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

[yorkie]

If letting them get away with it constitutes good customer service then the latter. As a ticket examiner, can you go out on a limb without being 100% sure of your ground? I don't think you can.

Yes, I agree, and am glad you have that view, which I believe most guards do.

Here's another thought that's just occured to me. Do specific conditions attached to a ticket override the CoC? I ask because we've noticed many people using a combination of a West Yorkshire all zones weekly pass (ie, issued by a PTE) and a Micklefield-York 7 day season to travel on direct trains to York. Now, read condition 19 of the CoC. If one is a season ticket and one is not then it's valid. It goes on to state that a pass issued by a PTE does not count as a season ticket. Now to me, that satisfies condition 19! However, the conditions of the West Yorkshire pass state that this combination of tickets does not apply to services operated by XC, EC, possibly TPE too - which I presume is because they don't stop at Micklefield. Now, I'm posting this from a Blackberry so I can't get hold of the exact quote, but I think SYPTE say something similar about their PTE season ticket too, but also that this condition supercedes anything in the CoC regarding combinations of tickets. So, if specific terms and conditions of a ticket/contract override the CoC, does that mean that the specific conditions that apply to advance fares override condition 19 as well, meaning that in your example, from Newcastle is arguably invalid as he wasn't at the departure station at the time listed on his ticket? Discuss!

Firstly dealing with conditions that reduce rights in the Conditions of Carriage.

It's a good question.

These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights. The Train Companies may give you more extensive rights than those set out in these Conditions and, if they do so, these may be found in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter or other publications. Details of where you can find this information will be available when you buy your ticket. The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so. These Conditions set out the minimum level of rights you are entitled to expect.

For example the Conditions of Carriage says you can break your journey, but some tickets may not permit that right. So that is what allows them to withdraw that right on some tickets.

Now let's look at Condition 19.

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.
You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets relating to travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies (see Condition 10).

If you do not comply with this Condition, you will be treated as having joined the train without a ticket and the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply, either to the entire journey, or from the last station where the train stopped at which at least one of the tickets was valid.

For the purposes of this Condition, a “leisure travel pass” means any multi-journey ticket
(excluding Season Tickets) valid for:
(i) at least 7 consecutive days; or
(ii) at least 3 days in a period of at least 7 consecutive days
and includes rover tickets, travel passes, flexipass tickets and Britrail passes.

There is nothing to state Advance tickets are exempt, indeed there is nothing to say that the right to combine tickets can be denied with any ticket type.

So I believe that there is no way that anyone can justify that Advance tickets cannot be combined on Condition 19, as I see nothing that can support that view.

As for the issue of PTE passes, condition b) states that they do not count as season tickets because they are "issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority" it is therefore my opinion that someone using a PTE pass, whether it be for a day, a month, or any period of time, they cannot count it as a season, and cannot combine it with any other non-season for non-stop travel. However if they combine it with a season, that does certainly appear to satisfy Condition 19. I am inclined to agree with Clagmonster's view that the train does not need to call at the station where you change from one ticket to another.

Metro do have a badly-worded rule that says something about passengers using combinations, however it isn't clear to me what they mean, and I do not believe they have the right to exempt themselves from any part of the conditions of carriage except where the conditions of carriage states such an exemption may occur.

If Condition 19 is intended to prevent the use of PTE products being used with both seasons and non-seasons for non-stop trains then they could quite easily re-word it to say something like this...

"(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not, and neither ticket is issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority"

(My proposed alteration in red also the existing text in brackets to be removed)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....So, if specific terms and conditions of a ticket/contract override the CoC, does that mean that the specific conditions that apply to advance fares override condition 19 as well, meaning that in your example, from Newcastle is arguably invalid as he wasn't at the departure station at the time listed on his ticket? Discuss!

Firstly dealing with conditions that reduce rights in the Conditions of Carriage.

It's a good question.

These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights. The Train Companies may give you more extensive rights than those set out in these Conditions and, if they do so, these may be found in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter or other publications. Details of where you can find this information will be available when you buy your ticket. The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so. These Conditions set out the minimum level of rights you are entitled to expect.

For example the Conditions of Carriage says you can break your journey, but some tickets may not permit that right. So that is what allows them to withdraw that right on some tickets.

Now let's look at Condition 19.

[Condition 19 edited out of the quote as I think we all know it by now!]

There is nothing to state Advance tickets are exempt, indeed there is nothing to say that the right to combine tickets can be denied with any ticket type.

A combination of two things is not always the same as those same two things combined.

If I wanted to paint my living room, I could use a combination of red and blue paint to create a nice patchwork effect. If I was to combine the red and the blue, I could end up with purple walls (or brown depending on mixing skills and the exact shade/tone of colours used) and that is clearly not the same result.

How would you combine two tickets with different conditions, say an advance and an anytime fare? Would you have an advance fare where you can break your journey and travel on any train? Or an anytime ticket valid only on a specific train and not valid for break of journey?

Condition 19 says you MAY USE a combination of fares, it does not say you can combine them to make one. It does not say you can ignore conditions specific to the ticket either (missing the first booked train, etc).

On the subject of PTE rovers and such not being valid on certain TOC services, I have highlighted in the quote above, that TOCs (and PTEs) can restrict the use of a ticket on reduced price tickets, provided it is in the conditions of that ticket. Does this override the later condition that restrictions on the use of some TOCs must be noted on the ticket? Ofcourse it does.

If in the conditions of the ticket it says "NOT FOR USE ON CROSS COUNTRY SERVICES", it is a restriction in the conditions of the ticket, it is therefore part of the contract and in the introduction to the NCoC it says this is fine.

If, however, no mention is made in the conditions of the ticket, on advance fares for example, it would have to be noted on the ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
A combination of two things is not always the same as those same two things combined.

Is anyone saying it is?

You are, by saying that you can combine two tickets for one journey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If I wanted to paint my living room, I could use a combination of red and blue paint to create a nice patchwork effect. If I was to combine the red and the blue, I could end up with purple walls (or brown depending on mixing skills and the exact shade/tone of colours used) and that is clearly not the same result.

No, but no-one is going to stop you combining two colours to make one paint.

You have clearly failed to understand the point of the example, or you are playing dumb, I would hope it is the former of the two...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
How would you combine two tickets with different conditions, say an advance and an anytime fare? Would you have an advance fare where you can break your journey and travel on any train? Or an anytime ticket valid only on a specific train and not valid for break of journey?

How would you do it?....

You tell me, it's what your arguement boils down to...

...That's like asking how long is a piece of string. What matters is that you can.

How? It's not in the NCoC or the conditions of the tickets...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
Condition 19 says you MAY USE a combination of fares, it does not say you can combine them to make one.

It says you can combine them to make one journey.

It says you MAY USE them to make one journey. Combining them is not mentioned anywhere!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
It does not say you can ignore conditions specific to the ticket either (missing the first booked train, etc).

If you are delayed while travelling, you may use later trains to complete your journey.

So you are saying that the "if you miss you first booked train you must buy a new ticket" condition can be ignored?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
On the subject of PTE rovers and such not being valid on certain TOC services, I have highlighted in the quote above, that TOCs (and PTEs) can restrict the use of a ticket on reduced price tickets, provided it is in the conditions of that ticket. Does this override the later condition that restrictions on the use of some TOCs must be noted on the ticket? Of course it does.

Which PTE passes are not valid on certain TOCs? I'm not aware of any. If you are referring to Metro, they are valid on CrossCountry and East Coast services.

If a condition of the ticket is that it is not valid on certain services, it is a restriction that applies, even if it is not marked on the ticket. You have quoted the passage in the NCoC that says it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If in the conditions of the ticket it says "NOT FOR USE ON CROSS COUNTRY SERVICES", it is a restriction in the conditions of the ticket, it is therefore part of the contract and in the introduction to the NCoC it says this is fine.

NCoC says that tickets may be restricted to, or prohibited from, the use on train companies, where such a condition is in place it will be shown on the ticket.

But if it is a condition of the ticket it does not need to be printed on the ticket, the NCoC says this in it's introduction, a passage you have already quoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If, however, no mention is made in the conditions of the ticket, on advance fares for example, it would have to be noted on the ticket.

TOC restrictions are shown on the ticket.

Only where they are not in the conditions of the ticket.

 

[yorkie]

Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
A combination of two things is not always the same as those same two things combined.



You are, by saying that you can combine two tickets for one journey.

I am saying you can combine 2 tickets for one journey, yes. That doesn't mean that two things are "the same" as one thing. But they can be combined to make one journey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If I wanted to paint my living room, I could use a combination of red and blue paint to create a nice patchwork effect. If I was to combine the red and the blue, I could end up with purple walls (or brown depending on mixing skills and the exact shade/tone of colours used) and that is clearly not the same result.



You have clearly failed to understand the point of the example, or you are playing dumb, I would hope it is the former of the two...

The point is, you can combine whatever paint you want to get the desired effect, that is your right.

Equally, we can combine whatever tickets we want, providing we don't break Condition 19 by getting, say, a non-stop train when we are not entitled to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
How would you combine two tickets with different conditions, say an advance and an anytime fare? Would you have an advance fare where you can break your journey and travel on any train? Or an anytime ticket valid only on a specific train and not valid for break of journey?



You tell me, it's what your arguement boils down to...

In the example I posted above, York to Glasgow, you would get the booked trains, and remain on the train at Newcastle where you change from one ticket to another. If you are delayed while travelling, you are entitled to get later trains to complete the journey, which is to Glasgow.

How? It's not in the NCoC or the conditions of the tickets...

What isn't?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
Condition 19 says you MAY USE a combination of fares, it does not say you can combine them to make one.



It says you MAY USE them to make one journey. Combining them is not mentioned anywhere!

Using 2 tickets to make 1 journey is known as a "combination"; you can use whatever terminology you wish, but what matters is we "MAY USE" two or more tickets for one journey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
It does not say you can ignore conditions specific to the ticket either (missing the first booked train, etc).



So you are saying that the "if you miss you first booked train you must buy a new ticket" condition can be ignored?

I can easily re-word that; are you saying that the "if you are delayed while travelling, you can travel on later trains to complete your journey" condition be ignored?

If you believe there is a conflict in terms, then there is some legislation that may resolve it (IANAL):

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Written contracts
7. - (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
On the subject of PTE rovers and such not being valid on certain TOC services, I have highlighted in the quote above, that TOCs (and PTEs) can restrict the use of a ticket on reduced price tickets, provided it is in the conditions of that ticket. Does this override the later condition that restrictions on the use of some TOCs must be noted on the ticket? Of course it does.



If a condition of the ticket is that it is not valid on certain services, it is a restriction that applies, even if it is not marked on the ticket. You have quoted the passage in the NCoC that says it.

NCoC says it will be "shown on the ticket" if such a restriction applies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If in the conditions of the ticket it says "NOT FOR USE ON CROSS COUNTRY SERVICES", it is a restriction in the conditions of the ticket, it is therefore part of the contract and in the introduction to the NCoC it says this is fine.

NCoC says it will be shown on the ticket.

But if it is a condition of the ticket it does not need to be printed on the ticket, the NCoC says this in it's introduction, a passage you have already quoted.

I hardly think that the condition specifically relating to TOC specific tickets can be over-ridden by a general introduction that doesn't mention any specifics!

Yes, the introduction says there may be some limitations, the Conditions then go into detail on various points, one of which is is that TOCs may restrict the use of certain tickets in terms of which company you may travel on, and it makes it clear that such restrictions will be "shown on the ticket". I don't see how an introduction can over-rule the detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hairyhandedfool
If, however, no mention is made in the conditions of the ticket, on advance fares for example, it would have to be noted on the ticket.



Only where they are not in the conditions of the ticket.

No, it has to be shown on the ticket. In the case of Advance fares specifically, this is always noted on the ticket as far as I am aware. When do you believe it isn't?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I am saying you can combine 2 tickets for one journey, yes. That doesn't mean that two things are "the same" as one thing. But they can be combined to make one journey.

The point is, you can combine whatever paint you want to get the desired effect, that is your right.

Equally, we can combine whatever tickets we want, providing we don't break Condition 19 by getting, say, a non-stop train when we are not entitled to.

Lets say the Leeds to Newcastle ticket is red, the Newcastle to Glasgow ticket is blue, and the Leeds to Glasgow through ticket is Purple. What we have is red and blue, not purple, not brown, not anything else, red and blue.

What you are saying basically is that red is red when it's alone, but when you have blue aswell, they are both purple, but they aren't, they are still red and blue.

In the example I posted above, York to Glasgow, you would get the booked trains, and remain on the train at Newcastle where you change from one ticket to another. If you are delayed while travelling, you are entitled to get later trains to complete the journey, which is to Glasgow.

But you didn't catch your first booked train on the Newcastle-Glasgow ticket, therefore you MUST buy a new ticket, it is a condition of the ticket Yorkie, not a made up rule or something that can be ignored at will, acondition of the ticket you have bought. You agree to that condition when you buy the ticket.

What isn't?

Combining tickets. Copy out Condition 19 and highlight where it says you can 'combine' two tickets for one journey. Show me how you determine which conditions apply to that 'combined' ticket, better still, in addition to all that, put the word 'combine' (or any word or phrase of the same meaning) in size 7 letters so I don't miss it. If you can do that, I might, just might, conceed that you are correct.

Using 2 tickets to make 1 journey is known as a "combination"; you can use whatever terminology you wish, but what matters is we "MAY USE" two or more tickets for one journey.

Terminology is key, the headline uses the word combination, nowhere does it say you may 'combine' two or more tickets. 'May use' means precisely that you may use ticket A-B to get from A to B and then use ticket B-C to get from B to C, it is a combination of tickets, but there is no combining involved at all.

I can easily re-word that; are you saying that the "if you are delayed while travelling, you can travel on later trains to complete your journey" condition be ignored?

I am not ignoring, or denying that, it is a condition that applies to the ticket, but you choose to ignore a condition that applies to the ticket, you must be on the first booked train, if you miss it FOR ANY REASON you MUST buy a new ticket.

If you believe there is a conflict in terms, then there is some legislation that may resolve it (IANAL):

Irrelevant. There is nothing in condition 19 to support your view, it is as clear as a bright, cloud free, Summer's day.

 

[yorkie]

Lets say the Leeds to Newcastle ticket is red, the Newcastle to Glasgow ticket is blue, and the Leeds to Glasgow through ticket is Purple. What we have is red and blue, not purple, not brown, not anything else, red and blue.

What you are saying basically is that red is red when it's alone, but when you have blue aswell, they are both purple, but you don't, you still have red and blue.

You can use whatever analogy you like, but what matters is that more than one ticket can be used for one journey.

But you didn't catch your first booked train on the Newcastle-Glasgow ticket, therefore you MUST buy a new ticket, it is a condition of the ticket Yorkie, not a made up rule or something that can be ignored at will, acondition of the ticket you have bought. You agree to that condition when you buy the ticket.

You also agree to the condition that you are making one journey, and that if delays occur while travelling you may complete your journey on later trains.

If you believe there is a conflict in terms, I have quoted many times the legislation that addresses such a conflict.

Combining tickets. Copy out Condition 19 and highlight where it says you can 'combine' two tickets for one journey. Show me how you determine which conditions apply to that 'combined' ticket, better still, in addition to all that, put the word 'combine' (or any word or phrase of the same meaning) in size 7 letters so I don't miss it. If you can do that, I might, just might, conceed that you are correct.

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

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.

Terminology is key, the headline uses the word combination, nowhere does it say you may 'combine' two or more tickets. 'May use' means precisely that you may use ticket A-B to get from A to B and then use ticket B-C to get from B to C, it is a combination of tickets, but there is no combining involved at all.

The headline is combining, but you deny that it combining? Seriously?

Well, whatever terminology you want to use, I don't think it matters. What matters is that you can use 2 or more tickets for 1 journey.

I am not ignoring, or denying that, it is a condition that applies to the ticket, but you choose to ignore a condition that applies to the ticket, you must be on the first booked train, if you miss it FOR ANY REASON you MUST buy a new ticket.

It's a ludicrous argument. For your argument to be right, you have to ignore the statement about what happens if you are delayed while travelling. If you don't ignore it, but believe there is a contradiction, then there is legislation for dealing with such contradictions which I have quoted, I don't think this can easily be ignored.

Irrelevant. There is nothing in condition 19 to support your view, it is as clear as a bright, cloud free, Summer's day.

Condition 19 clearly states you can use 2 tickets for 1 journey, so are you saying:
1) That you disagree that 2 tickets can be combined to make 1 journey; or
2) That although it is one journey, the rule saying you can complete your journey if delayed is 'trumped' by the rule saying you must get the booked trains?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Okay put simply, when you bought the tickets, you agreed that if you missed the first booked train on either of the tickets FOR ANY REASON, that you would have to buy a new ticket.

You arrive at Newcastle late, so far, both sides have honoured the deal. But you have failed to catch the first booked train on your second ticket. You have already agreed that you have to buy a new ticket if, FOR ANY REASON, that happened. It no longer matters that you are late, because the ticket you had is no longer valid.

There is no conflict in terms. It is plain and simple. You agreed to the conditions, you cannot ignore them when they go against you.

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie/HHF, I've got a wider point to make here. I work as a Guard with a fair amount of ticket knowledge for obvious reasons!!! I've also studied law prior to starting on the railway. Yorkie is pretty knowledgeable on tickets as well, indeed probably far more knowledgeable than many Guards/RPIs. Despite all our knowledge, neither of us can agree what is what with combinations of tickets, PTE passes and such like, I've struggled to get my head around Groupsave but have come to the conclusion that Yorkie has got this one wrong, and that's before we even start on things like the routeing guide. Now, I have to confess that the routeing guide at times completely baffles me. I have to read, re-read and then re-re-read at times, and of the odd occasion even then I'm not convinced I get the right answer!!!!! Put all this together and I have to ask if our ticketing system lacks clarity? If we can't get it right, what hope does average Joe have?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Good post!

You have identified the underlying problem, one which has arisen due to a number of causal factors - some historic, some due to fragmentaion, some just through carlessness, and other ad hoc developments.

. . . I have to ask if our ticketing system lacks clarity?

It does!

We have the unsatisfactory position where there a number of inter-dependent Regulations and Conditions which still leave some poorly defined 'grey areas'. That leaves us with uncertainty and the last resort of the uncertain: relying on custom and practice as a guide to what constitutes valid travel.

We could hope that the TOCs could clarify their policies and intentions where the Conditions are unclear or inconsistent, but it really needs a broader view to be taken, which I think is what you're getting at, Ferret.

But what the travelling public does NOT want is for the TOCs to re-write the regulations which cover the grey areas in a way which favours themselves and disadvantages the passenger. Perhaps some a tri-partite grouping involving the TOCs and ATOC, passenger groups and Passenger Focus, and the regulatory bodies ORR and DfT could be given the task of tackling those areas which are in a mess?

 

[Ferret]

It would be up to XC to consider whether or not to sue the customer if the customer didn't pay because they held a ticket that appears valid in accordance with NCoC. I would hope XC would not pursue such a course.

Of course, if the passenger refused to pay and gave name/address details and was either TIR'd or UPFN'd then that's exactly what could happen. I've got to ask though Yorkie - are you not a tad curious as to what the actual answer is? I am! I mean, we can offer our points of view on here until the cows come home but it doesn't bring us any closer to knowing who is right! It may well be that somebody has already ended up in Court under these very circumstances and we just don't know about it!

I've got hold of that South Yorkshire PTE leaflet today - and there's an absolute gem contained in it!

Condition 3b - Zonal Travelmasters may not be used for part payment of rail journeys:

(i) leaving a zone unless the train stops at the last station in that zone to allow passengers to alight or
(ii) entering a zone unless the train stops at the first station in that zone to take up passengers

Condition 10 - Conditions of Carriage

b. Rail passengers are carried subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage except that where there is any conflict, Travelmaster conditions take precedence.

Now, this would support my view that conditions of a specific ticket can overrule the NRCoC, which could have implications for the Groupsave issue. However, it is interesting that SYPTE have felt the need to spell it out as an actual expressed term of their contract in effect. Still, from this we can now categorically state that you can't combine an SY Travelmaster with any other ticket to travel from Sheffield-Wakefield/Leeds on XC whatever Condition 19 says.

 

[cuccir]

There's a lot of text here and moments where I confess to getting lost, but what's clear is that a number of different people on this thread - who are as well read in terms of rail tickets T&Cs in the UK as anyone - disagree fundamentally over interpretations of the NCoC and T&Cs in two areas {please correct me if I'm wrong!}. Furthermore, I don't think either sets of interpretation stand out as particularly unreasonable: they certainly both have some internal logic. The differences seem to boil down to:

* Whether restrictions printed on leaflets/documentation associated with tickets are adequate to over-rule the NCoC where such restrictions are not replicated on tickets themselves

* Whether the condition allowing two or more tickets to be combined into one journey also implicitly extends all rights/restrictions of the NCoC to that journey as a whole ie that this condition effectively makes the tickets one combined contract

What's more problematic and prescient, is that such differences in interpretation extend to staff. In these two circumstances being discussed, the NCoC and other T&C's are at worst misleading and at best open to alternative interpretations. This is not too surprising - there are so many tickets and possible journeys that it's probably impossible to construct completely water-tight NCoC.

The question should then return to why a guideline cannot be issued by, well, anyone? Surely an individual TOC could set a precedent and issue a guideline on these two fundamental sets of issues to its staff if ATOC were unwilling to do so centrally? Are there no staff - perhaps members of this forum - who would ask management for guidelines on this? (I can understand why people might be unwilling to do this if company working cultures do not encourage it!)

 

[jon0844]

At what point must a customer ask for proof of the quality of training a member of staff they will receive? If someone is not qualified, they say so. That does away with any problems.

I'm with Yorkie though, in that, if there are lots of different interpretations or things that aren't completely clear, any court will usually side with the smaller party - i.e. the customer. They are not required to have a full legal understanding of such complicated T&Cs.

That's why, if this was ever taken to court, the TOCs and ATOC would settle out of court to prevent any judge ordering simplification of the rules, or setting a precedent.

We need all of these things tested in court, or for the Government to step in and sort it out so that there can be no ambiguity.

Ryanair claims to be a point-to-point airline and will not care if you're delayed by something that prevents you making their flight. They make this quite clear, but I'm not even sure whether that's legally correct - but, has that been tested? However, they DO make that very clear indeed.

I am not sure any TOC makes this clear. If they did, whether correct or not, at least the TOCs would have a defence in that they'd warned the passenger. Now, that would probably then force people to buy flexible tickets, which in turn would have the media picking up on it. So, instead they keep quiet and then try to do people over on the train, where it's your word against theirs.

 

[Ferret]

That's why, if this was ever taken to court, the TOCs and ATOC would settle out of court to prevent any judge ordering simplification of the rules, or setting a precedent.

But simplification is exactly what's needed - certainly with combinations of tickets, and I'd also argue with routeing guides too. We can argue the same with regard to validity of off-peak tickets. Two bloke get on a train at Brum before 09:30 with off peak tickets. One has a ticket to Exeter, the other a ticket to Totnes. One is valid, one is not! This kind of thing is where I feel the railway doesn't do itself any favours. In the case of unrestricted off peak tickets, just call them what they are - Anytime tickets!

I have to agree though that where there is a genuine ambiguity, the most likely outcome is that the big fish loses. Thing is though, I can't see a Court allowing you to make a questionable interpretation based on tenuous links, then claim there's ambiguity and then allow you to hide behind the UTCCA! There'd have to be genuine ambiguity - and say with Groupsave on XC for example, I'm not sure there actually is!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That's why, if this was ever taken to court, the TOCs and ATOC would settle out of court to prevent any judge ordering simplification of the rules, or setting a precedent.

I expect that the TOC concerned probably would offer an out-of-court settlement if they were advised that their prospects of success was poor.
But the Court would ONLY look at the evidence it is asked to look at, and judge whether evidence is consistent with the Terms, Conditions and Law it is asked to compare it with - Judges don't go off-topic in the middle of a hearing asking a party to go away and "ordering simplification of the rules"!

Thing is though, I can't see a Court allowing you to make a questionable interpretation based on tenuous links, then claim there's ambiguity and then allow you to hide behind the UTCCA! There'd have to be genuine ambiguity . . .

Precisely!
A Court would be asked to compare one fact with one Regulation and get one Judgement on that one comparison. Yes or No.
Such decisions often don't help people in the future in other circumstances.

 

[jon0844]

We need a radical overhaul of ticketing, and more innovative ticketing options given that we now have modern technology that can manage such things - including smartcards.

Given the issues highlighted elsewhere about all the problems with Oyster on account of so many different conditions and rules, we need to start from the beginning.

We've had paper tickets that were very, very clever for their time but are now getting to the point of being unfit for purpose (they store far too little data on the magstrip, while not having room on the front to show certain restrictions clearly enough).

While it would be very costly, it's something that WILL have to happen one day. A nationwide, even EU-wide, smartcard with all new ticketing facilities and a change to fares (you can still have your advance tickets managed separately, as these will nearly always be just that - purchased in advance) is where we want to go. Oyster is a very advanced system, even with its flaws (not least being non-ISTO compliant), but I can see little movement in improving things nationally.

Judges don't go off-topic in the middle of a hearing asking a party to go away and "ordering simplification of the rules"!

No, but they may say this in summing up - and ideally, you'd want someone to actually take ATOC to court to clarify the rules, not over a specific case. Who would actually do this?

The fact is, as it is, I am sure you will be okay if you refuse a PF, refuse to give details (which could mean court action, court orders, bailiffs and a damaged credit history) and so on as they'd probably cave in - but most people would never want to do this. They comply and assume that they'll be okay in the end. It seems the best advice is that if you know, or believe, you are in the right - you make sure that you stick to your guns. Let them call BTP if necessary. Going for the 'easy life' option seems to be anything but, as it's now down to you to spend days/weeks/months fighting to clear your name and get money back etc.. or try and keep the bailiffs from your door.

I now know that if FCC tries it on with me again, I'll refuse the PF. I will happily go to court, knowing that it's highly unlikely to go there. Then it's solved there and then, and I have no bit of paper that forces me to write a letter, gather evidence and lodge an appeal - even if I know I'm certain to win. I don't get compensated for the time taken to appeal, so why would I want to do it?

 

[maddeningcrowds]

Ticket [contract] A is issued subject to NCoC which state "You may use two or more tickets[contracts] for one journey".

Ticket B [contract] is issued subject to NCoC which state "You may use two or more tickets[contracts] for one journey".

Therefore I reject the argument that there are two separate contracts. On the contrary, there are two linked contracts, each of which makes [implied] reference to the other. Simples.


The "who would you take to court" argument is also a red herring. You would take to court whoever did not comply with the NCoC. If both TOCs failed their obligations you can have them as codefendents. Simples.

 

[jon0844]

If you have separate point-to-point tickets that were all purchased before travel, or before any delays/cancellations were made known, then I'm of the opinion that it's one combined contract.

 

[yorkie]

I don't care what terminology is used (either they are 2 linked contracts, or 2 separate contracts that, combined, form one journey and permit onward travel in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage, or they are one contract) but it is a fact that the National Conditions of Carriage states you may use two or more tickets for one journey, the question is whether or not the tickets in question complies with that and also whether or not you are covered for "the journey" or just "the individual ticket". The terms of Advance tickets say that in the event of delays you can complete your "journey" so I am of the opinion that you are covered for the journey and not just for the individual ticket.

Yes there are some conflicting terms but I believe that
A) The condition stating you can complete your journey in the event of delays is effectively an easement which therefore trumps the conditions about having to be on the booked train, etc;
B) If there are conflicting terms then, usually you would expect the customer to be given the benefit of the doubt. If not, and if it went to court, I am not a lawyer but the existing legislation does appear to me to be on the side of the consumer.

I would like to know if HHF has refused onward travel, and if he is ever in a position to do so, whether he would, because if he did and a complaint was made he could find himself with some explaining to do.

 

[Ferret]

I was in the position Yorkie described the other day. Can't remember where I was in the world but bloke had been delayed by some railway related farce with ticket 1 (an SDS) and so missed his first train with his advance (ticket 2). I didn't feel the need to ching him up any more anyway. Whether or not it's valid or invalid is a tad irrelevant to me in this scenario. Far better to worry about customer service than the intricacies of Contract Law in this case.

 

[CarterUSM]

Anyway, I was in the position Yorkie described the other day. Can't remember where I was in the world but bloke had been delayed by some railway related farce with ticket 1 (an SDS) and so missed his first train with his advance (ticket 2). I didn't feel the need to ching him up any more anyway. Whether or not it's valid or invalid is a tad irrelevant to me in this scenario. Far better to worry about customer service than the intricacies of Contract Law in this case.

I've been following this thread with interest, and whilst i'm not in either camp on the intricacies of the subject, this statement sums it up for me, again though, consistency is the unattainable grail!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This post seems to raise a point in terms that haven't been considered in detail before:

Tickets have various pieces of info, e.g. Class, Ticket type, From, To, Route, Validity, etc..

Under Route is for route restrictions . . .

Under Validity is for details of time restrictions . . .

. . . That does not mean they can put ROUTE restrictions here! Route restrictions go under Route.

The idea that you can say a ticket is valid via any permitted route and then under the time restrictions heading claim actually it isn't valid via any permitted route is utterly absurd, and totally bonkers, not to mention totally and utterly illogical.

I don't disagree that its bonkers etc., but it isn't unlawful.

If the requirement in the Conditions are that a restriction must be shown on the ticket, and not going on to state that it must be shown on some pre-defined part of the ticket, then the Condition has been complied with.
Yes, of course its unfortunate that sometimes the space available on a pre-printed form (or pre-designed template) isn't adequate to contain everything we want to write or print, but it is general practice that we continue writing or printing where there is space. There are many examples of documents which have been treated as fully compliant with their legal requirements but which, for one reason or another, have text in sections of the template which wouldn't be the logical place to put them.
As long as the use of out-of-box areas on a pre-designed form doesn't actually change the meaning in a substantive way, this is an example of bonkers = okay.

I've seen reports on other internet fora of someone who has been inconvenienced by taking the rigid view that travel details MUST fit in the proscribed areas within a form but where their name is too long to 'fit in the box'. That''s is an example of bonkers = the solution to a problem.

 

[londonbridge]

I'll ask a question here if I may.

When I go to Old Trafford for our away game I generally use the metrolink but last season the game was played whilst the metro was closed so I used the train. It was a 5.30 kick off,I had an advance single on Virgin on the 20:35 which was the last Virgin train back to Euston,and bought a cheap day return between Picadilly and the ground. There were two trains from the ground back to Picadilly which would have got me back in time for the connection. The match ended and I got out of the ground and in the queue outside the station. The first train came in and I didn't manage to get on it as I was still held outside by the police. Second train didn't arrive until 8.30! Of course by the time I got back to Picadilly I'd missed the connection. Spoke to the Northern staff who said the second train was late as it had been strengthened. They then said they weren't going to help me on the grounds that they're not responsible for controlling the crowds outside the ground and it wasn't their fault that I didn't get on the first train! After a bit of arguing it was clear they weren't going to budge so I walked away before the argument got out of hand. Looking back I can see I should then have spoken to Virgin staff but I couldn't be bothered so I went round to Chorlton Street and paid £25 for a single on the overnight National Express coach.
I later discovered that there was a train I could still have caught to Birmingham which would have connected with a London Midland back to Euston. When I got home I sent off a complaints form to Northern enclosing the train and coach tickets and saying I was disappointed with the attitude of their staff. Couple of weeks later I got a letter back repeating the line that the crowds outside Old Trafford were the responsibility of the police and not Northern,however they understood that I had been unable to get into the station and missed my connection,and as a gesture of goodwill they enclosed rail vouchers to cover the £17 cost of the Virgin ticket,which ended up leaving me £8 out of pocket. Question is should they have let me on the Birmingham train and the LM connection?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ticket [contract] A is issued subject to NCoC which state "You may use two or more tickets[contracts] for one journey".

Ticket B [contract] is issued subject to NCoC which state "You may use two or more tickets[contracts] for one journey".

Therefore I reject the argument that there are two separate contracts. On the contrary, there are two linked contracts, each of which makes [implied] reference to the other. Simples.


The "who would you take to court" argument is also a red herring. You would take to court whoever did not comply with the NCoC. If both TOCs failed their obligations you can have them as codefendents. Simples.

If you have separate point-to-point tickets that were all purchased before travel, or before any delays/cancellations were made known, then I'm of the opinion that it's one combined contract.

But you both ignore a condition of the contract, which makes your second ticket invalid.

I don't care what terminology is used (either they are 2 linked contracts, or 2 separate contracts that, combined, form one journey and permit onward travel in accordance with the Conditions of Carriage, or they are one contract) but it is a fact that the National Conditions of Carriage states you may use two or more tickets for one journey, the question is whether or not the tickets in question complies with that and also whether or not you are covered for "the journey" or just "the individual ticket". The terms of Advance tickets say that in the event of delays you can complete your "journey" so I am of the opinion that you are covered for the journey and not just for the individual ticket....

Have YOU complied with ALL the conditions of BOTH tickets? No you haven't.

....Yes there are some conflicting terms but I believe that
A) The condition stating you can complete your journey in the event of delays is effectively an easement which therefore trumps the conditions about having to be on the booked train, etc;
B) If there are conflicting terms then, usually you would expect the customer to be given the benefit of the doubt. If not, and if it went to court, I am not a lawyer but the existing legislation does appear to me to be on the side of the consumer....

A) You agreed to buy a new ticket if you missed the first booked train, you have broken the terms of the contract by not doing so, therefore the TOC no longer has to carry you. Plain and simple. If you have no valid ticket, you have no contract to complete your 'journey' and so they do not have to take you anywhere, late or otherwise.

(B) is irrelevant, there is no conflicting term in the conditions of the ticket..

....I would like to know if HHF has refused onward travel, and if he is ever in a position to do so, whether he would, because if he did and a complaint was made he could find himself with some explaining to do.

I have never been in that situation, If I was, I would follow the rules as clearly printed, and adress any complaints to Customer Services.

.... Of course by the time I got back to Picadilly I'd missed the connection. Spoke to the Northern staff who said the second train was late as it had been strengthened. They then said they weren't going to help me on the grounds that they're not responsible for controlling the crowds outside the ground and it wasn't their fault that I didn't get on the first train! After a bit of arguing it was clear they weren't going to budge so I walked away before the argument got out of hand. Looking back I can see I should then have spoken to Virgin staff but I couldn't be bothered so I went round to Chorlton Street and paid £25 for a single on the overnight National Express coach.
I later discovered that there was a train I could still have caught to Birmingham which would have connected with a London Midland back to Euston. When I got home I sent off a complaints form to Northern enclosing the train and coach tickets and saying I was disappointed with the attitude of their staff. Couple of weeks later I got a letter back repeating the line that the crowds outside Old Trafford were the responsibility of the police and not Northern,however they understood that I had been unable to get into the station and missed my connection,and as a gesture of goodwill they enclosed rail vouchers to cover the £17 cost of the Virgin ticket,which ended up leaving me £8 out of pocket. Question is should they have let me on the Birmingham train and the LM connection?

In answer to your question, no.

If we ignore the 'missed the first booked train' condition for now, I expect the train to Birmingham was XC, but even if it was Virgin, the ticket would probably be for 'Virgin Trains only', so Virgin would have to arrange for you to travel on the LM train, otherwise it would be invalid on their services. You cannot excess a ticket to use another train company either.

I think you were fortunate to get the £17 back, Northern didn't have to do anything about that ticket.

 

[Ferret]

I'll ask a question here if I may.

When I go to Old Trafford for our away game I generally use the metrolink but last season the game was played whilst the metro was closed so I used the train. It was a 5.30 kick off,I had an advance single on Virgin on the 20:35 which was the last Virgin train back to Euston,and bought a cheap day return between Picadilly and the ground. There were two trains from the ground back to Picadilly which would have got me back in time for the connection. The match ended and I got out of the ground and in the queue outside the station. The first train came in and I didn't manage to get on it as I was still held outside by the police. Second train didn't arrive until 8.30! Of course by the time I got back to Picadilly I'd missed the connection. Spoke to the Northern staff who said the second train was late as it had been strengthened. They then said they weren't going to help me on the grounds that they're not responsible for controlling the crowds outside the ground and it wasn't their fault that I didn't get on the first train! After a bit of arguing it was clear they weren't going to budge so I walked away before the argument got out of hand. Looking back I can see I should then have spoken to Virgin staff but I couldn't be bothered so I went round to Chorlton Street and paid £25 for a single on the overnight National Express coach.
I later discovered that there was a train I could still have caught to Birmingham which would have connected with a London Midland back to Euston. When I got home I sent off a complaints form to Northern enclosing the train and coach tickets and saying I was disappointed with the attitude of their staff. Couple of weeks later I got a letter back repeating the line that the crowds outside Old Trafford were the responsibility of the police and not Northern,however they understood that I had been unable to get into the station and missed my connection,and as a gesture of goodwill they enclosed rail vouchers to cover the £17 cost of the Virgin ticket,which ended up leaving me £8 out of pocket. Question is should they have let me on the Birmingham train and the LM connection?

Well, first point to make here is that XC and LM were probably under no obligation to carry you. However, it may well have been possible for VT staff to arrange ticket acceptance with XC and LM in the circumstances you describe.

 

[jon0844]

If you really can't combine two tickets and have any protection for delays outside of your control, ATOC should make this IMPLICITLY clear from now on.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not going to reply to HHF repeating the same stuff that appears to disregard the National Rail Conditions of Carriage and consumer rights, I have answered them all before anyway, many times.

I'll ask a question here if I may.

When I go to Old Trafford for our away game I generally use the metrolink but last season the game was played whilst the metro was closed so I used the train. It was a 5.30 kick off,I had an advance single on Virgin on the 20:35 which was the last Virgin train back to Euston,and bought a cheap day return between Picadilly and the ground. There were two trains from the ground back to Picadilly which would have got me back in time for the connection. The match ended and I got out of the ground and in the queue outside the station. The first train came in and I didn't manage to get on it as I was still held outside by the police. Second train didn't arrive until 8.30! Of course by the time I got back to Picadilly I'd missed the connection. Spoke to the Northern staff who said the second train was late as it had been strengthened. They then said they weren't going to help me on the grounds that they're not responsible for controlling the crowds outside the ground and it wasn't their fault that I didn't get on the first train! After a bit of arguing it was clear they weren't going to budge so I walked away before the argument got out of hand. Looking back I can see I should then have spoken to Virgin staff but I couldn't be bothered so I went round to Chorlton Street and paid £25 for a single on the overnight National Express coach.
I later discovered that there was a train I could still have caught to Birmingham which would have connected with a London Midland back to Euston. When I got home I sent off a complaints form to Northern enclosing the train and coach tickets and saying I was disappointed with the attitude of their staff. Couple of weeks later I got a letter back repeating the line that the crowds outside Old Trafford were the responsibility of the police and not Northern,however they understood that I had been unable to get into the station and missed my connection,and as a gesture of goodwill they enclosed rail vouchers to cover the £17 cost of the Virgin ticket,which ended up leaving me £8 out of pocket.

I don't see how this is a split ticket issue. The same could have happened on one ticket. I think the TOCs can justifiably say that there is no way you can be guaranteed entry to a station after a major sporting event.

Question is should they have let me on the Birmingham train and the LM connection?

Well, you spoke to Northern. But whoever you spoke to representing the railway should have at least told you about those trains, rather than just leave you to go to the coach station. If you had asked Virgin, I suspect they may have made such arrangements however we will never know now as you didn't ask them. Even if Virgin said no, the guards on LM may have accepted the ticket, if you approached them before boarding explaining the situation and asking politely, most guards are very reasonable and accommodating if you ask and have a reasonable request, especially late at night.

 

[Ferret]

I don't see how this is a split ticket issue. The same could have happened on one ticket. I think the TOCs can justifiably say that there is no way you can be guaranteed entry to a station after a major sporting event.

It's an Advance ticket issue really - is it wise to book yourself onto one train given that your arrival time at the station is out of your control?

Well, you spoke to Northern. But whoever you spoke to representing the railway should have told you about it. If you had asked Virgin, I suspect they may have made such arrangements however we will never know now as you didn't ask them. Even if Virgin said no, the guards on LM may have accepted the ticket, if you approached them before boarding explaining the situation and asking politely, most guards are very reasonable and accommodating if you ask and have a reasonable request, especially late at night.

I suspect that a chat with VT staff may well have found them trying to make arrangements to get the OP back via Brum.

 

[455driver]

Londonbridge, what time should the match have finished?
I am curious how long you gave yourself (and how much effort you made) to get out of the stadium, down to the station and into Piccadilly bearing in mind several 1000 people would probably be trying to get into the centre of Manchester at the same time!

 

[clagmonster]

I think two different discussions are being confused here, one is about split advance tickets and the other is the validity of groupsave tickets on Cross Country services. To save such confusion would it be possible for the thread to be split in two or is it too tangled up? Thanks.

On the advance tickets issue, one point that I do have is that if you have two tickets to complete you journey, in accordance with condition 19, then what is the definition of the first booked train? Surely it could be argued that this is the first train on the first ticket, so if there is disruption on the first train this has occured whilst travelling so you would be covered. I am not saying this is definately the answer, it is just a thought.

In the Old Trafford case, there are no through fares from the Manchester United halt to Euston, so split tickets are the only option and Piccadilly is the obvious place to do this split, as I am sure the vast majority of booking clerks would advise. Please may I ask: at what time was the second train from the halt scheduled to arrive at Piccadilly? Also, I would point out to readers who are unaware of the situation here, the halt is only opened on matchdays and all trains are timed to depart after the full time whistle (although I don't know the arrangements for cup games when there might be extra time, the Mighty Tigers have only been there in the leauge in recent years).

 

[londonbridge]

Londonbridge, what time should the match have finished?
I am curious how long you gave yourself (and how much effort you made) to get out of the stadium, down to the station and into Piccadilly bearing in mind several 1000 people would probably be trying to get into the centre of Manchester at the same time!

In the Old Trafford case, there are no through fares from the Manchester United halt to Euston, so split tickets are the only option and Piccadilly is the obvious place to do this split, as I am sure the vast majority of booking clerks would advise. Please may I ask: at what time was the second train from the halt scheduled to arrive at Piccadilly? Also, I would point out to readers who are unaware of the situation here, the halt is only opened on matchdays and all trains are timed to depart after the full time whistle (although I don't know the arrangements for cup games when there might be extra time, the Mighty Tigers have only been there in the leauge in recent years).

I can't remember the exact timings but the match ended between 7.20 and 7.25,I did not spend a couple of minutes at my seat applauding the team off the pitch,rather I started making my way out immediately at the final whistle. I was outside and in the queue by 7.30 and the first train was due at around 7.35. This was the one I didn't get on. The second one was due just before 8 and back to Piccadilly between 8.10 and 8.15.