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

[Ferret]

JM, what's anti-competitive? Yes you can get through advance fares on seperate TOCs. Those tickets are marked XC & Connections or TPE & Connections. The industry isn't trying to force anyone to buy full standard open tickets at all! Some people choose to split tickets to save a bob or two - that's fine, it's permitted as per the CoC etc. The issue we're discussing is that are those customers entitled to the same level of protection when delays occur. Contractually, I have serious doubts. This is why I strongly advocate buyíng through tickets if you're travelling towards the close of service. Allowing onward travel is one thing, but providing taxis and hotels really is a step into the unknown.

Also, I have to point out that in certain circumstances (as listed in the CoC) a customer can be screwed even holding a through ticket. I remember sometime ago when the south midlands were flooded, people were demanding hotels in Birmingham at Virgin's expense. They didn't get them - railway is closed, that's not within our control I'm afraid...

 

[jon0844]

But you've just stated why it's anti-competitive, if the railway will say 'tough luck' if you buy separate tickets to get the best overall deal. As long as every booked train leaves the minimum required time, you should be given the exact same rights as having booked a normal ticket straight through from A to B.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't change things to make it clear that if you split tickets you're on your own (as airlines like Ryanair will do - even if you're connecting to another Ryanair flight) - but now you're not really offering true competition as you can't take advantage of individual TOC offers. I am sure the industry wouldn't actually want to do that, given they'd make more revenue if you bought a TOC-specific ticket than a 'any permitted' one. But, hey, if they want to - good luck to them. More people will start driving, flying, taking a coach, going elsewhere or staying at home.

As I said, they can't have it both ways.

When I last went to York on EC, my ticket was Hatfield to York, which meant I could take FCC to Stevenage. Now what train should I have got?

As it turned out, we got a train two ahead so we could have breakfast at Stevenage (and to do so, I had to ask nicely if we could be allowed out of the station to eat in town, as against at the station) but surely we could have got the train that connected within 10-15 minutes. And if that train had been delayed? We'd have missed the train and lost our seat.

Now as it was ONE ticket, I'm covered. But if I'd bought Stevenage to York and then just bought a separate super-off peak Hatfield to Stevenage ticket separately? I'd be screwed.

Yes, that's very competitive, not.

 

[EltonRoad]

The industry isn't trying to force anyone to buy full standard open tickets at all!

Course it is! If I need to travel to London at 7am I've no alternative but to buy full-fare. My car doesn't cost more to drive at 7 am.

 

[Ferret]

JM, it's got nothing to do with competitiveness at all! Just playing devil's advocate and turning your argument on it's head, the TOCs set a fare between A and B which most people pay. Someone else gets creative and manages to save a bob or two by getting A-C, C-D and D-B tickets, then wants the same level of protection - is he not trying to have it both ways?

I'm not sure you're understanding all the relevant issues in terms of contracts and the performance of contracts here. A lot of bluster about anti-competitiveness doesn't get away from the fact that terms and conditions have relevance. If you're not happy with the terms and conditions of any contract, you ultimately have the right not to enter into that contract in the first place...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Course it is! If I need to travel to London at 7am I've no alternative but to buy full-fare. My car doesn't cost more to drive at 7 am.

Eh? EltonRoad, you've just taken a point totally out of context I think, and followed up that faux pas by making a completely irrelevant comment!!!

 

[EltonRoad]

Eh? EltonRoad, you've just taken a point totally out of context I think, and followed up that faux pas by making a completely irrelevant comment!!!

Yeah you're right. Silly me!

 

[jon0844]

We're not talking about split ticketing on a specific train (where the train stops) and so on - but simply travelling on TOC A with a ticket, TOC B with another ticket and TOC C (perhaps) with yet another ticket.

If you're not supposed to do that, fine, but let's make sure everyone is told that they can't do it and must book from A to B in one go from now on. Nobody surely wants to take the risk that they have to buy a new ticket, or pay for a hotel/taxi at night, because of unforeseen circumstances.

Maybe the industry should introduce a travel insurance add-on to cover for this? Then say 'tough ****' to anyone that doesn't.

 

[Ferret]

Yeah you're right. Silly me!

Sorry ER, didn't mean to come across as rude! Was a bit taken aback at that one! Anyway, I'm sure VT offer Advance fares on the morning trains out of Brum to Euston! OK, you probably have to book early to get 'em, but then, that's the point of Advance fares I suppose
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We're not talking about split ticketing on a specific train (where the train stops) and so on - but simply travelling on TOC A with a ticket, TOC B with another ticket and TOC C (perhaps) with yet another ticket.

If you're not supposed to do that, fine, but let's make sure everyone is told that they can't do it and must book from A to B in one go from now on. Nobody surely wants to take the risk that they have to buy a new ticket, or pay for a hotel/taxi at night, because of unforeseen circumstances.

Maybe the industry should introduce a travel insurance add-on to cover for this? Then say 'tough ****' to anyone that doesn't.

But then, how many people actually do that? Most people I've seen with split ticketing today have had 2 or 3 tickets for one journey on the trains I've been working. What we're discussing in this topic applies to a tiny minority of people - I doubt we're going to get Confucious-esque words of wisdom from ATOC on this one!

 

[EltonRoad]

Sorry Ferret, I think work's getting to me! I do apologise.

 

[clagmonster]

HHF, I am not merging conditions of different tickets, I am merging conditions of the same ticket. The conditions of the ticket are effectively in two parts, the ticket National Conditions of Carriage and the ticket restrictions, as per condition 1 clauses a and c. I am reading the conditions for each advance ticket in conjunction with condition 19.
However, by saying that we may combine tickets for one journey, condition 19 allows us to have contracts which are linked and refer to each other. Hence the two possible interpretations of the first booked train.

In your example of combining an advanse single and a saver, I agree that it would be ridiculous to mix the ticket restrictions between them. Condition 1 would mean that the advance restrictions apply to the advance and the saver restrictions apply to the saver. That said, if you take, in the advance conditions, the first booked train to mean the first train booked on a journey, and you were starting on a saver, then you would have to arrive at your origin station in good time to catch a train with a valid connection into your train on which you hold an advance ticket. At the same time, said train must comply with any time restrictions associated with the saver. There would, of course, be nothing wrong with catching an earlier train on the saver leg or catching a later train and throwing the advance away.

This is all starting to get rather complex so I hope my post is clearly worded.

 

[MikeWh]

That's a very clear and sensible way of interpreting the conditions of both tickets which together permit the passage of one journey.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Most people I've seen with split ticketing today have had 2 or 3 tickets for one journey on the trains I've been working. What we're discussing in this topic applies to a tiny minority of people . . . .

The conclusion you draw is that there are hardly any passengers with 2 Advance tickets, each covering all of their journey on 2 connecting services.
But would you know if there were more? Its unlikely they'd show you the ticket for the "other" journey (they may keep them in their other hand in the same way as they's keep tickets for a return journey in that hand).

The tiny minority may be bigger than it seems. Maybe not by much. Maybe we'd only be aware when stories such as this one crop up.

Just a thought.

 

[Ferret]

The conclusion you draw is that there are hardly any passengers with 2 Advance tickets, each covering all of their journey on 2 connecting services.
But would you know if there were more? Its unlikely they'd show you the ticket for the "other" journey (they may keep them in their other hand in the same way as they's keep tickets for a return journey in that hand).

The tiny minority may be bigger than it seems. Maybe not by much. Maybe we'd only be aware when stories such as this one crop up.

Just a thought.

Well, people tend to keep train tickets together, and when they hunt for the one I want to see, I'll see other tickets too Indeed, I have seen an advance for my train and then an advance for a train operated by East Coast out of York. It really is a small minority though out of all the customers that travel.




--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HH
In your example of combining an advanse single and a saver, I agree that it would be ridiculous to mix the ticket restrictions between them. Condition 1 would mean that the advance restrictions apply to the advance and the saver restrictions apply to the saver. That said, if you take, in the advance conditions, the first booked train to mean the first train booked on a journey, and you were starting on a saver, then you would have to arrive at your origin station in good time to catch a train with a valid connection into your train on which you hold an advance ticket. At the same time, said train must comply with any time restrictions associated with the saver. There would, of course, be nothing wrong with catching an earlier train on the saver leg or catching a later train and throwing the advance away.

This is all starting to get rather complex so I hope my post is clearly worded.

Well, in the example of the saver and advance combo above, are you not applying a condition of the second ticket (about first booked train) to the saver ticket which has no such condition? I can't see how that can be right to be honest!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

HHF, I am not merging conditions of different tickets, I am merging conditions of the same ticket. The conditions of the ticket are effectively in two parts, the ticket National Conditions of Carriage and the ticket restrictions, as per condition 1 clauses a and c. I am reading the conditions for each advance ticket in conjunction with condition 19.
However, by saying that we may combine tickets for one journey, condition 19 allows us to have contracts which are linked and refer to each other. Hence the two possible interpretations of the first booked train.

In your example of combining an advanse single and a saver, I agree that it would be ridiculous to mix the ticket restrictions between them. Condition 1 would mean that the advance restrictions apply to the advance and the saver restrictions apply to the saver. That said, if you take, in the advance conditions, the first booked train to mean the first train booked on a journey, and you were starting on a saver, then you would have to arrive at your origin station in good time to catch a train with a valid connection into your train on which you hold an advance ticket. At the same time, said train must comply with any time restrictions associated with the saver. There would, of course, be nothing wrong with catching an earlier train on the saver leg or catching a later train and throwing the advance away.

This is all starting to get rather complex so I hope my post is clearly worded.

I still fail to understand how 'may use' can be interpreted as 'may be combined', they are not the same thing.

Anyway, there is no middle-ground here Clagmonster, if you believe you can merge conditions of the same ticket, you must surely admit that the same applies to tickets of different types. Condition 19 makes no mention of differing ticket types and nowhere else on the NCoC or the ticket conditions does it mention it.

So, can you merge the conditions of different ticket types or not?

If you can, how do you do it? In a way more favourable to the Passenger, or the TOC, or maybe you just use the conditions of the first ticket on the 'journey'?

If you really are sure it can only be for same ticket types, perhaps you could indentify for me where the distinction between ticket types is made?

 

[maddeningcrowds]

I'm in the habit of showing all of the tickets for my one "journey" whenever someone asks for them.

Probably just psychological but it makes me feel more secure that that TM knows about my "journey" and not just my "ticket".

 

[Greenback]

I'm the opposite. I only show the ticket for the section I'm travelling on. I don't want to risk dropping or losing one of what may be quite a lot of tickets! I don;t bother getting my Llanelli - Swansea season ticket out if I am travelling on a Swansea - Cardiff train! So I don't think we can say with any accuracy how many people use split advance tickets!

We do seem to be going round in circles again! Though I'm pleased that most people seem to agree that, in practice, you will usually be fine to travel on a later train if delayed.