• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Denied travel on ticket to Ebbsfleet via route that was permitted when booked

Status
Not open for further replies.

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,013
Location
UK
For saying they like to protect their 'special' bit of railway you'd have thought they might have managed to train their staff about what tickets are actually valid on it...

Surely it's time that SET is no longer allowed to treat this bit of railway as some special and magical bit of railway that sits outside the zones, has a near endless set of rules, plus loads of ticket extensions and supplements that most staff haven't got a clue about.

It's a total joke.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
5,389
Location
Birmingham
Surely it's time that SET is no longer allowed to treat this bit of railway as some special and magical bit of railway that sits outside the zones, has a near endless set of rules, plus loads of ticket extensions and supplements that most staff haven't got a clue about.

It's a total joke.
I agree! My first thought when I noticed you couldn't use Oyster was 'what the ...' :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

DaveNewcastle

Established Member
Joined
21 Dec 2007
Messages
7,387
Location
Newcastle (unless I'm out)
One question I would like answering definitively is as follows.

Does the material contained within the Routeing Guide, and itineraries provided by NRE / TOC websites (separate to the ticket purchase) constitute part of the contract to travel, given they're referred to in the NRCoC, which all tickets (and thus contracts) are subject to?
This question seems to get right to the heart of this difficulty.

It is perhaps not a coincidence that a recent (2010) text book on Contract Law in general looks at the two questions you've raised - the question of 'reasonable notice of contract terms' and question of 'incorporation by reference to another document' - and tries to clarify the difficulties in these two situations by looking at historic Railway Case Law! ("Textbook on Contract Law" Jill Poole OUP 2010).

The 2 railway cases cited are Parker v South Eastern Railway (1877) 2 CPD 416 and Thompson v London Midland & Scottish Railway [1930] 1 KB 41. These confirmed that relevant terms may be found in external referenced documents (even if they were bulky and expensive documents) and that the passenger is bound by the terms (even where they are unable to understand the terms when the seller of tickets is unaware of that inability). These 2 judgements are joined in that Chapter by others from non-railway sectors, as we would expect, and from much more recent cases, but the principles remain unchanged. Two of these other principles which have developed since then are 'giving notice in time' (i.e. the terms must be available at the time of forming the contract) and 'adequate notice' (publishing the terms on a ticket, or a reference to the terms on a ticket, is after the contract is formed, and therefore is too late).

There is considerable Case Law on the question of unusual or unexpected terms, and I've referred in the past to Lord Denning's famous remark in Spurling v Bradshaw Ltd that it a terms can be so unexpected that "it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it", but here we are not looking at an onerous term which is unexpected (travel via St Pancras) but a relaxation which (to my mind) is unexpected travel via St Pancras). It is hard to see how Denning LJ's analysis could be applied to this 'permission' to travel the long way round : "would not be regarded as fairly and reasonably brought to the notice of the other party unless it was drawn to his attention in the most explicit way" simply doesn't readily map onto the question of a rather obscure permission which is not drawn to the attention of the Railway Company.

I remain unhappy that the printed Routing Guide is adequately engaged with the point of contracting to be absolutely binding as a Contract Term. I have also said that the question of "error" must be considered when an unexpected term, condition or permission is found (and I stirred up more debate than I had intended by pointing out that exploiting an error for personal advantage is likely to be evidence of Fraud). But I cannot find fault with the incorporation of the on-line ticket selling systems as a means of providing additional details to the Terms of the Contract where the Rail Operators have explicity identified their on-line booking systems as a component in determining the routes of travel to be assoociated with a ticket at the point of sale (the point of forming the Contract) (and it is hard to see how an unexpected term could be treated as an error after it having been the subject of repeated correspondence over a period of a year or more without its removal or correction).
I wonder if Mr Boden & his minions are throwing another "wobbly" at the prospect of passengers using his "shiny new trains" without paying the premium? <(
I'm aware that you have a long-standing vigourous campaign of insults and abuse towards Northern Rail and against one of East Coast's crew. I hadn't realised that you had a similar programme of personal unpleasantness against Mike Boden. It saddens me to see these immature personal insults in what could otherwise be an intelligent forum for discussion and a means of bringing about change by constructive negotiation.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
The ticket obviously wasn't supposed to be valid, (otherwise SouthEastern etc wouldn't have replied like that), and, to be honest, for you guys to use it, would suggest that you all thought it was a way to obtain a cheaper ticket for your intended journey, being "creative".

Apologies for not keeping up here, but could you define creative in the sense you mean it? I'm confused.

As for the journey planner TELLING you to travel via London. Did this come up as the default route OR did you specify a "via" point, to get it to route you via London?

Why does it matter? If the via field were somehow 'bad' or 'suspicious' as you tellingly mean to imply, why would it be an option? It's still there.

I'm sceptical about how much validity can be interpreted from a self created itinerary. If it clearly lists a specific time train, on a specific date, fair enough.

Again apologies if I'm lost, but 'self-created'? Passenger goes online and books ticket, printing out booking confirmation reference with itinerary on it. That sounds pretty self-created to me - and as opposed to being created by what excatly.... divine intervention?

If it was an earlier/later etc train, then I think the validity argument goes out the window, similarly unless you actually bought the ticket (for that service) at the time the itinerary was produced, I don't see how you can have a claim, as an itinerary alone is not a contract. If the ticket+itinerary was obtained together, then fair enough, validity cannot be disputed. But ticket from station + online itinerary = very dubious IMO.

Why? Is a route permitted at some times of day but not others? Do permitted routes change depending on what the point of retail of the ticket was? If that's true I'd be very interested to read your sources!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Surely it's time that SET is no longer allowed to treat this bit of railway as some special and magical bit of railway that sits outside the zones, has a near endless set of rules, plus loads of ticket extensions and supplements that most staff haven't got a clue about.

It's a total joke.

The previous government seemed satisfied with Southeastern's behaviour under the terms of their franchise agreement. I wonder if the next one will be? If it's not at all sensible - and I agree it's absolutely insane that they can treat it like this, maybe the answer is to look at changing the framework under which Southestern is allowed to get away with claiming that their magical railway line operates in the third dimension. Perhaps they all live on Planet Southern, which they have stuck up loads of stickers on and called GatEx? Wherever it is Southeastern don't live on the same planet as us - nor hopefully the incoming government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I also like the lame excuse about how they 'cannot be held' to reasonable deadlines for replying to customer relations correspondence. Well - the ScotRail franchise can. Why? Because Transport Scotland have standards, apparently unlike you, Southeastern. Getting a lot of correspondence is no excuse.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I'm aware that you have a long-standing vigourous campaign....
I'm also aware of your campaigns.... :|
I hadn't realised that you had a similar programme of personal unpleasantness against Mike Boden. It saddens me to see these immature personal insults
Insults?! Are you serious? I refer you to my source. Feel free to criticise the person who made the comments originally if you like, though I believe they are fully justified.
....in what could otherwise be an intelligent forum for discussion and a means of bringing about change by constructive negotiation.
Constructive negotiation has been tried many times, they don't seem willing to listen to anyone, not even senior people at ATOC!
 

Merseysider

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
5,389
Location
Birmingham
yorkie said:
Insults?! Are you serious? I refer you to my source.
Well I wasn't expecting that!
Nigel Thompson said:
Mr Boden may throw a wobbly if you forget him and was keen for us to restrict AP fares on his shiny new trains in the morning peak
Remind me to buy this Mr Thompson man a beer, for sheer brass neck :lol:
 

bnm

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2009
Messages
4,996
I'm aware that you have a long-standing vigourous campaign of insults and abuse towards Northern Rail and against one of East Coast's crew. I hadn't realised that you had a similar programme of personal unpleasantness against Mike Boden. It saddens me to see these immature personal insults in what could otherwise be an intelligent forum for discussion and a means of bringing about change by constructive negotiation.

A well crafted insult is a thing to behold. :lol:

I'm not aware that yorkie has ever been abusive though. Although no doubt you can provide us with a long winded post where such words as yorkie has used could be deemed abusive because of legal precedent. <D
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,224
Location
Bolton
Well, quite. I'm only feeling animosity from one person in this thread, and it isn't yorkie.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
I'm going to lock this thread for now - as I think we're starting to go round in circles.

JaJaWa/thebigcheese - please PM me if you have any further developments and I'll re-open the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top