Conditions question: Passenger rights when combining ('splitting') tickets

[CompactDstrxion]

So I'm going to Edinburgh on Thursday from Dewsbury returning the same day, buying a SDR Dewsbury-Carlisle route Appleby and a CDR Carlisle-Edinburgh for total cost £34.90 with a 16-25 railcard (I think this is the cheapest way!)

The best way to get back is to catch the 16:52 Virgin service which gives an 11-minute connection in Carlisle for the final 18:16 service to Leeds, this satisfies the minimum connection time. If the Virgin service is late into Carlisle and the connection missed are they obliged to carry me onward to Preston so I can change onto Transpennine Express?

 

[First class]

This is a contentious issue on this forum.

In reality they will probably make you pay an excess.

 

[sonic2009]

im sure they must.! im quite sure on rules like this, but i cant see no reason why.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
im working it out as an excess of £9.50/19.05

£53.95 Dewsbury - Edinburgh Off Peak Rtn
£34.90 Total Ticket Cost Already Paid

 

[OwlMan]

Although not cheaper - if you are travelling around in the following 7 days try the following

NW 4 in 8 Rover r/c price £37.60
CDR Lockerbie - Edinburgh r/c price £10.55

Total cost £48-15 but you have 3 days left of Rover travel in the next 7 for an extra £13-25.

see http://www.projectmapping.co.uk/Resources/Freedom of North West.pdf for map

Peter

 

[Welshman]

The question of whether customers with split-ticketting would be carried off route or provided with a taxi where the last connection is missed due to the late running of a previous train, is one that has been debated many times on this forum, and I wouldn't want to rehearse the arguments yet again. Perhaps the time has now come for the TOCs to provide the definitive answer, and in the light of London Midland's boldy promoting split-ticketting, rather than knowing it exists and keeping quiet about it, it would be good to hear their official response to this thorny question.

 

[John @ home]

If the Virgin service is late into Carlisle and the connection missed are they obliged to carry me onward to Preston so I can change onto Transpennine Express?

This is a contentious issue on this forum.

We have heard the opinion that you would probably have to pay more money. Here is my alternative view that you would not have to pay any more money.

You will have two tickets for one journey. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage state

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies: ...
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

In order to make it extra clear that I was travelling on one contract for carriage, I would purchase the tickets in one transaction on the internet, print and carry the itinerary. I would also carry written evidence that the recommended minimum connection time at Carlisle is 8 minutes.

If it became evident that the connection was likely to be missed at Carlisle on the return leg and there was plenty time before the Carlisle stop, I would seek advice from the train manager on the Edinburgh - Carlisle train and follow that person's advice. I would not travel south of Carlisle on that train unless the position had been resolved in my favour.

If the position has not been resolved by the time the train arrived at Carlisle, or if the delay occurred when there was not plenty time to resolve it before the Carlisle stop, I would get off at Carlisle and seek assistance from the person in charge at Carlisle. I would expect to be treated in accordance with Section 10 of Northern's Passenger Charter

10. If Things Go Wrong
In cases of severe disruption, Northern will, at its discretion, provide alternative transport to ensure you reach your final destination. In exceptional circumstances, hotel accommodation may be provided.

http://www.northernrail.org/northern/passengercharter/pdfs/passengers_charter.pdf

It would then be for Northern to provide me with

• appropriate documentation to allow me to complete my journey by rail on that day, or
• overnight accommodation, or
• a taxi from Carlisle to Dewsbury, or
• an appropriate combination of public transport and taxi to enable me to reach Dewsbury.

Perhaps the time has now come for the TOCs to provide the definitive answer.

It's not in the TOCs' interest to do that. I don't believe they will do it unless they are compelled.

 

[yorkie]

The question of whether customers with split-ticketting would be carried off route or provided with a taxi where the last connection is missed due to the late running of a previous train, is one that has been debated many times on this forum, and I wouldn't want to rehearse the arguments yet again. Perhaps the time has now come for the TOCs to provide the definitive answer, and in the light of London Midland's boldy promoting split-ticketting, rather than knowing it exists and keeping quiet about it, it would be good to hear their official response to this thorny question.

I've had taxis twice that I can recall, due to missing the last train. On both occasions I was on split ticketing. The issue of split ticketing was not an issue and NCoC makes it clear that you can use more than one ticket for one journey.

The idea that someone will "probably" be asked to pay an excess is one I cannot accept, the reality is the vast majority of rail staff do, despite the doom and gloom, help passengers and will honour the tickets via an alternative route, in accordance with NCoC. I will concede that there are "probably" a small minority of rail staff who will not honour it and whom you would have to have a 'discussion' with, and it is always worth bringing relevant copies of the Conditions of Carriage with you just in case. But to suggest that most staff are like this is, in my opinion, misleading.

I believe that using the advice given above by John @ Home presents a robust case, that would be very difficult for even a 'desperate' member of staff to go against.

 

[attics26]

to me split ticketing has never been as issue (the debates on here are usually to do with multiple advance tickets) if you have valid tickets for a journey and have allowed in excess of minimum connecting times then the "delayed" toc is responsible for arranging transport home or accomadation as required

 

[tannedfrog]

Once I arrived in Birmingham on the coach, on a very late service. I had intended to buy another ticket for a coach to Bristol but it had already left.

By being very nice to the staff I managed to get a place in the taxi that was going to Bristol with the other late passengers (who had a through ticket). All I had to buy was the coach ticket I had been intending to buy.

 

[bnm]

So does this also apply with spilt Advances involving a cross-London transfer on TfL?

Reason I ask is I'm providing price and ticket info on another forum for someone travelling Plymouth-Leuchars in mid October. Their cheapest option appears to be PLY-Zone U1* London ADV, then KGX-LEU ADV. I'm factoring in 90 minutes to get from PAD to KGX. If the up from PLY is heavily delayed, will East Coast be prepared to let them travel on a later Scotland bound service?

 

[yorkie]

I believe so, especially allowing 90 mins.

It's also worth checking if you can get the U1 onto the EC Advance, but I suspect probably not as EC seem to add a premium to tickets that include anything additional to their own services if travelling south of Peterborough.

 

[John @ home]

So does this also apply with spilt Advances involving a cross-London transfer on TfL?

My experience of EC staff at Kings Cross Travel Centre is that they are trained to check that at least the minimum connection time had been allowed between the London termini. If that is so and the delay is confirmed, they are happy to endorse the ticket for onward travel. Minimum cross-London transfer times are listed on page 44 of the Introduction to the National Rail Timetable. Kings Cross - Paddington is 45 minutes.

 

[moonrakerz]

I had a very similar scenario last year, as the OP describes, when travelling on a late running XC train to Birmingham.
I sought out the Train Manager and explained my problem to her (my route was not only "split" but doing a "dog-leg" to get a cheaper still fare). I'm not sure she fully understand, but she said "you seem to know what you are doing !" and issued me with a free ticket to travel further South from Birmingham to regain my originally planned train.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Yorkie and most other know what I am about to say, so to prevent a long winded arguement along the lines of all the previous threads, I'll try to keep my side of the 'discussion' brief.

Yorkie is right that the NCoC says two tickets can be used for one journey, but it doesn't say they are one ticket, or the evidence of one contract, not anywhere. It is his opinion that it does, because it mentions one journey, but that is not the same thing.

The NCoC also says at the very start....

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....

That is quite specific, between the stations or zones shown on the ticket, not 'for your entire journey'.

So, once you get to the station where your tickets meet, you transfer to a new contract. The first TOC(s) have got you to your destination and you are late for the other, so there is no 'obligation' for either TOC invovled to do anything for you at that point.

Now, I know Yorkie will say "but if you are delayed while travelling....", well I don't buy that either, because the NCoC applies to each ticket, not a group of tickets strung together. You have reached the destination of the first ticket it is done with, and you have not started travelling on the other yet.

And before the head biting starts, that doesn't mean this is how it will happen, many staff use common sense or don't actually care about it that much and I dare say the TOC(s) don't want the attention either, but I think it would be irresponsible of 'the forum' to even suggest that you have a right to carry on, when that is not the case.

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie and most other know what I am about to say, so to prevent a long winded arguement along the lines of all the previous threads, I'll try to keep my side of the 'discussion' brief.

Yorkie is right that the NCoC says two tickets can be used for one journey, but it doesn't say they are one ticket, or the evidence of one contract, not anywhere. It is his opinion that it does, because it mentions one journey, but that is not the same thing.

The NCoC also says at the very start....



That is quite specific, between the stations or zones shown on the ticket, not 'for your entire journey'.

So, once you get to the station where your tickets meet, you transfer to a new contract. The first TOC(s) have got you to your destination and you are late for the other, so there is no 'obligation' for either TOC invovled to do anything for you at that point.

Now, I know Yorkie will say "but if you are delayed while travelling....", well I don't buy that either, because the NCoC applies to each ticket, not a group of tickets strung together. You have reached the destination of the first ticket it is done with, and you have not started travelling on the other yet.

And before the head biting starts, that doesn't mean this is how it will happen, many staff use common sense or don't actually care about it that much and I dare say the TOC(s) don't want the attention either, but I think it would be irresponsible of 'the forum' to even suggest that you have a right to carry on, when that is not the case.

I hate this topic! Primarily because it's quite easy to argue for both sides of the coin. Did we ever get to the bottom of what constitutes one 'journey'? That said, even if a TOC wasn't contractually obliged to provide assistance in these circumstances, it doesn't mean they won't! Customer service and all that!

 

[blacknight]

I hate this topic! Primarily because it's quite easy to argue for both sides of the coin. Did we ever get to the bottom of what constitutes one 'journey'? That said, even if a TOC wasn't contractually obliged to provide assistance in these circumstances, it doesn't mean they won't! Customer service and all that!

It may well be 1 journey but when you split tickets its 2 separate contracts with different TOC's, for instance
If I miss last connnection & have to pay for taxi home you decide to go to small claims court to recover costs which TOC would you claim against.
TOC1 ran late but forefilled their contract or TOC2 train ran right time but you were not there to catch it.
I would suggest that if you plan to split your ticket then do it at station stop before so least you have a through ticket to your end destination

 

[CompactDstrxion]

I would suggest that if you plan to split your ticket then do it at station stop before so least you have a through ticket to your end destination

The VT service is non-stop between Haymarket and Carlisle

I will take documentation, it's simple enough to generate the itinerary on the National Rail website. The VT should stop practically next to the Leeds service anyway so I would be very unlucky to miss it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I hate this topic!....

Don't we all!?!

....Primarily because it's quite easy to argue for both sides of the coin. Did we ever get to the bottom of what constitutes one 'journey'?....

Not that I recall.

....That said, even if a TOC wasn't contractually obliged to provide assistance in these circumstances, it doesn't mean they won't! Customer service and all that!

Indeed, but that doesn't answer the question. What could happen and what should happen isn't the same thing.

....I would suggest that if you plan to split your ticket then do it at station stop before so least you have a through ticket to your end destination....

Where practical, it would eliminate the problem, especially with Advance fares.

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie and most other know what I am about to say, so to prevent a long winded arguement along the lines of all the previous threads, I'll try to keep my side of the 'discussion' brief.

Yorkie is right that the NCoC says two tickets can be used for one journey, but it doesn't say they are one ticket, or the evidence of one contract, not anywhere. It is his opinion that it does, because it mentions one journey, but that is not the same thing.


The NCoC also says at the very start....



That is quite specific, between the stations or zones shown on the ticket, not 'for your entire journey'.

The key wording has been posted many times, here it is again:-

b) If delays occur while
travelling, they will be
allowed to take the next
available train(s) to complete
their journey

Journey is defined such that it can consist of more than one ticket.

Case closed.

So, once you get to the station where your tickets meet, you transfer to a new contract.

Irrelevant.

The first TOC(s) have got you to your destination and you are late for the other, so there is no 'obligation' for either TOC invovled to do anything for you at that point.

Nope, it clearly says "...complete their journey"

Now, I know Yorkie will say "but if you are delayed while travelling....", well I don't buy that either, because the NCoC applies to each ticket, not a group of tickets strung together. You have reached the destination of the first ticket it is done with, and you have not started travelling on the other yet.

Wrong!! The NCoC does address the issue of "a group of tickets strung together"

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire
journey and one of the following applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

And before the head biting starts, that doesn't mean this is how it will happen, many staff use common sense or don't actually care about it that much and I dare say the TOC(s) don't want the attention either, but I think it would be irresponsible of 'the forum' to even suggest that you have a right to carry on, when that is not the case.

There is strong evidence that the customer does have the right to "complete their journey", and I am yet to hear of any case where the passenger has been denied that right, other than where the customer has failed to allow sufficient interchange time. Several people I know, and myself, have had split ticket combinations accepted for taxis/alternative routes/later trains, etc. and if anyone tried to deny that right they would face a robust argument and have their name taken, and a strong letter sent to Customer Services, and if that didn't produce results, to Passenger Focus, and if necessary MPs and the media. However so far I am unaware of any case that has got to even the complaints to customer services stage, and all cases that I am aware of have been dealt with appropriately and correctly by rail staff!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It may well be 1 journey

No "may" about it - it is enshrined in the Conditions of Carriage

but when you split tickets its 2 separate contracts with different TOC's,

Firstly, the "contract" you agree on an AP ticket says if you are delayed you can complete the journey, and that you can combine more than one journey, so the fact it's "two contracts" is irrelevant.

Secondly, the idea that a TOC doesn't have to help you is flawed:-

43. Help from Train Companies if you are stranded

If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you."

So a TOC can't simply deny responsibility and therefore say they won't help you.

for instance
If I miss last connnection & have to pay for taxi home you decide to go to small claims court to recover costs which TOC would you claim against.
TOC1 ran late but forefilled their contract or TOC2 train ran right time but you were not there to catch it.
I would suggest that if you plan to split your ticket then do it at station stop before so least you have a through ticket to your end destination

I would always aim to get the taxi authorised.

Your argument could apply equally to a journey on one ticket, for example EC & Connections, if the EC train was due to arrive into Edinburgh for the last train to Inverness and the Inverness train didn't wait, you could make the same argument. That's not really a 'split ticketing' argument. I've known of someone who the TOCs couldn't agree to get a taxi for because they were blaming each other, he wasn't on split ticketing. It took a lot of arguing for him to get the taxi authorised.

See http://theticketcollector.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/liability-for-getting-you-home/

So yes, the TOCs may argue and use excuses, but that isn't a split ticketing issue, and it may also happen on a walk-on ticket, not just with Advance tickets. You need to be assertive and know your rights.

 

[Ferret]

Herein lies why I hate this topic. Condition 19 appears to specifically relate to travelling on one train with two tickets. There's no section d that says 'if you are changing trains'. A smartarse lawyer could argue that Condition 19 has no relevance here, and then Yorkie's argument is buggered! The reality is that we have no definitive answer to offer in the circumstances described, and we won't until it's contested in court. But, we all know it probably wouldn't get that far - after all, in such a grey area, would you want to risk an embarassing and costly defeat, either as a TOC or the customer affected?

What concerns me about Yorkie's advice is that if, in Contract Law, you enter into an agreement with Bodge Jobs Inc, and they stuff it up, you can't expect Vorsprung Durch Bostit Inc to come and pick up the pieces free of charge, because VDB Inc were not party to the previous contract.

 

[yorkie]

Herein lies why I hate this topic. Condition 19 appears to specifically relate to travelling on one train with two tickets. There's no section d that says 'if you are changing trains'. A smartarse lawyer could argue that Condition 19 has no relevance here, and then Yorkie's argument is buggered! The reality is that we have no definitive answer to offer in the circumstances described, and we won't until it's contested in court. But, we all know it probably wouldn't get that far - after all, in such a grey area, would you want to risk an embarassing and costly defeat, either as a TOC or the customer affected?

I don't think so. It's clearly eliminating non-stop trains (unless one ticket is a season etc) on point-to-point tickets; it's pretty obvious that if you are changing trains that the train calls there.

However it is usually possible to arrange the Advance ticket combinations such that they combine at a point where you are not changing trains. I don't believe that actually matters, but it can be done to avoid potential arguments with people looking to get out of their obligations.

What concerns me about Yorkie's advice is that if, in Contract Law, you enter into an agreement with Bodge Jobs Inc, and they stuff it up, you can't expect Vorsprung Durch Bostit Inc to come and pick up the pieces free of charge, because VDB Inc were not party to the previous contract.

Yeah, if each TOC was entirely independent, and privatisation had done away with a common ticket system, there was no National Conditions of Carriage with each having their own, we'd be stuffed. I'm glad that it's not like that on the Railway, and we have conditions that say that "any Train Company" has to help you, not just the one(s) whose trains you are entitled to use.

Did you read this about what happens when rail staff attempt to get out of their responsibilities? The author did eventually get it authorised and received apologies from the TOCs concerned.

 

[Ferret]

Did you read this about what happens when rail staff attempt to get out of their responsibilities? The author did eventually get it authorised and received apologies from the TOCs concerned.

What a cock up!:roll: But, not a great deal of relevance to the matter at hand, one ticket involved and a clear case of staff error.

Yeah, if each TOC was entirely independent, and privatisation had done away with a common ticket system, there was no National Conditions of Carriage with each having their own, we'd be stuffed. I'm glad that it's not like that on the Railway, and we have conditions that say that "any Train Company" has to help you, not just the one(s) whose trains you are entitled to use.

Note, it mentions circumstances within the control of the railway company. What if they aren't?! Too many grey areas here................

My concern is still the definition of the word journey, and a key part of Contract Law known as the formation of a contract. A clever lawyer can easily argue that two tickets means you've entered into two contracts for two journeys. Your questionable interpretation of the Advance ticket T&Cs doesn't get around this.

 

[yorkie]

What a cock up!:roll: But, not a great deal of relevance to the matter at hand, one ticket involved and a clear case of staff error.

It is relevant, as the issue of multiple TOCs being involved and each TOC denying responsibility has been raised in this thread, particularly by blacknight. However, it is important to bear in mind that, although it rarely happens, TOCs can attempt to wriggle out of their responsibilities on any ticket, and not exclusively where split tickets are involved.

Therefore, the claim that buying one ticket, rather than a split ticket, automatically means that such an issue is guaranteed not to occur, but that splitting the ticket means that such issues may occur, is not actually true. This is important as some people are encouraged to spend more money in the belief that they are either gaining more 'rights' or will get less hassle.

Note, it mentions circumstances within the control of the railway company. What if they aren't?! Too many grey areas here................

Yes, there are too many grey areas. I believe it's worded in such a way so that if, for example, a major problem occurred e.g. a storm causing flooding on several main lines out of London, they wouldn't have to put thousands of people up in hotels or arrange thousands of taxis, and nor could they be expected to.

My concern is still the definition of the word journey, and a key part of Contract Law known as the formation of a contract. A clever lawyer can easily argue that two tickets means you've entered into two contracts for two journeys. Your questionable interpretation of the Advance ticket T&Cs doesn't get around this.

I don't think so, because you are relying on a change of train to make the journey no longer count as one journey. That would seem a very odd interpretation and one that is NOT "expressed in plain, intelligible language", there must also be great "doubt" about that. In which case, the following law is invoked:-

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
Written contracts
7. - (1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

Therefore the interpretation that you can indeed use more than one ticket for a journey, when changing trains, would prevail, as this is the one "most favourable to the consumer".

When there is doubt about a term, it has to be interpreted in the favour of the consumer by law. I trust the TOCs will not break the law, or endorse any breaking of the law by their employees.

I asked ATOC about this, and they refused to make the T&Cs clearer, stating that they expect TOCs will look after the customer and "show discretion".

Passenger Focus were asked how many cases of passengers had such problems on split ticketing. I forget the details but it was a one-figure number in a year (possibly 2007 or 2008, it was a while back now), and all except 1 got reimbursed by the TOCs. We don't have detail about the 1 but I suspect that person didn't leave sufficient interchange time (or perhaps some other issue that invalidated his/her claim).

 

[moonrakerz]

Did you read this about what happens when rail staff attempt to get out of their responsibilities?

The last couple of lines in this reference read:-

"Secondly, I was criticised for relying on online journey planners, including their own website! If a passenger can’t rely on this information, who can they turn to?"


The gent obviously did NOT read this "get out clause" from the NR website !

"ATOC and / or its respective suppliers makes no representations about the suitability of the information, products, and services contained on this Web Site for any purpose. To the maximum extent permitted by law, ATOC Limited and / or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties, terms and conditions with regard to this information, products, and services, including all implied warranties, terms and conditions, by statute, collaterally or otherwise, of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose, title, and non-infringement. In no event shall ATOC and / or its suppliers be liable for any loss of profit, loss of opportunity, loss of business, loss of revenue, wasted time, wasted costs, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential loss arising out of or in any way connected with the use of this Web Site or with the delay or inability to use this Web Site, or for any information, products, and services obtained through this Web Site, or otherwise arising out of the use of this Web Site, whether based on contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise, even if ATOC or any of its suppliers has been advised of the possibility of damages. Except in relation to liability for death or personal injury, for which no limit applies, the liability of ATOC and / or its respective suppliers for direct loss arising out of the use of this Web Site, whether based on contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise, is limited to the total value of the transaction under which the claim arises for any one event or series of connected events."

PS: "This does not affect your statutory rights as a consumer." (Note the use of "consumer" NOT "customer")

 

[Ferret]

I don't think so, because you are relying on a change of train to make the journey no longer count as one journey. That would seem a very odd interpretation and one that is NOT "expressed in plain, intelligible language", there must also be great "doubt" about that. In which case, the following law is invoked:-

Therefore the interpretation that you can indeed use more than one ticket for a journey, when changing trains, would prevail, as this is the one "most favourable to the consumer".

When there is doubt about a term, it has to be interpreted in the favour of the consumer.

I asked ATOC about this, and they refused to make the T&Cs clearer, stating that they expect TOCs will look after the customer and "show discretion".

Passenger Focus were asked how many cases of passengers had such problems on split ticketing. I forget the details but it was a one-figure number in a year (possibly 2007 or 2008, it was a while back now), and all except 1 got reimbursed by the TOCs. We don't have detail about the 1 but I suspect that person didn't leave sufficient interchange time.

Pretty much standard stuff from ATOC there then with regard to showing discretion. Like I've said before, customer service and all that I guess the fact that there have been so few issues with regards to split ticketing probably indicates that we're debating a set of circumstances that rarely happen! This in turn is probably why ATOC are reluctant to change the wording of the T&Cs. Still, I hate it when there is no definite answer to something.

I do love your constant reference to the UTCCR though. But, before you get to that point, you have to understand the relevant case law on the formation of a contract. In law, the whole thing probably hinges on whether two tickets equals one contract or two separate contracts. The following could well be relevant, taken of course from the CoC

"1. Your Contract

A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each company whose trains you have the right to use"

So, a ticket = a contract. This smartarse lawyer I keep referring to could then say that it naturally follows that two tickets = evidence of two contracts, and there the fun starts.

So, to sum up, it's fair to say in your opinion, the OP should not have a problem - ATOC after all have issued guidance to TOCs to show discretion in these circumstances. Now, does this imply that ATOC are not 100% sure themselves on what the legalities of the whole issue means? If they aren't sure, I'm pretty confident you aren't either! In which case, it's probably not right for you to be advising people on here that the law is behind them........it may not be!

 

[yorkie]

Pretty much standard stuff from ATOC there then with regard to showing discretion. Like I've said before, customer service and all that I guess the fact that there have been so few issues with regards to split ticketing probably indicates that we're debating a set of circumstances that rarely happen! This in turn is probably why ATOC are reluctant to change the wording of the T&Cs. Still, I hate it when there is no definite answer to something.

I think I know why; because they have nothing to lose with the status quo.

Some people will simply not persue it and make their own arrangements. Some people will persue their rights. If ATOC made it clear what our rights were then less people would fall into the first category, and that costs the TOCs money. But they aren't denying us any rights, as that would cost them bad publicity and they don't want rulings against them.

I do love your constant reference to the UTCCR though. But, before you get to that point, you have to understand the relevant case law on the formation of a contract. In law, the whole thing probably hinges on whether two tickets equals one contract or two separate contracts. The following could well be relevant, taken of course from the CoC

"1. Your Contract

A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each company whose trains you have the right to use"

So, a ticket = a contract. This smartarse lawyer I keep referring to could then say that it naturally follows that two tickets = evidence of two contracts, and there the fun starts.

I still don't think this gets them out of it.

Even if you have 2 contracts, if both state that you can combine 2 or more 'contracts' for one piece of work, there would be no issue. e.g. say I get some building work done. I ask a builder to quote for it, but I ask them to split the work into 2 work packages for financial reasons. Each may then be a separate 'contract' but say the 2nd package is dependent on the 1st being completed, if the contractor didn't ensure that sub-contractors got the 1st package completed on time, they can hardly blame me - the consumer - and state that I am therefore liable to pay a higher price for the 2nd work package!

Again, if the TOCs were entirely independent and you combined 2 AP tickets that were specifically only valid for the respective TOCs, and there was no common conditions, then I think we'd have a problem. But the rail industry has common conditions and TOCs cannot refuse to help passengers on the basis that they are travelling with a different company. I am very glad that a common ticketing system was retained at privatisation and we must not forget that.

So, to sum up, it's fair to say in your opinion, the OP should not have a problem - ATOC after all have issued guidance to TOCs to show discretion in these circumstances.

Agreed.

Now, does this imply that ATOC are not 100% sure themselves on what the legalities of the whole issue means?

Each case may have to be looked at independently to determine the exact legality as to which TOC is liable and what each TOC should do, but I believe that the overall issue that the customer should be allowed onward travel is not in doubt, and I don't think for one moment ATOC are in doubt about that obligation.

If they aren't sure, I'm pretty confident you aren't either! In which case, it's probably not right for you to be advising people on here that the law is behind them........it may not be!

I stand by my advice, which was initially to report that myself and others I know have used split ticketing with no problems, that John @ Home's advice was good and should minimise problems, and since then I've had to deal with counter-claims of reasons why the TOCs may not allow onward travel, each time I have countered that and will continue to do so. Unless you can state that the law is against the consumer, then there has to be doubt, and I have quoted what the law says when there is doubt.

 

[Ferret]

I stand by my advice, which was initially to report that myself and others I know have used split ticketing with no problems, that John @ Home's advice was good and should minimise problems, and since then I've had to deal with counter-claims of reasons why the TOCs may not allow onward travel, each time I have countered that and will continue to do so. Unless you can state that the law is against the consumer, then there has to be doubt, and I have quoted what the law says when there is doubt.

No, you've given your interpretation of the law, which is not quite the same thing. That interpretation seems to suggest that every time there is a dispute between a company and consumer, the cunsumer will win. You'd only have to look through some recent case reports to know that isn't quite the reality! Like I say, it seems pretty clear that ATOC don't know where the legalities lie so I've no idea what makes you think you know better!!!! The fact of the matter is that unless you are legally qualified, you have no place dishing out legal advice.

Anyway, I quite liked John @ Home's advice myself too - exactly the right way to go about it. If the customer seeks advice and assistance in that manner, and the affected TOC comes to an agreement with a sister TOC to provide onward travel, then that's dealing with the matter as per ATOC's instruction to show discretion and more importantly providing good customer service. Exactly how it should be, and rendering any discussions on the murky world of Contract law pointless.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Therefore, the claim that buying one ticket, rather than a split ticket, automatically means that such an issue is guaranteed not to occur, but that splitting the ticket means that such issues may occur, is not actually true. This is important as some people are encouraged to spend more money in the belief that they are either gaining more 'rights' or will get less hassle.

It is quite possible to be travelling on split tickets which cost more than the corresponding ticket for the whole journey. Or they may even cost exactly the same as a ticket for the whole journey.

So whatever arguments may be brought into consideration on the question of the rights of a passenger with split tickets, they cannot assume that there will be a financial significance associated with the 'splitting'.

 

[yorkie]

No, you've given your interpretation of the law, which is not quite the same thing.

I provided a direct quote.

That interpretation seems to suggest that every time there is a dispute between a company and consumer, the cunsumer will win.

It doesn't actually say that.

You'd only have to look through some recent case reports to know that isn't quite the reality!

But do you have any examples of unclear conditions where the consumer lost? I'd like to see them if so...

Like I say, it seems pretty clear that ATOC don't know where the legalities lie so I've no idea what makes you think you know better!!!!

I think ATOC know that they have a duty of care to customers, I am not saying I "know better" at all. ATOC have never stated that customers on split ticketing have any less rights than customers on through ticketing.

The fact of the matter is that unless you are legally qualified, you have no place dishing out legal advice.

I can quote from the law if I want, and I am not dishing out legal advice any more than you are.

Anyway, I quite liked John @ Home's advice myself too - exactly the right way to go about it.

So what's the problem?

If the customer seeks advice and assistance in that manner, and the affected TOC comes to an agreement with a sister TOC to provide onward travel, then that's dealing with the matter as per ATOC's instruction to show discretion and more importantly providing good customer service. Exactly how it should be, and rendering any discussions on the murky world of Contract law pointless.

ATOC have not actually issued an instruction as such, as far as I'm aware, which is what I was wanting them to do. If they have issued an instruction to allow customers onward travel in the event of delays on split ticketing then that would be good news. The impression I got from ATOC was that the current wording is sufficient, they expect there to be no problems, but they refuse to issue any clarification or re-wording of the current terms to make it clear for people who may try to wriggle out of their obligations, which is a shame but that's the situation.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is quite possible to be travelling on split tickets which cost more than the corresponding ticket for the whole journey. Or they may even cost exactly the same as a ticket for the whole journey.

So whatever arguments may be brought into consideration on the question of the rights of a passenger with split tickets, they cannot assume that there will be a financial significance associated with the 'splitting'.

I agree, the costs aren't relevant (although some staff do not like passengers splitting where it reduces costs as it is "beating the system", but tough on them - it's valid!) but the main reason why I would like ATOC to issue a clarification/instruction on the issue is that there is evidence that some people are choosing not to split tickets, or to split tickets at a point that is more expensive, because they are worried about their rights. For example, a few weeks ago I found Bristol - York advance was £40, but splitting reduced it to £20. My concern is that people are pressured into spending £40 with the threat of having to buy a new ticket if they get the cheaper £20 tickets.

If a customer wanted to go a longer route than permitted in the RG, that would be a likely example of where split ticketing may be more expensive than a single ticket, and I agree that it would not be any different in terms of customers rights, however this does raise an interesting prospect in that if a through ticket is not available then rail staff have to offer a combination of tickets. It would be very interesting to see what would happen if a TOC then refused to honour onward travel on the basis that the tickets were split, and if that went to court, and the passenger pointed out that they were offered the split. Of course, it would never get that far, as if anyone 'on the ground' acted in such a way I believe it would be put right when a complaint was made, as there's no way the TOCs would want the bad publicity and rulings against them.

 

[Ferret]

I provided a direct quote.

No, you did more than that:-

Therefore the interpretation that you can indeed use more than one ticket for a journey, when changing trains, would prevail, as this is the one "most favourable to the consumer".

So what's the problem?

Well, with all due respect, the problem is that you present your opinion on the legalities of ticketing issues as actual fact on a widely read forum which is quite irresponsible in my opinion. What if you're actually wrong?

Unless you have examples of actual cases where the Court has found in favour of a claimant and against a TOC in relevant circumstances, it's a risky business trying to second guess how a theoretical case would go. If you're ever bored enough, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's "Law of Contract" is a wonderful read.....Alas I've had to read it. More than once