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

[clagmonster]

Thanks for the extra information. The minimum interchange time at Piccadilly is 10 minutes, as you at least 20 minutes for the connection that is ample and a valid connection. As you had no choice but to split your ticket, and the delay to the second train was caused by Northern I think the railway companies between them were obliged to get you home or put you up for the night. The fact that you missed the first train does not matter, as you were at the station in time for a train which should have connected with your Euston service.
Had you have been relying solely on the first train it would have been a different matter, however, as you would not have reached the station in time to catch your first booked train which is completely out of the control of Northern and other rail companies.

Note that the above is my opinion and does not constitue legal advice.

 

[yorkie]

I'm still not sure that the railway is obliged to carry people in the event of excessive overcrowding, it's a grey area. I think that the issue is entirely separate to the split ticketing issue, however I don't think that it matters whether or not the customer is "forced" to split the ticket or chooses to; either you can combine combinations of tickets to form one journey or you can't, and I believe the only possible conclusion is that you can.

 

[Ferret]

I'm still not sure that the railway is obliged to carry people in the event of excessive overcrowding, it's a grey area.

Well, if there isn't room and the Guard says 'no more' then that's pretty much that!

I still find myself wishing the gentleman concerned had chatted to the VT staff at Picc. For that matter, why did Northern staff not just say 'go to the VT customer service staff'?

 

[yorkie]

I didn't mean I'm not sure if they should carry them on that specific train (however I think that, where possible, showing a long distance tickets may - perhaps in my opinion should - allow priority) as obviously they aren't obliged to carry them on a specific train if it's full, but I meant carry the passenger in general, ie on an alternative service. That's what I am unsure of. I *suspect* the answer is that customers are likely to be allowed on later trains (if holding AP tickets, route specific etc) to avoid them being stranded, where possible, but that the railway cannot guarantee travel on a specific train and if there are no further trains that night I would have thought that the passenger would have to either stay overnight and travel the next morning or find alternative arrangements. As otherwise, if they guaranteed connections that night then you could get hundreds of people demanding taxis - that cannot possibly be right!

 

[Ferret]

I didn't mean I'm not sure if they should carry them on that specific train (however I think that, where possible, showing a long distance tickets may - perhaps in my opinion should - allow priority) as obviously they aren't obliged to carry them on a specific train if it's full, but I meant carry the passenger in general, ie on an alternative service. That's what I am unsure of. I *suspect* the answer is that customers are likely to be allowed on later trains (if holding AP tickets, route specific etc) to avoid them being stranded, where possible, but that the railway cannot guarantee travel on a specific train and if there are no further trains that night I would have thought that the passenger would have to either stay overnight and travel the next morning or find alternative arrangements. As otherwise, if they guaranteed connections that night then you could get hundreds of people demanding taxis - that cannot possibly be right!

Yeah, that's an interesting issue for sure. Well, so far as allowing onward travel on the same TOC goes where there is a later service (I'm referring to Advance here) then I strongly suspect you'd be ok.

Tbh, the whole way sporting events are organised is wrong. Take football - late kick offs are great for Sky, but utter crap for fans. A couple of seasons ago I witnessed a total cock up in Newcastle. Evening kick off for the benefit of Sky TV, only one train the Villa fans could possibly get home. BTP managed to pile all the Newcastle fans onto that train for Durham and Darlington meaning that none of the Villa fans could get on the train!!!! An utter fiasco from all sides caused by a lack of communication. Would've been far more sensible for the XC to be advertised as first stop York so that all the Geordies could get on the NXECs from Durham and Darlo. I think the TOCs and BTP could organise things a hell of a lot better than we do

 

[yorkie]

don't you mean we could organise it better than them?

 

[londonbridge]

Thanks for the comments,as I said,with hindsight the next sensible thing to do would have been to talk to the Virgin staff but having walked away from the Northern people in order to avoid the situation escalating into a full-blown argument I couldn't be bothered to immediately get into another discussion.

 

[Ferret]

don't you mean we could organise it better than them?

Well, we probably could, but I was referring to the fact that I work for a TOC! I have made suggestions as to how things can be managed a little better. Whether any of that turns into positive action we shall see. That said, one of my requests was for BTP to actually ride on trains rather than wait at stations where they are no use. They were out in force on our services yesterday....

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing to suggest that two tickets can be treated as one.

....Each ticket is issued subject to:

(a) these Conditions;

(b) the applicable byelaws;

(c) the conditions which apply to Electronic Tickets, Smartcards, other
devices used for storing Electronic Tickets and certain types of reduced
and discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications
issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use; and

(d) the conditions set out in the notices and other publications issued by
another person if the ticket enables you to use any of their goods or
services.

....

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.

....

If each ticket is subject to it's own conditions (aswell as those of the NCoC), you must be on the first booked train of each ticket, regardless of how many tickets you are using, nothing in Condition 19 contradicts this, no matter what Yorkie says, or how much he thinks it is unfair.

You'll probably find that on the EMT website T&Cs it will say something about advance fares being valid only on the booked services and so on. All retailers must advise you of the restrictions of the ticket when you buy one, EMT probably do it by making you look at another webpage.

If the EMT website doesn't have the restrictions listed you should report it to them and/or Passenger Focus.

All Advance fares have the same basic conditions.

 

[yorkie]

I will ignore that post as it states "I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing to suggest that two tickets can be treated as one." until there is something after the word "one" to quantify what "one" refers to!!

If the word "ticket" is added, then the post is irrelevant and can be ignored. If the word "journey" is added, then that is wrong and I will re-quote the relevant conditions.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If we are using your definition of Journey it won't make any difference.....Unless you are willing to admit that Condition 1 means all the conditions of the Advance ticket apply to each Advance ticket seperately, in which case your arguement is flawed, so I guess that means you wish to ignore Condition 1 of the NCoC aswell as the conditions of the Advance ticket????

 

[clagmonster]

In the case of the Old Trafford scenario, the passenger wasn't allowed to board the first train because of the overcrowding, that is correct. However, he didn't need to be on the first train as the second train still provided a more than adequate connection at Piccadilly. From what I can gather, that train was delayed due to operational issues in strengthening the train, the exact details of which I doubt that we will never know.

For the combining Advance tickets issue, the advance ticket conditions state:
"You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket in good time to catch the train. If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/advance_conditions.html

Now if you are at the station in good time to catch the first service, and allowed at least the minimum connection time, and combined two tickets for his journey, as allowed by condition 19, so for me it depends on how you interpret:
"the first train on which you are booked".
For me, this can mean either the first train on each ticket, in which case Hairy Handed Fool is correct, or the first train on your journey, in which case Yorkie is correct. I think either interpretation is reasonable and I don't know which one would be considered correct.

 

[londonbridge]

In the case of the Old Trafford scenario, the passenger wasn't allowed to board the first train because of the overcrowding, that is correct. However, he didn't need to be on the first train as the second train still provided a more than adequate connection at Piccadilly. From what I can gather, that train was delayed due to operational issues in strengthening the train, the exact details of which I doubt that we will never know.

Which is exactly why I was annoyed with their attitude,granted it wasn't their fault that I didn't get on the first train,but equally it wasn't MY fault that the second train,which was timed to more than satisfy the minimum connection requirements,was delayed.

 

[OwlMan]

If the issue is so clear cut as hairy handedfool seems to think why do ATOC state (in their National Rail Guide To Tickets leaflet)

If you buy an Advance ticket you must use that ticket
on the train services specified. However, if you miss
this service because your connecting train was delayed
you will be able to travel on the next service provided
by the same train company without penalty.

As far I as am concerned that statement says all that needs to be said (no arguments about tickets or journeys, just "If your connecting train was delayed")

Peter

 

[Ferret]

If the issue is so clear cut as hairy handedfool seems to think why do ATOC state (in their National Rail Guide To Tickets leaflet)


As far I as am concerned that statement says all that needs to be said (no arguments about tickets or journeys, just "If your connecting train was delayed")

Peter

That's just it, there is a fair bit of conflict! That said, I suspect what you're quoting from doesn't form part of your contract at all.

I still maintain that in these circumstances, I can't imagine many Guards refusing onward travel without charge. I fear the problems would start if you missed the last train and needed a taxi/hotel. That's why I'd strongly advise against splitting tickets late at night.....

 

[yorkie]

If we are using your definition of Journey ...

it's ATOC who define that two or more tickets may be used for one journey, not me.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

This has now been done. The GroupSave issue is now in this topic.

There were 2 examples of people missing trains with combinations of tickets, one was concerning a journey on EMT & EC, this has been removed as the customer was charged for an unpaid fare, and this is being disputed, if the TOC in question persists with the demand for additional payment it may go to court. When this issue is resolved, we aim for the result to be posted here if it is agreeable with the OP that this can be done, but in the mean time the posts directly relating to that specific example have been removed.

The other example of someone missing a train with a combination of a walk-on and advance ticket was posted by londonbridge and I note your reply here:

In the case of the Old Trafford scenario, the passenger wasn't allowed to board the first train because of the overcrowding, that is correct. However, he didn't need to be on the first train as the second train still provided a more than adequate connection at Piccadilly. From what I can gather, that train was delayed due to operational issues in strengthening the train, the exact details of which I doubt that we will never know.

and I now realise that, in effect, the fact the OP could not board the 1st service isn't relevant. However I now understand that he did, in fact, board a train that had a booked connection. I didn't realise that when I replied earlier. I therefore totally agree with your view that onward travel should have been given as it was one journey, which was made on a train with a legitimate connection which was then delayed. I also agree with Ferret that had the OP contacted Virgin, it is likely that they would have arranged onward travel via XC + LM, however we will never know for sure retrospectively as unfortunately the OP spoke to Northern. It is regrettable that Northern did not pass on the matter to Virgin as Virgin have staff based at Manchester Piccadilly who may have been in a position to help.

 

[Ferret]

I look forward to hearing the results of the disputed UFN for sure! Either way it could create a precedent with regard to split ticket issues, though I suspect it won't get that far.

As for the Manchester issue, well, we will never know!

 

[scrapy]

The Manchester Stns to Manchester United Football Ground services are a very grey area. I've been told they are not technically a scheduled rail service between Manchester Piccadilly and MUFG halt but a charter. This portion does not count towards Northerns punctuality figures (although where the train continues to Crewe the Man - Cre portion does). Therefore in terms of ticketing tickets such as rail rangers are not valid as they are only valid on scheduled services. Also timings are subject to change due to late kick offs, extra time etc. However it does have many similarites to a scheduled rail service, such as timings being on NRE and through ticketing to scheduled services and most importantly tickets are issued on orange stock (which says subject to NRCOC).

In the case of you not being able to access the station due to the police stopping you, this is definitely outside the control of the rail company, similar to if you had been stopped by the police in your car en-route to the station. Maybe customer service could have been better, but I would take this as a lesson learnt when buying advance tickets. At least you got something back which is a bonus.

 

[yorkie]

In the case of you not being able to access the station due to the police stopping you, this is definitely outside the control of the rail company, similar to if you had been stopped by the police in your car en-route to the station. Maybe customer service could have been better, but I would take this as a lesson learnt when buying advance tickets. At least you got something back which is a bonus.

I agree with that.

Had the OP not been able to board a train that had a sufficient connection time, I do not believe the OP has a case (although goodwill may prevail!) but as I now understand the OP did indeed board a train that did have a sufficient connection time, given those circumstances and a delay occurring to the connecting train, I believe he did have a case, but he really needed to speak to Virgin.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If the issue is so clear cut as hairy handedfool seems to think why do ATOC state (in their National Rail Guide To Tickets leaflet)

If you buy an Advance ticket you must use that ticket
on the train services specified. However, if you miss
this service because your connecting train was delayed
you will be able to travel on the next service provided
by the same train company without penalty.

As far I as am concerned that statement says all that needs to be said (no arguments about tickets or journeys, just "If your connecting train was delayed")

Peter

All that states is that a condition of the Advance fare is that if you are delayed on your journey, you can continue on later services, but as Condition one of the NCoC says, each reduced/dicounted ticket is subject to the conditions of the ticket type, in the case of the Advance fare, You must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train, if you miss it for any reason, you must buy a new ticket.

The condition about being delayed is not in question, the condition about missing your first booked train is.

Yorkie seems to think that you can ignore the 'missed first train' condition of the ticket because of condition 19 and the 'delayed while travelling' ticket condition.

Condition 1 makes it perfectly clear that each ticket has it's own conditions and that they must still be adhered to.

 

[jon0844]

I see that statement from ATOC to be perfectly clear and wonder why there's a huge thread going around in circles! To me, given that this is what ATOC states to the public, I'd say that anything written in small print in T&Cs will be totally irrelevant and any court would say so. That's one advantage the general public have in contract law.

ATOC says that if your connecting train is delayed, you can travel on the next service provided without penalty. How simple is that? And, if that means you then miss another service, the same applies.

Now what ATOC needs to do, and this has nothing to do with the passenger, is sort out an internal system of compensation. Does every TOC that allowed the delayed passenger on a later service claim off the original TOC that had the delayed train that started the chain reaction? I'd say yes.

Every train in the UK can be monitored and delays seen quite clearly. So, if you travel on TOC A (delayed) and get bumped on to a later train with TOC B (with your advance ticket) which means you are late for TOC C (with another advance ticket) then TOC B and C both claim any losses (if there are any) from TOC A.

That's how it should work - and if there was such a compensation system in place for the TOCs then, amazingly, I bet you'd find they'd be quite happy to allow you on - as long as you provide details of the service you were delayed on/missed (e.g. train cancelled).

 

[Ferret]

John, I'm sorry but I can't agree with much you've said here! It's not small print, it's an expressed term of the contract that can't just be totally disregarded! If the TOCs themselves choose to waive those conditions, well that's a different story, and how it usually works in practice How many cases of refusing onward travel have there actually been? The reality is that if you are delayed on train one with ticket one, allowing onward travel is rarely a problem.

And as for the other TOCs compensating each other, why?! In reality, it's just far better to accept that TOC A will help out TOCs B and C of the odd occasion, and now and then, TOC A will help the others out by accepting the other TOC's tickets. That's how things actually work.

 

[jon0844]

And as for the other TOCs compensating each other, why?! In reality, it's just far better to accept that TOC A will help out TOCs B and C of the odd occasion, and now and then, TOC A will help the others out by accepting the other TOC's tickets. That's how things actually work.

Does it? If it did then you wouldn't be sold a new ticket for missing your booked train. But, if that's what the industry decides to do, on the basis that they know each TOC will probably claim an equal amount over time, then that shows joined-up thinking and is great.

The passenger should not have to worry about what goes on behind the scenes.

I will keep saying it though, and hope that one day it will go to court, that you can have loads of T&Cs and refer people to small print that people can't actually see when they buy a ticket - but if a summary produced by ATOC says something so clearly as it does - that's going to be what goes. And if ATOC is wrong to say that, or should have LARGE text to point out all the exceptions, then they should change their literature.

We will always go around in circles if we allow the TOCs and ATOC to make things so confusing. Someone needs to force ATOC to make things 100% clear, not 99.99%. Or, they make it clear you can't combine lots of tickets to form one journey - and prepare for a backlash.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I see that statement from ATOC to be perfectly clear and wonder why there's a huge thread going around in circles! To me, given that this is what ATOC states to the public, I'd say that anything written in small print in T&Cs will be totally irrelevant and any court would say so. . .

I'm sorry to say I'm not persuaded by that statement.
The problem is with the status of the statement. It has been made to a member of the public, its NOT part of any officially binding instruction or clarification issued to the TOCs, and they have not, in turn, confirmed their compliance with it.

We will always go around in circles if we allow the TOCs and ATOC to make things so confusing. Someone needs to force ATOC to make things 100% clear, not 99.99%.

Now, I do agree with that!

And as for the other TOCs compensating each other, why?! In reality, it's just far better to accept that TOC A will help out TOCs B and C of the odd occasion, and now and then, TOC A will help the others out by accepting the other TOC's tickets. That's how things actually work.

Doesn't this pragmatic solution become unreliable in less clear-cut cases, particularly when we approach the "last train of the day" problem, and there is no clarity over a passenger's right to a taxi or overnight accommodation?

 

[Ferret]

Doesn't this pragmatic solution become unreliable in less clear-cut cases, particularly when we approach the "last train of the day" problem, and there is no clarity over a passenger's right to a taxi or overnight accommodation?

Yes. Onward travel should never be a problem - John mentioned cost to TOC B a few posts back - well, what costs would those be in the case of allowing travel on a train they were running anyway? In the case of hotels/taxis though - that's a bit of a sticky one. Not sure ATOC have said anything on the subject, and I restate my opinion that splitting tickets late at night isn't a good idea. We can't be sure of the contractual position, and if a member of staff refuses to help, other than say you can use your ticket tomorrow, paddle your own canoe until then - what can you do at the time?!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....ATOC says that if your connecting train is delayed, you can travel on the next service provided without penalty. How simple is that? And, if that means you then miss another service, the same applies....

There is a flaw in your point, your ticket is an agreement with the TOCs you have a right to use, not ATOC, therefore what you agree to with the TOCs is what matters.

If we were dealing with a through ticket, you wouldn't have a problem, why? because you have boarded the first booked train and that restriction is done with, if you are later delayed you can use later services.

But when you buy two advance fares to use one after the other, both have the restriction of being on the first booked train, so when you get to the end of one ticket and start another, that restriction applies again. So saying "oh the railway delayed me" is a pointless arguement by the book, it doesn't matter why you missed the train, the fact is that you did, therefore you must buy a new ticket, as you agreed to that condition when you purchased the ticket.

 

[clagmonster]

Hairy Handed Fool, I think you may be reading the ticket conditions in isolation. The ticket conditions state:
"If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
If this is read in isolation, then yes I would agree that when splitting tickets if your first train is delayed then you must purchase a new ticket.

However, when read in conjunction with condition 19, which condition 1 tells us we must do, we may combine two tickets for one journey. Therefore, we have to define "the first train on which you are booked".
If you take this to mean the first train on each ticket, then yes, a new ticket must be purchased.
If you take this to mean the first train on your journey, then onward travel must be provided. I think either interpretation would be reasonable.

 

[jon0844]

And we've gone full circle..!

ATOC is supposed to represent the industry and they should damn well issue guidelines that everyone follows. If an individual TOC wants to come up with its own get-out clauses then that's to be made implicitly clear and everyone knows BEFORE buying a ticket. And no doubt word would then get around that you probably don't want to travel with TOC A but instead use TOC B (assuming you have the luxury of being able to choose).

And if someone buys a number of split tickets from a ticket seller, then that seller should have to warn the buyer that they're absolutely screwed if there's a delay outside of the passengers control. Said passenger may then buy a through ticket or say 'sod this' and go home and get in his/her car.

The industry can't have it both ways. As far as I was aware, we're allowed to split tickets to make up a journey but if you can wind up stranded then it IS not the same thing and must be uncompetitive. I mean, can you actually buy a through ticket that involves buying advanced tickets for different TOCs given that many offers are available only via that operator? If not, the industry is trying to force you to buy standard priced tickets, even open tickets, to guarantee you can travel without incident - and that should referred to the EU immediately as anti-competitive. Still, we all know ticketing in this country is a joke - London perhaps excepted, and even that has issues.

All I would say is that when combining tickets, you must ensure that you reserve trains that give ample connecting time. Common sense suggests you might even factor in delays, and leave a bigger gap between major connections, especially at night - but you don't legally have to do that do you? I mean, for train travel to be competitive with other forms of travel you don't tell people they should wait an hour, or maybe two, at a station just in case the train got in late.

 

[EltonRoad]

This argument gets recycled so many times, however it seems to me that the second TOC could argue that your advance ticket says you have to catch the train on which you're booked, and it doesn't matter that another TOC caused you to miss it.

The question is, which supersedes which: do the NCoC trump individual ticket conditions, or the other way round?

There's no answer to this. If a dispute arises it will boil down to individuals' interpretations of the rules, which are in urgent need of clarification.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Hairy Handed Fool, I think you may be reading the ticket conditions in isolation. The ticket conditions state:
"If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
If this is read in isolation, then yes I would agree that when splitting tickets if your first train is delayed then you must purchase a new ticket.

However, when read in conjunction with condition 19, which condition 1 tells us we must do, we may combine two tickets for one journey. Therefore, we have to define "the first train on which you are booked".
If you take this to mean the first train on each ticket, then yes, a new ticket must be purchased.
If you take this to mean the first train on your journey, then onward travel must be provided. I think either interpretation would be reasonable.

Ah, but the NCoC condition 1 says each ticket is subject to the conditions set out by the TOCs, not each journey (or whatever other word you choose to use), it is quite specific. So yes you can use them for one journey but you still have to obey the conditions of each ticket.

If we start merging conditions then we have a problem because there is nothing to stop us using an Advance and a Off-Peak return for one journey, then have we got an Advance we can use on any train or an Off-Peak ticket restricted to the booked trains and non-refundable?

If Condition 19 said something like "when using multiple tickets for one journey you are only subject to any given condition once" then I'd have to agree, but it doesn't, it falls way short of saying that.

Nothing in the conditions of the ticket, nor the NCoC says we can change the conditions of the ticket that we have agreed to just because we don't feel that is fair.

....And if someone buys a number of split tickets from a ticket seller, then that seller should have to warn the buyer that they're absolutely screwed if there's a delay outside of the passengers control. Said passenger may then buy a through ticket or say 'sod this' and go home and get in his/her car....

The industry can't have it both ways. As far as I was aware, we're allowed to split tickets to make up a journey but if you can wind up stranded then it IS not the same thing and must be uncompetitive. I mean, can you actually buy a through ticket that involves buying advanced tickets for different TOCs given that many offers are available only via that operator? If not, the industry is trying to force you to buy standard priced tickets, even open tickets, to guarantee you can travel without incident - and that should referred to the EU immediately as anti-competitive. Still, we all know ticketing in this country is a joke - London perhaps excepted, and even that has issues....

Advance fares come with varying route restrictions depending on the journey. For example, Liverpool to London will likely have advance fares for 'AP London Midland only' or 'AP Virgin Trains only'. Liverpool to Reading will have something like 'AP XC & connections' or '+AP London'.

As mentioned in the thread previously and in Condition 1 of the NCoC, the seller must make the conditions of the ticket clear at the time of sale, if the passenger wants to back out at that point it is fine.