Former condition 2 of NRCoC

[pompeyfan]

Reading through this thread,

If you buy a valid ticket for your journey, are you guaranteed to have it accepted?

Sure this is obvious and I will look silly but SSS? Sorry for that @philthetube I should have explained.

www.railforums.co.uk

And subsequently the thread regarding the XC guard on a Manchester - Andover ticket with issues over London it led me to question whether the method was correct but the knowledge was incorrect.

as was pointed out the routing via Reading was perfectly valid however the guard attempted to charge for a completely new ticket. The ruling used to be if you were judged to have an incorrect or invalid ticket on boarding a train and commencing your journey, excesses would not be permitted and a new anytime ticket had to be issued. I’m almost certain this was under condition 2 of NRCoC. I’m aware the condition numbers and names have changed however is the rule still in place.

from what I can see regarding that specific incident condition 2 was applied in the correct method but wrongly regarding the invalid ticket and no excess should have been issued.

interesting to know peoples thoughts.

 

[RPI]

No, for a restricted ticket (ie an off peak at peak time but not advance) or off route then only the excess fare should be charged as would have been available prior to travel, this has been the case for a long time.

 

[pompeyfan]

No, for a restricted ticket (ie an off peak at peak time but not advance) or off route then only the excess fare should be charged as would have been available prior to travel, this has been the case for a long time.

Are you able to link me to the relevant ruling please? I was under the impression this was still active policy.

 

[SickyNicky]

Are you able to link me to the relevant ruling please? I was under the impression this was still active policy.

That would be National Rail Conditions of Travel section 9: Travelling without a valid ticket

9.5. Where you are using a time-restricted Ticket (such as an ‘off-peak’ or ‘superoff-peak’ Ticket) that is correctly dated but:
9.5.1. invalid for the service on which you are travelling; or
9.5.2. you are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid; or
9.5.3. you break your journey when you are not permitted to do so,
you will be charged the difference between the fare that you have paid
and the lowest price Ticket that is valid for the train you are using.

 

[yorkie]

Reading through this thread,

If you buy a valid ticket for your journey, are you guaranteed to have it accepted?

Sure this is obvious and I will look silly but SSS? Sorry for that @philthetube I should have explained.

www.railforums.co.uk

And subsequently the thread regarding the XC guard on a Manchester - Andover ticket with issues over London it led me to question whether the method was correct but the knowledge was incorrect.

as was pointed out the routing via Reading was perfectly valid however the guard attempted to charge for a completely new ticket. The ruling used to be if you were judged to have an incorrect or invalid ticket on boarding a train and commencing your journey, excesses would not be permitted and a new anytime ticket had to be issued. I’m almost certain this was under condition 2 of NRCoC. I’m aware the condition numbers and names have changed however is the rule still in place.

from what I can see regarding that specific incident condition 2 was applied in the correct method but wrongly regarding the invalid ticket and no excess should have been issued.

interesting to know peoples thoughts.

The Manchester to Andover ticket was valid as you say (the customer was simply not exercising their right to double-back between Reading and London, despite having paid the extra for a higher priced fare which entitled them to do so).

If the Guard felt that the "+via London" fare was not valid via Reading (which we all know it clearly was) then they should have issued an excess fare priced at £0.00.

For the full explanation, see my post #32 in the original thread

The matter went to a court hearing, XC dropped the case, but the passenger chose not to pursue XC for losses or damages, so was left out of pocket by a 4-figure sum in solicitors fees. This was despite me putting the passenger in contact with a solicitor who would have carried out the work pro bono on the agreement that the solicitor would attempt to recover their costs from XC. The passenger chose not to take up the offer because the solicitor who I recommended did not specialise in rail fares professionally and were worried they might lose the case.

Innocent people can be dragged through the legal system when they have done nothing wrong and used a perfectly valid ticket.

 

[pompeyfan]

The Manchester to Andover ticket was valid as you say (the customer was simply not exercising their right to double-back between Reading and London, despite having paid the extra for a higher priced fare which entitled them to do so).

If the Guard felt that the "+via London" fare was not valid via Reading (which we all know it clearly was) then they should have issued an excess fare priced at £0.00.

For the full explanation, see my post #32 in the original thread

The matter went to a court hearing, XC dropped the case, but the passenger chose not to pursue XC for losses or damages, so was left out of pocket by a 4-figure sum in solicitors fees. This was despite me putting the passenger in contact with a solicitor who would have carried out the work pro bono on the agreement that the solicitor would attempt to recover their costs from XC. The passenger chose not to take up the offer because the solicitor who I recommended did not specialise in rail fares professionally and were worried they might lose the case.

Innocent people can be dragged through the legal system when they have done nothing wrong and used a perfectly valid ticket.

thanks for the explanation. I saw they had sustained a loss but was completely unaware it was to that extent.

so what CoC now justifies a new ticket being charged?

my only concern is this change surely encourages chancers? That’s not the fault or concern of fare abiding passengers but removes the deterrent for people that are obviously taking the mick

 

[yorkie]

There has been no change to the National Rail Conditions of Travel in this area for as long as I can remember.

Which edition of the NRCoT do you think allowed for a new fare to be charged in these circumstances?

In the original 1996 National Rail Conditions of Carriage, on page 7 it states the following (under what was then condition 7)

If you make your journey by any other route, you will be liable to pay the difference between the price of your ticket and the price of the cheapest ticket(s) available for which no pre-booking is required that would have entitled you to travel by that route on the service(s) you have used.

 

[pompeyfan]

I’ll inbox you...

 

[RPI]

Are you able to link me to the relevant ruling please? I was under the impression this was still active policy.

Sorry only now read this, others beat me to it lol