Groupsave and XC

[clagmonster]

You are correct, it is not on the face of the ticket. However, condition 12, which deals with time restricted tickets, doesn't say that such restrictions have to be on the face of the ticket. Condition 10, however does say that operator restrictions have to be on the face of the ticket. See:
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

 

[Ferret]

But alas Condition 10 has no relevance in this case.

Where Groupsave Tickets are concerned, XC have no involvement. It is a product of the companies listed on the Groupsave literature. XC are an entirely uninvolved third party. The NRCoC state that these T&Cs are those of your contract - in this case, a contract between you and the train company whose services you are entitled to use. As XC are not among the TOCs who do Groupsave, this means that there are no contractual obligations on XC. I can't make this any more clear for you folks!

 

[embers25]

The restriction on Groupsave banning certain trains on certain days depending on if various events are happening is very sneaky and also impossible for either travellers to keep up with or ticket office staff to correctly inform us. I could say the same about the similar Network Card restrictions to FO Pompey-Cardiff services but at least those didn't vary every week!

 

[tony_mac]

But alas Condition 10 has no relevance in this case.

Where Groupsave Tickets are concerned, XC have no involvement. It is a product of the companies listed on the Groupsave literature. XC are an entirely uninvolved third party. The NRCoC state that these T&Cs are those of your contract - in this case, a contract between you and the train company whose services you are entitled to use. As XC are not among the TOCs who do Groupsave, this means that there are no contractual obligations on XC. I can't make this any more clear for you folks!

That's just nonsense - of course the NRCoC still apply!
There are lots of references to what happens when a ticket isn't valid - according to your argument none of those would be relevant either.

 

[Ferret]

I did not say that the NRCoC did not apply. Read it again Tony! I pointed out that Condition 10 on which Yorkie is attempting to rely just has no relevance. He's quoting the term of a contract which XC are not a party to in any way shape or form! How on earth can XC be in anyway responsible for a contract entered into by two other parties?! And to pre-empt another nonsensical reply, yes I'm well aware that XC don't run any ticket offices - other TOCs act as agents for XC and the retailing of XC products. However, when these other TOCs retail their own tickets, they are not acting as agents for XC in any way, shape or form.

What is so hard to understand folks? You can't claim XC are in breach of contract if they haven't actually entered into a contract!!!

 

[yorkie]

But alas Condition 10 has no relevance in this case.

Where Groupsave Tickets are concerned, XC have no involvement. It is a product of the companies listed on the Groupsave literature. XC are an entirely uninvolved third party.

What involvement to XC have in a York to Micklefield ticket?

If they have no involvement, then the above statement is meaningless.

If they do have involvement I'd like to know what that involvement consists of.

The NRCoC state that these T&Cs are those of your contract - in this case, a contract between you and the train company whose services you are entitled to use.

Indeed, and you are entitled to use ANY train company along any permitted route UNLESS there is a restriction, which will be shown on the ticket.

As XC are not among the TOCs who do Groupsave, this means that there are no contractual obligations on XC. I can't make this any more clear for you folks!

The contractual obligations on XC are to accept all tickets that are being used at a valid time of day (the 'validity') and on a valid route ('the route'). This includes tickets that they have no involvement in setting the fare for. If they don't like it, they can go and deal with buses instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He's quoting the term of a contract which XC are not a party to in any way shape or form! How on earth can XC be in anyway responsible for a contract entered into by two other parties?!

I buy York to Micklefield Season. Are XC in any way "responsible" for this contract?

I buy a Micklefield to Leeds SDR. Are XC in any way "responsible" for this contract?

 

[route:oxford]

The issue here is that the people he was upgrading were all Chiltern passengers that were following the instructions on the departure screens at Leamington telling them for travel to London they needed to travel via Oxford due to the engineering works. To be fair to Chiltern their website today states that only fGW are taking tickets not XC but the station departure screens didn't say that.

How long would a passenger have to wait at Leamington for a FGW service?

 

[Ferret]

What involvement to XC have in a York to Micklefield ticket?

If they have no involvement, then the above statement is meaningless.

If they do have involvement I'd like to know what that involvement consists of.

Indeed, and you are entitled to use ANY train company along any permitted route UNLESS there is a restriction, which will be shown on the ticket.

The contractual obligations on XC are to accept all tickets that are being used at a valid time of day (the 'validity') and on a valid route ('the route'). This includes tickets that they have no involvement in setting the fare for. If they don't like it, they can go and deal with buses instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I buy York to Micklefield Season. Are XC in any way "responsible" for this contract?

I buy a Micklefield to Leeds SDR. Are XC in any way "responsible" for this contract?

Cripes Yorkie, how much longer are you going to carry on trying to claim that Groupsave is valid on XC in defiance of all legal rationale? You're rapidly destroying your credibility on this one.

Can we compare like with like for a start? Groupsave is a discounted ticket, Seasons and SDRs for any operator are not.

Now, for the umpteenth time - how on earth can XC be in breach of contract when they haven't actually entered into one? It'll take even a junior lawyer about 2 minutes to demolish your argument in Court. No contract = no case. It really is that simple! So, I repeat, Groupsave is not valid on XC services!!!!

 

[clagmonster]

We all know that condition 10 states:
"10. Tickets valid only in trains of particular Train Companies
The validity of a ticket may:
a) be restricted to; or
b) prohibit
travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies. Any such restriction
or prohibition will be shown on the ticket."
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

Now, if a groupsave ticket is issued with no operator restriction then there are two possibilities:
1) The ticket is valid on any operators' trains,
2) The ticket has been issued incorrectly and should have an operator restriction printed on in.

To save going round in circles, for now at least, let us assume that possibility 2 is correct. That would put the company responsible for issuing the ticket, not Cross Country, in breach of condition 10. A Cross Country guard or TTI coming across such a ticket if they were to take action would have two options:
1) To charge the passengers for new tickets and advise them to claim a refund from the issuing company.
2) To complete a TIR and issue a zero-excess, which could result in Cross Country either claiming the owed fare from the issuing company or if unsuccessful from the passenger. From Ferret's earlier posts, it seems that Cross Country have been taking this action, with presumably no loss to the passenger, the passenger learning for next time and Cross Country getting their money.

May I ask how you would interpret the Barton-Lincoln case. As far as I can tell, Northern are in the same boat as Cross Country.

 

[penaltyfines]

Cripes Yorkie, how much longer are you going to carry on trying to claim that Groupsave is valid on XC in defiance of all legal rationale? You're rapidly destroying your credibility on this one.

Can we compare like with like for a start? Groupsave is a discounted ticket, Seasons and SDRs for any operator are not.

Now, for the umpteenth time - how on earth can XC be in breach of contract when they haven't actually entered into one? It'll take even a junior lawyer about 2 minutes to demolish your argument in Court. No contract = no case. It really is that simple! So, I repeat, Groupsave is not valid on XC services!!!!

From what I can see:

I buy a GroupSave ticket, which enters me into a contract with NR.

The contract (CoC) entitles me to travel on a XC train, as they are a NR operator, the ticket has no restrictions, etc.

XC doesn't even come into it. They can't issue a PF, charge for another ticket, kick me off the train, etc as I haven't broken the CoC or any byelaws.

So like you say, XC can't be in breach of contract with the passenger as they haven't entered into one. Likewise, the passenger has no contract with XC to be in breach of - they are there on the train by virtue of the contract with NR they have entered into.

If XC don't like it they should take it up with NR, who *they* are contracted with to provide train services.

 

[yorkie]

Cripes Yorkie, how much longer are you going to carry on trying to claim that Groupsave is valid on XC in defiance of all legal rationale?

You aren't answering my questions. So I guess there's no point continuing as you have effectively admitted there is no answer you can give (without admitting you are wrong!) You know you can't admit that the Micklefield example passes your 'contract' test any more than the GroupSave example, yet you cannot deny the Micklefield example is valid (despite the general public probably thinking the opposite was the case if you simply showed them the tickets).

You're rapidly destroying your credibility on this one.

On the contrary!

Can we compare like with like for a start? Groupsave is a discounted ticket, Seasons and SDRs for any operator are not.

And what relevance does that have? My Micklefield ticket example could easily be a CDR with a Railcard...

Now, for the umpteenth time - how on earth can XC be in breach of contract when they haven't actually entered into one? It'll take even a junior lawyer about 2 minutes to demolish your argument in Court. No contract = no case. It really is that simple! So, I repeat, Groupsave is not valid on XC services!!!!

Again you are ignoring the fact that you can't actually argue that anyone who buys a York to Micklefield season is "entering into" a contract with XC.

A York to Micklefield season gains no revenue for XC, and XC have no say in it whatsoever. It isn't valid on XC by itself. There is no "contract with XC". Yet it is valid on XC when combined with a Micklefield to Leeds ticket, and you have absolutely no explanation for that. Therefore, your argument about having "no contract with XC" for a GroupSave ticket completely falls down.

The fact is, you enter into a contract with the TOCs, and are then entitled to use any company's trains unless it is stated otherwise on the ticket. It is quite unbelievable that you continue to deny this fact.

It's not like bus tickets, Arriva have to learn to accept that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

XC doesn't even come into it. They can't issue a PF, charge for another ticket, kick me off the train, etc as I haven't broken the CoC or any byelaws.

Yes, that's right.

In fact, XC have effectively admitted they are wrong because they have persued SWT for loss of revenue in some cases where it was proven (through mystery shoppers it is believed?) that there is absolutely no way, in some cases, that a customer could possibly know - or even suspect - that their ticket may not be accepted by XC, and if the customer read the NCoC they'd have even less reason to suspect that it may not be accepted. The customer would expect 'Any Permitted' to mean any operator, and there is absolutely nothing "shown on the ticket" to indicate that it may not be. The fact XC persued SWT in these cases proves that there is no way that a customer would reasonably know that these tickets are not valid on XC.

The passengers who XC have charged could get out of it by not paying, getting a UPFN, going to the Press, writing a good letter demonstrating they complied with the NCoC, and also state that they have discovered that the have since discovered that XC persued SWT and admitted that the mystery shoppers had no way of knowing XC would not accept the tickets. I am confident the customer would win. Customers should challenge ludicrous actions and go to the Press, and not simply pay up and allow the NCoC to be breached by a TOC who thinks it is above the rules.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Condition 1 allows the relevant literature to state a restriction which may give less extensive rights than those in the NCoC. Condition 1 in this case overides Condition 10 because the restriction is documented and staff should be telling passengers the restriction, Condition 1 forfilled.

....

1. Your contract

A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each Train Company whose trains you have the right to use. Where the company selling you the ticket is not one of the Train Companies on whose services you are travelling, the seller is acting as agent for the Train Company or Companies in whose trains you are entitled to travel.

If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another person (including the right to travel in another person’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that person.

Tickets remain the property of the relevant Train Company. 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.

Details of how to get copies of the relevant Train Company’s notices and other publications relevant to your journey will be available when you buy a ticket. If the ticket entitles you to obtain goods or services from another person, then you can get copies of relevant notices and publications from that person.

If a Train Company’s special conditions apply to the use of a ticket, the seller will make these clear to you. In the case of electronic tickets and tickets issued on Oyster cards, see Condition 9....

So even if XC did agree to the NCoC conditions of every ticket, Groupsave is still not valid on XC.

 

[penaltyfines]

Condition 1 allows the relevant literature to state a restriction which may give less extensive rights than those in the NCoC. Condition 1 in this case overides Condition 10 because the restriction is documented and staff should be telling passengers the restriction, Condition 1 forfilled.



So even if XC did agree to the NCoC conditions of every ticket, Groupsave is still not valid on XC.

So you don't contract with NR/ATOC, you contract with individual train companies? How does that work in the season ticket example?

as set out in the notices and other publications
issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use

How do you determine which Train Companies you are entitled to use? Maybe on the face of the ticket?

If a Train Company’s special conditions apply to the use of a ticket, the seller will make these clear to you.

Ultimately if you weren't told when you bought the ticket, and if notices weren't available at the ticket office, then they don't apply to the ticket. Putting something on an information screen after the ticket's been purchased (and contract made) don't apply.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

All the TOCs agree to the NCoC as far as I am aware, but if the literature says "not valid on XC" then it isn't valid on XC because of condition 1, sure the seller has to say "it's not valid on XC", but then no one could reasonably prove either way, so it is one persons word against another. Posters up at the station would make the traveller more aware of it, or flag up the issue, at which time corrections to travel (or ticket(s)) can be made.

Part of the clerks job is making sure (as best they can) that the ticket is suitable for the journey, part of that would be ascertaining if XC is to be used for all or part of the journey.

 

[penaltyfines]

True, but the passenger may not be talking specifically about XC - they want to travel A to B which may have a possible route involving XC.

If it isn't made clear to them when they enter into the contract at time of purchase, they're not in breach of the CoC.

 

[John @ home]

Condition 1 in this case overides Condition 10

I don't agree. If there is a conflict between two conditions of the NRCoC then the appropriate legislation specifies how the conflict is resolved.

 

[clagmonster]

Hairy Handed Fool, how does one condition trump another? Condition 1 says that the ticket restrictions apply to tickets and the must be made available to the passenger at the time of purchase which is surely common sense. If you read my posts, my belief is that if groupsave tickets are barred from Cross Country services, or more likely restricted to the promoting operators, then the company issuing the ticket is in breach of condition 10 by not printing the operator restriction on the ticket. This is the case whether or not they inform the passenger of said restriction as required by condition 1.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The NCoC says that the rights may be restricted for discounted and reduced fares and that they are subject to the conditions listed in the relevant literature. This allows Groupsave to be restricted and not print it on the ticket because it is in their literature.

 

[clagmonster]

I think you are referring to the introuduction of the NRCoC, which states:
"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."
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

So yes, companies may give less extensive rights where allowed by the conditions. However, Appendix A gives the following definition:
"“Condition(s)” means these National Rail Conditions of Carriage"
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/system/galleries/download/misc/NRCOC.pdf

So permission to give less rights must be given in the relevent condition of the NRCoC. Condition 10 gives no such permission. An example of a condition which does give such a permission is condition 16, which allows break of journey to be prohibited on discounted tickets.

In any case, please can you point out where it is published that groupsave tickets do not need to show any operator restrictions or prohibitions on the ticket.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Condition 1 says that the conditions of the ticket are also as indicated in the relevant literature. If it is in the literature it is therefore part of the contract between 'the railway' and the passenger. It is quite specific.

I'm also waiting for some one to tell me where it is written that TOC restrictions can only be shown in the 'route' of the ticket and the 'validity' is only for time restrictions.

 

[clagmonster]

Condition 1 states that tickets are issued subject to the ticket restrictions, which are to be made clear at the point of purchase, yes I agree with that. However, condition 1 also states that tickets are issued subject to the conditions of carriage, of which condition 10 is a part.
Nowhere does it say that one part of the contract trumps another, the only exception to this statement that I know of is the Megatrain conditions. Therefore, operator restrictions must appear on the ticket and if they do no then either the ticket is valid on the trains of all operators or the ticket has been wrongly issued.

As far as I am aware, it is only convention that requires operator restrictions to be printed in the route field. I think it would be perfectly legitimate for a ticket issuing company to deviate from that convention.
That said, they do have to appear on the ticket as per condition 10, not a mention that there are restrictions of some form.

 

[embers25]

How long would a passenger have to wait at Leamington for a FGW service?

About 9 minutes as the Chiltern to Oxford for fGW connections was right behind as XC pass it at the loop just before Dorridge where it waits 10 minutes!

 

[thefab444]

Dan - it already is being announced by Phil Sayer!!!!!

Where?

I've not heard any announcements at SWT stations about Groupsave tickets not being valid, as of yesterday. All XC services have "Groupsave tickets NOT VALID" on the CIS, but no audio announcements.

 

[Ferret]

I don't agree. If there is a conflict between two conditions of the NRCoC then the appropriate legislation specifies how the conflict is resolved.

This really has beeen hilarious! For the umpteenth time, a Groupsave ticketholder has no contract with Crosscountry. It's not difficult to understand!
as for XC chinging SWT over it all, there has also been a problem with EC issuing Superbreak tickets with ressies for XC services. XC have dealt with this in exactly the same way - TI submitted, retailing TOC duly relieved of the moneys owed for mis-selling the tickets. Again, the ticketholders had no contract with XC and (through no fault of their own) were travelling without a valid ticket (byelaws anyone?). So - what to do? Prosecute the unsuspecting customer, or go after the incompetents who mis-sold the tickets. Simple choice really isn't it?

To answer the question about announcements, I heard 'em at Basingstoke recently! It was announced as the XC trains were approaching the station!

 

[yorkie]

This really has beeen hilarious! For the umpteenth time, a Groupsave ticketholder has no contract with Crosscountry. It's not difficult to understand!

By the same logic a York to Micklefield ticketholder has no contract with Crosscountry. It's not difficult to understand!

The only way XC can get out of their obligations to accept valid tickets, is to get out of the national rail ticketing system altogether. Then they could harp on about not having a contract with them as they only do their own tickets. They'd also be in breach of their franchise agreement and go bust rather rapidly as the only income they'd get would be the XC Only fares!

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie, it's not a valid ticket!!! If you want to believe it is, you carry on deluding yourself. I'm actually quite surprised at you on this one as I can't remember you being wrong before!!!!

As regards your constant reference to Micklefield, we can locate a specific term that explicitly says that it's valid. No conflicting terms in any way shape of form. Like I said, we can at least demonstrate offer and acceptance in that case - the starting point for establishing if there is a contract. Consideration - well, we'd need to know about ORCATS, and we don't, so we can't say. Groupsave on the other hand - you haven't been able to demonstrate any offer and acceptance and by following Condition 1, we can find a term of contract that actually says who takes Groupsave and XC are not listed. No offer, no acceptance and therefore no contract. Now, I've had to hold my hands up on this one - I once thought Groupsave was valid on XC but having looked in further detail on this, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and I've had to admit I was wrong.

 

[yorkie]

Is Micklefield to York a "valid ticket" on XC and where is the contract with XC?

You are avoiding the questions.

I'm not wrong, and all the other experts here agree with me as far as I know, at least I am not aware of any that don't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It is blatantly obvious that the contract is with the entire National Rail ticketing system, not just specific companies. It is a total 'red herring' to say that a customer with a ticket like Groupsave has any less of a "contract with XC" than a customer with a York to Micklefield ticket! Your line of argument simply cannot be used. TOCs who participate in the scheme are obliged to accept tickets in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage - whether they like it or not. Sometimes that means accepting tickets for which they receive no revenue for (such as my Micklefield example), they have to lump it!

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie, your contract is with the train companies whose services you are entitled to use. Who are National Rail?! Do they file records at Companies House? Have they ever been sued for breach of Contract relating to a fares issue? What did you say about red herrings?

(PS, I've edited in a response about Micklefield to my last post, making it appear that you've falsely heckled me! Apologies!!!)

 

[yorkie]

Yorkie, your contract is with the train companies whose services you are entitled to use.

So, if it says ANY PERMITTED, that means...?

Who are National Rail?! Do they file records at Companies House? Have they ever been sued for breach of Contract relating to a fares issue? What did you say about red herrings?

National Rail is the public name for ATOC.

(PS, I've edited in a response about Micklefield to my last post, making it appear that you've falsely heckled me! Apologies!!!)

No problem I will answer now..

As regards your constant reference to Micklefield, we can locate a specific term that explicitly says that it's valid. No conflicting terms in any way shape of form.

Yep, the reason it is valid is NOT because you have entered into a contract with XC. It is valid because XC are obliged to accept tickets in accordance with NCoC. Agreed?

Like I said, we can at least demonstrate offer and acceptance in that case - the starting point for establishing if there is a contract. Consideration - well, we'd need to know about ORCATS, and we don't, so we can't say.

But you did say! And I think we have to agree that we know very little but what we do know is that clearly there are rules that oblige TOCs to accept tickets in accordance with NCoC.

Groupsave on the other hand - you haven't been able to demonstrate any offer and acceptance and by following Condition 1, we can find a term of contract that actually says who takes Groupsave and XC are not listed. No offer, no acceptance and therefore no contract.

There's no offer or acceptance with XC with the Micklefield example though is there?!

Now, I've had to hold my hands up on this one - I once thought Groupsave was valid on XC but having looked in further detail on this, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming and I've had to admit I was wrong.

No, you were right. The evidence is overwhelming that XC should accept these Any Permitted tickets.

By looking at a GroupSave SDS ticket, from Newport Gwent to Gloucester route Any Permitted, singles for 4 people priced at a total of £26 , what information is "shown on the ticket" that indicates in any way that it isn't valid on XC?

 

[Ferret]

Yes there is acceptance with the Micklefield example! It's demonstrated in Condition 19 (I think!). The only bit we aren't sure about is consideration - well, we never will be! Groupsave on the other hand - we know that there is no offer or acceptance between the customer and XC - no contract therefore.

Now, you say National Rail is the public name for ATOC - I'm happy with that, but are you seriously saying our contracts are with ATOC now?! Really?!