter with Passenger Focus. I retain a measure of hope that Passenger Focus will be able to resolve the issue and you won't have to raise it with the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

I'm not too hopeful about getting a positive response from TPE, but I have sent an email to their customer relations with details of the change; explaining how disappointed I am if it means I can't use their new Newcastle-Liverpool service, but adding that I assume it's just a error and (as you suggested earlier) requesting that they fix the error by the timetable change date of 18 May. (Yes, I know it'll never happen by then - but it's to try and focus their minds on the fact that's the day when the change really starts to have a big effect.)

 

[kieron]

I notice that Newcastle-Hooton is shown on NRE as being valid on a Newcastle-Liverpool train (as it should be on map VN), but Newcastle-Bache (which may be more convenient than Chester for some travellers) is only shown as valid via Chester or on the Scarborough-Liverpool trains via Widnes.

Other routes which should be valid via Hooton such as Newcastle-Ellesmere Port and Newcastle-Helsby also seem to be shown incorrectly.

This is something which could be worth chasing NRE up about, as it's a route which their routeing guide suggests should be valid, but where their route planner disagrees. As such, you can ask them to explain the discrepency without involving TPE.

 

[All Line Rover]

I notice that Newcastle-Hooton is shown on NRE as being valid on a Newcastle-Liverpool train (as it should be on map VN), but Newcastle-Bache (which may be more convenient than Chester for some travellers) is only shown as valid via Chester or on the Scarborough-Liverpool trains via Widnes.

Other routes which should be valid via Hooton such as Newcastle-Ellesmere Port and Newcastle-Helsby also seem to be shown incorrectly.

This is something which could be worth chasing NRE up about, as it's a route which their routeing guide suggests should be valid, but where their route planner disagrees. As such, you can ask them to explain the discrepency without involving TPE.

That's a good one to ask ATOC. It's also worth asking the DfT why, once again, NRE differs from the RG despite ATOC's assurances to the contrary and the DfT's unquestioning acceptance of their assurances.

Emailing NRE directly would achieve little as their foreign-based contact centres are hopelessly inadequate.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Some other oddities about Newcastle-Chester (SVR Any Permitted):
- it's valid via Manchester/Crewe, which is longer than via Manchester/Liverpool.
- it's also valid via Carlisle/Preston and Warrington/Crewe, but not Liverpool.
But Carlisle/Preston-Chester ARE valid via Liverpool (as well as Warrington/Crewe).

 

[OwlMan]

You will probably find that your FOI will be declined ( my last 4 have been) and refered to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-routeing-guide
see extract below

......Inevitably with data of this size and magnitude
it is possible that errors remain and ATOC will undertake to reinstate and route permissions if these
have been erroneously removed or if services are reinstated. It has certainly not been our intention
to remove valid routes...........

I woud email ATOC about any errorsyoufind
I have emailed ATOC about four changes and they have agreed to reinstate all four they agred they were withrawn in error.

 

[All Line Rover]

One would assume that, given errors are inevitable, there is an equal likelihood of there being overly permissive routeing errors as there are overly restrictive routeing errors. I wonder if ATOC have examples of such overly permissive routeing errors?

It's a pity that ATOC isn't subject to the FOIA. Network Rail also. The Cons were talking about subjecting Network Rail to the Act a few years ago but it seems that has been swept under the carpet. No surprises there.

 

[transmanche]

It's a pity that ATOC isn't subject to the FOIA. Network Rail also. The Cons were talking about subjecting Network Rail to the Act a few years ago but it seems that has been swept under the carpet. No surprises there.

Network Rail officially becomes a public sector body later this year, so in theory should become subject to the FOIA then.

ONS announced last December what we'd all known for ages... that Network Rail was a public sector body in all but name.

Because the government plays a significant role in overseeing Network Rail, through the Office of the Rail Regulator, and the taxpayer would inevitably be left picking up the bill for keeping the trains running if Network Rail collapsed, the ONS says it is best considered a "central government body".

 

[All Line Rover]

Network Rail officially becomes a public sector body later this year, so in theory should become subject to the FOIA then.

Thank you. I'll keep an eye on that.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well I've sent off my FOI request to DfT. For those who can't access the link, these are the questions I've asked.

. . . .

• A recurring and familiar response from the Department to all such enquiries has been to describe the changes as corrections to errors. As I'm sure you are aware, corrections to errors do not require the list of actions you've proposed to be undertaken before the 'correction' is made.
  From memory, I cannot recall the number of corrections to errors which have been made to date without the requirement for any consultation but I seem to recall that the number reached 4 figures about 3 years ago.

 

[kieron]

That's a good one to ask ATOC. It's also worth asking the DfT why, once again, NRE differs from the RG despite ATOC's assurances to the contrary and the DfT's unquestioning acceptance of their assurances.

Emailing NRE directly would achieve little as their foreign-based contact centres are hopelessly inadequate.

You're never likely to contact anyone who can actually decide anything, but they can pass a message on once they accept that this has nothing to do with TPE or whoever.

I don't know if ATOC's own customer service department would be quicker, though.

 

[transmanche]

Well I've finally had a reply to my FoI request.

I asked the DfT five questions, which I've listed below along with the replies from the DfT.

1. Did ATOC request consent from the DfT for the routeing guide changes affecting this journey opportunity (along with many others)?
   

   ATOC did not request consent from the Department to amend the NRG in respect of this journey (see explanation below).

2. Did the DfT consult with any passenger organisations regarding this change?
   

   Since ATOC did not request any changes to the permitted routeings for this journey, no consultation took place with passenger representatives.

3. What was the outcome of that consultation?
   

   Since there was no consultation, the Department does not hold any recorded information about the outcome.

4. What criteria did the DfT use when considering whether or not to approve the change?

   The Department does not hold any recorded information about the criteria used to determine whether or not to approve the change, since no request for a change was made.

5. Did the DfT take into account the forthcoming changes to TPE service patterns in May 2014 (and the consequent impact on passengers and journeys) when considering the change?

   Since the Department was not asked to make any decision on a change to the permitted routeings for this journey, no recorded information is held as to whether account was taken on forthcoming changes to First TransPennine Express ('FTPE') service patterns.

6. Please provide copies of any correspondence between DfT, ATOC, TOCs and any passenger representative groups regarding this change.
   

   As noted above, the Department does not hold any record of correspondence with train operators, ATOC or any passenger group on changes to the permitted routeings in question.

They went on to add:

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not require us to do so, on receipt of your request for information, the Department contacted ATOC to seek their comments. ATOC advised us that there was no intention to remove permission to travel via Liverpool, but it appeared to them that the removal of the permitted route via Liverpool was an inadvertent outcome of significant revisions that had been made to the routeing maps covering Trans Pennine routes - which was necessary as these were allowing wildly circuitous routes. ATOC confirmed that: (a) travel via Liverpool Lime Street is allowed by current fares and that the same was true in NFM 64; (b) there are obvious journey opportunities via Liverpool Lime Street and, (c) as you noted, the increased journey opportunities following the changes to the FTPE timetable will make the route via Liverpool more attractive.

Finally, ATOC advised us that the necessary amendments to the NRG to reinstate the permission to travel between Newcastle and Wrexham via Liverpool will be made as soon as possible.

So thumbs up to DfT for chasing up ATOC on this matter, but thumbs down for not properly holding them to account to ensure that these sorts of 'unintentional errors' do not occur.

As an aside, I also emailed FTPE and ATOC on 9 April - asking them of the change was in error and if/when it would be corrected. So far, I have not had a response from either organisation.

So (sadly) it seems the best way to get ATOC to act is by making an FoI request to the DfT! :roll:

 

[LateThanNever]

Well I've finally had a reply to my FoI request.

I asked the DfT five questions, which I've listed below along with the replies from the DfT.

1. Did ATOC request consent from the DfT for the routeing guide changes affecting this journey opportunity (along with many others)?
   
2. Did the DfT consult with any passenger organisations regarding this change?
   
3. What was the outcome of that consultation?
   
4. What criteria did the DfT use when considering whether or not to approve the change?
5. Did the DfT take into account the forthcoming changes to TPE service patterns in May 2014 (and the consequent impact on passengers and journeys) when considering the change?
6. Please provide copies of any correspondence between DfT, ATOC, TOCs and any passenger representative groups regarding this change.
   

They went on to add:


So thumbs up to DfT for chasing up ATOC on this matter, but thumbs down for not properly holding them to account to ensure that these sorts of 'unintentional errors' do not occur.

As an aside, I also emailed FTPE and ATOC on 9 April - asking them of the change was in error and if/when it would be corrected. So far, I have not had a response from either organisation.

So (sadly) it seems the best way to get ATOC to act is by making an FoI request to the DfT! :roll:

As you say. But - impressive - very well done to you! (Fighting for the rest of us!)

 

[RJ]

As an aside, I also emailed FTPE and ATOC on 9 April - asking them of the change was in error and if/when it would be corrected. So far, I have not had a response from either organisation.

So (sadly) it seems the best way to get ATOC to act is by making an FoI request to the DfT! :roll:

Well done for persevering. One issue that plagues some organisations is that comments from stakeholders don't always reach the right people who are in a position to address the problem. Sometimes to keep going until somebody can help is the only option.

What I will add is that if you do persevere, make sure it is something worth persevering for. This is a good example as it is something that may well affect transmanche or others in reality. What I'm saying is, I'd advise people against bombarding the DfT and ATOC with silly things like spelling mistakes in easements or nonsensical matters that are never likely to affect anyone.

 

[CNash]

A recurring and familiar response from the Department to all such enquiries has been to describe the changes as corrections to errors. As I'm sure you are aware, corrections to errors do not require the list of actions you've proposed to be undertaken before the 'correction' is made.
From memory, I cannot recall the number of corrections to errors which have been made to date without the requirement for any consultation but I seem to recall that the number reached 4 figures about 3 years ago.

But then, who decides what constitutes an "error" in the Routeing Guide? Would their reasoning be available to view, and could it be challenged if the circumstances were right?